History News Network

Breaking News

Departments

Jeff Shear's History of "Cynthia," the World War II Spy

Jeff Shear

Part Three: The Third Skein

There are actually three large skeins of history that explain the events of June 1942 and the tactics that ultimately determined Allied strategy in the Atlantic. Each of the skeins must be understood in its own right, and in connection with the others, even as they are all unraveling. One skein is the Second Washington Conference; the other is Russia, Molotov and the German invasion known as Barbarossa; and the last, finally, is the evolving and growing tension within the espionage and diplomatic community, as personified by the affairs of Madame Brousse. Each of these several and many plots has its own warp and woof, but all of them, in one way or another, are affected by or driven by Winston Churchill and his unbending determination to save as much of his beloved British Empire as possible, no matter what the excuse, no matter what the subterfuge, no matter what the price or who paid it: Britain, Russia, or the U.S.

Paul Fairly is one filament in the strange evolution of U.S. and British efforts in the realm of diplomacy and espionage. His story suggests that in the period from 1940 until Pearl Harbor, Britain was as concerned about cornering German activity in the Western Hemisphere as it was about influencing U.S. policy in the West Wing.

The story of Paul Fairly and Madame Brousse -- while not apparently involved in the Second Washington Conference -- reveals the strange interactions of these two national intelligence interests. For as Fairly and Brousse meet -- either on board the Excalibur or after at the Ritz -- it is unclear whose side each is working for. Brousse is apparently working officially or unofficially for Britain's Secret intelligence Service (MI6), and Fairly for the Office of Naval Intelligence, but it is Fairly who seems to skew the connections. Is he working for ONI, doubling for SIS, or is there some other working arrangement?

Here are some basic facts to know about Naval Lt. Paul Fairly, if he was indeed a Naval Lieutenant. At first, his name did not appear in any standard Naval records. Nor has anyone placed his name in the National WW II Memorial Registry. In Madam Brousse's personal address book, his home address is given as, Wichita, KN. Shipboard manifests list his birthplace as Nogales, AZ. Birth and death certificates confirm this information.

But there may be more to Fairly than either of his biographers came to understand , and that following Fairly's career may lead to a broader story of America's slow, haphazard launch into the mirrored world of espionage than has been revealed to date.

The reason Fairly must be examined is because he passes information to Brousse from British Intelligence. This is not standard operating procedure. Fairly literally acted as a courier for a foreign power. At issue is why a U.S. Naval officer would do such a thing, play the role of water carrier for the British.

Brousse's biographers -- and Brousse herself -- would have us believe that Fairly acted out of passion for her. Perhaps. But Fairly shows up at a crucial moment, when English and American spy agencies are courting one another, as surely Fairly appears to be courting Brousse.

What do Fairly's actions represent, then, particularly in the last days of 1940?

Fairly initiates contact with Brousse at a time when U.S. undercover agencies -- ONI, G2, FBI and an Interdepartmental Intelligence Conference -- were jockeying for power and control over one another. What is more, the Office of Naval Intelligence may have been running amok. It was in upheaval, seating and unseating five directors in the 14 months between October 1939 and December 1941.

To be fair, confusion in the ranks was driven by war. The timing of Fairly's British masquerade requires context, as well. His contacts with the SIS, at least on Brousse's behalf, took place more than a full year before Pearl Harbor and just as Roosevelt ran for and was elected to an unprecedented third term as President. In those days, real cooperation between the U.S. and England was just emerging. Lend-lease was a long way off. And Ambassador Joseph Kennedy was telling anyone who would listen that England was a lost cause. As the late CIA historian Thomas F. Troy put it, "[In] 1940-1941 the New World was a battleground on which political and economic warfare was waged."

So, it was the timing and the order of events in the fall of 1940 that provide the intrigue, as Elizabeth Brousse continued on her long journey to the Second Washington Conference.

After her brief (and romantic) encounter with Fairly in October, Brousse sailed on to Chile to help her diplomat husband with his trade mission in Santiago. However, when her ship paused to resupply at the Panama Canal, she received a cable from Fairly, saying "our friends have contacted your mother and wish to communicate with you."

Clearly, Fairly is abetting British efforts to contact an operative. As well, the note implicitly suggests that Brousse's mother was aware of her daughter's work in espionage. What does this say about Cora Thorpe and her responsibilities as a patriot and citizen? After all, she was the widow of a distinguished and decorated Marine, who was referred to in his New York Times obituary as "Colonel" George C. Thorpe. Cora was surely connected in Washington. Her brother-in-law was Federal Trade Commission Chairman, Charles March. More than that, frequent dinner guests were former President Calvin Coolidge and his wife, Grace. Did Mrs. Thorpe recognize that it was the British with whom she was dealing, or did Fairly's Naval uniform lead her to believe she was working with ONI? Or, was her daughter's disintegrating marriage to a British diplomat sufficient reason to allow herself to interact between a foreign power and a Naval officer? Mrs. Thorpe was certainly no political amateur. She was the former Chairman of the Speakers for the League of Republican Women of the District of Columbia in 1933. Whatever she thought she was doing, she was, in the end, acting as the conduit between British intelligence and the U.S. Navy at a time when isolationism was a force to be reckoned with in U.S. foreign policy.

Was it the case that between October and December 1940, the Office of Naval Intelligence was in contact with an obscure and recently formed wing of British Intelligence known as the British Security Coordination, in the person of Elizabeth Brousse? Much of the answer depends on Paul Fairly. His attentions to British intelligence were in violation of State Department policy and agreements between the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Churchill government. Were there factors mitigating these exchanges, and to what degree did these factors reflect on Anglo-American relations in the cloak-and-dagger evolution of the Office of Strategic Services and the march to the Second Washington Conference?

Part Four: Ecce Hoover

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of education issues vital to a democracy. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information click here. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.