Talk:Mitrokhin Archive

I would like to contest

I would like to contest the part asserting “extensive penetration of the U.S. State Department starting in the 1950’s to an extent far greater than the accusations of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy.” I suspect that Mike18xx got that from Ann Coulter, who’s the only other person I have ever heard say that.

The Mitrokhin Archive (The Sword and the Shield) asserts that, in the 1950s, “the mood in the Centre at the beginning of the 1950s was anything but triumphalist. As a result of the identification of Soviet spies in the VENONA decrypts, following the earlier revelations by Bentley, Chambers, and Gouzenko, the Centre had to set about rebuilding almost its entire American agent network while operating under far closer FBI surveillance than ever before” (163-164). Also, “Throughout the 1950s, the Centre struggled to establish even one more illegal residency in the United States to add to that of Fisher” (165). Fisher was later arrested in 1957.

The Archive describes, “The KGB’s chief successes against the Main Adversary during the presidencies of Dwight D Eisenhower and John F Kennedy derived…from a series of walk-ins. The most important was probably a CIA “principal agent” in West Berlin and Germany, Alexandr (“Sasha”) Grigoryevich Kopatzky” (176). Kopatzky was primarily noted for betraying “the identities of more than a hundred American intelligence officers and agents in East Germany” (176). The Archive later notes, “In the United States itself the most remarkable KGB walk-ins during the Eisenhower presidency were two employees of the NSA” (178). Neither of these two NSA agents were ever described as doing anything to aid the KGB until the beginning of 1960. In 1960 they defected to the Soviet Union and were able to provide the KGB with code breaking information, but nothing else.

In short, I don’t see absolutely anything in the Mitrokhin Archive that comes remotely close to an “extensive penetration of the U.S. State Department starting in the 1950’s to an extent far greater than the accusations of U.S. Senator Joseph McCarthy.” In fact, the Archive doesn’t describe any penetration of the U.S. State Department whatsoever in this period.

As an aside, I would also like to contest the identification of Salvador Allende under the section “KGB Agents and Agents of Influence.” Allende is the only occupant of the section, and the Archive describes him as an agent of influence, not an agent. Even beyond that, it’s insulting to describe a head-of-state as an agent of any kind of a foreign power when all the Archive says he did was maintain covert and friendly contacts with the KGB. The heading should be changed to “Heads of State With Operational Contact With the KGB,” or something like that. The writing “conspired with the Soviet Union to transform Chile into a Soviet Satellite” is ridiculous. The source cited doesn’t come close to characterizing the relationship between Chile and the Soviet Union this way.

I’ll let this discussion item hang around for a while, and then I’ll change the article barring some significant protest or whatnot. --MarkB2 22:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Primary Sources

I have edited the article to indocate the primary sources this alleged archive represents have never been seen or studied. The archive cannot be represented as factual or authoritative until primary sources exist to back its claims. Abe Froman 18:11, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of the commentary on the archive has been quite positive, and Andrew is a highly respected historian. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not delete cited material, as in the criticism section, without discussion first. Also, the statement that MI5 had the primary sources is not correct. They have Mitrokhin's notes. Is there support for MI5 having the original documents? Abe Froman 19:23, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I repeat my earlier insistence that Torturous Devastating Cudgel discuss deletions of cited material before doing so. I have not deleted his material without discussion. Abe Froman 20:19, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Yet again Torturous Devastating Cudgel has removed cited material without discussion. I am afriad this is heading for RfC. Abe Froman 20:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

J Arch Getty wrote the review, my version is the condensed version that has been in the article for quite some time now. Your version mentions Getty’s name as well as his comments twice, repeating them. Secondly, it is not correct to say that "mainstream historians blah blah" when you have only been able to cite one who actually holds this view. Lastly, this is not the page to debate a source for the article when that source had an article on it already. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The American Historical Review is the mainstream society for historians. Thus the passage deserves the appelation "mainstream." Getty wrote it, but it also represents the view of the American Historical Review. Lastly, passing this archive as fact when serious questions to its validity exist among mainstream historians is uncyclopedic, and must be noted. Why are the direct quotations from the American Historical Review removed by Torturous Devastating Cudgel? This editing seems tendentious to a high degree. Abe Froman 20:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, the review is not nearly as critical as you are attempting to portray it here

Vasili Mitrokhin worked as a KGB officer from 1948 until his retirement in 1984. Disillusioned by Soviet repression of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and influenced by the dissident movement in Moscow, Mitrokhin spent the last twelve years of his career secretly transcribing materials from the KGB's foreign intelligence archives, where he worked. In 1992, he emigrated to Britain with his secret archive documenting KGB overseas espionage around the world over several decades. Christopher Andrew, a prolific writer on Soviet intelligence, collaborated with Mitrokhin to produce this massive 700-page volume. 1

The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows, for example, that it was Arnold Deutsch who recruited the famous "Cambridge Five" in the 1930s, rather than Alexander Orlov. The "Odessa Partisans," heroes in the Soviet pantheon of World War II, were supposed to have heroically fought the Nazi occupiers to the last man but turn out to have quarreled with one another in their caves and executed each other as often as the Nazis did.

