The sudden death of King Alexander on the 12th October 1920 – Ο ξαφνικός θάνατος του Βασιλέως Αλεξάνδρου Α΄την 12η Οκτωβρίου 1920

Ο Αλέξανδρος ήταν δευτερότοκος γιος του Βασιλέα Κωνσταντίνου Α’ και της Βασιλίσσης Σοφίας. Ανέβηκε στο θρόνο το 1917 μετά την εκδίωξη του πατέρα του και του διαδόχου πρίγκηπα Γεωργίου από τις δυνάμεις της «Αντάντ». Η οικογένεια του δεν τον αναγνώρισε ποτέ ως «Βασιλέα των Ελλήνων», και στον τάφο του στο Τατόι αναγράφεται ως “Αλέξανδρος, βασιλόπαις της Ελλάδος, βασίλεψε αντί του πατρός αυτού”.
Στην τριετή περίοδο της «βασιλείας» του, ο Αλέξανδρος παρέμεινε διακριτικά στο περιθώριο. Για το λόγο αυτό οι σχέσεις του με την Κυβέρνηση Βενιζέλου ήταν εξαιρετικές.

Η πρωτεύουσα του νομού Έβρου, Αλεξανδρούπολις, έχει μετονομασθεί προς τιμήν του νεαρού «βασιλεύοντος». Παλιά ονομαζόταν Δεδέαγατς. Η αλλαγή έγινε τον Ιούλιο 1920 όταν την επισκέφθηκε ο Αλέξανδρος.

Καθώς ο Αλέξανδρος «βασίλευε», ο Κωνσταντίνος με την οικογένεια του διαβίωνε στο Λουκάρνο της Ελβετίας.

Όσα όμως δεν έπραξε ο Αλέξανδρος με τη ζωή του, τα έπραξε και με το παραπάνω με το θάνατο του. Άφησε την τελευταία το πνοή στο Τατόι, από σηψαιμία την οποία υπέστη μετά από δάγκωμα μαϊμούς στο βασιλικό κτήμα την 12η Οκτωβρίου 1920, τις παραμονές των βουλευτικών εκλογών που είχαν προκηρυχθεί για την 25η Οκτωβρίου 1920. Ο θάνατος του προκάλεσε αλυσιδωτές αντιδράσεις στο εύθραυστο πολιτικό σύστημα της Ελλάδος, που κορυφώθηκαν με την επιστροφή του Βασιλέα Κωνσταντίνου στον θρόνο.

Η εφημερίδα «Journal de Geneve» έγραφε την 24η Οκτωβρίου 1920: «Η χηρεία αύτη του Θρόνου, δημιουργουμένη την παραμονήν των εκλογών, θα έχει ως αποτέλεσμα να προκαλέσει οξείαν πολιτικήν κρίσιν, και εκ της κατευθύνσεως ήν θα λάβουν τα γεγονότα κατά τας επόμενας εβδομάδας θα εξαρτηθεί όλον το μέλλον της Ελλάδος.» (Εφημερίδα ΕΜΠΡΟΣ, 25/10/1920)

venizelos-koyntoyriotis-paraskeyopoylos-stadio-1920.jpg
Ο Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος στο Στάδιο στις 14 Σεπτεμβρίου 1920, με τον ναύαρχο Π. Κουντουριώτη και τον αρχιστράτηγο Λεωνίδα Παρασκευόπουλοn

Πράγματι, μέχρι το ατυχές συμβάν του θανάτου του Αλεξάνδρου, ο Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος ήταν ο απόλυτος κυρίαρχος του πολιτικού παιχνιδιού στην Ελλάδα και τίποτε δεν φαινόταν ότι θα μπορούσε να αλλάξει την εικόνα αυτή. Η Μικρασιατική στρατιωτική επιχείρηση ήταν σε εξέλιξη και η υποστήριξη των συμμάχων (Αγγλία και Γαλλία) ήταν σταθερή.

Με τον θάνατο του Αλεξάνδρου άνοιξε διάπλατα το «Δυναστικό» ζήτημα, που αποτέλεσε και το κεντρικό ζήτημα των εκλογών της 1ης Νοεμβρίου 1920. Αρχικά οι εκλογές είχαν προκηρυχθεί για την 25η Οκτωβρίου, όμως ο αναπάντεχος θάνατος του Βασιλέα Αλεξάνδρου την 12η Οκτωβρίου (παλαιό ημερολόγιο) οδήγησε στην μετάθεση της ημερομηνίας διεξαγωγής των εκλογών.

Δύο μέρες πριν τον θάνατο του Αλεξάνδρου, την 10η Οκτωβρίου 1920, επέστρεψε στην Ελλάδα ο Αρχηγός των Εθνικοφρόνων, Δημήτριος Γούναρης, που παρέμεινε εξόριστος για τρία χρόνια.

Αμέσως μετά τον θάνατο του Αλεξάνδρου, η Κυβέρνηση εξέδωσε ανακοινωθέν σύμφωνα με το οποίο καλείτο εις τον θρόνο ο μικρότερος αδελφός του Αλεξάνδρου, Παύλος. Με δεδομένη όμως την εμπλοκή των σχέσεων με την βασιλική οικογένεια, θα εκλεγόταν Αντιβασιλέας από την διαλυθείσα (η Βουλή είχε διαλυθεί την 20η Σεπτεμβρίου 1920 και είχαν προκηρυχθεί βουλευτικές εκλογές) Βουλή. Μέχρι τότε τα βασιλικά καθήκοντα θα ασκούσε το Υπουργικό Συμβούλιο.

Η Βουλή εξέλεξε την 15η Οκτωβρίου 1920 Αντιβασιλέα τον ναύαρχο Παύλο Κουντουριώτη και η Κυβέρνηση του Ελευθερίου Βενιζέλου αποφάσισε την 8ημέρη καθυστέρηση διεξαγωγής των βουλευτικών εκλογών. Το σχετικό διάταγμα υπεγράφη από τον Αντιβασιλέα την 18η Οκτωβρίου.

gounaris.jpg
Δημήτριος Γούναρης

Σε δηλώσεις του την ίδια ημέρα, 15η Οκτωβρίου, ο Πρωθυπουργός κ. Βενιζέλος ζήτησε από τον «έκπτωτο» πρώην βασιλέα Κωνσταντίνο να αναγνωρίσει τον διάδοχο Παύλο ως βασιλέα και όχι απλά ως εκτελούντα τα καθήκοντα του βασιλέα.

Η κηδεία του Αλεξάνδρου έγινε την 16η Οκτωβρίου 1920.

Την 18η Οκτωβρίου έγινε γνωστό ότι ο Πρεσβευτής της Ελλάδος στη Βέρνη κ. Κέπετζης μετέβη στη Λουκέρνη όπου ευρίσκετο ο πρίγκηπας Παύλος και του επέδωσε επιστολή με την οποία η Ελληνική Κυβέρνηση εξέφρασε τα συλλυπητήρια της για τον θάνατο του Αλεξάνδρου και τον ενημέρωσε ότι σύμφωνα με το Σύνταγμα είναι ο επόμενος Βασιλέας της Ελλάδος.

Κατά την Κυβέρνηση οι «διαπραγματεύσεις»  σχετικά με την «αναγνώριση» του νέου βασιλέα από τον πατέρα του Κωνσταντίνο θα ελάμβαναν χώρα μετά τις εκλογές.

Είναι προφανές ότι ο Βενιζέλος ήθελε να φέρει τον Κωνσταντίνο προ τετελεσμένου γεγονότος, και να αποτρέψει οιανδήποτε απόπειρα επιστροφής του στον θρόνο.

Η αντιπολίτευση όμως είχε μια ριζικά διαφορετική άποψη.

Σε δηλώσεις του την 18η Οκτωβρίου, ο Δημήτριος Γούναρης ανέφερε ότι ο μόνος αρμόδιος να αποφανθεί επι του βασιλικού θέματος, αν υπάρχει τέτοιο, είναι ο Ελληνικός Λαός.

«Υπαρχούσης περιπτώσεως εκλογής Βασιλέως, είς και μόνον είναι ο αρμόδιος να τον εκλέξει. Ο Ελληνικός Λαός. Και είς μόνον τρόπος δια να ερωτηθεί. Το Δημοψήφισμα.» (Εφημερίδα Σκριπ, 18/10/1920)

Ο πρίγκηπας Παύλος σε δηλώσεις του στην εφημερίδα «Journal de Geneve» την 20η Οκτωβρίου 1920 ανέφερε ότι είναι τελείως αλληλέγγυος με τον πατέρα του και τον διάδοχο Γεώργιο και ότι το «μέλλον έγκειται εις τας χείρας του Ελληνικού Λαού» (Εφημερίδα Σκριπ, 21/10/1920)

Στο μεταξύ η αναβίωση του «Δυναστικού» θέματος στην Ελλάδα προσέλκυσε το ενδιαφέρον των «συμμάχων». Σε ανταπόκριση από το Λονδίνο, η εφημερίδα «ΕΜΠΡΟΣ» αναφέρει ότι οι «Τάϊμς» του Λονδίνου θεωρούν ότι οι μηχανορραφίες του Κωνσταντίνου για να επανέλθει στον θρόνο θα αποτύχουν, και πλέκει το εγκώμιο του Ελευθερίου Βενιζέλου.

Στην ομιλία του στην εκλογική συγκέντρωση των Εθνικοφρόνων την 25η Οκτωβρίου 1920, ο Δημήτριος Γούναρης είπε: «Διότι πράγματι ζήτημα Θρόνου δεν υπάρχει. Ο Θρόνος έχει τον νόμιμον αυτού κάτοχον. Βασιλεύς των Ελλήνων είναι ο Κωνσταντίνος … Και πρώτην άσκησιν αυτής (σημείωση: της ελευθερίας μετά την νίκη στις εκλογές) θ’ αποτελέσει το δημοψήφισμα, δι’ ού θ’ αποκαταστήσωμεν εν πληρότητι την Λαϊκήν Κυριαρχίαν.»

Το ενδιαφέρον των συμμάχων κορυφώνεται καθώς πλησιάζει η ημέρα των εκλογών. Σύμφωνα με ανταπόκριση της εφημερίδας ΕΜΠΡΟΣ της 28ης Οκτωβρίου 1920, ο «Ημερήσιος Τηλέγραφος του Λονδίνου έγραφε: «Οι οπαδοί της απολυταρχίας και του πρωσισμού προσπαθούν να κατανικήσουν τον κ. Βενιζέλον, όστος εκπροσωπεί την ελευθερίαν, την πρόοδον, και την υγιά εξωτερικήν πολιτικήν… Οι αφοσιωμένοι φίλοι της Ελλάδος ελπίζουν ότι ο λαός θα διατηρήσει εις την εξουσίαν τον κ. Βενιζέλον, τον διαπρεπή πολιτικόν άνδρα , όστις έπραξε τόσα δια την πατρίδα του, διαρκούσης μιας περιόδου πλήρους δυσχερειών, ομοίαν της οποίας δεν δύναται να εύρη τις εις το παρελθόν.»

Οι εκλογές της 1ης Νοεμβρίου έδωσαν συντριπτική νίκη στην Αντιπολίτευση. Ο Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος απεχώρησε από την Ελλάδα την 4η Νοεμβρίου επιβαίνων θαλαμηγού με φίλους του όπως ο πρώην Δήμαρχος Αθηναίων Εμμανουήλ Μπενάκης.

