Talk:Operation Paperclip/Archive 1

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 --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))

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))

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)

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.

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. (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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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. 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)

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)

Possible violation under section "Similar Operations"?
Similar operations [edit]

APPLEPIE: Project to capture and interrogate key Wehrmacht, RSHA AMT VI, and General Staff officers knowledgeable of the industry and economy of the USSR.[24] DUSTBIN (counterpart of ASHCAN): An Anglo–American military intelligence operation established first in Paris, then in Kransberg Castle, at Frankfurt.[25][26]:314 PAPERCLIP: An invention of a high school sophomore.

The last line (in bold) is what I'm referring to. This line suggests that Operation Paperclip is an invention of a high school sophomore. Just wanted to let you guys know, looks like someone was messing around.

199.253.203.212 (talk) 16:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)Sara

Requested Move: Project Paperclip is the correct name

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Operation Paperclip → Project Paperclip – The correct name was Project Paperclip not Operation Paperclip. The inaccurate name should redirect to the correct name, not the other way around. Why maintain an erroneous title and quote sources within the article that use the correct name? Verification from National Archives linked in the Notes section of this very article: 24. ^ List Of Terms, Code Names, Operations, and Other Search Terminology To Assist Review and Identification Activities Required by the Act http://www.archives.gov/iwg/finding-aids/list-of-terms-code.html 3. ^ Project Paperclip: German Scientists and the Cold War, 1975, Clarence G. Lasby, et al. Relisted. BDD (talk) 17:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC) 24.69.100.165 (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * support - I don't know where the other name came from. -- ke4roh (talk) 23:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Support the notes and sources do refer to it as a "project" and not an "operation".LM2000 (talk) 05:47, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

So your argument is that proliferation and perpetuation of an error is a justification for maintaining it. This Wikipedia article itself may be the source for many who use the incorrect name. How's that for a Catch 22? 24.69.100.165 (talk) 19:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose A review of sources does not support the change. It appears Operation and Project have been used interchangeably, though the current title has been used more often in reliable sources. Google books results are almost perfectly split between the two. News results favor the current title e.g., verses  as does Scholar. I also ran all such searches with "nazis" in the search to avoid false positives and there was no proportional change. The New York Times has 31 articles using the current title and 11 for the proposed. The UK's Sunday Times has five articles using the current and none for the proposed. The Guardian and Observer Digital Archive has five verses one. Time Magazine has three verses none. Trove finds nine Australian newspaper articles using Operation and none for Project. I'll arbitrarily stop there.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
 * What makes you think it is an error? The basis for the conclusion that it was an error in the first place was to look at what reliable sources were calling it. I believe I've turned that on its head. Let's go a bit further. Here's the Monthly Magazine of the Office of United States High Commissioner for Germany in 1949 calling it Operation Paperclip. Here's Newsweek in 1949 . The earliest news sources found through News Archive from 1946, the year it was revealed to the public, to a one, called it Operation. See e.g. here. For good measure, here's The New Republic in 1947, not just referring to it offhand as one or the other, but stating "&thinsp;"Operation Paperclip," as the program for bringing the Germans here was named...".--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:38, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

The basis for considering it an error is the source I linked to in my my original proposal, the National Archives. As qualification for the source this is a quote from the source website: "The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is the nation's record keeper. Of all documents and materials created in the course of business conducted by the United States Federal government…" http://www.archives.gov/faqs/

Here once again is the source for my proposal: http://www.archives.gov/iwg/finding-aids/list-of-terms-code.html

"List Of Terms, Code Names, Operations, and Other Search Terminology To Assist Review and Identification Activities Required by the Act"

The National Archives page linked above lists a number or "Operations" and a number of "Projects" Because those terms may have been used interchangeably when referring to PAPERCLIP, that is not a justification for continuing to use those terms interchangeably. PAPERCLIP is clearly listed as a "Project." It's right there in the list.

