Talk:Battle of the River Plate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Uruguay Portal This article is part of WikiProject Uruguay, an attempt to expand, improve and standardise the content and structure of articles related to Uruguay If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of objectives.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the River Plate article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

	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.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... British military history task force German military history task force Maritime warfare task force New Zealand military history task force World War II task force

Contents 1 Ship registry 2 River name 3 Which campaign? 4 Ship classification 5 Survivors in Uruguay 6 Marginal victory? 7 False Intelligence 8 name of the river 9 British victory 10 "Kurt's tried again! "

[edit] Ship registry

I vaguely remember reading that Ajax and Achilles were New Zealand navy ships, but it's about 30 years since I read the book about the battle! Can anyone confirm? Arwel 01:00 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Achilles was a New Zealand navy (RNZNS) ship. Tony Vignaux 01:12 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

Thanks. Gosh, that was quick! Arwel 01:27 Feb 24, 2003 (UTC)

It was an RN ship manned by the RN New Zealand Division, the RNZN itself did not become an entity until 1941. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] River name

While noting 128.125.252.127's point that Rio de la Plata is more accurately translated as "Silver River", I'm reverting much of his recent edits as the accepted name in English is River Plate -- most particularly it is not acceptable to rename the movie and magazine article which are definitely entitled "Battle of the River Plate". Arwel 07:01, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Which campaign?

Which campaign or theatre does this battle belong in? Battle of the Atlantic? Oberiko 15:37, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Ship classification

I'm changing Duncharris' description of Graf Spee as a 'battleship' to simply 'ship' in the text, as technically, although pocket battleship was the term used in English at the time to describe them, the Panzerschiffe would more accurately be described as heavy cruisers, or perhaps as battlecruisers, as they lacked the heavy armour of true battleships (which indeed eventually proved fatal to Graf Spee). -- Arwel 14:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Survivors in Uruguay

I would like to mention that information about the survivors in Uruguay is only "unreliable" for people outside the Riverplate. Is well-known by many Uruguayans that a Bakery located in the old city of Montevideo called "Oro del Rhin" (Gold of Rhin) helped some of the survivors.

An interesting fact that I learned in history class (whilst living in Uruguay) is that Oro del Rhin was closed during the Uruguayan military dictatorship (don't know for how long) accused of being "Nazi sympathisers" (isn't Gold of Rhin the name of a Wagner piece? That is, Hitler's favourite composer?)

From: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=cache:nCI1x5RODdkJ:www.smu.org.uy/publicaciones/noticias/noticias100/art23.htm+%22oro+del+rhin%22+%2B+uruguay+%2B+nazi&hl=en

[...] Cuando el joven Jaime Bogacz apedreaba la vidriera del Oro del Rhin, donde flameaba una bandera nazi, en realidad apedreaba las injusticias que su padre había padecido cuando fue expulsado de su Polonia natal. [...]

--Pinnecco 22:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marginal victory?

How come the result is only listed as "Marginal United Kingdom victory"? I'd have thought the enemy finishing up being sunk (even by their own hand) without losing any of your own ships was more than "marginal" SteveCrook 03:44, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

One suspects it is because of the battle's high cost. While the Germans lost Admiral Graf Spee, the British suffered many more casualties and two of their ships were heavily damaged without really hurting their opponent very much. --Kralizec! 05:39, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] False Intelligence

The name of the British secret agent that provided the Germans with wrong information is Rolf Weinberg. He is a huge war hero back in the UK, and I think we should name him on this article.

• http://www.biglotteryfund.org.uk/newsroom/release.aspx?prid=428
• http://www.ajr.org.uk/pastjournal23.htm

--Pinnecco 21:56, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

I just finished reading a book about Rolf Weinberg, and I decided to create an article about him. --Pinnecco 12:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] name of the river

Duncharris, please stop arbitrarily (and very carelessly) reverting to your preferred name for the river. I have now commented on this issue twice on your userpage and have had a running commentary on the issue for the past two weeks on Talk:Río de la Plata, in which you haven't once seen fit to participate. Tomer^talk 11:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Disgraceful attitude. How can one particuipate in a discussion that one is unaware of. This is the English name of the estuary. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.109.40.130 (talk • contribs) .

Disgraceful attitude indeed. [1][2] [3] Especially for an admin. [4]. The discussion was rather prominent on Talk:Río de la Plata and on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rivers/Naming. Tomer^talk 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British victory

From the history page:

09:58, 13 April 2006 Philip Baird Shearer (A ship that had been commerce raiding was removed as a threat, that was a British victory and a German defeat, there is nothing symbolic in it

(cur) (last) 10:20, 13 April 2006 Kurt Leyman m (With the word symbolic I'm refering to the fact that German and Allied losses comparable, but the battle was a major propaganda (ie. symbolic) victory.)

