Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Heraklion/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 3 May 2021 [1].

Battle of Heraklion

edit
Nominator(s): Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Crete, 1941; a brigade/regimental level combat. Fiercely fought, although ultimately it effected nothing. Both sides achieved/suffered Pyrrhic victories. Recently much expanded by me and put through GAN and ACR. The second Battle of Crete article from me, following on from the recent Battle of Rethymno. All suggestions for improvement gratefully received. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 1 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Nikkimaria, I had completely missed that. Now paraphrased and cited. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:43, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

edit
  • No Royal Air Force (RAF) units were based permanently at Crete until April 1941, but airfield construction had begun, radar sites built and stores delivered. This sentence is repeated twice in the same paragraph.
Gah! One removed.
  • The Imperial's steering gear broke down at about 03:45[84] and her crew and complement of soldiers had to be taken off at sea, at night, and she was then sunk. Scuttled?
I have added the Wikilink, but would prefer to keep the more straight forward description, rather than swap it for a less readily understood technical term.
  • Any info on attempts to rebuild Heraklion following the German air raids?
That is a very good point. I have not seen anything, but I shall research it further. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:57, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I may have misunderstood the query. The German air raids were more or less continuous from early May to when they overran the airfield. However, I have added, as the very final paragraph, some information on the airfield's role during the rest of the war and its use since.

-Indy beetle (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle and thanks for your comments so far. All responded to. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I altered the cite on one of the airport factoids but everything else is good to go. -Indy beetle (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Truflip99

edit

I offer my comments as a way to beg you to comment on my FAC c:

truflip99, many thanks for reviewing, although a request on my talk page is frequently sufficient to elicit a review. What is your current FAC? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I enjoy reading your military articles anyway. It is MAX Orange Line. Thanks a million! --truflip99 (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead/Background

  • {defended Heraklion port and airfield against a German paratrooper attack -- link Paratrooper?
Oops. Done.
  • following Germans attacks against -- German*
Fixed.
  • The Italians were repulsed without the aid of the expeditionary force. -- for clarity's sake, repulsed by whomst?
I had assumed that it would be pretty clear to a reader that it was by the country they had invaded. I have added "by the Greeks", although it looks a little "statement of the bleeding obvious" to me.
  • Hitler was concerned about attacks on the Romanian oil fields from Crete -- comma after this
Only if one uses serial (aka Oxford) commas. I don't.
  • "Crete... will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa." -- full stop after quotes
Not if the full stop is in the original. See MOS:INOROUT "Include terminal punctuation within the quotation marks only if it was present in the original material".

More later. --truflip99 (talk) 20:00, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:17, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Allies

  • In the space of a week, 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece -- comma necessary?
Removed.

Germans

  • The German assault on Crete was code-named "Operation Mercury" (Unternehmen Merkur) -- curious why you opted with "English" (German) rather than alternative
Cus that's how the sources handle it, and because this is the English language Wikipedia. But I can see the logic of reversing it, and will if you think that would read better.
Per MOS:FOREIGNITALIC, you are doing it correctly. But I'm just really torn on "Operation Mercury". It would seem appropriate to switch just this but I won't get hung up on it.
  • This force totalled approximately 3,000 men[30] -- consider moving the ref at the end?
Why? It means that the cite is then after text which it doesn't support and causes anyone who wants to check the referencing or read more about that snippet to do twice as much work.
Wikipedia:Inline citation, but I see your point
  • ... Crete consisted of 5,000 men and that the garrison of Heraklion was 400 strong. -- there is an earlier instance of the word garrison that should be wikilinked instead
I know. The earlier version was the verb, so I skipped it. Quite happy to link it instead of the noun if you feel that woould be better pracrice.
  • The design of the German parachutes and the mechanism for opening them... -- there could also be an earlier instance of the word parachute
I have linked parachute assaults to "Airborne assault", so the currently linked "parachute" is the first unlinked mention.
  • This precluded their jumping with any weapon larger than a pistol or a grenade. -- link pistol and grenade (there is a later wikilink of grenade that needs to be omitted)
Done.
I beklieve that "rifle" is common enough not to need linking, automatic firearm linked.
  • Each aircraft could lift thirteen paratroopers -- use numeral? MOS:NUMERAL (you also use "13 captured Italian field guns")
Done.

