Talk:Mechelen incident

Reinberger

In its current form this article hurts my brain. Is there a record of Major Reinberger's fate? He had such an influence on history, but is just a footnote. I assume he was interned by the Belgians until Belgium was overrun, at which point he would have been sent back to Germany; was he dismissed, demoted, shot? It would be ironic if he survived the war and lived to old age. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 20:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to bring more structure to it ;o) Hoenmanns at least, only died in 1969; as yet I've been unable to discover the exact fate of Reinberger, but he too seems to have evaded German "justice".--MWAK (talk) 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Reinberger was included in a pow exchange later in the war. He returned to Germany as such, but was partially pardoned and as such not executed as had been the verdict during his prisonership. I believe he was even reinstated and served some desk function until the end of the war. I have searched the source that told me more, but right now I cannot find it in my library. Grebbegoos (talk) 12:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Could I suggest that the German speakers have a look for his obituary? These often contain very detailed info that might not be published during his lifetime. I've just resolved the question of which ship accidentally fired a 15" shell into Genoa Cathedral -from the obituary of the officer responsible. Regards JRPG (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Herman Götzel [Kroniker of Kurt Student] states [pg.81 - Student memoirs] that Reinberger was withheld in the Belgian camp Huy and moved to the UK, later Canada as a pow. In the winter 1944-1945 he was exchanged with other pows. He was shortly contained by the Gestapo but soon after released and reinstated. By the way, Götzel claims that Reinberger and Höhnmanns were not sentenced to death by a Kriegsgericht at all. Flor Vanloffeld ('Eerste Duitse adelaar viel te Vught') claims that Hönnmanns was exchanged in 1943, court-martialled but equitted, and that Reinberger was freed in 1944 and released after a brief containment by the Gestapo. Grebbegoos (talk) 10:31, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• Reinberger was not carrying 'the plan' for the attack on Belgium and Holland. Reinberger had with him the command instructions based on particularly the issues of airbornes being landed behind the lower Meuse region [the then so called 'Operation Süd']. This folder contained hints as to a side show in Holland (up to that point only contained in the plan in accordance with the Weisung 8 - Holland excluding the Fortress Holland) but for example nothing about Eben-Emael. It also contained instructions as to Luftflotte 2 actions and so called Handstreiche on Meuse bridges. Most international publicists suggest as if Reinberger was carrying the entire invasion plan or at least large chunks of that. That wasn't the case, although the base-line of the invasion plan could be interpreted from the instructions. Grebbegoos (talk) 10:40, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

These are very useful additions! The contradicting sources on the exact fate of the two men are a bit puzzling though...--MWAK (talk) 14:34, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, MWAK. I consider the specific study by the Vlamish author Vanloffeld quite reliable though. The other 'sources' based themselves on indirect sources. Therefore I consider Vanloffeld's information on the Hönmanns and Reinberger personal histories later on in the war quite reliable. Grebbegoos (talk) 15:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyediting

MWAK, I have just read your latest edits for this article and I must say I was rather dismayed at some of them. Shown below are a few comments, it is not a complete list:

'Introduction' - There are two 'incidents' in one sentence. (Not very good English is it?).
'The Crash', para 1 - the "'heavy' engine..." - When is an engine not heavy? Is there such a thing as a light engine'? See the MOS for why I deleted that word.
'The Crash', para 3 - "in the mess of the base" - sounds very clumsy
'Initial German reaction' - "and the 'latter's' Chief of Staff" - we know that he was Felmy's COS - Hitler was hardly likely to fire his COS at such a time.
'Deception' - "while their 'conversations'..." - How many conversations did they have? If they only had the one in the police station, then 'conversation' should remain singular.
'Belgian reaction' - " around 15 January, on 11 January..." see MOS
'French reaction' - "even if it all were a false alarm..." - huh? At the very least, 'were' should be 'was'.
'The Germans call off the attack' - "Fuehrer" - I had changed 'ue' to 'ü' in Hitler's title as it is frequently written in English with an umlaut, as is Göring (Goering) and others.
'Results', para 3 - "surprise" and "surprising" - in one sentence. See first entry above.

