RSS Feed
Twitter
But the recognition of the importance of the convoys has been slow in coming - and for many is still far from complete.Amid the political deep freeze of the Cold War, history at first downplayed and then quietly forgot the role of the men whose bravery maintained the war machine of the Communist ally turned nuclear enemy.At a champagne reception in Downing Street on Monday evening, Tony Blair attempted to rectify this wrong when he told surviving veterans that they had given "exceptional service" to their country. Standing before the veterans in their white berets, the Prime Minister said: "You played a crucial role in supplying Britain's ally on the Eastern Front with material without which they would have found it difficult, if not impossible, to survive and maintain the fight."The tribute was the result of the Government's pledge last year to consider the long-running campaign by the Arctic convoy veterans, of whom barely 1,000 survive, for a medal to recognise their role.Mr Blair announced that rather than a medal, the veterans were to be awarded an "emblem".The Ministry of Defence was yesterday unable to provide an explanation of the device other than the fact that it did not have the same status as a medal but could be worn alongside them. That was what we lived in fear of - the sudden violence and the icy water. You knew your chances of surviving either weren't worth a candle. That was the Arctic convoys."Some 64 years after the first Arctic convoy set sail, it is now accepted that the men who undertook these treacherous voyages ensured Russian - and therefore British - survival during the Second World War.During four years, nearly 1,500 cargo vessels ferried four million tons of supplies to the Red Army, allowing Stalin's forces to engage the vast majority of Hitler's forces in the carnage of the Eastern Front. Winston Churchill called it "the worst journey in the world".
For every minute of every day, death threatened from the skies and waves as lumbering vessels plodded through 3,000 miles of ocean in temperatures that instantly froze bare skin to metal. Critics say he was among a minority in his field to endorse the invasion.Today The Independent discloses yet another twist in the tale. The 7 March document, sent to Mr Blair, is believed to have been seen by only a small number of ministers, including the Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and the Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, whose service chiefs were demanding a legal green light. Ministers take refuge in the long-standing tradition that the law officers' opinion should remain confidential. They rejected a request by The Independent and others for the advice to be released under the new Freedom of Information Act, arguing that disclosure could prevent the Attorney General giving frank advice to the Government in future.Doubts persist that the 7 March document may have contained damaging caveats Certainly, opinion among government lawyers was divided. Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, resigned, attacking the planned intervention in Iraq as a "crime of aggression".Lord Goldsmith has also been criticised for relying on an expert opinion from Christopher Greenwood QC, professor of international law at the London School of Economics.
She told Today on Radio 4: "I'm going to be looking at the Lords debate today extremely carefully and looking at the points that have been made to see if there is any room for further agreement."David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said any attempt to strong-arm opponents into backing the Bill by threatening to let suspects go free would be "a disgraceful way for a Government to behave".Peers lined up to argue that the Bill should not be indefinite. He added: "We have to get a substantial majority in the Commons to persuade the Lords that we are serious about getting this through."Hazel Blears, a Home Office minister, indicated concessions were likely. It's very brave of them to think the country can be left unprotected after 14 March."A whip confirmed that ministers were considering "significant concessions". A government source said: "I'm astonished that unelected politicians are gambling with people's lives. Hilary Armstrong, the chief whip, spent yesterday meeting rebel backbenchers trying to establish their "bottom line" as ministers tried to talk round the 62 Labour MPs who rebelled against the Bill last week, when Labour's majority fell to 14.Whips fear they will lose the Bill altogether if concessions do not win over the rebels and have delivered dire warnings to backbenchers over the need for the legislation.
