Greece: where would you place it, geopolitically?

[Absinthe]

I am interested in your opinions. Don't think I have the answer myself. I have been wondering for years...

Mediterranean: could it be clustered together with Italy, Malta, Spain and Portugal? As in a greater greaco-roman civilization...or?

Balkanian: a balkanian entity, similar to Albanians, Skopjans, Bulgarians, Romanians?
There are common elemets (especially with the northern parts of Greece) but in general I wouldn't say there is too much kinship.)

Western European: since it is said to have been 'the cradle of Western civilization'

Eastern european: more akin to slavic nations? Due to Orthodox Christianity, maybe?

Middle-eastern: due to prolonged ties with the east, and also to turkish occupation. Today, some cultural influences mainly pertaining to food and 'entertainment' :rolleyes: are still very visible.
Also, some middle-eastern societal elements are unfortunately deep-rooted in the modern greek culture (bribery, dishonesty in transactions, cunning and manipulation. Also, the lesser position of women in society).

African: (Loyalist votes here :p)

Cross-roads of all the above (with whatever good and bad this implies).

Other -please explain your views.

I am especially waiting for Fortis in Arduis to to share his views, since he spent a couple of weeks here very recently.

[Osweo]

You had a huge geopolitical orbit, once upon a time, pulling Eastern Europe and Western Asia into it, but it got smashed to smythereens! The Byzantine World. Other new worlds popped up to fill the vacuum, but you don't really belong to any of them, as they grew without taking any real heed of you, leaving you a bit of an orphan.

I'd say that Greece needs to recreate itself a geopolitical world, not latch onto one already existing. The Orthodox world is the nearest approximation to a 'home' for you, it being the last major defining event in your cultural background (Classical Greece being largely as alien/familiar for you as it is for us, if you don't mind me saying).

If there was much left of Armenia, and other now lost civilisations, that's with whom you might belong best, but unfortunately Greece now seems to be the only real survivor of that world. Unsurprisingly for me, I might point to Russia as a natural geopolitical ally, given the shared religion and Russia's sense of 'mission' in the world, which might be a beneficial influence on your cultural life. Shame you'd be much the 'younger brother' in any relationship, though.

Southern Italy and Malta might be worth getting a bit more intimate with, I suppose, but I don't know how different you've become from each other since Belisarios's days...

[Absinthe]

Oswiu, I wouldn't put my money on eastern orthodoxy and Russia.

If anything, the adaptation of the Christian religion and the Byzantium is what ruined us in the first place.

The Classical greek religion and tradition was violently destroyed by the christians and the Byzantium brought in a lot of foreign elements.

If anything, I would like to see Greece becoming more 'westernized' because right now it's standing on a crossroads.

Economy and lifestyle is mostly western (albeit a caricature of the west) and mentality, behavior and conduct is eastern.

Laziness, lack of organization and skills, chaos and disorder. Theocracy and church intervention in state matters. Bribery and corruption, manipulation and cunning: all those I consider to be eastern traits.

I would prefer living in a genuinely eastern country, with all the aforemention drawbacks yet the more relaxed and simple way of life.

Living in a country with all the drawbacks of the east and the drawbacks of the west (materialism, competition, greed, uncontrollable market, lack of social welfare) is really a challenge.

And since we've already adopted all that, we unfortunately have to westernize ourselves more in order to adopt to the capitalist model.

[SuuT]

I am interested in your opinions. Don't think I have the answer myself. I have been wondering for years...

Mediterranean: could it be clustered together with Italy, Malta, Spain and Portugal? As in a greater greaco-roman civilization...or?

Balkanian: a balkanian entity, similar to Albanians, Skopjans, Bulgarians, Romanians?
There are common elemets (especially with the northern parts of Greece) but in general I wouldn't say there is too much kinship.)

Western European: since it is said to have been 'the cradle of Western civilization'

Eastern european: more akin to slavic nations? Due to Orthodox Christianity, maybe?

Middle-eastern: due to prolonged ties with the east, and also to turkish occupation. Today, some cultural influences mainly pertaining to food and 'entertainment' :rolleyes: are still very visible.
Also, some middle-eastern societal elements are unfortunately deep-rooted in the modern greek culture (bribery, dishonesty in transactions, cunning and manipulation. Also, the lesser position of women in society).

African: (Loyalist votes here :p)

Cross-roads of all the above (with whatever good and bad this implies).

Other -please explain your views.





I've been to Greece many times; and as an objective observer (I do hope I don't sound arrogant or off-putting with what I have to say), Greece is all of what you mention (abhove), and then some. My reasoning lies in the dis-integration of Greecian Racial constancy (which, IMO, lays the groundwork for chaos). But, that is just food for thought, I suppose...


Antiquarian Greece would not have stood for such diversification of option.

To paraphrase Nietzsche, Greece has "capitulated"; Rome soon followed in these footsteps.


A terrible turn of events ensue as a result of multi-culturalism (that is to say, the lack of a stalwart aristocricy that keeps standards in place, and, duration, therefore).

[stormlord]

I'd say Mediterranean, most southern European countries have a certain degree of what you call "eastern traits", so I don't think they make Greece "eastern" at all.

[Osweo]

Oswiu, I wouldn't put my money on eastern orthodoxy and Russia.
Thanks for reading my incogent drivel anyway! :p

If anything, the adaptation of the Christian religion and the Byzantium is what ruined us in the first place.
But have you really got anything else left?

The Classical greek religion and tradition was violently destroyed by the christians and the Byzantium brought in a lot of foreign elements.
But is the ancient Greece really relevant to you any more? Any more than Iron Age Britain is to me?

Actually, you might think from reading the sort of things that I'm interested in posting about on these forums, that these older deeper phases of our history are far more important, and yes, I believe so, but we have to make a big effort to discover this in ourselves, and maybe Greece operates on a different timescale to England in this regard. What do you think? Can you still 'feel' the old Greece there in yourselves? Or at least a part of it, in which case which part? How would you build on that if you reject, or pass over, the last 1700 years?

If anything, I would like to see Greece becoming more 'westernized' because right now it's standing on a crossroads.

Economy and lifestyle is mostly western (albeit a caricature of the west) and mentality, behavior and conduct is eastern.
I've seen the real east, down in Arab lands, and don't worry, your 'east' is different from theirs! You've hit the nail on the head with 'westernising' though, and that's the fact that this will inevitably be a sham for you. I'd love for you, for everyone, to really root down in their national character, soul if you like, and figure out what's essential to them, and jettison the unecessary accretions. This will involve a lot of planing down and starting from near scratch, I'm afraid, for us in England, as well as you in Hellas.

Laziness, lack of organization and skills, chaos and disorder. Theocracy and church intervention in state matters. Bribery and corruption, manipulation and cunning: all those I consider to be eastern traits.
I think that what we should realise from the last fifty years or so, if not the last few centuries (with the unofficial history of the West being its financial underworld), is that these traits are probably even more large scale in the West, but have been carried out so subtly that we don't notice, and repeat tired old cliches about the East, as though we had a leg to stand on!

