Reich security service and OKW/Chi reports

Intelligence services collect information from various sources such as magazines, journals, newspapers, government reports, secret agents etc. However the most accurate source has always been the decoded traffic of a foreign state’s diplomatic and military networks. For this reason there has always been a close relationship between a country’s human intelligence and signal intelligence agencies.  

During WWII the British foreign intelligence service benefitted from the successes of Bletchley Park versus Axis military, diplomatic and agents codes. Similarly the German foreign intelligence services received summary reports from the Signal Intelligence Agency of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces - OKW/Chi (Oberkommando der Wehrmacht/Chiffrier Abteilung).

The Sicherheitsdienst was the security service of the SS and its foreign intelligence department Amt VI (headed by General Walter Schellenberg) had some notable successes during the war. According to Schellenberg and two high-ranking SD officials their agency received daily reports from OKW/Chi, containing important diplomatic messages from Bern, Ankara, Algiers, Moscow and other areas.

Since it seems that most of the OKW/Chi archives were destroyed or lost at the end of WWII these statements are important in evaluating the successes or failures of that organization.

1). General Schellenberg was interrogated postwar by the Allies and in ‘Report on interrogation of Walter Schellenberg 27 June- 12 July 1945’, p30 he said:

The Germans broke the American code. Messages sent by HARRISON, U.S.A. minister in Berne, to Washington, lay daily deciphered on SCHELLENBERG's desk. These messages sometimes contained intelligence service material. SCHELLENBERG also received Turkish, Polish, French, Swiss, South American, Spanish and Portuguese messages which were all decoded.

 
2). SS-Sturmbannführer Dr. Klaus Huegel was an important SD official with knowledge of German spy activities in Switzerland and Italy. In one of his postwar interrogations he mentioned that from April 1943 to March 1944 he had access to the daily reports sent from OKW/Chi to General Schellenberg. The reports often included US diplomatic messages from Bern, Switzerland, British messages from the Bern embassy, De Gaulle traffic from Algiers to Washington and messages from the Turkish ambassador in Moscow.

3). Giselher Wirsing was an accomplished author and journalist, who in 1944 joined the SD foreign intelligence department as an evaluator. Wirsing had come to the attention of General Schellenberg due to his clear headed analysis of the global political situation and of Germany’s poor outlook for the future. Under Schellenberg’s protection he wrote a series of objective reports (called Egmont berichte) showing that Germany was losing the war and thus a political solution would have to be found to avoid total defeat. While writing his reports Wirsing had access to the OKW/Chi summaries sent to the SD leadership. According to him the messages ‘did not reveal any startling news‘ but were useful in assessing  information from other sources. He remembered messages from the US, Japanese, Turkish and Bulgarian ambassadors in Moscow,  State Department messages to Paris, traffic from the US mission in the Balkans and messages from the Polish mission in Jerusalem to their London based goverment in exile.

 

Overall it is clear that OKW/Chi provided valuable information to the Sicherheitsdienst leadership, even though they served different masters (OKW/Chi was subordinated to the military while the Sicherheitsdienst came under the control of the Nazi party).

Sources: CIA FOIA reports HUEGEL, KLAUS No 22 and WIRSING, GISELHER No 16,
British national archives KV 2/95 ‘Walter Friedrich SCHELLENBERG: rose to be No. 2 in the S.D. and was close to Himmler’

Sonderkommando Rote Kapelle and the radio network of the French Communist Party

The Soviet Union was a secretive state convinced that the capitalist world was plotting to invade and destroy it. In order to avert such a development the Soviet government financed and organized the creation of spy networks throughout Europe. These penetrated military, economic, political and diplomatic circles. Many of the agents were devoted communists who thought they were working for the creation of a better world.

Germany was a major target of the Soviet spies, especially after power was seized by the NSDAP party. The Red Orchestra was the name given by German intelligence to the Soviet spy networks operating in Europe during WWII. These networks had been set up in the 1920’s and had managed to infiltrate government departments and business circles of every country in Europe. Through their spying activity they kept Moscow informed of important events in Europe.

Their means of communication was the radio and it was this means that led to their downfall. The German Radio Defence agency (Funkabwehr) was able to locate one of the sites used for radio transmissions in 1941 and by apprehending the cipher clerks and their cipher material they were able to read this traffic. By decoding messages they uncovered the names of many Rote Kapelle members and of course these were arrested, interrogated and more people were incriminated. By late 1942 the main networks in Western Europe were destroyed.
 
However after exposing and dismantling these networks the Germans took measures to continue their transmissions to Moscow, so that they could pass false information to the Soviets and also receive information on new spies sent to the West.

The unit tasked with dismantling the Rote Kapelle networks and handling the radio deception (funkspiel) was the Sonderkommando Rote Kapelle, headed in 1943-44 by Heinz Pannwitz.

Operations Eiffel and Mars

In the period 1943-44 the Sonderkommando Rote Kapelle/ Sonderkommando Pannwitz was based in Paris and handled the radio-games between captured Soviet agents and Moscow. The Germans had managed to capture the leaders of the organization Leopold Trepper (Grand Chef) and Anatoly Gurevich (Petit Chef).

After a short period in captivity Trepper managed to escape but Gurevich was used by the Germans to report disinformation to Moscow and convince them that their spy networks were operating normally.

Radio messages were sent from Paris (operation Eiffel) and from Marseille (operation Mars).

The radio network of the French communist party

Another success of the Sonderkommando Rote Kapelle concerned the undercover radio network of the French communist party. According to a recently declassified CIA report, written by Pannwitz, the French CP had prepared a network of undercover radio stations, ready to be used when the party leadership ordered it.

 

These stations had been located by the Germans and they were eliminated thus preventing direct communications with Moscow. However Pannwitz knew that eventually the communists would replace these stations with new ones and risk exposing his operations in France. In order to preempt such a move the Sonderkommando established a new French CP radio network that was in reality under its complete control.

Using the cover of the Rote Kapelle, the resistance leader Paul Victor Legendre was persuaded to set up this radio network. The Germans managed to build up this organization and inserted their own men as radio operators. By operating this network they got a large number of daily espionage reports and were able to keep track of the resistance and stop acts of sabotage.

 

According to Pannwitz an added benefit of running this network was that during the Normandy campaign some of the radio stations continued to transmit information, this time on the strength and operations of the Allied forces.

 

The operations of the network concluded in the summer of 1944 when the Germans had to evacuate Paris. Till that time however the German intelligence agencies got information of great value through the French CP radio network.

Sources: CIA Report - PANNWITZ, HEINZ   VOL. 2_0042, CSDIC/CMF/SD 80 - 'First Detailed Interrogation Report on LENTZ, Waldemar, and KURFESS, Hans'

General Onodera’s intelligence bazaar

In the course of WWII all the participants tried to gather secret intelligence using spies.

For example the Brits had their Secret Intelligence Service and the Special Operations Executive plus they worked together with the Polish, French and Czech intelligence services. The Germans had their Abwehr and Sicherheitsdienst. The Americans created the Office of Strategic Services etc etc

Spying was a hard business. Recruiting trustworthy individuals, training them, providing them with false identities, necessary paperwork and foreign currency was not easy. Inserting them into an enemy country was difficult with the majority being caught in a relatively short time. Even those that survived could usually only gather information of limited value.

