Notorious turncoat Philby ran interference in Gouzenko spy sensation, author finds

BY RANDY BOSWELL, POSTMEDIA NEWS SEPTEMBER 30, 2010
Source: Canada.com

Harold "Kim" Philby (British Secret Service) 1955 file photoUNDATED — Harold “Kim” Philby (British Secret Service) 1955 file photo. (Died May 1988). A new book about the history of Britain’s foreign intelligence service has shed fresh light on Canada’s most famous spy case — the 1945 defection of Soviet embassy employee Igor Gouzenko — and the clandestine efforts by notorious British double-agent Kim Philby to manipulate events in Ottawa and London to Moscow’s advantage.

Queen’s University Belfast historian Keith Jeffery, author of The Secret History of MI6: 1909-1949, says classified documents that only he was authorized to see while researching the book show the powerful and traitorous Philby issuing memos at MI6 headquarters with a “cautious and soothing tone” — a strategy designed to “downplay” the significance of what were, in fact, sensational revelations from Gouzenko about the existence of a Soviet spy ring in North America.

Igor Gouzenko (1919-1982).  Photograph by: Canadian Security Intelligence Service, Photo HandoutGouzenko, a cipher clerk at the Soviet embassy in Ottawa, defected in September 1945 with about 100 telegrams and other classified documents he’d snatched from a consular safe, exposing an extensive espionage network — including scientists, bureaucrats and even the Montreal-area socialist MP Fred Rose — operating in North America and Britain at the end of the Second World War.

Among the secret dispatches stolen by Gouzenko were several that revealed the August 1945 handover of experimental uranium samples to Soviet agents in Montreal by Alan Nunn May, a British nuclear scientist working in Canada at the time.

Gouzenko’s revelations about May, later dubbed the “Atom Spy” when his crimes became public, stunned political leaders in Canada, Britain and the U.S.

Secret papers declassified in 2007 through the U.K. National Archives and others published last year in historian Christopher Andrew’s official history of the MI5 — Britain’s domestic spy agency — have previously documented some of Philby’s efforts to stymie the Gouzenko investigation.

But Jeffery told Postmedia News that the secret MI6 files he probed contained “spanking new stuff” that showed how Philby was exploiting his position as head of counter-intelligence at MI6 to restrict information flows in London and to thwart Canadian, British and American officials who were trying to understanding the scope and implications of Gouzenko’s disclosures.

“It would appear,” Philby notes in one memo unearthed by Jeffery, that Gouzenko’s information is “genuine though not necessarily accurate in all details.”

And when Canadian and British intelligence officials make arrangements to arrest May at a meeting he had scheduled with his Soviet handler in London, Philby pointedly asserts in a report that “other members of the (Soviet spy) network will have been warned” of Gouzenko’s defection and predicts that the expected rendezvous “between May and the Soviet agent in the U.K. will fail to materialize.”

As Jeffery writes, it was Philby himself who was secretly notifying Moscow about the Soviet spy crisis unfolding in Ottawa, and his memos to unsuspecting MI6 colleagues and Canadian partners included “predictions of developments which he had already engineered himself.”

Furthermore, Jeffery discovered, Philby took steps to make certain that MI6 sent agent Roger Hollis instead of the more competent Jane Archer to interrogate Gouzenko.

Philby’s “preference, significantly, was for Hollis rather than Archer, whom he considered the abler and more knowledgeable, and therefore more of a threat.”

Jeffery — reached for an interview in Washington, where he’s scheduled to discuss his book on Friday at the Woodrow Wilson International Center — describes the Gouzenko affair as “the start of the Cold War.”

What he discovered in the secret MI6 archives on the Canadian episode, he said, “are the footprints of Kim Philby” appearing everywhere as he scrambled to dampen British interest in Gouzenko’s revelations.

“He was in a powerful position — just the right place — to impede the investigations that the Gouzenko defection triggers,” said Jeffery. “He was communicating directly to the Soviet Union. He knows that Nunn May is coming back to London and that a rendezvous is set up” with a Soviet agent outside the British Museum — and that British and Canadian intelligence officials are planning to arrest the pair at the meeting.

Philby and his Soviet contacts “are not able to warn Nunn May or to get him out — he’s kind of sacrificed,” said Jeffery. “But the Soviet link — of course crucial if he’d been captured — never turns up for the rendezvous because he’d been tipped off by Philby.”

Nunn May was eventually charged and convicted of passing official secrets to the Soviets. He was sentenced to 10 years hard labour, but served only six before his release in 1952.

He worked as a scientific researcher in Ghana until the late 1970s, and died in Britain in 2003.

The fallout from the Gouzenko affair was far-reaching and — according to many experts — the episode locked the U.S., Britain and their allies into a political and military standoff with the Soviet Union that would dominate global politics for nearly 50 years.

In the end, notes Jeffery, Philby “can’t prevent the big picture” revealed in Gouzenko’s smuggled documents that Soviet agents had penetrated North American society.

“What he manages to succeed to do in the micro-story is to manipulate things a bit and to protect the Soviet network in the United Kingdom.”

Philby’s accurate “prediction” that Nunn May’s contact won’t show at the planned sting even had the effect of reinforcing for MI6 brass “what a brilliant man he is — this man who can see how the Soviets are operating.

“Self-fulfilling prophecies are great — especially if you know what’s going to happen,” Jeffery said. “It actually confirmed his reputation within the service as a man of very sharp intelligence.”

Philby wasn’t exposed as a double-agent until 1963, when he escaped to the Soviet Union. He was “absolutely trusted” in Western intelligence circles until that time, said Jeffery.

The historian’s 800-page book — published in Britain under the title MI6: The History of the Secret Intelligence Service, 1909-1949 — was researched under what Jeffery has acknowledged was a “Faustian pact” with the spy agency that gave him unprecedented access to secret files but allowed MI6 officials to vet the final manuscript prior to publication.

© Copyright (c) Postmedia News

Advertisements

The "New European Soviet" (Coming to North America)

Written by Vilius Brazenas

Source: The New American, Friday, 08 October 2010 15:30

This article, originally published on September 6, 2004, was written by noted Lithuanina-American journalist and author Vilius Brazenas for The New American. A recipient of Lithuania’s highest civilian honor, The Order of the Vytis Cross, Mr. Brazenas was well known as a political analyst, writer, and speaker not only in Lithuania, but also in the United States, Europe, and many other parts of the world. Mr. Brazenas passed away in Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania, on October 3rd. He was 97 years old. This article, which is as relevant today as when it was published, is being republished here in his honor.

Vilius Brazenas, The New European Soviet
I am going to tell you a story about Europe and America. It is a true story about tyranny and freedom, about hope, folly, deception and betrayal. It is also a warning about grave danger. Alarmed at the trends I see, I feel obliged to tell this story. Now in my 91st year, I am one of the few living souls who have experienced the major events of the last century. Being both European and American, I have witnessed and studied these events from opposite sides of the Atlantic.

I am Lithuanian by birth and saw my small country suffer under both Nazi and Communist brands of totalitarianism. My family was trapped in Russia when the Bolshevik Revolution brought the Communists to power. As a young boy in Moscow, in 1922, I was forced to march with my classmates in the Communist May Day parade in front of Vladimir Lenin himself.Like much of Europe, Lithuania was overrun in the 1940s by the Soviet Red Army, then by the Nazis, and then again by the Soviets. In 1944, as the Soviet Red Army was reinvading Lithuania, and after facing Soviet tanks, I was able to escape with my wife and daughter. In 1949, we were able to come to America and, later, thank God, to become U.S. citizens.

In January 2003 I came back to live in Lithuania. As an author, speaker and newspaper columnist, I am attempting to use my talents and opportunities in the time that I have left to warn my countrymen — both American and Lithuanian — about the very real and present danger to freedom posed by the evolving European Union (EU) and the very similar project proposed for North and South America called the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA).

Most Americans have only a very hazy understanding about what the EU is and an even foggier notion of how it came about. Unfortunately, most Europeans also have a very poor understanding of these things. They have only recently begun to recognize how blind they have been to the very real threats that the growing centralization of power in the EU poses to their national independence and their freedoms.

However, it must be said that the main reason why Europeans and Americans both have such foggy notions about the EU is that the EU architects and promoters have purposely kept the real origins and objectives of the EU shrouded in deception. They had to do this, in order to foist this scheme on the peoples of Europe. If they had openly proclaimed their true objective — to end national sovereignty and create an unaccountable, socialist suprastate — the entire scheme would have been rejected overwhelmingly, right from the start.

When former Soviet dictator Mikhail Gorbachev visited Britain in 2000, he accurately described the European Union as “the new European Soviet.” He said this with obvious approval, since he sees the evolving EU as fulfilling his vision of a “common European home” stretching “from the Atlantic to the Urals,” as he described it in his 1987 book Perestroika. Mr. Gorbachev is a lifelong Communist overlord who has steadfastly refused to renounce Communism.

In fact, he defiantly remains a Communist. On December 23, 1989, Gorbachev declared to his fellow Soviets, “I am a communist. For some that may be a fantasy. But for me it is my main goal.” On February 26, 1991, Gorbachev said, “I am not ashamed to say that I am a communist and adhere to the communist idea, and with this I will leave for the other world.” He has repeated these sentiments many times. In his book he also stated: “I frankly admit that we are glad that the idea of a ‘common European home’ finds understanding among prominent political and public figures of not only Eastern, but also Western Europe….”

It is highly significant that a top-level Marxist-Leninist such as Mikhail Gorbachev could find such affinity with Western leaders about a “common European home” and then, 13 years later, approvingly note that that common home was moving ever closer to the Soviet model. After all, hadn’t the Soviet model collapsed and died? But Mr. Gorbachev was, at least in this instance, telling the truth; the EU has been, and is now, moving steadily toward Soviet-style tyranny.

The European Parliament, the European Commission and other EU institutions in Brussels, Strasbourg, Frankfurt and The Hague are dominated by radical socialists and dedicated one-worlders who are bent on smashing the individual, once-independent nation states of Europe into Soviet-style conformity with the oppressive dictates of the new EU Politburo.

A Revolutionary Coup d’Etat

In their powerful expose, The Great Deception: The Secret History of the European Union (2003), British journalist Christopher Booker and Dr. Richard North, formerly a researcher inside the EU bureaucracy, aptly describe the EU as “a slow-motion coup d’etat: the most spectacular coup d’etat in history.” In what remains of this article, I will attempt to explain why that description by Mr. Booker and Dr. North is no exaggeration and how this spectacular coup has come about.

It is also my intent to show how the deceptive NAFTAFTAA process is directly related to the EU and patterned after it to achieve the same kind of coup d’etat in the Americas.

The “European project,” as the EU designers refer to their ongoing revolution, was launched with the Treaty of Rome in 1957. The Common Market was born the following December when Italy became the sixth nation to ratify the treaty (joining France, Belgium, West Germany, the Netherlands and Luxembourg). It was sold to the peoples of Europe as a “free trade” agreement that would bring prosperity by removing barriers to the movement of people, goods, services and capital across borders.

In fact, it was a program for national suicide, for gradual, “slow-motion” political and economic merger of the member nations. Booker and North write that Belgian Prime Minister Paul-Henri Spaak, known in Europe as “Mr. Socialist,” was responsible for convincing his fellow EU founding fathers that “the most effective way to disguise their project’s political purpose was to conceal it behind a pretense that it was concerned only with economic co-operation, based on dismantling trade barriers: a ‘common market.'”

The Treaty of Rome was, in truth, a constitution for a new government disguised as a treaty. Traditionally, a treaty is an agreement between sovereign states, concerning borders, military alliances, trade relations, extradition, etc. The parties to the treaty remain sovereign states; their form of government is not altered and their citizens are not directly bound with new laws or obligations. The Treaty of Rome, however, created a new, over-arching “community” independent of its member states and claiming the power to create laws that are binding not only on the member nations but on their individual citizens as well.

This was not noticed by the people at first, because the EU founders were careful only to show their citizens the benign features of their project. It had been designed to be implemented incrementally, as an ongoing process, so that no single phase of the project would arouse sufficient opposition as to stop or derail it.

The original Treaty of Rome has been repeatedly modified by subsequent treaties and legislation, all of which have greatly enhanced the legislative, executive and judicial powers of the central EU government. The European Communities Act (1972), the Single European Act (1986), the Schengen Agreement (1990), the Maastricht Treaty (1992), the Amsterdam Treaty (1998), and the Treaty of Nice (2000) are some of the most important benchmarks that have transferred vast powers piecemeal to Brussels, where the EU is headquartered.

The eurofederalists cloak this destructive, revolutionary process under such code words as “integration,” “harmonization,” and “convergence.” In 1991, the Single European Act was coming into force and beginning to show the very ugly teeth that had been built into it. At that time, Sir Peregrine Worsthorne of the Sunday Telegraph, one of Britain’s major newspapers, expressed in a column the sense of betrayal and outrage felt by many in Europe. “Twenty years ago, when the process began,” he wrote, “there was no question of losing sovereignty. That was a lie, or at any rate, a dishonest obfuscation.”

It was actually a multitude of lies. The EU founders and their successors have been carrying forward nothing less than a brazen scheme of treason dressed up as economic trade policy. And treason is not too harsh a word, for many of the key leaders of this operation are government officials who are betraying a sacred trust and have been lying outright to their constituents. As Sir Worsthorne pointed out, for decades the EU advocates had explicitly lied, insisting that the developing EU would not affect national sovereignty, and that EU laws and regulations would not override national laws and constitutions. These were wild, paranoid fantasies, they said.

Warnings about the true nature of the EU were routinely smothered by the globalist controlled, pro-EU press — which includes nearly all the major media organs. Now that the project is entering its final stages, however, the eurofederalists are dropping all pretenses and admitting openly what they previously denied. They can hardly help it now, since the EU established a constitutional convention in 2002 to draw up a formal constitution for a United States of Europe. At nearly 300 pages, the document is an open-ended power grab, with none of the checks and balances and means of accountability that we enjoy in our U.S. Constitution.

Many Americans, no doubt, tend to consider the Common Market and the EU as positive steps toward greater freedom. After all, it certainly is more convenient to have only one currency, the euro, when touring the continent. But whatever conveniences it may offer are offset by far more important concerns. Consider:

  • Regulatory nightmare. British grocers have been arrested and fined for continuing to sell bananas and other produce by the pound instead of by the EU’s newly mandated metric weights. Similarly, the EU dictates on the shape and size of cucumbers, the consistency of marmalade, the texture and taste of chocolate, and thousands of other consumer items.
  • Acquis communautaire. The EU already operates under the doctrine of acquis communautaire, which holds that all members must adopt EU law in its entirety, and further, that once the EU usurps the right to legislate in a new area, its authority in that area is guaranteed in perpetuity. Thus, power is guaranteed to flow in one direction – from the member states to the central government.
  • Corpus juris. The corpus juris is the new legal code initiated by the Amsterdam Treaty that will, among other things, set up a European Public Prosecutor with over-riding criminal law jurisdiction throughout Europe. Habeas corpus, trial by jury and other important protections will be swept away.
  • Unlimited migration. Signatory countries of the EU Schengen Agreement have given up their right to police their borders, thus allowing illegal aliens – including terrorists – to travel freely between countries. With Russia and other former Soviet states, along with Turkey, scheduled for membership, we will soon have millions of new migrants, including many Communists and militant Muslims migrating at will throughout Europe – much like what could happen to the U.S. if the FTAA is implemented.
  • Economic control. With the establishment of the euro currency and the European Central Bank, the EU countries have lost control of their fiscal and monetary policy as well as their currencies.
  • Destroying agriculture. The EU’s Common Agriculture Policy (CAP) has taken control of nearly all agriculture and has nearly destroyed British agriculture.
  • Power to tax. The EU already claims the authority to dictate indirect tax policies such as the VAT (value added tax) on clothes, food, public transport, fuel, construction, homes, etc. The Treaty of European Union declares that EU decisions to “impose pecuniary obligation on persons other than States shall be enforceable.” That means direct taxes on individuals.
  • Coercive military and police power. If the Eurocrats have their way, they will soon have European military and police forces to enforce their increasingly dictatorial edicts.

The architects of NAFTA and the FTAA openly cite the EU as the model for their proposed regional “common market” for the Western Hemisphere. For example, Mexican President Vicente Fox acknowledged on May 16, 2002: “Eventually, our long-range objective is to establish … an ensemble of connections and institutions similar to those created by the European Union.” At the time Fox was referring specifically to the three NAFTA countries (the U.S., Canada, and Mexico); the proposed FTAA would further develop the “ensemble of connections” while extending them throughout the Americas.

President Bush, President Fox and the “new world order” Power Elite at the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Council of the Americas have all adopted the deceptive terminology of the EU – “integration,” “harmonization,” “convergence” — to describe their “American project.” They have adopted an aggressive schedule, intending to do in a few years what it has taken the eurocrats decades to accomplish.

We can and must stop this treasonous plan — or Mr. Gorbachev and his ilk will soon be able to gloat about the “new American Soviet.”

– 30 –

The Featherbed File: Trudeau Squelches Own RCMP File

INSIDE THE FEATHERBED FILE: Treason in the Civil Service
by RCMP Undercover Officer Patrick Walsh

BAMBOOZLED JOE CLARK

Pierre Elliott Trudeau

Pierre Elliott Trudeau

It was his home-town publication, The Gazette, which pinpointed how secret Orders-in-Council were used by Trudeau to ensure that the new Prime Minister Joe Clark would be bamboozled into an agreement whereby the hitherto unpublished portions of the Gouzenko report as well as the subsequent Featherbed File remained sealed for at least 20 years.

Following, are excerpts from a report published in the 1 October 1979 issue of The Montreal Gazette:

In a secret Order-in-Council issued in his last days as Prime Minister, PierreTrudeau ordered all the police intelligence files on him and his Cabinet colleagues be sealed for at least 20 years, The Gazette has learned.

The files were part of a top-secret investigation called ‘Operation Featherbed’ that was started by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in the early 1960s.

Prime Minister Joe Clark agreed in a letter dated June 2 that Trudeau’s final Order-in-Council would be respected, an undertaking which has angered some Conservative MPs.

Repeated efforts by Trudeau and other senior Liberals to gain access to the Featherbed files were turned down by the RCMP security branch. But senior members of the security service have told the Gazette that the files include material on the private lives of influential Canadian figures, their past political affiliations, contacts with agents of foreign powers, private weaknesses or vices and even sexual practices. [Emphasis added]

Trudeau’s decision to issue an Order-in-Council sealing this Featherbed material just four days after the last federal election, but while he was still Prime Minister, also brought sharp rebukes from his former Cabinet colleagues.

There was such an uproar from backbenchers in the short-lived Clark government over this ‘Operation Cover-Up’ that pressure from the grassroots finally forced PM Joe Clark to make an amazing statement concerning the suppressed Featherbed File. The following excerpts are from a Toronto Star report, 1 December 1979:

The Prime Minister (Clark) said he has no intention of ever making the (Featherbed) file public. ‘Were we to publish that, we would be giving credence to gossip that affects people, some of whom are still in Ottawa, he told a news conference.

Clark’s blunt remarks conflict with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and back-bench MPs in his own party who maintain that the files show direct links between government officials and the Communist party.

Several MPs in the last month have demanded the government review the Taschereau Papers, secret records of a Royal Commission investigation of the 1946 Igor Gouzenko spy case, and check out reports that a ‘fifth man’ in the Anthony Blunt Soviet spy ring in Britain was Canadian.

Accusations also surfaced in Parliament this week that Jean-Louis Gagnon, a member of the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, was connected with subversive groups…

The Sunday Star (Toronto), 7 June 1981, published a significant story by reporter John Picton. The first part of his report confirmed much of the Ottawa-based treason I have already mentioned, and then continued:

Lawrence also told the Sunday Star about the time he says he was asked not to check the Trudeau files.

He said he was approached ‘early on in the game’ (meaning Clark’s term of office) by a man who’d been appointed as custodian of Trudeau’s cabinet documents.

Under a so-called ‘convention,’ leaders of incoming governments traditionally have signed an agreement not to delve into cabinet papers of an outgoing administration.

Tory leader Joe Clark signed such an agreement – drawn tip by Trudeau’s office – the night before he was sworn in as prime minister.

Before signing, Clark wanted to consult Lawrence since he was appointing him solicitor-general, but couldn’t find him (‘I don’t know why he couldn’t find me’).

Some Tory MPs – Lawrence among them – think that was a mistake because the agreement, they allege, went much farther than any previous pact and effectively locked away many more papers than just cabinet documents.

(Tory MP Tom Cossitt describes the signing as ‘a grave error’).

‘He (the custodian) asked me specifically not to request documents relating to Trudeau’s personal life,’ Lawrence said. He said the RCMP had them, like past history associations.

‘They related to security questions about Trudeau himself in his younger days,’ when Trudeau was a world traveller.

The custodian – named by Lawrence but unavailable for comment -‘was obviously perturbed about he availability to me of these documents, and he indicated to me it would be a blow below the belt if I started looking at those.’

Lawrence wouldn’t say if he did look at them.

…. Cossitt (the Tory MP) also says that one of Trudeau’s last acts as prime minister in 1979, before handing over office to Clark, was to sign an order-in-council preventing the McDonald commission into RCMP wrongdoing from seeing certain cabinet documents without his permission.

The agreement Clark signed ensured that the order would stand.

But, says Lawrence, that agreement covered far more than cabinet documents. As solicitor-general he’d tried to see documents relating to the 35-year-old Gouzenko spy case dealing with a Soviet espionage ring.

Civil servants wouldn’t show them to him because of a previous order from Trudeau’s office.

When Lawrence asked officials why certain ‘security breaches’ weren’t prosecuted, he was told that was the policy of the day. The reasons for that policy were locked away in cabinet papers.

‘I was given reports on what happened, but not on the reasons for the government decisions on why they didn’t prosecute. Canadian governments have hushed up all sorts of things.’

Lawrence added: ‘One of the weird aspects of this is that we can see more about our affairs in other countries than we can see in Canada.’

So much for the Star report which confirms three decades of warnings by Canadian Intelligence publications that treason has been riding high in Ottawa. It also confirms the fact that Joe Clark was so politically immature that Old Machiavelli, before handing over the keys to him for a brief interlude in 1979, tricked young Joe into actually covering up the Featherbed File scandal and thus unwittingly becoming himself a party to treason.

It was, as Mr. Lawrence implies, the civil servants, still under the former PM’s ‘orders,’who called the tune, not the ministers in the Clark Government!

TRUTH IS FINALLY EMERGING

The Edmonton Journal (30 March 1981) concluded an article on Lester Pearson’s cover-up for Soviet spy John Watkins:

A remaining question is why Pearson and the Liberal hierarchy decided to cover up for Watkins.

Was it simply because Pearson and Watkins were huge personal friends?’

If so, this meant that Pearson’s own priorities came ahead of those of Canadians in general would lead to many more exposures and create shattering embarrassment for the Liberal bureaucracy?’

E. D. Ward-Harris, Editor of the Victoria Times-Colonist, reviewing Chapman Pincher’s remarkable book, Their Trade is Treachery, in the 30 May 1981 issue, says that the mind ‘boggles’ at the extent of Soviet penetration in high government circles, and adds: ‘Why, after reading this book it wouldn’t surprise me to learn that some Western president or prime minister had been recruited by the KGB in his youth and was taking his orders from Moscow Centre through a handy controller. It wouldn’t surprise me at all.’

– 30 –