DERYABIN REPORTS ON INTERROGATION OF NOSENKO.
Agency: CIA
Originator: CIA
Document date: 01/01/0000
Document type: PAPER - TEXTUAL DOCUMENT

## Page 1

104-10227-10008

MATERIAL REVIELD AT CIA SEADQUARTENS WY

HOUSE: SELSCT COMATTEE ON ASSASSINATIONS STAFF HENLERS

FILE: TITLK NUNHER/VOLUNE: _

INCLUSTYE DATES:

CUSTODIAL UNIT/LOCATION:

ROOM: -

Released under the John F. Kennedy Assassination

Records Collection Act of 1992

(44 USC 2107 Note)

NW 532166/17/17

DELETIOYS, IF ANY:

DẠTE

RECEIVED

DATE

RETURNED

REVIFIED BY. (PRINT NANE)

SIGNATURE OF REVIEWING OFFICIAL

NO DOCUMENTS MAY BE COPIED OR REMOVED FROJ THIS FILE

---

...

---

## Page 2

104-10227-10008

17.

REPORT ON INTERROGATION

DATE:

26 July 1965

from

1600 to 1730.

The intorrogation took place fron 1230 to 1500 and

I commenced according to thr previously

prepared plan.

Subject asked no questions about my identity,

raised no objections of any kind, and said he was willing tọ

answer

any questions.

Although I frequently challenged the

truthtulness and corroctness of Subjeet's answers, the overall

tone of the interrogation was calm, and Subject's attitude was

correct and cooperative.

Soft drinks were served, and at his

request, Subject was allowed to smoke during the

second part

of the interrogation.

Subject said at the beginning that he

had told only the

truth in the past, that he had not been sept

by anyone, and that he was willing to tell only the truth to

me.

Questioning was concentrated on the 1953-54 period.

The following are

the must interesting and significant points

that emerged:

In talking about his return to Moscow on leave

fron "Sovetsk, Primorskly Kray, in

the Baltie flat the end

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 diu not dispute ny statement

that these were the regulations, and finally said vaguely

that he reported to Naval GRU Personnel "seven or ten days"

alter arrival.

b) Under close questioning, Subject's story about his

necting with KABULOV took on some new aspects.

lle now says

that relations betweon his father and KABULOY 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 mecting took place at KABULOV's dacha (rather

---

## Page 3

104-10227-10008

2

that at the NOSENo dacha), that the date of this fol-torether

was cither l or 2 January

1053, and that Vasilly VAKHRUSHEY

•(who was then marriod

to KABULOV's daughter) was also prosent.

In a tspical plece of improvisation, Subject evon unlu that

it was VAKHRUSHEV, rather than kABULOV, who first raised the

question of what Subject was doing.

COMMENT: In view uf Subjoct's different previous storieg

about this incident,

his readiness to chango hig atoxy

and to improviso under my questioning makes it impossible

to believe thathe ms actually recommended by KABULOV to

the KGB.

c)

In talking about his first visit to the KGB, Subject

was unable to give a consistent and accurate account of tho

procedures at

the KGB pass officr.

Succifically, he madntained

that the name of the interviower was not indicated on the pass.

COMMENT:

The name of the intorviewer is always indicatod

on the visitor's pass.

It ts difficult to understand

why

Subject would not know this if he had ever sorved

in

the KGB, much less in 1953-54:

Subject maintained that on this first visit hu talked:

to some personnel officers (he could not remober nny namos) who

were lucated in an office on the sixth floor of

of Building #12.

He said that he left his coat at. the garderobe

on the bround floor of this entry.

were in the

same section of offices as ROLlENKO, whom he talkod

to here on a later visit.

223133

the 8th ontry

He said that these officory

CONENT:

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 inpossible.

to the time

of my departure from Moscow (Sept 1953)

neither ROZHENKO nor any units or officers of KGB Personnel

were located in the 8th entry.

As far as the garderobe

is concerned, although Subject correctly nentioned that

there was also one on

the second flour by the dietetic

restaurant. there was

no garderobe on the ground floor in

those years.

(From 1917 to the time I loft, KGb personnel

were located on the oth and ith flours of the tti entry,

Building #12.)

---

## Page 4

104-10227-10008

!:!,

• 3

Subjuct said that on

the day he first reported for

(*13 or 15 March 1953') le

went from the pass office

cutry, where his pain was chocked by the suards, and

went unescorted to KABULOV' offico on the ird floor.

COMMENT: - It is not posalblo to so through any entry

of Building #2 with a vinitor's pas: without escort.

(Espocially to tho offico of the deputy minister!)

In senoral, Subjoet rive a correct description of

what was located in entries

2-7 of Budding #12.

Ilowover, he

ild not mention the oxistence of an ostra entrunto to tho left

of tho KGB Clụu..

Moro important, he said that he did not

know whother or not there was a oth entry, but that ho belleved

thoro was not.

The Oth

entry was located around the cornor

on Malaya Lubyanka, and

was used by a few sectiong of

tho Oth. Directorate.

Although Subject may never have

had occasion to enter it, lo

shoul certainly be nware

of its existence, espocially sinco lie montioned going

to the Moscow UKGB, which was lochted noxt to entry 9.

g). In describing the papory that he lndato fill out

to apply for entry into

the KGB, Subtoct mentloned only a

quostionnaire/ankota/ and an autoblography.

leasaid that he

received the forms

on his first visit to tho KGB, took them

honc and filled them out, and thon delivered them to tho

pergonnol officer

on the following day.

He said that ho was

obliged to turn both the questionmire and the nutobiography

in in two copies.

He maintained that the questionnaire did

not have any name, other than simply "anketa." He said that

it was four or six pages long.

Subjeet way challenrod on all

these points, but ingisted that he was correct.

The questionnaire is called "Anketa Spetsialnoge

Naznachenlya 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 pormitted to take

this questionnaire home to till

Only one copy of the questionnaire (or autobiography)

out ovor required, although an applicant might he asked

to make a new une if the first was incorrectly filled out.

r..u

EYES QULY

---

## Page 5

104-10227-10008

When Subject was asked what the second

copy could be for,

ho said

that he thought it was for the sermity check

/spotsprovorka/.

This is not correct.

Also, Subject

maintained that these were the only form and papery that

had to fill out - this is not currect, and he will bo.

questioned lator

on the otherg.

n) Subjoet insintod. that he was not regured to take

a medical examination au part of his processing for ontry into

When challened on this and asked to explain 1t,

Subject said that it was probably because they knew that ho

on active duty In the Navy, and possibly also bocauso

his application had a sprcinl character becauso ol KOBULOV's

CONMENT:

A medical exan was mandatory for all now employses

of tho KGB, whether or not they were officurs on activo

military sorvico.

1)

Asked about his salary when he first startod to work

for the KGB, Subjoet sald that ho got a baste salary

• rublos as a

case officor, 500 rubles for his rank of lieutenant,

plus socrecy, languago, and length of service pay.

that this

was corroct undor close questioning.

I thon told

Subject that NGB officers were in longer bring paid for rank

in March 1953.

Subjuct First said that he wasn't at all

interested in monoy in that period and really couldn't remember.

Then ho said that ho renembered that there was one year when

they wore not paid for rank - which herbell&ved was 1951,

and

that

he still thinks that lie was pald for rank when ho first

entored the KGB.

Salary for rank was taken away from MGB officors

in mid-1952.

It had not been restored as of february 1954,

although I bellove it is likely that it was restored at

sono time thoroafter.

ASked Who were IGNATYEV's deputies, Subjuct mentioned

SANCHENKO (among othors) veer

Asked what was SAVCHENKO'y background,

Subject said that he had

in the Ukraine, then had beon

head of the Intelligenco Directorate of the NGB: after BERIYA

he was deputy chairman

of the KGB for a short while, after which

ho went to Moldavia as Chief of the Moldavian KGB.

Subject thus

repeated a mistake he lad made previously.

He firmly stated

---

## Page 6

104-10227-10008

5

that tie did not know of any othor sarchesos.

When told that

thore are tro

Goneral SAVCHENKOs and that he

had then mixed

up, subject replied. that he didn't know

SANCHENKO's first

anein; and that

he didn't sue what difference it made anyway.

COMMENT:

As explained carlier,

Subject has confused Lt.

uneral Sergey Romanovich SAVCHENKO and It. General Ivan

Tikhonorich SAlCHENKO.

Both of them occupied prominont

positions in the MGR

ot thly.t1mc.

Sergey Romanovich lind

boon NGB Minister in the Ukratne prior to 1950, was

Deputy Minister MGB And head of the Intelligence Directorate/

MOB Irom 1930 to Now 1052. His a Id. Gen. "Nithout portiollo".

from Nov 1852 to March 1933, when he was made depaty chlot

of the advisor's section of the FCD:

Ivan Tikhonovich

SAVCHENNO waS head of the Chief Diroctorte of Spocial

Scrvices under thou CC/CPSU from 1918 to November 1952

(the predecessor organization of the &th Directorate KGB),

then

Chief of tho 8th Directorate NGB from Nov 1952.

It

1s this SAVCHENKO who later went to Moldavin.

Any officer

who served in the NGB in 1953 or later should know of

both SAVCHENKOS

and bo able to distinguish between them.

k)

Asked to describo the front of the KGB club, Subloct

sa1d

that he did

not

remember any. slon (there was one in 1953),

but mentioned

that there was sa Gastronom next to it.

Asked*:

when

the Gastronon was opencu, he sata firmly that it was

alrcady

there when he startedato work in: the KGB.

Told that

there.

was no Gastronom there in 1953. Subject bocame rather

contused; ho made up a little story about How KGB officers com-

plained about the poor security croated by the opening of the

Gastronom, and said finally that perhaps the Gastronom wasn't

thoro until 1955.

The Gastronom was definitely not thore as of

It is listed in the Moscow Telephone Diroctory for

(no directories are avallable for the years 1955-

1957). It is believed

that Subjeet's slip on the Gastronom

may be a revealing one, and if we can establish exactly

when it opened it may provide a good clue as to when

Subject was first associated with the KGB.

1) Asked to describe the location of ans safehouse

belonging to No (external surveillance) of the SCD in 1953-51,

CO0T

---

## Page 7

104-10227-10008

Subject had difficulty in grasping the terminolony "N/N"

and finally said, "Oh, you nean Uonk." He replled that ho had

nover boch to any of their bases or safehouser in liat period,

and tried

to talk instead about some of tir ith Diroctorate

installations that he has already reported on.

