Peace-loving Greeks speak out in a BBC post about the Slavic Albanian Macedonian Republic’s NAME !

Greek MacedoniaGreek Macedonia (via Wikipedia)

Peace-loving rational Greek people speak out, in favour of RESOLVING the «name issue» , through a composite name for the Slavonic Albanian Republic of Macedonia.

In this blog there were many posts about the «name-issue», some of them extremely critical of the one-sided nationalist Greek position «Macedonia is (only) Greek», e.g. “Satire is a manifestation of… covert hostility and powerlessness”! (Tasty Macedonian Greek… salad) and Exposing Big Alex, the Ancient Greek Psychopath, the Avatar of F.Y.R.O.M’s Virtual Reality History!

However, I.M.H.O. a reconciliation between the two countries can only be achieved through a critical stance against the EQUALLY one-sided Slavonic Macedonian position.

So, here are some samples of Greek people’s comments, in response to a recent BBC article (HERE) by Mark Mandel, about the «name dispute”:

The following was copied and pasted from another post in this blog, «The New York Times editorial board of imbeciles» (April 23, 2008 at 2:25 am):
40. At 09:01 am on 21 Apr 2008, hi-ball wrote:

Mark, this is a complicated topic, and your analysis, I loathe to say, does not do justice to it. I have to make clear that I am Greek, and no doubt I cannot claim to be a totally impartial observer, but I also hope that I have the common sense and the historical skills to see beyond the official Greek position. Are the modern Greeks nationalistic? I am afraid they are, and this is manifest in areas beyond the name dispute. Are they more nationalistic than their neighbours? I think they are not. But these general principles aside, let?s see the core of the problem: Greece wants the Republic of Macedonia to change its name. This is very problematic. Not because of the concerns underlying this request (concerns some of which I endorse), but simply because I find it extremely difficult to see why a nation would agree to having its name changed. I have met several ethnic Macedonians outside Greece, mostly well-educated young people, and I never once dared to suggest that they stopped calling themselves Macedonians. Yet, as a Greek I find it extremely difficult to call them Macedonians (I simply avoid using expressions that might make me use the term). Not because I feel that by doing so I betray my compatriots, but because the term itself has different connotations: it evokes Philip II and Alexander the Great (admittedly a nasty individual) and of the Greeks inhabitants of Macedonia who also themselves Macedonians. I mentioned the Greek inhabitants of Macedonia, and then I realized that I meant the Greek region of Macedonian. And therein lies the problem: every time that Macedonia is mentioned I feel obliged to specify what I mean. I am sure that you are clever enough to understand what I am talking about.
Back to nationalism: there are indeed many (too many actually) Greeks who use insulting terms when they refer to ethnic Macedonians. But the opposite is true as well. Just google ?Macedonia?, go to youtube, join any discussion forum, and you will *immediately* see that there are as many hotheaded nationalists on the other side. For anyone experienced enough to read behind the lines, it will be clear that some of them have sneaked into your forum: DNA analysis that proves the Greeks are not Greek after all, genocide etc. Genocide, or ethnic cleansing there was not, that much I can tell. Your reader ?Misirkov? starts with a rather good analysis, before resorting to what I feel is a distorted historical reading: ?brutal tactic of ethnic cleansing? is his words. This is true only to some extent. The other side of the coin is that thousands of Greeks were forced to flee those areas of the Ottoman Empire that did not pass under Greek control after the Balkan Wars. The result was an effective exchange of populations. As for the Slavs who were forced to flee after the defeat of the communists in the Greek Civil War, this is sadly true, but still they were fewer than the thousands of non-Slavs who were also forced to flee. The point is that they were all forced into exile because they were communists. But of course not all Slavs were communists, and those who were not stayed on. And this brings us to the other big issue, the minorities: is there an ethnic Macedonian minority in Greece today? No doubt there is. There are thousands of people (demographics unknown, but I would say something like 40,000) who are practically bilingual. The majority of them probably identify themselves as Greeks, but there is a considerable minority that sees itself as ethnic Macedonian. The Greek state (and possibly the Greek public opinion) stubbornly refuses to acknowledge this fact for a thousand wrong reasons, but also for a good one: if the Slav minority call themselves Macedonians, then what are the Greek Macedonians going to call themselves? To the obvious answer ?just that, Greek Macedonians?, the reply is equally obvious: ?then the minority should be identified as Slav Macedonians?. Which brings us back to the original question about the name; not only the name of a country but also the name of two culturally different peoples who both want to monopolize the term.
94. At 3:04 pm on 21 Apr 2008, Jonathan_Alexander wrote:

One country can’t monopolize the all-encompassing name “Macedonia”.

It is unfair to Greek Macedonians, Serb Macedonians, Bulgarian Macedonians, Vlach Macedonians, Roma Macedonians, etc.

All of us have lived in the Macedonia region for centuries – as long, if not longer than the people of FYROM.

Yet we do not identify with them, their new identity, or their new state.

501. At 8:29 pm on 22 Apr 2008, Cyanus wrote:

I am Makedonian. With a Hellenic “K” and not an Anglicized “C”. Not only by geography, but also by heritage.
If this is confusing to you, kind reader, wondering whether I am Greek, Slav, Albanian, or D: other, then you have just understood why the name dispute is important.
Ethnic identification is the mother of all wars.
And this dispute will ignite the Balkans again one day, if left unresolved NOW.
For this reason Mr. Mardell may rightly be accused of ignorance of the essence of an important Balkan conflict, initiated by Soviet era expansionist policies and perpetuated by the hapless, poorly educated (and largely indoctrinated) descendants of once powerful socialist regimes.
He may be credited however of setting up a well-clicked-upon blogspace, based on argument alone!

By the way, a prefix will do just fine.
Upper Macedonia, Western Bulgaria, Eastern Albania, or Southern Serbia all sound great.
Or did I just enrage three more countries that were happily watching from the sidelines?
Oops, silly me…

539. At 9:58 pm on 22 Apr 2008, RakosN wrote:

Dear friends,
As I read this dialog started very nice with ideas and options from all parts and now is a shame for all. Only uncivilized villagers may express such threats, wishes and wills. I am very sorry for this development. There is no reason for hate. After 3000 years of human existence thru violence and blood we mast realize that these eras passed away. What is our future? Hate and war? Do you want to see your children dieing of suffering excessively because idiots are dominating this world? Is it so necessary to be always victims of the inhuman behavior of 50 families that controls everything and they care only for their interests? And I don?t like my neighbor country to have the word Macedonia in its name but I am ready to accept the name Republic of North Macedonia even I don?t like it dew to a common future that I see. Why to fight? WHY? It is said that history is written with blood. I don?t believe that is necessary to write the modern history of Balkans with blood. We all need some good will for something better. For a promising future to our children.
Probably few people can understand this. It is urgent to learn to live peacefully together. As Macedonian Greek I should have other opinion. A crisis in our area will strangle FYROM because Albanians together with Kosovo are strong, Bulgaria started to have financial power to sustain its interest in the area and Greece can use the well equipped military forces in order to defend its boarders. The weak player is FYROM. Why to provoke a crisis that will bring only negative results. Why to think about exceptionable solutions. The same I want to mention to my co-patriots that Greece will never use the military power to harm FYROM. The military in Greece exists to guaranty that we are strong and we can sleep quiet with out having to afraid someone. It is a defense policy. It was never an attacking policy. And the reason that all Greeks are paying enormous amounts in taxes to develop and sustain this military force is not FYROM. Other neighbors are obliging us to invest in the military instead of investing to the education of our children.
It is known that Milosevits proposed to the prime minister Mr. Mitsotaki to take FYROM half and half on 1992. We Greeks have not such culture. We don?t like making war. It is very simple, we (Greeks) did the half way. Why Fyrom does not do the other half? And like this we forget about crisis and we live peacefully together.

Thank you for your attention

556. At 10:36 pm on 22 Apr 2008, Nikopolis wrote:

What it comes down to is this:

1. There are millions of Greeks who consider themselves Macedonian and feel a direct connection to ancient Macedonians (who undisputedly spoke Greek, wrote Greek, had Greek names, worshiped the Greek gods and participated in the ancient Olympic Games).

