Talk:German invasion of Greece/Archive 1

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)

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)

Informal review
I've already commented on the article in 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: 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:
 * Ask for a peer-review. Check 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.
 * 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 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)

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)

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  ;) --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)

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, . Ill go through my books and try to find more. Hossen27 05:01, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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. :-) •N i k o S il v e r•  20:58, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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 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)

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)

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)

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"
 * Per above.--Yannismarou 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * second paragraph of "British aid" - it didn't happen, so it seems less necessary - you might cut this entirely
 * Per above.--Yannismarou 08:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
 * 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)

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.

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)

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 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)

Invasion
We should use the name Invasion of Greece (1941) like Invasion of Yugoslavia-- TheFE ARgod (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-- TheFE ARgod (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)

Forces
In fact the English offered 100 tanks and 200 aircraft but not at the world war II .Actually in Greece immediately after the WWII was declared a civil war. It was a war between the communists which were called the left and the capitalists called the right. Those forces were offered then to the right. This doesn't mean anything else except that the right partisans at the time of the war were friendly in opossition with the left and they welcomed the English so they became friends.So at a difficult time the English had to help .However the numbers about the men offered during the WWII are accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.227.205.25 (talk) 17:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

German Strategy
I have fleshed out the description of the German strategy to highlight the reasons for the directions of their attacks and the strategic implications of these moves. What do you think? Tctwood (talk) 13:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Isn't it now overlapping with the content of "German plan of attack and assembly"? I think your analysis fits better there.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Tsolakoglou-jodl-ferrero-1941-04-23.jpeg
The image Image:Tsolakoglou-jodl-ferrero-1941-04-23.jpeg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check


 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --18:46, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

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

The German's took Greece 'fast' because the overwhelming bulk of the Greek armed forces were in Albania, where they refused to yield one inch to the hated Italian's. --Nikoz78 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit
Having just completed a comprehensive copyedit on this article, I have found a number of peculiarities of which the quote below, which I have not touched, is the worst:

"and captured 565 Italians (15 officers and 50 soldiers)." 15 + 50 = 65, so what happened to the other 500?
 * I forgot a "5"! Corrected.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:35, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, there are several mistakes in the 'Battle of Greece timeline' box, eg '72d' instead of '72nd'. So, how does one get at the timeline box which is shown immediately below the 'Assessments' section merely as 'Battle of Greece timeline' in the edit window? RASAM (talk) 16:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You just go to its own page (Template:Battle of Greece timeline infobox)! I fixed the "n" you mentioned. Thanks!--Yannismarou (talk) 17:38, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

yugoslavia
why are soldiers of yugoslavia not mentioned in the box? all german soldiers used for this campaign are mentioned. And why are all italians are listed which took part in the greeco italian war? Blablaaa (talk) 04:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Heroes fight like Greeks
I have removed the quote "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks" attributed to Churchill. In fact it was a quote from Francis Noel-Baker that either was repeated by Churchill, either it was misattributed for other reasons (e.g. Churchill is more famous, making the quote stronger). More information about this: el:Συζήτηση:Γερμανική εισβολή στην Ελλάδα -- geraki T L 21:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Why remove the quote when you can simply change the attribution? Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Quotes take their power from the person who said them. If it's not from Churchill then the quote is not as notable as it would be. Also, among other things, we cannot find the exact quote; it seems that everybody is translating the quote from greek to english and not the opposite. Two flavors of the quote are "Hence we will not say that Greeks fight like heroes, but that heroes fight like Greeks" (the one used in the article) and "Τoday we say that Greeks fight like heroes, from now on we will say that heroes fight like Greeks". There is no way to find the original quote from Churchill, thus the wording of the quote itself depends on the source used as a reference. -- geraki T L 14:28, 18 June 2010 (UTC)


 * In this documentary, at it's beginning, there is an audio clip of Churchill speaking the quote in question. 77.83.130.249 (talk) 19:49, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

German offer of immunity
I repeat what user Yannismarou deleted:  Simultaneously the Greek government rejected a German offer of immunity from invasion in return for neutrality.

