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

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

Terry Bailey explains.

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

Strategic Importance and Objectives

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

Forces Involved

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

Key units included:

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

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

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

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

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

The Assault Begins

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

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

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

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

Decisive Actions

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

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

The Role of the 2nd Commando Brigade

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

Progress and Outcome

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

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

Aftermath and Legacy

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

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

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

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

The Award of Victoria Crosses

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

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

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

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

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

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

Point of interest

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

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

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

The Inquisitions of the Middle Ages - Part 4: What was the Spanish Inquisition?

The Inquisitions of the Middle Ages were a series of judicial procedures led by the Roman Catholic Church in the later Middle Ages in response to movements that the Church considered heretical.  Here, Jeb Smith concludes his series by looking at the Spanish Inquisition, as well as witchcraft, Galileo, and Joan of Arc.

Part 1 on an introduction to the inquisitions is here, part 2 on who the inquisitors were is here, and part 3 on the inquisitions and freedom of speech here.

Witches' Sabbath by Francisco Goya, 1797-98.

The Spanish Inquisitions

The Spanish Inquisition was not a medieval institution. Before 1300, Inquisitions were virtually nonexistent in Spain.[1]The Spanish kingdom of Castile never had an inquisition, and Aragón’s was effectively defunct by around 1450.[2] It might surprise many readers to discover that, while the last person executed by the Inquisition died in 1826 (by hanging, though the Church authorities had demanded burning at the stake[3]), the institution’s power and activities had been steadily declining since the middle of the 18th century. Its foundation was near the end of 1478. However, in this country, the Inquisition’s image and reputed brutality would significantly impact the modern psyche. The Medieval Inquisition evolved into the even more severe Spanish Inquisition during the Renaissance.[4]

The Inquisition began to prevent and extinguish mob violence against the recent Jewish converts in Spain.[5] In 1478, Pope Sixtus IV granted permission to Isabella and Ferdinand to establish an inquisition in Spain. However, in 1482, the Spanish crown took over the Inquisition, despite objections from the Pope and papal inquisitors due to the Jews being denied due process in the proceedings. The Spanish Inquisition was established during the united reign of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand, a much longer-lasting and more devastating form of the Inquisition than its medieval predecessor. Unlike the medieval version, this rendition integrated a political aspect that made everything more devastating, impassioned, and deadly to human life.[6] Religion, politics, culture and economics all played a role in igniting the Spanish Inquisition.

This was not a “true” Inquisition in that the government, not the Pope, controlled it. As the Spanish Inquisition separated from the church and papal control and came more under the domain of the crown, Pope Sixtus IV condemned it, writing that it “has for some time been moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls, but by lust for wealth.”[7] Not surprisingly, it contained political aspects. It was not a Catholic but a “national” emergency.[8]Steve Weidenkopf stated the Spanish Inquisition was “Really politics, the crown of Spain wanted to consolidate power in the south where the people were a threat to Spain’s power.”[9] The power and influence of the Pope declined after the medieval period, leading monarchs across Europe to become the new authority. Lacking political influence, the medieval papal-directed Inquisition had less power than and a different motivation to the later secular ones, such as the Spanish Inquisition.[10]

The Inquisition was used to restore the “native” Christian rulers and reclaim those positions of power that ethnic Jews had earned.[11] During the time when Muslim armies were still fighting against the Spanish crown in southern Spain, many Muslims and Jews who lived in Spain converted to Catholicism. However, many Catholic citizens were worried that some of these converts were not true believers and might help the Muslim armies invade cities, open the gates to the cities, or provide information to the enemy.

In addition, during this time there was a plague outbreak and since Jews who followed the Old Testament sanitation and health guidelines in the Laws of Moses were rarely affected, many people blamed them for the epidemic. Moreover, there were large Jewish populations in Spain, and anti-Semitism increased due to the plague. Jews were also present in high positions in the government, and many had significant incomes and power. Since some converted Jews still continued to follow many of the customs of Judaism, conspiracy theories started to emerge about false converts seeking to take over the crown, and persecution increased. To stop the persecution of true Jewish converts, the inquisitions were sent mainly to these southern cities; most of the Spanish population did not encounter the Inquisition.[12]

So the Spanish Inquisition was triggered by the mass conversion of Jews to Catholicism, prompting questions about their sincerity that needed investigation. As early as 1391, persecution of Jews started, due to jealousy and other motivations. Thousands of Jews were killed during this time. To escape persecution, many more Jews converted and also obtained high positions, especially in the royal and financial sectors, though the legitimacy of their conversions was often questioned.

Many consider the year 1492, remembered chiefly now as the year of Columbus, to have also been the foundation year of modern and unified Spain. At the very beginning of that year Isabella and Ferdinand completed the Reconquista with the fall of Granada, the last remaining Muslim polity in the peninsula, and offered the Jewish population the choice to either convert to Christianity or depart the country within four months.[13]

Operation

Over the centuries, the Spanish Inquisitions included a variety of categories of investigation, such as heresy or Protestantism. A local priest would preach to the population to explain why heresy was wrong. Afterward, an inquisitor would preach and, prior to 1500, provide a grace period for any heretics seeking forgiveness through private confession. Evidence and witnesses would be presented after the grace period, and the accused would face trial. They were provided a lawyer and a chance to repent before the trial began.

During the period of royal control, inquisitors disregarded canon law on certain occasions and relied on mere accusations to condemn heretics. This led to the confiscation of the heretics’ lands, which were then, on occasion, handed over to the crown – a convenient motivator for inquisitors to declare guilty verdicts. Pope Sixtus IV condemned such practices, stating that the inquisitors were acting unlawfully and “moved not by zeal for the faith and the salvation of souls, but by lust for wealth” and “with no regard to law, have imprisoned many unjustly, have subjected them to dire torments and have unjustly declared them heretics and despoiled them, once dead, of their goods.” Leading to the criticism of the Spanish Inquisition that it was a government-led effort to seize property for financial gain. However, even the confiscated property was used to fund the project, barely keeping it financially stable.[14]

At times, accused heretics were unfairly imprisoned for months or even years before trial, simply on suspicion. The names of their accusers were not published or made known (out of concern for the accusers’ safety), leading to corruption and personal disputes between individuals utilizing the authority of the Inquisition for personal use. However, the accused were provided with legal representation, and the court deemed testimony from personal enemies inadmissible. They were also allowed to call witnesses on their behalf.[15]

The Inquisitor prisons were healthier, had more space, and the prisoners were better provided for compared to secular ones, so much so that prisoners made purposeful heretical claims in order to be transferred to them.[16] They had access to a variety of food and wine, and some even authored books while in prison; others were allowed to come and go as they wished.[17]

Imprisonment was not punishment in our modern sense. Historian Henry Kamen writes “The penitentiary system, in which the prison itself was the punishment, did not come into existence in Europe until the nineteenth century. By the Instructions of 1488 Inquisitors could at their discretion confine a man to his own house or to some other institution such as a convent or hospital, with the result that very many ‘prisoners‘ served their sentences in moderate comfort.”[18]

In the inquisitor jails, prisoners could purchase food, comforts, wine, paper, and ink, which some even used to write and publish books.[19] Prisoners received adequate nutrition and medical care and celebrated holidays such as Easter and Christmas.[20]

Torture and Death

If torture was used, the method and duration were recorded. It could not be used for more than 15 minutes, no blood or threat to life and limb could result.[21] The Spanish Inquisitors employed torture less frequently than secular courts did, in fact in only 2% of the cases was it used.[22] Torture could only be used when evidence indicated a guilty verdict but the accused refused to confess. Only a minority of cases, approximately one-third, resorted to torture even when the evidential circumstances permitted it. A confession would immediately stop torture and if a confession was made under torture, the accused was given a day of rest and asked once more without torture.

Helen Rawlings wrote of the Spanish Inquisition, “Inquisitors themselves were skeptical of the efficacy and validity of torture as a method.”[23] The techniques employed were identical to those utilized by secular Europe during that period. Professor Burman noted that it was not until the 17th and 18th centuries that “books inspired and elaborated a legend of violence and torture far worse than the reality of the Inquisition. Though it is undeniable that a good deal of torture took place during the long history of the Spanish tribunal, most serious contemporary historians present a fairer and more balanced interpretation of the Spanish Inquisition.”[24]

The death penalty was reserved only for relapsed heretics who remained unrepentant and defended their views.[25]And throughout his duty, the Inquisitor aimed to preserve a heretic’s life, rather than condemn them to death.[26]Professor Stark said that compared to secular courts of the day, “The Spanish Inquisition was a consistent force for justice, restraint, due process, and enlightenment.”[27] Repentance is what was desired, even from those about to be condemned to death.[28]

The Inquisition was not an all-encompassing force, but a small number of officials (bureaucracy did expand it over time), barely stayed financially afloat and scarcely came into contact with the majority of the population outside of larger towns. It had little to no impact on 90% of the population.[29] Scholar Henry Kamen wrote that outside of specific significant cities, “a town might see an inquisitor maybe once every ten years, or even once a century: many never saw one in their entire history.”[30] Critics have exaggerated the number of executions during the Spanish Inquisition. Professor Stark said that compared to secular courts of the day, "The Spanish Inquisition was a consistent force for justice, restraint, due process, and enlightenment."[31]For instance, only 15 people were executed from 1575-1610, and eight were executed from 1648-1694.[32] One hundred fifty thousand were put on trial during the Spanish Inquisition, but only 3,000 were executed.[33] A large enough number, but this still goes against the common perception of the Inquisition’s unceasing brutality.[34] Only 1.8% of those who stood trial were executed, usually repeat offenders who refused to repent.[35] According to Michael Warren Davis, the state of Texas executes twice as many people per year as the Spanish Inquisitions did.[36] More people in the United States die during certain months from car accidents than in the Spanish Inquisition over 250 years! Speaking of the Spanish Inquisition Professor Edward Peters wrote, “In spite of wildly inflated estimates of the numbers of its victims, it acted with considerable restraint in inflicting the death penalty, far more restraint than was demonstrated in secular tribunals elsewhere in Europe that dealt with the same kind of offenses.”[37]

Positives?

During the time when Europe was experiencing numerous revolutions, the Spanish Inquisition helped keep Catholic Spain unified. The Inquisition helped maintain Spanish religious unity and prevented the (far more deadly) wars that ravaged the rest of Europe during this period. If a major conflict had occurred the loss of life would have been significant, but the Spanish Inquisition indirectly prevented this from happening. More lives were likely saved than lost as a result.

Further, during the 16th and 17th centuries, the craze for witch hunts was almost nonexistent in Spain, in contrast to other parts of Europe where witch hunts were prevalent due to the lack of an Inquisition or a weaker influence of it.[38]Being accustomed to evaluating evidence as lawyers, Inquisitors were among the most vocal and prominent skeptics of the secular witch craze. The Spanish Inquisition made the witch craze almost nonexistent in Spain, whereas many suffered in places that lacked Inquisitors, such as England.[39]

Having a fair and impartial outsider who is trained and knowledgeable about conducting trials can make a significant difference in saving lives from enraged mobs. An excellent example of this is during the middle of the witch craze hysteria in 1612 when Spanish inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frías investigated 1,802 people accused of witchcraft and, after careful examination of their claimed magical powers and alleged sex with demons, declared, “I have not found even indications from which to infer that a single act of witchcraft has really occurred.”[40] Had these accused individuals been left to the mercy of an angry and fearful mob, it is unlikely that many would have survived.

The secular Spanish Inquisitions during the Renaissance (a movement away from Christendom) are often used to criticize Christians and warn against implementing a Christian-based society. The argument is that if we return to such a society, people will be burned at the stake again. However, it’s worth noting that more modern secular societies have also committed crimes that have been far more devastating to humanity based on their own worldviews and political systems. Comparatively, these crimes make the Inquisition seem peaceful and tolerant.[41] Further, the Spanish Inquisition was basically stopped in its tracks by Inquisitor Alonso de Salazar Frías as regards witch executions.[42]

The consequences of allowing society to become secular have been devastating to human life, liberty, and happiness.[43] During the height of Spanish power and prestige, the Spanish Inquisition reached its peak. Clearly, it did not cause a backward result in the country or lead it into a “dark age.” Also, think of the destructive nature of many modern philosophies such as communism, socialism, Nazism, fascism, nationalism, racism, and blind obedience to the state and how they have killed hundreds of millions of people. Ideas have consequences, and the medieval mind and the medieval Church sought to prevent such damaging ideas from spreading in the name of ‘free speech’.

However, especially in its early years, there was widespread opposition to the Inquisition at various times, especially from local authorities and “compact” towns as they often violated local laws and constitutions and customs, the thing was “new.”[44] Local priests and bishops objected because dealing with heretics and the like during the Middle Ages was left to local control, not a crown-endorsed centralized Inquisition. Further, locals, both lay and clergy, often stated that conversion should be done via “persuasion,” not force.[45] Holding to a more Medieval mindset, conversion is not made by fire but, as one author wrote, “by water” (baptism), which was more successful.[46]

Galileo and Joan of Arc

The trial of Galileo in 1633 is often viewed as an example of the overbearing nature of the Inquisition. However, many facts go unnoticed, and his trial remains, as Professor Burman wrote, “quite different from that often portrayed.”[47]

According to Burman, the belief that Galileo was condemned for his astronomical views is a widespread misconception. The main reason for his condemnation was his involvement in a philosophical dispute related to the Eucharist and his refusal to follow standard “protocol.”[48] Galileo was sentenced to house arrest not for supporting the Copernican system but for violating unrelated Inquisition terms. Galileo often made enemies, and he provoked the Inquisitors. It is worth noting that Inquisitors had previously approved other works by Galileo. His punishment was 22 days in “the handsome and commodious apartment of the official of the Inquisition.”[49] During his stay, he was allowed to hire servants and was required to recite seven Psalms once a week for three years. Additionally, he was put under house arrest but was not subjected to any form of torture.

Another famous post-medieval Inquisition trial was that of Joan of Arc. Her wrongful conviction was not a result of the Inquisition but rather a trial that was clearly and solely influenced by politics. After her death, she was eventually recognized as a saint.[50] She was subjected to a trial by her political adversaries, who handpicked the prosecutor. Those who opposed the unjust trial were incarcerated. Joan of Arc underwent a posthumous retrial conducted by Church authorities, which included supervision by the Inquisitor General, in 1455. She was found not guilty and was declared a saint in 1920.

Witchcraft

The Catholic Church is often held solely responsible and blamed for the witch hunts, but Protestants and secularists also carried out their persecution.[51] Further, witchcraft was subject to the authority of the Inquisitors only if it was linked, which was probably frequent, to heresy.[52] After investigating claims, the Inquisitors were among the first to be skeptical of the witch craze.[53] During the Middle Ages, witchcraft was believed to be aimed at causing harm or destruction to individuals or possessions. Additionally, the observance of witchcraft and pagan festivals was thought to involve making a pact with Satan or other evil entities. As I mentioned earlier, witchcraft persecution was not prevalent during the Middle Ages from 700-1300 A.D.  As with heresy, the Inquisitors could not carry out punishment for witchcraft. The civil courts judged them because they were guilty of harming others.[54] Also, like heresy, the accused should be fairly tried: “Judges do not deprive a prisoner of his legal rights without very good cause, for this cannot be but an offense to Almighty God.” And “the accused shall as far as possible be given the benefit of every doubt.”[55]

The mob tends to react quickly and irrationally when they are afraid.[56] During the COVID-19 pandemic, many medical professionals and authorities made claims about the virus, its symptoms, prevention, and more that were based on inadequate data and considerably exaggerated. Yet, despite the paucity of evidence, the mob believed them. Similarly, many authorities fueled the fire during the witch-hunt period by making similar claims about witches. Once the mob was incited, it became incredibly difficult to calm them down.

During times of extreme death rates among loved ones, family, friends, and even church officials, fear can take over people’s minds, cause delusions and inhibit rational thought. In the late 14th century, as Europe was hit by plagues, crop failures leading to famine, wars, increased governmental control and moral decay, people sought to assign blame for what appeared to be divine judgment on the nations. In this emotional and terrifying time, witches (who were both male and female) were widely believed to be in contact with the devil, who was thought to provide them with powers to commit unprecedented acts of evil, accusations based on first-hand testimonies of witches, former witches, and other witnesses.

According to such testimonies, witches engaged in horrifying acts of boiling children alive and consuming them.[57]They were also believed responsible for the numerous natural and other disasters that began during the 14th century.[58] Witches were believed to engage in everything from sexual perversion to child sacrifice during their rituals; even by modern standards, they would find themselves condemned. Witches were believed to have the power to harm people and animals, often by poisoning them. Authorities could only execute someone for practicing witchcraft if they could prove that their dark arts had caused harm to someone.[59] Witches were often accused of murdering children, yet they could not be sentenced unless the victims’ bodies were found.[60] Yet, even confessed witches could still find forgiveness in Jesus.[61]

According to Professor Rodney Stark in Bearing False Witness, the number of claimed witch deaths is often exaggerated. The accurate number is around 10,000, not upward of 100,000.

The infamous Salem Witch Trials are also used to attack a Christian society. Yet, they did not follow Biblical evidence and witness requirements, or trial guidelines. The judge and jury repented publicly, asked God for forgiveness for the mistake they had made and declared they were ignorant of how they violated the Bible’s judicial system, and the families of those who suffered were compensated.[62]

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

 

Bibliography

-Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. New York, London: J.M. Dent; E.P. Dutton, 1910.

-Burman, Edward. The Inquisition: The Hammer of Heresy. Dorset Press, 1992.

-Carroll, Warren H. 1993. The Glory of Christendom. N.p.: Christendom Press.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated. Crown Publishing Group, 1995.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001.

-Davis, Michael Warren. The Reactionary Mind: Why Conservative Isn't Enough. Regnery Gateway, 2021.

-Durant, Will, and Ariel Durant. The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4) (Story of Civilization). Simon & Schuster, 1980.

-Ferrara, Christopher A. 2012. Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama. N.p.: Angelico Press.

-Hoffmann, Richard. An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

-Holmes, George, ed. 1988. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. N.p.: Oxford University Press.

-Jarrett, Bede. 2007. Social Theories of the Middle Ages, 1200-1500. N.p.: Archivum Press.

-Jones, Andrew W. 2017. Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX. N.p.: Emmaus Academic.

-Kamen, Henry. The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press, 2014.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001

-L. PLUNKET, IERNE L. 1922. EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai, England: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.

-Madden, Thomas, director. “The Modern Scholar: Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition.” 2008.

-Madden, Thomas. “The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture.” The Great Courses Series, 2019.

-The following citation were derived from Medieval Sourcebook Fordham University (“Confession of Arnaud Gélis, also called Botheler "The Drunkard" of Mas-Saint-Antonin”)(“Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism”) (GUI, BERNARD, and Translation by David Burr. “BERNARD GUI: INQUISITOR'S MANUAL.”.)(Schroeder, H. J., translator. The Disciplinary Decrees of the Ecumenical Counci,. St. Louis:, B. Herder Book Co., 1937).(Agobard of Lyons, and Translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);.Agobard of Lyons (9th Century): On Hail and Thunder.”)

-Pernoud, Regine. Glory of the Medieval World. Dobson Books Ltd, 1950.

-Peters, Edward. Inquisition. University of California Press, 1989.

-Rawlings, Helen. The Spanish Inquisition. Wiley, 2006.

-Smith, Jeb. 2024. Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty.

-Smith, Jeb. 2023. The Road Goes Ever On and On. N.p.: Christian Faith Publishing, Incorporated.

-Stark, Rodney. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. Templeton Press, 2017.

-Thatcher, Oliver J. “The Library of Original Sources - Vol. IV: The Early Medieval World, pp. 211-239.” Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co, 1901.

-Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300-1475: Formerly entitled a History of the Middle Ages, 284-1500. 4th ed., Knopf, 1983.

-Weidenkompf, Steve, director. The Real Story of the Inquisitions. Catholic Answers.

-Weidenkopf, Steve. The Real Story of Catholic History: Answering Twenty Centuries of Anti-Catholic Myths. Catholic Answers, Incorporated, 2017

-Wickham, Chris. Medieval Europe. Yale University Press, 2017.

[1] (Durant 1950, 783)

[2] (Burman 135)

[3] (Kamen 373)

[4] (Jarrett 2007, 210)

[5] (Stark 128)

[6] (Burman 136, 207)(Madden2008)(Smith 2024)

[7] (Kamen 58)

[8] (Burman 151)

[9] (Weidenkopf)

[10] (Peters 57)

[11] (Burman 137)

[12] (Weidenkopf 2017, 114)

[13] (Burman 138)

[14] (Burman 139)(Peters 91)

[15] (Burman 145)

[16] (Kamen 235)

[17] (Kamen 237)

[18] (Kamen 251)

[19] (Burman 145-146)

[20] (Burman 177)

[21] (Stark 122)

[22] (Stark 122)(Peters 92, 112) (Weidenkopf 2017, 122) (Kamen 239-240)

[23] (Rawlings)

[24] (Burman 150)

[25] (Burman 153)

[26] (Burman 153)

[27] (Stark 119)

[28] (Kamen 260-261)

[29] (Kamen 75, 348)

[30] (Kamen 225)

[31] (Stark 119)

[32] (Burman 152-153)

[33] (Peters 87) (Kamen 260-261)

[34] (Burman 156)

[35] (Stark 121-122) (Kamen 248, 254)

[36] (Davis 2021 54)

[37] (Peters 87)

[38] (Stark 124)

[39] (Kamen 293-300)

[40] (Burman 182)

[41] (Smith 2024)

[42] (Kors and Peters 408)

[43] Monarchy

[44] (Kamen 75-76)

[45] (Kamen 60)

[46] (Kamen 77-78)

[47] (Burman 172) “The Trial of Galileo” (Burman)

[48] (Burman 175)

[49] (Burman 174) (Peters 249)

[50] (Burman 105)

[51] (Burman 190)

[52] (Burman 119)

[53] (Peters 111)

[54] (Kors and Peters 204-205)

[55] (Kors and Peters 207-208 220-221)

[56] (Smith 2024)

[57] (Kors and Peters 192, 293)

[58] (Kors and Peters 236)

[59] (Peters 113)

[60] (Burman 186)

[61] (Kors and Peters 308)

[62] (Kors and Peters 436-437)

Henry Halleck: Polarizing Figure of the US Civil War

Major General Henry Halleck was a central figure in the US Civil War, being the General in Chief of the Armies of the United States from 1862-1864. However, he is often overlooked and even outright denigrated by modern minds. His portrayal in historical descriptions and fictional accounts borders on the derisory. Typical character traits that are emphasized include being a bureaucrat, a wine gourmet, and emotionally separated from the battlefield. These polarizing depictions do not give credit to a general who was a highly skilled political and administrative man who was indispensable to victory. Part of his negative historical reputation is that he wasn’t a great field commander during the war, but the concept that generals have to be battle warriors rather than policy or administrative types may fill the popular mold, but it’s not correct. Few people have the hands-on experience of foreign policy that generals do. So, men like Dwight Eisenhower, George C Marshall, Douglas MacArthur, William Westmoreland, David Petraeus, and Mark Miley deserve recognition for primarily setting policy. But Halleck lacked the diplomatic skills among his peers that these more successful men had, which may be why we remember him with such disdain.

Lloyd W Klein explains.

Major General Henry Halleck during the US Civil War.

Early Life and Career

Halleck was born on a farm in Upstate New York and hated that life. He was raised by an uncle who set him up for a military career. He went to West Point where he excelled, graduating 3rd in his class. He was a favorite student of Dennis Hart Mahan. He became a member of the elite Army Corps of Engineers, who studied and improved the defenses of New York Harbor and traveled to Europe to see what the French were doing. He along the way wrote books on military science. He gave a series of lectures in Boston which were collected and published in 1846 as Elements of Military Art & Science.

On his way to California for the Mexican War, he didn’t waste his time playing shuffleboard; he instead did something that made him quite famous. He translated Jomini’s Vie Politique et Militaire de Napoleon into English. This book made him famous in America and in Europe. The point of this book was how Napoleon used his military power to achieve political ends.

He was engaged at the Battle of Mazatlán but was primarily an administrative officer. Having achieved a reputation as a military scholar, he acquired the nickname “Old Brains”.

After the war, he resigned from the army opened a law firm, and became secretary of state of California. He married Elizabeth Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton’s granddaughter. He resigned from the army in 1854. His firm Halleck, Peachy, and Billings was highly prominent. He also was for a time president of the Atlantic and Pacific RR. He also remained a Major General in the California militia. Through land speculation, became a wealthy man. He owned a 30,000-acre ranch in Marin County.

The Civil War Begins

When the Civil War broke out, Halleck promptly volunteered, and Abraham Lincoln promptly made him a full major general. Despite being out of the army at that point for 7 years, he was ranked only by Winfield Scott, George McClellan, and John C. Frémont.

In November, Halleck was sent to St. Louis in command of the Department of the Missouri.  He replaced Frémont, who had been nothing short of a disaster. The department was rife with corruption and fraud. Halleck quickly put his administrative talents to work, and within a few months restored a measure of order to a region defined up to that point by chaos.

A series of important Union victories in his department followed. Even though he did not lead the troops personally, his organizational work had helped and Halleck, rightly or wrongly, received much of the credit. These included Pea Ridge, Island No. 10, Fort Donelson, and Shiloh.  Although he was not the commander in the field in any of these battles, he was responsible for ordering the movements that led to the battles, supervising the generals who were there, and supplying their forces.

After Shiloh, he led the Corinth campaign. His approach was to move slowly and entrench every mile or so. His methodical style was not what was needed. Beauregard was able to hold the city for over a month, then retreat without a battle. In retrospect, he could have captured the town in a week. Keeping in mind that he was a student of Mahan, and translated Jomini, both defense-minded strategists, he was fighting a Napoleonic war, not the Civil War. Old Brains was strategically obsolete.

Halleck & Grant

His relationship with his best subordinate general was difficult. When the senior manager has in his department a budding genius, how that relationship plays out tells you oodles about the kind of person he is. Ulysses Grant was a brigadier general in Halleck’s department who had never been in command of anything before, perhaps including his own sobriety. But Grant proposed an amphibious combined forces operation on the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers to take out Forts Henry and Donelson. Nothing like that had ever been tried and certainly was not in the books Halleck had written. I’m not sure what any of us would have thought about Sam Grant in January 1862 if we were his superior, especially when he proposed an aggressive attack to a defense-minded Old Brain.

But the resulting victory and capture of 14,000 confederates as the eastern theater was doing nothing made Halleck an important man. He promoted Grant but then relieved him, only to reinstate him. Grant wondered about this, leading to a highly cynical response from Halleck that whistles throughout history.

What did Sherman and Grant think about Halleck at this point? Was it accurate?

What changed Halleck’s mind about Grant’s plan for Fort Donelson was President Lincoln’s need for a victory. Lincoln was insistent that an offensive be started, and Halleck had no better ideas. Lincoln order was issued January 27th, ordering all Federal forces to advance on February 22nd.

But despite the victories at Donelson &  Henry, Halleck initially demoted him. Grant left his district to meet Buell in Nashville and did not immediately stop looting at the two captured forts. Halleck also cited rumors of renewed alcoholism. There are rumors of a rogue telegraph operator tossing Grant's messages to Halleck, but Halleck had issues throughout the war.  The recent Samuel Curtis bio suggests that Halleck had his aides create a digest for all communications, so Halleck was constantly under the impression that his subordinates were not communicating to him regularly when the digest failed to represent their activity. Ostensibly, for whatever reason, Halleck claimed Grant had gone incommunicado, but there appears to have been some jealousy involved because instead of claiming that Grant was not communicating appropriately, Halleck accused him of being drunk.

Once again, Lincoln and Stanton intervened. Lincoln asked Halleck to forward specific charges against Grant for official review, and Halleck was promoted to command of all armies in the west.  His jealousy being sated and his hand called, Halleck restored Grant to command. Their correspondence is ironic because Grant complained about his arrest by claiming "… there must be enemies between you and myself" and Halleck responded "…there are no enemies between myself and you," which was the truth because the enemy was Halleck himself.

Why Halleck wanted to take credit for Grant’s victory isn’t hard to understand; because it was the first major Federal victory of the war, and Halleck could parlay the victory into command of all forces in the West. Lincoln needed a general who wasn’t afraid to fight. In that sense, Halleck was a clone of McClellan, and they couldn’t have that in both theaters. Grant asked him if someone was giving Halleck bad reports about him, Halleck responded in the negative without telling him that it was he, himself, responsible. Halleck was not the commander of the Western Theater; Buell was his competition. Halleck needed the credit for his advancement.

At this stage of the war, both Grant and Sherman thought highly of Halleck and owed him their positions. Halleck was the master at that point in the war, certainly in terms of paperwork and administration. Grant had many of the qualities of a great leader that Halleck would never have: gut instinct, fearlessness, and indomitable energy. But any book on being a CEO today will tell you just as important is a sense of humility.  If you find yourself the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room.  Grant was not a great military thinker, but he was the greatest idea aggregator.  He sought to surround himself with thinkers and then would forge plans as an aggregate of the part. Grant regarded Halleck as "one of the greatest men of the age" and Sherman described him as the "directing genius". And why not? Halleck was in command of the best department in the Army at that point. Curtis had won at Pea Ridge, Pope at Island  Number 10, and Grant at Donelson. And in fact, he deserves some of the credit. Halleck understood grand strategy a little better than McClellan and had the ability to recognize and promote talent, but also the ambition and ego to resent being overshadowed by their successes.  Lincoln put him in the right place - where he could have rank and wield some power, and be close to power, but where he couldn't interfere any more than Lincoln himself allowed him to.  He was more than a clerk but much less than the commanding general he wanted to be.

Advancement to General-in-Chief

In March 1862 Halleck was given command also of Ohio and Kansas, placing Buell under his command. With Grant under personal attack after Shiloh, Halleck arrived to personally command this army and move on to Corinth. While Grant felt that he was being shunted aside, Halleck to some extent was doing them both a favor.

With the fall of Corinth and the collapse of the Peninsula Campaign, Halleck was transferred east to become General-in-Chief. He placed Grant in command of most of the Western forces. Lincoln was hopeful that Halleck could stimulate aggressiveness; but while Halleck excelled at training, supply, and deployment, he was awful as a strategist and unable to work with the generals under him, who simply ignored him.

Most accounts of Halleck moving Grant to his second in command suggest a nefarious motivation. The problem is that while how things turned out for Grant is well known, after Shiloh, he was under a massive media attack. The fact that Grant had been the victim of a surprise attack made him, at that moment, tough to support. But as much as Halleck didn’t support Grant, he was even less inclined to trust the volunteer generals under him.

But his failings at this level of command would soon become obvious. His biggest failure was the coup de grace for Lincoln’s views of him. When McClellan didn’t come to support Pope at Second Manassas, Lincoln lost hope in Halleck, calling him “little more than a first-rate clerk”. To be fair, there were no better generals for either Lincoln or Halleck to select from, and it’s a bit unfair to pin the blame on Halleck. Lincoln had promoted him to get the results he had in the west, but with eastern generals.  Still, Halleck was a bit thin-skinned and thereafter refused to take direct responsibility for anything that happened.

His subordinates had little respect for him. McClellan said of Halleck, “Of all the men who I have encountered in high position, Halleck was the most helplessly stupid. It was more difficult to get an idea through his head than can be conceived by anyone who never made the attempt. I do not think he ever had a correct military idea from beginning to end.” Gideon Welles, the Secretary of the Navy wrote, “Halleck originates nothing, anticipates nothing to assist others; takes no responsibility, plans nothing, suggests nothing, is good for nothing."

Grant Supersedes Halleck

Grant was promoted to Lt Gen and general-in-chief on March 12, 1864. Halleck became chief of staff, and Grant graciously stated that he had been relieved at his own request. Grant of course took a completely different view of the job than Halleck had, accompanying Meade’s army in the field and setting strategy at the battlefield.

Which left Halleck back in Washington, doing what he did best: ensuring proper supplies, equipment, and manpower. He supported Grant’s initiatives politically and the two worked very well in complementary roles. But with Jubal Early threatening the city, Halleck had responsibility for its defense. Halleck’s inability to organize a defense of the capital was his final disgrace. Chaos reigned. He did ultimately gather together a force that held Early off. Were it not for Monocacy, he might have entered the city.

