So, how and why did PROSPER fall?

Life and Death in the French Resistance

In 2011 I interviewed the late Professor MRD (Michael) Foot – at Professor Matt Cobb’s urging (and facilitation if I recall) to ask him about some of the apparent mysteries swirling round about the nature of the relationship between SOE and MI6 during the war. Its an esoteric subject to some, but it was existential to many during the war, and in my view then (and now) it remains critical to our knowledge of how the Secret War was fought. In my research (the product of which was The Jail Busters, published in 2014, which is essentially a story about the French Resistance) I had encountered the accusations made against MI6 by people who believed that it directly and deliberately undermined SOE operations in France, possibly for nefarious reasons (there is a strong community of Claude Dansey haters out there). My analysis of the structures and relationships of the various secret organisations working to defeat Nazi hegemony in France is outlined in the book. Although Professor Foot was kind enough to confirm that I had described it all accurately, it remains that secret operations in France during the war were complex and complicated, such that its fairer to describe the French Resistance as ‘the resistance in France’. A really good evaluation of the whole story is told by Matt Cobb here.

But one issue above all others dominates current views of what went on in Occupied France between May 1940 and August 1944. This is whether parts of the British secret intelligence establishment deliberately sacrificed other parts, without their knowledge. One of several books that take this line is Robert Marshall’s All the King’s Men (please don’t buy this book!).

It seems remarkable to me just how many people want to believe that Marshall’s thesis is correct. Professor Foot was damning in his criticism of his arguments, telling me that ‘no SOE networks were ‘played’ for the purposes of deception’ and that ‘arguments against MI6 are sheer fantasy.’ The late great investigator of SOE’s secrets, Jean Overton Fuller, was equally dismissive of Marshall.

One of the key characters caught up in the controversy (what Foot declared to be a conspiracy theory) was Henri Déricourt, a French flyer who found his way to England in late 1942. He quickly (and strangely) fell into the arms of MI6 and SOE and was parachuted into France in early 1943 to take control of the nightly air movements by 161 Squadron RAF and others for all the intelligence agencies operating in France: SOE, MI6, the French BCRA and others. The Déricourt files, heavily redacted, were released to The National Archives in 2003. On Matt Cobb’s urging I began looking at them some years back and am currently writing book on the subject of this enigmatic man and his impact on security service – and SOE – operations in France during the war. I think I’ll call it something like Treachery: Henri Déricourt and the Unravelling of SOE.

When I told James Holland what I was studying he urged me to read a book published on the subject by Patrick Marnham, which had the juicy title War in the Shadows. It was published in 2020 to rave reviews. I’ve just finished it. I’m afraid to report that I don’t share people’s enthusiasm for what was otherwise a racy read. He’s a great writer and a fabulous researcher, but I fear his approach and conclusions are deeply dissatisfying. I have never met Marnham, the author of a previous book on Jean Moulin arguing that he was ‘burned’ for the purposes of Allied strategy. He is, or was, a barrister, and his new book is a case for the prosecution against a hidden establishment that allowed PROSPER to fail and its members be swept up into the Nacht und Nebel of the Nazi disappearance and death system. His approach is essentially to present a case in court, arraigning his facts in such a way that opposing facts are not given sufficient hearing. Gentle ad hominem criticisms of Professor MRD Foot are made  for the purpose of undermining Foot’s argument that no SOE networks were deliberately used for deception, and a range of non sequiturs are arraigned to show that the evidence demonstrates that Déricourt was being used at the very least as an active MI6 agent and at worst for the purpose of sacrificing PROSPER. Equally, the primary individual in MI6 determined to be responsible for the foul deeds of the organisation – Claude Dansey – is portrayed in a very one-sided way by Marnham to be the evil genius behind the destruction of PROSPER. In good adversarial court room fashion an alternative view of Dansey is not provided. We are meant to see him as the enemy.

This brief article isn’t going to be a review of Marnham’s book, but a brief criticism of his approach and findings, by setting out some alternative conclusions to the evidence he arraigns. He starts by suggesting that as Henri Déricourt’s recruitment was irregular it must be that he was also engaged by MI6 at the same time as he was being employed by SOE. There is in fact no evidence for this is. Was Henri Déricourt a double-agent, playing both sides, or was he merely a traitor handing what material he had to the Germans? Whose side was he really on: the British/Allied or the German? Its quite clear from all the evidence that Déricourt was in the pay of the Germans (captured German files after the fall of Paris in 1944 demonstrate this) but also that of SOE. In fact, on this latter point there isn’t actually a huge amount to be surprised at. The big reveal in 2003 demonstrated that Déricourt had a relationship of sorts with some other organisation, or person working in this organisation – which could only have been MI6 – a reality determined decades earlier by Déricourt’s biographer Jean Overton Fuller in her lengthy but fascinating 1989 book Déricourt: The Chequered Spy. The big question is: if (and its an ‘if’ I don’t believe) Déricourt was secretly working for MI6 whilst in the pay of SOE, what was he actually doing when he was in France? The men Foot called the conspiracy theorists are all certain to varying degrees that he was employed to bring down SOE. Marnham’s court room drama leads one inexorably to this conclusion, blaming the collapse of PROSPER in June 1943 on Déricourt and, by extension, his masters at MI6.

But I think that Marnham’s case is built on exaggerations, half-truths and non sequiturs, despite the book being brilliantly written. It’s a hard subject to draw knives out on as an historian, as so many brave people lost their lives in terrible circumstances fighting this foul, underground war, but I think their memories deserve a more balanced assessment of L’Affaire Déricourt than has been generally presented. This, I trust, is what my book in due course will do. Like an opposing barrister in Marnham’s court room, I’ll present the evidence in a different way to show an alternative set of possibilities for Déricourt, MI6 and PROSPER.

First, I’ll explain the possible role that Henri Déricourt was given by MI6. This may have been to exploit his extensive pre-war relationships with Abwehr agents in France. Double-agents are a priceless asset in war (and peace) and MI6 did everything it could to use them. The fact that he knew at least one of these men well was a virtue MI6 would have wanted to exploit.  I’ll show that Déricourt’s pre-war friend, Nicholas Bodington, second-in-command of the SOE (France) section (commanded by Maurice Buckmaster) was his MI6 handler. This seems clear from the 2003 big reveal in the National Archives. I’ll rehearse the various scenarios that MI6 would have come up with to justify his employment in the field while keeping his role secret from his colleagues in SOE, who would have been none-too-happy to know that they were working with a double-agent, a man who by definition could be their death warrant. I’ll look at the possibility that Déricourt was even permitted to ‘burn’ agents in the field if that were required to retain the support of his German employers. It’s a brutal ‘game’ (I use that word advisedly). Throughout this discussion we’ll keep in mind the accusation that Déricourt deliberately ‘burned’ PROSPER and ask ourselves why: who might have benefited from such an action? We need to be careful when we (even gently) level accusations of this kind. War is war, and things outside our control take place. We’ll look at all the evidence for and against employment by MI6, and then come to a ‘beyond reasonable' doubt’ conclusion.

Second, I’ll explain the role that MI6 played across Europe during the war, building up a variety of intelligence networks of astonishing complexity that directly resulted in the exposure of the V1 and V2 threats, and helped map the Atlantic Wall in preparation for D Day. This wider context for MI6 is important to show that it was far from being an organisation willing or wishing for the demise of its junior partner, SOE.

Third, I’ll demonstrate that in espionage and in war there are rarely binary determinants for events. Most issues have multiple causes. A primary one is, of course, human agency.

Fourth, I’ll present Claude Dansey in a slightly more positive manner, demonstrating just how prescient he was in setting up his Z organisation at the start of the war, and in deciding to base his European operations out of Geneva. These weren’t the judgements of an evil genius. He and his deputy – Kenneth Cohen – oversaw a remarkable organisation that contributed very significantly to the success in the war in Europe. It’s easy to criticise the SIS and yet at the same time lose sight of its extensive achievements. The role that Déricourt was expected to play in respect of D Day, and its 1943 precursor – Operation Starkey – will be developed.

Fifth, I’ll explain all the other reasons the failure of PROSPER. These aren’t always easy to accept, especially for families of those who died, but it’s important to understand that all secret organisations and their agents make mistakes and, for the new and immature SOE, these were many and various.

Finally, I’ll also develop a theme entirely neglected by Marnham, namely that the Germans, in the form of both the Abwehr and SD, were actively seeking to destroy Allied subversive operations in Europe. Could it be possible that the Germans had a say in the demise of PROSPER? Almost certainly.

Oh, and an advertisement. The wonderful Dr Kate Vigurs and I will be discussing PROSPER and its demise at the Chalke Valley History Festival at 10.30am on Wednesday 28 June 2023. Be there!