Talk:Cretan resistance

Fuller picture from a Cretan perspective
I have just made a major edit, in an attempt to present a fuller picture of the Cretan resistance movement(s), at least from a Cretan perspective. Clearly there is still work to be done, e.g. on the different groups and their role, on the choice of prominent personalities, and on a bibliography. I have removed the reference to Lonely Planet, but I guess it will have to go back if we don't provide alternative references ...Bougatsa42 (talk) 05:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry Bougatsa42 but the effects of your additions is to give GREATER weight to hearsay accounts of conspiracy theorists, than to acknowledged expert historians .. two or three blogs account for half of this article, whilst the detailed research in Beevor is not cited at all. Perhaps there is a place for some of the accusations that have been made, as I do realise they represent a strand of Cretan thought/feeling, however at the moment they give a distorted and wholly partisan view of marginal opinions. I shall attempt to give detailed objections over the next few days.Pincrete (talk) 18:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Again, sorry Bougatsa42, but the purpose of Wikipedia is NOT primarily to put what you call 'the Cretan perspective', or indeed the Greek perspective. I personally believe that there should be room here to put that point of view, however it is NOT the mainstream view and should not be represented as though it was.Pincrete (talk) 14:41, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Fuller perspective
The article depicts the wonderful Cretan people rising up together to form independent partisan groups under their colorful and individualistic chieftains to oppose the nazis spontaneously. Yup. Sure. This view is like that of the French resistance in the popular mind. While I have no doubt that people do resist tyranny it takes a whole lot more abuse than existed in France or Crete at the beginning of the war to arouse it. The French Resistance was never anything spontaneous in any way. It was a branch of the French military, if you joined it you were in the military, it took orders from the military and shot its deserters and traitors by court martial according to military protocols. Its nature was that it did not talk about its origins, membership, funding and orders.

The Cretan resistsnce was something similar. It originated in the British War Office with the organization that came to be called the SOE, parallel to the American OSS. It was started by the British, commanded by the British, was funded and supplied by the British. Its founder, John Pendlebury, was a British serviceman and agent. He was in the British military. He was paid by the British to start the Cretan reistance. That resistance took orders from the British military for most of the war. They were all very highly motivated, no doubt, and the Cretan people were wonderful, no doubt. Those wonderful commanders however were taking orders from Pendlebury and he was taking them from the British military. If you want to know where the Greek government was, the answer is, working for the British military. Winston Churchill decided the fate of George II, whether he remained on Crete or left Crete. He wanted to leave Crete. Churchill forced him to stay until he was nearly caught. Such are the consequences of having your country overrun, and your government only existing as being propped up by a foreign power. Pendelbury was unluckily caught and shot, but he belonged to a select group from which replacements were taken. They were the Knossos archaeologists and the members of the British School. Take another look at the list of partisan commanders. Dunbabin. Oh yes, Dunbabin. Hmn. He wrote a famous book on the Western Greeks that I as a student had to read along with all the other classics majors.

So, we are not done with this article. The Cretan resistance was formed in 1940 by Pendlebury posing as a militaty attache. They were armed, trained, supplied by the British and kept in readiness against the day of invasion. On that day they threw themselves into battle with such ferocity and effectiveness because they had been trained and ordered to do so. Ordinary people don't go over to other people and beat them to death with a stick as they wrestle with a parachute. Untrained, they stand there and watch as the enemy soldier walks up and kills them. Today's stupid sheep is tomorrow's fierce lion, and the difference is training. Now, by the end of the war, when the Greek government was coming back into style and the Greek Civil War was being fought, no doubt the "Cretan" resistance might have behaved something like the article says. I may come back to this article later, There is plenty written on it. Nothing secret here.Dave (talk) 03:37, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What is the source for any of these opinions? My understanding is that Pendlebury got little help or arms for his militias (had he done so the Germans might very well have been defeated in 1941). To suggest that Cretans were previously lambs who were changed into lions by one man is both insulting to Cretans and plain silly.Pincrete (talk) 10:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Unreliable sources and biased accounts
This page is at present giving undue weight to unreliable conspiracy theorists and citing blogs as though they are properly researched balanced histories. Specifically, the Allies are consistently referred to as 'the British' (vast numbers of troops and their leader were ANZACs). Great weight is given to criticism of Patrick L.F. and to British motives, the source being a blogspot. One of the most thorough books on the subject (Beevor), is not quoted at all. My understanding is that there was little EAM sympathy among the populace of Crete (the majority being Venizelists), therefore conspiracy theories about anti-EAM motives are just silly. Also it simply isn't logically consistent to praise the Cretan resistance fighters, but blame the British for the reprisals, this is just nonsense.

