TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KARLIN

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 99
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 20, 2005
• Sequence Number: 2
• Publication Date: March 9, 1970
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KARLIN
HEARINGS
SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY
ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
NINETY-FIRST CONGRESS
NOVEMBER 13, 18, 24, 1969 AND MARCH 9, 1970
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
45-1580 WASHINGTON : 1970
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut
PHILIP A. HART, Michigan
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
BIRCH BAYII, Indiana
QUENTIN N. BURDICK, North Dakota
JOSEPH D. TYDINGS, Maryland
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia
ROMAN L. HRUSKA, Nebraska
HIRAM L. FONG, Hawaii
HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky
CHARLES McC. MATHIAS, JR., Maryland
ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
SUBCOMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL
SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
JAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Chairman
THOMAS J. DODD, Connecticut, Vice Chairman
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania
SAM J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana MARLOW W. COOK, Kentucky
ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia ROBERT P. GRIFFIN, Michigan
J. G. SoURWINE, Chief Counsel
JOHN R. NORPEL, Director of Research
ALYONSO L. TARABOCHIA, Chief Investigator
RESOLUTION
Resolved, That the testimony given by Mr. Yuri Krotkov (under the
name of George Karlin) before the subcommittee in executive session
on November 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 13, 18, 24, 1969, and March 9, 1970, is
declassified and released from the injunction of executive secrecy and
shall be printed and made public.
Approved : November 19, 1970.
JAMES 0. EASTLAND, Chairman.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
CONTENTS
Testimony of George Karlin:
Page
November 13, 1969--------------------------------------------
167
November 18, 1969--------------------------------------------
191
November 24, 1969--------------------------------------------
221
March 9,1970------------------------------------------------
231
Appendix I-A Letter to Mr. Smith---------------------------------
235
Appendix II-Soviet Dissident Reproaches Kuznetsov-----------------
257
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KARLIN
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 2:10 p.m., in room
2300, New Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond presid-
inAlso present: J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel, and David Martin.
Senator THURMOND. The hearing will be in order.
The witness is still under oath. Proceed.
Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Karlin, toward the end of our last session, you
were given a number of photographs and asked to study them and be
ready to discuss them when you came back.
Do you have these photographs with you?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Do you want to take them up one by one and tell
us if there are any you recognize and what you notice about the
person or the photograph?
Mr. KARLIN. All right.
Generally, I wanted to find some pictures which possibly were
published in the Soviet press to get the participants of some of the
KGB operations which we discussed.
Mr. SOURWINE. You mean people who, like you, were co-opted by
the KGB?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir; that is first. Secondly, well, there is one
foreigner here who was a "victim."
Mr. SOURWINE. Take the pictures one by one and tell what the
picture is.
Mr. KARLIN. The first picture is the President of Indonesia in the
past, Sukarno, which was published in the newspaper Pravda when
he arrived firstly in Moscow. That was 1956.
Mr. SOURWINE. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. SOURWINE. On the record.
Mr. KARLIN. This picture was published when he arrived to Mos-
cow and we discussed his operation with the girl, Reschetnyk, who
was from KGB.
The KGB "supplied" her as an interpreter to President Sukarno.
But in a week or maybe 10 days later, on the same newspaper
Pravda, on the first page, there was published another picture where
(167)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 i ,IA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
there was Sukarno on the right and to the left was this girl, this
KGB girl, Reschetnyk blonde one.
Mr. SouRwINE. I think you have told us that this girl became
Sukarno's traveling secretary.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir, and at the same time, mistress.
That is the same thing you mean, yes?
Mr. SOURWINE. Not necessarily. It is well to make it clear.
Mr. KARLIN. All right.
Mr. SOURwINE. May this photo be designated as No. 1?
Mr. KARLIN. And now probably No. 2.
Mr. SOURWINE. And No. 2 and go in the record at this point.
Senator THURMOND. It is so ordered.
(The photograph follows:)
Mr. KARLIN. Now, the picture, the second, that is Sergei Bondar-
chuk. That is the famous director and actor who, by the way, produced
the War and Peace movie. He was invited as the man who would be
in our special party when "we" invited the French Ambassador, his
wife and some of his employees to the Soviet Committee of Movies,
to start the operation with him.
It was particularly the beginning of the operation and Bondarchuk
was included in our group. But it does not mean that he was used
later in that operation. I don't know later what happened, but he
was included in this circle, probably as a "garnish."
Mr. SOURWINE. Go ahead, finish what you were saying.
Mr. KARLIN. I would like to underline that the KGB sometimes
use people in such a way, as I mentioned as the garnish on the dish,
only for representation and make the meeting or party or something
like that more natural and solid. Well, look, when you are among
these men, no one in the world would suspect that there is someone
from KGB here. It is a matter of the atmosphere. The KGB produces
the atmosphere of the "natural" life. They use some people for this.
Of course, still, they must talk to them and to tell them that there
will be something special. It means that still they are co-opted, or
sometimes they are used without any knowledge of it.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
169
It has to be known, there could be different sorts of people in the
operation with the KGB-the participant, active one, and some of
them who must only produce, let me say, nice chorus music.
Mr. SouRwINE. When you spoke of Bondarchuk being used in
connection with the initiation of the operation against the Ambassador,
you meant Ambassador Dejean?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. That is No. 2.
Mr. SouRwINE. No, this would be No. 3.
May it be received at this time?
Senator THURMOND. Yes.
(The photograph follows:)
Mr. KARLIN. No. 4. It's Georgian artist Gudiaschvily. It is par-
ticularly the artist whose exhibition we visited with the French
Ambassador Dejean, with his Cultural Attache, Girard, and with the
KGB lady, Khovanskiy. It was particularly a moment when she,
after the exhibition, asked the Ambassador whether he would be able
to pick her up and would take her to her flat and they went there.
So the love relation with this lady was started.
Mr. SouRwINE. Off the record.
Senator Thurmond. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Thurmond. Back on the record.
Mr. SouRwlNE. This would be No. 4.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
170
(The photograph follows:)
Mr. KARLIN. Now, this is Mr. Mikhalkov. He is really now one of
the most important and very orthodox writers in the U.S.S.R.
He is, by the way, the author of the Soviet hymn.
Mr. SOURwINE. You are talking now about Mikhalkov?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes; he is now, I read in yesterday's newspaper, he is
now the First Secretary of the Moscow organization of the Union of
Soviet Writers.
It is the top position among the Moscow writers.
This Mikhalkov and his wife Konchalovskiy-they both were in
the center of the operation against the French Ambassador, Maurice
Dejean.
Well, particularly they invited firstly to their flat, the Ambassador
with his wife and then in this party, they introduced the French
Ambassador and his wife to General Gorbunov and his KGB wife,
Major Andreev.
Mr. SOURwINE. They introduced him as
Mr. KARLIN. As Gorbunov, as the VIP government officer. And
later on, Mikhalkov participated in many top level parties organized
by the KGB with girls. He presented on that party which I mentioned
with the girl Zoia. Many times, he was in those parties, but unfor-
tunately I cannot tell you exactly whether he knew the whole plot
of the operation. Maybe he "worked" like Bondarchuk, but still he
was very close to General Gribanov. I know that exactly because I
had a conversation with General Gribanov about Mikhalkov from
which I realized they were in a very close relation.
Mr. SOURWINE. This will be No. 5. May it go in the record at this
point?
Senator THURMOND. It is so ordered.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/111//1 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
(The photograph follows:)
Mr. KARLIN. There is Surkov. His first name is Alexei. He was the
general secretary of the Union of Soviet Writers. After the Pasternak
"case", he was replaced by Fedin. But still until now, until today, I
guess last week, he was 70 and he was very greatly publicized, he is
until now a top level orthodox writer, one of the most orthodox you
see. And he is a KGB man. I will tell you how I knew it.
When 1 went to Germany, in 1947, 1 remember the KGB's Lieu-
tenant Colonel Povlovskiy told me that among the top level KGB
co-opted people there is Surkov, whom I knew, of course, at that time.
He was at that time the editor of the magazine Ogonek. It is similar
to your Life, for example.
Povlovskiy said that he telephoned him, he named me in a friendly
way, and that he said that I can come to his office and he would give
me the letter, with recommendations to go to Germany.
Well, why I needed this letter? An idea was in that time to find
the place where to stay, where to meet foreigners, where to be sold.
Later the KGB decided to put me under the roof of the Bureau of
Information. But at the beginning, they wanted me to go to Germany
with numerous possibilities.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIDP73B00296R000500140002-0
One of these possibilities was the letter of this Surkov. I saw him
and he gave me such letter. It was an evidence of his collaboration
with KGB.
Mr. SOURWINE. That would be No. 6. May it be received?
Senator THURMOND. So ordered.
(The photograph follows:)
Mr. KARLIN. Now, a man, whose name is Mdivani. He was a par-
ticipant in the operation against the French Ambassador, Maurice
Dejean. He was co-opted by KGB, particularly during this operation,
because I remember he was co-opted by my own recommendation.
Kunavin asked me to give him some famous Soviet people whom
the KGB would be able to use to create a little bit bigger, not only two
or three men, but five, six, seven persons company.
Well, I gave him Mdivani's name and later Kunavin told me that
he telephoned him and then he invited him to come to the Hotel
Moscow and he talked to. him. He said everything is all right, Mdivani
is co-opted and will help me in every possible way. He said he didn't
open to him everything, of course. But still, Mdivani was a clever
man. He realized what is going on.
Mr. SOURWINE. Well, it is your recommendation if I understand
you correctly, Mdivani was co-opted to serve as a sort of assistant
to you?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct, but without such a deed
Mr. SOURWINE. To do as you wanted without asking questions?
Mr. KARLIN. Right.
Mr. SOURWINE. This would be No. 7; may it go in at this point?
Senator' THURMOND.YeS.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/1.1,91 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
(The photograph follows:)
Mr. KARLIN. It is Skobtsev. The wife of the movie director Bon-
darchuk whom I mentioned first.
She is a movie star, famous, too. She played the part of Juliette in
the movie "Romeo and Juliette." She was invited to General Gri-
banov's or Gorbunov's, as you wish, parties when Zoia was presented
there.
Zoia told me that among those females, there was Skobtsev.
That is what I cannot tell you exactly, whether she was one of the
swallows of the KGB or she was like her husband the "garnish" the
famous girl who created the natural atmosphere. But I know a little
bit about this lady because she was the fiancee of the Khrushchev
son-in-law, Adjubei.
Mr. SOIJRWINE. That was before she married?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, that was before she married. Then she became
the wife of the movie cameraman, Kun, who was involved in the
KGB operation against the French Ambassador and his wife, with
the idea to seduce her. It was the third attempt, you see. And Skobtsev
was his wife, before. It was, of course, coincidence.
Kun told me about her many things, which could give me a guess
that probably she was more than only the lady to create a natural
atmosphere.
Mr. SOTRWINE. In any event, you knew her as a resource of the
KGB?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
174
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouxwINE. That would be No. 8; if I may, I offer it at this
time.
Senator THURMOND. Proceed. It will go in.
(The photograph follows:)
Mr. KARLIN. It is the last picture. It's Alexander Chakovskiy.
Now he is the chief editor of the "Literaturnaya Gazeta". I must say
that I only can-I know only as a rumor, but it was very, very per-
sistent rumor about his work for the KGB. He is top man. He visits
foreign countries each year five, 10 times. He was here in, the States
three or four times, he met some of your Congressmen here, he told
me personally, how he talked to them.
He is a clever man, very crafty, but as a writer he is typical medi-
ocre.
I was told this story: Well-known Russian writer, Poustovskiy, a
great writer I would say, second, probably, after Pasternak . . . when
he went firstly to Italy, the Soviet Government sent him with this
Chakovskiy and he followed him everywhere and Poustovskiy-that
is what I heard-Poustovskiy called him in a jokable way, the colonel.
Poustovskiy was a very movable man, he wanted to see this, that,
and go this place, another place, all day long he spent in walking.
Chakovskiy was tired. He said the second day; "Listen, you know
what is possible for you and what is impossible, do yourself. I must
Appp&4P, tc R61~~a $ /11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/1IF51 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
That is a kind of anecdote, which still shows character of both men.
I must repeat I, myself, never had any job with Chakovskiy and I
never heard from the official KGB men that he is a co-opted agent.
Well, that is, I would say, all with these pictures.
Mr. SOTRWINE. This would be No. 9. It is offered for the record.
Senator THURMOND. It is so ordered.
(The photograph follows:)
Mr. SoURwINE. Now, you mentioned several writers. I think at
one time earlier, you were asked if you knew Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
You said you knew who he was.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. The newspapers today are carrying stories about
the expulsion of Solzhenitsyn from the Writers Union. This is ap-
parently a process that is to begin at a low or local level and then be
ratified at a high or higher level. Are you familiar with this process of
ousting a man?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. You held a position for a number of years in the
Writer's Union, did you not?
Mr. KARLTN. I would say that what really happened, of course,
was not the local process which was approved then at a higher level.
It is opposite, because such an action was done, and could be done
only by the order and decision on the top level in the Central Com-
mittee. I would say that the decision about Solzhenitsyn, whether to
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
176
expel him from the Union of Soviet Writers or to wait, was done,
even, I guess, at the meeting of the Politburo. Because it is big, and
crucial point. In the situation which exists now in the Soviet Union,
the literary area, is the most dangerous place where something could
happen, if something could happen. It is known in the Central Com-
mittee.
Therefore, first of all, of course, the decision was done in the Central
Committee, in the Politburo.
Mr. SouRwINE. According to the newspapers and to the announce-
ments made from the U.S.S.R. by the foreign press to the foreign
newspaper men, this action was first taken one day by a local branch
of the Union with 10 members and then the matter went before a
higher branch and was ratified.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes; it is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. Are you telling us that was all window dressing?
Mr. KARLIN. Right.
Mr. SOURWINE. Actually, it was decided at the top level, the
Politburo?
Mr. KARLIN. Sure.
Mr. SoURWINE. And then the wheels were set in motion.
Mr. KARLIN. That is only a formality, you know. When they gave
Solzhenitsyn possibility to talk, he talked. That's all. Who knows
what he said? Where it was published? It was a show where someone
wrote the protocol, you know, the report, and in the Soviet news-
paper there were probably two, three lines printed. It was sort of dem-
ocratic show. First, the Ryazan district committee where Solz-
henitsyn, was a member of the organization, expelled him, then the
Union of Writers of the Russian Federation would confirm it.
Still now, the last step must be approval by the Union of Writers
of the U.S.S.R. But the Soviet newspaper now mentioned only the
Union of Writers of the Ryazan district.
Mr. SOURWINE. You are saying there are three levels of the Union
involved-the local level?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWTNE. The Russian Writers Union?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SovRWINE. And the U.S.S.R. Writers Union?
Mr. KARLIN. That is correct in particularly Solzhenitsyn "case."
Mr. SOURWINE. That the local level went through the motions
first?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRWINE. Then the U.S.S.R.
Mr. KARLIN. Then the Russian Federation.
Mr. SOURWINE. Which ratified it yesterday, according to the news
stories?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. You say there still remains action by the U.S.S.R.
Writers?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. And that will be coming up the next day or so.
Mr. KARLIN. The decisive is the second one, the Union of Russian
Federation.
Mr. SOURWINE. The second is decisive?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
177
Mr. KARLIN. After that, you are out. But after that, it has to
be confirmation by the Union of Writers of the U.S.S.R.
It is the same as you are expelled from the Party. Firstly, it is the
cell, the party cell, and they expel you, but still you have your card.
After that, there is the whole meeting of the Party organization
and they will say, we ratify it, and from this moment, you are out of
the Party. But the card is still in your pocket. But you are out by the
code. And the regional committee, that is a confirmation, you see.
It is a very complicated procedure. Still one can apply to the center,
to Moscow, to the Central Committee, as well as to the Union of
Writers of the U.S.S.R., if it concerns a writer.
Mr. SoURw1NE. Well, as a practical matter-off the record.
Senator THURMOND. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator THURMOND. On the record.
Mr. KARLIN. I repeat from my point of view, it is a pretty crucial
moment, now. Because still, as it is known in the world now, the
Soviets again started to control the intellectual life and the situation is
absolutely unfavorable for any liberal movement in the Soviet Union.
Solzhenitsyn is in my opinion as great as Pasternak was. I think they
have done now particularly what they have done with Pasternak. It
is an important parallel, because in that time, there was also a crucial
moment.
The next step from my point of view would be automatically in
3, 4, 5 months time, displacement of Alexandre Tvardovski. He is
the man who published Solzhenitsyn-the editor of the best, if it is
possible to say, Soviet literary magazine, "Noviy Mir."
This man is a very interesting person, because he is a very talented
poet and he is an absolutely devoted Communist. But his idea is this:
"There is something wrong with our Soviet system. We must try to
change it and to make it better. We must criticize it." And he pub-
lished first-well, of course, it was permitted by Khrushchev at that
time, but he published Solzhenitsyn and he was and is one of the
strongest supporters of Solzhenitsyn.
I would not say he was a close friend of Solzhenitsyn. They are dif-
ferent. But from the point of view how literature has to serve people,
they were together.
I personally thought that the Central Committee would dismiss
first Tvardovskiy and I thought Solzhenitsyn would be the second
"victim."
I think they decided to go the opposite way simply because they
did not want to go in my way.
Mr. SOURWINE. You are predicting that Tvardovski will be the
next to be ousted or will be ousted within the next reasonable period,
4 or 5 months?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. I think it is inevitable. * Maybe they can prolong it
only because * * * you know, when you put two shots all together,
it is too noisy. They are thinking now only about tactics, when to do it,
and how to do it. I think it is absolutely clear they will do it. Put it all
together with the recently published novel of the leader of the Soviet
Orthodox writers, Kochetov. In his novel, titled "What Do You
*Editors note : Tvardovskiy was dismissed from his post as editor of Noviy Mir in late
March or early April 1970.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
178
Want?" he proclaimed uncompromised ideological war. He showed
how the American lady who graduated Slavonic faculty in some
U.S.A. university became the agent of the CIAand then went to Italy
to find a Russian emigrant together with her to go to Russia. He put
it like a fiction, but he mentioned many real names, he mentioned
Radio Liberty, BBC, Voice of America, and then the "Novoye
Russkoye Slovo," the newspaper, he mentioned real names of the
Russian emigrants. It means he got an admission to the special collec-
tion where are all these newspapers, magazines, you see, and then I
guess he had had a consulter from the KGB, because the intelligence
network is involved in his story. It is strong evidence that the orthodox
are going to eliminate those little things which were approached during
so-called "thaw." It cannot be only Kochetov private initiative to
write this novel. I think it is his own initiative plus something which
came from the hill. I think they are in a position to make a very rough
action again to frighten people. It's what they really need-to frighten
Soviet people.
Mr. SOURWINE. Right at this point, would you tell us over the years
what positions did you hold in these unions?
Mr. KARLIN. I?
Mr. SOURWINE. YOU.
Mr. KARLIN. It starts from my institute. I graduated particularly
this institute
Mr. SOURwINE. Off the record.
Senator THURMOND. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator THURMOND. On the record.
Mr. KARLIN. I graduated the same institute which later graduated
Kuznetsov and Belinkov. It is the literary institute under the Union of
Soviet Writers, which was the special one. There are some "gifted"
young writers, dramatists, poets, "study" how to become good writers.
Being in this institute, I made money because simultaneously I
was a Chief of the Literary Department in one of Moscow's theaters.
I was responsible for repertoire. I had relations with writers to offering
them to write plays for my theater or to put their novels into plays.
Mr. SouRWINE. What one must consider, is it not true, is that in
this position, you were in a sense a Government employee? You
were not employed by the theater?
Mr. KARLIN. I was employed by the theater, and it was a Govern-
ment theater.
Mr. SOURWINE. That is a Government function?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, because all theaters in the U.S.S.R. are Govern-
ment theaters. There are no private ones.
Mr. SOURWINE. It was not a free enterprise deal?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, no.
Mr. SOURwINE. Go ahead.
Mr. KARLIN. In that period, because ofmy father's friendship with
Pasternak, I entered his home, actually he recommended me to this
institute and that is the beginning of my long relation with the
Pasternaks, practically until a day when I left Russia. A month before
I left Russia, I spent 3 weeks in the dacha of his wife and sons, in
Peredelnino.
I told you that, when I came back to Moscow in 1943 I became TASS
correspondent and editor.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
179
Then I went to Moscow Radio and went to Germany. When I
came from Germany, first time, before KGB recruited me, it was 1945.
I was free lance correspondent.
Mr. SouRWINE. Now, between 1938 or 1939 and 1945, did you hold
any office or position in any writers unions?
Mr. KARLIN. No I worked in TASS as a newspaper man. At that
time, I was simply the columnist.
Mr. SoIRwINE. When did you first become connected with the
writers union?
Mr. KARLIN. That was when I reproduced my play about Paul
Robeson, titled, "John, Soldier of Peace." From that time, I had a
close relation with the Union of Soviet Writers and little bit later I
became a member of the Moscow Committee of Dramatists.
Mr. SouRwINE. Would that have been the committee that would
have expelled Solzhenitsyn if he had been a playwright instead of an
author?
Mr. KARLIN. As the first cell, if he had been in Moscow.
Mr. SotRwINE. So that was the Moscow equivalent for drama-
tists
Mr. KARLIN. Almost.
Mr. SouRwINE (continuing). Of the cell which did in fact first
expel Solzhenitsyn?
Mr. KARLIN. In the Union of Soviet Writers in Moscow, for
example, or in Leningrad or in the Ukraine-there must be numeral
sections. One is writing only novels. Another section is poetry, another
section is drama. Another is fantasy, and so on.
Mr. SOURWINE. And you were secretary of the dramatists
Mr. KARLIN. No; I wasn't the secretary. In Ryazan, where
Solzhenitsyn was expelled, there was only five members altogether.
He was the sixth. There was a small cell. Therefore, there was not
different sections.
Mr. SouRwINE. I understand.
The machinery would have been the same, though, would it not?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, yes; the syetem is the same.
Mr. SouRwINE. That is what I meant.
Now, from what you know of that system, having been a part of
that system, having been a part of it, as a practical matter, how would
it have worked, this decision to expel Solzhenitsyn?
Who would have told whom? Who would have scheduled action?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, it is simple
Mr. SOURWINE. Well, it is simple to you, but make it simple on
this record.
Mr. KARLIN. That is a very simple and I would say very reliable
way to do that.
The decision was done, as I say, in the Politburo. They talked
between themselves, probably three or four of them. That is
actually Suslov job, of course.
Mr. SomRWINE. Could he have made the decision alone, by himself?
Mr. KARLIN. No, it is impossible for him to make a decision alone.
When I came here and was interviewed I told that I think that
Suslov is No. 1 man in the hill, practically, who doesn't want to be
No. 1 man for some reason.
You know, among all this company of Soviet bosses, he is the one
who has been in the Central Committee longer than anyone else.
45-158 0-70-pt. 3--2
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
180
He even, I guess, knows where is the lamp which is broken in the
men room in the Central Committee's huge building, he is one man
who knows everything in this enormously big machine. And being such
a man and of course, with some other necessary qualities, he practically
became the master who put all in the right way, with knowing what
would be the result, you know, because Brezhnev was not so long the
Secretary of the Central Committee, and then became the President.
Suslov was there from the Stalin time. I guess even his chair is rather
deteriorated, but it helps him.
So Suslov and his adherents and assistants decided to raise the
question in the Politburo. And decision was done in the Politburo,
probably Suslov, himself or Demichev gave practical order down-
to "screws."
By the way when Pasternak died, Poustovskiy, whom I just
mentioned, came to Pasternak's place, spent there some hours, then
went to Moscow and asked Surkov, whom I also mentioned, because
he at that time was the Chief Secretary, to have a meeting and to see
established, Pasternak as a member of the Union of Soviet Writers, to
organize normal funeral procedure.
It's known that Surkov went to see Suslov and they discussed the
situation, Suslov said no, and ordered to put Pasternak into coffin as
the member of the Litfund. That is a literary fund which is the organ-
ization which helps writers financially.
Mr. SOURWINE. Like a pension plan?
Mr. KARLIN. That is practically how it works.
But in the Solzhenitsyn case they were not in it hurry, because he
(lid not die. The decision was done in the Politburo,' then Suslov, or
could be Demichev-he is the Central Committee Secretary who is
responsible for cultural questions-he is a gentleman whom General
Gribanov called when he wanted to "educate" poet Yevtuschenko,
because in that time, he was the Secretary of the Moscow Party
Committee. So this Demichev would invite to the Central Committee
Fedin-he is the Chief Secretary of the Union of Soviet Writers now.
But he is an old man, with his own tragedy, because he was a friend
of Pasternak in past and they later quarreled, you see. He felt himself
guilty of many, many things, I guess. But during the last 3 or 4 years,
he was against Solzhenitsyn because he knew the situation. He would
come to this Demichev, not alone, he would come with the Secretary
of the Union of Soviet Writers Voronkov. Voronkov is Central
Committee man, he has pretty important position, he is responsible
for all political and ideological movement in the Union of Soviet
Writers, simply he is a watchdog.
Let's say Demichev talked with Voronkov and Fedin. He would
say officially: "I must inform you that Solzhenitsyn was discussed in
the Politburo, we want to advise you to expel him from your Union.
We cannot leave this man unpunished after his anti-Soviet novels
were published in the West."
Practically then, Voronkov, probably he would go or he would
invite the boss of Union of Writers of the Russian Federation. It is a
rather bureaucratic way, too. They needed to do that. But this
Sobolev, now he is a hero of the Socialist labor. He is the boss of the
Union of Soviet Writers of Russian Federation.
Mr. SOURwINE. He would be told to do that?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 ijA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
It could be that they would come to see Demichev together. I can-
not tell you exactly how many came to the Central Committee. They
could come 2 or 3 of them to do it at once. But still, they were informed
and after that, it is absolutely easy, because in that case, they will
call to the Ryazan District Party Committee, to the First Secretary
or to the Second Secretary.
Mr. SOURWINE. The Secretary of the Party Committee then would
call the five writers in and tell them what to do?
Mr. KARLIN. Not necessarily five; maybe one or two, it would be
enough.
Mr. SouRwINE. May I interrupt you? I want to ask what may seem
to you to be a very silly question.
Do you know anything about hooking up sled dogs in the Arctic?
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SOURWINE. Well, I have been told that when you hook up sled
dogs, the strongest dog goes in front, because if you put the strongest
dog behind a weaker dog, he bites him in the flank.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. Now, when a dog behind the strongest dog tries to
veer right or left, the strongest dog turns around and bites him on the
shoulder.
Mr. KARLIN. On the shoulder, yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. When the strongest dog moves forward, the dog
behind him has an option. He can follow him or he can turn right or
left.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. But he does not want to get bit, so he follows him.
So you have wonderful cooperation if you get the dogs in the right
order.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. It reminds me of what you are telling me about the
way the writers union is organized in Russia.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, but I can add to this dog's story-That my
people are moving in this way 50 years. It was 2 or 3 years thaw when
there was some hope, very little but hope, but now everything again
is absolutely hopeless.
Mr. SouRwINE. Are you saying that for 40 years, there has been no
freedom of expression, no freedom to write, no freedom to publish
in the Soviet Union?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. I totally agree with what was said by Kuznetsov
who came to the West 6 years later than I.
Mr. SOURWINE. You are talking about Anatoly Kuznetsov?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Who is in Great Britain now?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Recently defected?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. He is also a writer?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, a known writer.
Mr. SOURwINE. Did he ever hold a position with the Writers Union
like you did?
Mr. KARLIN. What do you mean by the
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
182
Mr. SOURWINE. You were secretary.
Mr. KARLIN. He was secretary.
Mr. SOURWINE. I understood you to say that you were secretary
of the Dramatists Committee?
Mr. KARLIN. No, I was not secretary, I was a member of the
committee.
Mr. SOURWINE. You were a member of the Dramatists Committee?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. Was he similarly a member of the committee?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, but he was not a dramatist, he is a novelist.
Mr. SOURWINE. He writes prose, not poetry?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
He is from Tula. Solzhenitsyn is from Ryazan. Kuznetsov was
from Tula. They are very similar cities. I remembered in the Literary
Gazette it was mentioned that there were five or six signatures in
the letter against Kuznetsov. The whole organization in Tula con-
sisted of six or no more than 10 writers.
Mr. SOURWINE. I think there were nine in the case of Solzhenitsyn.
Mr. KARLIN. It is a very similar scale of those two organizations.
Mr. SouRwINE. Now, so far as you have read what Kuznetsov has
written, you would agree with him?
Mr. KARLIN. Absolutely, totally.
Mr. SOURWINE. He also had been co-opted by the KGB, had he not?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you know him in Moscow?
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SouRwINE. His position with the KGB was not the same as
yours was, was it?
Mr. KARLIN. No, I think it was different. But in some way, it was
the same.
I would like to tell you now this: He was co-opted first of all with
the idea to give, get domestic information. What I mean by domes-
tic? Information about his colleagues, writers, what they are thinking
about, what they want to do, you know, and so on.
I was doing the same thing being among foreigners, particularly
Moscow diplomats.
Well, of course, there is difference, but at the same way, it is pretty
similar thing,
Mr. SOURWINE. He was a sounding board for Soviet intellectuals,
writers?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. And you were a sounding board for foreign diplo-
mats and dignitaries?
Mr. KARLIN. That is true. But I wouldlike now to underline that
it is possible that being co-opted firstly for let me say again, domestic
job, later, under some special circumstances the KGB could shift one
to "serve" the diplomats, for example.
For example, once I had a rather important job which was ab-
solutely domestic, being working among the foreigners generally. It
happened immediately after Stalin's death, when Malenkov became
the Prime Minister, and he was at that time the First Secretary of
the Central Committee, and Beria became the Minister of MVD.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
183
They put all together KGB, and MVD, to make a big office. I know
privately, from the wife of Dekanozov, who was assistant minister of
the foreign staff, and the Soviet Ambassador in Germany before the
war there was a grave quarrel, a fight for death or life between Malen-
kov and Beria. That fight was underground before Stalin died.
When Stalin died Beria and Malenkov showed that they are well
together. But there was still fighting between them.
Why I am telling you all this? I remember Kunavin called me to
the Hotel Moscow and told me: "Listen, we have a very important
job for you and you must help us." He told me it is the order, per-
sonally Beria's order, to select three or five men like me, with such
a background-what I mean by background, it is not the KGB back-
ground, but, well, I was born in Georgia, my father and mother were
intellectual people, you see, and for me it was so easy to relate to these
people, I was known in Georgia. Beria was ordered to select such a
man and to send them to 5 or 6 different national republics for 2 or
3 weeks to be among writers, artists, musicians, to know what they
feel, what is their idea of Beria and Malenkov, whom they support
and whom they did not, you know; whom they prefer.
I could not say "no" in that time. They gave me the ticket and the
number of the telephone of the KGB people in Tbilisi. When I came I
telephoned them and we met in a hotel. Then I spent 2 weeks in Tbilisi
with the absolutely crucial and totally tragical mission, you see. It
was necessary for me to meet people whom I knew all my youth time,
school time, some of them were very famous writers, movie producers,
and to talk to them and then to make a report what they thought.
I realized, of course, that my report would be first of all in Beria's
hands, not in Malenkov's hands.
I remember that when I came to Moscow, I spent 2 or 3 days to
compose that report with the idea not to harm people and in the same
time, not to put myself in trouble, because if I would compose some-
thing absolutely wrong, it would be suspicious, too.
It was a very difficult work which I have done, I think in a good
way, because still I realized that it would be better for me to say some-
thing a little bit worse about Malenkov and a little bit good about
Beria, because the master of MVD was Beria.
