PDA

View Full Version : Had Goering come to power . . .



Gary D.
10-02-2009, 07:58 PM
This is the first time I’ve posted, so this subject might have cropped up before.

I have wondered what would have happened had Hitler died after the Munich Crisis and Göering took over (I don’t think he was officially the Führer’s successor at this point—I may be wrong). The Reichsmarschall claimed, after his capture, that he faulted himself for not saying no to Hitler. I have contended that had Hermann Göering become ruler, Germany would not have gone to war, although it would still have been an authoritarian state, something along the line of Franco’s Spain.

pdf27
10-03-2009, 04:06 AM
Don't kid yourself that Germany would have been a much nicer place though - Goering did after all found the concentration camps, although he was probably smarter than Hitler. If anything, he was potentially a more dangerous adversary for the other European powers.

flamethrowerguy
10-03-2009, 09:39 AM
This is the first time I’ve posted, so this subject might have cropped up before.

I have wondered what would have happened had Hitler died after the Munich Crisis and Göering took over (I don’t think he was officially the Führer’s successor at this point—I may be wrong).

By that time Göring was leader of the SA, so he was really no politician. Horrible to imagine what could had happened when the SA goons took power.

Nickdfresh
10-03-2009, 10:24 AM
It should be said that Goering had a tendency to lose power-struggles. Remember, not only was he the leader of the SA at one point, he was also the head of the Gestapo and was turned out by more ruthless bastards like Himmler and Heydrich. But I agree Goering was one of the smarter Nazis and probably one of the few with some genuine talent other than kissing Hitler's ***. And his policies towards the Jews others of the Nazi racial pogroms might not have been quite as horrifying and one must remember that the initial concentration camps were a far cry from what the work and death camps became. The question is whether his addictions prevented him from becoming more ascendant, or perhaps make him more vulnerable to rivals. As I recall, he was the more or less official successor to Hitler for much of the War, but I think Adm. Doenitz gets that dubious honor towards the end as Goering lost favor due to the defeat of the Luftwaffe.

I recently got my stuff out of storage in DC and have a book in which I recall reading about more likely German nationalist/fascist rivals to Hitler and to Nazism in general, as the Nazis were not the only ultra-nationalist rightists (and leftists) in Germany spawned by the economic collapse. I think the possibility was raised of a much more traditional military dictatorship under the pretext of emergency powers due to the depression and some candidates were mentioned. Such a regime could also have became sort of permanent. It is said that such a regime would have been as Antisemitic, at least not to the point of official policy or orthodoxy, and would not have been as outwardly aggressive in seeking 'Lebensraum.' But had things gone to a a long War, they would have been far more competent than the Nazi regime. But I suppose that there is a double-edged sword in all this as although Hitler was a military incompetent that made impulsive, rash emotional decisions - there is a real possibility that a War with France never would have spawned the risky, but high reward invasion that "Sickle Cut" and Fall Gelb/Rot became. It was Hitler that pushed his reluctant generals for that plan. So Hitler looks like a genius for the success of the Battle for France, then a fool for long term prospects of Operation Barbarossa...

Gary D.
10-03-2009, 10:56 AM
Germany wouldn't have been a paradise even if Hitler had died in 1938, but at least the world would have been spared another war—maybe. Göering, had he succeeded, and he had many opponents in the regime, would have been very reluctant to take the Reich to war. He certainly deserved the noose--most of the leadership did--however.

Hitler, as most of you probably knew, never put his signature on anything (it was always ‘The Führer wishes’)--either that or his supporters destroyed any incriminating evidence in the final days. So Göering was stuck with signing the Nuremberg Laws. Göering claimed he wasn't all that anti-Semitic. He did have a much-loved Jewish godfather.

Of all the Nazis, and I don't believe he was ever a member of the party, I think Admiral Wilhelm Canaris the most interesting.

Nickdfresh
10-03-2009, 11:58 AM
Adm. Canaris wasn't a Nazi by any means. He continually plotted against Hitler and was executed during the last weeks of the dying Reich...

Gary D.
10-03-2009, 02:07 PM
I don't know what prompted it, but Canaris turned against Hitler beginning in 1938. Probably the good admiral was shrewd enough to realize the results of the road Hitler was taking, although Hitler's gambles seemed to be paying off.

I just picked up a paperback at a church rummage sale--an old book (1948), The German Generals Talk by B.H. Liddell Hart. I was particularly interested in reading about my favorite field marshal, Gerd von Runstedt.

Deaf Smith
10-03-2009, 10:47 PM
I suspect if Göering had came into power Germany would have slipped into a sort of Zimbabwe, with Göering playing the part of Mugbe.

Better for the world but in some was worse for Germany (as if Germany could have been worse off after what Hitler drug it through.)

