How many Europes can there be?

We know for sure that France was one of the six countries that embarked on the European ‘reconstruction’ and unification project in the middle 50s. How determinant is this fact? In the long path of European unification many questions were never asked, let alone answered! People have been terribly misled for nobody had the political or intellectual courage to express opinions, approaches and doubts as regards critical issues. This is nothing new; many people throughout the continent have already noticed the lack of debate about the identity and the destiny of the under unification continent.

Polarization around J. B. Duroselle

J. B. Duroselle composed before 15 years a European History of Europe to offer an ideological – historical support to the unification project; it was an ideologically European History of Europe, a text written following the preconceived idea that the European unification was by definition ‘good’! The book was subsidized by the Commission of the European Union, and was expected to be translated to all the official languages of the Union. Then, the Greeks embarked on a paranoiac War against Duroselle, refused to translate the book in Greek, and reproached to the late French academician a supposedly partial viewpoint that, according to their erroneous assumptions, minimized the Greek contribution to the formation of Europe.

For having then been the only Greek citizen to openly, publicly and unreservedly support the French academician (for a period, more than 10 articles and 100 letters of besotted nationalists were published daily in the Greek newspapers and magazines), and emphatically refute the falsifications of Greek nationalism (imposed through the prevailing in the Primary and the Secondary Education Greco-centrist historical dogma), I can be taken today as impartial and objective when talking about France and Europe.

I did not refer to the aforementioned episode of the execrable Greek nationalism (that exploded equally against a) Albania, b) Macedonia, c) Turkey, d) Islam, e) Vatican and Papacy, f) Jews, Israel and Zionism, and g) Free Masonry, taking them all as enemies of the supposedly diachronic Hellenism) in order to highlight my participation in that debate, but to underscore the striking variances of perception of European History that exist in the various countries of the European (Dis)Union. The concept ‘Europe’ is extremely different from a Russian to a Turk, from an Italian to a Spaniard, from Pole to a Brit, and from a Dane to French! If this concerns the historical appreciation of the European past, the divergence will be even more marked, when it comes to future perspectives, political planning, and … wishful thinking.

History and Politics

Historical data can be combined into thousands of varying systems, even without being necessarily misinterpreted; this relates to human nature, and there will always be people to see the glass ‘half empty’ instead of ‘half full’. In this regard, what matters most is the aim, the target, the goal we pursue while reassessing historical information; as one can easily understand, this is highly ideological and political, as it relates to our own perception of today’s issues before delving into the historical depth for further resources.

If one historian overstresses the presence of Islam on European soil in order to bring together Christians, Jews and Muslims, and help them coexist and peacefully cohabitate Europe, the positive target is a certain excuse for the overstressing Islam’s importance in/for Europe.

If one historian undermines or diminishes Islam’s presence in Europe and contributes therefore to the separation and the segregation of the Muslim citizens of Europe from the rest of the continent’s inhabitants, the negative target – added to the historical alteration – offers us an excellent reason to reject the approach.

One must effectively admit that there cannot be 100% neutral historiography, as we tend, when recomposing material, reassessing data, or even reading sources, to see in the past what each one of us is more familiar with. Balance between one’s own ideas and historical source reading is a very difficult task. Even if one attempts the best, one must always stay close to the source!

When countries, administrations, and regimes are involved in History – fixing, we have good reasons to believe that the falsification corresponds to traditional, national geo-strategic plans and geopolitical options. History must be left exclusively to Historians, intellectuals and academics. Recent History can be a case of great political concern, and this has to do with the geopolitical balance of power; we can understand it and accept it.

If Hitler had prevailed in WW II, we would never have had the voluminous legislation about the Holocaust; we would have lived under a totalitarian regime that would have imposed its own version of History.

Armenian Genocide and European Unification

How important for us today and how up to date with our world can the Armenian drama 1915 – 1916 possibly be? We have reasons to doubt. These reasons we are going to present here have nothing to do with the historical events that took place in the Eastern – Northeastern provinces of the Ottoman Empire before 90 years. The historical events can be certainly discussed in a separate article, but here we will deal with their possible connection with our world today.

A. If one insists that the Armenian Drama plays a role today, one has to immediately admit that similar role play also the following events:
1. The massacre of no less than 20000 Turks during the 1821 siege of Tripoli (Mora or Peloponnesus) in southern Greece.
2. The massacre of repeatedly revolted against the French colonial rule Algerians (1830 – 1960).
3. The bloodshed and the oppression caused by the French colonial rule in Corsica.
4. The bloodshed caused by the Christian state of Leon and Castile at the times of Reconquista against the Umayyad Caliphate of Andalusia.
5. The barbaric act of cutting the two hands of each and every Sicilian Muslim who did not accept to convert to Christianity – an act carried out by the Norman armies and shamefully depicted on monumental gates of Palermo.
6. The massacre carried out on St Bartholomew’s Eve
7. The massacre of the Mamelouk garrisons of Egypt by Napoleon and his invading army, and so on.
It is however easy to understand that more we talk about past bloodshed more we expose ourselves in misperceptions and erroneous sentimental approaches. Then, more bloodshed will come, and the responsibility will be ours.

B. Speaking more specifically about the Armenian Drama, we have to realize first that as event it does not concern the History of Europe but the History of Asia, since Armenia belongs to Asia. To what extent the European unification hinges on events occurred in Asia? Then, why not considering the French massacres of Indochinese people at the times of the colonial rule as important for the European unification?

C. A very serious issue in cases going back to remote past is the responsibility of a regime; in case of regime change the responsibility of a deposed / defunct regime is null. To what extent would the French Republic could be held responsible for acts and policies of the Ancien Regime (the Kingdom of France)? How reasonable would it be to demand from the Communist rulers of Soviet Union the responsibility of slavery practiced by the Czars 50 years before the "October Revolution"? Should we ask today’s Italy to bear responsibility for acts carried out by Mussolini? How could De Gasperi, Fanfani, Andreotti and the other leading figures of post-War II Italy apologize for something they did not commit and they already rejected when it was committed? The emergence of modern Turkey and the establishment of the Turkish Republic by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk are events that occurred in order to bring an end to the Ottoman Caliphate; how could therefore the modern Turkish establishment be held responsible for the acts of the previous – so diametrically opposed – establishment?

These are basic points one has to bear in mind when discussing the Armenian Drama 1915 – 1916 at the level of a modern political debate. Extending the subject to level of historical analysis, one may even accuse Russia and France (instead of the Ottoman Empire) for these events, but as we earlier stated we consider historical issues totally irrelevant of our current political circumstances, and we do not believe that pouring more oil in the fire is going to bring a positive result.

Demented Chirac demands Turkey to admit responsibility

The ridiculous remarks made by the French President implied that Turkey needs to recognize the alleged Armenian genocide to become an EU member; they were not accepted in Europe. The EU Commission declared that this is not a pre-condition for full membership.
The Council of Europe disapproved of Chirac, and the Chairman of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) Rene van der Linden stated: "It is not new that Jacques Chirac has made such statements. The game has already started. You cannot change the rules of the game while it is on. Like other European states, France signed a document to start discussions on Turkey's EU membership. Jacques Chirac has made a mere political statement. I do not think this position is right."
It is important to note that the EU Commission, despite pressure from the Armenian lobby, refused to define the 1915 incidents as "genocide". The Commission’s 2005 report cited the incidents as "the tragic events of 1915."

Quite astonishing is that the embattled and disapproved French politics’ dinosaur did not show any sign of repentance and did not express apologies for atrocities committed in Algeria by the French over the span of no less than 130 years!

However, France plans to keep on pressing the issue with a vote tabled in parliament on 12 October over a fresh resolution that Turkey must give the Armenian killings their proper name. This makes clear the reasons of the French president: inner political purposes related to the rise of political opponents within Chirac’s own party (N. Sarkozy) and to the French despair and disillusion about Europe (as already reflected in the famous ‘No’ in the referendum concerning the European Constitution) obliged the French president to take a position like this.

Can France be part of a Union of European Nations?

As we know, in their majority French disagree with any further European expansion, being categorically opposed to the adhesion of Turkey and Ukraine, let alone Russia, to the European Union. The reasons for this absurd approach are deep; France used to have a most nationalistic and erroneous approach to European issues. Mentally sick and incommensurably arrogant, French politicians viewed Europe as a kind of high class colony of France. They did their ingenious best to export their paranoiac Franco-centric version of European History to the rest. Their subjectivism reaches the level of cultural discrimination, and several countries dared oppose this irrelevant and pointless dogma.

No one can accept in today’s Europe that
a. Victor Hugo is superior to Andersen,
b. Rousseau is more important than Immanuel Kant,
c. Racine is more resourceful than Shakespeare
d. Chopin is greater than Wagner
e. Sartre is more influential than Adorno
f. Moliere is of greater value than Goldoni
g. Corneille is more imaginative than Cervantes
h. the Chartres Cathedral is more impressive than Agia Sophia at Istanbul and /or
i. Notre Dame de Paris is more remarkable a masterpiece than the Mezquita of Sevilla. No one – except the French.

The problem will exist on permanent basis, as only dramatic changes in France can help the French become reasonable once forever.

We have therefore to seriously consider options about France. The discriminatory and racist regime that controls this country cannot take the good and recent example of Italy, a non colonial country that had the courage to return to Abyssinia a stolen treasure, namely the 2000-year old Hawalti (obelisk) stolen from Aksum at the times of Mussolini. Yet, it would show a certain courage and a degree of repentance, if France returned – as a first gesture –
a. the Code of Hammurapi to Iraq
b. the Proto-Elamite tablets to Iran
c. the Hittite cylinder seals to Turkey
d. the Palette of Narmer to Egypt, and
e. the Winged Victory of Samothrace to Greece

We know for sure that the aforementioned suggestion is relevant to wishful thinking and that the colonial regime of Paris, heavily influenced by the Free Masonic lodge Grand Orient de France (that produced generations of discriminatory Orientalists), will not accept the responsibility for having so long been the "Thug of the Nations".

That is why we have to wonder which version of Europe is more European, more relevant to the historical reality, more human(ist), more ethical, and more representative:
a. the French version of Europe – in which France belongs but Russia, Turkey and Ukraine are out
or
b. the Real version of Europe – where Russia, Turkey, Ukraine belong along with Germany, Italy, Spain, Poland, and England, but France is left out.

Ask the Dutch! When in the 60s the opposition of megalomaniac De Gaulle to Britain’s adhesion reached the levels of paroxysm and hysteria, the Dutch suggested (to the other 4 participants of the then 6-member European Community) to continue – without France.

As the Ancient Historians had put it before more than 2000 years:

- Alexander son of Philip, and the Greeks except the Lacedaemonians.