There was some feeling among a few of the elite that they would be able to deal with the Allies on a military and Governmental level, particularly evidenced by Himmler's attempt to make a peace deal while Hitler was still alive.

That said, I feel Goering was in a different world in many ways near the end. Himmler realized quickly that there would be no Reich after the war ended and he, among other leading Nazis, would be prosecuted for his crimes. He went into hiding, to famously be caught later and subsequently committing suicide. Goering however was heavily drugged up for some time which could have played a part in his mindset. He also felt that he had nothing to apologize about (making quite a show of himself during the trials after his capture) and overall did not feel like the criminal he really was. Also of note, he had quite the ego... though that's a bit speculative for this sub, just thought it was worth a mention. I believe he did write a letter to Eisenhower before his capture to discuss potential surrender terms, though I don't have my books around me right now. I may be wrong, remember reading this at some point, but if true leads me to further believe he truly felt that he was not in major risk of war crime charges.

The Nazi leaders expectations really were person to person. The large number of suicides in the last days of the Reich suggest to me that many leaders knew exactly what they had done and what they were in for. Many were involved not only directly in the Holocaust and general war crimes, but the attempts to cover up their crimes. Many that officially surrendered probably felt they had a chance in a court of law, and in fact some were able to get by with just prison time (most famous in my opinion being Albert Speer) as they were never directly involved in war crimes.

So, it was delusional in some cases, in others such as Goering it most definitely was, but it really was a case by case. Some showed remorse, though most didn't, Goering himself was defiant for the trials and obviously got the last laugh by killing himself.

Adding some sources:

For Goering specifically, I really liked Goering: The Rise and Fall of the Notorious Nazi Leader.

General reading, which is most of my knowledge on the Third Reich, I have suggested this probably a couple of times here before - but I really do enjoy Richard Evans' trilogy. It's comprehensive and will give a great picture of many aspects of the Reich at the key time periods.

Speer's "Inside the Third Reich" is good, though obviously questionable, but he speaks about Goering and actions during the war in quite a few parts. Nothing comes to mind as "proof he was a war criminal", but most certainly there are sections about Goering making big decisions (and big promises) in regards to action on the Eastern Front. Though Goering was a "likable" Nazi on the whole and had a personality about him that people really seemed to trust... he most definitely was a criminal. If at the very least being one of the highest ranking Nazis for the duration of the Reich.

More edits..

/u/Crytash makes some good points about the suicides. Definitely a factor here, I would just say that though many did kill themselves for those reasons, there were many that simply knew what was coming. Maybe speculative as well, definitely an interesting argument.

Also, you are right about Kershaw's "The End", very good book about the chaos during the last year and some of the motivations behind the actions taken by the Nazis.

This is a bit outside my personal field of study, but through undergrad and grad school, I took a few courses specific to WWII, and read a few books that might be able to shed a little light on this. I defer to a WWII specialist, of course, but here it goes...

In 'Ordinary Men' historian Christopher Browning touched on this just a bit. It was either in this book, or Lucy Dawidowicz's 'The War Against the Jews' (both very good Holocaust histories) that I recall reading about Himmler fussing over his expected meeting with Eisenhower, and whether it would be appropriate to brow-salute (a-la the American tradition), Nazi-salute ("Heil Hitler" style), or offer his hand for a shake. Of course Eisenhower wanted nothing to do with the man (on a personal level anyway), and similarly ordered Himmler arrested like Goering was. Thus, Himmler also seemed surprised that he wasn't offered to Eisenhower for official surrender and negotiations.

I think this probably boils down to individual personalities and the roles they played in the Nazi regime. For example, Himmler and Goering were a part of Hitler's inner-circle, and as a result were a bit disconnected from some of the realities at play. They had either become delusional, or (and I think this is more likely) they had convinced themselves that their elevated rank within the government afforded them certain privileges among soldiers of a particular rank. And while they probably didn't have any delusions about how the Russians would treat them, they appear to have believed that since the atrocities of the Holocaust hadn't touched the Western Allies as deeply as the Russians, that better terms (and a foundation for negotiations) could be had with the Americans and British.

Other senior leaders that were a bit more removed from the constant political in-fighting notorious among Hitler's top lieutenants seemed to have been slightly more realistic about how things would shake out (in terms of being held accountable for war crimes, etc). Albert Speer, for example, didn't seem all that surprised at his arrest, and actually showed a lot of contrition during (and after) the Nuremberg trials.

