This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

No way this claim can be accurate. The first Polaris launch wasn't until 1960, and the British Royal Navy was not using the Polaris before 1962 at the earliest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.152.206 ( talk) 06:52, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

When was he convicted? What was he convicted of? Treason? If so, why was he not executed? Commodore is a high rank especially in a small navy like that of South Africa. This must have been a major scandal. pmcray 23:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

It was indeed a major scandal, which received coverage in most major Western media at the time. I'll try get some specific links later, but Gerhardt and his wife Ruth were arrested in early 1983. In December of that year, the Cape Town Supreme Court found them guilty of high treason and sentenced both to life imprisonment plus 10 years. I don't know why he wasn't sentenced to death, though it's worth remembering that following the Rivonia Trial of Nelson Mandela and others, execution ceased being the primary punishment for high treason. — Imp i 18:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that the information on Dieter Gerhardt's release is uncorrect in this article. He was released as part of a spy swap in the late 1980's and not after 1994. This was an international spy swop involving other US and Soviet spies. He then went to live in Switzerland. Since 1994 he has visited South Africa many times. He was not executed because generally during the cold war spies were kept in prison to be used in later spy swops. Ozinsky 08:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

My mistake on the above. Gerhard was still in jail in 1992. I am still trying to find out when he was actually released. Ozinsky 11:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

What is the relevance of Odile Harington to this article? Anyway, the article on her states she was indeed released by the Zimbabwean government in 1990. Babakathy 17:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Editor User:Dieter Gerhardt appears to be the subject editing his own bio. His edits include non-public and highly autobiographical information with a personal and subjective POV. I flagged my concerns on his talk page, but these have been ignored. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 08:53, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Edit Commentary for Wikipedia entry Dieter Gerhardt

Considerations for submitting amendments to the Wikipedia Post “Dieter Gerhardt” Spy include

1. That Wikipedia has in recent years developed into on of the most important general references globally and it is important that topic content is accurate, unbiased, carefully researched and references utilized are fact based, non skewed and reliable. The post in question contains a number of errors and speculative statements resulting in the perpetuation of misinformation on the subject in question.
2. The post is currently classified as Start Class and unfortunately utilises many old unsubstantiated references which may be superseded by newer more precise information that has subsequently become available in the public domain placed there by highly reputable investigative journalists and authors with impeccable global reputations. The start class situation should be upgraded in the context of Wikipedia’s own criteria of entries being fact based. These will be provided as far as possible within the constraints imposed by various Service Agencies and public domain availability.
3. The Editing process chosen is to work through the piece section by section to avoid the reoccurrence of “ Sorry! We could not process your edit due to loss of session data “. This process is to be hopefully undertaken working closely with responsible WP Editor (Noted : Socrates 2008). Please understand that there is no intention in the editing process or need on my part to try and sanitize the personal past. .There are more than enough commendations published in the public domain including a copy of personal letter from Nelson Mandela mentioning the contribution to the SA freedom struggle.I have purposely tried to avoid incorporating edit clauses other than verfyable fact based information in order to comply with Wikipedia Guidelines on Editing. Please note that the establishment of the post “Dieter Gerhardt” in the Wikipedia was not undertaken at my request.. Seemingly the original entries in the 90’s stem from a connection with the events surrounding South Africa’s nuclear weapon program and were subsequently modified from time to time.
4. To ease the concerns of WP Editorial staff some additional references are included which currently are not present in the Reading Lists. Regrettably some of these are not in English but with Google Translate they present no additional difficulty in arriving at the facts.

regards Dieter Gerhardt

Additional References for inclusion in current “Cite” and Additional Reading List

• Treasons of Conscience Haaretz Magazine Friday April 7, 2000
• Soviet Spy gets Amnesty in S.Africa Yahoo News Tuesday 16th March 9:44 PM ET Yahoo! News
• How South Africa Built Six Atom Bombs by Al. J. Venter (2008) Ashanti Publishing ISBN  978-0-9814096-4-5 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum
• The Unspoken Alliance by Sasha Polokow Suransky (2010) ( Pantheon Books New York) ISBN  978 0 375 42546 2
• Overloper vir Mandela by Connie Braam Fru Nederland 24 December 1994 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.62.122.248 ( talk) 16:27, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Firstly, thank you for replying and confirming that you are indeed Dieter Gerhardt. You may want to check that you are logged in next time before making comments here.

Now to address your four points above:

1. Wikipedia is always looking to improve articles, however there are some strict guidlines to be followed regarding conflict of interest, notably over cases like this involving edits to an article by the person that it's about (i.e. you). Please read WP:Suggestions for COI compliance.
2. Please feel free to suggest any references here on the talk page that can be used to improve the article, as you have already started below.
3. Sounds like you've been having some technical hitches. There are a number of places where you can seek help; I think you'll find that some of this will improve over time with experience.
4. WP is edited by a community, not a staff.

Socrates2008 ( Talk) 08:55, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

It would appear that obfuscations are occurring regarding verifiable facts causing a possible skewing of the article as currently presented. For example, the incorporation of well researched reference material undertaken by respected academics and investigative journalists reference material in the References section previously included has recently apparently been deleted/or possibly just not listed. Specifically

a.SIMON’S TOWN DOCKYARD THE FIRST 100 YEARS. Published By Simon’s Town Historical Society South African Naval Heritage Trust Researched and compiled by Capt Bill Rice SAN (Ret) (3rd November,2010)

b.Al J.Venter.“ How South Africa Built Six Atom Bombs” Ashanti Publishing ISBN 078-0-9814098-4-9 2008”

c. Ronen Bergman. Treasons of Conscience Haaretz Magazine ” 07/24/2000

To proceed with the editing of the current article it is necessary to establish a datum frame of reference on the subject, which is fact, based. At the same time editors should be given the necessary lee way in their task to indicate where the priorities lie and what aspect they personally favour or object to. Up front agreement on fact based points by responsible editors is desirable in order to prevent a cycle of “undo/do” which in turn stops constructive changes being made to the post.

Some easily Verifiable Facts iro Dieter Felix Gerhardt and associated events

1. Date and Place of Birth: 1935-11-01 Cape Town Cite B.C. SA90633 registered in Cape Town issued 12thMarch 1935 2. Convicted for High Treason in Cape Town , Republic of South Africa and sentenced to Life imprisonment on 31 December,1983. His wife Ruth (a dual Swiss/SA at the time) was sentenced for High Treason to Ten Years. 3. DFG’s area of operation was extensive and lasted for approximately two decades. Only few details of “operations” have been revealed by DFG himself - these in an interview given to Ronen Bergman a reporter for Haaretz Magazine in 2000. Ref : Treasons of Conscience” 07/24/2000.Various other claims such as those made by Mervyn Rees in the Sunday Mirror do not originate from DFG but result from either press releases made from Official Sources in various countries including UK,RSA,USA,Israel or the sometimes over fertile imaginations of the reporters. 4. He was given a State President’s Pardon on the 28th August 1992 and released the same day immediately thereafter flying to Switzerland to join his wife Ruth who had been released on the 29th May 1990 on the request of the Swiss Government. 5. On the same day of DFG’s release 28th August 1992 Nelson Mandela then already in freedom and President of the African National Congress wrote and signed a personal letter to DFG as follows.

Dear Comrade Dieter.

It was with great joy that I received the wonderful news that the long ordeal of your prison sentence and separation from your family , has finally come to an end.

That the government continued to imprison you, along with many other comrades, despite their respective undertakings to release all political prisoners, was a source of great concern and anger.

I wish you a very happy reunion with Ruth and your children, especially with Gregory. Who had to grow up without a father for so many years.

On behalf of the African National Congress I would like to convey to you and your family our appreciation of all your sacrifices in the struggle against apartheid. Allow me to also extend my warmest personal greetings. We hope that you will soon return to South Africa. There is still much work to be done. We look forward to seeing you soon Amandla! Signed Nelson R. Mandela.

6. Subsequent to release was given a Swiss permanent residence permit but retained his South African Identity and citizenship. He is able to travel world wide freely without constraints other than the normal visa constraints issued by individual countries. He spends several months a year in South Africa. 7. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission granted applicant DFG amnesty AC/99/0065 AM5987/97 in March 1999 8. DFG subsequently had a Restitution of Commission and Rank to Rear Admiral(jg) back dated to the date of his arrest in 1983. Recorded date of retirement 1996-11-01. 9. South Africa declared itself a republic on the 31st May 1961 and simultaneously withdrew membership from the Commonwealth. After the 1994 elections a new flag and other ceremonial insignia were introduced to indicate a major change in policies such as the end of legislated racial discrimination in the country. The Republic rejoined the new commonwealth in 1999 (after an absence of 33years and one day) thereby losing it’s Republican status and recovering it’s former name of South Africa! 10. SA joins the BRIC countries as a full member on the 14th April 2011 - simultaneously remains a member of the New Commonwealth.

Further facts will be made available as time and opportunity become available. In the interim I would wish that the Editorial team reach consensus on the correctness or otherwise of the ten points above and confirm or otherwise each specific point. Regarding the point of “many excuses”. Agree the phrase was not included in the main text but on the talk page. Still, not conducive to constructive discussion! Extract of Jeff Songs recent contribution on talk

Gerhardt was a Soviet spy, providing info on SA, the UK and others in the context of the Cold War. He was exposed, tried and convicted by SA, and that's all that needs to be said in the lead - none of that is relevant to SA Apartheid policies, and there's no need to link to that article, other than if you aim to push a certain POV. He did advance opposition to SA Apartheid policies as one of the many excuses for his treason during his trial, so we link to Apartheid in that section. Jeff Song (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Regarding required “reliable” references as to DFG motivation will see what can be done. Need to do a little more research. Regards and wishes for a good slide into 2012 to you all DFG signed éöàä

Dear WP Editors, Firstly, compliments of the season to you all. I notice with some consternation that some conflict has arisen over the post Dieter Gerhardt. Not particularly suitable for this time of goodcheer! Let us get on with correcting and improving this post working together and objectively in a spirit of conciliation using the considerable factual open source information available in the public domain on the subject. It would also be appreciated if editorial staff would refrain from using personally objectionable phrasing such as “many excuses”. The subject has never put forward any “excuses” for his treason against the apartheid regime of the then “ Republic of South Africa” only motivations for his defecting in place. Thank you Dieter F Gerhardt WP signature éöàä

I don't see the word "excuse" anywhere in the article; if you can refer us to a reliable source that offers a rationale for your actions, that would be most appreciated. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 08:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Reliable References regarding Motivation to defect in place.

Gerhardt put forward two main reasons for his for his treason. He stated firstly that he was disillusioned by his German (a Nazi sympathizer and ex- Koffiefontein internee) father’s involvement in the post WWII build up of the Apartheid State Security structures and secondly he was he was opposed to the apartheid government, which he considered inequitable and illegitimate. He sought black liberation As indicated in Chapman Pinchers Book referred to previously the process of defection is complex and involves numerous other factors. This was discussed in somewhat superficially in Andre Pretorious’s article in the Beeld magazine. Comment: These two reasons are the primary based on his direct observations of developments in South Africa. As from 1948 Apartheid was introduced systematically in an incremental strategy to disenfranchise and marginalize “blacks” and create a government with full control by a small minority white elite over those population groups) not so classified but nevertheless also citizens of South Africa. If these reasons as given by the subject in person are not considered reliable then it is possible to independently consider various other external unsolicited sources. Three are quoted below 1. Cite «L’argent n’était pas un motif pour Gerhardt», affirme Vitaly Chlykov. (Page 2 of 4)Source URL (Extrait le 08.10.2009 - 20:58): http://www.24heures.ch/actu/monde/arrete-suisse-espion-russe-raconte- 2009-10-07 (Propose once again this article be included in List of References - as previously proposed but as yet not acted upon)

2. Cite <<“ How South Africa Built Six Atom Bombs” by Al. J. Venter, Ashanti Publishing ISBN 078-0-9814098-4-9 2008” Page 62

3. Cite << Ronen Bergman. Treasons of Conscience Haaretz Magazine ” 07/24/2000 Additional Comment There has been a tendency in the white controlled SA press to bagetelize the Apartheid policies. The reality is that consequences on the effected group of SA citizens were horrendous with long term adverse implications on their existence. This post is perhaps not the best place to discuss this subject but I would kindly request editorial staff of this post to further familiarize themselves with the subject if they have not already done so –also that the term Apartheid SA is not eliminated from the text. Regards and wishing you an excellent 2012 DFG éöàä 08:03, 1 January 2012‎ (UTC)

In order to appropriately amend content and bring the Dieter Gerhardt Spy post in Wikipedia up to an adequate standard from the existing datum entry editing assistance from the Wikipedia Editing Community and a fair understanding of sub-Saharan African de-colonialization politics as from the 50’s to date will be required. Additionally, an understanding of the drivers of the cold war i.e. West’s versus the Soviet/Mainland China’s role in the decolonization process where the latter two power blocks working in conjunction with the African Guerilla Forces removed these African States from under the influence and/or control Colonial Powers such as Britain and Portugal as well as the white minority regime of the Apartheid Nationalist Government which occurred during the period under consideration. Attending to the cold war problems with the eastern power blocks enjoyed the west’s highest priority, well above concepts such as “ recognition and implementation of human rights” or freedom for indigenous peoples. Thus the West continued to covertly cooperate with the so-called “pariah” states including SA despite various United Nations resolutions condemning policies of “Imperialism” and the Apartheid regime. Furthermore in the editing process cognizance should be taken of the interventions in the SA region of various the intelligence agencies and their modus operandi regarding compartmentalization, targeting, publishing misinformation etc. With regard to the personal information presented on the individual Dieter Gerhardt currently in the public domain it is perhaps also advisable to mull over some relatively recently exposed verifiable facts regarding his life as a spy as well as the correct chronological order of purported events which too can be relatively easily confirmed from existing sources. Two additional references for inclusion in the List of References are the recently published volume 1. SIMON’S TOWN DOCKYARD THE FIRST 100 YEARS. Published By Simon’s Town Historical Society South African Naval Heritage Trust Researched and compiled by Capt Bill Rice SAN (Ret) (3rd November,2010 2. Spion.spion ‘n Ware(?) Verhaal Article in the BV of the SA Sunday “Beeld” (attached for easy reference)

Regarding the subject and the existing entry in Wikipedia it is not intended to expand on quoted activities other than to correct chronological order of events and/or expunge events that were attributed erroneously or were otherwise incorrect and/or speculation. The current Wikipedia entry(own pov) relies excessively on significant misinformation published by the U.S. and U.K. shortly after arrest. This, with a view to “demonizing” the subject. A very normal process! One reality is that at the time of the defection in place occurring SA had declared itself a Republic and had opted out of the Commonwealth unilaterally. The treason attributed to subject would in legal terms be confined to SA. All other operations against other western countries including Israel would fall in the normal category of conducting espionage against foreign powers who were officially not allied but continued to provide significant support and assistance to the Apartheid regime over the decades that followed. The support was provided in exchange for SA’s efforts against the Warsaw Pact mentored freedom fighters in sub-Saharan Africa as well as continuing to provide rare minerals and metals required for the space and military industries. The recognition of the legitimacy of the goals and objectives of the African indigenous peoples freedom struggle was actually the most important component of the subject DFG’s motivation to defect. Decades later, after the breakup of the Soviet Union, the West too came around to a similar viewpoint - it had become clear that the indefinite propping up non-democratic minority regimes who ignored the normal human rights conventions was not a viable proposition in most cases –Saudi Arabia being an exception at present! .

Edit proposal is as follows Current Version Dieter Felix Gerhardt (born 1936) was a Commodore in the South African Navy and commander of the Simon's Town naval dockyard. In 1982, he was arrested and convicted by the Apartheid State for High Treason as a Soviet spy together with his second wife, Ruth. Edit Proposal Dieter Felix Gerhardt (born 1935) was ……….. his second wife, Ruth. Amended Birthdate which is 01-11-1935 to (1935) from current (1936). If required Cite Birth Certificate SA90633 registered in Cape Town issued 12th March 1935 Current Version Continued Contents [hide 1 Cold War 2 South Africa 3 Arrest 4 Release 5 Further reading 6 See also 7 References 8 External links [edit] Cold War Gerhardt started his spying career early, offering his services to the South African Communist Party who referred him to the Soviet embassy in London while still a junior naval officer. He was recruited into the GRU, the Soviet military intelligence branch. It was 1962, and he was on a Royal Navy mine school in Portsmouth and did the Parachute Training Course at RAF Abingdon. He was a graduate of and winner of the Sword of Honour in 1956 from the naval academy at Saldanha Bay. After his basic training in Britain, he was attached to the Royal Navy.[1] for further advanced training. After background checks to ensure that his story was true, the Russian GRU placed him on their payroll. British journalist and security services specialist Chapman Pincher maintained that, while in London in the late 1950s, he was able to interview Royal Navy Polaris submarine crews for potential candidates that the Soviets could approach, this is probably inaccurate since his recruitment was only in 1962.[citation needed] It was also during this time that he met his first wife, British-born Janet Coggin whom he married in 1958. Coggin says she became aware of her husband's Cold War spying activities eight years later in 1966,[2][3] but chose not to turn him in, fearing that he would be executed, leaving her children fatherless. She says Gerhardt eventually gave her an ultimatum to become a spy too, which she declined, forcing the couple's separation. She divorced him in 1966 and moved to Ireland with her children, living in constant fear of the Soviet security services. She subsequently published a book in 1999 about her experiences called 'The Spy's Wife'.[3] In 1973 Gerhardt married his second wife, Ruth Johr, a Swiss citizen who author Chapman Pincher claims was already a spy for the German Democratic Republic, although there is no independent evidence for this.[4]

Edit Proposal

He joined the S.A.N. as a boy seaman in 1952. He was a graduate of the naval academy at Saldanha Bay and winner of the Sword of Honour in 1956. Thereafter he was sent to the U.K. for extensive engineering training at various R.N. institutions in Devonport and Portsmouth This training included sea time in the Mediterranean off Cyprus and in the north Atlantic off Iceland, the diving course at Devonport and the Parachute Training course at Abingdon near Oxford. It was also at this time that he met his first wife, British born Janet Coggin whom he married in 1958. *Treasons of Conscience” Israel Ronen Bergman Haaretz Magazine dd 07.04.2000). Cold War Gerhardt started his spying career early, offering his services to the South African Communist Party who referred him to the appropriate Soviet Representatives stationed in London while still a junior naval officer. He was then subsequently recruited into the GRU, the Soviet military intelligence branch. It was 1963, and he was on an advanced Weapons and Radio Course at a Royal Navy Weapons school in Portsmouth. After background checks the Russian GRU placed him in service.

British journalist and security services specialist Chapman Pincher maintained that, while in stationed in London as part of a small recruiting team for the SA submarine service, he was able to interview Royal Navy Polaris submarine crews for potential candidates that the Soviets could approach. A similar claim was made by journalist Mervyn Rees * The Spy who knew it all” Mail on Sunday” London 20-11-83 pp.1-2,31-34.

Coggin says she became aware of her husbands cold war spying activities eight years later in 1966 but chose not to turn him in, fearing he would be executed, leaving her children fatherless. She says Gerhardt eventually gave her an ultimatum to become a spy too, which she declined forcing the couples separation They were divorced him in 1968 and she moved to Ireland with their children. She subsequently published a novel in 1999 about her experiences called the “Spy’s Wife”. In 1968 Existing Text In 1973 Gerhardt married his second wife, Ruth Johr, a Swiss citizen who author Chapman Pincher claims was already a spy for the German Democratic Republic, although there is no independent evidence for this.[4] Proposed Edit In 1969 Gerhardt married his second wife, Ruth Joehr, a Swiss Citizen who he met in Klosters whilst on a skiing holiday. She subsequently was recruited by him to act as courier and assistant.

Note .: A number of small amendments were made to this section of the text body which (in subject?s POV) reflected more accurately the actual chronological order of events and the actual situation. e.g. The following line was omitted.” apparently living in constant fear of the Soviet security services”. Dramatization ! It is not Intelligence Service modus to persecute family members of a spy unless they too were directly involved. Her safety would have been secured whether she reported subject or not! The claim by Chapman Pincher that Ruth Joehr was already a spy for the German Democratic Republic is not correct. As already indicated there is no independent evidence for this i.e. pure speculation! Hence the alternative editing proposal has been submitted above Existing Text

South Africa Gerhardt rose through the ranks of the naval establishment to commander of the strategically important Simonstown naval dockyard. In this position, he had access to all the South African Naval intelligence reports, technical details of weapons systems as well as ship and aircraft movements in southern Africa. He claims direct involvement in aspects of Israeli and South Africa's military cooperation, using this position in 1975 to pass Israeli secrets to the Soviets.[5] During the Falklands War, Gerhardt was able to use his position to supply the Soviets with detailed information about the locations of British ships in the south Atlantic that the South African Navy intercepted via its sophisticated listening post at Silvermine, near Cape Town.[6] It is also likely that he had some knowledge of the South African Army and Air Force's secrets and plans regarding the South African Border War. He claimed that the United States and the Soviet Union met in 1978 to discuss South Africa's nuclear weapons programme, and that the Soviets proposed a pre-emptive strike on the Pelindaba plant.[7] [edit proposal] South Africa Gerhardt rose through the ranks of the naval establishment to eventually become in 1979 commander of the strategically important Simonstown naval dockyard. In this position, he had wide insight into intelligence reports, technical details of weapons systems as well as the South African battle order. During the period 1972-78 he was appointed as a senior staff officer to the Chief of the SADF at Defense Headquarters in Pretoria. In this position he was able to access South African Army and Air Force's secrets and plans regarding the South African Border War. Israeli Authorities claim his direct involvement in many aspects of Israeli and South Africa's military cooperation, using this position in 1975 to pass Israeli secrets to the Soviets.[5] He claimed that the United States and the Soviet Union met in 1978 to discuss South Africa's nuclear weapons programme, and that the Soviets proposed a pre-emptive strike on the Pelindaba plant.[7]

