Talk:Channel Dash

Donnerkeil
Excerpted Donnerkeil from the eponymous article.Keith-264 (talk) 11:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Does anyone have a cite for this passage pls? A British agent in Brest was unable to signal that the Brest Group was departing because of German wireless jamming and HMS Sealion, patrolling outside the harbour, had withdrawn to recharge its batteries.[35] Heinkel He 111s dropped Düppel to jam British radar, ship-borne Arado Ar 196 floatplanes reconnoitred and Junkers Ju 88 bombers made low-level raids on Plymouth and nearby airfields. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Bekker in Defeat at Sea covers some details of the operation: Intensive use of radar jamming stations (pg 52) and the use of artificial fog to conceal the exit of the ships from the harbor (pgs 51-52). Seki1949 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox casualties
Does anyone have a source for the casualties in the infobox pls? Regards Keith-264 (talk)

Source request
I've managed to reduce reliance on Flugzeug Classic Jahrbuch 2013 a journal source but there are still three citations. If anyone can replace them with a better one I'd be grateful. Keith-264 (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Channel Dash. 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/20121007052621/http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/September/24/120924-Op-Fuller-Memorial-Unveiling to http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/News-and-Events/Latest-News/2012/September/24/120924-Op-Fuller-Memorial-Unveiling

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

German victory or see aftermath in infobox result parameter?

 * Not sure about "German victory" in the results section. I would favour a "see aftermath" entry here. The outcome was more ambiguous than the mere operational and propagandist success of the dash. The removal of the major German units to the backwaters of Norway would seem to be a serious unforced strategic defeat, which is discussed fully in the aftermath section. I would argue that German victory is somewhat misleading, and discourages the casual reader from actually reading the account of the event in the article, which is much more nuanced than that. We should be encouraging readers to actually explore the articles. Thoughts? Irondome (talk) 21:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I think either are perfectly reasonable, the tactical, operational and strategic consequences of the dash aren't the same, which is discussed in the Analysis section. See now. Keith-264 (talk) 06:44, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

In World War II context, "the backwaters of Norway" are hardly backwaters. The ships could become threats to the vital Russian convoys. strategic defeat???? why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.192.120.61 (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Our source is nothing more than a one liner, so I'll remove the defeat part.Qwertzy (talk) 22:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The operation was a strategic defeat for Germany because before the operation the two ships had access to the Atlantic and the Allied merchant shipping routes. After the operation, they did not, or at least not without facing the Royal Navy first. IIRC, after Cerberus neither ship ever ventured into the Atlantic again.


 * Thus although embarrassing for the British the result of the operation actually suited them much better than it did the Germans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.183 (talk) 10:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I question this. I consider the operation a operational and strategic success for the German navy. The three major ships would have been destroyed in place in Brest had they remained there. Yes, they lost a questionable access to the Atlantic, but gained access to Norwegian waters from with to threaten convoys to the USSR. I'm going to add material from "Defeat at Sea" by C.D. Bekker in support of this thesis. Seki1949 (talk) 19:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sadly we aren't the arbiters, that's the job of Reliable Sources, all we can do is describe what they contain. You can add C. D. Bekker's views as long as you avoid Undue Weight. regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:43, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Any suggestion that the Channel Dash was a German victory is as equally ridiculous as labelling the evacuation of Dunkirk as a British victory. Both were retreats by significant military forces that had been defeated. The fact that both retreats were achieved with an unexpected degree of operational success does not alter the overall strategic picture. The Kriegsmarine surface fleet had been defeated in the North Atlantic with only the Bismarck and Prinz Eugen actually meeting any regular warships of the Royal Navy. The Bismarck was, as we know, destroyed in this encounter. Land and carrier-based aircraft had a hand in this - naval units of all types were now vulnerable to aircraft - something that many pre-war planners on all sides had failed to understand. The Atlantic ports were too vulnerable to air raids for the basic plan to be viable. Scharnhorst and Gneisenau were repeatedly damaged whilst in port. Reading of the Kriegsmarine codes by Bletchley Park allowed the destruction of all the German supply ships that were needed to support any surface ship foray against Atlantic convoys. By the time of the Channel Dash, the whole concept of a surface fleet threatening convoys to Britain had become inviable. To consider a few sources to support this view you have:

