Talk:Battle of the Falkland Islands

Secret Service Section

A week or so ago, having read the memoirs of Fritz von Rintelen, a German naval officer and spy for the Admiralstab during World War I, I learned that Spee's squadron was lured to the Falkland Islands by a fake communique from the British naval codebreaking service, Room 40. Rintelen learned this himself in an interview with the head of British naval intelligence in 1925, Admiral Hall, and published this in his book, 'Dark Invader', in 1931. The book itself has a frontispiece signed by Admiral Hall himself which seems to be a pretty conclusive acknowledgement of the story. The story itself is confirmed in Patrick Beesley's studio of British naval codebreaking during World War 1, (Beesley, Patrick (1982). Room 40: British Naval Intelligence, 1914–1918. Long Acre, London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd. ISBN 0-241-108640).

A new addition has been made to this section, 'Secret Service Trap', by the editor Tirronan, which casts doubts on von Rintelen's account. However, Tirronan's source is a blog, specifically a decidedly non-academic review of the book 'Dark Invader' by an anonymous reviewer calling himself 'fredslibrary'. I submit that this attribution and source are not credible or verified, and propose to remove the addition unless a sounder source is cited within seven days of this post. Hubertgrove (talk) 10:57, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I rather doubt the whole account, read Massie's Castles of Steel before you go much further. There you will see that an officer survived and gave account of why the attack was made. It mentioned nothing of orders. Removing cited material will land you on a blocked list rather quickly. Many spies lead rather colorful lives and colorful stories, the review was of the intelligence community some of what the man said was true and some pretty obviously was not. I'd rather believe an actual historian.Tirronan (talk) 11:44, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have read Massie - and an excellent book it is too. It does specifically mention the work of Room 40 and Admiral Hall's department. In the context of the Battle of the Falkland Islands, Massie does declare that Von Spee's communications with the German mission in Valparaiso - which had a German radio relay station - were open to the British (this comment is just made in passing and he does not go into any depth about the influence, or otherwise, of Room 40 on the actual battle).
The officer who survived - that you mention - was Fregattenkapitän Hans Pochhammer, and his report specifically states that Admiral von Spee's attack on the Falklands was irrational. I do not say this is a convincing argument that he had received a forwarded signal - sealed orders - from the 'Admiralstab' (ie. Room 40) but it definitely does not exclude the poosibility and , if anything, provides indirect confirmation.
Finally, von Rintelen's book (produced in the Thirties)has a foreword by Admiral Hall himself - dammit, when the head of British Naval Intelligence endorses the book of a German naval officer, I submit that says something about its credibility.
My point however is rather that your edit does breach Wikipedia's own edit guidelines. It is based on your own opinion - 'some spies lie', and verified by reference to a blog (not credible source by Wiki standards) that contains a review (not an academically verifiable piece of work by Wiki standards) by an anonymous reviwewer (not a named and recognised source as required by Wiki standards) - the review itself contains obvious and demonstrable errors of fact. Who knows, anyone could have written that review, maybe even you?
I therefore ask you to provide more credible sources or remove your edit or else allow it to be removed. Thank you. Hubertgrove (talk) 17:49, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do a bit of research before removing said content. My opinion wouldn't matter a wit, no one in the intelligence community would believe most spies without other confirmation, that isn't my opinion its stated over and over in field-craft. It is part of the game. Look for all that anyone really knows perhaps its nothing but truth, however there seems to be a rush that this fellow is nothing but the truth and at least some seem to doubt his veracity. There are many stories about the Falklands battles and some of them are even true, but not all of them and I have never seen any other source bearing this as a fact. Did the British intelligence service make a claim to such? They were not very reticent about the ULTRA secret when the time passed and this was much earlier. I'm just not convinced.Tirronan (talk) 04:52, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry but the citations are authoritative and come from a contemporaneous participant(von Rintelen) and an academic historian (Patrick Beesly). Howeverm the ultimate confirmation is - and this is the third time I have said this - that Admiral Sir William Reginald Hall, the British Director of Naval Intelligence (DNI) from 1914 to 1919, provided the foreword to Franz von Rintelen's memoirs in 1932. I don't mean to sound exasperated but I don't think you can get more cast-iron than that. As I mentioned before, unless real opposing evidence is cited, let's remove the re-edit by the 28th. Hubertgrove (talk) 07:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Additional: having just consulted von Rintelen's book again, I see that after Admiral Hall's foreword, there is another preface. This one is by the famous English author AEW Mason who, as a major in the Royal Marines, was also an officer involved in the Naval Intelligence Department. He too verifies the accuracy of Rintelen's book in these words: "The history of those years is told in this book. The conversations which he records depend, of course, upon his memory; the main facts we are able to check, and we know them to be exact." Mason was also a politican, being a Liberal MP, which suggests he has some credibility as a source. Hubertgrove (talk) 09:11, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting that you cite academically verifiable, then accuse me of using my opinion, then of blogging up opposition to the article? What academic review would you so accuse me of in public like that? O.K., 1st off that is assumption of bad faith, twice, secondly, I will not be bullied into agreement when I doubt the source. If indeed you are so interested in academically verifiable, then surely sometime for proper research is warranted. I suggest that you cool off, keep the accusations of bad faith to yourself, and try however hard it is to be civil. I will do my research you may find my work in the Battle of Jutland article so I have quite a few sources I can check. I do not agree wiping out the single base available to the British was all that stupid unless he knew that there were superior forces in the area, which he obviously didn't. Why in the name of academically verifiability would you ever count a single source as truth? I think we can wait and I don't see the need to be rushed by you.Tirronan (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Be calm. I did not mean to offend you. Your argument may or may not hold water but it's original research conducted by yourself and unsupported by credible evidence. You know Wikipedia's rules in that respect. You also know Wikipedia's rules about harassment. Come up with a proper source and citation otherwise I will, quite properly, remove your spoiler edit in three days - you can always restore it if you ever manage to dig up contrary evidence. Thanks. Hubertgrove (talk) 07:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just what is Beesly supposed to have confirmed? --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 11:01, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the heart of this issue is the presented fact that the attack on the Falkland's base was done by a falsified order to the task force by the British. I do know that the German naval code was broken, but this fact is the 1st I have heard of this. The British were not all that shy about sharing intelligence coups after the face, albeit sometimes long after the fact, but I've never heard of this before and we have only a single account of it without corroboration from any other source. Simon you have more sources than I do, do you know anything about this? It is fascinating, if true, since if the Germans discovered the ruse the British just showed how throughly their code was broken, quite the risk. When I did a search I got an article from an intelligence community source calling into question the veracity of the book the fellow wrote. Our fellow here seems to wish to push this as iron clad proof and my experience with such proofs hasn't been that good. If there is another source I'll gladly pull my objections.Tirronan (talk) 15:08, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tirronan, you're missing the issue which is that my edit is sourced and verified but yours ain't. In two days time I'm going to remove it. You'll then start some revert war which I will then ask to be reviewed, and then my edit will be restored.
Could you also review your posts on this page; they are hard to follow and inaccurate, like this: "When I did a search I got an article from an intelligence community source calling into question the veracity of the book the fellow wrote. Our fellow here seems to wish to push this as iron clad proof". That's simply wrong - your "intelligence community source" is an anonymous review on a blog, and I did NOT think of this review as an "iron-clad source" at all. Personally, I think it's nonsense and, since it suddenly appeared a day after my edit (and included a mistake - since corrected - in my edit), I suspect it's your sockpuppet.
Two more days. Hubertgrove (talk) 19:59, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hubertgrove, are you claiming that Beesly supports the contention that "Spee's squadron was lured to the Falkland Islands by a fake communique from the British naval codebreaking service, Room 40."? If so, having looked through the relevant section of Room 40, I see no evidence in it to support that claim. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 20:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hubertgrove, this is your last warning, one more personal attack of any sort and you and I are heading for the admins. My conversation with you are now over. You have one book with a claim that can't be verified, though it can be cited obviously. I don't own a sockpuppet, I don't blog, and I don't get involved in revert wars. I've had it with your insults and your claims against me. Do not address me again.Tirronan (talk) 21:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Tirronan, I am genuinely sorry that you are angered. I hope this small incident will not cause further upset or compromise your otherwise excellent work on the Dreadnought era in Wikipedia. Thanks Hubertgrove (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Given your behavior, or lack thereof I've posted a Wikiquette alert on your behavior. Any further actions of this sort and I will follow the RFC guidelines, I've put up with all I intend to with you Hubertgrove.Tirronan (talk) 02:19, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. I am removing the edit.Hubertgrove (talk) 12:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertgrove, it is standard practice to include page numbers in one's references, and also to provide citations to back up all one's assertions in a paragraph - for example, Beesly makes no mention of Canaris being in Dresden, yet the casual reader would be given the impression that the citation given backs that up. You still haven't answered the question I posed earlier, either. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 13:07, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Harley, thank you for your advice - in future, I will provide page numbers. I can do so - if you're really going to insist on this - for the von Rintelen book. It will be harder for the Beesley book which I have now passed on to my father. However, since I used the same convention in citation for the Beesley book as was used in Wiki entries for other articles on this subject, it does seem that you may be holding me to a higher standard than you do others. Beesley's book confirms that Room 40 had broken the following German naval codes SKM, HVB and other codes, and used them to decipher communications with the Admiralstab and to traffick false signals. It does seem to me you may not be familiar with von Rintelen's book, with its foreword by Admiral William Hall and preface by Major AEW Mason. It's still available. I think you would enjoy it. Hubertgrove (talk) 19:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not holding you to a higher standard than anyone else, I am merely responding to this particular blip on my radar. It's likely that Hall did tell von Rintelen that the British lured the von Spee to the Falklands - whether the British did actually send such a signal is debatable. Beesly suggests it's a possibility, without mentioning von Rintelen or Mason. For my part, I would say that Hall was probably lying through his teeth just to muddy the waters - this is after all the man who boasted that he had tricked the Germans into bombing a High Court judge out of pure spite (see Beesly, pp. 37-38). --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 19:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand and appreciate what you say but, as it stands, yours is a hypothesis. With genuine respect, it doesn't provide any evidence to contradict von Rintelen's account - and he was, after all, a primary source, whose account was publicly endorsed by the head (or close to it) of the British secret service and one of his deputies.
Now, I can understand that Hall might have been wilfully deceiving von Rintelen; however, there is no evidence that this is the case nor does Hall seem to have immediately apparent motive of hostility towards his former adversary. In fact, strange to say, there is primary evidence that after the war, Admiral Hall and von Rintelen were the complete opposite of enemies but close and mutually trusting family friends. Have a look at this. http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,769867,00.html Interesting, no? Hubertgrove (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And this is why Wikipedia will always be sneered at - a lack of value judgements means that any old tripe can appear in an article. For the record, having consulted my sources, A. E. W. Mason didn't join the Royal Marines until October, 1917 (he became a Major in a service battalion), and never served in the Intelligence Division. There's no way he can possibly be considered one of Hall's deputies. As to Hall and von Rintelen becoming friends, last time I checked, friends lie to each other all the time, it being human nature to conceal the truth where appropriate, so forgive me if I don't believe Hall would be completely frank with his former opponent. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Old tripe'? Please don't be aggressive, it's unnecessary. AEW Mason was involved in Admiralty espionage throughout the War. AEW Mason started out in the Manchester Regiment and then, through a circuitous route, ended up in the RMLI (he was involved in NID before he was gazzetted to the Marines). Why do you say: "There's no way he can possibly be considered one of Hall's deputies"? Please provide proof that contradicts AEW Mason himself - and others (Dictionary of Literary Biography, Donald H Dyal (Author), Catherine A Hastedt (Author), Steven E Smith (Author), Matthew J Bruccoli (Editor), C E Frazer, Jr. Clark (Editor), Richard Layman (Editor) Pub. Gale (20 Feb 1998)). I'm sorry if you don't like that but your suspicions are not evidence.
For your further information, plenty of soldiers - not naval or marine staff - service with the NID, for example Lord Herschell (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATLN=6&CATID=137749&SearchInit=4&SearchType=6&CATREF=FO1011%2F278#summary) served with the Coldstream Guards like his father before him and his son.
I can forgive you, as you ask, for saying "I don't believe Hall would be completely frank with his former opponent" but whether you believe it or not doesn't matter. I have produced evidence that shows the Hall and Rintelen were, after the war, close friends. Otherwise, why would Hall have invited Rintelen to a family wedding and allowed Rinetelen's daughter to be a bridesmaid at the marriage of his own daughter twenty years after the war was over? Your speculation as to why he would do that is immaterial. Provide evidence to the contrary. I have already provided both evidentiary and circumstantial evidence to the positive. Can we now please close this matter? Hubertgrove (talk) 02:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not being aggressive, I'm merely stating an opinion. For your information, Herschell is documented as serving in the Intelligence Division from November, 1914 to June, 1919, with the rank of Commander in the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve. He was already a naval officer of some standing. Mason, on the other hand, was an agent of Hall with no official connection to the Intelligence Division, other than a late war appointment to H.M.S. President, but that satisfies the requirement that all officers be placed on the books of a ship for accounting duties, wherever they are in the world. One of Hall's real deputies, Captain (later Admiral Sir) William M. James, Assistant Director of Intelligence Division from June, 1917 to January, 1919, noted in his biography of Hall of Mason's alleged exploits, "It is impossible to say if these were actual experiences." --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it is going to be laid to rest, the problem remains, book or no, cite or no, this is hearsay from another person about an event that doesn't seem to have another shred of proof that it happened. My doubts remain that the British Intelligence Service would give notice that they had broken German codes by issuing false orders. There were German Embassies that could have intercepted the transmitted order and let Berlin know ASAP. I don't know any national service that would risk such a thing unless they were certain that the enemy knew that the code had already been broken. It just doesn't make sense. A book my be written that the sky is indeed yellow and we have to accept that all evidence, in this case complete lack thereof, to the contrary?Tirronan (talk) 03:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but this issue is laid to rest. It is recorded in an credible document produced by a reputable publishing house. It is verified by two primary sources Admiral William Hall and Major AEW Mason both of NID. The circumstances of the incident are attested by an academic historian. Your hypothesis - "A book my be written that the sky is indeed yellow and we have to accept that all evidence, in this case complete lack thereof, to the contrary?" - is demonstrably false. I am assuming, from your writing style, that English is not your first language, so I have tried to be as clear as possible. Leave this alone.
Added signature. Hubertgrove (talk) 09:40, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you just don't have that kind of authority around here, and I have about had it with your insults as well, shall we go visit the admins about your behavior now? You don't order me, you don't order any other editor here either. I am not sure where you thought this behavior is acceptable but it clearly is not. So my fellow editor, either clean up your act or we can see about a ban from Wikipedia, is that clear enough for you? I'll continue to dig but if I don't find supporting evidence then this is going to go much further. I have a rather bad habit of not tolerating hoaxes parading as facts, regardless of the source of the hoax.Tirronan (talk) 19:47, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You know it isn't a hoax. Leave this alone. Hubertgrove (talk) 03:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a hoax and you make a joke of history articles by including this garbage and hearsay. We have an obligation to the public to publish the truth, not hearsay. You betray us all with your sorry actions.Tirronan (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Look, let's not go back and forth. If you think it's a hoax, present evidence. I have provided testimony for my edit from three primary sources, supplementary evidence attesting to their relationship, a history published by a reputable publisher and corroborative evidence from an academic histrian. This is not "garbage and hearsay". Thank you. Hubertgrove (talk) 07:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So far, Hubertgrove, you have provided in the article a reference to a memoir, and nothing more. You haven't even provided a page reference for it. As far as I can tell you've misrepresented Beesly, who says it's possible that Hall spread a rumour for von Spee to follow, not that he sent a direct signal to him. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 16:24, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's an untruth to say I have misrepresented Beesly. I have provided proofs and references for everything and everyone cited in my edit. They're all footnoted. Good luck. ;0) Hubertgrove (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simon, you have that book I do not, what exactly does that ref say?Tirronan (talk) 03:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC) Never mind I have ordered my own copy of Room 40, I'm also looking into what is available in public record in the British archives. It would be firmly in [original research?] so it can not be used in the article but it certainly is alright to use to disprove an assertion.Tirronan (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem not one but two historians seem to disagree, hmmm, my we are getting a bit closer to the truth aren't we?Tirronan (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, This is all that Beesly has which relates directly to the Falkland Islands, from 76-77. I don't think that it supports Hubertgrove's above claim that "The circumstances of the incident are attested by an academic historian." No-one's debating that SIGINT played a major role in the destruction of Dresden.
As far as I can tell the basis for Mason being the stellar witness Hubertgrove claims him to be is this sentence from the introduction to The Dark Invader: "The conversations which he records depend, of course, upon his memory; the main facts we are able to check, and we know them to be exact." A very dubious assertion for an overseas R.M.L.I. staff officer to make. Rintelen's claims regarding his conversations with Hall and Herschell are absurd. Tirronan, have a google and you'll find a copy of von Rintelen's book available from an Australian version of Project Gutenberg. I've been through a good number of the Room 40 material in Britain and so far have come across nothing to do with the Falkland Islands. In March I picked up the official reports of the Falkland Islands battle and there's no mention in there. Last week I copied both post-war Naval Staff Monographs (official histories) of the battle. There's nothing in those to substantiate von Rintelen's allegation, even though those works do deal with SIGINT and Room 40. --Simon Harley (Talk | Library). 07:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


