Talk:Military history of Greece during World War II/Archive 1

Archive 1

occupation of the islands?

Dodecanese says that those islands remained German occupied until the end of the war (unlike the mainland which was liberated in 1944), but what about Crete and the other islands? --Astrokey44 05:34, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Wiki Standard & Cleanup

How do we get rid of this:

"To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article or section may require cleanup. Please discuss this issue on the talk page, or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available. This article has been tagged since May 2006."

I added about 6-7 citations, and will probably add a few more, but what needs to be done to get that off Wiki's cleanup list? El Greco 00:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this, but I have a feeling that encarta references are a bad idea. I remember bringing up the idea of referencing other encyclopedias at the village pump, and the reactions of the community were mixed.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I asked Cowman109 and he said it was okay. Here's the link: Link Scroll down to where it says Encarta. I guess I could look into some other sources to back up Encarta if it's necessary. El Greco 00:13, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:1946ParadeGreece.jpg

The image File:1946ParadeGreece.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. --00:58, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed. _{El Greco}^(talk) 20:12, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Greece as an Ally

Did Greece actually become an Ally on Italy's invasion in October? IIRC, they originally refused British aid out of fear that it would draw the Germans into the conflict. Oberiko 14:21, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

There should be some information on the Allied presence prior to the German invasion.--41.19.89.2 (talk) 14:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination for C. A. Patrides

The DYK nomination for C. A. Patrides needs to be reviewed.

Did you know

• ... that Constantinos A. Patrides, the author of Milton and the Christian tradition, earned a medal for heroism for his boyhood service with the Greek Resistance against the German Occupation?

Thanks!  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:31, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

"Axis" versus "German": neutral words without connotations are best.

1. "This situation prompted Germany to come to the rescue of its Axis partner." More accurate would be aid. The Germans did not "come to the rescue" of the Italians because the Italians did not need rescuing from the Greek army. The front was stabilized and the Italians weren't going anywhere fast. What they did need rather was German "aid" rather than rescuing.

2. "In the face of the overwhelming German advance into Greece..." More accurate would be Axis advance or Italo-German. As far as I know, both armies fought and marched into Greece, not one.

3. As the article is called "Military history of Greece", I'll bow to Greek patriotic sensibilities and forget about the Italian film footage called Italian Invasion of Greece. That can be removed.

Wikipedia requires an Impartial tone Policy shortcut: WP:IMPARTIAL Wikipedia describes disputes. Wikipedia does not engage in disputes. A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The tone of Wikipedia articles should be impartial, neither endorsing nor rejecting a particular point of view. Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone.AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:31, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Some Myths of World War II - Gerhard L Weinberg - The Italian Myth

If you don't believe me, will you believe one of the most recognized authorities on the second world war - Gerhard Weinberg?

Nevertheless, there is far too much denigration ofthe performance of Italy’s forces during the conflict. It was the Germans who insisted on the substitution of their enigma encoding machines that the British were reading for Italian ciphers that had not been cracked.14 As James Sadkovich has shown, the performance of the Italian navy and army was not as poor as much of the contemporary joking and subsequent writings suggest. Missing from most of the literature is the participation of Italian army units in the fighting on the Eastern Front, and the extent to which the heavy casualties those units suffered contributed to the rapid evaporation of support for the fascist system among the Italian public. (Journal of Military History, 2011)

This means that much of the literature that has maligned the Italian war effort can be safely discarded and thrown in the trash. What we need is a new perspective, a new approach. Wikipedia has to be more sensitive and inclusive to a new crop of more recent authors and historians who are reevaluating the Italian performance. It is no longer enough to say: Well, that's what the majority of writers have written. In this case, the majority of writers in the past were either wrong, in error or biased against the Italian war effort or did not have the complete picture. Certain editors of Wikipedia are intent only on propagating the old stereotyped myths about the Italians. These editors will not or cannot change their views because they themselves have swallowed the half-truths, propaganda and false information, so I appeal to a younger set of editors to actually read and start quoting more recent books and articles, so that the injustices of the past can be rectified regarding the Italian participation in the war.AnnalesSchool (talk) 12:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

