Herewith the conclusion of the "Keelhaul Operation" feature written by Srdja Trifkovic describing the actions of Lord Aldington (Brigadier Low) who sacrificed scores of Eastern European civilians to a gruesome fate in Stalin's clutches right after World War II to satisfy his political ambitions - and the writer Tolstoy who, in a libel action tried to bring to light the truth about what happened:
[START]
Trifkovic:
His mission in Austria accomplished, Brigadier Low returned to England on some unknown date in May 1945 to be selected as the Conservative MP for Blackpool -- the beginning of the slow rise that would see him ennobled (by Macmillan!) and ushered into the boardrooms and elite gentlemen's clubs of Britain. The exact date of his return is highly significant: Tolstoy argued that Low did not leave Austria until after the key order on indiscriminate deportations was issued, and therefore it was he who -- contrary to the orders issuing from Yalta -- was personally responsible for the crime.
Zundelsite:
Is there a flaw in this line of argument? The Western Allies - to this day and for the last 56 years - have used exactly this kind of "chain of command, chain of events" logic when going after Germans and their allies, down to lowly camp guards like John Demjanjuk.
Trifkovic:
When the trial came, it should have been possible, easy even, to prove the order of events and name the man who had issued the orders. The British are efficient administrators, and the Public Record Office should have contained the answer. Some of the relevant documents Tolstoy had copied when he researched his books, but when he went back he found that the old boy network had done its work. All key documents related to the case had been sent to various government ministries -- notably to the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence -- and duly "misplaced." When Tolstoy's researcher asked for these documents, including reports and signals relating to Aldington, she was told they were "not available." Only after the trial had started was Tolstoy given a photocopy of the most important of the files, but four-fifths of the contents were missing.
Zundelsite:
That is also the modus operandi in many of the Nuremberg and subsequent proceedings where only incriminating documents and witnesses were looked for and admitted. Exonerating documents, circumstances and even witnesses known by the German defence lawyers to be in US or British POW camps were not produced because ". . . they could not be located in the camps".
Trifkovic:
Lord Aldington had no such problem: the files were not only readily available to him, but delivered to his office by government couriers. "Dear George," he wrote to George Younger, the (then) Defence Secretary, on March 8, 1987, "you are a friend who will understand my distress . . . if the files can be brought to the Westminster area in a series of bundles, that would be very helpful." "Dear George" duly obliged. Aldington's mind eventually clarified as to the date on which he had finally left Austria - he gave three dates in three interviews -- but there were no records by which these could be confirmed.
Zundelsite:
You wonder how many helping hands were found in the Allied occupation army hierarchy and in the vassal regimes they established all over Europe, beginning with the three Germanys - that is, East and West Germany and Austria. It's easy to get convictions against your enemies in this way.
Trifkovic:
Heavily influenced by the trial judge, the jury found against Tolstoy and awarded Lord Aldington astronomic damages -- a million and a half pounds sterling -- in November 1990. Tolstoy, who declared bankruptcy, was denied the right to appeal.
Zundelsite:
That, too, is the way it is done these days. By cutting off appeals, you do not have to assassinate your enemies the way the Mossad and Communist spy services do to their enemies in Palestine and elsewhere - as in the case of Stephan Bandera, the emigrŽ Ukrainian leader in Munich in the 1950s.
Trifkovic:
Aware that Tolstoy was penniless after the libel verdict, Britain's High Court ruled that he had no right to appeal unless he came up with almost $200,000.00 in advance to cover Aldington's legal expenses. The court further denied Tolstoy access to a $1m defense fund that had been set up in his name, and to which Alexander Solzhenitsyn and the late Graham Greene had contributed. The British establishment, and in particular to the grandees who were friends of Aldington -- the man on first-name terms with ministers in every Tory government since the war -- got the desired verdict. As far as they were concerned, a crank -- and a foreign crank at that -- had received his well-deserved comeuppance.
Zundelsite:
Like Irving two decades later!
Trifkovic:
L'affaire Tolstoy proved yet again that British libel laws are flawed. The machinery of the British government seemed to tilt the scales of justice, and the state apparently interfered in a private court case. The Human Rights Court at Strasbourg ruled in a unanimous judgment that the failure to permit an appeal was "unfitting for a democratic society and "constituted a violation of the applicant's right . . . to freedom of expression."
