Following our blog relating to the cover story for Operation Hurricane, discussions also took place to conceal what happened to H.M.S PLYM.
We start with a memo from E.M. Evans-Lombe to the Ministry of Defence stating:
"I am rather concerned to see how we are to conceal what has happened to H.M.S PLYM after the explosion at Montebello. It must I feel be taken as quite certain that the Press will spot that she has been "lost in the wash".
"I am wondering if you can see any solution to this problem. If we just say 'No Comment', any intelligent person will draw the conclusion that she has been blown up. Do you think we should use the story that she has been so heavily contaminated that she could not be brought away? This could have happened had she been used for carrying instruments for measuring the explosion, rather than the bomb itself."
What to do with the personnel who know the truth? Can the cover story really be used?
"Should we consider that the object of PLYM was to discover the effect of the explosion on a ship and that in fact, she sank."
If this is a cover story, what was the real reason for the PLYM housing the bomb?
The admiralty agrees that her disappearance can no longer be concealed. Our official statement will be:
"H.M.S. PLYM was used experimentally in the test and was sunk."
We need to make a positive announcement about H.M.S PLYM at the press conference. Although foreign newspapers have already stated that the PLYM will be destroyed.
The statement is then altered to state that no casualties have occurred in the crew of the PLYM.
Recommendations to change the word "sunk" to "sank". This is due to the fact that it leaves it in doubt as to whether it was the original intention to sink the PLYM or whether she sank merely as the result of an accident.
Despite the agreement, discussions regarding the disappearance of the PLYM continued. In the above letter the initial explanation is dismissed.
"The alternatives seem to be to attribute it to accidence or to a high degree of radioactivity contamination, or, as you suggest, to say that the loss was deliberately incurred by the use of the ship for experimental purposes.
The first explanation will hardly hold water when it becomes known
- as it must - that the ship's company suffered no casualties
and did not even lose any of their personal belongings; so it seems to me that there is no alternative to the course you propose."
We must ensure that there is mention that there were no casualties amongst the crew.
The Admiralty proposed the statement to read:
"H.M.S PLYM was used experimentally during the test and sank. There were no casualties amongst the crew."
We must wait for Penney and Torleese to return from the tests before we decide on the statement.
Then in October 1952, it was requested that all references to H.M.S PLYM were removed from the pink list.
Conclusion
So much discussion and time were spent on ensuring that the correct statement was given regarding the PLYM. Why was it so important that the press did not know that the bomb was on-board at the time?
Comments