I would prefer living in a genuinely eastern country, with all the aforemention drawbacks yet the more relaxed and simple way of life.
Ekh, this Utopia doesn't exist, East, South, North or West, but it's a good ideal to aim for! :D

Living in a country with all the drawbacks of the east and the drawbacks of the west (materialism, competition, greed, uncontrollable market, lack of social welfare) is really a challenge.

And since we've already adopted all that, we unfortunately have to westernize ourselves more in order to adopt to the capitalist model.
Recipe for disaster ultimately, don't you instinctively feel?

[Treffie]

I'd say Mediterranean, most southern European countries have a certain degree of what you call "eastern traits", so I don't think they make Greece "eastern" at all.

I'd agree with this, however I have a soft spot for Greece so it would be difficult for me to remain impartial. ;)

[Absinthe]

But is the ancient Greece really relevant to you any more? Any more than Iron Age Britain is to me?

Just briefly, because I have to go:

It is mostly this Greece that I (and most self-conscious greeks) take pride in.

If it comes to the point when we lose our ties with our ancient heritage altogether, and become a neo-balkan (or other) entity, then I, for one, am leaving the country.

[Osweo]

It's easy to say Mediterranean, but I'd be interested to hear what a Spaniard and a Greek really have in common. I keep an open mind on it, but that great big fat 1058 Schism didn't pop out of nowhere. Isn't the Latin sphere rather different from the Hellenic? There's an interface between the two in Magna Graecia, sure, but beyond that to Southern France can you really feel a cultural connection to build a solid geopolitical relationship on? Or am I getting too caught up in the history, and neglecting the import of way of life?

[Absinthe]

It's easy to say Mediterranean, but I'd be interested to hear what a Spaniard and a Greek really have in common.

Not much (besides being too loud, maybe :D)

[Osweo]

Just briefly, because I have to go:
I look forward to seeing you later with this topic! :thumb001:

It is mostly this Greece that I (and most self-conscious greeks) take pride in.

If it comes to the point when we lose our ties with our ancient heritage altogether, and become a neo-balkan (or other) entity, then I, for one, am leaving the country.
But is this rejection of the Balkanic a prejudiced (eek, for me to even use that word!) knee-jerk reaction that may harm Greeks in the end of ends? Perhaps you might put Demosthenes and co. in perspective, not so central to your present sense of pride in who you are, and embrace a little more the underlying links that attach you to the Balkan world? It might be a good feeling, to not be so weighed down by an ancient past that can't be recreated now, and looking even within that past for the Thracian and Illyric tints that have been ignored by later historians?

Don't mind me; I'm just rattling on, 'stream of consciousness' style! :p

[Absinthe]

Perhaps you might put Demosthenes and co. in perspective, not so central to your present sense of pride in who you are, and embrace a little more the underlying links that attach you to the Balkan world?

Oswiu, this is all peachy and 'why can't we all just get along' in theory, but in action this is too dangerous a thought...

For example, there has been a "pan-european" racialist movement in Greece, advocating that "race is above everything" and "we should embrace our Balkan brothers".

First off I don't consider other balkanians to be our "brothers" (cousins, at best), and second, this sort of thinking can become very troublesome when you have some millions of Albanians, and some hundreds of thousands of other balkanians, living in Greece.

Embrace them and 'get in touch with our balkan side'? No thanks. Under the current circumstances, that would mean giving up our hellenic identity and becoming one big balkan mass. Half of Albania has already moved to Greece. I'm not too happy about it.

[Osweo]

Oswiu, this is all peachy and 'why can't we all just get along' in theory, but in action this is too dangerous a thought...

For example, there has been a "pan-european" racialist movement in Greece, advocating that "race is above everything" and "we should embrace our Balkan brothers".

First off I don't consider other balkanians to be our "brothers" (cousins, at best), and second, this sort of thinking can become very troublesome when you have some millions of Albanians, and some hundreds of thousands of other balkanians, living in Greece.

Embrace them and 'get in touch with our balkan side'? No thanks. Under the current circumstances, that would mean giving up our hellenic identity and becoming one big balkan mass. Half of Albania has already moved to Greece. I'm not too happy about it.

What do you have to object to apart from the Shiptars? A big 'apart from' I know, but there are other Balkaners!

Haven't you just, in a way, demonstrated the need to look to the Byzantine/Orthodox world, rather than anything else? Almost two millenia of Christianity has made you what you are, and informs the antipathy with the Albanians. It's a good fence to keep you safe from them and the Turks, yet ensure simultaneously that you do have some friends in the region.

I wouldn't look too further afield, as I'm afraid nobody up here would really stand for you if the shit hit the fan. I'd like to think they would, but we've troubles of our own, and you shouldn't rely on us. You might be able to rely on Me, of course, and on Byron and Russian Philhellenes (like in 1812) a few other Romantics and those who think on a Continental/Racial scale, but our states will not do you any favours in the near future. I hope that will change one day, naturally.

[Loddfafner]

This was a practical problem for me in that I needed to fit Greece in my stamp collection which is arranged geographically. My first choice was the Middle East as it is a former Ottoman province and that must have some influence on its political culture. There was not enough room in a 64-page stock book so I had to leave it out.

My second choice was the Balkans. I considered the Orthodox links to places like Serbia, folk dances, and expressions of anti-common-sense nationalism of the sort that brought us FYROM. It was more convenient to split the Balkans between the Iron Curtain volume and one on former Austro-Hungarian provinces so I had to leave Greece out.

I settled on Mediterranean Europe as there was enough room. Portugal, Spain, Italy, and the the micro-countries only took up half a volume so, with some thought of 1970s dictators, I put Greece in with those places. Sorry, Absinthe, so is Albania. But I also included Switzerland as there wasn't enough room to lump it with Germany and Austria.

[stormlord]

It's easy to say Mediterranean, but I'd be interested to hear what a Spaniard and a Greek really have in common. I keep an open mind on it, but that great big fat 1058 Schism didn't pop out of nowhere. Isn't the Latin sphere rather different from the Hellenic? There's an interface between the two in Magna Graecia, sure, but beyond that to Southern France can you really feel a cultural connection to build a solid geopolitical relationship on? Or am I getting too caught up in the history, and neglecting the import of way of life?

Well, Latin culture is built fairly solidly and undeniably on Greek foundations as far as I can see. We learnt plenty of Greek in our Latin lessons at school, and I think it was for a reason...


....I wouldn't look too further afield, as I'm afraid nobody up here would really stand for you if the shit hit the fan. I'd like to think they would, but we've troubles of our own, and you shouldn't rely on us. You might be able to rely on Me, of course, and on Byron and Russian Philhellenes (like in 1812) a few other Romantics and those who think on a Continental/Racial scale, but our states will not do you any favours in the near future. I hope that will change one day, naturally.

I don't think anyone is doing themselves any favours, let alone anyone else, but I'd say that Britain has been fairly well disposed towards Greece for a very long time. (antiquity related "incidents" aside :D)

[SuuT]

...our hellenic identity...


With respect, my dear - this is what? Has there been one since 1453?...

