Talk:Battle of Crete

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Battle of Crete, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
??? This article has not yet been prioritized.
Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
MILHIST 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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Flag
Portal
 Battle of Crete is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments
Peer review Battle of Crete has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
To-do list for Battle of Crete: edit · history · watch · refresh
  1. The factors which actaully contributed to a German Victory despite allied supeority of nearly 2-1 need to be included.
  2. More info on the naval fighting
  3. Details on the Italian forces that joined the Germans late in the battle
  4. Info on Italian casualties in both naval and ground forces
  5. More info on Greek participation, including casualties. Even the official Hellenic Army History doesn't have as much information as anticipated; possibly because of the confused situation at the time.
  6. Info on the post-battle resistance on Crete. This may take the form of a separate article. Also, information on what the occupation was like for the average Cretan.
  7. Creation of better maps. I don't think I quite have the knack for this.
  8. More illustrations of the fighting, as well as the more mundane aspects of the campaign. A lot of good photos are available online, but they mostly seem to be owned by the Imperial War Museum or its New Zealand equivalent. I looked at their image use policies and it seems like they might not mesh with Wikipedia's. There are some good photos in some of the Greek and English reference works, but there are doubtless copyright issues there as well.
  9. Get the Balkans Campaign onto the battlebox.
  10. The Escape of the King
  11. Canaris's Intelligence
  12. Fix reference links none of the ref templates point to note templates and none of the note templates in the notes section have corresponding ref templates. The names need to be matched up.

|

The use of "British" throughout the article is misleading. Many of the "British" forces on Crete - particularly the largest intact organic formations - were Australian and New Zealand. When I have time, I'll do an edit to change "British" to "Commonwealth" with an appropriate preamble. Ultimately though, it would be better to recognise the respective national forces in the article - e.g.Kiwis at Retimo, Aussies at Heraklion. These Units paid for the battle honours with their blood - let's recognise them. Fallingwithstyle 08:40, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Right, and wasn't Freyberg a kiwi? The article says he was British. DMorpheus 18:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, I've always read that he was a Kiwi, although the article on him says he was born in England, and many of his officers saw him as more of a pom, rather than one of their own. I've changed it anyway. --BadSeed 21:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
I've never seen Freyberg referred to as anything but a New Zealander. Born in Britain? Trekphiler 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As in British Empire? Samrsharma 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The section on the British & Commonwealth Armour is contradictory here. It says in one para that there were no Bren Carriers, and then later says there were Universal Carriers - they are the same thing Likewise there is a para which states there were 15 Cruiser Mk 1s, the next that there were 22 Mark VIbs, and 8 Matilda IIs

I agree the section on armor is weak. The Bren carrier is not precisely the same thing as a Universal carrier, although most people use the terms interchangably. The "Universal" carrier was a wartime design intended to replace several specialist-type carriers (thus the name 'universal') including the very similar Bren carrier, Scout carrier, and some of the Dragon carriers that were really light artillery tractors. At a glance it is pretty hard to tell them all apart, but they are slightly different vehicles. I admit though, most people call all of them 'Bren carriers'. DMorpheus 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Civilian actions

I had previously included some words about spontaneous civilian uprisings, including a case of an elderly man beating an entangled parahutist to death with a walking stick. I assume these were deleted because they were unreferenced and sounded fanciful. I have the references to hand now, and will add a subsection under Day One called Civil Uprising. RichardH 13:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

The last paragraph and the table of casualties contain a number of ambiguities

  • British losses were the following, 1,751 dead and an equal number wounded, although a enormous number were captured, 12,254 and 5,255 Greeks. There were also 1,828 dead and 183 were wounded among the Navy.

It's not clear whether the "British losses" in the first sentence includes Greeks. Looking at the table I think perhaps it does but I can't be sure. Why aren't the navy losses included with "British losses"? Does that mean the first sentence refers only to ground and possibly air forces? --LeeHunter 14:59, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

On second thought, I've decided that the "British losses" must refer to the allies (to make the numbers add up) so I've made that change. I've also removed the table because it contains less information than the body text. --LeeHunter 15:20, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/crete/casual-ties.htm Suggests that the figures do not include:
  • Royal Navy shore establishments
  • Greek Army (Cypriots and Palestinians are included) -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Someone at 217.225.66.80 added these notes on casualties; I moved them here because this is an English-language article. — B.Bryant 01:56, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wer auch immer diese Zahlen hier angegeben hat, diese sind einfach Falsch. Während den 10 tägigen Kämpfen um Kreta -Battle of Crete- im Rahmen des Unternehmens "Merkur" sind folgende Zahlen richtig:
Englische Verluste:
Royal Navy 2.196 Tote und Vermißte 430 Verwundete
Creforce Command 1.711 Tote 1.738 Verwundete
(Gefangene 12.254 Mann ohne griechische Einheiten und Freischärler)
Deutsche Verluste:
VIII.Fliegerkorps 29 Tote 43Vermißte 78 Verwundete
Luftwaffe/Geb.Jäger 3.329 Tote Vermißte 1.802 Verwundete
(Sturmregiment,Fallschirmeinheiten,Gebirgsjäger lt.Liste des :Kriegsgräberbundes, die bei den Kämpfen um Kreta starben und hier beerdigt sind. Die restlichen ca.1.100 Toten auf den Friedhof Maleme starben von Juni 1941 bis zum Kriegsende, durch Partisanenanschläge oder im Kampf mit Partisanen oder durch Unfälle auf Kreta)


As a help to those who don't speak German, here is a translation of the above German text:

Whatever the source for these (casulty) numbers, they are quite simply false. During the 10 day battle of Crete, as part of the German Mercur offensive, the following are the correct casulty figures:

English Losses Royal Navy 2,196 Dead and Missing 430 Wounded Creforce Troops 1,711 Dead 1,738 Wounded Captured 12,254, excluding Greek units and civilian fighters

German Losses 8th Air Corps 29 Dead 43 Missing 78 Wounded Luftwaffe/Paratroopers 3,329 Dead Missing 1.802 Wounded

The figures for the Sturmregiment, Paratroopers and Gebirgsjaeger are, according to the German War Graves Commission, for those who were killed/died during the battle for Crete and the further 1,100 dead buried in Maleme graveyard are those who died during the period from June 1941 to the end of the War, either through Partisan attacks or fighting against the Partisans, or as a result of accidents.

