In May, 1941 Rudolf Hess, deputy Fuehrer of the Third Reich, flew to
Scotland with peace proposals to end World War II.  Though the German
government denounced this effort as one of a mad man, he carried
letters to the British government which were never released.

Okay: I know that I'm under-paying for a great story.  And that you're
not a researcher (yet).  But what's the guess as to what the letters
say?
*  a serious peace offer from Hitler?
*  just nonsense?
*  indications of offers from the U.S., a putative ally to Great
Britain at the time?

Or have there been better speculations than that (either before or
since the publication of Norman Moss' book)?

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

Wow, Omni, My Very Own Question!

A dream come true. Many thanks.

And also a very strong hint that I may even be invited to join the Ga-litterati.

First, I have to say that I am not familiar with Norman Moss's book
but, without knowing what he wrote or when, I would bet that the
answer is YES.

There have been several recent offerings including 'The Hitler/Hess
Deception' (2003) by Martin Allen which have thrown up a lot of good
stuff but, in my view, some of Allen's conclusions go beyond the
evidence.

That said, Allen did support the view that Hess brought a serious
peace offer and that Hitler knew and approved his enterprise. I go
along with that: Hess did put in a lot of practice and the
preparations were not trivial.

It is clear that Hitler never wanted a war with Britain and Allen
documents many of the peace offers that circulated at various times.
(One former Foreign Office official told me that they averaged 'one a
week' at one stage and they came in from every conceivable direction.)

Certainly there were many influential voices in Britain that wanted to
support Hitler in his desire to obtain lebensraum in the East. This
was, of course, a metaphor for Ukrainian grain and Caucasian oil.
Also, Communism had been the #1 Enemy since 1919 (or so) so there had
to be some drastic re-thinking to switch the focus to Hitler.

This happened when it was realised that Hitler's so-called economic
miracle was a sham and that his heavy military investments could only
be paid for by economic conquests.

Thanks to the blockade and a lack of foreign credits, Hitler was
placed in an economic bind and when Stalin refused any further credit,
Hitler was forced to go for the much needed grain and oil by other
methods.

The Roosevelt Administration was very anti-Nazi and as Hitler broke
promise after promise, they strapped on their six-shooters. Initially
they were hampered by Neutrality legislation, a vociferous
Isolationist Lobby and the fact that Roosevelt was coming to the end
of his second term in November 1940.

Roosevelt did everything he could within these constraints but, as
soon as he was re-elected, he suddenly dreamt up the Lend-Lease
formula. He also gave a Fireside Chat in December 1940 that sent
shivers through the Nazis and more peace offers started to appear.

Hitler couldn't move on Russia until better weather arrived in May
1941 by which time he had arguably left it too late but he was
desperate for the grain and oil, so he was forced to go ahead even
though he had not sorted out Britain with a peace deal.

Hess's initiative was one last desperate attempt to swing a deal but
Britain had always hoped and reckoned that Hitler would have to strike
East and, supported by Roosevelt in his new position of strength,
could afford to take a relaxed view of developments.

It was too late and Hess was declared mad, as a fallback explanation.

I hope I've been thorough enough in addressing your question but if
you have any queries, please hit the Request for Clarification button
(if you can find it).

Important Disclaimer

Google Answers cannot guarantee that answers on International
Diplomacy are always diplomatic or consistent with received historical
opinion.
 
Please see the Google Terms of Service:

http://answers.google.com/answers/termsofservice.html

All the Best

Bryan

Bryan --

Thanks so much for your comments and for the reference to the Martin
Allen book.  Though it may take me some time to have the local library
order up a copy, there are some very informed comments on the Hess
book in the Amazon.com review done by an Australian reader, Bill
O'Chee:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/000714119X/104-2912122-0883953?v=glance&s=books

Certainly Hess was well-prepared: the flight of an ME-110 to the
precise location of the estate of the Duke of Hamilton in Scotland in
wartime was not trivial.  Then Hess hopped out and parachuted down
safely (was it at night or is my memory faulty here?).

Allen apparently claims it was part of a psy ops campaign, one that
would certainly have been attractive to Winston Churchill.  And one
with parallels in the propaganda activities of Williams Stephenson
against American antiwar activists by the British Security
Coordination (BSC) offices in New York.

Claims that Hitler's plan for a war against Great Britain were never
"serious" seem to be belied by:
*  the aerial Battle of Britain
*  Ultra intercepts regarding movement of shipping and air transports
in preparation for Operation Sea Lion

Rather, the picture shows one of a Hitler who was an opportunist.  Not
finding an opening to bring down a weakened Great Britain, his
'constant warfare' attitude sent him East.  By the way, Moss argues
that Hitler may have missed an opportunity by not exploiting an
alliance or invasion of Eire/Ireland, though Churchill had war plans
to prevent Irish ports from falling into hostile hands.

Your observations of 'one peace offer a week' are certainly correct. 
It's amazing how many were floated and the variety of sources.

The only comment that I don't believe is entirely accurate is that
Roosevelt "suddenly" dreamt up the Lend-Lease act in the period after
the 1940 elections.  He and his aides had been floating proposals for
months about legal ways to avoid Congressional approval of the
destroyer transfer.

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

Hi, Omni

Pleased to have helped.

My remark about Roosevelt having 'suddenly dreamt up Lend-Lease' was
very much tongue-in-cheek.

I have proof positive that it was being discussed between Roosevelt
and Churchill MONTHS before his re-election.

This is an exclusive and I am not yet prepared to reveal my source but
it's for real. Sorry!

Please don't forget to provide a 20 Star Rave Rating and an enormous tip.

Go on ... set some precedents!

Bryan

B --

I hate to disappoint you but the topic was clearly in discussion well
before the election.  King George wrote to Roosevelt on June 26, 1940
making reference to the 50 destroyers England sought.  It was probably
referenced in a note to the King by FRR 8 weeks earlier.

In fact, Roosevelt had laid the foundation in private discussions with
the King in the summer of 1939 when he told him that IF war broke out
he would like the American Navy to be able to use Bermuda and Trinidad
as bases.  (At the time there were no U.S. Navy docks between
Charleston, SC and Panama -- despite the presence at Guantanomo Bay
and in Puerto Rico.)

I learned a few interesting historical points from the Moss book.  I
wasn't familiar with how the Tyler Kent arrest was orchestrated to
avoid revealing the Roosevelt-Churchill letters.

Nor did I know that Jean Monnet and Arthur Salter put a proposal to
merge the two countries as a way of keeping French forces fighting --
and the French Navy out of the hands of Germany.  The proposal went
before Churchill's war cabinet and even had the support of Charles
DeGaulle.  DeGaulle's support is ironic because of his later
arch-nationalism.  And it's ironic given Britain's stop-start
relationship early in the history of the EEC.

Moss's account of the meeting of the French cabinet on June 15, 1940 in Bordeaux:
"Reaction was divided.  Edouard Herrit, the president of the National
Assembly, was enthusiastic.  So was George Manel, the ministor for the
interior, who had been in favor all along of continuing the fight from
North Africa.  But Camille Chautemps said he did not want France to
become a British dominion.  Navy secretary Jean Ybarnegaray agreed. 
'Better to be a Nazi province.  At least we know what that means,' he
said.  Reynaud retorted, 'I prefer to collaborate with
my allies rather than my enemies.'  Petain said Britain was finished,
and that joining with Britain now would be 'fusion with a corpse.'"

Reynaud's mistress, Helene de Portes discouraged the merger, saying "I
hope you are not going to play at being Isabella of Bavaria." 
Immediately after that Reynaud caved to the opposition and resigned,
opening the way for Marshal Petain to become PM.  Within days Reynaud
and de Portes were in a car crash that killed her.

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

Omni

You NEVER disappoint me!

I agree with you ... I have documentary proof that Lend-Lease was
discussed between Churchill and Roosevelt 'several months' before
Roosevelt's re-election for a third term in November 1940.

However, you are still guarding the name of Norman Moss's book. Is
this a State Secret? I do hope so, I just adore State Secrets.
Whatever, you have now made me VERY determined to read it. (If you are
the said Norman Moss then Congratulations! It was a great piece of
salesmanship.)

You commented on Paul Reynaud being killed in a car crash with his
mistress, Helen de Portes, but ... did you know that Reynaud lived
long enough to make an amazing 'death bed' confession?

Tell you what I propose: a trade off.

You give me the name of Moss's mysterious book and I will reveal
Reynaud's dying words.

But this is strictly entre nous, I don't want anyone to read about it
so PLEASE will everybody else promise to close their eyes?

(No, Freddy, you and your boys in Cheltenham can take a peep provided
you acknowledge the source.)

All the Best

Bryan

I have just ordered:

19 Weeks: America, Britain and the Fateful Summer of 1940  

Norman Moss

I have charged it to your account.

Very Many Thanks 

Bryan

Now, here's my half of the bargain:

On 20 September 1940, British Intelligence intercepted a letter from
Andre Maurois?s wife, writing from New York to a Miss Varley of
Ross-on-Wye (in England) and talks about her husband?s book and his
story about Reynaud, which is apparently authentic.

Helene de Portes was his undoing and destroyed his sense of duty. His
so-called accident was perhaps a double suicide. It occurred shortly
after a discovery in Spain of suitcases filled with 50 million francs,
which had been carried across the border by two minor attaché de
cabinet of Reynaud. Arrested, the two men declared that the money
belonged to Reynaud and mostly to Mme de Portes who was killed in the
accident.

[Bill] Bullitt, the American Ambassador, visited Reynaud in the
Montpelier Hospital and reported that Reynaud had said ?I have lost my
country, my honour and my love?.

It sounds highly unlikely to me, I would have thought that he would
have said something in French.

What pensez vous?

And was Maurois's book ever published, I wonder?

Bryan --

I see that you've found the book title -- I'd originally mentioned it
in the thread about Chamberlain:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=370073

Note that I'd meant early to note that Mdme de Portes was killed --
not Reynaud.  Clare Boothe (Luce) describes Helene as being very
ordinary looking, "as much like a hausfrau as a French maitresse can."
 But Moss says she was highly involved in politics, had access to
confidential memos, and was part of the French haute bourgeosie that
had the attitude "Better Hitler than Blum," Leon Blum being the French
PM before the war.

I'll have to look for the Andre Maurois book now . . .

George Washington warned the American body politic about foreign
entanglements in his 1796 Farewell Address:
http://www.tpromo.com/gk/files1/entangle.htm

It seems that someone should have warned Reynaud about domestic entanglements ;=)

Best regards,

O.

Bryan --

Maurois (nee Emile Herzong) was certainly prolific, with short
stories, criticisms, novels and histories to his credit.

Here's what shows as his historical writing for 1940-42 per the
Thomson-Gale biography of :
"The Battle of France," translated by F. R. Ludman, Lane, 1940
"Tragedie en France," Maison Francaise, 1940, translation by Denver
Lindley published in U.S. as "Tragedy in France," Harper, 1940 and in
England as "Why France Fell," Lane, 1941.
"Defense de la France," [Buenos Aires], 1941

He also published his first round of "Memoires" in 1942, which in
Great Britain appeared as "Call No Man Happy," J. Cape, 1943

Best regards,

Omnivorous-GA

Hi, O

Yes, I've already tracked down a copy of 'Tragedy in France' which I
plan to buy, if it's still available.

I hope you realise that your Question promises to cost me an awful lot
of my hard-earned loot ...

'Can I really afford to become an member of the Ga-Litterati', I ask now myself.

Interesting stuff none the less.

All the Best

Bryan