The second part of a review on historical events that lead to conflicts between Greece and Turkey over Aegean Sea, the Aegean island and Cyprus in an effort to provide a point of view that could be considered as neutral as possible considering that I am Greek and both sides of my family came to Greece as refugees after the defeat of the Greek army during 1922.

 In part I of this article I tried to cover the period from the fall of Constantinople during 1453 to the Greek upraise against the Ottoman Empire during 1821.

In the first part I referred, mainly to the way Ottoman administration treated its subjects, mainly of Christian religion. The oppressive ways reached to extreme situations in the Greek mainland and Crete where heavy taxes were imposed and the practice of “grabbing” Christian children, which was probably the worst wound for Hellenism, since these children were going to become “janissaries”, the most well trained part of the Turkish army, usually confronting Greek populations and revolutionaries.

In the second part of this article I want to concentrate on events following 1821 fight for Greek independence, the Balkan wars, the defeat of the Greek army following the invasion of Asia Minor, the fate of Greek population that suffered terrible atrocities, mass killings and deportation of 1.5m people from their homes, up to contemporary periods when conflicts still prevail over Cyprus the Aegean sea and the Islands.


The influence of Renaissance and the French revolution.


Before I proceed with a description of the actual events over this period I think it will be a mistake if I don’t, mention the influence that Renaissance had on Greeks living under Turkish rule around 400 years, during medieval times, as well as the effect that the French revolution had in the European states which inevitably influenced Greece and other national movements in the Balkans.

It would have been very difficult for Greece to regain its national identity just as a reaction to Ottoman oppression, even suffering cruelty, if it was not for the freedom Greek Tradesmen acquired with the help of Greek ship-owners, who managed to grow in the Aegean Islands.

From the 17th century Greeks from the islands, Asia Minor even as far as Caucasus, the Black sea and the rest of the Balkans developed a strong commercial power that, in turn, produced a generation of scholars who benefited by the cultural explosion  that was taking place in the rest of Europe. It would have been a very strange development if the West, which was finding its way out of the dark medieval period, rediscovering classical Greece, to leave untouched this generation of Greeks. Hence the explosion of the just anger from the Ottoman oppression came to meet the cultural revolution of the generation of Greek tradesmen and scholars who grew, either within Ottoman Empire or in “Diaspora”. This coincidence generated the spirit for independence, which started from Greece but, very quickly, spread over the rest of the Balkans.

Conflict of cultures

islamic clash.jpg

The fact is that Greece happened to be in the middle of a wider “clash” of cultures, between East and West, which include religious aspects, other issues involving national and imperialistic aspirations from every side, commercial and political interests all of which, inevitably, involve Greece.

Every such involvement had both positive and negative side effects.

Every military conflict between West and Turkey was creating an expectation for the Greek independence. As consequence, every conflict between Turkey and West was followed by Turkish retaliations with real “blood baths” for innocent as well as revolting Greeks. The Turkish response to these accusations for retaliations that were disproportional expose the Turkish cruel way of thinking, so they say: What do you expect?   

There were several uprisings, not only in Peloponnese but also in Macedonia and in many other areas, including many of the islands such as Chios Island, Crete etc.  The massacre in Chios Island inspired the French painter Delacroix who helped to make the Turkish atrocities well known all over Europe creating a lot of sympathy for the Greek cause.

An early Greek uprising took place after the Battle of Lepando (between Venetians and Turks), as early as (October 7th, 1571) that ended in massacres of the Greek population,

This was repeated many times i.e., during the Russian war with Turkey (Orlof Brothers and Crimean wars).

Hence Turkey cannot claim that Greeks lived as happy subjects of Ottoman Empire, or even that they did not maintain their national identity.

Yet, there is a question that is still bothering me, why Turks still maintain such animosity with Greece even today?  There were many European nations that managed to overcome national conflicts that caused many battles, even two World Wars. What is so special, unsurpassed with the problem between Greece and Turkey?

I believe that Turkey never overcame the shock of their defeat during the Balkan Wars, especially from Greece. This led to serious national hate and consequently to extermination of all Christian population from Asia Minor, following the defeat of the Greek army after the invasion. An invasion which was encouraged by Great Britain and other western powers, allies during the First World War 

But even this Turkish victory during 1922 did not seem to satisfy the Turkish side, this may be an additional reason why Turkey currently adopts a revisionary approach. Turks are still nostalgic of the greatness of their past and feel betrayed, pushed in the corner against West.

Greece, for Turkey, is, once more, the instrument of West. Even if Greece was supportive for Turkish entry to European Union, Turkey still retains aspirations in Aegean, the islands, Cyprus, east Mediterranean and may be even West Thrace.

Turkey cannot forget their outdated practices on minority rights and comes in conflict with other European standards regarding civil and other human rights hitting back with actions that damage the heart of Christian Orthodoxy, otherwise why they have closed the High School for Orthodox Clergy in the island of Chalki that deprives the Ecumenical Patriarch of succession in the existing ecclesiastic hierarchy? This attitude in no way complies with European or even international standards for freedom of religion in the civilized world.      

But, let’s go back to the events covering the period from 1821 to current situation that seriously threatens new conflicts, even the braking out of a new full scale war between our countries. .

Aegean Sea and the islands according to international treaties



I will start, this time, from an analysis on Aegean Sea and the Turkish claims on the sovereignty of certain islands, what Turkey is bringing up as “gray areas”.

International community is confused with this situation especially when they hear Tayip Erdogan to proclaim:  “Turkey is bigger than…. Turkey, we cannot be restricted within the existing 720.000 square km. Turkey’s frontiers are within the physical and other “Frontiers of our heart”

This, together with many revisionary statements of Tayip Erdogan, have created serious concern to Greece and others, about Turkey’s long term intentions.

International treaties regarding National Frontiers are final and are valid indefinitely, because they are set and signed after considerable sacrifices and blood.

So, to clarify the issue, it is important to note and make reference to specific articles of such treaties which are fundamental and cannot be changed at each one’s will.

First, Lausanne treaty, signed during 1923, was the original treaty that defined frontiers between Greece and Turkey. The treaty gave to Turkey East Thrace, the area around Smyrna and the islands, Imvros and Tenedos. In the same treaty, Turkey agreed for Cyprus to be given to UK and the group of Dodecanese islands to be given to Italy.

Details about the Aegean islands were described specifically in articles 6,12,14,16 of the treaty

Article 6 defines the Turkish Sea frontiers specifying that all islands within a 3 miles limit from the Asia Minor coasts will belong to Turkey.

Article 12 refers to all major islands of North Aegean by name, quoting also the treaty of London dated 13th/17th of May 1913 as well as the treaty of Athens 1st/14th of November 1913, in which the two islands of Imvros and Temedos as well as the group of Lagouson islands (Mavrion Taysan Adas) are excluded and will belong to Turkey, together with all islands that lay within the 3 miles limit, no other names of islands are mentioned.

In spite of this, Turkey is occupying a number of islands outside the 3 miles limit ‘defacto’, which according to the Turkish way of thinking could be claimed as ‘gray’ areas by Greece.  This argument could be used against Turkey in many such cases, even for islands within the Sea of Marmara. This, of course, would sound ridiculous. Even so, Turkey is applying the same argument for the Greek islands, which similarly sounds ridiculous.

It would be inconceivable to assume the possibility to different phrasing could have been used, more over that status of sovereignty in the Aegean would be left ambiguous, leaving open even the slight possibility for future claims on smaller islets situated among the larger islands of Aegean archipelago. Any such idea would indeed be counter to the declared fundamentals principles of Kemal’s policies.

This basic hypothesis was confirmed by the unimpeded implementation of Italian sovereignty, after the signing of the Treaty of in the Dodecanese maritime zone, Ankara never raised the slightest objection when the Italian government determined the boundaries of its sovereignty through legislative acts and internationally recognized military maps, or when after years of ‘on –the-spot’ , detailed work, it mapped the Dodecanese  to its eastern limits exercising its rights within all political and administrative bodies. But even more evidence exists in a form of agreements between Turkey and Italy that I will not bother you for the sake of detail which extends over the objective of this article.


In conclusion:

  1. Article14 Specifically mentions details about the rights of Greek inhabitants on the islands of Imvros and Tenedos that passed to Turkish sovereignty. These rights were violated and never respected.
  2. Article 15 specifically mentions that Turkey abandons any right for the islands of Dodecanese that were then occupied by Italy including the island of Castelorizo and all smaller islands dependent from the major named ones.
  3. Article 16 specifically mentions that Turkey is abandoning any rights on all islands laying beyond the 3 miles limit mentioned, except for the ones mentioned in this treaty.
  4. In addition to the Treaty of Lausanne there are other treaties such as the Treaty between Turkey and Italy of January 1932 including the minutes (PROCESS-VERBAL) of December 1932 that clarifies and reconfirms the ownership of all islands of Dodecanese including Imia (Kardak) to Italy.
  5. Finally with the signing of the peace treaty of Paris 1947 Greece becomes the full successor, from Italy, as the sole owner of all Dodecanese.
  6. The Turkish argument that there were special conditions due to pre Second World War conditions were rejected from the Vienna Treaty of 1969.

I don’t want to go to a deeper analysis of all details in support of this, not even the Turkish claim   for the so called violation of these agreements regarding the defense of these islands, with the provision of defense equipment, because it is evident that Turkey, since 1970, has made obvious that is challenging the sovereignty of these islands, hence Greece has all rights to defend same.

Challenging the sovereignty opens a series of issues regarding territorial waters, FIR, the right of the islands to have territorial waters, reticle delimitations, economic zone etc. The problem cannot be resolved unless claims for sovereignty will be cleared, so international law can be applied or even negotiated. Turkey is claiming that Greece wants to make Aegean a closed lake and deprive Turkey of rights to access open sea. This is definitely an excuse because there are always amicable ways to solve such issues. Yet amicable ways is not a traditional way that Turkey has been resolving international issues.

At some stage I lost interest to provide further legal evidence or make further research of all International law and consider other consequences, since, in every step of the analysis, when every time a conclusion is reached, with negative results for the Turkish point of view, I was confronted with the same argument, “Turkey does not respect international law, neither Hague international jury, neither UN or EU, since all such organizations are controlled by major western  powers, mainly using Greece as an instrument to promote their interests.”

So what is the point of any further discussion on this line of thought?

I believe none, for as far as sovereignty of the islands, Greece would only negotiate reticle delimitations.

Hence I will proceed to other areas, some of which are of historical interest, and some of National importance that are still unresolved.    .

The Cyprus issue


Once again Cyprus became an issue of conflict and ground for propaganda among involved parties, especially to provide excuses for the deportation of the last remaining group of Greeks of Istanbul.

Greek Cypriots revolted against British colonialist who betrayed their promise given to them during the Second World War when Churchill was encouraging Greek Cypriots, who were fighting with UK against Germans by saying to Greek Cypriots: “Fight for Union of Cyprus with Greece” ! Let us not forget that Greece payed a heavy penalty for remaining loyal to its allies fighting against both Italy and Germany during the Second World War, 350.000 losses of human lives.

