The following was sent to me by a very good friend and student of military history.
Your question about the Mauser rifles that were rejected by the British Government in 1940 is interesting and reminded me of that disgraceful episode that I had not thought about for years.
It is such an unlikely story on the face of it that I can quite understand why it might be regarded with skepticism. I think, therefore, that I need to explain the background so it will be seen that it is reliable.
At the outset let me say that I have some back up for this but it might need a long search to find it, so what follows is from memory. There might therefore be some inaccuracies like exact dates, but otherwise it is an accurate report of what I read at the time.
Let's start with the events of 1939-40. The period from the declaration of war in September 1939 to the German invasion of Europe in May 1940 was known in Britain as the "phony war" because there was not much action going on. The British knew they were up against it because of two decades of
disarmament and inadequate defense spending following the horrors of WW1, and that they were poorly prepared to take on the Germans.
It might not be well known even to veterans of WW2 that the British Government tried to get the owners of firearms to give them to the State, presumably for guerilla warfare should that be necessary. In any case, except for rifles that could be used for sniping there's not much else that
could be done with a motley collection of small arms. They found, however, that there was not remotely enough from that source because of two decades of civilian disarmament following the Firearms Act of 1920 and subsequent amendments.
It should not be forgotten that the British Army was very small at the time and the stock of weapons was not adequate to repel an invasion. Just why the army had so few weapons considering the huge volume left from WW1 is something I have never seen explained. No doubt they foolishly destroyed them after "the war to end all wars" but maybe somebody can enlighten me.
At some point, I'm not sure when, it could have been later, one solution was the lend lease agreement with the US. But before that, if memory serves, an appeal was made in the US for civilians to contribute private arms "for the defense of British homes" I think it said. Several
shiploads were sent, just dumped en mass into the holds.
In the meantime other sources were sought. The BEF ( British Expeditionary Force ) had a small force in France. It's intelligence officers had gotten wind of some Mauser military rifles in Holland. Winston Churchill sent Bob Boothby to investigate. He located a big quantity ( don't know how big ) stored at Antwerp or Rotterdam or both, complete with bayonettes and
1000 rounds of ammo per rifle. They were available if a price could be agreed. The BEF officers told Boothby "You had better get them. We might soon need them at home." Obviously they had a clearer idea of what was to come than the politicians.
But when Boothby returned to London he was told that the rifles were not needed and there was no money anyway. A few weeks later the Germans invaded and got the rifles.
Aside from the criminal stupidity there are two questions. First, why would they refuse a substantial quantity of military rifles when they were seeking arms from any and all possible sources ? Second, why would government decline the rifles when Churchill had sent Boothby to find them
? My history knowledge is not too exact, so it could be that Churchill had enough authority to send Boothby looking for them but had not yet been appointed Prime Minister and thus lacked the authority to force the purchase. Maybe somebody more knowledgeable can supply the answer to that.
But whatever the truth of that, the basic fact remains that the rifles were available but were declined in the face of threat of invasion by a vastly more powerful foe at the time.
That's the basic story. Now let's look at the sources. The story was published by "Handgunner" magazine, that's the British "Handgunner" not the American one. It was published by
Jan Stevenson who wrote and uncovered some amazing stuff. Until I find that particular issue I can't say when it was published but it would have been late 1980s/early 90s, as Bob Boothby's memoirs were published in 1986 I think.
"Handgunner" was a first class publication, and wrote more about the politics of gun control in the UK than anyone. It was the first to expose the SA80 debacle in a lengthy two part article. That brought it into conflict with government and it was pretty much closed down for a year. It was a small publication, so presumably that and other harassment by the State forced it to close it's doors not long after.
"Handgunner" got the story from Bob Boothby's memoirs published in 1986 and published it's article because it thought the story worth repeating to a wider audience, particularly those with an interest in such things.
Which brings us to Lord Robert Boothby, generally known as Bob Boothby. Those old enough to have been young in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s will remember him. He was a politician of the Conservative Party, but was a household name because of his outspoken attitude and renegade
nature. He was, you might say, one of those larger than life "characters."
Because of his public profile he got a lot of exposure, mostly radio in those days before TV became universal. Although it is a long time ago I remember him well, and my memory is that he struck me as the type of guy who could be believed. In fact it was his blunt fondness for telling it like it is that made him a renegade and not always popular in his own party.
He published his memoirs in 1986. I think it is called "Recollections of a Rebel" which tells you what sort of character he was. I think he died shortly after in 1988. He said that he expected that story would be seized upon by the media because, he said, "It was the most disgraceful episode in my long public life because it might have made the difference between victory and defeat." But, he said, "Not a word, the conspiracy of silence was complete."
Anyhow, Churchill obviously knew him well enough to entrust him with that expedition. Unfortunately it is unlikely that any evidence exists outside his story. It would have been nice if the BEF intelligence officers had been named as witnesses but I suspect not. On the other hand I have not seen his book so there might be more info in there. I think it is true. There is no reason to think otherwise, and it is consistent with the attitude of successive British Governments that disarmament of civilians is more important than anything else including the risk of invasion.
Anyone who doubts that should look at the suggestion by three senior officers in the 1980s I think, that some civilians should be armed with rifles suitable for sniping, and that they should be encouraged to practice and become proficient. Admiral Hill-Norton was one, can't remember the
others. While I would rather treat that as a separate item if you like, if I can find the stuff that is, the bare bones is that the Soviet threat was at its height and it was known that the Soviets emphasized parachute training and the use of Spetznatz forces. It was expected that in the event of the sudden outbreak of hostilities Special forces would be dropped by air and landed from submarines to attack vital installations like dams. Such installations are often in remote areas where the small and
thinly stretched army could not defend at short notice. It was recognized that only those living in those areas could mount any sort of defense and would have the advantage of knowing the area intimately and most importantly knowing everyone else who lived there. It was further recognized that the only credible thing civilians could do against special forces would be to provide accurate long range rifle fire. It was squashed by the police, no doubt acting on orders from government along the lines of "can't let people have rifles, not good for public safety, don't
y'know." The defense of the realm is not a good enough reason for civilians to have rifles.
That's why I believe Bob Boothby.
Hope this helps. Anyone who still doubts it can contact Jan Stevenson or
get Bob Boothby's book.
