Talk:Battle of Greece

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Featured article star Battle of Greece is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.


Contents

[edit] Greco-Italian War duplication

Most of the material here seems to duplicate the material in Greco-Italian War, which is a more complete article. However this article has better formatting. I would like to propose that these two articles be merged. It is worth noting that Greco-Italian War already has details on the German intervention, which is not stricly Greco-Italian... I don't have an opinon yet on which name is better for the resulting article.

Jamie 02:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

That's true, but the solution is not a merger, but addition of information here. By the time the Germans and British are heavily involved, it has become the distinct "Battle of Greece."--Jpbrenna 22:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
OK. That makes sense. In that case, the material here related to the initial battle with Italy should be shortened or removed (with a link to Greco-Italian War instead), and likewise the material in that article related to the German intervention should be shorened to removed (with a link here). If both articles are to remain, there needs to be a deliniation of where the "Greco-Italian War" ends and the "Battle of Greece" begins. Right now, both articles list the same start and end dates... Jamie 23:53, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
The most obvious split is at the German intervention (6 April). That before (the fight between the Greeks and the Italians in Albania) should be "Greco-Italian War", after German intervention should be "German Invasion of Greece" rather than the more ambiguous "Battle for Greece". The problem may be correcting other articles that link in here to decide whaich of the 2 they should link to. Mike Young 07:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
The convention in English is to call it the "Battle of Greece," although it was a rapid series of battles, like the Battle of France. A Google search shows me that Η μάχη της Ελλάδος (literally: "The Battle of Greece") is at least somewhat productive in Greek circles, as well. I would even hazard a guess that the Germans even call it "Schlacht von Greichenland" or "Landschlacht um Griechenland," though you'd have to ask them. Googling for those terms brings up the German Wikipedia article about the Battle of Platea.

[edit] Tone of article: nazi propaganda?

Am I the only one who notices how this article is almost nazi propaganda?? Miskin 13:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

It's true, the cadence is very rapid and the language is close to heaping praise on the German war machine, but I don't think it is pro-Nazi propaganda. The person who wrote it (not me, I just transferred some of it here) seems excited by the rapidity and efficiency with which the Germans took Greece, not the fact that they decided to do it. It is true that the German effort from a purely military standpoint was impressive; however, it should also be mentioned that the Greeks put up an astonishingly effective resistance given their limited resources, that the British participated too, and that the German campaign was often prosecuted with incredible cruelty against civilians. For instance, one of the reasons that the Germans were able to take Crete so soon after the fall of the mainland is that they built numerous fighter and bomber bases on the mainland and some of the islands, essentially with Greek civilian slave labor. The Greco-British forces on the mainland might have been able to put up a better fight against the Luftwaffe if they had more facilities available and could spread out their already limited air assets so that they couldn't all be destroyed in a single attack. Apparently though, the Greeks and their British allies didn't want to enslave the very people they were trying to protect, so they didn't corvee them. These are the kinds of things that should be mentioned in this article. Some of the excited language should be toned down as well; this is an encyclopedia, not a popular history magazine. Unfortunately, I will be too occupied with term papers, labs and tests etc. until about mid-December to do much work here. Perhaps some of the other contributors could make a start? --Jpbrenna 22:53, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Check out the "Wehrmacht" link on the bottom of the page. It is neo-nazi. XX

[edit] Merger?

To be merged with Operation Marita.--TheFEARgod 07:58, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I say no. The current Operation Marita article is simply a not-very-detailed German order-of-battle, and it would be improper to reproduce a detailed orbat in this article. We should report army and corps-level formations in the article, and link to a detailed orbat down to the regimental level. This should be named "Greece order of battle," and expanded to include Greek, British, Italian and Bulgarian formations. See Battle of Crete and Crete order of battle for examples. My vote is Move Operation Marita material to Greece order of battle, Redirect Operation Marita to Battle of Greece.--Jpbrenna 17:33, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
I oppose the merger, and second Jpbrenna's suggestion. TheArchon 09:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Casualties

The article has some faults about the casualties. First, it does not include the true German casualties, but it shows the 'official' casualties as announced in the Reichstag. Second, the casualties shown in the article are of both the attack against Greece AND Yugoslavia. Xristar


how would the "true" casualties be determined?