Deaf

Gary D.
10-04-2009, 11:15 AM
There’s no doubt that Göering was self-indulgent and stole as much of Europe’s art treasures as he could get his hands on for his various homes, principally Karinhall. I have never discovered whether the Reichsmarschall was addicted to morphine or to paracodeine, which is less addicting, and the reason he took so much of it. Whatever it was, once in custody by the Americans, he went through withdrawal and by the time of the Nuremberg trial was trimmed down and conducted a vigorous defense.

We have a tendency to downplay our enemies’ abilities and inflate our own. Hitler, in his way, was brilliant, and no coward. During the first war, he was a message runner, which prophesied a very short life.

The more I read about our own FDR, the less a fan I am of him. No one wants to admit their own mortality, but by the time of the 1944 election, he must have known he would never see the war through. Fortunately, he chose Harry Truman and Wallace didn’t get in. After Truman’s dismal twenty-percent approval rating towards the close of his term, he has slowly risen in popularity and has now reached the status of almost a folk hero. And I am saying this as a conservative.

Ivaylo
10-04-2009, 12:40 PM
It should be said that Goering had a tendency to lose power-struggles. Remember, not only was he the leader of the SA at one point, he was also the head of the Gestapo and was turned out by more ruthless bastards like Himmler and Heydrich. But I agree Goering was one of the smarter Nazis and probably one of the few with some genuine talent other than kissing Hitler's ***. And his policies towards the Jews others of the Nazi racial pogroms might not have been quite as horrifying and one must remember that the initial concentration camps were a far cry from what the work and death camps became. The question is whether his addictions prevented him from becoming more ascendant, or perhaps make him more vulnerable to rivals. As I recall, he was the more or less official successor to Hitler for much of the War, but I think Adm. Doenitz gets that dubious honor towards the end as Goering lost favor due to the defeat of the Luftwaffe.

I recently got my stuff out of storage in DC and have a book in which I recall reading about more likely German nationalist/fascist rivals to Hitler and to Nazism in general, as the Nazis were not the only ultra-nationalist rightists (and leftists) in Germany spawned by the economic collapse. I think the possibility was raised of a much more traditional military dictatorship under the pretext of emergency powers due to the depression and some candidates were mentioned. Such a regime could also have became sort of permanent. It is said that such a regime would have been as Antisemitic, at least not to the point of official policy or orthodoxy, and would not have been as outwardly aggressive in seeking 'Lebensraum.' But had things gone to a a long War, they would have been far more competent than the Nazi regime. But I suppose that there is a double-edged sword in all this as although Hitler was a military incompetent that made impulsive, rash emotional decisions - there is a real possibility that a War with France never would have spawned the risky, but high reward invasion that "Sickle Cut" and Fall Gelb/Rot became. It was Hitler that pushed his reluctant generals for that plan. So Hitler looks like a genius for the success of the Battle for France, then a fool for long term prospects of Operation Barbarossa...

Yes he had not only tendency to loose power - struggles but also to loose real battles and to say lies like that he can supply the whole 6th army in Stalingrad trough air , the battle of Britain also was complete dissaster filled with lies from Goering that Luftwaffe would win , all this make him impossible to take place as leader of the third reich .

Nickdfresh
10-04-2009, 02:00 PM
...
We have a tendency to downplay our enemies’ abilities and inflate our own. Hitler, in his way, was brilliant, and no coward. During the first war, he was a message runner, which prophesied a very short life.

The more I read about our own FDR, the less a fan I am of him....

Roosevelt didn't second guess, overrule, and indiscriminately fire his generals. Something Hitler did in his manias, more often than not for his own failures --or for simply telling him the truth. Hitler was only brilliant at obtaining and holding absolute power will a skill set for dramatic public speaking and bluster. His actions showed a massive ineptitude and he made a chain of catastrophic decisions dooming any chance he had of winning to utter failure. And Hitlers ability to live in trenches on the Front lines and inability to adjust to some sort of civilian life afterward may show that he possessed a certain physical courage, but he lacked the moral courage to fact the consequences for his actions and in the end he blamed the German people for what were largely his failures and deranged dreams...

Nickdfresh
10-04-2009, 02:03 PM
Yes he had not only tendency to loose power - struggles but also to loose real battles... .

What makes him any worse than a Hitler who believed Goering? Who also believed a parade of inept, lying confidence men from Himmler to Goebbels? A ***** that refused permission to his own army to make a tactical withdrawal rather than get involved in a city fight over nothing but a name and be enveloped by the Red Army...

Hitler believed in Goering's boasts and posturing foretelling of victory. But then he ignored of marginalized his generals who preached any sort of realism...

Panzerknacker
10-04-2009, 03:07 PM
I suspect if Göering had came into power Germany would have slipped into a sort of Zimbabwe, with Göering playing the part of Mugbe.



He,he,that was a good definition.

ubc
10-04-2009, 06:35 PM
But I suppose that there is a double-edged sword in all this as although Hitler was a military incompetent that made impulsive, rash emotional decisions - there is a real possibility that a War with France never would have spawned the risky, but high reward invasion that "Sickle Cut" and Fall Gelb/Rot became. It was Hitler that pushed his reluctant generals for that plan. So Hitler looks like a genius for the success of the Battle for France, then a fool for long term prospects of Operation Barbarossa...

