UNTO
THE RT HON DR LIAM FOX MP
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE
An Open Letter
Mr Secretary of State, Sir,
Regarding your letter of 27 July 2010 reference: D/S of S/LF
MC02752/2010 which you addressed to Graeme Morrice MP, Livingston
Constituency, he Mr Morrice, MP forwarded the same to me 9 August
2010.
In the first paragraph of your letter you state: - “Thank you for you
letter of 8 July concerning HMS CONCORD and the 1949 Yangtze Incident.
You have specifically asked whether HMS CONCORD was actively engaged
in action that would have put the crew at risk and hence would have
been eligible for the same recognition as the other Royal Navy
vessels.”
Then in the second paragraph of your letter you state: - “HMS
CONCORD’s Ships log for July 1949 is available for examination at the
National Archives at Kew, under the reference ADM 53/125839. The log
shows that on the evening of Saturday 30 July 1949, HMS CONCORD was at
10 minutes notice for steam which was reduced to two hours notice for
steam. At 0145 on the morning of Sunday 31 July, she moved into a
position ready to proceed into the river. At 0345 she weighed and
proceeded into the river. AMETHYST was sighted at 0525. CONCORD
secured (that is, stood down) from action stations at 0715, and at
1202 the main engines were rung off and CONCORD reverted to two hours
notice for steam.”
Thereafter in the third paragraph of your letter you state: - “These
timings are the principle entries in the log for this period, there
are other entries relating to changes of course, speed and other
navigational data but examination of this primary reference source
indicates that HMS CONCORD did not go into action at any time during
the period that the ship deployed into the River Yangtze to assist HMS
AMETHYST.”
You then follow that up, by stating: - “Nor is there any mention in
secondary reference sources to HMS CONCORD going into action at any
time during 31 July 1949. These secondary sources include a recent
letter sent to the Ministry of Defence by a member of HMS CONCORD’s
ships company who was serving in the ship at the time.”
Then you conclude, by stating: - “I hope this has been helpful in
clarifying this matter.”
Doctor Fox, in reading into the composition of your communication, via
this ‘Open Letter’ the following is for your information and that of
others.
At sometime between the 16th and 26th December 1945 at that known as
the Moscow Conference of Foreign Ministers, which was also known as
the (Interim Meeting of Foreign Ministers) of the United States (James
F, Byrnes), the United Kingdom (Ernest Bevin), and the Soviet Union
(Vyacheslav Molotov), all three signed up to the declared policy of
non-intervention in China’s internal affairs.
On the 20th and 21st April 1949 at a time when this nation the United
Kingdom was at peace and China’s internal affairs amounted an ensuing
Civil War, four of the United Kingdoms, Royal Navy Warships, H.M.S.
Amethyst, Consort, London and Black Swan, got caught up in the
conflict in China’s, River Yangtze.
The humane costs in the four ships amounted to 46 dead and 68
seriously wounded.
On the 26th April 1949 the then Prime Minister, Clement Attlee, within
the House of Commons made a statement in relation to the incident. I
beginning that statement, his words were: “It has been repeatedly
stated in this House that our policy has been governed by the Moscow
Declaration of December 1945, in which the United Kingdom the United
States and the Soviet Union declared a policy of non-intervention in
China’s Internal affairs.”
To read the full statement click on the link being provided below: -
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1949/apr/26/attacks-on-hm-ships-china
See also: -
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1949/apr/26/the-yangtze-incident
In this present day and age there is in abundance, material evidence
that can establish, Attlee, in his statement to the House of Commons
lied to cover up the bungling that brought about the Yangtze Incident
of 20th and 21st July 1949.
Further, also in existence now, is the ‘Top Secret’ document that was
issued to the Cabinet 25 April 1949 part of which for it terms I now
quote: -
*”(THIS DOCUMENT IS THE PROPERTY OF HIS MAJESTY’S GOVERNMENT)
S E C R E T
G.P.(49) 93
COPY
NO 3125 APRIL
CABINET
SITUATION IN CHINA
Memorandum by Foreign Secretary
And The First Sea Lord of The Admiralty
H.M.S. Amethyst
We circulate for the consideration of the Cabinet the text of the
statement which is proposed should be made to Parliament on the
AMETHYST incident (Annex A)
2. Also attached (Annex B) are some details of the incident, not
intended to be included in the statement to Parliament.”* Unquote.
There you see the terms that establish the fact that via an
orchestrated plot, details relative to a major incident of conflict
involving four Royal Navy warships, at a time when this nation was at
peace, was wrongfully excluded, in order to disallow questions within
the House of Commons.
Also note, that one of those responsible for drawing up the Cabinet
Memorandum was the Foreign Secretary, who, at that time, was Mr Ernest
Beven. Now where on the Hansard, link provided above it can be seen
that Prime Minister, Attlee, in beginning his statement to the House
of Commons states; “I will first explain what our position is with
regard to the civil war in China. It has been repeatedly stated in
this House that our policy has been governed by the Moscow Declaration
of December 1945.”
