Is it possible to believe the information from the FMS? (On the example of one gentleman)

[Dilettante]

Sorry, I am writing through a translator program.

A) Introduction
This is not the first time I have come across a complete inconsistency of the information given by Mr. Karov. His memoirs describe the liquidation of the Putilov group, which is described in a completely different way in the reports of the department Ic XXVIII AK. (R-788)

Reference
Karov (Kandaurov) Dmitry Petrovich (1902-1961) - officer of the Abwehr (1941-1944) and the Armed Forces of the KONR (1945). Left Russia in 1919. Since 1920 - in Paris. Graduated from Russian gymnasium, university. In the summer of 1940, he left for employment in Germany, worked as a translator at an aircraft engine plant in Hanover. At the end of 1940, he agreed to work in German intelligence agencies until the creation of an independent Russian state. With the beginning of the war with the USSR, he was assigned to the naval reconnaissance detachment. From December 1941 he served in the Ic department of the headquarters of the 18th Army (Army Group North). In the 1950s, he worked at the Institute for the Study of History and Culture of the USSR (Munich).In 1950 he compiled a memoir "Russians in the service of German intelligence and counterintelligence."

Judging by his track record, he must be an expert in German counterintelligence.
And it seems that he is either deliberately lying or does not know this topic at all. As if he is retelling the front stories of a drunk sergeant.

From his history in his memoirs about the liquidation of the Putilov group and reports from the original documents of the German counterintelligence (Ic XXVIII AK. (R-788)), I understood that he cannot be trusted.

B) On this topic.

I looked at FMS on my favorite topic- "P-122 Deutsche Gegenspionage im besetzten Rußland 1941-44 (engl.)" (See photo)
On page 17 I saw a paragraph about a plane in the Tosno area. (See photo)..... and I thought WTF?

The events described in this FMS are completely different from the documents- XXVIII AK roll 788 frame 583-586.
1- Not 8 but 2 people reconnaissance group were taken prisoner.
2-As a result of the radio game of the radio operator Kryukov, the U-2 plane was captured and landed on Lake Pendikovskoye near Tosno.
3-not February 1942, but the end of March 1942.
4-Nobody was hurt during the capture. The plane, together with a group of 3 people and the pilot, was captured unharmed.
Even if we assume that it was a different aircraft, the Tosno area was included in the XXVIII AK's zone of responsibility for a given period of time, and such an event as the capture of the aircraft could not be ignored in the documents Ic XXVIII AK.
I looked at the author - it's him again !!!- Karov.

C) Logics

"The Polikarpov Po-2 (also U-2, for its initial uchebnyy, 'training', role as a flight instruction aircraft) served as an all-weather multirole Soviet biplane.
They typically attacked by surprise in the middle of the night, denying German troops sleep and keeping them on their guard, contributing to the already high stress of combat on the Eastern front. The usual tactic involved flying only a few meters above the ground, climbing for the final approach, throttling back the engine and making a gliding bombing run, leaving the targeted troops with only the eerie whistling of the wind in the wings' bracing-wires as an indication of the impending attack.[8] Luftwaffe fighters found it extremely hard to shoot down the Kukuruznik because of two main factors: the pilots flew at treetop level where they were hard to see or engage and the stall speed of both the Messerschmitt Bf 109 and the Focke-Wulf Fw 190 was similar to the U-2s maximum speed, making it difficult for the fighters to keep a Po-2 in weapons range for an adequate period of time.
The U-2 could land and take off literally from an unpaved "patch" - an extremely small place for a takeoff, which made it indispensable for communication with the partisans."
(Wiki)
(See photo)
I could take 3 people - 1 behind the pilot and two in the other compartment. But equipment and food had to be delivered on another plane.


"The Lisunov Li-2 (NATO reporting name: Cab), originally designated PS-84, was a license-built Soviet-version of the Douglas DC-3. It was produced by Factory #84 in Moscow-Khimki and, after evacuation in 1941, at TAPO in Tashkent. The project was directed by aeronautical engineer Boris Pavlovich Lisunov.
Appointment
The Li-2 aircraft is a transport and passenger aircraft of a classic layout, designed for air transportation of cargo and / or passengers with a maximum load of 2800 kg for a distance of up to 1100 km. The aircraft was produced in two main versions:

Option number 1 - cargo and passenger, for 14 seats, with a wardrobe compartment and a toilet cabin in the rear, a centralized heating and ventilation system.
Option number 2 - cargo, without passenger seats, with a large cargo door on the left side for bulky cargo.