I'm pretty sure the Sickle cut plan came from Manstein not Hitler. German history reports that Hitlers demands drove the planning process since he wanted and invasion in Nov 1939. Given such a small time from Poland invasion the best the OKW could come up with at such short notice was to dust off the WW-I Schlieffen plan and just update that with mechanized forces. Hitler demanded a more central armored push through Belgium instead of simply an 'end around' play. Manstein had pushed his plan quite early but it had been passed over since they were already having to adjust to a renewed schedule based on Hitlers demands. It was only after the invasion was posponed again that time was made available to include Mansteins campaign winning maneuver in the re-rescheduled updated plan.

Reportedly the German cancellation of their strategic bomber programme orginated from Goering need to satisfiy Hitlers demand for more bomber...thus the comment that he could build two mediums for every heavy. Without that pressure, the Luftwaffe could have included a strategic bomber force [albeit small] from the begining of the war. Further their are suggestions that the bombing of dunkirk and the BoB in General followed a similar pattern of Goering wanting to impress his Fuerher on just how well his own service branch could achieve Germanies strategic objectives against the west. This despite the fact that an internal 1937 Luftwaffe wargame/study had shown clearly that any airwar against the RAF without strategic bombers [but including the Ju-88] could never succeed since they could only reliably bomb southern England at best ...and that assumed they had already captured airbases in the Belgium Holland coastal regions.

Ivaylo
10-05-2009, 06:39 AM
What makes him any worse than a Hitler who believed Goering? Who also believed a parade of inept, lying confidence men from Himmler to Goebbels? A ***** that refused permission to his own army to make a tactical withdrawal rather than get involved in a city fight over nothing but a name and be enveloped by the Red Army...

Hitler believed in Goering's boasts and posturing foretelling of victory. But then he ignored of marginalized his generals who preached any sort of realism...

Well Hitler was Hitler with his view of war from WW1 , when commanding the army he used it as toy which should serve for him personally and do whatever he wants . But the problem was that he wasn't general , not even officer and the other was that he was playing against many enemies , something like to play chess against 10 people together , you have to be genius to win . So Hitler was not the perfect choice for leader neither with all these hungry for power *****s as you say and generals which were nothing but toys because Hitler didn't want anyone to interrupt his full absolute power ( anyone who did so ended in camp or shooted directly ) . He simply used his charisma to get the power and used it as he wish .

Goering didn't have neither charisma , neither someone from the high ranks supported him to become a fuhrer , neither he had any success on the battlefield as chief of Luftwaffe , and if i remember at the end of the war Luftwaffe was nothing but a shadow of it's former power and Goering was hiding in the shadows as well because Hitler realized that all Goering said was lie , at the end if i am not mistaken in his last words Hitler kicked Goering and Himmler out of the party but it was already too late for any general change .

Rising Sun*
10-05-2009, 08:25 AM
And Hitlers ability to live in trenches on the Front lines and inability to adjust to some sort of civilian life afterward may show that he possessed a certain physical courage, but he lacked the moral courage to fact the consequences for his actions and in the end he blamed the German people for what were largely his failures and deranged dreams...

Reading through this thread I was minded a bit before your post to make the point that there is a world of difference between different types of courage and determination, and that Hitler lacked the worthwhile types while FDR had them.

FDR represented some of the virtues of democratic systems of government over other types by reflecting and advancing the generally good values and virtues of the majority of voting Americans (even if many other Americans thought he was the socialist devil incarnate and would happily have destroyed him).

Hitler, having obtained power by undemocratic and devious means to become a dictator, was the opposite, although he certainly reflected and advanced the interests of a significant and especially an influential minority of Germans.

Rising Sun*
10-05-2009, 09:04 AM
Well Hitler was Hitler with his view of war from WW1 , when commanding the army he used it as toy which should serve for him personally and do whatever he wants . But the problem was that he wasn't general , not even officer

Hitler lacked the professional military training and experience to dictate the strategy and tactics he was able as Fuhrer to impose upon his professional officers.

Millions of men have been to war in various enlisted and officer capacities but almost, probably, none of them have been qualified by their junior to middle level experience to have even the faintest conception of how to direct a brigade, let alone a division, let alone a corps, and vastly less an army, and even much less an army group as Hitler routinely directed.

At the simplest level, how many of us on this board who routinely accepted and followed daily orders at about section, platoon or at most company level had any idea of how or why those orders came down from battalion or brigade or division or corps level, and what strategic objectives they were aimed at?

Hitler had the advantage of unbounded conceit about his abilities as a military strategist and the fatal weakness of his lack of training, experience and expertise in the same area.


