Talk:Greek Civil War
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greek Civil War article.|
|Archives: Index, 1, 2|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This article has an assessment summary page.|
|This page has been cited as a source by a notable professional or academic publication:
Konstantinos Avtziyiannis (2005). "Ο Ελληνικός Εμφύλιος Πόλεμος 1946-1949" (The Greek Civil War 1946-1949) p.81 Sources-bibliography.
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Any threads with no replies in 180 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
- 1 Image copyright problem with File:Alexandros Papagos.jpg
- 2 Request for comment transferred from Request Board
- 3 Why use so many Greek language books
- 4 Reads like Pravda
- 5 Merge Introductory material about Dekemvriana
- 6 Quality of references
- 7 "Slav" Macedonians
- 8 How to cite the power vacuum
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.
Request for comment transferred from 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 22.214.171.124 (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)
- Historical material in Greek language, more or less biased, exists from both sides of the conflict.
- English material on the other hand is more likely to be one-side biased since the British forces fought strictly with the government side. Even more, it was the British General Scobi's ultimatum that lead to the first open confrontation, the Dekemvriana.
- US-writers did not participate in the fighting at the time, and later they intervend and took over control from the British who had lost the economic strength to continue the operations, so the bias problem remains.
- Yet it is important that we search for more english-speaking sources. Sperxios (talk) 21:49, 16 September 2013 (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. 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."
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 126.96.36.199 (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)
- Get off your high horse and take a look through the actual AARs made by the Western Allied forces in charge. Yes, the demo was indeed massive, attempted coups relying on popular support and the cover offered by civilian demonstrations tend to do that However, the idea that there was no shooting by the demonstrators is false; Churchill had to duck snipers all the way through and there were several prolonged firefights crushing various armed Communist paramilitaries. Finally, that is not surprising, considering as a general rule governments reserve the right to a monopoly of force upon their territory and the fact that the DKKE didn't was taken as pretty rock-solid evidence that they were planning a coup. Which they WERE as confirmed by themselves and the Allied intelligence reports, both East and West. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2012 (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)
Quality of references
Apart from the pov issues, I admit that the quality of the references is extremely poor, blogs, politically depedent material, newspapers that are organs of political parties tha participated in the conflicts... On the other hand there is a lot of specialist, historical bibliography that can be used instead.Alexikoua (talk) 10:20, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
- Neveretheless, on 10:17, 13 May 2012 you deleted references to testimonies from eye-witness and participants (ie. N Farmakis) of the historic events.
- Such testimonies are always a valid source for references.
- Also you deleted references to articles by the "Ιός", a well respected team of Greek investigative reporters, since they always back-up their claims with references.
- Finally, you deleted all references to the historic newspaper of the KKE "Ριζοπάστης" with a POV reasoning. This not a valid reason for discarding references. A valid reason is that they do not contain testimonies, or they contain solely unreferenced material and POV.
- The references that you deleted incidentaly(?) were all against the rightists and/or in favor of the leftists.
- Please refrain from those POV actions. Although we should improve the references, we must respect the work of others, and not discard it. Sperxios (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Can someone please explain why the total deaths in the summary table do not add up? How is it possible to have 158,000 deaths when the total dead and missing from both sides are about 50,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
How to cite the power vacuum
In the Origins section there is a sentence "The power vacuum that the occupation created was filled by several resistance movements that ranged from pro-Royalist to Communist ideologies." This power vacuum is also mentioned in the lead, but without explanation. I wonder if some new language could be added to explain this, and a source provided. Here's something from David H. Close, The Origins of the Greek Civil War (1995), page 83:
"The occupation forces were harsh enough to destroy state authority and wreck the economy, yet could not impose an alternative political and economic order. The outcome was near-anarchy, which left traditional elites bereft of power, but gave ample scope to the organizing abilities of the small Communist Party."
If others agree that this definition of the 'power vacuum' is the one intended in the article I might add some language that summarizes this and cites Close's book. EdJohnston (talk) 05:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)