User:DexDor/New
Planned occupation of Britain[edit]
Administration[edit]
According to the most detailed plans created for the planned post-invasion administration, Britain and Ireland were to be divided into six military-economic commands.[1] Hitler decreed that Blenheim Palace, the ancestral home of Winston Churchill, was to serve as the overall headquarters of the German occupation military government.[2]
The Nazis compiled lists of those they thought could be trusted to form a new government along the lines of that in occupied Norway. The list was headed by Oswald Mosley.[3]
British monarchy[edit]
The Duke of Windsor (the former King Edward VIII), who many senior Nazi officials believed to be highly sympathetic to them, had taken the post of Governor of the Bahamas – and was therefore beyond Hitler's reach.
Security[edit]
Had Operation Sea Lion succeeded, [Einsatzgruppen] Error: {{Lang}}: text has italic markup (help) under Dr. Franz Six were to follow the invasion force to Great Britain to establish the New Order.[1] They were provided with a list (The Black Book) of 2,820 people to be arrested immediately. The Einsatzgruppen were also tasked with liquidating what remained of Britain's Jewish population, which numbered over 300,000.[4] Six had also been entrusted with the task of securing "aero-technological research result and important equipment" as well as "Germanic works of art".
The RSHA planned to take control of all of the newspapers.[5]
German police plans include detailed provisions for a post-occupation period.[6]
Deportation[edit]
Many of the able-bodied male population would have been deported to be used as slave labour.[7] The UK was then to be plundered for anything of financial, military, industrial or cultural value,[8] and the remaining population terrorised. Civilian hostages would be taken, and the death penalty immediately imposed for even the most trivial acts of resistance.[9]
Notes[edit]
- Comment. This is mainly in reply to User:Folks at 137 who asks some pertinant questions above. The aim of categorization is to group articles about similar topics (that's paraphrased from the 1st sentence of WP:OC). In the case of people that means mainly grouping by what makes them notable - usually what they did (e.g. their occupation), E.g. Baagoe in Category:German World War II flying aces and von Brauchitsch in Category:Field Marshals of Nazi Germany etc. Everyone who has a WP article should have at least one reason for notability.
- IMO, we should only have an award recipients category where several conditions are met. One of these conditions is that the award is of such importance that for all its recipients it could be appropriate to mention the award in the lead of the recipient's article (see WP:DEFINING). Nobel Prizes and VCs clearly meet this; many awards (including this Estonian Eagle award) don't. The Knight's Cross probably passes this test - it would not be unreasonable to mention von Brauchitsch's Knight's Cross in an expanded lead of his article.
- In reply to the question "Should the category ... include one and not the other?" the answer is no; every article that meets a category's inclusion criteria should be in it, but if (in an editor's opinion) that means that the category includes articles for which it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic then there's something wrong with the category - its inclusion criteria should be made more restrictive or it should be brought to CFD.