June 20, 2011 at 5:10 pm | Posted in Asia, Development, Economics, Financial, Globalization, History, Research | Leave a comment








Central bankers’ speeches for 17 and 20 June 2011 now available‏

Press, Service (

Press, Service (

Mon 6/20/11

Central bankers’ speeches for 20 June 2011

now available on the BIS website

Richard W Fisher: Containing (or restraining) systemic risk – the need to not fail on “too big to fail”

Deepak Mohanty: Wrap up and concluding remarks at the SAARCFINANCE Governors’ Symposium

Muhammad Al-Jasser: Diversifying sources of finance

Lim Hng Kiang: Towards a new era of growing connectivity between Asia and the Middle East

Jean-Claude Trichet: Interview with The Times

Central bankers’ speeches for 17 June 2011

now available on the BIS website

Glenn Stevens: Economic conditions and prospects

Mark Carney: Housing in Canada

Mervyn King: Monetary policy developments

Anand Sinha: Macroprudential policies – Indian experience

Daniel K Tarullo: Capital and liquidity standards

Inia Naiyaga: Engineers’ role in economic growth and financial stability

Jürgen Stark: Adjusting monetary policy in a challenging environment

All speeches from 1997 onwards are available from the BIS website at:


Bank for International Settlements



Phone: +41 61 280 8188

Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

Central bankers’ speeches for 17 and 20 June 2011 now available‏

Press, Service (

Press, Service (

Mon 6/20/11 



June 13, 2011 at 4:57 pm | Posted in Africa, Asia, Development, Earth, Ecology, Economics, Financial, Globalization, History, India, Third World, World-system | Leave a comment











New York, Jun 1 2011

World manufacturing output has grown by 6.5 per cent in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the same period last year, the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO) reported today.

“The figure clearly indicates the progress of the recovery of world industrial production from the recent financial crisis,” UNIDO “ said, in the first edition of its new plan to report industrial statistics quarterly. Formerly the presentations were annual.
The report, based on an analysis of quarterly production data, said developing countries were in the lead with their manufacturing production increasing by 11.5 per cent. The major contribution to this growth was by China, with its output growing by 15 per cent.

Newly industrialized countries also performed well, with Turkey displaying a growth rate of 13.8 per cent, while Mexico’s was estimated at 7.4 per cent and India’s at 5.1 per cent.

The manufacturing output of industrialized countries increased by 4.4 per cent during the named period, with strong growth of 7.1 per cent observed in the United States, the world’s largest manufacturer.

Major European economies, including France, Germany and the United Kingdom, also demonstrated significant growth in manufacturing output. But other European countries, such as Greece, witnessed a 6.9 per cent drop, while Portugal and Spain maintained a marginal growth of less than one per cent.

Japan’s figures fell by 2.4 per cent. The full impact of the March Tsunami disaster was not yet reflected in manufacturing production data for the first quarter.

Negative growth was observed in North Africa, where the manufacturing output of Egypt and Tunisia fell by 8.9 per cent and 7.4 per cent respectively.

The UNIDO report also contains the growth estimates for the first quarter by major manufacturing sectors. It suggests that production of general machinery has increased by more than 15 per cent, electrical machinery and apparatus by 12 per cent, and medical and precision equipment by 11 per cent.

While industrialized countries performed well in high-tech sectors, their growth in traditional manufacturing areas such as food and beverages, textile and wearing apparel was quite low. Developing countries maintained higher growth across all sectors.

Jun 1 2011

UN News Centre at



New York, Jun 1 2011



Wed, 1 Jun 2011

New York, Jun 1 2011


Unjustified cuts in aid to the poor during a financial crisis could violate human rights standards, and economic recovery must start with the most vulnerable, according to a United Nations human rights expert.

Magdalena Sepúlveda, the UN Independent Expert on human rights and extreme poverty, “ told a Human Rights Council meeting in Geneva that “unjustified reductions in expenditures devoted to implementing public services that are critical to the realization of economic, social and cultural rights will be in violation of human rights standards.

“There is no space in human rights for a trickle-down approach,” she said on Monday. “From a human rights perspective, recovery must start with the most vulnerable and disadvantaged.”

“Human rights are not expendable during times of crises and recovery. Even when resources are limited, States are legally bound to respect, protect and fulfil international human rights obligations,” Ms. Sepúlveda said. “The challenge of recovering from the global economic and financial crises is an opportunity to embrace a vision for the future aimed at the full realization of human rights.”

The independent expert said that several recovery measures adopted by States in the aftermath of the crises seriously jeopardize the enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights by the poorest and most vulnerable groups.

“Austerity measures such as cuts to social protection systems, regressive taxation measures, and elimination of food subsidies are proving detrimental to the poorest of the poor, exacerbating their already precarious situation,” Ms. Sepúlveda said.

Increasing inequalities and food insecurity, the declining availability of natural resources and unpredictable changes to climate patterns are likely to increase the potential for social unrest throughout the world, she said.

“Any recovery plan must anticipate these challenges and assume that there will be many more crises to recover from,” she said. “Only human rights-based change can directly address the long-term structural barriers to equality and set the foundations for a sustainable, socially inclusive society.”

Ms. Sepúlveda urged States to view the challenge of recovery as a unique opportunity to aim towards the full realization of all economic, social and cultural rights for all individuals.

“Through a human rights-based recovery, States have the chance to embrace new and ambitious approaches to reducing inequality, eliminating poverty and creating stable societies that will withstand future shocks.”

The expert’s report outlines a number of innovative measures to which States should lend serious consideration when formulating their economic recovery, including implementing a comprehensive social protection floor, adopting socially responsible taxation policies, and enhancing regulation that protects individuals from abuse.

Ms Sepúlveda, who serves in an unpaid and independent capacity, reports to the Human Rights Council. She has been in the current post since May 2008.
Jun 1 2011

UN News Centre at


UN News Centre at


Wed, 1 Jun 2011


New York, Jun 1 2011

United Nations officials today called for boosting support for sustainable agriculture, including smallholder farmers, as a way to drive green growth and reduce poverty.

According to the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), the challenge of feeding more than nine billion people by 2050, along with tackling climate change and maintaining productive land and sufficient water resources require a “more intelligent pathway” for managing the world’s agricultural systems.

“Agriculture is at the centre of a transition to a resource-efficient, low-carbon Green Economy,” “ said UNEP Executive Director Achim Steiner. “The challenge is to feed a growing global population without pushing humanity’s footprint beyond planetary boundaries.”

Mr. Steiner called for galvanizing support for smallholder farmers, who are an “untapped resource” in addressing food security and today’s environmental challenges.

Investments through official development assistance (ODA) are one way of stepping up support for this important group, as is scaling-up and accelerating government policies for unleashing investment flows from the private sector, he noted.

“Well-managed, sustainable agriculture can not only overcome hunger and poverty, but can address other challenges from climate change to the loss of biodiversity,” said the UNEP chief.

“Its value and its contribution to multiple economic, environmental and societal goals needs to be recognized in the income and employment prospects for the half a million smallholdings across the globe,” he added.

The world’s rural poor and especially farmers of the 500 million smallholdings in developing countries feed one-third of the global population and account for 60 per cent of global agriculture.

Smallholder farmers also provide up to 80 per cent of the food consumed in Asia and in sub-Saharan Africa.

“Smallholders in developing countries – the majority of them women – manage to feed 2 billion people, despite working on ecologically and climatically precarious land, with difficult or no access to infrastructure and institutional services, and often lacking land tenure rights that farmers in developed countries take for granted,” said Kanayo F. Nwanze, President of IFAD.

“Right now, we are squandering the potential of rural poor people to contribute to global prosperity. Investing in sustainable smallholder agriculture is a smart way to right this wrong,” he stated.

IFAD also stressed that investments in sustainable smallholder agriculture must go hand-in-hand with policy and institutional reforms, investments in infrastructure and improvements in market access. They must also be informed by the knowledge and needs of the rural poor.

On 5 June, UNEP will celebrate World Environment Day (WED) in India with one of the fastest growing economies in the world and whose 1.2 billion people continue to put pressure on land and forests, especially in densely populated areas where people are cultivating on marginal lands and where overgrazing is contributing to desertification.

This year’s theme – ‘Forests: Nature at Your Service’ – underscores the intrinsic link between quality of life and the health of forests and forest ecosystems.

Jun 1 2011


New York, Jun 1 2011

UN News Centre at


New York, Jun 1 2011 



June 12, 2011 at 2:43 am | Posted in Art, Asia, Film, History, Japan | Leave a comment










One of the topics discussed casually in the Japanese movie, “Still Walking” is the status and condition of the art treasures of the Takamats-zuka Tomb and “Asuka Beauty,” one of the murals.

Still Walking (歩いても 歩いても Aruitemo aruitemo) is a 2008 Japanese film directed by Hirokazu Kore-eda. The film is a portrait of a family over roughly 24 hours as they commemorate the death of one member.


The Yokoyama family are briefly reunited to commemorate the death of the eldest son, Junpei, who drowned accidentally 12 years ago. His retired doctor father Kyohei and mother Toshiko are joined by surviving son Ryota, daughter Chinami and their respective families. The family share nostalgia, humour, sadness and tension as memories are shared and ceremonies performed.



In a Chicago Sun-Times review, Roger Ebert gave Still Walking four stars (out of four). Ebert’s review argues that director Kore-eda is an heir of Yasujiro Ozu.[1]


  1. 1.                              Ebert, Roger (26 August 2009). “Still Walking”. Chicago Sun-Times. Retrieved 13 November 2010.

Takamatsuzuka Tomb

The Takamatsuzuka Tomb (高松塚古墳 Takamatsuzuka Kofun) or “Tall Pine Tree Ancient Burial Mound” in Japanese is an ancient circular tomb in Asuka village, Nara prefecture, Japan.

The tomb is thought to have been built at some time between the end of the 7th century and the beginning of the 8th century. It was accidentally discovered by a local farmer in the 1960s.

The mound of the tomb was built of alternating layers of clay and sand. It is about 16 meters in diameter and 5 meters high. Digging yielded a burial chamber with painted fresco wall paintings of courtiers in Goguryeo-style garb. The paintings are in full color with red, blue, gold, and silver foil representing four male followers and four abigails together with the Azure Dragon, Black Tortoise, White Tiger, and Vermilion Bird groups of stars. The paintings are designated as a national treasure of Japan.

For whom the tomb was built is unknown, but the decorations suggest it is for a member of the Japanese royal family or a high-ranking nobleman. Candidates include:

  1. 1.     Prince Osakabe (? – 705), a son of Emperor Temmu
  2. 2.     Prince Yuge (? – 699), also a son of Emperor Temmu
  3. 3.     Prince Takechi (654? – 696), also a son of Emperor Temmu, general of Jinshin War, Daijō Daijin
  4. 4.     Isonokami Ason Maro (640 – 717), a descendant of Mononobe clan and in charge of Fujiwara-kyo after the capital was moved to Heijo-kyo
  5. 5.     Kudara no Konikishi Zenko (617-700), a son of the last king of Baekje, one of the Three Kingdoms of Korea.


The Cultural Affairs Agency of Japan is considering taking apart the stone chamber and reassembling it elsewhere to prevent further deterioration to its wall paintings. A painting called Asuka Bijin, or “beautiful women”, is one of the murals in the tomb facing deterioration. The unusual preservation method is being considered because the tomb’s current situation makes it impossible to prevent further damage and stop the spread of mold.

Unlike the Kitora Tomb, also in Asuka, removing pieces of the Takamatsuzuka wall plaster and reinforcing them for conservation appears difficult because the plaster has numerous tiny cracks.

