Talk:History of modern Greece

Three Sources that would help

I recommend "Greece since 1945" as a source on the economic history of Greece simply because of how clear and detailed it is concerning the Greece's development during and after WWII. It covers Greece's politics, economy and society during 1945. The year 1945 and the years after were critical in the development modern day Greece.

I recommend "Greece: A Modern Sequel" because of its meticulous research and great collection of information and logical analysis of Greece's economy, nation-state, foreign policy, geography, society and culture. It goes into all of this from 1833 to present and offers exhaustive information and bibliographies.

I recommend "The Greek Economy: Past, Present and future" by Nicholas Pirounakis. His book takes both a broad and detailed overview of Greece's economy after WWII to where it is now. It is a comprehensive analysis that is quite enlightening and would help fill in some important information left out.

References

Close, D. H. (2002). Greece since 1945. Great Britain. Pearson Education Limited.

Koliopoulos, Giannes. (2002). Greece: A Modern Sequel. New York. New York Printing Press.

Pirounakis, N. G., (1997) The Greek Economy: Past, Present and Future. England. Macmillan Press. 198.189.57.10 (talk) 05:38, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In the main article on Greece it claims that the country won its independence in 1929. Here it says 1830. Who is right? Danny

I think it may have been 1829, so neither is right (but that is going on memory and I could be wrong). But this is a VERY poor article and desparately needs someone who can write history and knows about Greek history to rewrite it.

how does the article rate now? Is it still bad or can it count as a reasonable source of information? Reynaert-ad 19:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm familiar enough with Greek history to write about it, but I'm not sure that I can write history very well. I think I'll go ahead and try writing up a section on the very early history of Greece (1500bc-400bc) and see how I do. This page definitely needs a major update though, as so many western ideas have origins in Greece and early Greek history. Salami swami 05:58, Mar 9, 2004 (UTC)

---

I am leaving in User:24.226.10.98's edits about the Macedonians, because I don't know whether it is true or not. No doubt someone will come along and delete it soon and then we will see who knows what. Adam 01:38, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

To all users : As you can see there is currently an edit war between me and VV going on. Please comment which version you prefer - my version is the one with the comments on torture and especially US complicity and VV's one is the one which removes all this because he is a fanatic, revisionist right-wing american. Turrican

Papadopoulos was not a CIA agent. And all this Greek foreign relations info (Greco-American here, such as whether the US downplayed allegations) is a bit tangential. VV 05:07, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Of course VV, you don't want this stuff here because its tangential. Why don't you just admit that it does not conform with the image of the US you want to spread in WP and that this is the reason you do not want it here. At least that would be sincere.

My sources;

Killing Hope , p . 218

"At the time of the coup, Papadopoulos had been on the CIA payroll for some 15 years. (New York Times, 2nd August 1974 p1. , Deane p 96

The catchword amongst old hands at the US military mission in Greece was that Papadopoulos was "the first CIA agent to become Premier of a European country"."Many Greeks consider this to be the simple truth," reported Charles Foley in The Observer of London.

It is tangential. A claim such as that Papadopoulos was a CIA agent should be placed in an article about Papadopoulos himself or the junta, where there's enough room for it to be disputed with other sources or not. Detailed comments about how much America supported or not the regime likewise belongs in a page about the regime itself, along with information about the junta's relationship with Europe, the Greek orthodox church, Cyprus, and so forth. (For example I consider the Greek church's support for the junta much more significant than the Americans' -- but I wouldn't want it added in *this* article either). You have an Americanocentric view, but this is a synopsis of the history of modern Greece. There's no space to insert disputed or irrelevant TANGENTIAL information that do nothing but intentionally turn Wikipedia into nothing but a polemic against the USA. Aris Katsaris 19:15, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to move the information concerning the torture to the appropriate pages - but I think the fact that Papadopoulus was a *Nazi* Collaborator and a CIA agent should be mentioned in this article. This are not tangential information and do belong in here. I also don't think that I as European have an Americanocentric view of the world - its just that the US is a serious factor in the internal politics of many countries. Maybe we should delete all articles about the Vietnam War - otherwise WP turns just into a polemic against the USA. Turrican

