Released under the John F. Kennedy Assassination 
Records Collection Act of 1992 
(44 USC 2107 Note) 
NW 53216 6/17/17
104-10227-10008 re HAGE Clas ay Til one, AES Bee Mote ene eae et? Pr i Sotve RP barry ‘tone of the interrogation was calm, and Sub ‘correct and cooperative. Soft drinks were served, ' that emerged: REPORT ON INTERROGATION DATE: 26 July 1965 1, The interrogation took place from 1230 to 1500 and from 1600 to 1730, | commenced according to the previously. * prepared plan, Subject asked no questions about my identity, ruised no objections of any kind, and Said he was willing to- answer any questions. Although 1 frequent ly challenged the truthfulness and correctness. of Subjeet's answers, the overall -. ject's attitude was and. at his request, Subject was allowed to smoke during the second Part cf the interrogation, Subject said at the beginning that he had told only tho truth in the past, that he had. ‘not. been sent by. anyone, and that he. was willing to tell only the truth to ne. 2. Questioning was-.concentrated on the. 1953-54 period. The following are the must interesting and Significant points a) In talking about bis return to Moscow ‘on leave at. the end from "Sovetsk, Primorskiy Kray, in the Baltie ; of December 1952. Subject was unable to correctly explain the proper registration procedure for a military officer on leave. He affirmed that he did not have to report to anyone upon. arrival in Moscow. , COMMENT: If Subject was truly a‘naval intelligence Officer, according to regulations he would have been required to report to the Personnel Department of: the GRU/VMF and also to the Naval: Commendant of the City of Moscow within three days of his arrival. Subject did not dispute my statement that these were the regulations, and finally said vaguely that he reported to Naval GRU Personnel "seven or ten days" after arrival. b) Under close questioning, Subject's Story about hig meeting with KABULOV took on some new aspects. He now says that relations between his father and KABULOYV were those of colleagues only, that the two families had never gotten to- gether before, and that he (Subject) himself had never spoken to KABULOV before this occasion, Furthermore, Subject now says that the meeting took place at KABULOV's dacha (rather
104-10227-10008 r SEI aia lps fe me ee ei EA procedures at the KGB pass officer, Specifically, he: ntintained™ — that at the NOSENKO dacha), that the date of this pet-together was either 1 or 2 January 1953, and that Vasiliy VAKHRUSHEY “Who was then married to KABULOV's daughter) was also prosent, “Ina typical piece cf improvisation, Subject even sald that it. was VAKURUSHEYV,, rather than KABULOV, who first raised the question of what Subject ways doing. | - COMMENT! In view of Subject's different previous stories about this incident, his readiness to change his story and to improvise under my questioning makes it itmpossfble to believe thathe Was actually recomnended by KARULOYV to the KGB. ‘ : c) In talking about his first visit to the KGB, Subject Was unable to five a consistent and aecurate tccount of tho ihat the name of the interviewer was Not indicated on the pass. COMMENT: The name of the interviewer is always indicated on the visitor's pass. It is difficult to understand Why Subject would not know. this .1f he had ever served in the KGB, much less in 754, - oy , i, big d) Subject maintained that on this. to some personnel officers (he could not’ ri were located in an office on the sixth flog of Building #12. He Said that he lert his ‘cor on the ground floor of this entry. He said that these officors were in tho ‘same section of Offices ag ROZHENKO, whom he: talked to here on a later visit. - poe of the 8th ontry COMMENT: Subject insisted that he was positive about the fact that ROZHENKO's office was in the 8th entry: even though I told him this was Lapossible, In fact, up to the time of my departure from Moscow (Sept 1953) ; neither ROZHENKO nor any units or Officers or’ KGB Personnel were located in the 8th entry. As far as the garderobe - is concerned, although Subject correctly mentioned that there was also one on the second flour by the dictetic restaurant, there was no sarderobhe on the ground floor in those years, (From 1947 to the time 7 left, KGB personnel were located on the Gth and 7th floors of the 7tia entry, Building #12.) . f I rst visit he talked”. er any names) who” t at. the garderobe o ha
104-10227-10008 @) Subject said that on the day he first reported for work ("13 or 15 March 1953") he wont from the pass office to __. the 4th entry, where. his -pass was checked by the guards, and - then went unescorted to KARULOV's offico on the Srd floor, COMMENT: ~. It is not posutble to Ko through any entry of Building #2 with a Visitor's: pas: without escort, (Especially to tho office of the deputy minister!) wm * . f) In secneral, Subject gave a correct description of what was located in-entries 2-7 of Bublding #12, However, he did not mention the existence of an extra entrance to the left of the KGB Club. Moro important, he said (iat he did not . ; know whether or not there was a 9th entry, but that he be lieved a there was not, ; . . ; . ¢ COMMENT: The 9th entry was located around the cornor on Malaya Lubyanka, and was used by a few sections of | _ the 9th. Directorate. Although Subject miy never have “2 po had occasion-to enter it, ho shoul certiinly be. aware of its existence, especially he mentioned soing to the Moscow UKGB, which wag ocited next’ to entry 9, &). In describing ‘the papors that he had.to £111 out to apply for entry into tho KGB, Subject nentione: a questionnairc/anketa/ and an autobiography, | - leis ; received the forms on his first visit to tho KGB, took them . oy ! ’ home and filled .them out, and thon delivered them. to the . . . personnel officer on the following day. Ne said that he.was obliged to turn both the questionnaire and the autobiography in in two copies. He maintained that. the questionnaire did hot have any name, other than simply “anketa." He Suid that it was four or six pages long. Subject was challenged on al} these points, but insisted that he was correct, Se eas COMMENT: The questionnaire is called “Ankota Spetsialnoge ‘ Naznachentya Sotrudnika KGB:"") This is prominently printed : - °  . at the top of the first page, It is not less than: 12 Pages long - probably 16, Never, under any circumstances, -is it permitted to take this questionnaire home to fill out. Only one copy of the questionnaire (or autobiography) was ever required, although an applicant might he asked to make a new one if the first was incorrectly filled out,
104-10227-10008 ra en ed y ‘When Subject was agked what the second copy could be for, ‘he sadd that he thougut it was for the security check - /spetsproverka/, This is not correct. Also, Subject maintained that these were the only forma und papers that Ed . he had-to fill out - this is not correct, and he will be. ne 7 questioned later on the cthers, . h) Subject insisted. that be was not requircd to take a.medical eximination aw part of his processing for. entry into oe - the KGB. When challenged. on this and asked to explain it, . i \ ‘Subject said that it was probably because they knew that he ; was on active duty in the Navy, and possibly also bocause his application had a special character because of KOBULOV's ro ' involvement. i | . CONNENT: A medical exam was mandatory fur all new employsess Ae 8 of the KGB, whether or not they were officers on active ° military service. vad i . i) Asked about his salary when he first started to work . F si for the KGB, Subject said that he got a basic salary of 17005 0 7 ' ‘rubles as a case officer, 500 vubles for his rank of lieutenant, I F plus ‘secrecy, language, ‘and -length of service pay. He affirmed - , that this was correct. und lose questioning. I then told i. _ Subject’ that MGB.officers @ no longer being paid for rank” i in March 1953, “Subject “farat said ‘that he wasn't at all ~ interested in moénoy in that. period.a wally couldn't remember, °- ' , Then he said that ho remembered tha e was one year when they were not. paid. for rank - whitcl Spelieved was 1954, and that he still thinks that he was pafd: for rank when ho first entered the KCB, — . a . oes ; COMMENT: Salary for rank was taken away from MGB officers dn mid-1952, It had not been restored as of February 1954, although I believe it is likely that ‘t was restored at _ some time thereafter. j) Asked who were IGNATYEV's deputies, Subject mentioned SAVCHENKO (among others), Asked what was SAVCHENKO's background, Subject said that he had been in. the Ukraine, then had been head of the Intelligence Directorate of the KGB, after DERIYA he was deputy chairman of the KGB for a short while, after which he went to Moldavia as Chief of the Moldavian KGB, Subject thus repeated a mistake he had made previously. He firmly stated
104-10227-10008 5 be ‘gs "RI A ERS ERA that he did not know. of any other SAVCHENKOS , When told that 2 there are two General SAVCHENKOS and that he had thei mixed = up, Subject replied, that he didn't know SAVCHENKO's first . . anem, and that he didn't sce what ditference it made anyway. COMMENT: “As explained earlier, Subject has confused Lt, . ; GReral Sergey Romanovich SAVCHENKO and Lt. General. Ivan. et Tikhonovich SAVCHENKO, Both of them occupied prominent . 4 positions in the MGR at this. .time, Serxey Romanovi¢h had - ., been MGR Minister in the Ukratne prior to 1950, wag. > a oF Deputy Minister MGB And head of the Inte lligenes Directorates. “MGB from 1250 to Nov. 1982, wos a Lt. ‘Gon, “without POrLfolio" oe (from Nov 1852 to Mareh 1995, when he was mado depaty chlor ; of the advisor's section of the FCD? | Ivan Tikhonovich - SAVCHENKO was head of the Chief Directorate of Special |: ‘Services under the CC/CPSU from 1948 to November .1952 0s... i wea ™ (the predecessor organization of the &th Directorate KGB), “S D : then Chief. of the 8th Directorate MGB from Nov 1952, It. oad oe ig this SAVCHENKO who later Went to Moldavia, Any Officer’. 9). 89 8 Weer N A han + verense Who served in the MGB in 1953 or “later sheuld know of both SAVCHENKOg and -be able to distinguish between them, k) Asked to describe the front of the Kon club, Subject... -- SO said that he did not remember. any. sign (there Was one in 195ayyer mo but mentioned that there Wag :a-<Gastronom next to“it. Asked*. ; when the Gastronon was opene 2 Badd -£irmly. that jit was Already there when ‘he starte work ine the KGB, Told that’. : : there was no Gastronom there in 1953., Subject: bocame rather - a confused; he made up a little story about =Now KGB officers. com-- oS aod. A the opening of the oo the! Gastronom wasn't ae Plained about the :poor Security creatéd -by Gastronom, ‘and said finally that perhaps” there until 1955, > COMMENT: = The Gastronom was definitely not there as of 1954. Ir is listed in the Moscow Telephone Directory for 1958 (no directories are available for the years 3955- 1957). ¥t is believed that Subject's slip on the Gastronom may be a revealing one, and if we can establish exactly when it opened it may provide a wood clue as to when Subject was first ussociated with the KGB, ; 1) Asked to describe the lecation of amy safehouse belonging to N’N (external Surveillance) of the SCD in 1953-54,
104-10227-10008 lt enmculny aie, my fi & A oe @ Subject had. difficulty in Krasping the Lerminolory ON/N and Sinally said, "Oh, you mean UODK." | ie replicd that he had never been to any of their bases or a fehouses: in that period, and. tricd to talk instead about some of the 7th Directorate installations, that be has already reported on, “COMMENT: If Subject had ren Py been a case: officer in “the American Enbassy seetion of the SCD In 1953-55, he ‘would have had to visit N/N safehouses very often, His inability -to namo a single ane i4-viry damning, The ~ confusion about the terminoloyy iss also interesting - even though Subject has previously shown tn hig homework that he is awamof lhe organizatioanl evolution of. the surveillance apparat, he does-not respond. to the old terminology in conversation as he ¢hould 1f he had worked there at that time. “UODK" ts a new term for what wags _ formerly. "UPDK": it was staffed. hy and subordinate to N/N, but was in no sense the sane thing aps N/N. m) Deseribing what. was located tn the 4th entry ‘of Building #12, Subject mentioned the 3rd Spetsotdel, which wag responsible for the preparation of various false documents. Asked several times what the former designation of this unit wig, Subject replied that it had adwayss been called, Hie Cid Spetsotdel as far as he knew. . ; COMMENT: This unit had alwa ' The designation was chainwodot ‘In other words; at the time to work for the KGB it chad: j most officers continued to. rer for sume time, cen called Department "D, " ‘after the death of Stalin. Subject allegedly came ely been re-named, and to. it by its old designation cin the Baltic, the Baltic us n) «In speaking of Wis naval GRU He Subject said several times that he had: sery for "several months Eady " COMMENT: This iga significant change -tn bis etory from the April 1964 interrogations. Ne firet made jt in the conversations with John Gittinger,. who did not challenge him on it, Jt may be worthwhile returning tythis period Yater in this interrogation. Tee renee ot ee eee nee) eee
104-10227-10008 s S » 3 BA : . ,. i 3. ‘Tentative Conclusions; The above’ items all indicate . . that Subject did not work in the KGB in 1953 or 1954, Some worked in the KGB at all, of them ’casé doubt on whether he ever Bo although tt is very difficult to come CB this as yet because he duos have an Ampressive knowledge of i KGB personalities, and knows quite a bit about KGB procedures | and installations as well. The rest of the interrogation will uttempt to establish, if possible, whether Subject's knowledge of tho KGB. can be explarned entirely by rigorous briefing, _ training, and carefully plauned exposure, and to determine more precisely in what capacity he was actually connected with the KGB, ‘ . ; to a firm conclusion on | . FiO Fo oes 5 ote ate nt Os : ; _ Ted “ : ti i I ae _ ? ¢ H ie ‘ a : We deeded Le
104-10227-10008 REPORT OF INTERROGATION DATE: 28 July 1565 —F 1. Questioning cuncentrated on how Subject. joined the Komsomol organization jn the KGB in 1953, and on his alleged wervice as Secretary of the Komsomol organization of the SCD, Under detailed questioning, it quickly became apparent that Subject, did not serve as the sceretary of the SCD Komyomol “rganization, The follosing examples should suffice: 7 1) Subject docs rot know how a‘yceretary 18 selected, ‘and cannot describe his duties in a spucitie manner. b) Subject dees not know the name of the secretary of ; the BIVD K/O. Yet he would have had to deal aith his very whe 4 a ae frequently. c) Subject was unable to recall the nane of the man whom he succccded as Secretary of the SCD K/O. He finally said that it was Nikulay YEGOROV, from the “German Dept." of the SCD. but since he hax never mentioned this naue- before it is likely that he improvised it. d) Subject was unable to idcntify the two-other memberg te who served on the K/O board with hin. except that one of oe them was "Nina,” a typist from tho "German Dept.‘ : e) Subject was unable to give a satisfartory account of his dealings with the MVD K/O or of the idcutitics or ‘responsibiltties.of the people with whom he dealt there. 2, Subject insisted that in 1953-54, when he was Secretary of the SCD K/O, the maximum age for a Kunsomol member was 27. This point important both hecauge he should kuow @xactly if he had been Komsemol Scerctary, and vecause i1t was of vital concern to him personally. In actual fact, the maximum age was 26. (A new ustav was adopted in March 1954, which also set a maxizum age of 26 but provided for a two year extension in cértain cases, Subject should have known very well about this new ustav, both because he was Sccretary at that time, and because of his own problem.) \ 3. Subject maintained that all the members of his K/o paid 2% monthly dues. This is incorrect, as monthly dues were calculated on a sliding scale determined uy the wage group of the nember. 27 is the correct figure for entry dues,
104-10227-10008 4. Subject was unable to give a consistent or correct. ‘account of how he deregisterod from the Konsonol Organization of the NRP in the Baltic aund-registered with the K/O in the MVD. tis statement that he was issued a new Komsomol registration card by the MVD K/O is impossible, His difficulties with this question probably stem more from the limitations imposed by his legend than ignorance of Komsomol ( procedures, yO . . . 5. In general, Subject's knowledge of Komsomol pro- ' cedures is’ consistent with that of any ordinary, apathetie Komsomol member (he could easily have this same knowledge even if he had never been a Komsomol member), However, his knowledge of how dues. wore collected, registered, and. deposfied in the Bank on Kuznetskiy Most is special knowledge on which he was probably briefed (the same procedures and the same bank are used by all the konsomol and Party organizations of the MVD-KGB). Subject's overall know ledge of a K/O secretary's duties ig far too weak for him to have served in this capacity anywhere, '. 6 Other questions:- a) In diséussing his Konsomol mei:bership in the Baltic, 2... Subject again referred to this area as the Primorskiy Kray. a, oa Challenged on this, Subject appeared ta be astounded, and. : as insisted vehemently that he scrved in the city of Sovetsk, Primorskiy Kray, and that he even received letters addressed that way (Subject was not told that he was also wrong on the city). Told that. Primorskiy Kray is in the Far East, Subject compounded his geographical blunder by saying that he knew all about that because Sovetskaya Gavan', where he _ had served before coming to the Baltic, is in that Primorskiy Kray ( it is actually in Khabarovskiy Kray). b)- When Subject first mentioned the German Department, he was asked to think carefully about whether or mt there was a German Dept in the SCD in 1953. At first he asoerted categorically that there was, but when challenged he retreated very quickly, sayung that "I think there was, I'm not sure, I'll think about it." After the luncheon break Ke returned and said he was sure that there was a German Dept in 1953.
104-10227-10008 | ee | fg COMMENT: There was no Germd Dept in the SCD in 195] or 1952, or up to my departure in Sept 1953, although it is possible that there was a small group of a few officers working on German matters, In uNnY case, Subject's reaction to my. challenge on this point was not that of a min who was really there. c) Evidently aware that he had made a scrioug Slip with the Gastronom on the previous day. Subject said - out .”. of context with the mutter under discussion- that he didn't know what used to be located in Drerzhinskiy Square at the Spot that the Detskiy Mir store now occupies before it wag constructed in 1957, even though he used to go by it every day. d) Subject fave a rather complex explanation about the changes of terminology for the surveillance apparat and for the clements responsible for Supporting the diplomatie colony, Comments on this will bo reserved until thera has been an opportunity to compare it with what Subject himself has said on this in the Past and with collateral information, . 7. At the beginning of the session, when Subject re- marked that this was his 48st day in tie safehouse,I asked him how he managed to keep track of the days so well. fe ae replied, "prison experience was acquired" /tyuremnyy opyt , otrahatyvalsya?. The phrase is difficult to translate exactly, but it is the past tense that is Significant. J] asked him if he had ever been in jail before, but he said he had not, \ Ted
104-10227-10008 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD REPORT OF INTERROGATION __ DATE: 29 July 1965 eo ia 2i> Questioning was concentrated on ducuments that had "to be filled out when Subject -was ectering the KGB, Komsomol . .- Py questions and service in. the Baltic were not: touched at all. ‘ Following highlights: os a) ANKETA (DPHQ): Subject isplayed a superficial i knowledge of this basic questionnaire. He knows renorally be. ; the appearance, the nature of the csestions, and the purpose i . of the document. He continued to mitatain, incorrectly,, that~: it was required in two copies, that be filled it out at home, ‘ , that it consisted of 4-6 pages. He amended his story to say ft that he does not remember for sure vhether he turned it in to ROZHENKO's people on one of his first visits, or pave it to SAKHAROV when he first reported for work. COMMENT: An ordinary member of the KGB might conceivably _have forgotten the details of this document which was : filled out only at the beginnias of hia curcer. As a “supervisor, however, Subject claims tu have reviewed hany personnel files (as he sheuld have): as such, he could not possibly make the mistakes that he has about Ce oe ‘this document, or be unable to give a better. description 4 ‘ ofit. Lo : b) Secrecy Agreement: Subject hinself stated that he had signed such a form for SAXEARYV when he first reported "ss for work. He was unable to remember the proper designation or contents of the document, however. The description of the wording which he provided was similar to that used prior to 1947; ulso, it is similar to the secrecy agrecment that might be signed by an agent. c) Lichniy Listok po Uchets: Nadrov: This is not a very important document, but it 1s fitied out by every | : officer, and is found in cvery Persensel file. Subject was y : hot only unable to recall it. he maratained he had never f ; heard of it even afterit was describ? to him. a Phe FS Beeler Ais poses haere at ynns. ces, Beg
104-10227-10008 er /* its name and said he didn't Know of it. When itty purpose. COMMENT: Again, although Subject mtyht have furpotten 1t if he had been just a Plain case officer in the KGB. he should know of tt as A supervisor, or oven as , Secretary of the Komsomol Organization-#t—+s-a CC/CRSU qucstionnaire). oo ; . d) “SPRAVKA No.l: This document is required for os every personne] action, . Subject did not react at-all to was described to -him, Subject managed to yive a suporficial — description of the document, : COMMENT: An ordinary case officer would know of the existence of this form, but would not hecessarily have ever seen it. As deputy chief of a dopartment, horever,. Subject would handle this document JO-40 times: a year, 7 and would: be thoroughly familiar with it, Thus, his - limited knowledge of -it could only have. come. from a brief. ec) Posluzhnoy Spsok (Employment and Service Record): - Asked atout this document, Subject gave a good. description: ar its nature and purpose. . ‘His answer that he himself did not . fill ft out but that it was filled out by personnel on the | basis of the data’ in his Anketa is perfectly plausible. It is odd, howover, that Subject Insisted. that ho did not sign this document when ho first entercd the KGB (as ig normally done), but only "in 1958 or 1957," - oo 2. Subject was asked how he answered some of the questions | ~: in the Anketa,; particularly the questions on hia former wife, — her relatives, and on his mother's ancestry. I then asked Subjeet how it was, taking into account his nother's aristocratic ancestry, the fact that he father died tn dail, the Trotskyite: ~ ' ablegations against Subject's father, the fact that Subjects former father-in-law was still in jail, and the fact that Subject was present when TELEGIN's apartment was searched -- that he had been accepted into the KGB, particularly in 1953! Subject admitted that the question was. logical. and satd that he could ‘only assume that the influence of FKOBULOV and the tmportant. and influential position of his own father outweighed these negative factors, He also cited his GRU experience in this connection, I then asked Subject how he had reported hts second marriage to the KGB. He replied that before the narriago he had mentioned it briefly to GORBATENKO. and that he had
104-10227-10008 NA a ee terrane 6 “a er mee NL, 3 . i unotfticially run a name check on hts prospective bride, (whtch was “clean"), and that after the marriage he had filled out: another anketa for persennel in which he inclusgjed a1) the , required data on his wife and her relatives. After considerable — prompting, Subsect said that ho had indicated that she and her parents -had been in Franee, but that he had concealed the fact that her grandmother had been in German occupied territory during the war (he admitted that the KGB would have learned this in a routine check. however.) I then reviewed fur Subject the negative security factors mentioned above, adding ithe arrest of KOBULOV, the fact that his new wife and her parents had been abroad, the fact that her grandmother was in German- occupied territory, the fact that Subject was now overave for the Komsomol but not yet a party member or candidate, and the fact that Subject reeeived a 15 day sentence for misuse of we cover documents and incurring venereal disease. and asked if he didn't think that his personnel file had bec reviewed . in 1954, and 1£ go, what grounds there could have been for retaining him in the KGB. Subject said that he thought that his file probably was reviewed but that again the influence of his father had saved him. Subject added that another important factor was probably his language qualification and particularly his higher education, _ I told Subject that we would’examing the quéstion of hia Gducation in ereater detail later. Ile made no comment. I also pointed out to Subject — - “that if hts second wife and her parents had been abroad tt was impossible that her name check could have been negative. He admitted it was illogical, but insisted that this was so. 4. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence continues to pile up to show that Subject was never in a supervisory position in the -KGB, and that he could nut have and did not enter the KGH in 1953, His weak knowledge of the documents discussed indicates that if he was ever in the KGB at all. tt was later. and four a rolatively short time, 5. Despite the fact that IT continued to challenge Subject frequently, the tone of the interrogation was purticularly friendly today. The following exchange was of some interest: Subject: You probably worked for twenty years in personnel! Ted: Not exactly. You should know better, Subject: | “oO, TI don't know. If you told me your came? Ted: We'll talk about that later, And maybe even drink
104-10227-10008 6. The plan for tomorrow's aeaston is to attack Subject on his service in tho Baltic in 1952, weet _ Ted 1 Mel A bene matador me,
104-10227-10008 ood MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT: KEPORT OF INTERRUGATION DaTE: c°O July 1965 ; wee 1. Today's interrrogatilon consisted of two short sossions (1410-1515, and 1610-1650). Subject was confronted with proof of hik errora on Komsomol, regulations, and also of basic scorgraphy in Kaliningrad Oblart. Questioning was confined ; to these two areas, and will he described below, «In addttion, there were some intercsting addittonal indications. that Subject may have spent some time in Soviet Jail or prison camp, 2, KOMSOMOL: a) Despite a nunber of leading questions and- hints, Subject was unable to recall that Komsomol Congress (the 12th) took place in February 1954, while he was allegedly the Secretary of the SCD K/O. If he had really been a Komsonol Secrotary at the time he should remember .the Congress very well, since he would ‘have been involved in its preparations. Told about it, Subject said that such Congresses took place practicully every year, This in false; the previous Komsonol Congress, the llth, was in 1949, , b) Subject again stated that he was sure that-the maximum age for Komsomol members at that time was 27, Subject was shown the pertinent Komsomol rewkitions for the period, | which provide that the maximum age is 26. Subject simply continucd to insist that he js sure that he was excluded from the Komsonol.in 195-4 when_he reacned the age of 27, and that no exceptiong were mad& ior him. lie did not comment on how he could be wrong on the regulations if he had beon a Komsonol Secretary, c) In the ‘dtscussion of Komsonol repulations, Subject continucd to insist that tho dues were 2% for a)l members, He spotted the paragraph about 2¢ entry dues in the repulations that were shown tu him and gaid tiat monthly dues were identical with entry dues. This is not so, but as wo: do not have a copy of the 1919 membership ducs seale, I wag not able to show him documentary proof of his error.
104-10227-10008 . G) Subject was again unable to describe how he was permanently registered as a member of the MVD K/O, how he performed his duties as a Secretary or what these duties were in connection with the 12th Pomsomol Congress, or to Mame the Secretary of the WVD K/O, 3. Service in the Baltic: Tn the course of the discussion of his service in the Baltic in 1952. Subject mado such. in- credible errors, and gave. such ‘lame descriptiens of his work, that it ‘is*necessary to conclude that he did nut serve there ap un intelligence offtcer, and that tf he has ever visited that area at all it wags only very briefly. . i a) Subject not only was unable to name the Chief of Intelliyence of the 4th Naval Fleet, he could not even Rive his proper title (he Insisted that his officinl designation was “nachalnik razvedki;" actually. of course, it should ve “nachalnik razvedyvatelnogo upravientya" of the 4th fleet). b) Subject does not know the rame of his immediate commanding officer, tie chief.of tho MRP, . Subject did not know the names of more than two of his fellow olfteers at the HRP, In an effort to answer this question he gave a nams - YELISEYEV = that he had not once mpugioned when under Similar pressure in April 1964; it is appare gt that he invented it on the spot. , ‘c) Subject continued to insist that he served in “Sovetsk, Primorskiy Kray." Subject was then shown a map, aud found that the name of the place where he had alMigedly served was _in_ftact_Primorsk, Subject said that he couldn't understand why he had remembered it as Sovetsk, and said that he had never been in the city of Sovetsk. Subject was also shown the Administrative-Territorial Divisions of the USER, and conceded that there is no Primorskiy Kray in the Soviet Union except the one in the Far East. Again, he had no explanation for his error, Gddly, after initially con- ceding his error, from time to time Subject continued te Say that he thought that he was probably right after all, and that the village of Sovetsk was too small to appear on the wap that he was shown, d) In describing his initial arrival at the MRP, Subject said that he arrived in Kalinyrad, then had to go by car from Kalingrad to Baltiysk because there was ao
104-10227-10008 <2 f railway to Baltiysk. Iu then went by car from Balttynk to Primorsk. In reality there wats and js a ratl connection "trom Kalingrad to Baltiyuk, shich Pabecs throurh,’ “(Subject was not told this, howevor,) e) Subject admitted that he did not do any operational work at the MRP, and sald that was why he was dissatisfted s ¢ and wanted a transfer, HNosever, Subject could not give a. ; . ' detailed or beltevable description of wint his dutics were, As he has done go often in the past, he attempted to divert the questioning Ly launching into what ts evidently a pro- pared lecture about the concept of ftay-bchind opurations, He was cut off, 4. (NOTE: In talking about bts service in Kalininvrad Oblast, Subject has mentioned Primursk, Sovetsk, und Zc lenogradsk. It is interosting that towns of identical or Closely simtlar names also cxist in Leninyrad Oblast: Primorsk, Sovetskiy, and Zelenogorsk. Buth Zelenoyradsk and Zelenogorsk are resorts. The Prinorsk and Sovietekiy. in Leningrad Oblast are both on the coast, about 10-12 kilometers from each other, Bearing be in mind that Subject has previously described working in the - woods in Leningrad Oblast in 1945 under conditions that sound very similar to forced labor, it in possible that thore is _- some clue here as tuo how Subjeet's legend was Prepared. At this stage, however, it fs not possible to draw any firm conclusions and the coincidence is Himply noted for future reference, ) ; fs 5. In the course of the four days‘ of intcrrogation to date, there have been a number of indications which tend to confirm previous impressions that Subject may have spent some time as a prisoner in a Soviet jail or prison camp. AS some of these have not been noted in the previous inter- rogation reports it may be convenient to summarize thom here: a) On 28 July Subject made the intriguing remark, “tyuremnyy opyt otrahatyvalsya," This was in answer to my qucstion about how he: kept track of the days. : b) On 20 July, Subject voluntarily launched into a long and detailed explanation of how ke keeps track of the days in his present circunstances, A possible explanation for this unsvlicited description is that Subject had reflected on the implications of his renark on 26 July.
104-10227-10008 c) On 28 July, while To was asking Subject about the number of his Party membership card (which he did not renember) Subject said, "IJ don't even remember my personal KGB nunber." I immediately asked Subject when such personal serial numbers had been instituted in the KGB, and he replied that he didn't remember, that no one carried them with them but kept them in the safe, that they were intended for wartine purposes. COMMENT: Personal sertal numbers never existed cither in the army or in the KGB, and to the best of our kwwe- ledge they do not exist now, The only place in Saviet society where such numbers existed is in the prison camps: this was one of the chief prievances: and com- plaints that the prisoners made in the tamoun’ Vorkuta uprisings of 1953, d) In previous interrogations Subjeet has described working Jn the forests outside of Leningyvad for two months in 1944. The conditions that he described sound much more like forced labor than that of a military unit. e) Although tattooing is certainly practised to some extent in the Soviet Navy, Komsomol and Party pressures restrict this to a considerable degree. The number and cxtont of Subject's tattoos ig more characteristic of young jailbirds. f) Subject's account of the handshooting cpisode suggests one possible way that he might have wound up in jail. Certainly this incident could not have been taken as lightly in wartime as he would have us believe. . . g) Subject's story labout a 15 day sentence in the Lyubyanka because of the venereal disease incident suggests that this may have been inserted in his legend to cover slips stemming from long prison experience, and possibly also to help him in passing the polygraph. h) Subject's earlier accounts about fighting at Tuapse, running away from school, etc. also have several references to prison that may be significant. le oace referred to the uilitary unit in which he allegedly joined in Raku as a "penal battalion", he returned to the school “under ypuard," upon arrival in Moscow he was "arrested," — Ted
104-10227-10008 MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD SUBJECT: REPORT OF INTERROGATION DATE: 3 AUGUST 1965 1, Most of today's session (0945-1130 and 1230-1330) was devoted to questioning on ue structure and organization ot-the IVD in 1953 and 1954... It was originally planned to touch on this subject only lightly and then to move on to another topic, but Subject's knowledge waa so limited that it seemed worthwhile to cover it in considerable depth, 2. Asked to describe whit directorates existed in the MVD under BERIYA, Subject named the FCD and the SCD, which he said were tho intelligence and counterintelligence directorates respectively. Asked if he were sure, Subject said he was positive, and that the only chunge that took Place later was that for a short time, under KRUGLOV, the FCD became the SCD and vice versa. 1! <old him that he was wrong and asked again if he were sure. He replied that he was certain that this was done by KRUGLOV and that it was for a short time only. Actually, of course, this change was instituted by BERIYA and existed until at least February | 1954. Thus, Subject does not even know in what directorate ~ he worked during the first year of his alleged servico ir the KGB. Previously, because Subject had indicated ina homework assignment that he was aware that the directorates had been numbered differently, we had assumed that he knew when and how this happered. This was a falve assumption and we now have conclusive proof (if mure was necded) that Subject did not serve in the MVD in 1953-34, 3. Subject displayed a similarly hazy and insufficient knowledge on all other organizational questions of that , period. He could not descrite the functions of the 4th Directorate accurately. fle did not know the functions of the 4th and Sth Special Depts. He claiced that there was a 10th Directorate, which was the Dicecturate of the Kremlin Conmandant (this had actually merged with the Ovhrana in 1947, and was called the 9th Directorate since 1952). he had never heard of Spetsbure #1. he had never heard of the Directorate for the Preservation of Govt. Treasures, he knew nothing about the Jails Directorate, he had no notion of the subordination of the Internal Trosps, Convoy troops, GULAG, GUSHASDOR, the Militia, ete. ete.
104-10227-10008 : eae 2 ~_ @ rR t. @« ts iF “ sg, are toa 4.0 Subject did not even know when the KGB was organized, He said that it was in late 1954 or emrly 1955, Told that he was wrong by 9 year and asked to thin t Subice stubbornly insisted that he was right. ¢g ; . 5. Asked to th name the chiefs of the directorates and separate departments of the MVD under BERIYA and KRUGLOV, Subject was able to name only nine out of 28, He . was unable to name the leadership of the Intelligence Directorate, saying that he remembered only SAKHAROVSKIY (PANYUSHKIN wags chief until 1955), Subject was able to name only SEROV and RONASHKOV $s KRUGLOV's deputies. He was ignorant of such prominent names as LUNEV and SHATALIN, 6. Asked where the Main Directorate of Militia of the USSR was located in 1953 and 1954, Subject said that he did not know. and knew only that later it was on UL, Oyareva, Actually. in 1953-54 it was located next to the miin KGB building on Deerzhinskiy #2, . ‘ 7. Asked to describe how he conducted name checks on a Soviet citizen and on a new arrival to the American Embassy in 1953-54, Subject managed to give a superficial description of how such. checks were done. However, he resisted every attempt to get hin to describe this process in detail, and he made several blunders which show that he never actually ran such a check himself, For cxample, he did not know where the records of all Soviet citizens who have been tried are kept. and attempted to improvise an answer (completely wronz) that they would echeck with the, militia about this. Subject correctly said that Archives were located in Bldg 2, Bldg 12, and on Kirov Street. But he was completely unable to stretch his limited knowlodgo to provide a description of how these various repositories were actually checked. Subject was also asked to describe how he ran such a check on a Sovict citizen in the 1956-59 period. Were again he was in difficulty as soon as pressed for details on how the check was run, It was particularly interesting that he did not feel able to dispute my challenyes of his information in this peried, even though he uadeubtedly prtivrstl, knews that 1 do not have first hand knowledge of procedures in this period. ; 8. Subject was asked to deseribe the KGB identity document that he received when he first entered the KGB. He was asked if there was Anythiny unusual in connection with this document at that time. He replied. that he knew of nothing unusual, He was then mld that both under BERIYA
104-10227-10008 and KRUGLOY it was necossary to have wa apecial stamp placed in, the pans in order to have free access to the KGB buildings. _ Subject was totally ignorant of this, and was unablo to recall anything about it despito a number of hints and loading questions Actually, this buginess of the special stamps was the subject of numcrous anecdotes at the time, and no officer who served intho MVD in 1953 could pussibly Inve forgotten it completely, , 9. Subject was asked again about the personal KGB humber that he had mentioned in a pofvious session, HE replicd that he did not remomber exictly when this wag instituted, but that he was sure it wasnot before 1956, and that he recejved his number while he was in the Seventh Department. Me said that the numbers were issucd on a metal, aluminum dogtag about 2 by 4 or S cms, that it was inscribed at the top: “VS SSR" (Armed Forces of the USSR), and below that was the serial number, which in hts case was E 00 and four digits which he could not remember exactly but thought were 1033 or 1022. A hole js punched {in this dogtag, which properly speaking is called a “lichnyy znak.” The serial number is also entered in the KGB identity document. Subject that the purpose of these number tags was not : explained when they were issucd, that they wera supposed to be carried with one's personal documents, but that he kept it in his safe, as did most others. “ 10. It was interesting that at the very beginning of the session, Subjoct declared that he had thought it over: and wags sure that although he had been wrong about Priworskly Kray, there had to be a little Sovetsk in Kalingrad Oblast ' that was called Sovotsk? rimurskiy to distinguish it from: the other Sovietsk. Subject was told that this is nonsense, which it 18. Subject has probably decided that he cannot - afford to admit to any substantive errors which cannot be. explained by just poor memory. ; F, 11. Subject was told that there was and is a RR connection from Ealiningrad to Baltiysk, Subject tmmediately suid that there wag a narrow gauge Jine that ran from Kalingrad to the various resorts but insisted that under no circumstances did it go to Baltiysk.
104-10227-10008 12, It wag alyo interesting that Subjoct returned frow tho lunch break saying that he had tried to think of other names of MVD chiefs in tho carly period, and that although he did not know this from his own service in the KGB he knew that Gon, fnu BOCIIKOY, whoso son Boris BOCHKOV lived in same house as Subject on Ul. Granovskogo, wag Chief of convoy troops ca. 1946-47, ond similarly he know of a Goncral NAGORNYY-NASETKIN (perhaps roverscd) - whose eon Gennadiy was in Naval School with Subjoct in Baku - who had been. Chiof of GULAG at one time, Tod ih eaten Orme ee
104-10227-10008 MOH eee eee a Mey bane See ae te cen MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD > SUBJECT: REPORT OF. INTERROGATION DATE: 4 Aupust 1965 1. Today’ ‘9 session, (0945-1245) was. ‘de yoted ‘almost entiroly to Subjoct's education:from the 7th ‘tothe, 10th | gradus, tho period in which he vilegedly wttended Naval Schvols in Kuybyshev, Baku, and Leningrad, Subject was... challenged sterasy. and repeatedly, ‘and. -ho. grew visibly . upset. For the first time in this serics of interrogations he started to sulk and the session was ended when he Virtually” stopped answering qucuttons, 2. Moscow Special Naval School: - Subject: said that when ho attended this sciool in- Kuybyshov.- 4t consisted of ™ only the 7th and Sth classes. It is quite possible that...” if tho school was first croated -in 1940 ft" had' only two — classes in.1941. . However, Subject insisted ‘that. the Special’ ‘Nava.l, Schools were intended, to. xo, only through.the Oth grade, This 18 quite incorrect; both ARTAMNONOV ‘and: ‘GORDEYEV state. positively that these schuols gave the final ‘three years of a full’ secondary education: the 8th, 9th and lOth grades. . - - ‘In talking about the school, Subject gave no more information than previously: he can remember the riames of five or six schoolmates, one or two instructors, ho doesn't remember ‘exactly how or when he went. to Kuybyshev or. back, ho doesn‘t -remembor where .in Kuybyshev..the ‘school was located: “Because of the paucity of his recollections it in difficult to come to a conclusion about whether or not he was. really. there: judged by itself, it secms impossible that he was there and is unable to recall more; compared te’ his story _— about Baku it locke good. One pussibility, perhaps is that he enrolled in this school in Moscow, but dropped out at . somo point in the first year. 3. Baku Naval Preparatory School Subject repeated his previous story that in the summer ot. 1942 he returned) to Moscow and through the Moscow Naval Equipage he wag processed to join the. Leningrad Naval Preparatory School which at that time had been cvacuated tu Buku and combined with the Baku N2val Preparatory Schoo). He said. that he © mmecg sie cae ARO ytrets Se neato: 02 panes
104-10227-10008 tents RR TAO et hae coe tt one wn ec gece ee TOM abbot ce temec nies serene TT ae eae ee mene reatetnete eae it + Sen i 2 arrived in Baku in the end of 1942 ang Joined the Baku Naval Preparatory Schuol Which had a three year school consisting © of the 8th, 9th, and 10th. grades,: Subject wag tuld that this was nonsense and that no Naval Preparatory .schoolg offering a threo year COUrSe CVCLr-existed in the Soviaot- ‘Union, “Hae insisted that -he was right, and said that not. “4. ONLY: did such schools cxist. in Leningrad and Baku, but also ~ {n-Sevastopol and Vladivostok. . For’ the first time, Subject ‘struck @ very confident .and oven -agnressive attitude, saying such things as, "I know, I. was there," ang “you are evidently netsulfictontly well informed about these schools," te, (Actually, ARTAMONOV's tostimony, about tho location and Organization of tho. Spccia} Naval Schools, tho Naval Pre. Paratory Schools, and the Preparatory Courses of tho Naval Ncademieg . which is both logical ang Consistent ~ completely. contradicts and rales out Subject's Story.) 4. Subject was: asked to-deseribs his route from Moscow ‘to Baku in the summer of 1942; Ite replicd that he didn't remember. | Hy was then reminded that originally he had oy on ‘Slad that he went directly, and that when told that the RRO. ‘Tines -were cut, te had’ mado up a story about a two-week - long train ride. Subjoct looked uncomfortable und mado .- “no reply. I thon to1d Subject that there wag only one . - Possible way to get from Moscow ‘to Baku at that time and - that the cities. through which it passed were go Unusual that no one who had made the trip could forget it. Subject ,Said he. did not remembor, (Tho only way was by way of - - Tashkent!) os UU _ 9. Asked to name the leadorship of the Chter Directorate — of Naval Schools and Academies at that time, Subject saiqd  - that Vice Admiral RAMIASHVILY was the chter, and. that hig deputy was Major General TATARINOV, The chief of the Directorate Of Educational Institutions wag Vice Admira} SUKHTASHVILI, According to. ARTAMONOY, SUKHIASHVILI was the chief of the | ; first prototype Nakhimoy School which wag Organized in Thilisi . in 1943, The fact that Subject knows SUKHIASHVILI ‘5 name (which he mentioned for the first time), the character of the Nukhimoy Schools (a full Sccondary cducation for sons of the Soviet elite), and the ‘fact that Subject 's story for this period includes a tri Pp to Thilisi with lis father al} Point to the POSSibility that Subject was actually in the Nakhimoy School in Thilisi at this time, Subject sill be questioned further on this at. the Next session, fe tae te a oe
104-10227-10008 8 6.- Subject again insisted that he touk the military oath in Baku when he was 15 years old, as did all the other students in the school, Subject. was told that this was inpusetbie;-- but - continuod to maintain that he was “eel ng “how. it was.” i Te Subject . repeated his. old story about complot ing de ? , the 9th grade ‘by onrolling in “externat" (somewhat simtlar <0!” to correspondency courses) at. the Mining Institute in Moscow. Subject gave a completely wrong description of what such a | course of study consists of, and it is not possible that — - he actually did what he said. For example, he stated that he studied at the Institute four days a week, for approximately 7 hours a-day; actually, un "“externat" student. would do all of his..studying at home, flere, as elsewhere throughout: the session, I told Subject -thathe was making things up’ and that if- he obtained hist 9th yrade certificate by blat 4t. would be much better for him simply to say $0, but he_ - did HOE avail himself of the opportunity, wend my 8. Subject. was asked what Subjects he. utudied in the 16th grade (in Leningrad). He replied that he did not renember, and gave a similar reply to questions abuut what ‘he -had studied in the 9th and 8th grades.- The, sossion was ended on this note. Subject was visibly. pact’ by this time. - and his answers are probably moro indicative of his mood ‘ than of total inability to recall what Subjects. are taught in Soviet secondary schools. en Re eRe ie nee en meee te enna 9. In° the middle of the session, as a chango of pace oa I asked Subject to tell mo the locations of all the residences bh of KGB officers that he could recall. Subject was able. to recall about-12 different budéldings inhabited by KGB officers, ; . and although he did not give the exact addresses his locations | . and descriptions were generally correct. What was interesting was that on every case he pegyed the building to the name of a KGB officer, most of whom play:'a prominent part in hig Jegend: KARETNIKOV, PETROV, KRUPNOV, CIHLURANOV, GORBATENKO, GRIBANOV, A.S, KOZLOV, ZAKHAROV, KUTYREV, CHELNOKOV, Sergey GUSKOV, Georg: ZHUKOV, KOVSIIUK, YAKOVLEV, : Ted.
104-10227-10008 ‘ 9 August 1965 SUBJECT: Report of Intorrogation of 6 August 1965 1. Today's sossion was from 1000 to 1200 and. from gee et ‘1305 to 1410.; As planned, J started the sossion by sum- nn re . marizing for Subject the results of the first six sessions, — _. : . listing for him approximately twenty points on which he had ” me failed. badly; :.(Summary list. attached.) At first Subject | ~ ‘attempted to contcst the. points as I cited then, for oxam- a ple, on the variations in the KOBULOV story, and on the ~ ae locution of ROZHENKO's office, but. when I. gave him the me, . facts he did not ‘challenge them ‘and he listened to most of ne _the litany in silence. TF told Subject that.the results of rr _ ; those sossions had confirmed further tho’ previous findings, ae Pose ceo — I asked him why ho continued to cling to his ‘legend, and Mee eh : : : reminded him that he. had turned down the opportunity — - _ : ; offered to litm last spring to. change his mind while we. co sO still could take steps to preserve his operational useful-- oe $ Armee eee ree ness. I said that this opportunity wus ‘now, past,. but that 1 did not want to conceal from him the fact that he still: ’ had knewlodge and information which. could be usoful to us. ‘Howover, thore was a timo limit.even to this. I reminded him that ho had been. out of circulation for a long. time ‘ a and that many things had happened in the world-and especially Le es ee in tho Soviet Union during this time; for cxample, KHRU- = - oe SHCHEV was -no longer in power (Subject! 8 comment, as OX= Ca. pected, was "Thank God/"). Other changes had taken place. - ae If Subject did not make up his’ mind to tell the truth, his a 490 days could easily turn into 4000, and he would not be- of interest to anyone. I told Subject again, that. he had nothing to fear, no matter what he had done in the past, that we would not prosecute him for any past crimes, no matter how bad. If he were worried about reprisal from Soviet security organs, I told him that we were just as capablo of. keeping his confession secret 48 we wore of keep- ing secret the fact that we knew he was a provocateur for a year and a half before his defection. If promised him
104-10227-10008 ‘es 2. that he would bo given normal living conditions ay soon .as he started to cooperate by telling the rend truth. (A complete transcript of this part of the session ts being done.for the record.) .—. , ; 2. As expected, Subject's only response to all this. } my was that he had told the truth--with allowances for mis- - , “ takes on minor points of detnil owing to forgetfulness-- — - and that he would continue to tell nothing but. He said .that despite his grievances over his treatment he con-: ~~’ _ tinued to be willing to serve American Intelligence in ony way he could, short of returning to the USSR, of course. Iie complained that I denied-and contradicted everything he said, great and small, and said that he Could -see -by nany remarks that I had made that I thought that he had -never served in the KGB as a stafl officer but had perhaps” | ay '-been an agent for the KGB. This, he. said, was. completely sds My om! excluded, and I should know that it is not possible for the KGB to rccrult the sou of a minister as an agent. I | replicd simply that 1 knew of several cases where not only : t children of ministers but even nore important people had mo coe . served in this capacity. ee C “ a, = 4 & _ ; , ; ae © fe ; 3. Anothcr interesting remark .that Subject made was — - that he fully appreciated the fact that his’ knowledge Was 0 ann, rapidly getting dated. - fe mentioned that this applied not ; : . /  ~only to his- knowledge of the KGB, but also to.what he. =" , ; knew about prominent members. of the Central Committee of — ; P the. CPSU. I said that he had not provided anything of © . a bate | interest on this subject, and he -replicd that there had not ee been an opportunity, implying that there was much that he , had to offer in this field. It is planned to explore his ‘knowledge on this next week. : . : : 4. Subject complained that we had not checked his Story sufficiently and pointed out .that thousands of boys had studied in the same schools as he had and that we. Should be able to get. confirmation suncwhere. Here he made an interesting remark as follows: "Incidentally, when I first came here I understood from something that Mr. Peter Bagley said that you have operational contact with a Spar- tak KAZAKOV. He was also in the Baku Naval Preparatory) School with me." 2S it ata Dis iat
104-10227-10008 —— —e ‘the internal passport fystem, Subj Ws ee 5. Subject was questioned in sore detail about his duties as a SCD officer on the big public holidays. Sub- ject's description wag generally accurate, and even quite good as long as he kept his answers peneral. When forced to be more specific he made a number of mistakes about. the: procedures involved, such as insisting that instructions , for. the holiday were issued by the chief of the department “without the participation of ‘a 9th Directorate officer, © about the preparation of the duty and mest lists for passes, which lead me.to conclude that, he did not stand duty there as a KGB officer. He was unable to remember’ a. single delegation that he had becn assigned to watch, al- though he maintained. that he ‘had pulled such duty every” year since 1957. However, on the basis of ‘his otherwise very good familfarity with Red: Square and the procedures. _ of parades there, IT would conclude that he has attended more than one such event. as a guest, or perhaps with his father. 6. After the luncheon break, I started to question Subject on’ his first marriage. As before, Subject. was unable or unwilling to remember any of the data that would’ enable us to pin this story down. He does not remember == - exactly when he met Telegina, the date of Telegin's arrest, the date of the marriage, the location of the ZAGS office where the marriage was registered, or even the year of .. | birth of his wife (1928 or 1929); ‘Subject simply made no. effort to answer these questions, and for this reason the questioning. proceeded. to Subject's first. passport. 2S 7. Asked where and when he received his first internal ° passport, Subject said that he thought it was in Moscow in early 1944 before leaving for Leningrad. ‘Reminded that. this. was a change from his previous story that he had gotten . his first passport in Leningrad, Subject replied that he hadn't remembered it, and that.in any case he also got a passport in Leningrad. Asked to describe the purpose of ect's. answer would embar- rass any real SCD officer. He insists that all Soviet — citizens over the age of 16, except those on active military service and prisoners, have Passports. ; 8. Asked to describe the surroundings of Ul Narodnaya, where he lived from 1956 to his departure, Subject "s answer — — ; ~ oo. “tw, ae wie.
104-10227-10008 “ae SNe RR het otc tem ete ey -was in general quite good, 4.: As before, : he was. unable to name correctly the city rayon in which his reridence was located. 9. Asked ta deseribe his entry into the Naval Pre- i Paratory School in. Leningrad in 1944, Subject at first Save a vague and unsatisfactory answer, and when pressed for details he became -irritated and said that Ris father had arranged it all po blatu.. this note. - . The session was ended on
104-10227-10008 ha weet nese iat. ; se _ , magi W — utst of pot ts Re d with Subject on 6 August: ff o Oints Reviewed wit 2ubjec on \ugusts i t 1. ABIDIAN and other onoratsons (simply 4 reminder). i i ; : : 2: Registration in n Moscow upon arrival from the Baltic : 77 ". on leave. ak, ro” ; - oF . 3. KOBULOV, VAKHRUSHEY, and the recommendatson to the. : MVD. mS : 4. Procedure. of issuing visitor's passes to the MVD : buildings, se : 7 4 : moe ; ; ar _Unescorted. access: to the 4th Entry to. seu’ KoRULOV. oe P| , : F - 6. Location of ROZIENKO* 8 offico. The Oth Entry, ope ey ‘ 7. Anketa a. Doesn't know its nime; b. Filled out in 2 copies; gg ne aed Filled out only the ankota | and eutobiography; eo 2 d. Filled out anke ta at home; te. DM Bad . e. ' Doesnt t know ‘the bahay Listok Be uchetu: . kadrov; ‘f£. Posluzhnoy Spisok; @& Secrecy agreement; h. Size of the anketa, 8. How to run a name check. Mixed up the various archives and was unable to describe. correctly how to check a. Soviat citizen or a forcigner. 9. Doesn't know entry date into MYD.
104-10227-10008 re : - ae 6. 10. Did not take an entrance medical exam. y Fartioularly when 11. Doesn't know his salary correct? when they restored. . they stopped paying for rank and rank pay. 12, Mixed up the two Genoral SAVCHENKO's, and doesn't. know about one of thom at all. 2 - i > 18. Gastronon.. 14. ‘Service in the Baltie: a. Sovetsk;.- .- —— ; ee on a b. Railroad to Baltiysk; pm ol” Doesn't know Chief of Intelligence, 4th a ne Baltic Fleet; . . , d. Doesn't know commanding officer 6f his MRP;. Now says ho spent only 4 months there; =. - = on ie ‘f. Doosn't know: olomentary geography: <2 a . Primorskiy Kray instead of Kaliningrad 0200. - 5 15. Doesn't know in what directorate he served, FCD‘or.- __ ‘ SCD; doesn't know when or why they were redesignated. er but doesn't ft name- 7 a 16. Wife's relatives were in France. Logical, know why there was no data on thea when ran ‘check. | 17. Knows the basic structure of the NVD in 1953, but.did : not nane almost half of the directorates and depart- — : ments. Doesn't know the functions of the 4th and 5th : Spetsotdels, or how the spetsotdels used to be called. Deesn't know the deputy ministers under KRUGLOY. 18. Komsomol: a. How a secretary is clected: P b. Regulations; cc. Namo of the Komsomol Secretary of the MVD;
104-10227-10008 bere si 1 2A es eect eo core came Pa gf - “ee en a ard ~~’ ree ahs ; 7. ps \ Se d. How he registered and doregistored; o i? -@. Age} : i. : : |: f. Membership dues; : H gE. Konsonol Congress. i “ . ; 19. Docsn' t knew about special stamps on MVD pas:ies under oo .. - BERIYA and KRUGLOV. Couldn’ t have entered. ta kk KAGE aa a , 4 20. Docsn' t know dato or even ygar when KGB organized. : “24 21. Education: . . . L a. The trip. to Baku; . “Dd. ‘Three yoar course of study in Naval Propara- - "tory School; Ce a ae - 2s 4 8 - c. Extensioa - Correspondence courses at Mining i Pe ee .,. Instituto; — oe, . ; a ; : oe, “ad. Doesn't know ‘that sinjects’ taught. in a a * ee - : ‘ . Oth, or 10th grades. ; 7 77
104-10227-10008 oa _griaaatemgite, all POP he Pe ae Ee re ee “Attachment to 6 August 1965 Interropation Report - ‘ SUBJECT; Transcript of Interrogation (Excerpt) ‘you, you were to “once to some dcgrec somo important operati - opportunity G August 1965 a Well, perhaps I spoke alittle too loud, but I find I have no other way -out, because T.can't buy what you are naying, and no one wants to wasto timo by pouring water frum one pitcher-into another. “I only want to say fur- | ther, that would it not be better--speaking cut. of friend-._-. ship, for you to drop this entire lepend--start acting hye tho part of that which-you reably are, and start to form: 20°": a real fricndship--for which it 48 still possible, at this time, to find some basis;. somc basis--as of now... ee, “ {t is #till possible to find. As you were told before--' ve Lowe BE Mee” you romember, later, when that. tall fellow spoke to ld that 4f you were to begin to tell the 1] the truth--and to influ-— : oe onnl activities. ; 2 rations of 500 0 worn I am spoaking - truth-<you. had a choice to tc and decisions which are concerned with ope the KGB--a participant of which yourare.- to you seriously, so listen well. “phat's all I am doing, Listening: You turned down the opportunity at the time when’ you might still have been used operationally, when it was possible to burn ? (provalit').some of KGB’s opera~ ticns--which would all. have put you in much better cir- cumstances than those. in which you are now... You turned down this opportunity. Tho time has now passed. The to exploit the situation operationally now because all the operations which were in ave either reached the end, There is no longer any pos- sibility of your participation or assistance to us in this work, because, after our conversation with you, when you refused to tell the truth and so on, or to cooperate, we. had to make several decisions, and after muking these decisions and carrying out some opcrations you are no docs not exist, any way connected with you h or are approaching an end.
104-10227-10008 oO : oo, leprotern site Piet eee leds: cde, pat fe , 2. ok longer cof any operational value whatsocver. However, to / tell the truth, and I don't want to conceal this from io: . you--you still possess gome. operational information which mizht be useful to us. No one takes this away from _ you... But fur this there in also a deadline, one which ~ . __.. is approaching very quickly. I think the time is soon coming when we will'-have absolutely no interest in. you CBR ‘ whatever, and not only we--but anyono else as well. po ; This 18 a serious matter. I would like to remind you--as you have said. yourself, that you have been here now 490 4 days and during this time yreat many changes have taken , place all over the. world and cxpeciully tn the Sovict Union. | N: A great many!- Including the fact ‘that there ti no more - KMRUSUCUEY=-for_ ‘ _ your information. oe, Mie Ns: Thank God? One scoundrel less: _T: 1 expected this answer--and you can imagine the conse- ; quences which took place--after this--not. only as a member of the KGB, but. as an ordinary’ Soviet citizen. I, want to tell you. that I don't throw words around, I am carrying on a very serious talk--this- happened ‘sono - time ago, during the time that you have been. here. When. . IT mentioned all that I did about the operations and all re that, I had a good basis for it; We have done a great. ; ra 7 . , deal of work since. you are hore. N: ‘I should think: soandi6' “he he! As you were told be fore-- these are my last vords to you, you will not be punished for being sent over here, be- cause our Government system dcesnot work like the - Soviet system, .and you will not be punished for those crimes which you might have committed be fore--ine luding murder, or what have you, ~-of course J] speak of extremes-- Such things may not have taken place, necessarily--not . for having been sent--not for not. speaking the truth in ything which the KCB may be the beginninyg-snot for an; holding over your head which makes you afraid to speak. In this matter -I have specific authority and I am authorized to say tais to you. Yuu ure being offered an opportunity to start a normal life. However, as I told you before, this oppurtunity may also expire soon, and then the 490: days, speaking between us--may turn into 4,000 days. Because there is no other way-out. Even i ne Places.
104-10227-10008 te came rie em arere ene caine We eee tia prepay BATE SE a as ae Ne’ 3. 1f you wero not a countertntellipence worker you know that IntelUlgence work is war. Further--tf you are afraid of what you will be doing, how you will be occu- pied, of your Jife--that is, afraid of a strike ugainst - | you from the Soviot Organs, or afraid of something else, you may rest assured that your conferston ean bo kept, secrot, just as we kept secrot our games with you begin- ning in 1962--unt4il the time whon you tinilly came to © us. As you were told befure--wo wore aware of this. -In addition, and as I- told you before, wo knew ubout this operation but did not tell anyono about ft. Only a - narrow cirelo of peuple knew about it--and 1f> this nar- row circle did not know about it things would not have happened the way they did. So, we ure able to savo your lifo and to help you start anew; no one wid] reproach you for what you did in the past, for coming hero, “nor fur what or who you were and so on. as a human being. This is all I> wanted to auy to you. - Botweeh us--speaking. £Lrom the! heart, as °I said to you - before, I was there before--1 worked there--und now I am here, and am m working hore. I don't want to oither boast. about anything or. comptnin about. anything--I work — Tike all the rost. of. the. people who ar6. herc--have the same rights. It ‘is aéther matter--who was I, how did I got here-=-you know this, perhaps, -- this convorsa- tion is just between us--I am just expressing my opinion to: you--perhaps the time. nus. come to shake Rapes and ao bogin to. .... oe You want me to talk when J] have nothing ta say~- you. - refuse ‘to belicve in my education, my training in the schcol--my work in the KGR--you refuse to believe “anything! ‘You will be received |
104-10227-10008 SUBJECT: Report of Interrogation for 9 August 1965 - coor 10 August 1965 1. Today's session (1100 - 1200 and 1245 - 1400) was .- devoted primarily to questioning about Subject's divorce . and second marrtage. In this context, a number of other sub-= a jects were touched upon in passing, and at the end I put : sone further questions about the organization and leadership - of the MVD in 1953... 7 ‘ . ; i SF , 2. At the beginning of the session Subject said that ho had boen thinking about my questions on the naval prepara- tory schools and that he wished to remind .us that Felix KRUTIKOV, who was. recruited in France by cither the French or British Intelligence Services and. later arrested by the Soviets for this, had also studied at the Baku Naval Pre- paratory. School and that since ho undoubtedly gave somo bio- graphic: data to his caso officors we should at least be able ' to confirm the existence of the naval preparatory school in-.- this way. - . , ; 3. Ip questioning Subject about his divorce, the ques- tion of the territorial subordination of Sovetskaya Gavan quickly came up. Subject said repeatedly that it was in Primorskiy Kray. (Sovetskaya Gavan is, and always has been in Khabarovskiy Kray.) When I told Subject that he-was mis- taken, he was quite. upset. At first he insistod that he was right, then he shifted to a position that he was pretty sure he was right but that he really had no occasion to know be- | cause it wasn't included in the matl address, which was: Sovetskuya Gavan, V. Ch. 90-176. Subject did not know how many krays there are in the USSR (there are stx), nor could he explain the difference between a kray and an oblast, and whatever the rest of his education, his knowledge of geo- Kraphy is rudimentary. ~As with Sovetsk, it is virtually impussible to make a mistake of this magnitude if you have actually served in the place. In contrast to the Baltic, Subject evidently has learned some descriptive facts about Sovetskaya Gavan which he scemed oager te tell oe, however, I cut him off.
104-10227-10008 Vy te In discussing the procedures Involvcd in getting his divorce, Subject displayed a preneral knowledge of ‘how this is donc, but broke down on q number of specific points. -It 4s difficult to Say that he was never divorced, but we - may certainly conclude that he was not divorced at the. time and under tho circumstances that he describes, Subject's divorce is SO woven in tu his legend of service in the Naval GRU that it is impossible to tsolate it. Everything in this period sounds wrong, and it must be Significant that this is the period in his life story that has becn subject to the most variation duriny: the different interrogations, Subject continues to say that he published the notice of intention to divorce in Sovetskaya Gavan in 1951, but is "unable to remember" the name of the ncwSspaper or the date Or month’ cf publication. The choice of an obscure newSpaper in the Far East for the publication of this’ notice is theo- retically possible if wo assume that Subject was actually _... Serving there at the time, but is particularly Significant in that wo would have the Capability of checking it ig the notice had been Published in one of the Moscow papers. Sub- ject did not name correctly all the documents required to file for a divorce, -he could not remember the dates of the. various hearings, he does not remember what People's Court... of which Moscow city rayon the first hearing was at, nor does he know where the City Court of Moscow ts located. Sub- ject continues. to Say that he did not raceive a divorce certificate, and that the diverce was Simply entered into _ his military identification booklet. Subject was unwilling to estimate the date of the divorce more: precisely that sum- mer 1952; asked why he had previously told the Story about returning from the Baltic for the divorce, Subject was un- able to give an explanation. . : 5. Asked why he had SO much lcave in Moscow in 1952, Subject arvain became entanyled in the Question of military leave procedures. He does not Appear :tuknow, and impro- vised some false Statements about, the correct amount of leave coming to an officer Serving in the -Far East, and the normal -procedures for registration in Moscow while on leave “Status. Similarly, Subject at first Said' that he did not report his divorce to Naval GRU. Reminded that Personnel would be interested, Subject improvised alittle Story about “mentioning it" to them. All this: tends to confirm previous findings that Subject did not ever serve as an officer in the Navy. (In this connection, tt is Striking: that in ee TR OR Parte aguuni ts parton tet aa TAMA wiretitty ye
104-10227-10008 1 okies Saieaniaane naval schools.) . in Moscow with tact is the Chi remember the na ‘how he deregist skaya Gavan, Su and had Simply Skiy" upon arrival there 6. Subject was shown po Uchetu Kadrov ‘and asked. _He Imacdiately said im ment. I've seen it in pergonnel I @ver filled ‘it out myself." Subject's language there 3. The only officer j; whom he seems to hav Ag not the Slightest hint or trace of naval terminology or Slanz, even when discussing the n Naval GRU Headquarters e had any personal con- cf of Personnel, KOLOSHIN; he claims not to - mes of any other off icers there. Asked about ered from the Komsomol organization in Sovet- bject again said tha t he hadn't derepistered been picked up by the K/o in "Sovetsk/Primor- ‘on the basis of his transfer orders, an exemplar of the Lichnity Listok - If he had ever seen. it before. portantly, "Yes, yes, I know thts docu- files. But don't believe Asked where, when and in whoso persoinel files he had secn the document, Subject was totally unable to give an adequate answer--the best he could manage was "I think and so forth"--and Tinally waid that the KGB used the document at all. Here Subject's initial response is as noteworthy as the fact that he does not know :. the purpose of t 7. Subject He has changed h -with his wife at to the final reg ‘he did not have °. Of Divorce. -This is’ not’ possible. Plete guest list question, he said that KOBULO he document, .Was questioned abau tt was for civilians... interpreters, | he diua't think that t his second marriage: - is story slightly and now Says that he lived her parents apartment. for two weeks” prior istration at ZAGS is and was not ‘required of ‘the party at the Subject's assertion: that - to prodiace a Certificate Subject provided a com-. dacha. In answer to my ¥ was not invited because the ‘party was for -close friends only, and that although VAKHRUSHEY * was a close friénd he Simply 8. . Subject MVD structure in wasn't there. was then asked. u few further questions about 1953. He was ayain unable to recall] any of KRUGLOV's deputies except SEROV. Asked what CC/CPSU menber was appointed deputy to KRUGLOY at this time Subject was completely baffled, faid he didn't know, and finally said that I was evidently Subject continued to insist that when CI Directorate w as the SCD. Aj3ked wh ‘torate was located at the time, he re Agricultural Exhi bition, the K.I. bui making a mistake. (It was SHATALIN, ) he joined the MVD the ere the Intell Direc- plied Building 2, the lding, and Kisclnyy Pron Sena wer) eager Aue the cc ae
104-10227-10008 “e -. of 4. Pereculok. This is a confused and jJncorrect answer,. Subject seems to think that the K.I. boildtng is something separate from the Agricultural Exhibition building--nectually it 1s the only building there used by the KGB. Asked for clari- fication, Subject said that he never visited the K.I., and Never. visited the FCD building ut the Agricultural Exhibi- tion. Thus, he also scemed. to be unaware that the K.I. ; had not existed since 19NS1. °° Asked who: was the Chief of the — - Intell Dircctorate “inder KRUGLOV «nd SEROV, Subject replied - that he knew only SAKHAROVSAITY, but didn't know when SAK~ . HAROVSKIY became chief. He said that he knew thut before BERIYA, LESNOY, SAVCHENKO: and cven FEDOTOV had served in this job. I asked Subject a.dtrect question about. PANYUSHKIN, and he said that he had heard that he served tn. the MCB at one time, and thon latur became Ambassador to America, and after that a CC worker. Even in this context, Subject did not realiza that PANYUSHKIN. was Chtef of the Intoll Diree~ torato as of July - August 1953, It is increasingly apparent that Subject's preparation for hin legend of service in 1953- 1954 was limited to his work in the American Department and that it did not occur to the KGB ‘that we might question Sub- ject in detail on information already provided by myself and other defectors. . ‘om wm ge oo
