Jump to content

Talk:Konstantinos Karamanlis

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wife of C.Karamanlis

[edit]

The article mentions nothing about Karamanlis's wife, Amalia Megapanou. Why?
Parrisia 18:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because the article doesn't have a "Personal life" section. Feel free to add it, if you can source the information. --Kimontalk 18:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfair to mention Lambros Eftaxias and not Amalia Megapanou ;) Rastapopoulos 08:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critisism Paragraph

[edit]

I think that in every politicians article there should be a criticism paragraph. Most notable example for Constantine Karamanlis should be the signing of the Zürich and London accords and the subsequent Cyprus issue. Another controversial part is his rise to power with the aid of the palace. Some people also accuse him for the lack of counteraction against the military dictatorship (from my point of view that is an unfair accusation - how many Greeks really opposed the militants? - , but still it exists).

--ManosGR 07:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- He was in self-exile at the time !!! - How could he react to that from Paris? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.73.206.171 (talk) 23:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Critics sentence

[edit]

I removed the following sentence: Though it has been supported by his critics that it was part of the effort to stop the rising of the socialist PASOK by giving left-wing voters an alternative choice. because it is not cited. If there is a citation for it I will restore it. If not it may be true, it does sound plausible since every politician likes to outmanoeuvre the opposition but without citation it is just speculation. Dr.K. 16:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Metapolitefsi.jpg

[edit]

Image:Metapolitefsi.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Konstantinos Karamanlis: Rename request

[edit]

His name is Konstantinos Karamanlis. A Google search actually yields more results for Konstantinos Karamanlis than for Constantine Karamanlis. Britannica's article is listed under Konstantinos Karamanlis as well. Could an admin please move this article to Konstantinos Karamanlis? Many thanks. Dr.K. (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much Anthony. Tasos (Dr.K. (talk) 14:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Decisive role in Cyprus invasion

[edit]

