Archives for category: Επικαιρότητα -Current Affairs

 

pontic_steppe_region_around_650_ad.png

INTRODUCTION

It is obvious that discussions or even negotiations between representatives of opposing sides coming from East and West cannot help but reflect the conflicts of two different worlds and their historic evolution.

It is inevitable that each side will try to interpret events and facts that have taken place during different periods in history to defend each other’s point of view, especially when we go through major evolutionary changes due to major conflicts between national powers which maintained different cultures and religions which have played important roles.

In order to arrive at a credible evaluation and conclusions one requires patience and deep investigation of reports of historians and make such investigations with no prejudice, as much as possible.

It is almost impossible to investigate and derive totally impartial conclusions about the influence that major civilizations had on human history especially if the periods we are trying to investigate include vast periods that start from the Hellenistic times, pass through Roman, Byzantine times, Arab expansion into Europe, Ottoman expansion from Asia to Africa and Europe, periods that included also large number migrations of mostly North European and Asian tribes  which took place in waves, mainly among 6th and 11th century.

These migrations evolved to the rise of Balkan and other areas, states which naturally conflicted with indigenous populations existing for thousands of years, which tried to maintain their local culture, rights to their land, religion and traditions.

barbarian ivations.jpg

The coexistence among new comers and indigenous populations resulted in mutual exchange of cultures, religions and traditions. This exchange in some cases  influenced new comers or the other way arround, from more advanced civilizations that had been established in previous years, except in cases where the ivadors applied strong military forces.

It seems that each Empire, as it was expanding, from Alexander the Great, to Romans, Byzantines, Arabs, and Ottomans tried to do the same thing, using their military or caltural assets. which were different each time. In every case the same denominator had always been military strength and power.

Byzantium, an empire that had mainly conveyed Greek culture and national identity, became the vehicul that accepted and distributed Christian religion, survived for 1000 years against attacks from every side, East and West, North and South, during medieval periods.

So, understanding the Byzantines can bring us closer to understand the historical background of the conflict between East and West and certainly appreciate the conflict between Turkey and Greece, as well as the conflict between Christianity and Islam.

Rome was not effected, Konstandinouple and Geece was mostly effected.

Byzantine was a part of Roman Empire that broke out from the Western Roman part and survived ruling over numerous national entities, especially during the centuries of great migrations  defending against raids from many tribes that gradually formed new states arround it as well as survived attacks from ancient nations such as Persians and Arabs.

Among the new states that were formed some survived and others disappeared. An example of a state that disappeared is the Eastern Franky Empire of the Great Moravia of Croats and Serbs who continuously formed different alliances that failed.

Further tribes that formed various temporary states include the «Chazars», a  semi nomadic Turkish or Touranic group which was a family of various nomadic tribes from Mongolia and South Eastern Siberia which were migrating, in waves, during medieval period,  mainly between 6th and 11th century.

They were speaking some ancient Turkish dialects which later evolved to modern Turkish versions. Their religion was “Samanism” worshiping God Tengri the God of the “blue sky”. The majority of these populations, especially the ones which moved south, adopted Islam under Arab and Persian influence which had already been converted to Islam, a vigurus new religion inspiring and encuraging expamsion.

The meeting of Turks with militand tradition with Arab  civilasation and Islam generated the power that confronted Byzantines and West.

During the period of their migration, some Turkish tribes stretched along   a huge area from Asia Minor and the Black Sea to the coasts of the Arctic Ocean, establishing their own state structures, controlling the trade routes between Europe, Persia and China. Most of them were short-lived and over the centuries they were annexed by stronger kingdoms (Russia, Georgia, and China), some survived and created the foundation of six currently existing states: Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Turkey, and Turkmenistan.

Bulgarians were also of Turkish origin, but after settling in the Balkans (late 7th century), although they dominated the state they created, they were influenced by Slavs to the extent that the only Turkish caracteristic they held was their name, “Bulgarians”

The Turkish tribes should not be confused with the modern Turkish nation, the second is just a branch of the original tribes. The new Turkish state is implementing a policy of reunifying all these states as a nation or the same ethnicity under the Muslim religion.

In spite of this migration that compares with migrations of other tribes such as Serbs  and other including Germanic and Norwegian tribes,  the core of indigenous population, and administration of the Byzantines was of Greek national identity by far, in spite of internal population shifts that were taking place, from time to time, as new tribes and races were appearing.

The most recent and controversial situation discussed today is Macedonia, which eventually became  a region of Ottoman Empire, as most Balkan regions including Mainland Greece, the Aegean Islands, Thrace and Cyprus became.

The original indigenous population in Macedonia was Greek with populations remaining in the area from raids that took place from various entities including Venetians from Western attempts to acquire parts of Greece, the islands and Crete, Slavs, Bulgarians, Romanians, Turks and Arabs, Albanians etc.

The Byzantine Army was strong enough to stand up and oppose attacks from most raids for more than 1000 years.

It is worth making historic references to Macedonia if one wants to understand how and why Macedonian populations maintained their Greek national identity, in spite all tribal population movements during medieval period

Macedonia during Roman period.

The Battle of Pydna, in 168 BC, constituted the most decisive battle of the Third Macedonian War (171-168 BC), a battle that marked the demise of the Macedonian kingdom and opened the way for the conquest of Greece by the Romans.

Macedonia during Byzantine period

The Macedonian Dynasty (867-1081 AD)

The era of the Macedonian dynasty is divided into two uneven periods, in terms of importance and duration. The first period lasted from 867 until 1025, the year of the death of the Byzantine Emperor Basil II, while the second and short period lasted from 1025 until 1056, when Queen Theodora, the last member of this dynasty, died.

There is no question about the existence of Greek population during the period of Macedonian Dynasty

The struggle in the East and the North with the Arabs, Bulgarians and Russians was crowned by the brilliant success of the Byzantine army in the last 50 years of the 10th and early 11th centuries. This was done despite the failures at the end of the 9th and early 10th centuries. The triumph of Byzantium was great, especially during the times of Nikephoros Fokas and John Tsimiskis, in order to reach its peak during the reign of Basil II. At the time of the latter, the separatist movements of Asia Minor were suppressed, Byzantium’s influence in Syria was strengthened, Armenia was partially annexed by the Empire, and partly became Byzantine, Bulgaria changed to Byzantium and Russia, taking Christianity from Byzantium, has gained closer religious, political, commercial and cultural relations with the Empire.

The Macedonian Dynasty was accused and persistently denied that it was Greek Macedonia but instead propaganda insisted that it was controlled by Armenian Emperors, therefore non-Greeks.

All of this Dynasty was presented, by propaganda, as Armenian because of its alleged origin. The joke of the whole hypothesis is that Basil I the Macedonian (not Basil II Bulgaroctonos),  who  was declared Macedonian,  was born in Thrace from Greek parents and not in Armenia

Nor is the  allegation true that the Macedonian dynasty was of Slavic origin, since the war conflicts within almost all of the Empire, with the Slavic tribes, were known to be very serious.

The maps show Bulgarian or Serb acquisitions in the general area in the Balkans are the descriptions of locations referring to raids that gave names to locations that were occupied for small periods that were later recaptured from the Byzantine armies. This, inevitably, created mixed populations areas that eventually created new indigenous populations. Many Slavs were absorbed by Byzantines to a degree that in some cases Slavs became Byzantine Emperors.

Bulgaria-Ivan_Asen_2.png

The reality was that the basic Greek culture survived and maintained a dominant position within the Byzantine Empire that influenced most of nationalities that existed within the Empire. Many Slavs that setle in areas of Greece were totally absorbed by the locals over the years the same way Bulgarians were absorbed by Slavs.