OF COURSE the British were more concerned with the global picture than with simply the fate of any one part of the world, OF COURSE the Allies hoped for a friendly democratic free Greece after the war (you don't help somewhere and hope it will turn round and bite you), but this is completely different from seeing every action as part of some sinister plot to achieve the murder of left wingers.

The Allies actually showed great willingness to work with WHOEVER was going to be effective against the Axis powers (arming Russia and aiding Tito for example), had they not done so they would probably not have succeeded.

I do think that the Allies failed miserably to act effectively and decisively in Crete in 1941, but there is no reason to think their motives were sinister. As for finding it incredible that a German administration was left in place, what is so strange about that? A problem that existed EVERYWHERE which was freed in 1944/5 was the vacuum in administration and the wish to not see mob justice. I have heard expressed on Crete feelings of resentment against the Allies, there is a place for them in this article, however at the moment they are being expressed as the generally accepted historical account, they are not.Pincrete (talk) 10:37, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * "Specifically, the Allies are consistently referred to as 'the British' (vast numbers of troops and their leader were ANZACs)" - Actually FYI these were all British subjects just like any other 'British' were. Neither of those two country's inhabitants gained separate citizenship until after WW II. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.30.162.162 (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Detailed objections to the section "Role of the British" and other sections
1. British activity in Crete focused on the second plank of its policy in Greece, i.e. to undermine the left-wing resistance movement.[4] This assertion, and many other inferences that follow is simply NOT supported by reference 4, which is ‘As I understand it, the aims of the British Government in Greece are two-fold: First to obtain the greatest military effort in the fight against the Axis, and, second, to have in post-war Greece a stable government friendly to Great Britain, if possible a Constitutional Monarchy’.


 * To state that British policy was firstly to fight the Axis and secondly to hope to build a possible post-war government is an obvious truth, to deduce from that a concerted and sinister plot to kill off left wingers is a huge leap into conspiracy theories.

2. ''The British agent Patrick Leigh Fermor, for example, was instrumental in splitting Cretan resistance by setting up an alternative movement in 1943, funded and supplied by the British, to which they attracted figures such as Manolis Bandouvas.[5] As on the mainland, the British launched an aggressive campaign of anti-EAM and anti-communist propaganda.[6]Cretan writers such as Manolis Kokolakis have suggested that Bandouvas’ murder of two German soldiers in EAM territory was on the suggestion of British agents, who may have hoped that the ensuing bloodbath of German reprisals (the Holocaust of Viannos) would deal a blow to the left-wing movement. [7]''


 * Who are these sources? and could the author decide whether the writer is Manolis or Michalis Kokolakis as he uses both names. This account is strongly contradicted by more established historians such as Beevor, as is the number of Germans killed by Bandouvas prior to the massacre and no evidence of PLF's involvement in anti-EAM activity is offered at all merely the inference that it must be so.

3. It is, furthermore, the view of Kimonas Zografakis, who took part in the abduction of Kreipe, that the kidnapping of the General was carried out for the same reason.[8]


 * I thought that it was generally accepted that the kidnapping was planned and carried precisely because IT WOULD NOT cause reprisals, if Zografakis thought otherwise, why did he take part in it, was he really such a poodle of the British? Anyway the ref that follows supports a completely different conspiracy theory!

4.Sanoudakis argues in his article "Leigh Fermor was a classic agent" that "Patrick Leigh Fermor was neither a great philhellene, nor a new Lord Byron for Greece who fought and loved at the same time. Fundamentally he was a classic agent who served faithfully the interests of Britain and as a cultivated gentleman wrote good travel books. Anything else that the people of Greece attribute to him derives from either ignorance or innocence or anglophilia, ignoring the terrible sufferings he caused our country at that time".[9] ....


 * The source for this information is a blog and Sanoudakis is not even a professional historian but according to his web profile, trained as a theologian and practises as a poet! He also insults PLF for his love life, what on earth is the relevance of this, what CONCRETE accusations are made against PLF, all this says is that Sanoudakis doesn't like PLF and thinks anyone who does must be ignorant. What factual content is there in his article?

