Iatrides and Rizopoulos (2000) argue that the communists’ defeat in the Greek Civil War (1942-1949) was generally the result of the large-scale political and military interventions made by the UK and the US.
Picture by Levi Meir Clancy, Unsplash
Greece at a crossroads
As WWII (and Greece’s occupation by Axis forces) was nearing its end, Greece’s political future was looking increasingly uncertain. Domestically, the Greek Communist Party (KKE) and its military branches (EAM/ ELAS) generally comprised the most powerful political force. Internationally, however, the pre-occupation (and conservative) Greek political regime, which was based in Cairo, was strongly favored by the British. This put Greece at a crossroads between becoming a Soviet-style “people’s democracy”, or some other form of monarchy, dictatorship, or democracy. The power struggle for Greece’s future is what led to a tragic civil war, whose aftermath can be felt to this day.
UK interference in the First Round (1942-1944) of the Civil War
The Civil War started during the Axis occupation, as rival Greek resistance bands fought each other for dominance over the Greek countryside. During this period, the KKE and its military branches succeeded in eliminating most other royalist and republican groups, which made them the most powerful political force within Greece.
In the meantime, however, the British were very supportive of the conservative Cairo-based government-in-exile, as they wanted a return to the status quo in Greece. As a result, the British Foreign Office pressured the communists to agree to the so-called Lebanon Agreement of May 1944, which involved the formation of a “National Unity” government in which the communists would have a minority role. And a month before Greece was liberated in October 1944, in the Caserta Agreement, the British tried to control the communists by placing all resistance bands under the command of a British officer. In the same agreement, they also banned them from entering the Attica region (where the parliament is) so they wouldn’t be able to throw a coup against the newly-formed government.
British forces in the Second Round (1944-1946) of the Civil War
After liberation, while the KKE wanted to use EAM/ ELAS to impose its own “populist” regime on Greece, it was generally hesitant, as it was unsure of its support among non-leftists and it feared an open clash with the British. What’s more, the Soviet Union was unwilling to support them, as they had secretly agreed to leave Greece under the British sphere of influence. However, with communist grievances growing, once the British ordered the unilateral disarmament of EAM/ ELAS, they reacted with a large (and unarmed) protest in Athens. The Greek Police reacted by shooting the crowd, which led to a generalized conflict, until British military forces were deployed to take control of the capital. The British led the defeat of the communists, which resulted in the Varkiza Agreement of February 1945, in which EAM/ ELAS agreed to disarm, while the government consented to give amnesty to its members. But neither side fully abided by the agreement, which further prolonged the conflict until it ended with the defeat of the left. During this period, the papers describe the British embassy in Athens as the directing force behind the frequently reconstituted Greek governments.
The birth of the Truman doctrine in the Final Round (1946-1949)
According to the authors, the Third round of the Civil War would probably not have happened without the support of Yugoslavia: soon after the Varkiza Agreement, Boulkes, a small town northwest Belgrade, was turned into an ELAS holdout, where the communists were trained by specially appointed political commissars . This led to the formation of the communists’ “Democratic Army” on October 1946, and to a renewed battle for political power in Greece.
Meanwhile, the British decided they could no longer afford to defend the Greek government, which brought the involvement of a more powerful partner: the US. While the US had previously opposed British involvement in Greek affairs, after Truman became President, US foreign policy became far more anti-communist. The Greek communists were now described as an example of Soviet Union expansionism (although they weren’t actively supported by the Soviets), which made their defeat pivotal to US interests. As a result, the US provided generous military and economic assistance to the Athens government, and it also took control over much of the state apparatus during this process. According to the authors, “the American “penetration” of Greece was much deeper and extensive than anything the British had ever attempted or contemplated”. As a result of America’s involvement, the communists were once more defeated, which marked the end of the Civil War.
Pushed into the West
The paper is interesting in that it highlights how Greece’s movement to the Western sphere of influence was largely determined by foreign forces, rather than domestic ones. After all, if it weren’t for the UK and US interventions, the Greek communists would have probably taken power, and they would likely have aligned with the Eastern bloc instead. That withstanding, it remains unclear which outcome would have been preferred by the ‘silent majority’ of Greeks back then.
コメント