Left Wings Over Europe, or How to Start a War About Nothing

Hitler wanted peace with Britain so that they didn't join the war and make his job more difficult...His plan always included Britain, but only once France had been taken and he was "ready"...And im sure I read years ago that he absolutely wanted Poland because Poland took a number of lucrative northern ports off Germany as part of the treaty in WW1...Germany wanted that land back...I could be wrong though

 

Fascinating itch, isn't it.

Sadly, Nizkor's excellent page on techniques of holocaust denial has been hacked.
They want a conversation.
They want to seem normal/rational.
They want to be seen as victims & imply victimhood of their favourites (It's Nazis. They love Nazis).
They want to create an environment where discussing some minor or abstruse point leads to Googling. Googling that might lead the unwary into their world of cack.

They used to come onto places and openly, aggressively deny what happened.
(We even had one on 2T years back that we found pics of dressed as a Brownshirt on his local town hall steps. I always wonder if it's the same one.)
Now they do... this

See the opening salvo of confusing nonsense.
See the continued pretence of deeply understanding any random subject, masked among more confusion & cherry-picked irrelevance, designed to irritate just enough to invite replies.
Smell the fetid spunk-bubble.


All in the hope of gradually normalising/justifying... this:
They don't start with this any more... but they're perfectly OK with it, the slime.

 

Hitler ordered the murder in gas chambers about 150,000 of German people with mental or physical defects. And that was till 1939, many more were to come. His henchmen who did it were responsible for the Holocaust later.
So Hilter united lots of Germans all right - in gas chambers.
Only a psychopath would do that.


.

I quoted _your_ key and only witness (and Hitler's groupie) Admiral H. Boehm, who with your only documented protocols and sworn evidence in hand wrote under oath:
---
Intention (of Hitler) in the spring was to defer the solution of the Polish question, ... in order to first carry out the, ..., inevitable conflict in the West.
but
the prerequisites for his original intentions had changed,
because
[an] attempt at a compromise was disrupted by England,
and now
conflict with Poland ... was also necessary.
because
We ... have the duty to give the necessary Lebensraum to the German people.
---
In other words, the final goal was the necessary Lebensraum.
And his initial plans were to defeat France first, then Poland.

For that, he was ready for war with the Allies, and to commit war crimes since day one of the war, as witnessed by Commander in Chief in Occupied Poland in 1939-1940 Johannes Blaskowitz, who in writing protested to Hitler that:
---
some 10,000 Jews and Poles were slaughtered by the SS displaying incomprehensible lack of human and ethical sensitivity, so that one could almost speak of animalization.

 

Well, to be entirely correct you couldn't be more wrong.

Hitler didn't want peace with Britain, both countries were at peace already - you can't want something you have.
He wanted Britain's recognition of his conquests in Europe, something the Brits being honorable people were unwilling to do.

There were no lucrative northern ports off Germany - the Baltic is a marginal sea of low economic value for a country with direct access to oceans.

And Poland didn't take any German ports anyway - even extremely unlucrative.

 

Yeah...ok...I must have read it wrong.

 

Most aren't this bad. This one was moved here by Otto to keep it out of the historical sections. If someone tried to start an alternate history thread like this I suspect it would be locked in short order.

The newspaper clipping adds nothing to the conversation. Nothing of any substance in the thread pointed to either the British or the Poles being "contemptuous" and indeed they met with and were involved with negotiations a fair number of times. Poland wasn't going to give away her only port or allow it to be cut off though. Why should they?

There is no reason to believe this offer was made in good faith. Hitler had already develop a reputation for not living up to his agreements.

Sorry that is not an attempt to negotiate the end of the war. At best it's a surrender demand.

This is a classic example of the bad form of "revisionism". A total distortion of the truth. Apologist drivel of the worst sort.

That wasn't an appeal to reason at best it was a surrender demand. In reality it was a propaganda artifact aimed pretty clearly at the German audience. Why bury an important offer like that as one sentence in a 2 hour long propaganda speech if it was a real peace offer?

 

I've chased down a couple of quotes ...

Anthony Eden - "We are not in any circumstances prepared to negotiate with him at any time on any subject."
Daily Globe Newspaper Archives, Jul 5, 1941

Foreign Secretary Anthony Eden predicted a new German peace offer and re- jected it in advance today, reitera- ting Britain's determination to destroy Adolf Hitler and "all he stands for." "We anticipate that Hitler, at a moment he considers opportune during his campaign in Russia, will seek to present himself in another of his occasional theatrical Eden told an outdoor meeting here. "This time, his make-up will be that of the man of peace. Internal conditions in Germany may make this false posturing necessary for him for a spell. He will offer smooth assurances and specious promises in the hope of liming some foolish birds. might, therefore, be useful that I should now declare the posi- tion of his majesty's government in respect to any peace offer by Hitler. "The head of the German state stands condemned by his own deeds as a man of perjured faith. We are not in any circumstances prepared to negotiate with him at any time on any subject. "We shall intensify our war ef fort until he and all he stands for are utterly destroyed "We are all out to beat Hitler We shall not let go until we have done the job, and we welcome al' those who will give us a hand to finish it."

