Still trying to understand you, or your motives, but frankly I can´t. I don´t want to discuss Dönitz so called "apolitical" motives. There are plenty of books and papers around that do a severe and critical look at this topic (e.g. he got the golden NSDAP party badge). And for your statement "betraying Hitler means betraying his country" and calling Canaris a traitor, sorry I can´t grasp this. All personnel serving in german Army/Navy/Airforce took an oath to the Führer and not to the country. So your conclusion is utterly wrong.
First up, this argument doesn't make sense when it comes to any officer who started his career before 1934 - both Dönitz and Canaris had sworn allegiance not only to Hitler, but also to Germany (and before that, to the Emperor). Second, people in 1934 did not have this hindsight we have today - they swore their allegiance to the legal, democratically-elected leader of their country, not to the man responsible for millions of deaths in WWII, and therefore they were absolutely not free to throw away this oath on moral grounds. As for Dönitz's golden NSDAP party badge, he received it as a gift - and it speaks volumes about the man that even at that point, he didn't consider joining the NSDAP, though so many other officers in the armed forces had.
Every military officer who did not consider bringing an end to Hitlers reign are just hiding behind the "chain of command" and betrayed their own people. And since today it is expected from a modern officer to question doubtful commands some lessons had been learned.
Not true in the least - you can be quite certain that any military officer in America who attempted to overthrow the government because he did not approve of the Iraq war would end badly, and the entire society (even most of the people who actively oppose the Bush administration) would wholeheartedly approve. It's one thing to disobey an illegal order (which Dönitz couldn't do, because... well, he had never been given an illegal order), and another thing entirely to decide that the illegal order frees you from your allegiance to the legal government.
In my eyes, Canaris or Rommel or Stauffenberg are the names to choose.
Absolutely not! You can never, ever name a military vessel, military academy, or anything military at all, after someone who violated their oath and betrayed the government they had sworn to serve
. We can praise these people for their willingness to throw away their personal honour for a greater cause... but these people are not
the example you want other officers to aspire to. Remember, legally speaking, there is no difference whatsoever between a Canaris plotting to overthrow Hitler, and your average third world country general overthrowing a civilian government. Furthermore, in both cases, the officers in question are convinced that they are acting for the greater good. Thus, by praising Canaris, you are creating a military culture where it is considered good and noble to stage a coup merely because of an officer's personal convictions (because that's all Canaris had when he started plotting, way back before
the war). The question then becomes, how do you dissuade
your officers from choosing
who they follow? If they're not to be bound by their oath, or by their honour... then what? Money? Ideology?
(another interesting question - if you condemn Dönitz for not acting against the Nazi government... does that mean we should also condemn every single American officer up to 1981, since that was the year when a forcible sterilisation was last performed under one of America's eugenics programmes?
It's a slippery slope you walk on, because we'd be hard-pressed not to find a government anywhere in the world that doesn't deserve to be overthrown...)
Also, you shouldn't list Rommel together with Canaris and Stauffenberg. Rommel never broke his oath - he had on a few occasions refused to obey illegal orders, but he always remained loyal to the government (no
evidence had ever been found linking him to the July 20th plot... and his wife has always said he was loyal. Given how the war had ended, it certainly wouldn't have made any sense for her to lie about him staying loyal to Hitler to the end...). Except for his suicide, Rommel was indeed a model officer (...but from the army, not the navy - hence why I ultimately went with Dönitz instead, because I did actually consider Rommel at one point).
Ok, having gotten all that off my chest, I think I'm about ready to get back to talking about Standoff