27 MAY 1995, Page 34

LETTERS War and peace

Sir: Nigel Nicolson's account of his partici- pation in the 1989 war crimes libel action is admirably fair-minded (Accounting for Britain's war crime', 20 May). Inevitably, however, it illustrates the problems which beset discussion of a subject which is so heavily hemmed about by censorship in this country. I will provide but one important illustration, which may help to answer his question as to why I am continuing to pur- sue my researches into the problem. Mr Nicolson writes: I do believe that what took place was a war crime, but I do not consider Lord Aldington a war criminal. If he was a war criminal, then all of us who helped execute the order were criminals too. He was only partly responsible for what happened. The chain of command was long, extending downwards from the chiefs of staff at Washington. The orders originated much higher up.

Setting aside any question of moral judg- ment, the facts as stated are wholly incon- sistent with the evidence. So far as the Yugoslav nationals were concerned, Allied policy was clear and undeviating. On 29 April Churchill minuted: 'There is no doubt that . . . they should be disarmed and placed in refugee camps, itis the only possi- ble solution. You should inform the State Department accordingly, as from the For- eign Office.'

The State Department shared Churchill's view, and the Allied command in the Mediterranean was accordingly informed: 'We agree that the troops in question who wish to surrender to American or British commanders in north-east Italy should be disarmed and placed in base camps for investigation; that those wishing to return to Yugoslavia as individuals should be per- mitted to do so; and that all others should be removed to refugee camps; and that those against whom there is evidence of war crimes should be handled as such.'

Thus the Chiefs of Staff never authorised the forcible handover of Yugoslav nation- als, which the head of the Yugoslav Section of the Foreign Office subsequently described as 'a ghastly mistake'.

In the case of the Cossacks the official policy was to return Soviet citizens in accor- dance with the Yalta Agreement, and to screen and retain the large body of White Russian emigres known to hold citizenship of various western European countries or League of Nations passports. From this it can be seen that the only category of pris- oner whose repatriation was authorised by the Allied governments was that of those Cossacks who were Soviet citizens. Howev- er, the humane and chivalrous Field-Mar- shal Alexander took it upon himself to issue firm orders on 22 May: 'You have authority to pass Cossacks direct to Rus- sians provided force has not, repeat not, to be used.'

This order was never rescinded and it goes without saying that had it been obeyed no Cosssacks would have been repatriated save volunteers.

What remains for historians is to estab- lish precisely who was responsible for a law- less and cruel policy which lacked even the stock German defence: 'I was only obeying orders.' During the past five years, I have discovered a more significant body of evi- dence than ever was available to me for my book The Minister and the Massacres, or at the 1989 libel trial, on the basis of which I shall shortly be publishing a greatly revised edition abroad. I fear it will be some con- siderable time before this important histori- cal event can be openly discussed by British historians.

Nikolai Tolstoy

Court Close, Southmoor, Nr Abingdon, Berkshire