PDA

View Full Version : Spies in the cold war



FW-190 Pilot
09-28-2006, 01:29 AM
Tools for spy in the cold war is just amazing

-There is a tool called GRA 71, where the agent has to enter the secret message by morse code, then they record the message and compress the information by 1/40. then the agent would go to the US ambassadar in Soviet Union. It is very hard to detect by the KGB, because after the compression, a minute of message would only take 1.5 seconds to transfer. The Us would just need to listen to the message at 40X to receieve the message.

-Paper that would desolve in water to destroy the evidence

-Soviet has something like a flash light. If ever challenged, they would show that the flash light would actually work, and if the police check inside the battery, they would find that there are two working batteries, and nothing else. Only the spy would know one of the battery has a different design that allows the spy to put things such as photos, money, or forged documents.

-Soviet spy has a strategy to transfer information to each other, like they would agree to trade information by going into a park. they would replace a nail in a lamp post with a special design one that contains secret information inside

-soviet camera that can take photos that is smaller than a period in a paragraph, and this is year 1952 where soviet spy tries to steal american atom bomb blueprint

-soviet spy to disguised as book publisher and sell "special books" to soviet allied countries, but its actually information of british nuclear subs

-Soviet spy has develop scanner from woman make up tool, and this is the 50s. you can see simuliar products for portable scanner today.

-Soviet has spy in the american army that they would transfer important information to the vietnam high commanders, which the soldier is responsible for the death of hundreds soldiers.

Chevan
01-25-2007, 06:20 AM
Tools for spy in the cold war is just amazing

-There is a tool called GRA 71, where the agent has to enter the secret message by morse code, then they record the message and compress the information by 1/40. then the agent would go to the US ambassadar in Soviet Union. It is very hard to detect by the KGB, because after the compression, a minute of message would only take 1.5 seconds to transfer. The Us would just need to listen to the message at 40X to receieve the message.

-Paper that would desolve in water to destroy the evidence

-Soviet has something like a flash light. If ever challenged, they would show that the flash light would actually work, and if the police check inside the battery, they would find that there are two working batteries, and nothing else. Only the spy would know one of the battery has a different design that allows the spy to put things such as photos, money, or forged documents.

-Soviet spy has a strategy to transfer information to each other, like they would agree to trade information by going into a park. they would replace a nail in a lamp post with a special design one that contains secret information inside

-soviet camera that can take photos that is smaller than a period in a paragraph, and this is year 1952 where soviet spy tries to steal american atom bomb blueprint

-soviet spy to disguised as book publisher and sell "special books" to soviet allied countries, but its actually information of british nuclear subs

-Soviet spy has develop scanner from woman make up tool, and this is the 50s. you can see simuliar products for portable scanner today.

-Soviet has spy in the american army that they would transfer important information to the vietnam high commanders, which the soldier is responsible for the death of hundreds soldiers.
Why were only soviet spies Pilot?
Thare a lot af cases when CIA agen used the simular devices.

BTW did you hear the last spions scandal in Russia, it was called "story of Spy-Stone".
One young Brit from UK ambassadior like to walk to the one street in the Moscow park. He always walk near one place. FSB had interested of it. They stand the camera in the park. Through some days our "James Bond" come to the this plase and begin to kick the big stone by the lags. When he dissapered FSB got this stone to laboratory and ....my god ...inside the stone was full of electronic like space satellite. Its seem it broke of therefore the britans trued to kick it to force begin to work.
Right after that FSB took the "James Bond" and asked him what was this stone. He trued to denie but after the movie was showed he was in a hard point.
Well all country had a lot of fun when wath on TV the story of "firendship one young british and one moscow stone". It was very fanny.
Britains side denied any relation with ( they always will deny - this is specific of secret service of any state). But nobody doubt that it was just a common intelligent work.
Nodody was blamed , nobody claimed " the evil britains" , just the great show.
Putin use this incident for the meeting low which limit the foregn sponsorship organisations in Russia. That's all.
But it was so funny.
Putin say we will not demand to go out this young british spy - "If we go out the stupid spy - they send to here the clever spy".

