Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

WE ARE THE NEXT TARGET (Amazing special report on real forces behind the global terrorist network)
Inside Story: World Report ^

Posted on 09/19/2004 1:50:57 PM PDT by GIJoel

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-151 next last
To: Smokin' Joe

It's like someone said before...whatever happened to the Monroe Doctrine? It seems to have gone out the window with the "collapse" of Communism.


61 posted on 09/19/2004 8:57:36 PM PDT by GIJoel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

This article is more recent and supports what your posting tells, but it's more abbreviated. This may be a good alternative for those who dismiss the information due to the original date.

From Russia With Terror
By Jamie Glazov
FrontPageMagazine.com | March 1, 2004

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12387


62 posted on 09/19/2004 9:29:41 PM PDT by Honestly (There is nothing so likely to produce peace as to be well prepared to meet the enemy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Honestly

Honestly, very good article. Pacepa sure gets around doesn't he! However, I get the feeling that Pacepa's CIA handlers jerk on his chain a little when he strays to close to the notion that the Soviets faked their own collapse. Anyone else pick up on that, or is it just me?


63 posted on 09/19/2004 9:39:08 PM PDT by GIJoel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

Joel, go to google and do my simple search for the authors name (pacepa) all 3 of his names, there were many pages on
or of his writing.

Kerry jumped at me and I had to move him, an un-controlable urge.

Last week I was lost in Google looking at:

declassified fbi memo

secret fbi memo

presidential directive unclassified document

(and all of the above with cia instead of fbi)

foia.ucia.gov

(released documents)

Now to change the above searches to kerry, and to check the released Russian documents, there should be one out there.

I am not sure what I used, but did find a released document, of Russia, didn't have muslims, but sure told what it was really like in the old days, and I would say today.


64 posted on 09/19/2004 10:01:14 PM PDT by nw_arizona_granny (On this day your Prayers are needed!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

Now you are going where most FReepers dare tread...the IslamoCommunist cabal to take out America, outside, combined with the World Communists INSIDE are on the march.


65 posted on 09/19/2004 10:04:22 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

Man, I hope you know how to protect your identity, self and loved ones...God bless you.


66 posted on 09/19/2004 10:06:56 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark

Comedian?


67 posted on 09/19/2004 10:07:54 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: nw_arizona_granny

Thanks


68 posted on 09/19/2004 10:09:18 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

What are your feelings about them faking their collapse?


69 posted on 09/19/2004 10:12:24 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel
Communism explicitly disavows all moral rules, and its members must constantly shift tactics, sometimes even carry out seemingly anti-Marxist actions, as its leadership adapts the revolution to changing circumstances.[44] Thus Communists possess the fanatic discipline needed to carry out deception on a scale beyond the imagination of most outsiders, including staging their own alleged "collapse."

This seems very familiar somehow.

Brilliant article.

70 posted on 09/19/2004 10:18:46 PM PDT by ladyinred ("John Kerry reporting for spitball and typewriter duty.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel; Calpernia; All

This report made me think of the the School they terrorists took over.

One of the Newspaper Editors was fired for reporting the true numbers of the massacre, I don't know if I put that article in the the Files of Terror thread or not.

You might be able to dig around on this site and try the search that I used to get there.

G o o g l e's cache of http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic_id=1409&fuseaction=library.document&id=15365 as retrieved on Sep 2, 2004 21:05:31 GMT.

To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:EyzJCeOWVWsJ:wwics.si.edu/index.cfm%3Ftopic_id%3D1409%26fuseaction%3Dlibrary.document%26id%3D15365+USSR+Committee+for+%0D%0A />State+Security+of+the%0D%0A


Council+of+Ministers+of+the+USSR%0D%0A
Moscow&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=googlet

Google is not affiliated with the authors of this page nor responsible for its content.
These search terms have been highlighted:
ussr
committee
state
security
council
ministers
ussr
moscow



Cold War International History Project
Virtual Archive

Stengoram of a Session of the Bureau of
the Central Committee of the Communist
Party of Moldavia

TAKING PART:

CC Bureau Members Cdes. Antosiak,
Bodiul, Diordica, Il’yashchenko, Steshov,
Voronin21

CC Bureau Candidate Member Cde.
Sidorenko22

Cde. Volosiuk
Cde. Konstantinov
Cde. Stepanov — department heads of the
CP CC[23]
Cde. Savochko
Cde. Pasikovskii

Cde. Malakhov
Cde. Gorsa — deputy department heads of
Cde. Kondrat’ev the CP CC[24]

5. On the Violation of Party Discipline by
the Minister of Communications of the
Moldavian SSR, Cde. V. P. Russu

Cde. BODIUL: The decision of the CPSU CC
says that insofar as materials of an
anti-Soviet character are being published in
Romanian newspapers and journals, USSR
Glavlit is ordered to monitor Romanian
publications and, if anti-Soviet materials
should appear, to remove them from
circulation.[25] As you know, we decided to
limit the circulation of Romanian
newspapers in which undesirable materials
are published, but unfortunately the
Ministry of Communications did not uphold
this decision.

(Report of Cde. Konstantinov)[26]

Cde. BODIUL: Up to that point,
communications officials had both
propagated and distributed Romanian
literature. It was then brought to your
attention, Cde. Russu, that too much
Romanian literature was being circulated.
And this year a huge number [of people]
had begun subscribing to Romanian
newspapers! You were given an instruction
to halt the circulation of Romanian
newspapers. There’s a journalist law in
Moscow, and do you really think the CC is
not empowered?[27] Are you somehow
above it? Why are you not controlling the
ministry?

Cde. RUSSU: This was in fact done from the
time of the first conversation in 1966, when
the circulation of Romanian periodicals and
publications was widespread. In 1967 the
volume of subscriptions to Romanian
newspapers and journals was sharply
reduced. The greatest possible reduction
was carried out. The circulation was
coordinated with the CC department.[28]
We reduced the number of issues to a
fifteenth of what it had been at the time of
the first conversation.

I traveled to the Ministry of
Communications in Moscow. They did not
want to apply this huge reduction. I linked
up with the CPSU CC department, and, with
the department of propaganda and
agitation, I called the all-union Ministry of
Communications.

Cde. BODIUL: There’s a USSR Minister [of
Communications], Cde. Psurtsev, and you
should have resolved all matters with
him.[29]
How many issues of the newspapers are
entering Moldavia?

Cde. RUSSU: 388 copies for professional
purposes— “Scînteia”—48 copies and by
retail trade some 90 copies. 5 copies to
Ungeny,[30] 2-3 copies to a camping-site,
and several copies to the Soyuzpechat
kiosk in the CC.

In August and September all issues of the
newspapers were held back except for 20
copies designated for border points.

Cde. KONSTANTINOV: But the newspapers
showed up in our hotel and at the airport,
and they were selling them at the kiosks
and in the Intourist hotel.

Cde. RUSSU: In connection with the
long-anticipated events in Czechoslovakia,
I was mobilized.[31] We were in a difficult
situation. We had no experience in this sort
of thing. Since the end of the Great
Patriotic War, we had never once
conducted a training exercise. Several
months before August, the designation of
the battalion was changed. As a result, the
battalion was deprived of its most
important and vital asset. I was not in my
office at the Ministry, since I conducted the
work directly there. There was nowhere to
deploy the equipment. I was in contact with
Minsk, Moscow, and Kyiv. On 23 August
the battalion was brought up to combat
readiness. On the 24th, it was sent to
Czechoslovakia to reestablish
communications. I was preoccupied with
the creation of this military formation.

On the 22nd, the first department reported
to me that there was an urgent instruction
from Moscow. I rode over there and
received a ciphered telegram, which said
that all [Czechoslovak] newspapers must
be held back for two days and all journals
for four days until a directive is received
from Moscow. This was brought on by the
events in Czechoslovakia.

