Essays

Did Hitler Try to Make Peace with Churchill Several Times?

by Chris Cookes

ADOLF HITLER made repeated and extremely generous peace overtures to Britain. The details of his final peace offer to Churchill are still protected under the British Official Secrets act, which was due to become public in 2017, but which has been extended for another unprecedented twenty years.

The Foreign Office has never revealed why these British files remain sealed. Usually, under the UK Official Secrets Act, documents considered to be sensitive ‘secret’ files can be kept from the public for either 30 years, 50 years or for the lifetime of persons mentioned in them. None of which apply in this case.

So another pertinent question would be: ‘Why haven’t any of these peace proposals from Hitler ever been made public, and why are they still not available to historians?’

Hitler told American Undersecretary of State Sumner Welles, on March 2nd, 1940:

1.) that he had long been in favour of disarmament, but had received no encouragement from England and France;

2.) he was in favour of international free trade;

3.) Germany had no aim other than the return of the “German people to the territorial position that historically was rightly theirs”;

4.) he had no desire to control non-German people and he had no intention to interfere with their independence; and

5.) he wanted the return of the colonies that were stolen from Germany at Versailles.

Back Door to War, p.577 by Charles Callan Tansill

In 1943 the American Mercury wrote:

The terms of Hitler’s peace proposal have been discussed up and down England not only in well-informed political circles but in pubs, bomb shelters and Pall Mall clubs. It was too elaborate a secret to be kept. Cabinet members presumably told their friends in Parliament and the MP’s told their club colleagues and the news percolated down. The filter of time, plus such cross-checking as is possible on a subject that is officially taboo, enables the writer to give the general outline, withholding details.

Hitler offered total cessation of the war in the West.

Germany would evacuate all of France except Alsace and Lorraine, which would remain German.

It would evacuate Holland and Belgium, retaining Luxembourg.

It would evacuate Norway and Denmark.

In short, Hitler offered to withdraw from Western Europe, except for the two French provinces and Luxembourg [Luxembourg was never a French province, but an independent state of ethnically German origin], in return for which Great Britain would agree to assume an attitude of benevolent neutrality towards Germany as it unfolded its plans in Eastern Europe.

In addition, the Führer was ready to withdraw from Yugoslavia and Greece.

German troops would be evacuated from the Mediterranean generally and Hitler would use his good offices to arrange a settlement of the Mediterranean conflict between Britain and Italy.

No belligerent or neutral country would be entitled to demand reparations from any other country, he specified.

The proposal contained many other points, including plans for plebiscites and population exchanges where these might be necessitated by shifts in population that has resulted from the military action in Western Europe and the Balkans.

But the versions circulating in authoritative circles all agree on the basic points outlined above.

In a prepared preamble, Hess explained the importance of Hitler’s Eastern mission “to save humanity,” and indicated how perfectly the whole arrangement would work out for Britain and France, not only from the ideological and security angles but also commercially. Germany, he pointed out, would take the full production of the Allied war industries until they could be converted to a peacetime basis, thus preventing economic depression.

On 5th July 1940, Secretary of State for War Anthony Eden — in line with what was discussed in the below quoted Churchill/Smuts memo — deceived the British and American populations, by ridiculing and pre-empting any future peace offers from Hitler, and admitted they were rejecting them in advance regardless of the terms and without even knowing them. He did so by claiming to journalists that Hitler would “theatrically” temporarily pose as a man of peace due to “internal conditions” in Germany, and declared that Britain’s government wanted to “utterly destroy” Hitler:

This time his makeup will be that of a man of peace. Internal conditions in Germany may make this false posturing necessary for him for a spell. He will offer smooth assurances and specious promises in the hope of liming some foolish birds. It might therefore be useful that I should now declare the position of the British Government in respect to any peace offer by Hitler…

We are not in any circumstances prepared to negotiate with him at any time on any subject.

Google News Archive Search

Von Papen wrote in his Memoirs that Hitler in the summer of 1940 was “in a state of angry indignation” over the

rejecting, in advance, of offers he had not yet made.

— Von Papen Memoirs. p.461 Translated by Brian Connell. London: Andre Deutsch,1952.

