Can Germany offer peace in WWII

[cerebus]

This question has been in my mind since reading several suggestions that Germany could offer peace, usually to the UK in 1940 or to Russia in 1942 but others have been made.
I am not asking if the other side would consider the offer nor am I asking if either side would keep any agreement.

I am asking if Hitler (or other German leadership in 1940s) was capable of making a peace offer other than surrender. From a political, psychological, economic and ideological point of view was an offer that the other side was intended to take seriously possible.

 

[kham_coc]

Yes?
I mean the nationalists and revanchists were quite happy in 1940 - They had everything they wanted except the Tyrol.
The USSR on the other hand, had basically nothing the Nationalists wanted (theoretically they wanted the Baltic).
Absent The nazis Jewish world conspiracy paranoia, and accompanying megalomaniac world conquest delusions, a (non-nazi, obvi) leadership could certainly offer peace.
After all, they had plenty of things to negotiate with.
And as fearful they would be over the USSR, Again, it's not like the UK position is perfectly enviable, since, if the USSR does attack what's the outcome for the UK?
So yes, a different leadership could try to make peace.

 

[AltoRegnant]

A fascist Germany? Sure. Hitler? No way. After Munich hed lost basically all faith parliament and the french government had in his ability to be reasonable

 

[The Tai-Pan]

This question has been in my mind since reading several suggestions that Germany could offer peace, usually to the UK in 1940 or to Russia in 1942 but others have been made.
I am not asking if the other side would consider the offer nor am I asking if either side would keep any agreement.

I am asking if Hitler (or other German leadership in 1940s) was capable of making a peace offer other than surrender. From a political, psychological, economic and ideological point of view was an offer that the other side was intended to take seriously possible.

Not really. A general war to fundamentally re-set the global balance of power is an all or nothing sort of affair. Doubly so when your 'goals', global conquest and re-ordering the contential racial system, are so grandiose.

 

[stevej713]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP, Hitler DID offer peace to the UK and did so repeatedly. He publicly stated that as far as he was concerned, Germany and the UK should go their separate ways with Germany dominating Europe while Britain turns its focus overseas. To the UK, this was absolutely unacceptable. Furthermore, there were no German diplomats in Britain after war broke out so there was really no way Hitler could offer peace apart from making public appeals. Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain was a rather strange attempt to go further than this.

As for the Soviet Union, Germany did not achieve its strategic goals in Russia so Hitler never would have been comfortable offering peace to the Soviets. However, if I'm not mistaken there were some small top-secret communications between Germany and the Soviet Union that took place throughout the war, though this was more likely just Stalin's attempts to keep his options open while negotiating with (in his view) the sluggish and treacherous west.

 

[kham_coc]

Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP, Hitler DID offer peace to the UK and did so repeatedly.

The op specified it was supposed to be a real proposal, and imhi Hitler was incapable of doing that.

 

[stevej713]

The op specified it was supposed to be a real proposal, and imhi Hitler was incapable of doing that.

What's the difference between Hitler publicly saying he wants peace with the UK and a "real proposal"? What would a real proposal look like? The two states had severed diplomatic relations with each other so it would have been impossible for a German diplomat to stroll into London and hand someone a piece of paper offering peace. That's essentially what Hess tried to do.

 

[Post]

What's the difference between Hitler publicly saying he wants peace with the UK and a "real proposal"? What would a real proposal look like? The two states had severed diplomatic relations with each other so it would have been impossible for a German diplomat to stroll into London and hand someone a piece of paper offering peace. That's essentially what Hess tried to do.

After saying it publicly, it should be followed up with diplomacy and actually getting in touch with the UK. And Hess doesn't really count, because he did it without Hitlers' approval.
A better way would be to get in touch with the British embassy in Sweden, Spain or Switserland.

 

[Lalli]

Problem with Hitler was that everybody knew that to him can't be trusted. He has effectively broken every treaty where just was his name and he couldn't hold any of his promise. And Stalin was going to fight to last man if him had.

