August 4, 1936

Despite the completion of 83 years since the establishment of dictatorial rule by Ioannis Metaxas and the tragic and at the same time heroic events that occurred, this period of our history still remains controversial and opinions conflicting and sometimes strongly politically motivated.

The Kefalonian military and politician actively participated, from various positions, in all the events of the 20th century until his sudden death in 1941. A leading and undeniably charismatic figure, with all the advantages and disadvantages that characterize the prominent personalities of the turbulent and institutionally weak Greek public life of his time.

During the years of the heroic advance of Hellenism (1912-3), he was a key figure in the General Staff and the creator of numerous victorious military plans. At the same time, he was closely associated with all the personalities of that period who subsequently formed the two opposing camps of the national division.

Metaxas was distinguished for his methodical approach, his sharp perception and judgment, but also his perseverance. His abilities were recognized by Greek and foreign officials. During the period of division, he stood in favor of neutrality, siding with King Constantine. This conflict troubled Hellenism for several years, while several points of it remain unclear even today. The fact is that given the circumstances of the time, any decision (for or against neutrality) presented opportunities and dangers, and the mutual accusations of "national betrayals" on both sides led to fatal civil war situations. Unfortunately, Metaxas was subsequently confirmed in his predictions about the unfortunate outcome of the Asia Minor campaign. Another tragic question of history, whether a nation should undertake a reckless venture beyond its capabilities by taking advantage of a "window of opportunity."

During the interwar years, he joined the anti-Venizeli faction, participating in the turbulent political life, even founding his own party. Like the majority of his political friends or opponents, he also experienced exiles, persecutions, participated in coalition governments and in a failed coup attempt. A multitude of circumstances (which today might be called conspiracies), led Ioannis Metaxas successively to the position of Minister of Military Affairs and Vice President of the Government (March 14, 1936) to soon replace the suddenly deceased Prime Minister Demertzis (April 13, 1936). Paradoxically, the fragmented and incapable of any work or resolution, the Greek parliament, interrupted its work and assigned the government of Ioannis Metaxas to govern for five months with legislative decrees (April 30, 1936).

This decision of the parliament was a result of the explosive external situation that had been created in Europe, an unprecedented upsurge in the manifestations of the labor movement and the obvious inability of political figures to find a minimal common approach to solving the problems. Ioannis Metaxas, as Prime Minister, also realizing the danger of communist uprising, proceeded with a series of repressive measures to consolidate order under the full and tacit acceptance of the political and business world, the royal court and the bourgeois strata who were seeking a period of stability and tranquility.

On 04 August 1936, on the eve of a twenty-four-hour nationwide strike, Ioannis Metaxas, citing the risk of internal unrest and the unstable international situation, convened an emergency cabinet meeting and announced his decision to indefinitely suspend the validity of many provisions of the Constitution that guaranteed personal and collective freedoms and, without calling elections, to dissolve the Parliament with the consent of the King. The latter issued two illegal decrees by which parliamentarism was abolished and a dictatorship was imposed. During the four-year dictatorial rule, many opponents of the regime, mainly communists, were subjected to brutal persecution.

Undoubtedly, Metaxas organized a dictatorial-type government, borrowing symbolic elements from the fascist regimes of the European interwar period with the aim of creating the so-called "Third Hellenic Civilization" (in continuation of the civilizations of Ancient Greece and Byzantium).

Through dictatorial rule, he succeeded in establishing and operating institutions, imposing order and security, and a fragile navigation in our external relations and balances. Understanding the global balances and the impossibility of avoiding a new war adventure for the nation, he proceeded to the defensive armoring of the country, taking into account the worst possible scenario for his time (simultaneous attack by Italy and Bulgaria). The existence of alternative plans and the limited initiative given to the commanders on the ground to choose the location of the main defensive effort were criticized after the war to the point of being attributed to him with unfounded accusations of a pretextual rejection of the Italian ultimatum or even defeatism on his part and that of his Military Staff.

However, the country's defensive preparation and especially the proud rejection of the fascist ultimatum in the midnight hours of October 28, 1940 will always be engraved in the memory of the Greek people and rightly associated with the figure of the then governor Ioannis Metaxas. The epic of 1940, put in second place the mistakes, egoisms, insistences and anti-democratic behaviors of the Kefalonian politician and general. In the final analysis, the creator of Greater Greece, Eleftherios Venizelos, had fallen into exactly the same anti-democratic tactics as his old supporter and subsequently his great political opponent. The epic of 1940 was the result of the determination and fighting spirit of the entire Greek people, the methodical military preparation and the decisive stance taken by "the venerable and elderly" governor at dawn on October 28th.

The August 4th regime ended on January 29, 1941, with the death of its creator, Ioannis Metaxas. By a strange twist of fate, history did not give him the opportunity to repeat his proud refusal to accept the Nazi ultimatum, but he was fortunate not to witness the inevitable collapse of the Greek defense and, above all, the civil war that followed.

Today, only highly partisan scholars can question the positive and decisive role of Ioannis Metaxas in the epic of 1940. The correctness of his positions on the crucial question of national division may never be a point of agreement among researchers. The same applies to the internal assessment of the August 4th regime and its unquestionable dictatorial rule. However, the examination of acts and omissions should be carried out with the prevailing data and standards of each era in mind, the tangible results in relation to neighboring, similar and competitive states, and not with the ex post comparison with unknown and alien situations for the specific period.

Perhaps the August 4th regime can be blamed for the accumulation of internal rivalries and abysmal hatred that was unleashed during the period of occupation and the civil war that followed. Other scholars claim that the tragic civil conflicts of the 1940s were the inevitable price of Greece's involvement in the relentless struggle between the West and Communism and the conflictual developments of the changing Greek society.

History, with the passage of time and despite the silences and deliberate distortions of the victors, gradually restores the truth and praises or criticizes the protagonists accordingly. The rest of us need to be calm, patient and critical in the face of the work of the historical researcher. But above all, we need to understand that as Venizelists or Vassiliki, Metaxas or Anti-Metaxis, Mnemonics or Anti-Memonics, we are united by much more common elements than divide us. If we do not realize this soon, we will continue to lament for “lost homelands”, to reminisce about “lost opportunities” and to search in vain for “charismatic leaders”.