Hitler's Munich Man

by Martin Connolly

  Birkett asked Domvile about the distribution of German propaganda through the Link. He wanted to know if Domvile was aware that a secretary for the Link, Olga Thomas, had written to Heinrich Hoffman in Germany confirming the safe arrival of German literature for distribution to members. Hoffman worked for the Nazis and was Hitler’s personal photographer and involved in promoting the Nazi party. Domvile stated he knew about it. Then in the next sentence he said, ‘I would like to say I knew about it and I would not like to say I did not know about it.’ He explained this confusion by saying he knew the literature had been obtained but did not know it was being sent to members. He acknowledged that Thomas might ‘have slipped one in’ when writing to a member but he did not pay any attention to it. When presented with a letter written to Hoffman in Germany (in 1937) by an armed forces member confirming he had received a copy of News from Germany from the Link, Domvile was ‘quite prepared to believe that’. However, he insisted that the Link’s official policy was not to get involved in these matters. Asked if he thought Germany was taking advantage of the Link and of him, Domvile replied that they might have done but not with his cooperation.

  The matter now turned to the question of whether Domvile thought Hitler was a trustworthy man. He would not give a direct answer simply saying ‘he had done some odd things’. Domvile suspected the motive for the question and was reassured that the committee were only asking for his own benefit, to clarify his position of only trying to foster Anglo-German friendship. Birkett pushed the matter by questioning if Domvile had given the ‘impression that you were more favourable to Germany than you were to this country’. An emphatic ‘Oh no!’ was his response. Then Birkett once again asked if Domvile would be surprised to be called ‘a quisling’ by his Admiralty colleagues. This time Domvile accepted some may think like that. Then, Birkett wanted to know, was Domvile surprised at being arrested? Domvile replied that he was surprised and when in Brixton expected to be charged with some major offence. Birkett then referred to a letter Domvile had written to Carroll, in which he had written, ‘I think we may meet in prison’. Domvile’s explanation of this was that after a House of Commons statement on Captain Ramsay, he was aware that some were calling for Ramsay’s arrest and that of his associates of which he was one. The conversation then drifted into a brief reference to an article that Domvile had written recommending the return of the colonies to Germany. There was some confusion about the article as no one had a copy and Domvile argued that there were many, even in Government, who thought the same as he did on the matter. This ended the hearing with Domvile accepting the committee was not responsible for his detention.

  Chapter 13

  Further Hearings for Domvile

  Behind the scenes, Domvile’s solicitors and others were lobbying very widely for him to have another hearing. The Home Secretary was of the opinion this was unnecessary and refused, referring the matter to the committee itself. However, the lobbying continued and eventually on 31 March 1942, Domvile was called again to attend an Advisory Committee hearing, this time under the chairmanship of John Morris, a Welsh lawyer. In his account of this time in his book, Domvile does not mention this hearing. The hearing got off to a difficult start with Morris saying they would cover the same material as before and Domvile expressing the view that it would be of no use. If the committee were to simply go over the same ground that would mean that the government did not believe him the first time. He then reminded the committee of a recent statement in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary, saying that the Advisory Committee would not cross examine but was only there to hear appellants. He wanted to know if the practice had changed. If they were to continue to ask him questions he stated, ‘I will not get any further.’ Morris tried to defend the committee by telling Domvile that the Home secretary decides these matters and they were trying to hear his case.

  ‘That is my grievance,’ Domvile replied and asked, ‘Do you wish to ask me questions, or shall I make a short statement first?’

  Morris allowed Domvile to make his statement, which had obviously been well prepared with accompanying papers. Domvile spoke of his detention and initial hearings that led to his continual detention. He had intended to have a case of habeas corpus raised in the courts, but two previous cases that went to the House of Lords showed that this route was fruitless as 18B simply needed the signature of the Home Secretary. He therefore suspended his action. The Treasury solicitor, Valentine Holmes, had made a statement to the court, to the effect that Domvile had withdrawn the writ after he had seen the charges against him. This give the impression, according to Domvile, that the charges were so bad he did not want them aired in the open. Domvile felt this was very unfair, even though he accepted that his solicitor’s letters to the court were ambiguous and open to misinterpretation. Indeed, Domvile declared it ‘disgraceful’.

  He informed the committee that he now felt ‘stuck’ and resigned to his situation. When, in November 1941, Herbert Morrison, the Home Secretary, made a statement on 18B detainees, in Parliament. Domvile was enraged and read out the passage concerned to the committee:

  ‘I take the last and smallest group, concerned with acts prejudicial, the number now detained is seventy-one, fourteen of these are members of the Irish Republican Army or associated with it; others are persons whom we believe have been concerned with acts of sabotage, attempts to get secret information, seeking to make contact with the enemy contrary to the interests and security of the State and there are cases about which it would not be wise of me or of anybody else to talk in detail or in public.’

