|
It has become fairly obvious that the attempts to
find historical facts and gain the interest of those in authority
who have the necessary power to put right an error of the past is
fraught with difficulty. A number of individuals have spent a
great deal of time and effort to establish undeniable proof that
certain misleading information of the past has been accepted as
historical fact and the intransigence of certain gentlemen has
been a major obstacle to its being accepted.
Whereas today, there being no Admiralty as such, history in the
making is more or less derived from one source, the Ministry of
Defence. Alright, there are instances whereby serving personnel
occasional disagree with government policy etc. but in the main
the current military and naval operations are equally accepted and
made public where possible. As I hope now to demonstrate, this has
not always been the case and at the time of the Yangtze River
Incident the power and responsibility of the Commanders in Chief
Far East illustrate the freedom to run operations as they saw fit.
The decision to send HMS Amethyst up to Nanking to relieve HMS
Consort was, it would appear, made by Admiral Brind. A decision
made all the harder by the withdrawal of HAMS Shoalhaven by the
Australian Government due to the prevailing position of P.L.A.
troops on the north bank of the river. The risk was taken with
very unfortunate results and led to further casualties in the
ships London, Black Swan and Consort. History states the then
Atlee Government accordingly suffered acute embarrassment. I admit
to not knowing the attitude of the Admiralty during this period.
What I do now know is the tremendous reception given to the ships
companies of London and Black Swan when returning home and quite
rightly. News reels of the day were not viewed by we serving
personnel out east, indeed it was not until the Memorial Service
recently held at Tandridge last July that we watched the terrific
welcome given to men of the Amethyst in Devonport and London.
What has absolutely now been established is that the decision to
allow Amethyst to try a breakout was made by the C.inC.’s afloat
and ashore and not the Admiralty. It is a fact that the Admiralty
sent a signal ordering Amethyst not to make the attempt but it
apparently it was too late. All further orders during the night of
30th/31st July were as a result of signals from the C.inC’s to
both Amethyst and Concord. The only signal to be repeated to
Admiralty was from Amethyst confirming rejoining the fleet
(Concord) at Woosung.
The situation with Admiralty was soon to change. As soon as both
ships were clear of Chinese Territorial Waters HMS Cossack turned
up and lo and behold took over as escort and obviously as a result
of an instruction from London, removed the ships log from Concord.
Dare I say that this action was the beginning of the ‘cover up’
and the ensuing playing down of Concords part in the affair. From
then on it was to be the Admiralty which issued press releases and
established the fairy tale that all Concord did was to wait at the
mouth of the Yangtze ready to proceed up river if Amethyst was
fired upon at Woosung. Thus, fifty years later, as a result of a
request made by Willie Leitch to his local M.P. Jim Divine a
written question was forwarded to the then minister for Armed
Services Bob Ainsworth as to why HMS Concord was not included in
the award of the Yangtze Clasp. Naturally enough, he would not
know the answer so he would refer to the archives held at Kew
where the Admiralty had deposited the press release of all those
years ago and we all know what that said! He would also have
obtained details of HD Committees ruling for the award which, on
the basis of the published press release could not include
Concord. Had they seen the ships log and read its contents, they
may well have decided otherwise but even this is hardly likely as
the instruction from the British Ambassador not to give publicity
to the fact that Concord had entered Chinese Territorial Waters
was still in operation. It should be remembered that this meeting
was in November and it would only be two months later in January
that Britain recognised The Peoples Republic of China. It would
not have been correct to rock the boat so near to such a major
decision.
