April 14, 1912, is etched in history as the night the RMS Titanic met its tragic fate. As the luxury liner sank beneath the icy waters of the North Atlantic, a mystery emerged that continues to baffle historians and enthusiasts alike: the tale of a ship seen near the Titanic, shrouded in controversy and intrigue. This is the story of that mysterious ship and its connection to the sinking of the Titanic.

Richard Clements explains.

The SS Californian.

The Titanic's Final Voyage

The RMS Titanic, deemed "unsinkable," embarked on its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York City on April 10, 1912. Boasting opulence and advanced engineering, the Titanic was a marvel of its time. However, on the night of April 14, disaster struck. At 11:40 PM, the ship collided with an iceberg, and within hours, it was evident that the Titanic was doomed. Distress signals were sent, flares were fired, and the call for help echoed across the cold, dark sea.

 

The Mystery Ship

As the Titanic's distress flares illuminated the night sky, survivors and crew members reported sighting a nearby ship. This vessel, dubbed the "mystery ship," seemed tantalizingly close yet failed to respond to the Titanic's desperate pleas for assistance. Eyewitness accounts describe the ship's lights, which appeared to draw closer and then inexplicably move away. The identity and actions of this ship have been subjects of intense scrutiny and debate ever since.

 

The SS Californian

Amid the chaos, the SS Californian, a Leyland Line steamer, was stationed in the vicinity, allegedly within sight of the Titanic. Under the command of Captain Stanley Lord, the Californian had halted for the night amidst ice warnings. Crew members aboard the Californian reported seeing flares fired from a ship, but Captain Lord did not take immediate action, believing they were not distress signals.

Third Officer Charles Groves and Apprentice James Gibson both testified that they saw the flares and informed Captain Lord. However, Lord, convinced that the ship was too far away to be in distress, chose not to wake the wireless operator. As the night progressed, the Californian's crew watched as the lights of the distant ship seemed to vanish, an observation that coincided with the Titanic's final moments.

 

Investigations and Controversy

Following the disaster, American and British inquiries sought to unravel the events of that night. Both inquiries delved into the actions of Captain Lord and the Californian's crew, questioning why they did not respond to the distress signals. The American inquiry, led by Senator William Alden Smith, concluded that the Californian was indeed the ship seen by the Titanic, condemning Captain Lord for failing to act.

The British Board of Trade's investigation also criticized Lord, but with less severity, acknowledging the challenges of recognizing distress signals at sea. Despite these findings, supporters of Captain Lord argued that the lights seen from the Californian were from another ship, not the Titanic.

 

The Samson Myth

In an attempt to exonerate Captain Lord, some theorists proposed the presence of another vessel, the Norwegian sealer SS Samson. According to a journal purportedly kept by a crew member of the Samson, the ship was near the Titanic but avoided responding due to illegal sealing activities. However, evidence debunks this theory: the Samson was documented in Icelandic ports before and after the disaster, making it impossible for her to be near the Titanic on April 14.

 

Modern Perspectives

With advances in historical analysis and technology, modern researchers have revisited the Titanic's final hours. Tim Maltin, a Titanic historian, attributes the confusion to abnormal atmospheric conditions that night. These conditions, he argues, caused the lights of ships to appear closer than they were. This phenomenon explains why the Titanic and Californian misjudged each other's distance and movements.

Maltin's research, supported by testimonies and scientific analysis, suggests that the "mystery ship" seen from the Titanic was indeed the Californian. The illusion of the ship moving away was due to the Californian's slow drift and swinging to starboard, making it appear as if it were sailing off when it was, in fact, stationary.

 

Technological Insights

Recent technological advancements have furthered our understanding of the events. For instance, reanalysis of wireless communication logs and synchronization of ship clocks have provided clearer timelines. These studies reveal that the times recorded by the Titanic and Californian match precisely with the observations of lights disappearing and flares being fired, confirming the proximity of the Californian.

Moreover, Leslie Reade's extensive research, detailed in "The Ship That Stood Still," and Walter Lord's work, "The Night Lives On," have been instrumental in piecing together the puzzle. They emphasize that the Californian's failure to respond was a tragic error compounded by misinterpretations and human error rather than outright negligence.

 

Conclusion

The story of the mystery ship near the Titanic remains a captivating tale of maritime history. The interplay of human decisions, technological limitations, and atmospheric illusions created a perfect storm of confusion on that fateful night. While the SS Californian was undeniably the closest ship capable of rescuing the Titanic's passengers, the peculiar conditions led to a series of misjudgments that prevented timely aid.

This enduring mystery serves as a poignant reminder of the fragility of human perception and the profound impact of seemingly minor decisions. As we reflect on the Titanic's tragic end, we are reminded of the importance of vigilance, clarity, and prompt action in times of crisis. The tale of the mystery ship will continue to intrigue and teach future generations about the complexities of maritime history and human fallibility.

 

 

Richard Clements in his own words:

I am a dedicated writer with a passion for history and uncovering its mysteries. I specialize in creating engaging and well-researched content that brings historical events and intriguing mysteries to life. With a keen eye for detail and a love for storytelling, I have written on various historical topics, from ancient civilizations to modern history. My work aims to captivate readers and provide them with a deeper understanding of the past and the mysteries that intrigue us. He posts on X/Twitter here.

 

 

References

Ponic, Jason. “The SS Californian: The Ship That Watched Titanic Sink.” History101, 31 July 2023.

Lord, Walter. The Night Lives On: The Untold Stories and Secrets Behind the Sinking of the “Unsinkable” Ship – Titanic. Open Road Media, 2012.

Reade, Leslie. The Ship That Stood Still: The Californian and Her Mysterious Role in the Titanic Disaster. W.W. Norton & Company, 1993.

Maltin, Tim. “There was a ‘Mystery Ship’ Between the Titanic and the Californian.” timmaltin.com, 14 April 2019.

U.S. Senate Inquiry. “Titanic Disaster Hearings: The Official Transcripts of the 1912 Senate Investigation.” Greenlight Publishing, 1998.

Posted
AuthorGeorge Levrier-Jones

The December 1962 British Raid on Limbang was a confrontation between British forces and the Tentara Nasional Kalimantan Utara (TNKU). The TNKU were holding hostages and the British forces were sent to free them. This happened as part of the prelude to the 1960s Indonesia–Malaysia confrontation.

Terry Bailey explains.

A British soldier being winched onto a helicopter in Borneo in 1964, with another soldier kneeling in the front of the photo.

Prelude to the Raid

In the early 1960s, Southeast Asia was a cauldron of political turmoil. The Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation, also known as Konfrontasi, saw Indonesia opposing the creation of Malaysia, which it perceived as a neo-colonial project. Amidst this geopolitical struggle, the North Kalimantan National Army (Tentara Nasional Kalimantan Utara, TNKU), a group of Indonesian-backed insurgents, sought to destabilize the region further. They aimed to establish an independent North Borneo, free from British influence and the proposed Malaysian Federation.

Sarawak, a British protectorate became a focal point of this conflict. In December 1962, the TNKU escalated their campaign by seizing the town of Limbang, a strategic and symbolic target. The insurgents took several hostages, including the British District Officer, his wife, and other expatriates. They fortified the town and threatened to execute the hostages if their demands were not met, sending shockwaves through the British colonial administration and necessitating an immediate response.

 

The Amphibious Assault

42 Commando, which was in Singapore at the time, were flown to Labuan and given the task of clearing Brunei Bay, 'L' Company was detached with the task of securing the town of Limbang and gaining the release of the European hostages, which included a district officer, from the town of Limbang, held by the numerical strong force of rebels.

42 Commando Royal Marines, a unit renowned for its versatility and combat prowess, were the perfect solution to the problem, therefore, L company of 42 Commando Royal Marines, led by the company commander Captain Jeremy Moore, were embarked on board HMS Albion, the commando amphibious assault ship anchored off the coast of Brunei. Moore, who would later rise to prominence as a key figure in the South Atlantic conflict, (Falklands War), was tasked with planning and executing the daring hostage rescue and securing the town of Limbang from the rebels.

Side note:- Captain Jeremy Moore, retired Major General Sir John Jeremy Moore, KCB, OBE, MC & Bar (Born 5th of July 1928 – Deceased the 15th of September 2007) was the British senior Royal Marine officer who served as the commander of the British land forces during the 1982 South Atlantic conflict, (Falklands War). Moore received the surrender of the Argentine forces on the islands.

 

The Limbang operation was fraught with challenges, the town was located deep inland along a river, requiring a complex amphibious operation. The TNKU insurgents were well-armed and entrenched, and the lives of the hostages hung precariously in the balance. Nevertheless, the Royal Marine Commandos were undeterred. With meticulous planning and the element of surprise on their side, they prepared for one of the most daring rescue missions in British military history.

 

The Raid Unfolds

On the night of the 12th of December, 1962 under the cover of darkness, two assault craft carrying the Royal Marine Commandos embarked on the perilous journey up the Limbang River. The initial phase of the raid was executed with precision; the Royal Marines disembarked near the town's police station, which the insurgents had turned into their headquarters.

However, the element of surprise was partially compromised when the TNKU insurgents spotted the approaching craft and opened fire. The Royal Marine Commandos responded swiftly and effectively. Under heavy fire, they stormed the police station and nearby buildings, engaging in intense close-quarters combat. The TNKU, although numerically superior, were no match for the well-trained and determined Commandos.

Lieutenant Peter S Waters' team advanced toward the hostages' location, facing fierce resistance. Waters himself was wounded, but he continued to lead his men with unwavering resolve. The Royal Marine Commandos fought their way through, neutralizing the insurgents and securing the hostages. The rescue was not without cost; 5 Royal Marine Commandos were killed, and several others were wounded. However, L' Company secured Limbang and the release of the hostages in less than 20 minutes.

 

Side note:- Lieutenant Peter Waters, was second in command 2 i/c of L, (Lima), Company, 42 Commando Royal Marines.

 

Immediate Outcome

The raid on Limbang was a resounding success. The hostages were rescued, and the TNKU insurgents were either killed or captured. The operation demonstrated the effectiveness, flexibility and professionalism of the Royal Marine Commando forces who had conducted a complex amphibious assault under extremely challenging conditions. The successful rescue bolstered British morale and reaffirmed their control over Sarawak during a volatile period.

 

In the immediate aftermath, the British authorities worked to stabilize the region. The surviving TNKU members were pursued, and their operations in Sarawak were significantly disrupted. The success of the raid also sent a strong message to other insurgent groups, showcasing the British resolve and capability to protect their interests and maintain order.

 

Long-term Aftermath

The raid on Limbang had far-reaching implications for both the region and the individuals involved. For Sarawak, the raid marked a turning point in the conflict. The TNKU's power and influence waned significantly following their defeat in Limbang and the region. British forces, bolstered by their success, continued to clamp down on insurgent activities, eventually restoring relative stability to the region.

 

For the Royal Marines, the raid became a celebrated chapter in their long and esteemed history. The bravery and professionalism displayed during the operation were widely recognized and honored. Captain Jeremy Moore, in particular, received commendations for his leadership, and he continued to have a distinguished military career, as indicated above, eventually commanding British land forces during the South Atlantic conflict, (Falklands War).

 

The raid also had a lasting impact on the local population of Limbang. The successful rescue operation fostered a sense of gratitude and loyalty towards the British, who were seen as protectors against the insurgent threat. This goodwill helped to strengthen the relationship between the British administration and the local communities, facilitating cooperation and development in the years that followed.

 

Conclusion

The 1962 Royal Marine Commando raid on Limbang remains a showcase of the courage, skill, flexibility and determination of the Royal Marine Commando forces during a turbulent period in Southeast Asia. The daring rescue mission not only saved the lives of the hostages but also delivered a decisive blow to the insurgents, helping to stabilize the region and reaffirm British control. The legacy of the operation endures, remembered as just one of the many defining moments in the history of the Royal Marines and a pivotal event in the broader context of the Indonesian-Malaysian Confrontation.

 

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

 

Awards and commendations

BRIDGES, Ernest Robert

Lieutenant Colonel

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)

Mentioned in Despatches

 

CAMERON, Angus Arthur

Corporal

RM 16834

3 Cdo. Bde. RM

Royal Marines

Mentioned in Despatches

Corporal Angus Cameron received a Mention in Despatches for gallant and distinguished service in operations in Brunei during the period 8-22 December 1962

 

LESTER, William John

Corporal

CH/X 5001

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Military Medal (MM)

Corporal William Lester was awarded the Military Medal for gallant and distinguished services in operations.

 

MOORE, John Jeremy

Major General

3 Cdo. Bde. RM

Royal Marines

Knight Commander of the Order of the Bath (KCB)

Officer of the Order of the British Empire (OBE)

Military Cross (MC)

Bar to the Military Cross

Major General John Jeremy Moore served as the commander of the British land forces during the Falklands War in 1982.

 

RAWLINSON, Robert Croft

Corporal

RM 17402

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Military Medal (MM)

Corporal Robert Rawlinson was awarded the Military Medal for gallant and distinguished services in operations. He commanded one of the two sections of the Commando that assaulted Limbang Police Station, Sarawak, on the 12th of December 1962 to release hostages being held there.

 

UNDERWOOD, Bryan Albert

Marine

RM 20505

3 Cdo. Bde. RM

Royal Marines

Mentioned in Despatches

Marine Bryan Underwood received a Mention in Despatches for gallant and distinguished service in operations in Brunei during the period 8-22 December

 

Killed in Action

FORMOY, Ronald David

Marine

RM 16883

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Marine Ronald Formoy, Lima Company, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

 

ENNINGS, Richard

Marine

RM 19233

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Marine Richard Jennings, Lima Company, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

 

KIERANS, Gerald

Marine

RM 16941

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Marine Gerald Kierans, Lima Company, from Widnes, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

 

MACFARLANE, Walter Grant

Sergeant

CH/X 4743

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Sergeant Walter Macfarlane, Lima Company, from Middlesborough, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

 

POWELL, Fred Stewart

Marine

RM 21017

42 Cdo. RM

Royal Marines

Killed in action or died of wounds

Marine Fred Powell, Lima Company, died during an action which resulted in the rescue of hostages taken and held at Limbang, Sarawak.

 

Notes:

Sarawak

Sarawak is a state in Malaysia. The largest among the 13 states, with an area almost equal to that of Peninsular Malaysia, Sarawak is located in the region of East Malaysia in northwest Borneo, and is bordered by the Malaysian state of Sabah to the northeast, Kalimantan (the Indonesian portion of Borneo) to the south, and Brunei in the north.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.