Talk:Reinhard Gehlen

message: but this assertion that "Operation Sunrise" successfully infiltrated some 5,000 anti-communists of Eastern European and Russian ancestry sounds a little suspect. 5,000 where? when? I had thought that most western intelligence operations in the early years were rolled up--although I get most of my information from John LeCarre novels, which I do not claim to be authoritative. --Italo Svevo 02:19, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: My understanding, too, based on some limited reading on intelligence in the period; most of the Czechs (Ukranians?) were immediately rolled up, because the op had been compromised before it went in. The number seems a bit hi, but N excessive; most of the effort in that period seems to've been SOE-type guerrilla infils, aim to overthrow Com puppets, N intel ops as we understand them today.  Trekphiler 14:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: I claim no expertise

message: Gehlen is credited with Op Flamingo, letting Sov commissar named Minishki escape; he ended up on Stalin's staff as a hi-placed spy. This may have inspired Tom Clancy's Cardinal (Cardinal of the Kremlin) & may've led to the persistent myth the Germans fed the Sovs a dummy about senior officers, leading to the Great Purge.  Trekphiler 15:06, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Other ops

message: it is possible to beef up the GEHLEN org section, new documents have been released. Fluffy999 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "The Guardian article clearly shows" -- the Guardian is an ultra-left-wing and anti-American publication, and hardly a credible source.Solicitr (talk) 15:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Gehlen org

message: I'm re-adding a link to the article Nazis in the CIA under "see also".  Please do not delete the link again without stating why, as it is very relevant to those wishing to find out more about this controversial yet historically relevant topic.  Perhaps it could be added as a category if such a category existed but it doesn't, so the "see also" link shall suffice. Roidroid 06:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Nazis in the CIA

message: "... a Nazi Major General..."  Was he a member of the Nazi party? The German page simply describes him as a member of the Wehrmacht. Cavort 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, he wasn't. I'll remove this inadequte term.--217.85.122.141 17:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Precision/Accuracy never have been a mark of those trying to demonize the Germans, but I've seen worse articles. --41.150.77.166 (talk) 15:02, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi? 

message: Can anybody give any solid sources on the (pretty wild, IMO) claim that Gehlen founded/ran ODESSA ? If not I'd suggest removing the claim from the article. Wefa 05:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odessa 

message: I don't think the Knights of Malta membership is correctly categorized under "honors". The Knights of Malta are a religious, chartiable and hospitaller organization (and a sovereign entity of international law) independent of both state and church, and not a kind of honor degree granted by another entity.  Wefa 18:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knights of Malta 

message: As I was reading this article I noticed this paragraph:
"In 1939 Gehlen was promoted to Major. For the 1939 German attack of Poland he was the first general staff officer of an infantry division.[1] In 1940, Gehlen was promoted to Major and he became..."
I think that someone has to make the appropriate correction on this controversy.
Thanks in advance, --Ttzavaras (talk) 23:08, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Please take a look...

message: the article said h was promoted tomajor in 1939 and 1940, what one is it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.130.17.18 (talk) 03:35, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promoted to Major twice?? 

message: I am listening to a talk show where this connection is being asserted. Does anyone know if there are reliable sources that attest to this? __meco (talk) 11:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gehlen Organization training MOSSAD in 1951? 

message: Because there is no activity on this talk page with respect to the above controversial claim (which I believe should be removed from the article for the time being, as its reference is extremely dubious, and I can find no reference to his involvement even in the German language Wikipedia), I am requesting comment from some more experienced editors. My initial concern can be seen above under "Controversial claim / reference." 66.183.69.201 (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't assume that there is a blatant forgery by the translator unless someone has alleged that. It should be comme il faut to refer to Gehlen's own account as long as we state that it comes from his memoirs. __meco (talk) 14:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC 

message: 1. Where is the references for the unsupported claims "Reinhard Gehlen exposed a number of Office of Strategic Services (OSS) officers who were secret members of the U.S. Communist Party."?
2. Where the Central Intelligence Agency fictitiously produced many of the documented references produced here and elsewhere as if they were facts (eg. CIA funding of the Congress for Cultural Freedom, and the Post WWI political parties of Europe.
What shallow basis of fact can the deluded editors of these articles in Wikipedia have when they themselves are influences overtly and covertly by German government funding, the CIA, corporations, governments and less than objective volunteers? If Jackson Pollock in his abstract Expressionism manipulated by the Central Intelligence Agency without him knowing it how is it that Wikipedia can claim non-partisan lack of bias?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.72.251.178 (talk) 00:37, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  WIKIPEDIA FUNNY CONNECTIONS TO CONTROVERSY WITHOUT INTEGRITY 

message: "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) 20:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Reference 

message: Reinhard Gehlen was President of the BND until 1968. In this year, he was 66 years old. By coincidence, he was a German state-official. German state-officials had at the time, and without going into details more or less have still, a mandatory retirement age of 65. Forced out? Really?--93.133.222.245 (talk) 01:04, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Forced out? really?

message: Please explain what this sentence means: "Gehlen is considered one of the most legendary Cold War spymasters.". Because: I would contend that it is utter childish BS, it means zilch, and as such we can do without it. Anyone against? Maelli (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need this sentence? 

message: It looks like there was a move to de-classify US gov't documents regarding the Gehlen org:
: http://nsarchive2.gwu.edu//NSAEBB/NSAEBB146/index.htm
:Maybe someone can use this?
:Kortoso  (talk) 16:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recently declassified NSA documents 

message: My attention was drawn via AN/I to back-and-forth reverting by  and  concerning whether Gehlen's full name should be given again at the start of the article body: example 1 example 2. Here's the discussion section for that.
In my view Chas. Caltrop has wrongly over-generalized a convention usually used in biographies of women: since women often marry and change their names by the time they become notable, we usually start the body of the article giving the childhood name: Jane Doe bolded at the start of the lead, "Jane Roe was born ..." at the start of the first body paragraph. Where the name has always been the same, or is sufficiently explained by giving a nickname or professional name at the start of the lead in addition to the legal name, there's no need to repeat the full name at the start of the body, and indeed doing so breaks the flow of the article for those readers who read beyond the lead.
However, looking at the article as a whole, I see several uses of Gehlen's full name later on, and numerous uses of abbreviations of his (and others') military ranks before their names. Per MOS, we don't use honorifics or other titles before names, so in my view for stylistic reasons all or most of that should be chopped, in addition to all the later uses of "Reinhard" before "Gehlen". Yngvadottir (talk) 19:09, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After the backing and forthing, I looked over the rest of the article... I agree that there are too many instances of "Reinhard" in the body of the article, as well as honorific titles. I will now start chopping. Thanks, Just plain Bill (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: We may edit conflict; I couldn't resist. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:24, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I was part way through a semi-auto find and replace when I noticed that. I will wait a while and see if any fragments remain to be tidied up. Thanks! Just plain Bill (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think I'm done. The sourcing could also be improved, and I noted at least one source referred to at full length more than once where author and page or even a named ref. could presumably be used, but I focused on the text. I found a lot of American spelling, although the dates and the preponderance of spellings indicate the article is supposed to be in UK English. (It is possible Oxford spellings were intended.) I tried to correct this to standard British. There was an overuse of idiosyncratic hyphens and a lot of "In the event" - both of those may stem from British, but I reduced both. The overall tone was a bit florid, verging on hagiography with the heavy use of "spymaster"; this may come from the sources used, but I have attempted to tone it down, hence the cutting. The use of rank abbrevs. before names and the repetition of his full name appear to have been part of that stylistic approach. So anyway, that's what I was looking at and working to change. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:06, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Names 

message: Gostarias de traduzir este artigo? att 2804:14C:5BB3:A319:F422:75B0:7351:E9B5 (talk) 13:35, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{Ping|Luizpuodzius}}