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

[kettyo]

@Cpt. Fabri

Actually i think the German regime has valued the huge agricultural potential (Lebensraum) of Eastern Europe a lot higher than oil.

 

[Cpt. Fabri]

@Cpt. Fabri

Actually i think the German regime has valued the huge agricultural potential (Lebensraum) of Eastern Europe a lot higher than oil.

That's a fair enough point, but then again such issue the Germans knew very well from their experience from WW1 and the motive was the same. British blockade, that's the greatest issue Hitler was for sure aware of. The only difference is that in the WW2 was not only food but also oil, and food wise was even worse considering the germans had in 1940 not only to deal with their own but also all the conquered lands. Thus why war with the RN equals no other choice than a ivasion of the Soviet Union or get eventually defeated by attrition.

Both scenarios are a win or die with high levels of pure gambling, big no no for a successful strategy. Hitler's need of peace with Britain was obvious and the easiest solution to pretty much all or most of the problems the Third Reich faced.

Which makes in my opinion the British effort as equally important as the soviet one in order to defeat Germany. I don't think you can imagine a world with the Nazis defeated without their combined effort, together with the italian one kappa

 

[Secret Master]

@Cpt. Fabri

Actually i think the German regime has valued the huge agricultural potential (Lebensraum) of Eastern Europe a lot higher than oil.

 

[Louella]

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.

The Hess events set a flag which disallows Hess as a political advisor.

There's 4 possible outcomes for Hess.
Uses Hindenburg, bails out, imprisoned.
Uses Hindenburg, shot down, dies.
Uses Bf110, bails out, imprisoned .
Uses Bf110, shot down, dies.

All outcomes set the flag that makes him unavailable.

One thing is almost certain though. One war or another, the Hindenburg exploded.

 

[mursolini]

That's a fair enough point, but then again such issue the Germans knew very well from their experience from WW1 and the motive was the same. British blockade, that's the greatest issue Hitler was for sure aware of. The only difference is that in the WW2 was not only food but also oil, and food wise was even worse considering the germans had in 1940 not only to deal with their own but also all the conquered lands. Thus why war with the RN equals no other choice than a ivasion of the Soviet Union or get eventually defeated by attrition.

Both scenarios are a win or die with high levels of pure gambling, big no no for a successful strategy. Hitler's need of peace with Britain was obvious and the easiest solution to pretty much all or most of the problems the Third Reich faced.

Which makes in my opinion the British effort as equally important as the soviet one in order to defeat Germany. I don't think you can imagine a world with the Nazis defeated without their combined effort, together with the italian one kappa

@Cpt. Fabri

Actually i think the German regime has valued the huge agricultural potential (Lebensraum) of Eastern Europe a lot higher than oil.

After fall of France, Germany got their agriculture problem fixed by French output.

Paralels with WW1 should be drawn sparingly, considering Germany had occupied France, Italy and Romania were allies, Portugal was not hostile, and so on.

Hitler could stall the war pretty much indefinitely(bar A-bomb), as long as Soviet Union was neutral, since Britain didn`t have the manpower to land alone in Europe, while it would take far too long to ship enough American troops to outnumber European Axis.

It is doubtful that oil was the key factor in 1940, since Germany could buy Soviet oil almost indefinitely, with all of European goods and output it had. Issue really was dependence on Soviets in terms of resource purchases, and the fact that Soviet army grew to enormous size and was rearming.

 

[Meglok]

That's actually a pretty good idea. I hope someone is reading these suggestions.

If they are made in the suggestion sub-forum suggestions are read. If they are somewhere in the middle of a thread in the main forum, maybe not. Just saying.

But the Hindenburg idea is interesting, if a bit random.

 

[Meglok]

@Otto of england
2 words why England would not seek peace with Germany in 1940, or 1941.
Winston Churchill

There is no way this side of jumping down a rabbit hole Winston would have negotiated with Hitler. No way, no how.

 

[Otto of england]

@Otto of england
2 words why England would not seek peace with Germany in 1940, or 1941.
Winston Churchill

There is no way this side of jumping down a rabbit hole Winston would have negotiated with Hitler. No way, no how.

I agree with you in that given 1940s information and Churchill in power peace was not possible, but if Churchill died for some reason or was not PM i think peace was possible. Agruably a terrible idea, but possible.

@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.

If your taking the stance that Hitlers political actions imply his private ideological motivations were not sincere, then sure. However, if you believe Hitlers private motivations* were sincere (i do) then as a British person you could trust that Hitler had no intention of invading the UK. Though, I have no means at this time to disprove the first case (lack sufficient sources) so we are essentially at an impasse.

*i.e. the get all the Germanic peoples together and conquer everything else.

 

[Addas]

What does Olympics events do? I think they should add stability bonus to country that won the most golden medals (I'm sacrastic btw)

 

[kettyo]

I don't think you can imagine a world with the Nazis defeated without their combined effort, together with the italian one kappa

Very true, at least not in the regular way. Even if the Soviets became full-member Axis allies or defeated by the Axis i can envision a scenario where things escalate so that the capitalist powers eventually resort to nuclear holocaust of Axis civilians, resulting ultimately in Axis defeat but at the expense of even more brutal destruction than real life WW2.

