At the summit conference Khrushchev had suggested the meeting might better be postponed eight months—with the clear inference that President Eisenhower, who had served two terms and could not succeed himself, would then be gone. On November 8, John Fitzgerald Kennedy had been elected President, and the Soviet Premier had made it known he wanted the U-2 “to become a thing of the past”; he hoped “a fresh wind will begin to blow” with the coming of a new American Chief of State.
These pronouncements, of course, did not escape the friends of Colonel Abel, and so I was not surprised when in his first letter of this new year, Rudolf wrote, “Incidentally, in one of her last letters my wife suggested that I appeal to the new President. I stated that I did not think it possible, in the present circumstances, for me to do so but suggested that she do so herself, much in the same way as the relatives of Powers and others have done . . . I would be indebted to you if you could find it possible to offer her some counsel on this matter.”
My advice to Frau Abel was to address a simple, non-legalistic petition to the White House, but I cautioned her to send it only after the new administration had had time to become settled in its new responsibilities.
Per usual, I kept our Government up to date.
On the 21st of the month, President Kennedy was inaugurated. Four days later, the new Chief Executive held his first press conference and announced the release of Air Force Captains Freeman D. Olmstead and John R. McKone, the RB-47 pilots who had been shot down by a Soviet fighter July 1, 1960. Their reconnaissance plane had been flying over the Barents Sea and they were the surviving members of the six-man crew. This was Khrushchev’s good-will gesture to the new administration. The air was clearing, slightly.
Mrs. Abel’s petition for clemency was neither simple nor nonlegalistic. It was offensively emotional:
Mrs. Hellen Abel
c/o Mrs. E. Forster
Leipzig 22 Eisenacherstr. 24
Germany
To His Excellency Mr. John F. Kennedy
The President of the United States of America
February 8, 1961
Dear Mr. President:
Please would you forgive my distracting you from your important state affairs for considering my personal matter, but really it is a matter of life importance to me.
I am the wife of Rudolf I. Abel who was convicted to thirty years of penitentiary in 1957. . . . My name is Hellen Abel. I was born in Russia in 1906. I am a teacher of music and live in Germany with my daughter Lydia Abel . . .
After the fate separated me from my husband more than ten years ago, I have suffered all the time bitterly waiting for his return. I do not know all the circumstances of my husband’s case but I am convinced that he could not have done anything immoral or criminal. Believe me, he is a very honest, noble and kind man. I know him better than anyone else. I am sure that he was defamed and muddled up by some wicked people for the purpose unknown to me. . . . Not a single exact evidence of his guilt in stealing secrets of value to the United States has ever been produced. Why was he punished so severely? I am writing about it not because I try to persuade you of his being innocent—I realize that this is beyond my power—but I am writing to ask Your Excellency to be humane and merciful to my miserable husband even if you are quite sure of his being guilty. . . .
I was inspired by the good news which I learnt from the newspaper that two American pilots Olmstead and McKone were released in Russia and handed over to the American authorities. This raised my hopes that the question of my husband’s release before time might be considered by you favourably. I am sure that in case of your being merciful to my poor husband this action would be generally understood not only as evidence of your humaneness and kindness but also as a proof of Your Excellency’s desire to contribute to the beginning of a new era of peace in the history of humanity. It is quite certain that such a humane action cannot but affect favourably the fate of some Americans who got into trouble abroad and cannot return home. . . .
I beg of you, Mr. President, to comply with my petition . . .
With utmost respect,
Very sincerely,
Yours
(signed) Hellen Abel.
The message was clear to me: Khrushchev was angling for a Kennedy release of Abel to reciprocate for the release of the RB-47 fliers.
Over the years the FBI had made several business trips to Atlanta to call on Rudolf. From time to time they sounded him out on “cooperating.” This was routine; they were checking to see if he was going soft in prison. They had to know, and now, with the possibility of a trade, it was only logical that our counterintelligence have another crack at him before possibly releasing him.
Additionally, they had two pretty good levers with which to apply new pressure. There was the matter of the pending petition to the President and a London spy trial—called “the Secrets trial”—during which his name popped out.
Five persons, including two Americans, were convicted of stealing naval secrets for Russia from the top-secret British base at Portland, where the Royal Navy’s underwater weapons research was conducted. The Americans, Morris and Leona Cohen, were identified as professional Soviet spies and onetime associates of Colonel Abel.
When Abel was arrested in the Hotel Latham, he had had photographs of the Cohens in a briefcase. These were the pictures, meaningless at the time, marked “Shirley and Morris.” Five thousand dollars in cash had been attached by a rubber band to the photograph, presumably for delivery.
The Colonel wrote me of the most recent FBI visit, beginning casually, “Incidentally, I had a visit from the FBI. They were interested in getting information from me and used both the London trial and my wife’s petition as wedges, hinting that my recalcitrant attitude would be detrimental. Needless to say, I refused.
“In one matter (the London trial), I made a statement. They said they might prosecute some people and on that basis said that I should tell them what I know of these persons so as to perhaps exonerate them. In reply I stated that I doubted that there could be a case against these people but if there were I might meet with their defense counsel to see of what assistance I could be.”
It did not appear that the Colonel was going soft. He seemed unusually belligerent.
He closed the letter with a word of advice for his lawyer, who had been litigating around the country in recent months. “I sometimes wonder,” he wrote, “whether the pace you are setting yourself (or is it that you are caught up in the tide and have to go on?) is worth the reward!”
I appreciated his concern, but, considering the mailing address from which this advice emanated, I was amused. My wife Mary, however, emphatically agreed with Abel.
The “heartsick” Mrs. Abel had gone back to work. After waiting three months for word from President Kennedy, Frau Abel opened up the subject of a trade again. This time, she had something to say:
Thinking over the question whether there is something that could be done to precipitate the solution of the question, I remembered of the letter sent to my husband last year by the father of the pilot Powers. I have not read it but if I am not mistaken, he suggested to my husband that some mutual action be taken to help his son and my husband be released. Rudolf wrote to me then that Powers’ case had nothing to do with him and I did not consider myself that any benefit could come of it for us or the Powerses. . . .
I wanted to write about it to Mr. Powers at once but was afraid that all the affair could be given publicity which would influence unfavourably the fate of my petition. Not knowing how to act, I have decided to ask your advice . . . what should be done to accelerate our case?
Please, do not leave my letter without reply.
Immediately communicating with our government, I wrote, “I think it is perfectly evident that for the first time we have an offer to exchange Powers for Abel.”
What was in my mind, as I wrote the letter to Washington, was the bleak day of November 15, 1957, when I had stood before Judge Byers in Brooklyn Federal Court and pleaded for Abel’s life on the ground, among others:
It is possible that in the foreseeable future an American of equivalent rank will be captured by Soviet Russia or an ally; at such time an exchange of prisoners through diplomatic channels could be considered to be in the best national interest of the United States.
We were moving now, but it would be slow progress. In the next nine months I was to receive three more letters from Mrs. Abel. The Colonel, meanwhile, was informed of all communications. A friend in Washington advised me to be patient, explaining, “What you lawyers in private practice do in three weeks, it takes us in government nine months to get done.”
The Colonel moved, as always, with dispatch. He wrote, “I personally think this is a good move and should Mrs. Powers agree, it should help clarify the situation at an early date. I have written Mrs. Abel that I agree with her decision . . .”
Rudolf indicated that to him the only problem still to solve was to find a country which would grant asylum to him and Powers.
Washington informed me that United States Pardon Attorney Reed Cozart had written Mrs. Abel that no basis existed for granting clemency to Colonel Abel. With a little coaching from the government, I framed an answer to Frau Abel, prominently mentioning the case of Igor Melekh, a Soviet United Nations official arrested for espionage last October 28. Melekh had been in the United States since 1955 and was working at the UN as chief of the Soviet translation section.
I wrote:
. . . I have read with interest the newspaper account of the release of Melekh (a Soviet national) who had been indicted but not court-tried for the crime of espionage. I also noted he returned to the U.S.S.R. While the news accounts said that the United States made no connection between Melekh and Mrs. Powers, in view of the similarity of the charges against them I suspect that the American officials expected some gesture by Soviet authorities. If none has occurred, it may be that U.S. officials would be disinclined to have any interest in such future gestures. In any event, I believe that the Melekh case indicates that the United States has an interest in the development of better relations between the two nations and I hope that the Soviet government has a similar interest.
Therefore, I would be willing to go to the Department of Justice to see what can be done for your husband along the lines of your request. However, I think there must be some indication of good faith on the part of the Soviet government as there was by the U.S. in the Melekh case. I suggest, then, that you contact the Soviet government to determine what interest they would have in effecting such a release. . . . If something is to be done in this matter, if should be done promptly.
The letters kept coming. Less than a month had gone by, and on this day there was another in the now familiar pale blue envelope from Heartsick Hellen:
Having received this long awaited letter so important for me, I at once went to Berlin. I visited the Soviet Embassy and asked them to help me in the matter of getting the release of my husband as I personally could not do anything more for my husband’s case. I was listened to attentively and requested to come again a few days later.
On my second visit I was told that my request was regarded with sympathy and I was recommended to proceed with the efforts along this line.
In this connection I am sure that if my husband is pardoned, Mr. Powers will be amnestied too . . .
After discussion with the government, I wrote “Mrs. Abel”:
After receipt of your letter [of June 17] I went to Washington and discussed the matter with the appropriate officials. As a result, I am of the opinion they are interested in the possibilities suggested in your letter although, as I had surmised in my previous letter, the Melekh case looms large in their thinking. The action of the government in dropping the charges against Melekh resulted in considerable adverse public reaction. Consequently, I can understand why these officials are reluctant to contemplate any additional action unless the Powers case is first resolved.
Under our law any action to grant clemency for your husband must be by the President. I believe that similar provisions for executive clemency are available under Soviet law which could make such action possible for Mr. Powers. I assume it was this type of action which was contemplated by officials with whom you discussed the matter.
I am hopeful that we may be ultimately successful in our understanding, but am convinced that, in view of the situation referred to above, officials here would not be willing to entertain a petition for clemency for Rudolf until Powers is back in the United States.
To make it patently clear we were not talking just to hear ourselves talk, I wrote the same letter to Abel, enclosed a copy of his “wife’s” last exercise in sentimentality, and concluded, “I believe that I have done all which can be accomplished in your behalf. The next move, as you can see, is entirely up to Soviet officials. I have every reason to believe that upon the release of Powers you should receive executive clemency and deportation.”
There were two letters from Frau Abel of Eisenacher Strasse, No. 22, Leipzig. One was to Mrs. Barbara Powers, care of my office. Mrs. Abel quite obviously had grown impatient in July and so wrote, “You can hope to see your husband in nine years being still young, while for me every day of separation is an additional step towards death. We are already elderly people, our health is no good at all and we cannot hope to live long. Excuse me for this unintentional complaint . . .”
She then made her usual plea about Rudolf’s being imprisoned for crimes which he could not possibly have committed, and reviewed her petition to President Kennedy, finally urging the Powers family to call on the American President “to take definite measures to deliver your husband. NOW BOTH YOUR AFFAIR AND MINE DEPEND COMPLETELY ON THE AMERICAN AUTHORITIES—whether they take some steps to make their pilot free or not.”
And to me she wrote:
On your advice I visited the Soviet Embassy in Berlin and showed them your letter of July 26. I am glad to tell you that as before the Soviet representative showed great understanding of my case and reassured me of their willingness to help.
As to Melekh’s case, they were surprised when I mentioned it. As I gathered from your letter this is now the only possible obstacle but they explained to me that it has nothing to do either with my husband’s case or that of F. Powers and they flatly refuse to carry out negotiations on this question.
I gathered from our talk that there is only one possible way to achieve success now—THAT IS SIMULTANEOUS RELEASE OF BOTH F. POWERS AND MY HUSBAND WHICH CAN BE ARRANGED.
There it was. That was what I had been waiting to read. She signed it, “Eager to get your reply . . .”
Rudolf wrote his usual year-end letter in which he confessed that his imprisonment was “becoming something of an affliction.” It was his fourth annual Christmas message. He again reminded us mortals on William Street to renew his subscriptions and again asked for his four-pound ration of milk chocolate.
Reporting on his Christmas cards he said, “All in all, they are quite good and show a steady improvement. Things here are much the same. I trust you are in good health and wish you and your family and your staff, who take care of my chores, the Merriest of Christmases and the Happiest of New Years.”
That was the last letter from Rudolf postmarked Atlanta, Georgia.