Since no one has replicated the entire article here on Wikipedia, it is impossible for you to claim that it is a negative review, at worst it is a mixed review. Secondly. the review is reflective of Getty's views and unless stated somewhere in the Journal it should be construed as such. As a matter of Fact the AHR specifically states that The AHA disclaims responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by the writers. So much for that. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This context argument is nonsense. How could the following passage be taken 'out-of-context'

"According to the American Historical Review (106:2, April 2001): "Mitrokhin was a self-described loner with increasingly anti-Soviet views... Maybe such a potentially dubious type (in KGB terms) really was able freely to transcribe thousands of documents, smuggle them out of KGB premises, hide them under his bed, transfer them to his country house, bury them in milk cans, make multiple visits to British embassies abroad, escape to Britain, and then return to Russia, and carry the voluminous work to the west, all without detection by the KGB... It may all be true. But how do we know?"

The passage states clearly why the premier, mainstream historical society in the United States objects to assumptions about the archive's validity. Removing it is tendentious to an extreme I find disheartening to see in an editor. Abe Froman 20:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

The Context argument is not nonsense as these two paragraphs certainly seem to cast doubt on your assertion:

Vasili Mitrokhin worked as a KGB officer from 1948 until his retirement in 1984. Disillusioned by Soviet repression of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and influenced by the dissident movement in Moscow, Mitrokhin spent the last twelve years of his career secretly transcribing materials from the KGB's foreign intelligence archives, where he worked. In 1992, he emigrated to Britain with his secret archive documenting KGB overseas espionage around the world over several decades. Christopher Andrew, a prolific writer on Soviet intelligence, collaborated with Mitrokhin to produce this massive 700-page volume. 1

The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows, for example, that it was Arnold Deutsch who recruited the famous "Cambridge Five" in the 1930s, rather than Alexander Orlov. The "Odessa Partisans," heroes in the Soviet pantheon of World War II, were supposed to have heroically fought the Nazi occupiers to the last man but turn out to have quarreled with one another in their caves and executed each other as often as the Nazis did.

And, as stated above, The AHA disclaims responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by the writers. , so to source this to anyone other than J Arch Getty is not factually correct. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:48, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Characterizing the American Historical Review has 'mainstream' was the original argument. This is unrefuted. Calling it mainstream is conceded. Secondly, TDC has left out the original quotes from the article, which lampoon Mitrokhin's claims. The quotes TDC chooses to print are only laudatory. This gives an incomplete, and unenecyclopedic picture of the context in which the archive exists. I do not see why TDC is afraid, to a great extent, of including these quotations from the same article he quotes so liberally. Abe Froman 20:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you seem to miss the point, let me repeat it, you cannot cite the AHR as the source, as the AHR disclaims responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by the writers , so it has to be cited to Getty exclusively. Secondly, as his comments are not nearly as critical as you continue to portray them, this should be reflected in any citation of him. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

TDC is engaging in Wikipedia:Original Research by deciding which articles the American Historical Review stands by. I will not follow him. As TDC quotes from the very same article I am at a loss as to why including skeptical quotes from the article are forbidden by TDC, while laudatory quotes from the article are permitted. I see a POV bias that needs correction. Abe Froman 21:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC).

Go to the library and get a copy of the American Historical Review's journal, these words: The AHA disclaims responsibility for statements, of either fact or opinion, made by the writers. are taken directly from it, no WP:NOR here. As stated before, Getty's remarks are mixed, and his negative comments are certainly in the minority of opinion and to quote them at such length would give undue weight to a seemingly minority opinion on the subject. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please prove that Getty is in the minority at the American Historical Review... Oh, wait. According to TDC's Original Research, the American Historical Review stands by nothing it publishes. Nice Catch-22 you are in, my friend. Abe Froman 21:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

As I have cited multiple positive things to your every one marginally critical, that would apparently be "minority" by definition. And if you take issue with the AHR's editorial policy, perhaps you should write to them. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to agree with TDC on the general principle that Getty's remarks are his own view and not those of the journal as a whole. Also, his remarks, while significant, are not the same as a peer reviewed article, it is a book review. First, journals never back content except their own editorials, features, and other in-house content. The journal Nature did not decipher the structure of DNA, Nature published a report by Watson and Crick. Also, compare the author submission guidelines for book reviews [1] and articles [2]. Articles are reviewed in-house and then submitted for rigorous anonymous peer review. About one-tenth are accepted for publication. Book reviews are solicited from a pool of authors and subjected to in-house editing but not peer review. As such, Getty's views should be attributed to Getty and not the AHR, and his view, while significant (he would not have been invited to write the book review if he not not have appropriate qualifications and prior scholarship) is not as significant as it would be if he had published a peer reviewed article on the subject. (Note: it is not impermissable original research to examine the quality of a source. For example if Joe Smith publishes an analysis of UFO photos proving that they are real, it may be relevant to his credibility as a source to know that his previous book proved that Arthur Conan Doyle's photos of fairies were real.)

This is not to toss Getty and the AHR out the window. I think it is highly relevant to the story of the Mitrokhin Archive to point out that no one has ever seen the original documents, and it is excellent that you can quote noted historians as pointing this out. It is, of course, also highly relevant that the the intelligence services of many western nations believe the archives are based on genuine documents and that many of the things revealed in the archives have been proven true. There is room for both points of view, being careful in this case about the undue weight clause. Thatcher131 03:30, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Compromise

I offer this passage as a compromise. It contains two passages, one for reactions, one for criticism.

Reactions to the Mitrokhin Archive

Characterized by the FBI as “the most complete and extensive intelligence ever received from any source” the Mitrokhin Archive , the publication of Mitrokinhs material has launched Parliamentary inquiries in Great Britain, India and Italy. The New York Times described the revelations as “far more sensational even than the story dismissed as impossible by the SVR (Sluzhba Vneshnei Razvedki)” when the first dismissed early reports of the existence of the archive and commented that Mitrokhin's archives may be the only references to a large volume of material that has since been destroyed by the KGB. Similarly. a review in the Central European Review described Mitrokin and Andrews work as “fascinating reading for anyone interested in the craft of espionage, intelligence gathering and its overall role in 20th-century international relations” offering “a window on the Soviet worldview and, as the ongoing Hanssen case in the United States clearly indicates, how little Russia has relented from the terror-driven spy society it was during seven inglorious decades of Communism” David L. Ruffley , Department of International Programs, United States Air Force Academy said that the material “provides the clearest picture to date of Soviet intelligence activity, fleshing out many previously obscure details, confirming or contradicting many allegations and raising a few new issues of its own” and “sheds new light on Soviet intelligence activity that, while perhaps not so spectacular as some expected, is nevertheless significantly illuminating.” The New York Times described the revelations as “far more sensational even than the story dismissed as impossible by the SVR (Sluzhba Vneshnei Razvedki)” when the first dismissed early reports of the existence of the archive and commented that Mitrokhin's archives may be the only references to a large volume of material that has since been destroyed by the KGB. Similarly. a review in the Central European Review described Mitrokin and Andrews work as “fascinating reading for anyone interested in the craft of espionage, intelligence gathering and its overall role in 20th-century international relations” offering “a window on the Soviet worldview and, as the ongoing Hanssen case in the United States clearly indicates, how little Russia has relented from the terror-driven spy society it was during seven inglorious decades of Communism” David L. Ruffley , Department of International Programs, United States Air Force Academy said that the material “provides the clearest picture to date of Soviet intelligence activity, fleshing out many previously obscure details, confirming or contradicting many allegations and raising a few new issues of its own” and “sheds new light on Soviet intelligence activity that, while perhaps not so spectacular as some expected, is nevertheless significantly illuminating.”

Criticism of the Mitrokhin archive

Noted Russia historian J. Arch Getty of the UCLA, as published in the American Historical Review, found Mitrokhin's material to be a “fascinating," but he also questioned the tenuous plausibility that Mitrokhin could have actually smuggled and transcribed thousands of KGB documents, undetected, over 30 years. Other historians have raised questions about Mitrokhin's material, as his claims about the Soviet Union are unverifiable. Mitrokhin himself only took notes, not original documents. The archive itself is not a primary source for historians. According to Getty in the American Historical Review (106:2, April 2001): "Mitrokhin was a self-described loner with increasingly anti-Soviet views... Maybe such a potentially dubious type (in KGB terms) really was able freely to transcribe thousands of documents, smuggle them out of KGB premises, hide them under his bed, transfer them to his country house, bury them in milk cans, make multiple visits to British embassies abroad, escape to Britain, and then return to Russia, and carry the voluminous work to the west, all without detection by the KGB... It may all be true. But how do we know?" Former Indian counter-terrorism chief Bahukutumbi Raman also questions both the validity of the material as well as the conclusions drawn from them. [3]

TDC says use this graph

While J. Arch Getty of the UCLA and the American Historical Review found Mitrokhin's material to be a “fascinating read” containing “new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations”, he also questioned the tenuous plausibility that Mitrokhin could have actually smuggled and transcribed thousands of documents undetected over 30 years. Former Indian counter-terrorism chief Bahukutumbi Raman also questions both the validity of the material as well as the conclusions drawn from them. [4]

I happened to pick up a copy of The World Was Going Our Way last year when I saw it in the bookstore. The back cover spoke of how stupid the KGB was for believing that they were winning when they were not. But as the book was being sold, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Lula in Brazil, and China were all three rising in prominence. The idea that Communism died along with the Soviet Union is false. In fact, it might be more accurate to say that divestiture of Communism's greatest historical liabilities has expanded its horizons. I placed the book back onto the shelf, and wiped my fingerprints from it.69.255.0.91 14:53, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting, the back cover of my copy doesn't mention "the stupidity" of the KGB at all. Prezen 12:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Introduction

Would somebody care to explain for me what relevance the first footnote has to the sentence it is sourced to? From what i can tell, there's no relatinship whatsoever. If no answer is forthcoming on this then i'm afraid i'm going to need to delete it.Stone put to sky 06:14, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The ref buttresses the claim the archive is secondhand notes, not primary material. Abe Froman 14:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Books

The "Books" section of the page is not entirely right. One of the ISBNs is wrong, and there are three books listed. Technically, there should be four, or two. "The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West" is the same book as "The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB". The former is the UK/Canada title, while the later is the US title. Similarly, "The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World" is the US title for the book "The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World."

I've taken the liberty of gathering the pertinent information, though I have not added it to the main article. 68.147.197.208 02:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

• Mitrokhin, Vasili, Christopher Andrew (1999) The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West. Allen Lane. ISBN 0713993588 (UK Harcover).

• Mitrokhin, Vasili, Christopher Andrew (1999). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. ISBN 0465003109 (US Hardcover).

• Mitrokhin, Vasili, Christopher Andrew (2000) The Mitrokhin Archive: The KGB in Europe and the West. Gardners Books. ISBN 0140284877 (UK Paperback).

• Mitrokhin, Vasili, Christopher Andrew (2000). The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB. Basic Books. ISBN 0465003125 (US Paperback).

• Mitrokhin, Vasili, Christopher Andrew (2005). The Mitrokin Archive II: The KGB and the World. Allen Lane. ISBN 0713993596 (UK Hardcover Edition).

• Mitrokhin, Vasili, Christopher Andrew (2005) The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World. Basic Books. ISBN 0465003117 (US Hardcover Edition).

Was anything from Mitrokhin's books disproved?

I am not en expert here. Can anyone explain: are his books reliable sources? The answer suppose to be very simple. Mitrokhin provided a lot of data and facts in his book. Were any of his specific factual claimes proven to be wrong? But if nothing was proven to be wrong, this segment is simply a propaganda:

"In 1972, for some inexplicable reason, Mitrokhin, who never achieved a rank above major in his entire KGB career, was given the sensitive job of overseeing the transfer of the KGB's entire foreign intelligence archive to its new headquarters outside Moscow. According to Andrew, Mitrokhin had two private offices and unlimited access to the KGB's darkest secrets. With the goal of getting back at his employers by telling the West about the KGB's foreign operations, Mitrokhin spent the next 12 years scribbling thousands upon thousands of notes from the files he saw. Incredibly, given the rigorous security rules in all Soviet archives, no one noticed what Mitrokhin was doing all day or checked him when he was going home at night."

This text provides no facts or data, it does not disprove any sinle fact from Mitrokhin archive, but only promotes suspicions based on nothing. This is pure propaganda that should not be in Wikipedia. Biophys 04:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The answer is in corresponding section entitled Critisizm of Mitrokhin archive. No one should prove here something. It is encyclopedia, by the way and not a place for your russophobic conspiracy theories.Vlad fedorov 06:17, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Ghandi family

Another question. There is an interesting article [5]. Author make a reference to Evgenia Albats who had an access to KGB documents. It says:

KGB chief Victor Chebrikov in December 1985 had sought in writing from the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), "authorization to make payments in US dollars to the family members of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi, namely Sonia Gandhi, Rahul Gandhi and Ms Paola Maino, mother of Sonia Gandhi." CPSU payments were authorized by a resolution, CPSU/CC/No 11228/3 dated 20/12/1985; and endorsed by the USSR Council of Ministers in Directive No 2633/Rs dated 20/12/1985. These payments had been coming since 1971, as payments received by Sonia Gandhi's family and "have been audited in CPSU/CC resolution No 11187/22 OP dated 10/12/1984.”

Very similar info can be found in the book The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World by Mitrokhin (see Mitrokhin Archive). Mitrokhin described in great detail how suitcases with KGB money traveled to Indira Gandhi office. Should it be mentioned in this article? Biophys 04:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)