Incitement to Mutiny, 1912

Text from: 1912 The Syndicalist Trials, pdf at lib.com 

OPEN LETTER TO BRITISH SOLDIERS

Men! Comrades! Brothers!

You are in the army.

So are we. You, in the army of Destruction. We, in the Industrial, or army of Construction.

We work at mine, mill, forge factory or dock etc., producing and transporting all the goods, clothing, stuffs etc., which makes it possible for people to live. You are Workingmen's sons.

When We go on strike to better our lot, which is the lot also of Your Fathers, Mothers, Brothers and Sisters, You are called upon by your Officers to MURDER US.

Don't do it.

You know how it happens. Always has happened.

We stand out as long as we can. Then one of our (and your) irresponsible Brothers, goaded by the sight and thought of his and his loved ones' misery and hunger, commits a crime on property. Immediately you are ordered to murder Us, as You did at Mitchelstown, at Featherstone, at Belfast.

Don't You Know, that when you are out of the colours, and become a `Civvy' again, that You, like Us, may be on strike, and You, like Us, be liable to be murdered by other soldiers.

Boys, Don't Do it.

'Thou shalt not kill', says the Book. Don't forget that! It does not say 'unless you have a uniform on'.

No! MURDER IS MURDER, whether committed in the heat of anger on one who has wronged a loved one, or by clay–piped Tommies with a rifle.

Boys, Don't do it. Act the Man! Act the Brother! Act the Human being! 

Property can be replaced! Human Life, Never!

The Idle Rich Class, who own and order you about, own and order us about also. They and their friends own the land, and the means of life in Britain. You Don't! We Don't!

When We kick they order You to murder Us. When You kick, You get court–martialled and cells.

Your fight is Our fight. Instead of fighting Against each other We should be fighting with each other.

 Out of Our loins, Our lives, Our homes, You come.

Don't disgrace Your Parents, Your Class, by being the willing tools any longer of the Master Class. You, like Us, are of the Slave Class. When We rise, You rise; When We fall, even by your bullets, Ye fall also. England with its fertile valleys and dells, its mineral resources, its sea harvests, is a heritage of ages to us.

You have no doubt joined the army out of poverty. We work long hours for small wages at hard work, because of our poverty. And both Your poverty and Ours arises from the fact that, Britain with its resources, belongs to only a few people. These few, owning Britain, own Our jobs. Owning Our jobs they own Our very lives.

Comrades, have we called in vain? Think things out and refuse any longer to Murder your Kindred. Help US to win back Britain for the British, and the World for the Workers.

[This appeal gave rise to the Syndicalist prosecutions of 1912. It was printed in The Syndicalist of January 1912.] From solwest.org.uk

As well as foreshadowing WW1 trials for publication of anti-war material, the case evidently showed up some differences, which were to become more acute, with (and within) the official suffragette movement.

The above leaflet seems to suggest that the reduction of the sentences in the Syndicalist case was unduly lenient, if only by comparison with the treatment of women activists. It does not relate to the First World War itself, as may appear at first sight (and as implied in the programme of events from which it is copied).

Now Fifty Years On: the Anarchist Grandson

 

Book Reviews (written when it was 40 years since Stuart Christie’s arrest)

Granny Made Me an Anarchist: General Franco, the Angry Brigade and Me by Stuart Christie. Scribner, London, 2004 [and later], 423pp.

A. Originally Published in: LSHG Newsletter Issue 22: Autumn 2004 [slightly edited]

Stuart Christie's memoir spans the third quarter of the twentieth century, and the subtitle alludes to the two episodes when he became spectacularly embroiled with its history: in 1964 he was caught carrying explosives into Spain to facilitate General Franco's assassination, and then, after serving three years of a 20-year sentence and trying to pick up the threads of his life back in Britain, he turned up at the wrong house on the wrong day and was framed as a participant in the Angry Brigade bombing campaign of the early 1970s, only to be acquitted along with three of seven fellow-accused (the Stoke Newington 8).