2. FYROM citizens are of Slavic descent and speak a Bulgarian dialect. Slavic tribes came to the Balkans around 600 AD. FYROM started identifying themselves as ethnic Macedonians towards the end of the 19th, early 20th century because they lived in parts of the geographical region of Macedonia for so long. But they have nothing to do with the Greek Macedonians. So there needs to be a distinction between the two. And that is why FYROM’s attempt to monopolize the term “Macedonia” is just not going to work. Finally, whether “tiny” FYROM may or may not pose a threat to the stability of the region will depend on tiny FYROM’s big allies 10, 20, 50 years down the road. For now, all we see is attempts to falsify history, maps teaching school children and military personnel about an “occupied greater Macedonia” and other provocations (including several comments right on this article) that led 115 members of the US House of Representatives to issue Resolution 356 urging FYROM to retract “hostile activities or propaganda” against Greece.

557. At 10:38 pm on 22 Apr 2008, livingFRANKFOREAL wrote:

It is complex issue and clearly Greek Governments since the fall of Communism have failed to deal with the issue. But, one cannot simply take on another nation’s name and in this case history simply because it wills it. The current Greek Govt is attempting to find a solution and there have been names suggested which would make more rational FYROM leaders happy. Greece is also FYROM’s most significant investor in all areas. What we see here is irridentists in FYROM maintaining not only their desire tobe called The Republic of Macedonia but also claiming a historical and cultural linkage to Alexander the Great who was a Hellene. FYROM is a little like a Cuckoo bird landing on another bird’s nest and claiming it. The US and Britain are only supporting FYROM because of FYROM’s support of the Iraq War and because the US want to have a placid and compliant Balkan ally to run their gass pipe line though thus undermining Russia’s increased economic influence in the region. Really there is nothing wrong with a reasonable name like “New Macedonia” like there is nothing wrong with the title New South Wales.

Now a comment which oversimplifies, but makes a VERY interesting… simplification:

560. At 10:42 pm on 22 Apr 2008, Drymann wrote:

In the whole of the Macedonian population the FYROM Slavs are nothing but an insignificant minority with no real power or future! Yet they want to steal the name and identity of every other Macedonian population in the region. They started with the Albanians back in 2001. Because they failed they are now trying to do it to the Greek Macedonians. I guess the Bulgarians are next in line!!

That’s enough and a great shame!

Here is an enraged Greek comment, which is however interesting for the link it contains:
561. At 10:48 pm on 22 Apr 2008, MacedonianPride wrote:

…And all of you you may argue>>>Yes its true they were after tGreece and its Macedonia!!! But these were the old times…The times when the comminist there! Things have change since then!
Yes! They have! BUT THEIR MINDS NOT!

Look at their premier Gruevski paying tribute to the dream the UN resolutions I posted above refer to. Their ‘United Macedonia’ :
This is not 1948! BUT 2008!

So all you ‘crusaders’ and protectors of the mischivious but weak think better!

I offered you evidence…Official evidence spaning 60 years Clearly proving beyond resonable that the Slavoskopjans are not the reformed characters you are preaching ….BUT THE SAME IMBECILES!

We are only defending what is OURS!

562. At 10:51 pm on 22 Apr 2008, maninfocus wrote:

First of all, I would like to state that I am a Greek citizen. This for setting the record straight in order to avoid possible misunderstandings.

Mark Mardell’s article appears to be in line with his writing style- full of humor and sometimes full of irony. Had I not read some of his other articles, I could be offended by the way he describes an issue that I grew up with and as a Greek youth learned to take at heart and very seriously. I do however think that calling “ridiculous” or “absurd” an issue passionately debated by more than 12 million people hardly helps anyone.

I have also tried to read the comments in the forum. The most entertaining ones are those posted by the so-called “impartial” members: how can you judge about a matter that you know so little about? Especially if you have spend zero time in that part of the world? Nevertheless, I totally agree with the analysis posted by hi-ball, a fellow Greek citizen I presume. In my post, I would like to set a few things straight, to the best of my knowledge at least.

First of all, modern Greeks are in fact an amalgam of different races and cultures: old Greeks, Albanians, Vlachs, Slavs, Turks and numerous other races that came and went through this region in the past 2,000 years. I am a living proof of that: I can still remember my grandfather throwing words at me that I had no idea what they meant. Much later I would learn they were in fact Arumanian. There are still plenty of my older relatives who call the villages that my grandparents lived in their original Arumanian names- that is before they got “hellenized” in the 1930s by the Metaxas government.

