Talk:Greek military junta of 1967-1974
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. |
 GA |
This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. | ||||||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||
|
|||||||
Contents |
[edit] Anti Junta
I have started a section on the anti-junta movement. Maybe a whole seperate article would be better! Michalis Famelis 22:30, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I have reverted the title "international criticism" to "international outcry", because it is the title of a subsection of a section named "Anti-Junta movement". Therefore, imho, it should be not about merely "criticism", but about one of the accomplished results of the Anti-Junta Movement to create such an international outcry and discrediting of the regime. Criticism, has already been mentioned (eg Amnesty International on torture). It is outcry, I think this subsection should be about. Michalis Famelis 01:05, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- That is an interesting idea, but I think it violates pov policies. I'll see if I can find a word with a similiar connotation. Guy Montag 01:53, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
-
- Well, according to Wiktionary, "outcry" is just a "strong" protest, and you've used "protest" instead. :) Anyway, we are just playing with words here, so how about "international support for the movement"? And also we are just contending about a title of a subsection that has not been written yet, so let's not skin the bear before we kill it! :) Michalis Famelis 11:50, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely. I am very lenient on these things. As long as it sounds good and inoffensive, its a deal :).
Guy Montag 16:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Misc
One thing I need help with, concerns the part the greek royal family played in the junta. Related links: Constantine II of Greece, Paul of Greece, Frederika of Hanover.
A couple of notes on my latest edit (effectively reverting some of the edits by Guy Montag. 1. Technically, there was no military government, there was a civilian government backed by the military. Splitting hairs, I know, but the words government and regime cannot be used interchangably. 2. About 'self-contradicting': How can an anarchist also be a communist? 3. The word "supposed": There really was no joint conspiracy by communists, centrists, bureaucrats, intellectuals, atheists, abstract artists, Mikis Theodorakis, Allen Ginsberg, John Lennon and Bob Dylan (also banned) to overthrow the state and destroy Greece; I don't think so (not Bob, at least). Sysin 07:58, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Anarchism is a form of communism and anarchic means chaotic or chaos inducing. So, the term possibly refers to communists who want to cause chaos in society. Regime is a pejorative term for government, anf since it was Papodapolous (sp) and Dmitrious who defacto controlled the government, we should call it what it was, a puppet government controlled by the military, hence, military government or military junta if you like. Finally, it is pov to state that there was no plot by communists to overthrow the government. Tito backed communist groups in Greece to specifically do that.
Guy Montag 18:23, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Anarchism is the rejection of all leadership, which contradicts (soviet-style) communism. Anyway looking at anarchism, I see that the term anarcho-communist as a distinct ideology does exist, so i'll grant that, and remove the word "self-contradicting". But, I doubt that the pro-soviet KKE was 'anarchist'.
Re: regime and government: The is, semantically, a difference between a military government (kivernisis) and a puppet civilian government. Regime (kathestos) is a term that encompasses both the government (prime ministers, ministers, bureaucrats), and the military puppet-masters behind them. When Greeks refer to the junta it is always as kathestos (unless they are more specifically refering to Kollias' kyvernisis).
As for Tito, this is the first time I see it stated that he was trying to overthrow the Greek gov't in 1967 - interesting theory but there is no evidence. But it is a fact that the Junta was actively creating fictional enemies to justify its policies; there were, for example, a number of cases of sabotage by junta operatives on military bases that were designed to act as excuses for the purge of pro-democracy officers (and, even, pro-monarchy officers); such cases were well documented and proven in court after 1974. Not that there were no communists in Greece in the 60s - but it is a fact that the junta went out of its way to create more, fictional enemies whenever it was convenient. Sysin
Perhaps there is a misunderstanding between us because of language. Here is what anarchic means according to dictionary.com. I understand that from Greek regime might mean something neutral or different, but in English, the term regime is many times used by people as a negative term. Hence, I believe we should find an NPOV term for the military rule.