On 22 August, when I was in my military
unit, some soldiers said to me that a
meeting was under way in Romania, and I
listened in to a bit of the meeting where
Ceausescu delivered his speech. I then told
D. S. Cornovan[32] that we must also hold
back all Romanian newspapers. Events
unfolded that way in the future. The deputy
minister, Severinov, assumed leadership of
the ministry.[33] He reported that there
was an instruction from the CC ordering
newspapers and journals to be held back
for two days.

But Severinov and Kucia decided to act in
accordance with the instructions from
Moscow, in accordance with the
instructions of the USSR Ministry of
Communications, which are issued at the
behest of the CPSU CC.[34]

During the first two to three days when the
newspapers were held back, we accepted
the participation of Glavlit. And then they
said: “You have instructions from Moscow;
you should act in accordance with these
instructions.”

Cde. BODIUL: Who in the USSR Ministry of
Communications reads Romanian
newspapers? They issue their regulations
on the basis of general instructions. With
regard to Czechoslovakia, they perhaps
gave a directive from the CPSU CC. But in
Moldavia itself it was clearer which
newspapers must be held back.

Cde. RUSSU: On 26 August, I received
instructions to do the same with Romanian
newspapers as I had been doing with
Czechoslovak publications.

Cde. BODIUL: You report to your ministry
how their actions are in conformity with our
actions, which must be in accordance with
instructions from the CPSU CC. We received
consent and even instructions from the
CPSU CC not to distribute Romanian
newspapers on the 21st. If the all-union
Ministry is interested and is following the
materials, let them consult with the CPSU
CC and the CC of the Moldavian Communist
Party. What happened was a lack of
coordination. And this happened because in
the [all-union] ministry they don’t read
Romanian newspapers.

Cde. IL’YASHCEHNKO: You received
instructions from the [Moldavian] CC, and
even if you did not agree with them, you
can disregard them only if you check with
the CPSU CC. You received instructions
from the CC of the Moldavian Communisty
Party and did not fulfill them. You instead
acted on your own. You did not come and
say that this is not in accord with the
instructions of the CC of the Moldavian
Communisty party and the USSR Monistry
of Communications. You say that people
there also are well-versed in politics. This
is a very dangerous approach. This is a
very dangerous approach when you place
party organs against one another. This did
enormous political damage.

Cde. RUSSU: I would like to say that I am
very much guilty of this, but it was not
through any design.

Cde. IL’YASHCHENKO: You distributed
counterrevolutionary propaganda against
the will of the CC of the Moldavian
Communist Party. You distributed harmful
propaganda, even though you must realize
that it is forbidden to distribute it.
Irrespective of the fact that you did a lot on
this matter, you committed a serious
political mistake in the process.

Cde. BODIUL: It is extremely easy to give a
correct assessment of this matter. You
disregarded the instructions you were
given. The assessment by K. F.
Il’yashchenko is completely correct.

Cde. STESHOV: I would say that this is due
not only to a lack of control, but to a lack of
supervision over your employees. They
began distributing things, but the minister
did not know about it; it was done without
his knowledge.

Cde. BODIUL: You informed us about the
penalties imposed against everyone,
including the first deputy minister, and
informed us about the sorts of measures
you adopted. What’s at issue here are the
interests of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union and our policy. The Romanian
press features hostile items, but you
approach it just as you would any old thing.

Cde. RUSSU: There are more than 400,000
radio receivers in the republic and nearly
half a million televisions. The broadcasts
are in all the major languages: Ukrainian,
Moldavian, and Russian.[35] We must take
urgent measures for the accelerated
creation of technical means to carry out
counterpropaganda.[36] Construction of
the radio relay station from Kishinev to
Kagul is going very poorly.[37] It seems to
me that help must be provided to the
builders, who do not regard the project as
an important matter.

Cde. BODIUL: The main thing is not the
builders, but the project planners.
Everything possible must now be done so
that these facilities can be built. We must
consider and adopt measures to this end.
We must act more quickly in creating a
zone and beginning construction of the
facility.

Cde. RUSSU: We have to expedite the
construction of the Kishinev-Kagul radio
relay station. We need to have powerful
means of communication.

Cde. BODIUL: To do that, we’ll have to
come up with the money. The formulation
should be left as “for violations of party
discipline, either to reprimand or to give a
stern warning.”

Cde. IL’YASHCHENKO: This isn’t the first
incident with Kucia. I’ve known him for
many years.

Cde. KONSTANTINOV: He behaved
outrageously when they began to explain it
to him.

Cde. BODIUL: Kucia and others let Russu
down. The proposal is to issue a stern
warning to Russu.

[SOURCE: AOSPRM, F. 51, I. 29, D. 49, ff.
4 and 10-15]

Mark Kramer, a frequent contributor to the
Bulletin, is the director of the Harvard
Project on Cold War Studies and a senior
associate at the Davis Center for Russian
Studies, Harvard University

[21] Translator’s Note: In addition to
Bodiul, these officials included Georgii
(Gheorghe) Fedorovich Antosiak, the first
deputy chairman of the Moldavian Council
of Ministers (responsible for economic
affairs); Aleksandr (Alexandru) Filippovich
Diordica, chairman of the Moldavian
Council of Ministers; Kirill’ Fyodorovich
Il’yashchenko, chairman of the Presidium of
the Moldavian Supreme Soviet; Boris
Aleksandrovich Steshov, Moldavian CP CC
Secretary (responsible for industry); and
Pyotr (Petre) Vasil’evich Voronin.

[22] Translator’s Note: Sergei Stepanovich
Sidorenko was the chairman of the official
Moldavian trade unions.

[23] Translator’s Note: The officials listed
here were: Vasilii (Vasile) Mikhailovich
Volosiuk, head of the Moldavian CP CC
Administrative Organs Department; Anton
Sidorovich Konstantinov, head of the
Moldavian CP CC Propaganda and Agitation
Department; Georgii (Gheorghe)
Afanas’evich Stepanov, head of the
Moldavian CC Agriculture Department;
Boris Nikolaevich Savochko, head of the
Moldavian CP CC Department for Industry
and Transportation; and Aleksandr
(Alexandru) Ignat’evich Pasikovskii, head of
the Moldavian CP CC General Department.

[24] Translator’s Note: The officials listed
here were Vladimir Nikolaevich Malakhov,
deputy head of the Moldavian CP CC
Propaganda and Agitation Department;
Georgii (Gheorghe) Ivanovich Gorsa,
deputy head of the Moldavian CP CC
Oerganizational-Party Work Department;
and Vasilii (Vasile) Fedorovich Kondrat’ev,
deputy head of the Moldavian CP CC
Department for Industry and
Transportation.

[25] Translator’s Note: Glavlit was the
widely-used nickname of the main organ
responsible for enforcing censorship in the
Soviet Union, the State Directorate for the
Protection of State Secrets in the Press,
which was reestablished in August 1966 as
a body directly
accountable to the USSR Council of
Ministers. Glavlit was originally set up by
the Bolsheviks in 1922 and existed under
various names thereafter. From August
1963 to August 1966, the agency (then
known as the State Directorate for the
Protection of Military and State Secrets in
the Press) was subordinated to the USSR
Committee on the Press. A decree issued
by the USSR Council of Ministers on 18
August 1966 restored Glavlit to its previous
status as a constituent body of the Council
of Ministers. See “Postanovlenie Soveta
Ministrov SSSR o Glavnom upravlenii po
okhrane gosudarstvennykh tain v pechati
pri Sovete Ministrov SSSR (Glavlit),” 18
August 1966, in Gosudarstvennyi Arkhiv
Rossiiskoi Federatsii (GARF), F. R-9425,
Op. 2, D. 432, L. 1.