Goering didn't have neither charisma , neither someone from the high ranks supported him to become a fuhrer , neither he had any success on the battlefield as chief of Luftwaffe , and if i remember at the end of the war Luftwaffe was nothing but a shadow of it's former power and Goering was hiding in the shadows as well because Hitler realized that all Goering said was lie , at the end if i am not mistaken in his last words Hitler kicked Goering and Himmler out of the party but it was already too late for any general change .

Goering at least had much more significant officer experience in WWI than Hitler, although relatively at a level so far below anything that mattered in strategic and high command experience that he wasn't much better trained than, albeit considerably more distinguished, than Hitler.

Goering's experience and conduct as a fighter pilot in WWI shows a commendable and generous attitude to his enemies which displays a humanity which Hitler and his ilk, notably Himmler, lacked.

Goering, for all his many faults, was a stronger and better man than most of the Nazi leadership, if only for overcoming his morphine addiction in an era when this was achieved almost exclusively by personal strength of character.

Rising Sun*
10-05-2009, 09:24 AM
Just to clarify a critical difference between FDR and Hitler which was assumed but not stated in my previous posts, Hitler at critical times acted as supreme military commander of his armed forces while FDR, despite being Commander in Chief of the American military forces, acted as an elected civilian president who told his armed force chiefs what he wanted them to achieve in the national interest and left it to them to use their professional skills to achieve it.

Churchill's conduct was often similar to FDR's, but with some distressing instances of Churchill being nearer Hitler by imposing his military conceit and ignorance upon his military chiefs to ensure that they and Britain suffered readily avoidable defeats in Greece, Crete, and Malaya, and almost in North Africa.

Gary D.
10-05-2009, 10:52 AM
I’ve never pretended to have much understanding of military tactics—my primary interest is personalities, both Axis and Allied.

I’m presently trying to muddle through a book about Hitler’s generals, written immediately post-war. No less than Gerd von Runstedt (whom Eisenhower considered one of the finest soldiers in the world) at the time thought that Operation Barbarossa would open up western Europe to invasion. He later realized that the Allies were in no position to mount an operation at that time.

George C. Marshall went along with the concept of an early cross-channel invasion—and even convinced FDR of it, to start a second front to help the struggling Soviet forces. Churchill and the Imperial General Staff knew such a premature invasion was a complete impossibility—certainly not in 1942, or even in 1943. Therefore, Churchill sacrificed Commonwealth soldiers at Dieppe just to prove such an invasion wasn’t feasible.

Nickdfresh
10-05-2009, 11:07 AM
I'm pretty sure the Sickle cut plan came from Manstein not Hitler. German history reports that Hitlers demands drove the planning process since he wanted and invasion in Nov 1939. Given such a small time from Poland invasion the best the OKW could come up with at such short notice was to dust off the WW-I Schlieffen plan and just update that with mechanized forces. Hitler demanded a more central armored push through Belgium instead of simply an 'end around' play. Manstein had pushed his plan quite early but it had been passed over since they were already having to adjust to a renewed schedule based on Hitlers demands. It was only after the invasion was posponed again that time was made available to include Mansteins campaign winning maneuver in the re-rescheduled updated plan.
...

You are correct. Sickle Cut was largely Manstein's baby, but other officers (Gen. Halder? and Guderian) also had input to the plan and Hitler was generally unhappy with his generals seeing them as timid and understandably reluctant to attack the large military of France. But this may have been the one instance where Hitler was militarily correct as the French and British were counting on a long War so they could utilize their strategic advantage to increasingly isolate Germany and then attack when the French command felt they could fight a combined arms motorized armored battle on par with the Wehrmacht. I also recall one of the impetuses being the fact that in one of the great military blunders, a Heer officer crash landed in Belgium with what was essentially a reworked "Schlieffen Plan". The German time tables were blown, but in the end it reassured the French that attempting to defend the low countries would have to be done even if it was not really in their strategic interests to do so and this ironically benefited Fall Gelb..

*It should also be stated that one of the reasons that "Sickle Cut" was so successful went beyond its planning. The aggressiveness of both Guderian and Rommel, and their willingness to countermand or ignore orders they felt were shortsighted and issued by commanders that were out of touch or behind the overall fluid situation was the main reason for its stunning success...

Nickdfresh
10-05-2009, 11:15 AM
Just to clarify a critical difference between FDR and Hitler which was assumed but not stated in my previous posts, Hitler at critical times acted as supreme military commander of his armed forces while FDR, despite being Commander in Chief of the American military forces, acted as an elected civilian president who told his armed force chiefs what he wanted them to achieve in the national interest and left it to them to use their professional skills to achieve it.

Churchill's conduct was often similar to FDR's, but with some distressing instances of Churchill being nearer Hitler by imposing his military conceit and ignorance upon his military chiefs to ensure that they and Britain suffered readily avoidable defeats in Greece, Crete, and Malaya, and almost in North Africa.