5.''Even crueller was the growing sense of betrayal on the part of their presumed allies, the British. The British were reluctant to arm the left-wing resistance movement, even confiscating ammunition intended to go to resistance groups under siege. Perhaps most incredible was the British decision, after the Germans surrendered to the British in May 1945, that the Germans be permitted to keep their arms and given the task of ‘keeping order’ in the city of Hania. As a consequence of the authority given to the Germans Cretans continued to die even after German capitulation. Hagen Fleischer terms this period the joint Anglo-German rule,[10] while Stavros Blontakis speaks of the Anglo-German occupation.[11]''


 * Much of the above, and the rest of this section comes from non-historians or has not been published outside of Heraklion, I do not doubt that these may represent genuine senses of grievance on the part of some Cretans, however much of this is hearsay but they are listed here as though they were objective historical truth, whilst detailed research by others with access to the whole picture are ignored. If these opinions are to be included, they should be under a different name, not Role of the British but some other title. THEY DO NOT REPRESENT THE GENERALLY ACCEPTED HISTORICAL ACCOUNT and should not be placed here as though they do.Pincrete (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

A further objection is to some of the material in the AFTERMATH section, this does not seem to belong to this page but rather in the Civil War. Alternatively a fuller picture of the various parties that suffered in the immediate post-war period needs to be included. At present we have the picture that only certain individuals and only left-wingers were unfairly treated, I do believe that this may be a diect result of the selectivity of the sources used.Pincrete (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I now notice that there is no mention of EOK (or its precursors) in the development section, nor indeed till well on, thus presenting the picture that all activity was done by EAM. Again is this the generally accepted view? Pincrete (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Further, the EOK page states that, because of agreements between various Cretan factions, there was little in the way of 'in-fighting' on Crete and little fighting in the Civil War. Both versions can't be right, ie relative harmony and vicious (British sponsored) in-fighting.Pincrete (talk) 16:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Objections to sources and references
I question the reliability and authority of many of these sources below, and even where they may have some authority, I believe they are not the mainstream version of events and should NOT be presented as though they were. I have indented my own objections below each reference.

''The Cretan resistance movement had the support of the British while Crete had strategic importance for the North Africa campaign. However once that campaign had been successful, British activity in Crete focused on the second plank of its policy in Greece, i.e. to undermine the left-wing resistance movement … … These two conflicting planks of British policy in Greece have been spelled out very clearly by British agents, amongst many others. J. M. Stevens, for example who was sent to Greece in 1943 by the SOE in Cairo to make a report on the situation there, writes'' ‘As I understand it, the aims of the British Government in Greece are two-fold: First to obtain the greatest military effort in the fight against the Axis, and, second, to have in post-war Greece a stable government friendly to Great Britain, if possible a Constitutional Monarchy’, British Reports on Greece (ed. Lars Baerentzen) (Copenhagen: Museum Tusculanum, 1982), p.41.


 * The italicised sentence of this reference is the contributor's POV, especially the emboldened section, it is not supported by the quote that follows it.

Antonis Sanoudakis details some of the evidence for Leigh Fermor’s involvement in his article Ο Λι Φéρμορ υπήρξε ένας κλασικός πράκτορας ["Leigh Fermor was a classic agent"], Κριτιλογιο, 14 July, 2011, http://kritologio.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_6782.html (accessed 21/01/2012). Among other sources, Sanoudakis refers to Jack Smith Hughes’ secret report on the actions of the SOE in Crete, 1941-45, in which Smith Hughes reveals that Leigh Fermor was present at EOK’s first meeting in February 1943 (Sanoudakis’ reference is Τζακ Σμιθ Χιουζ, Απόρρητη αναφορά της δράσεως της S.O.E. στην Κρήτη 1941-45, μετάφρ. Ελευθερίου Παπαγιαννάκη, έκδοση «Ελεύθερη Σκέψη», Αθήνα 1991).


 * This is in it's entirety a blog by a non-historian.

“What purpose had the sudden destruction of a German look-out post, resulting two Germans dead and one prisoner, the night of 12-13 October 1943 by armed followers of Bandouva, without any warning to the local resistance organisation, without any thought for the likely consequences? Viannos however was an EAM area. Its beaches (Arvi –Tsoutsouros – Keratokampos) provided a secure refuge for British submarines, while its mountains, the Dikti, had always been EAM. The area then was the goal of the conquerors from the beginning. The British, once again, despite the fact that they had been helped by the local inhabitants in their escape and continued to be helped by them, did not view kindly the universal involvement or support of the local people for EAM”, Kokolakis, p. 87 (translated by contributor).