My comment: The German Wikipedia page refers to 3.714 Dead and 2.494 Wounded, and says that the New Zealand Commission counted 4,000 German graves at Maleme und Suda Bay, with several thousand more at Rethymnon and Heraklion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.143.169 (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


Are the 16,000 german casualities a bit over the top? The Lost Battle book I have (see references at foot of page) hotly disputes them and says Churchill repeated figures like these after the war to whitewash the command cock-ups/fruitlessness of it all. -max rspct 23:23, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree, there seems to be no evindence that supports British claims of massive German casualties. --Ekeb 09:13, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree too. British causalties are official and documented. Wikieditors have acepted that info and added it to the infobox. So i guees the german official casualties should be taken in the article, not Churchill whitewash trash.


I actually believe the heavy German casualties may have some truth to them. If you listen to eyewitness accounts they would describe a massive slaughter of parachutists, and if the Germans only lost less than 7,000 men why would they consider Crete such a setback. Hitler forbid further airborne operations because of the disastrous casualties and General Kurt Student was contemplating suicide during the battle. I think German casualties may have been and probably were much higher than what they admitted. Just look at the evidence and use common sense.

Those eyewitness reports also states that Allied troops buried hundreds of Germans. That is very curious, when elsewhere is stated that those troops did not even had enough shovels to dig trenches for themselves. --Ekeb 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
The Allied troops probably did have bulldozers for repairing bomb damage to the airfields. In the midst of a pitched battle, dignity for the dead is an unaffordable luxury. The bodies of the dead Germans probably were dumped unceremoniously into mass graves in pits or wide trenches dug by bulldozers. At some point after the battle ended, the Germans probably dug up these mass graves, exhumed the bodies and reburied their dead in proper cemeteries (Given that the Germans exhumed the Polish victims of the Katyn Massacre, it's likely that they would do the same for their own troops, especially those in a favourite elite unit). This is admittedly just speculation, but it seems like a potentially fruitful avenue of investigation. If anyone can find sources that confirm this conjecture, it would help tie up some of the loose ends in this article concerning the German casualties. Also, it would be useful to know if any sources give the number of German war graves on Crete whose occupant is known versus the number of those whose occupant is unknown (and hence still officially counted as missing). R. A. Hicks (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
What this demonstrates is the danger of accepting eyewitness accounts at face value without other supporting evidence. There was a slaughter, but it was largely confined to the first and second days of the battle and to specific locations where German paratroops were dropped on top of dug-in defenders. At the risk of synthesizing, I think those who extrapolate the slaughter of the first two days into an estimate of 15,000 or 16,000 or 17,000 or even 22,000 German casualties simply can't count. It is a logical certainty that the number of German casualties cannot exceed the number of Germans who managed to reach the battlefield. I've read that the German troops who actually took part in the battle numbered only 17,500. If practically the entire German force was killed or wounded, why did 16,000 British and Commonwealth troops run away while another 12,000 surrendered? If you accept the inflated casualty estimates as fact, then that implies that the British were cowards scared of their own shadows. Note that I don't think the British were cowards; I just find the inflated casualty estimates ridiculous in the extreme. My suggestion is that casualty estimates from sources which fail to provide a rigourous, logically compelling accounting in support of such an estimate should be considered mere speculation and disregarded. R. A. Hicks (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I have read from various sources that 1250 germans were buried at Heraklio and 900 were buried at Rethimno during the course of the battle because the stench of the bodies was too much to bear. But if the heavy casualty figure is not true than why would the Germans consider Crete such a setback and why would Winston Churchill argue casualty figures were heavier than admitted when the war was already over and when he was already considered the greatest Prime Minister in British history? ~~66.53.98.122

Hey 66.53.98.122 stop vandalizing this page!! I know that you use sockpuppets to vandalize it. We have just agreed with max respect and ekbe not to consider that unofficial german casualties until they have an apropiate source, and you continue changing the battlebox with that POV. It doesnt matter how many times you vandalize it with wrong numbers, i will check it and correct it again ALWAYS!!!!

The German estimated losses (16,000) seem too high by a mile. Losing 30% (15% dead) of an elite unit in one short battle is alot and would be a good reason to cease large airdrops. The figure of around 7,000 seems correct from most sources I've seen. --201.230.148.7 01:35, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

From the German wiki article: Die Deutschen hatten nach offiziellen Angaben Verluste von 6.200 Soldaten zu beklagen, darunter 3.714 Gefallene und 2.494 Verwundete. 1945 schätzte jedoch die australische Kriegsgräberkommission die deutschen Verluste auf etwa 17.000 Mann. The Germans officially numbered their casualties at 6,200 soldiers, in detail 3,714 killed and 2,494 wounded. But in 1945 an Australian war grave commision estimated the German casualties at about 17,000 men. Wandalstouring 23:07, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I have copied the details of Davin's examination of German casualties from the official New Zealand history of the battle into an Excel spreadsheet. I have used this data to update the article, but I intend to reproduce the spreadsheet, in somewhat condensed form, as a table in the article. Please be patient. It will be there soon. R. A. Hicks (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Official German casualties is an oxymoron

The phrase official German casualties presumes that there is an official, definitive source for German casualties. To the best of my knowledge, no such source exists. The best that can be said about German casualties in this battle is that they are estimates based upon surviving official German documents. These surviving official documents are both fragmentary and contradictory.

For example, Davin cites three "official" German documents that give slightly different numbers of casualties for 5 Gebirgs Division in the battle. It is easy to see why documents prepared on different dates may provide different figures as the casualty counts will change over time for the following reasons:

  • some of the most severely wounded will die of their wounds
  • some of the missing will be reclassified as dead or captured or wounded or even alive and well
  • clerical errors made in compiling earlier reports may be found and corrected
  • new clerical errors may be introduced in compiling new reports.

Davin, without explanation, chose the 7 March 1942 battle report of 5 Gebirgs Division as the source which he uses in calculating his estimate of German casualties; perhaps he decided that as this document had a later date than the earlier documents, it superseded the earlier reports. However, in choosing this document as his source for 5 Gebirgs Division, Davin disregards the casualty figures for 5 Gebirgs Division contained in the 11 June 1941 report of 11 Fliegerkorps. This is worthy of note since Davin does use this 11 June 1941 report as the source of casualty figures for 7 Flieger Division and Luftlande Sturmregiment in calculating his casualty estimate. These choices are obviously contradictory, but are justified if there is no other source for the casualties of 7 Flieger Division and Luftlande Sturmregiment.

The 11 June 1941 report is at best a preliminary report as it was produced within two weeks of the end of the battle. It is very probable that the bodies or temporary gravesites of missing paratroopers turned up for a couple of months following the battle. Some of the wounded certainly would have died subsequent to 11 June. It is also probable that the handful of captured German officers evacuated to Egypt were not reported as POWs by the Red Cross until several months after the battle. So the 11 June report should not be considered definitive, but is simply the best source document that that has been found thus far with respect to casualties suffered by 7 Flieger Division and Luftlande Sturmregiment.

Finally, Davin's estimate contains obvious omissions. The 28 November 1941 report of 4 Luftflotte does not include a figure for the number of wounded suffered by 8 Fliegerkorps. Nor does Davin provide a figure for the number of casualties suffered by the Kriegsmarine. This plaque at the German War Cemetery at Maleme refers to members of the Kriegsmarine being buried at the cemetery. It seems reasonable to expect that some of these dead sailors died in the aborted seaborne landings at Crete. Davin also notes that his estimate may omit several hundred lightly wounded troops.

There may exist other sources that have compiled a German casualty estimate from a more exhaustive examination of German documents; if anyone finds such as a source, they are welcome to cite the source and update the article. It is also possible that there are undiscovered documents in a German archive that may shed more light on German casualties. If these documents exist, hopefully they will be discovered eventually. However in either case, the result will likely be just a better estimate, not a definitive "official" count.

R. A. Hicks (talk) 17:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Further Reading

I've added several books to this listing, some of which were acquired in translated paperback edition while in Greece and therefore may be difficult for some readers to acquire. Altho grammatical and spelling errors are common in them, they nevertheless have important information that can contribute significantly to a better understanding of the Battle of Crete. - MHO 01:04, 04 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Refined publication info on Greek issued references. - MHO 23:24, 04 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Battle of Crete (comment)

Per The Oxford Companion to World War II, Dear, I.C.B. and M.R.D. Foote, eds, Oxford University Press, 1995, Crete, battle for, table p.277, as excerpted from Freyberg, P., Bernard Freyberg VC, London, 1991, the German forces who landed on Crete 20-23 May 1941, were as follows: May 20 Maleme, Galatas, Souda Bay: 6,030; Rethimnon: 1,500; Heraklion: 2,000; Total: 9530 May 21 Maleme, Galatas, Souda Bay: 1,880; Rethimnon: 0; Heraklion: 120; Total 2,000 May 22 Maleme, Galatas, Souda Bay: 1,950; Rethimnon: 0; Heraklion: 0; Total 1,950 May 23 Maleme, Galatas, Souda Bay: 3,650; Rethimnon: 0; Heraklion: 400; Total 4,050 Totals: Maleme, Galatas, Souda Bay: 13,510; Rethimnon: 1,500; Heraklion: 2,520; Total: 17,530 --65.177.81.71 23:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Edited above (few spelling mistakes). Tombone, 1559, 11 may, 2007

[edit] Naval aspect

It has been pointed out at the Greek version of the page that the campaign is widely considered part of the land-based Balkans Campaign; however, I think the case can also be made for including it in the Battle of the Mediterranean. Is it possible to have two campaign boxes in one battlebox? --Jpbrenna 15:19, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

I think we may have to have a custom job to do it, but I don't see it being a big technical issue. Oberiko 00:34, 28 July 2005 (UTC)


[edit] British Forces

While most of the troops in Crete were the Germans, the New Zealanders were in the main defending the island. My father and three uncles were all fight the Germans at Crete, all the males on both sides. I can assure you that the British were there too. But navy men. All four men were able to leave becuase of the British. My father and one of my uncles had to swim out to HMS Ajax (1934), although the ship is not placed as being in Crete in the article. I can assure you that it was there, and could have been lost that day. The whole affair was a disaster. My father said that British planes dropped leaflets for the men to evacuate, even though they were holding their own. The men had to find their way down to the coast, and marshalls told them to swim out to the British Warships, which picked them up by nets slung over the aide and at full battle speed. It then dumped the men off in Egypt for more excitment (fighting). My father was badly wounded at Point 175, in the Battle of Crusader (I think). Two of my uncles died in the Battle of Crusader (not mentioned in wikipedia) and the Battle of El Alamein. Desertgold 13:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Try Operation Crusader -max rspct 11:07, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Weapons

  1. This section mentions a 20mm Bofors. Is rhis right ? I only know of a 40mm gun.
  2. It also mentions a Matilda tank being "loaded with the wrong ammunition, 15mm not 40mm." Surely someone would have noticed. Wouldn't it rattle around in the gun a bit ?
The Bofors article says they made both a 40mm & a 37mm that was used in World War II; I believe my source said the 20mm's in question were Bofors as well, but I will check.
I did not write the whole section about the Matildas, I just edited it. Given the context, I believe the author's intention was to say "supplied with the wrong ammunition. Obviously, even a raw recruit would notice something amiss when he went to load a 15mm shell into the chamber of a 40mm piece. Someone must have put cases filled with the wrong size ammunition into the tanks without checking inside them. --Jpbrenna 14:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
The 20mm would have been an Oerlikon or Hispano gun, or possibly a captured Italian piece, but not a Bofors. The 40mm gun on British tanks such as the Matilda did not routinely have any HE round provided, on Crete or elsewhere. It's inconceivable that a Matilda would have been loaded with 15mm ammunition - for one thing there would be nowhere to put it. Tanks have ammo racks into which individual rounds are stowed. Normally the crews load up their own ammo so, raw recruits or not, they would have noticed long before combat that they had the wrong ammo. DMorpheus 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a reference to Antill if you want to look it up.--Jpbrenna 06:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I've read (somewhere...) the 2pdr didn't have HE because the capacity of the round was too small to make it practical. Can somebody confirm? Trekphiler 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

"Commander Freyberg's fears of an ocean attack and his lack of intelligence on the ground of a major defensive line, became an initial airborn massacre of an estimated 2,000 German paratroopers before they obtained control of airfields".

'Commander' Freyberg ? I know he was in the naval brigade in WW 1; or is this a new way of indicating that he was Creforce commander ? And what is all this about "an ocean attack" ? The last time I looked at an atlas, Crete was in a sea.

I would suggest deleting the entire paragraph.It does not make sense. As it stands it adds nothing to the article.

84.130.94.236 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] British orthography & usage

I noticed when making a small edit the spelling seabourne, where I - a native speaker of American English, educated in the States - would have used seaborn. That got me to thinking: a number of Kiwi, Aussie, Limey and Yank contributors have worked on this article. There have also been some German and Greek contributors. All of these except the Americans would likely have used Commonwealth English; however, I added a lot of material to the article, and I would hazard a guess that it is at least forty percent Yankee-edited. That means we have two different English spelling systems in use, and Wikipedia policy is to standardize them throughout an article.

Since all of the English-speaking combatants on Crete came from places where they had regimental colours, not colors and used bootblack, not shoe polish, I think it only fitting that we use the Commonwealth spelling and terminology here. My only problem is that I don't have time to comb through the article right now. If anyone else cares to, I will not object, and in future I will try to remember to my -ours etc. when modifying this article. --Jpbrenna 18:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Buy a dictionary. "Seabourne"? You mean "seaborne"? "West Wing" fan

[edit] Great Article- Thanks

[edit] Not so good- Thanks

This article is simply incorrect. It places a great emphasis on British troops, who were not the main echelon. The Kiwis were, and the Aussies second. To use the term "Commonwelath" is plain insulting. The locals Cretes were defending the island too. The British Navy was certainly involved, and this should be mentioned, but the army to minimal part. I know all this for a fact, as I have spoken at length to a number of men who took part in the battle. Two themes are constant, when relaying their experiences, that terrible swim out to sea to get rescued, and hiding behind rocks when the paratroops were coming down. Also they mention their leader Kippenberger, who is not even refered to in this article. Wallie 13:25, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I think original research is frowned on as much as POV, WP:NOR. Would love to read your contribution if you can find citable sources for it though. Fluffy999 14:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
If no one has any objections, I will change "British and Commonwealth" to "New Zealand, Australian and British", as the British army only had a small role. The article implies that the British did most of the fighting. Wallie 15:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Having read the article I wouldn't have said that was the case. It clearly shows that NZ and others were ther ein large numbers. That said British is often used as shorthand for British Empire or British and Commonwealth. In the context of a single section headline it seems appropiate. GraemeLeggett 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
It seems odd that this seems only to apply to cetain countries. The Canadians are not usually refered to as "Commonwealth" and neither is Australia if the Australians are the main force in an action. This term seems mainly to apply to Indian (incl now Pakistan), New Zealand and South African troops. The individual countries should be specified. After all they lost troops too. Wallie 21:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I object to your writing off of the British Army contribution to the Battle of Crete as minimal. Were there or were there not British troops at Heraklion? A full brigade no less. They also inflicted heavy casualties on German Paratroopers to the extent that they were one of the few allied units on Crete to be holding an airfield when the order to withdraw was given. The fact that they suffered most of their casualties on board ships post evacuation does not rule the British Army out of this particular battle. My grand father (Sgt.Maj. of the 2nd Bn, York and Lancaster Regiment on Crete during the battle), for one would object. There were numerous British units and personnel on the Island.

We should consider what the Aussie and Kiwi units refered to themselves as at the time of the battle. Did they consider themselves as Commonwealth, I'm sure they would not have called themseves Empire troops? Tristan benedict 10:17, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

See Commonwealth of Nations and Statute of Westminster. There were a lot of changes in the relationships in the Empire/Commonwealth in the 1920s, 30s and 40s.
The name "British Commonwealth" is technically correct for the period 1926-49. After 1949 "Commonwealth" is correct. "British and Commonwealth" is not technically correct for any period, and moreover the "British" is redundant in that formulation since Britain is one among many members of the "Commonwealth" (not even "first among equals"; that is the difference between the Commonwealth and the British Empire). British by itself may have been used at the time as an abbreviation for British Commonwealth, but it was not accurate then or now, and is now seen as inflammatory by people from other Commonwealth countries. Grant65 | Talk 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, quite correct, although the memorial in Souda town contains very few British graves (although some unknown). They were mostly German, New Zealand, Australian, and a few Canadian. Either: the British were very lucky and didn't get hit; they didn't fight or hid; or the British troops simply weren't there. Which is more likely? Don't bother saying that British are the the best and the dodged the fire, etc, etc, etc...... Tombone 1607, 11 may, 2007

[edit] Re: Not so good - Thanks

The article does not imply that at all that the British did all the fighting - obviously Wallie has failed to read the article carefully. It is demonstrably false that "...the British Army had only a small role." Royal Army units (along with Greek troops, and, at Souda Bay, Royal Marines) were mixed in with NZ and Australian troops and fought in every major engagement of the battle. The Northumberland Hussars, 1st Ranger Battalion and the Royal Welch Fusiliers formed the Force Reserve which - surrounded by five German regiments - guarded the retreat of the 5th New Zealand Brigade from Chania: of the approximately 1,250 men in the force, only 250 were able to break through and join the evacuation; the rest were killed or captured What about Layforce, and the Royal Army artillerymen who stood with them even when ordered to evacuate? It is simply a slander upon the dead to say that the Royal Army played a small role!

Kippenberger was a field-grade officer (Lt. Col. at the time of the battle), not one of the New Zealand general officers who commanded a sector on Crete. His 10th New Zealand Infantry Brigade was an ad hoc unit comprised of the New Zealand Division Divisional Cavalry, the NZ Composite Battalion (sappers and other combat support troops organized to fight as infantry), and the 6th and 8th Greek regiments. This was the smallest unit in the NZ Division during the battle. Kippenberger was decorated in WWI and led his brigade through the rest of the war, but he was still a relatively low-ranking officer. Until shortly before the battle, he was the commander of an infantry battalion. The reason he is not mentioned here is that the article has not reached a sufficient level of detail to include him. He should eventually be included, because although he was not as important at the strategic decision-making level, Kippenberger did win the DSO for his actions on Crete. I prioritize him lower than some of the other New Zealand officers; you are free to disagree and contribute on him.

There is no conspiracy to leave out New Zealanders, I assure you; if this were the case, I would not have written up Capt. Royal & the Maoris. Some relatively low-ranking Germans have gotten a mention because they had famous family members (Richtofen), were celebrities for non-military reasons (Schmelling) or had a particularly noteworthy role in the battle. Many New Zealanders who fit this description (like Freyberg, who was a champion swimmer) are of high rank and have already been mentioned - or will be as the portions regarding the battle in various sectors are updated. Instead of leaving these emotional posts, you should Assume good faith and start filling in the gaps. --Jpbrenna 01:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pyrric?

Is this really a pyrric victory? While German losses were very high that doesn't mean that the Axis would of been better off leaving Crete in the hands of the Allies.

They suffered heavy casualties by their best troops and Hitler forbade further airborne operations. It also possibly delayed operation barbarrosa, and prevented the Germans from launching similar attacks on Malta or Cyprus. Ha--Pudeo 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)d the Allies held Crete it would have been of little use to them, so I feel that the battle was a pyrrhic victory.--Cretanpride 09:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Definitely a Phyrric victory. Barbarossa wasn't delayed by the Crete operation. In fact Student had to work around the preparations and was severely limited in the resources available to him and the timeline. Many of the air assets had their ground crews disappearing during the battle as they were sent off to Russia, and the air units themselves followed soon after. Just getting the invasion off the ground was a major undertaking (more than it would be normally, that is).
The losses suffered by the airborne forces were huge. Totally unsustainable, especially considering that airborne units typically used soldiers of superior levels of fitness and resourcefulness, and they had a heavy training investment. If they had performed better, they would have been used elsewhere in future operations. If Rommel had had them available, he may well have succeeded in reaching the Suez.
So in that sense it was a Pyrrhic victory. The Germans won, but they also lost.
In addition, it was a huge defeat for the British. They badly needed a victory and holding Crete would have been a big boost at a crucial stage of the war. Losing so many Australian and New Zealand troops had an effect on further Dominion support. Churchill was heavily committed to winning this one and he took a hit in terms of political capital.
The big thing is that it should have been a cakewalk for the British. Despite all their problems, they had the precise details of the German plan, right down to the timing, This was courtesy of Enigma. They also had cover for using the information, as the Corinth Canal operation had revealed the existence of airborne units in Greece. Churchill intended it as an ambush, destroying the German airborne units, inflicting a defeat and retaining a piece of Greek territory in one smooth move. But despite the many advantages available to the British, they didn't counterattack swiftly enough. There were several moments when the thing hung in the balance, but it didn't happen. Another battalion, another hour, another tank - any number of things could have done it. --Jumbo 21:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
The "precise details" were not known to Freyberg nor to any other allied commanders: he received very watered-down results of the Ultra decrypts, which were flawed anyway, because the cryptographers often had to fill in holes by guessing -- and they were often wrong. Additionally, the decision to send in the Gebirgs was made virtually at the last minute, and the cryptographers got the details of its deployment totally wrong. The decrypts featured the Italian navy quite prominently, leading to an over-weighting of forces toward defending landing areas instead of being moved inland to form a larger rapid-reaction force. In reality, the Regia Marina played only a minor role, and Italian troops didn't land until late in the battle. When an Me109 crash-landed at Souda Bay and the Greeks recovered maps and a summary op plan, but the British interpreted it as a ruse and ignored the information (Antill, 36).
Even if the British had perfect information on German plans, they still would have faced equipment shortages and the fact that large numbers of agressive, physically fit young men were jumping out of the sky armed to the teeth and eager to kill them. Though many of the falschimjageren would have been picked off as they floated down or ran to their weapons canisters, many more would have landed and managed their MP40's, 98k's, bayonets, MG42's, mortars, recoilless rifles and signals equipment for calling in airstrikes quite effectively. There would have been the same desperate hand-to-hand fighting in the olive groves and gardens, the sniping from mountain tops and desperate charges to clear them. I don't think any of the men who survived such an encounter would describe it as a "...cakewalk...," even in victory. --Jpbrenna 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Callum MacDonald in "The Lost Battle" goes into the Ultra information to some degree. Both sides faced enormous difficulties, but the British outnumbered the Germans by a huge factor and the Germans were vulnerable immediately after dropping (to a far greater degree than the later Allied paratroopers). Perhaps cakewalk was the wrong word to use except that I meant it in a relative sense. Freyberg's plan was spot on as regards the attack as it turned out. He deployed small units on the airfields (large formations would merely have been better targets for pre-assault airstrikes) and stressed prompt counterattacks in force. If the counterattacks had been made as planned, the battle would have been over almost as soon as it began. --Jumbo 03:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm no expert on this but on Winter War there was a debate if it's a phyrrhic Soviet victory. Here the casualties are very low; just 200 more German deaths than British. In Winter War they lost a lot more compared to this, in casualties and equipment and still it isn't. --Pudeo 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
It is usually considered a victory with too high losses of the elite paratroops in German literature. Possibly an interpreatation of Adolf Hitler who on this basis gave direct order affecting planned and future operations.
    • Nach dieser verlustreichen Luftlandeoperation untersagte Hitler weitere größere Luftlandeeinsätze, so dass auch die Vorbereitungen zur Einnahme Maltas (→ Unternehmen Herkules) gestoppt wurden.
    • After this costly airborne operation Hitler ordered a stop to larger airborne deployments, so that either the preparations for the taking of Malta (→ Operation Herkules) were stopped.
There seems to be a direct order from the Gröfaz in response to the events, limiting future deployment of these troops. (Gröfaz — German soldiers' derogatory acronym for Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten, a title initially publicized by Nazi propaganda to refer to Adolf Hitler during the early war years; literally, "Greatest Warlord of all Time".) Wandalstouring 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the English equivalent of Feldherr used above - the correct translation is "Commander-in-Chief" or "Supreme Commander", as in "Supreme Allied Commander". See the German Wikipedia page on "Feldherr", with a definition of the term by von Clausewitz. The German word for Warlord is "Kriegsherr".

[edit] 8 Greek Regiment and Escape of the King

I think there is too much emphasis put on little thing like the escape of the king and too little put on great resistance displayed such as the 8 Greek regiment which save the Allies in Western Crete. I would like to hear some thoughts.Cretanpride 02:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please add the material ASAP. I have commented before on the poor coverage of the Greek contribution in the English-language sources, at least those which are readily available to me. Most of what I could find on the Greeks had to do with weapons and equipment, and even that was not as detailed as the information on the British and German. There are Greek-language sources that I cannot obtain in the United States, but which you possibly can -- so if you have the time, please help out! There is also a to-do list above if you have other suggestions.
I tried to summarize the Escape of the King without confusing the reader by leaving out too many details. I think it is important for a number of reasons, the foremost being that it illustrates how badly the Abwehr misunderestimated the political situation on Crete: although Crete was majority Venizelist politically, this did not stop Cretans from assisting high-ranking members of the Metaxas government, and they did not welcome the Germans with open arms -- even the prisoners freed by the Germans pitched-in. Aside from that, I also think that the romantic "once-and-future-king" aspect helps in popularizing the article and getting the general reader hooked and eager to learn more about the battle. (And I admit that the Escape of the King section heading was a shameless exploitation of the popularity of The Return of the King).
There are a host of other compelling characters who later became famous because of the battle (Psychoundakis, Rangi Royal), or for other reasons (Roald Dahl, Evelyn Waugh), or who were famous to begin with (Schmelling and Freyberg). Presenting them helps widen the audience by keeping the article from being merely a bland technical analysis of the fighting -- far beyond its immediate strategic significance, the battle has had a long-standing impact both on military doctrine and in popular culture.
Anyway,something else that needs coverage is the Cretan Resistance, which should eventually have its own article, but should be summarized in the Greek Resistance article, of which it obviously was a part. We also need information on Bulgarian and Italian participation in the final days of the battle, as well as the naval fighting. Jpbrenna 09:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
I have found one source I feel is credible. It is from a Pancretan magazine on one of the anniversaries of the battle. Page 14 is entirely devoted to the 8th Greek Regiment. Also Anthony Beevor's book on the battle also has some interesting details on the resistance. [1]Cretanpride 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a section on the 8th Greek Regiment. I would like to hear what others think and how it can be improved.Cretanpride 03:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Info on Greek participation

There were 8 Greek regiments and a few other battalions. I thought I would explain how some of the units contributed to the battle and allow other editors to see if this info could be merged into the article.

1st Greek Regiment-Over 1,000 strong. Defended Kastelli to the far west of Crete. On the first day 78 parachutists under the command of Murbe attacked. Within three hours all of the parachutists were killed and 28 taken prisoner. After the Germans captured Maleme, mountain troops advanced on to Kastelli on May 24. After fierce fighting the Germans captured the village. The German Report would estimate that 200 Greeks were killed. After the capture of the village by the Germans, the 1st Greek launched guerrila attacks against Kastelli and the port. This prevented the Germans from landing tanks on the island until May 27 and the importance of this is obvious.

2nd Greek Regiment-Stationed west of Chania in the village of Mournies. Defended the right flank of 10 brigade. Fought well despite bein poorly equipped. Participated in a counter attack against German positions outside Mournies during May 24,25. Counterattacks inflicted heavy casualties but exhausted the regiment so much so it was almost combat ineffective. Disintegrated on May 26.

8th Greek Regiment- In the article already. Defended Alikianos. Put in an isolated position and poorly equipped. Rearmed with captured German weapons after launching bayonet charges. Held off 85 and 100 mountain Regiments until May 27. German flanking manuever was prevented with it's defense. Credited with saving allies in Western Crete.

4th and 5th Greek Regiments- Stationed in Rethimno. Fought in village Perivolia where Germans had set up hedge-hog defense after their inability to penetrate the town. Supported Australians in defense of airfield. Defeated the German invasion on the opening day and held them off until island was lost. The majority were ordered to head for the hills the night before the Germans captured Rethimno.

3rd and 7th and Greek Garrison Battalion-Defended Heraklion town and Knossos Road and surrounding area. Joined in the fight by Cretan Civilians. Very poorly equipped. Germans penetrated town opening day of battle and managed to reach the Greek barrack buildings to the west of the town and the port itself. Greeks rearmed and counterattacked both areas and drove Germans off. Inflicted heavy casualties. Germans began using human walls by putting women and children in front of them. Greek commander gave them an ultimatum that if this practice did continued, German prisoners would be executed. Ultimatum had desired effect. Germans grew frustrated and dropped leaflets on the city theatening death to all Greeks who continued to resist. On May 23, German commander gave the Greeks an ultimatum to either cease resistance or Heraklion would be destroyed. Ultimatum was rejected and Heraklion was heavily bombed the next day. Relieved of the duty to defend the town by British troops on May 25 and restationed at Knossos road and surrounding area. Held out until British withdrawal. Cretanpride 00:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated some of the material, which I'm assuming came from KPHTH magazine, but I'd like to see more scholarly sources that we can cite and also use to amplify the article. The articles (at least the English-language ones; I don't think I'm competent enough to judge the Greek yet!) are well-written, but they suffer from the main problem of most popular magazine-style histories: they don't cite their sources. There is a lot of good material in these articles --- one of them written by an academic --- including extended quotes that would be useful here, but the books and other sources cited don't give page numbers and facts of publication that would be useful in helping us track them down to verify and to see if we can find any other information in them that would be useful for this article. I've relied on magazine sources myself, and I'm not questioning the veracity of any of this, but we should view this as a first step in acquiring information for the article. --Jpbrenna 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, only the information on 8th Greek Regiment came from the magazine. Previous issues of the magazine commemorating the anniversary of the battle also have more interesting details. The rest came from Chirostopher Buckley's "Greece and Crete 1941" and Antony Beevor's "Crete:The Battle and the Resistance" The information on the Greek forces defending Heraklion was found on pages 282-285 in "Greece and Crete 1941" Pg 285 tells about them being restationed at Knossos road. I am still a beginner at Wikipedia and I'm not sure how to cite that. Antony Beevor's book is the best account of the battle I have found, and he is also a famous well respected historian. Cretanpride 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, regarding the counterattack to recapture the port, three platoons of British troops(one York, one Leicestershire, and one Lancaster) joined the Greeks to recapture the port. (Buckley pg. 279)Cretanpride 01:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I read Buckley too --- that's where I got what little information I had on the Greek troops, mainly their equipment; I must have overlooked the 8th Regiment's performance, although I did remember something about some British or NZ or Aussie soldier performing some heroic feat running down a pier during the recapturing of the port. My memory of it is a bit hazy, as I was recovering from a car accident and taking painkillers and muscle relaxers when I read it, so if I missed anything else, please fill it in!
I long ago returned Buckley to the library, so you'll have to give me page numbers, but I can manage the cites for you if I know them. I still have a copy of the Cretan Runner, which has some info on the resistance and the eventual German pullout (it's limited by being mostly from George's perspective in a small group and not "big picture," although the translator does fill some of this in). I'm going to try to start a Crete resistance article, but right now I'm like "Creforce" --- under-equipped and spread too thin! --Jpbrenna 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Royal Naval Losses

A major part of the losses suffered by the British were by the navy. More info needed on the ships lost and the major role they played in the conflicy 16:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)~

I have held that concern for a long time. This was a major part of the battle that is not covered as well in the sources, especially popular histories. However, I think it deserves treatment in a separate article: first, because the naval fighting began earlier than the air landings and covered a wider area in the Aegean and Mediterranean, and continued to some extent even after the land fighting was over; second, because the article is already getting too long and reading it in one sitting will become too daunting a task for the general reader. I would like to start two separate articles: Cretan resistance, which would be a sub-article of this one and Greek resistance; and an article titled something like Battle of Crete (naval action), and crosslink with this article. All of these naval battles (Matapan, etc.) all seem to shade together to me, so we need to find out the consensus dates, definitions and titles from military historians and start from there. We should probably begin a draft copy at someone's userpage. What do you think? --Jpbrenna 17:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Sounds good, my only concern here would be that events are seen as seperate actions, the naval actions were in direct support of the land defence, to stop sea reinforcement by the Germans 22:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
PS. Alan Clarke is good on the naval aspect - for Cretan Resistance Harakopos is worth a read as a first hand account

Can somebody confirm Cunningham said "3&3"? I've read 2&2... Trekphiler 18:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Airfields

Article says Maleme was the main airfield, others at heraklion and rhythamon (?), but then says heraklion was the main one and maleme and 1 other were built to support it. Anyone have a list of airfields in Crete at the time, and their approximate sizes (in terms of aircraft types they could accommodate, repair facilities) etc?

I don't know if it was active at the time, but Chania airfield seems fairly busy with fighter jets. PS. It's spelt Rethymnon or Rethymno. Tombone; 15:54, 11 may, 2007

[edit] Discrepancy in British Commonwealth numbers

The battlebox says "United Kingdom: 15,000" personnel. The text says that the only "formed unit" from the UK was the British 14th Infantry Brigade, which would amount to about 3,000-5,000 (at most) troops. Where did the other 10-12,000 come from? Were there that many evacuees from UK units which had been in the Greek mainland campaign? I thought that most evacuees went straight to Egypt rather than than to Crete? Grant65 | Talk 08:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

A count based on Gavin Long's Australian official history suggests that the Allied strength immediately before the invasion (taking into account understrength units) was:

Greek = approx 10 infantry battalions
NZ = approx 6½ infantry bns
Australian = approx 6 infantry bns + approx one non-infantry bn equipped as infantry + one composite artillery battery
U.K. = approx 4 infantry bns + approx five non-infantry bns equipped as infantry
Source: http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/10.pdf (p.218-219)

Grant65 | Talk 03:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

This appears to be the discrepancy: "Freyberg sent a message to Wavell that day [May 4] urging that about 10,000 men who were without arms "and with little or no employment other than getting into trouble with the civil population" should be evacuated." (Long, p. 210) I will change the wording in the article to reflect the fact that about 10,000 were not capable of fighting. Grant65 | Talk 05:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Italian division "Siena" were in Crete.

The first Italian soldiers landed on May 29, 1941. After the surrender of the Kingdom of Italy, part of the troops joined the RSI (Legione Creta / Legion Crete) and gave up on May 4, 1945.

[edit] Bulgarian?

Why is there a Bulgarian row in the casualties table, when it's completely blank, and no Bulgarian involvement is mentioned previously? AnonMoos 21:03, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

They received a share of Greece and were officially partners, but preferred watching this operation on TV. Wandalstouring 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
In the absence of any information indicating a Bulgarian presence at the battle, I have removed the Bulgarian row. R. A. Hicks (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Axis Pyrrhic Victory???

I am trying to understand why this is an axis pyrrhic victory, it dont make sense. The British casualties number 17 000(killed wounded pows) and german casualties the lower estimate number 7 000 , the higher 16 800 (killed, wounded pows) so in other words the casualties are 2:1 or 1:1 for the german side. No signs of a pyrric victory at all.

It was considered pyrrhic because the loss rate in the elite German Airborne units was so high, they were never again used in a Division-sized tactical jump. IIRC the biggest post-Crete airborne assault by the Germans was a very short-range battalion-sized operation in the Ardennes. The Germans continued to raise Airborne units but rarely used them in the airborne assault role; they were just elite Infantry divisions. DMorpheus 15:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

It was not a pyrrhic victory. See Field Marshal Kesselring's comments on the Crete operation on p. 20 of "Historical Study: Airborne Operations; A German Appraisal." DOA No. 20-232, October 1951. The fact that the Germans did not use their airborne units again in division sized airborne assaults was an operational decision made ex post facto. It is illogical to assume that the decision itself means that a pyrrhic victory occurred. 14thArmored 2130, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

German casulties were quite severe, and even trading casualties 1:1 with the allies was in the end not sustainable for Germany. If you factor in that the Germans losses were highly trained elite paratroopers, phyrric is at least an understandable classification of such a result.

It is usually considered a victory with too high losses of the elite paratroops in German literature.
Nach dieser verlustreichen Luftlandeoperation untersagte Hitler weitere größere Luftlandeeinsätze, so dass auch die Vorbereitungen zur Einnahme Maltas (→ Unternehmen Herkules) gestoppt wurden.
After this costly airborne operation Hitler ordered a stop to larger airborne deployments, so that either the preparations for the taking of Malta (→ Operation Herkules) were stopped.
There seems to be a direct order from the Gröfaz in response to the events, limiting future deployment of these troops. (Gröfaz — German soldiers' derogatory acronym for Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten, a title initially publicized by Nazi propaganda to refer to Adolf Hitler during the early war years; literally, "Greatest Warlord of all Time".) Wandalstouring 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Pyrrhic maybe, but the whole Eastern Front was a Pyrrhic Victory for the Soviets. Numbers of casualties alone are not adequate to consider a Pyrrhic Victory. If we consider this for example, Monte Cassino was a Pyrrhic Victory, Iwo Jima Pyrric, The whole Battle of Atlantic was Pryrrhic, Thousands of merchant sailors and allied sailors were killed or went missing. At a high cost of Uboat and Kriegsmarine crew, but onviously lower than the allied losses. Is very silly to start filling the battleboxes of many battles with Pyrrhic _____ Victory because losses being lower than the competidor. Another point. Fallschinmjager Elite??? What was elite for the allies/axis??? Acording to the books I have read, the Allies considered the German Paratroopers as an elite corps because of the high standard requirements to join the Fallschijager units. The german considered an unit, elite because of the unit performance, historical background of creation and even insignia and uniform. For example, Windhud, Grossdeusthland and other SS divitions were considered elite by the german commander, all depend in the pov.

Miguel

[edit] Reference for General Student contemplating suicide

I talked to the person who added the statement regarding General Student contemplating suicide. He was kind enough to me the following information as a reference:

...if you would like a reference you can find it on The Lost Battle, Crete 1941 by Callum Macdonald on page 197 of that book. The book can be found in the references at the bottom of the article. Callum Macdonald writes the following about Kurt Student: "After the war, he admitted that the hours before dawn were the longest of his life: "I waited with my pistol continuously by my side, ready to use it on myself, if the worst came to the worst." The quote can also be found in Crete 1941:Eyewitnessed. ...

Personally I interpret that as an unwillingness to be taken alive, as much as an act of depression. — RJH (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German wiki translation - mentions some points missing here(but not the best German)

Operationsverlauf Course of Operation

1. Tag: 20. Mai 1th day: 20th May

Am 20. Mai startete Unternehmen Merkur. Zunächst zeichnete sich eine Katastrophe für die Deutschen ab. On May the 20th Operation Merkur was started. First a catastrophy for the Germans validated.

Viele Fallschirmjäger wurden bereits in der Luft verwundet oder getötet. Many airborne were already wounded or killed in the air. (<- it was possibly a violation of the laws of war. The story is frequently repeated in German sources, often mentioning anti-aircraft guns shooting crossfire over a flat landing ground)

Selbst wenn sie es schafften zu landen, mussten sie sich, nur leicht bewaffnet, erst zu den Waffenbehältern durchkämpfen. Even if they were able to land (alive), they had to fight their way to the weapon containers.

Landegleiter wurden mit Granatwerfern kurz nach der Landung beschossen. Gliders were shot with grenade launchers shortly after landing.

Die Royal Navy fing Schiffe ab, die weitere Truppen zur Unterstützung hätten anlanden sollen. The Royal Navy intercepted ships which should have landed further troops for support.

Die einzelnen Einheiten der Fallschirmjäger waren teilweise weit verstreut, und es gab keine Verbindung zum Hauptquartier, da alle Funkgeräte beschädigt waren. The single units of the airborne troops were partially widelyx scattered and their was no contact to the central command because all radio sts had been damaged.

Die Luftlandetruppen wurden durch die große Anzahl feindlicher Truppen überrascht, da die Aufklärung weit geringeren Widerstand prognostiziert hatte. The airborne troops were surprised by the great number of enemy troops because intelligence had forecasted a far lesser resistance.


Die Einnahme des Flugfeldes Maleme erschien deshalb aussichtlos. Taking the airfield of Maleme seemed impossible.

Jedoch wurden viele Fallschirmjäger vom Wind weit von ihren Landezielen abgebracht und landeten in der Landschaft verteilt. However many airborne troopers were dissuaded from their targeted positions by the wind and landed scattered in the landscape.

Sie konnten sich dann am Boden neu gruppieren und einzelne Verteidigungsstellungen ausheben. They were able to regroup on the ground and establish single defense positions.

Die Bevölkerung Kretas griff mit Knüppeln, Messern und anderen Waffen die teilweise zerstreut gelandeten Fallschirmjäger an. The population of Crete attacked the widespread landing paratroopers with clubs, knives and other weapons. Ein älterer Einwohner soll sogar einen Fallschirmjäger nur mit seinem Gehstock totgeschlagen haben. It is claimed that an elderly inhabitant even smited a paratrooper to death only with his walking stick.

Die zweite Welle der deutschen Luftlandeverbände gegen 16:15 Uhr bei Réthymnon und um 17:30 Uhr bei Iráklion erlitt ebenfalls schwere personelle Ausfälle. Around 16:15 o'clock at Réthymnon and at 17:30 o'clock at Iráklion the second wave of German airborne units suffered also heavy losses.

Gegen Ende des Tages hatten die Deutschen keines ihrer Ziele erreicht. At the end of the day the Germans hadn't achieved any of their objectives.

Dennoch zeichneten sich auf britischer Seite erste Probleme ab. Anyhow first problems emerged for the British site.

Es mangelte an Fahrzeugen, hauptsächlich an sachgemäß bewaffneten Panzern, aber vor allem an Kommunikationsmitteln, um wenigstens die vorhandenen Fahrzeuge gegen die einzelnen deutschen Widerstandsnester zum Einsatz zu bringen. There was a lack of vehicles, especially of appropriatly armed tanks, but especially of radio equipment, to be able to direct at least the vehicles at hand into action against the isolated German resistance pockets.

Dadurch konnten die deutschen Fallschirmjäger ihre fieberhaft und nur andeutungsweise errichteten Stellungssysteme behaupten. This way the German paratroopers could assert their hastily and only in outlines errected emplecement systems.


Sources:

  • Peter Antill: Crete 1941: Germany's Lightning Airborne Assault., o.O. 2005, ISBN 1841768448
  • G. C. Kiriakopoulps: The Nazi Occupation of Crete 1941-1945: 1941-1945., o.O. 1995, ISBN 0275952770
  • Alan Clarke: The Fall of Crete. – Weidenfeld Military, November 2000 – ISBN 0304352268
  • Bundesarchiv (Hrsg.): Europa unterm Hakenkreuz, Die Okkupationspolitik des deutschen Faschismus in Jugoslawien, Griechenland, Albanien, Italien und Ungarn (1941-1945), Band 6. Hüthig Verlagsgemeinschaft, Berlin, Heidelberg 1992, ISBN 3-8226-1892-6
  • Buckley, Christopher. Greece and Crete 1941, London, 1952. Greek pbk edition (in English): P. Efstathiadis & Sons S.A., 1984. Pbk ISBN 960-226-041-6
  • Beevor, Antony. Crete: The Battle and the Resistance, John Murray Ltd, 1991. Penguin Books, 1992. Pbk ISBN 0-14-016787-0 Boulder : Westview Press, 1994. LCCN 93047914

Wandalstouring 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Churchill

I don't see Churchill's WWII memoirs cited here as a source. He deals in some detail with Crete in "The Grand Alliance." Sca 02:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Forbidden destruction of airfields

The German wiki claims that it was Wavell who forbade Freyberg to demolish the airfields, Wavell believeing the battle already won thanks to the intercepts. Can anyone verify por deny this? thestor 08:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)