Editorial: Although first published in 2016 I feel the following is still relevant irrespective of whether we are examining state or non-state players using information within the cognitive domain to influence and change behaviour among a target audience.
Although I started researching this subject 11-years ago and the research continues, after recently reading an excellent paper on ‘The Psychology Behind Social Media Interactions’, By Dr Liraz Margalt, who is now one of my LI connections, I decided to write this brief introduction to manipulation based on my own observations of the ‘virtual world’. Many of these observations support several theories put forward by various academics studying both the ‘real’ and ‘virtual world’.
During her examination of the question, ‘why is digital communications often easier than face to face communications’; after reading her views on the social interaction theory of mind and emotional involvement, I found the following of particular interest as it fits my own research observations. “When interacting with other people”, she writes, “we automatically make inferences about them without being consciously aware of it…”. Liraz, further explains that during face-to-face interactions we subconsciously rely heavily on non-verbal communications such as facial expressions etc. This, as she says, suggests that interaction with human partners require more emotional involvement and thus more cognitive effort than interacting via a computer.
Due to this lack of ‘synchronous’ interaction (subconscious exchanges of non-verbal communications, speech structure; the use of oblique remarks etc.) I agree with her assertion- it is easier to hide our emotions online. Based my own observations, I have also come to the conclusion it is also easier to psychologically manipulate or be manipulated in the ‘virtual’ world due to the lack of these behavioral cues we subconsciously detect and process during face-to-face interactions.
Contagion and Uncritical Thinkers
Fiske (2013) and others have shown that emotional states can be transferred to others by what they describe as emotional contagion which lead others to experience the same emotions without their awareness. This ‘contagion’ may lead to the mind creating a view of the world by acquiring insights and an amalgam of rational and irrational beliefs (see Paul and Elder). This is similar to the contagion theory of crowds. One of several interpretations of this theory includes- the effect of a crowd is to assimilate individuals within it, producing and overriding psychological unity and changing an individuals’ usual psychological responses in the process (Statt. D, A Dictionary of Human Behavior, Harper Reference)
This process may contain a degree of self-deception which has been deliberately imparted, identified or exploited by an extremist groomer/recruiter who has used the lack of cognitive cues within the virtual world to his/her advantage.
Although there are multiple drivers leading to violent extremism (VE) which are usually mutually reinforcing, one concept of particular interest is people who are described as ‘uncritical thinkers’, which Elder describes as ‘intellectually unskilled thinkers’. Some academics have also used the term ‘unreflective thinkers’. People who fit this category, according to Elder- their minds are products of social and personal forces they neither understand and can’t control. Taking Elder’s argument forward, by observing social media networks we see these ‘uncritical thinkers’ being manipulated by those who tend to skilfully use the rhetoric of persuasion. The rhetoric of persuasion used by extremist groomers and recruiters include oversimplification, sweeping generalizations and the use of stereotypes to enforce prejudices and false quandaries in an attempt to promote a culture of blame and the need for retribution. Over time, the groomer will identify those more likely to accept, without question, the narratives associated with VE and with it the ideology. This ‘induction’ is the prerequisite for believing in a shared identity which embraces violent ‘jihad’. (see focal actors – https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/basic-analysis-social-media-examining-use-drivers-alan-malcher-ma?trk=pulse_spock-articles)
Identity and Selective self-presentation
Identity is a construct that incorporates the way we think about ourselves and our role/position within the larger social environment. As cyberspace and VE ideology is a global phenomenon, both can have a powerful effect on ones view of the world and ‘perceived’ grievances.
Although online identities may be difficult to ascertained due to identity cues being masked or purposely misrepresented, by careful observations and comparisons, online activities and their visible traces may be analysed. If we take LinkedIn as an example, many members who have confronted Russian trolls have identified the use of Selective Self-Presentation to reveal a number of false profiles held by one person. The term ‘selective’ is used to describe a false profile which has been selected for a given purpose. For instance, in the case of Russian propagandists some may claim to be involved in international affairs in the hope of encouraging greater credibility to their comments and other internet activities. Likewise, it is not uncommon for those with a terrorist agenda to claim they are professionally involved in ‘positive’ occupations such as human rights, humanitarian aid etc.
Asynchronous
In the ‘real world’ human interaction and communications are of a synchronous nature- non-verbal communications, eye contact, speech tones etc., and this is a two- way process giving further meaning and substance to the conversation.
CMC (computer-mediated communications) is of an asynchronous nature and thus void of any meaningful communications and identity cues. This time delay allows sufficient time to carefully compose messages tailored to meet the needs and also appeal to the subject/s being manipulated by the focal actor (extremist groomer/recruiter). For example, in an earlier thread a young person may have mentioned concerns regarding their home life, problems at schools or concerns regarding their employment situation. Although the focal actor may have no personal experience of these problems the natural time delay in responding provides opportunities to use the Internet to read-up on these concerns. They are now in a position to offer ‘disguised’ advice and support. Showing empathy and creating rapport are among the methods used during the induction phase.
The above represents just some of the methods used to encourage belief in a common or collective identity which is the foundation of VE ideology.
The Psychology behind social media interpretation, Liraz margalt, Psychology Today, 29 August 2014.
A Psychological Perspective on virtual communities: Supporting terrorism and extremist’s ideology, Lorraine Bowman-Grievet, Security Informatics, 2013, (2:9)
Primer of Deception, Joseph W. Caddel, Strategic Studies Institute, December 2004
Lying Words: Predicting deception from linguistic styles, Matthew Newman, James W. Penneboke, University of Texas and University of Washington, 2003.
Induced negative subliminal reactions to radical media: Countering recruiting methods in a congested media environment, Small Wars Journal, 7 August 2016.
Manipulation through mental distortion and emotional exploitation, Susan T. Fiske, Academy of Sciences, Princetown University, 23 October 2013.
Fallacies: The art of mental trickery and manipulation, Richard Paul and Linda Elder, Foundation of Critical Thinking 2004 (Understanding self-deception)
Future Identities: Changing Identities in the UK- the next ten-years, Social Media and identity, Nicole Ellison, Michigan State University 3 January 2013. For current research and recent publications go to https://www.narrative-strategies.com/
The idea for this post originates from a story told to me by two friends who visited America last year. As both are from the Republic of Ireland, going to an ‘Irish’ pub appeared to be a good idea, but once inside, nether were prepared for the greeting they received from Irish-Americans living in Boston.
They recalled their experience, “When we went into this pub in Boston, as soon as we opened our mouths we were greeted by fake Irish accents. At first we thought they were being sarcastic before realizing they truly believed they were ‘Irish’. After they established we were both Catholics from the Irish Republic they began praising the IRA, calling them freedom fighters and cursing the Brits. Their view of Ireland and the troubles were firmly placed in the distant past, the 1920s and earlier; they clearly knew nothing about Ireland, Britain or the Troubles in Northern Ireland… “
“After attempting to impress us with their knowledge of the potato famine, British landowners, the Easter Uprising and British persecution of the Irish we quickly finished our drinks and left.” This and subsequent experiences during their trip to Boston and New York left them in no doubt that Irish-American’s don’t exist, “they are plastic Paddy’s with no knowledge of Ireland or the recent troubles…”
On several occasions I have heard the expression “Plastic Paddy”: friends who have been born in England, whose parents are from Ireland have jokingly referred to themselves as Plastic Paddy’s. However, the same expression used to describe the Irish-Americans my friends encountered in Boston and New York was intended to be an insult, and a term used to distinguish them from the ‘real’ Irish.
“These plastic Paddy’s” they said, “had no idea Irish men and women serve in the British forces, or that Irish men and women have served in Northern Ireland… They were also unaware that for generations the Irish community has been fully integrated into English society, especially in London… Their view of Ireland and England is more like the Palestine- Israel conflict… I just can’t comprehend the stupidity of these people…”
According to Liam Kennedy, director of the Clinton Institute University College Dublin, Britain still attracts the largest percentage of emigrants from the Irish Republic with around 90,000 people moving across the water since 2008. He also estimates that six million people in Britain have at least one Irish grandparent (around 10 percent of the population)
Kennedy also explains that over the half-century (1951 – 2001) the Irish were the largest foreign born group in England, mostly because of the hundreds who moved there in the 1950s and the lack of visa restrictions.
During a visit to Boston the Archbishop of Dublin and Primate of Ireland, Diarmund Martin, publicly said, “Irish-American sentimentalism is incomprehensible, but it’s also dangerous… It hasn’t just been about singing ‘Danny Boy’: in Ulster its meant death and destruction. “
The Archbishop then went on to say, “I have no feeling for Irish-American’s… I don’t understand it…American sentimentality for a country they don’t know, it’s not my dish” (Catholic Herald 19 April 2011)
The following extract from the Catholic Herald illustrates some of the common feelings towards Irish-American’s.
Dr William Oddie, a leading English catholic writer and former editor of the Catholic Herald, recalled his trip to Boston. “The Cardinal introduced me to his secretary, then said, mischievously, Dr Oddie is an Englishman. Mrs so and so is Irish, he explained, as she glowered at me, she doesn’t like the English. Why not, I asked, puzzled: well because of the way you persecuted Irish Catholics, she said. Yes, I said, but they cruelly persecuted English Catholics, too, probably worse; I’m an English Catholic”. This was not a part of Catholic history of which she had been previously aware. She just knew that the Irish are supposed to hate the English.”
“Nor had she ever been to Ireland, about which she clearly knew nothing at all. I was an undergraduate in Dublin, long before the vast improvement in Anglo-Irish relations that has taken place in recent years. In all my time there, including an extra postgraduate year, despite my evident Englishness I never once encountered anything but friendliness and courtesy.”
From Irish Americans, I have through the years encountered a certain amount of discourtesy. “I’m Irish”, was the explanation, the first time I came across this phenomenon. “Really” I replied, genuinely puzzled, I wasn’t being a smartass; “you sound American to me: what part of Ireland do you come from?” He, too, had never been to Ireland. Neither had his father or his grandfather. But they all called themselves simply “Irish”, tout court.”
Oddie continues,” It can be entirely harmless, of course (though the real Irish do sometimes regard the phenomenon with puzzlement) and it does help the tourist trade. I remember one St. Patrick’s Day when I was in the entrance hall of a Dublin hotel, watching in astonishment as a group of Irish Americans, all dressed in bright emerald-green suits, stood drinking pints of bright green beer and smoking huge bright green cigars. I expressed my amazement to the Hall porter, who simply replied, “Ah, sure, they’re enjoying themselves, and it does no harm”
In the same article Oddie also says, “Irish-American sentimentalism has been responsible for very much worse things than emerald-green suits: it brought death and destruction as well. Only Libya supplied more financial aid and more weapons and logistical support to the IRA than Irish Americans did. The IRA were responsible for the deaths of approximately 1,800 people. The dead included around 1,100 members of the British security forces, and about 630 civilians. But it was OK to collect money on the streets of Boston and New York for the funding of all this death and destruction as long as you knew the words and music to “Have you ever been across the sea to Ireland?” (Answer, in most cases, no) and “Danny Boy”.
Referring to Archbishop Martin’s statement, “Irish-Americanism… it’s not my dish”. Oddie says, “Your Grace, many others feel the same, including (quite literally) thousands of widows and orphans in the six counties and throughout the rest of the UK, too.” He also says, “that small, peaceable, fuddled group of green beer drinkers, he begins to wonder, had none of them, perhaps walking down Fifth Avenue, ever reached into their wallets for a ten dollar bill, as someone approached them, smiling, with a bright green collecting box?” (The Catholic Herald 19 April 2012)
As the above article from the Catholic Herald briefly points out, Plastic Paddy’s, to use the phrase of my ‘real’ Irish friends, have been responsible for death and destruction on BOTH sides of the Irish border, major cities in England and British military bases in Germany. Consequently, along with Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, they have supported an organisation involved in acts of terrorism, including the targeting of innocent civilians, for a cause and country they know nothing about!
It’s doubtful that NORAID and their Plastic Paddy’s are aware the British Army was originally sent to Northern Ireland to protect the Catholic community who were regularly being attacked and their houses burned by the predominantly protestant community. Few may be aware that throughout the 30 year campaign, which was driven by NORAID money, the army and police were also confronting a large number of sectarian death squads, popularly referred to as Loyalist Paramilitaries {terrorists,} who were murdering Catholics simply because of their religion. This will be covered in greater detail in my post which examines Operation Banner.
According to NORAID and their misguided supporters, their money was for the IRA freedom fighters who were fighting the British Army, attacking the oppressive British government and for the eventual unification of the Ireland of Ireland – to this day they don’t appear to understand that their money has been responsible for the death and maiming of more civilians than the casualties caused by the British Army, Police and Loyalist death squads combined, and NORAID has fueled this death and destruction for 30 years. Equally, they don’t appear to be aware the majority of Northern Ireland wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. This is rather strange as the majority of American’s embrace and understand the importance of democracy.
