Talk:Operation Greif

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force Belgium This article is within the scope of WikiProject Belgium, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Belgium on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BelgiumWikipedia:WikiProject BelgiumTemplate:WikiProject BelgiumBelgium-related articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Need a reference for the Omar Bradley story. It has an urban legend feel to it. Roadrunner 19:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ina documentry they said that intelgence offi cers who were from europe acidently wqere acused could thsi be added(Esskater11 22:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Isn't it POV to call war criminal Hitler "German dictator Hitler"? Start this and every head of state could be called names, including your head of state/government. Even wikipedia uses the Hitler example. They say just to describe what he did, not call him names.

Note: I do not support Hitler.Jerseycam 18:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could be POV but if u want it the official way, he was "Reichskanzler" (reichs chancellor) of the german 3.rd Reich. generally most people know him as dictator or Führer but i think the only official position he was in is "Reichskanzler", although im not fully convinced that even here in germany all ppl. would know what. greetz from cologne, Kroq —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.84.14 (talk) 11:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says Germans wore Allied uniforms. Later it says they wore American uniforms. There's no reference that Germans wore British uniforms. Corrected this problemJerseycam 18:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is NOT a war crime to wear enemy uniforms! It is however a crime to wear them during combat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.198.247.96 (talk) 08:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just suppose they were still going to wear the uniforms, and that Demolition squads of 5 or 6 men were to destroy bridges, ammunition dumps, and fuel stores. Or maybe reconnaissance patrols of 3 or 4 men were to reconnoiter on both sides of the Meuse river and also pass on bogus orders to any US units they met, reverse road signs, remove minefield warnings, and cordon off roads with warnings of nonexistent mines.

Maybe also to "Lead" commando units would work closely with the attacking units to disrupt the US chain of command by destroying field telephone wires and radio stations, and issuing false orders......they would be so heavily involved in combat missions, combat it is. 83.108.31.191 (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come to think of it, its not nice to make war in a false uniform. Being taken as a p.o.w while still being in a false uniform is not the ideal thing, unless you want to be a sideshow for stupid deaths. --83.108.31.191 (talk) 21:17, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct, and I have added the word "allegedly" to point out that the Hague Convention did not justify their execution.89.166.160.244 (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So What?

If you as a lawyer can prove the legal innocence of those involved? They didn´t know about those exact laws. They were soldiers, what they knew was how to dig a hole to hide in while shooting at the enemy. The enemy was what the Fuhrer told them. A racist might have guessed to be able to tell the identity of the enemy by skin color: Japanese are yellowish and slicy eyed, Arabs are dark-skinned and riding a camel, English are Angle-ish Germanic tribe who accidentally stumble across the North Sea therefore Germans by another name. The racist guesses: Japanese=enemy, Arabs=enemy, English=friend, yet the Fuhrer tells them it´s the exact opposite of what the racist believes according to his intuition. The racist, like any other working class German, gets beaten up for believing anything but what the Fuhrer tells the working class German to believe to be right/wrong. So, those soldiers who were part of this operation, they did what they were told to do. Volunteers? The Fuhrer asked them for their cooperation - they knew their parents and loved ones existed somewhere withing the Reich, within the Fuhrers grasp, within the reach of the Fuhrers 'agents' ( I´d consider the anonymous agents to be the more likely real Fuhrer - hey, Hitler was a foreigner, illegal alien, no connections, operating from within Germany / cf wikipedia: Kluengel ). Even if they were real real volunteers, All Quiet On The Western Front, ordinary soldiers are recruited from teenagers, the more functionable ( =less paranoid) teenagers are those who believe in what the authority (teacher/parent/Fuhrer) tells them to believe in. The actual question is: Where ist the spiritual/mental elite? What is power? Power is when you can take what you want to take. If the spiritual elite is acting on behalf of their power, all they need to do is not to oppose a Fuhrer that grants the elite the ability to take, while the Fuhrer is content with being left with the responsibility for what happens. Legal punishment is different from mindless revenge in that punishment aims at getting those people who have the choice between doing right or wrong to choose the right path. The right path on the other hand is something that´s defined by the spiritual/mental elite of the nation. So: it really doesn´t matter if what those punished for their obvious involvement in this operation were legally innocent. There is a question. The problem is to define what the question actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.98.253 (talk) 12:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In one section, the article says,

"In all, forty-four men were sent through US lines, and all but 8 returned."

But in the next section, it mentions that 16 German soldiers who were part of this operation were tried and executed. So, which number is accurate? 69.125.134.86 (talk) 14:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a contradiction.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:02, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Tropic Thunder vs Inglourious Basterds. The first time I watched Keanu R. in a movie I wondered "I know this guy...but from where?" answer: my grandmother had a picture of one of the survivors ( who was, well, who died from exposure in his twenties after being held in prison for his black/American uniform history during the WWII ). Believe it or not, The Pianist, Inglourious Basterds, The Matrix, ...

