Talk:Vasili Mitrokhin

Book Titles in the US and Britain

I just read a review in the Economist about this series of books, and they note that the title for the US release by Basic Books is "THe World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World" . This wikipedia entry references the title for the Britain release, "The Mitrokhin Archive II: The KGB and the World" (according to the Economist article from October 22nd 2005). Perhaps mention should be made of the difference in titles for these two markets. Dxco 00:27, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Results

"John Symonds (code-named Scot)"

The link for this person leads to a father/son duo from the mid to late 19th century, who were writers and critics (and clearly not the "John Symonds" who the author of the Mitrokhin article intends). Dxco 00:32, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"Robert Lipka, former clerk at the US NSA. Lipka denied his guilt until the very last moments before his trial was to begin when it was revealed that the prime witness against him was a former KGB archivist with proof of his relation with the KGB."

It sounds like, but isn't explicit, that the witness mentioned here was Mitrokhin/his documents. Is that the case? If it is, we should say so. Or, if the idea that it was not explicitly noted during the trial that Mitrokhin was the witness but that it is assumed that is the case, mention should be made of this assumption. At present, the bit sounds a bit odd - as if it was pasted from some other article about the trial itself that did not name Mitrokhin. Dxco 00:36, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

If you read the book, you'll KNOW that it was Mitrokhin's documents which were shown to Lipka at the discovery phase just before going to trial, and that his immediate agreement to plead guilty was entirely due to Mitrokhin's documents. Akulkis 15:53, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Bulleted list of Persons effected by Mitrokhins material: Robert Lipka and Claude Estier are double bulleted (so that their entry is indented from the person above them). Is this intentional or a typo?Dxco 00:38, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

KGB and IRA allegations

According to one contributor to the Provisional Irish Republican Army article, Mitrokhin claims in, "the sword and the shield" that the KGB was giving arms and money to the Provisional IRA. Can anyine here who has read the book confirm or deny that this is stated in this book? If it is there, what precisely does it say? Thanks, Jdorney 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The Sword and the Shield -- pp 377-378 deals with KGB/IRA relations: The IRA had been widely criticized by its supporters for failing to defend the Catholic community during the Belfast troubles of August 1969, when seven people had been killed, about 750 injured and 1,505 Catholic families had been forced out of their homes -- almost five times the number of dispossessed Protestant households. One Catholic prist reported that his parishioners were contemptuously calling the IRA, "I Ran Away." In his message to Moscow, O'Riordan said that during the "August crackdown" the IRA had failed to act as "armed defender" of the nationalist community because "its combat potential was weakened by the fact that it had previously concentrated its efforts on social protests and educational activity." He claimed that there was now a real possibility of civil war in Northern Ireland between the two communities, and of serious clashes between British troops and the Catholics. Hence the IRA's appeal for arms. In a report to the Central Committee, ANDROPOV insisted that, before going ahead with an arms shipment, it was essential to verify O'Riordan's ability "to guarantee the necessary conspiracy in shipping the weapons and preserve the secret of their source of supply." It was more than two and [a] half years before Andropov was sufficiently satisfied on both these points to go ahead with the arms shipment. Akulkis 13:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added {{Unreferenced

I added {{Unreferenced because the Amazon site actually states that Mitrokhin walked into the British embassy, not the American one. This makes me wonder what else is incorrect about this article.Travb 04:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would you trust Amazon over the man's own story? Akulkis 03:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Mitrokhin Archive

I propose that the bulk of the Archive-related material be moved to Mitrokhin Archive.--Mike18xx 11:16, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

I heard a cricket.wav, so I went ahead and did it.--Mike18xx 11:58, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I replaced the passage as the archive is the only reason Mitrokhin is notable. Otherwise, he would not even have an article. Abe Froman 21:41, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Vasili Mitrokhin, another article currently exists on the book. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect title (or date)

In the section titled, "Betrayal of the Soviet Union", it is stated, "In 1992 he traveled to Estonia with copies of material from the archive and walked into the American embassy in Tallinn." This doesn't make sense since the Soviet Union did not exist in 1992 - it dissolved the previous year. Is this section titled (or dated) incorrectly? Or is it attempting to imply that the Soviet Union was betrayed retrospectively, so to speak, by the smuggling of Soviet documents out of Russia after the fall of the union? Either way, some clarification is needed! -- Hux 13:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Questions Over Mitrokhin's Real Purpose

Key deficits in information in Mitrokhin's copied notes, particularly regarding enemy agents operating in the twenty years before his defection suggest the possibility Mitrokhin was a plant. These deficits cause great difficulty in assessing the extent of damage the RIS caused the UK after Operation FOOT, the expulsion of scores of Russian operatives. That he did not defect before the fall of the Communist Party is also of primary concern. Yet, there is no indication that his purpose is not universally accepted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.156.164 (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

should there be a section on credibility?

not meaning that he is not credible, just that there should be something about the consensus on whether the archive is credible.108.31.79.145 (talk) 13:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

There is some discussion in Mitrokhin Archive, however, I think there should also be a little discussion here. A few places to start: [1], [2]. - Location (talk) 14:32, 30 April 2017 (UTC)