Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The first military confrontation of Cold War

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
Antioxos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Apr-2006
Location: Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 340
  Quote Antioxos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The first military confrontation of Cold War
    Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 14:44
The December events of Athens 1944

In November 1944, six ministers of the EAM, most of whom were KKE (Greek communist Party )members, resigned from their positions in the "National Unity" Government. Fighting broke out in Athens on 3 December 1944 during a demonstration, organised by EAM, involving more than 100,000 people. According to some accounts, the police, covered by British troops opened fire on the crowd.  According to other accounts, it is uncertain if the first shots were fired by the police or the demonstrators.  More than 28 people were killed and 148 injured. The the December events  as this incident is known, was the beginning of a 37-day full-scale fighting in Athens between ELAS and the Government forces.

The British tried to stay neutral but when the battle escalated they intervened, with artillery and aircraft being freely used. At the beginning the government had only a few policemen a brigade without heavy weapons and militia units accused of collaboration with the NAZI forces ( group X, also known as Χίτες - Chites). On December 4 Papandreou gave his resignation to the British Commander, General Scoby. His resignation was not accepted by the General By December 12  ELAS was in control of most of Athens and Piraeus . The British, outnumbered, flew in the 4th Infantry Division  from Italy as reinforcements. During the battle with the ELAS, local militias fought alongside the British, triggering a massacre by ELAS fighters. It must be noted that although the British were fighting openly against ELAS in Athens there were no fights in the rest of Greece. In certain cases like Volos some RAF units even gave equipment to ELAS fighters.

Conflicts continued throughout December with the British slowly gaining the upper hand. Curiously,  ELAS  forces in the rest of Greece did not attack the British. It seems that ELAS preferred a legitimate rise to power, but was drawn into the fighting by the indignation and, at the same time, the awe of its fighters after the slaughter on December 3, aiming at establishing its predominance. Only this version of the events can explain the simultaneous struggle against the British, the large-scale ELAS operations against  trotskyists  and other political dissidents in Athens and many contradictory decisions of EAM leaders. Videlicet, KKE's leadership was supporting a doctrine of 'national unity' while eminent members, e.g. Stringos or Makridis and even  George Siantos , were elaborating revolutionary plans.

This outbreak of fighting between Allied forces and an anti-German European resistance movement, while the war in Europe was still being fought, was a serious political problem for Churchill's coalition government of left and right, and caused much protest in the British press and in the House of Commons . To prove his peace-making intention, Churchill himself arrived in Athens on  December 25  and presided over a conference, in which Soviet representatives also participated, to bring about a settlement. It failed because the EAM/ELAS demands were considered excessive and, thus, rejected.It is of most importance at this point to mention Churchill's telegraph to General Scoby in mid-December advising him to "...treat Athnes as an occupied city". By his arrival in the Greek Capital, the evacuation of the British forces and the trial of all NAZI collaborators, that EAM asked for, was not on Churchill's agenda.

 
The aftermath of street fighting in Athens, December 1944.

In the meanwhile, the Soviet Union remained surprisingly passive about the developments in Greece. True to their " percentages agreement " with Britain, the Soviet delegation in Greece wasn’t encouraging or discouraging EAM’s ambitions, as Greece belonged to the British sphere of influence. Pravda  didn’t mention the clashes at all. If this position of the Soviet leadership had been brought home to KKE’s leadership, the Dekemvriana might have been averted. It seems that Stalin didn’t have the intention to avert the Dekemvriana, as he would profit no matter the outcome. If EAM rose to power, he would gain a country of major strategic value. If not, he could use the British actions in Greece to justify to the Allies any intervention in his own sphere of influence.

By early January ELAS had been driven from Athens. As a result of Churchill's intervention, Papandreou resigned and was replaced by a firm anti-Communist, General  Nikolaos Plastiras . On January 15 , 1945  Scobie agreed to a ceasefire, in exchange for ELAS' withdrawal from its positions at Patras  and Thessaloniki  and its demobilisation in the Peloponnese. This was a severe defeat, but ELAS remained in existence and the KKE  had an opportunity to reconsider its strategy.

KKE's defeat in 1945 was mainly political. The exaltation of terrorism on the communist side made a political settlement even more difficult. The hunting of "collaborators" was extended to people who had not been involved in collaboration. Several Troskyists  had to leave the country to save their lives (e.g. Cornelius Castoriadis  fled to France). After the Athens fighting, KKE support declined sharply, and as a result most of the prominent non-Communists in EAM left the organisation. But terrorism among the right-wing extremist gangs was strengthened.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

By antioxos at 2007-08-20
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 14:50
The term 'Cold War' is generally used to mean the post-war (i.e. post WWII) 'conflict' between the west and the communist (Soviet) bloc.  Thus on may debate whether events that occurred during WWII actually count as being part of it, or a 'precursor' to it.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Antioxos View Drop Down
Consul
Consul
Avatar

Joined: 26-Apr-2006
Location: Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 340
  Quote Antioxos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 15:17
Originally posted by deadkenny

The term 'Cold War' is generally used to mean the post-war (i.e. post WWII) 'conflict' between the west and the communist (Soviet) bloc.  Thus on may debate whether events that occurred during WWII actually count as being part of it, or a 'precursor' to it.
 
