Talk:Konstantinos Karamanlis/Archive 1

Merten Affair
The two sources for my contribution to the "Merten Affair" are: ΤΑ ΝΕΑ, December 21, 1999 "The Trial of Max Merten in the Changing Mirrors of Time and Place" Samuel Hassid, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology (http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/Departments/history-school/conferences/holocaust_greece/Samuel_Hassid.pdf)

I was not able to edit the references in the Karamanlis article, and would welcome anyone to help me! Thanks Rastapopoulos 07:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

"Although Karamanlis stated in Parliament that he would press charges, he did not do so."

This statement is incorrect, and there is no claim to this effect in either of your sources. Unless you provide a proper source, I am going to delete this claim -- particularly considering the contradictory fact that Der Spiegel magazine was sued and convicted for defamation in Greece in 1963, exactly for reproducing Merten's libel. Moreover, in his deposition, Merten presented Makris's wife, Eudoxoula, as a niece of Karamanlis who allegedly acted as a go-between in the alleged informing, when in fact she and Karamanlis were not relatives in any kind, shape, or form. I'm not sure why you chose to erase this detail, which serves to show the slanderous nature of the accusations. Coincidentally, you also forgot to mention that the government of Federal Germany, too, decried the accusations as calumniatory (says so in the "Nea" article itself).

Investigative journalist Alexis Papahelas made an extensive documentary on the Merten accusations a couple of years ago, which illuminated many aspects of this smear campaign. If I can locate a transcript, I might even go to the trouble of creating a new stub devoted specifically to this shady mud-slinging campaign. 62.1.66.25 11:34, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

And another thing. You changed back the title of the section on the basis that "there was no legal verdict to support or refute Merten's accusations"

a) Doesn't the Der Spiegel 1963 court conviction count as legal verdict?

b) Can you find a single historian, even amongst the most outspoken critics of Karamanlis, who does not reject Merten's claims?

c) Are we going to see you reinstating John Seigenthaler's involvement in JFK's murder, next, on the basis of "lack of legal verdict"? 62.1.66.25 12:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear 62.1.66.25, here are my sources:
 * 1. On October 8, K. Karamanlis announced that he, as well as all the accused, would press charges in the Greek court against Merten (source: TA NEA Dec 12 1999).
 * 2. Takos Makris, his wife Doxoula (who was Merten's secretary during the Nazi occupation), and the then Deputy Minister of Defense George Themelis (who was appointed Prefect (Νομάρχης) during the Occupation did press charges against in Greece, but not in Germany; Karamanlis did not press charges neither in Greece (despite his public announcement) nor in Germany. Some political analysts, including G. Katris, have argued that a more straightforward approach, that would have unambiguously cleared Karamanlis's name, would have been for him to have pressed charges against Merten in a German court -- for it is obvious that Merten would not (and did not) volunteer to appear and testify in a Greek court! Hence, the verdict was against Der Spiegel and not Merten. (Source: Giannis Katris, "The Birth of Neofascism in Greece", Papazisis Editions, pp 100-106).
 * In conclusion:
 * 1. Karamanlis announced he would press charges against Merten
 * 2. Karamanlis did not do so
 * Q.E.D. Rastapopoulos 12:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Again, you forget to quote Katris's full position (for obvious reasons). He doesn't simply suggest that a more proper course of action would be for Karamanlis to sue in German court -- he states that Karamanlis should quit from the premiership in order to sue as a private individual on a German courtroom. Ho, ho, ho. Moreover, it is obvious to me that you have an axe to grind, when you have read both articles, as well as Katris's book, and yet forget to mention that

a) Even so, Katris (who is hardly sympathetic of Karamanlis) states in no uncertain terms that Merten's accusations against Karamanlis were "unsubstantiated" and "obviously fallacious".

b) The Nea article and Katris's accounts are contradictory. Nea claim that Karamanlis stated he would sue for defamation, while Katris states that Karamanlis claimed he did not need to sue, as the outcome of Makris's suit would also prove his own innocence. You decided to pick and reproduce two parts of two diverging accounts of the affair, and conflate them in a way that would present Karamanlis under a negative light. Axe to grind.