Directed by Hirokazu Koreeda

Written by Hirokazu Koreeda

Starring Hiroshi Abe Yui Natsukawa

You Music by Gontiti

Cinematography Yutaka Yamasaki

Editing by Hirokazu Koreeda

Release date(s)

June 28, 2008 (Japan)
August 28, 2009 (USA)

Running time 114 minutes

Country Japan

Language Japanese



June 8, 2011 at 8:50 pm | Posted in Asia, Books, Globalization, History | Leave a comment










Bare Branches:

The Security Implications of Asia’s Surplus Male Population

(Belfer Center Studies in International Security)

Valerie M. Hudson (Author), Andrea M. den Boer (Author)

Editorial Reviews


Winner of the 2004 Otis Dudley Duncan Award presented by the Sociology of Population section of the American Sociological Association (ASA)
Winner in the category of Government & Political Science in the 2004 Professional/Scholarly Publishing Annual Awards Competition presented by the Association of American Publishers, Inc.

Product Description

What happens to a society that has too many men? In this provocative book, Valerie Hudson and Andrea den Boer argue that, historically, high male-to-female ratios often trigger domestic and international violence. Most violent crime is committed by young unmarried males who lack stable social bonds. Although there is not always a direct cause-and-effect relationship, these surplus men often play a crucial role in making violence prevalent within society. Governments sometimes respond to this problem by enlisting young surplus males in military campaigns and high-risk public works projects. Countries with high male-to-female ratios also tend to develop authoritarian political systems.

Hudson and den Boer suggest that the sex ratios of many Asian countries, particularly China and India — which represent almost 40 percent of the world’s population — are being skewed in favor of males on a scale that may be unprecedented in human history.

Through offspring sex selection (often in the form of sex-selective abortion and female infanticide), these countries are acquiring a disproportionate number of low-status young adult males, called “bare branches” by the Chinese.

Hudson and den Boer argue that this surplus male population in Asia’s largest countries threatens domestic stability and international security. The prospects for peace and democracy are dimmed by the growth of bare branches in China and India, and, they maintain, the sex ratios of these countries will have global implications in the twenty-first century.

Product Details:

  • Hardcover: 400 pages
  • Publisher: The MIT Press
  • May 7, 2004
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0262083256
  • ISBN-13: 978-0262083256



May 24, 2011 at 9:26 am | Posted in Art, Asia, Books, India, Literary | Leave a comment









The Hungry Stones

and Other Stories

By Rabindranath Tagore

Translated from the original Bengali by various writers

New York: The Macmillan Company, 1916


THE stories contained in this volume were translated by several hands. The version of The Victory is the author’s own work. The seven stories which follow it were translated by Mr. C. F. Andrews, with the author’s help. Assistance has also been given by the Rev. E. J. Thompson, Panna Lal Basu, Prabhat Kumar Mukerji, and the Sister Nivedita.




May 21, 2011 at 9:52 pm | Posted in Asia, Books, History, India, Military, United Kingdom | Leave a comment










The current book “His Majesty’s Opponent” by Professor Sugata Bose mentions the plot to assassinate Subhas Chandra Bose by the British SOE.

A component of the SOE is Force 136 located in Ceylon who play a key role in the 1957 movie, “Bridge on the River Kwai.” In the movie this commando unit is called Force 316.

His Majesty’s Opponent:

Subhas Chandra Bose and India’s Struggle against Empire

Sugata Bose (Author)

Editorial Reviews


Subhas Chandra Bose was perhaps the most enigmatic of the great Indian leaders fighting for independence in the twentieth century. This wonderful book makes a major contribution to the understanding of the political, social and moral commitments of Netaji, the great leader, as he was called by his contemporaries.
–Amartya Sen, author of The Idea of Justice

Larger than life, more profoundly intriguing than the myths that surround him, Subhas Chandra Bose was India’s greatest ‘lost’ leader. In a remarkable narrative that pairs political passion with historical precision, Sugata Bose has beautifully explored the character and charisma of the man, while providing an elegant and incisive account of one of the most important phases of the struggle for Indian independence.
–Homi K. Bhabha, author of The Location of Culture

This is a definitive biography of  Subhas Chandra Bose, written by the person most qualified to do so. It is an epic tale, told in an epic manner.
–Dr. Tim Harper, author of Forgotten Wars: Freedom and Revolution in Southeast Asia

This remarkable book places Subhas Chandra Bose fully in the context of Indian and world history. It should be read by everyone interested in the end of the British Empire.
–Arjun Appadurai, New York University

Product Description

The man whom Indian nationalists perceived as the “George Washington of India” and who was President of the Indian National Congress in 1938–1939 is a legendary figure. Called Netaji (“leader”) by his countrymen, Subhas Chandra Bose struggled all his life to liberate his people from British rule and, in pursuit of that goal, raised and led the Indian National Army against Allied Forces during World War II. His patriotism, as Gandhi asserted, was second to none, but his actions aroused controversy in India and condemnation in the West.

Now, in a definitive biography of the revered Indian nationalist, Sugata Bose deftly explores a charismatic personality whose public and private life encapsulated the contradictions of world history in the first half of the twentieth century. He brilliantly evokes Netaji’s formation in the intellectual milieu of Calcutta and Cambridge, probes his thoughts and relations during years of exile, and analyzes his ascent to the peak of nationalist politics. Amidst riveting accounts of imprisonment and travels, we glimpse the profundity of his struggle: to unite Hindu and Muslim, men and women, and diverse linguistic groups within a single independent Indian nation. Finally, an authoritative account of his untimely death in a plane crash will put to rest rumors about the fate of this “deathless hero.”

This epic of a life larger than its legend is both intimate, based on family archives, and global in significance. His Majesty’s Opponent establishes Bose among the giants of Indian and world history.

Product Details

  • Hardcover: 448 pages
  • Publisher: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press
  • May 1, 2011
  • Language: English
  • ISBN-10: 0674047540
  • ISBN-13: 978-0674047549

Special Operations Executive

Special Operations Executive Active 22 July 1940 – 15 January 1946

Country United Kingdom

Allegiance Western Allies

Role irregular warfare

Size Approximately 13,000

Nickname The Baker Street Irregulars


Notable commanders:

Frank Nelson
Charles Jocelyn Hambro
Colin Gubbins

The Special Operations Executive (SOE) was a World War II organization of the United Kingdom. It was officially formed by Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Minister of Economic Warfare Hugh Dalton on 22 July 1940, to conduct warfare against the Axis powers by means other than direct military engagement. On its formation, it was ordered by Churchill to “set Europe ablaze”. Its mission was to encourage and facilitate espionage and sabotage behind enemy lines and in its early days, to serve as the core of the Auxiliary Units, a British resistance movement which would act in case of a German invasion of Britain.

Being a clandestine organization, few people were openly aware of its existence. To those who were part of it or liaised with it, it was sometimes referred to as “the Baker Street Irregulars, after the location of its London headquarters. It was also known as “Churchill’s Secret Army” or “The Ministry of Ungentlemanly Warfare”. For security purposes, various branches and sometimes the organization as a whole, were concealed behind names such as the Joint Technical Board or the Inter-Service Research Bureau.

SOE operated in all countries or former countries occupied by or attacked by the Axis forces, except where demarcation lines were agreed with Britain’s principal allies (the Soviet Union and the United States of America). It also made use of neutral territory on occasion, or made plans and preparations in case neutral countries were attacked by the Axis. The organization directly employed or controlled just over 13,000 people, about 3,200 of whom were women.[1] It is estimated that SOE supported or supplied about 1,000,000 operatives worldwide.



The organization was formed from the merger of three existing secret departments, which had been formed shortly before the outbreak of the Second World War. Immediately after Germany annexed Austria (the Anschluss) in March 1938, the Foreign Office created a propaganda organisation known as Department EH (after Electra House, its headquarters), run by Canadian newspaper magnate Sir Campbell Stuart. Later that month, the Secret Intelligence Service (SIS, also known as MI6) formed a section known as Section D, under Major Lawrence Grand, to investigate the use of sabotage, propaganda and other irregular means to weaken an enemy. In the autumn of the same year, the War Office set up a department, nominally for the purpose of research into guerrilla warfare and known initially as GS (R), headed by Major J. C. Holland. GS (R) was renamed MI R in early 1939.

These three departments worked with few resources until the outbreak of war. There was much overlap between their activities and Section D and EH duplicated much of each others’ work. On the other hand, Section D and MI R shared information. Their heads were both officers of the Royal Engineers and knew each other.[2] They agreed a rough division of their activities; MI R researched irregular operations which could be undertaken by regular uniformed troops, while Section D dealt with truly undercover work.[2]

During the early months of the war, Section D was based at the Metropole Hotel in London.[3] The Section attempted unsuccessfully to sabotage deliveries of vital strategic materials to Germany from neutral countries by mining the Iron Gate on the River Danube.[4] MI R meanwhile produced pamphlets and technical handbooks for guerrilla leaders. MI R was also involved in the formation of the Independent Companies, autonomous units formed from within second-line Territorial Army divisions which were intended for sabotage and guerrilla operations behind enemy lines and which later developed into the British Commandos; and the Auxiliary Units, stay-behind resistance groups which would act in the event of an Axis invasion of Britain, as seemed possible in the early years of the war.[5]


On 13 June 1940, at the instigation of newly-appointed Prime Minister Winston Churchill, Lord Hankey (who held the Cabinet post of Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster) persuaded Section D and MI R that their operations should be coordinated. On 1 July, a Cabinet level meeting arranged the formation of a single sabotage organisation. On 16 July, Hugh Dalton, the Minister of Economic Warfare, was appointed to take political responsibility for the new organisation, which was formally created on 22 July. Dalton used the Irish Republican Army (IRA) during the Irish war of Independence as a model for the organisation.[6][7][8] One department of MI R, MI R(C), which was involved in the development of weapons for irregular warfare, was not integrated into the SOE but became an independent body codenamed MD1. (It was nicknamed “Churchill’s Toyshop” from the Prime Minister’s close interest in it and his enthusiastic support.) Majors Grand and Holland both returned to service in the regular army and Campbell Stuart left the organisation.


The Director of SOE was usually referred to by the initials “CD”. The first Director to be appointed was Sir Frank Nelson, a former head of a trading firm in India, a back bench Conservative Member of Parliament and Consul in Bern.

Dalton was replaced as Minister of Economic Warfare by Lord Selborne in February 1942. Selborne in turn retired Nelson, who had suffered ill health as a result of his hard work, and appointed Sir Charles Hambro, head of the English banking firm Hambro’s to replace him. Hambro had been a close friend of Churchill’s before the war and had won the Military Cross in the First World War. Selborne also transferred Gladwyn Jebb who, as one of Dalton’s senior civil servants had run the Ministry’s day-to-day dealings with SOE, back to the Foreign Office.[9]

Selborne and Hambro cooperated closely until August 1943, when they fell out over the question of whether SOE should remain a separate body or coordinate its operations with those of the British Army in several theatres of war. Hambro felt that this loss of control would cause a number of problems for SOE in the future. At the same time, Hambro was found to have failed to pass on vital information to Selborne. He was dismissed as Director, and became head of a raw materials purchasing commission in Washington, D.C., which was involved in the exchange of nuclear information.[10]

Major General Colin McVean Gubbins, Director of SOE from August 1943

As part of the subsequent closer ties between the Imperial General Staff and SOE, Hambro’s replacement as Director from September 1943 was the former Deputy Director, Major General Colin Gubbins. Gubbins had wide experience of commando and clandestine operations and had played a major part in MI R’s early operations. He also put in practice many of the lessons he learned from the IRA during the Irish war of independence.[6]


The organization of SOE continually evolved and changed during the war. Initially, it consisted of three broad departments: SO1, which dealt with propaganda; SO2 (Operations); and SO3 (Research). SO3 was quickly overloaded with paperwork[11] and was merged into SO2. In August 1941, following quarrels between the Ministry of Economic Warfare and the Ministry of Information over their relative responsibilities, SO1 was removed from SOE and became an independent organization, the Political Warfare Executive.[12]

Thereafter there was a single, broad “Operations” department which controlled the Sections operating into enemy and sometimes neutral territory, and the selection and training of agents. Operations were controlled by Sections, each assigned to a single country. Some enemy-occupied countries had two or more sections assigned to deal with politically disparate resistance movements. (France had no less than six).