[26] Translator’s Note: See the Document
No. 1 above.

[27] Translator’s Note: The reference to a
“journalist law in Moscow” is somewhat
peculiar. There was no comprehensive
press law in the Soviet Union until June
1990: “Zakon SSSR o pechati i drugikh
sredstvakh massovoi informatsii,” 12 June
1990, in Vedomosti Verkhovnogo Soveta
SSSR (Moscow), No. 26 (1990), pp.
492-508. Earlier on, several laws and
provisions of the Soviet constitution relating
to the press were enforced by Glavlit, the
Committee on the Press, and other
agencies, but a comprehensive law on the
press was never adopted, despite
considerable discussion of the idea in 1966
and 1967. The monthly journal Zhurnalist,
edited by E. V. Yakovlev, which began
publication in January 1967 after its
predecessor, Sovetskaya pechat’, fell into
official disfavor, was especially active in
1967 in promoting consideration of the
possibility of a press law. On this point, see
Mark W. Hopkins, Mass Media in the Soviet
Union (New York: Pegasus, 1970), p. 133.
The proposal for a press law ran into
difficulty, however, after the Soviet
Committee on State Security (KGB)
forcibly cracked down on a group of over
100 intellectuals and scholars in November
1967 for allegedly preparing a draft press
law that would have abolished censorship.
Soon thereafter, in April 1968, E. V.
Yakovlev was removed as editor-in-chief of
Zhurnalist and accused of “committing
serious mistakes,” “exercising
unsatisfactory leadership,” and “frequently
publishing ideologically weak materials.”
For declassified materials about these
events, see “TsK KPSS,” 14 November
1967 (Secret), from Yu. V. Andropov, head
of the KGB, plus the accompanying draft
“Proekt zakona o rasprostranenii otyskanii i
poluchenii informatsii,” in Arkhiv Prezidenta
Rossiislkoi Federatsii (APRF), F. 3, Op. 78,
D. 8, Ll. 46-56; and “Postanovlenie
Sekretariata TsK KPSS: O sereznykh
nedostatkakh v rabote zhurnala
‘Zhurnalist’,” St No. 50/5s (Top Secret), 26
April 1968, in RGANI, F. 4, Op. 19, D. 101,
L. 11. The idea of a press law was thus
largely stillborn. In the absence of such a
law, Glavlit, the Committee on the Press,
the KGB, and other bodies responsible for
overseeing the press acted in accordance
with guidelines set forth by the CPSU
Politburo, the CPSU Secretariat, and the
USSR Council of Ministers. Various
problems that arose in 1967 and especially
1968 (in part because of ferment connected
with the Prague Spring) led to the adoption
in January 1969 of stringent, new
guidelines laid out in a CPSU Secretariat
directive: “Postanovlenie Sekretariata TsK
KPSS: O povyshenii otvetsvennosti
rukovoditelei organov, pechati, radio,
televideniya, kinematografii, uchrezhdenii
kul’tury i iskusstva za ideino-politicheskii
uroven’ publikuemykh materialov i
repertuara,” St No. 64/1s (Top Secret), 7
January 1969, in RGANI, F. 4, Op. 19, D.
131, Ll. 2-6. For published materials
bearing on control of the press during this
period, see A. Z. Okorokov et al., ed., O
partiinoi i sovetskoi pechati,
radioveshchanii i televidenii: Sbornik
dokumentov i materialov (Moscow: Mysl’,
1972), esp. pp. 357-372.

[29] Translator’s Note: The phrase “CC
department” is shorthand for the “CPSU CC
Department for Liaison with Communist and
Workers’ Parties of Socialist Countries”
(Otdel TsK KPSS po svyazyam s
kommunisticheskimi i rabochimi partiyami
sotsialisticheskikh stran), which oversaw
relations among Communist states.
Because of the department’s long and
unwieldy name, it was often referred to as
simply the “CPSU CC department” or the
‘CC department.”

[30] Translator’s Note: Bodiul is referring
here to Nikolai Demyanovich Psurtsev, who
had been serving as Soviet minister of
communications since March 1948.

[31] Translator’s Note: Ungeny is a
Moldovan city roughly 75-80 kilometers to
the west of Kishinev (Chiºinãu), along the
Romanian border.

[32] Translator’s Note: Russu’s comments
here are interesting insofar as they show
how many reservists were being mobilized
in the leadup to the invasion.

[33] Translator’s Note: Dmitrii (Dumitru)
Semenovich Cornovan was a full member of
the Moldavian CP CC Bureau and a
Moldavian CP CC Secretary (responsible for
propaganda). [34] Translator’s Note:
Mikhail (Mihai) Nikolaevich Severinov was
the Moldavian first deputy minister of
communications.
[35] Translator’s Note: Severinov was
identified in the previous footnote.
Konstantin (Constantin) Aleksandrovich
Kucia was head of the foreign
communications section of the Moldavian
ministry of communications.

[34] Translator’s Note: Mikhail (Mihai)
Nikolaevich Severinov was the Moldavian
first deputy minister of communications.

[35] Translator’s Note: Severinov was
identified in the previous footnote.
Konstantin (Constantin) Aleksandrovich
Kucia was head of the foreign
communications section of the Moldavian
ministry of communications.

[36] Translator’s Note: The population of
Soviet Moldavia at this time, according to
official Soviet census data, consisted of
roughly 16 percent Ukrainians, 10-11
percent Russians, 66 percent “Moldavians”
(ethnic Romanians), and small percentages
of other ethnic groups (officially referred to
as “coinhabiting nationalities”). Russian
was the most widely used language in the
republic, especially in urban areas, but
Ukrainian and so-called Moldavian were
also permitted. The supposedly distinct
language of “Moldavian” was purely a
Soviet artifact. It was identical to Romanian
except that it used the Cyrillic alphabet
instead of the Latin.

[37] Translator’s Note: The comments here
about the lack of progress in countering
Romanian radio and television broadcasts
are especially important in light of the
concerns that Bodiul had been expressing
since 1965-66 about “hostile” Romanian
broadcasts.

[38] Translator’s Note: Kagul is a small city
in the far southwest of Moldova along the
Romanian border, roughly 200 kilometers
south of Kishinev (Chiºinãu).




Print this document | Email a friend

Subject:
Czechoslovakia,Moldavia,Soviet
Invasion of Czechoslovakia
(Prague Spring),USSR
Bulletin
12-13 -
End of the
Cold War
Pact
Keywords:
Collection
ID:
Research
Notes
Geographic Subject:
Czechoslovakia,Moldavia,USSR
Document
Author:
Document Origin:
Published:
Document Date: 10/11/68
Document
ID:
Document Type: Translated
Russian Document
Archive:
National
Archives
Moldova
(AOSPRM)

Scholars

Christian Ostermann,
Director
Mircea Munteanu,
Project Associate
Richard Thomas,
Production Editor
M. Dee Beutel, Project
Assistant

Cold War International
History Project
Woodrow Wilson Center
One Woodrow Wilson
Plaza
1300 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20004-3027
Email:
coldwar1@wwic.si.edu
Tel: 202/691-4110


71 posted on 09/19/2004 10:23:51 PM PDT by nw_arizona_granny (On this day your Prayers are needed!!!!!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution

Here's a summary of how it all happened...(I will post this again in a new thread at some point, but I thought I'd post it here first, since you asked).




Inside Story: World Report
November, 1994

Soviet Moles in the CIA, part I:
The Destruction of Western Intelligence

The Committee for State Security (KGB) has always been the foundation of the Soviet police state. It has kept the borders tightly sealed against escape, maintained thousands of concentration camps, and actively spied on the Soviet population at home while arming terrorists and operating sophisticated spy networks abroad. The Communists have depended on the KGB for their hold on power.

