Talk:4th of August Regime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Fascism, an attempt to better organize and unify articles relating to the fascist ideology, its impact on history and present-day organizations closely linked to both of these (ideology and history). See project page, and discussion.

This article may be listed on an index of fascist movements or people. Such listing may be controversial; feel free to contribute to discussions there. The presence of this Talk page-only template only implies that the subject is of interest to the associated WikiProject.
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve 4th of August Regime, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
High This article has been rated as a High priority article

Apparently little has been done to this page, but I came across it and fixed a few things that were not accurate, especially about beating back the Axis and the allies of Greece and Britain. (even if you have the source cited, it doesn't fit into this part of the article, as the author is clearly referencing a later period in the war)

Additionally,i questioned about the Axis powers forces occupation period in land.

where stay the some pro axis Greeks colaborators,axis army volunteers ,local police forces in period,local politicians,for no mentioned any Greek SS "Herkules" unit members,along German,Italian or Bulgarian forces units in country before at May 1945.

i debt to suppose why debt to exist any local greek fascist follower collaborator with this mentioned Axis forces in country during this time,after British retireing.

Contents

[edit] Slavophone Greeks

The term "Slavophone Greeks" denotes ethnic Greeks who speak a Slavic language and is not a term interchangeable with "Bulgarians" or "Slav-Macedonians". By giving the term "Slavophone Greeks" a new definition of "ethnic Macedonians and Bulgarians" (as one person did), it completely changes the meaning of the text because it no longer refers to a people with a Greek ethno-national consciousness but to an altogether different people. Therefore, unless the text is specifically denoting Bulgarians and not Slav-speaking Greeks, it cannot be used. (As for Slav-Macedonians, there is scholarly debate on whether or not such a national consciousness even existed at that time and, if it did, how perceptible this identity was so it is better left out until these questions can be accurately determined.)

It must also be mentioned that the term "Slavophone Greeks" is not a political term. It is a mainstream word and its association as a "nationalist term" is erroneous and misleading. (Nor is it correct to associate the right with nationalism but that's another subject completely.) G. Babiniotis' "Lexicon of the New Hellenic Language", which is regarded as one of the best contemporary dictionaries of modern Greek, does not characterize the term as one specifically used by nationalists, even though it does for other terms, such as "eamoboulgaros" ("Εαμοβούλγαρος") which it defines as "(archaic, offensive) characterization that nationalists use chiefly towards leftists and/or those who come from EAM" (page 539). The entry for "Slavophone" (p. 1618) redirects to the suffix "-fonos" (p. 1917) which reads "he who has as his native or chief language the one declared by the affix: agglo-fonos, alvano-fonos, arabo-fonos, arvanito-fonos, vlaho-fonos, voulgaro-fonos, gallo-fonos, germano-fonos, ellino-fonos, ispano-fonos, italo-fonos, latino-fonos, roso-fonos, slavo-fonos, tourko-fonos". In other words, the term "Slavophone" is a neutral term equatable to "Francophone" and the other "-phones" listed.

Finally, since some may question the fact that Slavophone Greeks view themselves as Hellenes, here is a Greek television segment from channel ET-3 in which Slavophone Greeks speak about their language and their ethno-national consciousness: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lf2S8lXmvrk (For those that do not understand Greek, the video clip has been subtitled to give the viewer a basic idea of what is being said.) Critias 03:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Slavophone Greeks" is used ONLY in Greece, and then mainly by the right wing parties and political commentators, who do not accept that there is a Macedonian minority in Greece. Likewise, Turkish speaking residents of Thrace are denied their identity and labelled "Muslim Greeks" by the authorities. The Macedonian government do not refer to their Albanian minority as Illyrophone Macedonians, nor do the Turks refer to their Greek minority as 'Hellenophone Turks'. Anywhere else, the group are referred to as the Turkish or Macedonian minority. Every other country who recognises minorities and the EU refer to both minorities as ethnic Macedonians and Ethnic Turks. Citing only Greek sources for this issue is to offer a POV as biased as what you seek to alter User:riceuten

As I demonstrated, the term "Slavophone Greeks" is neutral and no more controversial than the term "Francophone Greeks". The term is not some sort of "rightist jargon" or "nationalist jargon" but rather a mainstream term used to refer to ethnic Greeks whose chief language is Slavic rather than Greek. Apparently, you are under the mistaken belief that the term is a euphemism used to denote a (real or imagined) Bulgarian or Slav-Macedonian minority in Greece. However, that is not the case. As the video clip demonstrated, Slavophone Greeks are ethnic Greeks who speak a Slavic language and have nothing to do with Bulgarians or other Slavic groups.
By fabricating a new definition to the term "Slavophone Greeks" it changes the entire context of the passage. For example, the passage reads: "Despite their supposed disloyalty, however, Slavophone Greeks identified with the Greek state and fought ferociously for Greece on the Italo-Albanian front". Now, with the correct definition (i.e., Slav-speaking Greeks) this passage makes perfect sense since, naturally, ethnic Greeks (regardless of what language they spoke) would identify with the Greek state and fight Greece's enemies. However, when you removed the term "Slavophone Greeks" and inserted "ethnic Macedonians and Bulgarians" (though, in your latest edit, you did away with "Bulgarians" completely, leaving only "Macedonians"), the entire passage changes because it now reads that non-Greeks (i.e., Bulgarians and/or Slav-Macedonians) identified with the Greek state and fought for Greece. This simply did not happen. The Slavs who inhabited Greece around this time were the same group that first aided the Nazi-allied Bulgarians that occupied northern Greece and later (after the Bulgarian occupation forces were gone) joined the Communist Party of Greece when it took up the Comintern's position of butchering northern Greece from the Greek state. These actions clearly indicate that this group was not the same group that fought and died in the name of Greece. This is why Slavophone Greeks cannot be mixed up with ethnically Slavic groups.
By the way, since you brought it up, it must be noted that the Turkish and Slav-Macedonian authorities have terrible records in regards to minorities. Among Turkey's many human rights violations, Turkish authorities have attempted to Turkify just about all of their minorities (Greeks included) and refuse to open up the Greek Orthodox Theological School of Halki while Serbs face ethnic and religious persecution by the Slav-Macedonian authorities, as demonstrated by the repeated imprisonments of Archbishop of Ohrid and Metropolitan of Skoplje Jovan. However, since all of this is a tangent and has nothing to do with the issue at hand, I will leave it at that. Critias

