Jump to content

Talk:German invasion of Greece/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Recent removal of claimed copy vio material

As I said on Dr. K's talk page I have no issue with him removing copy vio material if it is present in an article, as by all means that is required by policy; however, after these changes the rest of the paragraph doesn't make any sense. Firstly, pls provide evidence that it is a copy violation and secondly if you are going to remove information pls take care not to make the remainder of the paragraph impossible to understand. Not sure how its my responsibility to fix your edit, surely if you decide its your duty to remove copy vio material then you should do it in the appropriate manner without turning the article into gibberish. At this stage you haven't even provided any evidence it is a copy vio in the first place. Anotherclown (talk) 01:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll make my concern clear. Dr. K's edit [1] seems to have removed the key sentence "Hitler attributed great blame to Mussolini's invasion of Greece as the cause of his subsequent catastrophe", leaving just: "This explanation for Germany's calamitous defeat by the Soviet Union has been refuted by the majority of historians..." etc. Reading it now though I'm left asking "what explanation"? Surely if the sentence you removed was a copy vio we could just reword it rather than delete it? As I do not have access to the source though I cannot do this. Dr K. - I assumed you had read the source since you state it is a copy vio so why is it a problem for me to ask you fix this? Is it too much to ask that you actually respond to my query politely without you reverting my notes repeatedly [2][3][4]? Or do you consider that you are above such requests? Also if you are going to delete content stating it is copy vio I don't believe it is too much to ask you to prove that it is a copy vio. What is to stop disruptive editors from deleting anything and just stating "copy vio" if they don't have to provide evidence of this? Honestly, I don't believe anything I have said in this rather strange episode was rude, although I find your behavior to be well beyond the pale. My concern is for the quality of the article, which has ultimately been diminished by your edit. Its no ones responsibility to fix other people's edits, but it is reasonable to think we would take responsibility for our own edits. You caused a problem with the article trying to fix another problem and I asked you to fix what you had done. I do so again. Anotherclown (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
@Diannaa: - Dr K. mentioned you in their edit summary stating: "Don't restore copyvios. See identical removal by Diannaa on Greco Italian war" in response to me asking for proof it was a copy vio. As such would it be possible for you to respond to my query given they won't? Can you pls confirm it is a copy vio? Also do you have access to the source and if so might the information be able to be reworded and inserted back in the paragraph so that it actually makes some sense? Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 02:24, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anotherclown. Dr K lives in Greece so he will be sleeping at the moment. The material was copied word for word from Kershaw, Ian (2007). Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World, 1940–1941. Allen Lane. ISBN 978-0-7139-9712-5.. It's at the top of page 178. There's a related thread on my talk page: User talk:Diannaa#Copyvio on Greco-Italian war. I have added a wee bit of content from Kershaw to try to fix the problem. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:48, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for this Diannaa - that is all I was asking for in the first place. Anotherclown (talk) 04:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you Dianna. Although I know that you can detect copyvios better than most and you obviously don't need the instructions I am about to give, having seen the invective just above your post, I feel that I have to provide some clarifications to address the points made in those posts. Since I was accused that I did not provide proof that there was a copyvio, I want to make clear, that proof is not needed because anyone can verify that a passage is a copyvio in a few easy steps: Step 1. Locate the edit where the copyvio is found. Step 2. Pick a string of reasonable length from the copyvio, ex.: "Looking back near the end of the war, as Germany's inevitable and impending defeat loomed, Hitler attributed great blame to Mussolini's invasion of Greece" Step 3. Google the string from step 2 in Google Books Step 4. Check the output: "Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions That Changed the World," Step 5. Press the preview button to get the text. Another point is, that since the text was marked as a copyvio, it was already known. So it was not necessary to have the actual book available to paraphrase it. Therefore, anyone spotting the removal of the copyvio text could paraphrase it on the spot, without needing the five easy steps above. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 07:28, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
All of which ignores the issue which I originally raised on your talk page which was that you deleted a key sentence which then rendered the rest of the paragraph impossible to understand. I simply asked you to review the edit and see if that could be corrected. Really not sure how you think that that was unreasonable. Whilst I have every respect for those volunteers that devote their time to removing copy vios from the encyclopedia I fail to see how making it unreadable as a result is an improvement either. Take responsibility for YOUR edits - if you delete something because it is a copy vio simply ensure that it is replaced / or the remaining text makes sense. Somehow claiming it was my responsibility to fix your sloppy edit doesn't hold water and was just deflection on your part. I didn't add the copy vio. I merely noticed the error you introduced, and not possessing the means to correct it myself, asked if you could. Simple as that. Lastly, why should I have to check that your removal is valid? I asked you to prove it was a copy vio because you provided no evidence of that fact. If there is no burden of proof then any disruptive editor could remove text by labeling it as a "copy vio" without being challenged. Anyway this conversation is clearly going no where. Ultimately Dianna's far more constructive response has solved the copy vio issue and improved the article at the same time. Possibly an example of what you might consider doing yourself. Anotherclown (talk) 08:11, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The copyvio had to be removed on the spot, not copyedited. Copyediting takes time and during that time the copyvio is still visible. I did not have time to copyedit at the time so I removed the copyvio to prevent the damage that plagiarism could bring to the reputation of the project which dwarfs any minor incongruence regarding the content. So you got your priorities wrong and your repeated attacks of my edit as "sloppy" is unjustified and unfair. Second, as I explained to you copyvio detection is very simple, simple as Googling a string of characters, so again, I have no obligation to provide any proof to you that something is a copyvio, assuming that you can Google something. If after all I told you you don't understand or don't want to admit that, this is not my problem. If you spotted the problem and you saw the removed copyvio, you could easily paraphrase it and there was no reason to come to my talkpage to give me instructions. If you could not do it yourself I would have understood. But that was a copyedit which could have been done by you, and I repeat, you should not have demanded from me to do it because you should have assumed good faith as to why I was unable to do it, which you did not. You just came to my talkpage to patronise me over an edit which you could easily have done. Virtually anyone on this project could have done it and without fussing about it the way you did. This is a community effort. We don't have taskmasters here. If one volunteer does an edit and that edit needs copyediting due to lack of time or what have you, another volunteer comes and fixes the edit. They don't go to the talkpage of the volunteer who did the original edit to bicker about fixing his edit, especially if the edit is not that difficult to fix. And they don't attack the edit of the volunteer as "sloppy". You exhibit battleground mentality, not a community oriented one. I did my part, you should have done yours. You did not. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 08:44, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