Elections were scheduled for May 1967, but before they could take place there was a military coup, and a junta headed by Col George Papadopoulos, Col Nicholas Makarezos, and Brig Stylianos Pattakos seized power in April 1967. The official pretext for the coup was the need to forestall an armed communist uprising. Mass arrests, mainly of left-wingers, followed. All political parties were abolished, while large-scale purges were instituted in the armed forces.
Although power in the new regime clearly lay with the military, the nominal prime minister was a civilian, Konstantine Kollias. King Constantine’s attitude towards the new regime was reserved, and in December 1967 he launched a counter-coup against ‘the Colonels’, as the regime had come to be known. The counter-coup was unsuccessful, and Constantine fled into exile in Italy. This was the signal for direct military rule. Gen Zoitakis became regent, while Col Papadopoulos, who had emerged as the strong man of the regime, assumed the premiership. Further purges of royalist officers who had supported the king’s coup ensued. In September 1968 a new and authoritarian constitution was approved by a large majority in a referendum; but, as martial law was still in force, this could not be regarded as a true test of opinion. Even after the enactment of the new constitution many of its provisions remained in abeyance.
Please use this as a reference. [1]
I am sure that the Greek military rulers relied on propaganda against communists, but this needs to be cited, and the claim that there was no danger from communist agitation for revolution (which was common in Africa, South America and Asia at the time) cited.
Guy Montag 03:24, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Even before your post, I had modified the text around "self-contrtadicting" and "supposed", so it doesn't matter. I put incorrectly because very few Greek leftists were actually anarcho-communists as defined in wikipedia.
No-one claimed that there were no communists in Greece who would like to overthrow the government, but the junta's "enemy" was a far bigger one: A vast conspiracy (including authors, poets, pop artists, centrist politicians, academics, Jews, and all the other usual suspects) that sought not just to make the country communist, but to eradicate Greek culture altogether. I'll let you be the judge of how real this "enemy" was.
As for the term "regime" being pejorative in the english language, it is not clear that it is, see regime and talk:regime. In any case "Regime of the Colonels" is the standard way to refer to this period, and the word is also used by your source. Sysin 07:53, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
Alright then. I will accept the term regime since it is an official term. I still think you have mistranslated the meaning of anarchic, but since you fixed it, it is irrelevent. But for personal reasons, I suggest you understand that the word has dual meaning in the English language. I understand what you mean by the huge "conspiracy", but I suggest using npov language to describe it.
Guy Montag 18:59, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
The word supposed (which I think is what you felt was NPOV) has already been removed Sysin
Great that we could work together.
Regards,
Guy Montag 22:45, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reference Added
Hello, All - I added the book "A Short History of Modern Greece" to the Reference section; it's a work in English that I have found helpful; gives some good detailed information, and would serve as a reference to some of the topics covered in this article. However, if you object to the reference for some reason, I won't be offended if you remove it, as it was not necessarily a reference that contributors used in preparing the article. Cheers, LiniShu 04:22, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Title
Surely the word "Colonels" should be in the title somewhere. This is how the regime is known. john k 20:39, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Phoenix
The coin depicted here with the emblem of the phoenix does not come from the junta period since that phoenix has a soldier bearing arms in front of it and an inscription with the date of the junta (April 21st). I'll try to come up with a picture of that.alx_bio 13:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I am the one who uploaded the image. It comes from here. Apparently it was minted in 1973 and I would guess that the absence of the "soldier bearing arms in front of it and an inscription with the date of the junta (April 21st)" must have something to do with Papadopoulos "liberisation" of the regime. If you believe that the featured coin should be one of an earlier stage of the junta, that is with the soldier and the 21/4 date, I think that you could use pictures from here. Michalis Famelis 12:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
In summer 1967 an advertising agency owned by a junta sympathizer created an "emblem" for the "revolution" (as the junta called itself). This emblem consisted of the phoenix with a soldier with a rifle standing guard before it. The junta liked the emblem and it was officially adopted and widely used in all sorts of places, including a special stamp issue and coins minted in December 1971. However, since Greece was officially a monarchy from 1967 to June 1973 the royal arms remained the state arms and appeared on all official documents etc. When the junta proclaimed a republic in June 1973 it made the Phoenix (but without soldier) into the state arms, replacing the royal arms. The coin shown dates from this (later) period, the wording around it reads "Hellenic Republic". Since the phoenix was associated with the junta as soon as the latter fell, in July 1974, the phoenix stopped being used and until June 1975 Greece had no arms. A wholly different emblem, reminiscent of the royal arms but without crown, was adopted in June 1975.
