Germany signs peace with Allies before Invasion of Russia where the Allies would possibly accept.

BooNZ

Banned
You misread what he said.

He said of Britain itself is overrun or starved out, then he would rely on the New world.

However he also said he didn't anticipate Britain being overran or starved out.

I assumed he was being sarcastic, because OTL Britain did try to influence the US elections and by the end of 1940 needed the US to bail them out.
 
I know he was willing to leave the British Empire alone, but give up all the occupied countries? I'd appreciate a source for that.

Here is one from Martin Allen. The Hitler Hess Deception. These were Hitler's terms in 1940.

"1-The British Empire retains all its Colonies and delegations 2- The fundamentals of Germany's continental sphere of interest must be recognized 3- All questions concerning the Mediterranean and its French, Belgian and Dutch colonies are open to discussion 4- Poland. A Polish state must exist 5- The former Czechos(slovakian) state will remain independent but under German protection"

It says it was assumed in this Germany would evacuate Western Europe.

Another source
British government war aims and attitudes towards a negotiated peace, September
1939 to July 1940.
By
Esnouf, Guy Nicholas

Harold Nicolson' s diary describes this conversation in more graphic
terms: "Philip Lothian telephones wildly from Washington in the
evening begging Halifax not to say anything in his broadcast tonight
that might close the door to peace. lothian claims that he knows the
German peace terms and that they are most satisfactory2

Lothian was British ambassador to the US

Earlier in 1940 (This is according to Charles Tansill in Back Door to War.) Hitler passed along to the Americans

(1) that he had long been in favor of disarmament, but had received no encouragement from England and France; (2) he was in favor of international free trade; (3) Germany had no aim other than the return of the “German people to the territorial position that historically was rightly theirs”; (4) he had no desire to control non-German people and he had no intention to interfere with their independence; and (5) he wanted the return of the colonies that were stolen from Germany at Versailles

This is VERY questionable to me in retrospect after seeing them again on Quora. But these sources sound reputable at least (their books are on Amazon. The thesis is available online)

In any case, Churchill doubtfully would agree to peace even were Hitler sincere. when he could just wait it out and Hitler loses unconditionally. And I think he knew it. They knew after the Fall of France Germany would declare on the USSR because of their intelligence services showing German troop movements to the East before they warned the USSR of impending attack. And Churchill guessed the US would enter.

Atom bombs were expensive. Also much harder to get planes flying over land and avoid anti-aircraft guns and the local air force than if you send a plane from sea. Or so I imagine. Anyways, the British wouldn't be able to make a bomb in their own, if only because they were rather busy at the time and had other priorities. And the Germans invaded the Soviets for the food as well. Also probably helped cover up the embarrassment of not beating the British yet, though it wouldn't be a prime reason. I actually read somewhere that Hitler declared war on the US partially because it meant he could give a grand speech instead of talking about the failed expectations on the Eastern Front. Again, not a prime motive. It still helps us to look into people's mindsets.

I wonder though if the US could give them the nuclear bombs even if the British didnt do it themselves. Manhattan project was started before Pearl Harbor. Even were Hitler not to declare war on the US it is likely a declaration from the US would be forthcoming anyways. There was a Gallop poll showing the American public basically wouldnt lift an eyebrow after Pearl Harbor if there was a war with Germany
 

BooNZ

Banned
Hitler basically made that proposal. He did actually make some EXTREMELY generous peace overtures to the British, but their position in July 1940 was there would be absolutely no negotiation with Hitler AT ALL.
I believe Mikestone8 is correct - the British were willing to talk, but Churchill expressed an opinion that any offers from Hitler after recent victories would probably not be reasonable. I understand there were tentative semi-formal feelers being extended in Sweden when Churchill publically declared the battle for Britain had commenced (technically ahead of time). Curiously after the war, the British initially sought to suppress the fact compromise was contemplated.
 
Curiously after the war, the British initially sought to suppress the fact compromise was contemplated.

Not particularly curious.

Even before war's end, 1940 was becoming part of the national mythos - an important chapter in Our Island Story. Lots of important people, from the King downward, would have been very unwilling to have any rain on that parade.
 
Here is one from Martin Allen. The Hitler Hess Deception. These were Hitler's terms in 1940.

"1-The British Empire retains all its Colonies and delegations 2- The fundamentals of Germany's continental sphere of interest must be recognized 3- All questions concerning the Mediterranean and its French, Belgian and Dutch colonies are open to discussion 4- Poland. A Polish state must exist 5- The former Czechos(slovakian) state will remain independent but under German protection"

It says it was assumed in this Germany would evacuate Western Europe.

Wow. I like the definition given in a review about this book: Allen is "a distinguished exponent of the 'it is reasonable to assume' school of historical analysis".

