Repeated changes of senior command at Crete are blamed here for disrupting the defensive plan. Each new arrival altered the arrangements, while recently arrived staff could not know which earlier decisions had been carried out. Leaving the Royal Marine commander who had been present from the beginning in charge is presented as a way to preserve a cohesive defense and a single staff record. This is a counterfactual judgment about command continuity, so it does not claim that one appointment would have guaranteed victory.
Notable Point · 35:36-36:53
Crete and the cost of rotating commanders
The Crete example links repeated command changes to disrupted plans, uncertain implementation, and the loss of staff continuity.