I have credited the source. You can read this book for yourself. I am not saying the Greeks were not heroic, or did something bad, just reporting the German offer, which was probably tantamount to capitulation anyway. I realize Wikipedia is a cartoon version of a real encyclopedia, as it's not peer reviewed, so I'm afraid my entry will be deleted again. In any event, hopefully this Talk fragment will remain. Raylopez99 (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I opened a new section on that at the end of the page, because I did not see on time this edit of yours.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Campaignbox
Is there a campaignbox template listing the various battles and operations related to the Battle of Greece (such as Operations Luste and Demon, the Battle of Cape Matapan, and pretty much enverything main linked in the article)? If not, would it be worth creating one? -- saberwyn 03:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

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)
 * This is an old discussion thread, but I think it worth mentioning that the Greek version of this article is called "German Invasion of Greece". Scartboy (talk) 13:44, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

British expeditionary force

 * Simultaneously the Greek government rejected a German offer of immunity from invasion in return for neutrality.

I removed the aforementioned edit (temporarily), because it makes no sense! It does not fit to the rest of the story! Neutrality was what Greece offered from the first moment to Italy. But Italy rejected this proposal, and asked free passage for its troops to occupy Greek territories. How is it possible for Greece to have rejected a German proposal, which was exactly what it wanted?! After all, Metaxas' successors and Papagos wanted to keep a distance from the British, because they still hoped that they could convince the Germans that they are neutral, in order to avoid their assault. Taking into consideration that, why did they reject such a German proposal for neutrality, which (as we say in Greece) was butter for their bread?! And, since the German assault was already decided by Hitler, how did he propose something that could have messed his plans for a blitz attack! Is there some misunderstanding here? Was it maybe a "fake" neutrality proposal with a background we do not know? Can the editor of the aforementioned edit provide us the exact text from Calvocoressi's book? And by the way who is the author and what is the chapter? Because Calvocoressi is the editor.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

So, my problem is not to defend the heroism of Greeks as Raylopez implies! Reading the article, one realizes that this is not my interest as editor. My problem is that this sentence is not in accord with the rest of the story. I thus try to understand it, and see how it fits with the rest of the facts we know. Writing history does not mean that we collect cited sentences, and then we make a puzzle. The procedure is much more complex! Our main duty is to correlate events and properly place them within the broader context. So my question is as simple as that: Greece proposed neutrality to Italy. Italy said no! This not enough! Then, according to Raylopez, Germany proposes neutrality to Greece. Why did Greece said no, since this is what it wanted (and for this reason it still kept its distances from the British)?--Yannismarou (talk) 17:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Well you ask good questions. But you don't seem to realize that Greece was far from neutral: it was squarely on the side of the British. Mind you, I am glad they fought for the Allies, but they paid a heavy price, both during and especially after the war, when I believe they suffered more casualties than suffered by the USA in the entire war. As for Calvocoressi et al, the text speaks for itself. I guess one synthesis is as follows: Greece could have, like I believe Hácha's government in Czechoslovakia in 1939, authorized capitulation to the Germans, and avoided the bloodshed of the Athens occupation and more so the Battle of Crete. But this is alternative history. And besides the Greek resistance was a moral boost for the allies, even if you don't believe that (as most neutral historians do not) it delayed much, if at all, German's invasion of Russia. Raylopez99 (talk) 15:09, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not glad or not glad. We don't deal with sentiments here. We deal with a FA and with events. What Calvocoressi says does not agree with what all the other sources say and with the line of events. I asked you to provide the exact text and you don't do it. I asked you to tell us who is the author of the text (I repeat that Calvocoressi is just the editor), and you don't do it again. I ask you to explain the inconsistency with the rest of the events, and you don't do it again. You just tell me some vague ideas about what Greece should have done. I don't care! This is not my problem! You say that I don't seem to realize that Greece was far from neutral. Firstly, I've read sources after sources while editing the article, so, believe me, I realize more than you think. Secondly, you don't seem to realize that with Italy heavily involved in Albania and with Hitler having already issued Directives 18 and 20 for invasion, neutrality seems the only thing he could not have offered! It is completely irrational and incoherent with the rest of the events!! At least, in my eyes! Please, once again, provide the exact text and the author of your source. I do not rejec the source, but I need to understand the context. Thanks in advance!--Yannismarou (talk) 15:25, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Ti malakas. Three authors wrote the book in various stages, which actually is two books in one (European and Pacific theaters of war). You have to ask them who wrote the passage. The exact text is not with me, but this book is available in any decent sized English library. But wait: you are in Greece, no? So you lack a decent sized library of any sort: the national library in downtown Athens is in shambles and a joke. You seem to use the exclamation point a lot! Are you excitable?! Perhaps that explains why you refuse to be objective! Now think logically for once in your life: if Greece had "rolled over" and agreed to be occupied by Hitler, do you think Hitler would have invaded anyway? Hitler was mad (crazy), but not that mad. Anyway, I see from the timeliness of your reply that you "live here" 24/7 (oli mera) and so nothing will go past your censorous eye, which is like the Cyclops and escapes nothing. So I will merely insult you here and leave it at that! Goodbye patrioti! (Ti vlakas). Raylopez99 (talk) 21:15, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Dear Raylopez99:


 * 1) You are correct and I am wrong. Indeed, Calvocaressi is author and not editor. My mistake and I apologize!
 * 2) What do you mean that the exact text is not with you? How did you edit the article then?
 * 3) I am not in Greece!
 * 4) I am in Athens neither! But, by the way, Athen's library is quite nice. However, if you think that it has a shortage of English books (which I am not sure is the case), you can help your patriots by donating some.
 * 5) Yes, I use the exclamation point a lot, because I like it! Despite that, I am obviously less excitable than you are.
 * 6) I try to think logically, but, trying to think logically and follow you at the same time, is a bit difficult! Forgive me, If sometimes I do not manage to effectively combine both tasks.
 * 7) I did not say that Greece had agreed to be occupied by Hitler. Read again my previous posts, and you may understand what I say.
 * 8) Yes, Hitler had to invade Greece, because Metaxas, although wanted to be neutral, had already denied to allow free passage of Italian and German troups from Greek soil. And free passage of his troops in Greek soil was what Musolini had demanded. Especially after Musolini got in trouble in Albania, Hitler had no other hoice but to invade. He could not abandon Musolini, even if Greece decided to "roll over" (to what?!). Invasion was his only logical exit from the situation he faced. What was his alternative? A neutral Greece but a defeated ally (Italy)? No way! Greece could no more be sovereign, because this would consitute an Italian humiliation. But, anyway, what has all that to do with what we discuss? Your remarks are incoherent.
 * 9) I am glad you study Greek mythology. You know, people who edit articles, usually tend to watch them. If you ever do some serious editing here, wich is something I hope for you (I mean something else except from being blocked, warned for impoliteness etc. etc.), you will understand what I mean.
 * 10) What do you mean by "timeliness"? Do I have to reply a specific time of the day to your posts? I answer to you, every time I see something new from you in my watchlist. You have noticed its existence, haven't you?

Finally, dear editor, I would be honestly really interested in reading the exact text of Calvocaressi, if, of course, you ever find it in your own decent English library. Best.--Yannismarou (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Truth be told, the Calvocaressi et al. is a bit ambiguous in places--perhaps this is why I took it to mean there was a rejected ultimatum. For example, on ambiguity, the book implies Metaxas was in exile when the Germans invaded, whereas in fact he was dead by then. So perhaps this is all a misunderstanding. Raylopez99 (talk) 14:02, 24 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Marek2 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) The article mentions Palestinians ???? troops in the BEF : what does it mean ? Isn't it meant for Polish troops of the Independant Carpathian Rifle Brigade, initially planned for taking part in this task force ? Marek2 (talk) 10:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) ::
 * Palestinians, as well as Cypriots, were present as auxiliaries in the BEF. For instance, from a battle of Crete order of battle, I find the "606 Palestine Pioneer Company", as well as the "1004, 1005, 1007, 1008 Cypriot Pioneer Companies".--Xristar (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Marek2 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC) Thank you so much for this explanation, but it seems that since Palestine was at that time under British mandate, the term 'Palestinian' is not quite adequate, and you're right to mention 'Palestine Pioneer Cy' instead of 'Palestinian Pioneer Cy' ...Marek2 (talk) 19:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Marek2 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC) Forces from Palestine doens't necessarily mean Palestinian forces, in which case you would have to specify whether Arab Palestinians or Jews from Palestine, OK ? Marek2 (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true. I don't remember where exactly I had read that, but its correct that the British gave the term "Palestine" on a geographical basis, and a "Palestine pioneer company" could easily consist of Jews.--Xristar (talk) 09:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

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)

While browsing the internet, I came across a very interesting summation on the causalty subject: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=76&t=34545

1. Hitler's statements to the Reichstag on 04.05.1941: 1,099 KIA 385 MIA 3,752 WIA

2. A "medical report" written shortly after the campaign: Heer and W-SS KIA 17 officers, 1050 men MIA 13 officers, 372 men WIA 181 officers, 3571 men Luftwaffe KIA 15 officers, 84 men MIA 40 officers, 123 men WIA 25 officers, 124 men

3. Feldgrau.com website - http://www.feldgrau.com/stats.html : 1,206 KIA 534 MIA 3,915 WIA

4. German report written on 06.02.1945 (Organizationsabteilung d. Gen.Stb. d. OKH. 6 Feb 45)- includes only casualties of Feldheer and probably includes Waffen-SS casualties as well: 1,593 KIA 644 MIA 4,845 WIA

5. Balkanfeldzug.de and de.Wikipedia.org websites: 2,559 KIA 3,169 MIA 5,820 WIA

The author of this summary believes that version 4 is the one closest to the truth. A more complete version (with a full reference to the source: "Organizationsabteilung d. Gen,Stb. d. OKH. 6 Feb 45, NARA T78, R414, F3226-3227") can be found at http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=161189&start=195

Losses in the Feldheer KIA WIA MIA Total Poland 8,082 27,278 5,029 40,389 Norway 1,166 1,548 1,091 3,805 France 27,650 115,299 13,607 156,556 Balkans 1,593 4,845 644 7,082 Total 38,491 148,970 20,371 207,832

with the additional comment:

"This report apparently refers only to losses within the Feldheer, although it may include Waffen-SS losses as well. It appears that it does not include losses in Luftwaffe ground or airborne formations. For instance the losses quoted for the Balkans must certainly exclude 7. Flieger Division losses on Crete, which were probably 1,032 KIA, 1,632 WIA and 1,759 MIA."

Although it is probably impossible to determine with absolute certainty the exact German casualties during their balkan campaign, I think we could use this version, or at least include minimum-maximum numbers in the table, with a more detailed paragraph in the text.--Xristar (talk) 14:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Great research, Xristar! There is indeed a problem in the article with finding the accurate number of German losses. Currently, we rely on what Hitler said, but this is obviously not enough ... On the other side, it is not maybe wise to use primary sources (such as the Report 4), if this has not been treated by a secondary one. See WP:PRIMARY. And even in order to just mention the numbers of 4, the report must be "reliably published". Is it? A forum discussing it is obviously not enough. We could possibly be more flexible with Feldgrau (since it is a history research site) numbers, but, again, I would feel more confortable if Feldgrau had mentioned its sources. In any case, I believe that we should limit the "Casualties" issue into the infobox. I think that a new section on this issue would be extremely complicated, and it would confuse the readers without any reason. All the relevant information could be included in the infobox, as it happens now.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

The casualty figures are obviously wrong. How could the Germans possibly engage in heavy fighting, as the attacking force, and only have 1,099 dead?! I suggest that if no better figure can be found it should be left as "Unknown", with a foot note refering to Hitler's figures.Tuntable (talk) 05:05, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

The lede
I really get angry when somebody edits a FA article without even knowing the basics in WP. Therefore, let's start from the basics:


 * 1) The lede does not need sources for an issue which is in depth analysed in the main article, and where sources are already given. It is counter-productive; it is simply bad editing to fill the lede with many sources. In our case, there is a whole section in this article called "Assessment" where various sources are given. The editor who put the ugly "citation needed" in the last paragraph of the lede is just ignorant about how an article is written (and if have seen them earlier I would have removed them). The editors who added sources in the lede in almost every sentence of it (!), they just did not care to pay attention to the "Assessment" section (if they had done it, they would have seen that the last paragraph of the lede is already extensively sourced in the relevant section) and then just harmonize this section with the lede.
 * 2) This is a FA. Therefore, there must be a consistency as regards the way citations and sources are added. It is therefore bad editing to add citations with new sourcesn (in a different format than the already chosen) which are then not added in the relevant "Sources" section. There was even a "Rintelen" citation (which I obviously removed) without any mentioning of this source in the "Sources" section! How was it possible this incomplete "source" not to be removed?!
 * 3) The lede is a summary of the article. Therefore, we first create the article, and we then summarize it in the lede. It makes no sense to put stuff in the lede about the assessment of the battle (e.g. about its possible relation with the delay of the Malta assault), and then mention nothing of this stuff in the relevant "Assessment" section! Isn't this also bad writing?

Everybody is of course welcome to edit the article, but please take into serious consideration the fact that it is FA (and it has to remain one), and that some guys worked their ass in order to make it a FA and follow all the revelant editing standards and referencing/MoS rules. Please, try to improve it and not to mess it!--Yannismarou (talk) 06:21, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

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.

There are two essential issues here making the most popular google result a bad choice:

First, in order to name something, reason should be "recruited" and not public preferences (i.e. Google, even if this has to do with names given by Greeks in this particular case). In Greece its call the Greco Italian war, the antifascist struggle, the heroic 40's or the Italian Invasion, at least officially in celebrations.

Second, is that the Greco-Italian part of WWII is underestimated, in terms of its significance, in this passage. Since this war started and for a year up to 1940, Oct 28 there was no victorious march for the allies, there was no progression in any front only short term retreats and losses. In addition Greece won the italians in 6 months. No front had lasted for that long.

The first victory against the axis obviously revived hope for the occupied Europeans in terms of Morale. It was the first time the axis success was questioned. Then there is Battle of Crete, fought by Cretans and the British, that lasted three months. This is significant as well since it prolonged the duration of the Axis invasion to the point that Nazi armies where caught by the winter for the Barbarossa Operation. Hence this should be called the battle of Crete.

These should be considered for an accurate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.1.187.239 (talk) 03:24, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Copyedit
Feedback encouraged! Comments:


 * Who is Simpson?


 * Switched date formats, given that the subject matter is entirely European.


 * Removed "enemy" appellation in favor of neutrally identifying both sides.


 * I'd like to see text on casualties and casualty rates. They're quite different across the various forces.

Cheers! Lfstevens (talk) 20:09, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Let's talk about this. Please state why you think the paragraph is nonsense?
Hi Nick,

What are you doing? The paragraph by Sadkovich is fully referenced. Let's come to some compromise here.AnnalesSchool (talk) 04:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Please see the above thread. Nick-D (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Claim that German forces didn't engage in much fighting or save the Italian forces
I've just removed the addition of this material. It presents the somewhat revisionist views of a single historian as being a fact, and the claim that "British and Greeks retreated so quickly before the Germans that the latter had few opportunities to fight them" is factually wrong: there was some pretty intensive fighting. The implication that Italian forces fighting the Greeks didn't need German intervention is also dubious, as is the implication that Italian forces continued to fight enthusiastically until mid-1943. It might be worth noting the historians views as his own (per WP:NPOV), but they shouldn't be presented as a fact. Nick-D (talk) 04:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Fine, let's note the historian's view "as his own". Revise it the way you think is fair.AnnalesSchool (talk) 04:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)


 * On checking the source, I see that you've simply copied and pasted these sentences from it. That's a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 04:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

How can it be a violation if I cited the author? Are you talking about not putting in quotation marks?AnnalesSchool (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:COPYVIO. Anotherclown (talk) 23:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Recent dubious tags
Gday - dubious tags have recently been added to this information:
 * The Führer ordered the release and repatriation of all Greek prisoners of war, as soon as they had been disarmed, "because of their gallant bearing."[13][157][dubious – discuss]
 * According to Hitler's Chief of Staff, Field Marshal Wilhelm Keitel, the Führer "wanted to give the Greeks an honorable settlement in recognition of their brave struggle and of their blamelessness for this war: after all the Italians had started it."i[›][dubious – discuss]

From looking at Google preview this information seems to be included in The Cruel Slaughter of Adolf Hitler by Karsten Friedrich (2012) - see |here and |here. As I only have preview view I can't find a page number but if anyone has this work it could be added as a reference. Anotherclown (talk) 00:14, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: "The Cruel Slaughter of Adolf Hitler", cited above, appears to be a self-published book published via lulu.com, and so cannot be used as a source for Wikipedia articles, per WP:RS. -- The Anome (talk) 08:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Howdy - thanks for checking this. From searching Google Books some of the wording for the information near the dubious and cn tags is very similar to that in this source. Wonder which copied which and what the way forward is? Perhaps find alternative sources and reword? Anotherclown (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ This has been resolved now, thanks Nick and Keith. Anotherclown (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

CE
Found a reference for a citation needed and blammed a few typos, although with the English spell checker set to "kill" some of them may have been American usages rather than errors, so feel free to revert as desired. Keith-264 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks Keith, much appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 04:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * S'right, do you know if there's a convention on citation placement? I used to put some in mid-sentence when it was gleaned from more than one source but now favour lining them up after the full stop. Keith-264 (talk) 07:10, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Gday again. I have the same dilemma at times and generally make the assessment on a case by case basis. WP:CITEFOOT says "The citation should be added close to the material it supports, offering text–source integrity. If a word or phrase is particularly contentious, an inline citation may be added next to that word or phrase within the sentence, but it is usually sufficient to add the citation to the end of the sentence or paragraph, so long as it's clear which source supports which part of the text." So I guess its a judgement call. Anotherclown (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Consequences for the Eastern Front
"As an explanation of Germany's calamitous defeat in the Soviet Union, this had little to commend it." - I honestly needed quite some time before understanding this sentence. Is there an acceptable way to say it in simpler words? And the introduction in Greco-Italian War takes the opposite position: "Some historians, such as John Keegan, argue that it may have influenced the course of the entire war by forcing Germany to postpone the invasion of the Soviet Union in order to assist Italy against Greece. The delay meant that the German forces invading the Soviet Union had not attained their objectives for that year before the harsh Russian winter, leading to their defeat at the Battle of Moscow." - is it possible to reach consensus versions here? --KnightMove (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Most historians are now of the view that the Italo-Greek war did not delay Operation Barbarossa and the invasion of Russia significantly. Therefore Keegan's views are not entirely correct and should be discounted. The delay was a combination of factors, such as an unusually wet winter that kept rivers at full flood until late spring and insufficient logistics and planning errors committed by the Germans themselves. The responsibility to delay the invasion was Hitler's and Hitler's alone. We must stop this habit of blaming the Italians for the mistakes of others.

AnnalesSchool (talk) 15:36, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The weather in Poland was perfectly normal and did not delay Barbarossa in any way, shape or form, no matter what Guderian claimed. Most of the forces that participated in both Marita and Barbarossa were withdrawn from Greece in a timely manner and had ample time to refit. The delay was far more the result of German failures in logistics and weapon and truck production. See Zapantis, Hitler's Balkan Campaign and the Invasion of the USSR and Van Creveld, Hitler's Strategy 1940–1941: The Balkan Clue.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:01, 30 May 2014 (UTC)


 * Jay Baird, in his review of Creveld, disagrees ("Hitler wanted his right wing secured before moving eastward, and therefore the March 1941 coup in Belgrade and the Wehrmacht's subsequent offensive in Yugoslavia most decidedly contributed to the delay of the onslaught against the Soviet Union"). There are some historians who have decried the "myth" of a Balkan-induced defeat before Moscow, but there are still a lot who argue in favour of it as well (or who have made such an argument within the last 20 years). I have not read Zapantis, but the review of him in Holocaust Genocide Studies by Michael Salevouris says that his thesis is that the Greeks alone (and neither the weather nor the Yugoslavs) caused the delay in Barbarossa. The reviewer argues that the German generals did not in fact blame the weather (rather, "if the Balkan campaign had not delayed the invasion of Russia, bad weather would have"). William Kaatz's thesis "German invasion of the Balkans and its effect on Barbarossa" (1965) admits that the delay was made to accommodate the invasion of Yugoslavia, but then says that it would have happened regardless because of the weather. Salevouris would find this reasoning odd. Srnec (talk) 14:23, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Anti-Italian bias notable in several locations in this article.
Hello,

I've noticed several anti-Italian quotes that should be deleted because they make the article appear too anti-Italian. For example, there is the quote by Field Marshal Keitel about the Italians insisting on a parade through Athens. I'll sure the inserted quote is correct, but why was it chosen and given prominence? Simply choosing quotes that are accurate in source but appear gratuitous and cast the Italians in an unnecessarily bad light which they do not deserve. There is a fundamental question here of Wiki principles of fairness and balance.

Therefore, I humbly ask permission to delete them. If I do not hear of any serious objections in the next seven days, I will proceed to delete these gratuitous quotes in order to improve balance, fairness and neutrality.AnnalesSchool (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree with deleting these without more discussion and the agreement of other editors. I see no reason why these view points shouldn't be included. NPOV doesn't mean removing critical content, it means including all reasonable interpretations available in reliable sources. So if alternative interpretations do exist pls present them here and if consensus develops for there inclusion then that can occur. The key though will be providing the information you want to include and references. Not just changing text you don't like. Anotherclown (talk) 23:39, 11 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with Anotherclown. We are not here to mitigate the historic Italian fiasco in the name of NPOV. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It was never an "Italian fiasco" as you claim. Strange that the so-called "Italian fiasco" ended with Italy occupying two-thirds of Greece and its islands. With more "fiascos" like this one, Italy could even have won the war. The more "fiascos" the Italians produce, the more territory they seem to win.AnnalesSchool (talk) 18:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The great majority of reliable sources, which you dismiss, paint a picture of a veritable Italian fiasco. No amount of personal attacks will change that. But if you continue the attacks you may well be blocked. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 00:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

'''The quarrel over the troops' victorious entry into Athens was a chapter to itself: Hitler wanted to do without a special parade, to avoid injuring Greek national pride. Mussolini, alas, insisted on a glorious entry into the city for his Italian troops. The Führer yielded to the Italian demand and together the German and Italian troops marched into Athens. This miserable spectacle, laid on by our gallant ally, must have produced some hollow laughter from the Greeks. Wilhelm Keitel[109]'''

I propose that this insert box be deleted because it casts the Italians in too bad a light. It does nothing to enhance the article's balance and neutrality, but in fact, detracts from it. Why was Keitel's view highlighted in the first place? Was it designed to denigrate the Italians? Simply because a German general had this view, doesn't mean it has to be included in the article. Why give undue weight to Keitel's opinion, which is after all, his own opinion. It is not a fact; just an opinion from a German general. Or was it put there to denigrate the eventual occupation of most of Greece by the Italians?AnnalesSchool (talk) 18:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Obviously I didn't include it in the first place but I don't see anything particularly wrong with that quote. One assumes it was placed to provide some insight into the alliance politics that existed at the time. It is also appropriately attributed and one assumes Keitel's recount holds more weight than just "opinion". At any rate the "miserable spectacle" he seems to be referring to is the parade itself not the campaign. Why is that such an issue for you? Too me this just looks like trying to get rid of anything that is critical of the Italians and mirrors your edits / talk page proposals across a range of articles and is in itself POV. Anotherclown (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to bring a sense of "balance" and impartiality back to such articles. Why was it put in an insert box and highlighted? I suspect the reason Keitel's quote (which is erroneous anyway) was put there to denigrate the Italians. Why? Because I strongly believe that some of the Wiki editors are partisan and are desirous in an under-handed way, to portray the Italians in a bad light, reinforcing stereotypes that they themselves have carried forward from biased and unfriendly Anglo authors like Charles Cruickshank, Alan Levine, B. H. Liddell Hart, Denis Mack Smith,J. R. Thackrah and Knox (just to name a few).

There's no real need for the Keitel quote. It's just there to remind the readers that even in victory, the Italians should be ignored and denigrated. AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * explained this already to you and I happen to agree with his assessment. You have a general problem with quotes. This problem is so bad that you altered verbatim quotes from reliable sources by going into the reference templates and editing them. I guess you wanted to censor the verdict of historians. I am unable to help you with that. The verdict of history is in and has been in for quite some time as the reliable sources indicate. No amount of wishing the opposite or searching for the WP:TRUTH can change that. It was an Italian fiasco of historic proportions and history reflects that, revisionism notwithstanding. The underdog simply proved too much for Mussolini's fascist dogs of war. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις  16:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)