Following the defeat of Germany, UK forgot these promises and the fight for union with Greece started during the fifties. The Turkish minority did not like the eventuality of Cyprus uniting with Greece, hence animosity developed among Greeks and Turks who were, till then, living a quiet life under the British colonial rule. The Turkish minority, at that time, did not exceed 18% of the total population of the island.

Cyprus gained its independence (Convention of Zurich) after many years of fighting against the British. During this period the relationships between Greeks and Turks grew bitter.

Independence was eventually granted under three guaranteeing powers UK, Greece and Turkey.

Unfortunately, internal fighting started n not between Greeks and Turks but between Greek Nationalists and Greek Cypriot supporters of the constitution of an independent Cyprus and its President Archbishop Makarios, it is important to note that in spite the internal fighting not any atrocities took place against the local Turkish Cypriots, in fact when US mediated with Attkison plan for Union with Greece of the whole island, the Cypriot Turks did not raise serious objections. The real problem started when Nick Samson tried to overthrow Makarios,   during the period of the Greek Dictatorship. Even then the conflict was among Greeks not against Turks

This gave the perfect excuse to Turkey to intervene by invading Cyprus as a guarantor power, under the pretense of atrocities happening against Turkish Cypriots.

This invasion went as far as the Turkish army to occupy almost half of Cyprus confiscating all Greek lands and property, an action that was condemned by United Nations three times.

In addition to losses of property there were significant losses of civilian lives including prisoners of war that were never returned or accounted for. Mass graves were also found.

A line dividing the island was created and maintained under UN troop’s protection.

UN had recognized Cyprus as a legitimate member state of UN while the North part remained under Turkish occupation with the presence of Turkish troops.

Turkey tried to change the demographics of the island by importing inhabitants from the Turkish mainland.

Since then repeated efforts by UN to unite the island have failed, effectively partitioning Cyprus.

The situation is now further complicated because Turkey does not want to recognize South Cyprus as an independent country although the country is, by now, a member of UN and EU.

I wonder how anyone can negotiate with a country that disrespects, UN, EU and International law, stating that these international organizations are non-credible because they are controlled by western powers that will use Greece and Cyprus as instruments to promote their interests and destroy Turkey. I don’t believe this is the long term intention West of West, on the contrary I believe that west values the geopolitical  position of Turkey against the Russian effort to expand its influence in South Balkans and East Mediterranean Sea.

So, it appears we need to establish new terms of reference and rules as a basis for negotiation with Turkey. How could we do that?  It is a matter of common sense to recognize that Turkey intends to take advantage of its geopolitical position and   impose its own interests by negotiations and force, if needed. So Greece has no option but defend its own position by joining alliances to counter balance Turkey’s military superiority.

Especially for Cyprus where Turkey is using Turkish Cypriot minority to control territorial waters as well as reticle delimitations, economic zone etc.

Turkey keeps arguing that mainland countries with long coastal lines have more rights to reticle delimitations, and economic zone than islands. Turkey does not want to obey by international laws and regulations regarding islands.  They don’t reply what are the rights of these islands, especially when these islands are independent countries or consist a major part of a country.

It is obvious that Turkey is using the Turkish minority in Cyprus, to defend not so much the rights of this minority but the rights of Turkey itself. This will not work, the Turkish minority will get an equal share of the rights and benefits in proportion to their population ratio in Cyprus. But the decision will not involve Turkey which will have nothing to share.

Bringing arguments of deported Turkish populations in the past, or Greek animosities against the Turkish Cypriots will not work as an excuse to blare the issue. It is a childish pretense.

Greek and Turkish Cypriots are both victims and up against bigger interests. We will never get to the bottom of this.

But whatever we can say about the history the proof of the way Turks think and behave becomes evident under recent statements of Turkish politicians («Bahchelli) who proclaim as follows:

«Why are Greeks bothered? Because our maps show Cyprus as a Turkish territory. I will ask these fools and bumps what we would do, how would we show it? I state and stress: Cyprus is Turkish. It is a Turkish homeland and Turkish will remain, «Bahchelli said according to yenisafak press and continued:


«The Greek government, which plays games in the Aegean islands, should learn its limits and not forget what her ancestors did when they were thrown into the sea. The same will happen again. Thank God, the will to make the Aegean a tomb of the Greek’ desires, is still alive. And it will continue to be. «

What a proper basis for honest negotiations!! There is nothing more I can say. If that is the level of Turkish politicians who inspire hate by passing misleading histories to Turkish people, I can predict a period of disasters for both our Nations.

Turkish point of view is also expressed by Mr Sukan Gukaynak a Turkish person living in Germany today.
“For me the feeling is not Greece saying I will now expand. They say that and that has belonged to me since antiquity, the Turks should end their occupation.

Take Cyprus, this is by treaty no sovereign state. Greeks say they are the majority and it belongs to them, Turks should go.

I once told a gentleman from the official German think tank Science and politics that the EU membership of Cyprus is against valid treaties. He said, yes but treaties are only valid as long as the balance of power holds.

So the West thinks Turkey is weak and they can take her assets ignoring treaties. The only way to show them the balance of power holds is by using military force. Business and cooperation is good. We had that before 1912. It did not prevent the Greek invasion of Macedonia which at that point had only a Greek minority. They claimed they were liberating what had always been theirs.”

What can I say as reply?

The whole argument lacks any real foundation.

Cypriot Greeks are not saying that Turkish Cypriots will have to go. How can anyone quote such a statement? Cypriots Greeks are saying that Turks are a minority in Cyprus and should coexist in Cyprus under European equal rights. Nobody wants the Cypriot Turks to disappear from the island.

What the German thinker said about treaties is wrong

Treaties are to be respected.

But using force under the pretention of protecting Turkish minority is not a legal activity that can be respected even under the treaty of Zurich that has three guarantying powers, not just Turkey.

There are many ways to protect minorities.

Finally Turkey invaded Cyprus under pretenses to control the island by changing its population ratio. The long term intentions are exposed now, as Turkey is trying to protect their own interests against Cyprus using the Turkish minority as their own instrument.

Whatever one can say for the past positive or negative the fact is that Cyprus is a UN and EU member recognized by the international community. There is no better way to protect minorities than EU and UN any other protection would require the agreement of the three guarantying powers not just a single member that naturally will exercise its own rights to promote one sided  interests. This is common sense. Nobody can deny the right of one country to be independent. The Maximum that Turkey can do is to detach the northern part and totally divide Cyprus, an act that will deprive Turkish Cypriots of their right to be member of EU.

Regarding the argument of Greeks invading Macedonia brings back the issue of reviving the old Turkish aspiration of reviving the Ottoman Empire. Fights for independence of many nations have taken place in the Balkans and Central Europe that established a new status that cannot change by reviewing treaties.

The new Turkish nation was established on the basis of these treaties after serious loss of lives and sacrifices from many sides, nobody in his rights senses wants to bring back this period.

As for the issue of majorities versus minorities we can argue endlessly region by region, town by town and the argument will never be conclusive, especially for Macedonia and Thrace there are conflicting data  i.e The 1904 Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha shows Christian populations to be higher than  Muslim   with a majority of Greeks compared to other nationalities 648,962 Greeks by church, 307,000 identified as Greek speakers, while about 250,000 as Slavic speakers and 99,000 as Vlachs

But I don’t raise this issue as a most credible one because even today Turkey does not allow researchers to access details of numbers of populations in order to hide genocidal activities that had been taking place in many areas.

The Ottoman archives are undergoing a purging campaign to destroy all incriminating evidence relating to the Armenian Genocide of 1915-23, say scholars. According to one source, the evidence—at one time or another—indicated that what transpired in the waning days of the Ottoman Empire was purely and simply a “slaughter

The Macedonian Issue


Will we accept the deliverance of Macedonia?

A while ago, an Athens newspaper, with its headline, wrote that a European Prime Minister urged us to accept to deliverance of Macedonia to these thieves, as a tradeoff for a six months delay in implementing the reduction of the pensions due at the beginning of 2019

The Greek poet, Oskar winner, Seferis writes in his way:

«We were told that you will win when you submit.

We have subsided and found the ashes.

They told us you will win when you abandon-sacrifice your life.

We sacrificed our lives and we found ashes ….

It remains to revive back to life, now that we have nothing more «.

The Macedonian issue has been a matter of significant concern over the last 27 years, even more, following the attack raged by the Americans against the communist state of Yugoslavia.

As a result Yugoslavia broke up into various states, each one seeking for their ethnic origin which was suppressed under the dominance of Serbs that Tito, a great Croatian politician, managed to keep together as a single multi ethnic state which maintained one of the strongest armies in the Balkans considered to be a strong but independent ally of the Soviet union.

Hence, many new states immerged and old religious and ethnic minority issues, which existed since the Ottoman times reappeared among Turkish Muslims, Orthodox and Catholic Christians, Slavs, Albanians, Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Vlachs, Jews, Croatians, Pomaks, Romani etc.

Tito gave the name Macedonia to the Southern district of Yugoslavia with the support of Soviet Union because, since the period of the Second World War, the Communists with national identity either Bulgarians or Slavs or Albanians or Yugoslavs were looking at Greek Macedonia as an obstacle to access Aegean Sea.

The fact is that the geographic area of Macedonia was split among three countries, Greece, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

Unfortunately, after the defeat of the Greek Communists, during the Greek civil war, a lot of Greek Communists fled to Yugoslavia and Bulgaria where they were mixed with local Greek minorities that existed there scattered in many towns and nationalities, which gave them refuge.

Even today there are around 400.000 Greeks living around Skopia. The Communists during 1949, recognized the part of Southern Yugoslavia as Macedonia to satisfy their Communist allies. This was later denounced (1956) even by the Greek Communist Party, to eliminate the accusation of traitors.

So the real question that has been raised for the layman is who are the Macedonians? I remember distinctively an American lady, head of the American Mission in the area, saying to me in Skopia: Who could imagine that a small country like this created an empire so great like the Empire created by Alexander the Macedonian?

I couldn’t find words to express my disappointment about the ignorance of this Head of American Mission. I was aware of the lack of international and specifically European history knowledge that Americans were famous for, but this was over and above the limit anybody could contemplate.

So the question raises stronger and sounds less rhetorical, if we are phased with such ignorance.  Who are the Macedonians? Are they a nation or a region in North Greece? If they are a nation then what are the Greek Macedonians? Who are the Slavo-Macedonians, who are the Albanian-Macedonians? Who are the Bulgarian Macedonians? Who are the Turkish Macedonians? Why all these people claim Greek Macedonia? Why don’t they call themselves North Macedonians, and they insist to call themselves simply Macedonians?  What is hidden under this identity issue?

Are they Slavs who lived for centuries in the district of South Yugoslavia that was destroyed by the Americans, or the Albanians who have strong Albanian National identity, or the Bulgarians who still maintain a third part of the wider geographical area within Bulgarian territory or Greeks who lived there as subjects of the Ottomans and managed to gain their independence fighting against the Ottomans, or may be Turks who were living there during the Ottomans?

