Talk:Dieppe Raid

message: The article doesn't even skim on the preceding St Nazaire Raid  which actually reached its objectives, and led to reinforcement of the Atlantic Wall, surely this is important context? JidGom (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Coincidental attacks on mainland Europe, yes, same as the Bruneval raid and the Cockleshell Heroes. But as some sort of precursor or shared context?  I can't really see it. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is no relationship between the two, with differing planning, structure, force makeup and objectives.Enderwigginau (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Relationship with St-Nazaire Raid

message: Please do not delete references to the Calgary Highlanders who were at the Dieppe Raid.  Someone keeps deleting it.  They were in LCT 6.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.70.160.153 (talk) 20:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Calgary Highlander involvement

message: I deleted this:
:(R.Nisbet "Roosevelt and Stalin: The Failed Courtship" 1989)
:(D.Reynolds)
And rewrote this:
:"One example of this retrospective justification and M.I.6 "spin" was the undeniable fact that "By the end of 1942, Hitler had at least thirty-three German divisions along the Atlantic wall ... in the belief that ... the British intended to strike again." (W. Stevenson "A Man Called Intrepid" 1976)."
I have a problem with the notes showing no page number, and the elliptical quote is inappropriate. Moreover, if it is "spin", what is "undeniable" about it? Also, "spin" is inappropriate usage for an encyclopedia. Anyone who wants to restore the notes with specific citation, & preferably a superscript number, go ahead.  Trekphiler 09:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Footnotes?

message: If 3 were awarded, who were the recipients? Surely this is worth mentioning, for the UK's highest award for bravery...  Trekphiler 09:32, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: VC

message: I added critcism of Roberts' based on Hughes-Wilson's Military Intelligence Blunders & Cover-Ups, & of small units based on a TV documentary I've seen (the title of which escapes me...) claiming many were "led from behind", while those who were "led from the front" succeeded in comparable conditions.  Trekphiler 09:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Leadership

message: Why is there no mention of the second reason that Hitler issued the shackle order, i.e. Dead German POWs found with their hands tied behind their back?
http://uboat.net/articles/index.html?article=47
:After the raid there were reports of German POWs’ bodies washing ashore with their hands tied and of captured documents stating that German prisoners were to have their hands tied behind their back.
http://www.oliverchronicle.com/1996_19.htm
:The second page in Ross's prison camp album reveals a simple line drawing he created to depict the shackles that bound him and thousands of other prisoners; underneath the picture are two dates - Dec. 2, 1942 and Nov. 22, 1943 - which mark the time they spent in chains.
 
:"This was a reprisal, a payback" Ross explains. "When the bodies of German prisoners washed up on the beaches they were found in handcuffs, so the Germans took this as a license to shackle us."
By the way; here one can follow the discussions in the British government in the following months on how to resolve the prisoner shackling issue.
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_1_transcript.pdf
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/cab_195_2_transcript.pdf
:W.M.(42)137th Meeting 9th October 1942.
*M/L. 
Don’t go in for any further reprisal yet.
*L.P. 
Distinction betwn. manacling men in custody and tying up men not yet in custody.
*S/Doms. 
Canadians think we have put ourselves in a false posn. by concealing the truth.
*Adam. 
What we thght wrong was the advance instrn. to tie hands in every case to prevent destruction of documents wthr. or not any need to do so to prevent escape.
*S/Doms. 
Before any other action taken, we shd. invite views of Dom. Govts.
*L.P. 
We shd. now give more informn. for our own people, about what happened at Dieppe.
Stor stark7 13:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: POW policies; killing shackled prisoners

message: Not sure this latest edit "was a major victory over Canada" reflects that it was a joint arms operation with the infantry mainly supplied by Canada and the marine and air elements mainly by UK. I think it should be referred to as Allied. Also I don't think the repulse of an attack of only Divisional size which was non-strategic can be described as a 'major victory' although possibly the attack could be described as a total failure (barring the lessons learned) Stephen Kirrage 11:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hardly a major victory over Canada

message: The description of the battle is quite good an interesting, however a map would be wonderful.
 
Makes no sense to have a military article without maps or air photos of the battlefield.68.5.64.178 19:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anybody can add any illustration that is in the public domain or otherwise available to be used. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 05:16, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the map of the beaches a while ago, I’ll think about some smaller scale objective maps for each beach landing zone. Enderwigginau (talk) 04:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:  Have added a few maps of the Landing Zones (Green Beach, Orange Beach and Yellow Beach). Need to update the Green Beach map to show the approx location of the Hindenburg Battery, one of the main objectives of that zone. Enderwigginau (talk) 20:32, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Map needed

