Jump to content

Talk:Operation Sea Lion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


The fleet of defeated France, one of the most powerful and modern in the world?

[edit]

I beg to differ. In numbers, most of the french heavy units were old and obsolete. Although I would definitely agree that france had some of the most modern naval units of the world. Namely Dunkerque and Strasbourg, and Richelieu and Jean Bart. Although the only true operational units were the two of the Dunkerque class. Richelieu being close to completion but not yet fully combat ready, and Jean Bart being nowhere near completion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.51.20 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Much of everyone elses (including the Germans) was also old. As I recall they were the fourth or fifth most powerful navy in the world at that time.Slatersteven (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is not just the ships; but also the crews. If operation Sea Lion had been undertaken, the crews of the German heavy units then nearing completion (Bismark), or under repair (Scharnhorst) would have been drafted-in to man the support vessels on the invasion fleet. If the French capital vessels had switched sides together with their crews, it would have greatly strengthened Sea Lion. There was not much possibility of this; but the British Admiralty (though emphatically not Admiral Forbes) took the threat very seriously. TomHennell (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Germans had (lets pretend they all were working) 2 battleships and 3 pre-dreds as well as 6 heavy cruisers. The french had Battleships 7 (and no pre-dreds), Heavy Cruisers 7 and a really crappy aircraft carrier.Slatersteven (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the real fear was Dunkerque and Strasbourg falling into german hands. Which, with the benefit of hindsight, was in itself a rather unlikely posibility (given that it took a full 9 months to get Bismarck fully combat ready, let alone a ship built by a foreign power and with dubious support from its manufacturers). These two ships were "the" problem and the reason behind mers-el-kebir. I doubt the rest of the French fleet would have been of any interest to Germany. Anyway, my original post refers to the assertion that the french fleet was one of the most powerful of the world. I find that inexact. The big fleets of the world were the ones of the UK, the USA and Japan. The fleets of France and Germany were quite a bit smaller. The line should be changed to "the fleet of defeated France, which included 2 very modern and powerful units" or something like that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.51.20 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see value in the IPs suggestion of a change in wording. Could someone (not me) more familiar with the subject of relative European naval strength (and I note that no one has mentioned the Italians) consider making an adjustment? Beyond My Ken (talk) 15:44, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll dig out my copy of the WW2 data book tommorow and look it up.Slatersteven (talk) 15:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Naval strength (on entering the war, so not quite contemporary with each other)

France Battle ships 7 Cruisers 19 Aircraft carriers 1 total 27

Germany Battle ships 5 Cruisers 6 Aircraft carriers 0 total 11

Italy Battle ships 2 Cruisers 22 Aircraft carriers 0 total 24

Japan Battle ships 10 Cruisers 36 Aircraft carriers 10 total 56

UK Battle ships 12 Cruisers 50 Aircraft carriers 8 total 70

USA Battle ships 17 Cruisers 36 Aircraft carriers 8 total 61


So France was (and remember this includes ships the Japaneses and USA were building in 1939 and had completed by 1941) was the fourth most powerful navy in the world, and rather more then a third as powerful as the most powerful.Slatersteven (talk) 08:42, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In July 1940, the key issue was the French fleet at Mers-el-Kebir, comprising essentially four battleships, half a dozen heavy destroyers, another half dozen light destroyers and a seaplane carrier. This made up around a third of the total French fleet (another 20% were already in British harbours); but in terms just of the Mediterranean theatre, it was probably the strongest (and most modern, or at any rate, potentially the speediest) force of capital ships around. From the perspective of Sea Lion; the key point being that the Royal Navy was inhibited in the number of vessels it could detach from the Home Fleet for defence against an invasion, if it needed to keep a very large fleet (Force H) in Gibraltar to cover the possibility that the Mers-el=Kebir fleet might join the Axis and threaten British supply routes across the Atlantic and to Egypt. The eventual British Admiralty plan in the event of an invasion was that (disregarding Forbes), much of the Home Fleet would sail south from Scapa Flow, while Force H would sail northwards to cover the Western Approaches - and indeed signals to that effect were sent out during the 'Cromwell' scare on 7 December 1940. But if the Mers-el-Kebir fleet had still been functional, this could not have been done. TomHennell (talk) 09:07, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It can be said, the Germans and Italians had one fleet, the french had two and the British had three. Also the combined strength of the French, German and Italian fleets almost matched that of the RN (without the RN's global commitments).Slatersteven (talk) 09:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see which were the 7 french battleships on entering the war. Could this list be including Richelieu and Jean Bart? they were not operational. And 3 of the battleships that were indeed operational were dreadnoughts of the Bretagne class. The Dunkerques were the only heavy units combat capable at the time.
You need to contact John Ellis writer of the WW2 data book and ask him. Also a dreadnought and a pre-dreadnought are not the same thing.Slatersteven (talk) 14:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I presume he is counting two dreadnought battleships of the Courbet class; three super-dreadnoughts of the Bretagne class, and two super-dreadnoughts of the Dunkerque class. The two Courbet class ships (ICourbet and Paris) were in UK harbours in July 1940 - so don't count for this article. In any case they were regarded as obsolete in 1939. There were two Dunkerque class and two Bretagne class at Mers-le-Kebir; all of which were considered combat capable at the outset of hostilities. One Bretagne class was in Alexandria. Jean Bart was well short of being combat ready in 1940; Richelieu was pretty close to being ready; but was in Dakar and under close watch from the Royal Navy when it tried to move. TomHennell (talk) 15:51, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If there is consensus to leave the line un modified I'm willing to sign in dissidence. I'm satisfied with having presented my arguments here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.190.51.20 (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

