Talk:Greek Civil War/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old talk

"Skomby established military order and ordered ELAS to leave the Athens area. The British army intervened, taking the side of the latter." If this means what it says then the British fought on the side of ELAS. I corrected this, as I presume it is not the case.

"the ELAS guerillas refused to hand over their weapons, being afraid of prosecution". 'prosecution' (i.e. legal charges) or persecution (i.e. oppression)?

DJ Clayworth 15:14, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

A few notes on style. We don't usually add abbreviations to article titles, so [[Democratic Army of Greece (DSE)]] should be [[Democratic Army of Greece]] with a separate article [[DSE]] redirecting to it if necessary. Articles are usually written in the past tense. Don't worry if English isn't your first language. Plenty of people will be willing to fix this up. DJ Clayworth 16:16, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I intend rewriting this article when I have finished fixing History of Modern Greece. Adam 03:17, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Rewritten as threatened. Efharisto :) Adam 13:06, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

English is not my mother tongue so, I must accept all notes about english language and style. The rewritten article reproduces the cold war theory of the communist insurgency. This theory, though not completely inaccurate is far from the truth. In fact, civil war was in some way the result of Yalta Conference. During the german occupation, a great anti-fascist people's movement had fought against the Nazi's and the day after the liberation all these people wanted peace and democratic reconstruction in a self-determined state. This movement could not be controlled by the communist leadership.

(NOTE by STELIOS) It is a great mistake to confuse the patriotic feelings of the people During the german occupation,and call them anti-fascist which in communist terminology is anti conservative. The day of liberation was expected by all these people to continue their pre war lives. Only the communist party of Greece (less than 5% before the war)wanted a political reconstruction in what they called a self-determined state (USSR satellite in fact). The communist controlled organizations managed very well to terrorize almost every opponent during the German occupation. Then when at the end of the war they were the major armed force in Greece they didn't wat to leave power. I can write noumerous cases of Greek citizens executed by OPLA a communist organization that was used to terrorize Greeks only.END OF NOTE

Furthermore, if all communist leaders were soviet puppets there would have been no civil war because Stalin had accepted the British influence in Greece. Some of them were, others were not.

The main political problem was to defeat this people's movement and to return the country into the pre-War status of British satellite. Winston Churchill was neither a peace maker nor a fighter against communism but a faithfull servant of the British Empire who used the Greek government in exile as an intermediate to achive his target. Being never exhibited to free elections, this government was fed by the British and the greek army was under British administration. It was a-more or less-british marionette. The prime minister should have been Churchill's choice. There are a few examples to prove it.

In the frame of Lebanon conference, on July 29, 1944, PEEA sent a telegram accepting to take part to the government of National Unity, under a one-only condition: The replacement of Papandreou. Several ministers answered that: "British government made them confidentially aware that it cannot accept any change of the prime minister". A second example is Papandreou attempt to resign on December 4, 1944. British ambassador did not give the permission and Papandreou kept his post. A third example is mentioned in the text. Papandreou finally resigned by early January 1945 as a result of Churchill's intervention. Soviet Union had recognised this government to avoid any rift to the WW II alliance and it did not care whether it represented or not the greek public opinion.( NOTE and who represented the Greek public oppinion? The author of the article when says the Greek public oppinion means the Greek communists. Because when the communists say public mean anyone who supports them. According to them their opponents do not have any right to speak. END OF NOTE)

On the other hand, a Stalin-loyal communist leadership was not mature enough to handle the movement it worked to build. Unable to control the movement, it was drawn by the political coincidence. KKE had inspired but it could not control EAM. During the war, 6 bishops, 30 university professors, 2 members of the Academy of Athens, 16 generals of the pre-War greek army as well as 34 colonels and 1,500 officers were members of EAM. None of these was a communist. Communists had to hide their political identity inside the ELAS units. Until 1947, the communist general secretary was hoping to negotiations and used the military force as an advantage. The socialist revolution was a desparation move, when DSE had nothing to loose and the decision was taken without the Stalin's permission.

It is completely inaccurate that "most of ELAS fighters were eager to take control and begin the socialist revolution". Most of them, uneducated villagers, they could not even define what "socialist revolution" is. Most of them fought against the Nazi and could not tolerate that the ex-Nazi supporters-responsible for group executions, burnt villages and other atrocities of the war-were free and ready to fight against the "communists" side by side with the British. The socialist revolution was an intention of a minority part of the communist leadership and only Zahariadis' return changed this balance.

The article mentions nowhere the role of the Nazi-collaborators though their impunity was the main cause of ELAS anger. However, this impunity explains mostly the massacres of ELAS. On the other hand, affraid of their lives in case of an ELAS victory, these collaborators were the most head-strong anti-communist fighters. Of course, under such conditions many innocent people are among the victims.

The article shares arbitrarily the Stalin and Tito influence on the EAM and KKE leadership. Giving the intention of a seizure of the political power and socialist revolution to the KKE and EAM, anybody who studies this period cannot explain their moves. It is hard to understand why the EAM which controlled the country in the summer of 1944 did not get the power and then it was willing to fight against the british under worse conditions. It is hard to explain how "As relations between the Soviet Union and the Western allies deteriorated with the onset of the Cold War, Communist parties everywhere moved to more militant positions", a civil war occured only in Greece. On the other hand, Stalin adviced greek communists to take part in the 1946 elections and later did not help them during the civil war.

The rewritten article (and the theory of "communist mutiny" as well) had found an easy way to overcome these inconsistencies. KKE did not get the power when it could, because of Stalin's influence and later it tried the same target because of Tito's. So, all KKE moves can be easily explained by alternation of influence between Stalin and Tito. This theory fits everywhere. It is up to the reader to accept this approach. By the chance, Zakhariadis was a faithful stalinist but he made the most important decision of his life breaking Stalin's instructions.

I also add once more, the link to the 1946 election results. It is inaccurate that People's Party of Tsladaris took part in the elections as an independent party. This is minor inaccuracy though. The important point is that these results show the representation level of the parliement elected (1.2 million votes approximately in a seven million population).

An important part is the role of the British forces once they landed in Greece. It is inaccurate that they met no resistance. They simply did not run after the germans. At the same time ELAS attacked the departing germans in several places and the British troops could have done the same. They did not because their aim was to fight against the left-wing resistance not the germans.

Thanks a lot for the correct spelling of surname Scobie, that I have seen only in greek or greek translated texts. HERAKLES

User:Adam Carr comments: Herakles obviously knows a lot about this subject and I thank him for his extensive comments. I have done an edit to fix the English and grammar and remove some of the more opinionated statements.

Could I suggest that Herakles become a registed user?

Question: What is the Greek name of the organisation you have translated as "Military Hierarchy"?

Adam 13:56, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What a pity dear Adam, I am not satisfied with the article no matter what POV one can accept. I am the author of the very first article which you have entirely rewritten. My plan was to write some kind of "very expanded stub". I had written some info based on facts. By the word fact, I mean undisputable events or references of who said what. I tried to avoid personal estimates. I expected more contributions adding information from all parts, representing all POVs. The reader would have found the truth and form personal estimate by the juxtaposition of the facts.

This is the way I understand the word "neutrality". Say everything you know and let the reader to decide. If you know only the truth from one side, say it and let other contributors to fill the other side. The text should be composed in such a way to encorporate all information available. If it is too expanded, we can reorganise it and add more links to various aspects.

Perchaps, this is not the correct way. I am not a PhD in history so, my opinion counts less than yours. That's why I let you finish your work. I thought that you tried to write it in a professional manner. At the end I saw a text that summarized the marration and had many personal (or at least one-sided) estimates. I edited it to correct the points faulty (according to me) but the result was another article coloured by my personal POV. Let me say an example. I cannot really answer the question why ELAS fought against the command under which it was freely subjected two months earlier. I found your answer insufficient and I wrote mine, but I would not intended to erase any of them. The article should have made the reader aware of all options.

