Talk:Operation Green (Ireland)

message: Believe this article should be renamed to Plan Green or "Plan Grün" - I'm easy.
The English word 'Plan' in German is "Plan".  
Fluffy999 05:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The correct name in 1942 was the Irish free state under its own constitution   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.196.120 (talk) 02:49, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Éire Vs Ireland

message: I suggest that the sentance "However despite the propaganda, Green was a real military plan which was given real consideration." (which goes on to say "However, at the time Hitler seemed already convinced that any invasion should be by invitation only") in "Hitler's Views",
is either factually incorrect or could be reading better, due to this sentance:
"[In Plan Green] The Irish Forces were anticipated to give resistance to the initial invasion." in "Irish Defenses against Green"
As the first sentance implies Operation Green was given real consideration by Hitler, and that occupation would be by invitation only, yet the second states that Operation Green was an occupation plan that anticipated Irish Resistance. 
Going on the facts in this article, an improvement would be:
"However despite the propaganda, the occupation of Ireland Green was a real military plan which  was given real consideration."
--RickiRich 02:34, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  contradictory information 

message: "It should be noted that in the Wannsee Conference notes of 20 January 1942 Ireland's 4,000 Jews were listed to be included in the Final Solution of the Jewish Question."
Was it in Plan Green? Was anything like the Black Book tagged to Green? No. Why include it then?  Fluffy999 19:43, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of Original Research

message: Why add 'Operation Green (Ireland)' under Notable Abwehr Operations involving Ireland then? The main actors are laid out clearly in the article, didnt you actually read it RepublicanJacobite ?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.244.207 (talk) 22:28, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Green wasnt an Abwehr Operation

message: the article lists 3,900 troops to be used. I'm not trying to dispute this, I'm just intrigued to know if such a specific number is a result of a nice round number of smaller units (5 of whatever the German equivalent of a battalion was or something). Normally the number would be 4,000, or 'about 4,000', but 3,900?
Also, is trying to give such a specific number really helpful given that even if there were (say) 5 of whatever formation assigned for the operation, the number would probably not have been quite so round (BUT, the greater accuracy that IS given implies that the number may be entirely accurate) 82.11.251.232 (talk) 01:43, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Troop Numbers 

message: In 1938, another Fall Grün was being considered, the invasion of Czechoslovakia, see de:Sudetenkrise#Der_Fall_Grün. The automatic redirect from Operation Green to Operation Green (Ireland) should be transformed into a disambig. page with the two entries of these two Operations Green, one of which would obviously be a red link for the time being. I'm therefore not sure if I can make that change. Wschroedter (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fall Grün can also mean Czechoslovakia 

message: "This has raised suspicion that intercepted 'chatter' about Green may have been aimed at creating a 'bogeyman' in the minds of British military planners on their western flank."
It depends on how the information was disseminated and acquired by the British. if it were only through ULTRA like channels then it can be taken that the "chatter" was not intended for the British. If it were through ULTRA intercepts how did the British tell the Irish they had acquired the information? This seems to me to be a quite complicated issue and speculation such as the sentence in the article should be linked to a specific source and as a point of view probably attributed in the text. -- PBS (talk) 00:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chatter 

message: I have removed this entire section because it was mostly unsourced.  The only sourced section was the blockquote, which was cited to David Irving. Any use of David Irving as a source is not in keeping with the Core Content Policies, for what should be obvious reasons. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 01:48, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Hitler's views" section