What if Churchill had accepted Hitler's peace offer sent by Rudolph Hess

Nov 2011
4,742
Ohio, USA
#12
Have you read the rest of the article.

the Article says the when the Sovereign Union beats Germany, Britain and France should declare war and reverse the treaty anyway. (so it advocates totally cynical policy, it does not envisage any lasting peace settlment based on this treaty)

The premise that the Soviet Union still beats Germany is very questionable as the treaty impose a sort of lend/lease from France and Britian to Germany and the Soviets would not be getting lend lease.

And the premise that Germany would qucikly makes terms and depose the Nazis when Britian and France decale war is rather naive about the extent of Nazi control of Germany.

The idea that democratic nations can just switch the war on Nazi Germany on and off is I think naive. once peace is made turning around and syaing 3 years later the Nazis must be crushed is problematic. It's easier for totalitarian states to say they have always been at war with Eurasia (regardless of what your memory says) no so democracies
That's just the thing about Germany beating the Soviet Union; if UNoccupied western Europe invades Germany when practically all German forces are already deep into Soviet territory then that would likely mean that Germany is defeated before the Germans can even come close to defeating the Soviets. Do this and the war is probably cut short by 3 years or so. Besides, even without western aid to the SU, I still don't see any feasible way Germany has of truly defeating the SU. The Germans themselves wouldn't need to depose the Nazis if Britain, France, and the Scandinavian states could just do so in one fell swoop while the German armies are deep in Soviet territory. This process, much less the beginning of it, should take a lot less than 3 years. Maybe less than 1 year.
 
Likes: Futurist
Oct 2010
9,233
#13
That's just the thing about Germany beating the Soviet Union; if UNoccupied western Europe invades Germany when practically all German forces are already deep into Soviet territory then that would likely mean that Germany is defeated before the Germans can even come close to defeating the Soviets. Do this and the war is probably cut short by 3 years or so. Besides, even without western aid to the SU, I still don't see any feasible way Germany has of truly defeating the SU. The Germans themselves wouldn't need to depose the Nazis if Britain, France, and the Scandinavian states could just do so in one fell swoop while the German armies are deep in Soviet territory. This process, much less the beginning of it, should take a lot less than 3 years. Maybe less than 1 year.
The treaty apparently has France producing tanks, aircraft and weapons for Germany.,
The treaty has Britain providing food and raw materials for Germany.

It's Germany + lend lease light (and sole enemy power being the soviets freeing up some resources) versus Soviets without Lend lease.
 
Mar 2019
1,437
Kansas
#14
The treaty apparently has France producing tanks, aircraft and weapons for Germany.,
The treaty has Britain providing food and raw materials for Germany.

It's Germany + lend lease light (and sole enemy power being the soviets freeing up some resources) versus Soviets without Lend lease.
And I would bet a lazy dollar or so, the Japanese army grows a pair and push for an attack through Manchuria rather than go south
 
May 2019
36
Northern and Western hemispheres
#16
That was my all point. What parts did you agree and what parts you didn’t?
I agree that Hitler wanted peace with Britain. I also agree that West Germany could have gotten nuclear weapons and that things would be better if the Nationalists had won the civil war in China. The part that I'm not in agreement with is this here: "Most importantly the proud flag of the United States would never have been sullied with the horrific war crimes our liberal, pro-Soviet political and military leaders actually committed during and after World War Two against innocent Japanese and particularly German civilians. "

Muh B-17 Flying Death Camps! Muh Dresden!

Does the author know that the Hague conventions permitted bombing defended cities, that the Second World War was a total war, and that the war crimes committed by Axis side were worse than the Allied side?
 
Jan 2015
3,320
Front Lines of the Pig War
#17
Have you read the rest of the article.

the Article says the when the Sovereign Union beats Germany, Britain and France should declare war and reverse the treaty anyway. (so it advocates totally cynical policy, it does not envisage any lasting peace settlment based on this treaty)

The premise that the Soviet Union still beats Germany is very questionable as the treaty impose a sort of lend/lease from France and Britian to Germany and the Soviets would not be getting lend lease.

And the premise that Germany would qucikly makes terms and depose the Nazis when Britian and France decale war irs rather naive about the extent of Nazi control of Germany.

The idea that democratic nations can just switch the war on Nazi Germany on and off is I think naive. once peace is made turning around and syaing 3 years later the Nazis must be crushed is problematic. It's easier for totalitarian states to say they have always been at war with Eurasia (regardless of what your memory says) no so democracies
Good points by Pugsville
Buchanan comes off as a Nazi apologist, with a very anti-British slant.

He seems to want to blame the holocaust on Britain rejecting Hitler's very reasonable proposals.
His rather flippant dismissal that probably less jews would have been exterminated is disturbing.
As if only 1 or 2 million would have been OK....
 
Oct 2010
9,233
#18
Good points by Pugsville
Buchanan comes off as a Nazi apologist, with a very anti-British slant.

He seems to want to blame the holocaust on Britain rejecting Hitler's very reasonable proposals.
His rather flippant dismissal that probably less jews would have been exterminated is disturbing.
As if only 1 or 2 million would have been OK....
It;s all tied in with a lot of right wing fairly wacky conspiracy theory stuff. It's about today's politics being projected backwards.

Pearl Harbour was engineering bg FDR etc,

That somehow a treaty with England is going such a impact that the war against the Soviet's will somehow be by rules or conventions or they will still kill Russians, by Jewish Russians will some how be spared,
 
May 2016
5,541
Portugal
#19
I agree that Hitler wanted peace with Britain. I also agree that West Germany could have gotten nuclear weapons and that things would be better if the Nationalists had won the civil war in China. The part that I'm not in agreement with is this here: "Most importantly the proud flag of the United States would never have been sullied with the horrific war crimes our liberal, pro-Soviet political and military leaders actually committed during and after World War Two against innocent Japanese and particularly German civilians. "

Muh B-17 Flying Death Camps! Muh Dresden!

Does the author know that the Hague conventions permitted bombing defended cities, that the Second World War was a total war, and that the war crimes committed by Axis side were worse than the Allied side?
Ok. Thanks. I think it is a fair aproach when someone lauched a theme, that he gives his perspective about it.
 
Jul 2019
29
Pale Blue Dot - Moonshine Quadrant
#20
As I have posted above, I am not a defender of what the author speculated, but I expect the author is aware that WWII was total war and that the atrocities committed on the German and Japanese sides were indescribably brutal – on which side the Russian atrocities should be tallied – if it makes a difference - is an interesting question.

What drives these kinds of speculations is often the reality of total war and I think they are at least two-fold in nature.

That Western Civilization had been moving away from the notion of total war for a considerable time but that process reversed at some point – a reversal that was undeniable when observed through the lens of WWII. In the minds of those who indulge in these speculations this reversal is often associated with the decline of Western Civilization itself – a subject on which authors as radically diverse as Friedrich Nietzsche, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, William Graham Sumner, José Ortega y Gasset, George Orwell, Friedrich Hayek, Richard M. Weaver, Robert Nisbet, Ayn Rand as well as historians Oswald Spengler, Etienne Gilson, F.J.P. Veale, Hannah Arendt, Arthur Ekirch, Carroll Quigley, and Samuel P. Huntington have commented extensively and often with great insight.

Whatever one thinks about the causes and development of WWII, its brutality and ultimate futility are hard to deny. It is the last war the U.S. has decisively won militarily but the original goals have been largely lost.

Eastern Europe had traded its Fascist chains of 1942 for Communist shackles by 1947 – shackles largely financed with American war aid to the Soviet Union who, despite its attractions for intellectuals, was suddenly a new global enemy possessing a sweeping, populist, revolutionary Communist ideology seemingly far more powerfully coherent than the just defeated emotional surge of Nazi irrationality in that it claimed a scientific basis that to many was in accord with the latest ideas of social science – measurement, control, and prediction.

Ideology aside, the only practical difference between Hitler and Stalin in retrospect was that the United States had fought against one and had financed the other that became a new enemy almost overnight. Japan, reduced to rubble during the war, could not be a bulwark against the rising Communist state in China – the same China Franklin Roosevelt had sought to protect from an expansionist Japan with a foreign policy that had helped lead to Pearl Harbor in the first place.

F.J.P. Veale's Advance to Barbarism: The Development of Total Warfare From Serajevo to Hiroshima addresses this total war point – although he is hardly alone – and he detected its beginnings in Revolutionary France.
Veal:

…In the following chapters will be traced the steps by which it [war] degenerated into the brutalities of the Second World War in which the imagined atrocities alleged by hate-propaganda during the First World War were enacted in grim fact. Three main steps in this process may be noted, each following naturally from the one preceding it. This political chain reaction was set in motion by the French Revolution. Deprived of the services of the professional army officered by aristocrats of the Monarchy, the revolutionary government had recourse to a levée en masse of the population…

The European wars waged between 1792 and 1815 were the first of the Peoples’ Wars, so called because they were fought between peoples in arms and not as hitherto by professional armies maintained in peacetime by the rulers to enforce their wishes. At first appeals to simple patriotism proved sufficient to inspire conscripted civilians with military ardor. Later the discovery was made that conscripted civilians fought better if they had been induced to hate the enemy against whom they were fighting. So gradually was evolved and perfected the modern science of emotional engineering, the purpose of which is to convince the average citizen that the citizens of the state against which it has been decided to wage war were monsters of depravity, barbarous, perfidious and cruel, with whom any thought of peace was impossible, to overcome whom no personal sacrifice would be too great…

…Hate propaganda always lays the greatest stress on the contention that the enemy is solely responsible for the outbreak of hostilities in order to generate in the mind of every individual soldier a personal grievance against the enemy for having wantonly forced him to leave home and endure the hardships and dangers of a campaign…

…Kings’ Wars were fought by small armies of professional soldiers obeying orders: Peoples’ Wars were fought by huge armies of conscripted civilians who, in order to fight with enthusiasm, had to be led to imagine that they knew for what they were fighting. The production, quickly and effectively, of a war psychosis thus became an imperative necessity. To meet this need the modern science of emotional engineering, as Aldous Huxley has labelled it, was gradually evolved…


Richard M Weaver in his Visions of Order, The Cultural Crisis of Our Time after observing that the conqueror Napoleon was allow to live out his natural life also noted:

During the Crimean War (1854-56) Russia continued to pay interest on its debt to its enemy Britain. War was one thing; the honoring of financial obligations another.

went on to identify a further movement toward total war in American Civil War period:

The American Civil War, coming a decade later, marked a decisive turn in the direction of total war. The Federal commander George B. McClellan and the Confederate General Robert E. Lee belonged to the old school. Both conducted the type of war which is designed to overthrow the opposing army and decide the issue on the field of battle. It was not part of their policy to turn the war against civilians and non-military objectives.

[Lincoln and the Radical leaders of the Northern Congress] removed [McClellan] from command after the battle of [Sharpsburg]. The character of the war thereafter was changed drastically, and in the last two years the Federal Generals [Sherman and Sheridan] carried on a systematic warfare of destruction in Virginia and the Carolinas with the object of involving the entire population. The statement of the former that he would “bring every Southern woman to the washtub” and the latter that he had devastated the Shenandoah Valley . . . sounded the end to the age of chivalry. For his part in this General Sherman has been termed by an admiring biographer a “fighting prophet,” who saw beyond the old concept of war to a new order, in which no one and nothing would be spared...

…After the war Sheridan was a visiting observer to the Franco-Prussian War of 1871. At a banquet given by the German Chancellor Bismarck in 1870 he stated that he favored treating civilians with the “utmost vigor” since he believed that “the people must be left nothing but their eyes to weep with over the war.” The individual reporting the remark noted that he was struck by its brutality but that it might warrant consideration.


In the minds of people like Weaver- who was admittedly an apologist Southern culture although he was much more than that - the stage was thus set for the savageries of the 20th century even when there was not a formal war ongoing; the explosion in civilian deaths in World War I, the British starvation blockage and its use of mustard gas during the Battle of Gaza in 1917 and “police bombing” elsewhere in the British Empire - Transjordan, India, Sudan, Yemen, Iraq, in Egyptian nomads in the Somali hinterland - the French bombing of Damascus in October 1925, Stalin’s starvation of his own people in the Soviet class warfare, the conscious policy of civilian slaughter in World War II, the genocide by the Nazis based solely on social or racial identify (in some sense the beginning of today’s identify politics but applied to war not voting), the Japanese abuse of the Chinese - especially women, biological assaults by at least Japan and England , the bombing of Hamburg and London civilians, the consciously planned fire-storms in Dresden and Tokyo, the employment of nuclear weaponry, the use of poisonous defoliants in Vietnam, and the brutal, if still poorly documented, behaviors in the Middle East today.

The speculations of people like David Pyne may or not be of any value, but the reality of total war is both a somewhat recent redevelopment that optimists once thought was behind us and is certainly an appalling thing. Anyone reacting to it is likely to say unpopular things. Weaver’s ideas were controversial, but nonetheless they echo loudly today. He opened his post WWII Ideas Have Consequences (whose sales surprised everybody, especially Weaver himself) this way:

“THIS is another book about the dissolution of the West. I attempt two things not commonly found in the growing literature of this subject. First, I present an account of that decline based not on analogy but on deduction. It is here the assumption that the world is intelligible and that man is free and that those consequences we arc now expiating are the product not of biological or other necessity but of unintelligent choice. Second, I go so far as to propound, if not a whole solution, at least the beginning of one, in the belief that man should not follow a scientific analysis with a plea of moral impotence.”
 

Similar History Discussions