Just Finished Reading: The Last of the Ebb – The Battle of the Aisne, 1918 by Sidney Rogerson (FP: 1937) [169pp]

After being savaged in both of the German offensives on the Western Front in 1918, the author and his division is finally taken out of the line to rest and await replacements. They are, to a man, exhausted and in dire need of some time to recover. Thankfully they have been assigned a quiet sector in the French line. So quite indeed that some of the trenches have become filled with rubbish and the rest are in a poor state of repair. What is worse, seen through the authors keen eyed experience of such things, is that their artillery support unit hasn't moved in months. If the enemy DID launch an attack those guns would be the first thing to go... Within days though everyone started feeling 'antsy'. For one thing the random odd artillery shells from enemy guns had stopped. No patrolling enemy aircraft could be seen in the skies, and no enemy troops were seen in No Man's Land attempting to repair their wire. It wasn't just quiet; it was FAR too quiet. Even the Front's location was worrying. Not only did it cover the most direct route to Paris (THE objective for the German forces since 1914) but the river Aisne was BEHIND them. If any kind of attack developed, they would be forced to cross that river (or be destroyed) whilst under fire – not the kind of operation anyone would wish to undertake. 

Days later the rumours started to spread. Circumstantial evidence seemed to point to an attack coming their way. Whispers of troop build-ups, secondary explosions from random Allied artillery shots and a few prisoners warned that something was brewing. Then, in the very early hours of the morning all HELL was let loose on them. As everyone expected their artillery 'support' was annihilated in the first barrage and within minutes the first enemy stormtroopers appeared in their lines. Shortly a general withdrawal was ordered. Three days later they were still pulling back... 

But if the author and his division were more exhausted than they thought possible so, it appeared, were the enemy. After days of constant attacks, the pauses between assaults started to lengthen. The British even had time to catch a few hours' sleep before falling back again but this time they were falling back into more prepared positions and into the waiting embrace of reinforcements – something the Germans could only dream about. By the 3rd or 4th day the Germans had achieved all of their ambitious objectives and they started digging in, awaiting the inevitable counterattack. Impressed by their progress the German senior staff decided to press on – without artillery support, without reinforcements, without much resupply – against dug in troops at least partially rested who, with growing numbers and growing confidence believed that the enemy had shot his bolt and had nothing further in his arsenal. They were right. It was indeed the last of the ebb. From here on the enemy would only move one way – East and home. 

I've read a bit about the German advances on the Western Front in 1918 post-Russian Revolution. Although the Allies were expected such an eventuality they, and indeed the world, were still shocked at its effectiveness. But and it is a BIG but, the attacks ultimately failed and (quite possibly) might never have had a real possibility of success. Although the nature of the attacks bordered on genius at times still the German forces did not have the deep resources they needed to overcome the combined might of France and Britain (plus the increasing strength of American forces) in 1918. It was a great (and desperate) throw of the dice. It MIGHT have worked and, in the best-case scenario, separated the Allies in the West but I don't really think that Britain would have sued for a separate peace at that point and I doubt very much if the French would have ever done so. 

What was most interesting about this short book is seeing those events from the ground rather than 40,000 feet and with a century+ of hindsight. What was even more interesting was the final section where a German account was given of the same event – and not just from any officer but from the officer who PLANNED the whole thing. His assessment of the attack and of his British opponents was well worth a read and complimented the author's story brilliantly. If you have any interest in the fighting on the Western Front – and especially late in the war – this is definitely worth a read. More to come (soon-ish) on these events and the inevitable follow-up. Recommended.

Just Finished Reading: 1914 – Fight the Good Fight: Britain, the Army & the Coming of the First World War by Allan Mallinson (FP: 2014) [551pp] 

Britain was unprepared for war in 1914. Despite rising tensions on the Continent since the assassination of the Austrian Archduke (and actually long before that) Britain was, as always, focused on the Empire. Despite the Entente Cordiale signed with the French in 1904, Britain had no intention of getting entangled in another European conflict. For more than a hundred years the British policy in regard to Europe was simply to prevent one power becoming all dominant and, therefore, becoming a threat to British and Imperial interests. Also, being primarily a maritime power, the British army was tiny in comparison to its European counterparts. Indeed, the German Kaiser himself called it contemptible and quipped that if it entered German territory, he would have the local police arrest them. 

Just how unprepared the British were was made clear in this excellent book. The Germans had a very detailed plan (flawed but VERY detailed) as to how precisely they were to remove the French threat prior to engaging the large, but slow, Russian one. With France and Russia being allies the LAST thing the Germans wanted was the dreaded “war on two fronts”. So, knock out the French with the majority of their army and then entrain everyone for a swift redeployment in the East. Simple. Except that they should have remembered that NO plan survives contact with the enemy. Unfortunately for Germany (and to be honest the whole of Europe) the Schlieffen Plan had no flexibility built in. NONE. The French plans were almost as detailed. They even had several plans to work from. Unfortunately for France their plan(s) was based on two assumptions – never of which were true – that the Germans would hold back their reserves and leave more divisions in the East than was actually the case and that they would behave exactly as the French expected them to. Meanwhile the British... well, THEIR plan (such as it was) was to deploy their entire available force – minus some divisions kept back for home defence until the possibility of invasion had passed – on the left of the French line... and that was IT. At least it had the advantage of simplicity. 

Despite aerial reconnaissance by both sides (although still VERY much in its infancy at this point) the British managed to blunder into the main German thrust where they found themselves outnumbered by roughly 8 to 1. Despite everything the British actually managed their ‘first contact’ surprisingly well being both highly trained and highly professional with the painful experience of the Boer War still very much present. Struggling to disengage during their subsequent retreat (strategic withdrawal?) they finally managed to do so and continued the retreat until finally they managed to reform and reinforce. In coordination with the French, they launched a significant counterattack and knocked the Germans on their heels. The Schlieffen Plan had failed, and a long war of attrition was about to begin. 

This quite outstanding book is focused very much on the beginning of things and only really covered the first few months of the conflict. Much of the book was focused on background – primarily from the British point of view obviously – and to give you an idea of just how much background we’re talking about here the first shots exchanged between British and German forces happened around page 380. Although, inevitably, some of the reasons behind the outbreak of the war were discussed that wasn’t the focus of the book. This was about how the British responded to the emergency and exactly why they behaved as they did. It was more than a little shocking to realise that the Cabinet only began discussing options AFTER the German army crossed the Belgian border! There was even debate over whether Britain should intervene AT ALL despite its undertaking to guarantee Belgium integrity. The reluctance to get involved and the political smokescreen deployed to cover this confused everyone. The French, for example, were convinced that Britain would be at their side every step of the way – regardless of the Belgian issue – and planned accordingly. The Germans, however, convinced themselves that Britain was staying out... and planned accordingly. 

One of the things I really liked about the author, who isn’t a professional historian but clearly knows his ‘stuff’ being an ex-cavalry brigadier, was his reluctance to speculate about what the main players were thinking (or not) beyond the evidence available. Equally I enjoyed a whole chapter of speculation of ‘what might have been’ if the British had thought things through more carefully. An earlier report on Belgian fighting capabilities fully expected that they would either put up a token face-saving fight and quickly capitulate with honour intact or be swept away by German might. What was completely unexpected was both how well and how aggressively the Belgians DID fight which, incidentally, completely threw off the German timetable. IF the British had been more aware of this fact before they deployed to France, they could have had an agreement with the Belgian king to quickly come to their aid in case of invasion (the Belgians were adamant that NO army would be crossing their border without permission). They could have been based at nearby railheads and, once the Germans crossed the border, been shoulder to shoulder with the Belgian forces in a matter of hours and could (possibly) have stopped the German advance DEAD in its tracks. When Russia invaded East Prussia on 7th August 1914 the Germans would’ve been faced with a nightmare scenario. It's entirely possible that they could have quickly sued for peace. So, no Great War, possibly no Russian Revolution, certainly no Second World War... Oh, the possibilities. 

