Talk:Operation TOUCAN (KGB)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale.

Operation Toucan is a Canadian mission in East Timor.[1] The only reference to a KGB plot by this name on google[2] seems to be a Frontpage magazine article from January that is copied practically verbatim here. So there are copyright violation issues as well as notability issues. I also think it's all a bit strange; no doubt Pinochet's notorious human rights record had a lot more to do with the movement against him than this KGB plot. Finally, the comparison to Cuba seems completely unnecessary here and was only introduced to reflect a particular political bias. 69.234.178.114 00:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The FPM article is based off the source given on the page, Andrew. Any similarities are purely coincidental. The article does not state that the anti Pinochet movement was a KGB creation, just that the KGB was organizing significant elements within it and producing forged documents to link DINA's activities to the CIA. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 01:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I know I will be accused of "stalking" for noticing this page, but my regard for truth makes it impossible to say nothing, and it outweighs my fear of TDC's personal attacks. First, the anon is correct about the Canadian mission. Most google hits point there, and all lexis/nexis hits point there rather than the alleged KGB plot. This page should be renamed "Operation TOUCAN (alleged KGB plot)" and "Operation TOUCAN" should point to the Canadian mission as per wikipedia policy. Second, it is clear that TDC is not telling the truth about "any similarities" being "purely coincidental"; this sentence is copied verbatim from the Frontpage review. It's not a big deal, but of course it is bad form to "coincidentally" copy sentences word for word from articles you don't cite (were this a student paper, I'd include a stern warning about plagiarism in my comments). Third, the article incorrectly characterizes the operation as "so successful" -- according to every review I've looked at of Mitrokhin's book, the Soviet operations in Latin America were dismal failures, and the KGB employees who carried them out are described as "laughably incompetent." It is fine to include information that the book claims that there were only such-and-such as many NYT articles on the topic, but it is incorrect to directly attribute that to the operation the way the Frontpage magazine article implies (and, of course, the NYT stuff comes directly out of the frontpage article). It's hardly a measure of "success" of the operation. Finally, the article (and the one on Mitrokhin, which I will check soon) should have some indication that his work is not "gospel" (to quote TDC); while noticed a bit in the media, historians have raised serious questions about his claims, which are mostly unverifiable. According to the American Historical Review, "Mitrokhin was a self-described loner with increasingly anti-Soviet views . . . Maybe such a potentially dubious type (in KGB terms) really was able freely to transcribe thousands of documents, smuggle them out of KGB premises, hide them under his bed, transfer them to his country house, bury them in milk cans, make multiple visits to British embassies abroad, escape to Britain, and then return to Russia, and carry the voluminous work to the west, all without detection by the KGB . . . It may all be true. But how do we know?" Now, that said, I have not read that book, and Chile is not my expertise, so I don't expect to become a very active editor on this page, but it is now on my watchlist and I plan to press for the above relatively minor changes.--csloat 19:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
As stated to the Anon, the FPM info was taken from The World Was Going Our Way: The KGB and the Battle for the Third World, pg 87-88, and is referenced in the article. Secondly, thank you for admitting to stalking me, it is what you are doing after all. Although I am sure you have read many reviews of Andrew’s book, but since you have not actually read the book itself, I doubt you are in much of a position to comment on it, now are you? Andrew work on his review of Mitrokhin's material has very few detractors, and none of them serious. The review you cited was taken completely out of context:
Christopher Andrew, a prolific writer on Soviet intelligence, collaborated with Mitrokhin to produce this massive 700-page volume. 1 … The book is a fascinating read. Separate chapters deal with Soviet espionage in individual countries, and the book provides both new detail on known events as well as a few sensational revelations. In correcting old stories, Mitrokhin's research shows, for example, that it was Arnold Deutsch who recruited the famous "Cambridge Five" in the 1930s, rather than Alexander Orlov.
I have asked you before politely to stop stalking me, please stop. Caio. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 20:50, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have never stalked you; all I did was correctly predict that you would make such a personal attack. As you are well aware, the "stalking" charge has been dealt with already -- you should read Wikipedia policy regarding the matter. I could also point to the fact that your sudden appearance on the Shaw and Qaqaa pages amount to stalking, using your false rationale. If you read the book, why do you find it necessary to plagiarize your summary from Frontpage magazine, without even crediting the source? Finally, in what way was the review taken out of context?--csloat 21:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your hedging was duly noted, but you were still stalking me. As I have said before, the material in the FPM article was taken in its form the book. The source was taken out of context because it is mostly supportive of Andrew’s work, not negative as you have attempted to portray it in the article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 22:06, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to have to ask you again to stop the personal attacks, TDC; I never stalked you, as you are well aware. Please take the time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policy on this matter before hurling additional accusations. The source was not taken out of context. If you want to add context feel free to do so but do not delete claims that are accurately represented. Your assertion that the article is "mostly supportive" does not mean the claim as quoted is incorrect.--csloat 23:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
First, the source was taken out of context, but by all means past the entire article here so everyone can make that determination and not just myself. Secondly, yes, you did stalk me, and yes you admitted to it, so lets no go there. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 23:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
No; I never stalked you, as you know. Again I must ask you to stop the personal attacks. And I never admitted such a thing. I'll ask you again to please review the Wikipedia policy regarding stalking. As for the article context, the claim as quoted is correct; there is nothing that I am aware of in the article to suggest that claim is incorrect; if you know of something please feel free to cite it (in general, it is a good idea to cite such evidence when you make an accusation rather than waiting until you have been asked to produce the evidence three or four times).-csloat 07:08, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Criticism of Mitrokhin and praise for Christopher Andrew should more properly be placed within their respective articles. Here is what Christopher Andrew has to say about the "success" of Operation TOUCAN... "Pinochet’s military government was far more frequently denounced by Western media than other regimes with even more horrendous human-rights records. KGB active measures probably deserve some of the credit. While operation TOUCAN was at the height of its success, Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were in the midst of a reign of terror in Cambodia which in only three years killed 1.5 million of Cambodia’s 7.5 million people. Yet in 1976, the New York Times published sixty-six articles on the abuse of human rights in Chile, as compared with only four on Cambodia. The difficulty of obtaining information from Cambodia does not provide a remotely adequate explanation for this extraordinary discrepancy.”

