Post by Rich RostromPost by Rich RostromPost by Rich RostromPost by Michael KuettnerHe was the designated successor, should Hitler croak.
Wrong again. Hitler designated Goring
as his successor on June 19 1940, at
the same time as Goering was appointed
Reichsmarschall.
Wrong again.
Goering was designated as successor in June _1941_.
(Ian Kershaw, Hitlers Macht. Chapter 7, p.236).
Guess who flew to the UK a month earlier ?
Post by Rich Rostrom(An older source gave the date of late 1939.)
So at least we can put 1939 to rest.
I've done some further research.
Not to be shamed, I did, too.
The problem we have here are murky waters ...
Post by Rich RostromKershaw, in _Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis_
Göring - designated by Hitler on 29
June [1941] to be his successor in the
event of his death - and the Luftwaffe
staff stayed in their special trains.
(p 396, in Chapter 9, "Showdown", concerning
the invasion of the USSR)
So your citation is correct. But it is
only part of the story.
I know. My citations are always correct. My interpretations
are as wrong as anybody else's ;-)
But - and this might come as a shock (since this is Usenet, after all ;-) -
your part of the story (re. 1939) is as correct as mine.
The problem we have here is ambiguity.
See below.
Post by Rich RostromHitler was announcing that if anything
_should_ happen to him Göring would be
his successor. If the Reichsmarschall
fell Hess would take over.
(p. 570 - Hitler's address in the Kroll
Opera House on 1 September 1939)
And that is completely irrelevant.
That was just a speech.
I don't know whether Toland mistook the Reichstagsrede as
the Kroll address
or whether Hitler held the same speech on several places that day.
But, something rang a bell.
So I went and got out "Joseph Goebbels : Tagebücher 1945".
And there, on page 553, I got the relevant part of Hitlers'
political testament :
"
... Ich stosse vor meinem Tod den frueheren Reichsmarschall
Herman Goering ausder Partei aus und entziehe ihm alle Rechte,
die sich aus dem Erlass vom 29. Juni 1941 sowie aus meiner
Reichstagserklaerung vom 1. September 1939 ergeben
koennten.
"
And here we run into the ambiguity :
The Reichstagserklaerung was a speech; Hitler didn't sign anything
until 1941.
Let's use a (weak) analogy :
Bush adresses the senate and states that, if anything happens to him,
Condie Rice will take over. Should she die, the vice president of the
USA will take over.
In the USA, it wouldn't hold water; but the USA are exactly the
opposite of Nazi Germany.
Now, let us look at the part of the speech from 1939
- the relevant part :
"
Sollte mir im diesem Kampfe nun etwas zustossen,
dann ist mein erster Nachfolger Parteigenosse Göring.
Sollte Parteigenossen Göring etwas zustossen, ist der
nächste Nachfolger Parteigenosse Hess.
Sie würden diesen dann als Führer genau
so zu blinder Treue und Gehorsam verpflichtet sein wir mir.
Sollte auch Parteigenossen Hess etwas zustossen, werde ich durch
Gesetz nunmehr den Senat berufen, der dann den Würdigsten, d.h.
den Tapfersten, aus seiner Mitte wählen soll.
"
(full text here :
<http://www.nationalsozialismus.de/dokumente/textdokumente/adolf-hitler-rede-vor-dem-reichstag-01091939>
)
Here we see him naming Goering as his successor, and Hess as third man.
But : He didn't name Göring officially until 1941.
And Hess still remains SdF.
Why ?
I'll explain some background here (and speculate a little bit) and answer
your arguments from other posts:
(a) "SdF was a party function"
No. Many English speaking authors repeat that error.
The leader of the NSDAP was the Reichsparteileiter.
Hitler never was that. Until 1932, Gregor Strasser had
that title (then he left the party).
Then Hess became SdF in April, 1933 and also RPL.
Now the murky waters begin : Hess didn't manage the party as
RPL (which he was), but as SdF (which he was also).
