Who started both World Wars?

[Craig4]

Obviously the internet is not the boon to the cause of the Nazi that he thinks it is.

 

[Nick Terry]

Obviously the internet is not the boon to the cause of the Nazi that he thinks it is.

The faith placed by nutters in the internet is frequently misplaced.

 

[Hans]

Yes the Internet is a boon to nuttery as they get a much bigger audience much faster than in the old day of rallies, pamphets and books. Now they can be debunked in real time.

 

[dudalb]

I have been active on the Internet for about 15 years, and since Year One, back in the good old days of Usenet, the Holocaust Deniers were saying that in another couple of years the "Holohoax" would be exposed as a fake and the Evil of Der Joos revealed. Ain't happened yet.

 

[dafydd]

I have been active on the Internet for about 15 years, and since Year One, back in the good old days of Usenet, the Holocaust Deniers were saying that in another couple of years the "Holohoax" would be exposed as a fake and the Evil of Der Joos revealed. Ain't happened yet.

And it never will.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Yes, and I found and linked a sourced and thorough online transcript, as you seem to have ignored. Which is weird since it was in the same post than my sarcastic remark which you replied to.
I kindly put it once more:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=137567&start=30#p1203389
If you do not have a link, please specify the source where you found mention of this document and in what form it was presented.

It was from Scheil’s book, “1940/41 – Die Eskalation des Zweiten Weltkriegs”, page 174-175. In the footnote is a reference to the Foreign Office document. It summarizes it’s content exactly like the link you gave.

This is what you claim this document contains:

So to summarize, according to you the peace terms are:
- Germany would keep the Dantzig corridor
- Germany would cease occupation of all countries and restore their sovereignty
- Germany would pay compensation to the neutral states

The transcript I link to gives a slighty different story:


To sum it up:
- No explicit mention of the Dantzig corridor (altough the promise of "a polish state" and not "of Poland" certainly implies that it would be restored in a different form)
- Germany will keep Czechoslovakia, which you do not mention.
- Germany would cease occupation of all countries and restore their sovereignty under an unified economic and political sphere directed by Nazi Germany, which not must be contested.
- No mention of compensation for the neutral states
- Colonies to be discussed.
Do you not see the difference there?

The corridor was one of the reasons why the conflict between Germany and Poland started in the first place. The persecution of the Germans was the other one (the Poles, highly encouraged by Anglo and French blank cheque war garantees, wanted to kick Germans out of once German lands, now handed over to Poland by the Anglos in Versailles with the aim to criple Germany). It is unlikely that Hitler would be willing to let this condition go and accept a permanent separation between Eastern Prussia and the Reich. Poland would resurrect in some form, sure, but without the corridor. If you want to make the case that Hitler was after all willing to let go of the corridor, be my guest.

About Czechoslovakia, it was a rotten artificial Anglo construct, that fell apart at the first opportunity anyway. It had always been part of Germany (or Habsburg/Austria). They had never been independent (unlike Scotland, that became a part of Britain against it’s will)

It had been incorporated into the Reich without a shot being fired and the rest of the world more or less had accepted it.

“under an unified economic and political sphere directed by Nazi Germany, which not must be contested.”

This is not what the document says, it says: “The continental supremacy of Germany will not be called in question.” That’s like saying that “the continental supremacy of the US in North-America is not to be called in question”. What is your problem with that? A state of, what was it, 80-100 Germans in the heart of Europe will by nature be the dominant force. In fact, that is the situation today, and everybody is happy with that, except for Britain and to a lesser extent France. They both started in essence WW1 and WW2 about it to reverse the situation. Germany had come into being when the rest of Europe was recovering from the Crimean War. It was Gladstone who had let it happen, where the Jew Disraeli had been strongly opposed to the rise of this Bismarckian construct.

The mentioning of reparations occurred in another attempt to bring peace to Europe. Source, again Scheil, page 306/307: Deutschland wird seine Streitkraefte zureuckziehen und von diesen Laendern (all occupied Western European nations) keine militaerischen Zugestaendnisse einfordern und es ist bereit, ueber eine Art von Reparation fuer die Schaeden zu verhandeln, die den Laendern waehred der Eroberung zugefuegt wurden.
This text comes from the peace efforts centered around Lord Lothian, Samuel Hoare, Fritz Wiedemann, Sir William Wiseman in October/November 1940.

