King Constantine and The Dicatorship of the Colonels, 1967-1974.

[WreathOfLaurels]

The title topic is discussed in a number of other threads in passing, but I have decided to start this thread to specifically discuss the colonels dictatorship 1967-1974, with specific reference to the role of King Constantine and the GRF in general.

This covers involvement with the actual colonels, the policitans, the December counter coup and the eventual abolition of the monarchy in December 1974, as well as events that lead up to the coup and the longer term aftermath to the extent they relate to the immediate title topic.

NB/ the title was also meant to include "the Greek royal Family" - their role is part of he discussion as well.

Some background (the following was originally posed in the "Juan Carlos path to the Spanish crown" thread and has been edited so i don't have to retype everything) to get the ball rolling

Greece in the late 1960's was still predominantly rural, industrialization and the shift to the cities (in 1967 at least 25% of the population lived in Athens alone) had only really begun in the 1950's. Greece also had greater perceived threats to its territorial integrity both within (the Slavic minorities) and on the outside (its then communist Balkan neighbors), along with a tradition of military intervention in civilian politics to protect its own privileged status in society, one of the overlooked factors in the 1967 coup was proposed cuts to military spending. Politics was based on clan ties and patronage - the only party that had any real ideology was the communist party. First Britain, than the USA, had major influence over governments of the day, at one point any potential prime ministerial appointments had to be approved by the US embassy in Athens.

Constantine was only 23 when he succeeded his father. Constantine did not get this luxury and was unable in the time-frame he had to establish a political identity separate to that of his parents, something was to be a major disadvantage in attempting to reach out to the non-communist left and Greece's liberals during the junta years. Constantine was less paternalistic and more liberal than his father but he still picked up many of his fathers more unlovable approaches to kingship and it was commented on at the time and was a major factor in the eventual abolition.Paul was not what I would call a good royal role model. Despite the general trend of throwing all mistakes at Freddy's feet, Paul had strong authoritarian instincts and often ignored and snubbed politicians who attempted to move in on what he considered his turf eg Plastrides and Karamanlis and his interventions caused a great deal of unnecessary political trouble (Freddy's contribution was small by comparison). He was not a good role model for Constantine -and I really can't help wondering what might have happened if Constantine had had more time to spend around his father in law Frederik... The ambassadorial reports , foreign correspondents of the time and government ministers despaired of Paul's high handedness, seemingly arbitrary interventions, and bad habit of disregarding the official advice of ministers in favour of unofficial (and unaccountable) court channels; He was also unwilling to really delegate powers when needed. James Edward Millers The United States and Greece has a lot to say about this as does most standard histories of modern Greece. Even Paul's main biographer half admits this was a problem. There were mitigating factors: the slow and corrupt bureaucracy often made direct intervention necessary for getting past red tape and graft, and an unclear constitutional set up regarding the exercise of exec power meant that a lot of this was justified at least in theory. A lot of this was really the result of the King coming to believe his own propaganda during the civil war of the 1940s along with his early experiences in the Venizelos years.

BUT, there is also a second point, the main reason why monarchies collapse is not due to public popularity (if that was the case than the Queen and the entire BRF would have all been guillotined in Piccadilly Square in 1997), but elite support, and in particular, whether these monarchs are capable of protecting their status and property, something that is not easy when society and economy are undergoing rapid transformation, Dominic Lieven's Bio of Nicholas II of Russia has more on this phenomenon and Samuel Huntington has also written about the problems of democratisation and traditional authority. In Greece, their politicians and wealthy were looking for a fall guy for a political failure and embarrassment that was of their own making, it did not take much to set Constantine up as the patsy - because its not like much in Greece really changed over the last 40 years as recent events have shown.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

C L Sulzberger, New York Times Foreign Correspondent in "An Age of Mediocrity" (a selection of Sulzberger's diaries for the years 1963-1971) says that Prince Michael was granted permission to live in Greece during the Junta years - he relocated to France after the monarchy was abolished. Sulzberger also goes on to say that Michael believed that Constantine's decision to leave was a bad one and that he should have stayed in Greece to act as a moderating influence on the Colonels. Sulzberger also claims that Juan Carlos held similar views.


I don't have the page number at hand but I will post the fuller quotes and reference info in a later post.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

[Michael] said the junta had given him permission to return to Greece provided he lived incognito and said nothing - which suites him to a tee. He thinks he junta are going to be here for years. Had Constantine stayed on here he might have had some chance of influencing and softening the junta; no more"

Cyrus Sulzberger, An Age of Mediocrity: Memoirs and Diaries 1963-1972, New York, MacMillian, 1973, P 463

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

If anyone else wants to share their theories, views or research about the GRF and the Colonels Dictatorship feel free to do so

There are two points I want to make quickly

1) why on earth was C being called on to perform the functions that rightly have been that of the opposition, a party caucus and of parliamentary process?

2) there is only so much you can do on limited resources in terms of organising political opposition esp when others have their own agendas they were following.