To ignore the official casualties released brings us into the realm of speculation and conjecture - this is highly inappropriate for a factual NPOV article. Besides how possible is it to determine the “true” casualties? – Or more importantly if it is mentioned that the casualties could be understated and why this might be the case does it really matter? SolitaryWolf 12:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Speaking of casualties though, an article which examines why Italian casualties were so high might be worthwhile. Can anyone suggest some useful sources one could begin with? SolitaryWolf 12:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

First off, Italian casualties are not really that high. The missing men are actually prisoners of war taken by Greece. (It would be interesting to search where did these men end? Were they liberated by the axis men? Were they transported to North Africa or England? Were they just executed? Else why are they considered 'missing'?) Secondly, what happend is that the Gremans announce some casualties. OK? The casualties they announced were lower than the actual. This was easily proven in the case of Crete. Some british officer who participated in the battle, who didn't believe the numbers the germans announced, went to Crete after the war and counted the graved in the geman cemetary. The number of men killed during the Crete operation (May 1941) was significantly higher than the officially announced by the germans. The same happends with the campaign in contintal Greece (April 1941) with the difference that noone really bothered to find the real numbers. General Papagos in his book about the campaign estimated the german losses to 15,000-20,000 (killed and wounded). The number may seem high a bit. I read an article in a military history magazine about the actual losses of the germans in Greece in 1941. Apart from many indications, it ended with a proof: the german service for locating the german troops killed during WWII published a tome in ther mid '80s on the balkan campaign. It mentions roughly 2,000 men killed, possibly more, only in continental Greece (excluding Crete that is), with the possibility that there were more unidentified germans killed. Unfortunately I am not in any way able to find the magaziane exactly, or to prove my sayings, but at least i give you explanation on how my numbers came (they are not estimations). Xristar

In the fourth volume of "Blitzkrieg" series, titled "The Balkans and North Africa", Surrey, 2003, by Will Fowler, the author uses the revised figures for the german casualties in continental Greece, namely 2,559 KIA, 5,820 WIA and 3,169 MIA.Xristar (talk) 14:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ANZACs

I do actually know some ANZACs who were in Greece during the War. They mentioned that the were "evacuated". Did they take part in this battle? If so, should they be mentioned? Wallie 19:35, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They were evacuated ultimately to North Africa, although most stopped over for a little scenic R&R on Crete. I'm sure there was some contribution to the land battle on the mainland of Greece, but someone will have to research it and write it up <hint, hint> ;) --Jpbrenna 05:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. Scenic R&R. And then from Crete, they left on cruise ships such as HMS Ajax to 'do the Pyramids' and sand and sea in sunny Lybia->Libya. Some guys have all the luck! Wallie 09:17, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I'm working on it!! Our guys, along with the Aussies, did some quite serious fighting there. That's where Charles Upham earnt his first Victoria Cross

Buckshot06 00:45, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Didn't Charles Upham win the Victoria Cross on Crete? Anyways, this is not a conspiracy to exclude the British, Australians, or New Zealanders. If you have knowledge on the fighting they took part in, then please add it ASAP. Periklis* 01:06, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Title

I feel that the title may be misleading. When someone reads "Battle of Greece" that can be any Greek battle in history. Should there be a distinction, like calling it Battle of Greece(WWII) or something like that? And if someone searches "Battle of Greece" it can be redirected to this page. Just a thought. Sophoklis 08:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Usually other battles are named after the place where they were fought: Battle of Marathon, Battle of Thermopylae, Battle of Navarino -- at least in English. Are there multiple battles called Μάχη της Ελλάδος in Greek? --Jpbrenna 05:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Recent Changes

I have made many changes and additions to the article. I welcome other editors to help out and to express how you feel about the recent changes. I feel that the article has been significantly improved and that it should soon move up the quality scale.It is not finished yet though. I plan to add more detail on the German invasion, especially resistance on the Metaxas Line. I would like to hear what others think however. Periklis* 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

