Talk:Greek Civil War

WikiProject Military history

(Rated B-Class)

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. Additional information... This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces (nations and regions): Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present)

Civil War started when?

Am bringing this up as a layman on the subject. This is very confusing when reading the intro to the article.

"The Greek Civil War (Greek: Eμφύλιος πόλεμος Emfilios polemos), fought from 1946 to 1949 by the Governmental forces, receiving logistical support by the United Kingdom at first and later by the United States, and the Democratic Army of Greece, military branch of the Greek communist party was the accumulation of a highly polarized struggle between leftists and rightists which started from 1943"

"The first phase of the civil war occurred in 1942–1944. Marxist and non-marxist resistance groups fought each other in a fratricidal conflict to establish the leadership of the Greek resistance movement. In the second phase (1944) the ascendant communists, in military control of most of Greece, confronted the returning Greek government in exile, which had been formed under Western Allied auspices in Cairo and originally included six KKE-affiliated ministers. In the third phase (commonly called the "Third Round" by the Communists) (1946–1949),"

The quotes and highlighted text are all from the intro to the article, the infobox states the dates "1946 - 1949". All in all the intro is contradicting itself. From the information provided the civil war was fought in three stages with the dates highlighted above therfore the info box and the statement at the beginning of the intro are incorrect and should be adjusted to correctly show it was longer than 3 years in the late 1940s.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Well in 1943-44 there was internal strife between resistance groups notably EAM against EKKA and EDES and as a result the disbandment of both latters. This can't be called the start of Civil war rather a prelude before that.
• After Germans left in October - December 44 we have the culmination of the disagreement between the govermaint of the mountains and the government of Papandreou because of the share of ministries. In December we have clashes in Athens but in February 45 the Varkiza greement is reached.So again we are talking about prelude to war which may not lead to civil warfare if government and British were to stick to the agreement.
• Black terror leading to the elections scheduled for March 1946 despite Plastiras government who was pro-reconciliation as terror groups police and army undertook operation of their own answering only to British and not to the government. Leading to the elections 85,000 people are imprisoned by the government force suspected as Communists forcing people to abandon towns and cities for the mountains.
• KKE and other democratic socialist forces don't participate to the rigged elections and in August the central committee of KKE decides to start an armed struggle.So August 1946 can be called the start of the war even though the core of operation took place in the latter part of 47 in 1948 and 1949. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 08:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest attempting to make the intro a bit more clearer about the start dates and that these periods were preludes, if you will, and not part of the civil war as it states now.

Attempted to make the intro more certain about the start-dates, and also removed the right-wing propaganda about the allegedly "3 phases". Sperxios (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand British sources (dont know if they are stated within the article or the 1944 British intervention is discussed in detail, as i have not fully read the article yet) state how they got wrapped up in the civil war in 1944, again leading to confusion on when the civil war was.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Britain had effective control of Greece till mid 1947 (and then USA till 1952) and unless they expected EAM and all democratic (not necessarily communist) forces to sit and be slaughtered by the nazi-collaborative bulldogs they let loose, civil war was the most predictable outcome. Britain and latter USA didn't want a strong left movement in Greece as it would have been the case if fair elections were to take place so they intentionally quelled anyone they though to be a non monarcho-fascist. The first fair elections in Greece were 65' and second in 1974. So don't take British sources necessarily as a neutral citation. The "cleansing" of the Greek forces in Middle East by democratic officers in September 44 could be used also as a defying moment leading to war but i think August stands historically better --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 11:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to get into a POV discussion on who did what. I was referring to an entire British Corps (cant remember which one but was at least 3 divisions strong iirc) dispatched from Italy to Greece to deal with the fighting in what i have seen sources call the Greek Civil War - that is what i meant.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:10, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Since 1943 we had in Greece something more than mere skirmishes between EDES and ELAS. There were already skirmishes between Police forces (χωροφυλακή) and ELAS. We could say this was the "prelude" of the civil war. But in December 1944 we already had an open conflict, and this was clearly the first phase of the civil war; a tough struggle for the control of power. Till December 1944 the left forces had clearly the upper hand; after the events of December the balance shifts in favor of the civil parties (supported by Britain of course). After these events, and the Varkiza argument we have some kind of truce (although KKE was already getting prepared for the military confrontation gathering military equipment, and, at the same time, the governmental forces would not stop pursuing left-wing citizens) until the outbreak of the second phase of the civil war in 1946. We have thus a prelude (1943-1944), the first phase of the civil war (1944-1945), and the second and main phase (1946-1949).

• "unless they expected EAM and all democratic (not necessarily communist) forces to sit and be slaughtered by the nazi-collaborationist bulldogs they let loose, civil war was the most predictable outcome." What nonsense is this?! Tzimiskes how do you define "democratic forces"? Papandreou, Kanellopoulos, Venizelos, Sophoulis etc. weren't they democratic politicians IYO?! Do you want me to remind you that Sophoulis, the prime minister of the last phase of the civil war, was a left-centrist?

• "The first fair elections in Greece were 65'" ?!!!! Do you want me to remind you that Papandreou after the first elections of 1963 was appointed temporary prime minister by King Paul in violation of the provisions of the Constitution, and was given the unfair right to conduct the election, practicing in the meantime a populist policy?! So, how do you define exactly "fair"? You can ask my father about the fairness of these elections, whose vote was declared null and void in front of his eyes by the jugde in charge of the local elections offices, just because he was a well-known right-wing citizen (his envelope was not signed by the judge, as it should, and it was later cancelled; my father filed a complaint against him, but the new prime minister after the "fair" elections offered amunity to all these judges accused of violations of the electoral law). Let's try to be a bit more careful about what he regard as "fair" or "unfair"!--Yannismarou (talk) 13:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to spark some sort of conflict between editors, i am coming at this article as a complete layman. The Greek civil war to me was British involvement in 1944, i persoannly did not know if than carried on a few years later or there was fighting before hand until i looked at this article.