(Symonds, Craig L.. World War II at Sea (p. 259). Oxford University Press.) (Hellwinkel, Lars. Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval Bases in France 1940-1945 . Seaforth Publishing.) (Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas . Yale University Press.)
 * The sources quoted above all deal with the matter at greater length - and all that discussion is consistent with the quoted snippets. So you have an American professor of maritime history (Craig Symonds), a German historian (only at doctorate level, but this work is increasingly quoted) and a British history professor (Evan Mawdsley), noted for his work on WW2 who has just written about the naval aspects of that war. All of these are recent, up-to-date sources. The solitary source suggested to support the views of User:Seki1949 is a book written in 1955 by a former German naval officer who appears to have no particular training as a historian and published by a publisher of limited standing in the subject. I think there is little contest as to which are better sources, especially considering WP:HISTRS. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I'm not proposing to rewrite the article. I'm wishing to add the views C.D. Bekker as probably a paragraph. I think this meets the requirements of "Undue Weight". I never used the words "German Victory". My terms were "operational and strategic success." Raeder is not infallable. The days of convoy raiding from Brest were over. He couldn't keep the ships "healthy" enough to get them into the Atlantic. Protecting the Norwegian Coast is not an irrational idea in the tides of war. "former German naval officer who appears to have no particular training as a historian"; war time memoirs of participants are often used in discussions of wartime events. As an aside, Winston Churchill had no particular training as a historian but is often cited and quoted. Seki1949 (talk) 20:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't think Churchill should be used as an RS by editors in many situations! Neither is Raeder an RS - he is at best a primary source, and one that should be interpreted by a historian. What is needed is proper historical analysis, as per the guidance given in WP:HISTRS. Given the huge number of books about WW2, it seems to me to be unwise to pick the views in one of them without a substantial level of justification. Where the author is a noted historian on the subject - that is justification. Otherwise the question must be asked.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

I just checked the "Info Box". I see it listed as a "German Victory". I think a better term is "Operational Success". Seki1949 (talk) 21:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No, that's hair-splitting see here Template:Infobox military conflict

"result – optional – this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Keith-264 (talk) 23:12, 2 November 2020 (UTC)


 * If the guidance only allows limited options that do not convey that this was a "successful retreat"/ "tactical success but strategic failure" /or something along those lines, then the article would only serve to confuse or misinform the casual reader. Hence the only option is to omit the parameter, as per above.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:47, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

It reflects the RS so should be left alone. Your criterion contradicts "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Cerberus was a plan to move the ships from Brest to Germany and it succeeded. I don't know your casual reader and I don't know why such a person would care, being casual. We are supposed to write for everyone; from children to scholars. The infobox is to give the gist, the body the details, which are obvious, particularly in the aftermath section. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not sure which RS you are relying on to state that this is a "German victory" in the infobox. The sources I have listed do not really characterise it as such. It may be worth adding the following as a potential source:

(Roskill, Stephen. The War at Sea Volume II. The Period of Balance (HMSO Official History of WWII - Military Book 2) )
 * Hence, per the infobox guidelines, since only a few terms are allowed, the infobox should be silent on this (i.e. not display the parameter). I note, however, that Dunkirk evacuation has "Allied retreat" as the outcome, with "evacuation of 338,226 soldiers" positioned immediately underneath.
 * My usage of the term "casual reader" was meant to depict the sort of reader who does not read the entire article from one end to the other (which, as we all know, is a common usage of Wikipedia). This sort of reader relies substantially on the infobox. However, a misleading infobox is a problem for other readers too.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 11:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The infobox is not inaccurate or misleading; you're still hair splitting about tactical, operational and strategic effects. Remember "The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict". Cerberus was a German victory. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * After review of Template:Infobox military conflict, I think it has to be listed as "German Victory". I think this is wrong and misleading. I prefer "Operational Success", but that is not in accordance with Template:Infobox military conflict. 47.143.9.113 (talk) 17:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I really do believe that the infobox is misleading. This is not splitting hairs. It is talking about a summary, in just a few words, of the entire subject. Is that summary right? When highly authoritative sources cannot clearly state that this was a victory but instead discuss whether or not it is a victory, then it is entirely wrong of Wikipedia to state that it is. This is not a simple binary situation, but there are various shades of grey in the argument. Hence the infobox should remain silent on the point and it should be examined in the article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

looks like you are in a minority of one. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Reading how the article now stands, there is a clash between "German victory" in the infobox, and the Aftermath section, which goes into the complexities of the issue and certainly (and, in my opinion, quite rightly) avoids any simple conclusion. Regardless of one's view on the military history issues here, this is a clear failure of the article to hold together as a co-ordinated account of the subject. It is worth pointing out that although Template:Infobox military conflict says that this parameter should refer to the immediate outcome, that rule is completely invisible to the encyclopaedia user. It seems to me that the rules for this template are a large part of the problem.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You might think so but no-one supports your contention, the Analysis section is the place for subtlety and nuance which (as you noted above) is where it is to be found. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support? read the first element of this section. That comment still stands. Also "... I think a better term is "Operational Success"" (User:Seki1949, above). Who else is supporting your view?
 * I am still not clear which RS you are relying on to support this being a German victory. The other sources listed above contradict it.
 * The infobox rules are quite clear: if a parameter cannot be summarised within the limits of the infobox, it should refer to the article and not cite any of the permitted values. The issue appears to be, however, that you do not think there is any nuanced story as to which side gained benefit from this event. For that, I would refer you back to the sources listed above.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:34, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

