The title says it all, though the assumption is that this is in a scenario where Germany somehow won WWII. Did Hitler knew how the next Furher was gonna be chosen? Assuming that he had children, would the power go to them, or would it go to another high-ranking Nazi official? Would there be a vote, or would Hitler's word be final?
The answers linked above deal with Hitler's formal succession plans. It is interesting to discuss Hitler's informal thoughts on the question of succession, recorded as part of the so-called Hitler's Table Talk. I'm quoting from the rough transcription of the document on the Internet Archive, and have cross-referenced some passages to other copies on Google Books and elsewhere as a check. Hitler of course originally spoke in German, so this is a translation.
There are some controversies about how reliable this work is, especially in the English translation, so I welcome any corrections from people more versed in this topic than I am.
Note that I am going to be quoting from Adolf Hitler below, and unsurprisingly he says some disturbing or offensive things.
In any case, at a March 3, 1942 conversation at dinner, Hitler was discoursing on Napoleon, who had famously transformed himself from a republican dictator to a hereditary emperor. Hitler thought that was "Napoleon's greatest error."
By thus giving expression to his family feeling, Napoleon introduced a disruptive principle into his life. Nepotism, in fact, is the most formidable protection imaginable: the protection of the ego. But wherever it has appeared in the life of a State — the monarchies are the best proof — it has resulted in weakening and decay. Reason: it puts an end to the principle of effort.
Hitler then, in this reported transcript, declares that "setting the best man at the head of the State" is "the most difficult problem in the world to solve," and lists various attempted solutions to it, which I'll quote at length:
Setting the best man at the head of the State — that's the most difficult problem in the world to solve.
In a republic in which the whole people is called upon to elect the chief of the State, it's possible, with money and publicity, to bring the meagrest of puppets to power.
In a republic in which the reins of power are in the hands of a clique made up of a few families, the State takes on the aspect of a trust, in which the shareholders have an interest in electing a weakling as President, so that they may play an important part themselves.
A hereditary monarchy is a biological blunder, for a man of action regularly chooses a wife with essentially feminine qualities, and the son inherits his mother's mildness and passive disposition.
In a republic that sets at its head a chief elected for life, there's the risk that he will pursue a policy of personal self-interest.
In a republic where the Chief of State changes every five or ten years, the stability of the government is never assured, and the execution of long-term plans, exceeding the duration of a lifetime, is thereby compromised.
If one sets at the head of the State an old man who has withdrawn from all worldly considerations, he is only a puppet, and inevitably it's other men who rule in his name.
After laying that out, Hitler then described some principles about the best way to chose the head of state:
First, he said, "The chances of not setting a complete idiot at the head of the State are better under the system of free elections than in the opposite case." Characteristically, Hitler's example for this comes from German history; he holds up elected Holy Roman emperors as successes, while saying of hereditary monarchies that "there were at least eight kings out of ten who, if they'd been ordinary citizens, would not have been capable of successfully running a grocery."
Second, Hitler said the chief of state must be one who — "as far as human beings can judge" — will be in power for a long time, to enable long-term thinking.
Third, he says steps need to be taken to protect the head of state from "the plutocracy"; his proposed solution to this is that "he should be supported by a political organization whose strength has its roots in the people, and which can have the upper hand over private interests."
In Hitler's survey of history, he identifies two successful examples of his principles: the papacy ("although it is based on a literally crazy doctrine"), and the Venetian Republic, in which (in Hitler's analysis) power "was allotted to the best man amongst the representatives of those families who were traditionally linked with the State."
Finally, he brings these general principles around to specific conclusions about succession in Germany:
First, "The Reich must be a republic, having at its head an elected chief who shall be endowed with an absolute authority." Note that be "republic" here he primarily means "not a monarchy," one where the country is not the personal and hereditary property of the ruler, not necessarily any degree of democracy.
Second, against this elected chief with "absolute authority" there must also be "an agency representing the people" as a "corrective."
Third, the elected dictator should be elected not by the people at large, or by the people's assembly, but by a "senate" of extremely limited powers, whose members are appointed "with reference to their occupation and not individuals," and who "must, by their training, be steeped in the idea that power may in no case be delegated to a weakling, and that the elected Fuehrer must always be the best man."
Fourth, he says the election of the leader must happen in private, like cardinals choosing a pope.
Fifth (skipping over a relatively unimportant bit about the newly elected chief immediately receiving oaths of obedience from other leaders), he says the elected dictator must enforce "the most rigorous separation between the legislative and executive organs of the State." The "executive agents of the State are not to concern themselves with politics," but "ensuring the application of laws issued by the legislative power" — though "making appeal to the sword, in case of need."
Having laid out this framework, Hitler concludes by judging its clear superiority:
Although a State founded on such principles can lay no claim to eternity, it might last for eight to nine centuries. The thousand-year-old organization of the Church is a proof of this — and yet this entire organization is founded on nonsense. What I have said should a fortiori be true of an organization founded on reason.
Now, this is an alleged conversation recorded over dinner in 1942. Whether Hitler would have, given enough time, put something like this into effect, we don't know. Hitler changed his mind a lot. Even for ordinary people, what seems like a good idea sitting around the table shooting the breeze doesn't always seem best in the heat of the moment. But it's interesting nonetheless to read these ruminations on history and political theory from one of history's most infamous leaders.
Greetings. Not to discourage further responses, but do check out these older answers :
Special thanks to u/Searocksandtrees for finding the links.
Hope this helps.