Which reiterates the disingenuous and dishonest approach of Eden and the British Government’s overall approach to ending hostilities, preventing cultural destruction and suffering, plus saving millions of lives. It was they who didn’t want peace on any terms. Presumably they knew that a powerful international group could help and was working to bring America into the war on their side again, as was successfully done in 1916 to prevent that attempt at an armistice and an early end to that war. Despite this obstinacy and rebuff, and despite being the victor at that stage, Hitler generously went on to propose peace terms that to this day are still not in the public domain.

24th July 1940, British Ambassador in Washington, Lord Lothian, sent a telegram to the British Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax, which read:

German Charge d’Affairs sent me a message that if desired he could obtain from Berlin Germany’s present peace terms.

Harold Nicolson wrote in his diary:

Philip Lothian telephoned wildly from Washington in the evening begging Halifax not to say anything in his broadcast tonight that might close the door to peace. Lothian claims that he knows the German peace terms and that they are most satisfactory.

“British Government War Aims and Attitudes Towards a Negotiated Peace, September 1939 to July 1940,” Pg. 311 By G. N. Esnouf, PhD. July 1988

The British Colonialist leader/racist dictator, South Africa’s General Smuts, admitted in secret communication with Churchill in July 1940 that the United Kingdom’s continuation of the war against Germany and the rejection of Hitler’s peace offers were primarily due to financial concerns:

War Cabinet. Peace Proposals by Germany.

At the Prime Minister’s [Churchill’s] request I circulate, for the information of the War Cabinet, copies of a telegram to the four Dominion Governments, and of General Smuts’ reply.

Cypher telegram to the Governments of Canada, Commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand and the Union of South Africa. [Churchill’s circular] Sent 12 noon 12th July, 1940. Circular D. No. 340. MOST SECRET.

Cypher telegram from the Minister of External Affairs, Pretoria, to the High Commissioner, London. [General Smuts’ reply] Received- 6 p.m 17th July. 1940. No.547* Secret.

Circular D340 [message from Churchill] of June 25th raises a very important point which has troubled me for some time. It is most probable that Hitler will start a peace offensive at an early date. This may be either for a conference or some other form of peace propaganda.

…He will pose as the regenerator of an effete European system and will propose a United States of Europe composed of so called free states between whom tariff walls and economic barriers will have been abolished and only some such Schacht currency plan will exist.

…Some such scheme could be clothed in such plausible appearances as to make a formidable appeal to world public opinion already sickened of the horrible destruction of the war, and the spectre of the coming European famine. If, in addition, Hitler is big enough to renounce annexations and indemnities, its appeal may become irresistible and make Europe accept a peace which will be a moral and political disaster of the first water.

…Let brain trusts be set going to work out an alternate democratic plan for countering a peace movement which is certain to come sooner or later and, should find us prepared with the answer.

http://ukwarcabinet.s3.amazonaws…

In May 1940 Hitler contacted the British ambassador in Sweden, Victor Mallet, through Sweden’s Supreme Court Judge Ekeberg, who was known to Hitler’s legal advisor, Ludwig Weissauer.
According to Mallet:

Hitler, according to his emissary [Weissauer], sincerely wishes friendship with England. He wishes peace to be restored, but the ground must be prepared for it: only after careful preparation may official negotiations begin. Until then the condition must be considered that discussions be unofficial and secret.

Hitler’s basic ideas [are that] today´s economic problems are different from those of the past […] In order to achieve economic progress one must calculate on the basis of big territories and consider them an economic unit. Napoleon tried, but in his days it wasnt possible because France wasnt in the center of Europe and communications were too hard. Now Germany is in the center of Europe and has the necessary means to provide communication and transportation services.

England and America now have the best fleets and will naturally continue to, because they will need the oceans for their supply. Germany has the continent. In what concerns Russia (USSR), Weissauer has given the impression that it should be seen as a potential enemy.

Hitler’s peace proposal is as follows:

1- The British Empire retains all its Colonies

2- Germany´s position on the continent will not be questioned

3- All questions concerning the Mediterranean and its French, Belgian and Dutch colonies are open to discussion

4- Poland. A Polish state must exist

5- The former Czechosolavkian states remain independent but under German protection

Ekeberg understands that this implies that the states occupied by Germany would de-occupied. Germany´s occupation was only due to the present war situation.

