Question on military involvement

[amashilu]

First, I admit I don't know anything about the KGB or the Russian military. But I've read in many places that the Big Question of why the hikers left their tent is the possibility that they were ordered out of their tent at gunpoint by military. If this were true, why didn't the military just shoot them? None of the autopsies mention gunshot wounds. Why would the military go to such lengths to order them out of the tent, make them take their boots off, bash their heads in, or to crush their chests with their boots? Why not just shoot them?

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

......................................
............. Why not just shoot them?

Because it was neither the KGB, nor the army, nor any other police of the USSR government.

On the contrary, the DPI was a serious defeat of the KGB, which proved its incompetency by being unable to protect the 9 hikers.

Although Dyatlov's group represented the elite of the Soviet youth and, in a way, the future of the USSR in 1959 under Krushchev's government ....

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

In a nutshell, here are some features of my explanation of the DPI (TOKEB theory).

    • The 9 hikers were attacked by surprise by a small number of contract killers, probably only 3.

    • The emergency exit from the tent can easily be explained by the introduction of a tear gas grenade or suffocating gas (but not deadly) inside the tent on the evening of February 1, 1959.

    • There was the will not to make any staging to impress the government of Krushchev in the Kremlin.

    • On the slope of Kholat Syakhl, the location judiciously chosen for the attack, was far from inhabited places so the 9 hikers had no possibility to go for help.

    • The attackers obviously had no firearms

    • The attackers were simply equipped with "big stick" (piece of wood, blunt object...), easy to get, never to be jammed, and above all silent which is a great advantage in the night fight.

    • The tactic of the attackers was to isolate the victims one by one and to strike first with decisive blows.

Naturally, I can deduce that the 3 murderers were of the strong type to be able to strike hard, and also that they had neither any hesitation nor mercy....

[Charles]

nothing here

[Charles]

nothing here

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

                                 Reply #3
..... the NKVD used to "kill by the cold"...........
...... who were deliberately abandoned in the cold until death ensues.....

Yes, there have been many reports of killing by cold for a long time.
For instance, in the history of the Solovki special camp that later became the Solovki special prison (1923-1939).

It is an economical and simple procedure which may eventually offer the advantage of being able to be disguised as an accident, unlike execution by a bullet in the back of the skull which leaves irrefutable evidence of murder.

Extra : To get an idea of the atmosphere (ambiance) of snowy journeys with poor equipment like that of our 9 hikers, I would also advise you to read Jacques Rossi's book :

The Gulag handbook: an encyclopedia dictionary of Soviet penitentiary institutions and terms related to the forced labor camps,
which was originally written in Russian and was translated into French (1997), English (1987).....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Rossi

[Manti]

First, I admit I don't know anything about the KGB or the Russian military. But I've read in many places that the Big Question of why the hikers left their tent is the possibility that they were ordered out of their tent at gunpoint by military. If this were true, why didn't the military just shoot them? None of the autopsies mention gunshot wounds. Why would the military go to such lengths to order them out of the tent, make them take their boots off, bash their heads in, or to crush their chests with their boots? Why not just shoot them?

Military involvement is just someone's speculation.


Personally I don't think the military would harm them in any way, they had no reason to. But if they did, they would also cover it up properly and not leave bodies lying around to be found.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

..............................................................
 Why not just shoot them?

              The answer is extremely simple: it is because the attackers did not had a gun (firearm).

Here are some thoughts to highlight some of the disadvantages of firearms, which might explain why the attackers did not have firearms.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Obviously, Kolgomorova, Slobodin, Doroshenko, Dyatlov, Krivonischenko rushed at the attacker who was in front of them, and thus were able to strike with all their strength with their fists, for a (too) short time,

So it would have been psychologically impossible for the attacker, if he had held a loaded gun, not to use his weapon.

https://dyatlovpass.com/injuries?filter_page=2&rbid=18461

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

It must be remembered that the attack began in complete darkness, on slippery, sloping snowy ground.
Moreover, there was probably a medium to strong wind, which necessitates shouting loudly to hope that a command or threatening obligation will be understood. (As for the temperature, it does not matter at the beginning).