It was a real Commonwealth victory not just a propaganda victory. The losses were not comparable. It was a Commonwealth victory as the Germans no longer had a surface flotilla in the South Atlantic. As defence against, and hunting the Graf Spee took far more resources than the equivalent of one small task force, removing this threat was in itself a notable victory as it freed up more Commonwealth naval resources for redeployment than were lost in the battle. It was also a victory of subterfuge for the British something which would go on to from am important part of the British war effort. As to the partial loss of one cruiser, I am sure that the Admiralty would have been more than happy if they could have swapped one County class cruiser for each and every pocket battleship. The simplest way to measure this victory is to consider how much fire power the British were pretending to send to attack the Graf Spee, and that it was crediblely believed that that sort of force would be deployed to sink her shows what a large victory the Battle of the River Plate was. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"The losses were not comparable. "

They were. Admiral Graf Spee's damage was not as severe as some think, unlike Exeter's. The ship was nearly a hulk. The only reason why she was repaired is because the British goverment wanted it to be done for propaganda reasons.

And British themselves did not "remove" Admiral Graf Spee. Mistakes made by captain Langsdorff effectively did. Hitler was quite right when he said that the Admiral Graf Spee should have been able to win the Battle of River Plate. Graf Spee's tactic was poor, she kept switching targets which threw off her gunners' aim - this was ordered by Lagsdorff.

Also, Langsdorff effectively LIED when he said he didn't have enough ammunition for a second battle if the ship would attempt to escape. Graf Spee used only slightly more than half her ammunition during the Battle of River Plate. She still had 324 280mm shells, enough for 54 six gun broadsides. She had used 378 280mm shells during the battle. She also had 423 shells for the secondary 150mm guns, enough for 104 four gun broadsides.

Also, I never claimed that the battle was only a propaganda victory (symbolic). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kurt Leyman (talk • contribs) 18:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

What you claimed is in the copy of the article history above. Obviously you and I understand what you wrote differently. The losses were not comparable. The British could easily afford to loose one cruiser to remove the Germans surface flotilla in the South Atlantic, as it freed up more resources than they lost. That the GS should have been able to win the Battle of River Plate is not relevant to the outcome of the battle. That the German captain allegedly lied, or that the GS had enough ammunition to continue the battle is not relevant to the outcome of the battle. That he scuttled his ship is. The British won more than a symbolic victory and the Germans defeat was more than a symbolic. If the captain of the GS had called the British bluff and escaped into the wide blue yonder, then the battle might be seen as a British symbolic victory, or more likely as a German victory, but with the scuttling it became a British victory. --Philip Baird Shearer 22:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. NZ's war effort was quite significant.

The result may look like a marginal defeat to some and this is probably due to a misunderstanding of the term seapower. The sea (as a rule) can be thought-of as a thoroughfare through which traffic (merchant shipping) flows, and during war the intention is to deny use of this "highway" to the enemy. Providing one has enough ships and can afford to lose one or two in the course of maintaining control of the sea lane, then losses are immaterial, it is the side that controls the "battlefield" after the battle that wins. This point is often misunderstood when talking about the earlier Battle of Jutland, in which the Germans inflicted heavier losses than the British, however after the battle the German Navy in-effect retreated, leaving the sea under the control of the British and at the River Plate this result was repeated.

After both battles one side was able to more-or-less do as it wished over the battle "field" while the other, in-effect, avoided contact - in the case of the High Seas Fleet, for the remainder of the war. And again, in both cases, if the Germans had decided to repeat the confrontation, they may have been able to inflict similar losses on the British, but again the British could afford to lose them and they would have still maintained control over the sea lane - and so-on. Eventually, one side runs out of ships leaving the sea under the control of the other and that is the difference between a "fleet-in-being" and true "sea power" Ian Dunster 12:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Kurt's tried again! I will revert his change & refer him back here. I fear a war, but the consensus should prevail. Folks at 137 22:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Remember, Wikipedia is not a place for original research, for personal opinion, or a discussion board about naval history. We should reach a consensus based on the established (and verifiable) facts, and not someone's personal interpretation of them. To suggest other than this being a British and Commonwealth victory clearly falls under one or many of the latter in my opinion. Emoscopes ^Talk 23:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Kurt's tried again! "

Not quite. I am suggesting that something like "see below" link which would lead to part of the article about the scuttling would be added to the box. The actual "battle" was not an Allied victory in terms of losses. Was the scuttling an Allied victory? Yes, but it was not part of the battle (I hope that everyone understood what I am trying to say. English is not my native language). Regards, --Kurt Leyman 01:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

In direct response to this, Kurt, it is perfectly possible to suffer greater material loss and yet still to win the battle. We should be thinking in terms of the overall strategic effect (i.e. the scuttling) rather than how many men were lost, how many shells were left etc. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:30, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This is a matter of semantics, I think you are taking the meaning of the word "battle" all to literally. I think as far as most other contributors are concerned, the "Battle" includes both the naval action itself, and the subsequent happenings leading up to, and including, the scuttling. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. It is normal to consider everything up to the scuttling as part of the battle - see for example, the movie. Had Langsdorff taken Graf Spee out to sea and resumed the action, it would not have been considered a separate battle. -- Arwel (talk) 12:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure about that, I prefer to think in terms of discrete phases, but again that is just semantics; battles, phases, actions, it's all the same thing. I think it's best to think in terms of the Sinking of the Bismark; one grand action played out over many days and discrete phases, but still considered to be one whole event. Emoscopes ^Talk 12:26, 10 November 2006 (UTC)