Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 27, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 27, 2013
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
July 26, 1957
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4.pdf15.92 MB
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 AIR FORCE ? STRATEGIC SURRENDER The Politikcs, of ? Victory and Defeat ? -'STAT 1100 ,MAIN? ST ,? -r?..,,? ? , ?-? - i ' 1 -.'4 f \_ -/ / -* :--- --k. , / ,- ?,? ' , ? ?' ' '' -. , , 1 ., -' ) - ___.?- ? ' \ ,. 1 , , . ,..? ,.\' V --1 :/.- d si ? ?I' ' )-''' ' _, i k.? ,-, , 2,647/4X16;( " ? 11" SANTA MONIKV"./CALIFORNIA ? '41\ .1 7 ' = , ?..... - ? ...: ' s' - . ...- I Ty,: ?-. r " . ,.. . 1, , 1 ? r . ?,.1. . ,, s.1., \'',' .' , \ ' ----? ,k- t -- .1, ? 1.. ..7 ? / -1: ? - - . \ ' S. -' ) ` , ? i ' 1,..4 ,t f 2- ....1 .. 1.0 e ..- < ' , ...? p., 2 .4 . ..:. - I 4 ir. " ' '' - , ,c,4y, 4 ....-..4 . 1 , ';': ic, ?_, ' ' k.. ./-:, ,-' ? , i 2 J ' ' , - - . , '), I ,, ,.. t.':r. , -1 , . ? r - -es Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 1A-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 2013/06/27 ? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 r- \ ? PROJECT RAND STRATEGIC SURRENDER The Politics of Victory and Defeat PAUL KECSKEMETI July 26, 1957 R-308 The views, conclusions and recommendations ex- pressed herein do not necessarily reflect the offi- cial views or policies of the United States Air Force, 74p_nnDe- 1700 MAIN ST. ? SANTA MONICA ? CALIFORNIA Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 STANFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS STANFORD, CALIFORNIA LONDON: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS ? 1958 BY VIE RAND CORPORATION LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOG CARD NUMBER: 58-7840 PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release PREFACE The following study deals with strategic surrender as a problem in political theory. The context in which this theoretical problem arises is that of the transition from war to peace when one side is completely victorious. Such a transition sometimes involves strategic surrender, that is, the orderly capitulation of the loser's remaining forces; sometimes it does not. It is the theorist's task to specify the general conditions that determine whether or ,not the winding up of hostilities will 'involve sur- render. Since the shape of events depends both on stra- tegic constraints and on the political objective and beliefs of the belligerents, the task is not an easy one. The theoretical analysis of strategic surrender is pre- sented in a-. historical context, that of World War II. Four major cases of strategic surrender are examined in order to show the interaction of strategic constraints and of political desires and beliefs in shaping the concluding stage of hOstilities. I have made no attempt to present an exhaustive narrative of the four surrenders. My pur- pose was rather to sketch the broad outlines of the story in each case and to interpret the major decisions made by the protagonists. Interpretation turned out to be insep- arable from evaluation; when analyzing the past in po- litical terms, one cannot avoid asking whether the means adopted were suitable to the ends in view, whether the 111 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 iv PREFACE people concerned made errors of judgment which can be traced to a common source, and so on. For this reason the study is frankly critical of the surrender policy of the Western Allies in World War II. I am aware of the pitfalls involved in attempting to criticize political decisions in retrospect. One of these is the temptation to overestimate the freedom of action possessed by the policymakers; another is the danger of paying insufficient attention to the adverse consequences that might have resulted if some policy other than the one rejected by the critic had been adopted. I can only say that I have tried to avoid the shortcomings which might make this study a gratuitous exercise in hindsight. I extend my warmest thanks to Bernard Brodie, Her- bert S. Dinerstein, Raymond L. Garthoff, Alexander L. George, Joseph M. Goldsen, Leon Goure, Victor M. Hunt, and Hans Speier for the extremely valuable ad- vice, criticisms, and suggestions I received from them during the preparation of this study. P. K. CONTENTS Preface, iii Summary, viii Introduction, PART ONE: GENERAL STRATEGIC AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS One Surrender as a Strategic COncept ? The Strategies of Rout and Attrition 5 Surrender and the Trend of Attrition 8 . Tactical and Strategic Surrender 10 Two Surrender as a Political Concept Political Considerations Affecting Surrender 13 Total and Nontotal War xi Total War and Strategic Surrender 21 Political Interaction during the Terminal Stage of Total War 23 PART TWO: FOUR CASE STUDIES Three ;-The French Surrender (June 1940) The Strategic Background 31 The Political Strnigle in France 35 The Antiwar Party at Work 35 Armistice oi Exodus? 40 France and Her Al1ieit'4.5, German Motivations 48 5 13 31 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 '-; vi CONTENTS Evaluation of the Armistice 50 The Psychological Background of the Armistice Policy 58 The Aftermath of the Armistice 66 Conclusions 69 Four The Italian Surrender (September 1943) 71 The Strategic Background 71 The Allied Surrender Policy toward Italy 74 Surrender or Cooperation? 85 The Rome Disaster 90 Beyond Surrender 97 Surrender of the Fleet 104 Evaluation of the Allied Surrender Policy toward Italy I 13 Conclusions I17 Five The German Surrender (May 1945) 119 The Strategic Background I 19 The Precedent of 1918 121 Negotiating from Strength 125 Selective Surrender 132 An Eastern Solution? 133 The Dilemma of Timing 135 The Final Surrenders 137 Selective Resistance 137 Piecemeal Surrenders 141 Efforts of Nazi Leaders to Surrender 144 The Diinitz Regime and Global Surrender 146 Evaluation and Conclusions 152 Six The Japanese Surrender (August 1945) The Strategic Background 155 United States Surrender Policy toward Japan 157 155 CONTENTS Japanese Peace Policies 169 Peace Efforts before V-E Day 169 The Road to Moscow 176 . The Atomic Bombs and Surrender 191 Evaluation of United-States Surrender Policy 206 Conclusions 210 PART THREE: ,UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER vii Seven? TheAllies' Policy in World War II 215 The Meaning and Rides of Unconditional Surrender 215 Appli?cation of the Rules of Unconditionality 219 Assessment of the Unconditional-Surrender Policy 223. The ' The Role of the Unconditional-Surrender Formula in Prolonging the War 223 The Rules of Unconditionality and the -Duration of the Terminal Stage 228 The Fallacies of Unconditional Surrender 232 PART FOUR: SURRENDER IN FUTURE STRATEGY Eight Away-from the Siege Strategy The Changed Outlook for Strategy 245 Surrender in Nuclear War 247 Nine Nuclear Strategy and Limited War 'Conclusion: Survival in the Nuclear Age 258 ? , , Notes, 259 , Bibliography, 273 Index, 2-77 245 249 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 SUMMARY The subject of the study is strategic surrender, that is, the ending of hostilities by the orderly capitulation of significant forces on the losing side. This phenomenon, which is only one of several ways in which complete vic- tory may terminate a war, is analyzed both from the stra- tegic and the political point of view. ,. Two introductory chapters (One and Two) deal with the subject in general terms. It is shown that surrender is apt to be the terminal act of hostilities, especially in those wars whose strategic outcome is determined by differential rates of attrition inflicted upon the contend- ers' forces. When the trend of attrition is seen to go irreversibly against one side, both adversaries have an interest in dispensing with a final round of fighting that would merely increase their losses without changing the outcome. This is ensured by orderly capitulation. Since, however, the loser still possesses a significant residual capability, he is induced to use this as a bargaining point so as to obtain some political concession in return for sur- render. The winner, on the other hand, may refuse to entertain any idea of a political bargain and -insist upon CCunconditional" surrender. The theoretical discussion in Chapters One and Two is followed by four case studies dealing with major stra- tegic surrenders in World War II. Chapter Three is devoted to the French surrender viii SUMMARY ix of June 1940. The main theme herd is the debate in France between the partisans of prolonged resistance and the advocates of surrender. The Germans were willing to pay k political price for speedy capitulation;- to the proponents of the armistice policy, this political payment (the recognition of a nominally. sovereign French re- gime). was sufficient compensation for the non-use - of such residual fighting capabilities as France still possessed in her overseas territories. The adversaries of. the armi- stice policy held that surrender was unjustified, since the strategic trend could still be reversed. While latei-, de- velopments.showed that the trend indeed was reversible, the advocates of the armistice policy could argue in retro- spect that the Allied comeback would have been more difficult if French resistance had continued overseas and German forces had been sucked into French North Africa as early as 1940. Chapter Four, about the Italian surrender of 1943, shows the Allies' policy of unconditional surrender in operation. When the Italians offered. to change sides, the Allies refused to entertain this offer and insisted uf3son unconditional surrender pure and simple. The- author maintains that.this demand did not fit the.realities of the situation and that unconditional surrender as a basic pOlidy toward Italy had to be abandoned soon after it was en- forced. Germany's unconditional: Surrender .is treated in Chapter Five: It is shown that German resistance became selective during the dosing weeks of the war; the. Ger- mans liquidated active resistance on the western, front and devoted all their residual .strength to stopping the Soviet troops' advance into Germany. Before that stage was reached, certain German conspiratorial groups Sought 'Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 004 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 X SUMMARY to eliminate Hitler and offer a negotiated peace to the Allies. The policy of unconditional surrender ruled out the acceptance of such offers, but it is doubtful whether the war could have been ended earlier on such a basis even if the unconditional-surrender policy had been abandoned. Negotiations with a German antiwar regime, the author argues, would have threatened to disrupt the East-West coalition, a risk which the Allies were unable and unwilling to take. On the other hand, Germany's technique of piecemeal surrender, while satisfying the requirements of unconditional surrender, did enable- the Germans to derive some political advantage from the se- lective use and non-use of residual forces. The successful exploitation of residual forces as bar- gaining assets is the main theme of Chapter Six, dealing with the Japanese surrender. The Japanese, toward the end, were capable of one last operation: a hopeless but costly resistance in the home islands. They were able to trade off the abandonment of this operation for an im- portant political gain, the maintenance of the monarchy. This outcome, however, was unduly delayed both by the Allies' reluctance to depart explicitly from the prin- ciple of unconditional surrender and by Japan's ill-ad- vised and ill-fated policy of seeking Soviet mediation to end the war on favorable terms. The author maintains that the timing and the terms of Japan's conditional sur- render were determined by the collapse of the effort to seek peace through Moscow's mediation rather than by the dropping of the atomic bombs. It would not have made a significant difference in either timing or terms if the bombs had not been dropped. Chapter Seven presents a critical assessment of the Allies' policy of "unconditional surrender" in the light SUMMARY xi of the material contained in the four case studies. It is shown that the policy involved specific rules of conduct designed to make sure that the losers could not use their residual forces as political bargaining assets. The author argues that these rules on the whole were not in keeping with the realities of the situation, and that the uncon- ditional-surrender policy must be considered fallacious on this score. The criticism usually leveled at the policy, namely that it needlessly prolonged the war, is, how- ever, rejected, mainly because it cannot be squared with actual German behavior during the terminal stage. Two concluding chapters (Eight and Nine) deal with the probable effects of new weapons developments upon basic strategies and hence upon dominant strategic ob- jectives. It is suggested that the strategic concept of gradual, divergent attrition has become obsolete in the nuclear age. The powers may seek to develop winning strategies of unilateral, total destruction; failing this, they may becofne interested in limiting the destructive effects of nuclear warfare. Strategic surrender as a domi- nant objective is likely to be inappropriate in either case, although securing the surrender of residual nuclear forces may well be an important problem. The main- conclusions emerging from the, analysis may be formulated as follows: (i) Complete victory is not synonymous with the enemy's strate-gic surrender. Victory assumes this form only in wars of a certain type, a type exemplified by World Wars Land II. (2) All surrender involves an element of bargain- ing, of mutual concessions. No surrender-can be literally unconditional. (3) In World War II, Germany's surrender came Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Xli SUM MARY dosest to being unconditional, but even the Germans were able to exact some political payment for the non- use of their residual capability. (4) Against Japan, the principle of unconditional surrender could not be enforced; against Italy, it was irrelevant. (5) In settling conflicts, it is better to assess the enemy's bargaining position realistically than to concen- trate one's efforts upon reducing it to zero. (6) In possible future conflicts, strategy is not likely to be based upon attrition; hence, surrender will prob- ably not be an appropriate final objective, although the surrender of residual atomic capabilities may well be an important problem. (7) The need for limiting nuclear devastation is likely to impose restraint upon political objectives. INTRODUCTION Allied strategy in World War II was dominated by the concept of surrender. In the Western belligerent countries, both the leaders and the populations took it for granted that the enemy's final defeat would take the shape of mass surrender of his forces. In most earlier wars of the modern era, the image of surrender did not play a similar role in strategic think- ing; there were other suggestive images of the victorious termination of wars, such as the "battle of annihilation" or the conquest of the enemy's capital, followed by the dictation of peace terms. Mass capitulations did occur in European wars of the nineteenth century (Ulm in 18?35, Sedan in 1870, but those were fortunate wind- falls rather than preconceived objectives in terms of which victory was defined in advance, and in fact neither of those capitulations ended the wars then in progress. "Unconditional surrender," the Union's predesigned ob- jective in the American Civil War, was an exceptional war aim in the nineteenth century. It played no role in the international conflicts of that period. The armistice accord that concluded hostilities in World War I was indeed in the nature of a final mass surrender, but the strategy that led to it emerged only gradually by trial and error, and the terms imposing capitulation came as a surprise. It was only in World War II that surrender, and unconditional surrender at Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 2 INTRODUCTION that, was adopted in advance as the final objective of one side. One of the purposes of the present study is to throw some light on the question of why surrender became such a dominant concept in the last War. From the point of view of the basic strategic constraints under which a war is waged, surrender appears as a strategic (or tacti- cal) concept related to certain distinct types of campaigns or operations. Allied strategists conceived of World War II as one of those types of military activity; that is why they expected it to be terminated by surrender. It is not sufficient, however, to look at surrender only from the military point of view. Acts of surrender do more than liquidate military operations; they initiate new, nonviolent cydes of mutual dealings between win- ners and losers. Surrender as a goal concept, therefore, serves to shape ideas of the political relations between states after the termination of hostilities. A second purpose of the present study is to show how planning for postwar political arrangements was influenced by the Allies' preoccupation with surrender as the epitome of victory. PART ONE GENERAL STRATEGIC AND POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 One SURRENDER AS A STRATEGIC CONCEPT THE STRATEGIES OF ROUT AND ATTRITION Surrender (capitulation) occurs when a military en- gagement or a war is terminated by an agreement under which active hostilities cease and control over the loser's remaining military capability is vested in the winner. In such cases one side achieves a monopoly of armed strength and the other is reduced to defenselessness, thus accomplishing the classic objective of total victory, the "annihilation" of the enemy's military power. ,An- nihilation does not mean the physical extermination of the enemy, but merely neutralization of, his combat strength.' In surrender agreements, immunity of life is expressly guaranteed to members of the surrendering force. The objective of annihilating the enemy's military power, however, Can be achieved- in ways, other than formal surrender. If a belligerent, succeeds in routing the enemy's foices in pitched battle, he also achieves a monopoly of armed strength, but without a formal agreement transferring control over the loser's residual capability to the winner. Rout in battle renders the loser defenseless because the organizational structure of his force is disrupted. In cases of surrender, on the other Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 6 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS hand, the loser's forces retain their organized structure. They admit defeat only because they are deprived of the essential means of waging war, either as a result of relentless attrition inflicted upOn their sources of strength or because they are surrounded and besieged by an enemy who succeedsin -cutting off their supplies. Total victory, then, can be -accbinplished by means of '-either. Of two basically different- strategies: that of disruption, and that of siege or attrition. Which of these strategies will be employed depends on the stra- tegic constraints under which the war is waged. If the enemy's entire strength is concentrated in a field army, disruption is the proper strategy for a belligerent who hopes to achieve total victory. If the .enemy is en- trenched behind a strong fortification, depriving him of supplies is a far more promising strategy than disrupting the structure of his forces. A somewhat. similar distinction between two basic strategies is familiar from the writings of Delbrikk, according to whom "all strategic thinking and action [is] necessarily dominated by the problem of the duality of the strategy of the rout and that of exhaustion."' According-to Delbriick and his school, however, only the strategy of disruption is appropriate to the objective of total victory: if a belligerent aims at annihilating the enemy's forces, he must defeat him in pitched battle. The strategy of exhaustion, according to this school, is suited only to wars of maneuver in which no radical cle- Cision is 'sought. In a war of maneuver, the enemy can be bested by the capture of his stores, and it is expected 'that heavy losses of this kind will make him amenable to conduding a negotiated peace on moderate terms. 'The strategy-of 'exhaustion, however, cannot reduce the enemy to total defenselessness. ,t Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 SURRENDER AS A STRATEGIC CONCEPT 7 WorldWat I exploded the. theory bf:two basic strat- egies as these were, defined by ,Dellirtic.k, Lfor it.:1e,d, to the emergence of a third type. of strategy based, neither on the concept of rout .(disruption) nor on. that of 'ma- neuver. Within the framework of Delbriick's theory; siege operations securing capitulation are only incidents within a war, but a war as such is not visualized as a kind of siege operation directed against the' entire-war- making strength of the enemy nation; hence, total stra- tegic victory is not equated with the enemy's surrender. In World War I, however, decision-was sought and attained by gradual attrition of the; enemy's entire man- power and :materiel reserves, and by choking off- ,his supplies. The war was essentially a,gigantic siege: oper- ation,, in Which a radical strategic decision was, reached while the enemy's forces still retained their organiza- tional structure. Hostilities, then? had ,to be liquidated by what was essentially a capitulation agreement, 'i.e., by. the surrender of the loser's residual military capa- bility. ? i Western strategic thinking in World War, II was guided by this experience:- the.strategic. task was defined in terms of reducing Germany, by siege: Attrition of the economic base of the enemy, however; was no longer merely a matter of throwing a blockade ringiaround,him to prevent his, replacing the materiel used-up in, static warfare. Strategic bombing added -a new dimension, to attrition, exposing the enerny's population and industrial centers, to destrlictive blows. This_ new itype of war .of attrition turned out to be more, destractiVeonore ,total;" than were previous wars governed by the strategy of annihilation. The contrast with the Delbrikk concept of "e3thaustion'?: as the less extreme form .'of warfare ,is obvious. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 8 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Technological developments since World War II have introduced further momentous changes into the strategic picture. The "classic" attrition strategy of both world wars and the concept of victory based on it have become obsolete. SURRENDER AND THE TREND OF ATTRITION Surrender means that winner and loser agree to dis- pense with a last round of fighting. Military necessity sometimes requires exposed units (e.g., the garrison of a fortress) to prolong fighting even when it appears certain that they will eventually be overwhelmed; but, apart from such cases, surrender is indicated when an operation or campaign having the characteristics of a siege enters its final stage. The critical point is reached when prolongation of fighting would inevitably break up the structure of the besieged unit. What the loser avoids by offering to surrender is a last, chaotic round of fighting that would have the characteristics of a rout. Surrender is then the only rational decision for the loser, since it means that the losses that would be involved in the last battle are not incurred. By the same token, accepting surrender is a rational decision for the win- ner: he can obtain his objective without paying the costs of a last battle. Belligerents involved in an attrition situation, of course, will not always _act strictly in accordance with military rationality. The information available to mili- tary leaders in the course of operations is in general too fragmentary to enable them to make optimal decisions. Nations or military units faced with defeat sometimes assume superfluous losses, either because they refuse to admit that the situation can no longer be reversed or SURRENDER AS A STRATEGIC CONCEPT 9 because they wish to avoid the risk of too early surrender, when additional effort could still save the situation. With perfect foresight, the potential loser would know before the conflict started that he must lose, even if his forces were initially superior. In this case, if he were rational, he would not initiate hostilities. In the absence of _perfect foresight, however, the belligerents have to make the best estimates they can about the future shape of the war. Early in the conflict, the data permit of many different estimates. The actual outcome reveals itself only gradually, so that there is no way for the loser to guarantee himself against superfluous losses: he cannot know in advance whether further resistance may not reverse the trend. What the loser can certainly avoid, if he is rational, is that amount of attrition that he would suffer by fighting on when the available evi- dence definitely exdudes everything but defeat. In wars dominated by the strategy of attrition, the supreme stra- tegic question at any given time is whether the curves of the attrition suffered by the two sides have become divergent and, if so, whether the nascent divergence can still be reversed. From a purely military point of view, surrender is definitely indicated when the loser in such a war is forced to conclude that the trend of divergent attrition has become irreversible. But he cannot be sure about this without having already absorbed a certain measure of attrition that was objectively unnecessary. So far, we ,have considered surrender as an act by which one side renounces any further use of a residual fighting capability. Seen in this light, surrender is a matter of choice; in fact, it is this choice character of surrender that makes this concept an interesting one in the theoretical analysis of warfare. But it should not be Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 10 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS assumed that all actual cases of surrender involve a sig- nificant element of choice between two practically feasi. ble courses of action, fighting on and offering surrender. If soldiers survive after fighting until their last round of ammunition is spent, they have no choice between surrendering and fighting on; their only alternatives are running away, deliberately committing suicide by walking into the enemy's fire, and surrendering. If they surrender, the "residual capability" they yield up is zero; the surrender agreement does not cut short a possible last round of fighting, and hence it has no practical mili- tary significance. In cases of this sort, one may speak of "enforced'? surrender; since such surrenders lack military signifi- cance, they will remain outside the scope of the present investigation. Cases in which prolonged resistance is not literally impossible but would be wholly meaningless also may be called "enforced" in a wider sense; such is, for example, the case of an isolated armed soldier sur- prised by an enemy party. Such a soldier could achieve nothing by trying to fight except being killed on the spot. TACTICAL AND STRATEGIC SURRENDER Surrender of less than the loser's total existing forces can be called tactical surrender, as distinct from strategic surrender, in which the surrender of the loser's entire force brings hostilities to an end. Tactical surrender is often a matter of individual soldiers or small units cut off from the main fighting body. From the operational, or strategic, point of view, such incidents may be entirely trivial. Tactical surren- ders of major scope, however, can have strategic impor- tance. After the tactical surrender of large forces, those SURRENDER ASA STRATEGIC CONCEPT II remaining in the field may be so inferior, that the, weak- ened side must eventually acknowledge defeat. Indeed the line separating tactical frOm strategic sur- render may be altogether blurred.' The strategic surren- der of 'Germany's forces in World War II; for example, was a graduarprocess, assuming the form of a- series of tactical surrenders preceding a final strategic surrender: The mass capitulations which occurred in several thea- ters prior to V-E Day were strategic M essence though tactical in form: taken together, they added up to stra- tegic surrender, consummated in piecemeal fashion. Other ambigUities concerning the tactical or strategic nature of surrender arise in coalition warfare. If there are only two belligerents, the strategic surrender of one ends the war, but in coalition warfare individual coali- tion members may surrender separately. From the point of view of the coalition as a whole, or from that of its leading member, the strategic surrender of a partner still has only tactical scope. And even the total capitu- lation of the partner need not mean the end of the war for him, since belligerency may be maintained by a government-in-exile. In other .words, what we call strategic surrender, as distinct from tactical surrender, is an act that concerns not merely the belligerent role of military units but the maintenance of belligerency itself. In tactical surrender, troops lay down their arms but the state of belligerency remains. In strategic surrender, the disarming of troops is merely one phase of a more comprehensive act by which a sovereign abandons or loses belligerent status. Thus strategic surrender is a political act as well as a military act. In the present study we examine only the conditions and constraints governing strategic surrender. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 I2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS Strategic surrender is both the terminal act of a war and the initiating act of the new postwar relationship between the belligerents. The military act of surrender strips the losing sovereign of his war-making capability. It is followed by a political act that provides for the bel- ligerents' postwar status and relationship on the basis of this one-sided military outcome. Two SURRENDER AS A POLITICAL CONCEPT POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS AFFECTING SURRENDER Strategic surrender necessarily involves decisions other than purely military ones based on an appreciation of the trend of attrition. The propensity to offer sur- render will be decisively influenced by the nature of the terms the winner is expected to impose after achieving a monopoly of armed strength. The very concept of surrender implies that the loser's life will be spared. But even so, the loser may have reason to think that the new, nonviolent cycle of relationships initiated by sur- render will be totally destructive of all his values, in- cluding those he holds dearer than life itself. In that case the loser may decide that a last, hopeless fight or even deliberate self-destruction is preferable to sur- render. The earliest- surrenders known to history often re- sultedin the enslavement of the defeated peoples.' For groups to which slavery was unacceptable, collective sui- cide was the only way out when armed resistance became impossible. An example of this is described by Xeno- phon as follows: Then there was a fearful spectacle: the women threw their children down the precipice and jumped after them; the men Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070001 4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 14 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS did the same. . . . They [the Greeks] captured hardly any people [in that village]; all they got was cattle, donkeys, and sheep.= On the other hand, the loser's motives for offering surrender may .be greatly reinforced if he is optimistic about the use the winner 'will 'make of his monopoly of strength.. Such optimism may take various forms We have alreadyreferred to the ro.l o. f personal and social values in influencing surrender decisions. The loser may decide to quit beca:use he feels that his core values will not suffer, even if the winner has his way completely and permanently. Disaffected groups within a bellig- erent society often feel that it is the enemy's victory, rather than their own society's, that will bring their ccire values to fruition. It is normal for the members of such groups to surrender spontaneously when the circum- stances permit. Extreme war-weariness sometimes leads to such behavior even in groups that were not disaffected at the outset. Such politically motivated surrenders may be partial (tactical) 'in Scope, but if the disaffected or war-weary element seizes political control, it will adopt the policy of strategic surrender. In certain circumstances surrender may appear ad, visable as a means of conserving strength for a future encounter under more favorable conditions. In. such cases, the loser expects no real peace; he surrenders, not because he considers the winner potentially benign and friendly, but to gain a breathing spell, during which he expects the balance of power to shift in his favor. Political considerations may overrule military ones. In extreme cases they may rule out surrender altogether, regardless of whether defeat can still be warded off, or SURRENDER ASA POLITICAL CONCEPT 15 they may rule out _Continued resistance,. regardless of whether it could ensure victory. Suicidal -resistance- has seldom, if ever, occurred in history except in primitive societies. Eagerness to surrender, which can be ,fOund in both: early and modern war, may be the result of dig- affection, war-Weariness, or a generally unwarlike orien:- tation: In modern war, extreme language is often used in propaganda. dealing with the problem of quitting or continuing to fight. Propagandists tend to speak as if the question ought to be decided on moral, or political grounds, independently of the military situation. HenCe the occasional vogue of such slogans, as "No surrender in any circumstances," or "Better death than dishonor," in belligerent sOcieties doomed to defeat. Counterpropa- ganda or "psychological warfare," on the other hand, sometimes proceeds on theassumption that antiwar argil- ments can sway the enemy in the direction of quitting, regardless of the military trend. The record of modern wars indicates, however, that modern belligerent -nations, unlike small primitive groups, do not willingly commit suicide in defeat-,. The warring-societies are tob large and too heterogeneous for that. Defeatist behavior, on the other hand, can become generalized in a losing society, as it did in Russia in 1917 and in France in 1940; but this is likely to happen only in conjunction with over- whelmingly strong military pressure. In modern times societal decisices` about surrender tend to reflect both the military rationale of avoiding superfluous losses and the participants.' expectations about .the political aftermath of surrender. When the actual decision has to be made, it does not present itself to the loser in all-or-nothing Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 i6 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS terms. The question is not merely whether or not to surrender, but on what political conditions the surrender is to be based. Even if the loser knows that he cannot escape total defeat and that prolonged resistance can only make his losses heavier, he cannot give up without satisfying him- self that there is some political justification for surrender beyond mere survival and loss-cutting. For losers who identify themselves with the winner's aims and who therefore count on benevolent treatment, this is not dif- ficult. They offer and expect friendship (and more often than not are rebuffed). Losers who have no such ex- pectations (or illusions) at least make an attempt at bargaining as long as they believe that they have even a minimum of bargaining power left. But then it may happen that the winner refuses to enter into bargains of any sort. For the prospective winner of a war of attrition, the central aim is the monopoly of strength that he feels he has the power to achieve. This, he is apt to think, will enable him to dictate any terms he pleases. At the same time, the prospective loser takes refuge in the thought that his residual strength still gives him a bargaining asset that he can exploit before he becomes completely defenseless. This discrepancy of views?the winner's conviction that the loser's bargaining strength is nil, the loser's conviction that it is real?regularly arises at the end of wars of attrition. And the curious fact is that it is not always the loser who is deluded. Losers sometimes suc- ceed in establishing a final bargaining position, even in the teeth of the winners' explicit refusal to enter into anything smacking of concessions or negotiation. The Allies' policy of unconditional surrender in World SURRENDER AS A POLITICAL CONCEPT 17 War II, which will be discussed below, led to some strik- ing situations of this sort. TOTAL AND NONTOTAL WAR A military calamity, whether it takes the form of a rout in the field-or of surrender due to exhaustion, need not always have disastrous political consequences. To be sure, moderate peace settlements are more likely when war ends in stalemate than when one side achieves de- cisive military. superiority. But even in the latter case the peace settlement may fail to reflect the winner's mili- tary dominance: In the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, Austria's army in the field was routed, but the peace imposed by Prussia was extremely moderate. In other cases, however, such as the American Civil War and World Wars I and II, military defenselessness had cata- strophic political consequences for the loser. These three wars were far costlier in terms of human life and ma- terial resources than the Austro-Prussian War or the other limited wars of the nineteenth century. We might say that they were more "total." The losers acknowl- edged defeat and offered strategic surrender only when they were dose to total exhaustion; and the winners, too, were obliged to assume enormous losses and to expend a considerable portion of their national resources before they Could win. The above remarks suggest that wars may be classi- fied according to three criteria: (i) the symmetry or asymmetry of the final military outcome, i.e., the degree to which one belligerent succeeds in enhancing his mili- tary position at the other's expense; (2) the degree of "totality," which may be defined as the proportion of a belligeren-t's total human and material resources mobi- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 8 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS lized, consumed, and destroyed in war; and (3) the sym- metry or asymmetry of the political outcome, i.e., the degree to which one belligerent succeeds in enhancing his political position at the other's expense. This last criterion may also be described in terms of advantage and disadvantage: the question is whether the political advantages accruing to the winner, and the political dis- advantages accruing to the loser, are large or small. It is clear that the first criterion is independent of the second: total and nontotal wars alike may end sym- metrically or asymmetrically. One of the fundamental conditions on which the degree of totality depends is the belligerents' willingness or unwillingness to end hos- tilities while their losses have not yet exceeded a certain moderate level, no matter which side has the military advantage at the time. The degree of totality of a given war depends in part on technological and organizational conditions. Where only a small proportion of national resources can be made available for military use, and where no highly destructive methods and instruments for waging war exist, wars necessarily remain nontotal. Conversely, highly developed techniques of destruction and capa- bilities for mobilization tend to make war more total. But within the limits set by these underlying conditions, the degree of totality is a matter of choice for the bel- ligerents. To the extent that such choices exist, wars become more total when belligerents who are militarily frustrated at a given stage, either by defeat or by stale- mate, refuse to consider a peace settlement that would reflect this disadvantage and continue the struggle in the hope of a more favorable outcome. Such conduct is likely when the belligerents' estimate of the political SURRENDER AS A POLITICAL CONCEPT 19 gains and losses involved in an asymmetrical outcome is very high, supposing that they have not lost all hope of reversing the trend of war. If a frustrated belligerent feels that he can expect nothing but more defeats, he will end the war rather than make it more total, even if he sees in a losing eace a great disaster. If, however, the belligerents' estimate of the po- litical value of the asymmetrical military outcome is low, the losing side will not try to reverse an early defeat or to break an early stalemate. Thus wars in which the political values at stake are given a relatively low esti- mate tend to remain nontotal, even when possibilities exist for committing or mobilizing fresh forces in order to achieve something better than defeat or stalemate. The risks, costs, and losses involved in further fighting will then appear to outweigh the advantages of the better political outcome that a prolonged war might be expected to achieve. Conversely, such costs and risks will appear worth while if the "political stake" is very highly valued. Getting victory rather than defeat or stalemate, or stale- mate rather than defeat, will then seem worth any cost. It is not suggested here that decision makers, frus- trated by the early military outcome, can make a neat comparison between two well-defined quantities: the po- litical stake on the one hand and the additional cost of a possible better outcome on the other. No such com- parisons can be made because war costs and political stakes cannot be measured in homogeneous units. Rather, the weighing is done in an instinctive and re- active fashion; the ultimate decision depends on the emotional impact of the alternative courses. In tense war situations, the decision. maker is likely to feel that he is acting from necessity rather than from deliberate Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 20 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS choice. (This consideration applies not only to decisions about ending wars but also to decisions about starting them.) By the same token, the course that is rejected appears to be impossible, unfeasible, or unthinkable: -In nontotal conflict, it is the continuation of hostilities beyond a certain point that is likely to appear unfeasible for political or economic reasons. On the other hand, if the political stake is high enough, making peace might appear unthinkable and the war might become total. The point to be stressed in this connection is that the terms "victory," "defeat," and "stalemate," when used to characterize the final outcome of wars rather than the outcome of military engagements, are not absolute, but relative, concepts. If a war ends asymmetrically, this is because the loser regards as final the asymmetrical out- come achieved at a certain time. The same applies to stalemate. The decision to accept a given military out- come as final is not necessarily imposed by the nature of the outcome as such. It also depends on political constraints. It is obvious that, other things being equal, a win- ning peace is better than a compromise peace or a losing peace. But depending on the over-all political and mili- tary circumstances in which a war is being fought, the optimal final outcome for a belligerent may be one that falls short of the best military outcome he could achieve. It is possible to pay too much for victory and even for stalemate. One may safely say that the maxim that "in war there is no substitute for victory" is totally erro- neous. Decisions about ending or continuing wars may be said to depend on the belligerents' evaluation of their "political stake" and on their appraisal of military pros- 0, SURRENDER-AS A-POLITICAL CONCEPT 2,1 pects and the co-?t of prolonged warfare. ' These factors are subject to re-evaluation as the, war proceeds. It is obvious that estimates of military.prospects (e.g., of the likelihood that a better final military outcome is attain- able) must be revised in the light of developing experi- ence. But the political factor is also variable. War events may induce belligerents to modify their estimate of the political advantages of various military outcomes. In coalition war, for example,.it may happen that the weak- ening of the enemy gradually becomes less attractive to a coalition partner as he becomes aware of conflicts of interest with another partner. In such cases, one or the other member of the winning coalition may revise the estimate of his political stake more or less drastically, possibly to the extent of withdrawing from the war or even changing sides. TOTAL WAR AND STRATEGIC SURRENDER When the loser in nontotal war acknowledges defeat, his military position is not necessarily hopeless. He may have additional potential resources that he could press into combat if he were really desperate. In total war, on the other hand, defeat is acknowledged only when all possibilities for reversing the trend by the mobiliza- tion or commitment of fresh resources are exhausted. This is to say that strategic surrender is characteristic of total wars in which the final outcome hinges on diver- gent attrition of the belligerents' mobilizable potentials, rather than on disruptive military action. A war midst end in strategic surrender if (a) the warfare is total, (b) resources are mobilized progressively, and (c) a final asymmetrical outcome is brought about not by dis- ruption but by attrition. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 2.2 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS (Yr the: other' hand, total wars' need not end in stra.- tegfc surrender. If the: loser of a crucial engagement in totallicrar canna fall back on uncommitted forces or fresh resources,, that engagement will end the war without formal military capitulation. In the past, total wars'were often: decided early by battles in the open field, since the possibilities for raising fresh forces- were, limited or nonexistent."?Classical" strategic theory, based on. the Napoleonic experience and worked out by Clausewitz, was dominated by the concept of the battle as the pri- mary means whereby total war could be decided,' De- cisive superiority was achieved by "total" mobilization at, the beginning of the war, and the superior side could thus smash and "disrupt" the forces of the inferior side.' In modern times, however, inequality of initial mo- bilization has no longer represented decisive, strategic asymmetry. The significant relationship has been that of total resources. Hence, the outcome of battles has tended to become less important than the security of the belligerents' mobilization bases. These generalizations apply with particular force to World Wars I and II. The existing German (and Japanese) armed forces were so tough that the Allies found it extremely difficult to disrupt them. Depriving them of resources was relatively easier, although the Allies, too, had to absorb enormous attrition of man- power and economic resources in the process of wearing down the enemy. Both sides persisted because of their high estimates of the political stakes in the war; both pushed on until there was no longer any doubt about whose force level would sink to zero first. At that point, even the losers had to admit that their residual forces could escape superfluous losses only by capitulation. That is the pattern of strategic surrender in total war. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? SURRENDER AS A POLITICAL CONCEPT 2.3 These basic considerations, however, determine only whether surrender will be offered. How this is done depends on a set of different factors, to which we now turn. POLITICAL INTERACTION DURING THE TERMINAL STAGE OF TOTAL WAR When a war is in its terminal stage, factors that make it more or less total are no longer dominant. It is under- stood on both sides that further efforts can no longer change the outcoine, and that the losing side cannot avoid accepting the political cost of defeat. The motive of cutting losses, rather than that of securing the best pos- sible military outcome, therefore becomes dominant. As surrender nears, even total wars become nontotal, and the final act of capitulation itself is a completely orderly and nonviolent one. During the terminal stage of total war, the political process shows great variation in detail from one case to another, but some of its aspects are fairly constant. For one thing, the basic total-war orientation of the bellig- erents usually changes in an asymmetrical fashion: it is the loser who reorients himself first. The winner moves straight on toward his objective, the final achievement _ of a monopoly of strength that can be used to dictate terms. The loser, however, goes through a process of political reorientation. He gives up his total-war objec- tive as unattainable and sets himself more modest aims. He adopts a new basic policy, the central element of which is the decision to "disarm" the winner's hostility by a thorough political reorientation, setting the stage for mutual adjustment. This revision of policy may be imposed by a com- plete collapse of the loser's authority structure: the war 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01 043R nn7 I nnn7nnnq_A i I 24 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS must come to a stop because the rank and file no longer obey orders. In such cases strategic surrender,' the or- derly capitulation of residual forces, represents no prob- lem for the winner. More interesting cases are those in which channels of military authority are not dissolved, and in which cohesive residual forces remain on the losing side. This condition was fulfilled in every defeated country in World War II: it was characteristic of that war that defeat was not associated with the breakdown of mili- tary discipline and the revolutionary disruption of the social fabric. But there did occur, as in most presurrender situations, a split within the political leadership of the losers, with "defeatist," prosurrender elements remOv- ing the war-committed leaders from their positions of authority. The French surrender in 1940, as well as the later Italian surrender, was preceded by political re- shufflings amounting to a coup eetat, even though the forms of legality were observed. But these surrenders were nonrevolutionary in the sense that they were adopt- ed and carried out, not by counter-elites surging from below, but by decision makers who had occupied positions of authority during thewar. The German and Japanese surrenders of 1945 were not preceded by any change in the political complexion of the two governments. These nonrevolutionary surrender situations created a dilemma for the winners. The survival of the loser's authority structure was a necessary condition for the orderly surrender of his remaining forces. No radical political transformation had taken place in the losing countries, however, and consequently the winner could achieve a substantial abridgment of the dosing stage of hostilities only if he did not insist on immediately im- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 20 SURRENDER' AS A POLITICAL CONCEPT posing his ideological and political war aims the removal Of the enemy's ?.evil" authoritie's, and their replacement by ideologically acceptable ones. - . ): ?,, To be sure, there' reason to assUine that recog- nizing thefenemfs war regime for the purpose of ob- taining its surrender implied lasting renunciation of the winner's ideological war aims. The winner could: wait until surrender was accomplished and then usehis md- nopoly of strength- to transform the loser's political and social order according to his wishes. This is ho* Soviet Russia handled the surrender of the satellite state's, Ru- mania and Hungary. The Russians had no compunction about- conduding armistice agreements with representa- tives of the King of Rumania and the Regent of Hun- gary. In theirLeyes, these acts in no way compromised their ultimate objective, the sovietization. of thelosing countries. To the Western Allies and the United States in particular, however, even temporary, dealings: with spokesmen of enemy regimes were ,a serious, stumbling block. All such,acts seemed:to compromise the political objectives for .which the war had'been fought. This- differencein handling surrender situations may be. traced to different fundainental attitude. toward the role of power ininternational politics. The traditional American view is: that in the normal, -healthy state- of international affairs there is no 'need for the actual or threatened use of coercion. All issues that arise can,be settled by negotialiOn between equals or by judicial cedures. The use of coercion is justified only when-the international system' is .not in a healthy state, i.e., when someone commits. aggression; in that case, the dpholderS of a peaceful world order must use force until the roots of aggresSion are destroyed. Wars against 'aggressors 13/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 24 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS must come to a stop because the rank and file no longer obey orders. In such cases strategic -surrender,' the or- derly capitulation of residual forces, represents no prob- lem for the winner. More interesting cases are those in which channels of military authority are not dissolved, and in which cohesive residual forces remain on the losing side. This condition was fulfilled in every defeated country in World War II: it was characteristic of that war that defeat was not associated with the breakdown of mili- tary discipline and the revolutionary disruption of the social fabric. But there did occur, as in most presurrender situations, a split within the political leadership of the losers, with "defeatist," prosurrender elements remov- ing the war-committed leaders from their positions of authority. The French surrender in 1940, as well as the later Italian surrender, was preceded by political re- shufflings amounting to a coup eetat, even though the forms of legality were observed. But these surrenders were nonrevolutionary in the sense that they were adopt- ed and carried out, not by counter-elites surging from below, but by decision makers who had occupied positions of authority during the war. The German and Japanese surrenders of 1945 were not preceded by any change in the political complexion of the two governments. These nonrevolutionary surrender situations created a dilemma for the winners. The survival of the loser's authority structure was a necessary Condition for 'the orderly surrender of his remaining forces. No radical political transformation had taken place in. the losing countries, however, and consequently the winner could achieve a substantial abridgment of the closing stage of hostilities only if he did not insist on immediately im- SURRENDER AS A POLITICAL CONCEPT 25 posing his ideological and political war aim, the removal of the enemy's "evil" authorities and their replacernent by ideologically acceptable ones.: . ? To be sure, there 'was no reason to assume that recognizing the 'enemy's war regime for the purpose of ob- tainink its surrender implied lasting renunciation of the winner's ideological war aims. The winner. could wait until surrender was accomplished and then -use .his mo- nopoly of strength- to'transform the loser's political and social order according to his wishes. This is ho* Soviet Russia handled the surrender of the satellite states,' Ru- mania and Hungary. The Russians had no compunction about: concluding armistice agreements with,representa- tives of the King of Rinnania.-and the Regent- of Hun- gary. ;In their eyes, these acts in no way compromised their ultimate' objective, the 'sovietization. of the. losing countries: To: the Western Allies and the United States in particular; however, even temporary dealings with spokesmen ,of enemy regimes were .a serious stumbling block. Air such acts seemedrto compromise. the political objectives for which the war had-beeri fought. This difference in handling surrender situations may be. traced to different fundainental attitudee7toward the role of power in international politics. The traditional American view is that in the normal, healthy state of international affairs' there is no need for the actual .or threatened 'use of-coercion. All issues that arise can 'be settled by negotiation between eqUals or by judicial pro- cedures. The use of coercion is justified only :when the international system" is not in a healthy state, .i.e.,,when someone commits aggression; in that case, the uphOlderS of a peaceful world order .must use force until the roots of aggresSion are destroyed. Wars against aggressors Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 26 GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS have but one political objective, the elimination of all political forces responsible for aggression; and this task must be completed before peace is restored. To obtain this political objective in peacetime by the use of coercive methods would be a contradiction in terms. At the same time, noncoercive methods may well be ineffective against germs of aggressiveness that have survived in the postwar situation. The only safe and legitimate policy is to destroy these germs before the conclusion of hostilities. Wars waged in the spirit of the traditional Ameri- can approach, as outlined above, are essentially crusades. The conflict is seen as one of good pitted against evil. The enemy is the very personification of violence and strife, whereas one's own side fights for universal peace and harmony. This crusading concept of war has been. vigorously criticized in recent years as lacking in realism. Indeed, it is easy to see that the two total wars of the twentieth century have failed to banish the danger of conflict and aggression, although the particular aggres- sors have been defeated. It must be recognized, how- ever, that the concept of war as a crusade is particularly adapted to the mentality of the public in modern West- ern democracies. Democratic cultures are profoundly unwarlike: to them, war can be justified only if it is waged to eliminate war. It is this crusading ideology which is reflected in the conviction that hostilities cannot be brought to an end before the evil enemy system has been eradicated. Soviet Russia's attitude toward the termination of World War II was in sharp contrast to that of the United States. Her war aim, of course, was also an ideological_ political one: expanding communist rule as far as pos- SURRENDER AS A POLITICAL CONCEPT 27 sible. The Soviet doctrine, however, was far from excluding the massive use of coercion once the interna- tional war was over. According to the Soviets, political ends can be pursued by the methods of the "class strug- gle," for whiCh international war creates favorable con- ditions, but which can also be carried on in peacetime. In fact, according to the Soviet view, the class struggle is the normal state of all societies until socialism is achieved. Hence it was easy for the Russians to deal with the dilemma created by a nonrevolutionary surren- der situation._ _To them, the temporary survival of "re- actionary" authorities constituted no serious political threat, since they felt free to use their vastly superior power against them later. The German attitude toward power was similar to the Russian. When France offered surrender, a pro- fascist coup dltat was in the making, but it was by no means completed. Still, the Germans did not insist on complete Nazification before accepting surrender. They had the necessary- coercive instruments to effect it, once monopoly of military strength was achieved. Part Two of the present work contains four case studies dealing with major strategic surrenders that oc- curred in World War II: those of France (1940), Italy (i943), Germany- (1945) , and Japan (i45). These provide factual illustrative material relating to the theo- retical points-set forth in the preceding pages. Part Three is devoted to an analysis of the policy of unconditional surrender as applied by the Allies in World War II. Part Four deals with the problem of strategic sur- render under conditions of nuclear warfare. 7 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 :-? 1 PART TWO FOUR CASE STUDIES a. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Three THE FRENCH SURRENDER June 1940 THE STRATEGIC BACKGROUND When Marshal Petain became head of the French government and sued for an armistice, the Allied forces fighting in France were completely routed, so that the military developments leading to France's strategic sur- render did not correspond to the strategic model set forth in the foregoing introductory analysis. The "Battle of France" of May?June, 194.0, was not waged according to the forniula of divergent attrition. It was a campaign of disruption, conceived and conducted along classic, Clausewitzian lines. Hitler's grand strategy was orient- ed toward disruption. Hitler did not plan for the kind of total war tharWorld War I had been, and World War II was to become. He expected to reduce his ene- mies to defenselessness by routing their armies. The blitzkrieg strategy did allow for field operations of the siege type?i.e.,-for battles of encirclement, which were supposed to culminate in mass surrenders like the Bel- gian capitulation of May 1940?but not for the strategic surrender of cohesive residual forces as an essential final objective. There had been no final act of strategic surrender at the end of the Polish campaign of 1939. Surviving r. ? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 I. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 32 FOUR CASE STUDIES elements of the Polish army dispersed, or fled into neu- tral territory, or surrendered individual 1 y or in small groups. Conditions were similar in France. British ele- ments surviving the rout were evacuated across the Chan- nel without their equipment, and the French armies lost their cohesiveness and became incapable of mounting any significant terminal operations. Had the war been a pure land war fought only on the Continent, and with Germany and France the only major antagonists, the stoppage of military resistance after the rout in the Battle of France would not have represented an important service by the loser to the win- ner, and France could not have expected to receive po- litical counterconcessions. But the war was a coalition war, and the resources of the Franco-British coalition included, in addition to the forces engaged in the Battle of France, navies and vast overseas territories. Hence rout in the ground battle did not automatically reduce Germany's adversaries to defenselessness. Since the Franco-British coalition conserved latent, mobilizable strength after the rout of its land forces in being, the "relativity of victory" asserted itself: the coalition had a choice between acknowledging defeat and making the war more total. In Britain, there was no controversy about the choice; the political leadership did not split over the question of ending or continuing the war, and no peace party arose among the rank and file. In France, however, the war was unpopular, and the impact of defeat extremely strong. Even before the disastrous events of May Imo, when the land front was dormant, there had been a latent split between the "hard" and "soft" factions in France, with the "hards" resolved to fight the war in THE FRENCH SURRENDER 33 earnest and the "softs" hoping to wind it up before serious damage was done. ? The defeat convinced the soft faction that they had been right all along: the war was a wrong war, started at the wrong'place and at the wrong time. All one could do was liquidate it on the best possible terms. The coali- tion situation offered opportunities in this connection. If France quit the coalition before Britain, too, was de- feated, -France could hope to receive a political pay- ment for the service from Germany. By reorienting her policy, she could "disarm" the winner, in the sense of making the Germans less willing to use their armed superiority to impose extreme terms upon her. Such elements of residual French strength as the overseas territories and the undefeated navy could be expected to reinforce the disarming effect by adding to the cost to the Winner of any prolongation of hostilities. France had to act quickly, before her bargaining assets dwindled away. Sticking with the coalition until Britain was forced to her knees could only result in a worse settlement for her. The French "War party" argued, against this, that the outcome could be reversed by making the war more total. By continuing the wan overseas, France could keep the final outcome open, until the Anglo-Saxon de- mocracies developed new strength in being, great enough to re-engage and-defeat the Germans. This policy had a strong patriotic appeal: from the point of view of national self-esteem, aiming at victory is the only ac- ceptable Position, and arguing for the acceptance of defeat is invidious. Yet the position of the 'war party was politically weak. The hope it held out of a total and successful Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 34 FOUR CASE STUDIES Anglo-Saxon war effort was precarious in itself; Amer- ica, whose contribution was essential, was still officially neutral, and nobody could predict with certainty that she would intervene. Moreover, the victory that the war party contemplated could only be achieved by the efforts of coalition partners. The policy of continuing the war was seriously compromised by the fact that it entailed French dependence on foreign powers. The French sur- render party successfully exploited these weaknesses of the prowar policy. It gained the ascendancy in the in- ternal French debate, so that the only remaining question was whether it could "disarm" the Germans sufficiently to carry out qualified surrender. In view of this strategic-political constellation, the Germans had to take France's residual bargaining assets into account in winding up hostilities. The rout of the French armies did not decide the matter all by itself; the German victory was total victory in the Clause- witzian sense, but it did not dispose of the problem of obtaining surrender and granting political incentives to that end. The Germans did not hesitate to offer the necessary incentives. Their political objectives in the West implied nothing like unconditional surrender; they did not even aim at total victory in the war against the Anglo-French coalition. They hoped to end the war with Britain by a negotiated peace. Total victory in France was a means to that end. But to be politirn Ily effective, the French victory had to be exploited quickly, before Britain could build up new strength in being. Hence speed in winding up hostilities with France was essential, and the Germans were ready, in the interests of speed, to meet France's minimum conditions in ar- ranging a strategic surrender. THE FRENCH SURRENDER THE POLITICAL STRUGGLE IN FRANCE The Antiwar Party at Work The question of starting negotiations to end the war was raised for the first time at the meeting of the French War Committee on May 25, 1940. There "General Weygand, supported by Marshal Petain, sought to ob- tain a decision authorizing immediate discussions with the British government on the question of continuing the war." On March 28, 1940, representatives of the British and French governments had signed a common declaration pledging-both governments not to conclude a separate armistice or a separate peace, and to discuss peace terms with the enemy only after having reached a mutual accord.' Hence France could not start armistice negotiations with the Germans without a previous con- sultation with the British. Immediately, therefore, the question of France's coalition obligations became the nucleus of the issue separating the prowar from the anti- war group. To Premier Paul Reynaud, who was the main expo- nent of the prowar ii-osition in the government, the ful- fillment of France's coalition pledge was absolutely imperative; nothing could void the obligation. The Brit- ish could oblige France to continue the war as long as physically possible, -Provided they themselves remained at war.. Weygand arid Petain found this thesis unaccept- able. According to them, the military situation in France could nullify France's obligations. Petain said at the meeting that "Fran?ce had no duties toward England ex- cept in the measure of the help received, and this help had been very weak."' Later Weygand told Reynaud: "The country will not forgive you if, in order to remain 35. npelassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 36 FOUR CASE STUDIES faithful to England, you reject an opportunity for peace."4 Petain, in a discussion with Reynaud, found a classic formulation of this idea: "You put yourself on the international plane, and I on the national plane."5 Reynaud's answer was that France's "independence 'and honor" were primarily "national" questions. He ex- plained during a later discussion that once France had violated the pact of March 28, she could no longer count upoiBritish diplomatic support; she would be isolated? "bound hand and foot and delivered to Hider."6 Of course, that argument could have no force if it were as- sumed that Britain, too, would be defeated, for then British "support" would have no value. What Reynaud had in mind was that it was extremely dangerous for France to desert a potentially winning coalition. (He was thinking of a later American intervention that would reverse the situation.) For, if the British and their allies should win the war after France had capitulated, her interests would not be considered in the peace settlement. To Weygand and Petain, however, it was far more im- portant to settle with Germany before the end of the war with Britain, thus assuring France a good position at the peace table facing a victorious Germany. According to Reynaud, Weygand's calculations dur- ing the period preceding the armistice were based on the assumption that Britain could not long survive the loss of the Battle of France. He recalls the dictum widely at- tributed to Weygand (but later disavowed by him) that "in three weeks, England will have her neck wrung like a chicken," adding that it was "very much in character."' Weygand, Reynaud says further, told Jean Borotra, who came to see him after the armistice to announce his intention of going to England to continue the struggle: THE FRENCH SURRENDER 37 "No use, England will capitulate in two months." And in July 1940, at Vichy, Weygand told an automobile manufacturer who asked him whether he should start manufacturing gazogne apparatus (for converting auto- mobile engines to charcoal fuel) : "I guarantee to you that in two weeks England will sue for peace."' In his testimony at the Petain trial, and in his auto- biographical book, Rap pole au service, Weygand denied that his stand on the armistice had been based on an ex- pectation of British defeat. His theory was that the armistice was necessary not only in the French but also in the Allied interest. It stopped the Germans at a line far from the Mediterranean and gave the Allies time to organize the North African invasion. The Allies could not have defeated Germany, said Weygand, if France had refused to condude an armistice.' It seems improbable that Weygand, Petain, and the other exponents of -the antiwar policy had the interests of the Anglo-French coalition primarily at heart in the summer of 1940. They did not then seem to have ex- pected Germany's final defeat. Under the impact of military catastrophe, Germany's victory loomed large, and Britain's continued belligerency seemed just one factor among others that France could utilize to get better conditions from the German victors. Petain certainly did play this card after the armistice." But the antiwar party ruled out continuing hostilities after the collapse of the front in France. It challenged the prowar party on this issue, and won its point. The positions were defined at the dramatic cabinet and Supreme War Council meetings in June, after the government had left Paris, which had been dedared an open city. The Supreme War Council met twice at Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 38 FOUR CASE STUDIES Briare, on June II and 122 and a third time atTours, on June 13. Reynaud, Petain, Weygand, General Georges, General de Gaulle, and two other officers were present on the French side, and Britain was represented by Churchill, Eden, General Sir John Dill, and General Sir Edward Spears. From the accounts given by the par- ticipants, the discussion seems to have been tangential rather than straightforward. The French military lead- ers insisted on the hopelessness of the military situation, but Reynaud did not pose the question of a separate armistice. Churchill stressed that Britain would continue the struggle even if the country were invaded, but at the same time gave only vague assurances about continued aid to France. Four divisions could stay in France, and if the French army could hold out until spring, twenty to twenty-five British divisions would be available." In view of the critical position of the Allied forces, this promise of later aid did not impress the French mili- tary leaders. They saw no possibility of. stopping the Germans anywhere in France. Eden and Dill suggested that French and British forces might retreat to Brittany and try to hold a bridgehead there until Britain could send substantial reinforcements. Weygand rejected this plan out of hand as impracticable. According to Spears, de Gaulle also was a proponent of the "Brittany and considered considered the plan feasible. He gives the follow- ing report of a talk he had with de Gaulle on June : De Gaulle was angry. He had been in Brittany the day be- fore, had seen General Altmayer, and was convinced Brittany could be held. It was evident from the way he spoke that his hope of defending the peninsula was meeting much opposition. He was suffering from frustration and exasperation. His criticism of Weygand was devastating.22 kW, THE FRENCH SURRENDER -39 In any cise,-Weygand's Positibn made illusory any further .planning4or stabilizing the' front in France'. According to the French version of what happened at Tours, Churchill finally seems to have understood that it was useless to count on maintaining any front in France. He immediately- raised the.question of the French fleet: "I understand 'thatyou, may be; obliged to yield. But if the French army -found 'itself .compelled to break off fighting,,what.wouldfiappen 16 the navy? This is a real nightmare:"" The British. records differ on this_ppint.. According to Spears, Baudouin" twisted the serise, of Churchill's statement that he "uncle-rstiiod" that France might, be obliged to sue for a separate armistice. 'When questioned about what he said,. 'Churchill categorically confirmed that "at no time had he given.tb.anYOne the least incilL cation of his consenting 'to 'the French,Cdnduding a sepa- rate armistice." _ "When I said (Je comprendsi that filleant I. understood. Com:- pr endr e' means understind hi French, doesn't it? Well," said Winston, "when for:Once I,use exactly the right word in their own language, kis going rather,far to assume.that I intended it to mean someihing quite,differeni. Tell them my French is . . ? ? riot SO bad as that:"i The point is that Churchill,' according to his' own, in- terpretation, merely indicated that he understood what Reynaud was telling him about the possibility that France might not 'be able to. go on fighting, 'without implying approval, or "understanding" in the' sense of sympathy, for such a course. But there is no doubt that Churchill did gather, from what Reynaud and the other French:. men were telling him, that the French land forces might _ r\ T ri in Part - S2nitizedC Aoiroved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 40 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 FOUR CASE STUDIES have to be written off, and that he immediately focused his attention on the possibility of salvaging the French fleet. Armistice or Exodus? Another issue soon crystallized within the French war leadership. The main question was whether the gov- ernment should quit metropolitan France and continue the struggle in North Africa (or, possibly, as a govern- ment-in-exile), or whether it should conclude an armi- stice and thereby cease to be a belligerent. At the cabinet meeting at Cange, on June 12; Reynaud advocated "war from bases in the Empire"; Petain and Weygand re- jected this with the utmost vehemence. They declared that an armistice, concluded with the Germans while the French armies still had some sort of cohesion, was the only solution. Weygand said that "unless France asks for an armistice without the slightest delay, disorder will engulf the armies and the civilian population as well as the refugees. After this, the armistice would no longer do any good, since the damage would be done?"' But the cabinet supported Reynaud's position. On the following day, the cabinet met again at Cange, and Weygand defended his thesis with extraordinary vigor. He heaped scorn upon the "verbal heroism" of the Premier and his civilian supporters in the cabinet. It is easy, he maintained, to speak of resistance from a safe refuge in provincial chateaux or overseas. The cabinet's place was in Paris: it should have stayed there to receive the German victors; that is what the Roman senate would have done." Petain also declared that it was the government's duty to stay in France, whatever happened. To go abroad, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? THE FRENCH SURRENDER 41 even to the colonies, would be "desertion"; it would "kill the soul of France." Also, the country would not recognize a government-in-exile. The government had to share the sufferings endured by the people. At any rate, he, Petain, would not leave." In this discussion, ultimate political attitudes played a decisive role. Weygand insisted on the importance of quick action, because to him the conditions that the Ger- mans would impose were not the main threat; social chaos and the possibility of a communist seizure of power were the real dangers. Petain also appears to have been thinking in terms of domestic policy: a government that stayed in France and worked out a modus vivendi with the Germans could go about the task of reforming the French "soul." Defeat and the acceptance of defeat were the conditions for moral regeneration. The war party did not see things in this light. To those who wanted to transfer the government to the colo- nies to continue the struggle, acceptance of defeat was the thing that would "kill the soul of France"; the chief moral values at stake could be defended only by com- bating the national enemy and all he stood for. It seems in retrospect that Weygand's preoccupation with the communist danger was unfounded: Although the agreement between Germany and Soviet Russia was firm at that time, and the Communists did everything in their power to impede the French' war effort; it would still have been impossible for them to turn French defeat to their advantage; the German conqueror would not have stood for a communist regime in a defeated France. The Communists probably had some illusions on that score, but they were quickly dissipated." On the other hand, a counterrevolutionary overturn 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 FOUR CASE STUDIES Of the institutions of the Third Republic was indeed an inevitable consequence of the acceptance of defeat. .Not only was the domestic and foreign policy of the republi- can regime discredited by the defeat; it was also certain that Nazi Germany, installed as the supreme power in Paris, would effect a political reorientation by which French institutions would acquire a basically fascist tinge: Since the French political scene had been "polarized" for some time, with an influential rightist group clamoring for "salvation" along fascist lines, it was obvious that the profascist element would rally behind the peace move- ment and use defeat to impose its domestic conceptions on the nation. What the war party wanted to avoid was, among other things, the emergence of an indigenous French fascist regime supported by German bayonets. Hence its efforts to transfer all the elements of legitimate authority?the President, the government, the .legislative bodies?to territories not invaded by the German army. If the, Ger-- mans could not be, prevented from overrunning and con- trolling France, they should at least find a political vacuum there. If they then imposed their own methods and principles in administering France, they would do so as' 'foreign conquerors, without legitimate politieal authority. "France," as represented by her lawful au- thorities, would still be at.war with them. In order to dear.the way for such a solution, Rey- naticl. tried, td liquidate military operations by a purely military capitulation. After the government-had moved to Bordeaux, he gave orders to Weygand to arrange a military cease-fire?a de facto capitulation?with the German armies, as the Duteh commander-in-chief had done after the Queen and the government had left Hol- THE,FRENCit SURRENDER 43 land. ,But Wekgand flatly refused 'to consider capitula- tion "a la Hollandaise." That, hs said, would.bein in- tolerable blot on the ariny'shoncir.IReynaud decided. to take the issue before the cabinet. At the cabinet meeting held on June is at Bordeaux, Reynaud's majority collapsed. Vice-Premier Camille Chautemps proposed an "exploratory" course:, the Ger- mans, he said, should be asked to make their armistice conditions known; If those conditions?as expected? turned out to be unacceptable, the people would "under- stand" that the government could do nothing but leave French territory. Of course, Britain should also' be asked to relieve France of her obligations and to, authorize. a French request for a 'separate armistice. This. proposal was favored by thirteen cabinet members; with , six op- posed. Reynaud offered his resignation, but President Lebrun persuaded -him to yield .to the majority of the cabinet. Reynaud thereupon decided to ask for Britain's authorization to request .an armistice. The British an- swer arrived on June 16, refusing authorization unless the French fleet was Sent to British waters, and the French undertook to consult again.with Britain after the German terms were received: At_the same time, Britain proposed a feder-al, union-of Britain and France." According to a French historian, that- plan was suggested to Churchill by General de Gaulle-and two members ,of the French Economic Mission in7London; Rene Pleven and Jean Monnet." - ? The French cabinet was never officially informed of the British answer to Reynaud's query; the British Am- bassador, Sir Ronald Campbell, took back the telegram that he had:handed Reynahd (probably' under the im- pression that Prance would not ask for armistice terms) n 'f' ri iii Pirf - SanitizedC A ro ed for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 , 44 FOUR CASE STUDIES when Reynaud told him that it had been decided that the President and the main body of the cabinet would go to Africa, leaving Petain behind with a committee charged with liquidating military operations within France. In those circumstances, it would not be necessary to send the French fleet to Britain. At the cabinet meeting on June 16, the discussion centered on the union plan. It was supported by Reynaud and the most resistance-minded ministers (Mandel, Marin, Dautry, Rio, and Georges Monnet), but the ma- jority was against it. Ybarnegaray argued that the plan showed Britain's intention to reduce France to the rank of a second-rate power," and Petain declared that France could not merge "with a corpse." Chautemps renewed his plea for an "exploratory" request for armistice terms. Reynaud held out for the union plan, but was outvoted. Thereupon he resigned and recommended that Lebrun appoint Petain as his successor. Petain was appointed, despite the advice of the Presidents of the Chamber and the Senate, Herriot and Jeanneney, who were consulted, as required by tradition." Reynaud later explained that he had preferred Pe- tai to Chautemps because Petain had assured him that he would not accept "dishonorable" armistice terms, and particularly that he would in no circumstances agree to surrender the fleet to Germany. Reynaud was convinced that this was a condition on which Germany would in- sist, since she wanted to invade Britain. Thus, in Rey- naud's mind, Petain, while asking for terms, would not actually conclude an armistice, whereas Chautemps would." Late at night, immediately after the formation of the THE FRENCH SURRENDER 45 Petain cabinet, the Spanish Ambassador, Lequerica; was asked to transmit the French demand for armistice terms to Berlin. FRANCE AND HER ALLIES The internal French debate ended with Reynaud's resignation. After that, the French surrender becam' e mainly a diplomatic problem debated among France, Britain, and the United States. Britain sent a note ask- ing that the French fleet be handed over for safekeeping ( June 7). The United States associated itself with that demand in the most forceful fashion. On June 18, United States Ambassador Biddle was instructed to tell Admiral Darlan and the new French Foreign Minister (Baudouin) . . . that in the opinion of this Government, should the French Government, before concluding an armistice with the Ger- mans, fail to see that the fleet is kept out of the hands of lier opponents, the French Government will be pursuing a policy which will fatally impair the preservation of the French Em- pire and the eventual restoration of French independence and autonomy. Furthermore, should the French Government fail to take these steps and permit the French Fleet to be surrendered to Germany, the French Government will permanently lose the friendship and good will of the Government of the United States. This note was handed to Admiral Darlan as he was on his way to a meeting of the Petain cabinet; Foreign Min- ister Baudouin was called out of the meeting and given a copy of the note. Baudouin was greatly irritated by its tone, but he laid it before the cabinet at once. It was de- cided that the fleet would not be turned over to the Ger- mans; should they insist, the s armistice would be re- fused." )1% T ri in ParF - SanitizedC Aorroved for Release a 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 .=- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 46 ? FOUR CASE STUDIES' On'theother hand, the French leaders'were alsb dp posed to sending the &al() British waters for safekeep- ing. At the Tours meeting of the Supreme War Council; on June 13, Petain and Darlan had already vetoed that measure, arguing that the Germans would. refuse. to, con- clude an armistice unless the fleet remained under French control." For Peiain, Darlan, and the antiwar group, the question was whether a "common basis" could be found, fir an armistice agreement with the Germans: They felt that, if the Germans demanded the fleet,, France could not sign an armistice, whereas if the fleet were turned over the British, the Germans would not grant one. This reasoning Seems to have been realistic. In fact, the value of an armistice with France would have been, critically lessened in German eyes unless the French could guar- antee that their naval potential would not be used against Germany, while outright surrender of the fleet to Ger- many would have been incompatible with French "honor'"? and would have exposed France to political reprisals on the part of the Anglo-Saxon powers. Everything depended on whether the Germans would push France into continued belligerency by insist- ing on the surrender of the fleet. To everybody's sur- prise, they did not. Their armistice terms expressly stipulated that the Warships of the French fleet, disarmed in their home ports, would not be used by the Germans for their own ends. Article VIII of the Armistice Con- vention read as follows: The German Government solemnly declares to the French Government that it intends to make no use for its own ends of the French war fleet stationed in ports under German control, save for units necessary for coastal patrol and minesweeping operations. Furthermore, the German Government makes the solemn THE FRENCH SURRENDER 47 and formal declaration that it does not intend to present any claims regarding the French war fleet at the conclusion of peace." The French leaders thought that this made it possible for them to conclude an armistice without antagonizing Britain and the United States, since the "nightmare" of an active French fleet operating on the Axis side was thereby dissipated. But Churchill did not see it in that light. He was so convinced of the importance of naval strength as an ele- ment of victory that he could not imagine that Hitler had sincerely renounced the objective of enlisting French naval cooperation sooner or later; to him, the armistice stipulations were a smokescreen and a ruse, not a real reassurance. The result was the attack on the French warships at Mers-el-Kebir. Actually, however, the armi- stice stipulations were genuine. Strange as it seems, Hit- ler did write off the possibility of seizing the French fleet. He seems to have known that the French would reject the armistice unless surrender of the fleet was omit- ted from the terms; and he was interested above all in a quick armistice with. France, without further compli- cations. Ribbentrop, in fact, indicated this to Ciano, whom he met at Munich on June 19 while the French request for an armistice was under consideration. Here is Ciano's account: He [Ribbentrop] said that it was the Fiihrer's intention to avoid putting conditions to the French that might lead to a refusal to conclude the negotiations and to the transfer of the Petain gov- ernment to England or Algeria, where it could proclaim a "holy war" and continue hostilities for an indefinite period. He was particularly concerned over the French fleet, an unseizable unit [element? inaff errabile] which would certainly go to Eng- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 48 FOUR CASE STUDIES land or America, from where it could again enter action at the opportune moment, rather than let itself be handed over to the enemy." Hider did not relish the prospect of an indefinite prolongation of the war. He preferred to think that, with the victorious conclusion of the French campaign, the entire conflict would be liquidated. Ciano was struck by the change he noticed in Ribbentrop's use of words: the expressions used were "mankind's need for peace," ((necessity of reconstruction," "necessity of a rapproche- ment of the peoples separated by the war," and so on. "I asked him point-blank: Does Germany prefer peace or the continuation of war at this moment? Without hesitation, Ribbentrop answered Peace.' Ribbentrop, it is safe to assume, did not indulge in giving vent to his own preferences: then, as always, he was nothing but a mouthpiece for the Fiihrer, a mirror of Hitler's moods. GERMAN MOTIVATIONS At the time of the French armistice, the German war leadership acted on the assumption. that large-scale mili- tary operations were over. After the collapse of France the German Army relaxed with a happy feeling that the war was over and that the fruits of victory could be enjoyed at leisure. Blumentritt's account of the sequel conveys a vivid impression of the prevailing attitude. Im- mediately following the armistice with France, orders came from O.K.H. to form the staff for the victory parade in Paris, and to dispatch the troops that were assigned to take part in the parade. Spirits were high, as everyone counted ,on a general peace. Preparations for demobilization had already begun, and we have received a list of the divisions that were to be sent home for disbanding.' THE FRENCH SURRENDER 49 Britain, of course, was still at war; but Hider con- sidered it unthinkable that Britain would not listen to a reasonable peace offer. He sent such an offer through the Swedish legation." After the victory in France, Hider believed that he had at- tained his goal. The invincibility of the German war instru- ment seemed to have been demonstrated.. Once more, as after the Polish campaign, Hider attempted to get into a talk with Britain. "At this hour," he said in his Reichstag speech on July 19, "I feel bound in conscience to appeal to the good sense of the British people. I see no justification for the continuation of this struggle." At the same time, German propaganda was indefatigable in proclaiming, through official announcements as well as in the newspapers and over the radio, that the British had lost the war. All they had to do was to recognize this and draw the necessary conclusions." When Hider made this public offer to the British, however, he knew it would be rejected and that the war would go on. As early as July 7, he told Ciano that he was sure the war with England would continue, and that the German General Staff was working on the plans of attack." The feeler put out through Sweden before the French armistice had produced no results; and although Hider still believed in the eventual possibility of liqui- dating the war by some sort of a compromise with Brit- ain, he came to the conclusion that military action, includ- ing an invasion, was necessary to "bring the, British to their senses." The Germans realized that control of the Mediter- ranean would be essential for successful operations against the British. On July 16, Hider -demanded a modification of the armistice agreement with France, providing for "eight bases for the Luftwaffe in Morocco; the railway from Tunis to Rabat to be placed at the serv- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 50 FOUR CASE STUDIES ice of the German army; the right to use the Mediter- ranean ports of metropolitan France, as well as those of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia; and the requisitioning of French merchantmen with their crews to transport to North Africa the air force units and their accessories, as well as their protecting troops."" When Weygand informed Baudouin, then Foreign Minister in Petain's cabinet, of these German demands, they were "at once agreed that these demands must be rejected, whatever might be the consequences of this refusal." According to Baudouin, not only Petain but also Laval adopted the same view when the question was put to them." When Vichy gave a dilatory answer amounting to a rejection of the German demand, Hider did not press the matter further. He could only have made things worse by precipitating a break with the Vichy govern- ment, for Petain would then have declared the armistice agreement void and ordered the resumption of resistance in North Africa." And in order to occupy North Africa in that event, Germany would have needed Spain's co- operation. But diplomatic efforts to persuade Spain to enter the war on the Axis side had not disclosed any great Spanish willingness to help Germany without consider- able rewards. This was confirmed in October, when Franco promised intervention but posed stiff conditions before he would move." EVALUATION OF THE ARMISTICE Evaluation of the French armistice policy involves a moot problem, since nobody can say what would have happened if the policy of the war party had prevailed. The critics of the armistice maintain that it prolonged the Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release THE FRENCH SURRENDER 5! war; Hider, they say, could have been defeated more quickly and at less cost if the French fleet had continued the war at Britain's side, and if the French government had retreated to fight the Axis from North Africa. The fullest exposition of this thesis is found in the memoirs of J. Paul-Boncour. He argues that the continued par- ticipation of the French fleet in the war would have been very effective, since the-Sea was the main theater of war for several months after the fall of France. Further, according to Paul-Boncour, the French military leaders would not have advocated the armistice had they fore- seen that Britain would not be crushed and that both the United States and Russia would be at war with Germany by the end of 1941." The main argument of the defenders of the armistice is that it stopped the German armies at the French de- marcation line, thus giving Britain the breathing spell she needed to consolidate her Mediterranean position and making the North African invasion possible. A defender of Marshal Petain, du Moulin de Labarthete, puts this thesis in the following terms: We thought that, if Paul keynaud had not resigned on June 16, the Wehrmacht would have crossed Spain within a week, got a foothold in Spanish Morocco, destroyed our North Afri- can divisions overnight, and rounded up our Senegalese troops in six more weeks. All these "redoubts" would have disinte- ,- grated in the hurricane one after another." It must be admitted that, had these things happened, the Allied position would have been placed in extreme jeopardy. But the question is whether these things would have happened if the French had decided to continue the War. According to the advocates of the war policy, the 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 52 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 FOUR CASE STUDIES French and British fleets together could have prey' ented a German descent in force on North Africa, even if Spain had made common cause with Germany. This view, however, probably overestimates Allied naval capabili- ties. Baudouin notes on June 13, 1940: In fact I have asked Admiral Darlan if the French warships and the English ones at Gibraltar could stop a German force, moved rapidly to the Cadiz area in the south of Spain, from crossing the sea and reaching Spanish Morocco. The Admiral told me that his staff had already examined the problem; their definite conclusion was that ships based on Gibraltar would at this time of year only be able to make the enemy pay a certain price for crossing these thirty kilometres of sea, for in the day-. time he would be covered by an air force which was mistress of the sky, and at night he could slip across from one shore to the other. He added that both in Norway and at Dunkirk the British Admiralty had had cruel experience of the considerable losses inflicted on its ships by the Luftwaffe. It had decided to equip its fleet with a great many more antiaircraft guns, but until this had been done, the ships would be exposed to attack from the air. Furthermore, the British aeroplanes at Gibraltar were negligible." These conclusions seem sound enough, but would Spain have allowed the German troops to pass, thus be- coming a belligerent against Britain? We know from the documents made public since the end of the war that Franco had declared his readiness in principle to join the Axis powers as a belligerent. Franco would have justi- fied his intervention by Spain's historic grievance, British control of Gibraltar: entering the war would have served to expel the foreigner from Spanish soil. Expansion of Spanish holdings in Morocco was another of Franco's war aims. As mentioned earlier, however, Franco's decision to enter the war was not unconditional. He intimated in Berlin that, in order to subdue Gibraltar, he needed THE-FRENCH SURRENDER 53 heavy artillery; he also foresaw that the British navy would throw a blockade ling around Spain, and he asked for grain supplies and other strategic materials t6 enable Spain to hold out. Hitler thought that Franco's demands were excessive, and he failed to give Spain immediate satisfaction." The discussion was resumed in October, when Hitler met Franco at the Spanish frontier. Franco then was presented with a bill of particulars, about which he again refused to commit himself. As the Allies grew stronger and stronger, Franco's diffidence increased, and intervention was finally shelved for good. This sequence of events can be interpreted in various ways. To advocates-of continued French belligerency it proves that Hitler would not have been able to overrun Gibraltar and enter Africa. They argue that there was no reason to fear Spanish intervention, since Spain did not have the means required for success, and Germany was not in a position to grant the necessary help. But this con- clusion is by no means inevitable. It is not at all Certain that Hitler turned down Franco's demands because he could not spare the war materiel and the grain. Had he considered Spanish intervention necessary to win the war, he could have found a way to make the necessary supplies available. But, after the fall of France, he did not think that such additional costs were unavoidable. North Africa, he believed, was effectively neutralized: he was the master there 1:?1 remote control, since he had the French government under his thumb. Furthermore, he did not like Franco's bargaining for territorial expansion. He wanted to take certain ter- ritories for himself, and the problem of getting enough for Germany?while also satisfying Italy without thor- oughly alienating France?Seemed arduous? enough Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 54 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 FOUR CASE STUDIES without the further complication of Spanish demands. It is probable, therefore, that Hider said no to Franco primarily because he did not think Spanish help was really necessary. But the whole situation would have appeared in a very different light if France had not concluded an armi- stice. It seems altogether likely that in that case Hider would have complied with Franco's demands in order to liquidate French resistance in North Africa, and it is by no means fantastic to assume that the German-Spanish forces could have taken Gibraltar. That would have changed the Mediterranean situation radically, and it is extremely doubtful that the French fleet's continued participation in the war would have overbalanced the loss of Gibraltar. We cannot assume that Allied naval supe- riority would then have been sufficient to prevent the Germans from landing their troops and equipment in North Africa. The landing itself would not have pre- sented a problem; ports in Spanish Morocco would have been available. It would also have been easy for the Ger- mans to establish complete air superiority. Continued French resistance would have been ex- tremely unpalatable to Hider, and he decided on lenient armistice terms precisely to forestall this. This fact strengthens the case of the critics of the armistice: if con- tinued French resistance was "bad" for Hider, then it was "good" for the Allied cause. But the argument is not decisive. It seems likely, after all, that Hider wanted to avoid further operations against the French not be- cause he despaired of getting the better of them after they retreated to Africa, but because he thought there was no need to incur the costs of such a campaign in order to bring Britain to terms. In other words, he thought that THE FRENCH SURRENDER 55 a cheap victory in the Western war was possible, and he preferred that to a costlier victory. He wanted to show the world (and in particular his "timid" generals) not only that he could win, but that he could win in "light- ning" fashion, without-total mobilization. He staked his prestige and his reputation as a politico-strategic genius on the proposition that Western resistance was not a seri- ous thing, but only -a bubble that he could prick with one deft stroke, to the plaudits of his amazed and enraptured audience. Hitler's political thinking was a curious mixture of uncanny political insight and immature adolescent fan- tasy. He knew that victory was not the only thing that mattered in war, and particularly in a war unleashed in cold blood. What mattered was the cost of victory and the stability of the peace founded on military success. His real interest was in German domestic policy, i.e., in the establishment of his own image as the infallible leader and sole arbiter in all matters. With his real in- stinct for the realities of political power, he knew that the best way to achieve his supreme ambition was to offer the Germans victory and domination at little cost, i.e., with- out total mobilization and without the radical interrup- tion of peacetime patterns of life. The more quickly he could send his soldiers home and point to cloudless skies, the greater would be his prestige and authority. This seems to have- been a sound conception. The domestic position of i War leadership after the war de- pends not only on whether victory has been won but also on whether the sacrifices made for victory are felt by the people to have been bearable and commensurate with the success achieved. 'Victorious war leaders-are likely to be repudiated by their people if they have achieved victory ...? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 56 FOUR CASE STUDIES only at the price of total exhaustion. Such revulsion from costly heroics could be observed, for instance, in the vic- torious countries after World War I, particularly in Italy, but also in France and even in the United States. (Churchill's electoral defeat in July 1945 was another dramatic illustration of the same tendency.) Hitler knew why he had to produce a lightning vic- tory. He wanted to return to "business as usual" quickly, and to give the Germans tangible proof that they could cash in on the fruits of the efforts he had forced them to make. It is erroneous to think that "guns instead of butter" was an absolute principle with the Nazis. It was a prewar maxim; it was valid for the period when the capability necessary for winning a lightning victory was being assembled. But there was nothing wrong with the butter acquired by using the guns. The adolescent, immature streak in Hitler's thinking consisted in his lifetime daydream that such success was indeed attainable. He believed that only he and his gang were "men," that all the others, and particularly those who opposed him, were either contemptible nobodies or degenerate madmen. The Polish, Norwegian,, and French victories seemed to confirm this assessment of the value of Western resistance. What did the West oppose to him? Words, empty words. The guarantee to Poland was not worth the paper it was written on. And were not the German generals ridiculous who trem- bled for the Ruhr when the German front-line divisions wheeled through Poland? Had there been any risk in snatching Norway from under England's nose? Had the French army proved to be a serious military force? These lessons, Hitler thought, were surely sufficient to TilE.FRENCH SURRENDER 57 convince England that the "reasonable" Englishmen, those who preached nonresistance, had to be recalled from political exile. When the bubble of Western re- sistance was pricked, the "strong man" would be recog- nized for what he was: deadly when opposed, benevolent when appeased- This iVould,be the triumph of the ado- lescent, the rejected son, who finds the secret of invinci- bility and, returns from his labors to receive the homage of those who have despised him. The defenders of-the French armistice policy argue that conduding, the armistice was a blunder on Hitler's part." French agreement to the armistice, then, was sim- ply a shrewd move to exploit the blunder, whereas, by going to Africa, the French government would only have rescued Hitler from the consequences of his mistake. This last point has some merit. What is not estab- lished, and seems indeed doubtful, is that the French peace party acted chiefly on this premise rather than from other motives. Petain, Weygand, and their supporters seem to have been convinced of Germany's final vic- tory and the inevitability of Britain's surrender. They thought iturgent for France to surrender while she could obtain something for not using her residual capacity. To them, the chief value-of the armistice lay in its being a s'eparate, arrangement; predicated upon the rupture of the coalition. There was a great deal of cold calculation in this, but also a certain amount of emotionalism: re- sentment against the earlier orthodox coalition policy that led France into an impasse; hope for the "rebirth" of the French nation once it could turn its back on the left-wing, revolutionary, progressive, and secular cur- rents of its historic tradition. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 58 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 FOUR CASE STUDIES THE PSYCHOLOGICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ARMISTICE POLICY It is not easy to separate the realistic and the enio,- tional strands in the French peace party's policy. Its apologists today stress the realistic element in Vichy's thinking and action and minimize the spontaneous ideo4 logical element. Its critics, on the other hand, see only the political preferences of the Vichy group and call the armistice policy treasonable; they see it as deliberately sacrificing national independence for the sake of po- litical transformation along fascist lines: For a long time past the fifth column had been firmly entrench- ing itself in France. . . . The traitors did not show them- selves, they worked in the deepest shadow, so that the eye. of justice should not surprise them. . . . One common 'thought possessed them: "The Christian regeneration of impious France." This purpose involved the destruction of the exist- ing political regime, and to attain it any means would be justi- fied, whatever they might be. Even defeat? Yes. Without defeat could the goal be reached?" There is some evidence that the French Right was lukewarm in its determination to push the war effort and to win at any price. Moreover, the feeling that "Hitler was better than Blum" was widespread among the French bourgeoisie. The more the ideological component of France's war policy--antagonism toward Nazism as such ?was stressed in war propaganda, the more the French bourgeoisie felt alienated. They could see some sense in a nonideological war (Germany, of course, had to be cut down to size), but they found no justification for a war waged in order to consolidate the rule of the Left. In many bourgeois quarters, the struggle against the socialism" ranked higher than Left with its "creeping the struggle against Germany. Such feelings were no Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? THE FRENCH SURRENDER. 59 doubt treasonable arid incompatible with French patri- otism. But the bourgeoisie was not alone in putting par- ticular group interest above the national interest in win- ning the war. The most extreme antiwar stand was taken by the Communists: to them, fighting was a sacrilege once Mos- cow had hurled its anathema against the "imperialist" war." In the French Socialist Party, too, there was a strong faction, led by Paul Faure, which opposed the war on pacifist and Marxist grounds. This group believed that the war would arrest social progress and enrich the bourgeoisie while placing all the burdens on the lower dasses. The domestic dass struggle was an absolute; to suspend it in favor of the war effort was to betray the workers. Here, too, domestic political objectives took precedence over the patriotic motive of winning the war at any cost. This deavage along dass lines prevented real na- tional unity behind the war effort. On the international plane, the situation was no better. To Frenchmen who had lived through World War I and its aftermath, it was obvious that France was unable to withstand another massed German onslaught alone. Only a coalition could save France. But where was the coalition in 1939? Britain, of course; could still be counted on; she was the only great power who had an active interest in support- ing France. But this also Meant that France became more and more dependent on Britain; and British support and solidarity, as the interwar years had shown, were by no means complete. Britain was willing to stand by France if Germany attacked her directly. But further than that she was unwilling to go. The Locarno treat-y_ amounted to a British guarantee 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 60 FOUR CASE STUDIES of assistance to France against Germany. By concluding that pact, Britain had abandoned her traditional policy of avoiding unconditional commitments to continental powers. But the Locarno pact guaranteed France's west- ern frontiers only. It was in no way connected with France's treaty commitments to East European powers. In order to neutralize a possible German military threat, France had also concluded alliances with Poland, Czechoslovakia, Rumania, and Yugoslavia, and had vetoed the absorption of Austria by Germany. But these alliances and guarantees could be made effective only by a united Franco-British stand, and Britain refused to be drawn into a conflict with Germany simply in order to protect France's eastern allies. The result was the dis- integration of the eastern flank of France's system of security. Deserted by Britain, France had to look on as Poland drifted away from the coalition, as Austria was absorbed, and as Czechoslovakia was dismantled. By the middle of 1939, the coalition was reduced to its western core; and even so there was a critical gap, since Belgium refused to join the western security system. A last-minute attempt to enroll Soviet Russia as a sub-,- stitute for the lost eastern allies had failed, and France was in a precarious position indeed. If Germany wanted to go to war, she could throw her undivided strength against the West. This meant a single front, manned by France virtually alone, since Britain had neglected to build up a peacetime army. In these circumstances many Frenchmen could see hope only in appeasing Germany. The entire logic of the British policy had pointed in that direction. As the French saw it, Britain had hoped to buy peace at the price of sacrificing AuStria and Czechoslovakia and let-. frtr ? THE FRENCH SURRENDER 6i ting the other East European countries slide into the German orbit. The logic of this policy was that a con- flict between Germany and the West could be avoided if the West did not hinder Germany's eastern rampages. But Britain suddenly reversed her position. She made it clear in the spring of 1939 that further German expan- sion in the East, at _the expense of Poland, would mean war. In this way, the French decided, Britain made the worst of two worlds. The chance of buying peace through appeasement -(if it existed) was thrown away, as had been the chance of containing Germany by means of an East-West coalition. It is small wonder that many Frenchmen were utterly critical of British leadership of European coalition affairs. From the French point of view, that leadership _was shortsighted, egotistical,, and reckless. First it forced France to abandon the eastern power position which, inadequate as it was, gave her a measure of strategic security, and then it forced her to forgo the only possible benefit that such a policy might have secured, the avoidance of a large-scale conflict. What made things worse, Britain's policy of appease- ment did not apply only to German eastern expansion. Britain was also complacent about Germany's growing military strength. Hitler's unilateral repudiation of the disarmament clauses of the Versailles- treaty in the spring of 1935 had drawn ,no protest from Britain; the British government pointedly sanctioned the German policy of nullification shortly afterwards by concluding a' bilateral treaty with Germany on naval armaments ( June 1935). In the following year, when Gerthany put garrisons in her western frontier provinces in open defiance of the Locarno pact, the British flatly refused to intervene. Thus British policy had made it more and more certain Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Co .y Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 62 FOUR CASE STUDIES - that the West would not have a decisive military su- periority if and when a showdown with Germany became inevitable. From the French point of view, a policy that had such implications was suicidal. From the British point of view, of course, things looked different. Britain, though disarmed, had vast mobilizable resources. The British people had been averse to continental entanglements: a conflict "for the sake of" allies would have had no popular support. On the other hand, there was no doubt that, in case of a German westward thrust, the people would be rallied to the cause of resistance. It made sense to the British to see if Hitler could be appeased by "reasonable" con- cessions, and to make a stand against him if he could not. Such a detached, experimental attitude was impossible for the French. Their sense of security could not be bolstered by the hope of falling back on vast mobilizable resources. Their first stand would be the last; and with Germany's full strength hurled against them, the first stand seemed hopeless. In spite of all that, there was no despair in France when the war broke out. This was due, in part, to igno- rance of the true strategic situation. People think by analogies; the French on the whole were confident that, if the worst came, there would be another miracle of the Marne. -But they did not believe at first that the worst would come. They believed that this time the war would not cut into the vital tissue of France: the Germans would be stopped on the Maginot Line. There would be no dreadful bloodletting, no close combat, no in- vasion. The Germans would be strangled by the sheer weight of the Anglo-French coalition; naval blockade would force them to their knees. How could they con- THE -FRENCH SURRENDER 63 tinue to wage war without access to key strategic mate- rials, such as oil and iron ore (which, it was assumed, they could get only by the sea route)? French morale was maintained during the "phony war" by large pos- ters showing a map of the world on which British and French possessions appeared as huge red expanses, con- trasting with the puny black spot that was Germany. The legend was "We shall conquer because we are stronger." Internal dissension and the frustration of French coalition policy notwithstanding, morale could be main- tained as long as the war involved no mass bloodletting and no large-scale combat. One may speculate whether the war could have been won in 1939, had the French divisions invaded Germany while the German forces were engaged in Poland. There may have been a chance;" but the French were entirely unwilling to ac- cept big risks and losses. It is also true, of course, that the Franco-German frontier along which the armies were deployed offered no suitable terrain for a decisive attack on the Ruhr. The German industrial region could be attacked only throdgh Belgium, which was not a member of the coalition. In effect, the Belgian gap in the western security system both shielded the industrial heart of Germany and permitted German forces to be used elsewhere. Later, when the German armies ap- peared in the West, they swept through the same gap into the fields of France. After the German breakthrough, with mass combat a grim reality, French morale collapsed quickly. It was then that the French people realized the unsoundness of the political and strategic basis on which the war pol- icy of the coalition had been built. The issue was not narl ccifiprl in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 64 FOUR CASE STUDIES simply one between patriotism and treason.'. It was; rather, that the war itself had become problematic, for it was not what the French had bargained for. It was extremely difficult for Frenchmen; regardless of their various political attitudes, to face another all-out war that would demand the sacrifice of entire generations: If such a war had been unambiguously forced upon them by an out-and-out attack, they might have re- garded it as unavoidable. But to wage such a war "for the sake of" treaty obligations, and in Britain's wake at that, made little sense. It became evident during the tragic weeks of May and June, 1940, that the war had not been well prepared either politically or strategi- cally. Resentment on this score led to further -discon- tent with France's dominant political orientation and with her coalition partner. These "realistic" reasons for the r eject ion of France's traditional coalition policy reinforced the emo- tional and ideological disaffection referred to above. Still, the war policy might have withstood the test of the German attack if the Franco-British forces had adopted suitable countermeasures against the German breakthrough. It was not German superiority of man- power and materiel that led to the collapse of the front but bad tactical and logistical planning by the Allies. The armistice policy of 1940 was the joint product of all these factors. For those who took the lead and supplied the decisive impulse?such military leaders as Petain and Weygand; and politicians such as Laval and Marquet?stopping a hopeless struggle was not the only consideration. They also wanted to use the opportuni- ties provided by the defeat to take revenge on the poli- tical system of the Third Republic, with which they THE 'FRENCH SURRENDER 65 were profoundly-- disenchanted. For them, ecrasez Pinfame was a dominant motive, but many Frenchmen who did not share- their animosity toward the Republic could go along with the policy of armistice, since it seemed to be the only policy consonant with the require- ments of the situation. There is no doubt that the.armi- stice had the support of the great majority of French- men in 1940. This majority,- it must be stressed, was a purely neg- ative one. It was a majority against the continuation of the war, not a =Majority for the counterrevolution preached by Petain and Laval. Vichy was never able-to work out a positive program and rally the majority' of the people to it. -It was only able to establish a stably- functioning administrative system, in which the repre- sentatives of several radically different ideological cur- rents were yoked together. The authority of the regime, however, was not-seriously questioned, since no better alternative was in sight. The Vichy regime ended France's belligerency and broke with the coalition policy of the Republic, but it stopped short of total commitment to the German side. Avoiding armed conflict with France's former ally and the collaboration with Germany that it entailed were as fundamental to Vichy's foreign policy as was the ar- mistice itself. This-policy of neutrality was accepted by the majority of:the people. A noisy, radical group of Pro-German extremists, operating under the benev- olent eye of the German authorities in occupied Paris, clamored for active-French participation in the war on the German side, but there was no popular support for the idea. What mattered to the immense majority of Frenchmen was to -avoid fighting; ending hostilities a- npelassifiPri in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 66 FOUR CASE STUDIES gainst one side only to resume them against the other made no sense at all. The policy of neutrality was an element of strength for Vichy, in so far as popular ac- ceptance was concerned. But it became increasingly dif- ficult to maintain that line, for the Germans could not be satisfied with it. THE AFTERMATH OF THE ARMISTICE Relations between winner and loser were profoundly ambiguous. For the Germans, the armistice agreement was a point of departure. It gave them overwhelming means of pressure against the Vichy government; when it became evident that the British would not make peace, the Reich proceeded to use these means in an effort to obtain France's active participation in the war. The July 16, 1940, note on the North African bases referred to above was the first move the Germans made in this di- rection. Tenacious efforts in the same direction followed. In August, the Reich appointed Otto Abetz Ambas- sador to France. Abetz was an "old France hand" and a specialist in manipulating press campaigns. Immedi- ately on assuming office, he launched a number of press organs in Paris for the purpose of undermining Vichy's policy of neutrality." More than a year later, in Janu- ary;1942, Abetz thought that the time was ripe to broach the question of cobelligerency with the Vichy govern- ment directly." But Petain gave a negative response to Jacques Benoist-Mechin, the French secretary of state who had negotiated with Abetz on the problem. "I took France out of the war," he said. "I did not do this to make her reenter the war on the German side."" Thus, as far as Vichy was concerned, the armistice treaty was a terminal point, determining a maximum THE FRENCH SURRENDER 67 beyond which collaboration with the Germans could not go. Yet, since the Germans had overwhelming means of pressure at their disposal, Vichy was slowly obliged to retreat. The high point of defiance was reached in De- cember 1940, when Laval was deprived of office and put under arrest. But the Germans quickly forced Petain to release Laval and patch up relations with him; after along tug of war, Laval was back in office in April 1942. During this whole period, however, the policy of neutrality was maintained. Vichy was careful not to cut diplomatic contacts with the Western world. After the attack upon Mers-el-Kebir, diplomatic relations with Britain were severed, but relations were continued with the Dominion of Canada. In January 1941, Admiral Leahy arrived at Vichy as American Ambassador. He immediately established close relations with Petain and soon became convinced that Vichy by no means had both feet in the German camp." What enabled Vichy to pursue the policy of neutral- ity was a covert means of pressure that prevented the Germans from crossing the demarcation line in force. This was the implicit threat that the seat of government _ would be transferred to Africa. That policy seems to have been laid down in explicit terms in August 1940. According to Baudouin, it was then agreed that, if the southern zone were invaded, Petain would appoint Dar- lan as his successor,- and Darlan would go to North Af- rica with the goyernment and the fleet." The agreement was a verbal one, but Petain considered it binding. When the Germans did invade the southern zone after the Allied landing in North Africa (November 1942), Darlan wa? at Algiers. Yet he did not assume governmental functions as stipulated by the decision of Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 68 FOUR CASE STUDIES August 1940. He gave orders to resist the landings, and he concluded an armistice only when a new author- ization to do so was received from Petain; even then, the fleet was not instructed to join him, but was scuttled instead. Aron concludes from this that the 1940 agree- ment was no longer in force in November 1942: When Petain gave this instruction to Darlan in August 1940, he meant it as a momentary expedient corresponding to the situation as it existed at that time. It was not a permanent pol- icy that could remain in force for years to come." An alternative interpretation seems more plausible. The instruction of August 1940 was still in force, but it did not cover situations of the kind that arose in No- vember 1942. Had the Germans crossed the demarca- tion line at a time when Vichy's sovereignty over North Africa was uncontested, the instruction would have been put into effect automatically. The Allied landings, how- ever, created a new situation. From Vichy's point of view, they constituted an attack on French territory. The official policy for such eventualities was that of armed resistance." The landings in effect deprived Vichy of the only element of political strength it had retained, and thereby sealed the collapse of the regime. The French government that subsisted after the German occupation of the southern zone was an essentially new entity, without any trace of independent political exist- ence.' The political basis of the Vichy regime was inher- ently unstable. The armistice with the Reich to which it owed its existence expressed a momentary balance of bargaining factors, but that balance was bound to shift in one direction or another. Had the Germans been victorious, Vichy would have been replaced by a French THE FRENCH SURRENDER 69 regime fully integrated into the New Order planned by the Nazis. With the Germans defeated, a French regime fully committed on the Allied side was due to take over. None of the three essential elements in. Vichy's policy?armistice, collaboration, neutrality? had permanent value. The armistice could not be trans- formed into a peace settlement. Collaboration compro- mised Vichy in- the eyes of the French without entirely satisfying the Germans. Finally, a neutral position be- tween the two camps could not be indefinitely main- tained as hostilities gained momentum. CONCLUSIONS The French surrender shows a considerable "dis- arming" effect resulting both from the loser's "reorien- tation" and from his latent threat of using elements of residual strength. On the winner's side, it is an example of the importancc of political incentives in facilitating and hastening surrender. When. concluded, the French armistice represented a successful bargain for both sides. The French suc- ceeded in surrendering on a qualified basis and salvag- ing partial sovereignty; the Germans avoided time- consuming terminal operations. The bargain, however, would have produced satisfactory long-term results only if it had been transformed into a permanent settle- ment. As it turned out, no permanent settlement was possible. The Franco-German war was only part of a bigger conflict, and the later progress of that conflict subverted the basis on which the armistice had been concluded. In the armiitice situation, both sides operated on a predominantly power-oriented basis. Since no perma- nprlassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 70 FOUR CASE STUDIES nent settlement could be reached, both sides endeavored to exploit the temporary balance created by the armi- stice to promote their power objectives. Both were com- mitted to the principle of cooperation, but they could cooperate only with mental reservations, having diver- gent ultimate goals in mind. This conflict of objectives was never resolved, since the German defeat swept away the actors on both sides. THE ITLIAN SURRENDER _September 1943 THE STRATEGIC BACKGROUND The Allied strategy in World War II was predomi- nantly a strategy of attrition. The Mediterranean the- ater played a peripheral role in that strategy. Mastery of the sea and increasing mobilization of latent resources enabled the Anglo-American coalition to bring over- whelming pressure to bear on the Axis forces operating in North Africa. By May 1943, all German and Italian forces in the African theater had been driven into a small pocket in Tunisia and forced to capitulate. This enabled the Allies to launch an amphibious assault on Sicily in preparation for a landing on the Italian peninsula. From the point of view of over-all strategy, however, the Op- erations against Italy had a diversionary and probing character.' No strategic decision was expected from them, since only an assault from- the Channel coast of- fered an opportunity to engage the bulk of the German forces and to paralyze them by strategic attrition. For Italy, however, the Mediterranean theater was not peripheral. She had entered the war in the hope of profiting from the liquidation of British and French power positions in that area. The German victory . in France forced Mussolini's hand in this respect. He be- lieved that it set the stage for a new political?settlement Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 72 FOUR CASE STUDIES in Europe, in which Germany would replace Britain and France as the dominant power in the West. Italy was not prepared for a full-scale war, but intervention ap- peared to Mussolini to be the only correct decision. He saw no need for a total war effort, since the strategic de- cision seemed already achieved. On the other hand, he believed that Italy could claim a major part in the spoils only if she became an active belligerent. Intervention was a gamble, but it seemed safe enough. When the initiative in the Mediterranean passed to the Allies, the war became a defensive one for the Axis; but there was no natural defensive partnership between Germany and Italy. The German-Italian alliance had been a purely offensive one, dictated by desires of ag- grandizement. The Italian Fascists had believed that the West was weak and decadent and that German "dyna- mism" would make short shrift of it, and they had en- gineered the alignment with Germany because it prom- ised considerable profit without total effort. When their calculations were upset by the course of the war, they were not able to demand a total effort from the Italian people for a purely defensive action alongside Germany. The very basis of the alliance had been the belief that Ger- many was stronger than the West. When it became evi- dent that she was weaker, only severance of the coalition made sense. With the Allied armies poised for the assault on Sicily and Italy, it was obvious that the Italian armed forces were not in a position to offer effective resistance. As the German Military Attache in Rome, Enno von Rintelen, put it, The backbone of the Italian armed forces was broken. The army was in the throes of agony. The best divisions had been lost THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 73 or routed in Africa and Russia. The metropolis was practically devoid of troops. . . . In Sicily there were four operative di- visions, in Sardinia and Corsica another four. In the Apennine peninsula, .the number of operative divisions amounted to twelve. . . . The long coastline of the peninsula and of the big islands was unprotected. . . . The navy continued to suffer from lack of oil. . . . The air force had inadequate numerical strength and equipment and could operate only in conjunction with Ger- man air units.' The Italian army chiefs desperately begged Germany for reinforcements. On July is, however, the German Supreme Command informed the Italians that their re- quests (in particular for air reinforcements) could not be granted.-This made it clear to all Italians, including Mussolini and the other fascist leaders, that Italy was not in a position to continue the war. Mussolini planned to make this dear to Hitler at their conference at Feltre on July 19. But Hitler, ap- parently sensing Mussolini's intention, did all the talk- ing at that conference. For two hours, he lectured the Italians on the necessity of waging war in total fashion. After the tirade, Mussolini remained silent. On the following diy,- the chief of the Italian general staff, General Ambrosio, resigned because Mussolini had failed to make the expected declaration that Italy would sue for peace.' The _iinniediate consequence was Mussolini's fall) when the Grand Council of Fascism turned against him at a meeting on July 24, 1943. A resolution was intro- duced, according to which the King was to resume su- preme command over the armed forces (which had been vested in Mussolini since the beginning of the war) and make all politiCal decisions necessary to save the country. _ r r.nnv Aooroved for Release 13/06/27? CIA RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 74 FOUR CASE STUDIES This was tantamount to an injunction to Mussolini to resign. He did so on the following day, convinced that the King would ask him to form a new cabinet. The King, however, told Mussolini that he was dismissed, and that Marshal Badoglio would head the new government. Mussolini was taken into custody "to protect his safety," and the Fascist Party was immediately dissolved.' It was understood that the new government's task was to liquidate the war. Its position was precarious, however, because of the presence of German armed forces in Italy. Hitler, thoroughly mistrustful, ordered preparations for the occupation of Rome and the arrest of Badoglio and the King. The Italians thereupon con- centrated five divisions around Rome, and the Germans decided to avoid an open break. Badoglio also was deter- mined to postpone a break until he had come to definite agreement with the Allies. He announced that Italy would continue to wage war alongside the Germans, and he maintained normal contacts with them.? Simultaneously, Badoglio tried to conclude an armi- stice with the Allies, who were prepared to accept noth- ing but unconditional surrender. Badoglio could not treat with the Allies on that.basis because it was obvious that a separate capitulation would immediately lead to hostile acts by Germany. He therefore tried to reach an agreement with the Allies on the basis of cobelligerench but his proposal was rejected. THE ALLIED SURRENDER POLICY TOWARD ITALY This stiff Allied stand represented a departure from earlier policy decisions. In his report to the British War Cabinet on the deliberations at Casablanca in January THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 75 1943,' Churchill wrote that it had been decided to con- tinue the war against Germany and Japan until "uncon- ditional surrender," but not to press the same demand on Italy; "the omission of Italy would be to encourage a break-up there."' -The War Cabinet objected to any ex- ception, however, and the final statement issued at the conference included Italy among the enemy nations that would have to surrender unconditionally.' ? Apparently the Allied decision makers did not under- stand the hidden implications of the change in the Italian government. Mussolini's fall caught them unawares. No plan had been laid down in advance to deal with such a contingency. What was the reason for this lack of preparation? Field intelligence seems. to have had some inkling of the trouble brewing in Italy. Admiral Franco Mau- geri, head of Italian naval intelligence, writes as follows in his memoirs: Some two months before Mussolini's fall, I had received a report through my Swiss agents that British and American undercover operators had been trying to learn who would suc- ceed the dictator when he was overthrown. At first, I did not take this too, seriously. . . . But the inquiries persisted and I began to realize that the Allied High Command must have 'some reason to suspect, if not to know, that a change in the government might be on the way. . . . If this was true and the Allies had advance knowledge of Mussolini's downfall, ihen there is little excuse for their failure to act immediately after it took place.? But whether the Allied operatives knew something or were merely playing hunches, it is clear that no plan was based on their dispatches. A plan was developed on the spur of the moment, and the approach that was adopted C??41-yar4 rrni A Droved for Release ? 50-Yr 6/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 76 FOUR CASE STUDIES was highly characteristic of the political warfare concepts current at that time in the American (and British) lead- ership. General Eisenhower's first reaction, as reported by Captain Butcher, was to exploit the news by launching a propaganda campaign, using broadcasts and leaflets, to give "the House of Savoy and the Italian people their obviously much-needed 'white alley' to get out of the war."' The General was apprehensive about the neces- sity of conducting his campaign under the dose super- vision and direction of President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill: Ike regretted existence of rapid communications. If we were still in the day of sailing ships, he thought he could deal more quickly and advantageously with the Italians than is possible when he has to communicate to both Washington and London and wait for the two capitals to concur or direct." Presumably, Eisenhower's uneasiness was due to fear that the "politicos" (Butcher's word) would prevent him from adopting the only approach that, according to him, promised success: giving Italy generous assurances about "peace with honor" in general, and providing as many immediate, positive inducements as possible in particular. As the psychological warfare "operator" in this situation, Eisenhower apparently felt that a psychological appeal could be effective only to the extent that it was positive and steered dear of fundamental quarrels about princi- ples and long-range political considerations. He was aware of the discrepancy between the operator's perspec- tive and the policymaker's, a discrepancy that actually emerged at every point during armistice negotiations. About the instrumentalities, methods, and immedi- ate objectives of political warfare, however, there was THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 77 no difference of approach between the operating and the policymaking centers. Overt propaganda appeals to the Italian people were to be the chief instrument used. Eisenhower, according to Butcher, wanted to build up "public opinion -amongst the Italians which would en- courage King Victor Emmanuel to send an emissary to negotiate quickly for peace."" It is characteristic of the dominant American approach that "pressure of public opinion" was deemed necessary and sufficient to push the King onto the right path. One is reminded of Hans Speier's category of the "democratic fallacy" :" whatever we want to happen in politics can be made to happen if, and only if, public opinion is mobilized behind it. As we now know, the King and Badoglio did not need to be pushed by public opinion: their minds were made up; what_they needed was physical protection against the Germans. This does not mean to say that a psychological campaign would necessarily have been futile. In the Italian case, overt appeals to leaders and people could have been more than pointless exhortations to do the impossible, precisely because the political lead- ership had already; in principle, adopted the policy that the Allies wanted to promote. If such a campaign had been timed correctly and coordinated with a direct ap- proach to the elite, its psychological effects might have been very great._ In order to be effective, however, overt appeals had to stress things other than "peace" and "honorable capitulation? The Allies were not in a position to offer "peace" to the Italians; the Germans had seen to that. What the Italians needed was sufficient motivation to make another military effort, this time against their for- mer ally. Such a motivation could have been based only not-Iin P rt Sanitized Coov Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 78 FOUR CASE STUDIES on I'mlian national objectives, such as the preservation of Italy's independence, which was threatened by the Ger- mans. But even an appeal to fight for independence would not have been enough. It is always a hard problem of conscience for a military elite, as well as for sublead=. ers and rank and file, to turn against a former ally. In spite of widespread friendliness toward the. Allies and hatred of the Germans, this problem of honor weighed upon the Italians' consciences, and the Allies would?have been well advised to provide the best possible psycho- logical support for making the transition. But such con- siderations were far from Allied minds at that time. Badoglio-1--rightly or wrongly?considered that he could not show his hand until the Allies had fifteen divi- sions in Italy," which was more than the Allies had in the entire region. Badoglio's concept of political strategy was the exact antithesis of the Allied one. He saw noth- ing to be gained through mass appeals. He thought that political and military arrangements from elite to elite had to be completed before it was safe to let the masses know about any new policy. Fear of German retaliation played a large part in Badoglio's avoidance of contact with the public. But its effect was deplorable. Maugeri depicts in vivid colors the disappointment and despair of the Italian masses when, following the overthrow of Mussolini, no clear national policy was announced: Badoglio was execrated for not coming to terms with the Allies at once. I must confess that I condemned him as vehemently as any. I, too, cried out: "Basta! Basta! Enough! Let's end this senseless struggle! Let's make peace!' There is no doubt that popular response to the im- mediate announcement of a break with the coalition would have been very favorable. Just such a course had THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 79 been advocated by the antifascist political leaders with whom Badoglio had consulted before Mussolini's over- throw. These leaders (Bonomi in particular) proposed to enter into the cabinet (with Badoglio as Premier and Bonomi as Vice-Premier) and at once denounce the Ger- man. alliance. The, Germans, whose best units were still tied down in Sicily, could not react strongly, according to this view; moreover, Italy could hope to win the con- fidence of the Allies and obtain lenient treatment only if she made a complete and voluntary break with the Germans. On July 14, Badoglio agreed with these arguments and adhered to the plan put forward by the civilian lead- ers. But the King vetoed the agreement on the following day because he feared German vengeance." Badoglio bowed to the King's decision; he decided to include only military men and functionaries in his cabinet, and his main endeavor thereafter was to lull German suspicions and stall off German occupation in force until his nego- tiations with the Allies bore fruit. He even went through the farce of a military conference with Hider at Tarvis on August 6, in which he gave his word of honor that he was not negotiating a separate peace. (This was, of course, literally true at that time, since only "explora- tory" contacts had been made.) In his public statements, Badoglio continued to stress Italy's determination to go on with the war. On the Allied side, the preparatory consultations for the propaganda offensive were completed within a few days; Eisenhower's message, approved by the Combined Chiefs of Staff, was broadcast on July 30. It offered the Italians "peace under honorable conditions," and a "mild and benefident" occupation regime. A passage, inserted Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Co .y Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 80 FOUR CASE STUDIES at Churchill's insistence, demanded that no Allied pris- oners of war be turned over to the Germans. Even this message, although it made dear that the Allies in fact intended to impose complete surrender, was too "posi- tive" to suit the guardians of the political purity of Allied goals and methods. As Butcher says, "immediately there was a murmur in the press corps because the message in- dicated permission to retain the House of Savoy."' Another Eisenhower message gave offense in high political quarters. To Eisenhower's dismay, Churchill complained to Roosevelt about a broadcast sent out in the General's name, in which a lull in serial bombings was explained to the Italians as having been designed to give them a breathing spell during which they could reorient their policy. (Actually, the pause was for technical rea- sons.) Churchill was highly incensed by this "psycho-, logical" use of military facts: only the political leaders, he thundered, had the right to make announcements about such matters." Apparently, Eisenhower had unwittingly violated one of the rules of conduct which Churchill had laid down concerning the Allies' Italian policy; namely, that until Badoglio showed his hand, "the war should be car- ried forward against Italy in every way that the Ameri- cans will allow."" Churchill's wording suggests that he felt the Americans might slacken the pace of the Italian campaign as a result of the emergence of the Badoglio regime; this may have been why he was so sensitive about what he considered a symptom of the American military leadership's intention to substitute "psychological" in- ducements for hard military blows. Allied political warfare was handicapped by the lack of reliable intelligence about Badoglio's true intentions. THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 8 The Allies apparently decided to wait until the public appeals for "honorable capitulation" (a euphemism for "unconditional surrender") bore fruit. Badoglio, on the other hand, concentrated his efforts on hoodwinking and placating the Germans. He also put out a few cautious feelers to the Allies early in August, but his emissaries were merely charged either to explain to the Allies that his dedarations about continuing the war were just a deceptive smokescreen serving to put off the Germans (d'Ayeta mission to Lisbon, August 3) or at most to sug- gest a negotiated peace rather than surrender (Berio mis- sion to Tangier; August 6)." Such feelers, of course, could produce no tangible results. It was only on Au- gust 15 that a military envoy, General Castellano, finally arrived in Madrid with instructions to start negotiations for an armistice based on the general idea of surrender. In the meantime, the Germans had been pouring more and more troops into Italy: Allied intelligence put the number of divisions at thirteen by August 18, fifteen by August 2.1, and nineteen by September 3." Badoglio's slowness in acting was due in part to tech- nical difficulties. He was so impressed with the omnis- cience of German intelligence in Italy that he dared not send a military envoy until a more or less plausible pre- text could be found for such a move. The official justifi- cation for General Castellano's mission was, in fact, fan- tastic enough: he was to proceed to Lisbon under a false name, as a member of an Italian delegation welcoming the Italian Ambassador-returning from Chile. This cau- tious, conspiratorial maneuver was both time-consuming and unavailing. By the middle of August, Hitler knew from intercepted broadcasts that Badoglio was negotiat- ing with the A11ies.2F-7 narl ifiprl in Part Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 82 FOUR CASE STUDIES The Allies, in the meantime, could do nothing but wait. According to the dominant doctrine, public appeals were the preferred instrument of political warfare; they could furnish the essential results all by themselves. Moreover, according to the "rules of unconditionality,"" there was nothing to negotiate about. All that was re- quired of the enemy was an act of submission: when the surrender delegation came, its sole task was to sign on the dotted line. The Italian government had to show its good faith by executing the terms imposed, and, above all, by making a public announcement of surrender. Nothing else needed to be considered, according to the Allies, in connection with Italy's severing her coalition ties with Germany. In the meantime, military strategy was governed by rumor and impeded by political inaction. Air Chief Mar- shal Tedder called Eisenhower to an urgent conference at Tunis on August 2. He wanted permission to resume the heavy aerial bombardment of Naples and of the marshaling yards of Rome because he had word that "Badoglio was actively trending to the Germans." Whatever military justification there may have been for hitting Naples and Rome at that time, the justification that Badoglio was "actively trending to the Germans" was not ?an eil?ergetic attempt to get in touch with Badoglio and rouse him from his torpor might have pro- duced far better results than the further destruction of Naples and of the railroad facilities in Rome. Given a suitable inducement, Badoglio might have found a way to put Naples and Rome at the Allies' disposal, although that is not certain, since Badoglio insisted on complete protection .against the Germans, which the Allies were in no position to provide. But it is not impossible that a THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 83 better result could have been achieved in Italy if contact with Badoglio had been made earlier, to induce him to help the Allies make unopposed landings in places where he had strong or undisputed control. Bombing as a political strategy, as a means to influence Badoglio's be- havior, was dearly pointless. As time passed and Italy did not send a surrender delegation, Allied headquarters conduded that Eisen- hower's propaganda campaign had failed. On August 12, Captain Butcher notes gloomily: What appeared to be a quick collapse of Italy has disappeared into uncertainty, with the definite knowledge that the Italians are solidifying their opposition to us and are really fighting. Around headquarters, we are inclined to attribute this to the hardboiled attitude of the Prime Minister and the President, who publicly insisted upon "unconditional surrender" as soon as Mussolini was out. No surrender ever was made without some conditions; the main thing is to have the Italians realize, admit, and act as if they've been defeated.25 Later developments revealed that this appraisal of the situation was wrong. Granted that a more positive propaganda approach would have produced better psy- chological results, it is dear now that insistence on uncon- ditional surrender was not responsible for ? Badoglio's failure to sue for peace. That demand did not deter the Italian antiwar group from going through with its pol- icy; it could do nothing else. The actual explanation for Badoglio's failure to sue for peace was simply that he was unable to solve the technical problem of establishing con- tact with the Allies. - The Allied headquarters' assessment of the signifi- cance. of stiffening Italian resistance at the front also seems to have been in error. That stiffening implied, ac- cording to Butcher, that the Italians had not recognized n 'f' r ir Part S2nitizedC A ro ed for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 84 FOUR CASE STUDIES that they were beaten, that surrender was out, and that the situation called for a psychological campaign to con- vince them that they were defeated. What this theory overlooked was that it is possible for a military leader- ship both to plan for strategic surrender and to order and obtain stiffer tactical resistance from its troops. Badoglio probably felt that a systematic slackening and collapse of Italian tactical resistance would merely attract Ger- man troops to all sectors manned by Italians, a develop- ment that had to be avoided at all cost. But such con- siderations apart, it is characteristic of military surrender that the loser wants at least to salvage his honor, and to obtain the largest possible compensation from the win- ner for stopping resistance. For that reason, stubborn resistance, particularly during the closing stages of a war, is a frequent prelude to surrender. Allied thinking about the problem of surrender over- looked these finer shadings of the problem and treated tactical "resistance" and "will to surrender" as mutually exclusive. Allied leaders apparently expected the Italian admission of defeat and readiness to surrender to take the form of an abrupt stoppage of all resistance and a completely supine acceptance of Allied dictation of no matter what terms. This mechanical application of the _"unconditional surrender" formula was faulty, not be- cause it compelled the Italians to fight on (they sur- rendered in spite of Allied "harshness"), but because a sudden and total transition from fighting to complete nonresistance was technically impossible. Italy could not just subside like a punctured inner tube; her surrender forcibly entailed continued military action against her former ally. Yet the Allied negotiators neither foresaw that the surrender talks would be dominated by this prob- ? THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 85 lem nor were allowed to conduct the conversaticins on that basis. SURRENDER OR COOPERATION The political-strategic objective of securing the mili- tary cooperation of the Italian government was com- pletely outside the scope of Allied calculations at that time. When the armistice negotiations actually started at Lisbon, the Allied negotiators, Brigadier General Ken- neth Strong and Lieutenant General Bedell Smith, were apparently taken completely by surprise when the Italian side offered, not just unconditional surrender, military cooperation against the Germans. They were not empowered to?agree to such an arrangement, and they had to return to Algiers to consult with Eisenhower. Butcher noted on the state of negotiations on August 21: "The main difference seems to be that the Italian Gen- eral Staff wants to execute a complete flip-flop and join the Allies to fight the Germans. To this Beetle [Smith] was not authorized to agree, but he thinks Ike will insist on collaboration with us.'26 Eisenhower also, it seems, had not foreseen that the Italians would propose a "flip-flop," although the situa- tion in Italy was such that they could in fact propose noth- ing else. But he was in favor of exploiting the oppor- tunity, as might be expected of an "operator" anxious to achieve the best possible result, and in i good position to doubt the miraculou-? virtue of the unconditional-sur- render formula. The political center, however, did not see things in the same light. The instructions that Roosevelt and Churchill sent to Eisenhower for dealing with the Castellano mission at Lisbon enjoined him to accept nothing but uncondi- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 , Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 86 FOUR CASE STUDIES tional surrender, and to do so without discussion. "These terms," the orders stated, "do not visualize the active assistance of Italy in fighting the Germans." That statement did not mean that the Allied lead- ers excluded the possibility of Italian military activities against the Germans. It meant only that such activities were expected to develop automatically after the an- nouncement of the armistice, on the sole responsibility of the Italian leadership and population. They were to be a different phase from the surrender as such. The Italians were to be encouraged to hope that, by fighting the Germans after the surrender, they would create a situation in which the Allies would be willing to recon- sider and modify the armistice terms. Any agreement that the Italians would fight the Germans in return for Allied concessions was to be excluded from the armistice talks proper. As Churchill wrote to Roosevelt on Au- gust 16, immediately on receiving news of Castellano's arrival in Madrid, We, the Allies, for our part cannot make any bargain about Italy changing sides, nor can we make plans in common at this stage. If, however, serious fighting breaks out between the Italian Army and German intruders, a new situation would be created." This seems a strange way to conduct a war. Military operations involving Italians on our side were foreseen, but planning for them was strenuously ruled out. More- over, the Allies insisted on surrender terms designed to break the spirit of the Italian armed forces and deprive them of their effective striking capacity. The Italian war fleet and merchant shipping were to be turned over to the Allies; all military aircraft were to be flown to Allied THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 87 airfields or destioyed." Surrender of the fleet (for which, characteristically, Churchill began to press the day he learned about Mussolini's fall), although psychologi- cally hard for the Italians to take, at least did not pre- dude its being used in later naval operations. But taking the air arm away fr6m the Italian army was tantamount to rendering those already inferior and overmatched forces wholly ineffectual. Thus the Allied political strategy of calling for com- plete surrender first and cooperation later was obviously ill conceived, for the first stage could only jeopardize successful implementation of the second. A different, more elastic political strategy could not even be envis- aged, because any agreement involving military coopera- tion would have departed from the fundamental prin- ciple of unconditional surrender. It would have smacked of "negotiated peace" rather than complete "victory." In the eyes of the Allied leaders, as well as of the public, such an agreement would have seemed an inexcusable compromise, nullifying the supreme goal for which the war was being waged. If any enemy came to us suing for peace, we could?only insist on surrender, ruling out nego- tiated terms. That principle alone could have precluded discussions about military cooperation with the Italian surrender delegation'. But there was, in addition, the fact that the King and Badoglio, along with all the other leading men of the armistice regime, had a record of full connivance and co- operation with Mussolini and fascism. They could not be considered bona fide democrats. Harry Hopkins' re- action, noted down immediately after Mussolini's over- throw, may be considered typical: Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 88 FOUR CASE STUDIES I have grave misgivings about both the King and Bidoglio. Certainly neither of them, by any stretch of the imagination, can be considered to represent a democratic government. It is very easy to recognize these people, but it is awfully hard to throw them overboard later. I surely don't like the idea that these former enemies can change their minds when they know that they are going to get licked and some over to our side and get help in maintaining political power." To people who were thinking along such lines (and that was the dominant mode of thought in the Allied camp), it was imperative that enemies who wanted to- come over to the Allied side should still be treated as enemies, no matter what advantages their defection might confer on the Allied effort. The advantages were dear, but to accept them was unthinkable because it was immoral. Sherwood describes the resulting dilemma' in the following terms: The merest suggestion of recognition of the Badoglio goverp- ment brought down more and more opprobrium on the State Department which by now was regarded in liberal circles as the very citadel of reaction and of the policy of "doing busi- ness" with the avowed enemy. However, the State Department was by no means the predominant policy-making instrument in consideration of the new situation in Italy. It was a matter of cold, hard military calculation. General Eisenhower and the Combined Chiefs of Staff were conscious of the enormous possible advantages of having any Italian government, regard- less of its political coloration, which would have the author- ity to deliver an immediate surrender." That military pressure put Roosevelt and Churchill in a difficult position. They knew they had to "use" the King and Badoglio, and that it would have been supreme folly not to exploit the split within the enemy coalition for all it was worth. At the same time, it was impossible to make an open "deal," with the King and Badoglio as THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 89 partners. Roosevelt and Churchill solved the dilemma by imposing unconditional surrender upon the Italian armistice regime, and then deciding to give that sur- render a maximally elastic implementation. In that way, they felt, it was possible to keep Allied morale 'high and satisfy public opinion, as well as meet the requirements of the objective situation: This "manipulative" ap- proach, while successful in neutralizing the psychological stresses created on the Allied side by the split in the Axis coalition, was not effective in quickly liberating Italy from the Germans.- Other more immediate considerations also pre- vented cooperation with the Italian 'armistice regime. The Allied leadership thought it would be dangerous to trust Badoglio and the King. We could' not know, the Allies felt, whether they really meant to play ball with us. We could not confide in them until they gave unmis- takable proofs of their sincerity. The act of submission that we demanded was seen as the first and essential proof of trustworthiness: if the Italians went through with it, we could gradually thaw toward them, and per- haps let them in on some of our military plans. Accord- ingly, the Allies steadfastly refused to reveal to Badoglio the date of the -projected landing near Salerno, in ad- vance of which the armistice was to be made public. While Badoglio's own political strategy was firmly rooted in the principle of "no overt dash with the Ger- mans before substantial Allied forces land in Italy," Allied political strategy was equally firm in postulating "no consultation or cooperation with Badoglio until the surrender is sealed and announced." These divergent conceptions finally precipitated a crisis of confidence that had a disastrous effect on the whole Italian campaign. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 90 FOUR CASE STUDIES THE ROME DISASTER Badoglio, having no information about the Allies' plans, simply did not prepare any military action; he merely watched the German build-up in Italy and the arrival of German units in the Rome area with mounting despair. The Italians managed to assemble six divisions around Rome; the Germans had about two in that region, including an armored one. Badoglio, of course, did not contemplate anything so rash as an attempt to eject the Germans from the Rome area, in spite of his numerical superiority. For that, he needed the presence of Allied troops. The Allied High Command, in fact, was ready and willing to put some reinforcements at Badoglio's dis- posal. The final armistice terms, signed at the Allied forward base near Cassibile in Sicily on September 3, contained one term that departed from the integral un- conditional-surrender line. This departure satisfied Badoglio's demand that Allied troops be present before he publicly denounced the German alliance and accepted the Allies' surrender terms. The Allies undertook, as part of the armistice terms, to drop parts of the American 82nd Airborne Division on airfields near Rome. The action was to precede the main landing at Salerno by a day or two; it was to be synchro- nized with the announcement of Italy's surrender, planned for September 8. But General 'Maxwell D. Taylor and Colonel William T. Gardner, the American officers charged with arranging the details of the para- chute drop, did not arrive in Rome to get in touch with Badoglio until that very day, September 8. It was im- possible to work out the details on such short notice. Contemporary Italian accounts about the Taylor mis- THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 9 sion are conflicting. According to Maugeri, General Car- boni (commander of the Italian troops in Rome), whom, Taylor and Gardner met first, "vetoed" the whole plan: the Germans were too strong around Rome, he argued, and they had managed to deprive the Italian forces of ammunition and gasoline. Both the Italians and the Americans would be "massacred" under such conditions. The whole operation had to be called off for that reason, according to Maugeri, but the situation would have ap- peared to the Italians in an entirely different light if they had been told by the Allies that the main landing at Salerno was to take place almost simultaneously. For then they would not have been afraid of German rein- forcements arriving from the south. But Taylor and Gardner confided nothing. They couldn't. In fact, at no time were we taken into the confidence of the Allies, and General Eisenhower has since declared that this was one of the greatest blunders committed by the Allies in the entire war." Badoglio's version of the episode is entirely differ- ent. He says the American emissaries did tell him that the main landing was to take place immediately, and adds that Carboni merely asked for more time to issue ammu- nition and gasoline to the Italian troops. This would have taken some time; but, according to Badoglio, Tay- lor and Gardner had indicated that the landing of the parachute troops?would take four or five days. Bado- glio's understanding was that he would not be required to announce the surrender before the Allied reinforcements had been landed near Rome; hence he sent a telegram to General Eisenhower asking for permission to postpone the announcement of the armistice until September 12 "in the interest of military operations.'32 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 92 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 FOUR CASE STUDIES The result was an explosion on Eisenhower's part: Badoglio's request, it was felt at headquarters, simpl); indicated that he wanted to change the signed agree- ments unilaterally; his trustworthiness immediately ap- peared highly dubious. Eisenhower decided to crack the whip and sent a blistering telegram to Badoglio, telling him that the Allies would broadcast the surrender agree- ment, as originally scheduled, at 6:30 P.M. on Septem- ber 8; that Badoglio was expected to do his part; "and that if Badoglio, or any part of his armed forces, failed to co-operate as agreed, he would publish, to the world a full record of the affair." But Eisenhower "agreed", to suspend the airborne operation since it could no longer be launched prior to announcement of the armistice." Badoglio, of course, had to "go through with his part of the agreement": he announced the armistice, "in fear and trembling," as Eisenhower recorded, an hour and a half after he received the telegram. The result of the announcement was disastrous. That night, Badoglio, the other military chiefs, and the King and his household withdrew to the Ministry of War. They were awakened at 4:00 A.M. by General Roatta with the news that the Germans were moving into Rome and that it was necessary to leave. Thereupon they all left for the south, hoping to find safety on the Allied side of the front." They thus escaped capture, but their departure ended all chance of organizing any activity against the Germans. There was nobody at the minis- tries or at military headquarters who could have given orders. Italy's military apparatus just collapsed. The Germans' reaction was swift and efficient: they simply ordered the disarmament of all Italian military units in the area under their control. This was done in THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 93 most cases without any resistance on the part of the Ital- ians; only at-La Spezia did Italiantroops cover the de- parture of the fleet for Malta. It is impossible to blame the Italian troops and troop commanders for this be- havior. They simply had no orders; there was no leader- ship; the Rome ministries did not even answer the telephone. In his broadcast announcing the surrender, Badoglio inserted a cryptic phrase to the effect that the Italian forces would have to stop hostilities against the Anglo-Americans but should resist possible attacks ((from whatever quarter." That was all. The troop coni- manders were not told what to do if the Germans de- manded their disarmament; nor was there anybody to diredt their movements if and when conflicts with the Germans developed. Resistance to the Germans under such conditions would have been senseless and suicidal. Moreover, the armistice announcement merely said that Italy had cc surrendered" and was out of the war; recog- nition of Italy as an ally, or even as a cobelligerent, was studiously-avoided. All this certainly was not calculated to spur organized military resistance to the Germans after the armistice. One may- ask why Eisenhower. was so_ insistent on publishing the armistice agreement on September 8. Ac- cording to one theory, he held that the announcement could not be postponed; in view of the possibility that the Germans might succeed in oVerthrowing the Badoglio regime at the last moments' But this theory does not seem convincing. The danger that Badoglio would be overthrown (or, rather, captured) by the Germans surely existed; in fact, this danger was rendered acute by the precipitate publica- tion of the surrender agreement. But it was certainly Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 94 FOUR' CASE STUDIES impossible to hold that the agreement would have repre- sented a positive asset in the hands of the Allies, provided only that it was duly published, no matter what happened to Badoglio and his regime in the sequel. Had the Ger- mans overthrown or captured Badoglio and the King, the agreement would have ceased to be of any value, whether it was published beforehand or not. The real explanation seems to have been different. It was obviously impossible to cancel the Salerno landing when Badoglio's request for a postponement arrived. And in Eisenhower's mind, announcement of the sur- render was inseparably tied to the landing; it was incon- ceivable to him that the landing could take place before the announcement had been made. It was possible to renounce the Rome operation, but it was not possible to postpone the announcement of the armistice until the Rome operation was completed. Why did Eisenhower consider it imperative to syn- chronize the landing with the publication of the armi- stice (in fact, to make the announcement some time in advance of the landing) ? This is what Butcher notes on September 2: If the acceptance is bona fide, the announcement of the armi- stice following unconditional surrender is to be made 24 to 48 hours prior to our landing in Salerno Bay. This will be the signal for all Italian services to turn against the Germans, to seize and protect aerodromes, to menace and, if possible, stop movement of German troops and for the Italian fleet and prob- ably other vessels to seek safety in ports which we control." This, in fact, was the whole tenor of the instructions Eisenhower had received from the political leaders. He could not question the correctness of the forecast. The only real problem was whether the Italian acceptance of THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 95 the armistice was "bona fide."" If this were shown by publication of the agreement by Badoglio, all the rest would follow immediately: the Italian troops would start action against the Germans the moment they learned that they had surrendered unconditionally to the Allies. It is _easy, then, to see why Badoglio's behavior on the 8th appeared heinoiis to Eisenhower. The land- ing was imminent and could not be canceled; this made it imperative for the Italian forces to turn upon the Ger- mans immediately. And yet Badoglio was refusing to do the only thing that was needed to unleash Italian mili- tary action against the Germans, namely, broadcast the armistice. It was clear to Eisenhower that Badoglio had to be forced. It is extremely strange that such consequences were expected from the publication of "unconditional sur- render." Even granting that a complex and difficult military action could be touched off by a public announce- ment, without previously worked out plans, what was there in the agreement that would have stimulated Ital- ian belligerency against the Germans? The Allies did not recognize Italy as a cobelligerent; all the Italians were given was a crushing set of terms depriving them of all_ authority, all independence, and even their basic means of defense. Eisenhower himself had found the terms "unduly harsh"; he suspected that the Allied home governments wanted "to make a propaganda Roman holiday by publicizing to the entire world the stern restrictions of surrender." But then, how could anyone expect that terms good enough for a "propa- ganda Roman holiday" at home would also be good for Italian morale? What would have been necessary to get the Italian Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 96 FOUR CASE STUDIES tfoops to initiate resistance against ' the Germans was, above all, a functioning leadership, giving clear orders. For technical reasons, such a military leadership could operate only from Rome, where all lines of coinmunica- tion were centralized. Hence, the possibility of Italian military action hinged on the preservation Of Rothe. Eisenhower does not seem to have expected that the "sils- pension" of the parachute drop would lead to the pre- cipitate abandonment of Rome by the heads of the armi- stice regime; he knew that the Italians, after all, had superior forces in the area, and he could not imagine that all the military chiefs would simply leave the troops without making the slightest 'attempt to defend Rome. One can only speculate about what would have hap- pened if Allied military liaison men had been sent to Rome, not on the eve of the landing, but before, while conversations in Sicily were still going on. It might have been possible then to work out joint operations while there still was time. The Allies' unreasoning refusal even to consider a cobelligerent status for Italy certainly hampered any action toward that end, however. Eisen- hower was not permitted to work out a joint military plan; he had to smuggle in a partial, though all-impor- tant, detail?the parachute drop near Rome?by way of the armistice negotiations. By the time the parachute drop was approved, it was too late to put the plan into effect. Badoglio's precipitate flight from Rome dashed all Allied hopes for Italian military cooperation. Italian troops rendered no help whatever to the Allied opera- tion, either in the rear zone or in the invasion battle of Salerno bay (which almost ended in disaster). Durink the crucial Salerno days the political and military lead- THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 97 ers were wandering aimlessly around in southern Italy, out of touch with the military units. BEYOND SURRENDER One of the outstanding characteristics of the Italian armistice agreement was that it began to be obsolescent on the very day it was signed. That, of course, was pre- cisely what was intended by the Allies: loyal execution of the terms by the Italians would prepare the way for miti- gating them. The surrender was to be nothing but a first step; it would be followed by concessions granted purely as acts of grace; Italy would be restored to a "respectable place in the New Europe."" Clearly, Roosevelt and Churchill interpreted uncon- ditional surrender for Italy in a special sense. For Ger- many and Japan, the main enemies, unconditional sur- render had long-term implications: it had to ensure that these powers were deprived of any chance to commit fur- ther aggression. They had to be eliminated for an indefi- nite period as independent factors in international life. In Italy's case, unconditional surrender had no such im- plications; it was conceived as a stage quickly to be left behind, but one that had to be gone through nevertheless in order to obviate the psychological difficulties involved in. making with the enemy. In addition, insistence on surrender enabled the Allies to ease the terms in the exact measure that the Ital- ians cooperated with them. In Churchill's phrase, "Italy must work herpassage. Useful service against the enemy will be recognized by us in the adjustment and the work- ing of the armistice terms. . . . Our principle will be payment by results."" This way of handling unconditional surrender looks, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 crEr Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 98 FOUR CASE STUDIES at first glance, like a hard-headed, realistic way of ex- ploiting complete victory. Roosevelt and Churchill probably felt that the solution was ideal, since it ensured that any concession granted to Italy would be fully earned by actual services. The Italians would be maxi- mally motivated to render active help to the Allies, and public criticism of concessions granted to them would be disarmed. Actually, however, the conception of paying by results was not well suited to the problem that faced the Allies in Italy. The premise of the Allied policy was that whether Badoglio and the King were friend or foe remained an open question until Italian behavior settled it. In war, however, such a skeptical, open-minded approach is likely to be self-defeating. If a group is actually friendly, it is to the winner's interest to strengthen it as much as possible; if it is hostile, it is to his interest to weaken it as much as possible. If, during a probationary period, he fails to strengthen a friendly group, or weaken a hostile one, he hurts his own cause. Hence, a wait-and- see attitude is risky, and should be adopted only if there is no alternative. In the Italian case, there was no reason to consider the friend-or-foe question as entirely open. The very fact of dissolving the Axis coalition placed the Italian armistice regime in the Allied camp. Once that was done, there was no way back for Badoglio ; it was im- possible for him to double-cross the Allies. By inter- posing a probationary period between surrender and active cooperation, therefore, the Allies only weakened their own side. Moreover, the Allies were not right in thinking that holding out hopes for future concessions was the most THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 99 effective way of stimulating active Italian cooperation. The presence of the Germans in Italy was the depriva- tion that was uppermost in the Italians' minds; they had to look at the situation, not merely from the point of view of pleasing or not pleasing the Allies, but from that of ejecting or not ejecting the Germans. The mili- tary problem implied a community of interests between the Allies and Italy, and the Italians could not therefore be made to feel that pleasing the Allies was their only objective in life. Willy-nilly, they had to criticize Allied moves that in their eyes were not adapted to promoting the common objective of defeating the Germans; and establishment of "good conduct" criteria in the midst of war belonged in that category. Badoglio's memoirs are full of the traces of Italian bitterness over the treatment his regime received from the Allies. The Italians, he complains, were held to a subordinate role in the war. We furnished many supply columns which carried mu- nitions and food up to the front lines, many divisions to pro- tect the lines of communications, and more than 100,000 men who served in a "Pioneer Corps," but we were not allowed to increase our armed forces. I said we were not given arms: it would be more accurate to say that many Were taken from us to be sent to the Balkans. It was an extra-ordinary way to treat us. The Heads of the Allied Governments called on the Italians to increase their forces, suggesting that the mitigation of the terms of the armi- ttice depended on the part we played in the war. At the same time the Allied Headquarters in Algiers and the Allied Com- mand in Italy prevented, by every means in its power, our tak- ing any share in the fighting.' This complaint is psychologically understandable. Since it had been suggested that mitigation of the ar- mistice terms depended on Italy's contribution to the Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 100 FOUR-CASE STUDIES war, the Allied policy of not entrusting any sector of the front to Italian forces looked like a deliberate way of minimizing Allied moral obligations toward Italy. Such a course was not apt to raise Italian morale. But the Allies could not adopt a different policy after the Italian armed forces were allowed to collapse. The principle of payment by results fully justified their hands-off attitude, because the Italian army had largely been prevented from "earning" any different treatment. It rendered no service either at Salerno or at the rear of the German forces during the crucial period of the invasion. The upshot was that Italy could contribute no batdeworthy unit to the Allies. An effective Italian force could only have been raised from scratch and out- fitted with Allied equipment. This was dearly impos- sible while the battle was raging, and thus, objectively, the Allied position made sense. But given the objective situation, it was pointless to impress upon the Italians that mitigation of the terms of surrender depended on their actual contribution to the war. Granting cobelligerent status to the Badoglio regime was a terrible stumbling block to the Allied leaders, who were afraid of the psychological repercussions of any such move. The King and Badoglio were undesirable partners because of their past roles in the fascist regime. Therefore, the Allied leaders were anxious to put off recognition until the King and Badoglio had built up a record of active repentance. But the war could not wait. Headquarters was pressing for Italy to be allowed to dedare war on Germany, and instructions to that effect had actually been drafted prior to September 20. The opponents of recognition succeeded in holding up the decision for several weeks, however, so that instructions to authorize Italy's entry into the war were not sent to THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 101 Eisenhower until October 5, and the actual declaration was not made until October 13." There were obviously very urgent reasons why the Allies had to abandon their opposition to recognizing the Badoglio regime-and why they were unable to await "results" before granting it cobelligerent status. The reasons can perhaps be surmised from a memorandum from Hopkins opposing recognition of Badoglio. Sher- wood quotes the memorandum in full: On September zo, Hopkins read a copy of the proposed agreement whereby Italy would be permitted to enter the war not as an "ally" but as a "co-belligerent," and he wrote the following memorandum and sent it to the President: "I hope you will not encourage Eisenhower to recognize Italy as a co-belligerent. This will put them in exactly the same status as the rest of our allies. Nor do I think there is enough evidence that ?Badoglio and the King can be trusted for us to arm any of their divisions. I should think that Eisen- hower could quietly look the other way if some of the armi- stice terms are being violated, such as Italian naval ships being used to transport our troops, or Italian bombers from Sardinia fighting the Germans. "Would it not be better in paragraph 2 to cut out the words 'to wage war against Germany' and substitute 'to assist us in the war'? "I cannot see that a declaration of war by Badoglio gets us anywhere except a precipitated recognition of two men who have worked very closely with the Fascists in the past. I think we should get every possible advantage out of them, but I don't think we are under any -obligation to them. I don't see why, if Eisenhower wants to use Italian crews and ships, he does not go ahead and do it, providing he thinks he can trust them. I simply hate to see this business formalized until we have had a much better look-at Badoglio and the King. McFarlane, the British general's 'report on them was certainly none too good. "I would not throw out Badoglio but recognition would be an inevitable [?] step. Could you not tell Eisenhower to keep on as he is for the present and make the decision in an- other week ?"43 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Co .y Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 102 FOUR CASE STUDIES This memorandum dearly suggests one reason why it was necessary to recognize the Badoglio regime as cobelligerent: the urgent necessity of using part of the Italian fleet in actual operations. Hopkins thought Eisen- hower could "go ahead" and use the fleet, provided he considered it reliable. What Hopkins overlooked was that something more than Eisenhower's confidence was needed to make the ships move. Naval officers in general will carry out missions only on orders from their superiors, and the Italian naval commanders were no exception in this respect. They needed orders from the Badoglio government before they could engage in oper- ations. That is why the Allies were compelled to "treat" with the Italian government, and to conclude a special agreement about the fleet. This was the so-called Cunningham?de Courten agreement; it was signed at Taranto on September 22 by the Allied naval comman- der, Admiral Sir Andrew (later Viscount) Cunningham, and the Italian Minister of Marine, Admiral Raffaele de Courten." This was a stopgap agreement. It was not possible to conclude the agreement with the government as such, because the Allies were not yet ready to recognize the Badoglio regime; even the so-called longer instrument, containing the long-term and nonmilitary clauses of the armistice, was not yet signed. Hence the curious method of making a treaty with an individual member of a government that one did not recognize. Even so, this agreement made Italy a cobelligerent in fact, and formal recognition of the fact could not be delayed much longer. As soon as ships flying the Italian flag engaged in naval operations, Italy was in a state of undeclared war with Germany--an anomalous situation from the point of view of international law. Full naval _ THE :ITALIAN SURRENDER 103 cooperation logically demanded a formal declaration of war; it was actually effected only after the granting of cobelligerency. Badoglio writes: As soon as co-belligerency was declared the Navy was treated as an Allied fleet. All the light craft and the cruisers (except five, three of which were later returned to us) took part in operations in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic, win- ning the admiration of the English and the Americans. Our Air Force was at once used in the Balkan sector where it carried out not only many bombing raids and machine gun attacks but also took_ orders and supplies to our detachments fighting with the Partisans." It is impossible to see what advantage the Allied cause gained from- strenuously excluding the policy of cobelligerency in August and imposing it in October. It was obviously never necessary to grant the Badoglio ? regime cobelligerent status unconditionally: the Italian emissaries could have been told that the regime would be recognized as cobelligerent only after having fulfilled certain specific conditions. But it was precisely a "bar- gain" of this kind .that the Allies had ruled out during the armistice talks. By doing so, they maneuvered them- selves into a situation in which the granting of cobellig- erency necessarily had to appear like a reversal on their part. _ That was the decisive defect of the policy of "pay- ment by results": it -conveyed the impression that trea- ties conduded by the Allies, and terms imposed by them, were not to be taken seriously. The chief policymakers on the Allied side did not appreciate the fact that great powers have an overwhelming interest in establishing the inviolability of pledges granted or received by them. Hopkins' reference- to "looking the other way" while a treaty imposed by-the Allies was being violated, indi- cates a recklessness, a lack of seriousness, which was only narl ifiprl in Part Sanitized Coov Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 am. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 104 FOUR CASE STUDIES too characteristic of Allied policymaking during the war. It was fully realized that the Italian situation called for something different from unconditional surrender, yet concluding a meaningless, obsolescent treaty was deemed better than abandoning the unconditional-sur- render fetish. The hope that such a treaty would at least confer upon the Allies the benefit of complete freedom of action was also futile._ The Allies did not achieve com- plete freedom of action, since they were not in reality free to grant or withhold cobelligerency once Italy had surrendered. It would have been possible to refuse co- belligerency only to an Italian regime that had been completely deprived of fighting potential. The Italian land forces very nearly were in this state by October, thanks to Allied and Italian bungling; addition of the substantial navy to the Allied forces, however, inevi- tably implied cobelligerency. This could have been fore- seen in August, and it would have been if the Allied leaders had not been addicted to the fantasy that military operations could start on a spontaneous impulse at a moment's notice, requiring neither technical staff work nor legal and political allegiance. SURRENDER OF THE FLEET The surrender of the Italian fleet immediately gave rise to a myth concerning the efficiency of "psychological warfare" stunts. Wallace Carroll records the origin of the myth: Messages from Admiral Sir Andrew Cunningham asked Ital- ian sailors to bring their ships to Allied ports. In Algiers, Maurice Pierce, an OWI engineer serving in the Psycholog- ical Warfare Branch, shifted the wave-length of one of the Allied radio transmitters to an international distress frequency to which the naval vessels of all nations listen at all times. neclassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 105 Over this station a -message was broadcast to the Italian ? fleet every fifteen minutes for many hours. Three days later, when the Italian fleet from Spezia steamed into the British naval base at Malta, Admiral Cunningham turned to one of his aides and said: "Tell General McClure . . . that they've ac- complished in one day with propaganda what I've been try- ing to do for three years with the Navy." General McClure took this as a pleasantry, but OWI, which was at that moment fighting hard to get enough money from Congress to keep the Psychological Warfare Branch going, decided it should be ac- cepted as the literal-truth and inserted it in the records of the Congressional budget hearings, whence it will certainly find its way into every psychological warfare manual of the future.? This myth, tic), reflects the feeling that military actions are a matter of impulse and can be unleashed by suitable verbal stimuli from the enemy. Actlinl ly, however, the Allied broadcasts had nothing whatever to do with the sailing of the fleet. The fleet sailed 'on orders issued by the appropriate Italian naval authori- ties. Samuel Eliot Morison gives the following account in his history of American- naval operations: The procedure for the Italian Navy to follow when the armistice was announced had been carefully worked at Cas= sibile and brought by General Castellano to Rome. Admiral Sansonetti telephoned instructions to.the appropriate naval com- manders on the night of 8-9 September. All warships on the west coast of Italy were to proceed to Corsica and pass down its western coast and that of Sardinia; thence sail to Bone in North Africa for orders: Those in Taranto and on the east coast were to sail directly to Malta; those in the Aegean, to Haifa. Mer- chant shipping was to make for Gibraltar or Alexandria. All were given recognition signals, and assured that they would be received honorably in Allied ports. The main battle fleet was at Spezia. Admiral Bergamini, the commander; a few minutes after receiving word from Rome, summoned his commanding officers to a conference. "Tell your men," he said, "to accept this great, sacrifice. . . . Our ships, which an hour ago were ready to sail against the enemy, are now able, because the country requires it, to meet 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 106 ? FOUR CASE STUDIES the victors with the flag flying; .the men can hold their heads high. This is not what we imagined would be the end, but this is the course by which we now must steer, because what counts in the history of a people is not dreams and'hopes and negations of realities, but the consciousness of duty carried out to the bitter end. . . . The day will come when this liv- ing force of the Navy will be the cornerstone on which the Italian people will be enabled to rebuild their fortunes."4T For the circumstances in which the order to sail was received and executed at Taranto, we have a dramatic account by Admiral Alberto da Zara, who was in com- mand of the division stationed there. Da Zara reports that all commanding admirals were called to Rome to attend a meeting at the Ministry of Marine on September 7. They did not know, of course, that the armistice had been signed four days before and would be announced the next day. At the meeting, the Minister, Admiral de Courten, declared that, "in the event of a German attack, we must- react as strongly as possible, without pulling any punches." Da Zara con- tinues: Had I not been so tired from the long and strenuous motor journey from Taranto to Rome, and had I not been obliged to start on my trip back the next day, perhaps I could have pierced the secret of this, strange sibyllic utterance before the facts had spoken. At any rate, I was completely taken by sur- prise on the evening of the 8th, when, coming aboard the [Caiol Duilio, I heard from the commanding officer, Morabito, that we had asked for [sic] an armistice. I 'immediately, called the commander of the "Cadorna" Group on board and listened with him to Badoglio's proclamation: the war was over." This report casts a revealing light both upon Bado- glio's method of operation and upon the state of mind of the Italian naval officers. Even after the armistice was signed, and when it was obviously necessary to pre- THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 107 pare for an inevitable dash with the Germans, Badoglio did not disclose the situation to the top,officers; he merely handed them the cryptic information that, in case the Germans attacked, they would have to defend them- selves. Da Zara was unable to puzzle out what this in- formation meant, nor does it seem that the others present discussed it with" him during the evening. Apparently, the idea that Italy- might change sides during the war was so remote from the minds of the officers that they could not anticipate such a move even when the signs were there. After the announcement of the armistice, da Zara tried for hours to get Rome on the phone for explana- tions and orders. When the call did not go through, he was not too surprised; telephone connections between Rome and Taranto had never been good. On the morn- ing of September 9, da Zara was called out of an officers' meeting; one of his officers was on the phone, telling him of a telegraphic order that had arrived from Rome that morning: all the ships that could sail were to pro- ceed immediately to Malta! Da Zara was not satisfied; the telegram was truncated and could have been 'forged. He decided to put inanother call to Rome (not knowing, of course, that the government no longer was there), and also to wait fora complete duplicate version of the telegram. In the meantime, he made arrangements on his own for the scuttling of the ships. Two of his sub- ordinates tried to argue him. out of it; a third pleaded with him to carry out the order. While this discussion was going on, the complete text of the order arrived, signed by de Court-en. It specified clearly and precisely that sailing the ships to Malta meant neither that they would be handed over nor that the flag Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 108 FOUR CASE STUDIES would be hauled down. In this way, although I did not have the comfort of hearing the thief's voice, my change of mind was quick and complete; I detected in the telegram de Cour- ten's spirit and style. The absurd hypotheses my distracted mind had conjured up suggesting that the telegram might be apocryphal evaporated." The admiral returned to the interrupted meeting and announced his decision to obey Rome's orders uncondi- tionally. I detected in my subordinates' eyes a certain amount of doubt and perplexity; I therefore continued my announce- ment and went on to explain my point of view before asking them to make a declaration of loyalty. In the end, all gave me what I asked except Giovanni Gal- ati and Alberto Banfi. Among my commanders, these two had the most brilliant professional and military record." After the arrival at Malta, Admiral Cunningham asked da Zara: "Do you know the text of the armistice?" "No," I replied. "I know only one thing: I shall not haul down the flag?or hand over the ships." "There is absolutely no question of that," he said. "What is more, I'll tell you that I have decided to withdraw our armed guards from your ships. They will definitely leave at sun- down this evening."51 It is dear from this account that the surrender of the Taranto fleet (the only one that eventually reached an Allied port) might easily have failed to take place. The Italian government was in a state of dislocation when the orders went out, and everything hinged on the arrival of de Courten's telegram to da Zara. Had the telegram been held up or had de Courten's orders failed to make dear that the ships would remain under the Italian flag in spite of the surrender, the ships would certainly have been scuttled. THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 109 De Courten apparently knew that it would have been difficult or impossible to induce the naval commanders to carry out the unheard-of order to sail to the enemy's base in the absence of assurances about the fleet's honor. It was possible for de Courten to give such assurances because the text of the armistice contained no clause about the final disposition of the Italian fleet. He was thus able to interpret the order to sail the ships to Malta in a sense compatible with traditional concepts of honor. Had. "unconditional surrender" been spelled out in spe- cific terms as regards the fleet, it is doubtful whether the order to sail would have been given, or obeyed if given. The Italian government knew, of course, that its existence depended on sending the fleet to Allied parts: had this crucial dause of the armistice agreement not been carried out, the Allies would have broken off all contact and treated the King and Badoglio as enemies. Even so, it was touch and go whether the Badoglio government would be able to assert its authority over its naval commpnders. As it turned out later, de Cour- ten's interpretation of the terms of surrender was not correct. The Allies did expect that the big Italian units would be handed over to them; only small craft, de- stroyers, and some of the cruisers would remain under the Italian flag. These demands, however, were not dis- dosed to the Italians until several weeks after. the ships had sailed to Allied harbors; Badoglio protested against the Allied interpretation, but to no avail." The Allies' "psychological" campaign clearly played no role whatever in the surrender of the Italian fleet. Da Zara does not mention the Allied broadcasts at all; they do not seem to_have been intercepted on the ships under his jurisdiction, and one may assume that the ships Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 110 FOUR CASE STUDIES at the other bases did not listen to them 'either. ' This was probably all to the good, for their effect might have been quite unfavorable if they had been received. - The broadcasts amounted to an invitation to Italian crews and commanders to renounce their allegiance to their own government. It is not dear what advantage was expected from such a psychological-warfare objec- five three days -after the armistice. Perhaps the "psy- chological warriors" on the Allied side believed that it was safer to bank on a wholesale naval mutiny against the King and Badoglio than on Badoglio's compliance with the terms he had signed; were the King and Bado- glio not eminently "unreliable"? But such a hypothesis could have been seriously entertained only if there had been some evidence that wholesale mutiny was ripe in the Italian fleet; i.e., either that the naval commanders were anxious to renounce their allegiance to the King, or that' mutinous crews were prepared to depose their commanders and sail the ships to democratic shores. But there was no evidence of either tendency. Luck- ily for the Allies, subordination and discipline on the Italian ships were quite unimpaired. There was no reason to assume that any Italian sailors would heed the broadcasts. As for the officers, they could not but have been very unfavorably affected by the Allied psycho- logical campaign, if they had known about it. Their re- sentment at the Allied attempt to disrupt the fleet by psychological means would have increased their opposi- tion to orders to sail for Allied ports, and would prob- ably have strengthened their suspicions that the orders to sail, purportedly issued by the Rome government, were not genuine. It is very possible that the Allies were THE 'ITALIAN SURRENDER III saved additional woe by the fact that the Italians did not listen to broadcasts on the international wave lengths. The propaganda campaign directed at the Italian fleet was a Model of how not to wage psychological war- fare. It violated two cardinal principles of the art: (i) feasibility of the objective and (2) coordination with over-all policy. The- objective (to make the ships come over without orders) was not feasible, because the target audience had no motivation to engage in the 'behavior desired by the propagandist. Moreover, the objective was incompatible with the policy pursued by the Allied governments at that time: obtaining the services of the Italian fleet through an agreement concluded with the Italian government. The incompatibility of the two methods does not seem to have been realized by the Allies. Appeals to the Italian rank and file and a surrender agreement con- cluded with the Italian government were considered as having independent, mutually compatible utilities. The positive objective of inducing active Italian cooperation - _ against the Germans was to be promoted primarily through appeals to the rank and file; the Allies, pre- ferring to see such action arise spontaneously by impulses working from below, were reluctant to associate the Italian government's authority with these appeals. The agreement with the Italian government, on the other hand, was primarily intended to serve a negative objec- tive: the government's role was to be limited to an act of surrender pure and _simple. If this analysis is correct, it explains why the Allied command authorized-a- "psychological" campaign to get the fleet to sail to Malta and other ports after having Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 t' 11 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 ' 112 FOUR CASE STUDIES already signed an agreement to that 'effect with the Italian government. It would have fitted the 'Allied conception better if the Italian ships had sailed on their own; it would then have been possible to limit Badoglio's role to that of performing a pure act of surrender, with- out any admixture of cooperation. Actually, however, the psychological conditions for stimulating spontaneous pro-Allied action by the Italian fleet did not exist. The psychological problem was, rather, how to make sure that the fleet would obey surrender orders if and when the government did issue them. The problem was, in other words, how to avoid a conflict between military discipline and patriotism (or sense of national honor). The solution of that problem was not helped by the amateurish psychological campaign initiated by the Allies. By seeking to induce spontaneous action in pref- erence to disciplined action, the Allies risked getting no action at all. This is exactly what happened with the Italian land forces; a similar collapse of Italy's naval potential was just barely avoided. While the psychological problem of getting the fleet to surrender was thus solved in spite of the exertions of the Allies' psychological warriors, the actual execution of the surrender maneuver ended in disaster. No air protection could be provided for the surrendering fleet, and the main Italian naval force that sailed from La Spezia and Genoa was decimated by the Luftwaffe. At 0230 Sept. 9 battleships Roma, Vittorio Veneto, Italia, and light cruisers Attilio Regolo, Montecuccoli, Eugenio di Savoia, sorted from Spezia with eight destroyers, just as German sol- diers were breaking into the city. Off Calvi in Corsica, they were joined by ships from Genoa?light cruisers Abruzzi, Aosta, and Garibaldi, and two more destroyers. All headed for Maddalena, Sardinia, to pick up other ships. Just as they THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 113 were about to enter the Strait of Bonifacio, Adm. Bergamini received word that the Maddalena base had been occupied by German troops. He reversed course and headed for sea. He had no air cover; the Italian Navy possessed none and Allied air forces were too busy covering the Salerno landings to fur- nish any. So, when a heavy squadron of German bombers at- tacked at 1552, the ships had, only their antiaircraft batteries . . . of little use against-the new guided bombs that some of the German planes carried. Roma was sunk with a loss of 66 out of 71 officers, including Bergamini, and over 1,300 men." EVALUATION OF THE ALLIED SURRENDER POLICY TOWARD ITALY The progress of the Italian campaign was deter- mined in its essential aspects by the limited means at the Allies' disposal. First, Italy was a secondary theater from the point of view of Allied ground strategy; second, the supply lines were inordinately long. Lo- gistics presented no comparable problem for the Ger- mans. Although their lines of communication were sub.- jected to constant air attacks, there was never a serious interruption in the flow of their reinforcements and sup- plies. As General Clark put it, The theory was widely held at the beginning of the Mediter- ranean campaign that the German armies could not fight effec- tively in Italy. It was believed that our superior air power could quickly destroy the enemy's supply lines through the Al- pine passes and down the long, mountainous spinal column of Italy, and that, being unable to maintain himself logistically, he soon would find it unprofitable if not impossible to give battle. This was wishful thinking." Given this situation, it is very likely that Italy would have had to be occupied the hard way no matter how the surrender situation was handled. It would have been hazardous for the Allies to land their main force beyond Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 p Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 114 FOUR. CASE STUDIES ? fighter range, and the Italian forces were not strong enough to secure Italy and hold it on our behalf. Never- theless, it would seem that the Allies could have achieved a far greater disruption in German defense arrange- ments than they did if they thad handled the problem of taking Italy out of the German coalition in a more efficient way. Even if the main feature of the strategic plan (the landing at Salerno on September 8) could not have been altered, its sequel would probably have been different if there had been a concerted plan for Italian diversionary operations in the German rear. But the Allies' reluctance to negotiate with the Ital- ians on the basis of cobelligerency prevented such plan- ning. It was believed that the more sensible course was out of the question because Of the strength of the moral feelings condemning all cooperation with fascists, but it may be doubted whether the policy of cobelligerency would have led to a serious moral crisis if it had brought tangible results. The "Darlan deal" in North Africa, which did set off a moral crisis of considerable proportions, is not fully comparable." The situation in North Africa was com- plicated by the presence of two rival French factions. One had sided with the Allied cause from the beginning, and the other, made up of erstwhile collaborationists, now proposed to leave the German camp. Since the former collaborationists, headed by Admiral Darlan, actually controlled the French military and administra- tive machinery in North Africa, they alone could render us immediate help, but de Gaulle had much the better daim to our support on the strength of his record. This posed a real dilemma for the Allied policymakers. In Italy, however, there was no such political rivalry. THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 115 The King and Badoglio_were not challenged or opposed by the majority of Italian antifascists. It is understand- able that the Allied leaders were reluctant to face an- other Darlan crisis, but if liaison had been established with Italian circles, they could have found out that rec- ognition of the royal regime would not have antagonized the Italian antifascists. -Had the Allied policymakers recognized the potential importance of cooperation with the Badoglio regime, they could have disarmed in ad- vance the inevitable attacks on the policy of recognition, not only on the grounds of military expediency, but also with political arguments based on the domestic situation in Italy. The fact is, however, that the Allied leadership had no high estimate of the military expediency of concerted action with the Badoglio regime. The North African situation had been quite different in this respect. There, the necessity of coming to terms with the people who controlled the local forces was imperious and unmistak- able. Whatever "hostility" had existed regarding the collaborationist Vichy regime, the "disarming" factor was stronger. Also, Allied emotions toward the two French factions were by- no means neatly polarized. De Gaulle, though committed to the struggle' against the Germans, had been a. singularly difficult and un- manageable ally for _Britain and the United States," whereas Vichy, though committed to collaboration with Germany, also had a record of quiet cooperation with the Allies. This complicated psychological situation, in addition to the imperative military considerations, facili- tated the "deal" with Darlan. The Italian surrender regime lacked the bargaining assets that the Darlan group possessed in Africa. Its past Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 116 FOUR CASE STUDIES record had been one of unmitigated hostility, and the contribution it promised did not seem indispensable. This resulted in the dominance of ."hostility" over "dis- arming." There was a complete emotional block on the Allied side regarding any rapprochement with Badoglio. The policy of unconditional surrender, applied ,to Italy, had been based on the premise that it would enable the Allies to preserve their moral integrity without sacri- ficing military expediency. Its actual result was the loss of both. The neglect of liaison and consultation im- paired the military conduct of the campaign without enabling the Allies to avoid entering into partnership with the royal regime. The aftermath has shown that neither damage was irreparable. The Italian campaign was eventually won, and the recognition of the royal regime did not prevent the advent of democracy in Italy. The problem was never expediency versus morality. The more expedient course was also the more moral one, whether we define morality in a broad general sense or in a narrow political sense. It is clear that military ex- pediency, in the sense of reaching a strategic goal with a minimum, of loss and destruction, has a high moral value in the general sense of according with the dictates of humanity. But the same conclusion emerges if we identify moral integrity with the promotion of democ- racy as against totalitarianism. The greater the amount of destruction imposed upon a society, the more difficult it is to establish a democratic regime in it. The long- range stability of Italian democracy is still menaced primarily by the impoverishment of Italian society, in which wartime destruction was a factor. The gradual transition from fascism has not inhibited the emergence of democracy. A full-fledged revolution would have THE ITALIAN SURRENDER 117 more thoroughly eradicated the "past," but it would also have been most unlikely to produce a democratic order. The position of cobelligerency finally reached in Italy was as expedient and moral as anypolicy could have been in the prevailing circumstances. What we have to regret is that the position was arrived at in a roundabout way; the policy of unconditional surrender first had to be scrapped before the Allies could proceed in a way consonant with the exigencies of the situation. CONCLUSIONS In one respect, the Italian surrender of 1.943 was analogous to the French surrender of 1940: in both cases, a subordinate coalition member decided to stop fighting at the side of a coalition leader who seemed headed for defeat. In nearly every other respect, however, the two surrenders were antithetical. The French surrender was a neat, professional job, transacted by seasoned practitioners of the political power game. It was consummated with a minimum of delay, with both sides showing remarkably good insight into the maximum they could obtain in view of the immediately prevailing distribution of strength. As against this, the initial handling of the problem of end- ing hostilities between the Allies and Italy was charac- terized on both sides by bad judgment, misinformation, and blundering. Yet, considered from a broader per- spective, the French surrender was a snare and delusion for both sides, whereas the Italian surrender was po- litically and historically justified. This was true beyond the immediate context of the war. Since the Allies were the final winners, Italy had to surrender in any case, whereas the French surrender was nullified by the final Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 118 FOUR CASE STUDIES outcome. But apart from that, restoring Italy's tradi- tional ties with the Atlantic powers was the only policy consonant with Italy's geographic and political position, whereas France's alignment with Germany against the Atlantic world had had no basis in French history. Relations between winner and loser developed in opposite directions in the two cases. Germany was will- ing to pay a political price for surrender, whereas the Allies adopted an unreasonably rigid and negative posi- tion in this respect. After surrender, however, relations between Italy and the Allies moved toward coalescence and harmony; Franco-German relations became increas- ingly uneasy and ambiguous. The Italian surrender also permits us to observe the actual working of the unconditional-surrender policy, to be discussed in more detail in Part Three. The demand for unconditional surrender as such did not prolong Italian belligerency, nor did it imply a really destructive attitude on the Allies' part. As a method of handling the terminal phase of the war, however, it was inept. The Allies' refusal to pay any political price for sur- render merely made the job of extricating Italy from the German dutches a more expensive one. Five THE GERMAN SURRENDER May 1945 _ THE STRATEGIC BACKGROUND The Allied grand strategy of attrition had achieved decisive "divergence long before Germany's strategic surrender on May 8, 1945. The fall of 1942, with El Alamein, the Allied landing in North Africa, and the Soviet encirclement of Stalingrad, may be considered the turning point iii the war. After these events, the trend went inexorably against Germany. The defeats of 1942, however, did not yet constitute final proof of "divergent attrition." Germany had not yet mobilized her resources on a total basis; her total effort began only in the spring of 1943, after the fall of Stalingrad. The armies lost in Africa and Russia were not irreplaceable. There was a chance of stabilizing the eastern front, and the bulk of the German fottes had not yet come into contact with the Allies in-the- West. It was by no means certain that the Allies would succeed in landing in force on the Continent. Until that happened, the war was essentially a one-front war, if we consider ground operations only. Although the air war impinged on Germany from two sides, she could hope to sustain a prolonged siege as long as she was subjected to pressure by land on only one front. Her situation took a critical turn only when the Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 120 FOUR CASE STUDIES Allies established a second land front in the west, thus setting up a drain upon German manpower and materiel resources that could only result in their total exhaustion within a foreseeable time. After the landing, or at least after the breakthrough at Avranches on July 30, 1944, it was no longer possible to restore equilibrium: victory, or even a strategic stalemate, was beyond hope. After Avranches, military operations could merely result in superfluous losses; strategic surrender was the only rational decision the military leadership could make. In terms of our theoretical analysis, then, Avranches marked the beginning of the "terminal stage" of the war. During such a stage the only meaningful use that a loser can make of his residual forces is to "disarm" the winner. If his possession of residual assets is, to make possible any bargaining, the loser must radically reorient his war policy. Germany, however, did not take this course after the breakthrough at Avranches. Given Hider's rigid views, the first step, "reorientation" of war policy, could only occur after a comp d'etat against the Hider regime. The celebrated plot of July 20, 1944, occurred after the Allied landing but before Avranches, and moreover it failed. After the loss of France, a second attempt at reorientation was no longer feasible. Hence, German operations during the terminal stage were simply carried along by the momentum built up during the preterminal period of the war. Besieged from all sides, Germany was forced to give up one line of defense after another in both east and west. It was only after the siege perim- eter had shrunk to encircle a tiny area in North Germany that the military leadership initiated strategic surrender. This surrender abridged the final stage only in the sense THE GERMAN SURRENDER 121 that there Was an orderly capitulation of residual forces instead of a chaotic and futile last battle inside the perim- eter. Wholesale capitulations of German forces had already occurred several days earlier in northern Italy and southern Germany. They formed part of the process of winding up hostilities and thus were "strategic" in essence if not in form. Germany's strategic surrender, then, was character- ized by a prolongation of the terminal stage until no further coherent operations were possible. It must be stressed, however, that this prolongation of the terminal stage was by no means accompanied by all-out resistance to the limit of the physically feasible. The postpone- ment of strategic surrender until the German "fOrtress" was stormed and occupied was due to several specific reasons, some of which we shall discuss in Part Three in analyzing unconditional surrender. This delay re- tarded the formal termination of hostilities, but actual resistance had collapsed in the west weeks before formal surrender. The abridgment of the terminal stage was somewhat greater than the date of the final surrender would indicate. We shall now take up in some detail several salient _.aspects..of the political process that culminated in the strategic surrender act of May THE PRECEDENT OF 1918 The problem of strategic surrender had already faced Germany it the end of World War I. The Allied offensive of August 1918 convinced the German mili- tary leadership that final defeat could no, longer be averted. From that moment on, the chief concern of General Ludendorff, the "strong man" who wielded Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81 01043R002ionn7nnrn Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 I22 FOUR CASE STUDIES decisive influence politically as well as militarily, was that the armistice offer should not be made too late. It was essential for Germany to conclude an armistice while her armed forces still remained cohesive. But time was pressing; any day could bring a catastrophe. Ludendorff said that "he felt like a gambler, and that a division might fail him anywhere at any time." Ludendorff argued for the utmost speed in the fol- lowing terms: The German Army is still strong enough to stand against its opponent for months to come, to achieve local successes and to exact new sacrifices from the Entente. But each day brings our opponent nearer his goal, and will make him less inclined to conclude with us a peace which is tolerable. Therefore, no time must be lost.2 Ludendorff, then, realized that Germany was stra- tegically defeated, and that assuming further losses would be unwarranted from the military point of view. Cutting losses, however, was not the chief consideration making him press for utmost speed in initiating armistice talks. Speed appeared to him essential mainly because the maximal political exploitation of Germany's last bargaining asset, the possession of a cohesive residual --foreeT depended-- on-it?Thc?idea-of_exploitin sidual asset for what it was worth was by no means un- sound, but Ludendorff expected too much from it. He believed that the enemy, even after consummating Ger- many's strategic defeat, could still be expected to con- dude a moderate, negotiated peace, if only armistice talks were started while Germany still possessed a co- hesive residual force. This was a serious misjudgment of the political bargaining situation between winner and loser during the terminal stage of total war. THE GERMAN SURRENDER I23 As our theoretical analysis has shown, complete vic- tory in total war implies that the winner will end hos- tilities only after establishing a monopoly of armed strength. In such a situation armistice talks can be con- ducted only on the principle of strategic surrender. A further implication is that the peace settlement will be essentially a dictated one: the loser, stripped of war- making capability, has no alternative but to accept the terms on which the winner insists. All the loser can do during the terminal stage is to obtain a political payment in return for the service he renders the winner by re- nouncing the use of his residual strength. Had Luden- dorff seen the situation in this light, he would have realized that in forcing the government to act quickly he was not giving it a last opportunity to condude a ne- gotiated peace but was merely pushing it into surrender. After the war, Ludendorff and the German nationalists claimed that Germany could have ended the war as an undefeated power, if there had been no revolutionary outbreaks in the hinterland before the armistice talks started. This theory was wholly unwarranted: mutiny and revolution were a consequence rather than a cause of defeat. But the legend of the "stab in the back" had considerable success in Germany, since it was flattering to-the-national- amoiw?propre. The circumstances in which World War I ended were such that neither the leadership nor the people at large came face to face with the problem of defeat in total war and its concomitant, strategic surrender. On the one hand, there were those who, like Ludendorff, admitted only two possibilities?victory for Germany or, at the worst, a negotiated peace. When surrender was imposed, it did not fit into their preconceived scheme, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50 -Yr 2013/06/27 ? C -RDP8 Declassified in Part- Sanitized C0 .y Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 I 2.4 FOUR CASE STUDIES' and hence they blamed it on foul play. On the other hand, there were those to whom war itself was an abomi- nation, so that its outcome did not matter to them; they were impatient to get on with revolutionary socialism, which would make an end of such horrors as militarism and war. Both groups refused to recogniie the 'reality of Germany's defeat or, indeed, that defeat is one of the eventualities that have to be faced in war. After the war, the mystique of a complete social renovation, with its gospel of nonviolence,' antimilita- rism, and antiauthoritarianism, flickered briefly and then died. There was no place for it in the postwar world. The totally disaffected were won over by the Commu- nists, who profited by the prestige of the victorious Rus- sian revolution, and were quick to develop their own brand of violence, militarism, and authoritarianism.. This was rejected by the vast majority of the German people. The nationalist denial of the reality of defeat fared much better. Not all Germans accepted the crude alibi of the "stab in the back," but the legend was believed or half-believed by many, and its appeal grew as memories of the war faded away. Hindenburg's election as Presi- -dentin-iviarch -*2.-5-manifested-t-he victory of the myth of an "undefeated" Germany. To be sure, the supporters of the Republic?Catho- lics, Social Democrats, and other moderate groups?did not accept that myth. But they could not combat it effectively, since they had no counterphildsophy. They had to compromise with the traditionalists who con- trolled the army and the presidency, just as the tradi- tionalists had to compromise with the representatives of republican legality, who were still indispensable in the THE GERMAN SURRENDER 12,5 making of coalition governments and had a firm control over the administration of Prussia. The existence of the Weimar Republic depended on this balance between a traditionalist and nationalist mystique, on the one hand, and democratic and republican legality, on the other. The balance was destroyed by the economic crisis of 1929-33 and the rise of Hider. NEGOTIATING FROM STRENGTH The refusal of the Germans to realize and digest defeat in World War I decisively influenced their think- ing about ending hostilities in World War II. There was, for example, the official Nazi doctrine that defeat and capitulation were impossible. But the anti-Nazi op- position, too, started from the premise that the only alternative to victory was a negotiated peace. The oppo- sition, however, rejected not only defeat but also victory. To them, victory was not only unlikely in view of the potential strength of the adversary, but unthinkable on moral grounds. Among those who regarded a Nazi victory with moral revulsion were General Beck, Ambassador Ulrich von Hassell, Carl Gordeler (the former mayor of Leip- zig), and their associates.' Early in the war, they des- perately soughTio esablish contact --with--British__(and_ American) circles, suggesting that they were ready to remove Hider and then to conclude a moderate peace.' Germany was to retain Hitler's "peaceful" conquests such as Austria and the Sudeten region; even the Polish Corridor was to remain in German possession; but the "new" Germany would observe international law and would be a trustworthy partner for the West. The first feelers of this type were put out in the period of the Declassified in Part - Sanitized Co.y AID. ase 5 - r 2013/06/27: I Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 124 FOUR CASE STUDIES and hence they blamed it on foul play. On the other hand, there were those to whom. war itself was an abomi- nation, so that its outcome did not matter to them; they were impatient to get on with revolutionary socialism, which would make an end of such horrors as militarism and war. Both groups refused to recognize the reality of Germany's defeat or, indeed, that defeat is one of the eventualities that have to be faced in war. After the war, the mystique of a complete social renovation, with its gospel of nonviolence, antimilita- rism, and antiauthoritarianism, flickered briefly and then died. There was no place for it in the postwar world. The totally disaffected were won over by the Commu- nists, who profited by the prestige of the victorious Rus- sian revolution, and were quick to develop their own brand of violence, militarism, and authoritarianism.. This was rejected by the vast majority of the German people. The nationalist denial of the reality of defeat fared much better. Not all Germans accepted the crude alibi of the "stab in the back," but the legend was believed or half-believed by many, and its appeal grew as memories of the war faded away. Hindenburg's election as Presi- dent in March 1925 manifested the victory of the myth of an uund-ef et-ed.? -Gernrany ? - - - To be sure, the supporters of the Republic?Catho- lics, Social Democrats, and other moderate groups?did not accept that myth. But they could not combat it effectively, since they had no counterphilosophy. They had to compromise with the traditionalists who con- trolled the army and the presidency, just as the tradi- tionalists had to compromise with the representatives of republican legality, who were still indispensable in the Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? THE GERMAN SURRENDER 125 making of coalition governments and had a firm control over the administration of Prussia. The existence of the Weimar Republic depended on this balance between a traditionalist and nationalist mystique, on the one hand, and democratic and republican legality, on the other. The balance was destroyed by the economic crisis of 1929-33 and the rise of Hider. NEGOTIATING FROM STRENGTH The refusal of the Germans to realize and digest defeat in World War I decisively influenced their think- ing about ending hostilities in World War II. There was, for example, the official Nazi doctrine that defeat and capitulation were impossible. But the anti-Nazi op- position, too, started from the premise that the only alternative to victory was a negotiated peace. The oppo- sition, however, rejected not only defeat but also victory. To them, victory was not only unlikely in view of the potential strength of the adversary, but unthinkable on moral grounds? Among those who regarded a Nazi victory with moral revulsion were General Beck, Ambassador Ulrich von Hassell, Carl Gordeler (the former mayor of Leip- zig), and their-associates.' Early in the war, they des- perately sought to establish contact with British (and American) circles, suggesting that they were ready to remove Hider and then to conclude a moderate peace.' Germany was to retain Hitler's "peaceful" conquests such as Austria :and. the Sudeten region; even the Polish Corridor was to remain in German possession; but the new Germany would observe international law and would be a tru-stworthy partner for the West. The first feelers of this type were put out in the period of the 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01(14:1Rnn91nnn7nnn A Declassified in Part- Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 126 FOUR CASE STUDIES phony war." Since no trial of strength had as yet taken place between Germany and the Anglo-French coalition, it is doubtful whether the Allies would have negotiated on such a basis, even if the opposition had succeeded in overthrowing Hitler. Neville Chamberlain, who knew about the ideas of the German opposition, expressed his interest in purely academic terms. More than a year later, after France had been knocked out of the war and Britain isolated, a similar offer was drafted by Carl GOrdeler and forwarded through Swiss channels to London. This draft, dated May 30, 1941, contained the following main peace terms: Germany was to keep Alsace-Lorraine, the Cor- ridor and Danzig, Austria, the Sudeten region, and Memel; all other territories overrun by the German army were to be evacuated and returned to their prewar status; Germany was to be given colonies under an in- ternational mandate system.* At the time this draft was written, Hitler's position seemed impregnable. He controlled Europe from the North Cape to the Aegean and the Pyrenees, and he was knocking at the gates of Suez. In this situation, Garde- ler's proposals were moderate enough.' But the war soon took a fateful turn for Germany with the invasion of Russia and the attack on Pearl Harbor, which ended Britain's isolation. A succession of defeats followed the string of early victories, but the opposition's peace plat- form remained substantially the same. A second peace draft by Gordeler, written in the summer or fall of 1943 (but presumably never trans- mitted to the West), has been preserved. Its terms hardly differ from those of the first. Austria, the THE GERMAN SURRENDER 127 Sudeten region, and the Polish Corridor are still to re- main German, and even South Tyrol is to be reannexed; the only major differences are that colonial demands are dropped and Alsace-Lorraine is to be either divided along linguistic lines or made independent.' It appears strange that, at a time when Germany was dearly losing the war. Gardeler still considered it pos- sible that the Allies would accept a "Greater Germany." The explanation for this lies partly in the Great German mystique that gripped Gordeler and his generation. To these Germans, it was axiomatic that no German-speak- ing population could remain outside the national domain. But Gordeler's terms are further explained by the fact that he was convinced that the Reich's political bargain- ing position was still strong enough, despite looming strategic defeat, to ensure acceptance of his program by the Allies. Moreover, a new factor had now gained prominence in the thinking of the opposition: they be- lieved that the threat of massed Soviet legions in the east would bring it home to the Western Allies that they needed Germany as a bulwark against Russian and com- munist expansion.' Now that military strength alone no longer afforded _Germany a strong bargaining position, Gordeler and his group put their hopes in the latent tension between Russia and the West. The logic of the situation made it impossible for the Western powers to insist on Germany's "unconditional surrender," once Hitler was removed. If Germany could not expect a negotiated peace on the basis of mili- tary strength alone, she could still reach the same ob- jective as a result of the latent tension within the Allied camp. But this would be possible only if Hitler were Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50 -Yr 2013/06/27: - P8 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 128 FOUR CASE STUDIES removed quickly and peace overtures made while the German military position was still outwardly strong. After Stalingrad, G8rdeler circulated a memoran- dum among the German generals whose support he sought to win for his plans. The main argument of this paper follows Ludendorff's thesis that when victory appears impossible, residual military strength must be used to obtain a negotiated peace, but Got-deler thought that Ludendorff erred in waiting too long. This mistake must not be repeated. Referring to the deterioration of the war situation, Gordeler wrote: These developments show a fateful parallel with the course of events from the early summer of 1918 onwards. At that time, responsible circles in Germany were slow to take this trend of developments into account. . . . No rationaliza- tions, no moral alibis [this refers to the "stab in the back" theory, which Gordeler discusses in a pcsage omitted here], can relieve a responsible leadership of the duty to draw the conclusions while there is still time. The example of 1918 teaches us what one must do to avoid missing the right mo- ment. When a conscientious weighing of the facts leads to the conclusion that the war can no longer be won and that a more favorable situation for negotiations can no longer be brought about, then political action must take the place of military effort. If the existing political leadership has blocked all avenues in this direction, it must obviously yield its place.? If peace were proposed immediately, Gordeler assured the generals, Germany could count on retaining "the frontiers of 1914, enlarged by the addition of Austria and the Sudeten region," on recovering South Tyrol, and even on exercising hegemony on the Continent. Only colonies could no longer be bargained for." In a passionate letter of July 25, 1943, Gardeler implored Field Marshal von Kluge to strike against Hitler: THE GERMAN SURRENDER 129 'Obviously the chances [for a favorable peace] are more diffi- cult to realize .now than they were a year ago. They can be exploited only if the politician has sufficient time to act, that is, if he is not confronted again, as in 1918, with a sudden military declaration of "no further action possible." But the chances were definitely not lost. I have ascertained anew, and assume responsibility for this, that there is still a possibility of concluding a favorable peace, if we Germans render ourselves capable of entering into ne- gotiations.n For the circle around Beck and GOrdeler, the action for peace could not start early enough if Germany was to negotiate from strength. But they were unable to enlist the active support of the only group that was strong enough to move against Hitler?the active mili- tary leadership. Disaffected as the German generals mostly were, they simply could not bring themselves at this early stage to do anything that would diminish Ger- many's chances of military success." For the old-line generals, action-- against the political leadership became possible only when they had no doubt that the continu- ation of the war could only lead to strategic defeat. In September 1943, Field Marshal, von Kluge, who had formerly been reluctant to join the conspiracy against Hitler, came around to this point of view. The matter was discussed at a meeting in Berlin between Beck,,Gordeler,.and the Marshal. The British, Gordeler argued, would not insist on destroying Germany's might; they must be aware of the necessity of stopping Russian expansion. Kluge agreed: "It is high time," he said, "to act-so as to exploit the military situation. . . . If an understanding is reached with the Anglo- Saxons, it is still possible to stabilize the eastern front Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070001 4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 130. FOUR CASE STUDIES east of the Polish borders and to make it impregnable." In answer to Gordeler's suggestion that the generals persuade Hider to resign, Kluge argued in favor of assassinating the Fiihrer. This conversation, however, had no practical conse- quences. Shordy after his return to the eastern front, Kluge had an automobile accident that immobilized him for four months. A number of attempts on Hider's life were made during this time, but none of them suc- ceeded." Readiness for action also crystallized among the mil- itary chiefs on the western front during the weeks .pre- ceding the Allied landing in Normandy. The landing, as the generals recognized, would lead to a two-front war; and in such a war Germany could only lose. To forestall this, the generals worked out a program for selective capitulation in the West only. The details of this venture were described by Gen- eral Speidel, Field Marshal Rommel's chief of staff." According to Speidel, in May 1944. Rommel and Gen- erals von Stillpnagel and von Falkenhausen held a series of conferences at Rommel's headquarters. A plan was worked out, outlining the following course of action: In the West: Definition of the premises under which an armistice could be concluded with Generals Eisenhower and Montgomery without participation by Hider. Marshal Rom- mel thought of sending as his negotiators General K. H. von Stiilpnagel, General Baron Leo Geyr von Schweppenburg, Lt.- Gen. Hans Speidel, Lt.-Gen. Count Gerd von Schwerin, Vice- Admiral Friedrich Ruge, and Lt.-Col. Casar von Hofacker. The bases foreseen for negotiating an armistice were: German evacuation of the occupied western territories and withdrawal behind the Westwall. Surrender of the adminis- tration of the occupied territories to the Allies. Immediate THE GERMAN SURRENDER 131 suspension of the 41lied bombing of Germany. Armistice, not unconditional surrender, followed by negotiations for peace to bring about order:and prevent chaos. Field Marshal Rom- mel expected that the Allies would give them such an oppor- tunity. Appeal to the German people from all radio stations in the Western Command, frankly revealing the true political and military situation and its causes, and describing Hitler's criminal conduct of State affairs. Informing the troops of the measures necessary to avert a catastrophe. The Home Front: Arrest of Hider for trial before a German court by the resistance forces in the High Command of the Army, or rather by Panzer forces to be brought up for this purpose. . . . In the East: Continuation of the fight. Holding a short- ened line between the mouth of the Danube, the Carpathian mountains, Lemberg, the Vistula, and the Memel. Immediate evacuation of Courland (Lithuania) and other "fortresses.' The essential elements of this plan closely paralleled Gordeler's conception. Here, too, the basic idea was that, once Germany got rid of Hider, the Allies would be ready to grant her favorable terms and would wel- come active German assistance against the communist peril. On the method to be followed, too, the generals adhered to the Ludendorff-GOrdeler line. An armistice was to be proposed before the invasion began. "For all negotiations," Speidel says, "a firm western front was a prerequisite. The stability of the western front was, therefore, our constant concern."" The generals' plan eventua lly came to nothing; there is no evidence that they even attempted to contact General Eisenhower, and they did nothing to arrest and try Hider. All Roinmel did was to send an "ultimative" memorandum to Hitler on July 15, calling on him to "draw the conclusions" from the fact that the war was lost." Kluge was now in the West, having succeeded Rundstedt as commander in chief. As we have seen, he Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 132 FOUR CASE STUDIES had actively joined the conspiracy a few months earlier. Summoned by the conspirators to act, he declined, saying that he was not sure whether his subordinates would obey him." SELECTIVE SURRENDER The military catastrophes of the summer of 1944. (the Allied breakthrough in France and the simultane- ous rupture of the eastern front in Poland) had a shat- tering effect on the opposition. They destroyed the basis of Gordeler's conception, negotiation from strength. In terms of his theory, it was too late to act. On July 12 Beck told one of the conspirators, Gisevius, that he thought the right moment for attacking Hitler had been missed. Germany's total occupation could no longer be prevented." Before these military disasters it had been hard for the Beck-Gordeler circle to recognize that hostilities could only be ended on the basis of surrender. This had been clear to Gisevius since long before mid-1944: he did not believe that the Allied demand for "uncondi- tional surrender" could be disregarded. For him, then, the only possibility was to make the surrender as "selec- tive" as possible, by sucking the Allies into German ter- ritory before the Russians entered." In the spring of 1944, Beck and Gordeler finally came around to the same position. They tried to find out through Gisevius, who had contacts with Allen W. Dulles in Switzerland, whether the Americans would accept unilateral surrender from an anti-Nazi German government." The con- spirators may have thought that the Allies' attitude toward Germany would change after a new German gov- ernment offered capitulation to them. They contem- - ------- ------, THE GERMAN SURRENDER 133 plated making an offer of active military help to the Allies, including, assistance for the landing of parachute troops in Germany. This is how Ritter sums up the situa- tion: It is dear that th?e.leaders of the opposition were now [spring, 1944] virtually ready to accept the formula of "unconditional surrender" vis-?is the Western powers, confident, to be sure, that sober political reason would overcome the stark will to destruction in the latter's camp and that the common interest in preserving Weiterzi civilization would assert itself and save the German state from total destruction. They evidently had in mind, not an armistice with a shortened western front line . . . but a kind of merger of German and Anglo-Saxon units, or at least immediate occupation of Germany from the west, before the Red armies had overrun Poland and reached the Reich's borders. Peace negotiations were then to follow be- tween victors and vanquished, but with a new German govern- ment to whom the victors would owe a substantial shortening of the final phase of hostilities, and whom they had pledged to recognize. 22 In the end, then, the German opposition did work out a terminal strategy of "disarming" the winner. But the strategy could not be applied because of the failure of the coup against Hitler. Even if the coup had been successful, it is uncertain how much the strategy of "dis- arming" would have achieved. The Allies?were unwill- ing to recognize any latent conflict of interests with Soy* Russia. Their reaction to the German opposition's earlier appeals, appeals that had made much of the danger of bolshevization,. had been completely negative. - AN EASTERN SOLUTION? Because of this unyielding stand of the Western Allies, the idea of offering selective surrender to Soviet Russia instead emerged in the circles of the German op- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 134 FOUR CASE STUDIES position. Adam von Trott zu Solz warned Allen Dulles that the German opposition, if rebuffed by the West, would seek to establish contacts with Russia." Gisevius judged that part of the opposition movement was East- ern- rather than Western-oriented: he considered Stauf- fenberg, Trott, and some others to be exponents of the pro-Soviet wing." According to Rothfels, however, neither Stauffenberg nor Trott had in mind a rapproche- ment with Soviet Russia. Rather, they were thinking about a natural solidarity between oppressed Germans and Russians, united in a common struggle against their totalitarian masters (and also against the Western bour- geoisie)." On a more practical basis, some of the conservative members of the opposition, such as Gordeler and Has- sell, weighed the possibility of playing off Russia against her Western partner. In the autumn of 1943, when Ribbentrop's emissary, Peter Kleist, was having talks with Soviet agents on Russian peace feelers," Gordeler, Hassell, and Schulenburg, the former German ambassa- dor in Moscow, had a conference in Berlin, where the possibility of negotiating with Stalin was discussed." Schulenburg said that the ties between Soviet Russia and the West were not insoluble, and that Stalin was a cold ca lculntorwh would decide on. the basis of what was offered him. In the end, however, the conspirators re- jected the Russian alternative. For one thing, they did not believe in the possibility of permanent cooperation with the Communists." For another, their orientation was basica Hy pro-Western. In the eyes of the Social Democratic members of the conspiracy, nothing but a pro-Western orientation was acceptable. According to Allen Dulles, THE GERMAN SURRENDER 133 Around'Christmas of 1942, Carlo Mierendorff, Theodor'Hati= bach and Emil Henk, Social Democrats of long standing and members of the Kreisau circle ,met at a spa in the Bavarian mountains. . . . According to' Emil Henk, these Social Demo- crats decided to influence their felloW.conspiratori to-Poapone Hitler's assassination until the American and British armies had established themselves:on the Continent and, at least, could compete with the East for the domination of Germany. Mie- rendorlif was delegated to persuade Lenschner[a Social Demo- crat], and Moltke was -chOSen to talk the. matter Over with Beck [formerly Chief of the ,General Staff]. Leuschner a- greed, though he saw the danger of delay. . . Beck's re- action is not known, but since an attempt was made on the life of the Fiihrer early in 1943, it seems' likely that he aid Giirdeler favored getting rid of Hitler andletting the chips fall where they may." THE DILEMMA OF TIMING Looking back on the sequence of events that culmi- nated in the ill-fated coup of July 2.01 1944, with its frightful sequel of repression that wiped out virtually the entire group of conspirators, we have to conclude that the original platform of the conspiracy, peace without victors and vanquished, had very little chance of succesS". When the Reich was winning, it was too early to strike: the old-line soldiers, as well as the bulk of the people) would havebeen horrified at the idea of depriving the Reich of a possible victory -because the regime was morally-obj ectionable:?For?these_people,-action -to-stop _ the war was thinkable only when there could be no doubt that further Military actioti' Could-not Ipi-eYent strategic defeat. Moving in this.direction'while thereaS Stillthe slightest chance- of establishing military equilibrium could only expose the antiwar group to charges of high treason. But on-the other hand, if Germany waited until her last chance of averting defeat tvaS gone, it _ Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 136 FOUR CASE STUDIES no longer possible to bargain for moderate .peace terms, and the opposition would be saddled with the odium of having obtained a destructive peace. The opposition tried- various methods to escape this dilemma. The Gordeler-Beck group sought originally to obtain assurances from the Allies that favorable peace terms would be granted to a new German government. Had they been given such assurances, this would have diminished the political risks of turning against the home government in mid-war. But after 1941, the entire na- ture of the war changed: it became so big that it could be waged only in total fashion, with victory as the only pos- sible objective. One of the go-betweens through whom Gordeler maintained some liaison with British cirdes, the Swedish banker Jakob Wallenberg, repeatedly told him that it was futile to insist on coming to terms with the Allies before attempting a coup. The only possible course of action was to go ahead and then see how the Allies would act." An alternative course of action was to argue that in the judgment of the military experts the war was already lost. The Kluge-Rommel combination of 1943-44 was based on this premise. The dissident generals of the western front thought of acting on Clausewitz's advice to avoid a battle that one was certain to lose. But the psychological situation, as Kluge discovered, did not per- mit such a rational procedure: the army was saturated with Nazi elements who put Hitler's "intuition" above sober military judgment. One could not argue, let alone act, on the premise of defeat until it was an inescapable fact. The timing of the coup, it seems, was as bad as it could have been. Had the conspirators launched a suc- cessful coup before the landing, they would have been THE GERMAN SURRENDER 137 more vulnerable to charges of a "stab in the back," but their success might have had a considerable "disarming" effect on the Allies. Had the coup been postponed until after the breakthrough at Avranches, the opposition's bargaining position with the Allies would have been very weak and an armistice could have been negotiated only on the basis of unconditional surrender, but at least it would have been dear to the army and the people that the war was already irretrievably lost. THE FINAL SURRENDERS Selective Resistance Hitler's military orders during the last stage of the war monotonously repeated the same slogan: no retreat, no surrender, fight to the last man from fixed positions. This was extremely galling to the army leaders, whom it deprived of all freedom of movement. Runcistedt's chief of staff described his superior's state of mind in the following terms: We have seen that Rundstedt, the oldest officer in the Army, by no means possessed freedom of action; nor could he have managed to gain it. Everyone who knew him knows how much suffering this ca- used him, how it robbed him of rest and sleep to have to stand by in impotent rage while blunder was piled on blunder, while our last powers of aggressive action were wasted in an offensive with the wrong objective. He often trembled with emotion when his proposals, carefully thought out and based on long experience, were turned down by the OKW and he was forced into impracticable and damag- ing action." Rundstedtis?state of mind was far from unique. In- deed all generals of the old school shared it. Relations between Hider_and the German professional military leaders had never been good. Throughout the war, Hit- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 138 FOUR CASE STUDIES ler had inskted not only on laying down the lines of Germany's grand strategy but also on prescribing opera- tional and even tactical details. This created a good deal of tension even while Germany's military situation was favorable and relations between Hitler and the military chiefs were outwardly correct." After the attempt on Hidees life on July 20) I9447in which a number of high officers were implicated, Hitler's hatred of the profes- sional military erupted with destructive fury. From then on, his attitude, even toward those who had not been in- volved in the plot, was one of contempt and distrust; all were incompetent, and potential traitors to boot. As Germany's strength was ebbing away and enor- mously superior forces were hammering at the Wehr- macht from two sides, the military leaders found them- selves in an unbearable situation. Hitler peremptorily ordered them to carry out impossible operations with none-rictent forces. To remonstrate was useless, if not suicidal. All that the mortally wounded army could do was to fight on against impossible odds. Even when the defense lines of the Reich itself were breathed in east and. west ( January 1945), Hitler would not recognize that the time had come to liquidate military operations. The High Comm2nd's orders to hold the line at all costs made no distinction between the eastern and west- ern fronts, and until the end of March the pattern of resist-Pnre was SimilPr in east and west. After the begin- ning of April, however, the picture changed. The Allies' advance from the west into southern and central Ger- mpny became a walkover, while the battered German forces continued their all-out effort to stem the advance of the Russian forces from the east and southeast. The following excerpts from the U.S. Army's offi- THE GERMAN'SURRENDER 139 cial history of the European theater thrcitv: light on what happened on the -western front: ' The campaign from i April until' the end of the war is likely to be cited frequently in the' future because it is replete with perfect "book" solutions td military problems. It was possible in most, cases for commanders to set missions for their forces, allot troops and supplies, and know that their phase lines would. be reached. Only when objectives were taken far be- fore the hour chosen were the' timetables upset By its very nature,, therefore, the great pursuit across central Germany may mislead the student who attempts to draw lessons of value for future campaigns. Allied superiority in quality of troops, mobility, air power, materiel, and morale was such that only a duplication of the deterioration of enemy forces such as that which existed in April, 1945 would again make possible the type of slashing attack that developed. . . . The enemy fell apart but waited to be overrun. A Ger- man high command virtually ceased to exist and even regimen- tal headquarters had difficulty in knowing the dispositions of their troops or the situation on their flanks. In those instances where unit commanders still received Hitler's messages to hold their positions, they tended to ignore them as having little re- lationship to the realities of their situation. Expedients such as the calling up of V olkssturm units proved futile. These last hopes of Hitler's army readily laid down their arms except in a few cases where their resistance was stiffened by SS ele- ments. And the general public, which might have furnished cadres for guerrilla warfare proved uninterested in partisan activities. Near the war's end, civilians in many cities sent word that they were ready to surrender and asked that bloodless-en--- tries be made into their towns. . . . In the eighteen dais required to close and. destroy the Ruhr Pocket the Allied forces north and south of that area roared on to the Elbe, often against no opposition. . . . Apparently feeling that they could not stem the tide, the Germans in most sectors made a half-hearted resistance and then merely waited until the flood rolled over them." During the same period the situation on the eastern front developed along different lines. The Russians Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 140 FOUR CASE STUDIES massed strong forces between the Baltic and the lower Neisse for a final breakthrough. On April is near Kiistrin they began to attack the German Ninth Army, which they hopelessly outnumbered and outmatched in heavy equipment. But the defenders, according to a German war historian, "spent their last ounce of strength to stop the assault west of the Oder." It took the Rus- sians three days to complete their breakthrough. Fur- ther south, on the lower Neisse, Konev attacked on April 16; he achieved his breakthrough in one day and moved on to envelop the desperately fighting Ninth Army from the rear. In the north, the German Third Panzer Army, anchored on the lower Oder, was attacked by Marshal Rokossovski's troops on April 2 I . No break- through was achieved for several days." How can we explain the contrast in German military behavior between the western and eastern fronts? For one thing, the discrepancy in strength between the Ger- man forces and their opponents was far greater in the west. There the Allies had an abundance of every- thing?fresh troops, weapons, transport, motor fuel, air support. The Russian forces were exhausted from the grinding offensives and forced marches of the preceding months; their air arm was far weaker than that of the ?western Allies. But in addition to this, a psychological factor played a significant part. Russian penetration ap- peared as the supreme disaster to all Germans, soldiers and civilians alike. Also, whereas at the end German soldiers welcomed rather than feared Allied captivity, they dreaded being taken prisoner by the Russians. As Field Marshal Kesselring put it, "The German front- line fighter, who was always fearless as long as he had weapons in his hands, literally trembled at the thought of falling into Russian captivity."" THE GERMAN SURRENDER 141 It was pointless for Germany to continue military operations once her strategic defeat had been consum- mated. From a purely military point of view, holding actions in east and west were equally irrational. More- over, it was impossible for Germany to trade the aban- donment of last-ditch resistance for political concessions that would make her surrender something less than un- conditional. Yet Hitler's orders forced the military to continue resietance as long as the German command structure remained intact. When this structure began to disintegrate in April, military resistance became increas- ing a matter of the soldiers' and officers' attitudes toward the enemy. Stopping the Russians became a blind, des- perate reflex action, imposed by the terrifying image of Russian control. The Germans' image of the Western Allies was not terrifying and hence did not generate such reflexes. This distinction in the minds of Germans mani- fested itself impressively in civilian behavior. In the west, German civilians begged their military defenders to let the Allies take their towns without resistance. In the east, they fled en masse before the approaching Russians. These civilian attitudes influenced local commanders and contributed to the contrast between eastern and western patterns of resistance. Furthermore, during the terminal stage the highest German officers in the west, the theater and army group commanders, adopted a practice for which there was no parallel in the east: they initiated the liquidation of hos- tilities, mostly by capitulation agreements. Piecemeal Surrenders The first large German force to wind up resistance en masse was Army Group B, commanded by Field Mar- shal Model. This group, with a total strength of over Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 ?42 FOUR OASE'SruDIES 300,000 men,' was located in the Ruhr region; Germany's industrial heart. A double envelopment by Allied forces resulted in the encirclement 'of Army Group B on April -I, 1945. The German commander, intent on pin- ning down' large Allied forces as long as possible, refused to capitulate, but he offered feeble resistance. On April 14, the American Ninth Army cut the Ruhr pocket in two. The' German High Command ordered Army Group B to break out of the pocket, but this was dearly impracticable in view of the military situation. What followed is described in the official United States Army history: With defeat obviously a few days or hours away, the Germans adopted a novel procedure to avoid formal capitulation. On the morning of 17 April, they announced the dissolution of Army Group B. The extremely young and the very old soldiers were dismissed from the service and told to return home. The remaining officers and men were told they could- stay to be overrun and then surrender, could try to make their way home in uniform or civilian clothes, and without weapons or try to break through to another front. Field Marshal Model thus did not have to take responsibility for a surrender. He disap- peared from the scene shortly thereafter and no trace of him was subsequently found, although members of his staff testi- Red that he committed suicide. Even before these events, however, Field Marshal Kesselring, theater commander in Italy, had initiated formal capitulation talks with the Allies. The account he gives of this action in his memoirs shows that he found a way to reconcile the principle of unwavering loyalty to the Fiihrer with the military expediency of capitulat- ing when the situation demanded it. Capitulation, he says, is primarily in the domain of the political decision maker. No army leader has the right to initiate the ter- mination of hostilities as long as he has forces capable of THE. GERMAN SURRENDER 143 fighting. On the other hand, he, Kesselring, was fully justified in authorizing his subordinate, SS General Wolff, to initiate capitulation talks with American rep- resentatives in Switzerland in the autumn of 1944 with- out informing the OKW (but reporting the, step to Hitler after it was made). This had to be done, Kessel- ring says, since he came to the conclusion that "the war had to be terminated through diplomatic and political channels." Wolff's negotiations were not meant to initi- ate the surrender of Kesselring's front sector; nothing so crude as that. -They constituted "help for the political leadership in getting into a negotiatory situation."" , By the end of April, 1945, Wolff's negotiations were concluded, and on the 28th Kesselring, now commander in chief in the West, was summoned by his former sub- ordinates to Innsbruck in order to approve the agree- ments made. At a conference in the house of Gauleiter Hofer of Tyrol, General von Vietinghoff, commander in chief in the Southwest, and Ambassador Rahn put the question of surrender to Kesselring. Wolff himself could not attend: he had been detained by partisans. Vieting- hoff apparently dared not tell the Marshal that the agreements had already been initialed and that the ques- tion of capitulation was no longer open; he argued merely that capitulation was necessary. Kesselring, how- ever, not being fully informed about the situation, for- bade the capitulation. This led to tragicomic complica- tions. Kesselring- relieved Vietinghoff and his chief of staff of their command and ordered their arrest; the deposed officers in their turn arrested their successors. Finally, Kesselring restored Vietinghoff to his position and authorized the signing of the capitulation agreement to take effect on May 2, 1945." Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 144 FOUR CASE STUDIES Further piecemeal surrenders on the southern front followed during the next few days. General Schulz, commander of Army Group G, sent General FOrtsch to Munich for capitulation talks with Generals Devers, Patch, and Haislip. An instrument of surrender was signed on May 5, to take effect the next day." Also on the 5th, General Brandenberger surrendered his Nine- teenth Army at Innsbruck." Nothing resembling these piecemeal surrenders oc- curred where the German forces faced Russians. On the contrary, as we shall see, a German army continued to fight in Czechoslovakia even after the official surrender of all German forces on May 7. Efforts of Nazi Leaders to Surrender Hitler reportedly told Rommel some time before February-, 1944: "The war is lost; nobody will conclude Peace with Yet he ruled out the possibility of capitulation. He adopted the position that the German people, having suirered defeat, no longer had the right to exist. The only alternative to complete victory was complete annihilation. In his last public speech, on November 8, 1943, Hitler expressed this idea quite dearly. Accordingly, when the enemy entered German terri- tory, Hitler ordered the total destruction of all installa- tions that might fall into enemy hands. Hitler's Min- ister of Supplies, Albert Speer, challenged this order. Hitler thereupon summoned him (March 18, 1945) and told him: If the war is to be lost, the nation also will perish. This fate is inevitable. There is no need to consider the basis even of a most primitive existence any longer. On the contrary, it is THE GERMAN SURRENDER 145 better to destroy even that, and to destroy it ourselves. The. nation has proved itself weak, and the future belongs solely to the stronger Eastern nation.42 Now, it was characteristic of the last stage of the war that practically nobody in Germany thought either of putting into effect Hitler's peremptory order of national suicide or of removing him from authority. The repres- sion after the July 20 coup left the field to the Nazis and their docile instruments. These people would never have thought-of openly disobeying the Fithrer, still less of combating or killing him. Almost to a man, how- ever, they parted company with Hitler on the latter's policy of national self-destruction. They chose survival. Speer himself quietly sabotaged Hitler's scorched-earth order. Others, closer to the center of power, took on themselves the responsibility for preparing for surrender behind Hitler's back. On April 2) SS General Schellenberg, a member of Hinunler's staff, asked Count Folke Bernadotte, head of the Swedish Red Cross, who was then in Germany in connection with matters concerning Scandinavian pris- oners of war, whether he would transmit an offer of capitulation to General Eisenhower. Count Bernadotte was unable to act on this offer because Schellenberg lacked the necessary authorizations. Later, on April 23, Himmler himself_met Count Bernadotte at the Swedish consulate at Liibeck. He made an offer of capitulation on the western front only.. The offer was transmitted by diplomatic channels to Prime Minister Churchill, who in turn relayed it to Pres- ident Truman. The President rejected the offer-on the grounds that only unconditional surrender on all fronts simultaneously was acceptable." Himmler's independent move for capitulation was Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 146 FOUR CASE STUDIES facilitated by the fact that Hitler had retired into the bunker beneath the Reich chancellery in Berlin,?ivhence he could not effectively supervise the dispersed Nazi chiefs. GOring, who left Berlin on April 20 for the Ober- salzberg near Berchtesgaden, assumed full governmental powers on the 23rd as Hitler's designated successor. He apparently thought that Hitler himself, in a message conveyed by word of mouth, had expressly authorized this step and empowered him to liquidate the war. But when Goring demanded confirmation of his new status by radio, Hitler exploded and ordered his arrest as a traitor." The Ddnitz Regime and Global Surrender Germany's global surrender on all fronts was con- summated on the basis of Nazi legality. Before com- mitting suicide on April 303 Hider appointed as his suc- cessor Admiral DOnitz, the head of the navy. Receiving news of his appointment on the day of Hitler's death, DOnitz, ignorant of the Fiihrer's suicide, replied by tele- gram, pledging his unconditional loyalty and promising to continue the war "to an end worthy of the unique, heroic struggle of the German people."" On May I, having been officially informed of Hider's death, DOnitz addressed by radio a solemn proclamation to the German people. Hitler had "fallen," "fighting at the head of his troops." DOnitz, now commander in chief of all branches of the Wehrmacht, would "continue the strug- gle against 'Bolshevism until the fighting troops and the hundreds of thousands of families in Eastern Germany have been preserved from destruction." Against the British and Americans, he said, he "must" wage war "as long as they hinder me in the prosecution of the fight THE GERMAN SURRENDER 147 against Bolshevism." The people, then, had to render DOnitz "unconditional service." "He who now shirks his duty . ? . is a coward and traitor?"' The language used by Donitz dearly indicates that he, too, had mastered the secret of reconciling impeccable Nazi orthodoxy with a strong resolution to avoid self- immolation. In his proclamation he spoke only of con- tinuing the struggle, but the qualifying clauses he added dearly indicated his real objective: selective surrender to the West. One of Diinitz's aides, Walter Liidde-Neurath, has written an eyewitness account of the Admiral's one-week regime." It appears that, on taking office, DOnitz and his associates were thinking about the possibility of ending resistance without a formal act of capitulation. Should one offer surrender or just cease fighting? According to Didde-Neurath, this question gave rise to "grave con- flicts of conscience." Both unconditional surrender and the cessation of combat without a formal agreement would have the same practical consequences; they would be "frightful." But was it not possible to avoid giving our assent to what would happen? Was it not our duty to raise a last solemn and empha- tic protest against destiny? Had we not cried "Never!" time and again, sometimes with passionate conviction? . . . What did a few moi-e weeks, some additional sacrifices, matter? Would History not render a magnificent and consoling homage ?a homage which ultimately would bear fruit?to our refusal to capitulate? . . . Would the signing ?the act of surrender not be interpreted as a manifestation of weakness, of personal cowardice? Would the names of the signatories?as had al- ready happened once before?not be forever dishonored in Ger- man history? 48 These questions greatly worried DOnitz; he reached his decision only after a "painful struggle." Lildcle- - Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R00210oo7Qnrn 4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 148 FOUR CASE STUDIES Neurath's account of the factors that affected this deci- sion is psychologically revealing. Donitz, he says, origi- nally thought of seeking death in action. He never thought of suicide; that would have been tantamount to an admission of guilt. Had the end of the war still found him at the head of the navy, he would have managed to die in battle, ordering the fleet to surrender but person- ally sailing against the enemy and firing away until he was killed, thus expiating the "crime" of surrender. But when he acquired "the right and freedom to decide on general capitulation," he gave up the idea. For then "personal" considerations could no longer interfere with the performance of his duty." Apparently, then, under the code to which Donitz subscribed, offering surrender, or even the mere thought of it, was a fault for which death alone could atone. But this principle applied only to subordinates. It was not necessary for the supreme leader to propitiate history by death, even when he de- cided that capitulation was necessary. The leader could determine with impunity that certain national objectives could best be attained by capitulation; in subordinates, such thoughts were criminal. For Donitz, the problem was to achieve the painful ascent from the underling's to the leader's mentality. When he finally managed it, he also discovered some national objectives to which explicit capitulation (but capitulation to the West only) was relevant. To be sure, the grand objective, that of splitting the enemy coalition, was unattainable: the Allies would never stand by to let him combat Bolshevism, no matter how hard he fought them. But selective capitulation still offered a tangible advantage. It made it possible for the German soldiers facing the Russians and for the civilians fleeing from ter- THE GERMAN SURRENDER 149 ritories occupied or threatened by Russian troops to readh a haven behind the screen of the line of demarcation. This salvaging action could be carried on only if hostili- ties were terminated along the Anglo-American front but not on the Russian front, so that a continuous stream of fugitives could pass across the stabilized Anglo- American lines. Hence, DEinitz hastened to end hostili- ties with the West by explicit surrender before weapons had to be laid down on the Russian front too. With this in mind, D8nitz fully approved Kessel- ring's capitulation talks with the Americans in the south- ern theater. The U.S. Army history has summed up the Admiral's viewpoint as follows: Demitz said he felt the Germans should be pleased every time U.S. and British forces, rather than Soviet forces, occupied a part of Germany. He agreed that the over-all situation de- manded capitulation on all fronts, but held that the Germans should not consider it at the moment since it would mean de- livering most of the forces east of the Elbe to the Russians." On May 2, Donitz took the initiative for the surren- der en bloc of the German forces facing Field Marshal Montgomery's group of armies in northwestern Ger- many. Although this was a large-scale capitulation, it was still part of a piecemeal pattern. In keeping with his basic idea of-saving as many German troops as pos- sible from Russian captivity, Donitz wanted to yield to Montgomery a-number of German units then fighting the Russians east of the Elbe. Montgomery dedined this offer and also refused to grant authorization for civilian refugees to cross the Allied lines. He agreed, however, that German soldiers of any unit would be ac- cepted as prisoners of war if they surrendered individu- ally. Otherwise, the surrender was to be unconditional." Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81 01043R002ionn7nnm Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 150 FOUR CASE STUDIES Ail weapons, including naval ones, were to be handed over in serviceable condition. Characteristically, General Jodi, chief of staff of the High Command, rebelled against this last provision: it was incompatible with German "honor." He urged the immediate destruction of all equipment. But Schwerin von Krosigk, Donitz's foreign minister, counseled against the destruction of weapons, arguing that it would cause the negotiations to collapse, invite reprisals, and lead to the dosing of the escape routes to the west." In Liidde- Neurath's words: "With heavy heart, D8nitz decided to accept this condition as well, realizing fully that he alone would bear the responsibility for it before history, and that no subordinate who, contrary to military tradition, surrendered his arms intact would incur any blame."" On May 4 the agreement for capitulation in the northwest was signed, and it took effect the next day. It then became necessary to start talks with General Eisen- hower about the surrender of the entire Wehrmacht. Donitz tried at first to make the surrender selective, af- fecting only the troops facing the Western Allies. On May 5, his emissary, Admiral von Friedeburg, made a proposal in this sense when he arrived at SHAEF head- quarters at Rheims. Eisenhower refused to discuss sur- render on this basis. Only unconditional surrender on all fronts simultaneously was acceptable. All arms, ships, and airplanes would have to be handed over intact; the troops would stay where they were. In case of violation, there would be reprisals. Friedeburg, not authorized to treat on this basis, radioed Donitz for instructions. Donitz refused to give in and sent a new representative, General Jodl, to continue the talks in Friedeburg's place. Jodl's instructions were unchanged; Donitz flatly re- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release THE GERMAN SURRENDER 151 fused to "deliver the troops standing on the eastern front to the Russians."" Eisenhower then threatened to break off the talks and seal the zonal frontier against all traffic. There was nothing D8nitz could do but comply with the Allied demands. A capitulation agreement was signed on May 6, with cease-fire fixed for midnight on May 8. The negotiation tactic followed by Donitz was mainly designed togain time for his salvaging operation. DOnitz ordered-all commanders on the eastern front to "do everything possible short of violating truce terms to reach the lines of the western powers.'85 Accordingly, the few days preceding the Rheims meeting and the forty-eight-hour delay between the signing of the capitu- lation agreement and the cease-fire were feverishly ex- ploited on the eastern front. For example, on May 4, General Wenck, commander of an eastern front sector, offered to surrender his troops, 100,000 strong, to the American Ninth Army; he also requested permission for civilian refugees to cross the Elbe. The American com- mander, General Simpson, refused to sign a formal agreement along these lines, but he agreed to accept Ger- man prisoners qindividually." With this assurance the main body of Wenck's forces crossed the Elbe and sur- rendered. Many civilians also were able to cross the lines (the ban was not strictly enforced)." All in all, two and a half to three million German soldiers and civilians escaped from the path of the Russians during Donitz's brief tenure." - No salvaging operation was possible before the cease- fire for the German forces fighting in Czechoslovakia under Field Marshal Schorner because there were no western forces in the neighborhood. Accordingly, these 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 152 FOUR CASE STUDIES troops continued to fight even after V-E Day. On May io, General Eisenhower ordered Donitz "to insure prompt compliance of these commanders [i.e., those in Czechoslovakia] to cease fire." Simultaneously, Eisen- hower directed all troops under his command to imprison German soldiers coming from the fighting area and hand them over to the Russians as violators of the Act of Capitulation." D5nitz thereupon had to tell the Ger- man commanders involved that the salvaging operation ordered by him could not go on once the capitulation had entered into effect. This being the case, nothing re- mained for them to do but to surrender to the Russians after all. SchOrner, however, "warned that virtually no order would make his troops leave their comrades behind or voluntarily surrender to the Red forces, and that it would also be difficult to control them if they were at- tacked by Czechoslovak partisans."" Prague fell to Czechoslovak partisans and Russian troops on May 12) and after that German military resistance ceased. EVALUATION AND CONCLUSIONS Germany's surrender was the only surrender in World War II that was strictly unconditional on the face of it. The Germans were unable to achieve any "disarm- ing" effect during the terminal stage of hostilities. A revolutionary transformation of the German regime might have achieved such an effect, but the Nazi ruling group succeeded in warding off all efforts to this end. Alternatively, the Germans might have tried to obtain political concessions from the Western powers by using their residual strength as a bargaining asset. This, how- ever, was also impossible, not only because of the enor- mous disparity of force between Germany and the West, THE GERMAN SURRENDER 153 but also because' the Germans felt compelled to concen- trate their last remaining strength on desperate attempts to stem the Russian advance. There was a third factor from which the Germans expected to derive political advantage: the latent politi- cal differences between Soviet Russia and the West. Ex- ploiting these differences remained the focal point of their surrender policy to the end. Their terminal objec- tive was to liquidate hostilities in the west, in the form of unconditional surrender if necessary, but at the same time to obtain the tacit acquiescence of the Western Allies to their continuing resistance in the east. It was expected that the Western Allies would find this policy attractive because they had every reason to oppose Russian pene- tration into Central Europe. This calculation by no means lacked foundation in fact. The United Nations coalition was heterogeneous, and losing powers facing heterogeneous coalitions some- times do escape political disaster when the enemy coali- tion falls apart before the war ends. But in Germany's case, things did not work out this way. In spite of the latent divergence of their interests, the Western powers and Soviet Russia were anxious to maintain their coali- tion. The Western Allies steadfastly resisted all tempta- tion to countenance Germany's plan of limiting the war to one front. This policy was greatly facilitated by the Allies' ingrained habit of looking at the war from an ex- clusively military point of view. Nothing was allowed to interfere with the unique objective of defeating the enemy. If the Western Allies' realization of the latent con- flict of interests within the United Nations coalition played any role in the terminal stage, it must have rein- Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R0021onn7nnm Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 154 FOUR CASE STUDIES forced rather than counteracted their determination to weaken Germany as much as possible. Since each side of the coalition feared that the other side might someday capture Germany as an auxiliary, both sides agreed that the weaker Germany became, the better. The terminal political behavior of the coalition partners suggests a tacit compromise of this kind. Germany, then, was not able to exploit her enemies' intracoalition difficulties in the grand manner. Yet her attempt to surrender to the West alone had a measure of success. The United Nations' formula that surrender had to be global and simultaneous for Germany's eastern and western forces could not be enforced. Instead, the surrender was carried out piecemeal over a period of weeks and remained one-sided until the cease-fire took effect. The Germans thus succeeded in entering into some sort of political interaction with the Allies during the terminal stage. This interaction took place, not in the form of negotiations, but purely in terms of behavior. From the Western Allies' point of view, the final capitu- lations of the German forces were a purely military mat- ter, but for the Germans they had political significance. Their purpose was to suck the Allied forces into German territory, denying as much of it as possible to the Rus- sians. Of course, how much German territory would ultimately be occupied by the Russians had been deter- mined at Yalta, and the Germans' military behavior had no effect on this issue. But another political objective of the selective surrenders?the rescuing of German com- batants and civilians from Russian control?was largely attained. Unconditional as it was, Germany's surrender did produce a small political dividend. Six THE JAPANESE SURRENDER August 1945 THE STRATEGIC BACKGROUND In a war waged according to the formula of divergent attrition, Japan's defeat at the hands of the United States was a foregone conclusion. To such men as Marquis Kido, Keeper of the Privy Seal (who later played a cru- cial role in bringing the war to a conclusion), this was dear almost from the beginning.' For civilian politicians like Yoshida and Kido, the Battle of Midway ( June 7, 1942) was already an alarm signal.' Later, in 1943, the armed services themselves began to be worried about the trend of attrition. In September, Rear Admiral Takagi, acting on orders, began a systematic study of the war situation based_on material in secret army and navy files. The study was- finished in March 1944, when Takagi reached the crushing conclusion that Japan could not pos- sibly win. Her losses of shipping, both naval and com- mercial, were prohibitive. She could no longer import essential raw -materials or defend her cities against air attacks. Hencc, the only course open to the country was to seek a compromise peace.' Takagi's conclusions, of course, were known only to Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 - 156 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 FOUR CASE STUDIES a small cirde. In July 1944, however, the fall of Saipan convinced even those who had been hitherto optimistic that defeat was inevitable. One of the immediate re- sults of the loss of Saipan was the resignation of Premier Tojo, who had committed himself irrevocably to an all- out pursuit of the war and would not tolerate any talk about peace. The fall of Saipan marked the beginning of the ter- minal stage of the Japanese war, for after that event the only question was when and how the war would be liqui- dated. The process of ending the war, however, was agonizingly long and arduous. The supreme political leadership in Japan, unlike the Nazi leadership in Ger- many, was willing enough to terminate the war on. al- most any terms. But its efforts in this direction were con- stantly hampered by a dose-knit and extremely powerful group of prowar fanatics in the armed services, particu- larly the army officers' corps. Members of this group were determined to remove, if necessary by assassination, any political officeholder who took steps to end the war. The extreme war objectives of the United Nations con- stituted another formidable difficulty facing the pro- peace group. The Allies' refusal to offer any political incentive for surrender had a paralyzing effect on the group's policy. The peculiar relationship between Japan and Russia, too, helped lengthen the terminal phase of the war. The Japanese government hoped to obtain a mitigation of the unconditional-surrender formula from the Western Allies by enlisting the good offices of Soviet Russia, which was not yet at war with Japan. As we shall see, this illusory hope, which the Soviet government deliber- ately encouraged, had decisive and disastrous effects. THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 157 UNITED STATES SURRENDER POLICY ? TOWARD JAPAN The Cairo Dedaration of December I, 1943, stated that "the three Allies [the United States, China, and Great Britain], in harmony with those of the United Na- tions at war with Japan, will continue to persevere in the serious and prolonged operations necessary to procure the unconditional surrender of Japan." But although "unconditional surrender," the basic war objective of the Western Allies, applied to Japan as well as to Germany, the phrase was not interpreted identically for the two countries. As we shall see in Part Three, the hallmark of the unconditional-surrender policy in its application to Ger- many was the avoidance of specific (and therefore lim- ited) peace aims. The political context of the war with Germany made such avoidance necessary. In Japan's case, political necessity worked the other way, and ac- cordingly the Cairo Dedaration formulated certain spe- cific territorial provisions: The Three Great Allies are fighting this war to restrain and punish the aggression of Japan. They covet no gain for them- selves and have no thought of territorial expansion. It is their purpose that Japan shall be stripped of all the islands in the Pa- cific which she has seized or occupied since the beginning of the first World War in 1914, and that all the territories Japan has stolen from the Chinese, such as Manchuria, Formosa, and the Pescadores, shall be restored to the Republic of China. Japan will also be- expelled from all other territories which she has taken by violence-and greed. The aforesaid three great powers, mindful of the enslavement of the people of Korea, are deter- mined that in dile course Korea shall be free and independent. The situation in the Far East, in fact, required the formulation of explicit territorial peace aims. China, Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R0021onn7nnm Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 158 FOUR CASE STUDIES now recognized as a great. power, had territorial griev- ances and claims that the Western Allies were morally obliged to endorse. The recognition of these claims im- plied that Japan would revert to her territorial bound- aries in the period preceding the Sino-Japanese War of 1894-95. No such procedure was considered feasible for Germany, since a unified German national state, even stripped of all Hitler's conquests, appeared potentially dangerous. Moreover, Japan's position differed from that of the European Axis powers in so far as the terminal aspect of unconditional surrender was concerned. Japan possessed a capital bargaining asset that Germany and Italy lacked; a residual force capable of offering very strong resist- ance to any attempt to invade her homeland. Whereas the residual strengths of Germany and Italy had been relatively small after the war reached their home terri- tories, Japan seemed likely to become an extremely for- midable opponent in her home islands. The Allies' very high estimate of Japan's terminal capabilities decisively influenced their political and military planning during the last stage of the war.' Our theoretical analysis implies that strong residual capabilities on the losing side are apt to produce a sub- stantial "disarming" effect on the winning side by in- clining the winner to make political concessions to the loser as incentives for surrender. The course of events in the terminal stage of the war with Japan is fully con- sonant with this hypothesis. In the end, Japan was able to trade the surrender of her residual force for a political concession, the sparing of the monarchy. But this out- come was reached only after a considerable policy strug- gle in the United States, where for a long time it was THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 159 believed that Soviet military help was the best means to overcome Japan's terminal resistance. In the years after Pearl Harbor, Soviet Russia's forces were fully extended in the war against Germany. In this period,-too, the Russians were bitter about the Allies' failure to set up a second front. In view of these facts, the Allies did not press for Soviet participation in the war against Japan. It was Stalin who broached the matter unexpectedly at a banquet that concluded the Moscow conference (October 30, 1943). As Cordell Hull recorded the incident, "Then . . . he [Stalin] did make a statement of transcendent importance. He astonished and delighted me by saying clearly and un- equivocally that, when the Allies succeeded in defeat- Germany, the Soviet Union would then join in defeat- ing Japan."' One month later, at the Teheran Conference, Stalin talked-to Roosevelt in the same sense: He said that up to now the Russian forces in Siberia were suffi- cient for purely defensive purposes but that they would have to be increased threefold before they could be strong enough to engage in offensive ground operations against the Japanese? and he added that when Germany was finally defeated the neces- sary Russian reinforcements could be sent to Eastern Siberia and then, he said, "We shall be able by our common front to beat Japan."7 Later, at the Yalta Conference, it turned out that Stalin had definite territorial and political aims in mind when he proposed joining in the war against Japan. As la counterpart to the Soviet Union's entry into the war "within two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe has terminated," the United States and Britain had to agree in advance Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043ROn7innn7nnn Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 160 FOUR CASE STUDIES to the Soviet annexation of Southern Sakhalin and the Kuriles, the internationalization of the port of Dairen with Russia's "pre-eminent interests" safeguarded, the lease of Port Arthur as a Soviet base, and a few other terms.' The American acceptance of these conditions was predicated on the character of American strategic plans for the Pacific war at the time of the Yalta Conference. These plans were settled: after the termination of the Okinawa operation, there was to be an assult on Kyushu and "the decisive invasion of the industrial heart of Japan through the Tokyo Plain."9 Against this back- ground, the Joint Chiefs of Staff saw the Soviet role as follows: Basic principles regarding our policy toward Russia's entry into the war against Japan are: a. We desire Russian entry at the earliest possible date consistent with her ability to engage in offensive operations and are prepared to offer the maximum support possible without prejudice to our main effort against Japan. b. We consider that the mission of Russian Far Eastern Forces should be to conduct an all-out offensive against Man- churia to force the commitment of Japanese forces and resources in North China and Manchuria that might otherwise be em- ployed in the defense of Japan, to conduct intensive air opera- tions against Japan proper and to interdict lines of communica- tion between Japan and the mainland of Asia." Later some American leaders came to doubt the de- sirability of Russia's entering the war against Japan. Byrnes and Leahy, in particular, went on record against it." The military, however, welcomed a Soviet contri- bution as possibly indispensable for defeating Japan." The American planners were much preoccupied with the probable high cost of an invasion of the Japanese THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 161 home islands, a factor that induced some to look for an alternative course of action. There was some dis- cussion among strategists about whether Japan could be forced to surrender merely by a stepped-up sea-air blockade. The Navy thought that this could be done," but the finally dominant view was that the sea-air block- ade could do no more than soften up Japan for the final invasion." Although the parties to this debate disagreed over the means that would be sufficient to ensure surrender, they shared the belief that surrender could result only from military pressure. The possibility that surrender could be hastened by offering political incentives to the Japanese leaders received little attention. Among stra- tegic planners, it seems that Admiral Leahy alone op- posed the invasion. He did so not so much because he believed that less costly and equally effective military strategies were available as because he considered the political approach preferable to the military one and capable of achieving equivalent results. As he reported, I was unable to see any justification, from a national-de- fense point of view, for an invasion of an already thoroughly defeated Japan. I feared that the cost would be enormous in both lives and treasure. It was my opinion at that time [June 1945] that a sur- render could be arranged with terms acceptable to Japan that would make fully satisfactory provisions for America's defense against any future trans-Pacific aggression." The possibility of hastening Japan's surrender by po- litical moves came up only as an afterthought at the cru- cial White House conference of June 18, 1945, called to lay down the main lines of strategy for the final phase of hostilities. The Joint Chiefs of Staff presented Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 162 FOUR CASE STUDIES their views, after which President Truman rendered his decision. The attack on Kyushu was to take place, but final decision on the invasion of Honshu was to be kept in abeyance. What happened after this was de- caibed by one of the participants, John J. McCloy, then Assistant Secretary of War, in the following terms: After the President's decision had been made and the confer- ence was breaking up, an official, not theretofore participating, suggested that serious attention should be given to a political attempt to end the war. The meeting fell into a tailspin, but after control was recovered, the idea appealed to several present. It appealed particularly to the President, and to one member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who, by the way, was the one member of that body who had no responsibility to a particular service." The proposal for political action carried the day; it led within six weeks to the Potsdam Declaration, with its implication that the Emperor would be allowed to keep his throne." Those who favored the political ap- proach, however, equated it with the issuance of a pub- lic appeal combining military threats with political blandishments. Another form of political action, back- stage contacts with the enemy to determine whether there was a mutually acceptable basis for surrender, was never contemplated, since it ran counter to the fundamental American belief that anything smacking of negotiation would fatally detract from the complete- ness of victory and thereby jeopardize future peace. The American policymakers were desperately anx- ious to hasten Japan's surrender and to cut terminal costs as much as possible, but their basic concept of non- negotiation" ruled out the one form of political stra- tegy that was best suited to saving time. The only kind of political strategy they would allow was a combina- THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 163 tion of military pressure and public declarations. In this way, one of the basic corollaries of the uncondi- tional surrender policy, nonnegotiation, interfered with the speedy liquidation of the war. The other corollary of the policy, nonrecognition of the enemy government as the legitimate custodian of national sovereignty, also caused difficulties. Some American policymakers, particUlarly Joseph C. Grew, the former Ambassador to Japan, recognized that an orderly capitulation of all Japanese forces could be ob- tained only through the agency of the Emperor: he alone had the necessary authority to order the soldiers to lay down their arms. Grew writes: "I knew very well that when the time came for Japan's surrender, the Emperor was the only one who could bring it about, and that by issuing an Imperial Rescript, a document sacred to all Japanese, he alone could put it into effect." Grew argued that the maintenance of civil order in Japan would also require the retention of the Em- peror. He wrote in a memorandum to Secretary of State Cordell Hull (April 1944): If, after final victory, we wish to avail ourselves?as common sense would dictate?of any assets that we find in Japan which can be used for the maintenance of order as distingiushed from the maintenance of the military cult, we would, in my judg- ment, simply be handicapping the pursuit of our ultimate aims by any attempts to scrap or to by-pass the institution of the Throne. Should we insist on so doing, I can see only chaos emerging from such a decision." As it turned out, the maintenance of the imperial institution, which Grew, held indispensable both for, the orderly execution of a .surrender agreement and for the preservation,- of civic order, was precisely the poli- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 164 FOUR CASE STUDIES tical incentive necessary and sufficient to induce the Jap- anese to surrender. This policy, however, was bitterly opposed by the American public and by influential po- litical leaders, who believed, often intensely, that a poli- tical vacuum had to be created in the interests of a stable peace.2? Congress became a sounding board for this belief. Representative Roy 0. Woodruff of Michigan inserted in the Congressional Record of August 30, 1944, an article by Captain Miller Freeman, U.S.N.R., casti- gating Ambassador Grew and hinting that the O.W.I. directive stopping personal attacks on the Emperor was "sabotage." The maintenance of the "Emperor myth," the article stated, "means a short-of-victory war with Japan?and that, in turn, means another war with Japan." The article concluded: "We need not fear that war if we follow God and our conscience as to what is right?instead of seeking to uphold a lone human being who is the Japs' incarnation of God."" Senator Russell of Georgia forcefully denounced the "softness" of the final terms on which Japan was allowed to surrender. In a speech delivered shortly after V-J Day, he reviewed the efforts that he had made in favor of a sterner policy. In his view, Japan did not deserve better treatment than. Germany; on the contrary, he said, "if there must be a difference in the treatment accorded Germany and Japan we should be sterner with the Japanese." He added: Holding these views, Mr. President, I was naturally concerned when I read the Potsdam declaration and saw the loopholes which that document knocked in our previously announced and oft-reiterated policy of unconditional surrender. On August 7, before the Japanese ever offered their conditional acceptance of the Potsdam declaration, I telegraphed the President from my THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 165 home in Georgia to enter my vigorous protest against accepting any conditions offered by Japan in derogation of unconditional surrender which might be likely to allow the well-known ag- gressive spirit of the Japanese people to retain a breath of life." In this telegram Senator Russell urged a revision of the Potsdam terms and the continuation of air attacks until the Japanese offered unqualified unconditional surrender: If we do not have available a sufficient number of atomic bombs with which to finish the job immediately, let us carry on with TNT and fire bombs until we can produce them. . . . Our people have not forgotten that the Japanese struck us the first blow in this war without the slightest warning. They believe that we should continue to strike the Japanese until they are brought groveling to their knees. We should cease our appeals to Japan to sue for peace. The next plea for peace should come from an utterly destroyed Tokyo." The retention of the Emperor, Senator Russell claimed, was generally disapproved by the people: When the Japanese finally submitted their counter-proposals and conditions with respect to retaining their Emperor and form of government, the idea was generally disapproved. Reference to the newspapers of those days will show many editorials in leading publications warning against the dangers of keeping Hirohito. Our allies in the struggle, with the exception of Eng- land, were quoted as opposing any conditions in the Japanese surrender. The wounded in the hospitals and the men in the service, including many on their way overseas, were interviewed by newspapermen, and the majority were opposed to accepting the conditions. Here are a few headlines taken at random from a daily newspaper of August II, just after the Jap offer was announced: "Russia and China Frown on Jap Offer." "Australians Oppose." "Romulo Calls for Elimination of Hiro." "Servicemen Want Emperor Hirohito Deposed." "'Blast Him Off Throne,' Say Wounded." Admiral Halsey was quoted as saying that the terms of the Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 166 FOUR CASE STUDIES peace were a political question on which military men should keep quiet, but that it was his own personal view that it would be a mistake not to hang the Emperor." In the view of Senator Russell and the other op- ponents of .qualified surrender, the prospects for future peace were directly proportional to the harshness of the terms on which hostilities were ended and of the deprivations meted out to the enemy: The question of whether or not we can permanently preserve the peace of the earth will be largely determined within the next five years, even though the outbreak of war may be postponed for a generation. . . . Nearly every report, whether over Radio Tokyo; through the Domei News Agency; from Ameri- can newspaper correspondents on the scene, or from our re- turning military men, seems to indicate that the people of that country, of all classes and positions in life, regard the present situation as a mere armistice or interlude in warfare rather than the utter defeat calculated to convince them of the necessity of forever abandoning their dreams of world domination, . . the Japanese are acting as though this were only a recess be- tween two antagonists who will resume the fight?presumably when and if Japan obtains the secret atomic bomb or other equalizer. . . . Our present policy of politeness and respect for the individual's property and security of person, while a& mirable, is tending to confirm the Japanese belief that they have not been conquered . . . I am thoroughly convinced that un-.. less the Japanese people?all of them from top to bottom?are shown beyond question that they have really lost the war and that the way of the aggressor is hard this time and will be much harder in the case of future aggression, we shall lose the peace in the Pacific. . . ?If we follow the easy course of a soft peace, we are simply courting the disaster of a more terrible war in the future.25 Although Senator Russell was convinced that soft- ness toward Japan would breed a war of revenge and that harsh terms would ensure peace forever,, he was against assigning large numbers of American troops to THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 167 the?occupation-of Japan. Prompted by Senator Wherry, he confessed -that he found "startling" General Mac- Arthur's statement about the need to keep 2.00,000 American troops in Japan. Then there was the follow- ing exchange:_ ? Mr. Wherry. Will the Senator agree that the occupation probably could be Carried out by policing, by Chinese soldiers and the soldiers of other of our Allies,. just as well as by our own soldiers? Mr. Russell. I am in favor of using other soldiers so far as possible, because any member of the Senate cannot fail but be impressed with the overwhelming desire of the people of this country to get the boys back home, and any member of the Sen- ate can tell froth his mail each morning that the boys themselves are just as enthusiastic as are their families, if not more so, that they be returned home. Mr. Wherry. I thank the Senator." Senator Russell's speech and the exchange that fol- lowed vividly illustrate a basic postulate of the doctrine of unconditional surrender: that there is a causal con- nection between maximum destructivenes? in war and the perpetual peace that is to succeed it.2r Such an idea strongly militated against offering a political incentive to the Japanese in order to hasten surrender, but it was not the only argument used by American policymakers in opposing political incentives. Secretary of War Stimson was at once in favor of mod- eration hi dealing with the Japanese Emperor and op- posed to letting the Japanese know it: In the view of-Stimson and his military advisers, it was always necessary to bear in mind that at least some of Japan' S leaders would seize on any conciliatory offer as an indication of weak- ness. For this reason they did not support Grew in urging an immediate statement on the Empeior in May. The battle for Okinawa was proceeding slowly and with heavy losses, and they feared lest Japanese militarists argue that such a statement was Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Co .y Ap roved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 i68 FOUR CASE STUDIES the first proof of that American fatigue which they had been predicting since 1941. It seemed possible to Stimson, in 1947, that these fears had been based on a misreading of the situa- tion." In May, indeed, American government officials were not iyet in a position to know what was the prevailing state of mind in leading Japanese political circles. Had they been, they would have known that the Emperor himself and his close political advisers were ready to capitulate on terms very severe to Japan," and that in fact surrender negotiations could only be conducted with this circle. Ironically enough, it follows that what to do about the Emperor was not an open question at all if the United States was interested in the orderly capitu- lation of the Japanese forces. Without prior assurance to the Japanese on this point, no surrender talks could have been initiated at all. This is not to say that a public statement about the Emperor, delivered in May 1945, would have been enough in itself to bring surrender. Although the Em- peror and his advisers would have been encouraged by such a statement, they had to reckon with fanatical offi- cers who were determined to use every means, including assassination, against anybody who talked about capitu- lation. It seems that a moderate American statement would not have been sufficient to enable the circle around the Emperor to force the military group to give up its opposition to the peace policy. On the other hand, such a statement would not have been altogether useless, as withholding it certainly was. It was illusory to believe that extreme verbal intransigence, together with maxi- mally destructive military blows, was needed to break down the Japanese die-hards' desperate will to resist. THE JAPANESE SURRENDER JAPANESE PEACE POLICIES Peace Efforts Before V-E Day Robert J. C. Butow, in his Japan's Decision to Sur- render, has traced lucidly and painstakingly, using all the available documents, the history of the long and arduous efforts for peace on the part of a group of Japanese statesmen whose central figure was Marquis Koichi Kido, Keeper of the Privy Seal. In what follows we shall follow Butow's account. According to Butow, the idea of a "peace mission" was first discussed in this circle just four days after the Battle of Midway, i.e., on June II, I942. On that day, Shigeru Yoshida, the former Japanese Ambassador to Britain, who was to become Premier after the war, called on Kido to discuss a scheme that involved sending Prince Konoye to Switzerland. The prince was to have no defi- nite mission other than to keep in touch with influential leaders of various nations so as to ensure that Japan would not miss any opportunity that might lead to a termination of the war." Nothing came of this particular idea, however, and a long time was to pass before Japan actually put out peace feelers. But the topic of ending the war never disappeared from the consultations that members of the inner circle around Kido and the Emperor continued to have among themselves, and as time went on, the theme acquired greater and greater urgency. The entries in Kido's diary relating to this period (early 1943) reveal that he knew that the war was going against Japan and that Konoye and Shigemitsu shared this view. Early in February, 1943, for instance, Kido had a three-hour discussion with Prince Konoye, who 169 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Co.y Ap?roved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R00210007onnl 4 A Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 170 FOUR CASE STUDIES was extremely pessimistic about the war situation. In Butow's words: During the course of this long conversation . . . Konoye re- peatedly spoke of the necessity of terminating the conflict as soon as possible lest unsettled internal conditions lead to an in- tensification of Communist activity within Japan. The issue, in Konoye's mind, was clear-cut: end the war now or be pre- pared to see communism emerge as the ultimate victer.81 Talk along these lines, of course, was one thing, and political action against the die-hard war party another. General Tojo was still Japan's Premier, and he ruled with an iron fist. The cabinet consisted entirely of Tojo supporters, men who did not share the misgiving. of the Kido circle and were determined to fight on to vic- tory. The first overt political move of the peace party was to break up the monolithic unity of Tojo's cabinet. They succeeded in having Mamori Shigemitsu, one, of their number, appointed Foreign Minister, in the ,Tojo cabinet. This occurred a short time after. the conversa- tion related above. Plans for ending the war took. on, a more: specific shape after the Cairo . Declaration, which called for Japan's "unconditionallsurrender" and for het; expulsion from all continental and island territories .other than the home islands. Shortly after the Declaration wa,s,issued, Marquis Kido worked out a territorial. plan on which ia peace settlement might be based: the Pacific areas. under Japanese occupation were to be placed unclera joint com- mission in which Japan, the Soviet. Union, China, the United States, and Great Britain would be represented.. Apparently Kido thought that, the Allies would mod- erate the Cairo terms if Japan came forward with xpeace offer soon enough, i.e., before Germany's collapse. Kido THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 171 aired these ideas to Shigemitsu and found him more pes- simistic: "Shigemitsu . . . spoke of a need for 'great determination' and frankly declared 'unconditional sur- render, in eisence, will be unavoidable."'" It appears, then, that at least one responsible Jap- anese statesman stated explicitly, as early as January 1944, that Japan would have to surrender uncondition- ally. Many other members of the peace group seem to have felt the same way, even if they did. not say so. Among the experts of the Japanese Foreign Office the prevailing tendency was not to take the Cairo Decla- ration at face .c71.ue. Toshikazu Kase, a high official of the Foreign Office, whose Journey to the Missouri is an important source for the history of the period,. describes the official reaction to the declaration in the following terms: Upon word of the Cairo declaration a special Conference was-held in the Foreign Office to study its significance. I lis- tened, in silence to the discussion. The 'participants, without ex- ception, appeared the severity Of the terms. But most of them did not take them too seriously; regarding them as only an inducernent offered Chungking or as a diplomatic gesture to forestall China's defection from the Allied camp. China was then in a serious plight since the Allies, preoccupied Flsewhere, could not help her effectively. Therc was a April; 1915, during the First World War, when the Allies secretlY promised C-onstantinople and the Dardanelles to Russia-in order to prevent her from deierting them. Russia at that time was reeling from a shattering ,defeat inflicted by Germany. The Allies did not desire to pay such an exorbitant price and. keenly regretted it soon afterward but they thought it essential at that Critical juncture. Such was generally the toneof the argument. I myself thought, however, that there was more than that in the Cairo declaration. While in World War I the United States offered Germany the Fourteen Points as an. inducement for peace, this time 'the Allies announced the Cairo declaration as terms to be meted out to Japan. . . . This I believed was Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 CIA RDP81 01043R0071nnn7nnnq Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 172. FOUR CASE STUDIES because of the unique character of the second World War, which unlike the first was being fought on the basis of uncon- ditional surrender. There was to be no halfway compromise, no negotiated peace.33 Admiral Toyoda, former chief of the Japanese Im- perial General Staff, told the U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS): We looked upon [the Cairo declaration] as a declaration but not as one whose terms would actually be applied to us. By way of possibility of reducing these terms, if you should con- tinue pushing the war, we would demand of you the heavy sac- rifice when your landing operations should commence in Hon- shu." Apparently many Japanese leaders believed either that the United States was not sufficiently interested in crushing Japan to enforce the Cairo terms or that she would be deterred from doing so by the heavy losses involved in a landing operation. At any rate, they were consistently thinking in terms of a negotiated peace. In any case, the antiwar group was powerless to act during the months immediately following the Cairo Declaration, since it did not control the key political positions. No action for peace was possible as long as Tojo remained Premier. Tojo's cabinet, however, finally fell on July i8, i944, under the crushing impact of the loss of Saipan, an event which brought home the irrevocable loss of the war even to those who had been hopeful up to then. When Tojo fell, it was generally understood that the next cabinet would have the task of paving the way for peace." The first solution considered was the curious one of a cabinet headed jointly by General Koiso, mili- tary governor of Korea, and Admiral Yonai, an out- THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 173 spoken antiwar man. The plans for a joint premiership, however, did not work out, and, after a series of chaotic consultations, Koiso emerged as sole Premier, with Yonai as Navy Minister. Shigemitsu remained Foreign Min- ister. The Koiso cabinet was willing enough to explore all avenues that might lead to ending the war. But that was more easily said than done. Blocking the way from the outset was the Cairo Declaration, a document so worded as to rule out its voluntary acceptance by any Japanese government no matter how few illusions it had about the ultimate outcome of the war. The Declaration termed all Japanese territorial acquisitions since 1895 as "theft" pure and simple. This was an apt characterization, per- haps, from the point of view of a Chinese patriot; but the Japanese could not help remembering that the Jap- anese procedure before 1914 was by no means out of keeping with the international mores prevailing at that time, particularly in dealings between the great powers and China. According to Butow, . . . the tenor of the Cairo Declaration as a whole was un- acceptable to the Japanese and was considered by many as a purposeful distortion of historical fact. The net result was that the declaration immediately became a serious hindrance to those who wished to exert themselves toward bringing the war to an end." Furthermore, the temper of the junior officers of the army, a formidable group of fanatics, could not be overlooked. In the fall of 1944, according to the USSBS, a threatened revolt of the military prevented the Koiso cabinet from making a move to end the war." The only concrete action for peace of which we have a record from this period was a curious, half-private Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043ROn7innn7nnn qA Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 174 FOUR CASE STUDIES venture. A prominent Japanese journalist, Bunshiro Suzuki (not to be confused with Kantaro Suzuki, the last wartime Premier), approached the Swedish minister to Tokyo, Widar Bagge, on behalf of Prince Konoye, asking him to transmit Japanese peace overtures to Lon.: don. The purpose of this move appears to have been exploratory. The Japanese leaders wanted to ? obtain some clarification of what "unconditional surrender" actually meant. For them, the paramount problem was to discover whether there was a possibility of ending the war?on the Allies' terms, to be sure, but without corn- plete self-abasement. and without the disruption of the imperial institution on which all social order in Japan seemed to rest." ? As time went on, Japan's military situation grew more and more hopeless: the war fleet all but ceased to exist, devastating air raids got under way, and in De- cember Leyte fell to the American forces., All the same, it was impossible for the Japanese government simply to throw in the sponge and accept the Cairo Dedaration as the basis for surrender. Had such a move been made, the extremist elements of the Army, among whom the mystique of the "holy war" for Japan held unlimited sway, would have staged*a coup d'etat. In this situatiOn, the antiwar cirde reached the conclusion that the only hope for ending the war lay in enlisting the good offices of some third power for a "negotiated" peace. Even this approach was fraught with danger, and people like Kido and Konoye soon recognized that only the Emperor's personal intervention could steer it through without a violent explosion. But the chances for obtaining medi- ation .were slim, and it was .very doubtful whether the Allies would grant Japan any concessions even if some third power transmitted a Japanese offer for peace talks. THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 175 The first tentative move through Bagge had fizzled out. Another attempt to use this channel was made in March 1945, when Bagge was about to return to Sweden. In a conversation with a Japanese diplomat shortly be- fore his departure, Bagge remarked that in his opinion the Allies would not insist on removing the Emperor if Japan made an offer to surrender. This was reported to Shigemitsu, the Foreign Minister, who immediately got in touch with Bagge. In the ensuing conversation, the Foreign Minister avoided making a specific, official re- quest for good offices. Instead, he remained on the plane of generalities. He emphasized in the strongestpossible terms the Emperor's desire for peace, adding that the Emperor had always been opposed to the War, and stressed that he himself entertained the same feelings; along with the entire diplomatic corps of Japan. He con- duded by requesting Bagge "very earnestly" to do what- ever he could to determine Japan's chances of obtaining a "negotiated peace."" The impression Bagge gained from this was that Shigemitsu meant business; it seemed to the Swedish diplomat that the Foreign Minister was willing to end the war "even at great sacrifice to his country." -This action for peace through mediation, however; eventually bogged down. The Koiso cabinet fell on April-5, '945, and in the new cabinet, headed by Admiral Kan-taro Suzuki, Shigemitsu was replaced as Foreign Minister by Shigemori Togo. Togo was an extremely dear-sighted man, fully committed to the antiwar policy of his predecessor, but he was not conversant with what went on between Shigemitsu and Bagge immediately before he took office. When he learned about it on April II, he wanted to see Bagge, but a meeting could not be arranged because the Swedish diplomat was leaving. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq , Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 176 FOUR CASE STUDIES Bagge thus returned to Stockholm without any offi- cial communication from the Tokyo government on the basis of which official action could have been taken. In Stockholm, Bagge talked with the American minister, Herschel Johnson, giving him a full account of his ex- plorations in Tokyo and of the prevailing state of mind in the Japanese Foreign Office. He also got in touch with the Japanese minister. The latter, however, had no formal instructions to press the peace action. When Togo was asked to send formal instructions, he gave a noncommittal reply. The Japanese government had ap- parently decided to try a different approach. The Suzuki cabinet in fact was skating on thin ice. On April 15, shortly after it took office, the Minister of War, General Anami, ordered the arrest of four hun- dred persons suspected of harboring antiwar sentiments, including Yoshida. Suzuki, though hand-picked by the antiwar leaders, seemed anxious above all not to provoke the extremists, and his first official statements after taking office were warlike in tone. He spoke in terms of "fight- ing to the very end," and avoided making any reference to peace or mediation." The diplomatic approach to the problem of ending the war, temporarily suspended, was soon revived in a new and fateful direction. The new diplomatic formula saw a rapprochement with the Soviet Union as the most promising method for getting Japan out of the impasse in which she found herself. The Road to Moscow This disastrous "Moscow policy" went through two stages. The first was an attempt to improve Japan's diplomatic position by negotiating a new, favorable pact THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 177 with Soviet Russia after Stalin had denounced the Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact in April 1945. The second was a determined effort to enlist the Soviet Union's good offices to obtain favorable surrender terms from the Allies. - Neither move had the slightest chance of success. When the policy of trying the Moscow channel was ini- tiated in April 1945, Japan's position was hopeless, and there was no valid reason for assuming that the Soviet Union could be tempted to make common cause with a power that had nothing to offer. The Japanese policy- makers, however, were hypnotized by the idea that it was possible to exploit the "friendly" relations that still existed between their country and one of the great powers. One cannot blame the Japanese for trying this approach; anyone in their desperate position would have grasped at a straw. It is difficult, however, to under- stand the obstinacy with which the Japanese government clung to the mirage of a rapprocfrement with Moscow and later to that of mediation by Moscow, even when it became obvious that the Soviet Union did not have the slightest interest in helping Japan out of the war. ;The policy of seeking a rapprochement took its de- parture from an event that in ordinary logic would have implied that Moscow was the last place from which Japan could expect support. On April 5, 1945, the day on which the Koiso cabinet fell, Stalin denounced the ? Soviet-Japanese Neutrality Pact. Even though Molotov subsequently assured the Japanese Ambassador that neu- tral relations would continue during the remainder of the pact's life (it was to run for another year), the ges- ture itself was plainly a hostile one. It indicated nothing but Soviet Russia's desire to regain a free hand vis-a-vis Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Ap?roved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 178 FOUR CASE STUDIES Japan at the earliest moment permitted by the existing treaty. Actually, Stalin at Yalta had. assumed a commit- ment to enter the war against Japan within two or three months after Germany's surrender, a commitment in- compatible with Soviet Russia's observance of even the year's grace provided by the pact. To the Japanese, how- ever, the denunciation of the pact seemed to open up marvelous prospects. If Japan were to offer a new pact on terms more attractive than the old, they thought, Soviet Russia might well be willing to take Germany's place as an effective ally. Japan would obtain political and material help (for a hefty payment, to be sure), enabling her to put up stiffer resistance to the Allies. Should the Russians prove unwilling to go that far, how- ever, Japan could at least try to enlist their help in nego- tiating peace on a basis better than the Cairo Declaration. Mediation was to be sought only if rapprochement failed. This diplomatic approach toward the problem of ending the war was quite acceptable to the armed serv- ices. In fact, it was first suggested (shortly after the denunciation of the pact) by two military die-hards, Army Chief of Staff Umezu and Vice-Chief of Staff Kawabe, who were joined later by Vice-Chief of the Naval General Staff Ozawa." It is a sign of Togo's diplomatic astuteness that he was pessimistic about the policy's chances of success from the very beginning: he suspected that Soviet Russia already had committed her- self to enter the war against Japan." But Togo, having no evidence except the logic of political analysis to sup- port his hunch, was not in a position to go against the army's wishes. While the sands were running out, Japan Declassified in Part- Sanitized Cop Ap. df ease THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 179 was forced to embark on a hopeless pilgrimage to Mos- cow. The "Moscow policy" was discussed in detail by the Supreme Council for the Direction of War, an inner war cabinet consisting of the Premier, the Foreign Min- ister, the War and Navy Ministers, and the Army and Navy Chiefs of Staff." It was. characteristic of the situ- ation then prevailing in Japan that even this body could not discuss the situation openly, since its meetings were ordinarily attended by junior staff officers who were quick to seize on "defeatist" talk and reveal it to like- minded comrades, with disastrous results. Togo finally succeeded in having the Council meet without the junior secretaries, but even then he did not succeed in injecting his own sober realism into the debate. The Council de- veloped fantastic schemes, such as the plan, suggested by Yonai, to offer Japanese cruisers to the Soviet Union in exchange for Soviet oil and airplanes. When the deliberations of the Council reached that stage, Germany had already surrendered and Japan was alone facing the most formidable military coalition in all history. If her leaders had immediately decided to try their luck with the second plank of the "Moscow policy," mediation, that would have been understand- able in the circumstances, though still hopeless. But the Council. (in which the heads of the military services had a very strong position) was not even in favor of seeking mediation at once. Germany's surrender seemed to mean to them, not that everything was irretrievably lost, but that it was necessary to acquire a new ally in Germany's place, that ally being Soviet Russia. This at a time when Moscow's main worry was how to get into the war against 5 - r 2013/06/27: CIA-RnPR - - - Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 80 FOUR CASE STUDIES Japan before the latter had. a chince to surrender; in order to participate in the making of the peace as a bel= ligerent rather than as a neutral. The first tangible put the "Moscow polio)" into effect came about the?middle of May. Togo 'asked Hold Hirota, "a former Premier and Ambassador to Mos- cow, to see Soviet Ambassador Malik and make over- tures for a rapprochement. Hirota was instructed to sug- gest talks for a renewal of the Neutrality Pact or for the conclusion of a new pact, emphasizing Japan's desire for friendship and good relations. The good offices of the Soviet Union in ending the war were to be solicited only if the suggestions for a rapprochement yielded no results. Not until June 3 was Hirota able to see Malik, whose response to his offers of friendship was decidedly sour. The more Hirota talked about "friendly relations," the more Malik harped on the "anti-Soviet" feelings of the Japanese. Hirota was dismissed from Malik's presence without the slightest encouragement." This was the end of the rapprochement policy for all practical purposes. The next logical step would have been to try mediation. That step, however, could not be taken immediately, for the army went over to the coun- terattack and by a swift move torpedoed the peace policy of the circle around the Emperor. The army's stratagem consisted in calling, on June 6, a full -meeting of the Supreme Council, with the junior secretaries present At that meeting, the chiefs of the armed service? introduced a Fundamental Plan for the further conduct of the was, calling for a levee en masse. A hundred million jape:- 'nese were to rise from the ground'and strike the invader dead." In support of this plan the army also submitted memoranda giving facts and figures about the world THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 181 situation and the situation within Japan. The 'facts and. figures cOntained nothing to prove that the plan would have a chance to succeed; in, fact, they demonstrated be- yond doubt that Japan lacked all essential means for con- tinuing operations. Nevertheless, Togo was the sole niember of the Supreme Council who dared to oppose the army's. appeal for last-ditch resistance. The Funda- mental Plan was adopted as Japan's policy., On the fol- lowing day the Cabinet rubber-stampedit;and on June 8 it was imposed upon a silent Emperor at an Imperial Conference. The peace group had to begin again from the beginning. ? It was the indefatigable Kido who again set the ball rolling. On June 9, the day after the Imperial Confer- ence, he saw the Emperor and suggested that the 'cabi- net be sent an Imperial Letter, instructing it to take the necessary steps to put the mediaiion plan into, effect: Kido would have preferred the direct approach to the United States and Britain (obviously the only practical method), but in view of the attitude of the army he had to settle for the revival of the attempt to secure media- tion by Moscow. In eleven days of arduous discussions with cabinet members (June 9-19), Kido secured their agreement, including that of the War 'Minister, General Anami. Thus the stage was set for another showdown. This time the full Supreme Council with its eager yOung war hawks was bypassed: After a restricted meeting of the Couiicil on June 18, at which "mediation" was en- dorsed," the initiative was again put in the Emperor's hands. An imperial conference was called on June 2,7. The Emperor' indicated that the decisions of June 6-8 had to be reconsidered. Togo thereupon-moved to-send a representative to Mbscow to ask for mediation before Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 10 'IR 71 n nn A Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 182 FOUR CASE STUDIES the Potsdam Conference convened. He stressed the need for quick action. After some subdued opposition from the army representatives, the proposal was carried: Togo obtained the green light for approaching Moscow. The execution of the plan, however, again miscar- ried. Instead of sending a mission to Moscow iminedi- ately, Togo decided to try the Hirota-Malik channel again. On the day following the conference he saw Hirota, informed him of the decision, and instructed him to resume his talks with Malik. Hirota called on Malik on the 24th and again on the 29th. On neither occasion, however, did he mention mediation, nor did he bring up the proposal to send a special envoy to Moscow. He talked exclusively about a new pact and the concessions that Japan would make in order to obtain it. In the sec- ond talk with Malik, Hirota handed him a written pro-, posal: Japan would be ready to recognize Manchurian independence, to renounce fishing rights in Soviet waters, and to consider any other Soviet proposals, if Moscow were willing to enter negotiations for a new pact. Malik pocketed the proposal, promising to send it to Moscow, and that was the last Hirota heard from him. For two more weeks Hirota tried again and again to see Malik, but in vain; the Soviet diplomat was too "sick" to re- ceive him." While Hirota's ill-fated venture was under way, the problem of the special embassy to Moscow was further debated by the Emperor and the members of the Su- preme Council. On June 29 the Emperor called together the six members of the Council and "stated that, while it was of course necessary to keep on pushing the war, it was necessary at the same time, in view of the domestic situation, to consider the possibility of bringing the war THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 183 to a conclusion. What did the members of the Council think of that idea? "48 The Emperor finally having uttered the fateful word, the ministers eagerly concurred. "Then the Em- peror in turn asked when the Ministers expected to be able to send a special Ambassador to Moscow. The reply given was that the date was not certain but it was hoped that he would be sent before the Potsdam Conference should be he) d."" This decision again produced no immediate results. It was only on July 7?after the Emperor had sum- moned Premier Suzuki and prodded him into action? that Togo first got in touch with Prince Konoye, who had been chosen to undertake the mission. And five more days passed before Konoye was officially appointed and a note was sent to Moscow informing the Soviet govern- ment of Tokyo's decision to send the special envoy. Moscow was informed that Konoye would carry with him a personal letter from the Emperor, stressing the latter's desire for a speedy termination of hostilities and proposing immediate negotiations to that effect. The note, radioed to the Japanese Ambassador in Moscow, Naotake Sato, for transmittal to the Soviet government, expressly repudiated "unconditional surrender," adding that if Great Britain and the United States were to insist on it, "Japan would be forced to fight to the bitter end with all her might in order to vindicate her honor and safeguard her national existence, which, to our intense regret, would entail further bloodshed."" In spite of its insistence on "negotiation," the note clearly envisaged last-ditch resistance in certain circum- stances, i.e., if the United States and Britain refused to make concessions that would safeguard Japan's "honor" Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq 14 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 184 ' :FOUR CASE STUDIES and "national existence"?in other words, the imperial institution itself. Japan was not to budge from this stand to.' the very end, and the final surrender was actUally made on this basis. Japan's diplomatic approach, how- ever, was fundamentally vitiated by the delusion that the Soviet Union would lend a hand to help Japan get out of the war on these terms. Having received- the message, Sato, who himself had no hope that the action would succeed, immediately went to 'the Kremlin ( July 13) but could not see Molotov. He was received, instead, by Vice-Commissar Alexander Lozovsky, who merely told him that Stalin and Molotov were about to leave for Berlin and that no answer could be given before their departure. An answer was prom- ised as soon as the Soviet leaders could be reached, in Berlin. Lozovsky accordingly received Sato again on the i6th, but only to ask for clarification of the exact mission entrusted to Prince Konoye. The clarification was sent on July 2,r: Konoye would "solicit the good offices of the Soviet government with a view to obtaining terms of peace other than unconditional surrender."" This tele- gram was delayed, and Sato could not proceed to the Kremlin before the 25th. But the Soviet governinent still gave no clear-cut answer. Sato continued to press, explaining that all Japan wanted was to terminate hos- tilities on an "honorable" basis, avoiding the formula of unconditional surrender." But in spite of the most ur- gent appeals, no answer came from the Kremlin. After his return from Potsdam on August 6 (the day the atorn bomb was dropped on Hiroshima), Stalin did not re- ceive 'Sato, but he did see the Chinese Ambass'ador, T. V. Soong. In`Kase's words, When Sato again requested an interview with Molotov he re- ceived an appointment for 5 p.m. on August 8. At this meeting, THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 185 without allowing?Sato to state his case, Molotov abruptly notified. him that the Soviet Union would be at war with Japan as from the following day." It is dear from this sequence of events that the Soviet government never had any intention of mediating be- tween Japan and the Western Allies. At the same time, Moscow did nothing to enlighten the Japanese on the futility of their hopes. Moscow's objective, apparently was to let the Japanese dangle at the end of the Moscow wire as long as possible. This is understandable: had Moscow let Tokyo know that it was not willing to medi- ate, the Japanese might have approached the Western powers with a direct offer to surrender. Moscow, how- ever, had every interest in not letting this happen as long as the Soviet Union was not at war with Japan. It was essential for the Soviet Union to claim belligerent status at the moment when the Japanese empire was liquidated. After Yalta, the Soviet leaders were satisfied that the Western Allies would not move to end the war with Japan before the Soviet Union joined them. Even after Japan's position had become desperate, Soviet procrasti- nation in replying to Tokyo's request for mediation of- fered a reasonable guarantee that Japan would not sur- render prematurely. It would not be true to say that Stalin kept the Japa- nese peace feeler hidden. from the Western Allies. As Butow tells?us, On July 28, . Stalin personally told President Truman, Secretary of Stlate Byrnes, and Prime Minister Attlee, that the Japanese had requested Soviet mediation and proposed sending Prince Konoye to Moscow. As if to allay any misgivings which might, otheiv-vise have appeared, the master of the Kremlin 4uickly explained tht Japan's approach did not show a willing- ness to surrender unconditionally but was, instead, a calculated endeavor to obtain Soviet collaboration in the furtherance of Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP 1 10 'IR 91 n nn A P.1 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 i86 FOUR CASE STUDIES Japanese policy. The Japanese had even indicated, Stalin said, that although they wanted to end the war they would fight on with all their strength as long as the Allies continued to adhere to the unconditional surrender formula. As a result, the So- viet government had unhesitatingly informed Japan that it could not give a definite reply to her request in view of the fact that the imperial message was general in form and lack- ing in any concrete proposals." Actually, Stalin's communication was by no means the American government's first inkling of the Konoye mission. American intelligence with its customary prow- ess had intercepted and deciphered the coded messages passing between Togo in Tokyo and Sato in Moscow from July 2 1 on; Secretary Forrestal entered copious extracts from them in his diaries for July 13, 15, and 24.55 The exchange revealed that the Japanese Emperor had authorized the mission because he was extremely anxious to end the war as soon as possible; it also con- tained a poignant debate between the Ambassador and the Foreign Minister. The former argued that it was illusory to expect anything from Russian mediation and that the only course open to Japan was to take direct steps toward unconditional surrender; the latter insisted that the decision to seek Moscow's good offices could not be changed and that Japan would be compelled to fight to the last unless she could get better terms than uncondi- tional surrender. Although Japan's minimum terms were not spelled out in so many words, the entire drift of the communications strongly suggested that Japan, though unwilling to surrender unconditionally, was pre- pared to surrender on terms. When Stalin brought up the Konoye mission at the Potsdam Conference, Allied policy toward Japan had THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 187 moved away from strict unconditional surrender. The Potsdam Declaration, issued two days before, made it clear that the Allies would not demand the removal of the Emperor. It restricted the demand for unconditional surrender to the Japanese armed forces, stipulated tem- porary occupation of the home islands while recognizing Japanese sovereignty, and called for punitive measures only against war leaders other than the Emperor himself. The Declaration, which purported to give the full extent of Allied armistice conditions, remained silent about the Emperor and the imperial institution, thereby implying that the head of the state would not be touched." At that stage, the American government could have decided to explore whether any substantial gap remained between the surrender terms as laid down at Potsdam and the terms of reference of the Konoye mission. A channel for sounding out the Japanese was available: Allen Dulles's group in Switzerland had been in contact for months with the Japanese military attache at Berne, General Okamoto, and a representative of the Japanese navy, Commander Fujimura." No exploratory steps were taken, however, either when the first reports about the Konoye mission reached Washington or after the drafting of the Potsdam Declaration. The American position seems to have been that nothing was needed be- sides the Declaration itself, broadcast urbi et orb. If the Japanese were ready to surrender on the Potsdam terms, they were free to say so. If they did not accept the ulti- matum as it stood, this merely proved that they preferred last-ditch resistance. In that case, only increased military pressure could convince them that they were beaten and had to accept the Potsdam terms. Since the Declaration Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release i88 TOUR CASE STUDIES itself expressly ruled out any bargaining, confidential contacts were deemed superfluous. According to this reasonirig, there could be only one conceivable reason for a Japanese failure to surrender without delay on the terms proclaimed at Potsdam, namely, Japan's hope that 'prolonged resistance would force the Allies to make further concessions. The Allies ruled out the possibility that the Japanese might refrain from bowing to the Potsdam ultimatum for a different reason. Actually, such a reason did exist: the Japanese expected last-minute diplomatic help from Soviet Russia. As we have seen, the American government was fully in- formed about Japan's move in this direction, the Konoye mission. American policymakers did not, however, reckon with the possibility that the Japanese might still be waiting for Russian mediation even after the Potsdam. Declaration had been issued. They assumed that the Konoye mission was dead and buried, ; in 'so far as -the Japanese government Was concerned, and Stalin's state- ment about the Japanese feeler and the Soviet response to it confirmed them in this belief. What Stalin disclosed to Truman and Attlee was the Soviet government's reply to the first communication received fromTokyo: the imperial message *as too gen- eral in form and the Soviet government could not act on it unless more specific proposals were made. But Stalin failed to tell Truman and Attlee thatwhen a clarification was supplied by Tokyo on the 25th, the Soviet govern- ment still did not tell the Japanese whether it would or would not act as a mediator, but promised to give a defi- nite answer on this point later. According to President Truman's account, a summary of the clarification, trans- 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50 -Yr 2013 THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 189 mitted by Sato from Moscow, was read to Stalin in Tru- man's presence on July 28. Having listened to it, "Stalin declared that there was nothing new in it except that it was more definite than the previous approach and that it would receive a more definite answer. . . . The answer would be in the negative, he said."" Stalin said nothing about_ having encouraged the Japanese to wait for an answer. Even so, it is somewhat strange that the Western leaders did not press Stalin for further details about what he had told the Japanese. Had they been more alert, they would have noticed that the information relayed by Stalin did leave open the possibility of a deliberate Russian tactic serving to keep Japan's hopes for media- tion alive. But they paid no attention to this aspect of the matter; they seem to have been satisfied with Stalin's assurances tli-at Russia was in no way interested in help- ing the Japanese escape unconditional surrender and left it at that. Stalin thus was able to keep the Western lead- ers convinced of his loyalty as an ally without giving away his own diplomatic game. Stalin's strategy was entirely successful: both the Japanese and the Western Allies were hoodwinked. The Japanese assumed that immediate acceptance of the Pots- dam ultimatum was not justified as long as there was 'a chance that Moscow would obtain a mitigation of its terms. The Allies remained in the dark about the fact that Moscow deliberately confirmed the Japanese in this belief. The result was that the Japanese still ;were tem- porizing after the Potsdam Declaration had been issued, and that- the 'Americans attributed this to an unimpaired Japanese will to fight: .GIA-RDP8 flt1') A Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 190 FOUR CASE STUDIES Things were made worse by Premier Suzuki's in- credibly inept handling of the situation. When the Pots- dam ultimatum was received in Tokyo, the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs, Shunichi Matsumoto, favored im- mediate acceptance." Foreign Minister Togo, although opposed to outright rejection, advised that, before Japan accepted the terms, one more attempt should be made with Moscow's help to obtain a clarification and, if pos- sible, a mitigation of them." The representatives of the army urged outright rejection of the ultimatum. The cabinet, after listening to all these opinions, decided on July 27 to give no answer for the time being but to ascer- tain Soviet intentions. Since it was impossible, however, to withhold the Potsdam Dedaration from the public, the cabinet decided to publish it without comment, pend- ing further contact with Moscow. After the meeting, Premier Suzuki proceeded to in- form the journalists of the cabinet's decision. He did not content himself with saying that the Japanese govern- ment would abstain from making any comment for the time being. He used, instead, a colloquial expression, mokusatsu, the literal meaning of which is "to kill with silence."' This Japanese term carries a special connota- tion: contemptuous dismissal of something as not worthy of any attention whatever." On July 28, "molcusatsu" got into the newspapers on instructions from the government. At the same time, War Minister Anami and his clique redoubled their ef- forts to have the ultimatum rejected, and Premier Suzuki at a press conference used the same expression again, add- ing that Japan would "press forward to carry the war to a successful conclusion." This did not correspond to the decisions made by the cabinet. Suzuki apparently had Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 191 decided not to divulge these decisions but to mislead the public. Such -behavior has been frequent in analogous situations: Badoglio also talked in public about continu- ing the war when his real intention was to get out of it, and Donitz did the same. It is a delicate matter for a government to tell the people that it has decided to capitulate, for this involves the danger of an immediate collapse of discipline. Moreover, an open announcement that Japan was about to surrender, before the step was accomplished and supported by the Emperor's authority, would very probably have provoked a revolt by the ex- tremists who headed the army, thus nullifying the gov- ernment's peace policy. The Allied statesmen, however, were not in a mood to make allowances for the difficul- ties in which the Japanese government was entangled. Suzuki's statement was taken at face value and led to the decision in Washington that Japan would be brought to her knees by the "full application of military power," meaning the dropping of the atomic bomb." The Atomic Bombs and Surrender The two atomic bombs that the United States had available were dropped on August 6 and 9 on the cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. Japan's sur- render offer, on the Potsdam terms interpreted as imply- ing that the Emperor would not be removed, followed on August io. Thus Japan surrendered without a final battle on the beaches involving large Allied and Japa- nese casualties, and, since the surrender occurred within a few days after the atomic bombs were dropped, it seemed plausible enough to assume that the saving of these lives was due to the use of the bomb. Several high United States officials stated after the 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 I92 FOUR CASE STUDIES ' war that the atomic bombs, by ensuring Japan's quick and virtually unconditional surrender, shortened the war and saved many lives that otherwise would have been lost during the last stage. According to a British writer, President Truman stated in a speech on August 9, 1945, three days after the first bomb was dropped: "We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans." Then, on Oc- tober 3rd, in a message to Congress, he said: "Almost two months have passed since the atomic bomb was used against Japan. That bomb did not win thewar, but it certainly short- ened the war. We know it saved the lives of untold thousands of American and Allied soldiers who otherwise would have been killed in battle.' James F. Byrnes, who was Secretary of State at the time of the Japanese surrender, also suggested that it was necessary to drop the bombs in order to induce the Japanese to surrender. He wrote: Had the Japanese Government listened to Sato and surrendered unconditionally, it would not have been necessary to drop the atomic bomb. But his advice was ignored as the militarists clamored for a negotiated peace. . . . The Japanese Cabinet did not decide to surrender until the atomic bomb had been dropped on Hiroshima." In his article published in Harpe?s Magazine for February, 1947, dealing with the same question," Secre- tary Stimson similarly argues that the bombs had. to be dropped in order to overcome Japanese reluctance to sur- render. His main point is that before the dropping of the bombs the Japanese leadership's behavior did not suggest any readiness to renounce the use of Japan's still formidable fighting capacity in a last, desperate struggle. The Potsdam ultimatum was flady rejected by the Japa- nese. The United States government could not know how firm that attitude was or whether the Japanese THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 193 would have shown 'themselves more tractable Without additional military pressure of a dramatic kind. .Accord- ing to Stimson, in order to ensure Japan's "quick and complete surrender," it was necessary to give the Japa- nese an object lesson- 'in what was involved in the rejec- tion of the Potsdam ultimatum: On July 28 the Premier of Japan, Suzuki, rejected the Pots- dam ultimatum, by announcing that it was "unworthy of pub- lic notice." In the face of this rejection we could only proceed to demonstrate that the ultimatum had meant exactly what it said when it stated that if the Japanese continued the war, "the full application of our military power, backed by our re solve, will mean- the inevitable and complete destruction of the Japanese armed forces and just as inevitably the utter devasta- tion of the Japanese homeland." For such a purpose the atomic bomb was an eminently suitable weapon.. This theory, however, was challenged by the report of the USSBS, team that, interviewed many Japanese policymakers after the war in an effort to determine the role played by the bombs .and the Russian dedaration of war in precipitating Japan's surrender. The Survey's conclusion is presented in the following terms: Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts and supported by the testimony -of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey's opinion that certainly prior to December 31, 1945, and in all'probability priOr to November I, 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated." The Survey's conclusion was based on evidence deal- ing with the gradual -strengthening of the 'peace trend among Japanese-policymakers. According to the Survey, the compositioii of the successive Japanese cabinets after 1944 clearly re-vealed such a trend, and Suzuki Was ap- pointed Premier On April 7, 194.5, for the sole purpose of ending the war.' The attemptS to "negotiate" Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 [ti 1 11 .13 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 94 FOUR CASE STUDIES taken by the Suzuki cabinet were mere pretense, the Sur- vey suggests. Since there was a large contingent of die- hards in the armed services, the cabinet was unable to offer surrender openly, but would have agreed to it in extremis if nothing better could be obtained. The policy- makers were afraid of the die-hards, but they knew that Japan no longer had the means to continue resistance and had to end the war on whatever terms she could. The atomic bomb was not needed to bring the hopelessness of the situation home to them. Even without such an "argu- ment," they would have admitted defeat. This analysis, though correct in its main outline, fails to mention an important point: although Japan's political leaders were willing to capitulate, they neither could nor would do so unless the United States expressly agreed to spare the imperial institution. Kido, the "senior states- man," the civilian members of the cabinet, and some navy chiefs had long recognized defeat as an accomplished fact, and they were anxious to end the war on almost any terms. Yet even this group recognized no alternative to a suicidal last stand within the home islands should the Allies prove unwilling to spare the imperial institution. As to the military extremists around Anami, the War Minister, they talked until the very end as if they thought that the "last battle" in the islands would turn the tide. This seems to have been empty rhetoric: when pressed, the military chiefs could offer no hard facts to back up their claim. While talking about "victory in the last battle," they quite probably knew that the "last bat- tle" would be a quixotic, suicidal venture. But they were absolutely determined to lead their army into such a holo- caust if the Emperor gave the word, and as we shall see, they were trying to the last to persuade the Emperor to do that very thing. Thus the decision lay with the Em- THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 195 peror and his advisers. And, for this group, "admitting defeat" was not the crucial factor on which their decision depended. The decisive question was, rather, whether the Allies would modify "unconditional surrender" to the extent of sparing the imperial institution. This con- cession required that the Emperor himself choose sur- render and rule out resistance at the beaches, something which, as we have seen, he was very willing to do. The American policymakers unfortunately were not aware of this and therefore thought that the solution of the prob- lem lay in increased military pressure. This miscalcula- tion was well-nigh unavoidable under the circumstances. Everything conspired to mislead Washington on the real nature of the problem of the Japanese surrender. The Japanese government gave the impression of rejecting the Potsdam Declaration, and the United States govern- ment could hardly guess that the failure of the, Japanese to accede immediately to the Potsdam terms meant sim- ply that they were maneuvering to surrender through a circuitous route. Secretary Stimson, writing in 1947, admitted that, since "a large element of the Japanese cabinet was ready in the spring to accept substantially the same terms as those finally agreed on," an early and unequivocal an- nouncement of the concession dimly adumbrated at Pots- dam might have been sufficient to ensure surrender. It is possible, in the light of the final surrender, that a clearer and earlier exposition of American willingness to retain the Emperor would have produced an earlier ending to the war; this course was earnestly advocated by Grew and his immediate. associates during May, 1945." Curiously, however, Stimson asserted in the same article:csAll the evidence I have seen indicates that the controlling factor in the final Japanese decision to accept Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 ii i; it Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 196 FOUR CASE STUDIES our terms of surrender was the atomic bomb."" In other words, the Japanese would have surrendered without be- ing bombed, if the United States had clearly declared its readiness to retain the Emperor; in the absence of such a declaration, the atomic bomb was needed to make them surrender on the same basis. Stimson argues, too, that the very nature of the con- flict compelled the United States to persevere in the most destructive warfare possible, including use of the atomic bomb, as long as the Japanese failed to announce their readiness to surrender. To be sure, there had been re- ports about Japanese peace feelers. But such reports merely stimulated the American leaders in their desire to press home on all Japanese leaders the hopeless- ness of their cause; this was the nature of warmaking. In war, as in a boxing match, it is seldom sound for the stronger combatant to moderate his blows whenever his opponent shows signs of weakening. To Stimson, at least, the only road to early victory was to exert maximum force with maximum speed. It was not the American responsibility to throw in the sponge for the Japanese; that was one thing they must do for themselves. Only on the question of the Emperor did Stimson take, in 1945, a conciliatory view; only on this question did he later believe that history might find that the U.S., by its delay in stating its position, had prolonged the war." This argument suggests a very serious misconception of the "nature of warmaking." It is true that exerting "maximum force with maximum speed" is necessary in order to reach a strategic decision. But once the strategic decision has been reached, the "nature of warmaking," or, if you like, a rational economy of warfare, prescribes the quickest and least costly transition from violence to nonviolence, and this aim is not likely to be achieved by intensifying the destructiveness of the war during its terminal stage. In this context the analogy with a boxing THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 197 match is.quite misleading, for a boxing match lacks any- thing comparable to the "terminal stage of such a war as World War II. A boxer who is behind on points still has a chance of knocking out his opponent with a lucky blow, and the stronger boxer has good reason not to relax lest his opponent take advantage of such an opportunity. During 'the terminal stage of war, however, the loser cannot change the strategic outcome. The victor's prob- lem is to induce him not to engage in operations that are strategically meaningless and will merely inflict super- fluous losses on both adversaries. That this was the problem facing the United States in the summer of 1945 was dear to the American policy- makers. -They were not concerned that Japan might find an opening and knock out the United States. Their ob- jective was to avoid a last battle whose outcome was a foregone conclusion but which would have been ex- tremely costly. The problem was not whether and how Japan could be defeated but how she could be induced to capitulate before an invasion battle. There-might well be differences of opinion about the best method for achieving this objective. It was not ab- surd to suppose that more devastation of their home- land might induce the Japanese die-hards to change their minds about the final battle, even though it could be doubted that more devastation would have a - decisive effect on _people so desperate that they were ready to sacrifice themselves anyway. But the human and mate- rial cost of persevering in a maximally destructive form of warfare during the terminal stage could be justified only on the assumption that this course alone could lead to surrender before invasion. Once it was recognized that another method, that of accepting surrender on mini- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 rl Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 198 FOUR CASE STUDIES mal terms,'cduld achieve the same objective, the princi- ples of strategy did not dictate the continuation of a maximally destructive form' of Warfare. The victor would incur no risk by exploring the possibility of obtain- ing capitulation without an invasion by politicat'conces- sions, or by forgoing attempts to achieve the same result by maximal- destruction. Now the path of maximal destruction was not the only one open to the United States. On the contrary, the data that have come to light since the war indicate that it was the nonviolent method alone that could lead to capitulation without invasion, and that the, alternative method, that of stepped-up violence, could not do so: The American government could not know this: the Soviet maneuver of deception about the Japanese peace mission, together with the inept Japanese reaction' to Potsdam, thoroughly confused the picture. Now that the facts are available, there can be no doubt that the American readiness to spare the Emperor's posi- tion alone induced the Japanese to surrender. The note conditionally accepting the Potsdam- terms, sent by the Japanese on August io, after the bombs were dropped and after Russia entered the wax, still reserved last-ditch resistance as the only course open to Japan unless the Allies explicitly agreed not to remove the Emperor. True, the note was sent the day after the second atom bomb attack, but it would have been sent on or about August 10 even if no atomic attacks had taken place. The main factor that determined the timing of the surrender note was the Soviet declaration of war. It finally dis- pelled the illusions the Japanese leaders had entertained up to that time concerning Russian mediation. We may say in this sense that the Soviet declaration of war played THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 199 a bigger role in triggering Japan's final move to make a direct offer of surrender than did the atomic bombs. Not that the intervention of the Soviet armies was needed to convince the Japanese that their situation was militarily hopeless. The point is that until Russia's decla- ration of war the Japanese government, anxious to obtain the best possible surrender terms from the Allies, pre- ferred acting through the Moscow channel to approach- ing the Allies directly. After the sudden dosing of that channel, the only possibility still open, was to ask Wash- ington directly whether the Potsdam terms actually im- plied sparing the Emperor. Japan finally, surrendered when Washingtonzave a favorable answer on this point. The "end-the-war group," to use Butow's apt phrase for the Emperor and his circle, obviously_ did. not need the stimulus of the atomic bomb to offer surrender on the Potsdam.terms. But what about the military extrem- ists? Did they not need the atomic flash over Hiroshima to see the light? Did they not filially abandon their un- compromising stand because the atomic bomb softened their &Air ,spirit?' -And was it not such a change' in the army's:attitude that finally enabled the Emperor to offer surrender? We are now in a position to answer these questions unequivocally. We know the details of the policy dis- cussions that immediately :preceded the sending of the surrender note.. Aftee the dropping of the bombs the discussions manifest change in the attitudes held by either the; end-the-war group :or the military extrem- ists. The deadlock in the Supreme War Council and the cabinet persisted after. Hiroshima and .:Nagasaki, and even.after the Soviet declaration of war.' It was not a change in the attitude of the military leaders that enabled ?4,; Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 200 FOUR CASE STUDIES the Emperor to offer surrender, but the fact that the Emperor was the strongest factor in the political setup then existing. He was not obliged to defer to the mili- tary. The decision to send the note offering conditional surrender was made at an imperial conference" that con- vened shortly before midnight on August 9, after Soviet Russia had declared war. At that meeting Foreign Min- ister Togo proposed that a note conditionally accepting the Potsdam terms be sent immediately to neutral capi- tals for transmission to Washington. The military chiefs, asked for their opinion, passionately rejected this pro- posal. Anami advocated continuing the war and fighting a "decisive" battle in the homeland, in order to force the enemy to grant Japan better terms than those of Pots- dam. The Army Chief of Staff, Umezu, spoke- in the same vein, and so did the Navy Chief of Staff, Toyoda. In the course of the discussion, the question of the mili- tary significance of Soviet Russia's entry into the war was touched on, and Umezu said that even that event could not change his mind. The atomic bombs were also men- tioned only in passing, with an army spokesman suggest- ing that further bombings could be stopped by antiaircraft defense." Stimson tells us that "all the evidence" he had seen indicated that the atomic bomb was "the controlling factor in the final Japanese decision to accept our terms of surrender." (It would be interesting to know what that evidence was.) Had this been true, the advocates of capitulation presumably would have made much of the atomic bombings in their arguments. In such a case we can imagine either Togo or the Emperor himself (who carried the ball for the antiwar group) arguing THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 201 with the militaryin some such terms as these: "Up to now, a reversal of the unfavorable military situation, though-me did not really believe in it, has been at least conceivable. But now that the Americans are dropping atomic bombs, even you must admit that resistance is futile. We must surrender, and we must do it at once, before they drop a third bomb on one of our cities." This argument, however, was conspicuously absent from the Emperor's case for surrender. What he said was some- thing entirely different. He argued with the military on their own level. "There are those," he declared, "who say that the key to national survival lies in a decisive battle in the homeland. The experiences of the past, however, show that there has always been a discrepancy between plans and performance. I do not believe that the discrepancy in the case of Kujukurihama the "na- tional redoubt" the army said it was readying] can be rectified. Since this is the shape of things, how can we repel the invaders? And that was that. The Emperor made the army "lose face" once and for all, by using the stock argument of the antiwar group that army perform- ance never measured up to army talk. The Emperor's specific point about the "redoubt" had been served up to him by Kido in a memorandum submitted on July 25, nearly- two weeks before the first ;atomic ;bomb was dropped. - This strongly indicates that the political strategy by which the army was to be outmaneuvered had firmly crystallized before the bombs fell. The only rea- son this strategy was not applied earlier was that direct conditional surrender could not be envisaged before Moscow gave an answer, one way or another. It cannot be said, of course, that the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki played no role whatsoever I fu 111 a I Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 202 FOUR CASE STUDIES in the Japanese deliberations leading to the decision to offer surrender: Togo, who reported to the Emperor on the Hiroshima. bombing two days after the event, "im- pressed ulion the Emperor the urgency of the situation and the necessity of terminating the war at once on the basis of the Potsdam Proclamation."" The Emperor concurred. According to a statement by Kido, the Em- peror said on hearing the news of Hiroshima: "Under these circumstances, we must bow to the inevitable. No matter what the effect on my safety, we must put an end to this war as speedily as possible so that this tragedy will not be repeated."" Since the Japanese could not know that only two bombs were available, they had to reckon with the possi- bility that more bombs would be dropped, and this prob- ably contributed to the extreme haste with which the surrender note was prepared and debated. Had the threat of further bombings not hung over Japan, the imperial council might have been convoked at a more convenient time than midnight. But this, effect on the timing was trivial. In fact, even the speedy Japanese answer involved a gamble, for the surrender offer was still only conditional, and Tokyo could not be sure that the United States was still willing to treat on the basis of the Potsdam concession. Had Washington changed its mind, the conditional Japanese offer would have en- sured further bombings, supposing that more bombs were available. But the Japanese government took this risk because it could not do otherwise. The atomic bombs, far from being the "controlling" factor, caused no significant reorientation of attitudes, no manifest change in points of view. Can it be said that the atomic bombs made a difference THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 203 to the outcome of the final debates, in the sense that they decisively weakened the moral position of the military group? Butow suggests that this factor did play a part: It was not that the military Men had suddenly become reason- able in the hours following the Hiroshima and Nagasaki dis- asters; it was rather that they . . . had momentarily been caught off balance. They were also at a loss for words which could make any lasting impression upon the end-the-war fac- tion. Prior to the dropping of the two A-bombs they had been able to pledge their belief in their ability to meet effectively any action taken by the enemy, but now whatever they said made them look foolish and insincere." It may well be that the impression produced by the bombings contribute& to pointing up the emptiness of the army's pretensions, even though, as we have seen, the clinching argument used by the Emperor made no refer- ence to it. It is impossible, of course, to ascertain what the attitudes of the military would have been if the atomic bombings had not taken place. Nevertheless it seems unreasonable to suppose that the imperial council, had it been faced with the Soviet declaration of war but not with atomic bombings, would have decided against the direct approach and in favor of a last-ditch battle. Another "if" question may also be considered:. What would have happened if the bombs had been. dropped on August 6 and 9 but no Soviet declaration of war had occurred?- Would the Japanese government then have decided in favor of the direct approach without wait- ing further for Moscow's mediation? This question is more difficult to answer than the preceding one. It may be argued that the bombs would have provided a suf- ficient stimulus for direct surrender, but the contrary assumption seems more probable to the present writer. As long as the hope for mediation by Moscow was not 3 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 204 FOUR CASE STUDIES dead, the Japanese government would probably have dung to it. Speculations about the timing of the surrender, how- ever, are quite irrelevant. After all, the vital question from the American point of view was not whether the Japanese government surrendered in August or in Sep- tember, but whether it could or could not be induced to surrender without offering last-ditch resistance. From this point of view, it was not the exact timing of the surrender that counted, but the nature of the final choice. The evidence shows that the final decision for or against a last-ditch battle did not hinge on the atomic bomb or any other military consideration. It was a political matter. The army chiefs were by no means as strongly com- mitted to the last battle as may appear from what has been said above. At bottom they recognized the futility of such an operation, and those among them who still possessed a scintilla of realism and a sense of responsi- bility looked upon all-out resistance not as an end in itself but as a means to get the best possible terms. In this respect, the gulf separating them from the end- the-war group was not very wide. The latter, too, saw no alternative to a suicidal last stand in case the United States refused to guarantee the Emperor's tenure. The militarists' last argument against capitulation was that the American guarantee was not dear and unequivocal enough. After the American answer to Japan's surrender note was received, the army chiefs made a last, desper- ate effort to drop the surrender policy and revert to that of last-ditch resistance. But the argument they used ---THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 205 was not that surrender was unthinkable in principle. They maintained, rather, that the American answer of August I I did not meet Japan's minimum condition, the retention_ of the imperial institution." The American answer, indeed, conceded the Em- peror's tenure only by implication, stating that "from the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and the Japifiese Government to rule the state shall be subject to the Supreme Commander of the Allied powers," and even adding that "the ultimate form of government of Japan shall, in accordance with the Pots- dam Dedaration, be established by the freely expressed will of the Japanese people." The crisis caused by the American answer was once again solved by the Emperor's direct intervention: at another imperial council meeting, on August 13, he "commanded" the cabinet to accept the American answer as satisfactory." As we have seen, the last supporters of last-ditch resistance took their stand because they doubted whether Japan's minimum terms for capitulation had been met. This had been the crucial issue all along, and it remained an issue after the dropping of the bombs. Whatever effect the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki may have had on-the thinking of the Japanese political and military lead'ership, the choice between last-ditch resist- ance and capitulation did not depend on it. That choice was governed by the political payment on which the Japanese insisted and had to insist?the retention of the Emperor. Had this not been conceded, the chances are that the Japanese would have felt compelled to resist to the last.' This This concession, rather than the dropping 1_ 3 ,1 ; Ill 111 ;33 Lr2,1 i ; ity ? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 206 FOUR CASE STUDIES of the bombs, saved the lives that would have been lost in the invasion of Japan. EVALUATION OF THE UNITED STATES SURRENDER POLICY Could the Japanese surrender have been brought about before August 10-14 if the United States had applied different methods of political Warfare? Stim- son, as we have seen, thought so after the Nqr: he 'be- lieved that the American failure to offer assurances about the Emperor resulted in a prolongation of the war: According to the present analysis, this view oversimpli- fies the matter: the war would have been prolonged un- til Soviet Russia's entry into it even- if the. American concession had been formulated unequivocally earlier, since the Japanese were angling for. still better' terms as long as the illusory Moscow channel was open. Had direct and confidential channels of communi- cation been established with the Japanese' government, it is conceivable that the United States would have been able to clarify the situation and, to disabuse the Japanese of their illusions. The operational rules followed by both sides, however, precluded the establishment of such a direct channel. The Japanese put out many feel- ers, but they- never sent anybody abroad with official instructions to discuss. surrender terms with the United States. Although direct, contacts with' the United States were neceSsary to dispel the Japanese illusions about, the Moscow channel, these very illusions prevented Tokyo from even considering such contacts. On the American side, on the other hand, confidential conver- sations with the enemy for the purpose of determining a possible basis for surrender were ruled out on princi- ple. The prolongation of the war until August was the THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 207 result 'of these two rigidities. The Japanese attitude being what it.wd-s, the United States could have broken the log jam only if it had made a very determined effort to establish contact with the beaten enemy. But could a victorious power be expected to embark on such a course? Was it not up to the loser to take the initiative? One might argue that elementary consider- ations of prestige necessarily prevent winners from tak- ing the initiative for confidential surrender talks. But this argument, echoed. b,r Stimson in his dictum that the United States cOuld not do the surrendering for Japan, does not seem to be absolutely valid. The closest anal- ogy to the terminal situation- in the war with Japan was not a "boxing match,'? as Stimson supposed, but the siege of a fortress. And-in a siege situation it is natural for the strong besieger to initiate contacts with the be- sieged party with a view to securing surrender so as to avoid the necessity of storming the fortress. Further, such contacts should. properly be confidential. If the besieger wants to avoid *having: to take the fortress by storm, he is well advised not to limit himself to public appeals for surrender while he waits for the commander of the fortress to run up a white flag. One may speculate on. what the-course- of events would have been if the American government had han- dled the situation On the "siege,'? rather than, the "box- ing match," analogy. The author *believes that the for- mer procedure would have led to. Japan's 'surrender before the Soviets entered the war, resulting in a far morelavorable postwar balance of power in the Far East. But this apprOach was precluded by the prevailing rules of unconditionality." Another, more fundamental misconception also vi- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043ROn7innn7nnn 1 4'4 .1 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 2.08 FOUR CASE STUDIES dated the strategic and political handling of the last stage of the war with Japan: the failure to distinguish between defeating an enemy and obtaining surrender from him. The United States acted as if the problem were that of defeating Japan, when in fact the problem was to avoid an unnecessary last battle after Japan was defeated. The same misconception prevented the United States from assessing the real significance of Japanese last-ditch resistance. Since the American leaders could not keep the concepts of "defeat" and "surrender" apart, they saw in Japanese resistance at Iwo and Okinawa proof that the Japanese did not recognize that they were de- feated and needed convincing. Some uncertainty, of course, is always involved in estimating at any given time whether strategic victory has been achieved or whether the enemy acknowledges his strategic defeat and is ready to act accordingly. The Allies' terminal policy toward Japan, however, did not go astray because of faulty intelligence on these points. Its basic flaw was, rather, a defect of doctrine. All ter- minal resistance whatsoever was regarded as necessarily incompatible with the enemy's awareness of his stra- tegic defeat. (As we have seen above, even Italian ter- minal resistance was interpreted along such lines.) Not only does this fundamental error prevent the winner from doing what the terminal situation requires; it also warps his strategic plans by inducing him to treat the question of strategic victory as an open one when it no longer is so. This is what happened during the last stage of the Pacific war, with disastrous consequences. Impressed by the strength of Japan's residual capabili- ties, the United States came to the conclusion that Rus- sian help was needed to "defeat" Japan. _ THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 209 Stalin was able to exploit this American feeling for his own ends. When he told Roosevelt at Teheran that "by our common front we shall defeat Japan," he wanted to put it on record that Japan could not be de- feated by the Western Allies' unaided effort. In 1943 there were still legitimate doubts about this. But by the end of 1944, when Japan's fleet and air force were practically nonexistent and all that the Allies faced was terminal resistance, there was no justification for basing strategy on. a joint effort to "defeat" Japan. It is true that American belief in the necessity for Russian help grew weaker as Japan's military position weakened, but the agreements entered into earlier could no longer be undone. The fact that the preferred method for forcing Japan into surrender was that of stepping up destruc- tive warfare reflects the same misconception. That method culminated in the dropping of the atomic bombs, an act that constituted a heavy moral liability for the United States and that, as now seems certain, made no essential contribution to Japan's surrender without a last battle. The American government, of course, could not know at that time what we know now, and those who made the decision were convinced that many lives, American as well as Japanese, would be saved by it. But this conviction would not have prevailed if the na- ture of the problem of obtaining surrender, as distinct from that of achieving defeat and impressing this fact on the enemy, had been dearly realized. The final American decision to spare the Emperor's position, which made possible capitulation without the final holocauit, shows that the American government was by no means wholly blind to the nature of the prob- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq I SI It Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 210 FOUR CASE STUDIES lem of surrender. Although its strategic. doctrine was deficient in this respect, it turned out to be impossible not to be "disarmed" by Japan's residual strength. Moreover, there were well-informed and intelligent people in policymaking positions whose knowledge of Japanese conditions enabled them to hit upon the right approach. Thus American surrender policy avoided what would have been the worst of the disasters toward which the cult of "unconditional surrender" was press- ing. CONCLUSIONS The Japanese surrender illustrates the use of a defeated power's residual strength, combined with an insular position and an extreme will to resist, for the purpose of obtaining political concessions in return for surrender. Although the minimum condition posed by Japan was extremely unpalatable to the most vocal sec- tion of American opinion, and although it challenged an essential part of the American doctrine of uncondi- tional surrender, Japan turned out to have a sufficiently strong bargaining position to get the condition accepted. American interest in cutting losses was the chief factor in Japan's bargaining strength. The reorientation of Japan, i.e., the redistribution of political influence within Japan whereby the military leadership was toppled from its dominant position, failed to produce a notable disarming effect on the Allies, be- cause they had no idea of the power struggle that had taken place within Japan. The political complexion of the group around the Emperor and the Emperor's own attitude were totally unknown to all but a tiny number of Americans. So far as the American public was con- THE JAPANESE SURRENDER 21i cerned, Japan, with the Emperor as her ruler, was still unregenerate when she surrendered. In spite of this, the disarming tendency became dominant over tenden- cies toward hostility. The Japanese surrender also illustrates the impor- tance of communications during the "interaction" phase preceding surrender. The defectiveness of channels, due to extreme rigidity on both sides, needlessly dragged out the process of liquidating hostilities that no longer had a strategic meaning. The lack of communications was thor- oughly exploited by the Soviet leadership, which was able to inject itself as a controlling factor into the surrender process, owing to the radically mistaken political strategy adopted by the Japanese. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043R007innn7nnnq Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 ? PART THREE UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER 11 AI, 1ii'1 ! , :111 !)1 ii 911 111 II 111 511 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 t, Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 THE MEANING AND RULES OF UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER It was axiomatic with the Allies that the war had to be fought to total victory. Since the strategy employed was that of attrition, this meant fighting until the enemy was reduced to surrender. Moreover, the peace terms were to be unilaterally imposed rather than negotiated. All this, however, did not necessarily imply that sur- render was to be unconditional. The Allies could de- cide to announce their political terms while the war was in progress and still insist on the enemies' capitulation. This procedure, however, was ruled out. As Cordell Hull put it, We . . . concluded that it would be unfortunate were any of these three governments [the United States, Great Britain, and Soviet Russia] to express any willingness to, enter into commitments regarding specific terms of the postwar sett1e7 merit. We would, of course, expect a continuation of discus- sions among the several governments toward the fullest possible agreement on basic policies and toward later agreements at the proper time and with public knowledge. When Hitler was defeated, the Soviet Government would participate no less than Britain and the United States in an effort to restore peace and order. But no commitments as to individual countries should be entered into at this time lest they jeopardize the aims we all shared - in common, looking toward an enduring peace. It would be unfortunate if we approached the peace conference thus hampered.1 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 10 'IR 91 n nn A Declassified in Part- Sanitized Cop Ap?roved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 216 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER The belief that specific agreements among the Allies on the peace terms to be imposed would jeopardize lasting peace was one of the elements of the uncondi- tional-surrender policy as it developed during the war. There Was, however, more to that policy than the deci- sion to leave the formulation of pre,cise terms until after victory. According to President Roosevelt and his advisers, the ultimate aim of securing a permanently peaceful p. ostwar world was also bound uji with the manner in which the enemy's surrender would be han- dled. They considered this neither, a short-range nor a technical problem. The entire political future hinged on it, since the handling of surrender would determine whether ,or not all the roots of aggression were pulled up. The policy of unconditional surrender was specifi- cally designed to make sure that the winners, in accept- ing surrender, would not unwittingly permit the sur- vival of potential forces of aggression. We may distinguish two stages in the development of the policy of unconditional surrender: (I) the pre- terminal stage, concerned with psychological and po- litical warfare on the theme of victory and lasting peace; and (2.) theterminal stage, in which the Allies specified rigid ruled governing their relations with the surrender- ing enemy. When President Roosevelt proclaimed the, princi- ple of "unconditional surrender" at -the close Of the Casablanca. Conference on January ,2.4, 1943, it struck those present as a casual improvisation. Roosevelt him- self told Hopkins later that the phrase just ."popped into his minc15"2 and Churchill, speaking to the House of Commons on July 217 1949, said that he first heard the expression when Roosevelt used it at the Casablanca ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 217 press conference. In a later Commons debate (Novem- ber 17, 1949), andin his war memoirs, however; Church- ill corrected this statement. Examining his papers, he found that the Casablanca communique, including the phrase "unconditional surrender," had been discussed with the President beforehand (January 20), and even submitted to the British War Cabinet, which approved it.' The U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff had discussed this formula earlier, on January 7.4 These facts suggest that the principle was not conceived On the spur of the moment, but? was an organic part of Allied thinking about the problems of war, victory, and peace.' This policy of unconditional surrender represented a studied contrast with President Wilson's political con- duct of the war in 1918. Wilson had laid down the principles on which the peace settlement was to be based. The Fourteen Points proclaimed, in. essence, that all self-aggrandizement was to be forsworn at the peace table. The weakness of the losing powers would not result in their losing territory unless justice and the principle of national self-determination required it. President Roosevelt and his advisers felt that the Germans had been left with the impression that they had quit in 1918 not because they had been defeated but because they had been offered acceptable terms. Moreover, within a few years the Germans considered their- moral and material position strong enough to per- mit them to reopen the issues of 1919 on the grounds that the settlement imposed upon them at Versailles was at Variance with the Fourteen Points. The Ameri- can leaders were determined to prevent similar devel- opments after World War II. Allied political warfare had-to steer clear of all moral commitments toward the Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Ap. roved for Release 5 - r 2013/06/27: CIA-RnPRi_nirtepaprInolf, " .41 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 2 1 8 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER enemy; the role of superior force in deciding the war must be made as impressive as possible. That, and that alone, could ensure a lasting peace. In. view of these requirements, the policy of unconditional surrender seemed the most suitable basis for the conduct of political and psychological warfare.' In addition, by strengthening the Western Allies' determination to pursue the war to total victory, it served to forestall German attempts to split the United Nations coalition.' The "anti-Wilsonian" aspect of the unconditional surrender policy was negative rather than positive: the Allies would refrain from committing themselves to any postwar policy that would entail the slightest concession to the enemy, although the possibility of such concessions, freely granted by the Allies if and when they deemed fit, was by no means excluded.' As to a positive formulation of the aftermath of unconditional surrender, there was broad agreement among the coalition members on a number of the terms to be imposed.' Stalin insisted that these be publicly specified,' but Churchill and Roosevelt were unwilling to go along with his proposal." They felt that publica- tion of even severe terms would smack of surrender "on terms" and had to be ruled out for that reason. As the terminal stage of hostilities drew near, how- ever, it appeared imperative not to leave the implica- tions of the unconditional-surrender principle wholly indeterminate, but to define some precise rules for deal- ing with enemy governments suing for peace. What were these "rules of unconditionality"? First, there was the "no negotiation" rule, prescribing that there could be no dealings with enemy leaders except to instruct them about details of orderly capitulation. ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 219 Second, there was the "no recognition" or "vacuum" rule, prescribing that immediately after capitulation the enemy leaders would cease to exercise any political au- thority whatever, and that no other indigenous body would be recognized as representing the losing society ?i.e., the enemy's acceptance of a political vacuum at the top was made a necessary condition for ending hos- tilities. The vacuum was to exist during a transitional period, which would fill the gap between the termina- tion of active hostilities and the establishment of normal interstate relations, and during which top governmental functions in the losing countries would be exercised by military governments installed by the winners." These rules made no allowance for any reorienta- tion of the loser's policy by defeatist elements within the existing war-making regime. To the morally ori- ented Allies, any abatement from the strict rules of un- conditionality meant that some element of the evil past would survive after the loser's surrender and make their victory meaningless and worthless. The Allies' aim was to introduce democratic forms into the countries that had been wrested from totalitarian rule, but this could be done, they believed, only by first creating in each of these countries a political vacuum. APPLICATION OF THE RULES OF UNCONDITIONALITY It was not easy to put the rules of unconditionality into effect. Sooner or later the Allies had to face the fact that the creation of a political vacuum could co- incide with surrender only if surrender were delayed until the losing nation was occupied. This happened in Germany, which was fully occupied before it formally capitulated. Italy and Japan, however, were summoned Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 22,0 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER to surrender, and did so, before the Allies were in oc- cupation, with the result that their surrender could not be handled on the basis of the strict unconditionality rules. Neither Italy nor Japan could be occupied unless the Allies first sacrificed the vacuum policy. In Japan's case, occupation before the conclusion of a surrender agreement, though certainly feasible, would have been too costly. Japan was strategically defeated, but her insular position and her possession of large, cohesive, and determined residual forces would have enabled her to inflict heavy losses on an invading force. The Allies therefore had a strong interest in obtaining surrender before occupation, and the Japanese were willing to offer it, but only on condition that the Allies confirm the Emperor as Japan's nominal sovereign. Renuncia- tion of the political vacuum in return for avoiding heavy losses during the terminal stage of the war- appeared too advantageous a trade to reject. The service ren- dered by the Japanese in capitulating was important enough to outweigh the Allied reluctance to leave rem- nants of the war regime in place. Italy's surrender was demanded and accepted on the basis of the strict unconditionality rule; the' Allies refused to extend recognition to the surrender regime, reserving their right to remove it after occupation, even though that regime promised the Allies not only to cease resistance but to enter the war on the Allied side. Even this radical reorientation of policy failed to move the Allies, who saw the Italian abandonment of terminal resistance merely as leaving them all the more free to proceed on the basis of their "vacuum doctrine." Soon after Italy's unconditional surrender, however, it became apparent that occupation could not ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 221 follow immediately because strong German forces barred the way up the peninsula. This made it impera- tive for-the Allies to salvage -and utilize all they could of the remaining elements of Italian military strength, even though these were already weak and were deteri- orating rapidly. To do so they had to employ the au- thority of the royal regime. The Allies could neither remove nor ignore the regime without depriving them- selves of active Italian cooperation against the Germans. Thus they were compelled to reverse their original posi- tion, arid to recognize the Italian surrender regime as a cobelligerent less than two months after its unconditional surrender. Germany's surrender contrasted sharply with Italy's and Japan's. To begin with, no political reorientation preceded it. Even if the 1944 coup elltat against Hitler had succeeded, it is doubtful whether the Allies would have made any allowances for a German reorientation; they indicated no readiness to do so. The question did not arise, however, since the German strategic surrender was carried out by remnants of the German war regime that neither: repudiated Hitler nor imposed the surrender in opposition to an extreme prowar group. The Germans' residual forces could not-be used as a bargaining counter?i.e., they could not be invoked to induce the advancing Allies to modify their uncondi- tional surrender policy: In fact, German military be- havior during the last Weeks of the war amounted to throwing away any opportunities that might have existed on this score. During the winter of 1944-45, the Ger- mans had tried to maintain equal defensive pressure on their eastern and western fronts. Later, however, re- sistance.became selective. By April 18,1945, the entire Army Group B and other elements in the Ruhr had 2 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 222 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER capitulated, and surrender negotiations were in progress on the southern front. Thereafter, the advance of the Western Allies into Germany was only feebly opposed. But German soil was still being stubbornly defended against Soviet forces in the East." Political considerations obviously influenced this se- lective pattern of resistance. Although German military leaders did not dare speak openly about surrender to either East or West, their behavior indicated that their real objective was to surrender to the Western Allies alone, while continuing the fight against Russia. Perhaps they thought that the Western Allies might recognize that they needed Germany as an auxiliary against the "common enemy of the West" and hence abandon the coalition. Selective resistance offered the Allies time to revise their coalition policy. Besides that, of course, it demonstrated that the Western Allies were less feared than the Russians." The Allies accepted the tactical surrender of such German forces in their path as laid down their arms. But when it came to strategic surrender, they insisted on si- multaneous action in East and West. The only tangible result that the Germans achieved through their strategy of selective resistance, apart from ,cutting losses, was the opportunity to transfer military personnel and civilian populations from Soviet- to Western-controlled terri- tory. Stalling during the last few days, when German- held territory had shrunk to almost nothing, gave the Germans the time needed to carry out a considerable sal- vage operation of that sort. Although they could not split the coalition, they were at least able to use one enemy as a shield against the other. It would have been impos- sible for the Germans to obtain such a concession by overt Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 223 talks. The selective use of their residual force, however, enabled them to obtain the desired end, as it were, sur- reptitiously. This sequence of events enabled the Allies to handle the German strategic surrender on the basis of the strict unconditionality rules, without having to pay a heavy price in terms of military losses. Surrender occurred only after occupation, but the prolongation of the terminal stage was not costly for the Allies, since the Germans wel- comed, rather than opposed, Western occupation. There- fore the priority of the ideological objective over that of cutting losses and securing quick surrender was not put to a real test in Germany, for the two aims were achieved together. When it was put to the test in Italy and Japan, it did not survive. ASSESSMENT OF THE UNCONDITIONAL-SURRENDER POLICY The Role of the Unconditional-Surrender. Formula in Prolonging the War The unconditional-surrender policy has been severely criticized on.the ground that it needlessly prolonged the war." The demand for unconditional surrender, it is argued, rallied the German people behind the war regime and induced them to fight to the last. Faced with the demand for unconditional surrender, which was tanta- mount to the annihilation of their national existence, the Germans and the other Axis powers had no choice but to fight as long as was physically possible. If -a less severe formula had been used in Allied war propaganda, or even if very severe but specified surrender terms had been offered, resistance would have come to an end sooner." 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 11 , H. H' Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 224 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER This criticism dearly refers to the negative, "anti- Wilsonian" phase of the unconditional-surrender policy. It is undeniable that the formula, when it was launched, furnished ammunition to Nazi war propaganda. Gobbels made copious use of it to counteract the disastrous effects on morale of the defeats Germany suffered in Africa and at Stalingrad.' But this alone does not prove that the unconditional-surrender policy prolonged German re- sistance. That the war would have been shorter if the Allies' basic war aim had not been total victory is, of course, true. Ending the war by a negotiated peace would have re- sulted in a shorter war and possibly in a better political situation after the war. But few critics maintain that this would have been the correct policy." Most critics, rather, take the objective of total victory for granted and argue that it would have been attained more quickly and more easily if a more positive formula than unconditional sur- render had been used. Fuller, for example, maintains that "the Allied pol- icy of unconditional surrender, by deliberately prevent- ing the surrender of Germany on terms, could mean but one ,of two things to every German?either victory or annihilation." Actual German behavior during the latter part of the war, however, cannot be squared with this judgment. For Hider, annihilation was indeed the only alternative to victory, but not because surrender on terms was ruled out by the Allies. The Nazis' official doctrine of the war did not allow for surrender on terms. On the other hand, there were many Germans who saw. that the war was lost but who refused to admit that this necessarily.meant total national extinction. They looked to a third alternative, -ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 225 recognizing that the solution lay in ending the hopeless struggle by capitulation if necessary. Although it cer- tainly cannot be said that they acquiesced in unconditional surrender, it would be equally wrong to maintain that CCsurrender on terms" was the only formula to which such Germans would subscribe. As we have seen in the case study of the German surrender, there was no German last-ditch resistance inspired by the feeling, "If you ac- cept surrender on terms, all right, but if you refuse to do so, nothing remains for us to do but go down fighting to the last:" This pattern was present in Japanese, but not in German, behavior. The major stumbling block in the way of an active surrender policy was the fact that, as long as Hider was commander in chief, no military leader could initiate sur- render without becoming guilty of flagrant insubordina- tion. To the typical officer surrender was well-nigh un- thinkable, no matter how senseless and suicidal continued resistance appeared to him. Germans had to choose be- tween military rationality, which implied surrender, and military loyalty, which involved continued resistance. For the military leaders, the latter was a moral impera- tive. In determining their choice, all purely political questions, including unconditional surrender, played a lesser role. The authors of the July 1944 plot certainly hoped to obtain qualified surrender, despite the Allies' verbal insistence on unconditional surrender. They. did not conclude from the unconditional-surrender policy that they had no alternative hilt to continue a hopeless struggle, Those Germans who at that time chose to fight to the end did so more because they could not bring them- selves to break faith with the Fiihrer than because of Allied statements. - Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 1: Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 226 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER As pointed out above, German terminal resistance was selective?stubborn in the East, almost nonexistent in the West. Had the sloganof unconditional surrender made all the difference between last-ditch resistance and surrender, this selective resistance could not have hap- pened, especially since the Western Allies practically. had a copyright on the slogan. The Russians used mostly themes other than unconditional surrender in their propa- ganda in Germany. Stalin used the formula in his order of the day of May I, 1943, in order to allay Allied un- easiness about his seductive propaganda to the Germans, but later (notably in his speech of November 6, 1943) he again reverted to an appealing language that was in open contrast to the Allied handling of the theme of sur- render. If use of the slogan was a propagandistic blun- der, the Russians largely avoided it, but their sagacity in this respect was by no means rewarded. It was the West- ern Allies who obtained the advantage of slackening final resistance by Germany. This indicates that the generally assumed causal rela- tionship between the formula of unconditional surrender and the length of the war is illusory. The length of the war was determined largely by other factors, including the Allies' objective of total victory and Hitler's (and the Japanese war extremists') refusal to admit the possi- bility of any kind of surrender." The terminal behavior of the Germans also indicates that unconditional sur- render to the Western Allies was not unthinkable for them; it was the loss of German territory to the Russians that they viewed as the ultimate catastrophe. Lord Hankey's statement, "Not one of the German leaders was willing to sign such humiliating terms as uncondi- tional surrender,"" is directly contradicted by the facts: ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 227 both anti-Nazi dissidents and Nazi loyalists were willing to do just that, as our case study of the German surrender shows. ? Fuller propoundsi the thesis?that the announced pol- icy of unconditional surrender was the reason that hos- tilities did not end quickly after strategic decision had been reached in the West: In a sane war, Rundstedes defeat in the Ardennes would have brought hostilities to an immediate end; but because of uncon- ditional surrender the war was far from being sane. Gagged by this idiotic slogan, the Western Allies could offer,no terms, however severe. Conversely, their enemy could ask for none, however submissive.' General Westphal, however, who was Rundstedt's chief of staff during the war, reviewed the terminal situa- tion as it appeared from the German side and made the following comment: Yet, it is said, at least he [Rundstedt] could have stopped the fighting in the West and capitulated. He would have been only too willing to make an end to the mounting losses of men and the destruction of even more German cities from the air. Should he then make contact of his own accord with Eisen- hower? His military upbringing ruled, that out. Perhaps now- adays these basic principles are thought to be out of date. But no one can jump over his own shadow." In the next sentence, Westphal mentions "uncondi- tional surrender?" as an additional reason why Rundstedt could not .offer capitulation. But this had nothing to do with the harshness of the formula. The Western front had to he held, Westphal says, in order to "defend the rear of the army in the east." Capitulation_in the West had to be ruled out, otherwise "the front against the Rus- sians would necessarily collapse also." Had it not been for this consequence, capitulation by the field command- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01041R n7innn nnn A Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 228 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER ers would have been dearly indicated, where it was not rejected out of loyalty to their superiors. It remains true, however, that the war may have been needlessly lengthened by the unconditional-surrender policy, not because of the effect of the slogan, but because the rules of unconditionality prevented the Allies from handling surrender situations in the most efficient and expeditious manner. The Rules of Unconditionality and the Duration of the Terminal Stage As seen above, the two rules of unconditionality could not be imposed simultaneously in the cases of Italy and Japan. The "vacuum" requirement was abandoned prior to Japan's surrender and shortly after Italy's, when events made it dear that further insistence upon the rule would be ruinous for the Allies themselves. The no- negotiation rule, however, was strictly adhered to in both cases. Prior to surrender, the Allies limited their dealings with these countries to the transmission of unilateral ap- peals to surrender and to instructions about how capitula- tion was to take place. The combination of adherence to the no-negotiation rule and abandonment of the vacuum rule did result in a certain prolongation of the terminal stage of hostilities. How much more quickly hostilities could have been liquidated if the Allies had proceeded on entirely differ- ent rules is difficult to tell. In Italy, the delay caused by adherence to the rules was only a matter of a few weeks; whereas, in Japan, conversations on qualified surrender might perhaps have been successfully initiated immedi- ately after Germany's capitulation, if not before. But the main damage done to the Allied cause by - ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 229 insistence on the rules was not the delay as such; it was that the delay enabled third parties to make gains at the expense of vital Allied interests. In the Italian case, it was Germany who profited by the unconditional-sur- render policy; in the Japanese case, it was Soviet Russia. The Allies overlooked the fact that, in both cases, speedy qualified surrender would have been better from their point of view than either strictly unconditional surrender or delayed qualified surrender. Both situations, there- fore, called for negotiated surrender without a political vacuum, but that was preduded by the no-negotiation and no-recognition rules. In Japan the greatest damage was done by the no- negotiation rule. The no-recognition (vacuum) rule was not rigidly binding on American policymakers, and many of them had opposed it all along. Thus, when a formal surrender offer was made by Japan on a qualified basis, the vacuum rule was not insisted on and no further delay occurred on that score. Earlier agreement forestalling Soviet intervention could have been reached, however, had the Allies departed from the no-negotiation rule. In Italy's case, on the other hand, it was the vacuum rule that had the most disastrous effects. Several weeks were lost after Mussolini's ouster because the new Italian regime could not establish Contact with the Allies for technical reasons. Even so, things might have gone more quickly if the Allies had not acted on the principle, im- plied in the no-negotiation rule, that all they could do was to wait:until the enemy indicated his readiness to sur- render unconditionally. But the real damage, as noted above, was done after the Italianoffer of qualified surrender had been received. The offer waS rejected in the name of strict uncondition- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 ????????? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 230 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER ality. . The vacuum rule was later abandoned, and rela- tions between winner and loser were put on the basis of qualified surrender, as the Italians had proposed to begin with. But by that time the Allies were no longer in a posi- tion to derive much advantage from Italian cobelliger- ency. Thus, while the unconditional-surrender policy did not result in a significant prolongation of the war with Italy, it certainly facilitated the German deployment in that country, and this may well have contributed to a pro- longation of the war as a whole. No needless delay in winding up hostilities can be attributed to the application of the rules of uncondition- ality in Germany. Some last-minute stalling permitted a surreptitious salvaging operation in the East, but the sur- render behavior of the Germans in the West was almost perfectly adjusted to the rules of unconditionality. Their leaders recognized fully that, once surrender became un- avoidable, it could only be unqualified, and they neither threatened nor actually engaged in last-ditch resistance in order to obtain something better. Their last-ditch resistance on the eastern front cannot be blamed on the unconditional-surrender policy. On the contrary, had the Western Allies departed from that pol- icy during the terminal stage, German resistance in the East might have been greatly facilitated because Western conversations with a German surrender regime or the search for an alternative to a political vacuum would have brought the latent tension within the wartime coalition to the fore. The Russians were so suspicious that even the military surrender negotiations with the Germans on the Italian front in the spring of 1945 drew a sharp protest from them." Later, when the Allies left Admiral Diinitz in office temporarily in order to ensure the quick dis- ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 231 armament of German forces, Soviet commentators vehe- mently declared that "reactionary circles in the Allied countries"..were trying to preserve "fascist governments" in order to prevent the "victory of the democratic forces of freedom-loving peoples."" It is easy to imagine what the Russians would have said if the Allies had initiated talks prior to surrender with a view to recognizing an interim regime. Such considerations precluded Western dealings with the political and military opposition that tried to over- throw Hider in July 1944. The problem of relations with this dissident group was handled in accordance with the rules of unconditionality,which embodied ideological and political, rather than military, considerations. The Allied leaders remembered that the sole purpose of the German generals between the two wars had been to re- build Germany's military strength in order to subvert the peace settlement by force or by the threat of force. The generals had thrown their influence behind Hider and thus made-the Nazi regime possible. Was it not folly, then, to allow the German military caste to dissociate itself from Hider's doomed enterprise, maintain its in- fluence behind a peaceful fa?e, and start the same game over again? Critics of Allied policy in. World War II argue that this negative attitude was unwarranted. They maintain that the postwar situation would have developed much more favorably from the Allies' point of view if Ger- many's military leaders had been encouraged to eliminate Hitler and to make peace. In the light of hindsight, a considerable case can be made for this position. But no matter how desirable it might have been to encourage Germany's political transformation and conclude peace Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 232 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER, with a regenerate regime, the Allied governments could not endorse such a policy, even if they had wished to, except in concert with Soviet Russia. There was little chance of such a concerted procedure, however, for basic goals and interests were too far apart. The Russians were interested mainly in promoting radical social changes in Germany, so as to set the stage for a fundamentally anti- Western reorientation of German society after the war. Therefore, any Allied attempt to work out a common platform would have risked splitting the coalition no less than independent action by the West. The only sure way of avoiding a split was by conceding the German prize to Russia, but that, of course, would have been suicidal for the West. Substitution of a policy of negotiation or qualified surrender for that of unconditional surrender during the war with Germany would have threatened to split the coalition. As the end was drawing near, however, no mitigation of the formula was needed to cut short last- ditch resistance by the Germans in the West; no such mitigation could affect their determination to hold out in the East as long as was necessary to save their people from the Russians. In the West, the Germans, for rea- sons of their own, chose to let military resistance subside; in the East, no blandishments on the part of the Soviet Union could induce them to abandon their last-ditch resistance. THE FALLACIES OF UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER What the record indicates is that the mere verbal expression of Allied policy exercised no major influence upon the stubbornness of enemy resistance and the dura- ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 233 tion of the- war. The belief that the Allies could have shortened the war appreciably if they had mitigated the excesses of their verbal behavior is a myth. This myth is readily believed because it is consonant with one of the pervasive beliefs of our age, the belief in manipulation as the main factor determining human conduct. Addicted to a na? stimulus-response philosophy, we tend to take it for granted that people's actions depend on nothing but the momentary stimuli they receive, stimuli that we, the manipulators, can control at will. Where this philosophy holds sway, the possibility that conduct might also have other sources is not even taken into consideration. There is no room for the "autonomous" sources of conduct in the simplistic philosophy that colors so much of our pres- ent political thinking. Accordingly, during the war, the enemy's own permanent and deep-rooted loyalties, his own spontaneous assessment of his interests, and similar autonomous factors were not taken into account when we tried to foresee and influence his conduct in the terminal situation. Nothing seemed to matter except what we did to him and what we told him then and there. Even in retrospect, we indulge in fantasies to the effect that every- thing would have happened differently if our verbal manipulation of the enemy's actions had been more skill- ful. This line of criticism is worthless because it is based upon the manipulative fallacy, a misconception that the critics share. with the policymakers whose decisions they scrutinize. There is, however, an even more fundamental flaw in this. kind of criticism of the unconditional-surrender policy. The main question to which it is addressed, namely, whether the policy of unconditional surrender has "prolonged the war," is irrelevant. This sort of Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 234 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER question was centrally relevant to the assessment of the merits of basic strategic decisions in World War I, where it turned out in retrospect that victory, though fully achieved, had no real, lasting value for the principal win- ners, France and England, because they had bled them- selves white in pursuing it. The drain on their resources involved in coming out of the war in possession of a com- plete monopoly of armed strength turned out to be more important in the long run than that monopoly itself. For France and Britain, victory was Pyrrhic because the war "lasted too long"; i.e., it was too costly in lives and, mate- rial goods. The victory the West achieved in World War II also turned out to be hollow, but not owing to the length or costliness of the war as such. The war, of course, had been tremendously destructive, and it may well be argued that the political aftermath would have been better if the Allies had been less adamant in ruling out political concessions to new, regenerate regimes on the enemy side. But it was not the undue prolongation of the war that was primarily responsible for the hollowness of the victory, nor was the excessive length and destructive- ness of the war caused by the lack of a sensible strategic concept on the eventual winners' side. In World War I, the West's holding out for com- plete victory .was ill-advised because it entailed exhaus- tion. For this reason alone, a policy of compromise would have been preferable. (It is not inconceivable, though. it is by no means certain, that a compromise settlement could have been worked out with Germany.), In. World War II, however, the western conduct of operatic:ins at least did not involve the insane strategic concept of sym- metrical, mutual attrition, i.e., months and .years of al- most uninterrupted. slaughter, "justified" by.the hope of ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 235 still having some divisions left when the enemy had none. The-West's attrition strategy in World War II was more destructive than it need have been, but at least it was, by and large, asymmetrical, as a genuine winning strategy must be. For the United- States, politically the leading power of the West; the war had not been total at all, and if the postwar period found the West in a politi- cAy disadvantageous position, it was not because the human and economic substance of its leading component had been drained away. Nor was the West's political in- transigence_the chief reason why fighting. continued far beyond the point where strategic victory was assured: blindness -and fanaticism on the eventual losers' side would Probably have led to this result even if the even- tual winners had been less intransigent. It seems, then, that fastening upon the "unnecessary prolongation of the war as the maim criterion of weak- ness in the Allied war leadership is just one more instance of the well-known tendency of strategic thinking to lag one war behind. As we have seen above, the, uncondi- tional-surrender policy itself was conceived largely in an effort to avoid a supposed mistake made in the previous war; its critics, however, are apparently not above falling into similar errors. To find fault with many critics of the Allied policy 'of unconditional surrender, however, is not to say that this policy was,free from basic fallacies. We have seen that in two cases, those of Italy and Japan, the policy could not even be put into practice, while in a third, that of Ger- many, it worked because it fitted in with German prefer- ences and calculations of which its authors were not aware. If leaders enjoying overwhelming military su- periority nevertheless managed to set themselves objec- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 236 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER fives that cannot be attained, there must be something wrong with their basic thinking and doctrine. It will be useful at this point to identify the main fallacies of the unconditional-surrender policy. The first fallacy was the Allied policymakers' fail- ure to distinguish between the problem of inflicting stra- tegic defeat on the enemy and that of inducing him. to surrender. Whereas the former problem involves only violent interaction, the latter concerns the transition from violence to nonviolence. At this stage, there must be some give-and-take. A surrender agreement is essentially a political bargain. To aim at obtaining surrender while ruling out all bargaining on principle is a contradiction in terms. It is quite true that belligerents strong enough to impose surrender, and thus to obtain a monopoly of fight- ing strength, need not condude a compromise peace; they can dictate terms. Dictation, however, does not mean that the winner, in fixing the terms, must act as if the loser had no bargaining assets at all. The fallacy inherent in the unconditional-surrender doctrine that we have described consists in supposing that before the beaten enemy has renounced the use of his last significant capabilities his bargaining strength is exactly nil. We should be dear about the penalties for acting on this fallacy. These penalties do not include exhaustion of the winner's resources, undue prolongation of the war, or other major calamities of this kind. The winner will find, rather, that his objectives, framed in the light of a fallacious doctrine, are unrealistic. As he enters the ter- minal stage of the Conflict he will discover too late that he cannot avoid making payments proportionate to the loser's residual bargaining strength. He must either re- vise his original policy or make involuntary payments to ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 237 the loser, to third parties, or to "nature" (as the game theorists Would put it)." It is poor policy in general to treat an enemy nation as if it were a quantite negligeable. Victorious leaders who impose a political vacuum on the defeated enemy act on this questionable premise. Political nature no less than physical nature, however, abhors a vacuum; imposing one is bound to lead to ultimate disappointment. The consequences of -the Allies' vacuum policy in World War II were largely negative, where they were not posi- tively harmful. Where, as in West Germany, the politi- cal vacuum eventually gave way to the development of a democratic regime, the same thing could also have hap- pened had there been no vacuum. In this case only time was lost, but in East Germany, communism rushed into the vacuum. Japan might have fallen under communist domination had the Allies succeeded in imposing integral unconditional surrender there. In. Austria, where no vacuum was imposed, the communists did not seize power even in that part of the country that was under Soviet occupation. - Whereas the vacuum policy actually jeopardized prospects for a democratic development in the defeated countries, it recommended itself to the instigators of un- conditional- surrender precisely because they saw in it an indispensable preliminary condition for the healthy de- velopment Of political democracy and thus for a peace- ful future. This brings us to the second major fallacy, or duster of fallacies, involved in the doctrine of uncon- ditional surrender. The main inspiration behind the pol- icy was the passionate belief that the more completely the enemy was stripped of power at the end of hostilities, the more securely peace would be established. The small- z Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81 01043R002ionn7nnrn Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 238 UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER est shred of power and influence surviving on the los- ing side was to be feared as a possible focus of infection from which the disease of war might spread again. This summed up the problem of war or peace. This belief, preposterous as it is, was not pulled out of a hat; there was seemingly solid historical evidence behind it. World War II did grow out of Germany's de- sire to. turn the tables on the powers that defeated her in I 918; had she been more thoroughly stripped of power, this could not have. happened. It could also be argued that lasting peace might have been secured after World War I by treating Germany not more sternly -but more leniently. But it is impossible to settle this question one way or another, and we must admit in any case that re- venge by the defeated was one of the possible threats to peace after World War I. The mistake Was only to be- lieve that this threat would necessarily persist, and be the dominant factor in international relations, after World War II as well., The Western leaders and peoples over- looked the fact that a vast transformation was taking place in the political universe, completely overshadowing the German-Western and Japanese-American differences inherited from the era of the Baghdad railway, the Tir- pitz fleet, and the Open Door in China. Instead of plan- ning to settle the problems germane to World War II, they resolved to end it by doing everything that would have been needed to prevent it from breaking out. Even on this premise, however, the approach em- bodied in the unconditional-surrender policy was falla- cious. Even if weakening the former enemies in order to prevent them from ever again becoming threats to peace had been a valid objective (which, given the very favor- able outlook for their spontaneous "reorientation," was ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 239 not the case) ,-unconditional surrender was not the key to it. If the Western leaders' had read history correctly, they would have realized how fleeting a thing is a war- time monopoly of military strength. Dangers such as revenge by a defeated power cannot be indefinitely warded off by unilateral disarmament or even by occupa- tion and the imposition of a political vacuum. There are only two which such dangers can be nullified. A defeated power, even if it does not reorient its policy, can cease to be.dangerous either if it goes into decline by los- ing vitality or:if an international grouping is set up facing it with overwhelming odds. The main reason Germany remained dangerous after World War I was not that she had not been- given a stern enough lesson, but that the coalition that might have been strong enough to discour- age her plan forrevenge fell apart. Two problems were germane to securing lasting peace after World War II: Was German and Japanese revenge the main danger to avert? And if so, was a firm and stable countercoalition available? The Allied lead- ers unfortunately answered the first question with "yes," although the correct answer was "no." As to the second question, they did not even raise it, because they did not recognize that peace was a matter of the international balance. They put their faith instead in unconditional surrender, in' going to the farthest conceivable limit in dismantling the German and Japanese power structure. They reduced the problem of forestalling further wars to that of administering to the disturbers of the peace a lesson they would never forget. This pedagogic fallacy was perhaps the most salient feature of the Western approach to the problem of war and peace. Western leaders and their nations did not Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043ROn7innn7nnn Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 2 4? UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER ? know, alas, how quickly people forget even the most pain- ful lessons, how differently the same lesson can be inter-, preted by those who administer it and by those who receive it, and how soon it can become irrelevant because of changed circumstances. Permanent peace rests on a weak foundation indeed if it depends on the undying memory of a just chastisement. This, however, was the foundation we prepared for it by adopting the uncondi- tional-surrender policy. It is idle to debate whether the mistake was an avoid- able one. In all probability it was not: as we suggested in Chapter Two, the tendency to expect lasting peace from the destruction of all germs of aggression located in the enemy society has deep roots in the American tradition. It would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible, for Americans to sustain the war if they had not been inspired by this expectation. From this point of view, the pedagogic fallacy inherent in the policy of unconditional surrender was a pragmatically valuable illusion during the war. And this leads to a question of conscience: if an illusion is pragmatically valuable, if it works, is one justi- fied in corroding it by rational criticism? The answer is that illusions of this sort do not col- lapse merely because rational analysis corrodes them; our experience of "losing the peace after winning the war"? an experience repeated twice in the last fifty years?has done more in this respect than any amount of abstract analysis. We have never been slow to see the flaws in our specific war ideologies after the event, but this has not, so far, induced us to give up the habits of thought that produce such fallacies. There are some signs that as a people we are moving away from the kind of fallacious thinking about the prob- ALLIED POLICY IN WORLD WAR II 241 lem of peace and war that expressed itself in the uncon- ditional-surrender policy. An indication of this is the recent growth of a considerable body of literature, criti- cally analyzing the traditional moralistic, all-or-nothing American approach to the problem of war and peace. Some recent political experiences, such as the Korean war and the ups and downs of the cold war, also may have contributed to the development of less rigid, more elastic ways of thinking about the international conflict and in- ternational harmony. But deeply ingrained emotional patterns die hard, and old fallacies, no matter how thor- oughly hindsight demolishes them, have a way of crop- ping up again when a new challenge is to be met. Hence, scrutinizing them is no wasted effort. ?.! Declassified in Part - Sanitized Cop Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070001 4 . Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release . 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release . 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release . 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release . 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 AWAY FROM THE SIEGE STWXTEGY ? THE CHANGED OUTLOOK FOR STRATEGY It is safe to assume that future armed 'conflicts will not be dominated by the strategy of attrition that deter= mined the character of World Warsrand IL The de- structiveness of present (and, a fortibri, future) .weapons is such that strategic decisions can no longer center upon the gradual wearing down of the enemy's mobilizable potential. Bence,' we no longer can -visualiie terminal situations of. the "classic" World War I and II type, es- _ sentially representing the last stage of a siege. The main feature of that pattern was the unirnp aired cohesive struc- ture of the loser's residual forces (and, inWorld War II, eVen of his political and socialfabric), together with the drying up of sources of supplies and'-reinforcements. What Iresent weapons portend, however, i?an extreme kist'uptive effect; which ioes far beyond the disruption -aChieved by earlier "battle" strategies.' Full-scale nu- clear warfare threatens it farget with a destruc- tion so high?that coordinated activities Must largely come t-O a stop. In such a situation, the lbser sinnot, Offer "stir render" in the shape of handing to the Winner' control Over cohesive residual capabilitie?and'over a societY that is still a going concern.'" ' T The strategic picturC i also bound to change in an Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 246 FUTURE STRATEGY even more fundamental sense. The immediate payoffs of "victory" and "defeat," possession of unimpaired armed strength on one side and lack of all defensive capa- bilities on the other, will no longer circumscribe the major strategic alternatives facing the belligerents. The worst strategic outcome will no 'longer be defenselessness but utter destruction of the entire society, and in full-scale nuclear war this fate may overtake both sides. It is ques- tionable whether an asymmetrical winning strategy can be developed at all for unlimited nuclear war between the two great world powers:8 such a war conceivably can have only losers, although this is by no means certain. With such changes in basic strategic factors, the politi- cal aspect of international conflict is bound to change too. Under the new conditions, maximally total war can no longer serve such political aims as the dictation of terms, temporary "pedagogic" occupation, or even outright con- quest. All this presupposes that something worth dictat- ing to, reeducating, or annexing survives on the losing side. The only political objective appropriate to all-out nuclear war is the elimination of the adversary, some- thing that probably cannot be achieved except at the risk of self-elimination. Adopting such an objective, coupled with such risks, is, of course, not strategy but lunacy. People, however, sometimes act in an insane fashion. In the course of the above analysis, we touched on "insane" strategies?those which aim at complete victory without having the charac- teristics of asymmetry that alone can make a strategy a winning one. Insane or not, such strategies have been ap- plied in the past. Where is the guarantee that even more insane ones will not be applied in the future? There can be no such guarantee, but the probability AWAY FROM THE SIEGE STRATEGY 247 that any power will deliberately embark on such a suicidal course must be considered extremely small. In World War I, the belligerents stumbled into the strategy of mutual attrition because past doctrine provided them with no other possibility, and also because they did not know what the consequences would be. What mutual nuclear attrition would mean, however, is only too clear to everyone. But if this course is extremely unlikely to be chosen deliberately, it may nevertheless grow out of miscalculation, for example underestimation of the enemy's ability to hit back. If this happens, the political outcome will not be strategic surrender of the World War I and II type but mutual devastation, with whatever political adjustment may subsequently be possible. We must also mention the possibility that a power might develop a perfect winning strategy for all-out nuclear war, i.e., the strategy of a first strike that elimi- nates all significant retaliatory capabilities on the adver- sary's side. Needless to say, a power whose enemy devel- ops strategic capabilities of this sort is in mortal danger: the enemy can, if he chooses, eliminate that power with ,relative impunity. Once this happens, strategic surrender (at least strategic surrender .of the classic type discussed above) will be irrelevant. But this kind of situation points to the possibility of surrender of a different sort: surrender without fighting. If one power has a monopoly of such a winning strategy, and its adversary knows it, a mere threat of attack might induce the latter to sur- render politically. SURRENDER IN NUCLEAR WAR - Strategic surrender may become germane to the ter- minal stage of other possible variants of total nuclear Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA RDP81 01043ROn7innn7nnn Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 248 FUTURE STRATEGY warfare. For example, even without possessing a perfect winning strategy, one side may achieve a victorious, asym- metrical outcome, if it comes out of unlimited nuclear war with much larger operational capabilities, and par- ticularly in a much less disrupted state, than the other. If the latter then still possesses even a small, residual nuclear capability that is well protected, the surrender of this capability will be important to the former. While the victory itself will be predicated on differential disruption rather than on divergent attrition, the characteristic ele- ment of strategic surrender, dispensing with the use of a residual capability, will still be present. Similar terminal problems might arise in another con- ceivable type of nuclear war, a war that is waged entirely in the form of counter-force operations (the pure air- counter-air war). This stratgy is, if course, one of pure disruption. But if one side wins the battle, surviving small units on the other side will be potentially dangerous (as small units surviving after decisive non-nuclear bat- tles were not), so that it will be important to secure their surrender. Although the nuclear variants of surrender just dis- cussed necessarily differ in many respects from the older, non-nuclear ones surveyed in this study, the permanent characteristics of surrender specified in our analysis will be present if strategic surrender becomes a factor in the context of nuclear war. Thus, surrender will still be es- sentially. a bargain, calling for. counterpayments; .it will still not be synonymous with omnipotence for one side and zero bargaining power for the other. Those who may have to deal politically with surrender will have to keep this in mind. Nine NUCLEAR STRATEGY AND LIMITED WAR The emergence of nuclear weapons not only changed the possible significance of strategic surrender, but also tendered questionable the compatibility of victory in any meaningful sense with the waging of total war. The new weapons are so destructive that, if they are used to the full limit of their destructiveness, the losses they cause must far outweigh any political advantage that might be derived from'victory. If we disregard the asymmetrical case in which one side can prevent any critically telling use of the opponent's capabilities, we have to recognize that the concept of strategic victory will be meaningful in the future only in wars that are nontotal, i.e., wars that end when a significant .part of destructive potential; of both sides has not been put to Use. - The concept of nontotal war has been: discussed: in Chapter Two of this study. The essential condition for a _ - conflict's remaining nontotal, we suggested there, is that the.beaigerent.who is frtstrated,by the outcome of early, engagements nevertheless accepts their verdict as final., Such behavior; we Said further, presupposes the initial losers .(or .at least nonwinner's) belief' that he cannot secure for himself a better total payoff by prolonging the w?ar, either because the later engagements Would end as poorly for him as the early ones had, or because securing Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 250 FUTURE STRATEGY a larger slice of what is politically at stake, though feasi- ble, would not be worth the additional cost. This analy- sis was carried out with the known historical past in mind. We shall now consider what the novel facts of the nuclear age imply concerning the problem of the limitation of war. The first thing we have to recognize is that the pat- tern of gradually mounting costs and losses, a pattern that is central to classic nontotal war no less than to classic attrition strategy, is alien to the nature of nuclear war. One cannot keep such a war nontotal simply by cutting it short; if waged in all-out fashion, it can become very highly total in the first exchange of blows. This means that any limitation of nuclear war, any holding back of destructive capabilities for its entire duration, must be in a sense artificial. It can only result from a decision to do much less than one could from the very beginning, rather than from a decision to quit after the first results of un- limited efforts are in. One may say, in fact, that in the classic pattern single efforts are unlimited, in the sense that (given substantial equality among the contenders) decisions about what forces to commit are based solely on what the enemy has readily available: the only upper limit is what is thought necessary to overmatch him. In a nuclear war, however, the first exchange would lead to total destruction if its vehemence were determined by this criterion. Therefore, an "artificial" limiting criterion is needed. The necessity for an artificial limitation poses exceed- ingly difficult theoretical and practical problems. How can one determine the nature and extent of necessary and sufficient artificial limitations? And supposing that this NUCLEAR STRATEGY AND LIMITED WAR 251 is done, how can prospective enemies reach an agreement on this basis? No attempt can be made here to answer these questions; we must limit ourselves to a few general remarks. Strategies involving artificial limitations are not alto- gether inconceivable: the classic principle of unlimited single efforts in the above sense does not have the force of a law: of nature. To be sure, the drafting of explicit agreements about artificial limitations of single efforts is an exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, task. But artificiallimitations might come to be observed without an explicit agreement; each belligerent might, for ex- ample, spontaneously decide to pull his punches in cau- tious fashion, hoping that his adversary will also do so. Such a pattern can be quite stable as long as neither side sees an opportunity for achieving a quick knockout by a single unlimited blow that leaves the enemy no chance for a telling riposte. Belief in the existence of such a win- ning strategy, of course, would automatically wipe out all limitations, regardless of whether or not they are ex- plicitly codified in international agreements. The artificial limitation of single blows, however, does not in itself ensure that the whole war will be non- total. The essential question in this respect is not whether single blows are limited, but whether a peace settlement is made on the basis of a military outcome achieved while very considerable capabilities remain unused on both sides. Whether this happens or not depends primarily on the attitude of any belligerent who is dissatisfied with the outcome of the partial use of capabilities. We have here, indeed, an invariable principle valid for all nontotal war, no matter how strategic patterns change. Novel nuclear 1.1 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50 Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA -RDP8 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 252 FUTURE STRATEGY capabilities, however, pose problems in connection with keeping ,a war nontotal that do not exist in non-nuclear war. Even in nuclear war, acknowledging defeat (or any other unsatisfactory outcome, such as stalemate) on the strength of the result of a partial effort is not unduly difficult when the political stake is low. Low-stake wars tend to remain nontotal in any case.- The crucial problem that arises in connection with limiting nuclear war is how to conclude a high-stake war with considerable capabili- ties held in abeyance on. both sides. There is a ready solution of this problem in the classic context. It is based on strategic foresight. Whatever the stake, additional efforts are warranted only if they may be expected to change the trend. Where this is ruled out, i.e., where an adverse trend pointing toward defeat or stalemate is clearly seen to be irreversible, the result of partial operations mirrors that of more total ones. The partial operations, in other words,.constitute a representa- tive sample of any more complete cycle of operations: Such judgments, however, can be made with cogency only where the classic principle of unlimited single blows holds. When the single blows are unlimited, there may be a basis for concluding that the outcome will not change when their number is increased. But when the partial result is based on artificial limitations, such extrapola- tions are necessarily problematic. The partial outcome may -still cogently imply that one side is relatively stronger, but it cannot prove that the stronger side would be in a position to achieve a monopoly of military strength if the war were to become more total. Hence, even if the partial outcome strongly favors one side, it cannot serve as a firm basis for setting peace terms pre- NUCLEAR STRATEGY AND LIMITED WAR 253 dicated upon unimpaired strength-on one side, defense- lessness on-the other. If the winner of partial operations were to demand the surrender of the loser's significant unused capabilities, yielding would mean that the loser would be exposed in the future to the constant danger of extinction, and to the certainty of continuous un- bearable exactions. This he .can prevent as long as he still has considerable unused capabilities; .by employing them in a last, suicidal outbreak of despair, he can. at least prevent the winner from enjoying the fruits of his victory. Under classic conditions, such possible despair re- actions do not present A significant problem, because any reasonable extrapolation from an irreversible losing trend implies that the longer desperate, hopeless resis- tance goes on, the less telling will be the blows that the loser midlit still inflict- on the winner. Any small addi- tional loss thatthe winner will be made to suffer will have as its counterpart a large additional loss for the loser. The gradualness characteristic of the classic stra- tegic picture excludes any sudden and startling jump in loss levels. Totally suicidal and murderous despair reactions at the terminal stage can enter into thestrategic picture only when capabilities are nuclear. In dealing with the political -problem of securing a settlement .on the basis of partial. nuclear operations, the-winner-must take into account the loser's ability to unleash a -last orgy of destruction, together with the reasons hei-might have-for doing so. When it copes to setting terms, the possibility ,of a last explosion of des- pair must be counted as part of the loser's bargaining strength. ,But this implies that in nontotal nuclear war, the 'final political payoffs must be moderate: in general, Declassified in Part - sanitized copy Approved for Release . 50 -Yr 2013/0 . - P8 flt1') A Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 254 FUTURE STRATEGY such wars can leave no room for extreme settlements. The logic of the situation cannot entail political terms based on a monopoly of armed strength on one side, with the other side reduced to defenselessness. Since the loser has a desperate last recourse, he cannot be treated as if he were defenseless. To be sure, it is not an absolute certainty that the loser in nontotal nuclear war will prefer a suicidal last battle to surrender; it is only a possibility. But this is enough to make insistence on total surrender prohibitively risky for the winner. Now we can formulate the solution to the problem under consideration: that of limiting nuclear war when the political stakes are very high. The solution is that in high-stake nuclear wars that are nontotal the politi- cal payoffs must be small, in spite of the high stakes, if the belligerents are rational. It is as if the belliger- ents were playing poker for unlimited stakes, each hav- ing a loaded revolver and ready to shoot his opponent if he should try to collect very high winnings. In other words, such wars cannot reasonably be expected to re- sult in complete victory in the political sense. What the winner can reasonably expect is only a relatively modest gain, not departing significantly from the sta- tus quo. Since nuclear war costs and losses are neces- sarily very high even if limitations are observed, this means that just keeping what one has is likely to be a very costly proposition if there is any war at all. Just leaving the status quo unchanged is infinitely cheaper and cannot be much worse politically for either side. This is, I think, instinctively recognized by political leaders everywhere. Hence, no major challenge to the existing status quo is likely, unless and until someone develops a winning strategy that can, in his opinion, NUCLEAR STRATEGY AND LIMITED WAR 255 overcome the dilemma. Crises of critical magnitude may arise, unfortunately, even if no great power delib- erately challenges the status quo: we must not forget the totally unsettling effects that conflicts between minor powers may have upon the international equilibrium. But we cannot pursue this topic further here. Belief in the possession of an asymmetrical winning strategy predicated on unlimited strikes that also pre- vent critically effective counterstrikes can, as we have seen, prompt a power to start a war in the expectation of eliminating its opponent. But it is conceivable that there might be winning strategies that ensured great political gains and also limited the destructiveness of single blows. The pure air-counter-air strategy, men- tioned above, is a case in point. This strategy involves a considerable limitation of single blows, since it im- plies that only air capabilities in being are attacked. Since many such capabilities are located near population centers, even such a "limited" strategy is bound to re- sult in extremely heavy civilian losses. It is only rela- tively less destructive than, say, a counter-industry or counter-population strategy; but the limitation seems sufficient to permit the survival of the society under attack. If one side achieves complete victory in such an air-counter-air battle, it will reduce the other to prac- tical defenselessness. At this point the winner can dic- tate political terms, subject only to the necessity of making ..political payments for the surrender of the loser's residual capabilities. Such a victorious war, in fact, would be limited only as regards single efforts; it would not be a nontotal war by our definition, since no significant capabilities would remain unused on the Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50 -Yr 2013/0 . - P8 flt1') A Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 2-56 FUTURE STRATEGY losing side. It is one of the novelties of nuclear stra- tegy that it makes a type of war possible in which single efforts are artificially limited' while the war itself is to- tal. But it appears that the pure air-counter-air war represents the only kind of artificial limitation that does not necessarily result in nontotal war, and hence per- mits large political payoffs even under nuclear condi- tions. Other possible types of artificial limitations (such as limiting nuclear weapons to tactical uses) do not have this property. Wars in which such limitations are re- liably observed but in which neither side has a totally successful counterforce strategy are necessarily nontotal, and hence permit only compromise settlements. A war ending on moderate terms may nevertheless have very far-reaching political consequences. For ex- ample, it may result in considerable, or even revolu- tionary, political changes in either of the war-making societies. If one side is very pleased to see such changes occur in the other, the former may reckon them as a high net political payoff accruing to it. But we must distinguish such payoffs from those that winners im- pose on losers on the strength of the strategic outcome. In a nontotal nuclear war, the imposed terms cannot reasonably be expected to be other than lenient. One has to approach the peace table in such a war in a spirit of moderation to avoid the risk of total war. A few words remain to be said about low-stake wars in the nuclear age. Such wars obviously can end in complete victory in a political sense: if the stake is low, the military loser will give it up entirely without much difficulty. If the stake is low, however, the means em- ployed to achieve victory or to avert defeat must be limited; and if the belligerents possess nuclear weapons, NUCLEAR STRATEGY AND LIMITED WAR 257 this means that single efforts wine subject to stringent artificial limitations, possibly to the extent of excluding the use of nuclear weapons altogether., Are-Tow-stake conflicts possible in the nuclear age? The creation of a small, insignificant fait accompli by a big power may well give rise to such a .conflict. Such incidents are unimportant by definition, but a great power whose interests are hurt by them may prefer taking active countermeasures, amounting to a low-stake war, to acquiescence. Meaningful counteraction, however, is possible in such cases only if forces that can operate on a level of low destructiveness are available. "Massive retaliation" cannot undo a small fait accompli; it can only create- a very large new one, changing the status quo to a con- siderable extent. A power that has only large indivi- sible packages of destructive potential at its disposal will find that it is not in a position to counter minor breaches of the status quo; nor will it be able to create small faits accomplis offsetting those created by its opponent. Everithough the stake involved in any single.minor incident_ of this kind is small, it is unwise to treat it as if it were nonexistent. Major challenges to the status quo, as we haye seen, are unlikely in any case; even nuclear wars waged for high stakes cannot result in-big shifts in_the status quo unless they become_ total (in whichsase-the shifts may well be ruinous to both sides). Hence the principle that complete acquiescence and nonviolence is the rule to be observed in all cases that are not gave enough to call for all-out counteraction cannot beTvalid. In the nuclear age the powers must accustom themselves to thinking in terms of relatively small political payoffs. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 ? CIA-RDP81 01043R0021nnn7nnnq ;II I 11 Zt& II t 111 !I II; Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 258 FUTURE STRATEGY CONCLUSION: SURVIVAL IN THE NUCLEAR AGE The major political implications of the new stra- tegic situation brought about by the emergence of nu- clear weapons may be formulated as follows: powers may seek to survive in the nuclear age, either by going to extremes of inhumanity and malevolence never im- agined before, or by drastically limiting their expec- tations of gain from the application of armed power. Adjusting to the new conditions is bound to be partic- ularly difficult for the United States, because both of the available alternatives are diametrically opposed to traditional American political attitudes. Systematic ma- levolence is as alien to the American makeup as over- blown emotional expectations of unlimited gains are congenial to it. We must, of course, cherish our traditions of hu- manity and benevolence. If the inhuman alternative for survival opened up by the nuclear age is excluded for us because of our nature, so much the better. Let US hope that this alternative will not be open to others either, for practical reasons if not for reasons of char- acter. If we rule out the inhuman solution, then we must act on the other alternative for survival. We shall have to revise some of our deeply rooted traditional attitudes, such as our rejection of compromise and our faith in ex- treme, ideal solutions when the chips are down. In the past, these propensities served us well in some respects and played us nasty tricks in others. In the future, they can only render us impotent to deal with political reality, and thus jeopardize our very survival. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? NOTES See Bibliography for full titles and publication data. Chapter One: SURRENDER AS A STRATEGIC CONCEPT I. .Clausewitz, comments on annihilation of the enemy force in the following terms: "The [enemy's] fighting ,force must be annihilated; that is, reduced to such, a state that it can no longer continue the struggle. We declare herewith that in what follows we shall mean only. this by the expression 'annihilation of the enemy's fighting force.'" Vom Kriege, p. 22. 2. Hans Delbriick, Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen'Gesihichte, IV, 334. See alsO Gert Buchheit, Vernichtungs- oder Ermattungsstrategie?, pp. II if. Chapter Two: SURRENDER AS A-POLITICAL CONCEPT c? 1. Cf. Gunnar Landtman, . The Origin .oi the' Inequality of Social Classes, esp. pp. 248,1f. 2. Xenophon, Atylbasis,-IV, 7 (translation by 3. OrL,the rigidities of premodern military establishments that prevented progressive, mobilization, see Hans Spele_r, "Mili- tarism in the Eighteenth Century"; and "Class Structure and Total,War,":Chapters 19 and 20, in, Social Order and the Risks. of War:, . ? 4. tf...i_Cilausewite.,s dictum: "The Only effective #orm, of- activity in war is the battle" (Vain Kriege, p. 31) ; and his 44,,, nition of strategy: "Strategy . . . is the use of battle for the' purpose pf,war"., (ibid? p.. 129) . 5. Cf.' ibid., pp: 149, 151 if. _ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R0071nnn7nnnq_A Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 260 NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE II Chapter Three: THE FRENCH SURRENDER (JUNE 1940) 1. Paul Reynaud, La France a sauve PEurope, II, 180. 2. Albert Kammerer, La Veda sur l'armistice, 2d ed., PP. 14 f. 3. Reynaud, II, 181 f. 4. Ibid., p. 303. 5. Ibid., p. 176. 6. Ibid., p. 303. 7. /bid., p. 340. 8. Ibid., p. 441. 9. Maxine Weygand, Recalled to Service (London, 1952), p. 226. (The French edition appeared in 1950.) 1o. At the beginning, the Marshal did not give British resistance much of a chance. But after the Germans lost the air battle over London, he understood that the war would last a long time. This strengthened his interest in not concluding peace. "The armistice," he often said, "the armistice with whatever sauce you like, bland or sharp, but no final settlement, no treaty. I shall never accept another treaty of Frankfurt." (Du Moulin de Labarthete, Le Temps des illusions, pp. 195 f.) Reynaud, pp. 297 f. 12. Sir Edward Spears, The Fall of France, June 19401 p. 193. 13. Kammerer, pp. 107 f. 14. See The Private Diaries of Paul Baudouin. i5. Spears, pp. 219 f. 16. Reynaud, p. 315. 17. Ibid., p. 324. This outburst is characteristic in that it reveals the stubborn survival of the French revolutionary habit of basing political conduct upon classic models. Weygand, by the way, later disavowed the stand he had taken; he conceded that there would have been no point in the French cabinet's letting itself be captured by the Germans. Another Weygand outburst is reported by Kammerer: "Vous voulez aller jusqu'au bout . . . mais vous y etes, au bout!" [You want to go to the bitter end . . . but you are at the bitter end! 1, Kammerer, p. no. i8. Reynaud, p. 325. 19. Cf. A. Rossi, Les Communistes franfais pendant la drole de guerre, pp. 322 if. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release NOTES TO CHAPTER THREE 261 20. Reynaud, pp. 340 f.; Kammerer, pp. i8o 'ff. ? 21. Robert Aion, Histoire de Vichy '940-1944).p. 48. 22. Ibid. 23. Kammerer, p. 196. 24. Renaud, pp. 363 if. 25. William L. Langer, Our Vichy Gamble, p. 45. 26. Kammerer, p. 125. 27. According to Robert Aron, the cabinet was unanimous- ly in favor of breaking off armistice talks if the Germans de- manded any part of the fleet or of the colonial empire. The military members of the cabinet took a number of measures in preparation for last-ditch resistance in that case; two battleships were sent to Africa, as well as nine hundred airplanes. (See Aron, p. 62.) 28. Kammerer, p. 444. 29. Galeazzo Ciano, L'Europa verso la catastrofe, p. 562. See also Aron, p. 74. 30. Ciano, p. 563. 31. B. H. Liddell Hart, The German Generals Talk, pp. 144 if. 32. Ciano, p. 562. 33. Kurt von Tippelskirch, Geschichte des zweiten Welt- kieges, p. 34. Ciano, p. 567. 35. Diaries of Paul Baudouin, p. 172; Aron, pp. 240 if. 36. Diaries of Paul Baudouin, p. 173. 37. Ibid., pp. 190 f. 38. Ciano, pp. 591-94. 39. J. Paul-Boncour, Entre deux guerres, III, 222-38. 40. 'Du Moulin, p. 24. 41. Diaries of Paul Baudouin, p. 110. ? 42. Ciano, pp. 591-94. 43. Apparently some Germans thought so too; Guderian said later that he had tried in vain to convince Hitler that it was necessary to_occupy Northwest Africa after the fall of France. (Langer, p. 60.) 44. Elie J. Bois, Truth on the Tragedy of France, pp. iii f. (Italics in original.) ? . 45. See Rossi, passim. 46. Tippelskirch, PP. 83 f. 47. Aron, pp. 249'f. 48. OlYthis diplomatic offensive, cf. Aron, pp. 428 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 262 NOTES TO CHAPTER FOUR 49. /bid., p. 433. 5o. See William D. Leahy, I Was There, pp. 21, 24, 54-61. 51. Aron, pp. 246 if. 52. /bid., p. 247. 53. Cf. the Dakar episode of September 1940. Chapter Four: THE ITALIAN SURRENDER (SEPTEMBER 1943) I. See Mark W. Clark, Calculated Risk, p. 3. 2. Enno von Rintelen, Mussolini als Bundesgenosse, pp. 197 if. 3. Ibid., pp. 209 f. 4. /bid., pp. 213-15. 5. Ibid., pp. 216 if. 6. Ibid., pp. 236 if. 7. Winston S. Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. V: Closing the Ring, p. 684. 8. Ibid., p: 686. 9. Admiral Franco Maugeri, From the Ashes of Disgrace, p. 165. 10. Harry C. Butcher, My Three Years with Eisenhower) P. 371. ix.Ibid., p. 372. 12 Ibid. 13. Hans Speier, "Psychological Warfare Reconsidered," Chapter 32 in Social? Order and the Risks of War. 14. Pietro Badoglio, Italy in the Second World War; Dwight. D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe, p. 184. 15. Maugeri, p. 157. A similar feeling is expressed in Oscar di Giamberardino, La Politica. bellica nella tragedia nazionale, p. 226. 16. Maurice Vaussa d, Histoire de Phalle contemporaine, pp. 282 f. - ? ? 17. Butcher, p. 375. 18. Ibid., p. 382; see also Wallace Carroll, Persuade or Perish, pp. 171 if. 19. Churchill to Eden, August 7, 1943, in Churchill, Closing the Ring, p. 102. 20. /bid.) pp. 99 if. 21. Butcher, pp. 391, 398, 405. (These figures seem to have been exaggerated.) NOTES?T0 CHAPTER FOUR 263 22. Cf. Tippelskirc.h, p. 371. ? 23. On this concept, see our discussion of the policy of unconditional surrender in Chapter Seven, pp. 218 f. 24. Butcher, p. 375. 25. ibid., p. 386. 26. /bid., p: 394: 27. Chuichill, Closing the Ring, p. 103. 28. On the instructions to Eisenhower, see ibid., pp. 105 f. 29. Robert E. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, p. 744. 30. /bid., pp.. 742 f. 31. Maugeri, pp. 178 f. 32. Badoglio; p. 72. 33. Butcher, p. 410. 34. Vaussard, pp. 293 f. 35. Badoglio, p. 73. Tippelskirch, p. 368, also gives this explanation. 36. Butcher, p. 400. 37. On September-3, day of the signature of the ,armistice, General Clark warned of the possibility that the Italians might "welsh" on their agreement. (Ibid. p. 407.) ? 38. Ibid., p. 405. 39, Churchill, Closing the Ring,.. pp. ioi f. 40. Churchill to Roosevelt, September 2-1, 1943, ibid., p. 189. 41. Badoglio, p. 103. (Author's italics.) 42. 'Churchill, Closing the Ring, p. 201. 43. Sherwood, p. 752. 44. a Admiral of the Fleet Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope, A Sailor's Odyssey, p. 572.. (In the book, de Cour- ten's name is.consistently misspelled "de Courton.") 45. Badoglio, p. 103. Cf. also Churchill, Cldsing the Ring, p.201. 46. Carroll, p. 174. The Italian fleet's surrender is flatly attributed to the Algiers. broadcasts in Edward; W. Barrett, Truth Is Our Weapon, p. 47. Actually,- the ships steaming into Malta did not come from La Spezia- but from Taranto. On the fate of ,the main naval force that set out from La ,Spezia, see below. 47. S. E. Morison, History of U.S. Naval Operations in World ,War II, IX, 242 f. The source, quoted for Admiral Bergamini!s speech is Admiral Fioravanzo; The Italian avy's Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Rele ? 50 -Yr /06/27. - DP8i_n ad.'1 A Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 264 NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE Struggle for the Country's Liberation, 1946 (not available to the author). 48. Alberto da Zara, Pelle d'Ammiraglio, p. 418. 49. /bid., p. 419. 50. Ibid., p. 421. 51. Ibid., p. 425. The order to "treat the Italian navy well" was given by Churchill (Closing the Ring, p. 115). 52. Badoglio, p. 53. Morison, PP. 243 54. Clark, p. 2. 55. Cf. Sherwood, p. 65. 56. For Cordell Hull, he was a near-enemy (cf. The Mem- oirs of Cordell Hull, II, 1159 ff.). Chapter Five: THE GERMAN SURRENDER (MAY 1945) 1. Von Griinau telegram to German Foreign Office, Octo- ber 1, 1918, in Ralph Haswell Lutz (ed.), Fall of the German Empire, II, 459. 2. Ibid., pp. 462 if. 3. Cf. Hans Rothfels, The German Opposition to Hitler, p. 84. 4. On these contacts, cf. Allen W. Dulles, Germany's Underground; The Von Hassell Diaries, 1938-1944; J. Lons- dale Bryans, Blind Victory, pp. 60 if. 5. The text in Gerhard Ritter, Carl Giirdeler und die deutsche Widerstandsbewegung, p. 569. 6. According to a statement by Carl Burckhardt, reported by Hassell, this was recognized in London; cf. Ritter, p. 317. 7. The text in Ritter, pp. 570-76. 8. Ibid., p. 572. 9. /bid., pp. 577 f., 585 f. 1o. Ibid., p. 589., Ibid., pp. 589, 599. 12. On military attitudes, cf. Rothfels, p. 70. 13. Ritter, pp. 357 if. 14. Hans Speidel, Invasion 15. Ibid., pp. 72 if. 16. Ibid., p. 74. 17. Ritter, pp. 391 if. 18. Ibid., p. 394. For a different version of Kluge's re- fusal, see Dulles, pp. 187 f. 1944. NOTES TO CHAPTER FIVE 265 19. Cf. Hans Bernd Gisevius, Bis zum bittern Ende, 2991322i 20. bid., p. 304* 21. Ritter, pp. 386 f. 22.' p. 387. 23. Dulles, pp. 131 if. 24. Gisevius, pp. 308 f.; cf. also Dulles, pp. 170 f. 25. Rothfels, pp. 154 if. 26. Dr. Peter Kleist, Zwischen Hitler und Stalin, pp. 23o ff. _- 27. Ritter, p. 379 f. 28. Ibid., p. 381. 29. Dulles, p. 167. 30. conversation between GOrdeler and Wallenberg, No- vember 1942, in Ritter, p. 314. 3x. General Siegfried Westphal, The German Army in the West, p. 191. 32. Cf. Adolf Heusinger, Befehl im Widerstreit; Erich von Manstein, Verlorene Siege. 33. Forrest C. Pogue, The European Theater of Opera- tions: The Supreme Command, p. 448. 34. TiPpelskirch, pp. 658 f. 35. Albert Kesselring, Soldat bis zum letzen Tag, p. 410. 36. Pogue, p. 440; italics in original. 37. Kesselring, pp. 409, 423. 38. Pogue, pp. 477 f.; Kesselring, pp. 411, 418 if. 39. Pogue, p. 482; Kesselring, p. 421. 40. - Ibid. 41. Ritter, p. 390; the source of the story is Stuttgart's Mayor Strolin. 42. Quoted in H. R. Trevor-Roper, The Last Days of Hitler, p. 82. 43. Pogue, pp.- 476 f.; Trevor-Roper, pp. 131, 165; Walter Schellenberg, Tlie Labyrinth, pp. 392 if. 44. Trevor-Roper, pp. 130 f. 45: Ibid., p. 208. 46. Milton Shulman, Defeat in the West, p. 304. 47. The book as it appeared in Germany was Walter Liidde- Neurath, Regierung Damtz (1951). For the present study, the French edition was used (Les Derniers Jour: du Troisieme Reich, Parisi ,1950). 48. Ibid., p. 85. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 266 NOTES TO CHAPTER SIX 49. Ibid., p. 86. 50. Pogue, P. 479. 51. Ibid., pp. 480 f. 52. Liidde-Neurath, p. 108. 53. /bid., p. ixo. 54. Ibid., p. 115. 55. Pogue, p. 505. 56. Ibid., pp. 481 if. 57. Liidde-Neurath, p. I2I. 58. Pogue, p. 505. 59. Ibid., p. 506. Chapter Six: THE JAPANESE SURRENDER (AUGUST 1945) 1. Cf. Robert J. C. Butow, Japan's Decision to Surrender, 1313. 13 f. 2. Ibid., p. 14. 3. /bid., pp. 20 if.; U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS), Japan's Struggle to End the War, p. 3. 4. United States Relations with China, Based on the Files of the Department of State, p. 519. 5. Ray S. Cline, Washington Command Post: The Oper- ations Division, p. 339. 6. Memoirs of Cordell Hull, II, 1309. 7. Sherwood, p. 779. 8. Agreement of February II, 1945, cited in "The Con- ferences at Malta and Yalta, 1945,"- in Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers, p. 984. 9. Cf. Memorandum by the United States Chiefs of,Staff, January 22, 1945, ibid., p. 395; Cline, p. 338. 10. Joint Chiefs of Staff 1176/6, January 18, 1945, in Diplomatic Papers, pp. 389 f. II. Cf. James F. Byrnes, Speaking Frankly, p. 208 ; Leahy; PP. 369, 422. 12. Cf. Cline, p. 344. 13. Cf. Admiral Ernest J. King and Walter Muir White- hill, Fleet Admiral King, p. 598. 14. Cf. Cline, p. 342. 15. Cf. Leahy, PP. 384 f. 16. John J. McCloy, The Challenge to American Foreign Policy, p. 42. (The only member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff not identified with a particular service was Admiral Leahy.) NOTES TO CHAPTER'SIX 267 I 7. See below, pp. 260 f. 18. On the "no negotiation" principle, see Chapter Seven; p. 2 I 8. 19. Joseph C. Grew, Turbulent Era, II, 1406, 1411. 20. See below, pp. 312 if. 21. Congressional Record, Vol. 90, No. 139, 'August 30, 1944, PP. A4113-15. 22. Ibid., Vol. 91, No. 163, September 18, 1945, p. 8816. 23. Ibid. 24. iid s: 25. Ibid., p. 8815. 26. Ibid., p. 8819. 27. See below, pp. 305 if. 28. Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and Wari p. 627. 29. For a detailed treatment of this point see the section entitled "Japanese Peace Policies," beginning on p. 169 of this study. 30. Butow, p. 14. 31. Ibid., pp. 17 f. 32. Ibid., pp. 24 f. The above account is based on Marquis Kido's testimony before the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. Later in. his testimony, Kido added' that Shige- mitsu told him "on several occasions" during the war that un- conditional surrender would be inescapable.' 33. Toshikazu Kase, Journey to the Missouri, p. 91. 34. USSBS, OPNAV-P-03-100, Vol. II, p. 319. 35. Kase, p. 86. 36. _But'ow, p: 40. 37. USSBS, Japan's Struggle, p. 5. According to Butow, Koiso's? position was unduly weakened by i fatal oversight: he failed to secure appointment as Minister of War, in which posi- tion-he would have had a better chance to control-the officers' corps. (Butow, p. 37.) , 38. Butow, pp. 40 f. 39. /bid., p. ,40. /bid., p. 69. 41. p. 77. 42. Ibid. 43. The political complexion of the Council was mixed: the -War Minister and the two Chiefs of Staff were antipeace die-hards; the Foreign Minister and the Navy Minister (Yonai) Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 268 NOTES TO CHAPTER SIX were antiwar; the Premier, Suzuki, was vacillating between the two groups, but tended to defer to the prowar group. 44.Ibid., p. 91; Kase, p. 170. 45. Butow, p. 93. 46. Kase, p. 184. 47. Butow, pp. 121 f. 48. Ibid. 49. Testimony of Admiral Toyoda, USSBS, OPNAV-P- 03-100, Vol. II, pp. 318 f. 50. Kase, pp. 193 f.; Walter Millis (ed.), The Forrestal Diaries, p. 74. 5I. Kase, p. 205. 52. Ibid., p. 222. 53. Ibid. 54. Butow, p. 129, with references to Byrnes, Speaking Frankly, p. 205; Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. 6: Triumph and Tragedy, pp. 641-42; David H. James, The Rise and Fall of the Japanese Empire, pp. 329-30. 55. The Forrestal Diaries, pp. 74-76. 56. The text in Documents on American Foreign Relations, 1945-46, pp. 105-6. 57. Butow, pp. 103 if., 134. 58. Harry S. Truman, Memoirs, I, 396. 59. Butow, pp. 142 f. 6o. Ibid., p. 143. 61. Ibid., p. 145. 62. On "mokusatsu," see Kazu-Kawaii, "Mokusatsu," Pa- cific Historical Review, November 1950, pp. 409-14, and Wil- liam J. Coughlin, "The Great Mokusatsu," Harper's Magazine, March 1953, pp. 31-40. For these references, the author is indebted to Louis Morton's article, "The Decision to Use.the Atomic Bomb," Foreign Affairs, January 1957, p. 350. 63. Cf. Stimson and Bundy, p. 625. On the background of this decision, see Morton's excellent account in Foreign Affairs, January 1957, pp. 334-39. 64. Quoted in P. M. S. Blackett, Fear, War and the Bomb, p. 128. Professor Blackett also quotes an article by Dr. Karl T. Compton in the December 1946 Atlantic Monthly, in which the writer states: "I believe with complete conviction that the use of the atomic bomb saved hundreds of thousands-perhaps several millions-of lives, both American and Japanese; that NOTES TO CHAPTER SEVEN 269 without its use the war would have continued for many months." In a letter to Dr. Compton dated December 16,1946, Presi- dent_Truman endorsed his conclusions and added: "I? imagine the bomb caused them to accept the terms." (Blackett, pp. 128f.) 65. Byrnes, pp. 211 f. 66. Reproduced in Stimson and Bundy, pp. 617 if. 67. Stimson and Bundy, p. 625. 68: USSBS, Japan's Struggle, p. 13. 69.. Stimson and Bundy, p. 628. 70. /bid., p. 627. 71, Ibid., p. 629. 72-.- Cf. Butow, pp. 168 If. 73. /bid., p. 172. 74. /bid., p. 175. 75. /bid., pp. 152 f. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid., p. 180. 78. Ibid., pp. 193 if. 79. Cf. Documents on American Foreign Relations,194.5- 1946, pp. 107-8; William Hardy McNeill, Survey of Inter.. nationalAffairs, 1939-1946 (America, Britain, and Russia), PP. 637 f. 80. Butow, pp. 207 f. 81. On these rules, see below, pp. 218 if. III Chapter Seven: THE ALLIES' POLICY IN WORLD WAR II = I. Memoirs of Cordell Hull, II, 1166. 2._ Sherwood, p. 696. 3. Churchill, The Second World War, Vol. IV: The Hinge of Fate, pp. 686 if. 4. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe, p. 489, fn. 7. See also Chester :Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe, p. 122. 5. On the genesis of the unconditional-surrender policy, see Ginter Moltmann, "Die Genesis der Unconditional Sur- render-Forderung," Wehrwissenschaftliche Rundschau, Vol. VI, Nos. 3-4, March and April, 1956. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 2'70 NOTES TO CHAPTER SEVEN 6. Cf. Sherwood, p. 697; Churchill, The Hinge of Fate, pp. 690 f. (quoting his speech in the House of Commons, Feb!. ruary 22, 1944). 7. Cf. Roosevelt on February 12, 1943, in Samuel I. Rosen:- man (ed.), The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt, 1943 volume: The Tide Turns, pp. 71 'ff. 8. Cf. Churchill's explanation in the speech referred to in note 6 above: "Unconditional surrender means that the victors have a free hand. It does not mean that they are entitled to behave in a barbarous manner, nor that' they wish to blot out Germany from among the nations of Europe. If we are bound, we are bound by our own consciences to civilization. We are not bound to the Germans as the results of a bargain struck. That is the meaning of unconditional surrender." 9. Churchill, pp. 689 f. 0. On Roosevelt's negative reaction to a Soviet proposal on defining unconditional surrender, see Memoirs of Cordell Hull, II, 1573 f. Later, American military leaders repeatedly pressed for a specification of surrender terms in order to hasten surrender: Carroll, pp. 306 f., 313 f., 319 f.; Butcher, p. 518. These proposals also remained without effect. 1. Such a "vacuum rule" is appropriate when surrender ends a war of secession: the very object of the war is to extin- guish the sovereignty of the secessionist state once and for all. In World War II, however, the rule was applied to interna- tional conflict, where the vacuum, as it happened, was not in- tended to achieve this end. 12. On this selective pattern, see Chapter Five, pp. 132 if. 13. Rothfels, p. 154. 14. Memoirs of Cordell Hull, II, 1581 f.; Wilmot, p. 122; J. F. C. Fuller, The Second World War, pp. 258 if.; Lord Hankey, Politics, Trials and Errors. 15. As we have seen, this critique of the unconditional- surrender policy was put forward not only in retrospect; the policy of 'severe but specific" terms was vigorously supported in high Allied quarters during the war. 16. Louis P. Lochner (ed.), The Goebbels Diaries 1942- 1943)P. 325. 17. This line is adopted by Russell Grenfell (Uncondi- tional Hatred, pp. 166 if.) and F. 0. Miksche (Unconditional Surrender). I8. Fuller, p. 275. - NOTES TO.CHAPTER EIGHT 271 19. Cf. Hans Speier's!analysis in "War Aims in Political Warfare," Chapter 29 in Social Order and the Risks of War. 20. Hankey, p. 45. 21. Fuller, p. 355. 22. Westphal, p. 192. 23. Cf. Stalin's cable to Roosevelt on April 3, alleging that Marshal Kesselring "has agreed to open the front and permit the Anglo-American troops to advance to the east . . . At the present moment the Germans on the western front in fact have ceased to wage war against England and the United States. At the same time, the Germans continue the war with Russia, the ally of England and the United States." On this incident, see Leahy, pp. 386 If. 24. On Soviet comments in this vein, see Boris Meissner, Russland, die Westmiichte und Deutschland, pp. 57 f. 25. In the theory of games, first developed systematically by John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern, there is a con- venient rule to the effect that losses accruing to one "player" must be counted simultaneously as gains accruing to another. The war losses of a belligerent, however, cannot be reckoned as gains accruing to his opponent; to satisfy the rule, then, such losses are treated as gains made by a fictitious third party, called "nature." IV Chapter Eight: AWAY FROM THE SIEGE STRATEGY 1. For a similar argument, see Colonel Robert C. Richard- son III, "Atomic Weapons and Theater Warfare," Air Uni- versity Quarterly Review, Vol. VII, No. 3, Winter 1954-55, pp. II, 14. The writer says: ". . . the limiting factor will be that an atomic war of the future will not be a war of attri- tion. D-Day will find both contestants armed with adequate stocks of destructive power to permit hope of an early decision if the power is properly employed. The situation points to a short conflict in which the primary target system would consist of 'quick pay-off' objectives." 2. On the disruptive effect of massive nuclear attack, see Harrison Brown, "How Vulnerable Are We?," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. XIII, No. 9, November 1957. 3. See Richardson, op. cit., pp. 9 f. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 272 NOTES TO'CHAPTER NINE Chapter Nine: -NUCLEAR STRATEGY AND LIMITED' WAR 1. Complete defenselessness, of course, presupposes the de- struction of all forces in being, including land and naval forces. A pure counter-force strategy such as the one envisaged by Rich- ardson (see note i to Chapter Eight) aims not only at the enemy's air capabilities but at his other capabilities as well. But victory in the air battle, eliminating the loser's missile as well as manned aircraft capabilities, would mean that his other forces could not survive for long. BIBLIOGRAPHY Aron, Robert. Histoire de Vichy, 1940-1944. Paris, 1954. Badoglio, Pietro. Italy in the Second World War. New York, 1948. Barrett, Edward W. Truth Is Our Weapon. New York, 1953. Baudouin, Paul. The Private Diaries of Paul Baudouin. Lon- don, 1948. Blackett, P. M. S. Fear, War and the Bomb. New York and Toronto, 1948. Bois, Elie J. Truth on the Tragedy of France. London, x 94o. Bryans, J. Lansdale. Blind Victory. London, 1951. Buchheit, Gert. Vernichtungs- oder Ermattungsstrategie? Ber- lin, 1942. Butcher, Harry C. My Three Years with Eisenhower. New York, 1946. Butow, Robert J. C. Japan's Decision to Surrender. Stanford, 1954. Byrnes, James F. Speaking Frankly. New York, 1947. Carroll, Wallace. Persuade or Perish. Boston, 1948. Churchill, Winston S. The Second WorldWar. Vol. IV, The Binge of Fate (Boston 195o) ; Vol. V, Closing the Ring (Boston, 1951) ; Vol. VI, Triumph and Tragedy (Boston, 1953)? Ciano, Galeazzo. L'Europa verso la catastrofe. Milan and Rome, 1948. Clark, Mark W. Calculated Risk. New York, 1950. Clausewitz, Karl von. Vom Kriege. Edited by Karl Linne- bac.h. Berlin, 1937. Cline, Ray S. Washington Command Post: The Operations Division. Department of the Army, Washington, D.C., 1951. Congressional Record, Vols. 90 and 91. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Ap roved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 274 BIBLIOGRAPHY Cunningham of Hyndhope, Viscount. A Sailor's Odyssey. Lon- don, 1951. Delbriick, Hans. Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte. Berlin, 1920. VOL IV. Documents on American Foreign Relations, 1945-46. Pub- lished for the World Peace Foundation. New York, 1948. Vol. VIII in a series. Dulles, Allen W. Germany's Underground. New.York, 194.7. Du Moulin de Labarthete, Henry. Le Temps des illusions. Brussels and Paris, 1946. Eisenhower, Dwight D., Crusade in Europe. Garden- City, N.Y., 1948. Foreign Relations of the United States: Diplomatic Papers. Washington, D.C., 1955. Forrestal, James V. The Forrestal Diaries. Edited by Walter Millis. New York, 195!. Fuller, J. F. C. The Second World War. New York, 1949. Giamberardino' Oscar di. La Politica bellica nella .tragedia nazionale. Rome, 1945. Gisevius, Hans Bernd. Bis zmn bittern Ende. Zurich, 1946. Vol. II. Goebbels, Joseph Paul. The Goebbels Diaries, 1942-1943, Edited by Louis P. Lochner. Garden City, N.Y., 1948. Grenfell, Russell. Unconditional Hatred. New York, 1953. Grew, Joseph C. Turbulent Era. Boston, 1952. Vol. II. Hankey, Lord. Politics, Trials and Errors. Chicago, I950. Hassell, Ulrich von. The Von Hassell Diaries, 1938-1944. Garden City, N.Y., 1947. Heusinger, Adolf. Befehl im Widerstreit. Tubingen and Stutt- gart, 1953. Hull, Cordell. The Memoirs of Cordell Hull. New York, 1948. Vol. II. James, David H. The Rise and Fall of. the Japanese Empire. New York, 1948. Kammerer, Albert. La Verite sur Parmistice. 2d ed. Paris, 1945. ? Kase, Toshikazu. Journey to the Missouri. New Haven, 1950. Kesselring, Albert. Soldat bis zum len Tag. ?Bonn, 1953: BIBLIOGRAPHY 275 King, Ernest J., and Walter Muir Whitehill. Fleet Admiral King. New York, 1952. Kleist, Peter. Zwischen Hitler und Stalin. Bonn, 1950. Landtman, Gunnar. The Origin of the Inequality of Social Classes. London, 1938. Langer, William L. Our Vichy Gamble. New York, 1947. Leahy, William D. I Was There. New York, 1950. Liddell Hart, B. H. The German Generals Talk. New York, 1948. Liidde-Neurath, Walter. Regierung Donitz. 1951. Trans- lated as Les Derniers Jours du Troisieme Reich. Paris, 1950. Lutz, Ralph Haswell, ed. Fall of the German Empire. Stan- ford, 1932. Vol. I. Manstein, Erich von. Verlorene Siege. Bonn, 1955. McCloy, John J. The Challenge to American Foreign Policy. Cambridge, Mass., 1953. McNeill, William Hardy. Survey of International Affairs, 1939-1946 (America, Britain, and Russia). London, New York, and Toronto, 1953. Maugeri, Franco. From the Ashes of Disgrace. New York, 1948. Meissner, Boris. Russland, die Westmachte und Deutschland. Hamburg, 1953. Miksche, F. 0. Unconditional Surrender. London, 1952. Morison, Samuel Eliot. History of U.S. Naval Operations in World War II. Vol. IX. Boston, 1954. Paul-Boncour, Joseph. Entre deux guerres. New York, 1946. Vol. III. Pogue, Forrest C. The European Theater of Operations: The Supreme Command. Department of the Army, Washing- ton, D.C., 1954. Reynaud, Paul. La France a sauve l'Europe. Paris, 1947. Vol. II. Rintelen, Enno von. Mussolini als Bundesgenosse. Tubingen and Stuttgart, 1951. Ritter, Gerhard. Carl Gordeler und die deutsche Widerstands- bewegung. Stuttgart, 1955. npriassifipci in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : Clik-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 276 BIBLIOGRAPHY Roosevelt, Franklin D. The Public Papers and Addresses of Franklin D. Roosevelt. 1943 volume: The Tide Turns. New York, 1950. Rossi, A. Les Communistes frangais pendant la drale de guerre. Paris, 1951. Rothfels' Hans. The German Opposition to Hider. Chicago, 1948. Schellenberg, Walter. The Labyrinth: Memoirs of Walter Schellenberg. New York, 1956. Sherwood, Robert E. Roosevelt and Hopkins. New York, 1948. Shulman, Milton. Defeat in the West. New York, 1948. Spears, Sir Edward. The Fall of France, June 1940. Vol. II of Assignment to Catastrophe. London, 1940. Speidel, Hans. Invasion 1944. Chicago, 1950. Speier, Hans. Social Order and the Risks of War. New York, 1952. Chaps. 19, 20, 29, 32. Stimson, Henry L., and McGeorge Bundy. On Active Service in Peace and War. New York, 1948. Tippelskirch, Kurt von. Geschichte des zweiten Weltkrieges. Bonn, 1951. Trevor-Roper, H. R. The Last Days of Hitler. New York, 1947. Truman, Harry S. Memoirs by Harry S. Truman. Vol. I, Year of Decision. Garden City, N.Y., 1955. United States Relations with China, Based on the Files of the Department of State. Department of State Publication 3573, Far Eastern .Series 30. Released August 1949. U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey (USSBS). Japan's Struggle to End the War. July I, 1946. Vaitss,rd, Maurice. Histoire de Phalle contemporaine. Paris, 1950. Westphal, Siegfried. The German Army in the West. London, 1950. Weyand, MaScime. Recalled to Service. London, 1952. Wilmot, Chester. The Struggle for Europe. London, 1952. Zara, Alberto da. Pelle d'Animiraglio. Rome, 1949. INDEX Abets, Otto, German Ambassador to France, 66_ Abound, Italian cruiser, 112 Aegean Sea,.zos, 126 Air-counter-air strategy, 248; and limi- tation of war, zss f. Alexandria, x Algeria, 4.7, So Algiers, 67, Ss, 99, 104 Allies, Western: landings in North Africa, 68; surrender policies toward 74-104., 113-17; misjudge re.. quirements of Italian situation, 84f., 99 f.; failure to prepare for mili- tary cooperation by Italy, 86, to..; distrust of Badoglio and King of Italy, 89, 98, Ito; plan to send air- borne troops to Rome, 90; policy on Italian cobelligerency, too f.; moral crisis over Italian cobelligerency, 114; agreement with Dalian, 114L1 Italian surrender policy evaluated, 113-17; and German opposition, 132 f., 135,_ 231; Germans' image of, 141, 222; purely military con- ception of surrender, 153 f.; policy toward Japan, 157f.; estimate of Japanese military strength, x58; and Japanese efforts to enlist Soviet me- diation, 185=-89; unconditional-sur- render policy, 215-411 war aim de- fined as total victory, 215 f., 224, 226 Allies, tension between Eastern and Western 127; minimized by West, 133, 148, 153, 154, 222) Soviet suspicion of :West, 230 f.; potential split of ,coalition over Germany, 232 Alsace-Lorraine,--x 26 Altrnayer, French general, 38 - Ambrosio, Vittorio, Italian. Chief of Staff, 73 American attitude toward power and aggression,. 25 f. . American Civil War, x, 17 Anami, Korechika, General, Japanese Minister of War, 176, 190, 194. Annihilation policy of Hitler, 144 f. Aorta, Italian cruiser, zzz Appeasement, 6o f. Armistice, French, 44 f., so f. Armistice, Italian, 90, 92 Army Group B, German, 142 Army Group G., German, 144 Aron, Robert, on Vichy regime, 68, 26x n., 262 n. Artificial limitation of war, see Limi- tation of war Asymmetry, strategic, t8 f., 22, 235, 246) 2491 255 Atomic bomb, z6s f., 184.; and Japan's surrender, 191-206, 209 Aitilio Regolo, Italian cruiser, 112 Attlee, Clement, British Prime Min- ister, i8, 188 Attrition, in strategy, 7-9, z3; diver- gent, 9; and surrender, 21) in World Wars I and II, 7, 71, 119, 234 f.; in nuclear war, 247 Australia, 165 Austria, 17; Anschluss to Germany, 60; German antiwar group's posi- tion, 125 f.s no political vacuum im- posed after. World War II, 237 Austro-Prussian War, 17 Autonomous 1110tIrCes of conduct, 233 Avranches, breakthrough in World War II, 120, 137 Axis powers, 89, 156, 223 Badoglio, Pietro, Italian marshal and Prime Minister, 112, 115; 191; as- sumes government, 74; seek. to con- clude armistice with Allies and to hoodwink Germans, 74, 77-81; basic policy of not announcing surrender until Allies can give milttary pro- tection, 78, 89; consultations on forming cabinet, 79; conference with Hitler at Tarvis, 79; difficulty in starting negotiations with Allies, 81; Allies' suspicions ' of double ? game, 82 f., 84, 89, 110, x16; rec- ord of cooperation with Fascist .re- Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 ? Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 278 INDEX gime, 87f., zoo f.; passivity, 90s plan of airdrop of Allied troops near Rome, 90 f.; requests postponement of armistice, 92; flight from Rome, 92, 96; cryptic instructions 00 fight- ing Germans, 93 f., zo6 f.; could not go back to German side, 98; complains about Allies' treatment of Italy, 99; Hopkins memorandum op- posing recognition, Ica ; on air and naval cooperation with Allies, 103, io6; protest about fleet, 109 Bagge, Widar, Swedish diplomat, 174- 76 Baghdad railway, 238 Balkan peninsula, 99 Baltic Sea, 140 Banfl, Alberto, Italian naval officer, to8 Bargaining strength of losers, 16, 69, ii5f., 127, 152, 158, 210, 236f., 248, 253 Barrett, Edward W., 263 n. Battle, in strategy, 5, 22, 245 Battle of France, 31 f., 63 f. Baudouin, Paul, French foreign min- ister, 45, So; at Supreme War Coun- cil meeting, 38 f.; on chances of pre- venting German invasion of North Africa, 52; on decision to send Ad- miral Darlan to North Africa, 67 Beck, Ludwig, German general, mem- ber of anti-Hitler group, 125, 129, 132, 135, 136 Belgium: capitulation, 3 x ; remains outside western security system, 6o; strategic importance, 63 Benoist-Mechin, Jacques, French cabi- net member, 66 Bergamini, C., Italian admiral, 105, 113 Berio, Italian diplomat, mission to Tangiers, Si Berlin, 44, 129, 134, 146, 184 Bernadotte, Count Folke, Swedish dip- lomat, 145 Berne, 187 Biddle, Alexander J., U.S. diplomat, 45 Blackett, P. S. M., 268 n. Blitzkrieg, 3z, 56 Blum, Leon, French Socialist leader, 58 Blumentritt, Mather, German general, 48 Bane, North African port, sos Bonifacio, Strait of, z 13 Bonomi, Ivanoe, Italian Socialist leader, 79 Bordeaux, temporary seat of French cabinet, 42; cabinet meetings, 43 f. Borotra, Jean, French cabinet member, 36 Brandenberger, Erich, German gen- eral, 144 Briare, Supreme War Council meetings, 38 British War Cabinet, 75; on Italy's un- conditional surrender, 75; on un- conditional-surrender policy, 217 Brittany redoubt, 38 Burckhardt, Carl, Swiss diplomat, 264n. Butcher, Harry C., on Eisenhower's attitude toward Italian surrender, 76 f.; on press opposition to leni- ency toward House of Savoy, 8o; on fading hopes for Italian surrender, 83; on Italian "flip-flop," 85; on Eisenhower's refusal to postpone an- nouncement of Italian surrender, 94 Butow, Robert J. C.: on Japan's sur- render, 169 f., 173, x85, 199; on role of atomic bomb, 203 Byrnes, James F., U.S. Secretary of State, 185; on Soviet intervention against Japan, 160; on atomic bomb, 192 Cadiz, sz "Cadorna," Italian naval division, 1o6 Cabo Duilio, Italian battleship, zo6 Cairo Declaration, 157, 170-74, 178 Calvi, in Corsica, ziz Campbell, Sir Ronald, British diplo- mat, 43 f? Canada, diplomatic relations with Vichy regime, 67 Carboni, Giacomo, Italian general, 91 Carroll, Wallace, on propaganda myth concerning surrender of Italian fleet, 104 f? Casablanca conference, 74 f., 216 f. Cassibile in Sicily, armistice signed, 90, '05 Castellano, Giuseppe, Italian general, head of armistice mission, 81, 86, 105 Catholic party, German, 124 Chamberlain, Neville, British Prime Minister, 126 Chautemps, Camille, French Vice-Pre- mier, 43 f. Chile, Si China, 157, 165, z 70 f., 238 Chungking, 171 INDEX Churchill, Winston, 145, 270 n.; on military help to France, 38 f.; on French fleet, 39, 435 electoral defeat in 5945;56; surrender policy toward Italy, 75, 80, 83, 85 f.; on Italian fleet, 87; on recognition of Badoglio regime, 88 f.; on "payment by re- sults," 97 f.; on unconditional sur- render, 216 f. Ciano, Count Galeazzo, Italian For- eign Minister, 495 on German pol- icy regarding French armistice, 47 f. Clark, Mark W., 263 n.; U.S. general, on Italian campaign, 113 Clausewitz, Karl von?'22, 31, 34, 136, 259 n. Coalition warfare, 11,21, 153 f. Cobelligerency: proposed by Italy, 74, 85, 211; stumbling block to Allies, zoo; granted, ba; Hopkins' opposi- tion, 101; needed to permit use of fleet, 0 and morality, /17 ColdwaIr,224;l Combined Chiefs of Staff, 79, 88 Communists, and French war effort, 41, 59; German, after World War I, 124; and German opposition, 1271 134; in East Germany, 237 Constantinople, 171 Corsica, 73, ros, 112 Courten, Raffaele de, Italian Minister of Navy, 102, z o6, 507-9 Cunningham, Sir Andrew (later Vis- count), British admiral, io2, 104, 108 Cunningham-de Courten agreement, 102 Czechoslovakia, 6o, rst f. Dairen, x 6o Dakar, 262 n. Danube, 131 Danzig, x26 Dardanelles, 171 Darlan, Jean Francois, French admiral and cabinet-member, 45 f.; against sending fleet to British ports, 46; on chances of preventing German in- vasion of North Africa, 52; to go to North Africa if armistice vio- lated, 67 f.; agreement with Allies, 114f. - Dautry, Raoul, French cabinet member, 44 d'Ayeta, Italian diplomat, mission to Lisbon, 81 - Defeat, r, 17 f., 21, 23, 123, 125, 1353 279 problem of admitting defeat, 194 f.; distinction between defeat and sur- render, zo8; in future war, 246, 252 Defeatism, 15, 24, 41, 219 de Gaulle, Charles, tee Gaulle Delbriick, Hans, on strategy, 6, 7 Democracy, in Italy, xx6 Democratic mentality, 26 Despair reaction in nuclear war, 253 f. Devers, Jacob L., U.S. general, 544 Dill, Sir John, British general, 38 "Disarming" the winner, 23, 33; in French surrender, 69; in Darlan deal, 115; in Italian surrender, 116; in German surrender, 120, 533, 537) 152; in Japanese surrender, 210, 211 Disruption, in strategy, 6, 21 f. Divergent attrition, 9,25, 119 Domei, Japanese news agency, x66 DEinitz, Karl, German admiral, suc- cessor 10 Hitler, 146-50, 191, 230 Dulles, Allen W., on German opposi- tion, 132, 134, 187 Du Moulin de Labarthete, Henry, on French armistice policy, 5z Eden, Sir Anthony, British Foreign Secretary, 38 Eisenhower, Dwight D., 102, 130 f., 145; on political exploitation of Mussolini's fall, 76; on close com- munications with London and Wash- ington, 76; on mobilizing public opinion in Italy, 77; conflict with Churchill on broadcast to Italy, So; criticism of unconditional surrender, 83, 95; for accepting Italian military cooperation, 85; on recognition of Badoglio regime, 88, 91; rejects Badoglio's plea for postponement of announcement of surrender, 92-94; instructions on Italian cobelliger- ency, lot; surrender talks with Ger- many, 150-52 Exodus of French government to North Africa planned, 40-44, 47 Expediency vs. morality in Italian sur- render, xr6 f. Fait accompli, 256 f. Falkenhausen, Alexander von, German general, 130 Fascist party of Italy, 116 f.; foreign political orientation, 72; turns against Mussolini, 73 f.; dissolved, 74; Badoglio and King Victor Em- manuel III, 87 f., roc, f. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 1 s 1 ?1 It 't Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 28o INDEX Faure, Paul, French Socialist leader, 59 Fioravanzo, Italian admiral, 263 n. Formosa, 157 Forrestal, James C., U.S. cabinet mem- ber, on intercepted Japanese mes- sages, x86 FOrtsch, Hermann, German general, 144 France, zz6, 132; defeatism, 15, 24, 27; surrender, 31-70; political di- vision between "hard" and "soft" elements, 32 f.; weakness of prowar group, 333 debate on ending war, 35-403 problem of the fleet, 39, 43 f., 45 f.; debate on exodus of government, 40 if.; debate on purely military capitulation, 42?.; problem of union with Britain, 43 f.; dip- lomatic consultations on armistice, 45 ff.; evaluation of armistice, 50- 57; motives of French peace party, 57; domestic politics and war, 58 f.; attitude of right wing, Socialists, Communists, s8 f.; dependence on Britain, 59, 64; eastern alliances, 6o; appeasement of Germany, 6o f.; dissatisfaction with Britain as coali- tion leader, 6x; morale in World War II, 63; faulty strategic and political preparation for war, 64$ opposition against Third Republic, 641.; armistice supported by ma- jority, 65; Vichy regime, policy of neutrality, 65 if.; pro-German ex- tremists, 65; ambiguities in armi- stice, 66 ff.; collapse of armistice policy, 69 f.; strategy in World War I, 234. Franco, Francisco, 50; policy on inter- ven?ion, 52 f. French fleet: scuttled, 68; see also an- der France French War Committee, 35 Friedeburg, Hans von, German ad- miral, 150 Fujimura, Yoshiro, Japanese naval officer, 187 Fuller, J. F. C., on unconditional sur- render, 224, 227 Galati, Giovanni, Italian naval officer, 108 Gardner, William T., U.S. army offi- cer, 90 f. Garibaldi, Italian cruiser, 112 Gaulle, Charles de: on Brittany re- doubt, 38; on General Weygand, 38) suggests federal union with Britain, 43; role in North Africa, r44 Genoa, 112 Georges, Alphonse, French general, 38 German air force, 49, 52, 113 German attitude toward power, 27 German generals: and anti-war move- ment, 129-31; relations with Hitler, 137f.3 military loyalty and sur- render, 225 f. German opposition to Hitler, 125-37, 231 Germany, 97, roo, 115, 159, 164, x7o f., 179; surrender, 24, 119-54; alliance with Soviet Russia, 41; policy on French fleet, 46; motives behind French armistice policy, 48 ff.; peace feelers to Britain, 49?.; efforts to control Mediter- ranean, So f.; efforts to secure Span- ish intervention, 50, 52, 59; pres- sure upon Vichy after armistice, 66; nature of partnership with Italy, 72; no reinforcements to Italy, 73; re- action to Italian surrender, 91 f.; policy on French surrender, n8; strategic position after El Alamein, 119 f.; surrender in World War I, Izo if.; "stab in the back" legend, 123; response to defeat, x 24 f.; anti-Hitler opposition, see German opposition; selective capitulation in World War II, 130, 132 f., 134.f., 147-49) 222, 226; defeat, 138, 141; efforts to end war, 145 f.; final sur- render negotiations, 46-51; termi- nal situation compared with Japan's, 157 f.; application of rules of un- conditional surrender, 219, 221 f., 230, 237; effect of unconditional- surrender formula on behavior, 223- 27$ contrast with Japanese surrender behavior, 225; in World War r, 234; Allies' fear of revenge, 239 f. Geyr von Schweppenburg, Leo, German general, 130 Gibraltar, 52-54, 105 Gisevius, Hans, member of anti-Hitler group, 132, 134 Goebbels, Joseph, German propaganda minister, 224 Goerdeler, Carl: leader of anti-Hitler opposition, 125; memorandum on peace terms, xt6 f.; seeks military INDEX support, it8; on parallel with World War I surrender situation, x28 LI efforts to end war, 128-36 Goering, Hermann, German Nazi lead- er, attempts to surrender, 146 Great Britain, 72, XIS, 157; 159, 165, 170, 181, 183, 215; policy in 1940, 32; note to France on separate ar- mistice, 43; note to France on fleet, 45, 47; German peace feelers in 1940, 48?.; coalition policy, 59 f.; naval treaty with Germany, 6x; at- titude toward remilitarization of Rhineland, 6z; attitude toward Hit- ler, 62; rupture of diplomatic re- lations with France, 67) German opposition's peace feelers, xt6; Ger- man opposition's expectations, 129; surrender negotiations with Donitz, 14.91 strategy in World War I, 234 Grew, Joseph C., U.S. diplomat, on Japanese surrender, 163, 167, 195 Guderian, Heinz, German general, 26x n. Haifa, 105 Haislip, Wade U.S. general, 144 Halsey, W. H., U.S. admiral, 165 Hankey, Lord Maurice, 226 Hassell, Ulrich von, German diplomat, member of anti-Hitler group, 125, 134, 264n. Henk, Emil, German Social Democrat, member of anti-Hitler group, 135 Herriot, Edouard, president of French Chamber, 44 Himmler, Heinrich, German Nazi chief, 145 Hindenburg, Paul von, German Presi- dent, 124 Hirohito, Emperor of Japan, 174 t86, 191, 194f., 199; U.S. policy on tenure, 162-68, 187, 196, 198, 205, 209 f.; consultations about end- ing the war, 169, 181; personal in- tervention at Supreme Council for peace move, 182 f.; intervention at Imperial Conference, 200-202; atti- tude toward war unknown to U.S. public, tro f. Hiroshima, 184, 191, 199, 205 Hirota, Hoki, Japanese diplomat, con- ferences with- Soviet Ambassador Malik, 18o, 182 Hitler, Adolf, 5x, 158, 215, 224f., 231; strategy, 3!; policy on French 281 fleet, 47?.; peace feelers to Britain, 48 f.; demands modification of French armistice terms, 49?.; meet- ing with Franco, 53; interest in cheap victory, 54?.; character, 551 attitude toward England, 56 f.; French right-wing attitude toward Hitler, 58; conference with Musso- lini at Feltrei 73; with Badoglio at Tarvis, 79; informed about Badog- lio's contacts with Allies, 81; rigid war policy, Ito; German opposition to Hitler, 125-37; July to, 1944, coup, 135, 138; forbids retreat Or surrender, 137, 139, 141; admits that war is lost, 144) orders national self-destruction, 144; order dis- obeyed, 145; retires to Chancellery, 146; orders Goering's arrest, 146; appoints Matz successor, 146; sui- cide, 146 Hofer, Andreas, Nazi Gauleiter, 143 Honshu, 16t Hopkins, Harry, U.S. official, 103; on Italian surrender regime, 87f.; memorandum opposing recognition of Badoglio, lox Hull, Cordell, U.S. Secretary of State, 159, 163, 264 n.$ against specific commitments on war aims, 215 Hungary, 25 Innsbruck, 143 f. Intelligence, Allied: advance knowl- edge on Mussolini's fall, 75; on Ba- doglio's intentions, 80 f.; on Ger- man troops in Italy, 8x Intelligence, U.S., on Konoye mission, ,86 Invasion of Japan: high cost estimate, 160 f.; considered necessary, 198 Italia, Italian battleship, 112 Italian air force, 73, 86, tot Italian army, 71 f., 83, 90 ff., 94., 99f., /04 Italian fleet: condition surrender, 86 f., 94, agreement on, 102$ broadcasts to, 104f., xxof. Italy, 24, 53, 158; after World War I, 56; surrender, 71-1 t 7; strategic position after loss of North Africa, 71f.) maneuvering between Ger- many and Allies, 74; offer of co- belligerency to Allies, 74, 85, zoo if., 114, x t6; need to be pro- in 1943, 73; tot, 104.-13; Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release @ 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part- Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 282 INDEX tected against Germans, 77 f.; prob- lem of honor, 78; undeclared naval war with Germany, toz; occupation after surrender, 113 1.1 evaluation of surrender policy, 117 1.1 applica- tion of rules of unconditional sur- render, 219, 228-30 Iwo Jima, 208 Japan, 24, 97, 237; strategic situation after 1942, 155 f.; surrender, 155- ; seeks alternative to uncondi- tional surrender, 156, 174, 183-86, 195; conditional surrender; 164, 200; peace policies, 169-91; feelers through Swedish channel, 174-76; Moscow policy, 176-91; Hirota- Malik talks, i8o-824 note to Mos- cow, 183; atomic bombs and sur- render, 191-206; Soviet interven- tion and surrender, 198 1.1 political payment for surrender, zos, 210 f.; application of rules of unconditional surrender, 219 1., 228 1.; contrast with German surrender behavior, 225; fear of revenge by, 239 Japan, Imperial Institution, and sur- render, 163-68, 174.f., 184, 194-96, 204 f., 209 Japanese army, policy on surrender, 176, 178, 180, 190, 194, 200, 204 Japanese military extremists, 156, x68, 173, 176, 179-81, 194, 197 Japanese Supreme Council for the Di- rection of War, 179, 180-82, 194.f., 199 Jeanneney, Jules, president of French Senate, 44 Jodl, Alfred, German general, Chief of Armed Forces General Staff, 150 Johnson, Herschel, U.S. diplomat, 176 Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S., operations plan against Japan, 160-62; policy on unconditional surrender, 217 Juliana, Queen of Holland, 42 July 20, 1944., coup against Hitler, 135, 138 Kase, Toshikazu, on Japanese reaction to Cairo Declaration, 171; on Soviet declaration of war, 184. Kawabe, Torashiro, Japanese army offi- cer, 178 Kesselring, Albert, German field mar- shal, 149, 27! n.; on German sol- diers fear of Russians, 140; initi- ates surrender talks, 142 f. Kido, Marquis Koichi, Japanese states- man, peace efforts, 155, 169 1., 174, x8x, 194. Kleist, Peter, German diplomat, 134. Kluge, Gunther von, German field mar- shal, contacts with anti-Hitler oppo- sition, 128-30, 132, 136, 264n. Koiso, Kuniaki, Japanese general and Premier, 272 f., 175, 177 Konev, Ivan, Soviet marshal, 14.0 Konoye, Prince Fumimaro, Japanese statesman, z69 1., 173 1.; mission to Moscow, 183 f., 185-88 Korea, 157, 172, 241 Kreisau circle, German opposition group, 135 Kujukusihama (Japanese national re- doubt), 20! Kurile islands, i6o KUstrin, 140 Kyushu, i62 La Spezia, 93, los, 112, 263 11. Laval, Pierre, French Vice-Premier: on rejection of German demands going beyond armistice, so; pro-armistice policy, 64f.; arrested, 67; back in office, 67 Leahy, William D., U.S. admiral and diplomat, 67, 266 n.; on Soviet in- tervention in war against Japan, 16o; on invasion of Japan, z6z Lebrun, Albert, President of French Republic, 43 Lequcrica, Spanish diplomat, 45 Lightning victory, 55 f. Limitation of war, 249-57; artificial, 250-52; and political payoffs, 253 f. Lisbon, 81, 85 Lithuania, 131 Locamo, treaty of, 59 f., 6i London, 76, x26 Lozovsky, Alexander, Soviet diplomat, 184 LUdde-Neurath, Walter, on Danitz re- gime, 147 f., t5c, Ludendorff, Erich, German general, on timing of surrender, 21-23, 131 Lwow (Lemberg), 131 McArthur, Douglas, U.S. general, 167 McCloy, John, U.S. official, 162 McClure, Robert A., U.S. general, 105 McFarlane, British general, tot Maddalena, iiz Madrid, 81, 86 INDEX 283 Maginot line, 6z Malik, Jacob, Soviet diplomat, 180, 182 Malta, 93, 105, 107-9, III Manchuria, 157, i6o Mandel, Georges, French cabinet mem- ber, 44 Maneuver, in strategy, 6 f. Manipulative fallacy, 233 Marin, Jean, French cabinet member, 44 Marquet, Adrien, French politician, 64 Massive retaliation, 257 Matsumoto, Shunichi, Japanese diplo- mat, 190 Maugeri, Franco, Italian intelligence chief: on Allied intelligence having advance knowledge about Musso- lini's fall, 75; on Italian public re- action to Badoglio's government, 78; on planned airdrop of Allied troops near Rome, 91 Mediterranean, 5t, 54, 71; German interest in control, 49 Memel, 131 Mers-el-Kebir, British attack on French naval base, 47, 67 Mierendorff, Carlo German Social Democrat, member of anti-Hitler Opposition, 135 Miscalculation, in strategy, 247 Mobilizable resources, in strategy, 171., 21 Mobilization, German, in World War II, 119 Mobilization bases, in strategy, 22 Model, Walter, German field marshal, 141 1- Mokusatsu, 190, 268 n. Molotov, Vyacheslav, Soviet foreign minister, 117, 1841. Monnet, Georges, French cabinet mem- ber, 44 Monnet, Jean, French politician, 43 Monopoly of strength, in strategy, 5, 123; transitory, 239; in future war, 252, 254 Montecuccoli, Italian cruiser, 1/2 Montgomery, Sir Bernard (later Vis- count), British field marshal, 130, 149 Morabito, Italian naval officer, 1o6 Morality and expediency, in Italian surrender, ix6 f. Morgenstern, Oskar, 271 n. Morocco, 49, 51 f. Moscow, 59, 134; conference, 1593 Japan's Moscow policy, 176-91; Konoye mission to Moscow, 583 f., x85-88 Munich, 47 Mussolini, Benito, 87, 229; decision to enter war, 7! f.; on Italy's inability to continue at war, 73; overthrown, 73 f.; Allied reaction to fall, 75 Nagasaki, 19t, 199, 205 Naples, 82 Nazis, 156; attitude toward "guns or butter," 56; plan New Order, 69; in German army, 136; Nazi leaders and surrender, 144f.; war doctrine and surrender, 224, 227 Negotiated peace: expected by Luden- dorff, 122; by German opposition in World War II, 127-29, 131 1.; tim- ing, 135 1.; rejected by U.S., x62; sought by Japan, 174; possible con- sequences in World War II, 224 Neisse, 140 Netherlands, capitulation, 42 f. Neumann, John von, 271 n. Nineteenth Army, German, 144 Ninth Army, German, 140 Ninth Army, U.S., 142, 151 Nonnegotiation rule, x62 f., 218, 228 f. Nonrecognition rule, see Vacuum rule Normandy, 130, 136 North Africa: plan of exodus to, 40- 44, 47; Germany seeks bases, 5o, 66; feasibility of German invasion, 52-544 threat of transfer of French government, 67 f.; Allied landings, 68, x t9; Allied victory, 71, 2243 Darlan deal, 114.f. North Cape, x26 Norway, campaign, 52, s6 Nuclear war, 246-58 Ohersalzberg, 146 Oder, 14.0 Okamoto, Seigo, Japanese military at- tache, 187 Okinawa, 16o, 167, 208 OKW (German High Command), 137-39, 143 OWI, Psychological Warfare Branch, 104 f.; policy on Japanese Emperor, 164 Ozawa, Japanese naval officer, 178 Pacific, settlement, planned by Kido, 170 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27 : CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 284 INDEX Paris, 37, 48 Patch, Alexander M., U.S. general, 144. Paul-Boncour, Jean, on armistice pol- icy, SI Pedagogic fallacy, 239 f. Pescadores islands, 157 Petain, Philippe, French marshal and head of state, 31, 45, 260 n.; on maintenance of coalition with Brit- ain, 35-38; rejects exodus, 4o f., 44.; rejects plan of union with Brit- ain, 44; appointed Premier, 44; against sending fleet to Britain, 46 f.; against accepting German de- mands going beyond armistice, So; motives, 57; pro-armistice policy, 64 f.; against cobelligerency with Germany, 66; defies Germans and yields, 67; policy on sending Darlan to Africa, 67 f. Piecemeal surrender, German, 121, 141-44, 154 Pierce, Maurice, OWI engineer, 104 Pleven, Rene, suggests union plan with Britain, 43 Poland, 132; alliance with France, 6o, 61 Polish campaign in World War II, 31 f., 56, 63 Polish corridor, 125, 130 Political incentives to facilitate sur- render: France, 69; Italy, ix 8; Ger- many, 123, 222; Japan, 156, 16z f., 205, 210 f., 220; in future war, 248 Political interaction in terminal stage of war, 23 ff., 154, 211 Political reorientation of loser, 23, 69, 152, 210, 219 f., 238 f. Political stake in war, 19, 22, 254-57 Port Arthur, t6o Potsdam conference, 183-86 Potsdam Declaration, 162, 165, 187- 92, 195, 200, 205 Power orientation in international politics, 25, 69 f. Prague, 152 Propaganda: and surrender, 15; in Italian campaign, 76 f., 79; to Ital- ian fleet, 104 ff.; to Japan, z62. Prussia, 17 Psychological warfare, against Italian fleet, Ito if. Rahn, German diplomat, 143 Relativity of victory, 20, 32 Residual strength of losers, 9, 34, 152, 210 Revolution, 24, 252 Reynaud, Paul, French Premier, 45, 51; on maintaining coalition with Britain, 35 f.; at Supreme War Council, 38 f.; on continuing war from overseas bases, 40; for purely military capitulation, 42 f.; sounds out Britain on armistice, 43; over- thrown on plan of union with Brit- ain, 4.4; on Pitain as successor, 44, 45im, g5,50 f. 1; 2.6on., 26z n. Rhc Ribbentrop, Joachim von, German for- eign minister, 47 f., 134 Richardson, Col. Robert 271 n., 272 n. Rintelen, Enno von, German military attache, on military situation of Italy, 72 f. Rio, Alphonse, French cabinet mem- ber, 44 Ritter, Gerhard, on German opposi- tion, 133 Roatta, Mario, Italian Minister of War, 92 ROIc010Iviti, Constantin, Soviet mar- shal, 140 Roma, Italian battleship, 122 f. Rome, 105, io6, 107, no; troop con- centrations, 74, 90) proposed bomb- ing, 82; air drop plan, 9o-97; Ger- man entry, 92; consequences, 96 Rommel, Erwin, German field mar- shal, 130 f., 136, 244 Romulo, Carlos, Philippine statesman, Roosevelt, Franklin D., 159, 209, 270 n, 271 n.; Eisenhower's com- ments on, 76, 83; instructions to insist on Italy's unconditional sur- render, 85 f.; on recognition of Ba- doglio regime, 88 f.; special inter- pretation of unconditional surren- der in Italy's case, 97 f.; on future peace depending on handling of en- emy's surrender, 2.'6; on error in V7ilson's peace policy, 217 Rothfels, Hans, on German opposi- tion, 134 Ruhr: threatened early in World War II, 56, 63; surrender of forces in area, 139, 142, 22! f. Rules of unconditionality, see Uncon- ditional surrender Rumania, 25, 6o Rundstedt, Karl von, German field marshal, 131, 137, 227 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release INDEX Russell, Richard, U.S. Senator, on Jap- anese surrender, opposing retention of Emperor, 164-67 Russia, 15, 119, 171; see also Soviet Union Russians, German fear of, 140 f., 249 Saipan, 156, 172 Sakhalin, i6o Salerno, landing, 91, 94, 96, too, 113 Salvaging operation, in German sur- render, 149-52, 154 Sansonetti, Italian admiral, 105 Sardinia, 73, tot, 105, 112 Sato, Naotake, Japanese diplomat, 183f., z86 Savoy, House of, 76, 8o Schellenberg, Walter, SS general, 14.5 Scharner, Ferdinand, German field marshal, 151 f. Schulenburg, Friedrich von, German diplomat, 134 Schulz, Friedrich, German general, 144 Schwerin, Gerd von, German general, 130 Schwerin von Krosigk, Baron Lutz, German cabinet member, 150 Sedan, Selective resistance by Germany in World War II, 137-41, 146f., 221 f. Sherwood, Robert E., on recognition of Badoglio regime, 88, tot Shigemitsu, Mamori, Japanese foreign minister, 170 f., 173, 175 Siberia, 159 Sicily, 72 f., 79, 90, 96 Siege, 245 f.; in strategy, 6 f.; anal- ogy with last stage of war with Japan, 207 Simpson, William H., U.S. general, 151 Smith, Walter Bedell, U.S. general, 85 Socialists: French, 59; German, after World War I, 124; in German op- position to Hitler, 134.f. Soong, T. V., Chinese diplomat, 184 South Tyrol, 128 Soviet attitude toward power, 26 f. Soviet Union, 25, 41, 193, 209, 211; against "imperialist war," 59; West- ern efforts to conclude pact, 6o, i26; German opposition's view of Soviet threat, 127, 133; pro-Soviet orienta- tion in German opposition, 134f.; military operations in Germany, 140 f.; relations with Japan, 156, 165, 285 176, 179; intervention in Pacific war, 158, t60; neutrality pact with Japan denounced, 177; declares war on Japan, 185; handling of Japan- ese offer of mediation, 185-89; in- tervention and Japanese surrender, 198 f., 203 $ unconditional - surren- der policy, 2'5, 226; suspicion of Western Allies, 230 f. Spain, si f. Spears, Sir Edward, British general, 38 f. Speer, Albert, German cabinet mem- ber, 144 Speidel, Hans, German general, 130 f. Speier, Hans, on "democratic fallacy," 77 SS, Nazi corps, 139 "Stab in the back" legend, 123 f., t28, 137 Stalemate: in strategy, 18 f., no; in nuclear war, 252 Stalin, Joseph, 134, 178, 271 n.; on intervention in war against Japan, 159, 209; denounces Japanese neu- trality pact, 177; policy on Japanese mediation offer, z85-89; policy on unconditional surrender, 218 Stalingrad, 119, 128, 224 State Department, Italian cited, 88 Status quo, 254 f. Stauffenberg, Count Claus von, mem- ber of anti-Nazi opposition, 134 Stimson, Henry L., U.S. Secretary of War: on Japanese Emperor, 167; on atomic bomb, 192 f., 195; on Japan- ese terminal resistance, 196, 206 f. Stimulus-response philosophy, 233 Stockholm, 176 Strategic thinking, lag in, 235 Strategy: of disruption and attrition, 6, 245, 248; of rout and exhaustion, 6 f.; winning, a f., 22; in future war, 246 f., 249, 251, 255; air- counter-air, 248, 255 f. StrOlin, Karl, mayor of Stuttgart, 265 n. Strong, Kenneth, U.S. general, 85 Stillpnagel, K. H. von, German gen- eral, 130 Sudeten region, 125 f., 128 Suez, x 26 Surrender: in World War I, ; in American Civil War, 1; in nine- teenth-century European wars, 1; in World War II, t, to, 2,1s; see also policy criti- 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4 286 INDEX France, Germany, Italy, Japan; defi- nition, 5; and attrition, 8 f.; and abridgement of terminal stage, 8 f.; enforced, lo; tactical, 10 ?., 222) strategic, Io-12, 14, 1211 as politi- cal concept, 13-16; in total war, 2!!.; selective, 130, 132 f., 1341., 147-49; timing, 135 f., 203 f.; and defeat, 208 f., 236; in future war, 245-48; in nuclear war, 247 f., 253; unconditional, see Uncondi- tional surrender Survival in nuclear war, 258 Suzuki, Bunshiro, Japanese journalist, 174 Suzuki, Kantaro, Japanese Premier. 174 f., 183, 193 f., 268 n.; handling of Potsdam Declaration, x90 f. Sweden: German peace feelers, 48 1.1 Japanese peace feelers, 175 Switzerland, 126, 132, 143, 169, 187 Takagi, Sokichi, Japanese admiral, 155 Taranto, 1o5-8, 263 n. Taylor, Maxwell D., U.S. general, 901. Tedder, Sir Arthur (later Baron), British Air chief marshal, 8z Teheran conference, 159, 209 Terminal resistance, 83 f., 120, 183, 186, 192, 208 Terminal stage of war, 8, 23 if., 196 f., 207, 209, 211, 223, 248 Timing of surrender, see Surrender Tirpitz, Alfred von, German admiral, 238 Togo, Shigenori, Japanese foreign min- ister, 175, 178, 180-83, 186, 190, 200 Tojo, Hideki, Japanese Premier, 156, 170, 172 Tokyo, 16o, 165, 176, 185 f., 188, zo6 Total war, 17-21; surrender in, zt ; terminal stage, 23 if.; World War II, 235; future, 249-5! Toyoda, Soemu, Japanese admiral, 172, zoo Trott zu Sol; Adam von, member of anti-Nazi opposition, 134 Truman, Harry S.: on unconditional surrender, 145; decision on strategy against Japan, x6z; on Soviet medi- ation, 185, 188; on atomic bomb, 192 Tunis, 49 f., 8z Tyrol, 143 Ulm, x Umezu, Yoshijiro, Japanese Army chief of staff, 178, 200 Unconditional surrender, 1, i6, 34, 2I5-4.1; differences on application to Italy, 75; rules of unconditional- ity, 82, 162 1., 218 f., 228-32, see also Nonnegotiation, Vacuum; ap- plication of policy to Italy, 84-87, 89, 951 97f., 104, 109, z x6 f., 219, 228-30; attitude of German oppo- sition, 127, 131-33, 137; attitude of Nazi leaders, x44 f.; integral appli- cation of policy to Germany, 145; attitude of Japanese leadership, 156, 174, 183-86, 195; mitigation of policy toward Japan, 187; develop- ment of doctrine, zx 6-18; anti-Wil- sonian aspect, 217 f., 224; terminal aspect, 218 1.; application of rules of unconditionality to Italy, Germa- ny, Japan, 219-23; and prolonga- tion of war, 223-271 and cohesion of the coalition, 232; fallacies, 232- 40 United Nations coalition, heterogene- ous, 153 f.; war objectives, x56; German attempts at splitting, 218; potential split over Germany, 232 United States: attitude toward power, 25 1., 240, 258; neutrality in 1940, 34; note to France on fleet, 451 473 reaction to cost of World War I, 56; problem of recognizing Badoglio re- gime, 88; German peace feelers, 132; operations in Germany, 139, 149; surrender policies toward Ja- pan, 157-68, 170-72, 181, 183, 187, zo6-xo; desire for Soviet interven- tion in Pacific war, 16o, zo8 f.; pol- icy on Japanese Emperor, 187, 194, 204 f.; policy on atomic bomb, 192; war aims, 215; World War II non- total, 235 United States Army in Germany, 149 United States Congress and Japanese surrender, 164-67 United States Navy, view on defeating Japan, 16! United States Strategic Bombing Serv- ice (USSBS): on Japan, 1721.; on atomic bomb, 193 Vacuum rule, 163, 219 f., 228 f., 237 f., 270 n. Versailles, Treaty of, repudiation of armament clauses, 6x Vichy regime, so; policy declared trea- INDEX sonable, 58; foreign policies, 65 if.; rejects cobelligerency, 66; yields to German pressure, 67; collapse of po- litical strength, 68 Victor Emmanuel III, King of Italy, 94, 98, 109 f., 115; dismisses Mus- solini, 73 f.; record of cooperation with fascism, 87 f., zoo f.; flight from Rome, 92) recognition criti- cized, rot Victory: in strategy, i f., 19; relativ- ity of, zo, 23; Allied doubts, zo8 f.; total, as War aim, 216, 224, 226; in World Wars I and II, 234; in fu- ture war, 246, 249 Vietinghoff, Heinrich von, German general, 143 Vistula, 131 Vittorio Veneto, Italian battleship, 112 Volkssturns, 139 Wallenberg, Jakob, Swedish banker, 136 War, total and nontotal, 17-2,; po- litical stake, 19, 22, 254-57; as crusade, z6; of revenge, how to avoid, 239 War aims, Allies', 215 f., 224, 226 Washington, 76, 195, 200 Westphal, Siegfried, German general, 227 Weygand, Marime, French general, 35, 260 n.; on Britain's defeat, 36 f.; comment on armistice policy, 37; against Brittany redoubt, 38; criti- cizes cabinet, 4.0; on communist dan- ger, 40 f.; against purely military capitulation, 42 f.; against accepting 287 German demands going beyond ar- mistice, So; motives for favoring armistice, 57, 64 Wherry, Kenneth S., U.S. Senator, 167 Wilson, Woodrow, 217 Wolff, Karl Friedrich, SS general, 143 Woodruff, Roy 0., U.S. Representa- tive, 164 World War I, 17, 22, 31, 125, 238 f.; attrition strategy, 7; strategic sur- render, 12! f.; comment by Goerde- ler, x28; reference in Cairo Decla- ration, 157; Allied promises to Rus- sia, 171; Roosevelt on political con- duct, 217; long-range effect of vic- tor'', 234- World War II, 17, 22, 125 f.; attri- tion, 7; ends without revolution, 24; "crusade" character, z6 f.; early pe- riod, 62 if.; turning point, 119; ter- minal stage, Germany, 120, Japan, 197; becomes total, 136; Allied handling of political aspect, 215-41; origin, 238 Xenophon, 13 f. Yalta conference, 154, 159 f., 178, z85 Ybarnigaray, J e a n, French cabinet member, 44 Yonai, Mitsumasa, Japanese admiral, cabinet member, 173, 179, 267 n. Yoshida, Shigeru, Japanese politician, x55, 169 Yugoslavia, 6o Zara, Alberto da, Italian admiral, on surrender of fleet, 106-9. Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release ? 50-Yr 2013/06/27: CIA-RDP81-01043R002100070003-4