The Consequences of a Greek Victory in the 1919-22 Greco-Turkish War

[keynes2.0]

The times also changed between 1912 and 1922 and between 1923 and 1945...

Just because a mass exodus occurs does not mean that a people were genocidal. Did the Great Migration in the US indicate a genocidal attitude towards the blacks in the south? Prejudiced certainly but not genocidal by any stretch of the imagination. Did the Second Great Migration indicate a genocidal attitude towards blacks in the north? Hardly!

If you want to argue that the greeks are genocidal then provide some goddamn direct evidence. Start listing the villages burned by Greeks. Point to the race riots by Greeks. Because right now this argument is entirely circular... the population migrations would have been as large as happened in history because the population migrations were large historically. That's not a coherent argument.

 

[diegosimeone]

Greeks were quite prejudiced against the Jewish population even more than the Muslim for the first 100 years of the state. Be in 1821 or 1922 in Ionia/Asia Minor or the Peloponnese (with Tripoli as the greatest example). Most of the houses burned and innocent people killed were probably of Jewish background. This was 'excused' by the fact that the Jews in Greece were usually very pro-Ottoman and they'd be hired as mercenaries or as policemen and obviously do some nasty things to the unarmed population that created this tension. This sort of tension also existed with the Albanians who have done much worse things to the Greek population but they didn't really settle. And these are mostly Peloponnese examples as that was the major front where the Greeks managed to control the land instead of acting as rebels for a decade or so.

 

[Yasko]

Oh no? Well, look at the thracian muslim minority. They are living here now and are of course Greek citizens! How i wonder if the Greeks were that intolerant? I won't bother to elaborate on what Turks did with their orthodox minorities on the other hand.

Yeah, they are the 17% that were left.

Ok this is just stupid. 17% of the TOTAL REMAINING BALKAN MUSLIMS lived in Greece. That's all it says.
Do not use it out of context again please. It just loses all meaning.

Is it? So Greece had 17% of ramaining muslims, Bulgaria had 55% and Serbia 46%? So total is 55+46+17=118%

I did prove that the figure is quite possibly very wrong and the source has no credibility, correct? Any paper is as good as its creator, his goals and his quality of research. And this source is doubtful at best - really he has the cheek to claim that there was NO Armenian ethnic cleasing. Ho-ho-ho.

The creator is prime demoghrapher of Ottoman Empire, his work is used by other historians, too bad he cant come up to your high standards.

Here Another link for you...

http://ieg-ego.eu/en/threads/europe...nd-emigration-of-the-muslims-from-the-balkans

The extent of the Muslim exodus from the Balkans may be recapped as follows: the founding of the first two nation states, Greece and Serbia in 1830/1831 was accompanied by the systematic expulsion of Muslims. During the Greek War of Independence (1821–1829) about 25,000 Muslims were killed.1]

[QUOTE The number of Muslim refugees following the First Balkan War (1912) is estimated at 400,000. Most had already been expelled from other regions.21 After the Second Balkan War (1913), around 135,000 refugees arrived in Salonika alone. More than one million refugees lost their lives in flight, either because they were murdered or died from starvation or epidemics.22 Even if at the time the First Balkan War was glorified by the leaders of the warring parties as a modern "crusade of the Balkan states" against "Asiatic barbarism",23 the front lines were in fact much more complicated than the dichotomy between Christianity and Islam suggests. For in the Second Balkan war the Christian Balkan states also fought one another: Thus, Greeks were expelled not only from Ottoman Asia Minor, but also from the expanded Serbia and enlarged Bulgaria. In turn, the multi-ethnic city par excellence, the formerly Ottoman city Salonika, was becoming a Greek city. Turks/Muslims, Jews, Bulgarians and other groups left the region or were expelled by the new conquerors.24 By 1914 the remaining core region of the Ottoman Empire had experienced a population increase of around 2.5 million Muslims,25 a figure which includes the exodus of Caucasian Muslims from the Russian Empire beginning in 1878.][/QUOTE]

Now add attrocities in western Anatolia by the greek army of 1920-22 and how cypriot turks were handled in 50s and you get a clear Picture on what a bigger Greece would be. More territory and around same pop as original Greece and a minor Constantinople and revanchists neighbous, so even worse strategical situation.

 

[Grosshaus]

I dont see why we would assume that. Mass deportations were the exception, not the rule. The Turkish xenophobia was exceptional even by the standards of the day, these were the people who did the Armenian genocide. I find it very unlikely that the greeks would be as xenophobic simply because almost all peoples in history weren't as xenophobic.

The times were extreme throughout Europe at the end of WW1. Finns had not had any civil unrest, let alone war, for 400 years or so. Swedish and Finnish troops had fought Russians 100 years earlier within Finland and the country suffered somewhat from initial phases of Russian occupation. After that a few shore bombardments by British in the Crimean War and few voluntary professional soldiers fighting in Czarist wars. No tradition of violence and peaceful co-existance between ethnicities and religions. Then in 1918 a failed communist revolution and half the population watched with veiled content how extreme right groups started to exterminate communists. Tens of thousands of casualties from maltreatment in prison camps and executions.

Of course Greeks would have killed and exported masses of Turks had they acquired more Turkish land in 1920s. That is what European nations did at the time.

 

[keynes2.0]

Of course Greeks would have killed and exported masses of Turks had they acquired more Turkish land in 1920s. That is what European nations did at the time.

Salonika, Sudentenland, Alsace, Danzing, Eupen, Cyprus.