One thing I will give Churchill was that he was far more realistic, and far less trusting, when it came to dealing with Stalin than Roosevelt was and Churchill accurately predicted the Cold War. But yes, I believe Brooke had to tell Churchill how it was on many occasions in order to prevent his more silly ideas and appointments from coming to fruition. As it was, Churchill's Mediterranean first strategy was pure lunacy...

Nickdfresh
10-05-2009, 11:30 AM
I’ve never pretended to have much understanding of military tactics—my primary interest is personalities, both Axis and Allied.

I’m presently trying to muddle through a book about Hitler’s generals, written immediately post-war. No less than Gerd von Runstedt (whom Eisenhower considered one of the finest soldiers in the world) at the time thought that Operation Barbarossa would open up western Europe to invasion. He later realized that the Allies were in no position to mount an operation at that time.

George C. Marshall went along with the concept of an early cross-channel invasion—and even convinced FDR of it, to start a second front to help the struggling Soviet forces. Churchill and the Imperial General Staff knew such a premature invasion was a complete impossibility—certainly not in 1942, or even in 1943. Therefore, Churchill sacrificed Commonwealth soldiers at Dieppe just to prove such an invasion wasn’t feasible.

Rick Atkinson goes into the US generals chomping at the bit to get into France in early 1942 in An Army at Dawn. He also goes into detail of the early antagonism between the British who saw Americans as amateurish upstarts and the Anglophobic US officers who in turn saw the British as stodgy defeatists frustrating any serious offensive planning while the Soviets were dying in droves --even though a cross channel invasion was completely unrealistic for many reasons. Not least of which was that the US Army was still in training & expanding rapidly, lacked heavy weapons as of yet, and had little or no combat experience below the senior ranks.

Even if they had gotten a foothold during "Operation Sledgehammer," the Wehrmacht could easily have contained the area for years on end without seriously disrupting the German armies in the USSR. Atkinson concludes that in the initial arguments, the British were right. Neither of the Allies was ready to mount major offensive combat operation in Fortress Europe against a powerful foe rich in both armor and airpower. But he then criticizes the British for continuing to argue against the liberation of France until almost the last moments and pursuing a futile invasion corridor towards southern Germany (Austria) through the mountain passes of Italy.

I do not think Churchill staged Dieppe just to prove a point however. There was something of trying to force the Germans to defend the coast(s) with as many troops as possible and the operation was supposed to be essentially a much larger scale version of the "commando raids" the British had been mounting all along...

Ivaylo
10-06-2009, 08:01 AM
Hitler lacked the professional military training and experience to dictate the strategy and tactics he was able as Fuhrer to impose upon his professional officers.

Millions of men have been to war in various enlisted and officer capacities but almost, probably, none of them have been qualified by their junior to middle level experience to have even the faintest conception of how to direct a brigade, let alone a division, let alone a corps, and vastly less an army, and even much less an army group as Hitler routinely directed.

At the simplest level, how many of us on this board who routinely accepted and followed daily orders at about section, platoon or at most company level had any idea of how or why those orders came down from battalion or brigade or division or corps level, and what strategic objectives they were aimed at?

Hitler had the advantage of unbounded conceit about his abilities as a military strategist and the fatal weakness of his lack of training, experience and expertise in the same area.



Goering at least had much more significant officer experience in WWI than Hitler, although relatively at a level so far below anything that mattered in strategic and high command experience that he wasn't much better trained than, albeit considerably more distinguished, than Hitler.

Goering's experience and conduct as a fighter pilot in WWI shows a commendable and generous attitude to his enemies which displays a humanity which Hitler and his ilk, notably Himmler, lacked.

Goering, for all his many faults, was a stronger and better man than most of the Nazi leadership, if only for overcoming his morphine addiction in an era when this was achieved almost exclusively by personal strength of character.

Yes i agree , but something that bother me is that Goering had the same defect of promising miracles as well Hitler and others did . The greatest one was Stalingrad when he personally promised Hitler that Luftwaffe with ease would supply the whole army from air a promise that assured Hitler to leave the army in the trap . Does Goering didn't know that he can't supply it ?

Rising Sun*
10-06-2009, 09:28 AM
Yes i agree , but something that bother me is that Goering had the same defect of promising miracles as well Hitler and others did . The greatest one was Stalingrad when he personally promised Hitler that Luftwaffe with ease would supply the whole army from air a promise that assured Hitler to leave the army in the trap . Does Goering didn't know that he can't supply it ?

I don't know anything about that aspect of Stalingrad and Goering's involvement so I can't comment on it, but it's at least consistent with his overconfident attitude to the Luftwaffe's contribution to the possible invasion of Britain in the Battle of Britain air war period.

Maybe both instances were cases of hubris and or unwillingness by Goering to be seen by Hitler as unable to deliver the power which might have been expected from a Luftwaffe which had benefited hugely from Nazi arms growth, albeit very weakly in the bomber area compared with what the Allies would soon produce and use against Germany.

Building upon my earlier comments about the lack of higher staff training and experience of Hitler, Goering falls into the same category of someone who lacks all relevant training and experience to command a national air force, regardless of his personal achievements as a WWI pilot.

