I received a free review copy from the publisher.
In his The Secret War: Spies, Codes and Guerrillas 1939-1945, the always-opinionated historian Max Hastings argues that field intelligence agents in WW2 contributed only marginally to the Allied victory. Regarding the Special Operations Executive, Churchill’s creation, he remarks: “Most accounts of wartime SOE agents, particularly women and especially in France, contain large doses of romantic twaddle.”
Hastings’s comment struck a nerve with Sarah Rose and she objects as a woman and a journalist. In her Author Note, she says that “twaddle matters” and is the stuff of human experience. As a woman (not a journalist), I think Rose gets it all wrong for a number of reasons. She seems to take Hastings’s remark as disrespectful to the women SOE agents, which is not at all what it was intended to convey. She is also in denial that there are many books and films about WW2 agents in France that are romanticized. I also think that Rose is so defensive about Hastings’s assertion because she has written a work of “romantic twaddle” herself.
Of course the story of the SOE agents in France captures the imagination. Of course we should be impressed by the bravery of the women who volunteered to go behind enemy lines, knowing they risked capture, torture and death. But Rose’s book is written superficially and with much emphasis on the personal, especially the agents’ romantic attachments.
Rose’s narrative is all over the place. It’s never clear what her organizing principle is, if there is one. She jumps from place to place and agent to agent, not giving a full picture of anybody and leaving us wondering why she included some agents and left out others. She repeats points and she puts thoughts in these women’s heads that she often doesn’t source in her notes.
Although Rose’s writing is easy to read, there are several occasions when she misuses words (e.g., anodyne and fulsome), and constructs puzzlingly self-contradictory sentences, such as when she is trying to describe the German soldiers occupying Paris as being so much better clothed and fed than the natives, but in the same sentence she also describes the soldiers as being hollow-eyed. Huh?
Considering that this is a book that doesn’t seem to know what it’s about, I suppose it’s not surprising that the title and cover belie the book’s contents. The cover shows a beret-wearing woman bicycling through a deserted bombed-out city, as fighter planes fill the sky. When I first saw the graphic-novel look of the cover, it made me wonder if this is supposed to be a young adult book, but it isn’t. On top of that, the depiction makes no sense at all. These SOE agents did bicycle, but it was to create an impression they were just locals going about their daily errands. The woman on the cover has a freaking rifle slung over her shoulders. Out in the open. In the daytime. Argh!
I don’t want to pile on, but I also object to the book’s title. Why, oh why, does Ms. Rose have to call them “D-Day Girls”? These were women, not girls. Ms. Rose wants to give them their due, so why would she allow them to be trivialized in the title and the comic-book looking cover? She notes in the book that they referred to themselves as girls, but that was then and this is now. Also, referring to them in the context of D-Day implies that they did nothing until late in the war, when they were working in the field years earlier and most of the book describes events unrelated to D-Day.
Maybe Ms. Rose had no control over the title or the cover art—I sure hope not—but a book with that title and that cover sure looks like the dreaded “romantic twaddle.”
There are so many better books out there about the SOE and its agents.