The Catastrophic Sinking of HMS Glorious in 1940

From the Washington Naval Treaty to the end of the Second World War.
pgollin
Senior Member
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Jan 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Re: The Catastrophic Sinking of HMS Glorious in 1940

Post by pgollin » Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:13 pm

.

Although I AM SURE that the 100 year rule (and 75 years) are used to hide things embarrassing to the government and high brass, the official reasons are national security and effect on surviving family members (e.g. details of people's mistakes that led to deaths or disasters) and I tend to think that this will be the case here.

Roskill had no real problem in telling most of the story in the 70's, I think that the real details when released will be extremely damaging condemnation from the Admiralty, inc Churchill, which is being withheld so as to lessen the effect on the families of those men killed by the utter stupidity of the Captain (and others). Now whether that is "correct", or "acceptable" in this day and age is debatable, but it was certainly the norm then.

Byron Angel
Senior Member
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sun Mar 06, 2011 1:06 am

Re: The Catastrophic Sinking of HMS Glorious in 1940

Post by Byron Angel » Tue Mar 19, 2019 2:19 am

Phil,
Quite agree. "Official Histories" in general must IMO be treated with care. They are probably best described by Napoleon's comment about "a mutually agreed tissue of lies" (mostly small "white" lies or "lies of omission", but sometimes real whoppers).

B

User avatar
Alberto Virtuani
Senior Member
Posts: 3607
Joined: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:22 am
Location: Milan (Italy)

Re: The Catastrophic Sinking of HMS Glorious in 1940

Post by Alberto Virtuani » Tue Mar 19, 2019 8:32 am

Hello everybody,

while I agree with all hat has been said above regarding the need of secrecy in 1940 and the comprehensible decision not to disclose too many details about the reasons why Glorious was allowed to get back alone (D'Oyly-Hughes decision was approved by Adm.Wells who is at least as guilty as D'Oyly-Hughes and possibly agreed with the Admiralty/CiC HF) , about fuel consumption, about Glorious unpreparedness (here D'Oyly-Hughes s the sole responsible), about the messages received by Devonshire, etc. , I still insist that the real injustice is not here.

The fact that the Victoria Cross was not given to Barker and Glasfurd for their seamanship (even recognized in the German units' KTB!), courage and sense of duty for having crippled the Scharnhorst (officers stood at attention on Gneisenau bridge after the action!) is not explicable with any secrecy need, 100 years rule, etc.
IMO it simply should have been conceded immediately, or at least just after the war as it would have in no way harmed the interests of Britain.


Bye, Alberto
"It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition" (Adm.A.B.Cunningham)

"There's always a danger running in the enemy at close range" (Adm.W.F.Wake-Walker)

Post Reply