Upload
ben-belden
View
116
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The FBI’s Missed Opportunity
Sebold, Duquesne, and Nazi Espionage in America
Benjamin P. Belden
4/23/2013
HTS 4081
Dr. Kristie Macrakis
Georgia Institute of Technology
School of History, Technology & Society
Belden 1
On December 12, 1941, a Brooklyn jury found fourteen Nazi spies guilty of espionage
and failure to register as agents of a foreign country. The FBI had arrested these agents in June
of 1941, along with nineteen others who eventually pled guilty to the same charges.1 This was
considered by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover to be one of the greatest victories for the FBI in
foreign espionage up to this time; accordingly, the arrests, trial, and conviction were widely
publicized in order to increase American awareness of and appreciation for the Bureau.2 Upon
further investigation, however, it is clear that this victory was not nearly as important as Hoover
or anybody else claimed specifically because the most significant transmissions between this
group of spies and their masters in Germany occurred before the FBI investigation began, the
FBI did not work as diligently as they proclaimed they had in investigating the individuals
involved, and the FBI could have used this ring much more effectively in the realm of
counterespionage than it did. This becomes especially clear when examining this case alongside
successful double agent cases in the British Double Cross System. As it happened though, the
FBI chose to forego the potential strategic benefits a double agent could have provided in order
to publicize their successful investigation and prosecution of the case. In comparing the Double
Cross Committee and the FBI during World War II, it is quite obvious that a fundamental
difference in motivation and mindset resulted in the very different strategies the two agencies
employed in their espionage and counterespionage systems.
When investigating this case further, one must first understand both how the case came to
the FBI and the information the Bureau shared with the American public during its prosecution
of the 33 individuals involved. In published accounts3 of the Duquesne Ring,4 one William
Sebold arrived on a ship in New York Harbor from Europe on February 11, 1940 having
previously agreed to work with the FBI for espionage activities. Sebold had been born in
Belden 2
Mulheim an der Ruhr in western Germany but had been living in America for more than 10 years
and was now a naturalized citizen. He had gone back to Germany to visit his family in 1939 but
was confronted by the Gestapo who coerced him into practicing espionage in America for the
Abwehr via threats against himself and his family. During the course of his training in Germany
for this mission in America, he visited the American consulate in Cologne and informed that
office of his situation and his desire to work with American authorities to foil the Abwehr’s plan.
Accordingly, when Sebold re-entered America in February 1940, he immediately
encountered his case officer who began setting him up with a cover story, an office in New York
City, and a radio station on Long Island for communication with Germany as he was instructed
to do by the Abwehr. Over the next 16 months, he allowed his contacts to introduce him to new
spies, eventually expanding the ring to 33 members. He interacted with these agents in his office
and at other arranged rendezvous points. The FBI set up microphones, cameras, and one-way
glass in his office in order to capture every second of action there; additionally FBI agents were
assigned to follow and document the activities and meetings of each individual identified as
being possibly involved in this ring. When Sebold gathered information5 from one of the spies,
he would hand it over to the FBI agents, who would analyze it, remove important material, and
sometimes insert misleading information.6 The altered message would then be relayed to
Germany. Other than Sebold, the FBI focused heavily on 3 subjects: Frederick “Fritz” Joubert
Duquesne, Herman Lang, and Everett Minster Roeder.7 Obviously, this situation gave the FBI
an excellent opportunity to not only capture all the spies involved, but also to feed the Abwehr
misinformation that might potentially cause Germany to make a crucial military error. The
proceeding paper details how the FBI, while apprehending all the spies involved, missed a
Belden 3
greater chance at counterespionage, a chance that their counterparts in Britain, given similar
situations, did not squander.
The prosecutions of the individuals involved in this case were extremely public events;
newspapers reported on the proceedings, and the FBI was eager to discuss the case with the
media. In particular, the FBI was able to focus media attention on Fritz Duquesne, emphasizing
that he was the “leader” of this ring. They also made sure that they communicated Duquesne’s
history to media outlets for dissemination to the general public. It is because of this publicity
that Fritz Duquesne – codename JIMMY DUNN – has come to be the most memorable of these
spies, and many scholars refer to this network of spies as the “Duquesne Ring.” Much of this is
the doing of the FBI and the way they chose to publicize this case from the moment it broke.
Duquesne was the only professional spy involved in this ring, and he was already well-known to
the Germans before World War II. Born in South Africa, Duquesne had a deep-seeded hate for
the British which stemmed from the second British Boer War. During this conflict, the British
claimed all of his family’s land, destroyed it, and killed his sister. After this, he made it his life’s
mission to avenge these injustices. He began by working against the British as a spy for the
Boers during this war. He continued his anti-British activity during World War I, during which
he participated in espionage for Germany against Britain. These are his documented activities,
but there is no shortage of rumors regarding Duquesne’s actions outside of these.8 Because of
his reputation, the FBI chose to focus on Duquesne as the leader and most important figure.
Upon further reading, however, it is clear that there is much more to this case than the
simple facts that the FBI presented to the American population at the time. In fact, this case
began far before Sebold or the FBI became involved with it. Abwehr chief Wilhelm Canaris
knew of possible intelligence in America regarding top-secret bombsight technology, and in
Belden 4
1937, he recruited Nikolaus Ritter “‘to expand [Germany’s] coverage of the United States
stemm[ing] from a request of the Luftwaffe to procure for them the design of the Norden
bombsight.’”9 In fact, this technology was so important and potentially damaging should a
United States enemy gain access to it that “secret services had their eyes on it, even as early as
1921.”10 Lang and Roeder were privy to the ultra-secret Norden Bombsight and Sperry
Gyroscope, respectively because of their jobs within those companies. Both of these innovations
were similar technologies being produced by separate companies and essentially allowed a
bombardier to be much more accurate with the timing of the release of his bombs over a target.