Papadopoulos being a Nazi collaborator is tangential here because what he did in the 1940s doesn't seem to have direct influence to the coup. As for Papadopoulos being a CIA agent, I haven't seen clear proof of that as yet. Disputed pieces of information should be left out of such synopses and taken to more appropriate pages. Aris Katsaris 16:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Although I share Aris' dislike of the Greek church, one shouldn't confuse Greece's far-right folklore with those who nurtured the colonels' regime and supported their coup d'etat, as a means to promote their geo-political interests and their cold-war agenda. Thus, I think a mention of the church at this point would be tangential. Why did Bill Clinton have to apologize for the coup d'etat when he visited Greece anyway? Etz Haim 15:18, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Clinton didn't apologize for the coup d'etat, he apologised for America's support of the junta. It has been shown that America didn't instigate this coup -- for example I believe that the colonels surrounded an American military base, until they got a reassurance that the Americans wouldn't interfere with their coup. Afterwards the USA supported the dictatorship. But as I said, so did in effect the Greek church. Sure it was still criminal of USA, this support of theirs to the colonels -- but there was no direct cause-effect to the coup itself like what I believe happened with Brazil. Aris Katsaris 16:10, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

greece

The links to foreign versions of this page are relevant. As are the Amnesty International reports as are Philip Deane's comments. Ruy Lopez 22:05, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The foreign links still exist. For the others, see my and AK's comments above. VeryVerily 22:56, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Grigoris Lambrakis

There's no mention of Lambrakis or EDA in this article!!! Etz Haim 12:10, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

To Aris Katsaris

I'm not reverting your stuff; I'm reverting VeryVerily's reversion. Shorne 23:51, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that you people should be seeing all your changes sentence by sentence. You should be caring about the article rather than *whose* changes they were.

Second point! You also removed my bit about America's support for the junta contributing to Greek anti-americanism. Did you delete that intentionally because you thought its removal improved the article, or just as part of your "reversions"? If the former then let's discuss it. If the latter, then put it *also* back in when you are reverting someone else's changes.

Third point! Lang links are better going at the *bottom* of the articles as a practice. You keep on reverting that as well. Why? Just because VV likes them the other way? The other way is the done practice. First article, then categ links and lang links.

I've justified my own reversions point-by-point. You are justifying them only by naming the person who made the changes in the first place.

Aris Katsaris 00:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've discussed this seven or eight times in the past two days. This will be the last time. If these words don't penetrate your skull, don't ask me again; seek assistance from someone who owns a trephine.

I asked you and Ruy Lopez to discuss the issues of substance, although I believed that they had already been adequately discussed on this talk page. I said that I was going to stay out of the matter for the time being, and I did. You did not discuss anything; you just reverted the article. Ruy Lopez restored his changes, which were undisputed and, in my view, quite fair, although you felt that they presented "tangential" facts that left an impression of POV. VeryVerily, who follows me around and interferes with almost every article that I touch, came and reverted Ruy Lopez's changes without comment. That was not a contribution; it was sheer vandalism, as a reversion by VeryVerily almost always is. So I reverted it.

Now, if you want to improve this article instead of covering up the US's significant interference in Greek politics (yes, I saw your thing about anti-Americanism, but I don't consider it adequate), I suggest that you and Ruy Lopez discuss the issues and try to reach a compromise. I shall not be back until that discussion has started. Shorne 06:36, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nobody ever responded to a single comment I made in this talk page, so if you think that they were "adequately discussed" that shows your own insanity. I did not discuss anything? I've repeatedly *asked* people to explain why they think supposed Papadopoulos' Nazi collaboration belongs to this article rather than Papadopoulos own, but neither you nor Ruy Lopez explained anything, as you could see if you glanced above or if you glanced at the history page. I've *started* the discussion that both you and Ruy Lopez refused to participate in. Now you are playing the sainted innocent party? Now you are labelling as "tangential" issues all those pieces of your action without which the problem would be much more limited spacially and consensus would have been atleast partially reached a long time ago? When you and Lopez repeatedly showed that you couldn't accept a proper resolution to *even* tangential issues but you were revert-warring for the sake of revert-warring?

I explained *all* my reverts. You explained none of them, except with the hypocrite lying claim "There's been no discussion". I *did* discuss it, and you did not, liar Shorne.

