(A Greek party based in Tirana). (Memory of Dule and Bollano – lackeys of great Greek chauvinism). By Prof. Dr. Eshref Ymeri

Summary:

The article by Prof. Dr. Eshref Ymeri critiques the Greek political and religious establishment’s ongoing Chauvinistic policies towards Albania and the Albanian people, highlighting historical events and demands that seek to annex Southern Albania. The piece details the manipulative efforts of individuals like Vangjel Dule and Bollano, who are described as lackeys of Greek nationalism.

Ymeri underscores the long-standing aggression and prejudice of Greece against Albania, particularly the historical injustices faced by the Cham population and the manipulation of Albanian political factions. He concludes that Greek chauvinism remains a persistent threat, jeopardizing Albania’s sovereignty and national integrity.

On the 7:30 p.m. news broadcast on December 16, 2008, the “Top Channel” channel, through the well-known journalist Dhimitër Gjoka, revealed the truth of Bollano’s letter that the latter had sent to the Greek parliament for the non-approval of the SAA with Albania, without the latter fulfilling the seven Bollanoist demands, according to one of which all of Southern Albania was to be recognized as a “minority” zone (Gazeta “Republika”, December 10, 2008, p. 10).

This Bollanoist demand is the first in the list of seven demands that this scoundrel of Greek chauvinism is presenting to the Greek parliament before it makes a decision regarding the SAA with Albania. But the lie of the lackey Bollano that such a thing was not true for us, was nakedly revealed by the interview that this television channel had conducted with the Greek chauvinist MP Thanasis Plevris about the real content of the letter in question.

Meanwhile, the other lackey of Greek bigoted chauvinism, alias Vangjel Dule, on December 19, 2008, from the screens of TV Klan and “Top Channel”, at 7:30 pm, attacked the mass media of Tirana on why they defend Albanian nationalism. According to the lackeys of Greek bigoted chauvinism, the Greeks have the right to be chauvinists, demanding the alienation of ethnic Albanian lands in the south of the country, while the mass media of Tirana have no right to protect these lands from the lusts of Greek bigoted chauvinism.

The defense that the lackey Vangjel Dule makes of his brother Bollano, proves without a shadow of a doubt that the party he represents in the Albanian political spectrum is nothing other than a Greek party headquartered in Tirana. Now a simple question arises: what are the reasons that these two lackeys of Greek chauvinism come out so openly as spokesmen and hardened propagandists of the Greek chauvinist state, which has had the devouring of Southern Albania at the foundation of its strategy, immediately after the declaration of Albania’s independence?

Since all the efforts of Greek chauvinism to implement such a devouring that then and until now have failed one after the other, apparently, official Athens has seen fit to put into motion the lackeys in the service of this chauvinism who are located inside Albania and who are represented by the minority organization called “Omonia” and the Greek party of the lackey Vangjel Dule.

Therefore, to clarify the esteemed readers of the newspaper “Republika”, below I am going to dwell in more detail on the traditionally hostile policy that the chauvinist Greek state and the chauvinist Greek church have pursued in their stance towards the Albanian nation, especially throughout the 20th century, immediately after the declaration of our country’s independence in 1912.

Let the reflection of this hostile policy serve as a reminder to the two lackeys of great Greek chauvinism, Dulles and Bollanos, who are not telling us anything new with the request for the declaration of Southern Albania as a “minority” area, even though official Athens, through these two of its lackeys, seeks to convince international opinion that we are not what is behind them, that it has nothing to do with such a request, or with the other request for the declaration of Greek as the second official language in Albania.

As far as I know (if I am not mistaken), official Athens once addressed the European Union with a ridiculous request to declare Greek as the second official language, after English, within the framework of that Union.

Below, the work of the distinguished historian Prof. Dr. Beqir Meta will be analyzed again, a work of high scientific authority, published in two volumes. The first volume is titled: “The Greek-Albanian Tension. 1939-1949” (Publishing House “GEER”. Tirana, 2002), while the second volume is titled: “Albania and Greece. 1949-1990. The Difficult Peace” (Publishing House “Koçi”. Tirana, 2004). Let us first focus on the first volume.

Greek chauvinism – the embodiment of Byzantine infidelity

Before informing the reader of some hitherto unknown facts about the tension that characterized Greek-Albanian relations during the years 1939-1949, the author introduces us to the prehistory of these relations, which begins with the preparatory steps of the Albanian nationalists for the declaration of independence of Albania.

The Turkish government at that time had accepted their demands for the declaration of autonomy for the four Albanian vilayets. But the Greek government was the main obstacle to the implementation of that agreement, becoming the initiator of the creation of a Balkan League, in full agreement with the Bulgarian, Serbian and Montenegrin governments, with the aim of dividing the Albanian lands.

Thus, Greece, since the first attempts of the Albanian nationalists to create a their independent state throughout the compact ethnic Albanian lands, was put in charge of a savage policy, hostile to the Albanian nation, which had at its foundation the annexation of Southern Albania. Even after the declaration of independence, the new Albanian state was faced with open aggression by the chauvinist Greek state, which sent its occupying troops to all of Southern Albania.

Prof. Meta, on the basis of the documents he used, emphasizes that the intentions of the Greek government “for the annexation of Southern Albania and the alliances that it built in function of this aim would constitute a very serious, continuous and long-term danger and threat to the Albanian state, because they put it under complete pressure and prevented its consolidation” (p.14).

The next hostile step taken by the Greek chauvinist state towards the Albanian nation was the presentation of Greek territorial claims towards Albania at the London Conference in 1913. The Greek demands, to the detriment of the ethnic Albanian lands, found full support from the Entente powers, especially from Tsarist Russia, France and Germany.

The author objectively assesses the events of 1913-1915, when the troops of the Greek chauvinist state committed monstrous crimes and unprecedented massacres on the population of Southern Albania, which aimed at the physical disappearance or complete expulsion of the Albanian population from those areas.

It was precisely that hostile policy of the Greek chauvinist state “left such traces of death and human suffering that it has since undermined the foundations of an agreement between the two peoples” (p.16).

It was precisely the chauvinist Greek state that, in contradiction to the Florence Protocol of December 17, 1913, according to which Greece had to withdraw its troops from Albanian lands by March 31, 1914, organized the “Northern Epirote autonomist movement”. According to the Greek devilry, “the idea was to create that the “Greeks” of Southern Albania would fight supposedly independently and, even, “in opposition” to the decisions of the Greek government, against the unification of Albania, by declaring the autonomy of “Northern Epirus” and, subsequently, seeking unification with Greece” (p.17).

The same thing is what the bigoted Greek chauvinism is trying to accomplish now through its lackeys – Dule and Bollano. Such vile plots have consistently characterized the chauvinist nature of the enemy Greek state in its attitude towards the Albanian nation since the declaration of Albania’s independence.

In the fierce war against the Albanian nation, according to the occasion and the situations created, the Greek chauvinist state has sometimes set in motion Albanian traitors, sometimes sold-out minorities, sometimes the Greek Orthodox Church, this furious ally of the devil against our country, sometimes the Greek-American chauvinist lobby. Such a policy of the Greek chauvinist state towards us is very readable even in our days.

Let the reader remember for a moment the messages of Nicholas Geixhi at the meeting of the Greek minorities of Saranda, published in the newspaper “Albania” on April 4, 2004. At that meeting, Geixhi sought to pretend that he was speaking on behalf of the Greek-American lobby and not of the Greek chauvinist state, just like his “Northern Epirote” predecessors in 1914, who allegedly acted against the will of the Greek government.

An important event in the history of the Albanian state was the admission of Albania to the League of Nations on December 17, 1920. This very act, which marked the history of Albania, the chauvinist Greek state considered a serious blow to its territorial claims and again decided to counter it “at the delicate moments, when the Conference of Ambassadors had not yet decided on the final determination of the borders of Albania” (p.26).

It set the “Vorio-Epirot” Committee in motion again, leaving no stone unturned in inciting the boycott of the 1921 parliamentary elections by the Orthodox elements in Southern Albania.

Greece recognized Albania’s independence ten years after its declaration, in 1922. However, the chauvinist Greek state continued to refuse to give up its reservations about the 1913 borders, even though the Conference of Ambassadors had annexed important ethnic Albanian territories to it, including the very rich province of Chameria.

The author also dwells in detail on another acute problem in the multitude of Greek-Albanian tensions after World War I – on the flagrant intervention of Athens and the Patriarchate of Istanbul in the affairs of the Orthodox Church in Albania, in their efforts to keep our Orthodox Church under control and to use it to implement the dream of the “Megaliid”.

The goals of the Greek chauvinist state have been served by all four Orthodox metropolitan centers of Albania, three of which – those of Durrës, Berat and Korça – were led by Greek bishops. Through documents, the author highlights the nefarious role played by the bishop of Durrës, Jakovos, who had been an opponent a staunch supporter of the declaration of Albanian independence, a rabid supporter of the anti-national rebellion in Central Albania and of the Greek conspiracy to declare the “autonomy of Northern Epirus”.

The Greek clergy of that time were “among the main responsible for the great tragedy that Southern Albania suffered as a result of Greek crimes and massacres. They thus became among the causes of hostility between the two peoples and the instigators of a fratricidal war, even among the Orthodox Albanians themselves” (p.35).

For this purpose, the author has also referred to sources from Greek historiography, such as the work entitled “Greece and Albania”, by Vasilis Kondis, who has used documents from the Greek MFA Archive, year 1920. In these documents, among other things, it is stated that “Metropolitan Iakovos was the informant and main advisor of the Greek government in the preparations it was making for the occupation of Korça after the departure of the French troops from the region” (p.36).

The role of Iakovos is now being played for beauty by Anastas Janullatos, the leader of Greek chauvinism in Albania, and his sold-out tools – Dule and Bollano.

The nobility of King Zog in the face of Greek chauvinism

In the first chapter, Prof. Meta acquaints the reader with a very interesting fact, unpublished to date, as far as I am aware. “On the eve of the Italian invasion of Albania, A. Zog rejected the proposals made to Rome to expand the borders of the Albanian state.

The British diplomat Sir A. Royan announced in the Foreign Office that he was informed that “just before the April aggression, the Italians had asked King Zog to give them three divisions to attack Greece and, in return, had promised him the throne of Greece, but he had refused”. The Italians also offered Zog 30,000,000 gold francs, as well as the division of Greece into two parts: a Greek Republic that would have its capital in Thessaloniki and the other part, which would be annexed to the Kingdom of Zog” (p.45).

This surprising fact further highlights the noble and manly attitude of King Zog, as a prominent personality of the Albanian nation. At the same time, it testifies once again to the fact that the Albanian people had a hated enemy on their southern borders. In the face of King Zog’s nobility, the hostility and arrogance of the Greek chauvinist state was revealed, reaching such an extent that the Greek government “ignored the occupation of Albania by the Italians.

In fact, in its correspondence with Rome it did not hesitate to express its understanding and satisfaction” (p. 46). Moreover, after King Zog’s departure for Greece, the Greek chauvinist state did not allow him to carry out any political activity there. The author rightly assesses the position of the Greek state in this case as an attitude that “reflected the tendency to ignore the legitimacy of the King of Albania and to create the cause for the interruption of the continuity of the Albanian state by putting into question its international recognition” (ibid.).

Prof. Meta cites a number of important documents, which better highlight the hostile attitude of the Greek state towards King Zog throughout the time he was in exile, especially in London, until the end of World War II. The Greek government has developed a feverish activity to do everything possible to prevent the recognition of King Zog by the Allied Powers, such as England and the USA.

It was precisely this constant pressure of the chauvinistic Greek state on the Western Allies, which resulted in the latter, to their shame, falling into the trap of Greek diplomacy and never accepting to recognize King Zog as the legitimate representative of the Albanian people in the West, just as all the other kings of Eastern European countries had recognized him as such.

Sharing the views of Greek chauvinist diplomacy, English diplomacy, for the most part, continued to maintain the same hostile positions towards Albania, which it had already manifested in the years 1913, 1915 and 1919-1920. In addition, the Western Allies did not know or did not want to know our reality and the attitude that the Albanian people held towards King Zog in exile, an attitude that was completely opposite to that propagated by Greek chauvinism.

In a report sent to the Foreign Office from Albania on August 4, 1943, it was stated: “…hundreds and thousands of people at this time are asking what King Zog was doing, why he was not forming a national government? Why is he not acting?” (p.118).

But the Greek chauvinism forgot a proverb that is in many languages: “Do not rejoice over the evil that befell your neighbor, for one day it will knock on your door too.” The pragmatic Greek policy towards the Italian aggression in Albania would soon fail miserably. More than a year had passed since the invasion of Albania on April 7, 1939, when fascist Italy accused Greece of harboring British warships in Greek ports.

The accusations were then accompanied by a fierce propaganda campaign against Greece. In this case Italy began to speculate diabolically on the Cham problem, taking into account the fact that the chauvinist Greek state, since 1923-1925, had exercised a savage terror against the Cham population and had forcibly expelled 60 thousand people to Turkey.

But even in this case, King Zog maintained a friendly attitude towards Greece. He informed the representatives of the Intelligence Service that he “did not consider the Cham problem as a factor that would throw Albania on the side of the Italians” (p.49). In fact, in an interview he gave at the time, King Zog “clearly stated that the independence of Albania was of much greater importance than any territorial expansion” (49-50).

The Greeks, as always, treacherous

More than two weeks had passed since the Italian attack on Greece on October 28, 1940, when the Greek troops, with the strong support of Britain, counterattacked and, taking advantage of the fact that the Italian invasion of Greek territories had started from Albania, badly defeated the Italian troops and entered Albanian soil. Within three weeks they occupied Korça, Saranda and Gjirokastra.

The ferocity of the Greek fascist troops, with the atrocities they committed in the occupied Albanian territories, was incomparable to the invading nature of the Italian troops, who in Albania, in any case, did not offend the religious feelings of the Albanian people. In the territories they occupied in Southern Albania, the Greek troops damaged and destroyed 40 churches and cathedrals, of which 11 in Voskopoja, as well as all the mosques.

The bestial hatred of the Greek fascist troops against the Albanian people reached such a point that they turned the mosque of the village of Gjonomat into a horse stable. Such crimes against the religious feelings of the Albanian people are only capable of being committed by Greek and Serbian chauvinists.

When one learns about such atrocities of the Greek barbarians in the South of Albania, one involuntarily comes to mind the words of the Byzantine chronicler Niketas Koniatis, who, describing the conquest of Constantinople by the Crusaders and Venetians on April 13, 1304, says that even Muslims are “humane and kind” compared to these people “who carry the cross of Christ in their arms” (Georg Ostrogorski. History of the Byzantine Empire, p. 290).

Since then, the chauvinist Greek state passed the shameful law of war with Albania in parliament, calling the latter an aggressor state, even though our country was occupied by fascist Italy, no longer enjoyed the attributes of an independent state and appeared united with the Italian Kingdom under Victor Emmanuel III. Thus, the great Greek chauvinism gave legal force to hostility with the Albanian people.

