Greeks of Ottoman state, the genocide of Greeks of Pontos and the Treaty
University of Thrace GREECE
of the consequences of the destruction of Hellenism in Turkey were: the
arrival in Greece of Greek refugees from Turkey, the internal developments
with the undertaking of power because of the “critical national
circumstances” from the revolutionary committee (colonels: Plastiras,
Gonatas and lieutenant commander Fokas), the reconstruction of the army of
Evros that constituted powerful negotiation arm in Lausanne, the removal
of king Konstandinos, the posting of Eleftherios Venizelos as diplomatic
representative of the country, and the committal as persons in charge for
the destruction, D.Gounaris, N. Stratos, P. Protopapadakis, G. Baltatzis,
N. Theotokis, G. Chatzianestis (15th
Greek people attributed the destruction to the political leadership of the
country which resulted after the elections in 1920 as well as to the
interventions of the Palace. The repeated governments that succeeded
immediately after the destruction of Hellenism in Thrace, Pondos
and Ionia as well as the arrival of hundreds of thousands of refugees,
resorted to the reception of unsuitable measures such as censorship,
prohibition of public concentrations, in order to silence the accentuated
spirits, disorientate the common opinion and to face important issues that
concerned mainly the refugees and their care, as well as the imposition of
military discipline to the dispiriting troops.
The change of seven ministers of Finances within 4 months from the
revolutionary Plastira’s government reveals the amount of the problems
in a country that accepted more than 1.300.000 refugees. In general at
this critical time period, from 1924 to 1928, 10 Prime Ministers
intervened, three elections and eleven military movements took place or
ultimatums were sent. Even the president of democracy had to be dismissed
once and resigned twice. In this time period the constitutional question
was temporarily resolved, because of the nomination of the Greek Republic,
before its break down by the dictatorship of Ioannis Metaxas in 1936, that
restored king Georgios II.
collapse of the forehead had also direct results in the great forces that
felt now closer to Kemal’s forces and irregular rebels (ceteler). Thus
the Allies sought and achieved truce that was signed in Moudania on 11
October 1922 without the cooperation of Greek delegation. The general
Mazarakis with colonels Plastira and Sarigianni, who constituted the Greek
delegation, denied initially to sign the truce, without authorisation of
the government and the decision of the Greek Parliament . The allies and
particularly the English, at the duration of the persecutions that the
Turkish army started, against the Greek populations, sent big departments
of Arabic army of Mesopotamia and occupied Mosul, felt now intensely the
presence of Kemal’s Turkish army in Canak kale absence of Greek forces,
sought the truce, ensuring their interests, mainly the control of Stena
and the maintenance of their economic privileges (capitulations). Both the
French and the Italians acted the same, while the Soviet government 2
years ago had already signed the pact of Friendship, with the de jure
arrangement of Kemal in Turkey strengthening simultaneously his army.
Kemal on 4 October 1922 addressing to the Big Turkish National assembly
declared that you seek the “complete evacuation of enemy from each
department of our nation” anticipating the final retirement of Greek
army from the Eastern Thrace, while one year later in the first
anniversary of victory (September 1923) it declared in his festive speech
to the big Turkish national assembly, “let us not forget that in the
Asia Minor, the brave Greek army was not defeated, its political
leadership was”, giving his own interpretation to the positive result of
Turkish fight of independence.
The Greek army with the treaty of truce of Moudania, was ordered to
vacate, not only the Asia Minor, where there was henceforth written the
tragic conclusion of historical presence of many centuries, but also the
Eastern Thrace, where huge forces and the Greek element existed for
centuries, in 15 days while in Pontos the genocide was continued that cost
353.000 lives of Greeks. In total 1500.000 Greek roughly, left as refugees
from Thrace, Pontos, Kappadokia, Ionia, and came to Greece.
THE GENOCIDE OF GREEKS OF EUXINOS PONTOS (BLACK SEA)
means the destruction of a group as the outcome of governmental policy. It
was on December 9, 1948 the U.N. General Assembly adopted a resolution
delineating the full meaning of Genocide and condemned it as “a crime
under international law.”
speaking, the Genocide, according to the statement issued by the U.N.,
“means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in
whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, such as:
Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated
to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
Greek Pontian Genocide, is the third biggest Genocide of the 20th
century, and was centrally planned and administered against the entire
Greek Pontian population of Pontos, by the Turkish government and the
Ottoman Empire, as only Governments have the means, the machinery and the
central planning to implement it. It was carried out between the years
1916 and 1923 in atime of peace and not war.
remember the definition of Genocide , Genocide is the organized killing of
people for the purpose of putting an end to their collective existence not
because they have done something, but of what they are, and in the case of
the Greek Pontians, because they were Greeks and Orthodox Christians.
has taught the Youngturks that the only way they will make the general
area of Pontos their country, was to physically exterminate the Ethnic
groups of people that existed there for more than 3,000 years. This very
same plan will later be used against the Jews.http://www.euxintv.net/pontiako-zitima/el/pont-zitima/1/pontians_12.jpg
German general of the Turkish Army, Liman Von Saunders with the excuse of
military reasons, advised the Turks to deport the Greek Pontians from the
shores of Black sea to inland for protection from the enemy’s Navy.
intent of the deportations was to set on fire the villages, rob and to
alter the ethnic character of the Greek areas, in order to easier change
to Islam those who remained behind.
Greek Pontian people were subjected to deportation, expropriation,
abduction, torture, massacre, and starvation.
The great bulk of the Greek Pontian population was forcibly removed
from Pontos, where they lived for three millennia, to be sent the work
camps and to the white death marches, where the vast majority was sent
into the winter cold and summer heat, to die from the elements, thirst and
numbers of Greek Pontians were methodically massacred throughout the area
of Pontos. Women and children were abducted and horribly abused. The
entire wealth of the Greek Pontian people was expropriated.
deportations, hangings, massacres and burnings, have created, especially
in western Pontos, during the years of 1916 – 1923, a large number of
orphans, who had nowhere to go. Many
of them ended up in Turkish homes and they have been changed over to
Turkish citizens and Islam.
THE HISTORY OF GENOCIDE
opening bell of the genocide came with the order in 1914 for all Pontian
men between the ages of 18 and 50 to report for military duty. Those who
"refused" or "failed" to appear, the order provided,
were to be summarily shot. The immediate result of this firman (decree)
was the murder of thousands of the more prominent Pontians, whose name
appeared on lists of "undesirables" already prepared by the
Young Turk regime.
thousands ended up in the notorious Labor Battalions (amele taburu). In a
precursor of what was to become a favorite practice in Hitler's
extermination camps, Pontian men were driven from their homes into the
wilderness to perform hard labor and expire from exhaustion, thirst, and
disease. German advisors of the Turkish regime (what a surprise!)
suggested that Pontian populations be forced into internal exile. This
"advise" led directly to the emptying of hundreds of Pontian
villages and the forced march of women, children, and old people to
nowhere. The details of this systematic slaughter of the Pontians by the
Turks were dutifully recorded by both German and Austrian diplomats.
Pontians, unlike Greeks elsewhere in Asia Minor, did try to organize armed
resistance against their butchers. Pontian guerrilla bands had appeared in
the mountains of Santa as early as 1916. Brave leaders, like Capitan
Stylianos Kosmidis, even hoisted the flag of independent Pontus in the
hope of help from Greece and Russia (which never arrived). But the
struggle was unequal. The Turkish army, assisted by the blood-thirsty
Tsets, cuthroats of mostly Kurdish extraction, attacked and destroyed
undefended Pontian villages in revenge.
May 19, 1919, chief butcher Kemal himself disembarked at Samsous to begin
organizing the final phase of the Pontian genocide. Assisted by his German
advisers, and surrounded by his own band of killers -- Topal Osman, Refet
Bey, Ismet Inonu, and Talaat Pasha -- the founder of "modern"
Turkey applied himself to the destruction of the Pontian Greeks. With the
Greek army engaged in Anatolia, a new wave of deportations, mass killings,
and "preventative" executions destroyed the remnants of Pontian
Hellenism. The plan worked with deadly precision. In the Amasia province
alone, with a pre-war population of some 180,000, records show a final
tally of 134,000 people liquidated.
memory of the Pontian Genocide is dedicated to all those in Europe and the
U.S. who shamelessly advocate admitting Turkey into the EU and describe it
as a "democracy." They are all blind as they are shameless.
July 1909 German Ambassador in Athens Wangenheim to Chancellor Bulow
quoting Turkish Prime Minister Sefker Pasha: "The Turks have decided
upon a war of extermination against their Christian subjects."
July 1909 Sefker Pasha visited Patriarch Ioakeim III and tells him:
"we will cut off your heads, we will make you disappear. It is either
you or us who will survive."
May 1914 Official document from Talaat Bey Minister of the Interior to
Prefect of Smyrna: The Greeks, who are Ottoman subjects, and form the
majority of inhabitants in your district, take advantage of the
circumstances in order to provoke a revolutionary current, favourable to
the intervention of the Great Powers. Consequently, it is urgently
necessary that the Greeks occupying the coast-line of Asia Minor be
compelled to evacuate their villages and install themselves in the
vilayets of Erzerum and Chaldea. If they should refuse to be transported
to the appointed places, kindly give instructions to our Moslem brothers,
so that they shall induce the Greeks, through excesses of all sorts, to
leave their native places of their own accord. Do not forget to obtain, in
such cases, from the emigrants certificates stating that they leave their
homes on their own initiative, so that we shall not have political
complications ensuing from their displacement.
July 1915 German priest J. Lepsius: "The anti-Greek and anti-Armenian
persecutions are two phases of one programme - the extermination of the
Christian element from Turkey.
July 1916 German Consul Kuchhoff from Amisos to Berlin: "The entire
Greek population of Sinope and the coastal region of the county of
Kastanome has been exiled. Exile and extermination in Turkish are the
same, for whoever is not murdered, will die from hunger or illness."
November 1916 Austrian consul at Amisos Kwiatkowski to Austria Foreign
Minister Baron Burian: "on 26 November Rafet Bey told me: "we
must finish off the Greeks as we did with the Armenians . . . on 28
November. Rafet Bey told me: "today I sent squads to the interior to
kill every Greek on sight." I fear for the elimination of the entire
Greek population and a repeat of what occurred last year" (meaning
the Armenian genocide).
December 1916 German Ambassador Kuhlman to Chancellor Hollweg in Berlin:
"Consuls Bergfeld in Samsun and Schede in Kerasun report of
displacement of local population and murders. Prisoners are not kept.
Villages reduced to ashes. Greek refugee families consisting mostly of
women and children being marched from the coasts to Sebasteia. The need is
December 1916 Austrian Ambassador to Turkey Pallavicini to Vienna lists
the villages in the region of Amisos that were being burnt to the ground
and their inhabitants raped, murdered or dispersed.
January 1917 Austrian Ambassador Pallavicini: "the situation for the
displaced is desperate. Death awaits them all. I spoke to the Grand Vizier
and told him that it would be sad if the persecution of the Greek element
took the same scope and dimension as the Armenia persecution. The Grand
Vizier promised that he would influence Talaat Bey and Emver Pasha."
31 January 1917 Austrian Chancellor Hollweg's report: ". . .
the indications are that the Turks plan to eliminate the Greek element as
enemies of the state, as they did earlier with the Armenians. The strategy
implemented by the Turks is of displacing people to the interior without
taking measures for their survival by exposing them to death, hunger and
illness. The abandoned homes are then looted and burnt or destroyed.
Whatever was done to the Armenians is being repeated with the Greeks.
is estimated that 353,000 Greek Pontians perished between 1916 and 1923.
There were an estimated 700,000
Greek Pontians living in the area of Pontos on the eve of W.W.I. Well over
300,000 were deported in 1922. Hundreds of thousands were butchered
outright. Many others died of starvation, exhaustion, and epidemics, which
ravaged the concentration camps. Tens of thousands, approximately 150,000
in the east fled to the Russian border to lead a precarious existence as
the cities of Pontos the Kemalists have created the Temporary courts of
Liberty, which were putting on trial and executing the leaders of the
Greek Pontians. More than
353,000 Greek Pontians have found martyric death by the Young Turks and
expulsions and massacres carried out by the Nationalist Turks between 1920
and 1922 added tens of thousands of more victims. By 1923 the entire
landmass of the historic Pontos had been expunged of its Greek Pontian
population, who lived in the area for over three Millennia.
destruction of the Greek Pontian communities in this part of the world was
total and final.
