NationStates Jolt Archive

After Hitler killed himself. His replacement for the post of "Reichspräsident" (Head of State) was the German Naval and U boat commander Karl Dönitz. He held this position for around 20 days. And Goebbels was the new head of government. (He killed himself a few days later, leaving only Dönitz.)

Dönitz got this position as Hitler did not trust the SS, Heer, or Luftwaffe leadership any more as they felt they had betrayed him. Leaving only the Kriegsmarine.

The question is, if Dönitz was in power for say, 6 months, not 20 days. Do you think he would of been a good leader? What do you think he would of done?

EDIT: This is assuming Hitler killed himself 6 months earlier, and left Dönitz as successor.
EDIT 2: I myself have noticed my poor grammar in the title of this thread. No need to point it out any more. =P

I think he would have realized how royally his rear was going to hurt in international prison and ate a bullet.

You know, he would have made a good Fuehrer.

I think he would have realized how royally his rear was going to hurt in international prison and ate a bullet.

Yes, this is possible, but as he survived the war, 10 years imprisonment and died in 1980, I don't think he was up to killing himself. =P

You know, he would have made a good Fuehrer.

The education system in the Netherlands seems to be working much better than the English one.

The education system in the Netherlands seems to be working much better than the English one.

Yea, I pretty much realised the mistake the second I posted :(

First, could we clarify the premise somewhat? Are we assuming Hitler killed himself/deposed 6 months prior to when he actually did? Or are we assuming that somehow the Wehrmacht held out for another 6 months?

The question of whether Donitz would be a capable leader, I would say yes. He was a strong-willed, competent, ingenuitive man as a chief architect and leader of the U-boat arm, and ultimately the entire Kriegsmarine.

As an emergency political leader, Donitz filled all the criteria. He could lead, he could inspire, he could cooly and objectively think, and was decisive. As far as fighting the ground war, he would have delegated that to a capable man like Jodl, instead of interfering with an area he had little experience in, as Hitler did.

Whether or not he could have made much of a difference during those dark times, well...

Military leaders usually make poor peace time leaders, it needs a different set of skills.

I think what you would "of" to do is fix that terrible spelling.

And no, Dönitz is no better Führer than any of the other nazis. Sure, like UN Protectorates mentioned, he had leader capacities. Doesn't make him a good leader, though, looking at how ruthlessly he lead the U-Bootflotte even after it was clear that sending out more ships was suicidal for the crews.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHnyQXyuTGY

(And... apparently that video ain't even available in my country because of the the nazis! Thanks a lot...)

Dönitz got this position as Hitler did not trust the SS, Heer, or Luftwaffe leadership any more as they felt they had betrayed him. Leaving only the Kriegsmarine.

The question is, if Dönitz was in power for say, 6 months, not 20 days. Do you think he would of been a good leader? What do you think he would of done?


I think that Dönitz would have tried to make a separate peace, with CCCP or with the Western allies, with no chance of succeeding at it; at the same time, Himmler would have tried to have him executed for high treason. Germany would have collapsed anyway, just faster.

The question is, if Dönitz was in power for say, 6 months, not 20 days. Do you think he would of been a good leader? What do you think he would of done?
You mean, what would he be made of? Realistically I think flesh and blood, but I guess it's not the answer you're looking for - so, he'd be made of true Nazi ideology, a bit back to the roots, and not insane. Although the thought of a fuhrer made of papier-mâché is much more enticing.

A better one than Hitler made.

IIRC, some US submarine commanders testified in his defense at his trial, noting that we used very similar tactics against the Japanese in the Pacific.

I think what you would "of" to do is fix that terrible spelling.

And no, Dönitz is no better Führer than any of the other nazis. Sure, like UN Protectorates mentioned, he had leader capacities. Doesn't make him a good leader, though, looking at how ruthlessly he lead the U-Bootflotte even after it was clear that sending out more ships was suicidal for the crews.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHnyQXyuTGY

(And... apparently that video ain't even available in my country because of the the nazis! Thanks a lot...)Or how people were being executed for deserting or convincing others the war was lost after the capitulation... Based on his orders.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHnyQXyuTGY

(And... apparently that video ain't even available in my country because of the the nazis! Thanks a lot...)

But if it wasn't for the Nazis then the video would not have been made.

Probably more competent than Hitler, but that is not so hard to achieve.

I believe that he would have failed miserably. The only thing keeping the chaotic system of government and remaining popular loyalty for Nazism going was the cult of Hitler's personality. I'd have thought it would have collapsed pretty soon after his death, whoever took charge.

Dönitz was possibly the least 'evil' of the entire Nazi Leadership. (Mainly because he spent all his time outside of Berlin. Though he did know and didn't give a damn about the Holocaust)

As for sending out the subs on sucide missions, it was their jobs, sending the badly German army against the entire Soviet military was sucide as well but they did it anyway.

They did their job well, there were 48 active
U-boats at sea when the war ended.

Oh and he was never named Fuhrer. He was named the newly assigned title of president.
(Anyone read "The Admiral's wolfpack"?)

But if it wasn't for the Nazis then the video would not have been made.
Not a loss in my book.

Or how people were being executed for deserting or convincing others the war was lost after the capitulation... Based on his orders.
What'd you expect. Nazis...

What'd you expect. Nazis...

...Are good on toast, with a little mustard. :p

He was head of the navy. Wasn't the German Navy pretty much irrelevent by then?

And bottom line, he was a top level Nazi. Their's a limmit to how good such a person can be as a leader, and its pretty low.

I think what you would "of" to do is fix that terrible spelling.

And no, Dönitz is no better Führer than any of the other nazis. Sure, like UN Protectorates mentioned, he had leader capacities. Doesn't make him a good leader, though, looking at how ruthlessly he lead the U-Bootflotte even after it was clear that sending out more ships was suicidal for the crews.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHnyQXyuTGY

(And... apparently that video ain't even available in my country because of the the nazis! Thanks a lot...)

Ah, English humor strikes again!

As for Dönitz, I doubt it. He wasn't effective enough as a military leader to be a good Fuhrer, and it wouldn't have mattered anyway, since even with six more months time, no one could save Nazi Germany. Not even the best general ever to exist.

I don't think so. The best leaders in the Nazi government were opposed to the Nazi regime to one degree or another, and Dönitz was loyal to the end. Perhaps Paulus or Rommel might have done well, Speer a definite possibility given his economic miracle in 1942-1945 but not Dönitz; the very nature of the Nazi regime was such that it would not have likely survived for very long even if the Flensburg government was legitimate.

Reinhard Heydrich would've probably been the best of all, as frightening a thought as that might be.

I don't think so. The best leaders in the Nazi government were opposed to the Nazi regime to one degree or another, and Dönitz was loyal to the end. Perhaps Paulus or Rommel might have done well, Speer a definite possibility given his economic miracle in 1942-1945 but not Dönitz; the very nature of the Nazi regime was such that it would not have likely survived for very long even if the Flensburg government was legitimate.

Reinhard Heydrich would've probably been the best of all, as frightening a thought as that might be.

According to Harry Turtledove, had he survived, Heydrich would have pulled a Vietraq and made occupying Nazi Germany a living hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_with_the_Iron_Heart

All I can tell you is that Heydrich scares the hell out of me. A seriously crazy guy, but extremely competent too. Not a good combination.

According to Harry Turtledove, had he survived, Heydrich would have pulled a Vietraq and made occupying Nazi Germany a living hell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Man_with_the_Iron_Heart

All I can tell you is that Heydrich scares the hell out of me. A seriously crazy guy, but extremely competent too. Not a good combination.

Seriously, I think he was the only Nazi the Allies feared enough to successfully assassinate. He had the brains, the determination, and the brutality to completely dominate the Nazi regime and would have done it had Hitler and Himmler not kept him in check with rumors of Jewish ancestry. I think WWII would have ended in the Axis' favor if he had been making the decisions instead of Hitler.

I mean, he was the driving force behind the Holocaust, and its first operations were named after him and carried out with appalling efficiency. That guy was easily the most dangerous man in the regime, bar none.

Indeed. We should be thankful that didn't happen. The whole world should be. The last thing we needed was a surviving Nazi regime.

It would've eventually collapsed without outside foes to keep its system going, but that would've taken several decades and millions upon millions of lost lives, especially if there were further wars down the line. (Even more especially had there been Nazi nukes. Soviet nukes was bad enough.)