To be honest, I did not expect to be engaged that much. My intention was not to be a permanent contributor. It was a "write and forget" contribution (you know the "fire and forget" smart weapons). I am not willing to edit the text any more. You are a scientist. I trust you. If you accept my point, please reconsider the article in a way to encorporate contradictory references and future contributions. Do it with your professional manner.

I translated "Stratiotiki Ierarkhia" to "Military Hierarchy". HERAKLES

That is a literal translation but it doesn't really work in English. I will take some advice on this. Adam 00:15, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Excuse me Adam but I have one more comment. You thought that it was my personal estimate that the British troops landed in Greece avoiding to fight. It is not. Let me distinguish the truth from the opinion.

FACT: The British troops landed in Greece and they followed the retreating germans from a distance without opening fire. The germans took their time to leave and the British occupied empty space. If you could fly above Greece, you would have seen a wide no man's zone moving north. So, it is true that "British met no resistance" as you have written. If an army occupy an area from which the enemy had left two days earlier, it meets no resistance. This is not normal in a war however. I do not ask you to trust me. Find relative books, headquarter's archives, or personal testimonies the next time you come to Greece.

ESTIMATE (which of course, you may disagree with): The British did so in order to leave the bloody job (and the bloodshed) to the greek and yugoslav partisans and furthermore to the Soviet army. HERAKLES

Since the Germans were leaving Greece as fast as they could it made perfect sense for the British not to attack them and sustain pointless casualties. You may well be right that one reason the British occupied Greece was to prevent the KKE taking power - a perfectly legitimate objective. The allies didn't fight the war just to hand Europe over to Stalin. They are often criticised for abandoning Poland etc to Communism. Are they also to be criticised in the one country where they prevented a Communist takeover? I hope it is not your view that the KKE should have been allowed to take power. If it is I disagree with you. This disagreement should not prevent us writing a good article. Adam 09:26, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Needless to say. This is history so, we discuss about what happened, rather than what whould/should have happened. But if I were among the powerful people at this period I would fight for the right of the greek people to decide for its future without ANY pressure, through free elections. Unfortunately, this is very difficault when the violence of one part justify the violence of the other. As an ordinary greek who felt and still feel the bitter smell of this period, this is THE POINT for me. None of us loves this period. HERAKLES

nicely done!

this article is wonderfully thorough. As a political scientist, I find the information full and well-organized. However, this terrific detail needs to be better summarized at the start. The introductary summary that begins the article is good, but not wholely adequate. I would work on making the introduction more full, but I don't know enough about the subject matter at hand. So I appeal to you to do it :) Kingturtle 03:37, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

EAM wasn't established by KKE alone

The 4 founder parties of ELAS were:

• The Communist Party of Greece (greek:Κομμουνιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας), led by Lefteris Apostolou (Λευτέρης Αποστόλου),
• the Greek Popular Republic (Ελληνική Λαϊκή Δημοκρατία), led by Ilias Tsirimokos (Ηλίας Τσιριμώκος),
• the Agricultural Party of Greece (Αγροτικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας), led by Apostolos Voyatzis (Απόστολος Βογιατζής) and
• the Socialist Party of Greece (Σοσιαλιστικό Κόμμα Ελλάδας), led by Christos Chomenidis (Χρήστος Χωμενίδης).

However, KKE had the leading part.

Etz Haim 12:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

"normal" state?

Quoting from the article:

It was not until the fall of the military regime in 1974 that the KKE was re-legalised, and not until the election of a left-wing government in 1981 that Greek politics returned to a "normal" state.

That "normal" inside quotes is vague and disputable. Who says so? The public consensus in Greece defines 1974 as the landmark for the restoration of democracy, called Metapolítefsi (Μεταπολίτευση) in Greek. This is not meant to dispute views regarding PASOK's contribution to democracy in Greece; though this POV here is outside of the scope of this article. Etz Haim 12:16, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

---

• Feel free to add additional material about the groups that established the EAM, so long as it remains clear that it was essentially controlled by the KKE, which was the case according to everything I have read.
• By "normal" politics I mean politics where parties can alternate peacefully in power within agreed constitutional rules. That was not the case in the period between the end of the civil war and 1967, as was shown when G Papandreou took power, precipitating the 1967 coup. I don't think there's anything POV about saying that. Adam 12:54, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "normal" politics includes that, but the definition of "normal" isn't the same for people in belonging in different parts of the political spectre. Therefore it needs an explanation. However, in the 1981 election the power changed hands from ND to PASOK in an efficiently democratic manner; this should satisfy your criteria for normal. Etz Haim 13:18, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Um, yes, I think that's what I said. Adam 13:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

s/\"normal\"/stabilized/ Heh. I think the argument is over? :) Project2501a 19:41, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Communist bias

The article should be called GREEK CIVIL WAR THE COMMUNIST VIEW. Maybe there should be another article side by side called GREEK CIVIL WAR THE CONSERVATIVE(or right wing)VIEW. (STELIOS DECEMBER 2004)

This article is the official view of the stalinist group of Zachariadis in KKE. It has no relation with the truth. In some days I will give the real history

the aim of ELAS was to destroy every noncommunist resistance. The greatest crime was the execution of the great democrat socialist officer Psarros. The former general secratery of KKE Farakos has accepted the great crime of KKE which disclose the posture of KKE against the democrats. See book «Άρης Βελουχιώτης - το Χαμένο Αρχείο-Άγνωστα Κείμενα» - Εκδόσεις «Ελληνικά Γράμματα»-Αθήνα 1997).

edits by user:213.5.97.8

User:213.5.97.8 made some changes in the article which I do not agree with. See history for more details.

When did the Navy counter-coup happen?

Project2501a 21:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It was not exactly a coup. As far as I remember it was the summer of 1973 when the officers of a Greek destroyer (velos) that was participating at a NATO's exercise in Italy decided to ask political asylum in Italy. It was a huge blow on junta's image.(Newcomer 01:55, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC))

Greek Education System and the Greek Civil War

I feel i have to make this short comment:

I consider that it's a very, very sad situation, when the Greek Educational (Read:Indoctrination) System, asks the students to memorize and regurgitate the POV of the Greek state about how great the ancient greeks were, while playing down the role of christianity in the destruction of the ancient greek civilazation (Ioustinianos, anyone?), exalting the Byzantines and the concept of Megali Idea, exalting the heroes of the greek war of independance, and leveraging the history curriculum in the public school system in such a way, that it convienently stops at 1910, right before WWI. Greek teenagers never learn about the Civil war, nor do they learn about the Dekembriana, or any other part of the modern greek history.

they never get taught, while in school, the reasons Greece is, at present time, such a fucked up place. Instead they concentrate in such useless(imnsho) classes as Religion, which is basically indoctrination on the "official" greek religion, imposed by the greek orthodox church, in order to maintain political influence over the greek state.

on the other hand, they never learn to question the judgement of the greek state over such matters as conscription or immigration ("ΟΙ ΑΛΒΑΝΟΙ ΚΑΙ ΚΟΥΡΔΟΙ ΦΤΑΙΝΕ!"), or why turkey is not a threat to greece or vice versa. Prime example is this past year's Parliament of Teenagers (Βουλή των Εφήβων) and their decree to restrict influx of immigrants in greece... (btw, the moments of this past year's meeting are NOT published in full on the website due to the blunder our precious hope&lt/irony&gt managed to make...)

(Έχω μια αδελφή, κοριτσι αληθινή..., <-- i used to sing that during the 6 grades of elementary school, even though i had no idea what it was refering to, i was just signing along)

Η διστυχία του να είσαι Έλληνας...

Project2501a 19:28, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The idea that Greece is such a fucked up place (sic) is totally YOUR idea, if you beleive that you live in Psarokostaina I suggest you migrate...but since you paradise is lost over 15 years now, I suggest alternative places like Cuba or North Korea perhaps, what do you say?

I'm sick and tired of people like you, always complaining about the bad things, but without nothing different to offer...

