Kostas Karamanlis, speaking at an event organised by the Union of Retired Army Officers to mark the anniversary of 28 October, rejected the view that Greece is exaggerating its response to Turkey.
He argued that Ankara is pursuing a comprehensive plan to overturn the status quo in the Aegean, as shown by the casus belli, the Turkey-Libya agreement and its ratification by the Libyan parliament, the “grey zones”, the marine parks and the issue of demilitarisation.
He made clear that no request for permission from Turkey concerning the Kasos–Cyprus cable could be accepted. He criticised allies and partners for their policy of “equidistance” and their stance on Cyprus, and called for reciprocity in relations.
Finally, he warned of a deep crisis in the West, which he attributed to inequality and the shrinking of the middle class, and called for national preparedness and unity.
Full speech:
Mr President,
We meet today with emotion and national pride to honour one of the brightest and most glorious chapters in modern Greek history: the anniversary of 28 October 1940.
I would like to thank the board of the Union of Retired Army Officers for the honour of their invitation and for asking me to address you today — people who devoted their lives to serving their country, its freedom and its territorial integrity. I am sure I speak for every Greek woman and man when I express our boundless respect and gratitude for your service to our country.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Italy’s attack on Greece was a pre-planned military operation whose launch date was left open. The occupation of Albania in April 1939 and the torpedoing of the cruiser “Elli” in the port of Tinos on 15 August 1940 left no doubt about Mussolini’s next target.
The Italian invasion did not take the Greeks by surprise. Nor did it catch the political and military leadership unprepared. What surprised some was Ioannis Metaxas’s immediate, unequivocal and categorical “NO” to the Italian ultimatum, given his ideology and his favourable view of Germany, where he had studied.
What astonished everyone around the world, however, was the unexpected, fervent enthusiasm with which the Greek people, as one, greeted the declaration of war. As though they had long been ready, the Greeks rose to defend their homeland and the nation’s sacred values.
In the early hours of 28 October, the chilling wail of the sirens carried news of the war — a war that had been foretold. The months between the conquest of Albania and the sinking of the “Elli” gave Greece the time and opportunity to accelerate and intensify its efforts to complete its military preparations and confront the evident Italian threat.
Greece’s defence policy was redesigned. A new defence doctrine was adopted, providing for the immediate strengthening of defences along the Greek-Albanian border. The new defence plan was completed in early 1940. At the same time, the partial mobilisation of divisions with a key role and strategic area of responsibility in Epirus and Western Macedonia proceeded systematically and, above all, quietly, through individual call-up notices.
Meanwhile, the delivery of military equipment was expedited and new orders placed, while the management of older weapons systems was rationalised: they were either modernised or extensively repaired. The production capacity of Greek manufacturers of bullets and shells was also significantly increased.
Alongside the country’s military preparations, plans were drawn up for civilian mobilisation and protection. The entire population, regardless of gender, was called on to contribute to national defence, particularly by organising and operating civil-defence measures, supplying provisions, running military-equipment factories and organising healthcare.
Given the country’s financial resources and, of course, the time available, the preparations for war were adequate. They were, after all, put to the test in the field. But the balance of forces remained overwhelmingly in favour of the invading forces lying in wait. No one had any illusions; everyone knew the reality. Fascist Italy had a huge advantage, both in numbers and in weapons systems.
But morale, determination, a sense of injustice and courage in the face of arrogance and deceit can work miracles. And the miracle happened!
As war was declared and mobilisation began, the sound of the sirens mingled with the Easter-like pealing of church bells. Greek women and men in towns and villages poured into the streets, celebrating with flags in their hands and loudly endorsing the country’s leaders’ decision, proud of it.
Mobilised men flocked to their depots to enlist and put on their uniforms. Passionate and enthusiastic, as if heading to a celebration, they crammed the trains bound for the front. It is worth noting that, although they were given five days to report, more than 80% of those called up reported on the very first day.
Men of every age and social standing — intellectuals, academics and writers — hurried to volunteer. The list of prominent figures who stepped forward as leaders in the national mobilisation was endless.
One of them was Panagiotis Kanellopoulos. When the Greco-Italian war was declared, he was in exile in Karystos under the regime. He was not surprised; he was certain Italy would attack. He had even sent Metaxas two memoranda in which he accurately predicted, as events proved, how things would unfold.
Vindicated by the confirmation of his assessments and proud of Metaxas’s national stance — which he, like others, had doubted — he sent a telegram to the prime minister. He asked to return to Athens, be allowed to enlist as a volunteer soldier, be sent to the Albanian front and fight the Italians.
The government granted his request. Kanellopoulos returned to Athens in early November and, when mobilisation was complete, was among the first volunteers to enlist and be sent to the front.
