http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/10336126/Nazis-offered-to-leave-western-Europe-in-exchange-for-free-hand-to-attack-USSR.html
>Peter Padfield, an historian, has uncovered evidence he says shows that, Hess, the deputy Fuhrer, brought with him from Hitler, a detailed peace treaty, under which the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe, in exchange for British neutrality over the imminent attack on Russia.
(More details in the article.)
What do you think of this?
Also, friendly reminder that it already has been uncovered by Karlheinz Pintsch in 2010 that Hitler did indeed know about Hess flight.
From Karlheinz Pintsch Wikipedia Page:
>A 28-page notebook written by Pintsch in captivity in 1948 was discovered in a Moscow archive in 2010 by historians. It suggested that Hitler was in on the mission by Hess and interrogation transcripts found in the same archive record his recollection that when Hitler had read Hess's letter he remarked calmly: "At this particular moment in the war that could be a most hazardous escapade".
>>785101
>What do you think of this?
3rd Reich didn't keep ANY promises they've given. Why would anybody believe them about it?
>>785108
What other promises other than the Ribbentropp agreement did the 3rd reich break?
And if Germany conquered all Russia then I doubt there would be a need to attack any country at all anymore. Hitler did not plan war with anyone but Poland (and the ussr which happened 1 1/2 months AFTER Hess flight to Britain though) and Britain knew that since Hitler wrote several peace plans.
>>785204
That's not what I am saying at all.
Still waiting for the other promises that Hitler did break. Or are you talking about the treaty of Versailles? if so.. top kek
>>785108
The Germans never wanted to go to war with the west and they certainly never expected to end up in control of the entire fucking continent. Do you have any inkling of much resources were wasted by the Germans trying to keep it secure? Why do you think they set up Vichy? It took a million men to garrison Northern France alone. 200,000 a piece for each of the low countries and Denmark.
Hitler might have been full blown Autist, but even he would see the benefits of peace in the west .
>>785341
Not to mention it would force an end to the African campaign and keep Italy from being a road to Germany.
>>785341
Except the bit where the German economy ran on armament spending and foreign plunder, he might want to go to war with Europe for that.
Hitler, Eva, Fegelein, Bormann all made it to Argentina.
Allen Dulles knew about it. Allies knew Germany couldn't win and saw USSR as a greater threat.
>>785391
>The Nazis were planning to maintain a total war economy after setting up puppet governments that wouldn't need to be fought off or subdued once the war, fought for the purpose of establishing those governments, came to a close
>Germany has to have a war economy
>Muh eternal Nazi war meme
>>785409
The degree to which they were capable of long term planning is contentious bruv
Puppet governments are pretty conducive to maintaining war on a global scale bruv
>>785391
But that would be the point of the attack on the east wouldn't it? near endless war plundering from the Soviets and armaments manufacturing to keep the conquest going. Undoubtedly Germany profited from the westward push, but it was a byproduct of the surprisingly swift victory.
If the Western Front lasted even half the length the first war lasted, it would not have been worth it, and even if the Germans ended as a victors, it would mean pushing back the Soviet attack which granted the USSR time for modernization. Perhaps even an off chance of initiating an invasion pre-emptively.
>>785403
Even though I also have some doubts regarding the official story about Hitlers death this has nothing to do with the topic.
>>785422
>The degree to which they were capable of long term planning is contentious bruv
Which is why I'm questioning your assertions, bruv
>Puppet governments are pretty conducive to maintaining war on a global scale bruv
Europe isn't the globe, bruv
>>785490
You're right, the globe involves Africa and Asia, which incidentally had bits of war going on related to the war in Europe. It's like you've forgotten what war we're talking about.
It's a matter of economic stimulus via kubelwagens rather than Volkswagens. There's really only one way of maintain that sort of economy.
So why did Britain refuse ?
Did they think that the Nazis couldn't be trusted, or were they that confident in their final victory ?
>>785670
If what Peter Padfield says is true then that is the 1 million dollar question...
There simply is no reason to decline an offer like that. Only reason would be not trusting Hess. Other than that it would have been profitable for everyone. Germans out of Europe and the dangerous USSR gone.
What I personally think is the true reason though is that Churchill wanted to wipe out Hitlers Germany because Hitler proved how powerful he was during the time from 33-39 and Churchill wanted to get rid of him as he was a potential danger to the western world.
>>785101
This has been known for ages, that Hoess tried to negotiate a seperate peace with Britain.
The problem is that after breaking the Anglo-German naval treaty, annnexing the rest of Czechoslovakia after the Sudetenland, and the whole invasion of Poland thing, there wasn't too much willingness to believe Nazi promises.
>>785670
Brits dont really want a strong germany as their neighbor. Agreeing to it would make them look like clowns. Also Germany had been on a streak of breaking promises.
>>785169
>What other promises other than the Ribbentropp agreement did the 3rd reich break
They've broke Versailles treaty, they've remilitarised rhineland, they've annexed Austria(later promised it's their last demand) took Sudetenland(promised it's their last demand), partitioned what was left of Czechoslovakia(promised it is their last demand) and annexed Memel(promised it's their last demand). Then they've demanded Danzig and the corridor.
They've also violated the neutrality of Belgium(again) Luxembourg(again), The Netherlands, Denmark and Norway.
Holy shit let's make a deal with them shall we? They absolutely won't stab us in the backs.
Also it's important thing to mention that while Germany's habit is to break international treaties, Great Britain(or rather, its governments) typically honour them. And they've had a treaty with Poland. You know, a guarantee.
>>785749
>This has been known for ages, that Hoess tried to negotiate a seperate peace with Britain.
Of course it has. But the new thing that Padfield claims in his book is that Germany asked Britain to stay neutral while Germany attacks the USSR and "evacuates" all Germany to there. Todays Germany would not exist. Russia would be Germany instead. And the UK would stay the most powerful force of Europe.(Germany was their only competition.. So if Germany was gone they would be the only powerful party in Europe).
And if Germany was busy fighting in the USSR.. They would OBVIOUSLY have better things to do than to break the agreements with Britain and start attacking them as well making it a 2 front war instead of a single front war....
And once Germany conquered the USSR I don't see a single reason why they should attack Britain at all...
Czechoslovakia and Poland were parts of Germany before WW1. There were lots of "Volksdeutsche" in these countries who reportedly suffered persecution by the countries natives. But that was definitely not the case for Britain or any other country. There was absolutely no reason to attack Britain.
Remember it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany, not the other way around (!)
>>785403
FEGELEIN! FEGELEIN FEGELEIN FEGELEIN!!!!
Sorry, I just had to.
>>785812
As I said here:
>And once Germany conquered the USSR I don't see a single reason why they should attack Britain at all...
This is my response pretty much to your whole post.
Germany has stated various reasons for breaking the agreements mentioned by you. And these reasons were more or less very understandable.
But for the UK... There would be no reason. Name me a reason why it would have made sense for Germany to attack the UK once they moved to Russia.
>>785817
Czechoslovakia was part of Austria-Hungary.
>>785832
1. Revenge for WWI
2. Because it's there, and there's nothing empire builders like more than expansion
>>785832
It's the other way round.
UK had 6 reasons to wage war with Germany.
1. It guaranteed Polish independence. Germany violated it. The declaration of war against Germany was filled as a response for this action.
2. It guaranteed Dutch independence(and neutrality). Germany violated it.
3. It guaranteed Belgian independence(and neutrality). Germany violated it.
4. In the late 20's they've realised that Germany will eventually set balance of power on the continent in danger. It was vital for British national interest NOT to allow for it.
5. Germans traded on debt. Before the war, during the war(with USSR). They couldn't keep that working forever, which quite likely meant that they'll go to war to rob what they couldn't buy without paying.
6. Public opinion was heavily anti-german, especially after Rotterdam. Britain is not dictatorship.
Here you go.
>>785817
> But the new thing that Padfield claims in his book is that Germany asked Britain to stay neutral while Germany attacks the USSR and "evacuates" all Germany to there.
While I'm hardly an expert of the inns and outs of the offer, I'm pretty sure withdrawal from France and Belgium was always considered part of it since at least the 70s.
>Todays Germany would not exist. Russia would be Germany instead.
Wait, is he seriously claiming Hoess was saying that the Germans would evacuate Germany proper and have everyone move to Russia? Because that's kind of insane.
>And the UK would stay the most powerful force of Europe.(Germany was their only competition.. So if Germany was gone they would be the only powerful party in Europe).
If Germany can pull this shit off, (absurd) they'd be enormously the most powerful entity in Europe, even as Germany-In-Russia.
>
And if Germany was busy fighting in the USSR.. They would OBVIOUSLY have better things to do than to break the agreements with Britain and start attacking them as well making it a 2 front war instead of a single front war....
Yeah, like how it was against their strategic interest to break the Naval treaty, and have Britain outbuild them on the water, 2 Bismarcks laid down to 5 KGV class vessels. It was insane to go to war with Poland when France and Britain were backing her up, by all contemporary force calculations, but Hitler did it anyway.
Sorry, "not in their strategic best interests" is a bad line to take when dealing with Nazi Germany.
>And once Germany conquered the USSR I don't see a single reason why they should attack Britain at all...
First off, that's a big IF. Secondly, it would create German continental hegemony, always against Britain's interests. Thirdly, why not? Britain was and probably would continue to be opposed to German interests.
>>785817
>Czechoslovakia and Poland were parts of Germany before WW1.
No they weren't. They were parts of Austria-Hungary and the Russian empire, in the most part.
> There were lots of "Volksdeutsche" in these countries who reportedly suffered persecution by the countries natives.
Except Hitler already arranged population exchanges in 1937/
>Remember it was Britain and France who declared war on Germany, not the other way around (!)
Remember it was Germany that declared war on Poland, nto the other way around you retarded deluded stormfaggot.
>>785817
>Germany attacks the USSR and "evacuates" all Germany to there. Todays Germany would not exist. Russia would be Germany instead.
That sure sounds believable.
>>785869
>Remember it was Germany that declared war on Poland, nto the other way around you retarded deluded stormfaggot.
In response to dumping German citizens in dangerous chemicals in Polish death camps like Auschwitz
>>785508
I'm literally talking about a world where the Nazis won and established a stable political order. I see no reason to think that the Germany economy would at that point be incapable of transitioning out of a total war footing. Before you remind me about which war we're talking about, remember that this is a counterfactual scenario in which the Nazis won.
>related to
Yes, they were related--and the whole general war could have ended with German puppet governments controlling the major European countries. I really don't understand why you think this is relevant when my point is simply that the Germans could have won WWII and then diversified their economy.
>that sort of economy
It's like you're totally ignoring the core of my claim, which is that it isn't impossible to transition from one economic focus to another and that Germany could have made such a transition.
You had one chance, Britain. You fucked up and now Germans will always be in Europe.
wew
