The Clash of Power - 1914 Battle of the Falkland Islands

In the remote waters of the South Atlantic, the Battle of the Falkland Islands 1914 stands as a pivotal naval confrontation during the early stages of the First World War. The engagement, fought on December 8, 1914, between the Royal Navy and the German Imperial Navy, was marked by strategic maneuvers, notable naval commanders, and a decisive outcome that had lasting repercussions in that region.

Terry Bailey explains.

Battle of the Falkland Islands, 1914. By William Lionel Wyllie.

Prelude to Battle

The roots of the Battle of the Falkland Islands can be traced to the earlier defeat of the British squadron under Rear-Admiral Sir Christopher Cradock at the Battle of Coronel on the 1st of November, 1914. The German East Asia Squadron, commanded by Vice-Admiral Graf Maximilian Von Spee, had inflicted a severe blow to British naval prestige by sinking the two lesser armed British cruisers, HMS Good Hope and HMS Monmouth, with all hands lost. This victory granted the Germans temporary control over the South Pacific and South Atlantic regions, threatening Allied merchant shipping routes and colonial interests.

In response, the British Admiralty, under the First Sea Lord Winston Churchill, resolved to avenge this defeat and reassert naval dominance. Reinforcements were dispatched under the command of Vice-Admiral Sir Frederick Sturdee, a seasoned officer known for his strategic acumen. His task was clear: hunt down and destroy Von Spee's squadron.

The Combatants

On the German side, Vice-Admiral Maximilian Von Spee commanded a formidable force comprising the armored cruisers SMS Scharnhorst and SMS Gneisenau, supported by the light cruisers SMS Nürnberg, SMS Dresden, and SMS Leipzig. Von Spee, an experienced and respected commander, had led his squadron on a daring voyage from the Pacific across the Indian Ocean, evading Allied patrols and posing a persistent threat to British maritime interests.

The British forces, under Admiral of the Fleet Sir Frederick Charles Doveton Sturdee, 1st Baronet GCB, KCMG, CVO, (Vice-Admiral at the time of the battle), included the battlecruisers HMS Invincible and HMS Inflexible, alongside the cruisers HMS Carnarvon, HMS Cornwall, HMS Kent, HMS Glasgow, and the auxiliary cruiser HMS Macedonia. Sturdee's battlecruisers, heavily armed and faster than their German counterparts, were crucial to the British strategy of leveraging superior firepower and speed.

The Battle Unfolds

On the morning of the 8th of December, 1914, Von Spee's squadron approached the Falkland Islands, aiming to raid the British coaling station at Port Stanley. Unbeknownst to Von Spee, Sturdee's powerful battlecruisers had arrived the previous day and were concealed within the harbor. As the Germans neared, they were spotted by British lookouts, prompting Sturdee to order an immediate sortie.

Von Spee, realizing the presence of superior British forces, attempted to withdraw. However, the battlecruisers Invincible and Inflexible, supported by the faster light cruisers, pursued the retreating German ships. The ensuing engagement was characterized by the overwhelming firepower and superior speed of the British battlecruisers.

The Scharnhorst, Von Spee's flagship, bore the brunt of the initial assault. Despite valiant resistance, it was overwhelmed by the combined fire of the British ships and eventually sank, taking Von Spee and much of his crew with it. The Gneisenau continued to fight fiercely but met a similar fate, succumbing to relentless British bombardment. The remaining German light cruisers attempted to flee but were relentlessly pursued. The Nürnberg and Leipzig were caught and destroyed by British cruisers, while the Dresden managed to evade capture for a few more months before being scuttled by her crew off the coast of Chile.

Commanders in the Spotlight

Vice-Admiral Sir Frederick Sturdee's leadership was instrumental in the British victory. His strategic decision to quickly sortie his ships from Port Stanley and his effective coordination of the British squadron showcased his naval prowess. Sturdee's emphasis on using the battlecruisers' superior speed and firepower played a decisive role in overwhelming the German squadron.

Vice-Admiral Maximilian Von Spee, despite his eventual defeat, was widely respected for his daring and strategic insight. His audacious operations across the Pacific and his success at Coronel demonstrated his capability as a naval commander. The 1914 Battle of the Falkland Islands, however, proved that even the most skillful commanders could be outmatched by superior resources and firepower.

Immediate Outcome and Tactical Aftermath

The Battle of the Falkland Islands in 1914 was a resounding victory for the Royal Navy. The destruction of the German East Asia Squadron eliminated a significant threat to Allied maritime operations and restored British naval supremacy in the South Atlantic. The victory was celebrated in Britain and provided a much-needed boost to British morale after the earlier defeat at Coronel.

The battle also underscored the importance of naval intelligence and the element of surprise. Sturdee's ability to position his battlecruisers at the Falklands without Von Spee's knowledge was crucial to the British success. Additionally, the engagement highlighted the effectiveness of battlecruisers in hunting down and destroying slower, less heavily armed ships.

Long-Term Repercussions

The long-term aftermath of the Battle of the Falkland Islands had significant implications for the naval war and the broader strategic context of the First World War in general. Firstly, the destruction of Von Spee's squadron marked the end of Germany's naval presence outside European waters, ensuring Allied control of global sea lanes. This allowed the Allies to secure vital supply routes and maintain the economic blockade against Germany, which would gradually erode German war capabilities.

Secondly, the battle reinforced the strategic doctrine of using battlecruisers for their speed and firepower. The success of Sturdee's battlecruisers in swiftly closing the distance and delivering devastating firepower influenced future naval tactics and ship design, emphasizing the need for fast, heavily armed vessels capable of operating independently or in conjunction with a larger fleet.

Lastly, the battle had a profound impact on German naval strategy. The loss of the East Asia Squadron forced the German Navy to concentrate its efforts in European waters, focusing on submarine warfare and attempts to break the British blockade or lure the British Home Fleet into an ambush where submarines would be waiting. The shift to unrestricted submarine warfare would eventually draw the United States of America into the conflict.

Conclusion

The 1914 Battle of the Falkland Islands illustrates the strategic significance of naval power in the First World War. The confrontation between the Royal Navy and the German Imperial Navy off the remote Falkland Islands demonstrated the importance of intelligence, speed, and firepower in naval engagements. The victory restored British naval supremacy in the South Atlantic, secured crucial maritime routes, and influenced naval tactics and strategy for the remainder of the war. Reflecting on this naval battle serves as a reminder of the critical role naval operations played in shaping the outcomes of global conflicts and the enduring legacy of those who commanded and fought in these engagements.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Getting Jewish Children Out of Nazi Territory: Unsung Heroes of the Kindertransport

The Kindertransport was the rescue of Jewish children from Nazi-controlled territory from 1938 to 1939. Here, author Mike Levy looks at some of the unsung heroes of this movement.

Mike’s book, Get the Children Out! : Unsung Heroes of the Kindertransport, is available here: Amazon US | Amazon UK

Jewish children arriving in London in February 1939. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-S69279 / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

When the word ‘Kindertransport’ is heard, one name often comes to the fore: Sir Nicholas Winton. Made famous by British TV’s ‘That’s Life’ programme in the late 1980s and the recent film ‘One Life’ starring Anthony Hopkins. Winton’s name has become synonymous with the rescue of unaccompanied Jewish children from Nazi-controlled Europe in the late 1930s. But Winton did not, could not have, acted alone. The rescue of nearly 10,000 young Jews from Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia involved hundreds if not thousands of people. I once asked Sir Nicholas, when he was 103 years of age, why his name is so well known and the others forgotten. Ever humble and self-deprecating, he replied, ‘That’s easy to explain, I’ve outlived the others’.

So let’s go back a bit here and look again at the history. On December 2, 1938, just 86 years ago, a group of 200 young people descended a ship’s gangplank in the Essex port of Harwich. They came from Germany without their parents, siblings, family, friends; they came alone. These 200 were the vanguard of one of the largest acts of rescue in the Holocaust era. They were Jewish children from orphanages and homes that had been torched, battered or smashed by Nazi thugs on the night of November 9/10, 1938 – so called ‘Kristallnacht’, the Night of Broken Glass, now more accurately dubbed ‘November Pogroms’. The children had witnessed SS and Hitler Youth beating up their parents, wrecking their homes and businesses, arresting men and carting them off to be brutalised in concentration camps. It was after this terrible night that parents in Germany decided to send their children to  safety. The British government had decided to waive visas for fleeing children under the age of 17.

Arrival

The children had no one in Britain to look after them; homes and support had to be found for them. Their arrival was entirely in the hands of volunteers – the British government took no part in their rescue from persecution. Enter an army of British helpers among whom, very prominently, were the Rotarians.

The children who arrived on that sunny December day had come on a train that left Germany the day before, travelled across the border into the Netherlands, on to the Hook of Holland and the night ferry to Harwich. This was the preferred route of most of the 10,000 children who came to Britain on the ‘Kindertransport’. The last such transport arrived in Harwich on September 2, 1939, one day before war was declared, all borders were closed, the fate sealed for the Jewish children, and their families, left at the mercy of the murderous Nazi state.

The nerve centre of this massive rescue operation was at Bloomsbury House in central London. Here committees were hurriedly set up by Jewish, Quaker, Church of England, Methodist and many other relief bodies. The building (now the HQ of Arts Council England) was packed with desks, telephones, filing cabinets and queues of anxious relatives or refugees already in Britain, desperate for help, news, financial support and more. The central committees in London totally relied on the goodwill of voluntary bodies throughout the length and breadth of the UK. This was after all, years before the Welfare State came into being. Voluntarism was key to the success of the Kindertransport rescue – the largest of its kind in the whole of the Holocaust era.

Many unsung heroes

The landscape of care in Britain involved a wide spectrum of ‘unsung heroes’. Winton and his team rescued 669 Jewish children from Nazi-occupied Prague in the spring of 1939.

But who helped rescue the other 9,300 young refugees who fled persecution from Germany and Austria? Winton had no dealing whatsoever with the children from the German Reich.

The answer is a whole raft of forgotten figures. There were German Jews who played a key role in organising the emigration of the children from Berlin, Vienna, Frankfurt and Cologne. Wilfred Israel, British by birth but German by nationality was in 1938, de facto head of the benighted Jewish community under Hitler’s cosh. After the November Pogroms, Israel and his team worked round the clock to secure the paperwork and finances to help get the children out. He was aided by a group of formidable German Jewish women including Hannah Karminsky who often acted as a chaperone for the smallest children travelling alone on the fateful trains to safety. Despite pleas for her to stay in Britain at her journey’s end, she insisted on returning to Nazi Germany to bring out more children. After war broke out her fate was sealed and Karminsky was eventually murdered in Auschwitz.