That said, let's accept the above at face value, and scan it, not in order:

1. Well, yes. The Germans have the Channel Islands, so they are generously ready to give those back and not to demand anything they do not have and do not have the means to get to.
3. The Belgian and Dutch had no Mediterranean colonies. Somebody is making a crass mistake here. We have to conclude they're talking about colonies in general, at least the African ones, or maybe even farther afield. Now, if these are "open to discussion", and considering the Germans had no boots on the ground there, not to mention any ability to ever have any, what can this mean, if not that the Germans will have some demand on these? Demands that as of now they are not willing to set forth clearly?
5. Independent but under German "protection" is a contradiction in terms - very obviously. Note the place is already called the Protektorat - which means the Germans want things to continue as they are.
4. Given the above, what can we expect about the Polish state? My guess is an "independent but under German protection" puppet.
(no number) So it says there, in that fancy book, that it is assumed the Germans will withdraw from Western Europe. But they don't seem to say so, eh. What if, once the talks have begun, the Germans say, "Oh, BTW, we'll keep Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, and a border swath of Belgium"?
2. Saving the key for last. The Germans want their sphere of influence, spanning the whole continent, recognized as such. That means, firstly, that if the Germans want to buy Danish cheese, Belgian uranium, Norwegian fish, Swedish iron etc. at 60% of the fair international trade price, and pay for it in five years, the aforementioned countries aren't allowed to look for a better buyer. Secondly, it means no interference in the planned conquest of the Lebensraum in the Soviet Union.

So the questions are:
- under what parameters are these starting terms "generous"? Yes, the Germans should withdraw from entire countries they have conquered; in exchange however they seem to want their colonies, and they certainly want to transform all or most of those countries into subservient satellites. They will also generously not demand things they have not laid their hands on. Oh well.
- why should the British accede to this? It's not just a war-frenzied oddball, Churchill, who would be against this. Any British Foreign Secretary in the past several centuries would tell you that it's not British policy to accept one power to have hegemony over the whole of Europe, for pretty solid and unchanging reasons. If someone else, say Halifax or Hoare or who-have-you, should accept to even just discuss this, he would be the oddball, not Churchill for not considering it.


This is VERY questionable to me in retrospect

You bet.

Even before war's end, 1940 was becoming part of the national mythos - an important chapter in Our Island Story. Lots of important people, from the King downward, would have been very unwilling to have any rain on that parade.

Or alternatively, there is no grand conspiracy and things are just as they are known to be.
 
Or alternatively, there is no grand conspiracy and things are just as they are known to be.


Who said anything about conspiracy? No peace talks had ever happened; in retrospect there was little likelihood of them having got anywhere even if they had, so there was little reason to publicise the fact that some highly placed folk had speculated over the theoretical possibility.
 
Who said anything about conspiracy?

Well, the post you were replying to mentioned "suppressing the facts". I read that as something that could be described as a "conspiracy", but then again English is not my mother tongue and I made interpretation mistakes on occasion.
 
Well, the post you were replying to mentioned "suppressing the facts". I read that as something that could be described as a "conspiracy", but then again English is not my mother tongue and I made interpretation mistakes on occasion.

I suppose one could call it that if one goes in for hyperbole, but hardly a very "grand" one.
 
I believe Mikestone8 is correct - the British were willing to talk, but Churchill expressed an opinion that any offers from Hitler after recent victories would probably not be reasonable. I understand there were tentative semi-formal feelers being extended in Sweden when Churchill publically declared the battle for Britain had commenced (technically ahead of time). Curiously after the war, the British initially sought to suppress the fact compromise was contemplated.

Look here at this under Edin Predicts Nazi Peace Offer, it describes how it was the position of the British government to never negotiate with Hitler. Where did you read these things?

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...BAJ&nid=860&pg=3423,2777027&sjid=FEsDAAAAIBAJ

Wow. I like the definition given in a review about this book: Allen is "a distinguished exponent of the 'it is reasonable to assume' school of historical analysis".

That said, let's accept the above at face value, and scan it, not in order:

I was aware of the Amazon reviews. Merely saying that someone is making stuff up is merely saying it. While he may very well be doing so, it would be better to offer proof in this regard. The Nazis did have plans for Western Europe that seem to contradict this. Like a Burgundy SS State etc. against France, Belgium specifically was a part of this SS state.

1. Well, yes. The Germans have the Channel Islands, so they are generously ready to give those back and not to demand anything they do not have and do not have the means to get to.

At this point in the war, in the minds of the British politicians they might realize that the Germans might take Egypt, then the Middle East, and then India. Assuming the US or USSR didn't bail the British out they could end up losing it all. It wasn't possible for the Axis to take Egypt, but back then the British may not have known that. Churchill knew Sealion was never going to succeed, but the fate of Egypt might have been less certain in their minds.