scope

[edit]

This was not the plan as decided upon, and that should be the one we use in the info box.Slatersteven (talk) 11:12, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Herbstreise

[edit]

This section is almost as long as the main article, maybe it should be merged?Slatersteven (talk) 11:19, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Was the Nazi invasion of Poland a success?

[edit]

An editor is attempting to change the article so that it does not call the Nazi invasion of Poland a success, the grounds being that because Germany did not win WWII, then the invasion of Poland was unsuccessful. This is, of course, ridiculous. In the course of a long war, each side will have victories and defeats, and the outcome of the war in toto does not retroactively change a local victory into a defeat. The Nazis invaded Poland, divided it up with the Soviets, took territory and added it to the Reich, and governed the occupied rump country (the "General Government") as a place for their undesirables. They set up concentration camps and killing camps there. This situation prevailed for 6 years, until the end of WWII. All of this means that the invasion itself was successful, accomplishing what the Nazis intended. That it did not last in perpetuity is irrelevant.

Comments? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically they are right, its a damn silly technicality, but its true it needs sourcing or maybe rewording.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, sorry, even on a "technicality", they are not right. Find me a citation from a reliable source that says that the Nazi invasion of Poland was not a success. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:52, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly policy says content has to be cited if challenged, it has been challenged. I have reworded it to better reflect what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Our article calls it a "German-Soviet victory", and its "Aftermath" section is full of sourced material saying just that. To say it was not a success is ahistorical and not supported by the record. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well then lets re-word it to "German victory" and both sides should be happy, as its sourced.Slatersteven (talk) 18:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've added four sources from extremely reliable sources which support the success of the German invasion. "Success", BTW, is absolutely equivalent to "victory" in military matters. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that, the other user did not, and I am just trying to make sure everyone is satisfied.Slatersteven (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
An editor who does not accept that military victory, the surrender of the opponent, the government leaving the country, and the Nazis in possession of the battlefield is not a "successful" invasion really doesn't have a leg to stand on, and absolutely does not need to be placated by appeals to "technicalities", of which there were, and are, none. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I am "the editor" you have a difference of opinion with. What is the problem that prevents you from being "polite" and addressing a person with their name?
I am a little behind on your prodigious efforts<personal attack redacted>. I am completely unable to understand your mania on the subject.
I tried to apply the following but encountered a conflict. It should immediately follow the first entry in the section; however, better late than not to put my thoughts about your activity on record.
@Beyond My Ken: <personal attack redacted>. You were in an edit war earlier this month from which you received a edit block of one month. You contested the block and received mercy. You ended the episode by claiming, "I'll try my best to improve". You need to work on that claim, walk the talk.
Now you make gratuitous undo to an edit that was an improvement. You challenged the entire edit over your contention that Germany's invasion of Poland was a success. Reverting everything because of a disagreement about "success" is not good editorship. You a chide me about an "edit war", but it was you who initiated one.
<personal attack redacted>. Claiming that "That it did not last in perpetuity is irrelevant." is nonsense, and you probably realize that.
I made a constructive change to the article. You were lazy and did an "undo" with only your opinion about Germany's success. That was not good editorship. I pointed out that the article is part of an encyclopedia--it is not an opinion piece.
You told me, on my talk page, "It is best not to restore the material you added until there is a consensus among the editors there to do so." Yet, you subsequently jousted with Slatersteven, striving with your edits to retain the claim that the invasion of Poland was a "success". Not exactly an "edit war", but like they say about ducks, if it walks like a duck, it is probably . . .
I challenged you to provide a reference concerning that "success". I see now, that in the space of an hour, you managed to find four references for that "fact". Conveniently they are in books that will be difficult to view and verify that you have been honest in these assertions.
Osomite hablemos 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(EC) What exactly are you implying by referring to my "prodigious efforts to maintain Nazi victory in Poland" and calling me an "apologist"? If it is what what it looks to me it is, your should perhaps consult WP:NPA. I won't take it seriously, because you're so far off the mark that you're entirely around the bend. [Retracted by me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)][reply]