Churchill is not interested in making peace.

From Himmler’s Secret War By Martin Allen:

…Peter Padfield, an historian, has uncovered evidence.

…The informant said the first two pages of the treaty detailed Hitler’s precise aims in Russia, followed by sections detailing how Britain could keep its independence, Empire and armed services, and how the Nazis would withdraw from western Europe. The treaty proposed a state of “wohlwollende Neutralitat” — rendered as “well wishing neutrality”, between Britain and Germany, for the latter’s offensive against the USSR. The informant even said the date of the Hitler’s coming attack on the east was disclosed.

Mr Padfield, who makes the claims in a new book, Hess, Hitler and Churchill, said: “This was not a renegade plot. Hitler had sent Hess and he brought over a fully developed peace treaty for Germany to evacuate all the occupied countries in the West.”

Mr Padfield… believes the treaty was suppressed at the time, because it would have scuppered Churchill’s efforts to get the USA into the war, destroyed his coalition of exiled European governments, and weakened his position domestically, as it would have been seized on by what the author believes was a sizeable “negotiated peace” faction in Britain at that time.

There is no mention of the treaty in any of the official archives which have since been made public, but Mr Padfield believes this is because there has been an ongoing cover-up to protect the reputations of powerful figures. The author says that his informant broke off contact with him after approaching his former masters in the security services.

Nazis ‘offered to leave western Europe in exchange for free hand to attack USSR’

https://s19.postimg.org/8oxcjce8…

There has not been much discussion or mention in popular histories, nor in films, documentaries nor in our mass-media of the few available historically verifiable facts about Hitler’s actual viewpoint and peaceful intentions for Europe. But with the advent of the Internet and the free exchange of information that is changing.

It helps if we sincerely try to consider WW2 history from a more Axis perspective. E.g.

Britain and America had greater responsibilty for causing World War 1.

Despite Britain and France nearly losing, they then forced Germany to agree on Armistice (despite it not ‘losing’ the war) via applying economic pressure from America and a clique of powerful International financiers.

They then unjustly blamed and punished Germany alone for the war.

Then stole its colonies.

Then promised to disarm if Germany did. Democidally blockaded the country causing many hundreds of thousands of deaths by starvation and hardship till it complied, then broke its agreement and rearmed.

Despite all this — and the American-caused ‘Great Depression’ — Germany came out of an almost civil war situation through the unifying force of National Socialism to become an extremely strong, co-ordinated, united, modern, productive nation who sought to regain its former territories and reunite all its German speaking expatriates: in Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland.

Lebensraum wasn’t a NSDAP invention. All those European borders had been in a state of flux for centuries.

So if you accept the above picture of recent history, the declaration of War was not a German crime. Danzig was not Polish, it was German. War had been forced upon Germany who didn’t want it, twice. But Germany wanted its territories back and to be treated equally with the victors of WW1. Germany also feared the spread of communism, as did all those in power in Europe.

So, if we try to look at what Hitler then did from that understanding, a very different understanding becomes possible.

Despite his offers over Poland/Danzig and the ‘corridor’ to East Prussia, the ‘Allies’ refused and declared war and lost.

Poland fell and was occupied.

France fell and was occupied.

Britain lost at Dunkirk and its army allowed to escape.

What did he do next? Hitler sought peace.

He offered to vacate France, return most of all non-German occupied territory, let Britain keep its colonies, allow a plebiscite in Poland, etc., etc.

He even sends his Deputy and Vice-Führer to personally negotiate a mutually agreeable peace deal. A peace deal that is still kept secret.

He even offered to step down as Führer as part of a peace deal and let Göring take over!
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg…

Summary of the Above

The Brits declared war.

Adolf won that war.

And he did so by quite brilliant blitzkrig tactics with comparatively light loss-of-life, and destruction.

And then he offered to give back all the newly-conquered non-German territory for a peace that everyone supposedly wanted.

The problem was that Winston never wanted peace. He admitted that to Stalin.

It was Hitler who wanted peace, Churchill and his financial backers didn’t.

The reasons given for why Churchill didn’t want peace are the victor’s self-justifications we have all been conditioned to accept uncritically. That is all unravelling now. Though some of us alive now are maybe too old or too well conditioned to be able to impartially re-appraise the actual evidence.

