Talk:Eddie Chapman

Von Groening

Who is von Gröning? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.223.147.182 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also intrigued to know who he might have been. No trace so far using the internet as a source. Funnily, also German sites mention him, but in obvious quotes of UK pages and Wiki. But no German resistance data base so far lists him. So I suspect the real Groening too was using an alias. L'Etranger (talk) 17:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be some discrepancy or inconsistency with the spelling of Von Groening. I've seen it spelled "von Gruenen", "von Grunen", and "von Gruening". In the article by NY Times, December 20, 1997 by Richard Goldstein, it mentions "Baron Stefan von Grunen" was present at the wedding of Eddie Chapman's daughter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.230.236.74 (talk) 07:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Double agent?

so, apparently this guy gave fake information to the nazi's (or at least claimed to have given them false information). did he do the same for the other side? give mi5 bullshit-information? presumably in a war it would have been rather easy to get away with that that kind of lies. was he loyal to england or did he just bluff his way through the whole thing, making friends on both sides and making sure his bed was made no matter who would ultimately win the war? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.246.66 (talk) 22:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Have you read MacIntyre's book? To me there seems to be evidence for the information being good to the British and bad to the Germans, however, that could be related to the filtering system and cross checking the British secret services would have done. Motivation is a whole different thing - why he did what he did could have been for money rather than loyalty. We cannot claim to know the truth. He was a survivor and a player therefore there will always be doubt over his motivations, but judge a man on the evidence. The closest to evidence we have is McIntyre's Agent Zigzag and archives - all probably hold a bias. Boongie (talk) 08:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

He didn't give much information to the British, real or fake, because he just didn't know much to give. However with his information to the Germans, he had been deliberately supplied with fake dis-information (this is in the public record - the faked Hedgehog photo showing it to be the wrong size, and the faked factory bombing). So for 'technical' information about the materiel of war, it was definitely one-way. However his knowledge of German spy training methods would have been of value to the British as well, in the capture of other agents.

He does seem to have acted for the British almost entirely. However he was personally something of a chancer with an eye to his own advantage, so we can't say anything about how he might have acted, had circumstances been different. That said, he seems to have had no ideological truck with either Germany or Nazism. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't disagree - as far as the article is concerned it needs to be kept factual and backed up by public record. (I know no body was suggesting a change) Boongie (talk) 18:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Improper terminology

Chapman was not a "double agent". This is a mistake, along with most espionage terms, that is commonly made. First of all, Chapman was indeed an agent. However, the media and the public usually mistake an "agent" for what is really an intelligence officer. Agents are basically just like Chapman, common folks who are employed off the books, so to speak. They are usually foreign nationals. They act as information gatherers, couriers, saboteurs, and scouts. Often times, agents are mislead into thinking they are working for a different agency. For instance, a paid CIA agent in Yemen might think he is working for al Qaeda or Jordanian intelligence, as he may feel less of a traitor helping another Arab nation. However, a person that puts in an application at one of the 13 intelligence agencies in the US, goes through the screening process and is hired _IS NOT_ an agent. There are a myriad of titles the person can hold. However, the Case Officers handle the unofficially employed agents. Note that the FBI does call some of their employees agents but that does not concern the US Intelligence Community.

Second, Eddie Chapman was not a "double agent". According to proper terminology used within the US and British Intelligence Communities, he was a "Walk-in". A double agent is such only when they are mutually employed and handled by two Intelligence agencies, with both parties working in tandem. For instance, that agent mentioned before might be handled by both the Jordanians and the CIA. He might also work for al Qaeda. The different parties may use him to communicate with al Qaeda, or even conduct misinformation campaigns against them, with or without the agents knowledge. A Walk-in, however, is an asset that walks up to a government representative and offers their services. Such was the case with Pollard and Hanssen, who offered themselves to the Soviets. Because Pollard was a sailor and Hanssen an FBI Intelligence officer, by working for an enemy they did not become "double agents". They became "Walk-in" assets to the Soviet KGB.

But people in the IC don't mind. The overwhelmingly common misuse of our terms helps us know if who we are talking to knows what they are talking about or not.

Signed, An Intelligence Studies student at a military college. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [anonymous] 14:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Whatever. I've just read the McIntyre book on Chapman and this article is rife with inaccuracies. I don't think use of the term "double agent" is one of them. ScottyBerg (talk) 22:06, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

People who want to make a successful career in military intelligence have to learn to use the terms the locals use, Otherwise they are liable to stand out as pompous ill-informed idiots. Throughout the first definitive account of Zigzag’s activities by J.C. Masterman, he and all the other spies working for the Germans who were turned by the British are referred to as double agents. Hors-la-loi (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

More to the point; they were called double agents by the services, at the time, and ever since - so it's the correct terminology whichever way you look at it :D --Errant ^(chat!) 12:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

References

National Archives Records KV 2/461

If any "code buffs" don't quite like how I have restored "National Archives Records KV 2/461" as a web reference, please by all means improve it, but don't destroy it. If the MI5 web reference for this case goes awol again, then the NA records are one of the most respectable citation for Chapman's incredible war records. Thanks. Dendrotek 15:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

Hey; no I like that reference, although we are in an awkward position whereby the MI5 reference is the full text and you have to pay for the National Archives one. I just tidied it up a bit with the other references (for example; you put the date as 2001, when it actually dates from 1943 - 2001 was the "archive opening" date). It's probably a good idea to agree one to cite and have the other as an external link. We can mitigate the content disappearing by finding the page in the Wayback machine and adding an archiveurl= parameter to the template :) --Errant ^(chat!) 21:24, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Fake sabotage at DH Hatfield - did not include explosion noise?

I have read carefully all through the NA files that are online via MI5, and note that, as I previously suspected, there is no mention in them of a "load bang during the night". It would of course, have been unnecessary for a simulated explosion sound to occur in Hatfield, just to convince the Abwehr, unless MI5 believed there were "unturned" German agents in the vicinity, which, according to what one reads, at this date, they did not - "Most secret sources". Or that employees/residents of the town would blab, which again, they did not. Anyone else have views? Just for interest really, need not be posted, or might just merit a footnote. Dendrotek 19:51, 23 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

You'll find a lot of discrepancies like this within this topic area :) In such cases you have to be careful of WP:OR; putting your findings in the article would definitely violate that rule (unfortunately). However, I think it's fine the use common sense and not mention any loud bang in the article, based on this finding :) I've done that several times before. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

What does Macintyre say about Hatfield? I also think I remember Macintyre writing (if not in Zig-Zag but one of the other books) that it was not until post-war that British Intelligence were sure that they had mopped up all German agents. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:54, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

On p.168, Macintyre says "Shortly before midnight the people of Hatfield were woken by a huge explosion." But interestingly, whereas he faithfully cites everything he possibly can, e.g. the boilerman coming to work in a state of excitement, he does NOT cite the bang. Of course, the Daily Express, who were party to the deception, headlined "Factory Explosion," from which every reader would naturally imagine that a bang was heard. the Royal Engineers may well have let off a relatively low powered training firework. We'll never know! Thanks for fixing the NA web link. Dendrotek 10:41, 24 December 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs)

V1 & V2 aiming point deception

I believe "Perhaps as a result of this disinformation, the Germans never corrected their aim ..." is not fully up to expected Wikipedia standards. Why "perhaps"? And who says so? I propose to modify this section, based mainly on Masterman and MI5. Photos taken to be used in Chapman transmissions were not used. He may have been involved peripherally, but Garbo and Tate were the main channels and the techniques for V1's were different to those for V2's. --Dendrotek 22:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Eric Pleasants - Second sentence of Section Second World War

According to Chapman’s claims, at some stage during his imprisonment in Jersey, he met Eric Pleasants. However, this is not mentioned at all in Macintyre, which in other respects is quite comprehensive, not in MI5, not in National Archives, nor in the Daily Telegraph Obituary. His account was apparently written in “I Killed To Live - the Story of Eric Pleasants as Told to Eddie Chapman” Cassell & Company Ltd. 1957, which I have no desire to read! I feel we should alter the reference to Pleasants in the Article and perhaps change it to a Note on the lines of my comment here. If nobody objects I will do this soon. --Dendrotek 20:27, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

I've done this now. I anyone better than I at Wiki coding wishes to tidy up my methodology please help, but I would rather not have this work reverted without discussion. Since Chapman was a professional liar (!) I think we have to be especially careful with authentication of all the facts in this Article. --Dendrotek 16:18, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Giving opinions on the veracity of statements, or author's work, needs to be left to sources. I gave a quick tidy but having thought a bit longer, the appropriate action would be to put it in the post-war section as something along the lines of "Chapman ghost-wrote the autobiography of Eric Pleasants, a British citizen who served with the Waffen-SS during the war. Chapman claimed to have (first) met Pleasants while he was imprisoned in Jersey. The book I Killed to Live – The Story of Eric Pleasants as told to Eddie Chapman was published in 1957" [give reference to pages in Chapman's book].GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, I'd be happy with your suggestion - would you please do it? Especially please include your wording "... claimed to have ..." I also had thought about moving Pleasants to the post-war section. He is not relevant to the main WW2 period of Chapman's illustrious career. Perhaps we could also leave in my Note, moved to be alongside your new proposal, pointing out that none of the sources that I mention allude to Pleasants? I feel strongly that as much as possible in this Article about Chapman should be really reliably cited. This is an example of the strength of Wikipedia - that more than one head gives better results than a single one. Regarding Notes in general, do you know how to separate text Notes from Reference Notes? At present both types start numbering at 1?--Dendrotek 20:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I've made a modification. Suggesting within the article text that it's not true because it's not in certain sources is Original Research. Citing a source that identifies the absence is different. But as it is attributed as a claim by Chapman it only needs that to be stated. (thanks be to google) Pleasants is mentioned in Booth's Zigzag in the chapters "Prisoners of war" and the author's "Note on Sources" where he lists various files in the archives and touches on how Chapman's, Faramus' and Pleasants' accounts of Jersey differ.GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

That all looks good. Although it's probably a good idea to avoid using "claimed" as that is a value judgement :) (see WP:CLAIM). Sadly, unless a reliably published source identifies this discrepancy and comments on it we can't really make too much comment ourselves. Of course, one presumes Pleasant was involved in his autobiography (I can't find any record of him disputing it) so it can't be total cock and bull. But this is Chapman so who knows what artistic license they put into it! --Errant ^(chat!) 23:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Graeme and Errant. This aspect of the Article is getting better. Since Errant has found a published source for "Booth's Zigzag in the chapters "Prisoners of war" and the author's "Note on Sources" where he lists various files in the archives and touches on how Chapman's, Faramus' and Pleasants' accounts of Jersey differ..."how about making this into a Note attached to the new Reference and position in the Article? You chaps may think I'm a pest to keep wanting Notes but I think they are a good Wikipedia way of dealing with potentially dodgy facts in an Article. I work on some other Articles whee they are used, e.g. the D H Mosquito, where it is uncertain whether or not it had a low radar shadow (Galland said so in writing, but others are skeptical, so this is covered by a Note). I DONT think this sort of thing is OR, since we are always dealing with "facts" that are published somewhere e.g. in the case of Pleasants, there is a book with "Eddie Chapman" on the cover!

I would like to agree this principle because there are other aspects of Chapman's life that have "differing accounts," for example the extent and importance of his role in the V1 deception, where Masterman (an authority if ever there was one) describes Chapman's role as minimal, compared with Mackintyre's account. Reading both carefully and comparing the two, including their citations, makes it seem as though the former "fell in love" with his subject, and was NOT impartial. I'm explaining my position and of course VIEWS, in Talk, but would of course propose a very brief and IMPARTIAL Note, simply to point to such discrepancies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dendrotek (talk • contribs) 14:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Graeme - re your contribution to Talk of 27 Jan. can you please give a page number for "Pleasants is mentioned in Booth's Zigzag in the chapters "Prisoners of war" and the author's "Note on Sources" where he lists various files in the archives and touches on how Chapman's, Faramus' and Pleasants' accounts of Jersey differ." - especially the "differ" bit?--Dendrotek 22:20, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I had found it as a google book search but the copy was bereft of page numbers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Notes & Citations Style

I now realise that this Article has a different Notes & Citations style and templates use compared with some others. The Section headed Notes is actually used both for pure citations e.g. No. 9, and for Citations plus Notes, e.g. No. 14. It is probably too big a job to change it now, besides others may not like to do so. I can continue inserting Notes along with any new Citations, e.g. pages referred to, in the present style.--Dendrotek 10:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

The way it is at the moment is quite common across Wikipedia. "Notes" is used in many article for both specific citations and other forms of notes. Nothing to worry about. Articles evolve and improve with time through many hands contribution; eg there are some editors who just go around sorting out minor formatting in articles. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Eddie Chapman. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090219152503/http://www.bloomsbury.com:80/media/ZIGZAGdossierfinal.pdf to http://www.bloomsbury.com/media/ZIGZAGdossierfinal.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141113003523/https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/mi5-history/world-war-ii/eddie-chapman---agent-zigzag.html to https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/mi5-history/world-war-ii/eddie-chapman---agent-zigzag.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

"Edinburgh Co-operative Society"

The article states that Chapman blew up the "safe of the headquarters of the Edinburgh Co-operative Society." Aside from a short lived co-op in the 19th century, to the best of my knowledge, the 'Edinburgh Co-operative Society' has never existed. I think the largest co-op in the city at the time was St. Cuthbert's Co-operative Society, so it could have been St Cuthbert's? Lots of other sources erroneously say it was 'the Edinburgh Co-operative Society'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikejamesshaw (talk • contribs) 16:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Iron Cross award

It is stated with a citation reference to a book by Nicholas Booth that Chapman may have been awarded the German War Merit Cross "as the Iron Cross was only ever given to military personnel". However the wikipedia article on the Iron Cross states it was also awarded to civilians as late as WWII, and I am aware it was awarded during WWI to another Briton (by then living in Germany) Houston Stewart Chamberlain who was too old to enlist but had pleased the Kaiser by his anti-British writings. The chances are the author of the page referenced may have been in error to use this as a reason the decoration could not have, in his opinion, been an Iron Cross. The award to H S Chamberlain BTW also chronologically contradicts the statement earlier in the paragraph that Chapman was "the first Englishman to receive such an award since the Franco-Prussian War".Cloptonson (talk) 09:09, 8 May 2022 (UTC)