After the first invasion, Turkey had taken 3% of Cyprus. A 3 week ceasefire was established. Turkey spent this time reinforcing their beach heads with troops for a full invasion. Everyone was aware of this. So Karamanlis was asked if Greece would send troops to defend Cyprus. Seeing as Greece had been under a military Junta for the best part of a decade, Greece was fully militarized. However Karamanlis refused to send a single Greek soldier to Turkey, or put a Greek frigate in the area. This was decisive. I am putting this as a sub header in the article. http://hellenicantidote.blogspot.co.uk/2013/11/karamanlis-betrayal-of-cyprus-greece.html Reaper7 (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And why exactly don't you ask the more pertinent question why the junta itself, which was headed by soldiers and supposedly "militarized" the country, also did nothing? Why the mobilization it called was a fiasco? It was not Karamanlis, but the junta-appointed head of the armed forces who said the infamous "Οι Τούρκοι χτυπούν την Κύπρο αλλά εμείς είμαστε Ελλάς". Likewise it was these "patriotic" gentlemen who withdrew the Greek division that had covertly been sent to the island by a civilian government. So please, read up on some real history books instead of relying on blog posts. Constantine ✍ 17:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. You are doing the classic avoidance technique to defend something perverted. You desperate attempt to'win'? perhaps some sort of battle you think has taken place has lead you to moving the argument somewhere else. So lets teach you to behave and please read slowly and carefully, because if you don't, I will just have to repeat the same things over and something tells me you wont get bored but I will.
The Junta was a disaster. The Junta collapsed 2 days after the first invasion. The Junta was full of lies and deception and collapsed accordingly. Their actions lead directly to Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Now here comes the extremely complicated part, I am going to put in bold so you cannot say you missed it!
This is an article about Karamanlis, not the Junta. Now take a breath and lets continue remembering that. Regarding Cyprus, Karamanlis was integral in the history of Cyprus, firstly he was the one who virtually forced Makarios in 1959 to sign the Zurich and London agreements that granted Cyprus a poisoned and restricted form of independence. There was over 3 weeks in between the first and second Turkish invasion. The Cypriots and everyone else noticed Turkey unloading heavy tanks and 1000s of troops onto their captured 3% of the island preparing for a proper invasion. Greece openly threatened Turkey of 'war over dishonour' if Turkey attempted anything further. These words were given by Georgios Mavros, Karamnalis' foreign minister for Greece at Geneva, on the orders of karamanlis. According contemporary reports, moral was high with troops in Cyrpus before the second invasion and the Greek army was not in disarray as karamanlis told the Cypriots before they were cleansed. The Cypriots begged through Glafkos for some troops, or at least one of the many a Hellenic frigates to block the invasion. Karamanlis gave nothing. The outcome was a foregone conclusion. If he had deployed Greek troops or allowed the submarines in the area to defend the beaches, the outcome would have been different in most cases. A Turko-Greco war was unlikely as neither Turkey or Greece desired a war, however, Cyprus would have had the upper hand defending itself.
Now to leave out this, or worse - delete it from the article, use revisionism, pseudo communism or some other agenda to try and pretend this never happened is disgusting. Whether you agree or not with his actions - whether you think he was a saviour or a weak fool controlled by the USA, his actions or lack of actions in 1974 were decisive in why Cyprus is in two pieces. The actions of the Junta, the UK and USA were also decisive, but so was Karamanlis. The only people who have difficulty admitting this are usually the marxist clones poorly manufactured en masse in Greek universities mostly from the 1980s and 1990s. Anyone else centrist or mildly right wing would have no problem admitting the failures of either the Junta or Karamanlis. However, a Greek pseudo communist's mind begins at the Greek civil war and ends at the fall of the Junta. You wont speak to one without him/her mentioning either at least a few times in a general conversation about politics, hence the reason your mind forced itself to mention the Junta in place of admitting Karamanlis was key to the fall of Northern Cyprus also. There is a whole article describing how evil the Junta was, please if you feel insecure, give that a good read again to feel validated - but don't let your leftist politics protect the reality of what Karamanlis' orders did to the history of Cyprus. I don't expect you to do the right thing, but at least in reading this, let it sink in before going mad again and telling me to read up on some real history books. I encourage you to do the same, I had to study marx for a year, so at least do me the honour of reading something not connect with marx. Reaper7 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Right, I am avoiding the issue but you are bringing Marx (?!) into a discussion on the Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Seriously? And why would any leftist (supposing I am the "archetypal Greek leftist" you believe me to be, judging from the comprehensive statistical sample of a single post) defend the icon of the Greek right, have you thought of that? I don't care what peeves you have, and you obviously have a lot, but leave them out of here. Period with that. Now, Karamanlis has a lot you can accuse him of, and not only on Cyprus and the Zurich agreements, but in this case you need a source far better than a blog that accuses him of treason for refusing to get involved in what was already a mess of epic proportions. Yes, Karamanlis could have sent troops to Cyprus, and did not do so. Why? Before crying "treason", perhaps one should examine whether the country was in a state to fight. The junta itself clearly did not believe so, and if you care to speak to anyone who was in the mobilization, you'll find out that it was a tragicomic farce. Anyone who says otherwise obviously wasn't there or engages in wishful thinking. This supposedly "fully militarized" Greece you write of was incapable of properly equipping the men it called up or even directing them to their units, let alone deciding whether and what forces to send to Cyprus, witness the events around the Lesbos LST, the Nike operation, and the subs that were recalled midway to the island. If the military leadership itself was incapable of deciding, how is Karamanlis the traitor? Going to war in the midst of a regime change, and with the military and government in chaos, might have led to even greater disasters. This is in essence Karamanlis' argument, and it is hard to dispute his assessment of the Greek military's readiness state. The navy and the air force were probably OK, and arguably better than their Turkish counterparts, but the brunt of the fighting would have been borne by the army, and that was in a mess. Karamanlis could have gambled, indeed, and didn't. With the benefit of 40 years' worth of hindsight you can choose to blame him for that, but if you were in his place, you might well have done the same. Constantine ✍ 20:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let the dance begin.
  • Firstly, your answer wreaked of Greek pseudo marxism, just checked your profile page and there was the ..this user is a Marxist.. userbox right on queue. Hardly a wild guess, your style is textbook Greek pseudo marxist. So, I think we can put that one to bed. I am neither right or left, but I have met many with your template mentality and one or two others with the generic far right. Both easy to spot and predictable.
  • Secondly, when you use these ", it is for something someone actually said, not something you needed them to say to help your argument. So therefore, "archetypal Greek leftist" and "treason" should be attributed to me according to you, except I never said them did I? Learn how to use formal English grammar, if not speak in Greek please, without mistakes. There is enough misinformation to be cutting through in your posts without invention, thanks.
  • Thirdly Greek pseudo marxists usually change the subject in conversations as I am having to repeat to you. You first endeavored to talk about the Junta, safe ground for a Greek pseudo marxist university grad. Unfortunately no one was discussing the Junta, or its involvement. Now you mention "treason" or "crying treason" - even more desperate. Nope, no cigar. Like with the Junta and other side issues brought in whole sale to muddy the waters, it is not part of the debate. I repeat. Whether right or wrong morally, his decision was of vital historical importance to Cyprus. The other ridiculous attempt you made is to enter another stupid word - 'traitor.' Again, wikipedia is not about moralising for the third time, it is about actions and reactions. Not about idealistic moralising in a university paper. In my edit that was removed by yourself, I did not moralise on his actions. You however, used revisionism and removed the edit so no one can make up their own mind. Greece is not behind an iron curtain - not last time I checked, maybe let people make up their own minds?
  • Fourthly, whether the army was as disorganised and demoralised as Karamanlis later claimed after the cleansing of Northern Cyprus, it does not make a difference. The Cypriots were calling for a blockade undertaken by the Hellenic Navy, which was organised and even the main supplier of weaponry the the forces in Cyprus over the decades. There is no debate he could have easily given the green light for the navy to take up defensive positions as the biggest problem for the defense forces on the ground was being outnumbered by the masses of Turkish troops free to land on Cypriot territory after the first invasion. The same goes with the airforce. Turkey gained complete control of the skies and bombed the Greek and Greek Cypriot positions into submission and retreat.
  • Fifthly, clearly you bought the Karamanlis argument. As for him being right wing, inviting the KKE back to Greece will certainly further that mythology as well as inviting back civil war far left exiles. You should lower your politics. You should allow the reader to have the debate we are having, not disallow the reader the facts so he can't even freely debate the facts. You can claim he saved Greece, feel free to tell the word that. However, refrain from removing the reality text that his decision sealed the fate of Cyprus. Reaper7 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, a) if you cannot differentiate between Karl Marx and Groucho Marx, I feel sorry for you (and it is "reeked" BTW, not "wreaked"), b) since you took the trouble to visit my userpage, you might also take an extra 5 secs to look at my contributions page, and then consider how many "stereotypical leftists" spend years writing on Byzantium or Greek military history, and how this fits in your stereotypes, and c) as long as you insist on tagging and addressing people by your preconceived notions of who and what they should be without actually knowing them or having at least interacted with them in any long-term basis, there really is no point trying to talk to you. You've made up your mind on what I am and what Karamanlis was (obviously a communist, that is why the Americans, the palace and the army backed him when he came to power in 1954), and nothing I say will make any difference. So, until you bring a reputable source to back up your claims, this discussion is over. Have a nice day. Constantine ✍ 06:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Naughty, stop lying, stop moralising, can your brain do that? Don't care about your politics, don't care about you making up I think karamanlis was a communist to help your ego. This all started with your stupid rudeness telling me to read a history book and you got it in your face, now you want a tissue? Your ego means nothing to me. I already mentioned Karamanlis was the one who forced Makarios clearly - to take the US option of signing the poisoned deal in the 1950s. You have bounced around like an ape in a Zoo trying to politicise according to your morality. First you tell me karamanlis is a traitor in my eyes or treasonous... - complete lies.. than you say he is not leftist... now he is owned by the Americans? I DON'T CARE - NEITHER DOES THE READER. I don't care about your political schizophrenia. You have blocked the Cyprus paragraph that simply said his role in the history of Cyprus was vital. Greeks are more stupid thanks to you, sleep well and pretend his role was not decisive. Ignorant Greeks need Greeks like you more than you will ever be able to comprehend. My claims are that he refused to send any military, that is known. What we discussed about the navy and airforce should be open to the public, however, let it be hidden. This article is your child. I will let you go back into the closet. Karamanlis' image is secure - your vital job of keeping Greeks ignorant has completed a new cycle. I tried my best. See you in the next life! Maybe you not a leftist, leftists usually like to have the last word. I will let you have that as you probably need it more than me after having a mirror shoved in your face by myself.Reaper7 (talk) 22:06, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Stasi smear campaign

[edit]

The repeatedly published photograph of the former New Democracy leader Constantine Mitsotakis standing next to a uniformed Nazi officer is not a photomontage frabricated in Bulgaria, if it is the same picture i own. It is an original picture taken during the second world war in Crete. There is not one Nazi officer next to Mitsotakis, there are two Nazi officers, one to the left, one to the right of Mitsotakis. On the left side of Mitsotakis (from his point of view) my father is standing. He was a soldier of the so called Wehrmacht in second world war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterNeis (talk • contribs) 10:04, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Konstantinos Karamanlis. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 22:35, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Referendum - 1974

[edit]

@Dr.K.:

Peri tes Ousias

A. It should be possible to provide a holistic overview on topics written on the wikipedia.

B. It is not preferred to delete everything. You should try to find better sources or to discuss with other users until finding a solution. You really had other possibilities, than starting an edit war on 6 (!) articles.

C. I will not stop of providing my informations (Informationskampagne) on this or on other topics. I provide with my edits always good knowledge to wikipedia. If you think, that some websites are not serious enough, I will give other sources in the following days (books, scientific works etc).

D. I find it really weird that it is alright to you to mention in 20-30 articles on wikipedia the referendum, but you are not willing to provide or to let provide informations about the circumstances of this referendum. Do you follow specific goals on wikipedia?


Peri to allon

A. I am not a spammer or proroyal.

B. I will not stop to write on wikipedia, because of users who do not want to allow, to give to specific topics all the related informations that are need to ensure neutrality.

C. Do you have a Karamanlis or a Nea Demokratia Agenda?? You mentioned on your site, that you have a Phd degree; I really can not see this in your behavior.

D. Please answer with words and whole sentences and not with a thousand links.

E. I will discuss the whole problem, that you have created with your edits here and not on every individual article talk page.

F. If you have good faith I would like to ask you to provide by yourself the related informations (lines) and sources (Jstor etc).

Informationskampagne (talk) 12:29, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Konstantinos Karamanlis. 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:

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) 18:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Boston Globe obituary

[edit]

I found this: http://web.archive.org/web/19980423130405/http://www.boston.com:80/dailyglobe/globehtml/113/Constantine_Karamanlis__91___helped.htm WhisperToMe (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Konstantinos Karamanlis. 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:

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) 03:56, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Query re dates of term in office

[edit]

Encyclopedia Britannica Yearbook 1981 (Events of 1980) records his second term as starting 15 May 1980 when he was sworn into office

10:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC) Noel Ellis — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noel Ellis (talk • contribs)

A Muslim family name (some converted to Christian Orthodoxy to maintain their real estate)

[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Konstantinos_Karamanlis&oldid=1212547951"