In such conditions the effectiveness of verbal threats alone, i.e. without firing warning shots, which would have been visible for example in the top of the tent, seems to me almost impossible.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

If the attacker with a firearm was too far away, he might miss one of his 9 targets in the dark.

If the attacker was too close, he risked being disarmed. he risked being disarmed by triggering a coordinated counter attack from all the 9 hikers.

We had a recent example of this, albeit exceptional, but in good lighting conditions, with the attacker about 10 metres away and using a AKM, a modern repeating weapon :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AKM

On 21 August 2015, the attacker El Khazzani on a Thalys train :

................... and seeing the shirtless [El Khazzani] with an assault rifle, Skarlatos shouted out to his friends "Get him!". Stone moved first, running up the aisle, straight at the gun-wielding El Khazzani and putting him into a chokehold. El Khazzani dropped the carbine, but repeatedly cut Stone in the hand, head, and neck with the utility knife; Stone's thumb was nearly severed. Skarlatos seized the jammed rifle off the floor and began "muzzle-thumping" El Khazzani about the head, while Stone continued his choke-hold. El Khazzani fell unconscious......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_Thalys_train_attack

So carrying a gun with ammunition: heavy, expensive, very difficult to justify legally, 
without ever making the threat clear by visible warning shots or even by actually shooting one of the hikers in the leg, seems absurd.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Look at the opinion, which also supports the non-use of a firearm by the attackers, from Vietnamka, who is Russian.
Vietnamka: Murdered > Murder Indead, January 24, 2019, 07:40:55 AM ---> Reply #61
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=110.msg3058#msg3058
.............................
But the main question of why the victims were not simply shot.
......................
the victims were injured with one blow. Simply and effectively.
.........................

                       the simplest answer is - attackers didnt have weapons.
 Weapons were strictly prohibited in USSR except for hunting weapons.

If it is correct assumption, we can exclude some categories of people attacker did not belong
1) sololders (army, KGB)
2) hunters ........................
But the blows were very effective.......

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

The surroundings of Vizhay, near the Ivdellag were particularly watched in 1959, (i.e. in the period of Krushchev's thaw) by the government authorities. So there were frequent unannounced police checks.

When carrying a weapon: either you were known and carefully licensed,
 or you took a huge risk (of being imprisoned for illegal transport of a firearm).

[Charles]

nothing here

[Charles]

nothing here

[Charles]

nothing here

[Charles]

nothing here

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

                                 Reply #9  
.............................
I bet that dog had no license...
......................................
PS: And maybe Blinov's group had "things for hunting" not only for hunting, but also for security. As when sailing for pleasure in some regions of the globe (mainly South Asia and Indonesia), Westerners often take a gun on their boat, just in case of encounter with locals having bad intentions.

Of course I know that there were, in the civil society, i.e. without considering the army, a lot of firearms everywhere in the USSR. I do not understand what you are saying.

•• There were repeating firearms which were the normal equipment of the KGB, of the various police forces of the Soviet government and possibly of many civil servants working in isolated positions: prospectors, geologists, foresters, works inspectors...etc.

•• There were legally held hunting rifles by the many Russian hunters and also by the Mansis, as the Soviet administration was aware that hunting is an intrinsic part of the Mansi way of life.

•• There were illegal weapons held by organised criminal groups, Stalinist political opponents, foreign minorities under house arrest, outlaw traffickers. For example for trafficking in gold, precious stones, rare metal ores...

•• Finally there were citizens who were not in order because all the administrative steps to obtain a legal permit were too difficult.

Citation from Teddy :
 
very often those who guarded ended up behind bars for various crimes. And those who were in prison, after their release, often remained to live and work in Ivde............l....

............While finding a trick to keep or resell the firearm they used when they were guards at a Gulag camp.


 

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Citation from  Nikolay Varsegov and Natalya Varsegova:

And what about the scandal with the helicopter pilots who refused to transport the bodies of the last hikers found ?......

