Comment by bobcostas55 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by bobcostas55 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Communist Party in Germany took a serious beating from the SD-headed government immediately following WW I. They were a relatively minor factor in the troubles of the 1920s and 1930s. While everyone was quite rightly concerned about the influence of the Soviet Union, its sphere of influence was extremely limited until the end of WW II. It lost a great deal of population, but so far from being contained by WW II, it moved its control as far west as the Elbe.

You are of course correct that the French and Italian Communist parties had no real prospects of successful insurrection with American troops stationed there.

It seems to have been a close shave in Italy. They barely avoided a civil war and their communists still poisoned the political scene for many decades since (and still do).

Not much Vergangenheitsbewältigung there :(

So since some of the Greek fighters - meaning those who allied with the British against the Nazis, had communist ideals you assume that all they wanted was a violent take over and establishing communism. And based on that assumption you justify the British for (a) arming Nazi collaborators and (b) opening fire against civilians in a peaceful demonstration.

Well done!

The communist party participated in the Greek government after Greece was liberated. The reason they quit? They disagreed with the disarmament of their military wing.

Another thing that deserves mention is that the civil war actually started years before the Nazis left. The communists had been attacking not only the Nazis, but also right-wing resistance groups (EDES, PAO, EKKA)! The Brits actually brokered a ceasefire in early 1944, which the communists broke 2 months later by murdering resistance leader Psarros (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimitrios_Psarros).

There is no assuming involved; they didn't simply "want" a violent take over, they actually tried to do it and lost.

I think you are oversimplifying the events. I'm not suggesting there was nothing wrong with EAM. However, the article is about the British involvement that lead to the December '44 events. They freed and armed the Greeks who collaborated with the Nazi regime and they disarmed (or tried to disarm) only ELAS members. Of course Greek citizens would protest against that. And it was policemen armed by the British who opened fire against a peaceful crowd. I really can't see how you can justify this.

>They freed and armed the Greeks who collaborated with the Nazi regime

This is not really the case. Two "groups" were to be left armed (and transformed into a national army): the 3rd Greek Mountain Brigade and the Sacred Band. Both groups were formed by the Greek government in exile, and were under the control of the Greek government. Both groups fought in battles against the Nazis. There is no question of collaboration among them.

As for the cops I'm sure there were collaborationists in their ranks, and obviously firing on the crowd was both wrong and a massive mistake. But this is no justification for anything the communists did.

Stalin was the General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union's from 1922 until his death in 1953. In the years following Lenin's death in 1924, he became leader of the Soviet Union and the ComIntern.

One cannot have been a communist in Europe in these times without being in an active supporter of Stalin. The ComIntern and essentially all European communist parties were under strict control of Moscow/Stalin. Those who opposed Stalin typically faced a violent end.

Of course after Stalin's death and the concommitant weakening of communist power, most communists active during Stalin's times lied about their involvement.

You assume that all members of EAM/ELAS were communists. They were not. Also, there really was a window for them to take over: after the Nazis left and before the Allied forces arrived they were practically the only armed force in Greece. However they chose to wait.

Mark Mazower's "Inside Hitler's Greece: The Experience of Occupation 1941-44" is an excellent book on the subject.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com