So what's is the moral?
Pilot forget about Paper that would desolve in water , photo cmera inside battery - those all are ancien age .
The new level of spy industry - the computerized stone on the your city park alley.;)

Cheers.

Dani
11-16-2007, 06:23 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7097646.stm

Chevan
11-16-2007, 06:54 AM
Oh Dani nice staff thank you.
And welcome back;)

former Russian frogman has claimed that he killed British diver Cdr Lionel "Buster" Crabb, who disappeared while spying on a Soviet warship in 1956.
Cdr Crabb vanished after the vessel, which had brought Soviet leaders to Britain, docked in Portsmouth Harbour.

Now retired sailor Eduard Koltsov claims he cut the Englishman's throat as he caught him placing a mine.

Mr Koltsov tells a Russian documentary that he needed to tell the truth about the Cold War mystery before he died.

Suspicious activity

The Soviet ship Ordzhonikidze had brought Nikita Khrushchev and other leaders for meetings with the British prime minister Anthony Eden and his ministers.

I saw a silhouette of a diver in a light frogman suit who was fiddling with something

Eduard Koltsov

Several months later a headless corpse, identified by a friend as Cdr Crabb, was found floating along the coast.

At the time the diver went missing, the Navy said he was feared drowned in Stokes Bay - some miles to the west of Portsmouth Harbour.

What happened to him had been a mystery ever since.

But now Mr Koltsov, who was 23 at the time of the incident, says that he had been ordered to investigate suspicious activity around the ship.

He says he then spotted Cdr Crabb fixing the mine on the ship's hull.

In the documentary, he shows what he says is the dagger he used and the Red Star medal he says he was later secretly awarded for his bravery.

"I saw a silhouette of a diver in a light frogman suit who was fiddling with something at the starboard, next to the ship's ammunition stores," he tells the film crew.


The Ordzhonikidze brought Nikita Khrushchev on a diplomatic visit

"I swam closer and saw that he was fixing a mine."

Cdr Crabb - who was 47 when he disappeared - had been well-known for his actions in World War II. He received the George Medal for removing Italian limpet mines from British warships at Malta and an OBE for mine clearance at Livorno.

The incident wrecked attempts at a rapprochement between Britain and the post-Stalin government in Moscow.

The Russians protested they were being spied upon by their hosts and, in the Commons, the government was asked if the security services were out of control.

I just wonder who could get the profit of wrecked of Soviet-British rapprochement during the Cold War?
Let me a guess form a one attempts?
USA?:)

Rising Sun*
11-16-2007, 07:09 AM
I just wonder who could get the profit of wrecked of Soviet-British rapprochement during the Cold War?
Let me a guess form a one attempts?
USA?:)

If so, the choices are:

Crabb was run by America,

OR

Koltsov was run by America.


Neither makes sense.

Dani
11-16-2007, 07:10 AM
Thanks Chevan, but I never left the board.;)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/may/9/newsid_4741000/4741060.stm


It appears that Lionel Crabb was on a spying mission for MI6 - unbeknown to the prime minister. The statement by the Admiralty was an attempt to cover up the mission but when the Soviets claimed to have seen a frogman Sir Anthony Eden was forced to speak out. Sir John Alexander Sinclair, head of MI6 was subsequently forced to resign.
The headless body of a man in the remains of a diving suit was found in Chichester harbour in 1957. A coroner concluded that it was Crabb's body and it was buried with his silver-mounted swordstick.
Ten years later a human skull was found partly buried in sand at Chichester harbour. Although there were several teeth in the jaw they had no distinguishing marks which could link them to Crabb, but a pathologist claimed the skull was the same age as the torso.
Rumours about what really happened to Commander Crabb continued to circulate in the media. One theory was that he had been killed by a new anti-frogman device fitted experimentally to the Soviet cruiser Ordzhonikidze or a sniper on the deck.
Other reports claimed Commander Crabb was alive and well and living in the Soviet Union or East Germany or that he had been taken prisoner by the Russians.
The Cabinet papers concerning the Crabb affair will remain secret until 2057.

Chevan
11-16-2007, 07:10 AM
Neither makes sense.
Why so?

Rising Sun*
11-16-2007, 07:18 AM
Why so?

If America is running the show, it has to control either or both Crabb and Koltsov.

Clearly it didn't control Kolstov.

How could America control Crabb?

Britain wouldn't do anything unless it was in Britain's interests as well as America's.

What was the British interest in wrecking Soviet-British rapprochement?

Chevan
11-16-2007, 07:29 AM
What was the British interest in wrecking Soviet-British rapprochement?
And what was the British interest to send the spy-frogman under the soviet military ship during the Friendly visit?
Did not they realise this is a PURE provocation?
Or maybe it was a certain forces inside the Britain- who want to wreck the possible Soviet-British friendship?

Firefly
11-16-2007, 07:34 AM
Oh come on Chevan, dont be niaive. Spying during military visits did and still goes on.

Rising Sun*
11-16-2007, 07:44 AM
Or maybe it was a certain forces inside the Britain- who want to wreck the possible Soviet-British friendship?

That's possible.

The documents have an unusually long time before they can be released. Thirty years rather than a hundred years is the usual rule.

So called security forces in most nations have a tendency to succumb to paranoid beliefs about their enemy and to believe that they are the guardians of their nation, and to act accordingly.

You won't get better examples in America than J. Edgar Hoover and James Jesus Angleton.

But where is there any evidence that America was responsible for wrecking a Soviet-British rapprochement? Which was your original point.

Chevan
11-16-2007, 07:51 AM
Oh come on Chevan, dont be niaive. Spying during military visits did and still goes on.
Well i think i not so naive like the Mi6 director who has send the frogman to fix the "bomb" in naive believe that nobody on Ship noted this.
How could they did it without the consultations with the British gov?

Chevan
11-16-2007, 07:55 AM
The documents have an unusually long time before they can be released. Thirty years rather than a hundred years is the usual rule.

But where is there any evidence that America was responsible for wrecking a Soviet-British rapprochement? Which was your original point.
Mate you say that the documents still closed but you assert it could not be the CIA?
Why do you so sure about it?
In fact there were a CLOSEST cooperation between Mi6 and CIA untill now in manies operations.

Dani
11-16-2007, 08:04 AM
Mate you say that the documents still closed but you assert it could not be the CIA?
Why do you so sure about it?
In fact there were a CLOSEST cooperation between Mi6 and CIA untill now in manies operations.

But Chevan, it's so hard to beleive that Brits could have their own operation? Only the CIA and the KGB might had the right to think the approaches and the operations?

Rising Sun*
11-16-2007, 08:04 AM
Mate you say that the documents still closed but you assert it could not be the CIA?
Why do you so sure about it?
In fact there were a CLOSEST cooperation between Mi6 and CIA untill now in manies operations.

I'm not asserting anything about the CIA or anything else.

You're the one who is pointing the finger at America.

Where's your evidence?

Firefly
11-16-2007, 08:16 AM
Sure the CIA and MI6 have always cooperated. But they didnt ask each others permissions to carry out Ops but did and do share the intel. Though they havent and dont always share everything. National security still comes into it.

Used to be the same with Submarine Ops, UK Subs would carry out thier own Ops and then share info with the US and vice versa.

Nickdfresh
11-16-2007, 10:41 AM
And what was the British interest to send the spy-frogman under the soviet military ship during the Friendly visit?
Did not they realise this is a PURE provocation?
Or maybe it was a certain forces inside the Britain- who want to wreck the possible Soviet-British friendship?

LOL "Provocation?" Such things were SOP for both sides during the Cold War. It was certainly fair game for MI6 to place taps on Soviet ships, and it was equally fair game for the Soviets to assassinate perceived enemy agents - although I think in this case it was quite excessive and the Soviets could have just kidnapped him...

