To Kill Rasputin: The Life and Death of Grigori Rasputin (Revealing History)

by Cook, Andrew

  My health has been so bad during the last year that from every personal consideration I should welcome the opportunity of giving up my present work. I came out here a year ago as medically unfit to go abroad (with my yeomanry) and during that time I do not suppose that I have been well a single day. If, therefore, it is decided to discontinue my work in Russia, no one will be more delighted than myself.18

  Soon after writing the letter, he was removed and sent on a new posting to Rome. Bearing in mind that he had been ill throughout his stint in Petrograd and that he was no worse in January 1917 than at any other time during his tenure, it seems unlikely that he was removed for purely health reasons. Neither does it seem likely that he was replaced because of any involvement in the Rasputin episode. If anything, he seems throughout to have been blissfully ignorant of what was going on around him. It is certainly possible that at some point in late 1916 London had taken the decision to actively sideline him and wait for an opportune moment to recall him. Equally, if he was considered in any way tainted by association with the events surrounding Rasputin’s death, it seemed highly unlikely that London would opt for Stephen Alley as his successor, who, after all, seemed to have been in the thick of the plot.

  It was, however, Alley that London turned to. Throughout the chaotic days of the Provisional Government, he, John Scale and the rest of his team struggled to do everything they could to help the new government hold on to the reins of power. When they were overthrown by the Bolsheviks, Alley did all he could to liaise with Lenin’s commissars. During the months preceding the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk, he was secretly meeting with those on the Central Committee who would ultimately have to approve the treaty.19 The objective was clearly to bring about a rejection of its terms and a consequent delay in the transfer of German troops to the Western Front. Trotsky, the Commissar for External Affairs, initially opposed ratification, pursuing a policy of ‘neither peace nor war’ in the hope that revolution would shortly erupt in Germany and Austria. Stalin, throughout, was in favour of the treaty. Trotsky eventually decided to back Lenin’s appeal for ratification, so as to avert Germany’s threat to resume its attack on Russia if there was a further delay in accepting the terms of the treaty. Ultimately, on 23 February 1918, the Central Committee of fifteen members gave its assent by seven votes to four, with four abstentions. While the majority were still unwilling to vote in favour of the treaty, Trotsky’s change of mind and the four abstentions enabled its approval.

  It was during the course of his secret meetings with Central Committee members in the weeks leading up to 23 February that Alley recalled:

  One telegram I got was that I had to liquidate Stalin. Seeing that I was negotiating with them at the time, it did not seem to be quite a good idea as it would have meant liquidating myself and him at the same time.

  When I got back to London… I was told that somebody had been put in my job and he happened to be E T Boyce, who had been one of my men in Russia. I believe the reason for my summary dismissal was that I had not killed Stalin, who, history tells, became the leader of the Bolsheviks in Russia. 20

  Apart from the enormity of Alley’s statement concerning Stalin, and the consequent issues it raises in relation to British policy, significant questions about Rasputin’s murder are also revived. While one might conclude, on the balance of the evidence so far considered, that Alley, Rayner and Scale were involved in a rogue operation21 against Rasputin, conducted without London’s knowledge, the Stalin claim raises some significant doubts.

  Admissions made in the House of Commons in October 192022 revealed that Lloyd George’s government was not adverse to authorising the use of murder and ‘direct action’ as policy in quelling the troubles in Ireland. If these tactics could be utilised in Ireland, so close to home, how much greater the possibility that they could be employed further afield in circumstances that raised a far more serious threat to the national interest than the IRA?

  In his book MI6: Fifty Years of Special Operations, intelligence historian Stephen Dorril considers the modus operandi of MI6 in the context of assassination. Although dwelling on the post-war period, Dorril’s analysis is particularly relevant to MI6 methods in the first half of the twentieth century.

  In particular, he identifies ‘a philosophy that is central to such operations and was a particular hallmark of MI6 planning – plausible deniability’, concluding that, ‘the use of third parties lessens the threat of any operation unravelling to reveal the hand of the sponsoring organisation’.23 He also observes that, ‘in times of war, constraints on such operations are not so tight and are more easily justified’.24 The murder of Rasputin and Alley’s order to assassinate Stalin both occurred during the First World War, and in this sense could well be viewed as actions necessary to achieve military objectives.

  Subsequent history provides examples of situations where politicians have sought to sideline senior intelligence officers by dealing directly with those on the ground,25 and indeed circumstances where intelligence officers have sanctioned operations without the knowledge or consent of politicians.26 In light of the wealth of evidence, we know the Secretary of State for War and senior intelligence officers had known about Rasputin and the prospects of a separate peace, and it is difficult to believe that those in possession of such intelligence sat idly by knowing that Britain’s fate rested on Russia remaining in the war. In a scenario where the thin margin between defeat and victory depended upon the thwarting of a separate peace, it is this author’s belief that Rasputin’s murder, effected through a third party, was officially sanctioned, either by Lloyd George, who as Secretary of State for War had political responsibility for the Secret Service, or by senior officers of the Service itself.

