Hitler succession question

Cook

Banned
Fascists hate. Everything. Including each other. That's what they do.
That’s a simplistic and in many respects inaccurate remark that does nothing to answer the question of the thread with regard to the internal machinations of the Nazi Party. Their personal rivalries and ideological clashes would come as no surprise to anyone who has been involved with any party politics, the difference is that on the few occasions when the rivalries did overflow into a clash it was more lethal than in most other political parties; it is the pressure cooker effect of one party rule.
 
It looks to me like you've all missed the point of the thread.

What's the latest point Hitler's death would have resulted in either a military regime or a democratic transition (restored Weimar, democratic monarchy, new democratic constitution), as opposed to him being succeeded by another Nazi?

All the candidates mentioned have been members of the Nazi regime, but OP says he's looking for someone else. Frankly, I don't see that happening without an early and bloody military coup, but that's his question.
 
Democracy in Germany died with the passing of the Enabling Act in March 1933, from that point on the only way the Nazi regime would have ended was through a military coup.
Actually the Enabling Act had some rules, which were broken by the Nazis. The rules they broke are the main things that gave them power.
 
Just for the sake of argument, suppose Hitler had a fatal car accident in 1937. Goebbels or Goering would indeed be likely successors, but Himmler and Heydrich have the secret police.

(if we look at the closest totalitarian equivalent, Khruschev et al got rid of Beria almost as soon as they could because they knew he posed a threat and would be a natural successor to Stalin.)

So very likely infighting would break out between Goering/Goebbels vs Himmler/Heydrich.

Keeping in mind that while Rudolf Hess was Deputy Fuehrer at the time, he would probably end up only holding nominal power, and likely forced to resign in favor of whoever was more capable at winning the infight above.
 

Cook

Banned
Actually the Enabling Act had some rules, which were broken by the Nazis. The rules they broke are the main things that gave them power.
The limits of the Enabling Act and the transgression of them isn’t the point; that was the moment when the Nazis took total control of Germany and ended any possibility of a peaceful change of government.
 
Just for the sake of argument, suppose Hitler had a fatal car accident in 1937. Goebbels or Goering would indeed be likely successors, but Himmler and Heydrich have the secret police.

(if we look at the closest totalitarian equivalent, Khruschev et al got rid of Beria almost as soon as they could because they knew he posed a threat and would be a natural successor to Stalin.)

So very likely infighting would break out between Goering/Goebbels vs Himmler/Heydrich.

Keeping in mind that while Rudolf Hess was Deputy Fuehrer at the time, he would probably end up only holding nominal power, and likely forced to resign in favor of whoever was more capable at winning the infight above.

As it was pointed above SS are way to small to fight the Heer so Himmler doesnt have chance back then. After 1944? Maybe... But i am not so sure that he would want to claim power in a crumbling Germany.

As for Hess he was a moron.. And the first one to fall victim of the infighting between high ranking Nazis...
 
The removal of Hitler probably means the Heer takes over - it might allow Göring or Hess to be a figurehead, and keep some people in their positions (such as Göbbels, he was after all a very good minister of propaganda), but they will most likely be calling the shots.

After the SA had been destroyed and the Heer restored to former size and glory, it is really the only power behind the throne in Germany - no power change is going to happen without their approval.
 
Well if he died right away, let's say 1935, anti Hitler forces might have been able to step in while the "gang" fought each other. After that one of the Nazis would have emerged on top.
 
I am going to narrow down my question, as in the meantime I have stumbled upon something interesting: in 1937, an unknown SS tried to kill Hitler while he was delivering a speech at the Berlin Sportpalast. Unfortunately, I don't know the date. In that case, it's a given the SS will be disposed of, as will anyone in the Nazi party associated with it. The Heer will be the real power. But who will they put as a figurehead, and who in the Army will wield this power?
 

Soundgarden

Banned
Isn't it true Göring and Himmler sparred alot? Nazi Germany is just a perfect example when you have lunatics running the asylum.
 
If Hitler died in say around 1940, the Nazi leaders would have tried not to rock the boat by infighting. Goering and Goebbels would have reached a truce to co-operate at least for the time being. Goering would have assumed the post of Fuhrer as decreed by Hitler and Goebbels given the charge of the Party or some similar arrangement made. The infighting would have started only after the new regime is firmly in the saddle.
 
Isn't it true Göring and Himmler sparred alot? Nazi Germany is just a perfect example when you have lunatics running the asylum.

Yep. Goering originaly controlled the GESTAPO and there were cases of firefights breaking out between GESTAPO officers and members of the SS when they tried to overstep each other power. Eventually they reached an agreement where Himmler got the GESTAPO but they certainly weren't friendly.
 
I am going to narrow down my question, as in the meantime I have stumbled upon something interesting: in 1937, an unknown SS tried to kill Hitler while he was delivering a speech at the Berlin Sportpalast. Unfortunately, I don't know the date. In that case, it's a given the SS will be disposed of, as will anyone in the Nazi party associated with it. The Heer will be the real power. But who will they put as a figurehead, and who in the Army will wield this power?
..........................................................................
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
That’s a simplistic and in many respects inaccurate remark that does nothing to answer the question of the thread with regard to the internal machinations of the Nazi Party. Their personal rivalries and ideological clashes would come as no surprise to anyone who has been involved with any party politics, the difference is that on the few occasions when the rivalries did overflow into a clash it was more lethal than in most other political parties; it is the pressure cooker effect of one party rule.
Except that it's not. Take a look at Hannah Arendt, or even Paxton, when they talk about the (irritatingly Kantian) term of radical evil: evil that is so cruel, supererogatory, and malevolent that it becomes suicidal. The arc of Nazism and Fascism show this is historical fact, and that the only thing keeping these monstrously lethal and suicidal hydras from collapsing earlier is a shared exaltation of The Leader.

An examination of fascist programs, persons, and history reveals nothing more than thugs who'd like nothing better than to see all of their companions dead, or at least live long enough for the Great Battle of Armageddon that all fascisms hope for and actively seek.
 
Top