Well here is something he omitted to mention. Within the United
Nations----Treaty Series 1950 the following can be found: - Number
850.
EXCHANGE OF NOTES CONSTITUTING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE UNITED KINGDOM AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHINA FOR THE
TRANSFER OF CERTAIN BRITISH NAVAL VESSELS TO CHINA AND THE MUTUAL
WAIVER OF CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF THE LOSS OF OTHER VESSELS. LONDON, 18TH
MAY 1948.
Mr Ernest Bevin to Dr. Cheng Tien-Hsi
FOREIGN OFFICE
Your Excellency 18th May, 1948
In order to assist in the post-war reconstruction of the Chinese Navy
and to consolidate the association between the Royal Navy, which has
continued for seventy years, and in order to show their goodwill
towards the Government of the republic of China, His Majesty’s
Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are willing to make
an agreement with the republic of China on the following terms:-
(1) His Majesty’s Government shall transfer to the Government
of the Republic of China the ownership of the cruiser HMS Aurora
and H.M. Harbour Defence Launches 1033, 1047, 1058,, 1059, 1068,
1390, 1405, and 1406 (all of which launches are at present on loan
to the Government of the republic of China). The transferee will
be made on the 19th May 1948.
|
(2) His Majesty’s Government shall also lend to the Government
of the Republic of China the destroyer H.M.S. Mendip for a period
of five years on the terms set forth in the annex to the present
note. Possession of H.M.S. Mendip shall be formerly transferred by
His Majesty’s Government of the Republic of China on 19th May,
1948.
|
There you have the source of the
documented facts, shown above, that contradicts Attlee’s statement to
the House of Commons, when he stated; “I will first explain what our
position is with regard to the civil war in China.” Then emphasised: -
“It has been repeatedly stated in this House that our policy has been
governed by the Moscow Declaration of December 1945.”
Note, H.M.S. Auora, an Arethusa class light cruiser was renamed Chung
King, later the ships Chinese Nationalist crew, defected to the
Communists, taking the ship with them, it was then re-named Tchoung
King, then in March 1949 the ship was sunk in Taku, harbour by
Nationalist aircraft.
Add to this that it was in the early part of March 1949 that the
Chinese Communist, authorities, the new regime that held the
territories on the North bank of the River Yangtze, broadcast
their intention to interdict the river to all shipping.
When that broadcast was made, it was then that that the Australian,
authorities took cognisance of the, environmental risk and rigour, of
the overall situation and insisted in having their ship H.M.A.S Shoal
Haven, stood down from the duty roster of relieving H.M.S. Consort,
which was stationed at Nanking, on the River Yangtze.
It was from the bungling began when in the absence of Admiral, Sir
Patrick Brind, C-in-C far East Station, his Second-in-Command, Vice
Admiral A.C.G. Madden, ordered that H.M.S. Amethyst, be made ready to
relieve H.M.S. Consort, at Nanking.
Suffice that it be know, when H.M.S. Amethyst, was ordered into the
Yangtze River her secondary armament was not on-board. For an
eyewitness account of H.M.S Consort, having been ordered to go to the
assistance, of Amethyst, see Chapter 7 ‘Amethyst and Consort’ in the
publication ‘No Lotus Garden’ (1987) ISBN 0 9462070 37 0.
Ironically, following the events that occurred in the Yangtze
Incident, 20th and 21st April 1949, the British Government,
repossessed from the Chinese Nationalist Government, the H.M.S.
Mendip, which had been renamed the ‘Lin Fu’ and in so doing
re-commissioned the Mendip, using surviving members of the H.M.S.
Consort, the Mendip was then dispatched to Borneo, while H.M.S.
Consort, was in dry dock at Singapore, under going repair.
As has been recently been pointed out by reference of the Naval
Secretary S01: - “Risk and Rigour” is an imprecise term but one that
is used by medal administrative authorities to define the risk to life
and limb exerted by the enemy forces as well as the environmental
rigour exigencies of Service life on operations where this is assessed
to be significantly above that which might be routinely expected to be
tolerated by UK forces personnel.” Then it is further stated: - “A
proposal that medallic recognition should be instituted requires its
own individual statement of the risk and rigour involved in the
specific operation.”
Well Dr Fox, where in you letter to Graeme Morrice MP, snippets from
the ships log of H.M.S. Concord, I will now provided you with a more
detailed insight into that log starting from the first of July 1949
and environmental risk and rigour.
| July 1 to 8 |
Alongside South Arm in Hong Kong. |
| July 9 |
Moved to NO 8 buoy. |
| July 10 |
1305 1hrs notice for steam: liberty men recalled. Leave
stopped until Further notice |
| July 11to 17 |
Back to normal routine. Ship’s Co taken that day. |
| July 18 to 22 |
At sea for exercises with BELFAST and COMUS – mainly in Junk
Bay & Mirs Bay. |
| July 23 & 24 |
At NO 6 buoy. |
| July 25 & 26 |
Alongside North Arm. |
| July 27 |
0900 sailed from Hong Kong with COSSACK, COMUS & CONSTANCE.