The idea of targeting the the Falklands for attack wouldn't be strange so long as you were convinced that the British didn't have a squadron there, the next nearest station would have been the Ascension Islands over 800 miles away. In the days of coal, range was much more important that in the age of oil. The heat content of coal is lower and range is even more critical. Further the Falklands base was the hub of communications, either alone would have been enough to attack it, and at least two historians are reporting that German Intelligence was reporting that no squadron was near. The second part of this is much more serious, Giving a false order would have been picked up by 2 to 6 German Embassies and listening stations. These were the same codes that were so vital for the British and were still in use during the Battle of Jutland, and of incredible impact to the battle. Not that it is impossible, but my God what a risk. The most disturbing issue is that we have exactly one account anywhere that this happened. A endorsement in the preamble of a book is hardly a ringing endorsement of a single claim in the book. There is not a single historian backing this claim, not one that I can find. I've spent 3 days going through everything that I can lay hands to in the online British archive without a word on it. Honestly, should you have any substantial collaborating evidence it would be a great find and you would have my congratulations for having brought something new to the table, a rare thing indeed, but this isn't looking very good. Unfortunately, if something doesn't turn up to back this assertion, I'm going to consider it my duty to take this to a content dispute forums and see what we have in a subject matter expert to review what we have found. The reputation of the project's integrity is too important to risk on a single and, so far at least, unsupported fact from a book. While the fellow might have relayed what he thought was the truth, the fact that he was reporting what he heard from a friend and was not involved makes this even more dubious.Tirronan (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Enough is enough, be advised that I have raised this issue with Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard.Tirronan (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. A cursory read of this page by any neutral observer will show exactly the kind of person you are and the weight that should be ascribed to your arguments. Hubertgrove (talk) 13:07, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh, Hubertgrove it is my sincere hope that you take a moment and study Wikipedia:Civility before your behavior earns you a ban. Your behavior will not stop me from challenging a poorly supported fringe theory advanced by a single author without a shred of evidence. You quote scholarly behavior and ethics then proceed to violate every principle of it by your actions. Would you care to enlighten me as to which academic review you think your assertion would survive, or how an endorsement in a preamble somehow lent credence to this claim? Please be advised that this is going to be reviewed including your baseless accusations of me and unearned insults of me and thus can be referred for more serious actions. Personal attacks have no business in this kind of discussion, only the facts matter and the rest will matter not a wit to further your cause. It is hard to defend a position when you have a edit ban in effect. Accusing another editor of sock puppetry, or being illiterate, or being a bad person, all of which you have done here is more than enough to earn administrative action. It is counter productive at best.Tirronan (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On to more relevant subjects, unless credible citation can be provided from another source within seven days, the Secret Service Trap theory will be removed as per Wikipedia:UNDUE.Tirronan (talk) 15:50, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of the Secret Service section, which has already been reviewed by other editors, will be an act of wilful vandalism. The section is verified by three primary sources, a contemporaneous memoir and secondary academic sources. If you continue in your harassment of me and your vandalism of this page, I will report you so that other editors can judge your behaviour. I have also reverted a spoiler edit placed by you. Tirronen, I beg you to be cautious in your next actions. Hubertgrove (talk) 15:59, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You now have four days till I remove the section under Wikipedia:UNDUE, you have until then to show some real evidence that this indeed happened, please refrain from personal comments, again.Tirronan (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not vandalise this article, Tirronan. If you do so, I will make a request for arbitration here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests . I will also cite your threats and abuse on this page; on my talk page; and on editor User talk:Jezhotwells page. That cannot end well for you. Hubertgrove (talk) 20:02, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps your time would be better spent finding an actual citation that this happened, trying to make this personal just isn't going to work, four days.Tirronan (talk) 20:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be silly, I have already provided the citations. You need to provde rebuttal. Hubertgrove (talk) 20:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the section should be greatly reduced in size and the minor theory given very little weight per WP:NPOV. One paragraph of support, and one paragraph of rebuttal should be enough. None of the canard re Canaris. Certainly, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV must be invoked for the minor viewpoint. The major viewpoint must not be attacked by snide little comments about mainstream historians not being in the battle. Binksternet (talk) 20:22, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no obections to your suggestion Binksternet. My original edit was just two short paragraphs in length until Tirronan's intervention. Equally, I am not making snide objections to the historians' account; neither Massie nor Ferguson contradict in any way von Rintelen's assertions. Tirronan's edit says that Spee's 'intelligence informed him that the base was free of British inflence' (I paraphrase). Where Spee got his 'intelligence' about the South Atlantic from, is precisely the point of this whole edit. He had, after all, just come from the China Coast.
Also, what do you mean about the 'canard re canaris'. 'Canard' means 'lie'. Canaris was certainly at the battle; he was the Intelligence Officer on the battlecruiser in question; he later became head of the Abwehr. I'm sorry but I don't understand your objection here. Hubertgrove (talk) 20:35, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this reversion, you restored material that has been fact-challenged for four years. Why?
You suggest that my word "objectivity" would have been better as "perspective". Why did you not put your suggested word in as replacement?
The Canaris bit is an unnecessary sidebar to the battle. The paragraph about Canaris certainly has nothing to do with a trap laid by British intelligence. In my edit summary I used canard in the very light sense of "tale", with the enjoyment of the similarity to the German officer's name. Forgive me the edit summary pun but please explain your kneejerk reversion of useful changes to the article. Binksternet (talk) 21:29, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If it was listed as a very minor theory, that is a compromise I can live with.Tirronan (talk) 21:44, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objections as presenting this edit as a minority opinion but to list it as a 'very minor theory' is to rubbish it and is therefore not acceptable. Hubertgrove (talk) 21:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


