Talk:John Cairncross/Archives/2014/June

Untitled

As with all espionage accusations, I would like to see some references on this page. Aconnelly 11:33, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

In this article Cairncross is asserted as the definitive "fifth man". However the article about the Cambridge 5 itself claims that there are several candidates.

Bias

Aconnelly -- you've requested references before, but could you explain what bias you see in this page? Thanks. — Matt Crypto 16:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

The accusations regarding Cairncross have never been substantiated. As far as I know-- I looked into this a little bit in the Bodleian upon noticing the page-- there is no evidence to substantiate them. I requested references because I wanted to give the creator a chance to defend his position before going about making changes. Please, if I am missing some important protocl, let me know. Aconnelly 17:24, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

The Mitrokhin Archive, for all its bias.

Most biogs of Victor Rothschild assume that he was effectively cleared of suspicion about being the Fifth Man once Cairncross was "unmasked". The Kenneth Rose biog Elusive Rothschild: The Life of Victor, Third Baron does not seem to give a Cairncross source, but hints that the ref may be: "My Five Cambridge Friends" by Yuri Modin, a KGB controller. Can this be checked? mervyn 21:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

It seems that Cairncross confessed to passing some secrets to the Soviets; I guess that the disputed matter is whether he passed atomic secrets? — Matt Crypto 23:04, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

What is needed is someone more capable on The Five who can cite authoritatively that Cairncross was "allowed," although under terms which would be violently denied if he were exposed, to pass along certain tactical information to help, and assuage Stalin. A better understanding of the political atmosphere of WWII is needed as well, in that many assumed a socialist turn was inevitable for the USA post-war (Shrier--The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich)

I have ordered the Modin book from the stacks, and will look into it Wednesday. I am not sure, however, that a tell-all is an appropriate source. When I said I hadn't found any information to substantiate the claims about Cairncross, I was referring to academic works or works of high journalistic integrity. If Modin accuses Cairncross, then we should change the page to reflect that this is an accusation, not fact. Matt, I am not sure whether the references tag quite does it. We aren't simply looking for references to substantiate the accusations post hoc; we should be looking to determine whether the accusations can be substantiated, and simultaneously whether they can be dismissed. You may have noticed there are a number of HUAC-style allegations on the pages of several figures of the period (the worst-case example being Dean Acheson). I would like to see these conformed to higher standard of credibility, while still giving equal validity. Aconnelly 13:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This source says that he hat not confessed to be the fifth man: [1] 82.83.52.210 09:39, 11 February 2006 (UTC)-

Per the New York Times, September 23, 1991

"A BRITON ADMITS SPYING FOR SOVIETS" (an unambiguous headline, no?)

"The identity of the "fifth man" in Moscow's notorious British spy ring has been unveiled by the man himself -- John Cairncross, a former British intelligence agent. "I was made one of the five during the war," Mr. Cairncross, 78 years old, was quoted as saying by The Mail..."

I can pull the entire article if you need. Uucp 16:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I concur with the argument that this article is biased. Cairncross' autobiography, published in 1997, provides an able defence that he was not the so-called Fifth Man, and pretty firmly demolishes most of the arguments made in Christopher Andrew's book KGB: The Inside Story that he was. He freely admitted that he was spying for the Russians during the war, but was out of the security services by the time the serious accusations regarding the Fifth Man began. This article doesn't reference Cairncross' own book at all, which is a little surprising.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 04:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Misc

The 3rd sentence of the Later Life section makes no sense. Maybe someone who knows what whoever wrote it was trying to say can correct/remove/cite it?

Academic Postings in Later Years

This page states that Cairncross took a posting at Northwestern University, perhaps per Reference 12. However the cover copy for The Enigma Spy (Ref 11) and After Polygamy was Made a Sin both note that he was "Head of Department of Romance Languages at Western Reserve University (Now Case/Western Reserve." It seems to me there's a lot more specificity to the claim he taught at Case Western, as this is on the books he wrote and not an obituary which he was unlikely to have been involved in composing. Additionally the Introduction to Espionage's Most Wanted: The Top 10 Book of Malicious Moles, Blown Covers, and Intelligence Oddities mentions the specific room Cairncross took at Case Western (in the Mather Memorial building), & this book is written by a Case Western Professor, Tom E Mahl. I think it is possible that Cairncross was mistakenly noted to have taught at Northwestern and that this mistake has persisted since, as none of Cairncross's publications make any mention of Northwestern. Additionally one would think this posting at Northwestern would be mentioned in a 1991 Chicago Tribune article about Cairncross: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1991-10-11/features/9104020103_1_spying-john-cairncross-british-man I will add mention to his posting of Case Western to the article, and leave the mention of Northwestern for now, but I think stronger evidence is needed to substantiate the claim he taught there. Du4ed (talk) 19:14, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

---

Reorganise and An Attempt to Source

I've tried to add in line sources, re-organise the existing material under topic headers and give a more consistent flow to the article. Sadly, I've had to remove some stuff that I quite liked but couldn't quite make fit or couldn't quite source. I'd really like to see people dive in and add more sourced material. Hopefully, people will dive in and build up the topic sections using evidence published in recent years. I've tried to be strict about in line references for paragraphs and sentences. RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 10:53, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Tito and the Yugoslav Partisans

Please take care before going much further than this. Yes, information was available from decrypts to indicate that the British were in a position to know that Cairncross was passing decrypts about Yugoslavia. But in addition, the Soviets were in a position to know that the British were in a position to know. However, the source treads carefully around these subjects, noting that material remains classified and that some of the highest level ULTRA business was transacted verbally. So, though it's an interesting subject to speculate on, if tempted to go further into this area please phrase as opinions from named sources RobertBurrellDonkin (talk) 09:24, 5 August 2013 (UTC)