Are the national and cultural roots, the historical roots, the language and the traditions of any importance? Are the results of conflicts, and wars between countries of any importance? All these questions very recently unfolded and had to be answered. So it is important to examine the Macedonian issue in its wider perspective.

As this article is being written there has been a first step for an agreement, between FYROM, the so called Macedonia and Greece that the new name will be North Macedonia inserting a note that this country has no relation or link to Ancient Greek Macedonia, never the less it provides that there is a Macedonian Nationality and citizenship as well as a Macedonian language that leaves Greek Macedonians strongly objecting this development.

This agreement has to be ratified by a referendum in North Macedonia as well as to be voted in the Greek Parliament, where there seems to be strong opposition, in spite the international consensus from the international community, EU and NATO for obvious reasons, they have nothing to lose. Has there been a hidden agreement under which Greece is getting some rewards in view of its weak financial situation? This would consist a major violation of the Greek constitution, if ever can be proved.

Macedonian roots


Alexander’s the Great letter to Darius III:

“Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and harmed us though we had done nothing to provoke them. Me as the supreme commander of all Greeks as i have been appointed, i invaded Asia with the aim of punishing the Persians for this act, an act which must be laid wholly to your charge.”

Another statement from Alexander:

I said to them:

“Men of Athens, I give you this message in trust as a secret which you must reveal to no one but Pausanias, or else you will be responsible for my undoing. In truth I would not tell it to you if I did not care so much for all Hellas. Because as always I am a Hellene by ancient descent, and I would not be willingly to see Hellas change her freedom for slavery.

Herodotus, Histories. Greek historian – 440 BC.

Slavs and other Ethnicities, the myth of indigenous people.

Slavs,  as they did not exist  in the area  before the 6th  century AD , they tried to relate Illyrians with ancient Macedonia, that is why they  invented a myth proclaiming that Macedonians were not Greeks but were  Illyrians who invaded the area and extinguished the indigenous people integrating  the rest.

So the story insists that this is the way the Slavs inherited the culture and are the successors of the culture and the influence of the great empire of the Hellenistic period of Alexander the Great.

This approach, of bringing the myth of indigenous people, is very often used by Turkish propaganda to dilute or minimize the influence of Greeks in the greater area in the Balkans and Asia Minor. Especially for Asia Minor Turks have gone as far to confuse tourist by introducing nonexistent indigenous civilizations to replace all Greek evidence of existence, influence and languages. I quote here my personal experience, I have heard of a Turkish guide to say about the statue of Attalus, in a Turkish museum, that the inscription under the status was written in Attalian language!

Next argument that Turkey is proclaiming is that the majority of inhabitants in Macedonia were Muslims Turks who were exterminated or forced to depart during the fight for independence that was concluded during and after the Balkan wars.

The 1904 Ottoman census of Hilmi Pasha people were assigned to ethnicity according which church/language they belonged, it recorded 373,227 Greeks in the vilayet of Thessaloniki,   261,283 Greeks in the vilayet of Monastir (Vitola) and 13,452 Greeks in the villayet of Kosovo.

For the 1904 census of the 648,962 Greeks by church, 307,000 identified as Greek speakers, while about 250,000 as Slavic speakers and 99,000 as Vlachs

Hugh Poulton, in his Who Are the Macedonians, notes that «assessing population figures is problematic» for the territory of Greek Macedonia before its incorporation into the Greek state in 1913. The area’s remaining population was principally composed of Ottoman Turks (including non-Turkish Muslims of mainly Bulgarian and Greek Macedonian convert origin) and also a sizeable community of mainly Sephardic Jews  (centered in Thessaloniki), and smaller numbers of Romani Albanians and Vlachs

But even these reports are not fully presenting what has really happened during the Ottoman period.

Most of the Greeks of Macedonia had been linguistically converted to Slavonic speaking since the Middle Ages. However, they continued to retain the Greek (Romaic) identity of the Eastern Roman State (Byzantines) and denied that they were Bulgarians. Besides, «Bulgarian» did not mean a national identity but was synonymous with farmers. The Romaic’ Slavonic speech was started after the schism of the so-called Bulgarian Exarchy (1870), which was supported by the Ottoman Empire in cooperation with Tsarist Russia to stop the expansion of Hellenism to the Danube. At the same time, panslavism had a plan to maculate Macedonia to give Russians exit to Mediterranean sea.

Whichever line one decides to adopt, the fact is that Greek Macedonia was liberated by Greeks who sacrificed their lifes fighting Ottomans and Bulgarians. The result was ratified by international treaties hence preserving a continuation path between Greek Macedonia and Ancient Greek Macedonia.

During the first half of the twentieth century, major demographic shifts took place, which resulted in the region’s population becoming overwhelmingly ethnic Greek. In 1919, after Greek victory in World War I, Bulgaria and Greece signed the Treaty of Neuilly, which called for an exchange of populations between the two countries. According to the treaty, Bulgaria was considered to be the parent state of all ethnic Slavs living in Greece. Most ethnic Greeks from Bulgaria were resettled in Greek Macedonia; most Slavs were resettled in Bulgaria but a number remained, most of them by changing or adapting their surnames and declaring themselves to be Greek so as to be exempt from the exchange.[ In 1923 Greece and Turkey  signed the Treaty of Lausanne in the aftermath of the ‘Greco –Turkish War’ 1919-1922 , and in total 776,000 Greek refugees from Turkey  (674,000), Bulgaria  (33,000), Russia (61,000), Serbia (5,000), Albania (3,000) were resettled in the region.

They replaced between 300,000 and 400,000 Macedonian Turks and other Muslims (of Albanian, Roma, Slavic and Vlach ethnicity) who were sent to Turkey under similar terms.

Year Greeks Bulgarians Muslims Others Total
1913 ] 42.6%

After the Treaty of Neuilly-sur Seine  ten thousands of Bulgarians left and after the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey almost all Muslims left the region, while hundreds of thousands of Greek refugees settled in the region, thus changing the demography of the province.

Year Greeks Bulgarians Muslims Others Total
1926 League of nations data 88.8%

The 1928 Greek Census collected data on the religion as well as on the language.

Year Christians Jews Muslims Total
1928 Greek Census data


Year GREEK Slavic dialect Turkish Latino Aromanian Armenian Other Total
1928 Greek Census data

The population was badly affected by the Second World War through starvation, executions, massacres and deportations.

Central Macedonia, including Thessaloniki, was occupied by the Germans, and in the east Nazi-aligned Bulgarian occupation forces persecuted the local Greek population and settled Bulgarian colonists in their occupation zone in eastern Macedonia and western Thrace, deporting all Jews from the region. Total civilian deaths in Macedonia are estimated at over 400,000, including up to 55,000 Greek Jews. Further heavy fighting affected the region during the Greek Civil War   which drove many inhabitants of rural Macedonia to emigrate to the towns and cities, or abroad, during the late 1940s and 1950s.

Current agreement between Greece and “North Macedonia” makes no reference to 400.000 Greek inhabitants still remaining in this country.

Turkey has tried to capitalize on the conflict between Greece and “North Macedonia” encouraging the people of this country to claim the status of Macedonian ethnicity just to add another problem to Greece’s North frontiers, as well as to reduce Greek commercial and cultural investments in west Balkans.

 The history of Pontos


The Turkish point of view regarding the area of Pontus is that Greeks in Pontus were a minority which tried to establish a Greek independent state within an area where there existed a Turkish Muslim majority.

This article, is written to question whether the above statement, can justify the national cleansing that took place during the period from year 1914 to 1922.

The fact is that the Pontians, after 1461, experienced persecutions and attempts for Islamization and extortion. The decision to exterminate the Greeks (and Armenians) was taken by the New Turks in 1911, was implemented during the First World War and was completed by Mustafa Kemal in the period 1919-1923

In December 1916, Emver and Talaat, leaders of the Young Turks, designed a plan of extinction of the Pontians, «the immediate extinction of men of cities from 16 to 60 years and the general exile of all the men and women of the villages in the inland of the East with slaughter and extermination program «. Turkey’s defeat by the Entente forces brought a temporary postponement of the plan to exterminate the Greeks.
During this period atrocities were so harsh that even the Russian communists who were, at the time, supportive towards Turkey, made allegations of Turkish barbarities to Kemal Ataturk who responded:

«I know these barbarities. I am against barbarism. I have given orders to treat the Greek prisoners in a good way … You must understand our people. They are furious. Who should be accused of this? Those who want to establish a «Pontian state» in Turkey”

This is an indication of what was really taking place.

Every where we were looking corpses.jpg


The genocide of the Greeks in the Pontus was the result of the decision of the Turkish nationalists to resolve the national problem of the Ottoman Empire with the natural extermination of indigenous ethnicities. The normal future of this Empire had been bluntly described by Rosa Luxemburg: «Turkey cannot be born again as a whole because it consists of different countries. No material interest, no common development that could link them had been created! On the contrary, the oppression and the misery of joint submission to the Turkish state are becoming ever greater! This created a natural tendency for the various ethnicities to detach themselves from the whole and to seek through an autonomous existence the way for a better social development. The historic crisis for Turkey had come out: it was going to break up”.

This was the conception that West had at the time for the Ottoman Empire

Of course the situation is different today, so any reference to the past is just for historic reasons, to learn from history to resolve current problems, if possible.

The Black Book of the Pontian Central Council mentions on the genocide the following: «The massacred and in any case exterminated Greeks of the Pontus from 1914 to 1922 amount to the following numbers»: Amasia Region: 134.078, Rodopoli District: 17.479, Chaldeia Region – Kerasounta: 64,582, Neokesareia Region: 27,216, Region. Trebizond: 38,435, Cologne: 21,448: Total: 303,238 people ».

Until the spring of 1924 the Pontians’ martyrdom included another 50,000 victims, the total number of Pontians who were assassinated by March 1924 was 353,000, more than 50% of the total population of the Pontians.

The Pontian genocide forced to abandon their homes and relocate in Greece, the USSR (there were persecuted by the Stalinist regime of the interwar period) period, Iran, Syria, and elsewhere (Australia, USA).

From 1100 BC until 1923 AD, Hellenism of the Pontus was one of the most important parts of the nation. The economic recovery of Pontian Hellenism has been matched by the demographic rise.     In 1865 the Greeks of Pontus were 265,000 people     In 1880 the Greeks of the Pontus were 330,000.     Pontic Hellenism at the beginning of the 20th century numbered 600,000 people, according to estimates by the Ecumenical Patriarchate and the Ottoman authorities.     At the same time in southern Russia, in the Caucasus region, there lived about 150,000 Pontians who had moved there after the fall of Trebizond.     The main cities of Pontus were Trebizond, Kerasounta, Tripolis, Kotyora, Amisos (Samsonta), Sinope, Nikopoli, Argyroupoli and Amassia.     The area was divided into the following 6 metropolises: 1. Trebizond. 2. Rodopoli. 3. Cologne. 4. Chaldia – Kerasounta. 5. Neocaesareia and 6. Amaseia while there were 376 schools, 386 teachers and 23,600 students. Throughout the region 1,047 schools with 1,247 teachers and 75,953 pupils attended. There were also 1,131 temples, 22 monasteries, 1,647 chapels and 1,459 clergy.

