In recent days, a discussion has again flared up around the circumstances of the death of Grigoris Afxentu.
The reason was the opinion expressed by journalist Mikhalis Michael in Fidias's pidias's pidias that the hero of the national liberation movement Grigoris Afxentu was not killed by the British, but committed suicide. The historian, Professor Petros Papaliviu, responded to this, presenting a reasoned position based on many years of research and documentary sources.
On March 3, 1957, in the evening issue of the news of the Cyprus radio service, the Afxentu death message was accompanied by comments in the spirit of the British colonial rhetoric. He was called the "dead terrorist", who "in despair and cowardice preferred death to capture." This was an attempt to humiliate the feat of a young fighter, presenting his death as a manifestation of weakness, and not a self -sacrifice in the struggle for freedom and uniting Cyprus with Greece.
The very next day, March 4, 1957, an autopsy was carried out in the Nikosi Military Hospital. In the conclusion of Captain Israel, it was noted: "Death occurred as a result of a penetrating wound of the head, which, in all likelihood, was inflicted by the deceased." At the same time, the document stated that it is impossible to exclude the version of the random explosion of the cartridge and its ricochet into the head of the head from high temperature in the cave.
In an official investigation held on March 15 and 28, including with the participation of associate Afxentus Augustis Efstau, the version of suicide was rejected. In the conclusion of Judge Ellison, it was said that a mortal wound was caused by an explosion of a bullet in a fire inside the shelter.
These conclusions were published in Cyprus and Greek newspapers of that time, and later covered in detail in research and books, including the work of Spaceorgiu “Zidros” (1978).
According to Papaliviu, what Michael represents today as a “new discovery” has long been known historians and has been repeatedly analyzed in scientific and memoir literature. The Augustis of Efstau also made a mention of posthumous study in his 2012 book, published with the preface of Papolivi himself.
The historian indicates that Mikhail’s “investigation” consists of speculations and conspiracy theories, many of which repeat the colonial narratives of the 1950s, directed against the EOK. Moreover, an interview with Fidias Panayot is replete with inaccuracies and ridiculous formulations, such as the statement about "wounds, which Afxentu himself probably made."
Papaliviu emphasizes: history is really open to rethinking, but it has rules and ethics. To use the death of a national hero as a “sensation” for the sake of political or career goals is unacceptable.
“Since 1957, popular memory has been storing Grigoris Afxentu as a model of virtue, patriotism and self -sacrifice. For Cypriots, he remains a symbol of freedom and moral greatness, and no propaganda - colonial or modern - is capable of destroying this, ”the professor concludes.
Source: Philenews.com
