They came (the agents of uniformed nationalism) as a defense of the nation against the supposed national irresponsibility of politicians. They fell amidst national catastrophe... They seized power in reaction to the divisive trends of national unity attributed to party rule.

Professor Thanasis Diamantopoulos reveals that the internal divisions of the military regime were much greater than generally believed... They wanted to react against the excesses of a democracy that they considered excessively permissive. They led to a Metapolitefsi that could be considered “libertarian,” and the consequences of its excesses are being paid by the country today...

And these were not the only contradictions of the regime examined in the current pamphlet, the 7th in the series... For those who have no experiences from that period... As well as for those who did not closely follow the internal processes of the Seven Years or did not have the opportunity to study them in depth later...

The April regime was a military dictatorship, possibly perceived by them as abhorrent and dark, but... Relatively homogeneous, congruent, cohesive, governed by a unified political philosophy and generally stable characteristics... Nothing could be more inaccurate...

As Professor Thanasis Diamantopoulos attempts to demonstrate in this seventh pamphlet of his modular work... The “regime of uniformed nationalism” was permeated by numerous internal tensions, divergent views on its nature, desired course, and objectives, while there were different perceptions among its protagonists regarding the acceptable and useful degree of brutality/leniency as well as regarding its stance towards pre-existing institutions and factors with which the institutionalized militarism had to coexist...

Simultaneously, personal disputes, rivalries, human pettiness, and the trade union undercurrent of divisions that at some point permeated the regime internally are also highlighted, sealing it and determining its course...