The Black Door: Spies, Secret Intelligence and British Prime Ministers. Richard Aldrich
it never crossed his mind that this letter ‘had any part to play in the fight’.30 He requested more proof, but his instructions were ignored, and none was sought.31 MacDonald was both right and wrong: the letter was of dubious authenticity, but it would play a role in the election.
MI6 realised the letter was a fake: Morton privately told MI5 towards the end of November – long after the damage was done – that ‘We are firmly convinced this actual thing is a forgery.’32 But he refused to admit this in wider circles. Quex Sinclair, the head of MI6, even wrote a list of reasons, probably drafted by Morton, explaining why the letter was genuine. Each, however, was rather weak. First, Sinclair argued that the source’s reliability strengthened the authenticity, even though MI6 did not know the identity of the ultimate source – an agent’s agent. Second, Sinclair pointed to various ‘corroborative proofs’, but these too were unreliable. Third, MI6 noted that the Soviets had frantically arrested two Comintern officials – a circumstantial point at best. Fourth, Sinclair arrogantly avowed that the possibility of MI6 being taken in by White Russian forgers could be ‘entirely excluded’. This was complacent, to say the least. He then falsely asserted that MI6 knew the identity of all hands through which the letter had passed. Again, this was simply not true, since MI6 did not know the original source. Finally, Sinclair argued that the letter’s contents were consistent with other genuine documents – but this proved nothing. Morton had something to hide. He had long prided himself on being able to spot forgeries, and most likely knew all along that the letter was a forgery.33
A leak was probably inevitable, especially once MI5 had circulated the letter widely to senior military personnel. There were also anti-MacDonald factions within MI6, with contacts in the press, who would have been glad to see him fall and who rubbed their hands with glee when the letter arrived in London. Given the overlapping nature of intelligence circles at the time, it is difficult to prove the identity of the culprit.34 There were many suspects, all rather devious. Within MI6, suspicion falls on Desmond Morton and Stewart Menzies, a future chief. In fact, Morton later accused Menzies of posting the letter to the Daily Mail. Joseph Ball of MI5 is another candidate. He later went on to work for the Conservatives and, liaising with his former intelligence colleagues, ran a campaign of dirty tricks against the Labour Party, including infiltration, press manipulation and the tapping of phone lines.35 Others include Reginald ‘Blinker’ Hall, the naval intelligence chief turned politician, who had lost his Conservative seat in Parliament when MacDonald came to power.36
All of these suspects have three things in common: they had served with the intelligence services; they were allied closely with the Conservatives; and they would have firmly believed that they were acting in the national interest by unofficially publicising the letter in an attempt to destabilise MacDonald. Remarkably, by 22 October Conservative Central Office also had a copy of the letter. Whoever leaked it, it certainly found its way ‘to those vested interests who could best make political capital out of it at the government’s expense’.37 Meanwhile, similar people, including ‘Blinker’ Hall, were exploiting the Conservative–intelligence nexus to play similar tricks against the nascent Irish Free State. Stanley Baldwin too was not above suspicion, regarding Ireland at least, given that he became an honorary member of a secretive group of former intelligence officers presided over by Vernon Kell and known as the IB Club. The Zinoviev affair can easily be seen as part of a broader campaign by the establishment to undermine opponents.38
Ramsay MacDonald was away in the final stages of electoral campaigning when the Daily Mail broke the story. Hoarse and audibly tiring, the last thing he wanted so close to a second election was a scandal which threatened to prematurely end the Labour dream. Although sceptical of the letter’s authenticity, he asked the Foreign Office to draft a protest to the Soviet ambassador. It had to be ‘so well-founded and important that it carried conviction and guilt’.39 Unsatisfied by the draft of this response, he substantially rewrote it in a hotel room at Aberavon on 23 October, but ran out of time before having to rush off to another election meeting. He therefore returned the unfinished draft to London without initialling it, indicating that he wanted to see it again before it was sent. Upon hearing that the Daily Mail had a copy of the Zinoviev letter and was about to publish, the Foreign Office sent MacDonald’s unfinished protest off to be printed alongside it. MacDonald was not consulted.40 He was therefore naturally ‘dumbfounded to be asked by a pressman attending one of my meetings that evening if I had authorised publication’. Caught off guard, he ‘felt like a man sewn in a sack and thrown into the sea’.41
MacDonald considered the matter carefully, and concluded that ‘in my absence, the anti-Russian mentality of Sir Eyre Crowe, the senior official at the Foreign Office was uncontrolled. He was apparently hot. He had no intention of being disloyal, indeed quite the opposite, but his own mind destroyed his discretion and blinded him to the obvious care he should have exercised.’42 Although undoubtedly disappointed with Crowe, MacDonald saved the blame for the Daily Mail and the Conservative Party. He ranted in his diary that ‘nothing untoward would have happened had not the Daily Mail and other agencies including Conservative leaders had the letter and were preparing a political bomb from it’.43 Rather naïvely, perhaps, he was ‘genuinely dumbfounded’ that the paper had obtained a copy.44
On 27 October, MacDonald finally gave a public explanation during an election speech in Cardiff. Feeling bruised and suspicious, he vehemently denied that he had delayed the publication of the Zinoviev letter, slammed the ‘Tory propagandists’ who ‘know nothing’, but loyally defended the Foreign Office and Crowe’s decision to publish his protest. He then attacked the press for obtaining a copy of the letter and seeking to ‘spring it upon us’. He implicated the Conservatives for smearing him and, to laughter from the crowd, alluded to ‘another Guy Fawkes – a new Gunpowder plot’.45 The speech failed to deal with the threat posed by the letter. With the election just hours away, the press continued to hound the beleaguered prime minister. The Daily Express and the Daily Mail both saw him at odds with the civil service. The Manchester Guardian joined the chorus, arguing that if the letter was a hoax MacDonald’s department had made an ‘egregious blunder’, but if it was genuine the prime minister could hardly accuse his enemies of fabricating a plot. MacDonald was livid at the ‘scoundrels of the press’, and increasingly saw the whole affair as a personal vendetta.46
The election was held on Wednesday, 29 October. Although MacDonald held his constituency, the Conservatives enjoyed a resounding victory, gaining 155 seats. Electoral experts suggest that the Zinoviev letter was not the cause of the Labour defeat, as the Conservatives, in all likelihood, were going to win regardless. But the following day MacDonald returned to London convinced that the letter was a forgery and a plot was afoot. He now sought proof.47 One of the first things he did was to visit Eyre Crowe. Instead of finding him at the Foreign Office, Crowe was ill in bed, heartbroken at having published the protest letter without approval. On 31 October MacDonald met with his outgoing cabinet. A long and heated discussion developed, with some calling for an inquiry into the role of the intelligence services in the Zinoviev affair. MacDonald resisted the idea, explaining that Crowe and the Foreign Office had not tried to sabotage the Labour Party. Instead, MacDonald appointed a cabinet committee to examine the authenticity of the now notorious letter. But with little firm evidence, no conclusion was possible. And with that MacDonald resigned and departed