- Actually, the phoexix was the emblem of teh Greek state under the rule of Kapodistrias. One of the first coins of the modern Greek state was called the "phoenix". The emblem was borrowed from a masonic symbol. Rastapopoulos 06:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LOK
...creation of a secret army from as early as 1944, known as the Greek Mountain Brigade, ... or Lochos Oreinon Katadromon (LOK)
This is factually incorrect. The Lochoi Oreinon Katadromon were actually light infantry companies created during the latter phases of the Greek Civil war. They were elite units, specialising in mountain warfare and were considered to be 'politically reliable', but they were certainly not secret in any sense of the word.
[edit] This page needs a major overhaul
It is very poorly both and style and content. Let's try to impove it! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rastapopoulos (talk • contribs).
- Could you start by pointing out what parts you think could be improved? --Michalis Famelis 20:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
-
- The entire Gladio and LOK passage should be removed. It is in no historical works concerning the junta. It should be replaced by a passage about the link between EENA and KYP and thus ostensibly the CIA.
-
- Papandreou was not sacked, he gave in his resignation, though he had probably not expected it to be acepted. Papandreou wanted to take over the post of defence minister himself, realising that he had little to no control over the rightwhing minister he had appointed himself to soothe rightleaning elements of his fragmented centerunion as well as the military. The aspida affair concerning Andreou was also a part of this, I belive.
-
- It says that Spantidakis was arrested, surely this is wrong?
-
- The king and the generals (and IDEAs) plans for a coup is not mentioned at all. That is very strange. The colonels were also rebelling against the generals, this is an important factor.
-
- The Metaxas period should in my oppinion be worked into the background, though this is a minor edit when compared to the rest. At this point the article is in shambles. Ptalatas 05:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] How About A Little Reality in This Article
We have stated all the negative aspects and quite rightly too. It was to many a very dark period. However compared to previous juntas around the world it was the least bloody in History. What other Junta can take over a country in 6 hours without 1 death or shot fired? Where is the reality that it was not totally unpopular before its demise, especially when they took over many believed the country needed organisation for once? And finally where is the harsh reality that Greece's economy grew quicker under the Junta than at any other period before or after due to the slashing of beaurocracy? New roads were built, an infostructure of electricty to islands who never had it and the foundation tourism which Greece still lives off. Many things in Life are good and bad, rarely soley evil, this Junta is painted in a soley negative light, don't you think it is time for a little reality and ligo logiki. Reaper7 18:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "highlighting the extraordinary reality"
Reaper, could you please provide some sources to support your claim that the Greek economy never before, and never after the junta saw such "extraordinary growth"? I believe there have been periods in modern greek history that accounted for much larger economic growth than 1967-1974. From memory I can recount the years of Trikoupis, the 1924-1929 period, the period Greece was on the Marshall Plan money, the late 90ies etc. Is the 67-74 period comparable to these? --Michalis Famelis (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] incredible economy of Junta
Despite these limitations on freedom most Greeks were not particularly affected in a negative way. In fact, most Greeks profited from a quickly growing economy under the Colonel's military rule. By eliminating the parliament and most other cumbersome bureaucratic institutions the dictators were able to make decisions quickly and efficiently which helped streamline the functioning of the economy. This lead to economic growth and prosperity in Greece which has never been seen before or after.
http://www.greecetravel.com/mazarakis/wisdom/junta.html
The end of the period of growth became obvious after the reestablishment of democracy in Greece in 1974. For both internal and external reasons, the democratic governments that followed the junta were unable to restore growth. Thus, for example, the average annual growth rates of the GDP, which had been 7.6 percent in 1961- 70, dropped to 4.7 percent in 1971-80 and then to 1.4 percent in 1981-90. Clearly the "Greek economic miracle" had come to an end.