Four departments and some smaller groups were controlled by the Director of Scientific Research, and were concerned with the development or acquisition and production of special equipment.[13] A few other sections were involved with economic research and administration, although SOE had no central registry or filing system.

The Director of SOE had either a Deputy from the Army, or (once Gubbins became Director) an Army officer as Chief of Staff. The main controlling body of SOE was its Council, consisting of around fifteen heads of departments or sections. About half were from the armed forces (although some were specialists who were only commissioned after the outbreak of war), the rest were various civil servants, lawyers, or business or industrial experts.

Several subsidiary SOE headquarters and stations were set up to manage operations which were too distant for London to control directly. SOE’s operations in the Middle East and Balkans were controlled from a headquarters in Cairo, which was notorious for poor security, infighting and conflicts with other agencies. It finally became known in April 1944 as Special Operations (Mediterranean), or SO(M). A subsidiary headquarters initially known as “Force 133” was later set up in Bari in Southern Italy under the Cairo headquarters to control operations in the Balkans.[14] There was also a station near Algiers, established in late 1942 and codenamed “Massingham”, which operated into Southern France.

An SOE station, which was first called the India Mission, and was subsequently known as GS I(k) was set up in India late in 1940. It subsequently moved to Ceylon and became known as Force 136. A Singapore Mission was set up at the same time as the India Mission but was unable to overcome official opposition to its attempts to form resistance movements in Malaya before the Japanese overran Singapore. Force 136 took over its surviving staff and operations.

There was also a branch office in New York, formally titled British Security Coordination, and headed by the Canadian businessman Sir William Stephenson. This branch office, located at Room 3603, 630, Fifth Avenue, Rockefeller Center, coordinated the work of SIS and MI5 with the American Federal Bureau of Investigation and Office of Strategic Services.


SOE cooperated fairly well with Combined Operations Headquarters during the middle years of the war, usually on technical matters as SOE’s equipment was readily adopted by commandos and other raiders. This support was lost when Vice Admiral Louis Mountbatten left Combined Operations, though by this time SOE had its own transport and had no need to rely on Combined Operations for resources. On the other hand, the Admiralty objected to SOE developing its own underwater vessels, and the duplication of effort this involved.[15]

SOE’s relationships with the Foreign Office and with SIS, which the Foreign Office controlled, were usually more difficult. Where SIS preferred placid conditions in which it could gather intelligence and work through influential persons or authorities, SOE promised turbulent conditions and often backed anti-establishment organisations, such as the Communists, in several countries. At one stage, SIS actively hindered SOE’s attempts to infiltrate agents into enemy-occupied France.[16]

SOE’s activities in enemy-occupied territories also brought it into conflict with the Foreign Office on several occasions, as various governments in exile protested at operations taking place without their knowledge or approval, which sometimes resulted in Axis reprisals against civilian populations. SOE nevertheless generally adhered to the rule, “No bangs without Foreign Office approval.”[17]


Towards the end of the war, Lord Selborne advocated keeping SOE, or a similar body, in being. He proposed that the organisation could be useful against “the Russian menace” and “the smouldering volcanoes of the Middle East”,[18] and that it would report to the Ministry of Defence. The Foreign Secretary, Anthony Eden, insisted that his ministry, already responsible for MI6, should control SOE or its successors. Selborne retorted that “To have SOE run by the Foreign Office would be like inviting an abbess to supervise a brothel.”[18] Churchill took no decision, and after he lost the general election in 1945, the matter was dealt with by the Labour Prime Minister, Clement Attlee.

Selborne told Attlee that SOE still possessed a worldwide network of clandestine radio networks and sympathisers. Attlee replied that he had no wish to own a British Comintern, and closed Selborne’s network down at 48 hours’ notice.[19] SOE was dissolved officially on 15 January 1946. Most of its personnel reverted to their peacetime occupations (or regular service in the armed forces), but 280 personnel were taken into the “Special Operations Branch” of MI6. Some of these had served as agents in the field, but MI6 was most interested in SOE’s training and research staff.[20] Sir Stewart Menzies, the head of MI6 (who was generally known simply as “C”) soon decided that a separate branch was unsound, and merged it into the general body of MI6.[20]


List of SOE establishments

SOE maintained a large number of training, research and development or administrative centres. It was a joke that “SOE” stood for “Stately ‘omes of England”, after the large number of country houses and estates it requisitioned and used.

After working from temporary offices in Central London, the headquarters of SOE was moved on 31 October 1940 into 64 Baker Street (hence the nickname “the Baker Street Irregulars). Ultimately, SOE occupied much of the western side of Baker Street.

Another important London base was Aston House, where weapons and tactics research were conducted. However, the main weapons and devices research was carried out by two establishments; The Firs, near Aylesbury in Buckinghamshire, and Station IX at The Frythe, a former hotel outside Welwyn Garden City where, under the cover name of ISRB (Inter Services Research Bureau), SOE developed radios, weapons, explosive devices and booby traps.

Station XV, at the Thatched Barn near Borehamwood, was devoted to camouflage, which usually meant equipping agents with authentic local clothing, equipment. Various sub-stations in London, and Station XIV near Roydon in Essex which specialised in forgery of identity papers, rations books and so on, were also involved in this task.

The initial training centres of the SOE were at country houses such as Wanborough Manor, Guildford. Agents destined to serve in the field underwent commando training at Arisaig in Scotland, where they were taught armed and unarmed combat skills by William E. Fairbairn and Eric A. Sykes, former Inspectors in the Shanghai Municipal Police. They then attended courses in security and “tradecraft” at Group B schools around Beaulieu in Hampshire. Finally, they received specialist training in skills such as demolition techniques or Morse code telegraphy at various country houses in England and parachute training (if necessary) by STS 51 and 51a situated near Altrincham, Cheshire with the assistance of No.1 Parachute Training School RAF,[21] at RAF Ringway (later Manchester Airport).

A commando training centre similar to Arisaig was later set up at Oshawa, for Canadian members of SOE and members of the American organisation, the Office of Strategic Services.[22]


A variety of people from all classes and pre-war occupations served SOE in the field. In most cases, the primary quality required was a deep knowledge of the country in which the agent was to operate, and especially its language, if the agent was to pass as a native of the country. Dual nationality was often a prized attribute. This was particularly so of France. Many of the agents in F Section were of working class origin (some even reputedly from the criminal underworld).

In other cases, especially in the Balkans, a lesser degree of fluency was required as the resistance groups concerned were already in open rebellion and a clandestine existence was unnecessary. A flair for diplomacy combined with a taste for rough soldiering was more necessary. Some regular army officers proved adept as envoys, although others (such as the former diplomat Fitzroy Maclean or the classicist Christopher Woodhouse) were commissioned only during wartime.

Exiled or escaped members of the armed forces of some occupied countries were obvious sources of agents. This was particularly true of Norway and Holland. In other cases (such as Frenchmen owing loyalty to Charles de Gaulle and especially the Poles), the agents’ first loyalty was to their leaders or governments in exile, and they treated SOE only as a means to an end. This could occasionally lead to mistrust and strained relations in Britain.

SOE employed many Canadians; the Canadian government recruited Canadian volunteers for clandestine service to either SOE or MI9.

SOE was prepared to ignore almost any contemporary social convention in its fight against the Axis. It employed known homosexuals,[23] people with criminal records or bad conduct records in the armed forces, Communists, anti-British nationalists etc. Although some of these might have been considered a security risk, there is practically no known case of an SOE agent wholeheartedly going over to the enemy.


Most of the resistance networks which SOE formed or liaised with were controlled by radio directly from Britain or one of SOE’s subsidiary headquarters. The main transmitting and receiving stations in Britain were at Grendon Underwood and Poundon, both in Buckinghamshire (and near the SIS-controlled Bletchley Park; the location and topography were suitable for all three sites).[24] All resistance circuits contained at least one wireless operator, and except for early exploratory missions sent “blind” into enemy-occupied territory, all drops or landings were arranged by radio.

This made SOE highly dependent upon the security of radio transmissions. There were three factors involved in this: the physical qualities and capabilities of the radio sets, the security of the transmission procedures and the provision of proper ciphers.

SOE’s first radios were supplied by SIS. They were large, clumsy and required large amounts of power. SOE acquired a few, much more suitable, sets from the Poles in exile, but eventually designed and manufactured their own, such as the Paraset. Some of these, together with their batteries, weighed only 9 pounds (4.1 kg), and could fit into a small attache case, although larger sets were required to work over ranges greater than about 500 miles (800 km).[25]

Operating procedures were insecure at first. Operators were forced to transmit verbose messages on fixed frequencies and at fixed times and intervals. This allowed German direction finding teams time to triangulate their positions. After several operators were captured or killed, procedures were made more flexible and secure.[26] The SOE wireless operators were also known as “The Pianists”.[citation needed]

As with their first radio sets, SOE’s first ciphers were inherited from SIS. Leo Marks, SOE’s chief cryptographer, was responsible for the development of better codes to replace the insecure poem codes. Eventually, SOE settled on single use ciphers, printed on silk. Unlike paper, which would be given away by rustling, silk would not be detected by a casual search if it was concealed in the lining of clothing.

The BBC also played its part in communications with agents or groups in the field. During the war, it broadcast to almost all Axis-occupied countries, and was avidly listened to, even at risk of arrest. The BBC included various “personal messages” in its broadcasts, which could include lines of poetry or apparently nonsensical items. They could be used, for example, to announce the safe arrival of an agent or message in London, or be instructions to carry out operations on a given date.[27]

In the field, agents could sometimes make use of the postal services, though these were slow, not always reliable and letters were almost certain to be opened and read by the Axis security services. In training, agents were taught to use a variety of easily-available substances to make invisible ink, though most of these could be detected by a cursory examination, or to hide coded messages in apparently innocent letters. The telephone services were even more certain to be intercepted and listened to by the enemy, and could be used only with great care.

The most secure method of communication in the field was by courier. In the earlier part of the war, most women sent as agents in the field were employed as couriers, on the assumption that they would be less likely to be suspected of illicit activities.[28]


SOE was forced by circumstances to develop a wide range of equipment for clandestine use. Among products developed at Station IX were a miniature folding motorbike (the Welbike) for use by parachutists, a silenced pistol (the Welrod) and several miniature submersible craft (the Welman submarine and Sleeping Beauty). A sea trials unit was set up in West Wales at Goodwick, by Fishguard (station IXa) where these craft were tested. In late 1944 craft were dispatched to Australia to the Allied Intelligence Bureau (SRD), for tropical testing.[29]

Although SOE used some silenced assassination weapons such as the Welrod and the De Lisle carbine, it took the view that weapons issued to resisters should not require extensive training or care. The crude and cheap Sten was a favourite. For issue to large forces such as the Yugoslav Partisans, SOE used captured German or Italian weapons. These were available in large quantities after the surrender of Italy, and the partisans could acquire ammunition for these weapons (and the Sten) from enemy sources. Most agents received training on captured enemy weapons before being sent into enemy-occupied territory. Ordinary SOE agents were also armed with hand guns acquired abroad, such as a variety of US pistols since 1941, and a large quantity of the Spanish Llama .38 ACP in 1944. Even a consignment of 8,000 Ballester-Molina .45 caliber were purchased from Argentina, apparently with the mediation of USA.[30]

SOE also adhered to the principle that resistance fighters would be handicapped rather than helped by heavy equipment such as mortars or anti-tank guns. These were awkward to transport, almost impossible to conceal and required much training in their use. Later in the war however, when the resistance groups staged open rebellions against enemy occupation, some heavy weapons were dispatched, for example to the Maquis du Vercors.

SOE developed a wide range of explosive devices for sabotage, such as limpet mines, shaped charges and time fuses. These were later also used by commando units. SOE pioneered the use of plastic explosive. (The term “plastique” comes from SOE packaged plastic explosive originally destined for France but taken to the United States instead.) It was used in everything from car bombs, to exploding rats designed to destroy coal fired boilers.[31] Other, more subtle sabotage methods included lubricants laced with grinding materials, incendiaries disguised as innocuous objects and so on.

SOE developed crossbows powered by multiple rubber bands to shoot incendiary bolts. There were two types, known as “Big Joe” and “Lil Joe” respectively. They had tubular alloy skeleton “stocks” and were designed to be collapsible for ease of concealment. Some of the other more imaginative devices invented by SOE included exploding pens with enough explosive power to blast a hole in the bearer’s body, guns concealed in pipes, explosive material concealed in coal piles to destroy locomotives and land mines disguised as cow or elephant dung. For specialised operations or use in extreme circumstances, SOE issued small fighting knives which could be concealed in the heel of a hard leather shoe or behind a coat lapel. Given the likely fate of agents captured by the Gestapo, SOE also disguised suicide pills as coat buttons.

Some devices were designed specifically to mark landing strips and dropping zones. Such sites could be marked by an agent on the ground with bonfires or bicycle lamps, but required good visibility, not only for the pilot of an aircraft to spot the ground signals, but also to navigate by landmarks to correct dead reckoning. Many landings or drops were thwarted by poor weather. A device later used by SOE and also by the Allied airborne forces was the Rebecca/Eureka transponding radar, which could allow an aircraft to home in on a point on the ground even in thick weather. However, it was difficult to carry or conceal. SOE developed the S-Phone, which allowed an aircrew or pilot to communicate by voice with the “reception committee”. It was clear enough for voices to be recognisable; a mission could be aborted if there was any doubt of an agent’s identity.[32]


With the continent of Europe closed to normal travel, SOE had to rely on its own air or sea transport for movement of people, arms and equipment.

Air Marshal Harris (“Bomber Harris”), the Commander-in-Chief of Bomber Command, resented the diversion of bombers to SOE purposes (or indeed any purposes other than the offensive against German cities), but he was overruled and by April 1942, SOE had the services of 138 and 161 squadrons at RAF Tempsford.[33]

The aircraft used by SOE included the Westland Lysander, which could carry up to three passengers and two panniers loaded with stores, and had an effective range of 700 miles (1,100 km). It could use rough landing strips only 400 yards (370 m) in length, or even less. Lysanders were used to transport 101 agents to and 128 agents from Nazi-occupied Europe.[34] The Lockheed Hudson had a range 200 miles (320 km) greater and could carry more passengers (ten or more), but required landing strips twice as long as those needed for the Lysander.

To deliver agents and stores by parachute, SOE could use several aircraft originally designed as bombers: the Armstrong Whitworth Whitley until November 1942, the Handley Page Halifax and the Short Stirling. The Stirling could carry a particularly large load, but only the Halifax had the range to reach dropping zones in Poland (and even then, only from bases in Southern Italy).[35] Later in the war, SOE also used the American-designed C47, which was often landed at airfields in territory held by partisans in the Balkans.

Stores were usually parachuted in cylindrical containers. The “C” type was 69 inches (180 cm) long and when fully loaded could weigh up to 224 pounds (102 kg). The “H” type was the same size overall but could be broken down into five smaller sections. This made it easier to carry and conceal but made it impossible to carry long loads such as rifles. Some stores such as boots and blankets were “free-dropped” i.e. simply thrown out of the aircraft bundled together without a parachute, often to the hazard of any receiving committee on the ground.[36]

SOE also experienced difficulties with the Royal Navy, which also was usually unwilling to allow SOE to use its submarines or motor torpedo boats to deliver agents or equipment. Submarines were regarded as too valuable to risk within range of enemy coastal defences, and MTBs were in any case often too noisy and conspicuous for clandestine landings. However, SOE often used clandestine craft such as local fishing boats or caiques and eventually ran quite large fleets of these, from Algiers, the Shetland Islands (a service termed the Shetland Bus), Ceylon etc.



SOE F Section timeline and SOE F Section networks

SOE’s operations were usually mounted in order to feel out resistance groups willing to work with the Allies in preparation for invasion. In France, personnel were directed by two London-based country sections. F Section was under British control, while RF Section was linked to General de Gaulle‘s Free French government in exile. Most native French agents served in RF. There were also two smaller sections: EU/P Section, which dealt with the Polish community in France, and the DF Section which was responsible for establishing escape routes. During the latter part of 1942 another section known as AMF was established in Algiers, to operate into Southern France.

Maquisards (Resistance fighters) in the Haute-Savoie département in August 1944. Third and fourth from the left are two SOE officers

On 5 May 1941, Georges Bégué (1911–1993) became the first SOE agent dropped into German occupied France. He then set up radio communications and met the next agents parachuted into France. Between Bégué’s first drop in May 1941 and August 1944, more than four hundred F Section agents were sent into occupied France. They served in a variety of functions including arms and sabotage instructors, couriers, circuit organisers, liaison officers and radio operators. RF sent about the same number; AMF sent 600 (although not all of these belonged to SOE). EU/P and DF sent a few dozen agents each.[37]

SOE included a number of women (who were often commissioned into women’s branches of the armed forces such as the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry). F Section alone sent 39 female agents into the field, of whom 13 did not return. The Valençay SOE Memorial was unveiled at Valençay in the Indre département of France on 6 May 1991, marking the fiftieth anniversary of the despatch of F Section’s first agent to France. The memorial’s roll of honour lists the names of the 91 men and 13 women members of the SOE who gave their lives for France’s freedom.

To support the Allied invasion of France on D Day in June 1944, three-man parties were dropped into various parts of France as part of Operation Jedburgh, to coordinate widespread overt (as opposed to clandestine) acts of resistance. A total of 100 men were eventually dropped, together with 6,000 tons of military stores (4,000 tons had been dropped during the years before D-Day.)[38] At the same time, all the various sections operating in France (except EU/P) were nominally placed under a London-based HQ titled État-major des Forces Françaises de l’Intérieur (EMFFI).


SOE did not need to instigate Polish resistance, because unlike the Vichy French the Poles overwhelmingly refused to collaborate with the Nazis. Early in the war the Poles established the Polish Home Army, led by a clandestine resistance government known as the Polish Secret State. Nevertheless, there were many Polish members of SOE and much cooperation between the SOE and the Polish resistance.

SOE assisted the Polish government in exile with training facilities and logistical support for its 605 special forces operatives known as the Cichociemni, or “The Dark and Silent”. Members of the unit, which was based in Audley End House, Essex, were rigorously trained before being parachuted into occupied Poland. Because of the distance involved in air travel to Poland, customised aircraft with extra fuel capacity were used in Polish operations such as Operation Wildhorn III. Sue Ryder chose the title Baroness Ryder of Warsaw in honour of these operations.

Secret Intelligence Service member Krystyna Skarbek was a founder member of SOE and helped establish a cell of Polish spies in Central Europe. She ran several operations in Poland, Egypt, Hungary (with Andrzej Kowerski) and France, often using the staunchly anti-Nazi Polish expatriate community as a secure international network. Non-official cover agents Elzbieta Zawacka and Jan Nowak-Jezioranski perfected the Gibraltar courier route out of occupied Europe. Maciej Kalenkiewicz was parachuted into occupied Poland, only to be executed by the Soviets. A Polish agent was integral to SOE’s Operation Foxley, the plan to assassinate Hitler.

Thanks to cooperation between SOE and the Polish Home Army, the Poles were able to deliver the first Allied intelligence on the Holocaust to London. Witold Pilecki of the Polish Home Army designed a joint operation with SOE to liberate Auschwitz, but the British rejected it as infeasible. Joint Anglo-Polish operations provided London with vital intelligence on the V-2 rocket, German troops movements on the Eastern Front, and the Soviet repressions of Polish citizens.

RAF ‘Special Duties Flights’ were sent to Poland to assist the Warsaw Uprising against the Nazis. The rebellion was defeated with a loss of 200,000 casualties (mostly German executions of Polish civilians) after the nearby Red Army refused military assistance to the Polish Home Army. RAF Special Duties Flights were refused landing rights at Soviet-held airfields near Warsaw, even when requiring emergency landings after battle damage. These flights were also attacked by Soviet fighters, despite the U.S.S.R.‘s officially Allied status.[39]


Due to the dangers and lack of friendly population few operations were conducted in Germany itself. The German and Austrian section of SOE was run by Lt. Col. Ronald Thornley for most of the war and was mainly involved with black propaganda and administrative sabotage in collaboration with the German section of the Political Warfare Executive. After D-Day, the section was re-organised and enlarged with Major General Gerald Templer heading the Directorate, with Thornley as his deputy.

Several major operations were planned, including Operation Foxley, a plan to assassinate Hitler, and Operation Periwig, an ingenious plan to simulate the existence of a large-scale anti-Nazi resistance movement within Germany. Foxley was never carried out but Periwig went ahead despite restrictions placed on it by SIS and SHAEF. Several German prisoners of war were trained as agents, briefed to make contact with the anti-Nazi resistance and to conduct sabotage. They were then parachuted into Germany in the hope that they would either hand themselves in to the Gestapo or be captured by them, and reveal their supposed mission. Fake coded wireless transmissions were broadcast to Germany and various pieces of agent paraphernalia such as code books and wireless receivers were allowed to fall into the hands of the German authorities.

The Netherlands

Section N of SOE ran operations in the Netherlands. They committed some of SOE’s worst blunders in security, which allowed the Germans to capture many agents and much sabotage material, in what the Germans called the Englandspiel. SOE apparently ignored the absence of security checks in radio transmissions, and other warnings from their chief cryptographer, Leo Marks, that the Germans were running the supposed resistance networks.

Eventually, two captured agents escaped to Switzerland in August 1943. The Germans sent messages over their controlled sets that they had gone over to the Gestapo, but SOE was at last more wary.

SOE partly recovered from this disaster to set up new networks, which continued to operate until the Netherlands were liberated at the end of the war.


Section T established some effective networks in Belgium, in part orchestrated by fashion designer Hardy Amies, who rose to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. Amies adapted names of fashion accessories for use as code words, while managing some of the most murderous and ruthless agents in the field.[40]

In the aftermath of the Battle of Normandy, British armoured forces liberated the country in less than a week, giving the resistance little time to stage an uprising. They did assist British forces to bypass German rearguards, and this allowed the Allies to capture the vital docks at Antwerp intact.

After Brussels was liberated, Amies outraged his superiors by setting up a Vogue photo-shoot in Belgium.[41] In 1946, he was Knighted in Belgium for his service with SOE, being a Named Officier de l’Ordre de la Couronne.


As both an enemy country, and supposedly a monolithic fascist state with no organised opposition which SOE could use, SOE made little effort in Italy before mid-1943, when Mussolini‘s government collapsed and Allied forces already occupied Sicily. In April 1941, in a mission codenamed “Yak”, Peter Fleming attempted to recruit agents from among the many thousands of Italian prisoners of war captured in the Western Desert Campaign. He met with no response.[42]

In the aftermath of the Italian collapse, SOE helped build a large resistance organisation in the cities of Northern Italy, and in the Alps. Italian partisans harassed German forces in Italy throughout the autumn and winter of 1944, and in the Spring 1945 offensive in Italy they captured Genoa and other cities unaided by Allied forces.