After the War

With Lincoln’s assassination, Stanton took the first opportunity he could and moved Halleck out of Washington to a new job, where Halleck made a very serious political enemy. Stanton had had enough of Halleck, and without Lincoln around to hold him back, he made Halleck commander of the Division of the James, which meant Richmond. When Sherman offered Johnston the infamous gracious original surrender terms, Stanton suggested that Sherman was a traitor (actually, he was implementing what he thought Lincoln would have wanted based on their meeting at City Point) and Halleck, ever the politician, went along with it. This upset Sherman; and things deteriorated when at the Grand Review Halleck ordered one of Sherman’s Corps to pass him, which Sherman countermanded. This was a shocking turn of events since Halleck had given Sherman every opportunity to rehabilitate himself when he was deemed “crazy” at the start of the war.

Consequently, just 4 months later, Grant moved him to political exile Grant moved him back to San Francisco as commander of the Division of the Pacific. Given his home and residence there, Grant must be complimented on trying to help out his old chief as best as he could. A few years later, he was moved to command in Louisville, where he died a few years later.

Conclusion

Halleck was a bureaucrat, in every sense of the word, both good and bad. His need for success, like many of the others in the Union Army at the start of the war, precluded taking chances or doing anything not politically correct. He also had the wrong temperament for field command and was promoted beyond his capability. Still, he was an intelligent man whose inability to work with others led to terrible personal relationships, rather than he being incompetent. Administration takes on a negative connotation in the context of glorified heroes of battle, but he should be recognized for his positive contributions as well as his flaws.

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

Admiral Thomas Cochrane: The Seawolf of the Royal Navy

Admiral Thomas Cochrane, 10th Earl of Dundonald, stands as one of the most audacious and controversial figures in naval history. His career, marked by brilliance, bravery, and a defiance of convention, not only revolutionized naval warfare but also carved a place for him in maritime legend. From his early days in the Royal Navy to his exploits while engaged by foreign navies, Cochrane's life was a relentless pursuit of innovation and excellence, often at odds with the establishment.

Terry Bailey explains.

Thomas Cochrane as painted by copyist Archibald Eliot Haswell-Miller. Original painting by Peter Edward Stroehlin.

Early Life and Entry into the Royal Navy

Born on the 14th of December, 1775, in Annsfield, Scotland, Thomas Cochrane was the son of Archibald Cochrane, the 9th Earl of Dundonald, a man of scientific curiosity and perpetual financial woes. This backdrop of intellectual vigor and economic struggle likely influenced Thomas's character—imbuing him with a relentless drive and a disdain for bureaucratic incompetence.

Cochrane's father secured him a commission in the British Army at an early age, however, Cochrane managed to extract himself from the army commission preferring to join the Royal Navy as a Midshipman in 1793, at the age of 17, amid the turbulent backdrop of the French Revolutionary Wars. His early postings included the 28-gun frigate HMS Hind and the 32-gun frigate HMS Thetis. Cochrane's aptitude for seamanship and tactics quickly became apparent, and by 1796, he was promoted to lieutenant after passing the relevant examinations. His career trajectory continued to ascend as he distinguished himself with daring tactics and a sharp mind for naval warfare.

The Speedy and Mediterranean Exploits

Cochrane was given command of the small sloop HMS Speedy in 1800, HMS Speedy was not a remarkable vessel, and it was felt that command of such an unremarkable vessel was given to Cochrane as part punishment for his outspoken manner and behavior. However, this dent to his career path did not prevent Thomas Cochrane from excelling and the command of HMS Speedy simply marked the beginning of his legendary status.

HMS Speedy was a diminutive vessel with a modest armament of fourteen 4-pounder guns, which became a formidable adversary under Cochrane's command. His boldness and strategic ingenuity transformed the Speedy into a symbol of naval prowess. One of Cochrane's most famous exploits occurred on the 6th of May, 1801, when he captured the Spanish xebec-frigate El Gamo, a vessel three times the size of the HMS Speedy, boasting 32 guns and 319 men compared to the Speedy's 14 guns and 54 men. Cochrane used clever subterfuge, hoisting multiple flags and sailing directly into close quarters, where HMS Speedy's small size and maneuverability turned the engagement into a boarding action. Cochrane's men overwhelmed the El Gamo's crew which was numerically superior, capturing the ship in a remarkable display of naval audacity and tactical brilliance.

Political Battles and Imprisonment

Despite his successes, Cochrane's career was marred by controversies, mainly stemming from his outspoken criticism of naval administration and his political ambitions. Elected as a Member of Parliament for Honiton in 1806, and later for Westminster, Cochrane used his platform to advocate for naval reforms and to expose corruption within the Admiralty. His relentless attacks on government mismanagement earned him powerful enemies.

In 1814, Cochrane's career took a devastating turn when he was implicated in a stock exchange fraud scandal, the "Great Stock Exchange Fraud." Cochrane maintained his innocence, asserting that he was framed by his political adversaries. Nonetheless, he was convicted and sentenced to a year in prison, fined £1,000, and expelled from the Royal Navy and Parliament. Cochrane immediately escaped from prison, however, presented himself openly to protest his innocence, however, was promptly rearrested. This period was a dark chapter in Cochrane's life, but it did not diminish his indomitable spirit. It was not until 1832, that Thomas Cochrane was granted a pardon and restored to the Navy List with a promotion to rear-admiral many years after his release from prison.

Service in Foreign Navies

Undeterred by his fall from grace in Britain, Cochrane sought to continue his naval career abroad once released from prison. In 1817, he accepted an invitation to command the Chilean Navy in their struggle for independence from Spanish rule. Cochrane's arrival in Chile marked a turning point in the naval campaign. His leadership and innovative tactics, such as the use of fireships, in addition to, combined naval and land operations proved instrumental in securing key victories, including the capture of Valdivia in 1820, which significantly weakened Spanish control over the region.

Cochrane's success in Chile led to further opportunities. In 1823, he took command of the Brazilian Navy, playing a crucial role in Brazil's war of independence against Portugal. His operations in Bahia and Maranhão helped secure Brazilian sovereignty, further cementing his reputation as a liberator.

In 1825, Cochrane extended his influence to Greece, participating in the Greek War of Independence, between 1827 and 1828. Although his time in Greece was less successful, marred by political infighting and limited resources, his commitment to the cause of freedom remained unwavering.

Return to Britain and Later Years

Cochrane's international successes eventually helped pave the way for his rehabilitation in Britain. In 1832, he received a royal pardon and restoration to the navy list followed. He returned to the Royal Navy and saw a promotion to Rear-Admiral of the Blue serving with distinction. One of his significant contributions during this period was his advocacy for steam propulsion, recognizing the transformative potential of steam power in naval warfare, additionally 1847, Queen Victoria reappointed him Knight of the Order of the Bath.

His foresight contributed to the modernization of the Royal Navy and eventually, he received a promotion to Admiral of the Red in 1857, which was a relatively tranquil period compared to his earlier adventures. He authored several works, including his autobiography, which detailed his remarkable career and offered insights into his innovative approaches to naval tactics and strategy.

Legacy

Admiral Thomas Cochrane's legacy is multifaceted. He is remembered as a fearless and innovative naval commander whose exploits inspired not only his contemporaries but also future generations of naval officers. His daring tactics and unorthodox methods challenged conventional naval doctrine, earning him the nickname "The Sea Wolf."

Cochrane's influence extended beyond his lifetime, with his exploits serving as inspiration for literary characters such as C.S. Forester's Horatio Hornblower and Patrick O'Brian's Jack Aubrey, in Master and Commander. His life story, filled with dramatic turns and heroic deeds, continues to captivate historians and naval enthusiasts.

Moreover, Cochrane's advocacy for naval reform and technological advancement had a lasting impact on the Royal Navy. His early recognition of the potential of steam power and his relentless pursuit of efficiency and innovation helped shape the future of naval warfare.

Conclusion

Admiral Thomas Cochrane's career is solid proof of the power of individual brilliance and the impact of unwavering determination. His journey from a young Midshipman to a celebrated hero in multiple countries illustrates the profound influence one person can have on the course of history. Despite facing significant obstacles, including imprisonment and exile, Cochrane's legacy endures as a beacon of courage, ingenuity, and resilience in the face of adversity.

In naval history, Cochrane's name stands alongside the greatest maritime strategists and commanders. His life story is not only a thrilling saga of naval adventure but also a profound lesson in the enduring spirit of human endeavor.

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

A Forgotten Invasion: When the Japanese Invaded US territory

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

Steve Prout explains.

US troops in May 1943 at the Battle of Attu.

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

Attu

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

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

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

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

Kiska

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

A Sailors Life in the Age of Sail

The age of sail (16th century to 19th century) ushered in a new era in world history with the rise of sailing trade and warfare. The age of sail provided the old world with the products and goods of the new, goods that were otherwise unknown to most cultures. The discovery and import of these goods led to huge economic booms for their nations, developed societies, and shaped the world as we know it. Sailors traveled thousands of miles to distant places no European had ever seen in search of exotic goods, and trade relationships with these nations. Sailors were truly the astronauts of their day, putting their fears and anxieties behind them to make the voyages necessary for the growth of their country.

In this article, Avery Scott aims to examine the daily lives of the sailors that helped to shape so much of the world. Beginning with the areas in which merchant vessels, navy vessels, and pirates/privateers are similar and then looking at some differences depending upon the type of vessel one served on.

A painting of the 1571 Battle of Lepanto.

The Sailors Life

Rations

The diet of almost all sailing vessels was the same. The men subsisted on salted pork, fish, or beef, ships biscuits, and a limited supply of vegetables such as peas. Additionally, sailors received unwanted calories from the weevils and other insects that burrowed their way into the ship’s biscuits while the vessel was out to sea, thus making an awful ration even worse. In some cases, sailors would have live animals aboard ship to assist in providing fresh food to the crew, however livestock tend to struggle on oceanic voyages and therefore they did not always last very long. Eventually it was learned that fresh fruit and vegetables, specifically vitamin C, were helpful in reducing cases of scurvy – a disease that ravished ships for years. Once this was discovered, rations of citrus fruit would be kept aboard. By doing so, ships were spared the ravages of scurvy.

Food rations were vital to the health and wellness of crews on a voyage, but alcohol played an equally significant role as a morale boost to the crew. Alcohol choices varied depending upon the location, distance, and time at sea. But the most common aboard were beer or ale, wine, and rum. Water was also kept aboard ship in large casks, but the water became undrinkable very quickly into voyage. Therefore, the men subsisted mostly on rations of alcohol.  A persistent habit of sailors was to keep the ration of rum given throughout the day and drink the total of a day's rations at one time becoming very drunk. In answer to this, Admiral Edward Vernon (known as “Old Grog” due to the grogram coats he frequently wore) required his sailors mix their ration of rum with water. This reduced the drunkenness aboard and helped to improve the overall health of the crew, even if it did not make them particularly fond of him.

Routine

Sailing ships during the age of sail more resembled a small city than a ship. Everything needed for the voyage would be packed aboard, as well as the men with the skills necessary to keep the ship moving. Movements were all controlled like clockwork. This was done to ensure order, cleanliness, and avoid idle hands that often became drunk and disorderly. Ships all used a similar watch schedule, although it may change slightly depending upon the size of the crew, but more on that in a later section. Watches were broken down into four-hour blocks of time, with two dog watches of two hours a piece. First watch was from 8:00 p.m. to 12:00 a.m. Middle watch was from 12:00 a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Morning watch was 4:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. Forenoon watch 8:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Afternoon watch from 12:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. And two dog watches from 4 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. Some sailors, such as coopers, blacksmiths, and surgeons did not work based upon the watch schedule, and they worked during the day and were able to sleep during the evenings. Each watch was noted by a bell and the bosuns’ whistle. If men were below in their hammocks they would be alerted to the start of their watch, and often “started” by a bosun hitting them with a piece of tar-dipped rope. Additionally, sleepy-headed sailors would be hurried along by cutting down the ropes of their hammocks, allowing them to tumble to the deck.

Most days would begin by cleaning the ship with holy stones to ensure the grime and dirt would be scrubbed off, this was especially important after a battle, and to keep the detritus from the live animals mentioned above to a minimum. Scrubbing the deck would be followed by swabbing and rinsing. Many captains were very particular about the cleanliness of their ships and would have the ship scrubbed with vinegar to reduce sickness. Other daily tasks were different depending upon the role a sailor filled within the vessel. Gunners would be maintaining the guns, topmen would be working the sails, officers would oversee navigation, and those special trades would be involved in their work such as carpentry or making barrels.

Money

Sailors were notoriously financially irresponsible. However, much of this may be because they were often not paid until a voyage was completed. This method was thought to reduce desertion (although it did not appear to be successful). This meant that they often went months without pay, and then received a considerable sum at one time. The men would often spend a large chunk of this money of alcohol, women, and gambling – sometimes becoming so poor they had no choice but to go aboard another vessel to ensure they had food to eat. Some sailors did manage to amass some financial means while at sea, typically through prize money – something exclusive to navy, pirate, and privateering vessels. Additionally, if men had families at home, they could have some money sent to their families or paid out by the ship’s owners from their home port. This ensured their family had money to subsist on in the sailor’s absence. If a sailor were to die at sea, their sea chest (their collection of personal effects) would be auctioned off on deck, and the money sent home to the family.

Differences

Despite the inherent similarities between the various sea trades, sailors did live different lives depending upon the vessel that they served on. In this section, I will break down some of the specifics of life aboard a merchant ship, navy vessel, and a pirate and privateer.

Merchant Ships

Merchant vessels were designed to carry massive amounts of cargo, to earn the highest revenues for the owners. This meant that ships would be very heavily laden, scarcely armed, and undermanned. These ships had little chance of standing up to a dangerous enemy as they had little resources to defend themselves with. Additionally, because manpower is expensive, ship owners would not allow for more crew than were necessary to operate a ship on a voyage. For the crew this meant each man would be required to take on additional tasks that would typically be spread between many men. These men received less sleep for their work as they were more frequently required to be on deck to handle the ship. Also, to maximize profit, the victualers for a merchant ship would be more inclined to obtain subpar or insufficient rations for the voyage.

A positive for merchant sailors was they typically did not have as strict of discipline as a navy vessel would, and this could make their lives more enjoyable while at sea. Discipline could still be hard, but flogging and other punishments were less likely to be handed down. And since the men were onboard willingly, they were more frequently allowed shore leave when in port. Finally, since merchant sailors were not engaged in any military activity, they were not as likely to be killed in a battle, although the presence of disease was an ever-present threat to all ships.

Navy Ships

Navy ships were often described as “hell” to the men that crewed the vessels. Class distinctions were ever present, and punishment for the smallest infractions could be excruciating. The crew lived and worked in constant fear of the cat-of-nine-tales, as the captain and officers were always willing to pass down punishment in the name of order. Ships would have been cramped as navy vessels required larger crews to staff the guns, account for death in battle, and the man prizes that were captured at sea. The advantage to this larger crew size is it meant less work per sailor, but it also meant disease could more rapidly spread through the ship. Many navy vessels struggled to fill their ranks and were forced to use impressment to obtain the necessary sailors. The press gangs would rove waterfront streets, taverns, incoming ships, or vessels at sea to impress men for service. Because of this method of recruitment, officers had to be constantly vigilant for signs of mutiny. The fear of mutiny was so great that most naval ships had a detachment of marines aboard to help protect the officers from mutiny. Marines also acted as regular troops during battle and could inflict considerable damage from small arms fire. Life    aboard a navy ship did offer the chance of a financial reward in the form of prize money. Because the crew were entitled to prize money if they captured a belligerent nation's vessel and could successfully plunder the cargo from the other vessel.  While this money was often small in comparison to the cost of life and limb, it was a motivating factor for the men.

Pirates and Privateers

While pirates and privateers have some obvious differences, they share many of the same traits. Much like Navy vessels, these ships would be heavily manned to ensure prizes could be sailed, battles fought, and crew left for the continuation of the voyage after a battle. Pirates and privateers all made a living from battle, and this increased the risk of death. Also, if captured pirates were sure to be hung for their crimes, and often led short lives for this. Additionally, privateers were considered to be pirates by the nations with which they were at war – so a similar fate would befall them if captured.  Pirates also had limited access to resources as many places were patrolled by navy vessels looking to take down a pirate ship. Pirates did, however, have the benefit of being more democratic than their aristocratic partners in navy and privateer vessels and therefore could elect or depose their captains and officers if they felt they were not doing a good job.  Additionally, pirate vessels wrote their own ships articles in conjunction with the entire crew. By doing so, rules were established for the common good – not just those of the owners and officers. Finally, pirates and privateers had the possibility to earn huge sums of prize money, but also risked no money if prizes were not captured.