But for the hard work of Willie Leitch culminating in his
discovery of the archives held at Churchill College, Cambridge we,
the remaining ships company of Concord, would have found it hard
to provide written proof of the extreme danger in which their ship
was placed when travelling so far up such dangerous waters. Not
only signals and telegrams covering the escape were located but
also a letter from Commander Dickins, a member of Flags staff, to
his father Admiral Dickins which, apart from confirming the
signals exchanged, talks of the feelings of the staff throughout
this momentous night. This information must have been a
considerable surprise to Mr.S. Spear the naval secretary given the
responsibility for answering my letters to the minister Bob
Ainsworth. He also would probably have referred to the info held
at Kew as he initially stuck to this line, but thereafter he must
have found it a bit of a struggle as he appears to have studied
the book ‘Hostage of the Yangtze’ the contents of which must have
rather made life even more difficult as this book more than
illustrates the problems his predecessors encountered. His only
use for this book was to photocopy a sketch map of the Yangtze
river to back a comment in his letter to me that ‘it is not
considered inappropriate to describe Woosung as being at the mouth
of the river, for example see the enclosed map’. What he appears
not to have noticed is the scale of this map which when measured
shows that Woosung is at least 38 miles from the entrance, 38
miles of a hostile river bank averaging a distance of only 2/3
miles away. This Mr. Spear commenced corresponding with me on 19th
December2007 in answer to a letter I sent to Bob Ainsworth, he has
since then answered on behalf of the minister and Royal Naval
senior officers on numerous occasions and over this period
appeared to have gradually accepted much of what we have put
forward, However, in a letter dated 15 May 2009 he has changed his
submissions and puts forward arguments set by precedent such as
‘The MOD does not have the authority to introduce UK medals’ we
are not asking for a new medal, he then states ‘It has been
longstanding Government policy dating back many years to the
post-War period that no consideration will be given to
applications for medal recognition for events that took place more
than five years previously’. This is hardly a fair comment as
until 1999 we were not aware of facts. It was only when we had
access to our log that it was realised just what had officially
been taking place. In any case, rules are not laws so therefore
can be changed. It is also a fact that a G.S.M. was issued for
service in the ‘Canal Zone’ during the period 1951 to 1954 as
recently as 2003 . Contrary to the statement that this should not
be used as a precedent we believe that it most certainly is.
Whilst mentioning ships logs it might be considered rather strange
that the log of Amethyst, also held at Kew is completely blank for
the night of the escape. It has been filled in before and after
but not during. I do find this very surprising indeed. Also rather
strange is that Concords log now public property and which
therefore should not be moved from the Archives, was removed. Our
Chairman of our Association Peter Lee-Hale last year had occasion
to again refer to said log only to find that it had indeed been
taken away. When questioning the staff as to its whereabouts he
was informed that a public department in Portsmouth had taken it
but refused to say who. After considerable pressure from Peter the
log was replaced. Why should this be, it just happens to be the
only document in the Archives which confirms Concords entering the
Yangtze and proceeding to Woosung.
In a recent letter from a senior member of the ships company of
HMS Amethyst the question of Yangtze Clasp is raised and he states
that he and members of the other ships companies of the London,
Consort and Black Swan regard the issue of said clasp as an award
for being under fire. It is certainly a fact that it was this
action that initiated its introduction but then by its extended
qualification period for a further hundred days confirmed it as a
Campaign Medal. The General Service Medal is not a medal issued
for bravery, it is and always has been granted for all who served
within an area of a campaign whether front line or otherwise. HMS
Concord, by virtue of the dangers and position in which was placed
most certainly should also qualify. The letter also refers to the
value of the medal when put up for sale. It is a fact that by
increasing the issue by say another 200 to cover Concord should
have no effect on its value, in fact it could increase it as even
now the current value varies according to which ship the party
served on. For example a rating serving in Amethyst and whose name
and number appears on the rim of said medal will find it worth
more than say a rating from Black Swan. I personally regard such
financial value irrelevant. Quite deservedly HMS Amethyst and the
Yangtze Incident has attracted massive publicity and its fantastic
story will forever be remembered by a film and coverage through
the Internet. Concord, on the other hand, is plagued by false
reports claiming that she met up with Amethyst at the mouth of the
river by which time the Amethyst had reached safety.
It is fervently hoped that someone in authority will have the
courage to act on our behalf and publish the truth.
D.E. Hodgson |