Talk:Andreas Papandreou

Regarding Papandreou being described as using Marxist rhetoric

Although the sources are valid, I don’t agree with Papandreou being described as using Marxist rhetoric. He himself described himself as a believer in the mixed economy, as noted here (https://www.nytimes.com/1982/03/21/magazine/the-paradoxical-papandreou.html). He was a social democrat, not a Marxist. This isn't a criticism of the edits. I just thought it was worth pointing out that although he employed rhetoric that appeared Marxist he wasn't a Marxist. zictor23 (talk) 18:30 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. Stearns describes Papandreou's early years (before leaving for America) as being close to a Marxist. Andreas's rhetoric in the early 1970's is best described as Marxist. In contrast to an ideologue, rhetoric and actions are two entirely different things for a politician, especially for Papandreou, known for his reversals. The same thing happened to the label "social democrat," which Papandreou, early on, rejected this label; I read it somewhere... I need some time to unearth it.

In summary, I would say that in the 1970s, Papandreou's Marxist rhetoric was slowly moderated. Then, Papandreou became a socialist (democrat) in the late 1970s and early 1980s, transforming into a neo-liberal based on his actions in his third term (1993-1996). He was a politician, through and through, not anchored to any single ideology. I check the text and make appropriate changes. We do not want the reader to get confused. Thank you for pointing this out.A.Cython (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I removed the "Marxist" characterization from the text, as we do not have space to discuss every aspect. The important thing now is consistency. People can read the relevant sources provided.A.Cython (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Regarding the future of the article

As promised, I am finishing the cleanup (one more subsection to finish). I nearly rewrote everything, and the text size was more than tripled. The latter is kind of an issue given that the length is just below 15000 words, which is the upper limit, see WP:SIZERULE. Some trimming is required. Eventually, some parts can be reduced by transferring into a new article, e.g., the Koskotas scandal deserves a dedicated article.

• Most non-peer-reviewed sources were removed. Sources were expanded to include reliable sources (books, academic journals).
• All the references are neatly organized into different categories, and the Template:Sfn is exclusively used. I cannot stress enough how important this is for the quality of the article... Please use the new template instead of the "< ref >" in the future.
• I have added as many figures/photos as possible without violating copyright. However, more are needed for an article of this size and importance. So if you have any, please include them.
• The most relevant events of Papandreou's life are now accounted for, except for a few things I will explain.
  • I did not touch his psychological problems. For example, before 1981, he was in "deep depression" and recovered with the help of meditation and counseling with a psychiatrist, and again in 1987. Featherstone & Papadimitriou book provides briefly some info on this. Stearns also touches on Andreas's dark moods.
  • I did not detail how the press haunted Papandreou regarding Liani (Liani's nude photos, Papandreou indifference to national mourning for the 1986 Kalamata earthquake victims, making Liani into Eva Perón, etc.), his family fights, or the "pink villa." I found this distracting despite having dominated the political discourse at the time. Some are described in Kaplan's book, but still.
  • I did not include the story in his early years, where he might have snitched against his friends under the Metaxas regime. Stearns provides enough details in his book.
  • I did not include much on the failed separation between State and Church. I only found one good source: Journal of Hellenic Diaspora, 23:1 (1997) by Adamantia Pollis. Maybe for the future. In the current version, there is a tiny mention in the "women's rights" subsection.
  • I did not include how the 1996 Olympic Games were given to Atlanta, Papandreou played a key role in this. A brief description is in the text as a comment (visible only in the edit mode), along with the relevant citation.

I will submit it for assessment in the following days (after finishing the remaining task on populism), and it would be a good idea to keep the article as is till we receive feedback.A.Cython (talk) 20:33, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

A future note, EgyptAir Flight 648 that was another plane hijacked from the Athens airport in 1985.A.Cython (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

For those who have not read Andreas

Irrespective of who is truly responsible for the arrival of the Junta in Greece, Andreas played **some** role in it. When Stylianos Pattakos said, "If Andreas can make a revolution, so can I" (presented in Alexis Papahelas' "Dark Decade" documentary, see clip here), it is clear that Andreas is a central figure. But how much, let's leave it to the historians. We have a number of sources that claim that **at the time** Andreas was indeed the sole person responsible for the tragedy.

• [Contemporary source] Andreas' book "Democracy at gunpoint" 1971,
  • p. 24, Andreas admits what his father blamed him on the night of the coup: " [his father:] The Paraskevopoulos government was our last chance for avoiding a military take-over. With your [Andreas'] militant stand against it, with your strong statements against the King, with your distrust you instilled in the American contingent here, this became inevitable."
  • p. 312, Andreas admits previous mistakes: "Looking back I am forced to take stock of the responsibilities of the democratic camp-- and of course, of my own responsibilities -- for the adverse developments in Greece." [added emphasis in bold letters]
• [Modern sources] Featherstone & Papadimitriou 2015 book, p. 84: "Andreas could not be absolved from responsibility for the divisions, entrenched positions, and prolonged impasse of the pre-1967 coup period." Then, they use Andreas' source to claim that even his father held him responsible for the coup.
• [Modern source] Miller book 2009,
  • p. 136: "Arrested and charged with treason, then exiled, the younger Papandreou was reviled not only by the junta, but also by his political opponents and many former allies as the man chiefly responsible for the collapse of Greek democracy. Even his father disavowed him."
  • p. 144: "Andreas and Margaret Papandreou published their memoirs of the April 21 coup in 1970. Margaret’s is more revealing about the motivations behind her husband’s actions and internal family dynamics. [...] She [Papandreou's wife Margaret] admits Andreas’s role in inciting the 1967 coup." [emphasis added]
• [Modern source] One of Papandreou's biographers (Draenos 2014), p. 32: [...], He [US ambassador Tablot] nonetheless concluded that, given virtually unanimous hostility towards him among his political colleagues [regarding the fall of democracy], "Andreas would probably have been wiser to return to the university for the indefinite future."
• [Modern source] Close's book 2014,
  • p. 109: "Andreas Papandreou contributed much to the tension after July 1965 by in­flammatory attacks on the whole establishment, so undermining his father's promises of moderation. Andreas attracted to his support 41 MPs of the EK, and acted with increasing independence of his ageing father, whom he seemed likely to succeed soon as party leader."

According to the sources, at least initially, Papandreou was nearly universally blamed for the fall of democracy. Whether he was a scapegoat or the protagonist in this tragedy, we should leave it to the historians. But for now, it is undeniable from the sources that Andreas received enormous finger blaming, and this is significant to be mentioned in the lead section to describe his pre-junta political role. A.Cython (talk) 19:03, 2 February 2025 (UTC)