Are you seriously suggesting that the Protecting powers intervened to save the Greeks or get a share of the pie in the newlyfound nation?
Not to share the pie, they wanted Greece to exist and they did have a legitimate reason for intervention. As I remember, one of the Ottoman governors of one of those islands on the Aegean (was it Lemnos?) gleefully butchered some of the Greeks there. Whether for pity or admiration, the new Greek state was fully endorsed at a time when European powers favored the status quo and had recently put a lid on nationalist and revolutionary movements.
In addition, the Great Powers intervened after Egypt and Mohammed Ali intervened on the behalf of the Ottomans.
Egypt was still basically Ottoman. It was a reasonable move, kinda of like asking your viceroy for some cannon-fodder.
The first person to call outside assistance was in fact the Porte.
The first? I thought you said the Greeks didn't call for help, which they didn't but still given with enthusiasm.
That happened in 1827, the Egyptian and Albanian army joined your cause on your behalf in 1826. You brought others in the game before us.
Well, just because the Nationalists weren't defeated in that year does not mean it couldn't have been eventually. Suggesting so is therefore legitimate but not necessarily accurate.
Are you hallucinating? Where did i get antisemitic? Or are you just trying to find a cheap excuse to excuse your pettyness and pitifullness?
Hence my remark: that I like to tease you. I do get a bit bloody-minded sometimes; learned that from the Greeks.
Are you hallucinating? Where did i get antisemitic? Or are you just trying to find a cheap excuse to excuse your pettyness and pitifullness?
As for demographics, they are irrelevant because the majority of the population, Greek, Jewish or Muslim were peasants. The Greek elite of the Phanar, Smyrna, Aivali and Chios was simply too powerful to be competed with by any other ethnic-minority bourgoisie in any city, and Thessaloniki as well which was ethnic Jewish and with a huge difference between any other group, economically it was Greek as well, even in Thessaloniki the Jews lived under the Greek minorities economic shadow.
Unacceptable that you attribute the whole source of acumen of the empire on the Greeks. Heck, you could have said Mehmet II was Greek (which is partially true), and you would have been correct. But under the present evidence, and from my learnings, I cannot reasonably agree with your statement, keeping in mind that there were Armenians, Jews and Turks in the elite and the Ottoman equivalent of a bourgeoisie class; and they also had their quarters in the City (Istanbul) and their lobbies. It was mandatory that there was an elite from every religious-ethnic group because they had to represent their Millet and contribute to the government. The differences largely had to do with demographics, though particular Millets had their area of specialty with regards to where they contributed with their services. I cannot comment on Salonica because I don't know enough about the particular circumstances there although I did just read a review of the book you recommended me and from what I understand from it suggests that though there were outbreaks of violence, the Jews and Greeks more or less exchanged their knowledge and crafts and, at least in the review, there was no mention of Jews being under the Greeks (and if they had been, it should been included in the review to make it more interesting and controversial.
See Salonica City of Ghosts by Mark Mazower.
The allies who carved up the Ottomans were mainly these four; British, French, Italians and Greeks. All these were together when the Greek army landed in Smyrna, the Italians and the French occupied certain posts and the Brits had withdrawn when the Greco-Turkish war erupted, meanwhile the Greeks were fighting for the Treaty as a whole, not just Smyrna, and the Treaty gave Syria to France and Iraq to Britain, and the coast above Cyprus to Italy.
Right. Except I don't understand why the Greeks would try to protect the whole treaty. And if it did, could it stretch its forces to protect the French and Italians?
So, they(French and Italians) had one simple task since the British had no forces to undertake this task at the time(which they would have if they did) to remain on post and guard the supply lines until the Kemalist forces are destroyed by the Greek army,
Listen, we are in agreement that the Italians took Antalya and the French took Syria and South-Eastern Turkey and the British had a small garrison in Istanbul and Gallipoli. Correct?
Now, unless I am mistaking, Greece is all the way across the Aegean and had some territory in Western Thrace and Symrna. The part that does not make sense is that why and how could the French in Syria and Italians in Antalya protect Greek supply lines which would, in all reason, should have been coming from Greece to Symrna and then towards the East? It does not compute.
a) Venizelos was overthrown,b) the King returned,
Hence the unpopularity of the war. True.
c)the Italians felt duped and were already discontent, and the French booked some really good deals for railways, so they abandoned their posts and left the Greek front running several hundrend km unguarded
I can understand that Antalya being left to the Turks would leave the Greeks strategically in a bad position as the armies had went straight ahead and their southern flank was now Turkish. If this is what you meant by vacating supply lines, then you might be correct. The supply lines could have been vulnerable but really the Greeks should have had enough sense to protect their supply lines (which probably did not or should not have ran from Antalya, but from Symrna). Regardless, the Turkish counter-offensive came from the central front and therefore the gap in the South was not exploited (there was not enough manpower to do so). Though it is true that Turkish cavalry raided Greek hqs and depos but the Greeks should have been guarding their own front. Therefore, we inevitably reach the conclusion that since Turkey was already at peace with France and Italy and merely guaranteed this, and since the allies could not have been responsible, at least entirely, of Greek supply lines, Greece's defeat cannot be attributed to its allies. I know that Greece withdrew some troops prior to August of 1922 so as to allow a relatively parity in terms of number of troops so as to devoid Greece of a numerical advantage. In the end, it all came down to heavy guns where Turks had a clear advantage and a risky gamble... the rest is history.
This territory was not gained and as such was not lost, it was administered by the Greek army the 40 months it was chasing Kemal.
It was left to Greek administration according to Sevres, which more or less meant that it was annexed to Greece.
What was impressive is a nation that in 1897 has declared bankruptcy, in 1910 it has increased its territory by 70% and its population by 75%, and in 1920 it is banging the doors of Ankara, while in 1820 it is facing complete annihilation.
There was once a poor but virtuous young man... lol Cliché.
I probably don't need to remind you that the Ottoman Empire fought no less than 19 wars against the Russians and dozens more against rebels and other powers in the 19th century and had to deal with internal instability and reforms rendered useless by incompetent leadership. What do you want me to think? The Ottoman Empire couldn't have beat the Greeks even if it wasn't devastated in wars and dismembered by other great powers for decades?
Lord Byron is one individual who came by himself all alone after the independence was ongoing already, and then went and sung the deeds of the Greeks.
Leave the Greeks to make a national hero out of a homosexual.
(disclaimer: I am teasing you, although what I say about Byron is true)
"It is a dangerous thing to be a Machiavelli. It is a disastrous thing to be a Machiavelli without virtū."
- Hans J. Morgenthau
- By wat0n
- By Negotiator
- By litwin