Victims of Yalta: the attitude of English society to forced «repatriation» of the Russian anti-сommunists in 1945

In English, Армия, В мире, История, Лондон, Политика / 13 июля 2015 г.
Victims of Yalta

The truth about extradition to slaughter more than two million Russian (including fighting the godless Soviet Union and their families) to Stalin by Western allies in accordance with the Yalta secret agreements, became widely known to British public only in 1978, after the first edition of the book «Victims of Yalta» , whose author was a Russian immigrant and a British politician Count N.D. Tolstoy. Then the first exposures of the offense by the UK government in 1945 became a sensation. The British were shocked by the brutality of their authorities who have committed violent «repatriation» of the Russian people who were waiting for the concentration camps and death by torture. Called questions in the book were put for discussion in Parliament. Minister of Foreign Affairs was invited to hold a public investigation of the case.

February 20, 1978 the newspaper «Times» published an editorial, which lists the charges against the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and stressed the urgent need for the UK to somehow make amends to the Russian people and the world community:

кавычки3British officials was accused that they made a wrong decision, carried out a wrong policy and thus contribute to the death of a plurality of innocent people. They should … make Parliament and the public his views on forced repatriation …Harold Macmillan, the former minister in 1944-45 resident should support the campaign of publicity by his considerable authority by telling all that he knows … However, representatives of protection, if any, would also need to be heard.

Two days later, Foreign Minister rejected the request for a public inquiry on the grounds that such a move could set an unwelcome precedent, when ahead of time to be put into circulation materials of the secret archives, classified on the basis of the law of the thirty-year statute of limitations. But he added:

кавычки3Investigation and verification of data — the case of the public. If people who had to do with this issue are alive, they have every right to comment on the documents; the same right can take advantage of everyone.

In the process of research materials for his book, N.D. Tolstoy turned to senior military and government ranks involved in the tragic events of 1945, asking for available information. Allof them refused. As explained Sir Thomas Braymlou in a letter dated August 21, 1973:

кавычки3I am still State Official, bound by the law on state secrets … Therefore, I regret to inform that I ought not to express their views …

Although there were some noble British politics as a former ambassador to Mexico Nicolas Cheetham, who in an open letter to the «Times» asked his colleagues to break the silence:

кавычки3As a former colleague of these gentlemen having something to do with the White Russian emigration, I would be deeply interested in their comments and explanations. I am confident that this concern is shared by many of your readers.

The matter is that the UK Government not unreasonably feared disclosure of the details of the forced repatriation of Soviet citizens, and members of the White emigration caught up in the Allied occupation. Because, according to the statute of the International Military Tribunal, adopted on 8 August 1945 among the biggest war crimes were identified violations of the laws of war — namely, murder and mistreatment of civilians, prisoners of war, as well as their deportation to forced labor. So, the UK have committed war crime (like those in which she accused the German Empire at the Nuremberg Tribunal) and recognize this fact the government could not without the threat of total loss of authority in society, riots and strikes. The authorities could not explain why millions of Russian men, women and children were deported without charge or trial to death, flour and slave labor.Any excuse, even such as the fact that this issuance was a condition of an early return home of British prisoners of war, were not convincing.

Most of the British supported the view of Professor Robin Kemboll, an expert on Russia and the former naval officer:

кавычки3This grim, unpleasant chapter in our history is too hard for an honest English consciousness. Attempts to evade responsibility and justify of the consequences ignorance or «spirit of the times» only made matters worse … Our policy … was completely inexcusable, and the illusory to seek out an apology worthy of, I believe, it will be Christian to accept this fact as it really is, and to carry our cross shamefully silent …

In July 1978 was written appeal to the public on the basis of the fund for the erection of a memorial in London to the victims of Yalta. Appeal signed by the members of all the political parties in parliament, prominent scholars and public figures. Memorial, as an eternal reminder of the disgust of the British people to the fact that it was done in secret on his behalf in 1945, and about the deep sympathy to the millions of sufferers.The monument made by British sculptor Angela Conner was established in 1986. Currently beside him regularly hosts actions in memory of victims of political repression in the Soviet Union and modern Russia by Russian immigrants and British sympathizers.

For a long time it was thought that the Western public knew about the crime, but was  indifferent to it. A.I. Solzhenitsyn even suggested that «because public opinion does not prevent the» operation «, did not want to discuss this topic, do not ask for an explanation … it seems to us that the entire British people lies this sin …» But, as a result, it became clear that the English people He was not involved in the crime, and when he learned about it, then unanimously condemned him.

And for that, we, Russian nationalists, are grateful to the British , mindful of the callousness and brutality of our own people, which is a good thing knowing about the crimes of totalitarian Communist regime, tens of millions of victims continues to remain indifferent to this issue, and believes that we should not «to stir up history. «Nor does it consider it necessary to repent of regicide in 1918. Because all tied in blood: and the Bolshevik government, and the people that participate in the Soviet terror throughout history of the USSR.

In conclusion, we note that in the book, N.D. Tolstoy’s «Victims of Yalta» is shown in detail how the US policy on this issue differs from English. After the British government decided to stick to the principle of forced repatriation, the US State Department a few months hesitated to respond. In the end he reluctantly gave up. But Americans were so outraged by cases of relatively minor bloodshed that occurred because of attempts to forcibly repatriate the Russian, the US government temporarily abandoned this policy. It was only under strong pressure from Britain thousands of Russian, who served in the German army, were transferred to SMERSH. However, the blood of millions of innocent victims of Russian and remains on the conscience of the US government, as a partner of this terrible crime.

Russian original: Жертвы Ялты: об отношении английского общества к насильственной «репатриации» русских антикоммунистов в 1945 году

Добавить комментарий

Ваш e-mail не будет опубликован. Обязательные поля помечены *

Можно использовать следующие HTML-теги и атрибуты: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>