Night exercises with JAMAICA. 2200 Detached by Capt D8 to act
independently. |
| July 28 |
In Yangtze Entrance. |
| July 29 |
0555 Hoisted White Ensigns at both Yard Arms. 1315 Duty part
of the Watch employed in getting up ammunition. 2200 half hrs
notice for steam 2132 Anchises passed ahead 7 cables under tow by
Caroline Muller. |
Dr Fox, by clicking on the link being provided here below, you will be
provided with an insight into the environmental rigour and exigencies
of Service live on operation where it is assessed to be significantly
above that which might be expected to be tolerated by UK Armed Forces:
-
http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1949/jun/21/attack-on-british-ship-china
Further to this your Naval Secretary S01, recently in a review
document that is in my possession, points out that, on examination of
a document that he refers to as, T300/71
That document shows that the HD Committee were not invited to consider
whether or not HMS CONCORD should be included as one of the units
whose personnel would be eligible for a medal.
Here I now turn to another letter of yours Dr Fox, dated 18 March 2010
when you wrote to Mr D Hodgson, who served on board H.M.S. Concord, at
the time of the incident. In that letter you state: -
“Dear Mr Hodgson,
David Cameron’s office have passed on your letter about HMS Concord. I
am glad to see that the Scottish Parliament are supporting this issue.
I am sorry that Peter Viggers is not convinced by the case. You could
always try to interest the Conservative PPC, Caroline Dineage, who is
the wife of a serving naval officer, and, I am sure knowledgeable
about naval history.”
Well Dr Fox, I am the Petitioner, that the Scottish Parliament is
supporting in this issue and as such, where in your letter you suggest
to a ship-mate of mine the he should contact the MP who is the wife of
a serving naval officer, that you deem will be knowledgeable about
naval history, then might I suggest that, as you are now the Secretary
of State For Armed Forces, perhaps you might consider, hoisting by
your own petard, and try talking to the Right Hon. Ian Duncan Smith. M
P, who was educated at H.M.S. Conway, on the isle of Anglesey, and
married the daughter of the 5th Barron Cottesloe, Commander John
Tapling Freemantle RN, was the navigation officer on board H.M.S.
Concord, when it was ordered into what was known to be a war-zone
within China’s territorial waters.
Now as the Commander-in-Chief, Far East Station, Sir Patrick Brind,
did not put forward or invite the HD Committee to consider the
environmental rigour and exigencies applicable to HMS CONCORD’s role
in the incident, that has to be recognised as, the wrongful exclusion
of competent and evidence appertaining to the incident and operational
role of H.M.S. Concord.
Following a Press conference held in Singapore on Saturday August 6
1949 a reporter for the Singapore, Sunday Tribune, newspaper that
attended the Press conference wrote the following as part of the front
page story: -
“AMETHYST: THE STORY THE WHOLE WORLD HAS BEEN WAITING TO READ”
Four Destroyers Were Ready To Go In After Her And Silence The Shore
Forts.
If the Frigate Amethyst had met with any serious trouble on her
dramatic dash down the Yangtse, three destroyers of the 8th, flotilla,
Cossack, Constance, and Comus, would have blasted their way up the
river to help her, A fourth destroyer, Concord, would have been
detailed to silence the shore fort guns at Woosung.
This was revealed at a Press conference held yesterday at the
Singapore headquarters of Admiral Sir Patrick Brind, Naval
Commander-in-Chief, Far East. Throughout the conference a little,
green lose-leaf file lay on the Admiral’s desk in his high airy
“cabin” in Phoenix Park – an ordinary, regulation file, but holding
the stuff that makes history.
For the pink slips of paper that file contains hold the record of the
exploit of the Amethyst in the terse messages which her Captain,
Lieutenant Commander John Kerans, flashed to headquarters as he made
his plans for his escape, and later as he raced by night down the
treacherous river under the Communist guns.”
Well Dr Fox, for your information and that of others everything that
lay on Admiral, Sir Patrick Brinds desk in lose- leaf folder an
ordinary, regulation file, holding the stuff that makes history, that
stuff, was deposited within the Churchill College Archives, by Rear
Admiral Sir David Scott, KBE, CB, who was Flag-Lieutenant to the
Commander-in-Chief of the Far East Station, Admiral Sir Patrick Brind,
KCB, CBE.
By clicking on the following link, from the wealth of information that
you will find there you will perhaps realise that prior to his demise,
Rear Admiral Sir David Scott, who was nick named, ‘The Whistle Blower’
has ‘Blown the Whistle’ on the wrongful act’s and omission that
corrupted the British system for Honours Awards and medals that was
applicable to the 1949 Yangtze Campaign.
http://janus.lib.cam.ac.uk/db/node.xsp?id=EAD/GBR/0014/DKNS
Yours Sincerely,
William Leitch.