104-10227-10008 ne ene lL August 1965 SUBJECT: Report of Interrogation of. 10 August 1965 1. Today's session was, from 1100 to 1200 and from 1300 to 1500. It was largely devoted to a review of Sub- - jJect's military ranks and awards, but inevitably a number of relatod topics were touched upon. Stibject was alse questioned about his father's funeral, and about members of the proesidium and the Soviet Government Kenerally. - . - 2.. Subject was first asked when and where he first entered on activo military service. He said that aormally | people were-called up at the age of 18, and I told him that the age was 19, but 18 if the person has the equivalent of a full secondary education. We said he was never called into the: army, but reécived a deferment because he was a student at tho Institute of International Relations. In _ June or July 1947, -at the end of his sccond year at the. 005 o:, Institute he received the rank of Jr. Lt. of the Reserve, ~~" as did all his classmates. He received his first voyennyy © bilet (VB) at the end of 1945 or early 1946, at the rayvoyenkomat for his place of residence at Ul Granovskogo, | he Said he thought it might have been Krasnopresnenskiy rayon (this is. correct, and is the first time he has -cor- ei rectly mentioned a rayon in which he lived). ‘This was an ordinary enlisted man's VB. In 1947 this VB was reolaced with an officer's VB. In neither case was Subject able to Rive an adequate description of how the documents were | issued, nor did he have any idea of what was in them. He does not know in what branch of sorvice he was (except | | that it was not the navy), what his sostav /category/ was, or his MOS. He said that the. military registration desk. | was located in the voyenkomat, whereas prior to 1938 they were actually located in the Militia Sections. ' 3. Subject said that he first went on active military % service when he entered Naval GRU. This was in October Pes fh i 2: tl eet 1) “pete PT yet ie t. 4 CM Sree eerie tain eae fl th
104-10227-10008 i fe Ri ALES nt 7 me eee seme creme kee 7 2. 1950, although the processing. had started in the spring. He derep istered from the rayvoyenkomat in Septerber. He left for the Far East Imncdiate)y.. Questioned about . the: procedures invelved in processing for his ceparture, ‘Subject was. totally unable to describe tho correct docu=- ments and procedures, and even said that he travelled in civilian clothes. If Subject had ever been a naval offi- ‘cor anywhere (or for that matter an.officer in any branch of Bervice) | hu could casily -have invented satisfactory answers to my olementary questions; instcad he appeared to. be improvising answers on the basis of very hadequate knowledge. 4. Subject gave the ‘following chronology. of -his.- _military ranks: July 1947 - Jr. Lt. of the Reserve October 1950 - Jr. Lt. April 1951° (while in Far East) - Lt. April 1953 (in MVD) - Sr. Lt. October 1959 (KGB) ~ Capt. _ October-November , 1963 txen), - Lt. Coline In no ins panco does he remember stra signed the ‘order ‘of. hia promotion to ao now military rank (normally, one seuld _ remember at least a few). I told Subject that 1t was’ im- ‘possible for him to have been promoted-in the “VD in: April — _1953,.o0r at any time 1n March-June and even later in 1953- because not one single person in the MVD was - proneted at. this time. Me looked astounded and at first seémcd unde- cided what line to take, but finally said that he couldn't Say about anyono else, but he was sure that he received. hig promotion at that time. (In fact, this if excluded. All promot tons were held up from Beria until late 1953.) 5. Subject said that he was put up for captain: in 1956, but that the promotion was blocked by LYALIN--who- was deputy chairman at that time and a. member of the pro- motion: board--on the grounds that Subject should be made to wait because of shortcomings in his work. Subject said that he was proposed for major in 1959, but only re- ceived captain. At that time, he was promised by GKLBANOV that he would be promoted directly to Lt. Colonel the next time around, and this happened.: I told Subject that i, i Wii i ue . , , , FTP AN ae tba aR Panta tet Rp KONNOR rhe cee eciB/ EEN porch. scomnee F¥trcotie. op fay aft fae A i " BE i Bai ant
104-10227-10008 PR RELE OP amar? 3. this was impossible, and potuted out to him that not. even the astronaut GAGARIN had been able to skip u rank. Sub-_ Ject simply insisted that this is what had happened... He said that he didn't know why he showld have Ketton such special treatment, and could only suppose that allowance: © was made for his long: stretch as nan Sr. Lt. and tho fact that: he was a deputy chief of departmont, (Subjoct's story does not hold water-no matter how you turn it; even 1f his career had proceeded normally he would ‘not havo - been “eligible for Lt. Col. before 1964.) Asked why he had. previous Ly told us that he had been a major (in the auto-~ “biography prepared in Frankfurt), Subject said he did not think we would believe the truo story, Z ; 6. Subject was thon questioned briefly on the. famous. VD incident. His story about the investigation of thts -. * dncident does not conform to normal practice in ‘such cases,” and_is not believable, Still worse is his account of the consequences this incident had on his Komsomol ‘standing, He maintaing that: tho vz skaniya (punishment) was removed from his record in October 1557, Just a few months after the incident. This is ncver done in less than a year, espectally. for sucha serious offense. His explanation that this was done to enablo him to leave the Komsomol he- cause of age without’ a black mark on his record is simply - Absurd: for a KGB officer to leave the Komsomol because of ago and without entering the Party is a blaék mark in Atself, and would inevitably mean expulsion from tho KGB. Subject. was completely unable to describe the procedure involved in turning tn his Komsomol .card. He admitted _that> he was the only member of the SCD. who was not cither in the Komsomol or the Party, but maintained that no one had ever even talked to him about. it. ; ’ 7. Subject said ho received the following medals and awards: . ‘Medal for Victory over Germany - 1945-46 Medal for Defense of Moscow - 1945-46 Modal 40 Years Soviet Army - 1957 Medal 3rd Class, for Nonoruble Service, 10 years - 1962 or 1963 , Order of Red Star - end 1961 In regard to the Medal for Honorable Service, 10 years, Subject first said he received it in March 1963, then corrected himself and said 1962.) Aske} why not in 1960 (it takes into account both military and KGB service), ° Subject said he didn't know why it was so lave, that it a ee SHOBNET wie Scar orth hal ewrsba beth canta.
104-10227-10008 wos pergonnel's fault, possibly Lecause of the reorganiza- tion of the SCD.) Thesuw are nonsensical, snezwvers, and tt 483 obvicus that Subject. is unsure about wnen he should have reccived this medal, remombers the previous interrogation, — and is being careful. | Asked what he received the Order of the Red Star tor, - - Subject was extremely evasive. He claimed not to remember: ~ “’ the oxact formulation of the order, ‘and perhaps slipped. when he-said "For exceptional performance of mission." - Whon I asked him what mission, he said that it was just for good work in goneral. ee ante me seen Subjcct also sald that in.1959 he wav put 1n for the Order of. the Red Banner because of nis tourist reciustments, but did not get it, probably becaune he was transferred to the First Department at the. time. Reminded about his pre- vious bousts about the Order of Lenin, he said that it was ‘ s* : promised to him in 1963 but he did not reecive tt. Sub- ae joct did not say what it would have been for. - oe = 8. I asked Subject if he had attended thecpening of : asst the Dzerzhinskiy Memorial in front of the KGB building. 7 , Subject quickly said that he wasn’t there and that he |... i ‘dida't remember when {t was opened or where he was at the i oo time. He refused to estimate whether this took place, .. ; . under BERIYA, KRUGLOV, SEROV, SVELEPIN, or SEMICHASTNYY, and looked uncomfortable when reminded that it wap a very a, - big event, attended by D/ERZHINSKIY's wite and.gon, among: °- - a others. (It was opened on-20 December 1958--the 41st — re. birthday cf Soviet State Security--and was attended by. - toy KHRUSHCHEV and. all other praesidium mecbers. . 9. Subject was asked to-descrite his father's funeral. This he did in a satisfactory manner. Asked where he had come from to attend this funeral, Subject replicd that he was in Moscow all tho time of his father's illness from May 1956 until his death ‘in August 1956 with the exception of a.few days TDY in Kiev (this would be tor the BURGI case, about which Subject will be questioned next time). Of possible interest ts Subject'’s remark, appropos of noth- ing in particular, that the portrait of hin father that hung in the House of Columns and was published in the papers at the time of his death was not a youd likeness. ; ates a Da ey ee E Eee cet ewe mabe aa de
104-10227-10008 toe A a Datla ARETE AR eRe erase eee é 10. Some time was spent questioning Subject on .the residences and private lives of the Soviet -hetrarchy, especially those who lived cither at Granovskly or Serafi- movich Strtcts. The results were inconclusive: Subject did not make any mistakes, nor dtd he have any sensational revelations, Asked what residences: he personally. visited, ‘he said only BULGANIN, KOSYGIN, MALYSHEV, TIMOSHENKO, MIKOYAN -(dacha).,. SHCHERBAKOV. . Subject said he did not’ know Where KOBULOV lived in Moscow, eo 7 ‘Ul. At the ond of the session Subject was reminded | that previously ho had said that he recelved his first VB in. Leningrad. He admitted that (hiss was wrong, but satd he got some sort of documents connected with his schooling: | through, the--voyenkomat in Leningrad; however, he could not remember what. documonts they were. : ts Ged oe oes
104-10227-10008 \ 12 Aujust 1965 | SULJECT; Report of. Interrogation for 11 August 1965 1. Today's session was from 1310 to 1500. Subject. was questioned on the types of filos uscd in the KGB, on cable pruceduree, on Bldg #2, and finally was tested on. his knowledge of underworld slang. 2. Subject was questtoned in considerable detail about the different typos of files that oxist in the KGB. Asked what such files .ho remembers, Subject replied, "I will list fur you all the files from 1953 to the present time, includ- ing the changes." Heo was not able to do quite that, but he did have a protty good familiarity with the different types of files. fowever, he’ did make some ‘mistakes--such as affirming that tho files on Sovict citizens who corres- pond abroad aro kept.in the 6th Department of OTU--and . almost all his answers rang of memorization rather than of first hand, daily experience. As usunl, he Had difficulty in answering, specific questions. He was weakest on ques- tions which involved a knowledge of procedures in the 1953-. 1954 period--such as tho delo formulyar, agenturnoye delo, and lichnoye delo formulyar. fle was unable to describe the format and broakdown of a liternoye dolo, although. he- knew its purpose woll enough, and when pressed on this he said that he never handled one personally, although he was responsible for an annex to one. Conclusion: Subject's knowledge of this topic is largely memorized; however, ‘some limited direct experience cannot be excluded. _ 3. Subject was asked what KGB directorat@ and depart- meuts are located in Building #2. He replicd the FCD, Border Troops, leadership of the Personnel Directorate, leadership of the KGB, part of the 9th Directorate, and part of the 3rd. Directorate. I cannot judge whether this is true now or not, but it is certainly possible. . What was interesting was that Subject said he did not remember. - sas *
104-10227-10008 ns tt Da wo? 7 . 2, ‘ .- nnd refused to puess when any of these clements--such as the border troops, for example, moved into Building #2. 4. Asked where the 8th Cuief Directorate was located, Subject said he didn't Know, cxccpt that they had something beyond Kuntsovo, and something on Komsomolskayu Pl. One would expect an officer with 11 years’ service in the SCD: to have a better idea than that, and it's possible that the KGB considers -this sensitive information. Asked to describe the procedure for writing a cable, both abroad and within the USSR, Subject gave an udequate generalized answer but did not seem to be aware of the use of: cryptonyms. He had never heard of the “Book of Black Magic," which was the cryptonym book used in the FCD for all cable traffic with the field, and he denied that any cquivalent book or system was used in the SCD. oe. 5.. I started asking Subject the meanings of various KGB terms and words, and then continucd without break or comment into a list of crimina) slang. Here Subject made an astounding showing: he knew the correct meanings of 34 of the 43 words I asked him (I did not know the meanings of many. of these words mysclf--J took the list from the book Concentration Camps of the USSR, Munich 1955). More-~ over, most of his "don't know's" came at the end of the list, when he was obviously starting to worry about the implications of the questions. At the beginning he simply answered, then he answered, adding "but that's thieve's jargon," thon he gave three different unsolicited explana- ; tions about why he knew the words: (1) In 1951 he made a VES trip to Smolensk with a couple of criminal agents from Hoa, a the Department of Cviminal Search; (2) He knew somo of the. ote words: from’ Naval Prep. School; (3). "Literature nowadays is full of these expressions," and specifically mentioned reading the book Petrevka, 38 in 1963 (oddly cnough, Petrovka, 38 did rot come out until January 1964, probably not unti after Subject's departure from Moscow). I made no comment either about the questions or about Subject's explanations, but simply continued through the list. He finally started answering "don't know." 6. As we were leaving the house, the puards reported that since returning to his room Subject had sat on the edge of the bed, helding his face in his hands.
104-10227-10008 Ca ee 13 August 1965 SUBJECT: Report of Interrogation for 12 August 1965 1. Today's session was from 1030 to 1200 and from 1245 to 1435. Subjects covered were the Richard BURGI case, working hours in the KGB, number and location of | KGE dining rooms, Leningrad naval prep school, and the hand-shooting incident. 2. Subject was questioned-—in detail about certain aspects of the BURGI case. He claims to have been. the | case officer responsible for handling all the paper work on the case, and to have assisted A.S. KOZLOV in the re- cruitment. Despite the fact that he was. supposed to have. been the only Hqs case officer handling the case. from its beginning, Subject was completely unable to describe the - origins and planning stages of the operation. It is. obvi- ous from the circumstances of the case, from BURGI's testi- “mony, and indeed from much’ of what NOSENKO himeclf Says that the operational proposal must have originated in the ECD: EURGI had never been in: the USSR before, but the KGB knew a great deal about his life history (according to BURGI), and they certainly knew beforehand that he was a homosexual. Yet Subject says that he ran the name checks, which were blank, he does not remember whether or not there was a cable from the United States about BURGI, and if so, -° what was in it, ho has no idea when or how the KGB learned that BURGI was:a homo, who first proposed an entrapment Operation, or what the ops plan was. He. insists that it was the SCD that first raised the case with the FCD, and that he went with GUSKOV to talk to FEKLISOV, Chief of the lst Department, FCD,.-about it, but he cannot remember what waS discussed except in the most general terms. He main- tains that FEKLISOV spelled out the specific meeting arrangements which should be given BURGI in New York at this meeting--which took place before RURGI had even been approached, much less recruited; this is absurd. ‘Subject
104-10227-10008 MOR alee aateeee UF 4) was uncomfortable and uneasy during thiks part iof the ques- tioning and took frequent refuge in “Don't remember." In discussing the Kicv phase of the operation, Subject was equally weak on all questions which pertained to planning, communications, and behind the secnes arrangements:. he doesn't know what instructions were given to the surveil- lance team, whether or not BURGI's roum was tapped, etc. Subject did not oven know that there was; trouble with BURGI's visa, and that special steps had to be taken to. extend it tor’him. Subject claimed o much larger role in- the actual recruitment than BURGI describes, and he de- - Jiberately falsified certain aspects which show him in an agent light: for example, he claims not to remember that) he was introduced to BURGI. in Moscow by the homesexual agent “STROYEV," and he was careful to Say that although he ; Stayed in the samc hotel as BURGI in Kicv, he was on adif-~ ferent floor and BURGI didn't know -he- was there (BURGI says he was in the next room). There can be ro doubt that Subject did not participate in this operation as a case officer. © 4 — 3. Subject repeated what he had told previously about “the New York sequel to the operation. ¢: Asked how he had learned this, he replied that he and @USKOV Tearned. this from FEKLISOV, because they were interested. Ho admitted that this was unusual, and that FEKLISOV shouldn't have told them. Pressed, he threw in KOSOLAPOV for yood measure: KOSOLAPOV was working in the New York Nopravlenitye of the Ist Department, FCD at that time, knew of the case, and told Subject that it had ended. : . . 4. ° Subject was asked what the working hours were: in the MVD when he first started to work there. He said it was 1000 or 1030 to 2400 with a break from 1700 to 2000. Asked when this changed, he said he thourht {t was about a year later, in 1954. In reality in MVD Hqs up to August 1953. the hours were 1100 to 2400 with break from 1700 to 2000. The hours were changed by MALENKOV in August 1953. Subject said he did not know who changed the hours or why. Subject gave the new hours correctly. {lis mistake on the eld hours is another example of the lack of preperation that was given to the 1953-54 period of his legend. 5. Subject was then asked how many dining rooms there were in the old part of Building F2. He replied that there were four: in the basement, on the first flowr, on the eighth floor, and the general's dining room between the
104-10227-10008 A eee enh wit eee: 1 DUP Sar arma daey oa Ba hogs, “restaurant, -naval-subjects and he was barety able to OXDLOEN | the dif- . batim transcript of what he said about. this period of his ‘and he never heard of them being instituted later, JI In 2953-54 there were only three-- the one Subject -describes on the first floor did not extst and it ds very unlikely that it, has been added.) Asked ubout dining rooms in the new building, Subject’ replied that he did not know how many there were, and that he had nevor vuten thore. This is an as toul ste we remark. for someone whu was supposed to have worked ll years in the SCD. There is only one restaurant in-the new building, ‘and it is at the main cntrance on the first’floer, right by the ele-. vators. JI then asked Subject if he had ever ridden in the clevator “in the new building, and he said he hud-not. Asked about Building 12, Subject said he knew only of the dietetic and that ho had never eaten there (there are first und second floors. two). ; 6. Asked about attendance at the KGB Club, Subject again said that ho practically never went except. to meet- _ ings, that he had been only one on KGB birthday, that his wifo had been only once or twice. “ 7. Subject was questioned briefly about study’ in ; a Lentngrad in 1944-45 and the hand shooting incident, but B nothing new omerged: ever. I asked: Subject a few questions about clemontary : ference between a battleship and a emuiser: 8. As planned, I concluded by read Wne- Subject’ a ver- life in Geneva. on 25 January 1964. - Subjcct smiled at some points, contested others, and did ‘not seem disturbed by - ae the contradictions. I ended by reminding Subject that he. wt did not have much time left. ; 9. P.S.; I asked Subject what sort of a lapel pin (znachok) he received upon graduating from the Institute of International Relations. Ne immediatcty replied that he hud received one, but much later, in 1957 or 1958 when he was serving in tho Tourist Department. I asked him if he were sure, and he said-he was, and recalled going with BELIKOV to get it. He describe’ the pin. I then read him the decree establishing these pins tor all higher educa- tional institutions, dated January 1961. Prior to that, so far as I am aware, only Universities and military. acaden- ies had such pins. Subject insisted that he received his in 1957 or 1958. (Upon returning we checked with KAZNACHEYEV, who graduated from the Institute of International ReYaticns in 1956. He says that there were no such pins in his time, — although he knows that the universities had them.) his story is just as terrible as |. ~
104-10227-10008 ee eee ~~ _— 17 August 1965 SUBJECT: Report of. luterrogation for 13 August 1965, : i : - -}. Today's session lasted only from 1&0 ‘to 1830. As : ; tho purpose of the session was primarily to put Subject in: : ' the proper framo of mind (apprehension) for the confrontation Beene tonight, Ted asked only a few questions at the begin- ning, and used most of the time to deliver a fow final re- marks and to give Subject a last opportunity to say something sensible. ‘ 2. Ted told Subject that there was no sense tn ‘continue | ing because he insisted on contradicting all the facts in ; an absurd way, and that this would be the last time that he. . i _ (Ted) would talk to Subject. Ted told him re had only a few : ” fours left. Ted asked Subject if he knew why “the doctor" 00 Fee : ' (Gittinger) had spent two weeks talking to hin, and when he - : : ; said "no," Ted told ‘him:that it was simply to establish 2 ; , whether Subject was rational or not, hecause aone of us : could believe that he expected his answers to be taken seri- ‘ ously. However, the doctor had found that he was sane. ee . 3. Ted told Subject that the only thing he seemed to a bnew anything about was prison slang. Subject laughed--he . Cp was apparently prepared for this jab--and acain mentioned. . ae i literature, this time citing "One Day in ‘the Lire of Ivan i Denisovich." Ted asked him when he had read Petrovka 38 : and he -said in £963. Subjcct mentioned that the author of i this book, Yulian Semenovich SEMENOV, had bees an opera- i _ tienal contact or agent who had submitted the manuscript ; . ef his book to the KGB for clearance; however, he had read i the book when it was published. Ted then tolé Subject that the book was not cleared for publication (potpisana k echati) until 6 January 1964. Subject then said that he must have read it in draft, although he dida*t renember. He could not remember the name of the case etficer who had handled SEMENOV. eee
104-10227-10008 , 2. . at there were a pumber of inter- feu ; esting and gignificant topics~-such as Subycet's family life, . : his wife and children--that he had not even touched upon. | but that there was no UsC in continuink peeause of Subject'Ss obstinate réfusal to tell the truth. Today was his last : i chance, and if he didn't chooso to tell the truth he would 5 a be of no furthor uso and no one would even want to talk to: 4. ‘Ted tuld Subject th d that he had only told the truth, was ° Re said. him. Subject replic point, didn't intend to lie, ete. that he understood that we didn't believe him and ceuld only hope that "my worls and time" would prove U5 wrongt. Ted told Subject that he was porry for him, and ended the interronas dion. not lying on any wemtaen eet