Talk:German occupation of the Channel Islands/Archive 1

Theresa by Julia Pascal
The following entry was added to Legacy section by User:69.153.134.214 on 3 August 2006:
 * The play Theresa written by Julia Pascal is about the collaborations of the british government in Guernsey with the Nazis

This entry has been moved to the discussion page as Also before it is reinstated, it would benefit from further clarification - such as when the play was written/ premiered
 * it does not make sense - the British Government had no presence in the island during the occupation (it could be claimed that the British Government abandoned the islands to the Germans).
 * it does not conform to Neutral point of view policy. It is not an established fact that the island government collaborated with the Nazis.

footie 07:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Based on http://www.pascal-theatre.com/pasctheresa.htm, I'd suggest wording along the lines of:
 * "Theresa" (premiered 1990, Newcastle), written by Julia Pascal, tells the story of Theresa Steiner, a Viennese Jew, who was amongst those deported from Guernsey to Auschwitz.
 * Man vyi 08:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we incorporate some of this material into the main article?
There is a lot of good stuff here - which should be incorporated into the main body of the article in some way. However, it does need some careful editing, since as it stands, it does not comply with Wikipedia principles, in particular: Neutral point-of-view, quoting sources, not expressing personal opinions and not presenting original research. - footie 16:53, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:O-cash.JPG
Image:O-cash.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 10:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

"Move" button?
Hi. Why is the "move" button not appearing at the top of this article's main page? Has someone or something disabled it for any reason? Thanks. IZAK (talk) 11:04, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Moved from article
I REALLY THINK THIS IS DEROGATORY TO THE MEMORY OF THOSE WHO DID RESIST, AND PAID WITH THEIR LIVES YOU MAKE IT SOUND SO TRIVIAL - REV. CAHEW OF ST SAVIOURS CHURCH WAS DEPORTED TO AND DIED IN AUSCHWITZ FOR KEEPING A RADIO SET- YOU DONT APPRECIATE HOW MANY MEN AND WOMEN GOT BEATEN UP BADLY - LOUISA GOULD SHELTERED ESCAPEES, AND GOT SENT TO RAVENSBRUCK, WHICH WASN'T EXACTLY A PICNIC! YOU SHOULD ALSO INCLUDE THE NAME OF THE POSTMISTRESS WHO SINGLE HANDEDLY, AND ON HER OWN INITIATIVE, INTERCEPTED AND STEAMED OPEN ANY INTERNAL MAIL ADDRESSED TO THE COMMANDANT - SHE KEPT A LIST OF PEOPLE WHO INFORMED ON OTHERS, AND GAVE IT TO THE ARMY ON LIBERATION -ONE SHOULD ALSO REMEMBER MR. GREEN, WHO OWNED A PHOTOGRAPHIC RETAIL OUTLET ON JERSEY, WHO WAS IN CONTACT WITH THE RESISTANCE ON MAINLAND FRANCE: HE BUILT A PINHOLE CAMERA TO PHOTOGRAPH THE FORTIFICATIONS, AND SMUGGLED THESE TO THE MAINLAND BY SEWING THEM INTO THE LAPELS OF MENS JACKETS - THEY GOT CAUGHT AND SENT TO NAZI DEATH CAMPS - THE PHOTOGRAPHS HE TOOK WHILST IMPRISONED WERE USED AS VITAL EVIDENCE OF THE ATROCITIES THAT TOOK PLACE THERE AT THE NUREMBERG TRIALS- YOU REALLY SHOULD NOT TRIVIALISE THE BRAVERY IT TAKES TO EVEN PASSIVELY RESIST ON AN ISLAND THAT SMALL, ITS LIKE SPITTING ON THEIR GRAVES.