Thus the "death" of Soviet Communism in 1991 should have ended the KGB. Among other consequences, Soviet espionage against the United States should have collapsed with the "end" of the Cold War. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), anticipating this change, has already diverted hundreds of its officers from counterintelligence against Soviet agents into the war on drugs and other campaigns.1

Instead, the opposite has happened. Immediately before resigning, Mikhail Gorbachev increased the KGB's budget by 20%.2 Since Boris Yeltsin came to power, the KGB's foreign section has been renamed the Federal Intelligence Service (SVR in Russian), and its operations have been expanded yet again. One news report admitted that "Russian President Boris Yeltsin has cultivated the former KGB and even strengthened its authority," while according to another source, "Russian spy operations against the US have shown little decline following the collapse of the former USSR. Western intelligence agencies report that Russian spying is on the rise around the world."3 Indeed, the FBI is now reporting a startling rise in the number of Soviet agents operating in the US.4

Given the atmosphere of wishful thinking created by the news media, it is no wonder that Americans were taken by such surprise on February 21, 1994, when Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officer Aldrich Ames was arrested as a Soviet spy. But the Ames case is only the tip of the iceberg. Western intelligence agencies, including the CIA, are now so heavily infiltrated as to render them virtually useless against Soviet aggression. Our own intelligence agencies, in fact, are lulling the West to sleep by reassuring us that Soviet Communism is probably dead.


Ames: agent of the new Cold War

The news media has largely downplayed the damage caused by Ames, as well as the growing evidence of a much larger Soviet network inside Western intelligence circles.

Ames was a major figure in the CIA. He joined the agency in 1962 and spent the next two decades gradually working his way up the ranks. By 1985 he became chief of counterintelligence for the Soviet Bloc Division--an incredibly sensitive position, giving him authority over the debriefing of defectors from the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.

During the next six years, serious problems developed. At least ten, and possibly dozens, of CIA intelligence operations failed; covert foreign contacts "suddenly stopped cooperating"; and at least eight CIA agents were uncovered and assassinated, as were two FBI agents.5 By 1990, the CIA's Counterintelligence Center finally noticed that Ames was paying cash for a home and car too expensive for his salary, and that he had been involved with some of the agency's recent disasters. The Center issued a memo to the Office of Security, requesting an investigation. The memo was ignored.6

The CIA, meanwhile, was recruiting members of the Stasi (the East German secret police) to act as spies for the United States. But in 1991, the CIA and FBI discovered that all of these "spies" had been double agents--in other words, they were secretly working for the Stasi, passing disinformation to the CIA. Someone inside the CIA must have betrayed these operations to the enemy.

The ensuing investigation found about twenty suspects. One was Aldrich Ames, who had worked with some of the Stasi contacts. Ames was given a polygraph lie-detector test, or "fluttered." Yet despite results that FBI officials now admit were suspicious, and despite the 1990 memo, Ames was cleared.7

And promoted. Ames was now transferred to the "Black Sea Counter-drug Offensive," a small but growing CIA operation inside the "former" Soviet Union. Recent evidence shows that this project was, in part, a cover for teams of the CIA and US Special Forces who were training elite military units under Eduard Shevardnadze, the Communist dictator of Soviet Georgia. Merely one month after Ames arrived in Soviet Georgia in 1993, CIA agent Fred Woodruff was mysteriously assassinated--receiving a bullet in the head while being driven on a remote road outside the city of Tbilisi.

British intelligence analyst Christopher Story has revealed that Soviet Georgia is now a major route for shipment of morphine and other drugs into Europe. During his involvement in the "Counter-drug" project, Ames began receiving millions of dollars from the Soviets, leading to speculation that he may have also helped the Communists set up their drug-smuggling operation. Aldrich's wife, Maria del Rosario Ames, was later arrested along with her husband for helping him in his espionage; she was Colombian, a possible link to the drug cartels.8

During 1993, the FBI finally noticed that Aldrich Ames had been making unauthorized trips to Colombia and Venezuela, had maintained contacts with Soviet KGB officers in the United States and other countries without informing the CIA, had illegally collected large numbers of classified CIA documents in his office and home, and was receiving millions of dollars from unknown sources. Finally, the FBI opened an investigation under the code name NIGHTMOVER, leading to Ames' arrest this year.

Ames confessed to being a Soviet spy, and was convicted. But the real story is far more ominous. Ames was only one of dozens of suspected spies in the CIA's Soviet Bloc Division; indeed, he could not have single-handedly betrayed all of the CIA projects that failed. More importantly, the FBI revealed that Ames had been given many CIA documents from operations well outside his authority, meaning that other spies must have worked with him.9

Although the CIA is refusing to look for more spies, several shocking incidents over the past 40 years have proven the agency is heavily infiltrated by Soviet moles.



Too many moles to count

Pentration of the CIA is certainly not a new Soviet goal. The Communists found their best opportunity at the time the CIA was first created--during World War II, when the new agency was known as the Office of Strategic Services (OSS).

Nathaniel Weyl, who broke with the Communist Party, USA, wrote that "In the Office of Strategic Services... employment of pro-Communists was approved at very high levels provided that they were suited for specific jobs."10 As it turned out, OSS director General William "Wild Bill" Donovan had systematically recruited his OSS personnel directly from Communist Party membership.

Nor was Donovan shy about admitting this. When confronted by the FBI with clear evidence of Communist agents in the OSS, Donovan boasted, "I know they're Communists; that's why I hired them."11

When the OSS became the CIA in 1947, the original personnel were largely retained, Communists and all. By 1952, CIA director Walter Bedell Smith publicly confirmed that hidden Communist agents were working inside his agency.12

Since no one in the Executive branch seemed to be interested in rooting out these spies, Congress began to take an interest. Joseph McCarthy's subcommittee specifically raised the idea of a formal investigation, as later described by legal advisor Roy Cohn:

“One desired investigation that never got started was that of the Central Intelligence Agency, headed by Allen W. Dulles. Our staff had been accumulating extensive data about its operations and McCarthy was convinced that an inquiry was overdue.

Our files contained allegations gathered from various sources indicating that the CIA had unwittingly hired a large number of double agents-individuals who, although working for the CIA, were actually Communist agents whose mission was to plant inaccurate data....

...although we spent far more for intelligence than other countries, the quality of the information we were receiving was so poor that at times the CIA found out what was happening only when it read the newspapers....

When the news broke out that McCarthy was contemplating an inquiry into the CIA, consternation reigned at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue [the White House]. Vice-President Nixon was assigned to the delicate job of blocking it.”13

Block it Nixon did, and no outside investigation of spies in the CIA has ever been held. The consequences were obvious. Even the Eisenhower administration was forced to admit in 1954 that CIA intelligence measures against the Soviet Bloc had been a dismal failure.14 Since the end of World War II and continuing to this day, the United States has never been able to infiltrate the KGB or recruit double agents of any significance.

But the final proof of massive Soviet penetration emerged during the 1960s, with the spectacular defection of the highest-level KGB officer ever to reach the West.


The Golitsyn coup

Anatoliy Golitsyn, a Ukrainian born in 1926, joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1945 as he prepared to become a military officer. He began several years of training in intelligence and acquired a position in the KGB by 1948. By the early 1950s, he had risen to an important enough position to co-author a plan for restructuring Soviet intelligence, which brought him into direct contact with Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin and other top officials.

Four years of study at the KGB Institute in Moscow brought Golitsyn closer to the inner circle of Communist power during the late 1950s. He then worked until 1960 as a top analyst for the KGB in its Moscow headquarters, ultimately reaching the rank of major.

