Cloak of Enemies E-Book

Tom Keene

• Herausgeber: The History Press
• Kategorie: Geisteswissenschaft
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 608

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

The Special Operations Executive (SOE), also known as 'Churchill's Secret Army' or the 'Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare', was born from Churchill's vision 'to set Europe ablaze'. It was formed to conduct espionage and sabotage in enemy-occupied territory as well as aid local resistance groups in their own irregular warfare. After D-Day, it played a crucial role in the liberation of Europe. However, Tom Keene's book reveals for the first time how close it came to never existing at all. Many saw SOE as a threat to the existence of MI5 and other intelligence agencies, and some in the armed forces refused to work with the new agency, fearing its broad remit and lack of experienced operatives... SOE, in turn, became ever more secretive, hiding detail's of their operations from anyone outside the agency. This backstabbing climate of rivalry, confusion and secrecy within the higher echelons of government not only nearly destroyed SOE, but also had tragic repercussions for the daring Commandos who took part in the legendary 'Cockleshell Raid'. Cloak of Enemies exposes the secret war in the shadows and backrooms of Whitehall during the Second World War and its far-reaching consequences.

Leseprobe

Cloak of Enemies is dedicated, with my love, to my wife Marguerite and to my daughters Emily, Anna and Isabelle.

It is also dedicated to the imperishable memory of those Royal Marines whose names appear below:

Major ‘Blondie’ Hasler

Marine Bill Sparks

Lieutenant Jack MacKinnon

Marine James Conway

Sergeant Sam Wallace

Marine Bobby Ewart

Corporal Bert Laver

Marine Bill Mills

Corporal George Sheard

Marine David Moffatt

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

My thanks are due to my friend David Balment, who lit the fuse; to Simon Willis who had the courage to back an early idea and to Dr Mike Barry who supported it; to Dr Harry Bennett and Professor Kevin Jefferys at the University of Plymouth; to the late Peter Siddall, nephew of ‘Cockleshell Hero’ Royal Marines Corporal George Sheard and to Dr Peter Kersey and Mike Leek. In addition, I wish to place on record my gratitude to earlier historians, all of whom have been unfailingly generous with their advice, time and support, and upon whose works I have come to lean heavily: to that doyen of SOE historians, the late Professor Michael Foot, former wartime SAS Brigade intelligence officer, and Professor David Stafford whose efforts others struggle to emulate; to Mark Seaman, Lynne Olson, Gill Bennett, Neville Wylie, Roderick Bailey, Robert Lyman, Nigel West and Stuart Allan. The staff at the following prestigious institutions have also been unfailingly professional, patient and helpful: The National Archives, Kew; the Imperial War Museum, Lambeth and Duxford; the Bodleian Library, Oxford; the Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge; the London School of Economics and Political Science, Holborn; the Liddell Hart Centre for Military Archives at King’s College, London; and the Broadlands Archive, Hartley Library, University of Southampton. I owe a particular debt of gratitude to Mark Bentinck, Royal Marines historian in the Naval Historical Branch, to David Harrison, Dr Ian Herrington, Jonathan Wyatt, the singer Jane Birkin (daughter of David Birkin DSC), Ursula Townsend (wife of Richard Townsend DSC) and to François Boisnier MBE whose tireless efforts in France over many years have led to the creation of ‘The Frankton Trail’. I am also particularly grateful to Lord Paddy Ashdown, inspirational former leader of Britain’s Liberal Democrat Party and member of Britain’s elite SBS, to whom I have been privileged to offer advice on his own book about brave men and murky waters near Bordeaux seventy years ago.

CONTENTS

Title

Dedication

Acknowledgements

List of Abbreviations

Foreword by Lord Paddy Ashdown GCMG KBE PC

Prelude

One

Twilight Thinking: The Road to 1940

Two

Moving Pyramids with a Pin

Three

Blitzkrieg: Cometh the Hour ...

Four

Fingers in the Pie

Five

No Textbooks for Newcomers

Six

A Cocktail of Enemies

Seven

Territory without Maps

Eight

More Cocktails

Nine

Fierce Young Animals

Ten

A Sea of Troubles

Eleven

Combined Operations: To the Enemy Shore

Twelve

Firebrand Admiral

Thirteen

Cloaks and Rubber Daggers

Fourteen

Hungry Mouths

Fifteen

Apocalypse as Family Picnic

Sixteen

Poison for the Doctor

Seventeen

Building Bridges

Eighteen

One-way Streets

Nineteen

Left Hand

Twenty

Listening Ears and Silent Mouths

Twenty-one

Frankton Prelude

Twenty-two

Operation Frankton

Twenty-three

Brave Men and Dark Waters

Conclusion

Bibliography

Plates

Adverts

Copyright

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

ACNS(H)

Assistant Chief of the Naval Staff (H)

BCRA(M)

Bureau Central de Renseignement et d’Action (Militaire)

BEF

British Expeditionary Force

Bren

British magazine-fed light machine gun (.303 cal.)

BPB

Boom patrol boat

CAS

Chief of Air Staff

CCO

Chief of Combined Operations

CCS

Combined Chiefs of Staff

CD

Symbol for head of SOE

CEO

Chief Executive Officer

CIGS

Chief of the Imperial General Staff

Clams

Small explosive devices

CND

Confrérie de Notre-Dame

CO

Combined Operations

CODC

Combined Operations Development Centre

COHQ

Combined Operations Headquarters

COS

Chiefs of Staff

D

Section D of the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS)

DCO

Director of Combined Operations

D/CD(O)

Deputy CD (Operations)

DDOD(I)

Deputy Director Operations Division (Irregular)

DF

SOE Escape Line Section

DMI

Director of Military Intelligence

DMO

Director of Military Operations

DNI

Director of Naval Intelligence

DRC

Defence Requirements Sub-committee

DZ

Drop zone

EH

Electra House. Early precursor of the Political Warfare Executive

F

British Independent French Section, SOE

FFI

Forces Françaises de l’Intérieur

FOPS

Future Operational Planning Section

FTP(F)

Francs-Tireurs et Partisans (Français)

Gestapo

Geheime Staatspolizei

IO

Intelligence officer

ISTDC

Inter-services Training and Development Centre

ISRB

Inter-services Research Bureau (early cover name for SOE)

JIC

Joint Intelligence Committee

JPS

Joint Planning Staff

MEW

Ministry of Economic Warfare

MOI

Ministry of Information

MGB

Motor gun boat

MTB

Motor torpedo boat

MI5

Domestic UK Security Service

MI6

Synonym for SIS

MI(R)

Military Intelligence (Research)

NID(C)

Naval Intelligence Division (Clandestine)

OCM

Organisation Civile et Militaire

OT

Organisation TODT

PCO

Passport Control Office

PE

Plastic explosive

PWE

Political Warfare Executive

RV

Rendezvous

RF

Gaullist ‘Free French’ Section, SOE

RMBPD

Royal Marines Boom Patrol Detachment

RNVR

Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve

SAS

Special Air Service Regiment

SD

Sicherheitsdienst. Intelligence agency of the SS

SIGINT

Signals Intelligence

SIS

Secret Intelligence Service

SMG

Sub-machine gun

S01

Early re-naming of Electra House (EH) operations

S02

Early re-naming of Section D operations

SOE

Special Operations Executive

STEN

Magazine-fed, mass-produced light sub-machine gun (9mm cal.)

