You should have said it in a polite manner, if you are capable of it. We are people, we make mistakes, but please do show some respect to the members of this forum, especially the old ones like Za. I believe that all of us, including me, will eat you alive if Za stops to post here because of you.

__________________
If you gave one person an order, he might not obey; but If you gave it to a group of people , they would all obey.

Come on guys give Von Rundstedt a break: he also deserves respect, just like any of us. I think he made a fair mea culpa and there is no need to epilog on this.

__________________

Cross of Iron...Stop making threats against other people. THAT is not tolerated lightly here.

I thought von made a perfectly fine statement. No need for any grammar nazis here - it would be a full time job with some people. Not everyone speaks English as their primary language, and hell, i make a million mistakes myself and its the only language i know!

At any rate, this grammatical based discussion is over. PERIOD. I will issue warnings if it continues after this post.

Hark, is that a I hear?

__________________

Von Rundstedt hit the nail on the head here. Goering was the designated successor of Hitler and if Germany had won the war (as this scenario proposes), then Goering it would be. The negatives against Goering wouldn't have been there, at least not nearly to the same extent as happened at the end of the lost war that occurred in reality. The Luftwaffe would have been fundamental to any German victory and just see how important Goering was during the celebrations in Berlin after the French Armistice. Furthermore, Goering drug addiction became much worse after he fell into disgrace after the numerous failures of the Luftwaffe. Without those losses it is likely that his drug addiction would not have been nearly as bad as ultimately occurred. So I think we can safely say in a victorious 1946 Germany Goering would have been in much better health and reputation than was the case in 1945.

As for the other proposals here I think all of them have major problems. Hess is the easiest to discount as a possibility. Hess was insane, at least that's what the Nazis all thought when he flew off to Britain in 1941. The Germans would have liked to get him back to Germany but I doubt there was a single German at all after that who would have considered such a madman to be the new leader of Germany.

Hess' successor, Bormann, is also easy to discount as the next Fuehrer. While he had gathered a lot of power to himself by the end of the war, this was almost all due to powers being granted to him by Hitler because, as the war went on and went increasingly badly, Hitler took more and more personal control of the military and this meant he had to give up other duties. Bormann was allowed to accumulate political power because Hitler designated his powers to him. If Germany had won the war Hitler would not have been so quick to sack his generals and take up the reigns of the OKH himself. In a victorious 1946 Germany Bormann would have had very little power and he was never popular or even well known. His power stemmed entirely from Hitler and with Hitler gone he would have quickly fallen from grace as none of the other upper level Nazis cared much for him. So Bormann doesn't work.

Himmler had a lot of power as the head of the SS and certainly would have liked to have been supreme leader, but the German people feared him, they didn't love him, and Himmler had no political support. He controlled the police and SS and this would have certainly made him a kingmaker, but the German people would not have had much use for him as leader and Himmler's only hope to have been leader would have been to stage a coup d'etat and he wasn't that decisive a character.

Speer is another non-starter. The man was Hitler's favorite architect and became somewhat of a celebrity after the war when he published his Spandau Diaries. He became important at the end of the war when he was made Minister of Armaments. This was another movement late in the war that it is difficult to see happening if Germany had actually won the war. Speer was popular but didn't have any political support or background. Again, he owed his positions to Hitler and had no power except in Hitler's shadow. He wouldn't make it as Hitler's successor either. He may well have had a high position in the next government, but that is due to his ability to charm those around him.

Now, while Karl Doenitz was made president after Hitler's death, it is important to note that he was not made the next Fuehrer. Hitler's position as Fuehrer combined the powers of President and Chancellor and at his death Hitler divided up the powers and reinstituted the position of President and listed separate people as President and Chancellor. Doenitz was made President, which is technically the more prestigious position than Chancellor, but it was not the more powerful position. The Chancellor was still head of the government while the President was head of state, a much more ceremonial position. The move designating Doenitz as new Reichspraesident came as a surprise to most (including Doentiz himself) but was probably due to the fact that Hitler wanted a military man to be the head of state (as Hindenburg had been) and the head of the navy was not only a loyal follower of Hitler, his navy had been the one arm of the armed forces that Hitler didn't think had let him down. In any case, Doenitz owed his ultimate position as Reichspraesident due to the catastrophic war situation in 1945. He would never have been considered for the position if Germany had been victorious in 1946.

The person who succeeded Hitler as Chancellor, Goebbels, is the one person who I can see giving Goering much of a competition to succeed Hitler after a victorious war. Goebbels wasn't as popular as Goering, however, and though he controlled the Propaganda Ministry his power again came through Hitler. Goering had his own apparatus throughout Germany to support him, something Goebbels didn't have. Furthermore, Goebbels' position increased towards the end of the war for, as others of Hitler's inner staff came into disrepute through military failures (such as Goering), Goebbels stepped up, seized the opportunity, and took over the Total War drive. Goebbels' selection as successor to Hitler as Chancellor undoubtedly had much to do with the fact that he stuck with Hitler to the bitter end. In a victorious war scenario, it is doubtful he would have had that opportunity.

In the end there is little doubt in my mind that Goering would have become the successor of Hitler in 1946, if Germany had won the war. How long Goering would have lasted, and Nazi Germany itself, is another question entirely, as it is so difficult to see Nazi Germany without Hitler at the helm. Nazi Germany essentially WAS Hitler and when he died Naziism faded quickly, like a vampire at dawn. In a victorious Germany much of the disrepute for Naziism wouldn't have been there, but it is still hard to see how the messed up situation that was Nazi Germany could have functioned without some major changes, and that would result in major upheavals as a very different Germany would be created under whomever became Hitler's successor.

I wonder how long Goering or any of the old party would have lasted before some younger fellow deposed them? I`m thinking some #2 man in the SS or the Gestapo who can assemble the political and armed support.

__________________
I forgot my password, can I use yours?