 

[kettyo]

If your taking the stance that Hitlers political actions imply his private ideological motivations were not sincere, then sure. However, if you believe Hitlers private motivations* were sincere (i do) then as a British person you could trust that Hitler had no intention of invading the UK

Sincere motivations? What??? Are we talking about the same man who assassinated countless of his own partymen, including some of his most talented comrades like Strasser in the night of the long knives? There's nothing sincere in that just psychopathic powermania. Same as e.g. Stalin.

 

[Otto of england]

Sincere motivations? What??? Are we talking about the same man who assassinated countless of his own partymen, including some of his most talented comrades like Strasser in the night of the long knives? There's nothing sincere in that just psychopathic powermania. Same as e.g. Stalin.

Sincere motivations such that he was doing his best to actualize his ideological plan. Essentially he was logically trying to get towards a specific goal and taking any action that furthered it, and said goal does not involve the destruction of Britain. This does not mean his goals were by any means kosher to the average modern person, but if he was actually trying to do them everything he does makes logical sense.

Killing English people -> less Germanic people
Conquer USSR -> more living space for Germanic people

Etc.

Now i say again, if you think that his political actions cast doubt on the sincerity of his ideological motivations then we might as well stop discussing it. I dont have sources at my access to convince you (unless you are willing to take my word on my university education), so we might as well stop discussing it. Debating my opinion vs yours with no solid third party sources is pointless, yes? Im convinced based on my schooling and personal research that Hitler had real goals and wasnt just a madman, you seem to have the opposite idea. These cannot be reconciled and neither of us has information to prove our position.

Edit:

I should add paranoia doesnt in validate ideological motivations. In fact id argue in this case it supports it since Hitler thought his party members were incompetent and wouldnt be able to execute his plan. Thus, removing powerful party members is a good idea to reduce the risk of an internal coup.

 

[kettyo]

@Otto of england

As Shakespeare wrote: "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it". Hitler was exactly like that.

But should the UK went down voluntarily from the world leading power to a puppet of a madman? Nah i don't think so.

 

[Otto of england]

@Otto of england

As Shakespeare wrote: "Though this be madness, yet there is method in it". Hitler was exactly like that.

But should the UK went down voluntarily from the world leading power to a puppet of a madman? Nah i don't think so.

The UK was unlikely to be a puppet, more a partner. Think more like the UK's relationship with the USA right now, not Slovakia's relationship with Nazi Germany. Obviously we cannot know for certain, but what we can no for certain it fighting Nazi Germany directly leads to a massive decline in power of the UK, and literally every document I have seen about Hitler shows he didn't want to destroy, or diminish the UK in any meaningful way. So guaranteed decline vs non guaranteed decline, the question then becomes are the things that need to be sacrificed for option 2 worth it to the UK*.

The question of whether Hitler is mad or not, is not possible to be conclusively answered. Sure he did some absolutely horrific things, but humans do absolutely horrific things and I think its a stretch to assume someone has to be mad to do horrific things. To be truly mad the person would have to be shown to act irrationally, and arbitrarily given certain inputs and I dont see Hitlers actions following that. Essentially I think calling any ideology or ideological position as 'insane' or 'mad' is fundamentally incorrect. Some ideological positions are not supported by facts, but that only makes their adherents 'mad' or 'insane' if they are actively ignoring those facts when given information that shows their position is incorrect. And from my research I have not found anything that suggests Hitler was given anything that disproved the core of his ideology, that racial hierarchies were a thing. Remember in the 1930 and 1940s racism was a huge and very tangible thing throughout much of the world and it is not a stretch to go from racism to my race is the best race. Its not until genetics research got fairly advanced that science started to conclusively disprove racist ideologies since that was irrefutable evidence that there is essentially no difference between different races. Yet that would take until well after Hitler died.

Tl:dr
I have not seen anything that implies Hitler was doing anything but actualizing his ideology, or that he actively ignored widely accepted facts that disproved his ideology.

 

[Louella]

The Germans did plan to go to war with the UK, and use commerce-raiding battleship & carrier groups to force the RN to spread themselves thinly and be defeated that way, causing the UK to negotiate for peace.
But their plan also was based upon such a war not happening until 1946 or so...

 

[PanzerMan7]

Nope. According to Geneva convention, they'd have to repatriate him back to Germany. Not that Britons were famous for adhering to it during WW2, but still. 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.

Hess wasn't treated as a diplomat because the British determined he had no authority from Hitler to negotiate peace.

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/hist...-flew-scotland-middle-world-war-ii-180959040/

As for the reason to OP's question, because there was a chance for Hess to succeed. He wasn't thinking clearly

 

[kettyo]

literally every document I have seen about Hitler shows he didn't want to destroy, or diminish the UK in any meaningful way

This can be true but what if his successor has a different stance on this matter? Hitler's health deteriorated quite fast. Letting Nazi Germany grow very strong certainly had been a very bad idea.

 

[DicRoNero]

This can be true but what if his successor has a different stance on this matter? Hitler's health deteriorated quite fast. Letting Nazi Germany grow very strong certainly had been a very bad idea.

Hitler's first successor was Goering, and he had about 0 interest in continuing that war. By then he had become one of the richest man of Europe, which made wide open to him all sorts of pleasures, from hunting to collecting arts (for which at wartime he was mostly paying real money anyway).

The second part is unclear. As you saying world's leaders should have been as wretched as it would get them to invade Germany in, say, March 1938, like Churchill suggested during Austria crisis? Under which pretext, exactly? For simply being strong? Well, most of them assessed and operated real figures, unlike said Churchill who for his own agenda multiplied German airpower multi-fold.