I posted a second comment in response to yet more personal attacks on Doctor Herbert Vere Evatt, for which comment I was accused of being a 'thread hijacker'. It is most instructive to observe the reactions of other readers of Tim Blair's blog. Here is the text of my second comment...
Doctor Evatt, a former President of the United Nations, was the intended victim of the most vicious and cunning fraud ever perpetrated on the citizens of Australia. What fraud is this you say? Why the 1954 Petrov Fraud of course, dreamed up by our late esteemed leader, Menzies, to destroy Evatt and everything he stood for.
And why would he do that? Because Evatt had almost single-handedly thwarted Menzies’ repeated attempts to impose the most pernicious piece of legislation ever passed by any parliament of this country - the 'Communist Party Dissolution Bill' of 1950.
Read what the Judges had to say about this Bill when it was challenged in the High Court*. For the framers of current anti-terrorist laws, read and weep for ‘ye be as little children’ in comparison to the framers of this piece of totalitarian infamy.
Anyway, Evatt had to be destroyed after this. And he was. Menzies’ henchmen in ASIO paid a third secretary of the Russian Embassy, Vladimir Petrov, 5000 pounds to say he stole documents from the Embassy building in Canberra.
These documents, cooked up by the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, allowed Menzies to set up the ‘Royal Commission into Espionage’ at which Evatt appeared in defence of one of his staff members who, surprise, surprise, just happened to have been set up by the perpetrators.
Unfortunately for ASIO, they did not choose wisely. They suborned a drunken oaf with a penchant for inter-embassy parties and an inability to give consistent evidence of how he was able to remove documents from the Embassy safe. Petrov’s story was exposed as a complete fabrication by Evatt at the Royal Commission. Proof of this manipulation and deception of the Australian people is contained in the Commission’s 3000 foolscap page report. Perhaps it was supposed that no one would ever go through this documentation with a fine tooth comb. Unfortunately for the perpetrators, however, someone by the name of E.P.Wixted did, several times. His purpose? To vindicate Dr. Evatt’s name.
If one were to tempted to think that all this is just ancient history, then let me disabuse your mind. The fallout from the Petrov Fraud not only lost Dr Evatt an almost certain spot as Australia’s next Prime Minister but also kept the Labor Party from office for many years.
Most importantly of all, however, the Petrov Fraud played another, even more sinister role as ‘sister act’ to the McCarthy Tribunal in the United States. The purpose?...to get both countries involved in the Vietnam War...to stop the ‘downward thrust of Asian Communism.’ And I suppose that the fallout from that war is incalculable.
This issue is of vital importance to citizens of the USA as well as of Australia.
Postcript: It is now 40 years since the battle of Long Tan in which Australian troops, facing overwhelming odds, suffered their greatest casualties of the war. If Doctor Evatt had become Australian Prime Minister, which was all but certain before the Petrov Fraud, there would have been no Australian involvement in the Vietnam War.
It is arguable that there would have been no Vietnam War at all. The USA did not need our military support...what they needed was our MORAL support...another western democracy to 'step up to the plate', so to speak. 'All the way with LBJ' became the mantra of Australian politics under the conservative forces.
Both the USA and Australia have paid the price, not only in personal and political terms, but by the tarnishing of our once-great reputation as freedom-loving, democratic peoples. The unparalled and ongoing consequences of that loss can be seen in the world's perception of current events and can hardly be overestimated.
*On 9th March 1951, by a 6-1 majority, the High Court ruled the “Communist Party Dissolution Bill” to be invalid. The extreme, totalitarian nature of the legislation is made clear in the judgement delivered by Mr. Justice Williams:
“The Act’s outstanding character is that in its main provisions it prohibits no act, enjoins no duty, creates no offence, imposes no sanction for disobedience to any command and prescribes no standard or rule of conduct.
The Act purports to dissolve the Australian Communist Party and forfeit its property to the Commonwealth. It also purports to make other bodies, or persons, who in the prescribed period were, or were likely to be tainted with Communism, liable to be dissolved and their property forfeited to the Commonwealth.
The Act makes prescribed people or Communists liable to be deprived of important rights without creating any offence the commission of which would entail such consequences. Indeed, no proof would be needed that they had committed any offence.
There would be no trial in any court, and those prescribed would have no right to prove that they had not done anything prejudicial to the security, defence or the maintenance of the Constitution. In peacetime the legislation to be reasonably capable of aiding defence, must be reasonably necessary for the purpose of preparing for war.”