The History and Evolution of Airships

Airships, also known as dirigibles, have fascinated humanity for centuries, representing a unique intersection of science, engineering, and exploration. The journey of airships, from their humble beginnings as lighter-than-air balloons to the sophisticated designs of today, is a tale of innovation, ambition, and tragedy.

Terry Bailey explains.

The 1937 Hindenburg Disaster.

The birth of lighter-than-air flight

The concept of lighter-than-air flight can be traced back to ancient times, however, with the musings in the Renaissance period by visionaries such as Leonardo da Vinci, we see the drawings and plans of these concepts.

However, the practical realization of this idea began in the 18th century. In 1783, when the Montgolfier brothers, (Joseph and Stephen Montgolfier), and Jacques-Étienne, launched the first successful manned hot air balloon with Francois Pilatrê de Rozier and Francois Laurent, Marquis of Arlanders onboard.

They stood on a circular platform attached to the bottom of the balloon. They hand-fed the fire through openings on either side of the balloon's skirt. The balloon reached an altitude of at least 500 feet and travelled about 5½ miles, (just over 8 kilometers), before landing safely 25 minutes later.

The balloon was made of paper and silk and filled with hot air, providing a historic flight that marked the dawn of lighter-than-air aviation.

Just ten days after the first hot air balloon ride, the first gas balloon was launched by physicists Jacques Alexander Charles and Nicholas Louis Robert. This flight started in Paris, France. The flight lasted 2½ hours and covered a distance of 25 miles, ((approximately 40 KMs). The gas used in the balloon was hydrogen, the lightest element known. The ability to produce gas from hydrogen was developed by an Englishman, Henry Cavendish in 1776, by using a combination of sulphuric acid and iron filings. This achievement opened the door to further experimentation with lighter-than-air flight, laying the groundwork for the development of airships.

The evolution of airships, from balloons to dirigibles

While balloons demonstrated the feasibility of lighter-than-air flight, they were limited by their inability to be steered. This limitation led to the development of the first airships, which could be navigated through the air using engines and rudders. The evolution of airships can be divided into three main categories: non-rigid, semi-rigid, and rigid airships.

Non-rigid airships, early dirigibles

Non-rigid airships, often referred to as blimps, were the first type of dirigible to be developed. These airships relied on a gas envelope to maintain their shape and used internal air-filled bags, or ballonets, to control buoyancy and pressure. The absence of a rigid internal structure made these airships lighter and more maneuverable, but they were also more susceptible to damage.

One of the earliest successful non-rigid airships was designed by French engineer Henri Giffard. In 1852, Giffard built a 144-foot-long airship powered by a 3-horsepower steam engine. His airship could reach speeds of up to 5 Mph, (8 Kph), and demonstrated the potential for controlled flight. Giffard's design laid the foundation for future developments in airship technology.

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, non-rigid airships saw significant advancements. The German engineer Ferdinand von Zeppelin, who is often considered the father of the modern airship, experimented with various designs before focusing on rigid airships. However, non-rigid airships continued to be developed and used for various purposes, including military reconnaissance and passenger transport.

Semi-rigid airships, the transitional phase

Semi-rigid airships represented a transitional phase between non-rigid and rigid designs. These airships combined a gas envelope with a partial internal framework, usually made of metal, which provided additional structural support. This design allowed for larger airships with greater lifting capacity and improved durability.

One of the most notable semi-rigid airships was the Italian-built "Norge," which was used by Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen in his 1926 expedition to the North Pole. The Norge's successful flight over the Arctic demonstrated the capabilities of semi-rigid airships and marked a significant achievement in polar exploration.

Rigid airships, the zenith of airship design

Rigid airships, often referred to as Zeppelins after their most famous proponent, represented the pinnacle of airship design in the early 20th century. Unlike non-rigid and semi-rigid airships, rigid airships had a sturdy internal framework made of metal, typically aluminium or duralumin, which supported the gas-filled cells inside. This design allowed for the construction of larger and more robust airships capable of carrying significant payloads over long distances.

