US policy towards democracies that go against US interests(real or imagined) - Page 2 - 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.
#15172845
noemon wrote:But if that is not enough I gave you even more( .ie the removal of the army from Cyprus, the dictator being an official CIA agent) than that because the LSE paper ignores a couple of things to reach to its prefered conclusion. Nevertheless, any person reading that entire paper from start to finish reads so many evidentiary details that the author is trying to explain away, that there is absolutely no chance that a thinking person can come out of this reading with the same conclusion as the paper.

Read those 10-15 pages from start to finish and then tell me if you are convinced or not.

How do you explain the fact that the Greek dictator was an official CIA agent? The paper explains it away as "coincidence and no smoking gun, mmmkay" How does one explain that the same dictatorship removed the 20k strong Greek army from Cyprus and then instigated a coup to remove the Greek President of Cyprus? :eh: The paper does not even mention that because that would be too much to explain.

How does one explain the fact the US embassy had [fully-published] detailed plans of a coup in Greece involving the same people who actually carried out the coup? The paper says it, makes no excuse for it and just bypasses it.

How does one explain the fact that President Johnson openly threatened the Greek ambassador with a coup just 2 years before the coup?

There is quite a lot of convincing argument here there to tackle.


Eh...did we read the same paper? An official CIA agent? You mean a liaison officer at the KYP? Also nothing about detailed coup plans of the embassy. :eh:

I haven't read all parts yet though, I will.
#15172850
Rugoz wrote:Eh...did we read the same paper? Also nothing about detailed coup plans of the embassy. :eh:

I haven't read all parts yet though, I will.


Look:

LSE paper wrote:There are three factors that are frequently high-lighted to suggest American blameworthiness: (1)
the Athens Embassy favored a covert operation to prevent the Papandreous from coming to
power
; (2) the junta that staged the coup had connections to the American intelligence
community; and (3) the U.S. military and intelligence presence in Greece did not resist the
coup—which was likely executed via a NATO plan—on the morning it occurred. There is
evidence to support these propositions.
But do any of the claims prove American responsibility?


Later it examines these points one by one and it goes into detail for each, the "likely executed" later in the paper it becomes "certainly executed", the same paper also gives you the details of the NATO plan that was retrofitted to a coup.

Rugoz wrote:An official CIA agent? You mean a liaison officer at the KYP?


KYP-WIKI wrote:KYP was controlled by the CIA; in the first eleven years of its history (1953–1964) its agents received their salaries from the Americans, not the Greek state


The coup in Greece happened because the Greek PM appointed the KYP director, the King egged by the Americans and Brits disapproved the appointment, Mitsotakis resigned his post as minister after consulting with the King, the government fell and a couple of days before the new elections that would return an even stronger result for the Center Union party, the same KYP-CIA people took over and were sworn in by the King.

LSE paper wrote:Second, the junta leaders had connections to the American intelligence community, given
the strong relationship that existed between the CIA and the KYP. In fact, the American
intelligence community had been monitoring a group of Greek military officers who were
discontent with the political system and conspiring to overthrow democracy, if things did not
improve to their liking. Reports were being submitted to Washington that mentioned a possible
coup could be staged by a group of officers known as the “Revolutionary Council.”59 The
leaders of the Revolutionary Council just so happened to be some of the same officers that staged
the coup of April 21, 1967
.
#15172852
If the USA doesn't give democracy to islands in their unincorporated territories but wants to use the excuse of defending democracy for Taiwan? It rings false. But the intelligent thing to do is admit what the true motivations are for these nations like the PRC and the USA are about trying to defend their interests in the Pacific and the island chain trade routes. The USA gov't doesn't care about democracy. That is a big lie.


Under the Truman Doctrine, Washington actively supported authoritarian governments in Greece, Turkey, and Iran to ensure that these states did not fall under Soviet influence. The U.S. government even supported the military junta in Greece in the name of Cold War tactics, while the white nationalist government in South Africa was condoned for too long under the pretext of supporting democracies because Nelson Mandela was a Soviet agent. Since the Truman Doctrine is no longer relevant today, Taiwan is an interesting case. The United States decided to send the U.S. Navy’s Seventh Fleet to protect Taiwan from a Communist Chinese invasion in 1950.

The decision to send the Seventh Fleet into the Taiwan Straits in June 1950 has had far-reaching effects on U.S. and international security. Taiwan is still considered a flashpoint between the U.S. and China, and this article attempts to determine how this vital U.S. policy decision was made. It did so through the use of Allison’s multiple-cut approach made up of the Rational Policy Model followed by the Bureaucratic Politics Model. As Allison argues, combining the resultants of the two approaches produces a much more valuable answer than using only one. The resultant answer is that Truman made the rational strategic decision to implement a U.S. policy of protecting Taiwan with the Seventh Fleet, which was framed and recommended to him by Acheson, and developed through an extensive study by Rusk in April and May of 1950.

This is a research question for which both approaches worked well in complement. Model I established the rationality of Truman’s decision based on the strategic environment while Model III described the political process to get to the policy. If one model had to be selected as the superior in this case, it would be Model III for three reasons. First, the process, and specifically Rusk’s in-depth assessment, provides evidence that this critical and far-reaching policy was not decided within 48 hours of the Korean invasion – as is often stated – but was studied and considered for months prior. Second, Model III provides evidence that, if Acheson would have allowed the Defense Department to make the case for protecting Taiwan, it is possible that the U.S. military presence would have served as a deterrent that would have prevented the Friendship Treaty from including plans for a 1950 invasion and for Soviet intervention. The Soviets likely would have wanted to prevent World War III just as the U.S. did. A large portion of the headaches associated with Taiwan in 1949 and 1950 could likely have been prevented if Acheson was more neutral in his influential position on the NSC. This leads to the third point Acheson’s clear preference for politics over strategic interest on the NSC supports the creation of a neutral National Security Advisor to ensure the President is hearing both the political and military sides of every national security policy dilemma. 105 Taiwan will remain a critical flashpoint between the U.S. and China for the foreseeable future, but this article finds that the origination of U.S. policy to protect Taiwan was the most rational choice, made by Truman, communicated by Acheson, and created in a deliberative dissertation-quality study by Rusk.

https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/ ... /1861/1748
#15172853
ThirdTerm wrote:Under the Truman Doctrine, Washington actively supported authoritarian governments in Greece, Turkey, and Iran to ensure that these states did not fall under Soviet influence. The U.S. government even supported the military junta in Greece in the name of Cold War tactics, while the white nationalist government in South Africa was condoned for too long under the pretext of supporting democracies because Nelson Mandela was a Soviet agent. Since the Truman Doctrine is no longer relevant, Taiwan is an interesting case.


As described by the US ambassador in Greece, the fear was not that Greece would fall under Soviet influence per se but that Greece would leave NATO and find itself in the non-aligned movement, which it did. Greece co-founded the Non-Aligned Movement with India, Sweden & Mexico. It should be noted that Sweden's PM Olof Palme who was a co-founder of the movement, was murdered, while Papandreou was the reason for the CIA coup in Greece according to the US embassy.

Anyway, the US ambassador explained:

LSE paper on US participation in the Greek junta 1967-1974 wrote:
As Peurifoy’s memorandum acknowledges, the United States, at times, pursued its interests in Greece with a heavy-hand. As a result, the Greek people began to resent America’s “leadership.” By December 1954, American symbols were coming under attack. The “disengagement” of the Greek people from America’s preferred course was meticulously discussed in 1957.

In a 15-page memorandum, James K. Penfield, a political officer at the American Embassy in Greece, observed:

When the Greek public sees its desires with respect to Cyprus supported without stint in the United Nations by the Afro-Asian Bloc, by Tito, and, however tardily and hypocritically, by the Soviet Bloc, and sees the United States and each of its partners in NATO either thwart those desires or remain indifferent or neutral toward them, it lends an ever more receptive ear to those who in public speeches and in the daily press ask what Greece’s ties to the West have gained her and why she should continue to maintain them. . . . We and our policies have become less popular with the Greeks in recent years and months and we see no evidence of the existence of any force which will reverse this trend in the immediate future, barring an immediate settlement of the Cyprus issue in a manner satisfactory to Greece or a very large increase in the amount of American economic assistance.

The memo insisted, “We are not winning the battle for the Greek mind.” This led Penfield to conclude: We are passing through a period when our influence and prestige among the Greek people and with the Greek Government are undergoing a reassessment and readjustment in a changed world situation. We can no longer be as certain as we have been in the past that we shall have Greece’s support in foreign policy matters that are critical to us. . . . Unless [the reasons for disengagement] are corrected, however, there is a distinct possibility that Greece will find herself ultimately in the neutral bloc or in a “non-bloc” alignment where, we have reason to fear, a growing number of Greeks today are already finding themselves psychologically.

We have reached a new stage in Greek-American relations in which many of our decade-old assumptions and rules-of-thumb are no longer valid.
#15172870
I thought these historical documents could be interesting to see what happened from the US diplomats' perspective at the time of the events:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... -68v16/ch6
https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... -68v16/ch7

I'm not particularly knowledgeable about the topic of the Greek coup of 1967 but thought it could be interesting to read those cables for both @Rugoz and especially @noemon

I found this to be particularly interesting:

https://history.state.gov/historicaldoc ... 68v16/d260

Reading some of the cables issued after that one, it seems all the main political actors in Greece, and the American ambassador, were aware or at least suspected something like the above planning could exist within the military. Many mention a general fear among all of these actors of ending the political crisis at the time through a military dictatorship.

The cable from April 13, 1967 is very interesting as well although there may be some missing information here - maybe the ambassador was playing a double game? I don't know.
#15172942
American Duplicity by William Blum wrote:
"It's the best damn Government since Pericles," the American two-star General declared. [1] (The news report did not mention whether he was chewing on a big fat cigar.)

The governmnet, about which the good General was so ebullient, was that of the Colonels' junta which came to power in a military coup in April 1967, followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save a nation from a "communist takeover". Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were the miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory. [2]

So brutal and so swift was the repression, that by September, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands were before the European Comission of Human Rights to accuse Greece of violating most of the Commission's conventions. Before the year was over, Amnesty International had sent representatives to Greece to investigate the situation. From this came a report which asserted that "Torture as a deliberate practice is carried out by the Security Police and the Military Police." [3]

The coup had taken place two days before the campaign for national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece.

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]. We saw earlier how Greece was looked upon much as a piece of property to be developed according to Washington's needs. A story related by Deane illustrates how this attitude was little changed, and thus the precariousness of Papandreou's position: During one of the perennial disputes between Greece and Turkey over Cyprus, which was now spilling over onto NATO, President Johnson summoned the Greek ambassador to tell him of Washington's "solution". The ambassador protested that it would be unacceptable to the Greek parliament and contrary to the Greek constitution.

"Then listen to me, Mr. Ambassador," said the President of the United States, "fuck your Parliament and your Constitution. America, is an elephant. Cyprus is a flea. If these two fleas continue itching the elephant, they may just get whacked by the elephant's trunk, whacked good . . . We pay a lot of good American dollars to the Greeks, Mr. Ambassador. If your Prime Minister gives me talk about Democracy, Parliament and Constitutions, he, his Parliament and his Constitution may not last very long." [5]

In July 1965, George Papandreou was finally maneuvered out of office by royal prerogative. The king had a coalition of breakaway Centre Union Deputies (Papandreou's party) and rightists waiting in the wings to form a new government. It was later revealed by a State Department official that the CIA Chief-of-Station in Athens, John Maury, had "worked in behalf of the palace in 1965. He helped King Constantine buy Centre Union Deputies so that the George Papandreou Government was toppled." [6]

For nearly two years thereafter, various short-lived cabinets ruled until it was no longer possible to avoid holding the elections prescribed by the constitution.

What concerned the opponents of George Papandreou most about him was his son. Andreas Papandreou, who had been head of the economics department at the University of California at Berkeley and a minister in his father's cabinet, was destined for a leading role in the new government. But he was by no means the wide-eyed radical. In the United States, Andreas had been an active supporter of such quintessential moderate liberals as Adlai Stevenson and Hubert Humphrey. [7] His economic views, wrote 'Washington Post' columnist Marquis Childs, were "those of the American New Deal". [8]

But Andreas Papandreou did not disguise his wish to take Greece out of the cold war. He publicly questioned the wisdom of the country remaining in NATO, or at least ramaining in it as a satellite of the United States. He leaned toward opening relations with the Soviet Union and other Communist countries on Greece's border. He argued that the swollen American military and intelligence teams in Greece compromised the nation's freedom of action. And he viewed the Greek Army as a threat to democracy, wishing to purge it of its most dictatorial and royalist-minded senior officers. [9]

Andreas Papandreou's bark was worse than his bite, as his later presidency was to simply demonstrate. (He did not, for example, pull Greece out of NATO or US bases out of Greece.) But in Lyndon Johnson's Washington, if you were not totally and unquestionably with us, you were "against us". Johnson felt that Andreas, who had become a naturalized US citizen, had betrayed America". Said LBJ:

We gave the son of a bitch American citizenship, didn't we? He was an American, with all the rights and privileges. And he had sworn allegiance to the flag. And then he gave up his American citizenship. He went back to just being a Greek. You can't trust a man who breaks his oath of allegiance to the flag of the United States. [10]

What, then, are we to make of the fact that Andreas Papandreou was later reported to have worked with the CIA in the early 1960s? (He criticized publication of the report, but did not deny the charge.) [11] If true, it would not have been incompatible with being a liberal, particularly at that time. It was incompatible, as he subsequently learned, only with his commitment to a Greece independent from US foreign policy.

