AFRAID OF PHIBBS
THE attack on Lord Stockton in a maga- zine published by some Conservative stu- dents illustrates the grave limitations of silence as a form of defence. Lord Stockton has repeatedly been challenged to explain his part in the decision to return thousands of people to the Soviet Union in 1945, many of whom were subsequently killed, and many of whom the Allies were in no way committed to return under the terms agreed at Yalta. He has never provided a full explanation. Nor have others involved in the affair co-operated to establish what went wrong. Last month Lord Aldington wrote to the Sunday Telegraph to defend himself and Lord Stockton: 'Obsessive attacks on the Earl of Stockton for the political advice he gave are as wrong as they are unworthy. . . . When time allows me to study all the documents I shall explain in detail all the circumstances.' Forty years after the period in question, time might have allowed him to do better than that. To the extent that the indi- viduals concerned have failed to help satisfy reasonable curiosity about why thousands of people were abandoned to the tender mercies of Stalin, they bring upon themselves the questions of Count Tolstoy and others. It is not seemly that an officer and a gentleman should be attacked as a war criminal in a magazine published by a junior branch of the party he used to lead. But it was not seemly for the BBC to make great efforts to prevent discussion of Count Tolstoy's recent book on its prog- rammes, nor for Mr Norman Tebbit to try to silence (and much exaggerate the im- portance of) Mr Harry Phibbs, by taking out an injunction against his magazine. Must seasoned politicians go running to the High Court to protect themselves against Mr Phibbs? If the Tories wish to save themselves further embarrassment, a frank speech or statement from Lord Stockton would help.
Previous page