Only way get even sim kind of peace is that Germany wins Battle of Stalingrad and Soviet Union is completely defeated and then Wallies are unable to invade Europe. But even then it wouldn't be full peace and there is very high possibility for new war.

 

[Garrison]

What's the difference between Hitler publicly saying he wants peace with the UK and a "real proposal"? What would a real proposal look like? The two states had severed diplomatic relations with each other so it would have been impossible for a German diplomat to stroll into London and hand someone a piece of paper offering peace. That's essentially what Hess tried to do.

If Hess was Hitler's chosen representative, which is a BIG if, then it shows how little Hitler really understood about the British . Overall what seemed like 'reasonable' proposals to Hitler would have been unacceptable to the British, which doesn't even address the fact that Hitler had proven himself utterly untrustworthy by this point.

 

[fockewulf]

The "Perfidious Albion" wasn't known for its righteousness either. No great power is trustworthy.
Germany's position as the dominant power on the continent just wasn't acceptable. It just happened to be Germany, but it could just as well be USSR, France, Italy, Bulgaria or even Luxembourg for what is worth.

 

[Julian]

Even the German leaders who were more conservative/nationalist than Nazi (Ribbentrop, Raeder, etc.) had gone full megalomaniacal in 1940. The FM was dropping plans to annex all of equatorial Africa, dismantle the British empire, and prepare for a climactic Transatlantic war with the US. Outside of Hess, who was a marginalized weirdo with no influence by 1940, no German leader was interested in a peace which didn’t involve the subjugation of the UK.

 

[kham_coc]

Even the German leaders who were more conservative/nationalist than Nazi (Ribbentrop, Raeder, etc.) had gone full megalomaniacal in 1940. The FM was dropping plans to annex all of equatorial Africa, dismantle the British empire, and prepare for a climactic Transatlantic war with the US. Outside of Hess, who was a marginalized weirdo with no influence by 1940, no German leader was interested in a peace which didn’t involve the subjugation of the UK.

Yes I'd say a prerequisite for peace prior to barbarossa, (in the sense that's the point of no return, not peace and then barbarossa) is that France doesn't go off as it did otl. After that Hitler could do no wrong and even dissenters drank the koolaid.
So Hitler decides crazy thing, the heer manages to fix it anyway, and then they say no mas and coup. That leadership could make peace.
Or Hitler dies, infighting, heer steps in takes over, and then peace.

 

[Sanderford]

Can they offer peace? Absolutely. Convincing the Allies to accept it, on the other hand...

 

[kham_coc]

Can they offer peace? Absolutely. Convincing the Allies to accept it, on the other hand...

A military junta that takes over, kills the nazis, and asks for peace on nationalistic terms, might have to ask a few times, but absent a war with the USSR and with no US war declaration forthcoming what would the uks hopes be?
At best the USSR overruns all of Europe, how is that an improvement?
Without the soviet union busy, would even PH happen?
Or to put it another way, would the uk swallow its pride and negotiate before Stalin feels comfortable attacking Germany?

 

[Geon]

What's the difference between Hitler publicly saying he wants peace with the UK and a "real proposal"? What would a real proposal look like? The two states had severed diplomatic relations with each other so it would have been impossible for a German diplomat to stroll into London and hand someone a piece of paper offering peace. That's essentially what Hess tried to do.

Hitler did offer a real proposal of peace to Great Britain. According to William Shirer in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich it was made immediately after the Fall of France. The proposal was surprisingly generous on the part of the Germans.

Britain would get to keep its Empire . Germany would make no demands for any British territory. Germany would also make no demands that the UK demilitarize in any way shape or form. Germany would respect British sovereignty.

In return Hitler simply demanded an end to the British blockade. Signing a peace treaty agreeing not to attack Germany. Recognition of German gains on the Continent and non-interference in Germany's upcoming offensive against Russia.

This is what Germany offered. As indicated in the OP acceptance of these terms by the UK is another matter entirely.