decision to carry out genocide against the Greek Pontian people was made
by the political party in power in the Ottoman Empire. This was the
Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), popularly known as the Young Turks.
are five protagonists known in
the Greek Pontian Genocide.
three figures from the CUP controlled the government;
Mehmet Talaat, Minister of the Interior in 1915 and Grand Vizier (Prime
Minister) in 1917; Who is the father of the two most diabolical plans of
first is called ARMENISIZ ARMENISTAN which means Armenia without
Armenians, which means, you have guess right, do away with all the
the second is called WHITE DEATH MARCHES, which means force them to march
in the snow and winter cold, without food and clothes, to die from the
elements, that way will not be accused of Pontian genocide later.
However the goddess of Historia forgives but never forgets.
Enver, Minister of War;
Jemal, Minister of the Marine and Military Governor of Syria.
organization believed in the creation of a new Islamic Empire stretching
from Anatolia into Central Asia whose population would be exclusively
Turkish. These concepts justified and popularized the secret CUP plans to
liquidate the Greek Pontians of Pontos and the Ottoman Empire.
Mustafa Kemal May 19th, 1919, Mustafa Kemal comes to Amisos (Samsounta)
as a representative of the Ottoman Government.
starts his criminal work by preaching the hatred against the Greek
Pontians. A member of the Kemalist group was another criminal under the
Osman, known in history as the biggest executioner of the Pontian Greeks.
himself appointed him as his representative to the area of Pontos, with
limitless powers over the life and death on the Greek Pontians.
must point out that even to this day, Turkey, systematically denies, that
genocide was ever committed against Pontian Greeks, Greeks of Ionia (Asia
Minor), Thrace, Armenians, Assyrians and others.
LAUSENNE AND HELLENISM.
truce of Moudania stated that an international conference on the signature
of final treaty of peace should be convened, which meant an agreement that
would ensure substantially the economic interests of the Allies, which
were in danger from Kemal’s new establishment of power and from the
danger of obliteration of the Greeks of Istanbul. Little before the
contracting of the treaty the first subject that occupied the interested
sides was which countries would be invited to the negotiations that had
been programmed for Lausanne. The United States of America declared that
they did not wish to participate as they were not at war with Turkey. They
transmitted however through diplomatic process, to the governments of
England, France and Italy that they owed to take into consideration the
American interests as well in the new regulations, that were identified
with the continuation of policy of “open doors”, for further economic
infiltration in new Turkey, subjects that were placed at the same time
also by the same Americans, in direct contacts with the new leadership of
Kemal. The American minister of exterior Houtz before the first
deliberation in Lausanne sent directives, on the same question in the
ambassadors of USA, in London, Paris and Rome (30/10/1922), commanding the
American diplomats to notify to the governments of the western Forces that
the USA will not tolerate the American interests in Near East not to be
taken seriously into consideration in the Near East.
Finally the U.S.A. took part in the Conference of Peace in Lausanne, as
observers, having as representatives the American ambassador the admiral
Bristol High Commissioner in Istanbul, the expert for Eastern subjects
Grew that later will declare that “the
Greeks have been annoying enough in Lausanne”, an executive of Standard
Oil and Lewis Heck that dealt the purchase of oils in Istanbul. The forces
of Entente during the preparations of the conference of peace, did not
wish the presence of representatives of the Soviet Union, at the duration
of negotiations that probably would support, because of a
non imperialistic zeal and other private reasons, and agreed only
to invite the Soviet delegation, when they would discuss the problem of
Stena. Chicherin the Soviet Foreign Secretary will reach Lausanne in
December 1st, in order to assist the meeting, on the question
8 /20 November 1922, the conference of Lausanne begins - meanwhile 400.000
Greeks still lived in Asia at that time, 300.000 in Istanbul and in
100.000 Pondos apart from those who were Christians in secret- and lasted
totally 9 months with an interruption of 75 days. The Lord Korzon proposed
the creation of three delegates, the policy that would discuss the
territorial problems in which chairman was appointed himself, the economy
that would examine the problem of debt of Ottoman empire, where chairman
was named the French representative since the French bankers were
immediately interested and the law that would deal with the subject of
minorities, in which chairman was appointed an
Italian diplomat, whose presence would strengthen the Greek –
Italian oppositions and facilitated the English drawings for the
exploitation of Greece as a mean of blackmail to Turkey. Representatives
of Greece in the conference of Lausanne were Eleytherios Venizelos and
Dimitrios Kaklamanos, attorney Minister in London. Representatives from
Kemal’s side were Ismet Pasa, Minister of Abroad and the deputy of
Adrianoypolis, the former deputy of Trapezounda Hassan Bey and Riza Nour
Bey Minister of Health and Social Care as well as the deputy of Sinope,
for whom testimonies reported that took part in the persecutions against
the Christian populations of Ionia and Pontos.