Even before the Norden was used heavily in World War II, scientists knew it would
revolutionize bomber operations.11 It is for this reason that Lang and Roeder became targets for
Canaris and Ritter.
Much to chagrin of Canaris, Ritter ardently desired to make the journey to America to
personally speak with Lang, Roeder, Duquesne, and several other contacts. Canaris believed this
mission was dangerous and potentially compromising to Ritter and the whole operation, but
Ritter was able to convince Canaris that he was the best man for the job, drawing on his
extensive past experience in America.12 Finally, Ritter was able to make his trip to America in
October and November of 1937 (15 months before Sebold’s arrival), was able to meet with
Lang, Roeder, and Duquesne, and receive commitments from each on their willingness to work
with Germany. Most importantly though, Ritter was able to procure two different drawings of
the Norden bombsight from Lang. Although there was originally some doubt in Germany as to
whether or not they were usable sketches of the bombsight, German scientists were eventually
able to make working models of an “improved” version of the Norden bombsight, for which the
Lang drawings were vital. As one German agent told Lang of the models when Lang saw them
Belden 5
on a trip to Germany, they “‘would not be on that table without your valuable contribution, Herr
Lang.’”13 The date and significance of this security breach is extremely important in discussing
the convictions of 1941 and the FBI’s work in investigating the spy ring in question.
Although Roeder was able to transmit information about the Sperry gyroscope, a
technology comparable in potential value to the Norden bombsight, the Abwehr appeared to
value the Norden more, and thus Lang became a more important figure than Roeder over time in
this case. Even in its own write-up of the Lang case, the FBI admits that it began its
investigation of Lang far after the bombsight was in the hands of the Abwehr: “Germany had the
American bombsight and had had it for about two years,” while Lang “became a subject in this
case as a result of the fact that his name…was given to William Sebold in Hamburg, Germany
about February 26, 1940.”14 Based on this date, it is clear, once again, that Lang transmitted his
information and drawings of the bombsight more than two years before the FBI had even heard
his name.
Lang was unlike all the other spies in this network. He did not accept money, even when
Ritter offered him $1500 for his services – the highest amount offered to any Nazi espionage
agent in America. As Ritter later said “‘it was the first time that I had encountered a spy who
was stealing secrets purely for ideological reasons and not monetary gain.’”15 Unlike Duquesne,
he was not flashy or outspoken. Ritter found that Lang “was a simple man who had no real
aspirations except to provide for his wife and daughter.”16 Additionally, he had an atypical
method of operation, one that did not draw attention to himself or his work at all: because of his
specific job within the Norden plant, Lang had access to the drawings of the bombsight, “and
each night would take some home with him. An expert draftsman, he would lay them out on his
kitchen table and painstakingly copy them, making full-scale duplicates.”17 Most significantly,
Belden 6
he had undertaken this mission on his own. He was not recruited and ordered to steal the Norden
designs, but was galvanized to obtain this vital information by his love of his homeland even
after having lived in America for 13 years.18
Once again, it is extremely significant that this important trip by Ritter to America
occurred in 1937. He was able to procure the Norden bombsight technology from Lang and
confirm the cooperation of Duquesne, Roeder, and a few other spies in America. Again, Sebold
travelled to Germany in 1939. It was during this trip that he was approached by Abwehr, and he
contacted the consulate in Cologne to begin cooperation with the FBI. He then returned to
America on February 11, 1940, and activity with other spies and with the FBI proceeded as
detailed above. It is important to understand this timeline in order to accurately assign value to
the spies in the ring and the information they gathered.
Given the publicity of the trials of the spies in this network and the proclaimed
significance of the investigations at the time, it is beneficial to look back and investigate how
much each spy actually contributed to German espionage. The most logical place to begin this
investigation is with the network’s “leader,” Fritz Duquesne. During the time period germane to
this study, the Abwehr relied on Duquesne for information on the production of American war
industry and the shipment of these war products to Britain via the Lend-Lease policy established
prior to America’s involvement in World War II.19 Generally, the Abwehr was pleased with
Duquesne’s ability as a spy and “was delighted with the information sent by Fritz, and surprised
that the old spy…was coming through again for the Vaterland.”20 Apparently though, Duquesne
had learned from his years of experience in espionage that a sense of neuroticism was important,
as he was always looking over his shoulder for somebody tailing him.