message: "While dozens of books have been written on the subject, the three titles above are generally considered the best.  The first contains a great deal of first person detail; the second is a detailed and very scholarly look at high level planning almost exclusively, and the last is a mixture of both first person account (Whitaker was the only officer of his brigade to return from the main beach unwounded and later commanded the Royal Hamilton Light Infantry in Northwest Europe) and scholarly history.  Villa's book offers up tantalizing theories on deliberate leaks of information to the Germans, and attempts to prove the thesis that Admiral Mountbatten mounted the raid without approval from above.  Whitaker's book attempts to prove that valuable lessons were learned at Dieppe and may be forgiven for some measure of bias due to his personal involvement in the historical action.  Robertson's book is the most even-handed but suffers from being written before many files were available to researchers, especially those relating to Ultra."
I've moved this here because it seems like a personal opinion being inserted. However, I don't know much about historical sources, so I didn't outright delete it. --Wafulz 01:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: I thought about adding this to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Military_scandals
Do it if you want. --84.234.60.154 (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Scandal?

message: The Dieppe raid was a tragedy and a disaster for the allied forces who took part in this operation, which consisted, mainly, of Canadian forces.
However, this does not excuse the poor standards of reporting in the Wiki-article on Dieppe and the biased vocabulary.  Would somebody please instill standards which are normally associated with a basic university degree (mod-history 101) and, at least, tighten up the text.  Note: for whoever is interested:  editing does not consist only of removing tracts of text which you disagree with.  It also includes revisions of policy, grammar, punctuation, vocabulary, content, voice and substance;  as it would be the case if any of you had found work on a newspaper as a Sub-Editor.  I assume that we are all using the same University of Chicago Style Book (the standard work).  If not, please get a copy before meddling with text.  I also assume that 'wiki-editors' are experts in the fields of the articles which they are editing and will, at least, be able to show past higher studies work in the area which they are working on.  This is not a collection of blogs for the inexpert, or the poorly literate!!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.194.53.104 (talk) 21:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Bruce, thanks for your concern for the quality article. Probably the best place to start to understand why the article has these problems is the ["About Wikipedia"] page. To address one of the issues you raise, editors do not need to be experts, or even knowledgeable about the subject at all -- a grade school dropout has the same editing privileges as a university professor. Other editors are unlikely to ask -- or care -- about anyone's academic credentials. The same applies to literary credentials -- my kindergarten-age son has the same editing ability as a professor with one hundred peer-reviewed articles on her resume. There is no guarantee that any particular edit will improve the article, which is why one's peers have the authority to revert to a previous version (although, of course, there is no guarantee any particular revert will improve things, either). The intent of the model is that, over time, knowledge will drive out ignorance, and good writing will triumph over bad, but again, that's not certain. Regarding the University of Chicago Style Book -- yes, it is standard some places, but not here. Wikipedia has its own standards, again developed by consensus. If you enjoy the challenge, you can help improve the article by editing for content or style, or by improving the community standards and guidelines. If not, you might be more comfortable with a more conventional encyclopedia, owned by some particular body, who chooses staff for the project based on their expertise, who decides on an editorial and production schedule, and with articles written, edited and peer-reviewed by professionals. But please don't take offense that this is not what Wikipedia is. Darkstar8799 (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to note the previous comment is over two years old and bruce may not be watching the article. --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: contributions by military historians/et al

message: Bodies of a Canadian soldier and a U.S. Army Ranger lying among damaged landing craft and "Churchill" tanks of the Calgary Regiment following Operation 'Jubilee'Credit: Library and Archives Canada / C-014160
Bodies of a Canadian soldier and a U.S. Army Ranger lying among damaged landing craft and "Churchill" tanks of the Calgary Regiment following Operation 'Jubilee'
Credit: Library and Archives Canada / C-014160
The Canadians in the centre suffered greatly, at least in part due to the inexperience of Roberts, who unwisely committed the reserve force to the main beaches. Poor small unit leadership has also been blamed for failures once men went ashore.
The landing at Puys by the Royal Regiment of Canada was delayed and the potential advantages of surprise and darkness were lost. The well-placed German forces held the Canadians that did land on the beach with little difficulty. 225 men were killed, 264 surrendered and 33 made it back to England. The beach was defended by just 60 Germans, who at no time felt the need to reinforce their position. Several platoons of the Black Watch were also employed at Blue Beach; some of their casualties were suffered in a grenade-priming accident on the transport ships during the channel crossing.
</blockquote>
The Black Watch landing is the first mention of Blue Beach as a location, but it is referred to as if it were mentioned previously.  It is not.  One might assume that Blue Beach is at Puys, but that is only implied.
Please clarify this.  Did the Black Watch in fact land at Puys, and is that where Blue beach is?  (As is implied by the text)  Or is Blue beach somewhere else, perhaps close to Puys?
(I lost an uncle at Dieppe, I am proud to say that he single handedly took out a machine gun nest and got mention for it in The Shame and The Glory.)
--Tsingi (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Canadian assault (para) incomplete location reference

