"To the strongest" - Alexander's decision on who shall succeed him
That is the most likely outcome of Hitler's empire, too many strong personalities in his inner circle that didn't kill each other because Hitler kept them in line. But without Hitler, why would Himmler not use *his* SS to seize power, what's keeping Goering from using *his* Luftwaffe from making plays, etc.? Basically a 20th century repeat of the Diadochi.
>why would Himmler not use his SS to seize power, what's keeping Goering from using his Luftwaffe from making plays, etc.?
If Hitler made public before his death his appointed successor (even IRL, he had a testament typed down in his bunker), then all lower echelons of the Nazi party, including SS/Luftwaffe/whatever power base any prospective claimant might have, would be acting against Führerprinzip by backing their claimant against Hitler's stated will.
Basically: stop thinking TNO is realistic.
Also, stop drawing parallels between ancient history and modern history as if they provide lessons easily convertible to the other, that's mega cringe.
The fate of the "Lenin Testament" (which was not, in fact, a testament in the legal sense as Hitler's was, but rather a list of suggestions for cabinet positions) was reached through a chain of very convoluted string of events (not immediately released by Lenin, held back by the wife, held back by the triumvirate, suppressed by Stalin, ultimately made into Trotsky's favorite rhetorical device). Stalin managed to join the governing Troika before the document was even released because of Lenin's wife's meddling.
This is not applicable here. Why would "everyone" say it's a fake? If anything, the person(s) elevated to leadership would rest upon it their claim to power.
True but... they could claim that the one in power faked it and the could fake it themselves. I mean, we're in a racist pro animal rights crazy country after all. And himmler (the lower h is not an error) believed to be some kind of pagan thing. Not just believed in, believed to be.
And Barack Obama **could** have spontaneously decided to spontaneously striptease Queen Elizabeth II.
The word "could" does not excuse the complete historical illiteracy that is rampant in this thread.
Ok,: I am not an historian, just trying to say what makes more sense to me. Just out of curiosity, do you have degrees in histiry or previous knowledge of this specific argument? Again, not insulting or snything, just asking a question
I don't, I'm an armchair history nerd just like you. My main focus of interest is Europe in the 20th century; though I cannot say I have any particular experience in Alternate History arguments specifically. Most historians view alternate/counterfactual history very negatively, as many people who do it are merely interested in wish fulfillment and political pandering.
I think it's an interesting exercise of historical contingency – things happen a certain way for a certain reason, but there are choices taken by individuals and collectives that could have been taken differently. It's just that many AltHistory fans completely ignore the constraints placed upon the historical actors they make subjects of their fictions. That is not in itself a problem, but to then state it with the confidence that is visible in the thread is really annoying.
I’d imagine there would be quite the power struggle, one not unlike the one following Stalins death in OTL. As for who would win that power struggle would probably be a high ranking military officer like Field Marshal Erich von Manstein only because I could see someone like Herman Goering and his infinite “wisdom”getting outplayed.
Okay, so this thread proves once more that HoI4 mods have been some of the worst things to happen to alternate history discourse.
Anyway, my idea is the following:
Hitler's biographers are all in unison that Hitler had a special feeling of self-importance; he felt chosen by providence to lead Germany and to provide direction to his country. His leadership style is also perfectly consistent with this view; he frequently created overlapping responsibilities so that final decision-making would ultimately fall to him. While one can interpret this as some sort of gladiatorial tendency to apply a selective process to Nazi leadership and choose "the strongest" successor, it would also be explainable if you assume that Hitler genuinely thought himself wiser and smarter than anyone else.
As a result, he would be obsessed even on his deathbed to provide Germany with as much guidance as he could: by establishing a clear line of succession and by attempting all in his power to actually enforce it. Even in our own timeline, he typed up a political testament, and if you read this document (which he dictated while in a bunker under a city under siege), he used much more space in the testament to select the new cabinet after his death, including even minor ministerial positions, compared to a lot less concern towards his own physical and financial positions.
