Naturally in the atmosphere of hostility
and mistrust, espionage was seen as a vital tool of the Cold War by both sides.
Initially at least, the Soviet Union enjoyed some crucial advantages. Given the
conspiratorial background of the Bolsheviks, and their fears of foreign attack,
they had lavished far more resources on foreign intelligence in the inter-war
years than the west. Under the banners of international revolution and
anti-Nazism, they had recruited a number of idealistic young men during the
1930s.
Well-educated and well-connected men, which
in Britain included Donald Maclean, Kim Philby and Guy Burgess, became deeply
committed agents. They were to rise to important positions in government
service. In America and across Europe others like them were recruited. During
the war, when the Soviet Union was doing most of the fighting, the urge to help
an ally in difficulty attracted more like them. By the beginning of the Cold
War the USSR had elaborate and well-established networks of agents in the west.
The First Chief Directorate of the KGB was able to divide its responsibilities
into areas that reflected Moscow’s priorities. Department 4 concentrated on
East and West Germany and Austria, symptomatic of Moscow’s obsession with the
wartime enemy. North America naturally warranted its own department. The whole
of Latin America, Francophone and Anglophone Africa had only three departments
between them. Department 11, which spied on WPO allies, was euphemistically
named ‘Liaison with Socialist Countries’. Departments 17 and 18 were later
created, reflecting the rising importance of the Arab world and of south Asia.
The west initially had nothing comparable.
Not only was little priority given to foreign intelligence, the USSR was a far
more hostile environment in which to operate than the west. There were very few
spies in the USSR, which is ironic given the vast numbers executed for spying
during the purges.
In 1945 much of the wartime intelligence
organisations of Britain and America were run down. When the CIA was
established in 1947, it had to begin building an intelligence system from
virtually nothing. In the early years of the Cold War western intelligence
services were to stagger from a series of humiliations. Britain’s SIS was
fooled into sending a number of agents into the east to contact nonexistent
resistance groups, where they were captured. The CIA provided arms, radios and
money to another such mythical group. Faith in these organisations was eroded
by sensational spying scandals in the west. In America Julius and Ethel
Rosenberg were controversially executed for spying on American nuclear secrets.
In Britain Klaus Fuchs and Allan Nunn May were imprisoned for the same offence.
Even more painful for Britain was the humiliatingly long list of senior
intelligence agents exposed as Soviet spies. It seemed as if British
Intelligence was being run from Moscow. Similarly highly placed spies were
uncovered throughout NATO. In America a depressing list of middle-rank agents
proved willing to accept Soviet money. One, Aldrich Ames, reputedly received $2.7
million for betraying 25 agents, ten of whom were shot.
Of course the west had its successes. Oleg
Penkovsky provided valuable information on Soviet weapons systems during the
Cuban Missile Crisis – for which he was tortured and shot. Oleg Gordievsky
informed the west of near-hysteria in the Kremlin in the belief that Ronald
Reagan was about to launch a pre-emptive nuclear attack. A shocked Reagan
moderated his anti-Soviet rhetoric.
Occasionally vital, the role of the spy has
been given an overly glamorous image. Perhaps 90 per cent of the information
intelligence agencies require comes from published sources. Newspapers are a
valuable intelligence source – sometimes presented by agents as from highly
confidential sources. Analysis of foreign media could consider both its content
and what was absent. What the state was not willing to report could indicate
weaknesses or priorities. Questioning émigrés is another routine source of
information. The west’s greatest advantage, however, was through its use of
technology. A valuable source of information was signals intelligence.
Intercepting and deciphering Soviet radio traffic became a routine task. The
USSR struggled to keep up with western computer technology capable of such
tasks.
Surveillance satellites would eventually
allow both sides to observe each other freely. Technology also allowed them
both to get reliable information from China. The PRC was extremely hostile and
dangerous territory for spies. By 1967 both the USA and the USSR had intelligence
gathering satellites in orbit. Henceforth it would be possible to observe the
disposition, structure and movement of the opposition’s military – subject
mainly to weather conditions. A surprise attack was becoming an ever more
remote possibility.
Perhaps this should have supplied a greater
sense of security during the Cold War. But intelligence is of little value if
it is not believed. In the early 1980s no amount of negative reports from the
KGB could convince the Soviet leadership that Reagan was not preparing for war.
At the same time the CIA was unable to convince Reagan that the USSR was not
behind all international terrorism. The Cold War, in short, engendered
attitudes and assumptions that simple information could not change.
No comments:
Post a Comment