I'll post here the one for the previously mentioned Swedish peace overture with British ambassador Victor Mallet. Source: From Information to Intrigue: Studies in Secret Service by C. G. McKay as well as this may help shed light on what they were talking about

(i) The world to be divided into two economic spheres, one continental, organized by Germany; the other maritime and colonial, organized by the British Empire. (ii) The political independence of the European countries occupied by Germany to be restored, including 'a Polish State' but not including Czechoslovakia. The economic division of Europe, however, was to be brought to an end. (iii) The British Empire to retain all its colonies and such mandates as were needed for its political and military interests; Germany possibly receiving compensation elsewhere. (iv) Questions concerning the Mediterranean, Egypt and the French Belgian, and Dutch colonies to be open to discussion.

3. The Belgian and Dutch had no Mediterranean colonies. Somebody is making a crass mistake here. We have to conclude they're talking about colonies in general, at least the African ones, or maybe even farther afield. Now, if these are "open to discussion", and considering the Germans had no boots on the ground there, not to mention any ability to ever have any, what can this mean, if not that the Germans will have some demand on these? Demands that as of now they are not willing to set forth clearly?

I assume it was a typo. They wanted to wait for the for the peace talks, and they were open to discussion with the French, Belgians, and Dutch. Meaning specifically they needed to wait for these delegations before making any decisions? Not necessarily that they wanted all that territory. This wasn't the actual peace talks anyways, just letting the British know they were ready to talk. The real things was that they were willing to surrender Western Europe, it is very doubtful realistically they would do this and ask for a bunch of colonies they had absolutely no claim to. Besides I don't think Hitler was particularly interested in lebensraum in Africa, I have no idea why he would ask for a vast colonial empire.

5. Independent but under German "protection" is a contradiction in terms - very obviously. Note the place is already called the Protektorat - which means the Germans want things to continue as they are.

It meant exactly what you said, Czechoslovakia would remain German it seems. The terms were extremely generous. Assuming no entry of the US, USSR. The Germans could annex the whole of Europe under their occupation and get away with it, and there is little the British could do about it.

4. Given the above, what can we expect about the Polish state? My guess is an "independent but under German protection" puppet.
(no number) So it says there, in that fancy book, that it is assumed the Germans will withdraw from Western Europe. But they don't seem to say so, eh. What if, once the talks have begun, the Germans say, "Oh, BTW, we'll keep Alsace-Lorraine, Luxembourg, and a border swath of Belgium"?

Regarding Poland, it is clear that the Germans didn't mean some kind of puppet state because they didn't specify it like they did with the Czechoslovakia. It is pretty clear that in any sane peace talks at this point the French were going to lose Alsace-Lorraine. At that point the Germans had made the territorial alterations they were going to make. The British either accept it or not, and the war continues. By the way, Hitler very clearly wanted more than Alsace-Lorraine from France

2. Saving the key for last. The Germans want their sphere of influence, spanning the whole continent, recognized as such. That means, firstly, that if the Germans want to buy Danish cheese, Belgian uranium, Norwegian fish, Swedish iron etc. at 60% of the fair international trade price, and pay for it in five years, the aforementioned countries aren't allowed to look for a better buyer. Secondly, it means no interference in the planned conquest of the Lebensraum in the Soviet Union.

There was no clause there about war with the USSR. Whatever that means it does not mean that Germany interferes in the sovereignty of nations in Europe so they are de facto puppet states, because it was said that the political independence would be restored. I don't even know how you extrapolate that that means Danish cheese prices. It probably means the British just have to deal with the fact that Germany is the 1st economy of Europe, and look to their empire instead.

So the questions are:
- under what parameters are these starting terms "generous"? Yes, the Germans should withdraw from entire countries they have conquered; in exchange however they seem to want their colonies, and they certainly want to transform all or most of those countries into subservient satellites. They will also generously not demand things they have not laid their hands on. Oh well.

The British were in no position to ask Germany to surrender continental Europe. None. At all. And yet the Germans offered to do it anyways (seemingly at least depending on the veracity of the sources). And again, you are reading things that are not even there. No where does it say that the Western Europe will be a satellite of Germany, they say the opposite if anything.

- why should the British accede to this? It's not just a war-frenzied oddball, Churchill, who would be against this. Any British Foreign Secretary in the past several centuries would tell you that it's not British policy to accept one power to have hegemony over the whole of Europe, for pretty solid and unchanging reasons. If someone else, say Halifax or Hoare or who-have-you, should accept to even just discuss this, he would be the oddball, not Churchill for not considering it.

