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 ceasefire 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 (vovovo.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 suspicions 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.