SSRF

Small Scale Raiding Force

SS

Schutzstaffel. Hitler’s personal bodyguard

STS

Special training schools

W/T

Wireless telegraphy

ZNO

Zone Non-occupée

ZO

Zone Occupée

FOREWORD

BY LORD PADDY ASHDOWN GCMG KBE PC

For any serious student of the Second World War, and especially of the role played in it by Britain’s secret and clandestine organisations, Cloak of Enemies is, quite simply, required reading.

It is difficult to read this book without feeling anger, even disgust, at the lost opportunities – and the lost lives – which were the product of the climate of secrecy, rivalry and suspicion which infected even the highest level of those engaged in Britain’s secret war.

Cloak of Enemies reveals in depth for the first time the stifling cloak of secrecy and suspicion even from other departments in Whitehall that was the true hallmark of the early days of the Special Operations Executive. It catalogues in fascinating detail the enmity which existed between the first Chairman of SOE – the driving and egotistical Hugh Dalton – and an early Director of Combined Operations, the septuagenarian hero of Zeebrugge, Admiral Sir Roger Keyes.

It reveals for the first time the true depth of willful obstruction and discord between SOE and SIS – and especially its effective chief, Claude Dansey – in relation to clandestine cross-Channel sea operations and even to the running of agents on the European mainland.

It chooses a particular operation, Operation Frankton, to illustrate the impact of this rivalry and duplication on relations between SOE and Combined Operations. In the course of this Dr Keene reveals startling evidence that proper co-operation between the two organisations might have made that iconic raid unnecessary, or at the very least would have made it more effective and less costly in the lives of brave young men. Dr Keene’s book unveils for the first time that, at the very time when Combined Operations was sending ten Royal Marines to attack German blockade runners in Bordeaux harbour believing this was ‘the only way’ to hit this national strategic target, SOE had a team of six British officers based in a café 100m from the quay where the blockade runners were moored, who were equipped with explosives, enjoyed direct and regular radio communication with London, were supported by an extensive network of French agents and had their own dedicated escape network.

This work makes a major contribution to our understanding of how Whitehall’s secret organisations worked, especially in the desperate, amateurish early days of the Second World War. But it is fascinating, not just for what it reveals of the past, but also I suspect, for the lessons it provides, some of which Whitehall still needs to learn today.

Lord Paddy Ashdown GCMG KBE PC

2012

PRELUDE

The Special Operations Executive (SOE) was conceived as a desperate solution to desperate times. Cloaked in a confusion of competing origins, it did not evolve slowly from within the matrix of established British security organisations but was born abruptly on to a battlefield of national survival.

The SOE owed its existence and much of the bitter controversy that surrounded its six-year life to a series of political and strategic negatives. First among these was the British government’s determination not to repeat the static trench slaughter of the First World War. Instead, they would rely upon other methods of defeating Germany. Second, the early control of SOE was successfully lobbied for by a minister not best suited to its command: an abrasive, left-wing politician, whose heavy-handed, overbearing behaviour and empty boasts served merely to confirm the initial suspicion and hostility of those agencies whose support and co-operation would be critical to its success. A third strategic negative was the War Cabinet’s belief that the way to Allied victory lay through economic blockade, propaganda and ‘war from within’. This proved to be a flawed doctrine. It was one that evolved from wishful thinking, a misplaced faith in First World War successes and a failure to grasp strategic truths. That same British government placed early, unrealistic and unachievable expectations upon a new creation – subversion – that had been swiftly and erroneously dubbed the ‘fourth arm’ of modern warfare by its ambitious new minister. Above all, however, SOE owed its existence to expediency and to the climate of the times in which it was conceived; times in which a revolutionary and uncomfortable new concept gained reluctant leg-room because that which had been relied upon from the past had not worked.

In that hot, endless summer of 1940, Britain was fighting for survival and reeling from the realisation that many of the strategic and moral assumptions that had bolstered the last days of peace and ‘Phoney War’ had been smashed beneath the grinding tank tracks of Hitler’s May Blitzkrieg. Among these was a belief that Britain’s war would be fought primarily on the sea and in the air, that France would remain a fighting partner in the struggle to defeat Germany and that the Channel coast would remain in Allied hands. Instead, the Norwegian campaign had turned into a costly and bloody fiasco, the French Second Army had crumbled and German tanks had rolled to the Channel coast. That same month the French government asked for an armistice and the hastily formed British Expeditionary Force was evacuated home through Dunkirk to an England braced to meet invasion. It is against this background that SOE took fragile root.

Cloak of Enemies examines the political and military environment in which SOE was conceived and created, and in which it struggled to assert itself between 1940 and 1942. Its aim is to chart for the first time the collective impact of the hostility, rivalry and obstruction SOE encountered from those organisations and officials charged with its support. It will suggest that, as a direct result of such hostility, SOE developed an ethos of excessive secrecy which, together with a sense of beleaguered political encirclement, led directly to the squandering of British servicemen’s lives. It will trace those links of internal betrayal from Whitehall in 1940 to the front line of operations in enemy-occupied France in December 1942.

In scrutinising the political and military environment in which SOE was created, this book will examine the consequences that flowed from that pre-invasion climate in which hasty and urgent decisions had to be taken. It will explain why it was that SOE was wished into an existence in which the deliberate undermining of its development by many of the government agencies pledged to its support appears to have been almost inevitable. It will examine and identify the signal moments of failure and omission where a lack of strategic clarity ensured the early frustration of SOE’s development and operational effectiveness.

Many books have been written about SOE which have made reference to SOE’s troubled relationship with the Foreign Office, the Chiefs of Staff (COS), the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), the Ministry of Information (MOI) and the Admiralty. Yet all have done so within a context which has positioned those difficulties as stepping stones on the broader path of SOE’s development and questionable strategic vindication as part of the invasion of Normandy’s Order of Battle. None has devoted itself solely to the detailed evolution and tactical implications of those collective rivalries, nor to the shifting political loyalties endemic to ‘high politics’ in wartime Whitehall. Published works have not concentrated upon the cumulative effects of those disagreements, nor upon that sense of beleaguered encirclement endured by SOE as a result. Most importantly, they have not examined in depth the consequences, duplications and confusions that flowed from such a climate. Cloak of Enemies charts the evolution of those embittered relationships, the distrust and hostility that was their hallmark and the direct impact those relationships had upon operations in the field.