A bit slow to comb through this, promise I'll get there. --truflip99 (talk) 07:36, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Truflip99, no worries, there is no rush and your input is much appreciated. Your points so far addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Battle

  • "which were to have consequences for their attack on Heraklion" -- can't you just say "which had"? since you pretty much explain it in the next sentence(?)
I can. Done.
  • "They were blanketed with dust clouds" -- how?
Expanded. At a possible risk of "going into unnecessary detail".
  • "In the event the attacking bomber and fighters ran low on fuel and departed before the paratrooper transports arrived." -- this reads like a fragment sentence
Sorry. I am possibly too close to it, but I really can't see in what way.
... says "Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words". Is there some other part which overrides this?
  • "providing a succession of easy targets for Allied anti-aircraft guns. During this period no German fighters nor bombers returned to suppress the ground fire. A total of 15 Ju 52s were shot down.[43] Before the Germans had completed their drop Chappel had already committed his reserve battalion and tanks to a counter-attack." -- there's an earlier instance of the word tanks in this section; I would just omit the link since you link light tanks and infantry tanks early on
Good spot. Thanks. Fixed.
  • " "to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat", " -- omit comma?
Done.
  • "Meanwhile, the 2nd Battalion of the 85th Mountain Regiment (II/85)" -- omit comma?
Done.
  • "had loaded onto commandeered Greek caiques at Piraeus" -- ciaque links to a bird
Ah. The umlaut was removed at the request of an earlier reviewer and I didn't realise that changed the target. Thanks for spotting. Fixed.
OK.
  • "Wary of the Allied naval patrols," -- omit comma?
Omitted.
  • "The assaults were ill-coordinated" -- omit dash
Omitted.
  • " facing large bands of Cretan partisans," -- is there a difference between these guys and the Cretan civilians mentioned early on?
Yes.
  • "On the 24th four companies of paratroopers were dropped west of Heraklion to reinforce the Germans[69] and the town was heavily bombed in retaliation for its non-surrender on the 21st" -- inconsistent with the rest of the paragraph
I have deliberately used different formulations to bring a bit of variation to the writing.
  • "They were further reinforced by paratroopers landing at Gournes on the 27th." -- here too.
As above.
  • "GHQ Middle East " -- acronym has not been established
Rephrased.

Almost there. --truflip99 (talk) 06:15, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that truflip99. All of your points addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi truflip99, I was wondering if you felt able to either support or oppose this yet? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog the Mild, pardon the delay I thought I had already done this. Full support. --truflip99 (talk) 22:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm really confused lol. I thought I had completed this one really. I'll keep my support but finish reviewing it now. Unlikely that I'll withdraw it. --truflip99 (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gerda support

edit

This is a completely new topic for me, but being German, I am curious. I'll skip the lead for now, needing more understanding first.

Background

  • Why is Oberkommando des Heeres italic, but Luftwaffe not? ... and "Führer Directive" looks extremely strange to me, combining German and English.
Because "Luftwaffe" has been adopted into the language, and is considered an ordinary English word. (Like flak, stuka, or Gestapo.) See Wikt:Luftwaffe.

Germans

  • I see no reason for the pic being left where it pushes out the text, which is worse with a short section header.
Moved to the right.
"Führer Directive" is used by nearly all of the sources. Bear in mind that "führer" is also an English word. Eg see Wikt:Führer.

Aftermath

  • "Due to their heavy losses on Crete the Germans attempted no further large-scale airborne operations during the war." I think this could also go to the lead, instead of ending there with a list of statistics.
Done.

That's it for now. Will look once more tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gerda Arendt, many thanks for looking this over. Your points above all addressed and I am eagerly awaiting the next installment. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:03, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the responses and changes. - The adoption of phrases is something I know from Latin where it's Requiem and Salve Regina, but italic when more unfamiliar. We can't help that it looks inconsistent when two of those appear close together, and it's also subject to change over time. - Right now I'm too tired for saying something useful, but will return. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:38, 11 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Next bits:

Lead

  • What do think of mentioning "Allies" sooner, or would every leader know?
  • Also, I'm used from other topics that the first paragraph is an overview of the whole thing, - is that different here. Just curious.
I am unaware of any requirement for this. In fact if this were to be done I would have thought that it would break the policy at MOS:LEAD. I assume that we are discussing MOS:OPEN and/or MOS:FIRST, in which case it seems to me that the first paragraph meets both.

TOC

  • I am not familiar with headers in MilHist, but confess that the TOC is not overly helpful to provide an overview. Compare this article I recently had the pleasure to review.
We may have to agree to disagree on this. The section headers seem to me to meet all of the requirements of MOS:HEAD. Specifically they seem "natural, sufficiently precise, concise, and consistent with those of related articles". They - to me - accurately and adequately introduce the text they head. Reviewing them they seem fine to me; except for "Evacuation", which I have expanded to "Allied evacuation". Your comment has me puzzled. Perhaps you could indicate a header which you feel is unsatisfactory and suggest a better wording? Thanks.
It wasn't one specific header, but the impression that just from the headers, you couldn't tell the story. But see below. --GA

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for those Gerda. Comments on two areas I have never had comments on before. Proof of the value of having not subject experts look at FACs. See what you think of my replies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:10, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for no response sooner. I was preoccupied with my FAC, death of a fellow editor (never wrote an obit before, but nobody else began ...) and other missing. I am happy to support, - military language seems just to be shorter than about a composer's who fought other battles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by AhmadLX

edit

Hi Gog. Since you've reviewed 3 of my GANs and 1 FAC, I will do this one to return some favor.

Thanks AhmadLX, appreciated. (You write good articles.)
  • "The Italians were repulsed by the Greeks ..." and "A German invasion in April 1941 ..." The two should be combined into one sentence, with e.g. an "although" preceding the 1st one, to give better flow. Right now it is abrupt.
I am reluctant to conflate episodes more than three months apart in a single sentence. I have added some waffle to try and smooth over the perceived abruptness, see what you think.
Seems good to me.
  • "The brigade was made up of: the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment (2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle) and the 2nd Battalion ..." So "2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment" is a single unit, then why do you have 2nd battalion again?
Because the 2nd Battalion, the York and Lancaster Regiment is a different unit from the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment).
  • Actually whole of the above sentence with battalions stuff is very laborious to understand (at least for those unacquainted with military terminology, like me)
Very true. British battalions have unwieldy names. But I have to state the units involved on both sides somewhere, giving full names at first mention. Like many technical articles there are bits where the MoS - and common sense - restricts how digestible one can make some bits. That said, I would be grateful for any ideas as to how to make it less turgid.
I would suggest two things (disregard if you don't like them):
1. and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment) → and the 2nd Battalion, the Black Watch (Royal Highland Regiment)
Good idea. Done.
2. Relegating the stuff inside brackets [(2nd York and Lancs; with a complement of 742 officers and men on the eve of the battle), (2nd Black Watch; 867) etc. ] to footnotes.
I'm not sure that it appropriate to relegate fairly important information to footnotes. Let me think on't - I am aware that my view may be skewed by being relatively used to the convoluted names of British battalions and so the sentence reading more smoothly for me.
I have tried a couple of things: putting the complements in footnotes; pulling them out into a separate, subsequent sentence. Each has pros and cons, but on reflection, to me the present arrangement seems least bad.
  • "German paratroopers were also required to leap headfirst from their aircraft ... which resulted in a high incidence of wrist injuries." Any info on why were they required to do so?
Yes. Added. Could you check that it is not getting too repetitive.
  • "south east" and "south-east"
Oops. Good spot. Fixed.
  • "When Ju 52s flew over, the Allies ceased fire and displayed captured panels requesting resupply; they received large quantities of weapons, ammunition and equipment, including two motorcycles with sidecars." This should be made more explicit that they were duped.
I would love to add something like "believing they were German positions". But the sources don't support it. Stating that the pilots were duped would, IMO, be OR. It may seem obvious to you and me, but if a source doesn't support this supposition, I don't see how it can be included. Ah ha, after searching around I have found a source saying the Allies were able "to confuse the pilots", so I have tweaked the sentence.
The cited source in fact says that the Britons fooled the Germans in bombing their own positions (Although I'm not sure if it is regarding this battle or a different one on Crete)
I believe that you are thinking of the Battle of Rethymno, also currently at FAC. The source cited for this incident, at Heraklion, is Beevor, p. 94:

They had learned, like their counterparts at Rethymno, to confuse the pilots of the transport planes and bombers. They laid out captured swastika flags on their positions, stopped shooting and, when the Germans fired green Very lights, they did the same. On a number of occasions, captured recognition strips produced containers with weapons, ammunition, rations and medical supplies. Sets of surgical implements were parachuted, with true German practicality, in containers shaped like coffins to provide a second use. Two outstanding examples of this military manna from heaven were a pair of motor-cycles with side-cars, one dropped to Major Sir Keith Dick-Cunyngham's company of the Black Watch and the other to the Australian battalion on the Charlies. The Australians found themselves so well provided with German weapons that large quantities could be handed over to the less fortunate Greek troops.

It obviously says that Heraklion dudes used captured flags to deceive them. Somewhere else, without naming battle, it also talks about Germans bombing their own boys, but since google version has no page numbers, I'm not sure if it refers to Heraklion or some other battle. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 00:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have reread Beevor, and the only reference I can find to the Germans bombing their own men is during the Battle of Rethymno, and no mention of it happening during this battle.
  • "On 23 May six Hurricanes ..." and "On 26 May, Freyberg informed ..." Several other similar instances of inconsistent comma after a time indicator (e.g. "By the end of the month, ... " and "On 30 April 1941 ...")
Thanks. I suspect someone has been "helpfully" inserting them. Removed.
  • "The embarkation went smoothly and the squadron was underway by 03:00.[81] with approximately 4,000–4,100 evacuees on board." Remove period after 03:00.
Done.
  • Duplinks: Garrison, Fighters, Middle East, Heraklion International Airport.
Fixed.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 20:10, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi AhmadLX, and thanks for that. Good stuff. Your comments all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 12 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "weapon containers" and "weapons containers"
Done.
  • "caïques" → "caiques"
Done.
  • "Greece became a belligerent in World War II when it was invaded by Italy on 28 October 1940.[2]" Not on the cited page.
Gah! It should have been to page 1. I can only imagine that a cut and paste was interrupted, or something equally silly. It is not as if there are not several thousand RSs from which I could have cited that. *rolly eyes*
  • "and the Ploiești oil fields in Romania would be within range of British bombers based on the island. The Italians were repulsed by the Greeks without the aid of the expeditionary force." Not on the cited page
I have no idea. I assume that I simply missed a source. It would never have been in Long, his is not that type of history, and I can't find anything in older versions of the article. As it is all uncontroversial, readily referenced stuff, I assume that my eyes just skimmed over it. I have cited it to Gilbert, as RS a general text as one is likely to get, and deleted the Ploiesti bit as duplicating the mention in the next paragraph and being a bit peripheral anyway.
  • "Crete... will be the operational base from which to carry on the air war in the Eastern Mediterranean, in co-ordination with the situation in North Africa."[10] Quote in the source differs from this
Hitler did say that - but not in FD 28. I am kicking myself for conflating the two. I am a prize idiot. I have made more edits on this article than any other I have worked on and I think that I have gotten far too close to it.
  • Please verify that no other such discrepancies exist. I am not assuming bad faith here. It is just that, as I know from my own writing experience and reviews that I've conducted, it often happens that one misreads something in the source, or incorrect page (or source) is cited by mistake, or sometimes moving around material creates discrepancies.
Gog, I need response to this and "and the Ploiești oil fields" before I support. Thanks. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 15:24, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AhmadLX and apologies for the very long delay. Your concerns above all addressed. Sourcing: I have checked a high proportion of the cites - over half but not all - and not found anything else I am unhappy with. Which is actually irritating, as it strains credibility that you could find several issues in the one section and the rest of the article is fine. With some trepidation I am passing it back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is it insisted here at FAC to have all hyphenated ISBNs? It does affect search results (compare e.g. 9780714652054 and 978-0-7146-5205-4). What is wrong with the ISBNs as they appear in the books themselves? Just a comment, no action needed.
I always used to do that, but got comments that FAs being "Wikipedia's very best work" then ISBNs should be presented in a consistent format. (And that cites should be in number order - another pet hate of mine.) Rather than have the discussion every other FAC - and some reviewers feel very strongly about this - it is easier to just pre-emptively standardise them. I even have 'run all articles through the hyphenator' on my pre-GAN checklist these days.

AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 19:38, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi AhmadLX and thanks for the ping. I got bogged down in my source check and distracted by RL and then FAC coordinator concerns and this review slipped off my "not yet completed list". Apologies for that. I hope to wrap it up on Friday and shall ping you when I do. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility review

edit
Hi Heartfox, alt text added for all images except for the map of Crete, where I don't feel that alt text would add anything to the caption. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The template does provide an alt parameter; I think it could just be "refer to caption". Heartfox (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heartfox, done; although I note that MOS:ALT states "for an image that strictly repeats the information found in nearby text or in a caption ... a blank alt attribute is ideal." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is confusing for me as well because it also says "Where the caption is sufficiently descriptive or evocative of the image, or where it makes clear what the function of the image is, one option is to write |alt=refer to caption. Where nearby text in the article performs the same function, it can be |alt=refer to adjacent text."
It also says at the top of the page "However, the only situation where blank alt text is acceptable is where such images are unlinked, which is rarely possible". Given MOS:ALT is not classified as a guideline, I would personally defer to WP:CAPTION which says alt text should be given regardless (unless an image is purely decorative, of which I don't think any image in an article would be anyways... so I don't really know why that's mentioned. Why would an image be in an article if it was only decorative?) Anyways, good luck with the nom! Heartfox (talk) 21:40, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine

edit

Claiming my place here. I will, as with Battle of Rethymno FAC, make use of the Hellenic Army History Directorate's Abridged History of the Greco-Italian and Greco-German War 1940–1941 to detect potential gaps. Constantine ✍ 18:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hmmm, I don't think we can at this stage call the Cretans 'partisans'. They were not pre-formed into any partisan bodies, but spontaneously took up arms. 'Armed civilians' is preferable IMO. PS, just as a historical curiosity, the Cretans, who were mostly Venizelist and republican/anti-monarchist, had been disarmed by the Metaxas Regime following an abortive revolt in 1938. So the civilians who attacked the German paratroopers were usually 'armed' with sharp tools, until they got their hands on some German weaponry. Now imagine the Cretans had had their guns (IIRC somewhere in the region of 60,000 rifles had been confiscated) in 1941...
MacDonald goes with "partisans". I reckon that this blurs into "armed civilians" with a lot of overlap, but I take your point and have changed both mentions.
  • On the opposing forces, the Abridged History (p. 229) says much the same. Minor nitpicks: (4rd and 7th Regiments, not 'Battalions', although that is what they were, per Battle of Rethymno FAC) and Heraklion depot (recruit training/replacements) battalion. Again, as per Battle of Rethymno FAC, the caveats that these units were essentially barely armed and trained. The same source adds that the 13 guns were of 75mm and 100mm calibre, and some other details on individual weapons that are probably redundant or covered later on (Bofors guns etc).
Unit names amended. Could you please check. I could easily put the calibres in a footnote, but feel that that is getting a bit too detailed for any reader other than aficionados such as us. Let me know if you disagree.
Have made a small addition, see if you like it. On the calibres, agreed, I am happy with 'field guns'. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good. I have tweaked your tweak - [2].
  • Since Bräuer led this operation, perhaps you'd also like to mention the unevenness of German paratrooper training: Bräuer had fought in WWI, but like many of the future paratroopers was a policeman in the interwar period, and the internal German army assessments found that the paratrooper units commanded by the former policemen were not well trained. In his post-battle assessment, Richthofen wrote that the paratroopers were virtually not trained in ground combat, and Sönke Neitzel mentions Bräuer by name to the effect that his men were insufficiently trained, and that he was completely out of his depth in the situation he found himself in (Deutsche Krieger, Propyläen 2020, pp. 205, 653-654 (note 332)).
I am seriously loath to get into this. I don't see it as relevant. Should I also discuss the short comings of the Commonwealth units' training, organisation, equipment, personnel, origins and prior combat experience and performance? Goodness knows that would make a long enough article. Similarly for the Greeks.
Only a minority of the Germans who fought at Heraklion were former policemen. Bräuer had been with the paratroopers for over five years, which seems long enough. To OR, of the four regimental landings his was arguably the most successful; admittedly against a low bar. And, to pluck two names from the air, both Student and Freyberg had immense experience - of the armed forces generally and of combat specifically; but both turned in performances which would have failed a first year military academy test.
I get your point. My only observation would be that while the shortcomings of the British and Greeks are generally acknowledged and discussed (also because they help explain why they were defeated) in English-language literature, the Fallschirmjägers' are not, at least not at the level of unit culture, training, etc. They are considered 'elite' and hence axiomatically competent, even if individual leaders come in for criticism. In this sense it would be a useful corrective, especially since these observations do not come from a historian, but from within the actual internal records of the German army. But I fully understand your reasons for not wanting to go into this. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And I can understand that readers may bring preconceptions to the article, but I have carefully avoided describing the fallschirmjägers as elite, special, highly trained or similar.
  • As with the Battle of Rethymno article, I think we ought to add that the German assault on Heraklion was codenamed 'Orion'. I would also recommend that the German intention to land their forces in waves be mentioned either in the 'Opposing forces' section or in the 'Opposing plans'. It is mentioned in the lede, and at 'Initial assault' but the reader should be left in no doubt that the plan was from the beginning to make the assault in two waves, since the available air support was not sufficient otherwise (Abridged History p. 233 if needed).
I have moved some material up a section and added some linking phraseology. See what you think.
Looks good. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Add to the German plans that the plan was, following the capture of the airfield and the city of Heraklion, to move west with the Rethymno group while sending scouting patrols in the other directions (Abridged History p. 233).
Added.
  • Can we add that preliminary German bombing operations against the projected target areas (airfields, AA batteries, main towns) began on May 14? (Abridged History p. 234) Otherwise it might be unclear why the 14th Brigade thought a German air raid as something 'normal'.
We already have "Before the invasion, the Germans conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to establish air superiority. The RAF rebased its surviving aircraft to Alexandria after 29 of their 35 Crete-based fighters were destroyed." You feel that this needs expanding?
No, that's enough, I missed that at the first read-through. My only nitpick here would be that bombing =/= air superiority; perhaps something like 'conducted a bombing campaign against Crete and the surrounding waters to soften up their targets and isolate the island from seaborne reinforcements, as well as to establish air superiority'? Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no issue with that if I could find a source which explicitly stated it. Have you got anything. It is obvious, and I suspect that the sources treat it as obvious, but it would be OR without something specific. If nothing leaps out at you I shall re-trawl through my sources.
  • The Abridged History p. 240 notes that the initial air attack of ca. 50 aircraft caused most damage in the city, rather than the defences.
This is contradicted by English-language sources. Eg Long "For more than an hour the area was ceaselessly bombed and machine-gunned by aircraft which came so low that more than one flew below a strand of barbed wire which the troops had strung tautly between the two [hills]." I could include both PoVs, but given that all sources agree that the attack was militarily ineffective and that that is already covered I am not sure that it would help a reader.
Agreed, it is a minor issue either way. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Members of the battalion dropping close to the airfield clarify that this was the II/1 Battalion. I would also suggest providing the detailed breakdown of the German casualties (312 dead, 108 wounded), because that is a *very* lopsided killed to wounded ratio and indicative of the slaughter of the German paratroopers. Also, the survivors were about 70 strong (p. 241).
No other source gives even a regiment by regiment breakdown of German casualties, never mind for individual battalions. How confident are you that those are accurate?
I rather find it surprising that they don't. It is an official military history, using other official military histories, so I'd rate it as reliable. The breakdown is 12 officers and 300 OR killed, 8 officers and 100 OR wounded. Such level of detail must have come from some source, after all. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Does the Official History give a source? I hate to sound sniffy about it, but I must have read 6 or 7 detailed analyses or the German casualties, right down to separating aircrew casualties from the fallschirmjäger, but there is no suggestion that anything is available below division level. Several comment on the remarkably high proportion of killed. It feels a little like cherry picking sources - much as I would love to add that level of detail. Note my second paragraph in Aftermath.
  • 'Shultz' is a very unusual German name. Is it perhaps 'Schultz'?
I managed two typos in the one word. Corrected. (Schulz.)
  • II/2 Battalion also came under attack from armed civilians (p. 241).
According to my sources, not until later; as the area was thinly populated. For the night of 20/21 I already have " the II/2 Battalion, but this unit had heard that its missing components had been diverted to Maleme and, facing large bands of armed Cretan civilians".
  • by attacks from Cretan civilians civilians, gendarmes, and two companies of the 7th Greek Regiment (p. 241). Bräuer apparently also ordered III/1 Battalion to launch a simultaneous night attack on the city, but the order was never received by the III/1.
I already have "Schulz, to the west of Heraklion, was out of contact with Bräuer, but could hear heavy firing from the east". Do we need to go into details of things which didn't happen?
  • Add somewhere a mention of the Venetian-era Fortifications of Heraklion. It was the walls that mostly held off the III/1 Battalion, and the fact that the Greeks holding them suffered heavy losses in the morning air attacks of the 21st that allowed the paratroopers to get into the city again (p. 245)
Information on the walls added.
Imformation on the 21st was already there, but I have expanded it a little.
  • On the 22nd, the 3rd Regiment and armed civilians cleared the western and southern approaches of the city, even up to Archanes; the remaining Germans, about 500, held a line about 5km to the west of the city. The Black Watch also cleared the eastern approaches of the airfield from scattered paratrooper groups. On the same day, Greek and British began burying the dead Germans (approx. 1250) (p. 248)
Approximately 3,000 German airborne troops were killed during the Battle of Crete. To OR, it seems unlikely that more than 40% of these were at Heraklion and within two days. Especially as both Rethymno and Prison Valley were greater debacles.
I have incorporated most of the other information.
  • On the 23rd, following complaints by the locals that the Germans were using civilian hostages (mostly women and children) as human shields, the Greek military governor of Heraklion, Major General Michail Linardakis, sent an the local garrison commander, Major Tsangarakis, to the Germans, demanding that the civilians be released, on pain of reprisals against German POWs. The German commander agreed, but demanded the surrender of Heraklion and gave a two-hour deadline. Linardakis refused. (p. 251)
Added.
  • On the 23rd and 24th, Heraklion was heavily bombed and damaged. The water supply network was destroyed, and supply in general became difficult. On the night of 24/25, the Greek units withdrew to the area of Knossos for rest and refitting, while the city was taken over by British units. (p. 251)
Added.
  • Following renewed aerial bombardment, on the 25th the Germans again attacked the city of Heraklion, but was beaten back. (pp. 255-256) During the night of 25/26, the 3rd Greek Regiment also withdrew to Archanes. There the Greek units were reorganized into two 'regiments' of about 1000 men each. (p. 256) At the same time, however, the Germans west of Heraklion skirted the city from the south, bypassed the few Greek forces there, and moved to join their comrades in the east. In the morning of the 26th, they captured a hill defended by part of the 2/4th Australian Battalion. The German forces were now concentrated east of the airfield, and began preparing an attack for the night of the 29th. (p. 256)
The last half sentence is contradicted by other sources. (And by the fact that it didn't happen.) And (ORing) it seems improbable: why throw lifes away attacking a dug in opponent when tanks and artillery are only a few miles away and heading your way?
"On the night of 24/25, the Greek units withdrew to the area of Knossos"; "During the night of 25/26, the 3rd Greek Regiment also withdrew to Archanes." If the 3rd didn't withdraw on the 24/25th, which your first statement would suggest they did, could you clarify which units did withdraw? Thanks.
  • Chappel never bothered to inform the Greeks of the evacuation (😒), and the Greek units remained in place south of Heraklion in the Archanes area until the morning of the 29th, when they found out that the British were gone. Major General Linardakis met with Bräuer on the 30th in Heraklion and signed the surrender of his forces (so technically the battle continued until the 30th). (pp. 259-260). The Greek troops were taken as POWs at Maleme and Chania, but they were gradually released until November. (p. 260).
According to some accounts he didn't tell some of the Commonwealth outposts either.
Do you know where the Greek units were on the 30th? According to MacDonald they were disbursed and acting as a guerrilla force.
Date amended.
Details of the surrender and captivity added.
Were all of these Greek PoWs released by November?
I/1 dropped at Goumes. See the text.
The map matches Beevor. The most recent (1991) detailed source I could find with a decent map. Other maps and English-language text supports the landing area of the II/2 shown.
I am linking the Abridged History's map with my own translations of the unit names ([3]). I am pretty sure the Greek history's map is more accurate, both on the II/2 and the I/1 drop zones. Especially the latter is missing entirely from the map, don't you think that is odd? Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re I/1 - no. I could literally give you ten sources without searching which state that it dropped 5 miles away at Gournes, alongside the regimental HQ. Most then go into considerable detail around what it did, capturing a radio station, assembling, being attacked by Creatans, Bräuer peeling off a platoon and force marching it to the airfield, the rest of the battalion marching in through the night and taking 200 casualties to Greek civilians, etc. That the I/1 landed well away from the area on the map is as nailed down as anything in the battle.
I have looked at the map and it it claims that is where the Germans landed it is in contradiction of every other RD on the topic. If it says that was the position it is getting much closer. (My Greek isn't up to that distinction.)
  • The Von Blücher brothers are often mentioned in works about the Battle of Crete (probably due to their famous ancestor), and they were killed at Heraklion. Perhaps we should point to them somehow?
Not in my opinion.
No problem. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question: why do you use only a single page from Prekatsounakis, who seems to be specialized on the battle?
I have grave doubts as to him being a " high-quality reliable source". I use him once, uncontroversially and redundantly, to indicate that I am aware of the work and have read it and to ward against possible accusations of not having met "it is a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". Then stay well away.
I haven't read the book, but suspected as much. In that case I would recommend relegating him to a 'further reading' section, unless the reference is truly crucial and can only be found there. By citing him, you implicitly consider him a RS. Constantine ✍ 11:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that's it. It reads really well, is quite exhaustive (apart from the days after the 21st) and tells the story very engagingly. An excellent piece of work, as usual. Constantine ✍ 19:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Constantine, from an old hand like yourself I appreciate that. I have, I think, addressed all of your points. Disagreeing with you in places, querying in others, but mostly gleefully incorporating the information. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: Just when I thought we were almost done, I found that I have access via the Vienna University Library, to the English translation of Golla's The German Fallschirmtruppe 1936-41. He is indeed exhaustively detailed. I will pause my responses to you until I've had a look at it, and will be back at it tomorrow. Constantine ✍ 12:08, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Constantine, I was looking to close this but if you have more to add I could hold off a little longer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 23 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support and comments from Jim

edit

Not an area in which I have any expertise, but just a few minor points you may wish to consider. Otherwise looks great Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • The aircraft which had dropped the morning attackers were scheduled to drop..—perhaps The aircraft which had dropped the attackers in the morning were scheduled to drop...
In context - that is, following on from the previous sentence - I think that the existing form works best, or, at least, least badly.
  • it was still improvised in nature—perhaps it still appeared improvised
This would suggest that it only appeared improvised; the sources state that it was improvised.
  • other than their personal weapons, or not even those; — perhaps other than their personal weapons, sometimes not even those;
Done.
  • well dug in (twice)—dug-in
  • ill coordinated. (twice)—ill-coordinated
From Truflip99 above '"The assaults were ill-coordinated" -- omit dash'. Perhaps the two of you could reach a consensus on this and on dug in/dug-in? Or I could toss a coin?
  • number were too intoxicated to disembark from the Imperial—You may not know, but I wonder why and how men were allowed to get hopelessly drunk on active service?
The sources don't state. But in the chaos of a night evacuation, and the relief of believing the danger was over, I don't imagine that a secluded compartment was too difficult to find.
@Buidhe: Has Jim cut and pasted the last comment in error? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gog the Mild This was originally posted to my FAC Armenian Genocide denial—I noted that these comments did not apply to my FAC. So I believe Jim indeed meant to put it here. (t · c) buidhe 21:46, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Buidhe.
Thanks Jim, much appreciated. Responses to your comments are above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query for the coordinators

edit

Support Comments by Z1720

edit

Please consider this a non-expert prose review.

  • "The German attack failed." -> "The initial German attack failed."?
Done.
  • "the Royal Navy with harbours on its north coast." -> "their Royal Navy" to make it clear that the Royal Navy is British.
Done.
  • "and must not be allowed to interfere with" -> "and must not interfere with"
Done.
  • "it was still improvised in nature, with, for example, the fuel store" Remove "for example" as this will fix the excessive commas here.
Moved to end of sentence.
  • "A radar station was established on a hill south east of the Heraklion airfield, Ames Ridge," Flip: ""A radar station was established on Ames Ridge, a hill south east of Heraklion airfied,"
Done.
  • "In the space of a week 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece," comma after week. I would also put a period after Greece to separate these two sentences, as the sentence is long and is two different thoughts
Comma not added; sentence split, but not where you suggested.
  • "With the pre-existing garrison of 14,000 this gave the Allies" comma after 14,000
Not done. It is fine as it is.
  • "Until and unless the paratroopers reached these they had only their pistols and hand grenades with which to defend themselves." This sentence sounds awkward to me. Maybe flip it to, "The paratroopers could only defend themselves with pistols and hand grenades until they reached the containers."
Your version switches the emphasis, so I prefer to not change this.
  • "Running east from the town he deployed" -> Chappel deployed
Done.

More to come later. Z1720 (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Z1720, much appreciated. Your comments to date all addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing:

  • "Running east from the town Chappel deployed" comma after town.
IMO it reads fine as it is.
  • "Bräuer landed with this unit and although he was unable to make contact with his other battalions reported that the attack was progressing "as smooth as silk"." Commas after "and" and "battalions"?
Done.
  • "and, escorted by the Italian torpedo boat Sagittario, sailed to Milos." Flip this to "and sailed to Milos, escorted by the Italian..." This will eliminate and space out the commas.
Done.
  • "Wary of the Allied naval patrols the German convoys had spent the night in the vicinity of Milos." Comma after patrols.
IMO it reads fine as it is.
  • "governor of Heraklion, Major-general Michail Linardakis sent" comma after Linardakis
Done.
  • "this cease; threatening to" Replace semi-colon with comma?
Oops. Done.
  • "and they were withdrawn on the next day." Delete on
Done.
  • "had been landed at Tymbaki" delete been
Done.
  • "and in any event by the time the query" Remove in any event
Done.

Those are all my comments. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Z1720, good detailed stuff there. All of your comments are addressed above. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 30 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Second readthrough

  • "It was also the only one with any blast pens, to protect aircraft on the ground." Remove any, remove comma
Done.
  • "In the space of a week 27,000 Commonwealth troops arrived from Greece," When did this happen? How soon before the attack or date?
Oops. Very good point. I have gone with "By 29 April 47,000 Commonwealth troops of the defeated Allied expeditionary force were evacuated from mainland Greece. In the space of a week 27,000 of these arrived on Crete ..." Does that seem clear enough?
It's better, but one more quibble: "defeated Allied expeditionary force" In which campaign were they defeated? This is hinted at in this section, but there's no wikilink or explanation about the Allied defeat in Greece. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In a second look, I realised that this was explained in the Background section. Z1720 (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Members of the II/1 Battalion, which was dropping close to the airfield, who reached the ground alive" This sentence sounds weird to me. Maybe, "The II/1 Battalion was dropping close to the airfield, and those reached the ground alive..."
That in turn doesn't quite work for me, but I take you point. I have changed to "The II/1 Battalion was dropped close to the airfield; its men who reached the ground alive..." Feel free to poke at this though.
The semi-colon solves the problem, imo. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "he discovered that the II/1 had been all but wiped out" I find this too vague a possibly jargon. Maybe, "he discovered that the majority of the II/1 were killed or missing"
That's not what the source says, and your suggestion is not necessarily the same as being wiped out. How would you feel about "had ceased to exist as a fighting unit"?
Why was it considered "ceased to exist"? Were they scattered too far away from each other to be considered a fighting unit? Were they too disorganised? Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The source doesn't say. I don't know. I could guess or hypothesise, but that would be OR. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep it as-is then. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first sentence in the Aftermath section is very long. I see you use semi-colons to break up the sentence, but I think it is better to use full stops, especially to separate the losses from the ships from the losses from people left in Crete.
Done.
  • Why is the article in Further Reading not used as a source in the article?
It was. But only to a minor extent, cus I am unconvinced of its reliability. A prior reviewer - Constantine, see above - inclined, I think, to agree, and suggested that I not use it to source any of the article but include it in "Further reading" as it is the only book length work dealing solely with the Battle of Heraklion.
My thoughts are, if it is not reliable enough to be used as a source, and it is not a primary document, then I don't think we should be recommending that readers look up this source. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Removed.

Those are all my comments.

Thanks again Z1720, well worth that second read through. Your points addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Responses above. Z1720 (talk) 16:17, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Z1720: And addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comments addressed. I support based on prose. Z1720 (talk) 17:57, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Battle_of_Heraklion/archive1&oldid=1021304496"