Why isn't there a chance of Rudolf Hess succeeding at making peace with the UK after the flight?

[Otto of england]

It would make no sense. Giving peace and the possibility to continue buildup even stronger would just make Hitler come back with an even bigger invasion soon. Not even speaking about the consequences of France falling into German sphere of influence.

Well if we give the full benefit of 20:20 hindsight (and also we completely ignore the bad things Nazi Germany did but we cant discuss that anyways), then it actually makes perfect sense for the UK to sue for peace in 1940. Hitler did not want anything significant from the UK, just the old German colonies, and after getting that Hitler just wanted to make the uber-germanic alliance with the Nordic Countries, Netherlands, and UK. Furthermore, Hitler loved the British empire and seeing it die like it did post ww2 is the last thing he wanted. To him the British Empire was a stabilizing force and a perfect example of the superiority of Anglo-Saxon racial stock over much of the world.

Essentially, why kill your fellow ubermensch (I dont believe Hitler regarded Anglo-Saxons as Aryan, but if not they were the next best thing), when you could not kill your fellow ubermensch. Anyhow after the destruction of the Soviet Union and topics that we cannot discuss were well underway, he wanted to invade and destroy the USA with the help of Britain. After that its basically just Germanic peoples conquer the world and form a super nation.

tl:dr
Hitlers plan (Order is not that important to Hitler, or in this listing)
1. Tame or destroy France so western boarder is free
2. Conquer east for more land, since land = more German people, and more German people = good
3. At some point ally, or puppet Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, and the UK
4. At some point conquer Switzerland, since Switzerland sucks because (insert nazis reasons here)
5. Using the powers of Europe + the British Empire conquer the USA
7. Conquer the rest of the world
8. Do nazi things
9. ???
10. Conquer the universe?

 

[kettyo]

@Otto of england

The thing is that by 1940 it was totally obvious for all the British, even the pro-German ones, that Hitler can't be trusted. He betrayed so many treaties and promises with ease it was clear as day that peace would only be temporary until he sees it's more fitting to attack.

It had been a totally different story in case e.g. Hitler got assassinated and the military took power under the leadership of some credible general. In this case Britain might have accepted a peace in case Germany showed reasonable gestures, e.g. reestablishment of a semi-autonomous, German aligned Poland.

But removing Hitler at the height of his success is just unreal.

 

[Secret Master]

Well if we give the full benefit of 20:20 hindsight (and also we completely ignore the bad things Nazi Germany did but we cant discuss that anyways), then it actually makes perfect sense for the UK to sue for peace in 1940.

It sure as hell doesn't make sense from the British side. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose from giving Germany peace in 1940.

The Admiralty gives a succinct summary of why peace in 1940 is pointless, in their 1938 statement about the AGNA:

The German Navy was for Germany mainly an instrument for putting political pressure on Britain. Before the war, Germany would have been willing to cease or moderate its naval competition with Britain but only in return for a promise of its neutrality in any European conflict. Hitler attempted the same thing by different methods, but, like other German politicians, he saw only one side of the picture. It is clear from his writings that he was enormously impressed with the part played by the prewar naval rivalry in creating bad relations between the two countries. Thus he argued that the removal of this rivalry was all that was necessary to obtain good relations. By making a free gift of an absence of naval competition, he hoped that relations between the two countries would be so improved that Britain should not, in fact, find it necessary to interfere with Germany's continental policy.

He overlooked, like other German politicians, that Britain is bound to react not only against danger from any purely-naval rival, but also against dominance of Europe by any aggressive military power, particularly if that power is in a position to threaten the Low Countries and the Channel ports. British complaisance could never be purchased by trading one of the factors against the other, and any country that attempted so would be bound to create disappointment and disillusion, as Germany did.

A Germany with a free hand to build up naval assets or threaten to seize the naval facilities of other countries could not be allowed to happen. Germany having any kind of "free hand" to expand her power would ultimately threaten British interests eventually. Letting Germany off the hook in 1940 means letting them get away with absorbing the industrial resources of Poland, adding them to the stuff taken from the Czechs and Austria. It's only made worse in 1940 by knowledge that Germany and the Soviets have the M-R Pact. Germany could not be allowed to create some kind of continental block in terms of realpolitik.

 

[Otto of england]

It sure as hell doesn't make sense from the British side. They have nothing to gain and everything to lose from giving Germany peace in 1940.

The Admiralty gives a succinct summary of why peace in 1940 is pointless, in their 1938 statement about the AGNA:



A Germany with a free hand to build up naval assets or threaten to seize the naval facilities of other countries could not be allowed to happen. Germany having any kind of "free hand" to expand her power would ultimately threaten British interests eventually. Letting Germany off the hook in 1940 means letting them get away with absorbing the industrial resources of Poland, adding them to the stuff taken from the Czechs and Austria. It's only made worse in 1940 by knowledge that Germany and the Soviets have the M-R Pact. Germany could not be allowed to create some kind of continental block in terms of realpolitik.

@Otto of england

The thing is that by 1940 it was totally obvious for all the British, even the pro-German ones, that Hitler can't be trusted. He betrayed so many treaties and promises with ease it was clear as day that peace would only be temporary until he sees it's more fitting to attack.

It had been a totally different story in case e.g. Hitler got assassinated and the military took power under the leadership of some credible general. In this case Britain might have accepted a peace in case Germany showed reasonable gestures, e.g. reestablishment of a semi-autonomous, German aligned Poland.

But removing Hitler at the height of his success is just unreal.

I think both of you are missing my argument in the exact same way. Basically, if you go back to UK in 1940 with full benefit of hindsight, what Hitler was planning, and you have no qualms with enabling Nazism then it makes perfect sense to be at peace. What this allows for Britain is being apart of controlling the world essentially, since Britain and its colonies, Germany, and Italy would have no difficulty defeating the USSR in 1941 and then from there its a matter of time to defeat USA. So, Britain's stake is essentially getting equal dominance of the world in a weird Nazi NATO/UN esc organization.

Again I emphasize this is only possible with 20:20 hindsight and halving no qualms about enabling Nazis (this is would be pretty horrific to say it mildly). If you look at it only as a 1940 information, then yes of course it doesn't make sense to make peace because 1940 British politicians do not know that Hitler wants nothing but to be super friends with the UK and rule the world the world together. Without that information (and turning a blind eye to Nazis atrocities) it doesn't make sense, this is true. Also I can see an argument that even then you couldn't entirely trust Hitler, but I counter that in saying that Hitler followed his privately stated ideology really closely, and as long as you are ok with German oriented world, are a race that Nazis like, and are ok with Nazis thats not a bad world. Of course almost everyone you ask (myself included) sees the huge problems with this, namely Nazism is fairly diametrically opposed to most western ideologies today, and if your not Germanic, well, I think thats self explanatory why Nazism isnt a particularly well liked ideology. Yet, that doesn't mean we should completely ignore that the option existed, and from a purely dispassionate and cynical point of view it makes astronomically more sense to the British government to ally with Germany and not throw away the empire, lose millions of British citizens, and take on massive debts.

Luckily for us, very few people act from purely cynical and dispassionate view points so this didn't happen. Yet to claim it doesnt make sense given two aforestated assumptions is incorrect.

 

[Fulmen]

I think both of you are missing my argument in the exact same way. Basically, if you go back to UK in 1940 with full benefit of hindsight, what Hitler was planning, and you have no qualms with enabling Nazism then it makes perfect sense to be at peace. What this allows for Britain is being apart of controlling the world essentially, since Britain and its colonies, Germany, and Italy would have no difficulty defeating the USSR in 1941 and then from there its a matter of time to defeat USA. So, Britain's stake is essentially getting equal dominance of the world in a weird Nazi NATO/UN esc organization.

Again I emphasize this is only possible with 20:20 hindsight and halving no qualms about enabling Nazis (this is would be pretty horrific to say it mildly). If you look at it only as a 1940 information, then yes of course it doesn't make sense to make peace because 1940 British politicians do not know that Hitler wants nothing but to be super friends with the UK and rule the world the world together. Without that information (and turning a blind eye to Nazis atrocities) it doesn't make sense, this is true. Also I can see an argument that even then you couldn't entirely trust Hitler, but I counter that in saying that Hitler followed his privately stated ideology really closely, and as long as you are ok with German oriented world, are a race that Nazis like, and are ok with Nazis thats not a bad world. Of course almost everyone you ask (myself included) sees the huge problems with this, namely Nazism is fairly diametrically opposed to most western ideologies today, and if your not Germanic, well, I think thats self explanatory why Nazism isnt a particularly well liked ideology. Yet, that doesn't mean we should completely ignore that the option existed, and from a purely dispassionate and cynical point of view it makes astronomically more sense to the British government to ally with Germany and not throw away the empire, lose millions of British citizens, and take on massive debts.

Luckily for us, very few people act from purely cynical and dispassionate view points so this didn't happen. Yet to claim it doesnt make sense given two aforestated assumptions is incorrect.

The Hess flight happened in 1941, not 1940. By that time England was in a far stronger position than she had been in the summer of 1940.

Furthermore, the British went to war with Germany for the exact same reason they did in 1914: to prevent a strong Germany from calling the shots on the continent and ultimately posing a threat to Britain's position as the #1 super power in the world. Ironically those wars cost them that position, but it's not something many at the time believed would happen.

In 1941 England had won the air war over the Channel and routed the Italians in Egypt and Abyssinia. America was well underway to joining the war on the Allied side within a year, after numerous blatant violations of neutrality in favour of England.

To accept peace from this position of strength would've been utter madness from a political point of view.

 

[Otto of england]

The Hess flight happened in 1941, not 1940. By that time England was in a far stronger position than she had been in the summer of 1940.

Furthermore, the British went to war with Germany for the exact same reason they did in 1914: to prevent a strong Germany from calling the shots on the continent and ultimately posing a threat to Britain's position as the #1 super power in the world. Ironically those wars cost them that position, but it's not something many at the time believed would happen.

In 1941 England had won the air war over the Channel and routed the Italians in Egypt and Abyssinia. America was well underway to joining the war on the Allied side within a year, after numerous blatant violations of neutrality in favour of England.

To accept peace from this position of strength would've been utter madness from a political point of view.

Ah there is the problem I misread the date we were discussing on . Im actually not even sure how I misread that lol, but I was convinced we were discussing May/June 1940.

Anyhow, by 1941 I agree with you no matter what hindsight/morals the British government had, they would not be able to sell it to the British people. June 1940, I think is 100% plausible with previous assumptions, and certainly a possibility without them if the right people were in power. By may 1941 the German position was so much weaker and the British had lost enough people and resources that the only way to get the general population on board with peace would be if the Royal Navy and RAF just didn't do anything for ~2 months, and the Germans invaded immediately *. Which, as Im sure you are well aware, is about as possible as Hitler getting in power in 1933 and then not starting a war.

* Based on my own research I'm not entirely convinced two months is actually enough time with the RAF and RN doing nothing, but I think its the shortest window that the Germans theoretically could win in. Basically Sea Lion was about as far fetched as it could be, and interestingly enough, nobody relevant to the operation in Germany in 1940 even thought it would work, not the OKM, OKH, OKW, Luftwaffe, or Hitler though Sea Lion was a realistically possible plan. The OKN was especially adamant that it had poor chances of success, something something about not being able to deal with Royal Navy night time destroyer and torpedo boat raids.

 

[Secret Master]

I think both of you are missing my argument in the exact same way. Basically, if you go back to UK in 1940 with full benefit of hindsight, what Hitler was planning, and you have no qualms with enabling Nazism then it makes perfect sense to be at peace. What this allows for Britain is being apart of controlling the world essentially, since Britain and its colonies, Germany, and Italy would have no difficulty defeating the USSR in 1941 and then from there its a matter of time to defeat USA. So, Britain's stake is essentially getting equal dominance of the world in a weird Nazi NATO/UN esc organization.

Well, this argument only works if you see Hitler's long term goals in non-realpolitik terms. As in, he can be trusted not to turn Germany into a naval power using her increased leverage on the continent.

Given the M-R Pact, I'm not entirely sure I would be confident of that even with perfect 20/20 hindsight. Hitler acts with a sense of realpolitik over ideological concerns in enough cases that if I were reverse-time-traveling-Churchill, I'd still think enabling Hitler against the Soviets is a bad move once we get to 1940.

Note that if we turn back the clock to 1938, a really devious and evil and foresighted Britain might sell out Poland to give Germany and the Soviets a common border, while selling Germany just enough resources to help Britain rearm while both powers bleed themselves. The Britain keeps cozy with France and the US, oppose Japan in the Far East to keep those resources secure.

