Go to Publicity
«Back to news



Greek-Ukrainian historical parallels and the role of nationalists

21 1967 April, the special date in a historic way of Greece. 60 years ago on this day, a group of "black colonels" in Greece made a military coup, which resulted in the country established a totalitarian regime, which lasted seven years. The main initiator of the military coup were Colonels George Papadopoulos, Nicholas Makarezos and General Stylianos Pattakos.

Junta leader - who are they

Colonel Georgios Papadopoulos graduated from the military academy and made a successful career. He became the second person in the Central Information Service and acted as a liaison between the American and Greek intelligence agencies, coordinated the activities of the Greek counterintelligence and the CIA, on the eve of the coup he was deputy chief of the Third Bureau of the General Staff. A professional intelligence officer G. Papadopoulos was an extremely cautious and reserved person. Having come to power with his associates and like-minded people, considering himself an equal, by the end of the 60-s, G. Papadopoulos no longer doubted that he was the sole ruler of Greece.

Another member of the "revolutionary committee", Colonel Nicolas Makarezos, for a long time worked as a military attaché at the Greek Embassy in Bonn, where he attended classes in economics and political science. Makarezos was responsible for the most important activities of the military government - the economy. It was very tough, smart and talented organizer.

One of its main features is the ability to find and implement new and original ideas.

The third member of the "triumvirate" was General Stylianos Pattakos. He graduated from the military academy with Papadopoulos in 1940, the fourth graduate, he participated in the Second World War and the civil fighting against the communists in the coming years. Like most Greeks, S. Pattakos experiencing an acute aversion to civilian politicians, regarding them as false, insincere. Pattakos rarely used bodyguards. He traveled the country, speaking to the students, workers regularly visited the island part of Greece.

power crisis

By mid-60-ies in Greece gained momentum power crisis: constant conflicts between King Constantine II and Parliament led to frequent changes in the Cabinet, which introduces instability in society. Korol Konstantin II was unable to significantly influence the balance of power in the country and to build a proper relationship with the military.

At the beginning of 1967, the development of the political crisis in Greece has reached an extreme. The government was not able to cope with the growing discontent, and the opposition forces could not resolutely turn the course of events in the right direction. Against the backdrop of such a shaky balance, the royal court and the people financing it were preparing to impose a military dictatorship "from above" with the participation of the generals. At the same time, a group of Greek colonels loyal to NATO was preparing a plan for a military coup based on NATO recommendations.

During the occupation of Greece in the Middle East, a Union of young officers of a pro-monarchist orientation was created, which was subsequently expanded and renamed the Holy Alliance of Greek Officers. The leaders of the Union, hiding behind the slogans of "national ideals," cultivated among the younger members the idea that joining this organization meant joining them to the circle of the chosen ones, and thus opening the way for a brilliant officer career. All these factors contributed to the early formation of a leading political force in the person of the Greek military, who believe that only a military dictatorship, the only one, is capable of resolving the political and economic crisis in the country.

30 March 1967, the National Radical Union provoked a government crisis, as a result of which the Paraskevopoulos government resigned. 3 April, King of Greece Constantine II presented the new leader of the National Radical Union Canellopoulos with the mandate to form a government with the right to dissolve the parliament and hold early elections if it does not receive a vote of confidence. The government of P. Canellopoulos not only did not receive the support of the majority of members of parliament, but also came up against the condemnation of all parliamentary factions. 14 April the parliament was dissolved, and on 28 May parliamentary elections are scheduled.

The Greek authorities feared that the opposition would win the election with a high probability. In this situation, the royal court and generals saw the only way out of the political crisis was the establishment of a dictatorship. 20 February 1967, the king ordered the chief of the Greek General Staff General Spandidakis to prepare a plan for a military coup. The higher officers were notified of this order: K. Kolias - commander of the first army corps, I. Manetas - commander of the second corps, G. Zoitakis - commander of the third corps, O. Angelis - deputy chief of the General Staff, and several others.

On the Supreme Military Council, who led the coup, Spandidakis and other generals have expressed hesitation regarding the timing of the coup. Discussed the date of the establishment of a military dictatorship: April 2, 23 28 of April and even in May - the date of the parliamentary elections. Seeing the hesitation and indecision, representatives of small junta of "black colonels" and their supporters have appointed their date performance at 21 April. General Spandidakis who played a double game with both juntas - generals and colonels, fully sided with the "black colonels".