  Under either scenario, Sir Samuel Hoare was outside the loop for reasons discussed earlier in this book. It is equally likely that any paper trail leading back to the authoriser of such an action has long since vanished, if indeed such a trail ever existed. As Professor John Lewis Gaddis reminds us, ‘human relations, particularly in and between secret agencies, cannot always be reconstructed from documents’.27 Whether documents exist or not, are closed or available in archives, the fact remains that, ‘conversations occurring in corridors or over the telephone or at cocktail parties can at times shape events more decisively than whole stacks of official memoranda that find their way into the archives’.28

  Precisely what the circumstances were behind Alley’s replacement by Ernest Boyce is not entirely clear. It would seem, however, that he was involved in another critical mission shortly after Brest-Litovsk, which ultimately ended in failure.29 In terms of the evidence currently available, it is not possible to determine the extent to which this may or may not have played a part in his dismissal.

  Despite this unfortunate turn of events, Alley was to continue working in intelligence, in the service of MI5, until the end of the Second World War. He died on 6 April 1969 at the age of ninety-three, with the papers and souvenirs of his long intelligence career safely stored away in a trunk.

  Rayner, too, Kept his mementoes. The bullet from the night of Rasputin’s murder he apparently had set in a ring.30 He was awarded the Order of St Stanislaus in 1917 and remained in Petrograd until March 1918, when he was posted to the Intelligence Mission in Stockholm under John Scale. It was his task, in July of that year, to report the murder of the imperial Russian family to the King and Queen in London.31 He later returned to Russia in 1922 as part of the British Trade Mission. While in Moscow, he married Tatiana Alexeievna Glubokovskia Marek, whom he took back to England. They had three children and eventually divorced in August 1940.32 During the Second World War, Rayner was again involved in intelligence work as a Liaison Officer in Canada. In 1943 he was sent to Spain, a hotbed of German activity, where he remained until the end of the war.

  In 1947 he married his former secretary, Margaret Huntingford. When he was diagnosed with terminal cancer shortly before his death in 1961,33 he burned all the papers connected with his time in
Russia. Thankfully, he seems to have been the exception.

  APPENDIX 1

  SUPREME COURT- NEW YORK

  SERGIUS MICHAILOW TRUFANOFF, being duly sworn deposes and says:

  I reside in the Borough of Bronx, City, County and State of New York.

  The defendant is a domestic corporation and engaged in the publication of a magazine known as the Metropolitan at 432 4th Avenue, Borough of Manhattan, New York City.

  Annexed hereto is the complaint in this action which I herewith make part of this affidavit as if herein fully set forth.

  I arrived in the United States of America on June 18th, 1916. On or about the 19th day of June, 1916 I called at the office of the Metropolitan magazine and met Mr. H.J. Wigham, whom I am informed, is the President of the defendant. At this conversation was present Mr. Herman Bernstein, myself, Mr. Tobenkin and a Stenographer. Tobenkin is a well known writer who is employed by the Metropolitan Magazine. I do not speak English. The conversation between me and Mr Wigham was interpreted by Bernstein. I was then told in the presence of Mr. Wigham by Mr. Bernstein in Russia that I was to give interviews to Mr. Tobenkin regularly and the information which I was to furnish him would be written into five articles or stories. These articles would be published once a month commencing with the issue of October, 1916.

  While no definite amount was mentioned in this conversation, I received on May 13, 1916 a telegram from Mr Bernstein who was the go-between the defendant and myself as follows:

  Communicated arrangement for manuscript, $5000. Entire sum will be paid before August 1st in several instalments; sending money now. Please send immediately rzsevsky chapter, also originals of letters or photographs. Copies in Bergen cable reply

  BERNSTEIN

  1781 Clay Avenue

  I understood at this conversation that $5000 was to be paid to me by August 1st, 1916. From time to time I talked with Mr. Tobenkin in accordance with this agreement and gave him the data and material out of which he was to write the English story for the defendant. I did not keep dates of my conversations with him. These interviews were taken away by Mr. Tobenkin and were given by me about two or three times a week. This work started some time in June 1916 and continued right up to the latter part of September 1916. These interviews or stories of what I said are still in the possession of the defendant.

  In the early part of September, I believe it was around the 9th, the Archbishop Evdokin and one Michael Oustinoff called to see me at my residence in the Borough of Bronx. My wife who was then looking out of the window told me that they were there and I went down to meet them. They took me into an automobile and we drove through Bronx Park. They told me that they had read in the Metropolitan that I was going to write some articles on Rasputin and the Czarina of Russia. They begged me not to publish the articles. They said it would hurt Russia very much and they offered to give me $25,000 and a full pardon so that I could return to Russia if I did not publish them. They also told me that if I refuse the offer the articles would not be published in the Metropolitan Magazine as the owner of the Company was their best friend. They also stated that they had enough influence with the magazine that the slightest wish regarding publication would be respected. They further stated that the only reason for their trying to buy the article was to prevent my publishing same in some other paper or magazine. I told them that I would refrain from publishing this article; that I believed it was necessary for the good of Russia and that the destruction of the influence of Rasputin would not be an injury to Russia but the best help in the world to that Country. I have been in prison for eleven months in Russia for my patriotism and my desire to save Russia. They continued to insist that I should not publish this article and solely for the purpose of seeing to what extent they would go and to learn whether or not they had any official authority, I pretended to take up these negotiations. I told them that I had already given the articles to the Metropolitan Magazine and even if I would agree not to publish it, the defendants might publish it themselves, and they told me that they would arrange with the magazine to get these articles back. I asked them if they would consent to the return of the articles and would also consent to the cancellation of my agreements with them, and if they would pay $25,000 within three days.

  An affirmative answer would have shown me they were acting without communicating with Rasputin. They asked time to communicate with Petrograd in order to arrange for my pardon and for the money and I granted time so that I might definitely learn if said Rasputin was carrying on these negotiations and what he would try to do.

  On or about the 14th day of September, 1916 they again called at my house. They told me that they had arranged a pardon for me and they had the money in their possessions. They asked me to call at the Consul’s office for the money on the following day. Next day I called at the office of the Russian Consul, 22 Washington Square. I saw the Consul-General Oustinoff and the Consul Rutsky. I spoke to both of them. The Consul-General then told me that he had arranged with the Metropolitan that they were not to publish the articles, but nevertheless he said he ordered the Consul to pay me $1000 and he gave me the $1000 and I signed a receipt in Russian for the same. This receipt I left with the Consul-General. In this conversation I was given to understand that they would send word to Petrograd that they had arranged to stop the publication and would pay me the balance of the money as soon as they had heard from Petrograd. They also gave me to understand that they had made this arrangement with the consent of the defendant herein and that they would obtain from the magazine the articles that were written by Tobenkin and the written interviews, which I gave them. At that time I began to believe that said Rasputin was in charge of this matter and I was extremely desirous of having a tender of monies made thereunder.

  On the 19th I received a telephone message from consul Rutsky and he said to me that he was sorry to say that they were all through with this subject and would drop the whole matter. The Consul-General also talked to me at the same time asking me to call at the office for a friendly call. I went there on the 20th and he told me that they received word from Petrograd that I was not to receive the money. The Consul-General told me that he had talked to a Mr Whitney, the largest stockholder of the defendant and had induced him to agree not to publish the articles, and he asked me what I was going to do and I told him that I did not know. He then advised me to be very careful as to what I was doing as it may keep me away from Russia for the rest of my life.

  The day before, the 19th, Mr Wigham telephoned and asked me to call. I went to see him and he told me that the articles would possibly never be published, but might be published after the war or within one year; he would give no definite date. He said he was very sorry for me but he would pay an additional $2,000. Up to this time I had received $2,000 from the defendant. This money I refused.

  Subsequently I again saw Mr. Wigham and he repeated that he would not publish them at all.

  During all my conversations with the defendant it was agreed that the article was to be published commencing October, 1916 and be continued thereafter and there would be five articles at $5,000. The money was to be paid me on August 1st. I only received $2,000.

  It seems now and with the connivance of the Russian government, the Metropolitan Magazine refused to publish these articles and is willing to pay me in order to suppress them. I would never agree to suppress my articles. My intention was to publish them and my agreement with the defendant was for the publication of the articles and not for their suppression. My object in coming to this Country and giving this information to the Metropolitan Magazine was to have published in a neutral country this information of such great interest to Russia and my people. I have suffered imprisonment in my opposition to Rasputin, and would not permit this defendant or anybody else to silence my voice in this matter. The money I received is only small compensation for my expenses and the money is the least of my objects in this matter. The suppression of this article by this magazine, the copyrighting of the subject matte
r in part at least, prevent other magazines from publishing it and thereby the exposure which I desire to have it made is completely suppressed.

  The defendant claims that they are the owners of the said articles written from the data which I gave them, and they consider it their property to do with what they please, and that they publish what they please concerning the same and that they will enjoin me from publishing the same, and will interfere with any other publication of this matter.

  That in the November issue, the defendant published on the cover my picture or a picture, which was supposed to be of myself, but the article itself did not appear.

  Since that time the defendant has repeatedly attempted to have me accept the $2000 but I refused to do so.

  The defendant has committed a breach of its contract in that it failed to pay the money by August 1st, 1916 and has failed to carry out its agreement to publish the said articles and in violation thereof has intended and does intend to suppress the same.

  I intend to use the material which I gave to them and the other material which I gave to them and the other material which I have concerning the Russian Emperor, the Czarina and the Russian Court in my own way and I desire an injunction order restraining the defendant from publishing or using the said manuscripts or any information which I gave them or from making the same public or from showing the same to any person, persons or corporation whatsoever until the trial of this action, and from interfering with my publication through other channels.