If you are going to make a general rule and insist it implies it applies in all situations then make at least a cursory effort to consider counter examples.

 

[IsadorBG]

Sudentenland, Danzing

Germans speakers were expulsed in what was one of the biggest ethnical cleansing of history.

Alsace

Was considered to be of good German stock by Germany.

Altough Prussia gave the choice to Alsacian between French or German nationalities. Of course those that chose French were swiftly expulsed.

When France retook Alsace-Lorraine, German immigrants from post 1870 were all expulsed.

Of course Alsacian didn't receive the same treatment because they were considered to be of good French stock by France.

Cyprus.

Constant ethnical violence and a country divided in ethnical lines in the second decade of its independence.

Still divided.

Ethnical cleansing on both side wich is why there is almost no Turks in the South and no Greek in the North nowadays.

As Grosshaus said ethnical cleansing was nothing extraordinary at the time.

 

[Gokberk Cakir]

It would be catastrophic for Turkey. Even modern day Turkey, with all of its current holdings, isn't resource rich in terms of oil, gas or whatsoever compared to its neighbours yet Turkish economy is stronger than them because it has industry.

Turkey was lagging behind in infrastructure, industry, education, technology while the monarchy was falling apart. Ataturk was the person who revolutionized everything about the country from civic laws to education system ( for instance first educational geometry books for schools were personally translated by Ataturk from French to Turkish). Ataturk was the person who started Turkish Industry and freed Turkish women from the chains of sharia. Ataturk's revolutions are like Enlightenment Age-Industrial Revolution packed in 15 years.

BUT Ataturk's ideas were not publicly supported at the time. In fact, Ataturk's revolutions were completely against dogmas of any religions and culture of obedience that ruled minds of people; he enforced strict secularism and positivism on his people(unfortunately, he couldn't entirely succeed. Otherwise we wouldn't be dealing with Erdogan).

Ataturk was able to do all these things for one specific reason: Every nation who wasn't ruled by foreign powers has their state cultures. Turkish state culture is strictly militarist. For instance, German state culture is diplomatic, they have failed horribly every time they tried to go militaristic route. In Turkish state culture, military is the most respected institution. As the triumph Field Marshal of this war, Ataturk had unlimited credibility in the eyes of Turks. Make no mistake, Ataturk was even offered to become the monarch but he refused. He chose to become the champion of enlightenment in the lands ruled by obscurantism and dogmas of religion not for himself but for his people.

If Greeks won this war, Turkey would not be much stronger than Syria or Iraq (give or take for their oil vs Ottoman Turkey still had intellectuals, although none could do the Ataturk's revolutions).

I saw that it's been argued that Turkey could enter WW2 if Greeks won this war, one can only think that because Ataturk reformed Turkey. If Turkey lost that war, he wouldn't be able to do such reforms because he wouldn't have the credibility of being a war hero in a nation whose state culture is traditionally militaristic, and consequently Turkey wouldn't have the same industrial capacity.

In addition, even one of the Erdogan's biggest treason is defaming Turkish Military. Turkish Military does not only serve to protect the nation from outer threats but also serve to maintain the order of the nation. People do so much fuss about Turkish Military Coups of the past but Turkish Armed Forces never did a coup to establish a dictatorship. Keep in mind that Turkish Army recruited its officers from the age of 13 into Kuleli Military High School (a boarding school where children can only see their family during national holidays-new year's eve-summer) and raised them until they graduated from undergrad - grad school levels. Officers of this tradition and spirit have no understanding of using military power for their own good.
Whenever Turkish Army did a coup, they always removed politicians who posed threat to the greater good of people or secularism, and restored civilian political will right away.

There wasn't a coup like Greek Junta 67-74 which ironically ended when Turkish Army went on a trip to Cyprus to protect the Turks living in Cyprus, if you try to come for this, know that Greek Junta staged a coup in Cyprus for enosis supporters (go read what Greek Cypriot President Makarios says about that coup), and Turkey just fucked them up, and they fell apart. Greek Military Junta ? They obviously did not have the balls to declare war considering Turkey wasn't fighting on like 3 other fronts against superpowers.

Turkish Military coups never turned into dictatorships, coups were executed in order to restore the order and returning power to civil will was always the goal in the end. I think longest, Turkish Army ever took was 2 or 3 years after a coup to restore civil order; even for that time, it was publicly known that civil order would be restored.

Make no mistake by confusing that with 2016 coup attempt. When Turkish Army did coups, they always executed it when everyone was sleeping, and all command chain was in accordance. No political leader could go against. That coup attempt is likely to be Erdogan's plot to grab more power or a pathetic attempt by religious idiots called Gulen Movement Erdogan previously put into army as "his man" but later had a fallout with. I mean they tried to make a coup with 74 tanks and 246 armoured vehicle in a country that has 2,445 active combat tanks and 7,550 armoured fighting vehicles. Literally, one of my grandfathers is a retired paratrooper colonel (albay in Turkish). He simply laughed at "coup attempt" being aired live on prime time (He actually actively served during Turkish operation to Cyprus).

The world would be a better place.

One of the biggest virtue, even in warfare, is respecting the enemy. Go look at what Ataturk said about Anzac losses at Dardanelles Campaign of WW1, that might help you cure your dishonorable peasantry.

 

[Easy-Kill]

cure your dishonorable peasantry.

Hahahaha. Best insult I've heard in a long time!

 

[Veldmaarschalk]

Thread necromancy