Vassiliki Sakka

"WWI through Greek Perspective: Echoes from the trauma of "National Division"

I. Historical Context and Memory: Greece and WW1

The Great War does not have the same significance for Greece as for other
European countries and was never actually perceived in any sense as a Greek War1;
it is included as an incident within the 10-years –of- war starting with the Balkan
Wars (1912) and ending with the defeat of the Greek army in the Greek –Turkish
War of 1919-1922, that is the so called “Asia Minor Catastrophe” bearing the
deepest trauma in collective memory and consciousness for Greek people up to
now. Due to this sad result, putting the tombstone to the “Great Idea” (“Megali
Idea”) irredentist ideology and politics, the fact that Greece was among the
victorious nations of the Great War was deteriorated. One more good reason for this
attitude was that Greece’s entering the war was the result of a civil conflict between
Eleftherios Venizelos and King Constantine the A’, which had divided the country into
two states: the National Division.

This fact explains why the memory of the Great War seems to be absent in
Greek collective memory, and the silence upon it seems bizarre2: This National
Division, reflecting the clash between the two rivals of the Great War as the
ideological and political conflict was transferred to Greece, created a deep gap in the
country: Venizelos supporting Entende forces and the Crown supporting Central
Powers, though never openly: “New Lands” versus “Old Greece”3.

The Balkan States will join the two rival alliences, renewing the already
shaped hostilities: Serbia, Romania, Greece with Endende, Bulgaria and Turkey with
Central Powers. The Balkan balance, always fragile and still questioned, left space for
more irredentist claims and aspirations. In this context Greece had two options: keep
neutrality, supported by the Palace, as it was out of question for Greece to join an
alliance with Turkey, or join the Endente alliance, as the profits/benefits for the
country were closely connected to those of Britain and secondly of France. For clear
geo-political reasons Greece should be with them, according to Prime Minister
Eleftherios Venizelos. King Constantine’s German culture and environment (married
to Sofia, Keiser’s sister) as well as his political attitude, dictated that the country
should be neutral in this war as it was for her benefit to maintain the status quo of
Habsburg and Ottoman Empires as a barrier to Panslavism. The conflict was

1
Christina Coulouri, “European War and National Division” (Europaikos polemos kai ethnikos
dihasmos), in To Vima newspaper, 12/01/2014.
2
Emilia Salvanou, “Memory as a firework or why we do not remember the 1st World War”, in
Chronos review, n. 9, January 2014 (http://www.chronosmag.eu/index.php/sl-p-g-e-ths-pgs-pl.html ).
3
Christina Coulouri, ibid.

1
unavoidable. Political turmoil caused by successive resignations of prime minister
Venizelos, separate and contradictive diplomatic initiatives by both sides, the
invasion of Bulgarian army in Northern Greece, as well as the landing of Entende
troupes in Thessaloniki and later in Piraeus, Epirus and Thessaly triggered fierce
conflicts among the supporters of the two leaders, resulted to the declaration of two
governments running practically Northern (The “National Defense” movement and
later the triumvirate by Venizelos-Daglis-Koundouriotis in Thessaloniki) and Southern
Greece (the King and his supporters in Athens), provoked a wave of mutual
terrorism, expulsion and extinction of the rivals in the Greek army and political stage,
exerted mostly by king supporters (including the “anathema” against Venizelos by
the Archbishop of Athens, supporting the King). The “battle of Athens” though,
between Entende and pro King Greek forces, forced Constantine to resign and leave
the country. Greece under Venizelos’ leadership declares war to the Central Forces
on June 15th 1917. The country suffers a national humiliation though, and the
majority of Greek society was rather hostile to this participation to a war that
seemed huge, incomprehensible and irrelevant to their interests. The homogeneity of
the former victorious- in – the - Balkan - fields army was disrupted, while fatigue and
controversy were prominent. Though WW1 ended within less than two years,
Greece maintained a war situation – either in small conflicts or through the Greek -
Turkish War for the next 5 years. The deep wound of National Division and the
deepest trauma of the following Asia Minor Catastrophe marked the body and soul
of the country for the next decades, as traces of this division can be found to the
Civil War of 1946-49 and, according to some historians, even the post war period up
to the troubled ‘60s. In this sense, the “National Division” functions as a lenses
through which we can “read” a big part of contemporary Greek history4 and
interpret the multidimensional relationship of the country to the Great War. This
dichotomic memory, as well as the traumatic memory of Asia Minor Catastrophe
pushed the Great War into a kind of oblivion.