Comment by 80.225.166.248, moved to talk by Man vyi (talk) 06:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dame of Sark
The play listed was also a television production. http://ftvdb.bfi.org.uk/sift/title/11214 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.115.251 (talk) 13:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Title or a descriptive name
From the history of the article
 * 07:59, 11 April 2008 Philip Baird Shearer (descriptive names should not be in bold see WP:MOS) (undo)
 * 09:29, 11 April 2008 Man vyi (per WP:MOS "The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface")

Whether the article name is in bold or not depends if the it is a title or a descriptive name. The Manual of Style says "If the topic of an article has no name and the title is merely descriptive—such as Electrical characteristics of a dynamic loudspeaker—the title does not need to appear verbatim in the main text; if it does, it is not in boldface." Which is it: "Occupation of the Channel Islands" or "occupation of the Channel Islands"? --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

From my talk page:
 * It's a proper noun, "the Occupation", in general usage (see e.g. Texts relating to the German Occupation of the Channel Islands). The Dictionnaire Jersiais-Français gives "Otchupâtion" and "Occupation" as proper nouns when referring to the period 1940-1945. Follows the same pattern as e.g. Glorious Revolution, July Monarchy and other historical periods - unless those are descriptions? Man vyi (talk) 12:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not arguing either way, let common usage decide. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Additional Information

In 1970 I was a Patrol Officer in Papua-New Guinea where I met a German Catholic missionary priest who told me that he had been a Major in the German army in charge of the channel Isles. He showed me his 1939(?)identity card where he pointed out a crude change to his card (possibly an I to J) that changed his status from theological student to a non-protected category - allowing him to be called up. This was in the middle of New Britain and more or less 30 years after the occupation and he was still anxious to explain that it wasn't his choice at all. If there is any interest I might be able to find some detail of his location and possible his name from deeply filed records.

Demilitarisation
The British Government informed the Lt. Governors and the Bailiffs of Jersey and Guernsey of its decision to demilitarise the Bailiwicks.

An assurance was given to the Bailiffs of Jersey and Guernsey and to Judge French (President of the States of Alderney) that the German Government would be informed that the Islands were demilitarised open territory.

This assurance was important to the Bailiwicks in formulating policy on how they should respond to what they correctly regarded as the imminent occupation of the Islands by the Wehrmacht.

The fact is that the British Government, despite those assurances, did not 'officially' provide this information to Germany through a neutral government - though I believe it was broadcast by Daventry Radio shortly before the German occupation.

The Germans, to the complete surprise of the Bailiwick Governments preceded their occupation by air raids on Jersey and Guernsey. Neither the Bailiffs nor the population had expected the occupation to be preceded by violence since it was assumed that Germany had been informed that the islands were open territory.

It was this that gave rise to a feeling that the islands had not only been deserted but betrayed. Although never publicly expressed by the States, popular feeling was that they had been abandoned and this gained strength as the Allies liberated France yet turned their backs on the Channel Islands, securing the surrender of German forces on the Islands only after the fall of Berlin and the unconditional surrender of Germany.

However, even during the most difficult period of the occupation (the last year of the war was very hard) Islanders remained unswerving in their loyalty to the (Ducal) Crown and increasingly confident of an ultimate British victory - hence the 'V' campaign of 1944-45 which so irritated the Germans - even on Alderney.

The article reads in part "On 15 June 1940, the British Government decided that the Channel Islands were of no strategic importance and would not be defended. They decided to keep this a secret from the German forces."

The assertion that the British Government had decided to keep it secret from the Germans that the Channel Islands had been demilitarised is a nonsense and quite untrue.

The whole raison de étre for the British decision was that they regarded the Channel Islands as being too difficult to defend from German occupation. In coming to this decision, the British Government took into account:

1.	Difficulties of maintaining supply lines from England which they knew would be subject to disruption by German sea and air attacks,

2.	The likelihood that British garrisons would ultimately have to surrender the islands due to lack of supplies and the propaganda this would provide Germany.

3.	Maintaining garrisons on the islands would tie up manpower needed for the war effort, manpower which could be better employed defending England.

4.	The likelihood that actively defending the islands would have resulted in German military attacks causing significant loss of civilian life.

For these and other reasons, the British Government decided not to defend the Islands and in order to preclude hostile German attacks on them, it was agreed by them and the Island Governments that the German Government would be informed that the islands were demilitarised, were open territory and that German occupation would not be resisted by the Island Governments.

The major purpose of this decision was to safeguard the civilian population by ensuring that Germany was aware of the status of the Islands. The UK Government had made this clear to the Governments in Jersey and Guernsey at least a week before the occupation and all had agreed that this was the most sensible course of action.