Both these peace initiatives took place in a short time after each other, so we can assume continuity in the contents of these proposals.

 

[Laeke]

summarizes it’s content exactly like the link you gave.

OK, so we are in agreement that the link I gave is the exact same document that you based your message on?

The corridor was one of the reasons why the conflict between Germany and Poland started in the first place. The persecution of the Germans was the other one (the Poles, highly encouraged by Anglo and French blank cheque war garantees, wanted to kick Germans out of once German lands, now handed over to Poland by the Anglos in Versailles with the aim to criple Germany). It is unlikely that Hitler would be willing to let this condition go and accept a permanent separation between Eastern Prussia and the Reich. Poland would resurrect in some form, sure, but without the corridor. If you want to make the case that Hitler was after all willing to let go of the corridor, be my guest.

You said that the only German demand for peace as per the offer made to Mallet was the Dantzig corridor.
But it is not stated in an explicit way what exactly a polish state would entail, and what parts of it Germany would see fit to keep for herself.

As such, how can you claim that the offer made to Mallet was about the Dantzig corridor solely, regarding Poland?

About Czechoslovakia, it was a rotten artificial Anglo construct, that fell apart at the first opportunity anyway. It had always been part of Germany (or Habsburg/Austria). They had never been independent (unlike Scotland, that became a part of Britain against it’s will)

It had been incorporated into the Reich without a shot being fired and the rest of the world more or less had accepted it.

Whether or not you consider it as a "rotten Anglo construct" is not the issue.
The issue is that when reporting about the offer made to Mallet, you "forgot" to mention it. That you fail to consider Czechslovakia as a meaningful entity do not change the fact that it legally existed at the time before its dismantlement.
Despite your belief that its inclusion in Germany is not up to debate, the peace envoy felt differently and stated it in an explicit manner. Which you didn't.

As such you "forgot" a fact, and we'll see below the problem.

The way you seem to think that "Germany", "Austro-Hungary", "Habsburg", "Austria" are interchangeable terms seems highly debatable to me, but let's not get into that.

This is not what the document says

Yes it does.

it says: “The continental supremacy of Germany will not be called in question.” That’s like saying that “the continental supremacy of the US in North-America is not to be called in question”.

Just out of curiousity, does the phrase “the continental supremacy of the US in North-America is not to be called in question” appears in a treaty, constitution or any other sort of international law? I doubt it is, but please feel free to prove me wrong.

What is your problem with that?

My problem, as I already stated, is that it turns the "return to sovereignty" into an hollow promise: Germany "agrees" to give their sovereignty back to the invaded countries, (well, except Czechslovakia and parts of Poland), except their countries will not be sovereign in choosing whether or not they wish to be part of the "German economic unit". They will also probably not be at liberty to seek military alliances with England or the USA as the German supremacy on the continent will not be called into question.

And what do you make of the fact that the "matter of colonies can be discussed"? Does that mean that the occupied countries will not automatically regain those once their "sovereignty will be restored"?

A state of, what was it, 80-100 Germans in the heart of Europe will by nature be the dominant force.

No.
But then again, that you believe in a natural supremacy of some sort is not very surprising. Even when "natural dominance" equate to losing two wars. But that was the Joos doing, them and their Dolchstoß!

In fact, that is the situation today, and everybody is happy with that, except for Britain and to a lesser extent France.

Yes the situation today is exactly like in 1914 or 1940.

Germany was never the dominant force in Europe, a continent where power was shared by several nations for a long time (you know, the whole balance deal promoted by Metterich and Great Britain) and still is to this day.

The best evidence of it lies in those peace terms: For the German supremacy in Europe to become true, they have to ask Great Britain to concede no further involvement in continental affairs.

The mentioning of reparations (...) Both these peace initiatives took place in a short time after each other, so we can assume continuity in the contents of these proposals.

I will look into this. Would you please humour me, while I search for the content of those October/November peace talks, and present to me what was the offer Germany made there?

However while you "assume" continuity now, fact is that is why you presented in your message:

Although I am working on my blog, this post, just to let you know I have not forgotten you.