As I said above, there are many other grammatical nonsenses. I also tried to make the article more concise (as per the MOS), to get the reader 'wanting to know more', including the culling of the dreaded word 'however'. Yes, I am not very keen on that word, especially when it is wrongly used, which it seems to be in this article and throughout the encyclopaedia.
We are constantly trying to improve Wikipedia, so I hope I have not picked too many nits.
Thoughts?
RASAM (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

These are important points. I'll try to explain my choices:

1. Repeating the same word is perfectly good English. Of course, in most sentences it is stylistically inferior. However, this is the first, "definition", sentence. If we have to "define" a composite concept of which one component — in this case "incident" — is already known to the reader and an adequate description of the subject, the most elegant solution is to simply repeat it. We might replace "incident" with "event". Your solution, to use a verb, "occurred", has the disadvantage that the sentence would no longer give a definition.
2. Yes, in principle pleonasms should be avoided. In this case however, "heavy" makes a quality explicit that explains the event. No doubt you immediately understood that the engine by its relative weight caused this specific damage to the aircraft. But many people would need a bit of an explanation, so we provide it.
3. Well, I wouldn't say "clumsy" :o). It's a bit more narrative. We are at this point telling a little story, "How the secret documents came to be taken along on a plane", so we have to adapt the style slightly to the narrative function of the text.
4. Why, of course we know that obviously he wasn't Hitler's chief of staff. But to most most people this wouldn't be all that obvious, so the ambiguity had better be avoided.
5. I'm not sure either whether there had been more than one conversation. The original creator of the text used the plural, apparently having read this in the source, so I'm hesitant to change it.
6. I'm not sure what prescript in the MOS you are referring to in the case of " around 15 January, on 11 January...". Of the first you feel it is an Americanism?
7. It's a conditional sentence, so the subjunctive should be used?
8. "Führer" would be correct too, of course — indeed, it is frequently spelled this way in German also. Within the context — the almighty dictator pondering the future course of History — the more formal variant seemed to be indicated.
9. In this case repeating the concept was done on purpose. We want to indicate that the precise word used, "surprise", had a different meaning than expected, so we have to (precisely ;o) use it again when giving the alternative interpretation.

To make the reader curious is in itself a noble goal. But an encyclopedia is not the place to arouse curiosity but to satisfy it. Without dumbing-down we must give the reader an unambiguous account of events. Conciseness is less important than clarity. And certainly clarity is diminished when all the words are removed that form the logical structure of a text, such as those "howevers" and "althoughs" you dislike so much :o). It also seems to me that you are operating by a set of rigid prescripts, such as "Never use the word <<however>>" and "Never use the same word twice in a sentence", without being sensitive to the possible functionality of making exceptions to these rules.--MWAK (talk) 06:40, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

MWAK, thank-you for such a prompt reply; I might not agree with all your points, but heck, that is what discussion is all about.

To answer your words:

1. "Repeating the same word is perfectly good English." Is it? It might be according to text-books on grammar, but does it look and feel right? To see the same word not once, but twice in one sentence fails as far as the look and feel criteria are concerned. You would not see it used in such a manner in any Antony Beevor or Max Hastings book.

Maybe something like 'event' is the answer.

2. Once I'd found out what 'pleoasm' meant, I would tend to agree with you, except in this case "'heavy' engine" is still stretching the point; even the most mechanically ignorant reader would surely know that an engine, any engine, is heavy.

3. I still think that "in the mess of the base" sounds clumsy and reads even worse.

4. I'm all for avoiding ambiguity but I do think the sentence could be worded in a better way.

5. I can understand your reluctance, but I do feel that the singular 'conversation' would be a better fit (being bold and all that).

6. "around 15 January, on 11 January..." is, I suppose, acceptable (said he reluctantly). And you're right, there is no prescript in the MOS. As for 'around', it is American English in this context, in British English the word would be 'about', as in 'approximately'.

7. I refer you to ' 4 ' above.

8. "the more formal variant seemed to be indicated" when I read this phrase, I thought that I was reading an argument for an umlaut, but it seems I was wrong.

9. I refer you to '1' above.

I don't like the excessive and incorrect use of 'however', how about the occasional 'nevertheless' or 'nonetheless'? Beevor and Hastings would be pretty sparing on the 'h' word as well, although they would probably be better at using it than seems to be the case in Wikipedia.

You don't seem to be too keen on anything to do with 'concise'; although I would draw your attention to the 'Basic copyediting' page, 11th bullet point, which says: "Some articles are excessively wordy. Vigorous, effective writing is clear and concise.[my emphasis] and the 'Use plain English' page, introduction, para 3, Strunk's quote: "Vigorous writing is concise [also my emphasis].

I still think that repeating the same word in one sentence is not good English, so we will have to agree to disagree, I guess.

RASAM (talk) 21:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I think our views are converging. Some more considerations:

1. That's exactly the point. It is grammatically correct, but generally it sounds silly, as if the writer had been incapable of finding some synonym. But in special cases, such as definitions or explicit references to some precise word, the repetition might be functional — and indeed, that it doesn't feel good even then, is functional in itself: it makes the reader aware of the fact the case is special. Also remember that Messrs Beevor and Hastings are not writing encyclopaedic articles! I'll change it into "event".
2. Yes, they would know that an engine is heavy. But they would not immediately realise the causal connection between this fact and this type of damage.
3. OK, let's remove "of the base" :o). It does insult the intelligence of the privileged reader ;o).
4. That is almost always true. Any specific suggestions?
5. When a single conversation took place, the plural should not be used. I'll try and find out what has been the case.
6. But "at about 15 January" doesn't sound quite right either, I feel.
7. Again, any suggestions?
8. Yes, to an anglophone reader all those umlauts seem weird — and thus special. For a German reader the opposite would be true: Fuehrer is much more förmlich.

Now don't get me wrong: I have nothing against conciseness! (although it's true that I prefer the tenet that vigorous writing is clear and exuberant :o) But any good principle can be taken to an extreme. A balance has to be found between conciseness, clarity and coherency. Of course, to avoid tediousness "nevertheless" or "nonetheless", when proper, can be employed also. Then again, an encyclopedia should always sound a bit tedious, otherwise it couldn't be taken seriously, could it?--MWAK (talk) 07:20, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

1.Nothing more need be said.

2. Ditto.

3. I think you're right.

4. I'm all for a lack of ambiguity but would still substitute 'latter's' for 'his' but if you think it should stay as it is, then so be it.

5. Good luck!

6. It would read better if it was something like "on or about", the problem is that then it sounds a bit court-roomish.

7. How about changing 'surprising to 'fundamentally'? ( I originally thought of 'novel' then decided it was not quite right).

8. As a Brit living in Germany, I find your assertion that 'Fuehrer' is more formal than 'Führer' rather surprsing; ahem, however, I will defer to your view.

I will keep off the 'howevers' if you pledge to maintain a balance between 'conciseness, clarity, coherency and tediousness'. (After all, we don't want to send the readers into a coma, do we?)

RASAM (talk) 11:50, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Upon my honour! I have to admit that the average German today only avoids the Umlaut ligature when filling in crosswords, which isn't all that formal, I suppose ;o). I'll give the other problems a try.--MWAK (talk) 08:00, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

User Comments and Copyediting.

Firstly thanks for providing the only info I've ever seen about this really interesting story. I don't make detailed contributions to articles unless I have a very good knowledge but can give an opinion.

• I don't think many people interested in WW2 will quibble at umlauts or German spellings. It adds authenticity. This was particularly seen in Das Boot which would have been ridiculous in English.
• The 'heavy engine' issue might be solved by saying what portion of the total aircraft weight it was.
• A sketch map showing the flight, the rivers and the outline of the coast for reference would be immensely useful.
• I've heard flying between trees is a recommended method of crashing(!) to remove fuel tanks. Is there any suggestion of this?
• There seem to be a lot of red links where, with the exception of Vucht and Loddenheide, this is the only referring article. Is it worth leaving these in?
• Re copy/edit, this is much better written than many of the political bios.
• Four sections don't seem to have references.
  

