Post by Deleted on Dec 11, 2016 20:24:30 GMT
An interesting naval double-bill in the 'Secret History' strand, both focussing, in part, on Admirals who had been maligned. Jutland: World War One's Greatest Sea Battle looked at the 1916 clash of the British Grand Fleet and German High Seas Fleet, and the bitter controversy which followed. Although the Royal Navy won a strategic victory (the High Seas Fleet retreated back to base and never ventured out again) the British suffered heavier losses in terms of men and ships, and most particularly Admiral Jellicoe was severely criticised for having failed to achieve a 'second Trafalgar'. Notably, they brought to light evidence that Admiral Beatty, Jellicoe's ambitious second in command, had falsified evidence to cast himself in a good light and blacken Jellicoe's reputation.
Pearl Harbor: The New Evidence, on the contrary, sought in part to undermine a conspiracy theory - namely that Churchill and Roosevelt had deliberately concealed intelligence on the impending Japanese attack so that America would be forced into the War. The documentary concluded that there was no cover-up of this sort, and that although the U.S. authorities had strong intelligence, a mixture of incompetence, a badly designed system and simple bad luck meant the key information was not available when and where it was needed. In particular it claimed that Admiral Kimmel, the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet, was made a scapegoat and should not be held responsible for the disaster, not receiving the warnings until the attack was well under way.
Pearl Harbor: The New Evidence, on the contrary, sought in part to undermine a conspiracy theory - namely that Churchill and Roosevelt had deliberately concealed intelligence on the impending Japanese attack so that America would be forced into the War. The documentary concluded that there was no cover-up of this sort, and that although the U.S. authorities had strong intelligence, a mixture of incompetence, a badly designed system and simple bad luck meant the key information was not available when and where it was needed. In particular it claimed that Admiral Kimmel, the Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Fleet, was made a scapegoat and should not be held responsible for the disaster, not receiving the warnings until the attack was well under way.