Late in 1943, SOE established a base at Bari in Southern Italy, from which they operated their networks and agents in the Balkans. This organisation had the codename “Force 133”. This later became “Force 266”, reserving 133 for operations run from Cairo rather than the heel of Italy. Flights from Brindisi were run to the Balkans and Poland, particularly once control had been wrested from Cairo and passed to Gubbins. Close to Brindisi Air base SOE established a new packing station for the parachute containers along the lines of those created at Saffron Walden. This was ME 54, a factory employing hundreds, the American (OSS) side of which was known as Paradise Camp.[43]


Yugoslavia and the Allies

In the aftermath of the German invasion in 1941, the Kingdom of Yugoslavia fragmented. In Croatia, there was a substantial pro-Axis movement, the Ustaše. In Croatia as well as the remainder of Yugoslavia, two resistance movements formed; the royalist Chetniks under Draža Mihailović, and the Communist Partisans under Josip Broz Tito.

Mihailović was the first to attempt to contact the Allies, and SOE despatched a party on 20 September 1941 under Major “Marko” Hudson. Hudson also encountered Tito’s forces. Through the royalist government in exile, SOE at first supported the Chetniks. Eventually, however, due to reports that the Chetniks were less effective and even collaborating with German and Italian forces on occasion, British support was redirected to the Partisans, even before the Tehran Conference in 1943.

Although relations were often touchy throughout the war, it can be argued that SOE’s unstinting support was a factor in Yugoslavia’s maintaining a neutral stance during the Cold War. However, accounts vary dramatically between all historical works on the “Chetnik controversy”.


SOE was unable to establish links or contacts in Hungary before the regime of Miklós Horthy aligned itself with the Axis Powers. Distance and lack of such contacts prevented any effort being made by SOE until the Hungarians themselves dispatched a diplomat (László Veress) in a clandestine attempt to contact the Western Allies. SOE facilitated his return, with some radio sets. Before the Allied governments could agree terms, Hungary was placed under German military occupation and Veress was forced to flee the country.

Two missions subsequently dropped “blind” i.e. without prior arrangement for a reception party, failed. So too did an attempt by Basil Davidson to incite a partisan movement in Hungary, after he made his way there from northeastern Yugoslavia.


Greece was overrun by the Axis after a desperate defence lasting several months. In the aftermath, SIS and another intelligence organization, SIME, discouraged attempts at sabotage or resistance as this might imperil relations with Turkey,[44] although SOE maintained contacts with resistance groups in Crete. When an agent, “Odysseus”, a former tobacco-smuggler, attempted to contact potential resistance groups in Greece, he reported that no group was prepared to cooperate with the monarchist government in exile in Cairo.

In late 1942, at the army’s instigation, SOE mounted its first operation, codenamed Operation Harling, into Greece in an attempt to disrupt the railway which was being used to move materials to the German Panzer Army Africa. A party under Colonel (later Brigadier) Eddie Myers, assisted by Christopher Woodhouse, was parachuted into Greece and discovered two guerrilla groups operating in the mountains: the pro-Communist ELAS and the republican EDES. On 25 November 1942, Myers’s party blew up one of the spans of the railway viaduct at Gorgopotamos, supported by 150 Greek partisans from these two organisations who engaged Italians guarding the viaduct. This cut the railway linking Thessaloniki with Athens and Piraeus.

Relations between the resistance groups and the British soured. When the British needed once again to disrupt the railway across Greece as part of the deception operations preceding Operation Husky, the Allied invasion of Sicily, the resistance groups refused to take part, rightly fearing German reprisals against civilians. Instead, a six-man commando party from the British and New Zealand armies carried out the destruction of the Asopos viaduct on 21 June 1943.

EDES received most aid from SOE, but ELAS secured many weapons when Italy collapsed and Italian military forces in Greece dissolved. ELAS and EDES fought a vicious civil war in 1943 until SOE brokered an uneasy armistice (the Plaka agreement).

A lesser known, but important function of the SOE in Greece was to inform the Cairo headquarters of the movement of the German military aircraft that were serviced and repaired at the two former Greek military aircraft facilities in and around Athens.[citation needed]

Eventually, the British Army occupied Athens and Piraeus in the aftermath of the German withdrawal, and fought a street-by-street battle to drive ELAS from these cities and impose an interim government under Archbishop Damaskinos. SOE’s last act was to evacuate several hundred disarmed EDES fighters to Corfu, preventing their massacre by ELAS.[45]


The team of SOE officers and Cretans which abducted General Kreipe on Crete, including Moss and Leigh Fermor, second and third from left in German uniform

In Crete, unlike mainland Greece, there were several resistance groups and Allied stay-behind parties after the Germans occupied the island in the Battle of Crete. SOE’s operations on Crete involved figures such as Patrick Leigh Fermor, John Lewis, Tom Dunbabin, Sandy Rendel, John Houseman, Xan Fielding and Bill Stanley Moss. Some of the most famous moments included the abduction of General Heinrich Kreipe led by Leigh Fermor and Moss, and the sabotage of Damasta led by Moss.


Albania had been under Italian influence since 1923, and was occupied by the Italian Army in 1939. In 1943, a small liaison party entered Albania from northwestern Greece. SOE agents who entered Albania then or later included Julian Amery, Anthony Quayle, David Smiley and Neil “Billy” McLean. They discovered another internecine war between the Communist partisans under Enver Hoxha, and the republican Balli Kombëtar. As the latter had collaborated with the Italian occupiers, Hoxha gained Allied support.

SOE’s envoy to Albania, Brigadier “Trotsky” Davies, was captured by the Germans early in 1944. Some SOE officers warned that Hoxha’s aim was primacy after the war, rather than fighting Germans. They were ignored, but Albania was never a major factor in the effort against the Germans.


SOE sent many missions into the Czech areas of the so-called Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, and later into Slovakia. The most famous mission was Operation Anthropoid, the assassination of SS leader Reinhard Heydrich in Prague. From 1942 to 1943 the Czechoslovaks had their own Special Training School (STS) at Chicheley Hall in Buckinghamshire. In 1944, SOE sent men to support the Slovak National Uprising.


In March 1941 a group performing commando raids in Norway, Norwegian Independent Company 1 (NOR.I.C.1) was organised under leadership of Captain Martin Linge. Their initial raid in 1941 was Operation Archery, the best known raid was probably the Norwegian heavy water sabotage. Communication lines with London were gradually improved so that by 1945, 64 radio operators were spread throughout Norway.


Most of the actions conducted by the Danish resistance were railway sabotage to hinder German troop and material movements from and to Norway. However, there were examples of sabotage on a much larger scale especially by BOPA. In all over 1,000 operations were conducted from 1942 and onwards.

In October 1943 the Danish resistance also saved nearly all of the Danish Jews from certain death in German concentration camps. This was a massive overnight operation and is to this day recognized among Jews as one of the most significant displays of public defiance against the Germans.

The Danish resistance assisted SOE in its activities in neutral Sweden. For example, SOE was able to obtain several shiploads of vital ball-bearings which had been interned in Swedish ports. The Danes also pioneered several secure communications methods; for example, a burst transmitter/receiver which transcribed Morse code onto a paper tape faster than a human operator could handle.

There are a series of Historic Notes written by David Lampe in his “The Danish Resistance” also called “The Savage Canary”.


In 1943 an SOE delegation was parachuted into Romania to instigate resistance against the Nazi occupation at “any cost” (Operation Autonomous). The delegation, including Colonel Gardyne de Chastelain, Captain Silviu Meţianu and Ivor Porter, was captured by the Romanian Gendarmerie and held until the night of King Michael’s Coup on 23 August 1944.

Other operations in Europe

Through cooperation with the Special Operations Executive and the British intelligence service, a group of Jewish volunteers from Palestine were sent on missions to several countries in Nazi-occupied Europe from 1943 to 1945.


Abyssinia was the scene of some of SOE’s earliest and most successful efforts. SOE organised a force of Ethiopian irregulars under Orde Charles Wingate in support of the exiled Emperor Haile Selassie. This force (named Gideon Force by Wingate) caused heavy casualties to the Italian occupation forces, and contributed to the successful British campaign there. Wingate was to use his experience to create the Chindits in Burma.

Southeast Asia

Force 136

As early as 1940, SOE was preparing plans for operations in Southeast Asia. As in Europe, after initial Allied military disasters, SOE built up indigenous resistance organizations and guerrilla armies in enemy (Japanese) occupied territory. SOE also launched “Operation Remorse” (1944–45), which was ultimately aimed at protecting the economic and political status of Hong Kong. Through Force 136, SOE engaged in covert trading of goods and currencies in China. Its agents proved remarkably successful, raising £77m through their activities, which were used to provide assistance for Allied prisoners of war and, more controversially, to buy influence locally in order to facilitate a smooth return to pre-war conditions.

Later analysis and commentaries

The mode of warfare encouraged and promoted by SOE is considered by several modern commentators to have established the modern model that many alleged terrorist organisations emulate,[6][7][46] pioneering most of the tactics, techniques and technologies that are the mainstays of terrorism as it is commonly known today.[47]

Fiction featuring or based on SOE


Now It Can Be Told (aka School for Danger) (1946)

Filming began in 1944 and starred real-life SOE agents Captain Harry Rée and Jacqueline Nearne. The film tells the story of the training of agents for SOE and their adventures in France. The training sequences were filmed using the SOE equipment at the training schools at Traigh and Garramor (South Morar) and at Ringway.

The Fight over the Heavy Water (1948)

A French/Norwegian black and white docu-film titled “La Bataille de l’eau lourde”/”Kampen om tungtvannet” (trans. “The Fight Over the Heavy Water“), featured some of the ‘original cast’, so to speak. Joachim Rønneberg has stated; “The Fight over Heavy Water was an honest attempt to describe history. On the other hand ‘Heroes of Telemark’ had little to do with reality.”

Based on the book by Jerrard Tickell about Odette Sansom, starring Anna Neagle and Trevor Howard. The film includes an interview with Maurice Buckmaster, head of F-Section, SOE.

The Powell and Pressburger film, (released as Night Ambush in the States), based on the book by W. Stanley Moss, starring Dirk Bogarde and Marius Goring. It dramatises the true story of the capture of a German general by Patrick Leigh Fermor and W. Stanley Moss.

  • Bridge on the River Kwai (1957) is a well-known classic British-made war-drama set in Burma during World War II, during the construction of the Siam–Burma railway through virgin jungle and endless hills and gorges, using malnourished, mistreated allied prisoners of war. A counter-story in the film, which collides with the main story at the climax, relates to a mission to destroy the newly-constructed railway bridge by a fictitious cloak and dagger sabotage organization called ‘Force 316’, whose training base is in Ceylon. In fact, this is a thinly-disguised reference to the real-life Force 136, part of SOE, who indeed had wartime jungle-training facilities in Ceylon at M.E. 25—Horona.
  • Carve Her Name with Pride (1958)

Based on the book by R.J. Minney about Violette Szabo, starring Paul Scofield and Virginia McKenna.

Based on a well-known 1957 novel about World War II by Scottish thriller writer Alistair MacLean. It starred Gregory Peck, David Niven and Anthony Quinn, along with Anthony Quayle (the same Anthony Quayle listed above as serving with SOE in Albania) and Stanley Baker. The book and the film share the same basic plot: the efforts of an Allied commando team to destroy a seemingly impregnable German fortress that threatens Allied naval ships in the Aegean Sea, and prevents 2,000 isolated British troops from being rescued, that were holed up on the island of Kheros in the Aegean, near Turkey.

A BBC television drama series comprising self-contained episodes of SOE’s work in occupied Europe.

Based on an SOE operation to sabotage the heavy water plant at Rjukan, Norway in 1943.

A spy thriller and World War II film, made from a story from Duilio Coletti and Vittoriano Petrilli. It is a highly fictionalized account of the real-life Operation Crossbow, but it does touch on the main aspects of the operation.

A spy film directed by Brian G. Hutton and featuring Richard Burton, Clint Eastwood, and Mary Ure. The film’s screenplay and eponymous 1967 best-selling novel were written almost simultaneously by Alistair MacLean.

Based upon a true, dangerous operation in May 1942 to drop a small group of Czech and Slovak S.O.E. agents into their own occupied country with the singular deadly mission to assassinate Reichsführer-SS Heinrich Himmler’s protégé, Reinhard Heydrich, Reichsprotektor (representing the Nazi protectorate over the Czech puppet-state) of Bohemia and Moravia, hated as The Butcher of Prague. The mission succeeded, but with tragic results.

  • Nancy Wake Codename: The White Mouse (1987)

A docudrama about Nancy Wake‘s work for SOE, partly narrated by herself.

A television series that was broadcast between 1987 and 1990 featuring the exploits of the women and, less frequently, the men of SOE, which was renamed the ‘Outfit’.

Based on a novel by Sebastian Faulks.

  • Churchill’s Secret Army

A Documentary about the SOE broadcast on Channel 4 in 2001.

Foyle, a detective in England during WWII, investigates what turns out to be domestic activity of the SOE. The series is known for its attention to historical detail, and many aspects of the real-life SOE are shown.

  • Robert and the shadows, French Documentary on “France Television” (2004)

Did General De Gaulle tell the whole truth about the French resistance ? This is the purpose of this documentary. Jean Marie Barrere, the French director, uses the story of his own grand father (Robert) to tell the French what SOE did at that time. Robert, was a french teacher based in the south west of France and he worked with the famous SOE agent George Reginald Starr (Hilaire, Wheelwhright circuit)

  • The 11th Day (2006)

A documentary film, with recreation, of the Resistance, on the island of Crete, during the Second World War. Includes a detailed interview with Sir Patrick Leigh Fermor with recreation of the kidnapping of German Major General Kreipe.

  • The Bonzos (2008)

A BBC documentary film about the men sent to rescue Hitler’s hoard of looted art—including works by Titian, Tintoretto and Van Gogh—which the Nazis had stripped from Europe’s greatest galleries and museums and hidden in a salt mine in the town of Alt Aussee in Austria. Including archive footage, eyewitness testimony and contributions from historians.

A French film about five SOE female agents and their contribution towards the D-Day invasions


Other Media

  • In the 2003 video game Secret Weapons Over Normandy, the main protagonist, James Chase, is a member of the Battlehawks, an elite RAF squadron assigned to the SOE.
  • The 2009 video game The Saboteur, which takes place in German-occupied Paris circa 1940, revolves around Sean Devlin, an analogue of real SOE agent William Grover-Williams. Devlin is depicted, however, as a member of the French Resistance, who works unofficially for the SOE in exchange for information. In addition, supply crates from the SOE are hidden all over Paris and serve as an in-game “collectible”.
  • A Secret Army Exhibition at Beaulieu in Hampshire, UK tells the story of the British and overseas members of the Special Operations Executive (SOE) who completed their secret training at the Beaulieu ‘Finishing School’ during World War ll


  1. 1.                              Foot, S.O.E, p.62
  2. 2.                              a b Foot, S.O.E, p.12
  3. 3.                              “‘Pat Line’ – An Escape & Evasion Line in France in World War ll”. Christopher Long. Retrieved 2009-07-21.
  4. 4.                              Foot, S.O.E, pp.15-16
  5. 5.                              Foot, p.17
  6. 6.                              a b c “article by Matthew Carr Author The Infernal Machine: A History of Terrorism”. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
  7. 7.                              a b “The Irish [thanks to the example set by Collins and followed by the SOE] can thus claim that their resistance provide the originating impulse for resistance to tyrannies worse than any they had to endure themselves. And the Irish resistance as Collins led it, showed the rest of the world an economical way to fight wars the only sane way they can be fought in the age of the Nuclear bomb.” M.R.D Foot, as quoted in Geraghty, The Irish War, p.347
  8. 8.                              Hugh Dalton letter to Lord Halifax 2/7/1940; quoted in M. R. D. Foot, SOE in France, 8.}
  9. 9.                              Foot, S.O.E. p.31
  10. 10.                         Foot, S.O.E., p.32
  11. 11.                         Foot, S.O.E, p.22
  12. 12.                         Foot, S.O.E., pp.24-25
  13. 13.                         Boyce and Everett (2003), pp.23-45
  14. 14.                         Foot, S.O.E., pp.40-41
  15. 15.                         Boyce and Everett, SOE: The Scientific Secrets, pp.129-158
  16. 16.                         Foot, S.O.E., p.87
  17. 17.                         Foot, S.O.E., pp.35-36
  18. 18.                         a b “Churchill’s top secret agency”. BBC – Today. 2008-12-13. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
  19. 19.                         Foot, S.O.E., p.245
  20. 20.                         a b “Churchill’s secret army lived on”. BBC – Today. 13 December 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-13.
  21. 21.                         Francis MacKay. Overture to Overlord. ISBN 0850528925.
  22. 22.                         Foot, SOE, p.65
  23. 23.                         Foot, SOE, p.169
  24. 24.                         Foot, p.110
  25. 25.                         Foot, pp.108-111
  26. 26.                         Foot, p.106
  27. 27.                         Foot, pp.99, 142-143
  28. 28.                         Foot, p.60
  29. 29.                         “Welfreighter”. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
  30. 30.                         Seaman (2006), p. 27
  31. 31.                         Norton-Taylor, Richard (1999-10-27). “How exploding rats went down a bomb and helped British boffins win the Second World War | UK news”. London: The Guardian. Retrieved 2009-06-01.
  32. 32.                         Foot, pp.103-104
  33. 33.                         Foot, S.O.E., p.95
  34. 34.                         Gunston, Bill (1995). Classic World War II Aircraft Cutaways. London: Osprey. ISBN 1-85532-526-8.
  35. 35.                         Foot, S.O.E, pp.95, 101-103
  36. 36.                         Foot, S.O.E, pp.95-96
  37. 37.                         Foot, S.O.E., p.214
  38. 38.                         Foot, S.O.E., pp.222-223
  39. 39.                         Orpen, Neil, ‘Airlift to Warsaw’ ISBN 0806119136
  40. 40.                         glbtq >> arts >> Amies, Sir Hardy
  41. 41.                         Day, Peter (2003-04-29). “How secret agent Hardy Amies stayed in Vogue during the war”. London: The Telegraph. Retrieved 2009-10-09.
  42. 42.                         Crowdy, Terry; Noon, Steve (2008). SOE Agent: Churchill’s secret warriors. Oxford: Osprey. ISBN 978-1-84603-276-9.
  43. 43.                         Special Operations: Aid to European Resistance Movements Major Harris G Warren[page needed]
  44. 44.                         Ball (2009), p.104
  45. 45.                         Foot, S.O.E, p.236
  46. 46.                         “We must recognise that our response to the scourge of terrorism is compromised by what we did through SOE. The justification… That we had no other means of striking back at the enemy…is exactly the argument used by the red brigades, the baader meinhoff gang, the PFLP, the IRA and every other half articulate terrorist organisation on Earth. Futile to argue that we were a Democracy and Hitler a Tyrant. Means besmirch ends. SOE besmirched Britain.” John Keegan, as quoted in Geraghty, The Irish War, p.346
  47. 47.                         Churchill’s Secret Army, Channel 4 television UK
  48. 48.                         Andy Forbes http://www.64-baker-street. “64 Baker Street”. 64 Baker Street. Retrieved 2009-06-01.


Official publications / academic histories

Covers Commando and SOE training in the Highlands of Scotland. It describes the origins of the irregular warfare training at Inverailort House under MI(R) then the move of SOE training to the nearby Arisaig and Morar area.

  • Boyce, Frederic; Douglas Everett (2003). SOE – the Scientific Secrets. Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-4005-0.

SOE had its own laboratories and workshops inventing and developing new weapons, explosives and sabotage techniques.

  • Cruikshank, Charles (1983). SOE in the Far East. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-215873.

Official history commissioned 1980, companion to Foot, SOE, with access to papers (though researched 20 years later than Foot’s book, when many participants had died, see Preface)

The best book to read for an overview of SOE and its methods. Foot won the Croix de Guerre as a SAS operative in Brittany, later becoming Professor of Modern History at Manchester University and an official historian of the SOE. All his SOE books are well worth reading.

(orig. 1966, Government Official Histories, pub Frank Cass revised edition 2000, further edition 2004. Written with access to F Section files, (according to Ian Dear, see below) later revised

  • Mackenzie, Professor William (2000). The Secret History of SOE — Special Operations Executive 1940–1945. BPR Publications. ISBN 0-9536151-8-9.

Written at the end of WW2 for the British Government’s own use without any intention of publication—in effect a confidential “official history”.

  • Rigden, Denis (2001). SOE Syllabus: Lessons in Ungentlemanly Warfare World War II. Secret History Files, National Archives. ISBN 1-903365-18-X.

Authentic training manuals used to prepare agents covering the clandestine skills of disguise, surveillance, burglary, interrogation, close combat, and assassination. Also published as “How to be a Spy”.

  • Stafford, David (2000). Secret Agent: The True Story of the Special Operations Executive. BBC Worldwide Ltd. ISBN 0-563-53734-5.

Professor David Stafford has written several books on resistance and the secret war, and contributed the foreword for MFD Foot’s book.

First results of a research on the newly released Austrian SOE files of the Public Record Office Kew

  • Valentine, Ian (2006). Station 43: Audley End House and SOE’s Polish Section. Sutton Publishing. ISBN 0-7509-4255-X.
  • Walker, Jonathan (2008). Poland Alone: Britain, SOE and the Collapse of the Polish Resistance, 1944. The History Press. ISBN 978-1-86227-474-7.

First-hand accounts by those who served with SOE

A first hand account of one woman’s experiences during World War Two within the Special Operations Executive and the WRNS.

Chapman set up first jungle warfare school and operated in Malaya behind Japanese lines. Key figure in SOE in Far East.

A true story about an ordinary soldier seconded into MI5 and sent on a mission to Singapore just before it fell. With Freddy Spencer-Chapman

Firsthand documentary account of the kidnapping of Major General Heinrich Kreipe, the German army commander on Crete.

Covers the stories of a number of operatives, many known personally by Howarth, who was one of SOE’s founding members responsible for sevearl years for organising agent training in UK. Invaluable seven page bibliography of histories and memoirs.

  • David Howarth. The Shetland Bus. (Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd 1950)

Account of the Norwegian vessels which kept Britain in touch with the Norwegian resistance

First hand story of agent dropped into Brittany to organise resistance activities before and after D-Day.

Author witnessed SOE’s campaign with Yugoslav partisans as Churchill’s representative to Tito.

Marks was the Head of Codes at SOE. He gives easily comprehensible introduction to codes, their practical use in the field, and his struggle to improve encryption methods. Engaging accounts of agents including Noor Khan, Violette Szabo, and a great deal of information on his friend Yeo-Thomas.

Firsthand account of Moss and Patrick Leigh Fermor’s kidnapping of Major General Heinrich Kreipe, the German army commander on Crete. Later turned into a film of the same title.

Account of the SOE’s mission to Yugoslavia in support of Mihailović and the Chetniks.

Account of SOE’s missions to Albania.

Account of a female SOE field agents’ experiences in the F Section.

Biographies / popular books by authors without personal SOE experience

  • Nigel Perrin Spirit of Resistance: The Life of SOE Agent Harry Peulevé DSO MC (Pen and Sword 2008) ISBN 978-1844158553

Biography of the remarkable F Section agent Harry Peulevé, who undertook two missions in France and was one of the few to escape Buchenwald concentration camp.

General chapters on origins, recruitment and training, and then describes in detail thirteen operations in Europe and around the world, some involving the OSS.

  • Bruce Marshall. The White Rabbit (Evans Bros 1952, Cassell Military Paperbacks 2000, ISBN 0-304-35697-2)

Famous biography of Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas who made secret trips to France to meet senior Resistance figures. Epic story of capture, torture and escape, written as told by ‘Tommy’ to Marshall (who was himself on the HQ staff of RF section).

  • Mark Seaman. Bravest of the Brave: True Story of Wing Commander Tommy Yeo-Thomas – SOE Secret Agent Codename, the White Rabbit (Michael O’Mara Books 1997) ISBN 978-1854796509
  • Mark Seaman. Special Operations Executive: a new instrument of war. Routledge, 2006. ISBN 0415384559
  • Ray Mears, The Real Heroes of Telemark: The True Story of the Secret Mission to Stop Hitler’s Atomic Bomb, ISBN 0-340-83015-8, Hodder & Stoughton 2003

Associated with a three part BBC TV series, Ray Mears followed the route taken in 1943 along with some present day members of Royal Marines and Norwegian Army.

  • Inside Camp X by Lynn Philip Hodgson, with a foreword by Secret Agent Andy Durovecz (2003). ISBN 0-9687062-0-7
  • Joe Saward. The Grand Prix Saboteurs (Morienval Press 2006, ISBN 978-0-9554868-0-7)
  • Ball, Simon (2009). The Bitter Sea. Harper Press. ISBN 978-0-00-720304-8. Gives tangential account of SOE’s operations in the Mediterranean and its quarrels with other intelligence agencies


Geraghty, Tony (2000). The Irish War. Harper Collins. ISBN 978-0006386742.



May 16, 2011 at 12:56 am | Posted in Art, Asia, Books, History, Japan | Leave a comment










Songs and Movies in Japan: “Hanyu no yado” 

“Hanyu no yado–埴生の宿” is the Japanese title of an old song that is known as “Home, Sweet home“. We can listen it at the end of Ghibli movie “Hotaru no haka—-The grave of the Fireflies”—-performed by Amelita Galli-Curci. In the original lyric, there is a phrase “Be it ever so humble, there’s no place like home”.

It figures also in Kon Ichikawa’s movie masterpiece from 1956, “Harp of Burma.”

Hanyu no Yado means “a house made of mud”.

“Home, Sweet home” is played in “The Grave of the Fireflies.”

You can listen the Japanese version of this song on youtube.

Japanese translation:
埴生の宿も 我が宿 玉の装ひ 羨まじ
長閑也や 春の空 花はあるじ 鳥は友
おゝ 我が宿よ たのしとも たのもしや
書読む窓も 我が窓 瑠璃の床も 羨まじ
清らなりや 秋の夜半 月はあるじ むしは友
おゝ 我が窓よ たのしとも たのもしや

はにゅうのやども わがやど たまのよそおい うらやまじ
のどかなりや はるのそら はなはあるじ とりはとも
おお わがやどよ たのしとも たのもしや
ふみよむまども わがやど るりのゆかも うらやまじ
きよらなりや あきのよわ つきはあるじ むしはとも
おお わがまどよ たもしとも たのもしや

Hanyu no yado mo waga yado, Tama no yosooi urayamaji
Nodokanariya haru no sora, Hana wa aruji tori wa tomo
Oh, waga yado yo, Tanositmo tanomosiya
Fumi yomu mado mo waga mado, Ruri no yuka mo urayamaji
Kiyara nariya aki no yowa, Tsuki wa aruji mushi wa tomo
Oh, waga mado yo, Tanositmo tanomosiya

‘Mid pleasures and palaces though we may roam,
Be it ever so humble, There’s no place like home.
A charm from the skies Seems to hallow us there,
Which seek thro’ the world, is ne’er met with elsewhere.
Home, home, sweet sweet home,
There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home.
I gaze on the moon as I tread the drear wild,
And feel that my mother now thinks of her child;
As she looks on that moon from our own cottage door,
Thro’ the woodbine whose fragrance shall cheer me no more.
Home, home, sweet sweet home;
There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home.
An exile from home, splendor dazzles in vain,
Oh, give me my lowly thatched cottage again;
The birds singing gaily, that came at my call:
Give me them and that peace of mind, dearer than all.
Home, home, sweet sweet home,
There’s no place like home, there’s no place like home.
The Burmese Harp (Biruma no tategoto, a.k.a. Harp of Burma) is a 1956 black-and-white Japanese film directed by Kon Ichikawa.

The Burmese Harp (Biruma no tategoto, a.k.a. Harp of Burma) is a 1956 black-and-white Japanese film directed by Kon Ichikawa. It was based on a children’s novel of the same name written by Michio Takeyama. It was Ichikawa’s first film to be shown outside Japan,[1] and is “one of the first films to portray the decimating effects of World War II from the point of view of the Japanese army.”[2] The film was nominated for the 1957 Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, during the first year that such a category existed.

In 1985, Ichikawa remade the film in color with different actors.


Private Mizushima, a Japanese soldier, becomes the harp (or) saung player of Captain Inōye’s group, composed of soldiers who fight and sing to raise morale in World War II Burma Campaign. When they are offered shelter in a village, they eventually realize they are being watched by British soldiers. They successfully retrieve their ammunition, then see the advancing force. Firing is declined, however. They are later told that the Japanese surrender has occurred and they surrender.

At a camp the Captain asks Mizushima to volunteer to talk down a group of soldiers who are still fighting on the mountain. He agrees to do so and is told by the British that he has 30 minutes to tell them to surrender. At the mountain he is almost shot down before they realize he is Japanese. He climbs up safely and asks to speak to whoever is in command. Meeting their commander in a cave bunker he informs him that the war has ended and they should surrender. The commander says he shall talk to the other soldiers, and they come out minutes later stating that unanimously they decided to fight to the end. Mizushima begs for them to surrender but they do nothing. He decides to ask for more time from the British, and when he creates a surrender flag, the others take it the wrong way and believe he’s surrendering for them. They beat him unconscious and leave him on the floor. Soon the artillery begins again and because he’s in the cave, he becomes the only survivor. He wanders around looking for the camp his group was in. He becomes sick looking at all the corpses on the ground and decides to help bury them and pray for them by stealing a monk’s robe.

Meanwhile, Captain Inōye and his men are wondering what happened, and cling to a belief that he is still out there. Eventually they buy a parrot (saying ‘Mizushima, let’s go back to Japan together’ over and over again) and tell a villager to bring it to a monk they suspect Mizushima is hiding as. But they get the parrot and a long letter replying that he won’t come back to Japan with them, because he must continue burying the dead while studying as a monk, and promoting the peaceful nature of mankind. Years later however, he allows for the prospect of returning to Japan.



In Japan, Nikkatsu, the studio that commissioned the film, released it in two parts, three weeks apart. Part one (running 63 minutes) opened on January 21, 1956, and part two (80 minutes) opened on February 12, both accompanied by B movies.[1] Its total running time of 143 minutes was cut to 116 minutes for later re-release and export, reputedly at Ichikawa’s objection.[1]


Awards and nominations

Critical reception

In 1993, film scholar Audie Bock wrote:[4]

Screenwriter Natto Wada (Ichikawa’s former wife) lets minimal dialogue carry the emotion of The Burmese Harp. Ichikawa allows the grandeur of the Burmese landscape and the eerie power of its Buddhist statuary and architecture to sustain the mood of Mizushima’s conversion and the mystification of his Japanese comrades. Yet the gravity of the film lifts with the lyrical score, the light humor of a local bartering woman (Tanie Kitabayashi) with her parrots, and the genuine but uncomprehending affection of the soldiers for their missing mate.

In 2007, film critic Tony Rayns called it the “first real landmark in his career” and wrote:[1]

Ichikawa’s film is sharper and more clearheaded than Takeyama’s book, perhaps because it reflects an encounter with the reality of Burma and the Burmese. Most details in the film are taken directly from the book, although the overall structure has been changed….It’s with the dropping of one of the book’s episodes entirely and substituting ideas of his own that Ichikawa provides the measure of the film’s achievement. After Mizushima is sent on the futile mission to persuade a belligerent captain to surrender, he’s wounded in the leg by a British bullet and left to die….In the book, Mizushima is found and nursed back to health by a non-Burmese tribe of cannibals, who plan to eat him; … Ichikawa instead has Mizushima brought back from near death by a Buddhist monk, who intones over his patient the line “Burma is Burma. Burma is the Buddha’s country.” After his recovery, Mizushima shamelessly steals the monk’s robe (his only thought is self-preservation, and he needs a disguise) and makes his way south, intending to rejoin his company, which is where Ichikawa’s story line rejoins Takeyama’s.


  1. 1.                              a b c d e Tony Rayns (16 March 2007). “The Burmese Harp: Unknown Soldiers”. The Criterion Collection. Retrieved 2010-07-10.
  2. 2.                              “The Burmese Harp (Biruma no tategoto)”. BBC Four. 22 August 2002. Retrieved 2010-07-10. “A compassionate, anti-war film (yet refusing to enter into any cinematic discussion of where to lay blame), this is one of the first films to portray the decimating effects of the war from the point of view of the Japanese army.”
  3. 3.                              The Burmese Harp (1956) at the Internet Movie Database
  4. 4.                              Audie Bock (27 January 1993). “The Burmese Harp”. The Criterion Collection. Retrieved 2010-07-10.

Directed by Kon Ichikawa

Produced by Masayuki Takagi

Written by Michio Takeyama (novel), Natto Wada

Starring Rentaro Mikuni, Shôji Yasui, Jun Hamamura

Studio Nikkatsu

Distributed by Brandon Films (USA)

Release date(s) (part 1) 21 Jan 1956; (part 2) 12 Feb 1956 (Japan)[1] Running time 143 minutes (Japan)
116 minutes (other countries)

Country Japan

Language Japanese



May 2, 2011 at 3:32 pm | Posted in Asia, Development, Economics, Financial, Globalization, Research | Leave a comment









Central bankers’ speeches for 2 May now available‏

Press, Service (

Publications, Service (

Mon 5/02/11

Central bankers’ speeches for 2 May 2011

now available on the BIS website

Ben S Bernanke: Community development in challenging times

Durmuş Yilmaz: Recent economic and financial developments in Turkey

Elizabeth A Duke: Community voices – promising practices for neighborhood stabilization

Peter Pang: Managing the next phase of growth in Asia

Nils Bernstein: Danish economy developments and the 2020 plan

Ardian Fullani: Latest economic and financial developments in Albania

Njuguna Ndung’u: Transformation of banks in Kenya

 All speeches from 1997 onwards are available from the BIS website at:


Bank for International Settlements



Phone: +41 61 280 8188

Bank for International Settlements (BIS)

Central bankers’ speeches for 2 May now available‏

Press, Service (

Publications, Service (

Mon 5/02/11 


April 12, 2011 at 12:53 am | Posted in Asia, Financial, History, India, United Kingdom | Leave a comment









Gandhi and the Second Roundtable Conference 1931

(September – December 1931)

Round Table Conferences (India)

The three Round Table Conferences of 1930–32 were a series of conferences organised by the British government to discuss constitutional reforms in India.

They were conducted as per the recommendation by the report submitted by the Simon Commission in May 1930. Demands for swaraj, or self-rule, in India had been growing increasingly strong. By the 1930s, many British politicians believed that India needed to move towards dominion status. However, there were significant disagreements between the Indian and the British political parties that the Conferences would not resolve.