As for the elder Papandreou, his anti-communist credentials were impeccable, dating back to his role as a prime-minister during the civil war against the left in 1944-45. But he, too, showed stirrings of independence from the Western superpower. He refused to buckle under Johnson's pressure to compromise with Turkey over Cyprus. He accepted an invitation to visit Moscow, and when his government said it would accept Soviet aid in preparation for a possible war with Turkey, the US Embassy 'demanded' an explanation. Moreover, in an attempt to heal the old wounds of the civil war, Papandreou began to reintroduce certain civil liberties and to readmit into Greece some of those who had fought against the government in the civil war period. [12]

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] One reason for the success of their marriage may have been Colonel Papadopoulos's World War II record. When the Germans invaded Greece, Papadopoulos served as a captain in the Nazi's Security Battalions whose main task was to track down Greek resistance fighters. [23] He was, it is said, a great believer in Hitler's "new order", and his later record in power did little to cast doubt upon that claim. Foley writes that when he mentioned the junta leader's pro-German background to an American military adviser he met at a party in Athens, the American hinted that it was related to Papadopoulos's subservience to US wishes: "George gives good value," he smiled, "because there are documents in Washington he wouldn't like let out." [24]

Foley relates that under Papadopoulos:

Intense official propaganda portrayed Communism as the only enemy Greece had ever had and minimized the German occupation until even Nazi atrocities were seen as provoked by the Communists. This rewriting of history clearly reflects the dictator's concern at the danger that the gap in his official biography may some day be filled in. [25]

.....

In 1969, the European Commission of Human Rights found Greece guilty of torture, murder and other violations. For these reasons and particularly for the junta's abolition of parliamentary democracy, The Council of Europe -- a consultative body of, at that time, 18 European States, under which the Commission falls -- was preparing to expel Greece. The council rejected categorically Greece's claim that it had been in danger of a communist takeover. Amnesty International later reported that the United States, though not a member of the Council, actively applied diplomatic pressure on member states not to vote for the expulsion. (Nonetheless, while the Council was deliberating, the 'New York Times' reported that "The State Department said today that the United States had deliberately avoided taking any position on the question of continued Greek membership in the Council of Europe.") The European members, said Amnesty, believed that only the United Sates had the power to bring about changes in Greece, yet it chose only to defend the junta. [33]

On the specific issue of torture, Amnesty's report concluded that:

American policy on the torture question as expressed in the official testimony has been to deny it where possible and minize it where denial was not possible. This policy flowed naturally from general support for the military regime. [34]

As matters transpired, Greece walked out before the Council could formalize the expulsion.

In a world grown increasingly hostile, the support of the world's most powerful nation was 'sine qua non' for the Greek junta. The two governments thrived upon each other. Said the American ambassador to Greece, Henry Tasca, "This is the most anti-communist group you'll find anywhere. There is just no place like Greece to offer these facilities with the back up of the kind of Government you have got here." ("You", not "we", noted the reporter, was the only pretense.) [35]

The facilities the ambassador was referring to were dozens of US military installations, from nuclear missile bases to major communication sites, housing tens of thousands of American servicemen. The United States, in turn, provided the junta with ample military hardware despite an official congressional embargo, as well as the police equipment required by the Greek authorities to maintain their rigid control.

In an attempt to formally end the embargo, the Nixon administration asked Papadopoulos to make some gesture towards constitutional government which the White House could then point to. The Greek prime minister was to be assured, said a secret White House document, that the administration would take "at face value and accept without reservation" any such gesture. [36]

US Vice-president Spiro Agnew, on a visit to the land of his ancestors, was moved to exalt the "achievements" of the Greek government and its "constant co-operation with US needs and wishes". [37] One of the satisfied needs Agnew may have had in mind was the contribution of $549,000 made by the junta to the 1968 Nixon-Agnew election campaign. Apart from any other consideration, it was suspected that this was money given to the junta by the CIA finding its way back to Washington. A Senate investigation of this question was abruptly canceled at the direct request of Henry Kissinger. [38]

Perhaps nothing better captures the mystique of the bond felt by the Greeks to their American guardians than the story related about the Chief Inspector Basil Lambrou, one of Athens' well-known torturers:

Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute fultility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans." [39]

Amnesty International adds that some torturers would tell their victims things like: "The Human Rights Commission can't help you now ... The Red Cross can do nothing for you ... Tell them all, it will do no good, you are helpless." "The torturers from the start," said Amnesty, "had said that the United States supported them and that was what counted." [40]

In November 1973, a falling-out within the Greek inner circle culminated in the ousting of Papadopoulos and his replacement by Col. Demetrios Ioannidis, Commander of the Military Police, torturer, graduate of american training in anti-subversive techniques, confidant of the CIA. [41] Ioannidis named as prime-minister a Greek-American, A. Androutsopoulos, who came to Greece after the Second World War as an official employee of the CIA, a fact of which Androutsopoulos had often boasted. [42]

Eight months later, the Ioannidis regime overthrew the government. It was a fatal miscalculation. Turkey invaded Cyprus and the reverberations in Athens resulted in the military giving way to a civilian government. The Greek nightmare had come to an end.

Much of the story of American complicity in the 1967 coup and its aftermath may never be known. At the trials held in 1975 of junta members and torturers, many witnesses made reference to the American role. This may have been the reason a separate investigation of this aspect was scheduled to be undertaken by the Greek Court of Appeals. [43] But it appears that no information resulting from this inquiry, if it actually took place, was ever announced. Philip Deane, upon returning to Greece several months after the civilian government took over, was told by leading politicians that "for the sake of preserving good relations with the US, the evidence of US complicity will not be made fully public". [44]

Andreas Papndreou had been arrested at the time of the coup and held in prison for eight months. Shortly after his release, he and his wife Margaret visited the American ambassador, Phillips Talbot, in Athens. Papandreou related the following:

I asked Talbot whether America could have intervened the night of the coup, to prevent the death of democracy in Greece. He denied that they could have done anything about it. Then Margaret asked a critical question: What if the coup had been a Communist or a Leftist coup? Talbot answered without hesitation. Then, of course, they would have intervened, and they would have crushed the coup. [45]
#15173091
noemon wrote:Later it examines these points one by one and it goes into detail for each, the "likely executed" later in the paper it becomes "certainly executed", the same paper also gives you the details of the NATO plan that was retrofitted to a coup.


The paper addresses all of these points in detail. The covert operation was not a coup plan, the CIA had a close relationship with the KYP, but not with the coup leaders specifically, the NATO plan was about military control in the event of war or revolution.

wat0n wrote:I thought these historical documents could be interesting to see what happened from the US diplomats' perspective at the time of the events


If you haven't noticed, historical US documents don't count in this thread :lol:.

The paper I cited is all about evaluating declassified material:

Because the relevant archival material from the U.S. State Department
remained under lock and key till recent, it was extremely difficult to counter any arguments of
American culpability for the 1967 coup. Today, as the declassified memos, telegrams, and
interviews show, there is a strong body of exculpatory evidence, from before and after the coup,
to reject one of Greece’s strongest held conspiracy theories.


So basically it comes down to whether you believe the US destroys all evidence of its covert operations after their execution. I don't think that's how the US government operates.
#15173095
Rugoz wrote:The paper addresses all of these points in detail. The covert operation was not a coup plan, the CIA had a close relationship with the KYP, but not with the coup leaders specifically, the NATO plan was about military control in the event of war or revolution.


If you think the LSE paper addresses these points then bring the detail forward and we will see. I brought the LSE paper in here because it is the only apology for the US and not a convincing one in any way, shape or form.

You have only quoted the author's personal opinion and personal conclusion and have ignored the evidence he unsuccessfully attempts to address.

So basically it comes down to whether you believe the US destroys all evidence of its covert operations after their execution. I don't think that's how the US government operates.


:eh:

It comes down on whether you accept the reality that the KYP was founded by the CIA, that 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. The LSE paper tells you that all this is true. The only argument the paper makes is that in the opinion of the author all these are not sufficient in court beyond reasonable doubt. That however is even more testament to the veracity of US culpability, an apologist using such a standard to build his case. More importantly, it does not actually address the facts themselves which according to the same author are all true.

Why would the Greek dictator first remove the Greek army from Cyprus and then instigate a coup in Cyprus when Turkey was already Cyprus' guarantor? :eh: Doesn't a dictator know you need an army to impose a coup or a union?

That's a difficult one.
#15173097
noemon wrote:If you think the LSE paper addresses these points then bring the detail forward and we will see. I brought the LSE paper in here because it is the only apology for the US and not a convincing one in any way, shape or form.


Jeez, I'm not here to read the paper for you. I already summarized the gist of it in a single sentence.

Unless you believe the US destroyed the evidence, the US wasn't behind the coup. Simple as that.
#15173107
Rugoz wrote:Jeez, I'm not here to read the paper for you. I already summarized the gist of it in a single sentence.

Unless you believe the US destroyed the evidence, the US wasn't behind the coup. Simple as that.


I have actually read the paper in its entirety, you don’t seem to have read much. Bringing it here is not for me but in case you want to be taken seriously.

As stated earlier:

You have only quoted the author's personal opinion and personal conclusion and have ignored the evidence he unsuccessfully attempts to address.
#15173112
noemon wrote:I have actually read the paper in its entirety, you don’t seem to have read much. Bringing it here is not for me but in case you want to be taken seriously.

As stated earlier:

You have only quoted the author's personal opinion and personal conclusion and have ignored the evidence he unsuccessfully attempts to address.


Wrong, he addresses everything. You might not trust the evidence he brings forward, but that's a different matter.

Besides, here's another paper from another Greek (this time not from LSE) that comes to the same conclusion.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 0600623459
#15173115
Rugoz wrote:Wrong, he addresses everything. You might not trust the evidence he brings forward, but that's a different matter.

Besides, here's another paper from another Greek (this time not from LSE) that comes to the same conclusion.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10. ... 0600623459


You keep posting opinion or that of others but no facts or argument. :coffee:

The same people you quote simply opine that the existing evidence is not enough but that is factually not the case as the existing evidence is more than enough for a person to squarely comprehend from motive to planning to execution that the US was behind the coup.

When you or others manage to tackle these facts, bring something to let me know.

noemon wrote:It comes down on whether you accept the reality that the KYP was founded by the CIA, that 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. The LSE paper tells you that all this is true. The only argument the paper makes is that in the opinion of the author all these are not sufficient in court beyond reasonable doubt. That however is even more testament to the veracity of US culpability, an apologist using such a standard to build his case. More importantly, it does not actually address the facts themselves which according to the same author are all true.

Why would the Greek dictator first remove the Greek army from Cyprus and then instigate a coup in Cyprus when Turkey was already Cyprus' guarantor? :eh: Doesn't a dictator know you need an army to impose a coup or a union?


It's not enough to simply assert that this real evidence is not enough, you have to explain why.
#15173116
noemon wrote:You keep posting opinion or that of others but no facts or argument.


Well frankly I have nothing to gain from an argument with you. You posted an entire paragraph and claimed the author didn't address those points, while its literally the introduction to a section where he addresses all these points. What am I supposed to think about that?
#15173118
Rugoz wrote:Well frankly I have nothing to gain from an argument with you. You posted an entire paragraph and claimed the author didn't address those points, while its literally the introduction to a section where he addresses all these points. What am I supposed to think about that?


If you believe he does, then show us, as requested for the 3rd or 4th time.

What am I to make of someone who refuses to make either a point or argument?

You have not even bothered to read in full the very paper you were given by me to argue the case you have chosen to defend without basic knowledge.

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.

Not really sufficient in the face of overwhelming evidence and testimonies.

Perhaps Rancid's grandma was "caught by surprise", but not the CIA under whose official employ the dictator was.
#15173119
noemon wrote:If you believe he does, then show us, as requested for the 3rd or 4th time.


I don't even know what I'm supposed to show, should I copy-paste the entire section? I'm certainly too lazy to write a summary for you. If you disagree with particular parts of the article, it's up to you to quote them, I'm not a mindreader.
#15173124
Rugoz wrote:I don't even know what I'm supposed to show, should I copy-paste the entire section? I'm certainly too lazy to write a summary for you. If you disagree with particular parts of the article, it's up to you to quote them, I'm not a mindreader.


Me neither, if you think you can make a case by quoting from the paper, then make your case.

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? :eh:

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?

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.
CRT

@wat0n The application of laws are up to people[…]

@late I think it's very important to suspend t[…]

Lawlessness in San Fransisco

I found another video on the Bystander Effect from[…]

There is no evidence. So what we can say us that[…]