Can Nazi Germany survive if Hitler dies in early 1939?

I don't see why; Goring was instrumental in levering Himmler into power in the first place. (Remember, the gestapo started off under Goring; Himmler became his deputy in Prussia) Even if Goring wanted to destroy Himmler and the SS leadership, then that would probably be a long-term project. By 1939, the SS was bound up with the whole police state apparatus and anyone who wanted the SS removed from that equation would have to pick their fight carefully.


Goering and Himmler where still on good terms in 39... speaking in the familiar, and they had been actively cooperating to marginalize the army and other party leadership; however, Goering served his own needs first, and in a situation where he has to secure the reigns of power; having his old buddy Himmler around probably isn't a good idea... purging the SS leadership and folding the small combat units they had at that point back into the army would probably be a condition of the army supporting Goering anyway (think of it as the knight of the long knives version 2.0)
 
having his old buddy Himmler around probably isn't a good idea...

Why on earth not? Why does patronising Himmler go from being a good idea for Goring pre-succession, to being a bad idea after?

All people have offered in this thread is, essentially, 'Bhububub, Himmler was a bad dude. Would have to be got rid of. BAD dude.' This just doesn't stack up as an argument.

There is no reason whatsoever to purge Himmler unless he becomes a direct threat. The incentive to do that on Himmler's part just isn't there if Goring takes over, because Himmler would become the de facto second man in the Reich in that situation, even if he would undoubedly not be formally recognised as such.

People are also still vastly overrating the army. The army was guileless, it's leading figures were, at this point, relatively spineless, and it had been politically neutered in grand style the previous year. The likelihood of it - and there was no 'it' in any single sense anyway - being able to set any kind of agenda is remote.
 
Why on earth not? Why does patronising Himmler go from being a good idea for Goring pre-succession, to being a bad idea after?

All people have offered in this thread is, essentially, 'Bhububub, Himmler was a bad dude. Would have to be got rid of. BAD dude.' This just doesn't stack up as an argument.

There is no reason whatsoever to purge Himmler unless he becomes a direct threat. The incentive to do that on Himmler's part just isn't there if Goring takes over, because Himmler would become the de facto second man in the Reich in that situation, even if he would undoubedly not be formally recognised as such.

People are also still vastly overrating the army. The army was guileless, it's leading figures were, at this point, relatively spineless, and it had been politically neutered in grand style the previous year. The likelihood of it - and there was no 'it' in any single sense anyway - being able to set any kind of agenda is remote.


There is a big difference between Goering and Himmler tag teaming to marginalize Ribbentrop, Hess, the Army leadership and Dr. Todt; under Hitler's house than Goering effectively controling the reigns of power and being the leader of the party himself.

The army was semi spineless dealing with Hitler and that was only after 6 years of him proving himself to them over and over again (purging the SA, rearming, sending troops into the Rhineland, Austria, U-boats, Munich etc etc)... Goering, new to the reigns of power would hold no such banked credit with the army PLUS... the army leadership had no love for the SS even that early in 39; and would demand Goering reign them in as a condition of their accepting him as leader

The only way Goering gets around this if he installs Reichenau to command the army, but Hitler tried that several times and the army categorically rejected it (probably to their detriment after Hitler actually fired Braustich)

Plus Reichenau and Himmler are harcore uber nazi's and Goering is much more of a whore to power than politcally motivated; dealing with those people when he effectively has control is something he probably wouldn't want to bother himself with. Remember, once their was the slightest scuff on the luster of his relationship with Himmler, that they immediately wanted to murder each other
 
The thing is without Hitler there is a strong probability that Nazi Germany basically becomes what it did the mid-late war periods: a bunch of competing agencies. It's a pretty good guess on who actually end up controlling foreign policy, you would have Goering, as head of state or not, in the moderate camp, you still have Himmler in charge of security and the SS, you have Ribbentrop in the foreign ministry, Goering might not necessarily be the one to win out in all of this, so a great deal of aggressive German foreign policy is certainly still possible. The idea of annexing European Russia is probably not going to be the main focus of German foreign policy OTL though. Eastern Europe in general though is another question.

There's also of course, the matter of the economy, how exactly does Germany's economy stay afloat without looting Czechoslovakia and Poland? If Germany decides to draw down weapons production, how exactly do you prevent it from slipping back into the depression?