The sources quoted in opposition are examples of perpetuations of the error, and do not authenticate the inverted name simply based on their continued usage of the term. The opposing argument seems to be that the first person to invert the terms and run with that new name for the thing causing masses follow and write their own articles and books with the wrong name, by default, becomes the father of the new term everyone is supposed to thenceforth use, rather than simply being the initiator of an error. It makes no sense for a commonly-used, but nevertheless erroneous name to be used as the title of a Wikipedia article, while the correct, verified, and, moreover, still widely-used name redirects to the article bearing the erroneous title. Or has the National Archives got it wrong?

Besides, if we're going on beliefs rather than facts here, the real name is catchier. The alliteration is snappy and groovy.24.69.100.165 (talk) 06:40, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, you assume that NARA's website, which has a typo in the second sentence, must not be in error and is somehow conclusive; that it couldn't have just chosen one or the other interchangeably, as many sources use it, when it compiled the list some 70 years later, or just got it wrong, as appear to be the case since the bevy of embedded contemporaneous earliest sources, including one U.S Government source, all use the other term. Yes, we could keep the name, as those below indicate, where the common name has displaced the correct name, but I don't believe we need to here. The result of the research is that it appears Operation is the correct name. I've spent hours and hours physically at NARA and on the phone with it and what an error-prone bureaucracy it is indeed. I don't know why you would attach such significance to its website. As between the website, about which you have no idea of the vetting of its information, and highly-reliable sources such as the Christian Science Monitor, The New Republic and The Office of United States High Commissioner for Germany, among others, writing nearby in time, I assume the latter are correct by a country mile.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - it looks like we have a case of a Common Name displacing the strictly accurate name. "Re-education" can be handled in the article text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:35, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

But it hasn't been displaced, that's my point. The strictly accurate name is both strictly accurate, and is still much used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.69.100.165 (talk) 06:44, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose per WP:UCN. - Aurorion (talk) 07:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Both are in common use; no available source shows one to be "official" or "accurate," i.e. we do not really know what phrase OSS officers used to describe their work at the time. (sdsds - talk) 05:18, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per preponderance of sources as noted, above. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2013 (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)

It directly relates to both MK-Ultra and to AQUATONE. Gottlieb, who was head of Technical Services Staff in the Chemical Division of the CIA was in charge of procuring LSD-25 from Sandoz, for use in MK-Ultra subprojects, involving among other things hypnosis and "magic" or the art of distraction, to dose unsuspecting "subjects" with LSD. Gottlieb was also in charge of procuring safe houses, and paying the bills, signing the checks, for MK-Ultra. He was also liason to Lochkeed, which was developing the U-2 at the Skunkworks at "Area 51" outside of Vegas. Which was also used for Apple drop and Operation Tea Pot (so named for the concept of a genie in a bottle) or rather the camera developed for the U-2 was, in "drone" planes the Air Force and previously Army Air Force used for training fighter pilots, as targets. Gottlieb in one declassified document procures a safe house for Lockheed in Minneapolis, in 1954. By this time we know that LSD was being used with prostitution, dosing businessmen, recording and filming them behind double mirrors. Why was he procurring a safe house for Lockheed? Why, in the first place was the head of chemical division, head of MK-Ultra, who was working with LSD, torture, magic, on some pretty strange subprojects, the liason to Lockheed, which was supposed to be about as unsexy and straightforward, rockets, jets, U-2 spy plane, as it gets? Paperclip might not have started as a CIA op, and I think there is even reason to consider the zany proposition that has been suggested by what might be referred to as wingnuts or conspiracy theorists, that in fact the Nazis (or National Socialists, since Nazi itself is a US war propoganda term) themselves planned to lose the war to infiltrate both the Soviet and US intelligence operations and start a 50 year cold war which would rely on third party corporations selling them both the so-called poison and cure. Sell one side a sword and the other a sheild and so on. But that aside, Paperclip becomes a part of MK-Ultra and Aquatone because the CIA is where the OSS officers go. The Committee's Chairman was OSS.

Also, rocket scientists? Really, there were no doctors of the medical profession? Because it really looks like a lot of the MK-Ultra subprojects are continuations of Nazi torture experiments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.179.2 (talk) 03:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Rethinking the Ethics of "Paperclip Operation" - the case of Kurt Blome
Ethically the question that arises from the operation concerns ensuring the greater good of the public versus the personal criminal responsibility of people who possibly committed crimes against humanity. this question might be analysed is two different levels.

By analyzing the reason for the the operation one might claim that basically it was not because of any Just or an Altruistic reason. The reason for "Paperclip Operation" was to enhance American military superiority by denying German scientific expertise and knowledge from the other allies (mainly USSR)and insuring that post war Germany will not redevelop its military research capabilities. The hidden assumption here is that the American post WW-II "new dawn" will ensure world peace and prosperity - therefore a greater legitimate humane goal. However, it could be argued that the case of a "greater good" is in question as the USA basically was Only interested in its own Selfish good. More than that, Judging by the history of the cold war there is a solid claim that while it was "good" for America - it was "not that good" for other countries as in S.E Asia, Middle East or Central America etc.

On the second and more important level of analysis - even if assuming there is a rightful and just equilibrium in which Nazi terror & horror scientists are forgiven for their wartime "mischief's" in order to maintain world stability there is a line in which ethically the US government crossed in the "Paperclip Operation". thus, we must draw the line between scientists that where involved in general support to the German wartime effort and scientist who while supporting the German wartime effort where involved personally in crimes against humanity. For example the most famous scientist related to "paperclip Operation" - Wernher Von Braun While- an avid Nazi enthusiastic and party member, who probably did not take active part in crimes against humanity (if we do not consider the rocket attacks against civilians as crimes against humanity). on the other hand, forgiving scientist that where involved in human research in the fields of Biology and such is definitely something else.

This is the case of Kurt Blome, a high-ranking Nazi scientist during World War II and Deputy Reich Health Leader. Blome admitted that in 1943 he conducted experiment with plague vaccines on concentration camp prisoners. He was tried at the Doctors' Trial in 1947 on charges of practicing euthanasia he experiments on humans. he also assumed responsibility for all research into biological warfare sponsored by the Wehrmacht and the S.S. As part of the Nazi biological warfare program code-named 'Blitzableiter' (Lightning Rod. Blome's Institute was a camouflaged operation for the production of biological warfare agents. furthermore, there is a known collaboration of the German Bio-warfare program with the infamous Japanese Unit 731 and the Japanese Biological Warfare Program.

Blome was not unique; other scientists like Konard Schafer, Jurgen Von Klenck,Hermann Becker-Freyseng, Erich Traub, Walter Schreiber,Otto Ambros, Hubertus Strughold, Theodor Benzinger and many more where part of the "Paperclip Operation" and where connected to experiments on human prisoners in Dachau (a Nazi concentration camp near Munich in which over 30,000 prisoners where murdered) and other sites of terror. Currently, it is widely believed that American intervention saved Blome and the other "doctors" from the gallows - rehabilitating them in the USA in order to use their horrific knowledge gained during the rule of terror by Nazi Germany in Europe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.68.161.210 (talk) 13:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

1949–1990 -> Trolledit
The project started in 1945 and ended a few years later, not with the German reunification!

Obviously this is information massively misleading!

+++213.152.161.101 (talk) 19:36, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

CIA as primary source
I have a big problem with using the CIA and other Cold War/US government sources as primary sources for this article. It is not the least bit NPOV and the whitewashing was already apparent in the article. They can remain, but should be used with extreme caution. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Unit 731's Program?
The opening of the article says, "A related course of action was taken by the US in regards to Japanese human experimenters employed from Unit 731."

What was the name of the program for Unit 731? Any information about it? Was it just Unit 731 or for other Japanese groups/programs? Etc.

I can't find anything in the article, under the related programs/operations, nor from a cursory Google search. 2607:FB90:429:5606:C818:2181:56FB:7497 (talk) 15:24, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Re-asking "Unit 731's Program?"
This was asked but moved over to the archive, but I came here for the same question. So I'm reposting it.

"Unit 731's Program? The opening of the article says, "A related course of action was taken by the US in regards to Japanese human experimenters employed from Unit 731."

What was the name of the program for Unit 731? Any information about it? Was it just Unit 731 or for other Japanese groups/programs? Etc.

I can't find anything in the article, under the related programs/operations, nor from a cursory Google search." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.135.107 (talk) 12:59, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Missing Elements
Why is there nothing in this article about the political use of established and wanted nazi war criminals, and protected them from prosecution, for use in anti-communist cold war activities. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/operation-paperclip-national-security-trumped-ethical-concern/
 * There is some comment in Hans Amtmann's autobiographical account, The Vanishing Paperclips, Monogram, 1988. It is a fairly slim volume containing much about his previous aircraft work, so it does not cover a great deal of paperclip ground. But what it does cover is well worth referencing. Indeed, I am surprised that this work is not already referenced in the article. Sorry, I don't have time right now. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 12:00, 29 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Please see “Controversy and investigations” section, which lists some of the investigations into Paperclip members. While a few of the 1,600 Paperclip members were investigated during their lifetimes, zero (!) of the 1,600 Paperclip members were found guilty of any crime, either in Germany or in America. Hence, using the word “criminal” or words “Nazi war criminal” in the context of any of these German, later American, scientists is arguably an act of libel against these scientists and their families. preiker (Talk) 3:20, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry preiker but that's an absolutely ridiculous claim. There is no "libel" in saying prominent Nazi scientists might have been involved in the regime's atrocities. Wernher von Braun knew full well that his rockets would kill many innocents in London, for instance. He is known to have used forced labor at Mittelwerk and in 1984, "Arthur Rudolph, one of his top affiliates from the A-4/V2 through to the Apollo projects, left the United States and was forced to renounce his citizenship in place of the alternative of being tried for war crimes." So much for none being convicted. This was during the Cold War. They were almost certainly protected, much like those in Unit 731. Much has been written since that criticized the operation and the supposed innocence of the Nazi scientists. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 00:15, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * To be clear (again), I object to the original poster’s specific reference to “Nazi war criminals.” In America, calling someone in writing a “criminal” or “war criminal” when that American has never been convicted of a crime is indeed grounds for libel. It's not a claim but a fact: NONE, ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA of the 1,600 Paperclip members were convicted of any crime, in Germany or America. I, along with the NASA community and many Americans, view the Paperclip members as survivors of a horrific Nazi war machine (by whom they would have been imprisoned or shot dead had they resisted in any way) and as American heroes for their primary role in leading America’s win in the Space Race as well as their hundreds of scientific accomplishments once they arrived in America. preiker (Talk) 17:50, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't believe you can libel the dead. If there is a specific concern against a named living individual then you should check with BLP noticeboard. Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:26, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * b)
 * Thanks for the info. At least one Paperclip scientist is still alive. Many of the 1,600 families are alive. Of course, the U.S. government (which employed the scientists) is clearly alive. preiker (Talk) 19:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Paperclip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150924013714/http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/ft_ww2/ft_ww2_slide33.htm to http://www.fischer-tropsch.org/primary_documents/presentations/ft_ww2/ft_ww2_slide33.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927020437/http://www.historyinternational.com/global/listings/listings.jsp?fromYear=2007&fromMonth=5&fromDate=3&NetwCode=HCI&timezone=1&View=Prime& to http://www.historyinternational.com/global/listings/listings.jsp?fromYear=2007&fromMonth=5&fromDate=3&NetwCode=HCI&timezone=1&View=Prime&
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120309040455/http://www.campevans.org/_CE/html/paperclip.html to http://www.campevans.org/_CE/html/paperclip.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100912062731/http://www.astronautix.com/astros/rosinski.htm to http://www.astronautix.com/astros/rosinski.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:44, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Operation Paperclip. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928060909/http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003/02/20030203.php to http://www.currentconcerns.ch/archive/2003/02/20030203.php