I wonder what has this to do with this article, there is not a single reference about Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 15:22, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course you can't see it, you are blinded by the humiliation you feel for having been conquered and occupied after being attacked by one empire of 50 million people, throwing them back and holding the front against all odds for six months, and then succumbing to the attack of the most potent military machine in history up to that time, that had just overrun the whole of western Europe... Oh what a shame that we Greeks were not also able to bully and attack minor states, preferably those whose armies fought barefoot and without an air force, whom we could gas at will. What a shame that we did not have a stronger ally to bail us out whenever we got stuck due to poor planning and leadership (i.e. always) and then be able to pose both as victors and as better than them (because we did not kill quite as many people or torch quite as many villages) afterwards... You and I, Alexi, are hopeless cases, bursting with despair and jealousy. We simply cannot understand... As Annales said so many months ago, we should have surrendered to Italy right away, and spare both them and us the trouble... Liberty, self-respect, humanitarianism are so overrated, after all... Constantine ✍ 17:00, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Constantine/Cplakidas, as a Greek you have been so blinded by your rage and hatred of Italy, that you should excuse yourself as a reliable wiki editor. You need to resign and seek solace elsewhere for your misplaced patriotism and frustration that your country was defeated and occupied by the Italians. Why not vent your rage at the Germans and the Bulgarians, who treated you Greeks much worse? In fact, seek help. The war ended 70 years ago. Let go man; let it go....

Your nonsensical rant above is proof you need to quit editing articles for Wikipedia. Take a vacation somewhere, or better still, find a spiritual retreat where you can reflect on the harm you are doing to yourself, to others and to Wikipedia.AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

@AnnalesSchool: I'm afraid apart from the initial wp:or you are into wp:trolling territory now. I would appreciate if you give the slightest explanation why a mountain of WWII bibliography, which claim that the first Axis defeat was the Greek-Italian War, is virtually useless.Alexikoua (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The Italian attack on Greece wasn't a failure

The Italian attack on Greece wasn't a failure as the attack ultimately succeeded. It would have been a failure if the Italians had simply called it quits and pulled back its forces. The fact that the Italians persisted and never gave up, means that it did not fail. There were set-backs, and it may have started off badly, but in the end, with timely German assistance, the Italians prevailed.

The proof is in the pudding: Italy ended up with two thirds of Greece and its many islands. Now, it didn't happen by accident. And it didn't happen because the whole invasion was a failure. As I said, it may have started off badly, but no attack is unsuccessful because it stalled or had reverses. That is the nature of war.

The argument "but the Italians only succeeded because of German help". That may be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the invasion itself actually ended well enough for the Italians, if the initial plan was to invade Greece and control land. Did it eventually invade Greece and control land? The answer is really, Yes, it did. A failure would have meant that no Greek land was controlled and occupied by Italy. A failure means, to call it a day and go home. Did the Italians call it a day? No. Did they eventually succeed in Greece? Reality and boots on the ground tells you they did.AnnalesSchool (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

It appears you are against a mountain of well established bibliography about WWII. Italy was defeated by Greece after a failed invasion from Albania:

• "Late in October, 1940, the Italians attacked Greece from Albania, but early in December the Greeks won an appreciable victory, and invaded Albania.". In fact the Greek victory against Italy was the first land victory of the Allies:
• " but the Greeks drove them back, giving the Allies their first victory on land. ".
• "the Greek forces repulsed the invaders also entering Albania, giving the Allies their first victory",
• The First Victory: Greece in the Second World War. (a typical title of a WWII related work, about the Greek-Italian conflict).

Thus, what happened after the Greek-German conflict and the subsequent administration in occupied Greece is a completely different story. In fact a triple occupation followed but this doesn't mean that Greece was also defeated by Bulgaria and Italy.Alexikoua (talk) 16:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

So how did it come about that 2/3's of Greece ended up in Italian hands? Did Hitler decide to be generous and give 2/3's of Greece to Mussolini as a birthday gift? How is it possible to attack a country, be utterly defeated, and still end up with a large chunk of it? The Italians must have the record for being defeated by a country and then end up occupying it. AnnalesSchool (talk) 17:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Italy was Hitler's ally, although a weak one but still a partner. Let me summaries the historical facts by citing another work: "In 1941, after the Greek resistance was crushed by Germany, Italy, which had waged an unsuccessful war against Greece since October, 1940, occupied .... part of Greece...". I believe this sentence makes it clear that Italy wasn't at all victorious against Greece.Alexikoua (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

"The High Command of the Greek Army in Epirus and Macedonia represented by General Tsolakoglou turns to the Italian High Command of Armed Forces in Albania and the High Command of German Forces in Greece to ask that unconditional surrender of the Greek Army in Epirus and Macedonia be accepted." Times, Apr. 24, 1941 p. 4.)

