NAVAL GENERAL SERVICE MEDAL WITH YANGTZE CLASP TO STO. MECH. L. CRANN, R.N. (KILLED IN ACTION ABOARD H.M.S. AMETHYST)

Leslie Crann was from Islington and was serving as a Stoker Mechanic aboard H.M.S. Amethyst when he was Killed In Action during the initial bombardment from the Chinese communist batteries during the famous 'Yangtze Incident'.

Amethyst was ordered up the Yangtze River to act as a guardship for the British Embassy in Nanjing, but when 70 miles away she came under fire from Communist artillery batteries on the northern bank of the river.

While attempting to evade the shelling she ran aground, starting the 101 day period of desperate survival against a backdrop of political negotiation.

Crann was one of 19 sailors killed in the initial bombardment of the Amethyst. The following extract is from the North London Press 29 Apr 1949:

"ISLINGTON SAILOR KILLED ON BOARD RED-SHELLED AMETHYST - Last message home was Christmas card. Only memorial to the tragic death aboard the Communist-shelled Amethyst of 32-year old Stoker-Mechanic Leslie Crann, adventurous youngest member of a well-known Islington family of five brothers, is a battered greetings card received last Christmas.

For many weeks the family anxiously awated some news of him, but none came until a brief Admiralty telegram was delivered a few days ago at their home in Samuel Lewis Buildings, Liverpool Road. In another few months Leslie would have completed his 12 years' service as a regular naval man, and his relatives and friends were looking forward to the reunion on his return home.

In the Christmas card he sent, Leslie enclosed a picture of his ill-fated vessel and promised food parcels for the family, but nothing more from him arrived. The greeting on the card was from 'a heart that's fond and true.' Leslie, who went to Laycock Street School with his brothers, lost his parents some years ago. For some time he was employed by the Co-operative Society as a baker's roundsman and he became a familiar and popular figure in the district.

In 1938 he joined the Royal Navy 'for adventure and a change', 'and he certainly had adventure', one of his brothers told the N.L.P.

He served in several parts of the world during the war and was in action at Dunkirk and Crete. About three years ago before leaving for the Far East he was married to a London nurse. She died following an operation, a few weeks afterwards.

Leslie's brother Albert told the N.L.P: 'We used to hear from Leslie fairly often, but recently we had received very few letters. The news came as a great shock to us and to all his friends. We might have expected it in war, but in peace-time we had not really been concerned."

The second article from the same newspaper on 6 May 1949 gives a further insight into the tensions and politics of the time of the crisis:

"Truth is not always pleasant - One of North London's most peaceful residents, Mr Hugh Brock, chairman of the Stoke Newington Peace Group, has written to tell us that he finds it 'distressing to see the report of the death of an Islington sailor used to generate anti-red hatred'.

Before we go any further, we should point out that Mr Brock makes no mention of the distress caused by the death of the sailor. He does, however, in the last paragraph of his letter magnanimously rite: 'The use of arms brings tragedy to all'. This is, no doubt, a philosophy with which the dead sailor, Leslie Crann, would have agreed wholeheartedly. What would Mr Brock have us do? Suppress the report of Leslie Crann's death entirely?

The report, from the headline to the end of the story, was a simple statement of fact. Take the headline, for example: 'ISLINGTON SAILOR KILLED ON BOARD RED-SHELLED AMETHYST'; 'LAST MESSAGE HOME WAS A CHRISTMAS CARD'.

A sailor was killed. He was on board H.M.S. Amethyst, shelled by Chinese Communists. What possible alternative is there to this straight-forward statement? The rest of the story merely tells of the life of Leslie Crann. Where he went to school, the fact that he was looking forward to a reunion with his family when his period of service was finished. That in his last message home he promised to send food parcels and that a few years ago his wife died after an operation. Come, come, Mr Brock, where is the 'anti-Red' bias?

It is obvious that Mr Brock's organisation and similar bodies are composed of members who do not believe in defending themselves. Their sentiments are admirable but their wisdom is a matter for question. Let there be no mistake about conscientious objectors. Many of them are very brave men, and simply because they do not wish to take up arms against their fellow men they cannot be branded as cowards. They take this attitude because of their hatred of evil. But surely this should not blind them to the evil of aggressiveness and revolution - from whichever side it may come.

Does Mr Brock suggest that the rebels in Malaya and other parts of the world - irrespective of the fact that they may be Reds - should be tackled without arms? Would Mr Brock, if he were in one of the trouble spots of the world, willingly go forth armed with nothing but his charm, his smile and his beliefs and attempt to persuade a rebel with smoking rifle and drunk with the lust of power and blood that his way of life was wrong? If Mr Brock did so he would be a very foolhardy man, for it is reasonably safe to assume that he would no longer be writing letters to us but would have joined Leslie Crann.

We have no quarrel with Mr Brock or his pacifist friends. Indeed, we are in sympathy with them, but we do not believe that civilisation has yet reached that idyllic stage in which complete pacifism is possible. We cannot refuse to face the facts as they are at this time!"