HMS Consort - Suicide Missions to Order

SHIPS AT NANKING

On page 32 of Earl's book Yangtze Incident, he introduces Lieutenant-Commander J.S. Kearns, into that book in the fashion "One of several involved in the relaying of that first message from Amethyst to the Ambassador was the Embassy's Assistant Naval Attaché, John Simon Kearns. His rank was that of lieutenant commander. At the time he had no idea how vitally important the Amethyst affair would become to him."

Kearns, wrote the foreword to Mr Earls book from that foreword I now quote the last paragraph from it, I Quote* Most of us who took parting the action which has become known as the Yangtze Incident of 1949 are now separated and will go our devious ways, whether in civilian life or in the Service. I wish all my comrades the best of luck in the future. It was both an honour and a pleasure to serve with them. *Unquote.

When Kearns, wrote that foreword, with insight, he deliberately composed that last paragraph carefully selecting his words placing great emphases on and in them.

(Now separated and will go our devious way), When H.M.S. Consort was ordered to the rescue of the Amethyst the British Embassy there was without direct communication with London, England. H.M.S. Consort was in fact the listening post between London and the Embassy at Nanking. Lieutenant Commander Kearns was the Embassy's Naval Attaché and through him went all incoming and outgoing signals. Kearns was in fact by his position London's spy, monitoring the day to day situation as it was, it fell to him keep London informed of all events including that of others involved in the cold war that existed between Britain the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union. What was the U.S.A. and the Soviet Union up to That was the real importance of having a ship stationed at Nanking the ship was not spying it was being used as a tool its ears the communication system.

When the C.C.P's Peoples Liberation Army crossed the Yangtze River in its final assault against the Nationalists, no further harm came to the Amethyst other than that she was being held hostage. But out of disaster arose a golden opportunity, a Royal Navy ship in the territorial waters of China with enough know how on board to repair its communication system, (A spy within the victors camp) Kearns was ordered in to take charge of the ship and to become involved in negotiations concerning the ship.

One of the first signals that Kearns received on the Amethyst came from no lesser an authority that Vice Admiral, Madden, acting Commander-in-Chief, the signal arrived in the form of an order "THE SAFTY OF YOUR SHIP'S COMPANY BEING NOW THE FIRST CONSIDERATION YOU ARE NOW TO PREPARE TO EVACUATE FROM THE SHIP AND SINK. REPORT WHEN YOU WILL BE READY. ACNOWLEDGE"

Here you have Kearn's who has just arrived on board being ordered to prepare the ships evacuation and sink the ship, it is obvious that, there was a countermand of that order since the evacuation and sinking did not transpire. But the fact remains that a signal with that order was sent to the ship by no lesser an authority than that of Vice Admiral, Madden, while acting as Commander-in-Chief on the Far East Station.

Consider the order in the first instance for its terms, "THE SAFTY OF YOUR SHIPS COMPANY BEING NOW THE FIRST CONSIDERATION" (1) Where was Maddens considerations of ships company's in respect to H.M.S. Consort, London and Black Swan. (2) Where was his consideration for Amethysts ships Company when it came to the sinking and abandoning of a ship in the middle of a war zone and completely surrounded by the advancing troops of the P.L.A. had that order been implemented? (3) What was his consideration in getting those ratings out of such a situation had the order been activated.

Here is the one thing that is certain, Amethyst had to be blown up or escape she could not be left on the Yangtze as material evidence to interference in China's Internal Affairs the Amethyst as a hostage was the C.C.P's proof to the world pointing directly to Britain and the U.S.A. interfering in Chinas Internal affairs, and in breach of the Moscow Declaration of December 1945.

In Great Britain a great deal was made of and about Amethysts escape from the Yangtze, and the seamanship and valour of those on the ship has to be applauded. I personally applaud the valour and seamanship of the event especially in considering the fact that their effort was successfully achieved, they survived, but what has never been taken into account is what would have resulted had the ship and those on board been destroyed in their effort of escaping, would that have been put down to the recklessness of Kearns, or the Admiralty on the Far East Station.   Just an other unanswered question, the reason being, the authorities both in London and the Far East Station new of Kearns and his intention to escape from the Yangtze, signals were sent to the Admiralty on the Far East Station from London, ordering that there must be no attempt made by Amethyst to escape because of ensuing talks between London and China, at that time China was under the control of the C.C.P. that order within that signal was not made known to Kearns, who was in the process of activating Amethysts escape.

