Should the secret of Operation Mincemeat be revealed?

Details

Category: Operation Mincemeat

Digging around in the National Archives yesterday I came across this correspondence regarding Operation Mincemeat.

The story of Mincemeat was originally told in 1950 by Sir Duff Cooper in his book 'Operation Heartbreak'. The book claimed to be a work of fiction but was very close to the real story. Obviously Commander Montague was not best pleased when Duff Cooper published this book, as he wanted to tell the story himself.

This correspondence, between members of the Joint Intelligence Committee, discuss why they did not want the real story told. Nevertheless, in the end Montague was able to publish his truthful, abeit incomplete, account of Operation Mincemeat which led to the famous film "The Man Who Never Was".

Correspondence from Directorate of Forward Planning files:

TOP SECRET

PERSONAL

SIR NORMAN BROOK

OPERATION “MINCEMEAT”

The Joint Intelligence Committee have been investigating the security aspects of the publication of the novel by Sir Duff Cooper entitled “Operation ‘Heartbreak’” in view of the fact that the Operation described in the novel is based on a deception operation carried out during the war under the code name of “Mincemeat”.

2. The Joint Intelligence Committee have considered the circumstances in which Sir Duff Cooper might have obtained information about Operation "Mincemeat". There are three possible ways in which he could have obtained this information; these are as follows:-

(a) He might have obtained it in the course of his official duties at the time the Operation took place, and retained the details in his memory during intervening years.

(b) He might recently have had access to records of the Operation.

(c) He might have obtained the information orally from someone who was closely concerned with the Operation.

3. In regard to (a), there is a strong similarity on numerous points of detail between the actual Operation and the fictitious version. Sir Duff Cooper was Chairman of the Security Executive at the time that the Operation took place, and in this capacity, he could have had some knowledge of the Operation. It is impossible to say, however, how detailed this knowledge might have been. Sir Duff Cooper is reputed to have a very good memory and if he was, in fact, aware of the details of the Operation when he was Chairman of the Security Executive, he might have retained these details in his memory as they are of the type that would remain in mind. Enquiries of individuals who were closely concerned with Sir Duff Cooper at the tine of the operation indicate, however, that is unlikely that Sir Duff Cooper was informed of the operation in sufficient detail to enable him from memory alone to write his book.

4. The points of similarity between the actual Operation and fictitious version are so great that it could therefore be that Sir Duff Cooper must have had recent access to information about Operation "Mincemeat". This argument is strongest in connection with one particular incident. In the actual operation the document to be passed across to the enemy was a letter from the V.C.I.G.S. to the G.O.C. North Africa. The first draft contained a joke about Field Marshal Montgomery. This was removed by the Chiefs of Staff before they approved the document, and as far as is known, the only record of it is in the limited number of files on the Operation. In the fictitious version, the document to be passed across to the enemy is a letter from the C.I.G.S. to the G.O.C. North Africa, which contains a joke about the Secretary of State for War.

5. We have therefore examined (b); whether Sir Duff Cooper could have had recent access to records of the operation. As for as can be ascertained four official records of the operation exist:-

(a) Three copies of one version held respectively by the London Controlling Section, M.I.6, and Commander Montague, who was mainly responsible for planning the Operation.

(b) One copy, in a different form, incorporated in the war records of the Naval Intelligence Division.

It has been confirmed by the Departments responsible for the safe custody of these records that they are held under the strictest security arrangements. Commander Montague has recently stated categorically to the Director of Naval Intelligence that no one whatsoever has seen his copy. It can therefore be definitely stated that Sir Duff Cooper has not had recent access to the official records of the Operation. We hold the view that the record held by Commander Montague should be returned to the London Controlling Section as it is considered that highly classified official records of this nature should not be held by private individuals.

6. Assuming that the points of resemblance between Operation "Mincemeat" and the fictitious Operation are too great to be attributed to Sir Duff Cooper’s good memory, even supposing he was informed of the Operation in detail, and that he has not recently had access to official records, he must then have obtained the information orally, as stated in (c). The story is well known to a limited number of people moving in ex-Ministerial and ex-official circles. It is, however, unlikely that the necessary details could have been obtained from their memories alone.

7. We can, therefore, only conclude that Sir Duff Cooper was informed of the operation, or had his memory of it refreshed and supplemented, by some individual or individuals with a full knowledge of the operation. We are, however, unable to ascertain who such person or persons could be, nor whether the action was by design or inadvertence.

8. There is, however, no doubt that Sir Duff Cooper knew that the plot of his novel was based on official classified information. He has, in fact, admitted as much.

DRAFT

J.A.D., 7.12.50, (Ref: 5/02)

OPERATION “HEARTBREAK” – MR. MONTAGUE’s REPRESENTATIONS.

I attach a record of my discussions with Mr. Montague about his wish to publish a true account of Operation “Mincemeat”. It will be seen that Mr. Montague is not prepared to move from the position he has taken up and that, in the circumstances, I thought that nothing would be gained by forcing the issue about the return of his copy of the record of the operation.

2. What seems to me to emerge from the discussion is that we are not on very strong grounds in arguing that there are good reasons of military security for withholding permission to publish the facts. As Mr. Montague says, the Russians are fully aware that we practised deception in the last war and the close resemblance between Sir Duff Cooper’s account and the facts of “Mincemeat” makes it quite possible for any competent Intelligence officer to deduce from material already available to him, e.g. the reference in Goebbel’s diary, that the operation really did take place. It might also be argued that, in so far as publication of the facts would disclose a particular ruse of war there is no more security reason to withhold publication of “Mincemeat” than there was in the case of the operation involving the impersonation of Field Marshal Montgomery, which has been widely publicised.

3. “Mincemeat”, however, seems to me to be inherently different from the Montgomery episode and other secret operations which have got into print because it involves much that, for reasons of public policy, ought not to be disclosed. Thus, any true account which commanded respect would have to show how, with the connivance of Mr. Bentley Purchase, a London coroner (who, I believe is still in office) those responsible for the deception were able to manipulate the law so as to secure possession of the body of a suicide. Again, the reason for making the dead man a Catholic – namely to play on the aversion of the Catholics to post mortems – would be brought out and might very well give offence to members of that Faith, and this would only be increased by knowledge that the body would be buried with Catholic rites.

4. There is also the question of the documents on the body. These included forged letters from the head offices of Lloyds Bank, from Messrs. McKenna the solicitors and a well known firm of jewellers in Bond Street. Even if the consent of these firms to the use of their names was obtained at the time, I cannot believe that they would like to be publicly associated with such an episode, or that we ought to expose them to the risk of publicity. Finally, there would probably have to be an admission of the part that the War Graves Commission have been persuaded to play, involving presumably some faking of their records.

5. Activities of this kind are sometimes necessary in the stress of war, but I think that we would all agree that Governments should preserve a decent reticence about them. Certainly, only compelling reasons of State would justify publication, and Mr. Montague’s representations hardly merit that description.

6. I suggest, therefore, that when I see Mr. Montague again I should tell him that, quite apart from security considerations, we have decided that it would be contrary to public policy to permit publication of a true account of Operation “Mincemeat”. If necessary, I would adduce the incidents mentioned above, but it would be difficult for him to argue against the decision on an issue which is quite separate from that raised by the publication of Sir Duff Cooper’s work of fiction.

7. In the face of such a decision I should not expect Mr. Montague to make any more trouble either about the return of his record or his threatened approach to the Attorney General.

TOP SECRET

MINCEMEAT

I saw Mr. Montagu on December 6th. The interview was a lengthy one although there was no unpleasantness. It became clear that Mr. Montagu's primary desire is still to be allowed to publish at any rate the substance of MINCEMEAT as a fact and not as a piece of fiction. In support of this he claims that the main features of the operation no longer have any real security classification.

He pointed out that the Russians are fully aware that we practiced deception in the last war, because some time before OVERLORD Colonel Bevan visited Russia, told them broadly what we were doing and took steps to ensure that they took no action which would in any way spoil any deception we were planning in connection with the Normandy invasion. He also argues that the Spaniards must now be fully aware of, at any rate, most of the facts.

He said that so long as no-one was allowed to refer to any deception operations either as matters of fact or as fiction, he would agree that overall security considerations might have some validity, but with publication of the main outlines of the story, even though they purported to be fiction, in his view any objections to publication of the actual story on overall security grounds had gone by the board.

He also referred to the fact that captured German documents on examination had shown the success of the operation and that these documents had had quite a wide circulation in official circles in America.

I put it to him that he was, in fact, arguing that there was now no more security objection to his telling the actual story of MINCEMEAT than there was to, say, Colonel Fergus son writing the story of the Chindit operations in Burma. He said that this was his contention, particularly as he felt that any objection that might previously have been taken on overall security grounds no longer had any validity. Mr. Montagu explained that some years ago when he had first raised the matter, he had been refused permission to publish not only the facts of the operation but also to use them as a basis for the purpose of a piece of fiction. He said frankly that he did not see why Sir Duff Cooper should be able to do something with impunity when he, having adopted the proper course of seeking permission to do the same thing, had been refused.

Mr. Montagu made it clear that he is interested in this matter both from the point of view of finance and prestige. He said that he had been severely handicapped in his professional practise by his war service, that he had risen to a relatively humble rank only and that he was not in the position of some of his colleagues who had come "back to the bar with an obviously good war record which had been very valuable in the rebuilding of their practise”. He also said that he was being placed in a most embarrassing position as a result of enquiries which were being made of him by journalists and by his friends. He said it was common knowledge in Fleet Street that HEARTBREAK was based on fact and that somehow or other it had got out that during the war he had very likely been connected with this kind of activity.

He also drew attention to the fact that Mr. Dennis Wheatley had been very much in this kind of work and he felt that if Sir Duff Cooper got away with what he had done it was quite possible that Mr. Wheatley might feel quite justified in writing a novel built round some other operation.

I explained that what he might decide to do vis-à-vis the Attorney-General was entirely a matter for him, although earlier in the conversation I had suggested that the contrary view to what he had expressed might be argued and that it might be claimed that the publication of HEARTBREAK did not run counter to the provisions of the Official Secrets Act.

Towards the end of the conversation Mr. Montagu said frankly that he felt he had a real grievance and was disposed, as he himself put it, to be intransigent. It was clear to me that I should get no further with him at this juncture and that a request to him in his present frame of mind to return the original document would meet with a blank refusal. I accordingly said that I would report his conversation with me to those directly concerned (he is under no illusion about the fact that the Joint Intelligence Committee is very much interested in the matter) and that I would let him know their views on what he had said to me.

(Intld) H.P.
6th December, 1950