P.M.: Did Hitler want to fly to Scotland?
DR BURCKHARDT: It was proposed by his deputy, Herr Hess.
P.M.: I have no intention of going to Scotland, Norway or Sweden. Or anywhere else.
DR BURCKHARDT: [Offers sincere compliments and courtesies to P.M.]
[Continues]: The Prime Minister of UK is not invited to the talks.
P.M.: [Makes forthright response at length, then requests his response not be minuted.]
[Continues]: We must adjourn for consultations. Meeting adjourns. Parties reconvene elsewhere. Privy Councillors with P.M. Meeting resumes at 12.43 p.m.
P.M.: An emergency meeting of the War Cabinet will be called this afternoon. If it is the wish of the War Cabinet that these exploratory talks be pursued then I shall issue my authority for the Red Cross to negotiate in good faith. The vital interests of the UK shall be represented by His Excellency the British Ambassador to Spain (Sir Samuel Hoare), accompanied by officials from the Foreign Office. Everything ultimately dependent on the approval of Parliament.
DR BURCKHARDT: Correction: they are not exploratory talks. Those were concluded last month. The next talks are intended to draw up and sign the first-phase armistice documents.
P.M.: I knew nothing of the earlier talks and would not have acquiesced in them if I had. The British Gov’t’s policy is unconditional warfare against Germany in pursuit of military victory. I see nothing in your negotiations to release us from that duty.
DR BURCKHARDT: The Red Cross believes peace is not only possible but imperative. The German wish for a cease-fire will not remain open for long. This is an historical opportunity which should be seized by UK.
P.M.: History is made by brave and imaginative decisions, not by tactical surrenders. I will not accept anything from your proposal. History this time demands we deal effectively with Hitler.
J. L. SAWYER: On the contrary, history shows that war always defeats its own object. No war in recorded history has produced a result that is in accordance with the stated aims of the victor. This is because stated aims are either disingenuous, or if sincerely meant they are undermined by the violence inherent in war.
Democracies say they fight wars with the stated intention of righting wrongs or of establishing peaceful relationships between peoples, but in reality their motives are the protection of vested interests, financial investment and the pursuit of political power. Wars are fought by tyrants ostensibly to settle a dispute or to recapture lost territory, but in practice they wish to maintain illegal control over their own people.
History also shows that whatever the apparent military outcome, violence opposed by violence always sows the seeds of future violence. It is the violence itself that distorts the result. The present war against Germany, if fought to a conclusion, might well produce the conquest of one side or the other by military means, but in the longer term the state of war will inevitably destroy many of the qualities said to be at issue.
Destruction of UK would set back the cause of enlightenment, social justice, political tolerance and liberalism by many decades. Destruction of Germany would lead to the dominance of Bolshevism throughout a large part of Europe, with the consequence that there would be greater intervention in European affairs by the USA.
Peace grasped at this moment offers the only hope for stability and harmony in the world.
DR BURCKHARDT: [Requests that these minutes record Mr Sawyer’s contribution verbatim. Note-taker records them, as above. Mr Sawyer agrees and initials the wording.] JLS.
P.M.: [Thanks Mr Sawyer for his valuable insight.]
[Continues]: I am forced to consider the well-being of the country as a whole. H.M. Ambassador to Spain will negotiate and protect our interests. Officials will be in attendance. Only the Prime Minister may sign an armistice on behalf of the sovereign. Sir Samuel Hoare can bring it back and if appropriate I will sign it here.
P.M./DR BURCKHARDT: [Frank, prolonged and disputatious exchange of views. With the concurrence of all present, notes of this exchange have been removed from the minutes.]
DR BURCKHARDT: [Summary of his position]: The armistice accord is to be signed in the presence of all parties.
P.M.: [Summary of his position]: If it is to be signed it will be signed by me in London.
DR BURCKHARDT: I wish these minutes to record my protest, but in the interests of peace I shall endeavour to ensure that the Prime Minister’s wish is observed.
P.M.: I also reserve the right not to sign it at all.
Prime Minister leaves meeting at 1.41 p.m. Others attend briefly to details. Meeting concludes at 1.45 p.m.
21
Document from Bibliothek für Zeitgeschichte, Stuttgart – Burckhardt Archiv (www.biblio_zeit.stuttgart.de/burckhardt)
Dr C. Burckhardt, International Red Cross Society, Geneva
May 9, 1941
(delivered by hand to Suite Boudicca, Dorchester Hotel, Park Lane, London W.)
My dear friend Carl,
[J. L. Sawyer – PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL]
At your personal request, and with the full cooperation of Mr Sawyer, I have made an enquiry into Mr Sawyer’s psychological outlook, which he says has been causing him great concern. You no doubt recognize that in view of the extremely short notice with which the consultation was arranged, I had no access to Mr Sawyer’s medical or psychological records, nor did he come to me after a medical referral. Any examination under such conditions can only be informal. In view of my long relationship with you, both personal and professional, enjoyed for many years, I know that you will view this letter and the opinions it contains as a personal communication. I understand that Mr Sawyer approached you for help with the same problems, so I can spare you much background detail.
Our informal consultation took place at my clinic in Harley Street, London, in the morning of the above date.
Mr Sawyer presents as a prepossessing young man, with a neat and tidy appearance. He is well dressed, articulate in speech and thoughtful in demeanour. He is educated to a high level and well read. He is informed on current affairs, even those with which he has no sympathy.
His personality struck me as intriguing and complex. As a registered conscientious objector he is obviously a man of principle. I found his company interesting, but at the same time he does not have much sense of humour, he becomes irritated with minor matters and, although I was with him for too short a time to gain any firm evidence, I came to the opinion that he would be morose, obsessive and unwavering about matters on which he forms a view.
However, he is at present preoccupied with more personal concerns and it was on these that we concentrated.
Mr Sawyer is a married man and his wife is expecting their first baby. He has many anxieties about this. Firstly, he tells me that for a long time he doubted that he was the child’s actual father, but he said also that in the recent past he has resolved his worries. His wife, whose pregnancy proceeded fairly normally at first, has recently shown symptoms of toxaemia, with worrying consequences. (She is apparently under regular medical supervision, so I was able to reassure him on that score.) Mr Sawyer, who I gather is about to make a trip abroad, is worried that the baby might be born while he is away. Again, I offered reassurances about modern healthcare.
Mr Sawyer is an identical twin. His brother is on active duty with the RAF, and hence is constantly in danger from enemy action. Mr Sawyer tried to explain to me that he and his brother have an extra ‘bond’ of affection and understanding, which can have unpredictable effects when they are separated by such events as wartime duties, family disputes, travel abroad and so on. He was not to know that I have made a special study of the psychology of identical twins, so I listened with particular interest to what he had to say. In my view, Mr Sawyer displays normal or familiar concerns about being a monozygotic twin, so once again I was able to reassure him. Complicating their difficult relationship is that Mr Sawyer and his brother fell out with each other after Mr Sawyer married. He harbours suspicio
ns that his brother might be the real father of the unborn child. Mr Sawyer says he has evidence of this, but would not go into details. I felt I could not and should not pursue this.
Last year, Mr Sawyer suffered a serious traumatic physical event, which caused concussion together with related memory-loss. Mr Sawyer says his physical recovery has been good.
Of his psychological state, though, he says that he has been suffering recurring episodes similar to the ‘déjà vu’ phenomenon, a form of lucid paramnesia in which he feels he is predicting events that do not in the event turn out to be true. I told Mr Sawyer that delusional incidents often occur as a result of concussion, and he accepted this. I also explained that it was common for such delusional incidents to be plausible and easily confused with real life, at least for a while.
Mr Sawyer told me that his real concern is that whenever he suffers an attack it ends with him returning abruptly to the moment the delusion began, forcing him to question whether or not it has really ended.
He also mentioned in particular that he has frequently wondered whether the life he is leading now – i.e. the work he is doing with the Red Cross, the interview he has had with me, and so on – is also one long delusion from which he will suddenly awaken, instantly invalidating everything he is now experiencing.
I assured him that it was not and suggested that my writing this letter for him to give to you would be further evidence that it was not, but of course from his point of view it settles nothing in what might be described as his proto-delusional state.
Mr Sawyer seems to be coping well with the condition and tells me that it is a lot better. He believes he has it under control. I can assure you and him that he does not appear to be suffering any deep-rooted psychosis, that he can function well in the normal world and that with time the problem should go away altogether. My only concern would be if, in the short term, Mr Sawyer were to undergo some other kind of shock – of a physical nature, or a psychological one, perhaps related to his expected child or the well-being of his twin brother – then he might suffer a setback in this regard.
Yours very sincerely,
Frank
[Franklin K. Clark MSc; Clinical Psychologist]
22
Holograph notebooks of J. L. Sawyer
xxii
Our plane flew low over the rooftops of Stockholm, a grey-and-silver city whose outlines were delineated by sparkling channels of sunlit water. We landed on the lake called Stora Värten, to the north-east of the centre of the city, in a great plume of white spray that splashed against the cabin portholes like a cascade of pebbles. The flying-boat swooped sharply down and up while we still travelled at speed on the surface of the water, but when the pilot held down the aircraft’s nose the noise briefly increased as the plane was slowed by the friction of the water. My own seat was fairly close to the front of the cabin, looking out through the porthole beneath the starboard wing.
The forward part of the cabin was curtained off not far in front of my seat. Once again, we in the rear part of the aircraft had to wait while the dignitaries at the front disembarked. This time it was not as straightforward a matter as it had been on land. I watched as a motor-boat came out from the shore and tied up beneath the wing. The Duke of Kent and his entourage boarded the boat in my full view, but by this time the secrecy surrounding the Duke’s presence was a formality for most of us on the aircraft.
By the time the rest of us had disembarked and been taken at high speed to the centre of the city, it was getting dark. Most of the delegates stayed in a large hotel in the city. In the morning we were driven out into the countryside, to a beautiful mansion set in a secluded position, surrounded by forest and overlooking a wide lake. As before, I was assigned to the document team, a job I relished. The important difference on this occasion was that I was placed in overall charge of the team, something I thought a great honour.