There are no commanders on the Allied side comparable with Hitler and Goering as military commanders because all the Allied senior commanders achieved their positions after long training and experience rather than through the political thuggery and chicanery which brought Hitler and Goering to positions well beyond their military and strategic experience and ability.

herman2
10-06-2009, 03:16 PM
Maybe the question better asked would be, what if Albert Goering came to power-Now thats another story about another Brother of Herman Goering....

Albert Goering - saviour of victims of the tyranny his brother helped create - was imprisoned for several years after the war for his name alone. During the post-war-years he had many difficulties, the name Goering had become an almost impossible handicap. Grateful survivors, rescued by Albert Goering, helped him survive bitter years of joblessness. He married several times and died in 1966, after working as a designer in a construction firm in Munich.

Its such a shame that they imprisoned the poor guy just for having a surname same as Herman Goering......

Nickdfresh
10-06-2009, 05:23 PM
Maybe the question better asked would be, what if Albert Goering came to power-Now thats another story about another Brother of Herman Goering....

Albert Goering - saviour of victims of the tyranny his brother helped create - was imprisoned for several years after the war for his name alone. During the post-war-years he had many difficulties, the name Goering had become an almost impossible handicap. Grateful survivors, rescued by Albert Goering, helped him survive bitter years of joblessness. He married several times and died in 1966, after working as a designer in a construction firm in Munich.

Its such a shame that they imprisoned the poor guy just for having a surname same as Herman Goering......

That's a good post Herman, I didn't know about "The Good Brother." It seems he was largely pardoned after Nuremberg, and a brief internment. But the Czechs rearrested him as he did work at the Skoda Works, but evidently committed acts of sabotage and saved Jews all the while...

Deaf Smith
10-06-2009, 09:54 PM
I'm impressed.

You know, a very very good movie about Oskar Schindler was made (Schindler's List), and another movie, Defiance, about the Bielski brothers.

Well maybe it's time for a movie about Albert Goering. If he did what they said he did, he deserves to have the real facts come out.


This link ought to wake some people up:

http://www.auschwitz.dk/albert.htm

and another:

http://socyberty.com/history/heroes-of-the-holocaust-and-their-stories-of-courage-two/

I hope one day they declare him one of the "Righteous among the Nations".

And let us pray, if we ever have to drink from that awful cup, we have the strength of such as Albert Goering and Schindler.

Deaf

Chevan
10-07-2009, 07:44 AM
Hitler believed in Goering's boasts and posturing foretelling of victory. But then he ignored of marginalized his generals who preached any sort of realism...

Hitler NEVER believed to its general, Nick.
The any military professional general confirm this point in its memours, from Manstaint to Guderian.
Hitler never trusted to generals, and suspected them all in potential treason.
He bit believed, or made the pose he believed to Goering, due to its personal relations- Goering was his friend and a member of NS from most beginning. He was near Hitler in Beer Hall Putsch.
He was actualy much smarter then is usially considered. Even in Nurenberg tribunal he often put the American general prosecutor in stupid position by his ability to think:)

Chevan
10-07-2009, 07:57 AM
Goering didn't have neither charisma , neither someone from the high ranks supported him to become a fuhrer , neither he had any success on the battlefield as chief of Luftwaffe .
Goering endeed had deserved the popularity as chief of Luftwaffe for the first time.
He didn't won the Battle for Britain , coz it was unpossible to win the war by pure aviation. But he definitelly terrorised the British island pretty effective. And brits can't answer proper at least till 1943.
The Luftwaffe was a brightest side of Wermacht , i mean it was probably the most effective part of GErman military mashine.They has done all the possible and unpossible to stop the Allies strategic offensive.
And Goering endeed made a lot of work for it.
And i don't really think the Goering lie to Hitler was a true resault of final devastation of Luftwaffe in last days of war.Finaly , it was initially Hitler who obsessed by Total war, which absorbed too much resourses for Germany.The Goering Luftwaffe was still functional even after caputilation of GErmany.
I't not i try to admire by Goering, he was a hard Nazis and he deserved the death.
But i have not the tend to underestimate him.

Gary D.
10-07-2009, 11:08 AM
* * * I't not i try to admire by Goering, he was a hard Nazis and he deserved the death.
But i have not the tend to underestimate him.

I have to admit, I have a reluctant admiration for Hermann Göering—but he deserved death—just like the guy who sits out in the car waiting for the bank to be held up. The teller is killed—everyone is guilty, whether they pulled the trigger or not. Probably a lame analogy, however.

Rising Sun*
10-08-2009, 07:33 AM
I have to admit, I have a reluctant admiration for Hermann Göering—but he deserved death—

If so, why wasn't the same 'justice' and penalty applied to others equally guilty of the same crimes?