Answer by Vladimir Askenadzi :
- Yes there was such a situation. To transport bodies according to the instructions, we needed a special packing, but we did not have it. And here for the first time Colonel Ortyukov took out a pistol, threatening the pilots. I did not know that he had a gun. But the pilots still refused to board the corpses without the proper boxing. They were transported the next day, when special bags were provided....

And Colonel Ortyukov, because he was a thoughtful and wise man, seeing that his threat was useless, simply put his pistol back in his pocket without getting angry.


On 1958 summer hiking and water trek, category respectively III and II in Central Sayan Mountains....
Dubinina was shot in the leg due to careless handling of a weapon.

Apparently the bullet must have been of small calibre, because 6 months later Dubinina was not burdened by the disability of his injured leg.

This unintentional injury did not demonstrate the need to carry a gun, but it does suggest that Dubinina was not a softy.




 

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Citation from Charles :

I bet that dog had no license....

Dogs often carry various objects in their jaws, either spontaneously or because they have been trained to do so
(hunting dogs trained to retrieve animals).

But, unless I am mistaken, no dog is capable of effectively using a gun to neutralise an opponent. This is because dogs do not have arms and hands for gripping.

A dog could not, at the same time (simultaneously), aim and pull the trigger (unlike other animals like monkeys).


Citation from Charles :

Carrying firearms was so easy and common in the Urals,...

A distinction must be made between officially licensed weapons and illegally held weapons without documents.

In the vicinity of the Ivdellag - which was being dismantled in 1959 - I do not think that the KGB, as well as the various governmental police forces, were joking about the strict observance of the weapons regulations.

The USSR was very different from the USA !



 

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Citation from Charles :

And maybe Blinov's group had "things for hunting" not only for hunting, but also for security.

I agree that a shotgun can be useful in the event of an attack by a terrifying wolverine, a bear or an elk.

Note however that Doroshenko only used a hammer to drive back a (supposedly large) bear.

Citation from Teddy :

One day she [Kolgomorova] was watching him [Doroshenko] putting up their tent on the edge of a forest when she noticed a large brown bear approaching. Zina let out a shout of alarm. In the next moment, she saw Yuri fearlessly advancing on the beast with only a geology hammer in his hand. He didn’t pursue the animal for long, but when he strode back to the camp......



 

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Citation from Charles :

And maybe Blinov's group had "things for hunting"....

      1)  There are several photos of the Blinov group, but apparently no one is carrying a rifle in these photos.

      2)  On the other hand, the category III trekking activities, which were encouraged and supported by the UPI sports committee (or Route Commission) to emphasize the sports skills and moral qualities of endurance of the participants.

 Hunting activities with rifles were not mentioned, but we can assume that these extra-curricular activities (hunting) were not explicitly prohibited.

      3)  The fact is that Dyatlov, who had taken the necessary administrative steps to obtain a voucher for the fame of the 21st Congress of the PCSU, did not consider it necessary to ask for an authorisation to take a shotgun with his group.


      4)  It should also be taken into account that the Mansis could not be seriously upset by the presence on their usual territory of 9 joyful and harmless young people without any gun.

      5)  Whereas the arrival of 9 armed Russians could seem more worrying for the Mansis who could fear the announcement of a new Soviet regulation more restrictive for them.




 

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

Citation from Charles :
As when sailing for pleasure in some regions of the globe (mainly South Asia and Indonesia), Westerners often take a gun on their boat, just in case of encounter with locals having bad intentions

  •••    Dyalov's group consisted of honest Soviet citizens, not of westerners.

  •••    Dyalov's group was not sailing in South Asia or Indonesia, but travelling on skis on snow-covered ground in the Urals.

  •••    In civilized countries it is not allowed to shoot with a gun at local men you meet who displease you.

But indeed I have no idea whether Slobodin and his father carried a rifle on their journey from Frunze to Andijan in 1958.

