…so what’s your theory as to the real reason for the raid? We’d love to hear!

Dave, don’t worry, the book if anything enhances the reputation of the aircrews involved as, amongst other things, it pinpoints the impact point of every bomb dropped and reveals a superbly executed attack carried out by both 464 and 487 Sqns from altitudes as low as 10ft.

The controversial aspect is based upon one crucial point, that there were no French Resistance prisoners about to be executed the next day, let alone 120, despite the aircrews being told this at the briefing. Once you accept this point (which is 100% proven), then one needs to consider why the raid was carried out on such a small provincial prison.

Go through the files in the National Archives and you’ll find many important documents have been removed. Those that remain hint at a cover-up of something. Further investigation reveals a fake message from the Resistance, thanking the RAF for the raid, and a deliberate ‘rewriting’ of the official story before it was released to the newspapers in October 1944.
(All documented and reproduced in the book)

One thing is certain. The aircrews knew nothing of the lies and real motives behind the raid, they all took-off from Hunsdon that morning in the belief that they were going to help save 120 French prisoners from certain death. Their bravery and skills in carrying out the raid are without question.

To quote an often used phrase on this forum, it’s all in the book!

In response to Steifftier’s comments regarding Dr Ducellier’s article, it is true that his original book and article were not fully formed in terms of various theories put forward. This was mainly because the original research was carried out over 10 years ago without access to many critical files that have only recently appeared in the public domain. As publishers, we have spent the last two years cross checking everything, removing a few things that we weren’t 100% sure of and adding new information where appropriate. The result is an honest and comprehensive account of the raid from start to finish and an analysis of the motives behind it.
One thing is without doubt. The official story is a total fabrication that has remained virtually unchallenged for over 65 years. The only people to seriously question it have been Dr Ducellier and even more remarkably, a BBC Panorama programme from the early 80’s which was absolutely spot-on with its theory but seems to have gone unnoticed by every historian since then.

The books should be in the UK by the end of the week, only 2 long and painstaking years overdue, not bad considering we originally thought we’d be able to publish it within 2 months!

Mark Postlethwaite
Red Kite

When I was doing the research for my Lancaster book, I came to the conclusion that the circular gas panels on the noses of Lancs were probably there to detect British gas and not enemy gas. As most panels appeared on 1Group aircraft, it seemed as if that was the Group that would have dropped chemical weapons if the need arose. Never did find conclusive proof but it seemed to answer the question as to why they disappeared on most other RAF aircraft by the end of 1940/41.

57 Sqn trolley in front of a 617 Sqn Lanc I think.

That guy photographed with Kellett and others was in all probability Sgt Edward Paterek.

Funnily enough I always thought that it didn’t look too much like Lapkowski from his official photo, despite all captions saying it was him!

So could your Hurricane man be Paterek then??

Couldn’t resist painting it after helping dig it up, thanks Gareth!

MP

Andy and JDK are spot on about the problems in translating any book from one language to another. It isn’t just enough to find the English equivalent for each word, you then have to re-arrange the grammar, move sentences around and finally you have to read it to see if it is easy to follow. Unfortunately this one wasn’t!

We’ve posted some sample sections on the site as Andy mentioned above. It’s only a rough cut so there may be some spelling mistakes in there still, but it at least shows the depth of research carried out by the author.

MP