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.
> The world would be a better place if England and US had kept to themselves and never interfered in other countries.
I strongly disagree with that. England and US not interfering in other countries would not have stopped other countries, most notably the USSR, in interfering with other countries. And the places where other countries, not England and US, had major influence, generally had much bigger problems with civil rights, freedom and material well-being.
A significant indicator in this respect is the need to build walls to keep in the population in a country, because otherwise it would flee (and then call this "anti-Fascist protection wall").
Your hyperbole about "puppet Nazi government" in Ukraine pretty much proves the point: the Poroshenko government, elected with rather clear majority in what is a relatively free election, does have its problems in corruption and whatever, but not any worse than the previous one, which was an actual puppet of Putin.
The EU has many problems, but being "Nazi like" is not really one of them.
You had me until 'Nazi-like EU'. For all its faults, the EU is not a despotic regime killing millions of civilians just for being different. To compare one to the other is disingenuous.
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.
> Greece has been for a long time a vassal state, British
> and American interfering in our political life down to
> very basic levels
"A long time" being 2,000 years, since ~ 146BC.
Then the UK, France and Russia helped it become an independent country in 1830, an "interference" without which a Greek state may not have existed in 1947...
The EU is very vocally anti-totalitarian or racist, and Greece's people were betrayed by its own government when it colluded with accounting firms to ensure Greece's entry to the Euro. Which, then, because Greece wasn't economically strong enough to compete with the larger, less social-welfare-reliant Northern European countries, led to the need for massive financial intervention and the mess the Greek youth are now today left with.
All for the egos of some politicians who wanted to feel important. The Pasoak leaders from the late 90's / early 00's should be ashamed of their short-sighted greed.
It very well might be the best thing for the long-term wealth of the Greek economy for it to exit the Euro and reestablish the Drachma, to better facilitate trade/labor growth with what would initially be the much more expensive Euro group. Manufacturing, generally, moves to places where labor and total production cost is cheaper, increasing the economic productivity of the region it moves to... this could only be a good thing.
If Greeks really believe that the EU is "Nazi-like", then why don't you just secede? Article 50 of the EU treaty allows you to do that, you know. Not really a freedom that the Nazis granted to the nations they conquered...
The greeks are miserable because none of your politicians thought they ever had to pay their debt.
Your debt ( Greeces) is like 177 times your GDP... And the politicans of the EU made the mistake of accepting greece in the European Union, because they all lied about there economic numbers.
Now you are dependant on the EU, yes, but you still have a lot of financial help. If you would have fallen without the EU ( sooner or later), there wouldn't be anyone to pay debts for you and forgive them ( partially).
I'm a Belgian and even every Belgian pays 1000€ for Greek financial support... And there are many other countries. Every European citizen is paying for the Greek mistakes. But i don't mind.
You still have to do a lot of yourselve, but it isn't our entire fault.
Stop blaming this on other things/people/instituations, it isn't a "one side has right" situation..
> 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.
What a silly sentence to finish with. Does the Greek public support the government? Can you give me an example of what 'not supporting' would look like? Why are you combining millions of people in a sweeping generalisation?
This whole democracy thing (which I'm quite sure you know about) is a ugly blunt tool that allows the general public some vague influence on what their nation does. But most of these things happen due to self perpetuating systems that have been there for generations and which are invisible to the public.
> 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.
South Korea is another US "vassal state". So is Taiwan. So were Japan and Germany after WW2. I'd say that the Greek problems have other sources.
As a Romanian I wish they traded Greece for Romania in 1944. So that you'd learn a painful lesson.
Interventionism seems everywhere... wasn't there a time in history where countries would be a lot less contrasted (It seems the 'rich' countries are tempted and invited to put their hands and resources into less wealthy ones... creating problems on the long run) and thus more stable ?
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.
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.
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); 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.
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).
So since some of the Greek fighters - meaning those who allied with the British against the Nazis, had communist ideals you assume that all they wanted was a violent take over and establishing communism. And based on that assumption you justify the British for (a) arming Nazi collaborators and (b) opening fire against civilians in a peaceful demonstration.
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.
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".
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.
[+] [-] Panos-Vertios|10 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] ptaipale|10 years ago|reply
I strongly disagree with that. England and US not interfering in other countries would not have stopped other countries, most notably the USSR, in interfering with other countries. And the places where other countries, not England and US, had major influence, generally had much bigger problems with civil rights, freedom and material well-being.
A significant indicator in this respect is the need to build walls to keep in the population in a country, because otherwise it would flee (and then call this "anti-Fascist protection wall").
Your hyperbole about "puppet Nazi government" in Ukraine pretty much proves the point: the Poroshenko government, elected with rather clear majority in what is a relatively free election, does have its problems in corruption and whatever, but not any worse than the previous one, which was an actual puppet of Putin.
The EU has many problems, but being "Nazi like" is not really one of them.
[+] [-] blowski|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] liviu|10 years ago|reply
This was magnitude worse that British/American influence.
[+] [-] peteretep|10 years ago|reply
Then the UK, France and Russia helped it become an independent country in 1830, an "interference" without which a Greek state may not have existed in 1947...
[+] [-] mattlutze|10 years ago|reply
All for the egos of some politicians who wanted to feel important. The Pasoak leaders from the late 90's / early 00's should be ashamed of their short-sighted greed.
It very well might be the best thing for the long-term wealth of the Greek economy for it to exit the Euro and reestablish the Drachma, to better facilitate trade/labor growth with what would initially be the much more expensive Euro group. Manufacturing, generally, moves to places where labor and total production cost is cheaper, increasing the economic productivity of the region it moves to... this could only be a good thing.
[+] [-] olavk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] teekert|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] antientropic|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] NicoJuicy|10 years ago|reply
Your debt ( Greeces) is like 177 times your GDP... And the politicans of the EU made the mistake of accepting greece in the European Union, because they all lied about there economic numbers.
Now you are dependant on the EU, yes, but you still have a lot of financial help. If you would have fallen without the EU ( sooner or later), there wouldn't be anyone to pay debts for you and forgive them ( partially).
I'm a Belgian and even every Belgian pays 1000€ for Greek financial support... And there are many other countries. Every European citizen is paying for the Greek mistakes. But i don't mind.
You still have to do a lot of yourselve, but it isn't our entire fault.
Stop blaming this on other things/people/instituations, it isn't a "one side has right" situation..
[+] [-] adaml_623|10 years ago|reply
What a silly sentence to finish with. Does the Greek public support the government? Can you give me an example of what 'not supporting' would look like? Why are you combining millions of people in a sweeping generalisation?
This whole democracy thing (which I'm quite sure you know about) is a ugly blunt tool that allows the general public some vague influence on what their nation does. But most of these things happen due to self perpetuating systems that have been there for generations and which are invisible to the public.
[+] [-] oblio|10 years ago|reply
South Korea is another US "vassal state". So is Taiwan. So were Japan and Germany after WW2. I'd say that the Greek problems have other sources.
As a Romanian I wish they traded Greece for Romania in 1944. So that you'd learn a painful lesson.
[+] [-] peterfirefly|10 years ago|reply
You are so lucky that Churchill got an agreement out of Stalin to keep Greece out of the Soviet sphere of influence.
[+] [-] agumonkey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnyoughut|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bad_user|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] toyg|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nicolapede|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bobcostas55|10 years ago|reply
>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); 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|10 years ago|reply
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).
[+] [-] greenonion|10 years ago|reply
Well done!
[+] [-] Patient0|10 years ago|reply
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/mar/28/readers-editor-...
[+] [-] simonh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kh_hk|10 years ago|reply
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|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] toolsadmin|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] adamzubi700|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] doxymoron|10 years ago|reply
Asian and African nations? Those are "open secrets"