What if gb had accepted hitters may 41 offer of peace

trajen777

Banned
Britain and France knew war was inevitable at this point. There was also the cynical notion that if the Germans are in Poland, there are less divisions facing off against France. If they have time to consolidate, it's a harder fight.

There's also the simple fact that Britain had just signed the treaty with Poland, France also had a long standing one.

You know the interesting part of that is the Germany was building the Siegfried line (which consumed massive resources as a defensive measure). And you have that time from (Phony war) where they just sat there (GB France) -- i have read many versions of why but the 2 i think are most real would be 1. They did not want to start a 1914 /18 war, 2. They felt defence was the way to go (but if you read the 1919 plan for aggressive action which was being ready to be adopted this would be counter to this) and 3. they needed to move all of the thousands of HA up front to destroy the lines (think WW1 battles).

As to the treaty with Poland and GB that was done as a line in the sand for Hitler --not sure if that was the smartest move in hind site -- but with hind site we all make the right decision
 
Lets try this 1 more time ---
1. Hitler goes East for this lets say 1940 / 41
2. BECAUSE USSR IS CONSIDERED EASIER AND MORE NATURAL RESOURCE (they had the resources to defeat France without the need to grab someone trucks like they did when they took France and went after USSR in 41)
3. East does NOT GUAR A 2 FRONT WAR LIKE IF THE GO WEST AND BEAT FRANCE BUT HAVE NO WAY TO GB
4. Germany gets resources to attack France in the west (the perceived harder enemy)
5. USSR is a massive grinder -- but Germany can win in 3 years + --- with millions in losses
6. GB and France enter war in year 2 and Germany has all of their resources worn out / battered and in the east -- although i think Hitler without the Aura of the wins vs France would be overthrown as the German econ tanks and they have endless losses in the east
7. THIS MEANS A SHORTER WAR --- WHICH MEANS LESS DEATH CAMPS (WHICH STARTED IN 42) - so what is am saying this is an alternative to what happened in 45 with millions killed --- BY THE WALLIES DECLARING WAR WHEN THEY WERE NOT READY TO BE IN A WAR.

Your problem is trying to convince British and French leaders of this in 1939.

You'd be locked up for your own safety.
 

BigBlueBox

Banned
What are u talking about ??

Lets try this 1 more time ---
1. Hitler goes East for this lets say 1940 / 41
2. BECAUSE USSR IS CONSIDERED EASIER AND MORE NATURAL RESOURCE (they had the resources to defeat France without the need to grab someone trucks like they did when they took France and went after USSR in 41)
3. East does NOT GUAR A 2 FRONT WAR LIKE IF THE GO WEST AND BEAT FRANCE BUT HAVE NO WAY TO GB
4. Germany gets resources to attack France in the west (the perceived harder enemy)
5. USSR is a massive grinder -- but Germany can win in 3 years + --- with millions in losses
6. GB and France enter war in year 2 and Germany has all of their resources worn out / battered and in the east -- although i think Hitler without the Aura of the wins vs France would be overthrown as the German econ tanks and they have endless losses in the east
7. THIS MEANS A SHORTER WAR --- WHICH MEANS LESS DEATH CAMPS (WHICH STARTED IN 42) - so what is am saying this is an alternative to what happened in 45 with millions killed --- BY THE WALLIES DECLARING WAR WHEN THEY WERE NOT READY TO BE IN A WAR.
Nothing you have posted makes any sense. Mein Kampf and Zweites Buch explicitly state that France must be destroyed before the Soviet Union. It has been explained to you multiple times that Germany will not invade the Soviet Union until France has been defeated but you refuse to listen. If France and Britain did not declare war on Germany then Germany would have found an excuse to invade France before invading the Soviet Union. Hitler knew that attacking the Soviet Union before crushing France would lead to France attacking Germany while Germany was occupied with the Soviets.
 
We're not talking about Hitler, we're talking about Hitter...different dood


Hitter?

0706_oag-dimaggio-williams-1000x798.jpg
 

trajen777

Banned
Nothing you have posted makes any sense. Mein Kampf and Zweites Buch explicitly state that France must be destroyed before the Soviet Union. It has been explained to you multiple times that Germany will not invade the Soviet Union until France has been defeated but you refuse to listen. If France and Britain did not declare war on Germany then Germany would have found an excuse to invade France before invading the Soviet Union. Hitler knew that attacking the Soviet Union before crushing France would lead to France attacking Germany while Germany was occupied with the Soviets.

What a politician says really has little reality to what they do ----- But this is the points people have brought up if i can summarize.

The TL :
A. Hitler invades Poland in 39 --- he walks back during the invasion and offers peace for the withdrawal for Danzig and some areas around for peace with the West, trade etc
B. Hitler conquers France and offers GB peace (see post 1)

I have organized my thoughts on the 39 submit :

Peoples Points -- my counter points :
1. Hitler would invade France first BECAUSE he needed the resources to successfully invade the USSR ---- my counterpoint is the inverse could be stated -- use the resources of USSR to invade France ---- reasoning is also an easier enemy to deal with (perceived) and significant more resources. However the key area where there is a difference to be considered in invading east or west -- and that would be distance.
2. Hitler would not want to leave a France at their back --- this could be valid -- however the fear in Germany was always to have a slow moving steam roller behind their back. If Hitler did have the west go from peace to war to peace i think he would feel good enough to go east to gain the resources (that is why he did it in 41 -- a 1 year war to gain the resources to fight GB forever) to fight an endless war vs the west (Fortress Europe). However I think in this case his belief in a 1 year victory would drive him east

From what i have read a TL going this way is probable.

The advantages to Hitler :
1. The west backed off in 39
2. Conquests in the east vs easy opponent -- esp after the winter russo fin war
3. The massive resources available in the east
End result :
1. IF GB and France stay out and the war drags on for multi years (or comes in year 2-3 ) then Hitler with out the great western victories might (prob?) be overthrown after mega losses and an econ collapsing
 
Most likely however the USSR army of 40 was not the army of 44 ---- they were in a very bad way in 40 -- so yes they would have been better prepared -- however no T34 / Kv1 (or very few) and in a bad organization situation
Time is not on Germany's side. A few months warning of invasion will have the Soviets cut off or drastically reduce Germany's supply of raw meterials (oil).
And buy the Russians precious time. Time was not on Germany's side.
 

trajen777

Banned
Your problem is trying to convince British and French leaders of this in 1939.

You'd be locked up for your own safety.

Most likely -- however the enthusiasm for war by everyone (think the phony war) was not that strong.

One reason i have read for the appeasement etc for Hitler was that all of the politicians were aware of the lack of negotiations pre 1914 which led to that war and wanted to take every reasonable opportunity to avoid such a war again.
 

trajen777

Banned
Time is not on Germany's side. A few months warning of invasion will have the Soviets cut off or drastically reduce Germany's supply of raw meterials (oil).
And buy the Russians precious time. Time was not on Germany's side.

From the invasion of Poland time was not on their side
 

SsgtC

Banned
What a politician says really has little reality to what they do
Except history is very clear about the fact that what Hitler said, Hitler fucking did. So Hitler flat out stating that France must be destroyed first, is exactly what he planned to do.
 

trajen777

Banned
Except history is very clear about the fact that what Hitler said, Hitler fucking did. So Hitler flat out stating that France must be destroyed first, is exactly what he planned to do.

So how do you really fell about that - -haha ---

Anyway lets look at history and what pol people have said and then done the opposite -- Ah Hitler --Munich / oh ya your taking his word on invading France first ------ Bush --- i will not raise taxes -- oh well ---- Obama - you can keep your health care - well hmm ? ----- Pol Pot - the people are working in harmony --- NOPE ---

So anyway what is said often changes whether it is a lie that the Pol knows is a lie --- or the situation changes and the Pol changes because of the new variables

Anyway this is a Alter History Forum correct ?
 

Garrison

Donor
Anyway this is a Alter History Forum correct ?

This is the post 1900 forum, where a degree of plausibility is expected when one posts an alternate history scenario. Your entire scenario is based on unproven claims about offers made by Hitler in 1939 and 1941, you've demonstrated a woeful ignorance of historical facts and now you've resorted to random examples of politicians breaking their word in attempt to shore up your illogical assertions. In this part of the forum simply saying its alternate history will not get you a pass for poorly thought out ideas that lack any credible foundation.
 

trajen777

Banned
This is the post 1900 forum, where a degree of plausibility is expected when one posts an alternate history scenario. Your entire scenario is based on unproven claims about offers made by Hitler in 1939 and 1941, you've demonstrated a woeful ignorance of historical facts and now you've resorted to random examples of politicians breaking their word in attempt to shore up your illogical assertions. In this part of the forum simply saying its alternate history will not get you a pass for poorly thought out ideas that lack any credible foundation.