The first successful rigid airship was the LZ 1, designed by Ferdinand von Zeppelin and launched in 1900. The LZ 1 was 420 feet long and powered by two Daimler engines. Although its initial flights were not entirely successful, Zeppelin continued to refine its designs, leading to the development of the LZ 3 and LZ 4, which demonstrated the practicality and potential of rigid airships.

Airships in warfare, the First World War

The outbreak of the First World War in 1914 marked a turning point in flight including the use of airships. The German military quickly recognized the potential of airships for reconnaissance, bombing, and propaganda purposes. The rigid Zeppelins, with their ability to fly at high altitudes and cover long distances, became a formidable tool in Germany's arsenal.

German Zeppelins conducted numerous bombing raids over Britain, targeting cities such as London and Edinburgh. These raids, while not strategically decisive, had a significant psychological impact on the civilian population and demonstrated the vulnerabilities of traditional defenses against aerial attacks.

However, the use of airships in warfare was not without its challenges. Zeppelins were slow and vulnerable to anti-aircraft fire, in addition to, heavier-than-air machines, (fighter planes), which were quickly developing on a separate path. The British developed various countermeasures, including incendiary bullets, which could ignite the hydrogen gas used in Zeppelins, leading to catastrophic explosions. As a result, many German airships were lost during the war, and the effectiveness of airships as a military tool was called into question.

Despite these challenges, the war spurred further advancements in airship technology. Engineers experimented with new materials, propulsion systems, and designs to improve the performance and survivability of airships. Needless to say, by the end of the war, the airplane had emerged as the dominant military force in aviation, relegating airships to a secondary role.

Key designers and pioneers

The development of airships was driven by the ingenuity and determination of several key designers from different countries. These pioneers pushed the boundaries of what was possible and laid the groundwork for the modern era of aviation.

Ferdinand von Zeppelin (Germany)

Ferdinand von Zeppelin is perhaps the most famous name in the history of airships. A former German military officer, Zeppelin was inspired by the possibilities of lighter-than-air flight after observing the use of balloons during the American Civil War. He devoted much of his life to developing rigid airships, founding the Zeppelin Company in 1908. Zeppelin's designs, particularly the LZ series, became synonymous with airships and played a crucial role in the First World War.

Alberto Santos-Dumont (Brazil)

Alberto Santos-Dumont, a Brazilian-born aviation pioneer, made significant contributions to the development of non-rigid airships. In the early 1900s, Santos-Dumont designed and flew a series of small, maneuverable airships, including the famous "No. 6," which won the Deutsch de la Meurthe prize for successfully flying from the Parc Saint Cloud to the Eiffel Tower and back. His achievements helped popularize aviation in Europe and inspired future generations of aeronautical engineers.

Barnes Wallis (Great Britain)

Sir Barnes Neville Wallis, CBE, FRS, RDI, FRAeS, an English engineer and inventor, is best known for his work in the Second World War on his geodesic aircraft frame and specialist ordinance, (Bouncing bomb of the Dam Buster raid fame). However, it was his earlier work on the R100 airship, a British rigid airship developed in the 1920s, by the commercial company Vickers, utilizing a geodesic airframe which later was the inspiration for the Second World War Wellington bomber.

Wallis' innovative design incorporated the first practical geodesic framework providing increased strength and reduced weight. Although the R100 was successful in its transatlantic flights, the whole airship programme was overshadowed by the crash of the R101 designed and built by the Air Ministry, a design of different specifications. The disaster led to the abandonment of Britain's airship program.

Airship Disasters, triumph and tragedy

The history of airships is punctuated by several high-profile disasters that underscored the inherent risks of lighter-than-air flight. These tragedies had a profound impact on public perception and the future of airship development.

The R101 Tragedy (1930)

The R101 departed from Cardington on the evening of the 4th of October, 1930, and crashed in the early hours of October 5th, 1930. As indicated the R101 was one of two large rigid airships developed by the British government as part of a plan to establish a global airship network. However, the R101 was plagued by design flaws and structural issues, due to the different construction concepts, that were used on the R100. During its maiden long-distance voyage to India, the airship encountered bad weather over France and several gasbags ruptured leading to a loss of lift. The R101 crash-landed safely at the edge of a wood outside Allonne, 4Km, (2.5Miles), southeast of Beauvais, however, within seconds of a successful emergency crash landing, it burst into flames and instantly incinerated 48 of the 54 people on board.