IOW, he had both titles. Proof :
After Hess took his trip to the UK, Bormann became RPL,
Minister ohne Geschäftsbereich, etc, etc.
Everything that Hess was, with one exception :
Göring became SdF.
OK so far ?
Now, why did Hitler create the title of SdF ?
Let's look at the situation in April, 1933.
The Weimarer Republik still existed; the march into dictatorship
had just begun (Hitler was ruling as Reichskanzler with Notstandsver-
ordnungen only for roughly two weeks now - Reichstagsbrand).
He didn't know whether he would succeed - the SA was not in line,
Röhm was talking about taking up the street-fighting again, his power-base
was just the NSDAP (which wasn't in line behind him either - see Gregor
Strasser leaving).
Of all of the thugs around him, only Hess was ideologically 110 % behind
Hitler. So H. ensured by naming Hess SdF, that, should something happen
to the Fuehrer, Hess would continue the course.
(b) Hess never had any military functions
Well, neither did Hitler in 1933.
Von Brauchitsch and the subjugation of the OKW happened later.
In 1933, the soldiers swore their oath on the state, not on Hitler.
(c) In 1940, Göring was the 2nd man in the state
Yes and no.
Factually, yes. Officially, doubtful.
See above.
In 1933, Hess was the 2nd man in the NS hierarchy as SdF.
In 1939, he still was SdF and would remain SdF when Göring
took over.
The problem here is that Hitler didn't sign anything after his
speech until 1941.
My guess here is that he liked to keep his thugs fighting each
other instead naming one thug as successor who might fight him.
My conclusion :
We are both right. I can't argue that Hess was the legal successor -
that would be impossible in a state where "lex" meant what the
Fuehrer said.
You, OTOH, can't argue that the speech from 1939 is above the written
order from 1933, because - see above ;-)
<snip rest of citations>
I've given you the original; if you think that I should address a point
from the snipped, please say so.
Post by Rich RostromNow these are slightly problematic sources.
Toland refers to "the Reichsmarschall",
but Göring did not receive that title till
June 1940. OTOH is that Toland's phrasing and
he is not quoting Hitler. Toland's reputation
has gone downhill with the publication of
_Infamy_ but his earlier work is still
considered sound AFAIK.
I have some slight doubts. He should have checked
Hitler's testament, as I did.
Post by Rich RostromIrving is more dubious, given his
later overt enthusiasm for the Nazis.
Later ? How much later ? The corruption set
in early, AFAIR.
Post by Rich RostromThe first paragraph is from a passage
in which Irving depicts Göring as
opposed to attacking Czechoslovakia,
and having to be won over by Hitler
to his scheme of aggression - which
seems improbable.
Agree completely.
Post by Rich RostromOTOH, he states
_repeatedly_ that Göring was designated
as Hitler's successor long before the
decree of 28 June 1941, and even before
Well, see above.
Post by Rich Rostrom"Hitler _again_ secretly nominated Göring...
as the next Führer..."
Why "secretly" ?
In 1938, all the power came from Hitler.
<snip>
Post by Rich Rostromvon Wiegand's 1940 report to the FBI,
stating that Göring feared loss of the
succession to Hitler
which implies that he had it then.
Or not, as I've said. Hitler liked his thugs fighting each other ... ;-)
Post by Rich Rostrom"a secret decree _confirming_ Göring as
his exclusive successor..."
Why secret ?
The speech named him; but - if a secret degree
was necessary to confirm G.s status, my take,
that the speech didn't count as a Fuehrerbefehl,
would be correct.
OTOH, Hitler in his testament thought that it was
so. But that was in 1945, not in 1939.
And I can't second-guess a madman.
<snip rest>
My conclusion : We are both somehow right and
somehow wrong.
What gives me pause to think is that it would have been easy
for Hitler to sign an order after his speech. Why didn't he ?
Not necessary or keeping his fellows in doubt ?
I don't know.
Cheers,
Michael Kuettner