So here is my question: who cares if modern Greeks have a limited connection with the Greeks of the old? Is this the first or the last time that “cultural assimilation” is forced upon people? Hardly so. The Balkans are full of examples like that. But also the whole of Europe is the same: the French “assimilated” their Flemish regions to the north, the British tried to “assimilate” the Irish (partially succeeded in the North of the island) and so on and so forth. So why stick to the past and talk about our great-great grandfathers who fought and killed each other and be bitter about it? Life moves on ladies and gentlemen and what is past belongs to the past. It is time for our region to move on from the stupidity of nation-state (a curse we inherited from the French Revolution) to multi-cultural/multi-lingual states.

There is indeed a Slavic-speaking minority in Greek Macedonia. I am one of the many people who feel that the Greek government’s position on this matter is utterly stupid. How many are they? Nobody knows. According to Greek law- the same law that is practiced throughout the so called “western world”- racial or religious affiliation is not to be documented. As such anyone can speculate about the number. According to our neighbors to the north they are hundreds of thousands. However, all we know is that a party that claims to represent Slavomacedonians (”Ouranio Toxo” or “Rainbow”  usually takes around 1,000 votes during the Greek general elections).

There is a lot of talk about Belgium and Luxembourg. This is such a lame comparison. Belgium is an artificial country, “an accident of history” as its inhabitants call it. There are two people there- the Flemish and the Waloons (and a tiny bit of Germans). None of them has any claims to a “Luxemburgian” nationality. As such, nobody has any claims on the Luxemburgian heritage and culture (whatever that may be). On the other hand in the Balkans, we have two ethnically and linguistically different people, the Greek Macedonians and the Slav Macedonians who do lay claim on the history and heritage of Macedonia- the ancient one that is. In the case of Slav Macedonians, they also lay claim to the entire geographical region of Macedonia (which Luxembourg by the way doesn’t do). This is something that is documented in numerous pictures and maps posted by our northern neighbors and is plainly evident by some of the comments in this forum. This is the “materialistic” part of the story that Mr Mandel is trying to find out. The analogy therefore between “Macedonia” and “Luxembourg” is unfortunate and just not valid. In a similar way, the analogy between “Ireland” and “Macedonia” cannot be applied as well. The bottom line is that every situation is unique within its own historical and cultural context and should be treated as such.

I find quite interesting the assertion of some of our northern neighbors that Greek Macedonia was not called Macedonia until the 1980s. This is utterly untrue: I still have my Geography textbooks- the ones that I used in the mid-70s as an elementary school student- that clearly and plainly call that Greek Province “Macedonia”. The term “Northern Greece” was applied whenever both Macedonia and Thrace were referred to.

A final parting thought: I read some comments from “impartial” forum members calling the issue “trivial” or “insignificant”. If this is the case, then it would be very easy I presume for our northern neighbors to change the name of their country to “Slavomacedonia” or “Vadarska” and be done with it. Apparently they don’t, which means the matter is “complicated” instead of “trivial”.

Let’s hope that things will resolve in the immediate future. I have only respect for our Northern neighbors because they managed to survive the Yugoslav disintegration almost intact and seem to try to create a liberal, multi-cultural state. I hope that they progress and stay away from nationalism, a disease that seems to appear more and more often among their politicians. I, for one, pledge to fight nationalism on this side of the border.

568. At 11:41 pm on 22 Apr 2008, pea-kyanea wrote:

It’s pretty obvious which part is dogmatic and stubborn in this issue. Greece after many years of mistakes finally moved a few stieps forward, while FYROM (pronounced fee-rom in Greek, and not fire ‘em in contrast to what Mark Mardell wrote) keeps rejecting all the efforts for finding a commonly acceptable solution.

First, the term Macedonia and Macedonian are purely geographical in nature which means that we can have Greek, Slav, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, Vlach, Roma and even Turkish Macedonians. Other than these terms, there also exist Ancient and Byzantine Macedonia and Modern Greek Macedonian dialect. I do not see any reason why Slav Macedonians (or Slavomacedonians) should monopolize this name. Are they “more” Macedonians than the other inhabitants of this geographical area which belongs to four different countries?

Second, there cannot be an ethnic identity or a language simply called “Macedonia”. It is too general and it is against all other nations and ethic minorities who inhabit the geographical area of Macedonia. The most obvious solution for dealing with this issue is to name the people Slav Macedonians and their language Slavic Macedonian.

Third, how come does it constitute an insult to call the people of FYROM “Slavomacedonians”? Do you think it is insulting to be a Slav? How come? If you do not feel comfortable about your past, you don’t have to steal another country’s history and claim their territory.

The phobias of Slavomacedonians about the Slavic origins of their people and language is not Greece’s problem, so just accept the fact that you cannot monopolize this name and compromise.

Regarding, the name-issue some very good options would be “Vardar-Macedonia”, “Slavomacedonia-Tetovo” and “Northern (or Upper) Macedonia”.

(My point of view is nothing but nationalistic, since I believe that the few thousands of Slavophones in Greek Macedonia should be taught their mother-language Slavic Macedonian in schools. Afterall, they are a language minority and not an ethnic one)

591. At 06:24 am on 23 Apr 2008, hi-ball wrote:

Welcome. It felt a bit lonely here, though I would lie if I claimed that I haven’t enjoyed it so far.
No worries. We all have our weak moments. I wouldn’t probably have kept my temper had I been on the other side, reading things about the FYROMians etc. And I found them kind of funny (your rhymes, that is). But in general, I believe it is better for people to challenge the stereotypes of their own communities (ethnic or otherwise).

Your questions: hard to answer. I am rather pessimistic. In an ideal world there wouldn’t have been a dispute in the first place, but then again our world is not ideal (never was, never will be) and shying away from addressing the problems is not a solution.
For the name: I think that some compound name could/should be tolerated by both sides at the end. With some effort, I don’t see why a name such as Northern Macedonia shouldn’t be
acceptable by your people. It is fairly accurate, although Greece may have to make a concession by accepting an official name such as Greek Macedonia for the region. I was about to write that there is a kind of precedent in the case of North/South Korea, but then I realized that the comparison is at least unfortunate. Northern Cyprus/Republic of Cyprus is another unsuccessful comparandum, and Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland is just the same. Perhaps the Northern Macedonia solution isn’t that great after all? In any case, the ethnic designation is the really hot issue. A similar case may be found in Africa: you have Niger (Republic of Niger) with an ethnic “Nigerien”, and the better known Nigeria with the ethnic “Nigerian”. I doubt however whether most people can tell the difference, and I myself are totally ignorant about how the two similarly-sounding names came into existence and whether there had been some “Balkan” name dispute.

Greek nationalism: a mainstream phenomenon, by which I don’t mean that most Greeks define themselves as such, but they inadvertently hold nationalistic views. However, my own position is heretical: I think that patriotism is a form of nationalism. When I hear people saying they are proud of being Greek, Macedonian, Turkish, whatever, I simply get irritated. But my own views are not of much interest. One thing I am certain about is that Greek nationalism towards the Republic of Macedonia is not offensive; there are no ideas of invading or conquering non-Greek territory (and I don’t think that anyone, either Greek or ethnic Macedonian, has suggested anything like this here; disclaimer: I don’t read carefully all the posts. I rather skim through them, pick up the key words and most times I am sure about where people stand). Anyway, this is at least one positive aspect of Greek nationalism, even though the concept of positive nationalism is absurd.

Enough dribble. I can hardly keep myself focused on the main topic. I suspect that the name dispute is very much an excuse for self-contemplation. As far as my country is concerned, it has given rise to some fruitful discussion about the origins of the
modern Greek nation. Much as most people don’t want to acknowledge it, we are indeed a mixture of Greeks, Albanians, Slavs, Vlachs and Turks; a mixture that has come as a result of assimilation imposed on us or imposed by us (or rather our ancestors). In the turbulent world of the Balkan peninsula, in fact of Europe, there should hardly be any doubts that notions of pure blood are sheer nonsense. But more than once in this blog I’ve come across the expression “it takes two to tango”. It’s a cliche, but it’s fairly true. The ethnic Macedonians should carry our a similar soul-searching. Just as I acknowledge that almost uncontrollable historical circumstances have determined that I (most of the time) speak, write and even dream in Greek, the ethnic Macedonian might want to consider that for equally random reasons s/he speaks some Slavic language, instead of Turkish, Greek, Albanian, something else.

Sorry for not being more specific. In my dream world (a weak alternative to the ‘ideal world’ people would be polyglots, with multiple cultural/ethnic identities, able to communicate in Greek and Macedonian (let alone English, an unavoidable necessity it seems). I don’t really like my post (which is going to be the last in this forum, I think), but, hey, we cannot always be perfect.


625. At 10:46 am on 23 Apr 2008, omadeon wrote:

Congratulations to those peace-loving, reasonable Greeks who managed to explain things rather well.

Personally I am a Greek, ex-resident in the UK, and definitely NOT a nationalist, so I decided to make a blog-post about the peace-loving Greek opinions in this tediously long discussion. Here it is:

Hopefully THIS is a link to my post

Related articles


  1. […] the Slavonic Albanian Republic of Macedonia. In this blog there were many posts about the ???name- forming for Plymouth County Relay For Life Le Mars Daily SentinelThe American Cancer Society […]

  2. […] the Slavonic Albanian Republic of Macedonia. In this blog there were many posts about the ???name-i Find Refuge in Ukraine The Moscow Times29 April 2008 By Natalya Krainova and John Wendle / […]

  3. Υ.Γ.
    Ναι κύριέ μου, μόνο που έτσι όπως τα λέτε ρίχνετε κι εσείς λάδι στη φωτιά επιβεβαιώνοντας τις φαντασιώσεις κάποιων άλλων. Κάνετε χιούμορ για το σχοινί, στο σπίτι εκείνων που φοβούνται μην κρεμαστούν! εεεε… Ας σοβαρευτούμε!

    ΟΛΟ το πρόβλημα ξεκινάει από τα εξής αίτια
    1) Η (υπερατλάντια) ιμπεριαλιστική πολιτική που θέλει ΜΕ ΤΟ ΖΟΡΙ να καταργήσει την ακεραιότητα των συνόρων Ευρωπαϊκών χωρών. Για κάποιους λόγους πέτυχε στο Κόσσοβο, σίγουρα μερικοί εκπρόσωποί της έχουν περαιτέρω βλέψεις. (Αντί αυτού, πρέπει ΣΥΣΣΩΜΗ η Ευρώπη να ΑΠΟΚΛΕΙΣΕΙ μια για πάντα περαιτέρω αλλαγές συνόρων και διαμελισμούς χωρών. ΟΥΤΕ ΓΙΑ ΑΣΤΕΙΟ δεν τις συζητάμε).
    2) Η εθνικιστική πολιτική που θέλει ΜΕ ΤΟ ΖΟΡΙ να κουκουλώσει ιστορικά συμβάντα ή να καταπιέσει μειονότητες. Κι αυτό ισχύει για όλες τις «καυτές» Βαλκανικές χώρες (Ελλάδα, Τουρκία, FYROM, Αλβανία). Σε ΟΛΕΣ αυτές τις χώρες οι υπερ-εθνικιστές ενισχύουν τις φαντασιώσεις και τις βλέψεις του (1).
    3) Η «αντιεθνικιστική» πολιτική του «δόγματος Κυρίτση», ότι «ο αντιεθνικισμός είναι ΜΟΝΟ αντίσταση στο δικό μας εθνικισμό», και ότι «κάθε αντιεθνικισμός που καταπολεμά ξένο εθνικισμό είναι μόνο εξωτερική πολιτική». Με αυτό το δόγμα, ένα μεγάλο μέρος της εγχώριας υπεράσπισης μειονοτήτων ή δικαιωμάτων (κλπ) ΠΑΡΑΔΙΔΕΤΑΙ αμαχητί στο (1).
    4) Η ΣΥΚΟΦΑΝΤΙΚΗ πολιτική, τόσο εδώ όσο και αλλού (π.χ. ΦΥΡΟΜ) του να παρουσιάζει τους διαφωνούντες με το (2) σαν «προδότες που τα παίρνουν».
    5) Η ΑΝΥΠΑΡΚΤΗ σωστή πολιτική που αντιλαμβάνεται σωστά και τα τέσσερα προβλήματα (1),(2),(3),(4).


Εισάγετε τα παρακάτω στοιχεία ή επιλέξτε ένα εικονίδιο για να συνδεθείτε:


Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Twitter

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Twitter. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Facebook

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Facebook. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Φωτογραφία Google+

Σχολιάζετε χρησιμοποιώντας τον λογαριασμό Google+. Αποσύνδεση / Αλλαγή )

Σύνδεση με %s