And please, stop confronding others with such an altitude, who do you think you are? The only wise on earth that we all must obey to? Kapnisma 15:43, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What a jerk thinking Greece is "fucked up!" You think that kids in America learn about immagrents? Are they introduced to Christan belifs? Or do most Americas know how the American Civil War realy started? Zntrip

I'm not comparing our little country to the USA. I'm saying that we're 100+ billion euros in dept, but no Greek wants to face the truth. Any truth. The Public Sector should not and cannot support any more people. 1 out of 3 people in Greece live off the Public Sector. We give up a year of our lives to the Army/Airforce/Navy, without pay and with a good chance of getting electrocuted while trying to straighten some stupid fucking flag pole at 6 in the morning, after being awake for fucking 10 hours at a stupid guard post? (Remember Manitsa? Those five people were the same line as i was: D'02, 279 ESSO. I could have been one of them). That the Greek media is terrorising us? That our politicians are lying to our face? Are you happy that noone speaks up against the current situation, because most are employed in the public sector and they fear that they are gonna get thrown out? That all our differences with Turkey have been ironed out during the past 10 years, and that all the "fly overs" and "breaches of airspace" are just a smokescreen used to continue supporting a corrupt public sector? Kickbacks (mizes) from guns/arms/airplace purchases, THAT YOU PAY OUT OF YOUR OWN POCKET. if you try to stand up against the current, you're simply told to either compromise and learn to live with the corruption, ignorance and laziness of the Greek society OR LEAVE THE COUNTRY if you don't like it!

Are you happy that those "epikoinwniaka problhmata" of the goverment are nothing but pure propaganda? NO, GREEKS ARE NOT A SPECIAL PEOPLE AS YOU'VE BEEN TOLD EVER SINCE 3RD GRADE! What's so special about being Greek, at present time? Why do we insist of leeching off the fame of some people that HAVE BEEN DEAD for 2 thousand years now? Why can't we be GREAT ourselves? NOW! NOT IN THE PAST! NOT IN THE FUTURE! NOW!

Are you happy that employers in Greece are of the opinion that you should thank them for giving you a job. How do you feel knowing that 20%+ of the population lives in poverty? How do you feel knowing that if you graduate from a Greek univerity there's a 60% chance of NOT being employed in a job relevant to your degree? Are you happy that Greece is spending 5% of it's Gross Domestic Product on weapons purchaces instead of spending it on the health/educational sector? are you happy that you pay taxes for your kids to go to school in the morning but you have to pay money to the SAME PROFESSOR that's supposed to be teaching your kids during the morning to TUTOR them during the afternoon? Are you happy that 2/3rds of the people trying to pass the entry exams, fail because there are not enough seats in universities? Are you happy that there are univesity departments in every freaking village and minor town, for the purpose of supporting the local community and not for the purpose of educating the students?

How do you feel knowing that there's a good chance you might not get a pension 20 -30 years from now, because social security and public trust-funds are close to a financial collapse?

are you happy that 40 billion euros have been wasted or were never utilised, ever, since the 1st Delor package?

How do you feel that the Olympic Games cost the Greek people close to 20 billions dollars, and the only thing that was good about them was the expose Mrs Aggelopoulos's face to the international jet-set? (Did you gain financially from the Olympics? I sure know I didn't)

Are you happy that OTE charges you 200 euros/month for 1mbit aDSL, where the french phone company can give you a 4mbit aDSL line for 40 euros per month?

I know I am not.

So kids in the US don't learn about immigrants. So? what's so bad about a starving man, traveling 10 thousand miles from pakistan to here ON FOOT so, he can get a better life? Are you happy that amnesty international rates us with a 6 out of 10 as a racist country?

So, kids in the US are not introduced to "Christian beliefs" (Uh, they are but i'll just go along with what you are saying, for now). So? Faith is a personal matter. There's complete Separation of church and state in the US. What's so bad about that? If you want to pray, go do it on your own time, in your own place. Don't make everybody pray along with you. Why is it oblicatory to be Christian in Greece? How do you feel knowing that you PAID FOR THE RED G-STRING your priest might be wearing? How do you feel knowing that you pay the priest's salaries, when the Greek Church has a SHITLOAD of money in the bank?

By the way, where do you think that the Fundamental Christian movement originated? Bingo. The US. Southern US.

And yes, most people in the US DO know how the American Civil War begun. See, there's official propaganda on that side of the ocean, too. Part of it has to do with the American Civil War and how Linkon wanted to free the slaves from the evil southerns.

If you are going to answer me by replying with such bullshit as:

* IF YOU DONT LIKE IT LEAVE

* THAT'S WHO WE ARE

* GREECE MEANS CHRISTIANITY

* YOU ARE A TRAITOR

* GREECE IS THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD

please, don't bother. you're going to waste my time. i've heard that bullshit a million times before. I've refuted them a million times before. I'm not interested in hearing that crap any more. Gimmie some valid, logical reasons as to why we couldn't be like sweden. Cuz sweeden has 10 million residents, too, but they have a pretty solid economy. Yeah, we had a lot of wars in Greece. that's no excuse. During the past 30 years of peace, we have worsen our financial possition. We could have had a pretty solic economy. We got nothing, instead.

We DO live in Psarokwstaina. We don't want to acknoledge it, though. We are happy living in the illusion of Frappe-Drinking and "where are we going for drinks to night"...

WAKE UP YUNAN! YOU BELIEVE WHAT THEY ARE FEEDING YOU.

Project2501a 13:29, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Calm down will you? The Civil War "is there" in the history book. As long as one is interested in reading the thing, of course. As for the theology course (which is, indeed, not a real "theology" course until high school, especially the three last years), it's actually "semi-obligatory". One can be excluded from that course, if he ever wants to. And you see, it's not as if your opinions about modern Greece are far from reality, they are not congruent with it either. No, we don't learn that song anymore:p Don't confuse present times with the 70's. Oh, of course there is a tendency to promote "official" opinions through the greek educational system. Others are in worse fate than us though... Things are not as bad as you make them sound (at least in the particular matter... there aren't many other things I could disagree about). And who makes you think that Greeks don't know the truth? At least "none of them". Perhaps you are doing the same mistake as the people you blame, but in reverse. Also, we can't be like Sweden, because we suck:p Although we had plenty of help from the outside...yeah, yeah, it's easy to put the blame on others, but their "contribution" is not easily forgotten... Michael85 13:48, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

This article is totally not neutral

It is totally biased against the communist side. The funny thing is that here in Greece, even right wingers will not say, publicly at least, that "Metaxas was the legitimate prime minister of Greece who suspended certain articles of the constitution in 1936 after a period of riots organized by the Greek communist party(Markezinis political History of modern Greece)". I hope Markezinis is not the puppet "prime minister" of the 1967-74 military junta in Greece... "Suspension of certain articles" means a full-out dictatorship by Metaxas, who sent into exiles thousands of communists and left-wingers in general. This is fact, not fiction.

And how about that: "King George II himself had returned to the throne after a period of exile after a disputable plebiscite in 1935. According to the communists the government in exile was cut off from events in Greece and had little support in Greece.But in fact Greece during this period was terrorized by armed pro communist fighters who were killing and kidnapping their opponents, who they accused as being collaborators."

So, Greece during occupation was a place "terrorized" by pro communist fighters! Those terrorists who are still alive are now recognized, under certainly not left wing goverments, as freedom fighters, they get a pension and special benefits from the state, a state that derives from the one that actually beat them in the civil war! No one, but NO ONE, in Greece claims that the resistance struggle in Greece, which was overwhelmingly lead by left wing people (not communists necessarily), was terrorist! And just claiming that the problem of Greece under Nazi occupation, with hundreds of thousands of people killed by them, directly or indirectly from hunger, was the "communist menace" is totally false.

