MRS PETROV’S ORDEAL IN SOVIET EMBASSY

Press, Volume XC, Issue 27396, 8 July 1954, Page 11

MRS PETROV’S ORDEAL IN SOVIET EMBASSY

(Rec. 11 p.m.) MELBOURNE. July 7. Mrs Evdokia Petrov told the Royal Commission into Espionage in Australia today about her ordeal as a prisoner in the Soviet Embassy in Canberra after her husband had sought political asylum. She said the Soviet Ambassador told her that Mr Petrov had been kidnapped. She had been forced to write a “trap” note to him. Mrs Petrov also said that Russia planned to transfer illegal agents from abroad to Australia to organise a fifth Column.

Mrs Petrov said a letter from Mos- 1 cow, in 1952, laid down instructions 1 for dealing with correspondence. The > code word in the letter, when de- ' ciphered, meant “conventional.” It < meant illegal work. Moscow sent Kis- ] litsin (Second Secretary at the Em- i bassy) instructions in November, 1952, to arrange the illegal work, namely, 1 the transfer of illegal agents from abroad into Australia. “The purpose of this included the organisation of what we- would call a fifth column something along these lines—Kislitsin, or people working under him, would try to contact, say, the owner of some cafe or restaurant or some person like that who, in turn, would have a circle of friends or agents who would be working for him, strictly under coyer, with nothing open. This organisation would be prepared, for an eventual emergency. It would not be active until an emergency. However, it might give information which would be useful even before an emergency.’ Mr Justice Owen: By an emergency do you mean the outbreak of war?— Yes, of course. This was to set up a framework of fifth columnists to operate in the event of war?—Such a framework included people neutral from their point of view and it would be active all the time in giving information. It would be wrong to say it was only set up for the purpose of emergency. * If an emergency should occur what would be the nature of the work which the organisation would be expected to carry out?—Moscow would give instructions on what they were to do, depending on the situation. Sabotage, for instance?—Anything.

Decision to Leave • Mr W. J. V. Windeyer (senior counsel)- Your husband had discussed with you his thought of remaining in Australia?—He did not discuss it specifically with me, but in conversations he let the idea infiltrate and I could understand that it was at the back of his mind. But I opposed the idea. After the morning tea adjournment, Mr Windeyer told the Commissioners that there was a Russian-speaking man in the Court wishing to be in a position where he could hear Mr A. H. Birse interpreting the evidence, he was allowed to occupy a vacant press

seat facing the witness box. Continuing her evidence. Mrs Petrov said she thought she must go back to Russia because of her relatives. Mr Windeyer: Did you know before April 3 that Mr Petrov was going to leave the- Russian service and seek asylum in Australia?—No, I did not know he had decided to remain until it was made known on April 13. 1 thought then he had been taken Kidnapped?—Yes. and I did not know that he had intended to commit suicide. The letter in which he described his feeltngs never reached me. Mr Windeyer then asked Mrs Petrov to describe to the commission m English what happened- to her from April 3 onwards. Mrs Petrov said: "It is very responsible. and I would rather put it m Russian.” , „ . ~ Through Mr Birse, Mrs Petrov said that on April 3, Kovalenok (Petrovs relief) told her he had seen her husband in Sydney and he would return to Canberra on April 4. They discussed M.G.B. (espionage) work This was before she knew her husband was missing. He told her that her husband had seen him off at Mascot. She said that confirmation had to be sent to Moscow on his arrival and. as Petrov was not there, no-one had the right to sign the telegram. He authorised Kislistin to sign and put his own signature underneath and Said that Petro would appear on April 5. . "On April 6 the Ambassador (Mr N. I Generalov) called me and said he feared that something had happened to my husband, as he had not appeared. He said he had to ask the Department of External Affairs to make an investigation. He told me he had sent a message to Moscow. He feared something had happened to my husband and that I might be He told Kovaliev (commercial attache) to take me to my home to collect some belongings.”