So i have quoted 3 books --- as to offers made -- in 50 years we will know more info as details come out on much of history. The only disagreement that i can see is (specifically in 39) Hitler made an offer (or even if you do not take the sources seriously, then the AH that an offer was made) and an AH was created. Just because the consensus today is A does not mean this will not dramatically change as new facts come to light (Example some of the new opinions of Kursk) (Example Byz history -- for most of history Gibbons was used as a great historical reference, as additional facts have come to light we have seen that his beliefs in the Eastern Roman history were woefully in inadequate) (another example with be the B of Manzikert which for much of history showed a complete wipe out of the Byz army, however the general conscious today is that it was a defeat that caused the civil war which was really what devastated the Byz empire, and only 1 wing of the Byz was seriously hurt).

However how is an easy treaty towards the Allies they accept (whether the sources are correct or not) and Hitler looking at options and determines to go after the perceived weaker foe so upsetting ? He would face the weaker foe, with more resources to plunder, and has peace in the West ? Seems like a possible option ? Correct ?
 

Garrison

Donor
So i have quoted 3 books --- as to offers made -- in 50 years we will know more info as details come out on much of history.

And yet we have a wealth of information right now, none of which back the claims made by the Nazi-apologists you quoted.

The only disagreement that i can see is (specifically in 39) Hitler made an offer (or even if you do not take the sources seriously, then the AH that an offer was made) and an AH was created. Just because the consensus today is A does not mean this will not dramatically change as new facts come to light (Example some of the new opinions of Kursk) (Example Byz history -- for most of history Gibbons was used as a great historical reference

We have plenty of facts, we know what Hitler did, we know what he wanted to do and we have ample sources explaining his reasoning and that of the German high command. You don't get to dismiss the evidence on the basis that some day something might turn up that contradicts it.
as additional facts have come to light we have seen that his beliefs in the Eastern Roman history were woefully in inadequate) (another example with be the B of Manzikert which for much of history showed a complete wipe out of the Byz army, however the general conscious today is that it was a defeat that caused the civil war which was really what devastated the Byz empire, and only 1 wing of the Byz was seriously hurt).

And another spurious diversion. Unlike the Byzantine empire we have reams of documents, physical evidence and eyewitness accounts as to the actions and intentions of the Germans and far from looking at new information you've chosen to trot old myths such as Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk.

However how is an easy treaty towards the Allies they accept (whether the sources are correct or not) and Hitler looking at options and determines to go after the perceived weaker foe so upsetting ? He would face the weaker foe, with more resources to plunder, and has peace in the West ? Seems like a possible option ? Correct ?

Hitler had his easy treaty, it was called the M-R Pact. Your option is simply not credible, it is contradicted by the available evidence and the only thing 'upsetting' is your inability to understand that Germany has to remove the threat of France before it could turn on the USSR. Even Adolf Hitler understood this and so did Josef Stalin, hence his willingness to supply a country he knew was his enemy with raw materials.
 

SsgtC

Banned
So, since we keep getting Gish Galloped, I think we can safely assume that this conversation isn't going anywhere. I really doubt anyone is going to change their minds here.
 

trajen777

Banned
And yet we have a wealth of information right now, none of which back the claims made by the Nazi-apologists you quoted.



We have plenty of facts, we know what Hitler did, we know what he wanted to do and we have ample sources explaining his reasoning and that of the German high command. You don't get to dismiss the evidence on the basis that some day something might turn up that contradicts it.


And another spurious diversion. Unlike the Byzantine empire we have reams of documents, physical evidence and eyewitness accounts as to the actions and intentions of the Germans and far from looking at new information you've chosen to trot old myths such as Hitler let the British escape at Dunkirk.



Hitler had his easy treaty, it was called the M-R Pact. Your option is simply not credible, it is contradicted by the available evidence and the only thing 'upsetting' is your inability to understand that Germany has to remove the threat of France before it could turn on the USSR. Even Adolf Hitler understood this and so did Josef Stalin, hence his willingness to supply a country he knew was his enemy with raw materials.


(my point was the closer to a historical even the less acturate is the History --- look at the docs and books coming out about Kursk now )

Anyway :

The author of the book that the article is based upon is by :


Peter Padfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Padfield


List of Published books
https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Padfield/e/B001HCZFX2

Profile :

Born in British India, Padfield attended a well-known boarding school for boys, Christ's Hospital, then trained for a naval career as a Royal Naval Reserve cadet on HMS Worcester. He then became a navigating officer with the P&O shipping company. In 1957 he was paid off from P&O's London to Australia ocean liner Strathmore,[1] after being accepted as one of the crew of Mayflower II, a replica of the original Mayflower, and sailed in her on her maiden voyage from Plymouth, Devon, to New York City.[2][3] On his escape from a junior officer's life with P&O, Padfield later commented that "Cargo boats, public schools, and prisons have a great deal in common".[4] After New York, he returned to sea in the Pacific, including a visit to Guadalcanal in the Solomon Islands, where he panned for gold, then wrote The Sea is a Magic Carpet, published as a book in 1959, an account of his adventures.[5]

