

Athens 1944: Britain’s dirty secret - primroot
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/30/athens-1944-britains-dirty-secret?CMP=share_btn_fb

======
Panos-Vertios
For us Greeks, it not a secret. The 1947-1949 Greek Civil war that created a
bloodshed between the Greeks who fought the Germans, was all a British
creation, just like it has ever been throughout the years in most countries
(just read history to see that the British Empire did in Middle East and Far
East)

Then the Americans came, who saved us from the "communists" and who openly
supported dictactorships; dictaroships that challenged the basic human
principles such as freedom of speech.

Unfortunately, Greece has been for a long time a vassal state, British and
American interfering in our political life down to very basic levels. Even
today, IMF, which is an American institution promoting privatization and
looting of public resources, along with the Nazi like EU, govern our miserable
life.

You need not go to far. Substitute the British actions of 1946 in Greece with
the American actions in Ukraine supporting the puppet nazi government over
there or supporting the so called "freedom fighters" of Jihad in Syria who
have murdered thousands of innocent civilians.

The world would be a better place if England and US had kept to themselves and
never interfered in other countries. But that would be asking a wolf to not
kill a sheep if the wolf finds one.

What is worse, though, is that the British/American public support the
governments, thus making them complicit in their crimes against humanity,
which in essense, is quite tragic.

~~~
liviu
You are lucky that your country have not endured Soviet occupation like other
states in Eastern Europe. Event today the economical and social signs are
clearly visible on those states.

This was magnitude worse that British/American influence.

~~~
rogeryu
Well you could dispute that for young people living in Greece right now,
without any future, with a huge debt that will last for generations. Former
Eastern European states now part of the EU may have a future that is a lot
brighter. Even if people there are poorer than the average Greek right now,
they are on the rise, and the Greek are falling down. Given a basic level of
wellfare, I know what I would prefer, knowing where you came from.

~~~
gadders
That is self-inflicted.

~~~
peterfirefly
Or rather, inflicted by the older generation upon the younger.

------
toyg
A similar situation played out in Italy; however, a combination of American
instincts and Italian Communist calculations kept things substantially cooler
than they could have been. When the head of the Communist Party was shot, in
the early '50s, both sides were ready for the final confrontation; luckily he
survived and made a different choice. Ironically, NATO probably owes more to
him than to its own "trusted friends".

As the Cold War intensified, though, things got very ugly again. NATO was
directly or indirectly responsible for literally hundreds of casualties
throughout the '70s and '80s, usually by covering far-right groups planting
indiscriminate bombs targeting civilians. This was all to contrast the
electoral rise of the Communist Party, which was making huge gains thanks to
Soviet financial backing and a cadre of skilled administrators forged by
resistance movements during the war. Eventually, the communists basically
bartered peace for a de-facto acceptance of the fact that they would never
rule. New generations saw that as a betrayal, and the party started a slow
decline, moving towards social-democratic positions and eventually rebranding
completely.

For countries lying directly on each side of the Iron Curtain, that war was
not very cold.

~~~
samastur
Mind you Italy bordered Yugoslavia which was not part of Warshaw block (it was
non-aligned) and did not have Soviet troops either. Agree with everything else
you said.

~~~
toyg
Yeah but it sits on the largest border in Europe: the Mediterranean Sea :)
that was a Cold War front too, and a big one at that.

------
bobcostas55
What an absurd article. Extreme lying by omission. It doesn't even mention
Tito and Stalin, the people who were directly controlling the Greek
communists. This wasn't about the British vs a genuine Greek uprising, it was
simply one of the early proxy battles in the cold war. And the Greeks were
extremely lucky that the communists did not win.

>But what the freedom fighters wanted, insists Glezos “was what we had
achieved during the war: a state ruled by the people for the people. There was
no plot to take over Athens as Churchill always maintained. If we had wanted
to do that, we could have done so before the British arrived.”

What did you need all those weapons for, then? The truth is that ELAS had
already taken over of most of the country, and only stopped because Stalin
directed them to. Unlike Tito, he wanted to avoid confrontation with the
Allies at that point.

Ultimately one of the most important events that led to the end of the civil
war was the split between Tito and Stalin
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_Split);](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tito%E2%80%93Stalin_Split\);)
Tito had been providing support for DSE (the military wing of the communist
party), allowing them free movement in Yugoslavia and setting up training
camps, re-supply stations, hospitals, etc. After the split, the Greek
communist party sided with Stalin (they didn't even pick the "benevolent"
dictator!) and Tito closed the border with Greece.

The idea that this military organization, allied with and directed by two
communist dictators, had any interest in a democratic state is insane.

~~~
touristtam
One could argue that the cold war was just a prolongation of the political
antagonism seeing in the 20s and 30s between the European communist parties
and the conservative ones. The Nazi partly benefited from the fear in Germany
during the 30s to get into power. A lot of pro-Nazi throughout Europe were in
fact anti communist.

As for the fear of Stalinist parties, the French Communist party was one of
them and the country did not fall into Stalin's arm. I guess the setup was
different, but it shows that alienating part of your population for fear of
their political belief is not the solution.

On a side note I am not even surprise of how this play out considering the
other dictators (and criminal organisation) that had support from the British
and the Americans (and from others "allied" countries).

~~~
mafribe

       The Nazi partly benefited from the fear in Germany during the 30s to get into power. A lot of pro-Nazi throughout Europe were in fact anti communist.
    

An entirely justified fear, we must never forget, as inconvenient as this may
be! Even after the Soviet Union was massively weakened and contained by WWII
and and subsequent US anti-communism, the communistist ruined many countries,
with the Cultural Revolution in China under Mao and the Rape of Cambodia by
Pol Pot (politicised by the French communist party, trained in Moscow and
Belgrade, and armed by Moscow via China and Viet Nam) being the most well
known examples today.

One shudders to think what Stalin and his followers would have done had their
planned global expansion not been contested by the west.

    
    
       As for the fear of Stalinist parties, the French Communist party was one of them and the country did not fall into Stalin's arm.
    

And this was in large parts because Nato made it very clear that further
communist expansion would not be in Europe.

    
    
        the other dictators (and criminal organisation) that had support from the British and the Americans (and from others "allied" countries).
    

The existence of nuclear weapons on both sides arrested the cold war in an
uneasy standoff, and proxy wars were fought in the developing world, where
nations and their leaders were only too happy to play west/east off against
each other.

~~~
touristtam
Unfortunately, the reading of declassified documents that have surfaced in the
last couple of decades shows a great capacity for the United States to
destabilize countries (even allies) that might have otherwise had a chance of
integrating socialist and moderate communists in the political arena in their
home countries. To the aim of blocking any chance of success for alternative
to the hardliner liberal and neo-con, the official discourse from the United
States, has been to confuse all variation of communism into one blob: the
destroyer of economical growth and private property. Such a reading of a
political movement is naive to say the least.

I clearly remember an article about a CIA plan to have a puppet government in
France in case the "civil war" (event) of May 1968 would turn into the favor
for the French Communist Party (PC). And this is despite the fact that the PC
could have never formed a government on its own, and had already had political
alliances and a good relationship with the French Socialist Party (PS).

This is the same right of interference that was invoked when the United States
decided to invade Vietnam and other countless countries, often with the help,
active or not, of its allies.

------
Patient0
"The strong allegation that British troops fired on demonstrators was based on
recollections, recounted as fact"

[http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/28/readers-
editor-...](http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/28/readers-editor-on-
athens-44-british-army)

~~~
simonh
Frankly, take that part of the article out and it's still a chilling
indictment of our treatment of Greece. Clearly this was still one of the more
shocking episodes in Britain's 20th century history and one I certainly wasn't
aware of.

~~~
peteretep

        > of our treatment
    

Were you politically active in 1944?

------
kh_hk
Slightly offtopic: the regime in Spain was taken into discussion during the
Potsdam conference with the outcome of not intervening after II WW, being the
main expressed motive that Spain was neutral on the war (which is true but
biased, since Franco was clearly not neutral to the Third Reich, fascism or
sending prisoners to execution camps).

Stalin was pro-intervention, at least symbolically, but had cards on the issue
having Franco sent volunteers to participate on the Eastern Front with the
German army, Truman did not want more war on Europe and Churchill didn't want
to hurt the commercial relations with Spain (to say, oranges and wine).

My gut feeling says, though, the decision was more on the line of "better an
irrelevant regime in Spain that a communist ally on the west".

------
alvarosm
This article, as much of what's published in the west nowadays, is a terribly
shameful and outright dangerous reinterpretation and re-writing of history
from a communist standpoint. Stalin wouldn't have done a better propaganda
job.

------
doxymoron
It needs to be a "secret" because a European nation was involved.

Asian and African nations? Those are "open secrets"

