https://arkiv.wallenberg.org/sites/arki ... ngland.pdf
I will try to resume it. The article deals with the contacts of Carl Goerdeler with the British government through the brothers Jacob and Marcus Wallenberg, in the light of documents from the Stockholm Enskilda Bank.
Goerdeler had been in Stockholm during May 1943 where he asked his friend Jacob Wallenberg to help him contact the British government in the name of the german opposition. He explained him the opposition's plans and aims. Jacob Wallenberg wrote to his brother Marcus, who was then in England, and asked him to present these questions to Churchill.
Marcus Wallenberg was not able to speak with Churchill, but he spoke with Desmond Morton, his personal assistant, who was an acquaitance. Before his return to Sweden on 19 June he wrote a memorandum on this conversation, which is reproduced in the article, but which I can not help to reproduce here, for the interest It does have:
On 12 August Jacob Wallenberg spoke with Goerdeler in Berlin, reported on the reaction in London and was informed by Goerdeler about the plans for a coup. After his return to Sweden, Marcus Wallenberg tried to contact Desmond Morton again, saying that he had new information if he was interested. Morton thanked him for the letter, Marcus wrote to him again on 6 September and on 25 Septiembre was informed by Victor Ballet, British envoy to Sweden, that Desmond Morton had received his letter, but without more information.D.M. explained that the views of W.C. on the pursuit of war could not be regarded as relentless or described as “to the bitter end”. The war objectives were clear. Nazi Germany had to be crushed and this time one would not stop at the border but occupy Germany. However, DM wished to point out that W.C. had always made prudent statements regarding Germany, never equating the Nazis with the German people in public or in any other way. Unfortunately, neither Eden nor Roosevelt had been as restrained. Stalin, on the other hand, had made a very clear distinction between Hitler’s Germany and Germans in general and even gone as far as describing German soldiers as Hitlerites in the latest Russian bulletins. To W.C., the goal was to uproot the Nazi gangster rule that had led the world into this war and brought destruction, oppression and lawlessness over large parts of Europe and rocked the whole world. As long as the Nazi system prevailed and as long as there was a chance that it would be restored there was no future security in the relations between nations and thus no basis for the reconstruction of the world and for the economic and social security of the nations. It was therefore not possible to adopt an attitude towards questions from German revolutionary candidates about the Allies’ reaction to a Germany cleansed from Hitler and his gang by a movement led by generals, public officials, industrialists and unionists. One would have to “wait and see”. Through its achievements within various areas, the revolutionary movement would have to show the world that it had dissociated itself from violence and lawlessness as forcible means and from Nazism as religion and school, in the spirit of which German youth was being brought up. To think that the Allies would grant any blessing or approval of any kind of anti-Hitler or anti-Nazi movement in advance was impossible. It was equally impossible to expect any commitment from the Allies to eliminate the condition regarding “unconditional surrender”, if the revolution were successful. In this connection, D.M. drifted on to the interrogations with the captured German generals, who practically all were anti-Nazis, albeit of varying intensity and colour. However, they were faithful to the code of honour of the German army, which apparently meant dissociation from any participation in attempts at removing the present regime.
On the other hand, some of the more intense antagonists of the Nazis provided information about horrible atrocities committed by the SS troops against the Russian population, atrocities which had filled them with loathing and disgust, not to say shame of being Germans. Reportedly, the SS would draft its personnel through a methodical sorting out of sick elements. A provocateur from the SS would tell perverted, sadistic and cruel stories to a group of young people, while their facial expressions were carefully studied. Some of them displayed disgust or aversion, while others remained indifferent; some faces showed interest, with gleaming eyes and even a happy smile on the lips. The latter ones were selected. It was from their ranks that the dreaded SS, police troops, the devils of the concentration camps as well as the tormentors and butchers of the occupied areas were recruited. A system using such an organisation endangers not only its own country, but also civilization and peace. Young people who have been educated under such a regime also represent a danger. What course will the new masters of Germany take with respect to the extermination of these dangerous elements? Undoubtedly, continued D.M., the best thing for Germany, the Allies and the future of the world would be if the Germans themselves put their house in order, calling those guilty to account. The position of the Allies depended to a great extent upon the way in which the purge would be handled and also upon which principles the new German constitution and ecclesiastic work would be founded. The Allies were completely aware about the inconvenience and risks involved, if foreign nations would call the guilty Germans to account. It would of course be hard to say if a revolution could prove - within a period of three or six months depending upon how quickly and how thoroughly a restructuring could be carried out - that a democratic regime, a sound judicial system, school reforms as well as freedom of religion and speech had been introduced. It would furthermore be difficult to say, if this had created the necessary conditions for the belligerents to reach a settlement without demanding that Germany accept “unconditional surrender”. D.M knew that WC would be prepared to support such a line of action, provided the new German regime inspired him with confidence. Labour and the Vansittartism were opposed.
D.M. believed that public opinion in both the UK and the U.S. would soon swing in favour of a settlement, if the Germans declared their will to peace, readiness to evacuate the occupied territories, suspend the submarine warfare, introduce local and civilian internal administration in the occupied territories, support an international peace organisation, disarm except for a defense system and to adopt a defensive attitude during the war, while carrying out internal reform work. Most certainly, a contributing factor to this was leading persons’ attitude towards Russia, the intentions and policy of which were observed with great, but concealed, distrust. In reply to my final question, whether D.M. considered a peace agreement without “unconditional surrender” impossible, he answered categorically no. W.C. did not wish to prolong the war unnecessarily, for the sake of war. The most important thing was to exterminate Nazism and to create guarantees for a lasting peace in the future. In reply to my question, D.M. also declared emphatically that all bombing of revolting places would be stopped, if they only were provided with proper and credible information about the situation. D.M. said that he did not need to consult W.C. further as regards these points. They were for certain.
He was aware of the importance of trying to spare mankind from further suffering. I explained that one could hardly expect that the German generals, being patriots, would help to remove the Hitler regime on the basis of such vague pronouncements. Considering how risky a venture this was, both for themselves and for Germany; it might lead to civil war or, if they were successful, to a possible acceptance of “unconditional surrender” as a condition. In reply, D.M. said that stronger pronouncements could probably not be obtained under any circumstances. He admitted, however, that a revolt in Germany, regardless of outcome, was in the interests of the Allies; in consequence, he could imagine that he himself should go to Sthlm for a meeting with the relevant German person and repeat to that person what he had just told me. D.M. wished to emphasise that he was not in a position to enter into any negotiations. It would just be an informative conversation about the attitude of the top leaders towards the questions at issue.
During our conversation, it became clear that similar inquiries had been made by German generals in 1941. In D.M.’s opinion, the fact that several people, including some rather important people, entertained revolutionary plans against a regime with Gestapo and the world’s best police force, without being disclosed, was a striking proof of the gravity of the purpose and the skill of the leaders. D.M. was going to consider the issue. Possibly, I was to revert to him before my return trip. When I tried to get in contact I was not received. I was going home on a Saturday. The pretext was writing a memo for WC before “catch a train from Liverpool Street Station at 12.45.”
Then on 29 September Marcus received a letter from another acquaitance, Charles Hambro, head of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) and husband of Marcus' former wife. The letter had five pages, the first and the last of a personal nature, but the three middle pages said the following:
Later, in a letter dates 19 October Hambro told Marcus Wallenberg: "I also thought you might like to know that the other information and guidance which I gave you in connection with your enquiries was approved by more important people than I before I passed it to you. It was not the production of my own sweet imagination."Now I have a much more important message to give you -
You will recollect that when you were last here you spoke to someone in high circles about certain plans of some of the professional warriors in a neighbouring country unfriendly to mine. Following this conversation you wrote a letter.
You should (or more likely your contact should) reply to their officers to the effect that they should certainly go on with their plans and take the action they contemplate.
Action will be construed as an act of good faith and proof that they are serious people with standing and influence in their country.
No undertaking of any kind can be given or expected.
No one must know that you and I are in touch on this matter and above all no one at HM Legation.
From now on you will send all communications in regard to this matter to me by the same route as you receive this letter.
The bearer of it knows nothing and must know nothing. He has instructions to receive & transmit your letters. If the event contemplated really happened it may be possible for someone (perhaps myself) to come and see you.
If there is any further information which you think I should know in regard to this subject please let me have it.
Please forget that you have communicated to anyone but me about this matter.
Good luck to you.
(Probably wise to destroy these pages)
I post this because I previously thought that the Allies would have demanded unconditional surrender also from a new german government, but here there is evidence that at least the British were open to droping the "unconditional surrender" condition. It seems that Hambro contacted Wallenberg on Churchill's orders. I apologize for such a long post, but I find this most interesting.