COMMENT:

If Subject had really lous a case officer in

the Amorican Embassy section of the BCD 1n 1953-05, ho

would have had to visit N/N sarchouses very often.

Inability to nano a single one le visy darne.

confusion about the terminolory to also interesting

"von though subjeet has provously chown in his homework

thnt he is awaof the organiention evolution of the

surveillance apparat, ho does not respond to the old

terminology in convorsation as he should it he had worke

there at that timo.

"VODK" ten men torn for what

formerly. "UPDK"; it was staffed by and subordinato to

N/N, but was in no sense the

save thine as N/N.

m) Describing what. was located in the 1th entry of

Bullding #12, Subjoct

nentioned. the 3rd Spritsotdel, which was

responsible for the preparation of various faloe documents.

Asked soveral times

whit the foomer designation of this unit

was, Subjeet replied

that it had always been called the 3rd

Spotsotdol as far as he know.

CONNENT: This unit had alvays boch called Department "D."

designation was changed on

In other words; at the time that

after the death of Stalin.

Subject allegedly camo

to work for the KGB it had just barely been re-named, and

most officers continued to refore to. it by its old designatior

for sume

n) In speaking of lits naval GiU nervis

in the Baltic,

Subject said several timoy that ho had sergede t

the Baltic

"several months only."

This to a significant change in his

the April 1964

interrogations.

Ile firet made it in

conversations with John Gittinger. uno did not challengo

It may be worthwhile returning t this periou

later in this interrogation.

PRET

---

## Page 8

104-10227-10008

3.

Tentative Conclusions:

The above items mll indicate

that

Subject

did not work

In the XGB 1n 1953 or 1901.

Some

of them case doubt on whether he ever worked in the KGB at all,

älthough it is very difficult to conc to a firm conclusion on

this as yot because he dons havo an impressive knowledge of

KGB personalities, and knows quite a bit about KGB proceduros

and installations

as well.

Tho rost of the interrogation

will

attempt to establish, if posible, whether Subicet's knowledge

uf the KGB; can be

explained entirely by rigorous

briefing,

training, and carefully planned exposure, and to determine

mure precisely in what capalty ho was actually connectod

with

the KGB.

Ted

---

## Page 9

104-10227-10008

REPORT OF INTERTOGATION

UNTE: 28 July 1965

Questluning concentrated on how Subjent Joined the

Komsomol organtzation in the KGB In 1053, and on lis alloked

service ay Socrotary of the Komsomol organization of

tho SCD.

Under dotailod questioniny, it quickly bucame apparent that

Sulject, did nut reive is

the secretnry of the scu Kumgomol

organization.

The folloalug examploy should suffico:

1) Subject dues rot know how a certary iy selectod,

and cannot doscribe his dutico in a spocitle manner.

b) Subjuct does not know the namo of the gecretary of

Elio AiVD K/O.

Yet he would have had to doal with his vory

frequently.

c)

Subject was unaile to recall the nare sit the man

whom

he succueded as Secretary of the scU k/J.

!!; finally

Bald that 1t was Nikolay YEGOROV, from the

"Grirman Dript."

of the SCD. but since he has never montloned this nane.

before it is likely that lie improvisco it.

Subject was unable to identify the tir other mimbers

who crved on the K/O board with hin. excrpt that une of

was "Nina," a typist tron tho "Gorman Dept."

e) Subject was unable to give a satisfactory account

of his dealinys with the YVD K/o of of the identities or

2.

Subject insisted that in 1953-51, when he was

Secretary of the SCD K/O.

the naxinun ife for & Kongonol

member was 27.

This point important both hecause he should

know

exactly if he had been Komsomol Sucrotary, and vecauso

1t was of vital concern to him porsonally.

In artual fact,

the maximum age was 26.

(A new ustav was adopted in March

1954, which also set a maxirum age of 26 but provided for a

two year extension in certain cases.

Subjuct sbould have

known very well about this new ustay, both because he was

Scoretary at that time, and because

01 li0 own problom.):

Subject maintained that all the mumbers o! his k/o

pald 2' morthly dues.

is incorrect, ag ronthly dueg

were calculated on a sliding scale determined uy the wage

kroup of the nomber.

2e as the correct figure for entry dues.

---

## Page 10

104-10227-10008

Subject was unablo to give a consistent or correct

account of how he dereristerod from the Komsomol Organization

of the NRI in the Baltic and registered with the K/O in

His statomont that he was Issued a new Komsomol

registration card by the AND K/O is impossible.

difficulties with this question probably strm more from the

limitationg imposed by his legend than ignoranco of Komsomol

procedures.

5. In general, Subject's knowledge of komsomol pro-

cedures is' consistent with that of any ordinary, apathetie

Komsomol member (hc

could easily have this same

knowledge

even if he had never been a Komsomol mumber).

his knowledge of how dues wore collected. registered, and

deposfied in the Bank on Kuznetskly Most is spocial knowledgo

he was probably briefed (the same procodureg and

are used by all the komsomol and Party

organizations

of the UVD-KGB).

Subject's overall knowledge

of a K/O socretary's duties

15 far too weak for him to havo

served in this capacity anywhore.

6. Other questiong:-

a) In discussing his Konsomol merbership in the Baltic,

Subject again referred to this area as the Primorskiy Kray.

Challenged on this, Subject appeared to be astounded, and:

insisted vebemently that he served in

the city of Sovctsk,

Primorskly 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 Kraj is in the Far East,

Subject compounded his geographical blunder by saying that

he knew all about that because Sovetskiya Gavan',

had served before coming to the Baltic, is in that Primorskly

Kray ( it is actually in Khabarovskiy Kray).

b) "When Subject first mentioned the German Department,

he was asked to think carefully about whether or not there

was a German Dept in the SCD in 1953. At first he asorted

categorically that there was, but when challenged ho retreated

YeT quick about is that or the there was, i'm not sure,

After the luncheon break he returned

and said he was sure that there was a German Dept in 1953.

5:33 C

---

## Page 11

104-10227-10008

COMMENT: There was no Germay Wipt In the SCU in 1951

or 1952, or up

to ny departure in Sept 1953, although

it 1s possiblo that there was a small group of a few

officers

working on German mattery.

In uny case,

Subject's reaction

to my challenge on this point

was

not that of a min who was really there.

Evidently aware that he had made a serlous slip

with the Gastronom on the prevlous day. Subject said - out

of context with the mutter under discussion- that he didn't

know what used to be located in Deürchinskly Square at tho

spot that the Detskly Mir store now occupies bofore it was

constructed in 1957, even though he used to go by it every

Subject gave a rather complex splanation about

the changes of terminology for the surveillance apparat and

for the elements responsible for supporting the diplomatic

colony. Comments on this will bo reserved until there has

been an opportunity to compare it wit! 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 48lst day in tie

safchouse. I asked

him how he managed to keep track of the days so well. He

replied, "prison experience was acquired" /tyurennyy opyt

otiahatyvalsya?.

The phrase is difficult to translato

exactly, but it is the past tense that is significant. I

asked him if he had ever been in jail beforc, but he said

he had not.

Ted

---

## Page 12

104-10227-10008

S:

A'LS U

NEMORANDUY FOR THI: RECORD

REPORT OF INTERROGATION .

DATE: 29 JulY 1965

1: Questioning was concentrated un documenty that had

to be filled out when

Subject was estering the KGB.

Komsomol

questions and service in. the Baltic sore not touched at ull.

Fullowing highlights:

a) ANKETA (DPIIQ): Subject displayed a superficial

knowledgo of this basic questionnaire.

He knows renorally

the appearance, the nature of the gestions, and the purpose

He continued to maiatain,

It was socunent in two copies, thai be tilind is nut at homo.

Incorrectly, that

that it consisted of 1-6 pages.

He amunded his story to say

that he does not remember for sure wether

ho turned it in

to ROZHENkO's people on

one of his first visits, or gave it

to SAKHAROV when

he first reported for work.

COMMENT:

An ordinary

member of the KGB might conceivably

have forgotten the dotails of shis document which was

filled out only at the begtanias of his carcer.

As a

supervisor, however, Subject clains to have reviewed

many personnel files (as he shruld have): as

such, ho

could not possibly make the mistakes that he

has about

this docunent, or be unable do give a better description

ofit.

b)

Secrecy Agreement:

Subject hinself stated that

he had signed such a form for Salast when he first reported

for work.

He was unable

to rementer the proper designation

or contents of the document, however.

The description.of

the wording which he provided was

sinilar to that used prior

to 1947; also, it is similar to tre secrecy agrecment that

might be signed by an agent.

c) Lichniy Listok po Uchet fairov: Thig is not a

very important document,

but irisTie out by evory

officer, and is found in every personol file.

Subject was

not only unable to recall it. he

maintained he had never

heard of it even afterit was descrits to him.

74+:

---

## Page 13

104-10227-10008

2

COMMENT:

Again, although Subject mishe have forgotten

1t 1f ho had been just a plain case officor in the KGb.

he should know ui de ay a supervisor, or uven as

secretary of the komsomol Urgentration tHIs a CC/CPSU

questionnairo).

"SPRAVKA No.l: This documint ty roquired for

cvery personnel action.

Its name and sald he didn't know of it.

Subject did not react at all to

When it's purpose

was duscribed to him, Subjuct managed to rivo a suporficial

description of the document.

COMMENT:

An ordinary case officer would know of the

existenco of this form, but would not necossarily have

ever seen it.

As deputy chie! of a dopartment, horerer..

Subjuct would handle this document 30-10. times a year,

and would be thoroughly familiar

Thus, his

"ir.

limited knowledge of it could only have come from a uriof.

c)

Posluzhnoy Spook (Employment and Servico Record):

Asked atout this

docunont,

its nature and purpose.: Ills answer that he himsolf did not

Illl it out but

basis of the data in hia Ankota is perfectly plaustble. It

at ath has nica

Subject gave a goud descriptich or

that It was filled out by personnel on the

is odd, howover, that subfret Insisted that ho did

not sign

this document whon ho first entered the KGB (as is normally

dono), but only

"18 1958 orº 1957.

2.

Subject was asked how he answered

some of the questions

1n the

Ankota, particularly

the questions on his former wifo.

her relatives,

and on his mother's ancestry.

I then asked

Subject how it. was, taking into recount his mother's pristocratic

ancestry,

the fact

that he father died in jail, the Trotskyice

allegationg against Subject's father, the fact that subieek's

furmer

father-in-law was still in Jail, and the fact that Subject

was

present when TELEGIN's apartment was scarched

-- that he

had been accepted into the KGB, particularly in 1953!

Subject

admitted that the question was logical, and sald that he could

only assume that the influence of KOBUlOV and the important

and influential position of hiy own father outweighed these

nebative factory.

le also ested his GRU experience in this

connection.

I then askod Subject how he had reported his second

mirriage to the KGB.

de replied, that before the marriago ho

had

mentioned it orlotly to GORiATASNO, and that le had

---

## Page 14

104-10227-10008

3

uno really run a name shock on ble prospective bryde, which

•and that after the

marriage he had

filled out

another ankuta for personnel in

which he included all the

required data on his site and her relatives.

After considerablo

prompting, Subpect said that ho had indirated that the and hor

parents had boen in france, but that he had concealed the fact

that her grandmother had boen in German occupied territory

during tho war the admitted that the KGb would have krarned

this in a routino check. howovor.)

I then reviewed for Subject

the negative security factors

mentioned above, audink the

arrest of HOLUlOY, the fact that his new

wife and her parcnts

had been abroad,

the tact that her crandmother was in german-

occupied territory, the fact that Subjeet was now ovrage for

the Komsomol but not set a party membor or candidate. and tho

fact that

Subject receired a 15 day sentence for misuse of

cover documents and incurring venoreal discase. and asked

1f he didn't think that

his personnel file had been revlowed

in 195%, and 1f so, what grounds there could have been for

retaining lim

in the KGB.

Subject sald that he thought thiat

his file probably was reviewed but that again the influence

of his father had saved him.

Subject added that another

important Inctor was probably his languago qualification and

particularly his higher education.

I told Subject that we

would examine the question uf

119

curation in creater dotall

lator.

Ile made

no comment.

I also pointed out to Subject

that if his second wife and her parents had been abroad it

was impossible that her name check could have been negative.

He admitted it was illogical, but instatod that this

was 30.

4.

CONCIUSIONS:

Evidence continues to pile up to

show

that Subject was never in & supervisory position

in the KGB.

that he could nut hare and did not enter the KGB in 1953.

His wenk knowledge of the documents discussod indicates that

if he was ever in the kGB at all, it was later. and for a

rolatively short time.

5.

Despite the fact that I continued to challenge Subject

frequently,

the tone

of the interrogation was pareicularly

Iriondly today.

The following exchange was of sone interest:

Subjert: You probably worked for twenty jears in personnel:

Ted: Not exactly. You should know better.

Subjece:

lio, I don't know. If you told or your same?

Tud:

He • ll

talk slut that later. and maybe even drlik

80 cach uther's health.

SIT

---

## Page 15

104-10227-10008

6.

The plan for tomorrow's session is to attick Subjoet

un his servico in

the Baltic in 1952.

Ted

---

## Page 16

104-10227-10008

SENORAIDUS FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: REPORT OF INTERRUCIATION

DATE: 30 July 1965

Today's intorrrogatlon consisted of twu short aunglong

(2110-1515, and 1610-1050). Subleet was confronted with proof

and also of bayde

scorgraphy in Kallningrad Oblaat.

Questtuning was confined

to those two arcas; and will lo

deserthed below. • In addition,

were some intercating additional indications. that

Subject may have spent sone time in Soilot Jill or prigon

2. KOMSOMOL:

Despile a nunbor of leading questions and hints.

Subject was unable to recall that Konsomol Congress (the

12th) took place in february 1954, while ho mag allegudly

the sceretary of the SCD K/O.

11

he had really boen a

Komsonol Sucrotary at tho tine hr should remember the Congress

very

well, since ho would have been involved in Its preparationg.

Told

about it, Subjoct said that such congresses took place

practicully overy yoar.

This in false; the previouy Kongunol

Congress, the 1lth, was in 1049.

b) Subject again stated that he was sure that the

maximum age for Komsomol monberg at that time

was 27.

Subject

was shown the portent konsonal sratitions for the period.

which prouide that the maximum

ake is 26.

SubJuct simply

continued to insist that he is sure that he wis excluded

fron the konsonol in 193.1 when he reacned the ace of.22, and

that no exceptiona wore made for hin.

le: did nut comment on

how he could be wrong on the regulations if lie had boon a

Komsonol Secretary.

c) In the discugsion of Komsonnl regulations, subjoct

continued to insist that tho

duck werr 2% for all members.

He spotted the varagraph about 2: entry dues in

the regulations

that were shown tu him and said that monthly duey wero

identical with entry dues.

This is not so, but as wo do not

have a copy of the 19.19 membership duus sealo, I was

able to show him documentary proof of his error.

---

## Page 17

104-10227-10008

2

subjeet was again unable to describe how he wa:

ermanently regiotered ay a momber of the ND k/o, how n

pursormed his dutien on a sucretary as what theye dutdes

were in cunnoction with the lêll Humsomol Congross, or to

nano the Socretary of the uVD K/O.

us his survico

Soon nice pee 1952

In the course of the discussion

Subluct madu such in-

credible crrors, and kave such lane descriptions of his work.

that 11 18 necossary to conclude that he did nut sorvo there

as in Intelliuence officor, and that it he has over visitod

that area at all It wag only very briefly.

Subject not only way unable to

Intolligence of the 1th Naval Fleet, he could not even give

his proper title (he Instated that his ofiletal designation

"nachalnik

razvoukt;" actually, of course, it should bo

"nachalnik razvedyvatolnogo upravientyn" of the ith fleet).

Subject does not know

the tame of his immediate

crimanding olficer, tie chilef. of tho vi.

Subject did not

the names of more than two of his lollow offloorg at

In an offort to answor this question he gave a

name - YELISEYEV - that he had not once

mautioned when under

stallar pressure in April 1961; it la anparight that he invented

subject continued lo inglet that he sorved in

"Suvetsk,

Primorskly Kray."

Sullect was then shown a map.

and found that the name us the place whore he had anagedly

scrucd was in fact Primornk

Subject said that he couldn't

understard why he had remembered it as Sovetsk, and sald

that he had nover beon in the

city of Sovetsk.

Subject was

also shown the Administrative-Territorial Divisiong of tho

USSR, and conceled that there i

no Primorskiy Kray in the

Soviet Union except the one

the far Bast. Again, he had

for his error.

Gudly. after inflially con-

ceding his error, from time to time Subject continued to

gay that he thought that he was probably

right aftor all,

and that the village of Sovetsk was

too small to appear on

the wap that he

was shown.

d) In describing his initlal arrival at the MAP,

Subject said that he arrived in Kalingrad, then hau

to go

by car fron kalingrad

to Baltlysk because thero was no

---

## Page 18

104-10227-10008

?

railway to Balllysk.

Hu thris went by car from Bltlynk to

Prinorsk.

In really thore wan and sy a ratl connuction

from Kalingrad to Balllynk, shich pasers throughi' (Subject

was nut told this, howevor.)

subject admittrd that he did not do any operational

work at the Mile, and madd that was why ho was dighatiatled

and wanted a transfer.

morover, subject could not slug a.

detailed or hollevablo descriution of anat his dutios acre.

As he has dorio so often in the pant, to attempted to divert

the questioning ly launching into

what 19 evidently a pro-

pared lecture about the concopt of stay-bchind opurations.

Ile was cut off.

In talking about his service in Kaliningrad

Oblast, Subject hay mentioned Pranorsk, Sovetsk, und bilenogradsk.

It la interosting that

tonna of Identical or closely similar

names also exist in loniuerad Oblast: Primorsk, Sovtskly, and

Zelenogorsk.

Buth Golonogradst and Zelenogorsk are resorts.

The Prinorsk and

Sovietskiy. In Leningrad Oblayt are both on

the coast, about 10-12 kiloweters from dach other.

in mind that Subject has provously described working in the

woods in Leningrad Oblast in 1945 under conditions that sound

vory similar to forced labor, it is possible that thore 18

sume clue hero as to hon gubject's legind was prepared.

At

this stage, however, it in not poysible to draw auy firm

conclusions and tho

coincidence is simply noted for future

reference.)

In the course of the sour days'of interrogation to

date, there have been a nunter of indications which tond to

confira previous lipressions that Subject may have spont

sone 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 in convenient to summarize thum

a) On 28 July Subject made the intriguing remark.

"Cyuremnyy opyt otrabatyvalsya."

This tas in answer to my

question about how ho:kept track oi the days.

On 30 July,

Subject voluntarily launched into a

long and detailed explanation ot how he trops track of the

in his present circur.starres.

A possible explanation

for this unsulicited

description is that Subject had reflreted

implications of his ermary on 20 July.

---

## Page 19

104-10227-10008

c) On 28 July, while I way asklue Subpret about the

numbor of his Party monborship card (which lie

did not rurumber)

Subject sald,

"I don't cren romumber my personal KGB number.

I immediately asked Subjoct when such porsonal serial numbers

had been instituted in the KGB, and he replied

rcmender,

that no one carried them with then but kept them in

tho safe, that they were intended for wartime purposes.

COMMENT: Personal sortal numbrry never existed either

In the army of in the KGB, and to the best of our know-

ledge they do ant exist now.

The only plaie in Soviet

society whore such numbers colated to in the prison

cimps:

one of the chied grievances

plaints that the

the tamoud' Vorkuta

uprisings of 1953.

In previous interrogations subjoct has described

working in the forests

outside uf Leningrad for two months

In 1911.

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 thig to a congiderable degice.

The number and extont

of Subject's tattoos is mure characteristic uf young jailbirds.

suggesty one possible way that ho might have wound up in

ja1l.

lightly in wartime as he would have us belleve.

1235

Subject's account of the handshooting episode

Certainly this incident could not have been taken

3) Subjuct's stury labout a 15 day sentence in the

of the venerent discase incident susgests

that this may have been inserted in his legend

to cover slips

stemning from

long prison experience, and possibly also

help him in passing the polygraph.

h) Subject's carlier accounts

about fighting at Tuapse,

running away from school, etc. also have

several references

to prison that may be significant.

He once referred to the

military untt in which he allegedly joined in Baku as a "ponal

battalion",

he returned to the

school "under huard," upon

arrival in Moscow he was "irrested."

Ted

6.

---

## Page 20

104-10227-10008

MEMORANDU! FOR THE RECORD

• SURJECT: REPORT OF INTERROGATION

DATE: 3 AUGUST 1965

1.

Mogt of tuday's session (0945-1130 and 1230-1330)

was devuted to questioning on to structure and organization

of tho MVD in 1953 and 1954.