Hope this helps. JRPG (talk) 11:11, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is also a French version of the article and there a map was provided, though with some uniquely French names of course. I'm no good at changing maps, but I'll put it in and perhaps someone will feel encouraged by this to adapt it. The redlinks mainly concern people who are no doubt notable in themselves — but them being Belgians and French no one has bothered yet :o). It might well be that Hoenmanns, a very experienced aviator, on purpose got rid of the dangerous fuel this way, but it isn't mentioned in any of the sources I read.--MWAK (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hi MWAK

The map is definitely useful, even my French can cope with it. It lacks just Loddenheide.

Unfortunately I have failed to find anything relating to deliberately flying between trees to remove wings/tanks let alone a respectable source. Regards JRPG (talk) 18:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Translation

Good evening,
Mechelen_Incident#Climax_and_anti-climax : In an effort to translate this article into FR:, we cannot understand clearly the meaning of the sentences : "There is no transcript of Keyes conversation with Churchill but if Keyes really did say what he meant to say then it was changed the further down the line it went." I would appreciate if you could help us with a new formulation or an explanation.
Thanks in advance. Hop ! Kikuyu3 (talk) 18:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'll do my best though I'm unsure about the equivalent French idiom. The situation is as follows: Admiral Keyes relates to Churchill certain information about what he expects to be the Belgian policy in case of an Allied advance into Belgium. Churchill then, apparently via a number of intermediaries, informs the French Supreme Command. During this process, while the information travels "down the line" of persons, the message is subtly changed, ultimately giving the French the impression it no longer merely relates Keyes' expectation but established fact instead. I hope this explains it. Of course, should one consider Gamelin higher in status than Churchill "up the line" might seem more appropriate ;o).--MWAK (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Having just read MWAK's explanation above, another way of looking at the sentence in question is an anecdote dating, I believe, from the First World War. It involves a unit which sent a message via various means and methods to HQ. It read, quite simply: "Send reinforcements, we're going to advance." Unfortunately, by the time it had passed through many hands, it had changed to a very unhelpful: "Send three and four pence, (three shillings and four pennies in old money), we're going to a dance"!

The syntax might have been the same, but the meaning was very different.

RASAM (talk) 21:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Wose uilt?

It says "On returning to Germany they were put on trial. Hoenmanns was partially pardoned. Reinberger was fully acquitted as he could not be blamed for what had happened." How does that work? Hoenmanns was merely guilty of poor flying skills (if even that), but it was Reinberger who knowingly brought the papers in his care onto an aircraft in defiance of strict prohibition. How could Hoenmanns be guilty of that, and even if he was guilty of poor flying, Reinberger ought to be far more guilty. He most certainly COULD be blamed for what happened, since he chose to fly with secret documents! Did someone mix up the names? If anyone could be not to be blamed for what happened, it's the poor pilot, INHO.

64.222.108.151 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the names weren't mixed but "as he could not be blamed for what had happened" is poorly phrased. I'll rewrite it.--MWAK (talk) 06:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Hoenmanns family

In February 2008, User:MWAK added this info ([1]):

Erich Hoenmanns and Helmuth Reinberger were in Germany condemned to death in their absence. The verdicts would however never be executed. Hoenmanns was evacuated, first to Britain and then to Canada. However his wife did not long survive an interrogation by the Gestapo; his two sons were allowed to serve in the army and were killed in action during the war.

In September 2018, reading it, I found the info on his wife odd: it seems to imply the Gestapo were responsible for the death of Hoenmanns' wife, but doesn't provide any details. (When and how did she die? Did the Gestapo murder her? If not, why did she die after interrogation? Was it a coincidence?)

Since it was unsourced, I removed it ([2]). Now, reading this page again, I see that MWAK reverted my change only a few hours later, w/ an edit summary saying "Is there any reason to assume this is incorrect?"

That reversion was a violation of WP:BURDEN:

All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

[...]

Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source.

For the moment, I've just added a "Citation needed" tag. With luck, the claim can be sourced. - Flamerule (talk) 02:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Good point. I discovered that the book that was extensively used for the original version of this article highlights a very different aspect of this matter, so I'll replace the content with that narrative.--MWAK (talk) 07:00, 25 May 2019 (UTC)