by Tony Insall
Recognition
During the war, the most outstanding achievements of SOE and SIS agents were generally recognised soon after the completion of their operations. After the liberation, both SOE and SIS worked hard to ensure that the most deserving of the remainder of their agents received suitable recognition in the form of medals, certificates of commendation or mentions in despatches. Scrutiny was exacting, and many recommendations were turned down. Nonetheless, one very embarrassing mistake occurred. In September 1945, Wilson recommended that Leif Larsen, the most successful skipper of transport from the Shetlands to Norway, should be awarded a DSO to add to the DSC, CGM and DSM and bar which he had already received. This was approved and cleared with the Norwegian government. It was gazetted in November 1946 and details of the citation were also published in Norway. Admiral Horve, the commander in chief of the Norwegian Navy, then informed Collier (by now the British ambassador in Norway) that of the four expeditions with which Larsen was credited in the citation, no fewer than three had been carried out by another officer, Ingvald Eidsheim, who was only going to receive a mention in despatches. This was accurately described as ‘an unholy mess’. Collier and Wilson, together with other former senior members of SOE, agreed that Larsen deserved a DSO. However, the SOE officers did not think that Eidsheim’s level of performance had matched that of Larsen, so it would not be fair either to Larsen or to other Norwegian officers if he were to be given a DSO as well. They suggested the award of a bar to his DSC instead. Horve, who initially thought that Eidsheim should be awarded a DSO too, changed his mind on receipt of a letter from Wilson and supported this suggestion. This was challenged by Collier, who insisted that Eidsheim deserved a DSO. The problem took well over a year to resolve. Eventually Sir Robert Knox, secretary of the Honours Committee, wrote to Rear-Admiral Mansergh, the Naval Secretary, setting out the arguments for both decisions, but without making a recommendation. One’s heart warms to the no-nonsense Miss S. Harbottle, Mansergh’s secretary, who summarised this letter succinctly and concluded: ‘Submit for approval that in the circumstances the Admiralty recommends that Eidsheim be awarded a DSO’. Mansergh commented meekly ‘concur’. The Embassy asked Horve to convey an apology to both officers for what had happened. They received their awards from Collier at a ceremony on 20 July 1948, when other members of SOE were also decorated.4
SOE also consulted Milorg about the provision of awards to members of the resistance. The list which they agreed contained a remarkable range of people. It included those involved in aggressive resistance activities and some of those who supported them, as well as those doing propaganda work – such as Roy Nielsen (also involved with Max Manus in the sinking of the Donau), who was killed in April 1945 and received a posthumous certificate of commendation. There is space to mention only a small representative sample. There were those such as Per Frivik, Ottar Mjærum, Leif Strenge Næss and Arne Solum. These were members of the group established in the NS-controlled State Secret Police (Stapo) early in 1942 that warned of measures being planned against the resistance, which Milorg was thereby often able to circumvent. They were awarded the King’s medal for courage. Arthur Ørstenvik, part of a group in Ålesund, built a secret cell in the bathroom of his house which was used by wireless operators for two and a half years, though it was situated only a few hundred yards from a German barracks in an area subject to frequent searches. They played an important part in arranging the evacuation of ship’s crews and sabotage parties. He also helped in the rescue of Leif Larsen and the surviving crew of the Bergholm in 1942. Ørstenvik received the King’s medal for service. Harald Risnes, who returned to Norway in October 1944, trained some 240 men in the Bjørn West base near Bergen. The Germans attacked it on 26 April 1945. Risnes drove them off after an engagement lasting six days, losing seven men and killing more than one hundred Germans. This was the largest action between the Norwegian resistance and the Germans. On 9 May Risnes took his group into Bergen to take over military duties after the German surrender. He was awarded an MC.
The list also acknowledged the achievements of some remarkable women. Among her other achievements, Gudrun Collett was responsible for establishing a system to provide food for members of the resistance in Oslo – an arrangement which lasted from the end of 1942 until the liberation. She arranged distribution through the (legal) Danish Help aid organisation, which was allowed to supply food to children and old people in Oslo. Their accounts were devised (and falsified) in such a way that Germans could not trace the final destination of supplies. Her illegal depots were established in some twenty different hospitals which it was permitted to supply. After she came to German attention, she evaded capture by lying for hours under a veranda in winter wearing only her nightdress. She had to leave immediately for Sweden.‡ She received the King’s medal for service. Collett was assisted by Valborg Hammerich, the widow of a Danish admiral killed in an RAF raid on the Gestapo headquarters in Copenhagen. Hammerich was the leader of Danish Help and worked with Collett to divert large quantities of supplies to resistance members who would not otherwise have been able to carry out their work. She also supplied many of the dependants of men in prison, sending them parcels every month. This was done in defiance of Gestapo orders. She received a certificate of commendation. Kari and Kolbein Lauring were both members of a resistance group who carried out sabotage and propaganda work in the Oslofjord area. The Germans surrounded their house at dawn on 4 April 1945 and tried to force entry. Kolbein fought them off with a pistol and hand grenades. Kari kept him supplied with ammunition and rang Max Manus and others to warn them of the danger, enabling them to escape. She continued to resist until after Kolbein had escaped through a back window. The Germans broke in and arrested her, but she remained silent during interrogation. Her citation noted that by her prompt and brave actions she had saved many lives. She received the King’s medal for courage.5
Among staff who worked in London, Roscher Lund and Nagell were awarded the OBE.6 SIS arranged for Roscher Lund’s medal to be presented to him by Menzies.7 Øen, who had earlier been given an OBE for his work in Canada in forming the first Norwegian fighter squadron, was awarded a CBE. The late Leif Tronstad was awarded a certificate of commendation, which, unlike most other marks of recognition, was one that could be awarded posthumously. Wilson, who had been awarded the OBE in 1943 after GUNNERSIDE, was awarded the Order of St Olav in 1944 and later given a CMG. Welsh had been awarded the Order of St Olav in November 1943.8
Compensation
There were, not surprisingly, many claims for compensation after the war. One of the most remarkable came from Einar Sandvik, a fisherman from the island of Leka, some seventy miles north of Trondheim. He approached the British consul in Trondheim in October 1945 to describe the help which he had provided to six British air crew in September 1940. They had been flying in two Swordfish, operating from the aircraft carrier Furious, which made forced landings on Leka after carrying out an attack in the Trondheimfjord. The crews destroyed their aircraft and sought help from local Norwegians to try to get back to Britain. Sandvik told the consul that he had given them his fishing boat, a 38-foot fishing smack which was his only means of livelihood, for which they provided a receipt. This was signed by one Sub-Lieutenant Poynter, and listed the names of the crew. Sandvik was later imprisoned by the Germans for assisting the enemy. He sought 1,000 Norwegian kroner§ in compensation for the loss of his boat.
The embassy informed the Foreign Office, observing that if the facts which Sandvik had provided could be established, then the claim which he was making seemed a very reasonable one, in view of the service which he had rendered and the risks which he ran in doing so. They passed the details to the Admiralty, which confirmed that Sandvik’s story was correct, and that the crews were members of the Fleet Air Arm. They contacted Poynter, who explained that owing to a series of mishaps the boat had been intercepted by the German Navy five days after they had set sail.¶ They were sent to Germany and spent the rest of the war as
POWs. He added that they were grateful to Sandvik and to other local Norwegians who had also provided food and fuel. The Admiralty asked the Foreign Office to arrange to pay Sandvik the compensation which he had sought, and to send him a suitable letter of thanks.9
In this history we have looked at many instances of the courage, ingenuity, resourcefulness, endurance and sometimes sheer stubbornness shown by individual Norwegians who risked and sometimes lost their lives in their campaign of resistance against the German occupation. Some of their achievements, such as FRESHMAN/GUNNERSIDE, are well known. Others, such as those of the SIS coast-watchers, were equally important though less widely publicised. But the example provided by Sandvik illustrates a wider point. The resistance campaign could not have hoped to succeed if it had not also been supported by many thousands more Norwegians, almost all unacknowledged, whose individual contributions may have been small but who collectively made an incalculable difference to the outcome of the fight for freedom.
Notes
1 Neville Wylie in Seaman, Special Operations Executive, pp. 171–172.
2 See, for example, a letter from Menzies to Rushbrooke of 13 August 1943. TNA, ADM 223/851.
3 McLachlan, Room 39, p. 38.
4 TNA, HS 9/892/7, HS 9/473/1 and ADM 1/30743.
5 TNA, HS 8/407.
6 NHM, FO.II HMP D1.1 HMP D1.1 and TNA WO 373/108/963.
7 NHM, FO. II – 8.2 – HMP D 1.1 HMP D 1.1.
8 NHM, FO.II 8.5 Daeb0004.
9 TNA, FO 371/47523 and ADM 358/265.
* There is an unpublished PhD thesis by Nechama Janet Cohen Cox, The Ministry of Economic Warfare and Britain’s Conduct of Economic Warfare (King’s College London, 2001), but she excludes from her study the work of SOE in sabotage operations.
† British ambassador Sir Laurence Collier commented in June 1947 that the greatest adverse public reaction to a war crimes trial in Norway was that which greeted the minority recommendation of some of the judges that Hans should be acquitted, on the grounds that he was not aware that he was carrying out orders which had no justification in law. This led to the commutation of his sentence. (FO 371/66068.)
‡ Max Manus provides a vivid description of his chance meeting with Gudrun Collett as they were both on their way to the border, when she was ‘tramping vigorously up the track with a suitcase in her hand and a smart leopard-skin coat slung over her arm’. Manus, Underwater Saboteur, pp. 162–163.
§ Allowing for inflation, worth about £2,000 at 2019 prices.
¶ One of the pilots was Henry Deterding, son of Henri Deterding, the former chairman of Royal Dutch Shell, who had married a prominent Nazi and moved to Germany after his retirement. This connection did not appear to affect his son’s treatment in prison.
APPENDIX
DSO CITATIONS FOR BJØRN RØRHOLT AND TORSTEIN RAABY
Medal citations are sensitive documents. It did not often occur in wartime that other government departments were consulted when awards were being considered. However, SIS was in an unusual position. It was employing foreign agents to collect information required by the Admiralty and was recommending the award of a significant honour. So it is not surprising that Menzies chose to seek validation from the Admiralty before proceeding.
Menzies wrote on 28 May 1942 to Rear-Admiral John Godfrey, the director of naval intelligence:
I enclose a recommendation for the award of an honour to Second Lieutenant Bjørn Rørholt, of Norwegian army, whom you have met. Although this officer is in the army, we have employed him on work which was of benefit almost exclusively to the Admiralty and I think the recommendation could most suitably be made through that Department. Also, you are in the best position to judge the value of the information for which this man has been responsible, and you may wish to endorse my recommendation. The attached statement goes into some detail concerning the work of this organisation, and I would be grateful if its circulation within the Admiralty could be limited.
The covering note for the citation states:
Second Lieutenant Bjørn Rørholt RNA, proposal for award of decoration.
A fairly extensive ship reporting organisation has been built up by this department on the Norwegian coast and it is understood that for some time past it has been providing information of considerable value to NID. The agent chiefly responsible for setting up and operating this organisation is the above-mentioned officer and it is largely due to his initiative, enthusiasm and above all personal courage, that the success obtained is due. A short account of his Norwegian missions is attached. He comes from a well-known Norwegian service family, his uncle being the late director of military intelligence in the Royal Norwegian Army and his services were given to us for reasons of patriotism and not for the sake of material reward. He is now in this country and it is not possible to employ him again on this work although the organisation that he has built up remains. There is therefore no security objection to giving some recognition of his services, although the reasons for any honour awarded could not be made public. It is accordingly proposed that Second Lieutenant Rørholt be awarded a very high honour. Such an award, in addition to being earned for his own unselfish and gallant service, would be a tribute and encouragement to the many other Norwegians who are serving our organisation with equal devotion but of whom Second Lieutenant Rørholt has proved the most successful.
The SIS citation reads:
In February 1941, an attempt was made to establish an intelligence group in Trondheim. Great trouble was experienced in obtaining contact with this group but in May 1941 satisfactory communications were set up. It was later discovered that this contact was entirely due to the initiative coupled with technical qualification of the highest order, of Lt Rørholt. For seven months, operational information of the highest order was sent to this country until the organisation was broken up by the Germans. At the time of the arrests in Trondheim, Rørholt was in Oslo. An attempt was made to arrest him in his father’s house, but after an exchange of shots he escaped over a garden wall. (We have since learned that a German soldier on watch in the garden had to go back to find a ladder in order to scale the wall over which Rørholt had just jumped, hence the escape.)
Before leaving for Sweden, Rørholt spent ten days in Oslo making plans for his colleagues to escape from prison and perfecting plans for a new organisation. On his arrival here on 13 October 1941, his wireless experience was placed at our disposal, and his criticisms and suggestions have been invaluable in improving our sets and methods of using them. After September 1941, when the Rørholt organisation broke up, we were without radio communications with Trondheim. Late in January, we were urgently requested to re-establish contact with this area without delay. Regardless of the consequences, Rørholt immediately volunteered to go. His first trip was unsuccessful. The log of the voyage, however, provides details of engine problems, the need to use sail instead, the lack of a serviceable W/T set and the consequent decision to return to Shetland and come back in a more serviceable boat. It provides further witness to the undaunted courage, resourcefulness and initiative of this man. Eight days later he was again returned to Norway, and this time was successful in reaching Trondheim, where he immediately set up an organisation for watching the movements of German warships. This organisation has been and is still functioning successfully. His adventures in Trondheim rival the most exciting of the ‘thrillers’. For example, on the occasion when he entered Agdenes Fort in the guise of an insurance agent, he offered policies to German officers in addition to reconnoitring the area with a view to installing an illicit W/T station. This station has now been successfully installed close to the Fort and is providing most valuable information. During this time, Rørholt also visited Oslo and Narvik in an attempt to organise groups there. When contact with this country was successfully established and the new groups working satisfactorily, he returned here after an absence of three months as his continued presence in Norway might have compromised his associates. He arrived here on 9 May 1942, bringing wi
th him most valuable information and suggestions for further work in Norway. He is at present actively engaged in the preparation and furtherance of these schemes.
Torstein Raaby
On 19 August 1944, Menzies wrote in similar terms to Rear-Admiral Edmund Rushbrooke, Godfrey’s successor as DNI. On this occasion, he did not refer to Raaby by name, but used the alias Pettersen which Raaby had adopted for his mission to Norway.
I do not normally trouble you or your department about honours and awards to my agents since the Honours and Awards Committee is in most cases the appropriate body to approach. I feel, however, that if I am to ask – as I now propose to do – for the award of a DSO, the application should have the support of the service department concerned. Both you and also I think the Vice Chief of Naval Staff* and Commander-in-Chief Home Fleet† will be fully aware of the work that Second Lieutenant Pettersen of the Royal Norwegian Army accomplished in establishing a reporting service that covered the Tirpitz. You will know, too, that he took his life in his hands in accepting this mission.