Signal error
Sir: Mr G.M. Wedd's letter on the German intercept at Cassino (8 February) is, I am afraid, in error. Neither in German nor in British signals are the definite articles included, and with them goes all indication of gender which would otherwise have dis- tinguished a masculine 'abbot' and a femi- nine 'battalion'. This is enough to demolish the basis of his story, but he makes a sec- ond mistake in saying that the bombard- ment of the monastery took place after the intercepted German signals were received and partly as a response to them. In fact they were sent after and because of the bombardment. Perhaps I had better give the correct version.
The bombardment of the Abbey having been decided on, the whole resources of 101 Special Signals Unit were concentrated on intercepting any messages that might come from there. We thought that in the confusion some evidence might arise sup- porting the belief that there were German troops there. Hardly had the last bombs fallen when my G-2, Major Gerald Heard, rushed into my office with two scraps of paper containing German intercepts and their translation. Both were in clear. The first one read, 'Ist Abt noch in Kloster?' (Answer, `Ja'.) He had correctly translated this as, 'Is battalion headquarters still in the monastery?' This appeared to be handsome confirmation, but I read on to the next question, which was, 'Sind Manche darin- nen?' (Answer, `Ja'.) I decided to inform Alexander that there was no evidence of a German military presence. He was content to rest on the statement in his despatch: 'It was an integral part of the German defen- sive system, mainly from the superb obser- vation it affords.'
David Hunt
Old Place, Lindfield, Sussex
Previous page
