Operation Mincemeat - Ben Macintyre

I have become a touch wary of stories about World War Two espionage and subterfuge, as grandiose and excessive claims are often made for the value or import of certain missions or initiatives. However, "Operation Mincemeat", instigated by British Naval Intelligence in 1943, to support the impending landings in Sicily, possesses elements which make it stand out from the crowd. Ben Macintyre's book on the subject therefore became essential reading.

 

In short, "Operation Mincemeat" was a deception scheme arranged by British intelligence, as a means of keeping the German High Command guessing about Allied intentions in the Mediterranean region, in the wake of the conquest of North Africa. To facilitate this, an ingenious and elaborate, if somewhat macabre, operation was mounted, whereby a human corpse was washed up on the Spanish coast, bearing various "fake" and "planted" letters and documents, in the hope that said items would find their way into German hands, and impact upon the Reich's military decisions in accordance with Allied wishes.

 

 

I had previously been aware of this episode, but the book fleshes out the matter considerably, and delivers a penetrating insight into several aspects of the war . The ambiguous and complicated Spanish role, the intricacies of espionage, the various chains of command, overlapping responsibilities and the sometimes petty rivalries and jealousies which constantly threatened to hinder projects of massive importance.

 

Approximately halfway through "Operation Mincemeat", my judgement was still reserved, as I had a feeling of dread about the conclusions which might be reached. There is a natural tendency amongst authors to make outlandish claims for the success or achievement of the enterprise which they are championing or seeking to bring to a wider audience. I am glad to say that in this case my fears proved to be groundless, as Macintyre is realistic, balanced and honest in his assessments of how much "Mincemeat" ultimately accomplished, acknowledging that other factors contributed to Allied success, and that this was just part of a larger overall deception programme.

This is emphatically NOT one of those ".....Who Fooled Hitler" jobs which have begun to populate the bookshelves and broadcast schedules in recent times. Macintyre's approach is much more nuanced and honest. He does not pretend that everything went swimmingly from beginning to end from the Allied viewpoint.

 

The Axis commitment of troops to North Africa in late 1942, and the consequent number of prisoners taken by the Allies in Tunisia, had arguably left Sicily exposed just as much as any decision by the German High Command to divert resources to Greece and Sardinia later on. The author correctly observes that the "Mincemeat" information merely helped to solidify attitudes and prejudices already harboured by Hitler and some of his colleagues. At the absolute minimum, and on balance of evidence, the plan positively benefited the Allies in the Mediterranean, albeit temporarily, as the twin forces of the terrain of mainland Italy, and the astute defensive tactics deployed by their opponents, soon meant much frustration further north.

 

The writing style is not particularly "scholarly", and some may find the tone a little shallow and "populist" in places. I thought that the author tried a little too hard at times to make every character or key player conform to stereotypes or caricatures of loveable eccentricity on the British side or clownish venality elsewhere. Having said that, it is never less than entertaining and absorbing, and several intriguing sub-plots are kept bubbling.

 

It is interesting to note the implication that anti-Nazi elements in German intelligence may have knowingly and deliberately misrepresented the meaning and/or contents of the "Mincemeat" documents, in order to frustrate or deceive their superiors. To be honest, I was expecting to be told that Wilhelm Canaris played a more direct role in the affair, given some of his well-documented activities, but seemingly he did not.

 

If you are interested in espionage or history, or just like a jolly good read, this book is recommended. I breezed through it quickly - always a good sign!

 

Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds

Following my recent visit to the National Football Museum (described here), I thought it worthwhile to provide my thoughts on another, very different, museum, in the north of England. This is the Royal Armouries in Leeds, which I have visited many times.

 

Housed in an impressive building in the canal area on the edge of the city centre, the Royal Armouries is described as the UK's national museum of arms and armour. It contains a huge variety of artefacts and exhibits, emanating from all corners of the globe, and almost all periods of human civilization. Multi-media and interactive elements co-exist with passive items. On my most visit, I spent time watching a video about the Battle of Marston Moor!