So, within this context, the Great War was usually approached separately in
Greek History Textbooks, while its memory does not refer to the short termed Greek
participation; this extraordinary decade of conflicts, glorious victories and painful
defeats for the country concentrate mnemonically within an “inclusive” WW1
period. Even more, its global dimension and significance was not clearly examined

4
As a great educational reformer in interwar period, Demetres Glinos pointed out: “Half of the Greek
population could not see the name of Constantine, while the other half could not see the name of
Venizelos in Greek textbooks. So the writers of the books avoided mentioning both, as well as the facts
connected to them” (Philippos Iliou, “School textbooks and nationalism: Demetres Glinos’ approach”,
in Lyndia Tricha (ed.), Greece in the Balkan Wars, 1912-1914, Elia, Athens 1993, p.p. 274-275, as cited
by Emilia Salvanou, ibid).

2
and analyzed in most textbooks, until recently5: they mainly focused on its European
dimension putting emphasis to the causation, trenches war, artillery, the fronts and
the treaties sealing the end of the war. Of course the, still, rather traditional
approach of the subject in Greek schools supports more military and
political/diplomatic history and less social and cultural history - though one can
detect clear differences in the way the subject WW1 is approached in several levels
of education (primary-low and upper secondary). The presentation of Balkan Wars
and Asia Minor Campaign and Catastrophe is undoubtedly dominant, while less
elaborate is the National Division narrative. In public memory or historical culture,
WW1 can be traced through military cemeteries and a few monuments, again not
exclusively related to WW1 but to various groups and incidents of this complex
period6. For all previous reasons, September 14th, the memorial day for Asia Minor
Catastrophe, remains strong in collective memory and public uses of history, far
stronger than November 11th, the memorial day of 1st WW, in the same way that
Greece celebrates the beginning of WW2 and not the end, as the second reflects at
the same time the beginning of Greek Civil War, 25 years later.

II. Greek History Textbooks and WW1

First of all, some notes on the reality of Greek Historical Education7: though
there are strong University Departments on the subject (9 Historical Departments in
different Universities) the very centralized educational system and the only one
state-produced textbook, as well as the very descriptive and rather “closed”
Curriculum, leave little space to teachers to freely choose their subjects. In Lyceums,
the very competitive University Entrance Exams and test - oriented system make
things worse as teachers find themselves under and extreme pressure of chasing
time and limits. The nation centered approaches (though there is a lot of progress
the last two decades and books are chosen through open competitions and
evaluated by independent experts), the insufficient initial and in service subject
teacher training, the public debates (wars of history: Repoussi textbook case), the
context of crisis, euro-scepticism and the rise of Golden Dawn triggered national
reflects reviving an old fashioned nationalism (approached even by popular left)
creating a dystopia. Recent educational research on teachers’ attitudes8 and context

5
George Kokkinos – Panagiotis Gatsotis –Vassiliki Sakka, Charamambos Kourgiantakis, «World History
in Greek primary and secondary education», in International Journal of Historical Learning, Teaching
and Research, Volume 8, Number 2 (2009), pp 63-91, ISSN 1472 – 9466.
6
Emilia Salvanou, ibid.
7
Vassiliki Sakka - Katerina Brentanou, Teaching History in Greek schools. Adventures of a “fresh”
History Curriculum for Compulsory Education. Another lost chance? Paper presented in the 13th
International Conference of ISSEI, International Society for the Study of European Ideas in
cooperation with the University of Cyprus, Nicosia 14-16 July 2012
http://lekythos.library.ucy.ac.cy/bitstream/handle/10797/6228/ISSEIproceedings-
Sakka%20Brentanou.pdf?sequence=1
8
Vassiliki Sakka, «Attitudes and persceptions of history teachers in Secondary education reflection on
the results of a panhellenic research conducted by the Pedagogical Institute» (Staseis kai antilipseis
ekpaideytikon pou didaskoun istoria sti deyterovathmia ekpaideysi: anastoxasmos sta apotelesmata
panellinias ereynas tou Paidagogikou Institoutou) in Nea Paideia, V. 142 (2012) (in Greek) and Vassiliki

3
analysis of pupils’ work have also revealed the ongoing pathology of Greek historical
education which can be described as following: Nation centered, moralistic
approaches (“lessons from history”), strereotypical approaches, lack of empathy,
introspectivity, politically correct anti-war and flat “peace” discourse, diffidence
related to thematic choices and absence of: historical questions, multiperspectivity,
causative sequence, sense of a broader context, capture of the “big picture”9. When
adding to this the reluctance of a significant number of teachers to challenge the
Grand Narrative we get the picture.

