Churchill and the Greeks

Does churchill's action of sending british forces to fight the communist insurgents in greece after the germans had withdrawn explain his true colours (stalin like - expand and defend your chosen political ideology by any means) ?

 

Komrade

If I understand you correctly you are comparing Churchill with Stalin.

I don't think this is a valid comparison.

Churchill wasn't perfect by any means but he did not murder political opponents, real or imagined.

Nor did the country he ran have a repressive secret police and system of camps for locking up people.

I don't think its a great secret that Churchill didn't like communism. The alliance with the Soviet Union was politically expedient during WW2 for obvious reasons.

Churchill, unlike Roosevelt did not trust Stalin but was prepared to work with him against the common enemy.

The actions of the British in Greece were anti-communist. When the split between the communist and non-communist spheres of influence was decided, Greece fell into the latter category.

There was a communist movement in Greece but Churchill wished to prevent them taking power - hence the intervention.

Stalin, whilst no doubt politically supportive of the Greek communists, did not intervene militarily on their behalf.

Regards

Richie

 

No you're not reading me correctly. Im referring to the opportunity that churchill seized upon : expand your ideology wherever you can, like stalin did in eastern europe.

 

His ideology ??
I presume you mean parliamentary democracy.
Churchill sent the forces to ensure that the communists couldn't seize power through military action.
His ambition was to restore the legitimate Greek government, not expand his ideology.

 

No i dont mean parlimentary democracy...i think both churchill and the greek communists would agree with the saying ' power comes from the power of a gun' all churchill had was a bigger gun.

 

Im curious did you read Redcoats post

 

stay curious

 

Hello wtid 45,

I believe that komrade is trying to point out on the Churchill-Stalin-percentages agreement.

Due to this paper Great Britain supported the Greek government forces in the civil war, and the Soviet Union did not assist the communist partisans.

Regards
Kruska

 

In that case he should mention the "naughty document" (Churchill's words), and those percentages of influence agreed to by both men in Oct. of 1944, shouldn't he?

And let's not forget the strong familial ties between the Greek monarchy and the British monarchy both then and now.

 

I thought it was clear that i was referring to the unofficial document
( be it on a napkin or on a scrap piece of paper) that chruchill wrote on. By the way what is a ' familial '?

 

No, it wasn't clear that you were referring to the "naughty document" penned by Churchill and agreed to by Stalin in the Oct. 1944 "Tolstoy Conference".

FAMILIAL; It means related to each other by bloodlines, I apologize if it was a vague word somehow. The British and Greek monarchies had been related to each other since (I believe) Queen Victoria, and even today Queen Elizabeth's husband is a member of the Greek Royal Family.

 

Wow, I’ll be blown seriously away, I’ve never come across that word before ' familial ' thanks. I actually goggled it to make sure you won’t telling me porkies.

Yet the point was not so much to do with who wrote what or where the location was - though I fully aware now. It was to do with doesn’t a nation have the right to self determination; rather than outside forces imposing their will onto you.

 

The language spoken by those who colonised your nation, so don’t even go there with that shit you're trying to pull. Gee what is it with you guys, can’t a guy admit to not knowing the meaning of a word, without the fascist word police getting out their night sticks.

 

Komrade,

take a walk and cool off.... show some respect. We're all adults here and can maintain a healthy conversation without that tone.

 

Swearing at an Administrator....brilliance

 

Did tChe Guevara permit the Cubans self determination? He was an Argentina and he opnely interfered in their affairs. He also did so in the Congo and Bolivia.

There are limits to "self determination". If a government is trying to exterminate a group of people within its borders it doesn't have the right to do so.

Furthermore, who is to say that the communists represented the will of the Greeks? Perhaps the British were helping those Greeks who loathed communism to achieve a government of their own choosing?

People like you who talk about self determination in countries where there are civil wars have a flawed argument. One side or the other is going to impose its will upon the loser of the conflict. Where is your outrage over their loss of "self determination"? Why are you not in arms over the communists attempts to dominate Greece?The NVA did not allow the South Vietnamese that, yet I see no leftists whining about the NVA crushing of the dreams of South Vietnamese of having their own state.

Leftists like who whine about such things casually disregard the fact that there are two sides in these conflicts. One is seeking to dominate the other. If we are to be for self determination than both sides must be permitted to make their own decision.

 

I think you are being too hard on the origional poster.
Covering the Map of the World -- The Half-Century Legacy of the Yalta Conference, Part 3
interesting reading

 

Don't agree with you there, you should not confuse self-determination, which is basically letting a people choose on their own, even by force of arms, what government they want, and democracy.
A civil war is self-determination, without foreign intervention usually the side that can gather the most popular support ends up on top. The fact that people are basically using guns instead of ballots does not change the basic principle. It's unlikely that the resulting form of government is going to be democratic, if you have been shooting at people until the day before giving them a vote is not going to be your top priority.
Foreign troops and money to help one side is exactly the opposite of self determination, it's going to skew the results and, in the worst case scenario, create a weak puppet government that relies on foreign military help to survive which is basically another civil war waiting to happen. And the "helping" foreign power has it's agenda that usually does not rank the interests of the locals as top priority.
While I believe that for the people practically any sort of government is better than a civil war at least without foreign intervention the war is likely to create someting stable and solve the issue for a couple of generations.
IMO Churchill's intervention in Greece is a rather special case, the local communists were attempting to exploit a "power void", resulting from the German's retreat, to seize power before the old government could reorganize, so the British troops bought the government the time it needed, after that he British role was limited and the civil war was mostly a Greek affair.

 

Well I stayed curious and Im not surprised by the end result