Citation from Teddy :

«  Rustem Slobodin was not only a good athlete, but he could take risks. In the summer of 1958 Rustem together with his father made a traverse from Frunze (present Bishkek) to Andijan, where Rustem's older brother worked. This 300-kilometer trek took place in mountainous sparsely populated area of western Tien Shan. In the less inhabited lands when ethnic Russians travelers meet with Kyrgyz, Uighurs, Uzbeks, Dungans - people that they have nothing in common, words like "internationalism" and "brotherhood" don't carry any weight. In the summer of 1958 Rustem Slobodin and the native inhabitants of the Tien Shan didn't just have different mentality - there was a real civilization gap between them. Hatred doesn't describe it, does not convey the specifics of the inter-ethnic relations. Russians were simply envied for their white skin, the smell of soap and the fact that they did not have fleas.

When there are no witnesses to the encounter, everything is possible.
 Nevertheless, both father and son made it through these dangerous mountains.
They relied on their own strength and were ready to stand up for themselves.
This trip establishes Rustem as courageous, hardened, dependable and adventurous.»

[Charles]

nothing here

[Ziljoe]

Hi Charles.

Good post. My only comment would be when you refer to:

 Lyuda was so wrong about District 41, it was not "the last place of civilization"

I think she meant it in the context of settlement or people living before they went into the mountains? I've referred to this myself when going out into the wilds. Civilization is where there is established shop, pub, home , house, warmth etc. Doesn't mean it civilised in the bigger context. An alien could watch us from space and say our planet is uncivilised because we can't feed and water our population and the powers that be keep bombing and killing each other?

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Because leaving bullet wounds or knife wounds make a totally different case. The condition of the success was not only not to leave cartridges cases behind but not to leave bullet wounds at all.

[...]

Not to use the firearm against a hiker was one of the only conditions to succeed. The attackers could fail many things but they had to kill all the hikers and to leave no bullet and knife wounds. It is not difficult to follow only two instructions. The attackers did not have to complete a list of 10 or 20 obligations, there were only two. And the hikers were tourists, intellectuals, with beautiful and soft hands, working in warm libraries and engineering companies... exhausted after a few days of trekking.

Precisely.

It is very clear that if there had been bullet wounds, the operation would have been a failure because it would have been obvious that the students were murdered.

That is the reason why the attackers did not use firearms for the killing: The intelligent, brilliantly orchestrated plan was to make the whole operation look like an accident. The operation would have been perfect, if there had not occurred a sudden rise in temperature during the night of February 2. Because of the rise of temperature, the students did not freeze to death and had to be hunted down and killed.

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

Obviously, Kolgomorova, Slobodin, Doroshenko, Dyatlov, Krivonischenko rushed at the attacker who was in front of them, and thus were able to strike with all their strength with their fists, for a (too) short time,

So it would have been psychologically impossible for the attacker, if he had held a loaded gun, not to use his weapon.

https://dyatlovpass.com/injuries?filter_page=2&rbid=18461

In my opinion it is most likely that the attackers were professional, trained killers on a mission to eradicate what was a potential threat to state security - if the students had observed something there in the Urals they were not supposed to know about. Their possible divulging state secrets to a friend, family member or spouse was a risk that could not be taken.

Trained special forces personnel do not react like "normal" people. They are able to keep calm when attacked, and the students would have no chance with their fists in close combat against professional killers.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

                     Reply #5   
.............................................
• Personally I don't think the military would harm them in any way, they had no reason to.
• But if they did, they would also cover it up properly and not leave bodies lying around to be found.

Yes Manti, with Askenadzi I can say :
- I thought a lot about this and came to the conclusion that no spontaneous force could kill the nine healthy and fit guys. They could not just freeze in those conditions. Well, again, these inexplicable injuries. Don't ask me, I don't know who or why were they murdered. But this seems to me the only explanation of their death.
 
But unlike Askenadzi I can say : You may ask me because I have put together mostly historical arguments to also be able to tell :

- I thought a lot about this and came to the conclusion that it is completely absurd to assume that it was the KGB - or any other official structure organized by the Kremlin - who murdered the 9 hikers.

Obviously, the murderers were (or were paid by) enemies of the USSR or of the Krushchev's regime. (the Thaw).

But it is necessary to have understood the difference between Stalin and Khrushchev, between the NKVD and the KGB, and to have at least looked at the secret report of February 24, 1956.