 

The emphasis is on arms and armour, but this does not mean that we are dealing with an exclusively "military" museum. There are sections covering hunting, self-defence, heraldry, tournaments and so forth. Perhaps the most striking articles on display are the suits of armour, from many parts of Europe, and the elaborate and ornate uniforms and weapons contained in the "Oriental" area, especially the Japanese ones.

 

In terms of presentation, I think that the tone is set just about right. There is obviously no attempt to glorify war or weapons, but instead a concerted effort to educate the visitor in the development of these implements, and an undercurrent of hope that mankind has progressed, and will continue to do so. Any "message" is not ostentatiously pressed, and I never get the impression that I am being preached to.

 

From a personal point of view, I almost feel that the post-World War Two exhibits are a little incongruous or out-of-place, when set against the rare and fascinating things from the earlier epochs. The heart of the museum for me is represented by the period from the early Modern period to the early twentieth century. The items from those times somehow have the capacity to both enthral and also to induce more sober and uneasy sentiments.

 

During the week, the museum is often visited by school parties, but one never feels that it is overly crowded, or that one's opportunity to appreciate its treasures is impaired.  If time is taken, this will be a rewarding and enjoyable day out.

 

 

 

Sink The Bismarck (movie)

War films were, not unnaturally, a staple of the output of the British movie industry in the 1950s and 1960s. Of these, one of the most affecting for me is Sink The Bismarck!, released in 1960, and starring Kenneth More. It tells the tale of the Royal Navy's campaign to sink the infamous German battleship. More plays the role of Captain Shepard, chief of operations at the Admiralty, who is tasked with co-ordinating the effort to find and eliminate the dangerous vessel.

 

 

British war pictures of this period tended to be distinctly "patriotic" in nature.  Sink The Bismarck! for me differs in largely suppressing these impulses, concentrating instead on the human aspects. It manages to encapsulate the terror of modern war, and Britain's still precarious position circa 1941.

Much of the movie is located in the subterranean operations room at the Admiralty, thus engendering a feeling of claustrophobia and tension. The sunlight of London is only seen at the beginning and the end of the picture. The menace instilled by, and embodied in, the Bismarck is palpable. This is also one of those films which just had to be made in black and white, as the monochrome accentuates the starkness of the scenario, and the austerity of wartime England.

There are some action sequences at sea, but these are largely subordinated to a portrayal of the dangers and cruelty of battle in the North Atlantic, and indeed war in general. Here this is generally undertaken succinctly and unostentatiously.

The film is held together by the fine performance of Kenneth More. The Shepard character is taciturn and disciplinarian, but also highly conscientious and capable. We see his more human side, when his son, a Navy pilot, briefly goes missing in action.

I feel that several topics are presented and highlighted by Sink The Bismarck!. Firstly, the apparent helplessness of individual human beings, whatever their level of experience, diligence and ability, in the face of a determined and well-equipped enemy, and in the face of superior technology. The tension between conventional scruples and the utter ruthlessness that is sadly sometimes required in desperate situations. The coolness and clarity of judgement required to deal with onerous responsibilities, and to make difficult, often fatal, decisions when resources are finite and stretched.

The depiction of the British naval command here is admirable, and largely eschews popular stereotypes. They were by and large able, stoical and humane people, often let down by the folly or neglect of their political masters, or by caprices outside their own control. Happily, this movie does
not resort to the tired and simplistic "lions led by donkeys" line....

One slightly jarring note is struck by the somewhat corny dialogue between the German fleet commander and his immediate subordinate, although it does not spoil the overall effect.

The ending is not sugar-coated or triumphalist, but low-key and quite matter-of-fact. In keeping with the underlying tone of the movie, in fact....

Ayrton Senna

In the summer of 1983, I was slowly becoming obsessed with Formula 1 racing, having had my imagination well and truly captured by the exploits of Gilles Villeneuve a couple of years before. I vividly recall reading the various motor sport magazines around that time, and learning about a remarkable young Brazilian, who in those days raced under the name Ayrton Senna da Silva. Soon enough this precocious talent found his way to Grand Prix racing, and we now found ourselves commemorating the twentieth anniversary of his tragic accident at Imola.