One of the charges against Goering related to use of slave labour, yet Werner von Braun was just as complicit in it in his rocket program. But he was taken to America and became an American citizen a bare ten years after the war and a bare ten years after his complicity in the same crimes that Goering committed.

If Goering had special knowledge of some air force or other matter which America thought would have given it superiority over the Soviets, he wouldn't have been prosecuted.

Goering undoubtedly deserved to be tried as a war criminal according to the Allied standards created for the war crimes trials, but then so did an awful lot more who weren't but who the Allies could and should have tried.

In a sense Goering was a victim of unfair victor's justice, in that he was not treated equally before the law the Allies had created to deal with what the Allies determined to be Nazi war criminals.

Gary D.
10-08-2009, 10:48 AM
If so, why wasn't the same 'justice' and penalty applied to others equally guilty of the same crimes?

One of the charges against Goering related to use of slave labour, yet Werner von Braun was just as complicit in it in his rocket program. But he was taken to America and became an American citizen a bare ten years after the war and a bare ten years after his complicity in the same crimes that Goering committed.

If Goering had special knowledge of some air force or other matter which America thought would have given it superiority over the Soviets, he wouldn't have been prosecuted.

Goering undoubtedly deserved to be tried as a war criminal according to the Allied standards created for the war crimes trials, but then so did an awful lot more who weren't but who the Allies could and should have tried.

In a sense Goering was a victim of unfair victor's justice, in that he was not treated equally before the law the Allies had created to deal with what the Allies determined to be Nazi war criminals.

We needed Werner von Braun and his team’s expertise—thank God the Russians didn’t get to them before we did. It was obvious that Stalin was going to gobble up as much of an exhausted Europe as he could, and Churchill was well aware of that fact. As it was, the Soviets got their hands on quite a few of Hitler's scientists. Throughout the remainder of the 1940s and into the 1950s, it was probably, 'Our German scientists can beat your German scientists!'

How many ex-Nazis served the Allied occupying authorities and later the Federal Republic? Unless we were going to completely decimate Germany, it was political, and necessary, some overlooking. Obviously, the high-profile Nazi war criminals had to be tried and go to the block.

FDR’s Secretary Morgenthal wanted to make a cow pasture out of Germany—at best, something like an impoverished agricultural country. Later on, de Gaulle and Der Alte, Konrad Adenauer, had the wisdom and foresight to come together and say, Enough is enough!

steben
10-08-2009, 02:44 PM
FDR’s Secretary Morgenthal wanted to make a cow pasture out of Germany—at best, something like an impoverished agricultural country. Later on, de Gaulle and Der Alte, Konrad Adenauer, had the wisdom and foresight to come together and say, Enough is enough!

Wasn't that a century old French desire?

Gary D.
10-08-2009, 08:10 PM
Wasn't that a century old French desire?

How far in history do you want to go back? If Bismark hadn't demanded Alsace-Lorraine in additional to war reparations from France in 1870, perhaps the French would have paid the money and wouldn't have had to get this territory back. Then, following Imperial Germany's defeat in 1918, the French not only took Alsace-Lorraine back, but the victors squeezed Germany dry. The inequities of Versailles and Germany's crippling debt gave Hitler and his Nazis a very persuasive argument.

Rising Sun*
10-09-2009, 07:19 AM
We needed Werner von Braun and his team’s expertise—thank God the Russians didn’t get to them before we did.

That's a pragmatic American or Western / anti-Soviet view. It's the same reason that some of the bastards at Harbin were never tried and that some went on to great and profitable post-war careers in Japan, because the Americans thought those sadistic bastards had gained useful chemical and bacteriological warfare information from their vile 'research' on, among others, American POWs. They hadn't, just like their Nazi counterparts hadn't with equally pointless and cruel 'experiments'.

The principles of justice ought to ensure that everybody accused of such terrible crimes stood trial.

Political reality is that nobody gives a shit about justice if the political advantage outweighs it.

That's the way it is, but it doesn't mean it's just or moral, or that I have to accept it, not least because the war was fought supposedly to allow good and justice to triumph over evil and injustice.


Unless we were going to completely decimate Germany, it was political, and necessary, some overlooking. Obviously, the high-profile Nazi war criminals had to be tried and go to the block.

Why?

If the underlings who did the dirty work weren't brought to account for their crimes, why try only the bosses who ordered it?

Applying similar principles to, say, organised crime nowadays we'd ignore the crooks who kill people and try only the bosses, on the rare occasions they're brought to trial.

If one of my loved ones was murdered by a low level crook or a Nazi underling, I'd want that bastard tried a lot more than his boss.

Rising Sun*
10-09-2009, 07:24 AM
If Goering had special knowledge of some air force or other matter which America thought would have given it superiority over the Soviets, he wouldn't have been prosecuted.

Saw a documentary on Goering tonight which said he failed to see the potential of jet aircraft.

If only he'd been smart enough to see it and to be seen by the Allies as having unique knowledge in that area he'd probably have avoided trial.

With a bit of luck he might have ended up in charge of NASA.