Some recorded facts from meetings between Lieutenant Commander, Kearns, and Colonel Kang, of the P.L.A on the dates 20th 23rd June 1949 at the village of Ma Chan Shaw, are note worthy because of the points as were raised, Colonel Kang, put it to Kearns through an interpreter, "If the British side will acknowledge that they invaded Chinese waters without the authority of the Chinese Peoples Liberation an early solution to the proceeding of H.M.S. Amethyst down the river may be found. Talks on the question of guilt and such other matters could then continue after Amethyst has gone" "Does Admiral Brind admit the British ships were guilty of entering the river?"

Kearns replied, "I recognise that Amethyst entered the Chinese national river and the Chinese People's Liberation Army frontier-zone without the especial permission of the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army."

Colonel Kang, "The reason I have to use the word 'invade' is because Amethyst invaded Chinese sovereignty, and the matter of sovereignty is the principle consideration. If we study the use of the word in its full context it may help to bring our views together."

Kearns, in reply, "You cannot use that word." "It means we are at war, and we are not. We are a friendly nation, and always have been."

Colonel Kang, "I suggest we leave this until a later meeting." Kearns, "I insist, that the discussion continue." Colonel Kang, "Very well. If Admiral Brind can admit the guilt of the British we can discuss the subject of compensation after Amethyst has gone." "I wish you good luck on the journey down-river."

Here you have Kearns freely admitting, "I recognise that Amethyst entered the Chinese national river and the Chinese Peoples Liberation Army frontier-zone without the especial permission of the Chinese Peoples Liberation." By that statement he provides proof to the world that Attlee, in public statement to the House of Commons 26th April 1949 lied to the House and the Nation. By Kearns, statement it is proved that the Amethyst was not going about her lawful occasions as 'especial' permission had not been sought from the Peoples Liberation Army. Kearn's is also seen here to have seized upon the context or implication of the word 'invade' used by Colonel Kang, in so doing Kearn's states, "You cannot use that word." And goes on to explain, "It means we are at war, and we are not. We are a friendly nation, and always have been."

The word invade has of course several meanings that can be attached to it but it was being used explicitly by Colonel Kiang, in its proper context because of the topic being discussed and cant be seen to be otherwise, "to encroach on (rights, esp. privacy)." By the very nature of the terms within the Moscow Treaty of December 1945   "Non Intervention Into The Internal Affairs Within China" who ever it was that ordered the Amethyst into the Yangtze River, regardless of purpose, that was an encroachment of Chinese sovereignty protected by the Moscow Treaty of December 1945.

When Kearn's during those talks stated, "We are a friendly nation, and always have been" It is a great pity that he was not challenged on that statement and assumption by way of an old adage (God Protect me from my friend's, as, my enemy's I know).


                                       ALPHA                   Under heavy fire.
                                                                     Am aground.
                                                                     Large Number of casualties.


                                      OMEGA                  Have rejoined the fleet.
                                                                    Am South of Woo-Sung.
                                                                    No damage or casualties.
                                                                    God Save The King.

There you have the two signals that for the past fifty-four years have the attribute of being famous. In truth they are attributes to Infamy. Infamy covered up by deceit and deception. The deceit and deception that has gone unchallenged for forty-three years.

Prior to Amethysts escape, what I have shown is that amicable discussions were taking place for the purpose of securing Amethyst's release, discussions that would have on agreement provided safe passage. I have pointed to the discussions that took place between Kearn's and Colonel Kang, and I have related to the signal sent from London to the Admiralty, Far East Station with the order that Amethyst, must not attempt to escape, an order that was not sent to Amethyst by the Admiralty on the Far East Station.

From: Lawrence Earls, book, Yangtze Incident at page 180. I Quote* Kearns had very recently received word, through a channel that cannot, even now, be revealed, that if he made a decision to try a break out he would have the full approval of the Commander-in Chief, Far East Station; and, by the still same secret source, he had been informed that he had political clearance from London. *Unquote.

Two years ago in March 2001. I attended en ex-serviceman's outing, there I was introduced to an elderly ex R.N, serviceman who had read a news report of a letter that I had received from Prime Minister, Tony Blair, concerning the graves of some of those left behind as a result of the Yangtze Incident. After being introduced to him he pointed to the ships crest on my blazer badge and said, "I can tell you more about that ship than you probably know." Well, with a prolific statement like that, I wanted an explanation to it.

Having satisfied his curiosity on the matter of the graves and my correspondence with the Prime Minister concerning the graves from the Yangtze Incident, my newly found ex-serviceman friend produce a note book and wrote down the name of an author and book suggesting that I should read the book, when I mentioned that I had read that particular book (Hostage on the Yangtze) after an explanation of why he was recommending that book and the further suggestion that I should read it again he explained his statement in the first instance, "I can tell you more about that ship than you probably know" in the following fashion.