The law in question is still in force today all day long and legally the Greek state for us is and continues to remain an enemy state, which the representatives of our blind political class, in power and in opposition, do not want to believe, even though Greece slaps them in the face whenever its chauvinist interests are even slightly affected in relations with us. It is precisely the Byzantine mentality and wickedness that has characterized and continues to characterize the Greek chauvinist state in our days in its attitude towards our country, otherwise there is no way to explain the keeping in force of that shameful law.

While all the peoples of Europe had risen to confront the fascist plague, the chauvinist Greek state, which itself fell victim to it, instead of strengthening ties with the patriotic, nationalist forces of neighboring Albania, the first victim of fascism in Europe, sought to annex the occupied territories. Prof. Meta argues with facts that the chauvinist Greek state rejected the Albanians’ request for a joint war against the Italian invaders and opposed efforts to organize the resistance of the Albanian people, with the sole aim of not giving up the occupation of Southern Albania.

Thus, “a group of influential nationalists, who during the Italo-Greek war had gathered in Tirana, proposed to the Commander of the 9th Greek Army, which was stationed in the Gjirokastra region, General Teholakoglu, the organization of a revolt against the Italians throughout Albania, in cooperation with the Greeks, on condition that Greece recognized the territorial integrity of Albania and its independence.

The Greek general replied that he was not competent for this matter, but promised to forward this proposal to his government in Athens. The answer was long awaited but never came. Even the British agents operating in the field noticed that the Greek army chiefs wanted to annex the region and were doing everything they could to prevent British efforts to incite the Albanian revolt against the Italians, mainly by prohibiting their arming” (p.55).

This positioning of the Greek chauvinist state was the result of Great Britain’s flagrant tolerance of the positions of Greek chauvinism in relation to Albania. At that time, Britain had chosen Greek chauvinism as its main ally in the Balkans, making concessions even before his chauvinistic claims and policies.

The author reveals this position of English diplomacy to us through the pages of a Foreign Office document, in which the Head of the Southern Department of the said department, P. Nichols, on June 27, 1940, clearly stated: “…it is right that for the moment we should not use Albanian nationalism against the Italians and it is entirely possible that we will never want to do so” (p.61). The author even exposes the hypocrisy of the Greek state in its stance towards the British and German Nazism: “…Metaksai (in collaboration with the Germans – E.Y.) wanted to end the Italo-Greek war and was prepared to ask the British to leave Greece, on condition that Greece kept the occupied territories in Albania…

On the other hand, wanting to stay in two chairs, Metaksai, “with great determination” assured the British minister in Athens that he “would never approve of any attempt to create a rift between Britain and Greece”. The Foreign Office took advantage of the opportunity to nail Metaksai, expressing “warm thanks” for his assurances regarding the stance towards Germany” (p.51-52).

The intentions of Greek chauvinism “to keep the southern parts of Albanian territory occupied” were indirectly expressed to the Germans by Metaxas on December 20th (p. 52-53).

The efforts of London and Washington to give the Greek chauvinist state all possible support so that it would not end up in the lap of Russian Orthodox communism are reminiscent of the extraordinary efforts of the Roman Empire, the Roman Church and the Crusaders at the Council of Lyon in 1274 for the Romanization of the Byzantine Empire and Constantinople, efforts that led to the further deepening of the gap that separated them from each other.

[The pure heirs of the Byzantine hatred towards the West, especially towards the USA, are today the Greeks, a hatred that came and grew even more in the second half of the 20th century for the sole reason that the Americans approved the landing in 1974 of Turkish troops in Northern Cyprus, where the Greeks were preparing to carry out a complete ethnic cleansing through the forcible removal of the Turkish Cypriots, and did not allow in any way the occupation of Southern Albania].

The impudence of the Greek chauvinist state

In the first chapter the author introduces us to two other interesting facts. First, Albanian immigrants in Greece sought to participate in the war against the Italians. According to B.J. Fischer, quoted by the author, such a fact was announced in his diary by the director of the “Near East” Foundation in Athens, Laird Archer. Hence, Prof. Meta concludes that “the most important reason why Albanian patriots did not participate massively on the side of the Greeks was the constant refusal of the Greek government to cooperate.

This conclusion has also been reached by well-known Western historians” (p.65-66). Secondly, seeing that King Zog in exile, under the fierce pressure of the chauvinist Greek state, was not recognized by the Western Allies, the various political currents of the Albanian emigrants began to work seriously to create a legal government in exile.

The emigrants’ efforts were aimed at preserving the legal-territorial status of the Albanian state and especially at protecting its territorial integrity. But even in this case, the efforts to have the Albanian government in exile recognized by the Western Allies met with a wall of silence from the latter, who, hiding reservations about territorial adjustments in the Southern Balkans after the war, retreated before the diplomatic pressure of the chauvinist Greek state.

After the invasion of Greece by Hitlerite troops on April 12, 1941, the Greek General Tsolakoglu, with the consent of the Greek Army Headquarters, surrendered to the Germans. The Greek government intended to sign an agreement with the German Field Marshal List, which would state that the Greek army was allowed to hold the occupied territories in Southern Albania.

These were precisely the diabolical intentions of the Greek government, which, even before the German invasion, ostensibly to face the war front with the Italian troops, continued to keep 14 divisions deployed in Southern Albania, while only three divisions were located in Greek territory. And the author notes very aptly, highlighting the collaboration of the chauvinist Greek state with German Nazism: “So great was the nationalist desire of Greek politicians and generals for the annexation of Southern Albania, that even though the enemy had occupied their home, the Greeks persistently continued to maintain the army and the front in Albanian lands” (p.77).

The simultaneous collaboration with Great Britain (which maintained 100 thousand troops in Greece to protect it from the attack of German troops) and with German Nazism, to secure from the latter the promise to keep the territories of Southern Albania occupied by Greek troops, shows to what extent there was the hypocrisy of the Greek chauvinist state.

So, the stupidity of the Greek chauvinist state continued to appear even more sharply after the occupation of Greece by German troops. Although in exile, the Greek government continued to insist on the annexation of the so-called Northern Epirus, as the author informs the reader with its memorandum, addressed to the Foreign Office on September 29, 1941.

The Greek government had previously sent the same memorandum to President Roosevelt on June 12, 1941. In this memorandum, the Greek government had the impudence to list Albania alongside the Rome-Berlin Axis forces, shamelessly denying the Italian fascist occupation of April 7.

In this way, the Greek government had taken with it into exile the wild spirit of Greek chauvinism and “did not seriously think about opposing the German invasion, but only about how to preserve a political capital that would be useful to it after the war for the annexation of Southern Albania” (p.76).

In this chapter, the author also acquaints us in more detail with the concrete activity of King Zog in exile in defense of the territorial integrity of Albania, against the annexationist policy of Greek chauvinism, an activity unknown to the general reader to this day and deliberately ignored by communist historiography for almost half a century.

In the context of the feverish diplomatic activity of the Greek government in exile, which had also set in motion the “Pan-Epirote” Federation of America to implement the annexation of Southern Albania through its occupation by Greek troops after the end of the war, the declaration of the American government of December 10 and the British government of December 17, 1942, in response to the insistent request of the Greek government for the annexation of Southern Albania, was made known.

Contrary to the claim of the Greek government in exile, which, due to its hatred of the Albanian people, distorted the truth and considered Albania an aggressor country, since the attack by fascist Italy was carried out from its territory, the US government statement emphasized that “…Albania has not been able to exercise its right of sovereignty after April 7, 1939, and, although the Greeks may have suffered from the actions of some Albanians, the United States government is not (and we repeat is not) prepared to recommend to the relevant military authorities that Greek forces occupy Albanian territory, because such a step would be detrimental to the peaceful settlement of territorial issues” (p.115).

Meanwhile, the British government’s statement of December 17, stating that the latter “…considered the question of the borders of Albania as one of the issues to be discussed at the Peace Conference, was an important concession made to the territorial claims of Greece to the detriment of Albania. It showed that the claims of Greece still weighed in the definitive determination of the position of the British government towards the future of Albania” (p. 98).

The British government’s statement made it quite clear that the mischief of Greek diplomacy and propaganda had had a direct effect on increasing the dissatisfaction of the Albanian people towards the Western Allies and especially towards the British, who created a lot of space for Greek chauvinism on the BBC radio waves.

Given the pro-Greek stance of English diplomacy, the author points out that in Albania the nationalist forces made their anti-Greek positioning even more pronounced. However, through a nine-point archival document, the author introduces us to a May 1944 initiative of Albanian nationalist forces, represented by the Balli Kobëtar and Legaliteti, which, in order to confront the risk of establishing a communist regime in Albania, to erect a protective fence against Greek chauvinist politics and to also ensure Greece’s support for the unification of Kosovo and other Albanian areas in Yugoslavia with Albania, sought to hold talks with Greek right-wing forces for the prospective creation of a Balkan Federation with Greece and Turkey.

But this initiative would not succeed because the Greek representatives “would later suggest the creation of a Greek-Albanian federation, where they thought they could easily secure supremacy over the Albanians and successfully pursue their policies for the Hellenization of Southern Albania.

But they were categorically against the inclusion of Turkey in this federation, as the Albanians demanded, because this would change the political balance to their disadvantage, removing any possibility of exerting pressure on the Albanians or imposing their own policies on them” (p.126). Even the Greek ambassador in Rome, in August 1944, replied to Mehmet Konica that “no Greek was disposed to set aside the indisputable rights of Greece in this territory” (p.127).

When one carefully analyzes the relations of the government of In his discussion with the Western Allies regarding its claims for the annexation of our southern territories and the reasons for the latter’s non-recognition of the Albanian government in exile throughout the years of World War II, Prof. Meta makes a very realistic assessment of Albania’s international position, which was unjustly undermined at that time:

“Greece, with its insistence, managed to influence the policy of the Western Powers not to support the organization of the resistance of the Albanian people throughout the entire period of occupation and to block the recognition of the legitimate Albanian government in exile. In this way, it directly and strongly influenced the Albanian people to remain without an official representation abroad, which was supposed to protect its interests and strive for the organization of anti-fascist resistance.

By fulfilling or tolerating Greek demands, the Allies placed Albania in inferior conditions for the protection and propagation of its national rights, in relation to its Balkan neighbors, whose governments in exile were recognized and treated as partners by them. This attitude, which has not been properly analyzed to date, has not only been an injustice and a very immoral and dangerous act in international relations, but it has seriously damaged Albania’s international position, jeopardized its future, significantly hindered the desire and realization of the will of the Albanian people to resist aggression.

It also indirectly contributed to the creation of an anarchic situation of political developments in Albania. The abandonment that the Allies made to Greece during this time, by not helping the organization and international support of the Albanian resistance and by not recognizing the legitimate Albanian government, gave impetus to and ignited Greece’s annexationist campaign against Albania. Consequently, here also originates the rekindling of Greek-Albanian hostilities, which would continue for a very long time, for decades” (p.129).

The Cham Issue and the Cruelty of Greek-Majority Chauvinism

Another painful issue addressed in this volume is the Cham problem. The author begins to address this problem and, in general, the problem of the Albanian minority in Greece, analyzed separately, from the moment it first appeared on the scene – after the division of ethnic Albanian lands at the London Conference in 1913. There, in a documented manner, a detailed history of the crimes that Greek-Majority Chauvinism committed against the Albanian minority in Greece is made, with the aim of achieving its complete disappearance, expulsion and assimilation.

At the heart of the Greek genocide against the Albanian minority in Greece, carried out especially since 1913, 1915, 1917, 1923-1925, 1937-1939 and during World War II, until June 28, 1944, was the theocratic-chauvinist idea of ​​the Greek state, according to which the Greeks should have one state, one religion, one homeland. Here I will limit myself only to the author’s treatment of this issue during the war and especially to the attitude that the Albanian communists have maintained towards it, as traitors of our national interests.

As it appears in the pages of the book, on the eve of the Italo-Greek war, a large number (of 2,000 people) of Cham soldiers, who were performing military service as Greek citizens, instead of being sent to the front, received orders to be equipped with picks and shovels to build roads in the rear.

Thus, the chauvinist Greek state, instead of treating its citizens as fellow fighters, insulted and humiliated them, as if they were prisoners of war. And it maintained this low attitude towards them for the sole reason that they belonged to another nationality and another religion.

The racist attitude of the chauvinist Greek state towards the Cham population was so aggressive that it had become known even beyond the borders of Greece. From an Italian document that the author quotes in the pages of the book, we learn that Ciano, as early as August 1940, regardless of the motives that led him to defend the interests of fascist Italy, drew the attention of the Greek ambassador in Rome: “Greece… has discriminated very severely against Albanians in favor of Greeks. And it has done this in all areas of activity, from that of personal freedom to that of the economy, to that of language learning…” (p.147).

But what were the reasons that the chauvinist Greek state maintained such a hostile attitude towards the Albanian minority? The author gives this convincing answer: “The aim was even more distant and at the same time much more anti-Albanian. Even in the difficult and complicated situations, when war was knocking on Greece’s door, the Greek authorities, with coolness, tried to take advantage of whatever they could. They judged that a suitable moment had been created in international relations for the final ethnic cleansing of Chameria” (ibid.).

Although the Metaxas regime had exercised unprecedented violence and terror against the Albanians of Chameria, still the Chams (with some rare exceptions) did not join the occupying Italian troops during the war. Italo-Greek invitation, which is affirmed by Greek authors themselves, such as J. Sharra, who, according to a quote from Prof. Meta, wrote in 1985: “Even when the Italians occupied Igoumenitsa, rarely did any Cham join them” (p.149). But even during the German occupation of Greece, the Cham population, in its own lands, although armed, refused to enter into collaboration with the Germans or turn their weapons against the Greek element.

The most vocal representatives of Cham nationalism, as emerges from the archival documents cited by the author, saw the path to their liberation not in collaboration with the Nazi-fascist occupier, but in the unification of all Albanian political forces. Therefore, like all Albanian nationalists, Cham nationalists considered the Mukje Agreement as the only path to resolving the Albanian national issue.

Regarding this fact, the author says that Nuri Dino, on February 21, 1944, sent a letter to Shefqet Peçi, in which he stated that efforts were being made in Greece to unite the two main political forces of EAM and EDES, with the aim of “the Greeks destroying Albania even under the communist guise…” (p.157). He made this pathetic appeal to Shefqet Peçi: “Enough Albanian blood has watered our land, the passion of our people for freedom has been heard far and wide and this is enough for tomorrow, but tomorrow must find us united more than ever” (ibid.).

Based on the diary of Rexhep Dino, part of which the author quotes in this volume, the reader learns for the first time that the disarmament of the Cham population was carried out by direct order of Hitler himself, in order to prepare the ground for the massacres and ethnic cleansing that the ally of the German occupying troops, the Greek fascist officer, Zerva, was preparing, under the inspiration of Greek chauvinism.

