Hollis riddle
Sir: It might help to solve the Hollis riddle if the contradiction over the interrogation of the Russian defector, Igor Gouzenko, could be resolved. What has Richard Deacon or Nigel West got to say in answer to Peter Worthington's letter (2 May), contradicting Mr Deacon's version of the interrogation or interview at Ottawa in 1945? In that letter there were, in any case, one or two loose ends, raising questions Mr Worthington might answer.
In his review of Nigel West's book Molehunt (Books, 21 March) Mr Deacon wrote: 'While it is clear that Hollis was in Ottawa at the time of Gouzenko's first interrogation, he did not speak Russian and Gouzenko spoke hardly any English, and his interrogation was conducted by Nicholson of the RCMP, who was fluent in Russian.' Mr Worthington, on the other hand, maintains: 'The British Security officer who came to interview Gouzenko in 1945 was Roger Hollis.'
Is he saying that Hollis did speak Rus- sian or that Gouzenko did speak English well? Is Nicholson of the RCMP still alive? If Deacon was right, the report by Hollis, said by Worthington to have been de- nounced by Gouzenko as a fabrication, must have been a report, true or false, of Nicholson's interpretation or report of what Gouzenko had told him, Nicholson, in a language that Hollis did not under- stand. Gouzenko is said by Wrothington to have been shown 'the report or interview' of 1945 in 1972 or 1973. If that was Hollis's report, was Nicholson also shown it then? If so, did he agree with it or not? The RCMP, to say nothing of MI5, might know the answers to some of these questions.
Asked whether Sir Roger Hollis had been a 'mole' or not, another Russian defector was quoted recently as saying, 'Of course not.' Is there any reason to disbe- lieve him?
David Bruxner
25 Alexandra Mansions, King's Road, London SW3
Previous page