As you can tell I was DEEPLY impressed by this book. I’ll definitely be looking out for more of his military history works as well as diving into his novel series in the New Year. So, MUCH more to come! Very Highly recommended to anyone interested in the start of the Great War and a definitely highlight of the year.  

[This is the first of a bunch of 20th Century history books I've been meaning to schedule for a while now. It'll run from 1914-1983. So, stay tuned!]

Just Finished Reading: A Brief History of The Hundred Years War – The English in France, 1337-1453 by Desmond Seward (FP: 1978) [265pp] 

Any war that lasts 100 years, or in this case 116, is going to be complex. Over that people, and especially during that age, leaders change – from Kings to warband captains – alliances shift, marriages and deaths change political dynamics, technologies change and mature (here the introduction and early use of gunpowder firearms) and outside events such as Crusades and Plague have impacts on who is available to fight. In fact, the use of ‘complex’ in reference to this was barely covers it. 

Of course, one of the (many) things that stick out in a jarring sort of way is that this wasn’t really a conflict between England and France at all. Although England was, by and large, a unified state at the point when the war started (essentially over who would sit on the French throne) the nation of France was nothing of the sort. ‘France’ was more of an idea than a reality, more of an aspiration – at least for some. ‘France’ was actually a loose confederation of regional powers with different histories and even different languages. Parts of what we now call ‘France’ had been owned and managed by the English for several hundred years and had no intention of changing that. So, when war broke out, the regions picked sides – or stayed neutral (or at least tried to). If that wasn’t complex enough, we have other actors involved. We have Holland and the Low Countries fighting for their independence offering their allegiance to anyone who could help them. We have the Holy Roman Emperor attempting to influence things and we had, for at least part of the war, the issue of rival Popes in Avignon and Rome excommunicating each other's followers.  

One thing that raised an eyebrow (or at least mine) was the authors ‘take’ on Joan d’Arc. I guess that I’ve grown up with the more Hollywood version of Joan that we know and admire [side note: I actually lit a candle for her in, I think, Sacré-Cœur, Paris during my brief visit there] so, naturally, though of her as a ‘big deal’ during the war. Although not completely dismissive the author, despite dedicating an entire chapter to the events surrounding her, put her impact at close to zero. Although the Dauphin was more than willing to use Joan (or indeed anything or anyone he could get) he made no effort to recover her injured from the battlefield and made no attempt to rescue her after she was captured by the Burgundians (French allies of England – complicated indeed) and handed over to the English for trial and execution. Apparently, it was only MUCH later that Joan became a patron saint of France. I have a few books on Joan (3 I think) so more RESEARCH to be done here, I think! 

Going into this book I thought that I had a reasonable, if rather top-level, knowledge of this pivotal conflict. I was wrong. My ‘knowledge’ it turns out was, if anything, rather superficial. So, I’ll see what I can do about rectifying that rather large gap in my knowledge. There’s certainly MUCH to explore here about both countries and the larger European context. The whole TWO POPES thing, which I was aware of previously, would be interesting to dig into further as would the whole shifting alliances that played such a large part in the process. One last thing that amused me somewhat was that Normandy was occupied by the English for around 30 years and was taxed heavily to pay for the war. I couldn’t help but wonder what it felt like with the shoe being on the other foot... 

As you can probably tell, I really enjoyed this brief history. I learnt a lot, I was pointed in other directions to learn more, and it (at least temporarily) changed my opinions on a few things. At the very least it’ll prompt me to finally read at least ONE of my Joan d’Arc books before too long. More to come from the author and the period. Definitely recommended.  

Just Finished Reading: To Win a War – 1918 The Year of Victory by John Terraine (FP: 1978) [259pp] 

1917 was a hard year for the Allied Powers. Not only had their offensives failed to achieve victory, but their attempts had almost destroyed their army's ability to fight. The French front-line commands had been wracked with mutiny and some of their politicians were calling for peace at *any* price. The British meanwhile where struggling to fill their basic manpower needs and where being forced to downsize the units in France. What made things worse was that Russia had dropped out of the war with the inevitable influx of German units moving west for a renewed offensive.  

Despite prior knowledge, and a limited amount of preparation, the Allies where still taken by surprise when the hammer fell in the spring of 1918. Despite warnings the Allies still packed their front trenches with men and whole units were destroyed by massive artillery bombardments. Once overrun and with the survivors in headlong retreat, the German infantry poured through the gaps and moved deep into France. But, despite their numbers, despite their planning and despite new tactics (including elite Stormtrooper units) the Allied Front was never breached. Broken sure, bent out of shape certainly, but after weeks of attacks and thousands of casualties the line held. Completely exhausted, low on supplies and distracted by the opportunity of looting Allied supplies abandoned in haste, the German assault ground to a halt. Hit first by outbreaks of Spanish Flu they were hit time and time again by the French, British and increasingly by American counter attacks. Slowly withdrawal became retreat and retreat become a general fallback from ground bloodily taken and retaken over the past four years. The 100 days of defeat had begun, and the end of the Great War was finally in sight. 

After reading about the German spring offensive (or rather offensives) of 1918 I was reasonably familiar with the events discussed in the first half of this book. What I was much less familiar with, and which I found very interesting, was the political manoeuvring behind the scenes to end the war and why, for instance, the Allies seemed to be satisfied by an Armistice rather than the full and unconditional surrender they demanded in 1945. Despite planning for campaign in 1919 (and indeed with some thinking that the war would still be raging in 1920!) both the British and most especially the French were spent, or close to being so, in the latter half of 1918. It was just conceivable that the final push could take place in 1919 but any continuation of the war beyond the spring of that year was unthinkable even with the growing manpower of the US Army. 

Despite having some notable axes to grind – the author *really* didn’t like the UK PM David Lloyd George! – this was an interesting and informative read. Getting some insights into the thinking of the Allied and German commanders certainly added to my understanding of why the war took so long to end even after it was obvious to just about everyone that Germany had lost the fight. Recommended if you can source a copy. More up to date works on this important period to come. 

Just Finished Reading: Priests De La Resistance! - The Loose Cannons Who Fought Fascism in the 20th Century by Fergus Butler-Gallie (FP: 2019) [260pp] 

To be honest it was difficult to resist a book with a pun both in the title AND the sub-title. No doubt it helped that the book also covered an odd aspect of WW2 and I’m always looking for the odd nooks and crannies of that particular conflict. I’ve long been interested in resistance movements across the globe and across time with a particular focus on the French resistance in particular. My reading, up to this point, has looked at the political aspects of this resistance especially focusing on the Communists and local Nationalist groups in various European countries. This was something quite different looking instead at the religious (exclusively Christian here) side of things. 

