Talk:Battle of the River Plate

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of the River Plate article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on January 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was Speedy keep.

Contents

[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)

As the RNZN wasn't formed until 1941, why does the main article say that this battle was fought between Nazi Germany and "UK & NZ" in the Info Box? Yes, the Achilles was part of the NZ Division and she was mainly manned by NZ personnel. But she was part of the Royal Navy of the UK and she was fighting under the RN flag not the RNZN flag. I'm sure there were other nationalities on the other RN ships, but they don't get a mention -- SteveCrook (talk) 23:01, 19 January 2008 (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.

--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. Tomertalk 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. Tomertalk 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)
It's the difference between a tactical and strategic victory, I would say. While it may have been a narrow tactical victory it can only be seen as a decisive strategic victory for the Allies. Trac63 16:33, 9 July 2007 (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)

OK, so I'm not really into military history at all -- I don't even remember how this page got on my watchlist -- but here goes anyway: I think you're all arguing about the wrong thing. The question isn't whether or not it counts a victory; the question is what does the word battle refer to. If the battle is just that -- the battle -- then it seems obviously a draw. If the battle includes subsequent events and political maneouvering, then it seems obviously an allied victory. And it shouldn't be hard to fit both those facts into the box! Doops | talk 21:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
That's part of the trouble, and is what a lot of the argument/discussion is (or should be) about. The battle at sea and then the diplomatic and intelligence maneuverings could easily be regarded as all part of the same battle. Or at least parts 1 & 2 of the same battle. The first part (at sea) was a draw. The second part was an Allied victory. So the whole battle was an Allied victory. The Royal Navy was ready to continue the fight, even though they could well have got into trouble had the Graf Spee come out to face them. Even with the timely arrival of the Cumberland, the outcome would have been far from certain -- SteveCrook 04:13, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, as the whole battle was really the battle at sea plus the diplomatic battle in Montevideo, shouldn't the dates be changed? It wasn't just 13 December, it was 13-19 December -- SteveCrook (talk) 13:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Footnote

There was a link to a footnote after the first mention of the Achilles. But there was no footn ote so the link didn't go anywhere. Was there a footnote about it being in the Royal Navy at the time because the Royal New Zealand navy hadn't been formed yet. By the same token, the Achilles should be referred to as HMS Achilles in this article, she didn't become HMNZS Achilles until 1941. -- SteveCrook 13:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Argentina and Uruguay -What do they think?

What would the people and governments of Argentina and Uruguay, those countries of South America, think about the naval battles between the forces of Nazi Germany and Allied Britian, two countries in Europe, occuring near their home territory? What would they think?The Anonymous One 07:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nicely contradicts with the German captain's page

If you read Hans Langsdorff's Wikipedia page, you will spot the differences between this page and that. On that page, the destruction of the fuel-cleaning machinery is mentioned, which i believe is quite a new finding. This "somewhat" changes the effect of the British "fooling", as the Graf Spee anyway couldnt go anywhere... Unsigned comment by [[User:84.3.168.63|84.3.168.63] 11:33, May 5, 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it really contradicts what is here. 16 hours of fuel should have been enough to fight it out properly in the initial battle and doesn't explain why he sought refuge in Buenos Aires. He was presumably aware of the Hague Convention so would have known the consequences of that move. Once in BA, Langsdorff was consulting with the German authorities there and in Berlin so it wasn't just his decision. i also note that the reference in the Langsdorff article to the fuel cleaning system is unicited -- SteveCrook 17:27, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
I've modified the article -as it did appear to contradict the Graf Spee article as well as Langsdorff. The ship was very short of ammunition and was an easy torpedo target in the estuary so nothing militarily could be achieved and the ship might even have been captured. The world didn't know that, hence it might have appeared as cowardice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRPG (talk • contribs) 13:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intelligence Gathering and Salvage

I find it extremely hard to believe that the radar system or even the aerial was recovered. It would have been very heavy. I think this is just a mistake and either a reference to measuring the radar wavelength -which of course can be done by measuring the aerial -or the incident has been confused with The Bruneval Raid —Preceding unsigned comment added by JRPG (talk • contribs) 13:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg

Image:Admiral Graf Spee Scuttled.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 06:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Photo

Imperial War Museum photos fall under public domain. I'd recommend this one. Oberiko (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Total captives on board

In the 'The trap of Montevideo' section of the article is a mention of '61 captive British merchant seamen who had been on board' with a reference to a The War Illustrated article from 1939. I thought it would be nice if the article was available on the internet, so I added it to my website [5], but will I was typing I didn't find a mention of the 61 British seamen. So I'm kinda wondering why this article is used as a reference. Wmartin08 (talk) 21:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)