Why didn't England accept Hitler's peace offers?

Capital.

Your thinking of Churchill.

le epic image chart

Here's a very basic Wikipedia article you (brainlet) should read considering the date of July 30 in the OP:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain

>Churchill
Coldly stating facts
>Hitler
Empty talk that contradicts his deeds

Was that supposed to be favourable to Nazis?

Probably had something to do with all those broken treaties in the past few years.

>brainlet detected

That battle took place in 1940, silly autistic brainlet.

"But even when Britain and France had already declared the war they desired, and Germany had overcome the Polish danger in the east by a glorious campaign without a parallel, even then Adolf Hitler raised his voice once more in the name of peace. He did so although his hands were now free to act against the enemy in the west. He did so, although the fight against him personally was proclaimed in London and Paris, in immeasurable hate, as a crusade. At this moment he possessed the supreme self-control to proclaim in his speech of October 6, 1939, a new plan for the pacification of Europe to public opinion throughout the world. This plan was as follows:
"By far the most important task, in my opinion, is the creation of not only a belief in, but also a sense of, European security.
1. For this it is necessary that the aims of the foreign policy of each European State should be made perfectly clear. As far as Germany is concerned, the Reich Government is ready to give a thorough and exhaustive exposition of the aims of its foreign policy. In so doing, it begins by stating that the Treaty of Versailles is now regarded by it as obsolete, in other words, that the Government of the German Reich and with it the whole German people no longer see cause or reason for any further revision of the Treaty, apart from the demand for adequate colonial possessions justly due to the Reich, involving in the first place a return of the German colonies. This demand for colonies is based not only on Germany's historical claim to her colonies, but above all on her elementary right to a share of the world's resources of raw materials. This demand does not take the form of an ultimatum, nor is it a demand which is backed by force, but a demand based on political justice and sane economic principles.

2. The demand for a real revival of international economic life coupled with an extension of trade and commerce presupposes a reorganization of the international economic system, in other words, of production in the individual states. In order to facilitate the exchange of the goods thus produced, however, a new system of markets must be found and a final settlement of currencies arrived at, so that the obstacles in the way of unrestricted trade can be gradually removed.

3. The most important condition, however, for a real revival of economic life in and outside of Europe is the establishment of an unconditionally guaranteed peace and of a sense of security on the part of the individual nations. This security will not only be rendered possible by the final sanctioning of the European status, but above all by the reduction of armaments to a reasonable and economically tolerable level. An essential part of this necessary sense of security, however, is a clear definition of the legitimate use and application of certain modern armaments which can at any given moment strike straight at the heart of every nation and hence create a permanent sense of insecurity. In my previous speeches in the Reichstag I made proposals with this end in view. At that time they were rejected - presumably for the simple reason that they were made by me.

I believe, however, that a sense of national security will not return to Europe until clear and binding international agreements [15] have provided a comprehensive definition of the extent to which the use of certain weapons is permitted or forbidden.

The Geneva Convention once succeeded in prohibiting, in civilized countries at least, the killing of wounded, the ill-treatment of prisoners, war against non-combatants, etc., and just as it was possible gradually to achieve the universal observance of this statute, a way ought surely to be found to regulate aerial warfare, the use of poison gas, of submarines etc., and also so to define contraband that war will lose its terrible character of a conflict waged against women and children and against non-combatants in general. The growing horror of certain methods of modern warfare will of its own accord lead to their abolition, and thus they will become obsolete.

In the war with Poland, I endeavored to restrict aerial warfare to objectives of military importance, or only to employ it to combat resistance at a given point. But it must surely be possible to emulate the Red Cross in drawing up some universally valid international regulation. It is only when this is achieved that peace can reign, particularly on our densely populated continent a peace which, un-contaminated by suspicion and fear, will provide the only possible condition for real economic prosperity. I do not believe that there is any responsible statesman in Europe who does not in his heart desire prosperity for his people. But such a desire can only be realized if all the nations inhabiting this continent decide to work together. To assist in ensuring this co-operation must be the aim of every man who is sincerely struggling for the future of his own people.

To achieve this great end, the leading nations on this continent will one day have to come together in order to draw up, accept and guarantee a statute on a comprehensive basis which will ensure for them a sense of security, of calm, - in short, of peace.

Such a conference could not possibly be held without the most thorough preparation, i. e. without exact elucidation of every point at issue. It is equally impossible that such a conference, which would determine the fate of this continent for many years to come, could carry on its deliberations while cannons are thundering, or mobilized armies bringing pressure to bear upon it. Since, however, these problems must be solved sooner or later, it would surely be more sensible to tackle the solution before millions of men are first uselessly sent to their death, and billions of dollars' worth of property destroyed.

Time to read real history instead of (((wikipedia))), brainlet.

top kek
how do you come up with this shit

not an argument

>Why didn't Britain become a german vassal

Wow, so this is the power of historical revisionism

Killing citizens doesn't matter as long as you make le good speech

>real history
Do you have any actual sources that back your "real history" up?