Churchill:
When Churchill was leaving London to meet Roosevelt for a conference in Quebec late in the summer of 1943, a reporter asked if they were planning to offer peace terms to Germany. Churchill replied, “Heavens, no. They would accept immediately.”
The reference given is an article 'Rainbow at the Citade' in TIME magazine, Aug. 30, 1943, however the article is behind a paywall.
Another reference: Roosevelt's Road to Russia | George Crocker
"At the Quebec conference everyone laughed at the gag credited to Churchill before he left England:
Interviewer: Will you offer peace terms to Germany?
Chuchill: Heavens no, they would accept immediately."

There is also the question of the Hess flight May 10, 1941 - an anonymous article appeared in a US monthly magazine, the American Mercury, in 1943, the article is reproduced in this report by Mark Weber , The Inside Story of the Hess Flight. From Weber's preface to the article:

Although the article on the Hess flight appeared anonymously, the magazine's editors vouched for its accuracy: "The writer, a highly reputable observer, is known to us and we publish this article with full faith in its sources." The Reader's Digest published a condensed version of the piece in its July 1943 issue and likewise declared it accurate: "According to Allan A. Michie, The Reader's Digest's London correspondent, this account of the Hess flight corresponds to the version accepted by well-informed journalists in Britain."

and

The truth may not be known until the secret British government documents on the matter are one day finally removed from the closed archives and made available to the world in uncensored form.

Is that the case, i.e. are the Hess documents still secret?

 

Bravo for you!
So what's your point? By the time of the Eden quote it was pretty clear that Nazi Germany was a monster that needed to be put down. There was also considerable thought that by offering terms rather than demanding unconditional surrender at the end of WWI the ground work had been laid for WWII thus the allied position.

 

Yep, standard revisionist neo-Nazi response; ignore responses and forge on with selective snippets of more or less relevance. Also, note the standard "innocent" question trailer "are the Hess documents still secret?" Whichever reply is given will then be twisted to demonstrate how the documents are still being kept "hidden" or that they have been released, but if they don't say what they want them to say, then they have "obviously been doctored".

I'm afraid I've seen more intelligent forms of life laying dead on their backs on the bottom of scummy ponds.

 

On Hitler's vision for the future....
"The trajectory of Hitler's view of the future was as terrible as it was consistent. He began with an aspiration for world domination by the racially superior Germans and ended, in his last testament with an admonition to the German people to adhere to his racial concepts." -- by noted German Historian Gerhard L. Weinberg, "Visions of Victory: The Hopes of Eight WWII Leaders." p. 37.

My guess is that in your heart of hearts you agree with Hitler's vision for the future. Please bloviate on with your Neo-Nazi apologia cum drivel. Your buffoonery gives me a sense of guilt-free schadenfreude and for that I thank you.

 

The title of the thread is 'How to Make a War About Nothing', which leads to considering the peace offers made once the war has started. I believe I have enough info and reasonable sources on all the peace offers I've described, with the exception of the Hess case. Today I've read the wiki article on Hess which includes what happened at Nuremberg, and I've read the 1943 American Mercury article. There are a number of unanswered questions to me, but there is one unanswered to question (to me) that I would like to have the answer to, and I think that the answer should be available .... quoting the American Mercury article,

"The terms of Hitler's peace proposal have been discussed up and down England not only in well-informed political circles but in pubs, bomb shelters and Pall Mall clubs. It was too elaborate a secret to be kept. "

The article goes on to give the terms, but the article is unsourced. The question is, what were the terms of peace proposal made by Hess (whether approved by Hitler or not)? Are they known?

 

Eventually we’ll have bots to deal with pro-Hitler and Islamic dementos stuck on continuous loop. The interlopers will think real people are replying to messages, when it’s just a program.

 

That's flat Earth nonsense, or worse.

 

Problem is the "interlopers" may well be bots. Their behavior is certainly easier to program as they to a large extent ignore the rebuttals.

Problem is none of the offers you've described were truly peace offers. They were arguably the equivalent of "unconditional surrender" without the clarity. Even if you don't consider them such Hitler had already clearly shown that he wasn't trustworthy so of what value is an offer of his.

What makes you think that it went as far as a peace proposal with terms?

 

Common sense. It was not a sightseeing trip, he came with the purpose of ending the war, I would expect him to have a proposal as a starting point. Also the AM article, which was condensed in the Reader's Digest, says the terms were being discussed.

However, if there is any credible source saying that there was no proposal, let's have it.

I confess I'm guessing that there in no reliable information at all about Hess's proposal or lack of proposal that has seen the light of day.

