The real reason for Rudolf Hess's flight to Britain in 1941?

[Datrus]

When Irving was writing in back 1977 many of the archive documents were still closed in the UK and elsewhere under time limited nondisclosure legislation, however since the late 1990s many once "secret" or "classified" documents have been released into the public domain and therefore to available to researchers.

Indeed but he anyway did very thorough research contrary to many of that time just quoting from other books. He also gained the confidence of many people close to Hitler, wives of Officers and other "top management" personnel an thus were able to copy personal letters diaries and so forth. 1977 being only some 30yrs later many people were still alive. It's a quite interesting book actually

Regards, Lars

[KradSpam]

Regarding Op Sealion, I don't think it was ever realistic. At the time the Wehrmacht had no proper landing craft to speak of, and the Royal Navy would have made any attempts with the proposed shallow draught river barges very difficult, not to mention the choppy channel waters. The UK is too large an area for a Crete style airbourne invasion to succeed without strong armoured seabourne landings to back it up.

A German victory in the Battle of Britain was a prerequisite the Germans identified for Sealion to have any chance also. The rest, as they say......

[StefanM]

Indeed but he anyway did very thorough research contrary to many of that time just quoting from other books. He also gained the confidence of many people close to Hitler, wives of Officers and other "top management" personnel an thus were able to copy personal letters diaries and so forth. 1977 being only some 30yrs later many people were still alive. It's a quite interesting book actually

Regards, Lars

Despite holding "revisionist" views which I am diametrically opposed to, I think Irving is an excellent researcher and writer and deserves more credit than is often afforded to him.

[Datrus]

Despite holding "revisionist" views which I am diametrically opposed to, I think Irving is an excellent researcher and writer and deserves more credit than is often afforded to him.

I agree. I started reading his book with quite some skepticism but there is nothing of the kind in that book. If there is it's well camouflaged.

Regards, Lars

[Wagriff]

Beware the Apocalypse must be coming soon....as I actually Agree for the 2nd time now with 4thskorpion! (should it happen a Third time, watch the skies for the Horsemen...) I, personally, think that David Irving is a Very good researcher writer and his works should not be all trashed or dismissed because of his controversial viewpoints on other things. And, even with his much-talked about opinions, he pretty much brings up questions that should be addressed abit more thoroughly rather than be answered with the standard "It is because everyone knows it is." Put the damnable questions they all harp on to rest and be done with them once and for all.

[StefanM]

With regard to a German pact with Britain the quotation below adds some weight to that scenario ...with no tin-foil hat:

".....On November 17, 1937, the very day that Halifax arrived in Germany, Cockburn’s The Week verified the accuracy of an earlier report in the Evening Standard by stating that “[t]he principal purpose of the Halifax visit to Berlin was to discuss a proposed Anglo-German bargain.” The Week also added that under the proposed terms of the upcoming negotiations, “Germany would offer a ten-year ‘Colonial truce’ to Britain in exchange for a free hand to attack countries in Eastern Europe.” Then, apparently in possession of highly sensitive, if not classified information, Cockburn added that “[i]n point of fact the suggestion did not come from Berlin. It came from London.” While influencing public opinion, such tales of pro-Nazi intrigue on the part of the British elite made Cockburn’s work both reviled and revered throughout Europe and the United States."


Now for my tin-foil hat :

The said Lord Halifax was the Conservative Party's choice candidate to succeed the discredited Chamberlain as PM. Halifax whom paradoxically the Labour party voted against as a successor PM was most likely to seek a negotiated settlement with Germany. Instead the Labour party and left-wing socialists gave their voting support to the other Tory prominent, Winston Churchill who was clearly in favour of prosecuting the war against Hitler's Germany. Strange politics at first sight, unless one takes the view that the Labour and Communist parties were taking instructions from their backers in the Soviet Union to ensure that Germany and Britain with France slugged it out until all were exhausted and Stalin's Red Army could sweep revolution across Europe unopposed in the aftermath....then it makes sense of this strange decision of the socialist left to support the Tory, Churchill.

[Datrus]

Not all that "tin foily" actually. One of the reasons Hitler went to war with the Soviets was that he wanted to get rid of Britain's last possible "support" on the continent. Hitler were of the opinion that if he conquered Russia, Britain had to surrender, as the US would not be able to enter the war at this point in time. If Germany and Britain had cut a deal, Hitler would have had Russia all for himself so to speak. It's worth remembering that the US actually violated international law at that time in several ways. One is that the US reported on German merchant vessels and warships positions to Britain etc. I think this would have been stopped and the Lend-Lease possibly as well had Germany and Britain made a peace.

Regards, Lars

[bigmacglenn]

I've always considered Hitler's explanation of invading Russia to bring Britain into negotiations to be a cheap justification not based on fact or logic...as he had always espoused "Lebensraum im Osten" and all of his pre-war expansion was in an easterly direction, with Soviet Russia being the ultimate target of conquest...
Interesting discussion...
cheers, Glenn

[Shadwellarmy]

Hi 4thskorpion,

nice tin-foil hat theory, except that labour party and the communist party werent exactly friends during the 30's and 40's. Dont believe that one.

I like your no-tin-foil hat theory much better, especially seen in the light that many British politicians considered Stalin a bigger threat than the little Austrian with the moustache.

Cheers, Mads

[Datrus]

I've always considered Hitler's explanation of invading Russia to bring Britain into negotiations to be a cheap justification not based on fact or logic...as he had always espoused "Lebensraum im Osten" and all of his pre-war expansion was in an easterly direction, with Soviet Russia being the ultimate enemy...
Interesting discussion...
cheers, Glenn

It's just part of the explanation IMO. Hitler is quoted by many sources for stating this. On another note Hitler had lots of reasons to invade Russia of course.

Regards, Lars