Talk:Operation Quicksilver (deception plan)

Dummy tanks and dummy factories
This source, i.e. the US government, supports the existence of dummy tanks and dummy factories in SE England. DJ Clayworth 15:49, 18 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Additionally, photographic records of inflatable tanks, guns, and aircraft lend further credence to the popular belief of their existence. In response to an email inquiry, the authors of that web page cited two works -- Deception in War by Jon Latimer (ISBN 1585672041) and The Art of Deception in Warfare by Colonel Michael Dewar (ISBN 0715392220).  From the latter:

"'the various elements of QUICKSILVER had included the construction of a dummy fuel installation for pumping petrol across the channel at Dover, enormous numbers of rubber tanks, guns and vehicles in the woods and fields of Kent and Essex and the mooring of plywood landing craft in most of the areas and inlets along the south east coast.'"
 * As far as I see, the main source for this entry is Mr. Holt's The Deceivers (ISBN 0743250427). Is there any explanation for the discrepancy?  Failing that, non-biased information on the quality of these sources would be helpful.  Mr. Holt seems to be a definitive source, and as he mentions on the Talk:Operation Fortitude page, much the information he read was only recently declassified.  However, the two sources cited to me above are similarly recent - 2001 and 1989, respectively.  Tofof 01:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Response
Well, maybe I'm not "non-biased," but I can comment on this.

Just because an account is recent does not mean it is correct; it may be based not on original research but on citing of outdated sources that themselves contained misinformation. This is true of both the Latimer and the Dewar sources cited above. And it is true of the "US Government" source referred to - i.e., something written by a government employee. None of them is based on original research or on examination of the original records. The Dewar quote in particularly bizarre.

The chief source of misinformation about the Normandy deception is a grossly erroneous book that still remains in print, called BODYGUARD OF LIES. Among a plethora of other misinformation, this book - whose author was a sensationalist journalist notoriously careless with the facts - is responsible for the canard that Churchill allowed Coventry to be destroyed in order to protect the ULTRA secret. It was the first book published on the Normandy deception, back in 1976, and its misinformation has been copied and repeated ever since.

Dummy tanks certainly existed, and there are certainly photographs of them. They and other dummies were used in many deceptions in WWII. Many books have printed photographs of them, but these photographs are not of their use in connection with the Normandy deception, because there were none. None.

My book cited above - yes, I'm Holt - is the only - repeat, only - book on this subject that is based on research directly into the records themselves, along with Sir Michael Howard's official history (ISBN 0 521 40145 3). See also the only original official report that has so far been published as a book, FORTITUDE, by Roger Hesketh, introduction by Nigel West (ISBN 0 316 85172 8).

Other than dummy landing craft along the coast, there were no - repeat, no - dummies used in FORTITUDE SOUTH/QUICKSILVER. None. This was one of the major contributions of Colonel David Strangeways, the genius behind FORTITUDE SOUTH. The many references to such dummies that one sees are simply wrong, and generally trace back to BODYGUARD OF LIES.

I suspect I'm taking this trouble in vain. As Louis Armstrong said, there's some folks that if they don't know you can't tell 'em. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.105.37 (talk • contribs) 01:56, 16 September 2006


 * The only people who have posted to this discussion page haven't made any changes to the article since the issue was raised last January. It's rather rude to suggest Clayworth or myself are deaf to your words. I fully understand how a single prominent source can disrupt every account that follows - history is full of examples. I know I'm not an expert on the subject, and when I raised the question of "what's in these photographs" several months ago, it was simply because at the time there was no explanation here for its existence.


 * There's no need to take personally the fact that the dispute hasn't been settled. Please don't attack the people who are trying, along with you, to be able to write the most accurate article possible. As you said, the misinformation in Bodyguard of Lies has been quoted and requoted, so it shouldn't be surprising that people question why the article doesn't currently reflect what has become an accepted truth.


 * Wikipedia needs experts like you, Mr. Holt, that are familiar with a large body of work and can authoritatively and definitively answer questions. Since your book has been published, the No Original Research policy does not really apply here. As such, the page stands with your assertion that no dummy tanks, aircraft, etc were used. As you clarified for me, you might clarify in the main article that indeed these types of deceptions were used at other points in the war.


 * Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand what you're upset about or what you think needs changing. Tofof 07:08, 17 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Quote: "you might clarify in the main article that indeed these types of deceptions were used at other points in the war." Will do.


 * As for "upset" - well, mildly annoyed, but not at Wikipedia. No offense meant and I hope none taken.  Very much annoyed, though, that the "intelligence community" could run an official website as clumsy the one discussed hereunder (and I'm not just talking about the Normandy entry).  But that's for another venue.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.105.110 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 17 September 2006


 * Thanks for the reply. Yes, that 'government' web page is terrible through and through, and it's unfortunately typical of the quality of many official agency works aimed at the public.


 * You seem to be genuinely interested in providing quality information and debunking myths and misconceptions. As far as I can tell, you added information to the WWII Deceptions category page listing the definitive works.  As you may be aware, many articles, such as the Operation_Bodyguard page, use Bodyguard of Lies as a primary reference.  If you're interested in really improving the quality of these wiki articles, I'd strongly encourage you to create an account and consider joining the WikiProject_Military_history or similar groups.  It's relatively organized and has a peer review department that you would be well-suited to join.  (Note that the term 'peer review' in Wikipedia refers to having an expert or authority in the field review and fact-check articles - not simply an invitation for comment by wikipedians in general). Having a user account with a brief bio of who you are and what you've researched would help avoid the revert wars that have happened before -- People tend to distrust changes made by anonymous users. Tofof 22:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Further response
I have now read the extract from the cited government website. I am deeply impressed by the amount of misinformation packed into such a small space. I quote (since it's a government website, no permission is necessary):

"Deception on D-Day Probably the best example of historical countermeasures taken against the enemy is D-Day, during WWII. This was a completely covert operation. The Germans thought that the Allied invasion would take place at the Calais straits of Dover (WHICH??),  because this location historically had always provided easy access to the European continent. To keep the Germans thinking this (while, in fact, planning the invasion at Normandy), the Allies conducted an elaborate deception project called Operation Bodyguard (WRONG). To perpetrate the deception the Allies did many things. They placed rubber-inflated tanks and ships at strategic (and visible) locations around the departure port.(WRONG)   Bill Blass (the future fashion designer) built fake factories and towns near Calais. (WRONG.  BLASS WAS JUST ANOTHER ENLISTED MAN IN A DUMMY TANK TYPE OUTFIT.  AND NEAR CALAIS, FOR GOODNESS' SAKE? ) They "stationed" 21 fake personnel units there (WRONG) with fake identification patches (WRONG), placed real trucks with "jack-in-the-box" inflatable people in the car (WRONG; WHAT CAR?) , and dropped fake paratroopers over Calais (WRONG). The FUSAG (First United States Army Group) was a dummy army (WRONG) built around Gen. George Patton as part of the ruse because the Germans feared him and thought he would lead the attack. Field Marshall (MISSPELLED) Montgomery had a double, Clifton James (recommended by David Niven for the part (WRONG) ), who was seen in misleading locations."

This says it is the website of the "intelligence community." If that's a sample of their wares, no wonder we're bogged down in Iraq! . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.105.220 (talk • contribs) 21:20, 16 September 2006

Ghost Soldiers
I hope I am doing this right. Please, feel free to correct me or give me pointers if I get this whole "talking" thing wrong, but I really wanted to comment on this interesting discussion as the topic interests me a great deal. I first heard of the "Ghost Soldiers" and this deception a year or so ago and I was so surprised that I'd never heard of it, because as a teen I was a major WW2 junkie and read everything I got my hands on about it. lol  Anyway, I was wondering if the following links might help with your debate? >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1997/Wendell.htm >> http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/army/14army.htm >> http://www.jewishaz.com/jewishnews/011109/ghost.shtml >> http://www.ghostarmy.org/ I think it's so fascinating and creative that our military thought of using this type of psyop during the war. I totally love the whole "mind f**k" element of psychological warfare and deceptions like this. Take that Nazi's!   Hope this may help you out,  JJaybird06 12:57, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Op Fortitude Inflatable Tank.jpg
Image:Op Fortitude Inflatable Tank.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 06:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)