Le bienfaiteur de la France

Posted on by

Napoléon a réussi à exporter la révolution française en Europe ainsi que certaines de ses admirables réalisations. A Aboukir, à Austerlitz, à Iéna, à Borodino il a vaincu l’hégémonie du vieil ordre européen, parfois de façon retentissante, parfois avec des pertes considérables. Certains de ces souverains ont modifié leur mode de pensée et ont adopté les idées et principes français, ils ont également relancé un coup crucial à Leipzig le 19 octobre 1813.

Lors de la conférence de la paix qui a fait suite à cet événement, les vainqueurs n’ont pas choisi d’écraser la France: ils ont envoyé Bonaparte en exil. Cependant tout a changé quand ce corse s’est évadé de l’île d’Elbe et que le 18juin 1815 il a dirigé une nouvelle armée contre ses ennemis unis. Il s’agit des cent jours des dernières actions du destructeur de notre continent.

 

Le général Blücher et Talleyrand

Au cours de l’été 1815, les Prusses et leurs alliés sont entrés dans Paris. Le général Von Blücher a provoqué l’explosion du pont Iéna sur la Seine, qui avait été construit afin de rappeler au monde la défaite humiliante des Prusses par les français en 1806. Le premier ministre de France, Talleyrand, qui avait repris ses fonctions, a menacé via un émissaire qu’il allait se tenir au milieu du pont afin d’empêcher le général allemand de l’exploser.

Blücher a un peu réfléchi et ensuite il a dit à ses soldats d’attendre que Talleyrand soit arrivé au milieu du pont avant de l exploser. Depuis cet événement les français ont donné le nom de Blücher à leur chien sanguinaire. En revanche, il considère Talleyrand comme leur bienfaiteur puisque, grâce à ses habiles manœuvres diplomatiques, il a empêché le démantèlement de la France. Voilà, tout du moins, ce que l’on enseigne dans les écoles françaises. La vérité est que durant cette époque critique pour la France les historiens pensent aujourd’hui que la théorie de Talleyrand “bienfaiteur “, sur la base d’un texte de l’époque, montre que son amour des intrigues et son charme malicieux n’était plus à la mode. Il a menacé les alliés de démissioner si la France était démantelée. Cela n’importait pas les alliés et le monarque bourbon a accepté sa démission.

 

Le cinquième duc de Richelieu 

Armand Emanuel du Plessis, cinquième duc de Richelieu, a eu une longue relation avec les rois “légitimes” de France, comme son nom l’indique. Il a quitté la France après la révolution et est entré au service de l’empereur de Russie. Ce dernier l’a chargé parmi d’autres tâches, de fonder la ville d’Odessa. Son talent organisationnel était bien supérieur à la moyenne. Désormais, une métropole russe rayonnante dominerait la mer noire pour les siècles à venir.

Richelieu est rentré en France avec les Bourbons et a assumé la fonction de premier ministre après Talleyrand. Totalement désespéré, il est allé dans les appartements qu’occupait le tsar quand il était en France. On venait de lui annoncé le démantèlement du pays tant au niveau territorial qu’économique. Il a été reçu par le jeune confident d’Alexandre I, le comte Ioannis Capodistria qu’apparemment il connaissait bien. Richelieu a parlé à Capodistria des blessures qui allaient toucher la France. Capodistria l’a écouté calmement puis a dit:

“J’ai pensé à un moyen infaillible de sauver votre pays aujourd’hui. Demain, ce sera trop tard. Désirez-vous l’entendre ?”

“Bien sûr” a répondu Richelieu.

Capodistria est allé dans la pièce attenante et a dicté à son secrétaire Alexandros Stourtzas une lettre, supposée être de Louis XVIII au tsar. La lettre nous informe que Louis préférait déposer sa couronne aux alliés plutôt que de leur donner  la France démantelée et humiliée.

Richelieu a pris la lettre et l’a donnée au roi qui l’a recopiée de sa propre main. Le jour suivant, Stourtzas l’a remise au tsar, qui était prévenu, au moment où celui-ci négociait avec les alliés.

