Talk:GULAG Operation

Verify credibility tags
No English version of the homepage of the first ref - hrono.ru. The second is ref'd to memorial.kiev.usa; their EN description is here - - please explain why these refs are reliable sources. Novickas (talk) 15:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Memorial is a respectable NGO. PS. How did you find out about this article? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alex's bot collects new articles. You know what they say: cave ab homine unius libri. Likewise articles. Is this the Novaya Gazeta Melenberg? Wouldn't he be a journalist? If they are a respectable NGO, the English translation of their website is disastrously inept - nothing unique about that - and appears somewhat deranged, the sort of thing that would have been written in green or purple ink in days gone by. What strikes me is that a secret German operation in WWII approved by the RSHA ought to be known from German sources. So this shouldn't be an article of one book. No hits for i-g-bessonov+gulag. Nothing exciting for bessonow+gulag or bessonov+gulag. This is an exciting new revelation from a region where Icebreaker is taken seriously, and should be treated with an appropriate degree of suspicion. Show me a German-language source and I'll be rather more open-minded. Angus McLellan (Talk) 18:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Additional Russian sources about this:, , .Biophys (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not certain my transliteration of Russian names into English was correct. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:43, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Russian wiki article about Meandrov .Biophys (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I found it yesterday :) PS. For Bessonov, I found one source: ///. The last page is particularly crucial: "was involved in sabotage on the Eastern Front including the dropping of agents near labor camps to liberate and arm the prisoners." Here's another good one: "campaign behind Soviet lines involved landing up to 50000 men in the far north, liberating the camps and arming the inmates". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * 127 articles of Mellenberg in Novaya Gazeta, this is also very interesting. There is a lot more. A very knowledgeable author. I will return later.Biophys (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Correct, and Novaya Gazeta is almost certainly the original source, so I updated the link. We don't link to plagiarists and copyright violators if we can help it. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:17, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No, two other Russian sources I provided were not from Novaya Gazeta, one of them was article in journal "Ogonyok".Biophys (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * What was correct is that Melenberg writes for Novaya Gazeta. Since Novaya Gazeta have his article online, there's no reason whatsoever to link to a copy of uncertain provenance. So I changed the refs to point to Novaya Gazeta. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * According to Parish this was something to do with the "Political Center for Struggle with Bolshevism", which doesn't seem to be the same thing as the "Kampfbund gegen den Bolschewismus". I am thinking that this, a blue sky plan which came to nothing, should really be a small part of an article on the broader topic. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The bigger picture is German half-hearted attempts to create anti-Soviet resistance, currently a poor quality section at Collaboration_during_World_War_II which certainly deserves its own article. GULAG operation was one of many operations, and I think MILHIST decided military operations, even small, are notable (but you can raise this question on that project discussion pages).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, we do not have an article about Boris Bazhanov, a personal secretary of Stalin who escaped abroad and also tried to organize ant-Soviet resistance (from Finland if I remember correctly).Biophys (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

NKVD version ?

 * The term Gulag is an acronym of the The Chief Administration of Corrective Labor Camps and Colonies, used by the NKVD. Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn used it for his "The Gulag Archipelago", first published in 1973. Before that it was absolutely unknown outside the Soviet Union (and probably outside the NKVD). Nobody at the RSHA would have known, what an Operation Gulag is supposed to mean.
 * Reading the Russian Liberation Army article, it's quiet clear, that Germans had a significant problem in cooperating with Russian "subhumans" almost till the end of war. To believe they planned a second front in cooperation with "subhuman" Russian prisoners is - absurd. They didn't even cooperate with Russians on their "first" front.
 * To believe the Germans would allow Russians to make such plans (in an accountable position) is - absurd.
 * A "naval and air invasion of Siberia" in 1942/43 - where should naval German forces invade Siberia? And how? After the Battle of Crete, the Germans didn't use airborne troops any more (only on the ground), an airborne invasion of Siberia is - absurd.
 * Has anybody ever heard of it from outher sources? Why has no German ever talked about such a plan throughout the last 60 years?

On the other hand
 * According to NKVD interrogations the Soviet Union was populated by millions of Trotskyites, spies of Germany, Japan, Poland and France (some of them all of that at the same time)
 * The NKVD always made a sinister complot out of everything, it wasn't enough to be a "normal" spy
 * All these "spies" had confessed everything
 * Only the NKVD inquisitor knew the term "Gulag"
 * This story "proofs" how important it was to stay far behind the frontline as a NKVD member, threatened by the Germans and the Gulag prisoners, while at the same time other fought at the Battle of Stalingrad.


 * In short : The story seems to be based on the results of NKVD interrogations - not really reliable. HerkusMonte (talk) 09:17, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The Vlasovschina wasn't invented by the Chekists, however much they may have embellished it. The Kaminsky brigade and the assorted Schupos were real. Therefore the Germans did use, or plan to use, the Untermensch in their war in the East. Limiting Google's book search by date from the advanced search tab produces odd results, but it does suggest that the GULag was known inside and outside the USSR prior to WWII, witness Solonevich's The Soviet Paradise Lost and Gorky's Belomor.
 * I'm no happier than you are with the name of the article, and with the absence of German sources, but I think you may be being too skeptical. The same motivations you attributed to the NKVD men applied equally to the RSHA and Abwehr. Better to be devising cunning and entirely impracticable plans from the safety of an office in Germany than to be sent to the front, or even to the rear, in the East. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:32, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the Germans sent former POW's to the Soviet side, Abwehr did and probably also the RSHA. But that's not an attempt to create a "Second front" with thousands of participants, an airborne invasion and a "D-day" at Murmansk. Small groups of 10 or 12 men for reconnaissance and stopping enemy supplies, of course, but that's not a second front.


 * The Gulag system was well known outside the Soviet Union, I don't doubt that, but the TERM became a synonym for it only by Solzhenitsyn. If the source says the operation was officialy named "Gulag", it's quiet obvious that this name was used by NKVD members and not by the RSHA.


 * Why should a German RSHA member create obviously unreal plans (naval/airborne invasion), that would be the easiest way to lose his job.


 * There's a small essence of truth here and a lot of phantasy of the NKVD. HerkusMonte (talk) 11:06, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable source that tells: "this specific story was an NKVD disinformation", such source must be cited here. If not, this is all OR.Biophys (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The term "Gulag" wasn't known outside the USSR until Solzhenitsyn used it for his book. That's not OR, that's what the Gulag article says and a wellknown fact, I think. And that's why a source claiming Germans named an Operation of the year 1943 "Gulag" is highly dubious. The NKVD story is of course only my own possible explanation. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The name is a modern name (I've based the title on the newspaper article "Desant na GULAG"), the sources don't say what was the original, German name of the operation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Aah, so we shouldn't create a specific "Operation X" name, that never existed. HerkusMonte (talk) 18:36, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Naming_conventions (use_English) does not offer much assistance. To resolve this matter, I'm fine with the English name of the article being sourced to the title of the newspaper article "Desant na GULAG" assuming that Desant na translates into "Operation". -- Suntag  ☼  14:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * pl:Desant (ru:Десант) does not seem to have a direct translation. According to a dictionary it can be translated a particular type (a narrow meaning) of an assault/invasion, specifically, the concept covers both a "beach landing" and a "parachute landing"; it refers to the insertion of troops onto a territory hold by an  opponent from sea or air.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Sources needed
Parrish mentions this "Operation" exactly in two sentences of his book (of almost 500 pages). He's not describing any details or reveals his sources, it's in fact not the topic of his book at all, not even a minor one. The facts of this story are almost exclusively based on a single Russian newspaper article of A. Melenberg. To make such an outrageous story reliable, we need additional sources. E.g. it would be important to know the "official" name. The title is now the term Melenberg used for his newspaper article, not the real "operation name", he might have used any phantasy name he liked, but that's not a reason to establish it. Additional sources would help a lot, so there's no reason to remove that tag. Everybody should be interested in creating well sourced and reliable WP articles. HerkusMonte (talk) 19:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I do agree with that.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 19:47, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, everybody should be interested in creating a neutral compilation of material that has been published by reliable sources. If the facts of this story are almost exclusively based on a single Russian newspaper article of A. Melenberg, how would additional sources help? Also, it would help the discussion if would put your arguments into a Wikipedia policy/guideline framework rather than an original research/personal opinion framework. You seem to agree that Piotrus is summarizing the reliable source material correctly, but object that the article is not complete. Well, 99.9% of Wikipedia's articles are not complete. Also, your main objection seems to be that you do not think that the topic largely is true. Under Verifiability, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. -- Suntag  ☼  14:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Unternehmen Zeppelin
The RSHA (Walter Schellenberg) organised Spionage and Sabotage actions behind the Soviet lines and recruited Soviet POW's for that matter. This operation was called "Unternehmen Zeppelin".

Perry Biddiscombe, 'Unternehmen Zeppelin: The Deployment of SS Saboteurs and Spies in the Soviet Union  1942-5' Europe-Asia Studies  vol.52, no.6, Sept 2000, pp. 1115-1142

would probably be an interesting source, has anybody got access to that book? HerkusMonte (talk) 13:39, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You could ask at WikiProject Resource Exchange. The good people there are usually very helpful. It's available online I think. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * No need, I have access to full text. Interested editors can email me and ask for the file :) PS. As far as I can tell, the article confirms a general pattern and will make a good addition for anti-Soviet partisans or like, but it does not mention anything related to GULAG operation. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 01:06, 8 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That would be another indication of my NKVD assumption. A scientific article about RSHA Spionage and Sabotage activities in 1942-45 does NOT mention anything about the attempt to create a second front, including naval and airborne invasion and recruiting anti-Soviet forces from the Gulag prisoners (according to Parrish about 50,000 men). That would be mentionable. HerkusMonte (talk) 08:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Interestingly, Parrish estimate is much higher that the newspaper ones, IIRC. Curious, that newspaper would be more withheld than the book? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 17:58, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I've created a stub at Anti-Soviet partisans, likely needs more attention/redirects/ilinks.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:34, 8 November 2008 (UTC)