In a January 1, 1944, letter to the mass-murdering communist dictator Stalin, Churchill said:

We never thought of peace, not even in that year when we were completely isolated and could have made peace without serious detriment to the British Empire, and extensively at your cost. Why should we think of it now, when victory approaches for the three of us?

Reference: Walendy, Udo, The Methods of Reeducation, 3.

When Churchill was leaving London to meet Roosevelt for a conference in Quebec late in the summer of 1943, a reporter asked if they were planning to offer peace terms to Germany.

Churchill replied: “Heavens, no. They would accept immediately.”– Revisionist Viewpoints, pg.75 by James J. Martin.

Hitler also made many peace offers before the outbreak of war, and these have been detailed in a book called What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933- 1939 by Dr. Friedrich Stieve.

The author lists all of Hitler’s offers in detail, complete with quotes, starting with

• his first offer of May 17, 1933,
• his second offer of December 18, 1933,
• his third offer of May 21, 1935,
• his fourth offer of March 31, 1936,
• his fifth offer of September 30, 1938,
• his sixth offer of December 6, 1938,
• his seventh offer of late 1939 to Poland to settle the Danzig Corridor issue peacefully, and finally,
• his offer of world peace on October 6, 1939, just over a month after Britain and France had declared war on Germany for invading Poland on September 1 (but not on the Soviet Union, which also invaded Poland on September 17).

• The full text of Hitler’s “Appeal for Peace and Sanity” speech, made before the Reichstag on July 19, 1940, following the fall of France. In that speech, Hitler once again offered unconditional peace to Britain. This speech was printed in English and dropped by the tens of thousands from German aircraft over Britain. Although nearly half the British cabinet wanted to take up his offer, Churchill’s warmongering put an end to this final offer of peace.

Here is an excerpt of a speech that also helps give another perspective.

ADDRESS BY CHANCELLOR ADOLPH HITLER TO REICHSTAG Berlin, Germany, May 4, 1941:

All my attempts at reaching an understanding, particularly with England — nay even permanent friendly cooperation — were foiled by the wish of a small clique who, either out of hatred or for material reasons, refused any German suggestion of agreement and did not conceal their intention or desire of war. The driving personality behind this mad and devilish plan of starting war at any price was Churchill and his accomplices, the men in the present British Government. They were trying to get support, openly and secretly, from the great democracies on this side and on the other side of the ocean.

The indisputable facts are that the declaration of war was over a territorial dispute between Germany and Poland which could have been settled peacefully had Britain and America not been interfering behind the scenes. After months of Polish provocation, Germany invaded and occupied Poland. And both Britain and France, despite their guarantee of assistance, did nothing militarily to intervene. At Yalta in 1945 Poland was once again betrayed by the Western Allies when Britain and America agreed to it becoming a Soviet colony — a fate it suffered for forty five years along with the rest of Eastern Europe. The British didn’t even allow the Free Polish Forces to march in the victory parade after the war for fear of offending the Soviets.

The German occupation of other European countries after the British declaration of war were all defensive operations to protect Germany from aggression: The Netherlands, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, even the Soviet Union (What was Nazi Germany’s external excuse for Operation Barbarossa?).

It was Britain and France who imposed the unjust and inequitable punitive Treaty of Versailles.

It was Britain and France who refused diplomatic requests to rectify the unjust and inequitable punitive Treaty of Versailles.

It was Britain and France who first broke that treaty by not disarming themselves (Germany had, as agreed).

It was Britain, France and Poland who thwarted peaceful resolution of the East Prussion/German-Polish-corridor dispute.

It was Britain and France who declared war against Germany in 1939 as a result of that impasse and turned a local dispute into a world-wide war of incomparable carnage, destruction and devastation.

It was Britain who sought to invade Norway (Hitler got there first to thwart him).

And it was Britain who did invade Iran to control their oil.

So respecting the sovereignty of other countries was not something that any side felt was necessary if it stood in the way of their war aims.

The big question then is why are Hitler’s many peace proposals not given any prominence in current historical narratives?

What were the Nuremberg show-trials all about? Why do we still force our kids to take trips to Poland and Germany to look at seventy-year old internment camps? Why do we have films, museums, documentaries, etc., that constantly remind new generations of post-war atrocity propaganda but do not mention war-crimes, mass-murder and mass-rape of the Allied forces?