If I have restored material that has been 'fact-challenged' for four years, this was an error on my part. Naturally, I apologize. I assume you will revert?
I did not replace 'objectivity' with 'perspective' because I assumed I would have to discuss it at excruciating length on the discussion page here which I have had to do to all my edits in this tiny section. Since it is your proposal - with which I agree - that this section be trimmed down to two paragraphs, it will be immaterial anyway. If you wish to insert 'perspective' yourself before the editing, I will not revert.
Well, we obviously differ on what 'canard' means. If you object to mention of [then) Canaris and the destruction of the last German warship involved in the battle, then fair enough. It's not worth more pages of argument.
"...but please explain your kneejerk reversion". Why? Because I made a five line edit to this article two months ago that was sourced and verified, and since then, I have had to put up with constant heckling, threats and abuse from the editor, Tirronan, both in this discussion page, on my own Talk page, on the Talk page of another editor, and in other forums. I understand that I was wrong to revert your edit. However, previous reverts that I have had to make have been legitimate. I hope you will accept my explanation and, again, my apology. Hubertgrove (talk) 21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind, Binksternet's suggestions, I have reduced the text to three shorter paragraphs (one paragraph as set-up, one as major theory, one as minor theory). These do not yet carry citations but I will put these in if the edit is considered acceptable. The promosed text is:
After the disaster, German naval experts were baffled at why Admiral Spee attacked the base and how the two squadrons could have met so coincidentally in so many thousands miles of open waters. Kaiser William II's handwritten note on the official report of the battle reads: "It remains a mystery what made Spee attack the Falkland Islands. See 'Mahan's Naval Strategy'."
On the eve of the battle, Spee called a meeting of his officers and announced that he would attack the Falklands base, which acted as a coaling station and wireless relay station for the British, as his intelligence, received by the German wireless station at Valparaiso, reported the port to be free of warships. Despite the objection of three of his ships captains, the attack would proceed.
One possible explanation is deliberate ambush. 1925 the German naval officer, Franz von Rintelen, interviewed Admiral William Reginald Hall, Director of the Admiraltry's Naval Intelligence Division (NID), and was informed that the Spee Squadron had been lured towards the British battlecruisers squadron by means of a fake signal sent in a German naval code broken by British cryptographers. (Similarly, on 14th March 1915, the last surviving German ship of the battle, the SMS Dresden, was intercepted by British ships while taking on coal at sea in a location identified by NID codebreakers).
If anyone has edit suggestions, please go ahead otherwise, I will replace the existing section with this text over the weekend. Hubertgrove (talk) 09:08, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Room 40 was providing updates on Spee's progress, so while the Germans would have been mystified I rather doubt the Brits were all that surprised except for the exact timing. I don't contend that there were intelligence operations just the method by which they were used. As a suggestion I would make two small changes. It is perfectly acceptable that there be major/minor theories it is just how they are presented. If presented as below you are showing the majority view then if the second says that von Rintelen reported in his book... you have covered the source without any additional weighting. My only issue has been the lack of any historian support, that would cover it.
Most historians hold that Spee mislead by German intelligence, thought the Falklands port the major British Communications and Coaling port in the area, was absent of any major British Naval presence. Spee called a meeting of his officers and announced that he would attack the Falklands base, which acted as a coaling station and wireless relay station for the British, as his intelligence, received by the German wireless station at Valparaiso, reported the port to be free of warships. Despite the objection of three of his ships captains, the attack would proceed.Tirronan (talk) 09:32, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your changes, I think, are to the second paragraph. Accepting your edits in principle, may I suggest we drop 'most historians' since, at the end of this paragraph, we will be putting Massie and Ferguson as citations. However, I do accept that you want this paragraph to establish that this is the majority opinion. The Falklands though was just one of many possible targets for the German squadron (not counting the trade ports, there were coaling stations and wireless facilities available in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands in the same region for example). I have removed one of the reference to the port as a coaling and wireless station (since it is mentioned twice) May I therefore propose?:
It is generally believed that Spee was mislead by the German admiralty into attacking the Falklands port. He called a meeting of his officers and announced that he would attack the base which acted as a coaling station and wireless relay station for the British, as his intelligence, received from the German wireless station at Valparaiso, reported the port to be free of Royal Navy warships. Despite the objection of three of his ships' captains, the attack proceeded.[THEN YOUR MASSEY AND FERGUSON CITATIONS WOULD GO HERE] Hubertgrove (talk) 10:19, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, unless there are further amendments, the section will read:
After the disaster, German naval experts were baffled at why Admiral Spee attacked the base and how the two squadrons could have met so coincidentally in so many thousands miles of open waters. Kaiser William II's handwritten note on the official report of the battle reads: "It remains a mystery what made Spee attack the Falkland Islands. See 'Mahan's Naval Strategy'."
It is generally believed that Spee was mislead by the German admiralty into attacking the Falklands. He called a meeting of his officers and announced that he would attack the base which acted as a coaling station and wireless relay station for the British, as his intelligence, received from the German wireless station at Valparaiso, reported the port to be free of Royal Navy warships. Despite the objection of three of his ships' captains, the attack proceeded.
One possible explanation is deliberate ambush. 1925 the German naval officer, Franz von Rintelen, interviewed Admiral William Reginald Hall, Director of the Admiraltry's Naval Intelligence Division (NID), and was informed that the Spee Squadron had been lured towards the British battlecruisers squadron by means of a fake signal sent in a German naval code broken by British cryptographers. (Similarly, on 14th March 1915, the last surviving German ship of the battle, the SMS Dresden, was intercepted by British ships while taking on coal at sea in a location identified by NID codebreakers).
I will insert this edit this weekened unless there are further suggestions and add the citations already presented by Tirronan and myelf. Hubertgrove (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed the insert above in the piece. Almost immediately after it was inserted, it was changed by Binksternet who removed the last line with the rationale that this was irrelevant.I have reverted this edit for the following reasons:

1/. It is relevant to the section since it shows that the NID were active in operations against the Spee operations at the time of the Battle of the Falkland Islands 2/. The Dresden is mentioned earlier in the piece and this is the right place to mention her ultimate fate. 3/. This incident has a verifiable citation to an academic history - Beesly, Patrick (1982). Room 40. London: Hamish Hamilton Ltd.. pp. 77–78. ISBN 0241108640. 4/. This whole section has been subject to long debate on this discussion pages and it was believed, until this new edit, that a satisfactory solution had been arrived at. If this is not the case, may I suggest that the discussion continue on this page rather than on the consensus edit. Hubertgrove (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Broadcast of a false order in a broken naval code would have been against the British Naval Staff’s policy as noted by Rear-Admiral Herbert Hope “In a very few months we obtained a very good working knowledge of the organization, operations, and internal economy of the German Fleet. Had we been called upon by the Staff to do so, we could have furnished valuable information as to the movements of submarines, minefields, mine-sweeping, etc. But the Staff was obsessed by the idea of secrecy; they realized that they held the trump card and they worked on the principle that every effort must be made to keep our knowledge up our sleeves for a really great occasion such as the German Fleet coming out in all their strength to throw down the gage of battle. In other words the Staff determined to make use of our information defensively and not offensively” (Beesly, p. 41) No less than Winston Churchill replied most sharply to Admiral Jellico even mentioning the subject by telegraph specifically, so sharp was the concern that the breaking of the German Naval code might be uncovered.(Beesly, p.42) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tirronen (talk • contribs)