Cold War is the term used to describe the state of conflict, tension and competition that existed between the United States  and the Soviet Union  (USSR) and their respective allies from the mid-1940s to the early 1990s.
 
The events was between the greek communist party (controlled from the soviet communist party )and mostly the British (and his local allies)and it was the first regional military confrontation between the two Blocs .
British was replaced by Americans 1947 , the next round of civil war (the struggle of communists to prevail)  started in 1946.
 
 
 
 
 


Edited by Antioxos - 08-Aug-2008 at 15:25

By antioxos at 2007-08-20
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 16:59
The Early Cold War, 1917 - 1939
http://gozips.uakron.edu/%7Emcarley/COLDWAR.html
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 18:08
Originally posted by Antioxos

Cold War is the term used to describe the state of conflict, tension and competition that existed between the United States  and the Soviet Union  (USSR) and their respective allies from the mid-1940s to the early 1990s.
 
So from 1944-45 the Soviet Union and 'western Allies' were both fighting on the same side as well as fighting each other?
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 08-Aug-2008 at 18:39
You would do better to take the clashes between the Royalist and Communist guerilla groups in Yugoslavia: they were definitely before the Greek uprising. Moreover weren't the Chinese Communists and the Nationalists fighting each other before 1944? And why stop in the '40s? The confrontation between the Communist (so-called) forces and the various members of the counter alliance started in Russia even before it arose in China.
 
However, the whole point about the 'Cold War' was that it was cold. It didn't have military engagements. Korea, for instance, was not part of the Cold War, unless you want to make nonsense of the term.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 05:35
Originally posted by deadkenny

So from 1944-45 the Soviet Union and 'western Allies' were both fighting on the same side as well as fighting each other?


Reminds me of phoney war between Britain/France and Germany, in 1939-1940.






Edited by Bankotsu - 09-Aug-2008 at 05:35
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 12:13
It would.
 
I hate to ask this, but why on earth do you think 1944-45 was similar to September 1939 to May 1940?
 
All I need is a simple answer, not a flood of copy/pasted articles or references to hundreds of pages about some other time.
 
And definitely not something about Britain wanting to turn Germany east on the Soviet Union. Just about Sep 1939 - May 1940 and 1944-45.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 13:07
In 1939-40 France and Britain were at war with Nazi Germany.  The Soviet Union was an ally of Nazi Germany.
 
In 1944-45 Britain, the US and the Soviet Union were at war with Nazi Germany.  Britain and British backed Greeks were fighting Greek communists.
 
I believe Bankotsu is 'remembering' some more of his 'conspiracy theory' history.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 14:14
Originally posted by gcle2003

It would.
 I hate to ask this, but why on earth do you think 1944-45 was similar to September 1939 to May 1940?


There is some similarity I think.

During phoney war period, France/Britain and Germany were technically at war, but actually both sides were anti-bolshevik, so it seemed that they were on the "same side".

Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 15:17
Germany wasn't anti-Bolshevik between Sep 39 and May 40. Germany and the SU were allied.
 
True France and Britain (Britain anyway) were as a result anti-Soviet and pro-Finn at the time. Not that they could do much more in practice to help the Finns than they could the Poles.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 15:37
Originally posted by gcle2003

Germany wasn't anti-Bolshevik between Sep 39 and May 40.


Hitler was still anti-bolshevik in attitude, which was the same as Chamberlain.


Germany and the SU were allied.


No, I don't think so, there was no treaty aimed at alliance between the two.
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 16:31
Originally posted by Bankotsu


Originally posted by gcle2003

Germany and the SU were allied.


No, I don't think so, there was no treaty aimed at alliance between the two.
 
"An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."
 
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union (two parties) reached an agreement (the so called Pact) to advance their common goal of destroying and occupying their respective, mutually agreed upon, portions of Poland.  That is by definition an 'alliance'.  That fact that YOU do not 'think' there was an alliance does not surprize me in the least.  However, even Sarmat, who has come the closest to supporting anything you have said, had to admit that there was an 'alliance' between the Nazi's and the Soviet at least with respect to Poland.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 17:18
Originally posted by deadkenny

 "An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."
 


Whose definition is that?


Edited by Bankotsu - 09-Aug-2008 at 17:19
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:08
Bankotsu, we've been here before. That definition has been given before. It makes no difference whether it's formally called an 'alliance', a 'co-operation', a 'pooling of interests' or whatever. The Soviets and the Germans reached an agreement to share the territories of nort-east Europe between them, and for the Soviet Union to continue providing raw materials to Germany.
 
If you wish to deny those facts, that's one thing. But quibbling over and over again about definitions or who created them will only lead you into accusations of spamming again.
 
Keep to the point.
Back to Top
gcle2003 View Drop Down
King
King

Suspended

Joined: 06-Dec-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 7035
  Quote gcle2003 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:17
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by gcle2003

Germany wasn't anti-Bolshevik between Sep 39 and May 40.


Hitler was still anti-bolshevik in attitude, which was the same as Chamberlain.
I pointed out that Britain was anti-bolshevik at the time, not just Chamberlain. Pretty well the whole country was.
 
Hitler on the other hand was not anti-bolshevik between Sep 1939 and May 1940, which was what the question involved.
 
However, Britain was not anti-communist (I don't believe the Greek communists were bolsheviks, though I'm open to correction there) in 1944-45. In fact at that time Britain was quite widely supportive of left-wing politics. In the 1945 election Churchill was thrown out, the Labour party[1] gained 239 seats to get a massive 393-197 seat Parliamentary majority, and even the Communist party gained an extra seat, returning its biggest vote ever in Britain. The honeymoon with the Soviet Union was still on.
 
Still, those are just facts. So I don't imagine they cut much ice with you.
 
[1] A much much more left-wing group than nowadays, being still committed to the nationalisation of the means of production, distribution and exchange: a program they carried out to a quite considerable extent.


Edited by gcle2003 - 09-Aug-2008 at 19:19
Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09-Aug-2008 at 19:56
Originally posted by Bankotsu

Originally posted by deadkenny

 "An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."
 


Whose definition is that?
 
It is consistent with numerous sources and standard usage.  If the shoe fits.....
 

"an association to further the common interests of the members"

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

"a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alliance

 "An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance

 "a formal relationship between two or more countries or political parties to work together"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alliance

 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 05:46
Originally posted by gcle2003

Hitler on the other hand was not anti-bolshevik between Sep 1939 and May 1940, which was what the question involved.



Hitler's policy towards Soviet Union changed, but his anti-bolshevik outlook remained.

For example, during Anglo-German war, Hitler's pro-british outlook remained the same, even though they were at war:

(1) Guenther Blumentritt was interviewed about Adolf Hitler's views on the plans to invade Britain in 1940.

Hitler was in very good humour, he admitted that the course of the campaign had been 'a decided miracle', and gave us his opinion that the war would be - finished in six weeks. After that he wished to conclude a reasonable peace with France, and then the way would be free for an agreement with Britain.

He then astonished us by speaking with admiration of the British Empire, of the necessity for its existence, and of the civilization that Britain had brought into the world. He remarked, with a shrug of the shoulders, that the creation of its Empire had been achieved by means that were often harsh, but 'where there is planing, there are shavings flying'. He compared the British Empire with the Catholic Church - saying they were both essential elements of stability in the world. He said that all he wanted from Britain was that she should acknowledge Germany's position on the Continent. The return of Germany's lost colonies would be desirable but not essential, and he would even offer to support Britain with troops if she should be involved in any difficulties anywhere. He remarked that the colonies were primarily a matter of prestige, since they could not be held in war, and few Germans could settle in the tropics.

He concluded by saying that his aim was to make peace with Britain on a basis that she would regard as compatible with her honour to accept.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/2WWsealoin.htm


So, the politics changed, but the anti-bolshevik attitude remained the same for Hitler, in the same sense that Hitler was never anti-british in attitude, war or no war.
Back to Top
Bankotsu View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 27-Feb-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 511
  Quote Bankotsu Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 06:09
Originally posted by deadkenny

"an association to further the common interests of the members"

Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary

"a formal agreement or treaty between two or more nations to cooperate for specific purposes."

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/alliance

 "An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance

 "a formal relationship between two or more countries or political parties to work together"

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/alliance


Does munich pact count as alliance deadkenny? The four states agreed to carve up Czechoslovakia.


GERMANY, the United Kingdom, France and Italy, taking into consideration the agreement, which has been already reached in principle for the cession to Germany of the Sudeten German territory, have agreed on the following terms and conditions governing the said cession and the measures consequent thereon, and by this agreement they each hold themselves responsible for the steps necessary to secure its fulfilment...

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/munich1.htm

Back to Top
deadkenny View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 21-Aug-2007
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 994
  Quote deadkenny Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10-Aug-2008 at 12:08
Unlike the Soviet Union with Poland, France and Britain did not participate in the occupation of Czech territory.  They simply 'agreed' not to take action against Germany as Germany acted unilaterally.  IF France and / or Britain had occupied Czech territory, then you might have a case.  IF the Soviet Union had not actually attacked Poland, or occupied any territory, then there would not be much case for referring to their agreement with the Nazi's as an alliance. 
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." George Santayana
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.078 seconds.