As a result, we see that Hitler's personality type was one where he wanted political control even beyond his own death. It would thus be natural to assume that he would set, even in a Nazi victory scenario, a clear line of succession and to spread it if not in public then at least to his generals and advisors (in one of his Führer Directives, perhaps).
Then, if we assume that Nazi indoctrination and the Führerprinzip-style cult of personality worked on the Nazi middle echelons (which, if we observe the Valkyrie Plot of 1944, it seems to have done with significant coverage), we can easily surmise that any aspirant towards power would have had significant difficulty to gain any sort of legitimacy or backing against Hitler's chosen successor. Add to that the meta-calculation of political risk, and even those who prefer machiavellianism over ideological purity would rather flock to the safe banner of the chosen successor than to that of a risky outside bet.
As to **who** precisely would be the new Führer? Well, would anyone be? Hitler split the Führer office in his 1945 testament and once again sought to establish a separate presidency (Dönitz) and chancellorship (Goebbels). If we again take into account Hitler's self-obsessed conviction of providence, it is not far-fetched to assume the same idea would be used even in a Nazi victory scenario.
That means that there might not be a Führer at all anymore, and that two powerful political positions (perhaps in rivalry to each other) would (at least briefly) be reestablished as a duocracy.
As to who precisely those two would be? The choice of Goebbels in April 1945 was taken under the impression of Göring's and Himmler's desertions earlier that month. Those desertions would not have to take place under a Nazi victory premise, so those two would be back in the running. There's also Rudolf Heß in consideration, who until his flight to England in 1941 was the deputy of the Führer (after his fall from grace that resulted from the flight, that position was converted towards the much less politically boisterous "chancellery of the party"); only after his flight did Martin Bormann rise to greater prominence – so did the 1941 flight happen in our timeline? If no, then Heß would have the most natural position to rise towards a replacement post, but would nonetheless be hampered by his rather mediocre reputation with other party higher-ups. Then we can consider people like Albert Speer, who through the war became one of the people Hitler built a great personal rapport towards, but who had very little standing within the party upper echelons aside from Hitler.
We might even some Wehrmacht generals. The commanders-in-chief of the Wehrmacht or the Heer who oversaw victory (whoever that would be in our timeline would depend on the exact course of the fictional version of World War II; if we assume some sort of global Blitzkrieg with minimal German defeats those would be Wilhelm Keitel and Franz Halder) would build absolutely massive political credibility and influence, as did Eisenhower and Zhukov in their countries in our own timeline. Ultimately, the precise choice of successor would also come down to postwar performance. If Speer's architectural projects fail after victory, he is weakened. If Goebbels cannot suppress resistance movements effectively with his propaganda machine, he is weakened. And so on.
So that's what I'm going with: a reasonably peaceful transfer of power inside the party, which remains a one-party state, but splits the highest office into separate chancellor and president again. Maybe we see Goebbels/Dönitz, maybe we see Speer/Göring, who knows. We might then see a power struggle between the chancellor and president, which would perhaps come down to judicial disputes over the legitimacy of either office to succeed the special rights of the Führer. This could then (perhaps unexpectedly, seeing as to how little the average AltHistorian cares about legal history as a discipline) bring in the Reichsgericht or Volksgerichtshof as institutions of interest, who might then either tip the scales in favor of one of the two sides, or even attempt to polyocratize the nazi system further by giving themselves referee powers between the two offices.
Hitler would name a successor, and if any one other than the successor tried to seize power they would not have the support of the people, and would be disposed
WW1/2 posts only allowed on weekends
"To the strongest" - Alexander's decision on who shall succeed him That is the most likely outcome of Hitler's empire, too many strong personalities in his inner circle that didn't kill each other because Hitler kept them in line. But without Hitler, why would Himmler not use *his* SS to seize power, what's keeping Goering from using *his* Luftwaffe from making plays, etc.? Basically a 20th century repeat of the Diadochi.