Has anyone heard the rumor of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards "Quds Force" supposedly painting a bullseye target on an American warship in some Middle Eastern port of call?

Nickdfresh
11-16-2007, 10:47 AM
Sure the CIA and MI6 have always cooperated. But they didnt ask each others permissions to carry out Ops but did and do share the intel. Though they havent and dont always share everything. National security still comes into it.

Used to be the same with Submarine Ops, UK Subs would carry out thier own Ops and then share info with the US and vice versa.

The only real provision that I'm aware of was that the US and UK would not conduct intelligence or counterintelligence operations on each other's territories without prior notice and cooperation.

And there are US intelligence documents stamped "NOFORN," meaning they don't even go to the British or Canadians without special permission...

Nickdfresh
11-16-2007, 10:51 AM
Well i think i not so naive like the Mi6 director who has send the frogman to fix the "bomb" in naive believe that nobody on Ship noted this.
How could they did it without the consultations with the British gov?


It wasn't a bomb. I believe it was some sort of intelligence tracking device to monitor Soviet naval movements or to tap communications. I read about this quite a long time ago...

Firefly
11-16-2007, 01:48 PM
And there are US intelligence documents stamped "NOFORN," meaning they don't even go to the British or Canadians without special permission...

Same here, I have often been in briefings where the US and Canadian exchange guys hadto leave. Sometimes it becomes ludicrous as those are the very guys that are scheduled to fly the mission and guess what, they dont fly blindfolded!!!!!

However, from experience, the US and UK Int community is a long way to being the most integrated of any 2 nations on Earth and has gone on so long that both nations just take it for granted that they know each other inside out and share 99% of everything automatically. I dont think any 2 nations have ever had this degree of integration and its definately not 1 way. In a NATO HQ other nations used to curse us for it, Im thinking France and Germany here mainly, but others too.

Rising Sun*
11-16-2007, 04:53 PM
The only real provision that I'm aware of was that the US and UK would not conduct intelligence or counterintelligence operations on each other's territories without prior notice and cooperation.

And there are US intelligence documents stamped "NOFORN," meaning they don't even go to the British or Canadians without special permission...

In Australia it was, maybe still is, AUSTEO. Australian Eyes Only, which was additional to normal classifications. (No, I'm not giving anything away, because it's been published.) Like most classifications, at times it seemed to be applied randomly.

There've been periods where the US has tightened up on what it gave us, because of concerns about leaks at our end. At least one of those periods related to a suspected mole or moles in our intelligence services, and I don't think the issue was ever satisfactorily resolved.
ASIS http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/stories/s249979.htm
ASIO http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Security_Intelligence_Organisation

I think the UK had similar experiences, for similar reasons.

ASIO, for which I nearly worked a very long time ago in a youthful burst of anti-terrorist sentiment (the 1970's Red Brigades / Baader Meinhof / Palestinian aeroplane hijacking era), is probably a clown organisation that, because it's free of pubic scrutiny, can delude itself into believing it actually knows what it's doing. Until it is subjected to public scrutiny. http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/asio-interrogators-were-grossly-incompetent-judge/2007/11/12/1194766588126.html

Chevan
11-19-2007, 12:00 AM
Ha guyes we all even have not guessed what really happened.
Meanwhile i, ve read the interesting article about actions of the enemy frogmans in.
29 october 1955 the Soviet Battleship "Novorossiisk" ( former Italian "Juli Cezar" or "Djuzepe Chezare") was blowed up into the pieces near the military base Sevasopol ( Crimea) by the great bomb that was installled by the Extra-professional frogmans.
http://gazeta.sebastopol.ua/2005/43/ship2.jpg