[edit] NPOV

The section "Greek fascist statism" has, IMO, serious NPOV problems. Some of this may be language issues. Not sure how to fix it in and of itself...I feel like the quantity of fact presented is unbalanced.

[edit] Metaxas Regime: Fascist or not Fascist

I believe that simply stating that Metaxas regime is fascist, and not mentioning other, equally, if not more proven, viewpoints makes this page far from objective.

Several historians (Greek and foreign) have expressed the opinion that the Metaxas regime, although very similar in many aspects to fascist states such as that of Mussolini's Italy and Nazi Germany.

Hondros has described it as a 'royal bureaucratic dictatorship', and Richard Clogg as "an authoritarian backward-looking and paternalistic dictatorship"

The Metaxas regime is more similar to Portugal's dictatorship under Salazar and even Spain under Franco tan with Germany or Italy.

As to stating that Metaxas was pro-Nazi, i must disagree to an even greater extent. Although educated in Germany, and well disposed towards Germany, the main reason he was allowed to take power by the King and the British were his undouptedly pro-British ideas. He never, at any point sought an alliance with the Germans, while at the same time he pressured the British to formaly declare an alliance with Greece.

Indeed, according to an interview to the Times Metaxas himself said that Nazi Germay was the exact oposite to the Germany he had known.

This is a list of some sources standing for this point of view:

Richard Clogg "A Concise History of Greece", Cambridge Uiversity Press, 1994, ISBN 0 521 37228 3

David H Close "The Origins of the Greek Civil War" Longman, 1995 ISBN 0 582 06472

Steven J Lee "European Dictatorships 1918-1945" (Second edition) Routlege, 2003 ISBN 0 415 23045 4

(the above unsigned by 212.205.245.41)

Fascism gave as a definition (or did 'til recently) the following:

  • exalting the nation, (and in some cases the race, culture, or religion) above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
  • stressing loyalty to a single leader.
  • using violence and modern techniques of propaganda and censorship to forcibly suppress political opposition.
  • engaging in severe economic and social regimentation.
  • engaging in syndicalist corporatism.
  • implementing totalitarian systems.

I think Metaxas's regime meets all of these criteria, although how much regimentation is "severe" is up in the air. Stlemur 18:09, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

The definition you are using is, my my opinion correct, if a little too simplistic.

You are however mising some points (either because they are not included in your definition or because you are not aware of them i suppose)

Firstly, the Metaxas regime was not supported by what many historians call a 'mass militarised party' which characterise all Fascist governments (Fascist party in Italy and NSDAP in Germany.) In fact he had little if any popular support

Secondly, the propaganda and Youth organization founded by Metaxas had litle, according to my sources, real effect, and regardless of that they were not intended to advance fascist ideology, because Metaxas was openly against it! They aimed to create what Metaxas saw as a more disciplined new generation.

Thirdly, where the economy is concerned, fascist economic theory is basically nonexistant. The fascists were (in theory) against what they saw as 'selfish' capitalism, but business leaders were often important supporters of fascist parties. State controled centralised economies were not a fascist hallmark in the interwar years as many democratic countries used such practices to pull their economies out of the depression. Trade and Labour unions were destroyed not so much as a part of a grand scheme as because of fear that communists would use them as recruiting grounds. Fascist economic policy was contradictory and hardly ever followed a real plan. What can be said is that they did however attempt to create a self-sufficient state using protectionist policies.

Metaxas, on the contrary, wanted to open Greece to foreign investment, and openly used established bankers and businessmen to achieve his economic goals. He never oposed the capitalist system and simply tried to direct it.

Another point i believe you are missing is the radical, revolutionary nature of fascism. Fascism, although part of the extreme right, was far from conservative, and often attacked the institutions of familly, religion, and property, all of which Metaxas supported.

i am not sure if i am getting the message across as well as i would like, but i recently researched this matter and all my sources indicated, most of them directly, that the Metaxas regime was not a Fascist one.

Metaxas was a dictator (which does not necessarily mean he was a Fascist) and as such, was forced to use violence in order to stay in power. He was a traditionalist, not a radical (which fascism definitely was) and only used some Fascist 'imagery' like the fascist salute, and the meandros, as well as the Youth organisation and education, not to promote fascism, but, because in his mind, Greeks could be made more disciplined and patriotic. He never preached fascism, and was openly against it. He was never supported by a Fascist party or, for that matter a Party of any kind. That alone, i believe is enough as all fascist regimes had some sort of popular backing. Do not forget that Metaxas was appointed by the king, who essentialy controlled the army and had the support of the British. The King could therefore sack Metaxas at any time he liked. No other fascist ruler had a king over their heads that i know of.

A page showing both these points of view would, in my opinion, be much more objective. (again unsigned by 212.205.247.15)

I didn't come up with the definition; in fact, the current revision is even more simplified.

Mass popular support is not necessary for a fascist regime; compare the Szálasi Arrow Cross Party state in Hungary.

Second, it doesn't matter if the propaganda of the Metaxas state was ineffectual; it existed. Meanwhile, note the clause "to forcibly supress political opposition"; while the Greek state seems to have been a softer fascism than those found in Germany or Italy, it is undeniable that political parties of the left were forcibly suppressed. Indeed, the regime came to power in order for that very reason.

As for the economics of fascist states in general, there is a broad spectrum within fascist states as far as the implementation of corporatism. While corporatism on its own does not equal fascism (although consider Mussolini's statements to the contrary), the article does IMO argue effectively that the Metaxas government did implement a social-corporatist economic policy akin to that of Nazi Germany.

Note that in Italy, King Vittorio Emmanuel III] appointed Mussolini as Prime Minister and did eventually dismiss him.

Finally, this is Wikipedia: if you think you can contribute to this article, sign up for an account and do so, and if you've got sources backing you up, cite them. Stlemur 17:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well funny you should use Clogg as a cite, Stlemur, since you have apparently not read Clogg or intentionally have misrepresetned him. (unsigned by 138.88.243.94 on Oct. 31, 2005)

Actually, it was 212.205.245.41 that cited Clogg, not Stlemur. However, their quotes seem to be correct. Could you please explain how they have misrepresented Clogg? - DNewhall
The intro as it is, is very, very misleading. It essentially acts as if Italian fascism and Germany nazism is the same thing. This is far from true, first of all Mussolini did not put into practise anti-semitic laws until 16 years into his career when Hitler was heavily leaning on him.
Fascism, Falangism and 4th of August Regime have a fair bit in common, apart from the latter two were not expansionist. Ioannis Metaxas took a lot of influence from Mussolini in the first place in how his movement was modeled. Nazism is the odd one out, with its cooky paganism, racialism and anti-semitism.
4th of August Regime was in line with Fascism in a lot of ways (actual Fascism, not the meaning it has today as communists use it as an "insult"), but not Nazism. - Gennarous (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-fascist website added

An anon just added a pro-fascist website to the external links. While the website itself is mostly just articles praising Metaxas, it contains approving links to much more extreme Neo-Nazi websites. I clarified this in the link description, but that should not be taken as my voting that the link belongs here. Jkelly 00:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

See my reply in Talk:Ioannis Metaxas. - Stlemur 12:29, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Also see mine in Talk:Ioannis_Metaxas#Pro-fascist_website_added. Critias 10:42, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] October 31st edits

Please cite one source showng the swastika/meandros composite image was ever used by the Metaxas govenrment!

The meandros used by the Metaxas government was a Greek key, the same used all over the US.

The article is completely full of factual errors. It also profoundy misrepresents what Clogg, Woodhouse and every major serious historian of the period has said. That Clogg is sourced as a primary source when he took great pains in every book and lecture to call Metaxas' use of the Nazi solute and other elements as psuedo-facsism. Clogg steadfasty refused to characterize the Metaxas govenrment as truley fascist. The adoption of authoritarian symbols was extremely common in communist dictatorhsips as well.

the attempt to link this petty dictatorhsip which was much closer to Spain's Franco to Hitler is utterly appalling, NPOV and not supported by any serious historians —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.243.94 (talk • contribs) 15:23, Oct 31, 2005 (UTC).

Anon, thank you for responding to my request to discuss your changes. In the future, you can sign your comments on Talk pages by using ~~~~. You may also want to consider getting an account. In any case, if you notice unverified material in the article, I encourage you to paste it into this talk page for possible verification rather than deleting it. I am by no means an expert on the Metaxas period, and am unlikely to be able to address your concerns with the article's veracity, whereas another editor may. As it happens, I have no reason to question your statement about the history of the meandros, but it was presumably inserted by some editor who had found a source suggesting something different. The fact that the entire article depends upon two references is troubling, the moreso if one of them is arguing a point-of-view not represented in the article. I do question the claim that "every major historian" agrees with Clogg's "pseudo-fascism" descriptor see this Google scholar search, am uncertain that referencing totalitarian communist regimes in an Hannah Arendt-ian melding would be helpful, and, finally, agree that if a comparison to another regime is made extensively in the article that Franco's Spain is, as you say, makes more sense and would be helpful to the reader. I remain concerned, however, that your editing is removing any connection to fascism in an article titled "Greek fascism". Jkelly 22:42, 31 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the current version is much less POV than the older one; good catches. As far as the meandros goes, the version depicted on the page is that used by Hrisi Avgi; I have had difficulty finding any photo, much less a color one, of it in use by Metaxas, although a number of sources say it was; there was also a double-bladed axe emblem superposed on the white-on-blue Greek cross which was quite common.
If we want to discuss changing the article title, I think a move to "4th of August regime" or something like that might be useful. - Stlemur 18:35, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Jkelly,

I do not understand wikopedia’s policy. This article is almost in its entirety copied from a neo nazi website, it is completely at variance with how ALL serious historian characterize the Metaxas regime, every time.

When I correct or selectively delete the material that is from pro-nazi scree, it keeps getting added back. Are neo nazis writing the Wikipedia content? What is happening here is that either a neo-nazi masquerading as a wikipedia author, or a undergrad student who taking some freshmen history course carelessly plagerized while writing a term paper and did not realize his main source was bogus information from some raving lunatic fan with a web site. (see item #7 in my notes below DOCUMENTING THIS.)

Besides that, my thesis, and I can easily prove it, is that this entire article is logically and factually way off base, it utterly misrepresents the legitimate sources it cites, cites revisionist bogus histories by a marginal neo-Nazi source, relies on tautological arguments, is devoid of understanding of historical context, evidenced by the use of anachronism such racial statements which were also common (and worse) in contemporary democracies, and worst of all, relies on an incredibly broad definition of fascism which dilutes and renders the term useless in differentiating between fascism and your run-of-the-mill military dictatorships.

In short it is incorrect throughout in thesis, fact, detail, context and conclusion.

I will do some study of the wikipedia style manual before I revisit this article, but I posit to you that if there is a tag for “text source is a pro nazi site” you place it at the top of this article.”

Here is some food for thought when it comes the idea that trappings commonly adopted all over the world constitute fascism (stlemur's contention?): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bellamy_salute


1) Definitions and criteria of fascism: Has anyone here read Laquer? Riech? or the recent excellent work by Robert Paxton?

How is it that Stlemur’s definition of fascim on the talk pages is taken seriously? He is strangely leaving out the key elements that separate it from a nationalism and dictatorships. External expansion, political violence, radical agenda, and a mass-based party are essential, and Metaxas had none of these. Ootherwise you have a authoritarian regime or dictatorship. Metaxas did not even have a hegemonic postures, for example he opposed even the war against Turkey in the early 20's. Fascist regimes also do not arise from career general officers, they are opposed to, and often purge the military high ranks. Metaxas had been the Chief of Staff, IE the leader of the Greek military long before taking power. (Hitler was a corporal who despised the high ranking military).

I am not muddling an "Arendtian" critique into this. I am trying to offer precision and facts. There are many definitions of fascism, but the most respected authorities on fascism require certain core elements in differentiating it from ultra conservative/ ultra right, authoritarian, and or military dictatorships. Those core differentiating factors include: a) a mass movement, b) radical ideology and c) radical programs of which Metaxas had NONE. In addition to the core elements may postit certain concrete results: a) racist policies (wrong) b) miltary adventurism (none), c) wide use of violence (nope).

2) Please look wikipedia page on the Spanish Falange, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falange. Since historians would ascribe more fascist traits to the Falange, the fact that this page on Metaxas contains 30 instances of the word “fascism” or “fascist” and is in the title, whereas it intelligently avoided with the falange page, it is fair to call into question the entire text.

3) What the Historians say: The essential question is: how is it Clogg is cited as a source on this page when he would laugh at the idea of the title? When I noted Clogg in my first changes someone changed it to "some" historians. Totally wrong/ I am certain whoever made that change has no idea of the major historians who write on this period. I just mentioned Clogg because of the IRONY that he is cited as the source. The fact is all the major accepted non-partisan scholars on Greece for this period (clogg, woodhouse, mcneill, Hondros) make a point of saying that it fascism is NOT a proper description of the Metaxas regime, it is entirely appropriate not only to label this as "NPOV" but to call into question the title, which should be "the Metaxas dictatorship" and work major revisions of the text.


4) The text itself provides no serious citations except ones taken entirely out of context. I will show this in upcoming comments after I register a name and learn wikipedia style.

But some examples to be mindful of are: a) the entire racism and eugenics references are wholly unstudied, and one does not need to be a scholar of modern Greek politics to know this. It is reflects either a profound bias or a profound lack of knowledge about near universal early twentieth century theory and language concerning "race." The citing of terms like "Greek race" as an indicator of fascism is loaded and 'completely' meaningless. Terms such as "French race," "Anglo Saxon race" "White Race" were completely common at the time everywhere in the world including in the United States across the political spectrum. It is a serious (and let’s face it, blatant) anachronism used to attempt to prove a point that is otherwise unsupported. The Metaxas government had NO racial purity policy or agenda. Metaxas' language is common to nearly all countries (democracies and dictatorships of the time), and indeed language common in extremus in nations attempting to construct/reinforce a ethnic identity coming out of an multi-ethnic empire.

A POLICY of enforcing racial purity through laws, sterilizations, genocides is one hallmark of fascism. Language lauding a "race" is not notable in any way in 1930's world. The west itself had decided to "purify" the post Ottoman Balkans by imposing a the mutual expelling of minorities across borders to create ethnically homogenous countries, Greece included, in the name of stability. So one would have to argue that perhaps the idea of a reconstituted "Greek race" and a Greece of Greeks draws more from Woodrow Wilson than fascism.

Moreover the US had both laws and a profound political cuture of racism at the time, backed by often backed by government violence and supported by a mountain of accepted "science." This included laws forbidding marriage between races (something Greece never had).

b) The “eugenics” element is bizarre -- to say the least. The text is strained for a reason – it is bogus.. The logic the original writer of this section is making a classic tautology. It goes like this: The ancient Greeks included the militaristic and austere Spartans. The Nazis admired them and used them as a positive example. Metaxas admired them and used them as a positive example. Ergo, Metaxas is a fascist. There is a causality inconsistancy of about 2500 years there. Or Metaxas was copying the Germans by idealizing the Spartans? What?

Besides the strange logic, where are the FACTS? Did Metaxas have a eugenics policy? Metaxas did not copy the eugenics of the Spartans, it was the United States that did. Look at the wikipedia article on eugenics. The big eugenics movement was in the United States. Mass IQ tests, forced sterilization of undesirables was an American political and junk science movement and one that took hold. Laws enforced it. Ergo the US was fascist? Wikipedia on eugenics: “One of the earliest modern advocates of eugenic ideas (before they were labeled as such) was Alexander Graham Bell,” “Many prominent African American thinkers have supported eugenics or ideas resembling eugenics, including but not limited to W.E.B. DuBois and Marcus Garvey,” “The second largest eugenics movement was in the United States” “In 1924, the Immigration Act of 1924 was passed, with eugenicists for the first time playing a central role in the Congressional debate as expert advisers on the threat of "inferior stock" from Eastern and Southern Europe… The new Act strengthened existing laws prohibiting race mixing in an attempt to maintain the gene pool.. When Nazi administrators went on trial for war crimes in Nuremberg after World War II they justified the mass-sterilizations (over 450,000 in less than a decade) by citing the United States as their inspiration.”


5) Didmetaxas have some fascist pretentions/syumbols/vener, yes just like he borrowed from other autocratic systems he borrowed from tehm. But as an example most of thiose cited evoke a hyperbolic rsposne and were used by NON fascist regimes nd democracies as well (as per the the roman salute used in US schools).Some of the attempted allusions to the rather thin veneer of fascist symbolism or trappings are contextually meaningless: We are offered this nugget in the wikipedia text: "Fatherland, Loyalty, Family and Religion", which Metaxas praised repeatedly. The word in Greece for country, yes today, is "patrida" (fatherland). It is either disingenuous or ignorant use “fatherland” which in the English language ear evokes Hitler's Germany when in fact this simply means "country" in Greece. Such slogans are common as dirt. or your local boy scouts. They certainly were in use in Greece for a hundred years before Metaxas. 6) were you serious with the google "scholars search?" did you read the citations?

a) The same search with "greek fascism" in quotes gives a total of ONE item in ALL of google scholars search (and it is a commentary on poetry)! "British fascism" gives 130 responses vs the ONE for "Greek fascism."

b) But you had not used quotes and thereby returned documents with Greek AND fascism. OK the first is a paper where the only mention of fascism is a footnote citation of a work by entitled “The Establishment and Development of the Metaxas Regime in the Context of Nazi Fascism," by Morgan Pelt, who like Clogg, Hondros, Woodhouse et al calls the Metaxas regime an Authoritarian regime. "Fascism" refers to Germany in Pelt's cite.

Second google return is a text by Tom Gallant. He is refering to the fascist OCCUPATION by Italy and Germany.

You cannot just google fascism and Greece and not know that almost all the articles are going to be refering to the occupation! How many google scholars results for British fascism? (more). American fascism (more), Irish fascism, Dutch fascism, Russian fascism, Israeli fascism, etc etc, more, more.

7) Here is a great paragraph to illustrate a very serious problem for wikipedia: The new regime was backed by extreme right-wing and ultra-nationalist groups such as the anti-semitic Ethniki Enosis Elladas (EEE, Greek National Union), the Elliniko Koinososialistiko Syndesmos (EKS, Greek National Socialist Rally) and the Sidera Irini (Stellar Peace) party, among others. Meanwhile, conservatives also blessed the new government, since they expected it would crush the Communists' “subversive” activities.

Ok, I know something about Greek political parties in the interwar period, and seeing the EEE listed as the first and presumably to assert it is the most important political party in this graph was a shock to me. In fact, it was a) small group of thugs, b) probably numerically in the scores or hundred c) it was attacked and destroyed by Metaxas who as historians note ELIMINATED Anti-Semitic measures of prior Greek governments, d) yet it was listed first.

This got me wondering – where is the text so full of BS coming from? So I googled the text in the graph. Sure enough it appears in one place – verbatim -- the NEO NAZI SITE. It made other assertions here are either simply cribbed from that site or worse yet placed here by the sites author! Moreover they appear no where else.

So it is with MOST of this text. Here is another one of several: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22our+passions+and+our+egoism+to+the+totality+of+the+national+interest%22&btnG=Search

amd another: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22Thus%2C+Metaxas%27+%22New+State%22%2C+as+the+regime%27s%22&btnG=Search


The wikipdia text on Metexas is almost wholly a screed DIRECT from a revisionist neo nazi site.

I afraid to think the author if this neo nazi site keeps coming back and erasing my completely legitimate corrections in the interest of furthering their disinformation.

Yet serious people who know something about the issue come here to the comments pages and note the very serious problem, but the text keeps reverting.

In short what is going on? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.243.94 (talk • contribs) Nov 1 2005 23:53 (UTC).

Anonymous, that was a very long, and clearly very well-thought-out response. I hope that you will choose to get an account here at wikipedia and continue to improve the project. I reverted two of your edits, with much less consideration than it is now clear that they deserved, and I would like to explain why. The first reason is that this article is part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism, so I was operating under the assumption that it had been vetted by a group of editors with some expertise on the subject. The second reason is that articles related to Greece have been the target of a great deal of iedologically-driven vandalism, text removal, unsourced insertions, etc. When I saw an anonymous IP address removing large chunks of text from this article, I assumed that something similar was going on. I myself should have followed Wikipedia policy and assumed good faith. I apologize for being heavy-handed, and your work is available in the article history to be recovered. If you decide to register and begin editing here, as, again, I sincerely hope that you do, I encourage you to use your obvious knowledge of the subject to write a brilliant, well-sourced article on the Metaxas regime. It may also be worth your time to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Fascism, as I suspect that you could make valuable contributions to it. Finally, I don't pretend to even have an "undergraduate" level of familiarity with this period of history (and am not an author of this article), and I would further like to assure you that I am not a Neo-Nazi. Jkelly 08:01, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Interesting arguments, however, there is one glaring flaw: the definition you use for fascism. Fascism, by definition, does NOT involve race in any way, shape, or form. Yes, it CAN utilize issues of race but by definition doesn't need to. So the argument that Metaxas was not fascist because he didn't practice eugenics is not sound. However, you do raise many other interesting points such as the factual accuracy of the "neo-nazi site", the possible translation problems with "fatherland", and the google scholar results. - DNewhall


a) I am pretty sure no student of poltical science would say that. I would say of the six or seven most recognized and respected historians and political scientist on fascism generally, most point rather clearly to not just the issue of race but its central role. Certainy Riech, Laqueur and more recently Paxton do.

Political science, like any other science, relies on observations. The use and abuse of race and violecce in the extreme with race openly part of the policy is an observed element. In Hitlers case it is well known, in Mussolini's case his language on Ethopeia was quite race based.

2) if you look above one of the people driving a lot of the content, stlemur, is the one who placed race as the first element in his definition on these talk pages. And the old main text had a lot on race during the Metaxas regime -- as an attempt to prove its fascsim -- (which was factually and contextually incorrect anyway). this is why I mentioned race.


In any case once you strip away core effects and go with simplistic defintiions it can be very problematic. Indeed you end up with the kind of sophistry that starts to lead one down the road to defining the FDR's "New Deal" as "fascist." Which, if you look is in the lead paragraph of wikipedia's page on fascism.

TThis says nothign about the "new deal" being fascism, which of course it was not, but of how eleminating OBSERVATIONS in science creates problems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.243.94 (talk • contribs) 15:39, November 3, 2005 (UTC).

Actually, Mussolini explicitly rejected biological racism on more than one occasion and was quite tolerant of Jews up until 1938. In 1938-9 a wave of anti-semitism rose across Europe during which outbreaks of racist and anti-semitic action occured in pretty much every country in Europe so were Mussolini's actions his own or due to the will of a larger group of people? Even then Italy was still one of the best places in Europe for Jews to be. Also, following the Pact of Steel Nazi Germany was able to exercise influence of Mussolini's decisions. In regards to Ethiopia though, the Italians considered any Ethiopian who declared loyalty to the Fascist ideals to be just about as good as an Italian (as stated in a National Geographic article from 1935). Nevertheless, the official platform of Fascist Party did not include racism or anti-semitism in its definitions or aims wither implicitly or explicitly. (Passmore "Fascism: A short Introduction", pgs. 116-117; E. M. Robertson "Race as a Factor in Mussolini’s Policy in Africa and Europe", pgs. 37-41) - DNewhall

[edit] Monarchists vs. "non-Communists"

I am not clear about this change. The article now reads as if the Communists were fighting a civil war against, well, everyone who was not a Communist. I think that is a misleading description of the events. This whole article needs better sourcing, to help forestall more debate about NPOV. Jkelly 16:15, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

JKelly,
I am looking at this as well as the description of the civil war in main page "Greece." The historigraphy of the Greek Civil war was and is to some degree quite contentious in Greece.
It was not a fight between the Communists and the Monarchists as stated here, no nor is this from trh "Greece" page: After liberation, Greece experienced an equally bitter Greek Civil War between much of the left (led by communists but much broader than just the KKE) and royalists that lasted until 1949, when the royalists devastated the left in the battle of Grammos-Vitsi.
Firstly, serious historians divide the Greek civil war into several "rounds."
Secondly one can of course very accurately describe it as fight between the United States and and communists in the very first hot war in the cold war. And one can also describe it as a territorial war involving Yugoslavia (which is how many US officials often described elements of it).
The best way to state this imho, is: As the Axis occupation ended, Greece descended into civil war between the communist-dominated forces of the left, operating in Greece and out of bases in south of Yugoslavia, and the U.S. and U.K. alligned forces of the right, in the first major protracted combat of the Cold War and containment. DaveHM 00:30, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I have re-added the sentence regarding members of the 4 August government participating in the German-Italian occupation government and also noted others' participation in the government-in-exile. - Stlemur 00:48, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

edit conflictDaveHM's version is substantially better than either of the two earlier one-sentence descriptions. Considering the problems with this constellation of articles, it may be picking nits for me to raise the issue, but I would nevertheless like to mention that it would be easy to put too much André Gerolymatos in, thereby making the articles North American-centric. Jkelly 00:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 'Greek fascism' or 'Metaxas Regime'

It has been quite a while since i have looked up this article and lodged one of the first complaints against it (Metaxas Regime: Fascist or not Fascist), and I am very disappointed to see that little has changed.

Although I was invited to make changes myself I see little use in spending time in doing so if my point was disregarded or misunderstood:

The simple fact that this is such a controversial topic means, in my way of thinking at least, that it should be renamed (into something like 'the Metaxas Regime') and it's actual contents thereby configured into showing the more undisputable HISTORICAL facts.

A SECTION of this new article should then be devoted to this particular topic which is in itself a DISPUTED topic. What is the sense in displaying only one point of view when there is also a second one, equally supported with evidence, and by established historians? Isn’t objectivity the main purpose of Wikipedia? If the main author wishes to simply state only his own opinions, I believe that he has found the wrong place to do so.

I must, and will, respect the main author's right to disagree with my (and many others', up to and including the renowned Richard Clogg's) point of view, but also demand the same from him.

And to be more specific: The latest version of the article is totally ridiculous. Take a look at the title and the first sentence right below it. A bit of a contradiction there i should think...

Also, about the last two sections of the Article. Who exactly were the 'observers' who expected Greece to Ally with Germany? Metaxas was APPOINTED, by the King, BECAUSE he was PRO-BRITISH.

And about Communist vs. Monarchist civil war here is a very simple rundown of the forces participating on eac side:

'Left wing':

KKE and it's military branch EAM/LAS (later DSE), as well as other independent or organised socialists and communists.

'Right Wing':

Monarchists, MOST VENIZELISTS, most non-communist/socialist factions, including the remainder of the EDES and the other non communist guerrilla groups. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.205.239.131 (talk • contribs) .

So I guess I'll formally propose a move of this page to 4th of August Regime. Discuss. - Stlemur 13:59, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metaxas did not persecute 'Macedonians' because the supposed race of 'Macedonians' did not exist until after WW2

Metaxas persecuted slavophone minorities in Greece there is no question. This article incorrectly states however that he persecuted "Macedonians" slavophones. The slavophones of Greece were either slavophone Greeks or Bulgarians. these are the only two ethnic groups ever mentioned in any authentic census or racial map of the area before the modern race of "ethnic macedonians" was masterminded by Tito. Therefore the use of the word "Macedonians" although acceptable in other works due to the right-to self-determination policy of wikipedia, is not acceptable in this case as it is referring historically to those persecuted. and obviously historically these people were NOT macedonians as the period is pre-WW2

only Bulgarians, Slavophone Greeks or the Slavophone population of Macedonia is acceptable

Militant Macedonian nationalism was recognized as an issue in the Balkans considerably before WWII; see Stephane Groueff, Crown of Thorns for some details from a (somewhat biased) Bulgarian perspective. In particular, the IMRO, International Macedonian Revolutionary Organization is specified as having been "the terror of Yugoslav and Greek authorities" and that "the mainstream of the revolutionaries saw the solution as an autonomous Macedonia, a new and independent state omposed of the three territories presently ruled by Yugoslavia, Greece, and Bulgaria." So whether or not any of us or Metaxas believed there was a Macedonian nationality, they certainly did. - Stlemur 13:57, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

^^The VMRO was a Bulgarian revolutionary group whose members concerned itself with either making Macedonia autonomous or part of the Bulgarian state. It was NOT "militant macedonian nationalism" and how can it be referred to as such when its leader Goce Delchev referred to himself as a bulgarian? How indeed can there be such a thing when no foreign source acknowledges its existence before WW2. The IMRO or VMRO had nothing to do with a macedonian ethnicity as this article suggests as it was undoubtedly BULGARIAN group. That is why the VMRO was "the terror of Yugoslav and Greek authorities" but NOT to Bulgarians who also had large populations in Macedonia and claim on Macedonia dating back a long time.

It is from the Bulgarian population of Macedonia which the the International Macedonian Revolutionary Organization originated. and wikipedia's own article of the group will confirm this. Whether an autonomous, multiethnic macedonia or annexation with Bulgaria proper was its aim it was an undoubtedly bulgarian group.

and hence more proof why this article should not refer to a macedonian ethnicity which did NOT exist according to any possibl credible source before Titos creation of it.

this U.S secretary of State document from 1944 can tell us that the macedonian ethnicity created post WW2 haad no historical or ethnic reality before it

U.S STATE DEPARTMENT Foreign Relations Vol. VIII Washington D.C. Circular Airgram (868.014/26 Dec. 1944) The Secretary of State to Certain Diplomatic and Consular Officers* The following is for your information and general guidance, but not for any positive action at this time. The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia, emanating principally from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav Partisan and other sources, with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected state. "This Government considers talk of Macedonian "nation", Macedonian "Fatherland", or Macedonia "national consciousness" to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic nor political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece". The approved policy of this Government is to oppose any revival of the Macedonian issue as related to Greece. The Greek section of Macedonia is largely inhabited by Greeks, and the Greek people are almost unanimously opposed to the creation of a Macedonian state. Allegations of serious Greek participation in any such agitation can be assumed to be false. This Government would regard as responsible any Government or group of Governments tolerating or encouraging menacing or aggressive acts of "Macedonian Forces" against Greece. The Department would appreciate any information pertinent to this subject which may come to your attention. Secretary of State

[edit] Page move

Why is the 'r' in regime capitalized? Jkelly 05:08, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] References

All of the references currently used for this article are all in English, by non-Greek authors, and not solely dedicated to the subject matter. Although Greek historiography is generally highly politicized I, nevertheless, think it prudent for some (objective) Greek works specifically dealing with the subject (i.e. the 4th of August regime and Ioannis Metaxas) to be utilized. At the very least, Ioannis Metaxas' personal diary should be made use of. Publications by the government during the 4th of August regime would also greatly put its character into better perspective. Critias 17:54, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No original research -- as amateur encyclopedists, we must be very careful about our use of primary sources. There are, however, many native Greek speakers here at en: who may one day feel inspired to contribute to this article using secondary sources only available in Greek. Jkelly 17:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I missed or misinterpreted something in that official policy page but, to me, the "no original research" policy doesn't seem to prohibit the use of primary sources. On the contrary, Wikipedia:No_original_research#What_is_original_research.3F states, "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia".
I never suggested that "material [...] that has not been published already by a reputable source" or that "unpublished theories, data, statements, concepts, arguments, and ideas; or any new interpretation, analysis, or synthesis of published data, statements, concepts, or arguments that appears to advance a position or [...] would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation'" should be utilized. I meant only to suggest that objective Greek works that specifically deal with the subject matter of the article in question should be utilized as sources of information. Since the subject of the 4th of August, Ioannis Metaxas, and Greek Fascism are all obscure topics in Western historiography, reputable Greek works that specialize on these topics could be beneficial as a source as they might very well provide information not easily found in foreign works of a general history type. (Regarding the examples of primary sources that I listed, Metaxas' diary is not only a published primary source but one that many publishing houses have published over the years and continue to publish. In addition, there is at least one major English-language secondary source that makes ample use of the diary that hasn't -- as yet -- been used as a reference for the article in question.) Perhaps I was simply being unclear in my suggestion.
In any case, there are a number of informative Greek secondary sources available that could be used to further contribute to the article if, for some reason, primary sources are to be completely disregarded. (I suspect such secondary sources may have already been partially drawn upon even if they aren't cited under "References".) Critias 22:36, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my brief comment seems to have sidetracked us. All I meant was that there is a real danger involved with editors here trying to rewrite this article based upon Metaxas' diaries. I didn't mean to imply that was what you were suggesting should be done; I was just trying to offer an explanation of why you're unlikely to see them showing up in the References section. Sorry for the confusion. What's the major English reference that is missing? Jkelly 23:16, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The English-language historical narrative I previously mentioned is "Popular Autocracy in Greece, 1936-41: A Political Biography of General Ioannis Metaxas" by P.J. Vatikiotis, published by Frank Cass in 1998. It's also worth mentioning that a Greek translation of the book was recently published by "Ευρασία" in 2005.
Regarding the author, Vatikiotis was Emeritus Professor of Near East Politics (of the School of Oriental and African Studies) at the University of London where he founded the Political Studies Programme in 1967 (and headed it for twenty years); was Distinguished Visiting Professor at the American University in Cairo, Distinguished Visiting Professor at Princeton University, and Visiting Professor at the University of California; and was awarded a Guggenheim Fellowship in 1961. In addition, he also wrote numerous history books (mostly regarding the Middle East) and was one of the ten contributors of "The Metaxas Dictatorship: Aspects of Greece, 1936-40" which was editted by Robin Higham and Thanos Veremis (and which is another highly recommended English-language source). He began writing his book on Metaxas after he retired from university teaching but died just a week before it came off the press. A more detailed biography of his life can be found in an obituary ("P.J. Vatikiotis: An Appreciation") by Abbas Kelidar which I found reproduced here.
Regarding the book itself, it is (as the title states) a political biography of Ioannis Metaxas. On the first page, Vatikiotis explicitly notes, "Less attention is paid to the detail of the policies of his regime, except in general terms, that is, the broad aims and spirit of these policies. At the same time I tried to avoid the temptation of essaying a historical narrative of his regime". In spite of this, there is a good deal of information regarding the 4th of August government. Parts III ("Prelude to Power: The Momentum of Leadership") and Parts IV ("Radical Reformer and Wartime Leader, Architect of Military Victory") of the book are the most relevant in regards to the 4th of August. In particular, chapter 14 ("The Nature of the 4th August Regime"), chapter 15 ("How Others Saw Metaxas and His Regime"), and chapter 16 ("Assessments and Conclusion") are especially noteworthy in that regard. To quote from the back cover, the narrative "makes extensive use of Metaxas's Diary, his correspondence, and the evidence of his close friends and associates". This couldn't be more true as virtually every page in the book includes an excerpt from his personal diary. Unfortunately, I can't provide links to any scholarly or academic reviews of the book as I don't know of any that are available online. However, David H. Close (who, like Vatikiotis himself, was also a contributor in "The Metaxas Dictatorship") reviewed the book in volume 5, I believe, of the journal South European Society and Politics. Critias 01:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the information; I added it as "further reading", where we sometimes put things we hope to eventually be used as references. It sounds to me as if P.J. Vatikiotis is noteowrthy enough for a Wikipedia article, and you already have a reference at hand. Care to take it on? Jkelly 01:37, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
No problem. In regards to the proposition, if I were to undertake it I would only be able to produce a stub not very much larger than what I wrote above as I am no expert regarding Vatikiotis. As my interests primarily lie in various epochs of Greek history, I've only familiarized myself with the little he wrote on that subject alone. Since Middle Eastern history is not my field of study I have not read the works that distinguished him as an esteemed scholar. Considering that the great majority of his works regarded the Middle East (and Egypt, in particular), of which my knowledge is painfully rudimentary, I naturally don't hold myself fit to contribute to that (central) aspect of his legacy. Someone with a far more intimate knowledge of the Middle East would be far more suited to that task. However, I'd be more than willing to assist by supplementing the article with the contributions he made in regards to contemporary Greek history. Critias 22:58, 28 April 2006 (UTC)