It was originally planned to

touch on this subject ouly littly and then to move on to

another topic,

but subject's knowledge was so limited that

It seemed worthwhile to cover it in consad rable depth.

Asked to describe what directorates existed in the

MVD under BERIYA, Subject named the ECD and the SCD, whicb

he said were the intelligence and counterintelligence

directorates respectively.

place later was that

for a short tine, under KRUGLOV, the

FCD became the SCD and vice verya. I cold him that he was

wrong and asked again if he wore sure.

He replied that he

was certain that this was donc by KRUGLOV and that it was

for a short time only.

Actually, of courge, this change

instituted by BERIYA and existed until at least February

195•1.

Thus, Subject does not even know in what diroctorate

he worked during the first year of his alleged servico in

the KGB.

Previously,

because Subject had indicatud in a

homework assignment that he was aware that the directorates

had heen

numbered differently, we had assumed that he knew

when and how this happened.

This was a false assumption

and

we now have conclusive proof (if mure was needed) that

Subject did not serve in the AVD in 1953-34.

Subject displayed a similarly hazy and insufficient

knowledge on all other organizational questions of that

period. He could not describe the functions of the 4th

Directorate accurately.

He did not lines the functions of

the 4th and Sth Special Dipts.

He claiced that there was

a 10th Directorate, which was the Directorate of the Kremlin

Coarandant (this had actually merred with the Orhrana in

1917, and was called

the 9th Directorate since 1952). he had

never heard of Spetsbure

71. 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 Troops, Convoy troops,

GULAG, GUSHASDOR, the Mililia, etc. etc.

---

## Page 21

104-10227-10008

2

Subject did not cren

know when the

KGB was organized.

He said that it was in late 1954 or carly 1955.

Tuld that

was wrong by a year and asked to think

11 over.

stubbornly insisted that he was right.

5. Asked to the name the chiels of ll:

directorates

and scharate departments of the HVD under BERIYA and

KRUGLOV. Subject was able to name only nine

out of 28.

was unable to name the leadership of the Intelligonce

Directorate,

saying that he remembered only SAKHAROVSKIY (PANYUSHKIN wag

chief until 1955).

Subject was able to name unly SEROV and

ROMASHNOY A KKUGLOV'S deputies.

He was ignorant of such

prominent names as LUNEY and SILATALIN.

Asked where the Main Directorato of Militia of

the USSR was

located in 1953 and 195l, Subjuct said that

he did not know, and knew only that later it was on Ul.

Obareva.

Actually, in 1953-54 it was located next to the

main KGB building on Dzerzhinskiy $2.

Asked to describe how he conducted name checks

Soviet citizen and on a new arrival to the American

Embassy in 1953-54, Subject managed to bivo a superficial

description of how such checks were donc.

However, ho

resisted every attempt to get hin to describe this process

in detail, and he made several blunders which

show that ho

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 (completoly wrong) 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.

• he was completely unable to stretch his limited knowlodgo

to provide a description of how these various repositories

were netually chocked.

Subjeet was also asked to describe

how he ran such a check on a Soviet citizen in the 1956-59

Here again he was in difficulty ay soon as pressed

for details on how the check was run.

It was particularly

interestiny that he did not leel able to dispute my challenges

of his information in this period, even though he wareusterlypr...bl,

knews that 1 do not have first hand knowledge of procedures

in this period.

Subject was asked to describe the KGB identity

document that he received when he first entered the KGB.

He was asked if there was anything unusual in connection

with this document at that time.

He repliod. that he knot

of nothing unusual.

He was then told that both under SERIYA

E6 L

---

## Page 22

104-10227-10008

3

and KRUGLOV 1t wag

recossary to have i special stamp placod

in. tho pass

havo fron access to tho KGb bulldings

Subicot was totally ignorant of this, and way unablo to recall

anything about it despito a number of hints and loading

Actually, this business of the spocial amps was

the subject of numorous ancedotes at the timo, and no officor

who served intho MVD in 1953 could puysibly lave furgotton

it complotely.

Subject wag asked again about tho personal KGB

that he had montloned

1u a pefulous sorgion.

replied that he did not remember exictly when this

instituted, but that he

sure It washot lefore 1958.

and that he rocolood his number while he was in

the Sovonth

Department.

He said that the number: were issued on a

metal, aluminum dogtar about 2 by 1 or 5 cms. thnt it wag

inscribud at the top:

"VS SSR" (Armed Forces of the USSR),

and below that was the serial number,

which in hity caso

was E 00 and four digits which he could nut remomber cxictly

but thought were 1033 or 1022.

A hole is punchod in

dostag, which properly spoaking ly called a "lichnyy znak."

The serial number is also entered in the KGB idculity document.

Subject that the purpose of these numher tary was not

explained when they were issued, that they wero

bo carried with ono's personal documents, but that he kopt

it in his safe, ag did most others.

10.

It was intoresting that at the very beginning of

the

session, Subjoct declared that he had thought it over

and

wag sure that although he had been wrong about Primorskly

Kray, there had to bo a littlo Sovetsk in Kilingrad Oblast

that was called Sovotske rimurskiy

to distinguish it from

the other Sovietsk. Subject was told that this la nonsense,

chich it 1s.

Subject has probably decided that ho cannot

afford

to admit to any substantive errors which cannot be

explained by just poor memory.

Subject was told that there was and is a RR connection

to Baltlysk.

Subject immediately said that

there was a narrow gauge line that ran from Kalingrad to the

various resorts but insisted that under no circumstances

1t 60 to Baltiysk.

---

## Page 23

104-10227-10008

12. It way also interesting

that Subjoct returned

frow tho lunch broak sayin! that he had triod to think of

other names of mb chiefs in the carly ported, and that

although ho uid not know this from his own

servico in the

KGB he know that Gon. fu DOCHKOY, whuso Non Boris BOCHKOV

jivod in unmo houso as Subject on Ul. Granovskogo, was

Chief of convoy

Eon Gonnadly

was in Naval School with Subjoct in Baku -

who had been. Chlof of GULAG at one time.

Tud

C1E3 DILY

---

## Page 24

104-10227-10008

AUT

NENORINDUM FOR THE RECORD

SUBJECT: REPORT OF INTERROGATION

DATE: 1 August 1985

1.

Today's scssion (0945-1145) was devotod almost

untiroly to Subjoct's education from the ith to the l0th

orndus, the period in which he nilegodly attended Naval

Schools in Kuybyshev, Baku, and Leningrad.

Subjoct was

challenged stornly and repeatedly, and ho grow visibly

upsot.

For tho firat timo in this

of inturrogationg

he started to sulk and the session was ended when ho

virtually

stopped answering questions.

2.

Subjert said that

when

unly

ho attended this schoof in Kuybyshov it consisted uf

the 7th and gth classes.

It 1y quito possible that

if tho school was first croated in 1910 It had only two

classes in 1941. However,

Subject insistod tliat tho Special

Naval Schools were intended. to ru unly throuth tho Oth krade.

This is quito incorrect; both ARTANONOV and GONDEYEV state.

positivoly that these schools save the final three yours of

a full socondary education:

the 8th, 9th and loth grades.

:In talking about the school, Subject save no moro information

than proviously:

he can remember the ramos of fivo or six

schoolmates, one or two instructors, ho doesn't remombor

oxactly how

or when he went to Kuybyshev or back, ho doesn't

remembor where in Kuybyshev the school was located.

of the paucity of his recollections it in difficult to

como to a conclusion about whether or not he was really

there:

judged by

itself, it soens impossible that ho was

there and is unable to recall more; compared to his story

about Baku it luoke good.

One possibility, perhaps is that

he enrolled in this

school in Muscow, but dropped out at

somo point in the first year.

Baku Naval Preparatory School:

Subject repeated

his previous story that in the

summer ot. 1942 he returned

tọ Moscow and through the Moscow Naval Equipage ho was

processed to join the. Leningrad Naval Preparatory School

which at that time had been evacuated to Baku and combined

with the Baku Naval Preparatory Schoul.

---

## Page 25

104-10227-10008

arrived in Balu in the end of 19.12 and Joined the Baku

Preparatory School which had a three year school consisting

of the sth, 9th, and 10th grides.

Subjoct was told that

this was nonsonso and that no Naval preparatory. schools

offering n threo year courge ever existed in the Soviot.

Ho insisted that he was riglit, and gald that not

unly did such schools exist in Leningrad and Baku, but alho

in Sevastopol and Vladivostok.. For the first time, Subject

struck a very confident and even agrressive attitudo, saying

such things ay, "I know, I way there,"

and "you are ovidently

not sufficiontly well informed about these schools," otc.

(Actually, ARTAMONOV's tostimony about tho location and

organization of tho Special Naval Schools, the daval Pre-

paratory Schools, and the Preparatory Courses of tho Naval

ncademies - which is both logical and consigtent - completely.

contradicts and rules out Subject's story.)

Subjoct was asked to describe his route from Moscow

to Baku in tho sumner of 1912,

He replied that tie didn't

remember.. He was then reminded that originally he had

siad that ho went diroctly, and that when told that the RR

lines were cut,

l had mado up a story about a ta?-week

long train ride.

Subjoct looked uncomfortable and mado

no reply. I thon told

SubJect that there was only one

possible way to get frou Moscow to Baku at that time and

that the cities through which it passed were so unusual

that no one who had made the trip could forget it. Subject

said he did not remembor.

(Tho only way was by say of

Tastikent:)

Askod to name the leadorship of the Chief Directorato

of Naval Schools and Academies at that time, Subject said

that Vice Admiral RAMIASIVILI was the chief, and that his

deputy was Major General TATARINOV.

The chiep of the Diroctorate

of Educational Institutions was Vice Admiral SUKHIASHVILI.

According to ARTAMONOV, SUKHIASIVILI was the chief of the

first prototype Nakhimov school which way organieed in Tbilist

in 1913.

The fact that Subjeet knows SUKHIASHVILI 6 namE

(which he mentioned for the first time), the character uf

the Nakhimov Schools

(a full secondary education for sons

of the Soviet elite), and

the fact that Subject's story for

this period includes a trip to t'bilisi with lis father all

point to the possibility that Subjoct was actually in the

Nakhimov School in Tbilisi at this time.

Subject sill be

questioned further on this at the next session.

---

## Page 26

104-10227-10008

6..

Subjuct again

ingiated that he tout the military

oath in Baku when he was lo years old, as did all the othor

gtudentg in thu school.

subicot was told that this wag

inpusutbo, but continuod tu maintain that he way telling

"how. it wag."

Subjoct.repcated hiy old atory about completing

"oxternat" (somewhat similar

to correspondonce courses) at tho Mintig Institute in Moscow.

Subject gave a complotoly wronk duscription of what such a

course of study consists. of, and it is not possible that

ho actually did what ho said.

For example, he stated that

he studied at thu Institute four days a wook, Ior approximalely

7 hours a day; actually, in

"externat" studunt would do all

of his studying at homo.

Here, ns elsewhere. throughout

the session, I told Subject thathe was making things up

and

that 1f ho obtained his 9th grade certificate by blat

1t would bo nuch botter for him simply to say so, but he

did not avail hinself of the opportunity.

Sutject was asked what subjoets ho studied in the

10th grade (in Leningrad).

do replted that ho did not

renember, and gave a similar reply to questions about what

he had studiod

in the 9th and 8th brades. Tho sossion was

ended on this

Subject was visibly upsot by this time

and his answars aro, probably moro indicativo of his mood

than of total inability to recall what subjects are taught

in Soviet secondary schools.

9.

In the middle of the sossion, as a chango of paco

I asked Subject to toll mo the lorations of all the rosidences

of KGB officerg that he could rocall.

Subject wag ablo to

recall about 12 different buildings inhabited by KGB officers,

and although ho did not give the exact addresses his locations

and

descriptiong were goncrally correct.

What was interosting

was that

on every case he pegyed the building to the name

of a KGB officer, most of whom play a prominent part in his

Jegend:

KARETNIKOV, PETROV, KRUPNOV, CHURANOV,

GORBATENKO,.

GRIBANOV, A.S.

KOZLOV, LAKHAROV, KUTYREV, CHELNOKOV, Sergey

GUSKOV, Georg:

ZHUKOV, KOVSHUK, YAKOVLEV.

Ted.

---

## Page 27

104-10227-10008

9 August 1965

SUBJECT:

Roport of Intorrogation of 6 August 1965

1.

Today's sousion was from 1000 to 1200 and from

1305 to 1110.!

As planned, I started the sossion by sum-

martzing for Subjoct the results of tho first six sUyy1on8,

listing for him approximatoly twenty pointe on which he had

failed. badly, (Summary list attached.) At first Subject

attemptud to contcut the points as I cited them, for oxam-

plo, on tho

variations in the KOBULOV story, and on the

locution of ROZHENKO's office, but. when I gavo him the

facts ho did not challenge them and he listened to most of

the litny in silencc.

I told Subject that the results

of

those sossiony had confirmed further the previous findings.

I asked him why ho continued to cling to his legend, und

reminded him that he had turned down the opportunity

offerod to liim last spring to chango his minu while we

still could take

stons to preserve his operational userul-

noss.

I snid

that this opportunity was now past, but that

I did not want to concoal

from him the fact that he still

had knowlodge and information which could be usoful to us.

Howover,

thoro was a tino limit. oven. to thig.

I rominded

him that ho had boon out of circulation for a long timo

and that many things had happoned in the world and especially

in tho Soviot Union during this time; for examplo, KHRU-

SHICHEV was no longor in

power (Subject's comment,

A8 OX-

pocted, was "Thank God!").

Other changes had taken place.

If Subject did not mako up

his mind to toll the truth, his

490 days could ensily turn into 4000, and he would not bu

of interest to anyone. I told Subject again, that he had

nothing to fear, no matter what he had done in the past,

that wo

would not prosecute him for any past crimes, no

matter how bad.

If ho wero

worried about reprisal from

Soviot security organs, I told him that we were just as

capablo of keeping his

confession secret as we were of keep-

ing secrot the fact that we knew he was a provocateur for

a year and a half before his defection.

I promised him

---

## Page 28

104-10227-10008

2.

that he would hu given

normal living conditions ny soon

as he started

to cooperate hy tolling the rend truth.

CA

complete transcript of this part of the session ly being

done for the record.)

2.

As expected, subject's unly response to all this.

was that he had told the truth--with allowances for mis-

takes on minor points of detail owing to forgetfulnes--

and that he would continue to tell nothing but:

llo said

that dospite his griovances over his treatment he con-

tinued to be willing to serve American Intolligence in any

way ho could, short of returning to the USSK, of course.

Ho complained that I denied and contradicted everything

ho said, great and small,

and said that he could see by

many romarks that I had

made that I thought that ho had

never served in the KGB ns a stall officer but had perhaps

been

an agent for the KGB.

This,

he. said, was completely

excluded, and 1 should know that it is not possible for

tho KGB

to recruit the son of a minister as an agont. I

replied simply that I know of several cases

where not only

childron of ministers but even more important people had

sorved in this capacity.

3. Another interesting remark that Subject made was

that he fully approciated the fact that his knowlodgo was

rapidly gotting dated. He mentioned that this applied not

only to his knowledge of the KGB, but also to what he

:.".

knew about prominent membors. of

the Contral Committee of

the CPSU•.

I said that ho had not provided anything. of

interost on this subject, and

he repliod tlat there had not

been an opportunity, implying

that there was much that ho

had to offor in this

field.

It is planned to exploro 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 ablo to get confirmation sonewhere.

Here he made

an interesting remark as follows:

"Incidentally, when I

first came hore I understood from sonething that Mr. Peter

Bagley said that you have operational contact with a Spar-

tak KAZAKOV, lie was also in the Baku Naval Preparatory

School with ne."

---

## Page 29

104-10227-10008

3.

5.

Subject was questioned in sone detail

about his

duties

public holidays.

ject's

description was generally accurate, and even quite

good ns long as he kept his answers general.

When forced

to be more specific he made a number of mistakes about the

procedures involved, such as insisting that instructiong

for the holiday were issued by the chief of the department

without the participation of a oth Diroctorate officer,

about the preparation of the duty and mest lists for

passes, which lead me to conclude that; hu did not stand

duty there as a KGB officor.

He was unable to remember a

single delcration that he had been assigned to watch, al-

though he maintained that he had pulled such duty every

year Since 1957.

However, on the basis of his othersise

very good familiarity with Red: Square and the procedures

of parades there, I would conclude that he has attended

more than one such event as a guest, or perhaps with his

father.

After the luncheon break, I started to question

Subject on his first marriage.

before, Subject was

unable.or unwilling to remember any of the data that would

enable us to pin this story down.

He doos not remember

the date of Telegin's arrest,

oxactly when ho mot Telegathe location of the ZAGS office

the dato of the marriago,

where the marriage was registered, or cven the year of

birth of his wife (1928 or 1929):

Subject simply made no

offort to answer these questions,

and for this reason the

questioning proceeded to Subject's first. passport.

Asked where and when he received his first internal

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

the internal passport mystem, Subject'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

---

## Page 30

104-10227-10008

1

was in general quite good.

namo correctly the city rayon

located..

As before, he was unable to

in which lis reridence

Wa8

9.

Asked to describe his entry into the Naval Pre-

paratory School in Leningrad in 1911. Subjeet at first

gavo a vague and unsatisfactory

answer,

and when pressod

for dotails he became irritated

and said that Kis father

had arranged it all po blatu...

The session was ended on

this

note.

---

## Page 31

104-10227-10008

5.

List of Points Revlowed with Subject on 6 August:

1: ABIDIAN and other oporations (simply u reminder).

2. Resistration in Moscow upon arrival fron the Baltic

on

loave.

3.

KOBULOV, VAKHRUSHEV, and the recommendation to tho

MVD.

4.

Procedure of issuing visitor's passos to the MVD

buildings.

5. Unoscorted access to the 4th Entry to see KOBULOv.

6. Location of MOZHENKO's offico.

The Oth Entry.

7. Anketa

a. Doesn't know its namo;

b. Filled out in 2 coplus;,

c. Fillod out only the ankota and autobiography;

d. Filled nut inketa at home:

Doesn't know the lichnyy "listok po uchetu

kadrov;

f. Posluzhnoy Spisok;

g. Secrecy agicement;.

h. Size of the anketa.

8. How to run a name check. Mixed

up the various archiveg

and was unablo to describe correctly how

to check a.

Soviot citizen or a forcigner.

9.

Doesn't know entry date Into MYD.

---

## Page 32

104-10227-10008

6.

10. Did not take

an entrance medical exam.

11.

Doesn't know his salary

correctly, articularly when

they stopped pajime for

and when they restored

rank pay.

12.

Mixed up

the two Genoral SAVCHENKO's, and doesn't

know about one of thom at all..

13. Gastronon..

14. Service in the Baltie:

a. Sovotsk;..

b.

Railroad to Baltlysk;

c.

Doesn't know Chiet

if Intelligence, &th

Baltle Fleet;

d. Doesn't know commanding officer of his URP;

e.

Now

says ho spent only mouths there;

1.

Doosn't know olementary scography:

Primorskly Kray instead of Kaliningrad

Oblast.

15.

16.

Doesn't know in what diroctorate he served, FCD or

SCD; doosn't know whon or why they vero

redusignated.

Wife's relatives wore in France.

Logical, but doesn't

know why there was

no date on then when ran name

check.

17. Knows the basic structure of the W'D in 1953, but did

half of the directorates and

depart-

Doesn't know the functions of the ith and 5th

Spersotdels, or how the spotsotdels used to be called.

Doesn't know the deputy ministers ander KRUGLOV.

18.

Komsomol:

a.

Now a socretary i8 clected;

b. Regulations:

c. Nano of the Komsomol Serrerary of the IND:

---

## Page 33

104-10227-10008

7.

d. How he rosinterod and durokietored;

. 0.

Age;

Menuership dues;

8. Konsumol Congress.

19.

Docsn't incu

about special stamps on MVD pas:sos

CERIYA and KHUGLOY.

Couldn't have untored buildings.

20.

Doesn't know dato or even yoar wisin kol orkantzod.

21. Education:

a. The trip to Baku;

-b.

Three yoar courso of study in Naval Propara-

tory School;

C.

Extension - Correspondenco courses at Mining

Instituto;

d.

Duesn't know that anbjects taught in '8th,

9th,

Or

10th grades.

---

## Page 34

104-10227-10008

Attachment to

6 August 1903

Interrogation Report

SUBJECT:

Transcript of Intorrogation (Excorpt)

G August 1963

T:

Woll, porhaps I spoko a little too loud, but I find I

have no other way out,

oceanse i can't huy what you are

Mayiná, and no

one wants to wasto timo by pouring water

from one pitclier into another.

"only want to say fur-

ther, that would it not be berter--spenking out of friend-

thap, for. you to drop this entire lekend-stort acting

tho part of that which you really aro, und start to form

i real friendship--for which 1t 14 still possiblo, at

this timo.

find some basis; some basis--as of now...

1t is attil possible to find.

As you wore told bofore-.

you romember,

lator, when that tall fellow spoko to

you, you were told that if you were to begin to toll the

truth--you had a choice to tell the truth--and to influ-

unco to some degreo somo important operational activities

and decisions which are concerned with oporations of

the KGB--a participant. of which youraro. I am spoaking.

to you seriously, so listen well.

N: That's all I am doing, listening:

T: You turned

down the opportunity

at the time when you

night still have been used operationally, when it was

possible to burn ? (provilit'). gome of KGB's opora-

tons--which would all. have put you in much bettor cir-

cumstances than

those in which you are now.

You turned

down

this opportunity.

Tho time has now passed.

The

opportunity

to exploit the situation operationally now

docs not exist, because all the opcrations which were in

any way connected with you have

either reached tho end,

or are approaching an end.

There is no lonyer any pos-

sibility of your participation or

assistance to ug

in this

work, because, after our conversation with

you, when you

refused to toll the truth and so on,

or to cooporate, wo

had to make soveral decisions, and after making

these

decisions and carrying out some operations you alo no

---

## Page 35

104-10227-10008

2.

longer of any operational

value whatsoever.

However,

tull

the truth, and I don't want

to

to conceal this from

you--you still possess

gone. operational

intormation

which might ho

usoful to us.

No one takes this

away from

you... But for

this there is aisy a deadline, one which

18 approaching vury quickly.

I think the time 1s

500n

coming

when we will havo

absolutely no interest in you

whatevor,

and not only wo--but anyono clad as woll.

Thiy 18 a serious

matter.

1 woüld like tri remind you--ag

you have sald: yourself, that you have been here now 190

dayy and during this time krent many changes havo

takon

placo all

over the world and especially in tho Sovlut

Unlon.

N: A great many!

T: Including the fact that there is no more KHRUSHCHEV--for

your intoreation.

N: Thank God: Oue scoundrel less:

T:. I expected this answor--and you can imagine the conse-

quences which took place--after this--not only as a

member of the KGB,

but ag

an

ordinary Soviet citizen. I

want to tell you that I don't throw words around, I

am carryius on a very serious talk--this happened somo...

timo ago,

during the

timo that you have been hore.

Whon

I mentioned all that I did about the operationg

and all

that, I had a good basis for it:

Wo have dono a great

deal of work since you are here.

N: 'I should think so--he he ho!

T:

As you were told beforc--these are my last words to you,

you will not be punished for being sent over hero, bo-

cause our Government system doesnot work like the

Soviet system, and you will not be punished for those

crimes which you might have committed before--including

murder, or shat have you,--of courso I speak of extrenes--

such things may not have

taken place, neressarily--not

for havinz been sunt--not for not speaking the truth in

the beginning-not for anything which the KGB may be

holding

over your head which nakes you afraid to spoak.

In this matter I have

specific authority and I am

authorized to say this

to you.

•You ure being offered an

opportunity

to start a normal life.

However, as I told

you before,

this opportunity may also expire soon, and

then the 190 days, speaking butcon us--nay turn

into

4, 000 days.

Because tiere is no other way out.

Even

---

## Page 36

104-10227-10008

4750017

N:

3

1l you vero not a counterintellence doctor you knew

that Intelligence work in war.

Furthr--11

afraid

of what you will be doing,

yoss

al'c

how you nil1 be occu-

pled, of your life--that 1s, afraid of as atrilo against

you from the sovot Orrans, or afgald of borething cise,

you may rest assured that your cunfession can

bo kcpt

Hocrut,

just as we kopt secrot our somes with you begin-

ning in 1962--untfl the lme When you tinally came to

ив.

Ay you were

told boforo--wo wure aware of this.

In

addition,

and ag I told you before, wo know about this

oporation but did not tell anyone

about it.

Only a

nariow circlo of peoplo

know about it--and 1g this nar-

row circle did not know about it think would not havo

happoned the way thoy did.

So, we are able

to savo your

lifo and to help you start anew; no one will

reproach

you for what you

did in the past, for coming hero, nor

for what or who you were and

SO O1.

You will be received

a9 a human bolny..

This

1g

all I wanted to say to you.

Botwoch us--speaking from tho henrt,

ar"I said to you

bofore, I was

there

before--I worked there--and

now

am here,

and am

working hore.

I don't want to oither

boast about anything or compliin about anything--I work

11ko all

tho rost of the people who ard herr--havn the

somo rights.

It in nöther matter--who wag I,

how did

I kot here--you know this, perhaps, - this convursa-

tion 1y just betwoon us--I an just expressing my opinion

to you--perhaps the time nus. como

to shake hands and

busin to

You want me to talk when I have nothind to say--you

refuse : to believo

in my education,

training in

the school--my work in the KGR--you refuse to bollovo

anything!

iranian

---

## Page 37

104-10227-10008

10 AUgURE 1965

SUBJECT:

Report u1 Interrogation for 9 August 1965

Today'g

seggion (1100 - 1200 and 1215 - 1400) was

dovoted primarily to quostioning about subject's alvorce

and sucond marriase.

In this

context, a number of othor sub-

jects were touched upon in passink, and at the end i put

some further questions about the organization and leadership

of tho MVD in 1953.

2.

At the beginning of the session Subjoet 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 recruitod in France by either 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 he undoubtedly gavo 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.

In questioning Subject about his divorce, the ques-

tion of the territorial subordination of Sovetskaya Gavan

quickly came up.

Subject sald repcatedly that it was in

Primorskly Kray. (Sovetskayn Gavan is, and always has beon

in Khabarovskly Kray.)

When I told Subjeet that ho was nig-

taken, he wag quito 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 ho reully had no decasion to know bo-

cause it wasn't included in the mall address, which was:

Sovetskaya Gavan, V. Ch. 90-176.

Subject did not know how

many krays there are in the USSR (thero are six), nor could

he explain the disference betweon a kray and an oblast,

and

whatever the rest of his education, his knowledge of geo-

kraphy is rudimentary. As with Sovetsk, 1t is virtually

impossible to nake a mistake of this magnitude if you have

actuully served in the place.

In contrast to the Baltic,

Subject evidently has learnod some descriptive facty about

Sovetskaya Gavan which he scemed ongor in lull mu, howevor,

I cut him off.

---

## Page 38

104-10227-10008

2.

4.

In discussing the procedures involved in sctting

his divorco, Subject displayed a general knowlcuge of how

this is done, but broke down on a number of specific points.

It is difficult to say

that he was never divorced, but wo

may certainly conclude that he was not divorced at the time

and under the circumstances that he describes.

Subject's

divorce is so woven

in to his legend of service in the Naval

GRU that it is impossible to isolate it. Evcrything in

this period sounds wrong,

and it must be significant that

this is the period in his life story that has been subject

to the most variation durine the different interrogations.

Subject continues to say that he published the notice of

intention to divorce in Sovetskaya Gavan in 195l, but 1g

"unable

to remembor" the name of the newspaper or the dato

or month if publication.

The choice of an obscure newspaper

in the Far East for the publication of this notice is theö-

retically possible if we assume thit Subject was actually

serving there at the time, but is particularly significant

in that we would have the capability of checking it if the

notico 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 Peoplo's Court

of which Moscow city rayon the first hearing was at, nor

does he know where the City Court of Moscow is located.

Sub-

ject continues to say that he did not receive a divorce

certificate, and that the divorce was simply entered into

his military identification booklet.

Subject was unwilling

to estimate the date of the divorce more precisely that sum-

ner 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 icave in Moscow in 1952,

Subject arain became entangled in the question of military

leave procedures.

He does not aprear:tu.know,

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 leavo

status.

Sinilarly, Subject at first said that he did not

report his divorce to Naval GRU.

Reminded that Personnel

would be interested, Subject improvised a little 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, 18 1s

striking that in

---

## Page 39

104-10227-10008

818700: 307.

3.

Subject's languago there is not the slightest hint or traco

of naval terminology or slanz,

even when discussing the

naval schouls.)

The only officer in Naval GRU leadquartors

in Moscow with whom he seems to have had any personal con-

tact dy tho Chiof of Personnel, KOLOSHIN; lie claims not to

remember the names of any other officers there.

Asked about

how he deregistured from the Komsomol organization in Sovot-

skaya Gavan, Subjoct again said that he hadn't derogistered

and had simply boon picked up by the K/O in "Sovetsk/Primor-

sky" upon arrival there on the basis of his transfer ordera.

6. Subject was shown an exemplar of the Lichnty Listok

po Uchetu Kadroy

and asked if he had ever seen. it betore.

Imnediately said importantly;

"Yes, yes, I know this

ment.

I've seen it in personnel files.

But don't believe

I ever filled

it out mysclf."

Asked where, when and in

whoso personnel files he had seen the document, Subject was

totally unable to give an adequate answer--the

best he could

manage was

"I think it was for civilians.. interpreters,

and so forth"--and finally said that he didn't think that

the KGB used the document at all.

Here Subject's initial

response is as noteworthy an the fact that he does not know

the purpose of the document.

7.

Subject was questloned about lis second marriage.

He has changed his story slightly and now says that he lived

• with his wife at her parente apartment. for two weeks prior

to the final registration at YAGS is Subject's assertion that

he did not have and was not required to produce a Certificate

of Divorce.

This is not possible.

Subject provided a com-

plete guest list of the party at the dacha.

In answer to my

questior, he said that KOBUIOV was not invited because the

party was for close friends only,,

and that although VAKHRUSHEV

was a close friend he simply wasn't there.

8. Subject was then asked a few further questions about

MVD structure in 1953.

He was again unable to recall any of

KRUGLOV's deputies except SEROV.

Asked what CC/CPSU menber

was appointed deputy to KRUGLOV it this time Subject was

completely baffled, satd he dian't know,

and finally

that I was cvidently making a mistake.

(It was SHIATALIN.)

Subject continued to insist that when

he joined the MVD the

CI Directorato was the SCD.

A;ked

where the Intell Direc-

torate was located at the time, he replied Building 2, the

Agricultural Exhibition, the k.l. building, and Kiselngy

---

## Page 40

104-10227-10008

Perculok.

This is a confused and incorrect answer..

Subject

scems to

think that the K.I.

butlding is soncthink separate

from the Agricultural Exhibition

building--actually it 15

the only building there used by

the

KGI3.

