I have read a large number of books about spying by and against the old Soviet Union. The Soviets scored many successes against the US, and in the early days (the 1930s into the early 1950s) most American spies were Communists who believed Soviet propaganda and therefore believed that they were working to bring about a socialist utopia. That is, most (the ones we know about) were motivated by ideology. Later, however, Americans spying for the Soviets were more likely to be motivated by monetary greed: the most productive (harmful) were highly paid for their efforts, but at least one was initially motivated by resentment against the CIA. He was fired after receiving much training and exposure to very sensitive projects.

As far as is commonly known, the US had few, if any, agents in the USSR spying for us until the 1960s. Most, if not virtually all, of those high level spies were volunteers. One was so indiscreetly brazen and persistent that his overtures were ignored for several years for fear that he was a provocation. Although part of their motivation may have been to ultimately escape Russia and enjoy a nice retirement in the US, at least one very valuable agent refused to be spirited out of the country even when it became clear that he was likely under suspicion by the KGB. Most spies for the US were motivated by hatred of the Soviet system or at least dissatisfaction to the point of being willing to turn against it for personal gain.

A number of the US’s most productive and valuable agents and other espionage operations against the USSR were exposed by spies for the Soviets in the US. At least two highly-placed CIA employees identified many of our agents to the KGB, and that led to their apprehension and ultimate execution. During the 1950s members of the US military revealed operational secrets that could have had disastrous results had the US and USSR gotten into armed conflict. It’s even believed that intelligence provided by one Soviet spy in the Army may have led to the Korean War.

One thing that struck me and has given me much food for thought was that one (Aldridge Ames, IIRC) expressed no remorse about what happened to the Russians he exposed and were killed as a result. He said (paraphrasing) that they knowingly ran the same risks he did, and he shouldn’t feel sorry for them any more than anyone felt sorry for his being caught.

My question, then, is does it matter why people choose to become traitors and spy against their country? Are they all spies and their motives—noble or base—don’t matter? Or are spies’ motives morally different: It’s okay to spy for a motive like ideology but not primarily for personal gain?

Question:
Do motives matter?
.

Choices:
Yes; right is right and wrong is wrong.
No; spies are spies, and traitors are traitors.

 

A spy's motives are one thing. What that spy does in response to those motives is something else.

Spies are spies and traitors are traitors, regardless of motive.

I do not see where either stated motive, ideology or personal gain, justifies the act or makes it less criminal.

Sigfreund, thanks for the interesting topic and Sig2340, thanks for the interesting article.

I honestly fear ideological spies more. People, in my book, will do a lot more for ideology than money.

So, yes, I think it matters but spies are spies to my way of thinking.

To your specific question, I pick both yes and no.

Was Bonhoeffer considered a spy? I think what he did was right.

Our spies are good.
Their spies are bad.
If you're a spy... don't get caught.

quote:

Originally posted by Rigby470:
Was Bonhoeffer considered a spy?

Yes, if he was involved in trying to contact the Allies to help bring down the Nazi regime during the war. In that regard he was motivated by ideology in a way that was fundamentally no different from the motives of the members of the Communist Party of the USA who spied for the Soviet Union because they believed they were doing the right thing by working to help bring about the socialist utopia. Had he only worked to oppose the Nazis within Germany, then I would have said he wasn’t a spy by my definition for this discussion, and the same would have been true of the members of the WWII German military who plotted to get rid of Hitler.
Similarly, it doesn’t refer to the members of the FBI and other US agencies who conspired to prevent Trump’s election as President.

By “spy” for this discussion, I’m referring to people who commit espionage against their own country for the direct benefit of another country.

It also doesn’t refer to espionage agents who are spying against another country for the benefit of their own. The most obvious examples are CIA or Russian FSB (successor to the KGB) officers serving in and attempting to obtain information about other countries, regardless of whether they are there in legal diplomatic status or are operating in a covert “illegal” status. U2 pilot Francis Gary Powers may have been considered a spy, but that’s not the type of agent I’m referring to any more than members of a military reconnaissance patrol that operates behind enemy lines.

The status of some spies can be very murky, but I’m referring to obvious traitors: a GRU general who passes on secrets about Soviet operations against the US, or a CIA officer who exposes him to the KGB.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
By “spy” for this discussion, I’m referring to people who commit espionage against their own country for the direct benefit of another country...

Isn't that treason? It might be justified in the mind of the treasonous rats, but it definitely isn't in the eyes of their own country.

quote:

Originally posted by senza nome:

quote:

“Isn’t that rebellion? Yes or no?”
“Yes. But there are mitigating circumstances. Serious miti—”
“There are no ‘mitigating circumstances’ when it comes to rebellion against a sovereign lord.”
“Unless you win.”
Toranaga looked intently at him. Then laughed uproariously. He said something to Hiro-matsu through his laughter and Hiro-matsu nodded.
"Yes, Mister Foreigner with the impossible name, yes. You named the one mitigating factor." Another chuckle, then the humor vanished as suddenly as it had begun. "Will you win?"

A fellow James Clavell fan.

quote:

Originally posted by SIGINT-228:
<snipped>
A fellow James Clavell fan.

A Shogun fan.

I believe most Soviet spies who betrayed their country did it because of their hatred for the system and hoping to help the good battling evil, while more American spies did it for money. I can think of Robert Hanssen, Aldrich Ames, the Walker spy ring.

So, to me the Soviet agents who spied against their country are justified.

Is "spy" the correct word for the type of person being discussed?

I ask this in all seriousness. My uncle was a spy, but in a different sense.

My grandparents came to this country at a time when being Jewish was a death sentence in many eastern European countries. My mother was in the first generation to be born in the U.S., as was my uncle.

He (my uncle), was fluent in several European languages. He earned a PhD in Russian literature. He loved this country and when he saw that war was coming, he volunteered. He was taken into the OSS (predecessor of the CIA) and he spent most of WW-2 in Germany, Poland, and a few other countries, where he would have been executed as a spy (which he was) if he had been caught.

After the war he was a professor in the language department at West Point. He retired as an O-6 Colonel.

A spy is a spy. However I don't like when they attempt to call a whistle-blower a spy.

quote:

Originally posted by V-Tail:
Is "spy" the correct word for the type of person being discussed?

I ask this in all seriousness. My uncle was a spy, but in a different sense.

Many words have multiple meanings, but I tried to define “spy” for the purposes of the poll: someone who commits espionage against his own country for the benefit of another country.

Even “own country” can be subject to interpretation or different definitions. If a refugee is recruited by the country he goes to and agrees to go back where he came from to gather and report intelligence, whether he’s a “spy” for purposes of this discussion depends on what his “own country” is. If it’s now the country like the US or the UK where he considers he owes his allegiance to, then going back isn’t being a spy. If, however, he still considers himself a citizen of the country and hopes to return there after it’s liberated, then, yes, he’s a spy.

The Americans who went to the USSR for indoctrination and training and then returned to the US to commit espionage while pretending to be loyal US citizens were spies. Someone like Rudolph Abel who was born in Britain but then traveled to the US to establish a spy ring on behalf of the USSR wasn’t a spy (in the sense of this poll) because the US wasn’t his “own” country.

To emphasize: For purposes of this poll I am referring to “spy” in a very narrow sense, and not everyone who gathers intelligence—secretly or otherwise.

I think theres alot of grey. Our country was founded on a bunch of "spies and treasonous" folks who were not loyal to the crown which was the government.

Certainly an interesting topic. I think its alot like snipers, great when they're your guys, cowardly bastards when they're the other guys.

I'm more likely to respect someone doing it for ideological reasons than monetary and I think thats pretty much where most people would land.

Was Nathan Hale a "spy"?

quote:

Originally posted by senza nome:
Was Nathan Hale a "spy"?

To the British, sure.

quote:

Originally posted by senza nome:
Was Nathan Hale a "spy"?

In the conventional sense, of course, but not as I defined it for purposes of this poll because he wasn’t spying against his “own” country for the benefit of another country.