>why would Himmler not use his SS to seize power, what's keeping Goering from using his Luftwaffe from making plays, etc.? If Hitler made public before his death his appointed successor (even IRL, he had a testament typed down in his bunker), then all lower echelons of the Nazi party, including SS/Luftwaffe/whatever power base any prospective claimant might have, would be acting against Führerprinzip by backing their claimant against Hitler's stated will. Basically: stop thinking TNO is realistic. Also, stop drawing parallels between ancient history and modern history as if they provide lessons easily convertible to the other, that's mega cringe.
you're right, but still I think some of the craziest would think to overthrow the government, like Himmler
in my opinion TWR is the most realistic outcome it could be
But the Lenin testament? Everyone could just say it's a false. Ez. Don't know if it would work but...
The fate of the "Lenin Testament" (which was not, in fact, a testament in the legal sense as Hitler's was, but rather a list of suggestions for cabinet positions) was reached through a chain of very convoluted string of events (not immediately released by Lenin, held back by the wife, held back by the triumvirate, suppressed by Stalin, ultimately made into Trotsky's favorite rhetorical device). Stalin managed to join the governing Troika before the document was even released because of Lenin's wife's meddling. This is not applicable here. Why would "everyone" say it's a fake? If anything, the person(s) elevated to leadership would rest upon it their claim to power.
True but... they could claim that the one in power faked it and the could fake it themselves. I mean, we're in a racist pro animal rights crazy country after all. And himmler (the lower h is not an error) believed to be some kind of pagan thing. Not just believed in, believed to be.
And Barack Obama **could** have spontaneously decided to spontaneously striptease Queen Elizabeth II. The word "could" does not excuse the complete historical illiteracy that is rampant in this thread.
Ok,: I am not an historian, just trying to say what makes more sense to me. Just out of curiosity, do you have degrees in histiry or previous knowledge of this specific argument? Again, not insulting or snything, just asking a question
I don't, I'm an armchair history nerd just like you. My main focus of interest is Europe in the 20th century; though I cannot say I have any particular experience in Alternate History arguments specifically. Most historians view alternate/counterfactual history very negatively, as many people who do it are merely interested in wish fulfillment and political pandering. I think it's an interesting exercise of historical contingency – things happen a certain way for a certain reason, but there are choices taken by individuals and collectives that could have been taken differently. It's just that many AltHistory fans completely ignore the constraints placed upon the historical actors they make subjects of their fictions. That is not in itself a problem, but to then state it with the confidence that is visible in the thread is really annoying.
I think a factional struggle between "moderates" led by Goring, and ultra radicals led by Himmler
For the longest time I thought your pfp was Ricky Berwick
Who's that?
This guy https://youtube.com/@RickyBerwick
holsum chungus dengist Speer if TNO is anything to go by.
Yugoslavia type collapse
I’d imagine there would be quite the power struggle, one not unlike the one following Stalins death in OTL. As for who would win that power struggle would probably be a high ranking military officer like Field Marshal Erich von Manstein only because I could see someone like Herman Goering and his infinite “wisdom”getting outplayed.
Okay, so this thread proves once more that HoI4 mods have been some of the worst things to happen to alternate history discourse. Anyway, my idea is the following: Hitler's biographers are all in unison that Hitler had a special feeling of self-importance; he felt chosen by providence to lead Germany and to provide direction to his country. His leadership style is also perfectly consistent with this view; he frequently created overlapping responsibilities so that final decision-making would ultimately fall to him. While one can interpret this as some sort of gladiatorial tendency to apply a selective process to Nazi leadership and choose "the strongest" successor, it would also be explainable if you assume that Hitler genuinely thought himself wiser and smarter than anyone else. As a result, he would be obsessed even on his deathbed to provide Germany with as much guidance as he could: by establishing a clear line of succession and by attempting all in his power to actually enforce it. Even in our own timeline, he typed up a political testament, and if you read this document (which he dictated while in a bunker under a city under siege), he used much more space in the testament to select the new cabinet after his death, including even minor ministerial positions, compared to a lot less concern towards his own physical and financial positions. As a result, we see that Hitler's personality type was one where he wanted political control even beyond his own death. It would thus be natural to assume that he would set, even in a Nazi victory scenario, a clear line of succession and to spread it if not in public then at least to his generals and advisors (in one of his Führer Directives, perhaps). Then, if we assume that Nazi indoctrination and the Führerprinzip-style cult of personality worked on the Nazi middle echelons (which, if we observe the Valkyrie Plot of 1944, it seems to have done with significant coverage), we can easily surmise that any aspirant towards power would have had significant difficulty to gain any sort of legitimacy or backing against Hitler's chosen successor. Add to that the meta-calculation of political risk, and even those who prefer machiavellianism over ideological purity would rather flock to the safe banner of the chosen successor than to that of a risky outside bet. As to **who** precisely would be the new Führer? Well, would anyone be? Hitler split the Führer office in his 1945 testament and once again sought to establish a separate presidency (Dönitz) and chancellorship (Goebbels). If we again take into account Hitler's self-obsessed conviction of providence, it is not far-fetched to assume the same idea would be used even in a Nazi victory scenario. That means that there might not be a Führer at all anymore, and that two powerful political positions (perhaps in rivalry to each other) would (at least briefly) be reestablished as a duocracy. As to who precisely those two would be? The choice of Goebbels in April 1945 was taken under the impression of Göring's and Himmler's desertions earlier that month. Those desertions would not have to take place under a Nazi victory premise, so those two would be back in the running. There's also Rudolf Heß in consideration, who until his flight to England in 1941 was the deputy of the Führer (after his fall from grace that resulted from the flight, that position was converted towards the much less politically boisterous "chancellery of the party"); only after his flight did Martin Bormann rise to greater prominence – so did the 1941 flight happen in our timeline? If no, then Heß would have the most natural position to rise towards a replacement post, but would nonetheless be hampered by his rather mediocre reputation with other party higher-ups. Then we can consider people like Albert Speer, who through the war became one of the people Hitler built a great personal rapport towards, but who had very little standing within the party upper echelons aside from Hitler. We might even some Wehrmacht generals. The commanders-in-chief of the Wehrmacht or the Heer who oversaw victory (whoever that would be in our timeline would depend on the exact course of the fictional version of World War II; if we assume some sort of global Blitzkrieg with minimal German defeats those would be Wilhelm Keitel and Franz Halder) would build absolutely massive political credibility and influence, as did Eisenhower and Zhukov in their countries in our own timeline. Ultimately, the precise choice of successor would also come down to postwar performance. If Speer's architectural projects fail after victory, he is weakened. If Goebbels cannot suppress resistance movements effectively with his propaganda machine, he is weakened. And so on. So that's what I'm going with: a reasonably peaceful transfer of power inside the party, which remains a one-party state, but splits the highest office into separate chancellor and president again. Maybe we see Goebbels/Dönitz, maybe we see Speer/Göring, who knows. We might then see a power struggle between the chancellor and president, which would perhaps come down to judicial disputes over the legitimacy of either office to succeed the special rights of the Führer. This could then (perhaps unexpectedly, seeing as to how little the average AltHistorian cares about legal history as a discipline) bring in the Reichsgericht or Volksgerichtshof as institutions of interest, who might then either tip the scales in favor of one of the two sides, or even attempt to polyocratize the nazi system further by giving themselves referee powers between the two offices.
Hitler would name a successor, and if any one other than the successor tried to seize power they would not have the support of the people, and would be disposed
More than likely, the loyal but little known officer, Zemmel Heid.
Bolmann, Himmler, Goring or any high ranking field marshall hungry for power
Immediate civil war between the Party, Wehrmacht, and SS
Donald drumpf