Anna’s Secret Legacy blog- See secret room Secret #2

The Oslo Report

The Oslo Report was one of the most spectacular leaks in the history of military intelligence. Written by German mathematician and physicist Hans Ferdinand Mayer on November 1 and 2, 1939 during a business trip to Oslo, Norway, it described several German weapons systems, current and future.

Mayer mailed the report anonymously in the form of two letters to the British Embassy in Oslo, where they were passed on to MI6 in London for further analysis, and proved to be an invaluable resource to the British in developing counter-measures, especially to navigational and targeting radars, and contributed to the British winning the Battle of Britain.

Hans Ferdinand Mayer received his doctorate in physics from the University of Heidelberg in 1920. After spending two years as a research associate there in his doctoral supervisor’s (Philipp Lenard) laboratory, he joined Siemens AG in 1922. He became interested in telecommunications and joined Siemens’s communication research laboratory, becoming its director in 1936. Because of this position, he had contacts all over Europe and the United States and had access to a wide range of information about electronics development in Germany, especially in the military sector.

After Hitler invaded Poland on September 1, 1939, Mayer decided to divulge to the British as much as he could about military secrets to defeat the Nazi regime. He arranged a business trip to Scandinavia in late October 1939. He arrived at his first scheduled stop, Oslo, Norway, on October 30, 1939 and checked into the Hotel Bristol.

Mayer borrowed a typewriter from the hotel, and typed the seven-page Oslo Report in the form of two letters over two days. He mailed the first on November 1, which asked the British military attaché to arrange for the BBC World Service to alter the introduction to its German language programme if he wished to receive the Report. This was done, and he sent the Report along with a vacuum tube from a prototype proximity fuze.

He also wrote a letter to his longtime British friend Henry Cobden Turner, asking him to communicate with him via their Danish colleague Niels Holmblad. This indirect communication path was required since Britain and Germany were at war, but Denmark was at that time neutral. Mayer continued his travels to Denmark to visit Holmblad, asking if he could relay information between himself and Turner. Holmblad readily agreed, but once Hitler invaded Denmark on April 9, 1940, this communication route was no longer feasible. Mayer then returned to Germany. Although Mayer was arrested by the Gestapo in 1943 and was imprisoned in concentration camps until the war ended, the Nazis never knew of the Oslo Report.

On 4 November 1939, Captain Hector Boyes, the Naval Attaché at the British Embassy in Oslo, received an anonymous letter offering him a secret report on the latest German technical developments. To receive the report, all he had to do was arrange for the usual announcement of the BBC World Service’s German language broadcast to be changed to “Hullo, hier ist London”. This was done, and resulted in the delivery of a parcel a week later which contained a typewritten document and a type of vacuum tube, a sensor for a proximity fuze for shells or bombs. The typewritten document accompanying it became famous after its existence was revealed in 1947 and would go down in history as the “Oslo Report”.

Boyes quickly appreciated the Report’s potential importance and had a member of the embassy staff make a translation which he forwarded to MI6 in London along with the original.

The Oslo Report was received with indifference or even disbelief by British Intelligence, with the notable exception of Dr. R.V. Jones, a young Ph.D. physicist who had recently been put in charge of a new field called “Scientific Intelligence”. Jones argued that despite the breadth of information and a few inaccuracies, the technical details were correct and argued that all the electronic systems divulged therein be further explored. In a 1940 report, Jones summarized his thoughts.

The contribution of this source to the present problem may be summarised in the statements that the Germans were bringing into use an R.D.F. [ Radio Direction Finding, the British name for radar] system similar to our own,… A careful review of the whole report leaves only two possible conclusions: (1) that it was a “plant” to persuade us that the Germans were as well advanced as ourselves or (2) that the source was genuinely disaffected from Germany, and wished to tell us all he knew. The general accuracy of the information, the gratuitous presentation of the fuse, and the fact that the source made no effort, as far as it is known, to exploit the matter, together with the subsequent course of the war and our recent awakening with Knickebein, weigh heavily in favour of the second conclusion. It seems, then, that the source was reliable, and he was manifestly competent.

In his 1989 book, Jones summarized the importance of the Oslo Report as follows:

It was probably the best single report received from any source during the war. …Overall, of course, the contributions from other sources such as the Enigma decrypts, aerial photographs, and reports from the Resistance, outweighed the Oslo contribution, but these were all made from organizations involving many, sometimes thousands of individuals and operating throughout most of the war. The Oslo Report, we believed, had been written by a single individual who in one great flash had given us a synoptic glimpse of much of what was foreshadowed in German military electronics.

While Jones took the Oslo Report very seriously, the Admiralty for one thought that the Report was “too good to be true” and therefore had to be a devious deception by the Abwehr, with its fantastic claims written by psychological warfare experts. An additional argument raised by the doubters was that no single person could have such wide knowledge of weapons technology as discussed in the Report. This was mainly due to the fact that interforce co-operation, e.g. between the Navy and Air Force, was at the time poor in both Britain and the US, and it was known that in Germany the two organisations were virtually at war between themselves.

In fact, the Oslo Report is strongly focused – on electronic technology – and several major German companies were involved in such projects for all three armed forces; some scientists in these companies would indeed have had a wide-ranging overview255″ cellspacing=”0″ cellpadding=”0″>

kindle button <a href=”http://www.amazon.co.uk/Annas-Secret-Legacy-S-Williams/dp/0741458284/ref=sr_1_1?
Advertisements

Anna’s Secret Legacy-A Secret Look-Who is Anna and Why should We Care?

Anna’s Secret Legacy- A Secret Look- Who is Anna and Why Do We Care?

Anna is more than just the proverbial star of the show in Anna’s Secret Legacy. As the protagonist, she serves as the mother framework for this project. Struggling with her choices ethically, she succeeds in making the right ones. We see her as beautiful and intelligent, but the co dependency, caretaker issues, become more evident, as we are drawn into her character.  Her love for her younger sister, Britta, is a perfect example of a dysfunctional family relationship.

Anna is the eldest child of middle class parents. Her Mother’s early influence on Anna as an herbalist has a strong influence on Anna’s career choice in research medicine. Her mother’s early death, throws her into primary caretaker of the household.  She was sent to Cambridge at age 16 and graduates at 20, get her PhD in biology, at age 23. 

She has been working as a research scientist at the prestigious Neils Bohr Institute for a few years.  A dysfunctional and chaotic family, thrusts a lot of responsibility on her at a young age, which is overwhelming.  She is attractive and sensitive whose early years had given her a far greater than ordinary need for genuine unstinted love. In Doug she seems to find at last what she had sought above all else.

By being strong and helpful to others, she protects herself from the panic, surrounds herself with people she can help, in order to feel safe and in control.

When she meets Doug, a fast acting cocktail of neuro chemicals is set off. A rush of laser focused attraction opens the door to a whirlwind courtship. Anna may not have wanted to meet anyone that night, but her brain had other plans that are deep and primitive. Both Doug and Anna will come up against anxiety, threats and mind numbing joys, over which they have little control, as they try to build a future together.

Anna’s spontaneous dreams are relatively easy to interpret. Fostering and interpreting diagnostic and curative dreams was essential to the methods of ancient Greek and Egyptian healing temples and was practiced by Hippocrates and Galen. Anna well understands that the mind and body communicate with each other constantly and that most of this communication is on an unconscious level.

Doug’s mother died when he was a young boy. Nothing in Doug’s life prepared him to be emotionally involved with another person in a loving, committed relationship. For most of his life he had actively been seeking a feeling of strength and safety by engaging in dangerous escapades. He used involvement in danger to avoid feeling pain and helplessness at being emotionally abandoned by his mother (albeit no fault of hers because she died)- when he meets Anna he is enchanted by her appealing looks and tender attitude toward him. She responds with sincere interest and deep compassion.  When he sees Anna, a signal went off for mating and long term attachment- his heartstrings finally got the attention of his very self sufficient and independent male brain.

Where would their journey take them…? Read the book, if you’ve not already..it appears that they have leapt from solitary inner lives to one of genuine connection-a place we all crave, whether we admit it or not. http://www.annassecretlegacynovel.com