Oh, *definitely* there's been significant USA interference in Greek affairs - atleast up to the 1970s. But only a USA-obsessed *clown* would waste three or four paragraphs on American interference during the 7-year junta, when there's barely a sentence about e.g. European Union's relationship with Greece in the 30 years following that. Aris Katsaris 15:50, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You and Ruy Lopez have not conducted the discussion that I requested. I am therefore abandoning this article. Go ahead and suppress important information about modern Greek politics as long as other people will let you get away with that. And thank you for calling me "liar Shorne" and "a USA-obsessed *clown*". How very endearing. Shorne 03:46, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've listed my points, I don't know how else to be part of a "discussion" except through listing arguments -- why don't *you* take part in the discussion that Ruy Lopez refused to enter? This is the first time I hear people that have refused discussing an issue ask others to discuss it for them. For example why haven't you ever cared to respond on my multiple-times asked question of why Nazi-collaboration of Papadopoulos is relevant enough to list here rather than on Papadopoulos' own article? Aris Katsaris 04:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've already said that I don't care to waste even more time on this article while you're frothing at the mouth. Your disagreement is with Ruy Lopez, who made the changes that you want to squelch.

But I'll rise to the bait. The mention of Papadapoulos as a Nazi collaborator is both relevant and short. Extensive discussion would belong in his own article; a quick mention is hardly objectionable. It informs the context: he collaborated with the Nazis when that was convenient, and he collaborated with the Yanks twenty years later, when the winds had changed. The fact that this Nazi captain responsible for the killing off of Greek communists during World War II was rehabilitated as a US puppet rather than being hauled in for war crimes is also significant.

What I would like to know is how you justify suppressing this information. I hope there's a reason better than wanting to improve Papadopoulos's image. Shorne 11:47, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My disagreement is with everyone who makes the changes, regardless of whether they were the first or the second to make them -- so you naming Ruy Lopez as the party responsible is an immature shifting of blame. Nazi collaboration may inform the context on Papadopoulos, which is why it belongs in Papadopoulos article, but if it informs any context on the history of Modern Greece (which is what the article is about I ought to remind you) the connection is so obscure that you need a talk page to explain it. Especially since "collaborator" doesn't actually explain much. Collaborated how? Here the function of the word seems to be an *epithet*, rather than a piece of info -- which is actually also the way you've just explained its role. You might just as well add "husband and father" in an attempt to humanize arbitrary criminals, or in an attempt to push the POV of how ordinary family-men can also break the law. Such things are *not* relevant, unless it directly relates to the situation itself.

As for so-called "suppressing" of information, I've already given my reasons repeatedly and in detail. Three and four paragraphs exclusively on the details of US involvement in a 7-year period is ridiculously out of balance with the summary nature of the rest of the article (hardly any comment about the 25-year relationship with EU, but half a page about a 7-year period with US. hardly any comment about Cyprus, but long paragraphs and obscure reports about the USA) Why haven't you taken up my offer of creating an article about the Junta where *all* such trivialities can be detailed in length, alongside issues that are more significant?

You could then add long paragraphs about the relationship with the USA, I could add long paragraphs about the rest of Europe, you being USA-obsessed can add long paragraphs about the cooperation with the USA, I could add paragraphs about the more significant and still lingering events relating to Cyprus.

But such detail doesn't belong here. When you so foolishly insert it without any measure or restraint you end up implying the USA's importance was far greater than it was in comparison to other elements.

Thanks for repeating insinuations btw that have already been made against me in the edit summaries. It puts into proper context your offense at being called a "USA-obsessed clown" when you accuse me of junta-sympathizing instead. Aris Katsaris 15:08, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attacks show that there is no point in talking with you. Indeed, this is my last reply until you apologise publicly for those vile insinuations. If you think that "Nazi collaborator" is vague, suggest "former Nazi captain" or something else. The information is relevant, for reasons that I and others have discussed more than adequately, and it is disgusting of you to suppress it. In fact, the hue and cry that you have waged over two little words that are entirely true suggests some sort of private agenda on your part, as it is far out of proportion to the two little words in question. Shorne 16:49, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you're going to lie, make it something not easily refuted. I was here weeks before you; you followed me here, after "Ruy Lopez" had also followed me here. The page history attests to my version of events; perhaps if you spoke the truth ever you would penetrate more skulls. VeryVerily 08:20, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

User:213.5.97.8

User:213.5.97.8 seems to be having a bit of fun fudging around with articles and not telling anybody. some of his changes seem to be shady. check out the history to see what i mean.

Project2501a 21:18, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC) -><- Nikolas Asimos: Rest In Peace, man :) (EIMASTE OLOI TROMOKRATES!)

