Talk:Greek Civil War

The article should be called GREEK CIVIL WAR THE COMMUNIST VIEW. Maybe there should be another article side by side called GREEK CIVIL WAR THE CONSERVATIVE(or right wing)VIEW. (STELIOS DECEMBER 2004)

A few notes on style. We don't usually add abbreviations to article titles, so [[Democratic Army of Greece (DSE)]] should be [[Democratic Army of Greece]] with a separate article [[DSE]] redirecting to it if necessary. Articles are usually written in the past tense. Don't worry if English isn't your first language. Plenty of people will be willing to fix this up. DJ Clayworth 16:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I intend rewriting this article when I have finished fixing History of Modern Greece. Adam 03:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rewritten as threatened. Efharisto :) Adam 13:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue so, I must accept all notes about english language and style. The rewritten article reproduces the cold war theory of the communist insurgency. This theory, though not completely inaccurate is far from the truth. In fact, civil war was in some way the result of Yalta Conference. During the german occupation, a great anti-fascist people's movement had fought against the Nazi's and the day after the liberation all these people wanted peace and democratic reconstruction in a self-determined state. This movement could not be controlled by the communist leadership.

(NOTE by STELIOS) It is a great mistake to confuse the patriotic feelings of the people During the german occupation,and call them anti-fascist which in communist terminology is anti conservative. The day of liberation was expected by all these people to continue their pre war lives. Only the communist party of Greece (less than 5% before the war)wanted a political reconstruction in what they called a self-determined state (USSR satellite in fact). The communist controlled organizations managed very well to terrorize almost every opponent during the German occupation. Then when at the end of the war they were the major armed force in Greece they didn't wat to leave power. I can write noumerous cases of Greek citizens executed by OPLA a communist organization that was used to terrorize Greeks only.END OF NOTE

Furthermore, if all communist leaders were soviet puppets there would have been no civil war because Stalin had accepted the British influence in Greece. Some of them were, others were not.

The main political problem was to defeat this people's movement and to return the country into the pre-War status of British satellite. Winston Churchill was neither a peace maker nor a fighter against communism but a faithfull servant of the British Empire who used the Greek government in exile as an intermediate to achive his target. Being never exhibited to free elections, this government was fed by the British and the greek army was under British administration. It was a-more or less-british marionette. The prime minister should have been Churchill's choice. There are a few examples to prove it.

In the frame of Lebanon conference, on July 29, 1944, PEEA sent a telegram accepting to take part to the government of National Unity, under a one-only condition: The replacement of Papandreou. Several ministers answered that: "British government made them confidentially aware that it cannot accept any change of the prime minister". A second example is Papandreou attempt to resign on December 4, 1944. British ambassador did not give the permission and Papandreou kept his post. A third example is mentioned in the text. Papandreou finally resigned by early January 1945 as a result of Churchill's intervention. Soviet Union had recognised this government to avoid any rift to the WW II alliance and it did not care whether it represented or not the greek public opinion.( NOTE and who represented the Greek public oppinion? The author of the article when says the Greek public oppinion means the Greek communists. Because when the communists say public mean anyone who supports them. According to them their opponents do not have any right to speak. END OF NOTE)

On the other hand, a Stalin-loyal communist leadership was not mature enough to handle the movement it worked to build. Unable to control the movement, it was drawn by the political coincidence. KKE had inspired but it could not control EAM. During the war, 6 bishops, 30 university professors, 2 members of the Academy of Athens, 16 generals of the pre-War greek army as well as 34 colonels and 1,500 officers were members of EAM. None of these was a communist. Communists had to hide their political identity inside the ELAS units. Until 1947, the communist general secretary was hoping to negotiations and used the military force as an advantage. The socialist revolution was a desparation move, when DSE had nothing to loose and the decision was taken without the Stalin's permission.

It is completely inaccurate that "most of ELAS fighters were eager to take control and begin the socialist revolution". Most of them, uneducated villagers, they could not even define what "socialist revolution" is. Most of them fought against the Nazi and could not tolerate that the ex-Nazi supporters-responsible for group executions, burnt villages and other atrocities of the war-were free and ready to fight against the "communists" side by side with the British. The socialist revolution was an intention of a minority part of the communist leadership and only Zahariadis' return changed this balance.

The article mentions nowhere the role of the Nazi-collaborators though their impunity was the main cause of ELAS anger. However, this impunity explains mostly the massacres of ELAS. On the other hand, affraid of their lives in case of an ELAS victory, these collaborators were the most head-strong anti-communist fighters. Of course, under such conditions many innocent people are among the victims.

The article shares arbitrarily the Stalin and Tito influence on the EAM and KKE leadership. Giving the intention of a seizure of the political power and socialist revolution to the KKE and EAM, anybody who studies this period cannot explain their moves. It is hard to understand why the EAM which controlled the country in the summer of 1944 did not get the power and then it was willing to fight against the british under worse conditions. It is hard to explain how "As relations between the Soviet Union and the Western allies deteriorated with the onset of the Cold War, Communist parties everywhere moved to more militant positions", a civil war occured only in Greece. On the other hand, Stalin adviced greek communists to take part in the 1946 elections and later did not help them during the civil war.

