Crabb affair revisited

triskele

Clanker
Here's a funny one, just bear with me...Anthony Eden, Prime Minister, made it quite clear he wanted no interference with Khrushchevs' visit on the Russki cruiser to Pompey. After the Crabb fiasco he appointed a senior civil servant, Bridges, to find out where/how the mess happened. The report and associated papers are available on the web. He evidently stuck to his brief, and all appears cleared away.

I have recently found on the web a collection of papers referring to a BBC attempt to run a programme in the 60's, where the BBC said they had some new information via a serving RN officer, who was happy to appear if he could be reassured his pension would remain intact. The papers reveal an increasingly serious response of top secret and uk eyes only between all sorts to the JIC and Prime Minister, all the while giving the BBC a sort of mild 'sorry, can't really help' reply. In these papers an Admiral warns that the BBC have 'the whole story' and later admits that there was another operation involving a team of RN divers (note plural) that dived on the cruiser. It is stated an operation was proposed but turned down, and the operation appeared unofficial.
Confused? Good, because in the Bridges report, there is mention that the senior civil servant shouldn't know about the shambles of a previous operation, unless he asks directly. This is in reference to Commander Crabbs' dive on the cruiser Sverdlov, a year before his death, where it seems the shambles was because MOD and Foreign Office had refused the op, suggesting the Americans sponsored the op without UK knowledge on UK soil.
Now my question, considering the unholy row kicked off by the Crabb affair, how in Gods' trousers could an unofficial op by a team of divers from the RN take place? I think Crabb dived the day after the cruiser arrived, so the other dive must have happened earlier for surely the RN team wouldn't have dived after Crabb was missed, particularly as an RN diver assisted Crabb on his last dive. Two last points is Bridges' report has no mention of this other op, and the Russkis didn't at first raise a fuss, so the initial kerfuffle by officialdom seems slightly out of kilter, let alone the later whole mess when a body was found and a lot of back door shuffling to insist it was the missing Crabb.
The question is what possible chain of command can explain this extraordinary tale?
An old boy here on the island did say that the result of the whole affair was the PM promptly sacked the head of MI6, and moved the head of MI5 to take over, a clear snub to 6, but who then took over the vacant chair at 5? Yes indeed, one Roger Hollis.
 
My tinfoil? Why, thank you Sir...
 
Roger Hollis was cleared of espionage. It was a pernicious rumour from that deluded master fibber Peter Wright, of Spycatcher fame.

And all the dates and supposition about DG and C are wrong.
 
Er.....Everyone knows he defected to the Soviet Union where he became Lt Cmdr Crabski, Soviet Socialist Navy, and died in 1975.

An ideal posting for a confirmed alcholic I would have thought.
 

sirbhp

LE
Book Reviewer
Here's a funny one, just bear with me...Anthony Eden, Prime Minister, made it quite clear he wanted no interference with Khrushchevs' visit on the Russki cruiser to Pompey. After the Crabb fiasco he appointed a senior civil servant, Bridges, to find out where/how the mess happened. The report and associated papers are available on the web. He evidently stuck to his brief, and all appears cleared away.

I have recently found on the web a collection of papers referring to a BBC attempt to run a programme in the 60's, where the BBC said they had some new information via a serving RN officer, who was happy to appear if he could be reassured his pension would remain intact. The papers reveal an increasingly serious response of top secret and uk eyes only between all sorts to the JIC and Prime Minister, all the while giving the BBC a sort of mild 'sorry, can't really help' reply. In these papers an Admiral warns that the BBC have 'the whole story' and later admits that there was another operation involving a team of RN divers (note plural) that dived on the cruiser. It is stated an operation was proposed but turned down, and the operation appeared unofficial.
Confused? Good, because in the Bridges report, there is mention that the senior civil servant shouldn't know about the shambles of a previous operation, unless he asks directly. This is in reference to Commander Crabbs' dive on the cruiser Sverdlov, a year before his death, where it seems the shambles was because MOD and Foreign Office had refused the op, suggesting the Americans sponsored the op without UK knowledge on UK soil.
Now my question, considering the unholy row kicked off by the Crabb affair, how in Gods' trousers could an unofficial op by a team of divers from the RN take place? I think Crabb dived the day after the cruiser arrived, so the other dive must have happened earlier for surely the RN team wouldn't have dived after Crabb was missed, particularly as an RN diver assisted Crabb on his last dive. Two last points is Bridges' report has no mention of this other op, and the Russkis didn't at first raise a fuss, so the initial kerfuffle by officialdom seems slightly out of kilter, let alone the later whole mess when a body was found and a lot of back door shuffling to insist it was the missing Crabb.
The question is what possible chain of command can explain this extraordinary tale?
An old boy here on the island did say that the result of the whole affair was the PM promptly sacked the head of MI6, and moved the head of MI5 to take over, a clear snub to 6, but who then took over the vacant chair at 5? Yes indeed, one Roger Hollis.

I understood that the russians decapitated buster in order to send a message to mi6
 

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top