Interesting find but irrelevant here. I have excised the addition. Both Hope's direction and the later Churchill telegram were post-Battle of the Falkland Islands (ie. after the false signal was sent - if one indeed was sent). As such, your discussion of how Room 40 used broken German naval codes should be in a NID/Room 40/British Secret Service article. Perhaps you could write one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs)
Hubertgrove, all of your recent reversions have restored the misspelling of Admiralty as "Admiraltry", and they have restored the awkward "battlecruisers squadron" from the more usual "battlecruiser squadron" (not plural). In this manner, your reversions are revealed as unthinking; "kneejerk" was the word I used earlier. Such unconsidered reversions do not aid collegiality between editors, and do not help your position. Binksternet (talk) 06:52, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Next time just correct the typos and keep your ragegasm to yourself. Hubertgrove (talk) 13:38, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Was informed that" vs "who said that"

I replaced "was informed that" with "who said that" because "informed" gives factual credence to Admiral Hall's words. Hall may not have relayed the facts, however. I used the words "who said that" regarding Hall because it is neutral relative to status as fact. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is stylistically and historically incorrect. Rintelen's memoirs are a reliable published source and meet Wikipedia's standards for verifiability. They state specifically that the author received the information about this incident from Admiral Hall (at the Garrick Club in 1925, if you're interested); Admiral Hall himself provides a frontispiece to the book; and AEW Mason, MP, writer and intelligence officer gives the introduction. Therefore 'was informed', the original wording, is already 'neutral relative'.
The new edit seems to attempt to diminish the insert. The speculation that "Hall may not have relayed the facts" is baseless without evidence (I can actually provide evidence that Hall would have been likely to tell Rintelen the truth, if you wish?). Hall and Mason both endorsed Rintelen's book - being both MPs and officers, allowing their names to be associated with lies would have been exceptionally damaging to their public reputation. Perhaps you might find some specific contemporary or academic testimony that contradicts this? I have reverted.
On Friday, I thought we had agreed the edit? Hubertgrove (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information was provided by Room #40 as to the location and sailing orders of Spee but there is some doubt that this actually arrived in time to effect the deployment of the Battle-Cruisers. This had been going on before and after the attempted attack on the Falklands and would be considered standard intelligence operations in as much as intercepting and decoding message traffic and outside the scope of what you have provided issuing of false orders in a broken code. The interception of Dresden's message traffic would be the same. One does not support the other. Again a singular reference without any historian backing it up or official documentation renders this a very weak minority view that should not be buttressed with irrelevant facts in support. If it is to remain it has to be as a minority view. Be aware that according to wp:undue lists per Jim Wales almost verbatim the fact this should not be included at all.Tirronan (talk) 23:00, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have posted this twice. Hubertgrove (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, this is not a stylistic change, nor is it anti-historical. It is a changing of the wording to a neutral tone: "said" for "informed". What is wrong with the word "said"? Nothing. What is wrong with the word "informed"? It adds gravity and weight, in this case helping a minority view sound more important.
Don't hold on too strongly to phrasing of the text you posted for approval on 19 May. I did not have a chance to look it over, so of course I did not agree to it. It will always be subject to amendment anyway, this being Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 06:32, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the word said is replacing informed as it is more neutral, not adding weight to a minority view. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly... Dresden

I removed this parenthetical sentence:

  • "(Similarly, on 14th March 1915, the Dresden, was intercepted by British ships while taking on coal at sea in a location identified by NID codebreakers)"

The reference is Patrick Beesly's Room 40.

I removed this bit for two reasons: This article is not the article Battle of Más a Tierra in which the Dresden is located and sunk, and the Dresden bit is not at all related to a trap being laid by the Secret Service. I sense that the Dresden bit was stuck in for the purpose of bolstering the wobbly validity of the minor Secret Service trap view, but in this role it fails; it is a red herring. Binksternet (talk) 22:11, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will revert this for the following reasons: this article deals with the fate of the German ships that fought at the Battle of the Falkland Islands. The Dresden fled the battle and her interception was by two of Sturdee's ships who had also been at the battle. Their action was part of the pursuit of the battle and assisted by NID code intercepts which are part of the whole story of the battle. For all these reasons, I suggest the edit must be restored to its original.
Binkersnet talks about "the wobbly validity of the minor Secret Service trap view". That is original research and speculation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research. It should be rethought regarding bias http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view . The desire to discredit this "view" is, by Wikipedia standards, not a good enough sole reason to make the edits - unless Binkersnet can provide a citation? Hubertgrove (talk) 22:21, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Information was provided by Room #40 as to the location and sailing orders of Spee but there is some doubt that this actually arrived in time to effect the deployment of the Battle-Cruisers. This had been going on before and after the attempted attack on the Falklands and would be considered standard intelligence operations in as much as intercepting and decoding message traffic and outside the scope of what you have provided issuing of false orders in a broken code. The interception of Dresden's message traffic would be the same. One does not support the other. Again a singular reference without any historian backing it up or official documentation renders this a very weak minority view that should not be buttressed with irrelevant facts in support. If it is to remain it has to be as a minority view. Be aware that according to wp:undue lists per Jim Wales almost verbatim the fact this should not be included at all.Tirronan (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If I may address your points individually?;
"Information was provided by Room #40 as to the location and sailing orders of Spee but there is some doubt that this actually arrived in time to effect the deployment of the Battle-Cruisers." Surely this is not relevant since Spee and all his squadron except the Drseden and one auxilliary ship were already sunk? We are referring to post-battle follow-up operations which most certainly were directed by naval intelligence - the operation against the Dresden being the result of NID codebreaking and covered in Patrick Beesley's "Room 40".
"...standard intelligence operations in as much as intercepting and decoding message traffic and outside the scope of what you have provided issuing of false orders in a broken code..." Your opinions as to what constitutes "standard intelligence operations" are irrelevant. Sturdee's ships were able to intercept this ship because of NID's code warfare operations. That is historically verifiable.
"The interception of Dresden's message traffic would be the same. One does not support the other." That's your opinion. Wikipedia has strict guidelines regarding opinion. Verifiable published sources disagree.
"Again a singular reference without any historian backing it up or official documentation renders this a very weak minority view that should not be buttressed with irrelevant facts in support." It's not "a singular reference without any historian backing it up". To describe it this way is inaccurate. You're refighting an old battle. We agreed to the format of this edit. It went in the way you approved.
"Be aware that according to wp:undue lists per Jim Wales almost verbatim the fact this should not be included at all." Jim Wales statements on verifiability and bias say it most certainly should be. Read them here: wp:npov and wp:verifiability Hubertgrove (talk) 23:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I disagree and your edit is reverted.Tirronan (talk) 23:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have answered all your points. Your reversion is vandalism. If you revert it again, you will be reported. At that stage, I will be able to present your own comment - Perfect.Tirronan (talk) 13:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC) - that you made on the original edit that you are now trying to vandalise. I beg you to think clearly now because a simple recounting of your actions to an impartial observer might make it seem that you are being stupid and spiteful. Hubertgrove (talk) 00:02, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but the point was brought up that the Dresden sinking had nothing to do with issuing false orders and can't be used, sorry about that but you are reverted.Tirronan (talk) 00:06, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that point was irrelevant. The Dresden sinking had everything to do with NID code warfare - as did the original Battle of the Falklands. For goodness sake, the whole section is about this very subject. I have reverted your spite edit once again. YOU ALREADY AGREED TO THIS COPY ON FRIDAY. Hubertgrove (talk) 00:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask that this revert be reviewed in a resolution dispute procedure by other editors tomorrow. Hubertgrove (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The fate of the Dresden is already in the article, under "Outcome". There is no need to elaborate further in a new section called "Secret Service trap". The intelligence that led to the location and destruction of the Dresden has nothing to do with a notional Secret Service trap laid by false signals. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will be making no more edits for this page for the next 24 hours edit warring really is not approved of here.Tirronan (talk) 01:28, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is a wise decision. You should not have reverted the edit the second time at all. Your actions are discussed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hubertgrove_reported_by_User:Tirronan_.28Result:_.29
Hubertgrove (talk) 02:27, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the "Similarly... Dresden" bit has been taken out as redundant. The fate of the Dresden is already discussed in Outcome. Binksternet (talk) 18:45, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That still leaves the paragraph from Rear Admiral Hope about using the decodes defensively and not offensively, given that it is covers the area concerned intelligence and code breaking, and the time frame is appropriate I still think that it should be included. I rather doubt that it can ever be conclusively proven that such a signal could have been made, but it does illustrate that it would have been counter to every other code breaking effort run by British Intelligence during the war.Tirronan (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've found the work "The Dark Invader". The main pages concerned are 80 to 83. You can find the work quite easily in freeview over the net now. The writer, von Rintelen, was a relatively junior intelligence officer in the German Admiralty, and was not present at the battle - so he's hardly an eye witness to events. He is repeating assertions he claims Lord Herschell and Admiral Hall made to him in 1925. The story supposedly given by Lord Herschell is that in order to trick German intelligence that dummy battle cruisers were constructed out of wood and canvas and towed into the Mediterranean, where they replaced the Invincible and Inflexible, which were guarding against any attempt by the Goeben to break out of the Dardanelles and were at anchor in the Aegean. The real battle cruisers left at night (so as not to be seen by the Islanders), and then proceeded past the Straight of Gibraltar, and then headed "south west" into the Atlantic, to the predetermined battle location of the Falkland Islands. Admiral Hall, supposedly claimed that one of his agents was present in Berlin, forged the German Admiralty seals, and send an encoded telegram to von Spee in Valparaiso. It was this telegram (not a direct radio transmission to von Spee) which supposedly ordered von Spee to attack the Falklands. The claim was this ruse was necessary so German intelligence wouldn't notice that any of the Royal Navy's battle cruisers were "missing".

How reliable is this assertion? Well for one thing, Lord Herschell's supposed story simply doesn't fit with the known facts. HMS Invincible wasn't in the Mediterranean at the outbreak of the War, and wasn't involved in the pursuit of SMS Goeben (that was HMS Indomitable and Inflexible). Instead she was refitting at home, and took part in the first battle of Helgoland. HMS Inflexible had been chasing SMS Goeben, but was ordered back on 18th August (6 weeks before the battle of Coronel), leaving HMS Indomitable to guard the Goeben. Furthermore both ships left from HMS Davenport at Plymouth, Invincible carrying some very unhappy civilian workers to reline her fireboxes and boilers. They didn't sail past Gibraltar and head "southwest" in the general direction of the Falklands! To my mind this makes the story highly suspect. Lord Herschell doesn't even seem to have been aware of the location of the battle cruisers before Sturdee was ordered to the South Atlantic, much less privy to the "inside information" as to how von Spee was "tricked"! Then the Admiral Hall story is that he had an agent in Berlin, who was given a fake message that was encoded in the latest German naval cipher, and sent it, apparently via a German telegram office! What a risk, giving the intelligence coup of the war (namely the breaking of the German codes) to an agent in the enemy's capital! The claim isn't that it was a fake signal (implying a radio message sent from Room 40), but a forged telegram sent by an agent in Berlin! The story sounds highly suspicious given there is no other source cited, particularly when obviously untrue assertions are made about Invincible and Inflexible being sent from the Aegean directly to the Falklands without any time in Britain whatsoever, particularly when both ships were in home waters by the time of the Battle of Coronel!

This book also seems to be the source of the claim that von Spee should have shelled Sturdee's fleet when his original ships made their first reconnaissance, and that he would, somehow, have won had he done this (a terrible slight on one of the German navy's finest commanders IMHO). In fact, as the main article states, Sturdee put to sea within 30 minutes of the Canopus opening fire on von Spee's ships. The battle cruisers would hardly have still been coaling at the time of the approach, as I cannot see how Sturdee could have completed coaling, fired his boilers and raised steam to leave the harbour in that short length of time. From what I can see, von Rintelen never held a sea going command, being primarily an intelligence officer, so I don't think he's particularly authoritative in this speculation - certainly no better than von Spee, who was actually there and a proven commander. Besides, whilst battle cruiser armour was "suspect" against capital ship weaponry, it was adequate against the 8.25" weapons of von Spee's armoured cruisers. It is also ignored that von Spee encountered Craddock's force at Coronel despite thousands of miles of ocean. Surely von Spee should have avoided all contact, since he was thousands of miles from a friendly port, with limited ability to replenish ammunition, and very limited ability to repair battle damage. I agree with Tirronan, there was nothing "risky" about attacking Port Stanley in and of itself. It was considerably less risky than attacking Craddock's force. It was also a means to damage Britain's war effort - surely von Spee's duty - and equivalent to SMS Emden's attack on the telegraph station at the Cocos Islands (which led to her demise at the hands of the Sydney). Von Spee was clearly attempting to return home, but harassing Britain's war effort en route. Port Stanley is close to Cape Horn, one of the "choke points" of seaborne traffic, and the trade ports cited were all in neutral countries - von Spee was hardly going to attack Argentine ports. But damaging Port Stanley would hamper British use of it as a base. If his aim was to simply engage in commerce raiding, he'd surely have broken up his squadron, and scattered them across the Indian, Pacific and Atlantic oceans. They'd have been much harder to track and destroy, and been able to cause far more damage. That's what he did with the Emden. He was known to fear the speed and firepower of the battle cruiser HMAS Australia, and with the Indian Ocean dominated by Britain, his best route back to Germany was via Cape Horn - there were at least substantial neutral harbours along the South American coast, and a much lower Royal Navy presence. Nor could he have stayed in Valparaiso – he could only stay 24 hours in a neutral port without being interred, unless he was making basic repairs to make his vessel seaworthy. His home base had already fallen, as had the German possessions in New Guinea, leaving him without a base. Keeping his squadron together suggests he was aiming to head home. Damaging Port Stanley would be en route to Germany, and surely something any diligent commander would have done in von Spee's position. As for attacking the Port bringing down the weight of the Royal Navy on the squadron - surely the same argument can be made against fighting Craddock's force! It was to avenge Coronel that the battle cruisers were sent hunting him, and, unlike the Falklands, Cradock's squadron could at least fire back and inflict damage on von Spee's ships that would have been difficult to repair in the circumstances. I think that undue weight is being placed in a single memoir of a former German intelligence officer, who is more notable for his acts of sabotage and conspiracy in the US during the War, than in his involvement in any naval planning. Even he isn't reporting on things he saw, merely the claims made by others years after the events, claims which are at divergence with the known facts in many cases. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.89.1.33 (talk) 09:10, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Geopolitical Section

I've edited out the section that was glued on to the Secret Service Trap section. This deleted content veered into areas that just are not covered in battle articles normally and this seems a real stretch reading it. My stance is that this is just way too wide a subject for a small naval battle to get into. If there are strong feelings about this we can discuss.Tirronan (talk) 09:09, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree, this is a modern reinterpretation of events that isn't supported by the historical record. Von Spee's intention was to raid the Wireless station in Port Stanley, there was no intention to occupy the islands. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:34, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kwendolk (talk) 14:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Macedonia

Hello - I have been working on the Old Weather project, which in its first two phases transcribed the log pages of 318 Royal Navy ships, many of whom participated in WWI. In the course of this work, my colleagues realized we had the log books for all the British ships involved in the Battle of the Falkland Islands. HMS Macedonia, an armed merchant cruiser, participated in this battle, in company with HMS Bristol. She should be added to this article. This link, http://www.naval-history.net/OWShips-WW1-08-HMS_Macedonia.htm, will take you to her logs, which provide a detailed description of her activities during the battle. Per agreement, the log book transcriptions do not constitute original research and can be used in Wiki articles. This link: http://forum.oldweather.org/index.php?topic=4044.msg79273#msg79273 provides the format for log book citations in Wiki articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwendolk (talk • contribs) 14:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Secret service?

Can someone knowledgeable please clarify, does "Secret Service" in the section Secret service trap refer to the Secret Intelligence Service? Or would it be the Naval Intelligence Division responsible for this sort of action during WWI? Billlion (talk) 09:00, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admiral Sturdee's official report of the battle

There is a quote of Admiral Sturdee's official report of the battle in The Empire at War (Vol 2)[1]. I have not gone through to match up what is stated in the entry with the battle report, but someone with more time might do that. AnotherRandomKiwi (talk) 01:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely reproduced from the despatch of the battle published in the London Gazette in March 1915. It's a massively cut-down version of Sturdee's original report. —Simon Harley (Talk). 10:45, 24 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ T. N. Goddard (1923). Sir Charles Lucas, K.C.B., K.C.M.G. (ed.). The Empire at War. Vol. 2. Oxford University Press. pp. 465ff.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
allikas: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Falkland_Islands