05-09-1940 - Birger Ekeberg, president of the Swedish High Court, was asked by Ludwig Weissauer to enquire with Mallet whether he was interested in talks. Weissauer was an agent of the Reich Security Head Office (RSHA) and traveled to both Finland and Sweden in an atempt to advance discussions concerning an armistice. More specifically he utilized intermediaries to contact british officials in Stockholm in September 1940 and continued communications through 1942. [Petropoulos, p205. In the archive of the British Foreign Office inthe spring of 2004, a document was discovered with register-nr. ]FO 371/24408[/B, that documents the secret Hitler-Weissauer peace mission. Hitlers personal lawyer Dr. Ludwig Weissauer had handed over to the British ambassador Victor Mallet in Stockholm a personal message from Hitler. Accordng to that offer, Hitler was prepared to clear all occupied territory and to recognize the souvereignty of all European states. Merely the Corridor to the town of Danzig should remain part of the German Reich. Hitler even declared to be ready to pay compensation to the occupied neutral states (Norway, Holland, Belgium). In Germany only 4 people were aware of this offer by Hitler, among them Rudolf Hess, Hitler's deputy.

The Germans did not want war, the British (or Churchill rather) however wanted a war of destruction at all cost. Even at the cost of their glorious empire.

You claimed those reparations were included in the September 1940 offer made to Mallet by Weissauer. They were not.
You forgot to mention the fact that Czechslovakia would be annexed. Or that Germany dictated that Europe would be his continental backyard and that Great Britain would have to concede all its ties to it.
As such your presentation of this offer is completely inaccurate.

Could it be that you forgot facts or added things because it fitted better in the narrative?
"An offer too good to be true!" Indeed.

 

[Wroclaw]

In the footnote is a reference to the Foreign Office document. It summarizes it’s content exactly like the link you gave.

So you lied. Well that settles that.

 

[Hans]

So you lied. Well that settles that.

What 9/11 lie? I find that hard to believe...........

What the holocaust will be disproved? Hitler will be annointed as a man of peace and light? Yeah right

I've seen the same brainless desire for the 'miracle' to occur for decades from creationist, UFO believers, extreme left and right wing, religious nuts, etc

Never seems to happen and in the case above, never the facts are overwhelmingly against any such 'revision' which is why so so many of them make up stuff or just lie, trying to create a world where their miracle can actually occur.

 

[9/11-investigator]

OK, so we are in agreement that the link I gave is the exact same document that you based your message on?

No, I based my post on the book of Scheil.

You said that the only German demand for peace as per the offer made to Mallet was the Dantzig corridor.
But it is not stated in an explicit way what exactly a polish state would entail, and what parts of it Germany would see fit to keep for herself.

As such, how can you claim that the offer made to Mallet was about the Dantzig corridor solely, regarding Poland?

{snip}

Whether or not you consider it as a "rotten Anglo construct" is not the issue.
Could it be that you forgot facts or added things because it fitted better in the narrative?
"An offer too good to be true!" Indeed.

The strategy of Laeke is to divert attention towards nitpicking about precise formulations and away from the fact that Germany made serious peace offers that basically implied return to the status quo of 1938, meaning retreat from Western Europe and Poland except for Danzig/corridor.

But wait a minute, the Anglos always pretended that Hitler aimed at conquering the world. These peace efforts contradict this self-serving Anglo lie. In reality it were Anglos and Soviets looking for world domination and achieved global bipolarity in 1945 by design, where Anglosphere was more succesful than their USSR buddies, who had aimed at conquering entire Europe and met Americans in Berlin instead. The USA and USSR were the real war mongers and were looking for territorial expansion at the expense of Mother Europe. Heck, there are still American and British troops in Europe (but not for much longer)! Germany wanted merely recognition of it's stature as a new Great Power in Europe, next to France and Britain, something France and Britain never really accepted and temporarily had achieved to rollback in Versailles after WW1. And what had somewhat made sense in WW1 from a narrow British/French national perspective (because they were outcompeted by 'Made in Germany' on global markets) was outright stupidity in 1939 when 2 new very powerful kids armed with globalist ideologies had appeared on the block.

Germany wanted an alliance with Britain. Churchill wrote himself that Germany was sympathetic towards Britain. If Britain had excepted we would not have had a US/SU bipolar world for 45 years but a European dominated world instead. But as I said earlier, Britain is the quintessential traitor and enemy of Europe, something we should remember when we Europeans will reshape the world power relations after the coming implosion of America. And that can only mean a multi-polar world with Greater Europe (Paris, Berlin, Moscow) en China constituting the dominant poles, with the Amur river replacing Berlin as the new frontier between the planet's two dominant power houses.