Note Comment: This following information is not correct - probably misinformation! The real time access that would have been required by Gerhardt to provide locations of British Ships as indicated in text simply did not exist. The SA Silvermine Listening post where this information may have been held was a completely different command to that held by Gerhardt and normal compartmentalization between establishments would have prevented necessary insight. Besides not having the personal desire to get involved in anyway in the Argentinian –British dispute, Gerhardt’s domain of operations also excluded this possibility. Thus the editing proposal is to delete the following clause entirely “During the Falklands War, Gerhardt was able to use his position to supply the Soviets with detailed information about the locations of British ships in the south Atlantic that the South African Navy intercepted via its sophisticated listening post at Silvermine, near Cape Town.[6]” Existing Text Arrest While the South Africans were initially none the wiser, the United States Central Intelligence Agency had its suspicions about there being a spy in southern Africa. Gerhard's cover was finally blown by Soviet double agent Vladimir Vetrov[8] (codename "Boris"), who knew of him.[9] Gerhardt was arrested in a sting operation in New York by the Federal Bureau of Investigation while he was taking a degree in mathematics at a New York University. He was deported and tried in camera in Cape Town, with a life sentence being handed down in December 1983 for high treason, while his wife received a 10-year sentence for acting as a courier.[10] Gerhardt put forward two explanations for his treachery. Initially he stated that he was disillusioned by the war-time internment of his German father, a Nazi sympathizer, at Koffiefontein concentration camp.[9] However he later contended that he was opposed to the apartheid government, and sought black liberation. [edit proposal] Line 4 :Delete (Codename “Boris”) and insert (codename “Farewell”) Below a edit proposal of this sections final para Gerhardt put forward two reasons for his for his treason. He stated firstly that he was disillusioned by his German (a Nazi sympathizer and ex- Koffiefontein internee) father’s political participation in the post WWII build up of the Apartheid State Security structures and secondly he was he was opposed to the apartheid government, which he considered inequitable and illegitimate. He sought black liberation

Existing Text Section Release Dieter Gerhardt was released in 1992 in a deal with the African National Congress just before the historic first democratic elections in 1994 in South Africa, and emigrated to Basel, Switzerland. His wife Ruth Gerhardt was released already in 1990.[11] Gerhardt was subsequently also granted amnesty in 1999 under the new government by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[12] In February 1994, he stated in the Johannesburg City Press that the Vela Incident was the result of a joint Israeli-South African nuclear test, code-named Operation Phoenix. He stated that he had no first hand knowledge of the alleged test, despite being commander of the Simonstown Naval Base at the time. He also specifically stated that no South African warships had been involved. [edit]proposal for Current Text Release A State President’s pardon was granted to Dieter Gerhardt in August 1992 at the personal request of Boris Yeltsin of the Russian Federation This was after the African National Congress had formally requested his release some months earlier and been refused. The release occurred shortly before historic first democratic elections in 1994 in South Africa, Thereafter he traveled to Basel, Switzerland to join up his wife Ruth and son Gregory. His wife Ruth Gerhardt had been released already in 1990.[11] Gerhardt was subsequently also granted amnesty in 1999 under the new government by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.[12] . Restitution of rank as Rear Admiral (jg) followed in 2007.cite ref SIMON’S TOWN DOCKYARD THE FIRST 100 YEARS. Published By Simon’s Town Historical Society South African Naval Heritage Trust Researched and compiled by Capt Bill Rice SAN (Ret) (3rd November,2010) (Ref not in public domain MS/509/1/118943 MOD 19/07/2007) In February 1994, the Johannesburg City Press reported that Gerhardt had indicated that the Vela Incident was the result of a joint Israeli-South African nuclear test, code-named Operation Phoenix. He in turn denied the report stating he had been misquoted and that he had no first hand knowledge of the alleged Test as he was not the Commander of the Simon’s Town Naval Base at the time. He also specifically stated that no South African warships had been involved. However he had previously accessed the SA nuclear program at various critical points and informed the Soviets of a proliferation program and Pretoria’s nuclear intentions. AlJ.Venter. a reputable and well informed investigative journalist and author claimed in his book “ How South Africa Built Six Atom Bombs” Ashanti Publishing ISBN 078-0-9814098-4-9 2008” that by that one act of Gerhardt’s intervention in informing the Soviets of Pretoria’s nuclear intentions he almost certainly changed the course of events in South Africa and prevented SA establishing itself as a member of the Nuclear Club. End of proposed edit Have also attached some relatively recent documentation which may have relevance. An important additional reference in addition to those already mentioned above is *”The Unspoken Alliance” Israel’s Secret Relationship with Apartheid South Africa by Sasha Polokov-Suransky Pantheon Books New York ISBN  978-0-375-42546-2 2010 This carefully research book has uncovered a number of “smoking guns” and placed them in the public domain, much to the chagrin of Israel and certain sections of the SA public. Hopefully the additional information supplied will be of assistance to the responsible editorial team. Have been unable to attach jpg info? please advise how?Thanks! With best regards Dieter Gerhardt 09:01, 17 December 2011‎ (UTC)

I have commented out this "reference" and asked for a citation, not because it is not in English, but because just listing a book name without a page number is not verifiable. This is a 186 page book, and readers can't be expected to hunt through all of them to verify the claim. If you have the book, please provide the page number, and the English translation in the footnote, as suggested in WP:NOENG. Jeff Song ( talk) 18:55, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

You should just ask for the page number in that case, not delete the whole reference. Anyway, not to worry, there's nothing in there that's not also in the (English) Trahair reference, so it can just go. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 06:01, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I did ask for the page number, in my edit summary, and left the reference, commented out. But as you say, it can just go because we have a better reference anyway. Can you chime in on the "deported to Apartheid SA" dispute? Jeff Song ( talk) 18:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

this source: [1] seems more reliable than the newsflash in the financial mail and should be used in the section in question.-- Severino ( talk) 21:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

It contradicts other sources, so we should say so, rather than choose an arbitrary version. Also, it does not say who made this application. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 05:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

it's ok if you also reinstate the other account/source beside this one. the source of the witwatersrand university however says clearly that gerhardt himself made the application. either way (an application of gerhardt or an intervention of the russian president as the cause for his release), the altered political "atmosphere" of the de klerk presidency years was crucial; we should find a source that says so.-- Severino ( talk) 09:53, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Goodmorning from a bright and sunny Tuesday 10th January 2012 morning in Cape Town, Time constraints due to travel have prevented the preparation of further proposals on post “Dieter Gerhardt” since the inputs which appear to have resulted in a few amendments to text. It may be advantageous for Editorial staff to take a little distance from the rather acrimonious discussion occurring around this post and review information available once again in a holistic manner to try and present a more balanced and comprehensive picture –not “raisin picking” out the odd bit of data here and there seemingly at random to then try and present a particular pov . That the subject matter is contentious is to be expected, Furthermore , attempts to find consensus will be made more difficult by misinformation, selective utilization of less than credible sources and editorial view points wide apart on the political spectrum-possibly even irreconcilable?! Therefore the need for impartiality and objectivity in the editing process is particularly relevant in present text. This text as it stands and the previous related talk pages have been referred to three respected and knowledgeable academics for opinion and advice. All three have significant expertise in covert activities in both the international and African context either side of the “cold war” divide and are likely to provide useful and equitable comment. Will await their inputs before suggesting further editorial amendments. The article as it stands continues to require significant revision due to erroneous content. As an aside, the credentials of certain of the editorial staff in the “post” related topics remain unclear and appear to be somewhat inadequate judging by various unprofessional,(sometimes with downright malign intent) comments made thus far on the talk pages as well as apparently deliberate exclusion of relevant references which were previously proposed,incorporated in the list and subsequently removed without discussion.. Lets try and keep comment balanced and non judgmental and if matters plague, discuss rather than dictate Thanks! Regards to all DFG signed éöàä

I don't see any major conflict going on here, just some discussion around some trivial points which is pretty standard. The biggest hurdle in my view is an accute lack of reliable information. So the best thing that you can do if you wish for improvements to be made to this article would be to provide reliable and verifiable sources of information that can be consulted to expand it. Apart from The Unspoken Alliance, the sources you have suggested to date have either proved to be elusive (e.g. Haaretz) or unreliable. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the purpose of this article is not to reflect your own personal views on subjects that may happen to be close to your heart.

While you're here, I have few questions of my own that you may be able to assist with:

• What source should we consult to understand what your motivations were?
• What source should we consult to find out what year you started spying?
• On what grounds were you arrested in the US, if your spying activities did not take place in that country? Again, we need a source for this.
• There is conflicting information about who was involved in your release - what's the best source for this?

Thanks Socrates2008 ( Talk) 08:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• agreed with the compromise regarding the apartheid link

• the trahair book gives 1935 as year of birth and germany as place of birth - the latter contradicts the indication of (wikipedia user) dieter gerhardt. the information in the book is not necessarily correct but he has to find a source which states cape town as place of birth

• Agree

• trahair mentions also some conditions of gerhardt's detention; could be relevant for the article

• i'd say that the statement from the magazine regarding his credibility brings in undue weight and can count as well poisoning

• Well, his statements in this regard only stirred the controversy, rather than settle it.

• also this section from the sapa source about the trial:

"During the 45-day trial Gerhardt admitted to spying.

He said in his defence it was for a country he refused to name, but which was not hostile to South Africa.

His wife claimed she thought he was in fact a double agent working for South Africa.

Cape Judge President George Munnik rejected the claims.

After their sentencing there were rumours of an international swap scheme to secure the release of top Jewish dissidents from the USSR, but these fell through.

Ruth Gerhardt was released before serving her full sentence and returned to Switzerland."

contains relevant informations but i 've no time at the moment to integrate it.

• His wife had visited Moscow, so an apparent lie in his defence. Everyone knew who he was spying for, and Gerhardt himself knew that the game was up when the Americans started interrogating him.

-- Severino ( talk) 09:53, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Other areas where information is sparse:

• Details of how "Felix and Lena" transferred information and received instructions (microfilm, shortwave radio). The Russian sources give some clues, but they are not reliable. The Isvestia article that was published when De Klerk visited Moscow appears to have been the trigger that set in motion the chain of events that led to his release, but I can't find it online.
• There is some conflicting information about who betrayed him - one of the Russian sources fingers Dmitri Polyakov - maybe it's both, with each offering different information.
• His case was discussed in the UK parliament, and suggests more time spent there than we have noted.Socrates2008 ( Talk) 21:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Socrates2008 ( Talk) 21:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

we don't have to combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion (WP:SYNTH). all the source says is that his wife *claimed* that in the trial.-- Severino ( talk) 22:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any major conflict going on here, just some discussion around some trivial points which is pretty standard. The biggest hurdle in my view is an accute lack of reliable information. So the best thing that you can do if you wish for improvements to be made to this article would be to provide reliable and verifiable sources of information that can be consulted to expand it. Apart from The Unspoken Alliance, the sources you have suggested to date have either proved to be elusive (e.g. Haaretz) or unreliable. I would also like to draw your attention to the fact that the purpose of this article is not to reflect your own personal views on subjects that may happen to be close to your heart. While you're here, I have few questions of my own that you may be able to assist with: ▪ What source should we consult to understand what your motivations were? ▪ What source should we consult to find out what year you started spying? ▪ On what grounds were you arrested in the US, if your spying activities did not take place in that country? Again, we need a source for this. ▪ There is conflicting information about who was involved in your release - what's the best source for this? Thanks Socrates2008 (Talk) 08:34, 10 January 2012 (UTC) [edit] Dear Socrates 2008., The overbearing biased attitude does not appeal! Please refrain from going into an adversarial mode with contributors who are trying to be helpful. The article is WP property and not that of individual Editors. Your antipathies are understood and sympathized with to a certain extent. However, no progress can be made with your pushing own pov and rejecting references that somehow do not fit in your scheme of thinking. If the necessary collaboration cannot be found then WP will be approached according to the rules to have a new set of Editors to address this post. As an aside, I admire the way you have been able to cross reference and order the page. Good work. Please do me the additional favour of following up on references given and do not exclude or remove references if you are not able to get hold of them. I have previously indicated that I will mail them PDF to a mail address of your choice which will give you the opportunity to peruse documents. For instance, the Haaretz article, which somehow now proves to be elusive. Of course that will be the case! It not only contained aspects such as motivation but also subject material which is uncomfortable to the Israeli State and has thus been removed from the web. As mentioned previously (but obviously not accepted by yourself ) the motive was related to the political system of Apartheid being implemented in SA at the time. This system is well described in David Welshes book “The rise and fall of Apartheid” well worth a read if one requires a more in depth knowledge of the Apartheid Republic. Further details - Johnathan Ball Publishers Johannesburg and Cape Town (2009) ISBN978 1 86842 352 1. The term Apartheid South Africa is valid just as are the terms NAZI Germany and Weimar Germany are generally recognized to convey certain epochs in a country’s history Your insertion in juxtaposition of the sum of money handed over by “Bob” to the subject during the many years of their working together is seen as another attempt at branding DFG as a mercenary spy despite the very clear statement by Vitaly Schlykov that money was not the motivator. As we now have from a knowledgeable source and presumably reliable source (as you personally quote him in the post) that money was not the reason for the subjects defection we at least know what was definitely not the reason for his defection i.e. money. Please state this clearly. If you are not prepared to do this may we have further discussion and eventually some form of consensus on this point?. The personal motivations are contained in previous talks - to be re- reviewed and accepted or rejected by the editorial team. The subject reasons were given to the TRC who gave him amnesty. This amnesty was dependent on their acceptance of a political motivation for what one considers as a purely political crime of High Treason. If the editorial team refuses to accept the TRC findings on motivation they should bring the necessary arguments or approach the TRC directly . A general comment on the aspect of money. The major power’s intelligence organisations are not some a kind of Mickey Mouse outfits. They all look after their Assets so as to ensure than financial matters do not shift the focus away from operational collection efforts .The same excellent provision philosophy goes for all persons engaged in action, covert or otherwise, civilian or military!. For example, take any tank commander in the field No one queries his motivation regarding personal gain when he is entrusted with an expensive tank and it’s ammunition. Furthermore,no detail is provided over how long a period was being considered, or whether funds were provided for personal reasons or for instance, for operational travel, procurement of special logistic support items or services etc etc. and/or a myriad of possible other non personal reasons. Too many unknowns incorporated in that new insert should please be deleted and not just slipped in surreptitiously without discussion. . General Comment: To survive in the field it is necessary for Agents to fit in precisely with the norms of their peer groups including in those aspects related to finance. This the subject did most efficiently having successfully come through four positive vetting exercises during his career. It must also not be overlooked that he was working in “enemy “ territory for a period exceeding the duration of three WWIIs and must have required both external and internal support. from time to time Dear Socrates, if you feel unable to treat the post in an equitable manner and argue your case point by point then it may be best if you recused yourself from this case. My own personal wish is that you stay on the task. Together with the other current members of the team we can make an interesting and accurate contribution. As is said in the murky world of espionage “seldom is anything as it appears to be” and plausible denial is name of the game. The questions you are asked are reasonable and will be answered as and when a reasonable modus operandi is agreed to and time to prepare the answers can be found..i.e. it is not sufficient to simply answer to the question of when the first batches of material were supplied to say “SACP - may 1960 or GRU April 1964.These dates need to be placed in context of historical /political realities /attitudes and events occurring at the time not only in SA but also in the target countries.. For instance in the US the Black Civil Rights movement from 1955 and the Birmingham race riots of 1963. That’s it for the moment Best regards DFGéöàä

i wonder how you reconcile your call to work with other editors and your commitment to consensus (as read on the vela talk page) with your activity here, regarding the statement of gerhardt's wife that you have deleted (you didn't even answer to my latest comment referring to this) and the comment from a journalist about gerhardt that you found relevant enough to include it, socrates2008.-- Severino ( talk) 20:03, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I get the impression that you may be finding Wikipedia's requirements for verification and reliable sources to be too onerous. I'll go back and look at what you said about his wife, as I've probably missed it - next time, I'd appreciate it if you could draw my attention without delivering a personal attack at the same time. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 21:24, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

your "side blow" here (concerning your "impressions" about me, just for the record) is definitely more a personal attack...and, you add and delete material here (i cited 2 cases in my last comment) w/o having consensus.-- Severino ( talk) 08:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Kindly keep your discussion here limited to improvements to the article. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:29, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Editing Team, At request of an editing team member Severino for information on an article by Andre Pretorious in the Sondag Beeld MV referred to previously for inclusion in the “Further Reading” list of references. The following article published recently is the one I believe he is referring to.!?