The Greeks may have thought they could surrender to the Germans alone and leave Italy out, but that idea was never ever going to fly. They may have signed an armistice with the Germans on the 21st April, but the Italians simply ignored it and kept fighting and attacking the Greeks. In early April, after one last attempt to defeat the Italians failed, General Papagos realising "the Italians could not be broken" and aware the Germans were about to threaten his rear, ordered his army "to withdraw from Albania". But his order came too late. The Germans were already in Greece and the Italians were once again on the offensive and moving into the Pindus mountains.(Regio Esercito: The Italian Royal Army in Mussolini's Wars, 1935-1943, Patrick Cloutier, p.69.)

The Greeks had simply failed to defeat the Italians. They could not, no matter how hard they tried. Therefore, as reason and logic follows, the Italians were a party to the "real" armistice of 23rd April (and not the pretend one of 21st April), where in the signing of that armistice, the Greeks officially surrendered to both the Germans and the Italians. The Italians were the major player, not the Germans who were really the junior partners in the conflict.

I can only repeat that the armistice of 23rd April, states unequivocally that the Greek army surrendered to the victors of the conflict, the principal victor being the Italians with the Germans as a junior partner.

I can do no more than present the facts.AnnalesSchool (talk) 12:48, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Alexikoua, we all know the Greeks did an heroic effort to keep the Italian forces out of Greece, and even pushed them back into Albania. All praise to the Greeks. But Italy and Mussolini had too much at stake and to lose if it simply gave up. The Italians did not give up. They couldn't and they wouldn't, especially because the Greeks were considered to be an inferior people, so many "faccetti negri" or "little black faces". It is a horrible and racist view of the Greeks, but there we have it. Sad to say, it is still the view of many Italians today. But as a Greek, you mustn't let your nationalist pride get in the way of historical evidence and fact: the Italians did finally enter Greece, against the will of the Greek people and their government. An armistice agreement was signed on the 23rd April by General Tsolakoglou in which the armistice did state quite clearly that Greece is to surrender unconditionally to the Italian forces. Whether the Italians were "victorious" or not is simply a question of semantics. The subjugation of Greece to Italy and its Axis partners, was the final result. We all feel great sorrow for the Greeks, especially in the light that the British were perfidious allies, promising to protect and support Greece against the bullying of Italy and then Germany, but used Greece only as a means to an end: that end being to draw Italian strength away from North Africa to save their own skins.AnnalesSchool (talk) 23:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

If I hear nothing to the contrary, I will go ahead and revert the edits made. I think I've stated the case clearly and convincingly that the Italian military was the major player in Greece, the Germans were the junior partner, the Greek forces on the Albanian front were unable to "break" the Italians and defeat them, the Italians were again on the offensive and that on the 23rd April, Greece surrendered unconditionally to both the Italians and the Germans. AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:33, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Sigh, not again. "aware the Germans were about to threaten his rear, ordered his army "to withdraw from Albania" [...] the principal victor being the Italians with the Germans as a junior partner" is complete nonsense and you know it. But for the German invasion there would have been no armistice. It was the German attack that impelled the Greek withdrawal from the front line achieved in Albania, which was ordered on 12 April, after the German breakthrough in Macedonia and the unexpectedly rapid collapse of Yugoslavia. In the first days of the German offensive, there were even joint Greek-Yugoslav attacks against the Italians, which stopped only after the rapid German advance elsewhere became clear and made any gains in Albania pointless. And, as is well known, the surrender of the Epirus Army Section took place to the Germans, which was then repeated two days later to the Italians, after said Greek army had practically ceased to exist as a result of the previous agreement and had begun disintegrating even before that, due to the retreat for a variety of reasons (poor transport, plummeting morale, etc, as well as, yes, continuing Italian pressure). Yes, the Italians did play a role, but the principal agent were the Germans: it was they who transformed the situation from a stalemate to an Axis victory. So please stop twisting history through sophistries. Ditto on the occupation, where historians generally agree that despite the much-vaunted prepoderanza accorded to Italy by Germany in Greece, it was the Germans who ran the show. They seized most of the country's financial assets, controlled the puppet government, and held the strategically more important areas (Crete, Athens, Thessaloniki). That is why Greeks pin the blame on their suffering during the occupation years chiefly on the Germans, and far less on the Italians, BTW. Constantine ✍ 12:43, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

