|
|
Petitpierre
was in no hurry to reply. When he got around
to it on 7 May, he wrote back to Norton:
|
I
have submitted the report on this tragic
and deplorable affair to a fresh examination
and I am bound to state that I cannot bring
myself to your point of view. I cannot see
how we could have held the two soldiers
of the 92nd Battalion responsible for the
death of these escapers since they had done
everything possible for their relief. One
cannot reproach them for not having understood
exactly what was said to them by their foreign
comrades in view of the language difficulties,
nor for not having known the details of
the Brissago locality, as they had only
just arrived in the area.
However,
it is surprising that in endeavoring to
find the path whose outline is at moments
difficult to trace in the blizzard and with
approaching night, that the number of victims,
considering the exhausted state of these
refugees, was not eventually higher.
After
all, their idea in separating to go and
get aid may have been a mistake, but at
the same time this decision could be defended
on the grounds that they were trying to
get help, and had the circumstances not
been so unfavorable, it would have been
possible to assure for the foreign soldiers
the assistance which they required.[13]
|
By
now His Majesty's diplomats may have had
an uncanny feeling that they were playing
a futile game on a skewed chessboard. Petitpierre's
"fresh examination" had produced
nothing new. It seemed as if they were back
to square one. The Swiss were adamantly
refusing to promote the three unfortunate
pawns from the dreary anonymity of foreign
soldiers to the tell-all clarity of British
and American soldiers who, as would-be évadés,
would have been entitled to succour and
protection under international law and,
in the case of Clarke, under the terms of
the 1943 Anglo-Swiss Gentlemen's Agreement.
And
the Swiss were still maintaining an icy
silence over the seven Allied men's depositions.
What further moves were available when no
less a heavyweight than the Swiss foreign
minister himself gave preference to a manufactured
version of events which in turn was based
on a superficial account supplied by the
army?
Even if there were a few grains
of truth in the Swiss report (Brig. Cartwright
never doubted the whole thing was a cunningly
crafted edifice of distortions, exaggerations
and lies), it must seem extraordinary –
then as now – that the critical areas of
the report rested entirely on the say-so
of two young, immature and possibly badly
frightened militia men. Had the investigating
Oberst been unusually obtuse – or did he
discern the truth behind the facade but
had the nous not to spill the beans on paper?
Meanwhile,
however, there was no known move in the
book which the embattled diplomats in the
Thunstrasse could employ to progress around
the stone wall that constituted Switzerland
Inc.
In a final comment on Petitpierre's
letter, Brig. Cartwright noted laconically
in a minute dated 16 May:
"[It
is] a not very clever tour around the snags
(never touching them) on which one Swiss
soldier at least is guilty; if the Swiss
evidence, as given to us, means anything."14
With that, the legation's file on Douglas
William Clarke, the unfortunate farmer-soldier
from Zululand, was slapped shut.
|
Max Petitpierre of the Swiss Foreign Affairs Department
Responds
The Swiss remain silent in regard to the
Allied men's deposition