 

[Darrenb209]

The "Perfidious Albion" wasn't known for its righteousness either. No great power is trustworthy.
Germany's position as the dominant power on the continent just wasn't acceptable. It just happened to be Germany, but it could just as well be USSR, France, Italy, Bulgaria or even Luxembourg for what is worth.

This misses the point and also fails to understand that "Perfidious Albion" isn't actually an insult at Britain for failing to keep to treaties. It's actually an insult that, while going back to the 13th Century in general back then with the whole being on alternating sides plus the whole Norman leadership technically being constantly treasonous vassals of France.

The modern usage stems from betrayed French Revolutionaries who saw Britain not really caring when they were proposing a consitutional monarchy withdraw the vague noises of backing when they killed the king and chose a Republic.

Britain didn't actually have a history of betraying European Treaties by the 20th Century. Colonial ones on the other hand?, more "altering the deals" but still a bit "Perfidious".

But to get back onto the point, Britain's reputation was not Churchill/Chamberlain's just like Germany's reputation was not Hitler's

If Hitler was replaced, then any deal offered could be expected to be held for the average amount of time, a few years to a decade. Two, at most.

A deal made with Hitler is worth less than the paper it was written on because Hitler showed that he would not even keep to any treaty for a few months.

Quite frankly, a peace treaty signed with Hitler would collapse any government in any country that accepted it simply because of the complete lack of trust anybody outside of Germany had in him.

Edit: Point of this rambling post is that there are two reputations that matter in diplomacy, the Country's and the Leader's. A bad reputation of the former tells people that you won't get anything long term out of them whereas a bad reputation of the latter tells you that you won't get any commitment to what they say out of them, it will in fact just be lies that will be abandoned the moment it is convenient.

 

[pompejus]

A fascist Germany? Sure. Hitler? No way. After Munich hed lost basically all faith parliament and the french government had in his ability to be reasonable

After Munich everybody knew Hitler's word was completly unreliable and to make peace (at least a long term peace) you need to be able to rely on that the deal you made would be kept by both parties.

Also I believe that Hitler would simply be too greedy. To make peace he has to give up some of the areas he conquered. I think he simply would want to keep everything he conquered. A Gerany that wants to make peace would need to give up all of France (besides Alsace-Lorraine), all of Belgium (besides Eupen-Malmedy) all of the Netherlands, all of Norway, all of Denmark (besides Schleswig), all of Poland (besides the 1914 borders) and all of Czechia (besides the Sudetenland). Any sane German would be able to see that would mean a great victory for Germany (1914 borders, Luxemburg, Austra and the Sudetenland? pretty good deal). But I suspect Hitler would be too greedy to accept such a deal.

 

[cerebus]

See I’ll

Unless I'm misunderstanding the OP, Hitler DID offer peace to the UK and did so repeatedly. He publicly stated that as far as he was concerned, Germany and the UK should go their separate ways with Germany dominating Europe while Britain turns its focus overseas. To the UK, this was absolutely unacceptable. Furthermore, there were no German diplomats in Britain after war broke out so there was really no way Hitler could offer peace apart from making public appeals. Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain was a rather strange attempt to go further than this.

Have you read the 19th July speech? Whatever it is it is not a peace offer. If anything other than a rablerouser domestic speech it is a pathetic attempt to encourage the UK to revolt and overthrow the government.
And that is my question. Can the Germans make a serious offer?

 

[Sanderford]

A military junta that takes over, kills the nazis, and asks for peace on nationalistic terms, might have to ask a few times, but absent a war with the USSR and with no US war declaration forthcoming what would the uks hopes be?
At best the USSR overruns all of Europe, how is that an improvement?
Without the soviet union busy, would even PH happen?
Or to put it another way, would the uk swallow its pride and negotiate before Stalin feels comfortable attacking Germany?

Do you know what humor is? 😕

In any case, a lot depends on when the Germans make the offer, and who is in charge in Berlin when it is made.