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

Jul 2019
102
Pale Blue Dot - Moonshine Quadrant
My second point is that whenever war participants withhold from the public as much documentation as we have today the loss of respect for intellectual authority inevitably follows and “wing nuts” come out of the wood work.

The Communists did everyone a great favor when they dumped Czarist Russian archives into public view after WWI as it flushed out a similar, if often edited, response by other war powers. Nothing like that has occurred since WWII and the study history suffers because of that.

Take the Truman era for example. After embarking on a traditional American policy of post-war build down (never a complete relinquishing of political power as Robert Higgs as noted), the American policy of treating its nuclear monopoly as a much longer period that it proved to actually be (against the advice of most scientists), the Soviets detonated a nuclear bomb in 1949. One outgrowth of that was National Security Council Paper No. 68, which contended that Communism was a monolithic, aggressive threat directed from Moscow, and recommended rather drastic U.S. peacetime mobilization to face the threat. This set the U. S. on the path to its currently painful role as world policeman.

It was a radical reorientation of formal American foreign policy dating back to the time of George Washington that has led to a permanent war economy, social militarization, and has contributed to what is probably an unpayable debt load. Yet NCS-68 was classified when created in 1950 and stayed that way for 25 years – so a reaction that asks what happened to our open society is understandable.

When truths are purposely hidden, an outbreak of arbitrary claims and conspiracy theories is inevitable.

The assassination JFK is also a classic example. For whatever reasons, the conclusions of the Warren Commission did not pass muster in the minds of many Americans (and there are still classified documents) with the longer term result is being that the whole subject is overrun with conspiracy theories – some plausible and others apparently quite irrational - to the point where our ability to make sense of it all is probably permanently compromised.

We are not living in our grandfather’s Republic and it is not at all un-natural for there to be a wide, sometimes irrational, reaction against the charade that Garrett Garet noted back in 1938 in The Revolution Was:

“There are those who have never ceased to say very earnestly, "Something is going to happen to the American form of government if we don't watch out." These were the innocent disarmers. Their trust was in words. They had forgotten their Aristotle. More than 2,000 years ago he wrote of what can happen within the form, when "one thing takes the place of another, so that the ancient laws will remain, while the power will be in the hands of those who have brought about revolution in the state."

I think we are living in an era Garet described.
 

redcoat

Ad Honorem
Nov 2010
7,809
Stockport Cheshire UK
It's a neo-nazi propaganda article that was annoying to read due to its falsehoods.
First off Hess's peace offer has been in the public domain since the early 2000's and it's as vague as they said it was, Germany would leave the British Empire alone if they gave Germany a free hand in Europe, nothing about any German withdrawals from any of the occupied nations.
Secondly the attack on Poland was not about some minor border adjustment, in May 39 Hitler had already told his generals because of the unwillingness of the Polish government to negotiate about Danzig and her refusal to consider an anti-Soviet alliance he had decided he had to destroy the Polish state and replace it with a more compliant territory. In his peace offer to Chamberlain in October 1939 while he did he offered to withdraw from a part of Poland, he stated that he would do so only if Germany was allowed to ensure the new state was not against the interests of Germany. In other words reduce it to a rump client state not a sovereign one.
The rest of the article is merely the taking the public statements of Hitler at face value, something anyone with any knowledge of the workings of Hitler knows to be complete nonsense.
 
May 2019
125
Northern and Western hemispheres
It's a neo-nazi propaganda article that was annoying to read due to its falsehoods.
First off Hess's peace offer has been in the public domain since the early 2000's and it's as vague as they said it was, Germany would leave the British Empire alone if they gave Germany a free hand in Europe, nothing about any German withdrawals from any of the occupied nations.
Secondly the attack on Poland was not about some minor border adjustment, in May 39 Hitler had already told his generals because of the unwillingness of the Polish government to negotiate about Danzig and her refusal to consider an anti-Soviet alliance he had decided he had to destroy the Polish state and replace it with a more compliant territory. In his peace offer to Chamberlain in October 1939 while he did he offered to withdraw from a part of Poland, he stated that he would do so only if Germany was allowed to ensure the new state was not against the interests of Germany. In other words reduce it to a rump client state not a sovereign one.
The rest of the article is merely the taking the public statements of Hitler at face value, something anyone with any knowledge of the workings of Hitler knows to be complete nonsense.
I'm glad to hear your take on it. I thought it was a fairly decent article until I read the part about the flying holocaust and the false equivalence between Axis and Allied war crimes. At that moment the Nazi Sympathizer alarm bells began to go off.
 
May 2019
125
Northern and Western hemispheres
I haven't read Pat Buchanan's book Churchill, Hitler and the unnecessary war although I've heard that it's rather biased. Has anyone heard of Nick Kollerstrom and/or read his book How Britain Initiated both World Wars?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,784
SoCal
Ok, true; the very real and likely possibility that Hitler would break his word and treaty. Gosh, now I feel even stupider than Chamberlain lol. I guess I was just thinking that the terms themselves were reasonable, but only if Hitler kept his word on the terms, but that is the most colossal 'if' of all time.

To be honest though, I probably would have accepted the terms even knowing that Hitler ultimately wouldn't have stuck by them. What I see Hitler wanting by offering these terms is to gain as much time and concentration of forces as possible for his invasion of the Soviet Union as possible. The way I see it, he would have needed to withdraw his forces from their occupation of western Europe to effect this in the first place. Immediately after the German evacuation of conquered western territories, repatriation of POWs, and extracting of many Jews from Europe, I would have re-armed in western Europe and literally have struck Germany in the back while it's forces were embroiled in the Soviet Union. My fingers would have been crossed possibly even more than Hitler's were when accepting the terms. I can see why Churchill, without the benefit of hindsight, rejected the terms. As I would have probably seen it though, I had little to lose and much to gain by temporarily accepting the terms, all the while with my fingers crossed.
TBH, I'm concerned that by the time that Britain would have rearmed, it might have been too late. After all, would the Soviet Union have actually been able to survive a Nazi invasion without British and US aid?
 

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
21,784
SoCal
I haven't read Pat Buchanan's book Churchill, Hitler and the unnecessary war although I've heard that it's rather biased. Has anyone heard of Nick Kollerstrom and/or read his book How Britain Initiated both World Wars?
The problem with Buchanan's book is that he doesn't explain why the US should have tolerated the mass expulsions of Eastern Slavs from their traditional homelands in the European part of the USSR. After all, if the USSR was going to get pushed east of the Urals as a result of a successful Operation Barbarossa, that is likely what would have happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kubis Gabcik
May 2019
125
Northern and Western hemispheres
The problem with Buchanan's book is that he doesn't explain why the US should have tolerated the mass expulsions of Eastern Slavs from their traditional homelands in the European part of the USSR. After all, if the USSR was going to get pushed east of the Urals as a result of a successful Operation Barbarossa, that is likely what would have happened.
Thanks for giving me your review of Pat Buchanan. The article that I came across online says that if Britain and Germany had made peace and Germany still invades the USSR the Jewish holocaust would have been avoided and the Jews would have been shipped to Madagascar or something along those lines. Do agree with this?