Laeke does not challenge the existence of FO371/24408/XC1973. The German wish for peace culminated in the flight of Hitler's deputy Rudolf Hess to Britain, an act of pure desperation. The Anglos always were determined to conceal the true meaning of this act, because it would have shown that the Germans were keen on peace, where Churchill was determined to continue the war and give his buddy Roosevelt the time to bring America into the war next to Britain, just like in WW1. That is why Hess had to be killed by the British secret service in Spandau, when an initiave by Gorbatchev threatened to release Hess and thus the story had come into the open. Nothing beats Soviet cruelty but nothing beats Anglo perfidity and instinctive lying and deceiving, a consequence of the rule of Jewish 'values' in Anglosphere.

Now that the USSR is dead and we have a Russian regime in place that puts people like Khodorkovsky into jail (something Americans can only dream of), Russia is acceptable as an ally. Russia is keen on becoming a European ally. Furthermore we have a comfortable 'non-agression agreement' with the US (NATO), which we Europeans can abandon at a moment of our choice to our advantage. While the US stares at China we can do business with Russia and quietly prepare for the switch. Mapping the WW2 situation on the present, we have Greater Europe in the role of the USSR, Anglosphere as Nazi-Germany and China as Roosevelt-America. Likewise America is in the middle and like Nazi-Germany outnumbered by 1:6. And the role of Danzig could be played by Taiwan, Iran or Korea. Unlike Nazi-Germany has global hegemonic aspirations (it has 767 or so military bases all around the globe). Unlike Nazi-Germany America is the proud owner of a global reserve currency, that was very advantageous and confortable in a post-WW2 world, but will turn into a nightmare in a world that refuses to accept the dollar any longer as an acceptable means of payment: all the accumulated financial dollar reserves will return to the only place where it cannot be refused as a legal tender, resulting in currency collapse. Unlike Nazi-Germany, America has lost the economic game and is outcompeted on world markets. Unlike Nazi-Germany, the US has an adventurous ethnic composition. And America has the 9/11-Karma in it's rucksack that could explode any minute. The 20th century was the Jewish century, but the 20th century is over.

This is going to be fun, provided you are not a Jew or an Anglo.

 

[Rich_C]

No, I based my post on the book of Scheil.



But wait a minute, the Anglos always pretended that Hitler aimed at conquering the world. These peace efforts contradict this self-serving Anglo lie.

Germany wanted an alliance with Britain. Churchill wrote himself that Germany was sympathetic towards Britain. If Britain had excepted we would not have had a US/SU bipolar world for 45 years but a European dominated world instead.

You can't even keep lies internally consistent in the same post! Did Germany want to conquer the world or not?

 

[9/11-investigator]

You can't even keep lies internally consistent in the same post! Did Germany want to conquer the world or not?

You can't read. Britain and France and other Western European powers had already conquered the world. I am saying that an alliance between Germany and Britain, as proposed repeatedly by Germany, would have been the dominant force on the planet and would have kept the US and USSR out of Europe. The latter happened and was the worst possible outcome for all European nations, including Britain. In fact Britain was the biggest loser of all in terms of standing and influence and territory. Britain could have had it all, instead they let this half-American (Jewish?) drunken sadist sexual pervert Churchill at the helm of their empire... in order to ruin it. This was the British empire as the Germans were willing to support, even with German troops. This is what it is today, courtesy Churchill, a miserable 3rd rate 'power'. The British choose this hooligan as their 'man of the century' where in reality he was the worst desaster ever to befell on the British Isles.

 

[Mr Zog]

You can't read. Britain and France and other Western European powers had already conquered the world. I am saying that an alliance between Germany and Britain, as proposed repeatedly by Germany, would have been the dominant force on the planet and would have kept the US and USSR out of Europe. The latter happened and was the worst possible outcome for all European nations, including Britain. In fact Britain was the biggest loser of all in terms of standing and influence and territory. Britain could have had it all, instead they let this half-American (Jewish?) drunken sadist sexual pervert Churchill at the helm of their empire... in order to ruin it. This was the British empire as the Germans were willing to support, even with German troops. This is what it is today, courtesy Churchill, a miserable 3rd rate 'power'.

You do realise that it wasn't Churchill who was Prime Minister when war broke out?