 Only, all this is long and tedious to write in details. But you may ask me ....

                          Reply #16
............ trained killers on a mission ...................
...............................................................
 the students would have no chance with their fists in close combat against professional killers.

  Yes ! The students would have no chance with their fists in close combat against trained killers.

But the real question is to know who were these trained killers or by whom were they paid.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

If the students had observed something there in the Urals they were not supposed to know about
It would rather be illegal activities like gold trafficking or criminal agreements for fraudulent misappropriation of materials
In any case nothing that could explain the intervention of the KGB to kill the hikers.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

what was a potential threat to state security

60 years after the DPI we are sure that nothing existed, neither in the Auspiya valley, nor on the slope of Kholat Syakhl which could have been a potential threat to state security .

 Strategic issues affecting state security : Atomic bombs A and H, elaboration of strategic materials, Plutonium, Titanium for submarines, chemical weapons, biological weapons, missiles and aircraft, automatics, radar, electronics, manufacturing process of titanium metallurgy for submarines.....
require large installations with a lot of delicate or complicated equipment and a lot of skilled personnel.

Except in exceptional cases, even if he or she had held in his hand a thick report bearing on each page the red TOP SECRET stamp, a friend, family member or spouse would not have understood anything about the symbols and formulas representing the phase changes of Plutonium 239.

I have already provided some arguments to support the impossibility that the hickers could have represented a threat to the security of the state.
    Theories Discussion ---> Altercation on the pass ---> Altercation on the pass :  November 21, 2020, 06:57:01 PM  ==>              Reply #59
https://forum.dyatlovpass.com/index.php?topic=411.msg11147#msg11147

Sensitive information is never left freely in the wild but is guarded by men armed with guns in tightly guarded locations.
Those responsible for keeping the secret know at all times who is entrusted with sensitive documents or samples, that must be locked in a secure vault when not in use.

In the USSR sensitive information was guarded in certain areas of the secret cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_city

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

For France, I can give you my personal experience on the treatment of secrecy for the first French H-bomb, Canopus, on August 24, 1968.
But I am afraid that this takes us away from the "WHO" and "WHY" issues of the DPI massacre.

I worked at the Limeil CEA - DAM center from 1966 to 1971

CEA = Commission for Atomic Energy.
French Atomic Energy Commission has now become "French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission

DAM = Military applications division.
DAM builds the nuclear weapons of the French military

Limeil was essentially devoted to Theoretical Research on Nuclear Charges and to the Development of Theoretical and Experimental Means necessary for their study (lasers and computers).
Using lasers, the center studied laser-matter interactions, including inertial confinement fusion, of great military interest.
 In 1996 the government announced the permanent closure of the Centre de Limeil, but the buildings remained and the trees grew.

On Google Earth, I just checked that the Limeil center remains blurred despite the declassification.
Position = 48° 44' 28" N and 2° 29' 10" E

On January 27, 1966, the President of the Republic (General de Gaulle) had visited the center of Limeil and had reprimanded the director Pierre Billaud.

Stop worrying about the A-bomb (fission: Uranium 235 or Plutonium 239). Now I need the H-bomb (fusion: Lithium 6 deuteride) since the USA, the USSR and the UK have already had it for a long time.

(Of course these are not the exact words).

The director Pierre Billaud (left) wears his identification badge but not General de Gaulle (President of the French Republic and head of the army).

But the H-bomb is more complicated than the A-bomb !
The Wikipedia article gives a good insight into the subject (all information is correct but declassified).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_weapon

The Limeil center (commune of Limeil-Brévannes) where I worked from October 1966 to 1971. You can guess the fence that surrounds the different buildings.
The filtering of the entries was done at the guard post on the left corner.
The photo found by chance on the internet dates from 1966.

My building is in the foreground and slightly to the right.
My office was on the second floor, the second window from the left of the building, above the first-floor window with an orange curtain.

Here is what I saw from my window, the photo is from 2009 and the trees have grown !

Excuse me for these memories of youth from 56 years ago ...
 There were there Confidential Defense, Secret Defense and Top Secret reports and it is to make understand that it does not look like the Auspiya valley

[Ziljoe]

Hi Jean Daniel Reuss

Interesting , as always, I don't know if it a problem my end but the last 3 photos are not loading?

[Manti]

If the students had observed something there in the Urals they were not supposed to know about
It would rather be illegal activities like gold trafficking or criminal agreements for fraudulent misappropriation of materials
In any case nothing that could explain the intervention of the KGB to kill the hikers.

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

what was a potential threat to state security

60 years after the DPI we are sure that nothing existed, neither in the Auspiya valley, nor on the slope of Kholat Syakhl which could have been a potential threat to state security .

Yes I really agree with this.

They might have for example seen illegal gold mining. In fact, some of the students being geologists, the "wild Ural gold" might have been what drew them to the area. Because it wasn't natural beauty. There are many prettier areas of the Urals and other mountain ranges where they could have gone.

So they might have found a mine but unfortunately also someone there who found it before them. It's a possibility...

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

              Reply #15
.................................
In my opinion it is most likely that the attackers were professional, trained killers on a mission to eradicate what was a potential threat to state security - if the students had observed something there in the Urals they were not supposed to know about. Their possible divulging state secrets to a friend, family member or spouse was a risk that could not be taken.

Trained special forces personnel do not react like "normal" people. They are able to keep calm when attacked, and the students would have no chance with their fists in close combat against professional killers.

              Reply #16

Because leaving bullet wounds or knife wounds make a totally different case. The condition of the success was not only not to leave cartridges cases behind but not to leave bullet wounds at all.
Not to use the firearm against a hiker was one of the only conditions to succeed. The attackers could fail many things but they had to kill all the hikers and to leave no bullet and knife wounds. It is not difficult to follow only two instructions. The attackers did not have to complete a list of 10 or 20 obligations, there were only two........

It is very clear that if there had been bullet wounds, the operation would have been a failure because it would have been obvious that the students were murdered.
That is the reason why the attackers did not use firearms for the killing: .... was to make the whole operation look like an accident......

--->  Not to use the firearm against a hiker was one of the only conditions to succeed. 

--->    It is very clear that if there had been bullet wounds, the operation would have been a failure because it would have been obvious that the students were murdered. 


Because you think that Russian investigators are fools and do not know that it is easy to commit murders without using guns or knives. !!!

Guns can be used to carry out massacres very quickly. This is undeniable. But where does this insane obsession with the necessity of guns come from ?

For trained killers, a few well adapted birch wood blunt objects are more than enough.
Besides, a good big stick is perhaps more reliable (for those who know how to use it) in close night combat than a shotgun with a (too) long barrel (which is more adapted to kill an elk at 50 meters).

If it was a condition of success not to use firearms, is it not simpler not to carry them at all?

---> ...........Was to make the whole operation look like an accident.

Since the attackers did not bother - or did not want - to do any staging, the operation did not look like an accident to objective people like Vladimir Askinadzi:

I do not know who or why were they murdered. But this seems to me the only explanation of their death.

Only orders came from the Kremlin and the ridiculous conclusion was imposed.
(a spontaneous force that tourists were unable to overcome) .

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

I cannot answer with certainty the questions "WHY?" and "WHO?" but there is one thing that I am certain of:

                        This is not the KGB.

Even assuming that the hikers could have seen - which is absurd - something that was a potential threat to state security .

It is absurd because as far as we can tell in 1959, the KGB personnel were quite competent and well trained and there were few smokers in its ranks.

And one of the tasks of the KGB was to dismantle and combat associations and organisations hostile to the Soviet regime in Moscow led by Khrushchev.

 But before fighting and dismantling, one must first identify the enemy, which is often the most difficult task for the internal security services.

Dyatlov's group had left Sverdlovsk on 23 January with the agreement and encouragement of the Soviet authorities (CPSU, Route Commission, UPI leadership.........
 
And on 1 February the KGB had the mission to eliminate the 9 hikers immediately on the spot in an unusual way ?