The heroes of the epic of 1940 emerged on the snow-covered border mountains: the Greek soldier at the front and civilian volunteers behind the lines. Together, armed with patriotic spirit and the conviction that they were defending justice, they formed an invincible force.
Konstantinos Tsatsos praised the Greek soldier and explained his superiority on the battlefield in an article in the newspaper “Asyrmatos” on New Year’s Day 1941. He wrote, among other things: “…each Greek combatant is conscious that he is accompanied and supported by an indivisible people, by a national family….
The Greek soldier is also a general, he is also the head of state, he is all of Greece. Not because he disobeys, but because he constantly sees the whole picture. Because at every moment he consciously places himself where he belongs, within the whole, and relates himself to it. He marches because he knows where he is going. He has historical and political awareness. He is not a mindless member of a herd.”
In a moment, civilian volunteers sprang into action and coordinated their efforts, taking on tasks to support those fighting at the front. Nurses from the Hellenic Red Cross staffed hospitals and field operating theatres. The indomitable women of Pindus, in extreme weather, carried food and ammunition on their backs as they climbed to the front line. Women in Athens and other major cities organised fundraisers and knitted woollen garments for the “soldier’s vest”.
In the countryside, women, older people and children worked themselves to the bone every day to fill the gap left by the men fighting in the mountains along the Greek-Albanian border. They struggled to keep agricultural production going, which in wartime kept the country alive.
Together, as one, they sent a message of courage and hope to the West, under occupation or under threat, and to the rest of a troubled world. As Elytis put it: “The world’s most glorious moment rings out. Freedom! Greeks in the darkness show the way.”
Ladies and gentlemen,
If we were to explain in a few words the historically unique epic of 1940, we would have to highlight the three pillars of Leadership – Preparation – Morale, and, of course, unity.
- Leadership, determined to defend the national interest, territorial sovereignty and national dignity at any cost,
- Preparation, ensuring credible deterrent strength and constant readiness,
- Patriotic morale, which raises the nation’s virtues and strengthens national self-confidence.
And national unity, which brings citizens together in pursuit of the supreme common goal: the defence of the homeland. This unique achievement, this national legacy of 1940, remains a prerequisite and an aspiration. Today, tomorrow and always. The challenges remain in the modern era, albeit under different circumstances. They may not take the extreme form they did then, but they are serious enough to demand vigilance, preparedness, strong deterrent capabilities and the same determination to defend our national integrity and positions.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Some argue that we exaggerate when it comes to Turkey’s stance. That we misinterpret its every move and overstate the strength of our case. That we should recognise some of its rights. That even if it sometimes goes too far, it also has legitimate demands, which we should address in a spirit of good faith and conciliation. That we cannot expect to have everything our own way or take maximalist positions, and that there is always scope for an acceptable compromise between neighbours.
But this approach is fundamentally flawed. It completely misreads Turkey’s aims. This is neither a misunderstanding nor a secondary dispute that can be settled through goodwill and mutual concessions. If that were the case, the Greek-Turkish dispute would have been resolved long ago. Every Greek government since 1974 has tried to reach an understanding through dialogue and by fostering a climate of de-escalation. As events have shown, to no avail.
When Turkey enacts and maintains its casus belli, it is not merely seeking to prevent Greece from fully and unconditionally extending its territorial sea to 12 nautical miles throughout the Aegean. It believes it must prevent that altogether.
When it draws up the Turkey-Libya agreement, it seeks to impose the baseless view that islands have no continental shelf or exclusive economic zone.
When it raises the issue of grey zones, it is asserting that certain Greek islands and islets do not belong to Greece.
When it uses military force to oppose the Kasos–Cyprus electricity interconnector, knowing that it is a European project, it is making clear that it believes it should have the final say even on matters that ought to be self-evident in the region.
When it announces marine parks in the North and South-East Aegean, it is not simply objecting to the designation of Greek marine parks, which lie within Greek territorial waters. It is deliberately extending its claims to international waters as well, sending a message to that effect. It is also seeking to sever the Megisti island complex from the national mainland.
When it raises the issue of demilitarisation, it is not concerned with the provisions of the Treaty of Lausanne, which it has in any case been systematically seeking to revise. Rather, it aims to weaken not only the Greek islands’ defence readiness but also Greece’s overall deterrent capability against the Turkish threat.
It now uses demilitarisation as a tool to challenge the sovereignty of these islands. Finally, when it rejects and disregards the principles and provisions of international law, in this case the law of the sea, it seeks to impose the arbitrary rule of the strongest in place of the rule of law.
That is why any request for Turkey’s permission for the cable cannot be accepted. Whether it is called a notification, an announcement or something else. After that, we would no longer be able to do anything in the Aegean without Turkey’s permission — not even the smallest infrastructure project between our islands.
And the ratification of the Turkey-Libya agreement by the Libyan parliament is undoubtedly a negative development for our national interests. It may not have legal effect, but it is a demonstration of power and influence, and an attempt by our neighbours to create faits accomplis.
Those who promote these views are therefore wrong — and gravely wrong. They misread Turkey’s strategy. These are neither misunderstandings nor minor, isolated disputes that can be settled in good faith.
This is a comprehensive plan aimed at the overturning of the status quo in the Aegean in its entirety, at gaining rights in the heart of the Aegean at the expense of the Greek islands, and at controlling the Aegean as far as the 25th meridian.
Allies and partners are not blameless. They play the cunning neutral and maintain equidistance between aggressor and victim. They urge compromise, including at least partial acceptance of Turkish demands. In the name, supposedly, of alliance cohesion, they encourage us to “come to an understanding”, without reference to international law.
They present Turkey as a key ally in shaping European defence and do business with it, placing orders worth billions to further arm it. They call on us to stand together and make sacrifices for Ukraine, but when it comes to bleeding Cyprus, they look the other way and favour solutions that in substance vindicate the illegal invader and occupier. This was acknowledged by Lord David Hannay himself, the principal author of the Annan Plan, who admitted that the plan was imprudently generous to Turkey.
On top of that come additional demands from allies and partners. Do not talk to the Russians, do not work with the Chinese, support Albania’s EU accession despite all it does against the Greek minority, accept the unequal Prespa Agreement, recognise Kosovo, send weapons to Ukraine, forget German reparations for the atrocities and crimes committed during the Occupation, unquestioningly embrace the excesses of the woke agenda — because that is what a cosmopolitan elite without a homeland, without roots and without respect for history or national identity wants.
Ladies and gentlemen,
Let us be clear. We belong, rightly, to the Western alliance and the European Union. For all their weaknesses — which, unfortunately, have grown sharply in recent years — they are the preferable, perhaps even the only, alternative available to us.
But the time has come to tell them that good accounts make good friends. That demands must be matched by something in return. That you cannot keep asking without giving anything. That all members of an alliance and a union are entitled to the same respect, comparable support and mutual solidarity. Especially when what is really at stake is not the satisfaction of arbitrary claims, but the acceptance and application of the rules of international law.
The familiar counterargument will be heard again. Are we not becoming tiresome, monotonous and irritating with our constant protests and objections? Should we not stop burdening others with our problems, especially when allies and partners are dealing with bigger issues? Will we be branded perennial complainers for repeatedly bringing up the Aegean, the exclusive economic zone and the continental shelf, Cyprus and the stance of Skopje?
This approach is the epitome of subservience. No one respects those who do not defend their rights, their principles and their homeland. And no one takes seriously those who cannot stand up for themselves when they are wronged.
Ladies and gentlemen,
The West, to which we rightly belong and which many of us defended for more than half a century, has entered a period of prolonged and worsening crisis. I am not referring only to the international arena, where wars erupt readily and show no sign of ending.
Conflicts are multiplying, while volatility and instability are threatening to become the norm. The major powers, despite their military superiority, are unable to impose their will, while smaller players, including non-state actors, are becoming emboldened and trying to reshape events to their advantage. My focus is primarily on the social discontent and the resulting political turmoil, which we are seeing intensify across most European countries.
The widening of social inequalities, the sharp contraction of the once prosperous middle class, severe cuts to the welfare state as a result of inflexible fiscal austerity, and the lack of an optimistic outlook for the many — the less fortunate and the young — are creating an explosive mix for the future of our continent.
The great majority feel sidelined, wronged and, above all, uncertain about the future. They are shut out of the banking system, hounded by faceless funds and face growing barriers to employment, housing, quality healthcare and education. They have no trust in the justice system.
The existing socio-political model is being challenged and delegitimised. Easy, unexamined denunciations by prosperous elites and the mainstream media of a far-right surge, conspiracy theorists and people swept along by cost-free populism are not merely an inadequate response; in effect, they make the situation worse.
When reliable voters of traditional parties in Germany, France and England abandon their political homes en masse, something very serious is happening. I say this, and repeat it, because I am deeply concerned about the future of Europe and its member states.
The delegitimisation of the post-war social and political order, for which Europe’s political and economic establishment is responsible, is gathering pace and putting at risk stability, social cohesion and peace, and the way of life we have known. The rumble of approaching events is becoming deafening.
Ladies and gentlemen,
We must be ready for the difficult world taking shape, for this leaden horizon. First and foremost, we must be mentally prepared, but also socially and politically — and, above all, as a nation. We must face the challenges of the future united, serious and determined.
For our homeland, for our people, for our children.