We can read the Nuremberg transcript (yale.avalon) to see if it was discussed at Nuremberg, certainly the purpose of his trip should have been the first topic, and the contents of any proposal the second. My guess is it wasn't discussed.

 

Something not only not common but essentially absent in your post.

Certainly I would expect him to have some ideas as to what was possible but having a detailed proposal that's an open question.

That would be part of the process. It doesn't mean that he had anything concrete in hand when he landed.

In part one would first have to define exactly what they meant by a "proposal" if you mean a document with details that's one thing if you mean he had some general ideas in mind that's another.

The whole matter of Hess's trip is rather irrelevant to the topic at hand though. By that point in time Hitler had made a convincing argument that he was not to be trusted and that the Nazis were an evil that needed to be eradicated.

 

According to Goebbels Diary Hilter was visibly shaken by news of Hess' flight and called him demented.
So no Hilter didn't send any peace proposals.

According to the two letters Hess left behind "he was going to England to make her plight plain to her, to get the Duke of Hamilton to overthrow the Churchill regime and to bring about peace without any loss of face for Britain."
"The two letters oozed half-baked occultist theories."

Goebbels wrote: "The whole business is explicable only in the light of his nature-healing and herb-munching foibles."

 

You can quote all you want, but it all the quotes you provide are absolutely meaningless...

What you fail to see, is that the British had had enough of Hitler not keeping his word - Versailles, the 1934 German Polish Non-aggression Pact, pulling out of the League of Nations, the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Treaty, the 1938 Munich Agreement, etc. To the British, Hitler's "Word" had absolutely no value what so ever, as he would break it when it suited him

To close, there is one quote you will never be able to top...and that is by Hitler himself.
From his November 23, 1939 speech at Flensburg.

23 November 1939 - Adolf Hitler – speech to the OKW

 

Irving has a lengthy account of the Hess affair in "Hitler's War" (pdf available online) which was published when he was still an eminent historian I believe ... it begins

"Hitler asked Hess to establish contact secretly with his friends in Britain. On the last day of August Hess discussed this extraordinary mission with his old professor, Karl Haushofer, ....

Not relying on Hess alone in Aug 1940 Hitler had simultaneously sent the Berlin attorney Dr. Ludviw Weissauer to Stockholm with the task of briefing the British envoy orally on his peace offer, these included political independence for all European countries occupied by Germany .... "

Several pages later ....

"Oh my God, my God. He has flown to Britain"

Also from the Nuremberg transcript the day the charges against Hess were given (I haven't found his testimony yet)

The Avalon Project : Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 7


I turn to Document Number M-117, which becomes Exhibit Number GB-270, which is another official report of the interview with Mr. Kirkpatrick on the 13th of May. Again I can summarize practically all of it.
.....
He gave his reasons for his flight, his personal reasons again, that he was horrified at the prospect of a long war. England could

139

7 Feb. 46

not win, and therefore she had better make peace now. He said the Fuehrer entertained no designs against England. He had no idea of world domination, and he would greatly regret the collapse of the British Empire.

I quote from the last three lines of the large paragraph in the center of the page:

"At this point Hess tried to make my flesh creep by emphasizing that the avaricious Americans had fell designs upon the Empire. Canada would certainly be incorporated into the United States,

"Reverting to Hitler's attitude, he said that only as recently as May 3rd, after his Reichstag speech, Hitler had declared to him that he had no oppressive demands to make of England.

"The solution which Herr Hess proposed was that England should give Germany a free hand in Europe, and Germany would give England a completely free hand in the Empire, with the sole reservation that we should return Germany's ax-colonies, which she required as 4 source of raw materials. I asked, in order to draw him on the subject of Hitler's attitude to Russia, whether he included Russia in Europe or in Asia. He replied, 'In Asia'. I then retorted that under the terms of his proposal, since Germany would only have a free hand in Europe, she would not be at liberty to attack Russia. Herr Hess reacted quickly by remarking that Germany had certain demands to make of Russia which would have to be satisfied either by negotiation or as the result of a war. He added, however, that there was no foundation for the rumors now being spread that Hitler was contemplating an early attack on Russia.

"I then asked about Italian aims and he said that he did not know. I replied that it was a matter of some importance. He brushed this aside and said that he was sure that Italy's claims would not be excessive. I suggested that Italy scarcely deserved anything, but he begged to differ. Italy had rendered considerable services to Germany; and, besides, England had compensated defeated nations like Romania after the last war.

"Finally, as we were leaving the room, Herr Hess delivered a parting shot. He had forgotten, he declared, to emphasize that the proposal could only be considered on the understanding that it was negotiated by Germany with an English Government other than the present British Government. Mr. Churchill, who had planned the war since 1936, and his colleagues, who had lent themselves to his war policy, were not persons with whom the Fuehrer could negotiate."

 

Given the content and context you've provided thus far the thread title should be "How to Propagate a Meaningless Discussion About Nothing."