It will do so by examining in detail SOE’s relationship with one particular military mission, Operation Frankton. It will show how, had early warnings been heeded, a more open relationship would have made unnecessary an operation that later became famous as the ‘Cockleshell Heroes’. In this, Royal Marine canoeists paddled 70 miles up the Gironde River to place ‘limpet’ mines on Axis shipping in Bordeaux docks. Eight of the ten raiders failed to return. Operation Frankton has been chosen because SOE files, previously undiscovered, reveal the true cost of that inter-service rivalry and distrust. It has been chosen also because the attack described by one German officer as ‘the outstanding Commando raid of the war’1  has attracted an iconic status which has led to the promulgation of myths, obscuring the truth regarding both Operation Frankton’s planning and its achievements. These too will be examined and, where necessary, corrected.

Notes

1 Lucas Phillips, C.E., Cockleshell Heroes (Heinemann, London, 1956), p.4.

CHAPTER ONE

TWILIGHT THINKING: THE ROAD TO 1940

The concept that lay at the mainspring of the Special Operations Executive – subversion, ‘war from within’ – was light years removed from the cosy, Anglo-centric world of politics, appeasement and positive disarmament that occupied Westminster a few short years before the outbreak of the Second World War. Winston Churchill, the premier who was to galvanise Britain’s war efforts in 1940 and instruct Dr Hugh Dalton, the Minister of Economic Warfare, to ‘set Europe ablaze’, was perceived by many in the mid-1930s to be dangerous parliamentary company:‘a brilliant man, but rash, hot-headed, impulsive’,1 a shining diamond of unstable, mercurial gifts with a penchant for self-damage.

‘The strange dress, ridiculous hats, heavy drinking and pronounced speech impediment did little to encourage the Tory old guard to respect him for much more than having been proved right about the German threat’,2 records one historian, while one lord wrote on the eve of war: ‘There are, I believe, a fair number of people who think and say that in these times Winston ought to be in the government, but why? Look at his past history ... could anybody have a worse record? But we are a forgetful and forgiving people.’3 Churchill was perceived to have undermined his own brilliance by vehement opposition to Indian independence. He had also damaged a burgeoning reappraisal as the voice of national warning of the growing Nazi menace by his purblind, unswerving loyalty to his monarch over the King’s determination to marry the divorced American Wallis Simpson.

Those few MPs who had opposed their government’s policy of appeasement as Mussolini invaded Abyssinia in 1935 and Hitler ordered German troops to occupy the demilitarised Rhineland in 1936, found themselves isolated and at risk. They were in a Parliament dominated by those who supported Prime Minister Stanley Baldwin’s rosy-cheeked view of a cosy, comfortable Europe that only a small minority saw was heading for catastrophe. Baldwin, aged 68 when he came to power for the third time in 1935, attracted around him those with similar views. Men described by Canadian diplomat Charles Richie as: ‘Methodical, respectable, immovable men, with no understanding of this age – of its despair, its violence and its gropings – blinkered in solid comfort, shut off from poverty and risk.’4 It was a description that might have been written for the prime minister himself. Disinterested in foreign policy, out of touch with the nation he led, steeped in a bucolic past which no longer existed, irritated and alarmed by Churchill’s growing insistence upon air parity with a rearming Germany, Stanley Baldwin, the prime minister whose temper was ‘unrelievedly pacifist’,5 shared with his Cabinet colleagues a reluctance to be told ‘uncomfortable things’6 about the scale of German rearmament. In this, he was in many ways in tune with the nation he served. Like Chamberlain, the leader who would soon replace him, Baldwin was a highly sophisticated political animal whose powerful Commons majority and canny reading of Westminster ensured personal survival. His ‘parity’ pledge to Parliament of November 1934 that ‘the British government are determined on no condition to accept any position of inferiority with regard to what air force may be raised in Germany in the future’7 was followed by an admission six months later that he had indeed misled Parliament. Yet Baldwin’s admission was readily accepted by the House, causing Churchill to telegraph his son Randolph the next day: ‘Government escaped as usual.’8 When Baldwin eventually stepped down in May 1937 he did so with the goodwill of the nation still riding behind him: ‘No man has ever left in such a blaze of affection’, recorded MP Harold Nicolson in his diary.9 It was a fondness perhaps, a public yearning, not just for the man but for the age that was also passing.

Baldwin was replaced by Chancellor Neville Chamberlain, who would keep Churchill out of government until the outbreak of war. Working with Churchill, complained Chamberlain, was like arguing with a brass band.10Time magazine observed: ‘There is perhaps no man in Parliament whom Mr Chamberlain likes less than Mr Churchill.’11 Neville Chamberlain himself would be vilified by history as the morning-suited champion of appeasement, a former lord mayor of Birmingham whose lacklustre performance at the despatch box at a time of national crisis was described by one MP as resembling ‘the secretary of a firm of undertakers reading the minutes of the last meeting’.12 Yet that is an image perhaps shaped too conveniently by hindsight, for Neville Chamberlain, before his eclipse, was seen to be a powerful, tough and vindictive politician and consummate administrator, who carried the Commons (with a 220-seat Conservative majority) and the press with him between the outbreak of war and the Norway debate in May 1940.

Appeasement may have become deeply unpopular, but it was not always thus: pre-war, not a single local association registered public protest against such a policy.13 Chamberlain’s post-war legacy, however, would be an arrogant and misplaced belief in his own powers of diplomacy, the betrayal of Czechoslovakia at Munich and the wilful neglect of Britain’s defences; a premier who would lead Britain first to shame and then to war and about whom Churchill would confide: ‘There is a total lack of drive and Chamberlain does not know a tithe of the neglects for which he is responsible.’14 Yet Chamberlain, like Baldwin before him, was a politician whose refusal to contemplate the nightmare of another conflict closely mirrored that of the people he served. That nation, however, was one largely uninformed about the growing menace facing Europe; a nation denied the facts of European rearmament by a broadsheet press who saw it as their duty to mirror government policy. Geoffrey Dawson, editor of The Times, a newspaper widely regarded as the government’s mouthpiece, wrote: ‘I do my utmost, night after night, to keep out of the paper anything that might hurt Nazi susceptibilities.’15 The Air Ministry had stated that Britain needed fifty fully equipped front-line squadrons to offer a credible air defence, yet, despite politicians’ promises and constant goading from a Churchill armed with leaked Air Ministry estimates and top-secret Foreign Office memoranda, onlytwenty-seven squadrons were operational. Britain had, in total, 1,600 front-line aircraft; Germany had in excess of 3,000. Yet, eighteen months before the outbreak of war, the prime minister would still claim that the RAF would be ‘an effective instrument for our purpose’.16 On land, Britain’s regular army numbered 180,000, with a further 406,000 hastily induced and under-trained Territorial part-time soldiers17 to measure against Germany’s 500,000 regulars and a further 500,000 in reserve. Only the Royal Navy enjoyed a numerical and qualitative ascendancy over the rapidly rebuilding German fleet. Yet if Britain went to war, warned Lord Gort, the newly appointed Chief of the Imperial General Staff (CIGS), she would do so ‘seriously deficient in modern equipment’, and he added: ‘In the circumstances it would be murder to send our forces overseas to fight against a first-class power.’18 Fighting, evidently, was something the army should strive to avoid. Kingsley Martin, editor of the New Statesman,caught the mood of the times:‘By 1938 there was a feeling that things had gone so far that to plan armed resistance to the Dictators was now useless. We should, therefore, seek the most peaceful way of letting them gradually get all they wanted.’19 By February 1939, however, whilst ‘His Majesty’s Government deeply deplores the need for expenditure of these vast sums on armaments’, defence spending across all three services had finally begun to rise: from £262 million in 1937 to £580 million by 1939.20

If Britain’s uniformed armed services were under-equipped, under-manned and ill-prepared for the conflict that lay ahead, then so too were her secret services, the clandestine agencies with whom SOE would soon be required to become rival bed-fellows. Britain’s Secret Intelligence Service came into existence in 1909 as the Secret Service Bureau and, in the inter-war years, existed on a shoestring.21 Its primary task was to acquire intelligence by clandestine means. It was also created to act as a screen between services and foreign spies, to act as intermediary between service departments and British agents abroad and to organise counter-espionage. The Secret Service Bureau had two sections: a Home Section (later to become MI5) and a Foreign Section (to become SIS and MI6) controlled by the end of the First World War by the Foreign Office, an agreement regularised by the Secret Service Committee of 1921 who stipulated that SIS should not only be made exclusively responsible for espionage on behalf of all three services, but should henceforward be funded by the Foreign Office secret vote. This was a stipulation that was to have significant consequences twenty years later. SIS had ended the war with more than 500 officers and staff. By January 1920 that figure had dropped to just five, including the head of the service itself, Commander Mansfield Smith Cumming RN. The official chronicler of British intelligence in the Second World War, Professor F.H. Hinsley, wrote: ‘Whilst the resources deployed on military intelligence are bound to be run down in peacetime, they were reduced after 1918 for a longer period and to a greater extent than was wise.’22

In the inter-war years, SIS budgets were cut and cut again: from £240,000 to £125,000 in 1919 and then, at the urging of its own paymaster, the Foreign Office, to just £65,000 a year before rising to £90,000 after objections from the then Secretary of State for War, Winston Churchill.23 Improvements were slow in coming. As late as 1935 the head of SIS complained that the total budget of SIS had been so reduced that it now equalled the cost of maintaining just one Royal Navy destroyer in home waters.24Part of the reason for such drastic cutbacks lay in the Secret Service’s inability to identify threat with sufficient force and clarity as to make unanswerable their own case for the funds that were needed. Whilst MI5 concentrated on the threat of Communist subversion at home and SIS concerned itself with the Bolshevist threat abroad, the growing threat nearer home posed by fascist Nazi Germany remained dangerously out of focus. Not only was SIS at this time staffed mainly by passed-over, rigid-thinking, former Royal Naval officers, recruited in his own image by Admiral Hugh Sinclair, the new head of SIS, but even when SIS agents weresending back their warnings from the field there was:

... a total lack of co-ordination of the reports of their own agents in many cases, a lack of co-operation between MI6 and NID [Naval Intelligence Department] and a failure on the part of the Secret Service to give coherent guidance to the Government. A stronger government would have askedmore questions; this particular government just did not wish to know.25

Small wonder then that, when reviewing SIS budgets in 1936, the Defence Requirements Sub-committee (DRC) of the Committee of Imperial Defence warned: ‘If [its] allowance is not augmented, and very largely augmented, the organisation cannot be expected to fulfil its functions, and this country will be most dangerously handicapped ... nothing less than £500,000 will be really adequate.’26 DRC’s recommendations were accepted in principle by the Defence Policy and Requirements Committee at the end of January 1936. The Chief of the Secret Service still regarded the sum, however, as wholly inadequate.

If the financial needs of those who gathered intelligence were poorly served by those who controlled the purse strings, then perhaps it was because of two separate but interlocking reasons: how intelligence-gathering was viewed by the establishment itself and how it was viewed by its own paymaster, the Foreign Office. This was the same body that, under pressure from the Treasury, had pressed for a SIS budget reduction in 1920. The one-time head of SIS, Commander Mansfield Smith Cumming RN, may once have described espionage as ‘capital sport’,27 but it was a sport that found itself offside with the mores of an establishment that viewed intelligence-gathering as both underhand and unsporting. In one of the first textbooks on military intelligence, Colonel G.A. Furse had written:

The very term ‘spy’ conveys to our mind something dishonourable and disloyal. A spy, in the general acceptance of the term, is a low sneak who, from unworthy motives, dodges the actions of his fellow beings to turn the knowledge he acquires to his personal account. His underhand dealings inspire us with such horror that we would blush at the very idea of having to avail ourselves of any information obtained through such an agency.28

Although written at the turn of the century, it was a view that found an echo in the official history of British intelligence eighty years later: ‘The higher ranks of the armed forces showed some antipathy to the intelligence authorities, or at least a lack of interest in their work. Whatever their origin – resentment against the influence which the intelligence branches had wielded; dislike of the officer class for the less gentlemanly aspects of intelligence work; anti-intellectualism on the part of fighting men – such prejudices certainly existed and produced a vicious circle.’29 Intelligence work, wrote Professor Hinsley, was viewed as a professional backwater suitable only for those officers with a penchant for foreign languages and an inability to command men in the field.

The Foreign Office, soon to regard the Special Operations Executive ‘first of all as a joke and then as a menace’,30 brought its own particular attitude to those same corridors of power the SOE must soon hope to penetrate if it was to survive. Since time immemorial the business of the Foreign Office had been to advise government on foreign policy, its advice and insights garnered from the reports, papers and messages sent in and delivered to its embassies abroad. Crucially, the Foreign Office saw its business not as espionage but as the furtherance of diplomacy. The reports it received were considered to be ‘information’ rather than intelligence, despite whatever risks might have been taken to obtain them. To that end, the Foreign Office distributed the information it received from its worldwide network of embassies as and when it felt fit. It had no intelligence branch of its own and recognised no need to consult those who had, even though an increasing number of those reports they did circulate were found to be alarmist and inaccurate.31 Thus, although the Foreign Office was nominally in charge of SIS, ‘it hardly concerned itself with guiding their activities or smoothing their day-to-day difficulties’.32 It was an attitude that did not ease with the passage of time. Jack Beevor, the assistant to Sir Charles Hambro, the head of SOE between June 1941 and July 1943, wrote after the war:

The whole concept of secret warfare, embracing espionage, counter-espionage, guerrilla warfare, secret para-military and para-naval operations, was an anathema to some. Such secret activities involved varying degrees of illegal and unethical methods which would violate normal peacetime morality and would not only be improper but often criminal.33

Spying, sabotage, blackmail, underhand methods of intelligence-gathering – all were abhorrent to a Foreign Office that saw itself as both the originator of all important information and the final arbiter of its interpretation, worth and distribution. Long before the creation of SOE, the Foreign Office and those who practised the polished manners of diplomacy believed that subversion on the soil of another nation was not only illegal, and therefore morally unjustifiable, but dangerous, unpredictable folly that worked counter to the Foreign Office’s often delicate best interests: it could set up unintended chain reactions, cause diplomatic embarrassment, upset friendly neutrals, even provoke unwanted foreign intervention. The gathering of intelligence was seen to threaten the very diplomacy that had assumed centre stage since the appointment of Neville Chamberlain as prime minister in 1937.

Understandable though the Foreign Office’s preferences might be, that aloof detachment and reluctance to offer Foreign Office-sourced information for the detached analysis of others, that unwillingness to pool best-thinking about the state of German rearmament and Nazi intentions with the three services, was to have profound consequences. With it came a reluctance to attend meetings of the newly formed Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC).

The JIC was set up in June 1936 to replace the stillborn Inter-Service Intelligence Committee (ISIC) described as ‘the first determined attempt to set up an organisation in which the three services could jointly undertake the administration and assessment of intelligence’.34 Created at a time when the value of intelligence was under-played and all defence departments were still chronically short of funds, the ISIC simply disappeared. The JIC was a second attempt to meet a need that now, in the urgent, accelerated passage of just a few months, was seen with greater intellectual clarity; a committee set up in the belief that intelligence or ‘information’ stored but not assessed, shared or utilised was intelligence wasted. The JIC was set up to ensure that intelligence that might be of potential inter-service interest could be assessed and swiftly disseminated to the appropriate fighting service. Yet the Foreign Office did not attend a meeting of the JIC until November 1938 and thereafter, for some while, only attended spasmodically. It would take the outbreak of war before a system was put in place that effectively co-ordinated the evaluation and dissemination of intelligence across both services and government departments. Despite this, vital intelligence about German mobilisation and her growing military strength was passed to those in Parliament best placed to act upon it. Indeed, it was these detailed, persistent and largely unpopular warnings from the floor of the House of Commons that defined the climate of the times in which SOE was to have its origins.

Britain was alerted to the growing threat posed by a rearming Germany, not because of the measures put in place to ensure the central, co-ordinated analysis of foreign intelligence, but despite the existence of such clouded, imperfect mechanisms. Vital documents were leaked without the authorisation of Foreign Secretary Lord Halifax by civil servants within the Foreign Office, who risked dismissal and even civil action for stepping beyond permitted protocols. Those papers were leaked primarily to Winston Churchill, a privy councillor without government office. They were intended not for Churchill but for the top-secret deliberation of the Air Ministry, the Industrial Intelligence Centre, Industrial Intelligence in Foreign Countries Sub-committee and, ultimately, the Committee of Imperial Defence itself. They were fed to Churchill by Desmond Morton, formerly of SIS and now head of the government’s Industrial Intelligence Centre, who lived within walking distance of Chartwell, Churchill’s ‘great keep’ and country retreat in Westerham, Kent. They came too from Sir Robert Vansittart, the dynamic and privately wealthy Permanent Under-secretary of State at the Foreign Office, whose leaks and thinly disguised reports from inside Germany led to Whitehall’s irritated accusation that he was running his own ‘private detective agency’.35 Churchill also received information from Vansittart’s Foreign Office junior, Ralph Wigram, the highly strung, doom-seeing head of the Central Department. Meanwhile, papers about specific RAF deficiencies were leaked by Wing Commander Torr Anderson, Director of the Royal Air Force Training School. Significantly, many of those reports that informed Churchill and his colleagues of the state of covert German rearmament and the developing network of secret factories, airfields and carefully disguised aircraft assembly plants that were springing up across Germany came not from paid agents of the SIS but from unpaid, amateur patriots: businessmen, journalists, travellers and foreign nationals inside Germany, principal amongst whom was a Mr Roy Fedden of the Bristol Aeroplane Company. Servicemen, too, played a critical role: Wing Commander M.G. Christie, Britain’s Air Attaché in Berlin, used his own aeroplane to observe German factories and aerodromes.36 The reason for this reliance upon the unpaid amateur is not hard to find: the SIS budget had been slashed to the bone.

Those few who did work for SIS reported to Claude Dansey, a former regular army officer recruited by Admiral Sir Hugh ‘Quex’ Sinclair, who had replaced Mansfield Smith Cumming as head of SIS – also known as ‘C’– in 1923. Dansey had served with Winston Churchill in the South African Light Horse in the Boer War. He was to become the nemesis of SOE in its early days. The historian Hugh Trevor-Roper remembered Dansey as ‘an utter shit: corrupt, incompetent, but with a certain low cunning’.37 Lieutenant Colonel James Langley, one of the officers who later ran MI9, the escape and evasion organisation which also felt the lash of Dansey’s tongue, remembered him differently:

Dansey was, in fact, one of those powerful people who prefer to keep their power hidden: an éminence grise rather than a ruling monarch but a highly influential personage for all that. What Dansey wanted done was done and what he wanted undone was undone.38

Dansey became second-in-command, but effectively he was head of SIS in the years immediately prior to the outbreak of the Second World War. He remained in his post throughout SOE’s formative, vulnerable years, retiring into civilian obscurity in 1944. That he was to hate SOE from the moment of its inception is beyond doubt. An examination of Dansey’s covert role within SIS explains why:

From the very beginning Dansey was doubtful about both the wisdom and the value of such an organisation and he was at all times extremely aware of the dangers it presented to his networks in the field.39

Dansey’s first job was in charge of the Passport Control Office (PCO) in Italy. This effectively made him head of Rome Station for SIS. In 1936 the story was put about that Dansey had been involved in financial malpractice. ‘Disgraced’, he was recalled to London. In fact, it is claimed his dismissal and temporary retirement to Switzerland was simply a front. After discovering that Britain’s peacetime network of European agents had been exposed and that the over-worn cover story of Passport Control Office was known to every taxi driver in Europe, he had, with the approval of the head of SIS, set about creating his own ghost ‘Z’ network of more than 200 amateur intelligence agents scattered across Europe. These were there not simply to supplement those already known to work for SIS but to replace the entire ‘blown’ network in time of war or occupation. Dansey’s agents were given ‘Z’ numbers. Dansey himself was known as Z1 or ‘Colonel Z’. Obsessed with the need for secrecy, with working in the shadows, Dansey considered the use of sabotage to be ‘rude and noisy’.40 His post-war biographers were to conclude: ‘Dansey maintained to the end that SOE was filled with undisciplined amateurs who were more dangerous to his agents than they were to the enemy and were therefore to be avoided and frustrated at every opportunity.’ Dansey was thus to share with the Foreign Office, which kept his own organisation on short rations, an abhorrence of all that SOE was to stand for.

Notes

1 Gardner, Brian, Churchill in His Time: A Study in a Reputation 1939–1945 (Methuen, London, 1968), p.1.

2 Roberts, Andrew, The Holy Fox (Phoenix, London, 1991), p.187.

3 Roberts, The Holy Fox, p.187. Lord Hardinge, ex-Permanent Under-secretary at the Foreign Office to Lord Erskine, 18 August 1939.

4 Olson, Lynne, Troublesome Young Men (Farra, Straus and Giroux, New York, 2007), p.71.

5 Cowling, Maurice, The Impact of Hitler (Cambridge University Press, London, 1975), p.147.

6 Gilbert, Martin, Winston Churchill: The Wilderness Years (Macmillan, London, 1981), p.120.

7 Oral Answers, House of Commons Debates, 22 February 1934. Volume 295, Cols 857–983.

8 Gilbert, Martin, Winston S. Churchill,Volume V(Heinemann, London, 1976), p.651.

9 Nicolson, Harold, Diaries and Letters: The War Years 1939–45 (Collins, London, 1968), p.175.

10 Stewart, Graham, Burying Caesar (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1999), p.270.

11 Olson, Troublesome Young Men, p.198.

12 Nicolson, Diaries and Letters: The War Years 1939–45, p.35.

13 Jefferys, Kevin, May 1940: The Downfall of Neville Chamberlain (The Parliamentary History Yearbook Trust, London, 1991). Parliamentary History, Volume 10, Pt 2, p.365.

14 CHAR 2/371 at Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge. Letter dated 8 January 1939 from Winston Churchill to his wife Clementine from the Chateau de L’Horizon, Cannes.

15 Olson, Troublesome Young Men, p.122.

16The Times, Tuesday 22 March 1938, p.16.

17The Times, 15 June 1939, p.11. On 10 June, the eve of a nationwide recruitment drive, the figure had been 288,579.

18 Olson, Troublesome Young Men, p.127.

19 Manchester, William, The Caged Lion (Cardinal, London, 1989), p.311.

20 CHAR 2/371 at Churchill Archives Centre, Churchill College, Cambridge. Chamberlain statement to the Commons relating to defence, 15 February 1939.

21 Jeffery, Keith, MI6: The Secret History of the Secret Intelligence Service 1909–1949 (Bloomsbury, London, 2010), p.248 and chapter heading.

22 Hinsley, F.H., British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1 (HMSO, London, 1979), p.10.

23 Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1,p.50.

24 Jeffery, MI6: The Secret History of the Secret Intelligence Service, p.246.

25 Deacon, Richard, A History of the British Secret Service (Granada, London, 1980), p.314.

26 Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1,p.50.

27 Read, A. and Fisher, D., Colonel Z (Hodder & Stoughton, London, 1984), p.69.

28 Read and Fisher, Colonel Z, p.13.

29 Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1,p.10.

30 Lord Gladwyn, The Memoirs of Lord Gladwyn (Weidenfeld & Nicolson, London, 1972), p.103.

31 Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1, p.42.

32 Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1, p.5.

33 West, Nigel, Secret War (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1992), p.7.

34 Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1, p.35.

35 Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1, p.48.

36 Hinsley, British Intelligence in the Second World War, Volume 1, p.61.

37 Read and Fisher, Colonel Z,p.11.

38 Read and Fisher, Colonel Z, p.12.

39 Read and Fisher, Colonel Z,p.269.

40 Read and Fisher, Colonel Z,p.255.

CHAPTER TWO

MOVING PYRAMIDS WITH A PIN

In 1938, a year before the outbreak of war, other moves were afoot within both SIS and the War Office that were to thrust aside the outdated thinking of a gentler age. Already the new form of warfare that was soon to transform Europe had been glimpsed beyond the southern horizon: in Spain. As the Spanish nationalist commander General Emilio Mola had approached Madrid during the opening stages of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, he had broadcast on the radio that the four columns of his advancing troops would be assisted by a ‘fifth column’ of nationalist supporters waiting inside that beleaguered city. Although Madrid held out against the general for a further three years, it was a phrase that caught Europe’s nervous imagination. It did so as both Italy and Germany moved beyond their frontiers to dominate a quiescent, alarmed Europe and eastern Africa by a combination of fear and the threat of overwhelming military force.

More in form than in substance, the somewhat mythical powers of this new form of subversive almost-warfare which crumbled national resolve and corrupted enemy forces from within worked its way into the European psyche. Talk of the ‘fifth column’ became nervous international shorthand that sought to excuse the lack of resolve and preparation for war whilst explaining away the effortless conquests of a Germany and Italy with whom Britain was not yet at war. Once Britain was at war, ‘the close correlation of fifth column fears and the demand for firmer British action in the subversive sphere in Europe was widespread both in government and public circles’.1 But not yet. Nevertheless, in the climate of such charged times before the outbreak of formal hostilities, imitation of that which was evidently working for Britain’s potential enemy had an immediate, visceral appeal. Kim Philby, the Soviet spy who worked for SIS and who penetrated the highest levels of British intelligence, later wrote: ‘When, as a result of the “fifth column” scares in Spain, the potential importance of undercover action against an enemy seeped into what passed for British military thinking, the result was reluctant improvisation.’2 In fact, there was rather more to it than that. In 1935, a sub-committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence had looked into the question of sabotage attack, but the idea seems to have gone nowhere. In 1938, after the Austrian Anschluss and the identification of Germany as the likely enemy of the future, it was re-examined by both Section VI (Industrial) and Section III (Naval) of SIS, who endorsed a recommendation that the matter be re-visited. As a result, Admiral Sir Hugh Sinclair secured from the War Office the temporary secondment of a single officer, Major Lawrence Grand of the Royal Engineers, whose orders were to ‘investigate every possibility of attacking potential enemies by means other than the operations of military forces’.3 Major Lawrence Grand came to SIS – at that stage still merely a gatherer of intelligence rather than a secret organisation given to sabotage and subversion – with no experience of clandestine warfare. Nor, it seemed, had anyone else: ‘Probably the reason that sabotage has never been organised is that it is nobody’s particular job’, recalled one SOE adviser after the war.4 Kim Philby remembered Lawrence Grand, the carnation-wearing major, as ‘Tall and lean ... his mind was certainly not clipped. It ranged free and handsome over the whole field of his awesome responsibilities, never shrinking from an idea, however big or wild.’5 Bickham Sweet-Escott also worked for Major Grand and what became known as Section D. He remembered:

What was remarkable about him was the fertility of his imagination, the imperturbability of his character in the most trying circumstances and his gift for leadership; he also had an unusually pretty wit ... What was wrong about the organisation was that there was hardly any machinery whereby his ideas could be sifted and those which we might really be able to do something about translated into action.6

Grand may have had big ideas but he had no staff and no budget, and what emerged as Section D was ‘born almost in a shed at the bottom of the garden’.7 There was little office space in the basement of SIS headquarters (HQ) in Broadway House and only the vaguest idea of what he was supposed to do: ‘We soon realised that we had come to fill a complete vacuum. There was no real secret communications and there was no organisation for anything except the collection of information. We were starting from scratch with a vengeance.’8 He added later: ‘One felt as if one had been told to move the pyramids with a pin.’9

Charged with the task of ‘organising and carrying out subversive operations against the Germans’, Grand began by writing his own directive for Section D.10 Dated 31 May 1938, this consisted of little more than a list of potential targets within Germany that might be suitable for demolition by sabotage. Paper, at least, was plentiful. Philby wrote afterwards:

Grand never had the resources to carry out his ideas. His London staff could fit easily into a large drawing room ... His efforts to get a larger slice of the cake were frowned upon by the older and more firmly based intelligence-gathering side of the service. The Intelligence people rushed happily to the invalid conclusion that bangs were a waste of time and money, diverting resources from the silent spy.11

Evidently, by the summer of 1938, the bureaucratic atmosphere in which SOE would soon be expected to flourish was becoming fouled. The Secret Intelligence Service was already closing ranks against the specific form of clandestine, subversive warfare SOE would be created to conduct. Without funds, Grand compiled his report which included reference to overt abuses of neutrality and the use of what he described as ‘moral sabotage’.12 He proposed that the ‘immediate programme’ of his unit – the ‘D’ stood for Destruction13 – should consist of research into sabotage devices and the production of stocks, an investigation into potential targets, the organisation of depots and the making of contacts in neutral countries. He priced this work at £20,000 and sent the document circulating around the higher echelons of SIS. Here, we are told by the official compiler of SOE’s secret history, it was received with ‘a combination of alarm and fascination’.14

Surprisingly, perhaps, and with the caveat that extreme caution would be necessary to avoid diplomatic incidents in neutral countries in time of peace, Grand’s position was confirmed for a further two months with the hint that his posting might be extended until the end of the year. Section D’s remit was sabotage abroad, not intelligence-gathering. As such it was supposed to have no contact with Dansey’s ‘Z’ agents in mainland Europe. Grand found the money for his new organisation, not from within SIS but from an American-born tycoon, Sir Chester Beatty, who, for business reasons of his own, decided to fund what became known as the ‘sabotage service’.15

In the months that followed, Grand hatched a series of ambitious plans, few of which came to fruition, many of which antagonised Section D’s parent organisation SIS and all of which were of an ‘imaginative and dreamlike quality’.16 Amongst these was an ambitious plan to impede the flow of Romanian oil to Germany by blocking the Danube Gorge using explosives to bring down a cliff face and making the river impassable. It was, wrote Philby, ‘a plan hopelessly out of keeping with the slender resources of Section D’.17 The plan fell apart and did little to add lustre to the reputation of either Grand’s unit or SIS itself. No more did other botched operations in Norway and Sweden, nor the unit’s ‘muddled and confused’ attempts to create clandestine dumps of explosives in remote areas of England and Scotland for the auxiliary units that were to be Britain’s stay-behind forces in the event of invasion. In short, ‘Section D dug its own grave’.18 Bickham Sweet-Escott wrote afterwards:

The section’s failure to contribute to the defence of Great Britain did not increase its prestige in Whitehall ... We had to admit that whatever the reasons, our record of positive achievement was unimpressive. There were a few successful operations to our credit, but certainly not many. As for Western Europe, though there was much to excuse it, the record was lamentable, for we did not possess one single agent between the Balkans and the English Channel.19

In the eyes of many, SOE would have its origins in that same organisation that had already created such a bad impression. Yet SIS was not the only department to react to the spectre of ‘fifth column’ subversion or to the growing threat of Nazi Germany that was becoming ever more apparent. Two further departments would be created that same year, each of which would have influence upon the later development and creation of SOE. Late in March, the Foreign Office set up a new and secret internal organisation called EH, so named after Electra House where it was located. Created initially as the Enemy Publicity Section, its task was to investigate ways in which foreign opinion might be influenced by the use of propaganda. Specifically, it was to investigate ways in which ‘Black’ or unattributable propaganda could be transmitted into Europe, an area already included in Major Grand’s own terms of reference for Section D. Many different organisations vied for its control. The lack of clarity of command, of early terms of reference, was to lead to much acrimony and inter-departmental rivalry on this specific issue alone once war was declared.

The second department to respond to fears of ‘fifth columns’ and the growing German threat was the War Office which, in the same month that Major Grand took up his responsibilities, created a new department of its own. Initially known as General Staff (Research) or GS(R), its arrival was announced openly in Parliament; its mission ‘when so much instruction is to be gained from present events’ was to study ‘the practice and lessons of actual warfare’.20 By December 1938 that department – one officer and a typist – was headed by Colonel Jo Holland, Royal Engineers, whose experience of irregular warfare in both India and Ireland suited him to the task. Heeding recent events in China and Spain, Holland began to study the use of guerrilla forces and how they might be applied to modern warfare. Grand and Holland were soon working together and sharing office premises in Caxton Street. They decided between themselves that work which could be admitted by government would be the responsibility of Military Intelligence (Research) or MI(R) – GS(R) now renamed – while Major Grand would take responsibility for that which was unavowable.21

Holland made his first report to his superiors in January 1939, as a result of which two officers were seconded to his department. One of these was Major Colin McVean Gubbins, the gunner soldier who would later give SOE the focus and direction it so badly needed. Just how well Grand, the ‘volatile dreamer’, and Holland, the ‘unsmiling visionary’, got on together is open to differing interpretation.22 Certainly Colin Gubbins, the man who was recruited by Holland and who watched both Section D and MI(R) take their first faltering steps, found the experience of working with both stimulating:

Like ... Holland, Gubbins made fun of Section D’s obsession with secrecy and of the eccentricities of its head, Lawrence Grand, with his black homburg hat, dark glasses, tapered cigarette holder and all the paraphernalia of the ‘spy master’ of popular fiction. Nevertheless, he enjoyed his time in Caxton Street, liked and admired Holland and found the nature of their work exhilarating.23

In March of that same year, Grand and Holland produced their first paper. In it they stated that recent German advances into Europe ‘for the first time gives an opening to an alternative method of defence, that is a method alternative to organised armed resistance. This defensive technique which must now be developed, must be based on the experience we have had in India, Irak [sic] Ireland and Russia, i.e. the development of a combination of guerrilla and IRA tactics.’24

Asking for a total of £500,000 and the posting of twenty-five officers under Colonel Holland, their paper promised they could then arrange ‘simultaneous disturbances’ throughout German-occupied areas of Eastern Europe within four months. Events now moved fast. Two days later – a week after Hitler had marched into what was left of Czechoslovakia – Grand was seen by the CIGS General Ironside, the Director of Military Operations (DMO), R.H. Dewing, and his deputy, Mr W.E. van Cutsem. Grand and Holland’s proposal was approved subject to agreement by the Foreign Secretary, Lord Halifax, who considered the plan the next day. He stressed the importance of secrecy and promised to raise the matter of its funding with the prime minister. Lord Halifax then approved the scheme which he said he ‘now intended to forget’.25 The staff Grand had requested would be provided, promised the CIGS, once the prime minister’s approval had been given. There is – perhaps unsurprisingly given its subject matter – no formal record of such approval being given by Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain, although SOE historian Professor Michael Foot records: ‘By this decision SOE was begotten; but the child was long in the womb.’26 Holland followed up with a more specific paper on 3 April 1939, approved by CIGS ten days later, which laid out the objectives of the new section as the study of guerrilla methods and the production of something of a contradiction: a Field Service Regulations instruction manual; the development of destructive devices for use by guerrillas; and the development of a modus operandi for such units in the field.

Section D may have belonged to SIS, but Holland’s unit came under the control of Military Intelligence despite the fact that its concepts and early origins came from a pooling of shared ideas. As historian William Mackenzie commented after viewing the original papers, ‘The basic ideas of this paper are recognisably those of Colonel Holland; its style and its unquenchable optimism are certainly Colonel Grand’s’.27 Yet although the money that funded the new service came from SIS, Jo Holland was required to report, not in co-operation with Lawrence Grand, but upwards alone through conventional military channels to the Deputy Chief of the General Staff. This was an arrangement which lasted until the eve of the outbreak of war, when Holland’s section transferred to the War Office and changed its name to MI(R) because, by this time, claims Foot, Holland had ‘no faith that what he regarded as D’s “wildcat” schemes would ever produce specific achievements’.28 Yet despite this conflict in temperament between Grand and Holland, the confusion of demarcation and the overlap of responsibility between Grand’s Section D of SIS and Holland’s MI(R) of the War Office would persist until after the outbreak of war. It certainly did nothing to prepare the ground for transition between Section D and MI(R) to SOE when the latter was finally created in July 1940. Neither organisation – not Grand’s Section D nor the superior, more overt and better organised MI(R), which had ‘no conspicuous or damning failures’29 to its name – achieved impressive results before their amalgamation into the new organisation. ‘For all its good men and good ideas’, wrote Professor Foot looking back at MI(R), ‘it had only slight actual achievements to display by the late spring of 1940’.30 William MacKenzie, the historian recruited by Gubbins to write the not-for-publication history of SOE immediately after the war, looked at the early work of Section D and concluded:

The impression left by a study of D Section’s operations is one of great energy and ingenuity spread thinly over an immense field ... its demonstrable achievements were sadly few ... Relations with other government departments were distant and on the whole unfriendly; D Section and all its works were a nuisance to the Foreign Office, the Secret Intelligence Service and the War Office alike.31

If both fledgling organisations had a shared fault it was perhaps that in their legacy they left little upon which SOE could build and much that would need repair: thanks to the activities of Section D and MI(R), whether successful or otherwise, the seeds of suspicion surrounding ‘dirty tricks’ departments were now deeply rooted amongst those organisations who had dealt with either Section D or MI(R), yet whose support would now be vital for the success of SOE, the subversive newcomer waiting, as yet unformed, in the wings of national expediency. What was left by their senior sister, SIS herself, was little better. The German entry into Austria led to the arrest of the head of Vienna station in spring 1938. The following year the German seizure of Prague triggered the collapse of SIS operations in Czechoslovakia. Dansey had set up his peacetime network of new ‘Z’ agents to offer an alternative to those over-exposed SIS agents who were working across Europe through the Passport Control Office system; it was needed. SIS operations in Holland had been penetrated since 1935.32 Yet not one of Dansey’s carefully placed ‘Z’ agents had given any prior warning of the German occupation of the Rhineland in 1936, nor the union with Austria two years later. This was partly because increasingly stringent security precautions inside Germany made intelligence-gathering harder for sources to predict future developments, while the harsh penalties for those caught spying made the gathering of intelligence increasingly hazardous. Nevertheless, SIS officers were supposed to be in place to give precisely those warnings. Although the situation did improve with better agents in place during the Munich Crisis, the German entry into Prague and the attack on Poland in September 1939 left:

... the War Office regularly complaining that the SIS was failing to meet its increasingly urgent need for factual information about Germany’s military capacities, equipment, preparations and movements. While in that year the Air Ministry ... dismissed SIS intelligence of this kind as being normally 80% inaccurate.33

Professor F.H. Hinsley wrote afterwards: ‘the SIS’s espionage system and SigInt [Signals Intelligence] were in organised existence throughout the inter-war years and there is no simple explanation of their deficiency during the approach to war.’34 With the outbreak of that war – and for reasons that remain unexplained – Dansey’s ‘Z’ agents were ordered to operate overtly with those agents who worked within the PCO system even though those same agents were already believed to have been exposed. In The Hague, Holland, that PCO officer was a Major Stevens who, on 8 November 1940, together with ‘Z’ agent Captain S. Payne Best, was lured over the German border at Venlo on the pretext that a meeting had been set up with anti-Nazis who could give them vital German military intelligence. It was a trap; both SIS officers were captured. Under interrogation they revealed a massive and detailed picture of the whole of the SIS set-up in Europe. Soon the Abwehr (German military intelligence) had the names of senior personnel and addresses of nearly all the intelligence officers in Britain as well as of agents in the Low Countries. Thus ‘in a single day, the British secret service on the continent of Europe was almost totally destroyed’.35