British Domestic Security Policy and Communist Subversion: 1945-1964

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Apollo British Domestic Security Policy and Communist Subversion: 1945-1964 William Styles Corpus Christi College, University of Cambridge September 2016 This dissertation is submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy William Styles British Domestic Security Policy and Communist Subversion: 1945-1964 This thesis is concerned with an analysis of British governmental attitudes and responses to communism in the United Kingdom during the early years of the Cold War, from the election of the Attlee government in July 1945 up until the election of the Wilson government in October 1964. Until recently the topic has been difficult to assess accurately, due to the scarcity of available original source material. However, as a result of multiple declassifications of both Cabinet Office and Security Service files over the past five years it is now possible to analyse the subject in greater depth and detail than had been previously feasible. The work is predominantly concerned with four key areas: firstly, why domestic communism continued to be viewed as a significant threat by successive governments – even despite both the ideology’s relatively limited popular support amongst the general public and Whitehall’s realisation that the Communist Party of Great Britain presented little by way of a direct challenge to British political stability. Secondly, how Whitehall’s understanding of the nature and severity of the threat posed by British communism developed between the late 1940s and early ‘60s, from a problem considered mainly of importance only to civil service security practices to one which directly impacted upon the conduct of educational policy and labour relations. Thirdly, how official counter-subversion methods were formulated and enacted over the period – from remarkably limited beginnings as small-scale vetting reform to a wide-ranging program of surveillance and counter-propaganda by the early 1960s. And finally, whether such responses can be judged as proportional with the benefit of historical hindsight, or if the British government’s conduct should be regarded as an egregious example of reactionary censorship and infringement of civil liberties in the modern era. For my Family Preface This dissertation is the result of my own work and includes nothing which is the outcome of work done in collaboration except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It is not substantially the same as any that I have submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for a degree or diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University or similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. I further state that no substantial part of my dissertation has already been submitted, or, is being concurrently submitted for any such degree, diploma or other qualification at the University of Cambridge or any other University of similar institution except as declared in the Preface and specified in the text. It does not exceed the prescribed word limit for the History Faculty Degree Committee. Total word count: 79,561 Acknowledgements The research and writing of this thesis over the past three years has been a remarkably intellectually engaging task. Along the way there have been a great many challenges - practical, intellectual and otherwise - to overcome, and I am tremendously grateful to all those who have offered their help, support and kindness over the course of my postgraduate study. I am particularly grateful to my supervisor, Professor Christopher Andrew, whose patient advice and guidance has steadily guided me through the tumult of graduate research. I am also deeply indebted to my advisor, Dr. Peter Martland, who has been an unfailing source of assistance over the past four years. They have both been unwavering in their intellectual and pastoral support during the course of my studies, and it is safe to say that the completion of this thesis would have been wholly impossible without their respective contributions. The support provided by the Cambridge University Intelligence Seminar has also aided greatly during the course of my research. The inspiration provided by those friends and colleagues I have met through the seminar has proven invaluable over the course of my research. Conversations with Dr. David Gioe, Dr. Christian Bak, Dr. Thomas Maguire, Dr. Daniel Larsen, Jason Heeg and many others involved with the seminar over the past four years have helped to enhance the quality of this thesis immeasurably. I am also deeply grateful to all those who assisted with my research trip to Washington DC during the spring of 2015. The help and guidance of Hayden Peake, Dr. Nicholas Reynolds, Dr. Mary McCarthy and Ray Batvinis during my time in the United States was highly appreciated. Equally, the financial assistance provided by the Royal Historical Society proved invaluable in facilitating the entire trip. I have benefited tremendously from the support and friendship of a great many individuals during my time in Cambridge. Though I deeply appreciate on a personal level the kindness shown to me by all my friends throughout my postgraduate studies - of whom there are too many to list here - with specific regard to the writing of this thesis, the contributions of Daniel Neary, Brendan Gillott and Simon Patterson are worthy of special note. The commentary they have provided regarding draft versions of this work has helped tremendously in ensuring that the final thesis is stylistically, grammatically and narratively coherent and I intensely appreciate all their assistance and support over recent months. Finally, special tribute must be paid to the contributions of my family. Without the kindness and support of my parents, siblings and grandmother the completion of this thesis would have been impossible. For all their encouragement, through both the good times and the bad, I am truly grateful. William Styles Cambridge September 2016 Contents List of Abbreviations Used – 2 Introduction - 4 I – Beginnings: July 1945 – June 1950 - 24 II – Escalation: July 1950 – April 1955 - 60 III – Breakthrough: May 1955 – October 1959 - 98 IV – Loose Ends: November 1959 – October 1964 - 139 Conclusion - 178 Appendix – Suspected Crypto-Communist MPs – 197 Bibliography – 210 1 Abbreviations Used: AC (H) – Cabinet Committee on Communism (Home) AC (M) – Cabinet Ministerial Committee on Communism AC (O) – Cabinet Committee on Communism (Overseas) AEU – Amalgamated Engineering Union AScW – Association of Scientific Workers AVH - Államvédelmi Hatóság (Hungarian secret police) BBC – British Broadcasting Corporation BFI – British Film Institute CIA – Central Intelligence Agency CND – Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Comintern – Third Communist International CPGB – Communist Party of Great Britain CPSU – Communist Party of the Soviet Union DDG – Deputy Director General of the Security Service DG – Director General of the Security Service EC – Communist Party of Great Britain, Executive Committee ETU – Electrical Trades Union FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation FO – Foreign Office GCHQ – Government Communications Headquarters GEN 183 – Cabinet Committee on Subversive Activities GRU – Главное Разведывательное Управление/Glavnoye Razvedyvatel'noye Upravleniye (Soviet military intelligence) HO – Home Office IRD – Information Research Department IRIS – Industrial Research and Information Service Limited ITN – Independent Television News ITV – Independent Television Company JIC – Joint Intelligence Committee KGB - Комитет государственной безопасности/ Komitet Gosudarstvennoy Bezopasnosti (Soviet secret police/civil intelligence agency from 1954) 2 MI5 – Security Service MI6 – Secret Intelligence Service MP – Member of Parliament NATO – North Atlantic Treaty Organisation NKVD - Народный комиссариат внутренних дел/Narodnyi Komissariat Vnutrennikh Del (Soviet secret police/civil intelligence agency 1934-1946) NUM – National Union of Mineworkers PLP – Parliamentary Labour Party PM – Prime Minister PUS – Permanent Under Secretary RIS – Russian Intelligence Services SIS – Secret Intelligence Service TASS – Телеграфное агентство Советского Союза/ Telegrafnoye Agyentstvo Sovyetskovo Soyuza (Telegraph Agency of the Soviet Union) TUC – Trades Union Congress UNESCO – United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization USAF – United States Air Force USDAW – Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers WFSW – World Federation of Scientific Workers 3 Introduction During the early years of the Cold War, the problem of communist subversion was a subject of particular importance for British domestic security policy. Despite being consistently limited both in terms of relative numerical size and political influence, the communist movement was regarded by the British government as the central threat to the domestic stability of the United Kingdom for the better part of twenty years. Owing to the, at best, loose official definition of subversion, counter-measures designed to combat domestic communism were wide ranging, and directly impacted upon a wide swathe of British civil society. Despite the resources invested, anti-communist measures experienced only mixed success however, and from the evidence available it seems clear that British communism’s decline was caused as much by the movement’s own structural weaknesses as it was by official efforts to undermine

Load more