So we can agree that I will edit in the armistice surrender of the 23rd April, making it clear to the reader that the Italians did not accept the one signed on the 21st April with the Germans only and simply ignored it and kept on advancing into the Pindus. I will edit in that General Tsolakoglou asked the Italian High Command of Armed Forces in Albania for the unconditional surrender of the Greek Army in Epirus and Macedonia to be accepted. I will also edit in the total number of divisions the Italians employed with the total number for the Germans and will let the reader conclude who actually was the major axis force in Greece by weight of sheer numbers then? And finally, I won't mention anything about defeat or victory (because we all know the Greeks were "victorious"!) and simply state in a very neutral way that the Greek Army in Epirus and Macedonia surrendered unconditionally to the Italians, even though it is very clear to all and sundry that in fact, the Greeks defeated the Italians and were the real "victors". Have I got this right? It might confuse the reader though?AnnalesSchool (talk) 17:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

It's no wonder that not a single work terms the pathetic Italian performance as victory. Why should this confuse the reader?Alexikoua (talk) 18:09, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so let me get this absolutely clear for the reader:

a) the Italians were defeated by the Greek Army of Epirus

b) they were pushed back to Albania

c) on the 23rd April, General Tsolakoglou asked the Italian High Command of Armed Forces in Albania for the unconditional surrender of the Greek Army in Epirus and Macedonia to be accepted since the Greek army was victorious and the Italians were defeated.

d) The defeated Italians were then able to march into victorious Greece and administer 2/3s of Greece and her islands.

e) The victorious Greeks allowed the defeated Italians into Greece.

Have I missed anything? I think I'm getting it now.AnnalesSchool (talk) 19:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, I found this:

"the Greek Military Command in an official communique admitted that the Yugoslav-Greek Offensive that aimed to completely knock out Italy out of Albania had failed, forcing the Greek Army to commence a general withdrawal:

"The Greek High Command issued the following statement at midnight: The unexpected dislocation of the Yugoslav front, the rapid advance of the German forces over the plateau of Monastir, and our consequent separation from the Yugoslav Army, together with the threat to the rear of our troops in Albania, completely disarranged the line held by our forces and compelled us to make a hasty withdrawal on a large scale" (Albania in the Twentieth Century, A History: Volume II: Albania in Occupation and War, 1939-45, Owen Pearson, p. 147, I.B.Tauris, 2006 )

Can anyone give me advice on how I can include the above in the article but still make it crystal clear to the reader that the Greek army was victorious over the defeated Italians? Any advice will be appreciated.AnnalesSchool (talk) 20:18, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Copious amounts of misplaced sarcasm here. The very source you quote to support (?) your position does nothing more than agree with what I wrote: it was the German attack on Yugoslavia and Greece that changed the situation dramatically, forcing the Greek withdrawal and eventual surrender. Where exactly is the Italian initiative or decisive action here? The Italian Army fired its last shot in the war during the Spring Offensive, which failed. After that, it merely reacted to others' movements. The major factor in the eventual outcome of the Balkans campaign is clear to anyone whose sole agenda, concern, and reason for being in Wikipedia is not to boost WW2-era Italian credentials by rhetorical acrobatics and selective highlighting of some events and omitting of others. Constantine ✍ 23:00, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so the Italians were thoroughly beaten by the Greeks who emerged victorious. But it still leaves the very odd question: a) why did General Tsolakoglou unconditionally surrender to the Italian High Command of Armed Forces on 23rd April?

