“Remember
that what you are told is really threefold: shaped by the teller, reshaped by
the listener, concealed from both by the dead man of the tale.” --- Vladimir Nabokov
It
was mid-February 1945 in northwestern Lithuania. World War Two had entered its
final phase. The Soviet Red Army was fighting the retreating German forces. The
dense forest areas between the towns of Šiauliai and Telšiai were patrolled by
the military units of the Second Baltic Front. The Front's headquarters of the Soviet military
counterintelligence directorate known as the SMERSH (Russian acronym for “Death
to Spies”) reported the capture of a group of suspected German spies.
One of the unnamed captives carried the identification
documents of a Soviet infantry officer, Lieutenant Aleksey G. Podrezov.[1] Podrezov had been missing since November 1944. He had left his unit on a 10-day
leave and never returned. What happened to him? The Soviet military prosecutors
of the 3rd Air Army opened an investigation.
The
basic biographical details on Podrezov were easily obtained. He was born in
Ukraine, in the Dnipro (Dnepropetrovsk) region in 1919.[2]. He had general education
(seven grades) and was recruited into the Red Army in 1939. In uniform from the
first day of the war, Podrezov became a candidate for membership in the
Komsomol in 1942. He then completed an officers’ course which led to his
promotion to lieutenant in 1944. He seemed a promising young man
rising up the ladder of Soviet military hierarchy in wartime conditions.
Another
document offered a more detailed account of the last year in Podrezov’s life.[3] On April 2, 1944, Podrezov reported for service in the 47th Infantry
Division and was named the head of a mortar battalion in the Division's 148th Regiment on the same day. About three months later, on June
27, 1944, he was wounded in battle and then dispatched to a hospital in the
rear for recovery and recuperation.[4] The wound must have been serious considering
that Podrezov returned to his regiment only a couple months later. It seems that his troubles began after his return. Had his attitude toward the military
service and the war in general undergone a dramatic change?
The
first indication that something was amiss was the fact that he was not
re-appointed to his previous position as the head of a mortar battalion.
Instead, he was put in charge of the burial unit, a much lower and generally
disliked post. Angered, or perhaps suffering from some kind of physical
anguish, Podrezov apparently did not do a good job even at this lowly post and
was relieved of command on October 10.[5]
Obviously
wanting to get out of the unpleasant situation, Podrezov requested a 10-day
leave from the
regiment commander, Major Vasily Marushkov. He reportedly told Marushkov that
he was going to visit his uncle who served as a colonel in the headquarters of
the First Baltic Front. Marushkov approved the request but the documents certifying
his decision appeared to have been lost or destroyed.
Given
that the identity of Podrezov’s uncle was never established, it is possible
that he was invented by Podrezov as an excuse to leave his unit. Evidently, military
investigators also had their suspicions and required Marushkov to report all he
knew about Podrezov’s request. In order to assess potential favoritism or
corruption, they also obtained Marushkov’s personal information.[6] Nothing improper was found.
In
his hand-written report, Marushkov stated that he reported Podrezov’s absence to
his superiors at the end of November but was told that Podrezov had probably
stayed with his uncle at the headquarters.[7] Nobody seemed overly concerned that Podrezov was missing. It is likely that
they did not want him back anyway. But would they go so far as to plan, execute,
and cover up his death? They had the know-how, they had the means, but did they really do it?
The
account of the last hours of Podrezov’s life was provided by a Lithuanian villager Simonas Skotis.
According to Skotis, on January 28, 1945 (more than two months after leaving
his unit), Podrezov appeared at his farm in the woods near the small village of
Luoke (Lukniki) in the company of two “unidentified” individuals dressed as
soldiers of the Red Army.[8] The three said they were members of the Luoke NKVD (state security) unit. While
at Skotis’s house, they began to drink heavily and, according to Skotis,
Podrezov used his gun to force a female inhabitant (referred to in the report
as an “unidentified female citizen”) to drink with them. Skotis was silent as
to whether this aggressive action led to any subsequent sexual violence. He only
stated that after their bout of drinking was over, Podrezov and one of the
soldiers left for another farm in search of a certain sergeant Shvetsov who
supposedly lived there.
This
was when things took a strange turn. According to Skotis, soon after Podrezov
and the soldier left, the remaining soldier exited the house and began waiting
for the two to come back in a sort of ambush. When he saw them returning, he
fired on Podrezov, killing him at the spot. The soldiers then took Podrezov’s
gun and field bag, ripped off his shoulder straps, and vanished.
To
what extent was Skotis’s testimony reliable? Major Levin, a Soviet military prosecutor
reviewing the case, must have had his doubts, given that he expressed his
surprise that no additional witnesses were interrogated.[9] Skotis could have easily been suspected to have been an accomplice to the
murder of a Soviet officer. Yet, he was let go without any sanctions. It looked
as if he had been protected by local authorities who first reported Podrezov’s
death to the Soviets. He was likely an informer who was still needed for
future covert work.
Interestingly,
in his account, Skotis mentioned that only Podrezov took an aggressive action
against a woman in his house and said nothing about his two companions. Were
they just passive observers, or was he trying to make Podrezov - who, being
dead, could offer no rebuttal - look as bad as possible, almost deserving of his tragic fate? Perhaps Skotis was afraid that those two “soldiers” would come back and
take their revenge on him if he revealed too much to the investigators.
But
who were these “soldiers”? Their identity was never discovered. Major Levin
closed the case without having the answer. He only recommended that those in Podrezov’s regiment who had failed
to report his absence to the headquarters be reprimanded.[10] He did not say a word about continuing the search for the killers.
Were
they really NKVD, or were they in fact Lithuanian anti-Soviet resistance fighters dressed
up as NKVD to fool a Soviet deserter roaming the woods, who was as afraid of his
own as of the enemy? Most likely, they were the resistance fighters. Still, after
having reviewed the case, I can’t shake off the impression that Podrezov was an
inconvenient witness to both sides.
NOTES
[1] “Спецсообщение начальнику Управления контрразведки ‘СМЕРШ’ 2-го Прибалтийского фронта [Special Report to the Head
of the Directorate of Counterintelligence ‘SMERSH’ of the 2nd Baltic
Front,” February 21, 1945. Fond K-1, Op. 45, File 1832, p.109. Lietuvos TSR Valstybės Saugumo Komitetas
[Lithuanian KGB] Selected Records, Hoover Institution. I gratefully
acknowledge the Hoover Institution Library & Archives as an essential
resource in the development of these materials. The views expressed in this
publication are entirely my own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the
fellows, staff, or Board of Overseers of the Hoover Institution.
[2] “Справка на б/служащего проходившего службу в 148 стрельковом полку лейтенента Подрезова Алексея Георгиевича [Information on the former service
member serving in the 148th Rifle Regiment Lieutenant Podrezov
Aleksey Goergiyevich], February 17, 1945. Fond K-1, Op. 45, File 1832, p.119. Lietuvos TSR Valstybės Saugumo Komitetas
[Lithuanian KGB] Selected Records, Hoover Institution. Another
document stated that he was born in 1917. See “Справка [Information], February
17, 1945. Fond K-1, Op. 45, File 1832, p.118. Lietuvos TSR Valstybės Saugumo Komitetas
[Lithuanian KGB] Selected Records, Hoover Institution.
[3] “Справка
[Information], February 16, 1945. Fond K-1, Op. 45, File
1832, p.117. Lietuvos TSR Valstybės
Saugumo Komitetas [Lithuanian KGB] Selected Records, Hoover Institution.
[4] “Справка на б/служащего проходившего службу в 148 стрельковом полку лейтенента Подрезова Алексея Георгиевича [Information on the former service member serving in
the 148th Rifle Regiment Lieutenant Podrezov Aleksey Goergiyevich], p.119.
[5] “Спецсообщение начальнику Управления контрразведки ‘СМЕРШ’ 2-го Прибалтийского фронта [Special Report to the Head of the Directorate of
Counterintelligence ‘SMERSH’ of the 2nd Baltic Front,” p.109.
[6] “Справка
на начальника штаба
148 СП майора Маружкова
Василия Михайловича [Information
on the chief
of the stuff
of the 148th Rifle Regiment Major Maryshkov
Vasily Mikhailovich],” February 17, 1945. Fond K-1, Op. 45, File 1832, p.111. Lietuvos TSR Valstybės Saugumo Komitetas
[Lithuanian KGB] Selected Records, Hoover Institution.
“Спецсообщение начальнику Управления контрразведки ‘СМЕРШ’ 2-го Прибалтийского фронта [Special Report to the Head
of the Directorate of Counterintelligence ‘SMERSH’ of the 2nd Baltic
Front,” p.109
reverse.
