8th December 2021

███████████

Editorial Legal Director

Hachette UK Limited

Carmelite House
50 Victoria Embankment
London EC4Y 0DZ

Dear ███████

Re: Julian Hayes – ‘Stonehouse Cabinet Minister, Fraudster, Spy’

Does Hayes Actually Believe What The Czech Agents Wrote?

I have written you twelve letters since 8 October regarding Julian Hayes’ misrepresentation of particular documents in the StB file, both in English and Czech, as well as government documents, and I have had no reply from either you or Julian regarding those serious matters, nor even an acknowledgement. In those letters I raised specific questions for Julian to answer, and I am still waiting for him to explain himself, or tell me if he thinks I am mistaken in the challenges I have made. I am left to wonder whether this great silence is indication that Julian Hayes and Hachette are intending to simply ignore me.

I outlined in the earlier correspondence that the file provides no proof my father was an agent for the Czechs and that, on the contrary, it provides evidence he was not, but the broader issue of whether what the communist StB agents wrote in their reports should be believed also needs to be addressed. The first thing to say, of course, is that these people were professional liars and it’s clear they were lying not only to English people about their roles, but to their Czech masters in Prague as well. Details of such lying in their reports is highlighted in several of my earlier letters, and throughout the file it can be seen that the StB agents were adept at misrepresenting events in London. 

On 23 July 2019 Julian Hayes emailed me saying that the StB agents may have exaggerated the significance of the information they said they received from my father, however, nowhere in his book does Hayes say that and he instead writes about the contents of the StB reports as if they are to be taken ‘at face value’ and as factually accurate. Taking into consideration the entirety of what Julian Hayes wrote to me in July 2019 (Ref: my letter dated 11 October), including that Hayes thought it was dubious my father was actually recruited, what he writes in his 2021 book as well as what he omits appears to me disingenuous.

Hayes’ book promotes the narrative that my father supported the communist regime of Czechoslovakia when in fact my father was particularly anti-communist, and was well known for being so. From 1956 to 1965 he was engaged in a bitter battle to oust communists from the Board of the London Cooperative Society (LCS), first as an unpaid member of that board, then as unpaid President, and even afterwards. This battle could only be won democratically with votes from the LCS membership, and on one of his LCS election leaflets, available to 1.3 million members, he wrote “Those who have studied the development of the international Communist movement tell us that the Communists hate and fear no one so much as the Social Democrats. Wherever the Communists have succeeded in overthrowing the government, they have turned like sharks on those Socialists who had been their collaborators. This is because the Communists cannot permit the existence of a reasonable alternative to their method of achieving ‘Socialism’. For this reason they cannot afford to see the Co-operative movement succeed on any terms other than their own.”

On page 21 Hayes refers to a report by agent ‘Kugler’ in which he (Vlado Koudelka) told his masters in Prague that “there had been some tentative discussions as to how they could help each other politically”. Hayes doesn’t question this ludicrous proposition. It is clear from documents in the StB file that the London agents were aware from at least March 1958 to February 1965 of my father’s unequivocal anti-communist political position, but that is not what they relayed to Prague. There are two questions here: 1) how do the London StB treat his anti-communist sentiment and relay that, if indeed they do, to their masters in Prague; and 2) how does Hayes deal with my father’s anti-communist stance?

On page 13 Hayes writes that agent ‘Kugler’ reported on March 15 1958 that he’d had a meeting with my father at which they discussed a speech my father made in the House of Commons, which ‘Kugler’ criticised. The date of the speech is not given but it may refer to his speech at the Foreign Affairs debate on 20 February 1958, of which this is an extract:

“My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) referred to assistance to underdeveloped countries. This is certainly one of the ways in which the richer countries of the West can help not only to raise the living standards of the backward peoples but make a contribution towards removing tension from world affairs. If these backward countries have an opportunity of doing constructive things to improve their way of life there is much less likelihood that they will turn to Communism or dictatorship. If they feel frustrated in their efforts to advance it is certain that dictators and others who appeal to that frustration will be able to win power—and that will not be in the interests either of stability or of the progress of the people living in those countries. The assistance which Russia gives to under-developed countries is every bit as valuable as that which we and the United States can give. We should welcome willingly any assistance which Russia gives to the backward areas; indeed, if we encourage her to give that aid we shall help to defeat the very objects of Communism. The building up of the basic standard of living of the under-developed countries is in itself one of the weapons which will defeat Communism. The fact that the U.S.S.R. is today building a steel mill in India is a contribution to India's economy, and to the strength of the Congress Party of India. It is also a handicap to the success of the Indian Communist Party. Like that which the more advanced countries of the West can give, the aid which the Soviet Union can give to other under-developed countries, such as Syria, provided that it is not military aid, helps to remove the causes of instability and frustration which are the seeds of Communism.”

On page 22, Hayes writes about a supposed meeting between my father and ‘Kugler’ on 8 December 1959: “The Czech had only just got started giving advice to his protégé, listing the sort of matters he should focus on. The MP was to be seen as a moderate, left of centre, and not to align himself with hardliners in order to avoid any suspicion that he was colluding with a communist country.” Hayes gives no references in his book but I can tell you the StB report is document 43075_43075_000_0141, in which agent ‘Kugler’ states that he told my father “His political approach to problems will be left of the centre—from now on he will avoid supporting Zilliacus, and he will distance himself from him personally as well, so no one will be able to accuse him of being a fellow traveller”. Zilliacus was a communist MP and there is no way my father supported Zilliacus, and certainly had no connection to him “personally”, as my mother has confirmed. So this report is for the benefit of the Czech masters in Prague, to let them think ‘Kugler’ had a plan and, indeed, at the bottom of this 3-page report there is a handwritten note which congratulates ‘Kugler’ for having a “well thought-out approach”. Hayes knows perfectly well that my father was vehemently anti-communist and had not and would not align himself with “hardliners” such as Zilliacus, yet in his book Hayes lets this report pass without questioning whether it stands up to logic and should be believed. 

On pages 26-28 Hayes writes about a meeting between my father and agent ‘Kugler’ on 18 January 1960, which ‘Kugler’ presents to his masters in Prague as being the moment he thought my father could be recruited as their agent. Hayes omits this part of the report – “We agreed to explain communist policies to him and to assist him with advice and criticism in preparing his book on British democracy” (reference: 43075_43075_000_0155) – perhaps because Hayes knows my father didn’t need “communist policies” explained to him, nor indeed “advice” from ‘Kugler’. My mother typed all my father’s notes and books and tells me that no such book was planned and certainly none was published. Just because ‘Kugler’ managed to sell this scenario to his masters in Prague, that does not make it true, and Hayes could have identified that as another example of, as he put it to me in July 2019, the Czechs being self-serving.

On page 30 Hayes writes: “Stonehouse was also facing issues within the Co-operative Society, in which there had been an attempted takeover by the communists, which he successfully defeated, a move that did not please his Prague paymasters.” Hayes has his facts wrong here: my father did not manage to defeat the communists because out of a 1.3 million membership only 12,000 voted, many of them communists with the agenda to take control of the LCS. Indeed, the communists did take over the LCS and proceeded to destroy what was, at the time, the largest retail trading organisation in the country. Hayes continues: “An awkward meeting took place at Peppercorns restaurant on Seething Lane on 18 March 1963 where he was quizzed about events within the Co-operative Society … He had been compelled to take active measures to ensure that this did not continue [the communists adopting destructive policies] by speaking out against the communists. His handler told him that they did not consider this was at all necessary, adding that, while the Czechs were manoeuvring to advance his political ambitions, they did not expect him to take an active anti-communist stance. He had been warned.” My father fought the communists over the entire period he was involved in the LCS – from 1956 to 1965 and the notion that my father’s political ambitions could in any way be helped by an association with communist spies is just too ridiculous. That may have been a narrative the Czechs used to explain to Prague why my father should ‘work’ with them, but it makes no sense in the real world of British politics. The narrative that the Czechs were “manoeuvring to advance his political ambitions” suits Hayes’ narrative and so he doesn’t question it. Everyone is being disingenuous – Hayes as well as the StB agents.

Hayes must be aware that within what might be called the ‘miscellanea’ section of the StB file there are press cuttings that show that the London StB agents were well aware of my father’s anti-communist activities. I reproduce below two press cuttings, the first from a Swedish newspaper (StB Document Reference: 43075_43075_000_0616: Stockholms-Tidningen, 4 April 1963). At the end of the opening paragraph it says: “The President of the London Association, John Stonehouse, and his reformists have been excluded from important meetings where economic guidelines are drawn up - and a reform proposal based on in-depth studies in Stockholm has been rejected without discussion by the Communist-dominated board.”