>But even when Britain and France had already declared the war they desired, and Germany had overcome the Polish danger
>But even when Britain and France had already declared the war they desired
>Germany had overcome the Polish danger

Is this from The Onion?

Not an argument. Civilians die on both sides during war. German civilians died as well. Deal with it.

spectator.co.uk/2013/10/the-bombing-war-by-richard-overy-review/#

>>But even when Britain and France had already declared the war they desired

Yeah, it sure was The Onion.

That Churchill quote is from a book written in 1928 about the Great War:
>IN MY BOOK The Aftermath I have set down some reflections on the four years which elapsed between the Armistice and the change of Government in Britain at the end of 1922.
>Writing in 1928, I was deeply under the impression of a future catastrophe. It was not until the dawn of the twentieth century of the Christian era that war began to enter into its kingdom as the potential destroyer of the human race. The organisation of mankind into great States and Empires, and the rise of nations to full collective consciousness, enabled enterprises of slaughter to be planned and executed upon a scale and with a perseverance never before imagined. All the noblest virtues of individuals were gathered to strengthen the destructive capacity of the mass. Good finances, the resources of world-wide credit and trade, the accumulation of large capital reserves, made it possible to divert for considerable periods the energies of whole peoples to the task of devastation.
>Religion, having discreetly avoided conflict on the fundamental issues, offered its encouragements and consolations, through all its forms, impartially to all the combatants. Lastly, Science unfolded her treasures and her secrets to the desperate demands of men, and placed in their hands agencies and apparatus almost decisive in their character. In consequence many novel features presented themselves. Instead of merely fortified towns being starved whole nations were methodically subjected, or sought to be subjected, to the process of reduction by famine. The entire population in one capacity or another took part in the war; all were equally the object of attack. The air opened paths along which death and terror could be carried far behind the lines of the actual armies, to women, children, the aged, the sick, who in earlier struggles would perforce have been left untouched.

That's not the onion article though.

Not an argument, retard. The first bombings of Bulgaria onto Germans was in 1941, a year after Hitler's battle of britain.

Do you enjoy obscurantism?

Embarrassing.

It doesn't matter when he said it. He stood by his words 11-12 years later. What mental gymnastics are you going to go through to defend these sayings?

(During first World War): “Perhaps the next time round the way to do it will be to kill women, children and the civilian population.”

Churchill on defending the morality of bombing from the air: “Now everyone’s at it. It’s simply a question of fashion – similar to that of whether short or long dresses are in.”

“I do not understand the squeamishness about the use of gas. I am strongly in favour of using poisonous gas against uncivilised tribes.”
Writing as president of the Air Council, 1919.

Why are you trying so hard to prove Churchill started the bombings with old quotes when the factual evidence of actual bombings completely obliterates your point lmao?

It matters because the image heavily implies that the selected quote is referring to bombing during WW2 and that he was either ambivalent or approving, whereas the quote in its actual time and context makes it very clear he isn't.

1:40
youtube.com/watch?v=POh-pwEPesA

>England
Even back in the 40s Americans couldn't understand the Union? How this could bamboozle the citizens of a federation so consistently through time baffles me.

God what a shitty book. He ignores the aggressive foreign policy of Germany before WWI, and continued the myth that the Entente powers were just as bad as the side that first used chemical weapons and targeted civilian populations.

And that's just WWI

>japan forms an alliance with white supremacists in well thought out scheme

>Why didn't England accept Hitler's peace offers?
The Same reason why Hitler wanted to Exterminate the Slavic People.

>BTFO'd France for the second time by walking through Belgium
>eternal Anglos panics and run home to his island
>but not before the shitshow at Dunkirk
>the Anglos are making a movie RIGHT NOW of how stunning and brave they were for running away
>Anglos get free shit from the Americans pushing Germany and Britain to a stalemate
>Everyone in Britain hates the war now but the drunk Churchill wont leave it alone so the Germans can worry about the Soviets
>WHO ARE TOTALLY NOT GONNA TRY AND TAKE OVER EUROPE ILL FORGET THE WINTER WAR AND THE WAR IN THE BALTIC COUNTRYS AND THEIR INVASION OF POLAND AND THE INVASION OF MONGOLIA

Bullshit. Anglo refused to disarm while the Reich was militarily castrated by Versailles.
upi.com/Archives/1933/10/14/Germany-withdraws-from-League-of-Nations-disarmament-pact/5411430087122/

Kek

More Hitler's lies.
>Anglo refused to disarm
Well, they didn't lose the war.
>the Reich was militarily castrated by Versailles
Because they lost the war.

What's not fair about this?

Because the last time Hitler offered peace, he invaded Poland and France.

>Hey Chamberlain, its me Hitler!

>yeah, I know I have spent the last few years being an aggressive cunt and causing tensions to rise around Europe, and yeah I know I shat on the treaty of versailles and violated everything in it while you gave me a "break" and yeah I put the whole world on alert when I almost invaded Czechoslovakia until you had to call a special meeting with other European leaders to try and solve it before another war broke out. Sure, you gave me everything I wanted on the promise I end my expansionist aggressive ways, and then I trashed all that by immediately invading and strong arming Lithuania. And I also up and invaded your ally Poland because I thought you and France were giant pussies anyway since you did nothing to stop me the past 5 years. But look, hows about this, we have a little peace offer where I get to control the disputed areas in Poland for now, I get to "ship out" Poles from the area and import a bunch of Germans, then I oversee an election in the area to see if they want to stay part of Germany or not. You can totally trust me. I totally wont violate this the moment it benefits me like I have been doing ever since I started in politics!

Wow, Chamberlain was so stupid to not trust Hitler!

>THE WINTER WAR AND THE WAR IN THE BALTIC COUNTRYS AND THEIR INVASION OF POLAND

You mean all that shit they did due to their deal with Hitler? Really made me think

England already had essentially no standing military by 1933 outside of the BEF. What else were they supposed to disarm from?

>during which many german units were forced to reload
The Onion's one of the finest comedy pieces to come out of America.

>"I salute you, chinky-dinky rat men"
holy shit crying

>it's another continentals shitting on the British thread

>second time
Let me remind you who won that war Hans.

Look up appeasement you dense motherfucker. Hitler didn't want peace.

Dont forget about the molotov-ribbenstrop pact
>ok you know how we're primarily allies to stop the spread of communism and I said I wouldn't take any more territory well looks like I'm friends with the commies now and I'm invading poland haha we're still friends right.

>eternal anglo
>wanting peace
>ever

The Zionist connections to Churchill made him shun the offer . youtube.com/watch?v=L1u_yByxf7A

Because every time the British had attempted to work with Hitler before that point, he ended up backstabbing them. At this point, they were no longer buying his shit.

Give examples to your baseless claims.

>Anglo refused to disarm while the Reich was militarily castrated by Versailles.

Why would the winner of a war disarm? Germany was disarmed because they lost the war. It's almost like losing a war has consequences.

Versailles. (The Austrian anschluss violated Versailles by the way)
Rhineland.
Whitehall's offer to Ribbentrop to return the German colonies.
Munich.
Danzig.

It's a silly argument because Britain had essentially disarmed anyway. One of the reasons Britain was forced into constant appeasement was precisely because they had no immediate military to counter against Germany.
Ironically it was Chamberlain who at least began expanding the Territorial Army, the radar system and some modern aircraft models (the RAF was using biplanes well into the 1930s).

don't forget the naval treaty.

Britain and France's cowardly refusal to defend Czechoslovakia would be the most prominent example. Beyond that, they constantly allowed Hitler to get away with violating key points of the Versailles Treaty without facing any consequences. But the most serious of these appeasements, in my opinion, was the 1935 Anglo-German Naval Agreement which removed most of the Versailles restrictions on the Germany navy. Hitler had claimed that he needed a modern navy to counter the Soviet Union, a downright comical claim because the Soviet Union basically didn't have any navy to counter.

Are you illiterate?
Everyone knows about the Munich agreement.
The Germans didn't stick to the provisions of Versaille (limits on Naval Tonnage, Army/3 of soldiers and Airforce numbers/# of combat planes)
Germany also had no plans to leave Poland and their other occupations.
Germany also violated the neutrality of Belgium.

I'll tell you a secret: we've been doing it for the bantz the whole time

Except Hitler made it clear that he would not let his navy exceed England in strength.

I know nothing about WW2; the post

>of course it's for the japanese... no wait we're allied with them this time

Nice strawman

And Britain agreed to this, which kind of torpedoes the whole "Britain never tried to work with Hitler and intentionally started WW2 to destroy Germany" nonsense. If Britain wanted to cripple Germany, why did they let the Germans build up their military so much? Why did they consistently allow Germany to ignore Versailles? If the British were warmongers, then they were most agreeable and patient warmongers.

THAT IS NICE HEAD YOU HAVE ON YOUR SHOULDERS

> Aggression should be made of sterner stuff

On a semi serious note, the Battle of France was lost in the maternity wards in 1920. You can't win any war without a steady supply of 18 year olds who think they are invulnerable to bullets, and both France and Britain were short on those in 1939 because they didn't fuck enough in 1920.

Between 1920 and 1922, the population of Britain increased by 1.1 million, France by merely 400 thousand, but Germany by almost 2 million.

Lol

Its really convenient how you left out the invasion of Mongolia.
Really made me think.

Is there another picture of that newspaper i can read?

This was already true of 1914, never mind WW2. France and Britain together were barely capable of keeping parity in population with the Germans.

What in that post was wrong?

>Let me remind you who won that war Hans.
You mean the Americans and the Soviets meat grinder?
Yeah France and Britain sure won that war by throwing their whole empires to the dogs.
Also great fucking job enabling the Arabs in WW1 to later make their version of radical Islam that ruins the Middle East.

>well thought out شس

The jews were the main cause

The Jews caused Germany to violate Versailles? Well that's certainly a novel twist.

Learn real history. Germany was the good guys in ww2