I had no idea how (apparently) commonplace it is to exchange captured spies for others - I’d just assumed all would be shot for treason (which, to be fair, also seems to be rather commonplace).
It seems that nobody wanted to set the precedent of shooting every spy found, lest the other side also do the same to your own guys that they've found/captured/arrested, who you're hoping to get back.
Unless one side doesn't really care that much for those clumsy spies - for them - who can't even keep themselves out of trouble. It's surprising sometimes how long such an approach can work.
Executing spies isn't an effective deterrent. So logically it makes sense to keep them around as potentially useful assets. Either for exchange, interrogation, or conversion into double agents.
Spies that are foreign citizens acting to help their own country are not usually considered traitors. Even if they assume a fake identity. So a Russian citizen spying US on the account of Russia would be a spy, but not a traitor. These spies are indeed usually captured (if discovered) and eventually exchanged.
A traitor would be for instance a US citizen spying on the US to help China, or Russia. Or a Chinese citizen spying on China to help the US. This is a much more perilous situation than just being a spy...
In hot war the emotions run wild and spies are/were shot, often on the spot after a drumhead "court".
In peace, even a cold peace that reigned post-1945, diplomacy and sustainability of your ops is taken into consideration. If your spies face certain death when caught, fewer will volunteer to become spies, especially if their expected career is measured in decades.
Spies from different nationalities seem to be fine - imprisonment, trial, exchange, etc.
Spies from the same country as the target nation are in the gravest danger. Like what happened in China recently (where they shot spies point blank in front of their colleagues to send a message) or in Iran (where a wrestler/alleged spy was recently executed).
That being said, the East has definitely been more unforgiving of treason than the West.
State-owned media. Trust it as little as you would RT because it's run by the same organization. From https://www.rbth.com/about:
Russia Beyond is an international multimedia project operated by autonomous nonprofit organization “TV-Novosti”.
Since launching in 2007, our mission has always been to help the world better understand Russia. We are your main gateway for all things Russia - from culture, travel, education, language, ways to do business, and much more. There’s so much to explore in Russia that it can be hard knowing where to start. We are here for you as a guide, helper, and advisor for any question related to our country.
Russia Beyond’s target audience is a wide range of socially active people who want to find out more about the biggest country in the world – either for travel, business, educational, or professional purposes - or just for fun.
Editor-in-Chief: Vsevolod Pulya
Contact us at info@rbth.com or +7 (499) 75 000 75 ext. 3411
Online media registered by Roskomnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications) on March 24, 2017, Certificate El No FS 77 - 69173
Сетевое издание зарегистрировано Роскомнадзором 24 марта 2017 г., свидетельство ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 69173
The three stories listed here are all public knowledge by now. If anything, they make the U-2/Powers incident sound better than the fiasco of bungling it really was:
Despite having this inside info on Soviet military, the US experts drastically overestimated Soviet capabilities, and spent an enormous amount keeping up with an opponent over whom they were already far ahead.
What do you mean by "far ahead?" Yes, U.S. technology was generally superior to Soviet tech.
If you look at the two point scenarios that were generally talked about -- general nuclear war, and conventional war in Europe (with the Soviets attacking), I don't see a very clear advantage on either side.
In the general nuclear war scenario, I don't think it's likely that either side would have been able to conduct a first strike without retaliation, at least from say, 1970 onward. By the 70s, that retaliation would have meant severe damage to all of the major cities on both sides, and neither side would have been in a position to invade the other in the aftermath, so the result is essentially a draw with both sides losing.
In the invasion of Western Europe scenario, I think it's hard to say exactly how it would have played out. The Soviets had huge numerical superiority on the ground and in the air. The West had a qualitative advantage. On the ground, I'm not that convinced that the qualitative advantage was as severe as was suggested by Gulf War I. The Iraqi troops were not as well trained as the Soviets, their equipment was inferior export models of Soviet equipment, and engagement ranges in the desert were very long, which magnifies the American advantage. In the air, I think the West would probably have won air superiority, but I'm not convinced that tactical air like A-10s and helicopters would have been very effective with excellent Soviet air defense.
The most likely scenario probably would have been the Soviet advance stalling out somewhere on one side or the other of the Rhine due to a long logistical tail.
Either way, whichever side was losing likely would have resorted to tactical nuclear weapons, and it's difficult to see how this wouldn't escalate into a general nuclear war.
That's true, but it probably would have been under air attack. Rail and Autobahns would have been cut, and other logistics nodes bombed. Effective Soviet air defense probably would not extend to high altitude, because those systems are too few, without enough mobility to survive very long. This would probably have led to the Soviets using nuclear weapons on Western air bases, which would then have escalated.
> In the invasion of Western Europe scenario, I think it's hard to say exactly how it would have played out. The Soviets had huge numerical superiority on the ground and in the air. The West had a qualitative advantage.
The invasion of western Europe happened in 1940 from the east and then in 1944 from the west. This talk of "invasion of western Europe" is ahistorical. In 1956 the communists had 103 seats in the French parliament, the next largest party - the socialists - had 95. The US interventions in Italy's 1948 election exceeded Russian interference in Czechoslovakia in 1948 (the events of which were precipitated by the February resignation of the opposition from the ministry). Up until 1976 the communist party won over one third of the vote in Italy.
This notion of a united "West" fearing an invasion from the east is popular in some quarters, but is not what was the reality in Western Europe, and few western Europeans of the time had this view.
OK now do Budapest in 1956, Prague 1968, and the defeat of commmunists in basically every free election in Eastern Europe in 1989-91.
Why were there so few migrants from West to East during the Cold War, while, on the other hand, many were willing to risk their lives to go the other direction?
Germany is a near perfect example. The effort required for someone to migrate from West to East was comparatively small. No new language is required, the culture is very similar, and the distance is short. Where were all the true believers in Soviet style Socialism?
Given the similarity of the languages, today we see large migration flows from Romania to Italy. Why didn't we see the reverse during the Cold War?
I've heard the wonderful assumption that The Wall in Berlin was built to actually cut the flow of migrants from... The West, seeking refuge in socialistic paradise of East Germany. Too bad that real situation was completely different.
Highly recommend reading the book 'The spy and the traitor' for a similar case where western spy / intelligence failed but somehow managed to save the asset. (Book recommended by Bill Gates)
It's a fascinating read on a long forgotten era, now replaced by hackers sitting in front of computers.
Russia Beyond is a fairly cheap-o state propaganda organ. Just don’t do it (tm).
For one example, you’d get an F in your 20th century history class if your paper on Penkovsky didn’t include so much as 2 sentences on his role in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Unless history wasn’t the point ;))).
Recently reading Graham Greene's The Human Factor, its portrayal of Western Intelligence agencies being mired in moral ambiguity and beurocratic confusions was compelling reading. I hear it was even made into a rather successful film.
(Spoiler below.)
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I wonder how the film or book would be received now, where it shows the protagonist who is an MI6 officer defecting to the USSR at the end of it.
Yes, what I was saying was that the book didn't place a damning moral judgement on the character/person; would a present day big studio movie take a similar line?
33 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 52.2 ms ] threadI had no idea how (apparently) commonplace it is to exchange captured spies for others - I’d just assumed all would be shot for treason (which, to be fair, also seems to be rather commonplace).
A traitor would be for instance a US citizen spying on the US to help China, or Russia. Or a Chinese citizen spying on China to help the US. This is a much more perilous situation than just being a spy...
In peace, even a cold peace that reigned post-1945, diplomacy and sustainability of your ops is taken into consideration. If your spies face certain death when caught, fewer will volunteer to become spies, especially if their expected career is measured in decades.
Spies from the same country as the target nation are in the gravest danger. Like what happened in China recently (where they shot spies point blank in front of their colleagues to send a message) or in Iran (where a wrestler/alleged spy was recently executed).
That being said, the East has definitely been more unforgiving of treason than the West.
Russia Beyond is an international multimedia project operated by autonomous nonprofit organization “TV-Novosti”.
Since launching in 2007, our mission has always been to help the world better understand Russia. We are your main gateway for all things Russia - from culture, travel, education, language, ways to do business, and much more. There’s so much to explore in Russia that it can be hard knowing where to start. We are here for you as a guide, helper, and advisor for any question related to our country.
Russia Beyond’s target audience is a wide range of socially active people who want to find out more about the biggest country in the world – either for travel, business, educational, or professional purposes - or just for fun.
Editor-in-Chief: Vsevolod Pulya
Contact us at info@rbth.com or +7 (499) 75 000 75 ext. 3411
Online media registered by Roskomnadzor (Federal Service for Supervision in the Sphere of Telecom, Information Technologies and Mass Communications) on March 24, 2017, Certificate El No FS 77 - 69173
Сетевое издание зарегистрировано Роскомнадзором 24 марта 2017 г., свидетельство ЭЛ № ФС 77 - 69173
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1960_U-2_incident
When you're ahead, get more ahead. Wouldn't hurt you if the opponent is still losing more.
If you look at the two point scenarios that were generally talked about -- general nuclear war, and conventional war in Europe (with the Soviets attacking), I don't see a very clear advantage on either side.
In the general nuclear war scenario, I don't think it's likely that either side would have been able to conduct a first strike without retaliation, at least from say, 1970 onward. By the 70s, that retaliation would have meant severe damage to all of the major cities on both sides, and neither side would have been in a position to invade the other in the aftermath, so the result is essentially a draw with both sides losing.
In the invasion of Western Europe scenario, I think it's hard to say exactly how it would have played out. The Soviets had huge numerical superiority on the ground and in the air. The West had a qualitative advantage. On the ground, I'm not that convinced that the qualitative advantage was as severe as was suggested by Gulf War I. The Iraqi troops were not as well trained as the Soviets, their equipment was inferior export models of Soviet equipment, and engagement ranges in the desert were very long, which magnifies the American advantage. In the air, I think the West would probably have won air superiority, but I'm not convinced that tactical air like A-10s and helicopters would have been very effective with excellent Soviet air defense.
The most likely scenario probably would have been the Soviet advance stalling out somewhere on one side or the other of the Rhine due to a long logistical tail.
Either way, whichever side was losing likely would have resorted to tactical nuclear weapons, and it's difficult to see how this wouldn't escalate into a general nuclear war.
The invasion of western Europe happened in 1940 from the east and then in 1944 from the west. This talk of "invasion of western Europe" is ahistorical. In 1956 the communists had 103 seats in the French parliament, the next largest party - the socialists - had 95. The US interventions in Italy's 1948 election exceeded Russian interference in Czechoslovakia in 1948 (the events of which were precipitated by the February resignation of the opposition from the ministry). Up until 1976 the communist party won over one third of the vote in Italy.
This notion of a united "West" fearing an invasion from the east is popular in some quarters, but is not what was the reality in Western Europe, and few western Europeans of the time had this view.
Why were there so few migrants from West to East during the Cold War, while, on the other hand, many were willing to risk their lives to go the other direction?
Germany is a near perfect example. The effort required for someone to migrate from West to East was comparatively small. No new language is required, the culture is very similar, and the distance is short. Where were all the true believers in Soviet style Socialism?
Given the similarity of the languages, today we see large migration flows from Romania to Italy. Why didn't we see the reverse during the Cold War?
huh, check this
Title: "Button that had to destroy world"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8ZrnffyXpU
Quote: "People will not be alive, but ICBMs will still fly"
You can enable english subtitles.
It's a fascinating read on a long forgotten era, now replaced by hackers sitting in front of computers.
For one example, you’d get an F in your 20th century history class if your paper on Penkovsky didn’t include so much as 2 sentences on his role in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Unless history wasn’t the point ;))).
(Spoiler below.) . . . . . . .
I wonder how the film or book would be received now, where it shows the protagonist who is an MI6 officer defecting to the USSR at the end of it.