The rewritten article (and the theory of "communist mutiny" as well) had found an easy way to overcome these inconsistencies. KKE did not get the power when it could, because of Stalin's influence and later it tried the same target because of Tito's. So, all KKE moves can be easily explained by alternation of influence between Stalin and Tito. This theory fits everywhere. It is up to the reader to accept this approach. By the chance, Zakhariadis was a faithful stalinist but he made the most important decision of his life breaking Stalin's instructions.

I also add once more, the link to the 1946 election results. It is inaccurate that People's Party of Tsladaris took part in the elections as an independent party. This is minor inaccuracy though. The important point is that these results show the representation level of the parliement elected (1.2 million votes approximately in a seven million population).

An important part is the role of the British forces once they landed in Greece. It is inaccurate that they met no resistance. They simply did not run after the germans. At the same time ELAS attacked the departing germans in several places and the British troops could have done the same. They did not because their aim was to fight against the left-wing resistance not the germans.

Thanks a lot for the correct spelling of surname Scobie, that I have seen only in greek or greek translated texts. HERAKLES

User:Adam Carr comments: Herakles obviously knows a lot about this subject and I thank him for his extensive comments. I have done an edit to fix the English and grammar and remove some of the more opinionated statements.

Could I suggest that Herakles become a registed user?

Question: What is the Greek name of the organisation you have translated as "Military Hierarchy"?

Adam 13:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What a pity dear Adam, I am not satisfied with the article no matter what POV one can accept. I am the author of the very first article which you have entirely rewritten. My plan was to write some kind of "very expanded stub". I had written some info based on facts. By the word fact, I mean undisputable events or references of who said what. I tried to avoid personal estimates. I expected more contributions adding information from all parts, representing all POVs. The reader would have found the truth and form personal estimate by the juxtaposition of the facts.

This is the way I understand the word "neutrality". Say everything you know and let the reader to decide. If you know only the truth from one side, say it and let other contributors to fill the other side. The text should be composed in such a way to encorporate all information available. If it is too expanded, we can reorganise it and add more links to various aspects.

Perchaps, this is not the correct way. I am not a PhD in history so, my opinion counts less than yours. That's why I let you finish your work. I thought that you tried to write it in a professional manner. At the end I saw a text that summarized the marration and had many personal (or at least one-sided) estimates. I edited it to correct the points faulty (according to me) but the result was another article coloured by my personal POV. Let me say an example. I cannot really answer the question why ELAS fought against the command under which it was freely subjected two months earlier. I found your answer insufficient and I wrote mine, but I would not intended to erase any of them. The article should have made the reader aware of all options.

To be honest, I did not expect to be engaged that much. My intention was not to be a permanent contributor. It was a "write and forget" contribution (you know the "fire and forget" smart weapons). I am not willing to edit the text any more. You are a scientist. I trust you. If you accept my point, please reconsider the article in a way to encorporate contradictory references and future contributions. Do it with your professional manner.

I translated "Stratiotiki Ierarkhia" to "Military Hierarchy". HERAKLES

That is a literal translation but it doesn't really work in English. I will take some advice on this. Adam 00:15, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me Adam but I have one more comment. You thought that it was my personal estimate that the British troops landed in Greece avoiding to fight. It is not. Let me distinguish the truth from the opinion.

FACT: The British troops landed in Greece and they followed the retreating germans from a distance without opening fire. The germans took their time to leave and the British occupied empty space. If you could fly above Greece, you would have seen a wide no man's zone moving north. So, it is true that "British met no resistance" as you have written. If an army occupy an area from which the enemy had left two days earlier, it meets no resistance. This is not normal in a war however. I do not ask you to trust me. Find relative books, headquarter's archives, or personal testimonies the next time you come to Greece.

ESTIMATE (which of course, you may disagree with): The British did so in order to leave the bloody job (and the bloodshed) to the greek and yugoslav partisans and furthermore to the Soviet army. HERAKLES

Since the Germans were leaving Greece as fast as they could it made perfect sense for the British not to attack them and sustain pointless casualties. You may well be right that one reason the British occupied Greece was to prevent the KKE taking power - a perfectly legitimate objective. The allies didn't fight the war just to hand Europe over to Stalin. They are often criticised for abandoning Poland etc to Communism. Are they also to be criticised in the one country where they prevented a Communist takeover? I hope it is not your view that the KKE should have been allowed to take power. If it is I disagree with you. This disagreement should not prevent us writing a good article. Adam 09:26, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Needless to say. This is history so, we discuss about what happened, rather than what whould/should have happened. But if I were among the powerful people at this period I would fight for the right of the greek people to decide for its future without ANY pressure, through free elections. Unfortunately, this is very difficault when the violence of one part justify the violence of the other. As an ordinary greek who felt and still feel the bitter smell of this period, this is THE POINT for me. None of us loves this period. HERAKLES

nicely done!

this article is wonderfully thorough. As a political scientist, I find the information full and well-organized. However, this terrific detail needs to be better summarized at the start. The introductary summary that begins the article is good, but not wholely adequate. I would work on making the introduction more full, but I don't know enough about the subject matter at hand. So I appeal to you to do it :) Kingturtle 03:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

EAM wasn't established by KKE alone

The 4 founder parties of ELAS were:

• The Communist Party of Greece (greek:Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας), led by Lefteris Apostolou (Λευτέρης Αποστόλου),
• the Greek Popular Republic (Ελληνική Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία), led by Ilias Tsirimokos (Ηλίας Τσιριμώκος),
• the Agricultural Party of Greece (Αγροτικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας), led by Apostolos Voyatzis (Απόστολος Βογιατζής) and
• the Socialist Party of Greece (Σοσιαλιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας), led by Christos Chomenidis (Χρήστος Χωμενίδης).

However, KKE had the leading part.

Etz Haim 12:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"normal" state?

Quoting from the article:

It was not until the fall of the military regime in 1974 that the KKE was re-legalised, and not until the election of a left-wing government in 1981 that Greek politics returned to a "normal" state.

That "normal" inside quotes is vague and disputable. Who says so? The public consensus in Greece defines 1974 as the landmark for the restoration of democracy, called Metapolítefsi (Μεταπολίτευση) in Greek. This is not meant to dispute views regarding PASOK's contribution to democracy in Greece; though this POV here is outside of the scope of this article. Etz Haim 12:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

• Feel free to add additional material about the groups that established the EAM, so long as it remains clear that it was essentially controlled by the KKE, which was the case according to everything I have read.
• By "normal" politics I mean politics where parties can alternate peacefully in power within agreed constitutional rules. That was not the case in the period between the end of the civil war and 1967, as was shown when G Papandreou took power, precipitating the 1967 coup. I don't think there's anything POV about saying that. Adam 12:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "normal" politics includes that, but the definition of "normal" isn't the same for people in belonging in different parts of the political spectre. Therefore it needs an explanation. However, in the 1981 election the power changed hands from ND to PASOK in an efficiently democratic manner; this should satisfy your criteria for normal. Etz Haim 13:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um, yes, I think that's what I said. Adam 13:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

s/\"normal\"/stabilized/ Heh. I think the argument is over? :) Project2501a 19:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

edits by user:213.5.97.8

User:213.5.97.8 made some changes in the article which I do not agree with. See history for more details.

When did the Navy counter-coup happen?

Project2501a 21:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was not exactly a coup. As far as I remember it was the summer of 1973 when the officers of a Greek destroyer (velos) was participating at a NATO's exercise in Italy decided to ask for political asylum in Italy. It was a huge blow on junta's image.(Newcomer 01:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Greek Education System and the Greek Civil War

I feel i have to make this short comment:

I consider that it's a very, very sad situation, when the Greek Educational (Read:Indoctrination) System, asks the students to memorize and regurgitate the POV of the Greek state about how great the ancient greeks were, while playing down the role of christianity in the destruction of the ancient greek civilazation (Ioustinianos, anyone?), exalting the Byzantines and the concept of Megali Idea, exalting the heroes of the greek war of independance, and leveraging the history curriculum in the public school system in such a way, that it convienently stops at 1910, right before WWI. Greek teenagers never learn about the Civil war, nor do they learn about the Dekembriana, or any other part of the modern greek history.

they never get taught, while in school, the reasons Greece is, at present time, such a fucked up place. Instead they concentrate in such useless(imnsho) classes as Religion, which is basically indoctrination on the "official" greek religion, imposed by the greek orthodox church, in order to maintain political influence over the greek state.

on the other hand, they never learn to question the judgement of the greek state over such matters as conscription or immigration ("ΟΙ ΑΛΒΑΝΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΚΟΥΡΔΟΙ ΦΤΑΙΝΕ!"), or why turkey is not a threat to greece or vice versa. Prime example is this past year's Parliament of Teenagers (Βουλή των Εφήβων) and their decree to restrict influx of immigrants in greece... (btw, the moments of this past year's meeting are NOT published in full on the website due to the blunder our precious hope&lt/irony&gt managed to make...)

(Έχω μια αδελφή, κοριτσι αληθινή..., <-- i used to sing that during the 6 grades of elementary school, even though i had no idea what it was refering to, i was just signing along)

Η διστυχία του να είσαι Έλληνας...

Project2501a 19:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea that Greece is such a fucked up place (sic) is totally YOUR idea, if you beleive that you live in Psarokostaina I suggest you migrate...but since you paradise is lost over 15 years now, I suggest alternative places like Cuba or North Korea perhaps, what do you say?

I'm sick and tired of people like you, always complaining about the bad things, but without nothing different to offer...

And please, stop confronding others with such an altitude, who do you think you are? The only wise on earth that we all must obey to? Kapnisma 15:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)