Who started both World Wars?

[MG1962]

Still waiting 911...............

 

[Corsair 115]

Still waiting 911...............

You'll be waiting an awful long time I suspect. To paraphrase a famous movie line, "The crazy is strong with that one."

 

[MG1962]

You'll be waiting an awful long time I suspect. To paraphrase a famous movie line, "The crazy is strong with that one."

Well he promised to give me the answer I was asking for - after he updated his blog (two times ago) Somehow he has decided not to do that, and manage to argue that makes me some sort of looser.

We have never had a satisfactory response to "Icebreaker" or the Molotov questions, again I did not expect them, but I am an optimist.

This thread has not been a debate for months, 911 has simply preached.

He shows his true colours with claims of being a Gaullist - then complains about the British Empire persuing the same doctrine. Mind you De Gaul himself did not express his true opinions till a bunch of soliders from many diferent countries died to free France.

Maybe Churchhill was right to describe De Gaul as a pompus arse. His supporters definately attempt to emulate that side of his character

 

[TSR]

Don't understand LashL's moderating policy:

.
Among many, many other things...

BTW, you seem to have missed this post.
.

 

[dafydd]

.
Among many, many other things...

BTW, you seem to have missed this post.
.

He didn't miss it,our brave Aryan warrior does not have the bottle to answer the questions.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Wow, 2 warnings but still not banned. Won't be long though, as my opponents were near the melt down as shown by their desperate spamming behavior, until TSR noticed that his palls were shooting themselves in their foot in front of the world... I mean how much truth must I drop here before I get finally banned!

From the infamous 'question list':

Prove a single lie from the *judgments* at Nuremberg.

I told you guys there was a list of topics that were forbidden to discuss in nuremberg. Sheil mentions 14, I give here only 4:

[page 13] In his suitcase Andrej Vysinsky had a list of topics that were to be forbidden to discussed during the NMT. A few items from that list:
• The German-Soviet Non-agression Agreement of 1939
• Molotovs visit to Berlin, Ribbentrops visits to Moscow
• The Baltics
• Soviet foreign policy and more in particular the Dardanels and Soviet territorial claims

The idea was to push the war guilt on Germany alone in order to justify the carving up of Europe on a pretext and divide the loot amongst them, but that only succeeds if you leave the truth out. The idea was to push the idea that somehow Germany was keen on conquering 'ze wurld', where in reality it were the Soviets and Americans who did that. Britain had the world in 1940 (25%) but was the biggest loser of WW2 for the simple reason they let this Churchill traitor at the helm who willingly sacrificed the British empire for Jewish interests and NWO dreams and decided to wage a war of destruction against the only potential friend the British empire had: Hitler.

Andrej Vysinsky had been the prosecutor during the Moscow show trials, so he was the ideal person to co-organize this Anglo-Soviet charade, but that is not a problem at all for my neo-bolshevik opponents here. See:

Arkady Vaksberg, The Prosecutor and the Prey: Vyshinsky and the 1930's Moscow Show Trials (London: Weidenfield and Nicolson, 1990)

Arkady Vaksberg, Stalin's Prosecutor: The Life of Andrei Vyshinsky

The reason why the list had become a necessity was this:

A not too bright American Robert Jackson was told to organize this show-trial and to built a case against the Germans. But when he delved into the matter he found out this:

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."

This damning quote is part of the NMT trial documents!!!!!!

Jackson knew it would be impossible to shove the entire war guilt onto the Germans, hence the list of forbidden topics. The Jewish run NWO was in the works, so we could not be bothered by the truth.

About this show trial:

The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust (1)

America's leading jurist was dismayed by the Nuremberg process. US Supreme Court Chief Justice Harlan Fiske Stone remarked with irritation: "[Chief US prosecutor] Jackson is away conducting his high-grade lynching party in Nuremberg. I don't mind what he does to the Nazis, but

Here the proof that Nuremberg was a Jewish show trial:

Indicative of the largely political nature of the Nuremberg process was the important Jewish role in organizing these trials. Nahum Goldmann, one-time president of both the World Jewish Congress and the World Zionist Organization, reported in his memoir that the Nuremberg Tribunal was the brain-child of World Jewish Congress officials. Only after persistent effort were WJC officials able to persuade Allied leaders to accept the idea, he added.

