Talk:Operation Mincemeat

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. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	World War II task force

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Operation Mincemeat article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1

How could the Germans have possibly have been stupid enough to fall for something like this? Did they not have a map of the Med. Sea? Did they not realize that it would be much easier for the Allied to invade Sicily? Captain Jackson 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's easier to do that. But logic is one thing, Hitler's mindset is another. While Mincemeat sought to deceive the Germans on where the true invasion site would be, it also played on Hitler's legitimate fear of an invasion of the Balkans, considered as a "soft underbelly". And if you think that Mincemeat was a one shot deal, think again: prior to the Normandy invasion on June 6, 1944, the Allies played up Hitler's fears again with Operation Zeppelin, part of Operation Fortitude. This operation sought and succeeded in deceiving the Germans that the Allies were going to invade the Balkans, thereby diverting a considerable part of forces intended to defend the Normandy area to defend it. RashBold ^Talk 20:41, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember also that Churchill had a track record of instigating and supporting 'bold' military actions in unexpected places - For example the Dardanelles campaign in WWI. The soft underbelly phrase was coined by Churchill as well. Lisiate 02:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information under "Precedents" is innacurate. The deception plan at Alam Halfa in 1942 did involve a jeep and a map, however no corpse was used. I know this having interviewed the Chief Intelligence Officer under General Horrocks at this time, who arranged, oversaw and literally witnessed this incident. 11 July 2006.

No, the information is correct. See, in particular the detailed account given in this link. RashBold (talk · contribs) 00:54, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link to the IMDB movie of the operation - The Man who never was. Dougsnow 08:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glyndwr Michael

I notice that the picture of "Martin"'s grave has the inscription about him being Glyndwr Michael. I imagine this was added in the mid-1990s after it "emerged" that he was likely "Martin". Just curious who added it, as the identity of "Martin" has since been revealed as another? Pennywisepeter 16:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doing a little research I found that modern rat poisons kill by causing internal bleeding which would have certainly tipped off the pathologist if the rat poisons of 1943 had used similar methods. A little more digging revealed arsenic was a common (though not universal) was common in rat poisons available in 1943 but pneumonia is NOT one of the listed symptoms of arsenic poisoning. The HMS 'Dasher' story has similar problems. It is said that John Melville died as when the ship "blew up" (suggesting an explosion of some sort), but the synopsis of the pathologist report shows no indication of any of the things (flash burns, bruises) one would expect from the body of a person that died in when a ship "blew up". I think some effort into seeing if the accounts address these issues or they are ignored should be made.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:35, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HMS Dasher was sunk by an internal explosion - doesn't mean the entire crew would have suffered burns etc. The Dasher theory sounds entirely plausible to me, and the article needs to be tidied up to remove the inconsistencies between the Dasher paragraph and the earlier one about the rat poison victim.68.44.187.12 (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Post-mortem

"The Vice Consul arranged for a pathologist, Eduardo Del Torno, to carry out a post-mortem. He reported that the man had fallen into the sea while still alive and had no bruises, death was due to drowning, and that the body had been in the sea between 3 and 5 days. A more comprehensive examination was not made because the pathologist took him for a Roman Catholic due to a silver crucifix that hung from his neck as well as a Saint Christopher plaque in his wallet."

Could someone please spell out the details for readers who are stupid (like me) and explain why the fact the he was presumed to be Catholic explains the lack of a comprehensive examination? The reference is also quite brief: "It was important that this body was taken for a Roman Catholic, as it was considered unlikely that the Spanish authorities would carry out a proper post mortem upon a Roman Catholic." If I had to guess, I'd say Catholics have religious objections to being dissected, but I shouldn't have to guess. 82.95.254.249 (talk) 23:38, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]