Looking at around 15 examples (all but 2 from occupied Europe during WW2) this was a fascinating, uplifting, harrowing and sometimes honestly funny look at some of the priests, nuns and other religious characters who put everything on the line to fight Fascism. Sadly (showing my lack of knowledge in this area) the vast majority of the people mentioned where completely unknown to me. The only one I recognised was Dietrich Bonhoeffer – not a name easily forgotten once discovered. Naturally one of the things I love about books like this is that they introduce me too a whole new side of things and to fascinating people of which I was previously ignorant. Being an ‘odd-ball’ myself (although generally I don’t think of *myself* that way) I was delighted to see just how ‘odd’ this cast of characters was. I think almost without exception they were outliers in their own faith organisations and all too often barely tolerated by their ecclesiastical hierarchy. Honestly, I liked them instantly! But it didn’t surprise me that someone who was a constant thorn in the side of their bishops or others above them was equally a thorn in the side (and often much more) to the Fascist authorities who tried to control them. Above all else it was their faith that not only sustained them through the years of Occupation but it was their faith that drove their opposition to Fascist ideology and the practical effects of it – from deportation of Jewish populations to the general oppression of the local population. 

Reading these potted biographies its difficult not to be uplifted by their efforts (often valuable, life-saving, inspirational) to fight a very real evil in their midst. I also found it difficult not only to admire these men and women who put their lives a distant second to doing the right thing but to love them for what they did. They were probably ‘difficult’ people in a whole host of ways but I do think they would have been fun – lovely provocative fun – to have in your community and most especially to know them or, if you were very lucky, to be friends with them. Told with a wonderful style I really enjoyed reading about a whole host of people that shouldn’t really be allowed to fade into historic obscurity. Definitely recommended and I’ll be looking out for the authors previous work on the English clergy. 

Just Finished Reading: The Blood of Free Men – The Liberation of Paris, 1944 by Michael Neiberg (FP: 2012) [280pp] 

Covering much the same timeframe as well as the same overall events as my last Liberation book, the focus of this interesting volume was quite different. Although the major players highlighted in the previous book are still mentioned – if only sometimes in passing like General Eisenhower – they are very much in the background here. Even De Gaulle gets a bit-part role with the focus mainly on him trying to control events as well as control the major Resistance groups headed by the Communists. Despite the fact of the German occupation of the city, it was the danger of a Communist take-over before the Allies arrived in force that was foremost on De Gaulle’s mind, and he made great efforts to ensure that this did not happen. Both the British and especially the Americans concurred and, despite loud protestations from Resistance elements inside Paris, steadfastly refused to air-drop any weapons to Resistance units. A re-run of the 1871 Paris Commune as well as the death and destruction which followed was very much in the minds of those who knew their history and did not want to repeat it.  

Most interestingly, I found, was the almost total side-lining of the ‘hero’ of the previous book – the cities German military commander Dietrich von Choltitz. In the previous book it was he how saved Paris for the world largely because of his reluctance to destroy one of the treasures of Europe (if not the world) on the say so of a madman. Here we have a very different interpretation and a very different portrait of a man. Here, the author highlights the reluctance of von Choltitz to act partially for purely practical reasons – he wanted the bridges to remain intact so that German units outside Paris could still retreat over them towards the East and home. Other, very practical, reasons prevented him for organising any widespread demolition – the lack of sufficient explosives as well as the lack of sufficiently experienced demolition experts. There was only so much he could do with so little. When pressure was applied from his superiors it was already too late – Paris was rising and von Choltitz had missed the opportunity to reduce the city to rubble. 

So, if the major players barely got a mention who or what was this interesting book about. Simply it was about the group (or rather groups) that where surprisingly side-lined in the previous book – the Resistance and people of Paris itself. After the false hope of D-Day for instant Liberation had passed, the local Resistance units in and around Paris accepted the order to ‘stand down’ until the Allies broke through the German defences and had already approached the capital. As the weeks went by the Resistance grew frustrated (and ambitious) and wanted to both strike at the hated Occupiers and the Collaborators in their midst. Further they wanted to liberate themselves – in large part to give themselves a place at the future political table – in effect restoring their honour after so long in the shadows. Eventually, when no Allied tanks had arrived despite months passing by the Resistance decided to rise and take the city themselves. It was not going to be an easy fight, but their actions certainly concentrated the minds of all involved. The Free French forces outside the city insisted on rushing to their aid and, eventually, the Americans agreed. The German forces inside the city, who were still much stronger than any Resistance forces ranged against them, saw the writing on the wall (all too literally) and decided to wait until captured by the Allies rather than either fight or surrender to Resistance fights or civilians. Meanwhile, the Collaborators either made hasty deals with the future administration, fought on the streets and hoped for some kind of atonement bonus or fled Paris with as much as they could carry and with or without their German ‘friends’. 

This was a very interesting compliment to my previous Liberation read and really brought home that two views of a rather narrow subject can end up have a very different focus. After reading both of them, especially so closely together, I think I have a much more rounded and nuanced view of the Liberation of Paris. Definitely recommended. Further down the line, although not any time soon, I have one more book on the subject that goes up to 1949 so, hopefully, dealing with a lot of the aftermath of both the Occupation and Liberation. But that’s in the future...

Just Finished Reading: The Liberation of Paris – How Eisenhower, De Gaulle, and Von Choltitz Saved the City of Light by Jean Edward Smith (FP: 2019) [205pp] 

When the Allies landed on the Normandy beaches on 6th June 1944 the citizens of Paris celebrated. Soon, they thought, their ordeal would finally be over. Within days, they thought, they’d be free. The Resistance units especially where itching and ready, despite their lack of weapons, to act. But as days turned to weeks and still no column of Allied tanks approached celebration and hope turned to confusion and despair. The question on everyone’s lips: where are they? 

The problem was far from simple. Firstly, the German resistance to Allied advances was tougher than anyone expected. Despite the Allies having effective air supremacy, German units were generally far more experienced that their Allied opponents. Then there was the matter of logistics. With most of the ports either in enemy hands or heavily damaged it was difficult to keep Allied units fully supplied. Together with the unfamiliarity with the problems of fighting in bocage country with its sunken roads and dense hedges progress, at least at first, was painfully slow. Only with the long-awaited US breakout did things become more fluid, and the problem of Paris could even be discussed. The Free French Forces (technically) under General De Gaulle were naturally eager to liberate their capital city for a host of reasons. Their American overlords, who supplied all their equipment and who were above them in the Allied chain of command, had other ideas. It was only when it became obvious that Paris was open and would fall with the minimum of effort on the part of the Allies was its liberation even contemplated. Within the city itself tension between Resistance units and the German occupiers began to reach new heights. Under orders to destroy the city if it looked like holding it was no longer an option Von Choltitz needed to juggle his duty, fear for his family back in Germany if he didn’t comply, the need to keep the bridges intact to allow German units outside Paris to retreat in good order and his place in History if he left Paris in ruins. August 1944 was going to be a hot one. 

Yet again, I knew of the Liberation of Paris in general terms but wasn’t fully aware of the details. I didn’t know that, at least originally, the Allies (or actually the Americans) had no intention of liberating Paris but had intended to by-pass it thereby forcing the German occupiers either to flee or surrender to follow up forces. The Americans were well aware of the logistical nightmare of feeding the city which would just add to their already existing logistical problems. But I think one of the most interesting characters in the whole series of events was Von Choltitz – the German military commander of Paris and the region surrounding the city. I’m not sure if I’d heard of him before, but he seemed – at least in this narrative – to have been central to saving Paris from unforgivable destruction. Interesting, when he was finally captured by the advanced Allied units he was spat on by the French citizens (and the officer standing next to him shot and killed) yet, on his death, had a French military honour guard at his funeral. As you might imagine from the subtitle, the focus of this excellent history is on the three main players – Von Choltitz, De Gaulle and Eisenhower – with the Resistance getting a lot less attention than maybe they should have, but I’ll have more to say about that next week! Overall, I learnt a LOT from this book, and I’ll be looking out for more from this author in future. If, like me, you had a passing appreciation of the events surrounding the Liberation and wanted to know more than I can certainly recommend this to you. But what I did learn from later reading – and no doubt more reading to come – things are not always so cut and dried as they’re made out to be so it's best to get more than one opinion/perspective on a subject. More to come.  