The Nuremberg Trials and the Holocaust (2)

Nuremberg: Woe to the Vanquished

 

[TSR]

I told you guys there was a list of topics that were forbidden to discuss in nuremberg. Sheil mentions 14, I give here only 4:

.
Even if Sheil *weren't* completely discredited, as shown by one of the questions you haven't even *tried* to answer (what does Sheil offer to substantiate this claim?), which of these 4 -- or 14 -- are relevant to charges ***actually laid*** at Nuremberg? What, in these four -- or 14 -- would have changed the verdicts in any meaningful way? The German whining about the causes of the war does not change the fact that they did, in fact, plan to wage aggressive war, the only possible count to which this might apply. Nor does your whining do anything to point to lies, especially not in the actual judgments.

BTW, you still seem to be ignoring http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6966984&postcount=4433 -- care to justify that?
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
Even if Sheil *weren't* completely discredited, as shown by one of the questions you haven't even *tried* to answer

This sentence is a joke! How can someone be 'discredited' by not discussing him?

, which of these 4 -- or 14 -- are relevant to charges ***actually laid*** at Nuremberg? What, in these four -- or 14 -- would have changed the verdicts in any meaningful way?

Nothing. The alllies were determined to push the blame onto the Germans:

At a joint planning conference shortly before the Nuremberg Tribunal convened, Nikitchenko bluntly explained the Soviet view of the enterprise:

We are dealing here with the chief war criminals who have already been convicted and whose conviction has been already announced by both the Moscow and Crimea [Yalta] declarations by the heads of the [Allied] governments... The whole idea is to secure quick and just punishment for the crime...

The fact that the Nazi leaders are criminals has already been established. The task of the Tribunal is only to determine the measure of guilt of each particular person and mete out the necessary punishment -- the sentences.

That's the Soviet idea of a 'trial'.

And what is the relevance of Nuremberg to the topic of the thread, in any case?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6966984&postcount=4433
.

Huh, Nuremberg was the conclusion of WW2, where was to be determined who was to blame, exactly the topic of this thread!!!!

Been sleeping all along, have you?

 

[TSR]

This sentence is a joke! How can someone be 'discredited' by not discussing him?

.
That sentence was a joke, since I have cited a quote published in Der Welt which does exactly that -- a quote from which you continue to run.

Why is that, do you suppose?
.

Nothing. The alllies were determined to push the blame onto the Germans:

.
No, that was supposedly a *Soviet* position, and they were only one of several Allies involved. Nor did they even prevail -- as witnessed by their complete failure in the matter of Katyn.
.

Huh, Nuremberg was the conclusion of WW2, where was to be determined who was to blame, exactly the topic of this thread!!!!

.
...to be determined who was responsible for the crimes which were committed. Not who was "to blame" for starting the war to begin with.

Unless you can quote the part of the indictment that specifically mentions blame for starting the war, and show who specifically was convicted for having done so?




No?




Then stop trying to distract from the fact that you *still* have not addressed the criticism of Sheil (whom, despite your lie that you do not, you keep offering as an authority) nor even bothered to tell us what he cites as a source for his claim about 14 points being "forbidden".

I have read him. And he offers nothing but bald assertion.
.

Been sleeping all along, have you?

.
Awake enough to point out that you are still running from my savaging of your "answers" to the 16 Questions.
.

 

[9/11-investigator]

.
That sentence was a joke, since I have cited a quote published in Der Welt which does exactly that -- a quote from which you continue to run.

Glad you admit your own argument is a joke. Show me link to post where I run for a quote from Die Welt? Cannot remember that.

No, that was supposedly a *Soviet* position, and they were only one of several Allies involved.

No it was not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Trials

The indictments were for:

1. Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2. Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3. War crimes
4. Crimes against humanity

That is why the British and French invasions of Norway and the mobilisations of the USSR was not allowed to be discussed, otherwise it would be impossible to accuse the Germans of 'wars of agression', where in reality the wars of agression were committed by the allies. But they could not admit that, otherwise there was no legitimacy for them to carve up Europe and divide the loot amongst them.

Nor did they even prevail -- as witnessed by their complete failure in the matter of Katyn.

What do you mean? The lesser Gods of the White Race, the Soviets and Anglos, managed to put the blame of Kathyn on the Germans, although they all knew the Soviets had done it. The world had to wait until gorbatchev came along to rectify that in 1990 or so.

...to be determined who was responsible for the crimes which were committed. Not who was "to blame" for starting the war to begin with.

Wrong again, as always, see wikipedia quote above.

Unless you can quote the part of the indictment that specifically mentions blame for starting the war, and show who specifically was convicted for having done so?

Your wish is my command. Done, see above.

No?

Yes. Now on your knees and beg for apologies for crimes you Anglos have committed to the White Race in service of your Jewish overlords.

Just kidding.

Then stop trying to distract from the fact that you *still* have not addressed the criticism of Sheil (whom, despite your lie that you do not, you keep offering as an authority) nor even bothered to tell us what he cites as a source for his claim about the 14 points.

I am not going to type over all the footnotes. Buy the book and read it for yourself.

I have read him. And he offers nothing but bald assertion

Huh, really? I thought you don't speak German! It was you after all wanting to see sources for the pursue of Lebenstraum!

 

[9/11-investigator]

By far the most interesting question from your list was this one:

Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

Scheil notes:

[339] Another confirmation of this was a memorandum of the British Foreign ministry from spring 1941, listing no less than 16 attempts for peace.

Mind you, that is not from me, the 'Nazi', but from the British Foreign ministery.

Until Barbarossa these German peace offers had been a pain in the neck for warmonger Churchill, because he was afraid that the British peace faction and the British population would gain the upperhand and accept them, as they should have. The biggest embarrassment for Churchill was the flight to Scotland by Nazi #2, Rudolf Hess, shortly before Barbarossa, in another spectacular attempt to achieve peace in Europe. The war was totally against the interests of the British empire. But Churchill, who was solely working for Jewish/American interests, could not give a damn about the British empire or British lives lost in the war. That is why Hess had to be strangled in Spandau in 1987 by the British secret service (under the responsibility of war criminal Tony Blair, who ordered the murder of David Kelly as well), otherwise the nasty truth about WW2 had become public knowledge, namely that it had not been the Germans keen on conquering the world, but the Soviets and Americans instead and that it had been the Americans and Soviets who had exploited a local conflict over a German town called Danzig to foment a world war and establish a New World Order, to dethrone Europe and replace it with the 2 new global powers: USA and USSR.

In my next post I will give a comprehensive overview of some of the 16 peace efforts.

 

[MG1962]

In my next post I will give a comprehensive overview of some of the 16 peace efforts.

I'd much rather you explain Molotovs quotes, and show some proof of Operation Icebreaker other than nebulous claims using no proof what so ever

 

[TSR]

Glad you admit your own argument is a joke.

.
I didn't. I stated your comment about "no discussion" was a joke, and then went on to explain why.
.

Show me link to post where I run for a quote from Die Welt? Cannot remember that.

.
That was that lengthy quote in Geman -- it was reposted several times. You asked for a citation, which I supplied
here once, and then linked to it two more times.
.

No it was not:

.
Nothing in your link even suggests "forbidden" topics.
.

That is why the British and French invasions of Norway and the mobilisations of the USSR was not allowed to be discussed, otherwise it would be impossible to accuse the Germans of 'wars of agression',
where in reality the wars of agression were committed by the allies. But they could not admit that, otherwise there was no legitimacy for them to carve up Europe and divide the loot amongst them.

.
How many countries did the Allies initiate invasions of, and how many did Germany?

It *was* a war of aggression on the German side, regardless of what anyone else may have done.
.

What do you mean? The lesser Gods of the White Race, the Soviets and Anglos, managed to put the blame of Kathyn on the Germans, although they all knew the Soviets had done it. The world had to wait until gorbatchev came along to rectify that in 1990 or so.

.
I mean, as has been explained to you before, that the Soviets wanted to introduce Katyn as a specific crime by the Germans, and got ignored by everyone else.
.

Wrong again, as always, see wikipedia quote above.

.
Wrong again, as always, by a non-biased reading of the actual history involved.

What, exactly had Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg done to deserve being aggressively invaded, just to name three? Greece? Yugoslavia? The Ukraine?

Any of this ringing a bell?
.

Your wish is my command. Done, see above.

.
Nope. Not even close to showing anyone having been convicted of starting the war, nor of starting the war.
.

I am not going to type over all the footnotes. Buy the book and read it for yourself.

.
I have it, which is why I know he doesn't offer a *single* footnote on the matter -- no need to transcribe them all: just that one.
.

Huh, really? I thought you don't speak German! It was you after all wanting to see sources for the pursue of Lebenstraum!

.
You "think" a *lot* of things which have nothing to do with reality.

And I did *not* want to see sources for the persue <sic> of lebenstraum. I quoted just such a source, and proceeded to cite no less than four (someone else supplied the fifth) historians confirming it.

In rebuttal *you* offered a document you which you asked was the one we were talking about, which it obviously was not, never having mentioned the word.

You continue to offer Sheil as authority despite having lied that you do not -- and yet will not address his lack of sources or the criticism of his work. Is the problem a lack of German skills on your part, or simple mendacity?
.

 

[TSR]

Scheil notes:

.
Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:
die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,
Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,
die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,
dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,
Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,
dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

Gonna run again?

PS: referring to "a memorandum" with no more detail is *not* a citation -- another example of Sheil's fatally flawed methodology.
.

 

[dafydd]

.
I didn't. I stated your comment about "no discussion" was a joke, and then went on to explain why.
.

.
That was that lengthy quote in Geman -- it was reposted several times. You asked for a citation, which I supplied
hereit once, and then linked to it two more times.
.

.
Nothing in your link even suggests "forbidden" topics.
.

.
How many countries did the Allies initiate invasions of, and how many did Germany?

It *was* a war of aggression on the German side, regardless of what anyone else may have done.
.

.
I mean, as has been explained to you before, that the Soviets wanted to introduce Katyn as a specific crime by the Germans, and got ignored by everyone else.
.

.
Wrong again, as always, by a non-biased reading of the actual history involved.

What, exactly had Belgium, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg done to deserve being aggressively invaded, just to name three? Greece? Yugoslavia? The Ukraine?

Any of this ringing a bell?
.

.
Nope. Not even close to showing anyone having been convicted of starting the war, nor of starting the war.
.

.
I have it, which is why I know he doesn't offer a *single* footnote on the matter -- no need to transcribe them all: just that one.
.

.
You "think" a *lot* of things which have nothing to do with reality.

And I did *not* want to see sources for the persue <sic> of lebenstraum. I quoted just such a source, and proceeded to cite no less than four (someone else supplied the fifth) historians confirming it.

In rebuttal *you* offered a document you which you asked was the one we were talking about, which it obviously was not, never having mentioned the word.

You continue to offer Sheil as authority despite having lied that you do not -- and yet will not address his lack of sources or the criticism of his work. Is the problem a lack of German skills on your part, or simple mendacity?
.

When Nein does try to answer a question he gets trashed. No wonder he avoids it as much as possible. If he's the best that the deniers can come up with then the truth does not have much competion.

 

[9/11-investigator]

Dabei ignoriere Scheil folgende Tatsachen:

die Hoßbach-Niederschrift vom November 1937, nach der Hitler den Krieg gegen Polen angestrebt und für unvermeidbar erklärt hat,

Sure, the Poles were not willing to give the German town of Danzig back, stolen by the alllies in Versailles, so an armed conflict was indeed inevitable. BTW this is the Polish crisis situation. I did read Schultze-Rhonhof about that topic, not Scheil.

Hitlers Kriegskurs seit dem Münchner Abkommen 1938,
unannehmbare Forderungen des NS-Regimes an Polen, so dass dessen Regierung eine gegenseitige Grenzgarantie im März 1939 ablehnte,

The writer of this wikipedia article (were you likely got your unsourced quote from) 'forgets' to mention these 'unacceptable conditions'.

die „bewusst eskalierten Spannungen mit Polen im Sommer 1939“,
dass die Wehrmacht seit Juni 1939 angriffsbereit war,

Sure, it was Hitler who created these tensions by starting to kill Germans living in Poland.

dass die „teilweise martialischen Töne“ in Polen bedeutungslos waren, weil den Deutschen ihre reale militärisch-technische Überlegenheit klar war,

The writer admits that the Poles were making 'martial sounds' and 'forgets' to say why: because the Poles had a British and French war garantee in their pockets and encouragement from Roosevelt to 'stay firm' and derived a false sense of security from it.

Hitlers Rede am 22. August 1939 vor Wehrmachtsgenerälen, in der er zur Zerschlagung Polens und Vernichtung seiner Führungsschicht aufrief und kein Eingreifen der westlichen Bündnispartner Polens erwartete,

What do you expect? Getting Danzig back meant war with Poland. Here is one of the parts of the NMY documentation I accept as genuin, since it comes from a Swedish source, Dahlerus, the mediator between Berlin and London: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/03-19-46.asp
Summary from the Dahlerus interrogation:

Intensive negotiations were going on between Berlin and London using the Swede Dahlerus as a mediator in August 1939 to prevent an outbreak of war, clearly showing that the invasion of Poland was not a done deal for the Germans. They wanted Danzig back, a corridor and protection for the German minority and that was it.

The you quote this:

dass Stalin Hitler mit dem Hitler-Stalin-Pakt nicht zum Krieg gegen Polen drängte, sondern dessen Angriffswillen für eigene gefahrlose Gebietsgewinne nutzte.

Scheil does not deny that. Stalin wanted to move westwards. Icebreaker, word not invented by Suvorov but used by all Soviet officers of the time.

Gonna run again?

For you?
I am fighting against 30 of the likes like you, without any substantial problem, bringing you guys to a near meltdown yesterday, that you prevented. Credit to you for this.

PS: referring to "a memorandum" with no more detail is *not* a citation -- another example of Sheil's fatally flawed methodology.

Sure, just deny that documents you do not like, don't exist.

 

[Craig4]

When Nein does try to answer a question he gets trashed. No wonder he avoids it as much as possible. If he's the best that the deniers can come up with then the truth does not have much competion.

I don't want to get too smug. His "work" (I'll be generous here) isn't good enough to have a major impact in policy circles or academia. He does however have something of a point with the use of the new media. Without the discipline of peer review which catches his lies he could intellectually impoverish the less educated. That's why it's important to teach the holocaust (and other genocides) in the pre-university setting to inoculate students against holocaust deniers. It's also important to make the deniers pay a social consequence for their dishonesty. We'd laugh at anyone who told us Elvis was alive and living in an underground city beneath Disneyland. He might dress it up but he's telling us something just as absurd and we should react the same.

 

[Quad4_72]

9/11 investigator what do you have against history books?

 

[9/11-investigator]

9/11 investigator what do you have against history books?

What do you mean, I got all my information from history books.
Point is, you don't like the historians like Buchanan, Scheil, Schultze-Rhonhof, Irving and many others whom I refer to.

Your problem.

 

[9/11-investigator]

German Peace Offers

Message to mods: mind you, this is mostly all quoted material, but it is all summarized and translated from German into English by me. It is condensed 3 page summary from a 45 page summary of Scheil's book specifically addressing the peace offer issue.

By far the most interesting question from your infamous question list was this one:

Where is the text of these 'peace messages' 9/11 says Hitler was putting out early in the war.... Give us the details, the date it was sent by who, to whom and what did it say, full and complete details.

About the peace offers:

[43] refer to pages from Scheil’s book


Before the war:

[43] To bite in the sour apple and accept Poland’s borders, that was the basic premise made in the August 31, 1939 peace offer, in return for Danzig after a referendum… Chamberlain showed himself determined to conduct war against Germany, independent of the contents of these proposals… Chamberlain no doubt had depleted his credit to the extent that he lacked political strength for another agreement with Germany.


After the beginning of the war:

[23] In July 1940 in the Reichstag, Hitler came with a call for peace addressed at Britain.

[p13]: Hitler in 1941 had presented a comprehensive peaceplan to the British government, via Haushofers son Albrecht, who had discussed it with Samuel Hoare, the British ambassador to Spain. Withdrawel from Norway, Danmark and France had been offered by Haushofer to his amazement of his British counterparts. The OSS send the documents to Washington, never to be heard of again… [15] On March 10, 1946, Haushofer received visitors from the British secret service. 2 days later he was found dead.

[25] The German attempts to achieve peace culminated with the flight of Hess to Scotland and can be seen as little else than a sign of German desperation (shortly before Barbarossa).

[28] Between 1940 and 1941 Hitler’s strategy consisted not in plans of conquest or World Blitz Wars, but in attempts of ending the war that broke out in 1939. These attempts were of dubious effectiveness where the other side under Churchill insisted in escalating the war. The British Prime Minister and his entourage was unable to detach itself from the fixation on enemy Germany… In Britain the intentions of the USSR were less important than Germany. They thought to be able to manipulate Soviet policy.

[31] In July 1940 the specially founded “Special Operations Executive” (SOE) under the leadership of Hugh Dalton was instructed to set the European Continent in fire. Churchill himself came back to this directive several times. Dalton noted the directive for the first time in his diary on July 22, 1940 on the very same day on which the British ambassador Lord Lothian reported from the US to London that he knew the German conditions for peace and that they were very satisfactory. Hitler had combined his public statement that he saw no reason to prolong the conflict any longer with sending the list of conditions to the British government. Contemporary history writing has overlooked this, since it did not fit the picture of Hitler conquering the world. Churchill was not interested.

[60] The withdrawal from Holland, Belgium and Norway was part of a peace design from September 1940, as well the one Rudolf Hess carried with him to Scotland in Spring 1941.

[170] There was no offer from the Germans that Churchill ever would have accepted. The goal was the total defeat of Germany.

[171] The worries about possible compromisses with Germany remained, also after the public peace offer by Hitler of July 19, that was accompanied with detailed conditions, handed over via the British ambassador in Washington.

[173] The Weissauer Mission. Let’s have a look which concrete peace offers were made by Germany in autumn 1940 and how Churchill reacted to them.

Ludwig Weissauer, trustee of the German secret service had travelled to Stockholm after the Reichsicherheitshauptamt had told the German Foreign Office that the British envoy [Victor Mallet] to Sweden had signaled that he would like to know if Germany was interested in peace talks.

[174] 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.”

[175] Hitlers proposals in detail:
1. Remain empire in tact
2. Accept continental supremacy for Germany
3. Leave open discussion about Mediterrainian and French and Belgian colonies
4. Recreate a Polish state
5. Czechoslovakia part of Germany

All other German occupied territories would be abandoned and restored in original state. The USSR was seen as a potential opponent of the ‘White Race’ but apparently it was not an actual threat. The danger of the ‘Yellow Race’ could be countered together (softly implying that the alliance with Japan was not of prime importance).

This proposition was similar to the one that later would be handed over to Hoare: all conquered territories since 1939 would be abandoned, except probably the annexed part of Poland.

[176] 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’”. Churchill had written the text himself.

[189] Haushofer adviced the ambassador Samuel Hoare in Madrid and Lord Lothian in Washington.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Hoare,_1st_Viscount_Templewood

For Lothian this was nothing new. He already knew about German peace proposals as early as middle July 1940 and judged them as highly satisfactory.

[190] The Times reported: “Lord Lothian said in front of the House of Lords… that there is alternative than to reserve for Germany a role in conformity of it’s weight, a nation which normally would be the most powerful state in Europe. An order which does not give to Germany it’s proper role cannot be anything else but artificial.”

[193] Hoare and Haushofer agreed to plan a meeting between Halifax and Hoare on the British and Haushofer and Hess on the German side. These were in reality fake negotiations were conducted with knowledge and approved by Churchill to give the German leadership the illusion that real negotiations were going on. It was Haushofer who adviced Lord Hamilton as contact person and it would be him who Hess 9 months later would try to see.

[194] Hess was the victim of a British intrige. It’s main purpose was to prevent the formation of a peace faction within British politics.

[195] For the Germans it was difficult to admit that they had followed the British government with spectacular peace offers, in order to lose the 2nd man in the German state in this adventurous manner to the enemy.

[196] It is certain that Hess did represent the ideas of Hitler about making peace when he talked with government officials, including Eden.

The British government wasin a difficult position these days… many defeats had recently occurred… Like happened in Norway and France, the British army was forced to retreat from Greece; even defeat and evacuation from the Suezcanal was not impossible… Lloyd George was attacking Churchill for the manner in which he was conducting war.

[201] In Britain the organisers of the H-H-H-H-operation were clearly overwhelmed by the visit of the high-ranking envoy Hess and for a long time could not decide how to deal with him. Hess had expected that an offer would be made to him. But that did not happen. Hess did not offer anything else than what had already been proposed earlier: no interests of Germany outside Europe and a British-German alliance.

The Hess escapade was the last German effort to achieve peace with Britain. After that failure Hitler knew what Robert H. Jackson later confirmed while studying the German archives:

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."