AGENCY RECORD NUMBER RECORD SERIES AGENCY FILE NUMBER ORIGINATOR FROM © TO TITLE DATE PAGES SUBJECTS DOCUMENT TYPE CLASSIFICATION * RESTRICTIONS CURRENT STATUS DATE OF LAST REVIEW OPENING CRITERIA COMMENTS ay Date: 01/31/01 Page: 1 JFK ASSASSINATION SYSTEM IDENTIFICATION FORM Released under the John Kennedy CIA bssassination Records Ollection Act of 1992 AGENCY INFORMATION 104-10534-10036 JFK (44 USC 2107 Note). NOSENKO RECORDS ase#iNW 53216 Date: -----------------------e né—14-2017 -- DOCUMENT INFORMATION CIA | TRANSCRIPT:REEL #4. NOSENKO INTERROGATION BY DERYABIN, 28-29 JULY 1965. 07/28/65 68 NOSENKO DERYABIN NBR PAPER, TEXTUAL DOCUMENT SECRET POSTPONED IN FULL 01/31/01 JFK-M-24:F37 2001.01.31.11:43:22:337084: NOSENKO NOT BELIEVED RELEVANT (NBR). ATTACHED IS HSCA STAFF REVIEW FORM DATED 9 MAY 1978. SEE F34 FOR KEY TO TRANSCRIPT. [R] - ITEM IS RESTRICTED HW 532716 DBocld: 32404702 Page 1
MATERIAL REVIEWED AT CIA HEADQUARTERS BY HOUSE SELECT COMMITTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS STAFF MEMBERS FILE TITLE/NUMBER/VOLUME: TIKANLS CH PP SO _ 5 4 S incLusive pates: & TVLY /9G4GS5— AG FULLY (GS CUSTODIAL UNIT/LOCATION: — S&_ ROOM: DELETIONS, IF ANY: DATE 7 DATE ae REVIEWED BY (PRINT NAME) {| SIGNATURE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL NO DOCUMENTS MAY BE COPIED OR REMOVED FROM THIS FILE HW 53216 Docld:32404702 Page 3 _ Co
SECRET REEL # 4 28 July 1965 29 July 1965 TRANSLATION B. Well, take Dzerzhinskiy, on Dzerzhinskiy Square, the "Detskiy Mir" store was opened. only in recent years. : That is, when I began working in 1953, there was no "Detskiy Mir". When was it there? I absolutely do not remember, I do not remember. A. One minute. B. What was there before’? I also do not remember. The same with the Gastronom -- when was it opened? I do not remember. A. ... When you began working B. ... I say I do not remember ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) A. But I was not asking you about that ((the "Detskiy Mir" store)). You told me yourself. B. (XG). A. Alright; if you worked there 11 years, etc.ii., the "Detskiy Mir" was open | When was it opened? B. When? I do not remember, I do not remember. And I also do not remember what there was in that place before, either. SECRET HW 532716 DBoclId:32404702 Page 4
SECRET I remember only that, on the Tsentral'nyy Street (proyezd) side, there was a very well-known, famous bar, in a basement -= I remember this. | But what kind of building there was before this, I do not remember; but in 1953, there was no "Detskiy Mir". A, ((In English.)) Well, if you worked there, you would know exactly what was there. B. I do not remember, A. And, probably, if you had worked there, you would have dropped in there several times. And that will be my next question. B. But, please; I am telling you; please == I do not remember what was there before the "“Detskiy Mir". There was some kind of building, but I do not remember what was there. But, on that side, where Dzershinskiy Street goes down to Marx Street (Prospekt Marksa), there was a bar, A, That there was a bar there, every dog, all the KGB employees and all of Moscow knew. ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) B. Yes, everyone knew == right. But I do not remember what there was in this building. A. Why did they like to go to that bar? B. Because there was always crayfish and beer there, Well, it was an interesting bar. There were several bars in Moscow. But this bar was called precisely "Bar". It was in a basement and it had a low ceiling. A. When did they change the name, "Bar"? SECRET HW 532716 DBoclId:32404702 Page 5
A. Well, what did he ask you? .B. It was about where I was on the rolls, when I entered the Komsomol, what kind of Komsomol tasks I have had, whether I held a responsible Komsomol position. A, One minute, he asked you where you were on the rolls. What did you tell him? B, ((Pause)) He did not ask me like that; he asked when I entered; I told him I entered the Komsomol in 1943. | | So, I had had no punishments. Had I been elected to a responsible position? I was once elected in the Far East, where I started to work in 1950; I had been elected in 1951. I was elected Secretary of the Party organization; this was my only elective office, but I fulfilled other tasks as a rank-and-file Komsomol member. A, Again ... Party or Komsomol? B. Komsomol. Where was I last on the rolls? TI told him I was at the Navy Intelligence Point on the Baltic, in the Fourth Navy Fleet. I was on the rolls there for only a few months. What else did he ask me? I do not remember. He might have asked about my family Status, about education.... ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) A, Well, I will ask a leading question -- where was your personal Komsomol file located when you were working in the Baltic? -B. What Komsomol file? Here, there is only a personal Komsomol record card. A, Where was it? R . HW 532716 DBocld: 32404702 Page 7 ‘so
HW 53716 I do not know, I do not know, I can not say. If you were the Secretary of the Komsomol organization of the Second Chief Directorate, even without knowing where the card had been in the Baltic area, you would be able to answer this question. Very well, I can tell you, of course, according to how it is supposed to be. I am telling you, not because I remember == I do not remember; the card, of course, should be in the Political Department. In the Political Department there is a section, a Komsomol Committee, which guides all of the Komsomol organizations, all of the primary organizations in the Fourth Fleet. But, I do not remember that, and I tell you I do not remember . Well, when the Secretary asked you where you were enrolled, he had_ in mind whereyyour card was; what didyyou answer him? _ I told him that I was a Komsomol member of the Komsomol organization of the Navy Intelligence Point of the Fourth Navy Fleet. That is all. . Do you think that they ask that the card be sent? Nothing of the kind. | They issue a new one, Well, are you telling the way it was in fact or are you making this up just to pass the time away? T am not making anything up. When you say .... Well, then they should have asked me, there in the MVD, "Tell us the number of the military unit to which to send for inquiries". But no one asked me these things. If they did not ask you these things, how could they request your .. card? I am telling you that they certainly did not ask for the card. SECRET DoclIda: 32404702 Page &
HW 532716 How does this conform with the Regulations? I do not remember. We again are confronted with a question -- whether, ((as)) you say, they did not request your card, or you do not remember. I do not say that they did not request it; I am saying that they did not ask me. It means that you were not in the Komsomol. ((In a low voice.)) I can not say anything more ; think what you want. We will not say this is "think what you want", I cannot tellyyou anything more, I tell you I am trying, explaining the way I know it; What I know, I know; what I do not know, I do not know. To hear a Secretary of a Komsomol organization say that they did not request the card but issued a new one =~ this is absurd. Why did I make that conclusion? Because no one asked me <= neither the girl in the registry group, nor the member of the bureau of the Komsomol asked me anything ((such as)) "Listen ((B's surname)), let us write down where and what." Well, it would be logical to ask this; let us assume .... Logical, logical. In case they had to request my card from the old place where I was on the rolis, it would be logical for them to ask me; this is why I made the conclusion that they did not request it. Then how could it happen, for example, if you came to them ... they accepted you for work in the KGB —-~ we will assume you came to the Secretary of the MVD Komsomol with the Komsomol card. . The Komsomol card does not indicate the punishment. If there are, in the Komsomol card,. ten punishments, then what about the questions of accepting you for work in the organs of the MVD? RET DocId:32404702 Page 3
HW 532716 SEORET any an The punishments will be indicated in the Personnel file. The Personnel file will indicate that you had a punishment in the Party or Komsomol. Indeed it will be there. It will be there, that is true, but the basic document for Komsomol punishments is the Komsomol card, The card on the Komsomol member which is maintained on him at the place where he is on the rolls. My question =-- all of the time, we have been going over it the whole day == how could they put you on the rolls of the Komsomol without seeing your Komsomol card? I did not just come in off the street. Look how you are making your judgement -- as if it were the Komsomol Committee accepting me for work . I already was accepted for work -- this is the work of Personnel. Now would the Komsomol Committee regulate the work of Personnel? No. Again -- you know little about what goes on. No one says that the Komsomol Committee controls the work. For a man who was just about to leave the Komsomol, the Secretary of the Komsomol Committee probably will speak to the Personnel Department about what they think, They have plenty of their own over-age personnel ((Komsomol members)). I do not know whether they talked or not -- they would not inform me. Had you not been a Secretary, perhaps it would not be worthwhile asking these questions == because, as a Secretary of a Komsomol organization, you must know this, because it is daily and routine work. You do not have to learn the work,it works itself in. Beene DoclId:327404702 Page 10
“8— . B. You are confusing me a little bit; you see how it was ~- I was the Secretary of a small Komsomol organization. It is just additional work. There are Komsomol Secretaries who make it their profession. (ie. een pyhes Ws ps! weep A. I have already said that if you were just a Secretary .... B, This, I would have to know about Party = Komsomol work like God, A, Then, perhaps, I would ask more questions than I am asking. Most of what you have said makes it difficult to believe that you were a Secretary. There is no basis to believe it. ((Long pause.)) Let us assume that you are the Secretary of a Komsomol organization; there are only 15 members ; you simply execute the work of a Secretary, but you have other , operational work. When did you find time for a Komsomol meeting? B,. Once or twice every three months, A, Well, again ~~ you are saying this deliberately; right? But the Regulations state how many meetings there are to be. Of course, it is not necessary that these regulations always be observed, but someone checks, and the Secretary always is asked if a meeting was held or not. B. You are making a big issue of this; you are judging strictly officially, according to how the Regulations are to be followed. Approach this differently -=- what is the Komsomol organization? It is a small organization, just so and so many are in it = what can one do with this small organization’ It is a different thing if it is the Komsomol organization of Surveillance -= it is a huge one. A, But, as far as I know .... B. Ina large organization, the pot has to keep boiling =— indeed, they will require a huge organization ((to operate)) strictly. But a small organization .... HW 532716 DBocld:32404702 Page 11 SEC
®@ @ sacar =D A, The main work goes on in the Second Chief Directorate, not in Surveillance, the chief work, The most important is Counterintelligence, then Surveillance.. B. I am talking about the Komsomol organization. A, Well, we will say that you do not call the meetings as frequently as the Regulations call for. No one will deny this. But, if you do not call meetings at all, someone makes a check on them. ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) .~». But not one time in three months a«- this is absurd. B. Not at all absurd. | I tell you more than half -=— 80 percent == of the members are typists and secretaries from other departments. How can I pose a question concerning work in a meeting of the Komsomol organization? I cannot do that. First of all, the people come from different departments. These are support people, not operational. It is a different thing if it is a Party organization or Komsomol organization in a department, but there were none in the departments of the Second Chief Directorate. Here, questions closely connected with work are raised, A, This is all understandable, B. And here we discuss how a Komsomol member must behave, or, we will say, a Plenum, a Plenum of the Komsomol or a Plenum of the CC of the Party has just been held -- and this is the talk of the Komsomol organization. Ninety-nine (99) percent of our talk is about the Plenum and our agreement with it. We could not talk about work, because such is the set-up of the Komsomol organization. . If, for example, ((B's surname)) were Secretary of the Komsomol SECRET HW 532716 DBocld: 32404702 Page 12
HW 532716 B. SEORET When you came into the GRU, did they accept you without your going through the Medical Commission? I went through t he Commission, but no one asked me. They examined me; so what --— was my hand deformed? No, They asked if I had been at the front. No. Were you in battle? No, I was not in battle. That is all. They saw my age; I could not have fought. Well, if you really served in the Soviet Army or Navy, I think they would not have examined you so Simply, in the way you describe it. Well, no. I went through the Commission, through a number of doctors. I had blood tests and X-rays. No one asked me any thing. If I had had two fingers missing, say, then perhaps they would have asked me. Well ... two fingers missing .... Every doctor looks at the hands, and, of course, he would immediately ask, "What is this?" Look here, I. have other sears == look here; my finger was split almost in half «= no one asked about it. Do you think it is possible to believe that it went to simply? I do not know whether you can believe it,-=- I am telling you how it was. This is simply an “out”, I tell you I.went through the Commission, and no one asked me, SECRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 15
HW 532716 SECRET You must know that there is a certain procedure in the KGB, (XG). | Everyone goes through the Commission -=— one hundred percent. I told you that I did not go through the Commission, Why?’ | Why? Because the matter went through the top «- instructions were given by Personnel, from the top. | It was not Personnel that selected me; it was not Personnel which found me, | You understand? After that, I was given an "excused acceptance", if I can express myself that way --— excused; it was unusual. Well, what do you think happened after this "excused acceptance" == later, when KOBULOV was arrested? The only thing I know is what KOVSHUK and GORBATENKO told me -= that ROZHENKO went over to see GORBATENKO, Chief of the First Department, and said, "You remember, they accepted ((B's surname)).° This was on KOBULOV's instructions." . | There was talk; what it was about, where they talked about it, where the question was decided =— no one summoned me or spoke to me about it. That ROZHENKO went over, I know from KOVSHUK and GORBATENKO. Besides that when I began working in the First Department I spoke about my work. and also told GORBATENKO, Chief of the Department, how it happened that I had landed in this job. . I told him ‘just as I have told you how it happened. Well, if you had told it like this to BORBATENKO, he would believe it, but if you told it to ROZHENKO like that he would not believe it. I tell you that neither the case officer no ROZHENKO asked me; no one asked me how do you know KOBULOV., Where do you know him from? Why did you ask KOBULOV? No one asked a word. DoclId:327404702 Page 16 SECR.
HW 53716 DoclId: 327404702 Page i? This is not the question I- am asking. No; I am saying that no one asked me, Please understand == ROZHENKO could not ask such a question, because the instructions were from KOBULOV .... How it was there, I do not know; he probably looked at the name «= "Who is he, this ((B's surname) ); oh =— ((B's surname)); his son is a Minister; well, then every thing is clear; why did KOBULOV telephone? == it means that ((B's surname)) knows KOBULOV." Well, somehow, there was a talk; that is all. Even if one is the son of a minister and even if KOBULOV recommended the son of the minister, that office does not work the way you describe, I am telling you the way it was. It was another thing with ROZHENKO. Of course, they could not refuse because of the higher=ups, but nevertheless it is their duty to send you to the Medical Commission.; It does not matter whether the Commission will find you fit or not; the decision is made afterwards. No one sent me to the Commission; notheing was done. Further, I turned in a copy of my certificate of graduation from the Institute; I gave it to SAKHAROV, Personnel officer of the Second Directorate, when I already was working, working. Well, we will return to this later. It is enough for today. I hope that you will think this over and give the right answers -- not those which you have given, I only can say that I have given you only (?correct?) answers. (In English.)) That's all. Goodbye. Goodbye. ((End of A/B SHORE 28 July 1965)) SE T
HW 53716 ((Beginning of A/B Session, 29 July 1965)) Well, where shall we begin today? I am at your disposal; ~ the questions are yours. Let us go back to that first time when you completed the anketa, to start work in the MVD. I have thought about this question, and I cannot tell you for sure if I completed the anketa and turned it in to the case officer from ROZHENKO's section or... or I completed the anketa when I came in on the second day after I spoke with SHUBNYAKOV. Or, the personnel man, of the Second Chief Directorate, SAKHAROV, gave it to me, | But I definitely remember completing both the anketa and two auto~ biographies at home, The first question is m= why two copies; why not one? Two copies, two copies. They did not have such a procedure then. Absolutely _- two copies, You said that there were four or six pages to the anketa; that, too, is not true. It is absolutely true; I do not remember whether it was four or six. Not four, and not six. Look =-— one, two, three, four -- I want to say sheets; that is all. Three or four sheets; not more, The last time, you spoke about pages, and this time you are talking about sheets; there is a difference between pages and sheets. A page, a page =~ it is one side; on the other side of the sheet is another page, ‘ SEC DoclId: 32404702 Page 16
SECRET - 16 A, The same as in a book == one, two, three, four. B. Well, that is what I am telling you == as I told you last time; four pages or six pages, I do not remember. A. For your information, it was neither four nor six. How many? | You should know, if you really completed this anketa, especially since you said that you completed it several times when you came in and after that. Well, did you recall what the anketa is called? B. No; anketa. A, Well, what is written on the first page of the anketa? B. The first page is like a book. A. Presume that this is the anketa ((A hands a sheet of paper to B.)). B, ((Attempts to show where the heading is placed on the form:)) This is the anketa; yes...here, on the top, is written, "Anketa".... Here is an empty space. Then, there is a ruled space; on the left side, questions; on the right side, answers. A. What is the anketa called? B. Simply "Anketa". At the top, there is printed,in small letters, "Form 26" or "21" a= I do not remember. A, What else is printed on it? B. Nothing more. A, Explain to me == you worked for many years in the Second Chief Directorate -=- when they recruit an agent, a Soviet citizen, any citizen, what kind of anketa do they give him to fill out? SECR HW 532716 DBocld:32404702 Page 19
HW 532716 SECRET ~1”r- I never gave one to an agent; I myself recruited agents. I never gave them an anketa to complete; I completed the anketa myself. You yourself complete the anketa on a recruited agent. What kind of anketa? What is it meant for? I will tell you right now; this, I remember. There are two sheets; four pages ... two sheets ... yes, it is two sheets. ((Long pause.)) Well, what is it for2? You yourself recruited them, you yourself completed it. Please == tell me, On the first sheet there is a place for photos; ‘in the upper right~ hand corner, there is a square for the photo. "Anketa", then, for a "resident", “agent" -= you underline the appropriate designation, ((Long pause.)) What =-- is it so hard to describe? You recruited, you completed them, and you should know. I do not remember, I do not remember, I do not remember. Usually, you put in the surname, first name, patronymic (XG); when you have filled in the anketa, you receive a folder for the personal file. I am not asking you about the folder; we will come back to it. Why am I telling you this? On the folder, there is the number of the personal file (XG). You said the anketa has four pages; tell me about this anketa; the personal file folder is something else ~— we will talk about it. The anketa for an agent is completed after he has been registered, and he is registered after he has been recruited, after the recruitment. DoclId: 327404702 Page 270
HW 53716 The first report is for the recruitment, the second part, on the recruitment, and at the end of the report you ask for permission to include him in the active agent network of the Second Chief Directorate. Only then do we complete the anketa. We began talking about the anketa,. What is the anketa? You told me that there are four sides, that in the right corner there is a place for a photo. What is this anketa called? Again, we return to this question. You were not able to tell me what the anketa ((for KGB employees)) is called.... And I cannot name this, either... ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) Well, if a man has worked there for 11 years, he must have had no less than 50 agents .... If not more, if not more. More, More, And if, as you said, they themselves do not complete the anketa, then you probably filled out no less than 50 anketas, and you must know this Anketa. Well, part of these I did not fill out, because some of the agents I received already had been recruited. Well, anyway, you looked at their files. (2«3G) . DoclId: 32404702 Page 71
HW 53716 Well,--tell about these anketas. You were working, you filled them out, you had agents, you had their personal files; what is the anketa? I cannot tell you, I cannot tell you by heart, I cannot. ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) Here is the anketa; in the right-hand corner, the photo. It is underlined _- whom the file represents: "resident", "agent"; at the same time, you put in the number of the file, which you already know. Then you write in the pseudonym; then, the surname, first name and patronymic; the date and place of birth; nationality; education What else is there? That is all for the first page Residence ... no, no, no, no ... I remember ~= the residence comes later. | Now, on the opposite side ... ((Long pause.)) on the first page ... on the opposite side of the first sheet ... On the second page ... on the opposite side ((Appears nervous.)) ... by whom recruited? Then you write in whether he was recruited on compromising materials or on an ideological basis; then you add when he was recruited Then ... second sheet, third page ... oh, yes, yes -- on the first, the very first page, the place of work ... I already told that So ... well, here, I do not remember what was on top, but on the bottom -- about his relatives ... about the agent's relatives, briefly, about them =~ surname, first name, patronymic, date of birth, pl&ce of work, address, telephone; that is all -= I do not remember more. The only conclusion I can draw from your description of the anketa is that a man who has worked there for 11 years should not describe this anketa only in general terms; even if, as you say, you have a poor memory, after working il years there, you are supposed to know at least ninety percent of this anketa as well as you know your ow five fingers. SECRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 22?
SECRET ~ 20 B. I told you about eighty - ninety percent. A, HW 53716 You even cannot give a superficial description of it -~ what it is called, etc. I told you =- anketa for a resident or agent. I think that this is not the talk of a man who has worked there for ll years and who had quite a number of agents, residents, informants, and other employees — butwho knows the documents very poorly. - Let us go back again to the anketa of the Personnel file. Can you still not tell me what it was called -=- the one you filled out on yourself? Simply anketa, simply anketa. Are you sure you filled out such an anketa? The anketa, yes. And did you fill it out? . . Yes, yes. How does it happen that ((you do not know that)) it does not have four or six pages, and that it is not called simply “anketa"? I do not know how it happens. I am telling you what I remember. You ask me, and I am answering you. Consider -— a counterintelligence man cannot just simply say that he does not remember. He has worked for ll years _ this is his bread and butter; it is his daily work. Every day he bumps up against these anketas; every day -= he cannot avoid them. Even if you do not see the agent, you go through his personal file; if you do not go through his file, then you go to the Archive to take a look. You just cannot get around them. RET DoclId: 32404702 Page 23
HW 53716 You are absolutely right. Where, this, is your knowledge regarding this; why has your knowledge of them evaporated so quickly? I do not know, I do not know. Well, in regard to the anketa of the employee which you said you completed, I == on the basis of your reply -- conclude that you have not the slightest idea about this anketa. What else besides this anketa did you complete when entering on duty with the KGB? All of the employees fill it out. I told you that I completed an anketa -- two copies -= and that I made two copies of the autobiography, and I turned in some photos. Then it was necessary to sign the secrecy agreement, regarding state and military secrets, which was given me by SAKHOROV. Well, what was this secrecy agreement? ‘; What was it called? I do not remember ; there was only one sheet. What was printed on it? "TY " mw=— here you put your surname, name and patronymic; the rest is printed; you sign and date it. What does it require of you? It requires one to safeguard military secrets, and if one breaks it he will be punished under Soviet law, etc. (2G). Well The secrecy agreement (podpiska). What was it called? I do not remember, I do not remember. SEGRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 24
HW 53716 B. A, B. I do not remember, I do not remember, I do not remember. 'J am sure you must have signed it several times during your 11 years of work. Yes, I know -= two or three times. What was the reason for signing it two or three times? Well, I do not know, I do not know. You signed it two or three times Not only I, but everyone, everyone. Particularly the first time -- when you started working for the MVD -- you had to sign it. What was this sheet of paper called, and what was printed on it? “I told you what it contained. You said practically nothing. Well, that "I, such and such «= surname, first name and patronymic: ((B's full name)) ....'"; then comes the printed text; then "I pledge to safeguard state and military secrets." Approximately when did you sign it? When I had begun to work; I already had begun working. What -~ after a year? No -~ after a few days; perhaps, when I was handing in the anketas. I signed it in SAKHAROV's office. What you told me about swearing not to divulge secrets is wrong. There was no such document as you describe it; and the sheet did not say what you describe. I am giving you the idea behind it. SESRET DoclIda: 327404702 Page 276
SECRAT - 24 = A. It is not a matter of the thought of it; you started out, "I, ((B's surname)), so-and-so ..." == that is not what it says. B. Well, there is a blank, and you fill in your name. ° A. But not that way. B. Toxumy thinking, I signed this more than one time; at one time, all of the departments completed this form. A. Perhaps you signed it, but not the way you describe it. The Personnel Department does not work the way you say. I cannot understand in any way where the bones Lie hidden ~-— if you were there, you must know; if you were not, then say so. B. I told you. I would tell you, and we would not have such long discussions. A. What keeps you from saying? B. Nothing is holding me back «<= I am telling you the way it was. A. Well, I ask you what anketa you completed when you were coming in —- you do not know the name of the anketa; you do not describe it properly; you do not give the proper dimensions, etc. If you made small errors I absolutely would not pay attention to then, but you are talking about such immeasurably different things. What you say about the anketa you filled out and the anketa you gave to agents to complete all adds up to one thing _- you were not there, and you do not know. B. Well, it looks that way to you. A. That is the way ((it seems)), not only to me, but to everyone; in all of the discussions, you cannot answer the simplest questions. B. (Angrily)) Very well, you can tell me that I am not at all ((B's surname)), that I am not from Russia, but from Uruguay. . SECRET WW 53216 Docld:32404702 Page 27
HW 53716 Perhaps, perhaps; because that is the way it comes out. You say that you worked there for 11 years, but you do not know what the anketa which agents complete is called; you said you had business during the 11 years with more than 50 agents. Well, I had business with agents, with hundreds of them. Then you should know. Never in my life did I work that way -- maybe I did not do anything over there, but I never worked like that in my life. Would I sit down and say,"Ah ... how is this form written up? What is in the anketa?" You did not have to study it. ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) The real things ... when one starts to work. Ninety percent of the KGB employees work that way. Nothing good in them; they only sit and study forms, but they are working. | Well, maybe. I am a strange person ... maybe something else is wrong with me. ((xG; A and B speak at the same time.)) Alright, maybe I am starnge ... I say, maybe; I do not know; I do not remember. How is it that a man starts working for the MVD, signs a statement, ((but)) does not know what it is called and what it says? What does it say? I gave you the idea of it: to safeguard state and military secrets; one is warned against divulging Violations .. one must be punished according to Soviet law. SEGRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 28
SECRET A. Not true; that is not correct. Up to 1953, in 1953, and after 1953, there were certain papers which were signed by employees upon entering MVD and those. who were working there; and I want you to tell me what you signed. What you told me absolutely is not correct. If you know, tell me; what you told me does not fit. B. I know nothing more. | A. Well, further ... what else did you fill out? B. I filled out nothing more. A. There is something else you must complete; you cannot avoid it. ((Pause.)) There is something else that is filled out, all absolutely everyone has to fill it out -- whoever works in the MVD or whoever comes to work there. B. I do not know. A. Well, I will give you a leading question -- it is filled out not only in the KGB, but also in the MVD, in the Militia, and in the MOOP at the present time ... at that time, in the MVD, MGB, Militia and also many other organizations. You cannot get around this in any way, because it is a document which is confirmed by the CPSU Central Committee == every man must complete ag, it, although it is of no special significance for the MVD or the KGB. B. I do not know. A. Well, in the nature of your work ~- as I think over ((your)) 11 years -- you probably saw Personnel files on employees who had been released? B. Yes. A. Did you personally see the Personnel files on the employees? B. ((Speaks with uncertainty.)) I saw; I saw. HW 532716 DBocld:32404702 Page 29
HW 53716 eo Cd) Well, at least we can proceed from here. When. you opened the file, it is there; and you personally filled it out -- maybe one time, maybe two times, probably a couple times over the 11 years, you completed this form. It is also an anketa, but it is not called "Anketa." I do not know what other kind of leading question I can give you. Where you worked before -= you show this on the anketa., ... Your service record. I do not know, I do not know. On the next to last sheet is indicated your whole, whole service record, since completion of the institute. For your information, that which you are thinking about now and what you say is not on the next to last page. \ On the next to last page -- I remember this absolutely accurately. On the last page ... ah ... the elected positions are indicated -- elections as deputy, medals, inventions. But the next to last page concerned service. The last page contains nothing; it is blank. No, no, no; the last page asks if you have been elected — for example, as a deputy, a judge -- have you invented anything, have you any scientific works, awards, and the signature comes on the last page. That is not the way it is. It is absolutely right -- I remember this. Well, again -- what other anketa had to be completed? What was it called? I cannot say; I do not know; I cannot say; I do not remember. What document you have in mind I do not know. You say it is not the anketa -- I do not know what it is. DoclId: 327404702 Page 30
@ ® Ser =~ 28 = A. Well, it is not called a anketa, but in general, it too is an anketa; but it is not called an "Anketa". There are even two other documents in the Personnel file. We will return to them, later. | The one we are talking about is similar in questions to the "Anketa", ((Pause.)) Really, I seriously ... B. And I. am serious; I know you are not kidding; I understand you. ((Pause.)) I do not remember; I do not know. , ((Long pause.)) I do not know. A. Bid you ever complete or sign a service record (posluzhnoy spisok)? B. I myself never filled one out; this is Personnel's business. I only did, as told you, on the last, the next to lastpage, indicated all my employment from 1945 to 1950. | No =«- I evén indicated time spent at high school; but I do not remember the number of the school. For 1945 to 1950, I indicated the Institute and then, the places where I worked: Sovetskaya Gavan _- Intelligence of the 7th Fleet; in the Baltic, Sovetsk. A. I do not want this -- we already have passed this stage -=— you know nothing about. the anketa, And I do not think we need return to it until you tell me what it is about, what it is called, and if you really filled it out. If you did, you must know. If you cannot tell me, you never completed it and never saw it, and. you never were in the MVD. Now, we are talking about the service record. What did you hear about it, and what is it? B. I never completed a service record, This is a document for officers of the Army, the MGB, or the MVD; it is completed by Personnel men. A. I asked you if you completed it and signed it. B. I did not complete it, I did not complete it. HW 53216 Docld:32404702 Page 31 ~SECRET__
HW 53716 oy ~ 29 = You did not fill it in, but you must sign it. I signed this service record once, one time, when the time was counted up for all employment -- they let you see it. No, I did not complete it; i Signed it once. Well, what is this document for? It indicates the places of service, including military. What part of the officer's Personnel file is it?. This document is needed for the Personnel file, to record the service, for rank. That is right; I am telling you -- that is right. Well, I tell you I never completed it, but one time I signed it; I signed it once in 1958 or 1957. It indicates your transfers and the positions, not only where you served, but, for instance, it indicates from such-and-such a year a case officer, from such-and=such a year, a senior case officer, from such-and-such a section to such-and-such a department. If you know this, why do you not know the anketa? Well, I do not know; I am telling you what I remember. If you remembered this, why did you not remember about the anketa? What you tell me is written on the next to the last page and on this or that page =— this is not correct, absolutely not correct. It is absolutely correct; I am ready to argue with you at any length, because I remember that. . \ I do not want to argue. I do not remember where, I am telling you as I remember == on the next to last page, you show all places of work. SECRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 32
HW 53716 This is not the next to last page, but in the middle of the anketa. You do not know the size of the anketa, and I do not intend telling you. You do not have to tell. I remember -~ it is on the next to last page. But here you do not show your positions as you do in the service record, Well, if there was such a section in the anketa, what was this section called? Again you were wrong when you said that the position is not indicated there. | There the positions are indicated exactly, and there is a special column for this. Yes, the position is shown, because I wrote, for example -- translator, Intelligence, 7th Navy Fleet; city, Sovetskaya Gavan. Well, do not give me now some confirmation that you were a translator. We will return to this question. Further -- let us lay aside the matter of the service record. Perhaps you signed it, just so But, again, it is not understandable why it took the MVD three or four years to have you sign it. For your information, the service record is written up on a newly accepted officer, no matter where he came from -- from military intelligence or the GRU -- or whether he is a military officer or not, as soon as the order on his acceptance in the organs of the MVD is signed. Excuse me; perhaps I can add something and correct you. Please, please. SECRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 353
HW 53716 SECRET - 31 Perhaps you have something else in mind here. Look «= the Second Chief Directorate; there is their own Personnel officer This Personnel officer does not have the files on all of the employees in the Second Chief Directorate; they are in Central Personnel. This Personnel officer, from the moment of the new officer's acceptance as an employee, opens a personal record card (lichnaya uchetnaya kartochka) as a substitute for the service record. I know what kind of card it is and where they keep it. The Personnel officer keeps it, from the moment of his acceptance, because the Personnel officer does not have the Personnel file; but the service record, I signed only one time -- I do not know by whom it was filled out, by Central Personnel or by SAKHAROV. At the end of this service record, it states that as of such and such a date, you have so many years, months and days of service. My question was == why did it take the MVD four years I do not know; I cannot say; I do not remember; I do not know. According to the regulations -=- and every Personnel officer knows this -~ the service record is filled out as soon as the order ((of acceptance) ) is signed; well, maybe, two or three days will pass ((before this is done)); in any case, not more than a week. In this service record, the order number is recorded, as well as is the position and office assignment. Well, it is probable that the Personnel officer put it there right away In the service record. This is done by the Personnel officer, never by the employee himself. ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) I saw it the first time ... maybe it was ... it was ... this service record ... in the Personnel file in the GRU ... in the Personnel file . it was. s T DoclId: 327404702 Page 34
o e Bs - 32 - That is another service record; there is a big difference. No, no; I am saying that there was a service record there. From the beginning, probably .. I saw it only one time; they showed it to me, not with the Personnel file, but separately, as was done with all the employees. Please ... do not get upset. No, I am just telling you how it was. Because, as soon as the order is signed to employ you, the service record is opened, and the employee is invited over. If he was in the GRU or was simply an Army officer, this is checked against the old service record to find out whether it all has been filled out correctly, day by day, so that there are no errors. Then, a new service record is started on the employee. He signs it, and perhaps he will never see it again. Well, one time ... but not right away . No one is saying that this is done on the second day I already was working in the Seventh Department Let us leave the service record. What other anketa is there -- it is not called "Anketa", but something else; everyone, one-hundred percent, fills out this anketa?... I do not know. . Working in the organs ... You know, when you told me about signing the secrecy agreement, etc Yes. The way you described its format, it seemed as if you were not a staffer, but an agent; for agents, this format begins approximately they way you described it; but, for staffers Well, there was no format for agents == neither printed nor typed; the agent wrote it himself, in~nis own handwriting. SE HW 532716 DBocld:32404702 Page 35
HW 53216 DBoclId:32404702 Page 36 I did not say whether it was printed or not; I simply said that it was the same format. Two absolutely different things ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) Well, approximately resembling ((the format for)) an agent. The agent has a completely different agreement -- that he voluntarily has agreed to cooperate with the organs of the KGB or MVD and that for conspiracy's sake he has such and such a pseudonym, and he will sign his reports with it. Tell me what you signed when you came to work for the M¥D. t I told you. You told me nothing -= you only said nonsense. Well, you may accept my explanation or not. I cannot lie to you or think up something. I told you what the format was and the thought behind it; I do not remember it word for word. One printed sheet You write in your surname, first name, patronymic, and then the rest is printed -~ "I swear to guard the state and military secrets, and if I violate this, I will be punished under Soviet law".... That is not right. ... And you sign it. It is not right ((about the words)), "I will be punished under Soviet law" -<=— such an agreement has not been enforced since 1940. No ... well ... I am telling you the thought, the thought. If you worked there, then you should know this very well.
HW 53716 eer ~ 34 Well ... responsible according to Soviet law, for divulging state and military secrets. The words "To be punished (karat'sya)" should be thrown out. Well, anyway, what other anketa is there? I do not know. Did you ever see or do you know about the Spravka Form No. 1? No; I do not know, I do not know, And you never had anything to do with it? I do not know, I do not know. And you never saw such a spravka? (2-36) I said that I did not see it. Well, every MVD employee who has worked even a few months knows precisely what the Spravka Form No. 1 is; no explanations are required at all .... I do not know; I cannot #2* And you should know about it very well. Especially if you had subordinates and if you were deputy chief of section, chief of section, or higher. Whenever you transfer them or promote them you were supposed to see it and not just one time, but.a hundred times. Well, someone is transferred, promoted If you are promoted, for example, your case officer, PETROV, to senior case officer, it could not be done without the chief of section. But, of course, the chief of section will write Well, if you were a chief of section, a deputy chief of department, chief of department, etc., you always see Spravka Form No, 1. SECRET DoclId: 32404702 Page 37
HW 53716 SECRET - 35\— Oh «= this is what you have in mind: Form No. l. Or, for example, you recommended I know, I know. When someone is promoted in position or rank =. I know this document; I know it; I know it -- Form No. 1. That is what the Spravka is called -~"Form No. 1." And for your information, this spravka has nothing to do with rank, has almost nothing to do with rank. No; it also is the form for rank. Here, the point is ... I will tell you right now: you yourself do not even complete the first section (chast'). You write some sort of evaluation (kharakteristika) ; for example _. "Comrade PETROV has been working in the Seventh Department for such and such a time; he is a case officer; he has shown himself to be capable in performance of his work; he is a good agent handler (agenturist) ; he is on good terms with his subordinates; he has taken an active part in operations against foreigners ." Then, at the end, you give the conclusion that he is qualified for promotion to the position of senior case officer. This will be signed by the chief of the department ~= or, in his absence, the deputy chief -- and it is approved by the chief of the directorate. Then, it goes to Personnel for the order. You already have told about this in part. Personnel fills out the first page themselves; for example, SAKHAROV did this, but not the Personnel group headed by KUDREV does it. You write only the evaluation; the rest of it is done by Personnel. All the necessary information is taken from Personnel files, or the Personnel officer takes it from the Personnel card (uchetnaya Kartochka) . We will not talk about how it is written up, because you are not telling it correctly and I do not even want to hear it. 5 ET DoclId: 327404702 Page 38
HW 53716 DoclId: 327404702 Page 39 SECRAT - 36 I am telling you how I did it, how it actually was. Did you ever complete it yourself? Yes, I myself filled it in. Well, please, tell me what it is for. You described the second side about right, a part of it, one tenth of it. If you completed it yourself, please -- continue. I told you -- the first page: the surname, first name, patronymic, rank, date of birth; length of time in grade and position, such information ... What else? All documents require the information you mentioned. Party affiliation Well, this again is for everyone.... Well, on the second sheet, you give a brief evaluation (kharaktristika) of him ... well, it is not an evaluation (kharaktristika) How many pages does this spravka have? ((Long pause.)) Just the first and second sides. Thatiis all. On the first side, you said biographic data; what else? That is, all -- that is the first page. Wrong -= well, what is there on the second side besides what you said -~ besides the recommendation for assignment. There is a suggestion for assignment (kharaktristika) which gives a description of this case officer; it is signed by the chief of the department. Then, further down, ((is a signature line)) specially for the chief -- either for the deputy chief chief of the directorate, who gives the approval. SECR
- 37 = Well, my conclusion is that you know nothing about Spravka No. l. ((Long pause. )) Well, what other anketa is there? I am returning to the old question. There is still another anketa which the employee himself completes. The Personnel file is not complete without it. Although the anketa is not needed very much by the KGB, nevertheless it is provided for by the Central Committee of the CPSU, and everyone completes it. And they complete it not only in the KGB, but also in all government institutions. ((Long pause.)) No, I absolutely do not remember. It particularly relates to the Komsomolk; and Communist Party members. Some who are not Komsomol or Communist Party members also fill it out; for example, specialists. Of course, they do not fill it out in factories, because there are no Personnel files there. Well, yes ((Long pause.)) I do not know. I can only make the quick conclusion that you cannot confirm that you were an employee , not only of the Second Chief Directorate, but in general -= an employee of the MVD because you do not know the simplist things which a simple officer of the organs should know. I am not dwelling on petty details. You are dwelling only on petty details. I do not know where you get these questions; these are only petty details. From the KGB; ‘that is where I was trained. Honest to God, you must have worked in Personnel for 20 years. Well, I was not just in Personnel, but we will return to this. Well, you had to have worked in Personnel for some time, if you ask for such details. SEQRET HW 53216 Docld:32404702 Page 40
SE T ~ 38 = I think you know better. I do not know. I think you know very well. If you give me your name We will talk about this later, when we find a common language; maybe we will have a drink to our health. Now,thow do you explain I do not know how to explain; what I remember , I tell you; I am trying If one considers only that you could not answer my most elementary questions, your approach, your processing, and your confusion of one anketa with another -- the one about divulging ((secrets)) «= only one conclusion can be made: that you did not only not work in the Second Chief Directorate, but you did not work in the organs. Then, accor ding to what you think, I did not work anywhere. Why? Because you said that this ((other)) anketa, this paper ((is completed)) in civilian organizations by Komsomol members and Communists. Yes, . And even by some non-Party members, those with higher education. Then, in general, I did not work anywhere. My question is —=— where were you? Where was I? What did I do? That is my question. Honestly, I told you the first time that you have a great sense of humor. We have arrived at the point where I did not work anywhere; then, where was I? CRET HW 53216 Docld:32404702 Page 41
HW 53716 B. A SE Not there; you did not work there. Yes, I did not work anywhere, not even in civilian jobs; nowhere. To my thinking, it is possible; there are such things; perhaps you did not work even in a civilian job. Well, I really did not work anywhere in civilian jobs. Yes, there are some jobs in which a person may be listed, but does not work. Do you understand? That is a good job; he is listed, but does not work anywhere. ot ° Listed, but does not work. That is good work; good pay; very good work. -Of course, the pay is always good; it is always good, by the way; and it is not a bad life for the time being; then, as they say, luck @Acimess changes. I do not know what other document you have in mind; I do not remember. Well, we are now talking in general. I have told you that I am trying to ((B moves forward to desk, trying to read A's notes.)) I see that you are trying -= to read my notes -- but there is nothing written here, except what you have said. I am not making any notes other than what you have said. What, what ((As if he does not understand) )? I am saying, do not look here; if you wish, I will read it to you. Well, I cannot see it. Even if you show it to me, I cannot see what is written there. Is your eyesight poor? Yes, yes. . What happened? Docld:32404702 Page 42 SECRKRT
B. I had ((poor eyesight)). I wore glasses at the theater, at the movies, for driving an automobile; I can read a document, but at this distance I cannot see. Now, being here, I am ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) A. Well, I am not writing anything here. I am writing down just what you say. B. Excuse me; you have made a great mistake. I did not for one part of a second have the slightest thought of reading or looking at what you have written down. A. I do not have any secrets at all here; absolutely none at all. B. No, no, no; I told you about my eyes. A. Can you give me an example -= you worked there for 11 years -- of reading the Personnel file of an employee who had been released, or of employees who became agents, or under some other circumstances. B. So, so A. Did you ever read or see the Personnel file of an MVD employee? B. Of course, I Looked into them. Sometimes the employees would bring them. When I was working in later years in the Seventh Department, I supervised three sections ' For example, SUKHOTSKIY, from the Hotels Section, came Or, for example, I selected a resident For example, TOPESHKO, from the Fourteenth Department of the PGU .. Well, I wanted to put him in the "National" Hotel; and he really did work there for a few months Or, something else Maybe the Personnel file, maybe the summary (spravka) from the Personnel file ... A. You say the Personnel file and even wrote a summary SEC HW 53216 DocId:32404702 Page 43
B,. HW 53716 CRET a 4 _ I did not write it; an employee did. An employee, but nevertheless you saw:the file. Even if you did not write it out yourself, you could say ten times more about the Personnel file than what you have said. I am not asking you for a completely detailed description, but only about those documents which you must know as an employee; not only as a chief of section, but as any common employee =~ because without a knowledge of them, one cannot work. But you cannot explain the simplest things to me; and I really cannot believe that you were there and worked there. I do not know, I do not know what kind of document you have in mind. I saw a Personnel file, and Everyone has seen the document about which we spoke. Your knowledge is so small, so slight, that the lowest agent of the KGB, a seksot, knows more than you know. That is the question -= because this poor seksot also fills in anketas. For what? For woaon? For Personnel files? Well, you tell me why. For the personal files of an agent? You tell me why _. because that poor seksot knows more about the KGB or the MVD than you. That is my question == where were you? And what did you do? | You do not even know the ABC's. I told you where I was and what I did. SECR DoclId: 327404702 Page 44
That is not an answer -— "I told you," "I told you". You have said much, but it does not fit. | ((Pause.)) Well, I will give you some time to think about it. We will take a break for lunch. I hope that you will tell me something reasonable. Besides what I have said, I cannot say anything more which is reasonable in reply to your questions == not because I do not want to, but because I do not know. { You cannot answer elementary questions; how can I go more deeply into those anketas, itc.? Well, do not get upset; have a good lunch; (Cin Enghish?)) Good appetite. ((In English.)) Thank you very much. You are so kind; thank you very much. ((LUNCH BREAK)) A. B. A. Qe B,. HW 53216 ((In English.)) Well, where are we now? (2G) I thought, "Such questions!" A man says from the first day that he has come to help clear up things; you are not helping me to clear up things -- you are dragging me to the bottom. Just the contrary. "To clean up". I was just thinking about what we just finished. What other kind of documents can there be? One must give a copy of the birth certificate, a copy of the diploma, and a certificate (spravka) from the place of residence. Well, that is right. I do not deny it. Well, what other kind of documents are there? nee | SECRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 45
HW 532716 ®@ @ Sache — These are general == everyone presents them; not only in KGB, but in so many other institutions. Well, then Well, I say, if one has a fourth grade education, no one will ask for his diploma. Well, he will give proof if he finished high school. Of course, if he only finished the fourth grade he will not present any documents. They say that SHOBNYAKOV went through four grades only. Well, they say he is not a bad man. And a clear head. I do not deny it -— what is true, is true. When you came out of the Navy, what kind of a document did you have == do you remember? I just had a leave document and my officer's identification; that was all. What did you do with the officer's identification? I turned it in; I gave it to SAKHAROV when I came on duty; they kept it. They kept it. They did not return anything. And the leave certificate -— where did it go? It did not go anywhere. I probably destroyed it. Well, we have talked quite a bit about the anketa; let us talk about still another question == as far as I know, before you went on duty in the organs of the MVD, you were married? SECRAT DoclId: 327404702 Page 46
HW 53716 ® | e ssc Right. What information did you give -= or what did the MVD ask you -- about your former wife? I wrote about her; I listed her; I wrote I had been married; I gave the information -- surname, first name, patronymic == about my wife; all information. What discussion was there on this subject -- about your first wife -- in Personnel of the MVD or with the chiefs of the Second Chief Directorate? There was none; there was absolutely none, with the chiefs. But I told Personnel how it was -- that I had lived with her for a short period of time, that I had been divorced from her in 1952. Was there anything in the anketa? Do you have in mind whether or not I had a certificate of divorce? I did not have one, because it s=the dissolution of the marriage == was indicated by stamp in the officer's identification. If it was stamped in your officer's identification In the officer's identification, at the end. But some oné has to have the certificate of divorce. She likely has it; I did not need it. They stamped it immediately in my officer's identification, and that was enough. Were you yourself not interested in having evidence of the divorce? On what basis did they record it in your officer's identification? On the basis of some document Well, there was the decision of the City Court; furthermore, the court itself sent notification to deduct alimony from my pay. I never received my notification. SECRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 47
HW 53716 SECRET = 45 You mean to say that you received nothing at all? Absolutely nothing. It was stamped in my officer's identification, about the dissolution of the marriage. Where is the certificate on the dissolution of the marriage itself? Why did you not have it? It is not a certificate; it is a court judgement. I did not have, and I did not need it. It was enough for me to have the divorce recorded in my officer's identification. Anyone can write in his officer's identification. Well, no; it is an official stamp; it is not written in by hand ~- it is a stamp, with a seal and a signature. Who stamps the book? The book was stamped by the ZAGS office, not by the court, but by the ZAGS. ‘Well, then I had something in hand. You are right -- I submitted it, and they put in the stamp, in the ZAGS office. Well, if ZAGS stamped it, on what basis did they do so? On the basis of a piece of paper, of course; they do not just simply put it in. This piece of paper, of course, has a name, does it not? I do not remember. Well, if you got a divorce, you must know. But I do not remember (?How was it?!?) Then, how was it? Well, it was the judgement of the court, the court judgement. SE T DoclId: 327404702 Page 45
A, B. SKCRET =n 4A — The judgement of the court is one thing .. An extract from the court judgement, which I gave to ZAGS, and they put in the stamp. That is all. Well, this still is not all. Oh, yes, right, right; one minute --— before they put in the stamp, I had to pay. Well, I paid the court fees. That is not what I have in mind. When they gave you the extract from the court judgement, you went to ZAGS; -ZAGS likely gave you a piece of paper, which has its own name. They did not give me anything. They stamped it -- that the marriage had been dissolved, and that is all; nothing more. The stamp is put in by ZAGS, not only on the basis of the court judgement; ZAGS provides something else also ZAGS gives nothing. Because the court decision still is not an official document. The City Court decision is official; the extract has a seal.-- because the first court is a rayon court; it does not make a decision -=- its task simply is reconciliation Well, I am not talking about that. . And that is already an official decision. But the decision of the court, even with the seal, has to be presented to the ZAGS . Right. To receive So as to dissolve the marriage. HW 532716 DBocld:32404702 Page 49 span
HW 53716 A, SEQRET - 47 They register the dissolution of the marriage. Well, if the divorce really took place == we will return to this later and talk about it -- there is a procedure: a certificate is issued on the dissolution of the marriage. No, no; no certificate; there was none. What do you want me to do -= show you a certificate of the dissolution of a marriage’ No, you do not have to. If they give it to everyone, then why did they not give you one? They did not give me any certificate on the dissolution of the marriage. On the basis of the certificate, a notation can be made in the, passport or they can make a notation in the officer's identification. There is no other document which is valid for this purpose. You are confusing it with something else. I am not confusing it with anything. We are talking about a certificate. There is a certificate of birth, a certificate of death, and a marriage certificate; and there is the certificate of the dissolution of a marriage. Well, then, she received this certificate of dissolution of the marriage. It is given to both, because both parties are equal, I did not have one, and I did not present it anywhere. I only had the extract from the court decision. ((XG; A and B speak at the same time.)) Without that document, they eannot put in the stamp; that is the question. - SECRER_ DoclId: 32404702 Page 50
HW 53716 The stamp was put in on the basis of the extract from the city court; the stamp. Well, let us put this aside. The anketa requires you to List your former wives or husbands, asking for their surnames, first names, patronymics, birth dates and places, the address at the current time, and whether you maintain contact. What did you answer to this question when you were coming on duty? What did you write about your first wife? I can tell you what I remember. "My former wife -—- ((B's surname.)), Avgustina Konstantinovna." J indicated that she had not changed her name then I indicated where she lives. | I indicated that actually we were separated in 1948, but legally we were not divorced until 1952. Well, did you tell the MVD about her father? I said that he was a member of the Military Council, with ZHUKOV, Lt. Gen. TELEGIN ... that in 1947 he was arrested ... for, as far as I had heard, according to an article of the Criminal Code, for pillaging in Germany, but, actually, he was arrested because of his association with ZHUKOV, when they were working on ZHUKOV; that is all. . And what do you think -- what would the Personnel Department or the chiefs of the Second Chief Directorate «+, how would they look upon the fact that you married and lived with your wife for a year while her father was imprisoned --- and then ya left her ++ how did the MVD react to this fact -- that the father of your first wife, a member of the Military Council, a big man, whom they knew in the Central Committee and everywhere, and then he was in jail ... and this was so from the day you came on duty in the organs ... and more == that you were paying alimony for child support -- how did the MVD react to this? SECRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 51
HW 53716 B. B. I do not know; I told them; I told this first to the case officer, and then I told it to the Personnel man, SAKHAROV; also, in conversation, I told this to GORBATENKO, when we became acquainted —- I told him in detail; he could have known this from my Personnel file, but anyway he talked to me personally. The second question -- when you were completing the anketa, of course, you wrote that your father was a Minister; how, then, did you answer the question of the social origin of your parents?. "From the working class." What did you write about the social origin of your mother? I wrote that she was from the professional class (sluzhashchiy). But, actually, who was she? ((Long pause.)) Well, why did I write "professional class"? Because her father was an architect. | | He was in the civilian field. Oh, you have in mind the social origin? "Nobility." Well, you know, there is a column in the anketa, and I wrote, "from the professional class." The social origins of your parents -= what did they do before the Revolution? Father was from the working class; before the Revolution, mother was in the gimnazium. And after the Revolution? Likewise, after the Revolution she was studying, and then she became a housewife. Well, I am asking -- there is a column I indicated "from the professional class". SECRET DoclId: 32404702 Page 52
HW 53716 SECRET ~ 50 - Well, we will say that the MVD ... well, maybe it was earlier, in the GRU ... they were checking and discovered that your mother's social origins were with the nobility So .... From the well~to~do class. Yes, when grandfather was divorced, so ... so. What effect did this have on your acceptance for work? Did anyone talk to you? I do not know; no one asked me about it; I never mentioned that grandfather was of the nobility. Well, you see ... even if they found out.-- and they likely did -- then father's position would have smoothed it over. Well, what do you think? Someone must have asked ... as you said your grandfather was an architect, was arrested somewhere, and was in prison ... well, as you say, they must have dug it up, and I think they dug this up, too. But he was rehabilitated before the death of STALIN, rehabilitated before STALIN's death. Well, we are talking about, as you said earlier ... he died in prison. Yes, right. What relation did this have, even if he had been rehabilitated -=— you did not say earlier that he had been rehabilitated; this is the first time I have heard this -- what effect did this have on your acceptance for work? Absolutely none, because there was absolutely no discussion on this subject. I tell you, no one asked me anything; I never was concerned with this question, never. SECRET DoclId: 32404702 Page 553
HW 53716 SKCRET They did not ask me anything. Well, in your opinion, would this have been found to have a reflection at the time of your acceptance for work in the MVD or even later? Now, look ~=— if I had indicated in the anketa, let us say, that mother ‘was of the nobility, if I had shown that grandfather was arrested and that he died in prison or in the camps -~ I do not know where ~- of \ course, there would have been questions. But, even if you had not indicated this, nevertheless it would have been quite enough to look in the personal file on your father in the Central Committee -— it would be evident there. Why the Central Committee? There was a file, up to the 1950s, om father, in the KGB, MGB; ‘there was a file on him. And there likely was information about this. There was information not only about this -= they suspected him, during his youth, when he was an engineer in Nikolayev, of being a member of a Trotskite group. Then the more so == if there was a file on your father, etc., I agree that . Inasmuch as your father was a Minister and soforth, likely this question could be resolved only in the Central Committee; nonetheless, there was some kind of file which would show that his wife was of noble origins. and that the father of his wife had been repressed at. one time. What do you think? Would the KGB know, even if you did not write it in the anketa? I understand the question; but I never had any discussion with anyone -- not in Personnel, not with anyone. But I do not think it logical for you, as an officer of the GRU -- although it, too, might have done a little checking -- .. SPCRET DoclId: 32404702 Page 55
HW 53716 “SECRET - 53 = Ha, a little? They really checked! Well, something was evident to the GRU, also, because the GRU also checks through:.the KGB but no one else. Right. There probably it also was And there was no discussion with me about this in GRU Personnel. When you completed the anketa, you wrote that your mother came from ~~ instead of the nobility _- the professional class, and you said nothing about the arrest of your grandfather. Probably you had to indicate or give some explanation about them; and the same thing is true about your wife's father _- not only about the fact that he had been arrested, and that you were living with your wife when he was in prison: if one is to believe your storeis, you were present during the arrest During the search; at the time of the arrest he was not in Moscow; he was on a hunting trip. . During the search of TELEGIN's apartment. It is very hard for me to believe that no one talked to you on this subject and that this did not affect you in any way when you came on duty with the organs; we must keep in mind that this was still in 1953. Well, just a minute. This might have had some effect, and maybe this is why in January and, February, they were dragging it out «=~ they were checking on me. Maybe it did have some effect -- they had decided that there was something in question. But in March 1953, I do not know .. STALIN had died, and KPBULOV, who recommended me, was in --— maybe this played a part; I do not know. SECRAT DoclId: 327404702 Page 56
HW 532716 SESRET = 54 But no one spoke to me about one of these questions, with the exception of that about my wife -- they spoke to me about that; they spoke to me when I ... before, during, and after my processing and when I had begun working. aa I talked about my wife, listed her in the anketa, and spoke about father And what did you answer to the question about what kind of relations you maintained with her at the current time, at the beginning of 19537 What relations? I had absolutely no contact with her; I did not write it, but I said that I had seen her in 1952 when I came back, because I wanted to see the girl; I bought some gifts, etc. And then I saw here in the rayon court and the city court; that was all -- I never saw her after that. I answered that "I have no contact with her." Because the money, before that, was sent to her _ I did not take it to her; it was delivered to her by a driver. After the divorce, the money officially was taken from my salary. And when was the money deducted from your pay -= when you began working in MVD? Well, they began deducting the money from the very beginning, because the money was deducted from my pay after the decision of the court in 1952. Yes, but where was the executive order? Well, that was not given to me, but was sent probably to the Ministry - of the Navy or to the military unit where I served. The money was deducted, and I did not even see the executive order. . When you began working in the MVD, what did they deduct for the first or second month? DoclId:32404702 Page 57
HW 53716 SECRET @ _~4. ©@ Well, they deducted 25 percent. What was the sum of money? I do not remember; it was 25 percent after tax. Is it logical or not to make such a conclusion -- that a man steps into a job of the most important directorate of the security organs, in counterintelligence, the Second Chief Directorate, which works against foreigners. So. He comes to the job and he has had no training whatsoever up to that time with regard to counterintelligence work , | Earlier, he had not worked in the organs of the MGB of the MVD. In this year in which he enters, he will have passed his twenty sixth birthday, and most likely he will be neither a Party or Komsomol member. His father holds a high position; but the MGB has some kind of a dirty file on him. . His mother is of noble origin; his grandfather died in prison as a Trotskyite.. He was married to the daughter of a general then in prison. Well, tell me, aB a counterintelligence officer -=- is it logical or not to accept him for work in counterintelligence? Do you think SHUBNYAKOV or GRIBANOV or the Deputy Minister or the Chief of Personnel Directorate -- even if KOBULOV has recommended him would raise a hand to sign papers accepting him for work? I do not know whether this would raise a hand... or on what basis. This man did not just come in off the street; he was already working in the GRU. On the basis that everything came from the top, that KOBULOV had made a telephone call, that father occupied a certain position -- that is all. DoclIda: 327404702 Page 53
HW 53716 separ © _s. @ Well, you know, if you worked in counterintelligence, that for the KGB it is of no significance that a man has worked in the GRU or any-= where else. It is not as though they were taking a man just out of the institute, ‘but a man who already had been checked; and the GRU checks through the MGB -- you just spoke about that -- through the MGB. Well, if the GRU decided, "Thank Heavens! We have gotten rid of him! Lord, lay him to rest‘" would the KGB pick him up? I do not think that you would think so. I do not think so. Maybe you think, but.... ‘I am telling you how it was. But it is not enough that you say this is how it was. It is not logical for it to have occurred as you say it did. ((Pause)) I think that you should find a more logical answer. What more logical answer? There probably were instructions through Personnel, or through whom KOBULOV worked. In March, KOBULOV could have == if he were interested ~- had ((B's surname)) processed or not; or he could have (2G) them and asked, "What is the trouble? That is all". | And what could SHUBNYAKOV, GRIBANOV and FEDOTOV say? They would not stand there with open mouths. If you worked there, you should know GRIBANOV, FEDDTOV and SHUBNYAKOV better. No; they are all educated, they are intelligent people, they have great experience, they are erudite. DoclIda: 327404702 Page 59
HW 53716 __SECRET @. ~ 57 = Cs) They are responsible for the internal security of the country; all of these people were confirmed by the CC CPSU; they were not put there by a fool. Right. ((B's surname)) too -~ pardon the expression == was not a small fry (khuy sobachiy), but a candidate member of the CC, a member of the cabinet, a member of the coun¢il of Ministers; these are big things.... But it was not ((B's surname)) who was going to work. No, the father, the father; but that, that was something. I do not deny that it was something, but you know the doors of the KGB are not open to all; they are quite narrow. I told-you how the doors were opened and how I entered there. Well, let's go on; we'll return to the anketa’ -= when did you get married for the second time? In 1953. When? In June. Do you remember the date? Yes, the 27th of June. Why did not you answer at once, the 27th of June 1953? Why did you first answer just 19537 Because you know this very well, and we have talked about this. You are questioning me like a child. DoclId: 327404702 Page 60
HW 53716 SEC © _s. @ Because you do not answer in full, and your answer is not satisfactory. You are questioning me like a small boy deliberately. ((XG; A and B speak at the same time) ) It certainly is not deliberate. I am asking the simplest questions. _ You do not even have to think about them. If a man were there, he would answer them without hesitation. You know that that question already was discussed; but you still are pressing.... In what manner and how did you inform your Chiefs and Personnel that you had married? ((Pause)) I remember that I requested official leave for three days to get married. I do not remember the details -~—- whether I spoke about intenting to get married. I think that I spoke with GORBATENKO, said that I intended to get married to so-and-so. | There was one thing I did... What did I do? I checked her, unofficially ~- because this is not allowed. Across the room there was a fellow, the Deputy Chief of the First Section, named KUDREV, Georgiy Yakovlevich. I told him that I want to get married, that I wanted to check her, that there may be some incriminating material against her. I requested a check on the wife, on her mother and father. And what turned up? Absolutely clear -~ according to the First Special Department. DoclId: 327404702 Page 61
HW 53716 You were sure that she was absolutely clear? Absolutely clear; I received it and destroyed it. Certainly, I must have said that I was preparing to marry; I informed them officially. I requested three days to get married. Then I remember that I completed an anketa again, because I had re- married, Yes, I completed an anketa again after I was married. Well, what kind of anketa was it? Well, the one weiwere speaking about, the usual anketa, Here we are -- completing this anketa for the third time. In the beginning, you had completed two copies; then, still more. Now you were getting married; now how many copies did you complete? I do not remember, I do not remember. I know that I completed this anketa; I did not write an autobiography. And, in this anketa, I indicated that I had been married and gave the name of the first wife. I listed the wife, her mother, her father, her brother, her sister; that is all. Then, in the new anketa, in answer to the questions about your family status, you answered that you had been married? Married. And you answered everything that was asked about your wife’? Yes, yes. How did you answer the question about the wife's relatives who had lived, or were living at present, abroad? DoclId: 327404702 Page 62
HW 532716 DoclId: 327404702 Page 63 SECRET =~ 60 = I answered that there was no one who had lived or was living at the present time ((abroad)); although a distant relative ~- that is, the mother's brother == was in Austria at the time; I do not remember his name. Well, what did you answer to the question of who among you and your wife's relatives had been or was at that time abroad, where they were, when, and who sent them? What was your answer? Absolutely no one was abroad at that time, and no one had been sent anywhere. But the question reads, "Who has been or is presently abroad?" "No one is", "no one is”. And who had been abroad? There were... they had been abroad, in France. Well, how did you answer this question?’ Well, the wife told me; I probably wrote, but I did not write who had sent them. I wrote that... I do not remember; I must have indicated.... I asked my wife... that they had been in France, when he worked at a metallur- gical plant in France. Well, did you think it was logical when you told me that you yourself had checked on your wife, that an answer had come from the First Special Department? A clean one, absolutely. Could it have been written that "she has been abroad, in France -=- see
A, HW 53716 exit file such and such"... .? No; there was absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing. No exit file? I do not know, I do not know if there were exit files in 1935. There were (exit files)) even in 1925, for your information. I tell you that it was an absolutely clean check; the check came from the Archives on the mother, father, wife. Well, what do you think, as a counterintelligence officer -- was it logical that there was no information that they had been abroad? No matter whether or not they did anything bad, account is taken of all people who have been or are abroad; all the information is there. There was no information there. There is exit information on all people; there is a card for everyone; all the information is there. If you yourself made the check, you should have obtained this informatio I myself made the check, and I myself received these answers. Well, why did not you get the information that they had been abroad? ((XG; A and B speak at the same time) ) ((Pause)) Well, what do you think? What kind of effect would this have on you, when added to what I told you earlier =~ about you personally, about your father, about your mother, about your grandfather; further, about the marriage to TELEGINA; then, after your marriage -~— it was at that time -~ Bogdan ((KOBULOV)) was arrested; after that, it was explained that you had married a SECRET DoclId: 327404702 Page 64
HW 532716 person whose parents -- although she was an infant -~-— had been in France, What do you think? Again -- would not it be logical for some of the employees of KGB or the Second Chief Directorate -- new chiefs had come in -- to look into your case? They looked through my file; then, again, my wife's father also was a responsible worker in the Council of Ministers at that time. You know that many responsible workers of the Council of Ministers, and as you said, your father was a big man -= but there were files on many of them; although it did not affect all of them, it hada big affect on some of them. What do you think? Do you think anyone remarked that they should continue to keep such a man aS an employee in the organs, or should say goodbye to him? What is your viewpoint, as a counterintelligence officer who worked in the American Department of the Second Chief Directorate? First, there was no compromising material on the KOZHEVNIKOVs although they had been abroad. Well, if we go further we will find something else. There are questions about who among the relatives of your wife, your parents and your relatives have lived in German occupied territory. Right; I did not indicate there that the grandmother on my mother's side and her sister had lived there; I did not indicate this. Why? Because the anketa asked only about your closest relatives. Whom do they mean by "closest relatives"? -~=— Father, mother, brother, sister. | Then, on the wife's side -- her father, mother, brother, sister. These are the closest relatives. sbonel DoclId:32404702 Page 65
HW 532716 Well, yes; but every anketa has the question -~ do you wish to add something about your relatives. But I did not wish to add anything. Furthermore, there is a supplementary list of relatives with whom you are in contact, with whom your family has contact. For instance, if we say, as a counterintelligence officer... or the Search Directorate or Personnel looks at it this way -- here, ((B's surname)) was born in Nikolayev. After the war and later, the files on all who were born and lived in that territory were reviewed to find out who among their ((KGB employees relatives had lived in occupied territory, although perhaps the employee himself did not know about this, because many of them ((had no contacts with such relatives)).... Well, all of this is in the special check ((file)); that is right, absolutely right. I think that even if you did not write that your grandmother had been in occupied territory, they would know about it. Right, right. Well, if we add to this that, soon after this... well, your misconduct in the MVD = making use of operational documents, and you fell ill with a venereal disease.... Besides that, soon afterward, you got out of the Komsomol. Explain to me what reason there was for keeping you there. I do not know what kind of reason! Maybe it was because I, as a case officer, was like a bump on a log, an ordinary one who did not shine in any way and who.... So much the more so, if he did not shine there -= why keep him? SECRET DoclId: 32404702 Page 66
HW 53716 e “a, (@ Well, maybe only because; well... why fire such a guy, fire him for what? Very well, they could have fired me for that misconduct, but this was the decision of SHUBNYAKOV and FEDOTOV. It was not necessary to fire you, but simply to write, "It is not considered worthwhile to keep ((B's surname)) in the organs of the MVD." Right, but it depends, you see, upon where it comes from? This usually happens if the chief of a section does not like the opera~ tional worker. | Of course, they could get rid of you, but I do not know why they did: not. | | Are you asking me for SHUBNYAKOV's or FEDOTOV's opinion? I do not want this; I certainly am not asking you this -- perhaps you do not know this. I simply am saying that, as a counterintelligence officer.... | (1G) I do not know: why it was so; I simply am telling how it was. ...you must know all of these sharp angles. I understand, I understand. Well, you understand, if you worked in the American Department; I think you would have been interested if some Soviet citizen had met a foreignel well, maybe he just got a light, maybe he did not do anything wrong. Right, right, well, this ((person)) can be developed for a long time. But he is not developed without reason. Absolutely -= perhaps two or three years. Well, this -- as they say -~ receives attention. DoclId: 327404702 Page 67
HW 532716 . -—. e Well, what -- did ((B's surname)) have contact with foreigners? Did his father or mother have contact with foreigners? I am saying this as an example; I am saying the fellowing -= if we have in mind that.... Look, a man arrives and goes to work in the MVD; his mother's origin is of the nobility; his grandfather died in prison; his father, although he was a Minister -- you know many Ministers were CC and POLITBYURO members and that they were imprisoned at one time.... Oh, yes. ((XG; A and B speak at the same time)) God smiled on BERIYA, too, but then they threw him in prison. And BULGANIN? ...But there is a file on his ((B's father)), too; he himself ((B)) was married to the daughter of a general who now is in prison; he was recommended for work by KOBULOV, who == along with BERIYA -- was arreste as a traitor and an enemy of the people; furthermore, at the time, he is married to the daughter of a responsible worker who has Lived in France there is nothing incriminating in this, but a fact is a fact; he has left the Komsomol because of age; he was arrested for 15 days for misuse of operational documents, and he has been ill with a veneral disease == is this a good man for counterintelligence work in the Center in Moscow? | Well, explain this to me, from the point of view of a counterintelligenc officer. Oh, I am not deciding... why should I decide a question about myself in 1954? But I can tell you only one detail ~- you are forgetting something a little bit: the situation, which always plays a part. 1953 was one thing; 1954 was quite different. DoclId:32404702 Page 65
HW 532716 —SECRET @ - 66 - @ A complete rehabilitation was going on. There was a completely different approach and a different way of looking at many things; do not discount this. Nothing so spectacular had happened as yet in 1954. No == how so? ‘There was already a new, a fresh breeze.... ...l have in mind, if this.... then you have to add the following -- that there was a great cut-—back and release, and the acceptance of Party and Komsomol members ((in place of former employees)). You specifically were a prime candidate in the category of those to whom they would say good=bye. ((XG; A and B speak at the same the)) But here, they probably took into account... right; I understand... I can say one thing -= about my father's position; second, “the fellow has a higher education, knows a language" @- in 1953 and 1954, only 25 - to 30 percent in the Second Chief Directorate had a higher education; there were only 10 to 15 percent who had other languages -- this could have a certain significance. Just a minute; of course, we have not spoken about education yet -- because you likely remember wery well that you have told about your education several times, and you have told different stories. And there is a big question about whether you have had the education you claimed.... ((End of Reel #4)) DoclId:327404702 Page 69