Proposed peace conditions in 1940?

Which will also explain why Australia was independent in 1901.

Indian (and Pakistani) independence starts mainly from 1917 declaration of British House of Commons declaring Indian self-government as settled policy, and can be traced through the Government of India Act, 1935 to actual independence in 1947.

The mood in Britain and indeed the wider Commonwealth had changed, something many foreigners like to pretend to ignore.

Because now you are sounding like one of those history revisionists. In which case, I suggest you sign up for justice4germans, rather than spouting their ill-mannered goobledegook here.

http://www.tjgs.ca/

http://thetruthofnational-socialism.blogspot.se/2013/02/justice-for-germans.html

 

Let us not pretend. I just wonder how many times these territories are larger than Poland?

 

Come now, why so biased, Tamino? I expect better from you... or not.

 

Do any of you somehow imagine, the decolonization process which had started already prior to the 2nd world war, would've been better handled through Nazism?

I thought not. So much for pigs.

Of course, if your purpose is to pretend and wave your arms about and act all bum-hurt about the "raw deal" Germany got when it refused African colonies for the high price of guaranteeing Eastern European borders...and that in the '30s...

 

Now, given what we know how Nazis treated minorities in Europe, how do we imagine they would treat the peoples of MittelAfrika (a concept going back to 1890, but still alive and well in the KM during WW2), and when can we count on them seeing independence?

 

Lets turn the heat down to simmer guy's.

 

@GreenSlime:

Who is biassed here? Are you blinded by the propaganda? The both maps are telling the same story, just the map I have provided shows British colonies with years when these poor countries were "de-colonized". That process, however was not intended os spontaneous - colonializm has just changed it's form and still exists in different form.


Now, please, let's get back to the subject: peace conditions in 1940 - that is after the capitulation of one of allies: Poland.

PS:

@belasar

I'm sorry for posting this. Apparently, we both have hit a "Post" button at almost the same time (you've been again few seconds faster, cowboy), proposing the same thing: let's cool down and get back to the subject.

 

In 1940, the main concern of Britain was not how to prevent the global conflict but how to transform American isolationism to belligerence. With that aim a large scale covert propaganda campaigh was organized by the British Foreigh Office on American soil to drag Americans into European bloodbath.

 

Link is in German, and full of revisionist, neo-nazi propaganda. Quotes from Holocaust denier Udo Walendy, etc. Entirely lacking credibility.

Topic was proposed peace conditions; has now become a revisionist accusation of Britain needing, both wars, completely ignoring historical facts.

Question was not basic human rights, but how trustworthy Hitler was, given the "proposed" peace.

I propose WW2 was a deliberate US-German-Soviet-Pig conspiracy to ensnare and destroy Great Britain and France.

 

Where are you finding this garbage?

By 1940, the conflict was already global (hint: you can't prevent something that already is...), and the "propaganda effort" towards the US was not covert, and included the US president!

 

That's what you say. Read "Selling War: The British Propaganda Campaign against American "Neutrality in World War II" by Nicholas John Cull, Oxford University Press.

 

read the criticsim again:

1) the conflict was already global

2) the US president was a willing participant. It cannot really be considered covert, except if you consider the general american public to be inanely stupid.

So yes, there was a campaign to influence US public opinion. but it could hardly be called "covert". That's like calling Baghdad Bob's TV appearances "covert"

 

I indeed admite your capability to drift off-topic so easily.

 

Says the man who makes these needless claims, that are way off-topic, and gets all upset when his claims are proven false or grossly exaggerated. and consequently accuses people of drifting "off-topic", when it was indeed himself that introduced the derailment.

Your entire agenda is revisionist, in order to claim Germans were not culpable for the war, nor the consequences of said war.

Just as your map happened to "only" show dates for British colonies. Biased? Indeed!

 

how could the British trust Hitlers word when he broke the very same treaty months ago

 

The Nazis or better, Hitler himself, had no interest in Africa. He was interested in Eastern Europe.

In my mind he was completely wrong with his "Volk ohne Raum" theory. There was no benefit from occupying countries far away and Germany already was "great" after the Munich treaty. Danzig was still a problem.

My intention was to discuss Mussolini's role. He entered the war against France when it was already won not in 1939, when the Wehrmacht was busy in Poland. Why did he claim anything?

 

Mussolini's intent was well stated by himself to his own advisers 'We need a few thousand dead to have a seat at the peace table", the meaning being he wanted spoils on the cheap. On a deeper level he clearly seems jealous of Hitler's success, a man he might have seen as a upstart since for a decade before the rise of the Nazi Party he was the Iron man of Europe. It also had to be galling that it took him a decade to subdue African tribesmen with obsolete, if not archaic, weapons, while Hitler smashes Poland in a month and the combined Anglo-French in less than two.

Hitler's peace proposal's of 1940 basically boiled down to 'I keeping what I took and you may keep what you have left if you behave'. Not very appealing to anyone save Hitler. Such a stance might work if you had breached the enemies last castle's defenses, but of course Hitler could not cross the 'moat', let alone storm the keep.

It Hitler had stopped at Czechoslovakia he would have been hailed as the Greatest German political figure since Bismark.

Of course he didn't. If Hitler really wanted peace and something of free hand to the east he would need some seriously outside the box thinking.

In my opinion the road not taken would be to offer a generous, very generous peace, one Great Britain would be hard pressed to ignore. Offer to withdraw from nations occupied in 1940, save the 1914 Imperial borders and maybe Luxembourg/Ardennes. Insist on a less onerous Versailles Treaty type arms restriction upon countries withdrawn from. Enough that they can't be a threat for a decade, but not as humiliating as those imposed on Germany in 1919. From Britain, nothing but peace and free movement on the seas for German flagged ships.

This asks nothing from Britain but swallowing a little pride over Poland, which she can't do anything about anyway since much of it is in Russian hands. This would play well in the US press, keep Italy from embarrassing themselves and the governments in exile or occupation (save Poland) would be receptive.

Britain might re-declare war after any German move on Russia or the Balkans, but with western Europe cowed and not willing to fight another war so soon, her options are much more restricted and any possible American entry pushed back.

Of course that would require a rational, even clever Hitler.

 

Were France and Britain very generous after World War 1?
They took almost everything they could grab (Colonies, Weapons, Fleet, Alsace/Lorraine, Money etc.) and then they were expecting a "very generous" offer?

 

That's the point, break the cycle, show Germany as the reasonable one for a change. Take the moral high ground. Even as a sham its hard to make a counter argument.

 

Well if we are to discuss WW1

What about the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk? With the Central Powers annexing 1,300,000 square miles (3,400,000 km2) of territory and 62 million people. A third of the Russian population, a fifth of its territory, around a third of the country's arable land, three-quarters of its coal and iron.

What did the German plans look like, if they were victorious? The Septemberprogramm of 1914 (not an official plan, but a statement from leading industrialists and militarists requested by the German leadership)? 10 billion marks indemnity from France (with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all of Germany's existing national debt (144 Billion marks in 1918...)), disarmament, colonies in Africa, annexation of Belgium & Luxembourg, etc, etc...

It was the thinking of the time that all the belligerents were trapped in, excluding, perhaps, the US.

That is why, you can't really complain; because there is nothing that suggests that a victorious Imperial Germany would've been any more generous. And that is perhaps the most bitter pill of them all.