Had we been called upon by the Staff to do so," Hope wrote, referring to Oliver, "we could have furnished valuable information as to movements of submarines, minefields, minesweeping etc. But the Staff was obsessed with the idea of secrecy; they realized that they held a trump card and they worked on the principle that every effort must be made to keep our knowledge to ourselves, so as to be able to keep it up our sleeves for a really great occasion such as the German Fleet coming out in all their strength to throw down the gage in battle. In other words the Staff determined to make use of our information defensively and not offensively.
Hope reflects on a missed opportunity, noting that he and Oliver had crucial intelligence regarding submarine movements and minefields that could have aided the military efforts. However, the Staff's preoccupation with secrecy led them to withhold this information, operating under the belief that retaining knowledge would serve them better for a major confrontation with the German Fleet. Their approach was defensive, aiming to safeguard their insights rather than actively using them to thwart enemy actions.
This strategy revealed a broader hesitation within the military to capitalize on available intelligence, viewing their insights as a hidden asset rather than a functional tool for immediate action. Hope's commentary points to a significant clash between the need for secrecy and the potential for proactive engagement. By prioritizing what they deemed essential information for a future battle, the Staff may have compromised their effectiveness in current operations.
