Peace Terms

Britain was willing to talk peace with Germany early in the war if they returned to the gold standard and the international monetary system. Germany also claimed they were willing to settle for peace with Britain, and didn't want to fight them to begin with, etc. Would Germany have been faithful and trustworthy if an agreement was made, and would they have always existed as an oppressive police state in their own country and territories they occupied after they achieved what they wanted?

 

Germany was never to be trusted. Hitler played and bluffed his hand effectively in the early years but his economic reform was a band aid. His only bet was to continue to use force to expand Germany's lebensraum and aquire what was needed. He sat in the middle of a continent that was turned upside down by the depression, civil unrest and war. His arrogance and prejudice ultimately cost Germany in the end. He would never have been placated.

I believe the police state would have, despite any peace terms with Britain, stayed in place. His whole "empire" was built on oppression. Even when Hitler decided to use political means to achieve his ascent, it was made with blood.

 

There would be never peace talks with Germany ,as Chamberlain said on september three 1939:the war could only be ended with the destruction of the Third Reich . This time there would be no peace terms as in 1918,it would be Unconditional Surrender .

 

Were banking and the gold standard really the big issues?? The war started over Poland or more generally Hitler's desire for expansion in the east. His main condition for peace was a free hand to continue that expansion; he was willing to make peace with the allies on that basis and would likely have observed the terms of an agreement that supported his objectives.

Peace treaties generally do not alter the government or internal affairs of the parties, unless concluding a war in which one side was decisively defeated.

 

It's also worth noting that while Hitler didn't really want to fight the west (France and Great Britain) in the aftermath of Poland that doesn't mean that it wasn't one of his long term objectives. Indeed wasn't a rematch with France fairly high on his list of objectives?

 

"This is the last territorial demand I have to make in Europe, but it is a demand on which I will not yield."
-Adolph Hitler, public speech re:Sudetenland, 1938.

German Credibility post Czech - Slovak "coup", March 15th 1939: Zero.

 

Winston Churchill is quoted and wrote in his memoirs it wasn't about the Hitler or National Socialism, but about Germany's economic policy.


"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system, and to create her own exchange mechanism whichg would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."

That is Churchill to Lord Robert Boothby-post war


Another Churchill quote from 1940:

"The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who don't understand that do not understand anything"- to Lord Halifax

"The war wasn't only about abolishing fascism, but to conquer sales markets. We could have, if we intended to, prevented this was from happening without a shot being fired, but we didn't want to."- to Truman 1946 fro W.C.


That's three examples.

 

There's more quotes where he says its not about Hitler or Nazism, but the German nation in general upsetting the balance of power and meddling with economic interests.

 

Britain was willing to talk peace if Germany went back to the gold standard and the international trading system of interest money. Hitler wanted the free hand in Eastern Europe.

 

Churchill was very good at saying the right thing. Using the economy, although I believe it was somewhat true, was Churchills way of gaining favor within his own government. It was no secret what was going on in Germany.

 

I hate these what ifs\alternate history sideshows. But if you are to ask the question then at least give a date rather than just a general glib early in the war. How early? Are we talking post Poland, post France, how far has the N Africa situation developed. What do you suppose happens to all the land occupied by Germany. But the biggest whole in the argument is any suggestion Germany could be trusted.

 

Searching for "The enemy is the German Reich and not Nazism, and those who don't understand that do not understand anything"; google returns....Stormfront....

If it truly were a W.C. quote, it would appear as such in other contexts. When you claim it is "in his memoirs"; he wrote 72 books; title, volume, edition and page reference please, or else you're running a very large risk of just spreading stormfront's lies and falsehoods.

'nuff said.

 

Searching for...
"Germany's unforgivable crime before the second world war was her attempt to extricate her economic power from the world's trading system, and to create her own exchange mechanism whichg would deny world finance its opportunity to profit."

All the users point back to the one source, the modern (2001) reprint of a book by Sydney Rogerson book from 1938, in an updated foreword. This updated foreword is apparently written by a David M Pidcock from "The Institute For Rational Economics", and endorses the conspiracy theories for Pearl Harbor and appears to do the same for the 2001 attacks on New York amongst other things.

Searching for David M Pidcock, we find http://www.mustaqim.co.uk/ipb-archive/people/david.htm The British Islamic Party...

The quote is not found in any other work on Churchill, not even those who wrote unflattering biographies of him given the source of the claimed quote on the internet.

Kindly desist from spreading this garbage.

 

So his letters to Truman and Lord Boothby are falsified?

 

Do you have evidence of any letters? Because you first stated he wrote it in his memoirs.... It should be easy to provide a facsimile of them. Few statesmen were so well studied ever.

To put it plainly; everyone knows how difficult it is to prove a negative. It is very easy to prove a positive; If these quotes by one of the most eloquent, oft-quoted statesmen of the 20th century are real, they should be easily proved by pointing out the exact source. The fact that these are never properly sourced, are strong evidence indeed that they are false. Claiming it was "a letter to Lord Boothby", without actually being able to show at least a facsimile of the letter, makes a lie of the claim.

Provide the evidence, or desist from spreading neo-nazi garbage about one of the greatest Statesmen of the XXth Century.

 

Honestly, this is utterly despicable.

All of the so-called "quotes" are deliberate falsehoods made by greedy, despicable individuals with their own agendas, and are rather easily shown to be such. They are not quotes presented by serious academics with real qualifications. Consider that for a second.

FFS, when authors and netizens make these rather incredible claims, where is the willingness to actually critically examine the statements, and seek original sources? Why swallow the fantastical bull hot off the plate?

This kind of deliberate history falsification is the worst kind nonsense these pseudo-academics can partake in.