In June 1944, Zerva and his senior officers, in full agreement with the Germans, in cooperation with the troops of the X Division of EDES, entered Chameria, swore an oath to the Cham population under the Greek flag and on military honor, in order to deceive the local nobility of Paramithi that no one would suffer anything. But the Greeks have neither faith nor honor.

Faith and honor are attributes of the noble Albanian nation. Therefore, on June 27, the terrible massacre of the Cham population began, which ended with a final ethnic cleansing, even though 1,000 fighters had emerged from its ranks, participating in the formations of the Greek National Liberation Army (ELAS) and EAM, and 65 of them had fallen martyrs.

The author sheds light on the truth of the ethnic cleansing of Chameria, which, according to a report by the British officer, Palmer, sent to the Foreign Office in April 1945, was not carried out because of the collaboration of the Cham population with the Germans. The ethnic cleansing of Chameria was part of the strategy of the chauvinist Greek state against the Albanians, which had begun to implement it since the time of the criminal decision of the London Conference of 1913.

‘The author also emphasizes that the ethnic cleansing of Chameria was also the result of British policy, “which, seriously concerned with preserving its positions in Greece, relied on the Greek ultranationalist right-wing forces. In the fierce rivalry between the left and right-wing forces, Great Britain made concessions to the latter for the realization of the old political objectives of the ethnic cleansing of Chameria” (p.179).

The Cham population, sheltered in Albania, was plagued by a miserable situation. From the reports used by the author of the Commission of the Albanian Cham Minority in Emigration, the reader learns that “the emigrant people suffer terribly for bread, as they are unable to buy it. Only a part of the emigrants were assigned an allowance of 250 grams of bread per day, which was completely insufficient” (p. 185).

From the pages of this book the reader learns another shocking truth: by the beginning of June 1946, among the Cham population, sheltered in Albania, there had been 2755 deaths from hunger and various diseases (ibid.). These are official data, but my friends, Agush Veliu and Neki Myderrizi may know even more shocking details about the disasters that plagued their Cham brothers in those years in Albania.

When carefully following the author’s analysis of the unprecedented support of the Albanian communists for the Greek Communist Party and their intervention in the internal Greek military conflict, the reader is faced with a simple question: did Enver Hoxha not know what the Greek Communist Party’s view was regarding the aims of Greek bigotry for the annexation of southern Albania?

The facts show that the Greek Communist Party has supported these aims of Greek bigotry without any reservation. Specifically. There are four public statements by the Greek Communist Party, in which it ranks alongside the Greek ultra-chauvinist forces in their aggressive aims for the occupation of southern Albania.

The first: at the beginning of October 1945, the 7th Congress of the Greek Communist Party was held, which had decided: “If a democratic majority in favor of “In the event of the immediate military occupation of “Northern Epirus” by the Greek army, the party will make its objections, but will respect the decision of the majority” (p.340).

Second: a delegation of the Greek CP, which was in Moscow in February 1946, asked the Soviet government “to support Greek territorial claims” (p.520).

Third: the Greek CP, which during the war years, “but also on the eve of the Peace Conference in 1946, publicly expressed support for the claims of the Greek government for the annexation of Southern Albania” (p.355).

Fourth: When the Peace Conference rejected the request of Greek diplomacy for the discussion of territorial claims against Albania, the Greek CP “accused, for the “total bankruptcy” of Greek claims, the policy of Caldaris in the service of Anglo-Saxon imperialism” (p.281).

The feverish campaign of Greek chauvinism for the annexation of Southern Albania

The third chapter constitutes the most interesting part of this volume. There the hostile policy of Greek chauvinism is best highlighted, which, after the end of the war, became even more threatening and dangerous towards Albania. Such an attitude of the Greek chauvinist state towards our country, as has been said above, has had at its foundation the permanent goal of the disintegration of Albania.

This goal has been the “essence of Greek politics, while the dream of “Northern Epirus” had dominated the consciousness of Greek politicians for a long time. But, with the end of the war, a new peak and an intensification of the policy for the annexation of Southern Albania is observed” (p.228).

The author introduces us to several phases of the diplomatic offensive of the Greek chauvinist state. Thus, the first phase includes the period January-September 1945. During this time frame alone, the Greek government has made 8 requests, notes and memoranda, addressed to the diplomacy of the Western Powers, important personalities of the world and other important organizations, starting from the Foreign Office, the State Department, etc.

The second phase starts from September 1945 and continues until July 1946. During this ten-month period, the Greek government makes 21 other requests, notes and memoranda to achieve the same chauvinist goals. The period from July 29 to October 15, 1946, when the Paris Peace Conference was held, constitutes the third phase of the diplomatic hysteria of of Greek chauvinism for the annexation of Southern Albania.

“In this period, Greek policy reached the peak of its aggressiveness. In order to argue the state of war with Albania, the Greek government during this period acted on several levels: it continued to oppose Albania’s request for admission to the UN. It intensified the attacks on the border, causing a very tense situation, in order to create the impression in world opinion that there really was a state of war between the two countries, which only the Paris Conference and the Foreign Ministry Council could end.

Greek diplomacy continued to insist and without hesitation demand the annexation of Southern Albania, as a condition for overcoming the state of war between the two countries” (p.269-270).

In the period in question, 18 interventions by the Greek government with speeches by its chauvinist leaders, notes and memoranda, in which the hammer was beating in the same place – the annexation of Southern Albania, stand out.

The fourth phase of Greek diplomatic madness consists of its demands for the discussion of territorial claims against our country in the Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs, after the conclusion of the Peace Conference. At this time, the Greek government makes 27 other interventions in international instances and in meetings with representatives of European and American diplomacy for the same purpose.

When, finally, all these diplomatic actions – 74 in total – of the foolish Greek diplomacy did not find the proper support, mainly from the side of American diplomacy, then the great Greek chauvinism decided to take another desperate step. Through the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Panagiotis Pippinelis, she presented to the State Department a plan for the complete annexation of Albania by Greece.

Introducing the reader in detail to the Pippinelis Plan, the author elaborates on its three variants, which can be listed as follows: 1. The partition of Albania between Greece and Yugoslavia or between Greece, Yugoslavia and Italy (this is an old plan for the disappearance of Albania from the map of the Balkans, discussed in secret between Greece and Serbia in 1913, that is, a year after the declaration of our independence, and between Great Britain and France in 1919). 2.

The administration of Albania by an international organization or by a disinterested power. This type of international protectorate, although proposed as a second variant, Pippinelis himself did not like as a solution, since the existence of the Albanian state in the Balkans, even under an international protectorate, fell into opposition to the objectives of Greek and Yugoslav politics.

“Therefore, he excluded any possibility of the civilization, development and Europeanization of Albania… Here the chauvinistic political concepts and racist prejudices of Greek politics of the time have clearly appeared” (p.306). 3. The union of Albania with one of the neighboring countries and precisely with Greece. Pippinelis considered this variant to be the most rational solution.

The Pippinelis plan essentially represented a typical Greek disloyalty and a pronounced political hypocrisy. In support of the last variant, Pippinelis brought as arguments: 1. The first agreement between the Greek and Albanian captains, in Sul, on January 15, 1821, to form an alliance and the pledge they had given to each other that “they would be brothers united in one body and one soul”. 2.

The proposal that the Albanians allegedly made to the Greek government on June 2, 1829, for the inclusion of the province of Vlora in the Greek state, on condition that they were guaranteed freedom of religion and the honor of their harems was preserved. 3. The memorandum of a “large number” of Albanians, under the leadership of Gjoleka, sent to the King of Greece, Otto, for the unification of Albania with Greece. 4.

The memorandum sent to Lord Beaconsfield by the Albanian Committee during the Berlin Congress, in which the idea of ​​Greek-Albanian unification was suggested and it was stated that “our defensive power could be doubled in a Federation and through an alliance with Greece” (p.310). 5. The historical support of Greek opinion for the Greco-Albanian Confederation of Athens, which in 1899 had proposed “the unification of both races according to the Austro-Hungarian model”. 6.

Ismail Qemali’s negotiations in 1904-1906 and his agreement with Greek Prime Minister George Theotoki in 1908 for the liberation of Albania and its unification with Greece. 7. The proposal of the former Prime Minister of Albania, Koço Kota, in February 1944, made to the military governor of Thessaloniki for the unification of Greeks and Albanians.

Despite the tales that Pippinelis sought to sell to the State Department as truths, the experience of relations up to now, – as Prof. Meta rightly intervenes, – “did not create any spark of trust and hope for a political coexistence with the Greek nation and state.

The main reasons were the obstacles that the Greek state and church had raised to the Albanians’ efforts for national liberation, education in the Albanian language, the affirmation of their national identity, independence and, above all, the continuous aims of Greece for the annexation of Albanian lands.

The Greek massacres of 1914-1915 in Southern Albania and the more recent ones, which were carried out in 1944-1945 against the Albanian population of Chameria, which had ended with its violent ethnic cleansing, left no hope of understanding and cooperation” (p.308).

Therefore, the proposal presented by the foxy Greek diplomacy through the Pippinelis Plan was nothing more than a diabolical trick of Greek bigotry “for the annexation of Southern Albania through the creation of an Albanian-Greek confederal state. The true anti-Albanian character of the Pippinelis Plan was revealed by political, economic, geopolitical, etc. considerations, which, according to him, made it necessary to erase Albania from the map of the Balkans” (p. 311).

American Diplomacy Against Greek Chauvinism

As was reported above, the State Department had made the declaration on Albania a week before Eden’s declaration, on December 10, 1942. Thus, Secretary of State Hull, contrary to the positions of English diplomacy, stated that “the United States had never recognized the annexation of Albania by Italy and that the restoration of Albanian independence was a natural consequence of the Atlantic Charter” (p. 440).

Compared to Eden’s declaration, Hull’s declaration was much more positive, much more fair and unequivocal. It did not question the integrity of Albania, as the British declaration did. The latter was assessed by the State Department as not being entirely in line with American interests.

But English diplomacy was also not satisfied with the content of the American declaration. On this occasion the author quotes a note by Dixon that is in the Foreign Office archives: “I think it is regrettable that the US government made a statement for the restoration of a free Albania, precisely as a consequence of the Atlantic Charter” (ibid.).

Around the beginning of 1945 the State Department prepared a “Study on the Current Situation of Albania”. In this study, the fulfillment of Greek demands for “Northern Epirus” was categorically excluded. Among other things, it assessed the political-spiritual orientation of the Albanian nation, “as a nation with a pronounced and consolidated Western orientation, where the pro-American current held the main weight” (p. 469).

On the other hand, the study in question also emphasized a another act – the birth of a pro-Eastern current in Albania, which, although few in number, was pushing the country towards Russia and Yugoslavia, “annihilating the Albanian intelligentsia, even at the price of a bloodbath” (ibid.).

The concerns of American diplomacy, made public here sixty years ago, proved truly prophetic: the Albanian communists forced our country to enter into paradoxical alliances with Yugoslavia and Russia, physically eliminating the prominent representatives of Albanian nationalism.

Something else, quite essential, was also evident in the State Department Study: it called for British policy to reconsider its stance towards Albania, since “Great Britain was more interested in strengthening Greece than Albania and that by supporting Greek claims to “Northern Epirus”… it was giving political capital to the pro-Eastern group in its efforts to reorient Albania from the East, towards Yugoslavia and Russia” (p.469-470).

The author analyzes another essential fact of the pro-Albanian stance of American policy. Towards the end of 1945 and the beginning of 1946, the Greek annexationist intentions were also analyzed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the American army. They prepared a memorandum for the State Department, in which they expressed themselves emphatically “against any American position in support of Greek intentions at the Paris Conference” (p.470-471).

The recommendations given by the Joint Chiefs of Staff would thereafter “constitute the main arguments on which the American administration relied in repelling Athens’ efforts to advance its territorial claims against Albania” (p. 471).

Here the author also introduces us to the views of the former American ambassador to Albania, Charles C. Hart, who at that time was also the president of the “American Friends of Albania” association. In an article published in the “Washington Post” newspaper on September 30, 1943, he denounced the campaign that the Greek lobby in the USA was promoting in support of the territorial claims of Greek chauvinism against Albania.

He assessed the campaign in question as a “conspiracy that reeked of stench.” He compared the arrogant stance of Greek policy towards Albania “with the tactics of Mussolini and Hitler for the subjugation and plunder of smaller and weaker nations. The difference between them lay only in the fact that “Hitler expected his conquests to be recognized at the end of the war by all nations frightened by his savagery, while Greece seeks approval in advance” (p. 451).

And below he continued: “Today’s Greek leaders are, as always before, crustacean reactionaries. They have learned nothing from this war and from all the suffering of their people. They do not understand that we are fighting for an ideal, to end the slavery of powerless peoples by stronger neighbors. Greece would do well to forget its false demands against Albania.

Robbery is robbery, whether committed by Mussolini or Hitler or anyone else” (ibid.). Being a deep connoisseur of Albania, “he claimed that Southern Albania was overwhelmingly inhabited by the Albanian population and that even in southern Epirus the predominant population was Albanian. He supported the holding of an honest referendum in both these regions.

Hart also denounced the Albanianophobic hysteria that was being cultivated in Greece” (ibid.). “The hostility that the Greeks harbor towards Albania,” he wrote, “is no less than that which Hitler harbored towards Arthur Roen, when he woke him up at midnight to blow his brains out” (ibid.).

“Hart also openly criticized British policy. He claimed that Eden had secretly pledged to support Greek claims. He argued this conclusion with the content of the Eden Declaration and with the inhibition of Hart’s efforts to organize an Albanian front in February 1943” (ibid.).

The stance of the American mission in Albania in support of the defense of the territorial integrity of Albania was also admirable at that time. From the research conducted by the author, it appears that the head of that mission, Jacobs, had sent a series of information and recommendations to the State Department aimed at reaching an agreement between the Great Powers for the resolution of the Albanian-Greek border issue.

The State Department’s statement of November 10, 1945, which insisted on not introducing reservations about the borders and expressed readiness to establish diplomatic relations with Albania, aroused the fiercest opposition of the chauvinist Greek state. The stance of American diplomacy in this case also had a positive impact on the Forum Office, which managed to overcome its previous anti-Albanian position, reflected in the Eden Declaration of December 17.

This development of events, accompanied by a repositioning of English diplomacy in its stance towards our country, the author assesses it as a serious blow against Greek chauvinism.

The second volume also analyzes in detail all the information that the author has collected about Albanian-Greek relations after the end of the civil war in Greece, information that is for the first time made known to the Albanian public in a scientific work.

Although the civil war in Greece was coming to an end and was ending with the defeat of the Greek Communist Party, which should have been accompanied by a decrease in Greek-Albanian tension, the Greek chauvinist government, taking advantage of the extreme aggravation of relations between Yugoslavia and Albania at the end of 1948, addressed Washington and London with an insistent request for the occupation of Southern Albania, a request that was rejected by both the State Department and the Foreign Office.

“The Americans even went so far as to threaten to review the entire US policy towards Greece in the event of the occupation of Albanian territory” (p. 24). Meanwhile, “the then Undersecretary of State, Dean Rusk, was more than adamant in the US determination to preserve and secure the state borders of Albania from the intentions and violations of its neighbors” (ibid.). Even the US ambassador in Belgrade, Cannon, informed Tito: “We have given strong advice to Greece to stay away and that the US has always been for the independence of Albania” (p. 25).

When reading the volume in question very carefully, the readers are struck by the same open manifestations of the aggressive attitude of Greek chauvinism towards the territories of southern Albania. From 1949 until May 6, 1971, the day when the full text of the communiqué of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Greece on the establishment of diplomatic relations with Albania was published, the diplomatic actions of the chauvinist Greek state for the annexation of Southern Albania have not ceased.

Attentive readers cannot fail to notice the concrete steps that the Greek government has taken to realize its annexationist goals towards our country, concretized in 90 requests, notes, memoranda, addressed to the Great Powers, accompanied by the creation of terrorist organizations, by the incitement to rebellion of the Greek minority in Albania, by the incitement even more of the hatred of the chauvinist Greek church towards the Albanian nation, by the setting in motion of the chauvinist Greek lobby in the USA, Canada and Australia to keep the anti-Albanian hysteria burning in the Greek diaspora throughout the world.

The servile attitude of Albanian diplomacy towards Greek chauvinism

Of particular interest is chapter III, which deals with the efforts of Albanian diplomacy to establish diplomatic relations with Greece. The author reveals to us a page that can be called truly shameful in the history of Albanian diplomacy, which, with its disgusting servility, has tarnished our national dignity with the steps it has taken to establish diplomatic relations with the chauvinist Greek state.

There are 49 pure diplomatic actions of the Albanian government, recorded in the period between 1954 and May 6, 1971, when it left no stone unturned to appease the Greek government so that it would accept the establishment of diplomatic relations with our country.

How is this humiliation that Albanian diplomacy has done to itself explained? How is it explained that Enver Hoxha insisted so much on establishing diplomatic relations with Greece, which represented to us an “issue that interested the Albanians the most”, as it was written in a note of his on a proposal of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs dated December 8, 1970 (p.230).

Had he ever raised his voice after 1949 in defense of the Cham issue and the Albanian minority in Greece (which is several times larger than the Greek minority in Albania), so that the reader could be convinced that the Albanians were really more interested in establishing diplomatic relations with Greece, in order to be present in Athens with their embassy? Not at all.

So what prompted Enver Hoxha to maintain such a servile attitude towards the chauvinist diplomacy of a mortal enemy state, as the chauvinist Greek state has been, is and will continue to be? The main goal of Enver Hoxha, certainly, was the preservation and strengthening of personal power, which led him to abandon national interests, even to national betrayal. It was not at all necessary for Albanian diplomacy to be dragged before the chauvinist Greek state for the establishment of diplomatic relations.

From the analyses of Prof. Meta, the reader clearly understands that Enver Hoxha and Albanian diplomacy, before requesting the establishment of diplomatic relations with Greece, had to put forward three main demands to it. The first: to abrogate the law of war with Albania. The second: to recognize the territorial integrity of Albania and to respect the existing borders. The third: to return the expelled Cham population to their ancestral homeland and to recognize the Albanian minority in Greece.

These three demands were to constitute the three main pillars on which Enver Hoxha and his diplomacy were to rely in the steps taken to establish diplomatic relations.

Every simple Albanian, with national awareness, every Albanian nationalist feels insulted in his national dignity when in the pages of this volume he learns of the arrogant, contemptuous, dismissive attitudes of the Greek chauvinist state towards the demands without a national axis that Albanian diplomacy has made for the establishment of diplomatic relations with Greece, while the latter has not even accepted to establish trade relations with our country, as was known in a report by Behar Shtylla in 1959, after a meeting he had with the Soviet Union’s chargé d’affaires in Tirana, Novikov (p. 151-152).

These arrogant positions of Greek chauvinist diplomacy have served as a permanent means of pressure on Albanian diplomacy, with the aim of extracting as many concessions as possible from the latter in the interest of Greek chauvinism.

And these concessions, in the end, Greek diplomacy managed to extract very successfully from Albanian diplomacy, to the detriment of our national interests. Even these concessions, as Prof. Meta notes, “were very large. Not insisting on the recognition of the validity of the Albanian-Greek borders by Greece, passing over in silence the conservation of the law of war and ignoring the ethnic cleansing of Chameria during the process of discussions and in the final declaration were major concessions, which Tirana made in the hope that the establishment of diplomatic relations would reduce the tension. In fact, the tension was reduced, but not eliminated.

The dangers and threats to Albania remained latent. But this does not mean that they were now smaller and fainter. Meanwhile, another step was taken towards burying the Cham problem. The Greek side, certainly, was satisfied that it did not retreat from its previous positions and, at the same time, was finding that its 30-year pressure had yielded some results.

First, it had extinguished the will of the Albanian government to reopen the problem of the ethnic cleansing of Chameria. Secondly, it had managed to soften and break the previous insistence of the Albanian government not to accept the establishment of diplomatic relations with Greece, if it did not clearly declare, in advance, that it recognized the borders with Albania as permanent and if it did not declare that it considered the absurd law of the state of war to be non-existent” (p.233-234).

Very soon, Greek chauvinist diplomacy would show its true face in its attitude towards Albanian diplomacy without national basis. On May 5, 1971, the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, Palamas, informed the American ambassador in Athens, Taska (Tasca), that “the issue of “Northern Epirus” would be left “sleeping”, at least for the moment” (p.234).

This same Palamas, in the press conference he gave on May 8, 1971, also on the issue of “Northern Epirus” declared that “the existing situation, ultimately, has not changed with regard to Greek positions. The only difference is that absence has been replaced by presence, indifference by interest and calm by dialogue” (ibid.). He even “gave a guarantee that Greece’s fundamental position towards “Northern Epirus” had not changed in any way” (p.235).

Meanwhile, the director for Balkan affairs at the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Papaioannou, told the Americans that “Greece had an interest in opening its consulates in Southern Albania due to the existence of the Greek minority there. But he ruled out the possibility of Albania opening a consulate in Greece, because, according to him, there was no Albanian minority in this country” (p.234-235).

But the facts nakedly reveal the Greek diplomat’s deceptive attitude towards American diplomats regarding the Albanian minority in Greece. More than a year had passed after the establishment of diplomatic relations, when our ambassador to Greece, “made a visit to Chameria on 5-9 June 1972, accompanied by the Deputy Minister for Epirus, Petro Koceli.

During the visit, he found that in certain areas, such as those of Suli, near Ioannina, Preveza, Igoumenitsa, Parga, Filati and to a lesser extent in Arta, a considerable number of inhabitants of Albanian origin remained, who lived mainly in villages. Despite this visible presence of Albanians, only two of the Greek officials mentioned the existence of the Albanian population in this area.

The prefect of Igoumenitsa told the Albanian ambassador that in this region there were many people who spoke Albanian and who had relatives in Albania. Also, the mayor of Igoumenitsa, who was of Albanian origin and spoke Albanian, claimed that there were still other villages here that spoke Albanian. While the doctor of Albanian origin from Grapshi in Gjirokastra, Thoma Luçi, had claimed that in Pref.

In the prefecture of Preveza, or between it and Igoumenitsa, there were 40 villages that spoke Albanian. During 1973, other officials of the Albanian embassy visited Igoumenitsa, where they found the existence of several Christian villages that spoke Albanian. They visited the village of Kastro with 1,800 inhabitants, which was known as the “Tirana of Greece”, because all the villagers spoke Albanian and listened to Radi-Tirana.

However, apart from these visits, no other action was taken by the Albanian government and diplomacy towards the great problem of the ethnic cleansing of Chameria and the preservation of the Albanian identity of that part of the Albanian population that remained in Greece” (p.252-253).

But the Albanian government and diplomacy could not take any other action because they had fallen flat on their faces before the Greek chauvinist diplomacy, because they had stripped themselves of their national dignity.

But did the Greek chauvinist diplomacy take any concrete steps to establish diplomatic relations with Albania? From the source materials used by the author, the reader learns for the first time that only on three occasions did it take some concrete initiatives: in March 1966, in May of that same year and in September 1968.

Even in the first initiative, the Greek ambassador in Bucharest, in the meeting he requested with our ambassador there, emphasized that “the issue of “Vorio Epirus”, which the Albanians called Southern Albania, let’s not even mention it” (p.203). The Greek chauvinist diplomacy has set precisely such traps for our diplomacy, into which the latter has easily fallen, not being guided by the basic principle of protecting national interests.

Considering the unchanging hostile attitude of the Greek chauvinist state towards the Albanian state since 1944 until March 1966, I do not know how dignified the statement of Enver Hoxha can be assessed, who, after being acquainted with the first initiative of Greek diplomacy, in the meeting with the Chinese ambassador Shy Gjien Guo, on April 4, 1966, said: “They (the Greeks – E.Y.) for 22 years in a row wanted to bite our hand, now they want to kiss it” (p.203).

During all this time (1949 – April 4 1966) 83 actions of Greek diplomacy and the Greek chauvinist state for the annexation of Southern Albania were recorded, not counting the serious provocations on the border, which within 10 years alone (1944-1953) amounted to 2183 cases (see the table on p.62 of this volume).

Meanwhile, only from 1954 until April 4, 1966, the Albanian government had undertaken 46 diplomatic actions for the establishment of relations with Greece. Then, why did Enver Hoxha and Albanian diplomacy, during 22 years, insist so much on bringing their hand closer to the Greek viper, when it only wanted to bite it? Why did Enver Hoxha and Albanian diplomacy maintain such a humble, servile attitude towards the Greek chauvinist state, when it is known that they were not guided at all by the protection of our national interests, which, in this specific case, were related to the Cham issue and with the Albanian minority in Greece?

The reason for such a stance was hidden in the aim of the pro-Slavic communist clique of Tirana, which, as prof. Meta points out, sought peace on our southern borders solely to strengthen the personal power of Enver Hoxha.

But wouldn’t it have been much better if Enver Hoxha and Albanian diplomacy, immediately after the liberation of the country, had sought to immediately establish diplomatic relations with the Turkish “mongoose”, which would have saved the Albanian state a lot of energy wasted in vain with Greece and would have served as a very effective remedy against the bites of the Greek viper?

Diplomatic relations with Turkey were established very late, in 1958, while in just two years – 1954-1956 – 11 diplomatic actions of the Albanian government were recorded to establish diplomatic relations with Greece. Although Turkey was a member of the Balkan Pact, founded on August 9, 1954 between Greece, Yugoslavia and Turkey, the latter “held a completely different position and had completely different goals towards Albania. It was an opponent of Greek territorial claims at the expense of Albania, supported its territorial integrity and tried to draw the Albanian state to the West and to the Balkan Pact” (p.83).

Enver Hoxha, who was drooling over Russian communism in the interest of preserving his personal armchair, did not want to understand who the true benefactor of Albania and the entire Albanian nation was. The Turkish state was and remains such in the Balkans, especially since there was a large Albanian community there.

[On May 15, 2000, when I was returning to Albania on the Tetovo-Tirana bus, I met an Albanian-Turk living in Izmir. His name was Orhan Ademoglu. Tel.: 0266-3962551. He had been secretary of the Turkey-Albania Friendship Association for several years. He told me that in the Association’s records, throughout Turkey, there was a figure [There were 7 million Albanians, of whom 2 million spoke pure Albanian at home].

But the Albanian government considered the Balkan Pact as such, “directed against the Soviet Union, the “People’s Democracies”, especially against the People’s Republic of Albania and Bulgaria, and as an inseparable part of the “aggressive” North Atlantic Pact. Of course, this was the Kremlin’s point of view” (p.102).

The establishment of diplomatic relations with Greece benefited entirely from Greek chauvinist diplomacy, the Greek chauvinist state, the Greek chauvinist press, the Greek chauvinist lobby in the USA and the Greek chauvinist church, who would reap the fruits of their anti-Albanian activity later, after 1990, with the establishment of the neo-communist democratic-socialist system.

The facts of the benefits of the Greek chauvinist state and all the aforementioned auxiliary structures at the expense of our country are well illuminated by Prof. Meta in the pages of this volume, when he emphasizes that the Greek initiatives to establish diplomatic relations were not at all favorable for us because “Greece did not recognize the validity of the borders with Albania, did not lift the law of war and had closed the discussion of the Cham problem, which it seemed clear that the Albanian government had also left to history.

These advantages provided the Greeks with more favorable conditions than in 1949 so that, in the future, when they saw it convenient, they could revive the claim on the existence of a state of war and… to re-submit the request and continue the efforts for the annexation of Southern Albania and the organization of an international conference for this purpose, without having the concern that they would be forced to face the Cham problem, which, since 1948, had not been mentioned by the Albanian government.” (p.228)

By abandoning the protection of national interests by forgetting the Cham tragedy and the ethnic cleansing of Chameria, the Albanian government had placed itself in a miserable position in its attitude towards Greek diplomacy and had made it possible for the Greek government to “gain a great advantage, in order to increase the pressure on Albania in the future, using the charter of rights of the Greek minority in Albania. It (the Greek government – E.Y.) wanted to expand its geographical borders and political standards beyond the real and acceptable limits by international norms, with the aim of increasing its influence in Southern Albania.

With the ethnic cleansing of Chameria, a political imbalance was created to the detriment of the Albanians, which would influence the increase of Greek pressure and would reduce the possibility and chances for balanced, correct relations, for mutual understanding and trust between the two countries” (p.228-229).

Prof. Meta’s concerns and predictions turned out to be truly prophetic. The direct provocations of the Greek chauvinist state to aggravate the situation in Himara on the occasion of the local elections in October 2003 proved best that the neo-traitors in power of our national interests are the heirs of the national betrayal of the veteran Albanian communist clique: the Greek chauvinist state openly aimed to truly expand the geographical borders of the Greek minority in Albania, demanding that Himara also be declared a minority area.

Therefore, there is nothing surprising that, today, the bigoted Greek chauvinism, among the Himariotes, has managed to fish out even sold-out, traitorous elements, such as the work of Kolila, Bollano and the supporter of the latter, the lackey Dule, whom, by forcing them to blow their trumpets in all directions, it set in motion the “preparation” of the seven-point memorandum, addressed to the Greek parliament for the Hellenization of Albania, otherwise the chauvinist Greek parliament will veto it when the time comes to discuss the issue of signing the SAA and Albania’s accession to NATO.

Considering the entire traditionally hostile policy of the Greek chauvinist state towards the Albanian nation, we are fully entitled to think that the seven-point memorandum must have been prepared initially, in complete secrecy, in the chancelleries of Prime Minister Karamanlis and in the musty recesses of the Greek chauvinist church, before being sent for signature to the traitor Bollano and for information to the lackey Dule. Here, this is the result of the disasters that the veteran, Enverhoxha-like betrayal of the Albanian communists prepared for our national cause with the concessions that it made to the great Greek chauvinism before diplomatic relations were established with the Greek chauvinist state, this betrayal, which opened the way for the frontal attack, in all fields, of Greek Orthodoxy against our country and which, according to the golden words of Mr. Abdi Baleta, will have to be faced at a very high cost.

But even after the establishment of diplomatic relations, the chauvinist Greek state did not stop its feverish efforts to annex Southern Albania. Four years later, Albanian diplomacy, as underlined Mr. Meta, was experiencing a great disappointment. Due to this disappointment, “The Albanian Embassy in Athens noted at the beginning of 1975 that the Karamanlis government, “which had previously shown itself to be a chauvinist”, was maintaining a moderate stance at the beginning of its activity…

Despite this, the Albanian Embassy’s view of the new Greek leaders was not very positive. It described them as “just as chauvinistic as before”, but pointed out that they were “only continuing this path with other means and methods”. The Embassy expressed this opinion to the MFA: “We should not entertain any illusion that the Greek government will continue to maintain this stance in the future. It, like the Greeks in general, has “Vorio-Epirus” deeply embedded in its soul (p.282-283).

After this information from our embassy in Athens, Enver Hoxha and Albanian diplomacy, six years later, had the opportunity to be convinced once again of the unchanging hostile nature of the chauvinist Greek state and of the futility of establishing diplomatic relations with it, without prior respect for the three aforementioned demands. The case arose in the spring of 1981.

In Pristina, powerful demonstrations of Kosovar student youth against Serbian tyranny broke out, in which the main demand was the declaration of Kosovo as a “Republic”. At that time, all means of written and visual propaganda, the entire Greek public opinion, together with the chauvinist Greek church, maintained a unique stance against the Albanian nation, strongly supporting Greater Serbian chauvinism in carrying out bestial massacres against Kosovar youth and intelligentsia.

This support was explained by the fact that “Greece has traditionally been and is an opponent of increasing the standard of freedom for Albanians in the Balkans. It is a champion of propaganda about the danger of “Greater Albania”. The essence of this policy is based on the logic that the weaker the Albanian state and nation, the easier it will be to achieve the Greek objectives of expanding and strengthening Hellenism in the North” (p.314).

In the period from May 6, 1971 to 1990, 59 other diplomatic actions of the Greek chauvinist state for the annexation of Southern Albania are recorded, embodied in the activity of Greek chauvinist diplomacy, in the organization of anti-Albanian demonstrations, as was the case of those that “began on March 3, 1982 with the march towards the Albanian embassy in Athens, reaching their peak in February 1984, with a rally attended by more than 40,000 people. Such demonstrations and various other activities were also held in other cities of Greece” (p.316).

The silent inspirer of all these anti-Albanian activities was the chauvinist Greek state, while the open initiators of their development were the Greek bishops, the Central Committee for the Liberation of “Northern Epirus” (KEVA), the “Northern Epirus” Association, religious associations, the Christian Student Movement and the political youth movements. The most active was the Coordinating Association of University Students for the Liberation of “Northern Epirus” (SEVA)” (ibid.).

Hatred of the Albanian Nation – the Foundation of the Politics of the Day and the Strategy of Greek-Great Chauvinism

The author has subtitled this volume “The Difficult Peace”. I am convinced that with the chauvinist Greek state we will never be at peace, even if it is difficult. In my opinion, peace with the Greeks is impossible. Therefore, a respected nationalist friend of mine is completely right, who told me some time ago that we can only have a ceasefire with the Greeks, but not peace, that the great Greek chauvinism has not wanted and will never want peace with the Albanian nation.

As we emphasized above, in this volume the author analyzes Greek-Albanian relations from 1949 to 1990. I am convinced that he will continue to closely follow Greek-Albanian relations even after 1990 and, certainly, through source materials, will acquaint us with other shocking facts from the sphere of the hostile activity of the Greek chauvinist state against Albania and the Albanian nation during the transition period that we are experiencing so endlessly, not only for the grave sins of our political class, but also for the successful defeats that the neighborhood with Greece is causing us.

The period after 1990 and up to now has been characterized by very dramatic developments in Greek-Albanian relations. Greek chauvinism found the most opportune time to unleash all its hatred against Albanians. Convinced that the most decisive moment had now come for the Hellenization of our southern regions or even of all of Albania without war, in December 1990, the Greek chauvinist state “opened wide” the borders with Albania to the influx of thousands of young Albanians, taking advantage of their extreme poverty and setting as the main condition for their employment the change of their names.

Over the years, Albanian immigrants fell prey to racism the furious Greek anger, which was materialized with bestial mistreatment, with mass deportations in the framework of dirty operations labeled “Broom”, with violations of their rights, with numerous murders, with so-called car accidents, with public exposure and humiliation by means of written and visual propaganda for false accusations (for crimes committed by other immigrants, from Orthodox countries), with the incitement of Greek national hysteria and hatred against them in particular and against the Albanian nation as a whole.

And all these painful events unfolded in the framework of the disgusting friendship of the Greek chauvinist state with the Albanian political class, which did not raise its voice even once in defense of its compatriots from Greek barbarity.

On the contrary, our political class, which bears the stigma of betrayal of national interests, remained silent in the most shameful way, when the highest personalities of the chauvinist Greek state openly spoke out against the interests of the Albanian nation. Let us recall for a moment the anti-Albanian statement of July 14, 1993 by Prime Minister Mitsotakis, the anti-Albanian statement of March 22, 1999 by Prime Minister Simitis, who, two days before the start of NATO bombing against Serbia, stated: “We have declared from the beginning that we will not participate in any military operation”, while the Serbian military machine was wreaking havoc against the civilian population in Kosovo.

And on May 4, 1999, he also spoke in the Greek parliament, where he said: “I doubt the correctness of NATO bombing, which has not yielded any results”. Let us also remember the statement of Karamanlis, leader of the New Democracy (now Prime Minister), who, on May 4, 1999, said: “My party strongly supports the idea of ​​the inviolability of borders, is completely against the creation of an independent Kosovo state and we strongly demand a halt to the bombing by NATO that is victimizing innocent lives”. Karamanlis did not care at all about the Kosovar victims of Serbian terror.

Even during the NATO bombing of Serbia, strong demonstrations were organized in Greece against the USA. In those demonstrations, full support was expressed for the Serbian criminals who were carrying out the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. There were many demonstrators who blocked the Thessaloniki-Skopje railway tracks, to prevent the movement of trains loaded with conventional NATO weapons to Macedonia, from where they would be transported to Kosovo, during the entry of infantry troops.

We all remember with what furious anti-American demonstrations President Clinton’s visit to Athens was greeted. At that time we did not hear a single news item, which would have informed us, even about a single Greek, who could have had the courage and stood up in defense of the Albanian people of Kosovo.

On no TV channel did we catch sight of even a small group of Greek demonstrators, who dared to protest against Serbian chauvinism and raise their voices in support of the Albanian people of Kosovo. At that time it would have been truly paradoxical if such a thing had even crossed our minds. Nowhere was there any “Greek political, civic and democratic elite” that would rise up in open support of the Albanian people of Kosovo.

In fact, in their hatred against Albanians, the Greeks have descended to such levels of ugliness that it is impossible to even imagine. Thus, in the fury that had seized them against Anastas Kulluriot, they reached the point where “in the restaurants they would not give him anything to eat with his own money… saying: we will not sell you a dish, you dirty Albanian (paloarvanite.” (Faik Konica, vol. 3, p. 65-66). Therefore, Konica is completely right when he says that “…hatred for the Greeks is so deeply rooted in the hearts of all true Albanians… (vol. 4, p. 277). And below he continues: “…everything that Italy has done to Albania has been of a political nature. Whereas what Greece has done to Albania, more than politics, has been aggression against homes and family honor” (ibid.).

So, when it comes to manifesting Greek national hatred against the Albanian nation, in Greece a truly iron unity is established between all political forces, all structures of the Greek chauvinist state, starting from kindergarten children to the head of state, of all Greeks, from Athens to the diaspora throughout the world.

The Greeks should be envied for this unity that they have managed to achieve, but as a unity in itself, not as a unity of good, but as a unity of evil, as a unity of hatred for another nation, which has nothing in common with the moral code of our nation. There was no great Albanian chauvinism, so that the Greeks and Serbs would have reason to hate us. But they have managed to build a unique unity of hatred for the Albanian nation, which constitutes a rare case in history.

of relations between nations. If we had hated the Serbian and Greek chauvinism with this force of unity, surely our ethnic lands would today be united in a unified national state. Albanians have not been able to properly assimilate the Science of Hatred for the chauvinism of their neighbors, which is why even today European chauvinism continues to keep them scattered “straw and hair” across five different countries of Southeast Europe.

And so it will continue to keep them, if Albanians do not wake up from their long lethargic sleep and diligently enter into the study of the Science of Hatred for Serbian-Greek chauvinism. A few months after the German aggression against the Soviet Union, Sholokhov wrote a very beautiful story entitled “The Science of Hate” (Nauka Njenavisti)), which served as a tract in all the trenches of the Red Army, along its entire front line, from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.

The idea of ​​the story inspired the Red soldiers to perform unprecedented acts of heroism during the Great Patriotic War. Sholokhov, with that story, gave this inspiration to the Red soldiers: in order to win over the German enemy, one must know how to hate him, but in order to know how to hate the enemy, one must learn the “Science of Hate”.

And our political class does not come alive when the Albanian citizen Vasil Begolli, from Korça, is raped and humiliated by Greek soldiers, releasing dogs to slaughter him, for the sole reason that he, in search of his 13-year-old son, accidentally entered 50 m deep into Greek soil (“Shekulli”, March 26, 2004, p.3). Why did the Greek soldiers behave in this way with a simple Albanian citizen, who crossed the border without any malicious intent?

Normally, the Greek soldiers could arrest him and take him to the border post. Then they could hand him over to the relevant authorities, which, in accordance with Greek legislation for border violators, could fine him or imprison him, also informing the Albanian border authorities. But no. The Greek soldiers could not act in this way, because they were not left alone by the instinct of hatred for the Albanians, because they had studied the Science of Hatred for the latter, which was cultivated in their souls by the great Greek chauvinism and the Greek chauvinist church, very well.

Our political class is speechless when Nicholas Gage, a sworn enemy of the Albanian nation, with a silent message from the Greek chauvinist state, comes from America and calls in broad daylight in Saranda for the alienation of state lands by the Greek minorities (“Albania”, April 4, 2004) and when the Saranda court, with decision no. 568, dated July 19, 2004, signed by judge Rasim Doda, implements those messages in practice. (“Albania”, September 15, 2004, p. 6-8).

Our political class is silent when it learns that during the first 9 months of 2004 alone, the bodies of 20 Albanian emigrants were returned from Kapshtica (“Sot”, September 22, 2004). It is not even interested in knowing how many emigrants’ bodies have been returned from Greece since the end of December 1990 and until now and how many emigrants have disappeared without a trace from the Greek chauvinist state. Our political class was silent when four years ago it became known that 300 emigrants in the Elbasan prefecture alone were listed as missing in Greece and that most of them ended up “with a bullet in the head and lost in the abyss” (“Balkan”, October 14, 2004, p. 2).

Our political class remained silent when several press and media outlets announced on April 22, 2004 that the European Parliament (of course, under pressure from Greece) rejected the amendment to re-instate Corridor 8 in the list of priority trans-European construction projects (“Sot”, April 22, 2004). Surprisingly, on that day of April 22, when this disastrous decision for our country’s economy was announced, silence had plagued only “Zërin i Popullit” and “Rilindje Demokratike”.

In fact, “RD” on that very day chose as its lead article an announcement about Nano’s expulsion from a New York restaurant, where he was on a business visit, because he had been found smoking. “RD” was jubilant, as if Nano were the prime minister of only the socialists, not of the Albanians of all Albania, as if his expulsion from that restaurant did not constitute a shame for all Albanians.

Our political class remained silent when it learned on August 13, 2004 about the severe pollution of the waters of the Ionian Sea with numerous oil, diesel and sewage spills, starting from the Bay of Vlora to Ksamil, this pollution caused by a Greek ship. Citizens, interviewed by TV “Klan” (August 14, 2004) declared that the pollution of our coast was being done by Greece to sabotage tourism in Albania.

The Albanian state, which our political class has turned into its own property, does not want to protect its maritime borders. To somewhat dispel the heavy smell of the scandal of pollution of the Ionian coast by a Greek ship, on August 18, 2004, the incident with the Italian helicopter was fabricated.

The attention of the Albanian public opinion had to be drawn to something else, so that it would not continue to accumulate hatred against the Greek “friendly” state. But this “fig leaf” was not enough. Another leaf, more substantial, was needed to throw over the stinking Greek pollution in the waters of the Ionian.

The visit to Tirana of the Greek Minister of Tourism, Dimitris Avramopoulos, was quickly concocted, who, in the interview he gave to the TV channel “Top Channel” on August 22, 2004, with a slanderous hypocrisy, typical of Greece, promised a development of regional tourism, saying that Albania has a virgin nature. Even more scandalous, even more hypocritical were the words of Avramopoulos when he declared that Greece, by the way, is interested in the economic and cultural development of Albania.

The Greek vipers demanded that we develop the economy and culture. What to do, when the interviewer did not bluntly ask the hypocritical Greek minister: You, sir, who are so interested in the development of regional tourism, why did you pollute the clean waters of our coast with the filth of your nature degenerated by time?

Or at least he should have accompanied the interview of the hypocrite Greek with a strong comment, in defense of our national dignity. Therefore, the interview of the miserable journalist left us with a miserable impression that there was no national axis.

Our political class is silent in the face of the daily impoverishment of our country, which it itself has transformed into a colony of Greece, into an appendage of the Greek economy, into a market for the emptying of special Greek products of poor quality. Our political class is silent about the very high prices (compared to neighboring countries) of mobile telephony, owned by extortionate Greek companies, which, every year, send 350 million euros from Albania to Greece.

Only 200 million euros of our emigrants to Greece enter Albania every year, while 600 million euros also leave it and go to Greece every year (“Shekulli”, April 8, 2004). Of course, it cannot be otherwise, since the Greek companies AMC and VODAFONE constitute the financial wing of Greek chauvinism in Albania, alongside its political wing – the Greek chauvinist church, with Yanullatos at the head.

Our political class remained silent before the hysteria and rampant fury of Greek chauvinism, which unfolded after the defeat of the Greek national football team in Tirana (September 4, 2004), when our emigrants, in the streets of Greek cities, became victims of police violence, simply because they were celebrating with flags in their hands for the victory of our team.

The meeting of the two Albanian and Greek national teams was simply a football match and on such occasions, as in all stadiums around the world, the lovers of this beautiful game have organized and organize manifestations of enthusiasm for the victory of their national teams. So, the enthusiasm of our youth at night, as the dawn broke on September 5, 2004, was a very common occurrence and there was no reason for the chauvinist Greek state to rush with such animalistic hysteria against our young immigrants, who, in a completely peaceful manner, were demonstrating in the streets of Greek cities.

But the bigoted Greek chauvinism considered the occasion to be very suitable to vent all its hatred against the Albanian nation. The bigoted Greek chauvinism did not have to explode so violently against the Albanian immigrants after the defeat of the Greek national team at the “Qemal Stafa” stadium.

It did not have to be so surprised by our victory. At “Qemal Stafa” the Greek national team has proven its strength once again. In addition, in this stadium we have defeated teams that are far more powerful than the Greek team, such as the representatives of West Germany, Belgium, etc. On March 29, 2003, we defeated the Russian team at the “Vojo Kushi” stadium.

This means that European-level football is played in Albania. But this also means that the Greek team, as often happens in football, did not deserve the title of European champion. Therefore, the beating it received from our team was fully deserved.

What if we had killed some Greeks here, in Tirana, in revenge for the murders of our immigrants in Greece? Surely, Greek chauvinism would not only have killed many other immigrants in the streets of Greek cities, but, as a sign of threat, would have started, I believe, to gnash our teeth, starting the movement of its troops towards our border, because the law of war is still in force.

So, our political class remained silent after the murder of the immigrant Gramoz Palushi and the massacre of 300 others, settling for a dry resolution in parliament to wash its face before the Albanian public opinion. However, for all Albanian nationalists, throughout our ethnic lands and in the diaspora, the most excellent analysis of the events that unfolded both in Albanian cities and in Greek cities at night by September 5, 2004 dawned, Mr. Abdi Baleta wrote in several issues of the newspaper “Rimëkembja”.

His long article entitled “The joy and immense pain of the bloody victory” reveals the roots of the true causes of the rekindling of anti-Albanian hysteria that September night by Greek bigoted chauvinism; it highlights with facts the servility of Albanian diplomacy, which, in its attitude towards Greek diplomacy, has reduced itself to deplorable levels; it teaches a good lesson to all Greek sycophants for the anti-nationalist assessments they made of the enthusiasm of our youth in the pages of the Tirana press; it exposes all the other scoundrels who, still not freed from the shackles of communist terminology, sought to sell the cruelty of Greek bigoted chauvinism against Albanian immigrants as “the work of certain segments of Greek society”; argues quite nicely that the joy that erupted throughout Albanian cities and among our emigrants in Greece was a fantastic and highly cultural manifestation of Albanian nationalism, violently denigrated by the old communist system and treacherously abandoned by the current neo-communist system.

A democratic prison named “Greece”

That brilliant manifestation of Albanian nationalism, which did not offend anything Greek national, was at the same time an open reaction to Greek racism and Greek chauvinism, which is nakedly displayed in the attitude towards everything Albanian in particular and towards the Albanian nation as a whole, through the unworthy treatment given to our emigrants in Greece.

The most revealing evidence of this treatment is provided by a young Albanian immigrant in Greece, through an e-mail he sent to Albania a few years ago: “We have heard, read and felt about racism and racists, persecution, contempt and other inhumane behavior. Racism is a reality that we encounter at work, on the streets, in society, in the media, etc.… Albanian character and pride make them nervous.

On May 16, 2004, a day after the European Festival, where Albania was presented with Anjeza, his friends were invited to the house of the Greek citizen, where I work. I noticed that when I started talking about Anjeza, her song and her dress, I, the “good Albanian”, became ungrateful and unreasonable and other things like that. And why this change? Simply because with my words I was defending the name, character and pride of Albania.

The conversation got to the point where one of the guests asked me if I had my residency documents in order in Greece. In the discussion, he started to get nervous from my words. But this time I didn’t back down. My voice was stronger, I felt I could hold my head up high. This time I had Anjeza, the Albanian fairy, by my side, her voice deserved more. I shouldn’t have backed down, despite everyone looking at me angrily. And I told them again that her voice was wonderful, that she was covered in a veil of beauty.

Since that night she had “dressed” Albania,.. Cinderella Anjeza’s final night dress was perfect. It was Albania itself. I also told my employer’s Greek guest this. But he got furious, he lost his cool… Anyway, I’m starting this letter in “Shekulli” because I wanted to say thank you to Anjeza.

You are the pride of the nation, the ambassador of all Albanians. Thank you with all my heart. You are the first lady of the country.” And the letter of the brave and nationalist Albanian boy closes with these meaningful words, which put the stamp of shame on Greek racism, bigoted Greek chauvinism and the Greek chauvinist church, a racism that has invaded Greece in every cell of its life and that today represents the stain of shame on the forehead of arrogant Europe: “Your reader – from a democratic prison named Greece” (“Shekulli”, May 22, 2004, p.14).

As soon as I finished reading these words of this brilliant Albanian boy, a four-line poem, both beautiful and painful, immediately came to mind by my old friend, the soldier, poet and talented painter, Mr. Novruz Dervishi, whom the waves of life, which swept him away after 1990, from the division commands, swept him away as an immigrant to Greece. In a moment of reflection, in an imagined confrontation with the Greeks, he wrote down this poem, with four shocking verses about the fate of such a talented soldier, but now abandoned, abandoned by his country. The poem is titled: “In Greece”: Friend, I know, you can’t do it to me, / Because I’m not on your side, / You see me shedding tears, / But you don’t understand why I suffer”.

So, that manifestation was also a great lesson for the class of Albanian politicians, who have given themselves entirely to personal interests, have become “more harmful than locusts” (“Balkan”, October 14, 2003, p.3) and swim in the swamp of national betrayal, it was a reminder to this hated class of the fact that the Albanian nation, as Mr. Baleta says, can only be saved by nationalism. So, Mr. Baleta’s article reminds the Albanian political class that, despite the traitorous stance it holds towards the issue s Albanian nationalism, nationalism is present in every cell of Albanian youth, because it is the future and salvation of the Albanian nation.

The enemy is known to be an enemy in bad times and in danger

This subtitle, in fact, is a deformation of the proverb The friend is known to be a friend in bad times and in danger. But since in the history of Greek-Albanian relations there is not a single case that could serve as a striking context for the use of this meaningful proverb, I had no choice but to invent another one, based on the existing one, which expresses in a concentrated manner the aggressive nature of Greek chauvinism in its attitude towards the Albanian nation in the most difficult moments of its life.

Here there is no need to dwell at all on the crimes of the Greek chauvinist state and the Greek chauvinist church against the Albanian National Movement, when it poisoned its pioneers, such as Naum Veqilharxhi, Anastas Kullurioti, Papa Kristo Negovani, Koto Hoxhi, Petro Nini Luarasi and killed many others. Here, with facts, I will mention only some of the most difficult moments that the Albanian nation has experienced in its history, after the declaration of independence, when Greece, as a neighboring state, despite never having loved us, at least had to be fair to us.

It might not have helped Albania to overcome the difficult, even dangerous, situations imposed on it by the European chauvinism of the Great Powers, which, in the interest of Slavic-Greek Orthodoxy, has tried to completely erase Albania from the map of Europe. London Albania should be grateful only to its own weapons and the USA for its survival. [Prof. Meta gives us in his two volumes a multitude of facts that show that the USA intervened directly to save this piece of Albania that remained after the dismemberment that the European wolves shamelessly committed in London in 1913].

So, Greece should at least maintain a neutral stance towards our country and let us face our own misfortunes. On the contrary, Greece, precisely when our country was struggling to survive at the height of the misfortunes that had plagued it, has rushed to devour it treacherously, just like a viper that lurks in a well, waiting for its prey. Let us look at the facts in order.

First, a few days after the declaration of independence, the chauvinist Greek state, just like a bandit, sent its gunboats to the waters of the Gulf of Vlora and began the bombardment of the city, cutting, at the same time, the telegraph cable with Italy (see: Eqrem bej Vlora. Kujtime, 2, p.18, 21-22).

Secondly, in 1913, when the Albanian people, still not well organized in a centralized state, due to the bargains that the Great Powers were making in London for the division of our ethnic lands, the Greek chauvinist state treacherously took advantage of the opportunity to commit barbarities in southern Albania.

Here is what Faik Konica wrote about those tragic moments in a letter he sent to the nationalists Dervish Duma and Andon Logoreci, on December 6, 1940: “I will not bore you by referring to past history, to tell you what Greece has done to Southern Albania.., which will refresh your memory about the Greek barbarities of 1913: numerous murders, systematic burnings, countless rapes, even of girls under 15 years old” (vol. 4, p. 276-277).

Thirdly, with the beginning of World War I, the Greek chauvinist state treacherously organized in the South of Albania the so-called “popular movement” and formed the “Northern Epirote Autonomous Government”, with the aim of, in contradiction to the decisions of the Conference of Ambassadors of 11-12 August 1913 on the definition of the southern and southeastern borders of Albania (although one of the “fattest parts” of the Albanian lands – Chameria – had been annexed to Greece), to realize the annexation of “Northern Epirus”. “

This form of government was erected by the Greek government, put into action by it, paid for by it, supported politically and militarily by it” (Sejfi Vllamasi. Political confrontations in Albania. 1897-1942, p.73). And “meanwhile the “northern-Epirotic bands” (8070 Greek soldiers and Cretan volunteers, together with their officers released from the regular army) committed such shameful massacres, which can be compared perhaps only with the atrocities of the Huns, as the chronicles of the Middle Ages show” (Eqrem bej Vlora, ibid., p.39). Even the Greek army, at the height of World War I, reoccupied Southern Albania “and in March 1916 Greece announced, by royal decree, its annexation…” (The Greek-Albanian Tension…, p.20).

Fourth, after World War I, at the Paris Peace Conference, when the Great Powers were again discussing the final partition of Albania between Slavic and Greek Orthodoxy, which was not realized thanks to the intervention of American President Wilson, the chauvinist Greek Prime Minister Venizelos “tried with all his might to gain the blessing for the realization of territorial ambitions at the expense of Albania.”

In order to realize its annexationist goals towards Southern Albania, precisely at the moment of the struggle for the survival of the Albanian nation, the Greek chauvinist state has also put into operation the mechanism of slander, which in Greece is a “science” with very marked achievements.

Falsification of the truth, deception and slander have been and remain characteristic features of the moral code of Greek diplomacy. Jean Jacques Rousseau says: “To lie to oneself for personal gain means to make a slander, to lie for another person means to deceive, while to lie with the intention of harming someone means to engage in slander”. And the great Greek chauvinism has slandered precisely to harm the Albanian nation.

Thus, Faik Konica, in a letter he sent to Fan Noli on August 26, 1940, announced it as follows: “… I am communicating to you important news, from a reliable Greek diplomatic source: Greece has prepared a memorandum for the Peace Conference, where it will prove that Albania has become a pan-Islamic hearth and a branch of Mustafa Kemal” (vol. 4, p. 218).

So, Greek diplomacy, in order to “save” Europe from the “creation” of a “pan-Islamic” Albanian hearth, sought to bring Albania into the “bosom” of Greek Orthodoxy. Too bad President Wilson did not listen to him. Greece was “trying” for the “good” of European Christianity.

In a message from our embassy in Moscow to Behar Shtylla, dated October 8, 1956, it was stated: “The MFA of the Soviet B. fed the hopes of the Albanian leadership that the possibilities for establishing relations with Greece were real. She informed the Albanian ambassador in Moscow that from the talks with the Greek deputies and the special envoy of the Greek government, she had come to the conclusion that Greece now wanted to improve relations with Albania, but that she was finding opposition from the Americans” (Albania and Greece…, p.125).

This was a typical Greek slander, both vile and cynical, which aimed precisely to further antagonize Albania with the USA. But what was the truth? The USA has consistently been in favor of normalizing relations between Greece and Albania, not only as soon as the civil war there ended, but also thereafter, until they were actually established on May 6, 1971.

Let us turn to the facts that refute the low Greek slander: “The American ambassador (in Belgrade in 1949 – E.Y.) Cannon stated: “We will expect such developments to make possible good relations between Albania and Greece… and we orient Albania towards the West” (Greek-Albanian Tension…, p.625). Here is another fact from 1963, which refutes the Greek slander: “In order for Albania to open up towards the West, the Americans welcomed its dialogue with Western countries.

The USA wanted new trade relations and, gradually, to expand diplomatic recognition of Albania, taking into account that this recognition would also be made by Greece” (Albania and Greece…, p.197). Here is a third fact from 1966: “The American government considered the issue of establishing relations with Albania as a decision that the Greek government itself had to make, based on its own interests, and that the Greek government was able to judge the prospects and consequences better than Washington.

The US government, neither in the past nor in the future, had opposed and would not oppose the efforts of the Greek government to lift the state of war and establish diplomatic relations” (ibid., p.200).

Here is another slander from 1966 against Albania from the arsenal of Greek slander, which aimed to antagonize Europe with Albania, a dirty slander this one, which was also supported by Moscow, the “friend” of the Albanian people until yesterday:

“While Tirana was repeating offers for the normalization of relations, the Greek press stirred up local opinion on the danger that threatened Greece and Europe from the installation of Chinese missiles on Albanian territory… It (Albania – E.Y.) was compared to the danger that Cuba posed to the USA.

The newspaper “Eleftheros Kosmos” emphasized that… there was a possibility that communist China would threaten Europe through Albania in the future… At this very time, the Soviet News Agency also announced that Albania was building a nuclear missile base with Chinese assistance, the range of which covered the entire European area” (ibid., p.204-205).

As always, this time too, American diplomacy came to Albania’s defense: “… The State Department questioned the value of this information because: there was no evidence that the Chinese had the capability to build such a base; they had no apparent reason to build such a base in Europe; and because neither the Albanians nor the Chinese could gain anything by building such a base. On the contrary, in the event of a crisis, the existence of “…the establishment of such a base would turn Albania into a primary target for attack” (ibid., p.205).

After the collapse of communism, in the 1990s, another sucker of Greek chauvinism, a sworn enemy of the Albanian and Turkish nations, an ultra-chauvinist Greek general named Nikolaos Grilakis, former advisor to Prime Minister Mitsitakis, in a memoir published in 2001 entitled: “…I reveal the dramatic events of the last decade of the 20th century in Greece and the Balkans, as I lived them”, continues to swim in the muddy waters of the slanders of Greek chauvinist diplomacy and the Greek chauvinist state. Greece cannot remain without slanders against the Albanian nation. In the art of slander, it finds solace for the failure to achieve the “great” objectives of Greek chauvinism – the return of lands of the Byzantine Empire, of which it maintains itself to this day.

This General Grilakis writes: “Personally, I had made it clear from the beginning that I was against the idea of ​​providing aid to right-wing parties in Muslim countries, such as Albania, with the idea that Albanian right-wing parties would end up in the greenhouses of cultivating Turkish expansion in the Balkans.

I also predicted that the imams of Turkey would very soon sow in the atheist minds of Albanians the hashish of Islam with the cancerous ideas of Turkish expansion in the Balkans” (“Shekulli”, May 8, 2004, p.3). Poor Grilakis.

Although he was in the service of Mitsotakis’ right-wing cabinet, he was tortured by the burning love for the Albanian left, to which, indirectly, the poor general reveals some delicate parts of his face and exposes him as a traitor to the Albanian national cause: the Albanian left did not like the Muslim “turban”, it is burning for the camellia of Greek Orthodoxy.

In his memoirs, General Grilakis claims that when he invited Archbishop Seraphim to talk about the Hellenization of “Northern Epirus” after the fall of communism, he did not inform Prime Minister Mitsotakis. These The disappointed general should sell the tale to those Greeks who suffer from brain fat, not to Albanians. Mitsotakis’ chauvinistic statement of July 14, 1993 best proves how “uninformed” he was about the hostile activity against Albania of the backroom staff of his prime ministerial cabinet.

Fifth, after the occupation of Albania by fascist Italy and the beginning of the Italo-Greek war on October 28, 1940, Greek chauvinism again returned to the realization of the old dream of annexing Southern Albania, treacherously taking advantage of the fact that our country had already lost its sovereignty and, as a legal subject, appeared only under the crown of Victor Emmanuel III.

“Taking advantage of the rugged terrain and the weak organization of the Italian attack, the Greek forces quickly broke it and in mid-November they went on the counterattack. On November 22, the Greeks occupied Korça, on December 6, Saranda, and on December 8, Gjirokastra” (The Greek-Albanian Tension…, p.50).

Sixth, after the breakdown of Yugoslavia’s relations with Albania in 1948 and the gradual end of the civil war in Greece, our country found itself surrounded by two enemy states. It was precisely this dangerous situation that Albania was experiencing that Greek chauvinism tried to treacherously exploit.

It was further fueled by its chauvinistic desires for the occupation of Southern Albania. “At the beginning of April 1949, the Greek government sent another memorandum to London and Washington, which suggested and argued the need for the occupation of Albania” (ibid., p.621).

A few months later, the Greek government made another insistent request for the occupation of Albania. “In August 1949, the decisive battles of the UKG against the guerrillas took place. The Greek government eased the pressure on the Western Allies to allow its army to occupy Albanian territory” (ibid., p.622).

Seventh, Greece treacherously exploited the dangerous situation that was created for our country after the breakdown of relations between the Soviet Union and Albania. “The Albanian leadership, now in completely different relations with Moscow, felt that it was threatening it by supporting Greek intentions towards Southern Albania” (Albania and Greece…, p.166).

The chauvinistic intentions of Greek chauvinism had been supported by Khrushchev himself in his meeting with Sophocles Venizelos on June 5, 1960. Meanwhile, “in addition to the open statements of the Greek government on “Northern Epirus”, the government of Athens had asked the Austrian government what its reaction would be if Greece militarily attacked Albania to annex Southern Albania” (ibid., p.169-170).

Eighth, with the emergence of the aggravation of Albania’s relations with China, Greek chauvinism again launched into aggressive actions against our country. “The Greek government… gave another signal that its plans towards Albania”.

The records of the Southern Albanians were not archived. In 1976, a new law on immigration was approved in the Greek parliament. It was an addition to the old Venizelos law, which prohibited the granting of Greek citizenship to immigrants originating from Southern Albania, with the aim that, in the event of a possible referendum, they would vote in favor of its annexation by Greece” (ibid., p.300).

Finally, in 1990, the crisis of the communist regime, which was at its peak, as well as the long period of difficult transition, “further stimulated the activation of the Greek lobby, because it saw new spaces to realize its old objectives.

The efforts of the Greek government and state to mobilize and encourage the diaspora as a tool for the implementation of its policy towards Albania continued. It has even created a great deal of experience and very effective mechanisms to implement such a policy” (ibid., p.326).

In addition to organizing all state structures against Albania, Greek chauvinism, in these conditions, in addition to the Greek-American chauvinist lobby, as always in its history, encouraged the Greek chauvinist church to take swift action for the Hellenization of Southern Albania. General Grilakis recalls: “…the Archbishop of Greece, Seraphim, invited me to exchange views on the issues of the Hellenization of Northern Epirus after the fall of communism. I accepted it with pleasure…” (“Shekulli”, May 9, 2004, p.3).

Precisely at the time of political stagnation and extreme poverty that had plagued our country, Greek chauvinism, as always with the treachery that has characterized it, drafted the “Lotus Plan”, the foundation of whose strategy was the liberation of “Northern Epirus” from “Albanian rule”. The reader is familiar with the details of this Plan in the speech of the Chairman of SHIK, Mr. Bashkim Gazidede, held at the People’s Assembly in the spring of 1997 and published in the newspaper “Albania” on March 4, 2004.

Tenthly, the collapse of the pyramid firms and the tragedy caused by the socialist neo-communists in Southern Albania, fully supported by the Greek chauvinist state, in collaboration with Albanian traitors, who are today in the opposition, Greek chauvinism tried to treacherously exploit for to introduce its occupying troops into southern Albania.

In the show “Shqip” by journalist Rudina Xhunga, broadcast on TV “Top channel” on March 18, 2004, Prof. Sherif Delvina stated: “In 1997, Greece, through Mrs. Allbright, asked the US to introduce its troops into southern Albania, but Mrs. Allbright said: “What will Turkey do? It will come after you.” And Greece did not enter Albania”.

Here, this has been the true face of the Greek chauvinist state, which has manifested with facts its fierce hostility towards Albania, whenever it has had to experience moments of decisive turning points and dangerous situations in its difficult history since the declaration of independence.

In the first volume, Prof. Meta introduces us to another interesting fact. During the period of the Kingdom of Ahmet Zog, when the country had a god, Greece had never dared to openly present annexationist intentions towards Albania. “The main reasons for keeping Greek territorial aspirations in the background were the stabilization of the Albanian state and the unfavorable international situation” (p.43).

But, when Greece “felt itself economically and politically strong, when favorable international conditions and circumstances were created for it and when it saw that the Albanian state was in difficulty and could not effectively control this territory, it strengthened its annexationist policy and activity, which has passed through increasing influence and political and economic intervention in the region…This historical experience can also serve as a lesson for the future” (ibid., p.23).

The expressions “brotherly” people and “friendly” people have become familiar to us in the slurred speeches of Enver Hoxha and other leaders of the communist period. Only Enver Hoxha and the clique around him, who had betrayed national interests and were in league with the Slavs, could use such expressions that had no historical basis.

On February 1, 1948, Enver Hoxha declared: “…whoever violates our territory, has violated the independence and sovereignty of three peoples – of Albania, Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, three states, bound by alliances until death” (The Greek-Albanian Tension…, p.565).

Did Enver Hoxha not know that the Treaty of Friendship and Mutual Cooperation between Albania and Yugoslavia (signed on July 9, 1946) was nothing more than a preparation for the complete swallowing of our country by the Yugoslav Federation, that the “alliance unto death” with the Slavs and their coexistence with the Albanians has been, is and will remain impossible, as history has proven and is proving more and more every day?

Enver Hoxha wrote about such “friendships” even when it came to the Greek people. He even wrote an entire book on this “topic” entitled “Two Friendly Peoples”. But “friendly” or “fraternal” relations do not exist and can never be formalized between peoples. “Friendly” or “fraternal” relations exist only between states, represented by the respective governments.

At their foundation, necessarily, are economic and political interests and in certain circumstances they can take precedence sometimes first, sometimes second. When there is no match, especially in economic interests, relations can be established, but they are formal. There is no reason for relations with another state to be called fraternal, friendly, especially for us, Albanians, who have seen the strife of such “friendships” and “brotherhoods”, which have left us in the mud at the most critical moments.

Relations between states can be close, regular, correct, benevolent, judged only from the perspective of protecting national interests. It should be emphasized that Enver Hoxha, as we saw above, left no stone unturned in establishing diplomatic relations with Greece. He even, as emerges from the pages of the second volume of Prof. Meta, lowered himself and Albanian diplomacy to such levels of servility, that the latter, with the 49 diplomatic initiatives it undertook alone from 1954 to May 6, 1971, without being guided at all by the protection of national interests, such as the Cham issue and the issue of the Albanian minority in Greece, managed to be dragged before the Greek chauvinism.

Today, after almost 60 years, Albanian diplomacy, in its records, has no documented tradition in the field of diplomatic initiatives in defense of the Cham issue and the Albanian minority in Greece. Therefore, the Greek president, Stephanopoulos, during the press conference of October 18, 2004, with a revolting coolness, called the Cham issue closed.

A listener from Durrës was very right, who, in the morning show of the TV channel “Teuta” on October 19, 2004, compared Stephanopoulos’ visit to the visit of Victor Emmanuel and compared our current politicians to the then collaborators.

The most meaningful example of “friendly and fraternal” relations between “peoples” was provided by the Slavic peoples. When the edifice of the Soviet communist empire was collapsing, the first to leave it were the Ukrainians and Belarusians, even though both are members of the same group of East Slavic peoples.

Even a group of Ukrainian journalists, when I was accompanying them as a translator in Kosovo in July 1999, told me: it is a misfortune for us that we have Russia on our border.

It wasn’t long after the fall of communism in Eastern Europe that the Czechs and Slovaks, “enchanted” by decades of “fraternal friendship,” split their “cabbages” with each other, set their own borders, and each formed their own independent state, despite the fact that both were members of the same group of West Slavic peoples.

The same thing happened with the Slavic peoples of the former Yugoslav micro-empire, who, despite having been indoctrinated for more than 70 years with the dogmas of “fraternal friendship,” no longer wanted to see each other in the same fold of “unity-fraternity,” despite the fact that they constituted the same group of South Slavic peoples.

In an article in “Zërin e Popullit” dated September 19, 1957, Enver Hoxha emphasized the “historical, traditional friendship” between Albanians and Greeks. He even said that “the Albanian people and the Greek people, despite the efforts of those elements who try to artificially deepen the division with absurd claims, have always been friends and have always fought together against the same enemies” (Albania and Greece…, p.132).

Here, Enver Hoxha uses general terms, which constitute stereotypes of communist propaganda. There is no known case when Greeks and Albanians have fought “together against the same enemies”. When the Albanians expressed their desire to fight together against the Italian and German invaders during World War II, the Greek political class did everything possible to prevent the coordination of joint actions, which is explained by facts in the pages of the first volume of Prof. Meta, because it had in mind the occupation of Southern Albania.

If Enver Hoxha was talking about the war of the Greeks, alongside the Albanian captains, against the “common” enemy – the Ottoman Empire, then he revealed the shallowness of his judgment. The Albanian captains who participated in the Greek revolution fought not for their own good, but for their own harm. The events that followed the declaration of Greek independence proved in practice that the most ferocious enemy of the Albanian nation.

The enemy was not the Ottoman Empire at all, but the great Greek chauvinism, which found its embodiment in all the structures of the Greek chauvinist state, whose exploits against the Albanian National Movement are well documented in the pages of the history of the Albanian people. Those Albanian captains, who fought for the Greeks, were indeed very brave, but they were also very unintelligent, they were very short-sighted. And their short-sightedness would cost us dearly.

In a statement by the Albanian government in 1973, in accordance with Enverian rhetoric, it was said that from the territory of Albania “no harm would come to the brother Greek people” (Albania and Greece…, p.254). Where had the Albanian government found this Greek people that it called “brothers”?

We have not heard even once that the Greek government called the Albanian people “brother people”. Why did the Albanian government maintain such a humble attitude? It is true that no harm would come from our territory to the “brother” Greek people, but the trouble is that from the territory of that “brother” Greek people, the Albanian people have come and are always coming serious troubles.

In an article by Mr. Kastriot Demi, published a few years ago with the title: “Greece, our southern neighbor”, it is stated: “The Albanian people are aware that what happened to their sons is not the work of the Greek people, for whom we have respect, but the work of those circles, which stain Greek civilization” (Gazeta “Çamëria”, March 2004, p.11).

Personally, I do not know that there are circles in Greece that act against Albanians without the knowledge of the Greek state and its structures. Even Greek terrorist organizations acted with the knowledge and protection of the Greek state when in the 1980s they began to kill Englishmen and Americans who were on duty in Greece.

Let us mention only the terrorist group “November 17”. “When Papandreou came to power, he dissolved the special police unit that was dealing with the investigation of the terrorist group “November 17”. The “November 17” group would remain throughout the early 1990s the most enigmatic and impossible-to-penetrate terrorist group in all of Europe and the Middle East” (Robert D. Kaplan. Greece: Mistress of the West, Wife of the East, p. 68).

I don’t know why you don’t understand, Mr. Demi, that an anti-Albanian hysteria prevails in Greece, inspired by the chauvinist Greek state, which does not exempt the entire Greek people from responsibility, just as the crimes committed by Nazism throughout Europe did not exempt the German people from responsibility. Meanwhile, we Albanians do not need to worry much about that Greek “civilization”, when the Greeks themselves do not even bother about it, before committing crimes against Albanians.

In Mr. Baleta’s article entitled “The Joy and Pain of the Bloody Victory” we read: “…during Xhunga’s show with ambassadors Karkabasis and Zeneli we heard the testimonies of an Albanian from Patos, beaten to death by Greek policemen in the streets of Athens, who insisted that it be clearly understood that the violence against Albanians was not committed by the good Greek people, nor by the evil Greek hooligans, but by the Greek police” (Rimëkembja, September 21, 2004, p.6).

No, sir from Patos, we do not misunderstand you. We already understand that you were beaten by the Greek state and beaten unjustly simply because you were happy for the victory of our football team. But, surprisingly, you do not understand that the Greek state allows you to rejoice only for Greek victories, not for Albanian victories.

You don’t understand that among that “good” Greek people, Albanians have no right to be happy about themselves, they have no right to be proud of themselves, their history, their traditions, their heroes, their artists, their talents, their beauty, their nobility, their customs, their moral code, because the chauvinist Greek state punishes them, despises them, humiliates them, makes them the object of vile slander. And the “good” Greek people are silent.

We have not seen or heard of any powerful demonstration by any group of Greek citizens in support of Albanian immigrants in Greece. The silence of Greek citizens in the face of crimes committed against Albanian immigrants is full support for the violence and police terror that the chauvinist Greek state exercises from time to time against them.

Recently, journalist Fatime Kulli asked Colonel Kastriot Lusha this question: “What is your position and what do we risk as a nation with the Bollano phenomenon?” And Colonel Lusha replied, “…As for the risk, I don’t want to believe it, because even the Greek political, civic and democratic elite does not base the fate of the relations between the two neighboring countries on adventures and adventurers of the Bollano type…” (Ndryshe Newspaper, December 20, 2008, p. 16).

Surprisingly, Colonel Lusha “had” information that the “Greek political, civic and democratic elite” is the protector of Albanians and that it does not share the same views as the chauvinist Greek state, the chauvinist church ..

to the Greeks and their sycophants in Albania, such as the work of the lackeys Dule and Bollano, in the claims for the Hellenization of Southern Albania. While all Albanians with nationalist formation, in the “Greek political, civic and democratic elite” have continuously seen the unreserved supporter of the Greek chauvinism and the Greek chauvinist church in their territorial claims against Albania since 1912.

But what are the facts that are offered to us in the two volumes of Prof. Meta about this “brotherly” Greek people, about this “friendly” Greek people, about this “good” Greek people, from whose bosom comes and is created what is called Greek public opinion. In advance, I apologize to the readers for any obligatory repetition for the purpose of illustration.

The Greek government’s note to Eden on December 14, 1942 stated that “if the British declaration did not explicitly recognize Greece’s rights in “Northern Epirus”, a bitter impression would be created among the Greek people and Greek resistance would be weakened” (Greek-Albanian Tension…p.96).

At the end of the note, it was even underlined that “the Greek government considered the problem of “Northern Epirus” to be so vital that it publicly declared that the Greek nation would not accept any solution to this problem that would ignore the legitimate rights of Greece” (ibid.). So, the Greek government itself admitted in an official note that the Greek people and the Greek nation were and remain a chauvinist people and nation.

In a meeting between Mehmet Konica in Rome in the summer of 1944 with the Greek representative, the latter said that “no Greek was disposed to set aside the indisputable rights of Greece in this territory” (ibid., p.127). Thus, the Greek diplomat admitted with his own mouth that all Greeks were chauvinists.

In 1946, at the Peace Conference in Paris, Caldarisi “insisted on the demand for the annexation of Southern Albania, since there is complete harmony among all Greeks on this issue” (ibid., p.272). In other words, even the Greek Prime Minister himself admitted that all Greeks were chauvinists.

The Greek Prime Minister also presented the territorial claims to the British delegation… According to him, Greek public opinion would not be able to remain indifferent if the Conference were to strengthen Albania’s positions through the Peace Treaty with Italy…” (p.273). According to the Greek Prime Minister, it turns out that Greek public opinion was chauvinistic.

Since the Paris Peace Conference refused to discuss Greek territorial claims to Southern Albania, the Greek Prime Minister, Caldaris, “declared on October 2 that the events in Paris had caused a clearly understandable anger in the Greek people because of the injustice done to them.

Themistocles Sophoulis, one of the leaders of the opposition, assessed the failure in Paris as a grave mourning, while the other opposition leader, former Prime Minister George Papandreou, solemnly declared that “the mourning of the nation had reached infinity…” (ibid., p.281). There is nothing we can do.

The leaders of both wings of Greek politics have declared themselves, with their own mouths, that the Greek people and nation were chauvinists, that they had been plagued by a grave mourning that had reached infinity, for the sole reason that their chauvinistic whims had not been fulfilled in Paris.

“In April of In 1946, the US Assistant Military Attaché in Athens, William McNeill, wrote to the State Department: “Despite the fact that such claims clearly harm rather than help the security of Greece, despite the fact that international realities are contrary to the fulfillment of these claims, and despite the dubious character of many of the arguments presented, many, and perhaps most, Greeks believe strongly and enthusiastically that their sacrifices during the war should and will be rewarded with substantial territorial gains at the expense of neighboring countries…

If the British and American governments do not take a warm stand and effectively support Greek territorial claims…, many, and perhaps all Greeks, will feel that they have been betrayed by the Western Allies” (ibid., p. 501). Meanwhile, the US chargé d’affaires in Athens, Karl Rankin, warned that “there will be an explosion of feelings against the Western Powers” ​​(ibid., p. 501-502). So, even American diplomats were testifying that many and perhaps most, or all Greeks were chauvinists.

The American ambassador in Athens, McVeagh, was instructed to “transmit to Prime Minister Caldaris a message stating that it was extremely difficult for the American government to support the Greek territorial claims in the Foreign Affairs Council, since many general reasons dictated that the borders of Greece should remain as they were before the war.

Not only the government, but also the Greek public opinion had to understand this position… The American ambassador asked Greek politicians to exerted all their influence so that these decisions (for the non-acceptance of Greek territorial claims to Albania – E.Y.) would be accepted in Greece with a minimum of discontent and anger against the United Nations.

On this occasion the American government expressed its dissatisfaction that, instead of preparing public opinion for the failure in these matters, the Greek press and radio, during the last weeks, were systematically inciting, in many ways, public opinion against Britain and the USA, because these claims had not been realized” (ibid., p.514-515). As is evident from these messages from the State Department to the American ambassador in Athens, the American government had created the conviction that there was a chauvinistic Greek public opinion in Greece.

“…on July 8-9 (1956 – E.Y.) the Panepirot International Congress was held in Athens, which came out with the call for the liberation of “Northern Epirus” by using force. The Congress had raised the slogan of the creation of the National Front for the liberation of “Northern Epirus”, with the participation of all Greeks and had decided to create a national executive body to implement its decisions” (Albania and Greece… p.124). According to the slogan of this Congress, all Greeks were chauvinists.

“At the end of November (1956 – E.Y.) B. Shtylla met Kasimat in New York and proposed the establishment of diplomatic relations, through a very simple communiqué. The Greek representative gave a reserved response and stated that the Greek government wanted the normalization of relations but first the public had to be psychologically prepared” (ibid., p.126). The Greek diplomat admitted that there was an anti-Albanian, chauvinistic opinion in Greece.

After the stabilization of the Junta, around the end of 1968, the Albanian leadership was noticing some new nuances of a hostile and provocative attitude towards Albania. Such were the hostile speeches and the support for the claims for the annexation of Southern Albania at the funeral ceremony of Bishop Kotokos, which was also attended by Greek government officials.

The statement of the Greek Deputy Prime Minister D. Patilis on the “determination of the Greeks not to give up on the annexation of “Northern Epirus” also left a negative impression in Tirana. (ibid., p.219-220). Even according to the words of this senior Greek politician, it turns out that the Greeks are chauvinists, all of them, without exception.

“On December 8, 1963, the Foreign Minister and Deputy Prime Minister Venizelos made public a proposal that “the Greeks of “Northern Epirus” should be granted self-government within the framework of the Albanian state.

On the other hand, on December 6, he had declared to the “Reuter” agency that Greece’s relations with Albania are in a negative state, due to the concern that the entire Greek nation has regarding the future of our brothers living in this country” (ibid., p.191). But did this Greek nation show any concern for our Cham brothers, former Greek citizens, who were so barbarically massacred by the chauvinist Greek state, or does it try to sell us its chauvinist intentions towards Albania as concerns for its minority compatriots in our country?

“Greek scholars, rightly, have concluded that Karamanlis’ policy towards Albania differed from the policy he followed towards his other northern neighbors. They have singled out three reasons for these differences” (ibid., p.281).

Here I will suffice with mentioning the first reason, which was the lack of “public support for a rapprochement with Albania to the level that Greece had approached at that time with other Balkan states” (ibid.). Consequently, even Greek scholars themselves have admitted that in Greece there was a lack of public support for the establishment of diplomatic relations with Greece due to strong chauvinist elements among them.

“In a message from our embassy in Athens to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, dated April 23, 1975, it was stated: “…the Greek government will continue to maintain this position in the future. It, like the Greeks in general, has “Vorio-Epirus” deeply embedded in its soul” (ibid., p.283). Finally, our embassy in Greece was also convinced that not only the Greek government, but also the Greeks in general were chauvinists. I do not know if the Albanian high leadership itself, here in Tirana, managed to create this conviction.

“Albanian diplomats in Athens also reported several other negative signs. Thus, a stand was set up in the Greek War Museum about the war in “Vorio-Epirus” and about the “Autonomous Government” of “Vorio-Epirus”. New lessons on “Northern Epirus” were introduced into the school textbooks, which had a chauvinistic content” (ibid., p.286). Now the question arises: did these school textbooks with a chauvinistic content serve to educate the children of the Greek people, or of the people of “Zulluland”, with chauvinism?

“The law of war with Albania was not repealed by the Greek parliament, which was the only constitutional institution who could do it. The decision of the Papandreou government was an act that lacked a constitutional basis. It was promulgated without the approval of President Christos Sarchetakis and was not approved in parliament, since there was apparently a majority there that opposed this decision.

Also, the Greek church, which had a great influence on Greek politics and opinion, was a strong opponent of the abolition of the state of war” (ibid., p.312). Therefore, I believe that I was right when in this material I often used the expression “Greek chauvinist church”, which, if it were not such, would be concerned with the affairs of God and the calming of people’s souls.

But it, by dealing with the education of chauvinist feelings in the souls of Greeks, has proven that it exercises a pure chauvinist policy against the Albanian people and, as a strong supporter of Greek chauvinism, forges Greek national hatred against the Albanian nation. For the knowledge of readers, Prof. Meta provides some interesting information. “Thus, according to law 1566, approved in 1985, the fusion of Hellenism and Christianity through Orthodoxy is aimed at.

For the first time in the history of Greek education, a law was passed for the development of religious conscience in accordance with the theology of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Despite the tendency to strengthen secularism, the presence of the Orthodox Church is real, making Greece a theocratic aurora” (ibid., p.315).

By educating Greek public opinion and the entire Greek nation in hatred and hostility towards another nation, such as the Albanian nation, the Greek Church has engaged in the devil’s work and has itself become a haven for the devil.

Regarding the events of the spring of 1981 in Pristina, “although official Athens remained silent when Serbian tanks crushed the Albanians, two powerful components of Greek politics and society, the Greek church and the press, strongly manifested their support for Serbian chauvinism” (ibid., p.314).

So, two powerful levers of sowing and instilling Greek national hatred for the Albanian nation, the Greek church and the press, operate at full capacity precisely when Greek public opinion needs to be told the truth. Then this Greek public opinion, this Greek people, this Greek nation cannot help but be educated with chauvinistic feelings and cannot help but be transformed into a Greek chauvinist opinion, into a Greek chauvinist people, into a Greek chauvinist nation in its attitude towards the Albanian nation, when its spiritual nourishment is poisoned by two powerful components of its worldview formation – religion and the press, while state policy, in this specific case, pretends not to know anything, pretends to be put aside.

I had to dwell at length on these facts, scattered across more than 1,000 pages of the two-volume work by Prof. Meta, to create the opportunity for the esteemed readers to reflect on the declaration of Enver Hoxha in 1957, of the Albanian government in 1973, on the words of Mr. Kastriot Demi, of that Albanian from Patos (who was so barbarically beaten in the streets of Athens by the police of the Greek chauvinist state) and of Colonel Kastriot Lusha.

From what was quoted above, it turns out that there really was a Greek public opinion, a Greek people, a Greek nation, a Greek church, a Greek press that served as a powerful base for Greek chauvinism in its aims for the annexation of Southern Albania and, in general, in its hatred against the Albanian nation.

As argued above, with facts, the leading Greek politicians and foreign diplomats themselves have admitted with their own mouths that the Greek public opinion, the Greek people, the Greek nation are chauvinistic in their attitude towards the Albanian nation.

Is this Greek public opinion, this Greek people, this Greek nation, this Greek press crazy? Is this Greek church crazy? I don’t know. We only have to remember the words of one of the most leading Greek politicians, such as Constantine Karamanlis, former prime minister and president of Greece, who described his country as a “great asylum for the insane” (Robert D.Kaplan. Cited work, p.40).

Naturally, the question arises: are there people in the ranks of this Greek public opinion, of this Greek people, of this Greek nation, who oppose the Greek bigoted chauvinism in its attitude towards the Albanian nation? Of course, there may be some here and there. But they, I believe, must be so few that, apparently, they have been lost like needles in a haystack of Greek bigoted chauvinism.

More than four years ago, in the premises of the “Dajti” hotel, I accidentally met a Greek professor of philosophy. In the course of the conversation, my tongue went to where “my tooth hurts”: to the attitude held in Greece towards Albanian immigrants. The professor told me: “I am ashamed of the Greek owners who treat Albanians badly”.

In the main news program of TV “Top Channel” dated September 8, 2004, during a “demonstration”, organized in the city of Thessaloniki (where about 2,000 people participated) in of Albanian immigrants, who were massacred by the chauvinist Greek state after the end of the football match on September 4, a Greek citizen declared in front of the camera: “The arrogant attitude of the Greek state and the police is not our attitude”.

The demonstration was organized four days after the bloodshed of the streets of Greek cities with the blood of innocent Albanian immigrants That day, the chauvinist Greek state had brought out into the streets of the city some crowds that it had “hired” (as Robert D. Kaplan rightly called the crowds that Andreas Papandreou brought out into the streets in support of his new marriage to the former stewardess Lia), to wash away at least a little the shame that covered it, when, in front of the world, it unleashed the police that committed against peaceful Albanian immigrants, who were celebrating their victory in the streets of Greek cities. Let the chauvinist Greek state sell such comedies, again, to those Greeks who suffer from brain fat, not to Albanians.

From what was said and argued above with irrefutable facts, the question may naturally arise: Will the Greek parliament be able to ratify the SAA with Albania? Journalist Fatos Çoçoli says: “…there are probably thousands of reasons why the majority of the members of the Greek parliament should and will vote for good neighborliness and to help a neighboring and friendly country, like Albania” (“Balkan”, December 20, 2008, p. 18).

I too would like to believe that Greece can help a neighboring country, like Albania. But the rich tradition of aggressive policy that the chauvinist Greek state has pursued towards Albania in particular and towards the Albanian nation as a whole, makes me skeptical of Mr. Çoçoli’s hopes. If Greece were truly friendly towards us, it, as a neighboring country, should have ratified the SAA with Albania first.

But surprisingly, even now, when all 26 parliaments of the European Union have ratified the SAA, Greece continues not to ratify it yet, because it seeks to wring as many concessions as possible from the political class of Tirana. And I am convinced that the political class of Tirana, this traitor of the Albanian nation, will make many shameful concessions to the Greek bigoted chauvinism and the Greek chauvinist church.

This delay on the part of Greece in signing the SAA proves best that official Athens has not recovered and has never thought of recovering from the fever of the Greek bigoted chauvinism for the devouring of Southern Albania. It would be good if the Greek parliament did not ratify the SAA and Albania’s admission to NATO, in order to take on the role of the bull of the bulls in the ranks of the European Union.

Thus, to the Albanians and all their well-wishers in Europe, it would seem like a goat among sheep. That Greece, in the European Union, truly represents a country that should be pointed at. Because this is the most paradoxical country in Europe, it is the only theocratic country on our continent, where religion makes the law, the priests make it, it is a country where terrorism rules state, therefore terrorist organizations, such as “November 17”, are never discovered.

Meanwhile, the lackeys of Greek bigotry, Bollano and Dule, are citizens of the Republic of Albania. The signing of the seven-point memorandum by Bollano and the defense that Dule gives him, is a pure attempt by them to prepare the ground for the devouring of Southern Albania by Greek bigotry.

Thus, they, both, have committed a high act of treason against the Republic of Albania. Apparently, they have received strong guarantees from the Greek chauvinist state and the Greek chauvinist church that their betrayal of the Republic of Albania will not be punished one fine day.

Reference

https://www.zemrashqiptare.net/news/13919/eshref-ymeri-shteti-shovinist-grek-ky-armik-i-kombit-shqiptar.html?skeyword=a