How could the group have changed its status in 8 days, without having undergone mysterious influences?
 
   Dyatlov's group was only small and unimportant pawns (except in a more complicated Rakitin-like scenario).

Dubinina could not have been the powerful conspiratorial mastermind capable of worrying Khrushchev.

There would necessarily have been much more powerful and dangerous accomplices or sponsors for the Khrushchev regime that the KGB had to identify. (Polish officers wanting to avenge Katyn, former Stalinist NKVD officers demonstrating against the Thaw, hostile Chechens or Lithuanians...etc.?)

The KGB would never have committed the monstrous fault of killing the hikers without having first interrogated them at length in premises adapted to intensive interrogation.

  If it had killed the hikers before having properly interrogated them, the KGB would have definitely lost any possibility of tracing the real perpetrators or initiators of what could have been a threat to the security of the state.                                                                                                                                                 

                               

[Per Inge Oestmoen]

--->  Not to use the firearm against a hiker was one of the only conditions to succeed. 

--->    It is very clear that if there had been bullet wounds, the operation would have been a failure because it would have been obvious that the students were murdered. 


Because you think that Russian investigators are fools and do not know that it is easy to commit murders without using guns or knives. !!!

Guns can be used to carry out massacres very quickly. This is undeniable. But where does this insane obsession with the necessity of guns come from ?

For trained killers, a few well adapted birch wood blunt objects are more than enough.
Besides, a good big stick is perhaps more reliable (for those who know how to use it) in close night combat than a shotgun with a (too) long barrel (which is more adapted to kill an elk at 50 meters).

If it was a condition of success not to use firearms, is it not simpler not to carry them at all?

---> ...........Was to make the whole operation look like an accident.

Since the attackers did not bother - or did not want - to do any staging, the operation did not look like an accident to objective people like Vladimir Askinadzi:

I do not know who or why were they murdered. But this seems to me the only explanation of their death.

Only orders came from the Kremlin and the ridiculous conclusion was imposed.
(a spontaneous force that tourists were unable to overcome) .

°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°°

I cannot answer with certainty the questions "WHY?" and "WHO?" but there is one thing that I am certain of:

                        This is not the KGB.

Even assuming that the hikers could have seen - which is absurd - something that was a potential threat to state security .

It is absurd because as far as we can tell in 1959, the KGB personnel were quite competent and well trained and there were few smokers in its ranks.

And one of the tasks of the KGB was to dismantle and combat associations and organisations hostile to the Soviet regime in Moscow led by Khrushchev.

 But before fighting and dismantling, one must first identify the enemy, which is often the most difficult task for the internal security services.

Dyatlov's group had left Sverdlovsk on 23 January with the agreement and encouragement of the Soviet authorities (CPSU, Route Commission, UPI leadership.........
 
And on 1 February the KGB had the mission to eliminate the 9 hikers immediately on the spot in an unusual way ?

How could the group have changed its status in 8 days, without having undergone mysterious influences?
 
   Dyatlov's group was only small and unimportant pawns (except in a more complicated Rakitin-like scenario).

Dubinina could not have been the powerful conspiratorial mastermind capable of worrying Khrushchev.

There would necessarily have been much more powerful and dangerous accomplices or sponsors for the Khrushchev regime that the KGB had to identify. (Polish officers wanting to avenge Katyn, former Stalinist NKVD officers demonstrating against the Thaw, hostile Chechens or Lithuanians...etc.?)

The KGB would never have committed the monstrous fault of killing the hikers without having first interrogated them at length in premises adapted to intensive interrogation.

  If it had killed the hikers before having properly interrogated them, the KGB would have definitely lost any possibility of tracing the real perpetrators or initiators of what could have been a threat to the security of the state.                                                                                                                                                                               

Dear Jean Daniel Reuss:

This is the one, and truly only, point where I disagree with you.

An explanation:

- The KGB did not have to interrogate any of the students. They were by all accounts loyal Soviet citizens. There were certainly no traitors or spies among them. If my suspicion that the KGB was indeed given the order to kill the nine students is correct, it was because the students witnessed something they were not supposed to know about. Granted that this was the situation, what the students observed was of such a nature that it would be a threat to state security and possibly international relations if one of the students might later tell anyone what they had observed. Thus, the very observation by the students was the dangerous factor. For these reasons, the KGB would not get any information if they had interrogated the students - they already know the decisive factor: The students had observed what they should not have observed.

- If I am correct, the group simply became a potential threat to state security by being at the wrong place at the wrong time. The students had no anti-state intentions, they were not guilty of any crime - but, crucially they knew a dangerous secret.

- It was never unusual for the KGB to kill people in a way designed to make it look like an accident. The KGB is probably the most cruelly sophisticated, intelligent and efficient intelligence agency known to Man. Numerous "accidents," "suicides" and "natural deaths" were in fact the skilled work of the KGB. Remember, if there had not been a sudden rise in temperature between the first and second days of February 1959 the mission would have been perfect - because the students would have frozen to death as was planned.

[Игорь Б.]

Хорошо, что у убийц не было вертолёта.
В 30 километрах от перевала на восток расположены обширные болота. Можно было бы погрузить трупы, вещи в вертолёт и перевезти их на одно из болот. Тогда группа Дятлова до сих пор бы числилась пропавшей без вести.

[Jean Daniel Reuss]

                     Reply #21
This is the one, and truly only, point where I disagree with you.
...................................
............

That' s right. Maybe not the only one. But certainly the most important.

                     Reply #21
..................................................
 it was because the students witnessed something they were not supposed to know about. Granted that this was the situation, what the students observed was of such a nature that it would be a threat to state security and possibly international relations if one of the students might later tell anyone what they had observed.
.................................

The "something" that the hikers would have witnessed would therefore be rather a kind of political project in preparation or in execution that would tip the international order in another direction.

Now in 2022, I confess I still have no idea about this important secret they were not supposed to know.
But I am not competent in USSR history

All the theories I can think of are incompatible with the history we can (very incompletely know it is true) in 2022.

What do you think about this implausible example of a secret that the hikers were not supposed to know.

Khrushchev, who organised the KGB to support him and also to fight against his opponents (notably the former NKVD), was in reality a traitor with a hidden agenda.

With his accomplice Dwight Eisenhower, he wanted to dismantle his own country, the USSR, to put it under the authority of the USA.....

                     Reply #21
....................................................
 the group simply became a potential threat to state security...........they knew a dangerous secret.
...................................
..........

First of all, do you agree with the timeline summarised by Teddy?

https://dyatlovpass.com/?flp=1#timeline

23 January = departure from Sverdlovsk by train.
1 February around 5 PM = pitching the tent on the slope of Kholat Syakhl or for other theories under the cedar tree.


Why ?, how (in what way ? in what form ?) did the hikers inherit this dangerous secret. And when ?
(Because they were chatting a lot with each other, they didn't have much free time left).

•  Before 28 January, when there were still witnesses ?

•  After 28 January, in the Auspiya valley ?

But their progress was very slow and not very discreet.
If Mansis were watching them they must have been laughing.
 4 days to go from North-2 to the pass: they are not ski hikers but snails!

The hikers could have noticed signs of illegal gold mining: this is very possible. But this could not constitute   

a threat to state security and possibly international relations.

•  You may have other ideas or suspicions about encounters with foreigners or conspirators on the Kholat Syakhl slope on 1 February.
If so, please give us at least some leads to follow.
 

                     Reply #21
...............
if there had not been a sudden rise in temperature between the first and second days of February 1959 the mission would have been perfect
...........

• You contradict yourself:

• The KGB (as well as the troika of my TOK theory) were not stupid. In 1959, they knew that it was impossible to predict the weather with absolute certainty in the Urals in February.

 Their plan left no room for chance and was designed to succeed regardless of the weather.
No hiker was to survive, whether it was :
 -5° C, with no wind,
 -50° C, in the storm.

• You can imagine the answer of a KGB killer to his superior: I admit that there was a flaw in the execution, but I could not foresee that the temperature would rise.
I suppose he would be immediately kicked out for being mentally retarded.