 

[stef]

I would like to talk about this in detail, this is a summary, it is very long, I can not put the details, my English is very bad. The truth is that this story takes several days.
I think that this are the facts more relevant to understand and explain all.

Greece was a very strategic country to control the communist bloc. Greece was receiving much economic investment from countries like USA, but USA also influenced in politics. It was the era of the Cold War.

At political:
Two people, in my opinion, essential to end the monarchy, Karamanlis and Andreas Papandreou.

Karamanlis, his political party was said that it was very influenced by the United States, was very conservative political party.

Andreas Papandreou, he was an advocate of a socialist state, he was of lefts, he hates monarchy and he had sympathy for the Communists.

1963, Karamanlis was the Primer Minister, he was very arrogant man, (I think that the people had no sympathy for him, much of the social support he had was for his support of the monarchy, it was said that he was "a man of Palace", he was intelligent but very arrogant).

In 1962, he had lost his political credibility by political scandals, and his management, one year before, George Papandreou had created a political party, the Union of Centre, George was the father of Andreas.

This party politician joined to people of different ideology, under the idea of Center. The goal was to win the elections, adding votes. It was said that the age of George was very important for attaining the union, because everyone within the party, thought in the open of the succession . Everyone looked with chances of succeeding.
when Karamanlis saw he had lost the credibility of the people, went to the palace to ask for public support to King Paul, to regain support, and win elections but the king said, no.
Karamanlis changed his behavior toward the monarchy.
George won the elections and Karamanlis was self exile(very arrogant).

George was the last primer minister appointed by King Paul , after obtaining the confidence of Parliament (majority of seats). He was 74 years old.
In the political party of George, EK, his son was polemic for his ideologies. Many within the party, feared to be used by George to place his son Andreas of Primer Minister. In the political party the presence of Andreas was always a reason for confrontation between their members, for example Constantine Mitsotakis.

When his father won the election, and appeared the ASPIDIA affair , was a plot to replace the military leadership (and put others militars less monarchists), it was investigated the Defense minister, and the name of Andreas appeared.
The party of George was split, Konstantinos Mitsotakis and others abandoned it, they felt betrayed, they believed that George protected to his Andreas son, and that they had been deceived, because George had used to win elections and then put successor Andreas his son........
To say that in this controversy the Papandreou launched heavy attacks against the king and members of his party who had abandoned to them (they forgot to talk about the case ASPIDIA). George was outvoted, and did not want to leave. He resigned...................................................................................

In short, this led to political instability, because no politician proposed by the king to parliament obtained the confidence of parliament.
and research on the plot continued.

United States, Britain, even the people of Greece feared a coup left. it was very unstable.
the Political instability, made that the king held meetings discreetly to politicians in the Palace of Tatoi. To the meetings attended George. They made the decision to call new elections in May. They would undertake to respect the result. But in april, a part of the army, led by three officials, Georgios Papadopoulos,Stylianos Pattakos, Nikolaos Makaresos, gave a coup by surprise ..

they took to the streets of Athens with weapons of war, tanks and combat weapons,... They took control of the buildings of state institutions, Parliament, the royal palace....and the residence of the Queen Federica, took control of television and radio and telephone service

Colonels justified their action on the existence of a plot of a communist coup ( ASPIDIA affair...). Greece has been much talk about participation in this coup of USA, which wanted to avoid a leftist government.
The coup was quite intelligent, they occupied the streets of Athens with weapons of war to intimidate ..... With control means, they guaranteed that there would be no response of the military leaders loyal to the king .
King constantine was in palace of Tatoi, he was informed by his secretary, and was to Athens, he thought that it could be one communist coup. Colonels ordered to move him to the royal palace and enclose in the office. He heard shots inside the palace but he did not know to who they shot it is believed that it was to intimidate him. Colonels did not talk to him.

The army was divided,the loyal to the King was the military leadership of the state, and the Colonels, they had taken to the streets, with weapons of war. The Colonels knew that their military graduation was less to the military leadership of King, to prevent the reaction of the military leadership represented by the king occupied the streets of the cities, because they knew that with weapons of war in the streets, the King would not have the courage to give the order to the military leadership to draw out to the colonels of the streets.This would have been a slaughter.
King Constantine did not want a military conflict. He did the right thing he accept the junta, it was presented with exceptional character and in response to a pro-Communist coup that they had frustrated.

Constantine had no good relationship with Georgios Papadopoulos, Stylianos Pattakos, Nikolaos Makaresos.

King believed that the Colonels had infringed the military hierarchy, and must apply the military code.

Colonels never had sympathy for the king, they had no loyalty to King Constantine,King was 27 years and less experience in the army than them(in the Greek army, the age and experience were essencial to ascend), they not feel obliged to obey to the King.
Constantine did not want a civil war in Greece.

The military junta had an exceptional character
When was transcurred time and the King saw that they were not going to restore order, he confronted them, but Constantine was left alone.
King started to prepare a counterattack, he stopped several times on the counterattack, because he was afraid to one civil war, and end in December decided that he no longer had option.

it was a failure
the king desisted 24 hours after .

he was taken to a plane accompanied by his family, Rome direction, the plane was low on fuel.
Stylianos Pattakos, was very concerned because he feared that the Greek navy and part of the army to rise up against them, so here he traveled to Rome to propose a deal to king, but when he arrived to Rome, , the king gave a manifesto, in where demanded to the colonels restore constitutional democratic order.
The colonels did not accept the request of the king.

The colonels had the direct support of USA, was for them the only way to ensure stability in this area of ​​the Mediterranean.
After the colonels received large investments and made important works such as roads, railways and people looked with sympathy, had avoided a communist coup and made many public works.

Many people think that the King made the mistake of not supporting the colonels. However Constantino no regrets , he avoided a civil war.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Thank you very much stef. Please don't apologise for your English, it's fine

Precisely, so many people, many of whom either ran away, hid, or weren't even born in that time have taken C to task over "not standing up tithe colonels" - uh, excuse me what was the counter coup about? Going all Rambo on the 21st of April would not have achieved anything.

The real problem is that the narrative has been dominated by supporters of either the Greek left or of Karamanlis esp in the academy and they have too much vested interest in overlooking their mistakes and flaws to really ask the tough questions.

What really interests me though is the thought process of the average person on the street and how their views of the kings role were formed - it can't all be down to sloppy media performance and political malevolence, also taking into account that there were and are a variety of views held too.

 

[Marengo]

Indeed, your English is perfectly fine stef. Thank you for the summary. And a thanks to wreathoflaurels for starting this thread, it is an interesting topic.

 

[Duc_et_Pair]

Thanks to Stef. Is my impression correct that there is still a very negative opinon on King Constantine and his family, and if yes, what exactly do the Greeks blame him for? In comparison with the Colonels, the disastrous regimes after them and the current reigning Syriza, the era under Constantine looked better. For me as an oursider it is surprising that it was no leftist coup which toppled the monarchy, no... it were the armed forces, usually a bastion of law and order and standing behind the monarch.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Thanks to Stef. Is my impression correct that there is still a very negative opinon on King Constantine and his family, and if yes, what exactly do the Greeks blame him for? In comparison with the Colonels, the disastrous regimes after them and the current reigning Syriza, the era under Constantine looked better. For me as an oursider it is surprising that it was no leftist coup which toppled the monarchy, no... it were the armed forces, usually a bastion of law and order and standing behind the monarch.

they blame him for "not standing up to the junta" more effectively and for "dismissing" George Papandreou in 1965 - at least the leftish ones do. At a deeper level it's really about a desire to find a single cause for what went wrong in the 1960s - you must keep in mind that the right and the left blame C for a different set of reasons. The left for being too involved and the right for not being involved enough. In reality it's easier to blame the King than it is for yiannis and maria lunchpail to ask "what did we do wrong?"

one of the dirty secrets of this period is that the junta was actually pretty popular in the start once everyone got over the shock of the coup. I do concede that opposition was hard to organise due to limited communications, but that does not explain away a very large amount of both elite and grassroots support. Taki (the gossip columnist) back in his days as a serious journalist wrote one of the better books about the dictatorship called The Greek Upheavel: Kings, Demagouges, and Bayonets - it's a little hit and miss as Taki was one of the few authors who tried to defend the junta or at least understand them on their own terms, is very useful for understanding why the colonels were able to stay in power and were supported for the length of time they were. If they had resisted the temptation to get mixed up in Cyprus than they could have carried on for a lot longer.

I myself am inclined to point the finger at Greeces social climate (similar to Iran prior to its revolution), the legacy of the civil war (punitive measures against many ex communists although somewhat justified at the time left a very bitter legacy), and Greeces vulnerable position in the Cold War. C was a victim of these problems - he didn't create them and therefore it's wrong to blame him for them.

the one person who bears responsibility more than anyone for encouraging such a climate is A-Pap whose instringance, influence over his father, and breathtaking recklessness was probably the deciding factor in all this - most contemporary reports from the ambassadors and many foreign correspondents blame him not the king for many of the problems of the period.

 

[stef]

the antipathies by King Constantine has its origin in politicians and the media related with these political ideologies, (these means were/and are financed by shipowners, businessman, identified with those political ideologies that would like to see in power).

The Leftist political ideologies, I speak of Andreas Papandreou,during the 60s, with his appearance in politics, he and his supporters who began campaigns against the monarchy, in order to discredit and delegitimize and introducing to the sympathies of leftist ideas.

After, in 1981, he won elections and was Prime Minister, (you can imagine as Primer Minister..), in the history books, the leaders of leftist and communist were heros, and the kings were represented like as bad people, and foreign, who had invaded Greece .

Andreas Papandreou is the creator of "Glücksburg" in 1983 to name to Constantine and his family. His campaigns were successful because it arrive until today , "they are danish,.."" Glücksburg...") .In 1994,he deleted by law the personality of the King and his family in Greece, confiscated their property, removed their nationality, and their name . The obsession of the PASOK.

Andreas Papandreou always had the support of the people, because he gave the people the way of life they wanted, early retirements, a large public sector, low taxes ... these policies are very critiqued today , are the cause of the high indebtedness of the state. Today are critiqued like cause of crisis but before, no.

Andreas was involved in more serious cases of corruption, but it did not affect his popularity, the people voted to him.

In the Greek right: I speak of Karamanlis, during the 60s. He was conservative, he thought the King had to be conservative Politic ideology . In 1962 he asked for help to the King to regain his political credibility and can win the election, the king said no.
he start a campaign against the monarchy, when George win the elections, he self exile saying he was the victim of a political persecution and accusing the king of his self-exile .

Karamanlis and his followers were angry with the king, they thought the monarchy was a conservative political party. Also foreign media, United States criticized the king Paul and supported Karamanlis, they believed that he was a warranty in the area,
I think Karamanlis confounded the monarchy, he believed that kings were conservative political .

His political party was heavily influenced by the United States

In 1973 he contacted with King Constantine in exile in London. Karamanlis had contact with the new leaders of the colonels (the Colonels fought among themselves for power, and there were changes in the leaders, now was Phaedon Gizikis). Karamanlis did to believe to the king that he had hopes of restoring the democratic and monarchy, King collaborated with him even provided him information, but really, Karamanlis was controlling and subtrahend information for Colonels. He returned to Greece but never called the King.He convoked a referendum with little time, and did not allowed to the king's followers and King to campaign in favor of the monarchy.

In the Republic , he was Primer Minister of 1974-1980 . In the early days of the republic, being Prime minister Karamanlis, the press inveighed against the monarchy, it was criticized all, .... was not published informations about the greek royal family, and no interviews. King could not travel to Greece his passport had not been renewed by the state.

I think that this was because the referendum was not fair (in the process of summoning). I explain this, before the referendum with the Colonels, 1973, had been a campaign against the monarchy, and in favor of the Republic, the referendum was summoned with very little time, it did not allow campaigning for the monarchy and not allowed that the King did campaign in favor of the monarchy.

If the referendum would had summoned enough time, if the king would had been allowed to participate on equal , what would have been the result? .Never we know , but it is obvious that the campaign against the monarchy followed by Karamanlis from 1974 to 1980 is to consolidate the results of the referendum , it is to convince people, like saying, "and even if I would had convoked the referendum with one year ahead and the King would had participated in it........, the result would had been the same ". This was, in my opinion the purpose of the campaign of Karamanlis.

During the years of Karamanlis, Papandreou, Simitis in Greece was very difficult to find information about the King, you could see reviews, insults, ..... of politicians, but always avoided putting the statements of the king. Constantine seemed to had no right to be heard. The first time I read an interview of the king of Greece in a newspaper, was 17 years after formation of the Republic, in TO BHM, its publication was very controversial.

BUT, now it is changing .Because political dynasties have lost all credibility by the crisis, and now people want to hear what the king thinks. The autobiography of King was one of the best selling books of 2015, and his interviews has many followers. People, today do not see Constantine as a danger. The Press of lefts as usual, criticizing, but with the difference that there are now newspapers in Greece, in paper, digitals, that are not linked to political party and these publish news of the King, magazines talk about his family, his sons, of prince Nikolaos and Tatiana ..., are published interviews in television, has many followers.......

Now, the King and Queen permanently are living in Greece, they are invited to events, they collaborate with solidarity organizations, even some people who have traveled to Spetses to make a photo with them haha, and Nikolaos and Tatiana also live in Greece.
I think this is because now you can read interviews, statements king in Greek and to greek people . The Wedding Nikolaos and Tatiana in Spetses had much impact in the international media, and in the Greeks, now many people know locate on the map the island of Spetses and Porto Heli are very famous. Last year with the referendum , capital controls, the image of greece was very concerning
, however see the ancient king of Greece in Porto Heli and his family summer vacation it was great because it was very quiet to tourists.

Many people would like to see Nikolaos in politics and Constantine, but the king said in a recent interview that it was not true that they went to meddling in politics. One King is not politician . he rule out this possibility, but ,open the way for the monarchy, he said, that the people can change of thought, , the monarchy is not part of the past, it is possible

 

[stef]

I will summarize. In Greece in the decade of the 60, ideologies were very pronounced, the left = Communists and right. The monarchy never had sympathy of the left, that's obvious,.

When Karamanlis went to ask the king for political support, the people of right-wing ideology believed that the King had to support him, as King did not this, they began antipathies. When the colonels gave the coup, they were to avoid a coup or the rise to power of leftist ideologies.(The Coronels was right-wing,extreme right) The people of Greece reproached the King that he did not supported to colonels, the people believed that the solution to the problem of instability and the only way to prevent the left in power, the people thought was a coup as the Colonels.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

There has long been talk that there was a "generals coup" involving the King being planned to counter the possibility of a leftist victory, was this the case or was it simply wishful thinking and paranoia? For the generals coup I see four possibilities:

1) it was exactly what it said in the tin. C and the senior members of the army were planing to forestall the possibility of a leftist victory in the 1967 election.

2) there was a coup being planned but it wasn't the coup many assumed it to be. The generals coup was in fact a soft coup that would give C the chance to ride in on a figurative white horse, save the day and have an excuse to purge the army and government of seditious elements. Charles de Gaulle did something very similar in France and there has been rumours that 23-F in Spain was in fact this as well - Google "operation armada" for more information

3) there were plans but they were contingency plans in case of a possible left coup/rioting/prolonged disorder

4) there was no generals plot - it was simply wishful thinking/paranoid rumourmongering.

Any thoughts? I plump for a combination of options 2 and 3 myself but what does everyone else think?

 

[stef]

the option 4)there was no generals plot - it was simply wishful thinking/paranoid rumourmongering.
King met in the palace of Tatoi to political leaders. At these meetings was George, it was difficult to convince him, but attended. It is said, George had not good relations with his son, Andreas(in this period) . George asked them that agreements were kept secret, it is said that he did not wanted that his son would know of the agreements. In the agreements it was established that elections would be held at May, and George was committed to that, his son would not be submitted to elections. This was a guarantee.

I do not think it was preparing other coup , to address threats left wings, and testing are these meetings.

However that, the creation of the military Junta would be a solution to the problem of instability in Greece, I think it was insinuated by many politicians and international leaders, for example, Harold Wilson(Great Britain) and his advisers, the United States. There were many who believed that this would be the solution to the problem, a Junta of the military leadership. Many were those who thought it would be a good solution

However, I think that if the meetings held by the king, would had not attended George (EK) and Panagiotis Kanellopoulos (ERE, the political party of former Prime Minister Karamanlis) then, I think this solution would have to be seriously considered.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Thank you stef - there isn't an English version of C's memoirs yet and I don't know any Greek so thanks for your view.

 

[stef]

King Constantine's autobiography will be published in English, because I read in February that it has assigned editor for its English version, so it is possible that before the end of the year will be translated and published in English.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

An article about Constanine and the Coup from RoyalChronicles

www.royalchronicles.gr/21-apriliou-1967-49-xronia-apo-to-praxikopima-ton-sintagmatarxon/

I pares this link in google chrome so it should run googlr translate in that

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

A passage from the memoirs of Soviet ruler Nikita Khrushchev (he of shoe-banging fame) about Constantine, Anne Marie and the Coup, from when he made a state visit to Denmark in 1964;

The princesses were young. The youngest [Anne-Marie] was just a little girl, but I would say a very pretty one. Of course there can be various points of view in estimating the beauty of little girls, but she made an unforgettable impression on our entire delegation. The older daughter [Margarethe?/Beneditke? - no indication in the text] was also elegant ad lovely as a flower. They told us she [AM] was already engaged and there was soon to be a marriage. She was going to marry the King of Greece [Constantine]. When I heard that, I was barely able to restrain myself from expressing my sympathies. I so much wanted to tell her that kings were now out of fashion and that the Royal throne in Greece was quite shaky. As a human being I simply felt sorry for this young woman: she was going to have to suffer a lot of unpleasantness when she became Queen of Greece. Again people might say: "how come you, a former worker, were feeling sympathy for a Queen?"Well, I sympathised with her not as a queen but as a young woman. After all, I know what kind of surprises life can dish out. Even as a worker I would find it more pleasant to marry whoever she wanted and didn't have to marry a King. But she was a princess and therefore the only worthy suitor was a King. When a coup d'etat was carried out by the "Black Colonels" in Greece [in 1967] the King was forced to flee. As far as I recall, he fled to Denmark.*

Nikita Sergeevich Khrushchev, Memoirs of Nikita Khrushchev Volume 3: Statesman, ed. Sergei Nikitorovich Khrushchev, trans. George Shriver, Supplimenary material trans. Stephen Shenfield, University Park PA, Pennsylvania State Universtiy Press, 2007 pp 367-368

* NSK was mistaken - C&AM went to Italy in December 1967

 

[stef]

I am impressed that one communist leader like Nikita, he liked so much talk about monarchies and royal weddings(A fan of monarchies???) ....

But seriously now, it is curious that a Communist leader was interested in the political instability in Greece and especially, he was interested in the impact, that it would had about the monarchy.
Greece was a strategic country in the Mediterranean to control of the Communist bloc. In 1965, in the ASPIDA plot, it was a conspiracy of militaries and politicians, of " left ideologies" whose purpose seemed to be to a coup in Greece, it was said that Russia was involved in this conspiracy
The contacts between ASPIDA and Russia alerted TO USa, which was the main investor in Greece.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Khrushchev was writing (dictating actually) his memoirs in 1968-1970 after he had been overthrown in a palace coup in October 1964, when Leonid Brezhnev replaced him as Soviet leader. These comments in his memoirs were all in retrospect - and hindsight is 20/20 as we all know. **

Honestly, the Russian archives have been picked over post glasnost and post communism; and there's very little evidence of soviet involvement in the political problems of this period in question. The USSR had very little interest in Greece in that period, if at all. There was some ideological duty to support fellow socialists in distress but it didn't go beyond a denouement on the UN and some gestures of support for soviet public consumption. There was never any concerted to overthrow the government in Greece by the USSR.