Only yesterday I was speaking with a female friend, who told me that she had no great interest in Formula 1 as such, but had been utterly captivated by Senna's charisma, and remains so to this day. Untold millions around the globe were affected in a similar way. Senna possessed that intangible magic which transcended his own field of endeavour, an accolade which goes to the very few. It can be persuasively argued that he played a massive role in transforming F1 into the slick multinational media spectacle that we see today.  He broadened the appeal of the sport.

Not unnaturally, Senna's tenure with the McLaren team tends to be highlighted, but I find his period with Lotus, from 1985 to 1987, equally compelling. The legendary outfit was in a slow decline, but Senna's mixture of raw ability, work ethic and competitive spirit kept them in the hunt. His tally of pole positions from those seasons, even when up against McLaren, Williams, Ferrari et al, speaks for itself. Senna was competitive almost everywhere, at least in '85 and '86, and his fearsome commitment and dedication were already clearly evident. Both in and out of the car, he took the "science" and "art" of Grand Prix racing to a new level, even above that practised by such modern greats as Stewart, Lauda and Prost, who had been cited as innovators and modernisers.

In common with most of the truly great drivers, Senna had what almost amounted to a "sixth sense", by way of his mechanical sensitivity. The most startling example of this which I have personally seen was captured in a British television documentary covering the 1993 season. At one race, Senna returned to the pits, unhappy with the performance of his car, and insisted that there was a minor problem with the engine, this seemingly having not been highlighted by telemetry and so forth. After much debate, the engine was dismantled, and sure enough a small but significant fault was discovered....

Kelly's Heroes - movie review

When I was young, and less wise, I developed some strange ideas about what constituted a great film. After seeing "Kelly's Heroes", for instance, I was convinced that I had just experienced the greatest war movie ever made. Little did I know that it was really intended as a "comedy", blending subtle satire, frivolity and action. Whatever my youthful misconceptions, it remains an entertaining, and occasionally thought-provoking picture.

The film centres on the exploits of a group of American soldiers in France in 1944, and their successful efforts to "steal" a haul of gold from a bank located behind enemy lines. The driving force behind the operation is Kelly, played by Clint Eastwood, who summons up his best "mean, moody and magnificent" persona for the role..

"Kelly Heroes" has much in common in many respects with the Vietnam-era war films which appeared later in the 1970s and 1980s. The fact that this picture was made in 1969/70 doubtless helped to shape its aesthetic and some of the undercurrents in the script. The music is vaguely "Age of Aquarius" in nature, and bits of the dialogue are not what one would normally associate with a World War Two film.

This juxtaposition between the Second World War and later counter-cultural values is of course epitomised by the character "Oddball", played by Donald Sutherland.  Oddball's tank unit resembles a proto-hippie commune, and the "modifications" to his armoured vehicles are perhaps an insinuation that evil can be tackled without recourse to excessive violence...

I have read it suggested that "Kelly's Heroes" contains an anti-war message. I would concur with this assertion, but at the same time this is an undercurrent, not rammed down the viewer's throat, and it may not be immediately clear to those only watching casually. There is mixture of satire and "black comedy" which helps to soften any abrasiveness or preachiness which might have crept in.

I am not entirely sure whether the producers of this movie were seeking to pose deeper and more complex moral questions.  The relative "merits" or stealing gold and waging war spring to mind, although of course in reaching the bank the troops had to engage the German forces anyway.  Men died in the process. Which was the more noble "cause"?

Some of the action sequences leave a little to be desired in terms of authenticity, but then again I doubt that "Kelly's Heroes" was aimed at the "purist" audience, militarily or historically speaking. One needs to accept some of the occasional absurdity, and disregard technical minutiae, to appreciate the basic thrust of the movie.

There are, however, one or two memorable scenes. The sequence where the unit becomes trapped in a minefield is especially gripping. More levity is provided by the comical misinterpretations by the American general, who thinks that news of the appearance of Kelly's men behind enemy lines is evidence of some heroic and selfless act of initiative and aggression. Telly Savalas' performance is also worthy of praise, as the irascible sergeant "Big Joe".

It might not be a good idea to watch "Kelly's Heroes" back-to-back with a "serious" war movie, but it is still an intriguing watch.

.

Lawrence of Arabia - movie review

As far as classic movies are concerned, David Lean's "Lawrence of Arabia" was until recently one that had largely slipped through my net, and never truly "clicked" with me. Why this should have been I am not entirely sure, as it theoretically ticks most of the boxes for me, both thematically and artistically, and another of Lean's works, "The Bridge On The River Kwai", is probably my favourite movie of all time. Anyway, I have dusted off the DVD, and thought that I would offer my thoughts and observations.

The first thing to say about this film is that the visuals are sumptuous, and the cinematography top notch. The panoramic shots of desert valleys and camel trains are breathtaking, and endow "Lawrence of Arabia" with an epic, sweeping quality. Even the crowd scenes, which few directors can make look authentic, are nicely executed.

Of course, the other central element of the film is Peter O'Toole's highly impressive portrayal of the main character. It seems that the film-makers stuck pretty much to historical record, and how much the performances are consistent with the real personalities of the people will be a matter of debate. O'Toole's performance makes Lawrence seem like an ambiguous, even nebulous figure. A mass of ambiguities and contradictions, but also endearing in an eccentric, truculent kind of way.

As with "The Bridge On The River Kwai", one of the threads running through the story is the clash of cultures, and the interface of British values and imperialism with other peoples. Even though his superiors exuded a certain arrogance, Lawrence's approach is more equivocal, perhaps even manipulative, exploiting the lack of trust which the Arabs held for the British hierarchy. He is his own man, independent-minded, but with his own agenda, and the adulation shown towards him suits his own agenda. He seems to have driven all concerned to distraction at one time or another...

The scene from this film which customarily receives most acclaim is that of Omar Sharif approaching on the horizon on a camel. However, the one which sent a tingle down my spine was the one where Lawrence returns after rescuing a comrade who had become lost in the desert. This was a turning point, after which the Englishman was revered by those under his command. At times, it is easy to forget that Lawrence was employed by the British army, and that this campaign was essentially a theatre of the First World War.

The real "meat" of this movie is the effort of Lawrence to make sense of the factional and tribal rivalries and politics which appear to be impeding unity against the Turks and progress towards freedom and independence. His exasperation is made clear, as he tries to arbitrate as an outsider, or make them see reason.

I liked the way in which the touchy and vexed question of British imperialism was addressed, when the army commanders were asked whether Britain had any designs on Arabia. The awkward and non-committal answers given reflected both the unspoken reality, and their reluctance, as mere soldiers, to become embroiled in political matters.

The introduction of the American journalist Bentley adds a different dimension, but even his romantic illusions are soon confronted by the gruesome realities of war.

The supporting performances are part of the fabric which make this film special. Anthony Quayle is especially impressive as Colonel Brighton, seeking to rationalize Lawrence's unconventional methods. A word too for the atmospheric and evocative music of Maurice Jarre.

The fact that "Lawrence of Arabia" concludes on a somewhat downbeat and inconclusive note only adds to its appeal. War, and its outcome, are rarely straightforward, ideal or edifying.

A magnificent film.

1812 - Napoleon's Fatal March On Moscow - Adam Zamoyski

A while ago, I read Adam Zamoyski's superb study of the Vienna Peace Conference, "Rites Of Peace", and this encouraged me to seek out another work of his concerning the Napoleonic period, "1812 - Napoleon's Fatal March On Moscow".

 

 

 

Zamoyski starts by setting the scene, particularly the respective paths to 1812 followed by Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I, following the peace of Tilsit. Disaffection with Napoleon was growing among his "allies", much goodwill having been forfeited by heavy-handedness and a misunderstanding of the feelings of others. The pretensions of Alexander are illustrated, in so many ways a man of his time, espousing progressive sentiments, but hamstrung by the perilous nature of his own position, and the constant need to take heed of opinions at home.

 

The author also provides a handy guide to how the Continental System began to unravel, and also makes clear how important the whole Polish question was in the equation, something which is often overlooked. Also included in these preliminary chapters is an analysis of the Grande Armee, its strengths and shortcomings, how it had been diluted by attrition and campaigning, and also afflicted by corruption and decadence. 

 

The logistics of the invasion, when set out in their constituent parts, are staggering to contemplate in their intricacy and scale, when we consider that this was a pre-mechanization, pre-motorisation era. It would also seem that the stories about Napoleon's personal involvement in minute details are not exaggerated. It is also sobering to think that these daunting logistics to a large degree envisaged a short war.....

 

The great thing about books like this is that they tell the real story, without resorting to the generalisations and clichés prevalent in other media formats.  Here, for example, we learn that the much-vaunted Russian strategy was conditioned by a multiplicity of factors, and that it was not as calculating and pre-ordained as is sometimes made out, but evolved due to the pressure of events.

 

The elements of this book which I found most enlightening were those which addressed the infighting and tensions within Russian society and its "establishment", and how they affected the course of the campaign. Of the generals, Barclay de Tolly appeared to be largely vindicated in his approach, despite the vitriol aimed at him by many. Even after being "sacrificed", he continued to make astute observations.

 

The portrayal of Kutuzov here is also intriguing. For all his "inspirational" and galvanizing qualities, and his symbolic value, he seems to have been an equivocal influence on matters. The course of the conflict appeared to unfold despite rather than because of his conscious decisions. Indeed, some of the most favourable developments, from a Russian standpoint, occurred because they suppressed the urge to do what their instincts told them to.

 

Also, we get a look at the truth behind the level of patriotic and peasant engagement in the struggle, and the ambiguity which existed in the relationship of the masses with their leader. Even well into the long French retreat, opinion at all levels of Russian society was very volatile, and could have come down in opposition to Tsar Alexander.

 

What emerged to me was the fragility of the French enterprise, with a lack of central purpose and clear objectives, betrayed by Napoleon's stress on diplomacy and symbolic shows of power and unity.

It is probably simplistic to say that the Emperor's powers were on the wane, and some of his misfortunes he brought on himself by his flawed behaviour in the aftermath of Tilsit. The fall-out from this was reflected in the agonizing which afflicted him once on Russian soil. Political anxieties assailed him, and ironically the erratic and contradictory signals emanating from St. Petersburg may have harmed France more than they did the Russians, by thoroughly confusing and misleading Napoleon.

 

It is notable that most of the soldiers in his army still retained implicit faith in Napoleon, even during the most terrible travails. This was most likely due to a combination of blind faith, Bonaparte's remarkable track-record and his hypnotic allure. He was still capable of rising to the heights on occasion, as with the crossing of bridges on the return journey from Moscow, and his political antennae still functioned, if more fitfully than before. Another facet of the tale which stood out for me was how some of Napoleon's generals, Ney for example, retained their professionalism and focus amidst the chaos and misery.

The full horror and relentlessness of the Battle of Borodino is amply conveyed too. Reading those passages, one can fully appreciate why historians regard it as one of the most intensely brutal and horrific days of fighting ever seen. The full desperate ebb and flow of the battle comes across, as does the heart-chilling aftermath.

 

Needless to say, a sizeable portion of this book concentrates on the horrors and hardships suffered by both soldiers and civilians. Indeed, conditions during the initial invasion in the summer of 1812 sound terrible enough, as is testified by the figures of attrition. The retreat from Moscow is captured in all its shades, with stories of brutality and compassion, desperation and resilience, endurance and resignation. We are also shown how various "subcultures" developed, to cope with the cold, the lack of food and shelter, and the over-riding need to survive.

To conclude the book, the author summarizes the events which followed the French retreat from Russia, as the events and policies of 1807 onwards bore bitter fruit for Napoleon. There is a note of pessimism, with persuasive arguments about the more conservative path which European politics took after 1815, perhaps in reaction to the rise of nationalism and the newly aroused aspirations of the "lower orders".

This is an engrossing, diligently researched and beautifully written account of this momentous episode. One thing which occurred me increasingly as I worked my way through it was how little Europe in particular learned from the cruelties, callousness and sheer futility of what happened, as was made clear just over a century later.