Is it because mass-murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians by deliberately targeting and burning them to death, crushing them to death under falling masonry, suffocating to death the elderly, woman and children by bombing from the air was actually the greatest and cruelest war crime known to mankind? And is it because that was allied policy?

By the time of the British and French defeat at Dunkerque and the capitulation of France, a common estimate of German casualties is about 27,074 killed, 111,034 wounded and 18,384 missing. Thats approximately 157,000 military personnel dead and wounded.

Losses on the allied side were higher with an estimated 350,000 military personnel dead and wounded.

So, by this time in July 1940, destruction of cities was minimal. There had been no deliberate destruction of civilian areas, nor of cities as a deliberate terrorisation of civilian populations. Nor were civilians being deliberately targeted. And as a sign of that, there are — as far as I am aware — no estimated figures for civilian casualties by this stage of the war. Churchill and his adviser Frederick Lindemann were the instigators of the later policy of deliberately targeting civilians. They started the carpet-bombing of cities. They escalated the violence to mass murder of non-combatants.

Churchill wrote:

When I look around to see how we can win the war I see that there is only one sure path. We have no Continental army which can defeat the German military power… there is one thing that will bring him [Hitler] back and bring him down, and that is an absolutely devastating, exterminating attack by very heavy bombers from this country upon the Nazi homeland. We must be able to overwhelm them by this means, without which I do not see a way through.

— Memo from Churchill to Minister of Aircraft Production, 8th July 1940.

Note the specific wording. Churchill called for an exterminating attack” on German civilian non-combatants.

In July 1940 the deaths and destruction were relatively tiny compared to what came later. That is a statement of verifiable fact. The key word is “relatively”. To understand that you need to compare those figures up to July 1940 with the death toll and destruction that came after Churchill refused all Hitler’s peace overtures.

The war could have been ended then in 1940. To achieve that, Hitler offered to withdraw from all territory occupied during the war declared by the Allies. He even offered to return Polish sovereignty and suggested a plebiscite on Danzig, etc., etc. These peace proposals — which as a last resort were even delivered in person by Rudolf Hess — are still restricted under the UK official secrets act (which has recently been extended for another 20 years).

Churchill, Lindemann and Anthony Eden rejected these proposals and escalated the war to focus on the deliberate targeting of civilians. Proof of this is now well acknowledged.

By the wars end in 1945 the death tolls were monumental in comparison to those before July 1940.

Total WW2 deaths are in the region of between 55 million to more than 80 million.

The higher figure of over 80 million includes deaths from war-related disease and famine.

Civilians killed totalled 50 to 55 million, including 19 to 28 million from war-related disease and famine.

67% of the total WW2 casualties were civilians (in WW1 it was just 3%).

So we are comparing 55 to 80 million deaths in total plus many beautiful, irreplaceable cultural treasures of huge cities totally destroyed, infrastructure destroyed, lives irretrievably shattered, people permanently maimed, children orphaned, women and children mass raped by Soviet armies, immense suffering and ethnic cleansing on an humongous scale. All that compared to the “relatively tiny” amount of total deaths in 1940 of around 90,000 military deaths??!

Almost all those civilian casualties are a result of:

a.) Churchill’s refusal to accept peace terms which his own ambassador to Washington called “most satisfactory”;

b.) Churchill’s policy of deliberate targeting of civilians in carpet bombing;

c.) Churchill’s democidal starvation blockade of Europe.

The total military casualties by the end of WW2 are estimated to be 18,587,000.

Of that figure Britain’s and its commonwealth countries’ death casualties were just 452,000 in total.

America’s was just a comparitively small 295,000.

So the leaders of those two countries Britain and America must take the main responsibility for the deaths of so many people, and for prolonging the war. Not Hitler who first tried to avoid it for six years, and who then repeatedly tried to end it from 1940 to 1941.

Conclusion

The largest percentage of destruction and killing during WW2 came after July 1940 and therefore can be blamed upon Churchill and his backers, who refused all armistice offers and peace terms.

Who else must take the blame? Someone who didn’t want war and yet is accused of starting it, or someone who wanted war and who did help start it?