Prisoner in Embassy

Mrs Petrov said that she collected some clothes from the house and was taken back to the embassy. She was placed in a room of the duty commandant. “All day I did not know where I was going to sleep," she added. Finally they put a sofa —it was very short, about half my height—in the room for me to sleep on. “I asked for a bed. They refused. I Kianaged to sleep a bit that'night and the next day I went to the Ambassador and asked him to make arrangements so I could get some proper sleep. After some difficulty, they put a bed in the room and, from that moment until I departed from the embassy, I was alone. ' “The person to whom the room belonged was■ told to watch me. He worked in the cipher department, but was free from that work to watch me day and night. This man or his wife, were in it all the time, day or night. No arrangements were made about

food, and finally I went into the kitchen. At first they refused to let me enter it. Then I became rather violent and insisted I should make my own lunch. The woman, seeing how I was suffering, decided to help me get some food. Day and night there was a patrol outside and inside the embassy.” Mrs Petrov said she was not allowed to go into the embassy entrance hall, and all talk ended between her, the official workers and the officials’ wiyes. Only strictly official talk was allowed between her and Kovaliev. Meetings with Ambassador

On April 8 or 9 the Ambassadoi sent for her and said: “I am now certain your husband will not return.’ He sent for her a second time and showed her a note from the Department of External Affairs. The Ambassador interrogated her several times as the result of orders from Moscow to help them find Mr Petrov. She told them nothing, although she guessed certain things from previous conversations with her husband.! The Ambassador said her husband might only have been “putting on an Mrs Petrov said that when she read the department’s note, she realised that her husband had either decided to stay in Australia or was forced to stay. She heard from an embassy official that she was leaving Australia on April 19. She added: “I was very careful of my conduct and behaviour and I began to prepare for my departure.” On April 10, z she handed over all the cipher material to Kovaliev in the presence of Kislitsin. On April 15 she handed Kovaliev all the documents and equipment of the office, including the act (Document E) about* destruction of all the 1952 correspondence. She was convinced that they had been burned. When she learned that Mr Petrov had handed documents to the Australian authorities, she guessed that he had taken the letters. Mrs Petrov said she also gave Kovaliev all the M.V.D. (espionage activity) money. He checked it with entries made in Moscow. He said that all the documents were in order. Mr Justice Owen: How much M.V.D. money was handed over? Was it in cas h?—lt totalled about £2OOO in cash. Mrs Petrov said that she was not allowed then to enter the cipher department. She was allowed to read only one newspaper and to listen to the wireless. Four days before her departure all the wireless apparatus in the embassy suddenly went wrong. When she went to collect her belongings she was escorted to her house again. They noticed two or three newspaper men. The escort took fright and she went into the house alone. They allowed her about 10 minutes —hardly time enough to collect anything. Then they escorted her back to the embassy. Continuihg her evidence, Mrs Petrov lid: “The officials brought some of

my things from the house and left them in a heap. I had to sort out the bundle. No-one helped me, but there was a man standing by watching me all the time. I was very careful to be correct and did not take any of my husband’s things. “I was afraid not only of the men watching-—they might not believe him —but others might suspect that I had planned something. If I had shown the slightest trace of planning anything, I think I might have been murdered in the embassy, because it was of the greatest importance for them not to tet me go. But I kept myself in hand. ’

Forced to Write Letter Mrs Petrov said she was handed a letter written by her husband and sent to the Russian Embassy through the Department of External Affairs. The letter was accompanied by a note from the department. The Ambassador sent for her and she read the letter. The Ambassador said he had prepared a draft of a letter which she would have to copy and sign. Mrs Petrov added: “I said I would not sign what he had written. I said I wished to write the letter myself, and that I might take a few sentences out of the Ambassador’s letter. I wrote a letter, which was rather long, and he read it through and said, ‘AH right.’ In the letter I let my husband know the circumstances in which I was placed. A note was prepared, on April 15. to the Department of External Affairs, and the letter Was attached.

“I thought my letter had gone to my husband but. on April 18, the Ambassador told me a telegram had been received from Moscow. He said Moscow suggested that I should write to my husband in these terms: ‘Under the conditions laid down by the Department of External Affairs for meeting you. I cannot meet you because I am afraid of falling into a trap.’ “I looked at this draft and said I would put a full stop after the words ‘I cannot meet vou,’ and that I would not write about a trap. The Ambas-

sador and Kovaliev tried to persuade me for four hours to write the whole sentence. Finally I wrote what they wished.” . , . ~ Mrs Petrov said the Ambassador told her he thought Mr Petrov had written his letter under dictation. She continued: ‘‘l said: ‘You say he wrote under dictation. I am also writing under dictation, apd my husband will understand that these are not xny thoughts.’ . . then wrote ‘Dear Volodemnka.* The Ambassador said: ‘That is of no use. You had better not address him at all.’ I then wrote the word ‘Volodya,* from which my husband would understand that these were not my own ideas because I never addressed him in that way when I wrote to him.” At this stage Mr Windeyer said Mrs Petrov had found part of her evidence today particularly trying, and she might be given an opportunity later to describe her journey from 1 Canberra. Mrs Petrov left the witness box.