Belden 7
Despite the Abwehr’s general pleasure with Duquesne’s work, his nervousness was
evident in his relationship with both with the agency and fellow German spies. It is for this
reason that Duquesne generally did not associate with many of the other spies in the ring. For
example, when orienting Sebold to the espionage business in New York, he told him “to stay
away from Germans, as every German in America was a squealer, and to be very cautious and to
burn everything.”21 With regards to his attitude toward the Abwehr, it is obvious that Duquesne
had his moments of feeling unappreciated for all of his work. For instance, when another agent
delivered money from the Abwehr for Duquesne on which he had been waiting, Duquesne
sarcastically said “‘so Jimmy is becoming useful to them [Abwehr] again is he?’”22 One of
Duquesne’s main forms of espionage was to monitor ships leaving New York Harbor and to
relay this information to Sebold, who would send it to Germany, but he was becoming frustrated
with the Abwehr’s lack of response when the FBI reported that “he stated that the people in
Germany are pretty dumb or else they do not understand what he is wiring about.”23
Besides his neuroticism and frustration with the Abwehr, there were other peculiarities
about the transmissions between Fritz Duquesne and the Abwehr – executed by Sebold and the
FBI of course – that were unique from the transmissions involving other agents in the “Duquesne
Ring.” Firstly, Duquesne was only agent who used secret writing extensively. For example, he
was using a type of wax on envelopes mailed to the Abwehr until the Abwehr sent a message to
Sebold on June 28, 1940 stating “Dunn should not use the wax system.”24 This indicates that the
wax system was not working or was compromised in some way. Another message to Sebold,
this one on August 26 of the same year reads in part “Don’t let Dunn make you nervous.”25 In
the FBI file, there is no indication as to what might have prompted this warning, but it seems out
of order with the rest of the information transmitted. Duquesne also talked of sabotage more than
Belden 8
any other agent in the ring.26 Had he been able to follow through on some of his thoughts and
plans, the results might have been disastrous.
Curiously, in November of 1940, Sebold received a radio message from the Abwehr
telling him to “ask Jimmy about coming to Germany for business in Africa.”27 If Duquesne was
really as reliable and important as Ronnie asserts, why would the Abwehr want to pull him from
America and move him to a different assignment? If he was so vital in America, it seems logical
that the Abwehr would have found somebody else to take the African assignment. Finally, and
probably most telling of the FBI’s lack of knowledge of foreign espionage, Duquesne was
actually transmitting information to Germany before Sebold arrived in America.28 Once Sebold
arrived, he took over Duquesne’s transmission duties. All of these circumstances lead to the
conclusion that although Duquesne sometimes transmitted solid information to the Abwehr,
especially in the beginning of his activities, he was really not a very reliable agent, and this lack
of stability, and even recklessness in his espionage planning, may have led to the Abwehr’s
desire to move him to a new assignment. It should have also led to an FBI investigat ion of
Duquesne before Sebold brought him to its attention. How could this notorious career spy be
operating in the United States without anybody noticing? Would the FBI ever have apprehended
him had it not been for Sebold delivering him to the Bureau? These questions are obviously
impossible to answer, but they do reveal some shortcomings of the FBI that it did well to cover
up in the media coverage after the trial.
Similar questions arise in an investigation of Herman Lang (codename PAUL) and
Everett Roeder (codename CARR). As was the case with William Sebold, Lang and Roeder
were Ritter recruits, as Ritter first met these men in America in the autumn of 1937. As
mentioned above, Lang was a very discreet spy. Because of this, it is somewhat understandable
Belden 9
that he did not register as an espionage agent to the FBI before Sebold revealed his story. His
goal was to keep a low profile, and he certainly succeeded in that. What is less understandable,
however, is how Norden information could have been allowed to escape this country, regardless
of who carried it out or how it left. If, as Farago states, the secret services had been watching the
Norden sight since 1921, it is inexplicable that information that was supposed to be such a
priority was transmitted directly to the Abwehr by one of Norden’s own employees. Certainly,
the FBI may not have been directly involved with this case in 1921, but on September 6, 1939,
President Franklin Roosevelt ordered that the responsibility for all espionage-related
investigation be transferred to the FBI.29 Obviously, the FBI was not monitoring the Norden
information as closely as they claimed to be during this time. If they were, the nightly
disappearance of important drawings would have been noticed and investigated.
In media coverage of the case, the FBI was successful in making the conviction of Lang
appear definitive and an end result that far outweighed the damage Lang had done by
transmitting the bombsight information to Germany. 30 Although many news articles on the case
mention the secret nature of the Norden, none of them discuss the potential danger of this
material in enemy hands.31 Although the FBI could not deny the fact that the Norden had been
compromised, it was able to minimize its significance. Also during the trial, attorneys accused
Lang of selling the secrets of the bombsight himself to Germany in his 1938 trip to the country.
Based on all credible accounts, including the FBI documents themselves, this did not happen at
all. In reality, Lang gave the drawings to Ritter who took them back to Germany himself. It is
clear by studying media reports of this case that the FBI tried to maximize the role of Lang and
minimize that of Ritter because Ritter had not been captured. The same is true for Fritz
Duquesne. Had the FBI allowed for the true role of Nikolaus Ritter to be publicly known, it
Belden 10
would seem as if the work on the case was not done, and the convictions would not have been as
conclusive as the FBI would have liked.
Although Duquesne was the most unique and experienced agent in America, his
involvement in this network of spies certainly did not warrant the network having his name
attached to it. The true leader of this network was Nikolaus Ritter. As stated above, Wilhelm
Canaris ordered Ritter to organize the ring of spies in America to obtain information on the
Norden bombsight and the American war industry in general. In fact, it was Ritter’s plan to not
have a central leader in America, but “each [spy] would work independently and give his reports
directly to the person Ritter would eventually engage to oversee the whole American operation
[Sebold].”32 He chose to employ this strategy to prevent the whole ring from being
compromised should just one member be discovered, but he did not count on Sebold turning the
entire ring over to the FBI. Although many spies in the ring ended up meeting and interacting
with each other, these connections did not come through Fritz Duquesne. For example, spy
Richard Eichenlaub operated the Little Casino restaurant, which was frequented by many
members of the ring, and Eichenalub used his position to introduce espionage agents to each
other.33 Another agent, Paul Fehse, met many different agents to gather their information, which
he would compile and give to Sebold for transmission to Germany.34 Finally, many of the agents
worked aboard transatlantic ships as cooks or custodians and served the ring as couriers, carrying
physical items from America to Germany. Many spies knew each other through this courier role,
two of the most closely linked being Erwin Siegler and Franz Stigler. In contrast, Fritz
Duquesne did not interact with any of the other agents other than to be paid and to give
information to Sebold for transmission. Again, his neuroticism and distrust of other Germans is
Belden 11
important here. Because of these traits and his lack of interaction with other agents in the ring,
he could not have possibly been the leader as the FBI portrayed him.