Oom D, Het jy die gesien? Spioen-spioen ’n Ware (?) verhaal

Dieter Gerhardt is in 1992 met sy vrou, Ruth, en seun, Gregory, herenig nadat hy ná byna ’n dekade vrygelaat is.Foto: ap/michael kupferschmidt/keystone Foto's · Lesersfoto’s · Nuus in Foto's Stuur vir ons jou foto's · Stuur vir ons jou foto's Dieter Gerhardt was tydens apartheid 20 jaar lank ’n spioen vir die Sowjetunie. Hy is in 1983 tot lewenslange tronkstraf gevonnis nadat hy en sy vrou aan hoogverraad skuldig bevind is. Byna twee dekades ná sy vrylating, het dié voormalige vlootoffisier aan André­ Pretorius vertel wat sý “waarheid” was.’ Weet die kelnerin, wonder ek, dat sy een van die suksesvolste Sowjet- spioene van die Koue Oorlog bedien? Hier sit ons dan in ’n restaurant in Noordhoek op een van daardie idilliese Kaapse dae wanneer wit wolke oor die Skier- eiland se knobbelrige ruggraat galop, ’n doodgewone driemanskap: ek, ’n fier bejaarde man en ’n tengerige vrou. Maar weet die kelnerin watter aangrypende verhaal hierdie gaste sou kon vertel? Sou sy kon raai hulle is kommodoor Dieter Gerhardt en sy vrou, Ruth? Hoe sou hul verhaal lyk as dit hier vertel word? Die antwoord ontwyk: feit en versinsel lê dik gestapel – waarheid lê dikwels in die oog van die toeskouer, of dan op die tong van die verteller, en dit is die eerste slagoffer van oorlog. Of, soos Dieter in ’n latere e-posboodskap Winston Churchill aanhaal: Die waarheid is veels te belangrik om nie bewaak te word deur ’n lyfwag van leuens nie... Die milieu van die Gerhardts se verhaal is nie ’n gemeensame Kaapse middagete in 2011 nie, dit is die donker dae van apartheid en die Totale Aanslag, van gewapende stryd en Koue Oorlog. Dit is die troebel wêreld van internasionale spioenasie waarin spore doodgevee en motiewe versluier word. Daar was al ’n veelvoud vertellers van hierdie verhaal – regters, ministers, kamerade, generaals, joernaliste en spioene – en geeneen van hulle was vry van vooroordeel nie; elk had ’n agenda. Een verteller was die destydse premier, P.W. Botha, op ’n perskonferensie op 26 Januarie 1983: “ ’n Senior offisier verbonde aan die SA Vloot in Simonstad, kommodoor D.F. Gerhardt, en sy vrou word aangehou kragtens die bepalings van artikel?29 van die Wet op Binnelandse Veiligheid vir ondervraging in verband met beweerde spioenasiebedrywighede.” Hier is Beeld die dag ná Botha se aankondiging: “Volgens inligting wat Beeld bekom het, het die gesin Gerhardt se woning nie buiten- gewoon weelderig voorgekom nie. Die huishoudelike toerusting en ornamente was egter van die duurste en daar was veral ’n besonder waardevolle versameling Persiese tapyte.” Die saad is gesaai vir die apartheidstaat se narratief waarin die Gerhardts geverf is as gierigaards, beweeg deur niks meer as geldsug nie. Die geskinder oor ’n huis vol “Persiese tapyte” en die “duurste toerusting en ornamente” kon die aandag aflei van die verleentheid van die veiligheidsmagte oor ’n spioen in die binnekring. Deur geld op te stel as die motief, kon die destydse regering die kollig wegkaats van vrae oor die onmenslike stelsel wat ’n junior vlootoffisier êrens in die jare sestig kon noop tot spioenasie teen sy land. Dit is na daardie onmenslikheid dat Dieter en Ruth Gerhardt telkens terugkeer as die beweeg- rede vir hul dade. “Die finale wekroep vir my was die doodslag van talle swart mense in die Nyanga- en Langa-onluste vroeg in 1960, tesame met die verdraaiing van die nuus om die waarheid te verdoesel,” skryf Dieter per e-pos uit sy woning in Basel, Switserland. “Ek was nie meer in staat om die vernedering, ontmensliking en misbruik van my ‘nie-blanke’ mede-burgers deur ’n wit minderheidsregering en sy veiligheidsmagte (waarvan ek deel was) te verdra nie.” Sonder om die misdadigheid van die apartheidsregime te erken, sê Dieter, kan sy en Ruth se optrede nie verstaan word nie. Dieter het Ruth Johr rondom Kersfees 1968 teen die ski-hange by Klosters in Switserland ontmoet. Sy het hom na Suid-Afrika gevolg, en hulle is op 15 September 1969 getroud. Ruth vertel hoe die Suid-Afrika van die laat jare sestig haar destyds getref het: hoe sy geruk is deur die vernederings waaraan “nie-blankes” onderwerp is, die ontmensliking. Destyds het sy teenoor Dieter uitgepak oor die onreg daarvan. Kort ná hul troue het hy haar vir ’n wandeling in die bos by Nuweland geneem. Hy het haar in sy vertroue geneem en gesê dat hy en ’n groepie eendersdenkendes saamwerk om ’n nuwe, regverdiger bedeling daar te stel en ’n burgeroorlog te vermy. Dit is geen versinsel nie, sê sy: vier dekades later onthou sy Dieter se presiese woorde. Maar hierdie verduideliking was een waarin die hof, die regering, Gerhardt se voormalige kollegas in die veiligheidsmagte en die media nie destyds belanggestel het nie. Dieter gee toe dat dit moeilik is om die “waarheid” te vind in die onderbos van verdraaiing wat deur albei kante gekweek is. Leuens, disinformasie, verdoeseling, verdraaiing – die ruilmiddele van oorlog en spioenasie... Ek gaan soek die waarheid in die uitspraak wat regter-president George Munnik van die Kaapse hooggeregshof in Desember 1983 in camera gelewer het. Sy uitspraak bevind dat kommodoor Gerhardt langer as 20?jaar ’n spioen vir die Sowjetunie was. Onderweg raak hy onvleiende dinge kwyt oor Dieter (’n “egoïs”) en Ruth (“in die algemeen nie ’n betroubare getuie nie”). “Die verhoor was ’n Kafka-agtige charade met al die partye – ook die regter, wat andersins professioneel was – wat die waarheid buig na hul eie belange,” sê die baasspioen op hierdie laatsomersdag, 28?jaar later. “Spioene het ’n 24/7-taak. Die dag as hulle gevang word, is vanselfsprekend ’n slegte dag, maar dít – en die dae van ondervraging wat volg – is deel van die werk. Dit was naïef van Munnik om te verwag dat Ruth maar net moes ‘hensop’: natuurlik moes sy voortgaan met die beneweling.” “Beskuldige no.1” se verweer, onthou hy, was ’n bewuste poging om verwarring te saai: hy het beweer hy was ’n dubbelagent vir ’n “versweë prinsipaal”, met ander woorde hy hét Suid-Afrika se militêre geheime aan die Russe gelewer, maar eers nadat dit deur die ongenoemde moondheid in disinformasie omskep is. Maar die vlootoffisier was vir die rotse bestem. Dieter en Ruth is aan hoogverraad skuldig bevind, en albei is tronk toe gestuur – hy lewenslank, sy vir 10?jaar. Die kompleksiteit van die soeke na waarheid staan skerp afgeteken in ’n dokument waarna die hof verwys as “RSC 51”. Lees die uitspraak, en hierdie dokument – ’n uiteensetting van Gerhardt se aktiwiteite as spioen, neergepen in New York in die dae ná sy inhegtenisneming – klink na die reine waarheid. Maar ook hier is niks so eenvoudig soos dit voorkom nie. “Die dokument wat voor die hof gedien het as my beweerde ‘Joernaal’ was nie meer in die oorspronklike vorm nie,” sê Dieter. “Ek het die hand- geskrewe dokument geskryf terwyl ek aangehou is ingevolge artikel 29 – in isolasie en onderwerp aan slaapontneming. “Die getikte weergawe wat aan die hof verskaf is, het bestaan uit alleen daardie dele van die dokument wat nuttig sou wees om ’n skuldigbevinding te verseker. Groot dele van die dokument, waaronder enige kritiek op die apartheidstaat en die ware redes vir my oorlopery, is doodgewoon uitgesny. Die regter het dit geweet, maar die verdediging se besware verwerp deur te sê hy het die volledige dokument gesien en die weg- gelate dele is irrelevant!” Met die wind van verandering in die vroeë jare negentig het die “verraaiers” van 1983 vir politieke vrywaring in aanmerking gekom. Skielik, anders as toe die saak voor regter Munnik gedien het, was die twispunt nie soseer wat hulle gedoen het nie, maar waarom. Die destydse minister van justisie, Kobie Coetsee, het sy besluit om in 1990 nie politieke vrywaring aan Dieter toe te staan nie, soos volg gemotiveer: “Uit hierdie dokument asook die applikant se eie getuienis blyk dit duidelik, en is dit inderdaad deur die hof aanvaar, dat die applikant se motief geldelik was. Die hof het bevind dat die applikant se poging om sy optrede te probeer knoop aan ’n poging om die politieke struktuur in die land te verander, slegs lippediens was.” Dít was diplomasie en politiekery op sy smerigste, sê Dieter: hy en Ruth was geregtig op politieke vrywaring, maar agter tralies was hulle nuttige pionne vir die De Klerk-regering in diplomatieke en handelsbetrekkinge met Rusland en Switserland. Terug, dus, by: “Waarom?” In haar boek uit 1999, The Spy’s Wife, het Dieter se eerste vrou, Janet Coggin, tot die volgende slotsom gekom: “All in all she felt the most probable reasonwas simply that it suited him and that it was more a case of human frailty than of vice.” Dieter verduidelik later per e-pos: “?’n Individu se redes om ‘oor te loop’ is altyd kompleks en sluit gewoonlik ’n aantal nie- geldelike redes in. Dit kan strek van doodgewoon raadop wees (miskien is ‘gatvol’ meer beskrywend) met die stelsel, tot suiwer ideologiese redes. My eie motivering is deeglik voor die WVK uiteengesit. Ek is weer en weer gevra vir verduidelikings oor die rol van geld in my motivering. My antwoorde moet bevredigend gewees het, want amnestie is toegestaan, al was dit nie nodig nie – ek het reeds voor dit ’n volle presidensiële kwytskelding ontvang.” Dit is dáárdie aanklag, voel dit meermale by ons middagete, meer as die staat se klagstaat van 1983, wat kwets: die bevraagtekening van hul motiewe, die aantyging dat hulle nie om verhewe politieke en morele redes gespioeneer het nie, maar vir geld. Tussen die vertoë rakende sy vrylatingsaansoeke van 1990 tot 1992 wat in die biblioteek by Wits bewaar word, vind ek ’n handgeskrewe bewysstuk van sy behandeling: “[Die notas] are disjointed, grammatically poorly constructed, etc. I had been told to write and given a book with numbered pages and a pencil. Write I did, but my mental and physical state was poor, in that I had been given a rather torrid time for some weeks?.?.?.?disorientating to say the least?.?.?.” Hulle het egter oorleef: in 1990 is Ruth vrygelaat ná ’n besoek deur pres. F.W. de Klerk aan Switserland, en in 1992 is Dieter vrygelaat ná ’n versoek van pres. Boris Jeltsin van Rusland. Hul verhouding het eweneens oorleef – deur die jare van spioenasie, verhoor, gevangenisstraf en vrylating. Ná haar vrylating het Ruth na Switserland teruggekeer. Ná Dieter se vrylating het hy hom by haar aangesluit, en hulle het hul lewe saam herbou. Dit is een rede, sê hy, waarom hy nie in die verlede wil delf nie: hulle kon bitterheid vermy juis omdat hulle nié te veel teruggekyk het nie. Daar was destyds skimpe dat hulle s’n ’n geriefshuwelik was, miskien aangestig deur Ruth se (versinde) verweer in 1983 dat sy haar rol as koerier onder dwang vervul het. Maar om te kyk na hierdie egpaar – oupa en ouma ná 40?jaar se getroude lewe – is om te besef dat daardie skimp nog ’n versinsel was. Toe hulle in 1983 in hegtenis geneem is, is hul seuntjie, Gregory, toe 5½ jaar oud, gestuur om by ’n tante in Switserland te woon. Ruth onthou hoe die veiligheidspolisie haar probeer afpers het deur haar te herinner aan Gregory en watter “swak ma” sy is. Tog, sê Dieter, het hy geen besware oor wat met hulle gebeur het nie – sy ontmaskering deur ’n Russiese dubbel-agent van die CIA, Wladimir Wetrof, die tronkstraf, die verguising. Dit alles was deel van die risiko wat hulle geweet het hulle loop deur vir die Sowjetunie te spioeneer. Dit was Ruth wat Dieter se verslae – meer as 400 000 bladsye geheime inligting oor byna 20?jaar – aan agente van die Sowjetunie se militêre intelligensie, die GRU, gelewer het by ontmoetings so reg uit Le Carré of Forsyth in Zürich, Madrid en Antananarivo. Hul twee hanteerders – Grigori Sjirobokof en Vitaly Sjlikof – het hegte vriende van die Gerhardts geword. Bo sy lessenaar wys Gerhardt my later foto’s van sy familie. Tussen die foto’s van hom, Ruth en Gregory, pryk foto’s van Sjirobokof, nou oorlede, en die man na wie Gerhardt se seun genoem is, en Sjlikof. Maar het iemand soos Sjirobokof nie verskriklik vuil hande gehad nie? Hy was immers reeds in die Tweede Wêreldoorlog (die dae van Josef Stalin) ’n Sowjet-intelligensieoffisier. Ja, antwoord Gerhardt, hy het, maar dit kon kwalik anders: spioenasie is ’n soort oorlog, en oorlog is ’n morsige besigheid. Regdeur ons gesprek bespeur ek by Gerhardt ’n refleksreaksie van geheimhouding, die gewoonte van ’n leeftyd. Maar daar is ’n verskil tussen leuens en geheimhouding, en ek kry nie die gevoel dat hy vir my lieg nie, nie dat hy oneerlik is nie. Ek besef egter hy vertel my alleen wat hy dink vir my nodig is om te weet. Ek kry die gevoel hy voel gemakliker daarmee om sy verhaal deur die mond van ander te vertel. In hul huis in Noordhoek haal hy Al J. Venter se boek How South Africa Built Six Atom Bombs and then Abandoned Its Nuclear Weapons Program van die rak en laat my twee bladsye lees. “The most damaging aspect of Gerhardt’s espionage work...was the knowledge he managed to amass about the country’s nuclear weapons program, particularly the projected ‘Vastrap’ test site in a remote area of the Kalahari Desert, where the first test of a non-nuclear packageto be used in future atomic devices, was scheduled for August 1977,” skryf Venter en sit uiteen hoe Gerhardt hierdie inligting aan die Sowjetunie verskaf het, met die gevolg dat die owerheid in Moskou druk op die regering in Washington uitgeoefen het om die Suid-Afrikaners van hul toets te laat afsien. “The resulting furore aroused heavy international pressure which forced the South Africans to call off the test; and by that one act Gerhardt almost certainly changed the entire course of events in Southern Africa.” Al was dít al wat ek bereik het, sê Dieter, was die jare in die tronk die moeite werd. Dit was egter meer as net die tronkstraf. Regdeur sy jare as spioen het hy in vrees geleef: vrees vir ontmaskering en die galgtou wat daarop kon volg. In ’n onderhoud met die Israelse koerant Haaretz in 2000 – sy enigste diepte-onderhoud tot dusver – het hy erken sy inhegtenisneming deur die FBI in New York in 1982 het as ’n verligting gekom. Ná jare van geheimhouding, van ’n dubbele lewe lei, van oor sy skouer loer, van voldoen aan die stygende eise van sy Sowjet-hanteerders het die juk van sy skouers geval. Saam met die FBI se boeie het ’n soort bevryding gekom. Gerhardt is deur Amerikaners en Britte ondervra. Nadat hulle met hom klaar was, is hy aan Suid-Afrika oorhandig. Op die vlug van Johannesburg na Kaapstad was hy vergesel van onder andere genl. Lothar Neethling, destyds hoof van die polisie se forensiese laboratorium. Op die vlug het Gerhardt ’n Faustiaanse pakt probeer beding: volgens Neethling se getuienis het Gerhardt aangebied om te spring. In ruil vir Ruth se vryheid sou hy homself offer deur uit die vliegtuig na sy dood te spring en die Totale Aanslag-staat die verleentheid van sy verhoor te spaar. Sy aanbod is van die hand gewys, en die gereg het sy beloop geneem. Sowel Dieter as Ruth het die galg vrygespring, ondanks die aanklaer se vertoë ten gunste van die doodstraf. Regter Munnik het in sy uitspraak gesê: “I do not propose to pass the death sentence on you, Accused no 1. Had there been evidence that the information your transmitted to the USSR had led directly to the death of a single South African soldier, my decision may well have been otherwise.” Gevangenisstraf was geen grap nie, maar Ruth onthou ook die sonderlinge gemeenskap van dissidente in die tronk: Barbara Hogan, Trish Hanekom, Jansie Niehaus, Hélène Passtoors. Hul bande uit die struggle-jare is steeds sterk: Dieter wys ’n foto van Gregory as tiener op ’n rusbank saam met Nelson Mandela in die vroeë jare negentig in Switserland, en van homself saam met ’n laggende Winnie. Hul liefde vir Suid-Afrika is ooglopend, al bespeur ek ’n ongemak oor van die dinge wat tans gebeur: nie alleen met die koers van die ANC-regering in sekere opsigte nie, maar ook oor die wyse waarop rasse steeds afsonderlike lewens lei. Kyk rondom ons in hierdie lieflike restaurant, sê Ruth: daar is geen enkele gesig wat nie wit is nie. Verhale, perspektiewe, uitkykpunte, fragmente van waarheid wat loer van agter ’n gordyn van geheimhouding. Hier is ’n menslike verhaal wat afgespeel het op die ontmenslikende verhoog van Suid-Afrika in die apartheidstyd en die Koue Oorlog. Maar wat was die verhaal? Dit is ’n verloklike vraag met ’n ontwykende antwoord.

thanks. as a source must not necessarily be in english, it would be valid for our article. was it published in the sunday edition of this beeld? which date? as far as i can judge there are important statements and information about your motives ("Die finale wekroep vir my was die doodslag van talle swart mense...." and something about persian carpets which reads like a claim by the prosecution that you were paid for with them), about the relation to the soviet agents (shlykov became a friend of the gerhardts as far as i understood), the handing over of secrets (in Zürich, Madrid and Antananarivo?), the transfer of information about SA's nuclear weapons according to venter's book, the interrogations ("kafkaeesque"; by Lothar Neethling, who was from the police?; also by an intelligence service?), judge munnik's comment in english about the death penalty during the trial, about janet coggin's book, a comment by pw botha, circumstances of gerhardt's detention (in isolation?) and of his wife (together with Barbara Hogan), the acquaintance of James Gregory, the decision by justice minister Kobie Coetsee not to treat/classify gerhardt as political prisoner in 1990 (who were released then after an order of de klerk), the circumstances of the release (both the yeltsin intervention and the requests of gerhardt are mentioned), the life in switzerland afterwards, and his opinion about the post apartheid south africa. if you could translate a bit from afrikaans, we could use some of this information in the article.-- Severino ( talk) 18:26, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

wow, i even found the link: http://www.beeld.com/By/Nuus/Spioen-spioen-n-Ware-verhaal-20111111-2 -- Severino ( talk) 21:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

It's already linked from the article... Socrates2008 ( Talk)

DG - do you have any plans to publish a book? I've read pretty much everything about your case that I can lay my hands on, but I have to admit that like André­ Pretorius, I'm not finding any answers to the obvious questions being posed here. His summary is extremely insightful: "Maar wat was die verhaal? Dit is ’n verloklike vraag met ’n ontwykende antwoord." ("But what was the story? It is an intriguing question with an elusive answer") Socrates2008 ( Talk) 10:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Gerhardt was a Soviet spy, providing info on SA, the UK and others in the context of the Cold War. He was exposed, tried and convicted by SA, and that's all that needs to be said in the lead - none of that is relevant to SA Apartheid policies, and there's no need to link to that article, other than if you aim to push a certain POV. He did advance opposition to SA Apartheid policies as one of the many excuses for his treason during his trial, so we link to Apartheid in that section. Jeff Song ( talk) 19:42, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

he was "exposed", "tried" and convicted by the apartheid system and trying to omit that fact is a try to push a "certain" POV. "treason" was a main excuse of the apartheid system to convict people who opposed the apartheid. the context of a conviction matters as it does in the cases of steven biko, sophie scholl and many others. so we link to the article about apartheid ZA in the lead. user "jeff song" could seize this change to read the article and learn a bit about apartheid. (maybe i'm naive and he knows already and it's this knowledge which he causes him to push this pov.)-- Severino ( talk) 11:16, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

"...he was "exposed", "tried" and convicted by the apartheid system" - actually, he was exposed by French intelligence services following the defection of a KBG officer - the South Africans knew nothing until he was arrested in New York. So agreeing with the Jeff Song here. If you feel that political context is really necessary, then please add this to the main body of the article without using Easter Egg links. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 05:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

jeffsong:"He was exposed, tried and convicted by SA.."

socrates2008: "..he was exposed by French intelligence services following the defection of a KBG officer"

socrates2008: "So agreeing with the Jeff Song here"

interesting.-- Severino ( talk) 09:20, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't read it correctly. I'm agreeing with both of you, but not fully in either case. Governments and politics change over time - I don't know that it's appropriate to change the weight, as there are already several points in the article mentioning the context and dates when this occured. e.g. Do we need to say who was in government in France (where the information was obtained), the US (where he was arrested), Israel (where he obtained military secrets), the UK (where he had contact with RN submariners or the Soviet Union whom he worked for? The Cold War sets the context for all of these.

On another, err, point - could you please refrain from removing all the double spaces at the end of each sentence? While there's certainly active debate about this, single spacing is not in the manual of style and therefore does not need to be "corrected". Thanks. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 23:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

"apartheid" is mentioned twice now in the article, if there is an undue weight, then it's not on this side, on the contrary. and, it was not the name for a legislative period but for a regime which extendend over 46 years. in usa, france,..., the system didn't change since then and the france we think of now is (more or less) the same france it was then. ZA is not the same, it didn't change it's name (the break in the countries of the former soviet union with the communist system is cognizable by their names) but nonetheless the system changed substantially. this matters all the more in this context as -according to some sources- his "treachery" was motivated by opposition to this regime and in post apartheid south africa his "crime" no longer counts as such (and i don't mention the "leck of independence" in the judiciary then -the judiciary which convicted him- for the moment).

d'accord with the double spacing.-- Severino ( talk) 09:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

It is undue weight because the nature of the SA governemnt had nothing to do with his cold war espionage activities. Spain also didn't change it's name between 1900 and 2000, and yet when we talk about Manuel Delgado Villegas, we don't say he was arrested in Francoist Spain, because the nature of the regime is irrelevant to his crimes. Same here. You are now edit warring to introduce this POV against two editors - please get consensus before reintroducing this into the article. Jeff Song ( talk) 18:46, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

it has "to do" and you have not understood the arguments. the nature of the regime was relevant for his defection. btw, it's telling (about your POV) that you compare gerhardt with an (apolitical) mass murderer. and, when we talk about south africa, what he did it's not considered a crime in today's ZA. read the discussion, there are 2 editors who support the inclusion of the fact and stop edit warring.-- Severino ( talk) 20:17, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

That his espionage (not defection) against Britain and the US had anything to do with apartheid is a POV. It is getting its due weight by listing that as the reason given by DG after his trail. Anything else is POV-pushing. And, not that it is relevant in any way, but unlike your claims, espionage is most certainly a crime in today South Africa. Two editors have disagreed with you on this, and the onus is on you to include this material. Please get such consensus first. Jeff Song ( talk) 20:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

2 editors disagree with your POV. your interpretation of the events is not of relevance. facts count and among them are that in 1983 there was the apartheid system in ZA, gerhardt's defection for which he was convicted, doesn't count as a crime in today's ZA as one can read in the article.-- Severino ( talk) 20:38, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I only see you disagreeing with me, and two disagreeing with you, but that is beside the point. The onus for getting consensus is on those wishing to add material to the article, not ion those questioning its addition. The article says he got a life sentence for high treason, not for defection, which is still a crime. Jeff Song ( talk) 20:43, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

it doesn't matter what YOU see or not, it matters what the editors write here on the discussion page.

Wikipedia:Consensus inter alia says:

Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean that decisions must be unanimous (which, although an ideal result, is not always achievable); it is not a vote either. It means, rather, that the decision-making process involves an effort to incorporate editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting our norms.

i won't play along your edit warring game; most people do know what apartheid meant and will be able to bring this story into relation. nonetheless, the link is appropriate and will be restored then. also, it's not relevant that treason is a crime in today's ZA. it's relevant that gerhardt was acquitted at the end of the apartheid era and later granted amnesty.-- Severino ( talk) 21:09, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

If you claim "2 editors disagree" with me and I can only see you disagreeing with me, then it matters a bit, no? Who is the other editor supposedly disagreeing with me? I understand what consensus means, and that's why it is clear to me that you do not have it here. I have accommodated your desire for mentioning Apartheid in linking to it where it is appropriate- when discussing some of the motivations for espionage put forth by DG himself. what have you done to accommodate my concerns? And you continue to misstate facts. DG was not "acquitted" - he was released early - by the Apartheid government no less- upon a personal appeal by the leader of the country he spied for. Jeff Song ( talk) 21:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

it doesn't matter that you don't see who else disagrees with you here cause it's vividly clear. also, you don't understand how wikipedia defines "consensus". just for the record: I accomodated your desire for concealing the nature of the regime gerhardt "betrayed" in linking it not in the lead but at least in the section about the arrest and trial. the circumstances of gerhardt's release and amnesty (if the story with the yeltsin intervention holds water is another question) do speak a clear language: de klerk dismantled apartheid (he legalized political parties the apartheid regime has outlawed, freed political prisoners, suspended the apartheid laws, withdraw the military from angola and namibia and so forth) and gerhardts release took place in this framework. the TRC granted amnesty to him as it did to other persons who were convicted or wanted for activities the apartheid authorities considered as crimes, for example the couple who carried out a sabotage attack on a nuclear installation.-- Severino ( talk) 22:26, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Well maybe I'm just stupid, but I don't see the "vividly clear" editor who disagrees with me. Is it too much to ask that you spell it out? DG's betrayal of British and American secrets to the Soviets has nothing do with Apartheid. He claimed that as a motivation after being caught, and that is spelled out in the article, with a link to Apartheid. Anything else is POV pushing, and it can't be stated in Wikipedia's neutral voice. Jeff Song ( talk) 22:37, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm under no obligation to continue this pseudo discussion just because I want a balanced and appropriate account in this article. The more as the other side is not able to listen/answer to arguments (and read the discussion) and it's concern with the linking in question seems to be the balanced account (instead of POV pushing).