http://www.photius.com/countries/greece/economy/greece_economy_economic_policy_afte~172.html
Greece achieved high rates of growth in the late 1960s and early 1970s,which also saw some major foreign investments in Greece. Since the 1970s, however, Greece has suffered a decline in its rate of GDP growth of output, ratio of investment to GDP,and productivity of investment.
http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/bgnotes/eur/greece9012.html
There are many more references, because of the subsequent left wing politics in Greece since the Junta it has become unfashionable to talk about the economic miracle of this time, however, not everyone has to be fed this political slur and surely whatever certain Greeks may think politically, this boom in economy can not be edited on this page any longer and should be described properly Reaper7 20:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reaper, I am not disputing at all that there existed economic growth during the 7 years. I am also not disputing that there was an economic downturn during the late 70ies until the late 80ies. What I am disputing is that the economic growth during the 7 junta years was something "extraordinary" or "incredible". Actually if you take a closer look at the sources you cited you will note that:
- The first one (Mazarakis) is a completely irrelevant one. It does not come from an economic study, a historical review or a respected institution (of any sort) but rather from a ...carpet salesman! Reaper, our sources should not only be cited, but should also be reliable!
- The second seems more credible, but one cannot but notice the endnote: No claims are made regarding the accuracy of Greece Economic Policy after 1974 information contained here.
- But even if we agree to completely disregard that disclaimer, you should also read the following excerpt from the second source you provided: The democratic governments of the 1970s and 1980s faced the accumulated internal problems of economic institutions and the social modernization that had been either neglected or suppressed by the junta. On the agenda of social modernization were labor legislation, social insurance, education reform, and the provision of health care--elements without which the growth of a modern economy would be impossible. (bolding is mine). From this part one could infer that, economically, the junta did quite awfully...
- The quote from the third source seems a little bit out of context. What the text says is: Recovery began in 1953 with a drastic currency devaluation and reduction in government spending which brought greater price stability and increased exports. From 1955 to 1963, under Prime Minister Karamanlis, Greece's gross domestic product (GDP) almost doubled. Greece achieved high rates of growth in the late 1960s and early 1970s, which also saw some major foreign investments in Greece. ...figures follow and then the text goes on to describe why the Greek economy went downhill from the late 70ies an on. And the reasons, apart from PASOK's policies are also very global ones: the 1979 oil crisis and the opening of the economy to the European Economical Community. You can also see that the reasons behind the economic growth during the 60ies was not the junta's decrees but the elected PM's, Karamanlis, policies and reforms.
- Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that, of course there was indeed economic growth in the 7 junta years. But was not in any sense "incredible" or "extraordinary". And of course the economic downurn after the junta was not due to the absence of the military's tight grip on society, or any kind of (to quote Mr Mazarakis) "cumbersome bureaucratic institutions" like the ...Parliament!
- From what I gather from the sources you provided is that:
- The economic reforms of Karamanlis in the late 50ies did create a momentum which created a great economic growth even after democracy was deposed.
- It was these reforms that, coupled with some of the junta's policies sustained the economic growth during the junta.
- However, this economic growth was fated to die out because the junta neglected or suppressed any process of social modernization, necessary for sustaining economic growth in the long run.
- The economy did start to go downhill after the junta. But that doesn't mean that it did so because the junta was over. Metapolitefsi governments had to cope with a much harsher international economic environment ('79 oil crisis). They also had to deal with the accumulated problems left over to them by the junta regarding social modernization, that is to build expensive stuff like social insurance, health care etc that the junta had not bothered to cope with.
- I am not an economist, or a social scientist, but from what you gave me to read, that is what I understood. What do you think?