  Domvile suggested that the committee would understand that this statement would be taken to refer to him being involved in such activities. He therefore immediately asked for a hearing but was refused as he was told it would not show anything new. He told the committee that he was then visited by Admiral Tufton Beamish, also an MP, who wanted to help him. He would put a question in the House of Commons about the matter. This led to the Home Secretary clarifying his comments, stating he had just given a general picture of the possible reasons for detention. The Home Secretary claimed that people who misinterpreted him did not understand the use and meaning of language. Domvile insisted that if the Home Secretary made such a definite statement, it was he who had not understood the use of language. Beamish had decided to raise the matter again but he had been approached by a number of people to forget Domvile, as he had ‘something very serious’ against him. There had been, in Domvile’s opinion, further incidents that suggested a conspiracy against him, with obstacles being placed in Beamish’s way. It was therefore Beamish’s request that the committee let him come and speak to them to defend Domvile. MI5’s records do show some substance to this claim. Beamish relied on three directorships to supplement his income.

  He had been approached and threatened that these would be removed if he continued his support of Domvile. He ignored these threats and continued his lobby on behalf of Domvile. On 19 February 1942 he asked the Home Secretary in Parliament:

  ‘... whether Admiral Sir Barry Domvile, who has been imprisoned for 19 months, is detained under the Acts Prejudicial Section of the Defence Regulations; and whether he will allow this officer, who has rendered 44 years of distinguished service to the country, an opportunity to prove his innocence of acts of sabotage, attempts to get secret information, and seeking to make contact with the enemy, particulars in support of which have never been furnished to him or the Advisory Committee?

  ‘Mr H. Morrison – Particulars of the reasons for which a detention order was made against Admiral Sir Barry Domvile were communicated to him by the Chairman of the Advisory Committee, and he was given every opportunity at the hearing of his case before the Committee to deal with all the matters alleged against him. In the Debate on 26 November on Regulation 18B I gave a general account of the main types of cases where detention orders have been made against 1,886 persons believed to have been concerned in acts prejudicial to the public safety or the defence
of the realm, and I gather that my hon. and gallant Friend is suggesting that if any person is detained on the ground of acts prejudicial, his acts can only be of the types mentioned in this general account. This was not of course my meaning and I was not attempting to give an exhaustive summary of every type of act which may be the basis of a detention order under this provision.

  ‘Rear-Admiral Beamish – Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that I had two long talks with this elderly officer and that, judged by every unbiased standard, he now appears to be treated most unjustly? May I beg the right hon. Gentleman to give an opportunity to this officer to reopen his case and make his innocence clear? Does the right hon. Gentleman really suggest that this officer is a danger to the State?’

  The MI5 note states that because of this intervention, Domvile was ‘rushed before the committee’. Domvile continued to describe the suspected conspiracy and then demanded of the committee, ‘If you have anything against me, for God’s sake say it but do not go about with this whispering campaign, saying we know something that does not exist.’

  Beamish had reported to Domvile a conversation with the Home Secretary in which he said, ‘you do not know how naughty he [Domvile] has been?’

  Domvile insisted that all the allegations were untrue, yet the Home Secretary was refusing to release him and putting the worst interpretation on the facts. He therefore asked the committee to help him to ‘know in what respect I failed to carry conviction to the [previous] committee.’ He then invited them to question him.

  Morris began by confirming Domvile’s career in the Royal Navy, getting Domvile’s agreement that he had got the details right. In turning to the foundation of the Link, he asked for a ‘sentence or two’ from Domvile. Domvile could not just use a sentence or two and insisted on a much longer background to the Link’s foundation. With this he outlined a grand overview of his reasons for founding the Link.

  He explained his grand view of the Empire, particularly the Anglo-Japanese alliance. In his view, the American insistence on breaking the relationship with Japan was a disaster and he knew it would lead to disaster. He had become alarmed at Government policy with issues in Italy and then Germany. He foresaw that there would be a war that would involve Britain against both Japan and Germany and that this would put the Empire at risk. He therefore believed that friendship with Germany was the solution. He then had embarked on a series of lectures across the country to promote his views. The committee were given copies of a particular lecture at Chatham House, which Domvile claimed had received a great deal of support although the First Lord of the Admiralty did not agree with him. Domvile also gave a copy of his book Look To Your Moat to the committee, which he said gave his views on his vision for avoiding the Japanese/German conflict with Britain. The title of the book was from an article in March 24 1916 printed as a ‘Candid Review’ in the Western Mail. The article gave the ‘Doctrine of the sea’ which reviewed the dominance of the British naval power and the need to maintain it. Domvile’s book was issued without a date but appeared around 1937.

  He told the committee that as he looked at how relationships with Germany were being portrayed in the papers and a growing lack of knowledge of Germans and their life, he believed that something needed to be done. He began to look for ways for British people to visit Germany and Germans to visit England. He wanted to encourage correspondence between the peoples of the two countries:

  ‘In fact, we were doing our best generally to give the knowledge and understanding between the British and German people, which was our idea but as it was not the idea of many people in this country we at once found ourselves being obstructed and our efforts being misinterpreted, which I suppose was bound to happen.’

  The whole thrust of Domvile’s reasons for founding an organisation to promote friendship with Germany, were rooted in this concern for the Empire. In giving the documents to the committee, he thought it would not do much good, even though much of what he had said and written had come true. In retelling Sir Samuel Hoare’s ‘attack’ on the Link in parliament, he declared it rubbish and that the Link members were English men who were trying to establish good relations with Germany and thus by necessity they had to meet German officials but it was always on matters of the Link and never politics.

  The rest of the hearing appeared to take on a more adversarial tone with the committee putting very direct questions to Domvile and his sharp responses. In general, the material covered was much the same as previous hearings. Domvile’s answers to the many questions were to defend his views as harmless and to be innocent of all allegations. On many issues of controversial letters, Domvile either could not remember writing them or could not remember what he had meant when he wrote them. The letter to Olive Baker regarding Lord Haw-Haw’s broadcasts with Domvile calling them ‘grand’ and underling that word, was a point of long argument. In the same letter, his reporting Ramsay’s mentioning these broadcasts in Parliament and Domvile calling this ‘a good advertisement’ brought sharp exchanges. Domvile’s opinion was that he was a misunderstood man who only wanted the best for his country.

  One letter in particular became a major focus for the committee. Noakes of MI5 had written to the committee’s secretary giving her a copy of a letter that had turned up since Domvile’s last hearing. It had been found in the possessions of another detainee, Kenneth Duffield. The letter, referred to earlier, raised great concerns with MI5 and Noakes quoted the particular sentence, ‘I work in close touch with Sir Oswald Mosley – just waiting events.’ The letter in full helps to appreciate the concerns:

  28 Jan 40

  ‘Dear Mr. Duffield

  ‘Thank you very much for your letter – it is nice to hear from old members of the Link – we were beaten by the war – but we shall win all right in the end, even if we have to go through a bad time first. I see from the remarks in your letter that you understand the whole wicket racket and know whose evil influence is behind it. I work in close touch with Sir Oswald Mosley – just awaiting events – I do not know how long it will take to reach the crisis – I do not think anyone does. I heard from Lord Redesdale yesterday – poor man, he has a bad time with the gutter Press – I am afraid his girl is pretty bad – but they hope for the best. I see the Press today have got hold of her address again – and will no doubt try to excavate some more excremental ‘news’. Lord R. says they are trying to finish him.

  ‘Well, good luck to you. I hope when the war is over, the Link will once more flourish,

  Yours sincerely, (Signed) Admiral Domvile’

  Kenneth Duffield was born in 1909 (possibly in Sweden and became a naturalised British citizen) and was a film screenplay writer who had worked in Berlin. He ran a German translation service from the address in the letter. He was a Blackshirt in Mosley’s fascist BUF and an extreme supporter of the Nazis. He was interned under 18B.

  The phrases that the committee were keen to explore were: we were beaten by the war; we shall win all right in the end; the whole wicket racket; and know whose evil influence is behind it; I work in close touch with Sir Oswald Mosley; I do not know how long it will take to reach the crisis; I hope when the war is over, the Link will once more flourish.

  The first thing Domvile insisted on that he did not know Duffield. He had no memory whatsoever of the person. He had no recollection of ever writing such a letter. He insisted he would never write such things to ‘a stranger’. He doubted the letter’s authenticity, asking to see a copy of it. On reading the contents he expressed disbelief and still had no recollection of Duffield or the letter. Pressed on the phrases and their meanings, he could not give any idea as to these. He could not explain the ‘we’ who were beaten by the war or who it was that ‘shall win all right in the end’. There was no explanation as to ‘the wicket racket’ nor who was ‘the evil influence’ behind it. What he had possibly meant by being in ‘close touch with Sir Oswald Mosley’ may just be an expression of being his friend? He also had no idea what ‘the crisis’ referred to
, maybe he meant the war. As to the Link’s future, he would hope that after the war reconciliation with Germany would be possible and the Link may have a role. All of these responses were in the context of Domvile still not fully accepting he wrote the letter. Members of the committee expressed incredulity that Domvile could not remember the person, writing the letter or the details of such phrases. What the committee did not know was that Duffield was a contributor to Action and the BUF Quarterly, also a BUF publication. His articles appeared alongside Professor Laurie’s in that paper. Action itself carried adverts for the BUF Quarterly with Professor Laurie’s name in large bold type and the list of contributors, including Duffield. As Domvile was a regular reader and contributor to these papers, is it conceivable that Domvile did not know him or at least who he was? There being no acceptance or explanation of the letter, the committee moved on to discuss other letters that had already been covered in previous hearings.

  Once again the response was the same from Domvile; lack of memory of events, no understanding why such and such a phrase was used or what he meant. Overriding all this was Domvile’s continued insistence that everything he did, wrote or said was all innocent and was being misinterpreted. The hearing ended and immediately behind the scenes there were questions raised by Domvile’s solicitors that he did not get a fair hearing. To this end he was recalled to another hearing a fortnight later on 15 April 1942.