For interested editors, some notes to the "discussion":

• I had no time yet to check the claim with Yeltsin's intervention (which allegedly lead to Gerhardt's release) but anyway Yeltsin was the President of Russia and never of the Soviet Union

• We have to treat with caution what Gerhardt stated in the trial (or in interrogations). Statements he made under the circumstances of having been arrested and indicted by the Apartheid authorities must be considered and treated in this context. We cannot pretend that someone who was charged with an offense against the apartheid system had nothing to fear and had to expect fair treatment.

• Misconceiving or denying the nature of the regime is also inappropriate when we review the circumstances of Gerhardt's release. As I wrote already, this took place within the wider context of De Klerk's dismantling of the apartheid system. In this period, many people (like Robert McBride) whose crimes had a political character, were released even if this character was not acknowledged at the time of their indictment/conviction. Also the grant of amnesty to him sheds light on the importance of the nature of the regime and the character of the action in the case of Gerhardt. "The commission was empowered to grant amnesty to those who committed abuses during the apartheid era, as long as the crimes were politically motivated,...."

-- Severino ( talk) 08:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

and one more thing: linking to the article about south africa under apartheid in connection with his extradiction doesn't mean yet to make a statement about gerhardt and his activities. it's information about the then political context. and the POV pushing starts with omitting that context.-- Severino ( talk) 12:26, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the fact that you wrote nearly 300 words in response , without naming this "vividly clear" editor who disagrees with me as an implicit admission that you made it up - it's just you. If you find sources that discuss DG's early release in the context of De Klerk's dismantling of the Apartheid system, and attribute this release to that policy, we can add them to the article - until then it's just your personal interpretation of the events and will kept out. Jeff Song ( talk) 19:10, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

this editor considers himself so important that he believes i wrote in response to him; and is not able to read who else on the talk page made proposals (filling whole sections) which are against his POV...

i was very patient but one editor's interpretations and "concerns" cannot proscribe what is a matter of course for the sake of the neutrality and circumstantiality of wikipedia like this one wikilink.

Wikipedia:Consensus states: "No consensus" means that there is no consensus either way: it means that there is no consensus to take an action, but it also and equally means that there is no consensus not to take the action. What the community does next depends on the context.

also Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is relevant here.

-- Severino ( talk) 21:00, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" is someone's personal essay. It is not policy. In contrast WP:V is policy, and it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You need to get consensus for your position. Jeff Song ( talk) 21:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Severino, you're revert-warring against valid objections by other editors here with an edit summary that says "per talk" as though your position achieved consensus. It did not. Self-revert and continue the discussion.— Biosketch ( talk) 10:12, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

i cited from the wikipedia guidelines concerning "consensus". there is no consensus for concealing that south africa was under the apartheid system in the 1980s. if you want to continue the discussion (and not just follow somebody here), bring arguments, as i did.-- Severino ( talk) 10:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with the weight given to highlighting the government of the day, but I can't see this point being important enough to argue over, so suggest everyone take a deap breath and move on.

PS: On the subject of POV, we don't have to "treat with caution what Gerhardt stated in the trial", other than to state that he said this at this trial (anything else would be sythesis by an editor). Socrates2008 ( Talk) 09:54, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the page 'South Africa Under Apartheid" has recently been renamed to Apartheid in South Africa. That would erode any previous arguments about linking to this page rather than South Africa. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 07:55, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Socrates 2008., The overbearing biased attitude in the recent editing process does not appeal! Please refrain from going into an adversarial mode with contributors who are trying to be helpful. The article is WP property and not that of individual Editors. Your antipathies are understood and sympathized with to a certain extent. However, no progress can be made with your pushing own pov and rejecting references that somehow do not fit in your scheme of thinking. If the necessary collaboration cannot be found then WP will be approached according to the rules to have a new set of Editors to address this post. As an aside, I admire the way you have been able to cross reference and order the page. Good work. Please do me the additional favour of following up on references given and do not exclude or remove references if you personally are not able to get hold of them. I have previously indicated that I will mail them PDF to a mail address of your choice which will give you the opportunity to peruse documents. For instance, the Haaretz article, which somehow now proves to be elusive. Of course that will be the case! It not only contained aspects such as motivation but also subject material, which is uncomfortable to the Israeli State and has thus been removed from the web. As mentioned previously (but obviously not accepted by yourself) the motive was related to the political system of Apartheid being implemented in SA at the time. This system is well described in David Welshes book “The rise and fall of Apartheid” By David Welsh Johnathan Ball Publishers Johannesburg and Cape Town (2009) ISBN978 1 86842 352 1. The term Apartheid South Africa is valid just as are the terms NAZI Germany and Weimar Germany are generally recognized to convey certain epochs in a country’s history Your insertion in juxtaposition of the sum of money handed over by “Bob” to the subject during the many years of their working together is seen as another attempt at branding DFG as a mercenary spy despite the very clear statement by Vitaly Schlykov that money was not the motivator. As we now have from a knowledgeable source and presumably reliable source (as you personally quote him in the post) that money was not the reason for the subjects defection we at least know what was definitely not the reason for his defection i.e. money. Please state this clearly. If you are not prepared to do this may we have further discussion and eventually some form of consensus on this point?. The personal motivations are contained in previous talks - to be re- reviewed and accepted or rejected by the editorial team. The subject reasons were given to the TRC who gave him amnesty. This amnesty was dependent on their acceptance of a political motivation for what one considers as a purely political crime of High Treason. If the editorial team refuses to accept the TRC findings on motivation they should bring the necessary arguments or approach the TRC directly . A general comment on the aspect of money. The major power’s intelligence organisations are not some a kind of Mickey Mouse outfits. They look after their Assets so as to ensure than financial matters do not shift the focus away from operational collection efforts .The same excellent provision philosophy goes for all persons engaged in action, covert or otherwise, civilian or military!. For example, take any tank commander in the field No one queries his motivation regarding personal gain when he is entrusted with an expensive tank and it’s ammunition. Furthermore,no detail is provided over how long a period was being considered, or whether funds were provided for personal reasons or for instance, for operational travel, procurement of special logistic support items or services etc etc. and/or a myriad of possible other non personal reasons. Too many unknowns incorporated in that new insert should please be deleted and not just slipped in surreptitiously without discussion. . General Comment: To survive in the field it is necessary for Agents to fit in precisely with the norms of their peer groups including in those aspects related to finance. This, the subject did most efficiently having successfully come through four positive vetting exercises during his career. It must also not be overlooked that he was working in “enemy “ territory for a period exceeding the duration of three WWIIs and must have required both external and internal support. from time to time Dear Socrates, if you feel unable to treat the post in an equitable manner and argue your case point by point then it may be best if you recused yourself from this case. My own personal wish is that you stay on the task. Together with the other current members of the team we can make an interesting and accurate contribution. As is said in the murky world of espionage “seldom is anything as it appears to be” and plausible denial is name of the game. The questions you are asked are reasonable and will be answered as and when a reasonable modus operandi is agreed to and time to prepare the answers can be found..i.e. it is not sufficient to simply answer to the question of when the first batches of material were supplied to say “SACP - may 1960 or GRU April 1964.These dates need to be placed in context of historical /political realities /attitudes and events occurring at the time not only in SA but also in the target countries.. For instance in the US the Black Civil Rights movement from 1955,the Birmingham race riots of 1963 and the assassination of the Rev Martin Luther King. That’s it for the moment Best regards DFGéöàä

Thanks for your reply - I hope to see you engaging here in a constructive manner, and sticking to discussing subject matter rather than launching any further personal attacks against editors. The requirements for referencing are not of my own invention, but rather Wikipedia policy that is applied throughout the project. Any perceived "antipathies" or POV on my part stem directly from a desire to ensure that these policies are closely adhered to. As a newcomer, I suspect that you may not yet be completely familiar with them, so I urge to to familiarise yourself with WP:V and WP:RELY as these two core policies may help you to appreciate how this project works and what the requirements are around the addition of new material. If you're able to persuade any other regular WP editors to assist in updating this article, that would of course be most appreciated as it would make the workload easier. You should however beware of someting called a meat puppet.

Your narrative above is very interesting, but unfortunately is of little direct use in exanding this article; what we require are independent sources that the editors here can consult and use as references. On that note, the Haaretz and Felix and Lena articles would be particularly useful if available.

Coming back to the subject of your motivation, I've done a lot of research on this topic, but I keep coming across conflicting information:

• While many people back in the apartheid days found the system to be abhorrent, you stand alone in terms of the nature of the action that you took to rebel against it. Why did you take this approach?
• While I am fully aware that you were granted amnesty by the TRC, we don't currently have access to the record to see what you said or what the grounds for amnesty were.
• Janet Coggin says she was a liberal, but makes no mention of a your replusion towards Apartheid as being a motivating factor, despite commenting at length on this topic.
• You passed on secrets of NATO and countries other than South Africa; How was the damage done to them detrimental to Apartheid rather than being a classic Cold scenario?
• When lobbying for your release in Jan 1992, why did the ANC in their press statement not describe you as a political prisoner, rather than as a Cold War spy?
• According to Vitaly Shlykov, money was not a motivator; why did you accept it then? (e.g. Multiple sources indicate that he was going to hand over $100,000 in payment in the last meeting when he was arrested).
• What's the relevance of the interment of your father for being a Nazi sympathiser, or was this a faux defence at your trial?
• The apartheid era court case was held in camera to avoid potential embaressment to the old regime. Although the court record is now in the public domain, we don't have access to it here - what motive are we likely to see on the record that the Apartheid regime wanted to suppress, or is there no point in looking for one here?

I'd be grateful if you you refer us to a source that could help clarify some of the above confusion. If there's a book coming out, please let us know.

PS: Could I please ask you to break up your future posts into paragraphs - the large blocks of text that you're posting are extremely difficult to read.

Thank you. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 13:20, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Answers to specific questions posed by Editing Staff.

Dear Socrates 2008 My reply to your questions. • What source should we consult to understand what your motivations were? Earlier on in the DFG talk a clear statement as to motivation was provided by myself. Comment : No one else other than the individual himself can in fact know precisely the why or wherefore a particular chosen decision set and or path of action is pursued – they can only try and make deductions from actual events as they occurred. The following letter reflecting the formal state judicial finding was located in my archives dated 3rd March 1992 (written before release from Pretoria Max Security Prison) from addressed by the Hon. R. N. Leon , (Apparently a well respected judge) Head of the Indemnity Committee, Private Bag X54314 Durban 4000,to Ms Kathleen Satchwell, Attorney, Johannesburg re Political Prisoner DFG Extract “Page 2/paragraph 2: That finding is in accordance with an earlier finding in the Judgment that The applicants reasons for offering his services as an espionage agent for the Russians to bring about by force a change in the social structure in South Africa “his reasons for this being what he regarded as the extremely inequitable political system which mainly centered on the needs of one section of the population – the Whites…….That this system would remain in force indefinitely if not opposed by force, was one of the conclusions he arrived at. Furthermore he also decided that the most effective vehicle to work through would be the Soviets””

• What source should we consult to find out what year you started spying? No known public domain or “reliable” source has seemingly commented on this matter to date. I know these of course but as you have indicated in pretty direct terms that anything I personally may wish to contribute to the discussion is suspect. I therefore refrain. Incidentally, my place of Birth Cape Town with the appropriate reference attached is still being questioned! Why? You will therefore understand my hesitancy in responding without the smoking “gun evidence” which I unfortunately do not have!

• On what grounds were you arrested in the US, if your spying activities did not take place in that country? Again, we need a source for this. ▪ It is not necessary to be present in a country to spy on it. All that is required is to be able to intercept the information flow between that country and the partner with which it is exchanging information or components or what have you! In the case in question the USA and the Republic of South Africa. Of interest may be the following articles indicating such a flow existed! (i) the SA Sunday Times article of Sept 15 1991 by Simon Barber from Washington.” Did CIA allow SA to buy Arms? and (ii) This article was downloaded by: [Monash University] On: 18 November 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 907465088] Publisher Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Cold War History Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713634851 Sunset over Atomic Apartheid: United States-South African nuclear relations, 1981-93 Martha van Wyk First published on: 07 August 2009 To cite this Article van Wyk, Martha(2009) 'Sunset over Atomic Apartheid: United States-South African nuclear relations, 1981-93', Cold War History,, First published on: 07 August 2009 (iFirst) To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/14682740902764569 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14682740902764569 • There is conflicting information about who was involved in your release - what's the best source for this? The primary parties involved in my release were: The S.P. Office of SA “i.e. S.P.de Klerk” S.P. Office of the Russian Federation i.e Boris Yeltsin The Swiss Federation and the African National Congress. In the press at the time of my release all these parties were mentioned in the SA daily press of that date i.e. 28th August 1992. Best source not known by me! Sorry!

• While many people back in the apartheid days found the system to be abhorrent, you stand alone in terms of the nature of the action that you took to rebel against it. Why did you take this approach? This statement is not correct. Many other concerned whites worked closely with Moscow during the struggle years. e.g.. Braam Fisher and family, Rica Hodges and family, Joe Slovo and family, Rusty Bernstein and family, Ronnie Kasrils and family etc etc as well as many, many more. I cannot speak for other non-involved whites as to why they did not take the same approach that I did. Maybe most whites were not prepared to move out their privileged comfort zones or stand in to danger on behalf of 88% of their fellow citizens who had a tad more melanin in their pigmentation and were being severely discriminated against. Maybe they just decided to remain “apolitical”, keep their heads low and hope the country would muddle through peacefully? Personally I certainly do not know what their thinking was but can like everyone else make an educated guess – absolute indifference to the plight of their fellow citizens or lack of civil courage! Derived from extensive observations over the years may I make so bold as to say “many of the whites refused to recognize the essential humanness of their black compatriots and thus justified their discriminating actions.” My approach was taken in consultation and on advice of senior members of the SACP who were unable at the time to effectively deal with additional tasking due to various threats emanating from the Security Police at the time. They were particularly concerned at indications of the deep penetration of Security Police spies into their ranks. (namely, a not too small white informally bound community of dedicated anti apartheid activists clustered together under the banner of the then already banned SACP.) Note: No whites were formally admitted to the then also banned ANC at the time. As a supposed member of the far right I was able to gain more insight than most into the covert strategies of the National Party and could guess which way matters would run in the future. An armed struggle was inevitable as a result of Nationalist Party determination to push through it’s discriminatory policies without regard to black needs or wishes – also that the west as a whole and the UK and USA in particular were not yet so far as to recognize the disadvantages posed by continuing to support and cooperate with the apartheid regime. I find it delightfully ironic that the US now has a black President – an excellent and popular one at that! How times change?

• While I am fully aware that you were granted amnesty by the TRC, we don't currently have access to the record to see what you said or what the grounds for amnesty were.

Neither do I have access to the TRC records or the reasoning behind the granting of amnesty. Of relevance is only the recognition (whatever the reasons may be) by the TRC of a political motive for the High Treason. Full stop! It seems to me that this question is outside your terms of reference as an WP editor. Suggest you drop taking on the role of judging the subject and thus somehow try to attempt to rewrite history according to your own pov which thus far has been manifestly hostile and biased. Examples as such bias will be provided on request ! Question – have we not had enough of the “Boere” trying to do this revision by introducing new distortions to SA history since 1994 and so attempt to ameliorate the effects of their past actions?

• Janet Coggin says she was a liberal, but makes no mention of a your repulsion towards Apartheid as being a motivating factor, despite commenting at length on this topic. I personally do not comment on or get drawn into any controversy or matters concerning my ex wife (now deceased) who deserves and has earned the necessary respect from me as the mother of our joint children not to be subjected to my counter criticism. Let me just say that a novel that you keep referring to cannot be regarded as a reliable source. The fact is that she never informed on me! That must mean something! Maybe she was concerned about MI6 or BOSS as opposed to reprisals from the Soviets?

▪ You passed on secrets of NATO and countries other than South Africa; How was the damage done to them detrimental to Apartheid rather than being a classic Cold scenario?

This question is really not worthy of your intelligence and my replying to it! I propose that you consider the matter carefully –perhaps in the context of cordon sanitaire and alliances set up by the SA with the western countries in the colonial occupied countries to the north South Africa where the major part of the freedom struggle took place.

▪ When lobbying for your release in Jan 1992, why did the ANC in their press statement not describe you as a political prisoner, rather than as a Cold War spy?

Again, I cannot account for what is included or excluded in a particular press release except maybe to speculate that “Cold War spy” may look better in print and sell more copy. Previously the ANC had made representations for my release for on many occasions, for instance, including my name on the list submitted to the Government of political prisoners to be released. As indicated previously the following letter was sent to me from Madiba personally. I do not feel that I need add to anything he says. He is after all a legal man understanding precisely the meaning of the words he uses! Dear Comrade Dieter. It was with great joy that I received the wonderful news that the long ordeal of your prison sentence and separation from your family , has finally come to an end. That the government continued to imprison you, along with many other comrades, despite their respective undertakings to release all political prisoners, was a source of great concern and anger. I wish you a very happy reunion with Ruth and your children, especially with Gregory. Who had to grow up without a father for so many years. On behalf of the African National Congress I would like to convey to you and your family our appreciation of all your sacrifices in the struggle against apartheid. Allow me to also extend my warmest personal greetings. We hope that you will soon return to South Africa. There is still much work to be done. We look forward to seeing you soon Amandla! Signed Nelson R. Mandela.

• According to Vitaly Shlykov, money was not a motivator; why did you accept it then? (e.g. Multiple sources indicate that he was going to hand over $100,000 in payment in the last meeting when he was arrested). This again is a repeat of a previously submitted question slightly rephrased. Rather naïve but nevertheless reasonable for a lay person. I made the general comment concerning money matters in the domain of intelligence collection and espionage. Keeping the “peer”group image intact¨There are many “non personal” needs for money arising from day to day collection operations. I like others also had a myriad of non personal work related demands which would have been absolutely impossible to finance out of own resources. I recommend you read the following and think about the field officers operating modus and survival strategies. The work of espionage is extremely demanding . Sometimes very complex involving much planning and choreographing of specific collection operations utilizing a wide range of special equipment or persons who remain unaware of the true nature of their participation in a particular action. The following ref is informative. www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house/intel/ic21/ic21009.html responsible for foreign clandestine intelligence operations (i.e., espionage, .... the National Foreign Intelligence Program budget, clandestine operations cost a ...

• What's the relevance of the interment of your father for being a Nazi sympathizer, or was this a faux defense at your trial? To me personally the relevance of his internment was that I was politicized very early on in life. Also an understanding was arrived at that politics plays a great part in fundamental existential aspects of one’s life. As a German speaking South African I attended a German School at a time when the country SA was engaged in a war with Nazi Germany. Not a particularly desirable or happy situation to be in. Children can be awfully cruel to each other! ¨Then after the WWII film clips were released in movie news programs showing the German Concentration Camps etc. A very clear display of man’s inhumanity to man. Made a great impression on me as an eleven year old boy. Yet after his release my father again joined up again with these groupings that were prepared to perpetuate these highly reprehensible policies in SA, perhaps in a more subtle and covert form but nevertheless no less disadvantageous to the population segments effected.

• The apartheid era court case was held in camera to avoid potential embarrassment to the old regime. Although the court record is now in the public domain, we don't have access to it here - what motive are we likely to see on the record that the Apartheid regime wanted to suppress, or is there no point in looking for one here? Am not aware that the court record is now in public domain. I believe the principal motive for making the case run in camera had to do with attempts to hide from the general public aspects of cooperation between SA and foreign countries who were breaking United Nations resolutions or even going against there own publically stated policies. • If there's a book coming out, please let us know. No such book is intended. Important now is that the race groups find peace with other and the transformation proceeds smoothly and in a constructive manner. Dit is nie nodig om die volkies in die gesig te vat nie! Many of them are living with feelings of guilt. It is also a fact that a great number of whites apparently remain in a state of absolute denial regarding their responsibility for helping to maintain apartheid in place. Very few of the main perpetrators of Apartheid Crimes presented themselves to the TRC ? Why? They somehow believe that by engaging me the supposed real bogey man “rooi gevaar” they are able to justify their past. ( see Kyknet’s recent TV program on the Simon’s Town spies). History will not let them off so easy as more and more information comes to light – which incidentally is the case at present. However my view is that we must finally recognize that far too many young persons have been crippled physically or mentally by the apartheid legacy! It is time for healing – not for pointing fingers or taking reprisals! Whether the blacks will show the required generosity of spirit in the future to do this still hangs in the balance. That SA has a wonderful democratic constitution in place. A great opportunity to permit peaceful transformation to proceed exists. All those that feel they have benefitted from political change in southern Africa have much to thank Moscow for it’s past intervention in this part of the world. That it for the moment DFGéöàä

Thanks for your long and considered reply. I'll contact my library to try to track down some of the sources you mention. The information above helps to provide context, however I get the impression that I'm not going to find much of this in published form. You should write a book, as I expect there will be considerable interest in it. Socrates2008 ( Talk) 10:58, 25 January 2012 (UTC)