We will examine the way WW1 is presented in current Greek history

Textbooks, through the following categories:

 National or European dimension

 “National Division” (Ethnikos Dihasmos) as part and/or perspective of the

WW1

 Trenches and War Technology

o Women during the War: female presence - work

 Causation and Results: the treaties of WW1

 The experience of war in intellectuals/art

 Sources in textbooks: pictures and text

As presented above, it is understood that WW1 in Greek History textbooks is

approached mainly from a national perspective, giving little account to its world
dimension and focusing on the way the Great War affected the country and the
results of her participation to it. Thus, the focus on military and diplomatic history is
dominant. Contradictory enough, the topic is presented as a European war taking
place mainly in the Western Front, where the approach of the cruelty presented
through the experience of trenches surpasses other approaches - the debate in
Britain, France and Germany the last couple of years is very enlightening. It comes as
a part of Greek History when Greece enters Entende forces, traumatized by National
Division. So, it comes as a parenthesis to Greek history of the time. Through the
same approach, Russian Revolution is examined separately too, without the

Sakka, “History Teachers’ attitudes on teaching controversial and traumatic topics in secondary
education schools in Greece, in the context of crisis: the case of Messinia. Who is the “other” now?”
paper presented at 10th International HEIRNET Conference: History, Conflict and Identity, Nicosia
Cyprus, 14-16 September 2013.
9
Sakka, V, (2013). “Approaching the Past critically: researching visual, media and historical literacy.
Reflections on the outcome of the historical documentary competition among students of Greek
secondary education”, paper presented in the 14th Conference of Network for the Study of Civil Wars:
Uses and Abuses of Public History, Volos, 31/8-1/9 2013.

4
necessary links and connotations for the several phases of the war. Only the
Gymnasium textbook, differs from this.

WW1 is not generally approached as a total war, as it is the case in some

other countries (f.i. France), putting emphasis to massive violence, power or the
humanistic aspects of the war10. Emphasis is still put to causation and factology.
Approaches to causation and results of the war slightly differ, depending on the
ideological and epistemological background of the authors, as well as the political
context of the time of production. In schoolbooks currently in use we have the ones
for Primary Education and Lyceum (Upper Secondary) which are practically written
by almost the same group of textbook writers and educators and they are the only
textbooks that replaced others, which were evaluated as best but provoked
controversy in the public domain, through the process of direct assignment and not
a new competition. These books present a traditional linear approach to historical
facts, while the textbook for Gymnasium (Lower Secondary, 15 year old pupils)
adopts a different attitude, following a leftish approach (naming imperialism,
nationalism and militarism as causal factors of the war), focusing on human factor,
underlying the role of women as a work force and mentioning social unrest,
integrating Russian Revolution smoothly to this period, discussing the role Russia
played as a catalyst at the time- and connecting it with the decision of Greece to join
Entende forces against Russia and the subsequent reflection during Greek Turkish
War. Even more, it discusses the irredentist aspirations, claims and antagonism in
the area, making use of interesting choice of relevant sources (documents, maps and
pictures), while guiding to the use of artistic representations of the war (literature
and cinema)11. As in all cases the choice of sources, the absence of others or the
comforting silence on various aspects of this period provoke debates.

In the textbook of the 6th grade of primary school, the nation centered
narrative is supported by a time line placing WW1 into Greek interest context. The
maps used show the Entende Forces, the Central Forces and the neutral countries in

10
Elli Lemonidou, “WW1 in French and Greek Historical Education: from inflation to downgrading” (O
1os Pagosmios Polemos kai I Elliniki Istoriki Ekpaideysi: apo ton plithorismo stin ypovathmisi), paper
presented at the 7th Conference of History of Education, “Which knowledge is more important:
historical and comparative approaches”, Laboratory of Historical Archive for Modern Greek and
International Education, Pedagogical Department of Primary Education, University of Patras, June 27-
30, 2014. Lemonidou refers to all new terms such as “total war”, “massive violence”, “process of
violence”, “culture of war”, which can be found in French schools after 1998, under the influence of
cultural history adopted by the members of Historial de la Grande Guerre Institution
(http://en.historial.org/). According to this attitude, the basic idea is that WW1 violence should be
approached as an archetypical expression of violence that marked the whole 20th century, resulting
to the absolute violence of Nazi terrorism and Holocaust, as well to all massive destructions of WW2.
This attitude has of course opponents questioning, among others, how proper it is for school history
(ibid)and supporting the “heroes and battles” narrative.
11
And not only of Greek interest, as for example the well known “Life in the Grave” (I Zoi en tafo) by
Stratis Myrivilis, with the extract of “The Secret Poppy” found to almost all history books.

5
process, along with Greek territorial claims. More or less the book follows a rather
conservative approach, as it is the one replacing the Repoussi book which provoked
a wild debate, considered to present a different –therefore dangerous- paradigm in
history education, so it is registered as a backlash. The turning point to
historiographic approaches and history textbooks came in mid ‘80s (Kremmydas, 3rd
grade Gymnasium and Skoulatos– Kondis - Dimakopoulos, 3rd class Lyceum),
reflecting the new political situation in Greece (PASOK, Socialist Party won the
elections) and integrating social, cultural history and marxist approaches to new
Curricula12. So, approaches of Colonialism, Decolonization, Imperialism can be found
in the context of pre and post WW1 period, introducing new explanatory
frameworks demystifying the Western world and historicizing the
underdevelopment and poverty of the Third World whereas there is criticism
towards the political practices of the West and the West-centric and Eurocentric
ideologies. Actually this book was in use in schools for 16 years, adored by teachers
and pupils, and elaborating in several topics among which the Great War with
original material of primary and secondary sources of all kinds. The same book,
withdrawn only in 2010, introduced a kind of gender approach, something to be
found in the currently in use textbook of Gymnasium 3rd grade, presenting the role
of women during the war period as a significant work force. It was the book that
presented a global approach to the Great War, an approach followed partly by the
Gymnasium book. In these two books critical approaches to Venizelos power and
ruling are expressed, while they introduce and examine the cultural and social
aspects of the war. The same approach can be found to Kokkinos’ group textbook for
Lyceum 3rd grade, which though printed and distributed in schools, almost
immediately was withdrawn as it provoked controversy over the way it approached
the Cyprus Issue in 2003.

In relation to causation and treaties: there are references of the kind putting
again emphasis to the profits of Greece (Neilly and Serbes Treaty), while the type of
consolidation exercises for primary school pupils are typical: Which were the benefits
after Greece’s decision to participate to WW1? Which of the areas liberated at the
time belong to Greece today? Based on sources (text and pictures), against who and
at what geographical area did the Greek army mainly fight?

Pictures and visual material cover the topic of trenches and war technology,
along with diaries extracts, testimonies and relevant literature but less compared to
the past (‘80’s book) and less than the current European trend shows by far. Films

12
George Kokkinos, Panayotis Kimourtzis, Elli Lemonidou, Angelos Palikidis, Panayotis Gatsotis, John
Papageorgiou, “Colonialism and Decolonization in Greek School History Textbooks of Secondary and
Primary Education” in ISHD Yearbook 2014, Vochenshau Verlag, pp 115-136.

6
and art are suggested for project war in Gymnasium textbook only. War technology
is treated more in Lyceum textbook, though the sources here are rather poor.

Conclusion

The Great War both in its European and National dimension seem to be
rather absent from Greek collective memory. Greek History Education offers some
knowledge units to the subject but it is treated in a rather distant way not offering
attractive and reasonable connotations, making pupils feel like this is not something
to be concerned13. Education and schools, being under tremendous pressure and
deconstruction at the moment, in the context of this unpreseeded and
undescribable crisis, do not deal with this centenary, missing a good opportunity to
study and renovate approaches on the subject. There is plethora of memory in the
country but not related to WW1 and certainly the way History Curriculum and
textbooks put frames to the approach of the subject reveals the inability to build
historical consciousness putting history in everyday life and concerns.

The most important problem of the Greek historical education, though, lies in
its inability to link the past with the present and to interpret in historical terms,
within a modern pedagogical frame, what is happening today in the world.
Nowadays Greek society is paying the price of these inabilities in numerous ways, as
the neo-Nazi rhetoric appears to be convincing for a great part of the student
population14, attracting youth via a dichotomic and hatred discourse reminding the
discourse of National Division and Civil War.

13
Elli Lemonidou, ibid.
14
George Kokkinos et al, ibid, p. 131.