Andrew Cook - To Kill Rasputin

Admissions made in the House of Commons in October 1920 22revealed that Lloyd George’s government was not adverse to authorising the use of murder and ‘direct action’ as policy in quelling the troubles in Ireland. If these tactics could be utilised in Ireland, so close to home, how much greater the possibility that they could be employed further afield in circumstances that raised a far more serious threat to the national interest than the IRA?

In his book MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations , intelligence historian Stephen Dorril considers the modus operandi of MI6 in the context of assassination. Although dwelling on the post-war period, Dorril’s analysis is particularly relevant to MI6 methods in the first half of the twentieth century.

In particular, he identifies ‘a philosophy that is central to such operations and was a particular hallmark of MI6 planning – plausible deniability’, concluding that, ‘the use of third parties lessens the threat of any operation unravelling to reveal the hand of the sponsoring organisation’. 23He also observes that, ‘in times of war, constraints on such operations are not so tight and are more easily justified’. 24The murder of Rasputin and Alley’s order to assassinate Stalin both occurred during the First World War, and in this sense could well be viewed as actions necessary to achieve military objectives.

Subsequent history provides examples of situations where politicians have sought to sideline senior intelligence officers by dealing directly with those on the ground, 25and indeed circumstances where intelligence officers have sanctioned operations without the knowledge or consent of politicians. 26In light of the wealth of evidence, we know the Secretary of State for War and senior intelligence officers had known about Rasputin and the prospects of a separate peace, and it is difficult to believe that those in possession of such intelligence sat idly by knowing that Britain’s fate rested on Russia remaining in the war. In a scenario where the thin margin between defeat and victory depended upon the thwarting of a separate peace, it is this author’s belief that Rasputin’s murder, effected through a third party, was officially sanctioned, either by Lloyd George, who as Secretary of State for War had political responsibility for the Secret Service, or by senior officers of the Service itself.

Under either scenario, Sir Samuel Hoare was outside the loop for reasons discussed earlier in this book. It is equally likely that any paper trail leading back to the authoriser of such an action has long since vanished, if indeed such a trail ever existed. As Professor John Lewis Gaddis reminds us, ‘human relations, particularly in and between secret agencies, cannot always be reconstructed from documents’. 27Whether documents exist or not, are closed or available in archives, the fact remains that, ‘conversations occurring in corridors or over the telephone or at cocktail parties can at times shape events more decisively than whole stacks of official memoranda that find their way into the archives’. 28

Precisely what the circumstances were behind Alley’s replacement by Ernest Boyce is not entirely clear. It would seem, however, that he was involved in another critical mission shortly after Brest-Litovsk, which ultimately ended in failure. 29In terms of the evidence currently available, it is not possible to determine the extent to which this may or may not have played a part in his dismissal.

Despite this unfortunate turn of events, Alley was to continue working in intelligence, in the service of MI5, until the end of the Second World War. He died on 6 April 1969 at the age of ninety-three, with the papers and souvenirs of his long intelligence career safely stored away in a trunk.

Rayner, too, Kept his mementoes. The bullet from the night of Rasputin’s murder he apparently had set in a ring. 30He was awarded the Order of St Stanislaus in 1917 and remained in Petrograd until March 1918, when he was posted to the Intelligence Mission in Stockholm under John Scale. It was his task, in July of that year, to report the murder of the imperial Russian family to the King and Queen in London. 31He later returned to Russia in 1922 as part of the British Trade Mission. While in Moscow, he married Tatiana Alexeievna Glubokovskia Marek, whom he took back to England. They had three children and eventually divorced in August 1940. 32During the Second World War, Rayner was again involved in intelligence work as a Liaison Officer in Canada. In 1943 he was sent to Spain, a hotbed of German activity, where he remained until the end of the war.

In 1947 he married his former secretary, Margaret Huntingford. When he was diagnosed with terminal cancer shortly before his death in 1961, 33he burned all the papers connected with his time in Russia. Thankfully, he seems to have been the exception.

SUPREME COURT – NEW YORK

SERGIUS MICHAILOW TRUFANOFF, being duly sworn deposes and says:

I reside in the Borough of Bronx, City, County and State of New York.

The defendant is a domestic corporation and engaged in the publication of a magazine known as the Metropolitan at 432 4th Avenue, Borough of Manhattan, New York City.

Annexed hereto is the complaint in this action which I herewith make part of this affidavit as if herein fully set forth.

I arrived in the United States of America on June 18th, 1916. On or about the 19th day of June, 1916 I called at the office of the Metropolitan magazine and met Mr. H.J. Wigham, whom I am informed, is the President of the defendant. At this conversation was present Mr. Herman Bernstein, myself, Mr. Tobenkin and a Stenographer. Tobenkin is a well known writer who is employed by the Metropolitan Magazine. I do not speak English. The conversation between me and Mr Wigham was interpreted by Bernstein. I was then told in the presence of Mr. Wigham by Mr. Bernstein in Russia that I was to give interviews to Mr. Tobenkin regularly and the information which I was to furnish him would be written into five articles or stories. These articles would be published once a month commencing with the issue of October, 1916.

While no definite amount was mentioned in this conversation, I received on May 13, 1916 a telegram from Mr Bernstein who was the go-between the defendant and myself as follows:

Communicated arrangement for manuscript, $5000. Entire sum will be paid before August 1st in several instalments; sending money now. Please send immediately rzsevsky chapter, also originals of letters or photographs. Copies in Bergen cable reply

BERNSTEIN

1781 Clay Avenue

I understood at this conversation that $5000 was to be paid to me by August 1st, 1916. From time to time I talked with Mr. Tobenkin in accordance with this agreement and gave him the data and material out of which he was to write the English story for the defendant. I did not keep dates of my conversations with him. These interviews were taken away by Mr. Tobenkin and were given by me about two or three times a week. This work started some time in June 1916 and continued right up to the latter part of September 1916. These interviews or stories of what I said are still in the possession of the defendant.

In the early part of September, I believe it was around the 9th, the Archbishop Evdokin and one Michael Oustinoff called to see me at my residence in the Borough of Bronx. My wife who was then looking out of the window told me that they were there and I went down to meet them. They took me into an automobile and we drove through Bronx Park. They told me that they had read in the Metropolitan that I was going to write some articles on Rasputin and the Czarina of Russia. They begged me not to publish the articles. They said it would hurt Russia very much and they offered to give me $25,000 and a full pardon so that I could return to Russia if I did not publish them. They also told me that if I refuse the offer the articles would not be published in the Metropolitan Magazine as the owner of the Company was their best friend. They also stated that they had enough influence with the magazine that the slightest wish regarding publication would be respected. They further stated that the only reason for their trying to buy the article was to prevent my publishing same in some other paper or magazine. I told them that I would refrain from publishing this article; that I believed it was necessary for the good of Russia and that the destruction of the influence of Rasputin would not be an injury to Russia but the best help in the world to that Country. I have been in prison for eleven months in Russia for my patriotism and my desire to save Russia. They continued to insist that I should not publish this article and solely for the purpose of seeing to what extent they would go and to learn whether or not they had any official authority, I pretended to take up these negotiations. I told them that I had already given the articles to the Metropolitan Magazine and even if I would agree not to publish it, the defendants might publish it themselves, and they told me that they would arrange with the magazine to get these articles back. I asked them if they would consent to the return of the articles and would also consent to the cancellation of my agreements with them, and if they would pay $25,000 within three days.