The R101 disaster had a profound impact on Britain's airship program, leading to the cancellation of airship development in favor of heavier-than-air aircraft. The tragedy underscored the inherent risks and technical challenges associated with rigid airships, particularly in adverse weather conditions.

In the aftermath of the R101 disaster, public confidence in airships waned, and the British government redirected its focus and resources toward the development of airplanes. This shift marked the end of Britain's ambitious plans for a global airship network and contributed to the decline of airship travel as a viable means of long-distance transportation. The R101 crash remains a poignant reminder of the limitations of early aviation technology and the high cost of pioneering new forms of air travel.

The Hindenburg Disaster (1937)

The most infamous airship disaster occurred on the 6th of May, 1937, when the German airship LZ 129 Hindenburg caught fire and crashed while attempting to land at Naval Air Station Lakehurst in New Jersey. The Hindenburg, the largest airship ever built, was a symbol of German engineering prowess and luxury travel.

However, the use of highly flammable hydrogen gas and thermite paint combined with a series of unfortunate events, led to a catastrophic fire that claimed the lives of 36 people.

The Hindenburg disaster was widely covered by the media, with dramatic photographs and radio broadcasts capturing the event in real-time. The disaster shocked the world and effectively marked the end of the era of passenger-carrying airships.

Points of interest:

Even though the early years of airships were tenuous and fraught with issues, airships are now making a resurgence today. However, with advancements in technology airships of today are far safer than airships of the 1920s and 1930s. The modern use of airships takes advantage of their unique ability to hover in place, their long endurance, and their ability to carry heavy loads with minimal infrastructure requirements.

Some modern airship deployments

Border security

Some countries' border services utilize airships for border surveillance due to their ability to loiter over a specific area for extended periods. They can be equipped with high-resolution cameras, radar, and other sensors to monitor large areas continuously.

Environmental services

Whereas, environmental services find the same qualities useful and deploy airships to monitor environmental changes, such as deforestation, wildlife movements, and ocean conditions. Their ability to fly at low speeds and altitudes makes them ideal for detailed observation over time.

Advertising

The world of advertising utilize blimps at large events, such as sports games or festivals, where they are used to display advertisements. Their large surface area and slow movement make them highly visible and effective for marketing purposes.

Aerial filming platforms

Needless to say, the use of airships for aerial filming to capture footage is very popular, especially in scenarios where a stable platform is needed for extended periods. They are often preferred over helicopters for this purpose due to their quieter operation and ability to stay airborne longer.

Specialist lift platforms

Airships provide the perfect platform for heavy lift operations with specialist airships designed to transport heavy cargo to remote or difficult-to-access areas. They can carry loads that are too large or heavy for small conventional aircraft where landing facilities are difficult to access.

Humanitarian missions

These same qualities also make airships suitable for humanitarian aid, having the ability to deliver humanitarian aid to disaster-stricken regions, particularly where infrastructure is damaged or non-existent. Their ability to land almost anywhere and carry significant payloads makes them valuable in these scenarios.

Tourism

Furthermore, modern airships are very suitable as tourist platforms for aerial sightseeing that offer a unique and scenic way to experience landscapes, particularly over cities, natural wonders, or historical sites. These tours are popular in regions where the landscape is particularly striking, and the slow, low-altitude flight provides a different perspective compared to airplanes or helicopters.

Scientific research and space exploration

The resurgence of airships also provides stable structures for scientific work such as atmospheric studies and weather patterns. Their ability to hover and move slowly through different atmospheric layers allows scientists to gather detailed data.

Moreover, the use of airships is undergoing serious consideration for future space-related missions with ongoing research into the potential usage of airships as platforms for space observatories or as launch platforms for small satellites. Their stability and high-altitude capabilities make them suitable for such experiments.