The following is a brief example of the IRA’s deliberate attacks against civilians over a period of 30 years and also illustrates, by implication, NORAIDS support for the murder of civilians. It should be noted that because NORAID escalated and sustained the Troubles, which in turn resulted in the formation of over five Loyalist terrorist organisations bent on revenge, the death of civilians at the hands of Loyalists are also included. However, there are also the unknown number of civilian men and women who were abducted, murdered and buried by the IRA (called the Disappeared) and Catholics abducted and murdered by Loyalists, which are difficult to accurately quantify. Also, as NORMAID regard the deaths of soldiers, police officers, prison officers, civilians involved in government contracts and alleged informers as legitimate targets, these have not been included. Neither have those who have been beaten to death or shot for various alleged crimes after being found guilty by IRA kangaroo courts who ruled the catholic areas of Northern Ireland through fear and intimidation.
Bloody Friday 21 July 1972
Remains of an IRA bomb victim- as with most of their victims an innocent civilian
Often, the IRA would gave a number of bomb warnings before there devices exploded in densely populated civilian areas. This allowed them to claim the fatalities and injuries were due to the inaction of the police and the army. In reality most of these warnings were deliberately vague and on the rare occasion of receiving accurate information there was often the ‘come on’ (come on and get it) or secondary device designed to kill and maim the first responders and civilians attempting to help the casualties. Blaming the security forces for the death of civilians was a common IRA statement after their many bomb attacks.
Not surprisingly, this was also the case on Friday 21 July 1972 when the authorities were informed that bombs had been planted and primed in Belfast’s city center. The city center was crowded with shoppers and the precise location of the bombs, as usual, were vague. As the police and a small complement of soldiers were evacuating shoppers twenty-six bombs exploded in the space of eighty minutes.
One of many civilian targets bombed
Due to the City Center being a major shopping area which was always crowded and the large list of targets, it can clearly be seen this was an indiscriminate attack against civilians.
Targets
Smithfield Bus Station: A car bomb exploded in an enclosed yard.
Brookvale Hotel: bomb estimated to be 50lbs.
York Road Railway Station: 30lb bomb
Star Taxi Depot on the Crumlin Road
Oxford Street Bus Depot
Railway Station in Great Victoria Street: Van bomb 50lbs
Railway Station in Botanic Avenue: 50lbs
Ulster Bank Limestone Road: 50lbs
Liverpool Ferry Terminal: 50lbs
Queen Elizabeth Road Bridge: 160lbs
Gas Depot Office, Omeau Avenue: 50lb
Germoyle Street: parcel bomb
Agnes Street: car bomb 30lbs
M2 Motorway Bridge, Bellevue: 30lbs
Creighton’s filling station, Upper Lisburn Road: Petrol pumps ablaze
Electricity substation, Salisbury Road: Car bomb
Railway Bridge, Finaghy Road North: Lorry bomb
Railway footbridge, Windsor park: 30lb
Eastwood garage Donegal Street: car 150lbs
Stewartstown Road
Cavehill Road: car 50lbs
Railway line near Lisburn Road
Grosvenor Road: 50lbs.
Queen Elizabeth Building: Car 160lbs
According to Brenan Hughes, commander of the Belfast Brigade, “I was the operational commander of the ‘Bloody Friday’ operation. I remember when the bombs started to go off, I was in Leeson Street, and I thought, ‘There’s too much here’. I sort of knew that there were going to be casualties, either [because] the Brits could not handle so many bombs or they would allow some to go off because it suited them to have casualties. I feel a bit guilty about it because, as I say, there was no intention to kill anyone that day. I have a fair deal of regret that ‘Bloody Friday’ took place … a great deal of regret … If I could do it over again I wouldn’t do it.”
“No intention to kill anyone….” Bombing a crowded city center full of civilians!
The fact that only 9 people died is down to the bravery and professionalism of a handful of overstretched police officers and soldiers. As well as dealing with the impending threat, pictures of the aftermath also show the gruesome task of police officers, soldiers, firefighters and ambulance crews placing limbs and pieces of flesh into plastic bags and putting blankets over larger pieces of human remains.
Warrington Bombing
Warrington is another example of the many bombings which the IRA claimed they had no intention to kill anyone. Apart from the IRA placing explosive devices inside cast iron litter bins outside shops: clearly indicating the intention was to kill and main civilians; the fact that this attack took place one day before Mother’s Day, clearly suggests the victims would likely be fathers with young children buying presents for their mother’s, and this, sadly, turned out to be the case.
As two litter bins exploded outside shops in Market Street Tim Parry, aged 12 and 3-year-old Johnathan Ball were killed instantly and 50 were injured, some losing limbs. According to an eyewitness 3-year-old Johnathan Ball took the full blast from one of the bombs and was cut in half. This incident resulted in scores of protest throughout Britain and the Irish Republic.
Although accurate figures of IRA bombings have proved difficult to obtain, it is know that at the height of the Troubles in 1972, there were no fewer than 1,300 bomb attacks in Northern Ireland during that year alone. Apart from the current lack of figures to accompany this post, for a fuller picture we must also include the fatalities and injuries through regular gun attacks. We also need to know the number of sectarian and random murders.
For many of us who served in Northern Ireland at the height of the Troubles, which some also refer to as the ‘Forgotten War’, the subject is often described in a clinical ‘matter of fact’ and no-personal manner and even media accounts of this period were seldom able to reflect the human tragedy financed by the Plastic Paddy’s of NORAID. This changed after the Omagh Bombing. So much is known about the Omagh victims, the Troubles have now become personalized and many can now understand the full tragedy of Northern Ireland and the long-term trauma of those families who have lost love ones to indiscriminate bombings and shootings. These civilians were the acceptable collateral damage of the IRA, Gaddafi and the Plastic Paddy’s of NORAID.
Omagh, County Tyrone
On a good day it only takes around 1 1/2; hours to drive to Omagh from the Irish Republic, making it popular for shopping expeditions for those living south of the border.
Although it cannot be said Omagh, like other areas of Northern Ireland, had not been effected by the Troubles, unlike many other parts of Northern Ireland which are divided by sectarianism, Omagh was known as a place where Catholics and Protestants lived side by side in relative piece.
Saturday 15 August 1998 was the final day of Omagh’s annual carnival week. The streets were packed with shoppers taking advantage of the summer sales and buying uniforms ahead of the new school year. At 3.10pm a massive 500lbs bomb in a vehicle parked in the middle of Omagh’s main street exploded- instantly turning the car, brickwork and roadside furniture into shrapnel.
The death toll of 29 included nine children and three generations of one family. Over 200 people were injured, some left without limbs, and others were blinded or disfigured. Local priest Father Thomas Canning said: “I really don’t know how the town of Omagh is ever going to come to terms with this awful catastrophe.”
The 29 people killed in Omagh and those injured represent every cross section of Northern Ireland society.
A lucky escape- a Spanish tourist with his son standing by the car bomb several minutes before it exploded.
Avril Monaghan, 30, County Tyrone. Heavily pregnant with twin girls, her daughter and mother were also killed whilst shopping at the SD Kells cloths shop which bore the brunt of the explosion.
Mura Monaghan, 18 months old, County Tyrone. She was one of Avril Monaghan’s four children. Her body was found under her mother’s. She was also known as ‘Massie’ by her family.
Mary Grimes, 66, County Tyrone, was Avril Monaghan’s mother who was celebrating her birthday with her with her daughter and granddaughter.
Brenda Devine, County Tyrone, 20 months old. She had been born three months prematurely. Her mother, Tracy, was the last victim to return home from hospital. Tracy Devine was in a comma for six weeks and on waking was told her daughter had been killed.
Lorraine Wilson, 15, Omagh. Had hoped to become a flight attendant. She had been evacuated from Oxfam, where she worked as a volunteer, after inaccurate warnings as to the location of the bomb.
Samantha McFarland, 17, Omagh. She was a friend of Lorraine and fellow volunteer at Oxfam.
Gareth Conway, 18, Omagh. He was a student who lived with his family and hoped to be accepted for an engineering course at the University of Ulster and was awaiting his exam results.
Julie Hughes, 21, Omagh. The 21-year-old accountancy student was home from Dundee University prior to finishing her final year. She had a summer job at Image Xpress, a photographic shop.
Brenda Logue, 17, Carrickmore. She was a sixth-year pupil at St Theresa’s high school who played Gaelic football for the school team. Her GCSE exam results arrived a few days after her death.
Elizabeth Rush, 57, Omagh, was serving customers in her Markey Street shop, ‘Pine Emporium’, opposite the centre of the explosion when she was killed.
Racio Abad-Amos, 23, Madrid, a teacher supervising a group of Spanish and Irish schoolchildren on a day trip to Omagh. The party was on an exchange holiday based in Donegal.
Fernando Blasco Baselga, 12, Madrid. One of the exchange party. His 15-year-old sister, Donna Marie, was on the trip and needed extensive plastic surgery for facial injuries.
Sean McLaughlin, 12, County Donegal, was part of the same group. An avid footballer who supported Manchester United and was also an altar boy.
Oran Doherty, 8, County Donegal, also on the exchange programme and Sean’s neighbour. He was buried in his beloved Celtic Football Club jersey.
James Barker, 12, County Donegal, another member of the exchange group and friends of Sean and Oran. He lives for more than three hours as doctors vainly pumped 18 pints of blood into him.
Philomena Skelton, 49, County Tyrone. She was on a shopping trip with her husband and three daughters who survived the explosion.
Esher Gibson, 36, Beragh, Sunday school teacher who had got engaged three months earlier.
Geraldine Breslin, 43, Omagh. She was one of three sales assistants working for Waterson’s Drapers who dies. Breslin, married with a 15-year-old son, was walking down the street on a tea break when the bomb exploded.
Ann McCombe, 48, Omagh. Mother-of-two, also working for Waterson’s. She was with Breslin on her tea break.
Veda Short, 56, Omagh. A mother-of-four who also worked t Waterson’s. She was also on tea break when she died. Earlier that day she had witnessed the birth or her grandchild.
Aiden Gallagher, 21, Omagh. He lived with his parents and had gone to the town to buy jeans and boots.
Alan Radford, 16, Omagh. He was shopping with his mother who was also injured. Alan was due to start training as a chief the following month and his GCSE results arrived three days after his death.
Fred White, 60, Omagh. He was in a shop next to SD Kells with his son when the bomb killed both of them.
Brian White, 26, Omagh. Fred White’s son. He had returned from university in England and was due to start a job with the council two days later. He was buried alongside his father.
Jolene Marlow, 17, Omagh. She was a student who hoped to study physiotherapy at the University of Ulster and was waiting for her exam results. She was in Omagh with her sister and grandmother.
Deborah Cartwright, 20, Omagh. Her A-level results, which arrived on the day of her funeral, confirmed she had won her place on a textile design course at Manchester University.
Olive Hawkes, 60, Omagh. She was to celebrate her Ruby (40 years) wedding anniversary a few days after the bomb. She was killed while on a shopping outing.
Brian McCory, 54, Omagh. He left a wife, daughter and two sons, He was talking with a friend near the car bomb.
Sean McGrath, 61, Omagh, died three weeks after the blast. He had been fatally injured in the same street in which he had been born.
Several eyewitnesses recall the aftermath of the massive explosion, “When the dust began to clear the dead and injured were seen lying all around, surrounded by the twisted wreckage of buildings and cars. The staff at Waterson’s had literally been wiped out”.
And, “Water spraying from burst water mains carried blood over the debris, occasionally exposing limbs and other human parts torn from bodies by the force of the blast. The police had to force back desperate relatives who attempted to rush to the scene to search for missing loved ones.”
Omagh is just one of many terrorist attacks where the IRA has killed 621 civilians.
After the Boston Marathon bombing I wonders whether the Plastic Paddy’s of NORAID now understand and regret the contribution they made to the 30 years of death and destruction in Northern Ireland. Perhaps not!
Estimated figures of IRA bomb attacks against civilian targets and retaliatory bomb attacks by loyalist terror groups. Attacks against security forces and attacks where there was no loss of life are not included.
