Talk:Petrov Affair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Petrov Affair Exhibition--nixie 02:39, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

MVD or KGB[edit]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KGB#The_Evolution_of_the_KGB says that the MVD became the KGB in 1953.

Yet here, in 1954, Petrov is called a member of the MVD.

Surely it should say KGB?

203.39.103.26 (talk) 01:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Beria connection[edit]

The comment to the effect that "The Petrovs had been sent to the Canberra embassy in 1951 by the Soviet security chief, Lavrenty Beria" is a bit off. Beria had lost his "security chief" position in January 1946 and didn't resume direct control of the Soviet security and intelligence agencies until after Stalin's death in March 1953.

Beria did exercise a degree of influence on the security apparatus in 1946-1953, though, so it's possible that Petrov was "Beria's man" and hence afraid to return to the USSR after Beria's fall. However, it's also possible that Petrov, who was, after all, only a colonel, had nothing to do with Beria and had other reasons to defect. The new Soviet leadership purged its security apparatus rather thoroughly in 1953-1954 and Petrov had reasons to be worried even if he was not a direct protege of one of the newly appointed fall guys like Abakumov and Beria.

Anyway, a source for Petrov's motives (his autobio? the 1987 Manne book?) would be nice. Ahasuerus 23:57, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evdokia's liberation from MVD[edit]

The article states that Evdokia Petrov was separated by 'ASIO agents' from her MVD minders - there are two problems with this: 1) She was not separated by ASIO 'agents', but by Northern Territory police officers. There are photographs that confirm this. 2) On a more minor note, ASIO employees should not be referred to as 'agents'. They are correctly called 'officers' as 'agents' is an American term that has a completely different meaning in the Commonwealth realms that follow the security service model established by MI5. I have changed the article accordingly. DirectEdge 23:30, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that someone changed it back. Also, I was under taught that it was the federal police who were able to take her back because the Russian MVD were carrying guns. 202.169.180.204 (talk) 05:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Total lack of discussion of Venona[edit]

The failure to discuss the Venona project in this article is a major omission which should be rectified. For those interested, one place to start is Nigel West's Venona (London: HarperCollins, 2000), 95-121. Rgr09 (talk) 08:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article on the Petrov Affair- which this talk section is adjacent to - is a very good scissor cutting of paper accomplishment around the affair as public experience. The article gives it exactly as the public received it.
To introduce the Venona project which has a Wikipedia entry for itself - Venona project - would create complications of layers of information which would be outside the definition of the public event which the Wiki article agreeably confines itself to.
With a little beach browsing or bush walking on the web it is possible to find the exposition of information Rgr09 would like to be brought into a Wiki discussion or something of what he thinks should be (or other). It is here in heading II (of VIII headings) entitled THE VENONA OPERATION
Cain, Frank -- "Australian Intelligence Organisations and the Law: A Brief History" [2004] UNSWLawJl 23; (2004) 27(2) University of New South Wales Law Journal 296. http://www.worldlii.org/au/journals/UNSWLJ/2004/23.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 01:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is to be noted with the raising of ne'er one eyebrow that in an adjournment debate (An adjournment debate is at the end of each sitting day when members and senators make short speeches on any subject.) in the Australian Senate on 16th June 2011 in the speech by Steve Hutchins (NSW, Australian Labor Party) Soviet Espionage In Australia, there is elided any mention of, nor reference to Petrov. Venona is given of a compelling nature in three instances.
http://www.openaustralia.org/senate/?gid=2011-06-16.323.2
It may be intended to be assumed by that apparently meaningful elision that the Petrov Affair had further agenda to its public timeline and which has remained hidden and is sensitive to the greater revelations in and the subsequent responses to the Venona decrypts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Laurencebeck (talk • contribs) 04:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Petrov Affair/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs sources for a higher rating.--Grahamec 13:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 13:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:47, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Petrov Affair. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Colonel or Lieutenant Colonel?[edit]

The National Museum of Australia says Lt Col: [1]--Jack Upland (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Petrov_Affair&oldid=1208090454"