[Æmeric]

Eastern Mediterranean. It's Orthodox Christianity sets it apart from the Catholic nations further west. But it is not Slavic like most of the other Orthodox peoples. It also has the heritage of having been under Turkish rule for hundreds of years. The Iberian experience with Muslim rule was through the Moors of Northwest Africa.

I would put Cyprus & Albania in the same Eastern Mediterranean catagory, geopolitically (sorry). FYRO Macedonia is a question mark. (What are the Macedonians? Slavs? Slavicized Albanians? Slavicized Greeks ?) Cyprus is of course mostly Greek with a Turkish minority. Albania has a Muslim majority but the Albanians have been in the neighborhood for thousands of years & were an integral part of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Bulgaria & Serbia are Slavic & nominally Orthodox Christian & belong in the Balkans. Lebanon's Chrisitan community is shrinking & it belongs in the Middle East. Arbitrarily the line between Eastern Mediterranean & Middle East would be where Orthodox Christianity is prevailent on one side & Islam on the other, hence the border between Greece & Turkey.

[Osweo]

Eastern Mediterranean. It's Orthodox Christianity sets it apart from the Catholic nations further west.
Exactly my hunch. I'm no Protestant, but I do belong more in the cultural sphere that has the Reformation in its heritage. Greeks might not at the moment find much in Byzantium that appeals (but how fashions change!), yet they might not realise how much this Eastern Empire got under their skins. They might find more commonality of outlook with other nations that have gone through the same. There will be exceptions, our Absinthe finds a great deal to talk with us northwesterners and northerners about, for instance. But can the mass of her countrymen follow her in this?

FYRO Macedonia is a question mark. (What are the Macedonians? Slavs? Slavicized Albanians? Slavicized Greeks ?)
The Macedonian language is a dialect of Bulgarian, near enough. They just fell out of Bulgaria's sphere of influence and spent a while with the Serbs and Croats. Yugoslavia tried to set them up as a nation in themselves, and many now believe it there. You could argue that shared historical experience can make a nation, of course. But a century is rather short... I'd say that the Macedonians are just Slavonicised Thracians/Illyrians. They've never been too caught in the Serbian or Bulgarian orbit, and so never really joined these nations, which themselves were the product of dynastically conditioned circumstances. The Bosnians are in a similar position between the Serbs and the Croats. There's a lot of unfinished nations down there, not fully baked! The Turk interupted...
There are tons of Albanians in FYROM too. They've always been there, but fertility as everywhere is the key. :( Vlachs and so on, Turks, and a fair few Greeks, Slavonicised Greeks, Islamicised Slavs and other mixtures are there in small levels, awaiting what historical chance brings along. People on the Edge often take out a bit of an insurance policy and put a foot in both camps, just in case.

Cyprus is of course mostly Greek with a Turkish minority.
Hellenised Cypriots, you could say, rather, though that's taking us back millenia! There were Semitic speakers there, and speakers of Anatolian and unknown Aegean languages, once upon a time. The racial substrate has a few extra ingredients than your average Pelopponesian. Greeks, now, near enough, I suppose.

Albania has a Muslim majority but the Albanians have been in the neighborhood for thousands of years & were an integral part of the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Bulgaria & Serbia are Slavic & nominally Orthodox Christian & belong in the Balkans. Lebanon's Chrisitan community is shrinking & it belongs in the Middle East. Arbitrarily the line between Eastern Mediterranean & Middle East would be where Orthodox Christianity is prevailent on one side & Islam on the other, hence the border between Greece & Turkey.
Would be nice to shift that border back a bit, of course. :wink Maybe fifty years down the line we'll have recovered enough to consider such restructuring. :p

[Atlas]

European definitely.

[Gooding]

Interesting question.I saw that this morning before going to work.I voted that Greece is a Mediterranean country, with its own character.I would think that all Mediterranean countries have their own, unique character and Greece more than most.The language is related to other languages in the region only in that Hellenic is the most ancient division of the Indo-European language family, while most of the other languages of that region are Romance languages, such as Occitan, Italian, Spanish,Catalan or Portuguese.

[SwordoftheVistula]

I picked 'crossroads'. The religion is eastern, as in Russia and Serbia. The food is middle eastern, basically the same as Turkish and Armenian. Culturally, I'd say Mediterranean, similar to Italy and Portugal.

If an Italian joined the Russian Orthodox church and learned to cook Turkish food...you'd have a Greek :D





some middle-eastern societal elements are unfortunately deep-rooted in the modern greek culture (bribery, dishonesty in transactions, cunning and manipulation.


Laziness, lack of organization and skills, chaos and disorder... Bribery and corruption, manipulation and cunning: all those I consider to be eastern traits

I've always associated those with 'Mediterranean' culture.

[Rhobot]

It's easy to say Mediterranean, but I'd be interested to hear what a Spaniard and a Greek really have in common. I keep an open mind on it, but that great big fat 1058 Schism didn't pop out of nowhere. Isn't the Latin sphere rather different from the Hellenic? There's an interface between the two in Magna Graecia, sure, but beyond that to Southern France can you really feel a cultural connection to build a solid geopolitical relationship on? Or am I getting too caught up in the history, and neglecting the import of way of life?

I think way of life is important.
I think that southern Italy has more in common with Greece culturally and historically than Spain does (particularly the parts of that could actually be considered Magna Graecia- e.g. Calabria and the east coast of Sicily.)
As for southern France, it seems to have lost its Greek heritage by the time the Western Roman Empire fell.
Much of southern Italy was not under the jurisdiction of the Vatican at the time of the schism. Calabria and Puglia were part of the Eastern Roman Empire, and Sicily was under Muslim rule, with the Greek church dominant among the Christian community.
When the Normans took over, the process of Latinization occurred at different rates in different places, depending on whether they were settled You could have Norman nobles bringing fellow Latins from Northern Italy to one place (as in western Sicily), and ruling over a Greek-speaking Orthodox peasantry in another place (as in Calabria and Eastern Sicily).
Nearly all the Orthodox churches had become Catholic by the early 1300s, but the use of the Byzantine Rite (Greek liturgy and married priests) persisted well into the 1600s (until the Inquisition and the Counter-Reformation) in some parts of Calabria and Puglia. And there were Greek speakers in parts of Calabria and Puglia well into the 20th century.

[Osweo]

Nearly all the Orthodox churches had become Catholic by the early 1300s, but the use of the Byzantine Rite (Greek liturgy and married priests) persisted well into the 1600s (until the Inquisition and the Counter-Reformation) in some parts of Calabria and Puglia.

That is interesting, I'd never heard that. THanks for sharing!

Oddly enough, one of my biggest aesthetic gripes with the Church of Rome is how the celibacy rule attracts, well, odd men, with whiny voices (remember Chaucer's 'Pardoner', anyone? ;)), who might not be queer, but you never know... I was quite surprised, discussing this with my otherwise very RC grandmother, that she shared the same opinion, or at least had heard it expounded many times by her (rather more educated) mother, that many a decent man who would have been ideal to play a pastoral role in his community had been put off by this unnecessary obstacle. I wonder is there any movement to get rid of it within the Catholic Church?

[SwordoftheVistula]

I wonder is there any movement to get rid of it within the Catholic Church?

It was brought up here a few years ago when there was a bunch of child molestation scandals, but not by anyone official in the church, they never had any interest in it.

[Lenny]

Greece is its own entity that fits within the European framewor. Sort of like Hungary: Where does Hungary fit in? It is its own entity among the European brotherhood of nations. That's the way I see it. There are others like this, maybe the Basque Nation is the best example of the same.

Of course, Greece is a tragic case since it was hurt so badly by the several centuries of Ottoman rule. In my limited experience with Greeks and Turks, I couldn't tell if there was much of difference between them in terms of how they behaved.



I would put Cyprus & Albania in the same Eastern Mediterranean catagory, geopolitically (sorry).Any Muslims native to the European Continent can only be considered an extra-European group, sort of like Gypsies or the "Wandering Jew(s)".

[Æmeric]

Any Muslims native to the European Continent can only be considered an extra-European group, sort of like Gypsies or the "Wandering Jew(s)".
But the Albanians are not a extra-European group. They are descended from the Illyrians who were in Europe thousands of years ago. Calling them extra-European is the same as calling the Basque extra-European. What makes these indigenous Europeans seem alien to Europe is the fact that over 2/3 of them adopted Islam as their faith during Turkish rule. Also, unlike the Gypsies, they have their own national territory which happens to be in Europe.

[Lysander]

There no one single true answer for that.
Just as Norway is in Northern Europe it is too in Western Europe, it all depends from what angle you look at it.

Greece is Western European by being the cradle of WE civilization.

Greece is Eastern European by the enormous Orthodox heritage from East Rome.

Greece is Balkan by a part of it's newer culture such as folk dancing and clothing which was spread by the Ottomans and is a mix of Hellenic and Slavic culture.

Anyway, that's my 5 cents and how I view my ancestral home.

As for Greece needing to become more western, NO. The West is a sinking ship destroyed by liberal values and spineless populations subdued by Jewish media and post 1777-values. We don't need that and we don't want that. Greece is what she is, this is what she has been formed into by history. We can't return to the Byzantine era nor to the Antique era, it is not us any more. And even though I place immense value in our history, that is what it is; history.

I'm sure some over zealous westerners will misunderstand what I mean so I will explain before being confronted.
Spineless; look at the multi cultural paradise that the west has become and how few people are doing anything about it.
Where are the old Celts who laughed in the face of the Romans? Where are the old Germanic tribes so famous for their skills in battle and bravery?
The way I see it, liberalism has destroyed you and will be the end of you if you don't wake up soon.

Unfortunately the same goes for Greece because of the EU.

Obviously the spineless remark does not apply for the people on this site who have woke up, and yes most Greeks are just as spineless nowadays.

My point is that we don't need to look neither east nor west to confirm ourselves. Modern western Europe has nothing that I value. I don't count the worth of a nation in GDP.

[Amarantine]

I am interested in your opinions. Don't think I have the answer myself. I have been wondering for years...

Mediterranean: could it be clustered together with Italy, Malta, Spain and Portugal? As in a greater greaco-roman civilization...or?

Balkanian: a balkanian entity, similar to Albanians, Skopjans, Bulgarians, Romanians?
Eastern european: more akin to slavic nations? Due to Orthodox Christianity, maybe?

Middle-eastern: due to prolonged ties with the east, and also to turkish occupation. Today, some cultural influences mainly pertaining to food and 'entertainment' :rolleyes: are still very visible.
Also, some middle-eastern societal elements are unfortunately deep-rooted in the modern greek culture (bribery, dishonesty in transactions, cunning and manipulation. Also, the lesser position of women in society).

Cross-roads of all the above (with whatever good and bad this implies).



Geopoloticaly Greece is in very speciphic position (and not very pleasent as most West Eu countries). Greece is Orthodox in direct confrotation with Islamistic Turkey and quite agressive Middle East. From the West, they have Albania (with not so nice bilateral relations), on the North, Macedonians which are not even the possibile enemy just they have that stupid issue with the name...So, Greece is Orthodox Flag between Islamic countries, forward point of the only true, (hehe I couldn't resist:D) Christianity!

Greece is partly Medditerranian and partly Balkan country, but mostly Greece is enternal source of the great Hellenic civilisation (which gift is Europe).

[Äike]

I voted "The Mediterranean 'union'", but Greece also has Eastern-European and Middle-Eastern cultural traits.

[Brännvin]

Europe for what matter is just an artificial geographical/geopolitical construction. If I had to determine where to place it. It would be between Europe and the Middle Eastern (Greece has an Ottoman history) in line with modern concepts, but so who am I to do?

The natives Greeks living the political reality of Greece are only those who can to define themselves on now days.

[Amarantine]

Europe for what matter is just an artificial geographical/geopolitical construction. If I had to determine where to place it. It would be between Europe and the Middle Eastern (Greece has an Ottoman history) in line with modern concepts, but so who am I to do?

The natives Greeks living the political reality of Greece are only those who can to define themselves on now days.


:confused:not good sentence

[Brännvin]

Well, Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th century until its declaration of independence in 1821. :confused:

[Lysander]

Well, Greece was part of the Ottoman Empire from the 14th century until its declaration of independence in 1821. :confused:
15th century, but yes Greece was under Turkish control for almost 400 years. 1453-1821.

The sad part is that a saying among the Greeks in 1453 was "Rather the sultan's turban than the popes mitre(hat)", this because of the 4th crusade that took a detour and sacked Constantinople. The crusaders were excommunicated but it was such an immense betrayal from one Christian to another that the Greeks would later prefer Muslim rule over Catholic.

[DarkZarathustra]

Definitely not in Africa ;) In Balkan - politically and in Mediterranean - geographically.

[Óttar]

Also, the lesser position of women in society)

And you trace this to Middle Eastern influence!? :p The Greeks proper have been thought of as staunchly "patriarchal" since ancient times.

I chose Mediterranean Union. Greece is not geographically in the West of Europe, but it does share enough commonality with the Latin West. Ottoman conquest brought about a discontinuity with, and an isolation from Western Europe, but it didn't influence it enough for it to be classed as middle Eastern or the "cross-roads", as I do not consider Greek Cypriots and (albeit ancient) Anatolians as "Turks" obviously. So what if they eat pita and lamb, and play the bazouki? I think it sounds rather nice to be honest. Lutes and Guitar/Sitar (they have a common ancient origin) stringed instruments had a wide geographical distribution from the Atlantic coasts to India.

Placing the Greeks with "Eastern Europe" or the "Balkans" doesn't feel right to me at all.

No offense to our Slavic contingent, but I mean Hellenes with Slavs!? :D

[poiuytrewq0987]

I consider Greece a Mediterranean country, why? Because throughout history it has had been a major player in Mediterranean politics. They essentially ruled Egypt, Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and westernmost India. Although the control of those lands were lost over time but it wasn't until the rise of the Ottomans who brought a permanent end to Greek influence on the world in 1453.

[Anthropos]

I think it was unfortunate to ask where Greece 'belongs', because even if she does not belong there, she is as a matter of fact in the West geopolitically speaking, as are all other members of the European Union.

[Svarog]

I will go with the flow and give a serious answer and that'd be Balkans, as it is where it is. Culturally, I don't really know since the modern Greece have barely anything to do with Ancient Greece, and beside, even the thought of putting it in Western Europe, Asia or Africa is insane (ignoring past). Byzantine is long gone unfortunately. Also, I don't really see any similarities between Hellenese and Slavs beside Orthodoxy which I don't really care much about. And the option to put ti with Italy, Spain and Malta is also kinda stupid, sounds like that everlasting alternative to Slavs and Germanics, Europe being split between those two and everyone else put into the 'third group', does not matter that they barely have anything in common.

Now, where I'd really put them is: Greek in the kitchen, Greek women in the bedroom, utopia achieved.

[Anthropos]

I will go with the flow and give a serious answer and that'd be Balkans, as it is where it is. Culturally, I don't really know since the modern Greece have barely anything to do with Ancient Greece, and beside, even the thought of putting it in Western Europe, Asia or Africa is insane (ignoring past). Byzantine is long gone unfortunately. Also, I don't really see any similarities between Hellenese and Slavs beside Orthodoxy which I don't really care much about. And the option to put ti with Italy, Spain and Malta is also kinda stupid, sounds like that everlasting alternative to Slavs and Germanics, Europe being split between those two and everyone else put into the 'third group', does not matter that they barely have anything in common.

Now, where I'd really put them is: Greek in the kitchen, Greek women in the bedroom, utopia achieved.

The problem with that view is that the 'Balkans' is not a geopolitical entity.

The question put is ambiguous. One question is where Greece is geopolitically, and a completely different matter is where Greece belongs culturally.

[Svarog]

The problem with that view is that the 'Balkans' is not a geopolitical entity.

The question put is ambiguous. One question is where Greece is geopolitically, and a completely different matter is where Greece belongs culturally.

Hardly any of those choices do have anything to do with geopolitical position of Greece tho, as geopolitical position of Greece is clear and unchallengeable, it certainly is not Africa or Western Europe.

[Anthropos]

Hardly any of those choices do have anything to do with geopolitical position of Greece tho, as geopolitical position of Greece is clear and unchallengeable, it certainly is not Africa or Western Europe.

She is in the West since Greece is a member of the European Union, which is in the West, and the question mind you was exactly about geopolitics (despite the ambiguity). I agree with you that 'Western Europe' is the only geopolitical option in the poll, but I did not adapt my answer to the poll, and that is why I said the West, which, no matter if you like it or not, is a civilization and a geopolitical entity sharing political concerns, policy, a model of society and 'values'. I don't like it either, but it's a fact. I can say exactly what I said about Greece about Sweden as well even if the two cases are in no wise the same; Sweden is as a matter of fact in the West, but culturally that is not where she belongs, in my opinion.

[Svarog]

She is in the West since Greece is a member of the European Union, which is in the West, and the question mind you was exactly about geopolitics (despite the ambiguity). I agree with you that 'Western Europe' is the only geopolitical option in the poll, but I did not adapt my answer to the poll, and that is why I said the West, which, no matter if you like it or not, is a civilization and a geopolitical entity sharing political concerns, policy, a model of society and 'values'. I don't like it either, but it's a fact. I can say exactly what I said about Greece about Sweden as well even if the two cases are in no wise the same; Sweden is as a matter of fact in the West, but culturally that is not where she belongs, in my opinion.

Let's read first post, shall we?

Absinthe:


Mediterranean: could it be clustered together with Italy, Malta, Spain and Portugal? As in a greater greaco-roman civilization...or?

Balkanian: a balkanian entity, similar to Albanians, Skopjans, Bulgarians, Romanians?

Western European: since it is said to have been 'the cradle of Western civilization'


I am sure our dear Absinthe did not have an European Union in mind when she wrote these lines

Eastern european: more akin to slavic nations? Due to Orthodox Christianity, maybe?

Middle-eastern: due to prolonged ties with the east, and also to turkish occupation. Today, some cultural influences mainly pertaining to food and 'entertainment' are still very visible.

Also, some middle-eastern societal elements are unfortunately deep-rooted in the modern greek culture (bribery, dishonesty in transactions, cunning and manipulation. Also, the lesser position of women in society).


And let's read your post in which you condemned me answering to these questions from the cultural aspect:


The question put is ambiguous. One question is where Greece is geopolitically, and a completely different matter is where Greece belongs culturally.

So, respecting that Absinthe made the thread, following her description of the same, I came to the simple and logic conclusion she did not have only geopolitical position of her country in mind but also some other thing, as I already said and you misunderstood so bad, Greece is already positioned on the map of Europe and the World as it is, and it cannot change that; being part of some silly European quasi state does not change that either - thus far I ignored the geopolitical in my post and her post

Later.

[Radojica]

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/mandas71/SrbijaCarDusanSilni.jpg

:icon_cool:

[Anthropos]

Let's read first post, shall we?

Absinthe:


And let's read your post in which you condemned me answering to these questions from the cultural aspect:



So, respecting that Absinthe made the thread, following her description of the same, I came to the simple and logic conclusion she did not have only geopolitical position of her country in mind but also some other thing, as I already said and you misunderstood so bad, Greece is already positioned on the map of Europe and the World as it is, and it cannot change that; being part of some silly European quasi state does not change that either - thus far I ignored the geopolitical in my post and her post

Later.

I tried to answer the question to the point. I don't see what this has to do with respecting Absinthe. She has all my respect.

[Svarog]

I tried to answer the question to the point. I don't see what this has to do with respecting Absinthe. She has all my respect.

You misunderstood me again, nothing to do with Abs (or respect towards her) but pointing out that she herself in the opening post put notes on the Greek cultural position beside geopolitical while you said it is strictly geopolitical thread/position quoting my post.

[Anthropos]

You misunderstood me again, nothing to do with Abs (or respect towards her) but pointing out that she herself in the opening post put notes on the Greek cultural position beside geopolitical while you said it is strictly geopolitical thread/position quoting my post.

I answered the question based on what I think about the reality. (You can answer it according to what someone other than you thinks of the reality, if you want to. I don't know why you are arguing with me like that. It seems stupid.)

[Anthropos]

The title of the thread:


Poll: Greece: where would you place it, geopolitically?

[Comte Arnau]

Greece is Greece, and I'd only group it with Cyprus. Probably because I tend to see 'metaethnicities' from a linguistic POV.

But even if I see its natural sphere in the Near East because of its history and some cultural traits, I consider it a fully European country. The only link I see with us Catalans is a similar Mediterranean weather and lifestyle, although not in the way I feel linked to Italy and southern France. Oh, and the fact that parts of Greece were Catalan for a short time, the Duchies of Athens and Neopatria! :D

[Phil75231]

Geopolitically, Western Europe, given its long membership with NATO and the EEC (now EU).