“Comme je m’y attendais” déclara-t-il apparemment consterné. (Napoléon a été le premier à s’apercevoir du talent d’acteur d’Alexandre.) “Maintenant nous sommes plus humiliés que jamais. Louis a abdiqué et il a raison. La France n’a plus de roi. Trouvez-m’en un autre si vous pouvez. Quant à moi, je m’en lave les mains. Le temps est venu de rentrer chez moi et d’en finir avec tout ça.”

La détermination d’Alexandre a provoqué un étonnement général. Sa colère a calmé les passions contre la France. C’est ce jour-là, à ce moment précis que la France a été sauvée du désastre. Elle a été sauvée grâce à la lucidité du comte de Corfou et le talent d’acteur de l’homme que Napoléon qualifiait du plus grand comédien de l’est (et avec lequel, disait-il, si c’était une femme j’aurais certainement eu une relation avec elle).

 

Témoignages 

Cette petite histoire est, ou devrait être, très importante pour les français. Si cette intervention n’avait pas eu lieu, leur pays ne serait pas ce qu’il est aujourd’hui. S’il n’y avait pas eu la politique de Capodistria adressée au tsar, laquelle a conduit trois ans plus tard à la réintégration de la France dans le conclave des grandes puissances. La France serait aujourd’hui un petit pays comme la Belgique cependant avec un glorieux passé révolutionnaire. Et l’Europe aurait été ravagée par des dizaines de guerres avant les grandes guerres causées par l’Allemagne durant le siècle suivant.

Richelieu a écrit au tsar le 1er octobre 1815. C’est grâce à votre déterminante intervention que nous devons l’allègement des conditions. Je sais que le comte Capodistriaétait hors de son mandat. Je prends la liberté de supplier votre majesté de ne pas le désavouer “.

De même, le comte Molé a écrit dans ses mémoires: “Si la France est toujours la France, elle le doit à trois hommes dont les noms ne devrait jamais être oubliés, à Alexandre et ses deux ministres, Capodistria et Pozzo di Borgo.

 

La récompense 

Il n’y a pas de doute que, outre sa perception purement diplomatique et ingénieuse concernant la position de la France dans l’équilibre des pouvoirs qui apporterait la paix dans le continent, Capodistria avait également d’autres attentes quant à sa position envers ce pays. Il pensait que, en ce qui concerne l’insurrection planifiée en Grèce, l’aide de la France serait la bienvenue. La France serait le contre poidsà l’attitude négative de l’Angleterre. L’histoire a pleinement justifié cette attente.

Nous ne savons pas si Richelieu et Louis connaissaient ce plan. C’est peut êtreà cause de cela qu’ils lui ont offert des récompenses plus tangibles. Louis lui a offert de l’or, mais Capodistria a refusé. Il a uniquement demandé des copies de livres de textes en ancien grec qui se trouvaient dans des bibliothèques françaises. Il désirait les envoyer à Corfou pour la bibliothèque qu’il projetait de construire.

Son offre a été acceptée mais n’a jamais été réalisée, d’après ce que nous savons. Au lieu de cela, la dynastie suivante française a pris soin d’entreprendre, avec les anglais et les “Kotsambasides” grecs, le projet d’assassiner le gouverneur grec, dix sept années plus tard. L’un des deux assassins, George Mavromichalis, a trouvé refuge à l’ambassade de France comme cela avait été convenu avant le meurtre.

Aujourd’hui, il est plus nécessaire que jamais que ces événements soient connus du peuple français. Car, peut-être c’est le devoir de l’histoire de rétablir la vérité, même si cela arrive deux cent ans plus tard. Peut-être aussi car les peuples d’Europe doivent apprendre que l’existence de l’un sert l’existence de l’autre et que le continent n’a jamais rien gagné des ruines de l’un de ses membres. Peut-être simplement pour que cette donation soit exécutée et que la nouvelle bibliothèque “Ioannis Capodistrias” ouvre à Corfou.