Chevan
11-19-2007, 12:25 AM
Were killed 600 sailors.
For the long time the official verition was a GErman old ww2 mine.
However according the conclisions of specialists even the bunch of the GErmans Mines was not capable to critically damage the 8 decks ( more then 156 Square metters)
This was a obvious fact of diversion.
The ONLY few frogmans were able to made such thing - the our Grabb was one of the such man.
For the long time were suspected the Italian special unit (10 MAC ) that was specialized on the Underwater diversions since the ww2.
As it was established by the british press - after the ww2 the Italians even teached the BRitain frogmans.
After the beginning of Cold war the Italians diversants were called for the service.
And there is no any doubts- the Italians COULD not realise dsuch insolent actions themself without British support.
The Novorossisk were passed to the Soviet Side in the 1949 after being in Britain ( according the special allies treaty of partition the fleets of Germany and Italy).
The political backgroung in the 1955 was the crisis in Near East .
After the Egupth declared the war to the Britain- the brits feared that the Novorossisk could be used agains the BRitish.

Nickdfresh
11-19-2007, 06:41 AM
Link?

Chevan
11-19-2007, 08:03 AM
Link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_battleship_Giulio_Cesare
That's i just have found out in English
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Novorossiysk_bb.jpg
battleship Novorossisk


A more theatrical conspiracy explanation was that Italian frogmen were avenging the transfer of the formerly-Italian battleship to the USSR. Covert action by the Italian special operations unit Decima Flottiglia MAS has often been surmised, and there are reports that not long thereafter a small group of Italian Navy frogmen received high military awards. However, no firm evidence exists for this hypothesis. Another theory states that explosives were hidden in the ship before she was given to the Russians. No evidence of sabotage has been found, though Soviet enquiries did not rule out the possibility because of the poor safeguarding of the fleet base on the night of the explosion. The goal of covertly destroying the battleship would be a small prize compared to the risk of provoking war if discovered, so the motive of such an Italian operation is questionable and does not support these theories. There is also a conspiracy theory that Novorossiysk was sunk by Soviet secret service divers in order to blame Turkey for the sabotage as justification to take control of Bosporus and Dardanelles, and that the plan was eventually abandoned. There is no strong evidence to support this hypothesis.

Nickdfresh
11-19-2007, 11:22 AM
Were killed 600 sailors.
For the long time the official verition was a GErman old ww2 mine.
However according the conclisions of specialists even the bunch of the GErmans Mines was not capable to critically damage the 8 decks ( more then 156 Square metters)
This was a obvious fact of diversion.
The ONLY few frogmans were able to made such thing - the our Grabb was one of the such man.
For the long time were suspected the Italian special unit (10 MAC ) that was specialized on the Underwater diversions since the ww2.
As it was established by the british press - after the ww2 the Italians even teached the BRitain frogmans.
After the beginning of Cold war the Italians diversants were called for the service.
And there is no any doubts- the Italians COULD not realise dsuch insolent actions themself without British support.
The Novorossisk were passed to the Soviet Side in the 1949 after being in Britain ( according the special allies treaty of partition the fleets of Germany and Italy).
The political backgroung in the 1955 was the crisis in Near East .
After the Egupth declared the war to the Britain- the brits feared that the Novorossisk could be used agains the BRitish.

This is an interesting situation, but I think the conjecture according to the Wiki link is that it could theoretically have been Italian Frogmen, the British aren't even mentioned, and that this was unlikely as it would have been a grave risk of war for the Italians to do so....And now you're aimlessly speculating without any real evidence as it's highly doubtful that the British would even want to be involved in this. Even the link mentions the KGB as a possible suspect conducting a "false flag" operation to blame the Turks - which I think is equally as doubtful...

And you really think Buster Crab was attaching a limpet mine? Really? The British wanted to sink a Soviet warship in their own harbor? No man, I think the British were far more interested in tapping into Soviet communications or tracking their fleet movements...

Chevan
11-27-2007, 06:03 AM
And now you're aimlessly speculating without any real evidence as it's highly doubtful that the British would even want to be involved in this. Even the link mentions the KGB as a possible suspect conducting a "false flag" operation to blame the Turks - which I think is equally as doubtful...