Ritter’s role as the leader of this ring is unquestionable, or at least less questionable than
calling Duquesne the leader. In fact, even referring to this network as the “Duquesne Ring” is
erroneous; the “Ritter Ring” appears more appropriate.35 He was the common connection
between all the agents in America, as they all used his codename Dr. Rantzau as a code word to
indicate that they were working for the same man and had the same purpose. For example, this
method was used in Sebold’s introduction to Lang.36 Also it was Ritter who had travelled to the
United States in 1937 to recruit the most important agents for his ring, including Lang, Roeder,
Duquesne, Evelyn Lewis, and Else Weustenfeld.37 As stated above, there were times during
Duquesne’s involvement in the ring that the Abwehr did not find the information Duquesne
gathered to be valuable, and his work appeared to be inconsistent. In fact, given the magnitude
of the information that Lang was able to procure, it would have been more fitting if he were the
most featured spy captured in this case. Given Duquesne’s past record though, it was excellent
publicity for the FBI to highlight Duquesne as the most important agent in this ring. The Bureau
wanted to send the message that they had finally put an end to Duquesne’s work, a task that
nobody, not even the British, had been able to execute. The FBI was able to use his espionage
history to portray him as an almost legendary agent that had evaded capture for so long, a legend
that the Bureau was finally able to end. This allowed the FBI to leave out the fact that the most
important information obtained by this ring, the Norden bombsight drawings, had been obtained
before the investigation began, right under the FBI’s nose without it even noticing.
Besides the fact that the Norden information escaped the United States before the FBI
investigation of the Ritter Ring began, the FBI missed an even larger opportunity once they were
Belden 12
made aware of the ring by Sebold. It had been presented with an almost perfect situation to
execute counterespionage against the Abwehr, but it neglected to take advantage of this
opportunity. In a review of messages sent by “Sebold” (really sent by FBI agents operating his
radio), it is clear that no meaningful additions were made by the FBI to the largely insignificant
information supplied by the agents in the ring. Much of the information sent to Germany
concerned ship movements and war production. The information as a whole was so
insignificant, in fact, that the FBI hardly altered most of it. The most “deception” that ever really
occurred in the transmissions was delaying the actual transmission by a couple days.38 Had the
FBI supplied the Abwehr with some more relevant – but not dangerous – information, the Sebold
case could have been fruitful for the FBI even outside of the convictions that came from it.
This lack of counterespionage effort was a result of the mindset of the FBI at this time.
World War II was a critical time period for Hoover and his Bureau as their roles continued to
expand. Therefore, they were more worried about capturing as many foreign agents as possible
in order to show their power and to give reason to continue to expand the Bureau’s roles. This is
directly opposite of the attitude adopted by the British Double Cross (XX) Committee. This
group was concerned primarily with taking advantage of the connection with Germany it had in
the agent it had turned to the British side to practice counterespionage. In fact, the XX
Committee was perfectly content with allowing these agents to go unprosecuted for long periods
of time because it valued this counterespionage more than convicting them. A few examples
(Juan Pujol and Dusko Popov) of the XX Committee using double agents successfully will
provide a striking contrast with the FBI and its strategies regarding counterespionage during this
time.
Belden 13
Before analyzing Juan Pujol or Dusko Popov and their important roles as double agents
for Britain during World War II, it is necessary to briefly discuss Britain’s double cross system
that made these cases possible. Britain’s counterespionage system began in earnest in September
of 1939 with agent Arthur Owens, codenamed SNOW. SNOW had been in contact with M.I. 6
since 1936 but had been operating as a German agent. Upon the outbreak of war and his
subsequent arrest in England, SNOW accepted a British deal to set up a radio set from prison to
make contact with Germany under British direction. Incidentally, SNOW’s Abwehr contact was
none other than Nikolaus Ritter, and he even went to visit Ritter in Rotterdam. SNOW’s case
showed M.I. 6 the importance of operating double agents. Not only did this practice enable them
to secure confidential enemy information, but it also allowed M.I. 6 to uncover foreign agents.
Unlike the FBI in the Sebold case, when the XX Committee understood that SNOW could lead
them to new agents, they chose to develop these new agents into useful counterespionage agents
as opposed to developing cases against them until it was appropriate to arrest them. Beginning
with the SNOW case, the British double cross system was up and running and was soon to
produce many double agents who not only delivered vital information to Britain, but also were
able to deceive the Nazi military machine in the most critical of situations.39
Juan Pujol was one of these agents that the Double Cross Committee was able to utilize
in such a significant way. Pujol was a Spaniard, who, like Sebold had with the FBI, had
volunteered his efforts to the British secret services. Also similarly to Sebold, secret service
officials were skeptical of Pujol’s sincerity, fearing that he might be an Abwehr plant since he
came to the attention of Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) because of no effort of its own.
Eventually though, in the beginning of 1942, the British intelligence services (SIS, M.I. 5 and
M.I. 6) determined that he was trustworthy and gave him the codename GARBO.40 From this
Belden 14
point forward, GARBO was able to obtain valuable German information, transmit false British
information, and develop a system comparable in size to the Ritter Ring. The biggest difference
was that GARBO’s agents were completely imaginary, yet the Abwehr still believed everything
he told it. At the same time, however, his British case officer was able to work with him to
provide true but mainly insignificant information to the Germans in order to maintain his good
reputation with the Abwehr. The essential operation of the case officers in the double cross
system was determining which information was insignificant enough to allow the agents to
provide the Abwehr while at the same time giving them enough true information of value to
allow the double agents to maintain their worth to the Abwehr. GARBO’s case is one in which
this essential operation was performed perfectly, as he was able to maintain high status within
the Abwehr while not having to betray crucial British information.41 His development was a
very long process, but one that was clearly worth every bit of effort.
The case of Juan Pujol, while sharing many similarities with William Sebold’s case,
provides an excellent contrast to Sebold in the way intelligence agencies handled their cases. As
stated above, Pujol undertook his espionage work on his own without being recruited. He sent
his first message to the Abwehr on July 19, 1941, and he quickly became a very important agent
to the Abwehr.42 He consistently impressed the agency with the entirely fictitious spy ring he
had established in Britain, and thus the Abwehr believed him to be a particularly good source of
information.43 He eventually came under control of the XX Committee in February 1942, but by
this point, he had already had a good relationship with the Abwehr for almost 8 months.44 The
Double Cross Committee strategically continued to let this relationship strengthen until an
opportunity arose for his services to be necessary. This opportunity presented itself with
Operation Torch in November of 1942, which as Talty says “would be GARBO’s coming out
Belden 15
party.”45 Torch was to be the Allied invasion of North Africa, and it was GARBO’s job to
ensure that the Germans did not anticipate this attack. Essentially, he was able to convince the
Germans that an attack was coming in Norway, playing on Hitler’s already existing fear of an
attack in that country, which caused German firepower to be concentrated there. Without this bit
of counterintelligence, Allied forces would have almost certainly met more resistance upon their
landing in North Africa. The real genius of the plan though reached the Abwehr after the attack
occurred. GARBO sent a message through the mail to the Abwehr giving exact details of the
attack, and the Double Cross Committee assured that it was postmarked before the attack but did
not reach the Abwehr until after the invasion had occurred.46 The Abwehr, therefore, still valued
his information, but felt that the delay was just caused by a snag in the postal system. His most
important work in the future would have a major impact on one of the most iconic attacks in
military history.
In preparation for the Operation Overlord landings in Normandy in June 1944, more
commonly known as D-Day, the Allied forces knew they would have to deceive Germany in
some way so that the attack on Normandy would come as a surprise and thus be met by less
German opposition than usual. This was Britain’s chance to use their, by now, extensive double
cross system to feed misinformation to Germany so as to divert its forces to locations other than
Normandy. To this end, Operation Fortitude was devised. This plan was divided into three
parts, North, South, and South II. Most pertinent to GARBO though were Fortitude South and
Fortitude South II. Essentially, GARBO was able to communicate to Germany the following:
“We [Allies] are now planning a very large scale assault in two
phases. The first, and lesser, of these, mounted in Southwest
England, will be directed West of the Seine [Normandy]. When this
Belden 16
assault has established itself, and drawn enemy reserves from the Pas
de Calais area [French region which was the shortest distance from
England], the main assault will be launched from Southeast England
against the Pas de Calais. First assault will be launched in July, the
second as soon thereafter as practical.”47
This statement was complemented by troops and equipment stationed in Southeast England as
well as “dummy landing craft” stationed in the harbors of this area.48 The Double Cross
Committee was even able to convince the Germans that Patton was the general of this group in
Southeast England. The Germans took the report as total truth, and were both surprised by the
D-Day attack on Normandy and convinced that an attack on the Pas de Calais was imminent and
thus refused to move their 58 divisions from that area to support Normandy. 49
Following D-Day, the deception continued with Fortitude South II. On June 9, 1944,
GARBO sent a message asserting the attack 3 days before was diversionary and that the real
attack would still come at the Pas de Calais. Germany continued to believe their trusted agent, as
is evident in an internal message which said that all reports from GARBO had been confirmed
and were very valuable. GARBO’s deception continued to hold water for months as the German
forces in the area were not broken up until late October, at which point Allied forces had made
significant headway into the continent.50 Although the United States was not an active
combatant in the war during the operation of the Ritter Ring in America, Sebold and Pujol are
comparable characters in the following ways:
1) They each fell into the lap of the intelligence services of the United States and Britain
respectively through no effort of the intelligence services.
2) Each had excellent connections with the Abwehr.
Belden 17
3) Each wanted to work to confuse the Abwehr and hinder Germany’s war effort.
