Talk:Operation Bernhard/Archive 1

Copyright violation allegation
A copyright violation notice was posted on 2 February 2006 alleging a possible copyvio of http://www.militaryimages.net/articles/index.php?article=5

Note that that page records that it was created on 2005-06-19, while this page was substantially in its present state by November 2004 (I should know, I wrote the bulk of it) and that militaryimages.net has taken this article without proper GFDL attribution. I cannot comment Copyright problems/2006 February 2 because a change to the spam filters is preventing that page from being updated since there's a tinyurl.com link somewhere in it, which is now blacklisted, so I am recording the facts here and removing the copyvio notice. -- Arwel (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Much of the language in this article is strikingly similar to the one at this URL: http://www.germannotes.com/faq_operation_bernhard.shtml —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.199.143 (talk • contribs)
 * Arwel wrote most of this article. Jooler 23:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The first page mentioned above(http://www.militaryimages.net) appears to have a broken link from here and the second page has been dicontinued. -Unsigned —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.179.3.99 (talk) 01:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia content is mirrored in a lot of places, and sometimes without the proper GFDL attribution. This does not mean that wikipedia violates a copyright for those who steal our content.JERRY talk contribs 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Contradiction
In this article it states that "German spy Elyesa Bazna (codename "Cicero") was paid with counterfeit notes, and unsuccessfully sued the German government after the war for outstanding pay." This appears to contradict Elyesa Bazna, which states "Bazna sued the German government for outstanding pay, and obtained a modest recompense." JERRY talk contribs 05:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suspect her suit failed, but the government gave her something anyway. Unfortunately, I have no idea if that is correct or what. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 20:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why has the "MACHO MACHO MAN" comment at the end of this section not been deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.232.233.72 (talk) 11:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Paid Off?
For the life of me, I can't understand the intent of the following statement, relative to the issue at hand - the counterfeiting of the notes and their passage into legitimate channels of exchange: "As late as the 1940s every banknote issued by the Bank of England was recorded in large leather-bound ledgers, still in the Bank's archives, and it was noted that one of the notes had been recorded as having been paid off." What does this mean?Joep01 (talk) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It means that a note turned up at the Bank to be paid off i.e. replaced with another note and destroyed, with a serial number which had already been recorded as having been paid off, so obviously there was a duplicate. This is the same mechanism by which the Portuguese Bank Note Crisis of 1925 came to light. -- Arwel Parry (talk) 11:51, 6 February 2011 (UTC)