Peace in our time - 1941 or 1943?

[ivanotter]

All,

I am busy reading ‘Hitler’s spy chief’ by Richard Bassett.

I think there is plenty of evidence that Canaris tried his level best in establishing peace feelers towards the UK. As he was an ardent anti-communist probably also helped.

It has some interesting aspects:

Did ‘C’ (Menzies) meet in Algiers or Spain in December ’42?
Did Churchill actively approve of the peace initiatives or even order these?

Was Giraud’s ‘escape’ orchestrated by Canaris as a token of goodwill?

Did UK provide listening equipment to Finland, well knowing that any information on USSR gleaned would be given to Abwehr?

The ‘rumour’ was that 42/43 was very close to a peace/armistice between UK and Germany, closer even than 1940/41.

Some of these peace initiatives might (according to Bassett) have been sanctioned and encouraged by Hitler.

It is all good read and can be rather speculative, BUT: could some of it be true?

Let us look at the beginning of 1943. Stalingrad is settled, but Manstein makes a comeback and captures Kharkov and surrounding again.

Germany was not finished (but hurting).

UK was not in a great shape either and just maybe, Churchill could look at an armistice?

What Churchill (and Menzies) feared was a separate peace between Germany and USSR (along the lines of we will give you everything back, except Ukraine). Whether that was realistic or not is a good question.

USSR was also hurting badly.

It all comes down to:

Could canaris have established such strong peace initiatives that would end up in:
Option 1: Peace/armistice between Germany and UK
Option 2: Peace/armistice between Germany and USSR

What would US have said to this?

Comments?

 

[Catspoke]

I think a certain amount of this is tolerated by governments, just to get info on the other side, get a read on the other sides state of mind, or maybe to get negotiating points useful against their own Allies.

Once the USA was in the war, no Allied country would make peace with Germany, worst case they do a China, stay marginally in the line and let the USA win the war for them.

Britain committed to the difficult decision to stay in the war OTL even before the BEF was evacuated from France, I can't believe even losing Egypt and Gibralter would change things.

It would be depressing to Britain if Germany didn't do Barbarossa and still received economic help from the USSR, worse if Germany won in the east and was able to supply an army group over the Caucasus into Iran, but if USA is in its less depressing than May 28th 1940.

 

[Catspoke]

As far as peace with the USSR, if Germany did even a little better by the end of October 40, sealed of Leningrad, and Moscow under artillery fire, I could see the Soviets agreeing to a temporary armistice, one that would take those cities out of artllery fire and allow supply to them, maybe a one year armistice, once again this can't happen once the USA is in, USSR will just do a China and let the USA win it for them, USA would at least let the Soviets have their 1938 boundaries back.

 

[Cudymcar]

As far as peace with the USSR, if Germany did even a little better by the end of October 40, sealed of Leningrad, and Moscow under artillery fire, I could see the Soviets agreeing to a temporary armistice

Why would Hitler agree to this? He's clearly winning. One more kick, and the rotten structure will crumble.

 

[Catspoke]

Why would Hitler agree to this? He's clearly winning. One more kick, and the rotten structure will crumble.

Let say the Germans pull back from Leningrad and Moscow in exchange for Soviet evacuation from Sevastopol, Maikop, and the Kuban (Germany secures an undamaged oil producing and agricultural region). OTL from Goebbels diary there was angst building about the casualties, soviet demolitions, the winter coming and the delays. Armistice is secured, victory is claimed and the Germans figure that have a lot to absorb and repair anyway. Armistice good for a year so always can go at it again, and if not the Germans figure they can always beat the Soviets on defense.

Peace with Soviet Union is always possible because its one guy agreeing on each side, much harder with democracies.

 

[Ramontxo]

All,

I am busy reading ‘Hitler’s spy chief’ by Richard Bassett.

I think there is plenty of evidence that Canaris tried his level best in establishing peace feelers towards the UK. As he was an ardent anti-communist probably also helped.

It has some interesting aspects:

Did ‘C’ (Menzies) meet in Algiers or Spain in December ’42?
Did Churchill actively approve of the peace initiatives or even order these?

Was Giraud’s ‘escape’ orchestrated by Canaris as a token of goodwill?

Did UK provide listening equipment to Finland, well knowing that any information on USSR gleaned would be given to Abwehr?

The ‘rumour’ was that 42/43 was very close to a peace/armistice between UK and Germany, closer even than 1940/41.

Some of these peace initiatives might (according to Bassett) have been sanctioned and encouraged by Hitler.

It is all good read and can be rather speculative, BUT: could some of it be true?

Let us look at the beginning of 1943. Stalingrad is settled, but Manstein makes a comeback and captures Kharkov and surrounding again.

Germany was not finished (but hurting).

UK was not in a great shape either and just maybe, Churchill could look at an armistice?

What Churchill (and Menzies) feared was a separate peace between Germany and USSR (along the lines of we will give you everything back, except Ukraine). Whether that was realistic or not is a good question.

USSR was also hurting badly.

It all comes down to:

Could canaris have established such strong peace initiatives that would end up in:
Option 1: Peace/armistice between Germany and UK
Option 2: Peace/armistice between Germany and USSR

What would US have said to this?

Comments?

I would need a lot of proof to believe that in 1942 the British Government that had fought alone from more than a year in 1940/41 would make a deal, with Adolf!, now that the USA and the URSS were in the fight. Even with an separate peace in the East there is the USA in the war an Tube Alloys merged into the Manhattan project...

 

[DrakonFin]

Did UK provide listening equipment to Finland, well knowing that any information on USSR gleaned would be given to Abwehr?

What kind of equipment would that be, and when would it have been provided to Finland?

 

[tomo pauk]

Comments?

UK was not willing to sign the papers in 1940 right after the France fell, so there is zero chances that they will sign anything that is nopt German capitulation now that UK has USA and Soviets on their side.

The ‘rumour’ was that 42/43 was very close to a peace/armistice between UK and Germany, closer even than 1940/41.

After the Atlantic Charter was signed on 14th August 1941, that among other things stipulated that "disarmament of aggressor nations", there again the snowball in hell chance. Anglo-Soviet pact of July 1941 renounced any separate peace.
Declaration by United Nations, signed January 1st, 1942 says (my bold):
The parties pledged to uphold the Atlantic Charter, to employ all their resources in the war against the Axis powers, and that none of the signatory nations would seek to negotiate a separate peace with any party to the Tripartite Pact in the same manner that the nations of the Triple Entente had agreed not to negotiate a separate peace with any or all of the Central Powers in World War I.

Again, expecting that UK will just sign to the German wishes, and against the pacts signed with their Allies, requires a truckload of salt to be even mooted.

 

[ivanotter]

All of it noted. That is also why it is a fascinating read.

The book has some intriguing insights into the movements of the key players.

It also claims that Hitler was fully aware and might have initiated such peace feelers. Same with Churchill.

On the UK side, the incentive could be:
1940-1942: Necessity. UK was seriously hurting, not just in the Atlantic. an armistice would not be a bad thing. Maybe Churchill would have been voted out?
1943 - : this is more complicated. Germany was on track to lose the war. But not finished at all. The book claims that (perhaps) Menzies (and Churchill) did not want to have Germany totally devastated, but rather as a bulwark against communism. That could mean an armistice, allowing Germany to regroup and fight USSR to a standstill (not BS in March 1943 with Manstein's plans).

In essence: loads of possibilities.

Alan Dulles in Berne was also 'consulted' by Germany. Maybe Dulles would like to subscribe to the anti-communist idea for germany. That would also free up US to focus on Japan.

Nothing in the realm of 'real' spies seems impossible.

And if it happened?

 

[Cudymcar]

The book claims that (perhaps) Menzies (and Churchill) did not want to have Germany totally devastated, but rather as a bulwark against communism

But not with Nazis. Absolutely.
This is how conspirology works: it presents some half-truth and then bends it to fit the agenda.

 

[ivanotter]

That is the 'sticky' point. Could US/UK accept a Hitler still in power? highly unlikely, but perhaps not total BS?

If we overlook the rather pedestrian coups against Hitler and US/UK look at Germany not equal to Hitler, and Hitler not = Germany, there could have been rom for something?

Himmler was surely in the running, but was he acceptable? the thing that is 'fun' here is: how much value would US/UK attach to a Germany not devastated but able to act a s a bulwark against communism?

That Churchill was ruthless enough in all such dealings is a fact (I believe). US? well with Dulles doing foreign policy, maybe he was more interested in fighting communists than fighting Germany?

The entire thing is wildly speculative, but also having enough facts to at least have a grain of 'plausible'.

Of course good ol' Hess gets dusted off - again. However, are there not still some un-answered questions in that regard?

 

[NoMommsen]

...
I am busy reading ‘Hitler’s spy chief’ by Richard Bassett.

I think there is plenty of evidence that Canaris tried his level best in establishing peace feelers towards the UK. As he was an ardent anti-communist probably also helped.
...

.. how reliable are/do you render the sources used by the author ?
... primary sources?
... if secondary/tertiary (or even further down the line 😕) sources? ... of what relaibility, what kinda authors are these of?

 

[Garrison]

That is the 'sticky' point. Could US/UK accept a Hitler still in power? highly unlikely, but perhaps not total BS?

If we overlook the rather pedestrian coups against Hitler and US/UK look at Germany not equal to Hitler, and Hitler not = Germany, there could have been rom for something?

Himmler was surely in the running, but was he acceptable? the thing that is 'fun' here is: how much value would US/UK attach to a Germany not devastated but able to act a s a bulwark against communism?

That Churchill was ruthless enough in all such dealings is a fact (I believe). US? well with Dulles doing foreign policy, maybe he was more interested in fighting communists than fighting Germany?

The entire thing is wildly speculative, but also having enough facts to at least have a grain of 'plausible'.

Of course good ol' Hess gets dusted off - again. However, are there not still some un-answered questions in that regard?

The fundamental issue is that any peace with Hitler is unsustainable. Sooner or later it will collapse and that assumes that any sort of mutually acceptable terms are actually possible in the first place, not remotely a given since Hitler in particular was clueless about the real strategic needs of the UK.
There is the basic issue that afflicts all such ideas, whether about WW1 or WW2, in that its all but impossible to reach a point of balance where both sides have an equal interest in making peace and don't conclude they can get better terms by gaining the upper hand on the battlefield.

 

[ivanotter]

Churchill was (apparently) also looking at the cost of a prolonged war if the US did not enter. The cost might have been too high to the British empire. These were (again apparently) considerations in 1941/42. Therefore not linked to any 'panic' after the fall of France.

Even with US in the war, the cost could (according to Churchill) have been deemed too high. US was committed to 'Germany First' unless King was present of course. The Casablanca conference also showed significant different opinions on how to run the war.

Did Hitler really believe that he could make a peace agreement with US/UK? Again, if it is true that he approved or encouraged peace feelers he might have thought so. Was Hitler off the edge in 1941/42? Not as much as later, and that is scary after all.

The entire thing gets more 'fun' as 1943 comes around. Kursk zapped the German strength together with North Africa. End of 1943 heralded the new order and that (according to Bassett) was not universally liked in London = Communism on the march in Balkans, East Europe and perhaps defeating Germany in its entirety.

That means (Bassett) that there could even be a case for an armistice in the west in late 1943/44.

Sources: well, there is enough first-hand sources to impress me at least. The facts seem to be there, but of course, the interpretation of the more vague facts is for Bassett's account.

Still a good read!

 

[tomo pauk]

That is the 'sticky' point. Could US/UK accept a Hitler still in power? highly unlikely, but perhaps not total BS?
If we overlook the rather pedestrian coups against Hitler and US/UK look at Germany not equal to Hitler, and Hitler not = Germany, there could have been rom for something?
Himmler was surely in the running, but was he acceptable? the thing that is 'fun' here is: how much value would US/UK attach to a Germany not devastated but able to act a s a bulwark against communism?
That Churchill was ruthless enough in all such dealings is a fact (I believe). US? well with Dulles doing foreign policy, maybe he was more interested in fighting communists than fighting Germany?
The entire thing is wildly speculative, but also having enough facts to at least have a grain of 'plausible'.
Of course good ol' Hess gets dusted off - again. However, are there not still some un-answered questions in that regard?

Questions are long answered, if one wants to read the answers.
The question I'm interested about is why will anyone want to see the British government being a bad combo of oath-breakers and laughing stock.

 

[Sekhmet_D]

An armistice with Germany? After the Blitz?

Hah.

 

[ivanotter]

1940 was not 1944 or 1945

What the book also claims is that the realisation that it was going to be a long and very costly war was starting to sink in.

Maybe the governing elite feared for the british empire.

... and 'victory' was not guaranteed in1940 or '41.

crazy schemes? compare to a few others:

German-Russian pact of 1939? Nobody would bellieve that possible at the time

Operation Pike: the bombing of the Russian oil fields so they could not fall in the hands of the Germans. That would just sink an 'ally'

Operation unthinkable: (albeit July 1945): the UK/US sneak attack on Russia

So nothing can really be discarded