Talk:Operation Paperclip

Popular culture

Should we add the quote form the film "Ice Station Zebra" as I think it aptly shows how questions fo guilt were psushed aside in the scramble for science

""The Russians put our camera made by OUR German scientists and your film made by YOUR German scientists into their satellite made by THEIR German scientists."" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.108.8.9 (talk) 01:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

OVERCAST was the actual OSS-sponsored

my sources indicate that OVERCAST was the actual OSS-sponsored movement of captured personnel and families to the USA. Any comments before I make the edit? ---PaulinSaudi (I forgot how to put my signature here.)

signature, 4 tilde

please put sources on page in References , or something.

we need more references. 64.168.30.87 05:05, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Overcast became Paperclip

As best I can figure, Overcast was supposed to sneak the scientists in for a six month period. Truman appoved it on a permanent basis, and it became Paperclip. Arthur Rudolph mentions being held at Camp Overcast near Landshut. --Gadget850 12:09, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Operation Matchbox

Looks like Canada had a similar program called Operation Matchbox [1] --Gadget850 16:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

these were Nazi scientists

Why does it seem like there is a conscious effort to avoid stating that these were Nazi scientists? It's directly implied in the middle of the article, but shouldn't this be somewhere in the first paragraph? After all that's what this article is about. (Louiswaweru 06:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC))

CIA didn't exist during world war II

Seems someone is being a bit overeager categorizing this as CIA operation. I don't think CIA existed as of yet. CIA migth have inherited the project, though? --131.207.236.198 12:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

10/100/1000/10000/... billion $

I think the value is a bit undervalued if you just look at unit cost of e.g. Minuteman III, from which you can easily derive enormous set of resources that had to be invested in designing just this one unit. 100 billion$ is not even close to the whole sum... --217.72.64.8 07:03, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

re: the following in the note section. The $10 billion compares to the total Marshall plan expenditure (1948-1952) of $13 billion, of which Germany received $1,4 billion (partly as loans).

is $1,4 billion correct? or should it be $$1.4 billion?

Skywriter 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Von Braun

I am surprised to see this rendition of Von Braun's surrender, yet again. I actually know the American soldier who found Von Braun hiding in a wind tunnel and captured him for the US. Von Braun did NOT surrender. Not only that, I have the actual US documents to prove this and copies of the soldier's Occupational area Pass. (Thecufflinkguy 15:18, 11 January 2007 (UTC))

They are Nazis

The opening paragraph reads "... US intelligence and military services extricated Nazi scientists from Germany ..." Is this accurate in that every scientist extracted was a member of the National Socialist Party, or would it be more accurate to say German scientists, or scientists working under or for the Nazi regime? Icd 04:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• Your logic of "their not NAZI's unless you can prove otherwise," is a falisy. They are all Nazi's until You can prove otherwise. this is why, These guys did bad things,and used innocent people(including black GI's) in a very bad way to support the National Socialist Party which they should have been tried for,but the U.S. government stepped in and prevented this. If they were only German scientist there would be no need for Operation Paperclip. Read about how the V1 and V2 were developed in Germany using slave labor and what happens to these Romani,Jews and black American GI's when the rockets malfunctioned.There would be group hangings to scare and get the attention of the rest of the consentration camp.Stop your propaganda or Wikipedia will lose its credabitity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.93.109.232 (talk) 19:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

• If the scientist had not been Nazis, then there would have been no need to extract them in secrecy. -- Petri Krohn 04:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

• All were members of the Nazi Party and some were "ardent Nazis" meaning they participated in the activities and programs of the Nazi Party with great enthusiasm. According to Hunt's Secret Agenda, party membership was required. There is some debate about how "ardent" a Nazi was Werner von Braun. Like the others, he later denied enthusiasm yet he is seen in a picture with the highest level officials. Skywriter 05:26, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

• I strongly believe that it should be changed to "German scientists" or "German scientists who had worked for the Nazi regime" etc. I see no evidence that von Braun, etc. were adherents to the National Socialist ideology. To recieve funding to continue their work [and to avoid being investigated by the SS] they would probably have to become paper members of the nazi party, and pay some lip service to it, but that does not mean they actually believed in [or were aware of] National Socialist ideology.

• I'm sure a Russian scientist of the same time period would praise & pledge undying loyalty to Stalin in order to not get purged by the NKVD.This would not make those scientists "Stalinists" or "Stalinist scientists".

• And just because Braun or others might be in photos with government officials doesn't mean that they like those people, it just means that he was in no position to anger them: if Himmler, head of the SS, decided he wanted to visit von Braun and take a photo with him, do you think von Braun could realistically refuse? Do you expect him to say: "No, Herr Himmler, I can't take a photo with you. I would rather die!"

• We should seriously avoid treating the words "Nazi" and "German" like synonyms, becasue that would, after all, be racist. --Filippo Argenti 03:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Since no one attempted to refute any of the arguments I made about the inappropriateness of the "Nazi scientists" phrase, I changed the line in the intro from '(extracting)Nazi scientists from Germany' to '(extracting)German scientists from Nazi Germany'. If anyone has any convincing argument that a specific, individual German scientist was a Nazi, then they can present that evidence wherever it would be relevant, either in this article or elsewhere, but the absurd generalization that all those scientists were Nazis simply because they were ethnic Germans or German nationals is racist, inappropriate, and not worthy of a scholarily, encyclopedic article. --Filippo Argenti 20:43, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

• Look, if they arn't Nazi scientists, what are Nazi scientists?

• Not all S.S. officers supported Hitler neither, probably many were in the government before knowing the Nazis would prevail. That doesn't mean they're not Nazi officers, the definition does not require them to have a realistic choice not to be.

• Just because "Nazi" and "German" are not synonyms, doesn't mean they can't be used in the same paragraph.

• If your trying to prevent being racist to Germans, why are you trying to label the most unmoral and disgraceful scientists as normal Germans instead the Nazis they truly were? 173.183.66.173 (talk) 03:04, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

• "All (scientists) were members of the Nazi Party" -and that fact makes them Nazis, i.e. that is the definition of bieng Nazi --Ne0Freedom 01:53, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Albert Einstein

He was brought to the US during this project, was he not? He is not listed under the notable people sections. I may be off, but I'm sure he was brought and then was used in the early stages of the Manhattan Project.Electronic.mayhem 13:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm no expert on Einstein, but I believe he fled to the United States during the Interwar period, in which case he would have aleady been in the US by the time Paperclip got started. --Filippo Argenti 03:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You might like to read Albert Einstein to grasp that he was not a Nazi scientist and was not brought to the U.S. under Operation Paperclip. He was a scientist, born to Jewish parents, who condemned the rise of the Nazi power in the early 1930s and that regime's attacks on and later extermination of Jews. Skywriter 19:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

People who want to educate mankind through Wikipedia and don't even know when and in what circumstances Einstein arrived in the States should instead educate themselves. Einstein as a Nazi scientist brought to US after WWII ?!!! After all, you can find the answers even in Wikipedia : just type Einstein... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.89.22.60 (talk) 09:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This is definitely not a question from an omniscient know-everything person, but please refrain from making any discouraging replies. Making unsure suggestions is one of the purposes of the talk page, and you have to admit, no one was offended, or lost anything from the question. I think we should have a more encouraging attitude toward these questions. If you don't what to reply encouragingly, you should just ignore it. 173.183.66.173 (talk) 03:13, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Einstein was not brought. He immigrated (fled) between the years 1932-1934 as he considered many Western academic offers (this is the origin of the photo of him on a bike at Caltech in Pasadena which was about '32) before settling on Princeton. He signed a noted letter which got the Manhattan Project its first funds, but he did not work for the Project. It was not revealed that Einstein ever worked for the Project until the author Jennet Conant wrote that her grand-father James Conant, one of the civilians who ran the project back East, noted that Einstein secretly visited (name kept out of the visitor logs). This surprised even my friends who worked on nuclear weapons. That's "need to know" for you. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Question about Word Doc listing scientists

With regard to this link, would the person who placed it in this article please directly cite the originating agency link, if one exists. I am unable to find a link listing these scientists at the National Archives' electronic listing of the now defunct Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency. Thank you.

*"Objective List of German and : Austrian Scientists" (Microsoft Word). Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency. Retrieved 2007-04-10. {{cite web}}: line feed character in |title= at position 29 (help)

Skywriter 19:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

when did Operation Paperclip end?

re: this edit

(cur) (last) 16:57, July 16, 2007 86.131.196.33 (Talk) (21,062 bytes) (Changed the list of scientists leaving out Hans Dolezalek, he came to the US only in 1961 and not through Operation Paperclip. There is a mistake in the cited source.) (undo)

The above edit lacks reference. The article does not state when O.P. ended so it is not clear that it did not extend into and beyond 1961. (I believe it did.) If there is a citation showing a start and end period, please feel free to add it. thanks.Skywriter 04:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The JIOA -- which ran Operation Paperclip -- was disbanded in 1962. [2] (sdsds - talk) 04:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good reference, which suggests what transpired in 1961 is within the scope of O.P. Skywriter 04:54, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

extraction of scientists

during this regime the some group of scientists were doing their research on rockets in inter continental range, but the allied troops were given orders to destroy the whole facility not extract them, only the ones who survived took their goal n worked in other countries for appollo mission r other countries on continuing there research, there's a difference between extraction n termination

We need an "umbrella" article for all the programmes in Germany

And perhaps also one for Japan?

Agreed. 143.232.210.150 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Operation Paper clip is just one of many operations, albeit one of the larger ones. At the moment is seems to be the hub that is linked to when referring to issues such as taking scientists or technology out from Germany, but it really isn't the right article for it.

You can never expect to get complete history on intelligence collection operations like this. Even Jim Bamford pointed out things lacking here in Body of Secrets 143.232.210.150 (talk) 18:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We need a general article that collects an overview of all the programmes, the various American programmes, [this book] should be the bible on that, the French activities, the Soviet activities, and most certainly the various British activities, such as this[3]. It should hold info on how extensive the activity was, its duration, consequences, legality (if any) etc, and then point to articles such as paper clip for more detailed info on individual operations. For one thing it should be possible to trim down the "see also" section in this article. Any suggestions for a good name for the new article? I'm partial to the title of Gimbel's book, but perhaps I'm lacking in imagination.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 03:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

It would be great to have an article with even broader scope about the looting of weapons experts (and other workers) as the "spoils of war". I do not mean to suggest that von Braun et al. were taken as slaves or even as prisoners per se, but Paperclip was a "logical" extension of a kind of behavior which has been part of warfare since time immemorial. (sdsds - talk) 02:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's true, but one could have hoped that democratic nations who publicly proclaim moral superiority would have outgrown such activities. The direct looting, i.e. U.S. business-men going to Germany to take the records and machines and looking in all nooks and crannies were stopped by Lucius D. Clay sometime in mid 1947 after he got fed up with the U.S. governments refusal to credit the value of what was taken against the German War reparations account, and the damage it was causing in Germany. About the same time that he managed to get JCS 1067 rescinded, i.e. the directive that had ordered him to "take no steps looking toward the economic rehabilitation of Germany [or] designed to maintain or strengthen the German economy" was replaced by one that noted that "[a]n orderly, prosperous Europe requires the economic contributions of a stable and productive Germany." As to the taking of scientists, I have a distinct feeling that those who ended up in the Soviet Union did not go voluntarily. The same applies to recent revelation of the activities of the British Intelligence Objectives Sub-Committee, see for example this article:

• How T-Force abducted Germany's best brains for Britain Secret papers reveal post-war campaign to loot military and commercial assets.

I'm not claiming that Von Braun was abducted in the middle of the night, but FIAT was a joint U.S. British effort, there might have been a certain amount of coercion involved regarding the German scientists and technicians who ended up in the U.S. too.

The newspaper article also states, some random selections:

The other organisation was the Field Information Agency (Technical), or Fiat, which had been established during the war as a joint Anglo-American military intelligence unit, and which earmarked scientists for "enforced evacuation" from the US and French zones, and Berlin.

After the war some officers and men from T-Force were formed into the Enemy Personnel Exploitation Section, which would escort the Bios and Fiat investigators and then take away the scientists and technicians wanted for interrogation.

In November 1946 the New Statesman reported that three members of a six-strong Bios team, which included representatives of Pears Soap, Max Factor and Yardley, had called at the home of an elderly woman whose family firm manufactured 4711 eau-de-cologne, a famous brand, and attempted to bully her into handing over the recipe. When she was taken ill the team threatened to call a prison van to take her to a prison hospital. Next day they telephoned to try again.

It is unclear exactly how many men fell prey to this programme. In July 1946 military government officials told the Foreign Office they estimated there were 1,500 scientists who should forcibly be evacuated, 500 of them in the British zone. "The proposed long-term policy is ... to remove as soon as possible from Germany, whether they are willing to go or not."

Scientists were not the sole targets. The papers disclose brief details about Operation Bottleneck, which aimed to extract business information. In January 1947 Erich Klabunde, head of the German journalists' union, complained about how this was being achieved. A British official in Hamburg reported to headquarters that Klabunde told a public meeting: "An English manufacturer would name his German counterpart and competitor and 'invite' him to England (whether the man comes voluntarily or not is questionable). They then discuss business and the German is gently persuaded to reveal secrets of his trade. When he refuses, he is kept in polite internment until he gets so tired of not being allowed to return to his family that he tells the Englishman what he wants to know. Thus for about £6 a day the English businessman gains the deepest secrets of Germany's economic life.

A quick Google shows that some technical Bios reports are available, isn't Internet wonderful.--Stor stark7 ^Speak 12:55, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Name

My understanding is that the name of the operation came from the use of paperclips to signify files of people of importance that should be spared post war trials. Is this a myth? Ive heard it more then once, so it should either be stated or denounced as a myth in the article right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.225.142.237 (talk) 09:38, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing

Your edits to the "Operation Paperclip" article during the past day truly were over-the-top. They probably constituted the most disruptive editing I have ever seen on Wikipedia--you obviously have an axe to grind, you introduced extensive O.R., and your prose is nearly impossible to read. I will be taking the necessary steps to get you blocked until you can constructively engage with the other editors. Meanwhile your edits have been reverted. Please abstain from doing further damage to this, and other, articles. Apostle12 (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Apostle12:

Greetings, and thank you for the argumenta ad hominem; Oscar Wilde was correct. I apologise for not communicating with you ’til now, but . . . I have been reading the sources for this entry, and have replaced most of the facts you suppressed — especially because you ignored my original reply to: Be specific and give examples of the errors, misrepresentations, and whatever else you define as disruptive editing. So, I have been restoring the facts you obscured from the record: For example, Operation Paperclip originated as an Anglo–American matter, but suddenly . . . the Earth tilted right and the Brits fell off and disappeared . . . and only John Wayne drove the jeep, spoke German, saved the day, and he alone returned (helmet chin strap unfastened) from the mission . . . and the facts be damned . . . ’cause they don’t fit the Good War Disney version, wherein we (the US) hired German, not Nazi scientists. If you disbelieve me, read “The scientist” section of the entry.

Lie to me, lie to Jesus, but do not lie to yourself — especially on the Internet, where most of these facts are available, for example, the “They are Nazis” discussion correspondence (by other editors in whose name you spoke), that you IGNORE, because you conflate “Nazi” and “German” and so misrepresent the historical record, contradicting your contributions, by the way. Oy vey! Consider this, when Nazi apologists say: “Certainly not everyone was a Nazi” . . . might one, as the reader of the Operation Paperclip entry, not expect “certainly” to be substantiated with a fact and a citation, rather than a discourteous, dismissive cool-guy, in-crowd reversion? I guess there are some things we just don’t talk about, eh?

Apostle12, as an editor, do you ever speak for yourself, or shall you always hide behind Authority (the Second person plural, really!?), rather than intellectually defending your point of view with facts? If you disbelieve me, please review your earlier correspondence to me, notice, please, your Article Owner’s anger manifest as personal attacks, NEVER do you address the matters to hand. Why not? It’s easy, cite the title, the chapter, the verse, and the page number; no fuss, no muss, just brain work, and your hyperstension remains stable. Character assassination is unnecessary and unmanly — especially when you practice the editorial rules you preach. Ist das nicht so, mein Herr?

The substantiated (cited) expansion work I have done is so that the Operation Paperclip encyclopædic article answer the elementary “Who? What? Where? When? and Why?” questions to the subject; by the way, when did Operation Paperclip end, the entry does not (yet) answer that elementary question, can you? I ask you, the Article Owner — because another editor already did — and neither you nor your shadow deigned to provide that FACT, substituting, instead, more attitude than ability.

I have been, and continue, reading the cited sources, and your factual suppressions are impressive. I ask directly: Are you a Nazi apologist? Based upon the discussion page correspondence, I must ask: Why are you and pal(s) suppressing the references to “Nazi scientist”, given that “Nazi scientist” appears in many of the titles of the sources? Are those professors wrong, and only you correct? Please, let me know.

When I replied, you stooped to argumenta ad hominem, rather than step up to communication. Operation Paperclip occurred in an historical context, the Second World War, not a vacuum; pray tell, was that fought solely by the US? Be a sport, please remember that verifiability is the watch-word here, not what I say, not your obscurantist, White Hat–Black Hat interpretation of world history — just the facts with substantiating citations. Given our twenty-first century remove from the matter — i.e. most everyone is dead and everything done — why are you afraid of the full disclosure of the historical facts? The story is true and fascinating, why lie with weasel words? Everyone’s hair was mussed, there are photographs, really.

If you are what you claim, a history aficionado, then surely, might you not survive publication of already-published facts? Given your THREATS to banish me . . . because I disagree with you, might you not, at least, be specific and give examples of error, misstatement, and misrepresentation? I ask this minimal editorial courtesy because I do not know you to insult you, as you have insulted me, over a history article. The edition I expanded is supported by VERIFIABLE American and British sources cited; please read them, rather than CENSORING facts, names, and dates that discomfit you.

I await you reply to the matters in hand, ’til then, you have my

Best regards,

Mhazard9 (talk) 08:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Reference

"Conspiracy? The CIA and the Nazis" produced by Towers Productions, Inc. for the History Channel, copyright 2004 A&E Television Networks might serve as a possible reference for those seeking to expand this article. Official site. Youtube. Squideshi (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

the articles structur...

...and style is weird, like a patchwork without a start and a end. Could someone with a bit knowlege sort out this confusing nonsense and write this article new. And please, this one should take care for precise dates for all these events. Thanks in anticipation -- 88.65.253.99 (talk) 00:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 06:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

intellectual reparations

"intellectual reparations" is quite a euphemism. Shouldn't that rather be called patent theft (to avoid the more loaded term plunder)?! --196.215.195.50 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Lacking chemical and biological intelligence

The Soviets captured the first tabun plant. The routing of this intelligence isn't covered by this topic page. 143.232.210.38 (talk) 17:40, 30 July 2012 (UTC)