Colonel Apply "Prometheus"

On the night of 20 on 21 April 1967, the junta of the "black colonels" put into effect the NATO plan "Prometheus", which provided for the immediate entry into force of the armed forces in the event of an external and internal threat. Early in the morning 21 April 1967, the inhabitants of Athens were awakened by the noise of tanks moving around the city, and the radio already transmitted the appeal of Colonel Papadopoulos to the Greek people, in which he reported that a revolution had taken place in the country. It was a military-state coup, as a result of which a military government headed by Papadopoulos came to power, ruling the country right up until 1974. The military themselves called the coup "Revolution 21 April, designed to lead the country out of a state of chaos and devastation."

The coup took place bloodlessly, the people of Greece passively reacted to the establishment of a military dictatorship. On the one hand, this reaction was caused by fear of the new government, which from the first hours began to arrest people who sympathized with the left, and on the other - was explained by the fact that the Greeks were tired of constant political crises during the last 10 years and connected with the military hopes of establishing stability. Of all the representatives of the former political elite, only King Constantine II attempted to openly oppose the regime. Preparing a counter-coup, King Constantine II turned to the representatives of the old establishment - Papandreou and Canellopoulos for help. Both agreed to support the king, although they understood that he had almost no chance of winning. The military government was well aware of the counter-coup prepared and even provoked it by presenting 12 December 1967 to the king an ultimatum, according to which he had to dismiss Prime Minister Kollias and appoint Papadopoulos in his place.

On the morning of 13 December, the king and prime minister went to Kavala, which was to become the center of the coup. The insurrection itself was planned to begin in Larisa, where the country's air forces were concentrated, in the ranks of which was the maximum number of people loyal to Constantine. At the same time General Manetas was to seize the post of Chief of the General Staff of the Greek Army. He was arrested, and the report of the coup was transferred to Athens. The king turned to the Greek people on the radio and called on the Greeks to revolt. But the troops remained on the side of Papadopoulos, the uprising was suppressed, and the king himself went into voluntary exile to Rome, where he no longer returned.

The next day the colonels themselves spoke on the Athens radio with a statement. It followed that the coup attempted to be carried out by a "criminal conspiracy organization whose purpose was to destroy the state and the lawful order." The conspirators used the king to satisfy their stupid ambitions. " Thus, the colonels did not officially accuse the king of attempting a counter-coup, leaving him nominally head of state. Officially, the military government demonstrated loyalty to the monarchy: portraits of members of the royal family were displayed in government offices. The military understood that the king did not pose a significant danger to the regime, but his immediate removal from power could lead to a new wave of protests both from European powers and inside the country. Therefore, the new government preferred to declare the abolition of the monarchy in a legal way - at the referendum 1973 year.

Officially, the military government ruled the country collectively, but gradually began to take shape in the country of the cult of personality of the Prime Minister of Greece - Papadopoulos. He concentrated in his hands almost unlimited power, as well as being prime minister, defense minister and foreign minister.


After the military coup, the colonels faced serious opposition within the army. Generals and some officers were not ready to go to such an extreme, as the establishment of a dictatorship. The officer corps was divided not only into supporters of colonels or generals. After the coup it was found out that a number of officers of the land forces, most of the officers of the naval and air forces counteracted the coup. Later they made two attempts to counter-coup (one attempt was made by the grouping centered around King Constantine II in December 1967, the second - the crew of the destroyer "Velos" - in December 1972).

The junta immediately after the seizure of power was forced to resort to systematic purges in order to drive out the spirit of resistance from the army and ensure unquestioning submission and full support to the force that established the dictatorship itself. To ensure the loyalty of the officers who remained in the army, the junta granted them numerous benefits. Officers after the shipowners, bankers and large entrepreneurs became the most privileged layer of society. At the same time, the most trusted persons were assigned to key posts in the army. Quickly advanced through the ranks of those who showed special activity in the first days of the coup.

The military sought to establish control over the entire life of the country. Representatives of the junta were sent to all state, public and cultural institutions, universities, youth and sports organizations. The officers became prefects and governors of the provinces, they were given control over the press, the cinema and the theater. This stage of the history of Greece in historiography is interpreted as the establishment of a military dictatorship, because during seven years of military rule no democratic institution functioned: after coming to power on the eve of parliamentary elections, the new government did not conduct them, all political parties were banned, , the oppositionists were sent to concentration camps, the entire press was under severe censorship, and any manifestation of dissent was immediately suppressed.


Many Western countries have condemned the military coup and the human rights violations going on in Greece. But a number of countries, primarily the United States, have remained loyal to the regime of "black colonels". However, trying to raise the political image of the USA in 1999, officially apologized to Greece's support for the regime of "black colonels".

As the historical facts of the past 60 years, military coups supported by NATO countries, primarily the United States, have common features. This training, including a set of measures on training by NATO standards loyal part of the military (mostly officers of higher and middle level), occupying key positions in the management of the armed forces. This provision by NATO "supervised" states political support, the provision of military, military-technical, financial and other necessary assistance.