With this in mind the intro and info box in regards to dates are confusing me and it would appear the two of you are confirming this.

With that said, should'nt the info box show something like:

1944-1945
1946-1949

And the intro rewrote in some way to show what the two main phases of the civil war and that early fighting was just a prelude to come?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Papandreou wasn't democratically elected but appointed by the British.The power share was totally in favor of old politicians who fled Greece instead of those you actually fought for liberty. EAM had 2 million members who fought for liberation and democracy. The legitimacy of the Papandreou government is non-existant especially when it had the blessing of the King.The true force behind cruel dictator Metaxas.

• How could he be democratically elected in an occupied country?! What are you talking about? But neither ELAS had any democratic legitimation. The majority of Greek people did not approve of its tactics against EDES and EKKA or even against many policemen who weren't necessarily Nazi collaborators. Because you see, sometimes ELAS forgot its fight for "liberation and democracy (how do you define it exactly? Per stalinic criteria?)", and remembered that it had also to fight for "elimination and power". By the way, it was nice in 1964 when Papandreou had the blessing of the King?--Yannismarou (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

EAM had 2 million members it was rooted in Greek society.Papandreou wasn't.It can't be more straightforward.EKKA EDES EKKA EDES.That's the only things you parrot. Edes were nazi collaborators.EKKA was a mistake.But if this is the crime of EAM then monarchofascists who collaborated with Nazis and later made fortunes by the red cross help,who instigated black terror and an apartheid regime were much worse.What stalinic criteria?They fought Germans.King and politicians fled to safety.Again can't be more straightforward.If EAM wanted they would easily have contested the landing of Papandreou in 1944 but they didn't.Papaers from their politcburau are evidence that they seek power through political means.That's why Velouchiotis and other more extreme members were ousted from the party.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Edes were nazi collaborators." Is this a result of your research?! Get serious! At least, stop pretending you are not a partisan. Because you definitely are! Go to Epirus and try to articulate the nonsense you say here about EDES, insulting so many families who gave their blood fighting the German occupation. You know, Tzimiskes, if you want your research to have any worthy results, try to understand that leftists were not the only who fought against the Germans. Even Papagos was taken prisoner and was sent to a concentration camp. "EKKA was a mistake". EKKA was not a mistake. EKKA was a crime! An abominable crime! "EKKA EDES EKKA EDES.That's the only things you parrot." First of all, I don't parrot; I argue. Secondly, I can tell more if you want. About the orders KKE was getting from Stalin, about its policy in Greek Macedonia, about its collaboration with the foreign armed forces of Albania and Yugoslavia, in order to achieve the looting of Greek countryside etc. etc. etc. Do you want to discuss about these things as well? No problem!

• Since October 1944 black terror raged through Athens (the only place Papandreou government had a foothold).After Varkiza the terror intensified even more spreading to the countryside too. Who can forget the killings in the anti-government demonstrators in December 44 instigated by Nazi-collaborators X of general Grivas? Or the use of Security battalions against EAM members in the countryside? The convictions by judges to death of alleged communists and the pardon of collaborators? The 1946 elections were boycotted by half the electoral population.

• You forget again to mention what was happening in the Greek countryside in 1944, when KKE had the upper hand in more than 90% of the country's territory. What about this "red terror"? Or do you want me to remind you of ELAS' terror, when its forces slaughtered EKKA, attacked EDES (obliging Zervas to go to Corfu with prominent leftist Epirots as hostages) or killed prominent right-wing citizens in the suburbs of Athens they controlled? Do you remember the crimes of your "democratic forces" in Meligalas or its collaboration between 1946-1949 with the other "democratic forces" of Albania and Yugoslavia, or with the "democrat" Stalin throughout the 1940s? Don't start this feud! There is no reason. And stop calling any person who does not agree with your ideology as "monarchofascist", following the trend of those right-wings who were wrongly calling their ideological opponents "συμμορίτες" and "Εαμοβούλγαρους".--Yannismarou (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

What red terror? Give me hard evidence because there aren't any.Collaborators unfortunately survived.If EAM was more cruel it would (and should) have massacred them just like they did to Meligalas.Monarchofascists were in power from 1936 to 1974 in Greece.They were rigging elections oppressing democratic forces demanding papers of political will run concentration camps and exile camps in islands.That's a fact.And i am not a communist.I am a liberal.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Bla bla bla bla!!! I did not say that EAM wanted to kill 7,000,000 Greeks! That would be absurd! The communists did not always want to massacre their ideological opponents (and such a tactic would completely alienate it from the loca populations), and vice versa!

Horrible crimes however were indeed committed by both sides. And, yes, after 1949, left ideology in Greece was unjustly persecuted, people suffered, and families were devastated; and yes only after 1974 all these tortured and persecuted people got the respect it deserved; their ideology as well (unfortunately from this point on we had some "researchers" like you who wanted to forge history"). But this does not mean that I will accept your hagiography of EAM's and DS's tactics between 1942-1949! No way!

EAM, KKE and DS are responsible for dragging the country into a horrible civil war, although they always represented an ideological minority in Greece. Despite that, they insisted on getting the rings of powers by any means and any cost! This was a terrible mistake! A mistake that cannot be justified by the Centre-right's collaboration with the British and Americans, in order to win. At the same time, KKE was getting support by Albania, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia and Soviet Union!

