There are no historical sources so far that would let a clear answer to this question. And at 1 time it was, like nothing else, up to date. After the surrender of France on 22 June 1940, the 3rd Reich practically ruled Europe. The war started on 1 IX 1939 could be considered to have been concluded. Hitler dreamed of jumping through the Canal and mastering the British Isles. Casus hard to explain, however, is Dunkirk, where the full British corps is buried in the boiler, and the Germans could annihilate it in a fewer days. The thing is, they stood inactive and gave the British almost 9 days of time to evacuate, not equal in history. What's the holdup? Generals Rundsted and Kluge in charge of the operation? How about Hitler himself? The fact is that within 9 days, 300,000 troops were evacuated, although all the equipment remained on the beach. Britain was vulnerable. And the invasion threatened. The British fleet was hard to overcome, while there were prospects of Germany gaining an advantage in the air. However, Germany lost the conflict of England from July 10 to October 31, 1940. It crossed over the British Isles' control. On the another hand, the issue of peace in the United Kingdom was what Hitler wanted at the time, although I don't think he knew how to do it. In February 1945 he lamented that Churchill did not realize the intention of the generosity of the Germans at Dunkirk. Of course, Hitler missed the truth, as office on May 24, called on her troops to annihilate the French, English and Belgian forces in the boiler. Those generals were liable for the execution.
Hitler most likely accepted this, hoping to encourage Britain to enter a separatist peace. Friends of Germany in the Isles supported this. Edward VIII boy of George V (until 11 December 1936, king) believed that Britain should make an alliance with Germany in order to 'care over planet peace'. Edward, who for Mrs Simson gave up the crown, raised his hand in Hitler's greeting. Oswald Mosley was the head of the British Fascist Union. Even in Stalags, he was formed among British captives Free British Corps led by John Amerigo, the boy of Conservative Minister of India in the cabinet of Winston Churchill, Leopold Stennett Amery. These prohitler sympathies, it was a tiny margin, but partially due to Churchill's unpopularity in any circles.
Although Churchill enjoyed the support of the nation, he had to be aware of the defencelessness of W. Britain. Also, Chamberlain's application policy, although completed with a fiasco, had supporters in Britain. Churchill, however, made it clear in 1940. He called for strong opposition and struggle, promising the British "blood, death, sweat and tears". The pact with Hitler was considered not only fruitless but besides excluded due to what the Nazi ideology was. Yet, at that time it would be hard to respect Hitler as a human killer.
So erstwhile on 10 May 1941, a second man came to Britain after Hitler in the 3rd Thing, Rudolf Hess became not only a sensation, but first of all raised the question, what was the intent of this visit? Let's leave the debate to the mystery. Undoubtedly Hess, knowing the date of the attack on the USSR – with Hitler's cognition or against it – wanted to bring peace with Britain, which Hitler wanted after the triumph over France. Hess's mission failed. He failed to contact Lord Hamilton, met in 1936, at the Olympics. Churchill refused to talk to him.
Although the issue of war and peace between the 3rd Reich and the United Kingdom worked out, specified peace for Germany would be of large importance after the attack on the USSR, as it would safe through the second front. Therefore, Hess most likely acted in agreement with Hitler, with whom he had a long conversation 5 days before the flight. Peace definitely did not want Churchill, they do not even let them to think about talking about it. The only way was to defeat Germany.
The policy of concessions, negotiations, trust in Hitler's words, everything that preceded Munich, and then dared Hitler to aggression and start a war was the consequence of the kunktatorian policy of European powers. The firmness, the cities of this, may have discouraged Hitler from aggression, or may even made the Germans aware of what the Führer is heading for. However, for this to happen, there was a request for unanimity and a waiver of the profits that egoism could bring against the rule of loyalty and concern for the common good.
present we have precisely the same global situation. The planet is facing the imperialist aggression of Putin Russia, which is supported by a large number of European governments, shifting ad hoc profits over self-security and others. Then the threat was Hitler, present is Putin. And then present there was the unwavering religion of politicians that a gluttonous animal would be able to tame kindness and let go despite his always louder murmurs. Only isolation, cutting off the financial supply, consistent condemnation of genocide not only by declarations but by a decisive attitude – in another words – will follow Churchill's lead to prevent disaster.