Golitsyn was one of the youngest officers ever promoted to such a high position, and the discovery of the KGB's innermost secrets rapidly disillusioned him. He managed to have himself reassigned to Finland with his wife and daughter in 1961. Three days before Christmas, he suddenly presented himself at the US embassy to announce his defection. Within 72 hours, the US Air Force evacuated Golitsyn and his family to Frankfurt, West Germany, just before he had to return to Moscow. After lie-detector tests showed he was telling the truth, he was transferred to the United States for a full debriefing.

Golitsyn's shocking information plunged the CIA, and other Western intelligence services, into a state of turmoil for over a decade. He revealed that the KGB placed the bulk of its resources not on stealing secrets, as the West commonly believed, but on deceiving and manipulating Western nations into gradually surrendering to Communism. Every time our intelligence experts would exploit some source of information from the Soviet Union, the KGB would "poison" that source with disinformation. By sending false defectors who were secretly working for the KGB, or by leaking falsified documents, or by organizing phony opposition movements inside the Soviet Bloc, the KGB could influence Western policymaking with seemingly reliable information. Using such techniques, the Communists could make the West believe that the Soviet and Chinese Communists were at war with one another. Or that Communism had "died."

The Golitsyn revelations shook the CIA to the core. Much of the intelligence being gathered could no longer be trusted; apparent successes in stealing Soviet secrets were actually Communist victories in deceiving us. Many CIA officials became furious with Golitsyn, and refused to listen.

To carry out such a huge but delicate operation, the Soviets needed spies in Western intelligence agencies for feedback. These moles would tell the KGB whether the disinformation was being believed, allowing the Soviets to alter the deception to give it more plausibility.15

Because of his former access to KGB intelligence, Golitsyn was able to prove the extent to which Soviet moles had infiltrated sensitive positions. For example, through his ability to recognize a wide array of top-secret NATO documents, he showed that the KGB had agents planted throughout the NATO command structure. His evidence was further confirmed in 1967 by the testimony of Giorgio Rinaldi, an Italian who admitted to being involved with some 300 NATO officers in a massive Soviet spy network--one that was never uncovered or removed.16 Recent years have seen further confirmation of Golitsyn's allegations. On November 17, 1994, former NATO official Rainer Rupp was convicted in a German court for his role as a Soviet spy. Operating under the KGB code name TOPAZ during the 1970s and 1980s, Rupp and his wife (code-named TURQUOISE) had passed "strategies, codes and military preparedness plans" from NATO headquarters to the East German secret police, who transferred the secrets to the KGB.17

Golitsyn also had knowledge of secrets from the highest levels of the French government, and said the information had come from a Soviet spy ring operating under the code name SAPPHIRE. His evidence implicated several members of French Intelligence (SDECE), including the chief of counterintelligence and President Charles de Gaulle's own intelligence advisor. Rather than investigating and stopping the ring, however, the French government and SDECE moved to cover up the evidence. Days after one of the spies was identified, he was murdered-apparently to protect the rest of the spy ring.

According to Golitsyn, Soviet control over the SDECE was so complete that the French agency was already functioning as a virtual arm of the KGB. Based on reports he had seen before defecting, he predicted that the KGB would soon use the SDECE as a front for spying on American nuclear deployment. French officer Philippe de Vosjoli, who was liaison between the SDECE and the CIA, disbelieved Golitsyn-until a few months later, when he received precisely such an order to set up a spy ring to monitor US nuclear facilities. De Vosjoli refused to obey the order and, learning that he was targeted for assassination upon his return to France, defected to the United States.18 The SDECE subsequently carried out the operation against the US under the code name BIG BEN.19

The information supplied by Golitsyn also revealed a powerful spy ring of five Soviet agents operating at the highest levels of the British Ministry of Intelligence. Three had already been exposed, and a fourth-Kim Philby-was uncovered in subsequent years. Based on additional evidence provided by Golitsyn, some members of the British MI5 conducted an investigation which concluded that the "fifth man" of the Soviet ring was none other than Sir Roger Hollis, the director of MI5. An MI6 officer, Stephen de Mowbray, tried to warn the prime minister, but was fired. Hollis himself was never fully investigated. Golitsyn's evidence also pointed to at least two close advisors to Prime Minister Harold Wilson as being Soviet agents, but MI5 blocked an investigation.20

Golitsyn was able to show Soviet infiltration in the intelligence services of West Germany, Austria, Canada, Australia, and others. But his most important spy revelations concerned infiltration of the CIA itself. He knew of one mole code-named SASHA; months of investigation finally uncovered a lower-level Soviet spy. But the stolen secrets Golitsyn had seen while in Moscow came from much higher sources, and could not have come from a single agent. To test Golitsyn's claim that many moles had burrowed into the highest levels of the CIA, the Counterintelligence Division issued "marked cards"-tiny leaks of information that can be traced. Using this method, the Office of Security and the Counterintelligence Division proved the information was being leaked from within the Soviet Bloc Division, and by multiple spies.21

The next logical step was to conduct investigations to identify the spies. But, as we shall review in part II of this analysis, those probes were blocked--with disastrous results.

The CIA, and virtually all of Western intelligence, has been thoroughly compromised by networks of Soviet spies. Nor has the "death" of Soviet Communism changed anything. Aldrich Ames, having worked for years as an agent of the KGB, in 1991 made an effortless transition to the renamed KGB (SVR) without any break in his activities.22 So, too, have hundreds of thousands of other Soviet agents throughout the world, whose activities are now sharply increasing.

In Part II: The secret "inner" KGB, CIA intelligence disasters, suppression of key evidence, and the CIA campaign to discredit Golitsyn.






Inside Story: World Report
September 1995

Soviet Moles in the CIA, Part II:
The High-Level Coverup

When KGB Major Anatoliy Golitsyn defected to the United States in 1961, he brought a message that was most unwelcome. Not only did he prove the existence of large networks of Soviet spies operating in all Western intelligence agencies, but he also showed that the Soviets were using our own intelligence apparatus against us. While the CIA and other services were chasing after Soviet state secrets, the KGB was carefully leaking "secrets" that were carefully concocted disinformation. According to Golitsyn, the Communists placed higher priority on deceiving the West into gradual surrender than on protecting their own secrets. In other words, the Soviets were not playing the "Cold War game"; they were fighting to win.

To carry out a successful long-term deception, as Golitsyn explained, the Soviets had to restructure the KGB itself. After all, any disinformation scheme would inevitably be exposed through the very process of delivering the deception. A percentage of those KGB agents in contact with Western agents would defect or otherwise betray the plan. To prevent this from happening, the Soviets had to make sure that only a tiny core of personnel--those not in contact with the West--would actually know the plan. The rest of the KGB would implement the strategy without understanding it.

Golitsyn had not only observed the KGB restructuring first-hand, he had actually participated in it. The process had begun in 1953 upon the death of dictator Joseph Stalin, whose violent purging of fellow Communists had left behind a leadership vacuum. A power struggle ensued, threatening to destabilize the entire Communist system. Stalin's successors quickly decided to reinstitute V. I. Lenin's concept of "democratic centralism," in which no single individual holds the fulcrum of power. If the Communists could be re-united under an all-powerful central committee, the Communist Bloc could launch a long-term offensive against the West.

Party leader Nikita Khrushchev decisively beat all opposing factions in 1957, and immediately began building democratic centralism. Factional infighting was ended, and coordination between Communist governments was re-established. Suddenly the Soviet leadership turned its attentions toward creating a new strategic deception policy. The top intelligence officials began studying the writings of Lenin and ancient Chinese strategist Sun Tzu.

Quickly the entire Communist structure in the Soviet Union was rebuilt, though in secret. From 1958 to 1960, the Communist Party Central Committee created such new agencies as the Department of Foreign Policy and the Department of Active Operations to coordinate international deception. The Committee of Information, which carried out operation to influence Western political leaders, was shifted to the authority of the Central Committee. And the KGB was put under a new chairman, Aleksander Shelepin.