It dosnt, the MOAR DAKKA!!! school of economics. Isnt really compatible with long-term success. Indeed by 1939 overall German living standards had fallen since 1933 and the German economy was about to hit the skids. Then you have to add in the general effects of Nazi incompetence and corruption.

Also at this stage without Hitler there is no ''Nazi regime'' the thing will fall like a house of cards, the same was true with Mussolini in Italy.


None of this actually applies very much to Himmler; in any case, you can't have it both ways in claiming this, and then this:

Indeed and Eurofed incessantly comparing Himmler to Beria is baffling, Beria was an intellectually formidable (and terrifying) man who had a real shot at gaining absolute power and had survived the far more deadly snake-pit of Stalin’s court for 20 years.

Himmler just isn’t of the same calibre. He was totally inept at political plotting and the only other top Nazi who really hated him and tried to undermine him was Bormann whose rise to prominence started with the departure of Hess.

Heydrich on the other hand…


Not really. Not in Germany, anyway. Obviously they hadn't established their continent-wide police state empire, for obvious reasons, but within Germany their power over the police and the security apparatus was entirely consolidated by 1939.

Largely true


The army had been saying much the same thing about the Nazi party in general since 1933. Ultimately the army proved politically gutless and inept, and was easily outmanouvered.

Indeed the army had plenty of pompous blowhards who said nasty things about the Nazis behind their backs but were slavishly (and embarrassingly) obedient to Hitler face-to-face. Also the Heer’s political incompetence dates back to WW1 and was a defining feature of the officer class.


Nebe controlled the least important part of the police apparatus; the regular police. (and then only as Heydrich's subordinate) He was also an SS-Gruppenfuhrer who participated in murdering thousands after Barbarossa as leader of an einsatzgruppe, so his supposed 'aversion' to his superiors may be a tad overrated.

This 'aversion' only started when the war started going very badly, and was that of a rat trying to abandon a sinking ship.
 
Last edited:
Yep, if the army had the will to overthrow Hitler in 38 or dictate to Goering in 1939, the 20th July 1944 plot wouldn´t have been a plot on 20th July 1944 but a successfull coup in March 20th 1943, after Hitler suffering some kind of "accident" or victime of an allied assassin.

With them in power, offensive against France/Belgium/Holland probably won´t happen, in 1941 the Anglo-French alliance invades the Rhineland and they start to backstabbe each other to surrender first. May 9th 1942, Germany has surrendered to the allies. A few years later the Anglo-French pick a fight with the Soviet-Union, in the belief the SU is weaker than Germany was, a few more years later the Red Army is occupying France, the two first atomic bomb ever used in war hit London, many more follows.


Indeed by 1939 overall German living standards had fallen since 1933

Certainly the German economy had its weaknesses but this? Nope, that is simply flat out revisionism.

Himmler just isn’t of the same calibre. He was totally inept at political plotting and the only other top Nazi who really hated him and tried to undermine him was Bormann whose rise to prominence started with the departure of Hess.

More important, even if he did have the capability, he simply wasn´t interested in seizing power, leaving that to Hitler and Goering to focus on his existing projects.

There's also of course, the matter of the economy, how exactly does Germany's economy stay afloat without looting Czechoslovakia and Poland?

Boheme-Moravia had industry and that was a nice addition but its use was less than half-assed* for the first 2 1/2 years, all while Germany itself had much more industry/infrastructure.
German population back then was over 80 millions, today the population of the Czech republic is barely 10 millions. Hitler wanted Czechoslovakia gone before dealing with Poland and Bohem-Moravia to become a German region, as part of his lebensraum policies.

Poland? What exactly did the approx 2/3 of Polish economy that went to Germany have to contribute to Germany, that compensated for the occupation costs? Hitler spent more in the Luftwaffe than Poland in all of its armed forces, even the local transport infrastructure had to be beefed up for Barbarossa, the country was an economical dwarf.


How about the United States economy today running on France´s industrial capacity and Mexico or maintaing its 1947 economic standars by looting occupied Japan? Utterly ridiculous of course.



* The idea of Hitler seeing the protectorat as a vital economical tool kinda negates an important part of his racial beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Top