The GARBO case was not an isolated instance within the double cross system by any
means. Another spy, Dusan “Dusko” Popov came to the attention of the Abwehr and the Double
Cross Committee in the beginning of 1941 and actually had experience with both the double
cross business in Britain and the FBI in America. Popov came to America in August of 1941 on
a mission from the Abwehr to perform a few tasks, the most famous of which was to answer
detailed questions given to him by the Abwehr concerning Pearl Harbor.51 Popov turned this
questionnaire over to J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI; there has been plenty of controversy as to
whether the FBI should have interpreted this questionnaire as a warning of the Pearl Harbor
attack that would occur at the end of that year or if it was just another routine document that the
FBI could not have possibly associated with a warning to the December 7, 1941 attack by the
Japanese. It is not the object of the current paper to answer this question, but rather to describe
Popov’s relationship with Hoover and the FBI. Whether or not Hoover and Popov ever met –
which has also been disputed – the relationship between the FBI and Popov was a consistently
bad one, as Hoover was completely opposed to Popov’s flamboyant lifestyle. Popov fancied
himself as a playboy and asserted that maintaining this type of lifestyle was critical to his ability
to obtain valuable information from Germany. Most importantly, Popov was unable to procure
any solid information from Germany, and because he was not given any relevant information to
transmit to Germany, his status within the Abwehr was damaged by his time in America.52 He
eventually returned to Great Britain, where he was used much more effectively by the Double
Cross Committee. Popov actually worked on Operation Fortitude, just as Pujol had, the success
of which has already been detailed.53
Belden 18
These cases of British counterespionage success considered with the FBI’s handling of
the Sebold case illustrate a stark contrast in strategy and motivation. The Double Cross
Committee was able to successfully utilize GARBO for many counterintelligence tasks against
the Abwehr, with the most important being the Fortitude operations. The United States, on the
other hand, used Sebold to simply find and apprehend other spies in his network as opposed to
conducting any kind of counterespionage which he was clearly willing and able to do. The FBI
was focused solely on trapping and convicting German spies in hopes that these
accomplishments would help to continue to establish the FBI as an intelligence power in
America. The Double Cross Committee however, was concerned not with convicting these spies
but using them to Britain’s advantage to obtain vital information from enemies while
transmitting misinformation at the same time. The importance of the recent delegation of all
espionage investigation to the FBI by President Roosevelt cannot be overstated. With this new
responsibility, J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI felt the need to prove to the president and the
American public that they were up to the task. This resulted in a very shortsighted focus in their
strategy: “The Bureau’s task was to identify enemy agents, keep them under 24-hour surveillance
and, by allowing them to lead the Agents to other spies, to incriminate as many as possible.”54
Once all the spies were incriminated, this motivation led to the public nature of the trials of all
the spies involved.
In contrast the Double Cross Committee’s strategy appears more pure in that it was not
driven by a need for public recognition; it simply wanted to make its best effort to aid Britain’s
war effort. Again the difference in success between the two countries, even with the same agent
(Popov), can only be explained by motivation. Hinsley and Simkins give this explanation:
Belden 19
“The FBI had proved uncooperative [with Britain], not least because
it had little faith in the value of double agents, as a source of
information about the enemy’s interests, organization and methods,
let alone for the purposes of deception. In its view their sole function
was to provide leads to other spies, who could be arrested and
prosecuted with full publicity.”55
Meanwhile, the Double Cross Committee was able to see the potential benefits of a double agent
where the FBI had not. Therefore, their strategy was not concerned with short-term publicity,
but long-term success. As Committee Chairman Masterman said:
“Agents have been run on a long-term basis, that is to say, the
advantages which may be expected from them have been postponed in
order that they may be substantial, and the reputation of agents with
the enemy has been carefully built up over a long period in order that
when the time comes they can be used with confidence and
boldness.”56
Because of this forward-looking strategy, the Double Cross Committee was willing to invest
more time and effort into the development of the agents. They were able to keep their goals in
mind and not be frustrated with the slow process.
Opposing viewpoints now manifest themselves on the issue of the benefit or harm of
having enemy spies in country, whether Britain or the United States. Predictably, Britain
basically welcomed spies into their country because of their confidence in the Double Cross
Committee and its skills in turning the spies into doubles. In the United States, however, spies
were far from welcome. As one attorney said when espionage investigative power was
Belden 20
consolidated within the FBI, “‘foreign agents and those engaged in espionage will no longer find
this country a happy hunting ground for their activities.’”57 Public statements of warning like
this consistently appeared in newspapers, while the British kept their operations very secret so as
to utilize their spies to the greatest possible extent. This publicity in America frightened British
intelligence agents, as they felt this type of strategy in the media would cause the Abwehr to feel
that their system had been compromised and thus would have less confidence in its agents and
would begin to decrease the importance and volume of information transmitted to them. It is for
this reason that the reporting of espionage happenings in newspapers frustrated the Double Cross
Committee; in Britain, these types of events were not made available to news services.
These two different strategies of investigation and publication of information on
espionage investigation in Britain and America naturally gave way to some tension between the
XX Committee and the FBI. British espionage operatives were particularly displeased with J.
Edgar Hoover and his attitude toward espionage investigation. The most obvious clash occurred
around Popov and his Pearl Harbor questionnaire. XX Committee Coordinator John Masterman
claimed that “the questionnaire indicated very clearly that in the event of the United States being
at war, Pearl Harbour would be the first point to be attacked.”58 Meanwhile, Hoover and his
supporters at the FBI felt that “he [Hoover] had no reason to take special note of Popov’s
information…it deserved no more attention than myriad other snippets of intelligence.”59 This is
just one particular situation, but the feeling of frustration with Hoover by British intelligence was
constant. The British also observed that Hoover was insistent that successful investigations
conclude with public attention, which contrasted with British secrecy. As British investigator
Herbert Rowland said “‘He lived by publicity…Stephenson [senior British Intelligence officer]
avoided publicity at all costs. Inevitably the FBI got the credit. We never minded this.’”60
Belden 21
Before America entered the war – at the same time as the Sebold case – British intelligence
officers felt that Hoover was disrupting what could have been very valuable cooperation between
British and American intelligence. One British intelligence officer A.M. Ross-Smith even said
“‘Hoover was a megalomaniac, an egomaniac, and a prude of the first order. He was a thorn in
our side.’”61 Certainly this dissent was a factor in the establishment of the two different
strategies by the intelligence agencies of America and Britain.
Now based on all of the information in this article to this point, it is logical to argue that
the FBI missed an opportunity with Sebold to turn him into a double agent, just as the Double
Cross Committee had done so successfully so many times throughout the war. Although the FBI
scored a victory by catching and convicting 33 German agents, a larger victory could have been
had if it had approached and handled the Sebold situation differently. First though, an
opportunity for counterespionage needed to present itself in order for the FBI to use Sebold in
such a manner. The problem, however, again comes back to the FBI’s motives. Because the
FBI was so focused on identifying and arresting as many spies as quickly as possible, it did not
allow for sufficient time for Sebold’s case to develop. In order for an agent to transmit false
information to an enemy, have the enemy believe it, and not blow his cover, he must establish
himself as a reliable source of intelligence. Depending on the agent and the intelligence
agency’s relationship with him, this can take a long period of time. In Sebold’s case specifically,
although he arrived in the United States in February of 1940, the FBI took about 8 weeks to fully
trust him, set up his radio station, and assist him in transmitting his first message to Germany,
which came on May 22, 1940, but until May 31, 1940 the transmissions only concerned money
and attempting to establish the best possible connection. On May 31, Sebold finally transmitted
his first piece of actual espionage, a report from Duquesne on merchant ship activities and
Belden 22
movements.62 From this point, it would be about 13 months until Duquesne, Lang, and the rest
of the spies had been arrested, at which point the ring was obviously dead. Based on study of
other cases, 13 months is not nearly enough time for a spy to establish himself as reliable and
transmit worthwhile counterespionage information to the enemy.
The GARBO case is a perfect example of the Double Cross Committee’s commitment to
fostering the growth of its agents’ relationships with the Abwehr. Because the British
intelligence agencies were involved with information gathering and gave its double agents viable
information to transmit, these agents’ value to the Abwehr grew at a faster rate than agents in the
United States. The time between GARBO’s first message to the Abwehr and his participation in
the Torch cover was comparable in length to the time between Sebold’s first message to the
Abwehr and the arrest of the agents involved with him. These agents produced such different
results, however, because of the difference between the Double Cross Committee’s and the FBI’s
abilities to be patient with their agents. GARBO’s involvement with Fortitude obviously
required much more trust between him and the Abwehr than was necessary for the Torch cover
to be successful. This was not a problem though because the Double Cross Committee stayed
committed to his case when they very easily could have chosen to use him to reveal more spies,
as the FBI chose to do with its agents.
With the GARBO case in mind, the FBI’s lack of involvement in the Sebold case
becomes quite glaring. Of course, it would have been easier for the FBI to give and receive
meaningful information had the United States been an active participant in the war during the
time the Ritter Ring was operating. Again, the FBI’s lack of foresight becomes important. The
United States was becoming more and more involved in the war as 1941 went on, and to many,
especially those so closely involved with the inner workings of the government as J. Edgar
Belden 23
Hoover, knew that American entrance into the war was inevitable. Certainly the means by which
America became involved in the war could not have been predicted, but it was obvious that
America’s neutrality would not stand. Knowing this, it would seem to be advantageous to have
an agent with direct radio contact to the enemy. In reality, neither Sebold nor the rest of the
agents in the ring were costing the United States anything. Again, the information they were
able to convey to Germany was not significant, and they were even being paid by the Abwehr.
Obviously maintaining this connection would not allow the FBI to arrest and convict the spies,
but during a time of war, it would have been more advantageous to have a web of direct
connections to the enemy than to have this web in jail.
Given the benefit of examining this case and all of its components more than 70 years
after its conclusion, it is easy to see the FBI’s shortcomings in its investigation of Sebold and the
Ritter Ring. The FBI was able to use the media to make a spectacle out of the convictions of the
spies, when in reality, the information the spies had procured was not strategically significant. In
fact, the only important information that escaped America via a member of this ring did so
before the FBI was even involved (the Norden bombsight via Lang). When presented with the
Sebold walk-in, the FBI chose to gather incriminating evidence against the agents in order to
build a sufficient case to convict them. The FBI consistently followed this strategy in order to
solidify its position within American law enforcement and to validate President Roosevelt’s
decision in 1939 to grant them sole responsibility for investigating espionage. This strategy was
fundamentally different from that of the British Double Cross System, which routinely chose to
attempt to turn the agents it encountered into double agents against the Abwehr. Naturally, these
two different strategies produced very different results for the two departments. Finally, and
most intriguingly, this dichotomy leads to the lingering question in the Ritter Ring: had the FBI
Belden 24
been more forward-thinking in their investigation of the case and employed a strategy similar to
that of the XX Committee, what informational coups could the FBI have executed with Sebold
and his network in America?
References
1 The New York Times, 13 December, 1941, p. 1. 2 Ibid, p. 1; The New York Times, 30 June 1941, p. 1. 3 These “published accounts” refer to articles in newspapers at the time and books published just after this
investigation. 4 Calling this network the “Duquesne Ring” is a point of controversy that will be discussed in t his article. 5 Most of the information gathered by the agents in this ring concerned shipping schedules and war production
information. 6 The truth of these claims will be disputed later in this article. 7 A. Ronnie, Counterfeit Hero: Fritz Duquesne, Adventurer and Spy (1995), p. 288. Each of these characters will be
discussed in more detail in this article. 8 FBI File I.C. 65-1819, “Frederick Duquesne.” Freedom of Information Office, FBI Headquarters, Washington,
D.C. [Cited here as ‘Duquesne file’.] Section 1, Duquesne, witness classification.
The material consists of 8 ‘Sections.’ Generally, each section provides the details of the investigations of a
number of spies ending with transcripts of each message sent and received from Sebold’s radio station on Long
Island. All individual investigation details begin with a “witness classification” followed by a chronological detail
of the investigation. For citations, the section number will be given followed by the name of the individual whose
investigation is being detailed, followed by the specific date (or witness classification) which contains the activities
referenced. See above.
Editors of Look , The Story of the FBI (New York, 1947), p. 205.
Duquesne was a colorful and self-promoting figure and claimed to have been responsible for the sabotage
and intelligence that led to the sinking of the H.M.S. Hampshire in the Atlantic Ocean in 1916 causing the death of
British Field Marshal Kitchener. Since the second Boer War, Duquesne had held Kitchener p ersonally responsible
for the death of his sister and the destruction of his family’s property. 9 L. Farago, The Game of the Foxes: the Untold Story of German Espionage in the United States and Great Britain
During World War II (New York, 1972), p. 41. 10 Ibid. p. 38. 11 Ibid. p. 38. 12 Ritter had lived in America for at least 10 years before moving back to Germany to work with the Abwehr. 13 Ibid. p. 49. 14 Duquesne file, Section 2, Lang, witness classification. 15 Ronnie, op. cit., p. 208. 16 Ibid, p. 208. 17 Ibid, p. 208. 18 Ronnie, op. cit., pp. 208-209. 19 Duquesne file Section 1, Duquesne, witness classification & February 16, 1940 – June 5, 1941. 20 Ronnie, op. cit., p. 272. 21 Duquesne file Section 1, Duquesne, February 26, 1940. 22 Ronnie, op. cit., p. 260. 23 Duquesne file Section 1, Duquesne, March 19, 1940. 24 Duquesne file Section 1, Duquesne, June 28, 1940. 25 Duquesne file Section 1, Duquesne, August 26, 1940. 26 Duquesne file Section 1, Duquesne, January 11, 1941 & June 9, 1941. 27 Duquesne file Section 1, Duquesne, November 2, 1940.
Belden 25
28 Duquesne file, Section 1, Duquesne, witness classification. 29 Look , op. cit., 198; The New York Times, 7 September 1939, p. 8. 30 As it happened, the Luftwaffe never successfully integrated the Norden bombsight with its aircraft. At the time
germane to this case, however, this technology had the potential to be extremely dangerous in the hands of the
Luftwaffe. It is because of this potential (not the actual result, which is only evident after the conclusion of this
case) that this security breach is the more significant than any other related to the spies in this network. 31 The New York Times, 13 December 1941, p. 1; The New York Times, 1 November 1941, p. 17; The New York
Times, 30 June 1941, p. 1 32 Ronnie, op. cit., p. 204. 33 Duquesne file Section 1, Eichenlub, all. 34 Duquesne file Section 1, Fehse, all. 35 Ronnie, op. cit., p. 227. 36 Duquesne file Section 3, Ritter, January 26, 1940. 37 Ronnie, op. cit., pp. 205-214, Farago 38-49. 38 Duquesne file, Section 8, “Radio messages received and sent from Bureau station at Centerport, Long Island,” all. 39 J.C. Masterman The Double-Cross System (New Haven, 1972), pp. 36-45. 40 F.H. Hinsley & C.A.G. Simkins, British Intelligence in the Second World War (New York, 1990), pp. 113-114. 41 Masterman, op. cit., p. 148. 42 S. Talty, Agent GARBO: The Brilliant, Eccentric Secret Agent Who Tricked Hitler and Saved D-Day (Boston,
2012), p. 45. 43 Hinsley & Simkins, op. cit., p. 113; Talty, op. cit., p. 83. 44 Ibid, p. 113 45 Talty, op. cit., p. 90. 46 Ibid, pp. 91-94. 47 J. Mendelsohn, Covert Warfare: Intelligence, Counterintelligence, and Military Deception During the World War
II Era (New York, 1989). Document 1: “Cover and Deception Report in the European Theater of Operations (ETO),
Cover and Deception Synopsis of History,” p. 6. 48 Ibid 7. 49 Masterman, op. cit., p. 156; Mendelsohn, op. cit., p. 8; Mendelsohn, Document 14: “Operations in Support of
Neptune: (F) Results, Exhibit ‘6’ of C&D Report,” p. 3. 50 Masterman, op. cit., 157-158. 51 The exact questionnaire is reproduced in its entirety translated to English in Appendix 2 (pages 196-198) of the
Masterman source. 52 Hinsley & Simkins, op. cit., pp. 124-126. 53 Ibid, p. 238; Masterman, op. cit., p. 148-149. 54 Look , op. cit., p. 198. 55 Hinsley & Simkins, op. cit., p. 124. 56 Masterman, op. cit., p. 2. 57 The New York Times, 7 September 1939, p. 8. 58 Masterman, op. cit., p. 80. 59 A. Summers, Official and Confidential: The Secret Life of J. Edgar Hoover (New York, 1993), p. 125. 60 Ibid, p. 120. 61 Ibid, p. 117. 62 Duquesne file, Section 8, “Radio messages received and sent from Bureau station at Centerport Long Island,”
May 22, 1940 – May 31, 1940.