That's bordering on Lord Ventinari levels of realpolitik, though.

 

[Otto of england]

Well, this argument only works if you see Hitler's long term goals in non-realpolitik terms. As in, he can be trusted not to turn Germany into a naval power using her increased leverage on the continent.

Given the M-R Pact, I'm not entirely sure I would be confident of that even with perfect 20/20 hindsight. Hitler acts with a sense of realpolitik over ideological concerns in enough cases that if I were reverse-time-traveling-Churchill, I'd still think enabling Hitler against the Soviets is a bad move once we get to 1940.

Note that if we turn back the clock to 1938, a really devious and evil and foresighted Britain might sell out Poland to give Germany and the Soviets a common border, while selling Germany just enough resources to help Britain rearm while both powers bleed themselves. The Britain keeps cozy with France and the US, oppose Japan in the Far East to keep those resources secure.

That's bordering on Lord Ventinari levels of realpolitik, though.

That's a fair counter argument, though I think the realpolitik angle doesn't work with Hitler, because he only ever considered using it if it advanced his overall plan. The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact did such a thing since it allowed him to crush Poland, and France without having to fight the USSR. So if we are assuming that Hitler is actually sincere about the goals he has for Germany and is doing everything in his power to maneuver himself towards that plan*, then Britain only gains by going pro Germany. However, if you are taking the stance that given Hitlers actions politically, his privately stated grand plan is also subject to skepticism then I agree with you in so much as I cannot disprove your position.

*Plan in as few words as possible. Step 1 get Germany strong and in a position for Step 2 -> Step 2 defeat USSR -> Step 3 defeat USA, this step is very vague, because I dont think Hitler expected to live this long and he thought all of his potential successors were incompetent, so he did not talk/think about this much. Though its possible I am missing information, but I'm doubtful of that.

Edit: Your 1938 scenario is rather amusing, and from a pure British stand point with 20:20 hindsight its actually the best case scenario. Get Germany and the USSR to bleed each other white, while profiting immensely off the war, and if worst comes to worse and either start threatening Britain it would be easy to attack and crush them.

Though the flaw is, Hitler would never want to attack the USSR while the French army exists. So unless you can somehow convince France to disband there army it wouldn't happen.

 

[Secret Master]

Though the flaw is, Hitler would never want to attack the USSR while the French army exists. So unless you can somehow convince France to disband there army it wouldn't happen.

True. Unless there was a way to be sure the French were not going to get involved, war with the Soviets is unattractive. I don't think merely having Britain refuse to support France is enough of an incentive to keep France out.

 

[Robosoldier1]

Ya i never got why they labeled Hess dead in this event. He got arrested. Not shot/died in the crash. I mean ya Hitler "disowns" him which I guess for a high ranking nazi is equivalent to death but again he ain't dead paradox. Obviously he still gets removed from the game because he can't very well operate as a political leader in jail. But still what the hell. This is an equivalent of saying FDR "retires" during his 1933-1945 term instead of dying. Its just weird.

 

[kettyo]

Ya i never got why they labeled Hess dead in this event. He got arrested. Not shot/died in the crash. I mean ya Hitler "disowns" him which I guess for a high ranking nazi is equivalent to death but again he ain't dead paradox. Obviously he still gets removed from the game because he can't very well operate as a political leader in jail. But still what the hell. This is an equivalent of saying FDR "retires" during his 1933-1945 term instead of dying. Its just weird.

There are multiple versions of the event. In some of them he dies and in others he survives and get into the Tower.

 

[kettyo]

@Otto of england

You fail to recognize that Hitler did promise many things and then have betrayed them soon in a short timeframe. It is just insane to ally with a power like this. In case Hitler was akin to Bismarck then it was a different story. But he was a serious psychopath and you don't ally with such. It makes no sense. It's just greatly suicidal.

 

[DicRoNero]

Furthermore, the British went to war with Germany for the exact same reason they did in 1914: to prevent a strong Germany from calling the shots on the continent and ultimately posing a threat to Britain's position as the #1 super power in the world. Ironically those wars cost them that position, but it's not something many at the time believed would happen.

Why? It's the other way around: very few aside from Churchill-like people believed Britain could retain her integrity, much less actually gain anything.

Britain was bankrupt by late summer 1940 iirc, and obviously it couldn't have got any better in 5 years. And Tizard mission - that was a flat-out surrender, not military one (to Hitler, for which he has never asked), but political (to Roosevelt, who definitely intended to gain a thing or two off Britain. Just that initially it was her fleet).

Now if people here (quite rightly) bring in personalities and discuss how Hitler couldn't have been trusted anyway, then they also have to admit that Churchill being
obnoxiously stubborn would rather emerge as a victorious ruler of ashes and ruins of his own empire than simply rest content having seen only failures by then: those of WW1, and then Norway and France. Vanity was his driver.

 

[mursolini]

Note that if we turn back the clock to 1938, a really devious and evil and foresighted Britain might sell out Poland to give Germany and the Soviets a common border, while selling Germany just enough resources to help Britain rearm while both powers bleed themselves. The Britain keeps cozy with France and the US, oppose Japan in the Far East to keep those resources secure.

That's bordering on Lord Ventinari levels of realpolitik, though.

Well, IMO, replace USSR with France, and you pretty much described British continental politics in 1936-1939.

Allow Germans to remilitarize, while keeping their navy small by treaties, thus make France prime target. Try to force France to enter war on their own by refusing to uphold Versailles or defend Czechs. Guarantee Poland so France enters war, and *presumably* bleeds itself over West Wall or during enevitable German offensive. In the meantime, withhold critical assets like RAF from France, so they don't take the blunt of German offensive.

 

[Louella]

Would be somewhat better if Borrmann was only available after Hess has undertaken his flight

The mod Vanilla+ has Bormann only available after Hess has flown.

 

[Tempestra]

Ya i never got why they labeled Hess dead in this event. He got arrested. Not shot/died in the crash

While he was physically alive, he would never again serve as a significant politician in Germany (even if the Nazis had won). So he was politically "dead", and setting him to "dead" is the best way to make sure the German player can't appoint him again.

Having an alternative status of "not actually dead but politically inoperative" would be cute but probably not worth the programming effort.

 

[pdBravo]

The reason why he was 'discarded' is that Britain was simply not interested in any peace whatsoever, regardless of person trying to bring it about.

I don't think you can say Britain wasn't interested in peace. Hitler had proved many times his word was worth literally nothing, he'd lied about having no intention to virtually every country he invaded. Any peace deal would have been a piece of paper worth about as much as the Munich agreement, which ended up having a value of less than toilet paper as at least toilet paper wouldn't hurt as much when used.

 

[kettyo]

I don't think you can say Britain wasn't interested in peace. Hitler had proved many times his word was worth literally nothing, he'd lied about having no intention to virtually every country he invaded. Any peace deal would have been a piece of paper worth about as much as the Munich agreement, which ended up having a value of less than toilet paper as at least toilet paper wouldn't hurt as much when used.

So true and still a lot of people don't get this.

 

[Cpt. Fabri]

While Hitler's word might be relatively worthless his intentions are clear as daylight, oil. Everything he ever did or attempted to, all his conflicts with his own generals regarding the eastern front strategy, his attempts to reach a peacefull solution with Britain. All come to the same point, he knew the key factor and the only thing that really mattered was the oil.

In my opinion the real question is, granted we are talking in a scenario in which Germany peace out with Britain in 1940. What would Hitler had done (diplomacy wise) once the Caucasus oilfields where well secured under german control.

 

[Telenil]

Now if people here (quite rightly) bring in personalities and discuss how Hitler couldn't have been trusted anyway, then they also have to admit that Churchill being
obnoxiously stubborn would rather emerge as a victorious ruler of ashes and ruins of his own empire than simply rest content having seen only failures by then: those of WW1, and then Norway and France. Vanity was his driver.

Are we still talking about Churchill here? Vanity was certainly not one of his motives, he had been saying for years that nazis couldn't and shouldn't be trusted. He very much cared about England and the British Empire, but he cared even more about defeating the nazis. He would have considered an invasion of Britain a very high, but acceptable, price if that was what it took. Which makes perfect sense if you will not tolerate a nazi-dominated world, full stop. I'm French, and I find that easy to understand.