 * There are many other accounts of this incident by more established historians, notably Beevor who claims that substantially more than 2 Germans were killed, which prompted the massacre and that the British discouraged ALL actions at this time.

Zografakis maintains that the reason for the abduction was the ‘burnings, the deaths, the executions towards the west. Many houses burnt down and around 400 executions, in order to allow the Germans, in September 1944, to depart unmolested for Hania. To stop anyone obstructing them. This was the plan of the British”, Kimonas Zografakis, Το αγγλικό προσωπείο και ο "Black Μan”, Heraklion 2005, p. 121 (translated by contributor).


 * What is this source? Who was the publisher? Heraklion is a city not a publisher.

Sanoudakis, Antonis. "Ο Πάτρικ Λη Φέρμορ, λοιπόν, ούτε μέγας Φιλλέλην υπήρξε ούτε ένας νέος λόρδος Μπάιρον για την Ελλάδα και μάλιστα μέγας εραστής που πολεμούσε και αγαπούσε ταυτοχρόνως. Υπήρξε κατά βάση ένας κλασικός πράκτορας που εξυπηρετούσε πιστά τα συμφέροντα της Αγγλίας και ως καλλιεργημένος gentleman έγραψε καλά ταξιδιωτικά–βιβλία. Όλα τα άλλα που οι εγχώριοι του αποδίδουν είναι είτε από άγνοια είτε από αφέλεια είτε από αγγλοφιλία, παραθεωρώντας τα δεινά που επέφερε στη χώρα μας, διαχρονικά, ως σήμερα, με τους ομοίους του.ας κλασικός πράκτορας", Κριτιλογιο, 14 July, 2011, p. 3, http://kritologio.blogspot.com/2011/07/blog-post_6782.html (accessed 21 January 2012).


 * Again this is in it's entirty a blog by a non-historian who seems more interested in slandering PLF than in offering any facts or evidence.

“αγγλογερμανικής συγκυριαρχίας”, Hagen Fleisher, Κρήτη, vol. 2 (Ηράκλειο: Β.Δ.Β. Ηρακλείου, 1988) p. 519.


 * Again who was the publisher? Β.Δ.Β. Ηρακλείου is the public library of Heraklion, is this then a manuscript or what?

The Battle of Lochria of Psiloritis was a major battle in Crete during the Civil War, with the Democratic Army led by Yiannis Podias - see “H μάχη στην Λοχριά του Ψηλορείτη”, Κokkinoς Φακελος, 5 July 2011, http://kokkinosfakelos.blogspot.com/2011/07/h.html (accessed 22/01/2012).

Pincrete (talk) 22:03, 4 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Another blog dedicated to Greek communist history, written by a non-historian I believe.

Major rewrite required 2014
I've just added this new section in order that any NEW discussion can take place her. I draw attention however to the two sections above, where specific and general objections are raised (none of which have been either answered or remedied). I've today put out a request to other editors on the Greece project to give the article a 'health check'.Pincrete (talk) 18:07, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Bougatsa42, over a year ago I listed the above detailed objections to the sources you have used. Apart from some being 'blogs' from non-historians, apart from some (appearing) to have never been published (neither the city of Heraklion nor the public library of that city are publishers to my knowledge), apart from them having been self-translated by you (which is normally only allowed in exceptional circumstances, because it deprives the reader and editors of any opportunity to verify content), apart from ALL these, the primary purpose of this material seems, to be not to 'tell the story' as recorded by most RS, but some WP:Coatrack purpose (is 'testimony of 3 villages' really helping the reader by being in some time or thematic sequence), and you also happily insert WP:synth into both the text and the citations (some of which I have attempted to remove, only to find that nothing is left!).

I'm giving you a last chance to defend this material.Pincrete (talk) 15:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC) … … ps Having re-looked at British-EAM section, it's almost impossible to find any content in the whole section that isn't PoV, synth or non-RS! Bougatsa42, your 'interpretation' of the two sentence remark by J.M Stevens stands out as a particularly glaring example of WP:Synth … does Stevens come ANYWHERE NEAR saying that British policy was to attack EAM? Because if he didn't, you are left with your opinion supported by a bunch of bloggers who 'know in their bones' that this was British policy (and one or two historians who MAY have something useful to say, but which is lost in a sea of speculation and conspiracy theory).

I've recently put out a 'call for help' on the Greece project page, so far 'no takers'. I intend therefore to remove all or most of several sections … … 1) Anti-British opinions by (sic) EAM. This whole section is so wholly dependent on synth and dubious sources (see above for details) that I cannot see any other way to precede. … … 2)Three Ierapetra villages – the testimony of Vangelis Grassos, anything which may be of value here belongs to an 'aftermath' section, and needs to be given some context (many sources say that post-war reprisals were rare on Crete, both cannot be wholly true) … … 3) much of The Aftermath seems to be concerned with what happened ELSEWHERE not on Crete, therefore, if included, context needs to be given. I will also ASAP provide a link here to the removed material in order that others may be able to access it in order to reconstruct anything of value there. I have taken this drastic step very reluctantly, having tried to pursue other methods for over a year. I have also added some 'refs needed' tags to the page, also pointing out some of the contradictions within the present page.Pincrete (talk) 14:17, 20 August 2014 (UTC) … … ps I have now done the 'drastic prune' described here, the link to the pre-pruned article is. Pincrete (talk) 16:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC) … … pps this page remains on my watch list and if anyone wants my input on expanding it ..... let me know by simply leaving a reply here.Pincrete (talk) 14:03, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality vis-a-vis the various groups
The article at present slighly misrepresents - or sidesteps, the political affiliations of the various groups. Beevor claims that the majority of Cretan groups were 'Venizelist' (ie non- or sometimes anti-communist). Greek sources sometimes 'play up' the communist role in Crete (which I believe WAS much more significant in mainland Greece). There were sometimes, but not often, clashes between the two groups on Crete. The article slightly misrepresents this at present IMO.

There were also other groups who had no affiliation, or switched affiliation pragmatically, but tended to operate as 'loose cannons' - in the best traditions of Cretan banditry! We don't cover these at present at all, nor the difficulties at time of getting groups to work together - nor the British decisions towards the end of the war to 'suspend' resistance activity and effectively 'protect' the Germans - which is/was seen as a betrayal by many Cretans. Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Who is responsible for a what a Nazi does? I say the Nazi.
This section:

"The Cretan rebels, particularly in the region of Mount Kedros along with the rest of the rebels in the Amari plateau and the village of Anogeia near Rethymnon, were responsible for most of the German reprisals. German interventions into those regions were undertaken against civilians as a result of their well-renowned penchant for insurrection:

"... The German reasons for their onslaught were that these villages were all hotbeds of bandits, the haunts of the British, hiding places of terrorists, refuges for commandos attacking aerodromes and supply dumps, the hiding places for unnumbered weapons, and the supply point for hundreds of bad men ...""

I don't like the idea that the rebels are "responsible" for Nazi massacres. I'm going to rewrite it to better reflect the quote, and the reasonable position that only the Nazis are responsible for their murdering. I could just change "responsible" to "a target of", but that seems to miss that the victims were not necessarily members of the resistance.

I also question the bias, and inaccuracy, inherent in murdering being referred to as "interventions".

I think this quote would work much better without the editoralising of whoever wrote it's introduction.

Having looked at the original source (a memoir by a british comando) think a more academic (and accurate) explanation of the quote would be:

"After detailing how he heard German occupiers systematically blowing up every house in four villages, a British commando offered this interpretation of German motivation:

Here's the paragraph the quote appears in.

"“About midday, there was noise like far-off thunder from the south-east away beyond our hideout; it sounded like a naval battle. We only learnt what it was that evening. The Germans were first bombing and then blowing up with dynamite, house by house in their methodical fashion, the villages of Saktouria, Margarikari, Lokria and Kamares; nobody executed, as far as we could discover. Owing to the disturbed situation, most of the inhabitants were outside their villages, especially at night. The German reasons for this onslaught were that these villages were all hotbeds of bandits, the haunts of the British, hiding places of terrorists, refuges for commandos attacking aerodromes and supply dumps, the hiding places for unnumbered weapons, and the supply point for hundreds of bad men. In Lokria, it said in the official bulletin the next day, there had been no less than ten British officers on the 3rd of May: double the numbers of BLOs in the island...." CrickedBack (talk) 07:14, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
 * 1)It isn't 'after detailing' - it is detailing. 2) Quotes should be kept short. 3) By 'commando' do you mean PL-F? If so 'agent' would be better. 4) You may not like an inference, but we need to stay within what sources say - but by avoiding direct quoting perhaps to prevent an unintended implication. Pincrete (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2022 (UTC)