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

World War 1’s 1918 Zeebrugge Raid by the British

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

Terry Bailey explains.

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

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

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

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

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

The birth of a daring scheme

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

The plan involved three main objectives:

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

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

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

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

Courage among chaos

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

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

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

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

The heroism of HMS Vindictive, sacrifice and valor

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

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

The block ships, a desperate gamble

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

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

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

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

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

The aftermath and assessing the impact

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

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

Victoria Crosses awarded for the Zeebrugge raid

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

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

Lieutenant Commander Arthur Harrison - Royal Navy ( posthumous )

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

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

Lieutenant Commander George Bradford - Royal Navy ( posthumous )

Lieutenant Percy Dean - Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve

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

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

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

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

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

Propaganda and Censorship in Britain During World War 2

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

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

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

Ministry of Information

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

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

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

Keeping up the war effort

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

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

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

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

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

Radio Hamburg & German Propaganda

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Inquisitions of the Middle Ages - Part 3: The Inquisitions and Freedom of Speech

The Inquisitions of the Middle Ages were a series of judicial procedures led by the Roman Catholic Church in the later Middle Ages in response to movements that the Church considered heretical.  Here, Jeb Smith continues his series by looking at free speech in the context of the inquisitions.

Part 1 on an introduction to the inquisitions is here, and part 2 on who the inquisitors were is here.

An 1847 painting, Galileo before the Holy Office, by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury.

In modern secular societies, relativistic views prevail. Truth is often determined by one's preferences and feelings. If believing something feels good or makes you happy, ipso facto the belief is true and valid. Thus, freedom of speech is an inalienable right given to all people and all opinions are correct; right or wrong and absolute truth don’t exist in a relativistic worldview. To elevate one person's opinions over another’s is to treat people unequally, since everyone has equal rights in determining what is true. The Muslim, the Jew, the Catholic, the Mormon, the Baptist, and the atheist are all equally correct simply because they believe themselves to be. It is "their truth.”

The medieval mindset was drastically different. The truth was revealed by God and communicated to man, and was an eternal truth existing outside and above the minds of men. Going against it risked the collapse of society and possible judgment from God, and would be a war against truth and nature. Further, you do not allow lies that have eternal consequences to go unchallenged, as simple people are easily swayed.

Information has the power to shape beliefs and actions. From the medieval Catholic perspective, allowing falsehood (if heresy is indeed falsehood as Catholics believe) to negatively affect humanity and endanger people's souls was too high a price to pay for freedom of speech. If a four-year-old thinks they can fly off a building because they recently watched Superman and have a cape on, we rightly do not allow them to act on those false beliefs (or encourage others to). Falsehood inevitably leads to harm, and we must be cautious about what information we accept as accurate. Likewise, heretics were punished to prevent them from hurting others.[1]

Not everyone agrees with the First Amendment and freedom of speech. Medieval thinkers would not consider this idea sacred as modern Americans do. They believed that harmful lies and untruths should not have an equal platform with truth and beauty. Enlightenment thinkers believed that truth would always win out over lies and that people would be intelligent and unbiased enough to accept the truth. However, this is rarely the case.[2]

Long after the Middle Ages, but exemplifying the mindset of those earlier days, Pope Gregory XVI said, “Is there any sane man who would say poison ought to be distributed, sold publicly, stored, and even drunk because some antidote is available and those who use it may be snatched from death again and again?...when all restraints are removed by which men are kept on the narrow path of truth, their nature, which is already inclined to evil, propels them to ruin.”[3]The result is clear: Medieval philosophy and understanding of human nature are true, and the medieval belief in opposing lies helped maintain Christendom. In contrast, relativistic secularism has achieved the opposite.

The medieval Scholastics also believed that truth will ultimately prevail in a fair and impartial environment, where all perspectives are open to debate.[4] However, in a society without a foundation of Christian ideals, the opposite is likely to occur. Truth will be suppressed in education, and unchecked falsehoods will spread throughout the community.

We still accept certain restrictions on liberty in order to protect what we hold dear. A law that punishes murder or rape limits one's freedom by acknowledging that all actions are not equal and that causing harm to others should be avoided. In the medieval perspective, human beings are not viewed solely as material beings but as individuals with a soul. This soul is considered more valuable to safeguard than the physical body, which is not everlasting. Thus maintaining orthodoxy is even more vital.

Moderns are not above silencing heretics even if we no longer punish them in the same way. We allow certain opinions and suppress others. Libraries, schools, and media cover particular subjects and overlook others. while newspapers decide what news is worth reporting and how to report it. Our worldview and personal beliefs influence all of these decisions and more. We do not give groups like the KKK the same platform for free speech as we do the LGBTQ community, nor do we afford Christianity the same opportunities as we do secularism. Each society decides its own values and prejudices and acts accordingly. Modern heretics are people like Holocaust deniers and white supremacists. The public condemns and ridicules them; they need reeducation before their harmful beliefs are spread, and they need to repent of their ways publicly. No doubt we are right to do this; medieval Christians likewise felt their treatment of religious heretics was justified and right.

Burn Them at The Stake

The death penalty given to heretics was not meant for punishment alone.[5] The chief purpose of the death penalty was to prevent further evil. Allowing heretics to live and spread their lies would rob still more people of eternal bliss.[6]Only unrepentant spreaders of heresy were found guilty; if they were allowed to live, their falsehoods would disseminate unchecked, endangering society. Those who refused to repent were subject to the death penalty, and heretics often chose to die instead of recanting.[7]

The goal of the secular authorities and the Church in eradicating heresy was not political power, but rather the defense of Christendom and God. It was their responsibility to shape society after Him, ensuring that correct doctrine was maintained for the sustainability of Christendom, and to keep the road to salvation open.[8]

During medieval times, Catholicism was widely accepted as unquestionably true by society. The Church saw certain heretics as suspicious pagans or individuals who had been misled. The Inquisitor aimed to bring them back to the Catholic faith. However, those who refused to repent or rejected the truth of Catholicism and continued to spread their lies (Jews were accepted because, unlike heretics, they did not seek converts[9]) were seen as serving Satan himself. They led good Catholics astray and willfully denied the truth, ultimately sending others to eternal damnation.[10] The Church's purpose was not to stop people from thinking differently but to prevent them from misleading uninformed Catholics and endangering their eternal salvation. Preventing falsehoods and guiding the lost to truth were dual goals in halting heresy.[11] The inquisitors were not seeking out heretics who happened to privately believe odd things, only those who were publicly active.[12]

And to not support Christendom was an attack on Christ himself, not a mere opinion but an actual evil.[13] Those who were considered heretics were accused not of being ignorant or disbelieving, but rather of deliberately rejecting the truth.[14] The Decretum Gratiani, a book on canon law from the 12th century, defines heretics as those who teach and defend deadly doctrines. The term heretic refers not to those who are simply misguided or hold personal beliefs but to those who promote and defend their beliefs.[15] The main reason for punishing heretics who spread lies was to prevent Catholics from being deceived and endangering their souls.[16]

Theological truth was determined through church councils, argumentation, and debate. It was believed that heretics were not interested in finding the truth because they refused to engage in such discussions with church officials, choosing instead to take advantage of ignorant peasants. Consequently, their leaders deliberately misled people away from the faith and towards damnation. Inquisitors were trained to argue and debate to guide those who were led astray, but anyone who refused to repent was believed to be willingly rejecting the truth in favor of falsehood. Lords often criticized the Inquisitors for being too lenient towards heretics since they believed they were also duty-bound to maintain a Christian society.

Peace and Unity

Christianity was not viewed as our modern secular society views it, as a "religion" that should only affect your life while in church or private prayer time. No, it was the basis on which to structure society. Heresy, or the rejection of widely accepted religious doctrines, was not simply an attack on a particular religion or church but rather a threat to the entire fabric of society. If heretical beliefs and practices are allowed to spread throughout society, it would inevitably destroy peace and faith, resulting in violence and moral degradation.[17] Your beliefs will significantly influence your actions and the society around you. Therefore, preventing beliefs that go against Christian values from destabilizing society was essential. Pope Innocent III argued that heresy threatened society, culture, and the root of society, which was built upon Catholicism. Any attack on Christ or the Church was seen as an attack on society, which could unravel if not defended.

They believed that since everyone is a sinner and fails to live out what he believes is ideal, the most vital thing to know about someone is not where and when he fails (since confession and repentance can clear his soul) but what his ideals are. Knowing what he believes the goal of society ought to be will better tell us who the man is and what he will do.[18] Up to and during the 13th century, a person was considered a heretic based on their way of life rather than their beliefs.[19]

The people of that time believed that unity, peace and prosperity could only be achieved if everyone shared the same beliefs, culture, politics, and religion. They thought anything that caused discord, such as heresy, would eventually disturb the entire society, leading to internal wars, fighting, crime, anger, hatred, and other negative consequences. This is also why they rejected democracy, as they believed it would divide communities, churches, families, and so on.[20]

Secular rulers persecuted heresy because a heretic is not just a traitor to the Church, but to the King, who received his authority from God and the Church. To reject one is to reject the other.   Additionally, medieval kings were deeply troubled by the possibility of facing divine judgment if they allowed the spread of a heretical belief that denies salvation through Jesus. The Old Testament has documented instances where God punished leaders for allowing heretical beliefs to thrive in their territories. Therefore, the ruler must eliminate heretics from the region. During the historical period of heresy, Christianity significantly impacted every aspect of society. Any attempts to disrupt Christianity were perceived as a threat to the entire civilization. Communities became divided by violence following heresy, threatening both souls and the social order, often leading to violent rebellions.

Heresy was not an opinion held in secret but one openly displayed, contrary to God's word and the Church.[21]Inquisitions were viewed as a defensive action against new heresy that threatened society and Christendom; they reacted to forces threatening medieval society. Therefore, only individuals who openly preached heretical beliefs, sought to convert others, and denied central Christian doctrines were considered guilty of heresy.[22] They defended against attacks on their society as surely as we would defend ours. We, the people and our authorities, would step in with swift action were the KKK to spread its influence in society. If "equality" and "democratic values" were threatened, society at large would rise up in righteous wrath and stamp out any threats to our beliefs. The peoples of the Middle Ages differed only in their priorities, what they held most dear, and what society was built upon – the Catholic Church.

Jeb Smith is the author of Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty (Amazon US | Amazon UK) and Defending Dixie's Land: What Every American Should Know About The South And The Civil War (written under the name Isaac. C. Bishop) - Amazon US | Amazon UK

You can contact Jeb at jackson18611096@gmail.com

 

Bibliography

-Bede. Ecclesiastical History of the English Nation. New York, London: J.M. Dent; E.P. Dutton, 1910.

-Burman, Edward. The Inquisition: The Hammer of Heresy. Dorset Press, 1992.

-Carroll, Warren H. 1993. The Glory of Christendom. N.p.: Christendom Press.

-Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated. Crown Publishing Group, 1995.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001.

-Davis, Michael Warren. The Reactionary Mind: Why Conservative Isn't Enough. Regnery Gateway, 2021.

-Durant, Will, and Ariel Durant. The Age of Faith (The Story of Civilization, Volume 4) (Story of Civilization). Simon & Schuster, 1980.

-Ferrara, Christopher A. 2012. Liberty, the God That Failed: Policing the Sacred and Constructing the Myths of the Secular State, from Locke to Obama. N.p.: Angelico Press.

-Hoffmann, Richard. An Environmental History of Medieval Europe. Cambridge University Press, 2014.

-Holmes, George, ed. 1988. The Oxford Illustrated History of Medieval Europe. N.p.: Oxford University Press.

-Jarrett, Bede. 2007. Social Theories of the Middle Ages, 1200-1500. N.p.: Archivum Press.

-Jones, Andrew W. 2017. Before Church and State: A Study of Social Order in the Sacramental Kingdom of St. Louis IX. N.p.: Emmaus Academic.

-Kamen, Henry. The Spanish Inquisition: A Historical Revision. Yale University Press, 2014.

-Kors, Alan Charles, and Edward Peters, editors. Witchcraft in Europe, 400-1700: A Documentary History. University of Pennsylvania Press, Incorporated, 2001

-L. PLUNKET, IERNE L. 1922. EUROPE IN THE MIDDLE AGES. London Edinburgh Glasgow Copenhagen New York Toronto Melbourne Cape Town Bombay Calcutta Madras Shanghai, England: OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS.

-Madden, Thomas, director. “The Modern Scholar: Heaven or Heresy: A History of the Inquisition.” 2008.

-Madden, Thomas. “The Medieval World, Part II: Society, Economy, and Culture.” The Great Courses Series, 2019.

-The following citation were derived from Medieval Sourcebook Fordham University (“Confession of Arnaud Gélis, also called Botheler "The Drunkard" of Mas-Saint-Antonin”)(“Confession of Baruch, once a Jew, then baptized and now returned to Judaism”) (GUI, BERNARD, and Translation by David Burr. “BERNARD GUI: INQUISITOR'S MANUAL.”.)(Schroeder, H. J., translator. The Disciplinary Decrees of the Ecumenical Counci,. St. Louis:, B. Herder Book Co., 1937).(Agobard of Lyons, and Translated by W. J. Lewis (aided by the helpful comments and suggestions of S. Barney) from the Latin text in p. 3-15 of: Agobardi Lugdunensis Opera Omnia, edidit L. Van Acker. Turnholt: Brepols, 1981 (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio Mediaevalis, 52);.Agobard of Lyons (9th Century): On Hail and Thunder.”)

-Pernoud, Regine. Glory of the Medieval World. Dobson Books Ltd, 1950.

-Peters, Edward. Inquisition. University of California Press, 1989.

-Rawlings, Helen. The Spanish Inquisition. Wiley, 2006.

-Smith, Jeb. 2024. Missing Monarchy: What Americans Get Wrong About Monarchy, Democracy, Feudalism, And Liberty.

-Smith, Jeb. 2023. The Road Goes Ever On and On. N.p.: Christian Faith Publishing, Incorporated.

-Stark, Rodney. Bearing False Witness: Debunking Centuries of Anti-Catholic History. Templeton Press, 2017.

-Thatcher, Oliver J. “The Library of Original Sources - Vol. IV: The Early Medieval World, pp. 211-239.” Milwaukee: University Research Extension Co, 1901.

-Tierney, Brian, and Sidney Painter. Western Europe in the Middle Ages, 300-1475: Formerly entitled a History of the Middle Ages, 284-1500. 4th ed., Knopf, 1983.

-Weidenkompf, Steve, director. The Real Story of the Inquisitions. Catholic Answers.

-Weidenkopf, Steve. The Real Story of Catholic History: Answering Twenty Centuries of Anti-Catholic Myths. Catholic Answers, Incorporated, 2017

-Wickham, Chris. Medieval Europe. Yale University Press, 2017.

[1] (Kors and Peters 223)

[2] (Smith 2024)

[3] (Ferrara 2012, 245)

[4] (Smith 2024)

[5] (Smith 2024)

[6] (Jarrett 2007, 220-223)

[7] (GUI and Burr)

[8] (Jarrett 2007, 223)

[9] (Jarrett 2007, 216)

[10] (Jones 2017, 292)

[11] (GUI and Burr)

[12] (Davis 2021 30)

[13] (Durant 1950, 777)

[14] (Jarrett 2007, 217)

[15] (Peters 61)

[16] (Peters 44)

[17] (Jones 2017) (Jarrett 2007, 216)

[18] (L. PLUNKET 1922, THE FAITH OF THE MIDDLE AGES)

[19] (Jones 2017, 133)

[20] (Smith 2024) (Peters 161)

[21] (Peters 42)

[22] (Jarrett 2007, 190)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Planning the Raid

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Execution of the Raid

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

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

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

Capturing the Radar

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

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

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

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

The Aftermath and Impact

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note:

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

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

Decorations and awards

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

2 additional Distinguished Service Crosses, DSCs

2 further Distinguished Service Medals, (DSM)

Another Military Cross, (MC)

2 further Military Medals, (MMs)

9 Mentions in Dispatches (MiD)

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

The Commanders and Their Legacies

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

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

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

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

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

The German commando order

The order itself stated:

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

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

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

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

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

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