Panagiotis Paspaliaris

Does Greece stand for Democracy?

Posted on by

The coming to office of the new Greek government has inspired a new rhetoric of democracy and Philhellenism intriguingly similar to the Philhellenism that accompanied the establishment of the modern Greek state in the 1820s, in an international environment of post-Napoleonic reaction analogous in a number of ways to today’s reactionary environment of post-Soviet-collapse.

To take a characteristic example of this rhetoric, let us quote Paul Craig Roberts, dissident former assistant secretary of the Treasury under the Reagan administration in the US: “The Greeks, who were once to be contended with, who were able with 300 Spartans, supplemented with a few thousand Corinthians, Thebans, and other warriors, to stop a one hundred thousand man Persian army at Thermopylae, with the final outcome being the defeat of the Persian fleet in the Battle of Salamis and the defeat of the Persian army in the Battle of Plataea, are no more.

The Greeks of history have become a people of legend. Not even the Romans were able to conquer Persia, but little more than a handful of Greeks stopped the attempted Persian conquest of Greece.

But the Greeks, despite their glorious history, could not stop their conquest by the EU and a handful of German and Dutch banks. If the Greece of history still existed, the EU and the private banks would be cowering in fear, because the EU and the private banks have ruthlessly exploited the Greek people and represent the same threat to Greek sovereignty as Persia did.   (….)

Greece is prostrate. Greeks are actually committing suicide, because Greeks cannot provide for themselves in the depressed conditions that the EU and the private banks have created for them for no other reason than that the private banks must not have to write down the loans.

So, one result from “democracy” in Greece is suicide. With enough democracy, we can control world population and halt the destruction of nature’s capital. All we have to do is to enable the banksters to loot the entire world.

What can Syriza do?

Without Spartans, very little.”

The implication of the article is anything but flattering for democracy, but it reminds us of something about ancient Greece: that democracy was merely one side of a bipolar conflict in which democracy did not always have the best arguments. On the contrary: the majority of great texts that have survived from the golden age of Athenian democracy are anti-democratic in content or implication.

Aegina was among the prime challengers and victims of the imperialistic democracy of the Athenians, because of geopolitical factors, because of the island’s less than resolute stance – initially – against the Persians (and, yes, fighting “for democracy” against the Persians is still a thorny subject) and because of the Aeginetans’ alliance with Sparta. Aegina was nevertheless chosen to be first capital of the modern Greek state, de facto, pending the establishment of security in the formal first capital, Nafplion. The island was able to provide a safe working environment for Greece’s brilliant, enlightened, liberal, humane, popular, but not democratic, first governor Ioannis Capodistrias , a statesman who can have claims to be the preliminary architect of today’s European Union (and, certainly, of the Swiss federation). .

It was in Nafplion that Capodistrias was later assassinated, by an alliance of foreign imperialists and what might facetiously and provocatively be called local Greek “democrats”.

Aegina is back in the Greek media today in these first days in office of the new government, because so many of the ministers, from Varoufakis and Tsipras to less internationally-known figures, have houses here and/or are frequent visitors.

In its programme SYRIZA features gestures in the direction of citizens’ democracy: participation in decision making, the ability to call referenda, and similar such innovations . But citizen participation in a context of corporate mass media control is no guarantee of politics that are in the objective interests of citizens. On the contrary, in such a context citizen participation can easily be a Trojan horse facilitating imposition of policies by foreign-controlled NGOs. Possible first steps towards dealing with this problem have been put forward and discussed to a very limited extent  https://epamaegina.wordpress.com/2012/04/02/independent-citizens-assembly/  but the discussion has not acquired any traction within SYRIZA (or much traction elsewhere).

Paul Craig Roberts says, or implies, that what is needed now is not only Athenians (democrats) but also Spartans (oligarchs). Whether that is good or bad advice depends on how it is interpreted.

Aegina, 31st January 2015

AEGINA (introduction to the 3-volume history by Georgia Koulikourdi)

Posted on by

As is well-known, the island of Aegina has been an enduring historical presence in the Greek lands. This can be attributed both to the nature of its soils and to its geographical location.