Just Finished Reading: Napoleon and the Hundred Days by Stephen Coote (FP: 2004) [289pp] 

It’s sad to say that up till now most of my ‘knowledge’ of the Napoleonic Wars has been gleamed from Bernard Cornwell’s Sharpe novels and the subsequent TV series. There’s been a few other books over the years – both fiction and non-fiction, but they’ve been both few and far between. To describe my understanding of the war(s) as ‘fractured’ or ‘incomplete’ would be a compliment. In order to close that gap, I finally picked up this excellent slim volume and now I feel much more enlightened. 

Starting near the end of things – with Napoleon in exile on the island of Elba and with the Congress of Vienna in full swing (or would that be full waltz) - the author gives a potted history of the events up to that point: the French Revolution and the wars/upheaval that followed, campaigning in Italy, the abortive mission to Egypt, the disaster of the Russian campaign and so on. Running to around 60 pages this is, of course, the briefest of overviews but is very useful indeed. Mixed in with this were highlights of the diplomatic situation in Europe, Napoleons relationship with his great love Josephine and the troubled relations with the rest of his family – again, great background which went a long way to explain some elements of Bonaparte’s character. His time on Elba is covered in some detail as well as the lax security which allowed him to escape and start the ‘meat’ of the story – his last 100 days. 

Starting with as little as 600 men, Napoleon was determined to overthrow the new (actually old Burbon) regime and re-install himself as Emperor and ‘saviour’ of France. To begin with it was touch and go. He did have his fanatical followers, but he also had his critics who were all too aware of what this man had cost the country in terms of both blood and gold. But after a few early victories and units sent against him changing sides and joining him it looked that the recently ended war was about to be reignited. Not, of course, if the Allies had anything to do with it. Most quickly off the mark were the Prussians and the British who quickly moved out of their positions to face the reinvigorated French forces. After some initial clashes the final battlefield was picked by Wellington, just outside a small historically insignificant village of Waterloo. The battle itself, covered in around 60 pages, was epic in proportions and the number of dead. Surprisingly, for someone thought to be THE military genius of war, Napoleon made some pretty fundamental mistakes and paid the price. My ‘knowledge’ of the war(s) ended with the battle itself, so it was highly instructive to read what happened next – both regarding the Allies and the new French government. 

I learnt a LOT from this excellent book, and it's given me even more incentive to deep deeper into the conflict. I certainly want to know more about the all-important Congress of Vienna as well as Napoleon’s time in Egypt and beyond. I already have a few books in these areas and will be trying to fill in some more of the blanks going forward. Definitely recommended to anyone interested in the era or for those who just want a quick, but detailed, overview of events. 

[Labels Added: 1, Labels Total: 74] 

Just Finished Reading: D-Day Through German Eyes – How the Wehrmacht Lost France by Jonathan Trigg (FP: 2019) [294pp] 

They knew it was coming. The long awaited ‘Second Front’ - although technically the ‘third’ front with the ongoing campaign in Italy – was soon to open, but the questions remained: When, How and most importantly where? The hammer could fall just about anywhere, from the French south coast all the way up to northern Norway. But even the mighty Third Reich couldn’t defend everywhere equally. The most logical thing to consider was that the Allies would need a functioning port as soon as possible after landing. The most logical place for the attack on France was, therefore, Calais and logically this was the most heavily defended. But what about elsewhere? Normandy was considered a comparatively low risk with few usable ports nearby and, despite a flat beach along most of the area, radio intercepts and other information indicated an attack elsewhere. Despite that the defenders did what they could to improve their defences with thousands of mines being laid and thousands of tons on concrete being poured to create gun emplacements and bunkers. But what of the troops to man them? With a war of extermination raging in the East needing ever greater resources in men and material the Atlantic Wall and Fortress Europa wasn’t exactly in line to get the best of anything. The men came from units generally considered to be combat ineffective, either through a lack of experience or, in many cases, often too much experience on the Eastern Front complete with physical and mental injuries that would’ve, in normal times, removed them from fighting units entirely. The equipment wasn’t much better – with obsolete guns from occupied territories making up the majority of the weapons available to ‘throw the Allies back into the sea’. But that wasn’t the worst of it. The elite Panzer units held in reserve were under confusing and conflicted control. The very strategy on which the defence of France was being based was still under review with different commanders having very different ideas of how exactly to proceed. If that wasn’t bad enough, the Allies had created naval and air forces the like of which the world had never seen before. When the hammer did fall it would fall like the Hammer of God itself and heaven help anyone who was on the receiving end – as various units of a much-weakened Wehrmacht were about to find out. 

This was an excellent account of D-Day and the subsequent weeks and months following the landings from a very different perspective than I was used to. We don’t often hear about the German/Axis side of any encounter with the Allies, so it was very interesting indeed to ‘hear’ from German/Axis (actually not always German nationals as I discovered here) soldiers as they were bombed, bombarded and finally overwhelmed by British, Canadian and American forces. With lots of first-hand accounts this was at times a very visceral, frightening and bloody account of modern warfare up close and personal. If you’re in any way put off by the horrors of war you might just want to skip this one – or at least be aware that you might need to skip some of the more detailed accounts throughout this book. If you know D-Day from the Allied point of view only (as I did pretty much) this is a real eye-opener and will definitely round out your knowledge of the events surrounding that most important day. Highly recommended to anyone interested in how WW2 ended.    

[Labels Added: 0, Labels Total: 70] 

Just Finished Reading: A Brief History of the Battle of Agincourt by Christopher Hibbert (FP: 1964) [141pp] 

The Hundred Years war between England and France was on ‘pause’. But England’s new King, Henry V, had other ideas and was determined to end the conflict once and for all – and in England’s favour. Opening negotiations with Paris after securing war financing from Parliament and securing loans from banks and wealthy individuals (who actually had little choice in the matter) Henry was playing a double game. He knew that eventually the French would tire of his demands and war would be ‘forced’ upon him. So it was, late in 1415, that an invasion fleet sailed across the English Channel to land near the town of Harfleur. This is when things started to go wrong. Not only did the inhabitants of that town (supposedly already Henry’s property) decide to fight they did so very ably. Unprepared for a long siege, indeed for any siege, the English forces struggled to make headway. Only after many weeks, many deaths and much disease in both the town and the encircling English camp did the town finally fall – in no small part due to the failure of superior French forces in the rest of the country to co-ordinate any action in its defence. With a significant proportion of his army dead or dying, Henry decided to march to the nearest English strongpoint – Calais. In order to do that they needed to cross the river Seine – but the French knew that too and ensured that no fording place was available or uncontested. The resulting march East – away from Calais – to find a suitable ford to cross both exhausted and demoralised the English force. Finally, after much trial and error and a few notable skirmishes the Seine was crossed, and the march West could begin. By this time the French had finally agreed on a plan, and they sat across the only road that they knew the English needed to approach their objective. Only after the subsequent battle was over did the victorious Henry ask for the name of the nearest castle. He was told – Agincourt. 

