Happy and Glorious.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

2) The one advantage from all this is that the Americans are already learning not to trust Allied (British) intelligence services, allowing for them to compartmentalize their own actions and leave the Soviets in the dark. If OTL is any indication, the Old Boy Network in the UK is going to prevent the British from cleaning up their own act for a long time to come. They (including the Soviet agents in MI6) can simply blame American incompetence instead.

usertron2020

Possibly, its always a danger. However this is giving significant proof of treachery at high levels and since we're in a shooting war with the Soviets, which they have started in an obviously pre-meditated way, I think there will be a good chance of a strong reaction. Also with Bevan basically as PM he will not be that supportive of the old boy network.

The only problem would be if the US doesn't tell us about it. They would be right not to until after the war but will hopefully pass on their suspicions after that. Alternatively the fact the US is restricting co-operation or defections from a defeated Soviet Union might give clues.

Steve

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Devolved

The British people have a long proud history of blaming the government for anything that goes wrong. That includes the weather.

But yes food shortages are the result of WW2 and bad weather not the Russians.

Devolved

Are you trying to imply the government aren't responsible for the weather? Next you will be suggesting they aren't behind the fact it goes dark at night-time.

Been away a week and just caught up. Looking very messy. Think the big issue is what happens to the Soviet forces in Germany. I can't see them breaking out from the Rhine bridgehead with their country collapsing behind them but how will the commanders and troops react to those events? You could have the commanders possibly deciding to offer a cease-fire and seeking to take his army home to 'restore order' making a bid for power themselves. Or hard-line groups might seek to punish the west, or at least occupied areas, for the nuclear attacks.

Steve

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by stevep

Devolved

Think the big issue is what happens to the Soviet forces in Germany. I can't see them breaking out from the Rhine bridgehead with their country collapsing behind them but how will the commanders and troops react to those events? You could have the commanders possibly deciding to offer a cease-fire and seeking to take his army home to 'restore order' making a bid for power themselves. Or hard-line groups might seek to punish the west, or at least occupied areas, for the nuclear attacks.

Steve

Probably a combination of all those things. Another problem is how much control will the generals have over their troops if the apparatus of Soviet power collapses?

[stevep]

Originally Posted by Devolved

Probably a combination of all those things. Another problem is how much control will the generals have over their troops if the apparatus of Soviet power collapses?

Devolved

That's the weirdest spelling of when I've ever seen.

Steve

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by stevep

usertron2020

Possibly, its always a danger. However this is giving significant proof of treachery at high levels and since we're in a shooting war with the Soviets, which they have started in an obviously pre-meditated way, I think there will be a good chance of a strong reaction. Also with Bevan basically as PM he will not be that supportive of the old boy network.

The only problem would be if the US doesn't tell us about it. They would be right not to until after the war but will hopefully pass on their suspicions after that. Alternatively the fact the US is restricting co-operation or defections from a defeated Soviet Union might give clues.

Steve

With WWIII going on the Soviets have to pull out all the stops and won't care at this point what happens to their agents. They basically burned Richard Sorge and they weren't even at war with Japan. They see their agents as resources to be used. Wartime and peacetime have different rules. At this point, they need those agents to perform, whatever the risk.

The real advantage for the Soviets in the UK is how long and high up the penetrations have been going on/reached. So just the very people you would need to clean house are the ones who've been stealing the family silver. The Cambridge Five, along with other such Soviet minions, combined with loyal but nationalistic types who simply refused at the time to believe such things could happen in the British Civil Service, will not even allow such thinking of British treason to be contemplated.

And that's just OTL. ITTL, they can easily point to the American incompetent performance in so much since Pearl Harbor as rock solid proof that any "stealing of the family silver" simply MUST be happening in Washington, not London. Bevan does sound like someone less gullible than Attlee, though.

[El Pip]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

And that's just OTL. ITTL, they can easily point to the American incompetent performance in so much since Pearl Harbor as rock solid proof that any "stealing of the family silver" simply MUST be happening in Washington, not London. Bevan does sound like someone less gullible than Attlee, though.

Plus it's not like the US didn't have their own problems with Soviets spies. I think the intelligence agencies were OK at the time, but there were definitely spy rings in State Department, Treasury, War Production, etc. So it's not like London will lack 'proof' that the spy problem is all on the US side, because Washington does have a problem. It's just that London also has a problem.

[iainbhx]

Originally Posted by Devolved

Probably a combination of all those things. Another problem is how much control will the generals have over their troops if the apparatus of Soviet power collapses?

I'm just wondering if the Soviets will try and use civilians as human shields at some point. Mass population movements are very much a Stalin speciality.

[tchizek]

Originally Posted by iainbhx

I'm just wondering if the Soviets will try and use civilians as human shields at some point. Mass population movements are very much a Stalin speciality.

The thing is "human shields" is a very late 20th early 21st century concept. In the late 1940's there just wasn't that concept.

[Devolved]

Originally Posted by iainbhx

I'm just wondering if the Soviets will try and use civilians as human shields at some point. Mass population movements are very much a Stalin speciality.

With the mass bombings and slaughter of WW2 only 18 months earlier plus atom bombs falling on cities in WW3 I'm not sure even the Allies would worry about human shields too much. On an individual level I can see Allied soldiers being limited by the use of human shields. For example OTL the Greek Communists used human shields against British troops in Athens in 1944.

On a strategic level defeating the Soviets would take priority over civilians. As for Stalin I think his ability to move populations is diminishing fast. Soon the only thing he will be able to move will be his favourite pillow.

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by El Pip

Plus it's not like the US didn't have their own problems with Soviets spies. I think the intelligence agencies were OK at the time,(1) but there were definitely spy rings in State Department, Treasury, War Production, etc. So it's not like London will lack 'proof' that the spy problem is all on the US side, because Washington does have a problem. It's just that London also has a problem.

True. But those areas do NOT have access to information regarding US top secret military deployments of atomic B-29s. The American spies are mostly in the positions of "agents of influence" spilling diplomatic secrets, not the secrets of active US military forces. The British spies do have such capabilities. And would London even HAVE such "proof" of Soviet infiltration in the US at this time?

EDIT: 1) In fact, the problem for the FBI, Army Intelligence and Naval Intelligence (and later CIA and NSA) was right wing, not left wing, influence and "penetration", if that word can be used. Coddling of Nazi War criminal and bringing them to the US, frex. And for all the criticism of the Angleton Era, the CIA was NOT penetrated significantly until AFTER James Angleton was forced out as head of CIA Counter-Intelligence in the mid-70s. This was one time in one instance where being the new kid on the block, starting with a fresh slate, worked for the USA's advantage, and where the reverse being true bit the British in the ass. After all, how could the Soviets wander around American universities to recruit agents to penetrate American intelligence agencies that wouldn't even exist for another decade or two?

In fact, OTL, it wasn't long after Angleton's removal that an "Old Boys Network" came into play in the CIA, allowing major penetration by the KGB of the CIA for the first time.

[PMN1]

From ‘Warlords, the heart of conflict 1939 – 1945’ by Simon Berthon and Joanna Potts.

Page 20

In his diary, declassified in 2002, Guy Liddell, the wartime head of MI5’s B Division, admitted ‘There is no doubt that the Russians are better in the matter of espionage than any other country in the world.’ Evidence to support this came from the defection in January 1940 of Walter Krivitsky, the former head of Soviet Military Intelligence in Western Europe, who became the most significant defector yet from the elite of the Soviet intelligence services. Krivitsky gave tantalising clues pointing to a network of agents embedded deep in both the British government and the intelligence services. Though he did not know their identities, he was talking about the Cambridge Five, headed by the notorious trio of Burgess, Maclean and Philby.


Page 38

Stalin’s agents were also busy elsewhere. From its London headquarters the British security service, MI5, was collecting substantial evidence that the Communist Party of Great Britain was being ordered by Moscow to adopt a policy that was nothing short of treachery. ‘Moscow’s instructions’, noted Guy Liddell, the head of MI5’s counter-subversion unit, ‘are that the imperialist war must be gradually converted into a civil war, that no steps should be taken to oppose a German landing in this country since a short period under a Nazi regime would be the quickest way of bringing about a Communist revolution.’ Churchill was serious about intelligence and knew that Stalin was approving subversion in Britain, but he was not willing to jeopardise even the slightest prospect of an alliance with the Soviet leader by bearing down too heavily on Soviet espionage. He and his Cabinet continued to ‘abstain from any action which might suggest impatience, suspicion or irritation’.




May have mentioned the above before..


If true, then given the circumstances, I think we can assume that the gloves have come off and there is some very severe mole hunting in progress......

[Initiation]

Also could we say for example the VENONA project sped up? (Not sure how urgent it was pushed through in OTL but with a dearth of Soviet Intelligence any lead would be important). That could certainly reveal Burgess/Maclean as in OTL and start a mole hunt to probe around SIS/MI5 a bit more.

If Krivitysky's interrogation was re-examined with the view of the Soviets being enemies rather than 'allies' as in 1940 then that could also reveal Philby (OTL he revealed an agent who was a journalist in the Spanish civil war which was Philby but this was either ignored as they didn't want to ruffle any soviet feathers or not taken seriously).

Of course all this on the British side is going to be hugley bothersome and hindered with the fact that since October 1944 (atleast in OTL) Philby was placed in charge of SIS section IX which dealt with monitoring Soviet espionage!

Some mid level Soviet codes were being read at this time, this was only corrected on 'black friday' in October '48 after the soviet agent William Weisband revealed they were being broken.

In all The UKUSA intelligence services and their customers were probably in for a bit of a shock at the start of this war, they have gone from mounting some incredible deceptions and operations against the Germans duping them entirely and being able to read almost everything which went through the air waves to well...not.

[Roisterer]

If the USSR descends into warlordism, I wonder what will happen to these spies? A successor state might try to keep the networks, but then they woud be working without ideology.

And if different factions take over Moscow one after another, the risk that records will be stolen/sold/publicised increases greatly.

I would rather like to see the expression on the faces of Philby, Burgess, and MacLean if communism disappears.

Regards

R

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by Roisterer

If the USSR descends into warlordism, I wonder what will happen to these spies? A successor state might try to keep the networks, but then they woud be working without ideology.

And if different factions take over Moscow one after another, the risk that records will be stolen/sold/publicised increases greatly.

I would rather like to see the expression on the faces of Philby, Burgess, and MacLean if communism disappears.

Regards

R

You already have something to go by in that regard. Remember when the Wall came down, and then the USSR collapsing, the number of agents coming in from the cold? The number of people discovering that their own spouses were spying on them? I'd love to be the divorce lawyer for one of THESE couples.

[El Pip]

Originally Posted by usertron2020

True. But those areas do NOT have access to information regarding US top secret military deployments of atomic B-29s. The American spies are mostly in the positions of "agents of influence" spilling diplomatic secrets, not the secrets of active US military forces. The British spies do have such capabilities. And would London even HAVE such "proof" of Soviet infiltration in the US at this time?

I would suggest you are ignoring the Rosenbergs, Hiss, the Silvermaster Group, the rest of the Atomic Ring and probably several others. The Soviet infiltration of the US was far more serious than just diplomatic secrets.

Would Britain know, well OTL Elizabeth Bentley turned herself in 1945 and named 150 Soviet agents across the US government. This was shared by Hoover with the UK security co-ordinator in Washington, to make sure Britain didn't accidentally hand secrets to possible Soviet spies. There was also Gouzenko in Canada in 1945 who named a couple of dozen across North America, obviously this was also shared with Britain.

Assuming one or other of those defections happened TTL then yes London could point at either to say the problem lies in Washington.

[stevep]

Originally Posted by El Pip

I would suggest you are ignoring the Rosenbergs, Hiss, the Silvermaster Group, the rest of the Atomic Ring and probably several others. The Soviet infiltration of the US was far more serious than just diplomatic secrets.

Would Britain know, well OTL Elizabeth Bentley turned herself in 1945 and named 150 Soviet agents across the US government. This was shared by Hoover with the UK security co-ordinator in Washington, to make sure Britain didn't accidentally hand secrets to possible Soviet spies. There was also Gouzenko in Canada in 1945 who named a couple of dozen across North America, obviously this was also shared with Britain.

Assuming one or other of those defections happened TTL then yes London could point at either to say the problem lies in Washington.

El Pip

Which would be bad in that it makes it more likely Britain fails to notice its own problems.

I think if nothing else the saving grace is likely to be that some Russian faction or other post-war are likely to a) be anti-communist and b) want to win favour with the western powers so they will have every incentive to pass on information on Soviet spies in the west.

Steve

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by El Pip

I would suggest you are ignoring the Rosenbergs, Hiss, the Silvermaster Group, the rest of the Atomic Ring and probably several others. The Soviet infiltration of the US was far more serious than just diplomatic secrets.

Would Britain know, well OTL Elizabeth Bentley turned herself in 1945 and named 150 Soviet agents across the US government.(1) This was shared by Hoover with the UK security co-ordinator in Washington, to make sure Britain didn't accidentally hand secrets to possible Soviet spies. There was also Gouzenko in Canada in 1945 who named a couple of dozen across North America, obviously this was also shared with Britain.

Assuming one or other of those defections happened TTL then yes London could point at either to say the problem lies in Washington.

1) What areas? At what levels? Because its hard to beat Kim Philby, the heir apparent as head of MI6! It would be as if Melvin Purvis or Clyde Tolson were Soviet agents! These numbers can easily include janitors absconding with improperly secured trash. Prostitutes too. French counter-intelligence employed such "spies" to capture the "German spy" Alfred Dreyfus!

Again, this is in regards to matters outside the US military itself. The Manhatten Project, and similar things in US war production, yes. But US military bases? The movements of US military forces in their most secret areas? Penetration in the top ranks of US military intelligence and domestic counter-intelligence? Soviet spies in the US could tell the Soviets a lot. Atomic B-29 operations were not one of them. Besides, even if these groups didn't even exist, MI6 and the Cambridge Five (but I repeat myself) would have little difficulty in blaming American incompetence for causing leaks to the Soviets just on general principles alone. Compared to OTL the current of American errors committed ITTL has been a raging torrent. They don't need to find any Soviet spies in America to illustrate American haplessness.

Ironic, really. Whatever shortcomings the US had at this time, they weren't half as penetrated as the British. If for no other reason than that in the 1920s and 30s the USA simply did not register as importantly on Soviet radar as did the British Empire.

EDIT: Ninja'd by stevep

[usertron2020]

Originally Posted by stevep

El Pip

Which would be bad in that it makes it more likely Britain fails to notice its own problems.(1)

I think if nothing else the saving grace is likely to be that some Russian faction or other post-war are likely to a) be anti-communist and b) want to win favour with the western powers so they will have every incentive to pass on information on Soviet spies in the west.(2)

Steve

1) Which probably explains how the Cambridge Five lasted so long. First Rule of Bureaucracy: Blame the Other Guy.

2) Agreed. But that will be AFTER the war.

[El Pip]

Originally Posted by stevep

Which would be bad in that it makes it more likely Britain fails to notice its own problems.

I suppose part of the issue is when you have the government just handing over the Nene to the Soviets many in the intelligence community probably thought 'why bother?'. After all bad as the Cambridge Five where the actions of Cripps and co. were arguably more damaging, if not traitorous. How many British pilots died over Korea shot down by British engined Soviet jets?

[Initiation]

Originally Posted by El Pip

I suppose part of the issue is when you have the government just handing over the Nene to the Soviets many in the intelligence community probably thought 'why bother?'.

But then ITTL iirc there has been no Nene transfer so they may feel more inclined.