Care

Once in Britain, who cared for the 10,000 children? Up and down the country, local refugee committees were hurriedly set up to seek out foster families, raise money or secure places in hurriedly created hostels. My ongoing work on the UK Holocaust Map (created by the Association for Jewish Refugees) shows at least 50 such refugee hostels from Glasgow to Cornwall. Many more are being uncovered by research.

Foster families were urged in national and regional newspapers, in the pulpits of local churches and synagogues, in local clubs and societies such as the Rotarians, and by word of mouth, to offer a bed or two to a needy German, Czech or Polish-speaking Kindertransport child. Thousands came forward. Some were genuinely touched by the plight of the Jewish children and the fracture of their family life under the Nazis. Aubrey and Winifred Chadwick, both young teachers in Cambridge, offered a bed to five-year-old Suzi Spitzer who had been put on a Winton train in Prague. She was never to see her natural parents again. To Suzi, the Chadwicks, including foster sister Ann, became her new family.

Some foster families offered their homes with less creditable motives. Some wanted to treat older children as unpaid servants; some wanted to show off to their neighbours that they were doing a good turn – others neglected or even abused the children. Yet it seems that the majority of the Kindertransport children were well treated and taken into the open arms of strangers.

Among the host families was Alfred Roberts, father of future prime minister Margaret Thatcher. He was urged to take in a Jewish German girl by dint of his leading role in the local Rotarians. Similarly, the parents of David and Richard Attenborough warmly welcomed the sisters into their home in Leicester. They too became lifelong members of the family. Among other well-known names was the composer Ralph Vaughan Williams who chaired his local Jewish Refugee Committee in Dorking, Surrey, and aided dozens of Jewish children to find homes in the area.

These famous names are the exception. As I say in my book, most of the people who helped the children were ordinary Britons who neither sought nor achieved fame. In my small way, my book helps, I hope, to sing the praises of some of these forgotten heroes.

Mike Levy is the author of the book Get the Children Out! : Unsung Heroes of the Kindertransport published by Lemon Soul and available as a book, audiobook, or e-book on Amazon US | Amazon UK or via lemonsoul.com.

Mike is also lead researcher for the UK Holocaust Map https://ajr.humap.site/map

He is also currently researching British families who took in Kindertransport refugees. If your family, or someone you know, did host a Jewish refugee from 1938, please contact Mike on kindertransport4@gmail.com

Spy Mania and Conspiracy in Russia During World War One

Paranoia and conspiracy lurks around society, and this amplifies in times of great uncertainty and war. Here, Jamie Bryson looks at conspiracies, paranoia, and spy mania in the Russian Empire during World War One.

Vladimir Sukhomlinov, Minister of War for the Russian Empire from March 1909 to June 1915. He was later tried for crimes including high treason.

The relatively recent Kingsmen film (The King’s Man) had Ralph Fiennes and his co-star combatting an international conspiracy based around the First World War. A secret cabal, known as ‘the Shepherd’s Flock’, involving Grigorii Rasputin, Mata Hari and Gavrilo Princip (the killer of Franz Ferdinand), is the driving force of this story. The group is headed by a Scotsman who wishes to bring down the European Empires (by pitting them against each other) and achieve an independent Scotland. While most of this is nonsense, a vein of historical accuracy runs through the whole caper, perhaps unbeknownst to audiences. Many contemporaries did believe in fantastic conspiracies, intrigue, assassinations and espionage during the First World War. Rasputin, for example, was thought to have been the cause of the death of one of the war's most recognizable faces. Lord Kitchener’s demise at sea in June 1916 after the HMS Hampshire struck a mine was attributed to Rasputin, who was accused of giving advance warning  of the voyage to the German Kaiser.[1]

Tsarist Russia

Indeed, such fantasies flourished in Tsarist Russia during the First World War. The imposition of censorship in 1914 encouraged ordinary Russians to believe that the newspapers only reported half-truths. Some sections in newspapers were left blanked out which caused people to use their imagination to fill in the rest. The unstable political atmosphere provided fertile ground for fantasies of conspiracy to take root. The departure of Tsar Nicholas II to the front lines in August 1915 left Empress Alexandra Fedorovna seemingly in charge of the Russian government. Alexandra was born in Hesse-Darmstadt and her German origins encouraged many to believe that she was actively working against the Allied war effort. Though innocent in nature, her correspondence with relatives back home in Germany appeared intensely suspicious to the war-weary masses. By 1917, many came to believe she was actively working toward a German victory as part of a conspiracy involving court personnel and ministers who also had German heritage.

The ethnically diverse nature of the Russian Empire further fanned the flames of spy mania. Within Russia’s borders were high concentrations of Germans, many of whom arrived in the nineteenth century to escape their overpopulated homeland for the great open expanses of Russia. With the arrival of the war, they were the cause of intense suspicion. German surnames and family connections, viewed through the prism of war, were no longer innocent. Baltic Germans who had a close association with the Tsarist state, having served for centuries as Generals and functionaries, were cast as potential enemies. But it was not just Germans who fell under suspicion; Jews, Hungarians, Poles and Turks also found themselves in a similar category of ‘suspect’ populations. These fears were compounded when refugees from the western provinces arrived in the heart of European Russia, where they were treated with distrust. As fears increased, any eccentric who happened to be bilingual risked being detained for espionage.

Worry

Foreign commercial enterprises also aroused a similar level of worry. Russian military intelligence scrutinized foreign-owned companies and began a xenophobic, anti-commercial campaign against them driven at its core by fear of espionage. Early forms of ‘market research’ by such companies were interpreted by security officers as the gathering of intelligence for military purposes.[2]

According to an official of the tsarist secret police, known as the Okhrana, ‘spy fever ran through the whole of the Russian population like a plague’.[3] The same official recalled that even in the first few days of the war, a man came to his office believing he could hear a typewriter through the wall of his flat, convinced he had discovered a nest of spies.[4] This incident turned out to be nothing more than the work of a feverish imagination, but it was symptomatic of a growing paranoia about hidden enemies. In the Baltic states, a Lithuanian peasant claimed he had seen German biplanes coming and going to the estates of local German barons – one of which allegedly carried off a cow – important war materiel.[5] Another report suggested that a secret alliance of German Barons was supposedly waiting to take over the government in Estonia once the Kaiser’s armies arrived. In Poland, a ‘Singing and Gymnastics Society’ was allegedly a disguised Corps of 50,000 German soldiers ready to be deployed onto the battlefield. One official believed that a specific condition was afflicting the masses as early as 1914, which he described as ‘wartime psychosis’.[6]

Obsession with spies and traitors worsened in the second year of the war because of battlefield defeat. Both elites and the masses refused to accept that losses on the front were the result of strategic and tactical failures rather than the result of traitors behind the lines. A gendarme Colonel named Sergei Myasoedov became the target of recriminations because he had once hunted with Kaiser Wilhelm II before the war and had served on the border with the German Empire for a time. His contacts amongst German officers, which would have been unremarkable before 1914, took on conspiratorial undertones. Myasoedov and his associate, the War Minister Vladimir Sukhomlinov, were also associated with Jewish businessmen, which added further suspicion, implying connections with politically ‘unreliable’ groups. Myasoedov was hanged in Warsaw in 1915, but this did not put an end to the search for spies.

In fact, military intelligence officers unleashed a determined search for more traitors who were supposedly working behind the lines to the Russian Empire’s detriment.  One military intelligence officer came to believe that German spies had enjoyed ten years of uninterrupted practice in the Russian Empire, developing vast networks of human intelligence.[7] Military intelligence activities bordered on absurd, confiscating German notice boards and restaurant menus.[8] This was all symptomatic of intense paranoia. Part of this belief was rooted in the changing nature of war and intelligence gathering; most of Germany’s successes had come from signals intelligence rather than spies behind Russian lies, a fact that many contemporaries failed to appreciate.[9] In reality, there was very little basis for genuine spy mania, as the wartime German head of intelligence later recorded in his memoirs the very modest value of German intelligence within Russia.[10]

War progresses

As the war progressed, Russian society became enmeshed in ideas of conspiracy at the highest levels. Many ordinary people, as well as military intelligence officials, believed that Myasoedov was only the tip of the iceberg and that the trail of treason led all the way to the Empress and, of course, her infamous confidante Rasputin. Even the British ambassador to Russia, George Buchanan, believed in the potential of a pro-German conspiracy. At the same time, German propagandists argued that Britain was plotting a revolution in order to install a pro-British liberal government which would continue the war.[11]

The 1917 revolution, which saw the collapse of the tsarist regime, can therefore be interpreted in the light of these ideas of treason, espionage and conspiracy, which were very real parts of life in Russia and the other combatant nations; these ideas may have been fantastical, but took on historical significance because contemporaries believed them.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

[1] Douglas Smith, Rasputin, (London, 2016), pp. 526-7

[2] Alex Marshall, ‘Russian Military Intelligence 1905-1914’, War in History, Vol. 11 No. 4, (2004),  411-13

[3]  Alexei Vasiliev, The Ochrana: The Russian Secret Police, ed. Rene Fulop Miller, (London, 1930),

114

[4] Vasiliev, The Ochrana, p. 115

[5] Vasiliev, The Ochrana, p.

[6] Iain Lauchlan, Russian Hide and Seek: The Tsarist Secret Police in St Petersburg 1906-1914, (Helsinki, 2002), 363

[7] A. S. Rezanov, Nemetskoe Shpionstvo, (Petrograd, 1915), 140

[8] William Fuller, The Foe Within: Fantasies of Treason and the End of the Russian Empire, (Cornell NY, 2006)

[9] Andrew, The Secret World: A History of Intelligence, (New Haven CT, 2018), 502

[10] Walter Nicolai, The German Secret Service, (London, 1924), 121-3

[11] Boris Kolonitskii, ‘Politischeskie funktsii Anglofobii v gody pervoi mirovoi voiny’ in Nikolai Smirnov ed., Rossiia i pervaia mirovaia voina: Materialy mezhdunarodnogo nauchnogo kollokviuma (St. Petersburg, 1999), 276-77

Rescuing Mussolini: The Fallschirmjäger Gran Sasso Raid

Few operations are shrouded in intrigue and myth as the raid on the Gran Sasso mountain-top location where Benito Mussolini was being held. At the heart of this mission were the German Fallschirmjäger, the German elite paratroopers, whose planning and execution were pivotal. However, history often credits the mission's success to Otto Johann Anton Skorzeny, a charismatic SS officer who played a small role in the rescue. The mission was meticulously planned and executed by the Fallschirmjäger, however, Skorzeny ensured he was remembered as the mission's mastermind.

Terry Bailey explains.

Mussolini with German forces. Source: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101I-567-1503A-07 / Toni Schneiders / CC-BY-SA 3.0, available here.

By 1943, the tide of the Second World War was turning against the Axis powers. In Italy, internal dissent reached a crescendo with the overthrow of Benito Mussolini, (Duce). Several of his colleagues were close to revolt, and Mussolini was forced to summon the Grand Council on the July 24, 1943. This was the first time the body had met since the start of the war. When he announced that the Germans were thinking of evacuating the south, Grandi launched a blistering attack on him. Grandi moved a resolution asking the king to resume his full constitutional powers—in effect, a vote of no confidence in Mussolini.

Thus on July 25, 1943, by order of King Victor Emmanuel III, Mussolini was arrested, he was moved to various locations to prevent any rescue attempts by his German allies. His final and most secure prison was the Hotel Campo Imperatore, situated high on the Gran Sasso massif in the Apennine Mountains.

Adolf Hitler was determined to rescue Mussolini, the task was assigned to the Luftwaffe's elite Fallschirmjäger under the command of General Kurt Student. Concurrently, Hitler ordered the SS, represented by the ambitious Otto Skorzeny, to get involved in the operation to track and identify the location where Mussolini was being held. This dual-command structure sowed the seeds for future credit disputes, a situation that plagued many German operations throughout the war, not only concerning credit but in some cases detrimental to a number Nazi operations.

The planning of Operation Gran Sasso began with exhaustive intelligence gathering. The Fallschirmjäger, known for their meticulous preparations, used reconnaissance flights to gather aerial photographs and detailed maps of the hotel and surrounding terrain that Otto Skorzeny had identified. They analyzed weather conditions, altitude challenges, and potential escape routes.

Key Elements of the Plan:

1.   Aerial Assault: The only feasible approach to the heavily guarded hotel was from the air. The Fallschirmjäger, experienced in airborne operations, planned a glider-borne assault. Gliders, being silent and capable of landing in confined space in a concentration of force, were ideal for the mission.

2.   Surprise and Speed: The element of surprise was paramount. The plan was to land gliders on the narrow plateau near the hotel, overpower the guards, and secure Mussolini swiftly before any reinforcements could arrive.

3.   Command Structure: While the Fallschirmjäger were responsible for the operational details, Otto Skorzeny, with no prior experience in airborne operations, was included in the planning due to his SS ties and Hitler's directives. His role was ostensibly to assist and ensure SS involvement.

However, due to his personality, Skorzeny aimed to use the mission as an opportunity to promote his ideas of unconventional warfare, as he had studied the successes of British special operations.

On September 12, 1943, the meticulously planned operation was put into action. The operation, codenamed Unternehmen Eiche (Operation Oak), commenced with a formation of ten DFS 230 gliders, towed by Heinkel He 111 aircraft, departing from Pratica di Mare near Rome, carrying the elite Fallschirmjäger troops, and Otto Skorzeny with 16 SS assault troops.

Key Phases of the Execution:

1.   Aerial Approach: The gliders, piloted by experienced Fallschirmjäger, detached from their tow planes at the precise moment and began their silent descent towards the Gran Sasso plateau. The challenging mountainous terrain required expert navigation to avoid detection and ensure a safe landing.

2.   Landing and Assault: Despite the difficult terrain, the gliders landed with remarkable precision near the hotel. The operational commander, (Oberleutnant Georg Freiherr), led the Fallschirmjäger in a swift assault. They quickly overwhelmed the Italian guards, who were caught off guard by the sudden appearance of German troops. (It is argued later that a number of the guards were pro-Mussolini and some welcomed the German's arrival).

3.   Securing Mussolini: Skorzeny, eager to assert his presence, was among the first to reach Mussolini. Ensuring he was visibly at the forefront, Skorzeny famously declared to Mussolini, "Duce, the Führer has sent me to set you free!" This moment, captured in photographs, was crucial for Skorzeny's later claims of leadership.

4.   Evacuation: With Mussolini secured, the team signaled for the waiting Fieseler Fi 156 Storch aircraft. The rugged terrain made the takeoff challenging, especially since Skorzeny had insisted on accompanying Mussolini even though the plane was only suitable for the Duce and the pilot. However, with great skill Captain Gerlach, managed to lift off with Mussolini and Skorzeny onboard.

The operation was a resounding success, achieved with only two Italians killed and two slightly wounded. Mussolini was flown to Vienna and then to Germany, where he was greeted as a hero. However, the real battle was just beginning – the battle for credit.

Skorzeny, with his flair for drama and self-promotion, was quick to present himself as the mastermind of the operation. His SS connections and personal rapport with Hitler gave him a significant advantage. The iconic photographs of him with Mussolini bolstered his narrative. He was awarded the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross, and his fame soared.

In contrast, the contributions of the Fallschirmjäger, who had meticulously planned and executed the mission, were overshadowed, despite their pivotal role, and received comparatively little recognition. The post-war narratives, influenced by Skorzeny's memoirs and his relentless self-promotion, further cemented his legend.

While Otto Skorzeny's role in Operation Gran Sasso cannot be entirely dismissed, simply because Skorzeny not only identified Mussolini's location, in addition to, the fact that he was present with his men but also because he had suggested the exact landing zone for the gliders. However, it is essential to recognize the contributions of the Fallschirmjäger. The success of the mission was a true testament to their planning, skill, and bravery. Skorzeny's presence, though significant, was more of a political maneuver to ensure SS involvement and claim the glory.

Recent historical analyses have sought to rectify this imbalance. Military historians emphasize the Fallschirmjäger's expertise in airborne operations and highlight the comprehensive planning by General Kurt Student's elite Fallschirmjäger. These reassessments underscore the collaborative nature of the mission, with the Fallschirmjäger's groundwork being crucial to its success.

Conclusion

In conclusion, Operation Gran Sasso remains one of the Second World War's most dramatic and daring missions. The successful rescue of Mussolini was a remarkable feat of military precision, courage and flying ability. While Otto Skorzeny emerged as the public face of the mission, it was the meticulous planning and execution by the German Fallschirmjäger that ensured the success of the mission.

In the broader context of military history, Operation Gran Sasso serves as a reminder of the complexities of war, where deeds on the battlefield often become intertwined with political machinations and personal ambitions. The Fallschirmjäger, though overshadowed in popular narratives, remain the true heroes of this audacious operation, exemplifying the skill and bravery that defined Germany's elite paratroopers. These characteristics were true for all airborne operations of the Second World War for both Axis and Allied airborne forces and still are of airborne forces today.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Who is this Exceptional British Soldier that Hitler Dubbed a Dangerous ‘Dangerous Terrorist’ in World War 2?

The idea of the specialist military service was dreamt up and realized in World War Two. There are the stories of the German Mountain Troops, the German Fallschirmjager and of course there are the British equivalents that were formed in North Africa in haste because the nature of warfare was changing and there was now a requirement for “out of the box thinking” and the implementation of unconventional methods. From the British side most of the focus is given to David Stirling and his Special Air Service who operated alongside the Long Range Desert Group. Stirling’s work has been well documented. However, there was also David Stirling’s first cousin, Simon Fraser or most popularly known as Lord Lovat. He was also part of the special forces story and became one of the first founding and serving Commandos who would also be instrumental in establishing an elite, specialist force later known as the Special Services Brigade. His exploits would come to the attention of Adolf Hitler himself who dubbed Lovat and Stirling as dangerous terrorists and if they were by chance caught they were to be executed.

Stephen Prout explains.

Lord Lovat and Lady Lovat at Buckingham Palace, London in 1942.

Who was Simon Fraser?

Winston Churchill, in a letter to Stalin, referred to Lord Lovat aka Simon Fraser as “the handsomest man who ever cut a throat.” The Fifteenth Lord Lovat, Simon Fraser, was a professional soldier with a long running Scottish ancestry some of whom had also made their presence known in history. Those members had made their names in other battlefields in other areas, but Simon Fraser would earn his own prominence in the Second World War. He was truly an impressive individual. His reputation and achievements would see him featured in the film celebrating D-Day, The Longest Day. Actor Peter Lawford portrayed him in a scene re-enacting the reinforcement of Pegasus Bridge.

He was born in 1911 in his family home, Beaufort Castle, Inverness, Scotland. He was educated at Ampleforth College and Oxford University. In 1931 he joined the regular army and so began his military career and receive numerous decorations in his own right.

Fraser came from a long and established family line who also had served in the military. The outbreak of the war would present the opportunity for him to be awarded the DSO, the Military Cross for various acts of courage. His contribution to the war effort was impressive but some operations he and his men were assigned would be more successful and effective than others.

Lofoten Islands, Norway

One of his earlier operations happened on March 3, 1941 when Lovat led two new Commando groups, Nos 3 and 4 Commando, during what was called Operation Claymore. This was a specific raid on the German-occupied Lofoten Islands in Norway. The raid was successful with the Commandos clearly leaving their mark on enemy occupied territory. The commandos destroyed fish-oil factories, petrol dumps, and eleven ships.

They also seized encryption equipment and codebooks, which no doubt the infamous Bletchley Park found invaluable, and helped them gain the advantage in the growing Allied Intelligence Services. As well, over two hundred German troops were captured and over three hundred Norwegian army volunteers returned with the commandos back to Britain to join the Allied forces. Not all operations would be this successful but already the benefit and damage a small force could inflict on an enemy was very apparent as the British would also discover in North Africa fighting Rommel.

Hardelot - Operation Abercrombie

It was in April 1942 that Lovat would be awarded the Military Cross. He led one hundred and fifty men on a raid of the coastal town of Hardelot in Operation Abercrombie. One hundred of these were his own commandos. It was not all smooth running. It has been said that the gains from this operation were small if any and the effectiveness was in question. The raid was met by minimal opposition and due to a navigation error the fifty-man Canadian detachment lost their way and had to abort their part of the mission. Additionally, it was reported that the German defenses were not as difficult to assault or were abandoned. As the Allied detachment engaged they only encountered three Germans who withdrew immediately. The official report recorded, "no determined opposition". Separately a team of twelve men were sent to destroy the searchlights but failed to execute their objective due to lack of time. The Navy engaged and damaged an undetermined number of German E-Boats.

Nevertheless, six 150mm batteries were destroyed although they were not an immediate threat to the Allies. However, it would have irked the Germans and boosted the French Resistance that the Allies were still very much in the war. Despite the lack of enemy engagement Lovat earned a glowing citation that described his leadership as “speedy and clear headed,” “cool” and that he “exercised faultless control” with a “bold and skilful handling of his forces” and a “success without loss of troops.”  Two Bren Gunners were in fact lost due to a vehicle sinking but not in combat. His later operations would be more costly - in August of that year he would be involved in the tragic Dieppe debacle – Operation Jubilee. Hardelot at least readied his men for such an assault.

Dieppe – Operation Jubilee

Lovat would also receive recognition in Dieppe in August 1942 despite the fact the mission was a costly mission and a failure for the Allies. The whole operation cost the Allies over four thousand men dead, captured or injured in an early attempt to assault Nazi occupied Europe. The saving grace was that lessons were learned for Operation Overlord two years later.

No. 4 Commando under Lovat had captured their objectives which was the only successful part of the operation, with most of his men returning safely to Britain. They had also earned themselves their fearful reputation that reached German Military High Command.

According to Hilary Saunders, the official biographer, the men were to arouse such a passion of hate and fear in the hearts of their enemies that first Von Runstedt and then Hitler in 1942 ordered their slaughter when captured down to the last man. Lovat had 100,000 Reich marks placed on his head, dead or alive.

Dieppe was a mixture of combined assaults on the coast of France. The idea was twofold: firstly, to present to the public and more importantly the Soviet Union that the Western Allies were very much serious about opening a second front. The Soviets were under extreme pressure and felt the West had left them to face much of the Wehrmacht. It was hoped a western offensive would divert at least forty German divisions from the East. Secondly, it was to obtain experience in seizing enemy occupied harbors in readiness for a major invasion that was still uncertain. Dieppe was a disaster and Allied losses were considerable in not only men but in tanks, ships, and aircraft. German losses were minimal with less than six hundred personnel dead or injured and less that fifty mixed aircraft destroyed. It was hardly the good news story the British public needed to boost morale.

Lovat’s part of the operation was the only successful portion. He was to conduct two landings six miles west of Dieppe to eliminate the coastal battery at Blancmesnil-Sainte-Marguerite near Varengeville. The attack began at 04:50 and by 0730 they had withdrawn successfully destroying the artillery battery of six 150 mm guns. It was hailed such a success that it was a model for future amphibious Royal Marine Commando assaults as part of major landing operations. Lord Lovat was awarded the Distinguished Service Order for his part in the raid. Elsewhere there was less to celebrate.

D-Day – Operation Overlord, Pegasus Bridge and Breville

Lovat would play his part on one of the most important days in twentieth century history. His part would be punctuated by an injury at Breville just six days into the invasion, bringing a distinguished active army career to end. It did not matter as much because by this time Lord Lovat had certainly contributed to the Allied war effort many times over.

Lovat’s part of Overlord started on Queen Red Beach, a specific part of Sword beach. He had by this time been made a brigadier and also appointed the Commander of the newly formed 1st Special Service Brigade. Lord Lovat's brigade was landed at Sword during the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944. Interestingly The Longest Day film portrays him in a white jumper and departing from standard Commando dress but in the standard battle dress.

Lovat's forces soon approached from Sword to reach Pegasus Bridge, around 1 p.m. to help Major John Howard establish defensive positions around Ranville, east of the River Orne to prevent German counter attacks from impairing the Allied invasion. It was also necessary for the Allies to take their next objective, the town of Caen, which was one of the D-Day objectives which was not achieved until much later.

During the Battle of Breville on June 12, he was seriously wounded whilst observing an artillery bombardment by the 51st Highland Division. Other officers alongside him died.

For his part in Overlord he was awarded the Legion of Honour and the Croix de Guerre by a grateful French Fourth Republic. A sculpture of him was commissioned by his family and stands on Sword beach to this day.

Injury and the end of the war

Lovat’s career in the British Military was impressive as he swiftly progressed up the ranks. His most senior promotion was given to him after his injuries at D-Day at Breville on June 12. 1944 which rendered him unable to return to the army six days after the historic Operation Overlord.

Lord Lovat made a full recovery from his injuries but could not return to the army. Winston Churchill offered him the Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms in the House of Lords, which Lovat declined but entered politics as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in 1945. He later took on the role as Minister of Economic Warfare which he relinquished when Winston Churchill lost the post-war British election.

Lord Lovat's political career continued in both the House of Lords and Inverness County Council. He devoted much of his time to the family estates. For a man who survived numerous and perilous wartime operations he would be struck by tragedy in peacetime. In his final years, he suffered financial ruin and the death of two of his sons him in accidents within months of each other. A year before his death, in 1995, the family's traditional residence, Beaufort Castle, was sold. His D-Day regimental Piper Bill Millin, played at Lord Lovat's funeral. There ends the story but the sculpture of him on Sword beach stands to this day that reminds us of his exceptional and singular contribution to the allies’ ultimate victory during the Second World War.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Military Rankings of Lord Lovat’s Career

February 5th, 1930: 2nd Lieutenant
August 27th, 1934: Lieutenant
December 1st,1937: resigns regular commission
June 7th,1939: resigns reserve commission
July 8th, 1939: Captain
October 2nd, 1942: Major (war sub)
March 15th, 1944: Lieutenant-Colonel (war sub)
April 1946: Honorary Brigadier
June 16th, 1962: retirement.

Sources

Beevor, Antony (2009). D-Day: The Battle for Normandy. Viking 

Ian Rank-Broadly Sculpture

Ambrose, Stephen (1985) Pegasus Bridge 6 June 1944. Simon & Schuster

What Happened at World War 2’s Operation Roast at Lake Comacchio, Italy in 1945?

On April 1, 1945, in the final stages of the Second World War, the British Army launched Operation Roast at Lake Comacchio in Italy. This operation was part of the Italian Campaign, a critical offensive aimed at breaking the German defensive lines and paving the way for the Allies to advance towards the Po Valley. The operation is notable not only for its strategic significance but also for the exceptional bravery displayed by the troops, including actions that led to the awarding of two Victoria Crosses.

Terry Bailey explains.

German prisoners being transported through a flooded area besides Lake Comacchio. April 11, 1945.

Strategic Importance and Objectives

Lake Comacchio, a large lagoon in northern Italy, presented a formidable natural barrier. The area was heavily fortified by the Germans, who used the wetlands to their advantage, creating a series of defensive positions that were difficult to assault. The primary objective of Operation Roast was to outflank these defenses, secure the eastern bank of the lake, and facilitate the advance of the main Army towards Argenta, a crucial point in the German defensive line known as the Gothic Line.

Forces Involved

The operation was spearheaded by the British 56th (London) Infantry Division, supported by elements of the 2nd Commando Brigade and other supporting units.

Key units included:

·   56th (London) Infantry Division: Comprised of several infantry brigades, this division was tasked with the main assault across the terrain around Lake Comacchio.

·   2nd Commando Brigade: A specialist brigade trained in amphibious operations and close-quarters combat. Which was made up of No. 2 and 9 Army commandos and 40 and 43 Royal Marines commandos. The commando brigade played a crucial role in the initial assaults and in securing key objectives.

·   North Irish Horse: An armored regiment that provided crucial support with their tanks, aiding in breaking through German defensive positions.

·   Royal Artillery: Providing artillery support for different aspects of the assault.

·   Royal Engineers: Aiding in securing vital bridges by disabling and removal of demolition charges, in addition to, making blown-up bridges serviceable.

The Assault Begins

The operation commenced in the early hours of the 1st of April, 1945. Under the cover of darkness and with the support of heavy artillery bombardment, the 2nd Commando Brigade launched their assault across the lake's eastern shore. The commandos, using small boats and amphibious vehicles struggle for hours in mud and slime, however, once in the final assault position these units moved quickly to engage German positions.

Nos. 2, 40 and 43 Commandos all made their objectives relatively quickly, although the Germans succeeded in blowing up one bridge before it was captured by No.2 Commando. No. 9 Commando initially made good progress until No. 5 and No. 6 Troops (especially 5 Troop), became seriously pinned down across a killing ground while attempting to capture the enemy position.

1 and 2 Troops made good progress down the center of the Spit, on receiving information regarding the situation of 5 and 6 Troops, 1 and 2 troop bypassed their objective in order to turn about. Laying smoke, and carrying out a bayonet charge that overran the German positions with the German defenders fleeing into the waiting Bren guns of 6 Troop.

Despite facing fierce resistance, the commando established a solid foothold, allowing the infantry divisions to begin their advance. One of the key challenges of the operation was the terrain. The area around Lake Comacchio was a mix of wetlands, canals, and embankments, making movement and coordination difficult. The commandos, however, were well-prepared for such conditions, and their training and tenacity proved invaluable.

Decisive Actions

As the commandos secured the initial objectives, the 56th (London) Infantry Division moved in to consolidate and expand the gains. The infantry faced intense combat as they pushed through the German defenses. The North Irish Horse provided critical armored support, using their tanks to destroy fortified positions and clear the way for the advancing troops.

A notable action of Operation Roast occurred on the 8th / 9th of April, when Major Anders Lassen of the Special Boat Section, (SBS), a sub-unit of Special Air Service (SAS), attached to the 2nd Commando Brigade, led a daring assault on a series of German strongpoints. Despite being heavily outnumbered and facing intense fire, Lassen and his men managed to neutralize several enemy positions before he succumbed to a burst of German machine gun fire. For his extraordinary bravery and leadership, Major Lassen was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

The Role of the 2nd Commando Brigade

The 2nd Commando Brigade's role in Operation Roast was crucial. Their ability to execute swift and precise strikes against enemy positions disrupted German defenses allowing the infantry to advance was key to a successful operation. Commandos are trained to operate in challenging environments and their expertise in amphibious warfare was a significant advantage in the wetlands of Lake Comacchio.

Progress and Outcome

Operation Roast was a resounding success, achieving its objectives and significantly weakening the German defensive line around Lake Comacchio. The combined efforts of the British infantry, commandos, armored units and other supporting units forced the Germans to retreat, allowing the main Army to continue its advance towards the Po Valley.

The operation also demonstrated the effectiveness of combined arms tactics and the importance of specialized units like commandos in overcoming challenging terrain and well-fortified positions. The bravery and professionalism of the troops involved, particularly those who were awarded the Victoria Cross, played a vital role in the operation's success.

Aftermath and Legacy

The success of Operation Roast had a profound impact on the broader Italian Campaign. It paved the way for the final Allied push into northern Italy, leading to the eventual surrender of German forces in the region. The operation also highlighted the importance of coordination and adaptability in modern warfare, lessons that would be carried forward into post-war military doctrine.

The actions of Major Anders Lassen and Corporal Thomas Peck Hunter remain a testament to the extraordinary bravery and selflessness of those who served. Their stories continue to inspire future generations of soldiers and Marines and are a significant part of the legacy of the Second World War.

In conclusion, Operation Roast at Lake Comacchio stands as a pivotal moment in the final days of the Second World War, the strategic importance of the operation, the formidable challenges faced by the troops, and the exceptional acts of bravery that were recognized including the award of the two Victoria Cross all contribute to its lasting historical significance. The success of the operation not only facilitated the Allied advance into northern Italy but also exemplified the courage and determination of the soldiers and Royal Marines who fought in one of the most challenging theatres of the war.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

The Award of Victoria Crosses

The Victoria Cross (VC) is the highest military decoration awarded for valor "in the face of the enemy" to members of the British armed forces and various Commonwealth countries including previous British Empire territories.

During Operation Roast, one soldier and one Royal Marine commando were awarded the VC for their acts of gallantry and valor.

Major Anders Lassen: On the night of the 8th of April 1945, Major Lassen a Danish soldier of the SBS, a sub-unit of the SAS, led a patrol to conduct reconnaissance, cause confusion within the enemy lines and eliminate forward enemy positions. Coming under enemy fire he moved his men forward personally silencing 3 enemy positions housing 6 German MG 42 machine guns. Despite being wounded multiple times, he continued to lead and inspire his men, before succumbing to a burst of machine gun fire that mortally wounded Lassen. His actions exemplified the highest standards of bravery and leadership.

Lance Corporal, (Temporary Corporal), Thomas Peck Hunter 43 Commando Royal Marines: On the 2nd of April, 1945, Corporal Thomas Peak Hunter of the Royal Marines commando attached to the 2nd Commando Brigade, showed extraordinary courage during an assault on enemy positions.

Under heavy fire, he advanced alone across open ground, drawing enemy fire away from his comrades and allowing them to capture the objective. Hunter single-handedly cleared a farmstead housing three German MG 42s, after charging across 200 meters of open ground firing his Bren gun from the hip. He continued to provide encouragement to his men and asked for more Bren gun magazines before receiving a burst of enemy fire to his head.

His self-sacrifice and determination were crucial in overcoming the German defenses, and he was posthumously awarded the VC for his gallantry and valor.

Point of interest

The Special Boat Service (SBS) is a special forces unit of the United Kingdom under the control of the Royal Navy Admiralty and is part of the Royal Marine Commando.

The SBS traces its origins back to the Second World War when the Army Special Boat Section was formed in 1940 as a sub-unit of the Special Air Service, (SAS). However, after the Second World War, the Royal Navy through the Royal Marines commando formed the SBS special forces, initially as the Special Boat Company in 1951 then re-designated as the Special Boat Squadron in 1974—until on the 28th of July, 1987 the unit was formally renamed as the Special Boat Service, bringing it inline in respect to a designated name similar to the army special forces unit the Special Air Service, (SAS), warranting the SBS its own budget.

To this day the SAS still maintain a small boat section that works closely with the Royal Marines Commando SBS.

A Forgotten Invasion: When the Japanese Invaded US territory

On June 7, 1942, the Japanese Imperial Army successfully invaded US territory and occupied it until September 1, 1944. The Japanese invaded two remote Aleutian Islands close to Alaska. Except for the t35,000 personnel of the US and Canadian forces who took part in the liberation of these islands, this passed largely unnoticed in mainstream history books while the world was preoccupied with events in the European theater and other campaigns elsewhere in the Pacific.

Steve Prout explains.

US troops in May 1943 at the Battle of Attu.

On June 7, 1942, Japanese forces assaulted occupied the Alaskan territorial islands of Attu and Kiska, part of the Aleutian Islands chain. Its geographical placing puts it closer to Japan than to the Alaskan mainland or actual US mainland territory, but it was a violation of the US homeland none the less. It was the only land battle in the Second World War that would take place on American soil.

Attu

When the Japanese invaded Attu they commanded a force of over two thousand men but met only about 45 Native Aleuts and two non-native inhabitants, Charles and Etta Jones.

By 1943, the occupation force grew to two and a half thousand men ready to defend against any attempts at liberation from the USA. On May 11, 1943, that day had come with the Battle of Attu.

What seemed a very low-key location and affair resulted in a costly and savage struggle, which was typical of warfare in the Pacific theater, but the fight for this Island brought about in percentage terms the high casualty rates. American forces landed unopposed; however the Japanese dug in at higher ground, lay in wait and consolidated their forces. When the fighting was over, the casualty list was high, with over 500 US deaths and just under 4,000 casualties. The Japanese paid an equally heavy price with just over 2,300 Japanese deaths. Only Iwo Jima would prove to be as costly. On May 29, the battle ended with the Japanese conducting mass banzai charges and large numbers detonating grenades against their chests instead of facing surrender. Less than thirty Japanese soldiers survived, the rest preferring death by suicide or battle.

Within a year of Japanese occupation this Island had been retaken by the US military, making it one of the territories to be liberated from the Axis Powers long before D-Day.

Kiska

Kiska was an entirely different affair. In August 1943, an invasion force of over 30,000 Canadian and American troops landed on Kiska. There was little or no enemy action. In terms of airborne engagements, the Royal Canadian Air Force No. 111 and No. 14 Squadrons saw limited action and recorded only one aerial kill of a Japanese aircraft. There were naval engagements on the part of the Japanese.

In fact, the Japanese forces had left two weeks earlier and evacuated under the cover of foggy weather on July 28, but the US was not aware of this and continued to bomb abandoned positions for almost three weeks.

Curiously, despite the Japanese evacuation, allied casualties on Kiska numbered over 300 personnel. They were injured due to a combination of friendly fire, booby traps, disease, mines, timed bombs set by the Japanese, vehicle accidents, and frostbite. Like Attu, Kiska was an extremely hostile environment and was kind to neither friend or enemy.

Conclusion

As people focus this year on the anniversary of D-Day, they often revisit the history of other major offensives. It is always interesting that there are lost pieces of history waiting to resurface or be rediscovered and this curious little episode has been unintentionally largely forgotten. This is understandable considering the size of the various competing theaters.

These revelations do not change the outcome, nor do they rewrite history but can for a moment challenge our perspective. For example, the above story now tells us that it was is not entirely true that the US homeland was unviolated by enemy action. The current belief, however, is substantially true as the invasion of that small remote area was of a small scale and the occupation by Japanese forces lasted just over twelve months. The same can be applied to Great Britain, which prides itself that the nation was unviolated, when in fact the Germans occupied the British Channel Islands thus dispelling that myth also. Even more fascinating is that these remote islands were some of the first to be liberated by the USA from the Axis forces. This then slightly changes our view that France and Italy were the earlier territories to be freed from Axis occupation.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

World War 1’s 1918 Zeebrugge Raid by the British

When most people think of the First World War, their mind is flooded with images of static trench warfare and wholesale slaughter of men's lives in exchange for strategic military real estate objectives. However, several daring raids were planned and executed throughout the conflict that is often referred to as the Great War. One such operation was the audacious raid on Zeebrugge by the British that took place on the 23rd of April, 1918.

Terry Bailey explains.

The Zeebrugge Raid in World War 1. From Popular Science Magazine in July 1918.

Zeebrugge is located in Belgium on the north coast of Europe. The port provided quick access to the North Sea for the Imperial German Navy throughout the First World War for their U-boats and light shipping, which the German navy was trying to threaten the Allied-controlled English Channel and the North Sea with.

As the First World War entered its final year, with both sides just as determined, the British Royal Navy conceived a daring plan to block the strategically vital German-controlled ports of Zeebrugge and Ostend. The objective was to disrupt German naval operations and prevent their submarines from freely entering the North Sea. What ensued was a daring and meticulously planned assault that tested the mettle of British sailors and Royal Marines against formidable defenses and odds.

To fully understand the significance of the Zeebrugge Raid, it is essential to grasp the strategic importance of the ports of Zeebrugge and Ostend. Located at such an advantageous position on the Belgian coast, Zeebrugge and Ostend, enabled the German Navy, to launch devastating attacks on Allied merchant shipping in the North Sea. German submarines, often referred to as U-boats, operated with impunity from these bases, wreaking havoc on Allied merchant vessels and military transports.

The Allies recognized the urgent need to neutralize these ports to stem the German U-boat threat, by blocking access to Zeebrugge and Ostend and severely hampering German naval operations. Additionally, the Allies could disrupt German supply lines, thus providing a respite for Allied merchant shipping in the North Sea. Needless to say, the stage was set for a daring amphibious assault that would come to be known as the Zeebrugge Raid.

The birth of a daring scheme

The genesis of the Zeebrugge Raid can be traced back to early 1918 when Vice Admiral Roger Keyes, commander of the Dover Patrol, proposed a bold plan to block the entrance to Zeebrugge harbor and overcome the formidable defenses of the German-held ports, Keyes devised a multi-faceted strategy that combined naval bombardment, diversionary tactics, and direct assaults on key targets.

The plan involved three main objectives:

1.   Block the entrance to Zeebrugge harbor using obsolete ships, effectively creating a barrier to prevent German submarines from leaving port.

2.   Launch a diversionary attack on the nearby port of Ostend to draw enemy forces away from Zeebrugge.

3.   Land Royal Marines and Navy assault parties to destroy key infrastructure within the ports, including the Mole, lock gates, and shore batteries.

Keyes assembled a team of naval officers and engineers to meticulously plan every aspect of the operation. They studied tidal patterns, navigational challenges, and enemy defenses to ensure the success of the mission. The element of surprise was deemed critical, and every effort was made to maintain operational security and deceive the enemy about the true nature of the impending assault.

Courage among chaos

On the night of April 22, 1918, under the cover of darkness, the British forces set sail for Zeebrugge and Ostend. A flotilla of warships, accompanied by a decoy force, approached Ostend, engaging German coastal batteries and drawing enemy fire away from Zeebrugge. Meanwhile, the main assault force, led by HMS Vindictive under the command of Captain Alfred Carpenter RN, and two Mersey ferries, Daffodil and Iris II that the navy had requisitioned due to their shallow draught and were planned to carry demolition parties.

These were furthered supported by HMS Thetis, HMS Intrepid and HMS Iphigenia, the redundant ships that were full of concrete and were to be scuttled in the narrow part of the channel. Additionally, C1 and C3 two old submarines were under tow and were packed with explosives to ram the Mole viaduct.

As they approached their objective, the British encountered fierce resistance from German coastal defenses. Searchlights illuminated the night sky and sea as enemy artillery and machine guns unleashed a hail of fire upon the advancing ships. Despite the intensity of the bombardment, the Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines pressed on with steely determination. At Zeebrugge, the most perilous phase of the operation commenced as the assault parties prepared to storm the heavily fortified Mole.

Royal Marines and sailors, armed with rifles, grenades, and other hand-to-hand weapons, braved a barrage of enemy fire as they scrambled ashore. The fighting was brutal and chaotic, with British forces engaged in fierce close-quarters combat against determined German defenders.

