LETTERS Macmillan's diary
Sir: There are a number of points in Christopher Booker's article on Nikolai Tolstoy's recent book (`The minister and the massacres', 17 May) which need to be challenged.
Firstly, Macmillan's diary does not men- tion a Soviet request for the non-Soviet émigré Cossacks, as Booker suggests. It merely refers to 'Cossacks and "White" Russians', indicating that he had a separate group in mind — probably the 4,500 White Russians under the command of Rogozhin.
Secondly, Booker states that 'on advice Macmillan' Cossacks, including the emig- res, were handed over. In reality this phrase (in a signal of 14 May) referred only to a Five Corps 'suggestion' that Soviet nationals be returned.
Thirdly, Macmillan's diary entry shows that he thought the decisions made at Klagenfurt were in line with the Yalta Agreement. If the entry is to be believed why should he have mentioned any breach of it in later reports. If it is not, why did he refer to the White Russians at all?
Fourthly, those in Command at Five Corps were concerned to hand over as many Yugoslays as they could, as quickly as possible. But there is no evidence that they ignored direct orders forbidding them to do so. On 14 May permission was given to hand over Yugoslays 'serving in German forces', a description which would have applied to at least some of the Serbs (Nedic forces) and Slovene Domobranci. In any case on 23 May General McCreery (8th Army) specifically asked Allied Forces Headquarters for permission to hand over other groups including Chetniks (and civi- lians). Permission (with a proviso that no force be used) was given.
Fifthly, the argument that 'somehow the British agreed to the illicit handovers to ensure the safe return of our PoWs' has never been advanced and therefore does not need to be 'dismissed'. Macmillan did express the hope that some Allied PoWs held locally might be returned and on 17 May discussions took place at Wolfsberg to this end. These talks are ignored by Tol- stoy.
Sixthly, not one of the alleged 'series of directives from Alexander and McCreery' laying down that 'all prisoners should be screened' has yet been produced. A pro- viso that force should not be used was indeed made, but (in the case of the Cossacks) it was implicitly countermanded after Five Corps pointed out that it would be 'quite impossible to guarantee to return Cossacks . . unless we are allowed free hand in this matter'.
Seventhly, neither Booker nor Tolstoy have yet produced any evidence to show that the change of policy on the handovers had anything to do with the departure of Macmillan and Low to England.
The events of May 1945 are, as Booker says, extremely complex, but they do not need to be made more so by introducing a conspiracy where there was merely confu- sion and callousness.
Robert Knight
International History Department, London School of Economics, Houghton Street, London WC2
Previous page