message: The article states 200 german fighter planes whereas the linked article (like most other sources) about the Focke Wulf FW190 states 115 fighters. That's a vast difference in numbers.
Also i cannot find any other sources confirming the appraisement that the allied fighter planes where at the extent of their operating range, giving the Luftwaffe fighters de facto numerical or/and air superiority over the battlefield. This is even entirely unlogical considering that one of the targets of the raid was to lure the Luftwaffe into a large encounter.
On the other hand i miss any reference of the factor - again i refer to the Fw190 article - that the Focke Wulf Fw190 was at that time  a scourge for the RAF, outperforming the Spitfire in almost every aspect.
It seems appropriate to conclude the RAF fighters actually HAD a decent numerical superiority over the battlefield but took a severe beating nevertheless (RAF fighter losses 106 vs. Luftwaffe fighter losses 25 including crashes, once again refering to the Fw190 article).
Flip a wig (talk) 19:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: IIRC, Dieppe was the first time the RAF encountered the Fw 190.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.9 (talk) 09:42, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: No, the RAF first encountered the Focke-Wulf 190 in September 1941. They captured their first example on 23 June 1942, when Oberleutnant Arnim Faber landed his aircraft, an A-3 model, at RAF Pembrey in Wales, apparently thinking he was in France. Because of the Focke-Wulf's noticeable advantage over the Spitfire V, production of the Spitfire IX (a Mark V airframe with a two-stage-supercharged Merlin 60-series dropped in) was expedited in late 1941 as an interim type pending arrival of the Mark VIII with strengthened airframe. In practice the Mark IX was so good that the Mark VIII was only built in small numbers. The first combat kill by a Spitfire IX was a Focke-Wulf 190 shot down by Flt Lt Donald Kingaby of 64 Squadron on the afternoon of 30 July 1942, over the sea off Boulogne. All this was before the Dieppe Raid. The Mark IX was an effective Focke-Wulf killer, but was very rare at that time and only overtook the Mark V in numbers by spring 1944. Khamba Tendal (talk) 18:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: 3.1 Air Forces

message: See the line: Them damned Brits did not plan on success and sent the Canucks through a mass slaughter to appease those Commies in the East.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.229.40.153 (talk) 00:46, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Page vandalism

message: I think good idea is adding Poland to list of participants in this operation. In oppose to Free France, which send 15 soldiers, Poland send Destroyer - ORP Ślązak, which shot down 4 aircrafts, (2x Do-217, 1x Me-109 and 1x Ju-88), together with other British destroyer sunk German Patrol Boat and carry shore bombardment operations. Also in battle fought Polish Air Force in number of 5 SQNs (302nd, 303th, 306th, 309th and 317th). Together it will be roughly more than 300 soldiers, 20 times more than Free France.
94.101.16.13 (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: in oppose to Poland Free French are overlooked inthere, the Free Fench were also pilots of the All-Free French squadrons that are not listed here. just like French casualties:0 listed, while there is already french pilot Emile Fayolle who was shot by AA during the operation and nobody cares, poles included. Cliché Online (talk) 03:28, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

text: "Polish Airforce? A polish Airforce did NOT exist at that time. They were part of the RAF and also did not fight together as one Polish Airforce but as seperate squadrons under different wings. So to speak of a "Polish Airforce" is total nonsense. 80.151.9.187 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 12:42, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Involvement of Poland

message: The intro says the navy lost 34 ships, but the figure seems a lot less impressive when you learn that 33 of them were only landing craft.  Should those be counted as ships?  You couldn't sail one to Rio... 
--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro quibble

message: I seems that the British broadcast their intentions over the airwaives. Google News list 12 related stories from around June 9, see here. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: How did the Germans know?

message: I have restored the  templates. They are the Wikipedia norm. If you do not like the way the the references differ, please consider mowing the other sources to templates as well. An please – do not ask to be nominated for the lamest edit wars page! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 10:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not a norm, neither recommended nor approved and when there are errors in author, title, publisher, date and format, then they are changed. The entire article is written in a bibliographic style and that is the norm, once established, other editors are expected to use a consistent style. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:43, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Citation templates

message: I have deleted a claim* concerning a link between the shackling of German EPWs and the Commando order that has been questioned since August of last year. It currently posses as much credibility as the statement "Some mathematicians believe that 1+1=3" without a sorce as to which would think so.
*"It is however believed to have contributed to Hitler's decision to issue the Commando Order later that year."  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.182.76.119 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed unsourced material

message: "the headstones have been placed back-to-back in double rows, the norm for a German war cemetery, but unlike any other Commonwealth War Graves Commission site. "
:Lyness RN Cemetery is laid out like that and I have seen the CWGC section of other cemeteries like that.  jmb (talk) 00:33, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cemetery 

message: There was another curious incident.  In a book called (I think) "Dieppe - Dawn of Decision"  there was a reproduction of a newspaper advertisement which appeard a little before the raid, mentioning Dieppe, and showing a woman gathering roses.  But the roses' stems were of barbed wire, and she was cutting them with wire cutters.  Again, if I remember, it was investigated, but nothing suspicious was uncovered.
Baska436 (talk) 03:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Debate over German foreknowledge 