Ignoring your ignorant personal jibes, the issue here is simple: reliable sources, and every historian worth their salt, says that the German invasion of Poland was a successful one. After all, the Polish military surrendered, the Polish government fled to London, and the Nazis and Soviets had control of the country. How can this not be a "successful" military invasion? That the Nazis were later defeated is not relevant to whether the previous invasion has succeeded or not.
Bottom line, please provide a WP:reliable source that says that the German invasion of Poland in 1939 was not a victorious one. If you cannot provide such a source, then I suggest that you don't have a leg to stand on. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Beyond My Ken: I tried to apply my edit that improved the content of the sentences in the article a moment ago. I did leave the claims of a successful invasion intact. For some obscure reason, you again did a lazy revert which removed the improved text and claimed that I started an "edit war". My god, have you no shame. It looks to me that you have been seeking out a new edit war that you could declare a "success". Osomite hablemos 20:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, when it comes to protecting Wikipedia from false history, of whatever sort, I do indeed wish to be successful and prevent edits such as yours from whitewashing the facts in the service of a ideological point of view, as I perceive yours do. I see them as nothing more than run-of-the-mill ethnic nationalistic editing, which I run into all the time, and which I revert whenever I see them. The German invasion of Poland was not "consider to be" a success, it was a success, measured in the only way that facts can be determined on Wikipedia, which is by citations from WP:Reliable sources. Your feelings about it -- and my feelings about it, for that matter -- are irrelevant, only the verifiable facts matter. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, if you want more citations in support of "successful", I'll be happy to provided them. I just stopped at four because it seemed to be enough. And I wouldn't call Evans' trilogy about the Third Reich, or Keegan's history of the war, or Overy's book about the causes of the war as being "difficult to view and verify", considering that they are pretty standard works. What books would you prefer I use? If I have them in my library, I'll be glad to cite them them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:17, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, I realize that I am more upset about your calling me a "[Nazi] apologist" than I originally thought I was, especially considering my extensive record here at Wikipedia of denying attempts by neo-Nazis et al. to alter the encyclopedia in ways that do not reflect the facts. On your talk page, I have asked you to retract those statements. Please do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to see your side, I am now seeing Kens. The Poland lost, they were defeated and surrendered, RS say it. So "the Germans were successful" is a valid summerisation of "Poland was defeated and was under occupation". This was a waste of his (and my) time to try and accommodate a frankly bizarre interpretation of history. Drop this now.Slatersteven (talk) 11:43, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: insults aside (which are clearly appalling and I believe are being discussed at ANI), I'm not aware of sources that do not describe the invasion of Poland as not a success for Germany. Granted, the victory over Poland may not have been as easy as the German military leadership had expected, but it was still a success. Separately: Claiming that "That it did not last in perpetuity is irrelevant." is nonsense, and you probably realize that misses the mark. The result of the Battle of France was reversed 5 years later; by that logic, the outcome of the invasion of France and the Low Countries was a failure for Germany as well. Which is, of course, nonsense. --K.e.coffman (talk) 11:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Ken on this. It's pretty absurd to say the invasion was not a success. Calling Ken an apologist (presumably he means a Nazi apologist, given that's the subject matter here?) doesn't help this conversation and is wholly inappropriate. I also echo Slatersteven when he says, The Poland lost, they were defeated and surrendered, RS say it. So "the Germans were successful" is a valid summerisation of "Poland was defeated and was under occupation". — Czello 12:08, 27 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, what a deja vou alike discussion :), I could make funny comments and comparisons and/or conduct of some editors, but I spare this now, I don't watch this article, neither this talk page, that will be my only comment here (from another article I was "invited" here): Yes, it was a crumbling success, in nearly two weeks all Poland was crushed and deleted from the scene, the only question was if Warsaw will be really demolished to ashes, so would be deleted from history as well. I repeat: SUCCESS. Just becase some Nazis liked Wiener Schnitzel or sunrise, it does not mean anyone who as well liked these will become a Nazi or apologist. Or anyone who acknowledges the revival of German economy or industry in the interwar period. And lots of other examples. Pulling out from here.(KIENGIR (talk) 20:11, 27 February 2021 (UTC))[reply]

Norway

[edit]

