BRITISH FOREIGN SECRETARY’S ROLE AND INFLUENCE IN THE EXCLUSION OF GREECE AND TÜRKIYE FROM NATO, 1948–1949
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When NATO was created on 4 April 1949 by the United States, Britain, Canada, and several Western European countries with the aim tocontain the Soviet Union’s expansion of power, it was rather peculiar that Greece and Türkiye were excluded, while their Mediterranean neighbour, Italy, was included in this new military organisation. As Greece suffered from the communist insurgents in the Greek Civil War (1946–1949), and Türkiye was unceasingly under Soviet military and diplomatic threat over the provinces of Kars and Ardahan and the Turkish Straits settlements (1946–1953), both seemingly had valid reasons for being included in NATO. However, Britain, one of the renowned founding members of NATO, determinedly repudiated to invite Greece and Türkiye to join NATO. This paper analyses the reasons for Britain to deny these countries NATO membership. The existing literature on this exclusion subject argues that the geographical location and the forthcoming Mediterranean Pact were two apparent causes that influenced Britain to reject Greece and Türkiye’s NATO membership. This paper however, investigates other rejection reasons that have yet to be studied by previous scholars. This paper offers an analysis of Britain’s objections to Greece and Türkiye’s NATO membership during NATO’s creation years through the study of British primary historical records. The finding shows that Foreign Secretary Ernest Bevin was eager to have NATO promptly formed, and he believed the proposal for Greece and Türkiye’s inclusion in NATO would hamper this aim, since these two countries were in a dispute over Cyprus. Bevin reckoned that the bitter relationship between Greece and Türkiye over Cyprus would alarm the delegations, hence prolonging the discussions that would lead to further postponement of NATO’s ratification. Thus, Bevin’s démarche was not to propose the inclusion of Greece and Türkiye in NATO at the time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".