In other words, why would the "victors" (the Greeks) surrender unconditionally to the "losers", the Italians?

Here are some historical (and rather inconvenient) facts to ponder on too:

In March, the threat of Italian attack was still very much real.

The over-whelming bulk of the Greek forces were in Albania trying desperately to keep the Italians at bay.

The fighting with the Italians continually bled Greek forces away from the other fronts, such as Macedonia and western Thrace, leaving Greek lines of defense elsewhere very vulnerable and exposed, especially in the face of eventual German and Bulgarian attacks.

The Italian offensive on 10th March, while it failed to break through the Greek defenses, severely weakened it. The Greeks were hard pressed to contain that Italian offensive.

By mid-March it was clear to Papagos that they could not hold the Italians back much longer as his army had only a few week's supply of artillery shells left and other chronic shortages of material.

Since Oct 1940, the Greek army was bleeding supplies that could not be replaced locally and the British could not (or would not) replace.

The Greeks were fast approaching the end of their logistical tether.

Greek soldiers on the Albanian front were exhausted and morale was plummeting.

Italy had far more logistics, resources and manpower that the Greeks simply could not match.

Several desperate Greek counter attacks in March failed against the Italians. Papagos realised that the Italians "could not be broken" when on the 4th April, the Italian Alpine Division took Mount Guri i Topit which signaled the end of any Greek hope to defeat the Italians. The initiative for the war from then on, swung in favor of the Italians.

(Stockings and Hancock, Swastika over the Acropolis, Chapter 3)

Strange, but from the above, it doesn't seem as if the Italians were "pathetically" whipped. I intend to put much of the above into the article, fully cited and footnoted. Should I start a new heading and name it

-How the Italians were soundly beaten by the Greek Army of Epirus? - Any suggestions? 

AnnalesSchool (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Or how about this one?

"The defeated, abject and pathetic Italians marched into Athens as the victorious Greeks watched." — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnalesSchool (talk • contribs) 11:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm serious, I really need your advice on how I can make sure that the reader fully understands that the Greeks were victorious while the Italians overran and occupied the country for two and a half years.AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Most of the adjectives like "defeated, abject and pathetic" in this discussion and in similar ones in similar articles come from you, not from the article texts, not from the sources, not from any of the many users who oppose your POV. Perhaps it is time to cut the drama a bit. We get your pet peeve, and you have a point in that the Italian war effort is stereotypically over-maligned and slandered, but trying to present a failed invasion in which the attacker is thrown back by a country five times smaller, technologically backward, and thoroughly outclassed in equipment and reserves (as you yourself say), as an unqualified victory goes way beyond that and deep into fantasy-land. As to how in the end the Italians ended up occupying much of Greece, the expression "riding coattails" might be of help to you, because it perfectly sums up the situation. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:03, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

The adjectives I have used like "pathetic" has come from one of the editors above. With language like that, we know he's definitely going to be neutral and impartial! Did I ever say it was an "unqualified victory"? It was a victory of sorts, but a qualified one. Yes, the Germans and the Bulgarians certainly tipped the scales in favor of the Italians, but so what? War isn't a spectator sport or a wrestling match where the contestants get bonus points. War is about politics, diplomacy, alliances, timing and calling upon your axis partners when required. How many times have the Italians helped out the Germans, tipping the scales in their favor at a crucial point of a battle? Too many times! And yet, when the Germans do the Italians a favor and intervene militarily to help our their ally, oh my God! Those pathetic Italians are just useless! Sounds like double standards to me. The Germans had never wanted to get involved in Greece. Who let them in? Not the Italians, but the Greeks themselves. By allowing the Brits in, the Germans were definitely going to get involved with Greece. Anyway, if we use the same standard that's applied to the Italians, the Greeks really are a "pathetic, abject" bunch. I mean, hey look! They needed the Brits to help them out! Greeks can't fight their own wars! useless, aren't they! This is simply hypocrisy on a grand scale. Pointing the finger at the Italians for needing German assistance when the Greeks had to rely on the Brits to help them out.

You wrote: but trying to present a failed invasion in which the attacker is thrown back by a country five times smaller, technologically backward, and thoroughly outclassed in equipment and reserves (as you yourself say), as an unqualified victory goes way beyond that and deep into fantasy-land.