- --Michalis Famelis (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
You make good points, and i agree to an extent. I have said a statement, and only one of my sourses clearly says the growth is unrivaled where as the others point to it up to the early 90s. I am yet to find a source where it simply says there was growth during the Junta but not as much as other times in the century in Greece. However i do believe that this strong growth was a result of the Junta making life very simple for ship owners, developers, entrepreneurs such as Mr A. O with Olympic and many many others. There is no doubt the parlimentry system takes away incentives to wealth with red tape and creates more barriers to making money. Most people are aware that beaucracy has this effect. Look at Athens now with Garbage - this simply would not have happened under the Junta. What I am saying is if you can show me figures of a time last century where GROWTH was faster in Greece I will happily concede, otherwise, it is more than obvious that the economic growth in this period was highly relevant. Also ofcourse the next GOVTs would blame down turn in Economic Growth on the JUNTA, just about everything wrong with Greece was blamed on the Junta, but few in the socialist media commented on the fact that they would drive on roads built by the JUNTA where only dirt sand tracks existed previously, and visit Islands where before the Junta there was no electricity, roads and even ferry links or even the fact that Greece's no.1 industry to this day is tourism, an industry completely nurtured by the Junta as most of the hotels, roads, Ferry links and foreign investors came under the Junta when the fear of a socialist country was finally dead. Please also be aware that unfortunately most the literature on the web concerning this issue whether good or bad for anyones arguements are written with a socialist slur as very few even touch upon the positives to come out of their rule, a rule that begun when Greece was in a state ready to enter total chaos. This questioning of yours is a prime example, it is obvious there was strong economic growth here, something extraordinary and that is the way the article should read until you can find figures that there were times of GREATER ECONOMIC GROWTH in a similar continuous time period in Greece last century. Reaper7 22:35, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I must admit that I do not fully understand what you wrote. Please use paragraphs the next time!! I will try to respond to what I think you wrote. If I misunderstood, please correct me.
- I will not contend with you over the economic virtues of parliamentarianism or democracy in general. You have your point of view with which I think is awfully flawed but that is completely irrelevant. We are not here to debate, but to discuss how to improve the article.
- I understand that you ask of me to provide a source that shows that the 7 year rule of the military was not the best economic period in the century. But, dear Reaper, it is not me who tried to add this claim to the article. It is you who is trying to say that the 7 years were unparalleled. It is your claim, therefore it is your responsibility to prove it, not mine to refute it. Think about it: if a mathematician comes forward and declares to the scientific community that he has come up with a theorem, it is his job to provide a proof for it, not the community's job to refute it.
- Concerning the existence of few references to the era on the web, it is only natural that it should be so. You should turn to a library for more research. However, I will point you to a neutral source which can give you a brief, yet comprehensive, non-partisan insight in the economic environment of the period. I assume from your syntax that you are a greek language speaker, so you are capable of reading the book: "Ανάμεσα σε Κράτος και Αγορά: Οικονομία και οικονομική πολιτική στη μεταπολεμική Ελλάδα 1944-2000" (translation: "Between the State and the Market: Economy and economic policy in postwar Greece 1944-2000") by Panos Kazakos (Πάνος Καζάκος), Patakis editions ISBN 9601600272. Post-WW2 Greek history courses at the University of Athens, use this very book, so I trust it is authoritative enough. You will be especially interested to read chapter 3 which deals with the 7 year military rule. Personally, I intend to study the book more and hopefully add to the article what I find out, with proper references to the book.
- I would appreciate it if you could adopt a less polemical attitude in the matter. There exists no such thing as a "socialist" conspiracy to discredit the "miracle" of the junta. And I do not quite understand what you ment by "This questioning of yours is a prime example". I assume that you refer to the quote I mentioned that talked about "social modernization". Please note that it came from the very sources you provided, namely the second one.