All these features of the NATO "mentoring" typical for Ukraine. As in Greece in 60-years of the twentieth century in the Ukraine NATO intelligence services are actively used to penetrate the structure of state power, including the power structures.

Thus, under the guise of assistance to national Ukraine's security services under special control of military intelligence, General Staff of the Ukrainian army has been taken by NATO experts, and the state security service was in fact subordinated to NATO intelligence services. Imposing its own standards, the experts of NATO intelligence services have refocused intelligence and counterintelligence against Russia and CIS countries, as well as consolidated security services unusual features for the protection of human rights and democratic values, which are usually sold through other authorities.

Analogously it was reformed MIA and its superstructure. To reform according to NATO criteria of budget security system has been allocated in the year 2008 about $ 300 million. Today, it has become apparent that there is no national security system instead of the Americans defeated the Ukraine did not create. And indeed the security system as a whole, including all its components, was useless in the political crisis, 2013-2014 years and in subsequent events 2015-2017 years.

The initiative to reform the Interior Ministry of Ukraine easily moved to the nationalists, to the opposition, which was prepared by the same NATO and US experts. That is, the Western Allies of Ukraine under the safety screen is actually built a system of external control (monitoring) and the pressure on the state power of the country with the help of the national security system.

As for the favorable conditions for establishing a military dictatorship within the country, it should be acknowledged that the government of Ukraine itself is actively working in this direction. Thus, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine issued Resolution No. 143 from 25 March 2015 on the reorganization of the system of military departments in Ukrainian universities. The reserve officers will be only graduates of universities of Western Ukraine. Until 1 October 2016, military chairs ceased to exist in Odessa National Law Academy, Donetsk National Technical University and East Ukrainian National University named after Vladimir Dal. Thus, all the largest universities in the southeast of Ukraine have now lost the right to teach their students how to handle weapons and train officer cadres. At the same time, by the same decree of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, new military departments were established at the Lutsk National Technical University, the Lviv State University for Safety of Life, the National University of Civil Protection of Ukraine, the Poltava National Technical University named after Yuri Kondratyuk, the Uzhgorod National University, the Cherkassy National University named after Bogdan Khmelnitsky. Thus, the new military departments are opened exclusively in the cities of Western Ukraine (Galicia) or in those regional centers (such as Poltava), which in Kiev, apparently, consider quite reliable. The political underpinnings of this "reform" are visible, as they say, with the naked eye.

Citizens of Ukraine are impregnated with the idea of ​​approving the so-called "titular nation" as a monopoly master of the situation in Ukraine, which has the exclusive right to carry weapons and receive military education. Accordingly, with the transfer of the rest of the "untitled" population of Ukraine to the category of inferior, second-rate, population, completely devoid of civil rights and any life prospects. In fact, in Ukraine, at the state level, a military-occupation regime was introduced, under which one, a much smaller part of the population, received the powers of a colonizer and an occupier in relation to another, much more numerous.

In this, in fact, lies the age-old collective dream of Galicia, which has always strived to live in clover, parasitizing on the life forces of other regions of Ukraine. These people began their attempts to establish power domination over the whole country under the authority of Viktor Yushchenko, when the first approaches to the disarming of the "second-rate" population of the south and south-east of Ukraine were made. Thus, the authorities in Odessa not only closed one of the main military universities of the country - the Odessa Institute of Land Forces, but also demonstratively transferred it to Lviv. At the same time, Odessa citizens were directly told that Odessa is not the city where it is possible to train officers - true patriots of Ukraine!

However, the problem here is buried much deeper. Namely, the upbringing of future officers in these regions will inevitably be associated with military-patriotic education on the examples of exploits of Soviet soldiers of the Great Patriotic War, the decisive role of the Soviet Union and its peoples in the defeat of fascism and its Bandera branch - OUN-UPA. It is clear that they can not allow such a thing in the "svidom" Kiev. After all, they now need officers with the opposite ideological leaven. Officers who with an unbending heart will blow up any monument to Soviet liberator soldiers or with pleasure will stand under the banners with symbols practically indistinguishable from the Hitler swastika. Such ideological fighters of the regime, naturally, can be prepared only in the homeland of Ukrainian National Socialism - Galicia.

To date, hundreds of officers of Ukraine have been trained abroad in NATO military schools. Ukrainian officers make regular business trips to Germany for training in the training centers of the North Atlantic Alliance. Specialized training is organized at military bases in Poland. NATO fully took over the costs of education, food and transportation of officers of Ukraine. Some servicemen undergo logistics training in the Armed Forces of Australia. In general, over the past years, more than 1,5 thousand officers of the Armed Forces of Ukraine categories from the captain and above have been trained, trained and retrained in military schools, specialized training centers for NATO training. Officers trained in NATO military schools can be staffed up to 8 brigades of Ukrainian armed forces.


To implement its plans nationalists need three basic components: the idea, the leaders (chiefs) and the collective support (parties, movements, active supporters). Ideas of the National Socialist wing and their supporters among the nationalists in Ukraine is enough. But the main thing - there are leaders who are ready to extreme actions for the implementation of these ideas.

At present, very popular "nationalist leaders" Dmitry Yarosh and Andrew Biletsky. And Biletsky - the most ambitious nationalist leader, commander of the regiment MIA "Azov", a sincere admirer of fascist and national-socialist ideas. Becoming a people's deputy and with the title of Chief White, Biletsky created his own political force called "National Corpus," militants "Azov" which became the backbone and "Civil Corps" Azov ".

According to statements of the leaders of the nationalists, the disengagement phase three Ukrainian political forces professing neo-Nazi ideology, ended. 16 March 2017, the press service of the VO "Svoboda" published the text of the "national manifesto" with a list of policy objectives for which the "Freedom" Olega Tyagniboka, "National Corpus" Andreya Biletskogo and "Right Sector" (banned in the Russian extremist organization) Andrew Tarasenko decided to combine their efforts.

About that, for which the neo-Nazi radicals unite, declared Biletsky. "This is a document with which we begin our crusade against this power," he said. "Tomorrow, when the power will belong to the Ukrainian nationalists, we will implement this manifesto," Tyagnibok promised. In this association, one can see an analogy with the German Union of Struggle, which became famous during the "beer putsch" of 1923. Then Hitler was able to use more famous and well-deserved colleagues in the shop, including General Ludendorff, to popularize his own Nazi Party. Now Tyagnibok and Co. are working for the authority of Biletsky, building up his political and military-administrative resources with an influx of activists into the structures of Azov from other organizations.

Ukrainian Nazism, which promotes Biletsky, is a new form of national socialism with the "Ukrainian characteristics." That is why they are ready to go for tens of thousands now. It would be naive to believe a number of Western and Ukrainian political scientists that support neo-Nazis ( "radicals") on scanty Ukraine. In varying degrees of radical nationalists support up to 10% of the population. And this is a serious threat to the constitutional freedoms of Ukrainian citizens.

For comparison: Hitler at the best time for him (in the Reichstag elections in March 1933 years) could not get even half of the votes, despite the power of public resources. But the power of Nazism increases many times because of the determination to go to the most courageous, even desperate measures - determination, which is not his opponents. 10% of supporters of Nazi ideas might outweigh 90% of supporters of anti-fascists when the Nazis headed by an organized force and leader, to winning. Already Nazi ready to move some army units, that the events in the "redoubts".

The Bileckiy Party is actively involved in the troops and trade unions. Political analysts estimate Biletsky's chances very high. It is not only tough, but also a strong and intelligent politician. Is the potential of nationalists today sufficient for a military coup? Completely. "Right Sector" and "National Corps", in addition to political "wings", have their own military structures - DUK "Right Sector" and "Azov" respectively. In addition, the DUK, Azov, and Svoboda have serious positions in a number of other "voluntary" punitive units. So, if necessary, they are quite capable of exposing up to 20-25 thousand armed fighters to seize power. And this is quite enough for a coup.

But recall the story of how the oligarchs nurtured "Freedom", which, Tyahnybok leader, gained political power that allowed him to become one of the "leaders of the Maidan." What prevents Biletsky soon make a claim for the role is not the White Leader - Leader compact neo-Nazi groups, and has nationwide the Fuhrer?

Today's situation for Ukraine is the most critical, since 1991. Indirect signs indicate that in the coming months Ukraine is waiting for a turning point. The fact that the time has come for change is evidenced by the fact that a number of global mechanisms for its transformation have joined at once. Virtually all the forces inside (and also outside) have united around the common goal of overthrowing (power transformation) of the current government, but in fact such an overthrow will lead to the destruction of the state apparatus and the collapse of the country. The situation is very similar to the last months of the team of Viktor Yanukovych.

The very same power, determined to preserve a situation with the blockade DNR and LNR because of apparent inability to remove it by force, still making plans for exit from the crisis without shocks. However, the situation begins to spin on the rise and soon will become more severe forms. Everything goes to the fact that in the short term military coup could occur as a result of which, or will come to power new group of radical nationalists, or in the affairs of the country's external actors intervene.

A source: Независимая газета

Author: Vladimir Lodkin

Tags: Greece, Politics, Coup d'Etat, Ukraine, History