As far as I can tell Britain lost 11 ships, yet there is a claim the Luftwaffe sunk over 12. I think we need a quote for the source which says "over 12", as this seems counter to what everyone else says.Slatersteven (talk) 10:41, 8 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Now can we stop adding what might well be a fringe claim and actually tell us what the source says.Slatersteven (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting on the quote that overturns every other source's claim as to the number of ships the Germans sunk.Slatersteven (talk) 10:56, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now request PP, maybe that will get the IP to make a case here.Slatersteven (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have now put a CN tag in place, as we are still to have a quote saying the Luftwaffe sank more ships than total British losses, and the claim they sank only two destroyers is unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 12:16, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh I think I get the issue, during the campaign the RN lost ( operation sealion, McKinney, page 7) 1 carrier 2 cruisers 9 destroyers, and 6 submarines, to all means. So if we take out the subs (as this hardly tels us anything about the ability to sink surface ships), that leaves us with 12 ships lost to all means. Of these are least 3 (the carrier and her 2 escorts) were sunk by the Kriegsmarine.Slatersteven (talk) 14:54, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So this gives us (tops and including submarines) 15 ships that might have been sunk by the Luftwaffe (but might also include by mines, submarines or surface action). As I said, we need the quote where the source says all of this was by direct Luftwaffe action.Slatersteven (talk) 15:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Slatersteven is apparently of the opinion that unsupported statements made about the ineffectiveness of the Luftwaffe in the Channel, and including inaccurate figures for warship losses, should substitute for supported facts. See: Brown, David, Warship Losses of World War II, as cited in corrections to the Wiki. Willful ignorance of the facts, or revisionist agenda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:4202:2EE0:A5A4:AB1:3C5B:94F1 (talk) 04:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not jump to commenting on the editor, you're close to violating WP:No personal attacks. Given Slatersteven's comments above, they seem to be open to re-evaluating the data, so there's no need to call them a "revisionist", which has very nasty implications.
Can you provide the direct quote from the source you're citing that he's asking for? It seems that would settle the dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:56, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The section about the Channel losses seems to be sourced to Larew 1992, pp. 245–247. I have put a tag on the one claim that seems to be unsourced.Slatersteven (talk) 10:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]

There are a few problems with the references in this article. In particular Murray 2002 and Bishop 2010 are used as short-form refs, but there are no entries in the bibliography for either book. I don't have the expertise to know what either of these works might be. Can anyone help? Bob1960evens (talk) 23:19, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Murray 2002 has a link to the webpage here. I don't know what Bishop 2010 is. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could be Patrick Bishop The Battle of Britain ISBN 9781849162241, but don't quote me on that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:25, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
From the link I found he is Williamson Murray, and the only book he wrote in 2002 appears to be "Strategy for Defeat the Luftwaffe 1933 - 1945". The kindle edition includes the quote for the first ref, although no page number, so I assume this is it. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:22, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have also found "Luftwaffe Squadrons: 1939-45" by Chris Bishop (2010). Both books are available on Amazon, and have a Look Inside option, but the text is not searchable in either, so I do not know if they are likely candidates. Bob1960evens (talk) 14:39, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Article issues and classification

[edit]
The article is being reassessed to C-class. It fails the WP:B-class criteria (#1)- The article is suitably referenced, with inline citations. It has reliable sources, and any important or controversial material which is likely to be challenged is cited, and likely not to arguably #2)- The article reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. Possible original research might include inaccuracies and needing clarification means vagueness. Issues of original research should have dealt with long since May 2013 as controversial and inappropriate unverifiable speculation.
It has been in the following categories for some time:
  • Articles with unsourced statements from May 2013,
  • Articles that may contain original research from May 2013,
  • Articles lacking reliable references from October 2014,
  • Articles with unsourced statements from November 2015,
  • Wikipedia articles needing clarification from May 2016,
  • Articles with unsourced statements from February 2019,
  • Articles with unsourced statements from March 2021. -- Otr500 (talk)
    So what are the unsourced statements? Slatersteven (talk) 11:30, 22 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Some things just grow during incremental edits and sometimes get out of hand. The "External links" section, one of the optional appendices, has grown to 12 entries. Three seems to be an acceptable number and of course, everyone has their favorite to try to add for a forth. However, consensus needs to determine this.
I have reservations that essays have a place in the section as well as comparisons. Links that have no opposition to being reliable sources, possibly meritable and directly relevant to the article and not determined "not suitable for inclusion", should be checked to see if they can be incorporated into the article. Others can be listed on the talk page for further consideration.
However, none is needed for article promotion.
  • ELpoints #3) states: Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.
  • LINKFARM states: There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful content-relevant links to the external links section of an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, for example, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate.
  • ELMIN: Minimize the number of links. --
  • ELCITE: Do not use {{cite web}} or other citation templates in the External links section. Citation templates are permitted in the Further reading section.
External links This page in a nutshell: External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article.
Second paragraph, acceptable external links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Operation_Sea_Lion&oldid=1271377371"