This is greatly improved. The only thing I would suggest is more citation of your sources, especially for what seems to be most disputed in these articles: casualty figures. I believe them, but others may not.--Jpbrenna 03:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Very well done indeed, Periklis! One problem this article still has, however, is that it includes too much of the Greco-Italian War. Much of what is said in the present article (quotes of Mussolini etc) would be better transferred to the more relevant article. Also, I think the casualty figures refer to both campaigns, the Italian as well as the German. Best regards, Cplakidas 10:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. I feel that the info regarding the Italian invasion should be kept in this article as well as it gives relevent background to the campaign and constitutes a part of the "Battle of Greece". Also, when I think "Battle of Greece" I would imagine that it started from October 28, 1940. We could put the info in the Greco-Italian War article as well, but I feel that we should keep it here as well. I am having a difficult time finding sources regarding Italian casualties but hopefully someone else might want to fill it in.
That aside, I think this article should get a peer review soon. It certainly doesn't appear Start Class to me anymore. Aww...I dream of the day this article may be featured...or should I keep dreaming? Periklis* 06:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Most of the unsourced quotes could be found at this site. The only problem I have is that I am not quite sure how to cite it and I was hoping for help. http://www.greece.org:8080/opencms/export/sites/default/HEC_Projects/OXI_No_Day_28th_of_October_1940/English/OXI-SEVEN.en.pdf . Periklis* 07:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I've added many more citations including the link at above. Periklis* 02:53, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal review

I've already commented on the article in Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Greece. This review intends to help Periklis. I want just to inform the nominator that he also has the following ways in order to evaluate and upgrade his article:

  • Ask for a peer-review. Check Wikipedia:Peer review. You can also ask for a peer-review in the military project.
  • You can nominate the article for good article. Check: WP:GA. I think the article will pass this nomination.
  • The last stage is a nomination for Featured Article. Check WP:FAC.

Now, let's go to the article. My remarks are divided in general remarks and some more specific remarks, referring to specific sections or going into details:

1. General suggestions
  • Lead: It is short. The lead should constitute a summary of the whole article. Check WP:LEAD.
  • Prose: My feeling is that the article need an overall slight copyediting. Try the article tell a story. Make the prose coherent and the article to flow. You can check these useful pages: User:Robth#Article flow and User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.
  • Footnotes: I've many remarks here:
  • I have some doubts about the credibility and the verifiability of some internet sources. Let's take note 8: http://www.onwar.com/chrono/1941/mar41/f16mar41.htm. I go to an Internet article which is not signed. Who tells me that this is a credible source? Is there any author I can trust?
  • Let's go to the format of this notes. When you mention an internate source you must have:title, author (if there is one), date it was retrieved. In note 8 where is the date it was retrieved and where is the title?
  • You citate note 24 like this: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/4_May%2C_1941 Adolf Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on May 4, 1941. The right format is this: Adolf Hitler's speech to the Reichstag on May 4, 1941, [author if there is one], retrieved: [date it was retrieved].
  • Notes 27-29 are not correctly citated. Where are the titles? The authors? The fact they are acrobat reader does not mean that this information is not needed.
  • References and Further Reading: It is uncyclopedic to mix References and Further Reading. In "References" you should mention only the sources you used in the "Footnotes". All the other books go to "Further reading". In this way, you have three sections (something I also do in the articles I write):"Footnotes", "References" and "Further reading". Some other editors choose to mix "Footnotes" and "References", but "Further reading" is always seperated.
  • We do not "quote". We just "quote".
1. More specific suggestions
  • "had unleashed its “Blitzkrieg” and overran much of Western Europe. Benito Mussolini had grown jealous of Hitler’s conquests and decided to do some conquering of his own. Italy had already occupied Albania (Greece’s northwestern neighbor) in 1939 and several British Commonwealth strongholds in Africa but could not boast the same victories of Nazi Germany. Mussolini, who regarded South-eastern Europe as lying within the Italian sphere of influence, decided to attack Greece, as it seemed to be an easy opponent.[3] Mussolini told Count Ciano: Hitler always faces me with a fait accompli. This time I am going to pay him back in his own coin. He will find out from the papers that I have occupied Greece.[4]" This section needs copyediting. In some sections the language is a bit uncyclopedic. Also the quote should not be in italics but like that: "Hitler always faces me with a fait accompli. This time I am going to pay him back in his own coin. He will find out from the papers that I have occupied Greece."
  • "Documents later discovered showed that every detail of the attack had been prepared... His prestige needed some indisputable victories to balance the sweep of Napoleonic triumphs of Nazi Germany." Who says that? And why are his words important? The citation is not enough. Tell us that this or this historian tells that, in order to emphasize on the importance of his words.
  • "The line was quickly outflanked by German Panzer forces (2nd Panzer Division) invading through southern Yugoslavia and down the Vardar Valley, meeting only sporadic resistance from hastily assembled Greek forces." Two participles in the line. I donot know this is the best prose.
  • "The outcome of initial clashes with the Germans at Vevi were not encouraging, while the rapid advance of the Panzers into Thessaloniki and Prilep in Southern Yugoslavia greatly disturbed Wilson, who was faced with the prospect of being pinned by the invading Germans operating from Thessaloniki while being flanked by the German XL Panzer Corps descending through the Monastir Gap." Tooooo long sentence.
  • "Effect on World War II" seems to me a bit stubby. I think you can expand it with further analysis and information.
  • "See also" section goes before "Footnotes" and "References". But in this case this section looks to me redundant. Most of its links are already linked within the main article. So, why do we need it. After all, "See also" sections are not in fashion this period.

These are my remarks. I hope they help. Good luck!--Yannismarou 17:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for the suggestions. I think that I have addressed most of what was pointed out above. I'm sure it can still be improved further but I have expanded the intro and cleared up and better explained many other paragraphs. Periklis* 07:21, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Incorporate Battle of Crete?

To what extent should the battle of Crete be incorporated in this article? Should it constitute as a part of the battle of Greece because it was Greek territory or an entirely different episode? How much mention in this article should it have? I was hoping for the opinions of other editors. Periklis* 07:58, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, the term "Battle of Greece" usually refers to the German invasion and occupation of the mainland alone. I suppose that is because from the British POV (they gave the names), they did indeed fight two distinct "battles": for mainland Greece and for Crete. The Greco-Italian War, likewise, was a different affair. In Greece, obviously, the term "Battle of Greece" would denote all 3 campaigns, but the separation in three phases remains. So I think that, just as with the Greco-Italian War, it should be briefly mentioned, since it was the conclusion of the German invasion, but otherwise it is considered a separate episode and is treated as such by most histories. Cplakidas 10:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
As a Brit, I'd support Cplakidas. The Greco-Italian War and Crete are seen as separate actions with their own distinct characteristics. Merging the three would not clarify anything and is no more appropriate than merging, say, all the battles of the North African Campaign. From, say, a German or Italian POV, the split might be different, but the audience here is predominantly English-speaking. Folks at 137 18:33, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the comments. Periklis* 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Additions to be made still

The article is almost there, but not yet. Before the "Athens Falls" section I think there needs to be a section explaining the fighting at Thermopylae and the rearguard actions. The "evacuation" and "evaluation" sections can also be expanded. Feel free to add material and make suggestions. Just posting an update on the situation. Periklis* 00:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, the Thermopylae Pass defence was carried out by the Australian 19th Brigade and lead by George Vasey and other units. The defence is seen as semi famous in Australia. These two links have a little info on it [1], [2]. Ill go through my books and try to find more. Hossen27 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ANZAC contributions

Here is some info on the Australian and New Zealand involvment in the battle.

  • Wavell was originally going to send the 6th and 7th Australian divs, NNew Zealand Division, the british tank brigade and a Polish brigade. The 7th division was never sent. The force was to have 126,000 men and be named "Lustre Force". I do not see Lustre force anywhere in the article, but it has its own page Operation Lustre.
  • Wilson is said to have dislike disliked Australians intensely, this was returned by the Australian commander Thomas Blamey and Aust PM Menzies. Blamey was quoted as saying that Wilson did ("not enough grey matter").
  • Blamey wanted the force to be lead by an Australian of New Zealander, Wavell disagreed, nothing came of this.
  • 17,125 Australian and 16,720 NZ were committed to Greece.
  • 6th Div took up position on Yukoslav frontier, Aust and NZ troops were warmly greeted.
  • 7th April Blamey was informed by Wilson that the 7th Div would remain in Eqypt along with the Poles.
  • Snow fell for the first time on ANZAC lines on 9th April
  • 10:00 AM 10 April a NZ armoured car reported sighting a German column 10KM away.
  • 1:00 PM Australian gunners opened up on german tanks.
  • Wilson and MAJ GEN Iven Giffard Mackay, commander 6th DIV ordered retreat to the Olympus-Aliakmnon Line at 2:00 PM.
  • 16 Brigade had to night march 50KM in snow at over 1000m
  • 10 April: 17th Brigade under Stanley George Savige sailed to Greece to complate 6th DIV
  • 11th April: Two Aust battalions and Brit tanks fought off german tanks and infantry before retreating, loosing 16 anti-tank guns
  • 12th April: At Ptolemais Germans all but destroyed British tank brigade, loosing only four tanks themselves.
  • General Blamey is now de facto commander with 1st Armoured Brigade no longer battle ready.
  • 12th April: Blamey informs Mackay and General Freyburg that force would be designated Anzac Corps.
Quoted as saying
"the task ahead though difficult is not nearly so desperate as that which our fathers faced twenty six years ago"
and when handing the message to the messanger was quoted as saying.
"There you are sonny. You've got to live to 6 O'clock tonight to be a bloddy Anzac"


Thats some of the early stuff, much more Aussie than mentioned in article,42,000 out of the total Brit/Comm force. More to come. Hossen27 05:48, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A-Class status

The article did not have the necessary level of support to be promoted after the first nomination; given the degree to which it has been improved during that time, however, I would suggest renominating it, as I suspect that it would not garner a significant number of objections in its current state. Kirill Lokshin 11:05, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I don't know if I've added too many pictures or not. I'm not sure how to better place them. I'll leave it to other editors to decide. Periklis* 20:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

No, they are fine. They are all applicable and needed. Let's not align them just yet. Wait for the text to stop expanding first. :-) •NikoSilver• 20:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vevi

For those interested, I have now expanded Battle of Vevi (World War II) to a full article. Any comments and/or constructive criticism either here or on its talk page would be welcome. Grant65 | Talk 08:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've commented on that article's talk page. The paragraph on Vevi in this article does a good job of describing the forces that were there and what they intended to do. However, it does not describe what happened there in all that great of detail. It just says "After heavy fighting the Germans broke through." I think that can be expanded with material from the battle of Vevi article. Periklis* 20:10, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Done.Grant65 | Talk 02:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] captured total

in the Evacuation section the qouted figue of captured is 8000. But in the infobox its 13,958 captured. Which is correct, I remember being around 14,000 but im not sure. Hossen27 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The number 8,000 refers to the British prisoners taken in the Peloponnese alone. The total number for the campaign is indeed ca. 14,000. Regards, Cplakidas 12:57, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah I see. Also is the figure in the evaluation section the total or just for one action, it states
“ The Allied expeditionary force lost approximately a quarter of its 58,000 strength including 11,000 captured ”

Hossen27 13:02, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] FA class?

Am I too ambitious to think that this article, with some more work, can become featured? Certain things need improvement, like unsourced quotes-I believe there are 3 or 4 of them. The Thermopylae position section should also be expanded. But the article is looking good especially compared to what it used to be. Periklis* 05:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It may be soon ready for FAC. But why don't you go first for one or more peer-reviews. You can go for it in the Military project, in the History of Greece project (here) or ask for a general peer-review per Wikipedia:Peer review. You can ask for more thn aone of these peer-reviews at the same time or subsequently.--Yannismarou 07:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klisura/Klissura

I have seen reference to a major action at this pass nearby to and at the same time as Vevi, e.g. in the Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler and Kurt Meyer articles, but I don't have access to a good library at the moment and internet material on it seems to be scarce. Does anyone have an information on it? 05:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

This website might help. Although in general I can't find much over the internet. Periklis* 06:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fully citing Keegan

Small thing, should be easy to fix. The Keegan quote that's just been cited in the new note 1, should explicitly mention at first reference which book it is, though I assume it is the 2005 one. Also should expand quote to say why it was significant for the outcome of war - no doubt for the delay in the invasion of Russia. Cheers Buckshot06 10:13, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the entire quote says this Mussolini's Greek adventure thus had the direct effect of driving Hitler into heightening his war effort against Britain, though in her Mediterranean empire rather than against her coasts; it also had the indirect effect of commiting him to a seizure of territory-useful but not essential to the launching of Barbarossa-which made any agreement of 'spheres of influence' between him and Stalin impossible. In that respect the Greek campaign was to be decisive in determing the future course of the Second World War. (p. 144) His book is cited under "Further Reading" but it should have been under "References"-I will fix that. Well, that is the quote, any thoughts on how to better incorporate that into the article? Periklis* 05:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my addition to the sentence? Also, paragraph above, did Germany really invade 'reluctantly'? Buckshot06 05:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I've made a minor edit on the addition but I think it is alright. Maybe we can slightly expand it later, but its alright. Regarding the invasion-The Germans undoubtedly invaded reluctantly. This can be attested to by Goebbel's diaries and Hitler's speech to the Reichstagg or Wilhelm Kietel's memoirs where they repeatedly state they went in reluctantly.
Regarding Keegan however, I'm not exactly sure he says it delayed Barbarossa. I know that many scholars do argue that it did, but I'm not sure Keegan does. Keegan writes In the aftermath, historians would measure its significance in terms of the delay Marita had or had not imposed on the unleashing of Barbarossa, an exercise ultimately to be judged profitless, since it was the Russian weather, not the contingencies of subsidiary campaigns, which determined Barbarossa's launch date.(p. 158)
Do you think I should find another scholar who argues it delayed Barbarossa? Or should I say Keegan thinks it may have? Periklis* 06:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No, Keegan's a pretty solid historian, and I tend to think that if he says the delay in Barbarossa didn't matter we shouldn't try and twist things to say it did. What would be good is a little bit of explanation as to why the Germans invaded if they did it reluctantly - just to save the Italians? This may be already in there for all I know.

Cheers Buckshot06 08:45, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we can expand a little on why the Germans invaded. General Wavell would say that Germany coult "not afford to see Italy defeated or even held." So it was partly to save the Italians. It was also because Hitler did not want British planes near the Ploesti Oilfields in Romania, and also because he wanted a secure southern flank. Perhaps we can expand on that but is it needed in the lead or somewhere else? Periklis* 20:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

Some of you posted quotes but did not post the source in which it came from. I am having trouble finding citations for all of them, but hopefully others can help out. Regarding the quote Keitel said during the Nuremburg Trials, I cannot find a reliable source for that. Unless someone can find a source I will replace it with something similar he wrote in his memoirs. Again, if someone has the sources, please add them! Periklis* 22:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding this edit:

Other historians such as Antony Beevor claim that it was not Greek resistance that delayed the Axis invasion of the Soviet Union, but instead the slow construction of airfields in Eastern Europe.

After having a look at the text itself, that doesn't seem to be at all what Beevor says [3]. Is there a way to verify that this edit is the actual conclusion of a historian and not of an editor? Miskin 02:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The text which you link us to was not written by Antony Beevor. Beevor, in his book "Crete:The Battle and the Resistance," says that the Greek campaign did not delay Barbarossa. I decided to add this in order to give more balance to both sides of the argument. Maybe I misunderstood you, what exactly is your concern? Do you think Beevor is misrepresented? Periklis* 02:04, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No, nevermind, I take your word for it. Miskin 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Independent review

This page is such an undertaking! Wow! I haven't tried anything so big yet. Nice job. Here is my peer review. You can move it wherever you feel is most appropriate. I did quite a bit of copyediting as I was reading; revert as you see fit.

  • This is a long and detailed page. I would consider deleting some of the details and summarizing some sections so that readers make it all the way to the end of the page. Sections to consider condensing:
  • Condense "Prelude"
  • Condensed, as much as I could, without deleting information I regard as important.--Yannismarou 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Integrate "Hitler's decision to invade" and "British aid" into a reduced "Prelude"
  • second paragraph of "British aid" - it didn't happen, so it seems less necessary - you might cut this entirely
  • Topography material - cut drastically
  • I cannot cut it drastically, because it includes very useful information, but I tried to condense it.--Yannismarou 08:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Condense "Evacuation"
  • Some condensing also took place here, but it is difficult for me to cut information I regard as useful!--Yannismarou 08:59, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I realize that this is a very touchy subject with these articles, but the page did seem slightly POV to me. For example, the Axis powers rarely receive the same amount of detailed attention in terms of names of commanders, etc. as the Allied powers. Also, when I came to the statement The Greek campaign, ended in a complete German victory won in record time at the end of the article, I was stunned. This is not the impression that the article gives at all. While it may be true that the Greeks faught valiantly, this fact is emphasized repeatedly throughout the article to the point that I thought the Germans barely won (which is, apparently, not true - they easily won). Also, do we not have to consider the idea that the Germans fought valiantly as well? There are very few comments regarding their heroism here. I understand how difficult it must be to write a page about the Nazis, but I just want to point out that while reading this page, I noticed a bias towards valorizing the Greeks. In some cases such language is appropriate and some cases not; we must try and figure out where it is appropriate in this article.
  • I tried to initiate some improvements. More to come.--Yannismarou 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Have historians speculated on why the Germans praised Greek resistance? Goebbels was a master rhetorician; I doubt that he was actually praising Greek resistance. Could he have been suggesting by implication, for example, that the French, British or Russians were weak? Statements in wartime are rarely transparent and I have a feeling that some historian has analyzed these. The same is true of the Allied statements valorizing the Greeks.
  • A note I added (g) tries to clarify this issue.--Yannismarou 16:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
  • After reading the article, I do not feel that the lead adequately summarized the article; I was left with the feeling in the lead that the battle was almost a draw and the Germans were dragged into it but the article actually suggests that the Germans won handily (in the "Aftermath" section) and took advantage of this opportunity to expand their influence.
  • Rewrote parts of the lead.--Yannismarou 21:30, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Prelude": Why did the Italians do so poorly early on, even though they had more men and more ammunition? This is not really explained.
  • Tried to clarify that.--Yannismarou 20:33, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The first quote box and Hitler's "joke" quote has no box and no space around it; its text overlaps with the article's text. Awadewit 03:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Fixed I think by Nikos.--Yannismarou 08:51, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

Are there no fair use pictures of the Greek Army / Commanders available for this article? All the current pictures diplayed are of Brits, Australians and Germans with the exception of one political cartoon. CanadianMist 19:32, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ship Losses

I have currently finished reading the section int he British Official History of this battle and they mention a figure whch is no were near the figure claimed in this article.

Going off memoir they mention a few transporters and destoryers all in all am sure it was under 10.

However the article is stating in the region of 26. I think someone who may have read more into this battle should attempt to clear this up.

[edit] Number of troops embarked...

The number of evacuated troops is way to low when compared to the official histories of the British, New Zealand and Australian governments.

The Australian chapter in referance to the evactuation is here: http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/07.pdf

The New Zealand version of events is here: http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Gree-b1.html

The British version is not online but matches up with the New Zealand version give or take a few hundred men, the Aussie one adds up to the NZ and British one if you include some of the men they havnt counted, that being troops collected between the 29th and 1st and it also misses off a beach.

All in all it appears the number of troops who got away is down by around 8000 men and should be in the 50 000 range not the the 42 000 range. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.14.135 (talk) 07:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Greek surrender 1941.jpg

Image:Greek surrender 1941.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

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

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

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Invasion

We should use the name Invasion of Greece (1941) like Invasion of Yugoslavia--TheFEARgod (Ч) 13:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that in the case of Greece "invasion" is the established terminology. "Battle of Greece" and "Operation Marita" are the terms I encountered more often.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:40, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
how is it called in Greece--TheFEARgod (Ч) 16:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Hm! Nice question! I haven't consistently searched the Greek bibliography, but I think I have encountered a variety of terms: "Greek-German War", "German invasion", "German campaign in Greece", "German attack". I have seen all these terms used.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)