insan wrote:The Greek Parliament in 2000 printed a map under the heading “Historical Map of Greece” where part of Turkish territory is presented as being part of the “unitary Greek world”. Specifically, the territory of Asia Minor around Izmir, eastern Thrace, the islands of Imvros and Tenedos are presented as Greek territories.
The title of the map is “Historical Map of Greece” and the legend is headed “The Unification of Greece”. In purple are marked the territories which “united” with the Greek state in 1920 and below, the Treaty of Sevres is mentioned, which partly satisfied the needs of the Greek “Great Idea” (Megali Idea). The very mention of “unification” serves to highlight the “unity” and “indivisibility” of Greek lands, which include the marked purple territories. Of course the nationalists and crypto-nationalists in our country can justify themselves by claiming that the map is not expansionist, but rather represents the real situation on the ground following the Treaty of Sevres in 1920. Well, a similar argumentation can be used by every Macedonian nationalist claiming the same for the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 in which the well-known map with the division of the Macedonian lands between three states is not expansionist propaganda but rather represents the realistic situation at the actual time. So in actual fact, what is the difference between the title “Historical Map of Greece” (1920) from the title “Historical Map of Macedonia” (1913). Or what is the difference between a title that reads “The Division of Macedonia” and one that states “The Unification of Greece”?
http://www.florina.org/news/2007/july06_e.asp
Insan, i already know that you copied this from a FYRoM website. I stated so previously. That link above is a FYRoM website. Provide me the link to the actual source of the article...the Political Magazine dated September 1989 as the FYRoM article states. I already know whats mentioned in the FYRoM websites, i have actual taken the time to read them and i can honestly tell you... there are plenty of fabrications in their websites. Now provide the link to the actual source. I do not believe it exists because the article in question is not factual. You can always prove me wrong by providing the link to the actual source.