Meta-culturally, Mediterranean Europe

[esaima]

Placing Greece into Balkan doesn't feel right to me at all. I think Balkan means areas with South-Slavic, Romanian and perhaps Albanian population. I have been briefly to Athens and Sofia, Greece looks certainly much more southern, Mediterranean than Balkan: nature, weather, culture etc.
A Mediterranean country, with minor Middle-Eastern vibes, imo.

[Ibericus]

Is Iberia mediterranean ? With as much coast in the Atlantic and with only mediterranean climate in the east coast....hmm...To me Greece is Eastern Meditarrenean, and also Balkan, it has much more in common with its neighbour countries than other so called meditarranean countries such Italy, Spain,etc.

[Comte Arnau]

Is Iberia mediterranean ?

Aragon and Granada, yes. Castile and Portugal, no. :D

http://laboratoriodesociales.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/vertientes-y-cuencas-hidrograficas-espana.gif

[SwordoftheVistula]

Aragon and Granada, yes. Castile and Portugal, no.

Are you just saying so from simple geography, or are there cultural differences as well?

For example, I would not consider Croatia to be 'Mediterranean' even though they have a long coastline there, nor would I consider Austria to be so if they still retained the port of Trieste

[Kanasyuvigi]

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o312/mandas71/SrbijaCarDusanSilni.jpg

:icon_cool:

http://img71.imageshack.us/img71/5549/cultureofthefirstbulgardl8.png
:D:coffee:

[poiuytrewq0987]

Are you just saying so from simple geography, or are there cultural differences as well?

For example, I would not consider Croatia to be 'Mediterranean' even though they have a long coastline there, nor would I consider Austria to be so if they still retained the port of Trieste

Umm have you ever heard of the Adriatic Sea? :thumbs up

[Comte Arnau]

Are you just saying so from simple geography, or are there cultural differences as well?

That map is about whether the rivers flow into the Med Sea or the Atlantic, so it's a hidrographical difference. :)

But yes, IMO the Mountain Systems have traditionally marked a sort of fine split in the peninsular map. West were the Celts and then the Crown of Castile, naturally facing the Atlantic and so it was Castilians and Portuguese who sailed to the Americas. East were the proper Iberians and then the Crown of Aragon, naturally facing the Mediterranean and so the Aragonese (Catalan) Empire was in the Mediterranean.

[Germanicus]

It's well known Winston Churchill loved Greece passionately.
Here is a speech..

PRIME MINISTER WINSTON CHURCHILL'S BROADCAST "REPORT ON THE WAR"



April 27, 1941 [10]


I was asked last week whether I was aware of some uneasiness which, it was said, existed in the country on account of the gravity, as it was described, of the war situation. So I thought it would be a good thing to go and see for myself what this uneasiness amounted to. And I went to some of our great cities and seaports which had been most heavily bombed, and to some of the places where the poorest people have got it worst.


I've come back not only reassured but refreshed. To leave the offices in Whitehall with their ceaseless hum of activity and stress and to go out to the front, by which I mean the streets and wharves of London, or Liverpool, Manchester, Cardiff, Swansea or Bristol, is like going out of a hothouse onto the bridge of a fighting ship. It is a tonic which I should recommend to any who are suffering from fretfulness to take in strong doses when they have need of it.


It is quite true that I've seen many painful scenes of havoc and of fine buildings and acres of cottage homes blasted into rubble heaps of ruin; but it is just in those very places, where the malice of the savage enemy has done its worst, and where the ordeal of the men, women and children has been most severe that I found their morale most high and splendid. Indeed, I felt encompassed by an exaltation of spirit in the people which seemed to lift mankind and its troubles above the level of material facts into that joyous serenity we think belongs to a better world than this.


Of their kindness to me I cannot speak because I have never sought it or dreamed of it and can never deserve it. I can only assure you that I and my colleagues, or comrades, rather, for that is what they are, will toil with every scrap of life and strength according to the lights that are granted to us not to fail these people or be wholly unworthy of their faithful and generous regard.


The British nation is stirred and moved as it never has been at any time in its long, eventful, famous history. And it is no hackneyed trope of speech to say that they mean to conquer or to die. What a triumph the life of these battered cities is over the worst that fire and bomb can do! What a vindication of the civilized and decent way of living we have been trying to work for and work toward in our island! What a proof of the virtues of free institutions! What a test of the quality of our local authorities and of customs and societies so steadily built!


This ordeal by fire has, in a certain sense, even exhilarated the manhood and the womanhood of Britain. The sublime but also terrible, sombre experiences and emotions of the battlefield, which for centuries had been reserved for the soldiers and sailors, are now shared for good or ill by the entire population. All are proud of being under the fire of the enemy. Old men, little children, the crippled, veterans of former wars, aged women, the ordinary hard-pressed citizen-or subject of the King as he likes to call himself-the sturdy workmen who swing the hammers or load the ships, the skillful craftsmen, the members of every kind of A. R. P. service, are proud to feel that they stand in the lines together with our fighting men when one of the greatest causes is being fought out. And fought out it will be to the end. This indeed is the grand, heroic period of our history and the light of glory shines on all.


You may. imagine how deeply I feel my own responsibility to all these people, my responsibility to bear my part in bringing them safely out of this long, stern scowling valley through which we are marching and not to demand from them their sacrifices and exertions in vain. I have thought in this difficult period, when so much fighting and so many critical and complicated manoeuvres are going on, that it is above all things important that our policy and conduct should be upon the highest level and that honour should be our guide.


Very few people realize how small were the forces with which General Wavell, that fine commander whom we cheered in good days and will back through bad; how small were the forces which took the bulk of the Italian masses in Libya prisoners. In none of his successive victories could General Wavell maintain in the desert or bring into action at one time more than two divisions or about 30,000 men.


When we reached Bengazi, and what was left of Mussolini's legions scurried back along the dusty road to Tripoli, a call was made upon us which we could not resist. Let me tell you about that call.


You will remember how, in November, the Italian dictator fell upon the unoffending Greeks and without reason and without warning invaded their country, and how the Greek nation, reviving their classic frame, hurled his armies back at the double-quick. Meanwhile, Hitler, who had been creeping and worming his way steadily forward, doping and poisoning and pinioning one after the other, Hungary, Rumania and Bulgaria, suddenly made it clear that he would come to the rescue of his fellow-criminal. The lack of unity among the Balkan States had enabled him to build up a mighty army in their midst. While nearly all the Greek troops were busy beating the Italians the tremendous German military machine suddenly towered up on their other frontier.


In their mortal peril the Greeks turned to us for succour. Strained as were our resources we could not say them nay. By solemn guarantee, given before the war, Great Britain had promised them her help. They declared they would fight for their native soil even if neither of their neighbours made common cause with them and even if we left them to their fate.