- Anyhow, I think that is all. If I misunderstood what you wrote please correct me and please try to be more clear next time. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
This proves the Growth in the Junta years has not been matched since its fall, it is very clear and totally a-political, just pure figures for you. http://www.aueb.gr/imop/papers/enteka.pdf So unless you have any problem with the figures or simply don't understand them, I will insert that this economic growth in the Junta years has not been matched since. Now I will search for a similar a-political figure-based source on the 60 years before the Junta. Reaper7 18:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- I have yet to read the paper you linked to (I promise I will: it does look really interesting), but I would like to make a suggestion. Don't insert just one phrase that says that "economic growth in the Junta years has not been matched since". It sounds a bit vague and absurd, not to say POVish. Do something better, something that will really improve the article: Present the very figures from the paper that present the fluxuation of GDP growth. Cite the paper as a source for the figures, and include what the writers of the paper believe that caused the growth, and the consequent downturn. Write an encyclopedia article, not a polemic. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I given up its ok, I tried - even the title has been blunted to simply policies, .... the section has already been rewritten several times already with the inclusion of frauds and negative growth even when the junta was still in power, it is true what they famously say, many socialists just don't want to see a period of success amoungst all the political problems and even I am surprized to the extent to which this is true. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_economic_miracle At least i tried to talk about the Economic miracle of the period and that makes me proud and I will end by saying someone who says 'economic growth has not been matched since is vague and absurd statement' I find that person totally insane and perhaps from another planet, it is a phrase used everyday on political and news programmes in England and after all this is an English speaking article. Just unbelievable excuses and fabrications to hide the reality of figures. The best was the defence of the Govt after, even now Greek Govts show why the junta succeeded: http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w_articles_politics_3362951_01/07/2006_71564Reaper7 19:15, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- Did I offend you in any way? I'm sorry if you percieved so, but really I had no intention or reason to do such a thing. And not meaning to offend you, I am sad to read your rude remarks against me. As for the phrase that caused you all that anger, please re-read what I wrote. I suggested that instead of just plainly and flatly stating "economic growth in the Junta years has not been matched since", you should present the facts and figures. Is that insane or "extraterrestrial"? And how can my asking to have in the article the facts and figures instead of a polemical phrase like "not matched ever since" in any way be "unbelievable excuses and fabrications"?? And if you have heard the phrase in a TV program in England, please go ahead, cite the program and add the phrase in the article.
- Oh, and by the way, trust me, there exists no socialist cabal... --Michalis Famelis (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The coups that never were... planned?
I made some factual corrections to the entry on George Rallis's account, as the previous entry misrepresented his words.
As for Karamanlis, if we want to reproduce every accusation made against him, no matter how unsubstantiated, may I suggest we include Stazi's fabricated conversations[2] as well? :-) AvianFluke 17:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Why was operation Gladio made less prominent?
I specifically mean this edit. Im definetly no expert upon the matter (up until a few hours ago I did not realize that ther was a military coup in Greece following WW2). But operation Gladio was of great interest to me (stumbled upon it elsewhere though). The way the article is made now though, I don't think I would follow the link and check it out. Regards Sean Heron 12:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
- Hi Sean. I am the editor who had added the Gladio piece at the first place. But I agree with Cplakidas' edit. It is true that the previous form, rather over-emphasized Gladio's role in this specific coup. Of course Gladio is an interesting (and didactic) story, but it must not be given more gravity than it really had in the events. The way the article was written before it looked as if all the political turmoil in Greece prior to the junta was mainly due to Gladio, which is not true. Gladio was one of the reasons, and probably not the gravest. Imho, Cplakidas' edit is in the direction of a broader insight to western influence in Greece as it avoids to focus excessively on Gladio which was only one of the means the west manipulated things in Greece.--Michalis Famelis (talk) 15:02, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
You have to understand, most the Greeks on Wiki are socialists and this page is their hatred baby. Forget the unrivalled economic growth that happened in the period, or any of the positives, unless you have a marxist userbox, you ain't editting this page. Reaper7 14:15, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the information Michalis Famelis. On hearing your words I am now very content with the way it is :) . I'm not sure if Reaper7 deserves a reply on the other hand ... Regards Sean Heron 05:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] othoneos
The name "Alexandros Othoneos" , the judge who tried the dictators is not even mentioned. I think the trial should belong to this page.
not sure if comment is appropriate here but I think the article is uncomplete....it does not talk about the fall or deconstruction of the junta, it needs a section.
