Jump to content

Talk:Cambridge Five: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 37: Line 37:
Wasn't Dick Ellis also accused? (Or am I confusing it with Hollis?) [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>any time you're ready, Uhura</small> </sup>]]</font> 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Wasn't Dick Ellis also accused? (Or am I confusing it with Hollis?) [[User:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font color="#1034A6"><sup><small>any time you're ready, Uhura</small> </sup>]]</font> 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
:Ellis was interrogated by Peter Wright well after the war for his activities round about the outbreak of war; while Ellis disclosed some information, Wright was unable to break him, according to his account in ''Spycatcher''. Hollis was believed by Wright to have been a fit as the Fifth Man, but was interviewed after his retirement and this proved inconclusive. [[User:Hushpuckena|Hushpuckena]] ([[User talk:Hushpuckena|talk]]) 06:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
:Ellis was interrogated by Peter Wright well after the war for his activities round about the outbreak of war; while Ellis disclosed some information, Wright was unable to break him, according to his account in ''Spycatcher''. Hollis was believed by Wright to have been a fit as the Fifth Man, but was interviewed after his retirement and this proved inconclusive. [[User:Hushpuckena|Hushpuckena]] ([[User talk:Hushpuckena|talk]]) 06:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
::Thx. [[User:Trekphiler|<font face="cursive" color="#9400D3"><small>TREKphiler</small></font>]] [[User talk:Trekphiler|<font face="cursive" color="#008000"><sup><small>any time you're ready, Uhura</small> </sup>]]</font> 08:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


==VENONA diagram==
==VENONA diagram==

Revision as of 08:00, 6 August 2012

WikiProject iconPolitics of the United Kingdom C‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSocialism C‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Socialism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of socialism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Several anonyms have been busily adding their pet theories about the identity of "the Fifth Man". Please don't do that! As the article was already trying to explain, the preponderance of current evidence is that the ring contained far more than five members, and Golitsin's "Ring of Five" phrase was a red herring. Furthermore no-one has actually been convicted of it. It would be more appropriate to add a list of suspected members, each with a reason for inclusion, and perhaps noting (where appropriate) any specific public accusations, such as being the subject of a book. Securiger 00:53, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Regarding (in "Known Members" beginning): "Investigation of Philby found several suspicious matters but nothing for which he could be prosecuted, and he was forced to resign." Resign when, and from what post (both nominal and actual, since he was intel)? According to Kim_Philby#Chronology, he was asked to resign in '51 but it was not until 1955 that "the Foreign Service dismissed him because of his association with Burgess." This must have been an interesting four years, if it's really true he retained MI6 employment even though he knew he was under scrutiny. What's the story here? One or two sentences would solve this article's omission and probably add some interesting spice. Marquess 04:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gorsky

Perhaps some mention of Anatoly Gorsky, London Rezident 1940-1944 who managed the group should be made should be made; also it's time to do a Gorsky biopage. nobs 18:50, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Look into Dr. Arnold Deutsch as the principal recruiter. Another member - John Cairncross as the original fifth man.

Gay?

Wasn't the ring homosexual? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.206.165.32 (talk) 04:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Blunt and Burgess were homosexuals. (Burgess, in fact, was rumoured to have a variety of unorthodox peccadilloes.) The minor agent John Vassall (who was not part of "the Ring" per se) was also homosexual. However, there is little or no evidence any of the others were. Maclean may have been bisexual but the evidence is sparse and he was married (his wife joined him in Russia after he defected), while Philby married four times and also had several heterosexual affairs (including with Maclean's wife.) Michael Straight married twice, Rothschild married twice and produced seven children. Hollis was married and had at least one child, and was rumoured to have had a heterosexual affair in Shanghai. I have never heard anything one way or the other about Cairncross' sexuality. -- Securiger 13:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What was the impact?

The article seems to talk exclusively about who they were, and not what they did. What was the impact? Article should state: Did they inform the Soviets about British nuclear capability throughout the late 1950s; or did they keep the Soviets informed about changes to the Tube schedules? Tempshill (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Mitrokhin reference

The KGB defector Vasily Mitrokhin has in his notes much more information about this subject, including how they were recruited and by whom - Dr. Arnold Deutsch. The notes were used as source for "The Mitrokhin Archive - The KGB in Europe and the West" by Cristopher Andrew and Vasily Mitrokhin. Emilpop (talk) 11:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Allies

These articles need to make it clear that the Soviet Union was Britain's ally during WW2. These guys were not passing information to an enemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.165 (talk) 18:22, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No Nazis in the body

I have reverted an edit with this summary because the editor seems to have misunderstood the line "may have passed Soviet disinformation to the Nazis" to imply that there were Nazis in the body (presumably that of the Cambridge Five, although that is not clear). The suggestion that they passed such information could do with sourcing, though. Britmax (talk) 09:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual suspects

Wasn't Dick Ellis also accused? (Or am I confusing it with Hollis?) TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:13, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ellis was interrogated by Peter Wright well after the war for his activities round about the outbreak of war; while Ellis disclosed some information, Wright was unable to break him, according to his account in Spycatcher. Hollis was believed by Wright to have been a fit as the Fifth Man, but was interviewed after his retirement and this proved inconclusive. Hushpuckena (talk) 06:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thx. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 08:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

VENONA diagram

Does it merit mention the Sovs had penetrated VENONA (Weisband?)? And knew the U.S. & Britain was looking for spies from the very start? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 03:12, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

The article is completely out of date I'm afraid. Most of the facts are known now. The sources are obselete also. —Preceding unsigned comment added by KestevenBullet (talkcontribs) 09:58, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this article needs significant updating, citing and improving. I'll make a start.(Lewvalton (talk) 21:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)).[reply]