But we could not do that. There are rules against that kind of thing and to break those rules would be fatal to the honour of the British Empire, without which we could neither hope nor deserve to win this hard war. Military defeat or miscalculation can be remedied. The fortunes of war are fickle and changing. But an act of shame would deprive us of the respect which we now enjoy throughout the world and thus would sap the vitals of' our strength. During the last year we have gained by our bearing and conduct a potent hold upon the sentiments of the people of the United States. Never, never in our long history have we been held in such admiration and regard across the Atlantic Ocean.


In that Great Republic, now in much travail and stress of soul, it is customary to use all the many valid, solid arguments about American interests and American safety which depend on the destruction of Hitler and his foul gang and even fouler doctrine. But, in the long run-believe me for I know-the action of the United States will be dictated not by methodical calculations of profit and loss but by moral sentiment and by that gleaming flash of resolve which lifts the hearts of men and nations and springs from the spiritual foundation of human life itself.


We, for our part, were, of course, bound to harken to the Greek appeal to the utmost limit of our strength. We put the case to the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand and their Governments, without in any way ignoring the hazards, told us that they felt the same as we did. So an important part of the mobile portion of the Army of the Nile was sent to Greece in fulfillment of our pledge. It happened that the divisions available and best suited to this task were from New Zealand and Australia and that only about half the troops who took part in this dangerous expedition came from the mother country.


I see the German propaganda is trying to make bad blood between us and Australia by making out that we have used them to do what we would not have asked of the British Army. I shall leave it to Australia to deal with that taunt.


Let us see what has happened.


We knew, of course, that the forces we could send to Greece would not by themselves alone be sufficient to stem the German tide of invasion. But there was a very real hope that the neighbours of Greece would, by our intervention, be drawn to stand in the line together with her while time remained. How nearly that came off will be known some day.


The tragedy of Yugoslavia has been that these brave people had a government who hoped to purchase an ignoble immunity by submission to the Nazi rule. But, when at last the people of Yugoslavia found out where they were being taken and rose in one spontaneous surge of revolt, they saved the soul and future of their country, but it was already too late to save its territory. They had no time to mobilize their armies. They were struck down by the ruthless and highly mechanized Hun before they could even bring their armies into the field.


Great disasters have occurred in the Balkans. Yugoslavia has been beaten down. Only in the mountains can she continue her resistance. The Greeks have been overwhelmed. Their victorious Albanian Army has been cut off and forced to surrender and it has been left to the Anzacs and their British comrades to fight their way back to the sea, leaving their mark on all who hindered them.


I turn aside from the stony path we have to tread to indulge a moment of lighter relief. I dare say you have read in the newspapers that by a special proclamation the Italian dictator has congratulated the Italian Army in Albania on the glorious laurels they have gained by their victory over the Greeks. Here, surely, is the world record in the domain of the ridiculous and the contemptible. This whipped jackal, Mussolini, who to save his own skin has made all Italy a vassal state of Hitler's Empire, comes frisking up at the side of the German tiger with yelpings not only of appetite-that could be understood-but even of triumph.


Different things strike different people in different ways but I am sure there are a great many millions in the British Empire and in the United States who will find a new object in life in making sure that, when we come to the final reckoning, this absurd impostor will be abandoned to public justice and universal scorn.


While these grievous events were taking place in the Balkan Peninsula and in Greece our forces in Libya have sustained a vexatious and damaging defeat. The Germans advanced sooner and in greater strength than we or our generals expected. The bulk of our armoured troops, which had played such a decisive part in beating the Italians, had to be re-fitted, and the single armoured brigade which had been judged sufficient to hold the frontier until about the middle of May was worsted and its vehicles largely destroyed by a somewhat stronger German armoured force. Our infantry, which did not exceed one division had to fall back upon the very large Imperial Armies that have been assembled and can be nourished and maintained in the fertile Delta of the Nile. Tobruk-the fortress of Tobruk-which flanks any German advance on Egypt, we hold strongly. There we have repulsed many attacks, causing the enemy heavy losses and taking many prisoners. That is how the matters stand in Libya and on the Egyptian front.


We must now expect the war in the Mediterranean, on the sea, in the desert and above all in the air to become very fierce, varied and widespread. We have cleaned the Italians out of Cyrenaica and it now lies with us to purge that province of the Germans. That will be a harder task and we cannot expect to do it at once.


You know I never try to make out that defeats are victories. I have never underrated the German as a warrior. Indeed, I told you a month ago that the swift, unbroken course of victories which we had gained over the Italians could not possibly continue and that misfortunes must be expected. There is only one thing certain about war, that it is full of disappointments and also of mistakes.


It remains to be seen, however, whether it is the Germans who have made the mistake in trampling down the Balkan States and in making a river of blood and hate between themselves and the Greek and Yugoslav peoples. It remains also to be seen whether they have made a mistake in their attempt to invade Egypt with the forces and means of supply which they have now got. Taught by experience, I make it a rule not to prophesy about battles which have yet to be fought. This, however, I will venture to say: that I should be very sorry to see the tasks of the combatants in the Middle East exchanged and for General Wavell's armies to be in the position of the German invaders. That is only a personal opinion and I can well understand there may be different views.


It is certain that fresh dangers besides those which threaten Egypt may come upon us in the Mediterranean. The war may spread to Spain and Morocco. It may spread eastward to Turkey and Russia. The Germans may lay their hands for a time upon the granaries of the Ukraine and the oil wells of the Caucasus. They may dominate the Black Sea; they may dominate the Caspian, who can tell? We shall do our best to meet them and fight them wherever they go.


But there is one thing which is certain; there is one thing which rises out of the vast welter which is sure and solid and which no one in his senses can mistake: Hitler cannot find safety from avenging justice in the East, in the Middle East or in the Far East. In order to win this war he must either conquer this island by invasion or he must cut the ocean lifeline which joins us to the United States.


Let us look into these alternatives if you will bear with me for a few minutes longer.


When I spoke to you early in February many people believed the Nazi boastings that the invasion of Britain was about to begin. Now it has not begun yet, and with every week that passes we grow stronger on the sea, in the air and in the number, quality, training and equipment of the great armies that now guard our island.


When I compare the position at home as it is today with what it was in the summer of last year, even after making allowance for a much more elaborate mechanical preparation on the part of the enemy, I feel that we have very much to be thankful for. And I believe that, provided our exertion and our vigilance are not relaxed even for a moment, we may be confident that we shall give a very good account of ourselves. More than that it would be boastful to say. Less than that it would be foolish to believe.


But how about our lifeline across the Atlantic? What is to happen if so many of our merchant ships are sunk that we cannot bring in the food we need to nourish our brave people? What if the supplies of war materials and war weapons which the United States are seeking to send us in such enormous quantities should in large part be sunk on the way? What is to happen then?


In February, as you may remember, that bad man, in one of his raving outbursts, threatened us with a terrifying increase in the numbers and activities of his U-boats and in his air attacks, not only on our island but, thanks to his use of French and Norwegian harbours, and thanks to the denial to us of the Irish bases, fell upon our shipping far out into the Atlantic. We have taken and are taking all possible measures to meet this steady attack. And we are now fighting against it with might and main. That is what is called the Battle of the Atlantic which, in order to survive, we have got to win on salt water just as decisively as we had to win the Battle of Britain last August and September in the air.