Think a minute about what you wrote. When the Italians invaded Greece, they expected to walk in with 31,000 men. What they encountered was several times the number of Greek troops and heavy artillery rising to 250,000 men. The Greeks had overwhelming advantages in manpower and the terrain for mountain terrain nearly always supports the defenders rather than the attackers. Of course the Italians are going to have to fall back, regroup, reinforce and think their whole strategy again.

Were the Italians defeated? Absolutely not. Were they victorious (in the end). Yes, but it was a qualified victory. Were the Greeks victorious? Initially yes, but in the end, no. The Italians won, and the Greeks lost. Why is that so hard to accept?

You guys have to stop disparaging the Italians so much, and learn to be a lot fairer and balanced, using more neutral and impartial language befitting an electronic encyclopedia like Wikipedia.

I mean, you admitted it yourself when you wrote: We get your pet peeve, and you have a point in that the Italian war effort is stereotypically over-maligned and slandered

Yes, exactly! That's what I've been trying to get across to some of you! So if you recognize that the Italian war effort has been over-maligned and slandered, why do you insist on making it more so? Do something about it.AnnalesSchool (talk) 19:06, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Your argument still fails to take into account that there were essentially two wars/campaigns against Greece: the Italian and the German. The very fact that the latter took place is the most telling indication that the former had failed. The German attack succeeded, and thereby also put an end to the Greco-Italian War, which was a distinct theatre altogether. The simple fact is that Italy failed tactically in anything it tried against Greece. Whether that was because of horrible underestimation of the Greeks, or whether it was the leadership's fault and not the individual Italian soldier's is beside the point: the fact remains that Italy began the war offensively, with absolute air and naval superiority, and within three months found itself driven back deep into its own territory, and had to be bailed out by the Germans. Pretending that the German intervention was anything else is nonsense, and is the reason why I speak about rhetorical contortions in your line of reasoning.

Now, through the German intervention, Italy did achieve "a victory of sorts", but it was a hollow paper victory, and one that masked a long-term strategic defeat: from the moment of German intervention in the Balkans as well as in North Africa, its much-vaunted "parallel war" was at an end, and the country became very much a client of Germany. The fact that it occupied most of Greece has more to do with the fact that the Germans simply did not want to commit occupation troops there, especially with Barbarossa looming, as well as a need to prop up Mussolini's prestige, than any actual occupation by right of conquest. The fact of the repeat of the Greek surrender to the Italians at Hitler's insistence shows exactly that, as does the fact that it was Hitler who decreed how Greece would be divided and run. And anyone who knows anything about the occupation if Greece knows that even if the Italians occupied most of the country, the Germans ran the show.

In addition there are historians who put the "beginning of the end" for Fascism's popularity and credibility exactly with its abject failure against Greece. It is therefore no coincidence that if you google the words "Italy", "Fascism", and "Greek campaign" or the likes, such terms as "fiasco", "disaster", "blunder", and "humiliation" leap into view, with "pyrrhic victory" probably the closest to your argument. And as long as that remains the predominant view (and it probably will), there is nothing to change here. There is room for a more nuanced presentation of Italy's military effort in World War II (and which I for one would heartily welcome), but your line of approach, which focuses on changing semantics (i.e. re-labelling Italian "defeats" as "quasi-victories") instead of contributing substance, will not produce that. Constantine ✍ 12:20, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Constantine (or Cplakidas?) we have to agree to disagree. The Italians did not need the Germans to defeat the Greeks. As one writer wrote, even before the German attack on 6th April, the Greek line was weakening and the Italians were actually succeeding.

I can only repeat what Stockings claimed: Several desperate Greek counter attacks in March failed against the Italians. Papagos realised that the Italians "could not be broken" when on the 4th April, the Italian Alpine Division took Mount Guri i Topit which signaled the end of any Greek hope to defeat the Italians. The initiative for the war from then on, swung in favor of the Italians.

The Greeks simply could not defeat the Italians. The Greek Army of Epirus only had enough ammunition for a few more weeks. It was running out of time. How long do you think it could have held out against the Italians? Forever? If even General Papagos admitted that the "Italians could not be broken", what hope was there? The Italians were not going to give up, with or without the Germans.

Hitler did not want to intervene in Greece, so why did he? To help his old pal, Mussolini? Not really. He intervened because of the coup in Yugoslavia and because the Greeks unwisely allowed the Brits into Greece. So Hitler had other reasons for attacking Greece, and not just because he wanted to help out Mussolini. Your argument is a very simplistic one (Hitler came to the rescue of the Italians"). In fact, it was Mussolini who helped out Hitler in Yugoslavia by committing ″the Italian 2nd Army and 9th Army and 666 aircraft to the operation". So not only were the Italians committed to fighting the Greeks (who realistically never had a chance), they even sent two whole armies and 666 aircraft to help Hitler in Yugoslavia. The Greeks pinned their hopes on the Yugoslavs and linking their forces in Albania, but it never happened. The Yugoslavs capitulated. Now, if you really want to point the finger at an army that was "pathetic, abject and useless" then why don't you guys pick on the Yugoslav Army and give the Italian Army a break, eh?

So the Germans ran the show, did they? Then why was it that the Germans were unable to pressure the Italians to surrender the Greek Jews in their occupation zone? Hitler didn't care about Greece. Strategically it wasn't important to him. He just wanted to make sure that British bombers weren't placed there to threaten the Romanian oil fields. Hitler valued his alliance with the Italians much more highly. I can only reaffirm that according to my sources, the Italians never needed any "bailing out" by the Germans. Rather it was the Greeks who needed the most "bailing out" by the British and the Yugoslavs, both of whom failed Greece at the time of her greatest need.

One could turn the whole argument on its head by arguing that given all the assistance by the Brits (weapons, arms and manpower) the Greeks still managed to lose the war.

It is ironic but by belittling the Italians, you only succeed in cheapening the Greek war effort, because if the Italians were as "useless and pathetic" as you like to claim, then what does it say about the Greeks and the Brits? In other words, the Greeks must have been even more "pathetic and useless" if they couldn't defeat an enemy like the useless Italians.By denigrating the Italians, you only succeed in denigrating yourselves.AnnalesSchool (talk) 21:38, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

@AnnalesSchool: I'm afraid you are deep into wp:or and it appears you intentionally do not support your references with decent citations. Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball to provide explanations on such extraordinary scenarios. Bibliography generally accepts the fact that the Greek forces achieved the first land victory in WWII against the Italians.Alexikoua (talk) 22:50, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Craig Stockings and Eleanor Hancock, Swastika over the Acropolis Craig Stockings, PhD. (2006), is Associate Professor of History at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. He has published a number of monographs, edited works and articles on various aspects of Australian and international military history, including Bardia: Myth, Reality and the Heirs of Anzac (UNSW Press, 2009). Eleanor Hancock, PhD.(1989), is Associate Professor of History at the University of New South Wales, Canberra. She has published on various aspects of the history of Nazi Germany and World War II, including Ernst Rohm Hitler's SA Commander (Palgrave USA, 2008).

WP:OR You have got to be kidding!AnnalesSchool (talk) 23:34, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

My dear Greek friends. I was brought up in Rotterdam and if you check your history books, you will find out that it was the Dutch army that obtained the first Allied victory in the Second World War, capturing 1,300 German paratroops from an elite Fallschirmjäger division and forcing several thousands more to flee, recapturing the Valkenburg, Ockenburg and Ypenburg airfields that the Germans had captured on 12 May 1940 during the Battle of the Netherlands. (72.181.4.10 (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2015 (UTC))

If the Dutch counteroffensive pushed back the Wehrmacht deep into German territory and this finally caused the intervention of another Axis power (?) to support Germany, then yes the Dutch-German conflict was a Dutch victory.Alexikoua (talk) 10:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

So much chest pounding on the part of the Greeks, Poles and the Dutch. The Battle of Britain was the first real victory in WW2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Britain Please study your history Alexikoua before making yourself look like a fool.--95.141.29.54 (talk) 02:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

