Talk:Greek Civil War/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

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)

How many books have you read about the conflict, Vardos? How exactly how do you define a 'left-wing' book from one that is 'right-wing'? Do the left wing books display a red star on their covers? And when someone says that someting was 'universally known', does he not mean that he has no evidence of the fact other than it appeared to have been gossiped about a lot in the back alleys of the Filothei District of Athens... especially near the famous Park Galatsiou where so many communist speeches were made? Sonarclawz (talk) 09:53, 14 April 2012 (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)

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)

PENDING CORRECTION

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 188.222.10.19 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

civilian deaths--Xristar (talk) 09:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

"Slav" Macedonians

I changes all "SlavoMacedonian" "Slavic-Macedonian" "Macedonian Slavic" etc to ethnic Macedonians, since that is how they identity FAIRuno (talk) 18:27, 20 October 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)

I agree with EdJohnston 's idea. Rjensen (talk) 07:57, 2 November 2012 (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)

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 75.36.165.73 (talk) 18:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Please provide ANY sources about armed demonstrators on the 3rd of Dec and/or EAM (or KKE for that matter) were planning a coup. Whitout them, those claims do not even constitute POV. Sperxios (talk) 21:56, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Soviet Union involvement?

In the war details box (or whatever the name is?), the Soviet Union is listed as a supporter for the DSE (left-wing forces.) The first paragraph states that the Soviets had "backed" the DSE, and specified that it funded the insurgents, without providing any sources.

In the main article, the mentions of the Soviets are essentially that:

- they instructed the KKE leadership not to cause a crisis in 1944/1945 - they remained "passive" throughout 1945 - "The Yugoslav and Albanian Communist governments supported the DSE fighters, but the Soviet Union remained ambivalent. " - In June 1948, the Soviet Union and its satellites broke off relations with President Josip Broz Tito of Yugoslavia. In one of the meetings held in Kremlin with Yugoslav representatives, during the Soviet-Yugoslav crisis,[57] Joseph Stalin stated his unqualified opposition to the "Greek uprising". - "Greek right-wingers and Allied Western governments saw the end of the Greek Civil War as a victory in the Cold War against the Soviet Union; left-wingers countered that the Soviets never actively supported the Communist Party's efforts to seize power in Greece. "

This doesn't exactly do much to further the claim in the start that the Soviets had backed the insurgents. Is there indeed a scholarly consensus that, as the header claims, the Soviets had funded the left-wing forces? If so, a citation should be provided, as this is certainly not commonplace information. If not, the claim should be removed from the article. 66.180.182.5 (talk) 06:54, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been following the article closely but I think that the addition of Soviet Union as a supporter must be recent. You are correct, the Soviet Union provided practically no material support to the Greek Communists, and barely any moral support. In fact, communist states like Poland and Czechoslovakia, which aren't even listed in the table, provided the majority of the equipment used by the Greek Communists.Xristar (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
As no one has offered opposing views, I'm removing the relevant information from the page. 140.180.247.200 (talk) 21:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Infobox

In the infobox we have the Hellenic Army banner, but this wasn't the only branch of the military that participated in the Civil War for the government forces. There was also the Hellenic Air Force (with significant contribution in some operations) and the Hellenic Navy. Thus, I propose to replace the 'Hellenic Army' with the 'Hellenic Armed Forces'.16:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Greek Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek Civil War. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Casualties don't add up correctly

Taking into account all of the numbers given in the "Casualties and Losses" section, only 55802 people were killed, even though it says 158k were killed. Is this an error? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:40B:8403:F100:4FE:F9BB:23D:79D9 (talk) 21:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This is probably due to the inclusion of civilians. It would be better to give separately the number that each source gives as is done in other entries for wars.--Greece666 (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2019 (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)
Just because the British and American governments supported one side in the 1940s does not mean that British and American historians writing about the war 60 or more years later will also support that same side. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The entry uses extensively autobiographies and journalistic writings, whereas there is a rich body of academic works both in gr and in eng. Personally, I would prefer eng sources as they are easier to verify for the non greek speaker, but good gr sources should be included too. nothing wrong with including both. --Greece666 (talk) 12:06, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Florakis

Was he among the leaders of the DSE? afaik he did not have an important role at the time. --Greece666 (talk) 21:00, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 21:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greek_Civil_War/Archive_2&oldid=1178835194"