Zundelsite:
So what did that toothless tiger of a "Court" do in Stra§bourg? Did it force the British to overturn that verdict? Ask for a new trial? No. It kept wringing its manicured hands.
As the Zundelsite has pointed out so many times, the courts of Western Civilizations have been captured and subverted by the Fifth Column operatives in our midst.
Trifkovic:
A recent reminder of the travesty of justice perpetrated under British libel laws concerned two ITN journalists who successfully sued the LM Magazine (see "News & Views," April 20). Free speech was damaged both times, and -- in the absence of the First Amendment equivalent -- free speech is not so strong in Britain that it can take such damage. But, as Cambridge historian Michael Stenton points out, for as long as the rich have all the legal advantages, the chance of constitutional reform is poor indeed: "When historical truth becomes intensely politicized it is possible to get trapped on the wrong side of the factual fence by sympathies and first impressions. All we can do, and must do, is promise to climb over the fence if the evidence demands it."
Zundelsite:
No, Mr. Stenton of effete snob Cambridge! There is another solution far more honest and effective. Follow the American example. Enact an American style constitution and enshrine Free Speech as a fundamental right, as guaranteed finally to US citizens by the adoption of the First Amendment.
Don't climb over the fence - tear the fence down!
Trifkovic:
Lord Aldington's remarkable claim that he had had absolutely no idea what the fate of these people would be was a lie. Everyone knew, and Aldington's awareness of the draconic nature of his orders was reflected in the official name of the operation -- "Keelhaul." Keelhauling was a disciplinary measure on English ships in the old days: a seaman guilty of some grave offence would have a loop of a rope attached under his arms, to be thrown into the water and dragged all the way from the stern to the bow of the ship before being hauled out again. (This had the advantage that some of the barnacles would be scraped from the ship's bottom, but few survived such treatment.)
Zundelsite:
The cynicism of these upper crust Boys' Schools' products responsible for Keelhaul is what is the most shocking of all.
Trifkovic:
After Tolstoy's trial his "Minister and the Massacres" was banned from British libraries and universities. Although the British government would like to silence Tolstoy and any reference to forced repatriation, the issue will never go away. Ever the idealist, Tolstoy hopes that sooner or later it will have to come clean and apologize for the crimes of its agents in occupied Central Europe in that awful spring of 1945. He recalls that Prime Minister Tony Blair recently issued an apology on behalf of Britain for the 19th century potato blight in Ireland, "though many historians and members of the public found it hard to envisage in what way that tragedy could be regarded as a direct responsibility of the government of the day, let alone its late 20th century successor." He also points out that the British government "pressed consistently and successfully" for German and Japanese governments to compensate British victims of their wartime atrocities.
Zundelsite:
It will take a greater man than the "Clinton-by-the-Themse" rock musician turned Prime Minister. Millions were deliberately killed as a direct result of an Allied agreed-to policy. Only when a re-awakened sense of honor and decency in England and America - and a Germany which has shaken off its shackles of induced guilt - will press consistently and successfully that all the archives, not just the censored, sanitized few, are opened to scholarly scrutiny, and only when victors as well as vanquished will be allowed to research, probe, dissect and correlate what really led to and caused World War II, and why WWII was fought in the first place, and only if these scholars will be allowed to publish their findings, will the world free itself from this demonic influence which poisons, pollutes and obscures everything.
Trifkovic:
Lord Aldington won his court case thanks to the twisted British libel laws and thanks to the Kafkaesque nature of Britain's power structure, but wherever he is now he may be wondering if it was a victory worth having. That flawed man, disdainful of the suffering of such lesser breeds as Slavs, cynically manipulative and devoid of any capacity for moral distinctions, is beyond human judgment now; but one hopes that a much higher court will take a dim view of his life and times.
May his name live in infamy.
[END]
=====
Thought for the Day:
"Just as a hundred fools do not make one wise man, an heroic decision is not likely to come from a hundred cowards."
(Adolf Hitler)