A few potential improvements

Just raising some potential improvements to the article:

  • there are quite a few sources that don't have citations pointing to them
  • the citations in the infobox are unnecessary and clutter it up when it is already busy
  • Shores, Cull and Malizia's Air War for Yugoslavia, Greece and Crete has quite a bit of useful info about the air war that would benefit the article

Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 05:01, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Gday - I had a go at the harvn errors at least. Anotherclown (talk) 08:56, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Prelude to Disaster: The British Decision to Aid Greece, 1940-41 by Martin van Creveld

Creveld even goes as far as to maintain that the British policy towards Greece and its offers of assistance should the Germans invade Greece, was a cynical ploy to keep the unwitting Greeks in the war so as to serve British interests first and foremost.(Martin van Creveld (1974) Prelude to Disaster: The British Decision to Aid Greece, 1940-41).

I believe that his article clearly points to and argues convincingly that the British did just enough to keep the Greeks fighting, but not enough to keep neither the Italians nor the Germans out. In other words, rather cynically, the British delegation led primarily by Eden, scuttled any chance of a peace agreement between the Greeks and the Italians, in order to relieve the pressure for themselves in North Africa as the Greek front was drawing away arms and men that would have or could have gone to North Africa. Creveld is pointing out that the British fiasco in Greece , of promising much but offering little to the Greeks, by urging them to fight on, by their presence in Greece that almost assured that the Germans would get involved, and by British and Greece intransigence, led to the final downfall and brutal occupation of the country by the Germans, the Italians and the Bulgarians.

Creveld asks the question: Did the British force their aid on Greece? and the answer appears to be Yes, it did, much to the detriment of Greece. The importance of Greece to the British was mainly to safeguard the strategically important island of Crete in the defense of Egypt. Against the advice of his chiefs of staff, the defence of Greece resulted in another of Winston's long list of blunders.

This is what Creveld's article is about in the main, so it is valid to include all the page numbers of the article in full.AnnalesSchool (talk) 03:11, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

"in order to relieve the pressure for themselves in North Africa" Does van Creveld say this, or is this your interpretation?
"... was drawing away arms and men that would have or could have gone to North Africa..." Likewise.
Following the success of Operation Compass, there was no "pressure" in North Africa. It was quiet until 24 March, granted German and Italian reinforcements started arriving in January and February. Following Compass, British policy was to send aid to the Greeks and they started shipping troops on 2 March culminating in the removal of all experienced/battle tested troop from the territory captured from Compass. The replacement troops had their transport removed and sent to Greece. The arriving 2nd Armoured Division had much of its equipment sent to Greece, leaving practically no armoured support in North Africa (save a handful of tanks since the 7th Armoured had been sent back to Egypt with most of its equipment tore up).
There is a long list of sources that note just what a precarious position the British placed themselves in North Africa, due to a false sense of security and the want to support an expedition in Greece. Not to mention, studying the fighting in North Africa is a study of the logistical and maritime support needed to support the fighting: it is never as simple as more troops should or could have been sent. Does van Creveld argue that Italian and German troops were tied down in Greece that should have been sent North Africa?

"in order to relieve the pressure for themselves in North Africa" are my words to Van Creveld's argument.

This is what Van Creveld wrote in his "own words":

The British attitude was perfectly logical from a time antedating the attack until the middle of January; London wanted to keep Greece in the war and therefore nipped in the bud all Italo-Greek peace initiatives while furnishing such aid as was absolutely essential to keep the Greeks on their feet. But this policy made sense only so long as it was the Italians, not the Germans, whom Greece had to fight. Limited aid to Greece served to draw Italian forces away from Africa, but when the Germans appeared on the scene any attempt to keep her in the war, in so far as this was possible at all, would require so many British forces as to reverse the order of priorities and put Greece, instead of Africa, at the top of the list.(p.91)

Van Creveld's argument (according to my considered interpretation of it), is that the British used Greece as a way to siphon off Italian troops away from the North African theatre. However, once the Germans got involved and started to build up divisions in Romania and threaten intervention if the Greeks did not expel the British on its soil, the game changed. The British policy to bolster the Greeks with men and arms in order to keep the Greeks fighting the Italians, now backfired once the Germans got involved. And they became concerned for two reasons: British air bases in Greece would be within stricking distance of the Ploesti oil fields in Romania and b) to attack Russia, he needed his southern flank secured.AnnalesSchool (talk) 16:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't see where in the article van Creveld made a statement that the British strategy was a "cynical ploy" (a very strong claim), and from the above it appears that it's your interpretation of his argument rather than something he actually wrote. As such, it violates WP:SYNTH. More generally, I'm sceptical about the use of what's now a rather dated source. Nick-D (talk) 21:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
I have no dog in this fight, but a source from 1974 is hardly that dated. Srnec (talk) 23:25, 22 December 2014 (UTC)
A lot of developments in World War II historiography have occurred over the last 40 years... Nick-D (talk) 01:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Yes, and a lot of it just builds on what came before or is driven by fashion. It is one thing to say that deeper research has overturned previous consensus, or that there are now more competing viewpoints, or that an earlier debate has been more or less settled by a new consensus ... but it is another to be automatically sceptical of a source because its author is now a lot older. I am not defending van Creveld's views from 1974. I've never read him, but what I have read about him suggests I disagree with him. Moreover plenty of definitive works were written over forty years ago. Should we avoid the official histories for being both dated and biased? Srnec (talk) 03:56, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
No, of course not - I've drawn heavily on various World War II official histories in writing FAs (especially when nothing better has been subsequently written, which is sadly common for some topic areas) and own lots of them as they're generally great books which have stood the test of time. My concern here is that the analysis is 40 years old, and not informed by subsequent commentary on this topic - especially as van Creveld can be a bit out there in his analysis and needs to be used with some care as a result (he himself may no longer hold this view, for instance). Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Fetishism and reality

The article states that "As the invading Germans advanced deep into Greek territory, the Epirus Army Section of the Greek army operating in Albania was reluctant to retreat. General Wilson described this unwillingness as "the fetishistic doctrine that not a yard of ground should be yielded to the Italians."" This statement is doubly problematic. The first part is thoroughly untrue, as the Greek sources show quite clearly that the commanders of the Epirus army repeatedly had called for a retreat already before the German attack, but Papagos refused. The second, which is offered as an explanation of the first, is a) a personal opinion of someone who had himself quite a lot of laundry to wash in the whole affair and b) it ignores realities on the ground. There is an element of truth that the Greeks were resolutely opposed to giving in to the Italians, but "fetishism" it was not. As explained most recently by Stockings & Hancock (Swastika over the Acropolis, 2013), the Greek army simply lacked the material wherewithal to do such a major manoeuvre at this point while still engaged with the Italians. The Albanian front commanders clearly stated that any retreat might lead to collapse of their forces, and Papagos was aware of it. In addition, the rapidity of the Yugoslav collapse was unanticipated, and in view of the fact that joint Yugoslav and Greek offensives were planned, and actually executed, in Albania, the stance makes far more sense than the traditional, British-centric accounts would have us believe. Constantine ✍ 15:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks like a good thing to change Nick-D (talk) 22:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
OK, unless there are any more comments, I plan to start working on that as soon as I have more time... Constantine ✍ 15:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Some remarks and an expression of disapproval

Although I had promised myself not to ever again edit English Wikipedia, and especially articles I had rewritten in the past and successfully nominated for FA, I had today the impulsion to revisit Battle of Greece. This happened after reading the first volume of Hagen Fleischer's "Στέμμα και Σβάστικα", which I thought that might (or might not!) have some material useful for the article. This is why I decided to have a look at the article and see if it would be useful to re-edit it, making use of the book. When I started reading the article, I felt that I had in front my eyes a completely different text than the one I had last edited, which is not necessarily bad, since it indicates evolvement and interest in its content and since the last time I devotedly edited the article was about 5 years ago (how cruel time is!). Nevertheless, I am not sure that all the changes I rapidly noticed are for the best (of course, some are, since neither me or any other editor are infallible, and the activity of high calibre editors like Cplakidas are a guarantee for excellence).

First of all, I see a reluctance of some editors (especially the "newbies") to discuss their contributions before implementing them. They think that it is enough to start editing, without first carefully studying the structure, the content and the style of the article. For instance, correctly Cplakidas reversed some edits which belong to the Italian invasion article, since they were attaching undue focus on a story which is in detail narrated elsewhere.

My second remark is related to the first, and has to do with "rules of style" (I am so out of Wikipedia that I have forgotten the correct Wikipedian terminology) and consistency. The current editors of the article seem to fail to notice the distinction between "Notes", "Citations", and "References". For instance, bibliography mentioned in Citations is not repeated in References (in general, bibliography is now cited in an incoherent and inconsistent way), while Citations are filled with long cited texts, whose place should IMO be (rephrased, since avoiding to narrate the story of your sources yourself in a coherent paragraph, copying instead long paragraphs of the sources, is the easy solution IMHO) in Notes (if deemed necessary). At the same time, sources which are deemed not reliable secondary ones (Britannica) for a FA have intruded.

Allow me also to express my strong disapproval as regards the removal of "Homage to the Resistance" chapter. I searched the archive of this discussion page to see what led to the removal of a fully cited and coherently written chapter from a FA article (which never raised any reactions the years I was active here), but I found nothing. Maybe I did not search well. Anyway, I then searched the history of the article and I found out that the chapter was removed by editor Nick-D, because in his opinion it was "waffle", and not telling facts! Well, I completely disagree with this fallacious approach. The public statements or reactions of the major players of WW2 as regards the stance and the level of resistance of a small nation against two big ones of that era are facts, and very interesting ones! The order issued by Hitler as regards the stance the German army leaders should keep keep towards the Greek army officers and soldiers, after the fall of Thessaloniki and the heroic (characterization given by historians) resistance of the Greek forces (ΤΣΑΜ, MA 11648/24) is a fact. All the statements and considerations mentioned in the removed chapter were facts related to the subject treated by the article. The initial surpise that both Italy and Germany felt because of the unexpected level of the resistance (especially in the Italian front, which was however inextricably related with the evolution of the Battle of Greece and the German and British decisions during Operation Marita) is a fact. The official statements or (parts of) public (even parliamentary) orations of politicians yes are facts related to the course of the war. Let me also mention that the level of resistance of the Greek army during the Italian and German assault is an issue treated not only by the politicians or the official military orders of the "Fuhrer" but also by the historians (e.g. the German appreciation of the Greek military resistance in 1940-1941 is one of the main subjects in the first two chapters of Fleischer's landmark book I mentioned above, because it helps understand events, relations and attitutude that followed, such as the Italian-German relations in the occupied Greece and the Italian "bitterness" towards the Germans). And these historians mention not only Hitler's public but also private words of sympathy for Greece and its people. Of course, the public statemens often differ from public actions, but this bitter reality does not make them less important events and facts (which sometimes partly determine other facts). A war is not only a military but also a political scene, whose events, statements and decisions are often instrumental in understanding the full extent of the results and the perceptions that the war and its participants produce. As one of the main editors of this chapter I regard the "waffle" comment and the related justification of the undiscussed removal as insulting.

Finally, allow me also to comment the reediting of the first part of the third paragraph of the lede (wow! this kind of sentences is the result of 6 years of law school!). Ok, let's agree with you (as I read in a prior discussion here) that my previous balanced sentence does not reflect the current trends of historiography ... The majority of historians ""who refute his explanation for Germany's calamitous defeat" is only Hillbruger? Because this is the only one cited in the lede (this way of citing is convincing nobody for any kind of "majority"), and when I go to "Impact on Operation Barbarossa" (how did Nick-D forget to remove this chapter as well?), I see almost exactly the same text I had left in 2010, which is obviously in disaccord with the lede, since it (again) convinces for no "refuting majority". Therefore, my dear editors, if you want to implement any such changes, please try to do them properly and coherently. An article does not consist only of its lede. The lede is supposed to summarize the article and not the opposite (but I suppose you already know that ...).

That is all I felt the need to say, and I now return to my silence. As you may realize, I decided there was no need to edit the article or involve myself in any useless debates. After all, this was one of the reason I had decided to stop editing Wikipedia, and I feel vindicated for my decision. I just hope that dedicated and educated editors like Cplakidas will find the appetite and the time to hold the level of quality which has been left to this article.Yannismarou (talk) 17:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think Wikipedia articles should be written to glorify x or y. Aozyk (talk) 12:26, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I agree. And nor should they denigrate x or y either. Just present the facts without needless embellishment, cherry-picking, partisanship or biased editorializing. But Yannismarou has brought up some interesting points. One is what is a fact? It is often said that history is made up of a string of "facts" and that the historian's job is to put those "facts" in chronological order or a sensible sequence. However, there is no such thing as a "fact". History is merely made up of perspectives and interpretations and dare I say it, a certain amount of guess-work to fill in the blanks. And it is how one constructs sentences, the style, the wording, what is included and what isn't included, the focus on certain events while ignoring others, the writer's point of view, approach, preconceived and fixed ideas, biases, nationality, political influences, eccentricities, etc that goes into the writing of history and so-called "facts". For example, if the single word or "fact" of a "withdrawal" is changed to "retreat", then the "fact" becomes twisted still and a new meaning is conveyed. And if the "retreat" then becomes a "rout", we are talking about something quite different. The same "fact" is presented to us in a radically different way. Which is why we should avoid colorful adjectives such as "ignoble", "fiasco", "humiliated", "useless", "defiant", etc. Such needless embellishments may provide for interesting reading, but it is not history.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:57, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Keitel's quote box denigrating the Italians march into Athens.

The quarrel over the troops' victorious entry into Athens was a chapter to itself: Hitler wanted to do without a special parade, to avoid injuring Greek national pride. Mussolini, alas, insisted on a glorious entry into the city for his Italian troops. The Führer yielded to the Italian demand and together the German and Italian troops marched into Athens. This miserable spectacle, laid on by our gallant ally, must have produced some hollow laughter from the Greeks. Wilhelm Keitel[150]

I think this quote by Keitel - which for some reason is highlighted in a quote box - should be deleted. It is quite rude and denigrates the Italians. Keitel never liked the Italians and if one reads his memoirs, he hardly ever has a good thing to say about them. He is a racist and a bigot and was tried as a war criminal and rightly hanged at Nuremberg. He was a mediocre general but was useful to Hitler as his "rubber stamp" for the military. Any order for executions and war crimes was often counter-signed by him, which made his path to the gallows quite an easy one for Allied prosecutors.

Moreover the quote itself appears gratuitous and has little to do with the article itself - the Battle of Greece. Since the battle was purely a German affair, why mention the Italians? When the Italians are mentioned in the article, those references were removed on the same grounds. It seems there is one rule for references dealing with Italians when it is positive (ie.sinking Allied vessels), and another rule when it is negative and derogatory.

Again, Sadkovich is right when he claims the Italian war effort is seen either through the eyes of the Allies or the Germans. The Fuhrer did not "yield" to anything. If the Italians wanted to parade through Athens, then it was their decision and theirs alone. Hitler had nothing to say about it and certainly, could not have prevented it even if he wanted. The Italian Army did not fall under the command or "wishes" of any German general nor the Fuhrer himself. The Italian Army did what it liked and was certainly not pushed around by the Germans.AnnalesSchool (talk) 09:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Notes

Does anyone know where the last two notes (H and I) are in the the text? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 18:18, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Greco-Italian War

A RfC relevant to this article is currently in progress at Talk:Greco-Italian_War#RfC:_The_relation_between_Greco-Italian_War_and_Battle_of_Greece. Comments welcome. Banedon (talk) 01:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Some notes about the article

For List's Order of Battle, there should be a note about the use of von Kleist's 1st Panzer Group: because of the sudden coup d'état in Yugoslavia, it was largely concerned with invading Yugoslavia and capturing Zagreb; in fact, the command of it was passed on to von Weichs' 2nd Army. It had little to do with the conquest of Greece.

In the Timeline of Events, it reads: "18 April: After a three-days struggle, German armored infantry crosses the Pineios river. The 1st SS Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler—which had reached Grevena— overwhelms several Greek units." It was still a motorized regiment and not yet a division. I would recommend changing it to "the Leibstandarte Adolf Hitler Motorized Regiment."

There's an interesting story of this that Rommel mentioned in his war time diary, about the time he got a visit from General Friedrich Paulus (yes, that unfortunate Paulus) who at that time was still on the planning staff at OKH. He relayed to Rommel the General Staff's displeasure of Rommel's success! It seems they blamed Rommel's successful offensive begun at the end of March 1941 as the reason the British decided to prematurely withdraw their forces from Greece, since they figured the British would be much more interested in saving Egypt than they would in saving Greece. The German high command had anticipated in capturing the bulk of the British force in Greece and were upset when it failed to come to pass. (Of course, the Germans had no way of knowing that the British had decided to withdraw anyway, even if Rommel hadn't done anything.)

There's also a quotation of a letter sent by Hitler to Mussolini asking him to delay the Italian offensive until after the American Presidential election. But the date given for the letter is 20 Nov 1940 - wasn't that after the election??? (and did Germans themselves use the word "blitzkrieg"??)

In the Withdrawal and surrender of the Greek Epirus Army section, the LSSAH is referred to as a brigade, not as a regiment; Also, the surrender of the Greeks to the Germans showed the political problems that would plague the Germans during the rest of he war. Because this was considered an Italian area of operations, it was a political insult to them if the Germans accepted the surrender. That's why FM List was forced to rescind the first surrender so that they could then "correctly" surrender to the Italians the next day. (Kind of like how the Germans in May 1945 had to surrender to the Americans and Brits one day and then to the Soviets the next.) This confusion would show itself time and time again in North Africa where, because it was technically an Italian area of operation, Rommel would have to serve two masters. __209.179.86.123 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Don't overemphasize the delay from invading Greece

Max Hastings is one of many historians who have re-evaluated the early belief that Hitler's invasion of Greece delayed Barbarossa by more than a month. Hastings says that the operation was not possible until June because of a late thaw, and because of equipment shortages.[5] John Keegan also says that Russian weather was the primary cause for the delay of Barbarossa. This is counter to Greek nationalist writers such as Andrew Jackson Goodpaster and Eugene T. Rossides of the American Hellenic Institute who wrote in 2001 that the Battle of Greece critically delayed Barbarossa and certainly saved Moscow from being overwhelmed (Greece's Pivotal Role in World War II and Its Importance to the U.S. Today, pp. 41–50.) Such writers are in the minority.

Let's not overemphasize any supposed delay caused by the Battle of Greece. Binksternet (talk) 01:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Quite agree, it's very vieille chapeau. Keith-264 (talk) 09:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Max Hastings is not a historian, he is a journalist who didn't finish college (just read your wiki link). A guy who has already been criticized by real historians on other matters too. Should I say more? That other guy is just a random warlike buffoon, also excommunicated by professionals. These two fellows were working for the same newspaper. Seeing that you don't have a clue about your citations I will not bother judging your last one. Sadly, first class writers and literate professionals are a minority these days.

Although Greeks won the war against Mussolini in the Battle of Hill 731 also called the new Thermopylae (you know "This is Sparta" and all), nobody claims that they also won the war against Hitler. They just contributed way more than they possibly could. They destroyed Hitler's Special Forces in the Battle of Crete and they delayed Operation Barbarossa for 38 days, helping Moscow in their struggle to stop him, once winter came upon them.

Why is there an effort to hide this information? What could someone have to gain from this? Learn H I S T O T Y, don't assume history following O P I N I O N S. If you still want opinions just watch for Stalin's, Churchill's, Hitler's, De Gaulle's and many other's who are qualified to have one. But you choose the "historian" Max Hasting instead. Really?

Nervren (talk) 15:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

If you are correct, Nevren, it shouldn't be difficult to find OKW operations orders launching Barbarossa 38 days earlier than June 22, and then followup orders delaying it due to the Greek situation, and then, finally, new orders with the June 22 launch date. But you won't find any of those, because it never happened. This isn't about Max Hastings, (who, I agree, is a journalist, not a historian) it is about what really happened. DMorpheus2 (talk) 15:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
If you are right then Wikipedia wouldn't say "with a planned start date of 15 May 1941" in the article I already cited Operation Barbarossa. If you really argue with that, try to edit that article not this one. Nervren (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Not quite what is said, nor is it settled. "The postponement of Barbarossa from the initially planned date of 15 May to the actual invasion date of 22 June 1941 (a 38-day delay) occurred for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the Balkans Campaign required a diversion of troops and resources that hampered preparations, and an unusually wet winter kept rivers at full flood until late spring.[74] The full floods could have discouraged an earlier attack, even if it was unlikely to have happened before the end of the Balkans Campaign.[75]"

Lots of major operations get delayed. To claim that exactly 38 days were taken away from Barbarossa only because of the Greek campaign is nonsense. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
DMorpheus2 if you read your first comment and then your second you will understand that you don't know what you argue for. I would not do an edit here if Wikipedia was all that right in every detail. If you see my edit that Keith-264 undid back then you will understand that your quote is actually FOR me, not against me. Please people don't argue just to argue. We make a discussion here. Nervren (talk) 16:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Guderian's book is cite #74 appearing above. Guderian 'does not support the idea that the Balkans campaign was a significant reason for the delayed start of Barbarossa. He says on page 145 of Panzer Leader:

The Balkans Campaign had been concluded with all the speed desired, and the troops there engaged which were now needed for Russia were withdrawn according to plan and very fast. But all the same there was a definite delay in the opening of our Russian Campaign. Furthermore we had had a very wet spring; the Bug and its tributaries were at flood level until well into May and the nearby ground was swampy and almost impassable. I was in a position personally to observe this during my tours of inspection in Poland.

So let's not overstate the importance of the Balkans with regard to Barbarossa. Binksternet (talk) 18:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
Guderian's statement in fact validates that the delay was posed by Operation Marita in "But all the same there was a definite delay in the opening of our Russian Campaign". I have also seen a post claiming that weather in Poland was perfectly normal, citing (Zapantis, Hitler's Balkan Campaign and the Invasion of the USSR and Van Creveld, Hitler's Strategy 1940–1941: The Balkan Clue).
But even if the weather was bad, so that Guderian's statement is 100% true, it is obvious that it was not weather what caused the delay in the first place. Such statement, not Guderian's really, would just be a fictional assumption about "what would happen if there weren't Greeks", while Greeks gave their lives for a last stand that eventually caused that delay. And that's a real fact, not fictional assumptions that Guderian didn't even make.
Furthermore Hitler's stuff were the masters of Blitzkrieg the strategy of overcoming obstacles. Guderian eluded the greatest ally defense, including the great Maginot Line, through the so called impassable Ardennes in just 2 days. Considering the above fictional assumption, do you think that an uncovered river with "almost impassable" nearby ground in mid May would hold him for 38 days, while he was a breath away from his ultimate goal? That's really an impossible scenario inside our fictional assumption. And surely not Guderian's. Nervren (talk) 23:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
From what I've read, few modern historians believe that the Balkans campaign had a significant impact on the timing of the German invasion of the USSR. This view was in vogue decades ago, but more recent studies have determined that logistical issues were the key factor in the timing of Barbarossa. The notion that the Axis forces would have defeated the USSR in 1941 if they'd started the campaign a few weeks earlier is also now not considered credible. Nick-D (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
As you can see from my answer to Binksternet you can add Guderian to the other generals and leaders who agree that Greece posed the critical delay. What are these "recent studies"? Winter was critical to the outcome of the war. Come on don't add another assumption. What's the point? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nervren (talk • contribs) 23:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
If the delay due to Greece wasn't important, or the actual invasion took place as-planned, then why did the Wehrmacht enter into Barbarossa not having any winter clothing or equipment that would work in the Russian winter, thus making the same mistake that Napoleon had.
Which conclusion is the most likely - the invasion troops hadn't any winter clothing because the invasion was planned for the summer months, and so they wouldn't need any as the war against the Soviet Union would have been won by winter, or alternatively, Walther von Brauchitsch and the OKH planners were fools who made the same mistake that Napoleon - not exactly an obscure military leader - had made over a hundred years previously. Tchaikovsky even wrote the 1812 Overture about it.
The invasion of the Soviet Union was delayed by the Greek Campaign because no-one in the German leadership or High Command knew when the Campaign was going to end, nor knew what additional German reinforcements might or might not be needed to win it, until right up to the end of the Campaign.
Barbarossa was planned to take place over the Russian summer, but was delayed by the Greek Campaign. That's why the Germans had no winter clothing or low-temperature oils and lubricants, because they hadn't planned on ever needing any. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 17:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Malarky. By the way, I've noticed no one has bothered to make any counterargument on the position stated by John Keegan, mentioned above, who agreed that the Greek campaign had no effect. Maybe because Keegan was an instructor at Sandhurst for 26 years.....just maybe...he s a reliable source.
To clarify something I myself said long ago here, lots of operations get delayed for all sorts of reasons. The French campaign was delayed; the Normandy invasion was delayed, the German Kursk offensive was delayed, etc. None of these major operations were delayed as a result of enemy action or secondary engagements; they were delayed because the forces were not ready or the weather wasn't cooperating (in the Normandy case, the major delays were readiness-related any only a minor 24-hour delay was weather-imposed). DMorpheus2 (talk) 21:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
A January 1942 German newsreel of an appeal for warm clothing for the Eastern Front here: [6]
Because of the delay caused by Greece von Brauchitsch and his planners wanted Barbarossa delayed until April 1942 but Hitler over-ruled them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Repeating the same assertion doesn't make it so. DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Greece. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 23:45, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Battle of Greece. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 02:14, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Battle of Greece. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 10:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved as proposed. "I disagree that it is more common" does not carry the day when confronted with sources proving that it is, in fact, more common. (non-admin closure) Red Slash 19:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Greece → German invasion of Greece – According to NGRAMS, "invasion of Greece" is a significantly more common way to refer to this event than "battle of Greece".[7] (see spike in 1941) and is not usually capitalized.[8] Although invasion of Greece redirects here, it probably shouldn't. Another possibility is invasion of Greece (1941), but German invasion of Greece is actually more common than "Battle of Greece" on ngrams[9]. Google Scholar searches also indicate that "invasion" is more common than "battle" when referring to this event and "German invasion of Greece" is commonly used. (t · c) buidhe 01:45, 29 May 2021 (UTC)—Relisting. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:24, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

But unlike other main titles such as Battle of France, Battle of Belgium, Battle of Belgium, and Battle of Crete GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
IDK why but Wikipedia uses this "battle" language for World War II invasions much more often than RS. "Battle" isn't the common name for either France or Belgium; I've filed move requests. (t · c) buidhe 15:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Possibly because there is some ambiguity between the invasion as the initial phase of a campaign in which the frontier is breached and the invasion as the whole campaign, including later phases that take place entirely within the territory of a country. It's especially acute when the campaign is drawn out. I'm ambivalent about this proposal and the Greco-Italian War one because together they seem to me to create an entirely false parallel. This is not necessarily an issue for historians writing books and papers using phrases in sentences. We are titling encyclopedia articles. Srnec (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. Whereas Battle of France, Battle of Crete, etc, are commonly-used and well-known names, I'm really not sure that Battle of Greece is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:21, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The term "Battle of Greece" and variants of it (Greek battle, Greek war, war of Greece, etc), are actually common as far as i've read. Another problem, this article talks about the entire Battle of Greece, also looking at the front with Italy and ending with the German-British clash culminating in Battle of Crete. Only calling it "German invasion" would limit it to April 1941, whereas this goes from 1940 to June 1 1941.Barjimoa (talk) 06:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support – the nom has it right, in my view. Reliable sources would appear to favor the "invasion" phrasing, and it's also more recognizable and precise. See WP:CRITERIA. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:01, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, per WP:CRITERIA. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I disagree that its more common to call it the German invasion of Greece, in Australia it is more common to call it the Battle of Greece, it correlates with the naming of the Battle of France and doesn't describe the initial Italian invasion. IronBattalion (talk) 06:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • ’’’Oppose’’’ given the change of scope resulting from the proposed title. Ceoil (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose - ngrams / google scholar seem to be pretty weak reasons, especially when "invasion of Greece" will often just be a regular part of a descriptive sentence. (Hohum @) 17:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment it is slightly surprising that this refers to World War II, but not that surprising. Google web and scholar search suggests the World War II theatre is the primary topic for "Battle of Greece". As such, there is no need to move; but I see nothing wrong with the other proposed title either. User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 23:31, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move Back to Battle of Greece

A non-administrative move to German invasion of Greece was performed, even though there was no clear consensus in the discussion. It was a tied vote. Wikipedia is not a democracy, but I believe only administrators can terminate a discussion and make a decision to move if there is no consensus after seven days. Since the person who made the move was not an administrator, I moved it back. If the discussion had not been arbitrarily closed by a non-administrator, I would have voted Oppose.

It is clear that Operation Marita actually slightly edges out German invasion of Greece in Ngram Viewer; however, Invasion of Greece edges out both by a large margin. Changing to case-insensitive does not change this. [10]

Of course, all of this is de-contextualized. My suspicion is that chapter headings and ledes employ Battle of Greece more often, whereas the book or article text will more often use the other three alternatives when discussing the history of the battle. There is no way to prove this without deeply examining each of the sources used to generate these statistics, but still, judging by the raw data totals alone, which seems to have been the sole criterion of supporters, it is actually Operation Marita or Invasion of Greece (perhaps qualified by "1940", although Google doesn't return a result for that). I strongly suspect that "Invasion of Greece" in all sources actually refers to Classical, Mediaeval, and Ottoman times more often that the World War II event, so Operation Marita is the real winner.

But common use as a subject header or name for an event, and common use as repeated in works about the event are two different things. I could write a book on the Defenestrations of Prague, and the phrase "threw out the window" might appear more than "defenestrated"; however, we still call the events the Defenestrations. The sources cited in support of the move do not clarify the common naming convention. Can supporters provide any contextualized sources showing that German invasion of Greece is more common as a title for the overall series of events as described in the article, as opposed to a de-contextualized raw phrase frequency dump? Jpbrenna (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

A couple of other things worth mentioning: pre-1940 results should be excluded, as they are either speculative sources musing on a possible future Nazi invasion that had not yet happened, or as one 1916 result [11] shows, referring to the Macedonian front#Establishment of the Macedonian front. I can't find any English-language sources using the phrase before that, but it likely could be found if Greek sources hostile to the Bavarian Auxiliary Corps#Arrival of the corps and the Bavarocracy from the nineteenth century were ever translated. In any case, none of this has any bearing on what the actual 1940 event is called from the time that it actually happened onward. Also, I have been going through the results and it is clear that the "German invasion of Greece" is frequently referred to in works that are discussing another primary subject, but the phrase also appears in the works such as The Battle of Greece[12] by Alexandros Papagos[13]. How do you think the Field Marshall would have voted in this dispute? I think we need to go through every instance to see how the phrase was actually used. Jpbrenna (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_invasion_of_Greece/Archive_2&oldid=1044970943"