However, it was soon apparent that it was not to be a rerun of the earlier meeting.
Deputy Führer Rudolf Hess was expected to arrive in Stockholm during the night, but clearly something had gone wrong while he was en route. He did not appear at the first session, which naturally enough meant the talks were not able to start.
While we were settling down in the palatial rooms of the mansion, his absence noted by all, rumours began to spread. At first they were sensational stories: Hess had been sidelined by Goering, Hess’s plane had been shot down, Hitler had ordered Hess not to attend, and so on. From Count Bernadotte’s team of assistants – it turned out that the estate belonged to the count, although he was not present in person – we learned that none of the rumours was true and that the talks were merely delayed for a few hours for unavoidable reasons.
With no facts we could rely on, all we could do was wait until the position became clearer. Dr Burckhardt, who obviously knew no more than any of us, counselled patience. We remained in a state of suspension through the morning, took an early lunch, then returned to our various places.
Midway through the afternoon, without prior warning, three black Daimler limousines approached the house at some speed. Attracted by the sound and the movement, several members of our translation team moved to the window to see what was happening. Hess was travelling in the first car. As soon as it halted he climbed down, briefly scanned the façade of the house then strode into the building.
xxiii
Within fifteen minutes of Hess’s arrival a plenary session of the conference was called. All the various auxiliaries, like myself, were allowed into the main negotiating hall, the first time I had seen inside. It was set out so that the main tables formed a large equilateral triangle: the British representatives were placed on one side, the Germans on another and the representatives of the neutral governments, the Red Cross and the Quaker negotiators were seated along the third. A huge spray of flowers had been placed in the floor space between the tables.
As we assembled, the auxiliary workers being requested to sit in three rows of chairs placed behind the Red Cross, it was noticeable that all the seats at the German table were occupied but for the one in the centre.
We settled into silence, an air of great expectancy hovering in the room.
After we had waited about a minute, Rudolf Hess appeared from a side door and walked briskly into the hall, his face a mask of impassivity, looking to neither side. He was dressed in the uniform of a Luftwaffe officer. We rose to our feet. Hess, taking up his central place at the German table, nodded imperiously and we resumed our seats.
Speaking without the aid of notes, Hess then addressed the delegates.
‘[My good gentlemen, I apologize for my late appearance at this most important meeting,]’ he began. ‘[I fully intended to be here on time and, as our hosts in such a splendid house already know, we representatives from the Reich had already requested that our negotiations should adhere to a strict timetable. My lateness has ruined those plans. I regret if this fact has made it seem, even temporarily, that the German government has lost its enthusiasm for peace with honour to both sides. I can assure you that is not so.
‘[I was, however, delayed in a way that everyone here, when they learn the facts, will agree was unavoidable. Yesterday evening, while I was flying to this country, as dark was falling over the sea, the plane, which I was piloting myself, was attacked by an unknown number of fighter aircraft. Although I did manage to escape unharmed, as you can see, it was not without serious damage to my aircraft. I regret to say that my fellow crewman, Hauptmann Alfred Horn, was killed during the incident. The plane was also damaged to such an extent that I was forced to make an unscheduled landing in Denmark. I have reached here today by other means.
‘[It was not possible for me to identify the nationality of my attackers’ aircraft. They came at me suddenly and from behind and broke off to the side when they thought they had mortally damaged my plane. However, certain suspicions do arise. It could have been that the fighter aircraft were British, patrolling above the sea in search of aircra
ft like mine. There were in fact British incursions against Germany last night, so bombers were in the vicinity. But British fighters do not normally patrol so far out to sea, unless in this case there was a special reason. Could it be that subversive elements within the British cadres somehow knew that I was planning to be flying last night and that being in opposition to peace they sent out the fighters to ambush me? If so, it would mean there was a breach of security and confidentiality concerning my plans, which could place our talks in jeopardy.]’
Here the Deputy Führer paused, folding his arms across his chest with a theatrical gesture. He deliberately stared around the room, looking slowly at all of us who were there. It was a dreadful moment, because the man’s anger was plain to see. His deep-set eyes beneath the distinctive bushy eyebrows gave out a challenge to everyone. His gaze lingered on the British contingent. Of course, no one acknowledged that they knew of the ambush, because it was inconceivable that anyone there would wish to sabotage the talks.
‘[The other possibility,]’ Hess continued, ‘[would be that the aircraft were sent by a dissident faction from my own side. Under normal circumstances that would constitute high treason. In comparison with it, an attack by the RAF would seem a relatively minor matter, an intelligible act of war. At this moment, though, circumstances within Germany are far from normal. Everyone here today knows that. We all face problems of acceptance of these plans within our caucuses at home. Let us not pretend otherwise. In such a way, and if it is behind what happened to me last night, I am inclined to treat it as a minor matter.
‘[I can assure you once again that I am here with the full authority and agreement of the Leader and that he and I are determined to forge peace with our present enemies, the British. The events of last night have only concentrated my mind more closely on the need for a rapid agreement. I emphasize that the German government does not urge peace from a position of weakness. We seek peace with honour for both sides, based on parity.