"During the second world war I was a Telegraph's, stationed in Singapore where I narrowly missed capture by the Japanese, the ships Crest on my Blazer is that of the Riffles which fought its way out of Singapore. In 1949 as a Telegraph's in the Naval Attaché's Headquarters, in London, it was to some extent as if I was reliving my experiences on the Malacca Straits, Singapore, by what was occurring on the Yangtze River between Nanking and Shanghai in China. The Malacca Straits being a barrier between Malay and Singapore was similar to the barrier of the Yangtze, at the time of the big push by the Japanese in world war two and the Chinese Communists in 1949.

In May of 1949 H.M.S. Consort was the last Royal Navy ship to be stationed at Nanking she relieved H.M.C.S. Crescent, our listening post's stationed there for the purpose of transmissions, from that station came learning of American war equipment being landed from ships at Formosa, the connotations of a Nationalist second front with U.S.A. involvement or support.

When the Yangtze Incident occurred on the 20th of April 1949 involving H.M.S. Amethyst and your ship Consort, shock waves reached and rocked London, then on the 23rd of April a transmission from Shanghai, at a time when arrangement's were being put in place for the Ceremonial Burial there, the significance of what was found on board H.M.S. Consort that day sent shock waves through out the Admiralty and the diplomatic core in London, an un-exploded shell was found on top of H.M.S. Consorts number one boiler, great care had to be taken in removing the shell, on inspection it was found to be of U.S.A. origin and unstable. The shell had penetrated the ships hull and came to land on top of the number one boiler, had it exploded in coming into contact with the boiler that would have resulted in Consort sinking with a broken back, on deliberation of the location where that shell was found and up until the time of it being found H.M.S. Consort was the equivalent of a mine primed and ready to explode. To my astonishment, and this lives and remains with me to this day, in the damage report for H.M.S. Consort prepared for the admiralty and sent to London the reported finding of the shell on the number one boiler was omitted."

On pages 19 to 26 you have that being termed a copy of a report prepared for the Admiralty-M.M.S. Consort 20th April 1949 within that report there is no mention of the shell type of shell or its origins the question is why was it omitted, the answer is because it was of U.S.A. origin, coming in via the back door of Formosa for the Nationalists, some of those munitions were then left behind in fleeing retreat of the Nationalist only to be picked up by the Peoples Liberation Army.

Kearn's was the person who relayed the information regarding Formosa being the back door supply route, it was he who was ordered to take command of the Amethyst with options blow the bloody thing up or get it out of there, Kearns succeeded in his mission and sent the signal (Have rejoined the fleet. Am South of Woo-Sung. No damage or casualties. God save the King) in sending that infamous signal, astern of him, God had his work cut out for him, looking over the carnage left in the wake of Amethyst, the ship Kiang Ling Liberation was on fire and sinking a large Junk was split in two where does that come into the equation?

Reference has been made here to the book "Hostage on the Yangtze written by the author Malcolm Murfett. I.S.B.N 0870212893" the story took shape in the first instance as a thesis of Naval event the Yangtze Incident, due to the amount of research to produce the theses a book came to life and it provides an insight into the Yangtze Incident, that in this country Britain, Government departments would prefer to keep under lock and key and in my opinion that is why, Malcolm Murfett in his book concludes, with the question, "Why".

Well I have pointed to why the incident occurred; now I will point to another why. Why has the British Government since 1949 failed to sue the U.S.A. for their part in the killing and wounding of British Servicemen and the damage to Royal Navy Ships?

When that question is being considered matters that should be taken into the equation are; when the Peoples Liberation Army of China, made its final push, that push stopped at what is known as the New Territories, an area only a few miles distant from the British Colony, of Hong Kong. From there the P.L.A. were in a position to flatten Hong Kong that did not happen. The Nationalist army with its leader had fled to Formosa.

Lawrence Earl's, book, Yangtze Incident begins with the (why). Malcolm Murrfett's, book, Hostage on the Yangtze, ends with the question (why), and in writing as I am here I am asking the question, (why) in the big push by the P.L.A. did the Civil war within China stop at the New Territories only some few miles distant from the British Colony, of Hong Kong. The answer to the question is, that Mao Tse Tung, of the C.C.P. and Peoples Liberation Army of China, (read into the master plan) and defeated Britain, the U.S.A. and the Chinese Nationalists.   The British Colony of Hong Kong was the hub of commerce with its banking systems in China, Moa Tse Tung, in victory now controlled China, so commerce within China came under his remit. Had, Moa Tes Tung, invaded Hong Kong, or destroyed it, that would have provided Britain and the U.S.A. with the excuse to launch a full scale war against Communist China in the hope of establishing a regime that the P.L.A. had put paid to, that plan was in progress with U.S.A. military equipment already in Formosa, and Chiang Kai-Shek with his remnants of his Kuomintang armies were in Formosa, Formosa being the Second front. A second front that was put paid to because Moa Tse Tung did not fall into the trap of China being taken over by any foreign powers.

This photograph shows H.M.S. Consort in dry-dock at Singapore, undergoing repairs to the damage sustained 20th April 1949 on the Yangtze River, after having made three valiant efforts to rescue the Amethyst. It is noticeable from this photo that, A- gun has been repaired and a new B-gun is being fitted; there is a new Wheelhouse, Bridge, and Range-finders. Aft of the funnel wreckage is still visible.

The necessary equipment and expertise for repairing H.M.S. Consort had to be shipped out from Britain to Singapore, as the damage inflicted upon the ship was to such an extent, the ship would never have made the journey to Britain for the necessary repairs required.

H.M.S. Consort is seen here coming into Shanghai. Wounded rating being assisted from the ship, and the dead being carried past a guard of sailors and U.S Marines. This was at a time when the ship was the equivalent of an un-exploded mine with an un-exploded shell of U.S.A. origin lying on top of the number one boiler.

A news cutting from 1949 reporting H.M.S. Consorts arrival at Hong Kong the terms within the news cutting are noteworthy.
In producing the photographs of H.M.S. Consort this allows an insight to some extent of what it must have been like to have been on board H.M.S. Consort during one hundred minutes of the ships life span of ten years on the Far East Station, one hundred minutes from the time of receiving the signal from the Amethyst, in the first instance (Under heavy fire. Am aground. Large number of Casualties).

Within Earl's, book at page 43 to 49 Chapter Six, HERE COMES "CONSORT" summed up what you have is "She came .She Saw .She left" why was that account, more or less for what it amounted to never challenged by those who's time was taken up by Earl, in obtaining statements to compile his book.

Here I would draw attention, for a moment, to the last paragraph of the news item that I have produced here, headed "H.M.S. Consort back from River Duel" on page (37) I Quote* "The wounded on the sloop which was grounded by the same Red artillery fire, could be seen on the quarter deck. We made three runs to get through the barrage to reach her. But when it became futile, we left, he said." * Unquote.

The officer who made that statement was at the time unaware that what he sighted and thought to be wounded lying on the quarter deck of the sloop Amethyst, that was the bodies of the dead with the exception of one. One who upon Consorts three attempts at rescue kept raising his arm in cheering Consorts efforts, A copy of his personal admission and thanks to Consorts 1949 Ships Company for their efforts in attempting to rescue his ship and those still on board is recorded.

Because of Earl's book and subsequent film Yangtze Incident that, in reality was about one ship the Amethyst this has distorted the nation's view of the Incident and Royal Navy History. On the web, there is a Royal Navy Profile site; in the history section there is no mention of the Yangtze Incident or the ships involved.

In pointing out these matters I will attempt to provide an even clearer picture of H.M.S. Consorts involvement in the Yangtze Incident, soon by way of a documentary it will be made even clearer by re-enactment, but in the meantime read into what it was like on board H.M.S. Consort.

What I have just shown is part of a historical event in Royal Navy History, conflict in a time of peace, documented history stored in government offices gathering dust.

Why is this not documented on the Royal Navy Profile, web site? The answer is a simple enough one it is because of the blundering that can be attributed to the Yangtze Incident. On that web site there is mention of the Falklands War, was there not some blundering there which could have been prevented, from lessons learned via truth from the Yangtze Incident, instead of the learning from the brain washing film Yangtze Incident that distorted the truth, that is what the so called epic film was all about, creating a vision, deluding the gullible.

Since the year 2000 two documentary producers were corresponding with me both were interested in producing a documentary covering the Yangtze Incident, one because of cut backs in funding fell from the frame, so to speak of, the other when it came to light wanted to produce his documentary along the theme of the part played in the Yangtze Incident by the Amethyst, up until the time of him mentioning that, I had been pointing him in the direction of where his researchers could and would be provided with a wealth of information, however upon stating that the theme and main thrust of the documentary was going to be on Amethysts part in the Yangtze Incident, what really annoyed me was when he made mention of Simon the cat's part, how it had been awarded the Dickin Medal, the animal equivalent of a Victoria Cross and how the medal had been sold at auctioned in 1993 at the price of £23,000 my reaction was immediate, politely, I told him to "Fuck Off".

On the 12 January 1991 a news item in the Daily Telegraph news paper headed "Whitehall farce as graves vanish" caused a great deal of anguish by what was being reported, the report was on some furious buck-passing within Whitehall as to what department was responsible for graves of those from the Yangtze Incident, buried in Shanghai. Allegations were to the effect that the Chinese, "bulldozed the graves to make way for a public school". This was the news being reported in January of 1991 and here some ten year later a documentary producer's interest is focused on news from 1993 relating to the price that Simon the cat's Dickin Medal brought at auction.

Only recently there was news media coverage concerning a Yangtze Incident medal that was issued to one of the ratings from the Amethyst, in dire straits he pawned or sold the medal, an Australian on holiday in Britain, saw the medal and purchased it. The Australian, searched and found the recipient, the medal was valued at Eighty pounds, the medal was returned to the recipient by the Australian. (I wonder was the Australian in anyway familiar with the Shoal Havens part in the Yangtze Incident).

On the subject of medals as awards, when I joined H.M.S. Consort and was regaled in the ships history and events in my learning I asked the question in regard to what awards were presented to the ratings for their deeds and valour "The Battle Honours" to me at that time some of the stories amounted to Valour above and beyond the call of duty. Today I know those stories to be true, having met up with many who were involved in the Yangtze Incident, their stories are not for me to write about but they should be told.
(The awards were put into and drawn from a hat.)

The Yangtze Incident ended the lives and careers of many serving in the Royal Navy during peacetime, the Civil War in China should never have touched them but it did and it affected lives in all manner and fashion, fifty-three years on and the Yangtze Incident is still effecting lives whether British or Chinese and the Chinese have to be taken into the equation because as a result of the Yangtze Incident a great many Chinese were also killed and wounded. No one should ever be kidded into believing that the Amethyst was going about her lawful occasions, Amethyst would have been going about her Lawful occasions, if by merely courtesy, both the Nationalist's and the C.C.P. had been contacted in order to secure safe passage way, what was there to hide if measures were merely being put in place to evacuate British nationals.

The truth of it is that the filth of politics and the gratifications of political desires were in conflict, a cold war existed and sides were being taken in breach of the 1945 Moscow Treaty, with its terms of none intervention into Chinas internal affairs. Why were questions being asked by the news media? Such as can be seen in the news cutting on page (37) just below "Firing Point Blank" "Shell's collected in the destroyer were of three types-37 mm., 75 mm, and 150 mm (He declined to specify whether they are Russian or American Products) the officer who declined to answer that question declined by route of the official secrets act, which he was bound by.

In regard to awards I cannot say exactly who it may have been or what department had the responsibility for awards but one thing that is certain is that all recommendations for rewards never came to light, acts of valour above and beyond the call of duty were not recognised and this came about by way of the recommendations being drawn from a hat, as they were, so an order from some source was responsible for that action to be taken, and taken it was.

I can relate to three instances that occurred on board H.M.S. Consort where valour occurred that was well above and beyond the call of duty, but by the fact that selection for awards was via the hat those three recommendations were not pulled from the hat.

In London, in November of 1949 some of those involved in the Yangtze Incident received recognition for their services from His Majesty the King, then on the 22nd December 1949 a "SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY" was posted on H.M.S. Consorts, notice board in Singapore while, still in dry-dock. It was indeed a "SPECIAL ORDER OF THE DAY" from Admiral, Patrick Brind, Far East Station as when read into he is not, telling how the action was, he is dictating how its to be seen and accepted as such. Why did he not send that special order of the day to the Hunt Class Destroyer, H.M.S. Mendip? Well, it could be that no one told him that's where H.M.S. Consorts, Captain and Ships Company were, perhaps he hadn't been made aware that the Admiralty had taken back the Hunt Class Destroyer, Mendip, having been on loan to the Chinese Nationalists, and, on finding it to be in a filthy and stinking condition decided to put Consorts Captain, and Ships Company on board the ship with orders to clean the ship up and bring it up to Royal Navy standards while patrolling Malay and Borneo at a time when Consort was in dry-dock at Singapore undergoing repairs.

The signature of the Commander in Chief on that documents dated 22nd December 1945 some eight months from the time of the incident was indeed an order. It's an order of the day that ties him into the deceit and deception of what went on and into the Yangtze Incident, and that is established by the terms within the second paragraph of his order of the day in relating to Amethyst, and the action taken by Consort.

BACK NEXT