The Germans built up large spy networks in neutral countries like Spain, Turkey, Sweden and Switzerland but they did not have similar successes in the US and the UK.

Prior to WWII they had compromised the USAAF’s most advanced bombsight but during the war their attempts to insert agents all (?) failed.

In the UK their attempts were so clumsy that the Brits not only captured the spies but in many cases convinced them to change sides and send false information to the Germans.

Does that mean that the Germans failed to get any useful information from these countries during the war? Not quite. Although the Germans didn’t have spy networks in the US and UK they were able to acquire some accurate information on Allied war production (and possibly other areas).

How could they have done so? Although they didn’t have spy nets that doesn’t mean that there weren’t other countries that did. Diplomats and businessmen of neutral countries learned a great deal by talking to Allied officials and some of this information was leaked or sold to the Germans. At the same time there was an exchange of information between Germans, Italians, Japanese and Hungarians.

For example in Sweden Karl-Heinz Kraemer, secretary of the German legation in Stockholm, was able to gather valuable information on US and UK war production mainly through his contacts in business and government circles. In 1944 the Allies considered Kraemer to be one of the most dangerous German agents and they were worried that he might compromise the security of operation ‘Overlord’.

One of Kraemer’s best sources was the Japanese military attaché in Sweden, general Makoto Onodera. In 1944-45 they regularly met and exchanged information.

General Onodera

In Europe one of the top officials of the Japanese intelligence service was the military attaché in Sweden, general Makoto Onodera.

 

 

 

Soviet codebreakers of WWII

WWII histories of signals intelligence and codebreaking are currently focused on the theatres where German and Japanese troops fought against the Anglo-Americans. The influence of ULTRA intelligence on the Battle of the Atlantic, the North Africa campaign, the Normandy invasion, the battle of Midway etc is mentioned not only in specialized books but also in the popular histories of the war.

On the other hand the Eastern Front is completely neglected in this aspect, despite the fact that millions of troops fought in countless battles and endured horrendous losses for several years in the largest land campaign in history.

Codebreaking and signals intelligence played a major role in the German war effort. We know that the Army had 3 signal intelligence regiments (KONA units) assigned to the three Army groups in the East (Army Group North, South and Centre). In addition from 1942 another one was added to monitor Partisan traffic. The Luftwaffe had similar units assigned to the 3 Air Fleets (Luftflotten) providing aerial support to the Army Groups.

Both the Army and the Luftwaffe also established central cryptanalytic departments (Horchleitstelle Ost and LN Regt 353) for the Eastern front in East Prussia. So as we can see the Germans certainly invested significant resources on sigint.

During the war this effort paid off. We know that the German codebreakers could solve Soviet low, mid and (for a time) high level cryptosystems. We also know that they intercepted the internal radio teletype network carrying economic and military traffic. Traffic analysis and direction finding also played a big role in identifying the Soviet order of battle.

Having looked at the German side we need to turn our attention to the Soviets. What were the successes of the Soviet side in this shadow war?

Unfortunately there is no clear answer to this question. The Soviet archives relating to signals intelligence are closed and information on codebreaking is hard to find and verify. This means that there are limited sources that a researcher can use and in some cases it will be necessary to resort to deductive reasoning.

Prewar developments

The Tsarist empire invested considerable resources in the field of secret intelligence and codebreaking. The agents of the feared Okhrana monitored revolutionaries and other enemies of the regime and its ‘Black Chamber’ (Cherniy Kabinet) could decode the telegrams of foreign ambassadors.

The new Soviet state took over some of these codebreakers and put them back to work. In 1921 the Spetsial'niy Otdel (Special Department) was created and it was housed in a building of the People's Commissariat of Foreign Affairs on Kuznetskiy Most Street, Moscow. In 1935 it was moved to the NKVD’s Lubyanka office complex. Security measures were draconian with the personnel being told not to reveal even the location of their offices to their relatives.

Head of the department from 1921-37 was Gleb Ivanovich Bokii, a loyal Bolshevik who had ruthlessly suppressed enemies of the Soviet state during the Russian civil war. His deputy was Major Pavel Khrisanfovich Kharkevich.

The Spetsodel initially employed many former Tsarist codebreakers who were assisted in their work by compromised cipher material provided by foreign spies. The Soviet foreign intelligence service was able to recruit personnel with access to cipher material in many countries during the 1920’s and 30’s.

During this period the Soviet codebreakers were able to exploit the codes of several foreign nations including Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, USA, Poland and many others. The main target was Japan due to the military incidents in the Far East between the Soviet forces and the Kwantung Army.

The Soviet codebreakers also took part in the Spanish Civil War, the Sino-Japanese war and the battle of Khalkhyn Gol.

Special operational groups of the Spetsodel were sent on these operations. A small group went to Spain in 1936 were it succeeded in reading the messages of Franco’s military forces and also of their spy network.

In early 1938 a group was sent to China to assist the Government forces of Chiang Kai-shek in their fight against Japan. In the course of the following months 10 Japanese tactical cryptosystems were solved.

In 1939 the codebreakers were able to assist General Zhukov in the battle of Khalkhyn Gol by reading the code used by the Kwantung Army.

The purges of the 1930’s

The many successes of the Special Department did not shield it from the purges of the 1930’s. During that period people from all aspects of Soviet society suffered from accusations of spying and sabotage and there were show trials and executions.

The purges crippled the cryptologic service since many of its workers were executed along with the top administrators. Bokii was executed in 1937 with most of the section heads and the Tsarist era personnel suffering the same fate.

These self inflicted wounds came at the worst possible time since in September 1939 Germany invaded Poland and thus started World War II.

The Great Patriotic war

In 1941 the crypto service was redesignated as the 5th Department of the NKVD under the efficient administrator Major Ivan Grigoryevich Shevelev.

The German invasion led to the rapid expansion of the department and Shenelev recruited some of the best mathematicians and technicians in the Soviet Union. According to Matt Aid ‘By the end of World War II, the 5th Directorate controlled the single largest concentration of mathematicians and linguists in the Soviet Union.’

The Red Army also had its own signal intelligence and codebreaking department under the Chief Intelligence Directorate - GRU. In 1930 the GRU decryption department became part of the Spetsodel but was split off again in 1938.

In 1941 the radio intelligence service was the 8^th department of the Intelligence Directorate of the Army General Staff. Head of the unit was Engineer 1st Rank I.N. Artem'ev. The GRU controlled special radio battalions called OSNAZ. At the start of the war there were 16 of these battalions.

How did the Soviet radio intelligence organizations perform during the war?

Period 1941-42

We know that in 1941 they were suffering from the loss of experienced personnel. It also seems that the numerous GRU radio battalions were primarily tasked with monitoring their own military forces for breaches of security and thus neglected to keep foreign units under close observation.

The German surprise attack caught the entire Soviet military in the process of mobilization and movement of units. The great defeats of 1941 led to the loss of equipment, cipher material and personnel. However it seems the Soviets were also able to win some important victories in the radio war.

