‘It is with admiration and gratitude for the great work that he has done for the German people that I dedicate this book to the Führer. You have been reading the English side for six years; this book gives the other side.’
‘To Hitler we owe the idea of peace pacts. Two nations agree not to go to war for a term of years. This does not involve any alliance against a third Power and this policy was spread over Europe’
Birkett continued, ‘Well, you see what Laurie was there saying. “Hitler is a great benefactor because of his peace pacts”. Well, now we know what those peace pacts were, do we not?’
This irritated Domvile and his response was pointed. ‘Yes, Mr Birkett; are you trying to make me responsible for this book?’
There then followed a sharp exchange of views where Domvile was forced to accept the book was propaganda for Germany when Birkett again quoted the book, ‘I thank God that the peace of Europe is in the hands of Hitler’, asking Domvile if he could imagine writing that. Domvile struggled to defend himself but his responses showed he knew he was clearly on shaky ground. At one point he declared there was no harm in the preface. However, he did admit that he should have read the book before writing the preface. Birkett was not content that Domvile could see the error in writing the preface and forced the matter on, declaring that Domvile had given the public the impression he had endorsed the book and its contents. Once more he repeated the quote on Hitler and peace in Europe. Domvile was obviously very rattled and retorted, ‘It’s a long way from that preface to Brixton prison.’
Birkett was very clear on where he stood,
‘Sir Barry, I have been quite frank with you and I hope you will be quite frank with me. You will forgive me for returning to this, but you are not as other men are, you are an Admiral of the fleet, a director of Naval Intelligence, and you will never divorce yourself from that, and every word you write in the eyes of the German people, or British people, it is Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, late Director of Naval Intelligence in the British Admiralty, you see, and you are there, unwittingly, as you now say, endorsing this man Laurie, you know: “Thank God that the peace of Europe is in the hands of Hitler”, in May 1939.’
Domvile was still belligerent and declared he could not be held responsible for the use of the book. Birkett then lectured him on writing prefaces and the need to read the book before writing one. This had no effect on Domvile who still believed the preface was harmless.
Birkett then took a different tack, asking if Domvile knew Laurie well. Domvile accepted he knew Laurie well and when asked if Laurie was pro-German he responded by declaring him pro-British interested in his own country. Birkett was clearly frustrated. Had Domvile not read Laurie’s articles in Action, the Fascist magazine? Domvile ‘didn’t think so’. Birkett stated that he could not find words to condemn these articles which were against British interests. Domvile was still not prepared to accept his fault in the matter, arguing that if he had said to someone that ‘this is a very good box of matches’ and if they then went on ‘and lit up a magazine [of ammunition] you would accuse me of being responsible for lighting off the magazine’. When pressed he did not seem to think his Admiralty colleagues would see the book as anything other than the German view. Furthermore, he continued to argue as someone who was promoting German/British relationships, the German point of view should be able to be read by people. As to the fairness of Laurie’s book, Domvile argued it was fair ‘from the German point of view’. Despite Birkett once more trying to show Laurie as extremely pro-German, Domvile would not accept that argument. Having realised Domvile was never going to move from his positon, Birkett turned to the next matter, the Central London branch of the Link. This was the branch which had entertained pro-German speakers and where pro-German and anti-Semitic literature from Germany was handed out. Domvile denied all knowledge and insisted he had made it clear to branches that no activity of that sort should be conducted. He stated that the Link was non-political. When asked if it was looked on favourably by the Germans, Domvile didn’t think it had any special status with them and as long as the Link stayed away from politics, they were happy.