I have reverted his/her changes. Apart from pushing POV, suggesting that there could be an article that depicts specifically the "right" views of the Civil War, as an opposition to the current article, is simply out of the question. The VfD has a long history of cases similar to this. If one thinks an article is not balanced, then creating an article that reflects his way in of thinking and that is POV by definition ("the right view"...) is not the answer. He should discuss its contents and edit the article to NPOV through collaboration and consensus. Etz Haim 22:14, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:213.5.97.8 insists on injecting his POV into the article. I think he should first ought to register and then we can talk about it the talk page... Project2501a 16:57, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

He also went on to create an article called Greek Civil War the right wing view, in disregard of what I've said above. Now it's on the VfD. Etz Haim 18:18, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

User:213.5.97.8

Hi

Excuse me for the mess I created. I didn't know the rules of Wikipedia and obviously I spent my time rewriting the whole article on the Greek civil war. I created an account named "newcomer".

Does it create something like a maibox where I could answer you?

please read the wikipedia welcome article. It would be a good thing if you understood the basics of how wikipedia works, before doing any further editing Project2501a 17:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not think that I am prejudiced. Obviously I have a certain view but the article has a certain view also. Different one. I really think that it would be very democratic to have both articles. Or one article on which both views should be written (ie they say this they say this). It is a controversial subject. You can not be as objective as you'd like.

The article (Greek civil war) as written is trying to justify the communist view.

I will mention some of my objections for the beginning of the talk.

Was pre war Greek government "illegal"? the term illegal seems funny for a government. You may say that it didn't had the support of the whole people or even that only royalists supported it but illegal no. If not then we are not going to find any legal government. Even EL.VENIZELOS took the power with a coup in 1916 was he illegal? or was illegal the soviet government?

Another point is the "Aspida case" There can still be found newspapers of the era. It happened almost 2 years before the right wing junta. The center wing party said it was a provocative case organized by the right wing. Someone tried to present the court martialled officers as anti junta heroes. Mercy. Also there is not any proof the the ex-dictator Papadopoulos was a nazi collaborator or CIA agent.

The most important point is when the conflict started and by whom. I say that ELAS started the conlict in the middle of 1942 recruiting people by force. The most prominent case is the case of Stefanos Sarafis who later became the military leader of ELAS. At the end of 1942 Sarafis tried to join the non-communist resistance group of Costopoulos along with some other Greek officers. Communists arrested them in Thessaly. After a few days and when all his comrades had been executed he agreed to join ELAS. THIS IS A FACT. And also an example of the methods used by ELAS.

Another point is that in the whole article there was not a single word about OPLA (organization for the protection of the people's fighters) and it's crimes even during the German occupation against Greek civilians. Two weeks ago there was a letter on this subject at the newspaper "KATHIMERINI" There are many books (in Greek)written by ex-communists who depict the terror imposed by party members on them.

I think it is enough for today. I'll check this page for answers. I understand that you'll read my "prejudiced article" carefully in order to "corner" me.

As modern greek history was not my field in my history minor, I'll have to find a couple of books on the greek civil war, read them and i'll have to get back to you on the subject :) I'm not backing out, just saying i need more time to read up.

Your objections are dully noted, thought. Please, login next time you want to discuss the subject. I vote that the article stands as is, till some of us get off our ass and read a book or two. If the information you provide is true, I'll have no problem incorporating it into the main article. The main point of wikipedia is neutrality, always. till then, if you would like to help, i suggest you list the ISBN of 4-5 books on the subject of REPUTABLE historians (as much as that is possible in Greece ;) Project2501a 17:16, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do not know if you can speak Greek. I can give you some titles in Greek and some titles in English.

I am Greek, as i mention in my user page. I'm typing from my friendly neighbourhood cafe right now, since two weeks ago i recieved an epifany and wanted to try and add watercooling to my motherboard. (WARNING: WATER AND ELECTRONICS DO NOT MIX ;) hehehe, bzzzzzzzt, fried to a crisp. Project2501a 18:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

You already know some of them since they are suggested as further reading. like the books of W. S. Churchill, The Second World War, or C. M. Woodhouse, Apple of Discord: A Survey of Recent Greek Politics in their International Setting, London 1948

Some others not mentioned here are the following

"After the war was over" Princeton University press 2000 introduction by Mark Mazower.

"The Greek civil war 1943,1950" studies of polarization. 1993 Routledge.

"Les Kapetanios" by Dominique Eude (in French). Artheme Fayard 1970

"corpses, corpses, corpses" by Elias Petropoulos (ISBN 960-211-081-3)

If you can read Greek I propose the following.

"H αθέατη πλευρά του εμφυλίου" ISBN 960-426-187-8

"Φωτιά και τσεκούρι" written by ex New Democracy leader EV. AVEROF initially in French. ISBN 960-05-0208-0

"Σύγχρονη πολιτική ιστορία της Ελλάδος" by S.MARKEZINIS an initially left politician who ended as the last prime minister of Papadopoulo's junta. ATHENS 1994 PAPYROS PRESS

"Γιασασίν Μιλλέτ" by ΝΙΚΟΣ ΜΑΡΑΝΤΖΙΔΗΣ UNIVERSITY OF CRETE. ISBN 960-524-131-5

"Οι δύο όχθες" by ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΖΑΟΥΣΗΣ. ΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ ΠΑΠΑΖΗΣΗ ATHENS

"Η τραγική αναμέτρηση" by ΑΛΕΞΑΝΔΡΟΣ ΖΑΟΥΣΗΣ. ΕΚΔΟΣΕΙΣ ΩΚΕΑΝΙΔΑ 1992 ATHENS.

Cool, I'll have a go, since i got some free time, these days.

by the way, please make a habit of signing your comments in the talk pages. thanks :)

Project2501a 18:15, 3 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I apologize again. I am not familiar with WIKIPEDIA. I thought that since I logged in a signature would be automatically added. I tried to sign writing the user name. Is there a more automated way?

I also would like to apologize for the incovinience I created but since I didn't know that in order to edit an article it should be discussed, when I saw every edit I did to be simply deleted by ETZ HAIM I considered it a kind of censorship.

Could you please be more specific as to which of my objections are dully noted? I would be happy to answer.

And by the way perastika for your computer. I understand you very well. Two months ago my hd crashed and I lost all of my documents

NEWCOMER

---

At the time being, that is, while the "Greek Civil War the right wing view" is on the VfD and a verdict is being processed, this discussion has little or no use. I promise to respond later, when things will have cleared out. "Newcomer" can take advantage of this time by learning how to use his account and more important, what are Wikipedia's policies and if they are good for his purpose. See you soon. -- Etz Haim 15:43, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

There are certain things that must be corrected/added. Alexander died in October of 1920. Venizelos lost the elections of NOVEMBER 1 1920 and Constantinos returned to the throne. This is the turning point for the Allied support. Although the main slogan of the royalist was the discontinuation of war with Turkey (ikade which means bach to homes)they continued the war against Mustafa Kemal going deeper and deeper in Asia.

Venizelos was never discredited for the 1922 disaster. This can be seen by the fact that most of the refugees from Asia Minor were pro Venizelos while most Peloponnesians were royalists.

It deserves to be written (maybe in a separate article) the reasons for which Venizelos lost the elections of 1920Newcomer 23:30, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

If you think there are errors in the article, then make corrections - preferably in good English, but that can be fixed by someone else. But please confine your edits to facts and not your political opinions, or they will be reverted. The reasons why someone lost an election are almost always a matter of opinion, so you need to be careful. It would be much better if you can quote other people (eg, "Venizelos blamed his defeat on xxx, but his opponents said zzz.") Adam 00:09, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll go on making the edits I mentioned before. I'll create a connection for a separate article on the 1920 election and I will start writing the article. I consider these elections very important for the history of modern Greece. Newcomer 10:06, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

About the Slav-Macedonians at the beginning of the century

I think it is wrong to use the term Slav-Macedonians when we talk about the "struggle for Macedonia" at the beginning of the century. The people of the region were either pro-exarchic (the bulgarian religious authority) or pro-patriarchate (the Greek religious authority). There are not reports on Slav-Macedonians on contemporary Ottoman or European newspapers.Newcomer 08:15, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Greece's enlargement in 1913

This page shows a map of the territory Greece gained in 1913. It shows that Greece's land area approximately doubled. This page is one of many giving area and population figures. This research took approxomately two minutes. I recommend research before reversion. Adam 03:25, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam! The claim seemed a bit extreme, that's all. It's good to know that when asked for a checkable source, you can provide one. Good on you. I wish all editors had your professional attitude. Pete 03:36, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Nationalism

I also recommend research before reversion.How exactly do you claim that 50000 Albanians were expelled from Greece after WW2?On an Albanian site?Or just because some Albanian nationalist reverted this number gives you the right to justify his claims?Odysseas

Dear Adam,you continue to revert the number of Albanians expelled from greece after WW2,without giving any reason.As I have said before the number was reverted from an unknown editor to reach 50000 and you continue to defent this number without providing explenations.Odysseas 20:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Junta 1967 -1974

Michalis Famelis 1 July 2005 13:30 (UTC) I have created an article on the Junta of the Colonels. Anyone interested to help?

---

Papadopulos was in KYP, greek counterinteligence, which shared offices with CIA in greece. He at some point also worked as liason between the two organisations. My understanding of the coup is that it was supported or at least that there was support for it in the CIA. The american embassy in athens was ignorant of this coup and I belive also opposed to the kings plan for a coup (different one). Washington I belive was favorable or at least accepting of the kings and generals coup but ignorant of the colonels coup, as indead was everyone except, I belive, CIA. What is certain is that the CIA knew and sent a report to washington about the colonels group and the fact that they where planing a coup. But then they sent no more rapports about this group in the two following months prior to the coup.

So Washington was favorable or at least not against the kings coup coup, the embassy was againt all coups and the CIA was favorable or at least not against the colonels coup. The greek church knew nothing ;)

But no matter what there was going to be a coup. America could not tolerate a leftist governement. The king could not tolerate a governement wanting to lessen his power. The military could not tolerate a cleansing of ultrarightwing elements from the army. The resignation of Papapandreou two years, I belive, earlier was because the king refused him to take over the ministry of defence. However, the only factor that could have stopped the colonels coup, and thus probably make the coup of the king happen instead, was the CIA. Sorry for the lack of sources, I am using a compendium from the University of Copenhage which has several texts on the subject. Ptalatas 02:53, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Greece in WWI

I recently read about the French bombardment of Athens from the Princess Alice of Battenberg article, and went poking around through the WWI articles looking for more information until i eventually stumbled onto this page from history of greece. It might be nice create more links here from appropriate places in the WWI articles as it seems like this little episode has been entirley left out. I know, I know, I should just go ahead and do it (and i might latter), but this has sucked up too much of my time allready. Just leaving a note in case anyone else wants a project.--john.james (talk) 03:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

"Demogratic Army"?

In the map caption....is that a typo or deliberate? There's nothing in the Democratic Army of Greece article I can see that has the 'g'.....and why should that have quotation marks around it?Skookum1 (talk) 12:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

US Marines in 1947?

I note the passage about the US taking over from Britain in terms of supporting the anti-communist side, but see no citation for that; reason I came here was to check for a cite for this removal, as to whether such a citation might be here; that strikes me as censorship if it's true....someone here might be able to provide one there.Skookum1 (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

"Consideration" in the construction business?

Consideration, a Greek invention, favoured the creation of a class of small-medium contractors on one hand and settled the housing system and property status on the other. What does that mean? How is consideration a Greek invention? Is it a name for a specifically Greek economic policy, or just florid language that needs to be rewritten for objectivity and clarity? --176.6.126.165 (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

That was someone's attempt to translate "antiparochi" using Google Translate. Needless to say, it failed. I've rewritten the relevant part, thanks for pointing it out. Constantine ✍ 15:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on History of modern Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120217093404/http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/Article.aspx?office=1&folder=514&article=12886 to http://www.greekembassy.org/Embassy/content/en/Article.aspx?office=1&folder=514&article=12886

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:36, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on History of modern Greece. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120324100403/http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/european-union_157/eu-members_2186/chronology_2590.html to http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/en/european-union_157/eu-members_2186/chronology_2590.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130810231637/http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20120507/news_20120507_56_838693.htm to http://rthk.hk/rthk/news/englishnews/20120507/news_20120507_56_838693.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Page preview needs fixed

If you look at the "anti-americanism" page preview it says "stupid donner 60 get a life", whatever that means. I don't know how to edit page previews so someone else do it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:4F01:F800:38E7:BB39:54A1:72A8 (talk) 12:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Problem with an Unsourced Heading ('Oligarchic Dictatorship')

Following 'Transition and Democracy' was the header 'Oligarchic dictatorship era 2009–.' I could not find any basis for this header, the content beneath is primarily on the Greek economic crisis and information on recent Greek governments. From what information is available, it seems like an unfounded claim that the current Greek government, post-2009, constitutes an oligarchy or a dictatorship. This should probably be changed?

Assuming so, I have temporarily changed it to 'Greek Government and Economic Crisis (2009-)' as a placeholder for a more experienced editor to correct if need be. So as not to cause redundant section headings I have also changed the subheading from 'Economic crisis (2009–2018)' to 'Government-Debt Crisis (2009-2018).' RunicBarrel (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)