 * Added tag to http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/nazis.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071017175738/http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=%2Fjournals%2Fcomparative_technology_transfer_and_society%2Fv002%2F2.1koerner.html to http://muse.jhu.edu/login?uri=%2Fjournals%2Fcomparative_technology_transfer_and_society%2Fv002%2F2.1koerner.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050701034933/http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet13/brief13/tab_f/br13f3.txt to http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/radiation/dir/mstreet/commeet/meet13/brief13/tab_f/br13f3.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070415011318/http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2006/march/recent.htm to http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/releases/2006/march/recent.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 20:50, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Missing Element?
Remark: There is absolutely nothing in this article about Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, or the US Army Missile Command (MICOM), or Marshall Space Flight Center (MSPC). This seems rather incredible to me. This is where Von Braun and his team ended up. I worked for the Research, Development and Engineering Center at the U.S. Army Missile Command and descendant organizations as an engineer from 1986 to 2003. There is simply an incredible amount of material in the library, RSIC, The Redstone Scientific and Information Center, written by Operation Paperclip people, and they left quite a mark on this geographic area as well as MICOM and MSFC organizations. Perhaps this omission is fine, as one will eventually arrive at this information upon further investigation, but it seems somehow sneaky or perhaps political to me. But I don't really have any idea, i.e., I don't have a clue really, so I am simply leaving this remark so that perhaps someone who knows a lot about how Wikipedia functions and also Operation Paperclip might consider this for a couple minutes. This most likely is not an issue, and if it is it's very minor, just curious, perhaps only to me. MikeDoyle (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your post and help! I added reference to Redstone Arsenal in "Arrivals" section. Currently, the page focuses on the arrivals of the Paperclips, not on their body of scientific work in America (perhaps that could be added in the future). preiker1(talk) 22:18, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Great! Thank you! MikeDoyle (talk) 23:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Future Additions
Hello, I was looking at one of the comments made earlier about potentially adding some of the work done by these scientists. I began working on this and plan on doing 3-4 scientist, hopefully to get the conversation going so the community can help out later on. Also, I read through the article and noticed a part that states a citation is needed (in the second paragraph of the article), I'm going to try to re-word what is there and add in a proper citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klong5 (talk • contribs) 167:26, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tag
Tag from January 2017 ''The examples and perspective in this article may not include all significant viewpoints. ''
 * Anyone know what viewpoints are missing? Is it any of the above?
 * Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, or the US Army Missile Command (MICOM), or Marshall Space Flight Center (MSPC).
 * Or something else? Telecine Guy (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Scientific accomplishments
This section reveals achievements that tied to civilian success, but ignores the military applications. That seems a bit of a white wash. For example Braun wasn't just key for the Saturn Rocket, but future ballistic missile technology as well such as the Redstone Rocket, the first nuclear missile before he worked on the Saturn. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 03:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

When was this declassified?
I think it might be informative to know when this operation became public knowledge. And also, what was the background surrounding its declassification? 74.89.149.252 (talk) 14:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Isn't "military–industrial complex" a euphemism for "war machine"?
The use of the phrase "military–industrial complex" in the second sentence of the section on the Osenberg List seems anachronistic. A more traditional phrasing for the time would be "war machine", as is still used in popular book titles. Although the disambiguation page holds that "war machine" is a shorthand for "military–industrial complex", the former phrase is more appropriate insofar as the latter refers to the nexus of mutually dependent economic self-interests rather than specifically to the capacity to wage war, which is the intended meaning here. Scwarebang (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * "War machine" seems like the tabloid version of the term to me. (Hohum @ ) 19:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Adam Tooze uses the phrase "war machine". (Probably because that's what total war does to the economy - turns it into a machine for fighting the war.) It would be easy to rephrase the offending sentence to say something like "Germany lacked the capacity to defend" without trying to specifically mention the Wehrmacht and the German economic and resource situation.GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)