Military

In today's world, some countries are going back to airships for specialist military applications, such as reconnaissance missions, taking advantage of their endurance and ability to stay aloft for extended periods. They can carry surveillance equipment, communication relays, and even unmanned systems.

The use of airships not only offers the military but also commercial communication service providers communication platforms, providing coverage in areas where traditional infrastructure is lacking or has been destroyed.

Urban transportation

Furthermore, airships can play a crucial role in urban transportation mobility. Numerous transportation organizations and think tanks are exploring the use of airships for urban mobility, particularly in congested cities. These concepts are still in development but represent a potential future application of airship technology.

Green logistics

Finally, airships offer a Green logistical option as an eco-friendly transportation system, simply because airship platforms consume less fuel than conventional aircraft, especially over long distances, making airships very attractive for green logistics solutions in the future.

Modern airships benefit from advancements in materials, avionics, and propulsion systems, making modern designs safer, more efficient, and much more versatile than the early 1920s and 1930s predecessors. While they may not be as prominent as they were during their golden age, airships continue to serve important and diverse roles in various sectors and assuredly will become far more prominent in the future.

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

4 Reasons Why The Man in the High Castle Was a TV Program - and Not Reality

‘The Man in the High Castle’ was an American television series created for a “parallel universe” where Nazi Germany, and the Empire of Japan, respectively, would rule the world after winning World War II. The series was nominated for over two dozen awards, winning three of them. The author of this piece, Ken Buller, has just finished watching the entire series. I guess it’s always better to be late, then to never have watched it. 

Vyacheslav Molotov (left) and Joachim von Ribbentrop (right) at the signing of the 1939 Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact.

As I was binge watching the series, I couldn’t help but pull out every history book, paper, and lesson I had gone through in school to really dive into what were some of the fatal mistakes that the Axis (particularly Nazi Germany) had made to make it a fictional series, and thankfully, not a reality. The list could probably go on forever, but here’s a list of four of the most important reasons for what I think cost the Nazis and Japanese their empires. 

Strategic Blunders

1. The brain drain. With Hitler’s twisted and demonic ideology, he either drove away or killed millions of high IQ, highly skilled entrepreneurs, manufacturers, scientists, engineers, physicians, financers, etc. I think the quote “Our Germans were better than their Germans,” from the film ‘The Right Stuff’ sums up the incalculable waste of talent he could’ve used. 

2. Declaring War on The United States of America. On December 11, 1941, Nazi Germany declared war on the United States due to Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor four days earlier. However, according to the terms of their agreements, Germany was obliged to come to the aid of Japan if a third country attacked Japan, but not if Japan attacked a third country. I think if Germany declared war on America, they had a great opportunity through the Kreigsmarine’s U-boat fleet to knock all of his enemies in Europe out, but particularly Great Britain.

3. The Invasion of the Soviet Union. Well, if any of you know about Napoleon, enough said, but that won’t fly with my Editor. Through the Ribbentrop-Molotov Pact, the Nazis had such an advantage that only a maniac could, and eventually, would ruin it. With their allies in the Balkans, Caucasus, and parts of Eastern Europe, they could have acquired the natural resources and material wealth that they desperately needed in order to maintain their dominance for years to come.

4. Failure to Work with Japan. It seems that throughout the war, Germany and Japan didn’t really work at all and they were more “frenemies” than actual allies. Throughout the war they had some joint operations, but I think they failed to operate on a grand scale. In my previous point, the German forces that were ultimately used on the Eastern Front, could have been used in North Africa, and the Middle East, who could eventually link up with Japanese Forces in India or Central Asia that were pushing in from China and Burma.

In conclusion, I think Adolf Hitler was obviously an evil monster, and because of his horrible ideology, it got in the way of making the right strategic moves at all the right times. I think even if he didn't commit half of the mistakes listed, the war would've gone on for years, and parts of "The Man in The High Castle" we could be living out right now.

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

Falklands War: What Happened During the Battle of Goose Green?

The Battle of Goose Green stands as one of the most dramatic and significant engagements of the 1982 Falklands War between Great Britain and Argentina. This confrontation saw the British Parachute Regiment overcoming a numerically superior Argentine force to capture a strategically vital airfield.

Terry Bailey explains.

What is left of the 1982 Argentinian defensive positions on Darwin Ridge, Darwin, Falkland Islands. Source: Farawayman, available here.

Introduction

In April 1982, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, a British overseas territory, triggering a military response from Great Britain. The British government, led by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, was under immense political pressure to reclaim the islands swiftly. The international community, particularly the United States, closely watched Britain's military response. These international overseers added to the urgency of a decisive victory, simply because the international community were pressing for a negotiated settlement. A British task force was en route within 3 days of the Argentine invasion.

It is worth noting that Argentina and Great Britain had spent numerous years talking about the Falkland Islands' future long before the Argentine invasion, including a potential dual sovereignty proposal.

However, now that Argentina had invaded and a British task force had set sail, it looked like war was inevitable. The British forces landed on the Falklands and began their advance. Goose Green, a settlement on East Falkland, became a focal point. The Argentine forces had fortified the area in depth, including the nearby airfield, which was crucial for controlling air operations in the region. Military and political leaders in London and the field recognized that capturing Goose Green would deliver a significant blow to Argentine morale and strengthen the British position.

Brigadier Julian Thompson, the immediate commander of the British land forces, faced considerable pressure from the British government to produce quick results. Although some military advisors suggested bypassing Goose Green to avoid heavy casualties, the political imperative for a visible and symbolic victory prevailed. Consequently, the 2nd Battalion, Parachute Regiment (2 PARA), under the leadership of Lieutenant Colonel Herbert "H" Jones, was tasked with the audacious assault.

Strategic Overview

The overall strategy for the British forces involved a multi-pronged advance to recapture key positions on the Falklands. Goose Green, located on a narrow isthmus on East Falkland, was defended by a strong Argentine force commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Ítalo Piaggi, numbering over 1,200 men and were well-entrenched with machine guns, mortars, and artillery support.

In contrast, 2 PARA comprised approximately 600 soldiers, half the strength of the Argentine defenders. Despite this disparity, the British strategy hinged on surprise, speed, and superior training, in addition to the skill of their troops. The plan involved a night march of approximately 21 kilometers to position the battalion for a dawn assault, to use the element of surprise to disorient the defenders and secure key objectives swiftly. However, the media had managed to transmit the story before the assault occurred, thereby, the element of surprise was lost and Argentine forces were substantially reinforced and ready for the assault.

Under cover of darkness on the 27th of May, 2 PARA advanced towards the settlement, navigating difficult terrain and maintaining strict noise discipline aimed at avoiding detection. The plan was to launch a coordinated attack at first light, striking the surrounding Argentine positions with overwhelming force.

The battalion's companies were each assigned specific objectives. 2 Para were unaware that the Argentine forces were expecting an assault and had reinforced the whole Goose Green area.

A Company, under the command of Major Dair Farrar-Hockley, were to take Burntside House as their first objective, B Company, under the command of Major John Crossland, followed in the next phase of the attack and was to secure Burntside Hill and then continue to Boca Hill.

Where A Company had advanced down the left side of the isthmus, B Company were to follow the coast on the right side of the attack. After a significant delay, the advanced initially encountered very little resistance in the forward trenches. Approaching Burntside Hill, they exchanged fire with the Argentine defenders, however, on reaching the top of the hill, they found the first positions empty.

The Coronation Ridge position temporarily halted Major Neame's D Company as they advanced between A and B companies. However, D Company soon encountered heavy fire from an Argentine machine gun which was silenced by two paratroopers, allowing D Company to continue and clear the Argentine position on Coronation Ridge. These early encounters held up the advance for approximately 3 hours.

Then A Company, 2 Paras moved into the gorse line at the bottom of Darwin Hill facing the entrenched Argentines, who looked down on the British and thus were able to pin down the British with heavy machine gun and automatic rifle fire, in addition to, sniper fire, thus holding up the advance for a further hour.

At this point B Company broke off their attack and began to withdraw to the reverse side of Middle Hill and the base of Coronation Point due to being completely exposed to enemy fire, as the whole area was wide open and had no real cover available for the British.

A and B companies utilized this time to prepare temporary defensive positions while a re-organization of the attack was conducted by 2 Para's second-in-command. The British A and B Companies currently were unable to cross the open ground due to Argentine machine guns and sniper fire.

With both A and B Companies' advance halted and the entire attack in jeopardy, the 2 Para Commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jones led an unsuccessful charge up a small gully to try to regain the initiative. 3 of his men, his adjutant Captain Wood, A Company's second-in-command Captain Dent, and Corporal Hardman were killed when they followed his charge.

Shortly after that, Jones was seen to run west along the base of Darwin Ridge to a small re-entrant, checking his Sterling submachine gun, then running up the hill towards an Argentine trench. He was seen to be hit once, then fell, got up, and was hit again from the side. He fell meters short of the trench, H Jones was shot in the back and the groin, and died within minutes. Jones was posthumously awarded the Victoria Cross.

After a further 5 hours of fighting and ammunition supplies becoming critical, A Company eventually overcame the Argentine defenders on Darwin Hill, finally reporting it secure at 13:13 hrs local time, and advanced to take Boca Hill. Waving a white T-shirt from a rifle all resistance on the part of the Argentines holding Darwin Ridge ended, securing the outlying areas of Goose Green.

After securing Boca Hill and the battle for Darwin Ridge was over, the interim objectives had taken six hours of fighting, with heavy losses, the commanding officer, the adjutant, A Company's Second-in-Command, and nine non-commissioned officers and soldiers were killed with a further 30 wounded.

C and D Companies began to make their way to the airfield, as well as to Darwin School (to the east of the airfield), while B Company made their way south of Goose Green Settlement.

A Company remained on Darwin Hill. C Company originally held in reserve now advanced to contact and came under effective enemy fire sustaining heavy casualties.

The order to fix bayonets was given and C company continued their advance clearing the enemy positions as they traversed the boggy uneven terrain. The outer defenders fell back into the Darwin-Goose Green track and were able to escape. Sergeant Sergio Ismael Garcia of 25IR single-handedly covered the Argentine withdrawal during the British counterattack. For this, he was posthumously awarded the Argentine Nation to the Valor in Combat Medal.

By last light, A Company was still on Darwin Hill, north of the gorse hedge; B Company had penetrated much further south and had swung in a wide arc from the western shore of the isthmus eastwards towards Goose Green, but were isolated and under fire from Argentine positions and unable to receive mutual support from the other companies.

At this point further Argentine reinforcements were arriving; however, B Company 2 Para managed to bring down artillery fire on these new Argentine reinforcements, forcing them to disperse towards the Goose Green settlement, although some did re-embark and left with the departing helicopters that had deployed them.

At this point, C Company's attack had also stalled, after their battle at the Darwin Schoolhouse, now advancing towards Goose Green airfield they came under intense direct fire from 35 mm anti-aircraft guns from Goose Green.

Whereas, D Company had regrouped just before the last light, and they were deployed to the west of the dairy—exhausted, hungry, low on ammunition, and without water.

Food was redistributed, for A and C Companies with one ration-pack between two men; but B and D Companies could not be reached. At this time, a British helicopter casualty evacuation flight took place, successfully extracting C Company casualties from the forward slope of Darwin Hill, while under fire from Argentine positions.

To Keeble, now in command of 2 Para with the death of Lieutenant Colonel H Jones, the situation looked precarious, the Argentine position had been surrounded but not captured, and his fighting companies were exhausted, cold, and low on water, food, and ammunition.

His concern was that the Argentine reinforcements, dropped by helicopter, would either be used in an early morning counter-attack or used to stiffen the defenses around Goose Green.

He had seen the C Company assault stopped in its tracks by the anti-aircraft fire from Goose Green and had seen the Harrier strikes earlier that afternoon missing their intended targets. In an orders group with the A and C Company commanders, he indicated his preference for calling for an Argentine surrender, rather than facing an ongoing battle the following morning. This train of thought was based on the fact that the Argentine forces were surrounded and all outlying Goose Green Argentine positions were now in British hands.

However, at the same time, he put an alternative plan into action, in case the Argentines decided not to surrender. This plan was to "flatten Goose Green" with all available firepower and then launch an assault with all forces possible, including reinforcements he had requested from Brigadier Thompson.

On Thompson's orders, J Company of 42 Commando, Royal Marines, and the remaining guns of 8 Battery, and additional mortars were helicoptered in to provide the necessary support for a possible assault on the 29th of May.

However, on the morning of the 29th of May 1982, the formal surrender of Goose Green by the Argentine forces took place with 2 PARA securing a decisive victory, although with heavy losses.

Aftermath and Impact

The capture of Goose Green was a pivotal moment in the Falklands War. It demonstrated the resolve and capability of British forces operating far from their native shores of Great Britain in the world of modern combat, boosting morale both for the islanders and the populace in Great Britain. The victory also had a significant psychological impact on the Argentine forces, undermining their confidence and cohesion.

Over 1,200 Argentine soldiers from Goose Green were taken prisoner by the British. In questioning the prisoners it became quite clear that the use of the bayonet by the British was not only a shock to many of the Argentine soldiers but was a decisive factor in the collapse of morale and therefore, the overall collapse of Argentine forces at Goose Green. It should also be noted that the Argentine commander was fully aware that his command was surrounded and the British now could call upon large amounts of fire support.

The political and strategic implications of the battle were profound. Prime Minister Thatcher capitalized on the success, enabling the strengthening of domestic and international support for the British campaign. The victory at Goose Green underscored the effectiveness of British military strategy and tactics, even when facing numerically superior forces, setting the stage for subsequent operations to reclaim all of the Falklands Islands.

Conclusion

The Battle of Goose Green is remembered as a symbol of courage, skill, and determination of the British Parachute Regiment. Despite facing a numerically superior enemy, 2 PARA's audacious assault, tactical superiority and the overwhelming aggressive fighting ability of the British Airborne soldiers secured a crucial victory in the Falklands War, when international pressure was pushing for a negotiated settlement, that may have sided with the Argentine leadership.

The battle not only showcased the effectiveness of British forces but also highlighted the political and strategic dimensions of military decision-making in the heat of conflict. Reflecting on this historic engagement, the legacy of Goose Green endures as a true symbol of bravery and resilience, providing a reminder that extraordinary feats can be achieved when determination and skill combine in the face of adversity.

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

Note

Battles are often confusing and full of contradictions from either side, and the battle for Goose Green is no exception, however, what is certain is that a smaller numerical force overcame a larger force by closing with the enemy with fixed bayonets and generating enough military violence to overcome the enemy positions.

Point of interest

The English Captain John Strong made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690, and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official. The name was later applied to the whole island group. Whereas, Argentina was only founded as a country in 1816 on the 9th of July.

The Argentine sovereignty claim is based upon the inheritance of the islands, known as Las Malvinas in Argentina, from the Spanish crown in the early 1800s. Additionally, the Falkland Islands' proximity to Argentina's mainland appears to be reason enough for the claim by the Argentine government.

Lieutenant Colonel H Jones, Victoria Cross citation

On 28th May 1982 Lieutenant Colonel Jones was commanding the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment on operations on the Falkland Islands. The Battalion was ordered to attack enemy positions in and around the settlements of Darwin and Goose Green. During the attack against an enemy who was well dug in with mutually supporting positions sited in depth, the Battalion was held up just South of Darwin by a particularly well-prepared and resilient enemy position of at least eleven trenches on an important ridge.

A number of casualties were received. In order to read the battle fully and to ensure that the momentum of his attack was not lost, Colonel Jones took forward his reconnaissance party to the foot of a re-entrant which a section of his Battalion had just secured. Despite persistent, heavy and accurate fire the reconnaissance party gained the top of the re-entrant, at approximately the same height as the enemy positions. From here Colonel Jones encouraged the direction of his Battalion mortar fire, in an effort to neutralize the enemy positions.

However, these had been well prepared and continued to pour effective fire onto the Battalion advance, which, by now held up for over an hour and under increasingly heavy artillery fire, was in danger of faltering. In his effort to gain a good viewpoint, Colonel Jones was now at the very front of his Battalion. It was clear to him that desperate measures were needed in order to overcome the enemy position and rekindle the attack, and that unless these measures were taken promptly the Battalion would sustain increasing casualties and the attack perhaps even fail.

It was time for personal leadership and action. Colonel Jones immediately seized a sub-machine gun, and, calling on those around him and with total disregard for his own safety, charged the nearest enemy position. This action exposed him to fire from a number of trenches. As he charged up a short slope at the enemy position he was seen to fall and roll backward downhill. He immediately picked himself up, and again charged the enemy trench, firing his sub-machine gun and seemingly oblivious to the intense fire directed at him. He was hit by fire from another trench which he outflanked, and fell dying only a few feet from the enemy he had assaulted.

A short time later A company of the Battalion attacked the enemy, who quickly surrendered. The display of courage by Colonel Jones had completely undermined their will to fight further.

Thereafter the momentum of the attack was rapidly regained, Darwin and Goose Green were liberated, and the Battalion released the local inhabitants unharmed and forced the surrender of some 1,200 of the enemy.

The achievements of the 2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment at Darwin and Goose Green set the tone for the subsequent land victory on the Falklands. The British achieved such a moral superiority over the enemy in this first battle that, despite the advantages of numbers and selection of battleground, the Argentinian troops never thereafter doubted either the superior fighting qualities of the British troops or their own inevitable defeat.

This was an action of the utmost gallantry by a Commanding Officer whose dashing leadership and courage throughout the battle were an inspiration to all about him.

His Victoria Cross is displayed at the National Army Museum in Chelsea, London.

Other British awards

The Distinguished Service Order was awarded to Maj. C.B.P. Keeble, the Battalion second in command

The Military Cross Was awarded to:

Maj. J.H. Crossland: OC B Coy

Maj. C.D. Farrar-Hockley: OC A Coy

Lt. C.S. Connor: Recce Pl. Cmdr

Distinguished Conduct Medal was awarded to:

Cpl. D. Abols for his daring charges, which turned the Darwin Hill battle

Sgt. J.C. Meredith, Pl Sgt, 12 Platoon, D Company

Pte S. Illingsworth was posthumously awarded the DCM

What was the Unseen Ship Near the Titanic's Tragic End?

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.

The Daring 1962 British Hostage Rescue in Limbang, Malaysia

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.

The Clash of Power - 1914 Battle of the Falkland Islands

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

Terry Bailey explains.

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

Prelude to Battle

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

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

The Combatants

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

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

The Battle Unfolds

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

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

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

Commanders in the Spotlight

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

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

Immediate Outcome and Tactical Aftermath

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

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

Long-Term Repercussions

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Arrival

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

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

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

Many unsung heroes

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

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

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

Care

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spy Mania and Conspiracy in Russia During World War One

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

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

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

Tsarist Russia

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

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

Worry

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

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

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

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

War progresses

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

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

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

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

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

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

114

[4] Vasiliev, The Ochrana, p. 115

[5] Vasiliev, The Ochrana, p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rescuing Mussolini: The Fallschirmjäger Gran Sasso Raid

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

Terry Bailey explains.

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

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

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

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

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

Key Elements of the Plan:

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

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

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

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

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

Key Phases of the Execution:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Stephen Prout explains.

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

Who was Simon Fraser?

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

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

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

Lofoten Islands, Norway

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

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

Hardelot - Operation Abercrombie

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

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

Dieppe – Operation Jubilee

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

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

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

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

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

D-Day – Operation Overlord, Pegasus Bridge and Breville

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

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

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

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

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

Injury and the end of the war

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

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

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

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

Military Rankings of Lord Lovat’s Career

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

Sources

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

Ian Rank-Broadly Sculpture

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