Malcolm Atkin Military Research
An April 1943 article in Parade, repackaged a January 1943 article from Picture Post, describing a training course organised by 28 Bn, London Home Guard.
Describing the use of camouflage and ambush hides, the articles proclaimed the role of the Home Guard 'To snipe, harass and kill an enemy at every turn, from hedges, trees, wall, windows, slag heaps, rubbish heaps, that is the intention: continuous killing and the invader never seeing the defender'.
By 1943, however, the War Office was trying to downplay any guerrilla role of the Home Guard. The invasion threat had largely disappeared and the priority now was for the Home Guard to take over regular army guard and ant-aircraft duties from troops training for D Day.
In the more deperate days of 1940, propagandists in the intelligence services promoted, internationally, Tom Wintringham's exhortations for guerrilla warfare, as a means of convincing the Nazis that any invasion of Britain would be more difficult and costly than anything they had faced previously. Around 5,000 potential guerrilas were trained by the Osterely Home Guard Training School and students were then sent back into the regions to extend their tknowledge base to others. Even officers from the regular army were discretely sent here for training.
The approach of Osterley was uncompromising. Students were advised to file their bullets into illegal 'dum-dums'; to bury their uniforms and blend back into the local community; to fight on with revolvers and explosives in secret teams of 2 - 3; trained to destroy ammunition dumps and poison wells. This was an agressive approach 'Since offence is the best form of defence, operations against such units must be carried into areas which may be overrun by the enemy'. Wintringham also warned 'Remember that the guerrilla has to work like a ghost'. Much of this is similar to what was taught to the Auxiliary Units. In one important difference, the course made virtue out of necessity and students were taught how to make home-made explosives and time delay devices. This had the advantage on not making the guerrillas reliant on official supplies, meaning that they could continue their sabotage after any enemy occupation. This was excactly the methodology that SIS used for its resistance movement.
The contents of 'Yank' Levy's Guerrilla Warfare, does indeed suggest that they were also taught techniques of longer-term resistance, including those of non-cooperation, underground newspapers and grafitti campaigns.
The concern of MI5 (though not necessarily SIS - whose Section D was described as being without morals or scruples) was that such techniques of underground warfare, taught by ex-members of the Communist Party and spread beyond official controls, might be used against the State in the future. For the War Office Osterley presented the risk of the Home Guard developing beyond its control. As a result, the Osterley School was closed down as soon as the immediate invasion threat declined in October 1940. Its successor at Denbies was instructed not to court the same degree of public attention for its methods.
This is indeed a very different picture of the Home Guard than that presented by TV's Dad's Army. Think Captain Wintringham rather than Captain Mainwaring!
© Copyright Malcolm Atkin 2015. Contents not to be copied or otherwise reproduced without permission.
1943 London Home Guard in urban warfare camouflage suit. Armed with a M1928A1 Thompson Sub-Machine Gun, 'modernised' with a horizontal foregrip.
This tough-looking, well-armed, Home Guard is very different from the popular image promoted by TV's 'Dad's Army'.
Instruction on building a hide with which to launch an ambush