The Cossacks
Sir: Anyone who questions the plausibility of Virginia Moriconi's view of history, as summarised by Roger Lewis (Books, 14 July), should turn to Philip Warner's re- view of Harold Macmillan's War Diaries in the same issue. Commenting on the 'fateful decision of 13 May 1945', Mr Warner does his best to be even-handed: `To the Rus- sians, they [the Cossacks] were traitors, and it was a necessary and correct transac- tion; to the Allies, unavoidable in the circumstances.' Published accounts are, however, too one-sided to encourage bal- ance, and he goes on to describe the 'victims' as 'refugees'.
To those more closely concerned — the inhabitants of the Italian 'Partisan Repub- lic' of Carnia, Tito's partisans, British liaison officers (including myself) in Friuli and the Soviet Military Mission in Slovenia — 'refugee' would have seemed an odd description to apply to the armed force that destroyed the Carnia 'Republic', or the 15th Cossack Cavalry Corps in Yugoslavia. In 1944-45 the recognised term was 'col- laborator'. In France some 10,000 'col- laborators' were 'executed' without trial.
Forty years on, it is tempting to treat as 'theory' the notion that, if the armies did not go home, millions more could die. In 1945 the possibility was far from imagin- ary. A 'Crusade' against the 'Bolsheviks' was not just a declared Nazi aim, but a common expectation in Central Europe, and the ambition of the Cossacks.
Two points emerge. First, if all contrary facts are excluded, it is simple to make black appear white. This, however, is polemics, not history. Second, if war re- sults in unpleasant situations demanding painful decisions, which are later deemed deplorable, then — avoid war.
Patrick Martin-Smith
Llauro, 66300 Thuir, France
Previous page