Η πτώση του Βενιζέλου άνοιξε τους ασκούς του Αιόλου στο εξωτερικό μέτωπο της χώρας. Την 8η Νοεμβρίου 1920 η εφημερίδα ΕΜΠΡΟΣ σε ανταπόκριση της αναφέρει ότι σύμφωνα με δημοσίευμα της Γαλλικής εφημερίδας «Ματέν» (7/11) άρχισαν κινήσεις για την αμφισβήτηση της Συνθήκης των Σεβρών. Σε άλλη ανταπόκριση από το Λονδίνο, αναφέρεται ότι ο βουλευτής Μύναρ Λώ έθεσε στη Βουλή των Κοινοτήτων το ερώτημα κατά πόσον η επάνοδος του Βασιλέα Κωνσταντίνου στον θρόνο θα γινόταν ανεκτή από τις Κυβερνήσεις της Αγγλίας και της Γαλλίας.

800px-Constantineiofgreece.jpg
Βασιλέας Κωνσταντίνος Α’

Η νέα Κυβέρνηση που σχηματίσθηκε την 4η Νοεμβρίου 1920, είχε επικεφαλής τον Δημήτριο Ράλλη. Ο Δημήτριος Γούναρης ανέλαβε το Υπουργείο Στρατιωτικών, αλλά ήταν ο πραγματικός Πρωθυπουργός. Την 11η Νοεμβρίου 1920  με διάγγελμα προς τον ελληνικό λαό, η Κυβέρνηση όρισε την 22α Νοεμβρίου 1920 ως ημερομηνία του δημοψηφίσματος «δια τον Βασιλέα Κωνσταντίνον».

Την ίδια ημέρα, 11 Νοεμβρίου 1920, ο Ελευθέριος Βενιζέλος αφήχθη στην Μεσσήνη της Σικελίας. Ο καιρός ήταν πολύ κακός και ο πρώην Πρωθυπουργός ζήτησε από τις ιταλικές αρχές να του παράσχουν αμαξοστοιχία για να μεταβεί στη Ρώμη και από εκεί στη Μασσαλία, όπερ και εγένετο.

Στο μεταξύ πυκνώνουν και οι διαβουλεύσεις των «συμμάχων». Την 14η Νοεμβρίου συναντήθηκαν στο Λονδίνο με θέμα το «ελληνικό ζήτημα» ο Άγγλος Πρωθυπουργός Λόϋντ Τζώρτζ με τον Γάλλο ομόλογο του Λέϋγκ, χωρίς όμως να πάρουν αποφάσεις. Την 16η Νοεμβρίου 1920 ο Λόρδος Κώρζον, Υπουργός Εξωτερικών της Μεγάλης Βρετανίας, δήλωσε ότι η Κυβέρνηση του θα υποστηρίξει την επάνοδο του Κωνσταντίνου στον θρόνο, με ορισμένες εγγυήσεις, και ότι η παρουσία του Βασιλέα θα ενισχύσει και το ηθικό των στρατευμάτων στην Μικρά Ασία.

Σε ανταπόκριση της από το Παρίσι η εφημερίδα ΕΜΠΡΟΣ (19/11/1920) αναφέρει ότι σε συνάντηση του Πρωθυπουργού Λέϋγκ με τον Ιταλό Υπουργό Εξωτερικών Κόμη Σφόρτσα, οι δύο πλευρές ευρίσκονται κοντά στην εκτίμηση ότι θα ήταν εφικτή την επιστροφή του Κωνσταντίνου στον θρόνο, αλλά θα πρέπει να ιδωθεί ευνοϊκά το ενδεχόμενο αναθεώρησης της Συνθήκης των Σεβρών, ειδικά όσον αφορά την εκχώρηση της Θράκης και της Σμύρνης.

Την 22α Νοεμβρίου 1920 (παλαιό ημερολόγιο, με το νέο 5 Δεκεμβρίου) πραγματοποιήθηκε στην Ελλάδα το Δημοψήφισμα για την επιστροφή ή μη του Βασιλέα Κωνσταντίνου Α’ στην Ελλάδα.

Την 11η πρωϊνή της ημέρας του Δημοψηφίσματος, ο Άγγλος Πρεσβευτής Λόρδος Γκράμβιλ επέδωσε Διακλοινωση στον Πρωθυπουργό κ. Ράλλη, που ανέφερε:

«Αι Σύμμαχοι Δυνάμεις καθήκον των θεωρούν να ανακοινώσουν εις την Ελληνικήν Κυβέρνησιν ότι εν περιπτώσει επανόδου του Βασιλέως Κωνσταντίνου θα παύσουν παρέχουσαι εις την Ελλάδα πάσαν οικονομικήν αρωγήν.»

Το αποτέλεσμα ήταν συντριπτικά υπέρ της επιστροφής του Κωνσταντίνου.

Ο Ουίνστων Τσώρτσιλ αναφερόμενος στην Μικρασιατική Καταστροφή που επήλθε το 1922 (και μάλλον αποδίδοντας την στην επάνοδο του βασιλέα Κωνσταντίνου στον θρόνο το 1920) έγραψε ότι «ίσως δεν είναι υπερβολή το να πούμε ότι αυτό το δάγκωμα μιας μαϊμούς κόστισε τη ζωή σε 250,000 χιλιάδες ανθρώπους».

The “North Macedonia Agreement”: When the rulers are afraid of the people they rule – Η Συμφωνία για τη “Βόρεια Μακεδονία”: Όταν οι κυβερνώντες φοβούνται τον λαό

Θυμάμαι την πρώτη φορά που πήγα στα Σκόπια ήταν για ένα έργο μεγάλης ελληνικής εταιρείας. Είχαμε τελειώσει τη συνάντηση μας στα γραφεία του πελάτη και γυρνάγαμε στο ξενοδοχείο, περνώντας μέσα από μια στοά. Στην έξοδο της στοάς ήτανε ένας γυρολόγος που πούλαγε διάφορα μπιχλιμπίδια. Ανάμεσα σε αυτά ήταν ένα μεγάλο αυτοκόλλητο, μεγέθους Α4, που έδειχνε το γειτονικό κράτος να εκτείνεται μέχρι τη Θεσσαλονίκη.

Γελάσαμε με ένα τρόπο αμήχανο, γιατί ήτανε δίπλα μας και οι εντόπιοι συνεργάτες, και προχωρήσαμε. Το ξενοδοχείο ήτανε δίπλα. Μπήκαμε μέσα κι εγώ πισωγύρισα, και πήγα στον γυρολόγο κι αγόρασα το αυτοκόλλητο. Δεν ήθελα να ξεχάσω αυτή την αποτρόπαια εικόνα.

kumanovo_us

Λίγους μήνες μετά, τον Ιούνιο, έζησα από κοντά την εμφύλια σύρραξη του 2001. Το ταξί που μας έφερνε στα Σκόπια από τη Θεσσαλονίκη πέρναγε 10 χιλιόμετρα δυτικά από την εμπόλεμη ζώνη. Από το γραφείο του πελάτη μπορούσαμε να δούμε καθαρά τους βομβαρδισμούς.

Το έργο διήρκεσε λίγο παραπάνω από ένα χρόνο, τα πράγματα ηρέμησαν, αλλά το Α4 με τη “Μακεδονία” να φτάνει μέχρι τη Θεσσαλονίκη το έχω ακόμα. Δεν θα το ξεχάσω ποτέ. Ένας βασικός λόγος είναι ότι είναι αναντίστοιχο με αυτό που βίωσα στα Σκόπια.

Η λεγόμενη “Βόρεια Μακεδονία” είναι μια φτωχή χώρα, χωρίς πόρους, στη μέση του πουθενά. Το 30% του πληθυσμού είναι Αλβανοί, που δεν θέλουν καν να λέγονται “Μακεδόνες”. Οι περισσότεροι κατοικούν στο δυτικό μέρος του κρατιδίου. Στο βορειοδυτικό σύνορο, βρίσκεις το Κόσοβο. Ο ρυθμός αναπαραγωγής του Αλβανικού πληθυσμού είναι πολύ μεγαλύτερος από εκείνον του “Μακεδονικού”, και προβλέπεται ότι μετά από 20 χρόνια οι  Αλβανοί θα είναι περισσότεροι.

Στην αγορά των Σκοπίων, που κυριαρχείται από Αλβανούς, μπορείς να βρεις τα πάντα, τα περισσότερα λαθραία. Η Ποντγκόριτσα, στο γειτονικό Μαυροβούνιο, ήταν τότε το κέντρο διανομής από το οποίο ερχόντουσαν στα Σκόπια όλα τα καλά του κόσμου.

Το κρατίδιο αυτό δεν θα μπορούσε να επιβιώσει χωρίς τα προγράμματα οικονομικής ενίσχυσης των ΗΠΑ. Θυμάμαι ότι και ο Καναδάς είχε συνεισφέρει.

Πάρα πολλοί πολίτες του κρατιδίου είναι οικονομικοί μετανάστες, οι περισσότεροι βρίσκονται στη Γερμανία. Πολλά στεγαστικά δάνεια έχουν ρήτρα Ελβετικού φράγκου λόγω αστάθειας του τοπικού νομίσματος.

macedonia-kumanovo (1)

Η “Συμφωνία των Πρεσπών” είναι αποτέλεσμα των επιθυμιών και επιδιώξεων την ΗΠΑ και της Γερμανίας να σταθεροποιηθεί η κατάσταση στα Δυτικά Βαλκάνια. Ο κ. Τσίπρας συνέπλευσε και απέκτησε πολλά εύσημα εκ τούτου.

Είναι όμως αυτή μια καλή συμφωνία για την Ελλάδα;

Από όσα έχω διαβάσει δεν υπάρχει κάποιο συγκεκριμένο όφελος για την Ελλάδα. Νομίζω ότι περισσότερο μας έχουν ανάγκη οι γείτονες “Μακεδόνες” από ότι τους έχουμε εμείς.

Φαίνεται λοιπόν ότι κλείνουμε το θέμα της ονομασίας χωρίς να έχουμε εισπράξει κάτι χειροπιαστό σαν χώρα.

Τι χάνουμε όμως;

Σύμφωνα με τις έρευνες γνώμης, η μεγάλη πλειοψηφία των Ελλήνων δεν θέλουν τη συμφωνία αυτή. Παρόλα αυτά όμως, η Κυβέρνηση και οι συμπορευόμενοι βουλευτές θα την ψηφίσουν.

Προσωπικά είμαι ενοχλημένος από το γεγονός ότι η Ελλάδα δεν εισπράττει κάτι από μια τόσο σημαντική συμφωνία. Το θέμα της ονομασίας φαίνεται να είναι σημαντικό για πολλούς συμπολίτες, σέβομαι τη γνώμη τους, αλλά δεν καταλαβαίνω γιατί του δίνουν τόση σημασία. Κατά την προσωπική μου γνώμη, ο κίνδυνος που ελλοχεύει στη “Βόρεια Μακεδονία”  είναι ο Αλβανικός αλυτρωτισμός και επεκτατισμός. Ο θύλακας που έχει γεωγραφικό κέντρο το Κόσοβο θα γίνει στην επόμενη πενταετία το επίκεντρο πολλαπλών και παρατεταμένων συγκρούσεων, και μπορεί να οδηγήσει σε μόνιμη αστάθεια, κάτι σαν το Βαλκανικό αντίστοιχο της Συρίας. Αυτό όμως είναι άλλο θέμα. Το αναφέρω επειδή ο κίνδυνος είναι υπαρκτός, είναι σημαντικός, και κάποια στιγμή θα εκδηλωθεί με τρόπο ορατό στους πολλούς, ενώ σήμερα είναι ορατός στους λίγους.

macedonia-kumanovo

Παρ’ όλες τις ενδείξεις της διαφωνίας ενός πολύ μεγάλου ποσοστού του πληθυσμού της Ελλάδος με τη συμφωνία, η Κυβέρνηση και οι συμπορευόμενοι εξακολουθούν να επιμένουν ότι αρκεί να εγκριθεί η συμφωνία από τη Βουλή.

Γιατί όμως δεν κάνουν ένα δημοψήφισμα; Δεν μπορεί άραγε η Δημοκρατία της Ελλάδος να αντέξει κάτι τέτοιο; Κι αν δεν μπορεί, τι Δημοκρατία είναι αυτή;

Νομίζω ότι η Δημοκρατία της Ελλάδος μπορεί να αντέξει ένα δημοψήφισμα για τη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών, αλλά ο κ. Τσίπρας και οι λοιποί κυβερνώντες φοβούνται την γνώμη του λαού και για το λόγο αυτό δεν το κάνουν.

Έχουμε μια Κυβέρνηση που φοβάται το λαό. Και για το λόγο αυτό του στερεί το δικαίωμα να εκφράσει τη γνώμη του για κάτι που ο λαός θεωρεί πολύ σημαντικό.

Το φαινόμενο είναι πολύ σημαντικό επειδή δεν έχει σχέση με την οικονομία. Οι Έλληνες δέχθηκαν την επιβολή βαρύτατων μέτρων στην οικονομία, τα περισσότερα από τα οποία ισχύουν και σήμερα, με κορυφαία την υπερφορολόγηση. Στη διάρκεια της τελευταίας τετραετίας οι μαζικές κινητοποιήσεις για το θέμα αυτό ήταν ελάχιστες σε σχέση με τη βαρύτητα και τη σημασία των μέτρων.

macedonia-kumanovo (2)

Για το θέμα της “Βόρειας Μακεδονίας” όμως, οι Έλληνες ξεσηκώθηκαν.

Όσο και αν συμφωνεί ή διαφωνεί κανείς, το γεγονός αυτό είναι σημαντικό για τη δημοκρατία και για την κοινωνία που εκφράζεται ως έθνος, γλώσσα, θρησκεία.

Σημειώνω ότι καμία πολιτική δύναμη δεν ζήτησε επιτακτικά και δυναμικά τη διεξαγωγή δημοψηφίσματος.

Αυτός ο λαός που διαφωνεί, που διαδηλώνει, έχει χαρακτηρισθεί από πολλούς σαν “φασίστες, ακροδεξιοί, εθνικιστές” και άλλα επίθετα απαξιωτικά και προσβλητικά.

Είναι έτσι τα πράγματα;

Στη σημερινή δημοκρατία, ο πολίτης είναι εξαιρετικά περιορισμένος και ουσιαστικά ορίζει εκπροσώπους του στο Κοινοβούλιο και την τοπική αυτοδιοίκηση, παρά συμμετέχει στα κοινά με την ουσιαστική έννοια του όρου.

Αυτός ο πολίτης βρίσκει φωνή να εκφρασθεί για κάτι που το θεωρεί σπουδαίο, και οι κυβερνώντες, που τους ψήφισε ο ίδιος ο λαός, αγνοούν την φωνή του, και αποφασίζουν μεταξύ τους.

Τυπικά δεν υπάρχει θέμα, πουθενά δεν γράφει το Σύνταγμα της Ελλάδος ότι θα έπρεπε να γίνει δημοψήφισμα για τη “Βόρεια Μακεδονία”.

Δεν μπορεί όμως θέματα ουσίας να αποφασίζονται με βάση του τύπους.

Ο λαός θέλει να εκφρασθεί, έχει άποψη, και οι κυβερνώντες τον φιμώνουν. Αυτό κατά την άποψη μου συνιστά κατάχρηση της εξουσίας που ο ίδιος αυτός λαός έδωσε στους εκπροσώπους του.

kumanovo

Αυτή η κατάχρηση εξουσίας βιάζει και ακυρώνει τη δημοκρατία.

Κάποιοι θα πρέπει να πληρώσουν για το βαρύτατο αυτό ατόπημα.

Η Κυβέρνηση που θα προκύψει από τις επερχόμενες εκλογές θα πρέπει να διενεργήσει δημοψήφισμα για την επικύρωση ή μη της συμφωνίας των Πρεσπών. Ο κ. Μητσοτάκης, που φαίνεται ότι θα είναι ο νέος Πρωθυπουργός, θα πρέπει να δεσμευθεί σήμερα ότι θα διενεργήσει δημοψήφισμα. Δεν αρκεί να δηλώνει ότι η συμφωνία είναι “κακή”.

Το θέμα δεν είναι τι νομίζει ο κ. Μητσοτάκης για τη συμφωνία, αλλά κατά πόσον ο κ. Μητσοτάκης και η Νέα Δημοκρατία σέβονται το δικαίωμα του Ελληνικού Λαού να εκφρασθεί πέρα από την ψήφο του και με την διατύπωση της γνώμης του για τη συμφωνία των Πρεσπών.

Άν δούμε το ιστορικό προηγούμενο, ο κ. Μητσοτάκης δεν θα τολμήσει. Η Νέα Δημοκρατία έχει ιστορικό αυταρχικής διακυβέρνησης. Αυτό όμως δεν σημαίνει ότι δεν πρέπει να γίνει δημοψήφισμα. Απλά σημαίνει ότι δεν είναι μόνο ο ΣΥΡΙΖΑ που φοβάται την ετυμηγορία του Ελληνικού λαού.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Four deaths (1205 – 1207) -Τέσσερις θάνατοι (1205 – 1207)

This post is about four deaths in the period 1205 to 1207. Three of the people whose deaths are featured in the post have played a major role in the Fourth Crusade and they all died away from their homes in or near the territory of the newly formed “Latin Empire”. The fourth, Bulgarian Tsar Kaloyan. killed two of the three Latins before he died himself.

The civic leader of the Fourth Crusade was the 41st Doge of Venice, Enrico Dandolo. Bonifac of Montferrat was nominated as the leader of the Fourth Crusade in 1201 following the death of Count Thibaut of Champagne. Baldwin of Flanders “took the cross” on the 23 February 1200 in Bruges, meaning he became committed to embark on a Crusade.

In March 1201 the Crusaders started negotiations with Venice, which agreed to transport them to Egypt. The Crusaders arrived in Venice in 1202, but they were unable to pay the transportation fee they had agreed with the Venetians.

The route of the Fourth Crusade

In March 1204, the Crusader and Venetian leadership decided on the outright conquest of Constantinople, and drew up a formal agreement to divide the Byzantine Empire between them.

In April 1204 the Crusaders of the Fourth Crusade under the leadership of the Doge of Venice Enrico Dandolo, conquered Constantinople and proclaimed the Latin Empire. The original name of this state in the Latin language was Imperium Romaniae (“Empire of Romania“). This name was used based on the fact that the common name for the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire in this period had been Romania (Ῥωμανία, “Land of the Romans“).

Following the treaty Partitio terrarum imperii Romaniae (Partition of the lands of the empire of Romania), which was signed in October 1204 between the Venetians and the other Crusaders, the Doge of Venice acquired the title: Dominator quartae et dimidiae partis totius Romaniae (“Lord of a quarter and a half quarter of all of Romania“). The treaty It gave the Latin Emperor direct control of one fourth of the Byzantine territory, to Venice three eighths – including three eighths of the city of Constantinople, with Hagia Sophia – and the remaining three eighths were apportioned among the other Crusader chiefs. Through this division, Venice became the chief power in Latin Romania, and the effective power behind the Latin Empire.

Enrico Dandolo

Enrico Dandolo was the 41st Doge of Venice from 1192 until his death in 1205. When he assumed the dogeship of Venice he was already more than 80 years old and blind. In spite of that, he led the FourthCrusade to Constantinople and conquered it. There are two theories trying to explain why the fourth crusade never made to Egypt, its original destination.

The first theory is one of “determination”. According to it, Doge Dandolo from the very beginning wanted to conquer IStanbul and used the Crusaders to achive his objective.

The seond theory is one of “flow”. Things hapenned not because there was a plan, but because one thing led to another.The flow of things resulted in the end result.

Coat of Arms of the Latin Empire

The nominal leaer of the Fourth Crusade, Bonifac of Montferrat, did not become the Emperor because Dandolo and the other Crusaders thought that he had strong ties to the deposed rulers of Constantinople, and thus gave the position to Baldwin of Flanders, who was crowned Latin Emperor on the 16 May 1204.

Bonifac of Montferrat eventually became the King of the Kingdom of Thessalonica. He was crowned in 1205. Late 13th and 14th century sources suggest that Boniface based his claim to Thessalonica on the statement that his younger brother Renier had been granted Thessalonica on his marriage to Maria Komnene in 1180

The Latins did not have an easy task in their hands. In addition to their internal conflicts and the problems of the local population, they had to deal with the emergent power of the Bulgarian Empire.

Tsar Kaloyan – Varna

Under Tsar Kaloyan (1170 – 1207) the Bulgarians were a force to be reckoned with. The name Kaloyan is  derived from the Greek expression for John the Handsome (Kallos Ioannis). His Greek enemies also called him Skyloioannes (“John the Dog”).

Kaloyan was a shrewd leader and he tried to come to terms with the Latins. However the Latins were dead set on governing the land they had conquered and did not accept any of Kaloyan’s proposals. This was a fateful decision. Kaloyan became the Nemesis of the Latins.

The first of the three Latins to to die was Baldwin.He was captured by the Bulgarians in the battle of Adrianople in 1205, and taken prisoner to Bulgaria, where he was killed shortly after. Here is how the story goes (Wikipedia).

The Greek burghers of Adrianople (now Edirne in Turkey) and nearby towns rose up against the Latins in early 1205. Kaloyan promised that he would send them reinforcements before Easter. Considering Kaloyan’s cooperation with the rebels a dangerous alliance, Emperor Baldwin decided to launch a counter-attack and ordered the withdrawal of his troops from Asia Minor. He laid siege to Adrianople before he could muster all his troops. Kaloyan hurried to the town at the head of an army of more than 14,000 Bulgarian, Vlach and Cuman warriors. A feigned retreat by the Cumans drew the heavy cavalry of the crusaders into an ambush in the marshes north of Adrianople, enabling Kaloyan to inflict a crushing defeat on them on 14 April 1205.

Battle of Adrianople

Baldwin was captured on the battlefield and died in captivity in Tarnovo. Choniates accused Kaloyan of having tortured and murdered Baldwin because he “seethed with anger” against the crusaders. George Akropolites added that Baldwin’s head was “cleaned of all its contents and decorated all round with ornaments” to be used as a goblet by Kaloyan. On the other hand, Baldwin’s brother and successor, Henry, informed the pope that Kaloyan behaved respectfully towards the crusaders who had been captured at Adrianople.

Dandolo was the second to die. He took part in the disastrous expedition against the Bulgarians; he survived the battle of Adrianople, and returned to Constantinople, where died died shortly afterwards (May 1205). He was buried in the women’s gallery in the gallery of the Basilica of Saint Sophia, one of the places reserved for the imperial family. He was the first and last man to be buried in the great basilica.

According to tradition, after the conquest of the city by the Turks in 1453, his tomb was opened and his bones were thrown to the dogs. The plaque bearing the inscription  ‘Henricus Dandolo’ still stands in the Sophia Museum. Recent studies identified it as a fake tombstone in the 1800s, positioned there by the Italian architect Gaspare Forlati.

The third to Latin to die was Boniface (Wikipedia).

The Battle of Messinopolis took place on 4 September 1207, at Mosynopolis near the town of Komotini in contemporary Greece, and was fought between the Bulgarians and the Latin Empire. It resulted in a Bulgarian victory.

While the armies of the Bulgarian emperor Kaloyan were besieging Adrianople, Boniface of Montferrat, king of Thessalonica, launched attacks towards Bulgaria from Serres. His cavalry reached Messinopolis at 5 days raid to the east of Serres but in the mountainous terrain around the town his army was attacked by a larger force composed mainly of local Bulgarians. The battle began in the Latin rear guard and Boniface managed to repulse the Bulgarians, but while he was chasing them he was killed by an arrow, and soon the crusaders were defeated. His head was sent to Kaloyan, who immediately organized a campaign against Boniface’s capital of Thessalonica.

However, Kaloyan died under mysterious circumstances during the siege, and the grieved Bulgarians raised the siege.

The contradictory records of Kaloyan’s death gave rise to multiple scholarly theories, many of them accepting that he was murdered.

An out of date military dogma urgently needs change

The military dogma of the USA that Turkey is a strategic ally must change. It has outgrown its utility and is now becoming a liability.
The only reason that might preserve the dogma is military expenditure. But this is not a good enough reason in today’s world.
With Putin strongly in charge of a Russia that is never going to settle for less than equal when it comes to world power, the USA must now admit that their foreign and military policies have grown out of date.
Turkey can never play the role of a buffer between Russia and the Middle East. It has become the opposite. Russia is the main factor of instability as they fuel the conflict in the Middle East and use it to increase their sphere of influence.
This is the strategic game that the USA lost so far.
Putin embraced the Syrian regime and gave them the assurance they needed in order to survive ISIS and the other rebel forces.
Now Putin is there to stay and create more problems for the rather rigid and unsuspecting USA.
It is not an accident that Turkey is becoming best friends with Iran and that rumours of the development of Turkey’s nuclear capability are in the air.
Wake up USA before it is too late for you and the rest of the western world!

How Turkey plays Greece in the Evros border incident: Tit for Tat

Two Greek military officers have been arrested on the 1st of March allegedly because they entered Turkish territory without permission.

The two officers were patrolling an area they knew very well, but the weather conditions were bad, and visibility was low.

As I write this, the officers remain in custody in Edirne, in a high security facility, while the Turkish judicial system is dealing with the case.

People who know the area claim that incidents like this were quite frequent in the past and were handled swiftly and informally by both sides, without placing personnel in custody.

The Greek Government appeared to be quite relaxed at the beginning, expressing optimism that the case will be settled wuickly and the officers will return to Greece. They were so relaxed that the press announcement made by the Army’s General Command was rather slopy, indirectly accepting the characterization of the incident by the Turkish side as “entry into Turkish territory”, even though they had no way of knowing this at the time.

As the days go by, the situation is turning into something more serious, and the Greek Government is now raising the issue with international organizations like NATO. The otimism of the first days has deflated and given its position to anxiety and concern.

Serious questions are asked regarding the unfolding of the incident, as it is claimed that the officers were on Greek territory and they were ambushed by the Turkish “Gendarma”. The Greeks resisted arrest and sustained injuries. This is the reason, according to some sources, that in the photographs released by the Turks following the incident the Greek officers’ faces are covered by hoods.

Why is Turkey acting like this? There is a simple explanation that relates this event to a 15th July 2016 event that is very high on Ankara’s agenda.

During the failed 2016 Turkish coup d’état attempt on 15 July 2016, eight Turkish military personnel claimed asylum in Greece. The Turkish servicemen arrived in Greece on board a UH-60 Black Hawk helicopter. Although a Greek court ruled that three of the officers could be extradited to Turkey, Greece’s Supreme Court overruled that decision and denied the extradition of all eight soldiers. (Source: Wikipedia)

Not only the eight officers were not returned to Turkey, but during President Erdogan’s visit to Athens in December 2017, he was told by the Greek Prime Minister Tsipras that the Greek Judicial System is independent of the Executive, the Government, therefore this is not an issue he can deal with. It is outside his realm of powers.

To make things worse, President Erdogan has claimed while in Athens that Prime Minister Tsipras had promised him that the eight Turkish officers would be returned to Turkey. Therefore, he implied that Mr. Tsipras is not a man who keeps his word.

What we see developing now in the incident with the two Greek officers, is a mirror image of the eight Turkish officers’ incident, as far as its treatment by the Turkish Government is concerned.

The Turkish side repeatedly states that the matter will be decided by the court in Edirne, and the Turkish Army and Government have nothing to do with it.

If this is the case, Turkey is following a “tit for tat” strategy.

Tit for tat means “the infliction of an injury or insult in return for one that one has suffered.”

This is bad news for the Greek officers, because their case might drag on for a long time. It is also bad news for the Greek Government, who appear to be consistently missing the mark when it comes to dealing with Turkey.

The traditional conciliatory low-key approach that Greece has followed in its Turkish relationships, no longer works because Turkey has switched to an open conflict strategy.

Solutions ot this type of problems do not grow on trees, and I could not possibly claim to have one.

However, there is an old saying that “the solution of a problem begins with its recognition”.

Turkey is not playing stupid games. Turkey is a very serious country and Mr. Erdogan a capable and strong leader. The Greek Government must consider all incidents, including this one in Evros within a framework of ongoing open conflict, not a framework of good relations gone bad.

There lies the recognition of the problem.

Greece is conflicted with Turkey in a very serious way and the strategic analysis of this situation is far more complicated than the recognition of “tit for tat” in the Evros incident. As one might expect the necessary actions are even more serious and complicated, but Greece does not have a choice.

Conciliation leads to defeat and humiliation. The Greek people expect their government to do much better than that.

 

“How can you be tough with a Christmas cake in your face?” A Sex Pistols short story

The quote of the title belongs to John Lydon, lead singer of the Sex Pistols, the English punk group that shook England in the period from 1975 to 1978. Lydon was referring to band member Sid Vicious, known for his violent behavior, at the end of a benefit concert the Sex Pistols gave for the kids of striking firefighters in Huddersfield, on Christmas day 1977. The firefighters were on strike for nine weeks and needed to feed their children.

John Lydon eats his cake at the Huddersfiled gig in 1977

Lydon said about the childrens’ party: “That gig made me feel like I’d actually achieved something.”

Julien Temple, director of a film on the Pistols, who was present in the children’ gig has said:

“To most people they (the Sex Pistols) were monsters in the news. But seeing them playing to seven- and eight-year-olds is beautiful. They were a radical band, but there was a lot more heart to that group than people know.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2528815/When-Sex-Pistols-werent-quite-vicious-Unseen-film-1977-shows-band-handing-posters-dancing-pop-hits-childrens-charity-gig.html#ixzz4xXP9UkFi
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Eventhough at the time the group was only two years old, they had made their mark on the map. But the conditions were difficult for them, because they were banned from the mainstream media and from performing almost everywhere in the UK.

They were hated by the establishment, shut down by the police, pilloried by the press.

Ticket for the Sex Pistols Gig in Huddersfiled, Christmas 1977

There are no details of the location on the ticket, just the instruction to telephone a number two days before the event. The punters would call and get the details of the event.

Following the benefit gig for the firefighters’ kids, and the devouring of the car bonnet size cake, the band gave their last concert in the UK, in Ivanhoe’s Club on Manchester Road, Huddersfield.

In January 1978 the Sex Pistols toured the USA. At the end of the tour, John Lydon split and left the band.  This was the end of the Sex Pistols as we know them. Sid Vicious died of drug overdose in February 1979. The other wmembers of the band reunited in 1996, and a few more times after that. But the real stuff was gone in 1978.

Vivienne Westwood and Malcolm McLaren 1976

How did the Sex Pistols come about? To put it in simple terms, the context was provided by the punk movement of the early 1970s. The actors who made it happen, excluding the band members, were Malcolm McLaren and Vivienne Westwood. Westwood was an elementary school teacher, and McLaren an art school dropout.

430 Kings Road, London

Without overstating it, one can say that the Sex Pistols were born in the shop that McLaren and Westwood kept on 430 Kings Road, London. Its name since 1974 was SEX, and it was the place to be for all who loved punk in London in the early 1970s. The shop’s main commodity was punk itself.

Glen Mattlock, the future bassist of the Sex Pistols was an employee of the shop.

The other members of the band were:

  • John Lydon (aka Rotten, because of his bad teeth), lead vocalist
  • Paul Cook, drums
  • Steve Jones, guitar
  • Sid Vicious (John Stuart Ritchie), bass – he replaced Mattlock in early 1977

As early as 1972, Mattlock, Vicious and Lydon were regulars at 430 Kings Road.

The Sex Pistols in Paradiso club – Mattlock plays the bass

At this point, one must answer the question “What is punk?”

Oxford Dictionaries define punk as “A loud, fast-moving, and aggressive form of rock music, popular in the late 1970s.”

In 1975 there were over 1.5 million unemployed workers in the UK, most of whom were castoffs from its deteriorating industrial base. In this context, it would not be an exaggeration to say that punk expressed to an extent the frustration and agony of the disenfranchised British youth.

Punk would mean you were the lowest of the low.

Robert Ebert, an American film critic, puts things in perspective:

“The Catch-22 with punk rock, and indeedwith all forms of entertainment designed to shock and offend the bourgoisie, is that if your act is too convinving, you put yourself out of business, a fact carefully noted by today’s rappers as they go as far as they can without going too far.”

The Sex Pistols went too far for their own good.

From left to right: Cook, Jones, Mattlock, Lydon, McLaren

On the 8th October 1976, EMI signs the Sex Pistols up for a period of two yers and a signing fee of UKP 40,000. But three months later, on the 6th January 1977 EMI fired the Pistols. They were too hot to handle.

On the 10th March 1977, A&M signed the Pistols for UKP 75,000, only to drop them a few days later!

It was the brave Mr. Branson and his Virgin company who signed the Pistols on the 18th May 1977.

“God save the Queen”, the band’s second single, was released on the 27th May 1977. It sold 150,000 copies in the first day and 200,000 in the first week. The song was banned by the BBC, as a song of “bad taste”. The members of the band were attacked in the treets by disgusted members of the public. Lydon had reported wounds in the knees by machetes and the in the face by bottles.

However, as Paul Cook, the drummer of the band has said: “We didn’t have a manifesto, but we wanted to shake things up.”

Sex Pistols nd Vivienen Westwood on stage, at Notre Dame Hall in Leicester Square, London, on 15 November 1976. Photograph: Ray Stevenson/Rex Features

In terms of the ideological foundations of the punk movement, I would like to mention Situationism, the movement that was behind May 1968 in Paris. (8) Apparently, Malcolm McLaren was a committed situationist.

Guy Debord’s theory of the Spectacle is the foundation of situationism. Simply put, the world we see is not the real world but the world we are conditioned to see, and the Situationist agenda is to explain how the nightmare works so that everyone can wake up.

One of the famous pieces of Situationist graffiti to appear during the Paris ’68 riots was “art is an academic headache.”

 

It It is almost 40 years since the firefighters’ children benefit concert given by the Sex Pistols in Huddersfield’s Ivanhoe Club. The Sex Pistols are gone. Punk is gone.

Is revolt gone as well?

Sources

  1. Anarchy in Huddersfield: the day the Sex Pistols played Santa, The Guardian

2. The Filth and the Fury, review by Roger Ebert

3. A Merry Punk Rock Christmas: Anarchy in Ivanhoe’s. For Malcontents Only

4. Get Pissed, Destroy (Or Eat Cake): The Sex Pistols’ Final UK Gigs, Christmas 1977. By Peter Alan Loyd. Bombed Out

5. God Save the Queen at 40: how the Sex Pistols made the most controversial song in history. By James Hall, The Telegraph

6. Anarchy in the EU: the Sex Pistols’ drummer on why Brexit isn’t punk. By Michael Henderson. The Spectator

7. How Vivienne Westwood’s Punk Revolution Changed Fashion Forever. By Asaf Rotman, Grailed.

8. Situationism explained! and its affect on punk and pop culture. By Amy Britton, Louder than War.

 

 

 

The Monastery of the Vlacherna Madonna, near Arta, Epirus, Greece – Η Μονή της Παναγιάς της Βλαχέρνας, κοντά στην Άρτα

Η Μονή της Παναγιάς της Βλαχέρνας βρίσκεται στο χωριό Βλαχέρνα λίγα χιλιόμετρα από την πόλη της Άρτας.

Η μονή ιδρύθηκε στις αρχές του 10ου αιώνα. Ο ναός κτίσθηκε ως τρίκλιτη θολωτή βασιλική και στα μέσα του 13ου αιώνα (1250-1260) ανακατασκευάστηκε απ’ τον (ή επί) Μιχαήλ Β΄ και μετασκευάστηκε σε τρουλλαίο. Στο νέο κτίσμα ενσωματώθηκαν υλικά και ολόκληρα τμήματα τοίχων απ’ τον αρχικό ναό…. ο νάρθηκας προστέθηκε λίγο αργότερα, δηλαδή στο τέλος του 13ου αιώνα, ενώ το κωδωνοστάσιο που είναι ενσωματωμένο στη δυτική πλευρά, είναι πολύ νεότερη προσθήκη (19ος αιώνας). (Από το σχετικό άρθρο της Περιφερειακής Ενότητας Άρτας)

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Όμως ο ναός δεν είναι μόνο ένα εκκλησιαστικό μνημείο.

Είναι και το μαυσωλείο του Δεσπότη (Ηγεμόνα) της Ηπείρου Μιχαήλ Β΄ Κομνηνού Δούκα (1230 – 1271). Στο ναό αναπαύονται και δύο από τους γιους που απέκτησε ο Μιχαήλ Β’ με την γυναίκα του Θεοδώρα (1210 – 1280), που έγινε οσία. Η Αγία Θεοδώρα είναι η πολιούχος της Άρτας.

Λέγεται ότι ο Δεσπότης Μιχαήλ Β’ ανακατασκεύασε το ναό σαν ένδειξη μετανοίας για την έκφυλη ζωή του, που τον αποξένωσε από την σεμνή και πιστή γυναίκα του Θεοδώρα για μεγάλο χρονικό διάστημα.

Το Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου ιδρύθηκε από τον Μιχαήλ Α΄ Δούκα το 1204, μετά την κατάκτηση της Κωνσταντινούπολης από τους Σταυροφόρους. Το Δεσποτάτο κατέρρευσε το 1449, οπότε η Άρτα κατελήφθη από τους Οθωμανούς.

Κατά κάποιο τρόπο λοιπόν ο ναός συμβολίζει την περίοδο του Δεσποτάτου, στην οποία κτίσθηκαν και τα περισσότερα από τα σωζόμενα βυζαντινά μνημεία της Άρτας.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Η κυρία είσοδος του ναού σήμερα είναι εμφανώς μικρότερη σε πλάτος από ότι ήταν παλαιότερα.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Η τοιχοποιία παραπέμπει στην αρχαία Νικόπολη. Είναι κάτι που το έχω δει και σε άλλους ναούς της περιοχής, που χτίστηκαν με υλικά από τα τείχη της αρχαίας πόλης.

Κίονας με ζωγραφιστό μάρμαρο στο εσωτερικό του ναού.  Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Το σωζόμενο ξύλινο τέμπλο είναι ζωγραφισμένο και φέρει στο κέντρο του τον Σταυρό της επόμενης εικόνας.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Το πάνω μέρος του τέμπλου φαίνεται στην εικόνα που ακολουθεί.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Οι δύο εικόνες που ακολουθούν ευρίσκονται στο ξύλινο τέμπλο του ναού.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Βασίλισσα ή Παναγία Ένθρονη, από τη Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Στον θόλο κυριαρχεί ο Παντοκράτωρ.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Οι τοιχογραφίες είναι σε κακή κατάσταση, και κάποιες ευρίσκονται σε φάση συντηρήσεως.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Όπως φαίνεται στην παραπάνω εικόνα, με την αφαίρεση στρώματος κονιάματος αποκαλύφθηκαν οι τοιχογραφίες του ναού.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Ενδιαφέρον παρουσιάζει η ανομοιότητα των δύο κιόνων.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Η προσθήκη κονιαμάτων έγινε σε εκτεταμένο βαθμό στο παρελθόν, όπως φαίνεται και στην ανωτέρω εικόνα.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Στο αυτό το κομμάτι τοιχογραφίας φαίνεται η λιτάνευση της ιεράς εικόνας της Παναγίας Οδηγήτριας στην Κωνσταντινούπολη κατά το βυζαντινό τυπικό.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Η μονή σήμερα λειτουργεί και διαθέτει πλήρως ανακαινισμένα κτήρια.

Μονή Παναγίας Βλαχέρνας Άρτας. Φωτο: Νίκος Μορόπουλος

Με εντυπωσίασε το γεγονός ότι σε όλη τη διάρκεια της επίσκεψης μου μέρα μεσημέρι δεν υπήρχε άλλος επισκέπτης στη μονή ή/και τον ναό. Είναι σα να  αφήνουν τον Μιχαήλ Β’ να αναπαύεται μόνος του, δίπλα στους δύο γιους του.

Η επίσκεψη μου στην εκκλησία της Αγίας Θεοδώρας στην  Αρτα ήτανε μια εντελώς διαφορετική εμπειρία. Το σίγουρο είναι ότι η Αγία Θεοδώρα λατρεύεται στην κυριολεξία από τους ντόπιους. Ίσως γι αυτό και αφήνουν το Μιχαήλ Β’ στην αιώνια μοναξιά του.

President Obama’s Greek Visit – 15 and 16 November 2016

What is President Obama doing in Greece? The question on what he will do in Germany is also pertinent.

The only thing that might make sense is that President Obama wishes to reassure the Greeks and the Germans and the Europeans that American Foreign Policy  will continue as it were, on all fronts, including NATO.

In the case of Greece, President Obama included in his agenda the expression of his support of the IMF position on the restructuring of the Greek loans. The IMF says that the Greek loans must be restructured, provided that the reforms program goes ahead as planned.

But this does not make sense coming from a President whose term is over. This is something for the President elect to say.

Coming from President Obama today, any assurance regarding the continuity of American Foreign Policy lacks credibility. Something similar can be said about his views on the restructuring of the Greek loans. A reiteration of the IMF position does not bring anything new on the table.

So, why did President Obama visit Greece?

I can only offer one explanation.

The most likely explanation is that when the visit was planned the President and his team were certain of a Clinton win. Therefore, it would make eminent sense for President Obama to visit Greece and Germany to offer reassurances of policy continuity.

Clinton lost to Trump, but the visit was already planned and it would look rather bad to cancel it. So the visit went ahead even though it makes no sense.

 

 

 

 

 

The Armistice Agreement talks between Israel and Egypt, Jordan and Syria in Rhodes, 1949

Introduction

As the British Mandate for Palestine ended, the state of Israel was proclaimed on the 14th May 1948 in Tel Aviv by the Jewish National Council and was recognized by the USA and Soviet Union on the 15 and 17 May 1948.

gurion_may_1948

Photo: The first Israeli Prime Minister Ben Gurion and his wife Paula arrive at the port of Haifa in 30 June 1948 to celebrate the departure of the last British soldier from the area.

The joy following the declaration and recognition of the infant state was short – lived. On the 15th May 1948 the states of Egypt, Lebanon, Jordan and Syria declared war on the new state. This is known as the war of 1948 and is the first of the many wars that erupted in the area since the declaration of independence by Israel.

The Herald Tribune reported on 10 June 1948, “Count Folk Bernadette, United Nations Mediator in Palestine, announced tonight that Jews and Arabs have agreed unconditionally to a four-week armistice.  The announcement was made in a message from the UN Mediator to Trygve Lie, United Nations Secretary-General.  Mr. Lie said that plans were being rushed to ensure strict observance of the cease-fire.  The arrangements called for Belgium, France and the United States to supply both vessels and military observers.  He said each country had been asked to send twenty-one military men.” (17)

This report described the beginning of the first peacekeeping operation in the history of the United Nations, officially named the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO). The first group of UN military observers arrived between 11 and 14 June and were deployed in Palestine and some areas of the neighbouring Arab countries. However, 29 May 1948 is considered the start of the operation, since on that day the Security Council, in Resolution 50, decided to deploy military observers with the mandate to assist the UN Mediator in the supervision of the truce between Israel and Arab forces.

After a four-week truce expired, and large-scale fighting erupted again between Israel and Arab forces, the Security Council, in resolution 54 of 15 July 1948, ordered a cease-fire of indefinite duration.  The second group of military observers was deployed to each Arab army and each Israeli armed group, as well as in Jerusalem, the coast, ports and airports of the truce area. They also accompanied convoys between Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Following United Nations Security Council’s resolution number 62 of the 16 November 1948, armistice agreement talks took place in Rhodes, Greece, between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. Since June 1948 Rhodes was the base of the UN appointed Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte,  and remained after his assassination on 17 September 1948 in Jerusalem.  The talks begun on the 12th January 1949 and ended on the 20th July 1949. The talks were bilateral and took place as follows:

  • Egypt – Israel: 12 January 1949 – Agreement signed at Rhodes on 24 February 1949
  • Lebanon – Israel: Agreement signed at Ras En Naqoura on 23 March 1949
  • Jordan – Israel: 1 March 1949 – Agreement signed at Rhodes on 3 April 1949
  • Syria – Israel: April 1949 – Agreement signed at Hill 232, near Mahanayim, on 20 July 1949

The main venue, except for the Lebanon – Israel negotiations, was the Hotel of the Roses in Rhodes which had served as UN headquarters since the summer of 1948.It is important to note that the results of the talks were bilateral armistice agreements, not peace treaties.

The United Nations appointed an Acting Mediator for the talks, the American Ralph Bunche. In 1950 the Norwegian Nobel Committee awarded the Nobel Peace Prize to the first non-white person, the African-American and United Nations (UN) official Ralph Bunche. He received the Peace Prize for his efforts as mediator between Arabs and Jews in the Israeli-Arab war in 1948-1949. These efforts resulted in armistice agreements between the new state of Israel and four of its Arab neighbours: Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria.

At the end of the talks and after the agreements were signed, Israel had gained more territory compared to the proposals of the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine (UN Resolution 181/1947). On 29 November 1947 over two-thirds of the United Nations membership voted in favor of General Assembly Resolution 181 proposing a partition of Palestine: 56% of the mandate territory was assigned to a Jewish state and 43% to an Arab state, with Jerusalem under international administration.

This article is about the Rhodes armistice talks.

Definitions

It is important to clarify what is an armistice as opposed to a cease-fire agreement.

An armistice is a formal agreement of warring parties to stop fighting. It is not necessarily the end of a war, since it may constitute only a cessation of hostilities while an attempt is made to negotiate a lasting peace. It is derived from the Latin arma, meaning “arms” (as in weapons) and -stitium, meaning “a stopping”.(Wikipedia)

A cease-fire is typically a negotiated agreement to cease hostilities and take other steps to calm things down, like pulling back heavy weapons or marking out a “green line” or demilitarized zone to separate opposing forces. Though cease-fires are usually meant to be binding, to last a while and to hold even after a few violations, they do not themselves end a conflict, only pause it. (New York Times)

ben_gurion_left_signing_the_declaration_of_independence-1024x685

Photo: Ben Gurion signing the declaration of Independence, 14 May 1948

UN Resolution 62

The document that triggered the talks is Resolution 62 of the United Nations Security Council.

62 (1948). Resolution of 16 November 1948

[S/1080]

The Security Council,

Reaffirming its previous resolutions concerning the establishment and implementation of the truce in Palestine, and recalling particularly its resolution 54 (1948) of 15 July 1948 which determined that the situation in Palestine constitutes a threat to the peace within the meaning of Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations,

Taking note that the General Assembly is continuing its consideration of the future government of Palestine in response to the request of the Security Council in its resolution 44 (1948) of 1 April 1948,

Without prejudice to the actions of the Acting Mediator regarding the implementation of Security Council resolution 61 (1948) of 4 November 1948,

1. Decides that, in order to eliminate the threat to the peace in Palestine and to facilitate the transition from the present truce to permanent peace in Palestine, an armistice shall be established in all sectors of Palestine;

2. Calls upon the parties directly involved in the conflict in Palestine, as a further provisional measure under Article 40 of the Charter, to seek agreement forthwith, by negotiations conducted either directly or through the Acting Mediator, with a view to the immediate establishment of the armistice, including:

(a) The delineation of permanent armistice demarcation lines beyond which the armed forces of the respective parties shall not move;

(b) Such withdrawal and reduction of their armed forces will ensure the maintenance of the armistice during the transition to permanent peace in Palestine.

bernadotte_arrival
Photo: Count Folke Bernadotte and Ralph Bunche at their arrival in Palestine

The appointment of a United Nations (Acting) Mediator: 20 May 1948

Count Folke Bernadotte was appointed as United Nations Mediator on 20th May 1948, following the voting of resolution 186 of the United Nations General Assembly.

 

Resolution 186 of the United Nations General Assembly, S.II: 14 May 1948

The General Assembly,

Taking account of the present situation in regard to Palestine,

Strongly affirms its support of the efforts of the Security Council to secure a truce in Palestine and calls upon all Governments, organizations and persons to co-operate in making effective such a truce;

1. Empowers a United Nations Mediator in Palestine, to be chosen by a committee of the General Assembly composed of representatives of China, France, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States of America, to exercise the following functions:

(a) To use his good offices with the local and community authorities in Palestine to:

i Arrange for the operation of common services necessary to the safety and well-being of the population of Palestine;

ii Assure the protection of the Holy Places, religious buildings and sites in Palestine;

iii Promote a peaceful adjustment of the future situation of Palestine.

(b) To co-operate with the Truce Commission for Palestine appointed by the Security Council in its resolution of 23 April 1948;

(c) To invite, as seems to him advisable, with a view to the promotion of the welfare of the inhabitants of Palestine, the assistance and co-operation of appropriate specialized agencies of the United Nations such as the World Health Organization, of the International Red Cross, and of other governmental or non-governmental organizations of a humanitarian and non-political character;

2. Instructs the United Nations Mediator to render progress reports monthly, or more frequently as he deems necessary, to the Security Council and to the Secretary-General for transmission to the Members of the United Nations;

3. Directs the United Nations Mediator to conform in his activities with the provisions of this resolution, and with such instructions as the General Assembly or the Security Council may issue;

4. Authorizes the Secretary-General to pay the United Nations Mediator an emolument equal to that paid to the President of the International Court of Justice, and to provide the Mediator with the necessary staff to assist in carrying out the functions assigned to the Mediator by the General Assembly.

bunche_bernadotte1

Ralph Bunche (right) and Count Folke Bernadotte boarding a United Nations plane.
Photo: Courtesy of Ralph Bunche Institute for International Studies, City University of New York, Graduate Center

 

The United Nations 1947 Partition Plan for Palestine

un_palestine_partition_versions_1947

Map: UNSCOP (3 September 1947; see green line) and UN Ad Hoc Committee (25 November 1947) partition plans. The UN Ad Hoc Committee proposal was voted on in the resolution.

During the spring and summer of 1947, a United Nations Special Committee on Palestine studied the competing demands of Jews and Arabs, and on August 31 produced a majority report that recommended partitioning the little country into separate Jewish and Arab states, with the Jerusalem area to be placed under United Nations administration. On November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly approved partition, to take effect on May 15 of the following year. (9)

The territory during the 1948 war

arab-israeli-war_1948__1_

Source: Vox

Rhodes 

In June 1948 Count Bernadotte moved his headquarters to the island of Rhodes to have peaceful and neutral surroundings. (7) Rhodes was not the only option available to the UN. The use of a US aircraft carrier had also been considered.

Even in tranquil Rhodes, U.N.’s Palestine Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte was offered a mediation job. Two local soccer teams, the Dorieus and Diagoras, both claimed the Rhodian championship, and the local one-sheet newspaper suggested that Bernadotte compose the quarrel. (Bernadotte was too busy.) Apart from that, all was serenity in the Dodecanese island which Bernadotte had chosen for his Palestine peace talks. Governor General Nicholas Mavris welcomed correspondents, many straight from embattled Palestine: “Now you have been able to discover an oasis of peace.” …Perhaps the happiest Rhodian of all was Michael Stamatoglu, manager of the Hotel des Roses. For the remaining half of the four-week truce period (summer of 1948), business would be brisk. Floor Waiter Georgiu was intrigued by Bernadotte’s request that half of the rooms reserved should be in one wing of the hotel, half in the other, as far apart as possible. “There are separate staircases too,” said Georgiu with a knowing wink, “which may be convenient.”(14)

Moshe Dayan, who joined the Jordan – Israel talks in March 1949, recalls in his memoirs how ‘Good food, spring weather, enchanting scenery … hundreds of butterflies
of all sizes and colours’ lent a ‘fairy tale air’ to the tough negotiations on achieving
armistice agreements between the opposing parties.

The two plans – suggestions of the UN Mediator 

The first plan

… in his diary, Bernadotte recalled that the first “outsider” to call on him when he arrived in Paris on June 15, en route to Palestine, was Ashley Clarke, Britain’s chargé d’affaires in France. Discreetly, Clarke intimated to Bernadotte the lines of mediation that would enjoy British support. These included a revision of the partition formula, with the southern part of the Negev Desert (which the United Nations had allocated to the Jews) to go to Abdullah of Transjordan, while the Jews would receive as compensation western Galilee (an area the United Nations had allocated to the Arabs but which the Jews already had overrun). Finally, Jerusalem, originally designated for United Nations administration, should be given over to Abdullah in its totality, including the Jewish New City, whose inhabitants would enjoy autonomy. Evidently Bernadotte was impressed by this scenario. In his own version, which he presented to the Security Council on June 27, he followed Britain’s proposals with only minor alterations. Unwilling to abandon their claim to the Negev Desert, or the reality of their military control of Jerusalem’s New City, the Israelis vehemently rejected the Bernadotte plan. So did the Syrians and Egyptians, who were not interested in legitimizing Abdullah’s rule over eastern Palestine.(9)

The second plan 

The second plan was published on the 16th September 1948, one day before the Mediator was assassinated in Jerusalem.

 

bernadotte_rhodes1

Photo: United Nations member Abdel Moneim Moustafa (3L) speaking with Count Folke Bernadotte (C) on the island of Rhodes. (Photo by Frank Scherschel/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images)

There is a theory that the second suggestion of Bernadotte would be accepted by UN’s General Assembly and this is the reason why he was assassinated. It is true that Bernadotte pushed his report forward for consideration and decision by the General Assembly, as indicated in the following excerpt of his second report.

“III.16. As a result of these talks, I became convinced: (a) that it would be of utmost urgency that the General Assembly consider and reach decisions upon the Palestine question at its forthcoming session; (b) that if the General Assembly should reach firm and equitable decisions on the principal political issues there would be a reasonable prospect that settlement could be achieved if not by formal at least by tacit acceptance; and (c) that the truce could be maintained with reasonable fidelity throughout the General Assembly session but that it might be gravely doubted that it could be indefinitely prolonged beyond then in the absence of tangible progress toward a settlement.”

bernadotte_mavris

Photo: Count Folke Bernadotte (R) shaking hands with Governor Nicolaos Mavris  (L) of the Dodecanese Islands. (Photo by Frank Scherschel/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images)

Some Israelis were mistrustful of Count Bernadotte, whom they considered to be working to advance the interests of the British. The Lehi group, which included future Israeli Prime Minister Yitzak Shamir, regarded Bernadotte as an agent of the British government, and wanted him dead.(7)

bernadotte_mavris2

Photo: Count Folke Bernadotte (C) walking down the aisle of “Evagelismos”, a Greek Orthodox church in Rhodes with Governor Nicolaos Mavris(C L). (Photo by Frank Scherschel/The LIFE Picture Collection/Getty Images)

The fundamental issues in Palestine at the time

A chapter in the second plan submitted by Bernadotte, outlined the fundamental issues in Palestine as follows:

  • partition,
  • the Jewish State,
  • Jewish immigration and
  • Arab refugees.

The Acting Mediator

Ralph J. Bunche was appointed as Acting Mediator after the assassination of the Mediator, Count Folke Bernadotte, in September 1948.

When news of Bernadotte’s death reached the UN, Secretary General Trygve Lie immediately phoned Bunche and asked him to succeed Bernadotte and carry on the mediation effort. Despite awareness of the personal danger posed by the role, Bunche did not hesitate to accept Lie’s request. Bunche travelled to Paris, where he met with UN representatives to discuss the new borders between Jews and Arabs that he and Bernadotte had proposed. (7)

Bunche formed his basic attitude to the Palestine issue when he served on the staff of UNSCOP. The committee, made up of representatives of 11 countries, was created in May 1947 by a special session of the UN General Assembly to study the Palestine issue and submit recommendations to the regular General Assembly session that would convene in September.(10)

The general principles laid down in those four Armistice Agreements are alike. In each of them the two parties undertake to respect the injunction of the Security Council against resort to military force in the settlement of the Palestine question; in each the parties pledge to refrain from aggressive action and to respect the right of the other party to its security and freedom from fear of attack; in each of the General Armistice Agreements the parties moreover recognized these agreements as indispensable steps towards the liquidation of armed conflict and the restoration of peace in Palestine; furthermore the respective parties acknowledge in each Armistice Agreement that no provision of the Agreement shall in any way prejudice the rights, claims and positions of the other party in any ultimate peaceful settlement of the Palestine question. (16)

The Egypt – Israel Agreement (Rhodes)

Israel demanded that Egypt withdraw all its forces from the former area of Palestine, Egypt insisted that Arab forces withdraw to the positions which they held on 14 October 1948, as under Security Council Resolution S/1070 of 4 November 1948. One reason for the deadlock was the mounting tension in Egypt, which culminated on 12 February 1949 in the murder of Hassan el-Banah, leader of the ultra-nationalist Moslem Brotherhood. In early February, Israel threatened to abandon the talks, where upon the United States appealed to the parties to bring them to a successful conclusion, and on 24 February the Israel-Egypt armistice agreement was signed in Rhodes.(6)

In the early hours of February 24, 1949, on the Greek island of Rhodes, Dr. Ralph J. Bunche emerged from the Egyptian-Israeli talks to announce the signing of a General Armistice Agreement. (2)

Bunche, the chief negotiator for the United Nations, compliments both sides on their “restraint and dignity,” promising that this is “only the first of the agreements with the Arab states, which will ensure a return of peace to Palestine and the Near East.” Although the marathon talks were arduous, Bunche was so confident in eventual success that he had commissioned a local potter to make commemorative ceramics, which he then presented to the representatives upon the signing of the document. When the Israeli negotiator Moshe Dayan asked what he would have done if they had failed to come to an agreement, Bunche replied, “I’d have broken the plates over your damn heads.” (2)

dayan_ceramic_plate_1949

 

Rhodes, Greece, 1949. 10 x 10. “The plate was purchased by Dayan’s then wife, Rut Dayan at the negotiations in 1949. The negotiations took place ins Rhodes Greece. The plate is decorated with blue, green and red flowers and bear the words “”Armistice Negotiations Rhodes, 1949.”” (1)

israel_egyptian_armistice_rhodes Photo: Rafael Eytan signs the armistice between Egypt and Israel on 24 February 1949, in the Hotel de Roses on Rhodes. Beside him is Yigael Yadin. Across the tables is Ralph Bunche (2nd from left) and others in the UN meditation group.

i-e-armistice-fig1

Photo: The Israeli negotiating team—(right to left) Reuven Shiloah, Walter Eytan, Yigal Yadin, Moshe Sasson, and Shabtai Rosenne– posing outside the plane that bore them to Rhodes for the 1949 armistice meetings. (CZA Photos)

The Jordan – Israel  Agreement (Rhodes)

At the beginning of March 1949, talks began on the island of Rhodes between Israeli and Jordanian representatives under the chairmanship of Dr. Bunche. The major issues raised by Israel were free access to Jewish Holy Places in Jerusalem, border rectification, and the presence of Iraqi forces in the West Bank. Jordan sought to raise the Arab refugee question and the question of passage from the Old City of Jerusalem to Bethlehem. On 3 April, the agreement was signed, fixing the armistice line of the West Bank, transferring to Israel a number of Arab villages in the central part of the country and providing for a mixed committee to work out arrangements in Jerusalem (Article VIII). (5)

In his memoirs, Dayan wrote that the members of the Jordanian delegation were utterly
unsuited for the negotiations; according to Eytan, ‘they looked helpless and lost’.
He surmised that the king had deliberately chosen weak delegates so that he could
maintain total control of the proceedings. This was indeed the purpose of the
Jordanian representatives in Rhodes; from the very first they made sure Bunche
knew that any step taken on the island would first have to be approved in Amman.(4)

 

king_abdullah_jerusalem_29_may_1948

Photo: King Abdullah of Jordan in front of the Holy Sepulchre, 1948

Although he never set foot on Rhodes, the key person in the negotiations was King Abdullah of Jordan.

A complicating factor in the Jordan – Israel negotiations, was the presence of Iraqi troops in Palestine. The Iraqis did not enter the armistice negotiations as they did not want to be accused that they recognize the state of Israel.

dayan_rhodos

Photo: Moshe Dayan signs the Jordan – Israel agreement

In 1953 Moshe Dayan was appointed Chief of Staff of the Israeli Defense Force.

“… he felt that the border with Jordan, which he himself had helped negotiate, was impossible to live with and had to be replaced by a natural border running along the Jordan river.” (11)

The Lebanon – Israel Agreement (Ras En Naqoura)

The agreement with Lebanon was signed on 23 March 1949. The main points were (15):

  • The armistice line (“Green Line”, see also Blue Line (Lebanon)) was drawn along the international border.
  • Unlike the other agreements, there was no clause disclaiming this line as an international border, which was thereafter treated as it had been previously, as a de jure international border.
  • Israel withdrew its forces from 13 villages in Lebanese territory, which were occupied during the war.

The Syria – Israel Agreement (Hill 232, near Malanayim at the Syrian-Israeli border)

The agreement with Syria was signed on July 20, 1949.Syria withdrew its forces from most of the territories it controlled west of the international border, which became demilitarized zones. It was emphasised that the armistice line was “not to be interpreted as having any relation whatsoever to ultimate territorial arrangements.” (Article V) (15)

Iraq

Iraq, whose forces took an active part in the war (although it has no common border with Israel), withdrew its forces from the region in March 1949. The front occupied by Iraqi forces was covered by the armistice agreement between Israel and Jordan and there was no separate agreement with Iraq. (15)

The partition of territory after the armistice of 1949

At the end of the armistice talks, Israel had gained 77% of Palestine, a significant increase (22%) over the percentage allocated to it by Resolution of 1947. A massive exodus of Palestinians marked the end of the 1948 war and the 1949 agreements. It is estimated that more than 700,000 Arabs left/were thrown out of their homes.

israel-1948-49

United Nations Truce Supervision Organization (UNTSO)

The “UNTSO” was the first peacekeeping operation established by the United Nations. All the members of the party were experienced international civil servants with a background of service with the United Nations Secretariat at Headquarters. While on duty in Palestine, they were to continue to wear United Nations guard uniforms.

The period from August 1949 to June 1956 was initially chaotic but quickly settled into a routine of complaints on the Jordanian, Egyptian, Syrian and Lebanese fronts. It was initially possible for the UN personnel to deal with complaints of violations of the “Truce” at the Local Commander level. As time progressed there arose a culture of claim and counter claim by the participating parties and regardless of the hard work and genuine intent of UNTSO the intensity of the violent incidents increased.

UNTSO military observers remain in the Middle East to monitor ceasefires, supervise armistice agreements, prevent isolated incidents from escalating and assist other UN peacekeeping operations in the region.

mandelbaum-gate-on-1949-armistice-line-in-east-jerusalem
Mandelbaum Gate, Jerusalem, 1949

Mixed Armistice Commissions

In order to implement these general principles as well as the specific provisions laid down in the four General Armistice Agreements, each Agreement provides for the establishment of a Mixed Armistice Commission consisting of an equal number of Israeli and Arab representatives and a neutral chairman appointed by the Chief of Staff of the Truce Supervision Organization from the United Nations Military Personnel assigned to the Mission. The General Armistice Agreements between Israel on the one side and. the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Lebanon and Syria on the other side, provide that the respective Mixed Armistice Commissions shall consist, in addition to the Chairman, of two Israeli and two Arab representatives. In the case of the Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission provision was made for three representatives from each side.

The MACs were very different from one another, bringing about four unique peacekeeping missions under the head of the UNTSO.

The Egyptian-Israeli Mixed Armistice Commission has its permanent headquarters at the former Palestinian frontier post of El Auja, a place consisting of two ramshackle stone houses and an equally dilapidated building.

The Mixed Armistice Commission for Israel and the Hashemite Jordan Kingdom has set up its headquarters at Mandelbaum Gate, crossing point between the Israeli and the Arab part of Jerusalem and the most thoroughly destroyed part of the Holy City. (16)

Epilogue

The armistice agreements were seen as temporary settlements which would later
be replaced by permanent peace agreements. But the conflict between Israel and the
Arabs and Palestinians was bound to continue, for the great problem which had
caused the war in the first place – the struggle between Jews and Arab Palestinians
for mastery of the land – was still unresolved at the war’s end. Worse still, the war
had created a particular problem that was to fester and provoke unrest for more
than fifty years: the Palestinian refugees.(8)

The outcome of the negotiations left the Arabs with a bitter taste. A Norwegian researcher observes:

“New empirical evidence shows that this imbalance of power on the ground was strengthened by strong support in Israel’s favor from the UN Secretary-General Trygve Lie, as well as from the US administration. Such support served to limit the UN mediator’s room for maneuver and ultimately contributed to a biased agreement.” (13)

Ben Gurion stated in November 1956 after the Suez war that, “[T]he armistice with Egypt is dead, as are the armistice lines, and no wizards or magicians can resurrect these lines.”(12)

Sources

  1. ABAA. Moshe Dayan’s personally owned commemorative ceramic plate from the 1949 Israel and Jordan Armistice negotiations.
  2. WNYC. Ralph Bunche Announces Landmark 1949 Arab-Israeli General Armistice Agreement
  3. VOX. 9 questions about the Israel-Palestine conflict you were too embarrassed to ask
  4. Elad ben-Dror. The Armistice Talks between Israel and Jordan, 1949: The View from Rhodes.
  5. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Israel-Jordan Armistice Agreement, April 1949.
  6. Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Egypt-Jordan Armistice Agreement, February 1949.
  7. Nobelprize.org. Ralph Bunche: UN Mediator in the Middle East, 1948-1949.
  8. Ahron Bregman, Israels Wars 1947- 1993.
  9. Howard M. Sachar: Israel and Europe. An Appraisal in History
  10. Elad ben-Dror. Ralph Bunche and the Establishment of Israel.
  11. Avi Schlaim. The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World.
  12. Nabil Elaraby. SOME LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE 1947 PARTITION RESOLUTION AND THE 1949 ARMISTICE AGREEMENTS
  13. Hilde Henriksen Waage. The Winner Takes All: The 1949 Island of Rhodes Armistice Negotiations Revisited. Middle East Journal. Vol. 65, No. 2, Richard B. Parker Memorial Issue (Spring 2011), pp. 279-304
  14. Time Magazine, Monday, June 28, 1948.
  15. Rhodes Armistice Agreement 1949 in which al Faluja Siege was decided upon.
  16. LETTER DATED 12 FEBRUARY 1950 FROM THE CHIEF OF STAFF OF THE TRUCE SUPERVISION ORGANIZATION IN PALESTINE TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL
  17. FIFTY-FIVE YEARS OF UNTSO

 

Hauptmarkt, Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany

hauptmarkt_nuremberg_16th_century
Hauptmarkt, Nuremberg, in the 16th century

Introduction

In another post, I have written about Albrecht Duerer’s House in the Old City of Nuremberg. The master was one of the famous sons of Nuremberg.

Today I am going on a different trip to Nuremberg.

Hauptmarkt is the main square in Nuremberg’s old town. Its two landmarks are:

  • Frauenkirche (Church of our Lady) – on the right far side
  • Schöner Brunnen (Beautiful fountain) – on the left near the center side
frauenkirche2
Frauenkirche, Nuremberg, October 2010, Photo: N. Moropoulos

Frauenkirche was built between 1352 and 1362.

schoner_brunnen_1

Schöner Brunnen, Nuremberg, October 2010, Photo: N. Moropoulos

Schöner Brunnen was built from 1385 to 1396.

hauptmarkt_nuremberg_1850
Hauptmarkt, Nuremberg

This post presents some of the square’s and its monuments’ photos and the relevant historical context, structured in two sections: The period 1927-1938, and The Second World War.

frauenkirche_nuremberg_1850
Frauenkirche, Nuremberg, 1850

For many reasons, Nuremberg became one of the three favorite Nazi cities in Germany, along with Berlin and Munich.

hauptmarkt_nuremberg_1891

Hauptmarkt, Nuremberg, circa 1891

As a result, Nuremberg was bombed extensively during the Second World War.

schone_brunnen_nuremberg_1891

Hauptmarkt, Nuremberg, circa 1891

The period 1927-1938

A lot of the photos in this post were taken before, during or after Nazi rule.

This is not an accident. Nuremberg was one of Hitler’s favorite cities, and it is there that the National Party Convention took place, starting in 1927.

The 3rd National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) Congress (“Day of Awakening”) was held on August 19 – 21, 1927 in Nuremberg. (3)

poster_nk

The first Nazi Party Rally in Nuremberg took place in 1927, and it was an impressive event, in spite of the fact that at the time NSDAP was a small and almost insignificant party, albeit a party that had recovered Hitler’s Beer Hall Putsch of 1923.  (2)

In May 1928 elections, the NSDAP only managed 2.6 percent of the vote nationwide. (4)

hitler_nurember_1928
Hitler in Hauptmarkt, with Frauenkirche in the background, 1928

“The Party selected Nuremberg for pragmatic reasons: it was in the center of the German Reich and the local Luitpoldhain was well suited as a venue. In addition, the Nazis could rely on the well-organized local branch of the party in Franconia, then led by Gauleiter Julius Streicher. The Nuremberg police were sympathetic to the event.”(3)

frauenkirche_nuernberg19_21_august_1927
The music band of  SA in front of Frauenkirche, 19-21 August 1927

Hitler’s 1927 speech

Here are some excerpts form Hitler’s speech to the party members and friends in the 1927 Nuremberg meeting.

“When we examine the concept of power more closely, we see that power has three factors: First, in the numerical size of the population itself. This form of power is no longer present in Germany.

62 million people who seem to hold together are no longer a power factor in a world in which groups with 400 million are increasingly active, nations for which their population is their major tool of economic policy.

If numbers themselves are no longer a power factor, the second factor is territory. This, too, is no longer a power factor for us, even seeming laughable when one can fly across our German territory in a mere four hours. That is no longer an amount of territory that provides its own defense, as is the case with Russia. Its size alone is a means of security. If the first two sources of power, population, and territory, are inadequate, there remains always the third, that which rests in the inner strength of a people. A nation can do astounding things when it carries this power in its own internal values. When, however, we examine the German people, we must to our horror see that this last power factor is no longer present.” (1)

nuremberg_1928
Hitler and Hermann Goering with Frauenkirche in the background, 1928

“…

That leads to what the large parties proclaim, namely to a nation that thinks internationally, follows the path of democracy, rejects struggle, and preaches pacifism. A people that has accepted these three human burdens, that has given up its racial values, preaches internationalism, that limits its great minds, and has replaced them with the majority, that is inability in all areas, rejecting the individual mind and praising human brotherhood, such a people has lost its intrinsic values. Such a people is incapable of policies that could bring a rising population in line with its territory, or better said: adjust the territory to the population.” (1)

frauenkirche_march_1934
March in front of Frauenkirche, 1934

Hitler’s rise to power in 1933

“When elections were finally held again in July 1932, the Nazis got a whopping 37.4 percent of the vote.

It was a chilly winter day in 1933 when the German dictatorship began. Thermometers showed a temperature of minus 4 degrees Celsius — the skies were clear. At about 10 a.m., Adolf Hitler, head of the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP), made his way down Wilhelmstrasse in the heart of Berlin.

The 44-year-old Hitler was on his way to the Reichskanzlei, seat of the Weimar Republic’s government, where both he and his cabinet were to meet with President Paul von Hindenburg. A feeling of relief was in the air. For months, the German state had been limping from one failed government to the next, with three general elections having been held within 10 months. Hopes were high that the next government would provide some desperately needed stability. The swearing-in ceremony was set for 11 a.m.

Hindenburg, 85 years old at the time, spoke for just a few minutes, expressing his pleasure that all had finally managed to come together to form a coalition. Then he turned the floor over to Hitler, and nodded in appreciation as the new chancellor promised to uphold the constitution and govern for the good of the nation. It was Monday, Jan. 30, 1933 — exactly 75 years ago — and Hitler had finally reached his goal.” (4)

Roser 02 (Chip)
Hitler saluting a parade, Frauenkinche in the background, 1934

“The 6th Party Congress was held in Nuremberg, September 5–10, 1934, which was attended by about 700,000 Nazi Party supporters. Initially it did not have a theme. Later it was labeled the “Rally of Unity and Strength” (Reichsparteitag der Einheit und Stärke), “Rally of Power” (Reichsparteitag der Macht), or “Rally of Will” (Reichsparteitag des Willens). The Leni Riefenstahl film Triumph des Willens was made at this rally.” (3)

schone_brunnen_nuremberg_1938

Schöner Brunnen, Nuremberg 1938

The Nuremberg Race Laws

“At the annual party rally held in Nuremberg in 1935, the Nazis announced new laws which institutionalized many of the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology. The laws excluded German Jews from Reich citizenship and prohibited them from marrying or having sexual relations with persons of “German or related blood.” Ancillary ordinances to the laws disenfranchised Jews and deprived them of most political rights.

The Nuremberg Laws, as they became known, did not define a “Jew” as someone with particular religious beliefs. Instead, anyone who had three or four Jewish grandparents was defined as a Jew, regardless of whether that individual identified himself or herself as a Jew or belonged to the Jewish religious community. Many Germans who had not practiced Judaism for years found themselves caught in the grip of Nazi terror. Even people with Jewish grandparents who had converted to Christianity were defined as Jews.” (5)

schoner_brunnen_nuremberg_nazi_postcard

Schöner Brunnen, Nuremberg, Nazi postcard

‘A long-term policy in this war is only possible if one considers it from the standpoint of the Jewish question.’  Joseph Goebbels.

The Second World War

schone_brunnen_nuremberg_ruins

Schöner Brunnen in a cement corset, surrounded by ruins. 1945

During the war, Nuremberg has been one of the key targets of the Royal Air Force (RAF) raids. In the following sections I quote extensively from the RAF Bomber Command Archives.

frauenkirche_nuremberg_1945
Frauenkirche surrounded by ruins. 1945

10/11 August 1943

653 aircraft – 318 Lancasters, 216 Halifaxes, 119 Stirlings to Nuremberg.

The Pathfinders attempted to ground-mark the city and, although their markers were mostly obscured by cloud, a useful attack developed in the central and southern parts of Nuremberg. The Lorenzkirche, the largest of the city’s old churches, was badly damaged and about 50 of the houses in the preserved Altstadt were destroyed. There was a large ‘fire area’ in the Wöhrd district. 16 aircraft – 7 Halifaxes, 6 Lancasters, 3 Stirlings – lost, 2.5 per cent of the force. (7)

nuremberg_2_jan_1945
Hauptmarkt, Nuremberg, 1945.

27/28 August 1943

674 aircraft – 349 Lancasters, 221 Halifaxes, 104 Stirlings – to Nuremburg.

33 aircraft – 11 of each type on the raid – lost, 4.9 per cent of the force.

The marking for this raid was based mainly on H2S.

47 of the Pathfinder H2S aircraft were ordered to check their equipment by dropping a 1,000-lb bomb on Heilbronn while flying to Nuremberg. 28 Pathfinder aircraft were able to carry out this order. Nuremberg was found to be free of cloud but it was very dark. The initial Pathfinder markers were accurate but a creepback quickly developed which could not be stopped because so many Pathfinder aircraft had difficulties with their H2S sets. The Master Bomber could do little to persuade the Main Force to move their bombing forward; only a quarter of the crews could hear his broadcasts. (7)

nuremberg_1945
Nuremberg in ruins, with Frauenkirche in the background. 1945

“H2S was the first airborne, ground scanning radar system. It was developed in Britain during World War II for the Royal Air Force and was used in various RAF bomber aircraft from 1943. It was designed to identify targets on the ground for night and all-weather bombing, allowing attack outside the range of the various radio navigation aids like Gee or Oboe which were limited to about 500 km.” (Wikipedia)

schone_brunnen_nuremberg_1946

Schöner Brunnen, Nuremberg, 1946

30/31 March 1944

This would normally have been the moon stand-down period for the Main Force, but a raid to the distant target of Nuremberg was planned on the basis of an early forecast that there would be protective high cloud on the outward route, when the moon would be up, but that the target area would be clear for ground-marked bombing. A Meteorological Flight Mosquito carried out a reconnaissance and reported that the protective cloud was unlikely to be present and that there could be cloud over the target, but the raid was not cancelled.

795 aircraft were dispatched – 572 Lancasters, 214 Halifaxes and 9 Mosquitos. The German controller ignored all the diversions and assembled his fighters at 2 radio beacons which happened to be astride the route to Nuremberg. The first fighters appeared just before the bombers reached the Belgian border and a fierce battle in the moonlight lasted for the next hour. 82 bombers were lost on the outward route and near the target. The action was much reduced on the return flight, when most of the German fighters had to land, but 95 bombers were lost in all – 64 Lancasters and 31 Halifaxes, 11.9 per cent of the force dispatched. It was the biggest Bomber Command loss of the war.

Most of the returning crews reported that they had bombed Nuremberg but subsequent research showed that approximately 120 aircraft had bombed Schweinfurt, 50 miles north-west of Nuremberg. This mistake was a result of badly forecast winds causing navigational difficulties. 2 Pathfinder aircraft dropped markers at Schweinfurt. Much of the bombing in the Schweinfurt area fell outside the town and only 2 people were killed in that area. The main raid at Nuremberg was a failure. The city was covered by thick cloud and a fierce cross-wind which developed on the final approach to the target caused many of the Pathfinder aircraft to mark too far to the east. A 10-mile-long creepback also developed into the countryside north of Nuremberg. Both Pathfinders and Main Force aircraft were under heavy fighter attack throughout the raid. Little damage was caused in Nuremberg. (8)

“This was the night when more than 100 Allied bombers — all on the same mission — were lost. Come dawn, more than 700 men were missing, as many as 545 of them dead. More than 160 would end up as prisoners of war. In one night alone, the RAF had lost more men than in the entire Battle of Britain.

He (Commander Harris) wanted a huge force — well over 700 bombers — to drop 2,600 tonnes of explosives on Nuremberg.

The historic city had plenty of major industrial targets, including tank and engine factories, but it was also of huge symbolic importance to the Nazis. Hitler had staged his rallies there and regarded it as the ‘most German’ of German cities. And it had not been touched for months.”

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2592084/Still-insult-sacrifice-Exactly-70-years-ago-RAF-suffered-worst-night-losing-106-bombers-545-men-raid-Nuremberg-So-going-unmarked.html#ixzz47kggP72Z
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

frauenkirche_nuremberg_1948
Hauptmarkt, Nuremberg, 1948

2/3 January 1945

Nuremberg:

514 Lancasters and 7 Mosquitos of Nos 1, 3, 6 and 8 Groups.

4 Lancasters were lost and 2 crashed in France.

Nuremberg, scene of so many disappointments for Bomber Command, finally succumbed to this attack. The Pathfinders produced good ground-marking in conditions of clear visibility and with the help of a rising full moon. The centre of the city, particularly the eastern half, was destroyed. The castle, the Rathaus, almost all the churches and about 2,000 preserved medieval houses went up in flames. The area of destruction also extended into the more modern north-eastern and southern city areas.The industrial area in the south, containing the important MAN and Siemens factories, and the railway areas were also severely damaged. 415 separate industrial buildings were destroyed. It was a near-perfect example of area bombing. (6)

frauenkirche3
Frauenkirche, Nuremberg, October 2010. Photo: N. Moropoulos

Epilogue

Today the wounds of the war have healed.

schoner_brunnen_2

Schöner Brunnen, Nuremberg, October 2010, Photo: N. Moropoulos

It is only the tourists who raid the beautiful city. Let us hope it will remain this way.

Sources

1. Alfred Rosenberg and Wilhelm Weiß, Reichsparteitag der NSDAP Nürnberg 19./21. August 1927 (Munich: Verlag Frz. Eher, 1927), pp. 38-45.

2. German Propaganda Archive, Calvin College.

3. Wikipedia, Nuremberg Rally.

4. Jan. 30, 1933: The Story behind Hitler’s Rise to Power. Spiegel

5. The Holocaust, A Learning Site for Students. USHMM.

6. Royal Air Force Bomber Command. Campaign Diary 1945. January 1945

7. Royal Air Force Bomber Command. Campaign Diary 1943. August 1943

8. Royal Air Force Bomber Command. Campaign Diary 1944. March 1944