For completeness, I should mention I have initiated a discussion at Template talk:Infobox military conflict. This is to address the adequacy of the rules for use of the template.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Hi all, this was a military operation where the intention was not to engage with the enemy. The result should be viewed from the perspective of the operational aims and not in terms of whether it was a victory for one side or the other. It should use Template:Infobox military operation/doc, which is an auxilary of infobox military conflict. The guidance for the result of a military conflict at Template:Infobox military conflict does not apply to this case. However, the same principles should apply - it was either [largely] successful, unsuccessful or something else/unclear (in which case, see aftermarth would be the best choice). Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I alerted the originator of this section to the current activity at User_talk:Simon_Adler. The full comments can be seen at the user talk page, but an extract of Simon Adler's comments (with permission) follows:
 * I would suggest we just leave 'German victory' out. "Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much". Remember the parameter is OPTIONAL. I would suggest the sources are too focused on longer term outcomes (as history should obviously be) to get a clear message on the immediate outcome as WP demands. Alternatively we leave it in, with 'see aftermath' which makes it abundantly clear that sources disagree on the scope of the victory (or it's ultimate strategic failure). [end of extract] ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you ThoughtIdRetired. I would suggest that our discussion focusses on these two options. I am of the view that we leave 'victory' in, and add the 'See aftermath' option. That would involve tightening and expanding the aftermath section with new sources, as have been presented above, in order to bring to our users the larger long term ramifications of the operation, which go beyond 'victory'. I do wish there was an 'operation success' parameter or similar for infoboxes. Simon Adler (talk) 01:21, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My preferred option would be to omit the "Result" parameter entirely. (preference 1) That means the ordinary encyclopaedia user would, in the first instance, read the lead to discover what happened. I think the lead handles the matter rather well, stating the British and German views, mentioning the mine damage and what happened to the ships later.
 * If the decision is that "Result" should be completed, to me the next best option is to say only "see aftermath". (preference 2)
 * I see some value in the suggestion of User:Cinderella157, to use Template:Infobox military operation/doc. This option seems to have less strict recommendations for the "Result" parameter. As a solution, this needs to be explored. That would mean the word "Success" could be entered - which is probably the most accurate if a one-word summary is what is needed. To score my preferences:, "Success, see aftermath" = preference 3, "Success" = preference 4.
 * If "Result" (in any template) is completed with "German victory", but qualified with "see aftermath", I think we should allow ourselves an extra word, so that it says: "German victory, but see aftermath".(preference 5) The addition of "but" is an extra clue to the reader that it is not a simple story. My apologies to User:Simon Adler for throwing in so many options.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * , pls see my comment immediately above. As a military operation where the aim was not to engage with the enemy, it should have used the Infobox military operation - success, failure, inconclusive or see aftermath would all be appropriate parameters to use.  The wrong infobox was used.  Doesn't mean we have to change it because they are virtually clones. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Saves me the bother then ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 10:03, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, should we put 'success' and see aftermath then? Seems to cover all the bases..Simon Adler (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

No. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Analysis section
Added material by Bekker and Symonds.Seki1949 (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

