Jump to content
The Education Forum

Golytsin v. Nosenko


Stephen Roy
 Share

Recommended Posts

I know this is not directly on topic, but this battle formed the underpinning of the era of the JFK assassination.

Does anyone who has studied this "defector war" have any strong opinions as to who was right: Golytsin or Nosenko? I can see cases for and against either. While it is striking that the Golysin side still has its defenders - Scott Miler being one of them - there is also a contingent who came out against Golytsin, like Kisevalter and Bulik. And a whole raft of undecideds, like Helms, McCone and others.

I'm re-reading the interesting "Spy Who Saved The World" about Penkovskiy, by Schecter and Deraibin, and the authors note that when Angleton took aside Bulik (one of those who ran Penkovskiy) and told him about Golytsin's "false defector" scenario, Bulik left the office in a huff and never spoke with Angleton again. And Kisevalter, a true cold-warrior, simply never believed that Golytsin was anything more than a defector who had already disgorged all of his useful stuff, and was now trying to justify CIA interest in him.

BTW, there are some interesting pictures in this book: Bulik and Kisevalter meeting with P, P in US and Brit military uniforms, KGB pictures of all the principals in the case like Alexis Davison and D/COS Hugh Montgomery, KGB films of P and Mrs Chisholm meeting, etc. Schecter was allowed to go to Lubiyanka to get the official KGB take on the case. His co-author Deriabin, a former KGB officer who defected to the west, wisely declined the offer!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is not directly on topic, but this battle formed the underpinning of the era of the JFK assassination.

Does anyone who has studied this "defector war" have any strong opinions as to who was right: Golytsin or Nosenko? I can see cases for and against either. While it is striking that the Golysin side still has its defenders - Scott Miler being one of them - there is also a contingent who came out against Golytsin, like Kisevalter and Bulik. And a whole raft of undecideds, like Helms, McCone and others.

I'm re-reading the interesting "Spy Who Saved The World" about Penkovskiy, by Schecter and Deraibin, and the authors note that when Angleton took aside Bulik (one of those who ran Penkovskiy) and told him about Golytsin's "false defector" scenario, Bulik left the office in a huff and never spoke with Angleton again. And Kisevalter, a true cold-warrior, simply never believed that Golytsin was anything more than a defector who had already disgorged all of his useful stuff, and was now trying to justify CIA interest in him.

BTW, there are some interesting pictures in this book: Bulik and Kisevalter meeting with P, P in US and Brit military uniforms, KGB pictures of all the principals in the case like Alexis Davison and D/COS Hugh Montgomery, KGB films of P and Mrs Chisholm meeting, etc. Schecter was allowed to go to Lubiyanka to get the official KGB take on the case. His co-author Deriabin, a former KGB officer who defected to the west, wisely declined the offer!

SR, The CIA did five different studies of Nosenko, not all with the same conclusion. An analysis of the five studies and their different approaches and conclusions was publshed in the CIA's inhouse magazine - Studies In Intelligence and contained in an anthology of some twenty or so articles that appeared there.

The different studies went from regular debriefing to year long isolation and tourture, with the final analysis being the application of the total amount of damage done by the revelation of all he knew - x ballanced against z , what he says about the assassination of JFK, concluding he was a bonifide defector.

The whole Angleton end of it played the joker card, and is still a major influence in JFK assassination research and still an active disinformation campaign - witness Russo, Mitrokin, etc.

BK

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SR, The CIA did five different studies of Nosenko, not all with the same conclusion. An analysis of the five studies and their different approaches and conclusions was publshed in the CIA's inhouse magazine - Studies In Intelligence and contained in an anthology of some twenty or so articles that appeared there.

The different studies went from regular debriefing to year long isolation and tourture, with the final analysis being the application of the total amount of damage done by the revelation of all he knew - x ballanced against z , what he says about the assassination of JFK, concluding he was a bonifide defector.

The whole Angleton end of it played the joker card, and is still a major influence in JFK assassination research and still an active disinformation campaign - witness Russo, Mitrokin, etc.

BK

I'm more inclined to side with Nosenko being legit, but he DID admit lying about a few things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 11 years later...
On 1/23/2007 at 10:24 AM, William Kelly said:

Steven Roy, The CIA did five different studies of Nosenko, not all with the same conclusion. An analysis of the five studies and their different approaches and conclusions was publshed in the CIA's inhouse magazine - Studies In Intelligence and contained in an anthology of some twenty or so articles that appeared there.

The different studies went from regular debriefing to year long isolation and tourture, with the final analysis being the application of the total amount of damage done by the revelation of all he knew - x ballanced against z , what he says about the assassination of JFK, concluding he was a bonifide defector.

The whole Angleton end of it played the joker card, and is still a major influence in JFK assassination research and still an active disinformation campaign - witness Russo, Mitrokin, etc.

BK

 

On 1/23/07 William Kelly said:

Steven Roy, The CIA did five different studies of Nosenko, not all with the same conclusion. An analysis of the five studies and their different approaches and conclusions was publshed in the CIA's inhouse magazine - Studies In Intelligence and contained in an anthology of some twenty or so articles that appeared there.

The different studies went from regular debriefing to year long isolation and tourture, with the final analysis being the application of the total amount of damage done by the revelation of all he knew - x ballanced against z , what he says about the assassination of JFK, concluding he was a bonifide defector.

The whole Angleton end of it played the joker card, and is still a major influence in JFK assassination research and still an active disinformation campaign - witness Russo, Mitrokin, etc.

BK

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Bill Kelly,

If you'll read Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book "Spy Wars," and his 2015 pdf flollow-up "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," you'll learn that the five(?) CIA studies (from 1967 on, iirc) to which you refer were intellectually dishonest, and were done by unqualified people "to rid the CIA of this incubus," as Helms so succinctly referred to The Nosenko Problem.

Both are free to read on the internet.

 

--  TG

 

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/26/2018 at 6:50 PM, Thomas Graves said:

 

On 1/23/07 William Kelly said:

Steven Roy, The CIA did five different studies of Nosenko, not all with the same conclusion. An analysis of the five studies and their different approaches and conclusions was publshed in the CIA's inhouse magazine - Studies In Intelligence and contained in an anthology of some twenty or so articles that appeared there.

The different studies went from regular debriefing to year long isolation and tourture, with the final analysis being the application of the total amount of damage done by the revelation of all he knew - x ballanced against z , what he says about the assassination of JFK, concluding he was a bonifide defector.

The whole Angleton end of it played the joker card, and is still a major influence in JFK assassination research and still an active disinformation campaign - witness Russo, Mitrokin, etc.

BK

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bill,

With all due respect, if you'll read Tennent H. Bagley's 2007 book "Spy Wars," and his 2015 pdf flollow-up "Ghosts of the Spy Wars," you'll learn that the five(?) CIA studies (from 1967 on, iirc) to which you refer were intellectually dishonest, and were done by unqualified people "to rid the CIA of this incubus," as Helms so succinctly referred to The Nosenko Problem.

Both are free to read on the internet.

--  Tommy  :sun

bumped

Edited by Thomas Graves
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...