First Round Table Conference

(November 1930 – January 1931)

The Round Table Conference was opened officially by King George V on November 12, 1930 and chaired by the British Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald. The three British political parties were represented by sixteen delegates. There were fifty-seven political leaders from British India and sixteen delegates from the princely states. However, the Indian National Congress, along with Indian business leaders, kept away from the conference. Many of them were in jail for their participation in civil disobedience.


The idea of an All-India Federation was moved to the centre of discussion. All the groups attending the conference supported this concept. The responsibility of the Executive to Legislature was discussed, and B. R. Ambedkar demanded a separate electorate for the so-called Untouchables.

Second Round Table Conference

(September – December 1931)

The second session opened on September 7, 1931. There were three major differences between the first and second Round Table Conferences. By the second:

  • Congress Representation — The Gandhi-Irwin Pact opened the way for Congress participation in this conference. Mahatma Gandhi was invited from India and attended as the sole official Congress representative accompanied by Sarojini Naidu and also Madan Mohan Malaviya, Ghanshyam Das Birla, Muhammad Iqbal, Sir Mirza Ismail Diwan of Mysore, S K Dutta and Sir Syed Ali Imam. Gandhi claimed that the Congress alone represented political India; that the Untouchables were Hindus and should not be treated as a “minority”; and that there should be no separate electorates or special safeguards for Muslims or other minorities. These claims were rejected by the other Indian participants. According to this pact, Gandhi was asked to call off the Civil Disobedience Movement (CDM) and if he did so the prisoners of the British government would be freed excepting the criminal prisoners, i.e those who had killed British officials. He returned to India, disappointed with the results and empty-handed.
  • Financial Crisis – During the conference, Britain went off the Gold Standard further distracting the National Government.
    During the Conference, Gandhi could not reach agreement with the Muslims on Muslim representation and safeguards. At the end of the conference Ramsay MacDonald undertook to produce a Communal Award for minority representation, with the provision that any free agreement between the parties could be substituted for his award.

Gandhi took particular exception to the treatment of untouchables as a minority separate from the rest of the Hindu community. He clashed with the Untouchable leader, B. R. Ambedkar, over this issue: the two eventually resolved the situation with the Poona Pact of 1932.

Third Round Table Conference

(November – December 1932)

The third and last session assembled on November 17, 1932. Only forty-six delegates attended since most of the main political figures of India were not present. The Labour Party from Brtain and the Indian National Congress refused to attend.

In this conference, Chaudhary Rahmat Ali, a college student, coined the name “Pakistan” (which means “land of pureness”) as the name for the Muslim part of partitioned India. He took the “P” from Punjab, the “A” from the Afghanistan, the “K” from Kashmir, the “S” from Sindh and the “TAN” from Balochistan. Jinnah did not attend it.

From September 1931 until March 1933, under the supervision of Samuel Hoare, the proposed reforms took the form reflected in the Government of India Act 1935.




March 25, 2011 at 12:47 pm | Posted in Asia, China, Film, Financial, History, Japan | Leave a comment










Manchukuo and Pan-Asian Narco-Utopian Dreams

The Setting Sun (Rakuyou) is a Japanese film released in 1992, based on a novel of the same name by the director Rou Tomono. The U.S. release was in 1999.

The Japanese movie “Setting Sun” which features Donald Sutherland and Diane Lane depicts the Japanese takeover of Manchuria from 1928-1945 and the narco-utopian pan-Asian daydreams of certain Japanese military leaders such as Ishiwara Kanji.

It stars Masaya Kato, Diane Lane, Yuen Biao and Donald Sutherland.

Directed by Rou Tomono

Produced by Lee Faulkner

Written by Duane Dell’Amico

Rou Tomono (novel)

Rou Tomono (screenplay)

Starring Masaya Kato, Diane Lane, Biao Yuen, Donald Sutherland

Music by Maurice Jarre

Cinematography Yoshihiro Yamazaki

Editing by Osamu Inoue

Release date(s) 1992

Running time 150 min.

Country Japan

Language Japanese

Kanji Ishiwara (Ishiwara Kanj, 18 January 1889 – 15 August 1949) was a general in the Imperial Japanese Army in World War II. He and Itagaki Seishirō were the men primarily responsible for the Mukden Incident that took place in Manchuria in 1931.


Early life

Ishiwara was born in Tsuruoka city, Yamagata prefecture into a samurai class family. His father was a police officer, but as his clan had supported the Tokugawa bakufu and then the Northern Alliance during the Boshin War of the Meiji Restoration, its members were shut out of higher government positions.

At age thirteen, Ishiwara was enrolled in a military prep school. He was subsequently accepted at the 21st class of the Imperial Japanese Army Academy and graduated in 1909. He served in the IJA 65th Infantry Regiment in Korea after its annexation by Japan in 1910, and in 1915 he passed the exams for admittance to the 30th class of the Army Staff College. He graduated second in his class in 1918. [2]

Ishiwara spent several years in various staff assignments and then was selected to study in Germany as a military attaché.

He stayed in Berlin and in Munich from 1922-1925, focusing on military history and military strategy. He hired several former officers from the German General Staff to tutor him, and by the time he returned to Japan, he had formed a considerable background on military theory and doctrine.

Prior to leaving for Germany, Ishiwara converted to Nichiren Buddhism. Nichiren had taught that a period of massive conflict would precede a golden era of human culture in which the truth of Buddhism would prevail. Japan would be the center and main promulgator of this faith, which would encompass the entire world. Ishiwara felt that the period of world conflict was fast approaching, and Japan relying upon its vision of the kokutai and its sacred mission to “liberate” China, would lead a unified East Asia to defeat the West. [3]

Ishiwara and Manchuria

Mukden Incident

Ishiwara was assigned as an instructor to the Army Staff College, followed by a staff position within the Kwantung Army in Manchuria. He arrived there at the end of 1928, some months after the assassination of Zhang Zuolin by Daisaku Komoto. Ishiwara quickly realized that the confused political situation in northern China, along with Japan’s already significant economic investments in the area provided the Kwantung Army with a unique opportunity, and began a plan to take advantage of the situation.

On 18 September 1931, a bomb was secretly planted on the tracks of the Japanese-controlled Southern Manchuria Railway. Charging that Chinese soldiers had attacked the rail line, Japanese troops under Ishiwara’s orders quickly seized the Chinese military barracks in the nearby city of Liutiaokou. Without bothering to inform the new Kwantung Army commander General Shigeru Honjō or the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff in Tokyo, Ishiwara ordered Kwantung Army units to seize control of all other Manchurian cities.

The sudden invasion of Manchuria alarmed political leaders in Japan, and brought international condemnation down on Japan from the world community. Ishiwara thought it most likely that he would be executed or at least dishonorably discharged for his insubordination. However, the success of the operation brought just the opposite. Ishiwara was adulated by right-wing younger officers, ultranationalist societies for his daring and initiative. He was returned to Japan, and given command of the IJA 4th Infantry Regiment in Sendai.

Army revolutionaries

Ishiwara was appointed to the Imperial Japanese Army General Staff in 1935 as Chief of Operations, which gave him primary responsibility for articulating his vision for Japan’s future. Ishiwara was a strong proponent of pan-Asianism and the hokushinron philosophy. He proposed that Japan should join with Manchukuo and China to form an “East Asian League”, which would then prepare for and then fight a war with the Soviet Union. After the Soviet Union was defeated, Japan could move to the south to free Southeast Asia from European colonial rule. Japan would then be ready to tackle the United States. [4]

However, in order to implement these plans, Japan would need to build up its economy and military. Ishiwara envisioned a one-party “national defense state” with a command economy in which political parties were abolished, and venal politicians and greedy businessmen removed from power.

However, Ishiwara stopped short of calling for a Shōwa Restoration and violent overthrow of the government. When the February 26 Incident erupted in 1936, rebels assassinated a number of major politicians and government leaders and demanded a change in government in line with Ishiwara’s philosophies. However, Ishiwara confounded their expectations by speaking out strongly against the rebellion and demanding proclamation of martial law. After Vice Chief of Staff Hajime Sugiyama pulled in from garrisons around Tokyo, Ishiwara was named Operations Officer of the Martial Law Headquarters.

Return to Manchukuo, and disgrace

In March 1937 Ishiwara was promoted to major general and transferred back to Manchukuo as Vice Chief of Staff of the Kwantung Army. He discovered to his dismay that his Army colleagues had no intention of creation a new pan-Asian paradise, and were quite content to play the role of colonial occupiers. Ishiwara denounced the Kwantung Army leadership, and proposed that all officers take a pay cut. He confronted Kwantung Army commander in chief General Hideki Tojo over his allocation of funds to an officers’ wives club. After becoming an embarrassment to his seniors, he was relieved of command and reassigned to a local army base at Maizuru on the seacoast near Kyoto.

Back in Japan, he began to analyze Soviet tactics at Nomonhan, where Japanese forces were defeated, proposing counterstrategies to be adopted by the Army. He continued to write and give public addresses, continuing to advocate an East Asia League partnership with China and Manchukuo and continuing to oppose the invasion of China. He became a lieutenant general in 1939 and was assigned command of the IJA 16th Division.

His political nemesis, Hideki Tōjō, now risen to the highest ranks, felt that the outspoken Ishiwara should be retired from the Army, but feared the reactions of young officers and right-wing activists. Finally, after Ishiwara publicly denounced Tōjō as an enemy of Japan, who should “be arrested and executed,” he was put on the retired list. Ishiwara went back to Yamagata, where he continued to write and study agriculture until the end of the war.

After the end of World War II, the Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers called upon Ishiwara as a witness for the defense in the International Military Tribunal for the Far East. No charges were ever brought against Ishiwara himself, possibly due to his public opposition to Tōjō, the war against China and the attack on Pearl Harbor. He displayed his old fire in front of the American prosecutor, observing that U.S. President Harry S. Truman should be indicted for the mass bombing of Japanese civilians.[5]



  • Maga, Timothy P. (2001). Judgment at Tokyo: The Japanese War Crimes Trials. University Press of Kentucky. ISBN 0-8131-2177-9.
  • Peattie, Mark R. (1975). Ishiwara Kanji and Japan’s confrontation with the West. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. ISBN 0691030995.
  • Samuels, Richard J. (2007). Securing Japan: Tokyo’s Grand Strategy and the Future of East Asia. Cornell University Press. ISBN 0801446120.


  1. 1. Japanese
  2. 2. Ammenthorp, The Generals of World War II
  3. 3. Peatty, Ishiwara Kanji and Japan’s confrontation with the West
  4. 4. Peatty, Ishiwara Kanji and Japan’s Confrontation with the West
  5. 5. Maga, Judgement at Tokyo

Opium poppies

The opium poppy was grown to obtain opium. In November 1932 the Mitsui Zaibatsu conglomerate held a state monopoly for poppy farming with the “declared intention” of reducing its heavy local use. Fixed cultivation areas were set up in Jehol and northwest Kirin. For 1934-35, cultivation area was evaluated as 480 square kilometres (190 sq mi) with a yield of 1.1 tonnes/km². There was much illegal growing, and its high profitability retarded the effective suppression of this dangerous drug.

“Nikisansuke”, a secret Japanese merchant group, participated in the opium industry.

This group was formed by:

The monopoly generated profits of twenty to thirty million yen per year.

The military prohibited the use of opium and other narcotics by its troops (punishment was loss of Japanese citizenship) but allowed it to be used as a “demoralization weapon” against “inferior races”, a term that included all non-Japanese peoples.

One of the participants, Naoki Hoshino negotiated a large loan from Japanese banks using a lien on the profits of Manchukuo’s Opium Monopoly Bureau as collateral. Another authority states that annual narcotics revenue in China, including Manchukuo, was estimated by the Japanese military at 300 million yen a year.

Similar policies operated across Japanese-occupied Asia.


« Previous PageNext Page »

Entries and comments feeds.