By Eric Vandenbroeck
and co-workers
When Spies invaded Russia p.5
As we have seen the
three intervention groups at their start had no orders, intention, or
functional mission to intervene militarily in anything at all. They were meant
to extend both human intelligence and signals intelligence access into specific
geographic areas of an otherwise inaccessible region for reasons which had only
partially to do with Russia.
Rather, early in the
war, a provision had been made for a "Government cable (owned by the
British and Russian Governments) from Peterhead to Alexandrovsk on the Murmansk coast." Thus at the
center, the above effort was the civilian need to extend intelligence lines and
to extend them to very particular points.
As the secret
post-war MI8 explanation had it, these access points to intelligence networks
were the "Special routes," established because it was "obviously
desirable to avoid, as far as possible, routes passing through the territory of
neutrals where the connecting lines were worked by a non-British staff and were
liable to be interfered with by a neutral Government, or tapped in the
interests of the enemy."
In comparison with
the intervention in North Russia, which was based primarily on commercial and
military imperatives and secondarily on Imperial great power politics, the
objectives finally determined to underpin the force which arrived in South
Russia in early 1918 were firmly grounded within a specific Imperial tradition,
the final innings in the Great Game itself. The ancillary military objectives
which the mission undertook existed only because at that time and in that place
the previously existent political objectives could not be advanced without
military support. If London argued about its purpose, or even tried to
re-define that purpose, it was never reasonable to suppose that the odd
collaboration between MIO, MI1, White Russians, Armenians, financial
representatives, commercial travelers, Dominion soldiers, and diplomatic
officers which resulted in Dunsterforce had as its
real purpose a dispassionate love of responsible government for the oppressed
populations of the Caucasus. Paramountcy was the key. Paramountcy, in turn,
provided specific advantages in the acquisition of trade and industrial
hegemony and the suppression of disruptive political unrest. Dunsterforce was the intelligence attempt to extend
intelligence lines, molding those oppressed populations into an Imperial
surrogate. Ensuring Imperial paramountcy in the North Persia/South Russian
region was a dividend.
As an MIO group, Dunsterforce was constructed for deniability, a concept new
in the description though not in the invention. The leisurely manner in which
the group made its way to its objective at Baku indicated the ongoing struggle
among those who had sent them; the erratic way in which the members of the
force were transported confirms that logistics were second to other
obligations. 400 hand-picked Imperial troops and a company of signals
specialists in the Caucasus were there for other than purely military reasons.
Although overt
political disagreements over the handling of the Arabian and Mesopotamian (now
roughly corresponding to most of Iraq, Kuwait, the eastern parts of Syria,
Southeastern Turkey, and regions along the Turkish–Syrian and Iran–Iraq
borders)theatres were temporarily held in abeyance by the Foreign and India
offices, the surface unity of London's governmental agencies broke down when
they were forced to deal with North
Persia (now Iran)during late 1917. Some of these internal disagreements had to
do with how men in charge of those offices regarded the threat posed by the
proximity of Bolshevik Russia to Persia. Another element which caused confusion
was the fact that the Foreign and India India offices
were receiving very different kinds of information from their representatives
in the region.
It set the pattern
for extended intelligence-operations, even down to the habit of using coded
designations for each discrete unit, something which ordinary military actions
seldom had employed but which after the war became surprisingly common.
Although the confusion of responsibility which was rampant at the War Office
cannot be explained easily even now, it is clear that the movement by British
and Imperial forces into North Persia was motivated by political as well as
military obligations; obligations which were ill-understood and poorly defined,
but they were at least addressed to some degree by the Eastern Committee and
the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force.
Although overt
political disagreements over the handling of the Arabian and Mesopotamian
theatres was temporarily held in abeyance by the Foreign and India Offices, the
surface unity of London’s governmental agencies broke down when they were
forced to deal with North Persia during late 1917. Some of this internal
disagreement had to do with how the men in charge of those offices regarded the
threat posed by the proximity of Bolshevik Russia to Persia. Another element
which caused confusion was the fact that the Foreign and India Offices were
receiving very different kinds of information from their representatives in
the region. The Foreign Office was relying particularly heavily on the advice
of military attaches in Persia and the Middle East who had in some instances
assumed an intermediary role between the diplomats and the local political
infrastructure. These attache's reported directly to
London and to one or another of the intelligence networks and were only
secondarily responsible to their local diplomatic superiors. The consensus of
these officers in 1917 was that the growing level of internal Persian political
fragmentation posed a hazard to the security of the British overseas empire.
Because of the increasing technological difficulties of co-ordination from
London (or Baghdad or Cairo or India), these attaches and other Imperial
representatives came to support an on-site British mission meant to tip the
Persian political situation in Britain’s favor.
While Middle Eastern
negotiations were taking place, the political ramifications of the Russian
collapse within Europe were also taking their toll on what was pre-eminently an
Imperial sphere—as it had been since the decade-old Anglo-Russian accords. The "Convention
entre la France et L’Angleterre au sujet de Faction dans la Russie méridionale," (a convention almost as controversial as
that other secret accord, the Sykes-Picot agreement), dived between two
countries Russia's previous imperial zones.
The clash between an
India Office preference for military solutions and a Foreign Office preference
for more subtle manipulations emerged full-blown in North Persia, where none of
the previously extant groups could gain control-the internal wrangling was
MIO’s opportunity to prove its merits. If the energy expended ultimately worked
to the detriment of the Dunsterforce by fouling
command lines, direction, and objectives, there was probably no way of knowing
it at the outset.
MI5 provided the
intelligence which finally forced the India Office to conclude that, far from
being a sideshow, Persia was the positive focus of outright German aggression.
MIS’s director, Captain Vernon Kell, had retrieved from India Office files the Wassmuss diaries (which had been captured in Persia, but
which, when finally in London, had been ignored for months), and the
accompanying German secret ciphers. Once Kell drew the diaries to the attention
of the India Office, the India Office was alarmed; it seemed there was active
German espionage being conducted in Persia against the Empire. The India Office
agreed that a fleet of armoured motor-cars under the
charge of British officers and non-commissioned officers of General Dunsterville’s party, should be established at the southern
end of the Kasr-i-Shirin-Kermansha-Hamadanroad, and should
gradually extend its operations northwards in the direction of the Caspian as
circumstances permit. The British officers in charge would have authority to organise local levies, &e., as opportunity offered, or
to take over existing organisations (e.g., the
Cossack Brigade) to assist them in their work. It is believed that, given the
right quality of officer and the necessary financial support, the objects in
view could be achieved without further assistance from regular troops. The
General Officer Commanding, Mesopotamia, would not be required to do more than
extend his right flank up to the eastern end of the passes leading from Irak into Persia. These passes, it may be observed, will be
clear of snow and open to traffic in about a month’s time.1
The India Office was
the last major governmental group to support the MIO/Dunsterforce
mission. Its endorsement was written at least two months after the Dunsterforce was actually despatched.
When it did finally sanction the mission, it sanctioned as well the separation
between intelligence and the military. The India Office went so far as to
ensure that GOC Marshall’s participation would be at arm’s length—Dunsterforce was to operate apart and be responsible in the
end, only to itself and to its London sponsors.
What the Eastern
Committee and Steel in London did not take into account was the degree of
dissension Dunsterforce would provoke in more regular
organizations and among its purely military members. The Regular Army offered
little support to Dunsterforce, as much because of a
reflexive distrust toward the new intelligence agencies as because of other
military demands. The Army resisted Dunsterforce for
the very reasons that MIO and the Eastern Committee supported it. Its bidder
agenda was to carry out the obligations of intelligence-operations-: acquire
information and to act on it, by encouraging Imperially favourable
circumstances in North Persia as a countermeasure against the insinuation of
Bolshevist and German espionage. It could offer no help at all to a military
campaign conducted along traditional lines.
Had Dunsterforce been the military mission sent to safeguard
the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force’s flank which postwar memoirs asserted,
its commander, Major-General Lionel C. Dunsterville,
would have been a perfect choice. But since Dunsterforce
was not a military mission but an intelligence-operations group showing a
military aspect, Dunsterville’s qualifications as a
frontier soldier were less than useful. Dunsterville
became a focus of Regular Army opposition most vividly expressed by General
William Marshall, the GOC of the Mesopotamian Expeditionary Force. Dunsterville’s exploits, recounted in Kipling’s Stalky
& Co., served as inspiration for at least one leading player in the
espionage networks of Russia and the Middle East, George Hill. When Hill and a
colleague were trapped in Salonica, he felt "there was a great similarity
in our own position" to that of "Stalky'" on the North-West
frontier.2
General Marshall
maintained his antagonism to the force and to its leader more or less
consistently from the time the idea of Dunsterforce
was suggested until its withdrawal from Baku in September 1918. After the war
the Eastern Committee was prepared to place almost too much blame on this
hostility, although at the time the members were unwilling to credit this
"fine fighting soldier"3 with a sufficient understanding of how the
military situation affected the political circumstances in the Middle East. Even
General Smuts, who insisted that policy had been to "block the new Eastern
route," blamed Marshall. He had, said Smuts, "persisted in regarding Dunsterville’s move to the Caspian as an unsound diversion
of force, which indicated that, although he might be a good fighting General,
the present the strategical situation was one which he and his Staff were
unable to grasp."4
When General Poole’s
own telegrams were not being received in London- combined with the hazard of
unauthorized interception anywhere along the courier routes or along the
transmittal process continued to hamper the implementation of operational
policy.
As we have seen,
there were two phases to the Imperial and subsequent Allied military presence
in North Russia. The first stemmed from the events which took place between
late 1917 and 3 March 1918 and the signing of the treaty of Brest-Litovsk. One
of the many official explanations which has survived was that
With their
commitments in the east thus materially reduced, the Germans could now transfer
large bodies of troops to the Western Front. ...a German Army of 55,000
men...was in Finland ostensibly to counteract Bolshevik troops. ...This German
force seemed to be in a position to seize the ice-free port of Murmansk, out of
which during 1917 a small British squadron had been operating against enemy
submarines. ...Primarily in order to forestall this possibility Great Britain,
at the invitation of the Soviet Government, landed a force of 150 marines at
Murmansk in April 1918, and 370 more in May. ...large dumps of military
equipment supplied by the Allies for Russia’s use when she was still in the war
were reported to be at the White Sea port of Archangel, in imminent danger of
falling into German hands. Accordingly, on 3 June the Supreme War Council
sanctioned the dispatch under British command of expeditions to Murmansk and
Archangel, 370 miles to the south-east. The Murmansk force, bearing the
code-name "Syren"...consisted of 600
British infantry, a machine-gun company, and a half-company of Royal Engineers.
The intended role at Archangel was to muster anti-Bolshevik forces into trained
formations, and to this task was assigned a British Mission ("Elope")
not to exceed 500 all ranks, under Major-General FC Poole. Both forces reached
Murmansk on 23 June escorted by an Allied naval squadron; and since Archangel
was then in Bolshevik hands, the "Elope" Mission landed with
"Syren."5
Between the
acknowledged troop landings at Murmansk on 23 June and their final evacuation
on 12 October 1919, the North Russian area became the focus for the military manoeuvering of some 30,000 troops, covering a line of over
a thousand miles, through two winters, producing extremely limited military
results and extremely bitter memories. Operating after the Armistice, the men
involved (consisting in addition to the Imperials) of Canadians, Australians,
Russian and "locally-raised troops," Americans, French, Italians,
Serbians, Koreans, and Czechs, worked under circumstances of increasingly
difficult political unrest, which was reflected by the troops" own
conduct.
The sole remaining
continuity between the maneuvers of mid-1916 and the RSG/Poole Mission, and the
movement of troops into North Russia to form the intervention was the oversight
being exercised through Colonel Richard Alexander Steel, the various components
of the Board of Trade, and the Cabinet committees which were sequentially
responsible.
Steel, the various
components of the Board of Trade, and the Cabinet committees which were
sequentially responsible. The Milner Committee, under its formal designation as
the Committee on Russian Supplies, (which had been doing such useful work in
London through its members Sir Leverton Harris,
George Clerk, William Clark, Eyre Crowe, Mitchell Thomson, Colonels Byrne and
Skene and Dudley Ward), was dissolved in early 1918, and its concerns were
addressed through the Russia Committee, formed of members from "(a) the
Foreign Office, War Office and Treasury, (b) Contraband Committee of the
Foreign Office (c) Restriction of Enemy Supplies Department [and] (d)
Commercial Intelligence Department."6 The on-site direction of the North
Russian group was left to Poole, "who had made it his duty’ to see that
supplies were put to "proper use."7 It was agreed that Poole was
"in a position with the staff he has to undertake all commercial
questions."8
Military action in
the north was often discussed but had not yet begun, under the supervision of
the Russia Committee. Its members-Cecil, Graham, General Macdonogh,
Dudley Ward, Colonel Peel, with T.H. Lyons and Kisch
as secretaries and Colonel Byrne, Mitchell Thomson and Colonel Skene. Skene was
Deputy Assistant Director, War Office (temporary) 20 April 1917-15 April 1918,
Employed under Ministry of Munitions 16 May 1918, GSO 1.9 as liaison from the
CRS10 -resisted sending troops into the Russian interior, even when the
proposition was mooted by its own experts. For example, in response to a
proposal made by Lyons in February 1918, committee member DMI General Macdonogh, expressed his "opinion that the [Lyons]
memorandum went much too far from a military point of view. ...The proposal to
occupy not only Archangelsk but also the railway line up to and including
Vologda could not therefore be regarded as a practical military proposition."11
The northern site was considerably more vulnerable to the influence and
interference of the regular military than was that in the south, primarily
because of its geographic location and access; these were the same reasons
which had made control of the area so tempting in the first place. The
personnel already in place, drawn from the Poole Mission with support from
intelligence operatives also already in place, drew further intelligence
support from commercial and private Imperial representatives who, like Armitstead of the HBC, were prepared to advance Imperial
commercial objectives, always with the endorsement of their employers. The
pressure on the central government by intelligence agencies and politicians,
and the fluctuation in and paucity of reliable information about what
Bolshevism intended, also was exacerbated by the increasing supply problems to
Russia and by legitimate fears that materiel previously purchased by the
Russian government was being misused-a nice point. It is curious to note that
only within the internal documents of the time was there acknowledgment that
that material was the property of the Russians, whatever their current
political affiliation-that it had been properly sold and was not simply on loan
to be removed at Allied whim. It was a question of the kind in which commercial
interests delighted; implying that there was such a pre-emptive right to
determine, after the sale, how the material was to be used allowed the
Imperials to employ their propagandists to their best capacity.
The original goals of
the Syren and Elope parties in North Russia, at the
ports and entry sectors of European Russia of Murmansk and Archangel, were
divided into three broad categories. "Political" dealt with the
exigencies caused by the generalized instability of that area of Russia, This
included any disruptions by German interests which were contrary to Allied
priorities, including military action. "Commercial" included all
growth, as well as oversight of internal Imperial and Dominion current and
potential interests. "Intelligence" covered the realization of the
other objectives and protection through countering actions and pre-emptive
behavior to avoid their disruption. To support these three objectives the
assigned personnel of Syren/Elope were heavily loaded
with intelligence and intelligence-affiliated officers, some reporting through
two and occasionally three lines of communication to War Office groups which
were themselves linked, but whose particular areas of concern were divided.
These did not include George Hill of MI1 (c), even he is quoted in the
"Elope Nominal Roils" which was only a draft 12 but it did include
Lieutenant-Colonel Thornhill, GSO 1, Intelligence, Elope, functioning as the
primary intelligence liaison between Elope and Mil (c) through M05 (a) and MI2
(d).13
Elope had connections
to the Locker- Lampson armored cars group and Poole thought highly enough of
Commander Oliver Stillingfleet Locker-Lampson’s
performance to send Lord Milner’s Committee a unit commendation. Locker-Lampson
got his copy from Colonel Steel.14
When work at MIO was
wrapped up or transferred in June 1918, there were still hundreds of troops out
in the field, their actions stalled and their positions shaky. The
contributions of men and material which the Dominions had made were almost
exhausted. The politicians were hard pressed to explain to Borden, among
others, why the men he had allowed to be sent in for a quick, surgical, and
quiet intercession were locked up tight in Russia and could not get home.
The other links
between Milner’s Imperialists promoting economic intervention signified by the
HBC representative already engaged in financial negotiations at Vologda or the
CRS team looking after commercial questions were what the Imperials were hoping
would deflect Borden from enquiring too closely. Vincent Massey, who had been
appointed by Rowell as "military secretary to the War Committee of the
Cabinet...at the end of January 1918, and Vice Chairman Rowell, who had
replaced Loring Christie15 became the chief Canadian proponents of
intervention generally, and particular supporters of intervention at
Vladivostok. Massey thought that Canadian participation...would be a symbol of
the political development of Canada" since it would be "the first
independent military expedition Canada has undertaken..."16 The importance
attached to Canadian political development by forward-looking Canadians could
not be underestimated. Massey had long sustained the activities of the
Imperialists in Canada to combat that 'very large minority in Canada which is
distinctly apathetic with regard to the Empire, and is so provincial in its
outlook as to become hostile to any definite action, not only to strengthen the
bonds of Empire but even to preserve them."17
Massey was supported
in his objectives by DMO General Radcliffe, who had already told Rowell that it
was "essential that the joint expedition should be as fully representative
of all the Allies as possible ....although, for obvious reasons, the bulk of
the force [will] have to be Japanese..."18 Radcliffe’s letter to Rowell
was echoed in that which he had sent to Major-General S.C. Mewburn,
the Canadian Minister of Munitions and Defence, who
in turn forwarded it to Borden at the Savoy in London on 12 July 1918.19 Still,
Mewburn felt compelled to point out that "the
trade conditions in this territory, will be a vital factor" and that,
looking to the future,"...it might be advisable to have some Canadian
representative accompany this force, as far as Trade and Commerce goes."
Using every available
method to appeal to burgeoning Canadian nationalism, the plan as reported to
Borden by the Assistant Secretary of the War Office acting at the instruction
of the Army Council said:
in connection with
the defence of the Northern Ports of Russia, General
Poole...intends to form a special mobile force from Allied contingents and
local levies for service in the Murman area. A scheme
for this has been drawn up by Captain Barboteau, of
the French Army, who was serving at Murmansk and who has been sent to England
by General Poole, and has been accepted in principle as a basis of
organization.
The proposed force is
to consist of 8 companies with 8 machine gun sections, and 4 sections of light
guns, with a total strength of about 2,100 all ranks [sic]. All ranks to be
provided with snowshoes, transport to be by sleigh and toboggan. Arrangements
are being made for the purchase of dogs and reindeer for transport purposes, of
other special equipment, and Captain Barboteau has
proceeded to Canada for this purpose. ...
The numbers which the
Council hope can be made available are 18 Officers, of whom 5 should be Machine
Gunners and 3 Artillery, and 70 N.C.O’s and privates of whom 18 should if
possible be Machine Gunners and 10 Artillery. ...A knowledge of French,
Italian, Russian or Servian would be useful, but by no means an essential
qualification, as steps to provide interpreters will be taken in this country.
The British
Government undertakes the provision of special clothing and equipment on the
lines decided upon by Sir E. Shackleton and Capt. Barboteau
(who has 10 years’ experience of N.E. Canada) for both officers and men and is
providing a special ration suited to the climate. Arms and machine guns will be
of Russian pattern, but the nature of the light gun to be provided is not yet
settled.20
On 1 August 1918, Sir
Edward Kemp, Overseas Minister of Military Forces for Canada wrote to Borden
with the details about the expedition to Northern European Russia. The War
Office, having already been refused the services of a Canadian battalion, was
now looking for eighteen officers and sixty-eight other ranks distributed among
infantry, machine gunners and artillery specialists, "for the purpose of
commanding a force of native levies." He was "in favour
of granting this request, providing these Officers will volunteer from our
Forces for this service."21 Borden concurred in the proposal, agreeing to
it on 2 August.22 On 9 August, Kemp forwarded another request from the War
Office for "two 6-gun 18-pounder batteries, the personnel of which would
amount to about 375."23 This again was authorized with no hesitation;
Borden informed Kemp that he saw "no objection to complying with the
request of the War Office. ..."24
Even as it was being
debated what was to be done in Siberia, there was still the nagging matter of
North Russia. In the briefing paper prepared on 13 October 1918, "Allied
policy in Russia consequent on the German collapse with Special reference to
the disposition of the Allied Forces in the North it was finally admitted that
with the anticipated disappearance of the German menace, our original pretext
for intervention in Russia, i.e. the encouragement of continued military
resistance to the Central Powers vanishes. From the purely military point of view
there is no longer any immediate objective to be gained by the retention of
forces in Russia."25 The author was Colonel Steel, who was now, as the
senior GSO and right-hand man to Radcliffe, turning his attention to Siberia.
In the effort to
reassure an increasingly nervous Canadian government, Milner himself was
brought out on 20 November 1918, along with the DMO, to try and explain why it
was now necessary, for the common Imperial good, to become involved in Siberia.
"General Radclilfe says it is not the intention
or expectation that British or Canadian Forces should be employed in an
offensive campaign but he believes their presence in Siberia would have a very
important influence in stabalising [sic] the
situation and in assisting newly formed Government in training newly organised forces which are now being formed."26 Borden
finally agreed that "under the circumstances...Canadian Forces now in
Siberia should remain until Spring and in absence of strong reasons to contrary
that the additional forces originally arranged for should proceed to Siberia
for the purposes indicated as well as for economic considerations which are
manifest."27 Besides, "Radcliffe assures us that the Bolshevik force
if any in Siberia is negligible."28
On 22 November 1918,
in the interests of keeping Borden fully informed about his investment in
Siberia, Radcliffe sent what he called a "short Note on the Situation, and
two maps" which he hoped would help to make the matter clear. According to
Steel’s secret paper,"The Present Military and
Political Situation in Siberia"
The main object of
all the Allies is to prevent Siberia from lapsing into anarchy. Their
conflicting interests render the attainment of this object difficult. The
British and French are united in desiring to see a strong, independent Russian
administration and army at the earliest possible moment. The Americans probably
desire the same thing. The Japanese, on the other hand, scarcely make any
efforts to conceal their intention to prevent Russian unity and independence.
Siberia is in the
throes of giving birth to a stable Government. It is impossible to say whether
it will prove that this Government will be representative of all Russia, or
whether such Government will not eventually find its birthplace under Denikin on the Don. The original Government at Omsk gave
place to an "All Russia Directorate". The latter, we have just heard,
has in its turn been followed by a virtual dictatorship under Admiral Kolchak,
who is one of the ablest Russians who have emerged since the Bolshevist
revolution...
We are sending to
General Knox in addition to his present Mission, which comprises officers of
all branches, including Intelligence and Ordance, 120
good regimental officers for training purposes. The expenditure of the necessary
funds for the immediate establishment of schools has been sanctioned. These
schools will provide for the training of 3,000 Russian officers and N.C.Os. as
a cadre for the new armies,
Complete equipment
for 100,000 men, together with 142 field guns and 52 field howitzers is being despatched. The bulk of the material is already en route and about one-half should arrive at Vladivostock by the end of the year.29
We may say with some
certainty that although public and private reasons for the northern and southern
interventions were at variance with each other, and that as the situation in
Russia developed, new justifications and new objectives were presented, the
motivation for the actions was genuinely unitary—and genuinely Imperial. It is
clear that urgent Imperial economic concerns (at least as they were interpreted
by Milner, Steel-Maitland, and their adherents) encouraged senior War Office
theorists, most notably Colonel Steel, to begin planning a response which would
prop up Imperial interests without necessarily provoking any additional
expansion of the military fronts. The response was inherently conservative in
its combination of time-honored small wars methodology with technological
control, depending for its execution on the support of the Imperial Dominions.
The involvement of Imperial Britain in post-Revolutionary Russia rested on
this combination of goals—goals which differed very little from those which had
impelled Imperial expansion from the first. The key ingredient which
facilitated the interventions, and made them something other than another petty
aggression for Imperial acquisition, was the appearance of a "third
option."
The dissolution of
MIO and the transference of Steel to M05 mirrored the growing recalcitrance
within the Dominion governments. Those governments, particularly Borden in
London and his government in Ottawa, had in good faith and with a legitimate
expectation of fair recompense borne with fair grace the increasing demands of
the central government. They had even endorsed the rather different mission
being put into place at Vladivostok, perceiving it as beneficial to everyone
concerned—even the Russians. But with the end of the war, all bets were off. On
22 November Borden was told in no uncertain terms by leading members of his
Cabinet that it was, "absolutely opposed to sending any additional Forces
to Siberia, and that,...the Forces at present there, or on the way there,
should, as soon as convenience will permit, be brought home...The matter of how
Russia shall settle her internal affairs is her concern—not ours. If France or
Great Britain may desire, for what appears to them good and sufficient reasons,
to maintain armed Forces in Russia for a time, this is their affair."30
It was not quite that
fast, of course. The Imperials resisted with all their might withdrawing from
the north or abdicating their tentative hold on Vladivostok-and, within two
months, yet another mission had been sent into the same area from which Dunsterforce had retreated in August. The "Norperforce" was more successful there than Dunsterforce had been, although its actions were to have
even more far-reaching political consequences within the East-West
relationship. In the north the establishment of global armistice meant simply
that the surface unanimity under which Canadian troops had been lent for the
military excursion was shattered by reality-the senior Dominion would devise
its own methods of accomplishing its economic goals, and Borden’s government,
under strain from memories of imposed conscription, would not easily support
the presence of Canadians at such unlikely locations as Archangel and
Murmansk. The Military Service Act had served its purpose in the emergency, and
there was no way, even with exceptionally persuasive propaganda, to reconcile
the presence in the north with its "avowed purpose of the defence and security of Canada, the preservation of the
Empire, and of human liberty."31
Finally, no amount of
persuasion would keep Canada involved in any part of Russia; not pressure from
intelligence agencies, nor from the Imperial government, or from appeals to
amour propre specifically tailored to the Senior Dominion. By early spring 1919
Borden, expressing a consensus of virtually everyone except the Imperials had
taken up his "very decided attitude...regarding the withdrawal of her
troops from Vladivostock" and the War Office
"have no option but to acquiesce." Not even they could "continue
to urge the Dominion Government to share, against its will, in a task of much
difficulty and anxiety."32 The whole matter was now properly a matter for
the Peace Conference in Paris.33
Meanwhile, General
Poole, long removed from command in the north, had become usefully employed by
M05 and M05 (a). He superintended the Volunteer Army in South Russia,34 regularly
sending back reports which were circulated to at least nineteen other concerned
policymakers.35 The troops from north, south, and east would be withdrawn; the
assortment of resisting Russians, Armenians, Kurds, and Czechs would be left to
their own devices; but the intelligence lines were intact, and the new
knowledge of terrain, access and weakness was carefully hoarded. It hadn’t
entirely ended; the Imperials would be astonishingly slow in withdrawing from
the north, blaming the weather and other problems until it was necessary for
the Canadians to insist, sharply, that their troops be removed. "Beyond
question" they said, "it is imperative that the Canadian Forces now
at Archangel should be withdrawn without delay. The demobilization of the
Canadian Corps and the withdrawal of Canadian Troops from Siberia render any
further continuance of our forces at Archangel absolutely
impracticable."36
The position of
Canada within the Empire was regarded, even by the Imperials, as being the
chief vehicle of persuasion for the other white settlement colonies; without
Canadian support, there was no hope that the other Dominions would follow. This
simple fact explains why so much time and effort was spent to persuade Borden
to leave the Canadians in the field; as Churchill, Milner and even Lloyd George
knew well, if "Canada takes the lead, Australia will be bound to
follow."37 Borden, perhaps wary of the pressure, and disagreeing with its
purpose and foreseeing only more domestic uproar should the situation be permitted
to continue, finally wrote to Lloyd George. It would be "most
unfortunate," he put it to the Prime Minister gently, "if the War
Office persists in the apparent determination to extend the period of service
for the Canadians at Archangel." But it really was over, even when General
Maynard (according to Churchill), was reported as "definitely"
stating that the "safety of British and Allied Troops will be jeopardized
by the withdrawal of Canadian troops at present, especially in view of further
postponement of sailing of French troops." Churchill agreed that
"every effort will be made to release these men as soon as possible,"
but he could not take the responsibility of transmitting an order to General
Maynard which would lead to an immediate disaster and to the destruction of
British troops.38
Almost too much space
has been devoted to establishing the internal and external intrigues which took
place between the Allies, the Germans, and the Bolsheviks. Certainly, the plans
for the intervention being formed within the War Office were hypothecated
sometime before the Bolsheviks treated with the Germans-but is it possible to
truly establish why? Assuredly the geographic accesses to the Russian interior
were critical to any resistance to hostile action; that had always been the
case. If they were in jeopardy from German action or Turkish action, then so
were any number of other places. What was there about those access points which
specifically concerned Military Intelligence-Operations?
Recalling the
fundamental description of military intelligence, there is only one
explanation. There was no kind of internal conspiracy against Bolshevism39; no
more was there one against the top levels of Imperial government or the duly
authorized military authorities, although there were indeed serious
disagreements with both of those groups involving MIO and the intelligence
authorities. Still, by and large, the intelligence authorities remained fully
loyal in spirit and in action to their assigned tasks. MIO’s assigned task was
to use what means it could to acquire information and process it into usable
intelligence. It did not matter to Intelligence if Baku was held by Russians,
Bolsheviks, Persians, Kurds or Turks; so long as it was still available as a
location from which information could be retrieved. It did not matter whether
Archangelsk/Murmansk was held by Germans, Canadians, Bolsheviks or Czechs, as
long as military and civil intelligence had access to its communications
facilities; in the case of Archangelsk/Murmansk, the critical point was the
telegraph head there. At Baku, it was a question of the high ground-unless the
Baku region was controlled by allies of Imperial Britain there were no means
other than the crudest to convey, exchange and instill information into the
whole of the Middle East. Control of Archangel and Murmansk was the key to the
port: well and good. There is still a port, but communications technology is no
longer effectively centered around it. In 1917 and 1918, with the entire
infrastructure of international communications disrupted, with the diplomatic
community virtually in exile in Vologda, information exchange, on which the
whole structure depended, had been almost destroyed. The only way to restore it
was through manipulation and placement of men in the area to re-establish and
secure the communications net from which everything depends to support every
other political, commercial and military action.
This is why, in the
beginning, there were so few troops sent to either of the two areas: there was
no need for them. Their purpose was to extend intelligence; that was a
technological matter, which required a small supporting military group.
Finally, all intelligence-operations are limited; they must be to have any
result. If we find that MIO existed only between January and June 1918 it is
very likely that it existed for that brief period because, as the governor of
limited action, that was all the time it required. If it as a group failed, it
does not imply that its mission failed. What happened subsequently was not
really an MIO or MI concern at all.
All countries which
depended to a greater or lesser degree on cable technology for the transmittal
of messages were liable to face the consequences of its breakdown. The
interruption of the services which was noted time and time again, particularly
during the early part of 1918 when Poole’s own telegrams were not being
received in London- combined with the hazard of unauthorized interception
anywhere along the courier routes or along the transmittal process continued to
hamper the implementation of operational policy. The policy conceived in
London, no matter how definitive, could not be implemented if there were no way
to disseminate it to the commander in the field, and vice-versa. Unlike the
infinitely more independent (because infinitely more isolated) groups operating
in Arabia or (when they chose) North Persia, the commanding officers in North
Russia were not in a position to make use of stockpiled information by acting
independently. Once they were under military command, which could be monitored
almost simultaneously, they were fully subject to the centralization of command
which was crippling the Western Front. Even the least restricted
participants-the agents were subject to near-simultaneous oversight by their
masters, and the masters preferred it that way.40
Remember that the
disruption caused by the Revolution was so extensive that external exchange of
information was reduced to George Hill’s couriers 41; that Dunsterforce
was bogged down, and it too was relying on a courier system. At that point,
contrary to protestations that there were no troops available, troops to move
the intelligence line forward were found. These may not have been the very best
men, and they were not as subject to the rigorous qualifications which had
typified the earlier RSC group or even that assigned to Dunsterforce,
but they were certainly not the worst. The accommodation to strategic necessity
was made, although it forced the Empire into the position of supplicant to the
Dominions. The arrival of the troops in the north between June and September
1918 built on the Imperial presence which was already established by RSC/MIO
and on the previously demonstrated strategic value of the region. It was that
sad phase which required the acquiescence and support of DMO and of members of
the government who had before been only dimly aware of the MIO operation. The
presence of the troops was not a reactive or haphazard response to suddenly
encountered political shifts. Placing Imperial military troops in North Russia
during the summer months was the residuum of the MIO plan—the consequence of
the failure of a third option.
When Spies invaded
Russia p.1: British Spies from Persia to
North and South and Eastern Russia.
When Spies invaded
Russia p.2: To mold irregular warfare into
a method which honored the Imperial myth.
When Spies invaded
Russia p.3: The alleged protecting of
supplies propaganda.
When Spies invaded
Russia p.4: How North Russia evolved into
its military phase.
When Spies invaded
Russia p.6: Spycraft
in Bolshevist Russia.
1. India Office Library and Records (IOLR),
London, L/MIL/5/803, India Office, 24th February 1918.
2. George Alexander Hill, Go Spy the Land:
Being the Adventures of IK8 of the British Secret Service, p. 53.
3. Public Record Office, Kew (hereafter PRO),
CAB 27/24.
4. Hill, Go Spy the Land, p. 3.
5. Harold Nicholson, Curzon: The Last Phase
1919-1925: A Study in Post-War Diplomacy, (London, Constable, 1934), pps. 510-12.
6. PRO, CAB 27/189/20 #5A, 19 January 1918,
'Committee on Russian and Roumanian Supplies,’
Memorandum. ' 1) Owing to the turn taken by events in Russia the existence of
the Committee is no longer necessary and it is therefore dissolved.’
7. Ibid., #1A, p. 2.
8. Ibid., "Dissolution of the Committee on
Russian Supplies," Record of a Meeting held at the Foreign Office on
Wednesday, January 16th at 4 p.m.
Present: Sir Leverton Harris (chairman),
George Clerk, William Clark, Eyre Crowe, Mr. Mitchell Thomson, Colonel Byrne,
Mr. Ward, Colonel Skene.
9. War Office List, Part 1, A List, (Army
List, 1918 October, parts 1-3.
10. PRO. CAB 27/189/20, #32b, to His Excellency
Genera! Sir E. Hermonius, KCMG, RGC, Canada House,
Kingsway WC, 28th February 1918 (CRS/M/29), Russia Committee Meeting 35th
Minutes, 28 February 1918. Present at this meeting, according to the minutes,
were "Chairman: Lord Robert Cecil, Members: Sir Ronald Graham, Major-
General G. Macdonogh, Mr. D. Ward, Lt. Colonel the
Hon. S. Peel; Secretaries, Mr. T.H. Lyons, Major F.H. Kisch,
Colonel Byrne, Mr. Mitchell Thomson, Colonel Skene..." (It should be noted
that in 1919, the premises called Canada House, at 16 the Kingsway, were occupied
by Gordon James and Company, Engineers. The Ministry of Shipping and Transport,
and the Commission Internationale de Ravitaillement, which had offices in several buildings in
the Kingsway, representing the delegations of various countries. (Private
correspondence, FCO, C. Edwards, Library and Records, 30 March 1990.)
11. Ibid., Russia Committee Meeting, 35th Minutes,
28 February 1918, paragraph 2.
12. PRO, WO 106/1151, Elope Nominal Roils, p. 4.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., Armoured Car
Unit, Oliver Locker-Lampson to Colonel Steel, 5 March 1918.
15. Robert Craig Brown, Robert Laird Borden; A
Biography, 2 vols, (Toronto, Macmillan of Canada, 1980), vol. 2, p. 131.
16. Raymond Massey, When I Was Young, (Boston,
Little, Brown, 1976), pps. 199-200.
17. Vincent Massey to Reginald Coupland, 30 July
1917, Toronto, in the papers of Sir Alfred Milner, Viscount Milner:
Correspondence and Papers, 1917, MS Milner, Dep. 45 Great War, 1914-1918, Box
F.2 (196-379) the Round Table papers, #245, p. 2, Bodleian Library.
18. National Archives of Canada (hereafter NAC),
Sir Robert L. Borden papers, microfilm, OC Series Vol. 103 OC518, Reel #C-4334,
56124: P. deB. Radcliffe to The Hon. W. Newton
Rowell, MP, "Secret & Personal," War Office, Whitehall, 9 July
1918.
19. Ibid., 56127.
20. Ibid., and Reel #4415, 2 May 1918, 134762,
134763, Duke of Devonshire; 29 May 1918, 134764, W.H. Long; 12 July 1918,
ibid.; 56129-30, Draft Cable from London, 12 July 1918, from MILITIA, Ottawa,
for Gwatkin, Secret; ibid., 56135, Borden to Cabinet
from London, 25 July 1918, Secret; ibid., 56141, Doherty to Borden, 28 July
1918. Radcliffe, after discussions with Mewburn, had
carefully put on paper just what would be required from Canada in order to
invade Vladivostok:
the contingent for Vladivostock, which it is hoped the Dominion will be able
to furnish, should be composed as follows:
Brigade Headquarters,
Signal Section, Field Artillery Battery, (Personnel to be armed with rifles), 2
Battalions, (each with Base Company and 10% reinforcements).
1 Machine Gun
Company, 1 Brigade Field Ambulance, Army Service Corps detail, Brigade
Ammunition Column. The note also said that "1 British Battalion which has
been ordered from Hong Kong, will be incorporated with the contingent on its
arrival at Vladivostock.
As regards the battery,
orders are being issued for the despatch of guns,
wagons and complete equipment for a 6 gun, 18 pr. battery to Canada at an early
date."
As Radcliffe also
reported, after consultation with the Foreign Office, rather than immediately
announcing the destination of the contingent, but in view of the "present
delicate situation as regards negotiations for intervention in Siberia, Mr.
Balfour is of opinion that no immediate announcement can be made. It is hoped
however, as events are moving so rapidly, that this will be possible in a very
short space of time."
In the midst of
negotiations, however, a tremendous error of judgment was committed by the
Imperials; Walter Long inexplicably felt compelled to apply pressure on the
Duke of Devonshire, then Governor General. Mewburn
had already prepared a draft cable to notify General Gwatkin
about the troops for Vladivostok, in the same terms as those wished for by
Radcliffe, when the fiasco occurred. Borden, cabling on 25 July to the full
Cabinet said, "Mewburn and I greatly surprised
that British Government recently sent a telegram to Governor General
respecting expedition to Vladivostok without first consulting us. The subject
was at the time under discussion here and Mewburn had
already communicated with Gwatkin for information of
Cabinet. I desire that no reply shall be sent to British Government’s message
except through me." The Cabinet was quick to assure Borden that no answer
had been sent to the message which the Governor-General had had the good sense to
hand over to them and that they did approve the "principle of sending
expedition’ and were leaving Borden to 'arrange cost and other detail."
Meanwhile, the War Office had sent on the now official plan for military
rather than intelligence intervention in the north. See Reel C-4333 OC series,
Vol. 102, OC515 to Vol.103 OC518, 55218-56191; July 19 1918, 55310 and 55518,
C149/5272 (M.0.5), Rec’d. by Secretary, War Office, London. Canadian Overseas
Headquarters, 30 July. Dated July, 1918 (21-6-25 (c) From B.B. Cubitt:
The Council realise the great difficulties which will confront General
Maynard, who is in executive command of the forces in the Murman
peninsula in the organization of this force and wish to give him every
assistance possible by the provision of Officers and men accustomed to the
climatic conditions of this region. With this in view they have obtained the
services of Major Sir E. Shackleton, and of several officers who accompanied
him on his Antarctic expeditions. In view of the fact that Canadian officers
are acquainted with conditions similar to those which will confront the force
in the Murman Peninsula, they ask if the Canadian
Government will further assist by placing at their disposal officers and men
from their forces who can be used first as Instructors, and later as executive
company etc., officers. The French and Italian Governments have been asked to
include in their contingents a proportion of troops accustomed to Alpine
conditions, and it is expected that while the British would supply the nucleus
and training staff for one half of the force, the French and Italians would
organize the remainder.
21. Borden papers, Reel C-4333 OC series, Vol.
102, GC515-Vol. 103 OC518, 55218-56191, #55523, To Borden, London from Kemp, 1
August 1918.
22. Ibid., #55524, Borden to Kemp, London, 2
August 1918.
23. Ibid., #55525 Kemp to Borden 9 August 1918.
24. Ibid., #55526 Borden to Kemp 9 August 1918.
25. PRO, WO 106/1166 (M.O.5), 13/10/18, Colonel
R. Steel, G.S.
26. NAC, Borden papers, OC Series Vol. 103, OC518
Reel C-4334, #56221 Cable sent from Borden to Ottawa after repeated urging
about the status of the proposed Siberian force. London, 20 November 1918.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid. #56222
29. Ibid., OC Series, Vol. 103 OC518, Reel
C-4334, #56223-26 'SECRET,’ War Office. Whitehall, 22nd November, 1918.
30. Ibid., 22nd November, Borden to Sir Thomas
White, Acting Premier, Ottawa #56231-56233, pps.
1-3.
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid., #56417-18, 17 March 1919, Churchill to
Borden.
33. Ibid., #56421, March 25, 1919, North Russia,
'Confidential,* A.E. Kemp to Borden, London.
34. PRO, WO 106/1172 'Secret.*
35. LHC, Poole papers, 'Report of a visit to the
Headquarters of the Volunteer Army in South Russia,’ by Major-General F.C.
Poole, C.B., C.M.G. D.S.O., December 1918-January, 1919 General Staff (M.0.5)
War Office Copy No. 17, (Rec’d copies 17, 18 & 19 of General 14.2.19).
36. NAC, Borden papers, OC Series Vol. 103 OC518,
Reel C-4334, #56421, March 25, 1919, North Russia, 'Confidential,* A.E. Kemp to
Borden, London.
37. Ibid., #56453, 18 May 1919 to Churchill,
Secretary of State for War, London and, #56426-56428, from Churchill, 1 May
1919, marked ’Personal & Secret.’
38. Ibid., #56476, Secretary of State for War,
Cablegram, Urgent, London, 21 July 1919. To C.G.S., Ottawa. #79891 Cipher, 21
July from the Secretary of State for War, to Borden, 'Personal re Canadians at
M.K.,’ [Murmansk] and, #56452, London, 18 May 1919, Borden to Lloyd George.
39. As also was explained by Heather Alison Campbell in her 2014 Doctoral
dissertation that is currently (end June 2019) being worked into a book.
40. Nigel West, MI 6-British Secret Intelligence
Service Operations, 1909-1945, p. 26, and The Sigint
Secrets, p. 101.
For updates click homepage here