Rudolf Hess - why was he held in Captivity - 1941-1987 for so long?

parentheses

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,605
Likes
3,313
One of the reasons why the British gave a guarantee to Poland was because they feared a Polish-German rapprochement.

German-Polish relations had been quite cordial until the beginning of 1939. In 1938 Poland even grabbed a piece of Czechoslovakia during the Munich crisis.
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,490
Likes
3,811
As Poland didn't negotiate the Versailles Treaty I'd say it has feck all to do with Poland and imagined German grievances.
This exposes how truly illiterate you are concerning the causes of war.

Treaty of Versailles, signed in the Versailles Palace outside Paris on June 28, 1919, between the Allied Powers and Germany, brought World War I to an end. In this treaty Poland was given complete independence, control over large areas of land populated by Germans, and an outlet to the sea. To give Poland access to the Baltic Sea a ‘corridor’ was created by passing control of the German provinces of Posen and West Prussia to Poland. In the process East Prussia was separated from the rest of Germany. Poland also gained half of Silesia. Danzig was made a free city under the control of the League of Nations. The German government signed the treaty under protest. These changes mean that huge numbers of Germans were now under foreign rule. These changes decided on at Versailles were to create major problems in later years and become one of the major reasons for Germany's invasion of Poland in 1939.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

PI Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
263
Likes
57
I am discussing German Polish relations in the months leading to Sept 1939.
Nothing else.
Objectively speaking the German state was shafted by the Versailles treaty.
That is one major springboard that brought Hitler to power .

Genuine and justified German resentment.
This was particularly acute concerning Danzig and the Polish corridor.
The Poles were intransigent at every step concerning German requests to resolve the issues.

You seem to think the Poles were a bunch of innocent angels doing nothing wrong at all.
That is not the case and not the actual history.

They seriously underestimated and miscalculated on Hitler , as indeed did everybody else.

However as I told you several times I do not think that Germany had the right to invade Poland in the way they did.
So you think Nazi Germany’s interaction with Poland should only be judged in isolation and that it’s prior record of bad faith, escalatory threats and conquest should be ignored.

I never made any comment on the angelic nature of the Poles. Germany was the aggressor in 1939, as it was in 1938. Poland saw in Czechoslovakia what was the result of being ‘reasonable’ with Germany.
 

Nebuchadnezzar

PI Member
Joined
Jul 31, 2018
Messages
263
Likes
57
There was no way in 1987 that the Allied victors of WW2 were going to permit the last living major nazi leader reveal how Hitler was going to sue for peace with Britain.
It would have resurrected the entire shaky edifice upon which Britains war declaration was based and more importantly Americas sinister moves to keep that 1939-41 Anglo German war going once started.
The German peace offer of 1940 is not secret. Churchill firmly rejected them. So why would there be any big effort to cover up another offer via Hess in 1941?

Even if Britain had accepted such a deal it would not have prevented world war. Germany would still have invaded the Soviet Union and its prospects of success would have been better. Germany’s position in Europe would have been consolidated....and then what? ‘Peace’ with Britain? Probably not, just a longer even more destructive war with Britain and USA.
 

McTell

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
519
Likes
179

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,490
Likes
3,811
The German peace offer of 1940 is not secret. Churchill firmly rejected them. So why would there be any big effort to cover up another offer via Hess in 1941?

Even if Britain had accepted such a deal it would not have prevented world war. Germany would still have invaded the Soviet Union and its prospects of success would have been better. Germany’s position in Europe would have been consolidated....and then what? ‘Peace’ with Britain? Probably not, just a longer even more destructive war with Britain and USA.
Do you ever read any history at all?
Hitler was on record time after time saying he admired the British Empire and did not want to ever quarrel with the British.
Even when he conquered most of Europe and had the military wherewithal and ability to invade and subjugate Britain he didn't .

It is unreal and irrational conjecture to think that Hitler would have ever gone near Britain had that country refrained from its rash and ill advised war declaration on Germany in 1939.
The same applies to the sneaky and cowardly Usa who whilst pretending neutrality were arming the British.
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,490
Likes
3,811
One of the reasons why the British gave a guarantee to Poland was because they feared a Polish-German rapprochement.

German-Polish relations had been quite cordial until the beginning of 1939. In 1938 Poland even grabbed a piece of Czechoslovakia during the Munich crisis.
It was,nt just a guarantee it was a blank cheque.
Never before in its history had the British handed over to a foreign power the ultimate decision as to war or peace.

This reckless and idiotic manoeuvre on the part of the British scuppered any chance of a peaceful settlement between Poland and Germany.
 

parentheses

PI Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
1,605
Likes
3,313
It was,nt just a guarantee it was a blank cheque.
Never before in its history had the British handed over to a foreign power the ultimate decision as to war or peace.

This reckless and idiotic manoeuvre on the part of the British scuppered any chance of a peaceful settlement between Poland and Germany.
I suppose the point I am making is that the British actually had a selfish motive for giving that guarantee.
 

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
288
Likes
83
Pity several posts went missing in the site re-booting. I never did find out who "Avery' (as The Field Marshal's named source) could possibly be.

Chamberlain's 'blank cheque' is argued here: Professor Marc Trachtenberg of UCLA looks at parallels (Germany and Austria in 1914, US in 1941 etc). When I look at a detailed account of how that pledge came to be offered, I find that Chamberlain serially diluted it, going against the advice of Halifax, and partly pandering to the remaining semi-appeasers in the Cabinet.

Meanwhile I have had the opportunity to look at an e-text of Sidney Aster's 1939: the making of the Second World War — and see pp103ff for that Chamberlain 'pledge'. This book I deduce to be The Field Marshal's source of choice. It is, certainly, a useful text — it dates from the early 1970s, and derives from the British archives of 1939-40 which had just opened on the 30-year rule. It is no longer 'current' any more, because we now have the flow of records not available before the Decline and Fall of the Soviet empire.

Even so, I have yet to find in Aster the 'killer' argument that Poland was irredeemably 'obstinate'; on the contrary, all the cited evidence is that the Poles were highly accommodating to Nazi demands. The sticking point was Danzig — and as a League of Nations designated 'free city', that was not for the Poles to give away. Aster is severely critical of the British position on Danzig (see chapter 7, pp188ff) — but also of Hitler's duplicity in his dealings with Jozef Beck.
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,490
Likes
3,811
Pity several posts went missing in the site re-booting. I never did find out who "Avery' (as The Field Marshal's named source) could possibly be.

Chamberlain's 'blank cheque' is argued here: Professor Marc Trachtenberg of UCLA looks at parallels (Germany and Austria in 1914, US in 1941 etc). When I look at a detailed account of how that pledge came to be offered, I find that Chamberlain serially diluted it, going against the advice of Halifax, and partly pandering to the remaining semi-appeasers in the Cabinet.

Meanwhile I have had the opportunity to look at an e-text of Sidney Aster's 1939: the making of the Second World War — and see pp103ff for that Chamberlain 'pledge'. This book I deduce to be The Field Marshal's source of choice. It is, certainly, a useful text — it dates from the early 1970s, and derives from the British archives of 1939-40 which had just opened on the 30-year rule. It is no longer 'current' any more, because we now have the flow of records not available before the Decline and Fall of the Soviet empire.

Even so, I have yet to find in Aster the 'killer' argument that Poland was irredeemably 'obstinate'; on the contrary, all the cited evidence is that the Poles were highly accommodating to Nazi demands. The sticking point was Danzig — and as a League of Nations designated 'free city', that was not for the Poles to give away. Aster is severely critical of the British position on Danzig (see chapter 7, pp188ff) — but also of Hitler's duplicity in his dealings with Jozef Beck.
Asters book, along with Toland,s biography on Hitler are my primary sources for the allegation that Poland’s diplomacy to Germany in the months leading to Sept 1939 was dismissive and intransigent.
Beck, the Polish foreign minister was a conniving bastard all the time seeking to pit the British against the Germans by threatening an alliance with the Russians unless the British guaranteed Poland.
Beck succeeded and the British pumped Polish arrogance.
Avery’s book clearly explains where Beck ignorantly thought he could reject every request from Germany for a peaceful settlement of German Polish differences.
 
Last edited:

Black Azrael

PI Member
Joined
Feb 17, 2019
Messages
288
Likes
83
Avery’s book, along with Toland,s biography on Hitler are my primary sources for the allegation that Poland’s diplomacy to Germany in the months leading to Sept 1939 was dismissive and intransigent.
In post #111 above, The Field Marshal cited:
The definitive account of 1939 Polish German relations is contained in "The Making of the Second world war" Sidney Aster Published 1973 Andre Deutsch.
It supports the contentions I have made concerning unreasonable Polish intransigeance in the face of legitimate German grievences.
So, again I ask, who or what is this 'Avery'?

The obloquy aimed at Josef Beck, and the apologetics for Hitler over Danzig and Poland, came to me first through AJP Taylor's revisionism. My 1960s Penguin has long disintegrated, so I'd have to refer to a 1976 reprint (and AJP is no longer with us). Not all subsequent historians have accepted the Taylor view (which must be an understatement).
 

The Field Marshal

PI Member
Joined
Oct 2, 2018
Messages
4,490
Likes
3,811
In post #111 above, The Field Marshal cited:
The definitive account of 1939 Polish German relations is contained in "The Making of the Second world war" Sidney Aster Published 1973 Andre Deutsch.
It supports the contentions I have made concerning unreasonable Polish intransigeance in the face of legitimate German grievences.
So, again I ask, who or what is this 'Avery'?

The obloquy aimed at Josef Beck, and the apologetics for Hitler over Danzig and Poland, came to me first through AJP Taylor's revisionism. My 1960s Penguin has long disintegrated, so I'd have to refer to a 1976 reprint (and AJP is no longer with us). Not all subsequent historians have accepted the Taylor view (which must be an understatement).
You have quoted Aster yourself .
The man who wrote The makings of the Second World War.
A scholarly book you sought to downgrade because it was published before Soviet archives were made available post 1970.
Your posts have made several references to Avery’s book already and you seem to be confounding and confusing yourself.
I can not help you with such problems,
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom