Interviews with senior scholars Interview with Prof Dr Efi Gazi
Dr Efi Gazi is a Professor of Theory of Historiography and Modern History in the Department of Social and Education Policy at the University of the Peloponnese, Greece. She was a post-doctoral fellow at the Seeger Center for Hellenic Studies at the Princeton University, a Research Fellow at the Birkbeck College of the University of London and the Institute for Greek and Latin Philology at the Free University of Berlin. She has taught at the universities of Thessaly, Athens, and Crete, the Hellenic Open University as well as Brown University (USA). She is also a member of the Scientific Board of the International Commission for the History and Theory of Historiography (ICHTH). Her research interests include the history and theory of historiography, intellectual and cultural history as well as the history of nationalism and the history of politics and religion. Since 2023, Professor Gazi has been a Senior Scholar in “The Aggressor” project.
Sebastian Dörr: Could you briefly summarise what your research is and what your project aims at? How do you think it contributes to the overall aim of the Aggressor project?
Prof Dr Efi Gazi: In this research project, I come in with a work on images and perceptions of Mussolini in Greece throughout the 20th century. I will try to place this specific case study in the wider frame of the Balkans and the Eastern Mediterranean. Starting from the interwar years, my research examines the images of Mussolini in relation to the rise of conservative and fascist ideas in Greece. I also discuss the Italian occupation of the Dodecanese islands in the Aegean archipelago and its multiple legacies, but the major part of my analysis focuses on images and perceptions of Mussolini as the aggressor during the Italian attack in 1940 and the subsequent Axis occupation of Greece, which took place from 1941 to 1944. I also discuss parallel evolutions in the wider Balkan area, with a particular emphasis on Albania. Finally, my paper studies important historical and commemorative aspects of the topic, with a particular focus on the Greek Day of National Commemoration, which is on 28 October, the anniversary of the attack on Greece in 1940, as well as depictions and images of Mussolini in the context of the historical and cultural memory of the Second World War. Through this lens, through Mussolini, I intend to explore not just the person but images of the aggressor in 20th-century historical culture. I also intend to examine the wider field: various historical legacies and memory cultures around fascisms, antifascisms, and resistances against fascisms. I am using all terms in the plural form as I think that they are all very diverse and very complex throughout Europe.
Elisabeth Osing: Thank you for the brief introduction and for a short presentation of the project. When we look at the starting point of the Second World War, what was the political landscape before 1940 and Greece’s relation to Italy?
It was a very challenging period for Greece, although I think that the interwar period was very challenging for a variety of European countries as well. Greece navigated through a very turbulent era: it was the aftermath of the Greek-Turkish War and the subsequent Greek military defeat in 1922, causing the flow of more than a million refugees after the compulsory exchange of populations when Greece and Turkey exchanged Muslim and Christian populations. This was a traumatic experience for more than a million people who were uprooted, and their integration also became one of the biggest challenges in interwar Greece. We should also point out the establishment and the collapse of the Second Hellenic Republic, frequent changes in government and unstable political conditions, and because of that, the rise of authoritarian politics and dictatorships. There was also a thorny issue concerning the relations between Italy and Greece at the time. In the summer of 1923, Italians who were part of an International Boundary Delegation were murdered in what we now call the Tellini Assassination. Mussolini then ordered the naval bombardment of the island of Corfu in the Ionian Sea. The Greeks appealed to the League of Nations and Italians were ordered to evacuate, but eventually, Greece was forced to pay reparations for Italy to retreat. This occupation of the island of Corfu was considered to be a show of force and of the rigidity of fascism to protect the prestige of Italy. Also, there was another issue: it was the Italian occupation of the Dodecanese islands in the eastern part of the Mediterranean, and this is an important aspect of my research in this project. It started earlier, in 1912, before Mussolini came to power, but I should also mention that the islands were predominantly inhabited by Greek-speaking orthodox Christians, along with other groups of the population. They had become an Italian possession, and Mussolini wanted to transform the islands into showcases of the Italian colonial empire. I think this is an important aspect of Mussolini’s politics in the wider Mediterranean, transforming, in some way, the legacy of the Roman Empire and turning fascist Italy into a continuation of the Roman Empire. I take this part very seriously in my research and try to discuss how it also influenced images of Mussolini in interwar Greece.
E. O: Are there depictions of Mussolini that refer to Roman emperors or something like that?
I have not researched whether there are specific personified images, but the entire rhetoric of the Mussolini regime had much to do with the reconstitution of the legacy of the Roman Empire.
E. O: What place did Mussolini and fascist Italy hold in Greek public opinion during the interwar period? That is, of course, quite a challenging question, but can you give us your findings on people, phases, ideas or arguments?
You're very right in pointing out this particular aspect of my research, but also of the wider research on various legacies and aspects of fascisms throughout Europe. Greece can actually claim no significant fascist movement beyond perhaps a crowd of action squads, a few organizations in the interwar years. There was a small fascist organization, the Union of Greek Fascists, which was founded by Theodoros Ypsilantis in 1922, and there was a small but very militant party led by Georgios Merkouris. On that note, I want to say a few things about Ioannis Metaxas' regime. It was established quite late in the interwar years, in 1936, and it only lasted for a few years. Metaxas was, in many aspects, an admirer of Mussolini rather than a supporter of fascist Italy. That brings me back to this dispute between Greece and fascist Italy due to the Italian occupation of the Dodecanese, but quite a few of Metaxas' ideas drew upon Mussolini's paradigm. I think that there is a wider context within which we can actually see and examine the diffusion and appropriation of fascist ideas and practices in interwar Greece. I think that there is a very complex and perhaps heterogeneous space in which many eclectic appropriations of fascist ideas take part in the long term. So, I am examining the many fascist vocabularies, terminologies, and practices in the wider political spectrum, with the exception perhaps of a few democratic politicians or the left.
There is also the diplomatic aspect; this is more pragmatic. Mussolini and Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos signed a friendship treaty in 1928, but this is part of a more pragmatic aspect of foreign policy. What I would like to point out is that things changed quite a lot in the 1930s. That was when the Comitati d’Azione per l'Università di Roma (CAUR), the committees that were very interested in the internationalization of fascism, developed contacts with Georgios Merkouris, the head of a small but very militant Greek national socialist party. Eventually, though, the Italian invasion in 1940 ended this period of eclectic appropriations and turned Mussolini into a major aggressor who threatened national sovereignty.
E. O: After 1940, Mussolini can be considered a ‘war enemy’. How do you think this differs from other enemy images, and how does the actual war enemy differ from the enemy that could potentially attack a country, a nation?
Mussolini’s image is part of a wider culture of heroic resistance that evolves around the mountains where the Greek–Albanian border was. He is prominently at the centre of this culture of patriotic resistance, and there are also many aspects of anti-fascist ideas and anti-fascist politics that integrate Mussolini and his particularly aggressive and militant politics. Perhaps we could say that there are distinct elements that differentiate Mussolini from Hitler’s image in Greece: Mussolini was the principal aggressor when he and his army attacked Greece in 1940, so he was considered to be the main aggressor. This plays an important part not only in resistance fighting and resistance politics at the time but also in commemorative practices throughout the 20th and 21st centuries in Greece. On the other hand, Hitler’s image relates at the same time to the Nazi policy of violence, terror, the “Final Solution”, and the Holocaust. So even in the case of Hitler, the resistance against the Axis powers is still there in all its various forms. It is integrated into memories and historical narratives of the Axis occupation, yet the material and psychological conditions of total war, famine, collaboration, extermination, and the Shoah stand at the centre of images of Hitler and of the experience of the occupation. So, there are distinct features.
E. O: What types of sources are you examining for your research and why did you choose them?
I am interested in a variety of sources: historiography, historical writings and memories, etc. In this research, I focus a lot on the time of the war between Greece and Italy, and also on the commemoration of the resistance and the occupation after the end of the 1940s. This means that my paper and my research focus a lot on cartoons, popular music, resistance songs, a variety of visual and sound material, photography, films, newsreels, et cetera. I think that these sources are pivotal in understanding popular historical culture, but also popular images of Mussolini, of the aggressors, as well as in examining wider themes such as cultural values, practices and beliefs. We also know that music has played a crucial role in various historical contexts, during times of war, in the Second World War as well, so I think that all these visual and acoustic cultures which I am interested open a window into the past, revealing details that written records or even historiography might overlook or perhaps fail to capture.
E. O.: Music also plays quite a big role in how the memory of these aggressors is becoming part of the historical memory of these events, especially since it may be affecting emotions.
Thank you for bringing this up; this is actually very important for my research. There is this affective side in memory cultures and this process of affect. It also has much to do with the resistance as well and with the memory culture around the Second World War, the war in general, and the occupation. So, these kinds of sources might actually be more illuminating and open up the ways people were experiencing the war, the aggression, the occupation, but also trying to resist through mockery and through some sort of humour. I take this very seriously in this research.
Sofia Vembo, “Oh, Ti epathe o Mussolini” (lit. “Oh What a Surprise for the Duce”), 1940
E. O.: I am looking forward to your research results. They might give us insight into how we, in general, might gain a better understanding of memory culture and commemoration by looking at quite diverse sources, since historians during the last few decades have mainly focused on texts. Could you tell us how the memories of the Second World War changed after the war, how they developed in Greece, and how it is remembered nowadays?
It is a very important part of memory, of national memory, and a very important commemorative part of the Greek national historical culture. The start of the war is commemorated each year on 28October; it is Ochi Day, the “No Day”. It commemorates the rejection of the ultimatum stated by Mussolini to the Greek dictator Ioannis Metaxas, but it also commemorates the subsequent counterattack against the invading Italian forces. There is also a second, very important national anniversary in Greece. On 25 March, the commemoration of the outbreak of the Greek revolution in 1821 was established. Although it was a national anniversary, it somehow came from above. There was a decision by the king, the political leadership at the time to make this a national commemorative day. The October anniversary, Ochi Day, was apparently established from below, though. The Greek people themselves made it important, and this was an act of resistance. It is very important to examine this meaning of the anniversary during the early years of the occupation as an unofficial celebration. It was an act of resistance with demonstrations, writings, et cetera. It seems that there was a continuum between the war front and the resistance during the occupation. It is also important to point out that Greece commemorates the beginning and not the end of the war; this is a second aspect of my research. In this case, I presume that the liberation and the end of the war in Greece were associated with the beginning of the civil conflict, which escalated into a violent civil war. Therefore, the official national memories somehow focus on the beginning of the war and the resistance of the Greek army and Greek people, rather than the end of the Second World War.
E. O: Do you have insights into how Mussolini was depicted after the Second World War or how he is remembered in Greece? Is he still an aggressor within the memory cultures, and how is he depicted in the memory culture of Ochi day?
As I said before, there were several eclectic appropriations of fascist ideas and practices in interwar Greece. But even today, in the Greek historical culture, Mussolini is basically considered to be one of the principal aggressors in the 20th century’s collective historical experience. There are various historical legacies around fascism, the Greek resistance and then the occupation, but there is also a wider frame that does not have anything to do with Mussolini himself. It is crucial for comprehending the dynamics of authoritarianism, even the dangers of totalitarian ideologies. There is such a variety of ideas about authoritarianism, totalitarianism, and an enduring legacy of authoritarianism and totalitarianism as a “solution” to social and political problems, which became influential perhaps in the interwar years and still have some appeal. Therefore, a part of my research explores this process, the complex legacies of various authoritarian traditions, and also the importance of being vigilant about protecting democracies and democratic institutions.
E. O: Looking at contemporary Europe – and we see this in quite a lot of other European nations – the new extreme right-wing movements develop their own narratives about certain historical aggressors. Do we have similar processes within Greece?
Yes, we do. The diffusion of these ideas and the endurance of the legacies of authoritarian and totalitarian politics can be noticed throughout European countries. There are varieties and different degrees, different appropriations, but they are still there, and they draw upon these ideas and practices of the interwar years. That is despite the catastrophic events of the war and the major catastrophe of the genocide of Jews and the deaths of millions of people. But some of these ideas are still there, they are still important. They pop up and are integrated into new narratives regarding anti-parliamentarism and the alleged weaknesses of democratic institutions. I am interested in examining how these ideas and practices were articulated around the image of Mussolini, how these ideas were formed and how they are still alive around us.
E. O.: Regarding visual and acoustic sources, we also gain better insight into how contemporary narratives about historical figures are constructed. You also work on religion and nationalism, and I was wondering whether there are elements of religious rituals that are integrated into the aggressor images?
What I can say is that religion has played an important role in the ways Greek historical culture has been constructed throughout the 19th century. The revolution and the war with the Ottomans were also considered to be a war between Christians and Muslims. So, in the national ideology at the time, religious elements were also integrated and became part of the national ideas for the Greek War of Independence and the Greek Revolution in 1821. My preliminary answer would be that religion was not that important in the Second World War, as it was not this aspect that played the most significant role in the war between fascist Italy and Greece. There were other aspects, ideas, practices of the national resistance, but there are always links between religion and nationalism or national ideas. To name a few, there are the images of warrior saints who became integrated and celebrated to remind the world on days of commemoration. There are festivities in places like Thessaloniki in Northern Greece but also in Southern Greece for that purpose. That means that there are images, links and elements that have to do with the religious chronologies, saints, and images of them that in some ways relate to the memory cultures of the Second World War.
E. O.: When Mussolini is pictured as an aggressor, are there pictures of heroes that fight against Mussolini? Is Mussolini depicted alone or in relation to other figures? How are these relations to the other figures presented?
As far as the first part of your question goes: yes, there are many images, pictures, representations of those who resisted Mussolini. Those are figures or collectives, for example the Greek army fighting up in the mountains. That is an important depiction as a collective unit, the Greek army, but also individuals, for example individual fighters. There are also links between the Italian-Greek war and other aspects of resistance against aggressors in the 20th or even in the 19th century. So, there are many depictions. Also, gender is important: it has much to do with images of masculinity, but also with women. There is this typical female figure, perpetuating the way women were dressed in the 19th century. It seems that there is a continuum between them and the women who in many ways became engaged in the war against the Italians. As far as Mussolini is concerned: yes, there are individual images, even mockery around him, comic images of Mussolini. Humour becomes a major power of resistance; by mocking the aggressor, you are undermining and questioning his power, his politics, his practices, his rhetoric. But there are also other aspects and other units of images that have to do with other members of the fascist regime, including Ciano and other ministers. So, it is not just individuals, but it also relates to the whole fascist political regime.
It is the power of laughter and irony. I think we should not underestimate it. It might not become obvious in official historical narratives, but in popular historical culture, in the culture of resistances throughout Europe and in Greece particularly, laughing at and ‘against’ the aggressor, and therefore undermining the power of this regime, was a very important act of resistance.
S. D: One last question considering the long-term perspective of the aggressor project: what do you want your research to influence, maybe even on a further scope, beyond the research project? What is your goal for the long-term perspective?
It is a very challenging question but I have some ideas because I think we always need to look at our research in the wider context. From my perspective, memories and legacies of fascism are a very important and crucial theme, as well as resistance against authoritarianism, totalitarianism and the multiple ways they have impacted European and global history. It becomes even more important because I think we are experiencing this rise of authoritarian politics throughout Europe or even outside Europe right now in a variety of countries and contexts. We should be very careful about the ways these ideas were shaped, reshaped, appropriated and also about the ways people resisted against them and against authoritarian and totalitarian regimes, practices and policies.
S. D.: Thank you very much, that's a very nice answer to end the interview on.
Interviewers: Sebastian Dörr and Elisabeth Osing
July 2024
Blog post design: Vilma Vaskelaitė