The composition of the soil, the climate, the water reserves, the configuration of the coastline, all create the conditions for support of a permanent population of between five and six thousand inhabitants. Its geographical position, virtually at the centre of the Saronic Gulf, makes possible a great increase in this demographic potential.

As a result, Aegina, unlike the rest of islands of the Saronic Gulf, has been continuously inhabited since 3500 B.C. and so possesses important monuments from all historical periods. It could therefore be an ideal centre for studying Greek civilization as a whole.

The mythical tradition of Aeacus and the Aeacidae reflects the political, economic and cultural significance of Aegina at its zenith. Particularly emphasized is the notion that the Aeginetans were descended from the island’s ants, making them a people indigenous to the island.

In its long history, Aegina has gone through periods of great prosperity. Especially during the Archaic age (734 B.C. – 459 B.C.) it became an important naval and mercantile power due to its geographical position. It conducted transit commerce with all of the ports of the Mediterranean and accumulated great wealth. Furthermore, the Aeginetans were the first people in the Greek lands to employ silver as a medium of exchange, minting a silver state coin, the chelona, from metal mined from the island’s own deposits.

The same period saw a flourishing of the arts of architecture and sculpture. The school of Aegina comprised a number of great artists who received commissions from far and wide. Significant activity is also to be noted at the same time in the field of athletics. Aeginetans emerged victorious in over thirty Panhellenic and local games, many of which were extolled by Pindar, the great Theban poet, who numbered among Aegina’s closest friends. These victories were achieved mostly by children and adolescents, as the adults were busy with commerce and seafaring.

This activity laid the foundation for a prosperous civil society, creating a remarkably powerful class of capital-holding ship owners, which reigned supreme. Numerous struggles by supporters of democracy failed to topple it.

Starting at the end of the 6th century BC, the social and political changes in Athens generated sharp conflict between the oligarchs in Aegina and the democrats in Athens. The latter seem to have secretly supported the democratic forces on the island in their struggle to topple the oligarchy.

The social and political conflicts, along with Aegina’s commercial interests in the Dardanelles, go towards explaining the fact that the Aeginetan oligarchs made an offering of earth and water, tokens of subjugation, to Darius, King of Persia, on the eve of the Greco-Persian Wars. When Xerxes later launched his campaign of conquest of Greece, however, the Aeginetans fought alongside the other Greeks, and distinguished themselves in combat. Pytheas, son of Ischenoos and an Aeginetan, fought so bravely in the naval battles around Artemision that he inspired the admiration of even the Persians themselves . In Salamis, Aegina came first among the Greek city-states and Polykritos, son of Krios, was decorated as the bravest fighter.

After the wars the conflict between Athens and Aegina sharpened even further. The Athenian democracy, inaugurating its imperialist policies and claiming its naval supremacy, programmed the eradication of the Aeginetan state, which was closing the gates of the Saronic Gulf, having formed close ties with the rival Dorian coalition. The oligarchs in Aegina relied on their naval tradition and superiority and did not update their naval power. The result was defeat, military and economic devastation (468 B.C.) and, with the start of the Peloponnesian war (431 B.C.), the removal of the entire population and the installation of Athenian settlers on the island. The Aeginetans who managed to survive returned to their homeland after the end of the war (404 B.C.) with the support of the Spartans, who in turn expelled the Athenian settlers.

Nevertheless, there were also Aeginetan democrats, who were friendly towards Athens. Many of them helped the Athenians dispose of the thirty tyrants and, as can be inferred from a relevant tablet, some later took up residence in Piraeus.

In the 4th century B.C. a politically and economically weakened Aegina took part in the Corinthian war on the side of Sparta. The Spartans used the island as a base for surprise attacks on the port of Piraeus and operations in the Saronic Gulf in general. In the second half of the 4th century B.C. the island was relegated to the status of a luxury resort where the rich would spend their summers and winters.

In the Hellenistic period the island was sold by the Aetolians to Pergamon, later passing together with Pergamon into the possession of the Romans. It was used at that time as a naval base, where Roman and Pergamine fleets would anchor and often winter. The Pergamine period seems to have been a time of considerable prosperity for the island, to judge by the number of remaining rock-hewn tombs, monuments and other finds.

In the early Christian years, the Gothic and Herulian raids in mainland Greece and the Peloponnese forced the residents of the neighbouring coastal areas to seek shelter in Aegina. The island’s population increased sharply and the refugees’ needs for housing and fortifications resulted in the destruction of almost all the ancient city’s monuments. But prosperity returned to the island during this period. The city grew populous. The traces of three large parish basilicas—in Panagitsa, close to the Metropolis (Cathedral), in Agios Nikolaos, and in Vardia, along with a synagogue in Karantina—testify to the extent of the city and the existence of a large Jewish community.

From the 8th century A.D. until the 10th century A.D., extensive Saracen pirate raids forced part of that population to emigrate. The rest retreated to the island’s interior and built a new capital, known today as Palaia Hora (Old Capital).

The year 1204 ushered in a protracted period of subjugation to various occupiers: the Franks (1204 A.D. – 1417 A.D.), the Catalans (1317 A.D. – 1451 A.D.), the Venetians (1451 A.D. – 1540 A.D. and 1687 A.D. – 1715 A.D.) and the Turks (1540 A.D. – 1687 A.D. and 1715 A.D. – 1821 A.D.). In each case it was the port of Aegina that served as the occupier’s naval base. The people suffered from exploitation by the foreign rulers, from the Turkish-Venetian wars and the from successive pirate raids. Thousands of Aeginetans were imprisoned or slain.

The greatest disaster took place in 1537 A.D. Hayreddin Barbarossa, an admiral under the Sultan Suleyman II, occupied Aegina, which was a Venetian base at the time, and captured a large number of inhabitants—estimates range from 4,000 to 7,000, depending on the source. The destruction was so extensive that the impression was left of the island having been depopulated completely, as a result being resettled later by Albanian-speaking Greeks from the surrounding areas. On closer scrutiny, however, this idea has been shown to be false. Despite the successive disasters, the Aeginetan people did manage to survive and preserve their language, their orthodox tradition and their customs. Immigrants to the island, as well as the occasional refugees who elected to stay, were not numerous and assimilated into the local culture. Of course, due to the various disasters, the island became degraded both demographically and economically. The population declined and commerce and shipping contracted. Under these circumstances, unlike Hydra and Spetses, Aegina failed to benefit from the favourable conditions of the 18th century and grow wealthy. Another contributing factor to this was that the residents had the option of living off agriculture and were not obliged to seek a livelihood exclusively in commerce or seafaring. At the beginning of the 19th century the island was therefore predominantly agricultural, with limited seafaring activity.

From the end of the 18th century, when some degree of safety began to return to the Saronic Gulf, the Aeginetans abandoned Palaia Hora, went back to the coast and settled where the ancient city used to stand, next to the old ports.

Around 400 Aeginetans took part in the Greek Revolution of 1821. In its course, Aegina sheltered thousands of refugees and became the seat of government in 1826 and 1827. In 1828 and 1829 it became the capital and the centre for governor Capodistrias’ political, administrative, economic and cultural activity.

As the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century approached, the development of sponge diving initiated another economic boom period, which ended, however, with the decline of sponge diving in the mid-20th century. The Aeginetans did not apply themselves to finding an alternative. In the meantime, there had been an intense wave of migration to North America, prompted by the sponge diving and culminating in the founding of Tarpon Springs, Florida, the only modern-day Aeginetan community outside of Aegina. It was also around this time that the great two-story neoclassical and bourgeois residences in the town and in Kypseli were built, giving Aegina its contemporary architectural character.

Today Aegina lives off its pistachio cultivation and its heavy tourist traffic. Demand for houses and hotels has brought about intensive but chaotic and unplanned construction, which has degraded the environment, e.g. in Agia Marina. Thankfully, the pistachio cultivation has put something of a brake on more total predomination by real estate speculation.

The Aegina of today has, as in the past, a great deal of potential. A more systematic approach to agriculture together with modern planning; the development of cottage industry and artisanship; proper organisation of voluntary associations; the protection of pistachio production; utilisation for scientific and social purposes of the Capodistrian buildings, which have been allowed to fall into ruin, and proper touristic development of the South-Eastern parts of the island, such as Mt. Ellanion and the traditional villages in the surrounding area, would lead to a more balanced and stable social and economic progress, all without neglecting maritime development, commerce and tourism, which are the foundations of the island’s economic life. The basic condition is that the environment and sea be protected. Without its beautiful shores and clean seas Aegina cannot survive, economically or in any other way.

(Translation by Dimitris Hall)

International Conference: “Capodistrias – Spinelli – Europe”

Posted on by
  1. Sunday, 23rd November 2008 17.55 From Aegina Portal (translated)

1

An international conference whose style and content provide a glimpse of the importance of the island and its history was held in Aegina, with proceedings opening yesterday Saturday at the Hotel Danae. The international conference took place in the context of the celebration of the 180th anniversary of the swearing-in of Ioannis Capodistrias and forms part of the commemorative celebrations programmed for this year by the Municipality of Aegina. The promotion of the Capodistrias – Spinelli activities in relation to the European integration project began to be promoted approximately two years ago by Mr. Wayne Hall, both from within an informal group around the subject in question, and through the exchange of relevant correspondence and personal contacts with the Municipality of Aegina and other groups on the island with the potential for involvement.
2
Yesterday’s conference emerged from an initiative by Messrs. Alexis Krauss and Wayne Hall, implemented by the Association of Active Citizens under the auspices of the Municipality of Aegina. The potential of this international conference was obvious from the moment it was announced, i.e. that it could significantly strengthen promotion of the content of Ioannis Capodistrias’ politics, which – as became evident – two centuries ago foreshadowed Europe’s present aspirations. The outlines of the international conference in Aegina were defined by important personages from the European diplomatic and political firmament, such as the ambassadors of Switzerland, France, Russia, Slovenia, Italy, the deputy director of the European Parliament’s office in Greece Mr. G. Kokkalas and others. Unfortunately because of the weather, which necessitated a ban on shipping movements, these guests were unable to participate in the conference.

3
The international “Capodistrias-Spinelli-Europe” conference got under way a little after 9.30 on Saturday morning, unfortunately with a serious disadvantage, obliging the organizers to proceed to partial revision of the programme. Nevertheless, it subsequently turned out that the conference proceeded normally, focusing on its thematic central idea.

4

 

The conference proceedings opened with a welcoming speech from the Mayor of Aegina, Mr. Panagiotis Koukoulis, from Mr. Andreas Siopachas, deputy mayor of occupied Famagusta, from Mr. Pericles Pangratis, president of the Municipal Council of Corfu, from Father Emmanuel Giannoulis, presbyter of Aegina’s historic Cathedral, from Mr. Georgios Athanassiou, representative of the Municipality of Poros and Messrs. Stratos Pantavos and Wayne Hall of the Aegina Association of Active Citizens.

During the conference the following videos were screened: “Capodistsrias-Spinelli-Europe”, production of the Aegina Association of Active Citizens, “Altiero Spinelli”, production of the European Parliament, “Jean-Gabriel Eynard” production of Mme. Michelle Bouvier Brown and “Aegina” of Sofia Sfyroera.

The discussions were co-ordinated by Mr.Panagiotis Koukoulis, Mayor of Aegina, and the university professor Costas Gavroglou, president of Aegina’s Cultural Centre. A distinctive style was imparted to the conference proceedings by the contributions of young people such as the president of the local youth council Costas Vogiatzis, the representative of the Aegina Women’s Association Eleni Skrekou and the President of the Souvala Professional Association Petros Petritis.