Along with the Battle of Crecy (1346), the Battle of Agincourt (25th October 1415) is a defining encounter with the French during the Hundred Years war. It’s certainly one of those dates – along with 1066, 1805 and 1815 – that any English school kid of my generation could rattle off when asked for such things. What is surprising though is just how almost irrelevant it was, except for the fact that it destroyed a goodly chunk of that period's French aristocracy. The numbers, actually the disparity in numbers, is staggering. It’s impossible now to establish the exact figures but somewhere around 8,000 French died during or shortly after the three-hour battle. The highest estimate for English casualties is 500 and is probably more likely to be around 100 of which most were injured, not killed. It was far less of a battle and much more of a slaughter. But what, in the end did it achieve? The victorious English army and its King left France and less that 40 years later the war was over with the French holding all of the disputed territory except for the enclave at Calais which finally fell in 1558 during the Italian War of 1551–1559. 

As you might expect from such a short book – it was a brief history after all – this narrative rattled along at pace. Despite this it was full of interesting observations and contained a detailed review of the battle itself (as well as the Siege of Harfleur). Although rather dated now (I think I’ll look out for more up to date histories of the conflict) this is still worth reading. Recommended to anyone interested in the Hundred Years war or the Medieval Period in general.  

[Labels Added: 0, Labels Total: 69]

Just Finished Reading: Twelves Days on the Somme – A Memoir of the Trenches, 1916 by Sidney Rogerson (FP: 1933) [194pp] 

I’m always looking out for first-hand accounts of historical events (or travels), so snapped this up when I saw it in my fave Indie bookshop some time ago. Although I’d never heard of the author before apparently he was quite famous in the 1930’s and not only for his books of WW1 (I have his other one stacked in a separate pile) but for his cricket biographies and tales of farming between the wars.  

The author was a fresh lieutenant when his regiment (the West Yorkshires) was assigned to a section of the Somme. Interestingly, as he stated in his introduction, this was not a tale of fighting and heroism in the face of the enemy. This was a tale of everyday life in the trenches told with a quite brutal honesty. It was a tale of mud, not only sticky and smelly but deadly. It was a tale of trying to keep warm and especially dry. It was a tale of ‘sleeping’ if it could be called that for a few hours at a time in-between orders arriving and the odd crisis. It was a tale of senior officers trying to do the best for their men and even more senior officers having zero idea either of what the men had to deal with, nor of what was being asked of them. It was a tale of random death – one of the things that struck me on several occasions was when the author focused on a fellow officer or common soldier and then mentioning the fact that he died at such and such a place by sniper bullet or shell impact. One weird thing was when people simply disappeared – they went out on patrol and simply didn’t come back. No one saw them hit, no one saw them fall. No capture report ever came back from the enemy and no POW ever returned. One moment they were there and then – vanished. Bizarre. 

Of course, there were funny stories too as we would expect in the circumstances. Jokes made at the expense of orders received that made no sense and of the ‘characters’ that have no doubt been sprinkled through every military unit throughout time. My favourites were the trooper who seemed to be able to light a fire in any conditions no matter the circumstance – and then proceed to brew a decent cup of tea. I also liked the soldier who requested permission to ‘survey’ No-Mans Land – AKA loot the German dead of anything of value. Aware that he couldn’t give such permission but also aware that the trooper was going to do it anyway suggested that if he did find himself outside the wire that the soldier should bring back any identification of British dead he found so that they could be taken off the missing list and allow their families to properly mourn – being in the days before ‘dog-tags’. 

In other words, this was an account of the mundane reality of trench warfare. This was talk of the weather, food, the lack of information, random death, watching attacks further down the line and thinking about the enemy who they almost never saw. All in all, this was honestly fascinating and an interesting change to tales of carnage, horror and death we’re usually given when trench warfare is discussed. Definitely recommended and more memoirs to come. 

[Labels Added: 2, Labels Total: 55] 

Just Finished Reading: Fighters in the Shadows – A New History of the French Resistance by Robert Gildea (FP: 2015) [481pp] 

I’m not entirely sure why – probably because of a movie or two watched with my father – but I have long been interested in the French Resistance or, as the author points out, more accurately the resistance in France. That may sound like splitting hairs, but it's really not. Naturally it's easy to assume that the French Resistance were French citizens resisting the German Occupation until after D-Day and Liberation. That’s true but only partially. For instance, there’s a wide interpretation of what is exactly meant by ‘resistance’. When the war was over, and the dust had begun to settle, a series of Resistance medals were given out – by and large to men who had undertaken direct action against the occupying forces. But what about the female couriers who transported the weapons and ammunition into their hands? What about those who provided the information about German military movements or simply kept watch why sabotage was taking place? What about those who hid and fed downed aircrew as they made their way back to England and the fight? Resistance wasn’t just about shooting Germans or blowing up trains. 

Then of course there was the spread of nationalities involved. It’s probable that the majority of the French Resistance was actually French, but by no means all – not by a long way. France had long been the destination of refugees from all over Europe, from those fleeing persecution in Russia or Spain after the Civil War there or those fleeing the steady advance or the German army. Those who had fought in Spain (again from all over the world) were ready made resistors, as were the Jews and Communists who had little choice between fighting, hiding or being rounded up ‘for orderly disposal’. There were many non-French salted amongst the various Resistance groups whilst there were also groups that were almost exclusively Spanish, Jewish or Communist. It really depended on a mix of local circumstances and chance. 

My only slight disappointment with this book – and it was slight – was the definite focus on the bigger picture. I was hoping to get to know more about resistance at ground level, while a good chunk of the book hovered around the political heights of the de Gaulle fight for recognition by the Allies and the political infighting – mostly in smoke filled rooms fortunately – between various elements in the Resistance itself. Generally, this was an interesting and often overlooked aspect of things but not of huge interest to me presently. What was interesting was how the image and historical focus of the Resistance itself has changed over time – to include those previously excluded – as various factions battled to be recognised and particularly after the death of de Gaulle who worked so hard to mold the idea of the Resistance in his own image. A valuable look at an iconic organisation. Recommended. 

[Labels Added: 2, Labels Total: 41] 

Just Finished Reading: This Dark Business – The Secret War Against Napoleon by Tim Clayton (FP: 2018) [356pp] 

Wars are neither fought nor won exclusively on the battlefield. This was as true during the Napoleonic Wars as it is today. Indeed, many of the techniques used throughout the 20th century were invented and used for the first time during the decades long war with Revolutionary and Napoleonic France.  

Along with the usual diplomatic maneuvering across Europe to rise allies to the cause and to ensure that they stay in the fight even after early defeats the British government maintained a propaganda war against France – and most especially against Napoleon himself – both at home and abroad. For domestic consumption the UK government financed contributors to magazines and periodicals to write articles and produce political cartoons critical of the French regime and the Revolution that proceeded it. Indeed, the government approved the publication of and often completely financed newspapers to spread that very message – that France was a direct threat and needed to be opposed rigorously and to believe (or act) otherwise was both unpatriotic and dangerous to national security. Needless to say, newspapers and pamphlets who opposed the government were denied publication and their editors or publishers often ended up in court or in prison. If damaging revelations could not be discovered or twisted to fit then fake reports or forged letters would have to suffice and these were often published in both foreign and domestic newspapers to justify actions that the British government had already decided on. But propaganda, no matter how effective, would never be enough – especially in the years when it seemed that Napoleon and his generals were invincible on the battlefield. Something more direct needed to be attempted. 

In 1800 a determined group of men – both old-style Republicans and dyed in the wool Royalists – determined that the only way things would change for the better would be if Napoleon was dead. They determined that they could aid in this by blowing up the dictator with a barrel of gunpowder as he approached the theatre in what is probably the first recorded use of a roadside IED (Improvised Explosive Device). Obviously, it failed as we know from history but it came close, very close, to killing the man who was and would continue to change European history. The plotters had been delivered into France from British warships and had been paid with British gold. A few years later another, much larger, group were similarly infiltrated into France to complete the task, again paid for by Britain. The term ‘assassination’ was to be avoided (however tenuously) but that was the common object everyone had in mind. 

Following both streams in the secret endeavour, the author dives into a great deal of detail (too much in my opinion) on the propaganda side of things with somewhat less time spent on (at least for me) the more interest assassination plans. Both aspects of the secret war involved a LOT of people and I honestly lost track of who people were and skimmed over things a little from time to time both for sanity and for time's sake. If the author had concentrated more of the main players rather diving into the more detailed accounts, I think that the narrative would have flowed both faster and smoother. So, I did find myself struggling through this more than I would’ve liked. Part of that, I’m sure, is that the great majority of the book was completely new to me. I’d honestly never really thought of the political or covert aspects of the Napoleonic Wars until I’d come across the idea in a recent novel based during that period (Clarissa Oakes by Patrick O’Brian). A little stodgy at times but of interest to anyone wanting to know more about the wars progress off the battlefield.  

Just Finished Reading: Paris Reborn – Napoleon III, Baron Haussmann, and the Quest to Build a Modern City by Stephane Kirkland (FP: 2013) [292pp]

If there is one thing that History teaches – apart from the fact that we humans do not learn from History – is that things are invariably contingent. There is no Fate, no Destiny and no Plan. Bullets miss their intended target, winds change direction at just the wrong time (or just the right one), and messages are delayed, lost, misread or ignored in the heat of battle. Such things are woven into the fabric of human history and are one of the things that make predicting things such a headache. Looking back, and having a grasp of the minutiae of unfolding events, we can see that things often viewed in hindsight as inevitable are anything but – things could always have been different. This applies to individual lives, countries, battles and cities.

Paris, now rightly regarded as a world city, a city of light and one of the urban wonders of the world, was anything but in the early 19^th century. Growing organically without much in the way of planning or foresight it was starting to fall victim to its own success. Small changes had been made over time to alleviate problems here and there and opportunities to upgrade or demolish buildings had been taken in the event of fires or other disasters but it was time for something more radical. But first a vision was required and someone powerful enough to drive that vision forward. Step forward the unlikely possessor of that vision - Charles Louis Napoléon Bonaparte, nephew of the more famous Napoléon Bonaparte we all learnt about in history class. Vision he had, but power and influence he most certainly lacked. Luckily for him (and arguably the world) he was about to be ‘used’ by a political fixer by being installed as President of France in 1848 and, after his short and undistinguished term in office, then being replaced by said ‘fixer’. Unfortunately Charles Louis had other ideas and executed a palace coup becoming Napoleon III – Emperor of the French – in 1852. Power, influence were now his along with the vision of creating a city fit for an Empire. Appointing Georges-Eugène Haussmann (later Baron Haussmann) as Prefect of the Seine to co-ordinate the project the wholesale overhaul of the city could begin.

This excellent book – a MUST read for anyone interested in either urban development or simply Paris herself – tells of the building of elegant boulevards, opera houses, government buildings, parks and gardens which transformed a mixed modernising and still medieval city into the edifice we see today. The very distinctive, iconic, architecture we see today is the product (unfortunately uncompleted) of the vision and drive of these two men along with some of the greatest urban designers and architects of the age. Paris would have looked a LOT different today without them. Many European cities had the (rather questionable) ‘advantage’ of recovering from bomb damage after WW2 which allowed them to redesign themselves into the modern age. Paris chose a different route in the mid to late 19^th century – a truly massive (and hugely expensive) programme of destruction and reconstruction on a scale that amazed and shocked many residents and visitors and, not incidentally, created many enemies for both the Emperor and his frontman Haussmann. Unfortunately for posterity the project died along with Napoleon III’s hopes in the aftermath of the Franco-Prussian war which he handled so badly. But much had already been achieved and much remains for us to admire and wonder about. This is a delightful exploration of the rebuilding of an imperial capital which became the envy of Europe by the end of the 19^th century. Definitely recommended for all ‘urbanophiles’ and for anyone who ever wondered why Paris looks the way it does.

Just Finished Reading: Les Parisiennes – How the Women of Paris Lived, Loved and Died in the 1940’s by Anne Sebba (FP: 2016) [387pp]

Even when war was declared there was no cause for alarm. Everyone knew it was coming and now, at last, it was here. Reserve troops were called up and moved to their frontline positions. The Maginot Line was occupied and all was in readiness. Then…… Nothing. No attacks, no gas, no bombs. What little panic there had been subsided and life went on as normal. Weeks passed and then weeks more. Then the Belgian border was crossed by German tanks and it started to feel real again. When the tanks crossed the French border things became very real indeed. Parisians had it seemed three options – Run, Hide or Wait. Those who could, or needed to like the Jewish refugees from previously overrun countries who knew what was coming, ran south or to the coastal ports looking for a way out. Some hid and hid valuables thinking that either the Germans would never reach Paris or would pass them by and the others – those who could not leave or chose to stay – waiting. They didn’t need to wait long.

When the first German troops marched through Paris its citizens looked on with a mixture of horror and disbelief. The country had been at war for a matter of months and invaded for a matter of weeks and their capital was already in the hands of the enemy. How long this would last, it now seemed, depended on the British and the remnants of French forces. But when the French capitulated and the British left in disarray Parisians knew that it would not be over soon. More decisions would need to be made – go on as before as much as possible, collaborate and make the best of things or resist. Once the shock had receded and the reality of the situation sunk in most people tried their best to get along despite the nightmare world they now lived in. Some, for a whole host of reasons – political or ideological sympathy, survival instincts, and financial opportunities – decided that the best thing to do was to co-operate with the invaders or, as most saw it, face facts. A minority decided that the only thing to do was resist in any way they could. At first such acts were amateurish, childish even – defacing posters, ignoring the enquiries of German soldiers, not dating them, refusing to shop in establishments who had put up ‘We Speak German’ signs in their windows. But things gradually became more violent as did the German responses. Again decisions had to be made – just how far are you willing to go to resist? Many women, especially pretty young girls who could flirt their way through roadblocks, became couriers moving messages between disparate groups and crossing the lines between Occupied France in the north and Vichy in the south. Others carried guns in prams coving by a young child or explosives sown into their long winter coats. But it was only after the invasion of Russia in 1941 that the many Communist underground cells began their operations against both German forces and the collaborators that supported them. Activity took another upward path with the operations of UK and US secret operatives again supported by resistance units and, sometimes, betrayed they those loyal to Vichy or ‘incentivised’ by the occupying forces.

As the war started to turn against the Axis powers and the liberation of France approached there were those who determined that justice would be served once the war was over. Dangerously they kept detailed diaries to ensure that those responsible for atrocities faced the consequences and that stolen articles could be traced and returned to their previous owners if they survived. It was important, if nothing else, to be able to witness what had happened during the Occupation to ensure that it would not be forgotten or, in many cases, forgiven.

This is the story of the women who, through circumstance or choice, lived in Paris before, during and after the German Occupation in WW2. As with any group of people they come in all types – from rich to poor, Left and Right, collaborator and resistant, living and dead. There are those who were, later, considered to be heroes or traitors. Some were arrested, tried and (sometimes) executed. Some (mostly men it seemed) given medals are treated as heroes whilst women (who often didn’t actively take up arms but risked their lives daily anyway) where only honoured or even recognised much later. Not so oddly it was the women who had their heads shaved for literally ‘sleeping with the enemy’ whilst similar low level ‘offences’ by men went largely unremarked. Like all history this is a complex tapestry which the author handles very well. I did roll my eyes a few times with the author’s apparent fixation on fashion – apparently looking chic was an act of resistance itself! – but generally this was an interesting read which brought real women’s lives during a terrible time into focus. Definitely recommended for anyone interested in French history or the civilian experience in WW2.  

Just Finished Reading: Parisians – As Adventure History of Paris by Graham Robb (FP: 2010) [436pp]

Paris has existed as a recognised settlement since at least 52 BC when the Romans occupied the left bank of the Seine, though wisely the author of this fascinating work restricted himself to a more modern (and modest) tour of that city of light. Starting with a brief visit of the young Napoleon Bonaparte – before his became a one name only celebrity – the author parades a host of Parisians, a good number of which I had never heard of, who make up that cities history and both created the place itself and our appreciation of it. There are stories of how the last King of France and his entourage became lost in the labyrinthine streets whilst fleeing the revolution so ensuring their later capture and execution by the mob, tales of crime, betrayal and mystery kept (and lost) in the files of the Sûreté, life in the 19^th century Latin Quarter where artists, poets, authors, dancers produced some of the greatest works of art ever seen or heard whilst living on little more than cheap wine, cheap coffee and applause. There are tales of wholesale reconstruction (or destruction depending on your viewpoint) to create a modern city separated forever from its medieval past – demanded by the modernising Napoleon III and designed by the Baron Haussmann (or which more later!). There are tales of revolution and the Commune, tales of alchemy and atomic bombs, stories of the Eiffel tower and the fears that it would change the cities weather, tales of Marcel Proust and of Hitler’s whirlwind tour of the city to both disparage and steal its artwork, the nightmare of Jewish roundups and deportations, the return of De Gaulle and the snipers he faced, the activities of the Secret Army in its attempts to stop the loss of French Algeria, of student demonstrations and near destruction for the French state and life in the multi-racial high-rises surrounding the city. It is a city of a million stories with millions more untold.

This was definitely a reading highlight of the year. Not only does the author clearly love the city he can put you there, standing next to architects as they plan a city to dazzle the world or a student as he hurls a street cobble towards the hated CRS police as they attempt to crush a demonstration which threatens the fabric of an ordered society. You can hear the scratching of the pen that writes symphonies and the clink of cups in the street side cafes where political and cinematic arguments wash between tables. This is a book to lose yourself in. Mostly the experiences are pleasant ones even when rooms are cold and food is scarce. Some are not so pleasant with occupation and the violent suppression of political fervour. But what we are presented with, and left with once the last page is turned, in the life of a city in all its complexity and contradiction. Despite the impossibility of adequately describing the heartbeat of a vibrant metropolis between the pages of a book bereft of the sound of laughter (and gunfire) or the smell of perfume (and car exhausts) this goes a fair way to explaining exactly why Paris has maintained a spiritual pull on millions of people for centuries. Not only will you want to learn more about this city and the country it often exemplifies after reading this book you’ll want to book tickets to go there. Highly recommended for existing and, no doubt future, Francophiles.            

Just Finished Reading: Dark Continent – Europe’s Twentieth Century by Mark Mazower (FP: 1998)

As you can no doubt imagine, covering a goodly chunk of a continent over around a hundred years of its history in a shade over 400 pages is going to look at trends more than details and incidents of significance rather than detailed narratives. This is the case with this somewhat dense but fascinating volume. Starting with the aftermath of the First World War the author hits the highlights of the Soviet Revolution and the chaos in the collapsing Austro-Hungarian Empire and the defeated Germany. With boundaries redrawn and whole ‘new’ nations created (or recreated) – to say nothing of internal fighting and civil war – mass migrations took place the likes of which the world had not seen before and would not experience again until the end of the Second World War. As reconstruction moved ahead and Reparations became ever more problematic the western democracies struggled and sometimes failed to address the needs and the demands of their populations. Both Italy and, a decade or so later, Germany abandoned democracy altogether in an attempt to redress grievances arising directly from the First World War. Concentrating at times on Germany, Russia, France and Italy the author highlighted the various attempts to reshape the world, or at least their small part of it, in their image – and how each in turn largely failed in their endeavours. With Reconstruction as the major issue arising from World War Two, the US had learnt its lesson from the first war and instituted the Marshall Plan both to revive/reinvigorate the European economy (and not insignificantly bolster its own after the boom years of the war) and as a direct counter to the Soviet threat. This treat also assisted in the growing integration of Europe firstly as an economic entity and then, increasingly, as a political one. It had been a long time coming but the idea of a European Union or even a United States of Europe had been seriously talked about – at least in some quarters – since the 1920’s.

This was at times a dense read. Even without more than a cursory look at the world wars themselves the author still had a lot of ground to cover. But cover it he did and cover it very well indeed. This is much more than a brief overview of the western end of a continental mass. This is looking over broad flowing rivers and then diving down into the depths to discover both how the rivers flowed and what caused them to periodically change their course. Some time was spent of islands in the stream and where rivers met, sometimes almost imperceptive and at other times in great cataracts or waterfalls. Occasionally individual fish where pulled out and examined before being released back into their natural environment – but you get the point before my allusions to the flow of historical narrative moves too far into the strained and farcical. Although comparatively short – considering the subject matter and scope – this was a very accomplished work that would reward repeated reading to tease out a fuller understanding of the historical events that shaped Europe. Definitely recommended but be prepared to give it the time and effort it deserves.

Just Finished Reading: The Jail Busters – The Secret Story of MI6, The French Resistance & Operation Jericho by Robert Lyman (FP: 2014)

Europe, Early 1944. Liberation is Coming. All along the South Coast of England a vast Armada is being put together to transport the men and equipment for the largest amphibious operation in history. Each day aircraft of the RAF and USAAF attack railyards, transport hubs and other strategic targets to slow or prevent counter attack. Each night agents of the SOE, OSS and DGSE rely on dropped equipment, agents and other assistance in their joint operations with the French Resistance, and lately a new menace has appeared – launch pads for rocket weapons have been appearing across Northern France in preparation for ‘Vengeance’ attacks against London and the south coast. Located by aerial reconnaissance and by elements of the French Resistance they are regularly attacked by ground attack aircraft and light bombers such as the Mosquito. But the Germans know that Liberation is coming too. They have no idea where the hammer will fall or when but they do know it will be somewhere on the French coast and that it will be soon. They are also aware of the importance of eyes on the ground and have been operating in overdrive to sweep up as many French Resistance units as possible prior to invasion and they have been very successful in their endeavours. Hundreds of these fighters, labelled as terrorists by the Germans, are being held in Amiens prison awaiting deportation or execution. In January 1944 a cry for help went out to MI6, their main British ally, to help. The RAF was happy to respond. On the morning of 18th February 1944 a force of 19 Mosquito fighter bombers took off in a snow storm and headed at wave top height for the French coast. Their mission was to breach the prison walls in Amiens allowing the escape of highly valued and much needed Resistance fighters. Less than three hours after taking off the surviving 17 aircraft landed back at base after successfully attacking the prison, flying at close to 300mph at rooftop level. The walls came down and many escaped that day in 1944 in one of the most daring bombing missions of the war.

Told with great detail and from multiple viewpoints – including the RAF planners and pilots, MI6 HQ, French Resistance leaders and even some of their opponents in France (both Germans and some French collaborators) – this was an exciting tale of a little known and highly unusual mission by the RAF. Such a thing would never have happened without a whole host of elements coming together in the right way and at the right time. Although highly successful in many ways this wasn’t a mission without casualties. Whilst only the prison itself was hit by bombs – except I think for a nearby church that was struck by one bomb that pierced the prison wall (which was expected to be stone rather than the brick it actually was), bounced on frozen ground and ‘skipped’ through the church without exploding – several of the buildings did collapse and a significant number of prisoners were killed. Two of the tacking aircraft were lost in the attack and at least two of the crew were killed. However, many of the Resistance fighters did escape and the attack itself was both a huge morale boost to the French and a disaster for the German security forces who lost much of their intelligence in the subsequent Resistance reprisals. With insights into Resistance operations in France and the assistance of British, US and even French secret services (a fact I was unaware of!) as well as interesting digressions of the RAF dealing with the V weapon threat this was an excellent read which brought to light pre-D Day elements hardly ever discussed elsewhere. Recommended for anyone interested in these topics. More on the V weapon response (Operation Crossbow) and from the author to come.

Just Finished Reading: The Deluge – The Great War and the Remaking of Global Order (1916-1931) by Adam Tooze (FP: 2014)

No doubt it was offered with the very best of intentions however naïve. But all the same the idea was like political acid – self-determination. Never fully explained or even understood it meant many things to many people and that, at its heart, was the problem. Throughout Europe and the wider world the idea of the right to and expectation of self-determination worked its magic helping to break up old empires and create countries out of whole cloth. It encouraged people’s, previously disenfranchised, to rise up against their governments to be allowed their own homeland and equal rights in the eyes of the law, and it brought democracy where none had previously existed. The Genie was very much out of the bottle and no one, even at gun point, was going to put it back in – although some would try very hard indeed.

Of course principles are easy to state, safely between two oceans with little or nothing to lose by the statement. Living up to the same principles when they hit the hard reality of international politics was something else. The easy part was returning Alsace-Lorraine to France (despite the number of ethnic Germans living there). The harder part was countries like Poland which had to be carved out of the pre-existing territories of Germany, Russia and others. Most especially difficult was the provision of natural resources and, more importantly, access to the sea at Danzig. No self-determination there just hard economics, realpolitik and hard bargaining. Even those on the ground could see that the Polish solution was storing up problems for the future. But that was for the newly formed League of Nations to resolve or at least that was the idea before it was effectively emasculated by its Byzantine internal set of rules in an attempt to appear fairer than it in fact was as well the aspect that America never took up its place at the table to spare any future European entanglements.

As a forward looking people the Americans – in the public guise of President Wilson – had little interest in Europe’s Imperial past. They did have an interest in the world’s economic future, unrestricted access to new markets, an open seas policy enforced by a navy at least the equal of Britain’s and the speedy recovery of war debt accrued by the Entente powers. Almost as important in many eyes was the restriction of Japanese expansionism within China and throughout Asia. Not only did the US consider the Pacific to be within their sphere of influence but they thought of the Japanese themselves with a mixture of suspicion and contempt. The US policy towards China itself was hardly coherent and managed to send mixed signals to both the Japanese and Chinese authorities which did little to help stabilise that chaotic region.

At the centre of everything were two countries fighting in many ways for their very existence – Germany and Russia. Germany was the vanquished foe trying to recover from the heavy blow of defeat and the heavier blow of post-Versailles reparations. Stumbling from government to government, fighting elements from both the hard-left and the hard-right, it had an uncertain future. Russia meanwhile was trying to decide between being a failed state or a pariah state. After the 1917 revolution, the declaration of a separate peace with Germany and a descent into years of Civil War the newly formed Soviet Union, birthed in a sea of blood, began to take its place on the world stage. Contained for now by the western powers it still had the capacity, real or imagined, to infect the rest of the world with the ideas of universal Communism. It was in many ways a useful bogeyman.

In this truly formidably impressive work the global chaos caused by 5 years of war, the likes of which had never been seen before, is laid out for all to see and the echoes of this great conflict are followed through as they impacted countries as diverse as Japan and Ukraine. Despite its world spanning reach and its 15 year timeline the detail presented between these 500+ pages is awe inspiring. It is by no means an easy read but the effort is amply rewarded and then some. Not only does the author clearly explain exactly the damage – political, economic and in a real sense moral – caused by the war but he also (again very clearly) shows how this often unresolved and unaddressed damage significantly facilitated an even greater disaster a mere two decades later. The author rightly points out that although World War Two was not the inevitable result of its predecessor the fact that systemic problems in the world system after 1918 were not addressed – even when known about and warned about – meant that any realistic options for peace were increasingly closed off between then and 1939. This is an important work and a must read for anyone who wants to understand exactly how we got here. I can think of much worse places to start if you’re willing to put the time and brain effort into it. Highly recommended. 

Just Finished Reading: Steel From the Sky – Behind Enemy Lines in German-Occupied France (The Jedburgh Raiders, France 1944) by Roger Ford (FP: 2004)

With the planned Invasion of Europe almost upon them the senior leaders within the Allied Powers conceived of a bold plan. For years, not long after the fall of France, both British and French operatives had been working in the occupied territories gather intelligence, forming relationships with various resistance cells and offering help with training and weapons were possible. Now, with the end in sight they needed something more proactive, something more robust, and something more recognisable as military intervention. So the Jedburgh Raiders were born.

Picked from volunteers with a knowledge of French and a taste for adventure each 3 man team was made up (with a few exceptions) of one Britain, one American and one Frenchman who dropped behind enemy lines in the months following D-Day with orders to harass the (often retreating) enemy, prevent Axis demolition efforts, distribute arms to all those willing and able to carry them and aid the Allied forces on the ground once they reached them. Around 100 teams embarked from Britain or Algeria over several months and operated in France to varying effect from a period of days to months. Surprisingly, given the nature of their mission, most Jedburgh’s survived the war and one of which was instrumental in the foundation of the CIA.

Although the quality of the men (and their equipment) was generally very high this could not be said about some of the planning, logistics or delivery of the teams themselves. A number of raiders were injured or killed during the drops often to avoidable accidents. In some cases the reception committee in France itself had no idea they were coming. Messages for supply drops – especially of weapons – were too often ignored either because of code errors, faulty radio equipment or for purely political reasons when it was decided that too many weapons in the hands of the resistance only meant future headaches for whatever government took charge post-occupation. Despite all of this some sterling work was done by the teams – often with huge obstacles to overcome – resulting in an impressive number of Axis troops killed or captured, ammo dumps destroyed, communications rendered useless and possible invasion counter moves delayed or (often literally) derailed.

This was definitely as aspect of the liberation of France that I had not come across before. I obviously knew about D-Day and the Allied forces push across France, I knew about co-ordinated resistance efforts to assist in their own liberation but I didn’t know anything about this aspect of the fight involving both SOE and OSS (plus French secret service and SAS units) as part of the fight. I also didn’t realise, until reading this book, just how long the fighting went on and how intense some of it was. I previously had the impression that Allies invade, Axis fall back and just like that France was free. Nothing could be further from the truth. In some places the Germans and their allies melted away in the face of Allied advances but in other locations they only surrendered after the fall of Germany itself.

Whilst generally interesting the book did, I feel, have one serious flaw. For understandable reasons the author selected to tell the story of the Jedburgh’s region by region and team by team. This meant much repetition of Team X, leaving airfield Y, landing at zone Z and completing missions A, B and C. As a resource book (very little had been written about this aspect of the war prior to its publication) it’s important if not invaluable to get this information in print for those who follow the authors lead. However, coming into the topic cold as I did, the format undermined any idea or possibility of a compelling narrative to the Jedburgh story. Certainly interesting (and important) but not exactly a page-turner. (R)