c) You don't make any mention of Der Spiegel's trial outcome (guilty of defamation), nor of Katris's outright dismissal of the accusations wrt Karamanlis. Axe to grind. 62.1.66.25 13:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Dear 62.1.66.25, your use of ad hominem insinuations against me ("for obvious reasons," "axe to grind," etc) add little weight to your arguments. I desire neither to bury nor to whitewash anyone. By what heroic leap of logic would you expect that one who provides a citation (for all to read) should also reproduce its content in toto? If you read my editing of the article, before jumping to conclusions, you would have seen that I added the Der Spiegel verdict. Whether you like it or not, my friend, the fact remains: Karamanlis never pressed any charges against Merten. Rastapopoulos 13:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * P.S. Whether Doxoula was a neice of Karamanlis or not is a minor detail IMHO; of course, if you think it is of pivotal importance, please feel free to add it. As for the titile, "The Merten Smear Campaign" is utterly POV and inappropriate IMHO.Rastapopoulos 12:53, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Last but not least, mr.Rastapopoulos, I noticed that it was you who inserted the patently ridiculous claims that the Merten accusations were a cause of friction between King Paul and Karamanlis! Um, with all due respect, where do these bs allegations come from? Making up stuff to paint the Glucksburgs sympathetically, much? In any case, and since you also seem to hold mr. Katris to high respect, I'll make sure to incorporate his allegations about Queen Φρίκης nazist sympathies in the Glucksburg entries. :-) 62.1.66.25 13:31, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Man, you are such a charming person to debate with! Rastapopoulos 13:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. 62.1.66.25 13:57, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read and understand before brain-farting conclusions about what I think or not think!! 1/ We are both saying that Merten's arguments were never substantiated in a court of law! So what is your problem with that? 2/ I am obviouslu *not* nausiated by the lack of evidence against Karamanlis: I am nauseated by your repeating the same argument twice in the same paragraph: if one reads correctly, it is implicit that Katris feels the accusations are uncorroborated. Why repeat it in a new sentence? Readers are intelligent, they read it the first time, no need to spoon feed them or use a sledgehammer to make your point (" και για όποιον δεν άκουσε, πάω να γ.." as the old joke goes)!! Rastapopoulos 14:19, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Why are you uncomfortable with explicitly stating Katris's position, instead of implying it? 62.1.66.25 14:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ...because we are addressing educated people who can read an agrument the first time it is made..."one such critic" is a direct reference to those who consider the allegations slanderous - even an elementary school student can see that!Rastapopoulos 14:25, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Guess what? Insinuations are not proper encyclopedia wording. 62.1.66.25 14:27, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed, patrticularly for those who grew up reading the ΜΕΓΑΛΗ ΣΟΒΙΕΤΙΚΗ ΕΓΚΥΚΛΟΠΑΙΔΕΙΑ or ΤΟ ΠΙΣΤΕΥΩ ΜΑΣ by Papadopoulos --


 * I wouldn't know about that -- but I'm sure you do. :-) 62.1.66.25

by the way, what is your problem with the first sentence??? Rastapopoulos 14:30, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Not much, which is why I'm leaving it as is. 62.1.66.25 21:29

The most universally "smeared" Greek "Ethnarch"?
It is fascinating to note that Karamanlis was "smeared" for allegedly planning a coup by representatives of both sides of the cold war as well as the former King (strange bedfellows!), "smeared" by former Nazis (Merten) for being a collaborator, "smeared" by representatives of the Greek Left for being a moral accomplice of Lambrakis' murder, "smeared" by the Greek Right for following socialist economic policies in the 1970s,  "smeared" by urban planners for the 'aesthetic' he imposed on the development of Athens, "smeared" by ecologists for burying the River Ilissos, "smeared" for his handling of the Cyprus affair in 1960 (London-Zurich Treaties), even "smeared"by his close associate Aggelos Vlachos for his handling of the Cyprus crisis in 1974 ... and the list of "smear-campaigns" against him goes on and on...Rastapopoulos 11:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Strange bedfellows? In your own, apparently self-descriptive words, ..δύο δάχτυλα και κάτι τι.