message: Polish forces is not supported in article, and the Americans weren't involved either. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Correction, after reading the article, the Americans were involved but their command is not mentioned in the infobox. Still not clear on Polish involvement. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:35, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Rangers appear to have been attached to No 4 Commando. Info box amended to reflect what info we have on that. Irondome (talk) 14:20, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

text: If the Rangers were only observers, they don't deserve mention as combatants. Especially if Belgians & Norwegians in RAF aren't mentioned.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura  15:34, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please can you provide a source to back up your claim that US Rangers present were "observers" Irondome (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

text: * Indeed. The Ranger force were on shore for 4 hours, and mostly provided heavy weapon support. They were fully committed. Hardly passive "observers". These were the first U.S ground forces to see combat in the European Theatre in WW2. Noteworthy. Keep as is. Irondome (talk) 16:12, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The Rangers were drawn from a range of companies within first battalion and didn't fight as a single unit; rather they were attached to several other British and Canadian units. Even if they had fought as a complete unit, the addition of a platoon and a half worth of infantry to the infobox is excessive. This point was discussed some time ago in similar circumstances. I have never heard that they provided heavy weapon support. Can you ref that? Ranger Steve Talk 16:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

text: *www.thedropzone.org/europe/raids/koons.html. Short interview with Frank Koons, Ist ranger Btn. Groups of 4 or so Rangers appear to have been attached to Marine platoons. They appear not to have trained with the British units prior to the op, due to time constraints. There is no indication that they were not there for anything but direct combat. Koons operated a Boys anti- tank rifle from a barn. They appear to have pitched in and helped where needed. Irondome (talk) 16:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: He says he was in a barn with men armed with a Boys rifle. That's quite different to saying that the Rangers provided heavy weapons support. I'm not contesting that they pitched in, but the addition of 50 men to a landing force of some 5,000 doesn't constitute much of a contribution. The fact remains that this was a joint British/Canadian op, with a handful of American soldiers attached to British and Canadian units. They didn't contribute to the planning and they didn't supply any formation to the Order of Battle. I can't see any justification for including them in the belligerent box - although I wouldn't dispute including them in the strength box.  Ranger Steve Talk 16:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

text: It's fine in the article. I'm sure there's a lot more info that can be included on the Ranger participation (there's very little at the moment), but that doesn't justify mis-classing them as a major contributor in the infobox. At present, it makes it look as if this was a joint British/Canadian/US operation. It wasn't. Ranger Steve Talk 16:53, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Concur. Removed from Belligerent box. Irondome (talk) 16:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Added US to strengths box. I think its ok there. Irondome (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that looks much better. I've modified the word order a weeny bit though, as it makes more grammatical sense that way. The other question is the Poles. I see they did contribute a destroyer as well, but I'm not sure on the need to list them under belligerents. From my understanding of the Polish armed forces during the war this destroyer wouldn't have been a RN unit, so does anyone think it could it be listed/clarified under strengths instead? Ranger Steve Talk 21:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

text: * A tricky one. Suggest Polish Armed Forces in the West listed in strengths box. Im assuming that would be the Polish destroyer, the ORP Slazak, (ex Hunt- Class) the 80 or so Poles of No 10 Commando, and the Polish air assets that were in action, 303 and 317 Polish Fighter Squadrons. Dunno if thats an unacceptably high level of detail though. Irondome (talk) 21:30, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Review of infobox required 

message: Ok, so got hold of the guy's book. 2013, pub Alfred Knopf, Toronto, Canada, isbn 9780345807694. Some reviews of the book comment that a large part of it is not about the raid, but about the intelligence war leading up to it, and in particular the naval war. I noticed a few points so far, with regard to the discussion above. 
The book comments on the very high importance placed on ensuring that the British could continue to read German coded messages. At one point it cites Churchill authorising an unlimited budget for the codebreaking effort, and the setting up of combined operations groups to carry out military action with the express aim of obtaining codes. 
He quotes an intelligence document, the Connaught report, which investigated the best ways to obtain codes, etc, and which concluded that an attack on a land command centre would be one of the best ways to do this. One difficulty was identifying targets where codes would be available, but another was preventing Germans destroying any such material as soon as they realised capture was inevitable. In this regard the report considered that a command post would be amongst the slowest in taking any such action, because of the need to maintain communications to the very last moment. Surprise was always essential. It was also considered always essential that any operation have an overt military significance other than capturing codes. Every proposed operation against Germany was vetted to consider its potential for capturing code materials, and nothing by way of naval operations was advanced unless it had this potential.   Significant  resistance to O'Keef's view above is based on the difficulty of Dieppe as a target. O'Keefe's argument is that documentary evidence exists that British intelligence had concluded this was the right approach. 
British success was not simply due to breaking the enigma codes, but also to information gained from simpler codes. These were used by  Germans in emergency when the enigma failed, for very short messages and for support services, such as harbour management. All these provided clues which cumulatively were of significant value. The British maintained a file of the most useful codes to break, and it wasnt just the obvious ones. Germans concentrating on destroying the highest priority items might miss some which turned out to be very valuable. British understanding of the code system and the mechanical bombe machines designed to run through combinations much faster than an operator could, meant the codebreakers could make use of partial information to break  codes. However the bombes designed to assist in breaking three rotor enigma were highly sophisticated devises for the time which could not be mass produced, and were anyway too slow to break codes for the four rota enigma machines in time for the information to be useful. Practically, the limited number of machines were used to break three rotor codes still in use.
The Germans were correct to assume that simply possessing enigma machines was not in itself sufficient to break the codes. At least at this point in the war, the British relied upon captured information about settings to be able to read the messages. So definitive knowledge by Germans that the British had machines was not in itself sufficient to cause them to drop the system. Yes, if they knew settings had been compromised they would change them, but obtaining the new machine was a critical essential step which in itself would not be self-negating, even if the Germans knew it had happened. The British always took steps to hide the fact codes might have been taken whenever possible.
The introduction of the 4 rotor enigma was an event anticipated by the British, because of a captured box (without machine) and because of errors in German codes sent out, where they were supposed to use 4 rotor machines in three rotor mode as they were being introduced. The 4 rotor began to be used 1 February 1942, and at the same time other codes were changed. This led to essentially a complete break in the intelligence which the British had been using to guide convoy routes and direct naval ships to attack German submarines. Three rotor enigma was still used for surface ships (British codename 'dolphin'), but German submarines were using the four rotor system (codename 'shark') to direct their movements at sea. German submarines extended their operations to the US coast in Feb 1942, where US defences were less than well organised.(Ok p.148) Before the four rotor system was finally cracked in December, 7.1 million tons of shipping was lost to submarines, compared to the 4.5 million tons which was regarded as acceptable loss rate, based on new building.(OK. p.160) 1.5 million tons of tankers lost, reaching a 1 in 4 loss rate per journey, while replacement was running at 200,000 tons per year. Convoy routes were made longer by thousands of miles to try to avoid submarines, meaning turnaround times were extended and each ship could transport less per year. Submarine numbers were something the British could still track, and they were steadily increasing. Fuel deliveries in 1942  dropped by 10% and were only delivering 75% of demand.   U-boat commanders described this as their 'second happy time'. This was a crisis potentially sufficient to lose the war for lack of  intelligence material which could stem the losses of physical material.  
O'Keefe quotes the Admiralty  Plans Division, " All this points to the expectation, and intelligence tends to confirm this, that in the Atlantic the German navy will during the spring and summer of this year [1942] make an all out effort to break down our sea power, and bring the war to an end. For us  it is vital to win this battle by providing the adequate counter to the anticipated German naval and air measures".(Ok p.165) His point is that in fact the situation was fast approaching desperate, which again relates to comments made above as to why the British might apply such a high level of resources to a pretty suicidal mission. On the US side he quotes General George Marshall writing to Admiral Ernest King in June 42 (heads of army and navy), "losses by submarine off our Atlantic seaboard and in the Caribbean now threaten our entire war effort...I am fearful that another month or two of this will so cripple our means of transport that we will be unable to bring sufficient men and planes to bear against the enemy". The US gave equal priority and funding to its own codebreaking efforts as to the Manhattan Project. The US was getting very upset at the UK's inability to come up with useful intelligence.(Ok p.174) Sandpiper (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: One day in August, O'Keefe

message: Actually, Irondome, I don't think the lede is the place for lengthy quotations, especially as this one doesn't add much. Nor is it really suitable for a lot of references or links. I feel that my re-sequencing of the material did actually clarify the story. 109.154.9.232 (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I am glad you came here to discuss. I think this is quite a large issue in terms of the correct lede and consensus building is the way to go. I think the quotation has its place in the lede, although a move to a sepearte section is arguable. You did arguably unbalance the lede however, removed some useful (for other WP readers) links, removed a cited paragraph; and made a completely POV and uncited assertion in your version of the lede end. I suggest you actually create an Ed "profile" It helps enormously in credibility when edding WP. Just a suggestion. I suspect you are an old WP hand. Regards Irondome (talk) 02:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested new lede 20/5/13 

message: Whilst the majority of infantrymen, thus casualties, were Canadian, and the Raid was a key event in Canadian military history (perhaps as important as Vimy Ridge), I think that this article over-eggs the role of the Canadian contingent to the detriment of the other forces.  Whilst Canada is mentioned twice in the opening paragraph, none of the other countries involved (UK, USA, France) is mentioned at all.  Including Royal Navy and Royal Air Force commitments, the UK had almost as many servicemen involved as Canada did.  In fact, of the British forces, 555 sailors and 275 commandos died, countless more were wounded or captured, 1 destroyer and 33 landing craft were destroyed, and 106 planes were shot down.  The attack was also important in the history of American involvement in World War Two on account of it being the first combat between American and German ground forces in the war.  Whilst it is understandable that the latter is reduced to a footnote, it is unacceptable that the former is.  I am editing the opening paragraph to rectify the problem and to change some wording (as part of it is just a copy of a later paragragh); if there is an objection to the phrasing or stylistics, please keep the message the same: That this was a true Allied mission. Bastin8 13:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure if it fits here, but McNaughton was eager for Canadian troops to enter combat. So why did WSC refuse to use them in NAfr? I know Granatstein says Monty had a low opinion of their COs; was this widely shared? Was it enough?  Trekphiler 09:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: ...and how many Poles were substantially involved in the Dieppe Raid? FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 02:11, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Polish destroyer ORP Slazak took part in the raid, and recovered troops from the beach. As far as I know that was the only Free Polish unit involved. Mediatech492 (talk) 02:39, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: RAF No. 303 Squadron also took part in the aerial battle. In terms of significant numbers, AFAIK, the Polish contribution was extremely limited. FWiW  Bzuk (talk) 10:26, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Operation Jubilee order of battle, five Polish squadrons took part, but I don't know about the exact extent of their involvement. I lobbied for the removal of the Americans from the belligerent's box - I'm less certain of the Poles, but if they do get removed, so should the French. However, their contribution can still be listed in the Strength box. Ranger Steve Talk 11:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad I found this going on. I oppose the Polish removal. Even at this stage the ORB shows at least 5 fighter squadrons, at least one large Polish destroyer and  I assume at least a COY in strength in the 10th inter allied commando. This is a substantial air land sea contribution force and does not justify the polish flags removal at least without discussion. Irondome (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I would argue that at least 5 squadrons of aircraft, at least 1 large destroyer (I believe there was at least another Polish vessel) and perhaps over a COY in ground forces is a "significant" contribution, in terms of Polands' military and political plight at the time. The Polish army under the "Western" Polish leadership would and could have willingly provided a far larger ground contingent if Mountbatten et al had requested it. Would suggest, relative to contemporary national force strengths, that Poland be included. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Non-Canadian involvement

message: If a link to the article Beach Comber, a war pigeon highly decorated for heroism for his important role in the Dieppe Raid, can not be worked into this article, might it be listed in a "See Also" or some such? Chrisrus (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problems having this dutiful descendent of the dinosaurs added to the "See also" section Irondome (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm slightly suprised that the article has no see also section. Irondome (talk) 22:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. It is perfectly relevant and meets all WP criteria. Irondome (talk) 22:34, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's great.  If there could be found a good way to incorporate it appropriately into the text of the article, that would also be good.  Chrisrus (talk) 06:12, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Beach Comber

message: The usage of Dieppe is under discussion, see talk:Dieppe -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:04, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Dieppe

message: The large number of photos is in restored after deletion by this edit is problematic because:
#it's disproportionate to the  article - the photos, although small, are about twice the space of the text on the subject of German propaganda
#the captions are uninformative
#purpose of addition- as a mark of memorial for the efforts of the Allied soldiers there (according to your edit summary) is not a valid reason for addition.
#also under WP: what Wikipedia is not - is an unfiltered image gallery WP:IG says "Images in a gallery should be carefully selected, avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made"
Also on procedural notes
# making large changes, or reverts with 'm' for minor edit tag to the summary is bad practice. WP: Help describes minor edits under that tag as "A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute". Some editors filter out minor edits so it may be interpreted as trying to hide the edit from scrutiny.
#Attribution to the pictures on WP: Commons is incorrect. If German historic photos then they need the right copyright (or absence of) tagging. Go to Commons:Help desk and ask for help getting the proper information added.
I see a similar large number of images on same subject was added some time back but removed. whole topic of big changes and getting past opposition is covered here under WP:BRD. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:02, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The very same pictures were originally published by the Library and Archives Canada website in 2002, as Educational Resources for students. The reproduced material should credit the Library and Archives Canada as the source, and not be identfied under "own work" license. That's likely the reason why the same sets of images got deleted back in 2012. Regards Dircovic (talk) 11:14, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: there are multiple routes possible for the photos being on Wikipedia today. Even if attribution is correct, putting large number in article is a problem. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: These pix are marginally interesting, but the quality doesn't warrant adding to the page; having them on Commons for anybody interested ought to be enough. (Uninformative captions & misleading, or false, licencing, are no help.)  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 17:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  well I've already removed them twice, so [if there's sufficient consensus] I guess it's someone else's turn. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:10, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  mass addition of German propaganda photos as large gallery 

message: Not sure 173Sqn was the correct unit to have bombed the gun battery, as they were in Egypt. Enderwigginau (talk) 10:39, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Also not on the Order of Battle. If this was a 17X Sqn, it was 174 or 175, both fielding Hurricanes in the fighter bomber role. Enderwigginau (talk) 05:07, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yellow Beach - 173Sqn? 

message: Landing Craft Assault holds significant descriptions of the landings involving LCAs (not Yellow Beach).
May transfer some of the well referenced descriptions across. 
Enderwigginau (talk) 09:50, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Landing Craft Assault 

message: A reference for Orange and Yellow Beaches
https://weaponsandwarfare.com/2018/10/11/hess-and-goebbels-gun-batteries-at-dieppe/
Enderwigginau (talk) 03:21, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commando Actions 

message: Adjusting the position of images to adjust the flow and understanding, but unfortunately it looks great on a mobile device but not on a PC.
Mayne I just need more knowledge of coding the image locations.
Enderwigginau (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image location adjustments 

message: Why has this article been converted to Canadian English.
It was, and is, more correctly in British English, as an article on a Commonwealth operation controlled by the British high command......Enderwigginau (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, why was this changed from British English? I intend on changing it back if there are no significant reasons as to why it was changed in the first place. Being a Canadian editor, or because the main forces involved were Canadian are not significant reasons. It should be in British English as mentioned above. Enderwigginau (talk) 05:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I’m tied up for the moment but will reply to the « why » question soon. Request no change be made In the interim. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  The template was changed to Canadian English, which then shows up at the top of the talk page. I've been working on this off and on for a long time and there was no reason to change it in the past.  I've changed the template back but if you make a valid argument it is easily reverted.  feel free to discuss it here instead of just changing it. Enderwigginau (talk) 01:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

text: I didn't know I needed your permission; the Canadians were the preponderant force; it's obvious that the article ought to be in CanEng. Are you sure that you aren't being a bit proprietorial? The article has a lot of good material in it as well as some surprising omissions but it's also repetitive, has lots of overlaps and relies too much on a narrow range of sources. Lack of sources, secondary ones in particular, bedevils Wiki milhist because people do the best with what they've got, which isn't always enough. I'm back at work and still trying to find time to get Jericho finished so I won't be doing much here for a while. Toodle pip! Keith-264 (talk) 09:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Reverted back to British English, after another revision to Canadian. A British Operation, commanded by British forces. Enderwigginau (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian English 

message: Need to clean up the references to combine repeated references into single ref names Enderwigginau (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference Cleanup 

message: Other than the mention of fighters, there's not much on air contribution. Hurricane fighter bonbers, Mustang reconnaissance and light bombers provided - did they do anything in the battle, or to isolate  the area, or act as diversions? Seven squadrons of light bombers and all the article says is that some of them were lost. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Bowyer has quite a bit for 2 Group, perhaps another two paragraphs. The article is quite comprehensive albeit suffering from some duplication and overlaps, some of which seem to be because there is quite a bit of foreshadowing and explaining above the Aftermath section, which is where I prefer to see explanations. I think that some of the sources leave something to be desired (BBC?!?!) which we can remedy. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  BBC references are from news/magazine articles. You might not like them, but one written reference holds as much sway as any other. If it is shown to be incorrect compared to other references, it should still be included but noted as possibly incorrect. And Yes, I agree there could be more information on the aerial part of the campaign Enderwigginau (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  "one written reference holds as much sway as any other", I don't agree and neither does Wiki "Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible."  ; apropos I found quite a bit of material in the OH RCAF last night. Keith-264 (talk) 08:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Air support to ground force lacking 

message: Does anyone object to me using sfns? It's the only style I really know. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Full referencing would be better, but if you are putting in sfn footnotes, remember to put the full information in the bibliography. Enderwigginau (talk) 04:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then again, sfns suffer from repetition, so possibly have a look through some of the page code and use full refs and ref names for repeated citations. Enderwigginau (talk) 04:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I find that even more repetitive and laborious. I'm using sfns because that's the only citation style I really know, perhaps after the re-edit someone good at the other type can change them? Keith-264 (talk) 07:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  This article has been using short footnotes for ages, the Template:sfn handles repeated cites, and links to the full citation. The latter is the only thing where it differs in appearance from a straight  .... as the reader sees it. The article can probably handle a mix of the two at this stage. If consistency is required for a GA etc, then that bridge can be crossed then but at least the article will be fully cited. GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't presume to go against the original style without consensus; if anyone wants to take the article beyond B class we can homogenise them then. Keith-264 (talk) 08:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I will only say - Start as You Intend to Finish - better to be homogeneous from the beginning rather than taking time to clean up later. Enderwigginau (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: Please remember to read and understand each section BEFORE working on it, then reread AFTER making any changes, so as to avoid removing information and meaning from sections.
Recent changes to the Enigma Pinch section have lost the flow and information of previous edits.
Enderwigginau (talk) 04:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I doubt that even as I offer a sheepish grin for forgetting to check the { { main links I put in last night. It's very much a work in progress. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes that remove the meaning of a section 

message: *1) How long the raid was actually supposed to last for. IE what was the planned time to start the withdrawal. At the moment you might think the Canadians etc left because they'd had enough.
*2) The reasons for each beach landing. The official reports highlight the "headlands" that are important to the defences of the port. But no mention of them as such in the article currently.
:GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Two tides, Stacey is quite detailed. Keith-264 (talk) 06:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a time, I ask because Leigh-Mallory says " It was intended, when the tasks ashore had been completed, to withdraw the whole force for reembarkation at about 1100 hours." GraemeLeggett (talk) 08:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Two tides is correct, which is why Leigh-Mallory says about 1100 hours. There was no definitive time limit, other than being ready to reembark on the second high tide after the landing, which was estimated as approximately 11am the next day.  Also, which beach landing are you concerned about? The flanks are stated as having the artillery batteries as their objective. The central beaches were to secure the town and sea walls, Green beach was to take the airfield and a battery behind the town (I should add that) and move into the town from then west (with the Radar Station team embarked with them).Enderwigginau (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Blue, Red and White Beaches were to envelope the town and take control of the seawall and oceanside fortifications. Enderwigginau (talk) 05:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  As written in his report, Leigh-Mallory seems to explicitly referring to starting re-embarking about 11am the day of the landing. It's not clear if that's the plan the air cover was working to before the operation began, or if it had been decided earlier on the day (once the attack bogged down?) GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  White and Green Beach forces were to continue off the beaches and envelope the Hindenburg Battery behind Dieppe, and then move onto the airfield, and thence into Arques-La-Bataille where the 302nd HQ was situated. Enderwigginau (talk) 01:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Graeme, it was the plan prior to the attack. Enderwigginau (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing (at the moment) 

message: There is no need to add a red link into the text, albeit within the guidelines. Mention that you are writing the page here in the talk page so we the other editors know you are doing so, esp if you are going to redlink. It is much better to keep redlinks to those items that have delinked and need fixing. But if you are going to, mention it in the talk pages.Enderwigginau (talk) 00:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you have a WP for that? Keith-264 (talk) 09:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you working on a page for Smoke Curtain Installations? If not, don't redlink just because you want a page for it. Personally, I don't think you should redlink non-existent pages when you can mention them for discussion in the talk pages, whether you're creating or just wanting, as it just makes it ugly for the common Wikipedia user. Just because Wikipedia says you can, doesn't always mean you should. Enderwigginau (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

text: No WP then, just bad tempered criticism. Try harder. Keith-264 (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Links 

message: This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. Moneytrees🏝️Talk🌴Help out at CCI!  18:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible copyright problem 

message: Some idiot on Wikicommons flagged my legally created map images, which Google maps allows, so I’m trying to get that reversed. 2001:8004:12C2:521D:90D5:B592:6D:65BB (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of images  

message: The final sentence of the lede represents the consensus about the lessons of the mission. The current wording reads:
:The lessons of the Dieppe Raid influenced preparations for Allied seaborne operations in the Mediterranean and the Normandy landings (Operation Overlord).
I would suggest:
:The failure of the raid confirmed the prime necessity to build the artificial harbours that enabled D-Day. Although other lessons were learned, these could not possibly have justified the cost in casualties, as the government claimed at the time for propaganda reasons. Valetude (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That last bit about not justifying the costs in casualties needs sourcing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Which part is in doubt? The low value of the so-called lessons? Or the claims by Churchill and Mountbatten that the deaths were not in vain? Valetude (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

text: The lede needs to summarise the article, if the text can't be found in the body of the article, it needs citing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:15, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In the para starting 'The losses at Dieppe were claimed to be a necessary evil...', the Churchill claim carries a cite, and the Mountbatten quote is reproduced, though without a cite. So your 'cite needed' belongs after the Mountbatten quote in the main article. The lede is meant to summarise the article, as we are agreed, and should not usually carry cites. Valetude (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

text: Moved the 'cite needed' accordingly. Valetude (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Final sentence of lede 

message: I made this comment some years ago, but I am still interested.  Many years ago I had a book, called, I think, Dieppe Dawn of Decision, or similar, on the raid.  In it it discussed an advertisement that appeared in an English newspaper a short time before the raid.  It said something like "remember holidays in Dieppe", and showed a fashionable woman picking roses near a beach. But the roses had barbed wire stems, and she was picking them with wire cutters. Has anyone a copy of the book, or can anyone confirm my recollections?  If my recollections are correct, it seems at least interesting. Baska436 (talk) 09:24, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no evidence from German documents that they had any foreknowledge. It went badly because it was badly organised. By paradox it worked out as a fine example of what not to do. This served the Allies well in 1944. Khamba Tendal (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  more on German foreknowledge