1971
UVF (loyalists) McGurk’s bar 4 December, 15 killed, 17 injured
1972
Official IRA Aldershot, 6 killed
IRA Abercorn Restaurant, 2 killed, 130 injured
PIRA, 24 bombs in towns and cities across Northern Ireland (figures not currently available)
PIRA, Bloody Friday, Belfast City Centre, 26 bombs, 9 killed and 130 injured
Unknown, Claudy car bomb, 9 killed
Loyalists, Dublin car bomb, 2 killed, 127 injured
1974
UVF (loyalist) bomb in pub, 6 killed, 18 injured
UVF (loyalist) Dublin and Monaghan bombings (four bombs, 3 in Dublin, 1 on Monaghan) 33 killed including a pregnant women
IRA, Birmingham pub bomb, 21 killed
1976
IRA, North Street Arcade, 2 killed
UVF (loyalists) Belfast and Claremont, 5 killed
1978
PIRA, Le Man Restaurant Belfast (incendiary bomb) 12 killed, 30 injured.
PIRA, 50 bombs in towns across Northern Ireland, 37 injured
PIRA, Remembrance Day bombing, Enniskillen, 11 killed, 3 injured
PIRA, St Albans city centre, 2 killed (thought to be own goal)
1992
PIRA, Teebane bombing, 8 killed, 8 injured
PIRA, Baltic exchange, 3 killed, 91 injured
PIRA, Forensic Labs, Belfast, 20 injured
1993
PIRA Warrington, 2 killed, 56 injured
PIRA, Bishopsgate, 1 killed, 30 injured
PIRA, Shankhill Road Fish shop Belfast, 8 killed
1996
PIRA, London Docklands, 2 killed
PIRA, Manchester, 200 injured
According to figures from CAIN (Conflict Archive) ‘Deaths from the Conflict in Northern Ireland’, which does not included sectarian murders or the disappeared.
Although there continues to be accounts of Iraqi security forces making increasing military gains against the Islamic State Group, many of the successful campaigns have been fought by a number of Shiite militias loyal to Tehran, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and their Special Forces branch called the Quds Forces (alternatively spelt Qhods or Qods). It is also known that all forces, both Shiite and Sunni, are commanded and advised by Iranian officers and they report to Major General Qasem Soliemani of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard and Commander of Quds Forces.
Quds Forces
This is the Special Forces section of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard whose members are known for their military skills and commitment to the Islamic Revolution. This elite force is responsible for all extraterritorial operations and reports directly to the Supreme Commander of Iran, Ali Khamenei.
Although this is a covert force, well-placed commentators say Quds Forces consist of combatants, military trainers, those responsible for overseeing foreign assets, politics, sabotage and intelligence gathering. In 2004 Quds Forces Headquarters was moved to the Iranian- Iraq border to monitor events inside Iraq and it soon became clear that political instability, tribal friction and a breakdown in Iraq’s internal security capabilities made the country vulnerable to Iran’s superior military forces, subversion and political intimidation.
The steady advance of the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant into Northern Iraq provided Tehran with the excuse to ‘assist’ Iraq in expelling these extremist insurgents. Initially, a small number of military advisors from Quds Forces provided military training and small arms to various Shiite Militia groups know to be friendly towards Iran, Iranian airstrikes on extremist positions soon followed which coincided with more Iranian forces and members of Hezbolloh training and advising an increasing number of militias.
As the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant (later called Islamic State) made further advances across Iraq, communities throughout the country became aware of the mounting atrocities and recognised that government forces were unable to stop their advance. Due to this increasing threat from extremist insurgents, many of the tribal combatants came to the obvious conclusion they could not rely on the Iraqi Security Forces for their country’s defence and saw Iran as their only option. This allowed Iran to seize the opportunity to increase their military and political presence in Iraq. Consequently, Tehran can argue that not only was military intervention essential in order to secure their borders, this intervention was as a direct result of ‘popular’ demand from the Iraqi people!
Although Iranian involvement in Iraq is not reported by the state owned media, some Iraqi officials have been more forthcoming when speaking to the western media. On 23 March 2014, Iraq’s vice president Iyad Allawi told various journalists, including Sky News, “Iran’s role, doing what they are doing, and sending officers to fight and lead is not acceptable”. He also declared that Baghdad is becoming the capital of the Persian Empire.
Allawi also said “The strong Iranian presence in Iraq is not new, but just how visible it has become is quite staggering…”
Iraqi officials and members of Sunni communities continue to complain and express concerns about pictures of Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei being plastered on walls throughout the country.
“The posters of Khamenei sends shivers up my spine and there will be a high price to pay for Iranian involvement … The failure of this country means the failure of the whole region…” Allawi told western reporters.
The stability of the entire region now hangs in the balance as Iran increases its influence by filling Iraq’s political vacuum, and proving the countries’ security needs. There is a real danger that the whole or parts of Iraq will become another proxy state, an informal extension of the Persian Empire.
The Russian intelligence community are masters when it comes to propaganda, disinformation, subversion, bribery, using agent provocateurs, and other clandestine methods. Lessons learned during the Bolshevik revolution were refined and became more sophisticated during the Cold War.
With the advancement of electronic communications, including the internet, the Federal Security Service (FSB), formed in 1994 to replace the notorious KGB, and their foreign intelligence agency, the GRU, recognised that modern communications not only allow for the dissemination of information on a global scale, written words supported by photographs and graphics greatly enhance the psychological impact of the intended message.
The use of paper trails- the total amount of written evidence of someone’s activities, is still relevant when it comes to modern electronic communications: Internet, videos, electronic news services etc., and a lot of information can be obtained about an individual from their Internet activities and the amount, and type of traffic to their sites.
Through the use of glamour or soft porn photographs, which were designed to depict ‘Slavic beauty’, 26 year old, Yulia Kharlamova, became an overnight internet success with a large number of male followers living in Russia and Ukraine. Often dressed as a Russian Airborne soldier, it now becomes clear this was not innocent flirtation: her intention was to attract and manipulate members of the Russian and Ukraine military as well as neo-Nazis.
Analysis of her Internet activities and the traffic to her various sites sheds little doubt that Yulia Kharlamova was a GRU officer, a driving force behind the current war in Ukraine, and her activities set the conditions essential for ‘planned’ clandestine military activities.
What do we know from her internet activities?
Yulia Kharlamova was born in 1989, in Odesa Ukraine and studied at the Lobachevsky University in Nizhni Novorod Russia. Although her area of study is still to be confirmed, she is thought to have studied Archaeology and Ethnology of Ukraine. If this is correct, this may account for her popularity among Russia’s neo-Nazis, where she was known by the nick name ‘Nordika’, and was respected for her vocal support of their nationalist and racist views.
It is also known she served with Russian Airborne forces where she underwent full combat training and there are several references of her serving with Unit 54164 Moscow Region and 38 Separate Parachute Brigade. Sometime in 2013, reference was made of her being a communications specialist with the Parachute Brigade. However, as we look further into her activities with the GRU there is a possibility that the use of the world ‘communications specialist’ was used to mask the fact that Kharlamova was trained in psychological warfare.
We also discover that sometime during 2013 she used social media to announce her resignation from the army. She wrote,
“Gone in reserve. I am thankful to the army for many things, it was the best lessons of my life. I learned a lot. I have found a very good civilian job which opens my creative potential”
Shortly after announcing her resignation, Kharlamova increased her internet activities and started to engage members of the Ukraine Army, their families, and anyone with grievances against the Ukrainian government. During the same period she also increased her influence over Russia’s neo-Nazi movements and renewed her relationship with the notorious neo-Nazi, Alexi Milchakov, who she had known since 2000.
Alexi Milchakov would later be accused of a number of war crimes, including the decapitation of Ukrainian POW’s. From the age of 14, most of his recreation activities involved cutting the heads of dogs and skinning dogs alive before uploading photographs of his ‘hobby’ to social media. One may argue that his ‘hobby’ fits the profile of a sadistic psychopath who would willingly be involved in war crimes. However, there remains insufficient evidence as to his involvement.
It was shortly after Kharlamova renewed her relationship with Milchakov that she publicly showed her true political beliefs by announcing on social media she was a “Novorossiya Freedom Fighter”- an historic term of the Russian Empire denoting a region north of the Black Sea, which Russia annexed as a result of the Russo-Turkish War, and which is now used by Russian propagandists to describe parts of eastern Ukraine they now wish to annex.
Through various social media networks she used her ‘communications’ skills and ‘creative potential’ to mount a coherent psychological campaign to win support for Russian nationalism based on Novorossiya, and also created the necessary conditions for Russian clandestine military operations in Ukraine. Through a large number of posts, mixed with a blend of Russian folk lore imagery, she appealed to Ukrainian soldiers to rise-up against their government.
One of her early posts:
“Due to grandiose abuse of the authorities, violation of your legal rights, re-writing laws which led you to turning into slaves, outrageous activities and no one thinking of letting you go home. For all these reasons, among all who spent a year and a half service {military} we declare action of protest! Friends, this is our only chance to go home without waiting for years under the mercy of illegal authorities that came to power by armed overturns”
“Press the share button and share with your friends”
On 13 December 2014, Kharlamova widely published the following post:
“All of Ukraine, parents, come to the military bases, start the uproar, take children that serve at our military units. Those parents who won’t make it, leave by yourself, this is our last chance!!! Remaining silent leaves us slaves WITHOUT RIGHTS AND SILENCED WITHOUT PERSONAL LIFE AND FUTURE don’t be a herd – you are human, you are people, you are power. Share in local media and tell your fellow soldiers. Support our honour of the whole country”
The above are just two of a plethora of messages encouraging an uprising against the Ukraine government.
Her role as agent provocateur was not confined to promoting revolution through the use of social media, she also traveled to Ukraine and actively encouraged violence against the government and directed this violence to further the nationalist cause.
On 12 April 2015 the Independent Newspaper described the riots in Kiev as, “Plumes of black smoke billow over the city, fires rage in the scorched skeletons of cars, and hundreds have been wounded, with two confirmed dead. Hordes of riot police are on the streets and the EU’s justice chief has said the country is sliding towards civil war. Unless you’ve been following the events from the beginning it’s difficult to glean why tensions are now strained to breaking point”
This report raised an interesting question – “Why tensions are now strained to breaking point”
There is mounting evidence to support claims that the violence in Kiev was as a direct result of subversive activities which were directed by Yulia Kharlamova. For instance, there are several eye witness accounts of seeing her increasing tensions among army conscripts outside the Presidential Administration Building in Kiev, which led to the so-called National Guards Protest, an event which was fully exploited for propaganda purposes by various Russian state owned media organisations. There have also been several accounts of Kharlamova, along with other women she claimed to be members of her family, provoking and encouraging crowds in Kiev to commit acts of violence against police, government forces and institutions.
Military operations with Alexey Milchakov
From his social media profile and various posts we find that Milchakov was a dedicated Nazis who openly discussed his enjoyment for torturing stray dogs. He also said he was born St Petersburg and is known by the nickname ‘Fritz’ by his neo-Nazi friends.
Through his Internet activities it was established that Alexey Milchakov commanded the so-called ‘Batman’ Spetsnaz Rapid Response Unit, operating out of Luhansk, and this unit reported directly to the GRU. Although details remain incomplete, Kharlamova fought alongside Milchakov on several occasions. On 5 September 2014, both were involved in an attack on Ukrainian government forces in the village of Shchastya, in the Lugansk region, in which eleven Ukrainian soldiers were killed.
Although on several occasions Yulia Kharlamova publicly denied being in Kiev during the time of the riots, due to increasing allegations of her being a GRU officer and playing a major contribution to the war in Ukraine, the GRU planned a damage limitation exercise. This resulted in Kharlamova making a number of television appearances designed to clear her name.
On Ren TV, a Russian channel, she denied being an intelligence officer and said she had no connection with the violent events in Kiev. On the same day, she was interviewed by TV Zed, also a Russian channel and allegedly controlled by the Ministry of Defence, this time she was described as an activist who was born in Odessa, who was simply visiting relatives in Ukraine. Again, she denied being a GRU officer.
Editorial note 2019, since this was first published in 2015 Russia, China, Iran and to a certain extent NK continue to shift the balance of political power and influence to their advantage.
President Vladimir Putin is ‘old school’ KGB and his approach to international politics include the use of Soviet era tactics such as political warfare – propaganda, disinformation, subversion, espionage and clandestine warfare. His knowledge and willingness to use KGB-style subterfuge became apparent after using the ‘little green men’ approach as a prerequisite for Russia’s proxy-war against Ukraine.
Putin’s restructuring of Russia’s Spetnaz Forces, Independent Airborne Brigades (VDV) and naval Infantry (marines) made them independent of the Ministry of Defense and become military assets of the FSB/GRU. This army within the army provides the deniable ‘little green men’ for Putin’s foreign clandestine operations.
Although Ukraine is a good example of Putin’s approach to resolving what he frequently calls ‘historical wrongs’ and ‘historical injustices’, we must look at Russia within a global context to glean some idea of Putin’s long-term objectives.
According to the US diplomat, Charles Hill, “… The established world order {is} collapsing and Russia will grab what they see as their own interests” (Moscow Times 27 April 2015)
Since the so-called Arab Spring of 2011, American influence in the Middle East greatly declined and left a power vacuum which Putin was quick to exploit. Apart from renewed Russian influence throughout the Middle East, Putin is also influential in Latin America and the Mediterranean. Russia’s close military cooperation with China and Iran has also boosted Putin’s reputation as a global leader.
Putin’s initiatives appear to be a return to Cold War politics and the projection of Russian military power.
The Middle East
Amidst the shifting uncertainties of the post-Arab spring, Russia has greatly increased its political influence throughout the region. We have also seen Russian delegations being awarded lucrative arms contracts throughout the Arab world and North Africa.
Syria: Russia, with the assistance of Iran, continue to arm the Syrian regime against the onslaught of various rebel factions.
After the Free Syrian Army seized a government position they allegedly found documents and photographs showing the presence of a small detachment of Russian Spetnaz and a GRU Sigint team.
Although these claims are difficult to confirm, rebel forces released the following statement:
“On the 5th of October 2014, the Free Syrian Army captured the Центр С or ‘Center C or Center S’ SIGINT (Signals Intelligence) facility (logo on top) jointly operated by the Russian Osnaz GRU radio electronic intelligence agency (logo on the right) and one of the Syrian Intelligence Agencies (logo on the left). Situated near Al Hara, the facility was of vital importance for the Assad regime as it was responsible for recording and decryption of radio communications from every rebel group operating inside Syria, making it likely the Russian-gathered information at this facility was at least partially responsible for the series of killings of rebel leaders by airstrikes…A directive issued by the surveillance office on May 31 to eavesdrop and record all radio communications of the terrorist groups, directive signed by brigadier-general Nazir Fuddah, commander of the first center.” (The Interpreter 7 October 2014)
Although verification is still required, this facility may account for the accuracy of government air strikes against rebel leaders.
Iran
In April Russia signed an energy deal worth an estimated $8 to 10 billion (US). Russia will export 500 megawatts of electricity and construct new thermal and hydroelectric generating plants and transmission networks.
Russia has also provided Iran with the necessary designs and expertise to develop their own arms industry.
In 2011 Vyacheslav Danilenko, a Russian atomic scientist, was said to be a key adviser at Iran’s Physics Research Center, which had ties to the country’s nuclear program. It has further been claimed his work was backed by the Kremlin and Iran now has the explosive element for their warhead.
On 7 November 2011, after Israel expressed concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavov publicly declared, “If Israel were to launch a military strike on Iran this wouldbe avery serious mistake…With unprecedented consequences…” (Telegraph 7 November 2011)
After Russia recently signed an $800 million contract to supply Iran with S-300 long range air defense missiles, any Iranian agreement to stop the development of nuclear weapons will be difficult to enforce.
Iraq
Russia is Iraq’s second largest arms supplier. For instance, in 2012 Russian supplied £ 2.6 billion (3.2 billion euros, $4.2 billion) of armaments.
Egypt
Since the Egyptian military deposed the elected President Morsi, Russia was welcomes as their main arms supplier.
Latin America
Russia’s continued success in reshaping the balance of power and increasing its global influence is also visible in Latin America. During the Cold War, American politicians would regarded this as being too close for comfort and take steps to maintain US interests in their own ‘back yard’. As Putin continues to take every opportunity to condemn America, his interests and future initiatives in Latin America could be problematic for the United States.
According to Putin, “Cooperation with Latin America is key to Russia’s foreign policy”(RT 10 July 2014)
Putin also said “…Latin America’s fight to independence, for the right to decide its own fate is respected in our country. People know well the legendary Bolivar and Marti, Che Guevara and Salvador Allende…” (RT 10 July 2014)
Putin also announced that not only was cooperation with Latin America one of his ‘key and very promising lines of Russian foreign policy’, it reflected vital national interests in the development of relations with Russia. (RT 10 July 2014)
Argentina
In July 2014 President Christina Fernandez da Kirchnnerias visited Moscow. During a banquet President Putin made reference to the Falkland Islands which Argentina claims sovereignty over.
According to Putin, “Colonization is a dark cloud over the 20th and 19th century and something that should be wiped out”. No mention was made of the Falkland Islands being under British rule since 1863, or a recent Falklands referendum where the Islanders voted in favour of remaining British.
After a strategic partnership agreement was signed which may include Argentina receiving 12 Sukhoi Su-24 aircraft, the British government was forced to deliver additional military assets to the Islands.
Cyprus
According to Russian state controlled media, but denied by some Cypriot politicians, Russia is currently negotiating an agreement to allow their navy to use ports in Cyprus and to station aircraft on the Island. As Britain has two sovereign military bases on the island, RAF Akrotiri and the Dhekella Garrison, additional resources will be required to provide adequate protection to these major military assets.
North Korea
According to the South Korean newspaper, The Korean Herald, the North’s official news agency, KNCA, recently announced it will be developing cultural and business contacts with Russia.
China
Although several observers continue to say, historically Russia and China have never got on and described their new relationship as an axis of convenience, both countries share identical political aspirations and ‘perceived’ common enemies.
Vladimir Putin and China’s president Xi Jingping are strong leaders with aspirations to recapture past glories, and both believe their countries were unfairly treated in the past. They also resent the current international order which they believe is led by the United States. Furthermore, both regard their nations as imperial powers which have the right to expand their territory.
Chinese foreign policy has a strong commitment to be masters over the East China Sea. Xi Jingping remains adamant that around 1.35 million square miles (3.5 million square km) of the South China Sea belong to China and this is hotly disputed by Japan, Philippines, Taiwan, Malaysia, Brunei, and Vietnam.
In 2014 China hosted a large military exercise with Russia and other SCO nations. The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) consists of China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikstan, and Uzbekistan.
This military exercise, names ‘Peace Mission 2014’, included a Russian contingent of over 1000 troops, the 36th Motor Rifle Brigade from the Eastern Military District; an air wing of the Third Command of the air force and air defense troops. According to Kremlin controlled news organisations, Russia also contributed 13 main T-72 tanks, 20 artillery and missile systems; 60 vehicles of different configurations, 8 Mi-8 Amtsh helicopters gunships, 4 Sukhoi Su-25 aircraft and 12 military transport aircraft. According to official Russian and Chinese sources, this exercise was designed to coordinate counter-terrorist operations.
China recently announced a joint naval exercise with Russia which is said “to deepen both countries friendly and practical cooperation and increase our navy’s ability to jointly deal with maritime security threats”. (Moscow Times 27 April 2015)
A key question is whether this alliance is against the United States and her allies?
Vladimir Putin continues to outperform western political leaders, resulting in the gradual shift of power and prestige towards Russia. Apart from western nations needing to increase their defense budgets, the west urgently requires strong political leaders who have the determination and political skills which are essential for addressing Soviet ‘old school’ tactics based on threats, intimidation, subterfuge and military aggression.
In February 2013 the influential Moscow based ‘Military Industrial Courier’, published an article by Russia’s Chief of the General Staff, army General Valery Gerasimov. He explained, “That a perfectly striving country can, in a matter of months or even days, be transformed into an area of fierce armed conflict, become a victim of foreign intervention and sink into a web of chaos, humanitarian catastrophe and civil war…”
He also said, this devastation need not be kinetic. The role of the non-military elements for achieving political and strategic goals has grown and in many cases they have exceeded the force of weapons in their effectiveness. All this is achieved by military means of a ‘concealed’ nature and include acts of information conflict and special operation forces.
The military doctrine promoted by Gerasimov and endorsed by Vladimir Putin resulted in the use of Spetsnaz troops: the deniable ‘little green men’ in the guise of local security forces who created the illusion of legitimacy- Ukrainians wanted to be part of Russia!. This was also an element of psychological warfare – local journalists did not know whether these men would answer questions or shoot them.
As intended, Spetsnaz troops created ambiguity: it allowed Russia to deny any involvement in the Ukraine conflict and was also designed to create a climate of indecision among multi-national organisations such as NATO, the EU and political systems based on the principles of consensus, when deciding on what actions to take.
While NATO and the 24 hour news cycle concentrated on Russian military forces on the Ukraine border, the ‘deniable’ Spetsnaz troops were quietly escalating tensions, engaged in subversion, training pro-Russian sympathizers and conducting reconnaissance throughout Ukraine. Without raising the Russian flag they created the conditions for a proxy-war and guided so-called separatists to achieve the objectives set out by the Kremlin. Stealth, rather than conventional military forces was used to further the objectives of deniable participation in the invasion of an independent state.
What is Spetsnaz?
Until the late 1990s the main source of information about Spetsnaz came from the writer Victor Suvorov. In 1987 he published ‘Spetsnaz: The inside Story of the Soviet Union”. Victor Suvorov, whose real name is Vladimir Bogdanovich Rezum, claimed to have served as a Spetsnaz officer.
Born in 1947, Rezum trained as a military officer in Kalinin and Kyiv, but there is no evidence of him serving with Spetsnaz forces. After studying at the Soviet Diplomatic Academy, in 1974 he served as a major in the Soviet Military Intelligence (GRU) and worked under diplomatic cover from the Soviet Embassy in Geneva. In 1978 Major Rezum defected to England and was subsequently sentenced to death by the Soviet Supreme Court for treason.
Although he undoubtedly knows the inner workings of the GRU during the Soviet period, his knowledge of Spetsnaz has been called into question. In light of the continued effectiveness of Russia’s Spetsnaz forces in Ukraine and other former Soviet states there is a need to review our understanding of these forces which have undergone extensive restructuring under Putin’s leadership.
Spetsnaz (special designation or special purpose troops) are often wrongly considered to be the equivalent to western Special Forces. Although in comparison with Russia’s conventional forces they can be considered elite, they should not be regarded as being at tier one Special Forces level: it is their capability of engaging in ambiguous political-military operations such as that in Ukraine, not the quality of their soldiers. (See RUSI March 2015, Igor Sutyagin)
The word Spetsnaz is not confined to the Russian military and has been used to describe special designation troops in all the Soviet states and the name is still used today. We also find the western image of an all-male military formation is not correct. As Suvorov said in 1987, these units also have a large number of women who have undergone the same training and possess the same skills as their male counterparts. This is supported by the arrest of two female Spetsnaz operators by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) and several reports of females acting as agent provocateurs in Maiden Square. The Russian government also makes no secret of their female operatives. For instance, on 21 September 2013, RT released a video of 35 women undergoing Spetsnaz training and reported that 600 soldiers, including 150 women had completed the course at the Southern Military District in the Krasnodar region. (For further reading see my post ‘Russian Clandestine Operations in Ukraine’, 13 April, 2015)
Political Operators- active measures/ political warfare
Although there continues to be limited verifiable information coming out of eastern Ukraine, through the indiscreet use of social media, personal and Russian patriotic websites we see that female Spetsnaz operative played, and continue to play key roles in Ukraine and are officially regarded as essential within the broad concept of ‘political warfare’. A case in point is the capture of Maria Koleda by the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) in 2014, and the activities of Yulia Kharlamova of the 38th Separate Parachute Brigade, which I covered in an earlier post.
Maria Koleda before being captured by the SBU
During the 2006 restructuring of the armed forces Spetsnaz was completely transformed in order to create a deniable military force capable of employing Gerasimov’s ‘new’ military doctrine, which has variously been described as non-linear warfare, hybrid warfare, asymmetric warfare and political warfare. To simplify this military strategy, Jane’s Intelligence Review of 2014, described Spetsnaz as an, “element of this military doctrine responsible for waging war below the radar of traditional collective intelligence”
While the restructuring included the introduction of new weapons, technology and integrating the Gerasimov tactics and concepts into their operational roles, Spetsnaz is still responsible for sabotage, reconnaissance, intelligence gathering; the assassination of political leaders and military officers. These units are also tools of the Russian intelligence communities. Although separate from the Ministry of Defence and reporting directly to Military Intelligence (GRU) they work closely with the FSB. Consequently, they may be referred to as Spetsnaz GRU or Spetsnaz FSB depending on what organisation they are assigned to. This became apparent after the Security Service of Ukraine (SBU) captured both FSB and GRU Spetsnaz operatives.
Ukraine
There have been several reports of Spetsnaz troops in eastern Ukraine operating at platoon strength and these are said to be elements from five independent brigades- the 346 of the Special Operations Command (KSO), 2nd, 22nd, and 24th Spetsnaz brigades. Of particular interest are recent reports of the 100th Brigade operating in eastern Ukraine.
Although fully operational, because the 100th Brigade is currently tasked with training, testing new weapons and technology, they are ideally suited for training separatist militias, including instruction in the use of heavy weapons. This may account for the increased efficiency of the pro-Russian militias which are said to mainly consist of ill-disciplined terrorists and Russian mercenaries.
Each brigade has its own communications unit and during the 2006 restructuring and modernization program emphasis was placed on enhancing their signals intelligence capabilities. According to recent reports which have been supported by captured documents and photographs, a Spetsnaz Sigint unit has been operating in Syria and this has resulted in the increased accuracy of government air strikes and artillery fire against rebel leaders. In light of these documents, which are still to be independently verified, it has to be assumed the same capabilities are being employed in Ukraine.
Spetsnaz has proved capable of operating in politically and operationally complex environments and paving the way for conventional military forces. For instance, Spetsnaz ensured the 727th Independent Naval Infantry Brigade and the 18th Independent Motorized Brigade and other regular forces entered Ukraine with minimum opposition from government forces.
The word ‘Troll’ has been popularised by the media and is frequently used to describe the activities of pro-Russian and pro-Vladimir Putin’s followers on the internet, especially when it comes to manipulating social media. One of several definitions for internet trolls include, those who deliberately post provocative messages to a news group or message board with the intention to cause maximum disruption and arguments.
Around 1993, the terms Puppets (sometimes referred to as Sock-Puppets) and Puppeteers were used to describe what people now frequently refer to as Russian trolls. I prefer the terms Puppets and Puppeteers because this more accurately describes the methodology currently employed to spread Russian propaganda, disinformation and the tactics used for the disruption of meaningful debates on the internet.
Of all the instruments used to share information among people throughout the world social media is known to be the most potent. This has been recognised and is fully exploited by Russian propagandists.
The Puppets and Puppeteers
The use of the term Puppet refers to huge number of individuals who are controlled by a puppeteer. Both puppet and puppeteers also have a large number of false profiles on a multitude of social media platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, VK, Live Journal, false blogs, YouTube and all popular social media networks. To ensure credibility puppets act as independent third parties not connected to the puppeteer.
There is also the ‘straw man’ puppet which is a false flag profile created to make a particular point. For example, if the topic is international affairs the pseudonym may include the title PhD or a high ranking military position to generate the illusion of being knowledgeable, or an expert on the subject. If they wish to criticise America their profile may say they live in the States.
The puppets have several roles. For instance, the puppeteer may write a glowing post about Russian nationalism or attack Ukraine. This is followed by a large number of Puppets pressing the like button, posting supporting comments and links to false blogs and website which support the puppeteer. These links also provide additional propaganda, disinformation and further promote the Kremlin’s political objectives.
Due to the large numbers of Puppets all opposition is overwhelmed and the puppets control the debate. These puppets also create the perception of ‘unbiased’ support- they attempt to generate the illusion of the puppeteer representing the views of the majority. As the puppeteer appears to represent the consensus of opinion their statements are more likely to be considered true, or require further consideration before making a decision.
Apart from the coordinated approach of puppets and puppeteers to create deception, influencing public opinion and silencing all opposition on social media, this approach has also proved effective for controlling the readers comment pages on several on-line newspapers.
For instance, in 2014 the Readers Editor of the Guardian on-line, which has an international readership and receives around 40,000 readers’ comments per day, expressed concerns that the comments were part of a pro-Kremlin campaign. His descriptions of these comments fit the tactics used by Puppets and Puppeteer. It has also been reported that the New York Times, CNN and other major news outlets have similarly been targeted.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine we continue to see a number of Facebook accounts belonging to pro-government Ukrainians, activists and Ukrainian politician’s regularly being suspended or posts being deleted. This action is officially taken after Facebook moderators receive an avalanche of complaints claiming account holders have violated Facebook’s terms and conditions. The original complaint is from the puppeteer and this is supported by 100s of puppets. Due to the weight of complaints Facebook is forced to take action, often without examining the pages which have been reported.
Facebook provides a number of examples which illustrates the effectiveness of this approach to silencing opposition:
The account of Hennady Moskal, a governor of Luhansk which is occupied by Russia forces, had his account blocked. He was singled out by a puppeteer because he had thousands of followers reading his breaking news and live comments from Luhansk.
Oleh Lyashko, was blocked at the same time because of his large number of followers.
The page of Watcher.Com. UA (Ukraine) which was a popular web portal analysing Russian propaganda was permanently deleted
The account of Vakhtang Kipiani, a prominent figure and journalist was blocked and his contents deleted. Igor Mosiychuk, a Ukrainian politician was also blocked due to the weight of support for the Puppeteer who made the original complaint.
Apart from attacking accounts which are considered a threat to the Kremlin’s agenda, Andriy Bondar was blocked simply because he mentioned the post of someone who was on the Puppeteers block list.
We also find numerous innocent images which are considered anti-Russian being officially deleted. For instance, over 14 Ukrainians were blocked for displaying the picture of a young girl receiving a posthumous bravery medal for her father, Andriy Matvienko, who was killed fighting a pro-Russian militia.
According to the Ukraine Crisis Centre, in March 2014, 1000 to 1500 Ukrainians are being blocked daily or having various contents of their pages deleted.
As early as 2013, a Freedom House Report stated that Russia has been using these methods to manipulate on-line discussions, smearing opposition leaders, attacking US politics and culture.
The reason why Russian continues to use enormous resources to manipulate information on the internet becomes apparent after examining the number of people using social media:
Twitter 302 million monthly
500 million Tweets per day
80% of account users use their mobile phones
Supports 33 languages.
(www.twitter.com/reportcard)
Facebook
1.23 billion Accounts and rising
Instagram
100 million users
LinkedIn
300 million accounts
Livejournal
(in 2013) 27.7 million and rising.
According to a report published in 2013 by Emailer, around 1.73 billion people use social media and this figure does not include those using comment pages on newspapers and other websites.
Although there are many amateur puppets and puppeteers operating from various countries, Saint Petersburg is the main hub for the professionals who receive their instructions from the Kremlin.
55 Savushkina Street Saint Petersburg is a modern four story building with a sign outside which reads ‘Business Centre’, this is the headquarters of the Internet Research Centre, with an estimated 500 puppets and puppeteers who work 24/7 to flood the internet, social media networks and western publications with pro-Kremlin and pro-Putin comments. They also promote the belief in western injustices against Russia, and criticise the United States, the EU, NATO, the Ukrainian Government, and anyone they consider enemies of Russia.
Working through proxy servers to mask their location, LiveJournal is one of many false blogs used to jam municipal chat rooms throughout Russia and to post pro-Kremlin media. Using a mixture of political posts and general interest articles – cooking, diets, fashion etc, they work in teams of 20 and each team is controlled by an editor with the correct political credentials. Due to its importance as a major hub for propaganda, disinformation and manipulation, it is widely claimed the Internet Research Centre is now controlled by Russia’s internal security agency known as the FSB, it is also believed one of the main managers is an ex-police colonel named Mikhail Bystrov.
A previous employee of the Internet Research Centre told Shaun Walker, a journalist working for the Guardian newspaper (Guardian 2 April 2015) “The scariest thing is when you talk to friends and they repeat things you saw in the technical tasks {daily propaganda and disinformation tasks} and you realise all this is having an effect”
The most prestigious and senior positions are for those with fluent English. After passing an English efficiency test they are given the opportunity to work for the international section and being tasked with targeting social media networks, on-line newspapers and websites catering for users outside the Russian Federation.
Although these ‘technical tasks’ reflect current news stories, after examining various social media networks and newspaper readers pages, we often find identical messages and ‘personal’ views on a number of these sites. Recent examples include:
“The majority of experts agree that the United States is deliberately trying to weaken Russia…”
“During the Maiden revolution in Kiev, all the protesters were fed tea laced with drugs which is why they caused the revolution…”
A well-known and leading Puppeteer, Natalya Drordova, also known as Tatyana Kazakbayeva, who works at the Internet Research Centre, wrote the following on her Twitter, Live Journal, Facebook ,VK, My media and Google+ Profile accounts:
“The assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemstove was either orchestrated by Ukraine to frame Russia and damage relations with the west or was carried out by Nemstove’s supporters as a provocation ahead of the opposition protests”
After replies started to be posted the puppets took over and started to support her comments and steer readers to ‘impartial’ websites.
This puppeteer, using one of her aliases, Tatyana Kazakbayeva, then wrote various posts on cooking and fashion as her puppets controlled the ongoing debate.
The FSB’s Internet Research Centre, its Puppets and Puppeteers along with freelance bloggers and self-proclaimed Putin admirers throughout the world, are powerful tools for Russia’s information war. Not only have they proved effective at influencing citizens living in the Russian Federation, they are becoming increasingly effective in the manipulation of western audiences.
This brief introduction argues that what is commonly referred to as Russian Hybrid Warfare is little more than a remodeled and modern version of KGB active measures: the old ‘tool box’ of the Soviet period has been replaced with modern tools to fit 21st century technology along with the socioeconomic and political climate which differs greatly from the Cold War period.
Although many of the tools have been either replaced or improved, their intended outcomes remain the same.
KGB Active Measures
Active Measures were the responsibility of Service A of the KGB First Directorate which worked closely with the International Department (ID) and all Soviet agencies abroad were available to support or participate in Active Measures.
Apart from propaganda and disinformation, active measures included political influence operations, the use of religious organisations and the Anti-Zionist Committee. These clandestine operations were designed to further Soviet foreign policies and to increase the international influence of the Soviet Union.
Throughout the 1960’s, among the ‘tools’ used by the KGB was disinformation: including the ‘leaking’ of false documents and information to the world’s press in an attempt to deceive the public or political elite in the target country and/or to undermine that country’s credibility and trust among the international community.
Active measures also included supporting terrorist organisation along with those states sponsoring such activities; instigating and coordinating social protest, disorder and politically inspired violence. For a recent example of these elements of active measures and their effectiveness one only has to look at how these played out in Ukraine- promoting civil unrest to undermine the government and overwhelm security forces whilst also providing opportunities for propaganda and disinformation; supporting and encouraging acts of terrorism by ‘separatists’ whilst masking Russian involvement through the covert use of Spetsnaz forces, the FSB and the GRU.
In the following examples the primary object of the KGB’s use of disinformation, as part of their wider active measure initiatives, was to disrupt and to create suspicions about the United States. It is interesting to note that Russia is currently running a similar campaign against NATO member states.
Media Landscape during the Soviet period
In October 1985 a global campaign was launched to convince the world that the AIDS virus had been manufacture in the United States as part of a genetic engineering experiment. For several weeks this ‘disinformation’ was regarded as a reputable story by the world’s media and for several months after the story was finally called into question and dropped by the mainstream media, lesser known and less reputable news producers in Africa, Asia, the middle east and, of course, within the Soviet Union and regions under Soviet influence, continued to run the original story for a further eighteen months or longer.
The above is a good example of using the world’s press as an effective means by which to spread disinformation. This campaign also shows that even when a story is proved false, refutation rarely offsets the damage done by the original story. During another disinformation campaign in 1998, a forged US National Security Council (NSC) memorandum alleged the United States foreign policy strategy was based on a ‘first strike’ nuclear capability.
Current Media Landscape
Although Putin’s Russia still use KGB Active Measures to plant stories in the Western Media – paying Journalists to place stories; using lesser known media platforms which are known for not checking sources; the use of forged ‘official’ documents and using radio and television to disseminate the Kremlin message, the power of the internet is now fully exploited. Working in conjunction with the Kremlin controlled press, social media and seemingly independent websites supported by an army of Russian trolls, have made the dissemination of Russia initiatives for systematic and intentional deception not only easier but also allows the creation of artificial credibility. It is often now more difficult to identify the original source which inevitably is a Russian asset or agency.
The so-called ‘Silent Forgery’: an unpublished fabrication aimed at a specific foreign government, group or individual is still a powerful tool and may be passed off as originating from a well-meaning whistle blower via the internet.
Russian propaganda, like most propaganda, promote specific ideas. Activated ideology, for instance, consisting of hate, dislike and contempt is often used by the Russian media. Likewise, integration propaganda- messages designed to unify, integrate, and harmonize society will also be found linked to Russian nationalism and promoting a stand against the United States and the NATO alliance.
Hybrid warfare
Frank Hoffman (A Closer Look at Russia’s Hybrid War, Wilson Center, no.7, April 2015) described Hybrid Warfare as, “tailored conventional weapons, irregular tactics, terrorism, criminal behaviour in the same time and battle-space.” He also points out that this form of warfare “simply denotes a combination of previously defined types of warfare, whether conventional, irregular, political or information. “
The concept and merits of Hybrid Warfare is attributed to the much quoted Russian Chief of Staff Valery Gerasimov, who outlines what he called non-linear warfare using a mix of military and non-military means. We have also seen the formation of new Spetsnaz units, along with independent airborne brigades and marines being incorporated within specialized brigades often working in cooperation with the FSB or GRU, and their new roles being Spetsnaz operations which are essential for the covert element of hybrid warfare. As we saw in Ukraine and continue to see in other regions of Russian interest, old style KGB Active Measures such as subversion, political influence operations, information warfare and terrorism are all employed within Russia’s Hybrid Warfare strategy.
Consequently, based on the Russian invasion and occupation of Ukraine and various hostile acts in other regions, including aggressive intelligence operations and information warfare to increase their global influence, Active Measures and Hybrid Warfare are inseparable – all elements may be used together, separately or tailored to fit various objectives and may be culturally, religious or politically specific for optimum effect.
Important Preface – Although this article is dated July 2019 this is the date it first appeared on this blog and was written several years previously. Since this article was written over six-years of research has been completed for my forthcoming book ‘SOE in France’ which is due for publication in March 2024. Some of the original research by MRD Foot mentioned below and several authors including R.J. Minney who wrote ‘Carve her Name with Pride’ (the life of Violette Szabo) have been challenged by new findings.
The Special Operations Executive was engaged in clandestine warfare throughout the world but more is known about their French Section than any other section within this highly secretive organisation.
Although disbanded in 1946, the Special Operations Executive (SOE) remains one of the most difficult wartime organisations for historians to research. Professor M.R.D. Foot, who can be considered as the SOE’s official historian, says that many of their records remain secret and are kept by the Foreign Office whilst others were deliberately destroyed. As Foot says, in his extensive ‘official’ research into SOE’s F Section (French Section) “It has long been British government policy that the archives of SOE, the wartime Special Operations Executive, must remain secret like the archives of any other secret service.”
Much of which continues to be published about the SOE is based on the records made available to Professor Foot and his book, ‘History of the Second World War: SOE in France” which was first published by HMSO in 1966.
Vera Atkins Intelligence Officer SOE French Section
Vera Atkins
When it comes to understanding the fate of the 118 agents who failed to return from occupied France we must turn to the many years of investigation work conducted by Vera Atkins who has been described as the most powerful and influential women to have served with SOE.
Although F Section was commanded by Major (later Colonel) Maurice Buckmaster, known to his agents and the Gestapo as ‘Buck’, Vera Atkins has been described as his formidable and brilliant assistant. Vera was involved in every aspect of F Section – interviewing potential recruits, organising and planning training and planning the agent’s reception in France. She was also noted for her intelligence and capability of cracking complex ciphers.
Vera was also known for her deep humanity and sense of responsibility to those she was sending to possible death inside occupied France. She saw every agent off to their operation, she kept in contact with their next of kin and organised coded messaged on the BBC so they could be kept informed about people they had left behind. It also becomes clear that her genuine affection for her agents were reciprocated.
After the war Vera became a member of the British War Crimes Commission gathering evidence for the prosecution of war criminals and set about tracing the fate of the 118 agents who failed to return from their operations. After spending many years visiting concentration camps and interrogating German guards she established how and when missing agents had perished.
She displayed formidable skills as an interrogator. Hugo Bleicher, an Abwehr (German Military Intelligence) officer who worked against the French Resistance judged her interrogation the most skilful to which he had been subjected to by his captors. In March 1946 she interrogated Rudolf Hoess, the notorious commandant of Auschwitz. After deliberately questioning his effectiveness as a camp commandant and asking whether he had caused the deaths of 1.5m Jews, he indignantly protested that the figure was 2,345,000. Vera Atkins was determined that war criminals would pay for their crimes.
Selection and Training
Everything about SOE was unorthodox and the organisation was like a club –membership by invitation only. Although there was a rank structure SOE was run on self-discipline, there were no social barriers and gender equality was seen as paramount. Irrespective of gender all agents underwent the same selection and training. “SOE was interested in women-power as well as man-man power, both on the staff and in the field…” (Foot p46) The bulk of the cypher operators were young girls in their late teens, most of the drivers, telephonists and many of the base operators, wireless operators and those working at safe houses and holding schools were women.
During their advanced interview potential field agents were told if they were captured they were liable to be tortured and then executed and were given the opportunity to reject ‘special employment’. In fact, an agent could leave at any time with no questions asked. Not only did all SOE agents know the dangers, during their initiation and training they were also informed they would be expected to conduct activities “Outside the boundaries of conduct of international law for normal times and normal war…” (Foot) Their role would be to use bribery, subversion, sabotage, assassination – there were no rules!
According to Foot, agents who passed the selection and training were also informed “The chances of a safe return from occupied France were no better than evens, that is, the staff expected to lose half their agents…” Consequently, prior to committing themselves to hazardous operation all agents were given another opportunity to consider the dangers.
Improvised weapons
F Section used three secret training establishments, country houses which had been requisitioned by the War Office, each of which provided separate specialist skills and selection process.
Stage 1. Potential field agents were sent to Wanborough Manor, an Elizabethan house located on the Hogs Back near Guildford Surrey. This training area was referred to as STS5, and on arrival candidates were further vetted. The staff were looking for individuals who could easily communicate and build rapport with people they don’t know, stick to their legends (cover stories which were given to them prior to attending) and not to reveal their true identity or other personal information. Candidates were also encourage to drink alcohol to see if this made them indiscrete.
Those who were considered not suitable for hazardous covert operations were sent to the ‘cooler’ where they were persuaded to forget what little they had learned and return home.
After this initial stage of selection candidates received basic firearms training, elementary Morse code, basic sabotage techniques, explosives and unarmed combat. If considered necessary candidates were given lessons to improve their French and to learn more about the current situation in France. This part of the training lasted 4 weeks and every day candidates were assessed and could be sent to the ‘cooler’ at any times.
Successful candidates were then sent to STS21, Arisaig House, in Inverness Scotland. This isolated area with unpredictable weather was ideal for extensive military training. Potential agents received firearms training, learned infantry tactics, escape and evasion, navigating across rough terrain, relentless physical training, the use of explosives, raiding techniques and sabotage. During this four week course all candidates experienced cold, hunger, psychical and mental exhaustion and were still expected to complete their required tasks to a high standard.
At Arisaig they were also taught unarmed combat (Gutter fighting) and silent killing by the legendary William Fairbairn and Eric Anthony Sykes who designed the FS fighting knife. Unique to the SOE, candidates also mastered the ‘gunfighter technique’ for rapid and accurate use of handguns and became efficient with an assortment of British and German weapons.
Several SOE agents recall a time they were physically and mentally exhausted and violently woken up in the early hours of the morning by men dressed in German uniforms- they were expected to immediately reply in French and during the mock interrogation to maintain their cover story (legend), role play and when necessary improvise. Again, those who failed were sent to the cooler.
After successfully completing the unconventional warfare course successful candidates were then sent to the Finishing School, STS1 on the Beaulieu Estate in Hampshire. Here they learned a variety of specialist skills such as lock-picking and safe cracking.
This part of their training also consisted of ‘schemes’ (tests) lasting 48 or 72 hours. These schemes included making contact with an intermediary referred to as a ‘cut-out’; trailing someone in a city; losing someone who is following them, a variety of counter-surveillance drills, and making contact with a supposed resistance member. To makes these schemes more difficult a concerned ‘member of the public’ would phone the police telling them there was someone acting suspiciously and they may be a spy.
If arrested trainees had the telephone number of an SOE officer to get them out of trouble. However, candidates were expected to talk their way out of being arrested, better still, talk their way out of a police station.
Successful candidates were now sent to RAF Ringway (now Manchester Airport) where they received the same parachute training as the Airborne Forces and upon completion were awarded the same parachute wings.
Agents who had shown an aptitude for Morse code, after being reminded of the risks, were given the opportunity to be trained as a wireless operators at STS51, the Thames Park Wireless School.
Those who passed all courses were eligible to join SOE’s F Section, commonly referred to as the ‘Firm’ whose headquarters were at 64 Bakers Street London and members of this exclusive club quickly got to know Maurice Buckmaster “Buck” and Vera Atkins.
By 1940, according to Foot, Maurice Buckmaster and Vera Atkins had set up almost a hundred circuits (networks) of subversive agents on French soil and these needed to be coordinated, armed and advised by SOE agents.
F Section Clandestine Circuits in France
As can be seen by the F Section Circuit activities, each circuit had a unique code name and was responsible for a specific geographical area and conditions within these circuits could suddenly change without warning. For instance, in 1943 the ‘CORSICAN’ circuit is listed as escaping, which meant the circuit had been compromised and its members were avoiding capture; part of ‘AUTOGIRO’ was collapsing, this could mean the circuit had been infiltrated or was suffering from bad leadership. In 1944 ‘DONKEYMAN’ was listed as fragmented; ‘WIZARD’ had collapsed. Other lists shown circuits being ‘decimated’ which meant all, or nearly all its members were killed or captured.
Apart from coordinating all the circuits in occupied France, SOE agents were also responsible for rebuilding circuits which had been compromised or had bad leadership and to form new circuits to replace those which had been decimated. This would often require agents to travel many miles visiting circuits throughout France and not knowing whether the circuit they were visiting had been infiltrated or its members were under Gestapo surveillance. Apart from the Germany army and the Gestapo, there were collaborators and the German authorities was paying many thousands of francs for information. Much of this dangerous work was done by women: not only were they less likely to raise suspicions when routinely stopped by German soldiers, men could be taken off the street and forced to work in factories supporting the German war effort.
Apart from all circuits having code names, every SOE agent had several code names. One or more aliases for work in the field, a name based on a trade and a cover name for all wireless transmissions.
Most agents entered France by parachute or ‘ferried’ in unarmed Lysander aircraft with the pilot relying on torch lights from members of the resistance to mark the remote landing strip. Lysander aircraft become such a regular feature of SOE operations they were nicknamed the SOE Taxi.
Pearl Witherington
Recruited: June 1943 (F Section courier)
On 22 September 1943 Pearl Witherington parachuted at night from a converted RAF Halifax bomber to a drop zone near Chateauroux in southern Loire and joined ‘STATIONER’ circuit as a courier.
On her arrival at one of the safe houses she was told to deliver an important message from London to a neighbouring circuit. After cycling 50 miles she came across a bridge which was heavily guarded by German soldiers. Under the cover of darkness, with her bicycle across her shoulders, she swum across the freezing river, continued her journey and safely delivered the message.
In May 1944 the leader of ‘STATIONER’, Maurice Southgate, (code name Hector), was sent to Montlucon to meet a member of the resistance. Failing to see the secret signal to indicate danger, he was arrested by the Gestapo who were waiting for him. Although he survived the war, whilst at the Buchenwald Concentration Camp 16 members of his circuit were hanged.
After his arrest Pearl Witherington took command of ‘STATIONER’ which consisted of 2,000 men, this later increased to 3,000 under her command. Under her leadership her circuit destroyed railways lines, electricity pylons, and engaged in hit-and-run tactics against Germany troops. This circuit was so successful the Gestapo put 1 million francs on her head.
When interviewed after the war Pearl Witherington said, “I don’t consider myself a heroine, not at all. I’m just an ordinary person who did a job during the war…” (Telegraph 3 September 2015) Based on similar interviews of other former members of SOE there is no doubt that extreme modesty and humility was a common trait among SOE agents and may be one of the traits the staff looked for at Wanborough Manor.
Interestingly, Witherington was not interested in medals or recognition (another common trait) and her prized possession was her para wings which she had not been given after qualifying at RAF Ringway. Sixty years after qualifying and being parachuted into occupied France she was finally awarded her wings and remarked, “I was tickled pink because I was somewhat muffed that no one thought to give me them all those years ago..”(Telegraph 3 September 2015)
Pearl Witherington wearing her wings 60 years after qualifying
Denise Bloch
Denise Bloch
Recruited: May 1943 (F Section Wireless Operator)
Code names: Cover Micheline Rabatel. Wireless transmissions: Ambroise and Crinoline.
(Within the circuits she was commonly known as ‘Line’ or Danielle)
Circuits: DETECTIVE, CLERGYMAN and WHEELWRIGHT.
Denise Bloch, the only daughter of Parisian Jews, Jacques and Suzanne Block who had taken an active part in the early Resistance movement. Through her parents activities she had already gained extensive experience working with various Resistance circuits before making her way to England where she was subsequently trained as an SOE agent. During her training she showed a natural talent for receiving and sending Morse code and became one of F Sections wireless operators.
As the Germans were using large numbers of wireless detection vans with skilled technicians the life of an SOE wireless operator was estimated to be six weeks. Although trained to keep their transmissions as brief as possible in order to make detection more difficult, many went over the recommended time limit to ensure London received vital information. However, a high proportion of operators who maintain strict wireless security were also detected.
The little information we have on Denise Bloch was obtained by Vera Atkins during her extensive investigation into missing agents.
On the night of 2/3 March she was flown by Lysander from a secret airbase, RAF Tempsford in Bedfordshire which was the home of 138 and 161 Special Duties Squadron. She had been assigned to ‘CLERGYMAN’ where she would organise resistance across the city of Nantes.
After spending several hours in Paris she travelled to Nantes where she transmitted her first message to London. During her time with ‘CLEGYMAN’ she transmitted a further 30 messages and received 52.
Although the 1944 circuit activity shows ‘CLERGYMAN’ listed as fragmented, unbeknown to London and Denise Block prior to her arrival, ‘CLERGYMAN’ had been seriously compromised. Several weeks after her arrival the Gestapo made a large number of arrests and within a few days Denise Block was also arrested and joined other members of her circuit at the Gestapo Headquarters in Paris.
It is clear the Gestapo were aware she was a wireless operator and consequently she was tortured to reveal her ‘poem code’ and wireless set. On a number of occasions the Gestapo had managed to extract this information from captured wireless operators and once they had the code and the wireless set they managed to deceive London. This resulted in a handful of agents being dropped into German hands or the Lysander being surround by German troops. Consequently, wireless operators could expect the worse form of torture to extract information.
Denise Bloch was eventually taken to Ravensbruck Concentration camp, along with Violet Szabo (mentioned later) and Lilian Rolf, who was the wireless operator for ‘HISTORIAN’ Circuit.
Sometime in 1944, as Allied forces were fighting their way through France as part of Operation Overlord, Denise Bloch and Violet Szabo were taken to the crematorium yard where an SS guard shot them through the back of their necks and their bodies were cremated.
Block received a posthumous Kings Commendation for Bravery, the Croix de Guerre Avec Palme, Legion d’honneur and the Medaille de la Resistance.
Noor Inayat Khan (George Cross)
Recruited November 1942 (F Section wireless operator)
After joining the RAF as a wireless operator she came to the attention of the SOE talent spotters and was asked to attend an informal interview at a hotel near Trafalgar Square London, where she was asked whether she would be interested in becoming ‘specially employed’. Although no indication was given as to what the job entailed, Noor wanted to do something more interesting and accepted the position.
After completing her compulsory military training she was sent to the SOE Wireless School at Thames Park and them to the finishing school at Beaulieu.
On the night of 16/17 June she boarded a Lysander at RAF Tangmere in Sussex, bound for a landing field near Angers in north-western France. With her was Diane Rowden, Cecily Lefort and Charles Skeeper. These SOE agents were later captured by the Gestapo, tortured and executed. Another ominous twist to this flight is that among the members of the French Resistance who were illuminating the landing strip with torches was Henry Dericourt – a double agent working for the Gestapo. Through Dericourt the Gestapo were able to follow the movements of all the agents on this flight.
After making her way to Paris Noor met the leader of the ‘CINEMA’ Circuit and within a few days she was introduced to his wireless operator, Gilbert Norman and the leader of the ‘BRICKWORK’ Circuit.
Over a period of two months Noor sent 20 messages to London and maintained wireless security- keeping all transmissions times to a minimum and regularly changing her location.
On 24 June the leader of the neighbouring ‘PROSPER’ Circuit was arrested along with other members of his team. As further arrests continued London believed the circuit had been infiltrated. During this period the F Section Circuits Activity map for ‘PROSPER’ is Det (detected) and this may have been updated to ‘run’ (on the run). Although no documents are available, it is known that all the resistance fighters from this circuit were scattering across France in the hope of receiving protection from other circuits.
After the Gestapo continued to arrest hundreds of resistance members and their families, and SOE agents made their way to safer houses, Noor became the only F Section Wireless Operator in the Paris area.
As the situation was becoming more confused every day and further arrests may have resulted in other circuits being compromised, as Noor was the only wireless operator in Paris she rejected Buckmaster’s plan for an emergency extraction by Lysander.
After Noor reported the confused situation back to London Maurice Buckmaster sent another wireless operator to assist her. After this operator parachuted into the hands of German forces it became clear the Germans had managed to recovery an SOE wireless and codes. The only secure transmissions from the Paris area were from Noor and she was the now the only person London could trust.
Due to the increasing number of radio detection vans Noor was continuously on the move – sending updates to London and then moving to other locations before continuing her transmissions. She was also working blind- she had no support, did not know which safe houses were now under surveillance or who she could trust.
As we now live in a period of microelectronics and mobile phones, it’s important to remember that Noor and other wireless operators were using wireless equipment which were so large they were built into a family size suitcase and weighed 30lbs (14kg)
Noor started to use the escape and evasion skills she had been taught at finishing school – change your hairstyle, dye your hair, walk differently, alter your mannerism, alter your accent, talk with a lisp, change your style of clothing- be an entirely different person!
Due to hundreds of soldiers on the street, and people being arrested by the lorry load, Noor concluded that all the safe houses must be considered compromised and she had no option but to seek refuge with pre-war family friends and made her way to friends of her parents. They were pleased to help and said she could stay in one of their spare rooms.
Although Noor skilfully avoided capture for four months and during this period kept London advised of the constantly changing situation she was finally betrayed by a collaborator who was given 100,000 francs for the address in which she was staying. Noor and her family friends were arrested.
After her capture an SOE agent sent a diverted telegram to Buckmaster saying, “Madeline had a serious accident and she was now in hospital”, meaning, she had been captured and taken to Gestapos Headquarters at Avenue Foch. After this, any wireless communications containing her code poem or wireless code name would be regarded as a German deception. The fact that no further transmissions were received from ‘Nurse’ and her poem code was never used by the Germans suggests she resisted torture and never gave up her codes.
During Vera Atkins relentless investigation to discover what had happened to her agents who she considered ‘family’, she interviewed an SOE agents who had been incarcerated in a neighbouring cell to Noor. She was told, Noor distracted herself by writing children’s stories in her cell, and she could often be heard sobbing throughout the night. But when the morning came she buried her emotions and remained defiant. After a failed attempt to escape Noor was sent to Ravensbruck Concentration Camp.
Vera Atkins, as we now know, was not a person to mess with, she was determined to know what had happened to ‘her’ agents and demanded that anyone responsible for war crimes should pay with their life. Through her interrogation of SS officers, soldiers and prison guards we know the fate of Noor Khan.
Due to Noor’s dark complexion, she was considered inferior by the Third Reich, and was singled out for special treatment: she was kept in solitary confinement, chained hand and foot, regularly punched and kicked unconscious by the guards, but for eight months she still refused to talk. On 11 September Noor, along with SOE agents Yoland Beekman, Elaine Plewman and Madeline Damerment were transported to Dachau Concentration Camp and that night Beekman, Plewman and Damerment were shoot in the head. Noor, because of her ‘inferior dark complexion’ which made her a ‘dangerous prisoner’ was almost beaten to death by SS officer Friedrich Wilhelm Ruppert, before she was finally shot in the head with her own SOE issue pistol the following day. Through Vera Atkins relentless pursuit for Justice she ensured the treatment and murder of Noor was added to his war crimes, Fredric Wilhelm Ruppert was tried, convicted and executed for war crimes in 1946.
Noor Inayat Khan was posthumously awarded the George Cross.
Yolande Beekman
Recruited: February 1943 (F Section Wireless Operator)
Code name: Yvonne de Chauvigny, Mariette, Wireless transmission Kilt
Circuit: MUSICIAN
On 17 September 1943 Yolande was on a Lysander aircraft travelling to a remote airstrip outside Angers in western France. After landing, with the help the local Resistance, she made her way north to join the MUSIAN circuit who were operating in the strategically important town of St Quentin.
We know that she moved to various safe houses and transmitted using pre-arranged skeds (schedules) on specific frequencies three times per week, but we don’t know why she always transmitted from the same location.
While her circuit concentrated on recruitment the neighbouring circuit, code named FARMER, concentrated on sabotage and killing German forces.
On 28 November the leader of FARMER and their wireless operators were killed during a firefight with German forces and Yolande passed this information onto London. As FARMER had no leadership or wireless operator Yolande was ordered to keep London informed of the developments and problems associated with both circuits: this resulted in a large increase in wireless traffic and increased possibilities of detection.
After destroying ten locomotives in November and a further eleven in December London told both circuits to prepared themselves to attack local rail networks at 25 points; German communications across the region and to cut telephone lines to Paris. This further increased her workload and she was now constantly on the move to avoid detection. Due to the increase of SOE and resistance activities the Germans also increased the number of detection vans in the region.
To coordinate the combined resources of both circuits she arranged a meeting with a representative of the FARMER circuit at a ‘safe’ café. Shortly after her arrival Yolande and the representative were arrested and within a few hours some 50 members of the resistance were in the hands of the Gestapo.
Eye witnesses of the Gestapo raid on the café recall a woman fitting Yolande Beekman’s description being dragged away by men in civilian clothes. They also say her face was severely swollen as if she had be repeatedly punched.
It is known she was taken to Fresnes prison, and on or around 12 May, Yolande along with SOE agents Odette Sanson/Churchill, Sonia Olschaneky, Madeline Damermont, and Andree Borrel were taken by train to Karlsrushe Prison just inside the German border.
As far as we can gather, on 12 September Yolande, Plewman and Damerment joined Noor Inayat Khan on a train to Dachau Concentration camp. It was also reported that Yolande was handled ‘roughly’ before being shot in the back of the neck.
Odette Sanson/Churchill/Hallowes (George Cross)
Recruited: July 1942 (Courier F Section)
Circuit: SPINDLE
Code name: Lise, Madam Odette Metaye
When Odette joined SOE she was married to Roy Sanson, after his death she married SOE agent Peter Churchill, and after their divorce in 1955? She married former SOE agent Geoffrey Hallowes. Although Odette held three ‘married’ names, undoubtedly, the name Churchill saved her life at Ranensbruck Concentration Camp.
When Odette was recruited and agreed to work for SOE she had three Children, Francoise aged 11; Lillie aged 8 and Marianne aged 6, and during her training and hazardous work in occupied France they stayed at a convent school in rural England. Her children and the convent believed their mother was working in Scotland and Vera Atkins, using pre-written letters from Odette, continued the pretence.
Her operational brief was to contact a resistance group on the French Riviera before moving north to Auxerre to establish a safe house for other agents passing through the area.
The original plan was for her to be parachuted into France but the aircraft assigned for her operation had mechanical problems. Instead, she was taken by ship to Gibraltar and from there she boarded an SOE narrow sailing boat which took her to a secluded beach near Cassis. She arrived on the night 2/3 November 1942.
After successfully making contact with Peter Churchill (Raoul) who ran the SPINDLE Circuit (who she married after the war), he gave her the address of a contact who was vital for her operation. When she arrived at the address the contact refused to assist her and without his help it was impossible to establish the safe houses. After reporting the situation to Buckmaster Odette’s operation was cancelled and he gave permission for her to work with Peter Churchill, she was now a member of SPINDLE.
By January 1943 the SPINDLE Circuit had been infiltrated by a double agent and the Gestapo knew the names of its members, passive supporters, the locations of their safe houses and mass arrests followed. Churchill decided to close SPINDLE and to move the surviving member of his team to Saint-Jorioz, a village close to the Swiss and Italian borders.
After Odette and Churchill narrowly missed an ambush during an attempt to reach a Lysander which had been sent to extract them, Churchill decided they would stay at the last remaining safe house, the Hotel de la Posts, and sent his wireless operator, Rabinovitch (‘Armaud’) to Faverges, a village some ten miles away from the Hotel.
Four days Later Churchill was flown out by Lysander to report the situation directly to Buckmaster; Odette and Armaud remained to monitor the situation.
After Odette identified a suitable drop zone and the information had been sent to London, On 15 September Peter Churchill was parachuted into a remote area where Odette and Armaud were waiting for him. It was decided Armaud would to return to Faverges, Odette and Churchill would go back to the Hotel.
During the early hours of the morning the Gestapo raided the Hotel, Odette and Churchill were arrested and taken to Fresnes Prison. Two weeks later both were moved to Gestapo Headquarters at 84 Avenue Foch in Paris.
When it became clear ‘soft’ interrogation techniques would not work the Gestapo resorted to torture in order to extract information- red-hot pokers were used to burn her back and every time she passed out from the pain buckets of cold water were used to revive her so the torture could continue, Odette refused to talk. When this did not work all her toe nails were pulled out- she still refused to talk. (See George Cross Citation)
After failing to make her talk Odette was transferred to a number of prisons. At each prison she deliberately spread the rumour that she was married to Peter Churchill who was a close relative of the British Prime Minister and these rumours quickly spread among the guards and officers.
There is the possibility these rumours may have been heard in high places in Berlin: within a few months the decision was made to move there ‘very important prisoner’, Peter Churchill, to Berlin but as Odette was under sentence of death she was moved to Ravensbruck Concentration Camp.
On her arrival at Ravensbruck, on 26 July, the Camp Commandant, Fritz Suhren, had already heard and believed Odette was connected to the British Prime Minister by marriage.
She was immediately sent to a cell in the basement without windows and Suhren ordered she must remain in darkness and put on a starvation diet. After the SS were informed by a double agent that Odette had sent plans of the German navy base at Marseille to London, all food was withdrawn and the heating to her cell was turned up.
After finding Odette collapsed in her cell due to heat exhaustion and lack of food she was examined by a camp doctor who concluded that if she continued living under these conditions she would be dead within two weeks. She was returned to her dark, hot cell and still deprived of food and water. Some two days later, without warning Odette was moved to a normal cell with a window and given food and water. From this cell, Odette later recalled she heard the shots which killed Violet Szabo, Denise Block and Lilian Rolf.
Four months after being moved to her new cell the rapid Allied advance resulted in many of the guards and SS officers fleeing the camp to avoid capture. During the chaos an SS officer entered her cell and told her to come with him, Odette assumed she was going to be shot.
She was taken to a black Mercedes and told to sit next to the Camp Commandant, Fritz Suhren, on the rear seat. As the car left the camp Suhren told her he was going to deliver her to the American lines where she would be safe. It became clear to Odette that Suhren believed he would receive a lesser prison sentence by protecting a relative of Winston Churchill.
When she reached the American lines she identified herself as a British agent, personally accepted Suhren’s surrender and his pistol and asked the American solider to arrest him for war crimes. She gave evidence against him at the Nuremburg Trials and Suhren was convicted and hung for his crimes.
On here return to England Odette required over one year of intensive medical treatment for her injuries due to torture and neglect.
Odette Sanson was awarded the George Cross, MBE, Chevalier de la Legion d’honneur, 1939-45 Star, Defence Medal, War Medal 1939-45, Queen’s Coronation Medal, Queen’s Silver Jubilee Medal.
Violette Szabo (George Cross)
Recruited: July 1943 (Courier F Section)
Circuit: SALESMAN 1 SALESMAN 2
Codename: Louise, Viki Tailor
Her file refer to her as Petite, just under five-feet five tall, but her character was far more robust than her looks suggest. She was also noted for her cockney accent and wild sense of humour.
Leaving school at the age of 14, Violette worked as a shop assistant at Woolworths in Brixton London.
In 1940 she Married Etienne Szabo who was an officer in the Foreign Legion and in June 1942 she gave birth to a daughter, Tanya, but four months later Etienne was killed at the Battle of El Alamein.
During her military training she impressed her instructors; she was one of the best shot they had seen, she was also physically and mentally tough.
Whilst undergoing training Violette was living with her parents at 18 Burley Road Stockwell London. Her father, who had served in France with the British Army during the First World War married a French women and they moved to London after the War. As children, Violette and her four brothers were encouraged to learn French and at an early age they were fluent in the language.
For cover purposes all SOE agents who had not served with a military unit wore military uniform, Violette wore the uniform of the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry (FANY). When she was away for several weeks at a time this allowed her to tell inquisitive people she had been driving senior officers around the country. Her father did not approve, he felt strongly that she should be at home looking after her daughter and this led to several heated argument.
During her last parachute decent at RAF Ringway she made a bad landing and twisted her ankle and was temporarily taken off the active list to allow her to recover at home. One evening, after her father asked how she had injured herself, Violette replied she had twisted her ankle after jumping out of a lorry. This led to a continuation of the previous argument. Annoyed with her father, Violette grab her handbag, stumbled and the contents of her bag was scattered across the floor. After scooping up her possessions she stormed out of the room and went to her bedroom. In her rush, Violette had not checked whether she had picked up everything- as the door closed her father saw her parachute wings on the floor- everything now made sense.
After telling his wife he went to Violette’s room where he apologised and told her he was proud of her. Neither mentioned the subject again.
After her recovery she was put back on the active list and completed her course at Beaulieu.
On returning home to London, after completing Beaulieu and now officially a member of the SOE, within a few weeks Buckmaster asked to see her at Bakers Street.
Buckmaster had received disturbing information that some of his key agents were on the Gestapo wanted list and wanted posters with rewards for any information were being displayed thought-out Paris. He asked Violet whether she would go to Paris to assess the situation and Violet agreed.
As this was her first trip to France Buckmaster felt secure in the knowledge she would not be known to the Gestapo, but she would have to work alone.
After the Lysander landed she quickly gathered what information she could from the small number of Resistance fighters who had illuminated the landing strip, she then made her way to Rouen to meet Claud Malraux, the second in command of SALESMAN circuit, and one of the men wanted by the Gestapo. After being briefed on what he knew of the situation, which was very little, she travelled to Paris under the identity of a secretary named Corinne Leroy.
Violette spent three weeks in Paris and the surrounding area to assess the problems and discovered that SALESMAN Circuit had completely collapsed: hundreds of its members had been arrested whilst others were seeking refuge with other circuits throughout France. On every main street in Paris there were wanted posters for Claud Malraux and other members of his circuit. During her say in Paris she was arrested twice by the Gestapo but on both occasions managed to talk her way out of the Gestapo Headquarters at 18 Avenue Voch. After reporting her findings to the head of a neighbouring circuit and arranging for their wireless operator to transmit her findings to London several days later Buckmaster sent a message saying the Circuit could not be saved and provided the coordinates for a Lysander extraction for her and Claud. They left France on 30 April.
In early June Buckmaster decided SALEMAN circuit would be rebuilt around the Limoges area of west-central France. Resistance fighter would need to be recruited and armed. It was also essential to setup lines of communications with neighbouring circuits in order to be support the planned Allied invasion. Violette volunteered for the operation.
On the night of the 7/8 June Violette and Claud Malraux, who was to command the new SALESMAN circuit, arrived in France by Parachute.
After assessing the situation Claud decided he would require the assistance of the DIGGER circuit which was operating south of Limoges and sent Violent and one of his new resistance members, Jacques Dufour, by car to ask for assistance.
In his book “Carve her name with Pride” by RJ Minney and the film which was based on this book, it is claimed Violette Szabo and Claud Malraux, were involved in a firefight with German troops after reaching a road block. This is not the case.
According to the official Medal citations for the award of the George Cross, “Madame Szabo volunteered to undertake a particularly dangerous mission in France. She was parachuted into France in April 1944, and undertook the task with enthusiasm. In her execution of the delicate researches entailed she showed great presence of mind and astuteness. She was twice arrested by the German security authorities, but each time managed to get away. Eventually, however, with other members of her group, she was surrounded by the Gestapo in a house in the south-west of France. Resistance appeared hopeless, but Madame Szabo, Seizing a Sten gun and as much ammunition as she could carry, barricaded herself in part of the house, and, exchanging shot for shot with the enemy, killed or wounded several of them. By constant movement she avoided being cornered and fought until she dropped exhausted. She was arrested and had to undergo solitary confinement. She was then continuously and atrociously tortured, but she never by word or deed gave away any of her acquaintances, or told the enemy anything of value. She was ultimately executed. Madam Szabo gave a magnificent example of courage and steadfastness. “ (The London Gazette, Friday 12 June 1946, HMSO)
Violette Szabo’s Medals
Eileen Neame (known as Diddi)
Recruited: Unknown (Wireless operator F Section)
Code name: Unknown, Wireless name unknown.
Circuit: Unknown
Jacqueline Neame
Jacqueline Neame
Recruited: Unknown (Wireless Operator F Section)
Code name: Cat
Circuit: STATIONER
In 2010 the police were called to a small house in Torque and found the body of an 89-year-old female who had been dead for several days. After speaking to neighbours the police were informed no one knew anything about her, no one knew her name; she was a recluse; she had no friends and spent her time feeding stray cats.
After searching her home for clues as to her identity and next of kin, one of the officer found a photograph of two women dressed in British army uniforms which appeared to have been taken during the war. As the search continued they found a French medal, a Croix de Guerre, other medals and more photographs taken during the War.
After several weeks of investigation the police identified the body and the identity of the other women in the photograph. They were sisters, Eileen and Jacqueline Neame. The body was Eileen, the older sister.
Although research is still incomplete and I understand someone is currently writing a book on the sisters, it has been established that at the age of 21 Eileen, known as ‘Didi’, was an F Section Wireless Operator working near Paris.
Whilst Didi was sending an urgent message to London she heard German soldiers outside her safe house but continued sending the message. Minutes before the Gestapo broke down the door she had burned her messages and codes.
When they found her wireless set she denied all knowledge and improvised: she played the role of an innocent French girl – she did not know anything about the wireless set, the Resistance or SOE. Didi was then handcuffed and taken to Gestapo Headquarters.
Like most captured Wireless Operators she was tortured for many hours but continue to role play- constantly telling her interrogators she was an innocent French girl who must has been setup. It is known she was repeatedly half drowned in a bath full of water but continued to maintain her innocence. Unable to break her and not being sure whether she was an SOE agent she was sent to Ravensbrück concentration camp where she became friends with Violette Szabo.
Although the details are still not clear, Didi was one of the few people to escape from Ravensbruck and to survive the hostile countryside patrolled by German forces including the SS.
Jacqueline Neame
Although Jaqueline died of cancer in 1982, more is known about her than her sister.
On 25 January 1943? Jacqueline was parachuted into France and joined the ‘SATIONARY’ Circuit based in central France and maintain contacts with the neighbouring circuit called ‘HEADMASTER’, she also made several trips to Paris as a courier. Jaqueline spent 15 months in occupied France and returned to England by Lysander in April 1944.
In 1946, Jaqueline and other former members of ‘STATIONARY’ Circuit played themselves in a public information film (available at the Imperial War Museum) depicting some of their work in occupied France. This government information film, “Now the Truth Can be Told” basically looks at some of the unclassified work they were involved in during their time with the SOE.
Sonia Olschanezky was born in Chemnitz in Germany in 1923 to
a Jewish family at a time when anti-Semitism was becoming increasingly more
violent. Her father was born in Russia and her mother was from a wealthy German
family. At the age of three the family moved to Bucharest to run a silk-stocking
factory, but the business eventually went bankrupt. They then settled in France
but during another business venture her father became the victim of fraud and
the family fell into poverty.
Shortly after Germany occupied northern France Sonia was arrested for being a Jew and was sent to a prison camp in Drancy and waited to be transported to a concentration camp for execution.
Although the precise details are unknown, her mother still
had at least one influential contact in Germany, and they secured Sonia’s release
after producing a document stating she had ‘economic valuable skills for the
war effort.’
Undeterred by her imprisonment and being acutely aware she
was known to the Germans for being a Jew and could be arrested at any time she
refused to keep a low profile and decided to join the resistance. After coming
to the attention of an agent working for Britain’s SOE (Special Operations Executive)
which sent agents trained in subversive warfare to France and other countries
under occupation, she started the dangerous work as a courier passing messages
to agents and local resisters.
Sonia Olschanezky started working with SOE during the organisation’s
most disastrous period in France. This is sometimes referred to as the period of
errors because many mistakes were made and these resulted in clandestine networks
being infiltrated by the Germans, mass arrests and executions. Although the
dangers were enormous Sonia refused to join an escape line to England and insisted
on continuing her resistance work. It was
Sonia who first learned an SOE radio operator had been arrested and London was
receiving messages from a German operator, but her report was rejected because
London had not heard of Sonia and were concerned this may be a German deception.
Consequently, after London received a
radio message requesting more agents several were arrested soon after arriving
in France.
Twenty-year-old Sonia Olschanezky was eventually denounced
and the fact none of her close contacts were also arrested suggests she did not
talk under torture.
After being interrogated at Gestapo HQ Sonia was transported
to Natzweiler Concentration camp and executed.
Due to the confusion and high loss of life during the period
of errors Sonia Olschanezky never came to the attention of SOE in London and
her resistance work was only recognised after the war when Vera Atkins, the
former intelligence officer for SOE’s French section was investigating the fate
of missing agents.
After learning of Sonia’s resistance work and her death at Natweiler Vera Atkins requested she receive official recognition and her name be listed on the SOE war memorial in Valency. Several weeks after her request Atkins was informed by the memorial committee Sonia Olschanezky was not eligible because she was locally recruited and was not a trained SOE agent. Although her bravery and her work for SOE was verified by Atkins and others for the same reason she was never honoured with medals or citations by either the British or French government.
Sonia Olschanezky is now listed on the Vera Atkins memorial seat at the National Memorial Arboretum in Staffordshire along with other Female SOE agents who never returned from France. The fir tree in the middle of the seat was grown from a seed found at Natzweiler concentration camp.
Alan Malcher 