Russian defector

I was intrigued by how the film makers made us believe that the Russian general's wish to defect was genuine. I believed Stok, and not Harry Palmer. There was plenty of evidence on both sides to be believed, but I chose the Russian, and was surprised when it turned out to be a sham. I suppose it was the excellent acting and the set up. The film seemed to be about a defection. Harry seemed to have somewhat of a dubious reputation, and maybe not that smart. The Russian seemed to have plausible reasons. Someone was going to defect, and there didn't seem to be anyone else in the picture for this purpose. On second thought, it was credible that the sham defection was a ploy so the Russians could kill Krutzman.

Any one else fooled?

Doug
Toronto