This, together with Christianity, that merged with Greek language and culture helped to distribute both Christianity and Greek culture to extend that Slavic populations and Slavic states, including Russia were strongly influenced.

A most striking evidence is the creation of Cyrillic alphabet.

It is known that Cyrillos and Methodius two Greek Monks from Thessaloniki   created the Slavic alphabet, on which the Russian-language alphabet was based.

It is, however, important to clarify how Slavs and Bulgarians appeared, and how the two Greek Monks, who became Saints, ended up influencing, so significantly, the course of Slavic history including Russia and Bulgaria.

THE SLAVIC ADVANCEMENT IN BALKANS AND ASIA MINOR

In the last 50 years of the 6th century, the Slavs after their arrival were not only plundering the Balkan possessions of the Byzantine Empire but also reached Chanak Cale (Hellespontos), Thessaloniki, Southern Greece and the coasts of the Adriatic Sea, where many of them settled.

The Avaro-Slavic ( Avars was a nomadic tribe of warriors  from Euro Asia of Altaic mountains-Turkish origin) invasion against the Byzantine capital took place in 626 AD, while Thessaloniki was besieged by Slavic tribes, which brought the city into a very difficult position.

Avars.jpg

At the same time the Slavs descended to the Aegean Sea striking with their ships the Byzantine fleet and often cutting off the capital’s supplies for food.

The oldest references to the Slavs appear in Byzantine documents of the early 6th century.

At the time of the Great Migrations (5th-6th century AD) the Slavic people began to claim the eastern European area. These migrations were completed by the late 8th century AD.

According to historical sources, there are three main migratory streams: a) the first one took place in the second half of the 4th century: because of the demographic increase, their first migrations were to the east where they settled among the native peoples; b) is associated with the invasion of the Avars (The Avars are a Northeast Caucasian native ethnic group who are the predominant of several ethnic groups living in the Russian republic of Dagestan). in the 5th century AD. The Slavs traveled west and central Europe from the Alps to the Baltic Sea, replacing several German tribes; c) the third migratory stream moved southwards into the Balkans and Byzantium.

At the beginning of the 8th century AD more than ten major associations of Slavic tribes were created in the territory of Eastern Europe, which were no longer based on their racial qualities, but slowly advanced to the creation of states.

The diversification of the levels of growth and strength of the various peoples  led to intense conflicts.

This was due to the instability of the newly formed states.

This situation gave the Varangians (a name given by Greeks to Vikings) the opportunity to invade their lands and intervene in their affairs.

varangian.gif

At that time, the Varangians were already known in Western Europe either as robbers or as capable merchants-sailors. The Goran-Normans also came to the territories of the Slavic areas, where they tried to enslave and impose taxes on the Slavic tribes.

These contacts of the Varangian Slavs played a decisive role in the creation of Russia of Kiev.

The Eastern Slavs were the dominant group along the central axis from Russia to Kyev to Novgorod, at least until 800 AD, and continued to move north and east, settling in new lands.

In 862 AD, one of the few manuscripts was found describing the beginning of Russia, The document was called «Description of the Old Times» and mentions  that the Slavs from the area of Lake Ilmen visited the town of Novgorod, the Varangians, and asked for Prince Rurix to become their ruler.

Rurik_titularnik.jpg

In this way he became the founder of the Royal Dynasty of the Rurricides and the State of Rus (now known as Russia), which retained power for more than 600 years.

The Russian people, until the end of the 10th century, were still pagan and did not incorporate the alphabet into their language. The change took place the end of the 10th century, when the state of Kiev accepted Christian religion, when it eventually adopted the Cyrillic alphabet, on which the Russian language is currently based.

THE ORIGINES OF THE BULGARIAN KINGDOM

The last 50 years of the 7th century are also characterized by the fact that during this time the new Bulgarian kingdom was formed on the northern border of the Byzantine Empire along the Danube’s river shores.

A kingdom, whose later history was extremely important for the fate of the Byzantine Empire. In this period, mainly the old Bulgarians, a people of Turkish origin, who were very close to the Hun race, are mentioned. From 650 ac Bulgarians had serious conflicts with the Byzantines

The newly formed kingdom, recognized by violence by the emperor of Byzantium, became a dangerous neighbor.

After the Bulgarians were politically recognized, they slowly began to increase their aquisitions and collided with the Slavic population of the neighboring provinces.

Bulgarians as newcomers introduced the military organization and discipline among the Slavs.

Acting as a unifing factor among the Slavs of the peninsula, who had previously lived in separate groups, the Bulgarians slowly developed a dynamic state, of course, a great threat to the Byzantine Empire. Later, many military operations had to be organized by the Byzantine emperors against the Bulgarians and the Slavs. The Greek element was protected by the Byzantine troops.

Numerically smaller than the Slavs, the Bulgarians, soon found themselves under the strong influence of the Slavs. Large tribal changes took place among these Bulgarians, who, while the time passed, lost their ethnic Turkish (ethnic) ethnicity to become almost completely Slavs in the middle of the 9th century, although still bearing their old name: «Bulgarians» .

The Second Bulgarian Empire was a medieval Bulgarian state that existed between 1185 and 1396.

It was the successor state of the First Bulgarian Empire that reached the peak of its power under Tsar Kalogiannis and Ivan Asen B before being gradually conquered by the Ottomans in the late 14th and early 15th centuries.

800px-Kaloyan_Varna.jpg

The successor states were the Principality and later the Kingdom of Bulgaria in 1878.

Until 1256, the Second Bulgarian Empire was the dominant power in the Balkans, defeating the Byzantine Empire in many great battles. In 1205 Emperor Kalogiannis defeated the newly established Latin Empire in the Battle of Adrianople.

Ivan Asen’s nephew II defeated the Despotate of Epirus and made Bulgaria a regional power again. During his reign, Bulgaria spread from the Adriatic to the Black Sea and the economy flourished. By the end of the 13th century the Empire had fallen under constant raids by Mongols, Byzantines, Hungarians and Serbs, as well as internal upheavals and uprisings.

In the 14th century, there was a temporary recovery and stability, but with the peak of Balkan feudalism, as a central authority, gradually their power in many areas was lost.

On the eve of the Turkish invasion, Bulgaria had been split in three.

The period between 13th and 14th century population ratios and national identities was mixed between Greeks Slavs and Bulgarians.

In spite of great animosity and fighting there is evidence of great Byzantine influence to Bulgarians in administration cultures, religion, architecture and art. Later alot of Bulgarians prefered to move to Greek side due to religious reasons. Populations were still mixed with towns having Muslim, Greek, Slavs  Bulgarians, Pomaks, Vlachs Albanians.

Many Slavs and Albanians were totally absorbed by Greeks and became the stronger fighting forces against Ottomans during the Greek uprisal during the19th century.

 

Αρβανίτες.jpg

The mixed papulation problem in the Balkans is still evident with existing minorities in Albania North Macedonia even in Bulgaria Greece and Turkey although the numbers in Turkey have been sosmall due to national cleansing that took place in Turkey the 20th century.

minorities.jpg

The question that still remains in my mind is, to what extend Muslim populations migrated to Greece or they were Greeks converted by force or persuation to Islam.

NK

 

 

Advertisements

REAPPROACHMENT.jpg

 It is definitely very interesting to exchange views with Turks that can convey the points of view of the other side. By studying such exchange of points of view, that have marked the lives of millions of people for hundreds of years, one can see the influence that the roots, traditions history, and culture of each nation including religion that can exert on individuals and groups of different nations.

So this article is another attempt to appreciate the roots of the problem and eventually bring opposite sides closer, so that animosities can be reduced.

So, I, here under, display one more of numerous conversations which is published during a period that the conflict among Turkey Greece and Cyprus have reached a real and dangerous peak.

A message from my Turkish friend Sukan

ΦΩΝΕΣ.jpg

Hallo Nick best greetings from ayvalık.

I was also in izmir.and found a Greek book ın Turkısh about the Genocide of the Pontus Greeks. Bought it. 600 pages! I have started readıng ıt and found the approach strange.

The book goes on and on about how Greek speakıng Muslıms suffered. Really? Why dıd my famıly some whıch still speakıng Greek not notıce anythıng? Erdogan? How come he ıs presıdent ıf there ıs prosecution? He also tells of centurıes of prosecutıon, whıch Greeks survıved thanks to theır beıng Greek. ın the hıstory we lıved the ottomans were proud of protecting all relıgıons. He does talk of a 1910 law whıch would have eased lıfe for Greeks, thıs was ın the tıme when the unıonısts were tryıng to accommodate all ethnıcıtıes, and that ıt was not ımplemented. After 1912. he says Greek secessıonısm was a response to unıonıst (young Turks as he calls ıt) government, on the next page he tells of secessıonısm ın the 1860ıes! That all does not fıt.

What also does not fıt ıs hıs hıstory. Greeks ımmıgrate, Hellenizing, after whıch comes Christianity. Wonderful. Then come Turks and Islam horrıble! People come, relıgıons change that ıs how hıstory works. Why should one be better than the other?

Later on, he quotes, an English polıtıcıan sayıng the target was eradıcatıng the Turks. He then saId thıs faıled. He thınks Turkish history after 1923 had proven we are barbarıans. Compare Turkey and Greece for the same perıod, we lıved ın peace wıth each other, the Greeks who could no longer trouble Turks butchered each other ın a cıvıl war. At present Greece lıves a better lıfe thanks to the EU. Turks ındustrıalızes, Greece does not. We dıd have a Kurdish rebellıon, wıth 40 000 dead. Compare that wıth the French response to the Algerian rebellıon wıth 1 mıllıon dead Arabs. Amerıca ın Iraq wıth 2 to 4 mıllıon dead.

He also defınes as Pontus one fıfth of Turkey. West Anatolıa ıs naturally also Greece. Around half of turkey ıs Armenia and then Kurdistan et6c. And where exactly we Turks supposed to lıve? These people were tryıng to kıll us all. That was clear after 1912. That ıs the reason why the unıonısts panıcked and got brutal.

We do not talk about young Turks after 1908. Some of them organızed the party for unıon and progress whıch then took over untıl the end of WW1. That party was disbanded after WW1 but evolved ınto the republıcan people’s party, now the opposıtıon. These are referred to as unıonısts ın English or the CUP. Committee for unıon and progress.

My response:

Dear Sukan,

Before I proceed to a more detailed response based on historical references I specifically quote a part of your statement that found very interesting.

You say:

“He also defınes as Pontus one fıfth of Turkey. West Anatolıa ıs naturally also Greece. Around half of Turkey ıs Armenia and then Kurdistan etc. And where exactly we Turks supposed to lıve? These people were tryıng to kıll us all. That was clear after 1912. That ıs the reason why the unıonısts panıcked and got brutal.”

 I believe it is interesting at this stage to quote a recent statement of the Turkish President:

“The year 1453 is the beginning of the conquests of our heart”. Conquest is the key word to appreciate the Turkish philosophy regarding the treatment of indigenous people of countries conquered by Turkish raids. Nowhere else worldwide indigenous people were treated the way Turkish people behaved.

I have learned a lot about how a Turkish person thinks from our discussions.

To summarize my understanding I will quote  the following:

  1. Turks consider all western world as an enemy because they have continuously attacked Muslim interests around the world, thus Turkey has to develop defenses to protect itself from the West, now and for the future, as long as this attitude from West is maintained.
  2. As a consequence most international organizations which are controlled by West cannot be credible for their rules, directives and decisions where they have to do with Turkey and Muslims in general. This includes organizations such as UN, EU, International Jury of Hague, or International laws such as laws regarding EEZ and air and Sea frontiers.
  3. Turks consider that Ottoman Empire inherited both Roman and East Roman Empire which was Byzantium, as well as all preexisting civilizations that had developed in the area prior to the arrival of Turkish tribes.
  4. The establishment of Ottomans in Europe and North Africa was a natural expansion of Islam that was privileged to convert other Christian nationalities to Muslims and hence subjects to a great new progressive Empire. Such populations converted by force or proselytizing generated a true indigenous population that losT any link to its previous national identity and culture.
  5. This is particularly important for Greeks that lost their right to inherit, as a nation, the identity or link in any way to what ancient Greece was.
  6. In that sense modern Greeks could only exist as subjects of the Ottoman Empire and the ones they did not convert were an obstacle and a threat to the newly formed Turkish state hence they had to be exterminated or expelled to make room for the homogenization of the Turkish State, otherwise they were terrorist and rebels against the Turkish state.
  7. The invasion of the Greek army in Macedonia and Asia Minor was not an act of liberation or protection of Greek lands and population which have lost their right for independence due to 400 years of survival as Ottoman citizens.
  8. Greeks during their liberation fighting and during the Balkan wars were committing atrocities that forced Muslim populations to evacuate huge areas that changed the ratios of national characteristics of many areas in Greek mainland Crete and many of the Aegean islands.
  9. Turks are proud they managed to introduce true freedom of religion and economic activity better than western nations even after French revolution. The proof of this is the financial progress of Greek populations in many areas in Asia Minor including Pontus.
  10. The Turks are excused for their behavior and atrocities as the reacted against aggression experienced during the Balkan wars and the invasion of the Greek army during 1919-1922
  11. Regarding the end of the 1922 war and the relevant agreements that led to the various treaties including Lausanne Treaty the Turkish position is that many f the islands which have not been included my name in the treaty remain the ownership of Turkey which inherited the Ottoman Empire including Cyprus which is not an independent state but a state under the three guarantor powers of Turkey Greece and UK.
  12. Finally there is a lot of resentment against Greeks considering Turks as barbarians.

This is more or less what I managed to understand from our discussions.

It will be a very long document to reply to each one statement although some of them have been discussed over our long period of exchanges of arguments, I will concentrate on some historical facts that will help both of us establish some common ground in appreciating the causes of this continuing animosity. I also hope it help you understand the 600 pages book you have recently acquired with information about Pontus.

 THE STORY OF GREEK PONTUS ON THE BLACK SEA

map_pontos_large 3.jpg

The name Pontus, as a geographical area, in ancient times included the coastal areas of the North Asia Minor as seen on the map above..

Pontos, according to Herodotus, Xenophon and other ancient historiographers, is called the long and wide coastal country on the Black Sea, which includes the lands between River «Phase» near which is the present city of Batum of Georgia and Heraclea.

Many geographers and historians defined its western border from the estuary of the River Ali, near Sinopi, the first Greek colony in the Black Sea.

Inside, the area extends to a depth of 200 to 300 kilometers, bounded by the very nature that separated it from the rest of Asia Minor with the inaccessible mountain ranges of Scydis, Paridas and Antitiros.

The mountainous and barren territory of the Pontus has flourished from the rivers of Aly, Iris, Melanthio, Thermisdon, Xarsioti, Reaton, Pyxitis, Kalopotamos and many rivers, which are a blessing and a source of life for the country.

The presence of the Greeks in the Pontos region dates back to ancient times. The Greek seafarers, having conquered the coasts of the Aegean Sea from the Copper Age, with their improved ships, ventured to discover the inhospitable sea of Pontus with the remote and inaccessible beaches and mountain ranges.

Around 1,000 BC historians place the first commercial trips in this area to search mainly for gold and other minerals.

Two centuries later these temporary commercial stations are converted into permanent housing centers.

Miletus first launched the colonial policy in the Black Sea by setting up Sinope, in a very advantageous position due to its good harbor and smooth communication with the surrounding areas.

As it is known every time the Greek cities of Greece and Ionia were facing overpopulation problems, they sent the surplus of their demographic growth to this distant yet productive country,

Pontus during the Roman period

MITHRIDATES KING OF PONTUS.jpg

MITHRIDATES KING OF PONTUS

During the Roman period, Christianity prevailed. Based on the new religion and without persecution, the inhabitants of Pontus were able to grow. The administration was more relaxed and the Hellenism of Pontus was great and the Greek language spread.

The Greeks continued for decades under the domination of the Romans, enjoying their freedom, independence and autonomy.

This cosmopolitan change had positively influenced the political climate of that era.

Without great changes, controlling only the government, the Romans adopted the effective complex scheme of the organization of the state and the power of the «Mithridates».

Thanks to this policy, Greek culture, Greek tradition and Greek philosophy were strengthened.

The absence of central Roman power enabled the Greeks to develop their diverse capabilities.

At Pliny, Trebizonde could freely regulate internal affairs and conduct trade . Its geographical location helped her to become the first port of Black Sea

Pontus during the Byzantine period

PONTOS DURING BYZANTINE PERIOD.jpg

In Byzantine times, administratively the empire was divided into sections named «themes».

Some Pontus theorists tried to make Pontus autonomous. The one who remained, in history, was Theodore Gavras.

On Aug. 26, 1071, Matzikert’s historic battle took place, changing the map of the area.

The Seljuks defeated the Byzantine army and settled permanently in the area.

Then nothing was the same.

From raiders Seljuks became permanent residents and settled, initially, in the area of ​​Bithynia.

They named Pontus Turum, which means, Romans, because all forces of the time had the dream of appearing as heirs of the Byzantine and Roman Empire.

Seljuks had tremendous power. Principe Turum gradually captured all of Asia Minor and Pontus. Thus, the gradual collapse of the structures of the Byzantine state and the Christian Orthodox Church were gradually destroyed.

The spread of Islam

SPREAD OF ISLAM.jpg

The spread of Islam and the disputes over more territories have led to terrible conflicts at all levels.

The goal of the Ottomans was to spread Islam, but also to conquer territories.

Particularly during the first period of the Ottoman administration, persecution against Christians was tougher.

Violent Islamism, cruelty and devastating measures were on the agenda.

The Christian Orthodox began not to enjoy the same privileges as Muslims. They could not build churches, wear fancy clothes, horsemen.

Typical is the case of Theodore Gavras. Theodoros Gavras was one of the most prestigious «theorists», that is to say, the region’s masters. He effectively protected the boundaries of the Byzantine Empire from the raids.

At some point in the chaos and power vacuum, he sought the independence of his region. His move failed but he managed to re-enter the structure of the Byzantine Empire. But he did not save the martyr’s end. He was murdered in a raid by Turkish ruler Amir Ali. As a trophy of victory and his power over the Christian master, the ruler turned his skull into a bowl, invested it with gold and said that he was drinking his wine.

Western Christians have responded to the religious struggle with Muslim leaders by organizing crusades.

However, the end of the fourth crusade had the opposite effects, which led to the enslavement of Pontian Hellenism and its long-term extermination.

Besides, the crusades, which were the West’s response to the expansion of Islam, led to the defeat and weakening of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 after the Crusades

The Crypt Christian populations in Pontus in Turkey.

Cappadocian_Greek_dance.jpg

The story of Crypt Christians in the Black Sea started during 1650s, due to the fanaticism of certain «Derebais», when the Ottoman Empire was divided into Derembeilks, that is to say, in areas or themes. The heads of these areas, in many cases, have shown fanaticism, which was expressed by the oppression of Christians and their suppression to converse to Islam. The first islamization of the Greek populations of Pontos is recorded in the area of Ofeos, followed in the areas of Surmene, Argyroupoli, Tonia and others.

The crypto-Christians, appeared In public dressed as Muslims, participating in Islamic ceremonies as if they were genuine Muslims.

At the same time, however, they were meeting in places where secret priests did their functions and all the ceremonies of Orthodox Christian faith.

The Crypto-Christians avoided affairs with Muslims with various pretenses, so the marriages continued among themselves.

This lasted until February 1856.

At the time, under the pressure of the European forces, the Sultan signed “Hati-Humayoum” decree, with which every Ottoman citizen was free to change religion without endangering his life.

The first individual, who took advantage of this, to recapture Christianity, was the guardian of the Italian Consulate of Trebizond, Pechil Tekoglu in May 1856.

From 1856 to 1910, when this policy changed, with the pan-Muslim politics of the New Turks, all the Crypt-Christians of the Pontus were revealed and whole villages turned back to Christianity.

Pontus the 20th century

kerasounda_copy.gif

In the 20th century Hellenism of Pontus finds a spectacular lead compared to the other ethnicities of the wider region in the economic and intellectual spheres.

In Samsun in 1896, out of 214 businesses, 156 are Greek.

In Trebizond from the 5 banks, 4 are also Greek.

In the last quarter of the 19th century, as Antony Bryer mentions, the smaller Greek village had its own school, where Greek children go to learn Greek history, starting with the lessons from the Argonauts campaign and the Myrties of Xenophon.

The Greek printing press set up in 1880 in Trebizond also contributed in its own way, through publishing of books, magazines, newspapers and brochures, to the inalienable right of every individual to compete and to claim his national identity and memory.

The Greek-centered orientation, under the leadership of the newly emerging midle class, is confirmed by concrete events that testify to its patriotic action, especially during the 1828-1829 Russo-Ottoman War, when eastern Greek Hellenism welcomed the Russian occupation army in Argyroupoli as a liberator.

The Greeks of Pontus are not absent from the Cretan uprising of 1866-1867.

There are also cases of patriotic behavior in the subsequent Greek-Ottoman wars, with the participation of many volunteers and the support of generous economic offers.

For example, the Greeks of Samsun offer in 1912 to the Greek Navy 12,000 pounds. We have some examples from Greeks and other cities.

This activity together with the bitter feeling that the Turks were feeling because of the losses of the First World War and the Balkan wars reacted aggressively

The policy of the New-Turkish governments aimed at exterminating the Greeks with the economic, educational, military and religious measures they receive for Christian nations in the first phase, and the genocidal measures in the second, mainly led the Pontians of the Diaspora to the great decision to fight to create an autonomous Pontian republic.

The delivery of Trebizond by Vali Mehmet Tzemal Azmi Bey to Bishop Xrisanthos with the historical words «from Greeks we take Trebizond to the Greeks and give it back …» a few days before the Russian occupation of the city, April 1916, and the wise policy of the Bishop towards the Muslims in the region who feared similar reprisals for the crimes they committed, persuaded the Russians and the consular representatives of the other states that Bishop Xrisanthos had all the leadership qualities to bring back peace in the sensitive area where the blood of innocent Armenians and Greeks was still fresh.

His two-year presidency was a true interval of democracy and harmonious coexistence of Christians and Muslims.

But the situation changed when the Bolsheviks prevailed in Russia.

The Russian army left the city of Trebizond and the area returned to New Turks in February 1918.

At these difficult times, thousands of Greeks of the Eastern Pontus and Kars, in order to escape from the Turks, took the road to escaping towards the civilized Russia.

The stories of the relatives of uprooted Greeks and the refugee issue in general, made the Greeks of Russia sensitive, who, already, since the A’ ‘Panhellenic Conference of the Greeks of Russia in July 1917, took the historic decision, with the most important election of the Central Council for the creation of an independent Pontian State with  temporary headquarters in the town of Postib.

For the first time, Pontians of Diaspora   were organized in all major cities of Greece – Athens, Thessaloniki, Kavala, Volos – and abroad.

During the years from 1918 till 1921 The Pontians tried to convince the world including Russia and Greece to help them gain independence by creating an Independent Hellenic state.

They were betrayed by all.

The political event that served as the tombstone of the pontian issue was the Kemal-Bolshevik Treaty of Friendship and Co-operation signed on May 1916.

The weak Kemal Pasha strengthened by Lenin economically, militarily and morally, continued his audience with his audacity. At the same time he appeared at the London Conference with many unreasonable demands, which were not rejected by the winning, allied, Forces.

Instead, they each showed that they were willing to cooperate with Turkey in return for maintaining the old privileged status.

The behavior of the English submarine chief Perrin, who demanded that the Bishop of Amasia Germanos Karavangelis leave his metropolis as a troublemaker because «… devotes all his activity to political purposes and propaganda …», this reveals the hypocritical English policy.

At the same time, the Italian-Kemalic and the Franco-Kemalic agreements sealed the verdict.

THE INVOLVEMENT OF GERMANY AGAINST CHRISTIAN MINORITIES IN TURKEY AFTER THEIR DEFEAT DURING THE FIRST WORD

ALIENCE OF TURKEY.jpg

After her defeat in the First Balkan War (1912-1913), the Ottoman Empire lost all European lands west of the Ainou-Medeas line in Thrace.

In July 1913, however, the Turks recaptured all the Eastern Thrace, from the Bulgarians, up to Adrianople and Didimoticho.

Just at this time, Turkey was even more closely associated with the policy of the German Empire.

– The Germans, in order to secure the Turks’ involvement anticipating a future conflict – which did not take long to happen – promised the return of the lost Balkan provinces to Turks.

The young Turks again, on the pretext of Turkish defeat in the Balkan Wars and the massive voluntary exodus of Muslim refugees from the Balkan lands, tried, in every way, to implement their nationalist plans, at the expense of the ethnicities that had remained in their already impoverished Empire.

The slogan «Turkey for the Turks» found very strong support from Germany.

The Greeks were the first victims and Armenians the most tragic victims of this policy and of Turkish nationalism.

From 1913 to 1924, with the guilty tolerance of the European states and  US, about 2,500,000 Greeks and Armenians were exterminated, and another 2,000,000 were expelled from their ancestral homes to make Turkey a unified pure Turkish national state.

During1913-1914 Germany was preparing for its final confrontation with the Entente Powers.

The German policy in the Ottoman Empire had triumphed.

The Germans, in the framework of the ‘Drang nach Osten’, had infiltrated so much in Turkey that they had transformed the country into their protectorate.

The young Turks had almost given totally the administration to the Germans, and the Sultan had succumbed to the political will of Kaizer Gulirlm, who, through that by using the German ambassador to Constantinople, Vangenheim, could promote Turkey’s full submission to serve the political, economic and military aspirations of Germany in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Middle East.

Thus the Ottoman Empire had become a prey to German politics and captive of the worldly views of Pangermanism.

The Persecution and the Genocide of Christians during 1913-1918

pontiac-genocide.png

In December 1913, a German high-level mission headed by Liman von Janders arrived in the city  aiming at reorganizing the Turkish army.

The ultimate goal was, in fact, the complete military control of the Ottoman Empire, in view of the Great War, which would not be delayed. It was not the first time that German military experts were called from the «High Gate».

Previously, the Germans were organizers and advisors to the Turkish army. But in January 1914 the following paradox was happening:  The chief of the Turkish army staff was General Zelendorf, general inspector of the army was Liman von Janders, and twenty other  senior German officials held key positions in the army!

These military officers, by inspecting several strategic parts of the Ottoman Empire in Eastern Thrace, Propontida and Western Asia Minor, noted the existence of hundreds of thousands of Greeks who possessed impressive economic and spiritual superiority over  Muslims.

Liman von Zanders suggested the expulsion of the Greeks from the areas of the 2nd and 3rd Army Corps of Turkey (Thrace, Bithynia, Mysia, Troad, Ionia), because the existence of so many Greeks in these provinces was a serious disadvantage in case of war.

Later on, during the war, German Admiral Ouzentem stated unequivocally that «the Germans have indicated to the Turks the expulsion of the Greeks for strategic reasons.»

Generally, the Germans considered the Greeks and the Armenians of Turkey as a serious obstacle to their aspirations and a barrier to the policy of ‘Drang nach Osten’ policies. That is why they strongly suggested the expulsion of the solid Greek and Armenian populations from their homes.

Ambassador Vangenheim, who was terribly dissatisfied with the Greeks, and von Zanders Pasha, urged the Young Turks to displace Christians because they believed they were  supporters of the English policy in the region, advancing the interests of the Entente Agreement and hence enemies of Germany and  the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

From their point of view, again, in the middle of 1913, the Young Turks sought, in every way, the Ottoman Empire’s independance from the economic influence of the Christian populations.

They were also seeking the recupture of the Aegean islands from Greece and Thrace from Bulgaria.

They planed the full Turktification of the western and northern coasts of Asia Minor, as well as the Armenian villaets of  East.

To ensure the integrity and unification of the Turkish state, the Young Turks had to adopt  tactics, with no sentiment or sensitivity, towards their heterodox or different racial fellow citizens.

Medieval ideas about slaves and masters were put into effect.

Islamic perceptions of the widespread opening of paradise to the «believers» to kill Christians reappeared after centuries.

A basic argument of the Young Turks was the pretention that the other ethnicities, Greeks, Armenians, Syroaldians, Bulgarians, even  Arabs, always conspire against the state with a view to its dissolution.-The desire and outburst for Tuttification of the country was paid dearly by the Christians.

The Greeks were collectively accused as unbelievers in the government and as spies who were working secretly to realize the Greek ‘Great Idea’.

The Armenians, the biggest population among the Christian Ottoman citizens, were considered suspects of conspiracy, rebellion, and subversive actions.

With such arguments, the Young Turks tried to get rid of multi-ethnic nations who had been subjects of their empire for five or six centuries.- Eventually something unprecedented happened.

The state itself organized and directed looting, displacements, persecution, grabbing, rape, extortion, embezzlement, murder, massacre and genocide of millions of its citizens. This was the only way to succeed the main motto of the Young Turks «Turkey to the Turks».

The Turkish peoplebecame  fanatical to  extreme.

The young Turks attributed the defeats and losses of the Balkan territories, the poverty and misery of the rural masses, the misery of the Muslims to the Greeks and the Armenians.

Thousands of Muslims, Muhammadi (or Macedonians, ie refugees) from the European lands occupied by the Balkan allies, resorted to East Thrace and Western Asia Minor.

Immortalized as they were, they became subterfuge of the Young Turks and broke out on the Greek populations, committing all kinds of violence, grabbing and looting.

At the same time, the fanaticism of the local Muslims, who regarded their non Muslim neighbors as the culprits of the suffering suffered  in the Balkans, flickered.-

The persecution began in Eastern Thrace  late 1913.

Since January 14, the Greek government was warned by its ambassador  Dimitrios Panas of the intentions of the Turks to  expel the Greeks from the Asia Minor coasts.

By pursuing a stumbling policy, on April 6, 1914, the Turks suggested to Venizelos the exchange of the Greeks of the Villaet of Aydin ( Smyrna) with the Muslims of Macedonia. Venizelos initially accepted voluntary rather than forced immigration, but the New Turks had already launched systematic persecutions.

At that time Venizelos denounced threats from the parliamentary stage and threatened Turkey with war, because, during these negotiations, Turks had already started persecutions against Greeks

The climate, due to persecutions, was so bad that in June the diplomatic relations between the two countries were almost interrupted.

As early as May 14, the Turkish government had sent all commanders, even to the mercenaries of the villages, orders to prepare the persecution of the Greeks in the rural regions of Thrace and Western Asia Minor.

In a telegram from Interior Minister Talat to the Smyrna administrator Rachmie Bey explicitly states that «the Greek Ottomans … work day and night to realize the Great Idea. Therefore, the … existence of the Greek-Ethnologists is a nasty disgrace for the state … To give our Muslim brothers a verbal instruction, to use all kind of deeds, to force Greeks out willingly or not … «Two days later, Talat sent a new order to Rachmis to displace the Greeks of the Villaet of Smyrna in Theodosioupolis (Erzurum) of Ottoman Armenia.

Fortunately, in the course of things, this order changed and it was considered more expedient to expel the Greeks from Ionia.

CONCLUSIONS

The conflict between Greece and Turkey is continuing even after 100 years from the establishment of the modern Turkish state.

This conflict reflects the greater picture of relationships between Turkey and West.

I don’t object that many of the conflicts had to do with financial interest, mainly for the control of energy resources. But there is also a second reason that has to do with the spread of western democratic culture against a Theocratic or oligarchic political culture.

There is no comparison between these two cultures, we cannot compare Sadam Hussein of Iraq, a real dictator or even Kaddafi of Libya with western democracies, so there is no comparison between these two cultures. This is part of the problem that cannot be overlooked in many cases.

Turkey has very good trade relationships with West. The real distance that Turkey is taking from West and specifically from EU has more to do with human rights and International low, that Turkey does not want to comply with,  than any other reason.

It will take years till Turkey could become a real member of EU and coexist with West in general, in spite it’s membership to NATO, which is coincidental, and in spite it’s industrial development which has been achived due to its relationshio with West and the low cost production.

Greece cannot be compared with Turkey in terms of industrial development and defence expenditure  due to huge population difference. Turkey has critical mass while Greece can only specialise in certain vertical sectors such as high quality tourism and services .

Till the time Turkey will approach West,  Turkey will always be an unstable, unreliable, dangerous neighbor or partner for Greece Cyprus EU and USA.

This may be the opposite than what Turkey aims for, which means further distance from West, which will mean very difficult times for the world in general. Many analysts believe that the real conflict will  evolve to a conlict between USA and China.

Cyprus is an ideal opportunity to proove that such coexistance is possible even under such negative circomstances.

 

η Ελλάδα σβείνει.jpg

Οι τελευταίες ομιλίες των Ελλήνων πολιτικών σχετικά με τις Ευρωεκλογές 2019 σε συνδυασμό με τις Τουρκικές προκλήσεις- εισβολές στο Αιγαίο και την Ελληνική και Κυπριακή ΑΟΖ μου προξενούν μεγάλη απογοήτευση.
Βλέπω να ξαναγεννιέται μπροστά μου το αιώνιο πρόβλημα του Ελληνισμού, ο διχασμός.
Μόνο που αυτή την φορά η ζημιά μπορεί να αποδειχθεί θανάσιμη.
Οι παγκόσμιες συνθήκες που επηρεάζουν ακόμα και την Ευρωπαϊκή Ένωση, πάνω στην οποία βασίστηκε ολόκληρη η πολιτική της Ελλάδας, η σύγκρουση των συμφερόντων της Τουρκίας με τις ΗΠΑ, το BREXIT σε συνδυασμό με την δραματική οικονομική κατάσταση της Ελλάδας μετατρέπουν την χώρα σε αδύναμο κρίκο στο μέσο μίας διαμάχης που εύκολα μπορεί να την καταντήσει θύμα μέσα στα μεταβαλλόμενα συμφέροντα μεγαλύτερων συνασπισμών κρατών και των ευρυτέρων διεθνών επιπτώσεων του εμπορικού πολέμου ΗΠΑ-ΚΙΝΑΣ, του προσφυγικού που έγινε όπλο εκβιασμού του δυτικού κόσμου αλλά και της μετανάστευσης μεγάλου όγκου πληθυσμών λόγω επιδείνωσης κλιματικών και οικονομικών συνθηκών στην Αφρική και άλλων περιοχών της υδρογείου.
Στο εσωτερικό βλέπω τις πολιτικές διαμάχες πολύ σοβαρότερες από τις διαμάχες παλαιότερων πολιτικών όπως πχ του Τρικούπη με τον Δεληγιάννη, σοβαρότερες ακόμα και από τον εμφύλιο, η ακόμα και μετά την μεταπολίτευση, των συγκρούσεων Καραμανλή Α. Παπανδρέου η Γ Παπανδρέου και Κ Μητσοτάκη κλπ.
Η κρίση που έφερε την ουσιαστική πτώχευση της Ελλάδας της αφαίρεσε την πολυτέλεια να ενδώσει σε μία ακόμη ανταλλαγή λαϊκισμών από οπουδήποτε και αν προέρχονται.
Ο λαϊκισμός έχει την ιδιαιτερότητα να προσελκύει μάζες απλοϊκών ανθρώπων που αποτελούν και τα ευάλωτα θύματα και την πλειονότητα των λαϊκών πληθυσμών που ταυτόχρονα είναι και η βάση της δημοκρατίας.
Γι’ αυτό ακούμε τόσο συχνά εκφράσεις και συνθήματα όπως ‘ Δημοκρατία των πολλών’ Εξυπηρέτηση των πολλών, ‘ανάπτυξη επιτυγχάνεται με την ανταπόδοση από την βελτίωση του βιοτικού επιπέδου των πολλών. Κλπ
Γιατί ποιος θα μπορούσε να αντιταχθεί στο συμφέρον των πολλών;

Όμως το πρόβλημα είναι πιο σύνθετο γιατί η διανομή πλούτου είναι το εύκολο μέρος της εξίσωσης. Το δυσκολότερο μέρος είναι πρώτα η παραγωγή, τα μέσα παραγωγής και μάλιστα μέσα σε μία αυξανόμενα ανταγωνιστική κοινωνία.
Δυστυχώς ο προβληματισμός στο σημείο αυτό μένει σε θεωρητικό επίπεδο, έτσι που δεν αντιμετωπίζονται οι συνέπειες από την καθυστέρηση στην ανάπτυξη, που με κάθε τρόπο υποβαθμίζονται η έντεχνα αποκρύπτονται .

O λαϊκισμός αποκρύπτει,

Πως φορτώνεται ο λογαριασμός στις επόμενες κυβερνήσεις ή ακόμα στις επόμενες γενιές,

Γιατί δεν γίνονται δημόσιες επενδύσεις προκειμένου να ικανοποιηθούν προεκλογικές σκοπιμότητες,

Γιατί οι επενδύσεις από το εξωτερικό αναστέλλονται ή καθυστερούν,

Γιατί δεν υλοποιούνται φορολογικές μειώσεις σε επιχειρήσεις εξαγωγικού εμπορίου,

Γιατί δεν εφαρμόζονται αξιολογήσεις προσωπικού στο δημόσιο τομέα,

Γιατί δεν επιτρέπουν την δημιουργία ιδιωτικών πανεπιστημίων,

Τι σημαίνει και γιατί επιβλήθηκαν  capital controls,

Ποια η ζημία που προκαλείται από την μετανάστευση των νέων

Ποια η συμμέτοχή στην ευθηνή της διοίκησης ενός κράτους της αντιπολίτευσης και των συνδικάτων.

Γιατί οι Ελληνικές τράπεζες εξαγοράστηκαν

Πως δημιουργήθηκαν οι προβληματικές επιχειρήσεις τις προηγούμενες δεκαετίες

Τι πρόβλημα υπάρχει με την αριστεία όταν το μέλλον εξαρτάται από τις νεοφυείς επιχειρήσεις.

Γιατί πτωχεύει η ΔΕΗ.

Τι σημαίνει για την οικονομία η πολιτική αστάθεια.
Η ανεπαρκής οικονομική ανάπτυξη έχει διαφορετικές επιπτώσεις σε διαφορετικά κράτη ή κοινωνίες.
Δυστυχώς για την Ελλάδα η ανεπαρκής ανάπτυξη έχει πλέον φτάσει σε σημείο να αποκαλύπτεται ο πραγματικός κίνδυνος σταδιακού αφανισμού του Ελληνισμού που μέχρι πρόσφατα δεν γινόταν αντιληπτός.
Ο Σεφέρης είχε αναφερθεί σχετικά με τον αφανισμό του Ελληνισμού από την Μικρά Ασία ότι ο θάνατος ή εξοστρακισμός ενός πληθυσμού δεν αφορά τον αφανισμό του συγκεκριμένου πληθυσμού αλλά και τον πληθυσμό και τις γενιές που θα ακολουθούσαν στα μελλοντικά έτη
Αυτή η φράση κάνει κάθε σκεπτόμενο άνθρωπο να αναλογιστεί τις συνέπειες λόγω και άλλων τύπων αστοχιών από τις επιπτώσεις της έλλειψης οικονομικής ανάπτυξης.
Με αυτή τη βάση καταλαβαίνουμε γιατί ο Τούρκος Πρόεδρος, πρόσφατα προέτρεψε τον λαό του να αυξάνει τις γεννήσεις. Προφανώς για να αντιμετωπίσει την αύξηση των γεννήσεων του Κουρδικού λαού. Το πρόβλημα των άλλων εθνοτήτων το έλυσαν με μία τρομακτική εθνοκάθαρση.
Ο Τούρκος Πρόεδρος ακολουθεί την πάγια στρατηγική της χώρας του που βασίζεται στην πληθυσμιακή υπρτοχή που ανεξάρτητα από την οικονομική ανάπτυξη ή το βιοτικό επίπεδο καταφέρνει να επιβιώνει διατηρώντας την πληθυσμιακή της αύξησης με οποιεσδήποτε συνέπειες.
Σε αντιδιαστολή, στην Ελλάδα η πτώση του βιοτικού επίπεδου είναι τέτοια που επηρεάζει άμεσα την υπογεννητικότητα, στοιχείο που υπονομεύει ουσιαστικά το μέλλον και την επιβίωση του Ελληνισμού.
Επιπλέον η ανεμική ανάπτυξη προξενεί πρόσθετη αφαίμαξη της Ελλάδας λόγω της μετανάστευση εκατοντάδων χιλιάδων νέων που και πάλι μας θυμίζει τα λόγια του Σεφέρη…

Από το 1980 και μετά  η ελληνική γονιμότητα κατέρρευσε φτάνοντας στο 2011 όταν οι
γεννήσεις ήταν λιγότερες από τους θανάτους (αρνητικό ισοζύγιο γεννήσεων και θανάτων) ,για πρώτη φορά από το 1944.
Επομένως η σημερινής πτωχευμένη Ελλάδα δεν μπορεί να κάνει αποδεκτό τον λαϊκισμό καμίας πολιτικής παράταξης που είτε για ιδεολογικούς λόγους η λόγους τακτισμού υιοθετεί στρατηγικές που αναπόφευκτα οδηγούν την χώρα σε αφανισμό.

ΔΙΧΑΣΜΟΣ

<<Αν μισούνται ανάμεσα τους ,δεν τους πρέπει η λευτεριά>> Διονύσιος Σολωμός

Διχόνοια 3.jpg

Πάντα ο διχασμός έβλαψε την Ελλάδα και πάντα οι οικονομικές δυσχέρειες έδωσαν την ευκαιρία ανάπτυξης του λαϊκισμού, όμως τα τελευταία χρόνια φλερτάρουμε με τον πραγματικό αφανισμό του Ελληνισμού.

Γι’ αυτό αντιδρά και ο απόδημος Ελληνισμός που σε διάφορες φάσεις της ιστορίας έχει υποστεί  τις συνέπειες  του καταστροφικού διχασμού.

Η διχόνοια υπήρξε η ‘κερκόπορτα’  που άνοιξε διάπλατα την ευκαιρία να προσβληθούν τα Εθνικά συμφέροντα της Ελλάδας από τα μεταλλασσόμενα συμφέροντα  του διεθνούς παράγοντα.

Η δυσκολία είναι να αναγνωρίσει κανείς, σε κάθε εποχή,  τους υπεύθυνους η μάλλον το ποσοστό της ευθύνης που αναλογεί στον  κάθε συντελεστή της τραγωδίας που κάθε φορά ακολουθεί.

Το ίδιο σημαντικό είναι να αναγνωρίσει κανείς τα μεταλλασσόμενα συμφέροντα του διεθνούς παράγοντα, αυτή είναι και η ευθύνη των πολιτικών μας

Παρά τις επανειλημμένες  δραματικές εμπειρίες φαίνεται ότι εμείς οι Έλληνες δεν καταφέρνουμε να συνειδητοποιήσουμε την ζημιά που κάθε φορά συντελείται. Αυτό μας έχει στοιχίσει την συνεχή συρρίκνωση της πατρίδας και του ευρύτερου Ελληνισμού διεθνώς.

Σήμερα το σημαντικότερο πρόβλημα είναι η μρταναστευση των νέων στο εξωτερικό που προσομοιάζει με την απώλεια νέων ζωντανών κυττάρων ενός οργανισμού.

Η Ελλάδα δυστυχώς πεθαίνει ενώ εμείς τραγουδάμε με φωνή στρουθοκαμήλου..  ‘Η Ελλάδα ποτέ δεν πεθαίνει’

Ο θάνατος όμως συμβαίνει και από άλλους ποιο ύπουλους λόγους όπως ο διεθνισμός που μπορεί να  πάρει διαφορετικές ερμηνείες, πολλές φορές θετικές αλλά και άλλες τόσες  αρνητικές, όπως και η γλώσσα με την άλωση της νέας γενιάς με την διάδοση της Greeklish.

Ένα ακόμα ‘Δούρειο ίππο’ αποτελεί η πατριδοκαπηλία, τακτική που χρησιμοποιούν οι εκάστοτε διαπλεκόμενοι της  εξουσίας.

Πατριδοκαπηλία; Ποια Πατριδοκαπηλία:

Μήπως ξεχάσατε πως προκλήθηκε η επέλαση του Αττίλα στην Κύπρο;

Μήπως ξεχάσατε τα λόγια του Τσώρτσιλ προς στους Κυπρίους; Πολεμήστε για Ένωση με την Ελλάδα.

enosis1.jpg

Μήπως ξεχάσατε στο τέλος του εμφυλίου το παιδομάζωμα, και τους συμμάχους Σλαβομακεδώνες;

παιδομάζεμα.jpg

Δεν θα ξεχάσω τα τρέχοντα , ‘Η εμείς η αυτοί’,

Τους Γερμανοτσολιάδες που τελικά καταλήξαμε να εκχωρήσουμε την Μακεδονική γλώσσα και ιθαγένεια. Ποιος ξέρει που θα μας οδηγήσει αυτό. Στους Γκρεκομανους;

graikomanoi-630x400.jpg

Αλλά και η αντιμετώπιση της Ευρώπης σε συνδυασμό με τα Ελληνοτουρκικά.

Τι μας κόστισαν τα περίφημα ’Αγγλικά Δάνεια’;

ΔΑΝΕΙΑ_ΑΓΓΛΙΑ.jpg

Ο φόνος του Καποδίστρια;

kapodistrias-grfty.jpg

Δεν θα συνεχίσω γιατί θεωρώ αυτονόητο ότι η διχόνοια είναι κατάρα και η αμετροέπεια ασθένεια σοβαρής ανωριμότητας.

Προέχει σήμερα η οικονομία από την ενίσχυση της οποίας μπορούμε να αποκαταστήσουμε τις αστοχίες ώστε ρεαλιστικά να αποτρέψουμε την επερχόμενη καταστροφή.

Η οικονομία που έχει σχέση με την παραγωγικότητα, που συνεπάγεται δυνατότητα μέτρησης της αποδοτικότητας,και αξιοποίηση του πλούτου, και του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού.

παραγωγηκότητα μέτρηση.jpg

Οικονομία, που έχει σχέση με την ευρηματικότητα, την ευφυία, την γνώση, την προσαρμοστικότητα, την ικανότητα προγραμματισμού και πρόβλεψημότητας που είναι τα καινούρια χαρακτηριστικά της νέας πραγματικότητάς.

Η ένταση εργασίας είναι πάντα σημαντική αλλά στις σημερινές συνθήκες ανταγωνισμού ο ρόλος της είναι περιορισμένος.

παραγωγηκότητα .jpg

Στην οικονομία απαραίτητος συντελεστής είναι και το κεφάλαιο. Το κεφάλαιο είναι η κινητήριος δύναμη αντλείται τόσο από εσωτερικές όσο και από εξωτερικές πηγές χωρίς να  αναλίσκεται ή να διανέμεται πριν ολοκληρωθούν επενδύσεις για παραγωγικές διαδικασίες.

Κεφάλαιο αποτελεί και το ανθρώπινο δυναμικό, σωστή αξιοποίηση του ανθρώπινου δυναμικού μπορεί να συμπληρώσει  την ανάγκη εξεύρεσης κεφαλαίων.

Αυτοί οι παράγοντες μπορούν και πρέπει να συνυπολογιστούν και να συμμετάσχουν στο πρόγραμμα οικονομικής ανάπτυξης χωρίς ιδεοληπτικές προκαταλήψεις.

Δυστυχώς όμως όλα αυτά που στις περισσότερες δυτικές χώρες αποτελούν αυτονόητες αρχές της οικονομικής ανάπτυξης στην χώρα μας γίνονται αντικείμενο νέου ιδεοληπτικού  διχασμού.

Η διανομή του παραγόμενου πλούτου, το πλεόνασμα, όταν υπάρχει διανέμεται με στόχο την ικανοποίηση ψηφοθηρικών αναγκών με τον ίδιο τρόπο  που χρησιμοποιούνται τα κεφάλαια που προέρχονται και από τον κρατικό δανεισμό.

Αυτά αποτελούν σήμερα τα σύγχρονα εγκλήματα του πολιτικού μας συστήματος.

Η έκφραση  ‘ή αυτοί ή εμείς’ επεκτείνεται πέρα από βραχυπρόθεσμη μάχη για την εξουσία, κρύβει μέσα της βαθείς κινδύνους  για καθεστωτικές συμπεριφορές που ξεπερνούν τα κλασσικά δημοκρατικά πολιτεύματα που συχνά οδηγούν σε εθνικές συμφορές γιατί στην μάχη για την εξολόθρευση  του αντιπάλου διακυβεύονται και εθνικά συμφέροντα.

ΑΟΖ.jpg

Αυτό είναι και το σημαντικότερο στοιχείο τόσο για την βλάβη που προκαλείται στα  Εθνικά συμφέροντα αλλά και στην βόμβα που βάζουν στα θεμέλια των θεσμών του δημοκρατικού πολιτεύματος.

Τα ανησυχητικά σήματα που σήμερα εκπέμπονται όσον αφορά τα εθνικά συμφέροντα και τα θεμέλιά του δημοκρατικά πολιτεύματος γίνονται όλο και περισσότερα δυνατά με τις εξελίξεις στο θέμα της Βόρειας Μακεδονίας, την Ελληνική μειονότητα στην Αλβανία και την αύξηση της επιθετικότητας της Τουρκίας στο Αιγαίο και την Κύπρο. Είναι εμφανές ότι η Ελληνική Κυβέρνηση εναποθέτει τις ελπίδες της και πάλι στις συμμαχικές δυνάμεις αγνοώντας τα μαθήματα της πρόσφατης και παλαιότερης ιστορίας.

Smyrna.jpg

Οι διαπραγματεύσεις αυτές με αντιπάλους και συμμάχους υπόκεινται σε  δημοκρατικές διαδικασίες που απαιτούν μία εθνική εξωτερική πολιτική ευρύτερης συναίνεσης.

Οι κίνδυνοι εσφαλμένων χειρισμών είναι τεράστια. Ας θυμηθούμε την αλλαγή των συμφερόντων των συμμαχικών δυνάμεων το 1922 που κατέληξε στην μεγαλύτερη εθνική τραγωδία.

Αλλά και στην Κύπρο για την οποία ακόμα εγκυμονεί μία δεύτερη πιθανή τραγωδία που έχει αρχίσει να συντελείται με την αποπήρα της Τουρκίας να αμφισβητήσει την  υπόσταση της Κύπρου σαν ανεξάρτητο κράτους.

Κύπρος.jpg

Είμαι βέβαιος ότι ο Ελληνικός λαός θα αντιμετώπιζε την αναδιανομή των πλεονασμάτων με διαφορετικό τρόπο αν κληθεί να διαλέξει μεταξύ υποτέλειας  και Εθνικής ανεξαρτησίας.

 

Κραυγή.jpg

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

Ναβαρινο.jpg

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.

MIKRA ASIA.jpg

karaolhw.jpg

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

NATO.jpg

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.

SYNORA.jpg

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.

I NEED YOU.jpg

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.

ΕΜΦΎΛΙΟς.jpg

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.

ROBOT.jpg

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.

διοικηση.jpg

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

αξιολογηση.jpg

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.

γεωστρατηγικες.jpg

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.

energia.jpg

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;

σημαια.jpg

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;

dimografiko-thumb-large.jpg

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.

ganti.jpg

ΝΚ

 

February-20-1959.jpg

 

Introduction

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.

Cyprus.jpg

 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.

laikismos-275x200_c.gif

 

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.

ΝΚ