I think this series runs for all of this week (w/c 20 June). I am sure Monday and Tuesday episodes can be downloaded somewhere. I just want to give a heads-up on this series. It has been most interesting thus far. Regards, Jonathan S
Sorry, but I've found the first two rather annoying. Particularly their view of the collapse of the Prosper circuit, which they implied was all London's fault. Both programmes have concluded with unproven theories/allegations about people who are now dead and can't sue for libel. I'm not saying the facts as presented are untrue, but a lot of it seemed to be based on hearsay and/or assumptions.
Thanks your comments. My own view is that they offer information and allow you as the audience to evaluate the worth of that information in relation to certain events. With regard to finger of blame, then If I remember rightly in last night's episode Michael Foot went to lengths to say it wasn't all London's fault. Whilst the evidence that Leo Marks collated to prove at the time that the circuit had been compromised was quite compelling and difficult to understand why this was seemingly ignored. Both programmes have certainly been thought provoking and I think thats a good thing and stand by my recommendation. Regards, Jonathan S
The Prosper network was ultimately bound to fail: it had just got too big and at lower levels had too many contacts with other groups. There was also no mention of the probable treachery of Suttill or Norman - admittedly probably after torture - and (unless I missed it) not a word about Déricourt, who both Suttill and Agazarian had warned London about. As he's the subject of another programme in the series it will be interesting to see how they square that. Regarding N Section: Giskes was without doubt a master of counter-espionage and played the Englandspiel very well (read his book). London should probably have picked it up earlier, but whether that was complicity or just sheer incompetence we'll probably never know. I tend towards the latter. Looking at it from the other side, the Germans were just as convinced that they had functioning spy rings in Britain, thanks to the work of the XX Committee. Again, to be covered in another programme.
London should probably have picked it up earlier, but whether that was complicity or just sheer incompetence we'll probably never know. I tend towards the latter. Based on what I saw last night undoubtedly London should have picked it up almost immediately but as you say we shall probably never know whether it was sheer ncompetence or something more sinister. Regards, Jonathan S
The German CE service both Abwehr and SD was quite effective - many of the operatives used on penetration missions were naturally natives of the country concerned - ie French, Dutch Belgian etc. Much has been written on the Prosper collapse but it was more than likely the result of a good police action as much as treachery. Derricourt was probably playing a double or even triple game and I would recommend people to read The Chequered Spy by Jean Overton-Fuller in which his actions receive some explanation. The politics of resistance were very complex with the majority of the middle classes sitting firmly on the fence i not being accommodating to the Germans. I would recommend anyone with an interest in this period to watch the French documentary The Sorrow and the Pity which has interviews by the protagonists from all sides and some of the comments are truely moving by a resistance survivor of Buchenwald.
