Adventures of a British Master Spy

by Sidney Reilly

  Such were the conclusions to which I came on that night, and with a few modifications I adhere to them now. Sidney confirmed my view of the course of the discussion. His attitude had been throughout ‘have nothing to do with it. It is a provocation.’ Savinkoff was in doubt, although he trusted Pavlovsky absolutely. Mme Dehrental however had come out whole-heartedly on the side of the messengers, and had declared her willingness to return to Russia without more ado. Remembering that she had seen the provocateur, Andrea Pavlovitch, daily for more than a week while Savinkoff was away in Italy, I was not surprised. I gave it as my opinion that the woman had been bought by the Bolsheviks.

  Sidney agreed with my conclusions, but in view of the relations between Savinkoff and Mme Dehrental he could not communicate his suspicions to the Russian leader. Mme Dehrental however, with the sharp intuitiveness of her sex, realised at once who her enemies were.

  Night after night we met and continued the discussion. Sometimes Pavlovsky’s messengers were present, sometimes not. By no means could we get them apart.

  One discussion was very much like another. Sidney was obdurate, Savinkoff dubious. Dehrental became more and more worried, his wife more and more voluble. I could almost see the cold perspiration standing out on the forehead of Pavlovsky’s aide, as with trembling lips he tried to be persuasive. And all the time Andrea Pavlovitch was watching him with grim sardonic eyes, as a cat watches a mouse, and ready to pounce if he said one word wrong. Andrea Pavlovitch left all the talking on their side to be done by his companion. When appealed to himself, he would shrug his shoulders or grunt out two or three words at most.

  One day Mme Dehrental rang up Sidney, instructing him from Savinkoff not to meet him that day, as he was being closely watched and there might be danger. Sidney calmly disregarded the instructions and we appeared as usual. Never shall I forget the twinkling malice in Mme Dehrental’s eyes when she saw us. Somehow or other she and Andrea Pavlovitch wished to get us out of the way, while Savinkoff was being persuaded.

  It took Savinkoff about three weeks to make up his mind. At the end of that time he was resolved to return to Russia with the Dehrentals and the two messengers. Dehrental himself continued to look very worried. He obviously did not like the look of the thing at all. So convinced was I that the whole thing was a trap that I begged Dehrental to arrange for Savinkoff to have a small accident, which would prevent his going. It was not to be. On 10 August, after a final long conference with my husband, Savinkoff equipped with an Italian passport and accompanied by the Dehrentals and the two messengers, left for Russia by way of Berlin.

  The utmost precautions were taken to ensure that his identity should not be disclosed, or his safety endangered. He was to send a message to Sidney as soon as he could with safety. In those terrible times in Russia that might mean weeks. The days passed and no message arrived. How great the suspense was I need not say. The strain for Sidney was colossal. But no news was so far good news, that if he had really been lured into a trap and captured by the Bolsheviks we should have heard of it by now. As a matter of fact, when the first news arrived our suspicions with regard to the whole business had almost sunk to sleep, and Sidney’s chief anxiety was lest Savinkoff might be discovered by an accident.

  The first news we had came as a terrible shock. It was an announcement in the official Bolshevik journal, the Isvestia, for 29 August that Savinkoff had been arrested in Russia. But what was that to the news which rapidly followed: first that he had been condemned to death: then that the sentence had been commuted to ten years’ imprisonment: then that he was completely acquitted: finally that he was a free man again. The natural conclusion at which the anti-Bolshevik press arrived was that Savinkoff’s reconciliation with the Bolsheviks had taken place before ever he left Paris.

  On this Sidney wrote a letter, which was published in the Morning Post of 8 September 1924. I quote it in full because it shows the extent of his loyalty to Savinkoff, because it is a revelation of the Tcheka methods from one man in all the world who was most qualified to discuss them, and finally because the fate which he supposed to have befallen Savinkoff affords a remarkable analogy to his own mysterious doom twelve months later.