The Polish sacrifices like always are overlooked by our wartime allies, the British claiming the first Allied success was the recapture of Narvik, the Dutch claiming it was the recapture of the airfields, the Greeks claiming it was having stopped the Italians, and the Australians claiming it was having stopped Rommel. But before all these admirable actions, we should swallow our pride (including the Dutch and I am Dutch), and remember that it was the Polish Wołyńska Cavalry Brigade that ambushed the 4th Panzer Division with 295 tanks during the Battle of Mokra, the Polish Army claiming twelve victories, including successful breakouts during the Nazi invasion of September 1940.(92.110.50.197 (talk) 02:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC))

OK, now it seems that we have been joined by outright trolls... Anyhow, AnnalesSchool, you have in the past claimed to be a professional historian. It strains belief then that you would use self-published books such as Regio Esercito: The Italian Royal Army in Mussolini's Wars in lieu of more credible histories. But of course, the more credible histories disagree with your POV, so perhaps no wonder there. And yes, you are very deep in WP:OR territory. For instance, Hitler's first directive for Operation Marita was on December 13, long before any British troops landed on the Greek mainland, and long before the Yugoslav coup happened. You might argue that the landing in Crete an the presence of a few RAF squadrons was what you meant, but no: Hitler did not care so much about that, he feared a new Salonica Front, and that could only come about through ground troops in the mainland. More importantly, you once again put the cart before the horse, since the Yugoslav coup happened only due to German pressure to join the Axis in order to support the imminent German attack on Greece. If you ignore or twist even the basic chronology of events, I really cannot consider your opinion reliable or unbiased. You are here with a clear agenda, and one which does not accord with the consensus among historians or even the plain course of events. Constantine ✍ 08:38, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you Cplakidas or Constantine? Why are you using two names interchangeably? My friends above, you are not trolls. The only trolls are our fellow Greek editors who are so biased and partisan they have completely lost the plot. I never knew the depths of hatred they actually have for the Italians until now. They were defeated and humiliated by the Italians during the war, and it is something they simply cannot get over. Do not be angry with them; only pity them. Their sense of frustration is so deep they will even try to twist history so that what was a patently obvious victory by the Italians, has to be reversed by re-writing history. And any author who appears with a different view, is automatically shunned, besmirched and derided and ignored. It must be a awful thing to carry upon one's shoulders this great sense of shame for having had one's country occupied and plundered and humiliated by another. AnnalesSchool (talk) 11:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Blah blah blah, yaddah yaddah yaddah. Much drama, zero substance. Quite who has an enormous chip on his shoulder is obvious here; as is who sticks to facts and reputable sources, and who doesn't. Because as I wrote above, your outline of events leading up to the German invasion contradicts actual history to such a degree that it is either ignorance or deliberate manipulation, and frankly, I don't know which is worse. The "sense of frustration" that I for one feel stems from having to deal every now and then with a textbook case of WP:SPA who doggedly tries to spin/twist/re-interpret facts to suit his own POV, in wilful ignorance of both general consensus among historians and basic facts such as chronology. Using a self-published source is just icing on the cake... Constantine ✍ 12:09, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

The truth hurts Constantine (or are you Cplakisdas?). I know that for Greeks, it was a great humiliation to have been conquered by the Italians, overrun and occupied. You have confused offensives and the actual war. While several Italian offensives were halted by the Greeks, it doesn't mean the Italians actually lost the war. They won, with German and Bulgarian help. It was, in a sense, a tag-team effort. The Italians took the hard blows and did most of the fighting, until the Greeks were exhausted and bled white. Then the Germans and Bulgarians swooped in for the kill. Hey, think of it as tag-team wrestling! It isn't fair, but hey, that's war!AnnalesSchool (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Wrong location listed.

In the section Greek Royal Forces in the Middle East, there is a photograph from the Imperial War Museum which reads "Greek pilots of the 335th Fighter Squadron at Dhekeila, Egypt (1942)." Dhekeila is in Cyprus, not Egypt. ExRat (talk) 17:55, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Apart from a common misspelling of Dhekelia in Cyprus, there appears to have been a Dhekeila airfield in Egypt as well: HMS Grebe. Constantine ✍ 08:24, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Military history of Greece during World War II. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761572872_11/Greece.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080723131046/http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn330-352.htm to http://www.rafweb.org/Sqn330-352.htm

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) 00:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)