What was the mistake of my grand-mother who was tortured, Tzimiskes, by your "fighters for democracy"?! Yes, she was a royalist, but wasn't that her right in a democracy?! What was the mistake of my grand-father who was tortured and then killed by the DS forces, although he had never collaborated with the Germans. Yes, you are indeed correct: his mistake was that he was a royalist! What was the mistake of my mother, who became an orphan at the age of 2? She couldn't even be a royalist at that time. But she then became; I'm sure KKE's "democracy", if established, would have killed her in the name of "freedom", because she dared to be a royalist! What was the mistake of my father, whose family (and the whole village) had to travel for hours or days to avoid DS's invasion in Epirus (when "φωτιά και τσεκούρι" expected all those villagers not believing in KKE's ideology; the ones you call "monarchofascists"), when its forces attacked, after being prepared in the neighboring countries.

And you say you are a liberal?! A liberal who argues that KKE should have massacred all these people (its ideological opponents you call "monarchofascists") as it did in Meligalas. If this is the liberalism you espouse, and if this is the sense of democracy you propose, I'm sorry but you remind me of some "liberals του κώλου" I know!--Yannismarou (talk) 14:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

• The monarchofascist regime rigged all elections and marginalized democratic people.Plan Perikles 1961,White Byble,Macronisos,statements of ethnikophrosinis ring a bell?When the change seemed imminent they attempted a political coup in 65 and instigated dictatorship in 67. Papandreou was fiercely anti-communist and pro-monarchist despite the establishment and King looked down to him as a leftist. BTW the head of the provisional government heading to the 63 elections was Mauromihalis a judge not Papandreou.Greece had it's fair elections in 65 and normal political life started in 1974 40 years after the last time we had such in Greece. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 13:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• Please, read first some Greek history, and then write your nonsense. I did not speak about the 1963 elections, but about the 1964 elections (in 1965 we never had elections in Greece!), when Papandreou got more than 55%. See how Papandreou was appointed by his supporter at the time, King Paul, provisional prime minister before the elections in violation of the constitution and the constitutional order in general (συνθήκες πολιτεύματος) - in 1963 Papandreou had won, but he did not have the absolute majority in the Parliament; the King did his best to help him! Wasn't he at the time Papandreou a monarcho-fascist?! Can you also explain me the difference in EDA's percentage between 1963 and 1964?! Was it normal?! You accuse the royal family when it was against Papandreou, but you omit to mention its wrongdoings, when he violated the Constitution in order to prepare the ground for the "fair" 1964 elections. If this is really your "research field", you have to research it better I am afraid! You have at least to learn that in 1965 we had no elections in Greece.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea out of speed and negligence i said 65 .I meant the February 64 elections.Papandreou refused to lead a coalition with ERE or with the help of EDA and new elections were held.From November 63 till February 64 it's 4 months.Paraskevopoulos was head of the caretaker government so what you say is not only politically insignificant(what this has to do with the black terror,and parasyntagma at all?) but inaccurate also. The win in 1963 meant for the democratic people in Greece who were the majority, -and oppressed all these years- that EK was their hope for a balanced government so EDA voters supported EK in numbers in 1964. The fact is highlighted again when EDA numbers soared again in the next local elections just months after. The King instigated and supported the Metaxas dictatorship. He tutelaged the army (till it got out of his control) and with generals planned a dictatorship but the colonels cached him "sleeping".He created a political turmoil by refusing to sign the ousting of Garoufalias (MP of Defense) and instigated the "αποταξία" in July 65 eventually taking the elected by the 53% government down. Really i can't see where is a point in your alleged favoring of Papandreou is.At least refrain from judgments if you don't know the facts. It will save you from embarrassment. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 17:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

He! He! Embarassed is only the one who presents history from one side, even concerning the Garoufalias resignation. Nothing is insignificant! And sometimes details make the difference. Papandreou appointment after the 1963 elections is one of these events. And testimonies of people who suffered the results of rigged elections (like my father) also matter.--Yannismarou (talk) 18:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I see rigging elections oppressing democratic forces demanding papers of political will run concentration camps and exile camps in islands = falsely allegedly favor of king to Papandreou before an election! lol --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 18:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't understand your English. Try to rephrase, please. Now, concerning the 1964 elections, learn that after his partial victory in 1963, Papandreou got an order my the King to form a government (εντολή σχηματισμού κυβέρνησης), while he should have been given an order to investigate the possibility for the formation of the government (διερευνητική εντολή). In this way, King Paul violated the Constitution (Papandreou did not have the absolute majority in Parliament after the elections of 1963), and gave Papandreou the chance to govern for one month, pursuing a populist policy, which gave him the chance to prepare the ground for his landslide in 1964. These are facts!
• I do not argue that Papandreou wouldn't have won in 1964. He would! But the landslide he achieved in partially the result of Paul's favor towards him in 1963, of the partial rigging of 1964 (one of the victims was my father), and of the ethically controversial decision of EDA to order a part of its voters to vote for Papandreou. Now, if you regard these elections as "fair", then your sense of democracy is really original!
• In Garoufalias case I do not argue that the King acted constitutionally. He didn't, and his behavior was unacceptable. But do not forget that before the "Aspida" crisis Papandreou had ideal relations with both Paul and Constantine. His relation with Constantine was compared to one of "father and son"! There were excellent relations with the Crown! The problems started with "Aspida" and Andreas Papandreou's involvement. When Garoufalias resigned, the King proposed to G. Papandreou to appoint as defense minister any person he wanted, but not himself, because of the involvement of his son. This was a logical request! G. Papandreou initially accepted the King's request, but after a meeting with Andreas, he met the King the next day and demanded that he himself becomes defense minister. Constantine stood firm to the initial agreement, and correctly rejected G. Papandreou's proposal. Unwisely G. Papandreou decided to resign, dragging the country into a political turmoil. The mistakes of the King start from this point on. He should have dissolved the Parliament, and proclaim new elections, so that the people decide on the Constantine-Papandreou disagreement. Instead, he had already notified Athanasiadis-Novas, and appointed him prime minister, violating the Constitution, and shaking the parliamentary order. His father had committed another violation of the Constitution (of lesser importance) in 1963, that time in favor of G. Papandreou.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Enigma as i said before the Dekemvriana covered a month only and can be called only as a prelude because there wasn't an official call for war but rather a spontaneous counter-action against black terror.The Civil war started in August 1946 because then it was that KKE forces decided that armed struggle would be used to confront governmental persecution --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I dont believe either side is showing a neutral point of view here. Ok instead of personal opinions on what to call each portion of the fighting, wheather it should be a "prelude" or the civil war "proper" - what do as neutral as can be historians state?

