Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Operation Bernhard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by AustralianRupert (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:06, 28 March 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Operation Bernhard[edit]

Nominator(s): The Bounder (talk)

Operation Bernhard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Operation Bernhard is a fascinating tale of what could have been the Nazi's most powerful weapon of the Second World War, utterly wasted because of poor management in the confused and conflicting bureaucratic infighting in the German high command. A plan to counterfeit British currency to bring about the collapse of the strongest economy in the world was changed into a way to pay for intelligence operations (which it did), although it made some Germans extremely rich in the process. In and among the greed and mismanagement, the plan ensured the survival of around 150 concentration camp prisoners who were the ones forced to make print the money. A badly worded German order to kill them, and an engine failure of a truck, led to a last minute survival of the group, of whom one is still alive, I believe. This article has undergone a complete re-write recently and should reach the standards of A class. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

support by auntieruth[edit]

Bounder, this looks like a fascinating subject. I can see why you were interested. I'm curious as to why you've circumvented the usual processes that articles go through before they reach A class assessment: initial assessment, good article assessment, etc. Although these aren't required per se, these are recommended. The article has grammatical and punctuation issues that would have been addressed earlier if you had gone through these steps. That said, let's see what we can do....
  • This article would benefit from another edit, this time, looking at some of the repetitive sentence structures and verb uses. Principally, The forgery unit was set up in Berlin; was headed by; was under the ; So many great verbs and we are stuck with "to be" I feel a bit like Hamlet.
  • There are some "moments" of confusion, such as these two... He duplicated the chemical balance with British water to make the colours match. He used British water? Or he found out the chemical comp of British water? or....? The operation was restarted because of a change in the aims of the plan. this is just awkward.
  • It's late here, so I'll have a look at tweaking them in the morning. Thanks for pointing them out. - The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • All tweaked. The Bounder (talk) 10:09, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a vast number of comma faults By late 1940 Naujocks... s like this throughout.
  • That's not a fault in British English writing. (Some of the other punctuation issues may also be because of the differences between British and American English). – The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to be difficult, just helpful. How do you want to proceed? auntieruth (talk) 22:15, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • P.S. Also, on a side note, it would be helpful if you created a user page.
  • I don't think there's much of a need for a user page: it won't say anything interesting! :-) Many thanks for looking at the article, and I hope to deal with any further comments you may have. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 22:34, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • LOL I was being polite. Some things are the same in British and American usage: placing commas after introductory phrases and commas is standard in both. I also tweaked some other phrases, and verbs that were repetitive. See my edits here I'm in favor of user pages because it shows a modicum of commitment to the project. With a red link (meaning no page) you could be mistaken for a newbie. auntieruth (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed some of the commas: they are not needed in formal British English, which is the language in which the article is written, but thank you for the other changes. I'm not a fan of user pages (and there are some long-term editors, such as User:JzG and User:Betty Logan, who still retain a red link), and they don't help articles get any better! All the best, The Bounder (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

  • File:Forgednote.jpg: some issues here. First, tag needs updating to reflect that the bill is not circulating. Second, see Wikipedia:Non-U.S._copyrights#Wartime_copyrights. Third, if this was a forgery and so at minimum a derivative if not an exact copy of the original note, what is the status of the original note? Copyright of forgeries is a bit of a tricky issue, given that there is by definition no originality.
    • It looks like older UK currency is not copyrighted as it falls under PD-UKGov, but I'm not sure about the rest - I'll have to have a closer look in the morning. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 23:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've tagged to show it's not in circulation. The genuine fivers from the time are out of copyright (under PD-UKGov), but I have no idea how copyright on forgeries works. Is a new copyright created by the forgery (and is it held by the Jewish prisoners, one of whom is still alive)? - The Bounder (talk) 07:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Logically, since there is no originality there should be no new copyright, at least as far as US law goes. I'm not aware of any policies here or on Commons that would dictate how we deal with such a situation, so I would suggest PD-UKGov with a careful explanation in the Permission field of why that tag applies. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:44, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • File:Labers_Castle_-_South_Tyrol.jpg: since Italy does not have freedom of panorama, should include an explicit copyright tag for the building itself. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hi Nikkimaria, Does that mean adding this tag? Won't that mean the image is deleted? – The Bounder (talk) 23:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • It would be deleted if you added that tag, but that's not what I meant. Think about the building as a publication - if it was erected pre-1923 it's PD-1923, if its architect died over 70 years ago it's life+70, etc - and then apply the appropriate tag. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Harry[edit]

Nice article, and on an interesting bit of history. just a few comments and queries:

  • Why the fiver rather than a higher denomination?
  • To what extent were the Brits aware of all this? We know the ambassador heard about the plans and alerted London, but were they aware of how much currency was being produced?
    • Not really. They had the intelligence report, then a few samples made their way into the Bank's hands, but it was all guess work after that. - The Bounder (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did any or all of the forged currency from Andreas make into circulation?
  • By late 1940 Naujocks had been sacked after he fell out of favour with Heydrich "Sacked" seems a little informal to me
  • Do we know why Himmler changed the aim of the operation (and arguably reduced its scope)?
  • Do any specimens of forged notes still exist?
  • Out of curiosity, why are you not citing the two books listed as further reading? They look like works specifically about these operations, while further reading is normally used for more general works.
    • I'll deal with the other points in the morning with some edits, but the final point is coverable now. These two are both self-published sources, so dubious reliability (There is a hidden text note, should anyone look at the background text). Thank you for these comments – I hope to do them justice shortly. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 20:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:46, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • All done with the exception of the question of specimens. Yes there are, but I'll address it in line with the related comment from Wehwalt (the Bank of England / redeeming point); these can be done together, but a couple of things need checking first. I should have this done shortly. Thank you once again for your efforts. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 14:59, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi HJ Mitchell, this last point has now been dealt with. Thank you once again for your comments. All the best, The Bounder (talk) 18:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Wehwalt[edit]

Looks good in general, just a few comments.
  • "and they were shortly liberated by the American Army." I might add a "thereafter" following "shortly"
  • "and had altered only slightly " I might toss a "been" after "had"
  • "gave the final confirmation for the operation to proceed" I might sub "final approval" for "the final confirmation".
  • "although he also assisted in the supervision of quality-checking the pound notes." I might delete "the supervision of" as it's presently a little awkward.
  • "Those working on the operation at the time" Nazis? Jews? It takes on a different tone depending on which.
  • "for his work in obtaining British secrets from the British ambassador in Ankara, Turkey." I might strike the first "British".
  • "After undergoing a denazification process, statements were produced from the forger-inmates whose lives he had been responsible for saving." Wouldn't that have been part of the process?
  • It is probably somewhere on the Bank of England's web site that they will redeem all their notes, but subject those which were counterfeited to expertising. If I recall correctly, Operation Bernhard notes (that is, counterfeits) are worth more than their purported face value, which means the Bank of England doesn't get called on much to redeem these. If you can find sources for this, it would be a useful addition.
  • "Colorado Springs, Co" Should be CO to fit with the format you've used for the other US sources.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you very much for these: they are all extremely useful. I think I have dealt with them all, with the exception of the penultimate point (which is also related to something Harry Mitchell raised in the thread above). I'll do a bit of digging on this, and should have something up shortly. Thank you once again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now added. Thank you once again! - The Bounder (talk) 18:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Operation_Bernhard&oldid=1075714150"