The warmer relations of the 1980s was mostly the handiwork of A-Pap and even that was more apparent than real as he and Gorby couldn't stand each-over; A-Pap was the only non-warsaw pact socialist leader to denounce Solidarity and Lech Wasela and was against both perestroika and glasnost. Any soviet support for the KKE was usually limited to the odd gesture and platitudes.* For the same reasons, I personally don't put much stock in the current Russia-Greece love-in either, the Russians have little to gain and already have enough problems to deal with than add another unreliable client state to their books.

*the accusation that the USSR was backing the KKE in the civil war has been debunked many times over and KGB involvement in Greece, although real, was not on the same level as CIA involvement - the attitude that the USSRhad towards Greece in this period amounted to stark indifference. Any improvements in Russo/soviet-Greek relations was motivated by the Greek governments desire to find new trade partners and to diversify their political links. And the Pontic Greeks, can't forget the Pontic Greeks.

** That said, do read Kh's memoirs if you get the chance, there's a lot about other royalties and is one of the best insider accounts of the soviet system in its heyday, and so I would consider a 'must' for anyone interested in the Cold War and its effects. They're also very readable and very entertaining.

 

[stef]

No no no....

I do not say that the USSR was creating a conspiracy in Greece.... .

In 1966 when it was discovered more data on Aspida, it was began to publish that members related to this plot, had traveled and had contacts with Russia ( buy weapons, search for support ....).
in the plot appeared names of persons related to the clandestine Communist party .

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

No no no....

I do not say that the USSR was creating a conspiracy in Greece.... .

In 1966 when it was discovered more data on Aspida, it was began to publish that members related to this plot, had traveled and had contacts with Russia ( buy weapons, search for support ....).
in the plot appeared names of persons related to the clandestine Communist party .

If said would be saboteurs were seeking soviet assistance than that would be expected. Kh was out of power by 1964 and Brezhnev was less interested in getting as involved internationally as Kh was, so if they ASPIDA plotters got support in the USSR it most likely wasn't anything very substantial. Despite the fact he was under virtual house arrest Kh still had access to the news and would have heard about the coup from the Soviet media (yes believe it or not the Soviet press did talk about foreign events)

It's just that a lot of people still believe in conspiracy theories like that and I got carried away in the last post. mea maxima culpa

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Juan Carlos's opinion about Constantine's approach to dealing with the colonels according to Cyrus Sulzberger:

Madrid 12 May 1970 He [Juan Carlos] acknowledged that he was luck to only be 32, because today more than half the country was thirty or less. This would help him to establish a bond with the nation. He thought a King in Spain, which was not only European but also Mediterranean, could never only be a symbol, as in Scandanavia or England. He had to rule through a government and prime minister, not to try and rule himself, but in a sense he had to influence events within the reigning formula. The best technique would be to show "that I am strong but not to use my strength except on very important occasions." It would be possible to do this, to exert pressure when need be, but tactfully and behind the scenes, more or less the way King Paul had done in Greece. "Not Constantine," he added, laughing. Constantine, his brother in law, is now an emigre in Rome as a result of an unsuccessful counter coup against the colonels.

Cyrus Sulzberger, An Age of Mediocrity: Memoirs and Diaries 1963-1972, New York, Macmillian, 1973 p 603

And Paul Prestons take on JC's views:

All of this put Juan Carlos in a difficult position. He had little or no popular support. Years of glum, mute appearances next to Franco had lead to the widespread assumption that he had neither intelligence or courage. Jokes proliferated about his alleged stupidity. Wits named him Juan Carlos the brief. While waiting for Franco's decision as to his Royal successor, he had been obliged to keep a humiliating silence.... His brother in law, Constantine, had struck a powerful chord when he lamented his own failure to make himself better known to ordinary Greeks.

Paul Preston, Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy, Haper Press, London, 2003 [2012 pbk end] p 253

Preston's take on Constantine and the Coup;

In April 1967, there took place a series of events in Greece which suggested that Franco was mistaken about the mission of the CIA and that they would have obliquely have had an influence on the thinking of Sofia, and by extension, of Juan Carlos.* In September 1964 her father King Paul, had died of cancer. The concequence was that Greece lost a voice of moderation and her younger brother, the rather impetuous crown prince Constantine, found himself on the throne. Just 23 years old, an Olympic gold medalist yachtsman and a keen exponent of judo, he lacked the experience and strength of personality nessecary to reform an essentially corrupt and highly conservative system. His mother Frederika was the dominant force and she was conspiring to undermine the Centre Union government of George Papandreou. The principal figure in a group of conspirators was Colonel George Papadopoulos, a man with links to the CIA. Eventually, with Constanitne as a helpless spectator, a coup aimed at forestalling an election victory in May by Papandreou was hatched by the palace and the colonels. It took place on 21 April. Three days earlier, Juan Carlos and Sofia had been in Greece for the birthday of Queen Frederika. The prince had returned to Spain before the coup took place but Sofia was still in the royal residence of Tatoi to the north of Athens. She was able to witness the somewhat hesitant performance by her brother in contrast to the ruthless decisiveness of the conspirators. For the next two days Juan Carlos suffered considerable anxiety until Sofia was able to get back to Spain. King Constantine would exist as an uneasy figurehead until 13 December 1967, when he would launch a feeble counter coup. Following its collapse, he would go into exile, to be replaced by a regent, General Zoitakis.

Preston p 211

As you can tell, Prestons account is riddled with errors - Paul died in March not September, and there is no evidence linking Freddy to the Colonels, who were anti-monarchy and seems to have merged the rumoured Generals plot with the actual coup. Preston got his information for this part from a appalling book by an Irish journo called Peter Murtagh called The Rape of Greece. It's mostly a lengthy apologia for why terrorism is awesome (Murtagh was and is a long time IRA apologist), and is literally the only book on Greece Preston looked at - despite the fact that Preston interviewed C - what a fail!

*Franco was paranoid that the CIA was working to undermine his neo-feudal rule and establish a more liberal and democratic government in its place.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Helen Vlachos on the Coup:

I had talked about this threat [the coup] from the army privately, and at length with King Constantine. He was aware of it and spoke to me with distaste of the various military men who at every crisis hinted at the possibility of uncositiuional solutions of the nations problems. He was quite genuinely attached to democratic ideas, and quite clear minded about what any kind of military take over would mean for himself. I remember, word for word, king Constantine asking me in rhetorical style "if any kind of dictatorship prevails...i ask you! Who would be the first victim? Who else but the king? Who else but me?"

Helen Vlachos, House Arrest, Boston MA, Gambit Inc, 1970, pp 17-18

*******************

C M Woodhouse on the breach between Karamanlis and the RF which was a major factor in the Coup and the later abolition of the monarchy

...Karamanlis was deeply disturbed by his relations with the palace. Five years later [1966] he wrote about his feelings at the time "My relations with the King [Paul] were good until my resignation, and I believe he accepted it with regret. But it is impossible to say the same about the Queen and the crown prince, whose hostile attitude toward me began to be unmistakeable from about 1961, as was evident from many typical instances [oh Kostas, why so coy? Please tell us more, we're all dying to know! - WoL]" senior colleagues also confirmed Karamanlis impression. As for the King, his conduct sometimes puzzled Karamanlis. Once he returned from an audience, he told his wife that the King had appeared to be drunk. But it was certainly impossible that this could be true. It was simply a symton[sic] of a state of affairs which Karamanlis found inexplicable.

C M Woodhouse, Karamanlis: The Restorer of Greek Democracy, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1980, p 148

The Drunknenness that K describes might be Paul under the influence of Pain killers for his stomach tumor, or the pain was worse than usual that day. Its interesting that K failed to twig about KP's health. A lot of the secrecy that surrounded KP's failing health was a major factor in the problems of the RF and the monarchy and yet is often overlooked.

More on K's views of Constantine:

When Papagos came a third time on 23 july [1968] to show Karamanlis a draft letter from the king commenting on the new constitition drawn up by the junta, he merely remarked that it was 'brief and feeble', and advised against sending it. Again he refused to meet the King...His contempt for the young King was barely disguised. They had not met since Constantine came to the throne, and to Karamanlis, in his wife's [Amalia Kanellopoulos] words, Constantine remained simply "Paul's naughty little boy"

Woodhouse p 189

I don't know about you but letting a personal grudge like that get in the way of something important like putting up a united political front, I'm not surprised that the junta lasted as long as it did!

Next will be the books by M-Pap and A-Pap

 

[Mbruno]

Juan Carlos's opinion about Constantine's approach to dealing with the colonels according to Cyrus Sulzberger:



Cyrus Sulzberger, An Age of Mediocrity: Memoirs and Diaries 1963-1972, New York, Macmillian, 1973 p 603

And Paul Prestons take on JC's views:



Paul Preston, Juan Carlos: Steering Spain from Dictatorship to Democracy, Haper Press, London, 2003 [2012 pbk end] p 253

Preston's take on Constantine and the Coup;



Preston p 211

As you can tell, Prestons account is riddled with errors - Paul died in March not September, and there is no evidence linking Freddy to the Colonels, who were anti-monarchy and seems to have merged the rumoured Generals plot with the actual coup. Preston got his information for this part from a appalling book by an Irish journo called Peter Murtagh called The Rape of Greece. It's mostly a lengthy apologia for why terrorism is awesome (Murtagh was and is a long time IRA apologist), and is literally the only book on Greece Preston looked at - despite the fact that Preston interviewed C - what a fail!

*Franco was paranoid that the CIA was working to undermine his neo-feudal rule and establish a more liberal and democratic government in its place.

JC's view on the role of the king in a "Mediterranean, European monarchy" seems to have "evolved" (as American politicians often say). Contrary to the quote you posted above, following the adoption of the 1978 constitution and the failed 1981 military coup, he increasingy embraced the role of a cerimonial or, if you will, "symbolic" monarch along the British or Scandinavian lines, rather than the activist role he seemed to defend in that interview. Felipe VI seems to have taken that even further as suggested by his apparent unwillingness to have a more active role in the current Spanish government formation deadlock, leaving it to the political parties to sort it out themselves.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

I don't know to what extent JC's views have fully changed in the intervening 5 decades (Prestons not helpful on that) but it's a source on what he thought at the time. You are right though about F getting criticised about lack of involvement. Seems with monarchies that are called on to be intervene it's damnded if you do and damned if you don't.

 

[IRIS1983]

Totally agree with you, the Spanish monarchy his functions are symbolic, abstention, it has been good received, but now in Spain are many people and journalists....that think the King as guarantor of order should have more functions to solve this crisis of goverment . You are right, if they have functions (as the monarchy of Luxembourg), they are criticized,and if have not functions , now all say conversely that should have more functions monarchy to solve problems of lack of government.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Totally agree with you, the Spanish monarchy his functions are symbolic, abstention, it has been good received, but now in Spain are many people and journalists....that think the King as guarantor of order should have more functions to solve this crisis of goverment . You are right, if they have functions (as the monarchy of Luxembourg), they are criticized,and if have not functions , now all say conversely that should have more functions monarchy to solve problems of lack of government.

I don't know enough about what is going on in Spain right now to say anything hard and fast but such an Obama-sque approach by Felipe probably says more about the low caliber of Spanish politicians and the sour mood of the electorate than about Felipes character. A theme that I hope has emerged from the quotes I've been posting regarding his uncle.

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Former Greek King Constantine Would Return to Throne if People Wanted Him | GreekReporter.com

C's partial explanations on the coup and counter coup

 

[WreathOfLaurels]

Following the referenda on the monarchy in 1974, there was apparently a plan by a number of disgruntled army officers in 1975 (along with a plethora of other plans that wer unreported at the time) to launch a coup against the government of Constantine Karamanlis, assassinate him and recall the exiled king. the greek government found out of Constantine's possible involvement via the UK intelligence services. The files about this in the UK are still classified but edited and biased versions are in the edited archive of Karamanlis as well as the memoirs of the Greek ambassador at the time mention the possibility of C's involvement. I found out about this in a really quite biased book by a certain P Dimitrakis called Greece and the English.

This sounds insane. Althouth I don't deny the that there were many who wanted Karamanlis dead at that point in time, C being involved sounds highly out of character - ??? Can anyone shed some light on this?

High life » 6 Jun 1997 » The Spectator Archive

Taki on what i metioned above

 

[stef]

Paul Prestson, in his book on the King of spain, it is obvious that ignores the facts that occurred in Greece.

First, the elections scheduled on May 28, 1967, was the King who did it to solve the problem . Given the political instability that had been created, the confrontation between political forces in parliament to reach agreements, did not allowed create a stable government in Greece. The King constantine convoked meetings with the leaders political, George Papandreou attended the meetings ... of these meetings came an agreement to hold elections and political parties pledged to respect the result.

Second, Colonels give a coup against the military leadership of the King, against the agreement call for elections and against ASPIDA complot.

Third, Georgios Papadopoulos, was not General Franco.

Queen Frederika had nothing to do with the coup of the colonels. On 21 April, the colonels introduced in Athens the tanks , taking advantage of the confusion, many people thought it would be a military parade. They put tanks on the streets and squares, public buildings, parliament, the royal palace..and take the media and suspend the telephone line. They put tanks in the houses of politicians and also in the house of the Queen Frederika when the tanks is put into her door , the Frederika sees them, she thought it was a coup of the "reds", the Communists, but after a while a soldier had to reassure telling her that they'd just avoid coup communist state.
...................


This last WreathOfLaurels you are commenting:
when Karamanlis returned to Greece in July 1974, Constantine had been betrayed by him, knew that the monarchy would not be restored , because Constantine knew that to restored of monarchy was necessary that the 1952 Constitution would restored in full, also the head of state, in the person of King, after the referendum could be celebrated .....but Karamanlis knew of it, he did not restored the title of constitution of monarchy . After he announces a referendum in a short time, he did not allow the participation of supporters of the monarchy, and the king , Constantine knew it would be a miracle.


Karamanlis always denied having betrayed the king, and denied have been managing the return of the King. He denied contacts with the King. But Constantine said otherwise, that he had spoken and met with him , when a British politician or a personality claimed it was true, that Karamanlis had been managing the return of King ...... then Karamanlis ,always resorted to this kind of story, where he was the hero who had saved Greece once again