And I'm failing utterly to see a problem with the picture you picked as an example of 'Britain today' (appart from the fact its from the Daily Mail, a paper so shockingly bad, thats entire MO is to get readers through badly written, badly researched and in some cases all out lies in articles, that even the most hardcore of crazies I know have stopped reading it?).

But if you can pick a photo that shows a crowded street, that happens to have people of various ethnicities in it and claim its an example of Britains problems that says an awful lot about you. Just ignore all the real issues we have currently and pick on the people that kept our economy going after the war and stopped the country falling into a much much bigger mess than it is.

 

[dafydd]

You do realise that it wasn't Churchill who was Prime Minister when war broke out?

And I'm failing utterly to see a problem with the picture you picked as an example of 'Britain today' (appart from the fact its from the Daily Mail, a paper so shockingly bad, thats entire MO is to get readers through badly written, badly researched and in some cases all out lies in articles, that even the most hardcore of crazies I know have stopped reading it?).

But if you can pick a photo that shows a crowded street, that happens to have people of various ethnicities in it and claim its an example of Britains problems that says an awful lot about you. Just ignore all the real issues we have currently and pick on the people that kept our economy going after the war and stopped the country falling into a much much bigger mess than it is.

"What we need is a great big melting pot
Big enough to take the world and all it's got
Keep it stirring for a hundred years or more
Turn out coffee coloured people by the score"
Blue Mink-"Melting Pot".

 

[9/11-investigator]

From Scheil's book:

[p174] Mallet had tried to get approval in London for his initiative. Robert Vansittart’s reaction came swift: "I hope you will tell mr Mallet that under no circumstance he can see Dr. Weissauer. This is about the future of civilization. It is about out survival or theirs and either the German Reich goes under or we, and not just go under, but completely destroyed."

Weissauer, via intermediary Ekeberg, could make clear that he was talking in the name of Hitler and Ribbentrop and had the following on offer, which Mallet reported to London on September 7, 1940: "Hitler felt himself responsible of the ’White Race’ and already for this reason alone wanted friendship with Britain. He wanted 2 economical units. A European one, with Germany in the center and the rest of the world with British and American centers. Britain and America could keep their naval supremacy."

As you can see, in the Autumn of 1940 Germany was interested in a reasonable compromise, Churchill/Vansittart/Duff Cooper-Britain however wanted nothing less than the destruction of Germany. They achieved that as well as the destruction of themselves.

 

[Laeke]

No, I based my post on the book of Scheil.

So Scheil does not give a full transcript?

It summarizes it’s content exactly like the link you gave.

The link I gave does not "summarize" but provide a rather lenghty fac-simile. As far as I can tell, you have not yet claimed those fac-similes were incorrect.

The "summary" is obviously not the same, unless you or Schiel were "creative" in your presentation.

The strategy of Laeke is to divert attention towards nitpicking about precise formulations and away from the fact that Germany made serious peace offers that basically implied return to the status quo of 1938, meaning retreat from Western Europe and Poland except for Danzig/corridor.

My strategy is actually to understand how your summary can cope with the content of the documents.

The "peace offer" you mention is not the 1938 statu quo, if only for the fact that there was not "a single continental economic unit", that "German continental supremacy was uncontested", and that "colonies of the occupied countries are up to discussion".

Laeke does not challenge the existence of FO371/24408/XC1973.

No I don't. But the document, as far as I can tell, does not say what you claim it says.

In middle of the rhetoric about the evil Anglo, I fail to see where you give me the details regarding the October/November 1940 peace talks, which were the one where the "compensations for neutral countries" you originally mention would have been proposed.

Considering the names you give me, I suppose those are the contacts in the United States around the figure of Stephanie von Hohenlohe?

If an offer was wade, what exactly were the terms proposed, by who and to whom?

 

[dafydd]

The faith placed by nutters in the internet is frequently misplaced.

The internet just enables more people to laugh at them. You'd think that the delusionauts would have realized that by now.

 

[9/11-investigator]

The British war cabinet did not ignore the peace proposal but rejected it in absurd language, clearly showing they were not interested in any form of peace:

Scheil:

[p176] On September 11, 1940 a negative response came from the British cabinet. The offer of withdrawal from conquered territories was countered with the argument that "Britain did not fight for ’disinterested goals’, but rather for 'big and general affairs, that concern the freedom and independence of many states in Europe. It was up to the German government to create the conditions for further negotiations; for this 'effective garantees' were necessary, followed up by acts, not by words".

Churchill had written the text himself. Unfortunately the text was silent about what actions they particularly had in mind.

Until the beginning of Barbarossa the biggest worry of the British government was not the Germany army, but instead peace offers from the German government and it's own population and the rather strong peace faction within Britain. The worst thing that could happen to these Jewish paid politicians like Churchill was that the British public would become aware of German peace offers that the British government couldn't possibly refuse. For the British government it was a game to gain time (in order to get the US and USSR in the war) that lasted from September 1940 to June 1941, to keep the Germans under the impression that somehow the British government might be interested in peace. This charade culminated in the desperate move of Hess flight to Scotland in a last effort to resque peace, at least on the Western front.

Robert H. Jackson, the chieftain of the Nuremberg stalinist Anglo/Soviet show trial discovered the truth in the German archives when he was ordered to build a legal case against the Germans:

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/jack37.asp

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON. I really think that this trial, if it should get into an argument over the political and economic causes of this war, could do infinite harm [FOR THE ALLIED CAUSE, 911I], both in Europe, which I don't know well, and in America, which I know fairly well. If we should have a prolonged controversy over whether Germany invaded Norway a few jumps ahead of a British invasion of Norway, or whether France in declaring war was the real aggressor, this trial can do infinite harm for those countries with the people of the United States. And the same is true of our Russian relationships. The Germans will certainly accuse all three of our European Allies of adopting policies which forced them to war. The reason I Say that is that captured documents which we have always made that claim-that Germany would be forced into war. They admit they were planning war, but the captured documents of the Foreign Office that I have examined all come down to the claim, "We have no way out; we must fight; we are encircled; we are being strangled to death."

And that is exactly what had happened. Germany, Britain, the USSR and the USA in the distance, all knew that Germany could not win this fight in the long run. Hitler had been setup by extra-European powers and was forced to enter Poland after these Poles began to persecute Germans, who the Versailles Anglos had forced to live in Poland in the first place. The Poles felt encouraged by the British, French and US war garantees/encouragements to outright provoke the Germans and Stalin was so kind to create conditions to make it easier for Hitler to cross the Rubicon and invade and give Britain the excuse to declare war. This was the geostrategic game that was played and led to the Britain engineered downfall of Europe. And the rest is history.

But we Europeans will not forget what Britain, the supreme tool of the 'World Jews' (©Chamberlain), did to Europe.

 

[9/11-investigator]

So Scheil does not give a full transcript?

No.

My strategy is actually to understand how your summary can cope with the content of the documents.

The "peace offer" you mention is not the 1938 statu quo, if only for the fact that there was not "a single continental economic unit", that "German continental supremacy was uncontested", and that "colonies of the occupied countries are up to discussion".

There was no talk of a sort of EU avant la lettre, but instead a plea towards Britain and France to please finally accept that Germany exists as a nation in the first place. The non-acceptance of the existance of Germany had been the real cause of WW1.

In middle of the rhetoric about the evil Anglo, I fail to see where you give me the details regarding the October/November 1940 peace talks, which were the one where the "compensations for neutral countries" you originally mention would have been proposed.

I don't have the text of the peace proposal, merely the summary given in that Foreign Office document. I doubt that the British were very much concerned with Dutch, French and Belgian colonies. This compensation thingy was explicitly mentioned in the next peace proposal (Lothian, Hoare, Hohenlohe). Since we don't have the exact text of the original Weissauer proposal I am assuming that talk of compensation was already contained in the first proposal but that the British failed to mention it in this FO document for the simple reason that it did not concern Britain. But compensation is a secondary issue here. The monumental fact remains that Germany was al too happy to abandon occupied territory (an occupation triggered by hostile actions by Britain and France by their invasion of neutral Norway) in exange of returning to the 1938 situation.

Considering the names you give me, I suppose those are the contacts in the United States around the figure of Stephanie von Hohenlohe?

Yes.

If an offer was wade, what exactly were the terms proposed, by who and to whom?

In essence the same as the Weissauer event. And Hess would propose the same during his Scotland safari in 1941.

 

[Walter Ego]

So Scheil does not give a full transcript?

Can someone tell me who Scheil is? Can I assume he's no more creditable as a historian than Patrick Buchanan or Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof?