Talk:Greco-Turkish relations/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Since I have written a new article here I have also archived the old Talk to prevent any further arguments. Adam 13:22, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Contents

holocaust/genocide

Of course there was persecution but that is not the same as a "holocaust" or "genocide" in which whole populations are killed. These are exaggerations and are not used outside Greece as far as I can tell, nor should they be. Adam 14:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

But it is very dangerous to marginalize organised persecution (historic proof exists that it was a premediated action) where thousands were killed. The names do belong in the article. Do not forget a major reason Smyrna was assigned to Greece in Sèvres was to protect its native Greek population from further persecution. — Jor (Talk) 15:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't deny that the words are used, and therefore they are mentioned in the article. But it is also the case that they are exaggerations, and this should also be said. The Nazi Halocaust killed 6 million Jews. The Armenian genocide killed - I don't know the number, but I believe millions, of Armenians. The Greeks were persuected, and there were, as you say, thousands of deaths. But the fact that a million Greeks left Turkey alive shows that it was not a holocaust or a genocide. Furthermore, it certainly wasn't Ataturk's intent that all the Greeks should be killed, whereas both the Nazi holocaust and the Young Turk regime's Armenian genocide where planned and deliberate. Adam 03:05, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, please, are you going to say that because there were Jews who survived World War II that the Nazis didn't commit genocide or holocaust? RickK | Talk 03:15, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Don't be stupid. I just said the exact opposite. Adam 03:21, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

HERAKLES' comments

Why Adam should the greek part apologise for the enosis? Have you ever heard any state to apologise for anything? Has Britain apologised for the occupation of the island or Turkey for the invasion? Why do you call it vandalism? The states are looking for their interests. Do you think that the balkan christianity should apologise for the balkan wars? By the chance, ottoman empire never apologised for the fell of Constantinopole. Do you think this is serious way to discuss history?

I can agree with you that nationalism in balkans is a stupid thing for two reasons. A) We have lived together for centuries and we have many common things. We are cousins in some sense. B)This enormous area is geografically and economically a unity. People could live together inside the border of a federal state. This was the dream of Rigas. Unfortunately, we (the balkan nations) are not mature enough to solve our problems peacefully and cooperate. That's why we need USA and Britain to play the role of justice (according their own interests of course) or an australian guy to learn us our history.

Nationalism in balkans has caused many damages and it still does. See Kossovo now. It is bloody stupid. But do you think that adopting the Turkish POV is not the better way to fight against the balkan nationalism? Have you heard the Turkish demands on Aegean islands and their stupid reasoning: "you greeks have two many islands, give us some" or "some of your islands are very close to our coast, give them to us". The article mentions it somewhere. You did not correct it. HERAKLES

I have no idea what this is all about. I never said that anyone should apologise for anything. I am not interested in cheap sarcasm or stupid exaggerations and misrepresentations of what I said. When you can get over your petty political prejudices and say something sensible I will talk to you. Katalaveneis? Adam 07:28, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Woops, you take an offensive. I am very sorry. I can explain what I said and I beg you to answer. 1) At the end of the first paragraph of the section: "The 1974 crisis and after", you write: "but the damage to Turkish-Greek relations was done and Greece would never apologize for their 1974 attempt to achieve enosis." This is my first notice. I did nothing else than erasing the last part. You call it vandalism, why?

  • I didn't write that, and I have now removed it. Adam 09:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

2) In the next paragraph you write: "all the Aegean islands except Imbros and Tenedos, some of them only a few kilometres off the Turkish coast." This is my second notice. It seems to me like the Turkish government arguments on the Aegean. I may be wrong of course. I would apologise if so.

  • This is a fact of geography, not anyone's POV. Have you taken the ferry from Kusadasi to Samos lately? I recommend it. It's a nice trip, but very short. Adam 09:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

3) It is common sense in the USA or the western europe that we the balkans are barbarians who cannot find a peacefull way to solve our problems. This is partly true and our modern history is a proof. However, there are a lot of people who reread our history (in both sides of the aegean) and try to eliminate the "stupid exaggerations". It is a difficault balance between the nationalisms. For instance, I know that after the occupation of the Tripolis by the greek rebells in the greek independence war, all Turks had been massacred. This will not stop me from saying that after the occupation of Smyrna the greeks suffered a similar massacre. I spoke against the balkan nationalism and I take every opportunity to speak about the Greek-Turkish friendship. You did not read what I write, I am affraid. 4) About my "cheap sarcasm". I do not challenge your knowledge of the greek history which seems to be deep. I have met quite a lot british or americans believing that their geografical distance had given them the privilege of neutral opinion. It is more complex. If you were a Turk, I would have spoken to you in a different way. In some sense more honest but friendly. For the Turk guy would hear my apologise for the greek crimes against the turkish minority in Cyprus but he would also accept that if the Cypriots were 80% Turks would never apologise for a unification to Turkey and the crimes against the supposed greek minority would be of similar scale. HERAKLES

  • I didn't write the bit about "apologies" so all this indignation is wasted on me. Adam 09:37, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Torque Adds: Adam, many thanks for making your efforts as objective as possible. I'll add some thoughts in this section and some below, with your permission. I wanted to begin by first challenging Herakles' assertion of "Have you ever heard any state to apologise for anything? Has Britain apologised for the occupation of the island or Turkey for the invasion?" Indeed, there have been occasions when states have apologized for wrongdoing. That is what is known as "integrity." For example, Great Britain apologized to Germany in 1936 for its WWI "Blue Book" claims (such as bayoneting Belgian babies), discredited after the war. (Unfortunately, a similar apology to Turkey has not yet been forthcoming for the Blue Books' wartime lies, still forming the basis of "Armenian Genocide" claims today.)

Secondly, I take exception to the "invasion" word regarding the Cyprus conflict. When Hitler moved into the Soviet Union, that was an invasion. Since there was a 1960 Treaty of Guarantee in place for the respective mother countries to protect its share of the Cypriot people, as soon as Greece moved in with intentions to wipe out the Turkish minority (as strongman Nicos Sampson admitted in the Feb. 26, 1981 edition of the Greek newspaper Eleftherotipia), after a history of massacres and abuses, that word may be more fairly described as an "intervention." An Athens Court of Appeal found Turkey's acts, as one of the Guarantor Powers, to be "legal." (March 21, 1979)

Ato's comments

I am worried about the content of this article in particular the section "The First World War and after". I do not want to make substantial changes, only to be reverted later, so I am hoping we can come to an agreement on some modification. Here are my points (disclosure: I am Turkish, and my ethnic origin AFAIK is also Turkish). Ato (2004-Apr-18, 22:31 Chicago)

  • In the first paragraph, the treaty of Sevres is mentioned as if it was a valid treaty between two consenting nations. It is not, it was a treaty imposed on the Ottoman Empire, and was rejected by the true government of Turkey, which later completely removed monarchy and installed republic. Treaty of Sevres was not even negotiated as any respectable treaty would be, it was signed after an ultimatum was sent to the Sultan who accepted it to keep his throne.
  • In the second paragraph, the word "capture" gives the impression that Izmir is Greek, and it is taken from them. However, Izmir was under Ottoman control for many years by then. Even when the Greek army arrived and controlled Izmir, there was already a big resistance despite the fact that Sultan had forbidden it. I had substituted the term "regain the control" but Adam has reverted it. I believe my choice is more neutral, but English is not my mother tongue.
  • This is my most important point, please try to reply at least to this. At the end of second paragraph there is a reference to the "massacre of those Greeks who could not escape by sea." I think this should be removed for two reasons. First it destroys the neutrality of the article (which IMHO is already poor). There is no reference to the invasion of Asia Minor by the Greek army, and the massacres they performed, or the killings of Turks by the Greeks living in the Ottoman empire while this invasion was happening. These did happen as did the Massacre in Izmir, the highpoint of which lynching of the archbishop, I am not denying that it did happen. They happened because there was a war and war is a dirty thing. This brings me to my second reason, that for "Greco-Turkish relations" article we should write paragraphs about how Yorgo Papandreau and Ismail Cem Ipekci danced Zeybetiko together. This kind of "foo killed bar, bar raped foo, foo burned bar's village" is not what the nations of Turkey and Greece need. We need friendship, not hostility. This comment as it stands now only introduces imbalance to the article, I suggest we remove it, if not we should tell all the unfortunate events of the war.
  • Similarly for the third paragraph, there is imbalance. That Greek minority was not only loyal to Greece, they helped the invading Greek army and killed and caused deaths of thousands of Turks. However, this is not mentioned at all. The only sentence is "Thousands were killed in ethnic conflict." which gives the impression only Greeks were getting killed which was not the case, and it was not only "ethnic conflict". Those people with their different ethinicities lived together for a long time until the Greek invasion of Asia minor. Other than this imbalance, this paragraph requires a lot of work, which I plan to put into in the coming weeks. I also plan to make contribution to the articles regarding Sevres and Lausenne treaties. I would appreciate any help, most of my resources give Turkish POV.
  • The final paragraph will probably be part of the extension of the previous paragraph, but I want to discuss one point that I plan to change, because I am sure it will meet resistance. Why is there a reference to the "Armenian Genocide"? What does it add to the article? Are we trying to establish a pattern? Are the Turkish people on trial here?

Adam replies

Dear Ato:

  • Treaty of Sevres: The treaty was a valid treaty under international law, signed by the internationally recognised government of the Sultan. Your description of Kemal's government as "the true Turkish government" is a political opinion, not a legal fact. Of course the treaty was imposed on the Sultan, because the Ottoman Empire had just lost a war. That doesn't mean it wasn't a legal treaty.
  • "Capture" is a completely neutral term. The Greeks held the city, the Turks captured it. That doesn't contain any opinion about who the city legally belonged to. Actually, under the Treaty of Sevres, it belonged to Greece, but my sentence doesn't imply that.
  • The massacre at Smyrna/Izmir was a massacre of civilians (accompanied, by the way, by mass rape of Greek women, which I haven't mentioned) carried out by the Kemalist army. This is a historical fact and cannot be deleted for political reasons. It was not done with the approval of the Kemalist government, and the article says that. But it did happen.
  • I am not aware of any comparable massacres of Turkish civilians by the Greek army. If they took place, they should be included. Please provide examples and sources if possible (preferably sources in English).
  • Greek disloyalty: You are right that the Ottoman Empire was traditionally a multi-ethnic empire where Greeks and Turks etc lived together. However this began to change under Enver, who tried to make the empire a centralised Turkish-national state. Non-Turks found it increasingly hard to give loyalty to this state, and certainly Greeks were "disloyal" during the Greco-Turkish war. (Just as Turkish Cypriots were "disloyal" to the Cypriot government). Certainly we should say more about this.
  • The reference to the Armenian Genocide was intended for comparison, to make the point that the massacre at Smyra was not done as government policy. It could probably be deleted.
  • By the way, I am neither Greek nor Turkish, I have been to both countries and here in multicultual Melbourne I have friends in both communities. My only interest here is writing accurate history. I appreciate your point of view but nationalist POV on any kind will be deleted from the article.

Adam 04:29, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ato replies

Dear Adam,

I appreciate your comments. Here is my further comments. I hope other people will join us. I am very hopeful that we will improve this article together.

  • The treaty of Sevres: This treaty is not valid. It was signed by a representative of Sultan, but the constitution of Ottoman Empire requires the parliament (Meclis-i Mebusan) to ratify any international treaty. This was never done as the parliament stopped its function and left Istanbul on March 18th 1920 upon its invasion by the Allies. Some members of the parliment later formed part of the new parliament of new Republic of Turkey which promptly declared the treaty invalid and dismissed the Sultan as the head of state. Sultan had no authority to enter such a treaty by himself. His authority was recognized by the Allies only because he was in a position to be forced to accept the terms of the treaty. According to "Turk Dis Politikasi (Turkish Foreign Policy)", ed. Baskin Oran, Iletisim Yayincilik, 2001, Istanbul, p.137 "Except for Greece, the Allies did not ratify [the treaty] as the events developed too quickly." See also, Heimleich ("From Paris to Sevres") and Hughes & Seligmann ("Does peace lead to war?"), on why this was a treaty that was DOA.
  • You have written: "Actually, under the Treaty of Sevres, it belonged to Greece...". This is not true and also not very relevant. As you must know, the landing of Greek army in Izmir precedes the signing of Sevres. More importantly, Sevres treaty does not give the region of Izmir to Greece, however it obviously prepares this transfer in five years time. I am not fanatic about "capture" I take your word for its neutrality. I plan to write about the landing of Greek army in Izmir anyways, and then it would become clear that the Turks were in control before that.
  • As far as I know, the massacre in Izmir, was not carried out by the Kemalist army. However the army did not take action to prevent hostilities. They should have done that of course. My opinion on removing this reference still stands, please see below, for more on this POV.
  • It is not hard to find references to massacres carried out by both Greek army and Greek civilians (citizens of Ottoman Empire). I have spent two hours in the university library today and found various references, which contain communications of British and Americans, hence cannot be disregarded as made-up facts by Turks. However, I will not write these references here. If you want to learn about them email me, and I will send you the names of the books with page numbers etc. Anybody who is doing a serious research about Greaco-Turkish relations can find these references easily. I do not want these records to be the defining point of the relations between the nations of Turkey and Greece. I would much rather look like someone who cannot back up his claims, than someone who supports and feeds hostility between these two nations. I think we should not add the records of these events and remove the reference to massacre in Izmir.
  • The name of the city Smyrna/Izmir is İzmir. I have just checked the map included in the treaty of Sevres, and the city is referred as "Izmir (Smyrna)". Of course in the wording of the treaty, it is referred as simply Smyrna. This is because the treaty is worded by the British and the Greeks. I do not know if this has any basis but, using Greek names for Turkish cities is perceived as persuasion of Megali Idea by Turkish people. As the city was evidently called Izmir at the time of the events referred to in the article, in my opinion, İzmir (Greek name: Smyrna) is more appropiate than Smyrna (now İzmir). It was İzmir "then", not only "now".
  • The policies of Enver, and ideology of "Young Turks", I think, belongs to article for "Ottoman Empire". I will put this on my to do list, then we can refer to that article for this issue. I agree with you that the times were getting harder for minorities in Ottoman Empire, but simply stating this and neglecting the role of interventions by European states to internal affairs, which lead to the nationalistic ideologies, might do more harm then good.
  • If I had sounded like accusing you of taking sides, please accept my apologies. I did not mean that. I am certainly not trying to rewrite history, or imposing my POV on anybody. However, I would gladly sacrifice accuracy to skip the hostilities and give more weight to positive aspects of Greaco-Turkish relations.

Ato 2004-April-20, 00:54, Chicago

Me on the beach at Gallipoli (Kallipolis, Gelibolu) with Turkish historian Dr Kenan Celik, May 2002
Me on the beach at Gallipoli (Kallipolis, Gelibolu) with Turkish historian Dr Kenan Celik, May 2002

Dear Ato

  • Treaty of Sevres: If what you say about Ottoman law is correct, then the point you make about the Treaty a good one. I assumed that the Sultan had the power to sign treaties on his own. You are also correct that the Greeks occupied Symrna/Izmir in 1919 before the Treaty was ratified. These points should be mentioned in the article, although they really belong in Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922).
  • Smyrna and Izmir: As far as I know cities did not have "official" names before the 19th century. Even Constantinople was not officially named Istanbul until Ataturk's time. Greeks called the city Smyrna and Turks called it Izmir. My rule is to call places by whatever name the people who lived there at the time called it, and so far as I know the city had a Greek majority before 1922. But this is not a major point. I am quite happy to say "Izmir, then called Smyrna by its Greek inhabitants."
  • Izmir/Smyrna massacre: There was a massacre and we should say that there was. If it was not carried out by the Kemalist army, who was it carried out by? I have a reference on this somewhere which I will check.
I am planning a longer reply, but I did not want to leave a direct question unanswered for long. I believe it was done by the Turkish inhabitants of Izmir. There was already a resistance against the Greek army, once they left, the hatred turned onto the Greek civilians. Ato
  • Massacres of Turks by Greeks: Rather than sending me references to books I won't have time to read, why don't you write a paragraph or two giving some examples and post it here for discussion? I trust you to use your sources correctly.
  • General: It is not the purpose of an encyclopaedia article to foster good relations between Greeks and Turks. It is our job to write what happened. If we do this in a calm and objective way then most people will not be offended.
    • i agree that our job is to write what happened, to be as acccurate and clear as possible, and that the fostering of good relations between, e.g. Greeks and Turks, is not a consensed-on goal of wikipedia. However, IMHO, writing in a calm, objective and unambiguous way often does offend people. People used to using euphemisms and holding in anger and frustration from life events and used to responding in certain ways often are offended, or at least talk that way - at least in the short term - when they are confronted with less ambiguous, more accurate descriptions of facts. Of course, IMHO, in the long term, the effect of this will be to foster the constructive resolution of conflicts and hence good relations between social groups, e.g. Greeks and Turks. This is independent of whether or not it's a conscious goal, and is probably better not to be a goal (except for maybe very exceptional circumstances, none of which i can think of right now). Boud 15:18, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Regards Adam 08:17, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hallo.. I only have one small comment to make. At this point I unfortunately don't have the time to post a complete "opinion" about the article which I think is quite fair on both sides. I would like to comment on the following phrase used by Ato.

quote

However, Izmir was under Ottoman control for many years by then.

unquote

I believe that Atos argument is quite unfortunate. Smyrna or Izmir( Or the other way around) was a city founded by Greek popoulation 2500 years ago and by that time still inhabited with a Greek majority. Someone would therefore say that with a 500year Ottoman break the terittory was Greek. I would like to point out at this point that this is not my view. I do not consider the area to be Greek. I am just pointing out that no argument (and certainly not in favor of the Turks) can be made on such grounds. This can also be proven by the fact that the Greeks, even after 400 years of slavery kept their national identity and were able to rise and gain freedom and independance. One cannot say that Greece(as we know it today) was ottoman for so many years and so it is rightfully ottoman now and the same stands for Izmir.

I do not intend to cause any problem and am a firm believer of greco turkish friendship.I was just commenting on the argument.

By the way i think the Imia crisis should be mentioned as it was quite important.

Jerry


Torque's Thoughts: First point: Adam, you look darned cool in that photo! (Assuming you're the one on the left. The other man looks ... ehh... "cool" in a Gerard Depardieu sense, perhaps.)

The legality of the Sevres Treaty must also be weighed with the reminder that the Ottoman government was itself not "legal." Aside from the technicalities Ato has brought up, purely and simply, this was a puppet government, under Allied occupation. Would WWII's Vichy government be considered one of a valid, independent France? Furthermore, it's not simply an opinion that the alternative Kemalist government represented the true Turkish government, even before it had the chance to overthrow the Ottomans. The last Ottoman government signed a document that spelled the death sentence of the Turkish nation. Afterwards, every Turk realized which government was the true representative of the Turks.

I had researched when Constantinople's name changed, and I also came across the same sources claiming the name was "officially" changed in 1930. What the heck does that mean? There is no official registrar of city names I'm aware of. As far as I can make out, "Smyrna" and "Constantinople" represent Christian code to those in denial over cities some think should still be part of Christendom. Kind of like how some preferred to keep calling Muhammad Ali "Cassius Clay." Since Izmir was a Turkish city, it's irrelevant how the Greek inhabitants might have referred to their city, just like no one would recognize the sizeable Turkish population in Frankfurt deciding to refer to Frankfurt as "Turkcity." What the owner of a city calls its own city or country is the rule to go by.

Massacres of Turks by Greeks: good idea. I'll see what I can come up with below, in a new section. The biased West has made a point of exclusively recognizing Christians such as Greeks, Armenians, and Bulgarians as the persecuted victims and Turkish lives never count.

Jerry's addition never failed to unimpress me. He took exception with Ato's irrefutable fact that "Izmir was under Ottoman control for many years by then." Jerry's logic: at one time the Greeks were in charge, and the fact that the Turks owned the city for half a millennium barely counted. Consequently, one should wonder why New York is not recognized as a Dutch town today.

Additionally, the Ottoman Empire is universally recognized for its incredible tolerance. If the Greeks endured 400 years of "slavery," instead of as a separate millet that the Turks were magnanimous in allowing for (in comparison to other multi-cultural empires), generously preserving the peoples' culture, language, religion and traditions, there wouldn't have been much chance for the Greeks to regain their place in the world. Don't believe me? Ask, for example, whether the Hawaiians have much chance of gaining their independence today. They were "conquered" a mere 100 years (or so) ago.

Hellenic Holocaust / Pontian Genocide

I don't think these terms are used by Greeks specifically for the 1922-23 violence, which was indeed amidst mutual exchange of populations. Most people I know who use them refer to the killing of Greeks in the 1916-1922 period, much of it concurrent with the Armenian Genocide. Quite a few relatives of mine, for example, were killed in and near Trapezous (now Trabzon) in 1917, forcing the remaining ones to flee as refugees. --Delirium 22:21, Apr 24, 2004 (UTC)

I think the term Pontian Genocide is more consistent with events near Trabzon, since that region is what is called Pontus. After WWI, there was an uprising of Greeks in this region to gain autonomy and they met with resistance, and there were certainly killings. I do not agree with calling this event a genocide or holocaust, but since I am Turkish my POV is heavily biased. That being said, the reason for my disagreement is twofold. First, there were killings on both sides, the situation resembled a state of war. Second, this was not an ethnic cleansing led by the state powers. It was a reaction to actions taken by the Greeks, and some Greeks did continue to live in the region. BTW, my father's mother is from Trabzon and has probably some Greek ancestry. Let me take this oppurtunity to extend my sympathies for your losses which are in a way the losses of all Turkish people.ato
Well, I suppose it's a fine line. In some sense, it does seem at the very least ethnic cleansing: there was an uprising by a local community, and an attempt by the majority to get rid of the local community. In the chaos of WW1, this may not have been orchestrated, but it doesn't seem that the Armenians were the only targets of the activities of the Armenian Genocide, which was aimed more broadly at reducing Turkey's multi-ethnicity. I suppose being Greek I'm kind of biased as well, but it does seem like modern Turkey was created mostly by displacing and disenfranchising the many of the people who lived there---the biggest groups of these being Armenians, Greeks, and Kurds---and making ethnic Turks the only group with political control of the new country, even in areas that had almost no actual Turks (like some of the 90% Kurdish areas of the country). --Delirium 03:59, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

The terms holocaust and genocide were introduced to this article by the unregisted user called Herakles (see my argument with him, above). I accepted his assertion that these expressions are used by Greeks to describe the events of 1919-22. If Delerium is of the view that this is not the case (and as a Greek he ought to know), then they can be removed, and a more accurate description of what happened in Anatolia in the whole 1914-22 period can be written. Possibly this should be done in a separate article Ethnic conflict in Anatolia, 1914-22, since this article mainly is about state-to-state relations between Greece and Turkey. I fear, however, that such an article will attract nationalist propagandists from both sides and will be difficult to write. Adam 05:01, 25 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I tend to agree, with that last caveat. This also seems to be specialist information that may be difficult to come by: Are there any good historical accounts? My information is anecdotal, and I believe accurate for the specific area it's from, but by no means am I a historian of the wider conflict in the period. I'm not sure very many people are, really. --Delirium 09:51, Apr 25, 2004 (UTC)

Torque Thinks: Regarding Delirium's assertion: "it doesn't seem that the Armenians were the only targets of the activities of the Armenian Genocide, which was aimed more broadly at reducing Turkey's multi-ethnicity." "Genocide" is a politicized word, and if it's meant the way most define it, as what the Nazis did to the Jews, there is no legitimate proof of a state-sponsored extermination policy. Since Turkey is an easy whipping boy, everyone gets in line to claim their own little genocide. The ethnic groups who got targeted in WWI were the ones who rebelled... no different than what any other country would have done. Nothing happened to those who remained loyal, such as the Ottoman Jews.

Massacres of Turks by Greeks

Earlier, Adam encouraged some talk on this topic, so here goes. Justin McCarthy's "Death and Exile" informs us in the century from the Greek independence until the close of WWI, five million Turks/Turkic peoples were expelled from conquered lands, and another five and one half million were wiped out. A mortality comparable to the 5.1-5.4 million Jewish losses of the Holocaust, yet remarkably one no one considers...least of all, the hypocritical genocide scholars.

Modus of Operandi was to kill everyone you can, and scare the rest away. Russia implemented this policy best, in its vast conquests of Ottoman lands. The Bulgarians during the 19th century, the Serbs in the last generation, and Armenians during WWI and 1992 used this formula to a tee. Yet the Greeks might have provided the initial inspiration.

1821 War of Independence: George Finlay (History of the Greek Revolution, London, 1861, p. 172): "In the meantime the Christian population had attacked and murdered the Mussulman population in every part of the peninsula.... From the 26th of March until Easter Sunday, which fell, in the year 1821, on the 22nd of April, it is supposed that fifteen thousand (Muslim) souls perished in cold blood and that about three thousand farmhouses of Turkish dwellings were laid waste."

David Howarth ("The Greek adventure - Lord Byron and Other Eccentrics in the War of Independence," London, 1976, pg. 28): "Once they (the Greeks) had started... they killed (Turks) because a mad blood-lust had come upon them all, and everyone was killing"

William St. Clair ("That Greece Might Still be Free - the Philhellenes in the War of Independence," London, 1972, pg. 1): "The Turks of Greece left few traces. They disappeared suddenly and finally in the spring of 1821, unmourned and unnoticed by the rest of the world... Upwards of 20,000 Turkish men, women and children were murdered by their Greek neighbours in a few weeks of slaughter. They were killed deliberately, without qualm and scruple..."

Circa WWI: "The Greek armies landed amid a wild reception from the local Greek population, with church bells ringing, priests kissing the soldiers, and men and women falling to their knees before their 'liberators.' The landing was followed by a general slaughter of the Turkish population. Greek mobs roamed the streets, looting and killing, with those Turks who escaped being arrested by the Allied authorities. The Greek army began moving into Anatolia, ravaging and raping as it went, with the local Greek population taking the opportunity to join in the massacre... Greek atrocities, not only in the southwest but also around Trabzon, where advocates of a Pontus Greek state had anticipated the arrival of the Greek army by instituting massacres of their own to remove the Turkish population.

In the first part of the twentieth century when the Ottoman Empire was fast collapsing ethnic Greek irregulars, armed and encouraged by Greece, operated in the Turkish Black Sea coast regions. Banditry by these groups often resulted in the slaughter of Turkish villagers. Some 40 ethnic Greek bandit groups plundered Turkish villagers and murdered at least 2,000 Turks... the Greek irregulars attempted to create an ethnic Greek state on the Black Sea coast modeled on the ancient state of Pontus. The American High Commissioner, Mark Bristol, in a report he wrote after a journey along the Black Sea coast, drew attention to the anarchy which the Greeks were fomenting." Stanford Shaw, "The History of the Ottoman Empire and Modern Turkey."


Izmir/"Smyrna": "When the victorious army entered the region, the Christian population, remembering the precedent of 1919 when the Greeks slaughtered 4,000 Moslems, began sending out panic-stricken appeals for protection, anticipating retaliation on the part of the Turks. And the Council of the League of Nations at Geneva sent to Angora a mild request that no reprisals be made for the Greek atrocities. A strange turn of phraseology: the League of Nations admitting Greek atrocities! Gradually it dawned upon the Christians in Smyrna and upon the Christian nations in Europe that no reprisals were to be made. But the retreating Greeks in complete demoralization behaved so badly that even the efficient British censorship could not stop the leaking of news. The pillaging and burning by the defeated Greek army grew to such proportions that it was difficult for lzmet Pasha to restrain his troops from retaliation. But restrain them he did, and his men behaved with such dignity and orderliness as to profoundly impress Western observers. (How different from the actions of our own marines in Haiti!) The first Turk troops to enter Smyrna were military police who prevented looting and did their best to still the panic among the hysterical Greek civilians. The correspondents of the Chicago Tribune, the London Daily Mail, and Reuter's stated emphatically that the unfortunate burning of the city was not in any way traceable to the Turks. In spite of these reports by correspondents who were on the spot and who have no reason to favor the Turkish cause, we still hear that the Turks burned Smyrna." "The Turkish Myth," The Nation, June 13, 1923.

"[Manisa] almost completely wiped out by fire 10,300 houses, 15 mosques, 2 baths, 2,278 shops, 19 hotels, 26 villas [destroyed]. Kasaba [present day Turgutlu] was a city of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Moslems. Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death. Of the 2,000 buildings that constituted the city, only 200 remained standing. Ample testimony was available to the effect that the city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians. Kerosene and Gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid and complete." Loder Park, American Consul, who toured much of the devastated area immediately after the Greek evacuation.

Cyprus: The article tells us Turkey bombed Cyprus in the 1960s ("In August Turkish aircraft bombed Greek troops in the island ... Once again the Greek minority in Turkey suffered..."), giving the usual impression the Greeks were the victims; to my knowledge, the Turks hoped to exercise their guarantor right, but were threatened not to do so by the U.S. President Johnson. There were a multitude of press reports at the time, now largely forgotten, as to the reasons why. Here are two examples:

"We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Cypriot quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there, and we have seen sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears." The Daily Express, Dec. 28, 1963.

"Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide." The Washington Post, Feb. 17, 1964

In 1974, Greek Cypriots massacred 126 people, mostly children and women, collectively at three Turkish Cypriot villages. Greek Cypriot Antonis Angastiniyotis prepared the documentary "Barbarism to the Turkish Cypriots and the Other Side of the Medallion," which got him into trouble with his brethren, on this page. (Here's a forum.)

Not to say Turks are angels and haven't murdered Greeks through the years; it's just that in the West we nearly always hear of Turkish brutality, and it's high time to examine the other side of the coin.--Torque (November 11, 2004)


Ocalan's capture and Greek-Turkish Relations

Doesnt the capture of Ocalan in Greek embassy in Nairobi deserve a mention as a recent significant event? See for instance: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/281322.stm --Olympos 03:13, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Loyalty of "Greeks" in Turkey

Looking at the edit conflict that's been going on, I'm not terribly impressed with either version. The claim that Greeks in Turkey were "generally disloyal" seems to be POV unless some support can be provided for it. It is a rather tremendous claim. Furthermore, many of the "Greeks" who were forced out of Turkey in the aftermath of World War I were not even exactly Greeks - they were Turkish-speaking Christians (and, of course, Greek-speaking Muslims were expelled to Turkey). This should at least be mentioned, shouldn't it? john k 19:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought it was obvious that once the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire was redefined as a Turkish national state, a process which began under Enver and climaxed under Ataturk, ethnic Greeks (however defined) would feel no loyalty to it. This is not meant as a pejorative comment - there was no reason why they should have been loyal to it. The same is true of the Armenians. In neither case did this justify the Turkish massacres that took place, although in the Greek case the massacres have to be seen against the background of Greece's predatory land-grab in the wake of the Ottoman collapse.

More generally, John, this article has attracted persistent nationalist POV edits, both Greek and Turkish, ever since I wrote it. I would welcome some assistance in dealing with them. When it is unprotected, feel free to improve the wording of the sections in question. Adam 22:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Loyalty of "Greeks" in Turkey

Looking at the edit conflict that's been going on, I'm not terribly impressed with either version. The claim that Greeks in Turkey were "generally disloyal" seems to be POV unless some support can be provided for it. It is a rather tremendous claim. Furthermore, many of the "Greeks" who were forced out of Turkey in the aftermath of World War I were not even exactly Greeks - they were Turkish-speaking Christians (and, of course, Greek-speaking Muslims were expelled to Turkey). This should at least be mentioned, shouldn't it? john k 19:01, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would have thought it was obvious that once the multi-ethnic Ottoman Empire was redefined as a Turkish national state, a process which began under Enver and climaxed under Ataturk, ethnic Greeks (however defined) would feel no loyalty to it. This is not meant as a pejorative comment - there was no reason why they should have been loyal to it. The same is true of the Armenians. In neither case did this justify the Turkish massacres that took place, although in the Greek case the massacres have to be seen against the background of Greece's predatory land-grab in the wake of the Ottoman collapse.

More generally, John, this article has attracted persistent nationalist POV edits, both Greek and Turkish, ever since I wrote it. I would welcome some assistance in dealing with them. When it is unprotected, feel free to improve the wording of the sections in question. Adam 22:52, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Adam - I don't think we can make sweeping statements based on what might or might not be obvious. A citation of a source, I think is the very least that should be required. I would add that not being loyal is not the same thing as being disloyal, which implies an active position. And, again, the issue of Turkish-speaking Orthodox Christians seems highly questionable here - if the state is being redefined as a Turkish national state, it would seem at least plausible that these people could claim to be part of the Turkish nation, in the way that Arabic-speaking Christians in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, and Egypt have claimed to be Arabs. That this did not happen does not seem to me to be self-evident, especially as the Turkish state under Kemal was moving away from a self-definition based around Islam. Again, this statement about the Greeks of Turkey being disloyal shouldn't be made unless a citation can be found, and the issue of Turkish-speaking Christians who were expelled as Greeks should be brought up. That said, I'm sure a better phrasing can be worked out. john k 19:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is of course a sad lack of modern Greek history in English. My main source on this is Michael Llewellyn-Smith's Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor 1919-1922 (Allen Lane 1973). He makes it clear that the generality of Anatolian Greeks (that is, Greek-speaking Christians) welcomed the Greek invasion and identified their first loyalty as being to Greece rather than to the Ottoman or Kemalist state. This was the case partly because of bonds of language and religion but partly also because many of the Anatolian Greeks (particularly in Smyrna and the Ionian coast) were 19th century immigrants from Greece rather than descended from the pre-Ottoman Greek population. Adam 01:28, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. I don't object, then, to some statement that the Greeks of Anatolia welcomed the Greek invasion (I'd prefer not calling them "disloyal," though). I do think that some statement on the non-Greek-speaking Christians who were expelled is in order, as well as the Greek-speaking Muslims who were expelled from Greece. john k 04:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(deleted Coolcat's mediation template, which has not been accepted)

Coolcat, to put this carefully, I don't think that either a Greek or a Turk should be declaring themselves a mediator of this article. Simply the appearance of impropriety should be enough for us to try to avoid this. Secondly, what is there to mediate? There has been no discussion on the talk page in days. john k 19:37, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am not Turkish. I lived in Turkey during an Enginnering Post in the GAP procject at SE Turkey. I know little about the whole discussion, I know one thing that both sides were demonising each other at a point. There is room for improvement all the time. I am a mediator as long as you guys want me around. I am fair, just try me before disposing me :). I think we should reexamine this article... Cat chi? 03:19, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exactly what is it you are trying to mediate? I don't see any ongoing conflict. Adam 03:35, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Okay, sorry I thought you were Turkish - I assumed based on your prior contributions, and one should never assume. That said, I'm with Adam - what exactly is the ongoing dispute here that requires mediation? john k 04:53, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Given the edits on Kurdish related pages, and Armenian Genocide related pages, combined with the non-native use of English, your assumption was entirely reasonable. Jayjg (talk) 06:16, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Unprotecting

Would anyone have a problem if I unprotected the page? john k 04:54, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would suggest that, given User:Coolcat's POV-pushing in the guise of 'mediation' on Talk:Armenian Genocide and Talk:Nagorno-Karabakh, that now is not an auspicious time to unprotect this article. — Davenbelle 05:05, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC) <-- Suggetion withdrawn; Davenbelle 02:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC) on third thought...

What is the POV that he is alleged to be pushing? Greek? Turkish? Klingon? Let the article be unprotected, and anyone who tries to push their POV will be reverted (or possibly assimilated). Adam 05:12, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:Coolcat seems to be very focused on Armenian Genocide denial; I'm not sure where he's trying to take the Nagorno-Karabakh article. From the collection of Trekcruft on his user page, I'd say Klingon is a possibility. — Davenbelle 05:47, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Your excuse is unacceptable, in wikipedia its absolutely unacceptible to dismiss what I am saying just because I am saying. Please folow the wiki way.
I think you need to read that this article has nothing to do with Armenian Genocide, I want POV out of wikipedia, Armenian Genocide is disputed unlike what a few wikipedisans claim.
I was posing as a mediator for any conflict that would come about. As this is a fragile and sensetive topic. People who want to see pro armenian Genocide material, Pro Kurdish independence movement material on wikipedia do not belong to wikipedia. Please read NPOV and please do not interprete wierd meanings. I am very focused on any article with frequent POV pushing. Some Armenians convinced themselves that Armenian Genocide is 100% factual and should be published on any and all medians possible.
My mediation sugestion has been declined by who? During recent discussion neither Davenbelle, Jiag was a part of it them disputing my mediation can be considered a personal attack. I am suprised Stereotek did not show up just yet. Cat chi? 10:48, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)
My mediation Temlate clearly suggests that I will not edit the article on my own. It is clearly looking for comon grounds. I am accused of POV although all I am doing is pulling pov off of wikipedia, it apears to me that goverment data regarding an internal issue is considered propoganda and POV throughout wikipedia when dealing with Alegetions like the Aemenian Genocide or Organisations like the PKK. While views pro genocide for instance is suggested of being Neutral. All I suggested was that both sides views be represented in the Armenian Genocide article equaly. I was declared of having this paranoiac hidden agenda and such. In sum I am beeing baselessly acused. My mediation request stands. Cat chi? 10:50, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Given Adam's comment below, I withdraw my suggestion that the page remain protected; it seems to be in good hands. User:Coolcat, you should respect Adam's request. Best wishes, Adam. — Davenbelle 02:50, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

SOAS; enough to make one consider seeking protection for a talk page. — Davenbelle 10:32, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
Protection probably should remain in place – at least 'til the issue of User:Coolcat @ ArbCom is completed. — Davenbelle 22:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
Well, I do not see why you are here, aside from interfereing with my conversation. Cat chi? 07:59, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Seems more like a monologue. — Davenbelle 08:43, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

I want to experiment here. Since the discussion is in a more civil tone there isnt a too terible need for mediation. I can be a mediator, give me a try. Just try me. I am re adding the template. You should not toss your parfiume before trying it. Misguided people who do not want my mediation due to the discussion in Armenian Genocide before a discussion starts here is not right. Kapla! Cat chi? 01:12, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, it is obvious that the people working on this article do not want you to mediate any dispute that might exist here, since it is suspected that you have a Turkish nationalist agenda. I wrote the original version of this article, and since I have been protecting it against both Greek and Turkish nationalist edits. So I have some say in whether you get to mediate here or not, and I don't want you to. Please stop dumping your "mediation template" on this page when it is not wanted. Adam 02:28, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You cannot claim ownership to the article, I am not Turkish, I lived there, I lived in Greece too, Its very unfortunate both sides demonise each other, they dont realise how much they are alike present day. Please do not declare ownership to the article. You cannot determine if my mediation is wanter or not. I am only not puting it back because I am nice. People who suspect me of things can either shoot themselves or talk to me. I have no tolerance to people with misguided energy who refrain to presonal attacks and vandalism. I still recomend my template to discuss the article. Cat chi? 06:40, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am an engineer not a brick layer(quoting McCoy, kinda). I poses no hidden agenda. I lived in the suburban areas of both countries for years, I know some of their facts better than people who sit in an office and make smart talk. Cat chi? 06:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Article genrealy has a civil and neutral tone. However peices of information is missing. I think Ill use my colors to demonstrate them in the process. Cat chi? 06:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I made several suggestions, you are welcome to use the color format I introduced. Cat chi? 07:26, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It should be clarified what happened to the pact: "1954 Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia formed a new Balkan Pact"

When was the fact gone as Yugoslavia is no longer there. Cat chi? 06:53, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean and I doubt anyone else does either. I suggest you go and do something else. Adam 06:59, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggest you stop suggeting me to leave, that will just chain me to the topic. Cat chi? 07:05, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Believe me Adam, he won't do anything else, he's goal is to get involved in any entries relating directly or indirectly Turkey. He has even gone as far as to edit "The History of Genocides" and other entries reffering to the Armenian genocide. Fadix 03:21, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
User:Coolcat, you are not 'chained' to this topic, you are here by choice; if you truly believe what you've said, well, there's a word for that. — Davenbelle 10:39, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)
You have no reason to be here, you havent made a single suggestion that contributes to the topic, all you declared was how horrible I am. Cat chi? 03:09, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think my suggestions here have greatly benefited this article. — Davenbelle 10:06, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Let me clarify:

During World War II Greece was occupied by Nazi Germany while Turkey remained neutral. The Greeks suffered terrible privations in the last years of the war and many fled to Turkey as refugees, where the Turks gave them aid. This episode is seldom recalled by anti-Turkish Greek nationalists. After the war both Greece and Turkey joined NATO and thus became at least nominally allies. In 1954 Greece, Turkey and Yugoslavia formed a new Balkan Pact for mutual defence against the Soviet Union.

  • When was the pact abolished or was it? Since Yugoslavia is no more, doe sthis mean this is a pact between Greece and Turkey? Cat chi? 03:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)
What sort of new claims you can come up with? In WWII, in Turkey, anti-Greek progroms ended up with the destruction of the little Greek minority in Istanbul, there has been even a documentary prepared by the Turkish human right organization regarding those incidences, as well as the capital tax that was purpously placed there to ruine the Greeks, Armenians and Jews. the capital tax was justified with this remark: “Against those who profit from the hospitality offered by this country and become wealthy, while at the same time abrogate their responsibilities at this critical moment, the law will be applied with full force”. Turkey had even plans to join Germany to invade SSR Armenia, when Germany was to take Stalingrad. A report was make regarding the Jews, Armenians and Greeks. For the Greeks, it was written among many other things: “On the 500th anniversary of the conquest of Istanbul by the Ottoman forces, not one Greek should be left in the city.” About the Armenians: “Armenians are not assimilable and those who survive must be encouraged to depart (emigrate).” And for the Jews: “Stop all Jewish immigration, while provoking incidents within the country with the goal of creating a Jewish exodus, keep them away from all government activity, be it financial or economic” (source: Ridvan Akar, Askale Yolculari—Varlik Vergisi ve Çalisma Kamplari (Passengers to Askale—Capitial Tax and forced labour camps), Belge Uluslararasi Yayincilik, Istanbul, 1999) As for Turkey's neutrality in WWII. Don't go there please, as it is documented that without the chromite Turkey provided to Germany, the war would have lasted at most, months. As the German Minister for Armaments and Munitions Albert Speer confirmed when he wrote in his memoirs: "Hence the element in shortest supply is chromium. This is especially grave since chromium is indispensable to a highly developed armaments industry. Should supplies from Turkey be cut off, the stockpile of chromium is sufficient only for 5.6 months. The manufacture of planes, tanks, motor vehicles, tank shells, U-boats, and almost the entire gamut of artillery would have to cease from one to three months after this deadline, since by then the reserves in the distributions channels would be used up." He then declared that if it wasn't of Turkish supply: "no more or less than that the war would be over approximately ten months after the loss of the Balkans." (Albert Speer, Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs, translated by Richard and Clara Winston (New York and Toronto, 1970)). Will you once for all stop participating in articles which you ignore under the pretext of neutrality to hide your national biases? And you even still lie with your "I am not a Turk." When we have shown that you by mistake admitted being one not so long ago, by reffering to the Ottoman turks as your encestors, and using the term "Armanian" for Armenians, and those are just a few things. Fadix 03:19, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I fail to relate this with Turkey-Greece-Yugoslavia pact. I wouldnt be less credible even if I were Turkish, although I am not. You are disputing Turkeys Neutrality on WW2 on a Turkey_Greek relations article, its a bit too off topic. Cat chi? 07:53, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Usage of Greek words to refer to cities will ofend Turks and usage of Turkish words will offend Greeks. Usage of Turkish/Greek names of cities when refering to cities in Turkey and Greek/Turkish when refering to cities in greece sounds fair.

For example Istanbul/Constantinapole or Thessaloniki/Selanik. This is how we did it in engineering projects involving both countries. Cat chi? 07:02, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is absurd. Since 1930, "Istanbul" has been that city's name, and how it is referred to in English. Before that, it was just "Constantinople" - Istanbul was an informal Turkish name not used in the west. Thessaloniki has never been known in English as "Selanik." Through WWI or so, it was generally called "Salonica," and since then "Thessalonica" or "Thessaloniki." There is no reason not to stick with a single name, especially when discussing the twentieth century. john k 16:51, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

  • When you fly off of New-York to Turkey you will fly into Istanbul. The west calls that Istanbul in airports. You do not fly into Selanik, instead the greek name.
  • I am exposed to both cultures. The politicaly correct way is the one I stated, the usage of both names, If city is in Turkey Turkish name first then english if city in greece greek name first than Turkish.
  • Check out http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Istanbul.
  • I do not understand why it is absured to refer to cities with both the Greek and Turkish name. This is an Encyclopedia, not a research paper, it should be writen in a way that anybody can understand what is been said.

Cat chi? 03:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In the english wikipedia, we are writing for those who speak English. For city names, we follow English usage. English usage for the Turkish city has been (since 1930) Istanbul. We should use Istanbul, which is universally understood in English (although Constantinople is also commonly known, because, prior to 1930, it was both the official name and the standard English name). For the Greek city, usage has been unclear - older accounts generally use "Salonika" or "Salonica," newer versions are rather widespread. However, a name which is never used in English is "Selanik." Given that Selanik is a) a name never used in English; and b) not the name used in the language of the country where the city is now located; I see no reason to use it in wikipedia ever, except to mention it at the top of the Thessaloniki page itself. For Istanbul, it seems clear that we should use Byzantium before 330, Constantinople between 330 and 1930, and Istanbul since 1930. The encyclopedia is designed so that English-speakers can understand and read it easily, not in order not to theoretically offend Greeks and Turks. john k 04:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would add that there are cities where both names should probably be mentioned. Izmir/Smyrna, for instance. But no cities outside present-day Turkey ought to have their Turkish names mentioned, simply because these names are never used in English. Greek names should only be used outside of Greece for cities which have often been referred to by that name in English. If this seems uneven, well, tough luck - it is a bias of English language usage, which tends to be more familiar with Greek names than Turkish names, not of the wikipedia. john k 04:29, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suggested that we mention that due to the nature of the aricle involving both cultures, I have no reason to isnsist but would make anybody with nationalist feelings happy when reading the article. A vandalism proof method if you will. Also makes sure people understand the cities mentioned are not something they arent, extra city names cant hurt. Maybe something Like: Thessaloniki/Salonika ? The "Englishised" is fine. Just that most turks would be staring you if you talk about "Thessaloniki" and tell them its a Greek city. The city is very important Turks I believe. Cat chi? 00:36, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reformat the folowing as:

"Today, the Greek-Turkish dispute over the Aegean sea evolves around four distinct, yet mutually related issues: 1) Sovereignity of the Aegean sea 2) Claims of territorial waters limits within the Aegean Sea, by each side 3) Jurisdiction over airspace zones 4) Sovereignty over unspecified (gray areas) Aegean islands. This last issue arose after the Imia (Greek) / Kardak (Turkish) crisis, which brought the two countries one step away from war."

"Today, the Greek-Turkish dispute over the Aegean sea evolves around four distinct, yet mutually related issues:

  1. Sovereignity of the Aegean sea
  2. Claims of territorial waters limits within the Aegean Sea, by each side
  3. Jurisdiction over airspace zones
  4. Sovereignty over unspecified (gray areas) Aegean islands. This last issue arose after the Imia (Greek) / Kardak (Turkish) crisis, which brought the two countries one step away from war."
I prefer refering the relation ship of two countries as a mini cold war. I dont know if that is aproporate for an article of this nature. Cat chi? 07:13, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

wikifying is bad idea? Cat chi? 03:40, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

S-300 Crisis

No mention of it, it was a big thing on media coverage. At this time I was in Turkey. Cat chi? 07:25, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Posible propoganda left over, no?

"The Christian minorities, the Greeks and Armenians, saw their position in the Empire deteriorate."

Please correct me if I am wrong, I seriously never heard of this during my stay. I am not knowlegable in Greek-Turkish history enough to determine this one. Cat chi? 07:22, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps reword? Cat chi? 09:09, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Coolcat, this is all very colourful but you are wasting your time. No-one is going to respond to these subliterate comments. Kindly desist. Adam 11:38, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What is the point of a discusion dtabase if no one will discuss? Besides I dont think there is anything to dicsuss regarding the numbering for example. Cat chi? 15:50, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was hopeing to have a civil discussion with PhD profs, I may have an insight you may not have. While my relation with people in Greece was isolated as I was burried in my engineering assgnment. I was in Turkey much more exposed to the people as Building a dam has quite a lot of down time, esspecialy if you are not a civil/mechanical engineer and yet are involved. You have significant effort in this article. I dont see why any effort to make it even better bothers you. Cat chi? 03:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can someone please respond? Cat chi? 00:42, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Cc, I don't think anyone wants to talk to you here. — Davenbelle 22:48, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)
What do you suggest? I leave on first patheticaly unwiki reaction? Cat chi? 07:58, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I ask you to add material, you seem to have a neutral tone. I pointed out what is missing. If you value the quality of your article you will consider what I provided. I hate the fact that you hate me. Cat chi? 08:26, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Hate the Sin, Never the Sinner" — Davenbelle 09:59, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Kewl Kolours

This talk page was in black & white -- for a while, at least. — Davenbelle 09:39, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

The color of this discussion is based on any and all parties want to discuss it. Your edit of what I posted is not welcome. Instead of opposing my color scheme why not talk about the article, if you do not want to do that why are you here? Do not edit my posts ever again. Cat chi? 00:41, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)




HIII; I AM SEARCHING ARMANIAN FAMILY WHO LIVED IN ISTANBUL.BECAUSE OF THEIR LIE, FAMILY, FAMILY SHEETS, OLD ARMANIAN HOUSE WHICH IN ISTANBUL.. SO THAT IF ANYBODY CAN HELP ME ABOUT IT SEND MAIL TO ME....

EXACTLY FAMILY F THESE FAMILY MEMBERS FROM LAST CENTURY OR NEW GENERATION FROM THEM 1- DIMITRI 2-GEORK 3-ANGELIDIS 4-ANGELIDES 5-ERIH 6-RODI totmel@hotmail.com

SEARCHING TO:HO LIVED ISTANBUL FROM ARMANIAN FAMILY

SEARCHING TO:HO LIVED ISTANBUL FROM ARMANIAN FAMILY

HIII;

I AM SEARCHING ARMANIAN FAMILY WHO LIVED IN ISTANBUL.BECAUSE OF THEIR LIE, FAMILY, FAMILY SHEETS, OLD ARMANIAN HOUSE WHICH IN ISTANBUL.. SO THAT IF ANYBODY CAN HELP ME ABOUT IT SEND MAIL TO ME....

EXACTLY FAMILY F THESE FAMILY MEMBERS FROM LAST CENTURY OR NEW GENERATION FROM THEM 1- DIMITRI 2-GEORK 3-ANGELIDIS 4-ANGELIDES 5-ERIH 6-RODI totmel@hotmail.com