Hitler meets Churchill in 1932

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

So apparently Hitler and Churchill nearly met IOTL in 1932:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/10/film-churchill-hitler-tea-winston-nazi

Hitler stood him up twice and Churchill went back to England. What if Hitler kept the meeting? Even as early as 1932 Churchill was wary of Hitler and the Nazis and even commented to Putzi Hanfstaengl, the guy who organized the meeting, about how much he loathed the anti-semitism of Hitler (which might be the reason the meeting never happened). Might this make Churchill an even more outspoken critic of the Nazis or might they find some common ground and Winston changes his tune? Apparently the Canadian PM met Hitler and loved him. Any ideas of how this might change history?
 
Very interesting. I doubt if it'll change much due to Churchill's germanophobia which had its roots before the beginning of the Great War. However if anyone could change his mind and come to a "colonial-continental" understanding it would be Hitler.
 

Deleted member 1487

Was antisemitism really that much of an issue for Churchill in 1932? IIRC his record on the paranoia regarding the jewish/Bolshevik conspiracy theories in the 20s is a bit muddled...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
At the time there were writings of his that rail against the racial anti-semitism that was popular within certain circles Britain and of course the Nazis. I doubt it was the foremost issue in his mind, but it was enough of one for him to comment on it to Hanfstaengl:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Hanfstaengl
When Winston Churchill was staying at the Hotel Regina in Munich in late August 1932, Hanfstaengl introduced himself and said he could easily arrange a meeting with Hitler there since he came to the hotel every evening around five o'clock. At that time Churchill said he had no national prejudices against Hitler and knew little of his "doctrine or record and nothing of his character." In the course of the conversation with Hanfstaengl, however, Churchill said: "Why is your chief so violent about the Jews? I can quite understand being angry with the Jews who have done wrong or who are against the country, and I understand resisting them if they try to monopolise power in any walk of life; but what is the sense of being against a man because of his birth? How can a man help how he is born?" Hanfstaengl, according to Churchill, must have related this to Hitler because the next day, around noon, he came to the hotel to tell him that Hitler would not be coming to see him after all. In addition Hitler may not have wanted to meet with Churchill, who was then out of power and thought to be of no importance.[5] Churchill declined to meet with Hitler on several subsequent occasions.[6]
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/meeting-hitler-1932/
“I landed with Hitler at Munich airport to find a telephone message awaiting me from Randolph. His family were staying with a party at the Hotel Continental (not the Regina Palace, Sir Winston’s memory plays him false), wanted me to join them for dinner, and hoped that I would able to bring Hitler along….” Hanfstaengl duly invited Hitler, who was reluctant: “What on earth would I talk to him about?,” he reports the Führer as saying.

Hanfstaengl himself joined Churchill, who was dining with his wife, their daughter Sarah, Randolph, and Frederick Lindemann, his friend and academic adviser.

It was here that Churchill made the now-famous remark: “Tell your boss from me that anti-Semitism may be a good starter, but it is a bad sticker.”

Very interesting. I doubt if it'll change much due to Churchill's germanophobia which had its roots before the beginning of the Great War. However if anyone could change his mind and come to a "colonial-continental" understanding it would be Hitler.
https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/meeting-hitler-1932/
Hanfstaengl records another interesting Churchill remark at that Munich dinner: “How does your chief feel about an alliance between your country, France and England?” Hanfstaengl says he was “transfixed” at this. Hitler had not yet come to power; Churchill’s remark, if he said it, sheds interesting light on his thinking in 1932, perhaps hoping to prevent another war with diplomacy that might assuage Germany’s grievances over the Versailles Treaty. This would have been very much in character. Churchill said later, “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.”

The Harvard-educated Hanfstaengl is generally thought to be reliable.

The question is whether they would actually get on and agree about this stuff and not have a blow up on Hitler's anti-semitism. And whether later on Churchill would care about a friendly meeting when Hitler gets more aggressive once in power.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
Was antisemitism really that much of an issue for Churchill in 1932? IIRC his record on the paranoia regarding the jewish/Bolshevik conspiracy theories in the 20s is a bit muddled...

http://www.fpp.co.uk/bookchapters/WSC/WSCwrote1920.html
That is a stretch to call that article antisemitic. it is virulently anti-Bolshevik and simplistically seeks to separate "good" and "bad" Jews. Could easily have been written recently with slightly less condescending language to refer to "good" and "bad" Muslims and ISIS in the war against Islamic extremism.
 
At the time there were writings of his that rail against the racial anti-semitism that was popular within certain circles Britain and of course the Nazis. I doubt it was the foremost issue in his mind, but it was enough of one for him to comment on it to Hanfstaengl:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Hanfstaengl

https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/meeting-hitler-1932/



https://winstonchurchill.hillsdale.edu/meeting-hitler-1932/


The question is whether they would actually get on and agree about this stuff and not have a blow up on Hitler's anti-semitism. And whether later on Churchill would care about a friendly meeting when Hitler gets more aggressive once in power.

In 1920 Churchill followed the divison of jews into 3 groups. The national jew, which he liked, the international jew, that he regarded as being at the center of the bolshevism threat and the Zionist jew, that he supported.
The "international jew" concept was the basis for Ford anti semitism that was to be an influence on Hitler.
If Hitler had been smart enought to present his anti semitism as being targeted at "international jews" and backed Zionism while avoiding the "national jew" issue he could avoid alienating Churchill.
So if you want to construct a line of cooperation btw Churchill and Hitler on the basis of anti-bolshevism I don't think anti-semitism would be a deal breaker factor in 1932.
The 1920 Churchill article is very revelatory. IMO once you acept that there are good types and bad types of a certain race you've opened the door to racism and it is just a matter of playing with definitions from then.
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
The 1920 Churchill article is very revelatory. IMO once you acept that there are good types and bad types of a certain race you've opened the door to racism and it is just a matter of playing with definitions from then.

That ship had sailed. Churchill was racist - as were the majority of the leaders in the world at that time. To jump from racism to the holocaust though is quite a leap. Churchill was using the concept of good and bad Jews in exactly the same way as he would later separate good and bad Germans at Teheran

Churchill: I should like to stress that the root of evil in Germany is Prussia.

Roosevelt: I should like us to have a picture of the whole before we speak of the separate components. In my opinion, Prussia must be weakened as far as possible, and reduced in size. Prussia should constitute the first independent part of Germany. The second part of Germany should include Hannover and the north-western regions of Germany. The third part -- Saxony and the Leipzig area. The fourth part -- Hessen Province, Darmstadt, Kassel and the areas to the south of the Rhine, and also the old towns of Westphalia. The fifth part -- Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg. Each of these five parts would be an independent state. In addition, the regions of the Kiel Canal and Hamburg should be separated from Germany. These regions would be administered by the United Nations, or the four Powers. The Ruhr and the Saar must be placed either under the control of the United Nations or under the trusteeship of the whole of Europe. That is my proposal. I must add that it is merely exploratory.

Churchill: You have said a mouthful. I think there are two questions: one -- destructive, the other -- constructive. I have two ideas: the first is to isolate Prussia from the rest of Germany; the second is to separate Germany's southern provinces -- Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg, the Palatinate, from the Saar to Saxony inclusive. I would keep Prussia in strict condition. I think it would be easy to sever the southern provinces from Prussia and include them in a Danubian federation. The people who live in the Danube basin are not the cause of war. At any rate, I would give the Prussians harsher treatment than the other Germans. The southern Germans will not start a new war.

http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/johnson/teheran.htm
 

Derek Pullem

Kicked
Donor
What would those two different sets of borders look like?
img7.jpg
img8.jpg
 
Top