Padfield settled in England and established a career in journalism. In his second book, The Titanic and the Californian, he defended the reputation of Captain Lord, the master of the Californian who since 1912 had been widely blamed for the death of hundreds of passengers on the Titanic.[6] He concluded that in the Board of Trade Inquiry chaired by Lord Mersey there had been "crazy deductions, distortions, prejudice, and occasional bone-headed obstinacy of witnesses and the court",[7] and the huge success of this enabled him to begin writing books full-time.[5] Next came several works on naval history, including The Great Naval Race (1976), a study of the rivalry between Britain and Germany in the early 20th century, which led to biographies of three leading Nazis, Karl Dönitz,[8] Heinrich Himmler,[9] and Rudolf Hess.[10] In 2003 he won the Mountbatten Maritime Prize for his Maritime Power and the Struggle for Freedom.[11][12]

Padfield's most recent historical work is Hess, Hitler and Churchill (2013), in which he explores the mystery of Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain in 1941. He develops the theory that it may have been part of a significant German peace offer and suggests that Hess was carrying documents with detailed proposals from Hitler. These would have meant an armistice between Germany and Britain, which would stand neutral in a planned German war against the Soviet Union, in return for which Germany was willing to withdraw its armed forces from Western Europe


If it makes you feel better just think of it is a : WHAT IF HITLER OFFERED PEACE AND WENT EAST ---
I do not know it what he =writes is real -- nor are many historians close to an event ---
 
Last edited:

trajen777

Banned
So, since we keep getting Gish Galloped, I think we can safely assume that this conversation isn't going anywhere. I really doubt anyone is going to change their minds here.


I was more curious on opinions on an outcome IF THIS THEN THAT --- like most AH -- like i said before im surprised at the intensity of opinions when it is really more a AH .... Hitler did say that he would go west first -- but he also said NO MORE AFTER MUNICH --- anyway i have read enough posts by you over the years and am curious --- think of it as an IF PEACE THEN EAST THEN WHAT ---

Heading into the mountains for several days winter hiking early morn -- so have good weekend
 

trajen777

Banned
BTW the writer of the article was using the following author and book for this : he has written many books (i found his Tide of Empires very good and better yet was Maritime Supremacy)

Anyway :

The author of the book that the article is based upon is by :


Peter Padfield https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Padfield


List of Published books
https://www.amazon.com/Peter-Padfield/e/B001HCZFX2

Profile :

Born in British India, Padfield attended a well-known boarding school for boys, Christ's Hospital, then trained for a naval career as a Royal Naval Reserve cadet on HMS Worcester. He then became a navigating officer with the P&O shipping company. In 1957 he was paid off from P&O's London to Australia ocean liner Strathmore,[1] after being accepted as one of the crew of Mayflower II, a replica of the original Mayflower, and sailed in her on her maiden voyage from Plymouth, Devon, to New York City.[2][3] On his escape from a junior officer's life with P&O, Padfield later commented that "Cargo boats, public schools, and prisons have a great deal in common".[4] After New York, he returned to sea in the Pacific, including a visit to Guadalcanalin the Solomon Islands, where he panned for gold, then wrote The Sea is a Magic Carpet, published as a book in 1959, an account of his adventures.[5]

Padfield settled in England and established a career in journalism. In his second book, The Titanic and the Californian, he defended the reputation of Captain Lord, the master of the Californian who since 1912 had been widely blamed for the death of hundreds of passengers on the Titanic.[6] He concluded that in the Board of Trade Inquiry chaired by Lord Mersey there had been "crazy deductions, distortions, prejudice, and occasional bone-headed obstinacy of witnesses and the court",[7] and the huge success of this enabled him to begin writing books full-time.[5] Next came several works on naval history, including The Great Naval Race (1976), a study of the rivalry between Britain and Germany in the early 20th century, which led to biographies of three leading Nazis, Karl Dönitz,[8] Heinrich Himmler,[9] and Rudolf Hess.[10] In 2003 he won the Mountbatten Maritime Prize for his Maritime Power and the Struggle for Freedom.[11][12]

Padfield's most recent historical work is Hess, Hitler and Churchill (2013), in which he explores the mystery of Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain in 1941. He develops the theory that it may have been part of a significant German peace offer and suggests that Hess was carrying documents with detailed proposals from Hitler. These would have meant an armistice between Germany and Britain, which would stand neutral in a planned German war against the Soviet Union, in return for which Germany was willing to withdraw its armed forces from Western Europe
 
Top