KGB memorandum. Andropov to Brezhnev on possibility of using Willy Brandt to help expel Solzhenitsyn from USSR to FRG, after his declarations in Solzhenitsyn’s defence. [R 7 February 1974, 350-A-ov] total 2 pp.
[page one of two]
MEMORANDUM FROM THE USSR COMMITTEE OF STATE SECURITY [KGB]
AT THE USSR COUNCIL OF MINISTERS
No 350-A / ov
7 February 1974
To the CPSU Central Committee
Speaking in Munich on 2 February this year at the award ceremony of the annual Theodor Heuss prizes, the West German Chancellor W. Brandt declared that Solzhenitsyn could work and live freely and without hindrance in the FRG, since many in the West could not imagine the difficulties with which a world famous writer supposedly encountered in his own country. Moreover, Brandt demagogically emphasised the right of the intellectual to the free expression of his thoughts [see Note 1, page two].
This declaration by Brandt gives every justification for deporting Solzhenitsyn to the FRG, after adopting the necessary decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet depriving him of his citizenship. This decision will also be lawful, bearing in mind the existence of materials concerning Solzhenitsyn’s criminal activities.
To reach agreement on practical steps in this direction it seems expedient to make contact via unofficial channels with representatives of the governing circles in the FRG. Concrete proposals as to how Solzhenitsyn may be transferred to West Germany will be provided separately.
These proposals have been agreed with the USSR Procuracy (Comrade Rudenko, R.A.)
We request authorisation
CHAIRMAN OF THE COMMITTEE FOR STATE SECURITY
In his speech W. Brandt said:
“There can be no doubt that we support freedom to express opinions and the freedom of the writer to express his views using the means at his disposal.
Solzhenitsyn could live freely in our country and work without hindrance in the FRG. To make such a statement is not to interfere. Everyone knows that we have good relations with the USSR. The difference is that what we call ideologies and systems continue to exist.
Many among us in the West cannot understand the difficulties that a world-famous writer encounters in his own country. I fear that certain authorities there, it seems, do not understand how useful it would be for [their] international authority, if they reacted more gently to unadorned descriptions of the State.”
(Telegram from Bonn, 5 February 1974)