Why Germany was not ‘officially’ informed of the Islands status by the British Government is not known. It is possible that the British Government thought broadcast advice was a sufficient notification.

What is known is that the Germans preceded their occupation with air-raids which killed and injured many people and caused considerable damage.

It is also known that, on arrival in Jersey and Guernsey, German military officers claimed that the German Government had never been ‘officially’ advised of the status of the Channel Islands either directly by the British Government or indirectly through the diplomats of a neutral country.

The status of the Islands had been broadcast by the BBC but this could not be accepted as ‘official’ advice. German aircraft had over-flown the three largest islands and reported Alderney appeared to be heavily fortified and may have been garrisoned, that there were indications of military traffic in and around the ports of St Hélier and St Peter Port and that it was unclear that the Islands were in fact demilitarised.

Further, one of the German pilots reported that his aircraft had been fired on as it over-flew the harbour of St Peter Port indicating a military presence.

In consequence, bombing and strafing raids followed.

I have just added a few citations to this section of the article - there seem to be very few in this early part of the text. Will add more to latter parts of the article later, just check the formatting of my references/quotes as they may be slightly contrary to the Wikipedia standards; just in case :) Daniel.thorpe (talk) 03:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that there may be some useful information at the The National Archives, see here. Unfortunately, only the indexes are available online, the actual documents can only be ordered at a price, or viewed in person at Kew, London.Danrok (talk) 01:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Channel Island Jews?
What happened to the Jews of the Channel Islands, and how many of them were there? It's only alluded to in passing in the article and the talk page. I mean, I can guess. Was the experience any different than elsewhere in occupied Europe? --Jfruh (talk) 05:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

JEWS IN THE CHANNEL ISLANDS
There were not many people of the Jewish faith in the Channel Islands prior to the German occupation. A number had fled to England in the first half of 1940. I think there were 10-20 left at the time of the occupation.

Having established themselves militarily, the Germans demanded from the Governments on Jersey and Guernsey, the names of all Jewish residents. Their identity became known to the Germans, either by being advised by government officials or anonymously. All were arrested by the Germans and deported. None are known to have survived.

It is thought that the father of Daphne Pope on Alderney was a Jew - a fact which never became known to the Germans. She was a practicing Catholic all her life and thus escaped the attention of the military and occasional visit to the island by the Gestapo. She remained on Alderney until after the liberation.

The Germans brought several hundred Jews to Alderney, mostly from France, but also from the low countries and Germany. They were imprisoned in Sylt, a camp initially built in 1942 by the Organization Todt but taken over by the SS in 1943.

The inmates of Sylt were used as slave labour until the few survivors were sent back to Germany in 1944. It is thought that over 400 of them died on Alderney as a result of sickness arising from chronic starvation, work injury, overwork, or brutality by the SS or a combination of these.

Even during the period when the SS administered Sylt and Nordeney, there was no deliberate systematic attempt to murder either Jews or Slavs as occurred in Concentration Camps in Germany and Poland. There were no gas chambers or crematoria on Alderney. Those who died on the island did so from gross neglect, starvation, brutality and being worked to death. Even so, the result was that over 700 are known to have died and the actual figure was almost certainly higher.

On 14 May, 1945 the Germans burned Sylt and the other camps on Alderney and destroyed all camp records. On 16 May, the island was liberated by British troops who landed from a Royal Navy vessel sent from Guernsey.

The Soviet Government subsequently funded a monument to those who had died on Alderney during the German occupation. What is not understood is that Israel has never shown interest in the plight of the many Jews who died on the island as a result of their inhumane treatment at the hands of the SS. It was left to the few islanders and, oddly, the German Catholic Priest to say Kaddish for those who died.

More understandable is the failure (though not the refusal) of the present inhabitants of Alderney to recognise the islands history or to build a memorial to those who lost their lives at the hands of the Germans. This can be explained by the fact that none of the present inhabitants of Alderney were on the island during the occupation and at least half of them have no historical connection with it.

Article
Here is a relevant & interesting article

This publication is both scholarly and accurate. Its material on the plight of both OT and SS prisoners on Alderney is, from what my father told me and what I personally saw, all too true - though one or two footnotes are contested.

Deportation of the Jews
I think that the main article should be amended to reflect the fact (as the contribution above says) that the Channel Island Jews were in fact rounded up and deported to the camps as in other parts of occupied Europe. This took place with the cooperation of the Guernsey authorities, whose excuses were little better than the 'I was only obeying orders' heard from so many others implicated in the Holocaust.

The details are available on the holocaustresearchproject.org website in the 'German occupation' section. For some reason I am not allowed to include the actual link here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.46.55.17 (talk) 12:16, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Fortification
Senior Wehrmacht Officers in France were perturbed by the magnitude of resources allocated to defence of the Channel Islands and drew attention to the need for a large portion of those resources to be re-allocated to construction of the Atlantic Wall on the mainland.

That suggestion was rejected by Adolf Hitler in person.

In 1941 the Führer had declared that the Channel Islands were to remain a German possession in perpetuity, whether or not a peace treaty was signed with Great Britain.

Hitler was convinced that the British would launch a military attack on the islands and would then use them to make attacks on the mainland with a view to ending German occupation of France.

Field Marshall von Rundstedt in Paris (Commander: Western Europe) and General von Schmettow in Guernsey (Commander: Channel Islands) both pointed out that such fears were unfounded since British attemps to occupy the islands were unsustainable due to vulnerability of supply lines and island infrastructure to German attack - to say nothing of the vulnerability of the civilian population.

Further, the islands were located in the Golfe de San Malo, an area subject to vast tidal fluctuation which alone made a military assault on the Cotentin coastline virtually impossible. A British attack was far more likely on the beaches between Calais and Cherbourg.

Hitler would have none of this and ordered that the islands be fortified to the point where they were deemed so impregnable that British military planners would realise that any attack on them would be suicidal.

His orders were obayed.

I have removed the following: "Only a small percentage of the German fortifications are open to the public, due to the tragic deaths of souvenir hunters through lack of oxygen. Many of the large tunnel complexes (similar to Ho8) are now sealed off as a result."

It hasn't been cited, and it is not accurate in my opinion. Danrok (talk) 01:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Resistance and Collaboration

 * maybe some more stories of how islanders resisted/helped each other out (my grandfather found a German rifle, so my great grandfather gave it to a friend (who was due to be sent off becuase of a radio) to give to the Germans, saving him from deportation, even though my great grandfather could have used it to gain favour for his two sons who were french POW's)
 * no black market- probably should be added
 * hiding animals e.c.t. that is passive resistance
 * someone should try and the find the picture of the 'V' painted on the sign
 * a frenchman was shot for singing his national anthem
 * stealing of German bike tyres — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fdsdh1 (talk • contribs) 19:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Any stories like these would need to have citations. For example, from books where the author has interviewed witnesses. Danrok (talk) 12:19, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Does Alderney need to be in the sidebox?
I think that ALderney shouldn't be in the sidebar, as it is part of the Bailiwick of Guernsey. 87.244.97.178 (talk) 17:46, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

The field label is "State", and I believe Alderney is a state - States of Alderney. Danrok (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Better images of resistance design in stamps and banknotes
I feel that this article would be improved if the "Resistance and collaboration" section were to have images of Edmund Blampied's cleverly hidden references to the resistance. The mention of "G.R." on the 3d stamp could be illustrated with something like this. It doesn't even have to be a large image, a simple cropping of the image could achieve the desired effect. A fair-use rationale can surely be included? --Inops (talk) 14:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Germans or Nazis?
German visitors to Jersey have mentioned to me that they find all the talk about 'German this' and 'German that' relating to the Occupation slightly strange. They would expect to see 'Nazi this' and 'Nazi that'. I wonder if this (a) relates to historical statements in their country more than in ours, (b) smacks of unnecessary political correctness, or (c) means that it might be time to move things forward in articles such as this by updating some of the terminology we use. I see that we use German in this article 106 times, and Nazi 11 times. --Nigelj (talk) 17:23, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * A Nazi, unless I am mistaken, would refer to a member of the Nazi Party. But, you could describe a bunker as a relic of Nazi Germany. Danrok (talk) 21:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Over time, I have changed some instances of "the Germans" to the Wehrmacht, where it seemed correct to do so. There may be more instances which could be changed. I make such changes because it is more factually correct, rather than to be politically correct. "Germans" is a very broad term. Danrok (talk) 21:55, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Occupation was by the German Reich; the person in charge was referred to as the German Kommandant; contemporary newspapers are full of "official German communiqués"; the title of the German newspaper in Guernsey was the Deutsche Guernsey-Zeitung and in Jersey the Deutsche Inselzeitung, etc... I think we retain the 1940s usage of an Occupation which was presented, by the Occupiers themselves, as a German Occupation rather than a Nazi Occupation (although it was, as should go without saying, a Nazi-launched and -conducted war, in this case it's rather like how we call the Battle of Jersey a French invasion, for the sake of a handy label, rather than a Capetian one). The Occupiers' own propaganda clearly laid on the "Germanness" of the Occupation with a trowel. As an example, the article that appeared in the Deutsche Inselzeitung in July 1943 to mark the 3rd anniversary of the start of the Occupation talked triumphantly about Jersey having been in German hands for 3 years, since German fliers landed, through the power of the German sword, German soldiers, German posts, German organisation, etc. Man vyi (talk) 20:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Images
I have recently uploaded a number of images of German orders/decrees from Jersey which may be of use to editors in improving this article. They can be found here: Commons:Category:Jersey in World War II. In particular there a number of images relating to resistance (sabotage, V signs, escapes, etc: Commons:Category:Jersey resistance during World War II) which are otherwise hard to find. Man vyi (talk) 08:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)


 * If you ask me, this article is already cluttered with far too many images. Best to prune some out before adding anything new. Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I was thinking more of the informational content of the images of orders/decrees. Man vyi (talk) 07:06, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Image - MAP? Article has many (too many?) photos of signs/ plaques, but NO map. A map that locates the Channel Islands would be helpful. GeeBee60 (talk) 00:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Initial German discipline needs explaining
The article is detailed where resistance is concerned, but lacks detail what the Germans were up to (after all, this is about German occupation, not about resistance).

In particular, half-way down the article, the following sentence comes out of the blue: "The sight of brutality against slave workers brought home to many Islanders the reality of Nazi ideology behind the punctilious façade of the Occupation."

This "punctilious façade of the Occupation" is not mentioned earlier. Why were the Germans punctilious and what were they hoping to achieve? This should be explained chronologically near the beginning of the article.

My own tuppence: I heard from a native Jerseyman living in England in around 2002 that the German soldiers stood in orderly queues just like islanders, and politely gave up their seats on the bus to women and the elderly. According to him, their point was to demonstrate the civilised nature of Germans and therefore their right to rule the world. This "civilised" treatment of islanders eroded however when food became scarce on the island later in the war. The other point he mentioned was fraternisation of Jersey girls with German soldiers: at liberation, he encountered a group of teenage Jersey boys pushing a young women/girl against a fence because she had been having an affair with a German. He intervened, although only 16 at the time, and saved her. After that, she left the island and never returned.

Original research, sorry. But I hope someone can do better than me and come up with the goods to improve this slightly lop-sided article. I am not likely to re-visit this Discussion page in the near future, so, Reader, please do not spend time replying. Good luck with the improvement efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.21.122 (talk) 17:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 29 September 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved. DrKiernan (talk) 12:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Occupation of the Channel Islands → German occupation of the Channel Islands – The general trend in occupation articles seems to be "German occupation of Foo" (see: German occupation of Norway, German occupation of Czechoslovakia etc.). This also seems to be the only article which doesn't currently use it and it might also make it a bit easier to find! —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the proposed move.
 * To change the subject slightly, this article does not reflect the ongoing debate about the extent of collaboration of Channel Islanders with German occupiers. Repressive acts by Germans are described in great detail, but there is little discussion of collaboration with the Germans -- which in the opinion of some writers was substantial.  People will never agree whether the collaboration was legitimate or not -- but the debate and the claims and counter-claims need to be in the article.  Smallchief (talk  11:17, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
 * , I absolutely agree. I also think that the pictures (especially the memorials) in the article should be reassessed to see whether they actually add something substantive to the content discussed. Some content comparing the nature of the occupation with that in France or elsewhere might be helpful too.—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:17, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support for consistency -- 70.51.202.113 (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per above. Thryduulf (talk) 14:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency and clarity. -Zanhe (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Resistance
I have created a main page Resistance to German occupation of the Channel Islands and shortened the section on resistance in this page as I found the section in this page was too long and a bit disjointed, as well as missing some important items. There is always concern about broadcasters and writers getting the wrong end of the stick on this subject. The original wording is preserved on this page using Please feel free to talk about the change to this page, then we can see if it is accepted or should be changed. Feel free to modify the main Resistance to German occupation of the Channel Islands page. Martin a Donkey (talk) 23:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Good job! Have you considered taking the new article to GA level? It wouldn't take much (more) work (if you're interested in the topic) and I'd gladly review it for you. —Brigade Piron (talk) 22:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I don't know what GA level is or how to get it there. I'm relatively new to this game. Martin a Donkey
 * No worries (it's here if you're interested). I do have a question though - why are you putting material about collaboration on your new article? Surely that would better fit here (or in another new article with "collaboration" in the title)...—Brigade Piron (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I will have a look at the connection later today. Why collaboration - well from my way of thinking, collaboration is the opposite of resistance and you cannot consider one without knowing about the other, as most activities of occupied people form the grey areas between these two extremes. Sadly current commentators writing "exciting" articles for newspapers or books they want to sell, seem to take a different view and have probably never met many people who lived under occupation, so seem to say that collaboration is almost anything that is not active resistance i.e. even telling an enemy soldier what the time your watch says, is collaboration, unless of course you tell him the wrong time, in which case its resistance. I was planning on finding more examples of full resistance and more grey areas to highlight the different shades of grey. One not mentioned so far is the "black market" - is this a form of resistance ? and what about "hoarding" ? The jury is out on those two. Martin a Donkey
 * I see your point, but I still think than an article on Resistance is the wrong place to have a discussion of collaboration (especially at such length). Would you consider migrating it elsewhere? —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean to have a discussion, I was just explaining my thoughts..... which is I admit a bit long winded. I have had a read of the GA pages and will see if I can improve the article over the next week. Martin a Donkey

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on German occupation of the Channel Islands. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060619052022/http://www.winstonchurchill.org:80/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=426 to http://www.winstonchurchill.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=426
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928002537/http://www.jerseyheritagetrust.org/edu/resources/pdf/cijews.pdf to http://www.jerseyheritagetrust.org/edu/resources/pdf/cijews.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080410173738/http://www.alderney.gov.gg:80/index.php/pid/26/view/538 to http://www.alderney.gov.gg/index.php/pid/26/view/538

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German occupation of the Channel Islands. 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/20131220073157/https://soundcloud.com/gwyneth-herbert/alderney-original-demo to https://soundcloud.com/gwyneth-herbert/alderney-original-demo

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) 00:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Lager Wick
An article on the Lager Wick camp in Grouville is needed.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 14:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Problems with related article
Deportations from the German-occupied Channel Islands could use some love. I tried to clean it up a bit and fix the big problems, but it's still really bad compared to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.119.161.108 (talk) 05:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Value of British gift in houses?
The "Aftermath" section in "Liberation" goes into some detail about the monetary gifts the Islands received after the war. The last sentence, for some reason, restates these numbers in houses, as in "how many houses could be bought with that money". I can't see a good reason to leave this line in the article. For one, there's no reason to believe that all that money went to purchase houses - it seems very likely that it did not. Also, the edit author assumes a house is worth "£250 in the 1940s", which is completely unsourced and vague at best. The only reason that I did not remove the line myself is that the edit's author seems knowledgeable on the topic, and I'd like to give them (or anyone else) a chance to source or justify this claim. Mercury1964 (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

Jews - enemy
In the section on Jews, the text says that some could not be evacuated because citizens of enemy states were not allowed into Britain. What enemy country or countries are being referred to? What enemies did Britain have at the time other than Germany and Austria? Kdammers (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Exactly that. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 22:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)