I tell you this to show that in particular situation, they can forget
all about those foreigners and put one to be an informer among Soviet
people. Well, it is an awful game in which they can create for you,
pretty dangerous situation. Why I am telling you this? I am writing
now for the emigrant newspaper here in New York. There were many
awful publications about Kuznetsov, disgraceful publications. The old
Russian emigrants say, oh, he was an informer, he is a "black" man
and so forth. They do not know how difficult to be a writer in the
U.S.S.R.
They do not understand that there is a strong practical relation-
ship between the KGB and the Union of Soviet Writers. There is a
strong contatt between those two organizations. It is now a historical
fact.
Mr. SouRwINE. Now, what does it mean to a man to be expelled
from the Union of Soviet Writers?
Mr. KARLIN. It depends on a caliber of man.
Mr. SOURWINE. Take a man like Solzhenitsyn.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. KARLIN. That is a crucial matter for him, but actually,
nothing will be changed. He was before expulsion out of any social
faction, you see. He was totally isolated from the Soviet life. And it was
done a long time ago.
In the western newspapers, you can read something about him.
But nothing was published about Solzhenitsyn in Russia for the last
5 or 6 years. No one knew anything about him, you know. Here you
have some information and someone can think, well, what happened
to him? But there no one knows about it.
Mr. SOURWINE. After the publication in Russia of "A Day in the
Life of Ivan Denisovich"
Mr. KARLIN. After that there was nothing, because there was a
short time, about a year's time, when there was an unstable situation.
Still you could get his novel in the library. Then Tvardovski, pub-
lished another of Solzhenitsyn's short stories. Five of them it seems to
me were published. Still people were more brave. They sent him letters.
Some of them were printed here in New York. In the first couple of
years, there was a hope, you see, for him.
Let me tell you now what happened later-well, I think, there was
a big quarrel in the second meeting between the Soviet intelligentsia
and Khrushchev, when Sholohov mentioned that Solzhenitsyn is
Jewish, a Jew, because you know, Solzhenitsyn, Alexander-that is
the first name, the middle is Isaevich. It is a rather Jewish name.
When Sholohov met Tvardovski, he said, "Hey, what about Isaevich?
He's a Jew."
He said, no, he is not Jewish, Sholohov is the anti-Semitic leader
in the U.S.S.R. He is abnormal in his anti-Semitic feeling. He is
even physically anti-Semitic.
Mr. SOURWINE. Are you saying Solzhenitsyn is being acted against
partly because he is Jewish--
Mr, KARLIN. He is not Jewish,
Mr. SOURWINE (continuing). Or are you saying people are claiming
that against him in order to use Soviet anti-Semitism to bring him
down?
Mr. KARLIN. Particularly this Sholohov, the Nobel prize man.
I would say until 1963 Solzhenitsyn was in the position to be a
great writer in the U.S.S.R. It is known. Even Simonov in New York
a week ago, answering question: "What do you think about So]z-
henitsyn?" Said: "He is a big writer, but I read only his first novel."
He said he did not read his second and third ones. Simonov is a
talented man, but the orthodox party writer.
Mr. SOURWINE. If he had admitted having read the other two, he
would have been confessing that he read an illegal, bootlegged, carbon
copy version circulated unlawfully?
Mr. KARLIN. It is firstly, secondly, of course, Solzhenitsyn's last
two books-well, let me say for the clever man, and that is absolutely
correct, they are a strong accusation of the Soviet system. That is a
direct accusation, not only in the direction toward Stalin; it is deeper,
you see. It is a really great novel, I would say the greatest novel of
our time.
But the first novel was rather local. It is possible to interpret it
as a local one. It is about Stalin's concentration camp and the hero
was-well, the man who could, even in the awful situation still
produce something to survive.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 ;1 A-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. SouRwINE. What position are you in? Have you read all of
Solzhenitsyn's three major novels?
Mr. KARLIN. Sure. I have read them. Even I paid 40 marks to
Harper & Rowe, publisher-it means $10 for one novel. It was big
money for me to spend when I was in Spain. But I sent a letter and
someone sent me a book.
Mr. SOURwINE. Cheer up. It costs that much here.
Mr. KARLIN. It is too expensive; particularly for the poor Russian
emigrant.
Mr. SOURWINE. There is something I want to ask you about. You
said you agreed with Kuznetsov.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Off the record.
Senator THURMOND. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator THIURMOND. We will go back on the record now.
Mr. SOURWINE. Kuznetsov made reference to the infiltration of
KGB agents into foreign governments, including the Government of
the United States.
Mr. KARLIN. Made he?
Mr. SOURWINE. He did not purport to know the names or where-
abouts of any particular agents in Government departments in this
country.
Mr. KARLIN. I guess SO.
Mr. SOURwINE. Do you think, from what you know of his position,
he would have been in a position to know this? Were you in a position
to know about this?
Mr. KARLIN. Well, I cannot guarantee it. Maybe one day he
would publish another article and maybe he would open some other
part of his life, you see. But I personally think that he had some
relation with foreigners, too. He went to Paris. Even twice, I guess,
he was there. And I think he mentioned something about this. First
of all, he said you must know that each Soviet man who is going
abroad has to be not only checked, but is under the KGB control
being outside.
Mr. SouRwINE. Well, you made this same point in your book, "The
Angry Exile?"
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
Mr. SouRwINE. Before Kuznetsov ever defected.
Mr. KARLIN. I have been firstly in Japan. Before I went to
Japan, Major Andreev telephoned me and said: "Please come to our
usual place." When I came, she introduced me to the KGB Sub-
Colonel Kozlov-I do not remember his first name. And she told me,
well, he will be in your group as the watchman from KGB. She asked
me to help him as much as I can but keep it secret, of course.
When i went to England it was absolutely same thing. Andreev
telephoned me and introduced me to the KGB Major Stepanov. They
have a very funny system.
Firstly they watch people, from the KGB who were sent abroad
being as to say rewarded for something. They were paid their salary,
then they were paid currency-little currency, but still currency-
and the cost of the trip, all that. So for the KGB officers to go to
France for 2 weeks or to go to Italy for 2 weeks, was something
pleasant, very pleasant.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
186
Therefore, in the first period of the Soviet tourism, it was a pleasant
reward, for the KGB officers to go abroad under the cover name
and profession. They liked to do it.
But after some defections, after more often and often, people
defected, situation for them changed because if someone defected,
the KGB officer would be punished.
There could be different punishments depending on the case, who
defected, what situation was, what defector did and so on. But still
this sort of journey became for them dangerous. And I repeat the
situation now changed. Now they do not want to go, you see, abroad,
even being paid and with the currency because it is a pretty risky
game. They will go for 2 weeks and then Krotkov would defect and
the KGB watchdog would be without his shoulder straps.
Mr. SOURWINE. He would lose his epaalets.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. And he has a family, children. Now the KGB
press them. Now they are going abroad under an order.
Mr. SOURWINE. It is not a reward anymore, going abroad.
Mr. KARLIN. Why I am telling you this? When Kuznetsov went to
France firstly-he visited France twice, he had a relation with watch-
dogs. Well, I do not think he mentioned everything. Well, his position
was rather difficult, you know. It is enough he said he was co-opted,
and particularly was domestic informer. If he would say something
more and more, he would become an absolutely "black man"; for you
Westerners and particularly for Russian emigrants. I notice they hate
him.
Mr. SouRwINE. If he were only a helper to the watchdog, he would
have been in a position to know anything about KGB infiltration in
the West?
Mr. KARLIN. I doubt it. Well, maybe some little cases, very little
details.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you hear anything about this? You were 17
years with the KGB?
Mr. KARLIN. About him?
Mr. SOURWINE. No, did you hear anything about infiltration of
KGB agents in the United States?
Mr. KARLIN. I heard something.
Mr. SOURWINE. Well, maybe you heard it was an objective of the
KGB to do this if they could.
Mr. KARLIN. Maybe.
Mr. SouRwINE. But did you ever hear of any cases where they did
it or anything about having people?
Mr. KARLIN. No-well, the point is, still, they know their job and
they are trying to save all that. It is a top secret area.
Something which I knew besides my own KGB job, I knew partic-
ularly from Kunavin in private way.
Mr. SOURWINE. Many things you know Colonel Kunavin told you?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir. When he was dismissed.
Mr. SOURWINE. But Colonel Kunavin was not dealing with the
people in the United States?
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SOURWINE. You had no need to notice anything.
Mr. KARLIN. Once I remember-what was his name-Kapichkus-
it is so long ago. I came from Germany and 1 day I have been in
Mr. Bespalov's private room and we discussed something.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
187
He told me, I do not know why, but he told me he knew there
was one KGB man in America a long time ago. He was a Latvian
and he had a relation with the Soviet Embassy.
What I had heard from Bespalov was very approximately, not
clear, therefore I don't want you to think about it seriously.
Mr. SOURWINE. Do you feel you have a basis for believing that
operations are continuing and have been continuing?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, yes, I am absolutely sure of it.
Mr. SOURWINE. You just know nothing of any of them in detail?
Mr. KARLIN. No, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. Our time is pushing. I want to run along to one or
two other things.
Solzhenitsyn, according to our newspapers yesterday and today,
was disciplined primarily because he persisted in attacking Stalin.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. What is your view on this?
Mr. KARLIN. Well, that is true. That is absolutely correct, because
in the third novel, he even depicted Stalin himself.
Mr. SOURWINE. I will try to pronounce that right.
Mr. KARLIN. This episode when Stalin talks to the Minister of
KGB, Avakumov, is written, brilliantly. And of course the author
hates Stalin. There is no question about it.
From my point of view, it is more than anti-Stalinist novel. It is
a great Russian prose which shows the evil, where that evil is, and
accuses the system, including Stalin.
Mr. SOURWINE. Do you think, then, that Solzhonitsyn is attacking
the whole Soviet system rather than just. Stalin?
Mr. KARLIN. Of course. I am sure of this, because I read his novels,
because I know what it is, my past Soviet life.
Mr. SOURWINE. And because his attack is couched in literature, it
is going to live longer and have more effect?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, he is a man with a great talent.
Mr. SOURWINE. Which, I suppose, is why they have to discipline
him now?
Mr. KARLIN. Correct.
The point is that he pronounced the death penalty for them.
Mr. SOURWINE. This might be a good place to get into the record
your story of whatever it is you know, it anything, or whatever it
was you heard about Stalin.
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. You remember certain derogatory information
you had heard about him?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Tell us about that.
Mr. KARLIN. Well, even from my childhood-well, it is probably
not correct, but when I was 16 or 17 years old-I heard practically,
let me say three stories as a rumor, or gossip.
First was about Lenin's testimony before Lenin died.
Mr. SOURWINE. Lenin's will?
Mr. KARLIN. Lenin's will. No one knew what was that. That was
a rumor, but it existed.
Second was about Scholokov-that his novel, a really. great novel,
"The Quiet Don," was not his, that he plagiarized it. That was the
the second big rumor.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
188
The third rumor was that Stalin was the agent of the Tzarist
secret service, Okhranka-but it was a rumor.
Mr. SOURWINE. This was the secret police under the Tzar?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, correct.
Mr. SOURwINE. Succeeded by the Cheka, after the revolution?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. Even in some places, they worked and continue
to do it in the same buildings, you see.
Now when Khrushchev became one-man leader, he started to-
how do we call it, denounce Stalin, he produced his anti-Stalin speech.
After that, I know there was a conference, International Trade Union
conference, something like that, with some foreign representatives. At
that conference, Khrushchev said that he only started this big job, that
he wanted to show the real face, real image of Stalin, he said he must
continue it, must do it until the end.
After that, there were hopes. People were happy with this and they
thought it would be something new, a document, some new secrets
would be opened, because there were many. The Leningrad case, the
doctors case and so on.
At that time I remember, I met one writer--but I hope no one
would ever use this name.
Mr. SOURWINE. You want to give this name to the committee but
not on the record, even though the record is classified?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, if that may be the order.
Seanator THURMOND. It is so ordered.
(The name has been recorded in the subcommittee files.)
Mr. KARLIN. He is a very well-known writer. He is a Jewish writer,
the Jewish community in Moscow admires him very much. He was
my close friend and I would say he was a really good man, honest
man very clever man. Of course, he hated Stalin, especially, probably
because he was a Jew.
When I met him in Moscow in Gorky Street, he told me, being in
a nervous condition, he told me: "I know exactly that in the magazine
Communist, which is the Central Committee of the Communist Party
magazine there are sheets, proofs, of the article devoted to Stalin and
the basic point in this article is that the author proved the rumor that
Stalin was the Czarist agent. He was the agent of the Okhranka.
Mr. SOURWINE. He said that there were in proofs articles which
contained evidence to establish that Stalin had been a Czarist agent?
Mr. KARLIN. That is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. He had worked for the Okhranka?
Mr. KARLIN. That is absoutely correct. I was surprised, of course,
and I told him that it is impossible. He said, no, no, that is exactly so.
Mr. SOURwINE. When was this supposed to have been? What time
and what place?
Mr. KARLIN. That was in Moscow. That was a conversation in
the--
Mr. SOURWINE. No, I mean the time and place when Stalin was
supposed to have worked for the Okhranka.
Would that have been at Baku?
Mr. KARLIN. That is what he did not tell me. That was so impor-
tant, the fact itself. We did not go into details and I am not sure
whether he knew the details, whether Stalin was co-opted in Batumi,
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/218gCIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
or in Tbilisi, or in Baku. I thought about this and I have my own idea
about this. But what I heard from him was particularly this.
Later, of course, I was expected-we called one another every day
practically. We awaited this magazine and we have not seen here
that article. It was not published. And I personally think that Kru-
shchev later came to the decision that he had done too much, and
probably he himself stopped this publication.
Mr. SouRwINE. From your knowledge of your friend, do you think
that he did know what he said he knew, that there were in fact such
articles in proof?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, because he was a serious man and all what he had
told me before, many, many different things, were very close to the
truth, 90 percent of his information. He was informed well. I repeat
the source was good.
But there could be 10 percent-of course, there could be 10 percent
against him.
Mr. SouRwINE. I have two more things I would like to mention
briefly before we close today. One, you have told us in detail of a
number of operations in which you participated.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. But when you add them all up, they are a relatively
small part of the 17 years during which you worked for the KGB as
a person who had been co-opted into that effort.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. How about all the rest of the time? Were you
doing nothing of any importance?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, no, I am sorry. There were many other opera-
tions. But I would not say that the whole 17 years, I was totally
busy with the KGB. But still, I was busy. There were other operations.
Do you want me to mention all of them?
Mr. SouRwINE. Well, I am wondering if it would be possible for
you to draw up a list of the operations and the people involved,
searching your memory for the purpose, and let us have a list the
next time you come back.
Mr. KARLIN. Fine.
Mr. SOURWINE. And if we want details about any of them, we can
ask you.
Mr. KARLIN. Only to mention the information and--
Mr. SouRwINE. And try to put them in the proper chronological
order as far as you can.
Mr. KARLIN. Sure.
Mr. SounwINE. So we get a picture and account for the 17 years.
Mr. KARLIN. Good.
Mr. SOURWINE. Not that you owe us an accounting, but to be
sure we have covered everything.
Senator THURMOND. Very well, now.
We will meet again on Monday.
(Whereupon, at 3:50 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, to
reconvene at 10 a.m., Monday, November 17, 1969.)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KARLIN
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 1969
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 2:10 p.m., in room'
2300, New Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond presid-
ing.
present: J. G. Sourwine, chief counsel; John R. Norpel, Jr.,
research director ; and David Martin.
Senator THURMOND. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Karlin, may I remind you that you are still under oath.
Mr. SouRwINE. Mr. Karlin, we had started toward the end of the
last session discussing the question of how did you spend your time
for the KGB during the 17-year period that you were under their con-
trol after you were co-opted, and I believe you had agreed you would
come back at the next session, which is today, and tell us about this as
near chronologically as you can, fitting in the incidents you have al-
ready told us about so we can get the whole overall picture.
Mr. KARLIN. I prepared the list. It put names chronologically, but
some cases have happened in the same period, and therefore it is
approximately chronological.
Mr. SoURwINE. Sometimes there was more than one case being
handled?
Mr. KARLIN. That is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. By you, at the same time?
Mr. KARLIN. That is correct.
Mr. SoURwINE. Or to which you were assigned?
Mr. KARL-IN. Yes, therefore I repeat my chronology is approximate.
Mr. SOURwINE. Yes.
Mr. KARLIN. The first was the Academician Schtern. That was the
first operation.
The second was the Academician. I don't remember correctly his
name, something like Panton.
Mr. SOURWINE. These men, Schtern and Panton, were both Soviet
citizens?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct, and I mentioned about them. It was in the
beginning when the KGB tried to give me an experience how to relate
with people having KGB purpose in mind. Then third was British
diplomat Bulmer. Then after that I
(191)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 199IA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. SOURWINE. You told us about the Bulmer case.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, I told you about this case.
Then I was sent to Germany, to last Germanyy, to Berlin, there I
relate basically with the British Mayor Colby, anct the American, Bob
Gray, or maybe better to say Mr. Henry, because still the relation was
really with Mr. Henry.
Mr. SOURWINE. Have you told us all about this operation before?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, I mentioned it.
Mr. SouRwINE. This is the same one you told us about?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. Go ahead.
Mr. KARLIN. Then when I came back to Moscow, it was a new opera-
tion with the first secretary of Indian Embassy, Mr. Kaul. Then after
this operation, there was another one when I had a relation with the
Pakistanian diplomats, two of them, one was Koreshi, and second one
Murad.
Mr. SOURWINE. This brings us to what year'?
Mr. KARLIN. That would be approximately 1949, including the Cana-
dian case.
Mr. SOURwINE. You started when?
Mr. KARLIN. I started in 1946. In 1948 it was also a case with the
British Major Squires, Richard Squires, which I did not mention and
I would like to mention in two or three words.
Mr. SouRwINE. Go ahead.
Mr. KARLIN. This British major defected from the Rulir, from some-
where close to Dusseldorf. He was an army major. He was taken to
Moscow, and I was invited to Shubnikov. He asked me to write a book.
It was so-called cold war time and at that time there was published the
book by Anabella Bukar, "From the Window of the Embassy." Sec-
ond blow to the West which was planned by General Pedovranov was
this : "To publish the book of the British Major Squires."
It was pretty complicated work because the major himself was sim-
ply the army major from the educational department, and he had not
any interesting and important information.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you have an opportunity to interview him at
length?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, well, I spent with him 2 weeks. We lived together
outside of Moscow, and he was not alone. He was with a German girl,
Lotty, and practically I heard from the guards that the operation was
done through this Lotty, that she was co-opted by the KBG in
Schverin then sent to Dusseldorf to pick up some British officer. She
did it. I noticed when I stayed with them for his part a real love, and
it was an explanation why lie defected.
Mr. SouRwINE. Had lie been questioned by the KBG before you
went to-
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. No question about it.
Mr. SouRwINE. Were you given any briefing papers, or debriefing
papers?
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SOURWINE. Or any case history before you went to see him?
Mr. KARLIN. They invited me to the KGB.
Mr. SOURWINE. All you learned about the case you learned from
Squires?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21?CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. KARLIN. No, firstly from Shubnikov, then from his assistants.
Mr. SoURwINE. Then Shubnikov, did he just tell you or did he give
you any papers?
Mr. MARLIN. No,-lie told me all his story.
Mr. SOURWINE. He just told you?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, and there were contradictions. He and Pavlovsky
said differently, Pavlovsky said that Squires was involved in some
intelligence work. Shubnikov interrupted him and said that British
major wasn't in intelligence. According to Shubnikov he was simply
from the educational department. He was Catholic. Shubnikov men-
tioned about his real wife.
It was a French girl whom he left in Germany. At that period they
did not say anything about Lotty, but the next day or two, 3 days later
when I went to see Squires I went there with Colonel Pavlovsky and
in the car he told me: "Look, be a little careful because there is a
German girl who came with him, and he is rather jealous."
There was a special KGB house in a place called Malahovka. It was
one of the KGB's suburb houses with two body guards and the cook,
a woman.
Then I worked with this Squires 2 weeks and I realized there is no
way to compose any book if to use only his material, his life story,
because it was a very ordinary one without any significant details.
Then they told me that I would find some other information from
documents which they gave me, some documents about Germany,
about British officials, and Americans.
At that time there was some export-import company. They wanted
me to prepare some propagandistic materials about the Western Zone,
and put all them into the Squires' mouth.
I have done the first version of the book, and someone there at the
top level read this book and they said that it is not good because that is
not sharp enough, because it is not significant. They needed a big slap.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did they tell you at the beginning what they wanted
you to put in the book?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, in general, because, I repeat earlier, 2 or 3 months'
time before the Anabella Bukar book was published, and it was a
rather sensation, and they wanted to follow this, to make another
sensation. I told them that that is impossible to "improve" Sqiures'
book without other coauthors, and I recommended them to invite
Bespalov.
He was invited. But later they included in this job Albert Norden,
who soon became the member of the 'Politburo of the SPEG, that is
the Union Socialist Party in East Germany. He was one of the-I
don't know-probably third or fourth man after Ulbrich.
Mr. SOURWINE. Norden?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. When N( ?den put his finger in that pie, I was-
automatically, they put me aside, and I do not know how they did it
later. This Norden-well, the book appeared under the name of Rich-
ard Squires.
-112r. SoURwINE. How much of it was what you wrote and how much
of it was different?
Mr. KARLIN. I estimated it before my defection. I went to the library.
I got this book because that was published in 1951, I guess, and I
wanted to find how much in this book was written by me.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/214 IA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Well, I would say probably 15 percent was mine, and they make this
book, pretty big. They invented some American General Grow or some-
thing like that who lost his diary somewhere. In this diary there was
some secret documents. How Richard Squires approached this docu-
ment? So it was a typical example of the KGB's propaganda work.
Mr. SOURWINE. It was a combination of propaganda and disinfor-
mation?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, and it was some tragedy for this British officer,
because he became at. that time absolutely distorted. He never thought
when he defected with this girl, that these kind of things happened
with him. He was actually aside. The KGB only used his name.
Mr. Soi7RWINE. He wasn't even asked about it, was he?
Mr. KARLIN. Later on, no, but when I started to work with him, that
was a very interesting psychological process.
IIe wanted to help me, but his material was poor.
I wrote "his story" myself. When I dictated it to the typist, he heard
it, you see, and one day he told me that that is all a lie, that I cannot
do it.
I telephoned Pavlovsky. He came, he talked to him in another room
an hour and then he became absolutely obedient. It was an awful
tragedy.
It's a long story but I must make it shorter.
Mr. SOURWINE. Go ahead, tell what .is necessary, enough to at least
identify the case.
Mr. KARLIN. Being in London in 1965 I read in "Evening Stand-
ard" the story about Richard Squires. Suddenly one English columnist
discovered him in Moscow, and published some absolutely fantastic
story, saying the KGB used Squires as the agent, that Squires visited
London, and that he is an important man in the foreign emigrant
community in Moscow.
Well, there were some details which were correct, but there was mis-
leading information, too, and I am sure that this type of man would
not be used by the KGB to send him illegally to London. Squires was
not this kind of man. Therefore, I think it was only the sensation which
was created by this British correspondent.
Now after this operation, there was another one which I did not men-
tion before : An Australian, Cecile Osborn. She was a cipher worker
in the Australian Embassy. I was introduced to the Soviet co-opted
girl named Irina, who was the teacher of Russian language from the
organization which I mentioned before, UPDK, that is the bureau
which makes all services for the diplomatic corps in Moscow.
She worked for this bureau, and she taught Osborn Russian lan-
guage. The operation was like that: Cecile and Irina went to the
Bolshoi Theater to hear the opera "Count Igor." They have in third
or fourth line, two chairs, and mine was next. In the interval I
started to talk to them. Then we went all together to walk a little bit
in the foyer. Of course this Irina helped me in every way to create the
good impression, and had an opportunity to give Australian girl my
telephone and to ask her telephone.
Well, we succeeded, and I telephoned her later. We went to see
another theater performance. Then we went to the restaurant.
I met her three or four times, and in that time the case officer, the
KGB officer who controlled this case, who was responsible for it was
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/iu CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Samoylov. In that time I guess he was only a lieutenant, but before I
left Moscow in 1963 I heard that Samoylov became a top-level KGB
man in the First Chief Directorate. Working with the MI-5 people
in London I found his picture. He visited England being among dele-
gation of the Soviet teachers.
This man pushed me energetically to seduce Cecile. One day they
came to my flat, Osborn and Irina, 'because still she helped me, in all
this operation.
Well, I did not seduce Cecile. I could not do it. I do not want to say
I was puritanist, simply she was not attractive-therefore I tried to
avoid sexual relation. I tried to convert our relation in intellectual
area.
Particularly one day she visited my place, we discussed some politics.
Some literature, all that, and the next day when I met Samoylov he
even cried and he said : "Please, please don't talk about politics and
literature. She needs different, she needs you as a man, she wants to
feel herself being with you as a woman. Do something in this way."
For him it was at the time so important. Ile was a young man and this
was maybe one of his first cases and he wanted to succeed at any price.
Still the operation ended without results, and Cecile went back to
Australia. She showed me before some pictures of her family and her
nephews, I guess. 'She gave me her address.
It means that the operation ended without any profit for KGB.
Mr. SouRwINE. They were not happy with you 'a'bout that, I
imagine?
Mr. KARLIN. Who?
Mr. SOURWINE. The KGB.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, they were not happy. Particularly this Samoylov
was unhappy, but still they could not press me in the physical way, you
see, and that was the same thing which happened later with Marie
Claire Dejean. I guess it is correct, that they were not happy and they
were many times not happy with me, but still they needed me, they
told me that I have a rather special ability to attract foreigners.
Next case, Jack Raymond, the American corresponent. After that
or probably before that the Marguerite Higgins case which I depicted,
too, and Bill Jordan which I also mentioned. Now there is something
which I did not mention. It is the British correspondent, John Rettie.
I was introduced to him by Colonel Barsegov who used his agent's
name, Borodin. He worked himself -among the foreign correspondents,
being known as the correspondent of the Literary Gazette.
I had, I think, 3 or 4 months' relation with this Rettie. I met him
many times in different places. Then he introduced me to his wife,
Molly. She was a Finnish girl, absolutely blonde, very beautiful. Later
Barsegov gave this case to Captain,Churanov, who actually 'tried to
recruit Rettie.
Once Churanov told me that he knows there is something false be-
tween Molly and Rettie, then a little bit later I realized what really
happened, because among the Moscow foreign correspondents there
was one French Sheray and this Sheray had love relation with Molly.
Twice or three times I was with them all together. There was Rettie,
Molly, Sheray and Saharenko, another French correspondent. IIe came
only for few days from Paris. We went to the concert and I noticed
that there was really not a nice relation between Rettie and Molly.
45-158 0-70-pt. 3-3
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
196
Then one day Captain Churanov told me that he would like to work
himself with Nettie under the name Fedorov, that it is necessary for
me to call Rettie, and to invite him and his wife to the restaurant, and
to mention that I would be not alone but with my "friend."
I did it. They of course came and I introduced Fedorov to John as
the worker of one Society of Friendly Relations between the U.S.S.R.
and the Foreign Countries.
I introduced him as the employee of this Society. Soon Molly went, I
guess, to Finland to see her parents, and Fedorov met Rettie once or
twice with me, and then he did all the rest himself. So, from that time
I never have seen John again.
I can say only that he was a nice guy. He brought me from London
a great present. He brought five or 10 books with the best plays writ-
ten by British playwrights. He was a very intelligent man.
What happened later according to Churanov was this : Rettie was
rather nervous. He with one other foreigner, I don't know who was
that man, decided to drink and they met the Russian girls, two of them,
I guess, or maybe three of them (of course they were KGB girls) and
they invited them to his flat, which I visited once. This flat was in one
of the special buildings for foreigners near the Riga railway station
and they drank there and these girls created scandal.
Of course, the Soviet police were somewhere close, and they came
and wrote an official protocol that two foreigners wanted to rape two
Soviet girls. What happened later? Federov told me he had seen Rettie
and opened his "card" and said, "I -am from KGB. If you will not work
for us we will publish all this story and it will be trouble for you. It
will be particular trouble for your career."
Iheard from the MI-5 people that Rettie immediately reported all
that to the Embassy and went back to London. That is all.
Now let me mention the case which we discussed. It is Australian
Communist Burchette.
Then the very short, but pretty unique story. At that time the rela-
tion between Yugoslavia and the Soviet Government was not so good,
and the KGB decided to look into the Yugoslavian Embassy. There
was such a Yugoslvanian diplomat Bogich, and that was the case which
was conducted again by Colonel Barsegov and Kartser.
Barsegov sent a special telegram to the Soviet. Embassy in Canada
to find some probably Ukrainian newspaper which would accredit me
in Moscow as their free lance correspondent. The answer wasn't posi-
tive, therefore I was told to go to Yugoslavian Embassy, see Bogich
who was a cultural attache, and tell him that I want to be a free lance
correspondent from one of the Yugoslavian newspapers, probably
"Borba," or something like that.
I went to see Bogich. He was handsome, cultured gentleman, and
he talked to me in a nice way, but I realized that he understood what
is going on, and he told me that he would like to help me, that he
would send a letter to "Borba," and then he would telephone me. He
perhaps sent a letter, I don't know, but maybe to another Yugoslavian
organization, and he never called me back and I never have seen him
since. But still an attempt was done.
Then another case was the cook in the English Embassy, the personal
cook of Ambassador Hunter of Great Britain. His name was Christ,
I know only this, Christ.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/7. CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
In his past he was a sailor. He was a real drunkard, and he wanted
to make love with the Soviet KGB girl Tonya. She worked in the
Embassy as a servant and he wanted to make love with her, but there
was no place to meet and she introduced me as her brother-in-law.
He visited me many times. Churanov's idea was to make him drunk
once, a second time, and then to offer him money, to give him money,
because he needed money, and to get a receipt from him, to get his sig-
nature, once, and to repeat it.
Then Churanov wanted to beat him, to show that the opposite side is
very strong and merciless, and to recruit him, saying : "Look, these are
your signatures here. You owe money from the IGB and you must
work for us now." I do not know whether they realized this second
part of the operation, but my part was done. We met three or four
times. He drank in my place pretty much. I do not know what they had
done later.
Then there is a French case, the whole French case, to which I
must add the French girl Francois de Damper. She was a cipher girl
there. Major Andreev told me that there is a Soviet man, Petrov, who
had been in France and who met her there. Then this man came back
to Moscow and lie worked in Moscow Radio and he knew her. He met
the French girl once or twice in Moscow, too, when she came to Moscow
to work in the French Embassy. The KGB wanted to do this : Petrov
would invite her to the restaurant and occasionally I would be there.
Being Petrov's "friend" I would come to their table and he would
introduce me to her. But nothing like this happened, because when he
telephoned her two or three times, she told him that she was busy and
she could not come to meet him.
Therefore, Major Andreev found for me another way to be ac-
quainted with the French girl. Francois had a Russian teacher, a
Soviet lady in Moscow. Later she went to Prague to work there in some
Soviet office, but she still had a friendly relation with the French girl.
The KBG composed this fable : I was in Prague and met this teacher
because she was my teacher a long, long time ago too. When I said to
her that I am going back to Moscow the Russian lady said : "Probably
you will be kind enough to take a letter to my French friend," and she
gave me a letter and a telephone number and I called the French girl
and I said to her; "I brought from Prague a letter for you."
All that, so to say, was done, but De Damper was a very sharp and
clever girl, and I guess she realized something because there were many
other attempts to introduce some Russian to her, and she told me over
the telephone that it would be better if I would send the letter by post.
No, before this she told me that she would not be able to meet me
because she is on the way to Paris for her vacation, and then she said,
"Please put this letter to the mail box and I would get it."
When I reported our telephone conversation to Major Andreev she
told me that it is nonsense, she is not going anywhere, she is here and
she would be here, and she simply does not want to have any relation
with any Russian.
Later Andreev told me that all that probably happened, because
particularly in that time, according to Andreev, this French girl had
a love affair with an American correspondent in Moscow, whom, it
seems to me, she later married.
Mr. SOURWINE. How many correspondents did she marry? Did I
hear that right?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 :ICIIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr.KARLIN. Major Andreev, when she tried to explain to me why it
ended unsuccessfully said well, she had a love affair with the Amer-
ican correspondent, and that later this correspondent married Francois
de Damper.
The next little case was again-the French girl Ravel. She worked
in the French Exhibition in Moscow in 1961.
Major Andreev told me that Ravel visited Russia before and had
some special relation with some Soviet people, and the KGB suspects
her. Andreev wanted me to come to the Exhibition and to meet her
and to talk to her and maybe to relate with her, trying to understand
what sort of person she is. The KGB gave me her picture.
I went two or three times to the Exhibition, but I could not find her,
and all ended without any result. There was only an attempt. I never
met Ravel.
The next operation would be the Indian Ambassador, the Extraor-
dinary and Plenipotentiary, Kaul ; the same Kaul who was the First
Secretary of the Indian Embassy a long time ago.
I would say the last operation which I must mention, is my relation
with the First Secretary of the Mexican Embassy, Ormando Contu.
The French Ambassador's wife, Marie Claire, mentioned once that
she is,very friendly with the wife of the Mexican Ambassador, and in
that time I wrote a movie script for the Mexican firm Zaharia Film.
The script was entitled "The Rose of Castiliano." The KGB decided
to use an opportunity and to organize some operation in a direction
toward Mexicans.
I told Marie Claire that I would be happy to be introduced to the
Mexican Ambassador, and to give him my script to read, because I
need to be cooperative with Mexicans and I would like to have a good
relation with the Mexican Embassy in Moscow.
Marie Claire telephoned to the Mexican Ambassador's wife, who
told her that I as a friend of Marie Claire, has to call to Ormando
Contu and has to meet him first, and then he would introduce me
to the Ambassador and his wife.
Marie Claire gave me a telephone number. I called Ormando Contu.
I met him. He was a young man, handsome, and I would say with an
ability to control himself.
I met him many times. The KGB case-officer was Alexei
Mikhailovich.
At that time, particularly I have heard from the KGB officer that
there are two different groups of the foreign embassies in Moscow. One
group is-the closed embassies others the opened, and the Mexican was
among the opened in that time.
Once when I went to meet Contu at the Mexican Embassy, I noticed
it was not guarded as much as for instance the French Embassy was.
The KGB officer told me that according to his information that Contu
is a nice guy. He came here with the idea to have a friendly relation
with the Soviet people, to try to understand them and so on.
Later on, when I was ready to go to Japan, I remember Contu
wanted to give me the address of one of his fellow Mexicans in
Tokyo. He wanted me to take some gift for him from Moscow, but
the KGB told me it would be better to avoid all this. So before I went
to Tokyo, I did not call him and later when I came back to Moscow, I
said to him that I could not call him.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/219 CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
In the second part of our relation, the situation changed. Alexei
Mikhailovich told me that Contu has a very close relation with Amer-
icans, that Americans ordered him to relate with me, and that even an
idea of Mexican fellow and "gift" was American's.
Another word, the KGB now wanted to show me Contu as the
American agent, but still they wanted me to meet him and to hear what
he is talking about, and in that time he got a new apartment in the new
house for foreigners, and he wanted to invite me to a house warming,
he wanted to organize some parties with girls and so on.
When I told the KGB, all that they told me he is a homosexual.
Well, in the case with Major Colby I suspected it myself. I would not
say that I had any evidences, concerning Contu.
When the KGB wants to black relation between foreigners and its
co-opted man they very often use this arm.
Then the IKGB told me it is better to end this relation, and I did not
call Contu even before I left Moscow. I want to underline that still
there was some risk in my relation with Contu. Once Major Andreev
mentioned about it, because practically it was at the same time when
I related with the Indian Ambassador.
It is probably all operations against foreigners which I participated
within 17 years of my collaboration with the KGB.
Mr. SOURWINE. You have mentioned in connection with the Mexican
the statement that he had homosexual tendencies or was a homosexual.
You remember earlier in telling us about your experience in Berlin
many years before?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. You told us you had gone to a homosexual nightclub.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. Have you had enough experience with homosexuals
to be able to tell one, when you saw one?
Mr. KARLIN. Well, I can try, at least.. I am not sure of this. Still
from my point of view, as I mentioned, Contu was not a homosexual
because, well, still, I guess a homosexual-well, I heard there could be
such homosexuals who could at the same time have a great interest to
females. Contu wanted to talk about females, and he looked at girls in
cafes and so on, therefore from my point of view he was a normal man.
Mr. SouRwINE. Have you had many dealings with homosexuals?
Mr. KARLIN. No, sir. I hate them.
Mr. SouRwINE. Have you had much experience with them?
Mr. KARLIN. No, sir.
Mr. SouRwINE. You do not consider yourself an expert on the
subject?
Mr. KARLIN. Psychologically, yes, I guess, being an old man as I
am, experienced one, a writer, I can be expert in everything, I must,
I guess, but not scientifically, of course. One can even look into the
eyes of people and find who they are. I hope I have a little bit this sort
of ability.
Mr. SouRwINE. You have the opinion that you can tell by looking?
Mr. KARLIN. It would be enough probably to tell myself who I think
this gentleman is, but I would not be able and I would never cate-
gorically say I'm sure I'm right.
Mr. SouRwINE. I understand.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
200
Now, when you went to the homosexual cafe in Berlin, did you go
there more than once?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, no.
Mr. SouRwINE. Were any of the people with you homosexuals at
the time, in your judgment?
Mr. KARLIN. It was a cafe of homosexuals. There I had seen first
time in my life something absolutely disgraceful. Man danced with
man. One was young, rosy, beautiful, you can use this word, another
was too masculine, and they danced together and they took a seat and
they put some drugs in their drinks. Later there was a "girl's show"
and then I realized all of them were boys.
Mr. SOURWINE. Was that the only time you visited such a place?
Mr. KARLIN. No, sir, I repeat it, in San Francisco, when I have been
here in 1964. We went to this pretty funny, and interesting theater.
Mr. SouRwINE. When you went in Berlin were any of the people
who went with you homosexuals in your opinion?
Mr. KARLIN. Major Colby was with me and he could be only one
person whom I could suspect.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did he pick the place to go?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir, it was his idea, to go to that place, but that
was a known place in Berlin. Cafe "Hanks" was a very known place.
Mr. SouRwINE. Yes, it was known as a homosexual place.
Mr. KARLIN. Right.
Mr. SOURWINE. But that is not a reason for picking it, unless one
wants to go to that kind of a place.
Mr. KARLIN. He told me : "Let's go to see the night life in Berlin."
It was a natural thing you know, to show me different places. But
I realized that he was familiar with "Hanka" because he was greeted
there by many people.
I remember, for example, that I told him if that would be my right,
I would take a gun and I would kill all of them and he said, "That
is the difference between your Soviet vandals and us civilized people.
If they like it, give them way to do it, you see."
Mr. SOURWINE. Were those the only two occasions that you had to
go to such a place, once in
Mr. KARLIN. What do you mean, the second one? Which one?
Mr. SouRwINE. You said you did in San Francisco.
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, yes ; but it was a theater.
Mr. SouRwINE. If I summarize improperly, please correct me.
Mr. KARLIN. OK.
Mr. SOURWINE. You have told us that you were co-opted by the
KGB, that over a period of 17 years you assisted in various assign-
ments as they were given to you, various operations, some of which
would be explained to you fully, some of which were explained to you
less fully?
Mr. KARLIN. Correct.
Mr. SouRwINE. You were given particular objectives in each
instance ?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. Mainly the objectives of the KGB in these cases
broke into two groups, the gathering of information, either about the
individual to whom you were assigned, or through him, from him,
about other persons or things.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
201
Mr. KARLIN. Right.
Mr. SoURwINE. Or second, the compromising of an individual.
Mr. KARLIN. To recruit the individual.
Mr. SoURwINE. So that he could be used. Recruiting is only one of
the ways he might be used?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, correct.
Mr. SoURwINE. And I think in some of the cases you told us the
compromising was accomplished, and the individual was used, and
yet was not recruited.
Mr. KARLIN. It's correct, sir.
Mr. SoURwINE. Then I do not think we had specifically discussed
means, but I will ask you if it is not true, judging from all that you
have said so far, that among the various means that were used were
what we might call cozening , offering friendship, persuasion, also on
occasion blackmail and threats?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, and even beating.
Mr. SoURwINE. Physical?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. The use of physical force?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SounwINE. And in different operations one or all of these have
been used during your 17 years of experience?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Now you told us earlier-I am trying to pull to-
gether some loose threads-you have now mentioned twice during the
course of your testimony the difference between a closed and an open
embassy.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwiNE. I wish you would explain.
You may have done so already, but if so, try to do it in different
words now, so that we may be sure we understand, what in KGB terms
is a closed embassy, what is an open embassy.
Mr. KARLIN. Sir, I would be able only to repeat what I have been
said because I cannot give you a complete answer, still, you know, I
wasn't an officer of the KGB. I was only co-opted.
Mr. SoURwINE. I understand.
Mr. KARLIN. I was a co-opted worker, and therefore occasionally by
my relation with some KGB officers, who were with me more friendly
than it was necessary for them to be, I knew more than used to be
known for co-opted worker. Nevertheless, I cannot depict for you the
complete picture and there could be even some contradictions in my
records. Sorry, but it is so.
Let me tell you-now this : Take a whole "service," in quotation
marks, which the KGB makes for the American Embassy in Moscow.
It is a colossal "service" and pretty expensive one. Many people involve
in it. They "serve" not only the embassy they "take care' of houses
and places where Americans stay, where tfiey go, and so on. All that is
an enormously big and expensive job.
All this looks differently if you would take, let's say again, this
Mexican Embassy, which I think could be somewhere between an
opened and a closed embassy. Mexico is pretty close to the United
States and has a lot of similar interests and one can penetrate the
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
202
United States through Mexico. Therefore I guess, and as far as I
remember they told me the Mexican Embassy is an opened one, but
not exactly.
Of course, Afghanistan for example, or maybe the Ceylon Embassy,
by the KGB classification would be opened embassies. The KGB
wouldn't "serve" them in such an 'ntensive and serious way. So the
cornerstone is political interest.
Physically first of all you need to control the whole foreign houses,
accesses to these houses. Then you must think about the special Soviet
people who work in those closed embassies because there, I guess 100
percent are KGB officers or collaborators.
Those people you must pay more. They must be better qualified, be
more experienced, you see. Still that is a valuable thing. But the KGB
can put III an opened embassy ordinary people, not so good paid. I
repeat : from my point of view everything depends on a political
matter.
Of course, all this is approximately. When the KGB "realized"
that Contu had a relation with the Americans, that he "works" for
Americans if it was true, the situation particularly for Cantu, changed.
The KGB paid more attention to him.
Therefore, I think this is rather technical division. They use this
word an opened embassy meaning that they would not pay so much
attention to it, much attention, but not so much.
Mr. SouxwINE. The term "closed" and "open" embassy, if I under-
stand you correctly, is used in the KGB with reference to the KGB's
own attitude and responsibilities with resepct to the embassy.
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. And also with respect to how KGB members or
persons such as yourself who are working with the KGB must or may
comport themselves when they are visiting such an embassy.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SorRwINE. That is involved also ; is it not?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, it is particularly the KGB term, it is their
terminology.
Mr. SouR\INE. In the case of an open embassy, a KGB person,
either an officer or person such as you could visit rather freely?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes ; it is correct.
Mr. SOURwINE. In the case of a closed embassy, you could not visit
without permission there?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct. Something like it, by the way, happened,
really when I went the first time to see the Indian Ambassador. It
was all prepared, maybe they did it specially, but still it was not
easy and there wasn't free access to the Indian Embassy at all. Of
course one wouldn't be able to go free to the American Embassy in
Moscow too. I mean being a common, ordinary Soviet man.
The police would stop you.
Mr. SouxwINE. Would the ordinary Soviet man go to any foreign
embassy?
Mr. KARLIN. Honestly, I doubt it.
Mr. SOURWINE. How about the Embassy of other Communist
countries?
Mr. KARLIN. Well, again I think maybe there is a free access with
some sort of control, but I repeat, I do not know it exactly, and I
think it all depends on the particular situation, you see.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/1 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. SOURWINE. Does the KGB maintain a full and complete cover-
age on all the embassy personnel in the U.S. Embassy?
Mr. KARLIN. I guess so.
If there is not 100 percent coverage I think there is 99 percent cover-
age. I think you must expect particularly this if you don't want to be
fooled.
Mr. SOURWINE. There is a much looser surveillance over, for in-
stance, the personnel of the Afghanistan Embassy?
Mr. KARLIN. Again, they, of course, try to control them, too, but I
think there is a small section in the KGB with three or five men who
are "responsible" for Afghanistanians. If they would realize that the
Afghanistan Embassy is a rather special place where there are meet-
ings between, let's say, Americans or British, they probably would
declare the Afghanistan Embassy the closed one.
Mr. SouRwINE. Let's go back to the Mexican Embassy. Are all of
the Embassy staff personnel of the Mexican Embassy in Moscow kept
under surveillance at all times?
Mr. KARLIN. I remember once I met Contu, and he came not alone,
he came with another Mexican girl, and another Russian girl. There
were two of them, only for a couple minutes. Then later they left us.
Another girl was the Soviet, and she worked in the Embassy, and I
think that is one of the best way for them to know what is going on
in an embassy generally talking of course. They like to put one of the
Soviet employees in such a position as a secretary in the reception.
Mr. SouRwINE. I think from what you have said earlier about hav-
ing to use a better class of people in closed embassies
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. It must be your impression, and I ask you if it is
not, that the U.S.S.R. nationals who work in foreign embassies are all
in contact with and under the control of the KGB?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. In one way or another?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, yes, it is absolutely true.
Mr. SouRwINE. In one degree or another.
Mr. KARLIN. Sure.
Mr. SouRwINE. Now to go back to another loose end, you told us
that you had brought out with you when you left the U.S.S.R. micro-
film of a manuscript.
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
Mr. SouRwINE. That you had yourself prepared.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwINE. Now what happened to this manuscript?
Mr. KARLIN. When I defected, I gave to the British Intelligence
Service those microfilms and all my documents, which I had, and
then they did not give me these back. Instead of this, they gave me
only one copy of my manuscript which they made a print of. It hap-
pened when I came from the U.S.A., back to England in 1965.
Mr. SouRwINE. You never got the microfilm back?
Mr. KARLIN. No, sir.
Mr. SouRwINE. And you did not get a print or a copy until 1965 ?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
Mr. SouRwINE. During 6 months or thereabouts of 1964 you were
in the United States?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
204
Mr. SoUnwINE. Having been brought here by an agency of the
United States?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. Was there a copy of that manuscript over here
while you were over here?
Mr. KARLIN. Probably.
Mr. SOURWINE. If you know.
Mr. KARLIN. I have seen one copy of it in the hands of the Ameri-
cans who worked with me here.
Mr. SOURWINE. In the United States?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Then there was a copy here?
Mr._KARLIN. Yes; but that was not mine, you see. That was theirs.
Mr. SOURWINE. There was a copy. You recognized it?
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. It was a copy, a photocopy I take 't?
Mr. KARLIN. No; I think it was Xerox.
Mr. SOURwINE. A Xeroxed copy?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes ; because this one which they gave me
Mr. SOURIVINE. Of the manuscript which you had microfilmed?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. It must have been a Xeroxed copy of a print, then.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes; and there was a copy I guess of the translation
into English, too.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you make a translation?
Mr. KARLIN. No. Someone did it for MI-5.
Mr. SOURWINE. Who made the translation; if you know?
Mr. KARLIN. They told me, the British told me that they did it and
they said they paid, I don't know, 5,000 pounds for it.
Mr. SOURWINE. Who gave you the translation ?
Mr. KARLIN. No one gave me it, but I have seen it. British officers
showed me it.
Mr. SOURWINE. How did you come to see it?
Who showed you?
Mr. KARLIN. They showed me, these British officials, they showed
me a rather thick volume, and they underlined what a great job they
have done. Later when I came back from the United States, when MI-5
refused me to try to publish my manuscript, I said, why not think about
the publication without real names, without real evidences and facts.
They said, let's see what will be. I said, I want. to write it in English.
I needed that translation which they have done. And they brought me
partly by 10-15 pages a week that translation.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you see the translation of the whole manuscript?
Mr. KARLIN. Only in British official's hands, never in my hands.
Mr. SOURWINF. In your own hands you saw only portions of it?
Mr. KARLIN. Correct., sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. Perhaps 10 pages at a time?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes; by 10 pages but not the whole manuscript.
Mr. SOURWINE. You never saw the whole thing, even 10 pages at a
time?
Mr..KARLIN. I have seen it all, but never had it.
Mr. SOURWINE. I mean you saw several fragments of 10 or some
other number of pages.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11%1: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. KARLIN. I repeat, I have only seen the whole translation in the
hands of the British officials.
Mr. SouiiwiNE. The fragments you actually have?
Mr. KARLIN. They brought me partly fragments in English, no
more than 10 to 15 pages at once.
Mr. SoURWINE. Yes.
Mr. KARLIN. I have one copy of it in Russian.
Mr. SouRwINE. Did they take them back again after you saw them?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. That is what I understood.
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. But they did not, for instance, bring you first the
first 10 pages and then the next 10 pages and then the next 10
pages
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SnuRwINE (continuing). Until you had seen it all?
Mr. KARLIN. We did it this way : I said now I would like this part,
bring me this part, and they brought me what I asked.
Mr. SOURWINE. You just saw certain portions.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes ; I rewrote it all.
Mr. SOURWINE. You were trying to get it printed?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURwINE. Now you say the British ti,-ere opposed to this?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes; they were opposed and I have some documents
which confirms this. Honestly they press me "voluntarily" to give
them my obligation not to publish a real story. How to explain to you
all that. It was a very difficult relation between me and MI-5 when
I came from the United States back to England. They put me in trou-
ble. We quarreled. Pretty cruelly, they said that I must be quiet, that
they do not want to open me because now there is no time for me to be
publicized and so on.
They said that they have a good relation with General deGaulle and
that DeGaulle is only one man in France. They said, "We cannot make
any unpleasant thing to him, and then we are expecting Mr. Kosygin
to visit England and therefore, we would not give you any chance to
be published."
Mr. SouRWINE. Who told you that?
Mr. KARLIN. My ease officer Michael.
Mr. SOURWINE. The British case officer?
Mr. KARLIN. Right, Michael. Another man was Charles-his name
is here. He talked to me in such a way two or three times, and I
realized that it is absolutely dangerous moment for my life. I had a
headache at that time, and even one day when Charles brought me
pills, I put them in the pocket and then I threw them away because I
thought, well, it could be poison because that was absolutely awful
period in my relation with MI-5.
Mr. SOURWINE. You do not mean you think the British were trying
to poison you?
Mr. KARLTN. Being in such a situation, in such a psychological mood,
to feel as I felt at that time, I think was natural for me.
Iam not sure that that was possible, really, but then I realized it is
only one way to survive physically, to put my signature on a contract,
which later was prepared. It is here. I can give you it.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
206
Mr. SouRwINE. What contract are you talking about?
Mr. KARLIN. According to this contract I gave them all my materials
and I promised them never to publish anything about what is men-
tioned here.
Mr. SOURwINE. This is?
Mr. KARLIN. That is a copy?
Mr. SoumwINE. This is an original and one page.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes; original and one page, that is correct.
Mr. SouRwINE. And part of the date has been cut off.
Mr. KARLIN. No ; where?
Mr. SOURWINE. No ; it is just partially torn.
The 5th day of March, 1965.
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct, signed by me and Charles Wentworth.
Mr. SouRWINE. Instead of attempting to summarize this, Mr. Chair-
man, I think perhaps the entire text should be placed in the record at
this point.
Senator THURMOND. It is so ordered.
(The information follows:)
1. 1, Yuri Vasiliyevich Krotkov, also known as George Moore, voluntarily
desire to give the following undertaking to the British authorities who have
been concerned with my case :
In consideration for the assistance given to me by the British authorities
since I arrived in the United Kingdom in September 1963 and asked for political
asylum, I undertake not to publish or cause to be published or to disseminate
to any person outside British Government employment any of the information
which I have given to the British authorities, either orally or in writing, and
relating to the involvement with the K.G.B. (Committee for State Security in
the U.S.S.R.), either in the U.S.S.R. or elsewhere, of any national of the United
Kingdom, Australia, Canada, France, the United States of America, Belgium,
Holland, India, Pakistan, and Mexico.
2. At the same time I voluntarily transfer to the custody of the British
authorities any of my personal papers, or photographs thereof, which refer in
any way to K.G.B. operations involving nationals of the aforesaid countries.
3. It is understood as between the British authorities and myself that nothing
in the foregoing should be taken to mean that I may not publish, or cause to be
published, information relating to the activities of the K.G.B. against Soviet
citizens either in the U.S.S.R. or elsewhere.
4. I undertake not to publish, or cause to be published, any information re-
lating to the K.G.B. without first consulting with and obtaining the agreement
of the British authorities concerned.
[SEAL] Signed by the said YURI KaoTKOV.
In the presence of Charles Wentworth.
Dated the fourth day of March 1965.
5. For their part, the British authorities concerned themselves undertake not
to publish or cause to be published or disseminate in any way the contents of
the papers and/or photographs handed over by Yuri Vasillyevich Krotkov.
6. The British authorities concerned give an assurance to Mr. Krotkov that,
subject to what is said in paragraphs 1-4 of this Agreement, they will not at any
time attempt to exercise control over Mr. Krotkov's literary output.
[SEAL] Signed by
In the presence of Charles Wentworth.
Dated the fifth day of March 1965.
Mr. KARLIN. And the second document is the very same. It gives
me freedom I would say, because it is written here that from this time
I am free and I can move myself, and they even paid me 100 pounds
to be happy.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/W1 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. SOURWINE. The 31st day of December 1965. May this also
the record?
Senator THURMOND. It is so ordered.
(The information follows:)
DECLARATION
Yuriy Vasiliyevich KROTKOV, otherwise known as George MOORE, other-
wise known as George KARLIN, on the one hand and Charles WENTWORTH,
British Government official, on the other hand jointly D E C L A R E that on the
thirty-first day of December 1965, the following agreement was reached between
them :
1. That with effect from the thirty-first day of December 1905 the financial
and other support which the British authorities represented by Charles WENT-
WORTH have been giving Yuriy Vasiliyevich KROTKOV will end.
2. That the sum of #160 handed to Yuriy Vasiliyevich KROTKOV at the time
of the signing of this declaration represents the final payment to be made by
the said British authorities.
3. That from the thirty-first day of December 1965 Yuriy Vasiliyevich
KROTKOV will no longer be under an obligation to consult Charles WENT-
WORTH before undertaking work or travelling abroad.
The parties further D E C L A R E however that nothing in this agreement
alters in any way the undertakings as to non-disclosure without prior consulta-
tion of certain matters set out in a document signed by Yuriy Vasiliyevich
KROTKOV on 4th March 1905 and by a representative of the British authorities
on the 5th March 1965 and these undertakings will continue to be faithfully
observed.
As witness the hands of the parties this day of 31st December 1965.
[SEAL] Signed by Yuriy Vasiliyevich KROTKOV.
In the presence of D. SHERBORNE.
[SEAL] Signed by Charles WENTWORTH.
In the presence of D. SHERBORNE.
Mr. KARLIN. And the third document shows their reaction when
I made a manuscript without names. They said that that is not enough.
They said it must be paraphrased more, more and more, to make prac-
tically a fiction.
Mr. SouxwINE. They were requiring that you submit an edited ver-
sion before you take it to any publishers?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you do that in every instance?
Mr. KARLIN. Not exactly.
Mr. SOURwINE. That is, you took material to publishers?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, particularly this manuscript without names, with-
out real facts, and the result was ... these letters.
Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, we have here first in order in which I hold them
a letter to-let me just characterize them by headings and ask that they
all go into the record at this point.
Letter of February 3, 1966 on the letterhead of the Pall Mall Press,
Ltd., letter of March 28, 1966 on the letterhead of William Heinemann,
Ltd., letter of May 12, 1966 on the. letterhead of William Heinemann,
Ltd., letter of July 13, 1966 on the letterhead of Johnson Publications,
Ltd., letter of May 5, 1967 on the letterhead of Macmillan and Co., Ltd.,
letter of January 16, 1968, on the letterhead of F. P. Dutton & Co. of
New York, all of the others being London firms.
May these all go in the record?
Senator THURMOND. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
(The information follows:)
THE PALS. MALL PRESS LTD.,
London, February 5,1966.
Mr. GEORGE MooRE,
86 Lynton Avenue,
London, N.W.9.
DEAR MR. MoomE: I have read the typescript on "Diplomats in a Trap" and have
also shown it to Mr. Praeger. I regret that we are unable to publish it. It is an
interesting personal story, but it is too introspective, in the literary sense, for
our kind of publishing. When you discussed the book with me first I thought it
would prove to be a "straight" study of the Soviet system for dealing with
diplomatists in Moscow. It is, however, more of a subjective than an objective
study. I found it very interesting, since personal impressions are always in-
teresting; but it is not the kind of book which we publish. I do hope you have
success in placing it with another publisher.
Yours sincerely,
WILLIAM HEINEMANN LTD.,
PUBLISHERS,
London, March 28, 1966.
Y. KAZLIN, Esq.,
Poste Restante,
Malaga,
Spain.
DEAR MR. KAZLIN : I have read your manuscript with great interest and have
told your agent that I would like to keep it on one side before making a definite
decision until your first book is fully edited and ready to go to the printer. Your
second book needs a great deal of cutting and there are various aspects concern-
ing the wisdom and possibility of publishing it in its present form which we
cannot discuss by correspondence.
I have been working very hard on an American publisher in London with
regard to your first manuscript and I think there is a good chance that he will
make an offer for it. The editor who has worked on it has now completed his
textual revisions and it is now being worked over by one of my resident editors.
With kindest regards frommy wife, son and myself and I hope you are enjoy-
ing your vacation.
Yours sincerely,
WILLIAM HETNEMANN LTD.,
PUBLISHERS,
London, May 12,1966.
Mr. Y. KARLIN,
Poste Restante,
Malaga, Spain.
MY DEAR YURI : Thank you for your letter of 28 April.
I think it is not essential for Peter Sellers to see the translation into English
of your play as for him to get an idea of the approach and what it is about. That
is to say, sell him the idea first, which Ishall try to do when I meet him.
Your first book is in the hands of an execellent editor here who is preparing
it for press. At some point we shall probably have to send you a list of queries
on questions of fact, etc.
As for the Diplomats book, I returned this to Mark Hamilton, telling him that
I could not consider it until I have clearance from the appropriate authorities
here and Mark is dealing with this at the present time.
I have not seen the film Dr. Zhivago but in general the reviews said that it was
not very well directed, as very colourful but did not really capture the depth of
the book.
With kindest regards from all of us.
Yours,
ROLAND GANT.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/22019: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
JOHNSON PUBLICATIONS LIMITED,
Mr. CARLIN, London, July 13, 1966.
732 Chelsea Cloisters,
Sloane Avenue, London S.W.S.
DEAR. MR. CARLIN : I have, since seeing you, had the opportunity of making
enquiries as to how I could help you with your manuscript "DIPLOMATS IN A
TRAP" and I am sorry to say that I have a disappointing report.
I had hoped at first that there was some way of getting past the undertaking
which you had signed, but apparently, as far as I can tell within the limits of my
own contacts, there is not ; and I am dubious whether you are going to have
success in whatever direction you take the matter up.
This would mean that anybody undertaking your manuscript would have an
exceedingly ex;,ensve ,,r at ng . nve;,inicut with only small prospects of obtain-
ing a financial return. This latter would naturally, as you will appreciate,
depend on the degree of publicity which could be obtained from the book in our
larger national papers, and, speaking from my own experience of some years
in the publishing business, I would say that the chances of obtaining this would
be small in existing circumstances.
It is accordingly with regret and apologies that I have to say that I am unable
to help you and I have no alternative but to return your manuscript with thanks
for letting me see it.
II am posting this to you to Chelsea Cloisters under separate cover.
You'rs sincerely,
DONALD MCI. JOHNSON.
MACMILLAN & Co., LTD.,
London, May 5, 1967.
GEORGE KARBIN, Esq.,
Crossthwaite Ave. Post Ofce,
London, S.W. 5.
DEAR MR. KARBIN : We have now read your manuscript, DIPLOMATS IN
MOSCOW and have found it a readable and interesting account. I am afraid,
however, that we will not be able to make you an offer for publication as we
feel it would not really fit on to our list.
I am returning the manuscript to you with our apologies and hope that you
will find a pubisher for it. What applies to one publisher does not necessarily
to another and I hope this may be so with your book.
Yours sincerely,
E. P. DUTTON & CO., INC.,
PUBLISHERS,
Mr. GEORGE KARLIN (Your KROTKOV), New York, N.Y., January 16,1968.
D. Anine, Radio Liberty,
Arabellastrasse 18,
Munich 8, West Germany.
DEAR MR. KROTxov : We have now had an opportunity to read DIPLOMATS IN
MOSCOW and I am sorry to say we do not feel we can make an offer for it.
We found the manuscript confused and filled with too much small detail.
We do suggest that you let us send the manuscript to your agent here in New
York, Brandt & Brandt, rather than returning it to you in Germany, as it would
be far easier for them to make further submissions for you than for you to do it
yourself.
Sincerely,
(Mrs.) PEGGY BROOKS, Editor.
Mr. SOURWINE. Does this represent the totality of the efforts you
made or are these only the letters that you happened to keep and have
copies of that you could give us?
Mr. KARLIN. Almost.
Mr. SOURWINE. Were there others?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
210
Did you make other efforts where you do not happen to have the
letter?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. I sent my manuscript without names to a German
magazine, Der Speigel, and again there was the same negative answer.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you send your manuscript to any publisher in
the United States?
Mr. KARLIN. Only to Dutton because I have had an obligation. They
had an option right, they published my previous book.
Mr. SouRwINE. Your previous book was "The Angry Exile."
Mr. KARLIN. In America it was titled : "I Am From Moscow."
Mr. SouRwINE. "I Am From Moscow."
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. Dutton published it here?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. I never heard of that book before. It must not have
been very well advertised.
Mr. KARLIN. I amn afraid so.
Mr. SOURWINE. I)id it have much of a sale?
Mr. KARLIN. No; I guess only 700 copies were sold.
Mr. SOURWINE. How did "The Angry Exile" sell ?
Mr. KARLIN. Very badly, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. In England?
Mr. KARLIN. I expected it.
Mr. SouRwINE. Did it get good rev' . ews?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes and no. Simply, the British authority didn't want
to advertise me knowing that it was a political matter. MI-5 totally
controlled my publication, they organized it, even, I guess they fi-
nanced it. Let me tell you this : There was a special advertising depart
ment in Heinemann, headed by a Canadian gentleman, and he did
nothing to advertise me-nothing.
Let me tell you another things, sir : I was introduced by MI-5 to
the literary agent Heath Co., a couple of weeks before they dealt with
Heath Co. and they brought me to them and they related with me in
an absolutely special way, it was not a normal way. No question
about it.
My relation with Heineman was under the control of this li+erary
agent and they wanted to control me every time in every move. When
once I told them, all right, you do not want to do now anything with
this manuscript without names, I would do that myself and I would
send it to some American publisher. They said : "No, no, you cannot
do that, because you have this agreement." When we have been all
together round a table, MI-5's men told the literary agent, two of
them, they knew it before of course, that there is such an agreement,
this one which I have showed you.
And then I think all that was done by MI-5, because when they
asked me to write my biography, for the jacket. I mentioned there
among the countries which I visited being outside of the U.S.S.R.,
among Japan, India, Spain, Germany, the United States. In the jacket
all those countries were mentioned except the United States.
That is when I realized that they controlled my publication.
Mr. SouRwINE. Did you, after your return from the United States,
after your 6 months or so here, did you seek to return to the United
States?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
211
Mr. KARLIN. Oh, yes.
They wanted to control all my steps, all my relations with Ameri-
cans, and therefore it was possible for me at that time to send letters
only through MI-5.
Mr. SOURwINE. The British -would not let you send letters direct?
Mr. KARLIN. Directly?
Mr. SOURWINE. Yes.
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SoURwINE. How could they keep you from dropping such a
letter in a post box?
Mr. KARLIN. I did not know the addresses, but still I tried to com-
municate. Still I knew that Jack Raymond was in Washington. I even
have bought his book and I wanted to call him, of course, but they
told me it is better to do that later, but later I was taken to England.
I sent a letter to Jack Raymond. I went to the New York Times
Bureau in London and I asked the address of the Washington Bureau
and I sent a letter to Jack and I got an answer.
Of course, I could not at that time open everything to Jack Ray-
mond, but he immediately sent me an invitation to come to the United
States, and he wrote, go to the American Embassy in London, show
them my invitation and apply for the visitors visa.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, I did it, and result was as you see in my papers.
I got a refusal.
Mr. SOURWINE. By refusal you mean this letter of January 6,1966?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SoURwINE. Addressed to you ?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURwINE. Reference is made to your pending application for
U.S. visa. You have been found ineligible and so forth?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. May this go in the record, also, Mr. Chairman?
Senator TIIURMOND. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The information follows:)
EMBASSY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
London, W.I., January 6, 1966.
Mr. GEORGE KARLIN,
86 Lynton Avenue,
London, N.W.9.
SIR : Reference is made to your pending application for a United States visa.
You have been found ineligible for a United States visa under the provisions
of section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. This
finding, which was made only after a most careful review of your case, has been
affirmed by a panel of senior consular officers and must be, considered final.
Very truly yours,
GORDON R. FrRTIi, Ameridan Consul.
Mr. SOURwINE. But without the attached copy of excerpts from the
Emigration and Nationality Act and the Information and Educational
Exchange Act of 1948.
Senator TIIURMOND. So ordered.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever try to go to Canada?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
After my relation with the British Secret Service was deteriorated,
I wanted to go out of England by any price. I thought about the sec-
ond "defection." I could not defect back to Russia o t hhr Q~ tp
ApprovettiEor - e.20.Q5/11 /21 : CIA-RDP73B002969R00050U140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/212 CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Albania, but I repeat : I tried to go out of England. I visited many
embassies, and among them the Canadian. I wanted to emigrate to
Canada, and I filled all those forms. I passed even medical examina-
tion, and they told me everything is going well, and even I have had a
letter from the Canadian Broadcasting Co. They invited me to work
in the Russian section. Then something happened. I can guess what
happened. I got from the Canadian Embassy the same answer I got
from the American Embassy.
Mr. SOURWINE. You have handed me two letters here, both addressed
to you at the same address, carrying different dates, one under date
of June 10, 1966, and the other one dated June 20, identical in text
but different signatures.
Mr. KAOLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOUR-WINE. Under each signature is the same typed text, officer
in charge, London office.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. But the signatures are quite obviously different.
Mr. KARLIN. I guess they wanted to be sure, you know. They sent it
twice, because contents is the same.
Mr. SOTRWINE. May these also go into the record?
Senator TIIURMOND. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The information follows:)
DEPARTMENT OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION,
OFFICE OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONER FOR CANADA,
London, W.1., June 10, 1966.
Mr. G. KARLIN,
75 Kew Green,
Richnnwnd, Surrey.
DEAR MR. KARLIN : This refers to your application to emigrate to Canada.
Your application has been given careful and sympathetic consideration, and
it is with regret that we must inform you that you are unable to comply with the
requirements of the Canadian Immigration Act and Regulations.
In the circumstances, you should cancel any arrangements you may have been
making to proceed to Canada for either temporary or permanent residence.
A record is maintained of the persons who have been refused permission to go
to Canada. This is brought to your attention now so that you will understand
that if you attempt to enter Canada you could encounter serious inconvenience
and deportation.
Yours very truly,
J. A. HUNTER,
Officer-in-Charge, London Office.
JUNE 20, 1966.
Mr. G. KARLIN,
75 Kew Green,
Richmond, Surrey.
DEAR MR. KARLIN : This refers to your application to emigrate to Canada.
Your application has been given careful and sympathetic consideration, and
it is with regret that we must inform you that you are unable to comply with
the requirements of the Canadian Immigration Act and Regulations.
In the circumstances, you should cancel any arrangements you may have
been making to proceed to Canada for either temporary or permanent residence.
A record is maintained of the persons who have been refused permission to
go to Canada. This is brought to your attention now so that you will under-
stand that if you attempt to enter Canada you could encounter serious incon-
venience and deportation.
Yours very truly,
J. A. HUNTER,
Officer-in-Charge, London Offce.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
213
Mr. SOURWINE. You are presently in the United States under a
90-day parole granted by the Immigration and Naturalization Service
on the basis of this committee's request so that you might testify before
the committee.
Before you came were you in contact with any American publish-
ing company, any U.S. publishing company?
Mr. KARLIN. There I have only one "case" I would say. But it
started not by my initiative.
I got a letter from Muenchen, from the Radio Liberty and in the
envelope was another letter from the Reader's Digest Washington
Bureau, from John Baron. In his first letter he said that, well, the
Reader's Digest decided to make
Mr. SOURWINE. You have a number of letters.
Mr. KARLIN. Here I have all of them.
Mr. SOURWINE. Do these letters tell the whole story?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Wouldn't it be better to let the letters go in the
record
Mr. KARLIN. Of course it would be better, sir.
Mr. SoURwiNE. Instead of you telling us what they say?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURwINE. We have letters of July 10 to Mr. Krotkov, from
Mr. John Baron. We have a letter of July 22, 1969, addressed to Mr.
Karlin from John Baron, a July 29, 1969, letter to Mr. Karlin from
John Baron.
This is an unsigned letter.
Did you get it unsigned?
Mr. KARLIN. He forgot to do it and in the next letter he mentioned
this.
Mr. SOURWINE. We have a letter of July 30 to Mr. Karlin from
John Baron.
Mr. KARLIN. I would not call it a letter. I think it is a composition.
There are so many pa es, here.
Mr. SOURwINE. Well, it is a note. This is on one page.
Mr. KARLIN. The last one.
Mr. SOURWINE. Then we have a letter of August 6, 1969, which is
quite lengthy, 5 pages to Mr. Karlin from John Baron simply signed
"John."
May all of these go in the record at this point?
Senator TIIURMOND. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The information follows:)
Mr. YURI KROKTOV,
Radio Liberty,
8 Munich 81,
Arabella Strasse 18,
West Germany.
THE READER'S DIGEST,
WASHINGTON EDITORIAL OFFICE,
Washington, D.C., July 10, 1969.
DEAR MR. KROKTOV : The Reader's Digest currently is sponsoring a worldwide
research project preparatory to publishing a major book along with condensa-
tions and articles in numerous languages. As you have expert knowledge of the
subject in which we are interested, I would be most grateful if I could confer
with you in the hope of obtaining the benefit of your insights and counsel.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/14: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Should you be free, I would like to come to Munich sometime within the next
couple of months. If you can, advise me of the time which would be most con-
venient to you, we may then proceed to make specific arrangements. I very much
hope I may hear from you and have the pleasure of visiting with you.
Mr. GEORGE KARLIN,
Posterestante, Malaga, Spain.
DEAR MR. KARLIN : I am grateful for your thoughtful letter, and I can appre-
ciate your reasoning. However, the project with which I am entrusted is so im-
portant to fundamental causes in which we both believe that I feel I must impose
upon you further.
From this distance, it is difficult to explain the precise details of our under-
taking, though I should be glad to do so in a personal meeting. I can say that
the project will culminate in a major book and numerous magazine articles
which will be published in 13 languages throughout the world. It concerns the
activities of an organization you know especially well. You thus are in a posi-
tion to afford the world, through this project, some vital insights into the men-
tality and methods of this particular organization.
I welcome your recommendation regarding the gentleman in Great Britain.
But our research persuades us that it is you who at the moment can contribute
the most. Thus. I very much hope you will reconsider and consent to talk with me.
even if you can spare only two or three days.
Geography poses no problem. I can meet with you any time, anywhere, under
any conditions you consider desirable. Our project is not being undertaken for
commercial purposes, and there is no way we really can compensate monetarily
the many people, with backgrounds such as yours, who are providing invaluable
assistance. However, we do pay experts such as yourself an honorarium in the
form of a consulting fee of 75 U.S. dollars per day. We of course also would pay
all reasonable food, lodging and travel expenses which you might Incur as a result
of our conferences.
For me It would be-an honor to meet and confer with you. I would come well
prepared, and I am sure our deliberations would be enjoyable as well as con-
structive. So please let me hear from you again.
Best regards,
Mr. GEORGE KARLIN,
Posterestante,
Malaga, Spain.
DEAR MR. KARLIN : I am delighted by your letter and very much look forward
to meeting you in Vienna. If you desire, I will be pleased to send you immedi-
ately 150 U.S. dollars to defray your travel expenses. Otherwise, I will pay them,
together with your honorarium, in cash when I see you. Should you prefer the
expense money now, please advise me whether it may be transmitted in the form
of a check drawn on a U.S. bank and, if so, to which name the check should be
made payable.
The arrangements you propose are quite expert. However, to make sure that
we have a minimum of difficulty in getting together, let me suggest a simpler
procedure. Within a few days, I will send you the name of the hotel at which
I will stay. At 0900 hours August 25 I will be standing in the lobby of that hotel,
wearing a brown suit, a yellow shirt and carrying a copy of Time magazine in
my left hand. You will approach and the following conversation will occur :
You : "Excuse me, but didn't we meet at London Airport last year?"
Me : "No, I don't believe so. I haven't been in London for years."
You : "Perhaps it was Tempelhoff."
Me : "Yes, now I remember. Good to see you again."
I will leave Washington August 23. If prior to then you find that you are
unable to meet me in Vienna on the 25th, please write or cable me collect at my
office here. If subsequent to August 23 you find that you cannot keep the appoint-
ment as scheduled, call me collect at the hotel, the name of which I will give you
shortly. I am certain that I can keep the appointment as planned. But should
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
215
circumstances unexpectedly arise to delay me, I will contact you in Malaga or,
if it is too late to do so, I will address a letter to George Karlin, American Ex-
press, Mail Department, Vienna.
If the foregoing arrangements are acceptable, please let me know. We will
have much of great mutual interest to discuss and I am sure we will enjoy the
conversations.
Best regards,
Mr. GEORGE KARLIN,
Posterestante,
Malaga, ,pain,
DEAR MR. KARLIN : It occurs to me that I should add a postscript to my letter
of yesterday.
Let me stress that we should confer in the city or locale which is most con-
venient to you. Vienna is excellent, but I hope you did not select it out of consid-
eration for me (I only wanted to go to Munich to see you). But we just as easily
could meet in any city you prefer-Lisbon, Madrid, Barcelona or any other place
you would like to visit. We of course would still pay the same travel expenses.
My point is that I do not want to impose upon you any more of a burden than is
necessary. So if it would be easier for you to travel to a city other than Vienna,
please let me know, and we still can follow the procedures I outlined yesterday.
Otherwise, I will look forward to seeing you in Vienna on the 25th.
Incidentally, please forgive me for not signing my letter yesterday. I was so
eager to reply that I slapped it into an envelope as soon as the secretary typed it.
Best regards,
JOHN BARRON.
Mr. GEORGE KARLIN,
Posterestante, Malaga, Spain.
DEAR MR. KARLIN : Many thanks for your good letter.
I will leave Washington the 22nd and arrive in Vienna the 23rd. I have a
reservation at the Inter-Continental Hotel (but I will not know the room number
until I actually register). On the chance that you might arrive early, I will be in
the lobby at 0900 on the 25th waiting for the greeting I outlined. If I do not
receive it, I will again be in the lobby at 1700. If necessary, I also will be there
at 0900 and 1700 on the 26th. Should your plans change prior to the 22nd, please
cable or call me here. Should they change after the 22nd, please communicate
with me at the Inter-Continental.
It will be .a delight to visit with you. With luck, maybe we can find a few good
restaurants in Vienna. I really look forward to seeing you.
Best regards,
Mr. GEORGE KARLIN,
A. & J. Mader,
Deutschwatdstrasse 10,
3002 Purkersdorf,
Austria.
DEAR GEORGE: Yesterday I returned to Washington, having thought much dur-
ing the past five weeks about your circumstances and our conversations. Both
personally and professionally, I would like to help you in any way I honorably
can. In this spirit, I want to share with you conclusions born of considerable
reflection.
First and foremost, I think you must be removed from the abyss of human
isolation in which you have been confined. You deserve the fellowship and stimu-
lation of friends, a free environment in which you can create and write books-
not just the one which now lies dormant, but many more as well. Certainly you
require an environment in which the best medical care and prospects of good
health are assured.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/316: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Secondly, I fervently believe that your book should be published, and the sooner
the better. However, it would be folly and self-defeating to throw it into print
simply to have it in print. To withstand the considerable and devious attempts
which surely will be made to discredit it, the book must have the imprimatur of
a prestigious and courageous publisher. It merits a publisher willing and able
to provide effective promotion. Ideally, the publisher also should be capable of
affording that kind of editorial counsel which, without encroaching upon the
integrity of the book or deleting anything it must say, can assist an author in
more persuasively communicating with a Western audience. As previous efforts
to achieve such publication have failed, it is only logical that new and different
attempts now should be made.
Thirdly, I know that your help would contribute significantly to our project
and fulfillment of its underlying purpose, a purpose to which we both are
dedicated. And I am sure that we can perfect a clear, honest working arrange-
ment which will enhance rather than detract from the success of your book
and at the same time perhaps simplify your entry into the United States or
another benign clime of your choice. Your book and ours are not competitors
but allies. Through cooperation we can ensure that each will reinforce and
magnify the impact of the other, even though they are entirely and funda-
mentally different.
Our project must reveal, characterize and narrate a wide range of activities
which are equally important if we are to convey a definitive understanding of
the primary subject. Because of this necessity for diversity. because of the
volume and variety of stunning data already amassed, we cannot dwell limit-
lessly on any one activity to the exclusion of others. Although it would be
foolish rigidly to impose artificial space limitatitons, the practical fact is that
there must be reasonable restrictions on the number of pages we can allocate
to any particular activity. Therefore, we could not possibly exploit in our book
all that yours will disclose, nor would it be fair for us to attempt to do so.
Neither could we possibly duplicate the perspective, passion, style, detail and
intensely personal insights which are uniquely yours and which will distinguish
your work from all others.
However, if we could narrate in some detail just one or two of your experi-
ences while merely summarizing or making mention of others, we would achieve
numerous mutually beneficial results. Research thus far has yielded us quite a
few recent and excellent examples of the special activity with which you are
most familiar. However, with the exception of one startling case unearthed
through Canadian sources, none involves personalities or consequences as signi-
ficant as those about which you know. And we need to demonstrate through at
least a couple of concrete examples that the powerful as well as the ordinary
can fall prey. More important, most of our data in this realm have been gathered
from the "outside," from the view of the victims. To make our accounts more
believable, we need to present at least one major illustration from the view of
the predators.
To you, I. think such an approach would provide some major advantages.
On the basis of material already written or assembled, we earnestly believe
that our book will he critically acclaimed and that it will stand for years as a
definitive work. But regardless of its intrinsic worth, we know that because of
our editorial, promotional and distributional resources, it will be widely read.
Through it you can receive a favorable, sympathetic and intriguing introduction
to a mass audience. Having learned something of what you are prepared to say,
readers in many lands will be eager to hear it all.
Next we will clearly state that we have recounted only a portion of your ex-
perience; that the complete story will be told in your own words in a forthcoming
book of your own. This will help provide the kind of publicity which, like it or
not, for better or worse, often means the difference between a good book being
read or ignored. True, Lyons' references to your first book had no effect on its
sales. But these references were merely passing ones, and they were made well
after publication of your book which, incidentally, has been so poorly marketed
as to be virtually unobtainable in the United States (it took me .four weeks of
diligent inquiry before I finally located a copy through a New York mail order
house). The advertisement must precede publication, but not by too many weeks.
Timing is critical.
The milieu you are describing is so alien to most Westerners, the events you
are recreating are so spectacular that you are confronted by a problem of credi-
bility with both potential publishers and readers. The quality of our research
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
217
department and its practice of ensuring the accuracy of all we say are well
known among American publishing circles. It happens that because of independ-
ent research, we will be prepared and willing to say to any prospective publisher
that we believe what you are saying. And the fact that we publicly embrace you
as a source will constitute further endorsement, to publisher and reader alike, of
your reliability.
Beyond all this. I personally desire to assist in helping you find a publisher
who will serve the best interests of you and your books. Here, though, we have
a problem which we should consider candidly.
In fairness to each other, I do not think that I ethically can read your manu-
script, at least not until the section of our book concerning which I seek your
help has been finished once and for all and approved by you. We of course never
would plagiarize or consciously appropriate from the work of another author.
But no matter how sincerely we tried, it could be difficult to avoid being uncon-
sciously influenced by the style, imagery and artistry of your writing which
belongs to you and you alone. Thus, the question is, how may we help you by
recommending and showing your manuscript to our own publishing company
or to any of the many others with whom we regularly and amiably deal? I
suggest this answer :
Let.us sit down and talk for a week or two, freely, easily, exchanging questions
and answers without any reference to the manuscript. During these conversa-
tions we precisely can define and agree upon what we may and may not use.
Next, I will go away and write the chapter with which we are concerned, includ-
ing the other material already collected. To make certain of accuracy in nuance
as well as fact and proper portrayal of you, we will then ask you to review all
we propose to publish based on our conversations with you.
After the content and wording of the chapter have been unalterably deter-
mined, we will arrange for your manuscript to be delivered directly to our book
publishing subsidiary, Funk & Wagnalls. As a result of our prior intercession,
it there will receive the most sympathetic consideration. If Funk & Wagnalls
agrees to publish it under terms acceptable to you (no publisher incidentally, is
more generous with authors), publishing schedules can be timed so as to provide
maximum benefits to your work. If you and Funk & Wagnalls fail to reach a mu-
tually acceptable agreement, then we will arrange for the manuscript to be sub-
mitted to other reputable publishers and inform them of the publicity and tacit
endorsement we intend to give It.
I can and do guarantee all of the foregoing. I cannot guarantee what the ulti-
mate results would be. But to me it is professionally inconceivable that under
such conditions your book would not be published and not be a triumphant suc-
cess. And although I again am unable to prophesy with certainty, I personally
think that once you are depicted as we are ready to depict you and once you have
made the great contribution your book will represent, your path into the United
States will be greatly eased.
As for practical details, if you are to visit the United States in the near future,
it doubtless would be preferable to confer here. But I believe it would be im-
prudent to wait indefinitely, trusting helplessly to capricious fate. And I stand
ready to meet you anywhere any time between now and December 10. (We
naturally would insist upon paying your expenses as well as the consultant fee
of $75 per day.)
Meanwhile, all other considerations aside, I would be pleased to do anything
for you personally in Washington which I can do. My work endows me with
access to almost anyone, so do not hesitate to call upon me. Neither should you
hesitate frankly to ask any question or raise any issue which troubles you.
I hope I may see you soon, and I look forward to that eventual time when you
will sit before my fireplace surrounded by good company and all that goes with it.
My very best regards, JOHN.
P.S.-I hope you are enjoying Vienna. As you know, there are a great many
of your old friends there.
Mr. SouRwiNE. I note that these letters indicate that you did meet
with Mr. Baron and talked with him.
Mr. KARLIN. That is correct.
Mr. SouRwINE. Would you tell us about that?
Mr. KARLIN. I met him in Vienna (Austria). I got the first letter
being in Spain.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
218
Then I went to Vienna and he came there- specially to see me.
The Reader's Digest wanted to use my stories, particularly the
French case, in its publication.
Mr. SouRwINE. He told you this?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, he told me and he said that he would write my
story and he told me that it is a way for me later to publish my book.
Mr. S0uRWINE. How did he know about the French case?
Mr. KARLIN. Well
Mr. SouRwINE. Did you tell him about the French case?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouRwrNE. Or did he know about it before you told him?
Mr. KARLIN. No, he did not know it before, I guess.
Mr. SouRwINE. Did the know about any of your experiences?
Mr. KARLIN. Well, he knows, he said that he knows that I am a
unique person. It is even mentioned
Mr. SouRwINE. I am not talking about what is in the letters. We have
those in the record now.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, but he repeated something that was written in the
letters.
Mr. SouRwINE. Did he say anything to you
Mr. KARLIN. What?
Mr. SouRwINE (continuing). That indicated to you that he knew
about your experiences?
Mr. KARLIN. I would say yes, but generally talking. He underlined
that his knowledge came not from Eugene Lyons, whom I knew before,
and who was on the Reader's Digest staff. He gave me a hint that he
got it from a different source.
Mr. SouRwINE. Did he tell you the source?
Mr. KARLIN. He mentioned in some way the Russian emigrant or-
ganizations.
Mr. SouRwINE. Did he tell you what he knew about your previous
experiences?
Mr. KARLIN. He knew that I had a relation with the KGB, and an
important one. I think he knew that I was a co-opted. man.
Mr. SouRwINE. Did he know you had been in the United States?
Mr. KARLIN. No, I do not think so.
Mr. SOURWINE. So you talked with him about some of your particu-
lar cases?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir, we discussed some of them.
I realized that he is a specialist in this area, that it is his subject,
because he mentioned that he met another defector, he told me even
that after Vienna lie would go to Paris, then to London, and he said
that he had two really big sources. One is me and another someone in
Canada, he did not name him. So I realized that he is really a man who
is dealing with all this job.
But I told him I can't give him my stories to be published under
someone's name. I said those stories could be published only under
my name.
Mr. SouRwINE. I will show the witness a single sheet which con-
tains an invitation, copy of an invitation in French extended by the
Ambassador of France to Yuri Krakov and ask you if that is an
invitation which you received?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
219,
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you go?
Mr. I ImN. Yes, I went there.
It was Bastille Day.
Mr. SouRwINE. This was during the period of your relationship
with Ambassador Dejcan?
Mr. KARLIN. It was the last period of our relation. It was in-what
is the year there?
Mr. SOURWINE.1963.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SoURWINE. We have here a document of six paragraphs in
Russian.
What is that?
Mr. KARLIN. That is my writings, sir.
Can I cross it?
Mr. SOURWINE. Just tell us what it is.
Mr. KARLIN. When I produced all those films, I put this invitation
together with something different in one page.
Mr. SOURWINE. This is, then, a copy of a print from your original
microfilm?
Mr. KARLIN. Correct, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. So that the paragraphs I spoke of area part of your
manuscript?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. And you had space at the bottom of the page and
you put this invitation ?
Mr. KARLIN. Right.
Mr. SOURWINE. Is this also a part of your manuscript?
Mr. KARLIN. It is one of my reports of my meeting with Kau],
when he came to Moscow as the Ambassador.
Mr. SOURWINE. That is 3 pages of a 4-page excerpt, is it not?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. There are three of them all together. One report
is 1 page, another 2 pages.
Mr. SOURWINI:. Are these part of what you brought out?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. In microfilm?
Mr. KARLIN. That is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. These are actual reports, copies of actual reports
that you made to the KGB?
Mr. KARLIN. Right.
Mr. SOURWINE. May these go in the record, Mr. Chairman, in Eng-
lish translation with the Russian text being considered a part of the
record by reference?
Senator THURMOND. VGjthout objection, it is so ordered.
(The information referred to may be found in the subcommittee
files.)
Mr. SOURWINE. We have here six pages.
Is this also Xeroxed reproduction of a print or prints from part of
your microfilm?
Mr. KARLIN. It is correct, sir; it is the real document of the KGB.
That is what I got from them when they decided to produce the
documentary movie about the happy life of foreign diplomats in
Moscow.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
220
Mr. SOURWINE. In this country we would say this was the docu-
ment setting the terms of reference for your mission.
Mr. KARL IN. The KGB gave me it because there are many real names
of the foreign correspondents, of the diplomats, whom they wanted
to be shown in this movie.
Mr. SouRwINE. Mr. Chairman, may this be translated into English
anu oi?ut1.eu iii1.U uiie recoru at ;iris point'4
Senator THURMOND. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The information referred to, in the Russian language, may be found
in the subcommittee files.)
Mr. SOURwINE. With the original, this document I now hold in my
hand, considered a part of the record by reference.
I have nothing more at the moment, Mr. Chairman, except the text
of the article, A Letter to Mr. Smith, which has been referred to
earlier. I think you told us that this was written by you and had
been published in the New Review.
Mr. KARLIN. Correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. In 1967?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. And this is the English translation.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Was it published in English?
Mr. KARLIN. No, that was not, unfortunately.
Mr. SOURWINE. That was published in Russian ?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SounwINE. And this is an explanation of how you came to
write "John, Soldier of Peace."
Mr. KARLIN. Correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. May this be admitted into the record as an appendix?
Senator'THURMOND. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The article referred to will be found in the appendix, p. 235.)
Mr. SouRwINE. I have no more questions at, this time.
Senator THURMOND. Do you have any questions?
,Mr. NORPEL. No.
Senator THURMOND. The hearing is recessed, subject to the call of the
Chair.
(Whereupon, at 3:55 p.m., the subcommittee was recessed, subject
to call of the Chair.)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KARLIN
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS
OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to recess, at 10:35 a.m., in room
2300, New Senate Office Building, Senator Strom Thurmond presiding.
Also present : J. G. Sourwiine, chief counsel.
Senator THURMOND. The committee will come to order.
I remind the witness he is still under oath.
Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Karlin, last Friday, I showed you something
from the New York Times of November 21, a news story by James F.
Clarity, special to the New York Times, dated Moscow, November 20,
and printed on page C-3 of the Times under the 3-column head, "'-67
Defector, Back in Moscow, Accuses Britain."
Mr. Chairman, I ask that this clipping may go in the record at this
point as a part of the record.
Senator THURMOND. It is so ordered.
(The document referred to follows:)
[From The New York Times, Nov. 21, 1969]
'67 DEFECTOR, BACK IN Moscow, ACCUSES BRITAIN
(By James F. Clarity)
MOSCOW, Nov. 20-A Soviet newsreel cameraman who defected to England
nearly two years ago said today that he had returned to the Soviet Union for
nostalgic and political reasons.
The 56-year-old defector, Ivan Mikheyev, also said his life in England had
been replete with "horrors" that included inability to find permanent work and
attempts by British intelligence officers to get him "in the net" with their "sticky
hands."
Mr. Mikheyev, who asked for asylum in England while visiting with a group
of film technicians in December, 1967, sat on the stage in the auditorium of the
Soviet Journalists Club looking thin and pale as an official of the Foreign Affairs
Ministry read a statement for him.
The Foreign Ministry, which arranged the meeting, had urged correspondents
from Western and Communist nations to attend. After his statement had been
read, Mr. Mikheyev said hoarsely that in England he had lost his voice and most
of his teeth and that his nerves had become "ill."
Mr. Mikheyev also said, during a question-and-answer period, that The Daily
Telegraph of London was a "department" of the British intelligence service and
also had ties with American intelligence operations.
The British Broadcasting Corporation, the returned defector said, also had
connections with British intelligence. He said he was too weak of voice to offer
detailed proof of all his assertions, but that the B.B.C. had reported disclosures
he had made in private conversations with British intelligence officers.
(221)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 :~%A-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Mr. Mikheyev's only elaboration of his remark about American intelligence
operations in England was that "the Americans financed" radio stations there.
He also said that Anatoly V. Kuznetsov, the Soviet writer who defected to
England in July, had been given the same "workover" by British intelligence
agents that he himself had undergone. Mr. Mikheycv said he had tried to meet
Mr. Kuznetsov in London but had been told by British authorities that the
writer was "too busy."
The cameraman said he had defected because he wanted to determine whether
there was freedom of the press and speech in the West.
"Two years ago," he said, "I exaggerated the mistakes and shortcomings of
my country. I was making elephants out of flies." He said he had also been
having "troubles" with one of his supervisors at the film organization for which
he worked in Moscow.
Mr. Mikheyev said he had rejected attempts by British intelligence officers to
persuade him to "slander" the Soviet Union. Such slander, he said, was the sole
means for a Soviet emigrant to earn a good living in England. He worked as a
cameraman briefly for the Columbia Broadcasting System in London, he said,
but was told that his work was inadequate. He blamed the camera he was given
to use.
Mr. Mikheyev said that he had later worked as a streetcleaner and dishwasher.
He said he returned to the Soviet Union on Oct. 8 because of "nostalgia for the
fatherland" and his love for his wife and two sons, who had remained here.
"You can't talk about democracy in Great Britain," he said. "There is not
democracy for everyone there."
`Sick Man,' Telegraph Says
Special to The New York Times
LONDON, Nov. 20-Ivan Mikheycv was "a very sick man who found it
impossible to settle down in Britain," according to The Daily Telegraph.
"He was in such difficulties this year that even those who befriended him and
tried to help him agreed that it was wiser for him to return to Russia," the news-
paper writes in tomorrow's issue.
"Last summer he was involved in a serious motor accident in which two persons
were gravely injured. Had Mikheyev remained in this country he would have
faced prosecution."
There was no official comment from the British Broadcasting Corporation, but
an official said informally: "We're not worried about charges like these. We're
rather inured to this sort of comment."
Mr. SOURWINE. I asked you if you would read that and think about
it and be ready to discuss it when you came back this morning. Are
you ready to discuss it?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURWINF,. Go ahead.
Mr. KARLIN. I knew this man, Ivan Mikheyev. He was a cameraman
and I met him two or three times in Moscow before I defected. I
would not be able to tell you much about him at that time. But later,
when he defected, I had been in London-I never met him in London,
because I tried every time to avoid any recent defectors; but of course,
there was some discussion around him and someone told me about him.
From the very beginning, I knew that lie wasn't in good health, that
there was even such a suspicion that maybe he had a cancer.
Then I heard in my visits to London that his relation with MI-5
wasn't good. They also quarreled. He worked firstly somewhere, and
then lie lived as an unemployce, having only 6 pounds help weekly. He
had one room somewhere and lie was totally depressed. Some other
Russians wanted to help him, to visit him, and to talk to him.
When I have been last time in London, someone told me that he is
in very desperate condition and there is a real knowledge about his
cancer.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
223
When I went to Spain I found, in a Russian emigre newspaper
published in Paris, his articles. 1n a month's time or 2 months time,
there were, I guess, three or four of them; and the articles were, I think
brilliant.
Mr. SouRwINE. Written-by this cameraman?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, written by this cameraman, Ivan Mikheyev, under
his real name, three or four of them. They were very sharp, very
knowledgeable and very active, I mean very active in a way to be anti-
Soviet, anti-Communist articles, in one of which, for example he de-
scribed all what happened when he went to Mongolia with the Central
Committee Secretary Suslov. He was in the party delegation as a
cameraman.
He said many sharp and correct words about Suslov and all his
company you know. It means that he was in Moscow on the top level,
that he was among the cameramen who would be in with the Govern-
ment and party leaders. In London I have heard that he could not
work for BBC because he was not qualified enough and so on. But I
don't think that was correct.
Mr. SouRwiNE. You mean the position he held in Moscow was so
high, he was so highly regarded there that you are unable to credit
the thought that he was not an able enough man to hold a good job
for the BBC?
Mr. KARLIN. Correct, sir; I really think it is wrong that he wasn't
qualified and so on.
Well., now how to explain why he took this fantastic, from my point
of view, absolutely fantastic step, to defect from Russia to England
and then to defect from England back to Russia? Isn't it a phenom-
enon ?
I think still the explanation could be that-there couldn't be just one
reason. Maybe several reasons. It is complex. It could be, one of the
most important things, his psychological condition.
The basic thing from my point of view is this : There is a question
about a defector who came here by ideological reasons, first of all, and I
would call him a real defector, because the people who probably would
come here to make money to be here rich, they can do themselves. But
the ideological defectors, of course, need assistance and I think the
number one assistance and help, has to be political, ideological, moral,
and intellectual.
Mr. SouRwINL. You are talking about something other than food
and clothing and shelter?
Mr. KARLIN. That's correct, sir.
I think the food and clothes and so on, important. But it is not such
a big problem. His articles showed that he had something valuable in
his brain.
Mr. SoURwINE. When you say, "he," you mean Mikheyev?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir. He wanted-let me use this banal word-to
fight and it is not a banal word for a man who defected by ideological
reasons. That is the first necessity, to feel that you have some partner
who represents the West, but not the Philistines.
I know that your society is pretty complicated one, very contradic-
tory society with many different groups in it. But there is CIA, and
MI-5, whom I met. I met only them in my first period of being 'here.
I'm sure among them there must be some specially devoted people who
would really help defectors, who would be their partners.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/2124C1A-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
We need partners. Coming to the West, I knew that I would be alone
here, but if I would be additionally without even these people who
would be able to help me, who would, well, think in rather the same way
I am thinking, I would collapse. It is inevitable thing.
There are in your society, so many powerful people who want to
crush defectors, voluntary or involuntary. There must be someone who
would defend us, first of all, spiritually, ideologically.
Let me give you an example. I am sorry to say about myself, but-
it probably will give you still some explanation why Mikheyev did it.
Still I am a writer and I came here to write freely and I wrote many
things.
Among these things there were many short stories, satirical short
stories.
They were published in the Russian emigre newspapers. But, of
course, I need the Soviet people will know about my stories, be-
cause they are first of all for them, for my people. I came here with
an idea to have a place from which 1 would be able to talk to my people.
Now there is Radio Liberty. Sponsored by you Americans. It is a big
machine with colossal equipment, and money, of course.
Now, when I came there, I said : "I want to talk to my people."
They gave me first an opportunity to do that. But then I couldn't.
I'm fighting for each of my short stories, because there is in Radio
Liberty one Russian emigre who didn't like them. An old man, he left
Russia in 1920. I'm sure the Soviet life is something totally alien for
him.
Probably lie's an administrative worker, but he cannot make a deci-
sion about my short stories. Nevertheless he refused to accept them.
When I asked him to explain it he simply said : "Well, we haven't an
obligation to explain this to you."
Even now, if it wouldn't be me, if it would be Mikheyev, his reaction
could be different; he would be upset, he would be depressed, you
know. And it could be a moment which would put him in this tragical
way to go back.
Then, I think, there is another important point. What I mean is
the relation between two groups of emigrants, one Russian, the old
one and the new one. Well, I think there is something absolutely ab-
normal, even tragical in the regards to this relation.
They don't want to cooperate one with another. They are trying to
crush one another.
Mr. SOURWINE. Whom do you mean by "they"?
Mr. KARLIN. Let's take the story about Kuznetsov, and Belinkov,
these two up-to-day Russians-very capable writers. When they came
here, they wanted to be active to fight. But in newspapers, one after
another, there were published articles against them.
Mr. SoURwINE. Articles by whom?
Mr. KARLIN. Articles written by different, preferably old, Russian
emigrants. From my point of view, they create an atmosphere which,
if a defector is not strong like Mikheyev was, well reading these arti-
cles, he could come to the following idea, "I left my country, I don't
want to be a millionaire here, I need only to express myself but they
blame me here."
There are other Russians who carne to the U.S.A. 20, 25, 30 years ago.
They are "Americans" now; they call us KGB people. Some of them
say : "You must go back to the U.S.S.R. because there is the place for
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
,225
you to fight, you must be like Solzhenitsyn," and so on. It is a total mis-
take, because in the U.S.S.R. there is a colossal area of struggle, there
has to be a different way to fight. One could stay there, if it's possible,
and work there, that would be good. Another could go out. A third
could even kill himself. There are different ways to protest. It is
impossible to talk about only one way for everybody.
'Solzhenitsyn's way, is a great one but not absolutely the only one.
I'm sure there is someone who use these Russian emigrants. I guess this
second article confirms it.
Mr. SouxwINE. What do you mean by the second article?
Mr. KARLIN. The article which was published in the Washington
Post November 24 by Richard Reston. He is the Los Angeles Times
correspondent.
Mr. SOURWINE. That is on page A-3 of the Post?
Mr. KARLIN. A-3, yes. There is an article about another Russian
writer, Andrei Amalric, A-m-a-l-r-i-c.
Mr. SouiiwIwE. Is that a Russian name?
Mr. KARLIN. It is not a typical Russian name. I never heard such
name.
Mr. SouRWINE. Is it an Armenian name?
Mr. KARLIN. It is a strange name. No, it is not Armenian, no. Prob-
ably some Baltic name, Amalric. I'm not sure of it.
Well, still, I think there is no explanation how his letter came to the
West, you know. From my point of view, an idea of this letter is to kick
Kuznetsov, to show him that his way to fight against the Soviet system,
is not correct. According to Amalric the correct way is to be in the
U.S.S.R. and to do something there. Amalric said it very crafty.
It is a very important declaration which was done in a pretty crafty
way, I repeat.
\Ir. SouRwINE. Well, this article purports to be an exhortation to
other Russian intellectuals to refuse to cooperate with the KGB,
doesn't it?
'Mr. KARLIN. Yes, what he said was said for the Western society.
Mr. SOURWINE. Do you think such pan article as this could have been
published in the Soviet Union?
Mr. KARLIN. No. It's impossible.
Mr. SouRwINE. This is referred to as an open letter to Kuznetsov?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Ordinarily, an open letter is published, is it not?
Mr. KARLIN. It has to be, theoretically
Mr. SouRwINE. You say this open letter could not have been pub-
lished in the Soviet Union?
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SouRwiNE. Therefore, it must have been published outside of
the Soviet Union. It is not for local consumption.
Mr. KARLIN. I'm sure they gave it to some Western reporters. Which
channel they used, how they did it physically, I don't know.
[r. SouRwINE. In this case, it may very well not be a bona fide plea
to intellectuals in the Soviet Union
Mr. KARLIN. Right.
Mr. SouRwINE. But actually, a KGB piece of propaganda to make
the Western World think there is intellectual freedom in Russia and,
at the same time, discredit Kuznetsov and other defectors.
- Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
226
Mr. KARLIN. I think your explanation is correct. I think it would be
good to try to put all these together. Last week, last month-let me say
in a period of the last 2 or 3 months-there were many articles, in the
Western newspapers as well as in Russian emigrant ones, were pub-
lished on this subject. Of course all of them were collected by the KGB.
And they realized that there is now useful stream for them here.
Maybe it has happened here spontaneously, among Russian emi-
grants, or it was organized Eby the KGB agents.
Still, they decided to accelerate this "stream." Amalric's letter could
be one of their action.
11417. SOURWINE. If this were an open letter, it would have been made
available to all correspondentsat least, wouldn't it?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. We don't know, of course, where they did it, but it is
significant that this article in the Washington Post is by Richard
Reston of the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. KARLIN. That's right.
Mr. SoURwINE. Now, the Washington Post has its own correspond-
ents, there, it has its own bureau in Moscow?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. It also has access to international wire services, both
national and international?
Mr. KARLIN. Correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. This would appear to indicate that this is an ex-
clusive story by Mr. Reston of the Los Angeles Times.
Mr. KARLIN. Strangely enough, lie didn't say any word how he got
this letter. He didn't give even a little hint of it.
Mr. SouRwINE. The story does not carry anything to show where he
got it?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Or to indicate that it was printed in Russia?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. If this document were given to Mr. Reston, if he
were the only correspondent who got it, even though it said on its face,
"Open Letter," it is not in fact an open letter, is it?
Mr. KARLIN. No, it is not an open letter, of course.
By the way, I worked for the Soviet Informational Bureau, which
later was reorganized into the Agentstvo Novestiy, N-o-v-e-s-t-i-y.
Mr. SOURWINE. How do you spell Agentstvo?
Mr. KARLIN. A-g-e-n-t-s-t-v-o.
Mr. SOURWINE. Meaning agency?
Mr. KARLIN. Agency, yes. The same office under different title. All
the staff now is basically the same too.
I remember in my time, and I guess it exists now, such a system.
Having representatives all over the world the Soviet Informational
Bureau distributed all its articles free among foreigners, because it
was a propagandistic job.
Mr. SOURWINE. You mean TASS?
Mr. KARLIN. No, I mean the Soviet Informational Bureau, that. is to
say the Agency Novosti.
Mr. SouRwINE. They would not distribute it through T ASS ?
Mr. KARLIN. No ; they have their own channels.
Mr. SouRwINE. How would they distribute it in this country? Would
they give it to American correspondents in Moscow?
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21A-RDP731300296R000500140002-0
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, they would. Then I think they have their repre-
sentatives here-probably under the Soviet Embassy. There are cul-
tural attaches or press attaches, ,and they could be in the same time
representatives of this agency.
Mr. SOTRWINE. In this country, there is not much likelihood that
something issued by the press attache of the Moscow Embassy would
be printed except as coming from that source, is there?
Mr. KARLIN. It's correct.
But I think they use every possible way to give foreign correspond-
ents their materials. It could be done in Moscow as well as here.
Of course in Moscow, if this Richard Reston was there, he could ask
them, being honest and objective men, whether that letter was pub-
lished somewhere or not because for his story it would be so important
to mention that this letter was published firstly in one of the Soviet
publications.
Mr. SOURWINE. Does this article say-l--
Mr. KARLIN. What?
Mr. 'SOURWINE (continuing).-where the Russian Amalric is sup-
posed to live?
Mr. KARLIN. No, nothing said about it. Whether he is from Moscow
organization of the Union of Writers * * * Here is something written
about his book, you see
Mr. SouuwINE. It doesn't say how the letter is circulated?
Mr. KARLIN. There is nothing about this.
Look here, now, two of Amalric's books are about to be published in
the West, under the,title, "Can the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?"
and "Involuntary Journey to Siberia." The simple question arises :
How this manuscript came here. He is still there in Russia, Amalric.
After many people, like Seniavsky, Daniel were presecuted.
Mr. SOURWINE. How could Mr. Reston know they're going to be pub-
lished in the West?
Mr. KARLIN. Well
Mr. SOURwINE. Did Mr. Amalric tellhim?
Mr. KARLIN. In his article, nothing said about it.
Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, I ask that the text of this article be
included in the hearing as an appendix. It is fairly long, but should be
available to those who want to read it.
(The article will be found in the appendix p. 257.)
Mr. KARLIN. If you will permit me to say there is another impor-
tant point of view, which probably will give you additional explana-
tion of so-called. second defection of Ivan Mikheyev. Well, I'm not sure
that in your country, that is the same system, but in England, all
recent new defectors, usually when they're coming to London and
granted political asylum, they can et only a very special and pretty
restricted document, this one which- I have now with me. During all
these 6 years, I have only this document. That is a stateless
document-
Mr. SOURWINE. You're talking about your own identification?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. All of us who travel, have the same document, the
certificate of identity with every possible restriction. One cannot go
anywhere without visa and one feels himself awfully having this
document.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 8CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
22
From my point of view, it really upsets defector, when he is coming
here, from "prison," and still-well, feels that he has another
"prisoner's" document. This document really upsets a person.
Mr. SouRwINE. Do you have a desire to change your own status from
that of a stateless person
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
'Mr. SotRwINE (continuing).-to some other status?
Mr. KI.nr.IN. Yes, sir. I tried to do it many times- -when I left Eng-
land, I tried to do that in Spain, tried to do that in Austria, tried to do
that very actively in Germany. I needed to have different document,
and I know there are different documents.
I would be very happy, for example, if it would be possible for me to
become the American stateless. And I hope
Mr. SouRwlNE. You mean you would like to be a permanent resident
of the United States?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir. And I heard that your stateless, the defectors
who defected to the United States, they have different documents. Six
years I am with this, I'm sorry to say, this brown document which
upsets me. I think the same thing happened with Mikheyev.
Mr. SOURwINE. Well, after more than 5 years following your defec-
tion, you would be eligible for the status of permanent resident in the
British Isles, would you not? In England?
Mr. KARLIN. No sir. Because-I didn't want to stay in England and
this whole period, I have been out of England, using my tourist's visas.
Each 3 months, it was necessary for me to go back to London to get
another 3 months tourist's visa. But still, under their legislation, it is
necessary to live in England, in England, physically, 5 years.
,Mr. SouRwINE. What you're saying is that you do not want a British
permanent residence?
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SOURWINE. You do not want just any permanent residence, you
want a permanent residence in the United States?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes ; I want it now.
First of all, I don't know whether I want really to have a citizen-
ship. Still I am Russian, and its too late to be British or another
nationality. But I would like to have a good, the best stateless docu-
ment sand the condition of life as a stateless. Therefore, I didn't apply
for British citizenship.
Still, I had it very "black" time in England, and that ,is my personal
reason. I didn't want to stay there.
Now I want to add this. The American officers who are responsible
for the Liberty Committee, the institute of the study of the U.S.S.R.,
the publishing houses-I think they have to check all previous general
policy in the way to shift it a little bit. I guess the time passed,and all
these very valuable, old Russian emigrants could be used now. not on
the top position. They are capable men, valuable in the past time, like
Weidle, Adomovich-they are known here.
But now, when you're making for example the radio program for
the Soviet Union, first of all you must mention Kuznetsov, Belinkov,
Finkelstein, Matusevich--those who are here in the Western society,
Svetlana Alilueva, let me say-because we are known there; in the
U.S.S.R. Proportion must be different.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/2 CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
23
What is the proportion now? There are 80 percent, these known here,
famous in the past, but they of course lost the feeling of today's Russia.
No one would be able to keep it for so long. Therefore, I think it must
be now 80 percent of the new people just defected from Communist's
countries, and 30 percent of the old Russian emigrants.
When I said about the proportion, I think all is in American hands.
They regulate jobs in Radio Liberty for instance and they can order
this or teat. Unfortunately it happens very seldom. Practically every-
thing are there in the hands of old emigrants. Let me say that Mr.
Tuck-Robert Tuck-I think he is a very good administrative worker.
But unfortunately, his Russian language is poor enough to be a judge,
to keep control in his hands.
If you are a boss, if there is some hesitation or different opinions, still
someone coming and saying, listen, Mr. Tuck, what is your decision
now-you must physically read the script and say, good or bad. But
Mr. Tuck's Russian language is not good enough to do it. That is a
problem.
Therefore, he is calling Mr. Bachrach, and he practically is a judge
and he makes a decision.
Bachrach's Russian language is good, but he left country in 1920, he
is old and totally unqualified person.
He said to me one day I cannot read those awful Russian news-
papers. Well, they are awful, it is true. But his job is to read them. If
he wouldn't do it, he wouldn't know what's going on.
From my point of view, for Mr. Tuck it would be best thing to
make a decision himself, or to have absolutely qualified and absolutely
modern up-to-date Russian assistants in Muenchen.
Mr. Tuck uses Bachrach because he is obedient and there could not
be any quarrel with him but it is not for the interest of the job.
Let me say to you this : I'm sure that no one from the Radio Liberty
really tried to use Mikheyev as script-writer or as an announcer, when
he worked in the restaurant and washed dishes, or worked as a door-
man.
He is a cameraman with a high education, he is a cultured man. He
would be really good and would be excellent for the Radio Liberty.
I repeat I'm sure no one from the Radio Liberty called him, really.
Why not?
Mr. SoURwINE. You're talking not about fawning over defectors but
about using them?
'Mr. MARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SoURwINE. Do you think more should be done to bring together
the different ideological defectors from similar countries? That is,
should more be done to bring 'together those who have, for ideological
reasons, left Russia,and come to the West?
Mr. MARLIN. Yes, sir, I think 'about this. Recently even, well, there
is no way for us, defectors as me, as Muznetsov, and Belinkov and
others-out of sphere of literature and art, I thought why not try to
do something ourselves. Why not put our little money together and
organize a publishing house, and publish ourselves only for the Soviet
people.
While I thought about this, I knew I was stupid.
Why? Because I knew there pare such publishing houses and Amer-
icans pay money for this. One is in Rome and there is another here in
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
230
New York. They publish late philosopher Berdyeev, Weidle, Struve,
Adomovich, and so on. Out of necessary proportion. I'm sure we need
to shift existing proportion, I repeat, to publish 70 percent of the
newcomers and to leave 30 percent for Berdyeev and others.
I'm sure that very few people who want to fight the Soviet system
would agree to be guided by Berdyeev's mystic philosophy for ex-
ample. Of course, there are many people, religious people, who would
like to read him and who follow him, but they are not majority, they
are small minority. It's a side line, not the central one. No question
about it.
Hence, it is necessary to publicize Berdyeev, but only according to
the situation which exists now in the U.S.S.R. Because the really im-
portant "stream" is the Kuznetsov's one.
Mr. SouawINE. Understood.
I)o you have anything to add?
Mr. KARLIN. No, that is all.
Senator TnuzMoxn. We shall recess subject to call of the chair.
(Thereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the subcommittee recessed, subject to the
call of the chair.)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
TESTIMONY OF GEORGE KARLIN
U.S. SENATE,
SUBCOMMITTEE To INVESTIGATE THE
ADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITY ACT
AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY,
Washington, D.C.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:40 p.m., in room 155,
Old Senate Office Building, Senator 'Strom Thurmond presiding.
Also present : J. G. Sourwine, Chief Counsel.
Senator TIIURMOND. The subcommittee will come to order.
You may proceed.
Mr. SOURWINE. If you will swear the witness, Mr. Chairman, please.
Senator THURMOND. If you will hold up your right hand.
The evidence you give in this hearing shall be the truth, the whole
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, Sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. Would you give the reporter your full name.
Mr. KARLIN. George Karlin. K-a-r-l-i-n.
Mr. SOURWINE. You have testified at length before the subcommittee
before?
Mr. KARLIN. Correct, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE. Now, you have recently told us of a matter that you
had not remembered when you testified before.
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. This concerns a man named Ruzhnikov, R-u-z-h-n-i-
k-o-v.
Mr. KARL IN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. What is his first name?
Mr. KARLIN. Evgeniy, E-v-g-e-n-i-y.
Mr. SOURWINE. E-v-g-e-n-i-y ?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. When did you first know this man?
Mr. KARLIN. This was in-when I met him?
Mr. SOURWINE. Yes.
Mr. KARLIN. This was in 1947 when I was in Germany with the KGB
mission.
Mr.,SoURWINE. And what was he doing?
Mr. KARLIN. At that time he was a captain in the military
intelligence.
Mr. SOURWINE. GRU?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Soviet military intelligence?
(231)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
232
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SouxwINE. What was he doing in that capacity?
Mr. KARIN. He was in the office in Potsdam. That time his office was
in Potsdam. I don't know what was his real position, but he was a
captain.
Mr. SouRwINE. Yes.
Mr. KARLIN. And he was among our delegation once when we had a
guest visit to the British Zone-yes, that was the British Zone the
English Zone of Germany, and there was a Soviet correspondents
group I guess, six or seven newspapermen, and he was among us.
'Mr. SOURWINE. Was he then posing as a newspaperman? That was
his cover?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes. And we were, some of us were told about that to
create the good condition for him to make his job-
Mr. SolRwINE. Did you know him as an agent of the Soviet military
intelligence?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, I knew that he was, because I was told by my
superior that he is the
Mr. SouawINE. Was Mr. Ruzhnikov told about you, do you know?
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SOURwINE. Do you know whether he was told about your
position?
Mr. KARLIN. I don't know that.
Mr. SOURWINE. You do not know. So you did not talk
Mr. KARLIN. I doubt it.
Mr. SouRwINE. You did not talk with Ruzhnikov
Mr. KARLIN. About all that?
,Mr. SOURWINE (continuing).-as one agent to another?
Mr. KARLIN. No, never.
Mr. SoURwINE. But you knew him?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Knew who he was?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SOURWINE. Did you talk with him?
Mr. KARLIN. Sure.
Mr. SOURWINE. And you were told by your official superior
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SouxwINE (continuing).-that he was then a captain in the
GRU-
Mr. KARLIN. Yes, sir.
Mr. SOURWINE (continuing).-using a newspaperman as a cover?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Mr. SoURwINE. Now, where is he now ; do you know?
Mr. KARLIN. He is now in the United States.
Mr. SouRWINE. What is he doing?
Mr. KARLIN. From American newspaper I get his name. He is the
assistant director in the Soviet exhibition.
Mr. SOURWINE. The Assistant Director of the Soviet Exhibition of
Photography?
Mr. KARLIN. That is correct.
Mr. SOURWINE. That's the exhibition that came first to Washington?
Mr. KARLIN. Yes.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
233
Mr. SouRwiNE. Thereafter to make a tour of the major cities of the
country?
Mr. KARLIN. According to the newspaper.
Mr. SOURWINE. From what you know of the operations of the Soviet
intelligence agencies, in order to hold a position of this importance
after having once been an officer of the GRU, he would have to
maintain good relations with the GRU, would he not?
Mr. KARLIN. I guess so.
Well, actually many years past, and I know many things happened
in his life during that time, because he came back to Moscow, he left
military service and I think he started to work in Moscow Radio. I
remember I met him once-he had some trouble. He made some illegal
things. He wanted to get additional money in Moscow Radio, and there
was some unpleasant things for him-there was a danger for him to
be even expelled from the Communist Party. Then everything was all
right.
Then he married. Then he changed his profession. He became the
architect. And I think he tried to go abroad.
Many years passed, of course-I didn't relate with him so close in
Moscow.
'Mr. SoURwINE. Was it your assumption because of these many
changes in occupation and circumstances that he continued to be
working for the GRU?
Mr. KARLIN. I can only guess here ; I would say that it is almost
impossible, really, not to continue this job. If you started it in some
way, you will continue if the office wants it. That is the case-if you
will break it, by your own initiative you will be out of life.
Mr. SoURwINE. You have not personally seen him or talked with him
in this country?
Mr. KARLIN. No.
Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know anything about him that you haven't
told us?
Mr. KARLIN. 'Only one thing when I was in the U.S.A. in 1964, the
English officers send a cable here to ask me to write a letter to Ruzh-
nikov because he had to come to England among some delegation. They
had his application for a visa. Earlier I told the British people what I
know about him and they asked me to write it letter which will give
them a pretext, probably to see him in London and to talk to him.
They wanted me to write a friendly letter. I did it, being here in the
United States.
Mr. SoURwINE. For the British?
Mr. KARLIN. For the British.
Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know what result-
Mr. KARLIN. I don't know what then happened. I know he didn't
come to England at that time.
Mr. SouRwINE. All right, sir.
I have no more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator THURMOND. Thank you.
(Thereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the testimony in the above matter was
concluded.)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
A LETTER TO MR. SMITH
of why and how I wrote my play
JOHN-SOLDIER on PEACE
By Yuri Krotkov
(Copyright by The New Review 1967)
A NOTE CONCERNING THE AUTHOR
Late in 1963 the Moscow playwright, Yuri Krotkov, arrived in London as a
tourist and decided to stay in the West. In the course of his literary work in the
Soviet Union, where lie was a member of the Union of Soviet Screenwriters, he
wrote several movie scripts, and in 1949 lie wrote John-Soldier of Peace, a play
about life in contemporary America and Paul Robeson, the singer and well-known
communist.
During the three years that Mr. Krotkov has spent in western countries he has
written a book about everyday life in the Soviet Union entitled The Angry Exile,
which will be published in London by Heinemann and in New York by E. P.
Dutton. His memoir, The Pasternaks, is being translated into English, as are a
series of satirical scenes entitled Stalin, and stories under the collective title of
Candid Heroes.
The text here is an open letter to an American to whom he gave the name of
Mr. Smith.
DEAR MR. SMITH : Your question went straight to the bull's eye. I need not tell
you perhaps that the answer to it could be given more glibly were I back in the
Soviet Union ; I could hand you a bunch of lies such as: "I wrote the play John-
Soldier of Peace as a form of protest against the reactionary policy of the Ameri-
can imperialists." That would be all, simple and clear, and the question would
be completely covered. But now that I have taken the fatal step out of one
world into another, and am on "this" side of the so-called Iron Curtain, the an-
swer is much, much more complicated. After all you are practically asking :
"Why did you shoot at us?" and I cannot for a moment question its validity.
Now I must give you a completely honest and straightforward reply.
I warn you that I am not going to vindicate myself ; I have lived a life which
even if I wished to I cannot defend. But I shall try to dig down into the past of
ten years and more ago ; and make a slight rent in the veil covering the inner
world of a Soviet writer.
It seems to me that the story of the writing and staging of my play, which is
a rather arbitrary and ephemeral phenomenon, nevertheless can serve as a piece
of litmus paper to show up the main bases on which Soviet literature and art are
founded.
Despite the number of serious changes which have taken place in the USSR
in the last years, these bases, alas, have remained essentially unaltered. There-
fore I go as far as to say that what happened in my case in 1950, when my play
was produced with such success at the Pushkin Theatre in Moscow, could have
happened to any Soviet writer in 1960, and may happen even in 1970.
You will probably remonstrate and say : "What about the new generation of
rebels? What about the daring people like Paustovski, Solzhenitsin, and Tvardov-
ski? Have they not broken away from the old bases?"
Putting my small play aside one can discuss all Soviet literature, especially
of this present period of complex cross currents. Yet, to begin with, I must
disillusion you in this case because I am not an analyst or literary pundit ; it
is difficult for me to control my human emotions, to sort out and pigeonhole
(235)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
236
various phenomena. Secondly I want to clarify for you only the spiritual charade
which, to my way of thinking, does not apply to certain individuals, not to the
great ones like Pasternak (even though the sum total of such individuals, living
and dead, does represent Soviet literature regardless of passing tendencies) ; the
wheel of history, God willing, may be turned by them to include the typical
great mass of Soviet writers, even the mediocre and run of the mill "engineers
of human souls." And in my country they are to be numbered not in the
hundreds but in the thousands.
Yet I can attempt to answer you only in that form because I myself was one
of them. My crossing over to the West added nothing to me, I have not been
transformed into a hero or fighter-this is only the sad end of my personal
life ; I have been given freedom and lost my country. However, if I were in your
place, I would risk trying to look for an answer to your question, if only a par-
tial one, and even in this tragic fact.
But now let its turn to the charade : You have, of course, heard of Dr. Zhivago.
I trust you have read it although for any foreigner I fear it is very difficult to
appreciate this brilliant achievement. It is by far too Russian. There is no
psychological entertainment in it. In Dr. Zhivago the writer's heart bleeds, it
is the life of a whole people. Pasternak, for example, describes an episode in
which his hero, Yuri Zhivago, an educated man who derives from an aristocratic
environment, is held by the Reds. He shoots at the advancing Whites and he
knows that he is shooting at his own side.
Let us pass over the fact that this episode in Pasternak's novel was an his-
toric fact during the Civil War in Russia ; let us concentrate on the inner aspect
of the incident.
Does it not seem to you, Mr. Smith, that in our day many shoot at their own
side? And does it not occur to you that this is because the lives of many of us
are psychologically deformed, because for example among the Reds there were
Whites, among the Whites Reds, all of whom had been projected into such posi-
tions through no will of their own, and still others who were forced to change
color, or lie, or shoot at their own side? (Of course I am using the terms Red
and White in their broadest sense). And can you not envisage the possibility,
Mr. Smith, that having been thus deformed one might become accustomed to it
and even enjoy it?
Perhaps I was shooting at my side when I wrote John-Soldier of Peace.
Naturally I cannot, nor do I wish to, call you Americans my own people. This
would be absurd and even laughable. We are quite different. I am a Russian, you
are Americans. There is a substantial difference here. In many ways we are
opposites, although I have always had a strong feeling of sympathy towards you,
and although I have always thought and still think that if there are likenesses
between nations, then Russians and Americans are closer than any to each other
in nature, temperament, tendencies. By the way, when I was asked here in the
West where I would prefer to live,.I instantly replied : the United States ! Not in
England because I do not understand either the country or the people, but in
the United States.
Please, Mr. Smith, do not think that I am trying to ingratiate myself with
Americans. Believe me I am not wagging my tail at you to make an impression.
it's too late for that. Besides, I am proud of being a Russian and shall never
admit that any other nation is superior to mine.
However all these matters of sympathy, tendencies, temperaments and so on
are in general rather worldly conditions. There are things of greater import. You
Americans are freedom loving, you do not brook spiritual dogmas or bonds. It
is those qualities which above all draw you potentially close to Russians, para-
doxical as that may sound. In this I would like to claim you as my own people.
Thus, for better or worse, we are now on the same side of the barricade. I can
see you shaking your head and muttering. "Oh, you Russians ..." What do you
have in mind? , Perhaps you would like to ask right out, for instance, how it
happened that whereas I walked past the inaccessible (to me) American Em-
bassy in Moscow and inwardly, as it were, saluted it in the name of human free-
dom ; still I voluntarily (perhaps I should put that word in quotes), wrote a play
obviously aimed against the country which symbolizes that same human freedom?
If you have the patience to hear me out I think I can make it all clear to
you. But before that I am -obliged to make a small excursion into the past.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
237
When I came to Moscow in 1936 I met Leo Vermishev. This name will mean
nothing to you. But he was a spiritually outstanding man, later arrested as an
"enemy of the people" and murdered by it shot in the head in the course of being
cross examined. Every young person with any luck will sooner or later meet,
during his formative years, a person like Leo. It was he who aroused my interest
in things I had up to that time known nothing about. To some degree lie in-
fected me with it taste for literature, he recommended books, not just Tolstoy,
and Pushkin with whom I had long since been familiar when I lived at home,
but other writers "on the index" : the Russian symbolists Gumilyov, Tsvetayeva,
and half-forbidden writers like Baudelaire and Oscar Wilde.
A process of broadening my consciousness gradually took place. New concepts
of human life were opened. The world was no longer fixed within the frame-
work of proletarian aesthetics, dialectic materialism, or other such dogmas.
Probably this eventually decided my fate in its last stage after passing through
various, none too praiseworthy, metamorphoses. One of them might be described
this way : I think that basically, if covertly, albeit cowardly, I was always a com-
plete White. Nevertheless I cannot deny that I was seriously attracted to com-
munism; it seemed like a worthy and just concept. Yet the greater my accumu-
lation of experience in life, the more I was confronted by realities, the more fre-
quently I was forced to polish up this concept, the more tarnished it became.
In the early days I argued quite sincerely with Leo. He very gently, simply
and clearly insisted that literature and art can never be "weapons" of propa-
ganda on behalf of this or that political idea ; that they belonged in a higher
category, above party and government for the purpose of giving meaning to life.
I paraded the Young Communist League line of talk about how in present cir-
cumstances everything must serve the purpose of rebuilding society ; literature
and art belong to the people and the people were on the road to it new life.
I talked and talked and, at the time, I believed what I was saying.
Beginning with 19:37 I started to write. My first scenario, The Train to Gori
was accepted by a Tiflis motion picture enterprise (Goskinprom). After that I
wrote a drama called Professor kopadze and both the scenario and the play were
concerned with the burning questions of the day as voiced by Stalin-on the
theme of "enemies of the people." The scenario was about a boy who saved a
trainload of workers on it holiday trip to Gori, the birthplace of the Great Leader.
Of course he betrayed his own father who planned to wreck the train. There was
even an Anglo-American intelligence agent bent on getting an "honest Soviet
scholar" into his clutches.
I wrote and I wrote, compulsively, even perhaps unconsciously, and believed
in what I was doing.
If you care for anecdotes, here is a relatively fresh one which came to mind
perhaps because it is about as old as I am : A Soviet writer rushes into a hos-
pital and demands an eye and car specialist. He is told that they are separate
specialists, but lie insists he wants the one doctor because he is suffering from it
new illness : he hears one thing but sees another.
This anecdote could be surely applied to me in the years about which I am
writing. Of course I saw what was happening all around me and realized that
Stalin was pushing through his reforms at the price of the people's blood.
Everyone saw that. The difference between theory and practice smelled to high
heaven. To be sure we did not rush to hospitals, we did not complain. No, on the
contrary we said : Hooray !
I was young then. I explain a great deal, a great, great deal by that fact. I
wanted to live, avidly, I wanted to be involved in action. I sought recognition,
fame, and I tried not to think what recognition and fame really meant. This
inner dualism and literary opportunism was probably due either to unexpressed
gifts, or lack of gifts, such as really break a man inwardly despite his will.
This may seem monstrous but at one and the same time I worshipped Chekhov
and wrote rot. But it was well paid, it seemed to be required by the people, it
was praised in the newspapers, it was given Stalin awards, all done on it grand
scale. And from it depended the physical well being of a writer. In time it took
on a legitimate coloring and proportions as part of life.
I was a small cog in a huge machine. But already I was enjoying having suits
made to order by a fashionable tailor and that cost a lot of money. I enjoyed
taking good looking girls to expensive restaurants. There were compromises
to be made from the start of my literary activities. I wrote nothing of my own,
nor did I write for myself, or, as they say nowadays, under the counter. Any
sense of truth was only a glimmer off to one side. The shade of Leo did disturb
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
238
me at night, in moments when I was frank with myself. But that did not happen
often. I even envied my comrades who, as time went on, grew into rockbound
Communist writers, of the type of Gribachev, Kochetov, Sofronov, because they
were not disturbed by anything. I indulged occasionally in self-flagellation, but
that was all.
I was faced with a massively concocted "truth" and I very nearly came to
believe that it really was the truth.
Do you know what it means to be involved in the manic distortion of reality.
To be in a flood during a hurricane? Isn't that what happened to the whole
of the German people under Hitler? You have to hand it to Stalin, that past
master of terror and demagogy ... he knew how to distort or twist reality and
the Soviet bureaucracy right now is rather homesick for that art.
I lived year after year without ever touching the depths of existence. I
skimmed lightly over the surface of what was artificially created, falsified,
colored. It was simply unthinkable that there was any force used to infect mil-
lions and millions of people with the idea that this was anything but the very
best culture in the whole wide world.
The opening of my eyes, the growth of my own individuality held so long in
the icy grip of terror, developed slowly, indeed very shyly, with one step for-
ward, then withdrawal, and fading away.
The most terrible thing of all, deadly to all ideals, was the deceptive triumph
of material success, a success of this kind is baneful, artifical-all pretense. It
made a man forget how to be straightforward, how to listen to his conscience,
it freed him of all obligation to subject himself to strict and merciless self-
judgment. Success, enhanced by fear, was many faceted ; it embraced every-
thing, reassured one, bucked one up, yet it was so much part of daily life, as
was the terror, that it also kept one submissive. There was too, as part of the
fear, the herd or hive instinct and this derived perhaps from insufficient in-
dications of individual personality-all of which led to the degeneration, the
break up of any native gifts and brought out new hitherto unknown traits of
human nature.
Thus two beings were housed inside me or, to be more precise, one was dying
out yet coming back to life from time to time, whereas the others, once aroused,
began to thrive.
In 1950, when my play was produced in Moscow, I unexpectedly found myself
listed with the top three famous, and venerated Soviet dramatists : Nikolai
Pogodin, author of the anti-American piece Missouri Waltz, Boris Lavrenyev,
author of the anti-American play Voice of America, George Mdivani, author of
the anti-American play People of Good Will. Now I was added to them with
my anti-American play : John,-Soldier of Peace.
All three previous plays were widely appreciated in the Soviet theatrical
market place.
The subject of John was drawn from an incident which was said to have taken
place near Peekskill, in your country, Mr. Smith, where, according to press
dispatches and the writings of Howard Fast (then a communist), racist hoodlums
attempted to lynch Paul Robeson.'
In my play Robeson is called John Robertson. The central idea was formulated
in a rather stereotyped political mold; the great, but exploited American people
rallied around a Negro singer, who was a fighterfor peace, John Robertson, and
they made common cause with him against the war mongers, the reactionary,
imperialist and monolithic administration of Truman, who in turn availed him-
self of the services of the F.B.I. ganged up with criminals of the type of Al
Capone (in my play the chief gangster is an Italian called Aldone).
When I look back to those days I must admit that I, of course, realized that
my opus bore no relationship whatsoever to literature, any more than all that
preceded it: it was propaganda of the purest water, cheap, primitive pam-
phleteering, a broadside. How could there be any question of creativeness when
nothing, absolutely nothing, passed through my soul, my heart; when I did not
produce a single thought of my own. There was not a grain of originality in
it, not a drop of subjective, personal feeling, nothing drawn from my own life.
Finally there was nothing I believed in in the play. I had simply dreamed it all
up, cooked, compounded, carpentered it-it might be anything at all but not
literature.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
239
I am ashamed to say that, knowing English, I lifted a number of American
jokes out of the Reader's Digest-which I obtained by illegal means, of course-
and wove them into my text. For example, when my hero described an average
American there was laughter in the audience. Why? Because John Robertson
was telling them what was written in the Reader's Digest: "The average Amer-
ican who has paid to park his car for an hour but returns before the time is up,
will sit there and read his paper until the end of the hour before stepping on the
starter."
I can confess this. I was a literary opportunist. I was so busy distorting reality
that Leo's voice was drowned out. Yet who in those days was not an opportunist?
Pasternak? Paustovski? Yes, there were two or three of them.
What this distortion of facts amounted to can be seen when I tell you that
along with mine six other plays were being written about Paul Robeson and the
"incident" in Peekskill. One man in the Main Committee on Repertory (censor),
Anton Sighedi, when he met me in the street after the opening of John, said :
"Well you certainly outdistanced all the others. You're a smart fellow. The
other six playwrights are now standing by an empty trough." Later on I heard
that one of the six even had a nervous breakdown.
Those were hectic days ! Anti-American plays poured forth as if from the
horn of plenty. Who will be first? Who will finish ahead? Who will dump the
most slops on the heads of the Yankees?
Nor was there any lack of literary skullduggery. I had gone into the Pushkin
Theatre in Moscow right off the street with my play. I had no patronage of any
kind at that time. That was in the very beginning. However, the chief director
Vassill Vanin, with the title of People's Arist, after reading my play decided to
team me up with a big man in scenario writing, Mika Bleiman, who would polish
it up. He had been through the mill at the time when "Cosmopolitans" were
being hunted down and he was trying to rehabilitate himself. To this end he
was cooking up an anti-American play, Face to Face (about American and
Soviet sailors). Since he hoped to sneak it into this same theatre he was rather
remiss about working on my brain child. In the end we quarrelled and then he
demanded payment for John which was by then on the boards. In other words it
was one of those unsavory stories of which there are so many among hack writers.
Those who really did lend a hand were important Soviet journalists ; former
Tass correspondents in the United States and Australia, George Krylov and
Vladimir Mikheyev. I believe that at present one is in charge of American affairs
in the Foreign Affairs Ministry in the Soviet Union, and the other is at the
head of the foreign section in the Communist, organ of Communist theory of the
Central Committee of the Party. They both acted somewhat in the capacity of
consultants. Krylov had spent many years in the United States and when I read
him excerpts from my play, he nodded ever so slightly and I felt that my scenes
were very far from reality.
At the end of the play John Robertson delivers this emotional tirade :
"An American workman, Steve Emery, is dead. He was killed because he told
the truth to his people. He was killed by those who wish to dishonor our national
flag by placing on it the loathsome sign of the swastika, by those who are pre-
pared to cover the whole earth with blood! But the struggle for peace can no
more be turned back than the tides of the ocean. Only the stars can remain neu-
tral in this battle. And the day is not far off when the aroused American people
will loudly proclaim : 'We demand general disarmament ! We oppose a new war!
We are for peace ! For friendship with the Soviet Union ! We are on the side of
that great standard bearer Stalin' !"
After hearing this even Krylov, Machiavellian Krylov, who worked in America
not only for Tass but also the Security Police remarked :
"That's good. Very good. Only . . . in general, don't paint America as if our
revolution will happen there tomorrow."
In the building of the Central Committee, at a reception given by Vronski,
Chief of the American section in the foreign affairs committee of the Central
Committee-he at one time was also a correspondent for Tass in the United
States-I was told the following :
"Your play is interesting and politically ft propos just now. But . . . do tone
down a bit the revolutionary element among the Americans. It's a good thing
to show ordinary Americans, working men, negroes, etc. But you must bear in
mind that from the ideological point of view, as a people, they are not ripe for
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/2 ,pCIA-RDP73BOO296ROOO5OO14OOO2-0
revolution. They are more preoccupied with automobiles and refrigerators."
After a pause Vronski added : "As for the Government you can smear it from
head to toe. Lay it on even thicker for the F.B.I., their relations with gangsters
and all that."
Here I should add that America was no undiscovered territory for me. Even
without Krylov and Vronski I knew something about the land and the people.
I had met Americans in Moscow, Odessa, in occupied Germany. I had seen many
prize winning American films, showing the period before the war. I had read
a pile of books including Margaret Mitchell's Gone With the Wind.
Should this not have been enough to prick my conscience and make me cut
out all this disgusting concoction? No, I did not give it up. At least not then.
And afterwards it was too late. Besides I did not intend to retreat.
Perhaps I was already in the toils of cynicism. And a Russian cynic is much
worse, let us say, than an English one, because he is capable of being transported
by his cynicism. Did I not appear to give evidence of greater enthusiasm than
Krylov and Vronski? Would they not seem to have tried to rein me in, to moderate
my slander of America?
No, of course not. The orders came down from higher up. The guidelines were
set by the top masters of our destiny. I was just another instrument, one of many.
At the end of the second act in my play a "progressive Yankee," Professor
O'Malley, lists the "criminal acts" of the American imperialists as he stands
before a photograph of Stalin on the piano in the home of John Robertson and
he says :
"That is our life in America, Mr. Stalin."
This line inevitably brought an outburst of applause. Sergei Tsenin, who
played the part of O'Malley, said it with tears in his eyes. Once after a perform-
ance, when I was alone with him I asked him where he got those tears for every
performance, and he played the part a dozen times a month. Tsenin growled :
"In the first place, I am an actor and besides ... where does anyone get crocodile
tears from?"
But Tsenin was over 60. I was being gnawed at inside by feelings familiar to
Verkhovenski in Dostoyevski's The Possessed. I was hell bent on achieving fame
and success, I was blinded by my cowardly youthfulness, even if I had already
entered on the road to becoming a cynic-still what was forcing a man of his
years to engage in such spiritual equivocation?
Terror.
Yet Nikolai Pogodin probably did not lie, did not contort himself when he
wrote his Missouri Waltz, although I find this difficult to, believe. However, just
before he died, after having been in America, he did say to those closest to him
that everything he and other Soviet authors had written about America was
false.
Why do I not believe that Pogodin was honest when he wrote Missouri Waltz?
Because it was the same kind of trumped up fabrication as John-Soldier of
Peace and Pogodin was not without literary talent.
The play and the production of John-Soldier of Peace was praised in the key
press publications. Many photographs were printed. There was even a review
in Pravda. On the whole the play was a resounding success in Moscow. Yet was
this really a fact? Why, for the first two years, did the public flock to the theatre
to see this cheap, rabble rousing play?
I believe that its success was founded on the talented acting of Mikhail
Nazvanov, now dead, who played the title role. Nazvanov was a man of great
physical stature, almost a giant. He possessed a powerful and beautiful voice.
He was amazingly musical and played the piano extremely well. He sang mag-
nificently in the style of Paul Robeson, and more than that he imitated the
gestures and ways of the Negro singer.
In short, the spectacle was impressive.
At the end of the play Nazvanov spoke the curtain line : "We are on the side
of that great standard bearer of peace-Stalin" so that the very walls of the
theatre shook.
The audience applauded, they even rose to their feet. But did the people not
weep when they buried Stalin? Another charade? Yes, a charade based on those
same counterfeit emotions and, of course, on fear.
Judge for yourselves : Mikhail Nazvanov was temperamentally uncontrolled
and hot blooded. In the depths of his soul he loathed the Soviet power and
Stalin. Before the war he had been arrested and exiled to the North because of
an anecdote he told. He spent several years in, I believe, Komi. When, by a
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/2124CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
1
miracle, he was able to return to Moscow, he had a sensational success as an
actor. He was in the movie Meeting on the Elbe, based on Konstantin Simonov's
play The Russian Question. He played the part of an enlightened American
officer, commandant of a small German town on the west bank of the Elbe.
Nazvanov received a Stalin prize, then a second, third and fourth. He was given
the rank of People's Artist, and a government apartment. Now that he is dead,
one can reveal the fact that despite all this he had not the slightest use for the
Soviet rule. He rejected it with every fiber of his being. I know this because
when we were alone, over a glass of vodka, we wept on each others' shoulders.
What about that remarkable actor Vassili Vanin who directed John? He vas a
complex fellow, yet I am convinced that he did not put the tiniest fraction of
sincerity and faith into the production of my play, that he put into staging of a
classical Russian comedy such as, let us say, The Wedding of Krechineki.
Incidentally, at the same time he was staging my play at the Pushkin Theatre
he was directing one by Shalva Dadiani, a Gruzinian playwright, called From
the Spark, and it was about Stalin as a young man. I sat in on a rehearsal of it
and ,Vanin came down from the stage to sit beside me. After a bit he asked :
"Well, what do you think of it?"
"Not bad, I should say," was my reply, "but don't they call young Stalin `the
teacher' rather often?"
Actually in the text of the play the workingmen constantly addressed Stalin
not by name but as "Teacher". It was an awfully false note. And Vanin must, of
course, have been aware of this. He looked at me, screwed up his eyes and said,
in the oiliest tone :
"Never mind that. That doesn't matter my boy. Butter, you know, never
spoiled porridge."
Afterwards that saying pursued me through the years, through all my life
as it ran through the lives of so many hundreds and thousands of people in-
volved with literature and art.
Does it not occur to you, Mr. Smith, that the psychological false front gen-
erated by spiritual repression can reach such gigantic proportions in the world
that it will now be more terrible than terrorization, than spilled blood? This
falseness, this crime against the spirit is being driven into the very way of
life of whole peoples by means of the most high sounding slogans. From the
outside this is not very perceptible. The only ones to suffer from it are those
who get into its toils. And sometimes even they do not suffer much. They begin to
lie out of both sides of their mouths and soon there is nothing, absolutely nothing
human left in them.
Shall I tell you, Mr. Smith, whom the Soviet writer should really fear? Him-
self. This is a paradox but nevertheless it is true. Give the Soviet writer today
the fullest liberty and, despite the infectious power it possesses, he will not know
what to do with it, or even be sure he needs it. I am speaking here again not
of a few individuals but the wide masses of writers, the so-called "engineers
of human souls."
In addition to the complex and hydraheaded system of controls-ideological
and political brakes, of the Central Committee of the Party, editorial and art
Soviets, there exists an even more stringent, a draconian censor, one who for
nearly fifty years now has been lodged in every writer and who, at any given
moment, dictates to him what he may and may not say. This inner censor is
more aware than any committees of the state of affairs. With this rigid control
inside his head the writer does not need to keep running to the offices of the
Central Committee of the Party.
I may risk being somewhat coarse but I believe your American sense of the
ludicrous will excuse my recalling an anecdote recently current in the Soviet
Union even though it refers to the period after the "thaw" when Khrushchev
put on the screws again : A writer in the Soviet inferno is standing up to his
neck in filth and is smoking. A devil dashes up to him and yells in an authori-
tative tone : "Cigarette break is over ! Stand on your head !"
But to go back to my play : the political machine was in full force. We were
the levers in it. I do not recall who had the idea, perhaps I instigated it, but
our whole collective at the Pushkin Theatre-in effect the management includ-
ing Chaplygin, Vanin, Nazvanov and me-sent to Paul Robeson in the United
States a congratulatory cable and a little later a copy of the play. I personally
worded the cable together with Nikolai Mostovets of the Central Committee of
the Party, the man who now has Vronski's post. During the production of John
this Mostoveto was, so to say, our ideological boss and wielded the conductor's
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21244-IA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
baton. Shortly we received a wire from Robeson which, on instructions from
the Central Committee, was released to Tass and, of course, appeared in Pravda.
The machinery functioned perfectly.
Soon important people began to come to performances of John: N. Mikhailov,
the Minister to be of Culture ; the head of the Bureau for Propaganda of the
Central Committee of the Party, N. Kruzhkov ; the -Minister of Internal Security,
V. -lerkulov; the head of the foreign policy bureau of the Central Committee,
V. Grigorian, etc. Even a member of the Politburo appeared at. one of the per-
formances, but this incident deserves to be recorded in detail because, so it
seems to me, this was a sign and seal of the epoch:
An hour before curtain time, this was on December 5, 1950, the familiar
"boys," in their uniforms and special caps, appeared at the theatre. Their over-
coats bulged with revolvers. They took up their posts at key points, at all the
entrances and exits of the theatre, sealed the door leading backstage and to
Vanin's office from which the passageway led to the Government Box. Chaplygin
was officially told that a member of the Politburo would attend the performance
but no name was given. For "security reasons" this was held back to the very last
moment. We guessed and guessed, went over the list of everyone possible except
Stalin because we had had a secret message from the Maly Theatre that the
Great Leader was to attend a performance there on this (lay of People of Good
1Vill.2
When the curtain went up we saw a man (now forgotten) sitting in the
Government Box-Lazar Kaganovich, who at that time was most powerful. He
had come with the daughter and son-in-law of the Chief of his personal body-
guard, Lieutenant Colonel Pastukhov. There were two black limousines in the
courtyard of the theatre, one was a Packard with bullet proof windows. In ad-
dition there was a closed Emka, a Russian car, from which two women in white
cotton uniforms (despite the cold) were carrying some sort of parcels up to
Vanin's office, transforming the place into a kind of drawing roo+m for Kaganovich
and the members of his (official) family. Besides a Kremlin telephone was in-
stalled with lightning speed to take place of the ordinary city instrument.
The "boys" (Chizhiki) settled themselves around the government box and even
on the stage. The officer in charge of the guard was a ruddy complexioned colonel
in an expertly tailored uniform. In Chaplygin's office with Petrovski, secretary of
the Communist Party Bureau and also an actor, who by strange coincidence was
playing the part in John of an F.B.I. agent, the Colonel asked : "Is there any
shooting in the play?"
Chaplygin was embarrassed, because in the play he had the part of Steve
Emery who gets shot. He said :
"Yes, there is."
The Colonel jumped up and asked suspiciously :
"When is the shooting? Who is shot at? What does the shot come from?"
When everything was explained by Chaplygin, the security head stationed one
of his "boys" beside the theatre's offstage noise man, Sergi Efimov, who repro-
duced the sound of the shot in a very primitive, old-fashioned way: with a stock
and a flat, dry piece of wood. The "boy" nonetheless stuck to Efimov like a burr.
d also recall that Vanin sent one of the actresses not taking part in the perform-
ance to sit in a box from which she could observe the Government Box across the
theatre and, like a look-out, note the reactions of Kaganovich and his party to
the production."
In the intermission she got backstage through the orchestra pit and reported
that Kaganovich scratched his head vigorously through most of the first act,
and left it to us to unriddle what that might mean. (Nazvanov whispered to me
that it was lucky he scratched his own head or he might have scratched . ).
Nazvanov strained every nerve. I was afraid lie would tear his vocal cords. At
the end there were eight or ten curtain calls. The auditorium roared its applause.
First the actors went out, then Vanin, then the scene designer Volkov. I was the
last to go out. Then we all bowed, embraced each other, kissed each other, pointed
at one another as much as to say modestly-he deserves the credit, not I.
2 Unlike our Government Box the one at the Maly Theatre was supplied with armored
plates and was guarded by the Security Police. No one in the theatre ever had access to it.
It was even cleaned by special people sent for the purpose from the Police Headquarters.
8 By special order of the Politburo none of its members while at the theatre were
allowed to meet authors, directors or actors.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21IA-RDP731300296R000500140002-0
Do you ask me what my sensations were at this moment? Frankly, I think they
were the same as those of Liz Taylor or Frank Sinatra on opening night. Idiot
that I was I felt I had conquered the whole world and my one regret was that
the man In the Government Box was Kaganovich and not Stalin himself.
Yet wasn't that really fantastic? You know, three years before the opening
of John I chanced to be in Berlin and seriously weighed the possibility of
making my escape to the West. (Via the American sector). That was my first
of three plans but at the time I did not have the nerve to make the break.
Obviously I had not yet matured. In any case, at the last minute I weakened,
but the fact remains that I had had it in mind and that I was striving some-
how to gain some spiritual freedom. On my return I was again caught up in
the undertow of Stalin's "reality," I again plunged into the opportunism of
making a career while at night I staved off mental colloquies with Leo and
dreamed of one day having Stalin, that same Stalin whom Nazvanov and
I thoroughly despised, shake my hand. (I'll let you try, Mr. Smith, to unriddle
that psychological snarl without recourse to Dostoyevski).
After Kaganovich left the premises Vanin and I were the first to rush into
the office where the Politburo chieftain had "rested", and we found shells of
roasted nuts, fruit, candy. On the wall we discovered a shred of bare wire.
Apparently when the "boys" removed the Kremlin telephone they forgot to
restore the regular city instrument ; they probably did not think it was their
duty to be bothered with that.
Another personage who came with her bodyguard to see a performance of
John was Molotov's daughter, Svetlana. At the time she was married to the
son of the famous airplane designer, Iliushin. I was embarrassed to see how
old and venerable Vanin had to bow low when he greeted her, but he had to do
it. Molotov's daughter impressed me as being exceptionally unattractive to
look at. Whereas young Iliushin, then a lieutenant and pilot in the air force,
was handsome and had a fine figure.
Their guard was a husky young creature In a dark blue suit, with a large
bulge revealing the whereabouts of a huge pistol.
Why did they have to have a bodyguard? Against whom were they being
protected?
Soon orders came down from Olympus and the newspaper Culture and Life,
the organ of the Propaganda Bureau of the Central Committee of the Party, ran
a long special article as a review of John. It was written by Nikolai Virta, a
non-party author who was, at the time, looked upon as a great supporter of the
regime.4
In his review he emphasized the political impact of the play, mentioned the
great company of those who "are fighting for peace," and also the firebrands of
Wall Street. Virta stressed in particular the ideal motives behind the production.
He praised Vanin's staging, the acting of Nazvanov and several others, with
some reservations he approved of the play although he noted its literary short-
comings (I should say so!)
Virta's review was a signal for the award of the Stalin Prize.
We held our breath.
The Soviet Committee on the Struggle for Peace, headed actually by M. Kotov
of the Central Committee of the Party, kept bringing more and more foreign
delegations both from so-called capitalist countries and so-called popular demo-
cratic countries to see the play. I scarcely had time to get from one banquet to
the next. The best quality of caviar was in excellent supply, champagne was
served in floods. At one reception, I think It was in the Hotel Metropole, I was
in such a mellow state I almost started a romance with a dusky-skinned Ameri-
can, member of some women's delegation, called Molly L., but it was nipped in
the bud by our managers. Together with Vanin, Nazvanov and Miss Vikland
who played the part of John Robertson's wife, I made the rounds of clubs,
palaces of culture, In Moscow and the surrounding region where they organized
"meetings with the public." John-Soldier of Peace was twice shown on the Mos-
cow television. Nazvanov and Miss Vikland made appearances together and
played scenes from John to private government audiences.
What else was needed?
Nevertheless one fly did get Into the ointment.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21IA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
One evening some American acquaintances of mine, Charlie M. and his wife
Carol, came to see the play. Charles worked in the AmericanEmbassy and Carol
was born somewhere near Peekskill. They were a nice couple and I thought they
would just laugh at my play as a sort of parody on American life, or rather a
Soviet parody. After the play when they "thanked" me for the invitation, we
looked at each other with insincere eyes and I suddenly felt overwhelmed by a
sense of shame, shame that had been accumulating inside me for a long time.
It was not that I was so ashamed of having cooked up this balderdash, not be-
cause I had lied, not because I had used it to climb up in my career-no, the
reason was much more serious, profound. I said goodby to Charles and Carol and
never saw them again.
I had committed one sin on top of all the others : in John I had exploited what
is in reality a tragic and profoundly important American problem-the problem
of the blacks and the whites. In the play this theme is presented purely as a
political phenomenon. It was treated in placard form : "The imperialists oppress
not only the whites but also the blacks, inflaming hatred between them." I
had a white woman deliberately kiss John Robertson in the street and say :
"Thank you, John, for being what you are."
Margaret Mitchell, of course, handled this theme in a different way. But even
if she did defend the stand of the southern plantation owners, that did not
improve my position (actually non-existent). I did not understand then and no
doubt I still do not grasp all the complexities and various angles of the negro
question ; I can only guess at it when I make the analogy with the anti- Seniitism
now rampant in my country.
At the time the Negro question was only a basis for propaganda demogogy.
But for Charles and Carol it was a deep and painful wound. They told me
that unfortunately this problem cannot be solved merely by legislation, that
it will take years to solve the major part of it by psychological means.
Finally we smelled smoke: Vanin learned that the head of the Division of
Propaganda Bureau of the Central Committee, Kruzhkov, had dispatched a
special letter to the Stalin Committee, this was an unprecedented move-and
in it had proposed John-S'oldicr of Peace for the Stalin Prize. Since the move
was made by the Central Committee itself, no one doubted what the outcome
would be.
Someday, perhaps a hundred years from now, some author will write a comedy
on how Stalin prizes were given ; nothing could be sillier, falser and more
tragi-comical.
The art scholar, professor and I believe lie is now a member of the Academy,
V. Kemenov, announced at a meeting of the committee that in his opinion Naz-
ranov and I should be awarded the Stalin Prize, first class.
Whereupon Nazvanov and I like two freshly hatched, Soviet personnages,
swaggered up and down Gorki Street, turning up our noses at our many jealous
enemies and gorging on imported Swiss cheese bought in a special store.
No, we did not get the Stalin Prize. N. Lebedev, who was then chairman of
the Arts Committee of the Foreign Ministry gave the following account of what
happened : Stalin was presented with the list of those proposed for the prize ; lie
gave the final confirmation. When he saw our names he said :
"Who are they? Ali yes, from the Pushkin Theatre, formerly the Kamerny ...
that's where Tairov used to be . . . he was a bourgeois esthete ... and who's in
charge now? Vanin? Anyhow it's too soon, too soon to give them a Stalin Prize.
Let them work for it, make a fundamental change in the profile of the theatre,
let them make a name for it, as a socialist theatre . .. Meantime we will hold
back on the prize ..."'
Our names were stricken from the list.
During this whole affair of the Stalin Prize I was quite struck by Vanin's
behavior. At times he showed a remarkable amount of boldness. Once when
some members of the Stalin Prize Committee came to see my play it turned out
that they were only of second or third degree importance. Their secretary was
the half deaf art expert Chushkin. When Vanin went out to greet them during
the intermission he pulled himself together like a rooster puffing out his feath-
ers, leaned over Chushkin`s hearing aid and said heatedly, so that everyone
could hear:
The Pushkin Theatre was created to replace the Kamerny Theatre, widely known
throughout Russia and abroad. This latter was "liquidated" In 1949 in pursuance of a
government order.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
245
"What the devil do you mean by bringing these members of the Committee
here? They are all second string people. You bring your top people here ! I sup-
pose that old fox Zavadski a has lured all the big shots over to see Dawn Over
lfoscow at his place, with their bouquets of flowers and fancy cakes, and all I
get is the leftovers, the shrimps. . ."
Chushkin nearly dropped in a faint. The next day a special meeting was called
of the Stalin Committee with the writer A. Fadeyev presiding. They discussed
the "unethical" conduct of Vanin and if it were not for the authority of Fadeyev
who had a warm affection for Vanin, things might have gone very badly for him.
That is how it happened that, thanks to the Almighty no gold medal was pinned
on my chest. At least that is one black mark the less against me. Yet at the
time Nazvanov and I were bitterly disappointed.
But I am afraid, Mr. Smith, that I have not yet convinced you of anything.
You are smiling rather skeptically and perhaps you are thinking that all I am
doing is turning over the yellowed leaves of a fashion magazine for 1950. Per-
haps you are inclined to say with Heraclitus that everything in nature is con-
stantly changing, that in the conditions of everyday life in the Soviet Union
truth is more and more taking the place of untruth, that the story of John-
Soldier of Peace could not be repeated and that this most unattractive self por-
trait, painted here is not at all typical of the writers living and working at
present in the land of the Soviets. You do not believe me, and you say :
"Why should I believe you, when I feel I can put my faith in a young and
world famous Soviet poet like Yevtushenko? He spoke out openly against Stalin,
he stands for the new in Soviet life and he is no career-seeker!"
First let me speak about truth more and more replacing untruth, and about
a fashion magazine for 1950 with yellowed leaves.
True the leaves have yellowed. Therefore let us look for a second into a maga-
zine of a later period. Here is a suit tailored in 1964 and still worn today. To
be sure it is not in international style, it was cut for home use but that does
not change the point.
Take the production called Conscience which is having a successful run at
the Mossoviet Theatre. The newspapers and the magazines proclaim it as a "gen-
uine Party achievement." Even outside the Soviet Union I read in Ogonek for
example, the following : "This play tells about events in 1954 when the effects
of the cult of personality were still very much felt in the consciousness of some
of our leading comrades." This is said as though effects on one's consciousness
were something like an upset stomach or a head cold. Put a few drops up your
nose and your discomfort will vanish. It is said as if the effects on one's con-
sciousness are no longer to be talked about, as though they had passed into
history and are all but forgotten.
The play Conscience was drawn from a novel with the same title written by
D. Pavlova and published previously in that most "orthodox" magazine called
Moskva. The story is about life in one of the scientific research institutes, about
the errors committed by certain Party members ; about their regaining their
sanity, their new discoveries, about routine workers, etc.
Immediately after this novel came out in 1902, a well-known movie director
by the name of Abram Room proposed that I write a filmscript based on this
story. He said to me :
"In Mosfilm they are for filming it. The management of our union thinks it
would make an important Party picture. I have no choice in the matter. I have
been out of the running for several years. I confess that my friend P. A. is trying
to dissuade me from doing it because he does not think it is a work of litera-
ture, but I don't know what the devil it is . "
P.A. was right : Conscience, after I had read it, seemed to me to be "the
devil knows what." It was sheer imitation, a counterfeit bill and I, being an
expert counterfeiter myself, could see that at a glance and anyhow I could tell
a diamond from a piece of glass.
However Room and I went to visit one of the secret, modern, classified insti-
tutes up somewhere in the Shablovka quarter. Room wanted to consult with
"live people", as he said, with the engineers, builders, and others about whom
the novel was written. When he began to check the situation "on the spot",
study the "reality" of the conflicts in the story, saw what the characters were
really like, he realized, as I had done to begin with, that Conscience was all
0 Yuri Zavadski, People's Artist, director of the Mossoviet Theatre now a member of the
Academy. At the time Dawn over Moscow was his new production.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CCIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
246
false, that the novel was a tissue of lies, that all the knowledge of the author
was not worth a plugged dime, that, like my play John, it was sheer fabrication,
all a collection of Party stencils. The interesting thing was that all the heads
of the institute, including the Party committee, said as much to Room.
He was obliged to abandon the assignment to film Conscience.
Yet according to 0gonek the play was called "a truthful production." And
not long ago I read in the Literary Gazette that Conscience is a triumph, a high
achievement in the Soviet theatre of recent times. .
Or take the play of Ignatius Dvoretski, on the theme of 1937, the arrests, the
concentration camps-in other words about the nearly twenty million people
tortured by Stalin, a play accepted for production several years ago at the
Mayakovski Theatre, but never staged. Rehearsals were started. Dvoretski hoped
that truth would prevail. He did some rewriting, toned the text down a bit. But
nothing helped. Then he started to write something new, more acceptable. He is
a talented man, but he wants to go on living. He loves life, he had quite enough
of the years in exile under Stalin.. .
So, Mr. Smith, what about truth and untruth?
And now for Yevgheni Yevtushenko. Was he the one to unmask Stalin? This
is what Khrushchev had to say at a meeting with writers and artists :
"This sniveller, Yevtushenko, thinks he opened our eyes to the mistakes of
Stalin by means of his jingles. But it was the Party that did it!" (Khrushchev
did not say, of course, that it was he and not the Party who did it).
Naturally you cannot count Yevtushenko in with the truly bold ones, those I
call unique, in the camp of Paustovski, Solzhenitsyn, but apparently he feels a
bit cramped among the ordinary ones. He can be ranked somewhere in between.
You, Mr. Smith, do not know Yevtushenko, but I am personally acquainted with
him, and also know him as every Soviet writer does.
I shall try to give a very brief description of this "engineer of human souls."
Do not think that mywords are offensive to him. Such things have already been
said to him to his face and he was not offended. He is not of the thin skinned
variety. Rather he belongs to those who know how to use even insults to their
advantage. He does it successfully. He likes nothing better than a good row.
I recall that I was playing a game of billiards with Julius Reisman, a well-
known Soviet cinema director in the Home of the Union of Cinema Workers in
Bolshevo. Yevtushenko came in and began to complain because the "bureaucrats"
wouldn't allow him to be printed and he spoke of other "difficulties." Reisman
smiled, patted his silky mop of hair and said :
"What are you grousing about? You need to be kept from publication from time
to time. If they published you all of the time no one would read you .
Yevtushenko is one hundred percent out to make his own career. As to his
poetry I can give the opinion of impartial and serious critics : they call him it
"feuilleton" writer. He has themes in his verses and their form is more or less
original. But they contain neither intellect nor soul. He cannot give birth to
thoughts. He is magnificent in playing up the right "moment", he possesses the
art of gambling with verse.
Among Moscow writers he is known as a "left half back". But worse than this
football nickname is the epithet given him of "Yevgheni Gapon" after the priest
who in the history of the Russian Revolution is considered a "provocateur."
Can you imagine the following picture : Yevtushenko, wrapped in a luxurious
Italian style cape, leaving the Central Committee after one of his usual conver-
sations with his late party boss D. Polikarpov, and Yevtushenko asks one of his
fellow writers with a smile :
"Do I give off the scent of the Central Committee corridors?"
Do you not find a contradiction here between his being in your eyes it Jacobin,
almost revolutionary, and his own wish to "give off the scent of the Central
Committee corridors?"
And really, Mr. Smith, what do you make of the fact that the Central Commit-
tee sends Yevtushenko abroad so often and never sends, let us say, Solzhenitsyn?
No, Yevtushenko does not have in him the capacity to live through the tragedy
of Pasternak who absolutely refused to put his creative and profoundly sub-
jective "I" under the yoke of Party "objectivity", and thus clearly drew the
lines of demarcation which eventually led him to his powerful spiritual outburst.
The best that can be said for Yevtushenko is that after making his little "pop",
he has not drawn any lines of demarcation, and he prefers to be "His Excellen-
cy's" Small Soviet "liberal."
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/2 a7 CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
A Moscow poet wrote these lines about Yevtushenko :
Unfeeling creature, still you feign,
Dripping artificial rain
Dropping, like an actor, tears
(Made of glycerine of course)
Drooping like a doleful jockey
Who was left without a horse . . . .
Rushing hither, thither, yon,
Always with your makeup on . .
With the heedless ease of fledgeling
You continue with your swearing
By the wounds that I, not you, have,
Or the memory of fathers
Lying in their martyrs' grave . . . .
I once asked a prose writer friend of mine :
"Does Yevtushenko ever have any dreams of life?"
He laughed loudly and replied :
"Who of us does not have dreams? Yevtushenko, like the rest of us is a roman-
tic. Yet at the same time he is full of twists and turns. There are at least two
people inside h.ini. One of them dreams, of course, of creating sooner or later a
War and Peace. Don't you dream that yourself? And besides who could go on
living, especially in our times, unless he had a dream? This is what I would say:
"Yevtushenko is Konstantin Simonov in a new edition. Pythagoreans assert that
everything in life repeats itself in cycles. Yes, that's it: Yevtushenko is the
Khrushchev edition of Simonov, and Simonov himself was a Stalin edition. What
was he like? He was a member of the Central Committee of the Party, the editor
of the Literary Gazette, had an open credit in the bank, was young, handsome,
talented, he travelled abroad. He even went to Japan. Simonov dreamed of mak-
ing a million and then of withdrawing from it all and writing his War and
Peace. He made his million and even more, but he did not write a War and
Peace. He wrote a lot of other stuff but not that. He was unable to do it. That's it,
old man. If you sell yourself the future will hold nothing for you. You can't
divide your life into black and white space. No, it was too late for that. Simonov
was done for. It will be the same with Yevtushenko. His career keeps him all
stirred up. He is like a moth balancing itself on a wire, not daring to take the
risk of falling and being smashed. So he still goes on balancing himself. Yet for
the sake of his career he has to be making a big noise, attacking, quarreling. But
he will not write a War and Peace. It's too late. He's sold out. Besides he has
become an incredible dissembler. In speaking of Simonov someone said : "He
even grew gray hair on purpose." If it were necessary Yevtushenko could do as
much. A slight turn of his ears (he has large ones indeed) and you will behold
a one hundred percent bolshevik ; another slant of his ears and you will see an
"angry young man-anti Stalinist," still another twist of the ears and behold a
"liberal Khrushchev man," once again . . . " I am afraid that he finished on a
rather indecent word.
Between my self-portrait and the picture I have drawn of Yevtushenko (I
make no comparison of talents) there is this one difference: in the portrait of
him there is present a touch of protean werewolf which to me makes him, in a
certain sense, a new type in Soviet literature. He is a writer who, I repeat, by
playing on themes that really touch people closely, and by barely skirting what is
the tragedy of a whole people, and even at times exasperating the Party leaders
(who understand him well), he tries to divert any flood of emotions into smaller
channels, probably guessing that shallower streams are better than a dark and
evil smelling torrent.
But sometimes Yevtushenko gets carried away, the way Khrushchev was.
Sometimes he overshoots the mark.
You must understand, Mr. Smith, that a Soviet writer, If he is honest, cannot
say:
"I am for the Soviet regime, I am only against the cult of Stalin and the mis-
takes which were permitted in his time."
That formula is false. It is a psychological lie. Only a spiritual acrobat might
attempt to keep the impossible equilibrium, and save his position as a writer by
stringing words together in a meaningless order. You must know what the
Soviet regime is, not as a theory but in actual practice, in the experience of a
lifetime. Then you will know that Stalin was an organic necessity to that regime
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
because without him it would have foundered on its own contradictions. The
terrible fact was not so much Stalin as Stalinism, which became a way of life,
and up to now no other way of life has come forward to replace it. It is not by
chance that the present Soviet leaders have definitely refused to go on with the
further denigration of Stalin. They reason that this is not a question of person-
ality and that they must not cut off the branch on which they are sitting.
It's all a false face and I stress this expression because Soviet writers with
some risk, do use it.
This is what Yevtushenko does. Even Tvardovski, editor of the magazine New
World does it when he publishes a very good novel by Solzhenitsyn, but changes
the date on it. Solzhenitsyn dated it 1956 but Tvardovski put it back to 1953
as if all the author was writing about was before the death of Stalin and now,
you see how different things are.
And, alas, I fear that that is how Sinyavski and Daniel were forced to con-
duct themselves. They did not take the path of Dostoyevski's Raskolnikov in
Crime and Punishment who killed the old woman, they did not proclaim that
communism runs against human nature and deforms human personality. They
defended themselves in court from a position of Soviet patriots, who criticized
only the abuses of Stalin's time, and the errors of Khrushchev. Yet can they be
blamed even if in this case they were given long enough prison sentences. Yes,
prison sentences!
You must realize, Mr. Smith, that one has to put high stakes on a card, even
one's life. What I have won, for example, by not having been able to stand any
more and gradually coming to the point where I did "kill the old woman", is
that now I have the possibility of crying out to the whole world, "Yes, I am
against the Soviet regime, because communism deforms human personality."
For saying that I have condemned myself to life imprisonment for to a Russian
life outside his country is the same as being in prison.
In short, when I am told that Yevtushenko represents a young generation
destined to bring a new life to my homeland I am filled with terror, terror for
my homeland.
No, it will be different.
May I remind you, Mr. Smith, that when Moses, according to Jewish history,
brought his people out of Egypt, they were on the way for forty years, because
the Jews had been slaves. They were a people of slaves and Moses had to wait
for that generation to die off and a new one to be born in freedom.
If we put that story alongside the present history of my country, then those
who will no longer allow their spirit to be oppressed are only ten years old. They
have not yet come of age and they have no rights. But the future belongs to them.
This letter of mine has taken on, I should say, a rather polyphonic character.
It embraces various themes. Yet I believe them all to be inter-related.
If you are not tired I should like to propose, Mr. Smith, that we put aside
John-Soldier of Peace and touch on general problems such as peace, war, co-
existence, etc.
Probably because I myself was a "Soldier of Peace", "a Fighter for Peace",
because I wrote John, and also signed the Stockholm manifesto and screamed :
"Yankee, get out of Korea!" during the Korean War, I feel I can allow myself
in this letter to say something not quite so loud mouthed.
Naturally, no one In the world wants war, first of all because everyone fears
death. Can blood and destruction ever be made attractive? Certainly not if we
have to do with normal individuals.
Forty sixyears of life under the yoke of Communism, my escape, and three
years spent in the free world, give me a certain basis for the following statement :
It is shameful, in my opinion, for people to go out Into Trafalgar Square in
a demonstration to approve of slavery in other countries-oh yes, I know they
dress it up with fancy liberal slogans-and then modestly drop their eyes, and
seek to maintain their own personal well-being. The majority of those who go
out into Trafalgar Square, although they call themselves humanitarians and
pacifists are least of all concerned with the people of Vietnam. They yell:
"Yankee ! Hands off Vietnam !" But what is really in the back of their minds
is fear of bombs falling on their own heads. This is the old self-deceiving. head-
in-the-sand policy and it is deadly, for no matter how hard George Brown
tries no one can find any way to escape the totalitarian grip that is taking hold
of more and more of the world.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/29CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
I believe it is disgraceful, for example, to use Vietnam as a football in political
machinations, gambling with human lives, the way the leftist Laborites are doing
in England.
It is absurd to state that Ho Chi Minh is not a Marxist but anticolonialist.
or that what is going on now in Vietnam is civil war, turning a blind eye to
the fact that from the very start the forces implicated have been Red China,
the Soviet Union as well as international world communism. Nor do people
understand that after the United States entered the war, this became a self
evident, incontrovertible clash of two words, and that this war is already deciding
who will win: communism or the free world.
In my opinion it is stupid to picket the White House and carry placards
saying : "Call our troops home !" and not to realize that to hand South Vietnam
over to the communists means that tomorrow we shall be faced not just with
Communist Cuba but also a Communist Dominican Republic, Guatemala and
others.
Not long ago I saw a letter to the Christian Science Monitor to this effect :
"Communism as well as capitalism is no more than a different economic system,
which has the right to co-existence." I should like to ask the writer of that letter
how then are we to account, in that case, for the blood, the sea of blood, which
has been spilled in my country? Is this to be attributed to a few economic innova-
tions? Also, in that case, how are we to account for the millions of crippled
spirits created by communism? Are poor grain harvests to be blamed for them?
No, communism is not just an economic system, it is more than that and above
all it is an ideology based on aggression. Without aggression communism is life-
less. This is not new but in the West it is seriously disputed thanks to appear-
ance of certain fat and peace-loving communists.
I know, Mr. Smith, that you as a genuine American do not care for the word
ideology and that perhaps I risk calling down your wrath on my arguments.
You are perhaps well satisfied with the formula of peaceful competition which
was put forward on a par with peaceful co-existence by Khrushchev. You are
ready to take hold of it with both hands. I know that you are a thoroughly peace-
able person, Mr. Smith, I know that you believe in the foundations of a capital-
ist society and that you do not wish to go out and attack communism. You are
maintaining your defensive positions and seriously hope that either the com-
munist camp will become reconciled to the fact of the existence of capitalism,
that it will indeed be willing to "co-exist" with it, or that it will be reshaped,
because of powerful and exhausting inner frictions, into something new and not
so antithetical to capitalism. You may even say that in this field everything is
okay : a direct air route between New York and Moscow has been worked out,
an agreement on the world use of outer space has been signed, Yevtushenko and
his wife have recently visited the United States.
But I must interrupt you, Mr. Smith, and propose that you put all your ex-
amples into one side of the scales and I shall put into the other true facts of
recent history which, to my thinking, characterize the political direction of the
Central Committee of the,Communist Party and the Soviet Government.
Let us begin.
In the very noonday of so-called "peaceful coexistence", conjured up by
Khrushchev, when travelling abroad was begun, cultural exchanges were an-
nounced, and joint movie making discussed, when even the most hard shell scep-
tics pricked up their ears, I and N. Pakhumov, a journalist, collaborated on a
translation of Robert Sherwood's play, Abe Lincoln in Illinois. In the editorial
offices of Teatr, an all-union magazine, our work received instant approval. It
was highly praised by one of the editors, the late Boris Romashov, himself a
famous Russian playwright. Even so "orthodox" a theatre expert as V. Pimenov,
who was then chief editor, pronounced himself in favor of its publication, with
"appropriate commentary"-in view of the fact that Sherwood was a "bourgeois"
writer. The play was rushed to the printer. But a copy was sent as usual to the
Central Committee of the Communist Party. It was read by that same Mostovets
mentioned earlier-and the type was broken up. It would have been a miracle
had this not happened. Mostovets notified the magazine that, from the point
of view of the Central Committee, the Sherwood play touted American democracy
and did not reveal its class origins.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 CIA-RDP73BOO296ROOO5OO14OOO2-0
250
About this same time, being fired with interest about Lincoln and having read
a lot of background literature concerning him, I wrote an historical story which
I entitled The 7laic bons of i)ra. i.rocii. (Perhaps my (- n~aborator in this work
was Leo, or his spirit). Briefly: the story was laid during the Civil War in
America. After they lost their father ;sirs. Brown's three sons volunteered on
the side of the North. The old woman was left alone on the big farm. It was
very hard for her to manage it, so in the summer she went to Washington,
sought out President Lincoln and begged him to release her younngest son so
that he could return to the farm. Lincoln ordered Stanton, his Secretary of War,
to take the necessary steps to that effect. But when she reached home she found
a message telling her that her youngest son had died a hero's death. Six months
later Mrs. Brown returned to Washington to ask the President to release her
middle son. What neither the President, who granted the request, nor Stanton.
nor Mrs. Brown knew was that at the time that son was dying of wounds re-
cieved in the battle of Gettysburg. During the following winter Mrs. Brown
called on Lincoln for the third time to request the release of her oldest son.
Lincoln's eye fell on a death sentence prepared for his signature which was lying
on the desk before him : it called for the shooting of private Brown for having
fallen asleep while on duty. When he had established that this Brown was in-
deed her oldest son, Lincoln wrote across the order, "Coiniuute the sentence. The
young man will be more useful above ground than below it."
When I read this story to Valentina Lyubomudrova, a most intelligent and
highly placed woman, she had in the past served as assistant to Nina Popova,
President of the Union of Soviet Societies for Friendship with Foreign Countries)
she threw up her hands in horror:
"What are you thinking of, my dear ! Come to your senses ! It's a wonderful
story but it glorifies an American President ! It makes no difference that he was
a rail splitter, the story is still a paean to the American government machine.
The very fact that the President was accessible to plain Mrs. Brown will bring
up all kinds of superfluous connotations. Don't laugh. This is politics. To be sure
we are right now on better terms with the United States, but that does not make
us stop being communists, and them stop being capitalists. No, no one will
publish your story."
She was right. Just to try I sent it in to Izvestia. The reply I received was dry
and stated merely that my story was "too long."
In 1957 the Literary Gazette published an open letter from me to Mike Todd,
the American producer, containing a proposal to make a Soviet-American mov-
ing picture about the sailors of two Russian flotillas based in the harbors of
New York and San Francisco during the Civil War of 1861-64 and were, of
course, on Lincoln's side.
I composed this letter, incidentally, at a suggestion from above. It was a propa-
ganda maneuver. Had Todd agreed to the proposal I would have had many un-
pleasantnesses. Actually I had them even so. The Minister of Culture, N.
Mikailov, had not been privy to the idea of the letter, When he read it in the
Literary Gazette he sounded an alarm. In the letter _I mentioned that I had
had a talk with an official representative of the Ministry of Culture and that he
had approved of the proposal. I was told to come to Moscow at once. The letter
was discussed by a special committee in the Ministry and was voted as being
premature.
As a matter of record I received many communications from readers of the
Literary Gazette. The writers were ordinary Soviet citizens. When they heard
of the heroic conduct of Russian sailors during the American Civil War, a fact
of which they had been quite oblivious, they all warmly supported the idea of
making a Soviet-American film and some even offered to help and cooperate, each
in his own way. This was, of course, a sincere and uninhibited expression of
sympathy for America.
11n,1961 I wrote a film script called Wait for Me, Conch ita! This was to be used
in a joint Soviet-Mexican production. The Mexicans were to be represented by a
big firm called Zacharlus, and the Soviets by the Gorki Film Studio.
At the base of this scenario was an extraordinarily entrancing historical fact :
in 1801 a Russian officer by the name of Nikolai Ryazanov visited the fort in
San Francisco which then belonged to Spain. Here he fell in love with Concepcion
(Conchita) Arguelo, daughter of the Commandant. The love was mutual but
they were kept apart by religion. He belonged to the Orthodox Greek and she to
the Roman Catholic Church. In order to get permission for the marriage Ryazanov
had to undertake a lengthy voyage to St. Petersburg, Rome and Madrid. Along
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/112/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
the way, in a place not far from the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk, Ryazanov was
taken ill and died. Conchita waited for forty years. When she finally heard of the
death of her beloved she took the veil and entered a convent known as the
Dolores Mission which had been built by her father. A portrait of Concepcion
Arguello still hangs on a wall of a San Francisco museum-her eyes gaze far
into the distance as if she were searching for the ship carrying Ryazanov back
to her. It is a charming story.
To tell the truth there are several versions given as to just why Ryazanov went
to San Francisco. One book, published fairly recently in the United States,
begins more or less with these words : "If Nikolai Ryazanov had not died on his
way to St. Petersburg it is very likely that San Francisco would now be the
nearest military base to America of the Reds. However, all I used in my scenario
was what I needed for the telling of a great romantic love story. Besides, I tried
to tell it outside the frame of the time, thus emphasizing the power of love as
universally human.
After lengthy delays from the Soviet side the whole project burst like a soap
bubble.
Happening to meet Vladimir Baskakov, who was at the time at the head of the
cinema division in the Central Committee Department of Culture, I spoke to him
quite frankly, as in the past we had been good friends. The dialogue between us
ran about as follows :
Baskakov : Why the devil did you hit on such an idiotic theme? It was .an out-
right commendation of the Russian monarchy !
I : What, exactly, are you referring to?
Baskakov: To your scenario, Wait for Me, Conchita! I have had a report on it.
I: What has the monarchy to do with it? It's a scenario about love.
Baskakov : But your hero, what's his name, Ryazanov, he was a count, a
Russian officer, member of the Imperial Guard, a favorite of the Tsar, a rich
man... !
I : But look, Pierre Bezukhov in War and Peace was not really a beggar.
Baskakov : You did find someone to compare yourself to! War and Peace was
written by Tolstoy.
I : But the fact that Ryazanov was a Guards officer and a rich main is part of
his biography and remains in the background. I tell about love. The poor and
the rich, you and I, everyone in the world, all love.
Baskakov : In that case where are you putting our Party concepts?
I : Listen, please tell me right out, like a good comrade, and I shall not pass it
on: are these cooperative film productions serious enterprises or are they-
Baskakov (smiling) : In your place it would be better if you just wrote scenar-
ios about the working class.
When I was working on Wait for Me, Conchita!, down in Bolshevo, I tried to
persuade Julius Reisman to undertake the production and hinted that it would
mean a trip to Mexico. He gave me a friendly tap on the shoulder and said :
"You're a nitwit, Yuri. It's all a bluff. How can we talk about joint productions
when we and they live worlds apart? That's elementary. . The day before
yesterday, at the Ministry of Culture, I met a famous millionaire American pro-
ducer, Lester Cowan, who is getting ready to put on the first Soviet-American film
based on a scenario by Mitchell Wilson, On a Far Meridian. Cowan counts on
making a sensation. The first Soviet-American film ! But he still has to make it.
He's a funny fellow. He has already bought a piece of land in California where
the picture can be shot. It seems he paid a million for that. He's noisy and rest-
less. In Madame Furtseva's office he slapped his pockets and shouted : 'I am a
free businessman ! What I wish to do I do! I have the State Department in my
right pocket, and Ambassador Thompson in my left . . ?'
I looked at Cowan and thought how very resounding this high-spirited mil-
lionaire's pet project will flop. At best the whole thing will turn into a farce.
Look there at those attractive foreigners . and Reisman pointed to three
East Indians, in white cotton trousers that looked like underwear, walking
along the corridor of our Screen Writers Home. One of them was a scenarist,
another represented some firm, and the third was, I believe, a film director. They
were all participating in the work on a joint production. And although the
scenario was based on an East Indian legend, a fairy tale, all sorts of con-
tradictions had driven both sides into a dead end. The Tashkent Studio (in
Uzbekistan) where they planned to shoot the picture, had paid the Soviet play-
wright, Voitkovich, two fees, because the whole business had already been
46-158 0-70-pt. 3-6
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : IA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
252
dragging along for five years and the author, in accordance with his contract,
had the right after two years, if the Studio had not yet produced his picture,
to consider that the continuing work on it was the equivalent of work on a new
scenario.
Isn't that really a farce?
And here is another : In 1962 Mosfilm decided to make a moving picture out
of a play by the late Vsevolod Ivanov called The Armored Train 14-69. The play
is fairly well-known in the Soviet Union. Ivanov wrote it many years ago. It
was the story of Partisan warfare in Northern Russia. There were however two
incidental characters in the play : an American soldier from the expeditionary
forces, captured by the Red Partisans, and a Chinese fighter in a squad of Par-
tisans who throws himself on the tracks at the cost of his life, to stop the Whites'
armored train. Thus you have on the one hand an "enlightened Yankee" who
has fallen into the hands of the Red Partisans, and on the other an heroic
Chinese. Will that balance out? How will it look from the ideological point of
view in present day circumstances? Some approved and some were opposed. The
film was put on ice in accordance with word from above, then it was started
up again, also on word from above, stopped again, started again ; variations
were tried out, and they even went so far as to "throw out" the Yankee alto-
gether, while the Chinaman was converted into a Negro . .
I could put many similar stories into my side of the scales, but since I recall
to mind that this is after all a letter and not a chronicle of "peaceful coexist-
ence," I shall ask you, Mr. Smith, to turn your attention on one last, half an-
ecdotal fact which to my mind expresses in a compressed, laconic and yet sym-
bolic form the essence of what we call "ideological irreconcilables."
A friend of mine is a commentator attached to the Government Committee
in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on radio and television. In preparing one of
his routine round-ups on world affairs-this was under the reign of Khrushchev-
he write that the American nation is a rich nation. This expression was used, it
goes without saying, in a definite context. The man in the political control room
where every word that goes on the air is scrutinized,'struck the expression out
in red pencil. My friend rushed to the political control room and demanded an
explanation. A man of about fifty, in a semi-military uniform, with the face
of an ascetic, announced that the expression was not acceptable to say the least.
Whereupon my friend showed him one of Khrushchev's speeches in which he
called America a rich nation.
The man with the ascetic face looked at my friend and quietly said :
"That makes no difference. I cannot pass those words. It would be against
my Marxist conscience."
When my friend told me this he added with indignation :
"Just think, what an idiot ! Isn't he?"
Alas, if only that man with the Marxist conscience were only an idiot ! If .. .
but unfortunately that is not the case. And that's what breeds terror.
It may astonish you, Mr. Smith, but men like that, men in the Soviet ruling
staffs are the ones making it easier for me to live in the West. They have a
soothing effect on me. They even console me.
This is, of course, a very personal consideration. Yet it is not without interest
from the psychological point of view.
You see, I was living InRussia in a state of material sufficiency. I was part
of a group of writers, and others active in the field of the arts, I had friends.
Although we were all hampered by the make-believe, still we managed somehow
to get something out of life. I was forty-five. I could have died quietly and
"normally" in my native land. Yet I, as I said, at 46 "went over" to the West
where I have to face old age, complete financial uncertainty, not to mention
the fact that I do not and cannot have any friends nor can I belong to a circle
of writers because I am an outsider. I really am an outsider. That is an unalter-
able fact. So for the sake of what did I commit this act? For the sake of free-
dom for my spirit? Yes. But does such freedom exist? Yes. But is a man's
spirit not crippled by communism in the same measure as it is by capitalism?
Perhaps all my notions are untrue, naive, stupid? Perhaps that fatal step I took
three years ago was a mistake? These doubts, these thoughts still pursue me.
Sometimes they bring me to a state of complete despair. I do not know what to
do with myself. I become frantic. But this is what saves me :
I go to a library and get out the files of Pravda and the Literary Gazette. I
leaf and leaf through them. Iread and I read. And slowly the weight is lifted
from my soul. My equilibrium gradually returns. I begin to feel that no, I did not
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/212~FIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
make a mistake. In every line I see the stamp of this or that Party staff man,
or even what has been struck out by his red -pencil. (My eye is sharp to -see
such things). I read Soviet newspapers, I listen to Soviet broadcasts and I realize
that, alas, in my country, human conscience is still penned up, that it is still
in the clutches of the brutal Marxist conscience which kills everything that is
alive and God-given.
How can then anyone remain a Russian and not be anti-communist?
The history of John--Soldier of Peace would not be complete without an
account of my last and first meeting with Paul Robeson.
As it happened, almost ten years after the opening of John and in connection
with one of Paul Robeson's regular visits to Moscow, the Soviet Ministry of
Culture entertained the idea of making a movie about present day America
using my play as the basis for the picture. In it, the part of the Negro singer
John Robertson would be played by Paul Robeson. Not too bad a set-up. I wrote
the play with Paul Robeson appearing under the name of John Robertson. Now
they proposed that the role of the high minded John Robertson be taken by
Robeson himself. The idea received the approval of Petrov, the vice chairman of
the division of cultural affairs of the Central Committee of the Communist
Party. It was decided to hand the film over to the Gorki Studio. But everything
still depended on Robeson's being willing to take the role.
I repeat : this was my first and, I am sure, my last meeting with this "hero."
It took place in a sanatorium near Moscow, called Barvikha, run by the Central
Committee. It was there that Robeson was undergoing treatment. I must point
out that this was a rather complicated phase in his life because his relations
with his wife were very strained and he was almost on the point of divorcing
her. There were rumors about this in government circles.
We telephoned to Robeson on the special Kremlin wire (Vertushka) from the
office of Rachuk, head of film production for the Ministry of Culture. First the
head of the sanatorium came to the telephone. Rachuk explained to him why
we needed to see Robeson. But the main pressure put on him was due to the
fact that we were calling on the Kremlin private wire. (To have access in Moscow
to this wire would be the equivalent to having in America your private wire
to the White House). In about an hour there was a return call on the Kremlin
wire to Rachuk's office and Robeson himself was at the telephone. I talked to
him in English. He immediately recalled my play John-Soldier of Peace and
greeted me as its author. When I told him about the idea of creating a film he
became hesitant, said he would have to think about it and that we would have
to talk about it in a personal meeting. A day was fixed for us to meet.
From this telephone conversation with Robeson I understood that his reply
to our proposal did not depend only on him. I believe that he had to take counsel
with someone.
On the day and at the hour named I, in my Volga car, set out with Grisha
Britikov, the elegant director of the Gorki Studio, and Sergei Babinin, the stout
head of the scenario department of the Studio, and we arrived at the Central
Committee's Sanatorium Barvikha.
This is a beautiful, picturesque place, especially in winter. It is situated in an
enormous tract of land. The main group of buildings is basically half-modern
in style with certain elements of constructivism. The main hall, with a colonnade
is decorated with palms, cactuses, and in one corner there is a piano and the
inevitable aquarium. There are many round tables and heavy, waxed arm chairs.
Of course there were sets of chess and checkers. When I saw the chessmen I
immediately conjured up pictures of the after dinner hour, or the empty time
before supper, when the communist chieftains like Walter Ulbricht, Togliatti,
Thorez or Dolores Ibarurri, undergoing treatment or taking a vacation here in
Barvikha or the Crimea, would play checkers or even a game of draughts. . . .
And there were guards on every hand, the government "boys" in their caps.
They were already in evidence out on the high road as soon as you reach the
turn at Rublevo. After that the bushes and fir trees are crawling with them all
the way up to the gates of the sanatorium. Naturally they are indoors too.
The sanatorium is very quiet. The rules are strict, absolutely puritanical, even
though some of the European. leaders object to them and every now and then
try to have little flirtations with the nurses and attendants. One Italian revolu-
tionary even succeeded in getting married.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/2tSCIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Paul Robeson came down from his room one flight up to meet us. He looked
just as I imagined he would from the many photographs of him I had seen, except
that he had grown a beard. He spoke rather impulsively but in a low tone, as if
he were pointedly observing the rules of the sanatorium. We greeted each other
and sat down around one of the tables in the center of the big hall and began
our talk. Mostly it was carried on in Russian, with occasional lapses into English.
(Robeson had a fair command of Russian).
I did not take my eyes off Robeson and I tried to. fathom his character. I
wanted very much to find out what sort of a- man be was, and what was inside
of him. You see I had read many books written about him, including one brought
out in America. I was quite familiar with his life, I admired his outstanding
talent. I recalled that he had played Othello with rare artistry, that he was a
successful movie actor and that after all his was the best voice to render those
remarkable songs, 01' Man River and Water Boy. But what had happened to him
after he had subordinated his talents, so to say, to his political interests, after
getting into "social action work" and going into the Progressive Party, thus to
all intents and purposes allying himself with the communists?
Perhaps I am mistaken, perhaps it only seemed so to me, but I thought that in
Robeson's eyes there was no spark of real will and ardent faith ; somehow he
was irresolute, bewildered and, I would say, confused. His eyes reminded me
rather of Yevtushenko's. I believe that Robeson would be very happy if he could
go back to his past life and forget, like some terrible dream, all his "social action
work", if he could cease to be a "Soldier of Peace", if he could return his Lenin
prize given him as a "Fighter for Peace", if he, in short, could regain his crea-
tive freedom with a clear conscience and sing out, as in the old days, with the
full power of his great Negro voice, 01' Man River and Water Boy. But there was
no longer any road back for him. This is what happens when a man takes the
path of violence and demogogy-he becomes the victim of political machinations.
Incidentally, Howard Fast had the civic courage to confess that he had gone
down the wrong path when he believed in communism.
Robeson talked to us like a conspirator. He hinted to us that he did not want
to be filmed in an anti-American picture. He said :
"This is not in our interests."
Whom did he have in mind when he said not in our interests?
He led us to believe that in the higher Soviet Party circles it was felt that
perhaps it would be just as well if Robeson did not break with the United States,
and to be filmed in this picture would result, of course, in making his homeland
inaccessible to him.
Robeson talked and all the time his fingers were toying with the checkers lying
on the table.
Later on I learned that at this time he wanted very much to play the role of
Ira Aldridge, the negro actor who in the nineteenth century had cone on tour
to Russia. The scenario for a film on this theme was being written for Robeson
by an English friend, Herbert Marshall, who was the author of a book about
Aldridge. Although the Soviet Ministry of Culture considered Marshall "pro-
Soviet" and although he was, I repeat, a friend of Robeson, nothing came of
even this innocent plan.
This then is the last page of John-Soldier of Peace and now, thank God, he
can go to the bottom.
Here is a curious circumstance : After the opening night of John at the Push-
kin Theatre a friend said to me :
"Well, have you got your promotion now? Go on, tell me. But mind that you
keep out of the hands of the Americans-they would hang you for what you said
in that one place. . "
Of course he was joking. But in 1965, when I was in London, I remembered
his words and wondered : was he really joking?
Then I applied at the American Embassy, that monumental edifice on Gros-
venor Square, which at first did not bring back to my mind the great yellow
house in Moscow. I filed a request for an immigration visa, or just a tourist visa,
to go to the United States. (I had received an invitation from a well-known
American journalist). After a delay of six months my application was turned
down. Yes indeed, it was turned down. Included in the refusal was an extensive
list of persons classed as undesirable to the American authorities. I closely
scanned the list and realized, inasmuch as I am not feeble-minded, at least not
yet, or syphilitic, I can fall only into the category of deviates and spies.
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
255
So now again I pass the American Embassy with a sense of its inaccessibility
just as I did earlier in Moscow.
Then an inner voice says to me : "You shot at people on your own side." They
will not forgive you for that, and indeed why should the American Immigration
Bureau let such a besmirched person into their country, that is if they judge
him by what I have written to you, Mr. Smith, and that is only a small part of
my past?
I am closing my letter now, Mr. Smith, and I beg you after you have read it
to say : "Well, what of it. Every man has a right to express his opinion no matter
how muddle-headed" rather than : "You hapless defector ! You are left without
a homeland, you are sniping at it angrily, and also at your fellow countrymen,
friends and comrades. You are smearing them with venomous slobber and at-
tempting to poison both Russians and us, Americans."
Of course, I wrote this letter on my own behalf too ; it is all very important to
me, yet I also had in mind that perhaps by speaking out the truth in my own
heart I might touch your heart too, Mr. Smith, and tell you things that go beyond
ephemeral terms such as the "cold war". To be honest I can sneeze at some jour-
nalists and politics-mongers in the West who may say of me: "He's a shrewd
operator, he has mixed emotions in with politics, pulled out all the stops as to the
sincerity of his feelings, when actually he is adding water to the mill wheel of
the cold war." The "cold war"? What is that? No, I am pouring water on the
mill wheel of truth. Now I really do not possess a homeland but for that I do
possess truth. And I will not give it up even to please you, Mr. Smith, even to pro-
tect you from my "pessimism" and refuse to paint dark pictures. No, I cannot
even console you by tinkering with the truth, so that I could prophesy for you a
happy and serene life, which is, naturally, only what you strive for.
In taking leave of you all I can say is this :
Do not deceive yourself, do not build castles of air and try to see things as you
wish they were.
I believe that the days of secret negotiations, subrosa missions, and political
deals are coming to an end. They will be replaced by something greater, some-
thing gigantic, by something being decided on by the peoples of all the world and
already visible to all. In general the question put is this : What will you, peoples
of the world, choose : communism or freedom? Take a good look at both. Choose !
Choose even if you have to pay with your life for the choice. There is no other
way. Delay is possible. But there is no other way. It is getting more and more
difficult to sit on the fence.
I believe, Mr. Smith, that you Americans have had a great mission laid on
you. All these measly plodding attempts of heads of governments to create a
new Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals, to isolate the United States, to
achieve friendship with the communist countries, including China-all this is
the cheapest kind of blatant demogogy or, to put it bluntly, object capitulation.
If anyone thinks that communism is played out, or, thanks to "present revi-
sionism" is being transformed, or thinks that communism is weak, shot through
with contradictions and is therefore no longer terrifying-he is being fright-
eningly frivolous.
Communism, now that it is mature, is for that reason more flexible. You just
try to lay your hands on it!
Naturally, in trying to evaluate contemporary communism one cannot avoid
extremes, but I accept the "bugaboo of communism", which is what the so-called
"humanists" and "liberals" usually call it. They say : "Don't try to frighten us
with the bugaboo of communism ! All that is dead and gone !" Oh, my dear
"humanists" and "liberals"! When I lived in the Soviet Union, I too sometimes
thought that communism had grown weak at its core and was no longer ter-
rible, but when I reached the West, and after having spent three years here, I
realized just because I was here that communism is not only strong but ter-
rifying as well.
I have said, Mr. Smith, that a great mission has been laid on you, the Ameri-
cans. Because it is you alone, and I repeat, you alone who are capable of
barring the path to communism in Asia as also to Europe. Let America take a
neutral stand and tomorrow three fourths of the World map will be colored
red.
Sincerely yours,
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
SOVIET DISSIDENT REPROACHES KUZNETSOV
SUPPRESSED WRITER SAYS DEFECTOR LACKED COURAGE OF CONVICTIONS
(By Richard Reston, Los Angeles Times)
MOSCOW, Nov. 23-Andrei Amalric is a brilliant young intellectual, a dissi-
dent in this closed Soviet society and a writer still unpublished in his own country.
At 31, he has just produced a remarkable open letter of rebuke to Anatoly Kuz-
netsov, Russia's most celebrated recent literary defector.
In effect, Amairle accuses Kuznetsov of collaborating with the KGB (the
Soviet secret police) in a calculated attempt to flee the country. Kuznetsov, once
outside Russia, turned against his own literary colleagues for doing precisely
what he had done, according to Amalric's account.
The young author criticizes Kuznetsov for lacking the courage of his convictions,
for failing to support wider intellectual freedom in the face of political oppression.
Kuznetsov asked for and received political asylum in Britain last summer
while on a routine research trip as a leading Soviet writer. Later he described his
relations with the KGB, which, he said, kept him under surveillance and forced
him to oversee other prominent writers. Determined to get out of Russia, Kuz-
netsov said he played the role of informer and described to the KGB an alleged
anti-Soviet plot among Soviet writers. The result, he said, was permission for
his trip to Britain.
Two Books for the West
Two of Amalric's books are about to be published in the West under the titles
"Can the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?" and "Involuntary Journey to
Siberia." In one, he questions the Soviet system's capacity for existence under
present circumstances, in the other he describes his exile in Siberia several years
ago.
His letter to Kuznetsov is remarkable not only because such a document is
rarely seen in this country, but also for what it reveals about the long-suffering
literary community and the political system generally. Excerpts from the long
letter follow:
"You speak all the time of freedom, but of external freedom, the freedom
around us, and you say nothing of the inner freedom; that is, the freedom ac-
cording to which the authorities can do much to a man, but by which they are
powerless to deprive him of his moral values. .
"You say that the KGB has persecuted and blackmailed the Russian writer.
Of course, what the KGB has done can only be condemned. But one does not
understand what the Russian writer has done in order to oppose this.
"To struggle against the KGB is terrible but what in effect threatened a
Russian writer if, before his first visit abroad, he had refused to collaborate with
the KGB? The writer would not have gone abroad . . . but he would have
remained an honest man. In refusing in general to collaborate in this way he would
have lost a portion, perhaps a considerable portion, of the outer freedom but
would have achieved a greater inner freedom.
"You are all the time saying `they summoned me, they ordered me, the censor-
ship always had me on my knees," etc. It seems to me that if you had continually
yielded and done what you condemned in your heart you would not have deserved
a better attitude on the part of the KGB or the censorship. . . .
Cites Own Independence
"I preferred to be expelled from the university and to give up my hope of becom-
ing a historian rather than to correct anything in my work, which I myself con-
sidered correct. I preferred in general not to send my verses and plays to Soviet
publishing houses than to mutilate them in the hope that my name would appear
in print. It would take a long time to tell how the KGB paid attention to me but I
(257)
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 -RA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
will merely touch on the point you write about. In 19611 was courteously invited
to the KGB to write a general account of the mood of the intelligentsia and I
equally courteously refused, upon which the matter ended.
"In 1963 I was taken by night to the Lubyanka (a famous political prison) and
ordered to write a report against an American diplomat to the effect that he had
subjected me and other Soviet citizens to malicious ideological brainwashing. I
again refused, although they then threatened me with criminal proceedings. In
1965, I refused outright to talk with them, which cost me an exile in Siberia.
"But the main thing is that living in this country and continuing to write and
do what I consider correct, I can, at any moment, be again sent to prison or be
dealt with in any other fashion. That is why I think I have the personal right to
reproach you.
"But perhaps I have no right to do this. Above all because I am almost ten
years younger than you and I was only lightly touched by that most terrible
(Stalin) period which coincided with your youth and in which you became formed
as an individual. Even now the regime exists . . . mainly on the interest from the
capital of fear amassed in that period. It is not only a question of the KGB but the
fact that the whole atmosphere of Soviet life and of Soviet education is such that
a man is already conditioned to meet with the KGB and to enter into the same
relations with it as you did. .
"Nonetheless, I do reproach you, not because I want to condemn you personally
but because I want to condemn the philosophy of impotence and self-justification
which runs through all you have said and written in the West. `I was given no
choice'-you seem to be saying and this sounds like a justification not only for
yourself but for the whole of the Soviet creative intelligentsia-or at least for that
liberal part of it to which you belong.
"You condemn certain of its representatives, but inasmuch as you do not
direct one word of condemnation to your own address, blaming the authorities
for everything, I do not understand how you can make any demand against the
rest. You want to assert that you are all victims of oppression but it seems to me
that no oppression can be effective without those who are willing to submit to it.
`Unpleasant Phenomenon'
"It sometimes appears to me that the Soviet creative intelligensia-that is,
people accustomed to thinking one thing, saying another, and doing a third -is,
as a whole, an even more unpleasant phenomenon than the regime which formed
it. Hypocrisy and the acceptance of things as they are foisted on it has become
so much a part of it that it considers any attempt to act honorably as either a
crafty provocation or madness.
"I do not mean thrt all those who desire greater freedom for themselves and
their country should go to Red Square with banners. However, they ought to
reject the customary cynicism which equates truth and lies and to try to acquire
inner freedom. How to do this must evidently be decided by each person himself.
Not everyone can come out openly against those conditions in which we live.
"But it is always better to be silent than to utter falsehoods, better to refuse
to publish any of your books than to put out something which is completely con-
trary to what one had written in the beginning, better to refuse a trip abroad
than, for the sake of one, to become an informer or to report . . . better to refuse
a press conference than publicly to declare that there exists in our country creative
freedom . . .
"Judging only by his books, it is impossible to say that Solzhenitsyn (Russia's
most famous contemporary novelist and now a suppressed literary outcast) is
persecuted and tormented . He gives the impression of a man capable of
standing out against persecution. He has already once preserved his inner freedom
in prison and will evidently do so again if he is once more put in jail. From this
we can all derive strength."
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
INDEX
(NOTE.-The Senate Internal Security Subcommittee attaches no significance
to the mere fact of the appearance of the name of an individual or organization
in this index.)
Page
"A Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich"------------------------------ 184
"A Letter to Mr. Smith" (article) --------------------------------- 220,235
Adomovich----------------------------------------------------- 228,230
Adjubei---------------------------------------------------------- -173
Afghanistan------------------------------------------------------
202
Afghanistan Embassy----------------------------------------------
203
Agentstvo Novestiy-----------------------------------------------
226
Albania----------------------------------------------------------
212
Alilueva,Svetlana -------------------------------------------------
228
,
Arctic------------------------------------------------------------
181
Australia---------------------------------------------------------
206
Australian Embassy-----------------------------------------------
194
Avakumov--------------------------------------------------------
187
B
Bachrach---------------------------------------------------------
229
189
,
Baku---------------------------------------------------------- 188
Amalric, Andrei----------------------------------------- 225 226,227,257
American Embassy, London------------------------------ 211:212254,255
American Embassy, Moscow--------------------------------- 201, 202203
American Express------------------------------------------------- 215
American Immigration Bureau-------------------------------------- 255
Andreev, Major------------------------------------- 170, 185, 197, 198, 199
235
"Angry Exile, The" (book) --------------------------------------- 210
Barcelona--------------------------------------------------------
215
Baron,John -------------------------------------------- 213, 214, 215,
217
Barsegov, Colonel----------------------------------------------- 195,
196
Barvikha (hospital) ------------------------------------------------
253
Baskakov, Vladimir------------------------------------------------
251
Batumi-----------------------------------------------------------
188
Belgium------------------------------------------------
206
Belinkov----------------------------------------------- 178, 224, 228,
229
Berdyeev---------------------------------------------------------
230
Beria----------------------------------------------------------
182,
183
Berlin----------------------------------------------------- 192,
200,
243
Bespalov-------------------------------------------------------
186,
187
Bogich-----------------------------------------------------------
196
Bolshoi Theater---------------------------------------------------
194
Bondarchuk, Sergei------------------------------------- 168, 169, 170
173
)
Borba (newspaper) ------------------------------------------------ ,
196
Borodin----------------------------------------------------------
195
Brezhnev---------------------------------------------------------
180
British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) ----------------------- 178, 221
222
,
British Government-----------------------------------------------
206
British Intelligence Service--__ ----------------------------
203
British Secret Service----------------------------------------------
211
Brooks, Mrs. Peggy------------------------------------------------
209
Bukar, Anabella------------------------------------------------- 192
193
,
Bulmer-----------------------------------------------------------
192
Burchette, Wilfred Peter------------------------------------------
196
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/2'41: CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0500140002-0
"Can the Soviet Union Survive Until 1984?" (book)_________________ 227,
Page
257
Canada---------------------------------------------------- 206,211,
212
Canadian Broadcasting Co------------------------------------------
212
Canadian Embassy------------------------------------------------
212
Canadian Immigration Act and Regulations _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
212
Central Committee________________________________________________
175,
177, 179, 180, 181, 182, 188, 223, 239, 241, 242, 243, 244,
246,
249,
253.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)_________________________________
178,
223
Ceylon Embassy--------------------------------------------------
202
Chakovskiy, Alexander___________________________________________ 174, 175
Chaplygn--------------------------------------------------------- 242
Charles----------------------------------------------------------- 205
Cheka------------------------------------------------------------ 188
China---------------------------------------------------------- 211,255
Christian Science Monitor (newspaper) ------------------------------- 249
Churanov, Captain__________________________________________ 195,196,197
Clarity, James F-------------------------------------------------- 221
Colby, Major----------------------------------------------- 192,199,200
Columbia Broadcasting System______________________________________
222
Communist (magazine)___________________________________________ 188,
239
Communist Party-------------------------------------------------
233
Contu, Ormando---------------------------------------- 198, 199, 202,
203
Cowan, Lester----------------------------------------------------
251
Cuba------------------------------------------------------------
249
D
Daily Telegraph, The (newspaper)___________________________________
222
Daniel--------- --------------------------------------
227
Department of Citizenship and Immigration, Office of the High Commis-
sioner for Canada, London----------------------------------------
212
Do Damper, Francois__ ------------------------------------ 197,
198
De Gaulle, General------------------------------------------------
205
Dejean, Marie Claire_______________________________________________
195
Dejean, Maurice (Ambassador) ---------------------------- 169, 170, 172,
219
Dekanozov-------------------------------------------------------
183
Demichev------------------------------------------------------ 180,
181
Der Speigel(magazine) ---------------------------------------------
210
"Diplomats in a Trap" (book)____________________________________ 208,209
Dominican Republic_______________________________________________
249
Dusseldorf--------------------------------------------------------
192
Dutton, E. P. & Co-------------------------------------- 207, 209, 210,
235
E
Emery, Steve-----------------------------------------------------
239
Emigration and Nationality Act_____________________________________
211
England ------------ 185, 195, 205, 211, 212, 221, 222, 223, 227, 228, 233, 236,
249
English Embassy --------------------------------------------------
196
English Zone------------------------------------------------------
232
Evening Standard (newspaper)--------------------------------------
194
F
Fadeyev, A-------------------------------------------------------
245
Fedin---------------------------------------------------------- 171,
180
Fedorov----------------------------------------------------------
196
Finkelstein----- ----------------------------------------
228
Finland----------------------------------------------------------
196
Firth, Gordon R _ __________________________
211
Foreign Affairs Ministry____________________________________________
221
France_ ________________________________________ 185,186,197,
206
French Ambassador------------------------------------------ 168,173,
198
French Embassy________________________________________________ 197,198
French Exhibition, Moscow_________________________________________
198
"From the Window of the Embassy" (book)_ ________________________
192
Funk & Wagnalls--------------------------------------------------
217
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73BOO296ROO0500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 :1CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
G
Page
Gant, Roland ----------------------------------------------------
208
Georgia, State of- ------------------------------------------------
183
Germany - ---------------------- 171, 179, 186, 193, 209, 210, 228, 231,
232
Germany, East----------------------------------------------------
192
Girard -- --------------------------------------------------------
169
Gorbunov, General------------------------------------------------
170
GRU (Soviet military intelligence) -------------------------------- 231,
233
Gray, Bob--------------------------------------------------------
192
Great Britain------------------------------------------- 181,196,214,222
Gribanov, General------------------------------------------- 170,173,180
Grow, General- --------------------------------------------------
194
Guatemala---- --------------------------------------------------
249
Gudiaschvily-----------------------------------------------------
169
H
Hanka (cafe) -----------------------------------------------------
200
Harper & Rowe- -------------------------------------------
185
Heath Co--------------------------------------------------------
210
Heinemann, William, Ltd-------------------------------- 207, 208, 210,
235
Henry, Mr-------------------------------------------------------
192
Higgins, Marguerite--------------------------------------------- 195,196
Ho Chi Minh-----------------------------------------------------
249
Holland----------------------------------------------------------
206
Hotel Metropole--------------------------------------------------
243
Hotel Moscow---------------------------------------------------172,183
Hunter, Ambassador-----------------------------------------------
196
Hunter, J. A------------------------------------------------------
212
I
"I Am From Moscow" (book) --------------------------------------
210
Immigration and Naturalization Service------------------------------
213
India-----------------------------------------------------------206,210
Indian Ambassador------------------------------------------ 198, 199, 202
Indian Embassy------------------------------------------------- 192,198
Information and Educational Exchange Act of 1948-------------------
211
Inter-Continental Hotel --------------------------------------
215
International Trade Union Conference-------------------------------
188
"Involuntary Journey to Siberia" (book) --------------------------- 227,257
Irina---------------------------------------------------------- 194,195
Iron Curtain-------------------------------------------------------
235
Italy----------------------------------------------------------- 174,
185
Izvestia (newspaper) -----------------------------------------------
250
J
Japan--------- ----- --- ------------------------------ 185, 210, 247
"John, Soldier of Peace" (movie) ------------------------------------ 179,
220, 235, 236, 238, 240, 243, 244, 245, 253, 254
Johnson, Donald McI----------------------------------------------
209
Johnson Publications, Ltd---------------------------------------- 207,
209
Jordan, Bill-------------------------------------------------------
195
K
KGB-------------------------------------------------- 167-233, 257,
258
Kaganovich-------------------------------------------------------
243
Kapichkus--------------------------------------------------------
186
Kartser----------------------------------------------------------
196
Kau], Triloki----------------------------------------------- 192, 198,
219
Khovanskiy-------------------------------------------------------
169
Khrushchev-------------------- 173, 177, 184, 188, 189, 241, 247, 248, 249,
252
Kochctov---------------------------------------------------------
178
Konchalovskiy----------------------------------------------------
170
Koreshi----------------------------------------------------------
192
Kosygin----------------------------------------------------------
205
Kotov, M--------------------------------------------------------
243
Kozlov, Subcolonel------------------------------------------------
185
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/211: CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Page
Kremlin-------------------------------------------------------- 242,
253
Kruzhkov, N-----------------------------------------------------
242
Krylov, George---------------------------------------------------
239
Krylov, Machiavellian------------------------------------------- 239,
240
Kun-------------------------------------------------------------
173
Kunavin--------------------------------------------------- 172, 183,
186
Kuznetsov, Anatoly V------ 178, 181, 182, 185, 186, 222, 224, 225, 228-230,
257
L
Lavrenyev, Boris--------------------------------------------------
238
Lenin------------------------------------------------------------
187
Leningrad ------------------------------------------------ 179,
188
Liberty Committee------------------------------------------------
Lisbon ----------------------------------------------------
228
215
Literary Gazette----------------------------------- 182, 195, 247, 250,
252
"Literaturnaya Gazeta"____________________________________________
174
Litfund----------------------------------------------------------
180
London ---------- 194, 195, 196, 207, 208, 212, 218, 221, 222, 227, 228, 233,
235
Los Angeles Times (newspaper) ----------------------------------- 225,
226
Lotty---------------------------------------------------------- 192,
193
Lyons, Eugene----------------------------------------------------
218
M
Macmillan & Co., Ltd____________________________________________ 207,
209
Madrid-----------------------------------------------------------
215
Malaga-----------------------------------------------------------
215
Malahovka-------------------------------------------------------
193
Malenkov------------------------------------------------------ 182,
183
Maly Theater-----------------------------------------------------
242
Martin, David______________________________ -------------------------------------------------- 167,
191
Matusevich-------------------------------------------------------
228
Mdivani--- ------------------------------------------- 172,238
Merkulov, V------- -------------------------------------- 242
Mexican Ambassador---------------------------------------------- 198
Mexican Embassy--------------------------------------- 198, 201, 202, 203
Mexico----------------------------------------------------- 201,202,206
MI-5 ---------------------------------- 195, 196, 204, 205, 210, 211, 222, 223
Michael---------------------------------------------------------- 205
Mikhailovich, Alexei--------------------------------------------- 198,199
Mikhalkov------------------------------------------------------ 170,242
Mikheyev, Ivan----------------------------- 221, 222, 223, 224, 227, 228, 229
Mikheyev, Vladimir------------------------------------------------ 239
Mirfin, Derick---------------------------------------------------- 208
Mongolia--------------------------------------------------------- 223
Moore, George---------------------------------------------- 206,207,208
Moscow---------------------------------------------------------- 167,
170, 178, 179, 180, 182, 188, 192, 194, 195, 197, 203, 219. 221, 222,
226, 235, 236, 237, 241, 243, 247, 249, 250, 253, 254, 255
Moscow Committee of Dramatists--------------------------------- 179, 182
Moscow Embassy------------------------------------------------- 227
Moscow Radio______________________________________________ 179,197,233
Muenchen------------------------------------------------------ 213,229
Munich---------------------------------------------------------- 214
Murad ----------------------------------------------192
MVD---------------------------------------------------------- 182,183
N
Nazvanov, Mikhail---------------------------------- 240, 241, 242, 243, 244
New Review---------------------------------------------------- 220,235
New World (magazine) --------------------------------------------- 248
New York------------------------ 183, 184, 207, 209, 216, 230, 249, 250
New York Times-------------------------------------------------- 221
New York Times Bureau, London___________________________________ 211
Nobel Prize---------- -------------------------------------- 184
Norden, Albert---------------------------------------------------- 193
Norpel, John R., Jr------------------------------------------------ _191
"Novoye Russkoye Slovo" (newspaper)-----___ ------------------------------ 178
"Noviy Mir" (magazine) ------------------------------------------- 177
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21v CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
0 Page
Ogonek (publication)____________________________________________ 245, 246
Okhranka (Tzarist secret service)____________________________________ 188
Osborn, Cecile-------------------------------------------------- 194, 195
P
Pakistan--------------------------------------------------------- 206
Pall Mall Press, Ltd--------------------------------------------- 207, 208
Panton----------------------------------------------------------- 191
Paris---------------------------------------------- 185, 195, 197, 218, 223
Pasternak----------------------------------------- 171, 174, 177, 180, 246
Pasternaks, The (book) -------------------------------------------- 235
Pastukhov, Lieutenant Colonel______________________________________ 242
Pavlova, D ---------------------------------------------------245
Pavlovsky------------------------------------------------------ 193, 194
Pedovranov, General_______________________________________________ 192
Peredelnino------------------------------------------------------- 178
Petrov----------------------------------------------------------- 197
Polikarpov, D----------------------------------- - - -- 246
Politburo -------------------------------------- 176,179,180,193,242,243
Popova, Nina----------------------------------------------------- 250
Potsdam --------------------------------------------------------- 232
Poustovskiy---------------------------------------------------- 174,180
Povlovskiy, Lieutenant Colonel___________________________________ 171
Prague----------------------------------------------------- - 197
Pravda (Newspaper)_____________________________________ 167,242,252
Pushkin Theater--- ______________________________ 235,241,244,254
"Quiet Don, The" (novel) ----------------------------------------- 187
R
Radio Liberty------------------------------------------- 178,213,224,229
Ravel------------------------------------------------------------ 198
Raymond,Jack ----------------------------------------------195,211
Reader's Digest--------------------------------------------- 213,218,239
Red China------------------------------------------------------- 249
Reisman,Julius --------------------------------------------------- 251
Reschetnyk----------------------------------------------------- 167,168
Reston, Richard________________________________________ 225,226,227,257
Rettic,John ---------------------------------------------------- 195,196
Riga----------------------------------------------------------- 196
Robeson, Paul______________________________________ 179,235,238,253,254
229
Rome------------------ ---------------------------------------
"Romeo and Juliet" (movie)________________________________________ 173
Room, Abram---------------------------------------------------- 245
"Rose of Castiliano, The" (script)_______________________________ 198
Russia_____________________________ 178, 181, 184, 198, 211, 222, 223, 229, 257
Ruzhnikov, Evgeniy_________________________________________ 231,232,233
Ryazan-------------------------------------------------------- 179,182
Ryazan District Committee______________________________________ 176, 181
S
Saharenko-------------------------------------------------------- 195
Samoylov ------------------------------------------------------195
San Francisco--------------------------------------------------- 200,250
Scholokov-------------------------------------------------------- 187
Schtern---------------------------------------------------------- 191
Schverin--------------------------------------------------------- 192
Sellers, Peter------------------------------------------------- -- 208
Seniavsky-------------------------------------------------------- 227
Sheray----------------------------------------------------------- 195
Sherborne, D ---------------------------------------------------207
Shubnikov------------------------------------------------------- 192,193
Simonov--------------------------------------------------------- 184
Skobtsey -------------------------------- ?------------------------ 173
Society of Friendly Relations Between the U.S.S.R. and the Foreign
Countries------------------------------------------------------ 196,2,50
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21 VIIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
Page
Solzhenitsyn, Alexander Isaevich____________________________________ 175,
176, 177, 179, 180, 182, 183, 184, 185, 187, 225, 258
Solzhenitsym, Paustovski----------------------------------------- 246,248
Sourwine,J. G------------ ------------------------------------ 167-233
Soviet Ambassador (Germany)______________________________________ 183
Soviet Committee of Movies________________________________________ 168
Soviet Embassy------------------------------------------------- 187, 227
Soviet Embassy (Canada) ----------------------------------------196
Soviet Exhibition of Photography--------------------------------- - - 232
Soviet Government______________________________________________ 174, 196
Soviet Informational Bureau________________________________________ 226
Soviet Journalists Chub--------------------------------------------- 221
SPE G------------------------------------------------------------ 193
Spain--------------------------------------------- 185, 210, 217, 223, 228
Squires, Maj. Richard--------------------------------------- 192, 193, 194
Stalin------------------------------------- 182, 183, 184, 187, 188, 246, 248
Stepanov, Major-------------------------------------------------- 185
Sturve----------------------------------------------------------- 230
Sukarno (President of Indonesia)______________________________ 167, 168, 171
Surkov--------------------------------------------------------- 172, 180
Suslov----------------------------------------------------- 179, 180, 223
U
Ukraine---------------------------------------------------------- 179
Ulbrich---------------------------------------------------------- 193
UPDK----------------------------------------------------------- 194
U.S.S.R. (Soviet Union) -------------------------------------------- 170,
177, 181, 183, 184, 203, 206, 210, 221, 222, 224, 225, 228,
230, 235, 241, 245
Union of Russian Federation---------------------------------------- 176
Union Socialist Party, East Germany----------------------------- 193
Union of Soviet Screenwriters-------------------- 235
-------------------
Union of Soviet Writers---------- 170, 171, 175, 176, 178, 179, 180, 181, 183, 227
Union of Writers of the Russian Federation--------------------- 176, 177, 180
United Kingdom-------------------------------------------------- 206
United States of America (U.S.A.)-------------------------------- 178, 187,
201-206, 209-211, 213, 216, 218, 224, 228, 232, 233, 236, 254, 255
United States, Government of-------------------------------------- 185
T
TASS---------------------------------------------- 178, 179, 226, 239, 242
Tbilisi---------------------------------------------------------- 183,189
Thompson, Ambassador Llewellyn----------------------------------- 251
Thurmond, Senator Strom---------------------------------------- 167-233
Todd, Mike------------------------------------------------------- 250
Tokyo----------------------------------------------------------- 198
Tonya----------------------------------------------------------- 197
Tuck, Robert----------------------------------------------------- 229
Tula------------------------------------------------------ - 182
Tvardovski------------------------------------------------- 177,184,248
Tzar 188
V
Vanin, Vassili--------------------------------------- 241, 242, 243, 244, 245
Vermishev, Leo---------------------------------------------------- 237
Vienna------------------------------------------------- 214,215,217,218
Vietnam---------------------------------------------------------- 249
Vikland, Miss----------------------------------------------------- 243
Voice of America-------------------------------------------------- 178
Voronkov-------------------------------------------------------- 180
Vronski-------------------------------------------------------- 239,240
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
 Approved For Release 2005/11/21-1clA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0
W rage
"War and Peace" (movie) ------------------------------------------ 168
Washington, D.C -------------------------------------- 211,214,215,232
Washington Post, the (newspaper)__________ ______________________ 225,226
Weidle------------------------------------------------------ 228,230
Wentworth, Charles____________________________________________ 206,207
West - - _ 180, 181, 186, 192, 222, 224, 227, 229, 235, 236, 243, 249, 255, 257
Western World -------------------------------------------------- 225
Western Zone------------ ---------------------------------------- 193
X
Xerox ---------------------------------------------------------- 204
Y
Yevtushenko, Yergheni________________________________ 246,247,248,249
Yugoslavia------------------------------------------------------- 196
Yvetuschenko---------------------------------------------------- 180
Z
Zaharia Film----------------------------------------------------- 198
Zavadski--------------------------------------------------------- 245
Zhivago, Dr. (movie) ---------------------------------------------- 208
Zoia------------------------------------------------------------- 107
Approved For Release 2005/11/21 : CIA-RDP73B00296R000500140002-0