Ivaylo
10-09-2009, 11:13 AM
Saw a documentary on Goering tonight which said he failed to see the potential of jet aircraft.

If only he'd been smart enough to see it and to be seen by the Allies as having unique knowledge in that area he'd probably have avoided trial.

With a bit of luck he might have ended up in charge of NASA.

Yes and he had to see it in the early war years, in 1944 it was already late for development , but the problem how to produce many jet fighters i think was still on the table as well as the problem with the tank production , simply the germans didn't have enough industrial capacity compared to US for example . So i think they had to choose between aircraft or tanks or other equipment because they didn't had the capacity to produce all at once like the USSR or US .

Gary D.
10-09-2009, 11:36 AM
Yes and he had to see it in the early war years, in 1944 it was already late for development , but the problem how to produce many jet fighters i think was still on the table as well as the problem with the tank production , simply the germans didn't have enough industrial capacity compared to US for example . So i think they had to choose between aircraft or tanks or other equipment because they didn't had the capacity to produce all at once like the USSR or US .

Albert Speer, in Inside the Third Reich, wanted jet fighter planes. Hitler, on the other hand, and he had the final word, wanted to put German resources into long-range bombers--targeted at New York City.

The older I get, the more I realize that, short of the Second Coming, this world's not going to be equitable. That's the way it is.

I have wondered, would we use any 'beneficial' knowledge gained by those horrific Nazi concentration-camp experiments, a la Dr. Mengele? The argument being, well the 'patients' are long dead, so why not?

Those in the know have examined those experiments and have never found anything useful in them.

ubc
10-09-2009, 12:28 PM
That's a pragmatic American or Western / anti-Soviet view. It's the same reason that some of the bastards at Harbin were never tried and that some went on to great and profitable post-war careers in Japan, because the Americans thought those sadistic bastards had gained useful chemical and bacteriological warfare information from their vile 'research' on, among others, American POWs. They hadn't, just like their Nazi counterparts hadn't with equally pointless and cruel 'experiments'.

The principles of justice ought to ensure that everybody accused of such terrible crimes stood trial.

Political reality is that nobody gives a shit about justice if the political advantage outweighs it.

That's the way it is, but it doesn't mean it's just or moral, or that I have to accept it, not least because the war was fought supposedly to allow good and justice to triumph over evil and injustice.



Why?

If the underlings who did the dirty work weren't brought to account for their crimes, why try only the bosses who ordered it?

Applying similar principles to, say, organised crime nowadays we'd ignore the crooks who kill people and try only the bosses, on the rare occasions they're brought to trial.

If one of my loved ones was murdered by a low level crook or a Nazi underling, I'd want that bastard tried a lot more than his boss.


The problem with this mentality is obvious. Stalin had 2.5 million Poles deported to Siberia in 1939-1941 and only 1/4 million survived. Infact at least 1 million were dead by 1941. That puts him ahead of Hitler in sheer barbarity at that time :rolleyes: :evil: :shock:Who in the west was going to proscute Stalin and his minions during the Nurmberg trials for crimes against Humanity [or the Poles to be more specific]? :confused: :evil:

Face it all of war is extension of Politics

steben
10-09-2009, 02:58 PM
Face it all of war is extension of Politics

Clausewitz? :D

It's true of course.

steben
10-09-2009, 02:58 PM
Albert Speer, in Inside the Third Reich, wanted jet fighter planes. Hitler, on the other hand, and he had the final word, wanted to put German resources into long-range bombers--targeted at New York City.


And again, the lack of insight...

Nickdfresh
10-09-2009, 04:46 PM
Saw a documentary on Goering tonight which said he failed to see the potential of jet aircraft.

If only he'd been smart enough to see it and to be seen by the Allies as having unique knowledge in that area he'd probably have avoided trial.

With a bit of luck he might have ended up in charge of NASA.

Yes, but I think in Goering's defense, what did the Luftwaffe need jets for when they were already defeating everyone with excellent piston engined machines? And Germany knew full well the Allies had no super-weapons and were certainly no further ahead if they weren't far behind Germany in the research and development of jet aircraft. And that perhaps rightfully, he may also have seen Germany needed more Me109s and FW190s and that accelerating jet design would have only further slowed production or sapped resources...

Nickdfresh
10-09-2009, 04:52 PM
Albert Speer, in Inside the Third Reich, wanted jet fighter planes. Hitler, on the other hand, and he had the final word, wanted to put German resources into long-range bombers--targeted at New York City.
...

I believe this was never a major obstacle as they merely referred to the fighters as fighter-bombers just like the StG44 was originally designated a machine-pistol because Hitler initially wanted more rifles, not new designs of them...

steben
10-10-2009, 03:15 AM
Not that keen on Goering. not at all. For me it was a simple nazi with let's say a nice apetite.
Rommel, Guderian, Von Manstein and Speer are the bright ones. It's not a surprise most of them were no nazi officials. Speer is an exception.