  Sir,

  My attention has been drawn to the article, ‘Savinkoff’s Nominal Sentence’, published in the Morning Post of 1 September. Your informant, without adducing any proofs whatsoever and basing himself merely on rumours, makes the suggestion that Savinkoff’s trial was a ‘stunt’ arranged between him and the Kremlin clique, and that Savinkoff has already for some time contemplated a reconciliation with the Bolsheviks.

  No more ghastly accusation could be so carelessly hurled against a man whose whole life has been spent fighting tyranny of whatsoever denomination, Tsarist or Bolshevist, and whose name all over the world has stood for ‘No Surrender’ to the sinister powers of the Third International.

  I claim the great privilege of being one of his most intimate friends and devoted followers, and on me devolves the sacred duty of vindicating his honour. Contrary to the affirmation of your correspondent, I was one of the very few who knew of his intention to penetrate into Soviet Russia. On receipt of a cable from him, I hurried back, at the beginning of July, from New York, where I was assisting my friend, Sir Paul Dukes, to translate and to prepare for publication Savinkoff’s latest book The Black Horse. Every page of it is illumined by Savinkoff’s transcendent love for his country and by his undying hatred of the Bolshevist tyrants. Since my arrival here on 19 July, I have spent every day with Savinkoff up to 10 August, the day of his departure for the Russian frontier. I have been in his fullest confidence, and all his plans have been elaborated conjointly with me. His last hours in Paris were spent with me.

  Nineteen days later came the news of his arrest, then in quick, almost hourly, succession, of his trial, his condemnation to death, the commutation of the death sentence to ten years’ imprisonment, his complete acquittal, and finally his liberation.

  Where are the proofs of all this phantasmagoria? What is the source of this colossal libel? The Bolshevist News Agency ‘Rosta’!

  It is not surprising that the statements of the ‘Rosta’, this incubator of the vilest Bolshevist canards, should be swallowed without demur, and even with joy, by the communist press, but that the anti-communist press should accept those palpable forgeries for good currency is beyond comprehension.

  I am not yet in a position to offer you definite proofs of this Bolshevist machination to discredit Savinkoff’s good name; but permit me to call your attention to the following most significant facts:

  The ‘Rosta’ states that Savinkoff was tried behind closed doors. We must assume that no correspondents of non-communist European or American papers were present, otherwise the world would have already had their account of the proceedings.

  The official Bolshevist journal, the Isvestia, up to 28 August, does not mention a single word about Savinkoff. Is it likely that having on 20 August achieved such a triumph as the capture of their ‘greatest enemy’ the Bolsheviks would pass it over in silence during an entire week?

  What do all the so-called ‘sincere confessions and recantations’ consist of? Of old political tittle-tattle which has been known for years to every European Chancery and also to the Bolsheviks, and has now been rehashed for purposes of defamation and propaganda. Not a single new and really confidential fact as regards Savinkoff’s activities or relations with Allied statesmen during the last two years has come to light.

  No confederates are either mentioned or implicated in the trial with Savinkoff. What are the inferences to be drawn from all the above facts?

  Savinkoff was killed when attempting to cross the Russian frontier, and a mock trial, with one of their own agents as chief actor, was staged by the Tcheka in Moscow behind closed doors.

  Need one mention the trials of the Socialist Revolutionaries, of the Patriarch, of the Kieff professors, in order to remind the public of what unspeakable villainies the Bolsheviks are capab
le? For the moment they have succeeded in throwing a shadow on the great name of their admittedly most active and most implacable enemy. But truth will penetrate even the murky darkness of this latest Tcheka conspiracy, and will shine forth before the world. Then it will be seen that of all men who in our time have combated the Moscow tyrants, none had a greater right to Victor Hugo’s proud assertion: S’il ne reste qu’un – je le suis!

  Sir, I appeal to you, whose organ has always been the professed champion of anti-Bolshevism and anti-communism, to help me vindicate the name and honour of Boris Savinkoff.

  Yours, etc.,

  Sidney Reilly

  At the same time he wrote to Mr Churchill to the following effect:

  Dear Mr Churchill,

  The disaster which has overtaken Boris Savinkoff has undoubtedly produced the most painful impression upon you. Neither I nor any of his intimate friends and co-workers have so far been able to obtain any reliable news about his fate. Our conviction is that he has fallen a victim to the vilest and most daring intrigue the Tcheka has ever attempted. Our opinion is expressed in the letter which I am today sending to the Morning Post. Knowing your invariably kind interest I take the liberty of enclosing a copy for your information.

  I am, dear Mr Churchill,

  Yours very faithfully,

  Sidney Reilly

  3 September 1924.

  To this Mr Churchill replied as follows:

  Chartwell Manor,

  Westerham, Kent.

  5 September 1924.

  Dear Mr Reilly,

  I was deeply grieved to read the news about Savinkoff. I do not, however, think that the explanation in your letter to the Morning Post is borne out by the facts. The Morning Post today gives a fuller account of the procès verbal, and I clearly recognise the points we discussed at Chequers about free Soviet elections, etc. You do not say in your letter what was the reason and purpose with which he entered Soviet Russia. If it is true that he has been pardoned and liberated I should be very glad. I am sure that any influence he could acquire among those men would be powerfully exerted towards bringing about a better state of affairs. In fact their treatment of him, if it is true, seems to me to be the first decent and sensible thing I have ever heard about them.

  I shall be glad to hear anything further you may know on the subject, as I always thought Savinkoff was a great man and a great Russian patriot, in spite of the terrible methods with which he has been associated. However it is very difficult to judge the politics in any other country.

  Yours very truly,

  Winston S. Churchill

  Very soon there could be no doubt that the accounts which had appeared in the Isvestia were true in substance. Savinkoff had betrayed his friends, his organisation, his cause, his country, and had sold himself body and soul to the enemy. The news was a terrible shock to Sidney, to whom Savinkoff had always been an object almost of hero-worship.

  It was with a heavy heart that Sidney once again took up his pen and wrote to the Morning Post a retraction of his former letter.

  Sir,

  I once more take the liberty of claiming your indulgence and your space. This time for a twofold purpose, first of all to express my deep appreciation of your fairness in inserting (in your issue of the 8th) my letter in defence of Boris Savinkoff when all the information at your disposal tended to show that I am in error; secondly, to perform a duty, in this case a most painful duty, and to acknowledge the error into which my loyalty to Savinkoff has induced me.

  The detailed and in many instances stenographic press reports of Savinkoff’s trial, supported by the testimony of reliable and impartial eye witnesses, have established Savinkoff’s treachery beyond all possibility of doubt. He has not only betrayed his friends, his organisation, and his cause, but he has also deliberately and completely gone over to his former enemies. He has connived with his captors to deal the heaviest possible blow at the anti-Bolshevik movement, and to provide them with an outstanding political triumph both for internal and external use. By his act Savinkoff has erased for ever his name from the scroll of honour of the anti-communist movement.

  His former friends and followers grieve over his terrible and inglorious downfall, but those among them who under no circumstances will practise with the enemies of mankind are undismayed. The moral suicide of their former leader is for them an added incentive to close their ranks and to ‘carry on’.

  Yours etc.,

  Sidney Reilly

  This brought a second letter from Mr Churchill.

  Chartwell Manor,

  Westerham, Kent.

  15 September 1924.

  Dear Mr Reilly,

  I am very interested in your letter. The event has turned out as I myself expected at the very first. I do not think you should judge Savinkoff too harshly. He was placed in a terrible position; and only those who have sustained successfully such an ordeal have a full right to pronounce censure. At any rate I shall wait to hear the end of the story before changing my view about Savinkoff.

  Yours very truly,

  W. S. Churchill

  Savinkoff wrote my husband long letters from prison, explaining his action, excusing himself and defending the Bolsheviks. But my husband never answered them. The treachery of his old friend was as big a blow as he could stand.

  We sailed for New York in the Nieuw Amsterdam. The Bolsheviks had won the first round.

  CHAPTER TEN

  THE INTEREST OF the Bolsheviks did not wane when we left Europe. I noticed that one of the stewards was watching us very closely, so closely that he attracted my attention. He was a tall, shaven man, whom I would not have recognised but for his ear, which was disfigured in a peculiar manner. It was Drebkoff.

  Sidney was carrying important papers with him and he was practically certain that some attempt would be made by the Bolsheviks to get them. During his stay in Europe he had been implicated in a very important political transaction, the details of which I am not at liberty to divulge. But the result was that a great deal of importance attached in Bolshevik eyes to his attaché case.

  I got into conversation with Drebkoff but he carried out his part with the most amazing impudence. He all but admitted his identity. He was a Russian working his way to America. He knew all about Sidney and had seen him often in Petrograd. He gave his name as Constantine.

  ‘He is a little too obvious,’ was Sidney’s comment. ‘Our real watcher is probably somebody quite different.’

  In the lounge Sidney met another Russian acquaintance. (These Russians seem to be everywhere, I thought despairingly.) This was a small man with an artificial limb, having left one leg on the battlefields of his country. He was now resident in America and was a worker and lecturer in the anti-Bolshevik cause.

  ‘Would you know that man again if you saw him?’ Sidney asked me one day.

  ‘Yes, I think so. Why?’

  ‘That is the real agent. The steward is only a blind.’

  ‘But why do those men come to America?’ I asked him. ‘Is it merely to follow you?’

  ‘Not entirely,’ said Sidney with a laugh. ‘The Soviet is trying to raise a loan in America. Apart from their official representatives they are employing a large number of secret agents. When this man lands he will blossom out as a convert to Bolshevism. He is quite well-known in America for his anti-Bolshevik work, and his conversion is bound to have some influence.’

  This example of duplicity, following so closely on the Savinkoff affair, astounded me, and I found it very hard to believe. But Sidney was right. There were constant comings and goings between the two camps, and it was difficult at any given time to say who were your friends and who were your enemies. With a few significant exceptions there seemed to be no such thing as gratitude among the Russians.

  The weather was fine and the ship comfortable, but all the same it was a great relief to me when the journey was over, and I was as glad to see the Statue of Liberty coming nearer and nearer as a few months afterwards I was to see t
he last of it.

  A reception committee greeted us when we landed. The colony of Russian refugees in New York is not a small one, and it was well represented in the group of people who welcomed us. Among them was Marie Schovalovsky. She was now living in New York. So great was her fear of Bolshevik retribution that she had changed her name. How she had managed to settle in America without her name having been on the immigration quota list I do not know. The Russian refugees had influential friends in America, and no doubt influence had been brought to bear.

  Even in New York Mme Schovalovsky was in mortal terror of the retribution of the Tcheka. She refused categorically to take part in any anti-Bolshevik work. She lived in obscurity and gave no one her address. She had not only changed her name but her appearance too as far as she could.

  She was able to identify the scar-faced man at once from my description. She did not know his name, but knew him as an agent of the Tcheka. The news that he had crossed the Atlantic filled her with dire alarm. She was sure that he had come to ‘liquidate’ her, as the cant Bolshevik term has it. Sidney’s opinion, however, was that the scar-faced man had crossed to New York on espionage work in connection with the loan which the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was endeavouring to float in the United States.

  The Russians in New York are of the better class, and for the most part are financially independent. The artisans of that race are almost without exception emigrants from pre-war Russia. Some of them are infected with Bolshevism. The refugees, being comfortable from the material point of view, are content to let well alone, and take no part in Russian politics. Even so strenuous attempts have been made to disseminate Bolshevik doctrine in the States, and the international revolutionary Lodge has a powerful branch there. Many Americans take an impartial interest in Bolshevism. Moreover there are, of course, in America many shrewd business men, who are not much concerned with principles or politics as long as they can see a good return for their money. There was an excellent chance of a good return from a country of the vast undeveloped resources of Russia. In short the prospects were bright of the Soviet being able to float its loan. Sidney was determined that it should not. A great part of his work in America was to be aimed at frustrating that loan.