This is a transcript of the rest of Professor Andrew's comments on Operation TOUCAN... "KGB active measures successfully blackened still further DINA’s deservedly dreadful reputation. Operation TOUCAN, approved by Andropov on 10 August 1976, was particularly successful in publicizing and exaggerating DINA’s foreign operations against left-wing Chilean exiles. DINA was certainly implicated in the assassination of Allende’s former Foreign Minister, Orlando Letelier, who was killed by a car bomb in the United States in 1976, and may also have been involved in the murder of other former Allende supporters living in exile. Operation TOUCAN thus had a plausible basis in actual DINA operations. TOUCAN was based on a forged letter from Contreras to Pinochet, dated 16 September 1975, which referred to expenditure involved in the expansion of DINA’s foreign operations, chief among them to ‘neutralize’ (assassinate) opponents of the Pinochet regime in Mexico, Argentina, Costa Rica, the United States, France and Italy. Service A’s forgers carefully imitated authentic DINA documents in their possession and the signature of the Director. The letter was accepted as genuine by some major newspapers and broadcasters in western Europe as well as the Americas. The Western media comment which caused most pleasure in the Centre was probably speculation on links between DINA and the CIA. The leading American journalist Jack Anderson, who quoted from the KGB forgery, claimed that DINA operated freely in the United States with the full knowledge of the CIA. The Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, he reported, was investigating DINA’s activities.”

[edit] Article is not about Condor

Relevant information belongs in that article. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 02:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think so, not if the precedent version of the article claims that the CIA had nothing to do in Operation Condor, which was the point of "Operation Toucan", wasn't it? Tazmaniacs 04:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
The article makes not determination whether the CIA was or was not invloved in CONDOR, only that this particular KGB operation was using forged documents to link the two. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 18:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I do not contest that, but the article should clearly states that the CIA was indeed involved, because articles are supposed to be independent & not stating that is not straightforward. Tazmaniacs 10:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Why, when the article is not about the CIA? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/p/e/Talk%7EOperation_TOUCAN_%28KGB%29_e14b.html"