Have just started reading the book "All the King's Men: The Truth Behind SOE's Greatest Wartime Disaster" by Robert Marshall.
To say that I am gobsmacked by the premise of the book is an understatement.
Marshall's premise is that Claude Dansey, deputy head of MI6, recruited and infiltrated Henri Déricourt, a known double agent, into the rival British wartime secret service, SOE. Dansey knew that Déricourt would pass onto German Intelligence all information relating to the SOE network in Europe. Dansey's aim was to destroy the SOE and thereby position MI6 as the premier Intelligence organisation of Britain.
Is this true? Or some writer's flight of fantasy? Seems like something Ian Fleming would dream up.
All The King's Men
-
- Host - Allied sections
- Posts: 10056
- Joined: 02 Sep 2006, 21:31
- Location: USA
Re: All The King's Men
I'd have to read the book, tho it might be one of those requiring me to bathe afterwards.
1. SOE was a direct action agency, primarily sabatouers, radio stations, small commando style actions. It had a intel gathering function as part of this, but was not a 'Intel Service'. This Dansey would have had to be a world class paranoid or a very over the top buercratic turf fighter to resort to this.
2. There were easier ways to win a turf battle like this, assuming there was one.
3. The Brits stood up the Double Cross system at the same time as Dansey was purportedly betraying SOE. Perhaps this Marshal overlooked that Dericourt was part of this?
The SOE did have some major disasters. The Abwehr was a able to play the SOE operation/s in the Netherlands for over a year. But, other operations were sucessfull. Is there any hint Marshal cherry picked the evidence to support his thesis here?
1. SOE was a direct action agency, primarily sabatouers, radio stations, small commando style actions. It had a intel gathering function as part of this, but was not a 'Intel Service'. This Dansey would have had to be a world class paranoid or a very over the top buercratic turf fighter to resort to this.
2. There were easier ways to win a turf battle like this, assuming there was one.
3. The Brits stood up the Double Cross system at the same time as Dansey was purportedly betraying SOE. Perhaps this Marshal overlooked that Dericourt was part of this?
The SOE did have some major disasters. The Abwehr was a able to play the SOE operation/s in the Netherlands for over a year. But, other operations were sucessfull. Is there any hint Marshal cherry picked the evidence to support his thesis here?
Re: All The King's Men
MI 6 was the overseas intelligence gathering organisation for the UK, while as Carl says SOE was a direct action organisation. There wasn't a "turf war" between the two over intelligence gathering.
There was, however, a more subtle clash. MI6 wanted the Germans in occupied Europe to feel relaxed and secure so that they would become lazy, more prone to lapses in security, more talkative, more trusting of the local population, and less suspicious. That is an environment that would assist its operatives in their task of gathering intelligence.
My understanding is that MI6 thought that SOE, with its saboteurs, etc was creating the opposite environment - one of suspicion, increased emphasis on security, less trust in the locals - which would make intelligence gathering more difficult.
I think it might be fair to say that MI6 thought that SOE would achieve little of real value while potentially harming intelligence gathering activities.
Like Carl, I can't see this as a sufficient reason to go to such extreme lengths to reduce SOE's activities. Battles in the Whitehall committee rooms but not outright betrayal.
Regards
John
There was, however, a more subtle clash. MI6 wanted the Germans in occupied Europe to feel relaxed and secure so that they would become lazy, more prone to lapses in security, more talkative, more trusting of the local population, and less suspicious. That is an environment that would assist its operatives in their task of gathering intelligence.
My understanding is that MI6 thought that SOE, with its saboteurs, etc was creating the opposite environment - one of suspicion, increased emphasis on security, less trust in the locals - which would make intelligence gathering more difficult.
I think it might be fair to say that MI6 thought that SOE would achieve little of real value while potentially harming intelligence gathering activities.
Like Carl, I can't see this as a sufficient reason to go to such extreme lengths to reduce SOE's activities. Battles in the Whitehall committee rooms but not outright betrayal.
Regards
John
Re: All The King's Men
Interesting views both, many thanks.
As I said, I have only just started reading the book, so will provide details once I get through it. I must admit that I am sceptical of the author's claim. Will be interesting to see what information he provides to support it.
As I said, I have only just started reading the book, so will provide details once I get through it. I must admit that I am sceptical of the author's claim. Will be interesting to see what information he provides to support it.