From: dk0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (DIMITRIOS KOUVATSOS)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe
Subject: Who is the aggressor (Was Re: Dividing Macedonia)
Date: 9 Oct 92 10:08:57 GMT
Organization: Lehigh University

In article <1992Oct7.175816.1618@sol.ctr.columbia.edu>, deniz@mandolin.ctr.colum
bia.edu (Deniz Akkus) writes:
>Western Anatolia used to be quite a patchwork of Turkish and Greek, the
>area was not predominantly Greek, although the city of Izmir was.  Don't
>forget that the Turks settled the area in 11th-13th centuries, before
>the Ottoman times.  The invading Greek army occupied Western Anatolia
>with the intent to annex it to Greece.

I did _not_ claim that the entire Western Anatolia was predominantly Greek,
please read carefully. I said that Eastern Thrace and Ionia (the Smyrna/Izmir
area), which were to be annexed to Greece under the Sevres Treaty, were in
fact predominatly Greek - and you yourself admit it for your hometown.

The timing of the Turkish settlement is correct but irrelevant, the Greeks
had already been there since more than 2,000 years earlier, and in any event
Greece never aspired to recapture the entire Asia Minor. I repeat, and I hope
this time it will be understood, the Greek Army did not invade Asia Minor on
its own hook but was sent there on a mandate by the Western powers, on whose
side Greece fought in WWI while Turkey had fought on the side of Germany. And
the Greek intention in the 1920-21 offensives was not to destroy the Turkish
state, but to enforce the Sevres Treaty, and the penetration deep in even
predominantly Turkish lands was only a military necessity since the Turks
retreated without accepting peace; and Sevres only gave to Greece Eastern
Thrace and Ionia (that birthplace of ancient Greek civilization), which were
in fact still predominantly Greek before 1922, as not even you dispute!

>During its recent history, Greece has been the agressor in that section
>of the world.  Its birth itself was an uprising against the weakening
>Ottoman Empire. It collaborated with other Balkan nations to throw the
>Turks out of Europe, it openly admitted its claims on Istanbul, it seized
>an opportunity to invade Western Anatolia.  Still to this day, its
>people can state publicly that they think Turks ought to be sent back to
>where they came from 921 years ago.

Ms. Akkus, I used to think that you are a quite reasonable person but I may
have been wrong. To accuse the Greeks as the "aggressors" because they
revolted in early 19th century to throw off the brutal Turkish yoke, as
everybody under Turkish rule did (the Armenians were exterminated in a
horrific genocide before they had the chance of a serious revolt) is so
manifestly preposterous and absurd as to set in doubt the rationality of
whoever could have uttered it! And yes, Greece, Bulgaria and Serbia threw the
Turkish pestilence out of Europe, not a day too soon - before the brutal Young
Turk regime had the chance to implement its policy of "ethnic cleansing" of
the Ottoman Empire, decided at the time of the Salonika congress of 1911 (a
mere year before the Balkan Wars), and afford the European Christian
populations of the Empire the same bestiality it displayed in the
extermination of the Armenians and the Pontian Greeks just 2-3 years later.

As for Eastern Thrace including Constantinople/Istanbul and Ionia, and the
war in Western Anatolia, I'm tired of repeating, go read above. If you still
cannot understand plain and simple English, nothing more I can do. Regarding
any possibility of return of the Turks to Central Asia, I state categorically
here that, however fortuitous and delightful such an eventuality would have
been (and _not_ only for Greece), I understand that it is completely out of
the limits of practicality. Of course I do not advocate a war with that aim,
should it need saying. We absolutely respect existing borders, which should
have been quite satisfactory to Turks since they leave in their hands so many
ancestral Greek lands.

Still, guess who is the aggressor today? For the education of Ms. Akkus, I
dedicate to her the following quotes (also dedicated to whoever believes that
Turkey invaded Cyprus to "save" the Turkish-Cypriots), right from the horse's
mouth, from the highest Turkish _officials_ - just a fraction of many more
existing ones, and I hope Ms. Akkus will not provoke me on that, for I have
no intention of flooding nets like the Mad Turks (tm) do. I also presume she
is not interested in gory details of tales of unspeakable Turkish bestiality.
I will stick now to the truth from the horse's mouth!

************************ BEGIN BARBARIAN QUOTES *****************************

" Half the Aegean is ours. Let the whole world know that it is so...
We know how to crash the heads of our enemies when the prestige, dognity
and interest of the Turkish nation are attacked."
        (Prime Minister Irmak speaking to the Innya Municipal Council, 13 Jan
         1975).

"The policy followed by the growing Turkey to safeguard her interest in
the Aegean has to be different from the policy of the Turkey of 50 years
ago...The reason for this is not only a reaction to Greece's Great Idea
policy. Turkey is not the Turkey of 1923 after the Lausanne treaty. It is a
growing Turkey".
        (Foreign Minister Essenbel, as quoted in Cumhuriyet 19 Jan 1975).

"In the Aegean Sea the balance is obviously in Turkey's favor. This is true
to such an extent that the eyes and thoughts of the Turks, former
inhabitants of the islands, remained focused on islands a few miles from
the Turkish coast, in hope of being able to re-establish themselves there
one day".
        (Minister of Defence, Ilchami Sancar, "Yanki", 20 Jan 1975).

"Greeks will never become friends of Turkey if they will not abandon the
Great Idea. Consequently, the question of the Dodecanese islands and
Western Thrace must be raised".
     (Gen. Souat Atoulga, commander of the Turkish Second Army, in "Gunaidin",
      25 Jan  1975).

"'Till recently the islands of the Aegean belonged to whoever possesed
Anatolia".
             (Prime Minister, S. Demirel, in "Paris Match", 5 July 1975).

"The group of islands situated near the Turkish coast, including the
Dodecanese, must belong to Turkey. Among these we cite Samothrace, Lesbos,
Chios, Samos, Kos, Rhodes and all others, small or large within a distance
of 50 km".
                  (Vice-Premier Mr.Turkes, in "Devlet", 30 Mar. 1976).

" The Army of the Aegean has a striking capability. Its deterrent potential
is very important to us. It now disposes of a force of 123,000 men".
    (Gen. Sunalp, Commander of the Turkish Fourth Army, in "Politika", 19 Aug.
     1976).

"The problem of the Aegean has remained pending. When we were in power we
took the necessary steps concerning Cyprus. We would have acted in the same
manner in the Aegean, but we didn't have the time. This is what the
restraint, imposed on us in Cyprus, cost us. Consequenlty, this affects our
relations with the U.S."
                 (Former Prime Minister B. Ecevit to "Milliet", 2 Aug. 1976).

"Do not call these islands Greek islands but Aegean islands. It is
preferable to call them Aegean islands".
                                  (Prime Minister Suleyman Demirel, 19.8.76).

"In the Aegean, one must necessarily pursue a dynamic policy. The
conditions today are different from the conditions in 1923. Turkey's power
has grown.  When we talk of the need for dynamic policy we do not mean that
the army
must act at once and that we should occupy the islands. Our financial
interests need to be safeguarded in the Aegean... Cyprus is the first step
towards the Aegean".
                                  (Foreign Minister Esenbel, 22.1.75).

************************ END BARBARIAN QUOTES ******************************

>Deniz Akkus deniz@ctr.columbia.edu

Dimitris Kouvatsos


-- 
------------------------    "Avnr Ellnv basileus Makedovwv"
+= Dimitris Kouvatsos *=    "[I am] Greek man king of the Macedonians"
<dk0a@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu>
------------------------                    -- Alexander III the Great