Talk:Roger Hollis

From spycatcher

Correction: Arthur Martin was not sacked by Dick White, he was sacked by Roger Hollis himself.

At the time of his termination, Arthur Martin was in the employ of MI5, which was Roger Hollis's bailiwick - Dick White was head of MI6 at the time.

Moreover, after his termination from MI5, Dick White himself brought Arthur Martin into MI6 where he worked until retirement.

Source: Peter Wright's 'Spycatcher'.

The above removed from the end of the article. Rich Farmbrough 14:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Given that the only real public domain information abouut this affair came from Peter Wright's book "Spycatcher" this version is a fair synopsis of the book

GraemeSmith 18:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced

Stating and tagging this as unreferenced is clearly unmerited. I just read through Nigel West's book and Peter Wright's and it is all there save one item. The only thing not in those two texts is the bit on Hollis not telling Profomo certain details but I could have missed it. I also sorted out an ambiguous bit about Profomo who was involved with C. Keeler, not Hollis

Further details and depth are disclosed in Nigel West"s "Mole Hunt" (1987. Wiedenfeld and Nicolson, London) which came out the same year as Peter Wright's book. The demand for sources placed at the top of the article is unwarranted. This really is a synopsis of what is in Peter Wright's book and this is clearly stated in the article as a source. Nigel West's book substantiates much of what Wright wrote and is in this very brief article.

Malangthon 23:26, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

Several passages in this article are extemely subjective or slanted. For example:

Hollis was asked to come in and clear up the allegations. Having been the director, Hollis knew all about the procedures of the interrogation and investigation, in fact he was expecting to be called in anyday. He remained calm and composed throughout, denying all allegations. His memory failed when it suited him and he could not account for the inconsistencies the interrogators found. He was a very secretive man and MI5 had very little information about his past.

Not to mention this line:

At the very least, Hollis was one of the most incompetent men that had ever directed a security organization of such a scale as MI5 in the cold war era.

--Osprey39 22:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. As I understand it, KGB archives have proved Spycatcher very out of date. I am surprised so much credence is given to it here.

Sorry, but "KGB Archives" do not prove anything, they could have been made up by anybody. Spycatcher is an eye-witness account by a person who was part of this affair, and should be taken as such. Kraxler 02:06, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

NPOV opposed

Those are direct quotes from Chapman Pincher's 'Their trade is treachery'. There are no reasons to totally trust 'released' KGB archives as is there no reason to trust in Hollis' leadership as Director.

I concur. The KGB as the final word of credibility? The KGB? The NKVD? The GRU? Their archives 'prove' anything? Who came up with that nonsense?

Malangthon 23:55, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If they are direct quotes then they should appear and be referenced as such. Until they are rewritten and sourced, I am deleting them but placing the content here for ease of use. Pennywisepeter 13:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

He remained calm and composed throughout, denying all allegations. His memory failed when it suited him and he could not account for the inconsistencies the interrogators found. He was a very secretive man and MI5 had very little information about his past. The Trend Committee under Lord Trend was entrusted the matter of investigating Hollis later. After a long enquiry it reported the allegations inconclusive, neither denying nor confirming them. At the very least, Hollis was one of the most incompetent men that had ever directed a security organization of such a scale as MI5 in the cold war era.

In it's present form the article is quite neutral enough, references for the accusations are given, and Hollis's only answer was "stout denial", never explaining, never convincing. If this case went to a jury, they would convict him in 5 minutes. But one minor point is lacking: his intorrogating Gouzenko in disguise for fear of recognition. I will add that. Kraxler 03:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, whatever else he may have done or said, and independant of proof for or against the fact per se, he entered History as the "Man Who Was Accused of Being a Mole", so his biography is necessarily a little heavy on this point. Kraxler 04:17, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect Format

The "controversies" section should not be the entire article. Provide a biography section first, then you can add that section to the article.Landroo 17:40, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Bad Link

The link for Arthur Martin goes to the article for North Tyneside Council

More Fact

Not to complain, but while the allogations against the man are very interesting, and could be true, to date there has been no verification of the fact that he is a spy... shouldn't there be a bit more in here regarding the rest of the man's career? I mean, what if he was innocent? A lifetime of service rewarded only by the question of his loyalty?

Certainly he was a spy, what is disputed is if he was a MOLE. If not, he was INCOMPETENT to the nth degree. Evaluate the possibilities and make your choice..... Kraxler 02:11, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Fleshing out a few aspects

I added an insight on Hollis' son Adrian's chess training in the Soviet Union when he was still a young, promising player. This is mentioned in "Spycatcher", by Peter Wright, page 200, as being volunteered by Hollis himself to Wright. It was virtually unheard of in the 1950s and 1960s for any young Western-based chess player to travel to the Soviet Union to compete regularly or for training. The Cold War was on, remember, and the standards of Soviet chess were the best in the world, for example in the mid-1950s, it can be argued that the USSR had 15 of the world's top 20 players. Britain was very far behind Soviet standards in chess at that time. The unwritten implication is: how did Adrian and / or his father manage to arrange this!? Perhaps a new angle of inquiry here. I also added Chapman Pincher's claim from his 1981 book "Their Trade is Treachery" that Hollis was recruited in China in the early 1930s by Richard Sorge to spy for the GRU. User:FrankEldonDixon January 8, 2009 (UTC)

Postcards containing Cold War spy messages unearthed might explain why chess is an important skill for both spies and spy catchers. JRPG (talk) 14:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I notice someone has added " Again, no evidence has been advanced to support these assertions." I once had a copy of Pincher's Too Secret Too Long (which I can't quote from because unfortunately I seem to have lost it), and I seem to recall hundreds of pages of evidence. Much of it came from fragments of Shanghai police records that managed to be evacuated to the US just a few hours before the Japanese invasion, but didn't get un-boxed and examined until decades later. IIRC, Shanghai police had started following Hollis around after he kept turning up at private parties run by a known communist agitator, and found he occasionally co-habited in a flat rented by Agnes Smedley, a communist activist, probable communist agent, and at the time one of Richard Sorge's two girlfriends. Pincher also found evidence that when Hollis returned to England, he ended up living in the country a very short walk from another girl suspected of being a Soviet agent (don't recall the name, as I say this is all from memory.) All of it circumstantial, and far too weak for a criminal prosecution, but my goodness, if Hollis hadn't managed to conceal his Shanghai activities from MI5 they certainly would never have employed him. Taken together with the "is he a traitor or just plain incompetent" results of most of his operations, it certainly looks pretty suspicious. -- Securiger (talk) 04:24, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Death?

I found it unusual that there is are no details of his death. Derekbd (talk) 17:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

GRU

The GRU and the KGB probably swapped information so the alleged difference between them is mostly not worth speaking of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.38.222 (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh and how do you know this? Sorry, but this info is not correct. Regards, David J Johnson (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

If anything this correction doesn't go far enough. There is evidence across most espionage histories of the time that the GRU and KGB were deliberately kept separate and in competition and that the KGB and GRU agents wouldn't have been aware of each other. The KGB tried to recruit Klaus Fuchs when he was already a GRU agent, because they didn't know that (as referenced in Chapman Pincher's last version of Treachery and other works). (GesPM (talk) 19:16, 26 October 2011 (UTC))

See the article on Klaus Fuchs. This notes that he was transferred from the GRU to the NKGB. This was in about 1943. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.27.109.117 (talk) 16:27, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Feklisov seems to have been an NKVD agent, not GRU. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.55.83 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

See VENONA #1822, in the article on Alger Hiss. This implies that the NKVD and GRU were well aware of each other.