An important theme of John Le Carré’s The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is the lack of loyalty. The characters all have a different, unique set of loyalties, with some being most loyal to groups and ideals, while others are more focused on their loyalty to moral values and other characters. Although their loyalties are varied, some of the characters are more concerned with their own profit and, therefore, will betray anything or anyone.
The theme of loyalty and betrayal is developed throughout the story primarily through Leamas’s devotion to the Circus, Control’s focus on the Circus’s mission, Mundt’s loyalty to himself, and Liz’s devotion to both communism and Leamas. Le Carré utilizes his characters and this theme in this way in order to connect the capitalist and communist sides of the Cold War through their similar atrocities and prove that there was truly no hero or villain within the grander scheme of the real world Cold War conflict(s).
On the theme of differing loyalties, The Spy Who Came in from the Cold uses Leamas’s character to claim that allegiance to one’s agency is the most important for spies; however, just because a spy is loyal doesn’t mean that their employer won’t be loyal as well. For example, Leamas is loyal to the Circus. He gives his full faithfulness to the Circus, isolating himself from human interaction and remaining focused on his work regardless of personal relationships. However, as hard as he tries, Leamas can’t help but to care about others.
127 our experts are availableright now
An example comes in chapter 12, which reads, “He drove seventy kilometres in half an hour, weaving between the traffic, taking risks to beat the clock, when a small car, a Fiat probably, nosed its way out into the fast lane forty yards ahead of him. Leamas stamped on the brake, turning his headlights full on and sounding his horn, and by the grace of God he missed it; missed it by a fraction of a second. As he passed the car he saw out of the corner of his eye four children in the back, waving and laughing, and the stupid, frightened face of their father at the wheel. . .suddenly his hands were shaking feverishly, his face was burning, his heart palpitating wildly. . .He had a vision of the little car caught among them, pounded and smashed, until there was nothing left, nothing but the frenetic whine of klaxons and the blue lights flashing; and the bodies of the children, torn, like the murdered refugees on the road across the dunes” (Le Carré 104-105).
However, the biggest example is Leamas’s falling in love with Liz. Leamas isn’t as in love with Liz as she is with him, but there is still a loyalty there, so much so that Leamas chooses loyalty to Liz over the Circus when he decides to die with her. The Circus betrayed Leamas’s loyalty, and he realized the only way out of its endless, brutal cycle was to choose his loyalty to Liz over his loyalty to his work. This, of course, is meant to paint the Circus as a backstabbing traitor to the reader, illustrating Le Carré’s theme of shared brutality among the real world parallels of the Cold War.
However, then there’s Control. Control seems to be loyal to the Circus at first, but, it’s later easy to see that he is more focused on his own success in leading the Circus’s objective. For example, he had no problem with putting Leamas in a dangerous situation in East Germany. The novel reads, “This wasn’t part of the bargain; this was different. What the hell was he supposed to do? By pulling out now; by refusing to go along with Peters, he was wrecking the operation. It was just possible that Peters was lying, that this was the test—all the more reason that he should agree to go.
But if he went, if he agreed to go east, to Poland, Czechoslovakia, or God knows where, there was no good reason why they should ever let him out—there was no good reason (since he was notionally a wanted man in the West) why he should want to be let out. . .Control had done it—he was sure” (93). Control leaves Leames stranded in East Germany with no way of getting back to the West, but Control also manipulates Leamas to unknowingly risk his life to protect Mundt, knowing full well of Leamas’s dedication to the Circus and to avenging the deaths of his agents at Mundt’s feet.
This manipulation makes Leamas betray his own sense of loyalty to his murdered agents mentioned previously. Le Carré draws a parallel again here to the real world, claiming that both sides of the Cold War shared this type of brutal strategy with their own spies, putting them through the same torment and, again, illustrating the two opposing sides as one in the same.
When Mundt is introduced, it’s clear his loyalty is to himself, and maybe even to the dead Nazi cause. Being completely engulfed by the paranoia of the spying profession, him being both an East German spy chief and British double agent, Mundt comes across as emotionless and unable to feel loyalty. Instead of helping East German spies working for Britain to escape, for example, he kills them as soon as it seems like they have been compromised by the East Germans out of fear that his role would be exposed as well. The naziism comes into play as he interrogates and tortures Fiedler, whispering anti-Semitic taunts in his ear.
The novel reads, “‘No, no; not physically. . .but you see Mundt had a special interest in beating me up. Apart from the confession. . .Because I am Jewish. . .That is why I got special treatment. All the time he whispered to me. It was very strange’” (159). Loyal only to the failed, evil ideals of naziism, Mundt coldly yet simply provides his services as a spy to whomever will benefit him the most. This, again, is Le Carré drawing a parallel to the real world, saying that the US and the USSR were so caught up in their own preconceived, perfect ideals that they didn’t take into consideration the effects of their own survival on others (i.e. Korea, Vietnam, etc.).
The Spy Who Came in from the Cold also uses Liz to look at loyalty to moral concepts. For example, Liz perceives herself as a loyal communist; however, she slowly begins to realize the moral trade-offs being made by that ideology, and she is not a fan. An example lies in her uncomfortable reaction to the Prison Wardress glorifying killing for ethical reasons. Le Carré writes, “‘As for the Jew,’ she continued, ‘he made an accusation against a loyal comrade.’ ‘Will they shoot Fiedler for that?’ asked Liz incredulously. ‘Jews are all the same,’ the woman commented. ‘Comrade Mundt knows what to do with Jews.
We don’t need their kind here. If they join the Party they think it belongs to them. If they stay out, they think it is conspiring against them. It is said that Leamas and Fiedler plotted against Mundt. Are you going to eat that?’ she enquired, indicating the food on the desk. Liz shook her head” (206). The Wardress thinks she’s a good Communist, but her ideals and actions are based on preconceptions and hostility. Liz recognizes these flaws within the system she has been so loyal to, and it seems likely that if she lived she would have reevaluated her communist identity. Again, Le Carré draws a parallel here. Liz’s character reflects the possibility to change one’s loyalties similar to the options of the non-USSR-residing communists of the 50s and 60s after learning of Stalin’s crimes.
The Spy Who Came in From the Cold is definitely not a bright and cheery narrative. Rather, it meticulously illustrates the devastating cost of being loyal in the Cold War struggle. Le Carré tends to show more favor towards characters with stronger loyalties within the novel; however, his main point is still to suggest that loyalty to anything other than oneself can leave people exposed to being used, disgraced, and killed by those who are willing to betray anything or anyone. Le Carré also emphasizes that this lack of loyalty is not specific to either side of the Cold War. Rather, he suggests that the sides are one in the same in their vicious tactics.
