Hello everyone.
I'm new to society, so I don't know if this issue has been raised or not.
I am very interested, and the censor-officer on the ship who censored the letters, did he censor his own letters?
Maybe there are envelopes where both the sender and the censor are the same?
(I am especially interested in this question regarding the First World War)
I have examples of letters self censored by Canadian Officers. I see no reason that other nations forces did not do the same.
I have a pair of covers by a Canadian pilot one when he was a NCO and was censored by another officer and one after he had been promoted when he censored the letter himself.
John, thank you for the answer! :)
"I see no reason"
I have heard speculations that self-censorship may not be very good, due to the fact that you cannot adequately assess yourself. But I think that with regard to wartime, hardly anyone thought about it. I decided to ask here, just in case, because I was interested in this question.
Sozont
As I understand it, in the British forces during both WW1 and WW2 officers were allowed to self-censor their own mail - as officers they were trusted persons.
Others more involved with censored mail may wish to comment!
Mike
Mike, thank you for the addition :)
Gents
As they say on Blue Peter "Here's one I wrote up this morning"
Frank
Frank, thank you so much!
The envelope is interesting!
I have a few examples of self-censorship by officers in the East African and South African forces in WW2 so I think it was quite common.
Ross, thank you for the addition!
If there are such envelopes in the different collections, then this practice is common.
The original request was for NAVAL self censored mail in WW1
Attached is an example of a Midshipman writing to his mother and censoring the envelope himself
Sadly he lost his live later when he and his pilot were killed when their aircraft crashed off Imbros Island
Frank Schofield
Frank, thank you very much!
A naval envelope with censorship, the period of the First World War, this is exactly what I wanted to see! :)
Just come across a NAVAL item from WWII
Sub Lieut John A. Hewitt writes to his parents in Bournemouth, he has signed the tombstone censor mark himself
He lost his life when HMS Penelope was torpedoed and sunk on February 18th 1944.
Frank Schofield
I thought I should post scans of the two covers from H A Ball while serving in in India. I refered to these in my original post.
The first was written when he was a warrant officer and was censored by an officer. By the time the second was written he had been promoted to pilot officer and he self censored this letter,
John, thanks for the image.
Now it's a real immersion in this story!
Frank, thanks for the naval addition!
Btw, I had a question for a long time and now when I saw the image of envelope I remembered about it and I want to ask.
Perhaps my question is naive. But native speakers intuitively understand when what word, term should be used.
There are a number of words that look like synonyms:
Fleet, Navy, maritime (like on Frank's envelope). On the envelope can be found as "naval censor", as "ship censor", "on board censor".
But what is the real difference between the uses of these words regarding postal history?
Hi Sozont
With all the WWI naval enthusiasts in the Society, I'm surprised you have not had a very straightforward answer to your query.
Self-censorship, certainly in the British Navy in WWI was I would say, commonplace. i have a good number of examples, some are fascinating, officers self-censoring their mail, then you discover they lost there lives soon after (like Frank's example) and so on. If you have an envelope with say the initials PRJ as the censor, and the addressee is Mrs Jones, there is a chance the letter has been self-censored. If you check in Gould's books on ships censor marks you may be able to confirm the self-censoring together with personnel details.
Cheers
Tony Walker
Tony, Hello!
Thank you very much for a detailed explanation and a advice for further search.
[quote author=Sozont Singh link=topic=2044.msg8426#msg8426 date=1618329996]
Btw, I had a question for a long time and now when I saw the image of envelope I remembered about it and I want to ask.
Perhaps my question is naive. But native speakers intuitively understand when what word, term should be used.
There are a number of words that look like synonyms:
Fleet, Navy, maritime (like on Frank's envelope). On the envelope can be found as "naval censor", as "ship censor", "on board censor".
But what is the real difference between the uses of these words regarding postal history?
[/quote]
Hello everyone.
Maybe someone can tell me about these words? :)
I am asking exactly from the point of view of the First World War and Postal History.
Although about the modern use of words is also interesting.
Two items to contribute to this post.
The first is the opposite to what one would expect. It is an envelope (I also have the letter) written by Admiral Sir John Jellicoe in 1916 when he was Commander in Chief of the Grand Fleet at Scapa Flow. Inside was a two page hand-written letter to the sister of a Fleet Paymaster recently killed on HMS Natal. How did he have the time? But censored not by Jellicoe, but by someone with the initials 'AW'. Can anyone suggest why Jellicoe felt he could not censor his own mail?
The second envelope HAS BEEN censored by the writer, Captain Loftus Jones of the destroyer HMS Shark, which went down at the Battle of Jutland on 31 May 1916. He was writing to his wife. Captain Jones was awarded a posthumous VC for his heroism when the ship went down.
Cheers
Tony
Self censored before the declaration of War?
A cover addressed to Edinburgh with a manuscript note "HMS Codrington at Sea/ 1.9.39" signed top left by Captain D.J.R. Simson. Postmarked LONDON, 3rd September 1939 suggests that he had self censored the item at least 2 days before the war was declared.
Capt Simson lost his life as Capt 'D' on HMS Keith on 23rd May 1940 took his ship into Boulogne Harbour looking for stranded British troops. The Germans has already captured the port and the ship came under fire from ground troops, a burst of machine gun fire caught Capt Simson and killed him, He is remembered on the Chatham Naval Memorial
Noting the date of the postmark can I claim a First Day Cover???
Frank Schofield
Censorship of military letters was never introduced prior to WW1 to my knowledge. Officers in all the British Armed Forces were allowed to self-censor in both WW1 and WW2, and almost universally did.
To start a new hare running: I have just written a shortie for the JOURNAL just distributed asking "Why Bother with censorship at all?" By the time the letter left the ship any info contained would already have been old hat, and known to the enemy anyway from reports from their own forces on the ground, and in any case would likely have been vastly exaggerated reports of how brilliantly the ship had done. I have a reasonable collection of German U-boats in WW1 and WW2, plus a few of their surface ships - maybe a 100 covers in all - only ONE has a censor handstamp. SO WHY DID WE BOTHER?
Colin, hello!
Yes, the question you raised is very important and I thought about it more than once.
This is really not very clear to Britain or the United States. For example, naval chaplains were time consuming to censor.
At the same time, it was not just opening envelopes, but also cutting out words, sentences, paragraphs from them! It was both time consuming and angered the sailors!
I read your article and it seems to me that your hypothesis about "propaganda device" is interesting and plausible.
However, it is also important to understand the local specifics here. For example, in the Russian Imperial Navy, censorship was associated not only with war and military secrets, but also with the struggle against revolutionaries. I hope to write about this my next article for our Journal.
In any case, the question you raised is very important. And it will be very interesting to hear the opinion of other members of society on this issue.