As for your pathetic strawman, no-one is characterising criticisms of Karamanlis's policies as smear-campaigns ; only the slanderous attacks on the person, perpetrated by extremes of the political spectrum, completely devoid of any substantiation or proof, and universally rejected by the rest of the political world, including his opponents. I suppose that in your twisted worldview, when Nazis and Stalinists agree on something, it is therefore true? Novel view for a self-proclaimed "opponent of totalitarianism", ha, ha, ha!


 * I am sorry, but I will not return your insults Mr BirdieFluke :) Wont fall for your προβοκάτσια ...Rastapopoulos 13:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not that I would expect an insincere Γλυξβουργόφρων to understand any of this. In your own words, απ'τον κώλο στο μουνί, δύο δάχτυλα και κάτι τι. :-) AvianFluke 12:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Check out the term ad hominem attacks. This technique, ever so popular in Greek politcal youth organizations in the 1970s, as well as at the γήπεδο even today, is kitsch and adds no value to your arguments.Rastapopoulos 12:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You used the phrase first. I'm just quoting. :-D
 * Not talking about κώλο and μουνί, but about "insincere Γλυξβουργόφρων"! What makes you think I am insincere? :P Rastapopoulos 13:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

At least it is now evident that you do, indeed, have an agenda to push. Nice of you to establish that for us with your little temper tantrum. AvianFluke 12:53, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * O yes, I have been assigned by ghosts to restore "τον θεσμό της φρίκης και τον γυιό της Φρειδερίκης" Brrrrr...your beloved ethnarch must be churning in his grave :P Rastapopoulos 13:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Sulzberger's allegations - The "coup than never was" - The "Generals' coup"
Regarding Sulzberger's allegations about Karamanlis's supposed attemt to gain US support for a coup, AvianFluke quoted a source which supposedly refutes this claim (Constantine Karamanlis Archives, 7th Volume, 1997.) I have the very volume in front of me right now, but cannot locate the text in question. AvianFluke, could you kindly direct me the page in question? Thanks, Rastapopoulos 17:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Unlike you, I'm not used to resorting to fraudulent claims and distortions (need I remind you your claim about the Merten accusations "creating friction between King Paul and Karamanlis", which you sneakily backtracked from when asked for evidence?). As I'm not in the mood to read the whole volume page by page, in order to find the exact place, I will provide you with a Nea newspaper citation where Karamanlis characterised these claims as "beneath contempt" in 1997.


 * No need to scour the whole book: it has an index, in which the name Sulzberger does not appear; the name Lauris Norstad does appear a few times, but not in context of Sulzberger's claims. As for my comment about the friction between King Paul and Karamanlis that resulted from the Merten affair, it was culled from a certain analysis that is sadly buried somewhere amond the hundreds of books and files. I have not sneakily backtracked, but I sincerely promise to return with that comment once I recover my source. Rastapopoulos 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Right. My edit mentions that Karamanlis contested the claims about a planned coup, and I have provided the Nea newspaper citation that substantiates he did so. What more is there to discuss? Best of luck finding your "buried" analysis. AvianFluke 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction: He refused to comment ; "no comment" is one thing (everyone has the right to remain silent!) and openly refuting someone is another. Rastapopoulos 20:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I beg to differ as he did not simply respond "no comment". In any case, reproducing his statement verbatim, and leaving readers to judge for themselves is the best NPOV policy. AvianFluke 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It bears noting that, in 1997, while Karamanlis was alive, the former King alluded only to Sulzberger's claims as "proof" that Karamanlis was planning a coup, apparently all forgetful that Karamanlis "had directly asked the king himself for a coup through Bitsios" ; he only remembered to claim so in 2006, after both Karamanlis and Bitsios were dead and could not respond to his claims. Funny, is it not? AvianFluke 18:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

If one were to follow your speculative reasoning, it is also be interesting to note that the East German ex-agents made their comments well after the death od Strauss ;) Rastapopoulos 20:00, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk about red herrings ; your smiley face says it all. You might want to read my point again. AvianFluke 20:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly my point: such lines of argumentation are kara-red herrings :) Rastapopoulos 20:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be unusual, to say the least, for Stazi's agents to divulge their operations while still under the organization's employment, don't you think? :-) In any case, our argumentation in the discussion page is not the point, as long as we can agree on what to include in the entry's main page. I will grant that most of your changes on 13 July 23:16 are acceptable.. AvianFluke 20:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! Rastapopoulos 20:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

About the latest edit. I'm afraid I am going to have to insist on "referred exclusively" ; but I'll lose the italics as way of achieving a middle ground. Keeping most of your other changes. AvianFluke 20:48, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Fine with me. By the way, were you aware that in an interview with Alexis Papachelas, the late George Rallis admitted that the pre-junta ERE government had indeed pressured the palace to revoke certain articles of the constitition before April 21? Rastapopoulos 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean Kannelopoulos's government? The one overthrown by the Military Dictatorship which the king swore in? No, I am not aware of such a petition ; I'd appreciate some pointers to it. Sounds like the ASPIDA Papandreou-coup theories to me..AvianFluke 09:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Check out: http://tovima.dolnet.gr/print_article.php?e=B&f=14717&m=A20&aa=1 Rastapopoulos 12:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Funny. That interview doesn't say what you're claiming. In that interview Rallis claims that he suggested the king waged his constitutional prerogative to wage martial law, αν, όπως υπήρχε κίνδυνος, γινόταν εκτροπή (as in the case of a coup attempting to overthrow the legitimate government, perhaps?).Avianfluke

Unfortunately, when dictator Papadopoulos's coup rolled tanks into Athens, violently seized power, threw politicians into prisons and outlawed all political parties, the king decided to legitimize the dictators by swearing them in, instead of immediately mobilising the state against them, as the democratic government had advised. Avianfluke


 * Constantine's legitimization proved after all to be of a tactical nature, in view of his subsequent couter coup;


 * So goes the royalist apologetics line. I wonder, would he have publicly described the coup in the most flattering terms if that were true? Would he have told Sulzberger that "the United States should always emphasize that the government must succeed", referring to the dictators? Would the former Hitler Youth member, Constantine Glucksburg's queenmother Frederica have wished the dictators to "rule for 50 years", if the royal Glucksburg's were such supporters of democracy? When the Queen mother warned the coupist Pattakos against going to elections, "if they weren't absolutely sure that they were going to be won" by the Junta ; was this an example of how the Glucksburg's understood resistance to the regime? AvianFluke 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I had no idea Frederica, one of Karamanlis's political mentors, was a former Nazi youth; quite fascinating, particularly in view of the fact that both went to great lengths to free Merten, much to the ire of the GReek Jewish community! Rastapopoulos 22:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet another lie. The more you lose your temper, the more your lies continue piling up ; you're making it quite impossible for me to take you seriously. Frederica Glucksburg, the former Hitler Youth member, was most certainly not a "mentor" of Karamanlis ; as a matter of fact, she despised him and was a constant source of friction between Karamanlis and the palace. Karamanlis has accused her in his memoirs of scheming against him and succeeding in turning king Paul against him ; an accusation which most of Karamanlis's opponents take at face value. 62.1.226.120 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) AvianFluke 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Constantines' couter-coup, along with Panagoulis's assassination attept and the Polytechnic Uprising, were among the highlights of the anti-Junta resistance.


 * So now you are comparing Panagoulis's heroic resistance with the failed counter-coup of the same king that swore in the dictators, gave them legitimacy, and expressed his certainty that they "had acted to save the country"? Disgusting. AvianFluke 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Like it or not, Constantine's act was one of resistance against the regime. Unless one views things completely in black and white Rastapopoulos 11:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, Karamanlis recognized the Ioannidis regime de facto and de jure when he accepted to be sworn in by Ioannidis's strawman Gizikis, who he thanked for services rendered, and to whom he bestowed all benefits of a former President. It is noteworthy that Karamanlis never prosecuted Gizikis, Ioannidis, Arapakis, Bonanos and Stathopoulos for the Cyprus matter. I think it is high time to start a new Wiki article on the notorious Cyprus file, what do you think? Rastapopoulos 08:14, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What hogwash! Karamanlis, who had been in self-exile since 1963, consistently opposed the junta ; newspapers like Βραδυνή were shut down for reporting his statements of opposition to the regime ; the dictatorship began court-proceedings against him. Gizikis was pardoned because he, along with others in the military, brought down the regime by returning control of the country to civilians, where it belonged. The coupists were sentenced to death (mitigated to life imprisonment) in the democracy that Karamanlis restored. Papadopoulos died in prison. Ioannidis is rotting there as we speak ; so does Dertilis. What kind of yarn are you trying to spin here? AvianFluke 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Gizikis was never pardoned for anything, he has a chauffeur and the honors of a formet president for life thanks to Karamanlis.


 * This is another lie. No presidential honour has ever been bestowed upon Gizikis, and he certainly does not "have a chauffeur"! In fact, he died seven years ago, in 1999. According to his wikipedia entry, he "went into seclusion and died impoverished and blind" ; better rush in there and change the entry into "he was lavished with honours and made filthy rich" to make it coincide with your bias. AvianFluke 15:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for teh Ioannidis regimes heads of armed forces (Bonanos, Arapakis, Galatsanos), they retained their honorary titles as heads of Army. Finally, Avefoff, made sure that Ioannides was promoted from Brigadier to General. There was something very fishy in the Kingdom of Denmark. As for Ioannidis, he was not sentenced for the Cyprus tragedy (there was no criminal investigation for the Cyprus tragedy, for the purpose of "national interest", to quote Karamanlis) but because of his involvement in April 21 and teh Polytechneio. Rastapopoulos 11:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ioannidis has been spending his life in jail, ever since democracy was restored under Karamanlis. AvianFluke 11:59, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it is quite different from your allegation. AvianFluke 16:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now that is weasel wordplay par excellence!! I quote directly from the article:
 * 1. Ο Ράλλης ήταν ίσως ο μόνος πολιτικός της γενιάς του ο οποίος παραδέχθηκε ευθαρσώς πως είχε κάνει πρόταση εκτροπής '-- Rallis admitted to having proposed to instigate  a deviation.

That's how Papahelas sees it. Rallis describes it as a constitutional solution, since the monarchist constitution (which Karamanlis, thankfully, replaced with a democratic constitution in 1975) afforded such overarching powers to the king. AvianFluke 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 2. «Πήγαμε στο Τατόι και του είπαμε ότι αν, όπως υπήρχε κίνδυνος, γινόταν εκτροπή η κυβέρνηση θα μπορούσε να κάνει χρήση του άρθρου του Συντάγματος που επιτρέπει την κήρυξη του στρατιωτικού νόμου» ... Αν πράγματι θυμόσασταν τότε, ο Κατσώτας έλεγε ότι θα κατέβει επικεφαλής 500.000 ανθρώπων στο Σύνταγμα για να ορκίσει κυβέρνηση. Τα ίδια έλεγε και ο Ανδρέας. Και είπαμε του βασιλέως ότι, αν αυτές οι επαναστατικές κινήσεις γίνουν, η απάντησις πρέπει να είναι η κήρυξις στρατιωτικού νόμου». As you can see, Rallis is not referring to countering "revolutionary movements" from the army, but from the (democratic) Center Union Party; he refers to the names Katsotas and Andreas (centrist politicians) as possible instigators of political anomaly that would merit martial law!

He feared movements that would overthrow the legitimate government by unconstitutional means. Yes, he was afraid that such movements were more likely to come from the left/left-of-center (Andreas was far from a republican centrist at the time), when in fact they were actually instigated by Papadopoulos. So? A constitutional deviation was still a constitutional deviation, whoever started it. When usurpation of constitutional order was set to motion by Papadopoulos moving tanks into Athens, Rallis repeated the exact same suggestion to the King, as did legitimate Prime Minister Kannelopoulos : mobilise the state against the coup. And the king turned a deaf ear to the democratic government and a blind eye to the dictatorial usurpation of power. There's Glucksburg resistance for you. AvianFluke 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The Greek press / historiography refers to the "coup that never was"


 * You mean hypothesizes about a coup that never was. And they ascribe the alleged General's coup to the Glucksburg palace, not ERE. Certainly not Karamanlis, who had left the country, resided in Paris, and refused to participate in Greek political life anymore. AvianFluke 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * One;s geographical location is completely irrelevant. The Ayatollah Khomeini was too in Paris, yet he helped orchestrate teh downfall of teh Shah Rastapopoulos 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

as the "Generals' Coup," i.e. a coup that would have been deployed at trhe behest of Karamalis's ERE (aka Ε, ρε) rightist party with the palace's blessing.


 * Karamanlis lived in Paris and did not participate in Greek politics, despite king Constantine-Glucksburg's repeated attempts to draw him back in, so that he might sort out the mess that the palace's constant inteference had made of Greek political life. AvianFluke 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I totally agree completely failed at the time to act at arm's length against all parties - it was completely biased in favor of ERE. Rastapopoulos 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Such a coup never materialized, as it was pre-empted by April 21. Rastapopoulos 06:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Supposedly.


 * So, then, it is not weasel wording of you to quote the journalist, and present his opinion as Rallis's description of what was suggested? Did you miss the part where Rallis spoke of a συνταγματική διέξοδος?


 * Yes, in terms of military rule to couteract Andreas at al. Rastapopoulos 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * '''Apparently, you cannot make the distinction between invoking an article of the constitution, which is what Rallis described as having suggested, and revoking articles of the constitution, which is what you misleadingly report.


 * The articel invoked would temporarily revoke others (military rule) Rastapopoulos 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Of course, one might reasonably ask, "what kind of constitution was that, which would allow for such overreaching powers in its articles", to which my answer would be a monarchist constitution. Good thing Karamanlis and the Greek voters made sure we don't have one of those any more.''' AvianFluke 10:35, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That was the official Hellenic constitution at the time, the one abolished by Papadopoulos at al. and replaced by a "non-monarchist" one, under which (an under who's "president" Karamanlis assumed office in 1974 Rastapopoulos 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * More lies. He swore under the 1946 constitution, which was temporarily restituted, without the provisions on the form of government, until the form of the political system could be democratically decided by a referendum and a corresponding constitution could be drafted. The pseudo-constitution of the dictators fell along with their regime, which Constantine-Glucksburg had swore in. AvianFluke 12:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Mea culpa, he did in fact swear under the 1946 constitution sans the articles pertaining to the head of state. He did however assume office under the Presidency of Gizikis, whether you like it or not. PS, what are the other lies? Or is this yet more nyfitsa wording? Rastapopoulos 12:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Avian, it is common courtesy when one comments on anothers comments to use proper indentations - otherwise you render your "opponent's" comments completely unitelligible (as you have done with mine) which constitutes foul play. In goof faith, I assume you did not do so intentionally. As for Rallis's comments, any reader in Good faith can see what his argument was: he expected "anomalies" from Andreas et al. and called upon the King to preemptively wage military rule. There are several politicians and journalists, mostly from the left, who warned about the eventuality of an upcoming coup (one such journalist being Elias Dimitracopoulos). Rallis dis not "warn" against a putsch, he lobbied for one. As did other ERE compadres of his, both in Greece and (according to many allegations, in Paris) did.Rastapopoulos 11:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Would those be the allegations of the former monarch who swore in the military dictators and assured them he was "convinced they acted to save the country"?
 * I guessed so. AvianFluke 11:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In any case, please refrain from trying to incorporate what are text-book cases of weasel wording, guilt-by-association and other biased viewpoints into the article. Ask for employment at LaRouche publications, if that's your particular cup of tea. At this point in time, my good faith notwithstanding, I am convinced you have a particular POV to push, and at that, one that is shared only by a fringe minority in Greece (amongst whom, extremely few, if any, historians). I'm not at all interested in debating the relative merits of democratic versus monarchical governance with you (or, for that matter, of Constantine Karamanlis versus the Glucksburg royal dynasty), but I am not going to let you mould the article to your heart's content. I have repeatedly shown my willingness to incorporate all differing views on a NPOV representation, but guilt by association and its type of fallacies are where I draw the line.AvianFluke 12:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no idea you LaRouche is, but it is obvious to me that you are are trying to throw a guilt by association trip on me by calling me a royalist (which I certainly am not), implying I belong to some fringe (do you also consider Papachelas a hare krishna?), and that I am not democratic (which I certainly am, much to your dismay). That is a purely ad hominem approach, well dicredited by all serious debaters. I too am not going to allow you to dominate the article with uncritical rhetoric on ypur "Ethnarch's" papal infallibility! Nobody is a sacred cow, my friend, unless you are a paid biographer (of which Karamanlis has several) of a devout Hindu. I will not go so far to propose that he was a fascist (as claimed Margaret Papandreou's interview in Andy Warhol's Interview (magazine) , but, like all politicians in our neck of the woods, he was certainly no saint Rastapopoulos 13:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The edits of each and our exchanges in here speak volumes as to who is the POV pusher. AvianFluke 13:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * True, there is indeed a definite pattern: I generally start by adding a point, backed by mainstream references; not being able to get away removing it (without violating Wiki policy on POV), you then add tedious POV disclaimers, Rastapopoulos 15:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That is very amusing! Did you just criticize me for behaviour you displayed, here? Replete with your Talk Page outburst (and strawman)  over my sourced entry. AvianFluke 17:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * and finally besprinkle me with invectives such as, and I quote: "patently ridiculous claims," "Making up stuff to paint the Glucksburgs sympathetically," "in your twisted worldview," "insincere Γλυξβουργόφρων," "resorting to fraudulent claims and distortions," "royalist apologetic," "Disgusting," "hogwash," "What kind of yarn are you trying to spin here," "More lies," "LaRouche" etc. How about that?   ;) Rastapopoulos 15:55, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * At least you recognize that I abide by Wikipedia's NPOV policy, which is more than I can say about you ; endorsing unsubstantiated claims that abide to your bias, while deleting those that do not as "tedious disclaimers" seems to be your game. You're not above name-calling and strawmen either, despite your self-righteous indignation (the difference being, you sneakily write them down in Greek as if that will get you off the hook. Σοβιετική Εγκυκλοπαίδεια? Νταλάρας? Paid biographers?). It should go without mention that an attack on the argument, as much of what you are complaining about was, cannot, by its very definition, be considered an ad-hominem. And I will continue to call you out on lying so long as you continue to do so. How about that "burried" analysis, then? AvianFluke 16:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 1. My source regarding the tension between Karamanlis and King Paul as a result of the Merten affair is an article by Alexandra Stephanopoulou from the newspaper Estia. Estia is a very old Athens daily, formerly of Venizelist orientation but presently ultra-conservative (albeit serious, IMHO). Estia has a very limited circulation which would hardly qualify it as mainstream. I have therefore decided not to revert to the above argument, as I prefer to quote mainstream research.
 * 2. "Paid biographers" - certainly not a reference to yourself, but a euphemism for a series of infomercial-type biographies of Karamanlis that appeared mostly during his lifetime (e.g.by Roger Massip, "Caramanlis : un Grec hors du commun," Stock, Paris, 1982, as well by local Karamanlis associates such as Tsatsos, Evert and Lamprias). Granted, there is no evidence these publications were sponsored or paid by for by Karamanlis or his friends, but they are overwhelmingly laudarory and uncritical quasi-theological shrines of worship, IMHO. I invite you all to read them and decide accordingly.
 * 3. Once again, you call me a liar. In the few cases you have proven me wrong (eg. that Gizikis swore Karamalis under a reduced version of the 1946 constitution) I have acknowledged my mistake. But calling one a liar without evidence is utterly Weasel-like and of poor sportsmanship to boot. Rastapopoulos 04:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've noticed you added another lie to the main page, by describing Gizikis as the "first president of the 3rd Greek republic". In fact, the third Greek republic was proclaimed when the Greek voters decided on the form of the political system, in the 1974 referendum, some months after the fall of the Dictatorship. Its first provisional president was Michalis Stasinopoulos ; he was succeeded by Konstantinos Tsatsos (you might have heard of him - another Gluckburg palace backed dictatorship, that of Ioannis Metaxas, had sent him to exile in 1940). Your attempt to somehow minimize the restoration of democracy by the national unity government under Karamanlis, by means of resorting to such fraudulent claims as that "the first president of the new republic was Gizikis" serves to show you in your true pov-pushing colors, despite your proclamations to the opposite. 62.1.226.120 10:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC) AvianFluke 10:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Correct me if I am wrong, but did not Gizikis remain President of the Hellenic Republic until well after the elections of November 17 and the plebiscite of December 8 1974? As for the designation "President of the Third Hellenic Republic" I took that from List of Presidents of Greece. So where are my lies? Am I missing something, or are you once engaging in Weasle tactics? How sad.Rastapopoulos 11:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sad indeed. There is a reason wikipedia entries cannot be used as sources for other articles. That entry is wrong. The Third Republic was proclaimed after the form of political government was decided by plebiscite ; its first provisional president was Michalis Stasinopoulos. Just in case you would like to contradict me on the basis of the... wikipedia article (like the pov-pusher you are), here are two newspaper obituaries referring to Michalis Stasinopoulos as the first (provisional) president of the third Greek Republic, coming from as divergent sources as you are ever likely to find (one from the ERA public radio, the other from "Rizospastis" communist daily). As an aside : Stasinopoulos was a man of moral strength and a fighter for democracy. As president of the Greek supreme court, he denied to recognise the dictatorial regime as legitimate government, and was expelled by the dictators for his stance.AvianFluke 11:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Semantics aside, Gizikis remained head of state until December 18. And "that is the double truth, Ruth" to quote Spike Lee. 11:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "Semantics", eh? Is that another word for obfuscation? Here are two more sources about Stasinopoulos being the first president of the new republic. One comes from in.gr news agency, and the other is as official as you are going to get : the Greek parliament website . I wasn't joking when I said your bias represents a miniscule fringe of Greek society. Here we have sources from all over the political spectrum, communist, socialist, liberal, conservative, libertarian, all agreeing that Stasinopoulos was the first president.... but you know better. Bah. I guess if you hate the third republic and the politicians who instituted it, you will concoct all sorts of stories to disparage them.AvianFluke 11:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Again my source on the "third republic" was Wiki; nevertheless, the authority of the web site of the Greek parliament certainly settles the issue in my mind. However Gizikis was head of state until December 18, and he did preside over a democratically-held parliamentary election and over a plebiscite. That is a fact, no? Rastapopoulos 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Surprise, surprise ; disappearing from the talk page after being outed on our obfuscations once again, mr.Rastapopoulos? Why am I not surprised?AvianFluke 12:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I dont understand your rant, old boy Rastapopoulos 12:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for "Karamanlis's paid biographers" and the like, apparently peer-reviewed works such as Encyclopedia Britannica must also written by them, as they are far more enthusiastic and approving of the man and his policies than this wikipedia entry. Heck, "Karamanlis supporters" must be taking over the world, seeing as foreign newspapers and media so diverse as the libertarian Financial Times, the leftist Independent, the French Libération, the German right-leaning Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, the center-left Le Monde and the Grauniad have all seen fit to publish enthusiastic appraisals of his legacy. AvianFluke 11:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Karamanlis is the only Greek politician other that Venizelos that has been called an Ethnarch, and as such is the subject of awe and veneration for many Greeks (as is MAkarios for Greek-Cypriots), as is painfully obvious from AvianFluke's contributions. Karamanlis has left an important legacy, and is universally acknowledged as being the statesman who geared Greece towards the European Union. As with all public figures, some of his actions were highly controversial (eg. the via and notheia era) and pointing them out is clearly within the context of presenting a balanced view of his legacy. Rastapopoulos 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The contributions of each are available for all to read and reach their conclusions as to who is the pov-pusher. I am certainly not "venerational" towards Karamanlis, and I haven't used the "ethnarch" characterism, neither in this article, nor in the discussion page, as you have deceitfully attributed to me more than once. If ascribing such sentiments to me makes you feel better over being called out for your spurious statements and specious reasoning, so be it. This debate is way past the point of usefulness anyways. AvianFluke 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Or, as they say in my country, το γαμ... και ψόφησε.... Rastapopoulos 16:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)