The if's and but's surrounding the fall of Crete 1941.

[fastmongrel]

Not sure where I read it but werent the German Paras on the point of running out of ammo when the Allied forces surrendered. A few more firefights going the Allied way or a few more German Paras not finding there supply cannisters and we might be discussing what if Crete had fallen what would be the consequences.

 

[jim]

Not sure where I read it but werent the German Paras on the point of running out of ammo when the Allied forces surrendered. A few more firefights going the Allied way or a few more German Paras not finding there supply cannisters and we might be discussing what if Crete had fallen what would be the consequences.

Mr Fastmongrel
The situation of the paratroopers at the end of the first day was desperate (at best). Even veteran paratroopers admit that (eg Martin Poppel at his memoirs) . Many of then had quit the efforts to execute their missions and were waiting for captivity
The greek commanders BEGGED the New Zelander commander for continious attacks during the night but he refused . And ordered the greeks not to attack either. and he had not mined the landing fields . All he cared about was how to run.
I have spoken to several greek defenders of Crete. ALL , to their last moment in this world, could not understand and believe how Crete fall. All of them had the opinion that Crete was betrayed

Mr Stona
First of all, your claim that there were just 3000 Ceten irregulars is inaccurate and insulting. Entire villages populations attacked the paratroopers and paid the price after the New zelander Hero (VC winner) had completed his mission.
You wrote that is offensive to say that Crete was betrayed
I ask you directly and i expect a direct answer. WHY New Zelanders abandoned Hill 107 , the key of the Maleme airport,during the first night? WHY????????And without attack by the germans!!!! Instead of attack they fled. if this is not treason , what is ???
Why the "counter attacks" to recapture Maleme were launched at DAY time??? Couldnt the VC winner realize that it was hopless under Stuka attacks? Why left troops on the beaches without purpose ,away from the important point of the battle?
PLEASE dont repeat the usual excuse " misunderstanding" . At least ,they could give their weapons to the creten women to win the battle while they were running south to the evacuation ships using as covering forces greek cadets
After the war even Churchil ,(with great ypocrisy) critisized him for his failure to attack in time the desperate paratroopers.
Do a web search using New Zelanders commander name. You will find that after the war ,during dinner, two high ranking british officers thanked him for losing Crete!!!!!!!!!!!!! they said that it would be a great problem to maintain the island!

Of course the main responsibles for the loss of Crete was the greek King and his prime minister that succeded Metaxas. You can not trust your country s defense in foreigh hands . Especially british ones . They betrayed us in 1920/22 , in 1940 ( absolutely no serius material help for the albanian front, only big words),in 1941 , in 1943 with the Dodekanisa islands, in 1945/46 with the post war arrangements , and finally in Cyprus
PS No insult to the brevery of the simple N.Zelander soldiers. I question the intentions of their commander (VC winner)

 

[RCAFson]

It nearly was a total strategic disaster for the Allies, another division or 2 and Rommel would have captured the Gulf.... apart from all the lovely oil for the Reich it would have largely cut off the USSR from US shipments.

Yet another total Churchillan C.F (in a very, very long list).

Yes, and in July 1941, the Germans had to keep 8 divisions tied up in the Balkans, along with a similar number of Italian divisions:

and in 1942:

and in 1943:

and 1944:

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/ETO/East/Balkans/img/AG/AG-Balkans-4.jpg

 

[pattle]

Jim, the loss of Maleme Airfield was down to the local commanders Hargest and Andrew, but not General Freyburg who for a number of reasons had little involvement in local events. No senior British officers ever thanked Freyburg for losing Crete, but they were heard to say that they didn't know how Crete would have been supplied if it was held, which is a good question. I am interested to know which Greek commanders approached Colonel Andrew and were denied permission to attack Maleme airfield, I am also interested to know what forces these Greek commanders had under them and how close to Maleme airfield they were. It sounds to me that you just want to blame the New Zealanders for not being successful in defending another countries soil and that added to this you have a prejudice against the British people.

 

[stona]

Yes. I'm afraid I'm seeing prejudice cloud a clearer view of history above.
There 's not a lot of point in arguing with that. The Battle of Crete was a debacle for the allies but to assign such malevolent motives is really not helpful.
Oddly enough I passed by Freyberg's memorial in St Pauls Cathedral a few days ago. I'm not sure what the relevance of a Victoria Cross won in an earlier conflict is to Crete


You seem to have little grasp of the fighting around Maleme airfield. Andrew had his D Company deployed along the Tavronitis river bed, C Company to the north of Hill 107 on the airfield, A Company on the hill and B Company to the west of it. He was defending an area of around five square kilometres of broken ground. He had no idea of the size of the force he was facing and he had no communication with his observation posts as they had no radios and runners could not get through.
The platoon of C Company nearest the sea managed to hold off attacks along the beach from the mouth of the river but 15 platoon, defending the western edge of the airfield was hard pressed. It comprised only 22 men and they had no machine gun. They desperately fought to hold a front roughly one kilometre long.
The saga of the Matildas and the arrival of Braun's paratroopers in the RAF camp followed. I can't be arsed to write the full account of the battle here but there are certain military facts that you don't understand.
You don't have to take a particular hill or feature to unhinge its defence. You said that Hill 107 was abandoned without an assault. Add to that the fog of war. Andrew never realised that Captain Johnson's C Company were still offering fierce resistance on the airfield and that Captain Campbell's D Company were still resisting above the Tavronitis. Andrew's thought processes seem to have jammed and this was not helped by Hargest's failure to grasp what was going on. Andrew had requested support from the 23rd Battalion only to be told, wrongly, that it was engaged elsewhere. Finally Andrew did contact Hargest by radio to say that without support he would be forced to withdraw. Hargest replied "if you must, you must".
That does not amount to giving up without a fight. I would say that all the senior officers, Andrew, Hargest, Puttick, Freyberg, suffered a crisis of confidence that led to inaction and a lack of decisiveness. This was not unique to this group of British/Commonwealth officers in WW2.
We'll leave the fighting around Prison Valley for now.
You apply some sort of malevolent anti-Greek motive to the actions of these men in a confused and desperate battle when in fact, at worst, they were simply incompetent.
Cheers
Steve

 

[OldSkeptic]

That does not amount to giving up without a fight. I would say that all the senior officers, Andrew, Hargest, Puttick, Freyberg, suffered a crisis of confidence that led to inaction and a lack of decisiveness. This was not unique to this group of British/Commonwealth officers in WW2.
Steve

That's a very perceptive statement.

Confidence. People forget that the Germans and Japanese had thrashed everyone (on the land at least) everywhere. Very often where they had inferior numbers. Tactically they rang rings around us and beat us at every turn. It literally became a mindset that we could not win against them on anything like even terms and only massively, overwhelmingly superior forces could do that (maybe).

Two battles were key to changing that attitude in the Western Allies, one Alamein and the other Papua New Guinea (Kokoda to Australians) the moral affect of those were enormously important, not just to the people of the Commonwealth and the US, but to the soldiers themselves.

Yes we could beat them on similar terms*. And that changed everything.

* Note technically Monty had nothing like the superiority to win against a well dug in defence and Rommel was very well dug in. The common rule was 3:1.
He had tank superiority, but they wouldn't fight (been beaten far too often) and he had only about 1.7:1 in infantry.
Not much in an environment that Rommel had created (the mine master by far).
Plus he was up against Rommel, who had reached mythological proportions in the British heads, who had thumped them over and over again, even when they had great superiority in numbers.

Fortunately he some secret weapons, one he was really was very, very good, second he had the Australians and New Zealanders and, unlike his predecessors, used them properly.
Oh that wonderful Australian 9th division, there was reason why Monty went to them first after the battle to congratulate and thank them. Because when the tank boys balked they had to carry the day.

Funny that, Aussie forces being at the winning centre of those two vitally important battles.

 

[pattle]

Another point not often mentioned is that the Borfors anti-aircraft guns were badly deployed at Maleme having been located on the airfield itself near to the aircraft. At Heraklion the anti-aircraft guns were sited overlooking the airfield and kept well camouflaged and hidden, they had also been under orders not to fire at German aircraft before the airborne assault in order not to give their positions away. For these reasons the anti-aircraft guns at Heraklion remained undetected by the Germans until the morning of the assault and proved far more effective than those at Maleme.

 

[pattle]

The Australian War Memorial in Rethymno was actually built and paid for by locals who wished to demonstrate their respect for the sacrifices made in the defence of Rethymno by it's mostly Australian defenders, it is very rare for such memorials to be built and funded in this way and I believe the Australians appreciate this gesture greatly. If you go to the site of Rethymno airfield today you will find only a small piece of field between hotels etc, no trace of the airfield was visible to me but then it was only a rough landing strip with no permanent structures. I could also find no trace of the factory in Stravromenos where the German paratroopers made their last stand, it probably just fell down after the battle.

 

[davebender]

Crete cannot be successfully defended using historical British forces.

If you want a successful defense then Britain needs to send a couple of fresh army corps (i.e. not beat up refugees from Greece) plus a couple hundred Spitfires plus a pile of logistical units to support this force. Where are you planning to obtain this force and what shipping are you using to keep it supplied?

 

[pattle]

Crete cannot be successfully defended using historical British forces.

If you want a successful defense then Britain needs to send a couple of fresh army corps (i.e. not beat up refugees from Greece) plus a couple hundred Spitfires plus a pile of logistical units to support this force. Where are you planning to obtain this force and what shipping are you using to keep it supplied?

RAF fighters couldn't survive on Crete in 1941 largely because the airfields were on the north coast by the sea rather than on the other side of the mountains on the south coast. The Germans had no means of capturing Crete in 1941 other than by airborne assault which was why it was vital for them to capture an airfield, had the Germans been able to carry out a seaborne invasion this would have left the Allied forces far more spread out. Part of the reason the Germans succeeded in capturing Crete was because the Allies did not realise that a seaborne invasion was unlikely, if they had of done far more of their forces would have been positioned around the airfields rather than spread out on the coast. The only way an airborne assault on Crete in 1941 by the Germans was going to be a success was if the Germans could achieve both surprise and local superiority in numbers, the Allied forces overall advantage in numbers actually counted for nothing because their units were not concentrated. If the Allied Generals were of a more modern nature and had had a better understanding of the situation things should of been very different.

 

[jim]

Crete cannot be successfully defended using historical British forces.

If you want a successful defense then Britain needs to send a couple of fresh army corps (i.e. not beat up refugees from Greece) plus a couple hundred Spitfires plus a pile of logistical units to support this force. Where are you planning to obtain this force and what shipping are you using to keep it supplied?

Mr Davebevder
This statement is inaccurate and far away from the truth. Read the opinions of the paratroopers that survived the battle . They were amazed that the operation succeded. Actually they could not believe that they survived the first night.
At the very least ,british could have mined the airfields ,and place obstacles on them. They diid nothing
They constructed the Maleme airfield ,just a few months before the battle, despite the fact that they did not have the aircrafts to use it. They served their plan to deliver the island to the germans
Germans had absolutely no way for a naval invation. They traditional fishing boats that they used ,even if they could reach crete would be totaly unsuitable for assault on defended coasts
All that Britain had to do was to order its troops to deliver their weapons to the greek units and the local population, and then leave
But THEY HAD TO BE SURE THAT THE ISLAND WOULD FALL, the last thing they needed was another greek miracle. So they remained

Mr Pattle and Mr Stona
I have walked all these battlefields, spoke to many veterans, i even spoke to several former german paratroopers.( Many of them were visiting the island for many years. Obviously the last years i havent met anyone)
They events around hill107 are not exactly as you describe them . But , EVEN IF THEY WERE, as you described them, the officers in question ,at the very least, should be accused as cowards in the face of the enemy. But nothing happened to them or their VC winner commander. Not even some punishement for being incompetents

Mr Old sceptic
Do you seriously suggest that the El Alamein battle was fought on even terms??? Come on now!!!!!!! British had massive advantage on everythig ,from supplies,tanks,aircrafts, artillery, broken codes of the enemy. And the majority of the axis forces were italians!The amazing thing was that it took then so long to win!!!

 

[DonL]

I think Jim you should consider, that the operation Crete was a harum scarum operation.
It took only 4 weeks of preparation through the pressure of Barbarossa.
Also there were only very small and very few units from Regia Marina involved at the operation.
Many leading officers has heavily critized the lack of a proper preparation/ short preparation time, especially the lack of landing crafts and armed ship support through the Regia Marina.

If you look at the Malta thread there is a complete list of the landing craft capacity of Regia Marina at 1941.

I agree with your summary if only the german troops are involved, but if there would be a proper prepared combined landing at Crete 1 or 2 month (without Barbarossa) later, with massive support through the Regia Marina and LW, the defenders will have to my opinion no chance, the same as I said about Malta.

 

[jim]

I think Jim you should consider, that the operation Crete was a harum scarum operation.
It took only 4 weeks of preparation through the pressure of Barbarossa.
Also there were only very small and very few units from Regia Marina involved at the operation.
Many leading officers has heavily critized the lack of a proper preparation/ short preparation time, especially the lack of landing crafts and armed ship support through the Regia Marina.

If you look at the Malta thread there is a complete list of the landing craft capacity of Regia Marina at 1941.

I agree with your summary if only the german troops are involved, but if there would be a proper prepared combined landing at Crete 1 or 2 month (without Barbarossa) later, with massive support through the Regia Marina and LW, the defenders will have to my opinion no chance, the same as I said about Malta.

Mr DonL
Of course you are correct.Without Barbarosa ,the Island woulb be undefendable against an all out attack by unlimited german forces

For the italians i am not sure if they would dare to operate again at our waters after their crushing defeat at the battle of cape matapan
They did not dare to attack malta which was at their doorstep. A major failure with massive strategic consequenses

I also agree that the german attack plan was a poor one. It caused massive casualties and would have led to defeat if the greek 5th infantry division (crete s division) , was in place of the British forces . Or any other division with soldiers and officers fighting to win or die

 

[pattle]

Mr Davebevder
This statement is inaccurate and far away from the truth. Read the opinions of the paratroopers that survived the battle . They were amazed that the operation succeded. Actually they could not believe that they survived the first night.
At the very least ,british could have mined the airfields ,and place obstacles on them. They diid nothing
They constructed the Maleme airfield ,just a few months before the battle, despite the fact that they did not have the aircrafts to use it. They served their plan to deliver the island to the germans
Germans had absolutely no way for a naval invation. They traditional fishing boats that they used ,even if they could reach crete would be totaly unsuitable for assault on defended coasts
All that Britain had to do was to order its troops to deliver their weapons to the greek units and the local population, and then leave
But THEY HAD TO BE SURE THAT THE ISLAND WOULD FALL, the last thing they needed was another greek miracle. So they remained

Mr Pattle and Mr Stona
I have walked all these battlefields, spoke to many veterans, i even spoke to several former german paratroopers.( Many of them were visiting the island for many years. Obviously the last years i havent met anyone)
They events around hill107 are not exactly as you describe them . But , EVEN IF THEY WERE, as you described them, the officers in question ,at the very least, should be accused as cowards in the face of the enemy. But nothing happened to them or their VC winner commander. Not even some punishement for being incompetents

Mr Old sceptic
Do you seriously suggest that the El Alamein battle was fought on even terms??? Come on now!!!!!!! British had massive advantage on everythig ,from supplies,tanks,aircrafts, artillery, broken codes of the enemy. And the majority of the axis forces were italians!The amazing thing was that it took then so long to win!!!

Jim yes the Allies built Maleme airfield before the war and yes with hindsight they should have made it unusable before the invasion, but you are wrong to say the Allies did not use it as it was actually used by Swordfish, Fulmars, Hurricanes, Brewster Buffaloes, Sea Gladiators and Blenheims, the Swordfish torpedo bombers proved very successful while based at Maleme before the invasion.
You are also right in saying that the Germans didn't expect to see the first night out but you are wrong in believing this to have any relevance to later events as the Germans were just assuming that the Allies would not make the mistakes they later did, Crete was not the first battle where victory was snatched from the jaws of defeat and this wasn't just about the mistakes the Allies made as the Germans were very innovative when it came to finding a solution to their situation and should be given more credit for this.
Having spent quite a long time in Crete I have also visited many of the battlefields but none of the local people I have spoken to about the wartime years share your bazaar conspiracy theory around the British having handed the Germans Crete. The attitude I have noticed from Cretans is that they understand that the Commonwealth Generals cocked up and that they are sorry that so many foreign soldiers died trying to defend their island.
I am also confused about who you are referring to when you mention the V.C. holder as both General Freyberg and Colonel Andrew were V.C. holders and not that it matters except to your argument but neither were British. Also if it were the British plan to betray Crete then how do you explain Winston's actions and attitude to the holding and fall of Crete or the fact that the largely British garrison held Heraklion? In addition to this one of the lessons learnt from the assault on Maleme airfield was that the RAF should be able to defend it's own airfields which led to the creation of the RAF regiment.

 

[pattle]

Without wanting to sound like I am going on about this there is also the matter of the near suicidal raids on Maleme airfield by RAF bombers flying from Egypt directly after it was taken by the Germans and the failed reinforcement of Heraklion by a squadron of Hurricanes that were almost entirely lost before they arrived, also the arrivals of Ley Force and a force of Scottish Infantry at Tymbaki this again indicates that the British wished to hold on to Crete.

 

[stona]

Without wanting to sound like I am going on .....

You don't but I feel your words may be falling on deaf ears I'm afraid.

Cheers

Steve