C.D. Bekker is a pseudonym for Hans Dieter Berenbrok https://www.scribd.com/author/367912741/C-D-Bekker Seki1949 (talk) 01:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I know Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Detail on unexploded bomb
Koop and Schmolke have a different version of: "Gneisenau was hit by a bomb which failed to explode and was moved from dry dock to the outer harbour....." When the ship was put in dry dock on 4/4/41 and the water pumped out, it was found that there was an unexploded bomb in the bottom of the dry dock between the stocks under the keel (presumably from the raid the night before) and the ship had to be carefully refloated and taken out so that the bomb could be defused. This appears on page 51 of this ref. Does this directly conflict with other sources, or is it a better explanation of what happened? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 00:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It could go in as the newer source and the earlier version in an efn or some such. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 08:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Ahem! apols I was ruching this morning and bungled the edit. Apropos, is the material you've cited in the lead included in the body of the article? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:31, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Remedied an edit conflict, tidied prose and checked sources about the fleet in being stuff but couldn't find anything, perhaps someone else wrote it? Keith-264 (talk) 23:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Extra material in lead: I think that this could go in an expanded "Port of Brest" section. There is a lot of material available about the decision to use Brest versus the other French Atlantic coast ports. The Germans did a lot of dithering before they settled on Brest. For some reason they had not realised the limited depth of water available in other ports (St Nazaire might have had a dry dock that could take a major battleship, but the deepwater channel up to it was narrow. Surely the Germans had charts of these places before they captured them!?!)
 * A bit of moving stuff around might achieve a thinning down of the lead, which is a bit lengthy at the moment.
 * I think the article also should briefly mention the activities of Jean Philippon - and I presume that his reports went to MI6 (not sure where this bit of the current article is referenced). Of course, counterbalancing the actions of Lt Commander Philippon (and his radio operator, who was captured, tortured and killed) is the extensive collaboration of the French - without whom none of the Nazi-occupied ports would have been viable. For instance, many of the mines dropped by the RAF or laid by British submarines were cleared by French minesweepers, the French shipyard workers hugely outnumbered the German workforce, and fires started by the RAF were fought by French firefighters. Also, Hitler's suspicion that Brest was a nest of Allied spies may have contributed to the decision to evacuate the capital ships.
 * On the Fleet in Being point - I guess that was someone sticking in a term they did not fully understand. If there had been no intention for the German ships to engage in operations in the Atlantic, that might be arguable, but until the loss of the Bismarck, offensive operations were definitely the plan. Only the RAF and the dodgy German engineering of the superheater tubes on Scharnhorst prevented that happening. If there had been a deepwater port with ship repair capability further from the RAF bomber and fighter bases then Raeder might have gone for that - but there wasn't so the idea of a Fleet in Being is not relevant to the article. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It makes a nice change for someone to take an interest ;o). Haven't heard of Philippon, I've only got vol I and the abridged version of Hinsley. If your sources can add to the article then I'm all for it. If you want to trim the lead I don't mind, since it reflects cited material in the article; excisions won't remove material from the body of the article. I'm not too bothered about the length, since people can read what they want; if it's interesting [I think] it should go in. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 23:41, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Noted, I will look at this in due course and certainly get in some of the new material - real life is intervening a little at the moment. Also I also need to finish reading some of the sources that I have!! ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:06, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Life? "Yeah I know that feelin'" ;O) I'm looking forward to the results, especially the non-Anglocentric point of view. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:33, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

How many images of the Straits of Dover are needed?
How many pics showing the same geographical feature are needed in this article? I think one is enough to indicate that the ships passed through the channel between UK and France.81.141.39.200 (talk) 12:20, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't but am interested in which you'd keep. Keith-264 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Recent edits
I have re-edited the disputed passages with a view to consensus rather than reciprocal reverts. What do you think of them? As a side issue, I'm interested in why you punctuate conjunctions, it seems illogical to me. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 09:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I think your new versions look good, with the sole exception of the passage about mines. It still seems to imply that the mines were unavailable for Rheinübung. As for punctuating conjunctions, do you mean the commas in passages like this?

"One of the hits did not explode, but the others jammed B turret..."

"Heavy attacks continued all month, and another day raid by Halifaxes was made..."


 * If so, this is a well-established rule of English grammar. One places a comma before a coordinating conjunction when joining independent clauses. "One of the hits did not explode", "the others jammed B turret", "heavy attacks continued all month", and "another day raid by Halifaxes was made" are all independent clauses, while "but" and "and" are coordinating conjunctions, which means the rule applies in these and similar cases. Here and here are some sources explaining the rule.


 * --Jtle515 (talk) 10:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply, Pete Bond, my O level (1978) English language teacher thought different; he taught us never to never punctuate a conjunction. Usage varies but I never have and I never will; when in doubt, re-write the sentence. Like your support for the neglected semi-colon though. Keith-264 (talk) 12:16, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Had another go. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:36, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Someone undid my use of the Oxford comma on a 'Minor Edit'? I believe this comma before an "and" on a series of three clarifies meaning. It is also clearly an allowed standard English usage. I'm not going to start an edit war over a comma, but talk about micro-management. Seki1949 (talk) 01:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * WP:Oxford comma - though I think this guidance misses the point that selected use of the Oxford comma has nuances of meaning that increases the understanding taken by a reader.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I claim the honour of that rv. The Oxford comma is a fatuous affectation that undermines a conjunction. Why do you quote a WP then try to go round it? When adding to an article, the original prose style is to be followed unless consensus is obtained for a change. Keith-264 (talk) 12:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox military operation
Added Infobox military operation and took the result criterion out of the Infobox military conflict. I'd like to add a loc map to the military operation box but I'm not sure how so it might take a while. Does this meet everyone's reservations about the result criterion? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So, should we put 'success' and see aftermath then? Seems to cover all the bases..Simon Adler (talk) 16:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC) (moved from wrong section) Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it's either or. Keith-264 (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Success" is the right word rather than "Victory". We may be locked in by Info box criteria, but it's wrong. Seki1949 (talk) 09:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The rules for the military operation info box are less tightly written (Template:Infobox military operation) - in my understanding it is permissible to add "see aftermath".
 * However, a similar result would be to rewrite "objective" using language like "to withdraw Scharnhorst, Gneisenau and Prinz Eugen from Brest to German ports".
 * With the current wording, I am not sure that it is accurate to refer to a "British blockade" - what actual military deployments make British actions a blockade? The main task of the submarine posted off Brest was observation. Otherwise there was, as has been demonstrated by events, nothing. I think the last time Brest was blockaded was during the Napoleonic wars.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 07:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

By adding the operations box, the need for anything in the infobox is obviated. You don't have to be sure, you have to demonstrate that the RS don't call it a blockade or that it's a fringe opinion among RS. What you can't do is object to it by OR, which is what you're doing (again). Keith-264 (talk) 12:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Keith-264, I am trying to discuss the content of the article, with the intent of it easily and correctly informing the encyclopaedia user. The question I have posed is: is it fair to describe the port of Brest being blockaded at the time of the Channel Dash? If one were to get involved in Wiki-lawyering, if an editor uses a term or a fact in an article, then it is down to them to support it with suitable RS(s). It is not down to a challenging editor to prove that "reliable sources do not say that" (i.e. prove a negative). What raises my concern is that the events of the Channel Dash show that the British were substantially unprepared to deal with these ships leaving port and sailing down the Channel. If a blockade had been in place, then there would have been a little more in the way of activity - or at the very least a clear criticism of the failure of planned activity. The sources for this event show that the offensive action against the German ships was cobbled together at the last minute. Historians writing about the naval aspects of WW2 are not shy of using the term "blockade" - but it is applied to, for instance, the Sep 1939 to Feb 1940 closure of the Greenland/Iceland/Britain gap ("Overall the British had in these months mounted a successful blockade line, especially covering the Greenland–Iceland–UK gap." Mawdsley, Evan. The War for the Seas, pg 24), the blockade of Tunisia in late 1942 to 1943 (Mawdsley, pg 330), the blockade of Japan, etc. etc. Symonds is similar - he discusses the Channel Dash but does not refer to it as a blockade. (Please do not confuse the overall economic blockade of Germany through the bulk of the war with a specific blockade of capital ships in Brest.) Garzke and Dulin had plenty of opportunity to characterise the time spent in Brest as being a blockade - but they do not. Reading their account, it is clear that they consider defective boiler tubes (in Scharnhorst) and repeated bomb damage is all that kept the ships there. Nor do Koop and Schmolke use the term "blockade" in their description of the ships' time in Brest. (Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class, Seaforth Publishing) In short, I do not have a source that specifically states that the German heavy ships were blockaded in Brest at the time that they left. The absence of such a mention in places where you might expect it is relevant. You might have such a source - hence the question, to which the answer should be an RS or no RS, not an accusation that an informed analysis of information which triggers a requirement for a source is actually OR. If you read WP:OR you will see it is directed at "...all material added to articles....". There is no ban on using an editor's understanding of a subject to raise questions on a talk page that are answered by RSs (or, perhaps, a significant absence of RSs).ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You don't have to be sure, you have to demonstrate that the RS don't call it a blockade or that it's a fringe opinion among RS. What you can't do is object to it by OR, which is what you're doing (again). The burden is on you; stop wriggling. Keith-264 (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I hesitate to make the accusation, but I really don't think you understand the issues. Please re-read what I have written, read WP:OR, and then state which sources say that the heavy ships in Brest were blockaded there. The onus is on the editor who puts material in an article to support it. That would be you. As it happens, I have given you several sources which do not use the term "blockade" in this regard. I could add Roskill's The War at Sea (volume 2 covers the Channel Dash). Where are your sources?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

I think that you do understand that you don't have a leg to stand on and are reluctant to own your opinion. Please stop boring me. Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If you take a look at Roskill, vol 1, you will find "But a blockade of such nature imposes a tremendous strain on the forces involved and it cannot be sustained for long periods." This refers to the initial blockade of Brest when the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau first entered Brest. There is no hint of it continuing for any length of time and the same author makes no mention of it when discussing the Channel Dash. Any reasonable reading of this source seriously calls into question the idea that the 2 ships were blockaded in Brest at the time of their withdrawal. No other historian that I have researched describes them as being blockaded. The mention of "blockade" in the article remains completely unsupported by any reference (Koop and Schmolk, the only reference to the opening paragraph, makes no mention of the blockade referred to in that para). What reason is there for the article to carry text that is not supported by any reference? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Lead may be supported by citations but it can only contain material in the body of the article which has been cited. OR (again) haven't you read the article? Keith-264 (talk) 12:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, the lead should reflect the article content, but it is very difficult to amend the article to match the sources when an edit is instantaneously reverted with no consideration of what it says. I am taking a break now, which I recommend.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 13:02, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The word "blockade" only appears in the lead, not in the body of the article.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 10:06, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Retrograde edit
Unbelievable! "repositioned"? Denying that the ships ran a blockade? Ghastly prose and OR. Please relent. Keith-264 (talk) 12:38, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The language chosen closely follows the cited source, which I have gone through word by word. The source (Koop and Schmolke) makes no mention of "running a blockade" - nor do other sources. Koop and Schmolke do use the word "evacuated", but "reposition" is also used in the rewrite as less emotive, but still accurate. ("Reposition" is used in some other sources.)
 * Other changes that you will notice include the German Naval Staff realising that the ships needed to move - previously the first para was written to imply this all came from Hitler. Just to be clear, this follows the cited source.
 * If you wish to revert, you will be reinstating text that is not supported by the reference given. Please stop going on about this being Original Research. Go and read the references and see what they say.
 * User:Keith-264, I would respectfully point out that I was writing the talk page comment on the article edit when you reverted it. That gives you very little time to read and consider the edits or to compare what they say with the cited source. To give you the benefit of the doubt, I therefore presume that you have acted in haste and so I have reinstated the edit so that you can give the matter some proper consideration. I think that would be substantially more courteous than a knee jerk reaction.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You jumped the gun (again); I repeat (again) the lead does not need to be cited, the one in the paragraph doesn't come from me. Your references to the citation are wrong-headed in this context. I suggest you read WP:BRD. As for your second comment, I suggest that you infer less and ask more. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 13:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Keith-264, I don't know how many times I am going to have to ask you to do this, but which sources support your view that "running a blockade" is a fair description of the event described in this article? You have not attempted to give any reference that does this. You are aware of WP:BURDEN, but let me restate the emphasised part of that Wikipedia policy. It says: "'The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material'"

As it happens, I have given you a number of sources that have the opportunity to use the term "blockade" in the context of the Channel Dash, but choose not to. These include:

Koope and Schmolke, Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class. Gerhard Koop served in the Kriegsmarine in WW2 and the postwar Federal navy and is a widely published author on maritime subjects, particularly a series covering the wartime German Navy. This source mentions the Channel Dash on pages 111-112 (main account, includes, for example: "...convinced the Naval Staff that the heavy units had to be evacuated from Brest..."), pg 167 (co-operation with Luftwaffe). Nowhere does this source talk about "running a blockade".

Garzke and Dulin: Battleships: Axis and Neutral Battleships in World War II. This is considered by some to be the definitive reference on the technical aspects of these ships, but covers operational history as well. Their account of the Channel Dash is on pages 145-149, and the time in Brest prior to this operation is discussed immediately beforehand. In summary, these authors say "The bold and successful return of the three large ships...." No mention of "blockade".

Evan Mawdsley: The War for the Seas, a Maritime History of World War II. Mawdsley covers the Channel Dash (or, as he also calls it Kanaldurchbruch) on page 110. He compares Hitler's wish for the ships to return through the short route up the Channel and mentions Raeder's feeling that this was too hazardous. In summary, he describes it as a "clever and daring operation and an embarrassment to the British. But fundamentally it marked the end of an era and another German strategic failure." No mention of blockades or blockade running by this author either.

Craig Symonds World War II at Sea, a Global History. pg 259-260. Symonds covers Raeder's wish for the Northern route home, and Hitler's decision for the short route. He gives a concise account of the voyage, and points out that the success achieved, despite Raeder's prediction of disaster further devalued the standing of German admirals in Hitler's mind. No mention of "running a blockade" - though Symonds does perhaps come within a mile of the concept when he says that "...and [Hitler] insisted that the three large warships still imprisoned in Brest Harbor — the Scharnhorst, Gneisenau, and Prinz Eugen — be brought back at once from France for service off Norway."

Roskill, Stephen. The War at Sea Volume II. The Period of Balance. Roskill gives quite an extensive account, largely from the British side. This includes “The reader may, with reason, feel that the British naval forces thus made ready in the south to stop three powerful warships were extremely slender.” He explains that the limited resources, both air and naval, were positioned to deal with the Tirpitz. In all the extensive account of the Channel Dash, no use of the word “blockade”. Roskill is not shy of the word, as he talks about the merchant ships that were blockade runners, and the blockade of Pantalleria in the Mediterranean. Furthermore, in Volume 1, he refers to a brief blockade of the newly arrived Scharnhorst class ships in Brest. What he says is [bold added]: “During the succeeding days the Admiralty maintained three or four separate forces, each comprising one or more capital ships with cruisers or destroyers in company, disposed so as to intercept the enemy should he come out. But a blockade of such nature imposes a tremendous strain on the forces involved and it cannot be sustained for long periods.” Note that the timescale here is days. This blockade has nothing to do with the Channel Dash - and mention of it confirms that a maritime historian will use the term when it is appropriate. Reading of volume 2 is highly suggestive that Roskill did not think it appropriate in talking about the Channel Dash.

So, at present, it is 5 nil on sources and the Wikipedia policy dictates that the onus is on you to provide an RS to support your contention.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "But a blockade of such nature" i.e. there are blockades of other natures.... You are going round in circles and I have lost patience. Keith-264 (talk) 19:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Keith-264 I trust you are not relying on some sort of extrapolated interpretation of Roskill as your source. To quote Wikipedia policy again (WP:UNSOURCED): "'The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.'"You will also find, in the same policy:"'Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.'"At present the article has no source that clearly confirms your view that "running a blockade" is a fair description of the Channel Dash. I have presented 5 sources that show acknowledged experts in the field choosing not to use that term in this context. It is now down to you to find several equally authoritative sources that agree with you. The only thing that keeps this matter going round in circles is the absence of any sources to support your point of view. Please take some time to see if you can find the authoritative sources that you need. I will be offline for much of the next few days, so this is where I will leave this.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

In an attempt to wrap up this matter (1) no source has been put forward to support the idea that this event can fairly be described as "running a blockade". This subject has been flagged on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. This has not produced any sources to support the term. (2) a source used by the article, Run the Gauntlet, the Channel Dash 1942 by Ken Ford uses the word "blockade" only once. It says "The Royal Navy knew that they could not blockade the port....". So, this source says that no blockade was in place. (3) as per discussion above, authoritative sources that could state that a blockade was in place at the time of the Channel Dash choose not to do so. (4) as stated above, any material put in an article must be supportable by a reliable source - the burden of proof is on the editor putting the material in the article (5) the term "ran a British blockade" appears only in the lead of the article. There is no mention of a blockade elsewhere. The article has therefore been changed to use language that is supported by a source. The source chosen is Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class, by Koop and Schmolke, which is already used in the article. The logic is that this is a book by specialist authors that is solely about the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. It also has the advantage that the authors are German, so this reduces any potential Anglo-centric bias of the sources. On page 111 this source says "The constant danger of air attack coupled with the abandonment of plans for a new Atlantic sortie following the sinking of the Bismarck convinced the Naval Staff that the heavy units had to be evacuated from Brest for deployment elsewhere." This language seems broadly consistent with other more general naval histories of WW2. Therefore the article has been edited to match the cited source.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 09:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "they could not blockade the port" does not preclude a blockade only that of the port so your claim is a non sequitur. I don't have time to go any further at the moment but will revisit this when I do. Regards. Keith-264 (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * (1) no source has been put forward to support the idea that this event can fairly be described as "running a blockade". This subject has been flagged on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. This has not produced any sources to support the term'
 * You'll have to wait a while longer for me to look through my sources.


 * (2) a source used by the article, Run the Gauntlet, the Channel Dash 1942 by Ken Ford uses the word "blockade" only once. It says "The Royal Navy knew that they could not blockade the port....". So, this source says that no blockade was in place.
 * See above; bear in mind traditional close blockade and the newer distant blockades such as that of the High Seas Fleet by the RN.


 * (3) as per discussion above, authoritative sources that could state that a blockade was in place at the time of the Channel Dash choose not to do so.
 * A negative does not prove a positive.


 * (4) as stated above, any material put in an article must be supportable by a reliable source - the burden of proof is on the editor putting the material in the article.
 * Not in dispute.


 * (5) the term "ran a British blockade" appears only in the lead of the article. There is no mention of a blockade elsewhere. The article has therefore been changed to use language that is supported by a source. The source chosen is Battleships of the Scharnhorst Class, by Koop and Schmolke, which is already used in the article. The logic is that this is a book by specialist authors that is solely about the Scharnhorst and Gneisenau. It also has the advantage that the authors are German, so this reduces any potential Anglo-centric bias of the sources. On page 111 this source says "The constant danger of air attack coupled with the abandonment of plans for a new Atlantic sortie following the sinking of the Bismarck convinced the Naval Staff that the heavy units had to be evacuated from Brest for deployment elsewhere." This language seems broadly consistent with other more general naval histories of WW2. Therefore the article has been edited to match the cited source.
 * Nice to see a German source, it helps the article but it is not a RS for any conclusion that an editor wants to burden it with. I found your quote on page 91, not 111 on my online scan. That it does not refer to British measures against the ships except for bombing seems unsurprising. Keith-264 (talk) 13:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the above revisit to this matter, a few points to add: The Koop and Schmolke quotation is on page 111 - I have their book in front of me right now. Perhaps worth mentioning that on this same page, reasons for the Channel dash are given: constant air attacks and the abandonment of any further Atlantic sorties following the sinking of the Bismarck. (Garzke and Dulin expand this by stating that the network of supply ships to support such sorties had been mopped up by the Royal Navy in May- June 1941 - pg 146. Raeder's biography by Keith Bird makes clear the importance of these supply ships to surface operations - chapter 9). The account of the Channel dash in the above-mentioned biography of Raeder is in a section entitled "The End of Raeder’s Atlantic Strategy and the Retreat North, June 1941–February 1942". The word "retreat" seems consistent with the "evacuated" that is currently in the article. This is additional to the consistency with other naval historians already discussed. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Quite, DRZW too; I'm unsure why you emphasise this, it isn't in dispute is it? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Archive?
This talk page is getting quite long. Should about the first third of it be 'Archived'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seki1949 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I moved most pre-2017 Talk Content to Archive 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seki1949 (talk • contribs) 18:38, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources used for section "Norway hypothesis"
I have concerns about the sources used for the section titled "Norway hypothesis". These consist of: * Martienssen, Anthony K. (1949). Hitler and his Admirals. New York: E. P. Dutton. * Richards, Denis (1974) [1953]. "VI The Struggle at Sea: The First Battle of the Convoy Routes, the Anti-Shipping Offensive and the Escape of the 'Scharnhorst' and 'Gneisenau'" (used twice) * Roskill, S. W. (1962) [1957]. The War at Sea 1939–1945: The Period of Balance. History of the Second World War United Kingdom Military Series. II (3rd impr. ed.). London: HMSO. All of these are particularly dated sources, written in, respectively, 1949, 1953 and 1957. A lot of additional historical study has been done in the 60+ years since these books were written, and historians have also had the advantage of knowing the Enigma code-breaking side of the story since then to assist in their interpretation of events. These sources also pre-date Raeder's autobiography, written in 1960.

One more recent source, written in 2012, is Hellwinkel, Lars (2014 - that's the English language version date). Hitler's Gateway to the Atlantic: German Naval Bases in France 1940–1945 Seaforth Publishing. Here you find that the German Naval staff had come to the conclusion that Brest was untenable as a base for the 3 heavy ships. This coincided with Hitler's ambition to have his naval forces defending Norway. So the need to remove the ships from Brest was, according to this source, not totally Hitler's idea.

What other recent sources are there out there to help improve this part of the article? ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I like the new section and I hope that it "sticks" here. Before someone 'reverts' it, I hope this potential action is discussed on here on this Talk Page. In some respects, older sources that pre-date the reveal of Enigma are better for understanding the German decision making in this period.Seki1949 (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Not sure I understand the remark about the "new section" - it has been in the article in (broadly) this form since before July 2018 (the date I went back to for a side-by-side comparison). I would also point out WP:AGE MATTERS and WP:HISTRH. Particularly relevant when the questioned sources were written before Raeder's memoirs were published. Also Hellwinkel had access to a lot of records that no historian had looked at seriously before - his work is properly referenced.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)


 * My mistake referring to the section as "New". As to the use of new vs old historical sources, opinions vary based on a number of editorial judgements.  Seki1949 (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look at what is cited to older sources you'll find that most of it is narrative of events. In the analysis the verdicts are chronological which can bring out changes due to the later analyses you mention (and crass regurgitations of the older sources). Keith-264 (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

J. C. Taylor citation
I can't find a 1966 isbn for this and the cite is dated 2018, I can't find the biblio details for that either. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:57, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ISBNs were introduced in 1967, so this 1966 first edition would not have one. The 1971 reprint is numbered 978-0711001541.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I know, a 1966 edition would have an oclc. Was the citation to 2018 a mistake? Keith-264 (talk) 22:27, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Difficult to prove a negative, but it appears that there is no 2018 version of this book. Only solution would be to check a copy to see if the page numbers are right for the content. Then the original reference would be irrelevant. I might be able to source a copy in a little while unless you have access.
 * It appears to me that multiple OCLC numbers have been issued for this book (various issues, formats and languages, but with some apparent duplication) - but the main one is 721127611 - does this format look right?ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 23:36, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I corrected cite dated 2018 in error to the correct 1966.Seki1949 (talk) 02:17, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I put 721127611 into World Cat and got this so I think it's OK. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:55, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Fiasco
No but someone else tried to remove it for being recondite. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 01:11, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Order of battle
I note the infobox gives a brief list of total numbers of unit types involved in the episode, but that the article does not have an easy-to-find orbat for either side. I understand that the composition of the German convoy may have changed during the course of its transit, while the British forces were arrayed along the route of transit, but I am unclear on which units were involved overall, without having to read the full narrative. This is a rather long article (appropriately, as one would expect this for a significant episode); does anyone feel that it perhaps deserves a clearly-marked orbat section? 2A00:23C7:3119:AD01:3063:2CFA:2CBB:6B4C (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It won't do any harm but the data will be hard to find. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 00:39, 12 November 2022 (UTC)