Did Hitler try to make peace with Churchill several times?

Absolutely. But, first some background. Before the outbreak of war in 1939 Hitler offered to Poland an adjustment of borders to peacefully terminate the Polish Corridor dividing the heartland of Germany from East Prussia. Keep in mind that Poland had taken a slice of Czechoslovakia as part of the Munich agreement in 1938, so the Poles were in a poor position, politically or morally, to reject his proposal.

Once Britain and France declared war on Germany Hitler chose not to attack British cities by air, although under the rules of war he would have been justified in doing so. The invasions of Norway and Denmark came only after Hitler was forewarned that Britain and France were planning to lay mines in Norwegian harbors to impede Swedish iron ore supplies to Germany. Once the Battle of France got underway in May 1940 Churchill predicted that next would come “The Battle of Britain”, but he was wrong. Hitler never wanted war with Britain. Contrary to popular belief, he allowed the British to evacuate their soldiers from Dunkirk; it was not due to his switching of Panzer divisions south nor placing confidence in the Luftwaffe to destroy them. Hitler believed a peaceful exit from France would induce the British to negotiate a quid pro quo: recognize German dominance over the continent in return for Germany leaving Britain and her colonies alone. Lord Halifax and other key UK officials supported this offer while Churchill, now Prime Minister, stood almost alone in opposition. Hitler explicitly forbade the bombing of British cities in the summer of 1940 in a bid to reconciliate the two warring nations. Many historians believe that the Hess flight to Scotland to make peace in 1941 was secretly sanctioned by Hitler. In this case the inducement came in the form of an Anglo-German agreement to destroy the Soviet Union, or at least keep Britain neutral during Operation Barbarossa. Only Churchill’s pledge to aid Stalin in June of 1941 prevented this outcome

In sum, Britain could have made peace in 1941 and still kept her empire, including India, which Hitler rightly assumed was as vital to the British as their home island.

Since the top answer couldn’t take being challenged in comments, I thought it would be a good idea to link you my perspective on the matter:

Here’s a little comic that sums up how most closet nazis talk about Hitler’s peace offers. The bottom line is that Hitler made peace offers to England, yes, because he wanted his hands free in the East and to avoid getting the US into the war. Because Nazi Germany had constantly reneged on the deals they negotiated with the Western Allies, why would Churchill, the British or anyone for that matter trust that these peace offers were made in good faith?

Furthermore, Hitler started the war by invading Poland, even after he promised that the Sudentenland would be his last territorial claim in Europe. Evidently, the French and British government guaranteed Poland’s territorial integrity, is there any reason for the British to go back on that guarantee? After all, Germany was never going to be able to mount an invasion force to invade the UK. Sealion was a pipe dream, as wargames showed. The UK knew that eventually the US and it’s incredible industrial might would help. Time was against the Germans, and that is the gamble Churchill made, rightly so.

Hitler had the opportunity to strive towards peace in the 1930s, to open up the German economy and make it flourish. Instead he decided to spend most of Germany’s industrial capital on rearmament, driving the country into a financial and raw materials crisis. His economic choices steered him towards war, or his penchant towards war steered his economic choices, it’s a bit of the chicken and the egg. For reading on this topic, I recommend Adam Tooze’s Wages of Destruction:

The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy: Adam Tooze: 9780143113201: Books

For a deeper understanding of the road to war and Hitler’s last minute attempts at peace, read Shirer’s The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, which is one of the best works on the overall history of Nazi Germany:

The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich: A History of Nazi Germany: William L. Shirer, Ron Rosenbaum: 9781451651683: Books

Good luck!

Why should the British—or any other government—have put any faith in the “promises” made by Hitler and the Nazis? Especially after the war started?

The Nazis re-armed in defiance of the Versailles treaty. They re-occupied the Rhineland, contrary to treaty agreements they had made. They grabbed Austria.

Then Hitler used a pretext to claim the Sudetenland part of Czechoslovakia. Promising Chamberlain that he would have no designs on the rest of the country. Barely six months later, he grabs the rest of Czechoslovakia.

He attacked Poland, despite the guarantee of Poland’s independence by Britain and France.

He made a pact with Russia, only to break it little more than a year and a half later.

So what good were Hitler’s “promises”.

The arch-appeaser Chamberlain himself, after Hitler grabbed the rest of Czechoslovakia, declared “no faith could be put in the promises of the present German government”.

Churchill said it best. In 1940, shortly after the fall of France, the King of Sweden urged Britain to make peace with Germany.

Churchill drafted a strong reply: “Before any such guarantees could be given or even considered, it would be necessary that assurances—- by deeds and not words—by Germany, of the restoration of the free and independent existence of Czechoslovkia, Poland, Denmark, Norway, Belgium, the Netherlands, and above all France”.

So —what if in 1941 or so Hitler may have proposed peace with Britain. To “give Germany a free hand in the East”. Could you say the British were wrong to refuse? After Hitler had conquered Eastern Europe and Russia, and had all those resources at their disposal, that Germany wouldn’t have turned on Western Europe?

Forget the neo-Nazi revisionist claptrap you read in some of these answers. No SERIOUS historian doubts that Hitler was determined to conquer and dominate all of Europe. And was preparing for an eventual war against the U.S.

The only known official offer while Churchill was in power was in July 1940 when Hitler in a public speech known “As an appeal to reason” told the British in a radio broadcast to come to him to seek peace or face total destruction.

Interestingly, even before the British government had a chance to reply, a British German speaking announcer on the BBC’s German service had, completely on his own decision, replied that Britain threw this offer back into “his lying stinking teeth”

Halifax was horrified when he found out about this completely unauthorised rejection, but Churchill merely smiled and muttered the word “good”

After he had started invading everyone else and he was trying to keep new people opposing him- yes. If Hitler had actually wanted peace he would not have been invading countries in Europe. Churchill understood very well that Hitler could not be trusted- after all Chamberlain had supposedly made a deal with Hitler - and then Hitler promptly ignored it. He did the same with Russia later so it is very clear that any peace overtures from Hitler were merely tactical room so he could keep the battlefield clear while he went after his next target. Churchill was not the idiot Chamberlain was and declined just sitting on the sidelines until Hitler would decide it was time to start invading Britain the way he did with Czechoslovakia, Poland, France, Russia etc.

Churchill did not trust Hitler. So he did not accept any peace offer.

It is a question of trust.

If Hitler was speaking Truth and was reliable even then he was not trusted byChurchill.

If Mister A is Speaking Truth. But due to some reasons Mister B is not trusting him, can we blame B for disbelieving in Truth. This was on of the case. Second If Third Reich would have defeated USSR she would have become the most powerful Country in theworld.

A threat to GB.

How ever I disagree wirh Inconditional Surrender demand but history cannotbe changed

It’s hard to make a peace treaty stick when the opposition doesn’t have any acceptable future that includes a relatively harmonious settlement with Germany. That would have been a disappointing and unacceptable outcome to the agenda.