What is the consensus of historians?--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

The consensus is 1946.I am not a partisan.I study political sciences.That's my research field.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

You are definitely a partisan! And you are the one you caused this havoc here because of your partisan perception of Greek history. Dkace has the courage and the straightforwardness to admit he is a partisan. And this is an attitude I highly respect. Enigma made a simple question, and you started talking about "monarchofascists", "fair 1965 elections" (irrelevant here, but thank you for writing that, because it was one of the best anecdotes I ever heard!) etc. Anyway, trying to answer to the main question we tend to forget, I am not sure about the consensus. You can take an idea here from Google Book: 1946-1949, 1945-1949, 1943-1948 etc. Margaritis in his book speaks about the "civil war 1946-1949". I do not remember what Averoff says. What I want to stress is that the 1944 events were so intense that we cannot speak about a simple "prelude" (and if Tzimiskes speaks again about a Britain against democratic forces fight in 1944, then I'll speak about a national army against Tito, Hodja and Stalin regimes democratic fight in 1949! But foth these assertions are absurd!).--Yannismarou (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only say LOL.Anyone who will read the above will understand who knows what and who is partisan.Anyway Margaritis Tsoukalas Sakellaropoulos Vernardakis, Mavris are only few among the sources for 1946-49.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 18:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Partisan is a person who characterizes all the ideological opponents of EAM as monarchofascists. And this is you my friend. Your answer should be only the last line of this overdue incoherences of yours: "Margaritis Tsoukalas Sakellaropoulos Vernardakis, Mavris are only few among the sources for 1946-49." That would be enough. And I add to these writers the "monarchofascist" Averoff. But I would also like to know what foreign writers say as well. And, after saying lol (which is something you say all the time as I see above, and I would recommend to avoid that, because you get repetitive), I think you should have a look to the Google book page I mentioned above (in case you don't know what google book, I would like to inform you that it is a very useful online library; you could use it for your "research field" as well).--Yannismarou (talk) 13:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to continue this stuff, but I really really feel very annoyed by the use of the term "monarchofascists" for all those opposing the KKE military activity in 1944 and 1946-1949. I want thus to narrate a historical event:

• During Dekemvriana (at a turning point when there was a stalemate—ELAS' forces could not occupy Athens, but at the same time they were not ready to retreat) a crucial meeting took place with the participation of the British and ELAS' leadership and of governmental officials, in order to find a solution to the crisis. The meeting was fruitless, but the following incident is very characteristic: one of the political leaders who participated in the meeting was Plastiras who was very offensive towards the KKE leaders, trying to intimidate them and impose himself with his prestige and military (as well as democratic—he had helped bring down the Crown in the past) credentials. He was more offensive and rude than all the right-wing politicians who were there! He demanded the immediate retreat of the ELAS forces, and, when Siantos (one of the most revered KKE leaders at the time) talked back to him, Plastiras called him "ζαγάρι"! Was Plastiras a morarchofascist?!

History is never black and white. Trying to categorize parties of the Greek Civil wars in two main categories: "monarchofascists" and "democratic forces" is not only historically inaccurate but, worse, logically incoherent and almost ridiculous. Situations were volatile, and such generalizations obscure historical events instead of helping us to clarify and explain them. I would hope that from now on we are a bit more careful in our characterizations in this talk page, especially when such characterizations ("monarchofascists". "Εαμοβούλγαροι" etc.) offend people and historical memories.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to follow this whole discussion, but it is quite hard for me. I have been involved in a same situation in the article for KKE and led to noting but accusations. Yannismarou you have a point about EDES and Ioannes Tzimiskes I believe you are wrong by accusing EDES as "NAZI colaborators". Officially they were not. Some of their leaders maybe - but not proven 100% yet. All we can do is to judge from the outcome not from rumors.

I am glad that this discussion is not "printed" in the article. It would have destroyed everything the wiki-project is trying to build. I believe that we can keep article balanced by additions or informations that can be found in approved literature or elsewhere. By saying approved I mean literature of valid historical sources not something fuzzy and unsigned or worst , signed by people that have nothing to do with history or facts that the article is dealing with.

By following this small rule, we can achieve a well balanced article regarding a subject as the Greek Civil War which is quite difficult to do so. Dkace (talk) 14:51, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing regarding the "monarchofascists" etc: This was the accusation left wing was giving to the winners of the Civil War. But it was not without base: The "Nationl Greek Army" was manned by the leftovers of the Security Battalions and from several other officers that were collaborating with the NAZIs. Not all of the officers but many of them were not so...patriots during occupation. Given the fact that this first army would be a first class obedient fire power to crash any attempt of EAM to remain in power, I believe that the accusation "monarcho-fascists" was correct.

Of course in this alliance were also politicians that wanted to keep the status quo before the NAZI invasion and their"natural" ally would be the British and later the US government. But judging from the outcome, the leaders of the "National Army" were indeed -in majority- monarchists and fascists. Not all, only the key-players.

Following the same analysis, DSE or KKE or EAM can't be accused as "eamovoulgaroi" or "kommounistosimorites", since they were neither bandits -rather a well formed Partizan Army with certain ideology and very specific goals- nor "-voulgaroi" as they were the first to confront the Bulgarian invasion in Greece in 1942-1944. Their alliances during the civil war were equivalent to the alliances of the "National Greek Army", but they were communists fighting for another political and economical future, not tradors.

Dkace (talk) 15:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Dkace I never denied the existence of Nazi collaborators in the center-right wing camp (but there were also resistance fighters). What I condemned is Tzimiskes' generalizations and over-simplifications.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is not that simple. It is not only that these tradors found refuge in the right-wing camp, but the fact that the anti-communist campaign since then is based basically on their contributaion. Every crime, every attrocity every action against the left-winged citizens in Greece since that period is made by them and has been exploided by many others. A smal but powerfull example: Makronisos is the well known exhile for thousands of democratic people. It was a military camp where the soldiers were also prisoners of the government of Athens - after specific instructions of the British. The first Commander of Makronisos - I don'r recall his name right now- was an officer of the Greek Army, served in the Middle East. It doesn't matter if he was right wing- center or neutral. He acted as a Commander of a military camp - it seems that he believed that the soldiers under his command were mutaniers and that the was Commanding such a camp. He wasn't violent neither was excersicing any violence to the prisoners. He convinced of the patriotic feelings of the prisoners when they asked better conditions of leaving and no violence from the guards (different story for the guards ). He was reporting all to the HQ in Athens. They replaced him immediately in 1947 and Commander became Major Glastras. This guy was Commander of Military Camp "Pavlos Melas" in Thessaloniki, the camp where Gestapo was gathering Greek Partizans - with all that follow this. During his command in Makronisos the worst attrocities took place.

This colaborator was appointed there by Athens Government and "National Greek Army" High Command. It wasn't a random choise. They selected him - instead of execute him - because they knew that they can base their "politics" on people like him.

What I want to point out here is that in order to control the government, the British and US used both anti-communist patriots as well as NAZI collaborators whos only country is money - and glory for some of them. In a few words: fascists. not all of them, perhaps not the majority, but a good number placed by the "new occupation forces" - as left-wing like to say- to control people's movement. Honest center-right politicians like you mentioned, have to be judged by history for their attitude against these attrocities. In only one case of the Civil War they spoke against the paramilitary bandit groups armed by the British and that was after their invasion in Kalamata at early 1947, where they were loutering and killing everyone in their path - aiming at the prisoners that they never reached. Since that incident none of them has accepted any responcibility neither apologised for these monsters that were worjing next to the " National Greek Army" main forces.

Dkace (talk) 06:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to deny what you narrate, Dkace. And I would also like to see an apology as well. But I haven't seen any apology from KKE as well for the attrocities it committed, and for the lives that were lost because of its wrongdoings. I do not try to "make even", and after all I did say that after the end of the civil war (and during the war wherever governmental forces prevailed) left ideollogy was fiercely persecuted in Greece. The problem is that there was a time KKE (and EAM-ELAS it mainly controlled) had the upper hand in Greece or thought it could get again the upper hand (later wih DSE), and at that time lack of wisdom and phanatism influenced its strategy. And because of this phanatism, people (like the ones you mentioned above but from the other side of the ideological spectrum) suffered as well. Yes, these people finally won and had the chance (another unwise decision the price of which we are still paying in Greece) to take their revenge. But they had also before to bury their own victims.--Yannismarou (talk) 07:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't fully agreed on this. The left-winged part of this War was not trying to impose its will by the power of the arms. It had a different political agenda - and the Treaties that the leadership signed shows this.

If we descend in neighbor-relations we will not be able to judge things historically correct. We can find numerus examples that one neighboor accused the other for colaborating with the NAZIs or for colaborating with ELAS and both were killed by oppposite sides. But this is not the true strory.

In order to understand things better, in my opinion, we have to focus on the main political, economical and social goals of its side. I.e. - and I will be provocative here- if one side justifies the attrocities like the cut of the heads of the killed partizans whereas the other courtmarshals and executes its officers or fighters that are being violent or are showing non-military behavior then you have one small indication of its sides mentallity and goals.

KKE has judged its politics during 1944-1945 especially during the liberation in its report " Δοκίμιο Ιστορίας του ΚΚΕ" vol1. ALso, there are numerous other books written by commanders or fighters of ELAS and DSE where one can find details of the actions and understand there mentality during these years. Unfortunatelly this is not the case on the other side. Books written with facts and that you can trust are only written by members of the High Command of the "National Greek Army". The majority of the biographies of post -war right winged politicians are trying to cover things up with cheap propaganda and nothing more. Furthermore, you can't really find books of individual soldiers or low rank officers - one of them is of Renos Apostolidis- and retrieve general conclusions of the other side mentality.

This is why in this article as well as in other articles for this era, I insist on using references and trying to present everything as it is written not as we understand it. Being left-winged my presentation will be biased. Same cituation applies for a right-winged person in here. Dkace (talk) 07:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Right-wing POVs still prevails

"Although the involvement of KKE in the uprisings was universally known, the party remained legal until 1948, continuing to coordinate attacks from its Athens offices until proscription."

What do you exactly mean starting with "Although"? I understand that the one who writed this finds hard to accept that the communists have the right to be legal. And who were the opponents? Some overseas guys. British had brought soldiers from India to fight ELAS! It is exactly the same situation with Iraq: After the invasion US troops started to look up for native allies. Exactly the same!

"...In the third phase (commonly called the "Third Round" by the Communists) (1946–1949)..."

Please tell me just one left-wing book that uses the term "Third Round". This term is used by the right wing. I made the corresponding corrections in the past but someone reverted them.

Vardos (talk) 09:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Politiko Kafeneio

Dkace's edit summary: "The fact remains, and in the referenced site there are plenty of links and bibliography."

After Clogg, which presented both sides, I saw two paragraphs—one uncited and one citing "Politiko Kafeneio"! This is no serious research. And if in the referenced site, there is "plenty of bibliography", Dkace, find this bibliography, conduct a proper research, and then write something well-grounded and well-researched. But, using for such a contentious issue "Politiko Kafeneio", and an article copied from "Rizospastis"!

And, even if we say that, yes, you could use it, it is uncyclopedic and POV to base two paragraphs on it, without presenting another source from the altera pars, balancing "Rizospastis". I would like also to mention that expressions like "the truth is finally revealed" are definitely poor in terms of encyclopedic writing.

I have no problem to add this info, but, in order to seriously argue that "more than 25.000 of children, most of them with their parents belonging to DSE, were put in 30 "Children Towns" under the immediate control of Frederika of Hanover. After 50 years the majority of these children is found given to American families, searching their family background in Greece" we need something better than "Politiko Kafeneio" and "Rizospastis"; something less POV and more scholarly. Any scholarly historian works? Any reports in international press?--Yannismarou (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I waited to add some of the references I found for the subject. We state "The black Bible of Communism" and several other POV sources just because they are sources stating something...I can't understand why you don't accept a source that -after all- has the decency to state its references?

The whole issue must be handled with extreme caution: The title saying "The abduction of the children" is POV as it is the right wing propaganda all these years. But nevertheless we can't say that this can't be accepted as it has references to support it.

We have also to state the above: There is a link in Lars Baerentzen's book regarding the paidomazoma.The book is cited here as "The Paidomazoma". Only this book doesn't exist!!! Or it exists under the title " The Paidomazoma and the Queen's Camps". Talk about POV HERE!!!

Sorry, but it seems that you are trying to impress your won POV in this article and I don't think that this is aligned with the rules of this forum.

I changed the title, I added more, I reinstalled the two paragraphs regarding the "abducted" children by both cites, as it comes up after reading both the modern references as well as the references of 1948-1950.

I am open to discuss the presentation of the subject - more smooth, less aggressive against both sides or other- but not the references.

I hope more will contribute on this one.

Dkace (talk) 12:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Please contribute in here, Child refugees of the Greek Civil War, your views and sources on this subject. Kapnisma ? 13:04, 11 October 2008 (UTC) About the abduction of children and their sending to countries of the eastern block,this is a fact...I,personally happened to hear such a story by someone that was a descendsnt of these people...Also,about the children towns,i assure you,they are real too...It just so happens,that such a place (abandoned now) exists very close to the place i come from...But i was told by my grandfather and almost everyone in the region that it was only for orphans...I can't be 100% sure about anything though,because the propaganda at the time by both sides was so strong... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.176.130.227 (talk) 14:58, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

The German forces

"were greatly outnumbered by ELAS, which by this time had 50,000 men under arms and was re-equipping from supplies left behind by the Germans."

That's inaccurate (and ofcourse unsourced). EAM, after their capitulation took advantage of the Italian ammunition as the British worried about the post-war power sharing in the country stop suppling ELAS. Moreover Germans supplied the security battalions with guns and have them fight EAM instead of them. When they in return started to evacuate the country their stocks - most of them had been orderly evacuated already - were handed to right wing groups like X. In fact i still remember an interview of Farmakis (i think) ,a prominent X member- by Kouloglou in which he specifically described how they were handed the green light by Germans and plundered an armor storehouse. --Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 12:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

--I do agree that the main weaponry and ammunition of DSE fighters was not coming from German resources left behind. In more than one sources there are plenty of different ways that DSE was equipped: Small arms not surrnedered by ELAS units after Varkiza agreement, guns gained by MAY ( Units of Rural Defence- Μοναδες Αυτοάμυνας Υπαίθρου) which were peasants ( many of them KKE and EAM sympathizers ) that the Athens government gave them guns to create a buffer between the National Army and DSE, as well as capturing major armories of the national army after a day long battles such as Karpenisi and Karditsa in 1947, Zacharo twice in 1947, other small or higher importance national army location up to 1948. In the book " The Civil War in Peloponnese", Kamarinos is explaining in detail how the 100 partizans reached the number of 20.000 in 2 years time and how they were suppling there units with guns and ammunitions. In fact, the battle of Peloponnese was lost exactly at the point that these 20.000 troops couldn't rearm !

--In the North, especially near the borders of Yugoslavia, Albania and Bulgaria there were small supplies from these countries, but not adequate to sustain the whole war in Greece. After all, in a guerrilla war it is well known - and DSE applied all the tactics of guerilla war with great success - you never fight with imported weapons and ammo. You use your enemies that can be found in any battle field! Dkace (talk)Dkace (talk) 13:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Egypt Mutiny or Middle East movement

It seems we have to solve this first here.

The issue of the Middle East Movement ( as I see it ) is that armed Greek soldiers and officers, derived by the elected PEEA in Greece and EAM - most of them members of EAM- demanded the recognition of PEEA instead of the recognition British gave to the Kairo government. They didn't refused to fight any war, they didn't fight against the British 8th Army. It was a political movement.

The facts are saying that the British, in order to diminish and suppress a movement not controllable by their politics , baptized it as Mutiny against the recognized - by British Foreign Office- government of Venizelos and later of Papandreou, and used armed force to suppress it.

I am stating the above as my POV, in order to reach a common ground how to present it. I believe that using both titles (pro-left wing and pro-right wing) is a bit ...non narrative ( if you excuse my greek), but we can also come up with a more neutral title that can describe both titles. Please revert with your POV or comments.Thanks, Dkace (talk) 12:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

First off, to avoid any possible misunderstanding, I am left-wing and personally sympathize with EAM's stated aims at the time. But the fact remains that a) the Armed Forces in exile were under the control and authority of the internationally recognized (by all countries except the Axis of course) government in exile, and b) they conspired and rebelled against that legally constituted superior authority. It is irrelevant whether their protest was not against the Allied cause, or what motivated it. In both legal terms and de facto, it was a mutiny against the legitimate government (not the British one, mind you, but their own, Greek government), which had set these forces up. To draw a parallel, the attempted revolt by the Greek Navy in 1973, although directed against a patently dictatorial regime (albeit also internationally recognized), is known as the "Navy mutiny" or "Velos mutiny" exactly because it involved a refusal to obey orders by a part of the armed forces, regardless of the political or legal status of the government they served. IMO, the labeling of these events as "mutiny" is politically neutral, it does not imply any endorsement or criticism of the events, it is merely descriptive. The reasons behind the events and the role the British and the exiled Greek government played do not enter in the word "mutiny" at all. In addition, terms like "Middle East movement" per se are too generic outside proper context e.g.. To a Greek, "Middle East movement" might suggest the "κίνημα της Μέσης Ανατολής", but not to an English-speaker - even an educated and knowledgeable one would probably know it as a mutiny, and not just for reasons of British POV [1]. A "military movement", which this is, falls in two categories: a direct attempt to seize power, i.e. coup or coup attempt, which this was not, or a form of protest/insubordination towards the government, which is exactly what happened in Egypt and what a mutiny is. Either way, as you yourself say, "Middle East movement" is a term too much identified with the EAM/KKE version of things to be really neutral. I emphasize that "mutiny" does not pass judgment on what happened, it merely describes it. And as it happened in Egypt, "Egypt mutiny" (the full description should be "Mutiny of the Greek armed forces in Egypt", but the context is sufficient here) is IMO perfectly OK. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 16:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand your point of view. I don't agree on the historical parallelization with the Velos Mutiny, as this was a direct mutiny against the ONLY Greek government, although not a constitutional one. In fact, there act is an attempt to keep the legal constitution. On the other hand, in Egypt, we have an appointed by the British Greek Government, an elected government in the occupied fatherland, and a "Quisling" government in Athens. Issue is much more complicated here. I can accept, that in English perhaps mutiny is describing better the issue, but if we want to cover all angles, I believe we have to put a different title and expand it inside the paragraph.

So, I suggest the use of a title like : "Political unrest in Greek Troops in Egypt " or something similar ( perhaps more accurate) in order to deviate form one POV or the other.Dkace (talk) 09:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Erm, the Cairo government was the legal government. It may effectively have been little more than a British puppet and have little influence in Greece itself, but I remind you that the Tsouderos government was continuously in office since April 1941 (before the fall of Crete), and in turn, it was the direct and undisputed successor of the Koryzis and Metaxas cabinets. To say that it was "appointed by the British" is wrong. It was controlled, yes, but it had been established independently and, much more importantly, it was internationally recognized as the sole Greek government. As far as legality is concerned, the Cairo government stood therefore above the PEEA and the quisling governments, which is one of the reasons why EAM was keen to join it (and was also pressured by the USSR to do so). It may not have been representative of the will of the whole Greek people (or even of a majority), but the same can be said for the junta government, the "National government" during the civil war of 1946-49, and even of the PEEA itself. Unfortunately, legality does not always equate with morality or the popular will. Again, "political unrest among troops" that involves refusal to obey orders=mutiny. I really don't see why this word bothers you. It is not POV to describe it as a "mutiny", because that's what it was. The words "στάση" and "κίνημα" are commonly used in Greek to describe these events, and "mutiny" perfectly encapsulates them. Granted, in Greek, the term "κίνημα" has acquired slightly more positive connotations than "στάση" or "ανταρσία", but that cannot be translated into English. "Mutiny" is therefore a neutral term and also the one most used to describe these events in English, at least in all books I've come across. Regards, Constantine ✍ 11:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll agree with Constantine. Ideologically, I am right-wing, but I have repeatedly admitted that this article was not always NPOV towards EAM-ELAS. I also initiated some improvements, and there may be still room for improvement. On this issue, however, I'll repeat what I have already said in a previous discussion: "Mutiny" (=στάση) is an established legal, political, and military term describing the following situation: when a part of the army (a small or big group of soldiers and/of officers) disobeys the orders of its legally (and this exile government was legal according to the international public law) appointed superiors. A mutiny may be judged positively or negatively, but it is still a mutiny. E.g. one could argue that this mutiny was a nice thing, since the exile government did not represent the true will of the occupied Greek people or, to the contrary, that it harmed the prestige of the Greek Army worldwide and the negotiating influence of the Greek side in the international arena etc. Conclusively, I do not see a problem with the current heading.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree to the term, but not under the same explanation as Yannismarou gave. Tsouderou government wasn't the Athens government of 1941. Papandreou and several other members were installed by the British. Even if Britain, or US had recognized this "Government" they were not a true government. The merge with PEEA in 1944 is a completely different sunject, and has to do mainly with the efforts of EAM to avoid Civil War. The officers and soldiers of the Greek Brigade's didn't refused to follow any orders. They asked - or demanded- PEEA to be recognized as the legal government. Under this perspective, they didn't mutinied ( with the greek meaning on the word -στάση)against anyone.

My experience on the word use is limited, so I will accept the term, but we have to explain in detail what mutiny ment for greeks and why they called their effort "movement". Dkace (talk) 12:00, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

OK, i reverted the title back to its original state, since we agree that "Egypt mutiny" is OK. As for explaining what exactly happened, I agree that more should be added, ideally in a dedicated article, say 1944 Greek Armed Forces mutiny in Egypt. I regret that I have neither the time nor sufficient knowledge of the details to create it myself, however. Regards, Constantine ✍ 13:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Alexandros Papagos.jpg

The image File:Alexandros Papagos.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment transferred from Request Board

Transferring this unsigned comment [2] from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Request board:

Frankly, I was surprised at some of the biases in this article. First, nearly nothing is mentioned about the DAG show trials & executions of civilians which occured during Communist dominated lands in 1946-49. Next, there was no mention of the "andartinas" who were young Greek women conscripted unvoluntariy to serve in the DAG during the later stages of the war.

One contributer mentions that according to some Royalist accounts, Greek children taken by the DAG were to serve as "janisaries" in the DAG army. This situation was just not "reported" but in fact did happen many times. Children as young as 13 & 14, of both sexes, were sometimes forced to fight in the Gramnos Mts.during the final states of the war by the Communist forces.

Finally, even though it was mentioned that,at times, the Greek Royalist soldiers execuited captured Communist soldiers, no mention was ever made that nearly all Royalist soldiers captured by the DAG were summarily execuited or were shot following a show trail shortly after capture. I'd check out these facts, which are easily documented, and have them added to the page.

Any student of the Greek Civil War will pick up a lot of biases in this article bent towards the DAG side. It should be more balanced and more non-partisan entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.228.40.109 (talk • contribs)

harej 17:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Why use so many Greek language books

We all know that Greek historiography is extremely biased on the subject with partisans on both sides. Why use so many Greek language books when there is ample treatment of the subject in English language volumes?--Anothroskon (talk) 11:45, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Uhh... lack of editors that own books on the subject in the English language? I have one myself on Modern Greek history in general (not the one referenced in the article) but it only briefly covers the war and I don't think I could add anything more to the article. I guess we just need more natively English-speaking editors. —Yannis A. ^✆|☑ 19:17, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Reads like Pravda

"it was Churchill who openly and brutally forced a liberated European country to accept his political system, and Stalin only followed, though the Soviets were much less violent in doing so.[6] Of all Western European countries, the British elites were determined to control Greece by any means necessary; this country was long considered by them as their private manor."

Seriously, guys? 94.193.35.68 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, the article has gone from a strong rightist POV from a few years ago to a strong leftist one today. Is it so hard to have an unbiased article? 174.253.99.96 (talk) 21:21, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I added a NPOV Tag. 83.206.76.221 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

First of all, let me say I'm Greek; the Civil War is always going to generate controversy. My sympathies are with the left, but I believe the sentence describing Greece as the private manor of British elites should be removed. On the other hand, well, Churchill DID FORCE A LOT OF THINGS ON GREECE, such as the restoration of the unpopular monarchy, or the immunity to many right-wing Axis collaborators, who were useful because they hated the left. These things should be mentioned, as they explain many events, but in a less aggressive way. Ανδρέας Κρυστάλλης (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I've removed these sections as they're POV backed up by only one source and thus there are concerns of WP:UNDUE. Valenciano (talk) 06:26, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The section is back up again. I think it needs to be toned down, with a healthy dose of NPOV, and moved out of the lede at the very least, if not deleted entirely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.233.250.188 (talk) 17:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Deleted again. Saying that the intervention was an attempt by British elites to dominate the country, that Churchill was 'brutal', is all POV stuff which, if it belongs in this article at all, should go in a "Marxist interpretation of civil war" section or something, and does not belong in the opening section. FOARP (talk) 11:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Please, there is no "Pravda" feeling in the description of the events of the demonstration of 3rd of December:

• The demo was indeed massive.
• It is established that no shootings were fired by the protesters, and we do not have any *evidence* of weapons carried by the protesters.
• It is tottaly undisputed whether the dissarmament order were indeed given by the british command, and that it excluded the right-wing corps from the dissarmament.

Enough references are given regarding thos matters in the respective section. If anyone feels otherwise, better provide references and avoid POV edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sperxios (talk • contribs) 23:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Merge Introductory material about Dekemvriana

The introductory piece describing the "Dekemvriana" events must be shorten, and merged to the existent sub-section. As it is now it contains un-sourced text and ignites disputes not easily resolvable without poinless duplication of references.Sperxios (talk) 23:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC)