I apologise for the following points but I am angry, insulted and those readers following this discussion have a right not to be miss lead by incorrect information.
oncerns have nothing to do with Greek
Snort. If you don't want people to be mislead by incorrect information then stop posting your selective, revisionist history.
Have you ever been to Greece Sean? I openly said I had biases and how dare you attack me on them and 'vested interests'.
Yes & no one was attacking you. You are the one who said that you had biases. I merely repeated what you said. Moreover, it was *you* who went on about how your grandfather served the King etc. and how they were wealthy under the monarchy. It is the impression that *you* gave. I merely stated that these factors may account for your biases (something you acknowleged having). If you don't like people analyzing what you write, don't write it. Simple. People are free to analyze and interpret here. After all, this isn't Greece under Constane I or George II. It just sounds to me like you are sensitive and/or have a problem with the truth being pointed out to you.
You claim you are objective yet you make personal judgements on a man you do not know.
That is your assumption. I preface my statements with the word allegedly (and other terms) when appropriate. Moreover, I based my opinions/perspectives based on reliable first hand accounts, by listening to him, and by studying the subject. I come to my own conclusions by synethsizing all of the material available to me on a given subject. I don't simply favour someone because my grandfather served their father or because of familial ties. Too bad if you don't like it.
I have yet to read anything you have said that is anything but second hand opinions from all your supposed Greek buddies.
Likewise. If you don't like my posts, don't read them. Simple as that. Oh, and who said that they were all Greek?
As for monarchist political parties, I am sure your background in economics and politics will explain to you that people do need money and time to support politics
,
And your point? Greeks have money and time to support other political parties (and there are several). So your argument doesn't hold water. Also, it has a higher per capita income than many other countries in Europe. Thus the only reasonable explanation then is that there isn't enough significant interest in the monarchy. Oh, and who told you what my background is in?
Voting is compulsory so they are forced to vote for who ever exists.
Snort!! Greece is a DEMOCRACY now (a real one, too). People are free to form political parties, associational groups, lobby/oressure groups, and even...umm...run for political office!!!! The last time I checked there were at least ten parties, even Communist and Marxist ones. Contrary to the image you are trying to present, Greeks don't have to just roll over and accept the status quo. Really, your arugment is quite weak.
As for stability... it has already been pointed out that Greece experienced instability due to external forces (namely two world wars).
So did the rest of Europe (that's why they were called World Wars), Surely you are not claiming that all six referendums on the monarchy were due to external problems? How about having the intellectual integrity of acknowledging that there were internal factors too, like Constantine I's sympathies with the central powers, his and this refusal to recognize the democratically elected government of the pro-entente Venizelos, his dissolving the legitimate government of the country, his continued power struggle with Venizelos to the detriment of the country, the terror camapaign launched on his behalf by General Mexatas, and the Bulgarians grabbing of Greek territory due to Constantine's waffling. This disaster of a 'leader' only left the country when the allied powers threatened to bombard Greece if he remained.
Then there was the referendum on the monarchy in 1935, which was marked by fraud, and George II's subsequent appointment of the his facist, repressive friend General Mexatas as Prime Minister -- a man who suspended the Human Rights clauses in the country's constitution (thus creating a vaccume which led the support of Communism to grow), repressed the left (and I'm not talking about so-called Communists), and engaged in ethnic cleansing.
There was also the Second World War and famine, but I don't attribute that to the monarchy (although one must ask if Greece would have been as vulnerable if communication among the allies had been better organized).
However, once the war was over, the repression and intimidation continued, this time under the Prime Minisiterialiship Themistoklis Sophoulis. This ushered in what became known as the era of White Terror. An amnesty agreement was ignored and there was vigilantism, extra judicial executions by death squads, and arbitary imprisonment of leftists. In fact, there was so much represion that leftist parties boycotted the less than free elections of the 1946 (an election marked by fraud). The repression continued still under the government of Konstantinos Tsaldaris (yet another member of the old oligrachy), with tens of thousands of Greeks being placed in concentration camps (and no, all of these poor people were not Communists & even if they were they did not deserved to be treated in this abominable way.
Tsaldaris' 1946 plebescite on the monarchy, which saw the return of George II, too was marred by fraud, intimidation, and coercion -(all hallmarks of the Greek right during this era). George II was not popular with many Greeks (not just the left and the so-called Communists [it was easy to tar dissenters with the Communist brush]) due to his collusion with the facist dictator, Metaxas. This, in turn, led to allienation and increased civil strife. Repression continued and the leftists were forced to go underground. Subsequently, the DAG was formed by the Communists under the leadership of Vafiadis and the civil war commenced (in which atrocities were committed by *both* sides).
Up until 1950, Greece used its Marshal Plan dollars on its military (to repress elements of its population), whereas the rest of Europe focused on reconstruction. I admit that this changed in the 1950s, when there was more investment in development, but this too was was done by massive borrowing.
Yes, the colonels were brutal, but so was the monarchy. It was Constantine's incompetence (somewhat surprising when one considers it was a job he was trained for his entire life) and power struggle with Papandreou that allowed the colonels to take launch their coup. That's why 70 percent of the people (people who lived under the monarchy) voted to abolish it when Karmanalis took over. Say what you will about the referendum, the vote was legitimate and it was far more fair than any such undertaking conducted under the monarchy.
You are at least correct in that Greeks are not stupid, however I don’t believe I ever said they were. You do not understand the type of media access they have. The Government controls the media,
Kindly refrain from telling me what I understand and don't understand, because you haven't a clue. There is certainly less control of the media than there was during the monarchy (see below). Or are you going to dispute that too? Indeed, one wonders why you have such a double standard.
and as I can read Greek I can tell you they do not present the King favourablyGreeks do have freedom of Press but they are prohibited against printing articles that are "insulting to the republic." Discussion of a monarchy is 'insulting' to the republic.
That's your interpretation.
Yes, Greeks do have freedom of the Press, more so than they did under the monarchy, a fact that you assidiously fail to acknowledge. And there is plenty of discussion on the monarchy in the Greek press. Check the Athens News Agency from time to time. The Greek Constitution also prohibts censorship (all government hindrences of the press removed in 1994), and the state monopoly on radio and television ended in the late 80s. Moreover, the country has more newspapers and weekly periodicals than any other country in Europe (as of the late 1990s) based on a per capita basis, which represent all political parties and viewpoints. So don't tell me that discussion on the monarchy isn't permitted. If the press doesn't cover it or cover it favourably, then it is because a). there are more substantive things to cover; and B). there isn't anything favourable to report.
for the internet, as only 10% have access
If I recall correctly, you are quoting a figure from 2000 and the first half of 2001, and it only referred to home access. In 1999 there were 1.33 million internet users (out of a population of 10 million), many of whom had access through work and school. In any event, the rate of users has increased substantially over the last 2-3 years and is projected to reach the 50 percent mark over the next few years.
Whilst I can not discredit that your friends may have their valid reasons (either informed or uninformed) for not being pro-monarch, they do not speak for the nation, and if it is so wonderful under the republic why don’t they go back and live there? I do not have a problem with you not being pro-monarchy, but I do have a problem with you making statements that are inaccurate.
My statements are not innaccurate, thank you very much. Your asserting so doesn't make them so. *I* could say the same about your statements. I also have a problem with you glossing over the failings of the monarchial system in Greece.
Oh, and I am not anti-monarchist, so kindly do not attribute political views to me. In fact, I am generally a monarchist, however, I am able to discern between good monarchies and bad monarchies. I realize that the system has its failings and that it isn't always suitable. Also, not only are the people I know very well informed (supporters of Constantine don't have a monopoly on that), but their nationalities are also none of your affair. For you to questions why they don't go back and live in Greece is childish, as far as I'm concerned. People immigrate for a host of reasons, particulalry in the new 'global village'. Indeed, why don't we all go back to where our ancestors came from? The whole world would be on the move.