The KGB underwent the largest and most important rearrangement. Not only did its counterintelligence directorate expand, but a special top-secret new "inner level" was created to coordinate strategic deception. Known as Department D, it was immediately staffed with some fifty or sixty intelligence specialists, all highly experienced and trusted officers of the Soviet secret police. These men had special access to the highest state secrets, and were given the authority to coordinate the most powerful agencies of the Soviet government. Department D was designed to be the high command of the Communist disinformation campaign.

This "inner" KGB has remained so secret that no Soviet defector, other than Golitsyn, has known of its existence. Golitsyn himself was not a member of it, but he was intimately involved in creating it. In 1952 to 1953, he had been appointed to a small team of experts who planned the restructuring of the KGB; Golitsyn's plan was adopted by Shelepin in 1959, by which time the 32-year-old Golitsyn was studying at the KGB Institute in Moscow--and therefore was privy to the details of the KGB reorganization. Later that year, Golitsyn helped implement the deception strategy as a new senior analyst in the KGB's Information Department.

Golitsyn was astonishingly young for his high position, a result of his intellectual acumen. Had the Soviets been more careful, they would not have promoted him so soon, for by 1956 the young Golitsyn had become thoroughly disillusioned with Communism. The launching of the new deception strategy finally convinced him he had to defect to warn the West, and he spent the next few years carefully gathering information that would expose the Communist plans.

Using his position, Golitsyn managed to be assigned with his wife and daughter to the Soviet embassy in Finland. In December 1961, when he received orders to return to Moscow, he realized he had run out of time. He took his family and the few documents he could carry, and defected to the United States embassy. Thus began the controversy that would eventually split the CIA.1

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS
Golitsyn's message was not popular within the CIA. Although he proved himself by helping expose Soviet spy rings in the highest levels of Western intelligence services [see Part I in the Nov. 1994 issue-Eds.], he was telling the CIA that much of its hard-earned intelligence data was merely disinformation concocted by the KGB's Department D. He also shattered all hopes that Communism might disintegrate spontaneously. According to Golitsyn, the Soviet reorganization after Stalin had destroyed all opposition to the regime while permanently healing all factions, splits, and power struggles within the government. Evidence of infighting among the Communists, of popular resistance against Communism, or even of "democratization" in Communist Bloc nations, was an illusion being created by the KGB.

Golitsyn told his CIA debriefers that the Soviets, knowing that Western agencies would not believe propaganda published in the official Soviet news media, used more clever methods to deliver disinformation. The Soviets might allow rumors to "slip" during off-the-record conversations with Western political leaders. Or they might leak special documents or communiques, allowing Western intelligence officers to believe they had stolen it without Soviet knowledge. Or they might pay phony "dissidents" or create illusory "opposition movements" behind the iron curtain, who would pass along "information" that would seem more credible.

But most startlingly of all, Golitsyn revealed that the Soviets understood well the Western dependence on KGB defectors. Department D played on this vulnerability by dispatching phony defectors--double agents who would pretend to expose KGB "secrets" that would now be wholly accepted by gullible Western intelligence services. Meanwhile, KGB spies inside the CIA or other agencies would quietly monitor Western reactions to specific items of disinformation, thus completing the "feedback loop" for the Soviets.

Thus deception could not only be engineered on a grand scale, but could even be fine-tuned for maximum believability.

None of this was idle speculation. In January of 1962, days after escaping to the West, Golitsyn predicted that his own defection would force the Soviets to send false defectors from the KGB and the GRU (military intelligence) to contradict his information.

Within weeks, he was already proved correct. The KGB dispatched a "diplomat" who tried to defect to the CIA in Paris, followed by a similar attempt at the American embassy in Moscow. The Soviets bungled both efforts. Finally two Soviet agents working at the United Nations--one from the GRU, the other from the KGB--almost simultaneously contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and offered to leak Soviet secrets. The FBI assigned them the codenames TOP HAT and FEDORA; the CIA named them SCOTCH and BOURBON. In June yet another such officer, this time from the KGB's Second Chief Directorate, approached the CIA in Switzerland and also began providing secrets. His name was Yuri Nosenko; he was labeled AE/FOXTROT in CIA files (he subsequently defected to the United States in early 1964).2

"Suddenly, in the spring of 1962, the CIA was awash with penetrations of Soviet intelligence--more at one time than during its entire history," wrote journalist David C. Martin years later.3

And, exactly as Golitsyn had predicted, all three "defectors" began providing information that directly contradicted his own. Where Golitsyn had warned of high-level penetrations of the CIA by Soviet spies, Nosenko instead blamed the leaks of information on a low-level code clerk in the US embassy. Golitsyn's charge that Soviet moles had betrayed CIA spy Petr Popov was also contradicted by Nosenko, who claimed that the Soviets had traced Popov's handler merely by spraying an invisible chemical tracer on his shoes. Eerily, TOP HAT and FEDORA were coincidentally able to confirm Nosenko's key allegations. All three confirmed Golitsyn's less important information, but directly contradicted his evidence of top moles in the CIA.4

If Nosenko, TOP HAT, and FEDORA were right, then the Soviets had failed to infiltrate the CIA, and could not pull off sophisticated deception campaigns. If Golitsyn was right, the CIA was already dominated by the KGB, and these other "defectors" were themselves part of the disinformation. CIA officials rapidly polarized into two warring camps on this issue, precipitating a fight that would tear the agency apart for the next decade.

AGENTS OF DECEPTION
Into the fray stepped James Jesus Angleton, the venerated chief of the CIA's Counterintelligence Division. A brilliant spymaster with a penchant for detecting disinformation, he immediately recognized in Golitsyn a profound source of intelligence. And when Nosenko made his appearance to discredit Golitsyn, Angleton smelled a rat.

Angleton persuaded key members of the Soviet Bloc Division, the branch of the CIA responsible for handling defectors, that Nosenko was a phony defector. By 1963, Angleton had Golitsyn transferred to his authority, and together the two men launched a series of investigations into Nosenko and other suspect defectors, as well as searching for Soviet spies in the CIA.

It was not long before Nosenko's story began falling apart. Although he claimed to be a lieutenant colonel in the KGB with access to high-level secrets, he could not remember important details of his operations. Under interrogation, he admitted the contradiction but then began changing his story repeatedly. When intelligence experts determined that Nosenko could not have held the rank of lieutenant colonel, he admitted having merely been a captain; when confronted with evidence that he had not, as previously claimed, received a particular communication from Moscow, Nosenko again admitted lying. Further interrogation caused him to admit having lied about numerous facts, including his reason for defecting in the first place.

More disturbingly, however, the documents Nosenko had brought from the Soviet Union had themselves been fabricated to back up his false identity. This could mean only one thing: the KGB itself had doctored the items as part of a deception.5

TOP HAT and FEDORA were also caught participating in the game. FBI surveillance convinced Assistant Director William C. Sullivan that both "defectors" were false, although he was unable to persuade his boss, J. Edgar Hoover, who angrily refused to believe that the Soviets had deceived the FBI. Furthermore, FEDORA independently "confirmed" Nosenko's lies about his rank and communications--again proving KGB involvement. The final evidence surfaced in 1978, when the FBI discovered that the KGB had already long known about FEDORA's leaking of information to the West. FEDORA returned to Moscow-and was enthusiastically promoted by the KGB! TOP HAT was exposed in a similar way.

