Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site utcsrgv.UUCP Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!vassos From: vassos@utcsrgv.UUCP (Vassos Hadzilacos) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Re: US control of NATO Message-ID: <728@utcsrgv.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Feb-85 12:04:02 EST Article-I.D.: utcsrgv.728 Posted: Sun Feb 3 12:04:02 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 3-Feb-85 12:42:23 EST Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto Lines: 120 > [...] However, Greece remains free to withdraw from NATO and end all > military relations with the US (including, of course, aid). No > plausible amount of US pressure would be sufficient to prevent this, > unless either > > (1) The ending of that relationship is contrary to Greek > interests, or > (2) The reaction of the Common Market would be so unpleasant > that #1 again applies. Or, to throw in another possibility, (3) Another US-sponsored dictatorship is imposed on Greece. It has happened before; it could happen again, as the recent incident I cited in my previous posting (also, see below), indicates. Now of course, to prevent this possibility Greece must withdraw from NATO and curtail the U.S. dominance in that country. I am only mentioning this possibility to show the falsity of your assertion that "no plausible amount of US pressure would be sufficient to prevent" Greece's withdrawal. My conclusion is that to break out of this vicious circle some daring action is necessary. > [...] Don't > misunderstand me; my country's actions regarding the coup in Greece > were despicable. What I am arguing is that Greece's interests still > bind it to the US; apparently the politicians in Athens agree. Not all of them do. Moreover, and more importantly, the Greek people don't. To anticipate your, by now standard, question: "Why did they vote for those politicians?" In the last elections they voted for a government that had stated (and still states, but only states) that Greece's interests do NOT bind it to the US. > [...] Moreover, this "subjectivity" of yours appears to be selective. > Do you still bear resentment towards Germany and Italy for their direct > and bloodier occupation during World War II? Yes I do. Note: I do not bear resentment toward the German people or the Italian people (just like I don't bear any resentment toward the US people, or any other people for that matter). But I do bear plenty of resentment for Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. > Do you bear resentment towards > the Soviet Union and Bulgaria for their incitement of Greece's bloody > civil war? You are grossly misinformed about the Greek civil war as well. The only foreign powers that interfered in the Greek civil war were Britain and the US. Britain instigated the "first round" of the civil war (1945-1947) by shooting unarmed civilian demonstrators in December 1945 in Athens. The US entered the scene with the Truman doctrine in 1947 when England, decimated by the war, could no longer afford a military presence in Greece. So, the US, relatively unharmed by the war, "took over". It was US napalm bombs (I believe the first "field" use of this weapon) that burned Greek villages, not Soviet -- not to mention Bulgarian. To pretend that the Soviet Union and Bulgaria "incited" the Greek civil war -- presumably because one of the warring sides was the Greek Left -- is ridiculously ahistorical. > If you do [bear resentment toward the above mentioned countries], > you cannot advocate any reasonable policy. If you > don't, then you must concede that your resentment towards the US will > pass, too, and you ought not let that resentment interfere with your > judgment of Greece's national interests, even in the present. I am sure my resentment towards the US _gov't_ will, at some time, be a thing of the past. Being the optimist I am, I'm confident that things _will_ change in the U.S. too, and that its gov't will cease being the world cop and self-designated defender of "Freedom and Democracy". I fail to see, however, why this should prevent me from taking into account the actions of US government in the present. Also, thanks for warning me not to let my resentment interfere with my judgement of my country's national interests. I'll keep that in mind. Now, back to the point in discussion: My claim is that U.S. gov't policies are against Greece's national interests, that essentially the U.S. is using Greece for its own economic, military and political interests. >> PS: An incident that recently arose sheds intriguing light >> to the question of what sort of interests Greece's participation >> in NATO serves. In the NATO War College, in Rome, and in the presence >> of Greek officers, a seminar was held developing a scenario whereby >> a leftist gov't is elected in Greece, resulting in a coup d' etat by >> the Greek army... >> [Oh, I can't stand all those radical pinkos who, through naivete or >> malice, just can't bring themselves to accept the simple fact: >> NATO was set up to defend Freedom and Democracy.] > At NATO installations they constantly game (simulate) different > military situations, including tactical nuclear warfare in West > Germany, civil war in Poland, and sabotage of industry by the French > and Italian Communist Parties. Does this mean that they foresee > (or act to bring about) such events? Conspiracies everywhere... Well, let me tell you: they DID act to bring about such events. When? In 1967. Where? In Greece. You may, like the generals, call these preparations "simulations" and "games" but people who saw them materialise don't find them quite so amusing, nor take them quite as light-heartedly. > The fundamental problem is that the Greek political body is highly > polarized with very few basic policies reached by national consensus. > It is this which makes Greek democracy more fragile than most other > Western ones, not some simulation by Americans, Italians, Germans, and > Belgians whose plausibility is derived from recent Greek history. I see. The Greek military dictatorship was imposed because the Greek political body was "highly polarized". I seem to recall this is what the colonels said too, when they usurped political power: They did it to bring about "peace and order". I always wondered if that was their real motivation, but since now you -- a dispassionate and rational observer of political events -- claim this to be the case, I guess that must be why they did it. It had nothing to do with their being in the payroll of the CIA, or havin gotten their military (and "political") training in the US. Yes, yes, now I see the light. How naive of me to have been seeing conspiracies everywhere...