Revealed: secrets Scots traitor gave Stalin that turned the tide of war

[emad]

The Scotsman

MURDO MACLEOD
[e-mail]


IT IS one of the greatest spy mysteries of all time.

What did a Scottish member of the notorious Cambridge Spy Ring tell the Soviet Union that enabled them to win the biggest tank battle of the Second World War and help change the course of history?

Although it has been known for years that John Cairncross passed on top-secret information during the war, only the Soviets knew the details of how he helped to spike Hitler’s guns.

But today Scotland on Sunday can reveal precisely what the Scottish graduate of Glasgow University and Trinity College, Cambridge, told the Soviets about new German weapons and how it had a vital impact on the outcome of the war.

Cairncross had access to top-secret Allied intelligence intercepts of German radio traffic which - in a treasonable breach of security - he passed direct to the Soviet High Command.

http://news.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=406892005

[KlatooBNikto]

1. This must be the famous tank battle at Kursk, which Hitler hoped

would break open his conquest of the Soviet Union after his debacles in Moscow and Stalingrad.

[KG]

2. yes, the offensive against the Kursk salient.

which would have failed anyway, even w/o this the info the spy passed on.

the russian army had months to get ready for this assault, their stratagy was to simply let the german armor batter itself to exhaustion against well prepared and interlocking anti-tank defenses. they outnumbered the wehrmacht, and had gained local air supiority.

the tide had already against the nazis, and the Kursk offensive, like the Ardennes offensive in the west was doomed.

[Vitruvius]

5. The Nazis expected to win with their new weapons & tactics

-- but, thanks to Cairncross, the Russians knew what was coming -- the weapons, the tactics, and the battle plans -- and were able to prepare in the manner you described. From the article:

The information <that Cairncross gave the Russians> included details of two new German tanks, and a lethal new tank destroyer. The tanks were the Panther, regarded by many experts as the best tank of the war, and a variant of the Tiger tank with an upgraded engine. The tank destroyer was the Jagdpanzer VI or Ferdinand, a new 68-tonne machine able to destroy Russian tanks from three miles away.

Knowing about these new weapons, along with their numbers and likely tactics, meant that the Red Army had a chance to devise ways to defeat them. Using Cairncross’s information, the Russians found that the best way to stop the new tanks was by laying ambushes, especially for the larger vehicles. The preparations were so successful that by the end of the first day of action the Germans had lost 568 tanks, a disaster for Hitler. What made matters worse for the Germans was that they had too few transporters to cope with the scale of their losses. Tanks which might have been recovered and repaired were instead carted away by the Russians, either to be used against the Nazis in battle or studied by the Soviets in detail. The German army was so weakened after the three-week battle that they were never again able to launch a major offensive on the Eastern Front. They lost 70,000 men, 3,100 tanks and mobile guns, and 1,400 planes... <SNIP>

<SNIP> "..The soldiers and tanks the Nazis lost at Kursk could have been used elsewhere and made the eventual victory much more difficult. Not impossible, but more costly. Of course, one shouldn’t underestimate the heroism of the Soviet soldiers and the tactical skill of the Russian generals. John Cairncross gave them the information, and they had to act on it, at great risk to themselves."

[KG]

6. thanks, but i read the entire article before i responded.

it overstates the importance of the intellegence.

i've read several books on the Kursk battle. except for one late action, it wasn't the tank v tank it's often claimed to be. it was the well prepared, interlocking anti-tank defenses in depth, and the lack of luftwaffe local air superiority that stopped the offensive. in spite of the nazis optimism, they were no longer the superior armed force on the eastern front, and the counter attack was doomed.

[Gyre]

3. "traitor" seems like an innaccurate label.

Wouldn't that apply if he instead had been supplying intel to the Nazis, instead of Russia's (and his country's) enemies? What am I missing here?

Gyre

[htuttle]

4. I believe the Cold War started before WWII ended

There are numerous cases I've read about where Allied military command cut the Soviets out of the loop on various intelligence issues. In addition, there have been various accounts stating that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was done more for the benefit of scaring the Soviets than strictly 'winning' over Japan.

At least that's what I've read...