The heroism of HMS Vindictive, sacrifice and valor

Amidst the chaos of the assault, HMS Vindictive, its crew and landing parties emerged as a symbol of courage and sacrifice. Commanded by Captain Alfred Carpenter, the ship played a pivotal role in the operation, tasked with landing assault parties directly onto the Mole at Zeebrugge. However, as Vindictive approached the Mole, it came under heavy fire from German coastal batteries and machine guns. Undeterred by the onslaught, Captain Carpenter maneuvered Vindictive into position, bringing her alongside the Mole under a withering barrage of enemy fire. Despite sustaining heavy casualties and significant damage to the ship, the Royal Marines and sailors aboard Vindictive courageously leaped onto the Mole, engaging the enemy in fierce hand-to-hand combat.

The bravery displayed by the crew of HMS Vindictive and the shore party was nothing short of extraordinary. Amidst the chaos and carnage of battle, they fought with unwavering resolve, determined to accomplish their mission at any cost. Despite sustaining heavy losses, they succeeded in securing a foothold on the mole, paving the way for subsequent assault waves to advance and destroy key enemy positions.

The block ships, a desperate gamble

Simultaneously with the assault on the mole, a daring operation was underway to block the entrance to Zeebrugge harbor using the obsolete ships laden with explosives. Dubbed "Operation Vindictive," the plan involved scuttling three vessels, HMS Thetis, HMS Intrepid, and HMS Iphigenia, in the narrow part of the channel leading to the harbor mouth. The task was fraught with peril, as the ships had to navigate through a maze of enemy defenses while under heavy fire from German coastal batteries. Despite the immense risks involved, the crews of the block ships pressed forward with unwavering determination, fully aware of the sacrifice that lay ahead.

As the ships approached the harbor entrance, they came under concentrated fire from German artillery and machine guns. The block ships HMS Thetis, HMS Intrepid and HMS Iphigenia maneuvered towards their respective target areas. However, HMS Thetis collided with a submerged wire net, which disabled both engines, thus unable to achieve its goal of ramming the lock gates at the end of the channel. However, the crew did manage to position it in a dredged part of the outer channel and scuttled the ship.

The other two ships were maneuvered into the narrow part of the channel and successfully scuttled effectively blocking access to the harbor. The crews of the block ships displayed remarkable courage and resolve in the face of overwhelming odds. Their selfless actions helped to achieve a key objective of the operation, further complicating German efforts to maintain control of the port.

Whereas, submarines C1 commanded by Lieutenant A. C. Newbold RN and C3, commanded by Lieutenant Richard Sandford RN, were manned by volunteer crews with one other officer and four naval ratings. These submarines had five tons of amatol packed into their bows and were to be driven into the viaduct and detonated to prevent reinforcement of the German garrison on the Mole.

Unfortunately during the passage from Dover, C1 parted with its tow and arrived too late to take part in the operation. However, Lieutenant Richard Sandford, RN on arriving at Zeebrugge decided to steer C3 into the viaduct manually instead of abandoning the vessel and depending on the automatic steering system. The viaduct was destroyed when the demolition charge exploded.

The aftermath and assessing the impact

The Zeebrugge Raid, while not achieving its primary objective of permanently blocking the ports of Zeebrugge, nevertheless had a significant impact on the course of the war. The audacity and bravery displayed by British sailors and Royal Marines boosted morale on the home front and dealt a psychological blow to the German Navy.

Although the ports remained operational, the damage inflicted by the raid disrupted German naval operations and forced them to expend considerable resources on repairs and reinforcement of coastal defenses. Furthermore, the blocking of the Zeebrugge harbor entrance for a limited time impeded the free movement of German U-boats, providing a temporary respite to the merchant fleet.

Victoria Crosses awarded for the Zeebrugge raid

The Zeebrugge raid saw so many acts of unwavering bravery and courage that 8 Victoria Crosses were awarded.

Under Rule 13 of the Victoria Cross warrant, a ballot was stipulated to select some of the recipients, the reason for this was simply because the acts of valor observed were so numerous and spread across all participants of the operation that it was impossible to award everyone such a high award.

Lieutenant Commander Arthur Harrison - Royal Navy ( posthumous )

Able Seaman Albert McKenzie - Royal Navy ( elected by ballot )

Captain Alfred Carpenter - Royal Navy ( Command HMS Vindictive ) ( elected by ballot )

Lieutenant Commander George Bradford - Royal Navy ( posthumous )

Lieutenant Percy Dean - Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve

Lieutenant Richard Sandford - Royal Navy ( Command HM Submarine C-3 )

Captain Edward Bamford - Royal Marine Light Infantry ( elected by ballot )

Sergeant Norman Finch - Royal Marine Artillery ( elected by ballot )

This was the last time that Victoria Crosses were awarded by ballot, although the rule remained within the Victoria Cross warrant.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Propaganda and Censorship in Britain During World War 2

Propaganda and censorship have long been a tool used during war - and particularly with the advent of the printing press and electronic means of communication. Here, Amy Chandler looks at their role during World War Two in Britain.

A British World War II propaganda poster related to the 1940 Battle of Britain.

The way that society today consumes news and information is ever changing with the influx of social media and less direct channels of information through podcasts and a plethora of broadcasters all vying for attention in a saturated market. Many of these information sources have different validation processes or have multiple eyes on ensuring that information is correct and up-to-date. Recently, there have been cases of advanced technology like artificial intelligence (AI) manipulating images, videos and voices that spreads false information. The war against misinformation is rife, but during the Second World War (WW2) Britain was fighting not just Germany and its allies, but the war on keeping secrets from enemy hands. The rules of censorship were strict and the process to approve news reports was lengthy under the principle of ‘self enforcement’. This policy issued newspapers with topic guidelines that adhered to censorship and reporters submitted stories for review. (1) These stories went under rigorous review and redacted under the official policy, for example redacting weather reports, location of military manoeuvres and any other information that could be used to infiltrate British operations. Only approved reports would be stamped with an official stamp with changes marked in blue pencil and stories that were deemed unacceptable and not ‘Passed for censorship’ were liable for prosecution. In some instances the Ministry of Information (MOI) applied retrospective censorship to news outlets, for example the arrival of British Expeditionary Force in France, 1939, which caused crisis in Government and disgruntlement with the Press. (1) This article will explore how the British Government used wartime propaganda to boost morale and how important censorship was in ensuring military victory.

Ministry of Information

In the face of war across Europe, the British Government passed the Emergency Powers (Defence) Act (1939) that granted the Government power to take any necessary actions in wartime, which extended to controlling many areas of society, such as rationing and blackouts. (2) These defence regulations superseded the usual channels and processes that controlled law making and existing rules. The outbreak of war changed the way society ran and in turn created a higher level of extended control to achieve order. Britain is generally presented as a liberal country with freedom of speech a necessity in society. However when in the throws of war the need to control what information was broadcasted was not easy. During wartime the MOI was a “servant of all Government Departments” where the majority of all departments needed to “use publicity campaigns to tell the public what they would like them to do and why.” (3) During wartime, these campaigns were integral to Britain’s survival and operations. In a Parliamentary debate in 1944, raised the issue of what to do when too many departments wanted to publicise a message or campaign and how to ensure the public were not overwhelmed by mixed messages. The MOI was dedicated to co-ordinating important messages to the public and prioritise the most urgent campaigns. Many members of Parliament were concerned about a “free-for-all competition” within Government vying for the “attention of the public, and for the very limited advertising space available in the Press.” (3) This concern suggested the complex workings that carried out behind the scene of wartime Government through ensuring that all of society was receiving the publicity campaigns. Publicity campaigns worked closely with the Public Relations Officers and experts in advertising with many messages relying greatly on regional offices to ensure that every region was receiving the appropriate information.

Aside from radio, film, posters and other forms of propaganda the MOI also published a large number of books and pamphlets that one Member of Parliament (MP) described as “a new technique in publishing.” (3) This new invention referred to official war books that were like no other publication that sought to present in print and in picture a “conspectus of the many sides of Britain’s war achievements.” (3) These books had great success nationally with homes sales of 23,000,000 copies and similar success in USA with the book, Combined Operations selling 350,000 copies in one year and translated in 12 languages. (3) Despite the success of these publications, the process to producing such material was lengthy, vast and complex with multiple departments working in collaboration to write, proofread, check and re-examine. The MOI also self-published many books but decided to publish twice as many books with private publishers to keep up with the amount of information being produced. Not all attempts were successful and early attempts at distributing propaganda and information were forced with pamphlets tucked inside books and on one occasion the MOI underwent a copyright dispute.

The MOI also employed other forms of media outlets such as film to circulate their public notices and propaganda. In 1943, the Ministry’s film division produced 160 films in English. However many members of the public titled these films “dreary” documentaries. Even in the midst of war, the MOI were already planning and preparing films to circulate across liberated Europe. These films were ready to be sent and shown to each country as they were liberated that displayed the role Britain played in the war since “Goebbels’ blanket of darkness spread over their heads.” (3) In conjunction with films displaying Britain’s pivotal role, the MOI also intended to circulate a number of British made entertainment and feature films. For example in 1944, France received a batch of French films from Britain, as well as several films translated into 15 languages that by 1944 were awaiting distribution. The British Government’s relationship with the film industry was in a mutual beneficial partnership where the MOI commissioned several feature length films in return to help the production of 38 commercial films. (3) It appears in many of these cases that Britain was more occupied with how they looked and their reputation to Europe to ensure its efforts were not forgotten after 1945. In many ways, this was also a way for Britain to assert dominance and reclaim a political standing in Europe after a period of political and economic crisis, fragmented and re-drawn borders and alliances on an international stage.

Keeping up the war effort

While Europe was at war, the bleak reality of life was unavoidable therefore propaganda was designed to maintain morale and influence opinions abroad. At home propaganda was aimed to encourage public responsibility and a feeling of directly contributing to Britain’s fight, focusing on rationing, blackouts, secrecy and recruiting women into the workforce. One poster in particular commissioned by the National Savings Committee in 1943 titled Squander Bug aimed at discouraging wasteful or personal spending. (4) The poster depicted a series of scenes where a woman went shopping and the squander bug encouraged her to buy products that were too expensive or unnecessary, all while the bug took pleasure in the detriment the overspending had on the war effort. The poster was aimed at women and encouraged the public to either save or invest money into the war effort. The artist of the poster, Phillip Boydell, created a bug covered with swatstikas, the Nazi German symbol, to associate wasteful spending and ‘squandering’ money to helping the enemy rather than Britain. The poster’s slogan reads ‘Don’t take the squander bug when you go shopping.’ (4) This is another way that Britain found a way to visualise Nazi Germany to the British public instead of fighting an invisible enemy. The squander bug symbolised the enemy on a smaller scale, potentially suggesting that the enemy was inside the walls waiting to take advantage.

Another poster issued titled, Dig for Victory (1939 - 1945) emphasised the importance of home grown fruit and vegetables to aid production of food all year round, while rationing was introduced in January 1940. This poster was brightly coloured and depicted a trug abundant with a range of fresh vegetables and fruits, such as carrots, cabbage, courgettes, onions, peas and tomatoes. By the outbreak of war, 70% of food was imported from abroad that relied on key shipping routes that could easily become attacked or blocked. (4) Interestingly, fruit and vegetables were never rationed despite the short supply network, while sugar, meat, fats and diary products were under rationing. By 1943, over a million of fruit and vegetables were grown across Britain. The poster was successful in encouraging the public to take control of food production, however it may have also been partly to the scarcity of products and long ration queues that worked as a deciding factor in why many grew their own vegetables.

Women were not the only ones targeted by propaganda, men were also targeted by an anti-gossip notice designed by Harold Foster called ‘Keep mum she’s not so dumb’ (1941). (4) This particular campaign by the MOI alerted the public to the threat of enemy spies and the danger of gossiping within social settings. In this poster, a woman in an evening dress surrounded by men in military uniform gossiping and drinking suggested that anyone could be listening even if they appeared inconsequential. Many of these posters worked on stereotypes and gender roles to promote their propaganda. It was a form of control that did not necessarily stifle freedom of speech, but was a constant reminder that relied on feelings of accountability. Other posters included salvaging and mending clothes, recruiting women to munitions factories and emphasising Britain’s allies with political undertones.

Despite the MOI’s intention to use propaganda to boost morale and ensure the public adhered to playing their part within the war effort, there were several cases of increase in crime such as breeches in the blackouts and bending the rules. During the Blitz (1940-1941) where Nazi Germany’s Luftwaffe bombed the East End of London and other major cities across Britain provided new opportunities for looting. Historians acknowledged that the Blitz created a determination to maintain the war effort through ‘Blitz Spirit’. But in a period of upheaval and turmoil, it is difficult to ascertain whether many carried on because they had no choice. On one occasion looters used a bombing raid as an opportunity to raid a house in Dover and when the resident returned they discovered their home had been stripped even down to the carpets and pipes. While this case suggested uncontained thievery, it also paints a picture of desperation when items were heavily sought after and rationed. By 1940, 4,584 looting cases were prosecuted in the Central Criminal Court (Old Bailey) in London, while others used bombings as cover-up for murder. The rational thought seemed not to exist for some looters and on one occasion a women stole a pair of shoes from a shop window because “if those shoes were just left there, somebody will steal them”. (5)

Another report questioned the motive as to why someone would steal a sink in the Yorkshire Evening Post. Wartime propaganda may have depicted a community that worked together to keep up the war effort, but it hid the darker aspects of society that flourished under such chaos. (5)

Radio Hamburg & German Propaganda

British broadcasters and reporters weren’t the only ones that the MOI had to worry about, one in particular was William Joyce also known as Lord Haw Haw, who rose to popularity as a personality broadcasting German propaganda to British audiences. His radio broadcasts recorded 50% of the British public through Radio Hamburg. Joyce was a firm supporter of the Nazis and travelled to Germany in August 1939 with a British passport, which he lied to obtain claiming he was a British citizen when he was in fact Irish. When in Germany he collaborated with the German Propaganda Ministry with regular radio broadcasts in September 1939. He commonly issued threats and misinformation towards Britain in a bid to undermine morale. It is interesting that while the MOI tried their best to censor and streamline exactly the information and propaganda that the British public consumed, many still listened to Joyce’s broadcasts. (6)

Some historians have suggested that this deliberate decision by Britain ensured that they didn’t ruin their reputation as a trusted news source by lashing out at enemy stations. The BBC was advised to continue to report truthfully and accurately but to withhold any information that would cause distress, for example omitting the number of casualties while still reporting incidents. However, the question should be asked was the BBC lulling the British public into a false sense of security instead of reporting the stark realities abroad? If Britain banned such a broadcast, many would have found other ways to listen. The only solution was for the BBC to direct attention back to its broadcasts in the form of entertaining content rather than dreary reports. But the question has to be asked, why did so many members of the British public tune into listen in the early years of the war? Joyce didn’t just spread propaganda but also attempted to undermine key political figures such as Prime Minister, Winston Churchill. The British public craved in many ways entertainment as an escape from the dreary news and uncertainty. When asked about why they listened, some British listeners found the broadcasts entertaining and wondered if what Joyce was reporting had a slither of truth. Eventually, Joyce was captured and trialled when Germany surrendered in 1945.

One example of detrimental censorship was the Hallsville School bombing in Canning Town, East End, where it was reported only 77 civilians were killed despite eye witnesses claiming it was closer to the 600 mark. (7) The British Government denied the claim due to not having sufficient evidence to report such high numbers. It was seen as detrimental for the Government to report such a devastating incident in case it deteriorated mass morale. Furthermore, a media blackout was issued to the Press to avoid publishing specific details on the location, photographs and casualties. This case emphasised a fine line between honesty and censorship that could have easily forced the public to lose trust in the British Government for denying something so blatantly obvious with eyewitnesses. (7)

Conclusion

In conclusion, the British Government’s desire to censor reports and withhold vital information and use propaganda was successful on the surface but allowed darker and more sinister events to transpire at home, like crime. The British Government also took the opportunity of continuing their legacy and reputation throughout liberated Europe through films to secure they place in politics. It is also worth noting that this is no different to how other countries employed political propaganda to ensure their success. While censorship and propaganda have many benefits to boosting morale, it also had negative consequences that alienated the public when lived events were reported incorrectly or denied outright. The war changed the way media and radio operated and pushed boundaries between dreary information and entertainment as well as democratic principles. It is also significant that the BBC still censor what they broadcast, for example the FIFA World Cup in Qatar in 2022 saw the BBC boycott the opening ceremony on main shown programming without explanation although it was widely reported and implied that it didn’t align with their editorial values. Censorship still occurs but through subtle ways that are not often recognised.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

References

(1)   H. Irving, ‘Chaos and Censorship in the Second World War’, 2014, Gov.UK < https://history.blog.gov.uk/2014/09/12/chaos-and-censorship/ >[accessed 23 May 2024].

(2)   UK Parliament, ‘Emergency Powers (Defence) Act 1939’, 2024, UK Parliament < https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/private-lives/yourcountry/collections/collections-second-world-war/second-world-war-legislation/emergency-powers-defence-act-c20-1940-/   >[accessed 22 May 2024].

(3)   HC Deb, 29 June 1944, vol 401, cols 822 – 825.

(4)   The National Archives, ‘Second World War Propaganda Posters’, 2024, BETA The National Archives < https://beta.nationalarchives.gov.uk/explore-the-collection/explore-by-time-period/second-world-war/second-world-war-propaganda-posters/#:~:text=During%20the%20Second%20World%20War,production%2C%20salvage%20and%20military%20recruitment>[accessed 24 May 2024].

(5)   BNA, ‘Crime and the Blitz’, 2015, The British Newspaper Archives < https://blog.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/2015/07/17/crime-and-the-blitz/ >[accessed 24 May 2024].

(6)   IMW, ‘The Rise and Fall of Lord Haw Haw During the Second World War’,  2024, IWM <

https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/the-rise-and-fall-of-lord-haw-haw-during-the-second-world-war >[accessed 28 May 2024].

(7)   M. Oakley, ‘Second World War Bombing Raid South Hallsville School’, 2023, East London History < https://www.eastlondonhistory.co.uk/second-world-war-bombing-raid-south-hallsville-school/ >[accessed 29 May 2024].

A Daring 1942 Raid by Britain Against Nazi Germany: Operation Biting

Operation Biting, also known as the Bruneval Raid, was undertaken by Britain against Nazi Germany in February 1942. It involved a daring raid on a radar station on Nazi-occupied northern France. Terry Bailey explains.

A photo of the the radar near Bruneval, France in December 1941.

As the Nazi forces of fascist Germany ravaged Europe, Britain and the commonwealth stood alone upholding the ideas of freedom, until the USA entered the war on December 7, 1941, against Japanese imperialism and European fascist brutality, after the infamous attack on Pearl Harbor.

Britain then curtailed Hitler's plans to invade Britain (Operation Sea Lion), by defeating the German air force (Luftwaffe) over the skies of Britain in what has become known as the Battle of Britain.

Great Britain and the Commonwealth continued the fight against Nazi terror, across a broad front in large and small-scale actions. Some were to protect oil supplies and reserves like the North African campaign, while other military ventures were purely to offer resistance against the Nazi threat while Great Britain continued to rearm after the lack of military spending between the two great wars.

Winston Churchill, Britain's prime minister, was always adventurous and a risk taker promoting bold action, whereas, the higher echelons of the military believed large-scale well-planned campaigns were the only way to defeat the Nazi threat.

However, Winston Churchill, understood that it was impossible to stand by as Nazi Germany terrorized Europe while Britain took time to rearm. With this in mind he ordered the instigation of the Special Operations Executive (SOE), with orders to set Europe ablaze, the Commando forces, the fledgling Airborne units and the combined operations organization, which was tasked with coordinating specialist tasks and raids against occupied Europe.

Combined operations coordinated missions by gathering the appropriate force required from the Royal Navy, Royal Marines, Army, Airforce, the Airborne units, in addition to the Commando forces. Note:- From 1942 onwards Royal Marines progressively trained as commandos and are Great Britain's elite commando force to this day.

These small-scale raids caused the German occupation forces disproportionate disruption and vast logistical headaches, that eventually prompted Adolf Hitler to issue his infamous Commando order, due to the success of this form of warfare. See notes at the bottom.

Behind all the tumultuous events of the war from large-scale action to small-scale raids, the first electronic warfare race was underway between Great Britain and Germany, who had competed for nearly a decade at this point to develop and improve radar. This technology had already aided the Royal Air Force in the defeat of the German Luftwaffe, in the Battle of Britain, developed from the early work carried out by Robert Watson-Watt.

However, the Germans had also developed an extensive radar network along the French coast, providing them with early warnings of Allied air raids. One such radar installation was located near the small village of Bruneval, on the Normandy coast. Intelligence reports suggested that this site housed a Freya and Würzburg radar array, a sophisticated system that the Allies still did not fully understand.

R. V. Jones, a British scientist tasked with researching how advanced German radar was in comparison to Britain's system, was not only able to convince doubters that the Germans had radar but had two types of radar. This radar system consisted of the Freya array and a second part of the Freya set-up, referred to in Enigma decrypts as Würzburg.

Freya was a long-range early-warning radar system but lacked precision; whereas, Würzburg had a much shorter range but was far more precise. So that Jones and his team could develop countermeasures for the Wurzburg system they needed to study one of the systems or at least the more vital pieces of technology of the system.

The British War Office recognized the critical importance of acquiring detailed information about the Würzburg radar. If the Allies could capture and study this technology, it would significantly enhance their countermeasures against the Luftwaffe. Thus, the idea of a commando raid to seize the radar components and gather intelligence was conceived. The responsibility for planning and executing this daring mission fell to the newly formed Combined Operations Headquarters, under the command of Vice-Admiral Louis Mountbatten (Commodore at that time).

It is against this backdrop of indirectly linked events that Operation Biting (the Bruneval Raid) was proposed in 1941, as the German air defenses started to become more effective against the Allied bombing campaign waged on Germany, due to their radar capability.

Planning the Raid

Operation Biting was meticulously planned, with careful consideration given to every detail. The operation required a combination of precise military action, technical expertise, and logistical coordination, in addition to, intelligence.

This intelligence not only came from enigma decryptions but human intelligence, in the form of the French resistance coordinated through the Free French forces located in London, England, sponsored by both British SIS and SOE. Human intelligence was gathered by Gilbert Renault, known to the British by the code-name 'Rémy', by several members of his resistance network.

Major John Durnford-Slater (Breveted Lieutenant Colonel), an experienced and resourceful officer, was chosen to lead the raid. Durnford-Slater was the commanding officer of No. 3 Commando, an elite unit specially trained for such operations.

Although designated No. 3 Commando, No.1 and No. 2 did not exist at the time of raising the Commando unit the intention was to raise these as airborne units and as such Durnford-Slater's unit was the first commando unit raised during the Second World War, therefore, Durnford-Slater is considered to be the first British commando of the war.

However, due to the extensive coastal defenses erected by the Germans to protect the installation from a seaborne raid, the British believed that a commando raid from the sea would suffer heavy losses while giving the German defenders sufficient time to destroy the installation.

Therefore, the planner decided on a night-time airborne assault, a method chosen for its element of surprise and the ability to insert troops directly into the vicinity of the target. This type of mission was well suited for glider-borne assault; however, the glider force was even more embryonic than the parachutists.

Needless to say, the final choice of assault troops was parachute insertion to be led by Major John Frost OC, of C Company, 2nd Battalion (2 Para), 1st Parachute Brigade, tasked with carrying out the airborne phase of the operation. Frost, who would later gain fame for his role in the Battle of Arnhem, was a seasoned and respected officer with a reputation for bravery and tactical acumen.

The Execution of the Raid

On the night of February 27-28, 1942, the operation commenced, as a fleet of Armstrong Whitworth Whitley bombers, modified for paratroop deployment, took off from RAF Thruxton, carrying the raiding party. The aircraft flew across the English Channel under the cover of darkness, navigating carefully to avoid detection by German radar.

As the planes approached Bruneval, the paratroopers prepared for the jump. The landing zone was a field near the radar site, carefully selected for its proximity and relative isolation. Despite challenging weather conditions and the inherent risks of a night jump, the paratroopers landed with remarkable precision. They quickly regrouped and moved towards their objective.

The raiding party encountered immediate resistance from German troops stationed at the radar site. A fierce firefight ensued, but the airborne troops utilizing their training, aggressive fighting spirit and superior tactics, managed to overcome the defenders. During the engagement, the paratroopers captured several German personnel, including a radar technician who would later provide valuable intelligence.

Capturing the Radar

With the site secured, the technical team, led by Flight Sergeant Charles Cox, set to work dismantling the Würzburg radar. This was a delicate and complex task, requiring both technical skill and speed. Cox and his team managed to extract the most crucial components, including the radar dish and its associated equipment, all while under the threat of counterattacks and the ticking clock.

As dawn approached, the raiding party signaled for the extraction phase. Landing craft and Royal Navy Motor Gun Boats (MGBs) plus Motor Launches (MLs), under the command of Commander F. N. Cook of the Royal Australian Navy, were positioned offshore to evacuate the raiders. The airborne raiders made their way to the extraction point on the beach, carrying the valuable radar components and escorting their prisoners.

The evacuation was fraught with danger, as German reinforcements were rapidly approaching, landing craft hit the beach with the covering troops opening fire on the German soldiers gathering at the top of the cliff, while the radar equipment, German prisoners and all but six of the raiding force were embarked and transferred to motor gunboats.

The raiding force then withdrew under the cover of naval gunfire. By the time the Germans reached the beach, the raiders were already en route back to England, escorted by a Royal Naval destroyer and Royal Air Force Spitfires.

The Aftermath and Impact

Operation Biting was hailed as a resounding success. The captured radar components and the intelligence gleaned from the raid provided the Allies with crucial insights into German radar technology. This knowledge enabled the development of effective countermeasures, helping diminish the effectiveness of the German radar network.

The raid also had a profound psychological impact, demonstrating the capability and determination of Allied elite Special Forces, boosting morale and showcasing the potential of combined operations. For the Germans, it was a stark reminder of the Allies' ability to strike with precision and impunity, even in seemingly secure locations. Additionally, this operation helped secure the validity of airborne forces for specialist raids.

In conclusion, Operation Biting stands as a showcase for the courage, ingenuity, and determination of the Allied forces during the Second World War. The successful execution of the Bruneval Raid not only provided vital intelligence but also demonstrated the effectiveness of combined arms operations and elite Special Forces. The legacy of the raid and its commanders continues to inspire military strategists and historians, highlighting the enduring importance of adaptability and innovation in warfare.

The success of the raid prompted the War Office to expand the existing British airborne forces, setting up the Airborne Forces Depot and Battle School in Derbyshire in April 1942, and creating the Parachute Regiment, in addition to, converting several infantry battalions into airborne battalions in August 1942.

The Bruneval Raid remains a shining example of what can be achieved when meticulous planning, exceptional leadership, and unwavering bravery converge on the same goal. Thereby, serving as a reminder of the sacrifices made by those who undertook such perilous missions, and the profound impact these operations had on the course of history.

Find that piece of interest? If so, join us for free by clicking here.

Note:

SOE operated independently until the successful Royal Marine raid on the port of Bordeaux, known as Operation Frankton, between the 7th to the 12th of December 1942. Due to both combined operations utilizing the Royal Marines and SOE mounting duplicate missions on the same target independently. a clearing house for special operations was set up, to prevent further duplication of mission. A policy that is now standard practice for all NATO member countries today.

Even though the mission was highly successful, some Royal Marines were executed by the Germans under the commando order. Yet the Germans said Operation Frankton was the most courageous raid of all time.

Decorations and awards

19 decorations were awarded including a Military Cross (MC) for Major John Frost, Distinguished Service Cross (DSC), Commander F. N. Cook, and Military Medal, (MM) for Flight Sergeant Cox.

2 additional Distinguished Service Crosses, DSCs

2 further Distinguished Service Medals, (DSM)

Another Military Cross, (MC)

2 further Military Medals, (MMs)

9 Mentions in Dispatches (MiD)

In addition to these awards, a bar to the Distinguished Service Order (DSO), for Wing Commander Percy Charles Pickard, of No. 51 Squadron Royal Air Force provided the aircraft and aircrew needed for the operation.

The Commanders and Their Legacies

Major John Frost, who led C Company, 2nd Battalion (2 Para), the 1st Parachute Brigade during the raid, continued to distinguish himself throughout the war. He played a pivotal role in the Battle of Arnhem during Operation Market Garden in 1944, where his leadership and tenacity earned him widespread admiration. Despite being captured and enduring the hardships of a prisoner of war, Frost's legacy as a courageous and skilled leader remained intact.

After the war, he continued to serve in the British Army, eventually retiring as a major general. His memoirs, "A Drop Too Many," provide a detailed account of his wartime experiences and the Bruneval Raid.

Major John Durnford-Slater, the commander of No. 3 Commando, also had a distinguished military career. He led his unit in several other successful operations, including the St. Nazaire Raid, known as the greatest raid of all time.

Durnford-Slater's leadership and innovative tactics helped shape the future of British Special Forces, along with several other figures. After the war, he retired from the military and wrote "Commando: Memoirs of a Fighting Commando in World War II," which remains a seminal work on commando operations.

Once the war was war over, he reverted to the rank of Captain, before being promoted to Major in January 1946, retiring a month later with the honorary rank of Brigadier. He maintained his contact with the military, however, and in 1947 went on to the Reserve list, until 1964 when he reached mandatory retirement age.

The German commando order

The order itself stated:

1.   For a long time now our opponents have been employing in their conduct of the war, methods which contravene the International Convention of Geneva. The members of the so-called Commandos behave in a particularly brutal and underhanded manner, and it has been established that those units recruit criminals not only from their own country but even former convicts set free in enemy territories. From captured orders, it emerges that they are instructed not only to tie up prisoners, but also to kill out-of-hand unarmed captives who they think might prove an encumbrance to them, or hinder them in successfully carrying out their aims. Orders have indeed been found in which the killing of prisoners has positively been demanded of them.

2.   In this connection, it has already been notified in an Appendix to Army Orders of 7.10.1942. that in future, Germany will adopt the same methods against these Sabotage units of the British and their Allies; i.e. that, whenever they appear, they shall be ruthlessly destroyed by the German troops.

3.   I order, therefore:— From now on all men operating against German troops in so-called Commando raids in Europe or in Africa, are to be annihilated to the last man. This is to be carried out whether they be soldiers in uniform, or saboteurs, with or without arms; and whether fighting or seeking to escape; and it is equally immaterial whether they come into action from Ships and Aircraft, or whether they land by parachute. Even if these individuals on discovery make obvious their intention of giving themselves up as prisoners, no pardon is on any account to be given. On this matter, a report is to be made on each case to Headquarters for the information of Higher Command.

Should individual members of these Commandos, such as agents, saboteurs etc., fall into the hands of the Armed Forces through any means – as, for example, through the Police in one of the Occupied Territories – they are to be instantly handed over to the SD, to bold them in military custody – for example in P.O.W. Camps, etc., – even if only as a temporary measure, is strictly forbidden.

1.   This order does not apply to the treatment of those enemy soldiers who are taken prisoner or give themselves up in open battle, in the course of normal operations, large-scale attacks; or in major assault landings or airborne operations. Neither does it apply to those who fall into our hands after a sea-fight, nor to those enemy soldiers who, after air battle, seek to save their lives by parachute.

2.   I will hold all Commanders and Officers responsible under Military Law for any omission to carry out this order, whether by failure in their duty to instruct their units accordingly or if they themselves act contrary to it.