This did NOT result in German hegemony over Europe, it was basically a return to the status quo. Whatever that meant it didn't mean that the French for example would still be a puppet state of Germany in which they could dictate to the French what they price they sold stuff at.

You said

That means, firstly, that if the Germans want to buy Danish cheese, Belgian uranium, Norwegian fish, Swedish iron etc. at 60% of the fair international trade price, and pay for it in five years, the aforementioned countries aren't allowed to look for a better buyer.

This would necessarily mean these countries were not politically independent. It means that the Germans still have Vichy France and the occupied territories, and the economic exploitation that entails, which very clearly is not what the Nazis were purportedly saying in these texts


For the reason you specified and another unsavory reason
 

BooNZ

Banned
Look here at this under Edin Predicts Nazi Peace Offer, it describes how it was the position of the British government to never negotiate with Hitler. Where did you read these things?

https://news.google.com/newspapers?dat=19410705&hl=en&id=iJRaAAAAIBAJ&nid=860&pg=3423,2777027&sjid=FEsDAAAAIBAJ

Your article is dated 5 July 1940 - two weeks after a Churchill speech effectively killed any possibility of British compromise. The fact the British publically denied even contemplated compromise (eg the article you kindly referenced) during the war is scarcely surprising - its the fact the British initially sought to maintain this myth after the war I found curious.

I must say you have a very gentlemanly debating style - it is customary to provide references to support your argument.
 

Ian_W

Banned
This would necessarily mean these countries were not politically independent.

Thats what "2- The fundamentals of Germany's continental sphere of interest must be recognized" *means*.

Oman is within the British sphere of influence. This means if the Omani government gets stroppy, the British get to replace them.
 
I was aware of the Amazon reviews.

It's actually an editorial, signed review by the Guardian, not a casual line thrown in on Amazon by the first comer.

The British were in no position to ask Germany to surrender continental Europe. None. At all.

No. In fact. The military situation there dictated that. Likewise, the military situation in Belgian Congo or the Dutch Antilles dictated that the Germans could not say they were "open for discussion".
On the other hand, the British were confident they would, with help, boot the Germans from Western Europe, and the Germans, it says so in your source, were intentioned to discuss places they did not occupy and would never have the means of occupying.

This is the reason why wars are fought, and are continued once started: the sides want things that are too different, and the gap cannot be bridged even by honest negotiations (and we all know how honest Hitler had already proven to be). So, no deal.

No where does it say that the Western Europe will be a satellite of Germany, they say the opposite if anything.



This did NOT result in German hegemony over Europe, ...

You said

That means, firstly, that if the Germans want to buy Danish cheese, Belgian uranium, Norwegian fish, Swedish iron etc. at 60% of the fair international trade price, and pay for it in five years, the aforementioned countries aren't allowed to look for a better buyer.

This would necessarily mean these countries were not politically independent. It means that the Germans still have Vichy France and the occupied territories, and the economic exploitation that entails, which very clearly is not what the Nazis were purportedly saying in these texts

So pray tell what a Nazi "sphere of interest" means?

You see, it's an argument you cannot win, because you only have hypotheses for a never-existing Nazi-controlled "sphere of interest" that isn't at the very least a partial reduction of the sovereignty of the countries involved. I, on the other hand, have the real history of what the Nazis did in their real-history "sphere of interest", and you can't trump actual facts with hypotheses.
We know very exactly what the Nazis meant by "sphere of interest" because it's there, black on white, in the Molotov-Ribbentrop secret additional protocol. The Western two thirds of Poland was in the German "sphere of interest" That's the actual wording used in the German text. And see what happened there. The Germans gave up, for the time being, their "sphere of interest" in Lithuania - but later came for it, and see what happened there.

Do you really believe that after German occupied Denmark in two days, and after it had hypothetically withdrawn from it under such a treaty, and after no great power is any longer at hand to challenge Germany in its "continental" position, the Danes will be willing to even risk disappointing Hitler in their trade with him?

We also know exactly what happened to governments that were in the German sphere of interest during the war, if they tried to misalign themselves with Germany. The one lucky exception is the Finnish one. The Italian and Hungarian ones were toppled; with Romania the Germans tried to but failed. The Romanian case is interesting because of the detail that the Germans kept in the sidelines Sima, a wanted man in Romania but still hosted and sheltered in Germany. That tells you what Hitler actually thought of the Antonescu government, way before the time it went sideways: nice to have and collaborative, but should it develop independent ideas, we have a replacement ready. Exactly the same thing they did in Hungary with Szálasi, only that there they succeeded in replacing Horthy.

You see, when you say "sphere of interest", the fact is that there is one country whose interest is paramount. The other countries in the sphere can take care of their own interests, only for as long as they do not conflict with the - hegemonic country's interests.
 
Top