Someone who wanted war and helped start it would be Sir Winston Churchill. He is famous for pursuading opinion that war was inevitable and necessary. Plus his rhetoric and behind-the-scenes manipulation helped force Neville Chamberlain and the British Government into declaring it in 1939. Plus he refused to even consider any peace terms in 1940 and 1941 and instead preferred to extend the duration, to begin the deliberate targeting of non-combatants, and to escalate the mass-murdering barbarity of it all.

Churchill, by his own admission, “loved” war.

Despite his disastrous Gallipoli Campaign which lasted nine months to January 1916 — with 250,000 casualties and 46,000 Allied troops plus 65,000 Turkish troops dead — still in 1916 he was reveling in the mass-murder:

I think a curse should rest on me because I love this war. I know it’s smashing and shattering the lives of thousands every moment — and yet — I can’t help it, I enjoy every second of it.

— Winston Churchill, letter to a friend, 1916

It was he who enforced the democidal starvation blockade of civilian populations in both wars. He even extended it after the WW1 armistice.

He had followed wars as a war journalist prior to that war, and when Churchill became prime minister in 1940 with Britain once again embroiled in war, he wrote, “All my past life had been a preparation for this hour and for this trial.”

I.e. he saw his whole life in terms of warfare.

As his contemporary British parliamentarian Edmund Dene Morell, said of him: “I look upon Churchill as such a personal force for evil…”

… there was one constant in his [Churchill’s] life: the love of war. It began early. As a child, he had a huge collection of toy soldiers, 1500 of them, and he played with them for many years after most boys turn to other things. They were “all British,” he tells us, and he fought battles with his brother Jack, who “was only allowed to have coloured troops; and they were not allowed to have artillery.” He attended Sandhurst, the military academy, instead of the universities, and “from the moment that Churchill left Sandhurst . . . he did his utmost to get into a fight, wherever a war was going on.” All his life he was most excited — on the evidence — only really excited by war. He loved war as few modern men ever have, he even “loved the bangs,” as he called them, and he was very brave under fire.

In 1925, Churchill wrote:“The story of the human race is war.” (Rethinking Churchill by Ralph Raico. Rethinking Churchill)

So to answer the question:

Yes, Adolf Hitler offered peace terms repeatedly. And the British government and Churchill in particular repeatedly rejected them.

* * *

Source: Quora

For Further Reading

Previous post

Protecting Israel is Their Full-Time Job

Next post

Cheerleading for Israel: All the Usual Criminals Are Doing It

3 Comments

  1. June 29, 2018 at 12:27 am — Reply

    This is why my England had gone down the toilet. They sided with the kikes and they, and the rest of the White, Western nations are paying the piper.

  2. Donny
    June 29, 2018 at 2:30 pm — Reply

    Phenomenal article. Cut and pasted it to save it.

    Creates a quandary though:

    Is this article lying?

    Or have I been consistently lied to all my life?

    It’s always good to learn.

  3. Kate
    July 3, 2018 at 11:20 am — Reply

    The West did not want peace because they could not allow an ideology, such as National Socialism, to take hold. The idea that the State existed to serve and promote the People of said state was absolutely contrary to what the so-called leaders of the West wanted: power and control over the peons they governed.

    And so it was more important to these Western leaders to send millions of young men to suffer and die, all in the hopes of maintaining their own power and stranglehold over their nations, than to allow Germany to exist in peace and thereby permit the notion that National Socialism works and worse, is actually better than what America and the UK had (and currently have) going for it.

    For if such an idea got out and truly took hold on the world stage, how long would America and the UK choose to remain beholden to a government and leaders that cared more about multiculturalism, heavy taxation, and their own control? Not long I’d wager.

    That’s why they rejected Hitler’s peace on all terms. That’s why the history books tell the lies they do. That’s why they smear the concept of collectivism based upon race (unless you’re Jewish, or Black, or Latino, or pretty much any race other than white). That’s why the Left is so rabid in their amoral smear campaigns against any conservative thinkers, being quick to liken them to Nazis and any conservative-action to the Holocaust.

    Fear is their strategy. But knowledge is their weakness.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Slander, crude language, incivility, off-topic drift, or remarks that might harm National Vanguard or its users may be edited or deleted, even if unintentional. Comments may be edited for clarity or usage.