Talk:Abwehr

message: For a photo have a look at http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Bundesarchiv_Bild_146-2005-0157,_Geheimer_Funkmeldedienst_des_OKW.jpg MatthiasKabel (talk) 20:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

message: No mention of Garbo, arguably the most important double agent of the war. He "worked" for Abwehr, was paid ~~$300,000, and was awarded an Iron Cross. King George awarded him a MBE.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.247.102 (talk) 22:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Information added. --Obenritter (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not seen 

message: Deleted second part of this sentence because it is contradictory:
"But perhaps the biggest reason was that Canaris himself sought to undermine the Nazi cause, although not Germany's war effort itself."
Abwehr leader, Admiral Wilhelm Canaris, was involved in two parallel efforts.  One supporting the Nazi war effort and the other sabotaging it.  
For example, he cultivated contacts with the British MI6; sometimes using them to the Nazi's benefit (receiving intelligence on Soviet troop positions) and sometimes in an effort to save MI6 agents captured by the SS.  
Most importantly Canaris, secretly convinced Spanish leader General Franco not to enter the war on Axis' side when he had been sent on a mission specifically to encourage Franco to join the Axis.  Hitler wanted Franco's cooperation to seize the British base on Gibraltar which was a territory completely surrounded by Spanish sovereign territory.  If Gibraltar had been seized by the Nazis it would have seriously impaired British control over the Mediterranean Sea and threatened supply/communication lines to the British war effort in North Africa. 
Canaris was a brave man and deserves to celebrated for his opposition to the Nazis, but it is false to say that he didnt hamper Germany's war effort.
Ofhistoricalnote (talk) 12:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm... one could oppose the Nazi ideal and still support Germany. Why could Canaris not have done that? That would not make him any less heroic. He was still a patriotic German. It's an oversimplification to insinuate that he could only have been against Nazism AND a more favorable outcome for Germany or against both. It would have been entirely possible to be against the former and for the latter. Rommel comes to mind. Rommel was not a Nazi by any means and felt it was a destructibe force and would bring the eventual ruin of Germany, but no one in their right mind could ever claim Rommel was against favorable prosecution of the war.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.152.65 (talk) 12:25, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrected false original statement 

message: Some historians have suggested that Section K was named after the Kenngruppenbuch, or K-book, used by the German Navy in conjunction with the Enigma machine. (See the sections "Abwehr Enigma" and "German naval Enigma" in the Wikipedia article "Cryptanalysis of the Enigma"). While not unlikely, there do exist earlier references to a Kryptologisch Wissenschaft Einheit, or cryptology science unit, a more likely source. State secrecy efforts would most likely have curtailed any later reference to it. 75.62.128.236 (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: other source cite Konrad Zuse as reason for section K named after him; Z2 and Z3 computers his invention, highly secretive project of Nazi government; Zuse invented working computers in Germany in 1930 decade before british and american, worked on them through war; Konrad Zuse also invented S1 and S2 computers to help design glide bombs and early cruise missiles for Nazis at Aviation Institutes DVL and AVA, maybe where they got researchers for section K -- 76.237.14.56 (talk) 14:04, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of K Section 

message: Isn't this article seriously wrong about the origins of the Abwehr? 
The Abwehr was set up - under that name - in 1866 after the Austro-Prussian War as the Prussian General Staff's intelligence bureau. I'm no expert but the Abwehr was active all the way up to and through the First World War. It was then disbanded 'technically' as part of the Versailles Agreement disarming Germany but in reality its functions were dispersed amongst the much reduced German army. Only in 1921 was it reconstituted under its old name. And then its history proceeded as the aricle lasy out.
But as it stands, fifty-five years of the Abwehr's history is missing.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hubertgrove (talk • contribs) 18:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prior to 1921 

message: "Before the war" section is based on the book of Nazi criminal Walter Schellenberg, who is notorious for overestimations and lies. The book is considered to be more an artifact of fiction than historical work both by intelligence agencies and historicians, e.g. http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/default/files/document_conversions/89801/DOC_0000606545.pdf.
Facts, that German intelligence played any role in Soviet purges are not supported by any vital documents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.178.102.120 (talk) 20:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Before the war section 

message: Noticed when researching using the Paine book that there was an anomaly. Apparently there are two versions of her book published in 1984 but with different titles and by different publishers. The Stein & Day version was cited in the article so a correction was necessary since it was improperly titled by somebody previously. 
See link: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=German+Military+Intelligence+Paine&rh=n%3A283155%2Ck%3AGerman+Military+Intelligence+Paine
:Good catch. Everyone has this type of thing come up at times when citing and ref. articles. Sometimes a paperback edition and different published hardback editions of the same work line up and have the same number of pages and the same information is given therefore on the same cited page; then one can cite to one edition; others, of course, do not line up the same and one has to add both works to the ref. section for the cites used in the article. Kierzek (talk) 15:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Two versions of Paine book on ''Abwehr''

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Abwehr. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011205033841/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011205033841/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20011205033841/http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm to http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq114-1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:02, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Under "Canasis and Die Schwarze Kapelle":
“When the Abwehr was reorganized, Canaris took care to surround himself with a hand-picked staff, notably his second-in-command, Hans Oster and Section II Chief, Erwin von Lahousen. None were members of the Nazi Party except one. The exception was Rudolf Bamler, who was appointed chief of Section III by Canaris to gain the trust of Himmler. Canaris kept Bamler on a short leash and restricted his access to operational information…
“While outwardly Canaris appeared to be the model of intelligence-gathering efficiency, evidence exists that he secretly opposed, and actively worked against the wishes of Hitler. Canaris, Oster and the Chiefs of Abwehr sections I.,II., and III. were all heavily involved in what the SD were to later dub 'The Black Orchestra' ("Die Schwarze Kapelle" in German), a plot to overthrow the Nazi regime from the inside.[36]”
There seems to be a blatant contradiction.  In the first part of this quote, it is stated that the chief of Section III was Rudolf Bamler who was a Nazi and only appointed by Canaris to gain the trust of Himmler. Then in the second part of this quotation from the section, it is stated that the chiefs of Sections I, II and III were all heavily involved in a plot to overthrow the Nazi regime from within.  So whose side was Bamler on?  Is the source itself contradictory or was Bamler later replaced as head of Section III and his successor was in line with Canaris’s views?  if so, shouldn’t this be noted along with the successor’s name to avoid the apparent contradiction?  Or was there a simple error by the Wiki section writer by including [the section chief of] “III” in the conspiracy's cabal?HistoryBuff14 (talk) 14:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch. Corrected accordingly.--Obenritter (talk) 13:42, 31 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction in section:  "Under Canasis and Die Schwarze Kapelle"?   

message: Is there a reason the Canaris trip to Spain in 1940 comes BEFORE the 1938 reorganization section? It would seem more logical to move the trip to Spain to a spot later in the essay. 2601:140:C000:2700:E1D0:F2EF:F457:A45F (talk) 19:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organization 

message: Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale for the changes is a follows: 
*I removed the section "Canaris and Die Schwarze Kapelle" as uncited; it includes explanatory notes (i.e. For more on the significance of the Canaris circle...) but no citations.
*I modified the areas that discuss Canaris's visits to Spain as using sources that are too old: Rich (1973) and Goerlitz (listed as 1985, but originally published in the 1950s). I instead added a contemporary source, as can be seen in the diff. 
--K.e.coffman (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  July 2021 edits 

message: Article on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aziz_Ali_al-Misri contradicts the info here, says he was dismissed from the post in 1940. Ricbep (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Unless the sources are much more reliable from that article, we'll go with what the two cited refs already state here. --Obenritter (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Efforts in 1941 to contact "Egyptian Army Chief of Staff, el Masri Pasha"