Wonderful exertions have been made by our Navy and Air Force, by the hundreds of mine-sweeping vessels which with their marvelous appliances keep our ports clear in spite of all the enemy can do, by the men who build and repair our immense fleets of merchant ships, by the men who load and unload them, and, need I say, by the officers and men of the Merchant Navy who go out in all weathers and in the teeth of all dangers to fight for the life of their native land and for a cause they comprehend and serve. Still, when you think how easy it is to sink ships at sea and how hard it is to build them and protect them, and when you remember that we have never less than 2,000 ships afloat and three or four hundred in the danger zone, when you think of the great armies we are maintaining and reinforcing in the east and of the world-wide traffic we have to carry on-when you remember all this can you wonder that it is the Battle of the Atlantic which holds the first place in the thoughts of those upon whom rests responsibility for procuring the victory?


It was, therefore, with indescribable relief that I learned of the tremendous decisions lately taken by the President and people of the United States. The American Fleet and flying boats have been ordered to patrol the wide waters of the Western Hemisphere and to warn the peaceful shipping of all nations outside the combat zone of the presence of lurking U-boats or raiding cruisers belonging to the two aggressor nations. We British will, therefore, be able to concentrate our protecting forces far more upon the routes nearer home and to take a far heavier toll of the U-boats there. I have felt for some time that something like this was bound to happen.


The President and Congress of the United States, having newly fortified themselves by contact with their electors, have solemnly pledged their aid to Britain in this war because they deemed our cause just and because they know their own interests and safety would be endangered if we were destroyed.


They are taxing themselves heavily. They have passed great legislation. They have turned a large part of their gigantic industry to making the munitions which we need. They have even given us or lent us valuable weapons of their own. I could not believe that they would allow the high purposes to which they have set themselves to be frustrated and the products of their skill and labour sunk to the bottom of the sea.


U-boat warfare, as conducted by Germany, is entirely contrary to international agreements freely subscribed to by Germany only a few years ago. There is no effective blockade but only a merciless murder and marauding over wide indiscriminate areas utterly beyond the control of the German sea power.


When I said ten weeks ago, "Give us the tools and we will finish the job," I meant, "Give them to us; put them within our reach." And that is what it now seems the Americans are going to do. And that is why I feel a very strong conviction that though the Battle of the Atlantic will be long and hard and its issue is by no means yet determined, it has entered upon a more grim but at the same time a far more favourable phase. When you come to think of it, the United States are very closely bound up with us now and have engaged themselves deeply in giving us moral, material and, within the limits I have mentioned, naval support.


It is just worth while, therefore, taking a look on both sides of the ocean at the forces which are facing each other in this awful struggle from which there can be no going back.


No prudent and far-seeing man can doubt that the eventual and total defeat of Hitler and Mussolini is certain in view of respective declared resolvers of the British and American democracies. There are less than 70,000,000 malignant Huns, some of whom are curable and others killable, most of whom are already engaged in holding down Austrians, Czechs, Poles and the many other ancient races they now bully and pillage. The people of the British Empire and of the United States number nearly 200,000,000 in their homelands and in the British Dominions alone. They possess the unchallengeable command of the ocean and will soon obtain decisive superiority in the air. They have more wealth, more technical resources and they make more steel than the whole of the rest of the world put together. They are determined that the cause of freedom shall not be trampled on nor the tide of world progress turned backward by the criminal dictators.


While, therefore, we naturally view with sorrow and anxiety much that is happening in Europe and in Africa and may happen in Asia, we must not lose our sense of proportion and thus become discouraged or alarmed. When we face with a steady eye the difficulties which lie before us we may derive new confidence by remembering those we have already overcome. Nothing that is happening now is comparable in gravity with the dangers through which we passed last year. Nothing that can happen in the East is comparable with what is happening in the West.


Last time I spoke to you I quoted the lines of Longfellow which President Roosevelt had written out for me in his own hand. I have some other lines which are less well known but which seem apt and appropriate to our fortunes tonight and I believe they will be so judged wherever the English language is spoken or the flag of freedom flies:


For while the tired waves, vainly breaking,

Seem here no painful inch to gain,

Far back, through creeks and inlets making,

Comes silent, flooding in, the main.

And not by eastern windows only, .

When daylight comes, comes in the light;

In front the sun climbs slow, how slowly! .

But westward, look, the land is bright!

[SwordoftheVistula]

Umm have you ever heard of the Adriatic Sea? :thumbs up

It is part of the Mediterranean Sea

[poiuytrewq0987]

It is part of the Mediterranean Sea

And so is the Mediterranean Sea a part of the Adriatic Sea if we use your logic.

[Ibericus]

Aragon and Granada, yes. Castile and Portugal, no. :D

http://laboratoriodesociales.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/vertientes-y-cuencas-hidrograficas-espana.gif

Mar Cantabrico is Atlantic also...you know

[Cato]

Western Europe, Mediterranean, and crossroads.

[SwordoftheVistula]

And so is the Mediterranean Sea a part of the Adriatic Sea if we use your logic.

Would it make sense to say 'Germany is part of Bavaria'?

[Anusiya]

"Greece" is a notion, there's nowhere and everywhere.

With colonies historically spanning from Britain, Denmark, Gibraltar to the Levant and Black Sea, and with flourishing communities in virtually all around the world, define "Greek", because I can't.

I could vote for the Mediterranean union, or any other choice for that matter because the Greeks have been parts of all the above sometime back in history, the years are just too many bro!!!

Greeks are survivors and adaptors. They are not only survivors of course, they have been discovering life in all its aspects, with Jews coming second (sorry :P) I am sure if you searched among your peoples no matter how far they are you will find a Greek somewhere in there! Even if I wasn't one, they would have my respect!

[Flintlocke]

Balkan temper with eastern "rehat" mentality :P

[Sikeliot]

Balkan and Mediterranean.

[Crn Volk]

It is a Balkan country. However if it got rid of Macedonia and Thrace, it would be a Mediterranean country.

[Anusiya]

It is a Balkan country. However if it got rid of Macedonia and Thrace, it would be a Mediterranean country.

You need to give something to "take" something.

[Ianus]

Western Europe and Mediterranean

[Sikeliot]

Balkans. Not sure why it's even up for debate, the Greek culture fits within the spectrum of other Balkan cultures just fine.

[arcticwolf]

Where have all the Greek babes gone? They are so much fun, cute and very animated. :P Am I the only one who misses them? :(

[Scholarios]

Greek, Mediterranean, " Romaic" and Balkan.

[Petros Houhoulis]

It is a Balkan country. However if it got rid of Macedonia and Thrace, it would be a Mediterranean country.No Chocolate, I am sorry to inform your Australopitheki brain, but both Macedonia and Thrace have long coastlines in the Aegean sea, making both of them Mediterranean regions. We are intending to ditch you into Albania...

[Elina]

Mediterranean, be clustered together with Italy. "Una Faccia Una Razza" (One Face, One Race). :thumb001: