A history of the Joint Intelligence Bureau - an organisation designed to preserve and advance British capability in military intelligence for the Cold War - shedding light on the largely unknown world of military and economic intelligence after 1945, and how this intelligence influenced British policies throughout the 1950s and 1960s
Access options:
The following links lead to the full text from the respective local libraries:
In: Dylan , H 2019 , ' SIS, Grigori Tokaev, and the London Controlling Section : New perspectives on a Cold War defector and Cold War deception ' , War in History , vol. 26 , no. 4 , pp. 517-538 . https://doi.org/10.1177/0968344517731121
This article examines British deception during the early years of the Cold War, and how a Soviet defector named Grigori Tokaev contributed to British plans and operations. Tokaev provided valuable insights into the Soviet Union, allowing British intelligence to craft more intricate deception operations, political and military. The manner in which he was used, and the extent to which his idiosyncrasies were tolerated, underline the difficulties the British authorities faced as they attempted to apply the lessons of the Second World War deception to the Cold War environment. The case offers new perspectives on both the relatively under-examined subject British deception operations against the USSR, and the history of one of the most prominent Cold War defectors.
This article examines British deception during the early years of the Cold War, and how a Soviet defector named Grigori Tokaev contributed to British plans and operations. Tokaev provided valuable insights into the Soviet Union, allowing British intelligence to craft more intricate deception operations, political and military. The manner in which he was used, and the extent to which his idiosyncrasies were tolerated, underline the difficulties the British authorities faced as they attempted to apply the lessons of the Second World War deception to the Cold War environment. The case offers new perspectives on both the relatively under-examined subject of British deception operations against the USSR, and the history of one of the most prominent Cold War defectors.
In: Dylan , H 2016 , ' Thinking About Defence Intelligence : Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, Denis Capel-Dunn, Kenneth Strong and the Joint Intelligence Bureau as foundation for the Defence Intelligence Staff ' , Intelligence and National Security , vol. 31 , no. 6 . https://doi.org/10.1080/02684527.2015.1115237
The Defence Intelligence Staff's closest relative was the Joint intelligence Bureau. The Bureau was created in 1946 as part of the post war reorganization of the intelligence machinery, consolidating a number of wartime organizations. It was a centralized organization, providing defence intelligence to customers in the armed forces and government. The Bureau was founded with the objective of implementing several lessons that had been identified in the Second World War concerning the organization and management of intelligence. This paper examines the particular lessons the Bureau's founders and its leader had learned, and the ideas they sought to ingrain in the organization. It asks what kind of foundation the Bureau provided for the DIS, when it merged with the service intelligence directorates in 1964.
In: Dylan , H 2015 , ' Super-weapons and Subversion: British Deterrence by Deception Operations in the Early Cold War ' , Journal of Strategic Studies , vol. 38 , no. 5 , pp. 704-728 . https://doi.org/10.1080/01402390.2015.1029120
This article examines British deception operations in the early Cold War. It illustrates how, in the years before Britain could threaten atomic retaliation, Britain's deception organisation, the London Controlling Section (LCS) was tasked with conducting operations to deter the USSR and China from starting a war or threatening British interests. It introduces a number of their ploys – some physical and military, others subversive and political. It argues that the LCS faced significant challenges in implementing its deceptions. Repeating the great strategic successes of the Second World War was extremely difficult; what remained for the Cold War were more limited deceptions.