And the article goes on and on with such distortions. I am not a communist, but this is simply an article to be shamed of in Wikipedia. I don't have detailed knowledge of the facts or disputes of the greek civil war, and no time to do detailed research to edit the article, but until it improves i think it must be put into hold. IliasZ

*chuckle* *shakes head* Linus Torvalds said it best: "Either show me the code or stfu". So, either help us edit it by giving us the facts in this talk page, or go read a book or two and come back when you've got more details and change the article. You're not helping any by firing off fireworks and calling for the article to be "put into hold", as if you're running for office in the Greek parliament. User:Project2501a 12:48, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Ok, you'ne got a point there :-) I edited the page to remove the following: "But Metaxas was the legitimate prime minister of Greece who suspended certain articles of the constitution in 1936 after a period of riots organized by the Greek communist party (Markezinis political History of modern Greece). King George II himself had returned to the throne after a period of exile after a disputable plebiscite in 1935. According to the communists the government in exile was cut off from events in Greece and had little support in Greece.But in fact Greece during this period was terrorized by armed pro communist fighters who were killing and kidnapping their opponents, who they accused as being collaborators. As i pointed before, part of it is totally unfounded. I replaced it with a shorter and more sensible text. IliasZ

I agree with Ilias. Alleged civil disobedience, dubbed as "anarchy", is the pretext used by almost every dictatorship to impose its order of totalitarianism. I have the privilege to have the junta's original "War History of Greece" in my library. Guess what, the situation prior to 1967 is described as "Greece under anarchy" («Η Ελλάς αναρχούμενη») and it's filled with pictures of protests of the "Lambrakis Youth". Then the following chapter presents the 21st April "revolution" (sic) as the deus ex machina that saved Greece from anarchy!

Markezinis (and who else but Markezinis) shamelessly provides the same excuse for Metaxa's dictatorship, in order to provide him some legitimacy, and the article copies from Markezinis' advocacy. But this doesn't change the fact that Metaxas was a dictator. Period. Etz Haim 17:27, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Ilias, too. I just wish I more money to buy books to read about the subject. And also, i need to learn how to read faster... :( Project2501a 19:21, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hello again OF COURSE Metaxas was a dictator. I do not understand where is the point. None says he wasn't. Stalin was a dictator also. And Pinoshet and Yaruzelski So what? Hitler was a dictator also but there is none German who says that Hitler's regime was illegitimate

The FACT that Markezinis finished his political carrier as a puppet prime minister does not changes the fact that he started as a left wing politician. It also doesn't mean that he is writing lies.

I suppose (correct me if I am wrong) that you are discussing about my disagreement on the use of the term "legal government". The term Legal is a term that belongs to the law science.

It would be helpfull to define the term "legal government" using a law book and then let's check if we can use the term on this case or any other in the future.

Anyway I agree absolutely with the correction you have made The first part seems quite objective to me now.Newcomer 00:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Strange... why doesn't this article mention the... "Churchill Assassination atempt?":p The English are presented as if they "found themselves caught in the middle"... as if their participation was completely unintentional. Also, this part is pretty interesting... "The EDES was wholeheartedly committed to the liberation of Greece from both facism and communism alike, and bore little ideological identity." See, there was never any real commitment to liberate Greece from Communism, simply because Communism never prevaled in Greece in the first place. Yes, it is somehow biased against the communists, if you read carefully. Not that I mind though, they were not much different from any other.... Michael85 13:59, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Michael185 100%. There is no mention of the huge bomb planted by ELAS under Churchill's hotel in Athens. Equally there is no mention of the suprise attack launched by ELAS against British troops on Xmas eve when they foolishly thought the British would be off guard. In actual fact General Scobie cancelled Xmas that year (known as "scobiemass" by those involved) and ELAS instead faced some very hacked off veteran British troops who'd had their leave cancelled at no notice and been made to stand to all night (which in an Athenian winter isn't fun).

I'd also challenge the claim that ELAS controlled Crete: Cretan resistance was mainly non-political (apart from being violently anti-nazi) and the Cretans threw out anyone suspected of being a communist. See "the Cretan runner" english translation Patrick Leigh-Fermor. PeterSym 20/7/2006

Hello again OF COURSE Metaxas was a dictator. I do not understand where is the point. None says he wasn't. Stalin was a dictator also. And Pinoshet and Yaruzelski So what? Hitler was a dictator also but there is none German who says that Hitler's regime was illegitimate

Apparently you aren't very bright aren't you? Hitler came to power via elections. Metaxas performes a coup de tat while his party prior his coup had nonsignificant support(3%). This is why it is illegitimate. Apart from that, this entire article is the anglo-american version of history we came to save you from communism etc. in the same manner that they saved the Iraqies,the Vietnamese and the rest of the liberated(sic) people.~

Papadopoulos a Nazi collaborator?

This is the first time I hear of this, could someone please site a source? To my knowledge he served in Egypt with the allies where he was among the small minority of ultra-monarchist troops that did not mutiny. He later took part in the so-called "Rimini brigade" named so because of its participation in the liberation of the Italian city of Rimini by the Allies.

Thanks!

This comes a bit very late but it is an interesting point. From the Georgios Papadopoulos article:

Papadopoulos, an anti-communist, did not join ELAS and instead worked for the "Patras Food Supply Office" of the Greek collaborationist administration. The "Patras Food Supply Office" was run under the command of Colonel Kourkoulakos, and was responsible for tax collecting at villages on behalf of the Nazi Occupation Forces. Colonel Kourkoulakos is responsible for the formation of the "Evzoni Regiments" at Patras, who were military regiments comprised by anti-communist Greeks collaborating with the Nazi occupation forces against the ELAS. Papadopoulos worked under the commands of Kourkoulakos against ELAS, which was initially sponsored by the Soviet Union. At he beginning of 1944, Papadopoulos left Greece with the help of British intelligence agents and went to the Middle East, where he received the rank of Lieutenant. Along with other right wing military officers, he contributed to the creation of the right wing paramilitary IDEA organization, at Fall 1944.

This information comes from the encyclopedia "Idria ("Υδρία").

So, Mr P worked for the greek quisling government under the command of the guy who created the "germanotsoliades", and terrorized the countriside on behalf of the Nazis. But later, the Brits awarded him for his anticommunism, effectively whitewashing him. That's all. --Michalis Famelis 11:44, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The first time that I've read that Papadopoulos was a nazi collaborator was here in wikipedia some months ago. I do not know which is the source.

You are wrong to the point that the soldiers and officers who remained loyal to the Greek Government were "small minority" or "ultra monarchists" On the contrary many of them were anti royalists who had participated at the 1935 pro Venizelos coup.

I' ll give you an example. The commander of IEROS LOCHOS in middle East was Chr.Tsigantes who had participated at the March 1935 coup, was court martialled (as well as his brother John Tsigantes) they were stripped from their medals, reduced to the rank of soldier and condemned to death. Metaxas changed the death to exile. Can any objective person call these officers ultra monarchists?

Only the KKE condemned John Tsigantes again to death (no 21 KKE and EAM confidencial report Athens March 18 1943) when he came to Athens in order to organize the anti nazi resistance. The reason was that he also gave money to non EAM organizations which had different political points.

Aw for the term "liberation" you are using on Rimini, I think that the right term is occupation, since Rimini is an Italian city. I think that the citizens of Rimini do not celebrate a liberation but only the "battle of Rimini"Newcomer 23:02, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Italian city of Rimini was liberated (no quotes) by the Allies (including the Greek Army Brigade) in the end of September 1944 after one of the hardest battles fought on Italian soil against the German occupiers. Zippo

Hello again OF COURSE Metaxas was a dictator. I do not understand where is the point. None says he wasn't. Stalin was a dictator also. And Pinoshet and Yaruzelski So what? Hitler was a dictator also but there is none German who says that Hitler's regime was illegitimate

Apparently you aren't very bright aren't you? Hitler came to power via elections. Metaxas performes a coup de tat while his party prior his coup had nonsignificant support(3%). This is why it is illegitimate. Apart from this, this entire article is the anglo-american version of history they came and save us from communism etc. in the same manner that they saved the Iraqies,the Vietnamese and the rest of the liberated people.~

The beginning of the civil war

Although it is politically correct it is not true that the civil war started in 1944. There are many accounts that the civil war was going on in 1942 and 1943. (source History of the Greek Nation "Ekdotiki Athinon" volume 16)

It also had 3 phases (during the occupation, december of 1944, and the last phase)

I 'll wait for your answers before editing the article Newcomer 08:41, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Macedonia's role

I find all the viewpoints on this page interesting, especially the ones in conflict with each other!

I find it odd however that the role of ethnic Macedonians in ELAM/ELAS has only been alluded to. The defection of thousands of ethnic Macedonian ELAS fighters into the Yugoslav Partizans, after they had been backstabbed by their Greek comrades, combined with Tito's decision to redeploy many of them to Kosovo and other Yugoslav hotspots -- basically conceding the partition of Macedonia -- was a critical chain of events that needs to be fully explored.

I would appreciate all of your comments on this subject. Thank you.

When you refer to "Macedonians" you probably refer to the Slavic minority of Greek Macedonia. Am I right? We call them SlavoMacedonians in order to distinguish them from the original (Greek) Macedonians.

To answer your question now, the Greek civil war is a very big subject (and equally controversial) and this article is really small yet. I intend to write in the future about the slav organizations (SNOF, NOF)that fought with as well as against ELAS and the National Greek Army. Newcomer 21:48, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fall of the Millitary Junta

Given that this article briefly refers to the fall of the millitary junta towards the end, I think it should be linked to Athens Polytechnic uprising—Preceding unsigned comment added by Spiro (talk • contribs) 20:01, 29 March 2005 (UTC)

Why not in 1974?

after the Athens Polytechnic uprising the junta of greece had the public against them, Karamanlis senior came in greece and took the seat of prime minister in a 'national unity goverment' during 1974 and with the constitution of 1974 the democratic operation of the goverment and the political parties was again a day to day fact. the PASOK partie took office in 1981 but they are actually define the post 1974 period as metapolitefsi as everybody in greece--EleftheriosKosmas 00:31, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

---

I agree that the date is 1974. Anyway I started editing the article slowly a paragraph every month in order to give time to everybody to answer my objections. I also think that the civil war article should stop in 1950 with one or two sentences, only about the political situation in Greece until 1974. All the rest should be transferred at the History of modern Greece. Did you create an account? Newcomer 21:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the way the junta collapsed was a bit "unnatural". It's not as if all those that collaborated with the regime were persecuted. Conservatism still ruled the country, and several remnants of the monarchic or military regimes had found shelter in the ND party. That's the reason why it's believed that the "mark" of the junta didn't go off until 1981. Of course, there is some exaggeration in this matter, mostly originating from supporters of PASOK. Michael85 14:05, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

I DONT KNOW IF THIS ARTICLE IS BIASED BUT I SURE AM

This comment comes months after the one I wish to criticize but here goes.

I would like to comment on the "this article is totally not neutral" comment.

It seems that it's author denies the fact that communist guerrilla factions carried out terrorist actions during the civil war.

Let me inform him, that my family suffered due to this terrorst action. My great-grandfather, Evangelos Glavanis, a businessman, was ,murdered by communists in Volos. his body was never found.

I don't know if you can look this up, but if you can, i propose you do so.

So, what you mean to say is that you are biased? So, you lost a family member during the civil war? how does that help us write a better article?

Answer: it doesn't. it just propagages the current situation of Right Wing Vs Left Wing.

Project2501a 13:34, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I do agree that my comment does'nt add anything to the article itself, αλλα ρε παιδιά, μη λέμε και μαλακιες. That's all i'm saying. Having said that, the magazine stratiotiki istoria published an article on the Dekemvriana a few months ago. It's all about the mlitary side of it but it could be useful. I'll try and find the exact month and come back to you with it.

Answer: The magazine Στρατιωτική Ιστορία includes many ex-junta military staff on its editorial board and I think we all know what that means. What's more, like most publications originating in fact from organs sponsored by the Ministry of National Defence from glorifying the 'strugglles of our people' has been caught between a rock and a hard place on account of the constant review of historical facts by the Hellenic academia. The 'αφιέρωμα' on Dekemvriana is a case in point.--I personally like the series, but as a trained historian I would reccomend its use as supporting document only in very particular circumstances and by no means as general reference.-- : reg457 07:00, 22 January 2006 (GMT)

Proposals

1. We should summarize the resistance section and move the bulk of it to Greek Resistance.
2. The introduction contains the phrase: "Hot controversial topic", which just sounds wrong in English. The term "hot topic" is usually reserved for gossip, not for such a serious matter as civil war. Simply "controversial topic" would be much better. --Jpbrenna 11:15, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

I just changed number two. Jkelly 03:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I was not sure where to add this, it concerns a minor edit concerning Stalin's post-war and loger term objectives under the heading Confrontation 1944. It used to read: 'which included above all control of Germany'. Research has shown that this was hardly the case, so I deleted it. I'd be happy to substantiate that view if asked by a fellow user.--: reg457 07:00, 22 January 2006 (GMT)

It comes down to this then, nationalism versus the struggle for freedom ,however flowed.unsigned

Strange, I thought it came down to stalinist totalitarianism against the fight for freedom. And the word is flawed, as in "the flawed and propagandist representation of Stalinist murderers as freedom fighters". 212.251.127.172 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Im not in the KKE. But they played a great role in kicking out the Nazis,unsigned

Interesting how they were not interested in kicking out (or for that matter, fighting) the Nazis while the Hitler-Stalin pact was still standing. But, of course, the moment mother-Russia was invaded, they changed their tune, and saw resisting the Nazis as "national duty", rather than "Metaxas's imperialist war", as Zahariades had characterised it before. 212.251.127.172 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

and once more took on the collaborating greek ruling class and their militias. Neither Moscow nor Wasingthon brohers. Its time we cleaned up the rotten foundations our country was founded on.

We can only feel optimistic, knowing that brilliant minds such as yours are onto the task... 212.251.127.172 11:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

On the comment by 212.251.127.172 on the 3rd of June above: It is true that CCCP's position, as well as that of the KKE by extension in the first part of the War (i.e. before "Barbarossa" was launched) was that this new World War, like the Great War before it, was an imperialist conflict. AT the same time however, the principles of Fascism had been repudiated and in fact named Communism's main enemy by the VII and last Congress of the Коминтерн in 1935. So on an ideological level, no one can blame Zachariades, or any member of the CC of the KKE at the time, of political opportunism. Fighting fascism had been the basis upon which the United Front policy had been built. Needless to say, all of the real Communist Parties subcribed to the decisions of that Congress, KKE included. Need I remind you, insolent pup, that Zachariades suffered greatly for his beliefs? Need I remind you further that he was one of the few non-Jewish Hellenes that was sent to Dachau? In any case, he was a great and respected Communist, who took upon him to re-assemble the KKE upon his return after Varkiza, which was no mean task. Perhaps you should read some more Wikipedia articles, such as the one on Zachariades or the one on Коминтерн before attempting any further "revelations" of the type.reg457 8 August 23.47 GMT+2

Who added the warnings?

There is really nothing wrong with this article.(87.203.229.163 12:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Yes, there is. Instead of reading like Communist propaganda, or anti-communist propaganda, it bounces back and forth between the two, depending on who last edited any given paragraph. A Neutral Point of View is not served by slanting statements in multiple directions, but by stating verifiable facts, and reporting the beliefs of all sides of the conflict as those parties' beliefs. Argyriou 19:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Statment in intro

"The civil war left Greece with a legacy of political polarisation; as a result Greece also entered into alliance with the United States and joined NATO, while relationships with its USSR-allied northern neighbors became strained."

Really, the civil war left Greece "politically polarized?" Wasn't it already polarized in the pre-war years - royalists, Venizelists, communists? Maybe we should define "polarized" better - exactly how many violent coups and other poisonings of a country's political life have to occur before it is officially "polarized?"

Metaxas seems to have been a polarizing figure until the Germans invaded - even if now he is somewhat romanticized for saying "Okhi!" Relations with neighboring Bulgaria were already strained, in light of the Second Balkan War and later when Bulgaria cooperated with the Germans in the invasion of the mainland and Crete and the subsequent occupation.

I'm not saying the civil war was a boon to Greece, but there certainly would have been serious internal and external issues even if it hadn't occured. It's not clear that the civil war actually caused any of this; it seems more likely that it merely exacerbated existing tensions. Unless we can cite a reputable scholarly source for the opinion expressed above, I think it should be removed from the article. If it does have a source, we should frame it differently: "Greek Civil War expert Prof. X holds that..." etc. --Jpbrenna 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

First of many victories in the Cold War

That should also be mentioned here. This keep the soviets honest and started a roll back of communism in other countries as well such as malaya and Turkey and in the middle east. But this was the first. Romanyankee(24.75.194.50 20:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC))

LOL, The Soviets didn't even participate in Greek Civil War, ignorant yankee.~

No shit, because we helped!! Ignorant pinko! RomanYankee(68.227.214.248 02:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC))

You are full of nonsense son. 1st) The CCCP had given Greece to Britain during the Yalta conference. It has nothing to do with US interference. 2nd) Hello?? How was it a victory against Soviet Union when the Soviet Union didn't participate in the war?

LOL these little yankees, they always surprise you. ~

LOL, where did It say it was a victory against the soviet union, idiot!! I said communism. The soviets would've invaded or at the very least supplied the communists if the US didn't support the good guys (who won). The CCCP didn't 'give' Britain anything. Stalin just obliged by the yalta conference but do you think he wouldn't have gone back on what was agreed?

LOL these little pinkos, they always surprise you. RomanYankee (24.75.194.50 16:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC))

The soviets would've invaded or at the very least supplied the communists if the US didn't support the good guys (who won). The CCCP didn't 'give' Britain anything.

Great Britain would have 90 percent in Greece according the percentages agreement. That is because Greece was already under the British sphere of influence long before the war, due to the control of the Mediterranean which ended in the Suez crises. The Soviets didn't send any help to the Greek guerrillas because of the arranged agreement. Your lack of knowledge regarding the subject is telling.

but do you think he wouldn't have gone back on what was agreed?

History is not written by hypothetical scenarios. ~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.121.177 (talk) 02:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

"The Soviets didn't send any help to the Greek guerrillas because of the arranged agreement."

The soviets didn't send help because of international pressure. The british would have 90% of what?! The agreements where made during WW2 and before the outbreak of violence between the commies and the good guys. Britian then couldn't handle the load after.

'Your lack of knowledge regarding the subject is telling."

No, YOUR lack of knowledge on the subject (as well as critical analysis) is telling.

"History is not written by hypothetical scenarios."

Thats is what happend. This isn't an hypothesis. If you think the soviets wouldn't have invaded or taken control of greek affairs (like they tried to do in Spain during the civil war there) or anywhere else had American aid and protection not been there....you need help

YankeeRoman(65.222.151.74 (talk) 17:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Read about the [1] and don't confuse yourself. Soviet Union had zero involvement in the Civil War. As for Spain, the Republicans were the democratically elected government while the Monarchists of Franco were an illegal establishment which collaborated militarily with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. The USA provided some assistance by sending some voluntary troops to the Republicans as well as the USSR which send ammunition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.130.159.37 (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Post-war Nominations- edits by user:89.210.83.136

Yo 89.210.83.136! "with both sides vilifying their opponents"?? Could you please indicate me post-war vilifications of right-wing supporters by official left-wingers? These terms were used for decades by the Right in Greece to nominate the side of the defeated in the Civil War.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.63.235.139 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Question-

How can there be a strength of 20,000 men and women for the Communist guerillas with 38,000 killed and 40,000 captured or surrendered ?

I'm wondering the same thing. Ufwuct 17:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

20,000 was the max DSE ever reached. There was massive attrition in DSE

predominantly conservative Greek civilian population?

I dispute that, especially given the percentages EDA and Enosi Kentrou got in elections in the 50s and 60s, despite those elections being infamously unfair, institutionalised right wing domination of politics and a strong presence of the deep state (murder of Lamprakis being the most extreme example). Mavros 21:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Greek rural population was predominantly conservative. But not the entire Greek population. Mitsos 13:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

False Numbers

Otay, I see that the Allied Losses are 55,000 and the Communist Losses were 10,000. I am calling B*llS*it on that, as I noticed that it includes most of the apparent Communist Foreign "Tresspassers" as Royalists ie Like the unfortunate Bulgar "Voyvoda" (named after the actual Voyvoda in honor of their insurrectionary acts against the Germans in WWII) Infantry Regiment (using US army standard, actual unit term unkown) that managed to trap itself in between an Italian Voulanteer Regiment fighting for the Government and a Anglo-Greek Regiment, and got incinerated with over 90%+ losses. This is biases and MUST be dealt with. ELV—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.147.150 (talk • contribs) 00:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RELIABLE SOURCES????

The main rule of wikipedia are the reliable sources!! where are they in this article, when it is refering a ELAS like the group that was commiting attrocities! Please, WHAT is that? we are talking about the greek history and the struggle of greek people, not just communists and you portray them as being some mindless troups of extremists? ELAS is established in the HISTORY as a heroic people's resistance group, yes it had come from the communist party but it was undoubtfully more than a tool of KKE!!! It was the soul and the spirit of people that was fighting in the mountains, and yes it was very tough with so many forces around claiming parts of Greece, but it was the only way! it is unbelievable that even now they refer to massacre of Meligala, I state here and now that i want even the smallest shread of evidence of the massacre presented!! In the same time evidence of Aris Velouchiotis killing around people like a maniac (that's how you present him!) and not being a symbol of the struggle against the opposition (as we know!). and evidence that Sarafis was the poor helpless child that Aris took by his side on force having killed everyone around him! (please!). Where are your sources? Even if you present facts without any evidence whatsoever, than at least where is the neutral point of view? Where in the whole text does it refer to the real shamefull, hideous, atrocities that the ONLY terrorist group in greece , the X , has commited? I am very dissapointed, i have already presented a change in some part of the text and i hope that at least it SHOULD be considered, (at least I have cited sources), when in reality I SHOULDN'T need because the history has already claimed the struggle of ELAS, EAM and the free people against their oppositors, the worst of them sadly coming from the land of Greece itself! I ask that the least you should do, since this is a matter of importance is re-examine parts of the article. It insults me! Beltenebros 19:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Beltenebros, your partisanship for the communist thugs in Greece is so overwhelming that there's no good reason to take your complaints of partisanship or bias at all seriously. If you think that statements in the article are untrue or unsourced, place {{fact}} tags after those statements. Αργυριου (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

So it all comes back to this!! you have given me the light: COMMUNIST THUGS!! And i really thought you should at least take a time to consider all the points i am reffering to at my post! But no! you just prefered to summarize briefly and with utmost profficiency your point of view! Which we have seen clearly from your comment WHICH is (see: communist thugs!)! And to imagine that I AM NOT EVEN a communist! not that it is your bussiness anyhow, but i am saying it only to help you, since you obviously are very narrowminded,see the big picture! you see the point here is not to express your personal hatred but to answer, if you are capable, in more serious issues!!

Is this how you understand dialog? I state again my will towards a re-examination of the article! Beltenebros 20:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I've provided a citation for the Communist atrocities. I have no idea what your are talking about when you claimed that the article was locked. Your ranting is rather tiresome, so I will not engage in listening to further tiresome monologues by you, though I will endeavor to provide sources to prove other communist atrocities. Αργυριου (talk) 20:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

God, you really are mising the whole picture are you? you insist in providing me communist attrocities!! didn't you even understand of what i was talking about? and since you are doing the labor of retrieving these attrocities could you do me a favor and be a good boy and state all the attrocities that X (or should i say Chites?) have done? i think it might be a little difficult, because they are a little obscured, no? anyway, i give you too much credit i think! i UNDERLINE again the fact of THE IMPORTANCE THAT ELAS meant to the resistance, (with the communist and the non communist all together) and the serious lack of solid information! If it was an article regarding the fishing of codfidh in Norway i wouldn't insist but since it's about greek history than it should be much better elaborated! Just don't come presenting me attrocities also from the people that were in MAkronissos because than it's pathetic!

seeu

P.s>it was a fault of mine regarding the article locked!

Since i was not given any serious answers, I 've made clear my statement that this article is not neutral and in some parts is even insulting to the memories of the people that had fought for freedom.

And YES, the main resistance was EAM and ELAS and you should also think why.

And YES, they were not all communist thugs and you should consider why.

And YES, they gave up their lifes, the majority of them, for the people's freedom.

And YES, in the Dekembriana, was not just KKE communist fighting (I am becomingg tired of this term used more than a thousand times in this article!), it was much more than that, so that it seems ridiculous now to try and explain why the EAM had gathered so many PEOPLE, COMMON PEOPLE supporting it and why they have BEEN slaughtered in the center of Athens by all these forces that were acting against communism

For all these reasons and more i have posted the need to re-examine the article of its neutrality and of its integrity . Beltenebros 21:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Greece was the only country were the collaborators of the NAZIS weren't trialled. Apparently their offsprings are irritated that a small portion of their treacherous buddies were executed for treachery against the nation and since in Greece no historian takes them seriously, they have flooded wikipedia in a desperate attempt to pass their own version of history.~

PASOK and national reconciliation

Please, when you make a comment about PASOK cite your sources and avoid saying your personal opinion about the party —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.247.187.137 (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but Vafiadis was indeed elected with PASOK. You should not remove that.--Yannismarou 08:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't make sense.

The enemy of my enemy maybe wasn't my friend but could sometimes be a source of equipment. To me, this doesn't make any sense, although I'm not an expert on Greek history, just merely browsing. Vandalism anyone?

It makes perfect sense. It means that, for example, the enemy of EDES was ELAS, and the Germans were the main enemy of ELAS. Althought EDES wasn't collaborating with the Germans, it sometimes took weapons from them in order to fight ELAS. Mitsos 11:52, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon Zervas and his right-wing organization EDES were fighting for a right-wing independent Greece. For Zervas Greece's liberty was more important than it's orientation. That's why he collaborated with ELAS in the EAM. But in the Civil War it was obvious that Zervas was allied with ELAS only because he saw ELAS as a "minor evil". P.S. I changed "Slavic Macedonians" with ethnic Macedonians, because that is the official name of the Wikipedia article and because of the rules in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles). Revizionist 01:53 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not start edit wars for nothing. The name Macedonian Slav or Slavomacedonian is a moderate way to call you. Furthermore, since this is an article about Greece and it deals about Macedonia (Greece), according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Macedonia-related articles) we should use this name. Kapnisma ? 09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I imputed some new photos in this article. Revizionist 04:10 02 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Ac.athens44.jpg

Image:Ac.athens44.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 05:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The British started the fighting. In a letter to the commander of the British troops who had been deployed in Athens, supposoedly to give chase to the Germans (who had already fled, under the overwhelming pressure of ELAS) Churchill said that in order to gain advantage over the Communists, the British had to deal the first blow and it had to be not only unexpected, BUT COMPLETELY UNPROVOKED(Britsih military de-clissified documents) Additionaly, the British re-armed the 'Security regiments', fascists groups who had cooperated with thw NAZI's, in an attempt to smother thw communist resistance. It is also widley believed, that EDES only attacked ELAS under strict orders to do so by the British, who were supplying their wewapons, when ELAS were on the verge of forcing the Italian armies of Thessalia to surrender-something that would greatly empower the arsenal of ELAS. Finally, one should not forget that ONLY EAM-ELAS honoured the Varkize treaty (which, among others, set a time-schedule for the departure of all non-Greek armed forces from Greece) and, even according to official state archives, thousands of communists were murdered, imprisoned, executed, sent to exile on islands like Makronisos (the concentration camp of Makronisos had been called 'a new Parthenon' by G. PApandreou senior), raped, or terrorized in a number of ways. In '44, the KKE had nearly 800.000 members (in a population estimated at around 6 million) and by 1951, herdly any of them remained free, healthy and without perxecution in Greece. As a post-scriptum, one might add that most of the populations that were moved during, or before the war, were moved from the country side ( where ELAS was all-powerful) to Athens, were they could be mopre easily controlled, and they never returned home. "for the sake of historical truth" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.16.225.56 (talk) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Some referenced corrections

Of course the Greek civil wasn't a communist insurgency. There was not even a kind of revolution attempt. ELAS saw Germans off Greece and remained the only considerable political and militarry force in Greece. It is a joke to talk about insurgency. EAM was the undeniable ascendant but Curchill and Stalin had other opinion and EAM leaders were not ready to accept a certain solution for this problem. And of Course there were not three rounds! There were just two rounds the first and the second guerilla war ("Πρώτο και Δεύτερο Αντάρτικο"). Only the nationalistic right wing accepts three rounds, with the first supposed to be during the german occupation. EDES was just a small minority which sometimes collaborated with the germans against ELAS. EDES was not able to start a kind of civil war... Left people used the term "third round" as a wishfull thinking, as a promise to continue their struggle.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vardos (talk • contribs) 13:53, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

The interview of the politician in the last parapgraph

The last quote/paragraph, that is the Leonidas Kyrkos'interview in a daily newspaper, shall be removed since it provides subjective views and opinions of a politician (not a historian), doesn't provide any additional information (or at least experiences) regarding the examined events whatsoever. If it stays, then we will have to provide opinions of other politicians which is will bring us up to a vicious circle. Regards—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.131.121.177 (talk • contribs) 05:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Start date

When reading through the article, it clearly states that the Greek Civil War started in 1942, a second round of fighting starting in 1944 and the third round of fighting starting in 1946. However someone has altered the start date to only reflect the last date which doesnt make sence when looking at the intro to the article.

On top of that, some sources state that the 2-3 British and Indian divisions diverted from the Italian campaign in 1944 to enter Greece and return the government entered in the middle of a civil war between the communists and nationalists.

One is confused by the picking of the latter day and claiming it to be historically inaccurate to pick an earlier one.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Intro is now fixed so as not to provide a confusing historical description and prevent contradictions caused by right-wing POV. Sperxios (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

What are the rules on editing Greek Civil War article

Who is imposing the rules in wikipedia on editing and releasing changes on articles?

Is there any screening on sources and political views?

I got this post on my talk after I did some changes:

"Hello. Your edits to Greek Civil War and related articles are very problematic. First, you are evidently driven by a strong political agenda. Editors who want to push their own opinions into articles are not welcome at Wikipedia. Please see WP:NPOV for our policies. Second, your English is too poor. Your additions are largely ungrammatical and often almost unreadable. Please be more careful before making large changes to articles.

In a 2007 arbitration case, administrators were given the power to impose discretionary sanctions on any user editing Balkans-related articles in a disruptive way. If you engage in further inappropriate behaviour in this area, you may be placed under sanctions including blocks, a revert limitation or an article ban. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 30 July 2008 (UTC)"

So after the last revision on my edits, I realize that there some "screening" policy from Fut.Perf. and not my "bad english"( that can be corrected".

Lines like " Marxist and non-marxist resistance groups fought each other", "The Egypt mutiny..", "hey did not do so because the KKE leadership was under instructions from the Soviet Union not to precipitate a crisis that could jeopardise Allied unity and put at risk Stalin's larger post-war objectives. " etc, reveal a strong anti-communist supervision and manipulation of the article that is not comply with the NPOV policy of wikipedia.

References on crutial "remarks" for KKE, DSE, USSR etc are not existing or are taken directly from proven anti-communist PROPAGANDA leaflets and serious historical studies of the era.

Although the structure of this article is excellent, it lacks a neutral perspective and furthermore it is working more than right-wing propaganda reference rather than a historical overview of the specific era.

I believe that this is not the aim in here. I also believe that supervisors and administrators should come forward and express their point of view on this subjects. I hope they will.

Thanks,

Dkace (talk) 10:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

My point of view is that your edits were clearly POV (read the relevant policy) and correctly reverted.--Yannismarou (talk) 11:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Two more things:

• A "mutiny" is a "mutiny". It may be a right-wing or a left-wing mutiny, but it is still a mutiny!
• Do you question that KKE was following Stalin's instructions?! How many times did Zachariadis go to Moschow?--Yannismarou (talk) 11:58, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

A mutiny is a mutiny if you have an appointed leader/leaders and the "crew" is rebeling against him or them. Greek troops in Egypt mutinied against who? The government of Athens,the government of the mountains or the government of Cairo?

If you read from "right" side then it was a mutiny. If you read it from "left" side it was a rebellion against the British and their colaborators. If you want to remain neutral you HAVE to presented as an incident and express both sides ( references, sources, etc.) Otherwise it remains POV.

KKE was member of the 3rd Communist International, Zachariadis was in its Committee. Although the 3rd International seized to operate from 1943, there was a strong connection between the Communist Parties and Communist movements all over Europe.

If you degrade this historical fact to " Stalin's Plans", then THIS IS a POV.

I am trying to present it as neutral as it takes. But,according to POV stating that " KKE was following Stalin's instructions" with NO relevant reference ( real - serious reference from approved historical sources), it remains a POV ( right-winged this time).

Finally, I accept only the "bed English" for my changes. I even put references that were screened and deleted. I am asking why . And I am asking also if this is the policy of wikipedia.

Dkace (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Dkace, in 1940-1945 the only internationally recognized government was the government of Cairo. You like it or not; I like it or not, this is a fact. Therefore, the mutiny was against the army leadership of the time in Cairo. I also rephrased your reference to the law 1863/1989, because your edits included indeed bad English and inaccuracies. Article 1 of the law does not recognize as equals the National Army and the Democratic Army. It only provides for the replacement of the term "Communist bandits" with the term "DSA fighters" and indeed recognizes (what right-wing phanatism prevented from many years) that there was indeed a civil war. That's all, and that's the text:

  1.Η περίοδος από την  αποχώρηση  των  Στρατευμάτων  κατοχής  μέχρι 
31.12.1949 αναγνωρίζεται ως "περίοδος εμφυλίου πολέμου".

  2.  Οπου στην κείμενη νομοθεσία αναφέρεται ο όρος "συμμοριτοπόλεμος" 
αντικαθίσταται  με τον όρο "εμφύλιος πόλεμος" και όπου (συμμορίτες) με 
τον όρο "Δημοκρατικός Στρατός".

  3.  Διατάξεις συντακτικών πράξεων,  ψηφισμάτων,  νόμων,  διαταγμάτων 
και  υπουργικών  αποφάσεων,  που  είναι αντίθετες με τις διατάξεις του 
παρόντος καταργούνται.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Children abductions: No Dkace! They were abductions! Not relocations of DSE fighters' children. Abductions of villagers' children. The KKE said that this happened with the parents' consent, but no neutral third-party observer accepts these assertions. Do you want sources:

• Stuies in the History of Civil War, when you can read the UNSCOB report A/395 (1949). Yes, the issue was brought to the UN Security Council!
• Myrsiades, page 33, where he says that the government followed the same policy, but he does not deny the KKE's abduction policy.
• About international interest to the problem see also Nachmani, 49, arguing that it was international opinion's pressure that forced the UN to investigate the accusations against KKE.

Therefore, I will reinstate the term "abductions", because it is internationally established in the relevant scholarship (as well the term "kidnapping"), but per NPOV I'll also mention that similar accusation where also adressed against the Greek Government of the time.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

For what is worth I am not trying to argue on non existance bases. I believe your changes are on the correct perspective and I agree with them .

regarding "abduction". In the period 1947-1949 there where several issues brought to UN assembly and security council regarding the Greek Civil War . All of them coming from the government of Athens. Given the unstable political resime in Greece as well as the uncertainty rising internationally regarding a 3rd world war, we can not derive historical conclusion from these resolutions. It is correct to state them as historical facts and give all the necessary data to the reader for a further investigation. I will revert with more sources regarding this issue on time. The majority of these people, are now leaving in Greece and you will meet very few that didn't have their father,mother or other relative next to them fter 1950...But this is only personal experience, I can't put on the article. References are there to verify this.

What does "International Recognition" means ? Who was contacting the war in Greece? The "government" of Cairo or PEEA? It is not important - historically- to state that PEEA came out of elections both in Occupied Greece and in Liberated territories? That it was the first time women voted? That 2.500.000 people voted ( instead of 1.700.000 MEN tht voted in 1946 elections)? That is why I think that "mutiny" is not a valid term. A more NPOV would be "Middle East Incidents " and below present the "mutiny" POV as wel as the "movement" or "rebelion" POV.

Dkace (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 16:25, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

International recognition is a term based on international law. Per international law, the Cairo government was the only one internationally recognized. Therefore, I still believe "mutiny" is not POV. The resistance in Greece was conducted by more than one military organizations, and not only ELAS. It was the strongest one but not the only one. As far as the "abduction" issue, I hope that you'll not "revert" with your sources (for which read WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:Reliable sources), but that you'll "complement" and "add". I do not have the personal experiences you have, but you must also have in mind that these personal experiences are not necessarily representative of the overall situation. About PEEA, let's not speak about circumstances, under which both PEEA's and 1947 elections took place. Neither of them constituted a honor for our nation.--Yannismarou (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

a. International recognition is not a "laundry" for everything. Let's not argue if it correct or wrong. We have to state that there was one government put up by the NAZI invaders, one government made by the politicians escaped the invasion in 1941, put up mainly by the British -probably recognized by other Allies by that time) and one government that was created after elections in occupied Greece, were British, US and Soviet delegations attended its creation and its first conference.PEEA wouldn't exist if EAM-ELAS was a minor"gurilla" movement. After all, Simitis, Tsirimokos and other ministers of this government were far from Marxists. It is not helping just to mention these three governments. We have to present there creation background, along with all the side-effects.

b. I am not "reverting" randomly. Furthermore, I am not trying to substitute or create "correct" political "line". I reverted some of the text - the "abduction" issue and the "mutiny" issue- because I think it is POV and it doesn't present all the facts. As I mentioned previously, I CAN'T put in here my personal experience . I can use it to reveal more reference sources and thus make the reader's investigation more complete. This is how I understand the target of wiki project. I am open to any suggestion or good will cooperation to build a good presentation of this project that will reflect a surious historical approach.

Dkace (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Change of DSE flag

In http://www.politikokafeneio.com/dse/dse86.htm we can see that DSE flags ( there is one of the 115 Brigade hold captive into the hands of National's Army Generals and General Van Fleet of the US Army) were not the flag of the Communist party rather than the military flag of the Greeks. It is better to put this flag as main and the Communist flag next to it.

Dkace (talk) 11:42, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Argyriou's unacceptable revert

Cplakidas correctly reverted these unacceptable edits of User Argyriou. It is really deplorable to try to promote one's political POV with the excuse of "weasel words". Compare the differences, see my edits and you'll see that there are no weasel words. Now, I want to make clear that the next time such a revert of fully sourced material will occur, I'll regard it as vandalism, and I'll act accordingly.--Yannismarou (talk) 12:04, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Greek Civil War/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Informative but uncitated.--Yannismarou 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Last edited at 11:39, 27 October 2006 (UTC). Substituted at 20:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)