Be sure to read the Rules/guidelines before you post!
You have a good point there; it's just more proof that Hitler had no intention of exterminating anyone!
If the peace terms would have been accepted, then all the concentration camps and transit camps would have been open for all the world to see.
It wasn't a Holocaust.....it's a Holohoax!
'We don't need evidence, we have survivors' - israeli politician
You should consult David Irving's books and speeches, especially, but here are two links I hope you will find enlightening.
Take the summer of 1940, when Britain came to its other fateful crossroads, after France, Poland, the Low Countries, Norway and Denmark were all in German hands: at this point in Britain's tragic history, our "deadly foe" Adolf Hitler came to us with an offer so generous that you can only scratch your head now and ask, Well, what went wrong? I've seen it in the German, the Swedish, the Swiss and the American archives; but there are only vague traces of it in the British archives, because it has all been blanketed out -- pasted over, like certain paragraphs in the Cabinet minutes of May, June, and July 1940, which you are not allowed to read even now, fifty years later. The peace offer was this: Hitler declared that he was prepared to pull his armies out of France, Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark, Poland and Czechoslovakia -- out of all these territories except of course for the regions which had been German before and which he had fought the war over. Now that he had the territories like Alsace and Lorraine back, he was not going to let them go.Hitler told us, through emissaries. In Sweden, he informed Victor Mallet, the British ambassador; Hitler sent a lawyer called Ludwig Weissauer to him in August 1940. In America, it was Hans Thomsen, the German ambassador, approached by the British ambassador, Lord Lothian, a very upright Christian gentleman. Every attempt that the Germans made to bring the details of their historic Peace Offer to the attention of the British people was killed by Winston Churchill
Irving pointed out that Churchill rejected Hitler's peace offers in 1939, 1940, and 1941 (Irving supports the thesis that Rudolf Hess's flight to Scodand was ordered by the Führer). Irving pinpointed one critical moment, and supplied the background: (see link below)
Here is a thread on Stormfront with many references.
The Germans contacted the British embassador in Sweden during the invasion of France - Victor Mallet, through Sweden´s Supreme Court judge Ekeberg, who was known to Hitler´s legal advisor, Ludwig Weissauer.
"Hitler, according to his emissary [Weissauer], feels himself responsible for the future of the White race. He 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, Weissauer has given the impression that it should be seen as a potential enemy. "
According to Mallet, these were Hitler´s peace terms:
"1-The British Empire retains all its Colonies and delegations
2- Germany´s continental supremacy won't 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- Checkoslovakia must belong to Germany
Weissauer didn´t go into details, but Ekeberg understood that implied that all European states occupied by Germany would see their sovereignty restored. Germany´s occupation was only due to the present military situation.
More on Borjastick's question would be appreciated.
John P. asked:
If Hitler was intent on extermination how would he have achieved this had these peace terms been agreed????
Granted, a knowledge of the conditions for peace are important, but keep this thread focused on the so called "holocaust" as related to these appeals and conditions for peace. Thanks.
Mkk wrote:Borjastick,Irving pointed out that Churchill rejected Hitler's peace offers in 1939, 1940, and 1941 (Irving supports the thesis that Rudolf Hess's flight to Scodand was ordered by the Führer). Irving pinpointed one critical moment, and supplied the background: (see link below)
I tend to agree with Irving that Hitler knew about Hess's flight, that it was all planned out to make peace with England and put an end to the war.
It would be out of character for Hess to just take off on his own without Hitlers approval, Hess was loyal to Hitler to the end.
Moderator wrote:This is the relevant question that should be addressed in this thread.
John P. asked:If Hitler was intent on extermination how would he have achieved this had these peace terms been agreed????
Well, it seems pretty incompatible with the Intentionalist position, but then has the Intentionalist position had any real credibility for years now? Hilberg rejected it years ago with his "incredible [sic] meeting of minds" and leaving the overwhelming majority of French Jews untouched seems incompatible with it.
If the peace agreement would have meant German withdrawal from most of the territory it had occupied, the answer to the question would appear to be "with considerable difficulty"! You might argue, I suppose, that Hitler would have liked to kill them all, but that it was not the be-all and end-all of his policy.
It is interesting how this and other peace offers by Hitler have been written out of the conventional narrative, and even in the formal history of writers like Ian Kershaw reduced to simplistic Orwellian "Churchill good -- Halifax bad" terms. Just like the complex history of the run-up to the war.
The Revisionist sources you quote are valuable and a necessary counterbalance to the conventional picture that is rarely challenged in the mainstream, but we must recognise that they also are biased and not accept them without question simply because "our side" says so. They must be subjected to the same rigorous criticism and scepticism as we would apply to arguments from conventional sources. That said, I found an excellent source of such biased but valuable material here: http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/gateway. This article deals with Hitler's peace offers prior to the war: http://www.wintersonnenwende.com/scriptorium/english/archives/nothanks/wwr00.html
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: HMSendeavour and 3 guests