"The Battle for Crete - The controversies" Topic

"People have argued about the Battle for Crete since it occurred. The Allied forces on the island knew of the enemy's intentions and had the chance to inflict a humiliating defeat on the Germans – the first they would have suffered on land during the war. Who was responsible for the mistakes that allowed the Germans to gain control of the vital airfield at Maleme and hold it against subsequent counter-attacks?…"

Main page

link

Armand

There seems to
have been a lack of fervor across the board. Certainly not as good the Germans during Market Garden.

The Germans were superior to the Allies in defence. OK, sweeping generalisation….but, in general….that is what generalisation admits. Not as fanatical as the Japanese, but much more effective, granting that better weaponry did not hurt.

Crete was surely a "close run thing" and could easily have proved the first major setback for the Third Reich (well, on land anyway), even then I think Narvik came close.

The question merits an entire book (and there have been several).

But here's a thought. The Airborne units on Crete, let us say, are massacred or captured. Crete is held by a very weakened garrison, needing significant reinforcement, air cover and naval support. Suda Bay is hardly another Grand Harbour, Malta nor is it Gibraltar. Its dockyard facilities were almost negligible.

Would a retained Crete have been a major asset to the British/Commonwealth forces or would it have been as irrelevant as Cyprus proved? As it turned out, did it prove a strategically important victory for the Axis?

The Germans didn't really need to conquer Greece. They didn't really have to pull Italian chestnuts out of the fire.
Churchill shouldn't have stripped divisions from the successful counterattack against the Italians. That delay introduced Rommel.
The Germans didn't really need to practically destroy their genuine paratroopers, Fallschirmjager. Which they did on Crete.

So, the German "triumph" in defeating the British who wasted very good troops with stupid officers commanding was a colossal waste on both sides.

Controversial enough?

Oh, and as pointed out on another thread, the weather delayed Barbarossa about as much as these sideshows did. So, I won't add Crete to the list of sideshows. But it did deprive Germany of trained Fallschirmjager who would have been better used against Russia.

I agree with John. Churchill's obsession- that the Adriatic states and Turkey were the keys to winning WWI and WWII- has always puzzled me. His strategic sense and inclination to meddle with War Office plans was one of Germany's minor, but helpful, advantages through both world wars. He should have confined himself to speeches and raising British morale.

As for Crete, holding it would be expensive in troops, ships and materiel. The Allied command and control failures were one of Germany's biggest advantages in the battle. The Kiwis could have held Maleme, but were being sent off to hunt scattered groups of Germans and given conflicting orders, didn't/couldn't reinforce 28th Battalion and, in short, weren't given a chance to do their job properly.

Malta had strategic value, Crete barely any. So why waste increasingly scarce resources and personnel? Even if the personnel were only Dominion connon-fodder, and of no real consequence?

Thanks.

Armand