Also, it would have been reasonable to assume (at least on some level to men like Himmler and Goering) that Germany, in complete ruin following years of heavy bombing, might have benefited from having experienced leaders who could have untangled the infrastructure bureaucracy that needed to be corralled to get water running and electricity flowing again. Indeed, this may have been the case had the Nazis not engaged in systematic murder of millions of Russians, Poles, Jews, Gypsies, POW's, homosexuals, political opponents, etc. So again, I think that goes back to a certain level of accumulated delusion that Himmler and Goering likely possessed at the time.

These were two guys who had very few checks on their total authority and power (except, of course for Hitler). With Hitler gone, these guys probably thought they could finally spread their wings, and act on the hard-fought authority they'd gained during roughly 20 years of insane political and military intrigue. It was for this reason that they probably viewed themselves as professional contemporaries of men like Eisenhower, yet it didn't take long for them to grasp what the true situation was.

Still, even Goering never seemed to totally appreciate what was going on until the very end. He was a tenacious and combative opponent of the Nuremberg prosecution, and only seemed to really be put in check when that same prosecution played film of the death camps during the Nuremberg trial. Thus, we might assume that Goering and Himmler, who always worked hard to cover up any physical evidence of the Holocaust, might have thought that since there was no physical piece of evidence directly connecting them to the murder of an innocent, they might be spared on legal grounds. Orders were given to destroy the camps, prisoners, and any physical evidence, so the delusional (want-to-believe-it-so-bad-it-becomes-personally-true) might have also been a factor at play.

There's something in this that no one has mentioned but is very relevant to the discussion. Goering was the head of the Luftwaffe; the German Air Force. The Air Force, being a very new element to warfare, was considered to be very gentlemanly, and as a POW, especially one of high rank, he would be normally be accorded many luxuries and privileges. Even in the Geneva Convention on the Treatment of POW is also very detailed about the treatment of POWs, and does accord more rights and privileges to POWs of higher rank, with the most being accorded to Generals, as Goering was. The Allies saw Goering as a criminal, but he no doubt saw himself as simply another military member, and entitled to the full rights of the convention, and not to be treated as a criminal.

Even during WWII, the Luftwaffe handled Allied POWs from the Air Force, who were generally treated better than their Army or Navy counterparts, when under the supervision of the Luftwaffe.

As far as Goering himself, if you read his confessions and testimony at Nuremberg, he's pretty unabashedly unapologetic for his actions. As a General in a time of war, he would expect to be treated as a POW of high rank, not as a murderer on trial.

You also have to look at the Nuremberg trials in the context of the time. The crimes they were being accused of were LITERALLY the very first time anyone were put on trial for Crimes Against Humanity, and the trial of this kind and scope were completely without precedent. For someone who obviously feels their actions were justified in the context of a war, and feels they are no worse than the enemies they faced in the battlefield, how must they have felt to be told that their actions are so heinous, so terrible, that entirely new laws must be written just to put them on trial for them?

We have the luxury of hindsight in this, but when the information of the Holocaust was being released, no one knew what to do. Eisenhower ordered as much footage to be taken as possibly, because he knew no one would believe the size and scope of it. Given the number of holocaust deniers today, it seems a sensible idea. But at the time, it was unfathomable and people couldn't believe that something so horrific could have happened. It wasn't even imaginable. Even Germans living within proximity of a concentration camp didn't always know what was happening, or certainly the full extent of it.

Then you take the attitude towards Jews in general. Not even in Germany, but everywhere in the world. Germany tried to deport millions of Jews prior to the war, but most countries refused, or only took a small number. In Canada, the Immigration minister at the time was infamously quoted as saying "None is too many" with regards to allowing Jewish refugees into Canada. In the US there were similar attitudes of anti-semitism, and a dislike of Jewish immigration. While the Allies didn't know the full extent of the Holocaust, they did know some of it, and bear some responsibility for failing to act earlier and more decisively to get Jews out of Europe. Goering would have known all this, and known the very publicly-expressed anti-Semitic sentiments of the Allies, and their actions against Jewish immigration, so it would seem somewhat hypocritical to be put on trial by people who are somewhat complicit (if only by inaction or neglect) in the crimes they're accusing you of.

I'm sorry, I hope this is allowed, but you say movie...do you mean mini-series from 2000 with Alec Baldwin? Or 1996 movie? I am searching now because I am interested in seeing it.

Dumb question, I searched for the Nuremberg movie and about three different movies came up. Which one are you referencing here?

Similarly, I heard that Donitz tried to actually govern Germany after WW2, since the remaining government didn't think that the allies would take direct control of Germany, and they thought that some Nazi leadership would be necessary to keep the peace.

Is there any truth to this or was the Donitz government really just a placeholder which knew its only job was to surrender and give up power?