TNA CAB 103 191

Raw OCR

Unformatted machine-generated OCR for document page 3.

Capies sent W. no Newsy AIM.5
y hambert w/o
days
26JUL.1949
Bug. Ratham
ABINET 68/67 Cabinet Office,
26/7/49
Great George Street,
London, S.W.1.
21st July, 1949
My dear Onslow,
I owe you profound apologies for the delay in replying to
your letter of the 14th April about the Battle Summary on
"Evacuation from Dunkirk". It requires, as you will realise,
some time to read a document of this length and I fear we have -
at a period of some pressure - taken unfair advantage of the
fact that publication was not proposed before next year.
Professor Butler and others interested here have seen it, and
this letter represents our joint views.
on the question of principle, general official policy is
reflected in the decisions to prepare and publish the Official
Histories and the so-called Preliminary Histories. One point
of view which has been expressed is that it might be preferable
not to extend, and in some degree anticipate, this programme by
the official publication of special historical studies of
particular operations, which will, of course, find their place
in both the Official and the Preliminary Histories. We do not
in the least wish to be dogmatic on this point, or to press it,
if the Admiralty feel otherwise. But we suggest that it
deserves consideration.
If the Admiralty are disposed to publish we assume that
the War Office and the Air Ministry, both of whom are concerned,
will be given an opportunity of seeing the manuscript.
Several points of detail have been noted here, which seem
to call for modification. I give them as examples only. We
have not subjected the whole text to a detailed critical scrutiny.
Pages 8 & 9. Is it the right perspective to suggest that
the Navy were alone in urging that evacuation should be from a
port rather than from the beaches? Would not evacuation from a
port be accepted by anyone as the preferable course, if it could
be carried out? If the point is that the Navy thought it would
be possible to use a port, or ports, and others did not, this
(assuming it is accurate) is not clearly brought out.
Page 26. Does not the statement that the army "with little
more than rifles had defeated the German Armour" go a bit too
far? (Incidentally, I am told the parallel with Agincourt is
open to be criticised on the ground that at Agincourt the
victorious troops had the advantage of a new long-range weapon,
the long bow).
Page 47. "This was the first time the Germans laid magnetic
mines by aircraft during the dark hours". That is, the first
time during Operation DYNAMO?
I hope that you will acquit us of any desire, in mentioning
these points, to indulge in carping criticism. It is just that
we feel that the text should be gone over for a final check-up
on details, if it is proposed to proceed to publication.
Yours sincerely,
(SGD.) A. B. ACHESON.
Captain R.G. Onslow, D.S.O.,R.N.,
D.T.S.D. (Naval Staff),
Admiralty, S.W.1.