His Granny comes into it as a strong influence on his childhood, along with other features of working-class life in the west of Scotland which combined to inculcate a social conscience, historical awareness, and a capacity for strict adherence to principles. Not perhaps qualities that are popularly associated with anarchism, but Christie argues his case for adopting that position intelligently, making connections and explaining his political trajectory via CND, anti-war activism, and Labour Party Young Socialists, with a passing attraction to IS (International Socialists) and a more lingering admiration for the Solidarity group. He writes entertainingly, with ever-present humour and a wealth of keenly observed detail that conveys the spirit of the times, places and people, even managing to enliven the grim experiences of prison life, and emphasising throughout the values of comradeship and the will to resist. In a passage worthy of inclusion in "Porridge", he recounts his narrow escape, due to a liking for "The Navy Lark" on the radio, from being scooped up in a botched break-out. He gets the last word on Franco, describing his lingering demise in the last chapter - "Jesus clearly didn't want him as a sunbeam" (p. 422) - but concludes that it was just as well not to have been responsible for his death.

The (wilfully?) anarchically-typed blurb nevertheless states that Christie "still believes in anarchist princles [sic]" and he maintains a kind of defence of political violence as perpetrated historically by anarchists, contrasting their careful selection of individual targets with the mass indiscriminate violence of the state, and by implication differentiating them from the terrorist stereotype of today. At the same time he is ready to criticise the more lunatic manifestations of the libertarian left, as in a certain "mad-house" commune of early-1970s London, and points out the self-defeating impossibility of trying to impose anarchist principles by authoritarian means.

For those who wish to find out more about the background, whether political or cultural, there are numerous inserts in the text, variously supplying historical and biographical detail, theoretical references and extracts, photographs, and the words of protest songs. These stand instead of appendices and footnotes, and the appearance of a non-academic reader-friendly volume is likewise reinforced by the lack of an index or bibliography; while the trimmings may be missed by trained historians, there are chapter headings and marginal subtitles (in small print, like old-fashioned history textbooks) to highlight topics as they come up and guide the eye. All in all it comes over as being accessible without any dumbing down of style or compromise of intellectual content, an achievement which many other historians might envy.

It is not necessary to share all of Christie's views to find this an enjoyable read, to be glad the author survived everything two states tried to throw at him, and to wish it the success it deserves in exposing the machinations of those in power and expounding a radical alternative vision to a wider audience.

 

Freedom (Anarchist Weekly) 29-8-1964, p.1

{A professed (/willed) belief in the defendants’ innocence was clearly a matter of life and death at this time.}

This issue of Freedom was almost entirely devoted to the trial and what could be done about it, and the paper continued its support and publicity for Stuart, although a later leading article enjoined 'No More Martyrs'.

 

B. Originally published in Medicine, Conflict & Survival (draft with minor changes here). 

The three parts of Stuart Christie's memoir, entitled in this edition 'Scotland', 'Spain', and 'London', originally formed a trilogy comprising My Granny Made Me an Anarchist, General Franco Made Me a Terrorist, and Edward Heath Made Me Angry, published in a rather expensive limited edition between 2002 and 2004. The last two titles are reminders of the occasions when the author achieved notoriety, or celebrity. In 1964 at age 18 he was arrested and sentenced to 20 years' imprisonment, of which he served three, for doing his best to aid and abet, if not personally carry out, the assassination of the dictator Franco, by taking explosives into Spain. A few years later, evidently on more dubious grounds, he was arrested in London and eventually, after a long spell on remand in custody, acquitted of charges arising from the Angry Brigade bombing campaign. This book will not, however, fulfil any hope of gaining an insight into the mind of a terrorist, since although Christie in his youth may have done something to earn the label (and it was inevitably applied to him, often), he explicitly differentiates his position from that of adherents of those like 'say, ETA and Al Qaida today' who 'seek to terrorise the population into changing its ways' (p.123). What it does show is how strongly-held dissident principles can evolve and can then lead to extreme acts. 

            Two grand-maternal guiding maxims quoted as having helped to land Christie in Carabanchel prison were: 'If you want something doing, do it yourself' (p.120) and 'We are not bystanders to life' (p.122). Of course his particular course of action and choice of affiliation was not an inevitable conclusion from these precepts, nor one likely to have been envisaged or approved by his Granny. Clearly, there was much more to his development, traced here through multifarious contacts and events, with a wealth of cultural and sub-cultural allusion. Readers of a certain age or vintage will find familiar landmarks in his progress through the political landscape of the 1950s and 1960s - Sharpeville, CND,  the Committee of 100, Polaris, the Cuban missile crisis, Spies for Peace, even the words of H-Bomb's Thunder (p. 55). Anti-war activity loomed large; when the 'biggest issue of the day' was fear of nuclear attack (p.57). It had a long tradition; two of the working-class heroes of his childhood, James Maxton (p. 19) and John Maclean (p. 38), were renowned among other things for their opposition to the First World War. For Christie this attitude entailed a wider opposition to the state which he came to perceive as needing war, or at least enemies, and wielding a power which made it impossible to confine protest to single, compartmentalised issues: 'War is the health of the state' ran the slogan (p. 97).     

            One war was different: the Spanish Civil War, seen as 'the last purely idealistic cause of the twentieth century' (p.39), had a unique resonance for anarchists in its revolutionary phase of collectives and militias. In this cause he felt driven to enlist, impelled both by his 'Presbyterian conscience' (p. 107) and as a committed revolutionary anarchist who sought to 'get the people of Spain to withdraw their coerced consent for the government, and the international community to face up to the moral illegitimacy of the regime' (p.104). This decision and related questions on the nature of political violence, and whether it is ever justified, are analysed at length throughout, in a debate (interspersed with the often entertaining narrative of his experiences) which the author carries on with himself at the same time as with readers or critics, offering no easy answer. Certainly somewhat older and wiser, he approaches his younger self with understanding rather than condescension, condemnation or indulgence, with honesty about mixed motives that included a yen for excitement, and with a readiness to acknowledge flaws in reasoning, as when he admits fudging the issue of possible or likely harm to bystanders if the bomb had gone off. In the final analysis, as set out in the last chapter 'No One's Blood on my Conscience', he considers it fortuitous that his attempt on Franco's life failed, albeit partly for the rather Machiavellian reason that his imprisonment was a more effective way of exposing the nature of the regime.

            In the later context of the 'urban guerrilla’ tactics of some alienated dissident factions in western society in the early 1970s, the argument is further pursued. Christie draws distinctions between what he contends is the very limited, selective use of violent means by anarchists, predominantly against property and symbols rather than people, and in order to resist the power of authority, and the habitual indiscriminate violence resorted to not only by such authority but by nationalists and religious zealots and those who erroneously believe that violence is an effective way to change society. While he entertains, briefly, the proposition that 'Perhaps violence is wrong under any circumstances' (p. 267), this is not the implicit conclusion. Readers are left finally to make up their own minds on the point. On the subject of anarchism more generally, some readers may be persuaded to open their minds somewhat, but it would be wrong to make the book sound like a polemical tract. Although the author's views are patently present on just about every page, his story is worth reading for enjoyment and interest. Even the prison episodes are recalled with some humour and a remarkable lack of bitterness, even as not wholly negative experience. Conditions in Spanish gaols were, he attests, more bearable than in Brixton; and gave him the opportunity to work as a medical orderly and dental assistant as well as studying history and politics. His fellow inmates are keenly observed, as are curious circumstances like the 'anthropometry room 'for determining 'criminality' (pp.204-5). He did not exactly mellow while inside but 'became ‘less judgemental of individuals and more committed to oppose a form of society that inclined individuals to commit crimes against each other' (p.202). And insofar as it would not have been produced without those years, this book may be counted as another substantial plus.

Dec. 2004

A Pacifist’s Parody on Kipling’s “If”

If you can talk and not get bread and water,

Or if reported take your pegging like a man;

If you can scrub like any woman’s daughter,

And eat your dinner from a rusty can;

If you can “pick that step up” every morning,

And “swing those arms” as round the ring you crawl;

If you can rise before the daylight’s dawning,

And wash your share of landing in the hall;

If you can take the daily Wormwood rumour,

With little more than just a pinch of salt;

And treat as nought the officer’s ill-humour,

But simply think his liver is at fault;

If you can bear to hear the news you be given,

Change and increase till it’s nowise true;

And though to tell it truly you have striven,

Keep calm when its new version comes to you;

If you can hope and not get tired of hoping,

For the freedom which must come soon or late;

And never let your comrades see you hoping,

But patiently and gladly work and wait;

If you can watch your shadow getting thinner,

 And still with smiling face go bravely on;

If you can think of your last decent dinner,

And not complain and think you’re put upon;

Then, my brother, though all the world may scorn you,

And make your name a jest for thoughtless folk;

You’re the saviour of the country that has borne you,

You’ll surely break Conscription’s evil yoke.

 Written by William Harrison.

in Wormwood Scrubs, March, [year missing from typescript]

Transcription from scanned copy of paper found by historian Alison Ronan while researching opposition to the First World War in North-West England.

It may not be great poetry but it’s a great testimony to the spirit (and humour) that enabled so many COs to remain firm in their determination to oppose the First World War, as well as indicating (even though under-stating) some of the hardships they were forced to undergo.

“Some men were very brutally treated in military custody, and for others, particularly those accustomed to sedentary work, the rigours of prison were excessively harsh. Out of 16,000 WW1 conscientious objectors, some 6000 endured imprisonment varying between a few months and three or more years.” - http://www.ppu.org.uk/learn/infodocs/st_conscription_l.html

William Harrison is one of the few COs to feature in the new First World War Galleries at the Imperial War Museum: From “a very interesting press release from the Imperial War Museum in London - "In July The Imperial War Museum London will open new First World War Galleries that include object that highlight what it meant to be a conscientious objector during WWI. Objects include the Holy Bible of William Harrison who was sentenced to hard labour by a court martial..." - http://bridgetwhelan.com/2014/05/15/today-is-international-conscientious-objectors-day/ ”

A plea for rhyme and reason…

(Old misprints have long shadows)

The Deserter

“I refuse to murder or maim this man, my brother,
Or soil my soul in the smoke of war’s red smother.
I refuse to kindle the flame that shall burn this city,
So my heart be murder-stained and dead to pity.

I refuse to obey your command. I have no duty
Other than love of Life and love of Beauty.
Tho’ you riddle my body with lead still I’ll be grateful.
But I’m gone– and you’re left behind, pursuing and hateful.

I fly with the wings of the wind and a hope surprising–
And reach a haven at last, as the sun is rising.
And here till the night-shades fall I sleep in gladness,
Then up, on the dark, rough road, to my home of sadness.

Hard on my track snarl the hounds of hell’s own breeding;
But again I’m gone and roadway’s ‘neath me speeding.
Soon my garb of shame’s sunk to the depths of the river,
And dressed in the clothes of a man I offer thanks to the giver.

For I will not murder or maim this man, my brother,
Or sink my soul in the slime of war’s red smother.
I’ll get away if I can and in more peaceful regions
I’ll live and love and forget War and its murdering legions”.

"The Deserter, Albert Young, in Red Dawn, Sept 1915. First printed Daily Herald early 1915.

Albert Young was a member of the Industrial Workers of the World in London. A glassblower, he died in extreme poverty in 1924. His anthology of poems, Red Dawn , was very popular throughout Britain particularly in the South Wales valleys and on Red Clydeside.”

The above poem has been printed in several places and on-line with the last word rendered as “smother” – an obvious misprint or mistranscription. The sense and rhyme-scheme, and any sense of poetry, must surely require it to be “legions”, as restored here.

Comments welcome.

Note to self: Check original in Red Dawn and Daily Herald if possible.

In fact a search (using "Daily Herald") at http://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk comes up with the last line ending

“…live and love and forget War and its murdermad legions.”  

Even better!

Pawns in the War Game, 1940

Book Review [Edited and slightly expanded from draft of a review published in Medicine & War (later Medicine, Conflict & Survival)]

Churchill's Sacrifice of the Highland Division: France 1940, by Saul David. Brassey's, London, 1994, xii + 276 pp.

Early in 1940 the 51st (Highland) Division was sent to France as part of the British Expeditionary Force (BEF); within six months more than 11,000 of its men were taken prisoner, 1000 killed, and 4000 wounded; only 5300 were successfully rescued and evacuated. The bare facts are soon told, but Saul David gives us a fuller story, often in the words of those who took part - almost everything, at times literally blow-by-blow, that happened to the Division from its arrival, under-equipped, ill-prepared, and largely unwelcome, through resistance to the German advance in the Saar and on the Somme, to the final debacle of encirclement and surrender. While some of the military detail may appear repetitive to those not primarily interested in that aspect, there are narratives of participants on the ground, interspersed with brief statements of what the politicians and military leaders on both sides of the Channel, whose decisions affected their survival, were doing and saying.

The viewpoint is British, but there is a sub-text of interactions with and attitudes to the French. Such  attitudes and interactions could be complex and ambivalent: if the Scottish soldiers expected to be greeted as heroes and saviours, they were disappointed. ‘In strong contrast to the ecstatic welcome given to the arriving troops of the BEF [British Expeditionary Force] in 1914, the war-weary French were no more than lukewarm in their greetings. (p.6, in Chapter 1, 'No Heroes Welcome’). As the author reminds us, there was of course a legacy of pervasive war-weariness and anti-war sentiment among the French from the experiences of 1914-18. Conversely, one would guess at a certain culture shock experienced by recruits from close-knit Scottish Highland communities. There was apparently little fraternisation, either organised or spontaneous, although at least one wild night is recorded in the early days. At another level complaints occurred, as is customary between allies, about the ‘others’ not pulling their weight.

As a way of telling war like it was, the book certainly has interest, but will probably hold few surprises for readers familiar with the recurrent features (near clichés by now) of warfare narratives: confusion, irrationality, discomfort, incompetence, as well as comradeship, often pointless heroism and occasional 'decency' between enemies (e.g. in treatment of the wounded). If this sounds old-fashioned it conveys an impression made by the book; the author does not deny the horrors of war, but they come over as curiously sanitised. Perhaps the various narrators in retrospect rationalised their own experiences to some extent.

Analysis and comment are on the whole rather minimal, although David clearly endorses the assertion in the title, that there was a political decision, a result of `unsavoury horsetrading' between the French and British governments, to leave the 51st in France with the aim of keeping that country in the war, long after the situation had become obviously hopeless, and that aim unrealistic. Eventually, in the brief Chapter 14 (3 pages, `Sacrificed for Nothing'), he spells out the point that has already emerged - that Churchill himself must bear a large measure of the responsibility - and considers it `not out of the question' that the waste of life was deliberate, a calculated loss of expendable pawns incurred on grounds of dubious expediency. An Epilogue reinforces this conclusion, but ends on an upbeat note with the description of several successful escapes, and of the reconstituted 51st 'liberating' in 1944 the town which had been the scene of its destruction. 

Many questions are left untackled, including those in the area of war prevention. Although some conventional attitudes are implicitly challenged, long-term consequences of war for individuals and society are not spelt out. Effects on the close-knit Highland communities which produced the recruits are mentioned only in passing, and any psychiatric sequelae for the soldiers whose tales are told remain undisclosed and unexplored. Instead, the reader may discern a kind of nostalgia suggesting that wars aren't what they were, and a measure of reluctance to offend those who contributed their memories. Nevertheless, this is at the very least a useful source book for a significant episode in the history of the Second World War, and comes complete with illustrations, maps, bibliography, notes, glossary and index. Saul David is described as a writer of `vernacular military history' and it will be interesting to see what he makes of his next topic, the mutiny at Salerno, when presumably the rejection of war ideology will loom larger.

Photograph from SY Gone By no.48, summer 2017, p.7:
includes several of those captured at St.Valéry

"St..Valéry" in floral display at Inverness Castle, autumn 2017

(see Comment below).

Inverness, the Highland capital, also has a Park and Avenue named for the French town.

Fallout from French Nuclear Tests

Edited, with added highlights, from a ‘summary review’ published in Medicine, Conflict & Survival. 

Bruno Barrillot, [Polynesia: Nuclear test series 1966 and 1967. Fallout on Mangareva]. Damocles La lettre (No. 112-114): 1-46. Paris, Centre de Documentation et de la Recherche sur la Paix et les Conflits, 2005. 

In the spring of 2005 the French periodical Damocles published as a treble issue an extensive and thorough compilation with much well-informed comment, on the findings of the latest research into the effects of radioactive fallout from nuclear weapons tests carried out by France among the Polynesian islands of the South Pacific over three decades.A substantial body of evidence was adduced to refute the claim made in an official statement as late as April 2005 that there was only a small chance of a discernible effect from radioactivity.

The focus is on island group The Gambiers, in the most remote part of French Polynesia, something over 1500 kilometres from Tahiti, the largest of these islands (population about 570 before the 1966 tests) being Mangareva, location of the archipelago's capital, Rikitea.  

Views from 1966 

In 1966 France resumed the atmospheric nuclear tests abandoned after the failed attempt of 25 April 1961 at Reggane in the Sahara, relocating the programme to the radically different environment of "French" Polynesia and looking at new detonation techniques. From the first there were "incidents" and unexpected effects such as unforeseen fallout. The reports suggest that those conducting the experiments exceeded the known risks, disregarding the protection of personnel and of the neighbouring populations, in order to pursue their test series according to the set schedule. Those in charge even excluded external witnesses who could have been inconvenient insofar as they would have alerted the Polynesian peoples, while agencies responsible for safety or radiological protection were often subordinated to the same imperative of the nuclear test programme.  

Thus the Medical Service for Radiological Safety (SMSR) reports sometimes draw attention to the risks or problems of radiological protection, but none challenges the test programme on the grounds of the stated risks. Certain witness accounts from veterans assert that the real mission of the SMSR was not radiological protection but to observe the effects of irradiation or contamination upon personnel, and the envrionment. Barrillot comments that the role of the SMSR in the context of the Pacific Experimentation Centre (CEP) illustrates the lack of accountability so prevalent in institutions linked to the armed forces and the nuclear complex. The authorities, from Paris outwards, understandably wished to pay particular attention to the people of the Gambiers, lying in the path of the winds which were reckoned to drive the radioactive cloud. The experts' recommendations, however, were not followed by the experimenters; reasons adduced for by-passing them, even after signifcant fallout on the Gambiers was confirmed, mainly have to do with the priority being given to the test programme. Certain passages in the documents reveal contempt for people, especially the native population.

The documents produced by the various agencies are not all consistent with each other. The compilers are different and often refer to a highly specific phase (notably fallout on Mangareva after 2 July 1966); others make a synthesis to go to their superiors. Certain documents, apparently distributed to a very restricted number of recipients, are real alarm calls. Others minimise the effects of the tests, especially those destined for the annual report all nuclear powers have to provide to the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).

What about the People?

Several months before the tests began, a (secret) document studied the preventive measures to be taken for Mangareva. At a meeting in Paris on 13 January 1966 of the "Consultative Commission responsible for studying technical safety problems in relation to nuclear tests" it was stated that the population displayed characteristics implying a higher genetic risk than for a European population of similar size. There was a proposal to put the inhabitants into shelters if there was any fallout on the small archipelago, warning and assembling them at the time of the firing. Churches were to offer protection, enabling the inhabitants to avoid the most intense radiation of the first hours. If at the end of the fallout period the external risk exceeded expected limits, they would be put on board ships anchored in the harbour, for an interim period during which there would be continual measurements of ambient radioactivity. According to the results of these analyses, the authorities would then decide either to put them back on land if the radiological risk could be regarded as negligible at that point, or to evacuate them to Hoo in the opposite event. Maximum radiation levels were set for these alternatives. 

The secret report SMSR 2720, also predating the first explosions, displays a change of policy with regard to prevention in Mangareva, stating as a basic principle that preventive evacuation of the Gambier population before an experimental explosion was ruled out, on political and psychological grounds. It did, however, indicate the possibility of evacuating the Mangareva population (570 inhabitants) in case of accident. "Accident" is clearly defined in a draft entitled "Special Instruction for Evacuation Operations" as including any fallout on an inhabited area, but the difficulties - need to find small navy vessels which could have access to the island's facilities, significant number of elderly people and children, need to find decontamination and lodging for for nearly 600 people with food and clothing - suggested that there would be no evacuation, even in that case. The SMSR report did not recommend a solution.

What was to happen on 2 July 1966 clearly showed that all the experts'  recommendations on protection were not followed, not only by reason of the difficulties referred to, but because the local populations were considered as negligible quantities and their protection was secondary to the military objectives of the test series. It had been noted at a Paris meeting of 5 February 1966 that the prospect of a possible evacuation imposed the constraint of only firing when windspeeds were so low that sea conditions would allow it. Determination of the "accidental" dose that should trigger action derived from comparing risks and consequences - public health, social, economic, psychological and political - of the measures to be taken, and the actual risks resulting from a given radiation level. 

The combined report (Defence, confidential) of the SMSR on the fallout from the 1966 series gives exact details of the different types of fallout linked to a nuclear test:: the immediate fallout, primary and secondary; and the deferred fallout. A table indicates the fallout on Polyneisa and especially on Mangareva (pp.17,18). Barrillot notes that although this report gives no information on the "primary fallout" - the most significant - of each of the five 1966 explosions, the data from the first nuclear test on 2 July 1966 on Mangareva were well known, and indicate that what happened may be termed an actual "radiological accident" in accordance with the official criteria.

Two "restricted circulation" telexes of 2 July mention doses received on Mangareva which triggered an alert: the.Minister had been informed of significant radioactivity, slow to diminish; the soil was contaminated, and instructions for decontamination and holding food and fish were requested. They do not state how long the fallout stayed at this level, but may be taken to imply that in a few hours the inhabitants of Mangareva received an average dose above the maximum annual level permitted for the population in 1966. A handwritten note in capitals orders that La Coquille, a vessel of the Joint Biological Control Service (SMCB), was to be sent a.s.a.p. to study the situation on the ground. The resulting mission is dated 2-8 July 1966, its secret report 10 July 1966. La Coquille reached Gambiers waters on 5 July and berthed at Rikitea on the morning of the 6th. Even though the results were alarming, with many times the normal radioactiivity measured by the SMCB technicians with the facilities on board in washed and unwashed salad, six times the natural radioactiivity in drinking water, no ban on consumption was envisaged. Meanwhile the sailors went about their normal work with no visible dosimeters [gadgets worn to measure individual absorption of radiation].

Dr Million, who signed the report, tried to analyse the situation of the island's inhabitants and the organisation of (military) control on the island after the radioactivity readings, revealing the fear that people might suspect a problem had occurred in the wake of the first nuclear test. Reassured that the Tahitian population remained completely unaware, unconcerned, and incurious, he then examines the case of various categories of Europeans present on the island: the missionary, the policeman, the 'popaas' (ex-patriate settlers), the soldiers and Geophysics Laboratory personnel. Only the civilian LDG staff had shown anxiety, and everything was done to reassure them. The soldiers were in the know but for the most part obviously unaware of the figures..They maintained discretion and behaved as if nothing was the matter. 

The SMSR captain, best informed about the radiological situation since his service took the readings and had given the alert, reacted ‘perfectly’, while deploring the lack of openness vis-a-vis the population and feeling worried for the village children walking barefoot and playing on the ground. Overall, he concluded that the psycho-political situation in the Gambiers does not seem to pose a problem in the short-term, but made some suggestions for the "second half-series". His first point, concerning the data on radioactivity absorbed by the inhabitants of Mangareva after 2 July, confirmed the scant regard paid to the population, urging that the account of the total dose taken up by them should be conveyed solely to the GOEN commandant, and warning it might be necessary to play down the real numbers in order not to lose the trust of the population, towards whom he recommends a clearer policy. There must be no discrimination if it should become necessary to wear protective clothing, something that he thought could probably be done with no effect on the inhabitants' state of mind since the disguises would no doubt amuse the Mangarevans.  

Another document,distributed in 50 copies, produced on board the De Grosse, the flagship of the Alfa Force, and dated 8 August 1966, presents an account of the first half-series (three explosions) to the appropriate authorities along with the results obtained from: readings taken in the cloud, functioning of transmissions, surveillance operations, measurements and extent of the fallout. Naturally secret, it is a military document which, without giving exact figures, mentions fallout on the Gambiers but "spins" the data by comparison with the preceding reports on the situation created after 2 July. The head of the Nuclear Experiments Operational Group (GOEN), on the De Grosse, had access to the two telexes and the report from La Coquille at the time of issuing this. The report distributed more widely to political and military authorities constitutes a lying "interpretation" of the radioactivity readings taken by the competent services: the SMSR, publisher of the telexes, and the SMCB for Dr Million's report.

Without referring to the alarming reports which would have provoked negative reactions among the political or military recipients of his account, the head of GOEN sums up by stating that the influence of winds was greater than foreseen, and a low-altitude north-westerly wind that arose after the explosion had pushed the fallout to the south when the wind changed, so that for five hours there was a slight increase in radioactivity on the Gambiers, but withiin such limiits that it was not judged useful to warn the people, who would have panicked unnecessarily. The figures supplied for radioactivity on Mangareva do not enable the reader to understand what really happened on 2 July and the days following or to calculate the dose received by the Gambiers inhabitants. 

Fallout on the Gambiers according to the IAEA report of 1996

Moving on, Barrillot recalls that at the time of the 1996 French nuclear test series, President Chirac sponsored a study on the radiological situation on the Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which mentions the measurements of doses absorbed by the Gambiers inhabitants on 2 July 1966, as 5.5 mSv, i.e. five and a half times the recommended maximum annual population dose in one day. The report nevertheless states that these local doses would have had no effect on the health of the individuals exposed. Nor do the figures presented in the IAEA report come from independent sources. This constitutes further proof of manipulation of the data on fallout rates for 1966. Inconsistencies appear, showing that the IAEA was not provided with complete data, rather with figures that would enable them to calculate approximately an absorbed dose equal to, or slightly above, the maximum annual permitted dose at that time.  

Observations and Recommendations 2005

The Centre for Documentation and Research on Peace and Conflicts (p.35) hammered home the criticism of the authorities and their collaborators with seven points:

1. The fallout from the 1966 nuclear tests, measured on the island of Mangareva, should have required the immediate evacuation of the population... According to the IAEA report of 1998 which played down the duration of fallout on Mangareva, contamination of soil on 2-7-66 was measured at 142 times that in the banned zone at Chernobyl.

2. The 'rediscovered' documents quoted in this special file enable us to get a clearer picture... It is clear that other documents on this period exist, since some are quoted as references in the 'rediscovered' documents...

3. The 'rediscovered' documents can nevertheless stand as sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the services involved in the nuclear tests manipulated the data to minimise their impact on the environment, individuals and populations.

4. Opening the archives on the nuclear tests for the whole period of atmospheric testing (1966-74) would allow a more precise overview of the impact of the nuclear tests on the whole of French Polynesia.

5. The studies of the consequences of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the outcome of the demands of populations and veterans who were victims of the American nuclear tests clearly show that the effects of radiation resulting from the nuclear tests can emerge up to 40 years later... [health-checks for islanders and descendants].

6. Similar studies should be undertaken for several atolls frequently referred to in the 'rediscovered' documents, notably Tureia and Reao...

7. On the basis of similar studies, the affected populations and their representatives would be able to embark on legal action with a view to obtaining compensation.         

The last ten pages, ending with a bibliography, contain nine Annexes presenting extended background on several key topics, including a table detailing all the tests, accounts of research papers on massive contamination of fish (epidemic ciguatera poisoning), and a copy of current US legislation on compensation for test veterans, by way of contrast with the denial of islanders' rights to compensation. The validity of their claims is underlined by moving eye-witness testimony, from the time of the tests and their aftermath.   

 

Dieppe July 1966: the Committee of 100 “march” from London to Paris

protesting against French nuclear tests.

Flett’s Bid for Fortune: some notes from a post-WW1 novel

J.S.Flett, Bid for Fortune. Moray Press, Edinburgh & London, 1934:

"The adventures of four young men..." Price 7/6 [= 37.5 p; same price as some new hardbacks in mid-1950s]

From opening paragraph, chapter 1 (p.9): Jimmy exulted in the new feel of freedom. He was clear of it at last…No more orders, yours not to reason why, yours but to do or die; He’d have to reason why, now… he was a man again, no longer a mere pawn in a game played by beefwits… though there was no denying some of these majors and colonels were damned clever fellows, up to their jobs. But cynical and callous. Arrogant! Guzzling! Lecherous! The whole bloody war was a thing to be ignored, forgotten if you could…

p.11  In London Jimmy soon lost the remains of that happy, careless serenity that had been his first reaction to Peace.

p.17  “We chaps, like everybody else, have been wondering what we were going to do now that we've been booted out of the army... In fact, all the professions are getting hopelessly overcrowded, and te worst is yet to come in that respect. Anyway… it’s only the stand-pat, safety-first sort of chaps that go in for  the professions and banking and the Civil Service… where you go through a regular mill and come out at sixty with a bit of a pension enough to be a bore on.., “

p.28  “It’s the fat old birds that have all the money, and it’s evident to me that the fat old birds don’t like us or the likes of us...”

p.128   The Americans didn't despise law-breakers; the only thing they really despised was poverty.

p.216   But crime in America was a close corporation, something like a trade union, in fact. Each gang had its own district, its own hand-fed police.

p.222  “…you've been through the War… I’ve noticed lots of our ex-soldiers are jumpy like that, easily startled, can't bear to be touched. A terrible strain on the nerves it must have been. And long continued... It seems to have affected everyone who went through it, one way or another.”

 .

p.243  The world’s grown small; it’s not easy to hide in it any more.

p.269  Old comrades came before him, live, blasphemous, full of themselves, then at a blow nothing, now hardly even a dream

p.276  Ever since the horrible reality of war had made havoc with his youthful illusions e ad been slack and careless, reckless of thought… Nothing mattered…But.. new-found feeling of the dignity of human life…

It is intended that a follow-up piece will tackle some of the more troubling ideas that emerge in the course of the story, in the context of contemporary attitudes to (for example) race and gender.

Review in Stornoway Gazette