Doctor Franger
Member
As a researcher of issues arising from the German V2/A4 rocket of WW2, I have long nursed a controversy regarding the origin of the term Operation (or Project) Paperclip. There are two versions which are different enough to seem incompatible, and divergent enough that the truth seems unlikely to be something halfway between the two. Thus it might follow that (at least) one version is bunk, and in my opinion it happens to be the widely held version. It may be a fine point and not of interest to most Metabunk posters, but here goes.
Firstly, for non-Australians, a Furphy is what we here call a story that has the ring of credibility and strong repeatability but is nevertheless somehow too good to be true (OED A false report or rumour; an absurd story.) AKA Bunk perhaps. A rural foundry by the name of Furphy had the contract to supply army water carts during WW1, so the digger's standard retort on receiving a piece of dubious gossip might be "did you hear that at the intelligence tent or at the Furphy?". Secondly, Operation Paperclip was the process of selection of German scientists for post-WW2 political whitewashing and re-employment in the USA.
The first time I heard the reputed origin of the term Operation Paperclip, the story related that a selection panel attached paperclips to the personnel files of those selected for re-employment, and thus the operation got its name. And this is the version in many published sources, with more or with less detail attached, and on most returns on Google including Wikipedia and Britannica.com. I have to say that from the first time I heard this version, my Furphy radar activated with a strong return. Many questions arose:
Did the code name come first and the selection method adopted in its honour? Or almost equally unlikely, vice versa? Were the original 2000+ personnel file folders first scoured and sanitised of pre-existing paperclips? Were the paperclips used to differentiate the selected from the non-selected because all files were to be placed in a single pile? Why not simply make two piles? Or just write down the selected names on a list, something that would have to be done eventually and ad nauseum anyway? Why paperclips with their mobile and transient nature - what was done to avoid paperclips accidently sliding off the files of the selected? ( it conjures a vision of superannuated Berlin auto mechanic Werner von Braun lamenting "I could have been head of NASA, I coodabeen a contenda, but my paperclip slid off"). The questions could continue.
Another version is to be found in "Crossbow and Overcast" by James McGovern (Hutchinson 1965), a prosaic version with a more credible narrative and some documentation. This version claims that the operation was originally known as Operation Overcast, until the camp where the scientists' families were interned began to be referred to by local Germans as Camp Overcast. This indicated a lapse in the security of the codename, so it was rechristened Operation Paperclip. This was in March of 1946, by which time the German scientists had already been selected and had been working in the USA for around 12 months. A memo of that date (March 13 1946) was issued by the secretary of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"SUBJECT: Substitution of Code Word.
1. Effective this date, the code word PAPERCLIP has been substituted for the code word OVERCAST, due to the compromise of the latter word.
2. The meaning previously attached to OVERCAST was not compromised and will now attach to PAPERCLIP."
It was usual practice in WW2 to apply codenames to operations through the use of randomised (irrelevant) words which held no risk of hinting at an operation's goals or nature. These sometimes (as with Overcast and Paperclip) seem to cluster alphabetically, as if allocated off a pre-existing alphabetised list (not a claim, just something I have noticed), as is the known practice with hurricane and cyclone names. If true, it would suggest that the codename Paperclip is apropos of nothing.
The Furphy version related on Britannica, Wikipedia etc. cites "Project Paperclip" by Lasby of 1971, which seems to suggest that the (junior) officers on the selecting panel re-christened the operation in November 1945, on the basis of their reputed paperclip use. Is there any precedent, or even likelihood, that junior officers would unilaterally name a project and have their decision ratified at The highest level four or five months after the fact?
The most recent iteration of the Furphy version I can find is by the usually estimable Annie Jacobsen, in her "Operation Paperclip" Brown and Co 2014. I have not found any other iterations of the (McGovern) version which to me seems more credible.
To summarise a claim;
Can only one version can be correct? To the exclusion of the other
If neither is exclusively correct, does the truth come somewhere in the middle ground?
How much evidence exists for each version? How convincing?
Are there any other versions?
I have more conundra (is that the plural?) and I can officialise this post into an official OP with quotes and citations, perhaps elsewhere if this post is misplaced, but I figured I would spare myself and merely dip my toe, in case there is no interest in this controversy beyond my own.
Firstly, for non-Australians, a Furphy is what we here call a story that has the ring of credibility and strong repeatability but is nevertheless somehow too good to be true (OED A false report or rumour; an absurd story.) AKA Bunk perhaps. A rural foundry by the name of Furphy had the contract to supply army water carts during WW1, so the digger's standard retort on receiving a piece of dubious gossip might be "did you hear that at the intelligence tent or at the Furphy?". Secondly, Operation Paperclip was the process of selection of German scientists for post-WW2 political whitewashing and re-employment in the USA.
The first time I heard the reputed origin of the term Operation Paperclip, the story related that a selection panel attached paperclips to the personnel files of those selected for re-employment, and thus the operation got its name. And this is the version in many published sources, with more or with less detail attached, and on most returns on Google including Wikipedia and Britannica.com. I have to say that from the first time I heard this version, my Furphy radar activated with a strong return. Many questions arose:
Did the code name come first and the selection method adopted in its honour? Or almost equally unlikely, vice versa? Were the original 2000+ personnel file folders first scoured and sanitised of pre-existing paperclips? Were the paperclips used to differentiate the selected from the non-selected because all files were to be placed in a single pile? Why not simply make two piles? Or just write down the selected names on a list, something that would have to be done eventually and ad nauseum anyway? Why paperclips with their mobile and transient nature - what was done to avoid paperclips accidently sliding off the files of the selected? ( it conjures a vision of superannuated Berlin auto mechanic Werner von Braun lamenting "I could have been head of NASA, I coodabeen a contenda, but my paperclip slid off"). The questions could continue.
Another version is to be found in "Crossbow and Overcast" by James McGovern (Hutchinson 1965), a prosaic version with a more credible narrative and some documentation. This version claims that the operation was originally known as Operation Overcast, until the camp where the scientists' families were interned began to be referred to by local Germans as Camp Overcast. This indicated a lapse in the security of the codename, so it was rechristened Operation Paperclip. This was in March of 1946, by which time the German scientists had already been selected and had been working in the USA for around 12 months. A memo of that date (March 13 1946) was issued by the secretary of the Joint Chiefs of Staff:
"SUBJECT: Substitution of Code Word.
1. Effective this date, the code word PAPERCLIP has been substituted for the code word OVERCAST, due to the compromise of the latter word.
2. The meaning previously attached to OVERCAST was not compromised and will now attach to PAPERCLIP."
It was usual practice in WW2 to apply codenames to operations through the use of randomised (irrelevant) words which held no risk of hinting at an operation's goals or nature. These sometimes (as with Overcast and Paperclip) seem to cluster alphabetically, as if allocated off a pre-existing alphabetised list (not a claim, just something I have noticed), as is the known practice with hurricane and cyclone names. If true, it would suggest that the codename Paperclip is apropos of nothing.
The Furphy version related on Britannica, Wikipedia etc. cites "Project Paperclip" by Lasby of 1971, which seems to suggest that the (junior) officers on the selecting panel re-christened the operation in November 1945, on the basis of their reputed paperclip use. Is there any precedent, or even likelihood, that junior officers would unilaterally name a project and have their decision ratified at The highest level four or five months after the fact?
The most recent iteration of the Furphy version I can find is by the usually estimable Annie Jacobsen, in her "Operation Paperclip" Brown and Co 2014. I have not found any other iterations of the (McGovern) version which to me seems more credible.
To summarise a claim;
Can only one version can be correct? To the exclusion of the other
If neither is exclusively correct, does the truth come somewhere in the middle ground?
How much evidence exists for each version? How convincing?
Are there any other versions?
I have more conundra (is that the plural?) and I can officialise this post into an official OP with quotes and citations, perhaps elsewhere if this post is misplaced, but I figured I would spare myself and merely dip my toe, in case there is no interest in this controversy beyond my own.