Firstly its not my speculation, but the professionel. of military historian.
The fack that after the war the Itlians alone could not be able to do such divertion WITHOUT foreign help - is obvious.
And who could be that "foreign help" - is not hard to guess....;)


And you really think Buster Crab was attaching a limpet mine? Really? The British wanted to sink a Soviet warship in their own harbor? No man, I think the British were far more interested in tapping into Soviet communications or tracking their fleet movements...

No i do not think they was aimed to blow up the Ordgonikidze in the their own harbour.
Probably it was a special inelligence equipment.
But i think both those incident: the Novorossiisk and Ordgonikidze are closely related.

Nickdfresh
11-27-2007, 06:16 AM
Firstly its not my speculation, but the professionel. of military historian.
The fack that after the war the Itlians alone could not be able to do such divertion WITHOUT foreign help - is obvious.
And who could be that "foreign help" - is not hard to guess....;)

With no evidence? Again, you're just throwing out conspiratorial speculations that have actually been dismissed as highly unlikely by the very sources you've provided...


No i do not think they was aimed to blow up the Ordgonikidze in the their own harbour.
Probably it was a special inelligence equipment.
But i think both those incident: the Novorossiisk and Ordgonikidze are closely related.

Maybe, but we'll never know fully what happened in either case. But even the Soviet authorities never really assigned blame...

Chevan
11-27-2007, 07:57 AM
Maybe, but we'll never know fully what happened in either case. But even the Soviet authorities never really assigned blame...
Why?
To make the situation worser?
Do not forget it was a Cold War that could transform into the Hot war for the several minutes.
So the Soviets has balmed nobody , but the keep the attention and liqudated the Grabb immediatelly without any doubts.

With no evidence? Again, you're just throwing out conspiratorial speculations that have actually been dismissed as highly unlikely by the very sources you've provided...

Nick you sad right now that we will never know story fully, and then you say that there is no evidence.
Sure there is no evideces , however the simple reasonable analys could offer us the few possible versions.
And ONE of the most possible is that the Novorossisk could be the victims f the spesial diversants-frogmants ( like and later Ordgonikidze).
I do not wish to say that Britains was wanted to sink the Ordgonikidze together with Khruhev;)
It means he innevitable Nuclear War.
However to sink the Novorossiisk professionally in the far Sevastopol is not so bad , right;)

Nickdfresh
11-28-2007, 12:11 PM
Why?
To make the situation worser?
Do not forget it was a Cold War that could transform into the Hot war for the several minutes.
So the Soviets has balmed nobody , but the keep the attention and liqudated the Grabb immediatelly without any doubts.

Maybe because they were embarrassed? And they were also aware that the United States used the occasion of the USS Maine exploding in Havana Harbor, in what was all likelihood an accident, as an excuse to declare war on Spain even though no real proof existed that a supposed Spanish mine was used is some dastardly sneak attack...

And if the Italian frogman carried it out, then why must have the British have known about it? You offer no explanation other than to try to tie this completely unrelated event to the mystery around Buster Crab's unfortunate murder/assassination. The Italian naval special ops were amongst the best and most experienced in the world around from before WWII to well after. Why would they even want the UK to assist? Especially if their frogman can't even put a bug on a Soviet ship in one of their own harbors?


Nick you sad right now that we will never know story fully, and then you say that there is no evidence.

No. What is sad is that you just make shit up borne of idle speculation in place of fact or evidence. Right now, as much evidence exists that Martians destroyed the Red Navy's ex-Italian ship than did the Italian frogmen...


Sure there is no evideces , however the simple reasonable analys could offer us the few possible versions.
And ONE of the most possible is that the Novorossisk could be the victims f the spesial diversants-frogmants ( like and later Ordgonikidze).
I do not wish to say that Britains was wanted to sink the Ordgonikidze together with Khruhev;)
It means he innevitable Nuclear War.
However to sink the Novorossiisk professionally in the far Sevastopol is not so bad , right;)

Yeah. Another case of the benevolent Soviet authorities absorbing another blow of hideous capitalist, western aggression for the greater good of mankind. How quaint. :rolleyes: