Norman Le Brocq: resistance to occupation and collaboration
Norman Le Brocq is a hero resistance leader of the Jersey Communist Party during World War 2 who organised against the occupying Nazi German forces on Jersey. Whilst open resistance against the fascist regime was certainly a difficult task given that the garrison on the island of 11,620 slightly outnumbered the native population of just about 10,000 after the evacuation. This didn’t stop Le Brocq, and others in the Jersey Communist Party, from setting up a network up for hiding escaped Soviet and Jewish slave workers, distributing illegal leaflets and even planning to launch a violent armed take over of the island and set up a people’s commune!
To many, it would be surprising that such a historical figure is not venerated as a war hero or even remembered as an important part of occupation history. Thus, before I give details on Norman Le Brocq’s daring exploits I first need to talk about the way in which Jersey remembers the occupation and to compare such with Le Brocq’s actions.
Within the material I have read there is a running theme of discussion about the choice of resistance versus collaboration with the latter having been justified as “in the interests of the inhabitants” according to Victor Carey, the Bailiff of Guernsey during the war, with a similar justification given by Carey’s Jersey counterpart; Bailiff Alexander Coutanche of Jersey. I do not wish for my discussion of collaboration, justified or not, to be a direct criticism of the governing bodies of the Channel Islands at the time; but instead to serve as a comparison to the efforts of the Jersey Communist Party, Norman Le Brocq and other more direct resisters to the Nazi occupation.
There is no argument to suggest that the ruling governments of both Jersey and Guernsey had their best intentions to serve the Channel Islands as a whole, but should serving the Germans “in the interests of the inhabitants” mean to collaborate by submitting oneself to the every will of the occupying authorities? Indeed, it was the island authorities who were the ones who collected and built all the lists for names, taxes, food and whatever else the Germans had asked for. The most notorious example of collaboration was when Carey issued posters to be put up offering a reward of £25 for those who would inform on their fellow Islanders who had put up graffitied ‘V’ signs. Additionally, Carey would go further and threaten death to those who hid British soldiers and sailors, labelling them as “enemy forces”. What is more awkward is that it was the Island police that were to arrest the culprits, who were often mischievous children, and handed them over to the Germans. Another complaint, especially amongst the angered post-war Jersey population, was the alleged abuses of the Island government to obtain limited commodities with a similar complaint written in a letter by a friend of an escapee that was delivered to The Times in 1944. This letter complained that collaborators are the only people getting food and specifically accused the States of being jitters (nervous cowards) and Quislings (open collaborators).
“In the interest of the inhabitants”, as interpreted by the Islands’ governments, unfortunately did not cover everyone as it was the interests of the majority that the États were aiming for. A certain vulnerable minority were the small number of Jews that lived on both islands. In David Fraser’s book ‘The Jews of the Channel Islands & the Rule of Law, 1940–1945’, he details how Coutanche and his ‘Aliens Officer’ Clifford Orange went to great lengths to hunt down and obtain the names and details of any Jews living in the Island of Jersey which, according to Fraser, constituted as blind subservience and submission to legal anti-semitism which was incorporated into Jersey law and carried out with very little opposition. As with the legal process of catching the ‘V’ sign graffitists; the entire process of capturing Jews was committed by Jersey’s native legal system acting under Nazi law. After such, foreign Jews found by the Germans on Orange’s handy list would be sentenced a horrific fate at the hands of the German occupiers. However, the common excuse that the lawmakers and law practitioners gave was that they were merely fulfilling the rules of Jersey law to the fullest extent of their ability even if such laws were aiding in the extinction of the Jewish people. Fraser points out that this practise, although legal, is undeniable and morally inexcusable anti-semitism. What is detailed about the Island’s wartime authorities’ behaviour is reminiscent of what Hannah Arendt wrote in her book ‘Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil’. In Ardent’s book she explores and critiques the defense argument of one of the main organisers of the holocaust; Adolf Eichmann, when he was on trial in Israel. Eichmann, a top office bureaucrat in the SS, stated that he was not morally responsible for his part in the holocaust as he was marley following orders of his political superiors and that of German law. Despite this he organised thousands of Jews (and other groups) to be sent to their demise in death camps and gas chambers. Ardent argued that even if Eichmann was not a fervent Hitlerite and simply following the law, just as Jersey’s authorities did, they are very much still accountable and guilty in aiding the systematic murder of the Shoah. In Fraser’s book he concludes that Jersey political officials both played a very serious role in the only part of the holocaust to take place British territory and of anti-semitism towards Jersey’s foreign Jewish nationals.
Despite the Jersey Authorities being able to get away with saving nine (out of the original twelve) Island Jews from being identified to the Germans as ‘legally Jewish’; Coutanche and Orange decided to hand the names of all twelve self-declared Jews to the Nazis without a suggestion of excluding those who were legally non-Jews from the list. Unlike the States’ scant care for the safety of Jewish Islanders; their care and protection of the wealthy and well connected Freemasons goes far beyond what is claimed to potentially aggravate the occupiers. When the Germans ordered the acquisition of the large valuables stored in the Masonic lodges to be sent to Germany to add to their loot collection; Guernsey and Jersey’s governments openly protested to their German superiors and resorted to acquiring the Lodges’ wealth into the property of the States where the Germans were legally unable to touch them. It appears fear of German retaliation to Island defiance applies only if you are to save Jews but not Freemasons. Additionally, it appears to be easier for the Channel Island authorities to take drastic steps to protect Masonic furniture than it is to protect Jewish human beings.
Indeed, the interests of private capital and profit incentives did not stop some Jersey businessmen from turning their profession to war profiteering during the occupation. During the war many people sold items to the Germans through the black market, making a large fortune as well as profiting off of the Nazi occupation and aiding the Germans with much needed goods. After the war, in order to the keep the Jersey economy afloat, the UK government allowed such profiteers to exchange all of their wartime Reichsmarks (Nazi German currency) into pounds at a very generous exchange rate. In effect, the British government willingly allowed those who profited off of the Islanders’ suffering for their own greed to keep all of the wealth of their collaboration and get away with it. Local war profiteers were turning up to banks with bags upon bags and even crate and barrel loads of Reichsmarks that they had accumulated from trading with Germans over the course of the occupation. No attempt was made to document those who converted large amounts of Reichsmarks, with one Jersey bank clerk who did had his list thrown back to him by the British liberation forces who refused to address the matter saying “Churchill had said that the British Empire was not to know about things like that”. Despite this, measures were taken to crack down on black marketeers in the Channel Islands in June with a 80% tax on war-time excessive profits. However these laws were passed more than a week into June 1945 with many of the war profiteers being able to get away with converting their Reichsmarks in May, making the new measures too late and ineffective.
As detailed previously with the lack of significant bother on the topic of black marketeers by the liberating forces; the post-war Jersey process of dealing with what happened during the occupation certainly did not deliver appropriate justice, or at least in the eyes of the Island’s inhabitants. The first effort to deal with the matter of collaboration and the mass amount of accusations of poor rulership leveled against the States was put in the hands of the British home secretary Herbert Morrison who visited the Channel Islands a few days after their liberation. Whilst on his visit, despite acknowledging that there were definitely cases of government collaboration on both Islands; Morrison decided to reassure the accused Island governments that they had the full support from Westminster and attempted to calm the Channel Islands furious population that it is best to forgive and forget the collaboration that happened with the Germans. With the average working people who endured the occupation simmering on unimaginable outrage; Morrison was practically attempting a public cover-up. This was made clear when he was quoted in the Jersey Evening Post “[If] anything has been done that needs whitewashing at the other end, I will take care of it”. This was followed up by a public speech in St Helier rearticulating his position to a crowd of Islanders where he again talked about how accusations of collaboration are not in need of investigation. Norman Le Brocq, who was present, observed how Morrison expected an applause for his words but instead was greeted with a very angry silence.
What I personally do not find discussed enough about the Nazi occupation of the Channel Islands is just how violently outraged the working people were at the post-war situation. Most common narratives finish the story of occupation with Liberation Day and leave it there.
Feeling abandoned by the UK government along with general anger and bitterness towards elected collaborators; some Islanders took justice into their own hands. Those who worked for or fraternised with the occupier had their windows smashed with one fraterniser found his shop bombed. The pent up anger became tense in the months following Liberation Day. The Herald predicted that there could be riots in Jersey over anger against the States’ wartime conduct and that many are concerned about what will happen when the armed British liberation forces leave. Such fears were certainly not unfounded. The situation in summer 1945 got so seriously dangerous that the commanding brigadier of the the liberation force had to extend the their military presence on the Channel Islands for three months over schedule due to fears of civil unrest.
Despite London’s desire to whitewash and cover-up abuses of power; they also found the need to thoroughly investigate the allegations of such matters although they were conducted in secret as to not stoke the fires of the already rebellious population. The head of this proper inquiry was the main war-time advocate of the Channel Islands; Herbert du Parcq. Du Parcq was a Lord Justice of Appeal and, more importantly, chaired the Channel Islands Refugees Committee and campaigned on behalf of the Islands during their occupation. Unlike Morrison; du Parcq was far more critical of than Morrison and condemned the Islands’ governments for aiding the Germans’ in their violation of international law when they deported thousands of British-born Islanders to Germany. He also suggested that the proper response for Carey’s treacherous acts of referring to British soldiers as “enemy forces” and offering £25 for caught ‘V’ sign graffitists was that he ought to answer before the Prime Minister or even the King for his actions during office.
Unsurprisingly, du Parcq’s findings did not lead to any action against Carey and Coutanche. Despite the efforts of many, the fact remained that the issue of the collaboration within the Channel Islands was just too taboo to be public knowledge to the British public. The idea that a portion of the British Isles succumbed to the enemy without a “fight on the beaches” went completely against Britain’s glorified Churchillian memory of the war along with the scandalous idea that elected British citizens were working with the Germans. Likewise, throughout the war the British government tried to get the mainland British public to forget about the occupation of the Channel Islands with the Home Office condemning the publication of the previously mentioned letter to The Times that described Island authorities as Quislings. It was the well entrenched cultural ideas of British exceptionalism that prevented any sort of public trial of collaborators and averted appropriate remembrance of the occupation.
Let alone the fact that none of the Channel Islands government officials nor lawmen were tried or even held accountable; in the end not even the German officers who worked hundreds of POWs to death were ever held accountable by the post-war British authorities for their crimes. After all of the sacrifices of those who resisted and the amount of the work the États did with the Germans; Carey and Coutanche were eventually given the honour of being knighted for their war-time work.
It is very important to note that other than Norman Le Brocq, there were plenty of other resisters to the German occupation. Probably the most well known of these would be Louisa Gould who was depicted in the recent film ‘Another Mother’s Son’ (although it does bug me that it was filmed entirely in Somerset rather than Jersey). Gould helped an escaped Soviet POW called Feodor (Bill) Buryi who was a air force pilot that got shot down by the Germans during Operation Barbarossa and was subsequently captured and brought to Jersey to work as a slave labourer. Gould hid Feodor in her house, cared for him, taught him English and the Jersey way of life for nearly two years. Before long, thanks to the Germans’ web of native informers, Gould was betrayed. Luckily, the headmaster of Victoria College was accidentally delivered the letter ordering her arrest (which was intended for the Germans’ headquarters of Victoria College House) and he forwarded Gould of the arrest order via Le Brocq’s resistance network. Feodor was able to be transferred to another house with Gould along with her friend and assistant Berthe Pitolet being deported for their resistance activities. Gould’s brave actions of self-sacrifice did not stop there however. Whilst being held in a prison in Rennes, allied planes bombed and destroyed the walls of the prison allowing for an escape. Not being as agile and athletic as Pitolet; Gould selflessly decided to stay behind so as to not slow her friend down. After escaping, Pitolet was freed when Rennes was liberated a week later. Gould was misregisted as a Jew and taken to Ravensbrück concentration camp where she was taken to the gas chambers to be killed. Feodor lived though the war undetected by the Germans and after the occupation he returned home to the Soviet Union. He still maintained correspondence with those back in Jersey who helped him during the occupation.
Another notable example of resistance were two Lesbian Jewesses (who didn’t register themselves as such) who were artists of a a left-wing surrealist art movement. One of the pair, Claude Cahun, became well known for her photographical work along with her genderqueer self-identity. Cahun’s partner, Marcel Moore, shared much of the same attributes. Being lesbian gender-nonconforming socialist Jews who made “degenerate art”; the pair naturally found themselves at odds with the Nazi German occupiers. Following their anti-fascist values; they quickly set to work resisting the occupation. Their main activity involved lowering the morale of the German garrison by disseminating small leaflets of news of disastrous German military defeats as reported on their hidden radio sets along with anti-Hitler propaganda inciting soldiers to revolt. These texts were translated into German and signed with ‘The soldier with no name’ to give the impression that the texts were being written by one of their own. Eventually the couple were both caught and imprisoned by the Germans. Fortunately for them, the battle of Normandy prevented them from being deported to a camp on the continent and the German authorities decided not to execute them on Island as it could anger Jersey’s populace. When the war was over the pair found that their house was ransacked and their collection valuable artwork including those of Picasso and Miro, which was seen by the Nazi Party as degenerate, were looted and taken back to the Reich where they are believed to have been destroyed in the last days of World War Two.
When the German forces occupied Jersey on the first of July 1940; Norman Le Brocq was only 18 years old at the time. Before the war he was a skilled stone mason by trade which eventually caused him to join the Labour-affiliated ‘Transport and General Workers’ Union (TGWU)’ which, at the time, was the largest trade union in the world. From his association with trade unions, Le Brocq became an ardent communist and joined the Communist Party of Great Britain which prompted the establishment of its Jersey branch; the Jersey Communist Party. At the time, the Communist Party was rapidly gaining popularity in Britain with them gaining over 100,000 votes in the 1945 election and was the sixth most popular party.
Le Brocq chose not to evacuate to the mainland and instead stayed in Jersey to continue his job as a librarian. Due to the Nazis’ anti-socialist policies; the TGWU was closed down along with banning the Communist Party. Thus, Le Brocq along with five others, including fellow communist Les Huelin, were forced to put their socialist and unionist activities underground. Regardless, it did not take long for the group to refound the Jersey Communist Party in 1942 along with founding a separate yet linked political organ; the ‘Jersey Democratic Movement’ (JDM) which was set up in 1941 to agitate for change when the war was over. Le Brocq’s main method of resistance, similar to Cahun and Moore’s methods, was illegally making and distributing resistance leaflets for the TGWU, Communist Party and the JDM with 300 to 400 leaflets being produced each run from a duplicating machine hidden in an attic. The leaflets included anti-Nazi propaganda, information about the war obtained on hidden radio sets and denunciations of previously discussed collaboration by the Jersey authorities. Leaflets were also printed in Russian to be smuggled into the Nazi’s slave labour camps in order to keep the morale of the Soviet prisoners up, relaying news of the Red Army’s victories at Stalingrad and Kursk. Former Soviet prisoners on Jersey have recounted how the news of Red Army successes on the Eastern Front gave them the hope needed to carry on living, helping them to survive their situation. Additionally, some leaflets were also printed in German which were aimed at not only lowering the morale of occupying soldiers by giving them news of the Wehrmacht’s defeats in Europe and Africa but also inciting them to revolt against their officers. Producing and supplying these leaflets ran the risk of the Communist Party being caught by Jersey’s collaborating police with its members being tried and most certainly sentenced to execution.
The Jersey Communist Party also operated an underground network of hideouts for escaped Soviet prisoners of war which helped others, such as Louisa Gould, successfully hide POWs. The network provided the clothes, false papers including identity cards and ration cards, English lessons and most importantly safe houses for escapees to evade recapture.
Whilst it might seem futile to try and spread leaflets to Germans in an attempt to incite revolt against their commanders; Norman Le Brocq actually found a lot of success in this endeavour. In summer of 1944, Huelin and Le Brocq made contact with a recently defected German soldier of the occupying forces by the name of Paul Mülbach.
Mülbach was from Koblenz in Germany to a family that was firm in its socialist beliefs. Mülbach’s father, a socialist trade union official, openly resisted the Nazi takeover of Germany in 1933 before being arrested. He was thus sent to the infamous Dachau camp, Germany’s first concentration camp, where he died in 1934. Paul Mülbach however, was more left leaning than his father, much like Le Brocq he was a convinced Marxist. When the Spanish Civil War broke out; tens of thousands of socialists, communists and left-wing peoples from nations across Europe and the World came to the defence of the socialist Republican government against the fascist rebels of Francisco Franco. Mülbach volunteered to join the International Brigade on the Republican side and fought throughout the war. The conflict claimed the lives of about half a million people with another 200,000 being executed by Franco’s forces after the war. In the end, Mülbach was captured and sent back to Nazi Germany. He was given a choice by the authorities that be can either join the Wehrmacht to serve in the upcoming Second World War or he could be sent to the Dachau concentration camps. Not wanting to follow his father’s fate of an early death; Mülbach joined the German Army.
Whilst serving on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Union, Mülbach suffered a severe leg injury which was treated with a surgical boot to help him walk which thus caused him to be permanently retired from the frontline. This is how he managed to get stationed in the quiet and peaceful garrison of Jersey. However, Mülbach was not a man to relax into his new quasi-holiday; he had a conviction to bring down the Nazi war machine and uphold the ideals of socialism, regardless of the risk to himself. Mülbach deserted from his duties and eventually found the underground JCP where he dyed his hair blonde and disguised himself in civilian clothing. Despite his hair being patently dyed and his limp from his war injury being rather obvious; the German authorities that were searching for him after he deserted never found him. Additionally, Mülbach not only quickly fit in with fellow revolutionary socialists of the Jersey Communist Party but he was also very helpful. Speaking five different languages including German, English and Russian; Mülbach became a valuable member of the Island resistance in creating German and Russian leaflets. However, not all of the JCP’s resistance activities were non-violent. Having access to knowledge of where German equipment and supplies are stored as well as contacts other than Mülbach within the occupying German forces (which I will discuss a little later) made more daring forces of defiance available. Two known examples of such involve the bombing of the German bakery in St Helier causing significant damage and the other was the explosion at the Palace Hotel which at the time had been converted into the German’s Officer School. Mülbach set fire to the building in March 1945 which detonated the stockpiled munitions causing a massive explosion that killed nine German occupiers and destroyed most of the building.
Despite all of Mülbach and Le Brocq’s activities making leaflets and hiding Soviet POWs; the most ambitious form of resistance to Nazi rule in the Channel Islands was being formulated by the German occupiers themselves. Mülbach represented a group of German soldiers and airmen still in service garrisoning Jersey who made up a Soldiers’ Committee which was essentially the Channel Islands wing of the Soviet-backed National Committee for a Free Germany. The average German serviceman on Jersey was tired of the war; they had heard news of bombings in German cities but could not contact their family due to being cut off and, much like the native population, they were in dire need of food. More importantly, they knew that with the Red Army at the gates of Berlin and the Allied forces moving nearly unopposed through Western Germany; The Third Reich was certainly coming to an end. However, this was not the opinion of Admiral Huffmeier who was appointed as the new occupation governor of the Channel Islands in an attempt by Hitler to move more loyal staff into positions of power after the failed assassination attempt against him in July 1944. Because of Huffmeier’s loyalty; he refused the idea of surrender and remained steadfast that the ‘final victory’ was at hand. This only made matters worse for the war-weary German occupiers. Although the victory for the Allies was a certainty, due to ardent Nazi fanatics like Huffmeier promising to hold out to the end and alleged Nazi plans to retreat to the Alps; many believed that the war could continue for some time to come. Thus, the Soldiers’ Committee set in motion a plan to launch an armed uprising against the occupation and install a Commune!
According to Mülbach, he had several senior contacts in the German Army with a number of senior contacts in the Air Force along with similar contacts in Guernsey all supporting the mutiny. However, the Navy on the Island remained loyal to Hitler’s cause. The number of supporters for the coup d’etat were large and their confidence of their success was resolute.
Their plan consisted of marching on the headquarters in St Helier wearing white armbands and to bring firearms and anti-tank weapons. Due to the Navy’s loyalty to Berlin, it was expected the heaviest fighting would occur at the docks. After the success of the mutiny; Le Brocq and Mülbach planned to set up a ‘People’s Democracy’ which was a sort of socialist commune as were being established across Eastern Europe at the time [30]. The uprising was planned for the 1st of May but a number of the more conservative Catholic officers involved in the plan insisted that the attack be delayed another two weeks so that it did not occur on Labour Day, which had obvious connotations to communism. However, by the 9th of May the Channel Islands were liberated from Nazi German control, thus making the planned revolt obsolete.
After Liberation, Mülbach was given a job as an interpreter helping the slave workers held on the Channel Islands be repatriated to their home country. He was later sent to the UK to help repatriate other German POWs back to Allied occupied Germany and Austria. He returned back to his family in Koblenz in 1946 but then moved and settled into the newly founded Communist German Democratic Republic (East Germany) in 1950.
Here lies the great contrast that I wish to display. Whilst the good ordinary people of the Channel Islands resisted the enemy occupation and risked arrest by the Channel Island police with the possibility of deportation or even execution at the hands of the Germans; the Channel Islands authorities treated these activities as criminal whilst they passed anti-semitic laws and fraternised with the Germans. For this the Carey and Coutanche were officially recognised for their service whilst the resistance activists who risked their lives were only recognised and awarded by other countries in the immediate aftermath of the war. The first country to officially recognise the resistance of the Jersey people was the Soviet Union. In 1965 the Soviet ambassador came to Jersey to award 18 people who resisted fascism in person to award each an inscribed gold watch. Amongst these were the JCP’s Norman Le Brocq and Les Huelin but also Albert Bedane, Harold le Druillenec and the relatives of Louisa Gould. The latter of which only received recognition from the British Government decades later in 2010 with the awarding of the ‘British Hero of the Holocaust award’ however many of the recipients had already passed away by the time the medals were awarded.
As discussed previously; the feelings and attitudes of the Jersey populace was riotous with much of their anger being directed at the wartime authorities still in power in the États with walls across the Island being chalked with “Out with the States!”. With the amount of outrage amongst the Islanders; political change was inevitable. The Jersey Democratic Movement was sent up precisely for this reason and Norman Le Brocq was set on channeling the people’s resentment into shaking up the political system. Firstly, JDM organised a mass petition which reached 6,000 signatures asking King George for a Commission of Inquiry to investigate all activities of the States during the occupation and for the establishment of a just and representative form of government in place of the current États system amongst other demands. Later in June, the JDM launched an open meeting that was attended by 2,000 people that demanded increases in workers’ wages. Indeed change did come when the 12 Jurats who were elected for life were replaced by the 12 senators we have become accustomed to today who are recalled for every election.
However, the Jersey Democratic Movement faced much opposition in the late 40s after the war. A member of the Jersey Democratic Movement sent a letter to the socialist ‘Daily Worker’, now the ‘Morning Star’, that was strictly to be anonymous as if it were published with his name because if he was associated with JDM and the left-wing ‘Daily Worker’ he feared he would be beaten up and his family members might lose their jobs. Furthermore, the Jersey Evening Post, after the war was over, issued an editorial condemning Norman Le Brocq and his resistance movement along with condemning other resisters by describing their “subversive activities against our own authorities” as a “shameful story”. The Jersey Evening Post never apologised for publishing these editorials.
Despite the opposition; Norman Le Brocq was determined to be elected to the states in order to enact his point program as described in his book ‘Jersey looks forward’. His policies of reform included abolishing property requirements for standing for office and voting, voters’ power to recall politicians in office, economic care for the underprivileged, states funded housing projects, minimum wage along with a lot of other workers’ rights laws, expansion of Co-operatives in agriculture and the nationalisation of gas, water and electrical services. In 1966, Norman Le Brocq was elected as a St Helier deputy and he would remain as such until his retirement in 1987. During this time he was also the president of the Sea Fisheries Advisory Committee as well as the Island Development Committee which planned where new housing developments can be built and the allocation of where greenspace was to be preserved. Additionally, he served 35 years as the director, along with 27 years as president, of the Channel Islands Co-operative Society.
The purpose of this essay and the reason why I focused a great amount on the issue of collaboration is that whilst I was reading about Norman Le Brocq, I asked myself this question; “Why is it that Carey and Coutanche, despite their collaboration, were given the honour of being knighted yet Norman Le Brocq was demonised by the Jersey press and had no official recognition from the Jersey or British government for his wartime resistance”. With post-war legacy of countries lionising anti-nazis resistance with ‘Résistancialisme’ in France, remembrance of the Warsaw Uprising in Poland and the legacy of the Soviet partisans in Russia; why isn’t the activities of the Jersey Communist Party a more celebrated part of our national identity? Considering how the occupation appears to be a well focused aspect of Jersey tourism, identity and history; why doesn’t Norman Le Brocq play a larger part in our memory of the war?
Because of this; I wholeheartedly believe that the legacy of Le Brocq, Mülbach, Cahun, Gould and all others who resisted should play a greater part in remembering the occupation and to take a greater role in forming our Island identity.
Sources:
Arendt, H (2006). Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil. New York: Penguin Publishing.
Balleine G, Syvret, M & Stevens J (1981). Balleine’s History of Jersey. Chichester: Phillimore & Co Ltd.
Boleat, M. (2014). Jersey’s Population — A History. Available: https://www.boleat.com/materials/jerseys_population.pdf.
Le Brocq, N (1946). Jersey looks forward. London: The Communist Party.
Bunting, M (1995). The model occupation: the Channel Islands under German rule, 1940–1945. London: HarperCollinsPublishers.
Communist Party History Group et al. (2013) ‘The CP in the Channel Islands’, Our History, May.
Forty, G (1999). Channel Islands At War: A German Perspective. Shepperton, Surrey: Ian Allan Publishing.
Fraser, D (2000). Jews of the Channel Islands and the Rule of Law, 1940–1945: ‘Quite Contrary to the Principles of British Justice’. Brighton: Sussex Academic Press.
Jersey War Tours. (2016). Saving Russian Bill . Available: https://www.jerseybunkertours.com/louisa-gould.
Nettles, John (2012). Jewels and Jackboots: Hitler’s British Channel Islands. Jersey: Channel Island Publishing (Just as a sidenote; yes that book is actually written by the John Nettles that played Bergerac. Just in case you were wondering.
Le Sueur, R. (2014). The German mutiny planned for just before the Liberation. Available: https://www.theislandwiki.org/index.php/The_German_mutiny_planned_for_just_before_the_Liberation.
The Telegraph. (2010). Britons honoured for holocaust heroism. Available: https://web.archive.org/web/20100312103651/https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/britainatwar/7402443/Britons-honoured-for-holocaust-heroism.html.
