ANATOLIY GOLITSYN;S LETTER TO THE EDITOR, NEW YORK TRIBUNE

• Document Type: FOIA
• Collection: FOIA Collection
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 05259054
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 4
• Document Creation Date: March 9, 2023
• Document Release Date: June 14, 2021
• Case Number: F-2016-00877
• Publication Date: July 23, 1984

Approved for Release: 2018/04/10 C05259054
ROUTING AND RECORD SHEET
SUBJECT: (Optional)
Anatoliy Golitsyn's Letter to the Editor, New York Tribune
FROM:
John F. Pereira
Chief, IMS
EXTENSION
NO.
DATE
23 July 1984
TO: (Officer designation, room number, and
building)
DATE
RECEIVED ,1104e0RW DED
OFFICER'S
INITIALS
COMMENTS (Number each comment to show from whom
to whom. Draw a line across column after each comment.)
Chairman, PRB
2.
�
3.
4.
5.
2/2.
skip
6.
cao,o,"
7.
8.
9,
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
FORM 610 USE PREVIOUS
1-79 EDITIONS
11,MMX�
(b)(3)
Approved for Release: 2018/04/10 C05259054
Approved for Release: 2018/04/10 C05259054
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
23 July 1984
MEMORANDUM FOR: Chairman, Publications Review Board
Chief, CI Staff
FROM: John F. Pereira
Chief, Information Management Staff
SUBJECT:
Review of Anatoliy Golitsyn's Letter
to the Editor, New York Tribune,
dated 15 July 1984
At the request of Anatoliy Golitsyn, forwarded via the
CI Staff on 15 July 1984, the DO has reviewed his attached
Letter to the Editor (addressed to the Editor) of the New
York Tribune. The article does not contain any classified
information. No further Agency review is required.
Attachment:
As Stated
John F. Pereira
ADMINISTRATIVE INTERNAL USE ONLY
Approved for Release: 2018/04/10 C05259054
r(,
Approved for Release: 2018/04/10 C05259054
15 July 1984
EDITOR
New York Tribune
New York, N.Y.
Dear sir;
I would appreciate it if you would publish this Letter to
the Editor, which is my reply to the Lev Navrozov article about
my book, New Lies for Old, which appeared in the June 18, 1984
edition of the New York Tribune.
Letter to the Editor;
The Navrozov article which you published on 18 June 1984,
takes out of context some quotations from my book, New Lies for
Old, [Dodd, Mead and Company, Publisher] concerning communist
strategic disinformation and summarily uses them in an effort to
denigrate me and to downgrade my inside information and a new
analysis of major developments in the communist world. Navrozov
dismisses the book as " one of the most sinister pieces of dis-
information which has appeared in the west in the 20th century'.
He blandly states that "the book offers not one grain of info-
rmation on Russia or the KGB which is'nt already known from the
general American press". This is the major inaccuracy of this
article. It fails to inform the reader about the true essence of
the book; that the book actually contains a new, significant
piece of information about the role and use of communist intell-
igence against the west and its security potential. As pointed
out in chapters 5, 6, and 7 of the book, the communist strat-
egists since Shelepin's time in 1959 have resorted to the use of
strategic disinformation and various intelligence assets such
as scientists, writers and priests. Navrozov's article deals very
superficially with effects but ignores and fails to address the
causes and roots of the problem.Navrozov questions the conclusions
of my analysis regarding the Sino-Soviet split, the struggle for
power, the dissident movements, the role of Sakharov and also
Solidarity but he fails to indicate that my analysis is based on
new and solid information about the use of strategic disinformation,
intelligence assets and the controlled political opposition in the
communist world. Another major inaccuracy of his article is the
insinuation that the book can be interpreted as a disservice to
the conservative republican cause and as a service to the anti-
defense left and to the Soviet regime. This is patently ridiculous.
As indicated in the book the failure of the west to take into
account the employment of strategic disinformation and of the
communist intelligence potential, has created chaos in the western
studies of communist policies and a crisis of western foreign policy
vis-a-vis the communist world.
Approved for Release: 2018/04/10 C05259054
Approved for Release: 2018/04/10 C05259054
- 2 -
Western intelligence analysts view the present situation
in Eastern Europe and in the USSR as comparable to the one in
1956. The situation, however, is much different. In 1956 the
totalitarian system was in a deep crisis and on the defensive.
At the present time, the communist totalitarian regime is
actively using controlled political assets in its deceptive
strategy against the West. A passive dormant regime has been
transformed into a politically active one which is on the
offensive. Thus they are much more dangerous to the West. My
book is an honest effort to explain these new factors and the
dangers they pose for the West and should sway western public
opinion, both conservative and liberal, regarding the crisis.
Any unbiased reader will conclude that my arguments defending
western interests are constructive ones. I regard the NAVROZOV
criticism as a feeble attempt to neutralize the potential impact
of the book on the conservatives and a ploy to take my arguments
out of circulation. In my opinion, this would result in a great
disservice to the American public. I am especially surprised at
Navrozov's anger at the publication of the book. "New Lies for
Old." One would expect that anyone connected with "The Center
for the Survival of the Western Democracies," would address his
anger against the communist strategists (Shelepin, Andropov,
Arbatov and the fast rising GORBACHEV) as the real culprits
and not against a former KGB officer, who, at the risk of his own
life, exposed the new Soviet activist methods and the dangers
that they pose for the West.
Sincerely,
Anatoliy Golitsyn
Approved for Release: 2018/04/10 005259054