Birkett then turned to Carroll, asking Domvile to confirm he was in at the start of the Link, which he did. The connection between the Link and the Anglo-German Review was then agreed with Domvile, with Carroll as the editor of the paper. When it came to financing, Domvile was led by Birkett to state that he had subsidised the finances of the Link, when it moved into the offices of the Anglo-German Review, to the tune of £5 per week. When asked if he was aware that Carroll was receiving money from Germany, Domvile believed that the money received was for genuine advertising. Birkett pressed Domvile as to what he knew of Carroll receiving £750 (approx. £45,000 in 2016) from Germany after the Link and the Review joined together, which Carroll had stated was ‘a gift’ and had not been entered into the books. Domvile knew nothing of this which Birkett confirmed agreed with Carroll’s evidence to the committee at his appeal hearing, recently held. The committee were also interested in knowing if Domvile was aware that Carroll was discussing with the Ribbentrop Bureau the receiving of 10 marks (approx. £35 2016) for pro-German letters he got published in the British press as a source of income for the Review. Again Domvile said he was in the dark on this matter. Birkett then showed Domvile a letter Carroll had written to the Germans that stated the agreement that the Germans would send £200 (approx. £12,000 2016) a month which was needed in part to cover a deficit of £5 in the Link’s finances. Domvile expressed great surprise at this and insisted he was never made aware of any deficit by Carroll. He further stated that he had always been shown by Carroll that the books were in order and that there was no deficit. Now that Domvile had seen what Carroll had written, Birkett asked him if he could now understand why Hoare, the Home Secretary had made the statement in the House of Commons. Domvile gave the impression of being shocked by the revelation and now understood Hoare’s statement.
Birkett assured Domvile that the committee were prepared to believe he knew nothing of the German finance. As already stated, from the diaries this was probably not true. About the question of Carroll being pro-German, Domvile insisted that he was pro-British and worked twenty-four hours a day ‘for the cause’. The committee never explored what ‘the cause’ meant. As to Carroll’s German connections, Domvile confirmed Carroll had married a German wife and did know all the leading Germans but said he had no knowledge of his activities.
The questioning took a turn to discuss what Domvile thought was his relationship with the Admiralty. Domvile recalled that he had been approached by his brother who told him the Admiralty was concerned about German influence on the Link. He had written immediately to Lord Stanhope angrily denying that anyone had influence on the Link and had received an apology in return. Birkett did not take this any further at this time and asked Domvile if he had written to Truth, the British Nationalist newspaper. Domvile confirmed he had and was then examined as to whether he had written complaining about Winston Churchill calling the German Navy ‘baby-killers’. When challenged why he would do such a thing in a time of war, Domvile could not see the problem. Birkett wanted to know why a retired admiral would not write privately to the First Lord of The Admiralty or even to The Times. For what reason would a retired admiral write to a paper that had a reputation of being very critical about the British efforts in the war? Domvile acknowledged that Truth was critical and tried to deflect any further questions. However, Birkett pushed on by reminding Domvile that there had been a number of complaints to Truth about his letter, complaints that reminded him of the bombing of civilians in Scarborough by the German Navy along with the sinking of the Lusitania and hospital ships and lifeboats. Domvile could not remember that, yet, as Birkett reminded him, he had responded with letters against those complaining. Now Domvile admitted ‘there had been a long correspondence’. Domvile was keen to move away from this line of enquiry but Birkett reminded him of a particular letter of 19 January when he had ‘pooh-poohed’ t
he complaints calling them ‘a big song about nothing’.
Domvile continued to avoid the issue and complained of the charge that he had discussed with Oswald Mosley the object of achieving a Fascist revolution. This attempt at diversion was ignored by the committee. Domvile was stubborn in his refusal to see harm in what he had done. He was, he said, ‘indignant’ by the comments against the German Navy. Birkett reminded him once more of other German Navy actions such as the machine gunning of unarmed fishing trawlers and light ships. Domvile remained belligerent, continuing to argue Churchill was wrong to criticise the German Navy. Birkett once more reminded Domvile he was a retired admiral and his criticisms hurt the Admiralty’s efforts. Domvile, Birkett asserted, had in a letter denied any of the German Navy’s actions against unarmed craft and thus accused the government of lying. This infuriated Domvile and he argued about the exact wording of the letter, rather than address the point. Domvile now had his memory back and could remember the letter and indeed, he argued, it was a fair letter. To this Birkett read from Domvile’s letters where he had referred to the claims against the German Navy and then had written, ‘lying is as essential a weapon of war as are guns and ammunition’. Birkett asserted that this was a direct accusation by Domvile that the Government were lying. Domvile responded by saying ‘Well, I should not have read that into it myself’.