The flight crew of the aircraft in both versions is four people: two pilots, a radio operator and a flight mechanic"
(See photo)
U-2 is a low-noise aircraft, lightweight, relatively cheap to manufacture, no prepared site is required for landing and take-off.
Lisunov Li-2 is a heavy military transport aircraft. Crew - 2 pilots. It was used for the delivery of goods to prepared sites or for parachuting large groups of 14-15 people at once.

Hence the question - these stupid Russians are sending 2 people at night on a heavy transport plane to an unknown landing site on a snow-covered lake, instead of a light U-2, or is someone just blatantly lying?
I got the impression that this personage, during the war, ran for coffee for gentlemen German officers, and when the power changed (changed his shoes in the air - a Russian proverb) and began to run for coffee for American officers. (I am out of politics - therefore I translate German documents, not knowing the German language at all, so that, without listening to the propaganda, I myself could understand what happened during the war.)

D) Conclusion

This situation discredited the FMS documents for me.
Do you think any military research can be trusted without reference to sources?

[Dilettante]

My question is, is it possible to take the information from the FMS seriously when studying military history?
If the author, like Mr. Karov, does not cite sources in his work.
I wrote above about the plane and TWO pilots who shot themselves.
I can and if it is necessary to give an example of the liquidation of a group of intelligence agents Putilov from his memoirs, when the words of the author are completely different from the German documents.

[K.Kocjancic]

My question is, is it possible to take the information from the FMS seriously when studying military history?
If the author, like Mr. Karov, does not cite sources in his work.
I wrote above about the plane and TWO pilots who shot themselves.
I can and if it is necessary to give an example of the liquidation of a group of intelligence agents Putilov from his memoirs, when the words of the author are completely different from the German documents.

Basically: if you are serious with a military history research, you can't really just on one source. Period. You have to verify it with others sources, as you have done in this case.

Klemen

[Dilettante]

You are speaking correctly.
You need to check the information.
But you can check when:
1- It is about a specific event with a date.
You need to know where to look, in what documents.
2- And in the case when the author makes a generalized analysis?
No dates, no specific events, based only on documents known to him. What to do then?

On the example of Karov, a former German counterintelligence officer. Hence he is an expert in this field. But in fact ...

With best regards

[K.Kocjancic]

You also have to consider that a lot of post-war sources in the field of (counter)intelligence were written under the prospect of the Cold War. A lot of German (ex) military and intelligence personnel had to "imbelish" their wartime record and achivements to get a job from American/British/French intel services. But of course this doesn't apply only to intel. "Clean Wehrmacht", "Soldiers as others", and other myths were all created in postwar years to justified their usefulness for Western Allies (or to save them from deportation to the USSR).

[Dilettante]

Here I completely agree with you.
Just after this incident, I will be wary of all FMS.
In Russia, a lot is still classified, especially with regard to the use of reconnaissance groups and partisans.
Therefore, I translate German documents.
Now I will probably only translate them.

With best regards!

[Dilettante]

You also have to consider that a lot of post-war sources in the field of (counter)intelligence were written under the prospect of the Cold War. A lot of German (ex) military and intelligence personnel had to "imbelish" their wartime record and achivements to get a job from American/British/French intel services. But of course this doesn't apply only to intel. "Clean Wehrmacht", "Soldiers as others", and other myths were all created in postwar years to justified their usefulness for Western Allies (or to save them from deportation to the USSR).

This presentation of information on the eve of the Cold War, on the one hand, is understandable.
On the other hand, authors such as Karov in the Soviet Union during the repressions (1937) would have taken a great risk.
Russian proverb- "a double-edged sword"
- such a presentation of information that makes a potential future adversary obviously weaker or more stupid - may suggest sabotage. Sabotage on assignment - here you can substitute any potential enemy. And this is either execution or 20 years of hard labor.

In general, I'm certainly very upset. Now I associate such a source of information as the FMS with lies.


And then, after 50 years or more, some historians take this diarrhea at face value.
Best wishes!