In more recent years, the Soviet embassy itself has recommended Nosenko as a source of accurate information for at least one American journalist.6

The Soviets did not, of course, stop with these double agents. In 1966, the KGB dispatched yet another supposedly important defector, Igor Kochnov. Codenamed KITTY HAWK by the CIA, Kochnov also insisted that the Soviets had no spies in the CIA or FBI, while he again tried to "confirm" the claims of Nosenko. Once Angleton identified KITTY HAWK as a phony defector, the Soviet returned to Moscow and provided no more "information."7

Oleg Gordievsky, an officer in the KGB's First Chief Directorate, joined this growing list of double agents in 1974, when he first began leaking secrets to England's MI6. In 1985, he defected to the West under suspicious circumstances. Although supposedly arrested by the KGB on suspicion of spying for England, he was not executed. "A generation earlier he would simply have been liquidated," writes Gordievsky (with a co-author) of himself. "Nowadays the KGB had to have evidence."8 Starting with this obvious lie, Gordievsky's story becomes even more absurd. Despite his arrest for treason, he claims the KGB nevertheless allowed him enough freedom that he could repeatedly make contact with British agents and even escape the Soviet Union itself--on foot.9 To top it all off, his family was subsequently released from the Soviet Union.10

Unlike Golitsyn, who still remains under deep cover to prevent assassination by the Soviets, Gordievsky maintains a high-profile life in London. Gordievsky insists that the KGB has had no spies in British intelligence since 1961, and ridicules former MI5 officer Peter Wright for fingering over 200 suspects--including former MI5 director Sir Roger Hollis--as a result of investigations under project FLUENCY. Gordievsky also bitterly denies Golitsyn's revelation of the existence of Department D in the KGB, while he staunchly defends Nosenko as a genuine defector. Gordievsky has advised such prominent individuals as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and his 1990 book, KGB: The Inside Story, has been published widely.11

Desperate to cover up the Golitsyn revelations at any cost, and unable to assassinate him, the Soviets have adopted a saturation approach to drown out his information with a torrent of disinformation. Since 1962, the Soviets have sent at least 15 "defectors" to contradict Golitsyn and support Nosenko, including those listed above. The staggering quantity of such deception tends to obscure the paradoxes in each defector's story.

THE BATTLE FOR THE CIA
Yet despite all the clear evidence of a vast Soviet deception program using false defectors, and despite growing evidence of Soviet spies in the highest ranks of the CIA, Angleton and Golitsyn ultimately lost the struggle to save the agency.

Virtually every investigation Angleton initiated was either blocked, terminated, or undermined. He was never allowed to uncover a single major spy or false defector. Angry CIA officers in every department frantically derailed his probes, and howled protests every time he questioned the reliability of a defector. Gradually Angleton's enemies closed ranks to destroy him.

The purge began in 1969, on orders from above, by phasing out Golitsyn's advisory relationship with the CIA. President Richard Nixon, who in the early 1950s had blocked an investigation by Senator Joseph McCarthy of Communist spies in the CIA [See Part I-Eds.], wanted nothing to interfere with his program of detente.12

Then came William E. Colby, who in 1973 was promoted to Executive Comptroller, the number three position in the CIA. His career had certainly raised eyebrows. He had come from the CIA's covert action wing in Vietnam, rather than involvement in true intelligence work. As chief of the CIA's Rome station in the 1950s, Colby had fought hard to provide covert CIA support to Communist front organizations in Italy--over Angleton's vigorous opposition. During the Vietnam War, Colby vetoed Angleton's plan to use counterintelligence to weed out Communist infiltrators in the South Vietnamese government, thus ensuring that hundreds of Communists would continue to paralyze the war effort from within. Most suspiciously of all, Colby met several times with a Soviet GRU agent in Vietnam--without notifying the CIA. Colby even managed to shut down a CIA program to investigate Communists in American labor unions. Although CIA officials constantly overlooked Colby's actions and promoted him, the Counterintelligence Division had long suspected Colby of being a Soviet mole.13

In January of 1973, Colby issued a new directive to all CIA stations worldwide. These orders permanently changed the operational methods of the CIA, effectively overturning every warning Golitsyn and Angleton had ever given. Any information provided by defectors was henceforth automatically to be accepted, so long as it was basically consistent with the majority of other defectors' stories. Thus Nosenko, FEDORA, TOP HAT, and many other phony defectors were legitimized. The new policy assumed that the Soviets do not send false defectors, and that the Soviets are only interested in stealing secrets, not in carrying out strategic deception. Even the word "disinformation" was redefined as Soviet attempts to place propaganda in the Western news media, not as attempts to deceive intelligence agencies. And all searches for Soviet moles were ended.

In the wake of the 1974 Watergate scandal, Colby became Director of the CIA. Within months, he had carefully severed Angleton's connections in the intelligence world, mobilized most of the agency's personnel in a united front against Angleton, and then fired him. All of Angleton's top staffers departed with him. To make matters worse, Nosenko himself was officially rehabilitated--and brought in as a consultant to help train the new counterintelligence staff. The new CIA policy remains in effect today.14

In the years since the purge of Angleton and Golitsyn, the CIA has been wracked with scandals of Soviet spies and false defectors. The recent case of Soviet mole Aldrich Ames was preceded in the 1970s by William P. Campiles, who gave the Soviets an extremely sensitive spy satellite manual, and in the 1980s by Edward Lee Howard. Presumably these represent merely the tiny tip of the iceberg.

The CIA still refuses to admit that any Soviet "defectors" may be phony, but one case in particular turned into a public relations disaster for the agency. Vitaliy Yurchenko, who had held such top positions as chief of the KGB's counterintelligence department, suddenly defected to the United States in July of 1985. Among other operations against the US, he had been in charge of sending "dangles"--Soviet double agents who would approach the FBI and offer "secrets" so as to mislead American intelligence gathering. One of Yurchenko's CIA debriefers was none other than Aldrich Ames, who would not be discovered as a Soviet spy for another nine years.

Like Nosenko two decades earlier, Yurchenko insisted that the Soviets had no spies inside the CIA. Indeed, he specifically backed up Nosenko as being a genuine defector, and he told the CIA that the Soviets had blown Western spy operations using invisible chemical tracers and ex-agents of the CIA. Officials at the agency, including Director William Casey, enthusiastically promoted Yurchenko to the news media and Congress.

But three months after Yurchenko's defection, he surprised his handlers by redefecting to the Soviets, who welcomed and promoted him. To embarrass the CIA, Yurchenko held a press conference for American reporters, at which he alleged that the CIA had kidnapped and drugged him. In other words, the Soviets were openly laughing at the CIA's gullibility.

Unwilling to admit that Golitsyn and Angleton might have been right in the first place, the CIA planted a phony story in the news media that Yurchenko had been captured and shot by the Soviets; shortly thereafter, Yurchenko appeared live on Soviet television to refute the charge. Nevertheless, to this day the CIA blindly insists that, somehow, Yurchenko really had been a genuine defector. After all, CIA policy dictates that the Soviets do not send false defectors.15

So desperate has the CIA been to cover up Soviet deception operations from the public that the agency has resorted to a full smear campaign against Golitsyn and the now-deceased Angleton. In his 1984 book, New Lies For Old, Golitsyn drew on his personal knowledge from within the KGB to predict that Department D would orchestrate the "death" of Communism, starting no later than 1989. The Berlin Wall would be torn down, Solidarity would be allowed to achieve power in Polish elections, the Soviet Union would break up, and a crisis would be manufactured in Yugoslavia. Point for point, Golitsyn predicted the events of Europe since 1989 with chilling accuracy, and warned that the Soviets would be using the deception to prepare for a takeover of Western Europe.

As if to neutralize Golitsyn's warnings, the CIA has recently planted numerous stories in the media to discredit him. Articles in major national news magazines and a special documentary on PBS in 1990 have been followed by such books as Tom Mangold's Cold Warrior and David Wise's Molehunt, both books savagely attacking Angleton and Golitsyn as "paranoid cold warriors." Both Mangold and Wise masquerade as independent journalists, but both acknowledge that the information for their books came directly from large numbers of helpful CIA officials. As author Edward Jay Epstein has pointed out, the CIA frequently plants its own books in the public domain under false cover. This is done by cultivating certain authors, providing them complete manuscripts (or at least sufficient material to write books), and using connections in the publishing industry to arrange for the books' distribution and promotion by major companies. This method allows the CIA to publish viewpoints that appear to come from independent sources.16

Both the Mangold and Wise books present the Golitsyn/Nosenko debate in a severely lopsided way. Mangold's book even goes so far as to ignore completely Golitsyn's accurate predictions of "change" in Eastern Europe, declaring brazenly that "History has dealt harshly with Anatoliy Golitsyn the prophet.... As a crystal-ball gazer, Golitsyn has been unimpressive." Mangold continues by carefully skipping over Golitsyn's already-fulfilled predictions, quoting a few sentences out of context so as to change their meaning altogether.17

But in light of the evidence that the CIA is riddled with Communist spies, it is little wonder the agency strains so hard to convince Americans that Communism is truly "dead."

REFERENCES (part 1)

1 Story, C., Soviet Analyst 22:7-8, March 1994, p. 20.
2 McAlvany, D., McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, Sept./Oct. 1991, p. 22.
3 US News & World Report, Feb. 8, 1993, and Washington Times, Nov. 15, 1992, as quoted in McAlvany Intelligence Advisor, Jan. 1994, pp. 20-22.
4 Ibid., p. 22; Sinai, R., Associated Press, "Cold War over? Not for spies," Contra Costa Times, 3-5-92, p. B1.
5 Story, C., March 1994, Op cit., p. 3.
6 Pincus, W., Washington Post, "CIA memo warned about Ames 3 years before arrest," SF Chronicle, 8-2-94, p. A6.
7 Pincus, W., Smith, J.R., & Thomas, P., Washington Post, "East German Stasi files pointed to Ames as long-sought mole," SF Chronicle, 3-7-94, p. A9.
8 Story, C., March 1994, Op cit., p. 18; Story, C., Soviet Analyst 22:4, Sept. 1993, pp. 15-16; Story, C., Soviet Analyst 22:3, July 1993, pp. 7-8.
9 Pincus, W., Smith, R.J., & Thomas, P., Op cit.
10 Weyl, N., The Battle Against Disloyalty, Cromwell, New York, 1951, p. 180, as quoted in Smith, R.H., OSS, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley, CA, 1972, p. 10.
11 Smith, R. H., Op cit., p. 11.
12 Burnham, J., The Web of Subversion, Western Islands, Belmont, MA, 1965, p. 182.
13 Cohn, R., McCarthy: The Answer to "Tail Gunner Joe", Manor Books, New York, 1977, pp. 63-64.
14 Martin, D.C., Wilderness of Mirrors, Harper & Row, New York, 1980, p. 62.
15 Epstein, E.J., Deception, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989, chapter 5.
16 "300 officers bared as red NATO spies," Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, 3-22-67, pp. 1, 10.
17 "Ex-spy jailed for selling NATO secrets to East Bloc," SF Chronicle, 11-18-94, p. A12.
18 Epstein, E.J., Op cit., pp. 65-66, 68-70.
19 Mangold, T., Cold Warrior, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991, p. 131.
20 Epstein, E.J., Op cit., pp. 71-73, 80-82; Wright, P. with Greengrass, P., Spycatcher, Viking, New York, 1987, passim.
21 Epstein, E.J., Op cit., pp. 75-78.
22 Story, C., March 1994, Op cit., p. 5.

Refereneces (part 20:

1 The story of Department D is told in Golitsyn, A., New Lies for Old, Dodd, Mead & Co., New York, 1984, esp. chapter 6; see also Epstein, E.J., Deception, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1989, esp. chapter 5.
2 Martin, D.C., Wilderness of Mirrors, Harper & Row, New York, 1980, pp. 110-114; Mangold, T., Cold Warrior, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1991, pp. 410-411; Epstein, Op cit., pp. 74-75.
3 Martin, Op cit., p. 114.
4 Ibid., pp. 112-114; Epstein, Op cit., pp. 47-49, 74-75.
5 Martin, Op cit., pp. 161-162, 164, 172-174; Epstein, Op cit., p. 60; Mangold, Op cit., pp. 163, 397.
6 Epstein, Op cit., pp. 13, 48-49, 60, 96; Martin, Op cit., pp. 161-162; Mangold, Op cit., p. 411.
7 Martin, Op cit., pp. 191-192; Mangold, Op cit., pp. 409-410.
8 Andrew, C. & Gordievsky, O., KGB: The Inside Story, Harper Collins, New York, 1990, p. 13.
9 Ibid., pp. 8-16.
10 Story, C., Soviet Analyst, vol. 22:7-8, March 1994, p. 15.
11 Andrew & Gordievsky, Op cit., pp. 7-8; Mangold, Op cit., pp. 111, 204; Story, Op cit., p. 12.
12 Epstein, Op cit., p. 98.
13 Ibid., pp. 98, 100; Martin, Op cit., pp. 183-184, 217; Mangold, Op cit., pp. 309-315; Epstein, E.J., Legend, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1978, pp. 272, 329.
14 Epstein, Deception, Op cit., pp. 90-91, 100-101, 196-199; Epstein, Legend, Op cit., p. 273; Mangold, Op cit., pp. 205-206, 313-317.
15 Epstein, Deception, Op cit., pp. 199-214; Story, Op cit., p. 24; Mangold, Op cit., p. 402.
16 Mangold, Op cit.; Wise, D., Molehunt, Random House, New York, 1992; Epstein, Deception, Op cit., pp. 12-20.
17 Mangold, Op cit., pp. 355-356.


72 posted on 09/19/2004 10:27:55 PM PDT by GIJoel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

Sorry. It means Bump To The Top.


73 posted on 09/19/2004 10:33:07 PM PDT by Buggman (Your failure to be informed does not make me a kook.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Thanks, I'm practically a member of the lead pencil society, so any help with message board jargon is most appreciated.


74 posted on 09/19/2004 10:39:12 PM PDT by GIJoel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

The Communists have explicitly worked toward creating a united Europe,[51] a united American hemisphere,[52] a pan-African regional entity,[53] and, for the Middle East, a pan-Arab regime.[54

>>>

We're getting pretty close to the fulfillment of this...


75 posted on 09/19/2004 10:41:16 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

Step 3) The Communists can now count on the U.S. State Department to pressure the target government to begin giving in to the revolutionaries, supposedly for the sake of "human rights." The regime offers compromises, including political reforms, the release of captured terrorists, and military cease-fires, which allow the terrorists to regroup and seize territory. But the revolutionaries also increase their demands, taking advantage of the government's weakened image.

>>>

(ahem) Really? Foggy Bottom, the American Liberal bureacratic cess pool? No way! /XXXsarcasm


76 posted on 09/19/2004 10:46:26 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

Bump for further reading....
Nice job putting pooie in his place. Got a few stories about him for ya if you freepmail me. You are right on target.


77 posted on 09/19/2004 10:46:57 PM PDT by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: GIJoel

Thank you. This adds a little more information and flow to the thousands of bits and pieces regarding this islamocommie threat (I've been on and off this trail for a long time). Please add me to your ping list (when you figure out what one is)...lol


78 posted on 09/19/2004 10:48:57 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: nw_arizona_granny

BTTT and prayers just went up (according to your tagline request)...


79 posted on 09/19/2004 10:51:00 PM PDT by ApesForEvolution (DemocRATS are communists and want to destroy America only to replace it with the USSA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: ApesForEvolution

I hate to admit it, but I don't know what a ping list is either. Someone help me!!!


80 posted on 09/19/2004 10:57:17 PM PDT by GIJoel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 141-151 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson