Reading Eagle (February 1, 1943)
DOROTHY THOMPSON SAYS —
Unconditional surrender
By Dorothy Thompson
When the President in his press conference at Casablanca announced that the United Nations’ war aim toward the Axis was “unconditional surrender,” he made a reference to Gen. Grant, who, in the American Civil War, had made the same demand on the leaders of the South. Gen. Grant, said the President, was known as “Unconditional Surrender Grant.”
The analogy is thought-provoking. Gen. Grant was fighting a civil war – not an international war. The issue in that war was the right of the Southern states to secede from the American Union. Slavery was a secondary issue. The basic principle involved was the authority of the Constitution throughout all the states of America. Before Gen. Lee was called on to surrender, the Emancipation Proclamation had already freed the slaves.
There could be not the slightest doubt, on the part of the leaders of the South, as to the exact meaning of “unconditional surrender.” It means that the South rejoin the Union and submit to its Constitution and its laws. It meant that the Southern Confederacy be dissolved, and its parts reintegrated into the United States of America.
Therefore, Gen. Lee knew what he was doing when he surrendered “unconditionally.” Actually, it was not, in essence, an unconditional surrender, for if the conditions were not to be negotiated, the principles governing those conditions were clear.
If one were to pursue this analogy to its logical conclusion, “unconditional surrender” would mean that the nations of the Axis would have to abandon their attempt to secede from the principles of civilization governing the rest of the world, and join the United Nations, for a world governed by law.
But one cannot pursue this analogy to such a logical conclusion because there is no world governed by law, and there never has been. Nations are still considered as sovereign bodies, what has been called “international law” is merely agreements or treaties amongst sovereign nations which can be unilaterally denounced, broken, or changed: no force exists, or has ever existed, to create, supervise or enforce any law above nations. And there is no indication in any official utterances of the President or Mr. Churchill that we intend to create such supranational institutions. “Unconditional surrender” in this case, therefore, means surrender without condition of some nations to other nations – not surrender to a Constitution.
There are two factors in such a demand. There is the party upon which it is made and there is the party that makes it.
The demand is made upon the governments and peoples of the Axis. Since unconditional surrender means, according to statements which are official, that the present government of Germany will be displaced and that its members will be tried as war criminals, “unconditional surrender” means for them, suicide. The terms are, therefore, impossible of acceptance for the present governments.
But the terms also seem to rule out any possibility of a palace revolution in Germany, at least. Mr. Churchill has apparently modified the terms for Italy, for he has said:
One man, and one man alone, stands in the way of peace.
But any group of Germans, realizing the disaster to Germany, and planning to overthrow the Nazi regime – should such a group exist – will hardly, under these conditions, undertake such a risk and responsibility. A revolution which comes into power only to give away its power the next moment, in an unconditional surrender to other outside powers, does not make sense.
But there is another factor to be considered. Stalin has not demanded “unconditional surrender.” Had he done so, the demand would have had a definite meaning for one group of Germans – namely, the German communists. In their minds, the analogy approximates that of the American Civil War. In the minds of German communists, “unconditional surrender” means the total defeat of fascism, the beginning of the social revolution, and the opportunity to join the Soviet Union, as an integral and equal part of it.
But there is nothing to indicate that “unconditional surrender” to the Western powers means the integration of a democratic Germany, as an equal member of the democratic world.
The demand for “unconditional surrender” imposes a supreme obligation upon those who make it. We are asking the German nation and people to deliver themselves unconditionally into our hands. To consent to that means to divest themselves of all responsibility upon us. The question for us is, therefore: Are we prepared for this responsibility? Do we know what we intend to so with an unconditionally-surrendered Germany?
And who is “we”? The President? The State Department? Mr. Churchill?
Again, I say that we had better get some principles for the reconstruction of Europe, and get them quick. For unconditional surrender, under these conditions, can only come as unconditional breakdown. And, unless there are some principles to fill a vacuum, chaos will fill it.