'one got a movie deal'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.0.75.44 (talk) 00:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So wearing an opponents uniform is not a crime unless in combat. Scouting could be called spying. Of course then the opponent could shot your guys doing the same thing. Are commandos who wear camo, wearing a uniform? 2601:181:8301:4510:4DDC:B775:52EA:36D7 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This was the origin of the "Who won the World Series in [a specific year]?" question meme, which was fairly prominent in United States pop culture in the 1950s or 1960s... AnonMoos (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Operation Greif. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081113094810/http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_cont.htm to http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/7-8/7-8_cont.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081002175149/http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk:80/WCC/skorzeny.htm to http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/skorzeny.htm

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Spies executed..jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a better source for this? The pdf is not accessible to general public and Mitcham's book seems fairly recent and frankly sensationalistic.

Not even Field Marshal Bernard Montgomery was exempt from Skorzeny's commando paranoia. Upon hearing of Eisenhower's confinement, Montgomery took off in his staff car towards Malmédy to increase his own prestige amongst Allied troops. Little did he know that a rumor had been spread in the Ardennes that one of Skorzeny's commandos looked strikingly similar to Montgomery and had identified himself as such at several U.S. checkpoints. When U.S. guards halted his car at the first checkpoint, Montgomery told them that he would not put up with such nonsense and ordered the driver to keep going. The guards angrily shot out his tires and dragged the field marshal to a nearby barn where he was detained for several hours. Montgomery was enraged and called for the court martial of the U.S. privates if they did not release him. He was also insulted that they did not recognize him after the guards demanded his identification. He was only released after a British captain known to the Americans properly recognized the fuming field marshal. An amused Eisenhower gained great pleasure from the incident, saying this was the best thing for which Skorzeny had ever been responsible.^[1][2] 174.0.48.147 (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

the pdf cited points to other dubious and secondary sources, all seem to have been written decades after the war.174.0.48.147 (talk) 23:30, 4 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

actually, this is not my ambition. But, yes.

You mean educated for [nachhaltigkeit des lebens auf dem planeten ermoeglichkeit schaffen zumindestet in stalag 13 nachdenkend ermoeglichen wollend]

i knew you where there before?

my father´s mother told me that her son had appeared before her in a vision, uniformed as a GI soldier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD6:2D91:0:B83E:BCD8:5935:64A1 (talk) 11:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

everday, 6:00 oclock, when you had to be raised from guessing, hard voice that guy pictured on the right side is an mot soldier — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4DD6:2D91:0:50EA:5EE9:8B29:B77A (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Das ist eine widersinnige Frage,

naja, der Vater, gegen den der sich aufgelehnt hat, war die Ordnung.

Aufgelehnt?

Naja, ( subjektiv freiwillig nach Kaufbeuren ),

...

GI Uniform mitten in Polen zu meines Vaters Mutter Zeiten,

wollte der seine Mutter beeindrucken.

Hello world fp 1 does not answer french 1932 movie

This way too much relies on the knowledge of the reader. Did you want to write “they were not to be excused as francs-tireurs” or “they were not to be condemned as francs-tireurs”? I have spent half-an-hour studying Wikipedia just to conclude that the international war law is crazy and that Chesterton was right (that often happens). However, clarification of that sentence would be welcome.

Ceplm (talk) _they_were_not_to_be_considered_francs-tireurs." class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">06:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do Russians and French have in Common? They don´t know how to pronounciate the letter 'h'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A0A:A549:6391:0:91A7:68F1:A450:8300 (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Fussell describes a possible way to determine German spies because he believes a German could not avoid correcting the typo "Indentification" to "Identification" on American ID cards. Paul does not give any examples of any spies being discovered in this manner, nor does a search for additional references turn up anything. The wording has already given internet WWII enthusiasts the idea that it has happened. I have reviewed the cited source, it does not say this happened. In fact, in every assertion the author makes, Fussell gives examples - but not in this case. The whole parenthesis is original research, as there are no reviews of Fussell's work that covers this specific topic, but if we're going to cover this from the book, then we need to clarify that Fussell gives no credible evidence of where this happened and it's only a musing.--v/r - TP 02:30, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fussell's phrasing does not suggest a musing, though. It makes no sense for him to hypothesize randomly that some random German couldn't resist correcting a typo, and that's how it could be used as a tell. We had already discussed this in the Reddit topic you chose to cover up by scrubbing the edit history: (Redacted)

You constantly move the goalposts and then come to the conclusion that the event did not happen and he's just musing because he doesn't provide a specific example. 2600:1002:B013:7024:8042:6690:5C7:654A (talk) 11:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy with the compromised phrasing.--v/r - TP 12:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]