Asked for clari-

fication, Subject said that he nover visited the k.I., and

never visitod the CD building at the Agricultural Exhibi

fion.

Thus,

he also roomed. to be unaware that the k.l.

nas not existed since 195l.

Asked who was the Chief of the

Intell Dircetorate Under KRUGLOV and SEROV, Subject roplied

that he know only SAKHAROVSKIY, but didn't know whon SAK-

HAROVSKIY bocamo chief:

He said that he knew that before

EERIYA,

LESNOY,

SAVCHENKO and even FEDOTOV had servod in

this

job.

I

askod Subjoet n dircet question about. PANYUSHKIN,

and ho sald that he had heard that he served in. the MCB at

ono

timo, and thon latur becamc Ambassador to America, and

after that a CC workci.

Even in this context, Subject did

not realizo that PANYUSHKIN. was Chief of the

Intoll Direc-

torato as of July - August 1953.

It is increasingly apparent

that Subject's proparation for his legend of service In 1955-

1954 was limited to his work in the American Department and

that it did not occur to the KGB that we might question Sub-

joct in dotail

on information alrcady provided by mysols and

other defoctors.

---

## Page 41

104-10227-10008

11 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

largoly devoted to a sorter of Sub-

ject's millary ranks and mards, but inevitably a numbor

of relatod topics were touched upon..

Subject was also

questioned about his father's funeral, and about merborg

of the prestdium and the Soviet Government generally.

2.

Subjact was first asked when and where he first

entered on activo military

service.

He said that normally

people were called up at the age of 18, and I told hin that

the ure was

19, but 18 1f the porson has the equivalent of

a full

secondary education.

He said he was never called

Into the army, but roceived a deferment because he was a

student at tho Institute of International Relations.

In

June or July 1947, at the und of his second year at the

Institute he roceived the rank

of Jr.

Lt. of the Reserve,

as did all his clagsmates.

He recoived his first voyonnyy

bilet (VB) at the end of 1945 or carly 1946, at the

rayvovenkomat for his placo of residence at Ul Granovskogo,

ho said ho

thought it might have been Krasnopresnenskly

rayon (this is correct, and

is

the first timo he has cor-

rectly mentioned a rayon in which he lived). This was an

ordinary enlisted man's VB.

In 1047 this VB was replacod

with an officer's VB.

In neither case was Subject able to

five an adequate description of how the documents were

issued,

nor did he have nny idea of what was in then.

He

does not know in what branch of sorvico he was (except :

that it was not the navy), what his sostay /category/ was,

or his NOS.

He said that

the military registration desk

BaS located in

were actually locat dovenkonnt, whereas prior to 195s they

in the Militia Sections.

3.

Subject sald that he first went on active military

service when he entered Naval GRU.

This

was in October

---

## Page 42

104-10227-10008

2.

1950, although the processing had started in the spring.

duregistored from the rayrorenkomit in Sopterber.

Ho lift fos tho Far East Innudintely..

Questioned about

tho procedures involved in processing for la eparture,

•Subjuet was totally unablo to describe tho correct docu-

munts and procodures,

and oven said that he travelled in

civilian clothos.

If Subject had ever been a naval offi-

cor anywhore (or for that matter on officer in any branch

of service) hu could casily have invented satisfactory

answers to my olementary questions; instoad he appeared

to.

be improvising answors on tho basis of vory inadequato

knowlodge.

1.

.military lankg:

Subjoct gave the following chronology uf his

July 1917 - Jr. Lt. of tho Reservo

Octobor 1950 - Jr. Lt.

April 1951 (whilo in Far East) - Lt.

April 1953 (1n MVD) - Sr. Lt.

Octobor 1959 (KGB) - Capt.

October-November 1903 (KGB) - Lt. Colonel

In no instanco does ho remumber who stoned the order of his

promotion

to

a now military rank (normally,

one could

remember at least a few).

I told Subject that it was 1m-:

possible for him to have been promoted in the HU in April

1953, or at any timo in March-June and even later in 1953-

because

not uno single person in the MVD was procoted at

this time.

llo looked astounded and at first seined unde-

cided what lino to tako, but finally said that he couldn't

say about anyone ulse,

but he was sure that he received

his promotion at that

tine.

(In Pact,

this

1'9

excluded.

All promotions 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 LYALIy--who

was

deputy chairran at that time and a member of the pro-

motion board--on the grounda that Subject should be made

to wait becauso 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 GRIBANOV

that he would be promoted directly to

Lt. Colonel the

next time around, and this happened.

I told

Subject that

---

## Page 43

104-10227-10008

3.

this was impossible,

and pointed out to him that

nut. oven

the astronaut GAGARIN had boon able to skip a rank.

sub-.

ject simply insisted that this to what had happonod.

said that he didn't know why he should have gotton such

spocial treatment, and could

only suppose that allowance

was made for his long stretch ay a Sr. Lt. and tho tact

that ho was a deputy chief of departmont.

(Subjoct's

story dous not hold witer no matter how you turn it; oven

1f his career had proceedod normally he would not havo

beon eligible for Lt. Col.

before 1961.)

Asked why he had

previously told

us that he had boch a major (in the auto-

biography

prepared in Frankfurt), Subject said he did not

think

we would believe the truo story.

G.

Subjoct was thon questloned briefly on the. famous

VD incident.

His story about tho

investigntion of this

incident does not conform to normal practice in such casos,

-13

and is not bellovable.

Still worse is his account of the

consequencos this incident had on his komsomol standing.

He maintaing that the veyskandya (punishment) vas removnd

from his record in October

, just & few mouthg after

the incident.

This is nover done in less than a year,

ospocially for such a serious offenso.

H15

explanation

that this was

done to chablo him to leave the Komsomol be-

causo of age without a black

mark on lits record is simply

absurd:

for a KGB officer to leave the Komsomol becauso

of ago and without entering the Party is a black mark in

itself, and would inevitably mean oxpulsion from tho KGB.

Subject. was completely unable to describo the proceduro

involved in turning in his Komsomol card. He admitted

that he was the only member of the SCD who was not otthor

in the komsomol

OY'

the Party, but maintained that no one

had

ever oven talked to him about. it.

7.

and awards:

Subjoct sald ho reccived the following medalg

Nedal for Victory over Germany - 1915-46

Medal for Dofense of Moscow - 1915-46

Modal 10 Years Soviet Army - 1957

Medal 3rd Class,

for Honorable Service,

10 years

1962 or 1963

Order of Red Star - end 1961

In regard

to the Medal for Honorable Service,

years, Subjeet first

said he received it in March 1963,

corrected himself and said 1962.

Asked why not in

1960 (it takes into

account both military and iGB service),

Subject said he didn't know why it was so late, that it

---

## Page 44

104-10227-10008

was personnel's fault, possibly becauso of the rourkantea-

tion of tho SUD.

Theso aro nonsensical anevert, and it

1y obvious that Subject do unsure about when he should have

uccivoy this medal, semombers the previous interrogation,

and 19 being caroful..

Asked what ho received the Order of the kod Star sur,

Subjoct wab extrencly evasivo.

He clained not to romembor

the oxact formulation of the order, and perhaps slippod.

he: said

"For exceptional performance of mission."

I auked him what mission, ho said that it was just for

work in gonoral.

Subjoet nlso sald that in. 1959 he san put in for the

Order of tho Red Bannor because of his tourist recruitmenta,

but did not get it,

the First Dopartment at the time.: Reminded about his pre-

vious

boasts about the Order of Lenin, he taid that it was

pronised

to him in 1963 but he did not reccivo it.

Juet did not say what it would hav been for.

8.

I asked Subjout if he had attended the pening of

the Daerchinskly Memorial in Pront of the koB buslding..

subject quickly said that ho wasn't there and that ho

didn't remember when it was oponed or shere he was at tho

time.

Ho refusod to eatinate whether thin took place

Under BERIYA, KRUGLOV, SEROV, SHELEPIN, OF SEUICHASTNY%,

and looked uncomfortable when reminded that it was a very

big

others.

event fit was

attended by MENthIasklYs sife and son,

amor: g

birthday of Soviet State Securfty--and

.oponed on 20 Decenber 1958--thu 4lst

was attended by

KIIUSHCHEV and all othor praesidiun merbers.)

9.

Subject was asked to describe his father's funcral.

This he did in a satislartory manner.

Asked where he had

come from to attend this funeral,

Subject replied that he

was in Moscow all tho line of his father'e illness from

May

1956 until his death in August 1956 with the exception

o1 i fow days TDY in Kiov (this would be for this BURGI

case, about which Subject will be questioned next time).

O1 possible interest is Subject's renark,

appropos of noth-

ing in particular,

that the portrait of his father that

hung in the House of Colunns and was published in the papers

at the time of his doath was not a kood likeness.

---

## Page 45

104-10227-10008

5.

10.

Some

timo was apent questioning Subfeet on tho

residences and privato

lives of the Soviet helrarchy,

especially those who lived either nt Granovally or seraft-

muvich Streets. The rosults were inconclusive:

Subject

did not make any mistakes, nor did ho have any sensational

revolutions.

Asked what rexidences he personally visited,

no said only BULGANIN, KOSYGIN, MALYSHEV, TIMOSHENKO

MIKOYAN (dacha), SHCHERBAKOV. Subjeet said he did not know

where KOBULOY livod in Moscow.

11.

Al the end of

the seasion subjeet tax reminded

that previously ho had said that he received his first VB

1n. Leningrad.

Ho admittod that this was wrong, but suld

ho got some sort of documents connoted with his schooling

through the voyenkomat in Loningrad; however, he could not

remember what documonts they were.

---

## Page 46

104-10227-10008

12 August 1965.

SUC.JECT:

Report of. Interrogation for 1l August 1965

1.

Today'y session ways from

1310 to 1500.

Subject

Has questionod on the types of filos used in the KGB, on

cable procedurcs,

on Blds #2, and finally was tested on his

knowledbe of underworld slang.

2.

Subject was questioned in considerable detail about

the different typos of files that exist in

the KGB.

Askod

what such filos ho remembers,

Subjoct replice,

"I will list

fur you all the

filos from 1953 to tho present time, includ-

ing the changes."

Ho was not able in do quite that,

but

ho did have a protty good familiarity with

the diffcrent

types of files.

lowever, he did muke some mistäkes--such

as affirming that tho files on soviet citizens who curros-

pond abroad aro kept. in the 6th Department of OTU--and

almost all his answers rang of memorization rather than of

f1rst hand, dilly experience.

As usual, ho had difficulty

in answering spocific questions.

He was weakest on ques

tions which involved a knowledge of procodures in the 1953-

1954 period--such as tho delo formulyn, agenturnoye

delo,

and lichnoye delo formulyar.

ile was unable to describo

the format and broakdown of a liternoye doly, although he

knew its purpose woll chough,

and when

pressed on this he

said that he nover handled one personally, although he was

responsible for an annox to ono.

Conclusion:

Subject's

knowledge of this topic is largely memorized;

however,

some

limited diroct experience cannot bo excluded.

3.

Subject was asked what KGB dircctorato and depart-

neuts are locatnd in Building #2.

He replied the FCD,

leader Trp of eden, padue potator treator to

part of the 3rd Directorate.

I cannot Judge whether this

1s true now or not,

a ruteresting was that subject tad no osa bit remember.

1o00d

---

## Page 47

104-10227-10008

2.

no refused to muess when my of those elements--such as the

border

1100ps,

for example, moved 1ntg

Building 42.

4.

Asked where the oth Caler Directorate was located,

Subject said he didu't know,

exerpt that they had sonething

Ueyond Kuntsovo,

and something on Komsomolskaya Pl.

would

expect an officer with

ll 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 abroid and within

the USSR,

subject save an adequate gencralized answer but

did not

aware of the use of cryptonyms.

never hard of the

"Book of Black Magic,

cryptonym book used in

the FOD for all

the field, and he denicd that iny coulvalent book or system

was

used in the SCD.

5.. I started

usking Subject the moanings of various

torms and words, and then continued without break or

comment into a list of criminal slang.

Here Subjcet made

an astounding showing:

he linew the correet meanings of 34

of the 43 words I asked him (1 did not know the raningg

of many. of these words myself-I took the

book Concentration Camps

of the USSK, Munich 1955).

"don't know's" canc at the end of tho

when ho was ebriously starting to vorry about tho

implications of the questions.

At the boginning he simply

answered, then he answered,

that's thieve's

thon he gave

three different unsolicited explana-

tions about why he knew the words:

(1) In 1951 he made a

trip to Smolensk with a couple of criminal agents from

the Department of Criminal Scarch; (2) He knew somo of the .

words. from Naval Prep School: (3). "Literaturo nowadays 1g

full of these expressions,"

and speedrically mentioned

after Subject's departuro from Moscow).

nither about the questions or about Subjert's explanations,

but era contes the list.

lle finally started

6.

As we were leaviny the house.

the quarts reported

that since returning to his room Subiret had sat on the

edge of the bed, holding his face in his hands.

-

---

## Page 48

104-10227-10008

13 August 1965

SUBJECT:

Report of Interrogation for 12 August 1965

Today's session was fion 1030 to 1200 and from

1245 to 1435.

Subjects

covcred were the Richard BURGI

working hours in the KGB, nunbur and location of

ÄGE dining rooms,

Leningrad naval prep school; and the

land-shooting incident.

Subjoct was questioned in detail about certain

aspects of the BURGI case.

He claims to have been the

case officer responsiblo for handling all

on the case,

and

the paper work

to have assisted A.S. KOZLOV in

the re-

cruitment.

Despite the fact that he

was supposed to have

been thie

only Has caso officer hindling the case from its

beginning,

Subject was complotely unable to describe the

origins

and planning

stages of

the operation.

It is. obvi-

ous from

the circumstances of the casc,

from BURGI's testi-

mony, and indeed from much"of what NOSENKO himsclf says

that the opcrational proposal must have ortginated in the

FCD:

PURGI 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 beforchand that he wag a

homosexual.

Yet Subject says that he ran the nane checks,

which

sere

blank, ho

does not renember 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,

waS

of what the ops plan was.

He, insists that it

the SCD that first raised the case with the FCD, and

that he went with GUSKOV to talk to FELISOV; Chief of the

Ist 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 mesting

arrangements which should be given BURGI in New York at

this

neeting--which

took place before BURGI had even been

approached, much less recruited; this is absurd. Subjoct

---

## Page 49

104-10227-10008

tioning and took frequent

discussing the Kiev phase

the operation, Subject

wag

equally weak on all questions which pertained to planning,

communications, and behind

the scenes arrangements:

doesn't know what instructions

were sivon

to the surveil-

lance team, whethor or not BURGI's room way

tapped,

etc.

Subjuct did not oven know that there was trouble with

BURGI's visa, and that special steps had in be taken to.

extond it for him.

Subject clained a much larsgr role in

the notual recruitment than BURGI describes, and he do-:

liberatoly falsified certain aspects which show him in an

agent light: for example, he claims not to rencher that

hc:

was

introduced to BURGI in Moscow by the lionesexual agent

"STROYEV," and he was careful to say that although he

stayed in the sanc

hotel as BURGI in Kiev, he was on adle-

ferent flour and BURGI didn't know he was

there (BURGI

says he was in tho next room).

There can be no doubt that

Subject did not participate in this operation as a case

officer.

3.

Subject repeated what he had told previously about

the New York sequel to

the oporation. Asked how he had

learned this, he replied that he and BuskoV learned this

from FEKLISOV, because thes were interested.

Ho admittod

that this was

unusual, and that FEKLISOV shouldn't have

told them.

Pressed, he threw in KOSOLAPOV for good moasure:

KOSOLAFOV was working in the New York Napravleniye of the

Ist Repartment, FCD at that time, knew of the rago, and

told Subject that it had ended.

• 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.

Aslied when this changed, he said he thought it was about

a year later, in 1951.

In reality in MVD Has up to August

1953 the hours were 1100 to 2400 with break from 1700 to

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 corrcetly.

Ilis mistake on the

old hours is another example of the lack of preparation

that was given to the 1953-51 period of his legend.

5.

Subject was then asked how many dining rooms there

were

in the old part of Building =2.

He replied that there

the

first flour, on the

eighth floor, and the general's dining room between the

---

## Page 50

104-10227-10008

3.

first und second flours.

1osg-51 there were only thrue--

tho one subject describes on

first floor did not exist

and it 1s very unlikely that is has been added.)

about dinine rooms in the new building: Subfret replied

that he did not know how many shere were, and that he had

nevor outen there.

an astonishing remaik for

Bomoone whu way

supposed to have

worked la yoars in the SCD.

Thoro is only one rustaurant in the

new buildiny, and it is

at the main entrance on the firserfloor, righe by the ole-

I then asked Subject if ho had ever ridden in tho

clevator in the now building; and lie sald ho hui not. Asked

about Bullding 12,

subject said he know unly of the diotetie

restaurant, and that ho had norer eaten there (there aro

Askod about attendance at the KGB Club, Subject

again said that he practically

never went excupt. to meet-

ings, that ho had beon only one on kiB birthday, that his

wifo had been only onco or trice.

Subject was questioned briefly about study in

Leningrad in 1944-15 and the hand shooting incident, but

nothing now omergod:

his story is just as terrible

I asked Subject a few questions about elcmontary

naval subjects and ho

was barely able tu usplain the dif-

terence betwoon a buttloship and a cruiser.

8.

As planned, I concluded by rending Subject a ver-

batim transcript of

what he said about this period of his

lifo in Geneva on 25 January 1961.: Subject smiled at sone

points, contosted others, and did not seen disturbod by

the contradictions.

I ended by reminding Subject that ho

did not have much time left.

9. P.S.: I asked Subjeit that sort of a lapel pin

(anachok) he received upon graduating from the Institute

of International Relations.

He inmediately replied that

he had received one, but much later, in 1957 or 1958 when

he was serving in the Tourist Department. I asked him if

he were sure, and he said he was,

and recalled going with

BELIKOV to get it.

He describoi!

the pin.

I then read him

the decree establishing these jins for all higher educa-

tional institutions, dated Jaruary 1961.

Prior to that, so

far as I an aware, only Universities

and military academ-

des had such pins.

Subject insisted that he received his

in 1957 or 1958.

(Upon returning wi checked with KAZNACHEYEV,

who graduated from the Instiruse of International Relations

in 1956.

lo says that there sore no such pins in his time,

and he never heard of them being instituted later, although

he knows that the universities had them.)

---

## Page 51

104-10227-10008

17 August 1965

SUBJECT:

Report of Intorrogation

for 13 August 1965

1. Today's session lasted only from 15i0 to 1530;

AB

the purposo of

the session was primarily to put Subject in

the proper frumo of mind (approhansion) for the confrontation

scene tontght,. Ted asked only a fow questions at thu begin-

nand, and

used

must of the time to deliver a fou final re-

marky and

to givo Subject a last opportunity to say sonething

consible.

Tod told Subject that there

was no serso in continu-

1nk because ho insistod on contradicting all the

an absurd way, and that this would be the lass time that he

(Tod) would talk to Subject. Ted told him to had only a few

hourg left.

Tud asked Subjeet if he knew why "the doctor"

(Gittinger) had spent two wecks talking to him, and when he

" Ted told him that 1t was simply do establish

Subject was ratlonal or not, beenuse none of us

answers to be taken serl-

ously. Howover, the doctor had found that be vas sane:

3. Tod told Subject that the only thin; he seured to

anything about was prison slang.

Subjeir laughed--he

was apparently prepared for this jab--and again nontioned

literature,

this time citing "One. Day in the Life of Ivan

Denisovich."

Ted asked him when he had reed detrovka e8

and he said in 1963.

subject mentioned that the author of

this book,

Yulian Semenovich SEMENOV.

had her's an opera-

tional contact or agent who had submitted

the aanuscript

of his book to tho KGB for cicarance; howerer,

he had read

the book when it was published.

Ted tien told Subject that

the book was not cleared for publication (popisana k

pechati) until 6 January 1961.

Subject then said that he

must havo rend it in draft, although he dida't remember.

He could not remember the name of the case rificer who had

handled SEMENOV.

---

## Page 52

104-10227-10008

2.

1.

ted told subjeet that there were a number of

inter-

esting

and significant

toples--such as Subeet's family lifo,

his wiio and childron--that he had not even

Inched upon.

but that there was no use in continuing beenuse of Subjeet's

obstinate relusal to toll the truth.

Today

was his last

chanco, and if he didn't chooso

10

tell the truth he would;

be of no furtlior uso and no one would even want to talk to

him.

Subjoct ropliod that ho had only told the truth, rus

not lying on

any point, didn't intend to 110, etc.

He said

that he understood that we didn't believe him and could only

hopo

that "ny work and tino"

would prove us wrong.

Ted told

Subject that ho was sorry for him, and ended the interroga-l

tion.

---