In the autumn of 1941 a group led by NKVD cryptanalyst Sergei Tolstoy was able to solve the PURPLE cipher machine used by the Japanese Foreign Ministry. The decrypts showed that Japan would not attack the Soviet Union in support of the Germans. This information allowed the Soviet leadership to concentrate all available resources against Germany. Japanese diplomatic traffic continued to be read throughout the war and provided important insights into the political and military developments in Axis countries.

In the military front there is no indication that German cipher machines were solved cryptanalytically but in late 1941 the Soviets were able to capture Enigma machines and documentation of the German Second Army. The information obtained might have played a role in the Battle of Moscow.

Germany’s Allies were easier targets. According to a recent book on Russian cryptology the Army codebreakers were able to read messages exchanged between the Romanian high command and General Manstein in the Ukraine during the period 1941-42.

The Soviet Stalingrad offensive took advantage of the fact that the sides of the German front were held by Romanian and Hungarian troops. It is not unreasonable to assume that some of this information was acquired through signals intelligence. 

A report from the GRU to Stalin dated November 29, 1942 says that: ‘Direction finding of German army radio stations provided valuable information about enemy groupings, their activities and intentions….The cryptanalytic service of the Chief Intelligence Directorate of the Red Army identified the main German and Japanese general military, police and diplomatic ciphers, including 75 systems of German intelligence. More than 220 keys to them, and more than 50,000 German messages were read…The research group of our office has revealed the possibility of solving German messages enciphered on the ‘‘Enigma’’ machine, and started to construct equipment, speeding up the solution.’

The crypto systems mentioned must have been the hand ciphers used at low and mid level by the German military, police and Abwehr.

In 1942 there was a major reorganization of the NKVD and GRU radio intelligence services. The 5^th department took control of the evaluation and distribution of Soviet crypto systems and also absorbed the GRU cryptanalysts.

The 8^th department concentrated on traffic analysis and direction finding in order to reveal the order of battle of the German units.

Period 1943-45

In the second half of the war the German forces were in retreat and the Soviets liberated the occupied territories and ended the war by capturing Berlin. During this period the Soviet military had a significant numerical advantage in troops and equipment against the Germans. This makes it difficult to assess the importance of signals intelligence in the Soviet victories since many different factors were at play.

Still we do know that through direction finding and traffic analysis the Soviets were able to identify German formations and follow their movements. For example the article ‘Spies, Ciphers and 'Zitadelle': Intelligence and the Battle of Kursk, 1943’ says : ‘a captured intelligence report of the Soviet 1st Tank Army dated 5 July 1943 revealed that radio intelligence had identified the positions of the headquarters and units of II SS Panzer Corps, 6th Panzer and 11th Panzer Divisions before the offensive began. Other captured documents disclosed that 7th Panzer Division, XIII Corps and Second Army headquarters had all been similarly ’fixed’ by Soviet radio intelligence.’

The Soviet codebreakers were definitely able to solve German hand ciphers and they must have captured Enigma machines and their keylists when they encircled German units (especially in the summer of ’44).

Help from abroad

The Soviets received assistance from two foreign sources. On the one hand the British occasionally shared some of the intelligence that they acquired by breaking German codes. The source was always camouflaged since the Brits did not want to reveal their cryptologic successes to the Soviet government.

Apart from general warnings about impending German actions the Brits also sent more detailed reports. In April ’43 they transmitted a report sent by General von Weichs to Foreign Armies East that revealed the main points of the German plan for the battle of Kursk. In October of the same year they informed the Soviet authorities about the Abwehr’s Klatt network.

Although the British authorities were careful to hide the source of their reports the Soviets already knew about Bletchley Park and the Enigma codebreaking through their spy network. During WWII Kim Philby and Anthony Blunt passed along information on Abwehr ciphers while John Cairncross was able to infiltrate Bletchley Park.

According to ‘The Crown Jewels: The British Secrets at the Heart of the KGB Archives’, p218-9 in 1942 apart from decrypted messages Cairncross was able to get ‘two volumes of the secret training manual on deciphering, a guide for the reading of the German Enigma key codenamed TUNNY and a description of a machine constructed by the British to read the Luftwaffe's cipher traffic’.  Tunny must refer to the SZ42 teleprinter and not Enigma. The part about the machine used on the Luftwaffe cipher traffic could refer to the bombes but it is not clarified in the book.

The information provided by Cairncross could have allowed the Soviet codebreakers to overcome cipher research problems.

Working backwards

Since we do not have details on what systems the Soviets could exploit it might be best to work backwards. By looking at the cryptosystems used by the Germans we can check if their security was such that they would have resisted a well organized attack by a group of mathematicians and linguists.

Overview of Axis cryptosystems

Germany

Military

The German military used cipher teleprinters of the SZ42, T52 and T43 types for top level communications, the Enigma machine from regiment upwards and various hand ciphers for frontline use.

Lorenz SZ42

The main radio-teletype machine used in the East was the Lorenz SZ42. This was quite a complex machine and regular solution required the use of very advanced cryptanalytic equipment. The Brits built the Colossus computer in order to decode this traffic. The Soviets were probably unable to build similar equipment but they could have decoded messages ‘in depth’ using hand methods. This was the standard practice at Bletchley Park prior to the introduction of high speed cryptanalytic equipment.

At this time there is no information on Soviet analysis of German teleprinters.

Enigma

The plugboard Enigma was used by the German Army, Navy and Airforce as their main cipher system. Throughout the war its security was upgraded with new procedures and modifications. Could the Soviets have decoded Enigma traffic like Bletchley Park?

The GRU 1942 report says ‘The research group of our office has revealed the possibility of solving German messages enciphered on the ‘‘Enigma’’ machine, and started to construct equipment, speeding up the solution’. However there is no mention of actually decoding traffic.

This possibility was examined by Geoff Jukes in a series of articles in the 1980’s. However both his articles were based on inferential evidence and the responses by Milner‐Barry and Ralph Erskine effectively countered Juke’s arguments.

David Kahn who interviewed KGB General Nicolai Andreev (head of the KGB’s sigint department in the 1970-80's) in 1996 was told that the Soviets knew how to solve the Enigma and although they didn’t have bombes ‘it might have been possible to organize people to replicate the mechanisms work’. From Andreev’s statement it is not clear if this was actually done with real traffic.

The Soviets definitely captured intact Enigma machines and valid keylists during the war. Using them they would have been able to decode older traffic. However there is no indication so far that they were able to recover the settings cryptanalytically. 

On the contrary the recent article ‘О ВКЛАДЕ СОВЕТСКИХ КРИПТОГРАФОВ В ПОБЕДУ ПОД МОСКВОЙ’, says that in late 1942 the Soviet codebreakers analyzed the Enigma cipher machine and developed ways of solving it. However their efforts failed in January 1943 due to German security measures.

This information seems to be confirmed by the war diary of the German Army’s Inspectorate 7/VI. The March 1943 report of Referat 13 (security of German cipher machines) says that based on the published radio dispatches from Stalingrad Inspectorate 7/VI was asked to give an opinion from the point of view of decipherment.

Schlüsselüberwachung

Auf grund der veröffentlichten Funksprüche asus Stalingrad wurde In 7/VI um ein allgemeines Gutachten gebeten, das die Stellungnahme vom Standpunkt der Entzifferung enthält.

Thus it seems that the Soviet effort to decrypt Enigma messages was identified early and countered by the Germans.

Such a failure could be attributed to several factors:

1). They started their analysis of the Enigma late in the war and thus could not exploit the insecure signaling procedures of the period up to May 1940. In the period 1942-45 the Germans introduced many new security measures that would have made a solution much more difficult than in 1939-40 when Bletchley Park made its start.

2). Most of the Enigma traffic in the East would be from Army units that traditionally had a higher level of security than their Airforce counterparts. Army traffic routinely caused problems for Bletchley Park, despite their large number of ‘bombes’.

Hand ciphers

The German army used hand ciphers at division level and below. For most of the war the main systems were double Playfair and 3-letter field codes.

The double Playfair- Doppelkastenverfahren was a modification of the well known Playfair cipher but instead of one square it used two. The text was broken up into digraphs and they were enciphered using the two alphabet squares. According to Dr Fricke, a German cryptologist who evaluated the security of Army systems, up to 1942 the digraphs were enciphered only once but from that point on they were enciphered twice. A report by Allied personnel who worked on this system says that ‘Each German division had its own set of cipher boxes. It was assigned six different boxes for each day. These were paired in different combinations for each day's eight three hour periods. In effect, there were eight keys per day.’

The army also used 3-letter codes. Initially these were used unreciphered but from 1942 they were enciphered with daily changing trigraphic substitution tables.

Both these systems had limited security. It is probably safe to assume that this traffic was regularly solved by the Soviets and gave them tactical intelligence and OOB data. However their success with military hand ciphers could not have lasted for the entire war.

In 1944 the double Playfair was replaced with the Rasterschlüssel 44, a transposition system using a stencil. The RS 44 had impressive security for a hand cipher and confounded the analysts of Bletchley Park. The Soviet codebreakers must have been similarly annoyed that the double Playfair was replaced by such a secure cipher.

Radio procedures

According to German personnel the radio procedures of their units (callsigns, indicator groups) were insecure and thus simply through traffic analysis and direction finding the Soviets were able to identify enemy units and concentrate their attacks at their flanks.

Intelligence services

The military intelligence service Abwehr infiltrated spies in the Soviet rear areas through WALLI I, a unit controlled by Major Hermann Baun. The ciphers used by the Abwehr in the field were mostly transposition systems. The codebreaker of Bletchley Park were able to solve Abwehr ciphers throughout the war. There is no reason why these simple systems would resist solution by the Soviets. The GRU report specifically mentions the Abwehr traffic: ‘….including 75 systems of German intelligence.’

Additional information on Abwehr ciphers was provided by the Cambridge spy ring.

Central Abwehr stations also used a small number of Enigma G machines. The G (Counter) version did not have a plugboard since its security laid in the irregular stepping system of the wheels. Bletchley Park was able to solve this machine in late 1941 and the traffic was regularly read. There is no indication that the Enigma G was solved by the Soviets, although it would be theoretically possible (for example by using reencodements from hand ciphers).

In one case we definitely know that the Soviets exploited the communications of the Abwehr. In Sofia, Bulgaria the Klatt bureau gathered intelligence from sources that were supposedly working inside the Soviet Union. The traffic of the Sofia station was intercepted by the Brits who found the information valuable. Through their spies inside British intelligence the Soviets learned of the Klatt bureau and started intercepting the Vienna-Sofia traffic from autumn 1941. According to ‘The Crown Jewels: The British Secrets at the Heart of the KGB Archives’, p197 the Soviet codebreakers were able to solve the cipher in July 1942 and found it to be ‘a letter cipher of a comparatively simple system’. The same source says that the traffic on the Sofia-Budapest link was also decoded.

The intelligence service of the SS – Sicherheitsdienst recruited POW’s and after a brief period of training and indoctrination sent them to the Soviet rear on espionage and sabotage missions. This operation was called ‘Zeppelin’ and it was clearly a numbers game. The Germans did not expect their agents to survive for long. The SD probably used several different cryptosystems, however just like the Abwehr it seems that the most widely used one was double transposition. Considering the limited training afforded to the ‘Zeppelin’ agents it is probably safe to assume that they would not be taught complex cryptosystems. Just like the Abwehr there is no reason to assume that these messages were secure from Soviet eavesdroppers.

Organisations in the rear areas

Could the Soviet radio intelligence services have gotten information on events in the occupied areas of the Soviet Union? Although the Germans were well supplied with radios they only used them when landlines were not available. In the East they quickly built up a ground network using telephone cable and drehkreuz lines. This means that most traffic in the rear areas would go by landline.

However some organizations had to use the radio more often and their traffic could potentially be exploited.

Police

The German police - Ordnungspolizei was a militarized organization and during the war several of their units served as occupation troops in the East. Their radio communications were enciphered with the simple and double Playfair system and from 1944 the RS44 stencil. According to Major Schlake, head of communications in the Main office of the Ordnungspolizei, only a small number of Enigma machines (about 20) were used by the police. According to ‘The history of Hut 6’ the Enigma was introduced in February 1944 for use by higher police officials in occupied Europe. The Brits called this key ‘Roulette’ and were able to solve it mainly thanks to reencodements from double Playfair.

There is no reason why the simple and double Playfair would resist an attack by the Soviet codebreakers. The GRU 1942 report says that police ciphers were identified and ‘valuable reports were obtained about the fighting ability of partisans on territory occupied by the Germans.’ This information must have come from police reports.

German railways

The German railways - Deutsche Reichsbahn used a small number of rewired commercial Enigma machines for radio traffic. The key used in Eastern Europe was named ‘Rocket’ by Bletchley Park and was first solved in early 1941.

The commercial Enigma was not as secure as the military version because it lacked a plugboard. On the other hand the wheels were wired separately for the Reichsbahn, so a cryptanalytic attack would need to recover the wirings first.

So far there is no indication that the Soviet codebreakers were successful with that task but it would be theoretically possible since no special cryptanalytic equipment was needed.

German Allies

Apart from German troops there were also Finnish, Romanian, Italian, Slovakian and Hungarian units fighting in the Eastern front. Their contribution was important especially in the period 1941-42, with numbers peaking in summer ’42 at roughly 850.000 troops.

These countries used mainly hand ciphers so in theory their traffic should be vulnerable to cryptanalysis. As has been mentioned previously the traffic of the Romanian command was read in 1941-2 by the Soviet codebreakers.

The Germans were aware of the insecurity of some of their Allies cryptosystems and in 1942 they gave them a number of plugboard Enigmas but still most of the traffic would go through insecure systems. For example the cipher used by the Romanian police was found to be very simple and it was a security risk since the police routinely reported the movement of German units passing through their country.

Additional research is needed to identify the cryptosystems used by the minor Axis nations in the East and their exploitation by the Soviets.

Conclusion

The use of signals intelligence and codebreaking by the Germans and Soviets in the Eastern front is a subject that has received very little attention by historians so far. The main reason was probably the lack of adequate sources. That excuse might have been valid a few years ago but today the newly released TICOM material allows the researcher to discover many details about the performance of German sigint in the East.

When it comes to the Soviet side we know that they performed well prewar but there is limited information on the codesystems they solved during the war. The Soviet state invested significant resources in its signal intelligence agencies and the NKVD crypto department apparently gathered the top mathematicians and linguists in the country. The collaboration of such a gifted group of individuals must have led to the solution of numerous foreign cryptosystems.

Unfortunately the information we have so far is limited and fragmentary. Perhaps more information will be released in the future.

Sources: ‘The Mitrokhin archive’, ‘The codebreakers’, ‘The Crown Jewels: The British Secrets at the Heart of the KGB Archives’, ‘Russian cryptology’, ‘The History of Information Security: A Comprehensive Handbook’ chapter 17-‘Eavesdroppers of the Kremlin: KGB sigint during the Cold war’, ‘British intelligence in the Second World War vol2 and vol4’, ‘Decrypted Secrets: Methods and Maxims of Cryptology’, ‘The history of Hut 6’ vol2, ‘Kursk 1943: A statistical analysis’, FMS P-038 'German Radio intelligence'  , FMS P-132 ‘Signals Communications in the East - German experiences in Russia’, ‘The Soviet cryptologic service’, NSA report: ‘A World War II German Army Field Cipher and How We Broke It’, Cipher Machines and Cryptology, CryptoCellar Tales, Inspectorate 7/VI Kriegstagebuch, ‘О ВКЛАДЕ СОВЕТСКИХ КРИПТОГРАФОВ В ПОБЕДУ ПОД МОСКВОЙ’

Various TICOM reports including DF-112, DF-292, I-20, I-91, I-121, I-129.

‘Cryptologia’ articles: ‘Summary Report of the State of the Soviet Military Sigint in November 1942 Noticing “ENIGMA”’,’ Russian and Soviet cryptology iv – some incidents in the 1930's’, ‘Soviet comint in the Cold war’

‘Journal of Contemporary History’ articles: ‘Foreign Armies East and German Military Intelligence in Russia 1941-45’, ‘Spies, Ciphers and 'Zitadelle': Intelligence and the Battle of Kursk, 1943’

‘Intelligence and National Security’ articles: ‘The Soviets and Ultra’, ‘The Soviets and Ultra: A comment on Jukes’ hypothesis’, ‘More on the Soviets and Ultra’, ‘The Soviets and naval enigma: Some comments’, ‘Kōzō Izumi and the Soviet Breach of Imperial Japanese Diplomatic Codes’.

Pics: Soviet flag found through Wikipedia

Acknowledgements: I have to thank Ralph Erskine for sharing the ‘Intelligence and National Security’ Enigma articles, Frode Weierud for information on the German cryptosystems, Grebennkov Vadim Viktorovich for sharing information from his book on Soviet cryptologic history and Anatoly Klepov for general information on the history and achievements of the Soviet codebreakers.

The American SS Sturmbannführers

A very interesting WWII espionage mystery is mentioned in the book ‘The German Penetration of SOE: France 1941-1944’, p155. The source of this story was Ernst Vogt, an interpreter at the Sicherheitsdienst HQ in Paris.

According to Vogt in late 1944 - early ’45 Allied agents were parachuted into Germany as a result of a ‘radio-game’. It seems the organization sending the agents had not realized that their network was under German control. Vogt says that it was probably ‘an American espionage service in London’ (OSS?).

One day three agents were parachuted and immediately taken into custody. These men spoke perfect German and they claimed that they were SS Sturmbannführers and should be released.

Vogt’s superior was Hans Josef Kieffer, commandant at the SD HQ at 84 Avenue Foch in Paris. Kieffer was also SS Sturmbannführer. When the men produced their id cards Kieffer showed them his and pointed out that they were different. This did not faze the captured men. They responded that ‘yours is out of date. All SD identity cards are renewable three-monthly now.’

In order to solve this mystery Kieffer sent Vogt to Berlin to report to his superior Horst Kopkow. When Kopkow saw the identity cards he said: ‘it had been intended to call in the existing ones and to issue new ones in this form’ ‘but none in this form had been issued yet’.

So there you have it! A genuine mystery. Who were these men? Who did they work for? and how did they manage to find out about the new SS id scheme?

German counterintelligence operations in occupied France

After the fall of France in the summer of 1940 the country had to endure four long years of occupation under the German forces. During that period countless resistance groups were organized both by the French and by foreign powers.

The agencies that organized resistance groups were the British SIS and SOE, the intelligence service of the Free French and the Polish intelligence service. In addition there were the homegrown resistance groups plus the intelligence service of the Vichy regime.

Relations between these groups were complicated. For example the Vichy intelligence service helped the resistance but was at odds with the De Gaule movement, the communists distrusted the right-wingers and there was little cooperation between the British SOE and SIS.

The German agencies whose task it was to monitor and destroy the Resistance were also numerous. There was the military police Geheime Feldpolizei, the military intelligence service Abwehr, the Security Services Sicherheitsdienst/Gestapo and the Radio Defense departments of the Armed Forces and the Police.

Initially the resistance was made up of a few isolated groups organized by patriotic individuals. They did not take many security precautions and as a result their groups were easily infiltrated by agents. As time went on the groups that took their place were better organized and had regular contact with London via radio. They also received weapons, money and explosives from airdrops.  In some cases these weapons were used for acts of sabotage but the majority were stored away for use on the day of the Allied invasion.

Considering the anti-German attitude of the French population and the geographical proximity of Britain one would expect that setting up resistance groups and organizing them would not be hard. Unfortunately for the Allies this was not so. The Germans were hampered by their separate security agencies but they were able to identify, monitor and destroy countless resistance groups. In many cases they managed to gain control of whole groups by maneuvering their agents into top positions.

They also engaged in radio-games with the British. After capturing radio operators and their cipher material they sent misleading reports to London and got the British to reveal parts of their networks or drop supplies and agents into their hands.

In 1941-42 their main successes were the liquidation of the INTERALLIÉ, AUTOGIRO, CARTE networks and the arrest of key members of ALLIANCE. In August ’42 they carried out an extensive radio finding operation in Vichy France called operation ‘Donar’. Depending on the source they neutralized 6 or 12 enemy transmitters.

In 1943 the Germans achieved their greatest successes against the Resistance.  They compromised the SPINDLE group and arrested Roger Frager, Peter Churchill and Odette Sansom. They captured the leadership of the ORA-Organisation de résistance de l'armée and many of their members. They also captured general Delestraint, head of the Armée secrète. When Resistance leaders met in order to unify their groups the house was raided by the Germans thus capturing many top level people, including prefect Jean Moulin. In the summer of ‘43 the SOE’s largest network in France PHYSICIAN/PROSPER was liquidated. Also in ’43 the ARCHDEACON network was thoroughly compromised and many groups of the Gaullist MITHRIDATE organization were destroyed.

Despite all their efforts by 1944 the Resistance had grown exponentially. With Germany’s defeat in sight everyone was willing to help the resistance groups and even German agents crossed over and attacked their former masters, giving rise to the term ‘resistant du 44’.

Still their successes against so many different organizations deserve to be recognized. Why were the Germans so successful in counterintelligence work?

1). Sabotage vs espionage operations

The mission of an intelligence agency is to keep its existence secret and collect information. For these operations only a small number of highly trained operatives are needed. On the other hand an organization tasked with sabotage will need arms shipments, arms depots and lots of agents to move arms and explosives around and take part in attacks. Obviously such activity cannot remain in the dark as attacks on infrastructure and personnel will attract the attention of enemy security services.

In essence this was the problem of SOE (Special Operations Executive). Unlike SIS that always kept a low profile SOE was created to attack the German occupation authorities and destroy critical infrastructure in occupied countries. This meant that its networks quickly became a target for the Germans.

2). Antagonism between the Allies

Relations between the different Allied agencies were antagonistic. SIS was an established organization and had no reason to support the upstart SOE. The Free French distrusted the British and were in turn distrusted by them. Vichy authorities were willing to turn a blind eye to British operations but they hated De Gaulle’s people.

The effects of having many different organizations operating in France meant that the Resistance was fragmented.

3). Poor security procedures

Security was not a high priority in the resistance groups. The resistance people frequented the same areas (bars/cafes/restaurants) thus making it easy for the Germans to keep them under observation. Instead of trying to keep their identities secret some people openly boasted of being resistance members or showed of their weapons in night clubs. The size of the resistance groups was also a security problem. With hundreds of members it was impossible to keep double agents out.

One of the worst errors was the use of the same radio operator by several resistance groups. Each group had one or more radio teams but these were often arrested and when that happened there was no other means of communication with London. The proper procedure would be to wait for a new operator to arrive but what actually happened was that another network was asked to transmit their messages. Since there were many networks but few radio operators this meant that the ones under German control could compromise several resistance groups.

Serious security errors were also committed by the British. Radio operators were given a series of security checks to insert into their messages so they could inform on whether they were under German control. In many cases these checks were disregarded by SOE as mistakes of the operator. This is not as ridiculous as it sounds. Messages from the field had many errors and in a lot of cases were either completely unreadable or had to be solved cryptanalytically. Under these circumstances it was not possible to determine if the security checks were inserted correctly or were mistakes.

4). Psychological manipulation

The German security services have a reputation of torturing people but the reality is that in most cases they relied on psychological manipulation and not physical violence. Although prisoners were sometimes maltreated (especially by the SD) usually confessions were gotten out of them by showing them how much was already known about their networks.

Many people were enticed to work for the Germans in exchange for protection for themselves and their families.

For high level operatives a deal was proposed. If they gave up the names and addresses of the members of their entire network the Germans would guarantee that their people would not be executed but only imprisoned. Many resistance leaders took this deal.

5). Abwehr vs Sicherheitsdienst

For the Germans the existence of military and political security services was both a hindrance and an asset.

On the one hand the military intelligence service Abwehr often clashed with the political Security services (Sicherheitsdienst/Gestapo). There was undoubtedly duplication of effort and wasted manpower. In some cases one agency would arrest people who worked for the other thus compromising secret operations.

On the other hand each agency had a reputation that attracted specific kinds of people. The Abwehr was lead by military officers who had a code of honor and did not like torture. They tried to recruit agents by mutually beneficial deals. For example a resistance member serving a long sentence would be given the offer to be released in exchange for becoming a spy. In other cases someone could save a family member who was sentenced to death by revealing information about the resistance. These deals were honored by the Abwehr.

The Sicherheitsdienst did not have many moral scruples. What mattered for them were results. For that reason they were prepared to use torture, extortion and bribes. People who wanted to make money could offer their services and act as provocateurs. Criminal elements like the notorious Bony-Lafont gang worked for the SD.

An interesting trick by the Abwehr was to use the SD as a boogeyman. Prisoners knew that the Abwehr usually treated prisoners with respect. On the other hand the SD had a reputation for torture. If a difficult prisoner refused to give any information then the Abwehr interrogator would tell him ‘well there’s nothing more I can do for you, we’ll have to send you to the SD’. This got many men talking.

6). Skillful use of double agents

The Germans successfully inserted double agents in the resistance groups. Some of their most successful agents were:

The Cat

Mathilde Carré alias ‘La Chatte’ was a founding member of INTERALLIÉ. It seems that she was romantically attached to Roman Czerniawski. In November 1941 she was arrested and revealed the secrets of INTERALLIÉ to the Germans. She became a double agent for Bleicher and compromised many members of the resistance. She also compromised Pierre de Vomécourt’s AUTOGIRO network when she convinced him to use her radio operator for his messages.

Vomécourt suspected her of being a spy and when they travelled to London together in February 1942 he had her arrested. She spent the rest of the war in jail.

Roger Bardet

Bardet was a member of CARTE. In 1943 he was tricked by Bleicher to come to Paris with him and visit his chief Marsac who was in prison. Bardet was then arrested and after spending time in jail offered to work for the Germans. He eventually became Henri Fragers second in command in the DONKEYMAN network. In 1944 he betrayed Frager and provided Bleicher with the BBC’s pre-invasion ‘Action’ messages. With the German defeat in sight he changed sides once more and attacked the Germans. He was arrested at the end of the war.

The mystery of ‘Gilbert’

Henry Dericourt alias ‘Gilbert’ was a civilian pilot who served with the French AF in the Battle of France.  In 1943 he was approached by SOE and given the task to smuggle agents into France by plane. Dericourt carried out this mission with great success but eventually came under suspicion of passing information to the Germans and for that reason he was recalled to London in February 1944. According to his postwar interrogation to the French authorities he did give some information to the Germans. The truth is that Dericourt cooperated with Sturmbahnfuehrer Boemelburg in exchange for protection for himself, his family and his agents. That is probably the reason for his excellent flying record (43 people flown in and 67 flown out of France without problems).

It seems that through him the Germans were able to make copies of the documents being transported from France to London. These documents were later shown to captured agents thus breaking their confidence in the security of their organization.

Was ‘Gilbert’ a traitor? He did give information to the Germans but in his trial in 1948 Boddington head of the SOE France section came to his defense.

Dericourt took his secrets to the grave as he died in a plane accident in 1962.

7). Insecure communications

A serious problem for the Allied spy networks were the limited means of communication between them and London. Mail could be transported by plane or by ship across the Channel. In addition there was a southern route into Spain. The Germans occasionally captured couriers and their messages. They also had Dericourt as a source of mail.

The only means of rapid communications were by radio but this was a double edged sword. Radio transmissions could be also picked up by the Germans and if they could solve the codes then they could identify the agents.

Intelligence agencies have a reason to favor the use of unbreakable codes such as the one time pad. A military message is usually not important on its own. A decrypted message of a resistance group however could contain names and addresses which were enough to allow the Germans to arrest people and unravel whole groups.

Unfortunately for the Allies the code systems used by SOE and the Poles for much of the war were theoretically and practically vulnerable to cryptanalysis.

The crypto-systems used by SOE were initially substitution systems employing a poem as a ‘key’ or a passage from a book as a cipher. These were insecure and Leo Marks head of the SOE cipher department had them changed to OTP.

The Polish secret service in France used in 1943/44 a stencil cipher that was much more secure than the SOE substitution systems but it too succumbed to Germans analysis.

Radio Defence Corps and Referat Vauck

The German agencies responsible for monitoring illicit radio transmissions were the Radio Defence Corps of the Armed Forces High Command – OKW Funkabwehr and the similar department of the regular police – Ordnungspolizei. Both agencies operated in France but they were assigned different areas. 

These agencies not only monitored the agents’ traffic but in many cases they were able to locate the site of transmissions through D/F (direction finding). In such cases the radio center was raided and often the operator and his cipher material were captured.

This cipher material was then used by Dr Vaucks agents section to identify the crypto-systems, solve them and decode the traffic. This section, headed by Dr Wilhelm Vauck, was originally part of the Army’s signal intelligence agency OKH/In 7/VI but worked closely with the Radio Defense Corps. It was established in 1942 and by the end of the year two-man teams were detached to regional Aussenstellen in Paris, Marseilles, Lyons, Prague, Oslo, Vienna, Brussels. In late 1943 the entire department was moved to the OKW Funkabwehr.

According to postwar reports they usually had success with a system if it had been physically compromised. However in some cases it was possible to solve enemy systems cryptanalytically. Mettig, head of the Army’s signal intelligence agency in 1941-43 says in TICOM I-115 that

‘a special weakness of Allied agents’ ciphers was the use of books for enciphering. Usually only a minor inroad or other clue was required to reproduce a piece of the cipher text and conclusions could thence be drawn as to which book was used. In the case of one Allied transmission in the summer of ’42, five or six French words of a text were ascertained, leading to the conclusion that the cipher book dealt with the Spanish civil war. In view of this assumption, all French books about the Spanish civil war in the State libraries of Paris, Madrid and Lisbon were read with the object of trying in these 5-6 words. The book was found. PW always looked on a great research effort as worthwhile. The greatest weakness in using books for enciphering lay in the fact that, once a book had been compromised, an entire transmission could be broken automatically. The weakness existed even if the book in question could not be secured in the same edition or impression. It was still possible for Referat Vauck (though again only after considerable research) to find the right place in the book and to secure a fluent deciphering system by means of conversion tables.

Another weakness of Allied agent ciphers was the use of poetry. Here the verse metre was an additional help in solving the cipher text, as was done in the case of a Czech transmission in the autumn of 42/43.’

The monthly reports of Referat 12, included in the War Diary of Inspectorate 7/VI, show that in the period 1942-44 messages from spy networks in France and Belgium were continuously decoded and several ‘radiogames’ were carried out by the security services.

Playback/Funkspiel

When the agents’ radio and the cipher material were captured then the Germans could start a radiogame. By impersonating the radio operator (or forcing him to take part in the deception) they sent and received messages and were able to deceive the British about the true state of their network. Through these operations the Germans learned of the enemy agency’s organization, plans and  personalities.

The most famous episode in this secret war was the radiogame in Holland called operation ‘Nordpol’. There the Germans were able to trick the British into believing that the Dutch resistance was very effective while in reality the whole network was under their control.

In France too they had many similar successes. For example in 1941 they captured and used in a radio game the operator of ALLIANCE and in 1943 did the same with the operator of PHYSICIAN. In the same year they gained control of ARCHDEACON and had the British parachute arms and agents into their hands.

According to TICOM I-115 before the Allied invasion they had 12 radio links under their control passing disinformation to London.

In addition the Sonderkommando Rote Kapelle (Special Detachment Red Orchestra) was able to dismantle the illicit radio network of the French Communist party and replace it with a new network under its control. The members of the resistance and the communist party working for this organization became unwitting pawns of the Germans.

8). Limits of ULTRA

The solution of German ciphers was one of the greatest successes of the Allied side. The intelligence gained from reading enemy messages played an important role in the war.

However the British were only able to intercept messages sent by radio. In Western Europe the Germans relied on the landlines. Some messages of the Abwehr and the police were sent by radio and decoded by Bletchley Park but the vast majority stayed of the air.

British intelligence in the Second World War vol5 says ‘Certain communications, of course, remained secure throughout the war. All internal communications within the Reich that went by land-line, as did those between the Asts and Abwehr HQ, and between Abwehr HQ and OKW, fell within that category.

British intelligence in the Second World War vol2 says about police ciphers: ‘In contrast to the wealth of information it provided from eastern Europe, the police traffic revealed little about conditions in France, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Norway and Greece until late in the war. This situation reflected the greater availability of land-lines and the fact that the police played a smaller part in occupation duties than they did in the east, the army taking the brunt, but it was also a consequence of the absence of widespread partisan warfare in these areas before 1944.’

In addition the Enigma key of the Sicherheitsdienst/Gestapo – TGD was not broken during the war. The ‘History of Hut 6’, vol2 says ‘It never cilied so far as we know and no convincing re-encodement from any other key was ever produced’.

Conclusion

When the Germans occupied France in 1940 they were not ready to deal with underground resistance movements. Their personnel lacked special training and they did not have well organized intelligence networks in place. Their efforts were amateurish and initially they were helped by elementary security errors of the resistance people. In due time however members of the Abwehr and the Sicherheitsdienst were able to ‘learn on the job’ and they became very efficient at uncovering enemy groups and turning around agents.

Even though they had to operate in a country with an anti-German population they still infiltrated and destroyed many large resistance networks. In many cases they were able to gain control of their radio communications and trick the British into sending them arms and agents.

Despite all their efforts the Resistance grew like a hydra. No matter how many networks the Germans destroyed new ones grew to take their place. By 1944 everyone knew that Germany would lose the war and even their own agents started abandoning them.

In the period 1941-44 however countless German lives and critical infrastructure were saved thanks to the efficient work of the German counterintelligence agencies. Up until 1944 the Resistance was kept at a tolerable level.

The successes of the German security agencies versus French, British and Polish resistance networks in occupied France are worthy of recognition.

Overview of important groups and personalities

INTERALLIÉ network: Founded by Roman Czerniawski/’Armand’, controlled by SIS. Most of the members were displaced Poles. Compromised by Mathilde Carre.

le réseau AUTOGIRO, dirigé par Pierre de Vomécourt « Lucas », dépendant du Special Operations Executive , section F.AUTOGIRO network: Organized by Peter Vomécourt ‘Lucas’, controlled by SOE. Compromised by Mathilde Carre.

CARTE network: Organized by André Girard.  Compromised when Marsac lost the membership list in late ’42.

ALLIANCE network: Organized by Georges Loustaunau-Lacau, controlled by SIS. In 1941 their radio operator was captured by the Germans and used in a radiogame. As a result Loustaunau-Lacau and key members of the organization were arrested in 1941 and 4 of the group’s 6 radio transmitters were captured. Despite the setback the group continued to operate.

le réseau SPINDLE, dirigé par Peter Churchill « Raoul », dépendant du Special Operations Executive , section F.SPINDLE network: Organized by Peter Churchill - ‘Raoul’, controlled by SOE. Compromised by Marsac.

PHYSICIAN/PROSPER network: Organized by Francis Alfred Suttill, controlled by SOE. In 1943 was the largest SOE network in France. Liquidated in summer ’43. Depending on the source 500-1.500 people were arrested.

le réseau DONKEYMAN, dirigé par Henri Frager « Jean-Marie », dépendant du Special Operations Executive , section F.DONKEYMAN network: Organized by Henri Frager - ‘Paul’, controlled by SOE. Compromised by Roger Bardet.

SCIENTIST: SOE network in Normandy. Compromised by the Germans.

ARCHDEACON network: SOE network compromised from the start by the Germans. Used by SFHQ-Special Forces HQ for infiltrating new teams. Resulted in at least 18 agents lost.

ORA - Organisation de résistance de l'armée : Organized by Vichy officers in early ’43, following the German occupation of Vichy France in November ’42. Leadership captured in June ’43.

Armée secrète - Gaullist resistance organization. United the groups ‘Combat’, ‘Libération’ and ‘Franc-Tireur’.

MITHRIDATE - Gaullist network. In 1943 several hundred members were arrested by the Sicherheitsdienst. In late ’43 the group’s codes were compromised and the internal organization revealed. The headquarters in Paris were raided and Colonel Pierre Herbinger, head of the organization arrested in May ‘44. The group was also compromised through their collaboration with a Rote Kapelle network controlled by the Germans.

General Delestraint: Head of Gaullist network Armée secrète. Arrested in June ’43.

General Frère: Head of ORA organization. Arrested in June ’43.

Jean Moulin: Prefect of Eure-et-Loir and symbol of the resistance. Organizer of Armée secrète. Arrested in June 1943 when the Germans raided a meeting of several Resistance leaders. Was tortured by Klaus Barbie and died en route to Paris.

Emile Bollaert: Replaced Jean Moulin as General Delegate of the French Committee of National Liberation in September 1943. Was arrested in February ’44.

Pierre Brossolette: One of the major leaders of the resistance. Became a member of the Council of the Order of the Liberation. Was arrested with Emile Bollaert in February ’44.

Forest Yeo-Thomas - ‘White rabbit’: Deputy Head of SOE RF (Free French) section. Captured in March ’44 while organizing the rescue of Brossolette and Bollaert.

Roman Czerniawski - ‘Armand’: Polish officer, organizer of the INTERALLIÉ network. Arrested in November ’41. Agreed to spy for the Germans and was allowed to escape. Once he reached London he informed the British and was used to pass disinformation to the Germans.

Mathilde Carre - ‘La Chatte’: Member of INTERALLIÉ. Romantically attached to Czerniawski. Arrested in November 1941 and subsequently betrayed him and worked for the Germans. Compromised Raoul Kiffer. Convinced de Vomécourt to send messages through her radio operator (controlled by the Germans). In February ’42 she went to London with de Vomécourt but her role had been uncovered and she spent the rest of the war in jail.

Raoul Kiffer - ‘Kiki’: Member of INTERALLIÉ. Betrayed by Mathilde Carre and later became a German spy. Organized a resistance group in the Lisieux area in Normandy. The group was controlled by the Abwehr but eventually became a security risk and was liquidated by the SD.

Georges Loustaunau-Lacau: Ex military officer and right-wing political figure. Organizer of the ALLIANCE network. Arrested by the Vichy police in 1941 and handed over to the Germans along with key members of his organization.

André Girard: organizer of the CARTE network located in the South of France. His organization was fatally compromised when the Germans captured a membership list in late ’42. Was able to escape to the UK.

Andre Marsac: member of CARTE. Lost the organization’s membership roll during a train trip in November ’42. He was arrested by the Abwehr in March ‘43. Hugo Bleicher managed to convince him that he was opposed to the Nazi regime thus getting him to reveal details about the SPINDLE group. Thanks to this deception Roger Bardet, Odette Sansom and Peter Churchill were eventually arrested.

Roger Bardet: member of the CARTE group. Was lured to Paris and arrested by Bleicher. Eventually became a German spy inside the Resistance. Managed to become second in command for Henri Frager and thus compromised the DONKEYMAN network. In 1944 changed sides once more and fought against the Germans. At the end of the war arrested and tried for treason.

Peter Churchill - ‘Raoul’: SOE agent. Organizer of SPINDLE group. Arrested in April 1943 by Bleicher.

Henri Frager - ‘Paul’: Second in command of the CARTE group, then became head of the DONKEYMAN network. Suspected Dericourt of being a German spy and informed the British thus getting him recalled to London. Eventually betrayed by Bardet, he was arrested in August ’44 and executed in October.

Henri Dericourt - ‘Gilbert’: French pilot who became the SOE’s air transport officer. Successfully transported agents in and out of France but came under suspicion of working for the Germans. He was recalled to London in February 1944 and interrogated. He admitted giving information to the enemy. After the war was tried in France but acquitted thanks to the testimony of Boddington head of SOE France section.

Pierre de Vomécourt: Organizer of the AUTOGIRO network. In October and November ’41 his radio operators were arrested forcing him to use the INTERALLIÉ radio link for contacting London. Since this was under German control his own network was compromised. Visited London with Mathilde Carre in February ’42 and had her arrested. Returned to France but was himself arrested in April ’42.

Francis Alfred Suttill - ‘Prosper’: Organizer of the PHYSICIAN network (also called PROSPER) covering Paris. The whole network was destroyed in summer ’43 and Suttill arrested in June. Agreed to give information to the Germans in exchange for protection for his agents.

Gilbert Norman - ‘Archambaud’: Radio operator of the PROSPER network. Arrested in June’43. Cooperated with the Germans.

John Starr - Organizer of the ACROBAT network, controlled by SOE. Arrested July ’43. Cooperated with the Germans.

André Grandclément: Organizer of SCIENTIST. Became a German agent.

Harold Cole: British national. Originally part of the MI9 organization, helping Allied airmen escape from occupied Europe. However after his arrest in 1941 he worked for the Germans thus compromising many Allied escape routes.

Bony-Lafont gang: Ex police inspector Pierre Bony and gangster Henri Lafont organized a group that hunted down Resistance members and turned them over to the Germans. The gang were infamous for their use of torture and extortion.

German personnel

Oscar Reile - Head of Abwehr Counterintelligence in France. Operated from the luxurious Hotel Lutetia in Paris.

Karl Boemelburg - SS Sturmbahnfuehrer. Gestapo commander.

Hans Kieffer - SS Sturmbahnfuehrer. Sicherheitsdienst commander.

Klaus Barbie: Head of Gestapo Lyons. Infamous for his use of torture.

Hugo Bleicher - Initially member of the Geheime Feldpolizei. Was transferred to the Abwehr where he became an expert in recruiting double agents.

Goetz - Expert in radiogames.

Freyer - Head of the Funkabwehr’s Aussenstelle Paris in 1943/44.

Sources: ‘The German Penetration of SOE: France 1941-1944’, ‘Secret War: The Story of SOE, Britain's Wartime Sabotage Organization’, ‘Colonel Henri's story: the war memoirs of Hugo Bleicher’, CSDIC SIR 1719 - 'Notes on Leitstelle III West Fur Frontaufklarung', CSDIC/CMF/SD 80 - 'First Detailed Interrogation Report on LENTZ, Waldemar, and KURFESS, Hans', HW 34/2 ‘The Funkabwehr’, TICOM I-115 'Further Interrogation of Oberstlt METTIG of OKW/Chi on the German Wireless Security Service (Funkuberwachung), ‘European Axis Signal Intelligence in World War II’ vol4, ‘War Secrets in the Ether’, ‘History of Hut 6’ vol2,  ‘British intelligence in the Second World War’ vols 2 and 5, Wikipedia, ordredelaliberation.fr