US policy towards democracies that go against US interests(real or imagined) - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in the USA and Canada.

Moderator: PoFo North America Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15173146
Pants-of-dog wrote:https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=180388#p15172826


From your link also from a CIA Director:

"Yes, it’s true. We did. We certainly didn’t put in Saddam, the Ba’athists did that on their own. But we did back him in some limited ways in the 1980s in the war against Iran. He represented himself to be, and the Reagan administration at the time felt that he was, essentially, the lesser of two evils."

It's possible, maybe even probable, the CIA provided some support to the baathist takeover in 1963. They didn't seem to have anything to do with Saddam taking over the leadership in 1979. But they did support him in the Iran-Iraq War in the 80's because Iran-US relations were at an all-time low after the hostage crisis/revolution.

For the US, everything from 1945 to 1991 was all Cold War strategy vs the USSR. Most everything else was secondary, including self-determination in Latin America or democracy elsewhere in the world.
#15173227
Unthinking Majority wrote:From your link also from a CIA Director:

"Yes, it’s true. We did. We certainly didn’t put in Saddam, the Ba’athists did that on their own. But we did back him in some limited ways in the 1980s in the war against Iran. He represented himself to be, and the Reagan administration at the time felt that he was, essentially, the lesser of two evils."

It's possible, maybe even probable, the CIA provided some support to the baathist takeover in 1963. They didn't seem to have anything to do with Saddam taking over the leadership in 1979. But they did support him in the Iran-Iraq War in the 80's because Iran-US relations were at an all-time low after the hostage crisis/revolution.

For the US, everything from 1945 to 1991 was all Cold War strategy vs the USSR. Most everything else was secondary, including self-determination in Latin America or democracy elsewhere in the world.


1. I have no idea why you think the CIA agent there is being 100% honest. Even now, decades after the fact, the US does not want to hear about how they supported this dictatorship.

2. Yes, the Cold War explanation is the one that people most often use to explain how I am correct about the USA supporting capitalism instead of democracy.
#15173774
noemon wrote:Why do you think the fact that the dictator being for 15 years in the official payroll of the CIA is not enough evidence that the CIA was behind the coup?


The entire KYP was, so what is that supposed to prove?

noemon wrote:Why do you think the Greek junta first removed the 20 thousand strong Greek army from Cyprus(placed there by the liberal and democratically elected government of Papandreou) and then instigated a coup in Cyprus without an army to see it through?


Don't know what you mean.

noemon wrote:That and so many other things from the fact that the US openly wanted the elected government removed, that documents prove that it favored its removal with a coup, that the coup was literally carried out by one of its lifetime employees.


You really insist on me summarizing that paper for you, do you? :roll:

I give you a few excerpts:

As DCM Norbert Anschuetz recalled, “The position of the Embassy was that a coup was not the proper solution to the problem."
Indeed, Talbot commented in a February cable, “What we don’t need in NATO now is a Greek military
dictatorship.” The Ambassador expressed a similar view in his telegram of March 24:

"In our view, any effort by Palace and by Right to postpone elections could play right into
hands of Andreas Papandreou and Left, unless it were carefully engineered to avoid
appearance of direct involvement by King. This, however, would be extremely difficult
to accomplish. Even more dangerous would be establishment of a dictatorship—a view
that we have expressed to many Greek personalities, including King, over past several
months"

But after the King personally floated the possibility of the Palace sponsoring a coup, Talbot decided to seek direct instruction
from Washington on how to further proceed. Washington advised the Embassy as follows:

"We would be inclined to warn more strongly against possible constitutional deviation.
Depth of Greek feeling against such a move should be more carefully weighed by King.
Andreas [Papandreou] as ‘martyr’ with Lambrakis machine standing fully behind him
would be very formidable opponent. As matter of principle, of course, U.S. would be
opposed to extra-parliamentary move. You should stress point that U.S. reaction to such
move cannot be determined in advance but would depend on circumstances at time."

Pursuant to this guidance, Talbot met with the King. As he reported, the King was
discouraged from considering a coup as a feasible option to settle the brewing political crisis:

"I reassured him of continuing United States interest at highest level in Greece’s difficult
situation. I said we share his concern over policies that might be adopted by government
with Andreas Papandreou as leading figure but believe certain restraints could operate to
keep such a government from at least some of extreme measures Andreas now
advocating. I expressed our agreement with the King’s hopes that current difficulties can
be overcome through parliamentary processes. I stated the inability of USG [U.S.
Government] to give advance assurances of support to King and noted our traditional
opposition to dictatorial solutions to constitutional crises. They are wrong in principle
and rarely work yet create many new difficulties. A dictatorship in Greece might cause
short-term upheavals, leading to more repressive measures, and to coalescence of
opposition forces which in turn could be penetrated and dominated by international
Communist agents. Adverse international reactions would not be limited to the
Communist apparatus but would include supporters of democracy. Considerable
criticism could be expected in United States"

...

The Colonels’ coup caught American officials by surprise. As John Maury recalled, “the plan
was carried out to the letter, completely surprising the palace, the senior military commanders,
the chiefs of the Greek intelligence and police services—and the Americans.” The sense that
Americans were caught off-guard is reflected in early telegrams. Ambassador Talbot’s initial
report to Washington observed, “On basis [of] still fragmentary information I have formed
tentative impression that coup was triggered this morning by small army group not including
High Command, King or civilian political leaders.” By the end of the night, Talbot had
concluded that, even though, the “real power rests with military. Question is which military.”

...

The day after this initial encounter, Talbot cabled Washington and advised that “our
public and press posture [should] reveal our regret and our distaste for process of changing
governments by military coups.” The response from the State Department was one of general
concurrence, emphasizing continuing support for the King vis-à-vis the military regime. The
overall tenor of policy guidance was that the United States might be willing to work with the
new government, but that American actions would follow the King’s lead and be dependent on a
reduction in the “extensive security measures now in force.”


Maybe the embassy was left in the dark and deliberately mislead. But then you have to assume
John Maury is lying. He was the CIA station chief at the time and is extensively quoted.

Maury, C3. Embassy Political Officer August Velletri supports Maury’s implication
that the CIA was not behind the coup: “The coup, however, came as a big surprise to all of us.
Even the CIA was not prepared by this turn of events. Some of the officers didn’t even know
who this ‘fellow Papadopoulos’ was.” August Velletri, oral history interview, FAOHC. Robert
Keeley holds a similar view: “CIA has been blamed for engineering that 1967 coup or for
fomenting it or for supporting it or for organizing it. I don’t believe that for a minute. I have
tried to examine it from a logical point of view. I know that the ‘station chief’ and his deputy
were not knowledgeable; they had run into the same military road-block as I had the morning of
the coup as we were all trying to get to the Embassy. They were completely unaware of the coup
and when we met at the Embassy, they had nothing to tell us; as I said, neither CIA nor we—nor
our military attaches!—knew who those Colonels were. I have to believe that Washington
headquarters was also in the dark.” Ambassador Robert V. Keeley, oral history interview,
FAOHC.


At a NATO meeting:

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara
capitalized on an opportunity during a NATO Defense Ministers meeting to administer a highlevel scolding.
He admonished Deputy Prime Minister Spandidakis:

[I]t concerns us greatly that Greece has moved away from constitutional processes. . . .
[T]he American people could never understand a statement that there is more
democracy today than before April 21—with the press suppressed, assembly prevented,
people restrained, no free speech, and other constitutional guarantees suspended. Also,
important to the view by the American people was the absence of any schedule for
resumption of constitutional processes. These . . . are strong feelings of most of the
people in the US. . . . [I]t would be extraordinarily difficult to maintain the Greek
military assistance program without modification if there is no acceptable time schedule
for the resumption of constitutional processes. . . .
[T]he Greeks should not underestimate the concern of the US and the strong
hopes for movement back toward constitutional processes. . . .
[T]he whole Greek situation is dangerous, and that, until action is taken to remedy
it, the dangerous situation will continue. . . . [T]he greatest deterrent to the Soviets and
the thing most likely to encourage support from the US would be a demonstration by the
Greeks that they can return to constitutional processes.
#15173776
Rugoz wrote:The entire KYP was, so what is that supposed to prove?


The fact that the dictator was the CIA's liaison for 15 years says it all in itself.

But then you have to assume John Maury is lying. He was the CIA station chief at the time and is extensively quoted.


You have to assume that the CIA who employed the dictator and maintained an active policy of plausible deniability had nothing to do with it because it's station chief told you. :lol:
#15173780
noemon wrote:You have to assume that the CIA who employed the dictator and maintained an active policy of plausible deniability had nothing to do with it because it's station chief told you. :lol:


So we're back to what I said a long time ago. You have to assume the State Departement left the embassy in the dark, the CIA official responsible is lying and the US conducts CIA operations in the dark, i.e. without documenting and declassifying them after a certain time.

Besides, here's the memorandum for the president of the national security advisor (Rostow), the morning after the coup:

https://pappaspost.com/wp-content/uploa ... n-coup.pdf

Maybe I'm clueless, but would it look that way if the Johnson administration was behind the coup? :eh:
#15173875
Rugoz wrote:So we're back to what I said a long time ago. You have to assume the State Departement left the embassy in the dark, the CIA official responsible is lying and the US conducts CIA operations in the dark, i.e. without documenting and declassifying them after a certain time.
Besides, here's the memorandum for the president of the national security advisor (Rostow), the morning after the coup:

https://pappaspost.com/wp-content/uploa ... n-coup.pdf

Maybe I'm clueless, but would it look that way if the Johnson administration was behind the coup? :eh:


Assumptions is what you require for a story you have been totally clueless from the start but had already chosen your side regardless of facts.

The facts are the following:

The KYP was founded and was run by the CIA, the Coup happened because the Greek government attempted to wrestle control of the KYP from the CIA and that the dictator himself was on the CIA's(not the Greek state's) payroll for 15 years at the time of the Coup. That the US knew about the plan, that the Coup took place according to a NATO plan and that the US openly supported the junta. All these are true facts.

A memorandum for the President of the US, the morning after the Coup does not deny these facts, it reinforces them:

Image

If you want to make a proper argument using declassified documents, then bring the conversations the CIA had with her own agent, the Greek dictator.

If not possible, then you would have to admit that declassification is selective and that evidently, an onion has got plenty of layers.

Rugoz wrote:Don't know what you mean.


It's obvious that you don't know.

Rugoz wrote:The entire KYP was, so what is that supposed to prove?


The organization responsible for the Coup was an official branch of the CIA.

As I told you earlier:

Just to make your life easier the only argument used by US apologists is that allegedly "the US was caught by surprise", the US has built a razor-thin narrative around it just to maintain their posture as one would expect.

But these razor-thin apologies do not deal with the real overwhelming evidence.

Philip Deane (the pen name of Gerasimos Gigantes) is a Greek, a former UN official, who worked during this period both for King Constantine and as an envoy to Washington for the Papandreou government. He has written an intimate account of the subtleties and the grossness of this conspiracy to undermine the government and enhance the position of the military plotters, and of the raw power exercised by the CIA in his country [4].


When Andreas Papandreou assumed his ministerial duties in 1964 he was shocked to discover what was becoming a fact of life for every techno-industrial state in the world: an intelligence service gone wild, a shadow government with powers beyond the control of the nation's nominal leaders. This, thought Papandreou, accounted for many of the obstacles the government was encountering in trying to carry out its policies. [13]

The Greek intelligence service, KYP, as we have seen, was created by the OSS/CIA in the course of the civil war, with hundreds of its officers receiving training in the United States. One of these men, George Papadopoulos, was the leader of the junta that seized power in 1967. Andreas Papandreou found that the KYP routinely bugged ministerial conversations and turned the data over to the CIA. (Many Western intelligence agencies have long provided the CIA with information about their own government and citizens, and the CIA has reciprocated on occasion. The nature of much of this information has been such that if a private citizen were to pass it to a foreign power he could be charged with treason.)

As a result of his discovery, the younger Papandreou dismissed the two top KYP men and replaced them with reliable officers. The new director was ordered to protect the cabinet from surveillance. "He came back apologetically," recalls Papandreou, "to say he couldn't do it. All the equipment was American, controlled by the CIA or Greeks under CIA supervision. There was no kind of distinction between the two services. They duplicated functions in a counterpart relationship. In effect, they were a single agency." [14]

Andreas Papandreou's order to abolish the bugging of the cabinet inspired the Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy, Norbert Anshutz (or Anschuetz), to visit him.

Anshutz, who has been linked to the CIA, demanded that Papandreou rescind the order. Andreas demanded that the American leave his office, which he did, but not before warning that "there would be consequences". [15]

Papandreou then requested that a thorough search be made of his home and office for electronic devices by the new KYP deputy director. "It wasn't until much later," says Andreas, "that we discovered he'd simply planted a lot of new bugs. Lo and behold, we'd brought in another American-paid operative as our No. 2." [16]

An endeavor by Andreas to end the practice of KYP's funds coming directly from the CIA without passing through any Greek ministry also met with failure, but he did succeed in transferring the man who had been liaison between the two agencies for several years. This was George Papadopoulos. The change in his position, however, appears to have amounted to little more than a formality, for the organization still took orders from him; even afterwards, Greek "opposition politicians who sought the ear (or the purse) of James Potts, CIA [deputy] chief in Athens before the coup, were often told: 'See George -- he's my boy'."

In mid-February 1967, a meeting took place in the White House, reported Marquis Childs to discuss CIA reports which "left no doubt that a military coup was in the making ... It could hardly have been secret. Since 1947 the Greek army and the American military aid group in Athens, numbering several hundred, have worked as part of the same team ... The solemn question was whether by some subtle political intervention the coup could be prevented" and thus preserve parliamentary government. It was decided that no course of action was feasible. As one of the senior civilians present recalls it, Walt Rostow, the President's adviser on national security affairs, closed the meeting with these words: I hope you understand, gentlemen, that what we have concluded here, or rather have failed to conclude, makes the future course of events in Greece inevitable. [18]

A CIA report dated 23 January 1967 had specifically named the Papadopoulos group as one plotting the coup, and was apparently one of the reports discussed at the February meeting. [19]

Of the cabal of five officers who took power in April four, reportedly, were intimately connected to the American military or to the CIA in Greece. The fifth man had been brought in becasue of the armored units he commanded. [20] George Papadopoulos emerged as the 'de facto' leader, taking the title of prime minister later in the year.

The catchword amongst old hands at the US military mission in Greece was that Papadopoulos was "the first CIA agent to become Premier of a European country". "Many Greeks consider this to be the simple truth," reported Charles Foley in 'The Observer' of London. [21]

At the time of the coup, Papadopoulos had been on the CIA payroll for some 15 years. [22]
#15173952
noemon wrote:Assumptions is what you require for a story you have been totally clueless from the start but had already chosen your side regardless of facts.


Coming from you that's hilarious. :lol:

But in any case, I wasn't really "convinced of it". I already said Maury could be lying and the embassy could have been left in the dark. That's a real possiblity after all. After reading the memorandum though I'm like 90% certain. There's no way it would read that way if the Johnson administration was behind it, unless they deliberately chose to fake it despite it being top secret. I give that a 10% chance.

noemon wrote:The facts are the following


Those are motives and circumstancial evidence at best, most of which I have already responded to and you keep repeating like a broken record. You also depict them in a much more black-white matter than they actually were.
#15173968
Rugoz wrote:But in any case, I wasn't really "convinced of it". I already said Maury could be lying and the embassy could have been left in the dark. That's a real possiblity after all. After reading the memorandum though I'm like 90% certain. There's no way it would read that way if the Johnson administration was behind it, unless they deliberately chose to fake it despite it being top secret. I give that a 10% chance.

Those are motives and circumstancial evidence at best, most of which I have already responded to and you keep repeating like a broken record. You also depict them in a much more black-white matter than they actually were.


Your opinion on how a telegram should read is both irrelevant and unsubstantiated. The telegram has redacted the content that is relative and very clearly for a reason. It also reads as an apologia.

You have not responded to something either.

The organization responsible for the Coup was an official branch of the CIA, the dictator an official employee of the CIA for 15 years, the coup took place under a NATO plan and the regime enjoyed the full support of the US. The very same regime removed the 20k Greek army from Cyprus and then instigated a coup against the Greek President of Cyprus without an army to see it through resulting to the Turkish invasion as a guarantor which was then extended to an occupation.

While the whole thing had started with Johnson trying to impose his own solution for Cyprus and the Greeks rejecting his plan, to then be openly threatened with a coup that was eventually carried out by a CIA employee.

To that you say: 'a telegram with redacted the relative sentences' makes you believe that "the US had nothing to do with it".

:lol:

These razor-thin apologies do not deal with the real overwhelming evidence.
#15173981
noemon wrote:The telegram has redacted the content that is relative and very clearly for a reason. It also reads as an apologia.


The telegram is plain obviously not written by someone who was involved in the execution or planning of coup, regardless of what is behind the redacted part. I seriously question your reading comprehension at this point. The rest of your post is just the broken record spinning as usual.
#15173982
I found a third paper/book, again with the same conclusion, and I'm not only selectively posting stuff here.

This reaction is perhaps the strongest evidence against the notion that
the United States supported, much less had a hand in engineering, the colonels’ coup.
As we have shown in this book, US offcials were surprised—
frst, that a coup had happened at that point, but more signifcantly, that
it had come at the hands of mid-level offcers apparently operating outside
the chain of command and without the knowledge or blessing of the palace
(from whom a coup had been judged much more likely). In fact, a later
internal Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) commentary on the coup would
even speak of the agency’s embarrassment at its failure to see it coming: “It
was an intelligence failure which hurt the CIA’s pride but which was also
the result of the effective conspiratorial methods of a small, secure cabal.”
Once the surprise abated, the US adopted a “cool but correct” attitude in which American offcials routinely questioned, doubted, and
came close to snubbing members of the new regime. The documentary
evidence—of which we have presented only a selection here—is replete
with reports of the genuine frustration and anger expressed by senior
regime offcials and military offcers that the US had not welcomed
their intervention, but, in the words of one US report, had been “all
but rude” in response. That the US had not only failed to welcome the
coup, but appeared so hesitant in coming to a working relationship with
the new regime, was a source of unending bitterness on the part of the
Greek regime. As a June 1967 cable from Athens to Washington put it:

[The] US position has irritated [the] coup leaders who seem to be puzzled
and deeply annoyed [that the] US has not openly applauded their actions.
In their simplistic way they believe [that the] US should rejoice … that
power is in [the] hands of [a] fervently anti-communist group. [The] coup
leaders seem to feel that [the] US … is in effect penalizing them for “saving” [the] nation from [the] communist abyss.

This reaction speaks directly to notions of US involvement or support for the coup itself.
Had the US played an active role in engineering or promoting the coup, its own reaction—to say nothing of that of
the colonels’ regime—would have been quite different. Moreover, if (as
will be discussed below) agencies such as the CIA had covertly, and without the knowledge of the State Department, promoted or fomented the
colonels’ coup, the colonels themselves could hardly have maintained
such a façade of incredulity and disaffection with the offcial American
response. In short, what we have seen is a US foreign policy establishment surprised at the colonels’ coup of 21 April and reacting with aloofness to it as the US formulated its own longer-term policy toward the
new regime.


http://ndl.ethernet.edu.et/bitstream/12 ... 39.pdf.pdf

What should I do next? Take a flight to Washington and dig through the archives? :lol:

Regarding a CIA coup without knowledge of the state department, there appears to be at least a possibility here:

We now turn to what is often the most commonly raised aspect of US
foreign policy toward the Greek junta: the alleged or potential role of
other US governmental agencies, particularly the CIA. To put it simply, those who believe the 1967 coup was engineered or in some way
fomented by the United States to stop the Center Union and Andreas
Papandreou from coming to power in the May 1967 elections usually
attribute this to the role of the CIA as the “real” foreign policy maker in
this period. The CIA is said to have played such a key role in the postwar politics of Greece that it essentially operated its own Greek policy,
separate from, and in many ways, counter to the “offcial” policy run
from the Department of State. The fact that some members of the Greek
junta—particularly Papadopoulos—had been part of the Greek intelligence service (KYP), and thus had close contacts with the CIA, is used as
key circumstantial evidence that the colonels were in some way doing the
CIA’s bidding. This theory of CIA culpability has enjoyed wide popularity in Greece and elsewhere, particularly as it was assiduously promoted
by Andreas Papandreou and others close to him. Even the colonels
themselves appear to have encouraged the impression that the US fully
supported them and their coup, particularly in their early days.
Simply put, this book is not in a position to defnitively address such
potentialities. What we have done is to argue from available documentary source materials that the evidence does not show a role by the
State Department or other US government agencies in encouraging or
supporting the overthrow of Greek democracy in 1967. In fact, State
Department offcials themselves denied such a role in formerly classifed documents, calling them “myths.” For example, in response to a
June 1968 speech by Papandreou in Sweden in which he claimed that
the “American military-intelligence-industrial complex” was behind the
coup, Talbot wrote the State Department:

Andreas … steps into [the] realm of pure fantasy when he charges: “The
dictatorship (in Greece) is clearly the result of interference of [the]
American military-intelligence complex in [the] internal political affairs
of Greece” … In making his allegation…, Andreas seems to have overlooked [the] fact that except for West Germany, [the] US is [the] only
government in [the] world that has taken any material, as opposed to
propagandistic, action against [the] junta, i.e., suspension of delivery of all
major items of military assistance under our MAP, a policy still in effect
much to [the] bitterness of [the] colonels.

Talbot’s acerbic comment echoed a succinct State Department message
to the US embassy in The Hague, fatly denying Papandreou’s assertions of a CIA plot:

“On [an] appropriate occasion you should make
clear to [the government of the Netherlands] that there is no truth
to [his] statement re[garding] any CIA involvement in [the] April 21
coup.”

Such statements by themselves, of course, are not conclusive. However, were such a covert role played by clandestine agencies
such as the CIA, it would have had to have been executed with such a
degree of secrecy that it failed to make it into the heretofore declassifed
materials.
For this book, we have reviewed only those State Department, NSC,
White House, and other agency documents that have been declassifed to
date. Indeed, we have only been able to review a relatively small number
of CIA documents on Greece, given that most remain classifed. Not surprisingly perhaps, the few CIA documents reviewed fail to provide much
additional detail not already discernable in other US government documents. Because our analysis has been limited to the currently declassifed
materials—ones in which CIA and other intelligence agency documents
are only sparely represented—we cannot draw any defnitive judgment as
to whether the US, through a deeply covert operation, in fact encouraged or fomented the colonels’ coup.
We believe, however, that we can make a tentative assessment of such
possibilities—one that could prove quite wrong, once additional materials are declassifed. From our review of the documentary record, it seems
to us highly unlikely that the CIA or other US agency carried out a covert plan to execute the April 1967 overthrow of Greek democracy. That
is not to say such plans might not have existed. It is certainly not to say
that various Greek coup plotters—whom the embassy regularly reported
on—did not have such plans and might not have liaised with the CIA
or other agencies in furtherance of them. However, a direct CIA role in
planning or promoting the April 1967 does not appear likely—at least
from the available evidence.
For us, certain pieces of evidence from the available record seem to
discount the possibility of such a CIA role. Chief among them is the
openly and oft-expressed bitterness of Greek offcials at their “cool and
aloof” treatment by US diplomats. As discussed above, Greek offcials
appear in embassy reports to have been at turns genuinely mystifed and
angry that the United States did not immediately jump to the support of
a coup that, in their minds, was so obviously pro-Western, pro-American,
and anti-communist. From Papadopoulos and Pattakos to Spandidakis
and Angelis, Greek junta leaders expressed their deep frustration and
even personal hurt that the US did not seem to understand that their
anti-communist motives and intentions coincided with those of the US
and NATO. Even the CIA itself noted in a June 1967 report that “[t]he
new regime has viewed the US response to the government as cool and
has hinted that the lack of a more forthcoming attitude could result in
relations taking a more hostile turn.”

Were the “CIA theory” to be true—had the CIA actually worked in
concert with these leaders to bring about the April coup—these remonstrations and expressions of bitterness would have had to be staged
for the beneft of embassy offcials. While such a possibility cannot be
entirely ruled out, it would nonetheless have had to be a conspiracy of
playacting spanning multiple junta leaders in multiple settings over
many years. In addition, other US policies—particularly the suspension
of MAP—make much less sense if a covert US operation were actually
behind the coup. The suspension of MAP shipments likewise caused a
great deal of bitterness among the colonels toward their “great ally,”
to say nothing of the tremendous amount of time and energy US offcials spent over the next several years debating the pros and cons of
the suspension and its lifting. Had the US covertly fomented the coup,
the MAP suspension could only be explained as the policy of a State
Department wholly unaware of the CIA plot—but one also approved by
a White House that either was also unaware of the plot or had chosen
to suspend MAP shipments as a diversionary, covering device. Finally,
the declassifed internal CIA commentary mentioned above speaks of
the embarrassment felt within the agency over its failure to foresee the
colonels’ coup. Put simply, for the CIA theory to hold, such possibilities
would require an infnitely more complex explanation of what is reported
in the currently available documents—evidence, it might be added, that
largely coincides with that found by scholars in other archives.
In short, the available evidence cannot defnitively exclude the possibility of such a CIA role. Nor can we. A defnitive resolution, if one can
be had, will only come with the opening of a much larger set of declassifed documents.
#15174017
Rugoz wrote:I found a third paper/book, again with the same conclusion, and I'm not only selectively posting stuff here.


You still only repeat someone else's opinion and not any facts. The entire blockquote is the same razor-thin US apologia that allegedly "the US was caught by surprise", the author himself is even telling you that he is merely re-iterating the official US apologies from the time the US was publicly accused by the elected Greek government that suffered the Coup. You are repeating the same worthless opinion like a broken record while admitting that all these facts are true:

The organization responsible for the Coup was an official branch of the CIA, the dictator an official employee of the CIA for 15 years, the coup took place under a NATO plan and the regime enjoyed the full support of the US. The very same regime removed the 20k Greek army from Cyprus and then instigated a coup against the Greek President of Cyprus without an army to see it through resulting to the Turkish invasion as a guarantor which was then extended to an occupation.

While the whole thing had started with Johnson trying to impose his own solution for Cyprus and the Greeks rejecting his plan, to then be openly threatened with a coup that was eventually carried out by a CIA employee.

To that you say: "a redacted telegram by the US apologist who used the exact same argument to deny culpability at the time" makes you believe that "the US had nothing to do with it".

And now you have added: "some Greek colonels were allegedly(without even bother to show us how upset) upset they did not receive even more support than the massive support they did receive from the US". If they were upset indeed(even that remains to be seen) they would have been upset since they had been given guarantees & assurances.

The dictator being an official CIA employee for 15 years, a mere coincidence in your opinion, that "does not really mean anything".

:lol:

You are under the wrong assumption that psychoanalysis opinions, are capable to counter facts. Unfortunately for you, that is not actually possible.

If you want to make an argument using declassified documents, then bring the conversations the CIA had with her own employee, the Greek dictator. Everything else is irrelevant. If not possible, then you would have to admit that declassification is selective and that evidently, an onion has got plenty of layers.

The Greek intelligence service, KYP, as we have seen, was created by the OSS/CIA in the course of the civil war, with hundreds of its officers receiving training in the United States. One of these men, George Papadopoulos, was the leader of the junta that seized power in 1967. Andreas Papandreou found that the KYP routinely bugged ministerial conversations and turned the data over to the CIA. (Many Western intelligence agencies have long provided the CIA with information about their own government and citizens, and the CIA has reciprocated on occasion. The nature of much of this information has been such that if a private citizen were to pass it to a foreign power he could be charged with treason.)

As a result of his discovery, the younger Papandreou dismissed the two top KYP men and replaced them with reliable officers. The new director was ordered to protect the cabinet from surveillance. "He came back apologetically," recalls Papandreou, "to say he couldn't do it. All the equipment was American, controlled by the CIA or Greeks under CIA supervision. There was no kind of distinction between the two services. They duplicated functions in a counterpart relationship. In effect, they were a single agency." [14]

Andreas Papandreou's order to abolish the bugging of the cabinet inspired the Deputy Chief of Mission of the US Embassy, Norbert Anshutz (or Anschuetz), to visit him.

Anshutz, who has been linked to the CIA, demanded that Papandreou rescind the order. Andreas demanded that the American leave his office, which he did, but not before warning that "there would be consequences". [15]

Papandreou then requested that a thorough search be made of his home and office for electronic devices by the new KYP deputy director. "It wasn't until much later," says Andreas, "that we discovered he'd simply planted a lot of new bugs. Lo and behold, we'd brought in another American-paid operative as our No. 2." [16]

An endeavor by Andreas to end the practice of KYP's funds coming directly from the CIA without passing through any Greek ministry also met with failure, but he did succeed in transferring the man who had been liaison between the two agencies for several years. This was George Papadopoulos. The change in his position, however, appears to have amounted to little more than a formality, for the organization still took orders from him; even afterwards, Greek "opposition politicians who sought the ear (or the purse) of James Potts, CIA [deputy] chief in Athens before the coup, were often told: 'See George -- he's my boy'."
#15174098
noemon wrote:You still only repeat someone else's opinion and not any facts.


Even if that were true, it's the opinion of 3 Greek scholars in 3 different publications against yours. Quite frankly a non-brainer.

Needless to say these 3 publications rely on actual written evidence and provide plenty of insight into the situation, more than your simplistic rants could ever do.

There's nothing to gain for me from this debate, it's over.
#15174135
Rugoz wrote:Even if that were true, it's the opinion of 3 Greek scholars in 3 different publications against yours. Quite frankly a non-brainer.


You sound like a child from the playground. The opinion I informed you about has been worthless from the start and remains worthless no matter how many repeat the same nonsense. Claiming that "the US was caught by surprise" because "the Embassy sent telegrams pretending to be [caught by surprise]" while its CIA employee became the dictator is quite hilarious no matter how you cut it. Especially when one knows the reasons for the coup, which were precisely because the elected government attempted to take over control of the KYP from the CIA and because of Cyprus.

There's nothing to gain for me from this debate, it's over.


You have not participated in a debate, you have simply been instructed on the arguments of both sides starting from the American side first and have not even managed to make proper use (or any for use for that matter) of these despite your blind loyalty for US imperialism.

The marginal apologia you were taught by myself is an identical opinion echoing the apologia made by the Ambassador at the time. It is a reiteration of the Embassy's official line while supporting the regime and funding the KYP.

It is entirely worthless and instead of discussing actual historical events, it's focus is on trying to divine reality from the golden sayings of the US Ambassador and failing even at that as the important bits have also been redacted. :lol: Demonstrating how very ridiculous the opposing argument actually is and on what kind of non-existent grounds it rests upon.

You are under the wrongful impression that your opinion matters. It doesn't.

Facts remains facts, no matter how many people you imagine standing with you.

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]

World War II Day by Day

March 28, Thursday No separate peace deal with G[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

The Settlement program is an example of slow ethn[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

Meanwhile, your opponents argue that everyone e[…]