The Observer Magazine headline was arresting: “Athens ’44 – Britain’s dirty secret” it announced in big black type, alongside a stark photograph showing sprawling bodies surrounded by stunned and frightened demonstrators. “The day that changed history,” read the caption. “Unarmed protesters shot by the police and the British army in Athens on 3 December 1944.”
In 6,500 words, spread over nine pages, the piece reflected not only on that terrible event but also on the controversial theory that Churchill’s efforts to stem communism in the Mediterranean had sown the seeds for the rise of the far right in modern Greece. But on the demonstration it included this unequivocal statement: “This was the day ... when the British army, still at war with Germany, opened fire on – and gave locals who had collaborated with the Nazis the guns to fire on – a civilian crowd demonstrating in support of the partisans with whom Britain had been allied for three years.”
The reality is filtered through perceptions clouded by a day filled with violence and considerable confusion
Seven Greek historians protested. They said the British had not fired on the crowd, but that Greek police certainly had, and that to present the December confrontation as one fought between the British alongside supporters of the Nazis against the partisans was “a gross misrepresentation”. They claimed that the security battalions and special security branch of the Greek police were never integrated into the German SS, as the article had said. They also attacked the reported recollections of 92-year-old former resistance fighter Manolis Glezos and his account of attempts to blow up the British HQ.
The following week, I ran a clarification, noting the protest by the seven and pointing out that Greek police were also likely to be among those who shot the 28 protesters. I recognise now that it was plainly inadequate in addressing concerns about the article.
Then last month, a leading historian quoted in the piece, André Gerolymatos, held a conference in British Columbia on the issue, inviting one of the co-authors of the piece and some of the academics who had protested to the paper. When it was over, he sent me his analysis, based, he said, on British and American archival sources as well as memoirs and secondary accounts.
He wrote: “Did the British open fire on the demonstrators on 3 December 1944? The answer is no, but that reality is filtered through perceptions clouded by a day filled with violence and considerable confusion.
“The British did make an effort to peacefully disperse part of the crowd. One explanation is that some protesters easily mistook the use of tracer shells by British armoured units, fired over the heads of the demonstrators, as being directed at them. Another issue that further complicated matters was that the Greek soldiers wore British battledress, as did the Greek gendarmerie. Furthermore, there were American and British soldiers on the roof of the Grand Bretagne Hotel, observing the spectacle. For those on the ground it could have appeared that the gunfire from the police could have been mistaken as originating from the soldiers on the roof of the hotel. Although the police wore grey, they were in concealed positions on the balcony, roof, windows, and behind a wall in front of the police headquarters, making it difficult for the demonstrators to identify whether they were police or soldiers.”
And, added Gerolymatos, the political situation was fragile. “The left mistrusted the government of George Papandreou and this was further underscored when the Ministry of Defence published a roster of officers for the new national guard of whom many had served in the Nazi-controlled security battalions. The cabinet had, in principle, approved the reinstatement of security battalion officers in the military and gendarmerie. Later, during the course of the fighting in December, Papandreou, with British connivance, enrolled 12,000 members of the Quisling forces into the national guard. The total number of the rank and file of the national guard was 15,000 so that, by a twist of fate, 12,000 of the same officers and men deployed by the Nazis once again fought against the forces of the leftwing resistance.”
And he added this opinion: “Under the best of circumstances the integration of the security battalions into the national guard and later in the new Greek army, both being trained by the British until 1947, was grotesque and has coloured the memory of the participants and what recollections they passed on to their descendants.”
So, the Observer’s strong allegation that British troops fired on demonstrators was based on the recollections of men now late in life who, at the time, might well have been influenced by the many factors listed above. The paper’s mistake was to report those recollections as fact, rather than attribute the assertions directly to those who were there on that fateful day. Such are the lessons of history.
reader@observer.co.uk