Alan Nunn May – Forgotten Soviet Spy

5 479 16
Alan Nunn May – Forgotten Soviet Spy


Alan Nunn May. A nuclear scientist who served six years in prison for passing atomic secrets to the Soviet Union during World War II.



The 1946 trial of Alan Nunn May for passing "information which might be directly or indirectly useful to the enemy" was the first of a series of US cases that demonstrated the extent to which American and British nuclear secrets were leaked to the Soviet Union during World War II.

The damage done by Nunn May's activities does not compare with the betrayal of the German-born British scientist Klaus Fuchs, who was later sentenced to 14 years in prison, or with the betrayal of the Americans Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed in 1953. Nunn May did not have the same access to the details of the Manhattan Project to develop the atomic bomb, and his betrayal occurred more quickly. But his case was the first evidence that the British end to the American-British nuclear program weapons was the weak link. Fuchs's subsequent revelations led to the US refusing to share atomic secrets with Britain.

Nunn May, a member of the Communist Party [USA] and a keen Soviet sympathiser since the 1930s, claimed in his defence that the Russians were our allies at the time he passed information to the Soviet embassy in Ottawa. However, although the then Attorney General, Sir Hartley Shawcross, told the court (probably with deliberate irony in light of Churchill's recent (March 5, 1946, in Fulton, USA) 'Iron Curtain' speech) that 'there was no suggestion that the Russians were enemies or potential enemies', they nevertheless fell into the category of 'unauthorised persons' who were not allowed to pass on such sensitive material. Having admitted to activities 'prejudicial to the security and interests of the state', Nunn May was sentenced to ten years' imprisonment.

Nunn May was a shy, solitary man, lacking the fervor of the left in Cambridge, where he went to study physics in 1930. But he embraced its communism and anti-fascism, and believed in the rightness of his actions. When he was convicted, many in the British scientific community protested the severity of his sentence.

Alan Nunn May was born in 1911 in Kings Norton, Birmingham, the son of a brass foundryman. He was an intelligent child, and scholarships allowed him to go first to King Edward's School, Birmingham, and then to Trinity Hall, Cambridge, where he was taught physics by P. M. S. Blackett.

Having graduated with first-class honours in physics, he then went on to do research for his doctorate, one of the examiners of which was Rutherford, then Professor of Experimental Physics at Cavendish University. Having received his doctorate, he was appointed to a lectureship at King's College London, where he continued his research.

Although his experience at Cambridge had already radicalised his views and he had joined the Communist Party, he did not, like some of his contemporaries, side with the Republicans during the Spanish Civil War (1936–1939 – P.G.), but contented himself with rare trips to Moscow.

When war broke out in 1939, he worked briefly on a new secret radar project. But in October 1939, the physics department at King's College was evacuated to Bristol, where he continued his particle research. He was later removed from his teaching post to join what became known as the Tubular Alloy Project, a British programme to investigate the possibility of making an atomic bomb, at the Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge.

Eventually, British nuclear research moved to Canada, both for security reasons and to facilitate collaboration with American scientists working on the atomic bomb. Nunn May went with a British team in 1943, and at some point thereafter he was contacted by Colonel Nikolai Zabotin, who, posing as the Soviet military attaché in Ottawa, was running one of the most important Soviet teams trying to penetrate the Allied atomic bomb program on behalf of the GRU, the military intelligence agency.

Over the next two years, Nunn May's work took him frequently to the Chalk River heavy water reactor and also made several visits to the Argonne Laboratory in Chicago.

Noticing that these visits were more frequent than those of any other British physicist, the Americans became suspicious and limited their number.

When GRU lieutenant Pavel Angelov first asked him for information on atomic energy, Nunn May agreed without hesitation. He was tasked with analyzing an American report that the Germans were working on a heavy-water reactor and could very well drop a "dirty" nuclear bomb on the USSR.

Nunn May passed on the information but refused to accept the modest $200 and two bottles of whiskey offered by the GRU as payment. His refusal was overruled, and his Soviet masters received receipts. Under interrogation, he swore that he had destroyed the money.

In late 1945, Nunn May informed his Soviet contacts that his stay in Canada was coming to an end. They asked him for a favor – a detailed report on the detonation of the first atomic bomb in Alamogordo, New Mexico, on June 16 – which he provided. In September, Nunn May returned to London, to his post at King’s College, where the Soviets intended to re-establish contact with him.

However, these calculations were disrupted by the desertion of GRU lieutenant Igor Gouzenko (September 5, 1945 – P.G.), who surrendered to Canadian authorities in Ottawa with an impressive package of documents revealing the scale of Soviet espionage on Western allies throughout the war. Among these documents was irrefutable evidence of Nunn May’s work (on the USSR – P.G.) during this period.

When Gouzenko's revelations were passed on to the British authorities, no immediate action was taken to arrest Nunn May. He was placed under surveillance, in the belief that his further contacts with Soviet agents would lead to the arrest of the larger figure whose presence Gouzenko's material suggested.

During this period, Nunn May may have seriously reconsidered his role. With the military allies already beginning to quarrel, he decided he did not want to continue the case and was unable to arrange a meeting with his new Soviet boss in London. At his trial, he said he wanted to "wash his hands of the matter."

When it became apparent that Nunn May's continued freedom would not yield any further information about Soviet espionage activities, he was arrested in March 1946 and charged under the Official Secrets Act.

He admitted the facts, although he softened his guilt: “All this story was extremely painful for me, and I took it on only because I considered it a contribution [in science]". [Lawyer] Gardiner further argued in Nunn May's defense that the information he had passed on had merely saved time for foreign powers engaged in atomic research.

The idea that Nunn May's activities were merely to spread scientific knowledge around the world did not impress the trial judge, Oliver. On 1 May 1946, he sentenced Nunn May to ten years' imprisonment, of which he served six. Pardoned for good behaviour, he was released from Wakefield Prison at the end of December 1952 and returned to Cambridge, where he met and married the Viennese-born Dr Hildegard (Hilda) Broda, who was the town's deputy medical officer. In 1954, Cambridge County Council rejected an application to have her dismissed.

For the next nine years, Nunn May was effectively blacklisted from job applicants, but received a small stipend to work in a private laboratory, where he made scientific instruments while also pursuing theoretical physics.

In 1961, he went to Ghana to take up a post as research professor of physics at the University of Ghana, where he later became dean. His wife, Hilda, and her family went with him, and she gained a reputation in the country as a tireless health worker.

Nunn May retired in 1976 but remained in Ghana for two more years as a government adviser on science education. He returned to Cambridge in 1978.

Alan Nunn May, physicist, was born in Birmingham on 2 May 1911 and died in Cambridge on 12 January 2003, aged 91. He is survived by his wife Hilda, a son and a stepson.

The Times, 24 January 2003
16 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +7
    5 September 2025 05: 37
    It is a little strange that May's cooperation with our intelligence service was called betrayal, and Guzenko's betrayal was called desertion and revelations...
    1. +3
      5 September 2025 06: 54
      Vladimir, this text is a translation of an article from the enemy newspaper The Times. That's why.
      1. +1
        5 September 2025 07: 05
        Sorry, I didn't notice the postscript. "The Times, January 24, 2003." hi
      2. -1
        10 November 2025 11: 24
        Quote: Author
        ...translation of an article from the enemy newspaper The Times. That's why.

        Pavel Gusterin, then the "spy" in the title translates to "intelligence officer")))
        hi
    2. +3
      5 September 2025 11: 20
      This is because the article is an automatic translation from English. In general, it sounds strange in Russian. But in terms of information - quite. Of course, there is still no full understanding of the amazing contribution that intelligence made to accelerating our atomic project. The race was wild. And if we had not banged in August 1949, in the early 1950s, most likely, we would have been wiped out, according to the Dropshot plan, adopted by the striped ones in 1949, they wanted to use 300 atomic bombs on the USSR. For a country exhausted by the Great Patriotic War, this would have been a death sentence. But WE SUCCEEDED!!! How Soviet intelligence got hold of atomic secrets from the very heart of the Manhattan Project remains the most significant mission in history. And it radically influenced the history of the entire world.
      1. -1
        6 September 2025 19: 43
        Quote: Glagol1
        remains the most significant mission in history. And one that has radically influenced the history of the entire world.

        It wouldn't have made much of a difference in the post-war decades.
        Firstly, the place of the USSR destroyed in a nuclear war in the 1950s would have been taken by China, which, as history shows, is even better suited to this political niche. Secondly, the Sino-American Cold War would have begun in the 1950s after the defeat of the USSR and would have continued to this day, and the world economy would have been divided into political blocs and would not have been global. This would not have affected other countries much. In fact, until the 1980s, world history practically did not feel the difference from the replacement of the USSR by the PRC.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  2. +1
    5 September 2025 06: 51
    Keeper of the last home, Kim Philby

    https://topwar.ru/188607-hranitelnica-poslednego-ochaga-kima-filbi.html
  3. 0
    5 September 2025 13: 39
    Vladimir, see the preamble in the article feed "History".
  4. +2
    5 September 2025 19: 54
    Quote: Vladimir_2U
    It is a little strange that May's cooperation with our intelligence service was called betrayal, and Guzenko's betrayal was called desertion and revelations...

    If this were an article in Pravda, they would have written "Soviet spy Nunn May" and "traitor Guzenko"
  5. +5
    5 September 2025 20: 35
    Hmmm, there are more questions than answers to this article... "and he was content with rare trips to Moscow." - When, where and why? ... I wonder if he was recruited as part of the "Cambridge" either the seven, or the eight, or the nine, or in Moscow? And until 1943, before moving to Canada, the GRU did not maintain contact with him? It is hard to believe... And why does the newspaper think that May was forgotten by Soviet intelligence? Because no one wants to remember that the GRU bought certain people in prison and certain people in the Ministry of Justice of Great Britain, and a decision was made on parole? And in Ghana, Her Majesty's agents were unable to record contacts between GRU agents and May's family? People like May are never forgotten by intelligence...Without his work, it seems, the USSR would have become a "democratic country" in 1949 or 1950...A huge thank you to Alan May for his help to the USSR...
    1. 0
      6 September 2025 13: 29
      Quote: Tests
      Because no one wants to remember that the GRU bought certain people in prison and certain people in the Ministry of Justice of Great Britain, and a decision was made on parole?

      He actually served 6 years out of 10 - quite enough time for parole even without bribery.
      1. +2
        6 September 2025 21: 09
        svoy1970 (Sergey), respected sir, do you know in which prison Mr. May served his sentence? In England or Wales?
        Maybe the prison was in Scotland or Northern Ireland? But the "Prison Act 1952" was not fully in effect there. Another important point, we read in the translation of the article: "... brought charges under the "Official Secrets Act." A reasonable question immediately arises: What year is the law? After all, criminal, criminal procedure and criminal executive law in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (including all colonies, dominions, protectorates, crown lands in the 40-50s of the 20th century), unlike the RSFSR, was not codified. Just as it is not codified today...
        Another point not covered in the article: was there a second instance court in May's case? What was its decision, when? Did the case reach the House of Lords?
        A petition for pardon for good behavior when was it prepared, how many times was it submitted and who made the decision to pardon? He served more than 01.05.1946 years and 6 months in prison from the trial on 7, was arrested in March 1946.
        And why did you decide that for espionage in Great Britain 6 years and 7 months out of 10 years, measured out by the court, "...for parole is quite a sufficient term and without bribery."? By analogy with the RSFSR during the time of the State Migration Service or by analogy with the Russian Federation during the time of Yeltsin?
        1. -1
          7 September 2025 00: 50
          Quote: Tests
          And why did you decide that for espionage in Great Britain, 6 years and 7 months out of 10 years, measured out by the court, "... is quite a sufficient term for parole and without bribery."?

          Doesn't the term itself bother you? Judging by it, he really did convey general scientific things. Nothing more.
          Quote: Tests
          By analogy with the RSFSR during the GMS times or by analogy with the Russian Federation during the EBN times?

          Section 6 of the Criminal Code of the RSFSR 1926 - "On conditional sentencing and parole". So it was always...
          1. 0
            7 September 2025 10: 36
            svoi1970 (Sergey), respected, thank you for your prompt response!
            The term - 10 years of hard labor with a full admission of guilt by a person whose main tool for many years was a fountain pen - in my opinion, a completely adequate punishment. In the first year of serving his sentence, he could easily leave the hard labor and go to his ancestors, and for any violation of the regime in the penal prison, he could simply be flogged. After all, flogging was abolished only in 1948...
            "General scientific things" of their own and allies from the USA on the heavy-water reactor in 1943-45, in hundreds of pages of copies of Soviet secret documents and a description of what they saw with their own eyes - this is a breakthrough for our atomic science. We began to collect the "woodpile" of F-1 in 1946... The article, unfortunately, does not say a word about May stealing various uranium isotopes and samples of other materials for the construction of the reactor in Canada, and handing them over to the GRU liaison.
            Regarding parole, it seems you didn't understand me at all... I know about parole in the Criminal Codes of various Soviet republics. And my main question was: "And why did you decide that for espionage in Great Britain 6 years and 7 months out of 10 years, measured out by the court, "... is quite a sufficient term for parole and without bribery."? The second question, perhaps, I formulated not quite clearly... I meant that under Gorbachev and Yeltsin we often made gestures of goodwill and those convicted of spies in our country, who did not serve long, were exchanged (which for our people, pulled out of their prisons, is undoubtedly happiness) or there were acts of pardon and the convicted spy was released and expelled from the USSR and the Russian Federation without an exchange for our person.
  6. 0
    6 September 2025 12: 30
    Quote: Tests
    I wonder if he was recruited as part of the Cambridge Seven or Eight?
    If you mean Kim Philby and his friends, then it is unlikely that May was recruited by the same recruiter, since Philby and his comrades worked for political intelligence, and May for military intelligence.
    Different departments, therefore different recruiters.
    Without his work, it seems the USSR would not have become a "democratic country" in 1949 or 1950.
    Well, it is unlikely
  7. 0
    15 October 2025 16: 47
    Quote: Glagol1
    This is because the article is an automatic translation from English.


    I have a native English speaker on staff...