Finally, for anybody who wants to learn the real history of this branch of Hellenism can access a very conclusive study in the following link:

«We were told that you will win when you submit.

We have subsided and found the ashes.

They told us you will win when you abandon-sacrifice your life.

We sacrificed our lives and we found ashes ….

It remains to revive back to life, now that we have nothing more «.

Seferis Nobel winner, Greek from Asia Minor



Δεν φαίνεται η Ελλάδα να μπορεί να χειριστεί την προσαρμογή της στην σημερινή πραγματικότητα.

Επαναλαμβάνει τα ίδια λάθη. Εξακολουθούμε να πάσχουμε από τις χρόνιες ασθένειες μεγαλοϊδεατισμού, πατριδοκαπηλίας, πολιτικαντισμου, διχόνοιας, πολιτικού αμοραλισμού και  φανατισμού. Όλα αυτά επιτρέπουν στους  άσπονδους φίλους και εχθρούς να εκμεταλλεύονται τα εθνικά μας ελαττώματα και επιπολαιότητες και να κεφαλαιοποιούν σε βάρος μας τα περισσότερα θέματα εθνικής κυριαρχίας. Βλέπε ΑΟΖ  Ελλάδας και Κύπρου, αιγιαλίτιδα ζώνη, βραχονησίδες, αποστρατικοποιημένες ζώνες, μειονότητες, Σκόπια κλπ.

Εξακολουθούμε και πιστεύουμε  ότι κάποιοι σύμμαχοι προστάτες  θα μας σώσουν από την αιώνια απειλή εξ ανατολών.

Η μάχη του Ναβαρίνου


Πόσες φορές θα υποστούμε Εθνικές καταστροφές για να βάλουμε μυαλό;

Άλλοτε είναι το.. ξανθό γένος, πόσες φορές θα μας οδηγήσουν στα μονοπάτια της ελπίδας για να μας εγκαταλείψουν στο έλεος των κινδύνων από κοινούς εχθρούς; Αυτό γίνεται από την εποχή των Ορλόφ.orlof.jpg

Άλλοτε οι Άγγλοι σύμμαχοι που μας προέτρεψαν και παίξαμε το παιχνίδι τους στην Μικρά Ασία ενώ μας πρόδωσαν δύο φορές, τόσο στην Μικρά Ασία όσο και στην Κύπρο.



Άλλοτε στην προστασία του ΝΑΤΟ που το μόνο που λένε σε σχέση με τις παραβιάσεις του διεθνούς δικαίου από την Τουρκία, ‘Βρείτε τα με την Τουρκία’. Βλέπετε η Τουρκία εξακολουθεί και να είναι μέλος της….Ατλαντικής Συμμαχίας


Άλλοτε πιστέψαμε  στο Ευρωπαϊκό κατεστημένο και την προστασία των κοινών Ευρωπαϊκών συνόρων την στιγμή που η μεγαλύτερη Ευρωπαϊκή βιομηχανική δύναμη επενδύει στην Τουρκία με περισσότερες από 70.000 επιχειρήσεις γίγαντες της Γερμανικής βιομηχανίας, ακόμα και σήμερα, προσπαθώντας να εκμεταλλευτεί την γεωπολιτική σύγκρουση των ΗΠΑ με την Τουρκία στην Ανατολική Μεσόγειο και να προσποριστεί δικά της οφέλη.


Άλλοτε στις συμμαχίες με το Ισραήλ και την Αίγυπτο που θα συμβιβαστούν μόλις τα συμφέροντα των ΗΠΑ αλλάξουν.

Τέλος πιστεύουμε στις ΗΠΑ ότι θα μας στηρίξουν εφόσον ταυτιστούμε με τα δικά τους συνολικά γεωπολιτικά και οικονομικά συμφέροντα.


Η εικόνα της Ελλάδας διεθνώς εμφανίζει μία χώρα υπερχρεωμένη, σε κατάσταση πτώχευσης με μειωμένη την αμυντική της δύναμη, με τις πολιτικές της δυνάμεις να αντιπαρατίθενται αγγίζοντας τα όρια του παραλογισμού προσπαθώντας η κάθε παράταξη να επιρρίψει τις ευθύνες στην άλλη ανάλογα με την ιδεολογική κοσμοθεωρία που πιστεύει ή εξυπηρετεί.

Αλληλοσπαράσσονται θυσιάζοντας στον βωμό της εξουσίας τα ευρύτερα και μακροχρόνια  Εθνικά συμφέροντα υπονομεύοντας ακόμα και τα θεμέλιά του δημοκρατικού πολιτεύματος.

Συνθηματολογία, σκοπιμότητα, ψεύδος, σκανδαλολογία και παρανομία έχουν γίνει τα λάβαρα της αντιπαράθεσης, παρασύροντας το κοινοβούλιο, τον διαχωρισμό των εξουσιών, την ανεξαρτησία λειτουργίας του δημοσίου, και την ελευθεροτυπία.

Αυτό το παλιό πολιτικό παιχνίδι γίνεται και πάλι μέσα στην δύνη των διεθνών στρατιωτικών πολιτικών και οικονομικών εξελίξεων που φέρνουν στην επιφάνια τόσο τα συγκρουόμενα συμφέροντα όσο και τις αδυναμίες των διεθνών οργανισμών να αντιμετωπίσουν τις διεθνείς κρίσεις.

Για την Ελλάδα η ιστορία επαναλαμβάνεται δύο διχασμοί δύο καταστροφές, μία το 22  μία την δεκαετία 40-49.


Και από τις δύο καταστροφές υπάρχουν ακόμα τα κατάλοιπα και οι γενεσιουργικές αιτίες.

Πέρα όμως και από αυτές τις καίριες αδυναμίες που διέπουν το πολιτικό μας σύστημα, δυστυχώς μας  έχουν προλάβει και οι καταιγιστικές αλλαγές που συντελούνται στην παγκόσμια οικονομία.


Δεν αρκούν πλέον οι γενικόλογες ιδεολογικές κατευθύνσεις, της μίας ή άλλης οικονομικό- πολιτικής  κοσμοθεωρίας, για την ανάπτυξη, σήμερα οι συνθήκες απαιτούν πρώτα απ’ όλα. γνώση και ικανότητα διοίκησης και διαχείρισης τόσο στον δημόσιο όσο και στον ιδιωτικό τομέα.


Σε αυτά είμαστε τελείως απροετοίμαστοι. Απλώς σκεφτείτε ότι στο δημόσιο αρνούμεθα την αξιολόγηση ενώ στον  ιδιωτικό ισχύει ακόμα η γνώμη του ενός.


Ας μην θεωρηθεί αυτό αυτονόητο γιατί οι έννοιες της απόδοσης ευθυνών είναι συνυφασμένη με την αξιολόγηση που επεκτείνεται όχι μόνο στον έλεγχο του δημοσίου υπαλλήλου και την μέτρηση της αποδοτικότητάς  του αλλά και με την απόδοση της εκάστοτε κυβέρνησης με βάση τα πεπραγμένα και υπεσχημένα.

Και εδώ φθάνουμε σε ένα καίριο σημείο ενός από τα  βασικότερα προβλήματα του Ελληνικού πολιτικού προβλήματος δηλαδή των πελατειακών σχέσεων.

Πελατειακές σχέσεις  σημαίνει απόκλιση από την εγκεκριμένη διαδικασία και την νομοθεσία που γίνεται εφικτή λόγω της έλλειψής ελέγχου της  εκτελεστικής εξουσίας.

Να γιατί η ικανότητα διοίκησης και διαχείρισης στα δημόσια πράγματα έχουν άμεση σχέση με την λειτουργία, το δίκαιο και την αποτελεσματικότητα.

Η γνώση και η ικανότητα διοίκησης δεν αποκτάται από την υιοθέτηση  και μόνο ιδεολογικών η ιδεοληπτικών θέσεων και πρακτικών.

Μερικά ακόμα χαρακτηριστικά της ικανής διοίκησης είναι η δυνατότητα προβλέψεων των εξελίξεων, η μεθοδικότητα στην υλοποίηση των προγραμμάτων και η ιεράρχηση των  προτεραιοτήτων και τέλος η προσαρμοστικότητα στις προκλήσεις που οι ταχύτατα μεταβαλλόμενες συνθήκες στην οικονομία και τις γεωπολιτικές ανακατατάξεις  διεθνώς, επιβάλουν.


Οι καταιγιστικές εξελίξεις καθιστούν ακόμα ποιο καθοριστικά τα παραπάνω χαρακτηριστικά των διοικούντων που απαιτούνται.

Αντ’ αυτού παρατηρούμε καθημερινά έξαρση στα μεγαλύτερα και μόνιμα ελαττώματα της φυλής μας, συνεχή προσήλωση στο παρελθόν, πρόσφατο και απώτερο, σαν μέθοδο διαφυγής από τα σημερινά προβλήματα.

Ποια είναι αυτά τα δεσμά που μας φυλακίζουν ακόμα στο παρελθόν;

Τι σχέση έχει το μεγαλείο του Μέγα Αλέξανδρου με την αξιοποίηση των απορριμμάτων για την εξοικονόμηση της ενέργειας; Διότι και αυτό ανοίκει στν κατηγορία των προβλημάτων που καλουμεθα σήμερα να λύσουμε.


Ποια η συμβολή του καπετάνιου πλοιοκτήτη σε ένα «start up» που του προτείνει ο εγγονός  του;  Διότι και στον ιδιωτικό τομέα καλούμεθα να προαρμοστούμε στις ταχύτατα μεταβαλόμενες συνθήκες.

Αλλά ας πάμε στα ακόμα ποιο δύσκολα, τι αντίκτυπο θα είχε στον μέσο Έλληνα η δημιουργία στρατιωτικών και αστυνομικών τμημάτων για Έλληνες Μουσουλμάνους;


Πως θα αντιμετωπίσει η Ελλάδα την πληθυσμιακή γήρανση με βάση τις σημερινές προβλέψεις ότι από 10 εκ που είναι ο πληθυσμός της Ελλάδος σήμερα θα σμυκρινθεί σε 8.5 εκ μέσα στα επόμενα λίγα χρόνια, ενώ ταυτόχρονα υπάρxει πληθυσμιακή έκρηξη στις  χώρες της Αφρικής και όχι μόνο; Ιδιαίτερα όταν οι περισσότερες χώρες της Ευρώπης έχουν εμπειρία προσαρμογής στο πρόβλημα εδώ και πολλές δεκαετίες;


Αυτοί είναι μερικοί από τους ελάχιστους προβληματισμούς που θα έπρεπε να απασχολούν τόσο τους ηγέτες όσο και τα μέσα ώστε να αφυπνίσουν και τον λαό για τα μέτρα που θα πρέπει να ληφθούν και να μην τους απασχολούν τα πρόσκαιρα και απολύτως ψηφοθηρικά ψεύδη με τα οποία καθημερινά μας βομβαρδίζουν.

Η Αρχαία Ελλάδα έλαμψε και υπάρχει σαν πρόγονος του δυτικού πολιτισμού, η σημερινή Ελλάδα σβήνει και δεν θα υπάρξει αν δεν μετεξελιχθεί με ανάπτυξη σε μία παγκόσμια οντότητα με πυρήνα τουλάχιστον των 20 συνολικά εκατομμυρίων των πανταχού Ελλήνων που θα μπορέσει να πρωτοστατίσει στην απορρόφηση τμήμα του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού που  εμφανίζεται καλλιεργώντας τις βασικές πολιτιστικές αρχές που την βοήθησαν να επιβιώσει αυτά τα 3 χιλιάδες χρόνια χωρίς απομόνωση. Αυτή θα μπορούσε να είναι και η μοναδική μας ελπίδα και μέλλον.

Ασφαλώς δεν θα μπορούσε να γίνει αυτό χωρίς βασικούς συντελεστές της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης που έχει τόσο εξωγενείς όσο και εσωγενείς παράγοντες,

Εσωγενείς όσον αφορά την παραγωγικότητα που ρόλο πέζει η διοικητική ικανότητα όσο και εξωγενείς που είναι η εκμετάλευση των πλουτοπαραγωγικών πηγών που σήμερα εμφανίζονται να υπάρχουν στον υποθαλάσιο χώρο της Ελληνικής ΑΟΖ.







The recent developments regarding the conflict between Greece and Turkey over Aegean and Cyprus and published maps for the Greek and Cyprus Exclusive EEZ. And the sea limits that are leading to serious conflicts and Casus Belli declarations of Turkey disregarding, UN resolutions even NATO directives, international law and international treaties such as Lauzanne treaty which is fundamental for the viability of this Nation, Greece and Cyprus.

Turkey is advocating that international law for the islands and sea limits and Exclusive EEZ as well as overall strategies are questionable designed to the benefit of western powers which are positioned to violate all Turkish rights and repeat the same aggressive acts with the long term intention to partition Turkey just as they have done in the beginning of the20th century, using Greece in this dirty game.

It is particularly important, mostly during this period, to expose the truth of the historical events that took place in both recent and older times that lead Greece Turkey and Cyprus to fight over these issues.

It is exactly the opposite that has happened, Turkey has been benefiting in more than one ways from western powers especially from UK which has been encouraging Turkey to acquire rights to which they have totally abandoned with international treaties.

This is why I feel obliged to bring to your attention historical facts which have been forgotten but the Greek parliament is releasing by publishing a report on Cyprus after 30 years.

For this time I attach one extract from this report covering events up to the Zurich agreement for Cyprus among UK Greece and Turkey.


 Historical background for Cyprus  Covering events that led to Zurich agreement

Translated from the File “Cyprus” published by a special committee of the Greek Parliament released after 30.years.

This report covers (geographical location of Cyprus and its extent, its adventures, its sale, during 1878, by the Turkish conquerors to England – as  an English colony – Referendum – population composition – Ethnic struggle, etc.).

Cyprus, the large island of the eastern Mediterranean, has an area of 9,851 sq. Km and its population in the period 1974 was 634,654 inhabitants, of which 519,694 (81,9%) Greek Cypriots and 114,960 (18,1%) Turkish Cypriots.

Remote, as it was from the mainland of Greece, experienced many adventures and invasions over the centuries.

One of her oldest and most marked misfortunes was when, during 448 BC, Pericles, Signed a peace with the Persians, and left her out of his claims.

At later times Cyprus passed into the hands of several and many successive invaders.

Its «privileged» position in the Eastern Mediterranean, and particularly in the Cilic Sea, near the Middle East countries, made it a target for those who aimed to expand their influence to these countries (Syria, Palestine, etc.).

In every case, however, Cyprus did not fail to watch over, with great interest, the fate and the course of Hellenism during the great days of glory (Alexander the Great), and in its turbulent falls (its descendancy under the Ottoman occupation, etc.).

This last occupation was suffered by Cyprus for three whole centuries – until 1878 – the Turkish invador held it under its barbaric occupation.

This year (1878), Turkey sold to Cyprus to Great Britain, which at that time, just nine years after Suez was opened, sought to serve its worldwide interests and aspirations to acquire territories and areas of the Eastern Mediterranean. Many more areas exploiting the strategic and geographical location of Cyprus.

According to the treaty that was signed with this sale transaction, Cyprus would still typically be under Sultan’s high sovereignty, but was essentially granted to Britain, which would be paying Turkey an amount of 88,000 pounds (approximately) a year.

This was the situation, until 1914. During the First World War, Turkey declared a war against Great Britain, which, after that, denounced the above treaty and ANNEXED Cyprus on 5.11.1914 and brought Cyprus under its own absolute dominance

Thus it came 1915.

England, seeking to achieve Greece’s participation in the war, offered union of Cyprus to Greece on 17.10.1915. The Greek government in power at that time (Alexandros Zayim’s government), supporter of the German-Hellenic friendship influenced by the Greek Royal family, refused the offer.

Thus we came to the year 1923, when the Treaty of Lausanne was signed by which Turkey explicitly recognized the annexation of Cyprus to Great Britain and so waived any right in Cyprus.

Here we have the relevant provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne:

«Article 20: Turkey declares that it recognizes the annexation of Cyprus proclaimed by the British Government on 5 November 1914″.

‘Article 21: Turkish nationals established in Cyprus on 5 November 1914 shall, as provided for by national law, obtain British citizenship, and shall consequently denounce Turkish nationality.

However, up to two years after the coming into force of this Treaty, Turkish subjects may exercise a right of option over Turkish nationality. In that case, they must leave Cyprus within 12 months, after they exercise the right of choice. »

On the basis of these agreements, Kemal Atturkur called on the Turkish Cypriots to emigrate to Turkey.

However, the response of the Turkish Cypriots to this invitation of the Turkish Nation Leader was appreciably limited.

Thus on (1.5.1925) the proclamation of Cyprus as a colony of the British Crown followed.

In the meantime, from the beginning of the 20th century, the Greek Cypriot population of the island started a motion for union of Cyprus with Greece. This motion was being promoted from the Church.

As part of this demand, many Cypriot missions arrived in London submitting relevant memoranda to the Government of Great Britain, while at the same time there were mobilizations in Cyprus with a strong presence of the Greek Cypriot youth.

England’s response to all of this was clearly and steadily negative.

The top of these mobilizations lead to the revolt of Cypriot people which started on October 17, 1931 with the publication by Bishop Kiti and MP Nicodemus Mylonas manifesto which called the People to resist the English occupation. On October 21, 1931, a large popular gathering took place in Nicosia, and Dionysios Kykkotis, the priest of Phaneromeni, waved the Greek flag, declared the revolution.

The Colonial Government, operating in a totally dictatorial manner, killed this popular revolt in a few days by bringing troops from Egypt.

England was not satisfied with this but started a series of tough administrative measures and several restrictions.

More than 2,500 citizens were jailed, several others – among whom the protagonist of the outbreak Bishop Kition and MP Nikodimos Mylonas – were deported.

The Legislative Council was abolished, the use of the Greek flag or of the Greek colors or of the Greek fighters was forbidden, and the Greek National anthem was also forbidden.

Even interventions within the Church were attempted, while the effort of de-Hellenization of education, especially the primary, was intensified.

With the suppression of the 1931 uprising, and with the taking of such hardcore meters, the long-running period of the so-called «democratic rule» of the English occupation, which began to openly dominate with an authoritarian and dictatorial net perception, ends.

During the 1940 war many Cypriot volunteers fought on the side of the allies.

During 1943, the first elections took place in Cyprus after the elections of 1931, and in 1947 the new Cypriot Governor, Lord Winters, gave the Cypriots a promise for a «more liberal and democratic regime».

In 1948, the establishment of a National Council for the promotion of the National Union struggle was decided, later the Office of the Ethnarchy, which became the executive body of the Cyprus National Government, which   continued the fight for independance..

During December 1949  Archbishop of Makarios B!,  took the initiative to hold a referendum among the Greek Cypriots. This referendum, voted by all Greek Cypriots, male and female, over the age of 16, took place on January 15, 1950, and resulted in 95.7% in favor of the union with Greece. ( 224,757 voted, of whom 215,108 were in favor of joining Greece).

The Cypriot Embassy led by The Bishop of Kyrenia Kyprianos came to Athens and filed a series of volumes of the union referendum to the  President of the Hellenic Parliament Dimitrios Gontikas.

The Greek Government at that time, (the Plastiras Government) did not  take the volumes of this referendum , considering that the time was not right for that.

During 1951,  the Greek delegation at the sixth session of the UN, held in Paris,  led by the Greek political forces of the Center Party (Plastira-Venizelos Government), presented the Cyprus issue for discussion  with Georgio Mavro and Louke Akrita,  and asked to establish  for Cyprus the process of referendum for  the application of the principle of self-determination.

Meanwhile, the Archbishop’s throne of the Church of Cyprus had changed,

Makarios II had died and was succeeded (October 1950) by the then bishop Kiti, Makarios III, who during the period 1952 to 1956 attempted a series of trips to Europe, America and Asia, presenting to the International Community the whole Cypriot issue.

At the same time, the Greek Government was trying to make petitions to England, posing the same subject.

As a result a discussion took place in the House of Commons in July 54.

At the same time the Greek Government d. 16.8.54  (The Papagos Government) appeal to the United Nations, General Assembly, with the suggestion of the New Zealand delegation and the US Consent 24.8.54, decided not to discuss it «at present».

Meanwhile, the struggle for the Union is intensifying and EOKA organization is being set up, which takes on armed action.

Strong reaction and violent measures by the British do not manage to curb the rationale of the Cypriots.

And so the struggle of the EOKA continues ever more vigorously.

Since the violent measures are not enough to overcome it, the architects of the British policy are thinking of taking «diplomatic» measures.

Thus, on 30 June 1955, they invite the Governments of Greece and Turkey to take part in a tripartite conference in London to discuss both «political and defensive issues in the Eastern Mediterranean, including Cyprus». Archbishop Makarios responded to this development, stating on 16.7.55 that if this conference were to take place, it would be a «trap intended to complicate the matter in a way that is irreparable».

Makarios’ views were not heard, and on 29.8.1955 a three-party «conference» with the Foreign Ministers of all three countries (McMilan for Great Britain, Stephan Stephanopoulou for Greece and Fatin Zorlou for Turkey) began in Lancaster House.

This tripartite conference ended its work on 7 September 1955 with the publication of a communiqué that spoke of «suspending its work».

But although the conference failed to resolve the issues of the Cyprus independence fight, but it had achieved the purpose for which the British had thought of convening it. Because with this conference they managed to bring in the  show a new interested party  for   Cyprus,   Turkey, which,  with the Treaty of Lausanne, in the most formal and categorical way,  gave up all its rights on Cyprus and thus transformed the difference that existed between the Greek Cypriots and the Government of the Creat ritain  in a Greek-Turkish dispute,  limiting themselves to a third party role (arbitrators in some way).

Following the failure of the Tripartite Conference, the then Greek Government (in the 1955 Government of Karamanlis) filed a second appeal to the UN but did not succeed in obtaining the necessary number of votes to register this appeal on the General Assembly’s agenda the UN.

Meanwhile, on 4/10/55, a quarter after the failure of the «Tripartite Conference», the government of Cyprus was entrusted by the British Government to Marshal John Harting, who was more widely known than the hard ways he had used to suppress the Kenyan liberation movement. This new Governor of Cyprus, when he assumed his duties (October 1955), submitted new proposals for «liberal self-government» to Makarios.

After this, Makarios-Harting talks followed, which failed.

Of course, the struggle of the EOKA continued and intensified, causing great damage to  Harting troops,  gaining admiration not only for the Hellenic Cypriot element for its success but mainly for the heroes that had been shown through its struggles.

On March 6, 1956, an order was issued for the capture and exile of Makarios on

Seychelles. This order was executed on 9.3.56.

The leadership of the Cypriot People is then taken over by the Bishop of Kition Anthimos, while the action of EOKA IS intensified while the British position is displaying barbaric atrocities in retaliation against the Cypriot fighters and the Cypriot people. Top manifestations of this atrocities are a great series of death sentences, carried out by the method of hanging.

On 14 July 1956 – only four months after Makarios was detained and expelled – Lord Radcliffe, who was commissioned to draft a Constitution, arrived in Cyprus for on-the-spot examination of the situation.


Lord Radcliff submitted his constitutional proposals to the British Government in November 1956, which in December 1956 communicated them to the Greek Government and Archbishop Makarios.

The Greek Government considered that these suggestions did not lead to self-determination, and with that thought they rejected them.

Makarios, moreover, refused to discuss it like any other subject, since he was still exiled.

The British Government’s appeal to the UN was followed, accusing the Greek Government of reinforcing terrorism in Cyprus.

The return of Makarios from his exile marks the beginning of new developments in the Cyprus issue.

By arriving in Athens, Makarios declares on April 17, 1957,  that he will seek self-determination of Cyprus by every means.

On July 15, 577, the then Greek Government (Karamanlis Government) filed a new appeal to the UN,  complaining to Britain about the atrocities performed against Cypriot people, and  called for the principle of self-determination to apply in Cyprus.

The decision of the Political Committee of the General Assembly, issued in December 1957, spoke of self-determination.

Although this decision of the Political Committee was voted for by the General Assembly, it was not considered to have been ratified because it did not receive the majority of the 2/3 of the members of the General Assembly required by the Regulation.

On 3.12.57, Sir Hugh Fout, who emerged as a liberal politician, replaced Marchal John Harting in the government of Cyprus. But again, the same policy was applied against EOKA and the prospects of resolving or even promoting the solution of Cyprus problem.

The new Governor of Cyprus was persistently moving within the framework of the constitutional proposals of Lord Radcliffe, while, at the same time, he also presented, as a threat, the case of the division of the island.

New proposals from the British Government were tabled in February 1958, which were rejected by the Greek Government and Makarios.

The rejection of the proposals were followed by attacks and violence by the Turks against the Greek Cypriots, for which the  Greek Government demanded an extraordinary convocation of the NATO Council, in which  denounced the Turkish violence. But the Greek Parliament, with its unanimous resolution, called for the support of the Greek Cypriot Parliament for the immediate cease of Turkish brutality.

The latest proposals for the solution of the Cypriot issue made by the British side were proposals by the British Prime Minister Makmilan.

These proposals introduced a sort of Anglo-Hellenic Turkish co-existence on the island. As in previous plans, defense, foreign policy and internal security were to stay in the hands of the British Governor.

Of course, such a plan could not be accepted by the Greek Cypriot side. Since October 1958, without the participation of the Cypriots, considerable fermentations have begun in NATO, which had as a consequence the meeting of the Prime Ministers of Greece and Turkey in Zurich and the signing of the Zurich Treaty.

But for this treaty and more generally for the whole set of conditions relating to the independence of Cyprus in the following, , chapter C of this finding.



Οι πολύπλοκες σκέψεις στην πολιτική και την οικονομία βοηθούν στην συγκάλυψη των αποτελεσμάτων μίας τακτικής, είτε αυτά είναι θετικά είτε είναι αρνητικά.

Είναι εύκολο κανείς να λαϊκίζει με τα  αυτονόητα.

Τα αυτονόητα ήταν και  η στήριξη  των αδυνάτων, ψωμί-παιδία-ελευθερία, δωρεάν παιδία και υγεία, αλλά και η δίκαιη ανακατανομή του πλούτου, ίσες ευκαιρίες σε όλους, θέσεις εργασίας σε όλους, η εργασία είναι δικαίωμα, ανεξαρτησία των εξουσιών είναι θεμέλιο της δημοκρατίας.

Τώρα προστέθηκαν και μερικά νέα όπως λιγότεροι φόροι στην μεσαία και κατώτερη κοινωνική τάξη, βελτίωση της λειτουργίας του κράτους, διαφάνεια, ανάπτυξη, επενδύσεις.

Και αναρωτιέται κανείς μα όλοι το ίδιο λένε, γιατί δεν συμφωνούν τα κόμματα; Γιατί βρισκόμαστε στις τελευταίες θέσεις στους πίνακες των Ευρωπαϊκών αλλά ακόμα και των υπολοίπων χωρών σε ότι αφορά την οικονομική κατάσταση, και το χειρότερο χωρίς εμφανείς προοπτικές βελτίωσης;

Γιατί μετά από μία προνομιακή μεταχείριση τόσο μετά τον Β Παγκόσμιο πόλεμο που βγήκαμε στο πλευρό των νικητών αλλά και με τη είσοδο στην Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, γιατί βρισκόμαστε σε αυτή την κατάσταση;

Είναι  το καπιταλιστικό σύστημα; Είναι η γεωγραφική θέση που μας καθιστά το σύνορο με την  Τουρκία που αντιπροσωπεύει την συνεχή  σύγκρουση της δύσης με την ανατολή;

Είναι οι ιστορικές καταβολές της μακροχρόνιας υποδούλωσης στον Τουρκικό ζυγό που αλλοίωσαν τα χαρακτηριστικά και την   προσωπικότητα του Έλληνα και τον μετέτρεψαν σε ένα μείγμα ανυπότακτου αναρχικού και δουλοπρεπή υποτακτικού που αναζητά την επιβίωση μέσα από την κουτοπονηριά;

Μάλλον λίγο από όλα αυτά, αλλά πιστεύω το πιο σημαντικό είναι ο διχασμός που επέφερε ο εμφύλιος. Η Ελλάδα είναι η μόνη χώρα που δεν πρόλαβε να χαρεί την νίκη και έξοδο από τον Β Παγκόσμιο πόλεμο και κατασπαράχτηκε από ένα εμφύλιο που την έκανε το μήλο της ‘Έριδος μεταξύ των δυτικών δυνάμεων και της Σοβιετικής ένωσης.

Οι περισσότεροι από τους χθεσινούς ήρωες της αντίστασης έγιναν ξαφνικά  προδότες που εκδιώχτηκαν φυλακίστηκαν ή εξορίστηκαν. Αυτές είναι πληγές που άφησαν υπολείμματα ιδεολογικά και εθνικά που μεταφέρονται στις επόμενες δύο και τρεις γενιές των Ελλήνων.

Αυτές οι πληγές δεν έχουν επουλωθεί ακόμα και κρατούν τους Έλληνες δέσμιους ενός παρελθόντος που δεν τους επιτρέπει να προσαρμοστούν στις κοινωνικές και πολιτικές συνθήκες της εποχής. Το βλέπει κανείς ξεκάθαρα με τις μεταβολές που γίνονται από την παρούσα κυβέρνηση της αριστεράς, η οποία προσαρμόζεται για λόγους επιβίωσης αλλά εξακολουθεί να ονειρεύεται τα ιδεοληπτικά της  όνειρα. Είναι μία πολύ επικίνδυνη μεταστροφή γι’ αυτό παρατηρεί κανείς αντιφατικές συμπεριφορές και αποφάσεις.

Χαρακτηριστικά στοιχεία αποτελούν οι ανοχές στις παράνομες ομάδες τύπου Ρουβικώνα, στο Πανεπιστημιακό Άσυλο, την έννοια της αριστείας. στην εφαρμογή φορολογικών μέτρων που στηρίζει την επιδοματική πολιτική αντί την καθαρά αναπτυξιακή που επιτυγχάνει σταθερότερα και πιο μόνιμα αποτελέσματα, μπερδεύουν την έννοια της  ισότητας με ανταμοιβή της αποτελεσματικότητας, της ομαδικότητας  με την πρωτοβουλία. Τέλος απεχθάνονται κάθε μορφή αξιολόγησης.

Γενικά προτάσσουν την ανακατανομή πλούτου πριν την παραγωγή του.

Μία τελείως αντιπαραγωγική διαδικασία που οδηγεί στην πτώχευση κάθε οικονομίας.


Το παγκάκι 3.jpg


Σε ένα ξύλινο παγκάκι,

καθισμένος ένας γέρος προβληματίζεται.

Το παγκάκι είναι φθαρμένο.

Φθαρμένο και το χέρι που με νεύμα με καλεί.

Τι θέλει άραγε να  πει;

Ένας γέρος μόνος ατενίζει, απορεί.

Κάτι θέλει να μου πει.

Που κοιτά μ ’αυτό το βλέμα το θαμπό ;

Την  φθορά της φύσης καλά γνωρίζει, αυτή ανανεώνεται, σκέπτεται και ελπίζει.

Τον χειμώνα ακολουθεί η άνοιξη, η ανανέωση, η αναγέννηση.

Ο χειμώνας;  Χειμέρια  νάρκη; Αναμονή του τέλους;  Αναμονή της αναγέννησης;

Τι αντίφαση της φύσης με την ζωή του!

Η ομορφιά της φύσης δεν χάθηκε, το ίδιο όμορφα ρέει το ρυάκι,

Το ίδιο όμορφα ακούγεται ο φλοίσβος του κύματος που σκάει,

Ο δρόμος του φεγγαριού στην θάλασσα. η ευωδιά του πεύκου η πληθώρα των ήχων της φύσης.

Η ομορφιά δεν χάνεται και όμως ο γέρος θλίβεται, δεν χαίρεται.

Έλα, το νεύμα του καλεί, νομίζει ότι κατάλαβε.

Τι είναι ο χειμώνας;

Έλα και άκουσε προσεκτικά:

Η ανανέωση είναι νόμος της φύσης για την ύλη, μην παρασύρεσαι, δεν αφορά την ανθρώπινη σου φύση , την ζωής σου και τον θανάτο.

Η χειμέρια νάρκη ή ο Θάνατος ελλοχεύει μέσα στον ατομισμό σου και στην απομόνωσή σου.

Μοιράσου και μπορείς ακόμα ν ‘απολαύσεις την φύση  την τέχνη, την μουσική την διανόηση, μες στον  χειμώνας σου.

Μόνο το μοίρασμα που η Αγάπη και Ο Έρωτας σε κάνει ακόμα να απολαμβάνεις την ομορφιά της φύσης και της ύπαρξης που είναι διάχυτη παντού.

Είσαι νεκρός αν είσαι μόνος, αν δεν αγαπάς και δεν μοιράζεσαι.. Τον δικό σου χειμώνα δεν θα διαδεχτεί  η άνοιξη.



The result of the public referendum from Skopje (FYROM) generates some interesting but also contradictory conclusions.

It indicates how deep the nationalistic roots are in this country, how much pride they derive from the ancient Greek history that makes them forget their own origin, their roots, their history their language.


They denounce the fact that Greece in ancient times consisted of different city states but they did share the same language, the same religion, the same nationality, the same culture, the same love for art and philosophy.  They united to fight the same enemies and they considered their civilization superior to all foreign races and nations. They declared, “Every non Greek was a Barbarian”. This conviction kept them together, Athenians, Spartans, Corinthians, Aeolis, Dorians, Ionians, Cretans, Lesbians etc

They admired and shared the same teachers like Aristotle, Socrates, Plato and Hippocrates from Samos Island, the same Historians like Homer and statesmen like Solon. They united under Alexander the Great against the mighty Persian Empire and conquered the world spreading around the Greek spirit and civilization.

What a glamour this story gives, even Slavs, Vlachs, Bulgarians and Albanians could unite to inherit part of this story.

Serbs’ ancestors settled in the Balkans somewhere in 6th and 7th century, according to the Byzantine sources. Serbs came to South Yugoslavia in similar times and assimilated with the indigenous people who lived there. Montenegrins – same time period. Croats lived in the territory that was a subject of rivalry between the Franks and Byzantine Empire, yet they united in 10th century. Slovenes in the second half of 6th century. Bosnians settled in similar period, Bulgarians as well.

Tito was very clever to sow seeds of this story to make the inhabitants of this mixture of nationalities, in the area, feel as successors of this proud past while at the same time the story was serving his plans to expand in North Greece and get access to Aegean Sea.


He almost forgot the Greek minority in Monastir area, a minority for which, even today, nobody talks about.

So the area of a district that used to belong to Ancient Macedonia, a City state of Greece, gives the inhabitants of this, although have nothing to do with Ancient Macedonians, who were pure Greeks, to claim Macedonian nationality living aside Greek Macedonians who have the right to claim that they are  the real successors of Ancient.

All this conflict that remains for more than 75 years, could have been solved with the name of the country to be North Macedonia and the nationality to be North Macedonians the same like New Zealand. One cannot understand the insistence of Macedonian nationality that is hiding irredentist aspirations.

The Times report that Greece has so far opposed any reference to the term «Macedonia» in the name of the country, pointing out that Alexander the Great had no relationship with FYROM and that the Skopje government was appropriating the Greek hero, perhaps by looking at territorial claims.

It is really a pity that that these two countries Greece and FYROM cannot find a solution that will help both to improve their future.

The fact is that both countries are victims of conflicting interests derived from previous years, when FYROM and the Greek part of Macedonia was the center of fights and claims between Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, Turkey and USSR.

Now the conflict has been extended to include EU, NATO, Turkey, Albania, Greece and USA.

The result of the recent referendum is being considered as a success of Russian influence that is stopping the entry of FYROM in NATO and EU. It is also to the benefit of Turkey which is always taking advantage to promote its own commercial and military interests

Especially during recent developments that challenge the relationship between Turkey and USA the outcome of the public referendum gives a better opportunity for Turkey to take advantage of the situation destabilizing further the relationships of Turkey with Greece and West. Yet it Greece is becoming a strong hold for USA which is expanding its military basis in the area.

Politics is coming back to the Balkans and Greece is becoming a central point of conflict between East and West.

Russia is threatening that they will exercise veto in the security council of UN for the acceptance of FYROM under the name North Macedonia, but this in no way an issue that comes under the responsibility of the Security council of UN .

Turkey is also objecting the agreement signed between Greece and FYROM in Prespes and they recognize FYROM under their constitutional name Macedonia. What else one may expect from Turkey? They would always stay against Greece’s interests.

Turkey is going through a period with its worst relationship with West , mostly with  USA.

Germany is trying to protect its financial interests as they have significant investments in Turkey, but they cannot bridge the gap all the way. The distance Turkey  is taking from the European ways and regulations keep these two countries apart.

islamic clash.jpg

Turkey is also playing a double game, they maintain contact with Europe while they are also shifting towards Russia and China, not to mention Iran while they stay a NATO member, a very delicate position to maintain for long.

Turkey is also trying to establish a status quo in both Aegean and Cyprus regarding Mediterranean Sea and exploration rights. We can hear Erdogan advocating the famous Turkish statement, “Kazan-Kazan” which means “win-win”, everyone would agree with such statement but when Turkey speaks of “win –win” what they really mean is something like “karagkiozis” statement: “What is mine is mine and what is yours is 50% mine”. The following graph indicates the six miles limit set on Greek islands in Aegean Sea.


Greece has enough experience in negotiations with Turkey, this is why they would never negotiate directly with them, this is why Turks are afraid that Greece will always bring other western powers to such negotiations, hence the Greek boarders become EU boarders, and their interests become EU and USA interests. The following map indicates the real  conflict of interest with Cyprus where Turkey is denying the right for Cyprus, an UN and EU member to be an independent nation with its own AOZ. This is the risk that can cause a real war.

aoz-kypros-oikopedo-7-630x359 (1).jpg

Ankara’s recent statement that they will start explorations in  Cypriot AOZ caused the decision of the Cypriot cabinet to invite companies to express interest to receive authorization for explorations   bloke  7. of Cyprus AOZ


nazim xikmet.jpg


Culture and art may bridge the gap and bring us closer.

I would say, along with their art works, memories remain enriched with some of the most intense forms of art that include both poetry and music which  help to bring out the best out of human beings. 

Generations are defined by arts they create. .

Technology and science certainly grow exponentially with no limit which no one can predict the impact it will have on humanity.

But art is timeless, similar  emotion are experienced when  reading ancient love poems from Lesbos Island, by Sappho (620 B.C),  ancient tragedies by Sophocles (Electra, 410 B.C.) with emotions experienced when reading later or contemporary writers and  poets such as of Victor Hugo,  le misserables, 1862 ), Shakespeare Amlet 1564 , Elytis Greek poet for Aegean,  Nobel winner 1979, Seferis Greek from Smyrna Literature Nobel winner 1963 , without necessarily dealing with the same subject.

I wish we could also listen to music from all corners of the earth and from different periods.

I am also similarly touched when reading   texts of Nasyid – Ahmed Bukhatir or Nazim Hikmet or listening to music by Manos Loizos on poems from the alboom  «Letters to the beloved», written in Prousa prison, by Nazim Hikmet

 This poetry, combined with Music composed by Manos Loisos and the translation from Ritsos, constructs bridges to cover great distances in time, as well as distances among nations, even differences in  political convictions and different points of view.

These art creations bring closer, friends with enemies, freedom fighters with  dictators, judges with convicts, oppressed with oppressors.

Yet, how can I bridge the gaps, or compromise between fundamental human differences, in values and approaches, such as  sentiment and logic, love and self-sacrifice, love for one’s country and globalization reality, love and pain of disappointment, purity and compromise? Fanaticism and faith?   Mediocrity and excellence? Equality and Diversity?  A Left-wing populist idealist and an unsuspecting naive democrat?

How can I differentiate between Nazim Hikmet, an unconventional political extremist and Dionysios Solomos, a leading, but conventional national poet? Or Beethoven a giant composer in Classical music  and Vamvakaris, an original composer of rebellious music?

How do I compromise between fighting spirit for independence and the conformity of a middle class individual?

 In the end, only the creations that a person have managed to deliver to society will remain. 

You need to listen to the poems Nazim Hikmet wrote during his imprisonment.

All of us, sooner or later will depart from this world, but if we leave something behind, such as Mano’s music and Nazim’s poetry, that will be enough.

A quote in Turkish follows, that is not an exact translation, probably because the famous Greek poet Ritsos was influenced by Nazim’s real story and wanted to pass his own personal message.

Bugün pazar.
Bugün beni ilk defa güneşe çıkardılar.
Ve ben ömrümde ilk defa gökyüzünün
bu kadar benden uzak
bu kadar mavi
bu kadar geniş olduğuna şaşarak
kımıldamadan durdum.
Sonra saygıyla toprağa oturdum,
dayadım sırtımı duvara.
Bu anda ne düşmek dalgalara,
bu anda ne kavga, ne hürriyet, ne karım.
Toprak, güneş ve ben…

Greek composer Manos Loizos regarded his music composition for Nazim’s album of poems «Letters to my beloved», translated in Greek by Yiannis Ritsos, as his top life work..


 Note: This post caused some reactions in the F / B that highlights some of the political and cultural dimensions. In particular, I find interesting the remarks made by Sukan Gurkaynak a Turkish friend in f/b, who said :

“I think Greek is more poetic than Turkish. That is why good Turkish poetry is in Persian or the persianised Ottoman language”

That puzzles me. How can I explain to Sukan that the first historical and literary works from antiquity, more than 3,000 years ago, were poetic like the works Iliad and Odyssey of Homer, where even the written and spoken words of the ancient Greek language had vowels that emphasized the rhythm and poeticism of the speech itself, (Short and long vowels )  This is also an indication of the level of superiority of the language, indicating cultural depth as well as the influence and contribution that the Greek language had to global cultural diversity and evolution.

Discussion in f/b reflecting political implications :

Sukan Gurkaynak Atatürk put him in jail because he was producing propaganda for Stalin.

Nick Kouzos I understand but this is the point .I am trying to make. I am anything else. but a communist. I am trying to pass a message over and above politics, Nationalism and conflicts that made the 20th century a hell to live in. I am not a supporter of his ideology still his poetry is very sensitive. We need to overcome our enemies. I will translate my comments from  Greek.

Sukan Gurkaynak Nick Kouzos The Stalin he loved invaded Poland. The NKVD murdered 15000 officers of the Polish army. He was producing propaganda for those people. So the Turkish officers put

Nick Kouzos I totally agree with you but still Comunists are a legal party in Greece. I am not a supporter of Stalin and I am totally against Stalin-ism but Nazim was a poet, most Greek poets are leftist and a lot are communists, not Stalinists.

Sukan Gurkaynak Nick Kouzos The Turkish left never understood what was wrong with Stalinism. After the Russians gave up they started calling themselves liberals, some like former (communist) labor party MP Cetin Altan claiming that was the same thing as Stalinism. Most of them are idiots including Nazim. I know his grand nephew, forget the family.

Sukan Gurkaynak Nick Kouzos There is a fascist Turkish poet Kisakürek. A nut. Erdogan loves him. they name all possible things after him. Forget most poets. They are people who cannot make money in a decent job.

Nick Kouzos I agree in a political sense and I am against Fascists as well but I love poetry

Sukan Gurkaynak I think Greek is more poetic than Turkish. That is why good Turkish poetry is in persian or the persianised Ottoman language.

Nick Kouzos I understand.

Nick Kouzos Nazim was finally executed, wasn’t he?

Sukan Gurkaynak Nick Kouzos No. He was released from jail and went to Moscow. he lived there until his natural death in 1963. His grave is in a Moscow  cemetery.



nazim xikmet.jpg

Θα έλεγα μαζί με τα κείμενα μένουν οι αναμνήσεις που επενδύονται με τις ποιο έντονες μορφές  τέχνης που είναι τόσο η ποίηση όσο και η μουσική.

Οι γενιές χαρακτηρίζονται από τις τέχνες που δημιούργησαν και αφήνουν πίσω τους αφού φύγουν.

 Η τεχνολογία και οι επιστήμες  ασφαλώς αναπτύσσονται εκθετικά και κανείς δεν μπορεί να προβλέψει τις επιπτώσεις που θα έχουν στον άνθρωπο. Ούτε και τα όρια της εξέλιξης που θα επιφέρουν .

Η τέχνη όμως είναι διαχρονική, την ίδια συγκίνηση αισθάνεται ο άνθρωπος διαβάζοντας κείμενα  της Σαπφώ, η των αρχαίων τραγωδών με τα σύγχρονα κείμενα του Ούγκο, η του Σαίξπηρ, του Ελύτη και του Σεφέρη, χωρίς κατ’ ανάγκη να πραγματεύονται το ίδιο θέμα.

Μακάρι να είχαμε και την δυνατότητα να ακούσουμε και την μουσική από όλες τις   γωνιές της  γης και τις διαφορετικές περιόδους.

Με συγκινούν ταυτόχρονα τα κείμενα και η μουσική του Nasyid – Ahmed Bukhatir η του Nazim Hikmet με μουσική Μανου Λοϊζου

‘Γράμματα στην αγαπημένη, μέσα από την φυλακή της Προύσας, Ναζιμ Χικμετ

Μονάκριβή μου ἐσὺ στὸν κόσμο
μοῦ λὲς στὸ τελευταῖο σου γράμμα:
«πάει νὰ σπάσει τὸ κεφάλι μου, σβήνει ἡ καρδιά μου,
Ἂν σὲ κρεμάσουν, ἂν σὲ χάσω θὰ πεθάνω».

Θὰ ζήσεις, καλή μου, θὰ ζήσεις,
Ἡ ἀνάμνησή μου σὰν μαῦρος καπνὸς
θὰ διαλυθεῖ στὸν ἄνεμο.
Θὰ ζήσεις, ἀδελφή με τὰ κόκκινα μαλλιὰ τῆς καρδιᾶς μου
Οἱ πεθαμένοι δὲν ἀπασχολοῦν πιότερο ἀπό ῾να χρόνο
τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοῦ εἰκοστοῦ αἰώνα.

Ὁ θάνατος
Ἕνας νεκρὸς ποὺ τραμπαλίζεται στὴν ἄκρη τοῦ σκοινιοῦ
σὲ τοῦτον ῾δῶ τὸ θάνατο δὲν ἀντέχει ἡ καρδιά μου.
Μὰ νά ῾σαι σίγουρη, πολυαγαπημένη μου,
ἂν τὸ μαῦρο καὶ μαλλιαρὸ χέρι ἑνὸς φουκαρᾶ ἀτσίγγανου
περάσει στὸ λαιμό μου τὴ θηλειὰ
ἄδικα θὰ κοιτᾶνε μὲς στὰ γαλάζια μάτια τοῦ Ναζὶμ νὰ δοῦν τὸ φόβο.
Στὸ σούρπωμα τοῦ στερνοῦ μου πρωινοῦ
θὰ δῶ τοὺς φίλους μου καὶ σένα.
Καὶ δὲ θὰ πάρω μαζί μου κάτου ἀπὸ τὸ χῶμα
παρὰ μόνο τὴν πίκρα ἑνὸς ἀτέλειωτου τραγουδιοῦ.

Γυναίκα μου
Μέλισσά μου μὲ τὴ χρυσὴ καρδιὰ
Μέλισσά μου μὲ τὰ μάτια πιὸ γλυκὰ ἀπ᾿ τὸ μέλι
Τί κάθησα καὶ σοῦ ῾γραψα πὼς ζήτησαν τὸ θάνατό μου.

Αυτή, η ποίηση μαζί με την Μουσική Λοϊζου γεφυρώνει τις αποστάσεις του χρόνου, των Εθνών μεταξύ τους, και των διαφορετικών επιλογών πολιτικής. Αυτά τα λόγια ενώνουν τους αγωνιστές με τους δικτάτορες, τους δικαστές με τους κατάδικους, τους καταπιεσμένους με τους δυνάστες.

Αλλά πώς να γεφυρώσω την απόσταση του συναισθήματος από την λογική, της αγάπης από την αυτοθυσία, της φιλοπατρίας από την διεθνοποίηση, της θυσίας  από την λογική; Του φυσικού θανάτου από την τεχνική παράταση της ζωής; Του έρωτα από τον πόνο της απογοήτευσης, της καθαρότητα από τον συμβιβασμό; Tου φανατισμού από την πραγματική πίστη; Της αγνής μετριότητας από την αριστεία; Της ισότητας από την διαφορετικότητα; Του αριστερού λαικού ιδεαλιστή από τον μικροαστό ανυποψύαστο και αφελή δημοκράτη;

Τον  ΝαζΊμ Χικμέτ από τον Διονύσιο Σολομό ; Τον Μπετόβεν από τον Βαμβακάρη;

Της αγωνιστικότητας από την συμβατικότητα.

Στο τέλος μένουν μόνο τα κείμενα και τα έργα που κατάφερες να κάνεις, αυτά θα μείνουν, μαζί με τους…. Οκτώ πραξικοπηματίες φυγάδες που διέφυγαν από την Τουρκία κατα το πραξηκόπημα! Πρέπει να ακούσετε τα ποιήματα του Ναζιμ Χικμετ, είναι επίκαιρο.

Όλοι φεύγουμε νωρίς, αν όμως αφήσουμε κάτι, σαν τον Μάνο και τον Ναζίμ, αυτό είναι αρκετό.

Ένα απόσπασμα στα Τουρκικά που όμως δεν είναι ακριβής μετάφραση, πιθανώς ο Ρίτσος να είχε επιρεαστεί από την πραγματική ιστορία:

Bugün pazar.
Bugün beni ilk defa güneşe çıkardılar.
Ve ben ömrümde ilk defa gökyüzünün
bu kadar benden uzak
bu kadar mavi
bu kadar geniş olduğuna şaşarak
kımıldamadan durdum.
Sonra saygıyla toprağa oturdum,
dayadım sırtımı duvara.
Bu anda ne düşmek dalgalara,
bu anda ne kavga, ne hürriyet, ne karım.
Toprak, güneş ve ben…

Μάνος Λοϊζος θεωρούσε ως έργο ζωής του τον δίσκο Γράμματα στην αγαπημένη, με μελοποιημένα ποιήματα του Ναζίμ Χικμέτ σε ελληνική απόδοση του Γιάννη Ρίτσου.

Ο Ναζίμ Χικμετ τελικά απελευθερώθηκε από τις Τουρκικές φυλακές και αναχώρισε για την Μόσχα όπου έζησε μέχρι το 1963 οπότε πέθανε από φυσικό θάνατο. Ετάφει στο νεκροταφείο της Μόσχας.


Σημείωση: Η ανάρτηση αυτή προξένησε ορισμένες αντιδράσεις στο F/B που υπογραμμίζει μερικές από τις πολιτικές και πολιτισμικές διαστάσεις. Ιδιαίτερα βρίσκω ενδιαφέρουσα την παρατήρηση του  Sukan Gurkaynak  που λέει ότι: “I think Greek is more poetic than Turkish. That is why good Turkish poetry is in Persian or the persianised Ottoman language”

Αυτό με προβληματίζει. Πώς να εξηγήσω στον Sukan ότι τα πρώτα ιστορικά και λογοτεχνικά κείμενα από την αρχαιότητα, πάνω από 3.000 χρόνια παλαιότερα, ήταν ποιητικά όπως η Ιλιάδα και η Οδύσσεια του Ομήρου και μάλιστα ακόμα και η γραφή και ομιλία της αρχαίας Ελληνικής γλώσσας είχε φωνήεντα που τόνιζαν την ρυθμικότητα και ποιητικότητα της ίδιας της ομιλίας, (Βραχέα και μακρά φωνήεντα ). Είναι και αυτό μία ένδειξη της επιρροής στην παγκόσμια πολιτισμική διαφορετικότητα.    

 Παραθέτω αμιγή την ανταλλαγή των αντιπαραθέσεων στο  f/b:

Sukan Gurkaynak Atatürk put him in jail because he was producing propaganda for Stalin.

Nick Kouzos I understand but this is the point .I am trying to make. I am anything else. but a communist. I am trying to pass a message over and above politics, Nationalism and conflicts that made the 20th century a hell to live in. I am not a supporter of his ideology still his poetry is very sensitive. We need to overcome our enemies. I will translate my comments in Greek.

Sukan Gurkaynak Nick Kouzos The Stalin he loved invaded Poland. The NKVD murdered 15000 officers of the Polish army. He was producing propaganda for those people. So the Turkish officers put him in jail. His god Stalin would have had him shot!

Nick Kouzos I totally agree with you but still Comunists are a legal party in Greece. I am not a supporter of Stalin and I am totally against Stalin-ism but Nazim was a poet, most Greek poets are leftist and a lot are communists, not Stalinists.

Sukan Gurkaynak Nick Kouzos The Turkish left never understood what was wrong with Stalinism. After the Russians gave up they started calling themselves liberals, some like former (communist) labor party MP Cetin Altan claiming that was the same thing as Stalinism. Most of them are idiots including Nazim. I know his grand nephew, forget the family.

Sukan Gurkaynak Nick Kouzos There is a fascist Turkish poet Kisakürek. A nut. Erdogan loves him. they name all possible things after him. Forget most poets. They are people who cannot make money in a decent job.

Nick Kouzos I agree in a political sense and I am against Fascists as well but I love poetry

Sukan Gurkaynak I think Greek is more poetic than Turkish. That is why good Turkish poetry is in persian or the persianised Ottoman language.

Nick Kouzos I understand.

Nick Kouzos Nazim was was finally executed, wasn’t he?

Sukan Gurkaynak Nick Kouzos No. He was released from jail and went to Moscow. he lived there until a natural death in 1963. He is in a Moscow cemetery.