Birkett’s frustration was obvious. He could not understand why a retired admiral and former director of Naval Intelligence would write to a hostile paper and criticise the government and undermine the navy’s war effort. Domvile felt that he had the right to criticise the war and that they would have to build bigger prisons to house those who also joined in such criticism. Birkett tried once more to get Domvile to see the difference between criticism of the war and support for the German Navy’s atrocities at sea. Domvile was adamant that he had done nothing wrong. Birkett pressed the point that Domvile’s actions suggested to the people that the retired admiral was more sympathetic and supportive to the Germans than to the British. Domvile would not accept this and went on about the noble attitudes between enemies and suggesting once again that reports of atrocities may not be true. He suggested that anyone seeking to understand lies and truth in wartime should read Falsehood in Wartime by Arthur Ponsonby, published in 1928. This was a book that had given instances of lying by British governments and Naval authorities. One case in particular Domvile was referring to was that of a naval officer who had reported rescuing the occupants of a German U-Boat in the First World War and when he was about to destroy the abandoned vessel, he questioned the U-Boat captain to ensure no one was left on board. The German captain had stated emphatically that the vessel was empty, but it was discovered that four English seamen had been bound and left on board. The U-Boat captain therefore was going to be charged with crimes against the English seamen in wanting their deaths. However, when the matter was raised in parliament, it was soon discovered that the incident had never happened. Domvile was therefore suggesting the charges Churchill was making were also untrue. This of course was not the case as all these atrocities under discussion were fully substantiated.
However, the committee realised Domvile was not going to accept any of their points on this matter and so Birkett asked Domvile if he signed his letters to Germany with ‘Heil Hitler!’ Domvile accepted that he had done this but again suggested that it was innocent just like saying ‘God save the King’. He argued that whilst staying with a German on a chamois, shoot his host would greet him in the morning with ‘God save the King’ and he would respond ‘Heil Hitler!’
Sir George Clark of the committee was, with his fellow members, sceptical about this, asking Domvile if this were really true. Clark suggested that Germans used ‘Gruss Gott’, as the traditional greeting. Domvile replied ‘I don’t think so’ and went on to insist that his version was correct. His diary for this period in fact does record his version given to the committee.
The hearing then seems to go on a rather rambling journey. Firstly, Birkett returned to the matter of the letters to Olive Baker about the New British Broadcast Service. In a rambling conversation which covered who ‘twiddled Domvile’s radio’, it was suggested that the impression had been given that Domvile was promoting a station that in turn was promoting German propaganda. Once again, Domvile presented himself as an innocent abroad who was involved in a harmless activity that many were involved in. As no progress was made on that subject, Birkett produced a letter dated 3 June 1939 from Carroll, the contents of which was ‘rather curious’. This was because he was writing about the finances of the Link and made no mention of it being subsidised by the Anglo-German Review. This was not developed and Birkett asked Domvile if his brother had spoken to him about the Admiralty’s concerns regarding his connection to the Link. Domvile stated that his brother was ‘not very clear’ about what Admiral Godfrey, Director of Naval Intelligence had meant. He reiterated his statement that he had written to Lord Stanhope making clear there was no influence on the Link from Germany. He made clear that he had received an apology from Godfrey and a ‘civil letter’ from Lord Stanhope. Birkett queried whether or not they had indicated he should be careful, to be told they had not. Birkett, mindful of the letter the Admiralty had written to the Security Service calling the Domviles ‘quislings’, enquired if Domvile realised a number of the people at the Admiralty might be concerned that someone with his naval record should be running the Link. Domvile responded that if they were they should have told him, but no one did. Domvile’s tone must have been sharp, as suggested by Birkett’s response. ‘I do not know that they were worried; I only asked you.’
This was a strange response as Birkett was aware of the letter from the Admiralty and had even discussed it with Noakes during his interview with the committee. However, Domvile continues to suggest that what he was being accused of in terms of his activity in British/German relationships was something Chamberlain himself would support despite the Home Secretary Hoare’s statements in Parliament. This was all ‘rather difficult’ for Domvile.
Sir George Clerk intervened and reminded Domvile that the chairman had presented evidence that supported the Home Secretary’s statement which turned the conversation to Carroll’s role in obtaining finance from Germany. Domvile was reminded of the facts of how it was decided not to put the money through the books. He again expressed his shock at the £750 ‘gift’ and stressed he knew nothing about it. Sir George again stated that the Home Secretary’s statement was based on this information to which Domvile responded, ‘That rather makes your point.’ Having got Domvile to this agreement the subject moved to Domvile’s view of war.
Sir George asked him if it were true he held that there were ‘no rules in war’. Domvile replied there was only one rule, ‘the law of expediency’. He believed you could do what you like to ‘neutrals and other people’. Furthermore, he was clear there was no use in making rules as nobody else would stick to them. Sir George was leading Domvile to consider his attack on Churchill in Truth. If he held this view, then the German atrocities in attacking schoolgirls, sinking hospital ships and attacking the old men of the lightships was acceptable.
Domvile interrupted, exclaiming, ‘No, come, no, no, you must not say that.’
Sir George pressed on, ‘I just want to get the impression right’.
Domvile then suggested the reports may not be true or perhaps it was a mistake but if a ship was in enemy waters then it is legitimate for it to be torpedoed. However, he insisted, atrocities did not pay. Here, he is not morally against the atrocities, just that they do not pay. They were ‘beyond the law of expediency’. Again he was pressed as to whether survivors or innocents should be targeted.
Domvile: No, good heavens, no!
Birkett: But they did that.
Domvile: You make me out as someone very brutal.
Birkett: That is the reason I do not want to misunderstand you.
Domvile then attempted to clarify his views. He still believed that rul
es in war were useless because no one would stick to them and atrocities did not pay. ‘But regarding war as a thing about which you can make nice pleasant little rules about is absurd.’
Despite having discussed the German atrocities already, when challenged again about his views of them, he strangely asked, ‘What are you thinking of particularly?’
Reminded of the confirmed attack on the old men of the lightships, Domvile spoke of how lightships were a legitimate target in time of war. But what about the atrocities? He thought they were disgusting and then asked ‘That is absolutely definite?’ Being told it was, Domvile still appears reluctant to accept the German authorities were involved. ‘I cannot understand anyone doing that. I should think they should be very angry when they got home to think they had done it. I should not think those are their instructions.’
Birkett then lectured Domvile on the ‘young Nazis’ who had been let loose in this war. They had been eaten up with fervour and adoration for the Führer. They ‘do not consider any humanitarian rules of warfare.’
‘He has no decent feelings at all?’ Domvile enquired.
‘I do not think so,’ was Birkett’s response.
Domvile appears to have been much chastened by this questioning on the German atrocities and Birkett once again turns to finance. The matter of the £750 was covered again but this time Birkett indicated that it had been paid in two stages through the Embassy. At this, Domvile’s memory came back and he now remembered the payments coming through the Embassy and he thought ‘rather funny’. He thought the Embassy was being used to get money in and out at a difficult time. Perhaps Domvile’s memory was catching up with his diary entry.
The committee did not take that response any further and asked about the British Council for Christian Settlement. Domvile acknowledged that he had attended a few meetings and the organisers had put his name on a manifesto, but he had them withdraw it and he did not sign it. He confirmed he had been in sympathy with some of their aims. The committee then went through a number of prominent Fascists and pro-Germans; Mosley, Luttman-Johnson Pitt-Rivers, Gordon-Canning, Newham of Truth among others. Domvile was happy to call all of them friends and he argued they were all loyal Englishmen. In fact, these people were regular dining companions of Domvile. His diaries note the various meetings and in one entry on 2 December 1937, Domvile writes of a lunch with Mosley and Gordon-Canning and describes Gordon-Canning as ‘an attractive man’, adding of the meeting, ‘I enjoyed it’.
Hitler's Munich Man Page 13