Proposed peace conditions in 1940?

Just read Kershaws "Fateful choices" again and there i found long passages about possible peace conditions in 1940. All of them speculative.

A lot of talkings but no specifications. Anyone here with more information?

Roosevelt send a note and earned laughter.

Possible claims are:
- France: minor losses of territory = colonies to Germany and Italy, nothing more

- Britain: empire survives, minor losses of territory (colonies)

-Germany: colonies lost after WW1, Royal Navy (feared by Churchill, but Hitler didn't even want the french fleet), maybe Alsace, Lorraine, Eupen-Malmedy.

- Italy: Gibraltar, Suez, Malta, colonies, parts of Southern France.

It seems that just Italy made any attempts for a peace in Western Europe impossible. They had done almost nothing, achieved nothing, but wanted the most.

 

Found something myself: Hitler proposed August 1940 in Stockholm via Dr. Weißauer.

1. British Empire remains untouched
2. Continental Europe is dominated by Germany
3. Colonies of France, Belgium and Holland and the Mediterranean are excluded from the treaty
4. There will be a Poland as a state
5. Czechoslovakia is part of the german Reich.

The reaction was harsh. "Germany is the enemy, not the Nazi-Government."

http://www.wahrheit-kompakt.net/files/deutsche-friedensbemuehungen-nach-kriegsbeginn-und-der-krieg-bis-zum-22-6-1941.pdf

 

Over all a little light on specifics, but as a general observation by this point Hitler lost all credibility in negotiations and no one was going to jump at any offer he made.

 

No, dominating Europe was crucial. France for sure. The Brits guaranteed help for Poland and did almost nothing, they weren't much different.
"We have enough of people like Dahlerus, Goerdeler, Weissauer and consorts..."
Hitler wasn't mentioned. He had no reason to do anything against such an agreement.

Britain could not accept that.
Industrial power of Germany and the naval bases of France would cause a war against the empire sooner or later anyway.

Italy was not mentioned. And they would demand parts of the Empire.

 

Hitler had shown his word meant nothing so why should the allies believe anything he promised

 

The British were very different from Germany. For Germany dominating Europe was crucial. For Britain, no one nation dominating Europe was considered crucial.

The British did almost nothing for Poland, because the most the British could do almost nothing to help Poland. Distance and location were very much against any British help arriving in a timely fashion. The relatively quick fall of Poland nailed the coffin shut.

Hitler was not mentioned because these talks were considered "unofficial and secret."

As Hitler ambiguously said "The ground had to be prepared first, after which official discussions could begin; Until then conversations should be unofficial and secret."

As others have mentioned, Hitler's previous actions gave proof positive that Hitler's words were worthless, and would be broken essentially on a whim.

The French naval bases in and of themselves were not the worry, the could be bombed, mined, or otherwise neutralized. Further, construction of most classes of warships would take years, which would allow the British plenty of time to destroy the warship as she was under construction.

Italy was not mentioned, because they were not a party to these talks and because the talks were unofficial & secret.

Italy could demand whatever she wanted, but would get only whatever Hitler was willing to give them.

 

The british and french government showed that their word meant nothing, so why should Hitler or Mussolini believe anything they promised?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Versailles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Civil_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance

They generally betrayed their treaty partners when possible, that is why they were large empires with a comparably small population. They knew that no one would propose them a favourable peace because of what they are and what they did in the past. Why should Hitler hold conditions negotiated with notorious cheaters?

Hitler was loyal to his Axis partners as long as they were loyal and stick to promises like the agreement about South-Tirol or declaring war on the United States.

According to Kershaw, Mussolini was a severe problem, Hitler wanted peace in the West and was willing for compromises, the negotiated peace with France wasn't harsh, but it was Mussolini who was insatiable. A second class military power who dreamt of restoring a new roman empire. He entered war late, did not support his ally in 1939, was incapable of even cope with third class military powers like Greece which was overrun by the Wehrmacht in 2 weeks.

A possible Nazi Germany with an allied France was not acceptable for Britain. The industrial power of a greater German Reich vastly outclasses the British empire, they could built up a modern Navy in 10 years and then even the British islands weren't safe anymore.

 

The British and French held to their word and declared war on Germany...Even though they were not prepared to go to war. The British and French could have just as well sat on their hands and did nothing...But, they did not. This is often forgotten.

You are kidding right...The US & USSR did alright in their alliance with Great Britain. Perhaps Herr Schicklgruber was not the "genius" that some attribute to him.

Ah yes, now I know you are kidding, and this entire post is one big joke.

Hitler was loyal to Japan, Italy, and Spain...The Anti-Comintern Pact? Nah, Schicklgruber broke that Treaty when he did the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.

China? Schicklgruber threw them under the bus in favor of his "new" ally, Japan. This was despite a favorable history of trade and military cooperation with China. Schicklgruber got mad with the Chinese because they signed the Sino-Soviet Non-Agression Pact in 1937...Even though Schicklgruber would do the same thing two years later.

According to many others Hitler was the severe problem...

Hitler wanted peace, and was willing to compromise, but only if the compromises were vastly in his favor...

The negotiated peace with France was harsh, harsher than Versailles, but not as harsh as it could have been, for Schicklgruber still needed France on his side.

Mussolini was insatiable, because Schicklgruber was insatiable. Germany was carving out a large empire for herself, while Mussolini was left with the scraps.

Calling Italy a second class military power is rather generous, and likely based on it's rather large navy.

One central power in Europe was not acceptable to Britain for what...Decades...Centuries...Why should this change now?

Germany builds a modern navy in 10 years...Doubtful, unless they do nothing else. Further, such foolishness implies the Britain sits on it's hands and does nothing. Which would be impossible considering that Britain was already under way building up the Royal Navy. So, in 10 years, the Kriegsmarine is still going to be 10 years behind the Royal Navy. The British Islands will be just as safe in 1950 as they were in 1940(aside from Germany developing nuclear weaponry).

 

Just to make it clear, Hitler was not a genius or a peaceful caracter, but his behaviour was the usual back in the history of Europe prior the A-Bomb. There were wars every now and then, states were founded and perished, treaties were signed and broken every now and then and Britain was known for always betraying their partners and almost never holding promises.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Polish_military_alliance
"To accept London's guarantees was one of the most tragic dates in the history of Poland. It was a mental aberration and madness".
Declaring "phony" war.

Yes, he was a war winner in August 1940, why should he sign treaties like a looser?

In Versailles Germany lost 13 % territory, 10 % population, a lot of valueable resources and all colonies, most of the army and fleet. France did loose nothing of that and was only occupied during the war and in the North.

Yes, Italy was hardly a second class military power but i don't think, Mussolini did knew that. That's why he demands Gibraltar and Suez, especially the first one is laughable.

In early 1939, ship building had the highest prority when the Z-Plan was introduced. And Germany was much greater in August 1940, with iron from Norway and shipyards in former Poland... Even Schicklgruber knew that it took decades to build up a Navy usually and he was a fan of big ships by the way.

 

yes, we strung him along by the nose, showing a willingness to make peace, while all the while playing for time...and he didn't even want a war either. It was Britain that declared war on him!

 

England would have been allowed to keep its empire but Germany would have a free hand in Europe. Hitler would also offer the assistance of German troops to Britain if they needed.

 

LOL, exactly

Germany allows to keep the empire, but not Italy. Kershaw wrote, they even demanded most of the colonies in Africa.

Mussolini was an idiot, why did he enter the war? No one would give him, what he was dreaming of. His army was incapable and there was not a hint of an industrial base for a longer war.

Would he have remained neutral, he could wait and see what happened.

 

OhneGewahr is right. But the peace was impossible because just existence of strong Germany dominating Europe itself would have reduced the British empire to what it really was - a small England, without overseas 'possessions'. Therefore, it was Britain who needed both World wars, not Germany.

 

Oh my! Did they just legalize Marijuana in your country?

 

Germany was challenging the status quo, It wasn't going to fly.

 

how long did Hitler honor the Munich treaty????

 

... And when the British empire honored basic human rights in their 'overseas possessions'?

@belasar: marijuana is available here too but I don't need anything to escape from the reality. I just want to see things just such as they are. I don't care too mush for propaganda either.

Victors wrote the official history but the question stil remains: what is the truth?

 

Take a page from History.

Since Elizabethan times, since the Spanish Armada, Britain, a sea power, has understood, that it needs a small, (preferably friendly, but at least neutral), power ruling Belgium and the Netherlands. Why else were these countries still surviving as such, were it not for the demands of Britain? Any great power possessing these, is a dire threat to British trade (and therefore even its sea power: British power is, was, and always will be dependant on overseas trade). Neither Spain, nor France, not Germany could be allowed to dominate the lowlands.

Britain declared war in WW1, not to preserve France, but because Germany invaded Belgium. Indeed, they even warned the German ambassador of such in 1914, on the eve of the Great War. But of course, Germany couldn't comprehend Britain going to war over such a trifle. Germany, a land power, doesn't really ever understand sea power.

So much for Britain "needing" the war. Some people have a very peculiar and subjective view of history.

 

Yes, let us now list all the German transgressions of "basic" Human Rights, from the very beginning of the German Empire, until, when shall we stop?1990? That takes us from the Imperial oppression and slaughter of Natives in Africa, to killing Jews and minorities in Nazi Germany, from German corporations selling out to the CIA to the FGR refusal to persue war criminals, all while harassing human rights lawyers, and we shouldn't forget the DDR's excellent and lengthy record on Human rights...then shall we call the kettle black? You in another thread insisted on pretending the German Empire was pure as snow... But you don't care too much for propaganda. Unless it's German.

To get back on track; the Munich treaty is not a case of "basic" Human Rights being violated. It's about adhering to what you agreed to. Hitler had proved himself just how agreeable and reliable he was.

A huge part of Hitler's earlier political "successes" are in a large part due to the fact, that seldomly in history, has anyone ever been so audacious to agree, sign and break agreements so frequently, so rapidly, that their word internationally becomes so utterly worthless. He could do so successfully in the domestic arena, where foes were soon annihilated or subsumed. But the international arena was something else. Then Hitler stands there, frustrated with Spanish and Turkish intransigence. No wonder the Japanese were cautious to get involved again, only doing so from fear of facing US retaliation alone, which by then, seemed almost inevitable.

 

The difference between Germany and France or England in the 30ies was: France and England already had what they wanted. It is easy to call others insatiable (even when they are) when you are as fat as a pig yourself.