Kemal’s party that were henceforth the unique and uncontradictable force
of power in the former Ottoman territory and the de facto interlocutor in
Lausanne opposed the sign “Turkey to Turkish” continuing, the
nationalistic dynamics that had been developed with the Movement of
Neo-Turkish (1908). The Turkish delegation did not come to Lausanne in
order to sign an agreement that would be dictated by the big forces, but
to negotiate a treaty of peace on the beginning of new national Kemal’s
Turkish state and to consolidation Turkism having no concern about the
minorities of the former Ottoman empire. New nationalistic Turkey had come
out strengthened from the war and decided to claim by all means the
achievement of their national objectives.
the English side head was the Foreign Secretary Lord Korzon who also was
the chairman of the conference, “Lord of oils of Mosul” as he was
named and continued being representative of Britain even after the fall of
Lloyd George’s government of coalition. The Italians were represented by
Mousolni who approached the Greek representatives supporting, for their
own reasons, the march of the Greek army in the Eastern Thrace and
afterwards the interruption of work of conference, granted his place to
the marquis Garoni and the French Prime Minister Pouankare, to whom
Venizelos said at the duration of discussions that, “France
betrayed Greece”. The claims of Turks towards Greece in the conference,
where the Swiss chairman Hubb hoped “ the Greek-Turkish war to be the
last in the history of humanity”, was: martial compensations, concession
of Western Thrace, (finally if the 51% of Macedonia after the Balkan wars
belonged to Greece the corresponding percentage for Thrace, northern,
Eastern, westerner, was by far the smallest suppression of Greek fleet,
removal of Ecumenical Patriarchate, complete evacuation of Greeks of
Istanbul and the rest that lived in Asia Minor. When the discussion about
Thrace according to the Treaty of Lausanne began, Ismet Pasa asked for the
regions that once belonged to the Ottoman Empire to be returned toTurkey
according to the treaty of Constantinople. Ismet, and later Inonu stressed
that the agreements of Sofia and Berlin that forecasted their concession
in Bulgaria had not ever been ratified by the government of the Soultan.
As for the concession of Karagats, the invoked reasons of concession were
the Turkish railway station of Adrianoypolis and the defensive safety of
the city, on the thought that it was not reasonable for Greece to have the
possibility of commercial and military exclusion of the capital of Eastern
Thrace. This demand was refuted by the British representative Lord Korzon
and Venizelos presenting statistics that the city of Karagats was
exclusively Greek, suggested a small region of the right bank of Evros to
be given to Turkey, for manufacturing a railway station.
territorial and military Committee of Congress of Lausanne began on 22
November 1992, the discussion about the borders of Thrace and Korzon’s
choice to begin the discussion with this aimed to bring the Turkish side
at a disadvantage and to evince the Allies’
unity. In that discussion Venizelos pointed out that there had been
revolution in Greece and the army had been reorganized in order to save
Eastern Thrace, for which he had asked to be sacrificed in order to be
placed head of the Greek delegation, believing that if this concession
happened other demands would not exist.
Turkey however came back asking a department of the right side of Ebros
and referendum on the Western Thrace, without however determining with
clarity the limits of the region in which they mentioned. Ismet Pasa,
stressed that he did not ask the return of Western Thrace but wanted to
protect the Turkish populations that were found there.
30 January 1923 the Greek-Turkish convention and the protocol about the
exchange of Greek and Turkish populations” was signed. According to the
first article of the protocol of 1st May 1923, the exchange of
Christian Turkish nationals with the Muslims of Greek citizenship had to
be obligatory. Both Greeks
and Turkish nationals would not have the right to return to the places
that they were born and lived without the authorisation of the Turkish and
Greek government. There were 1.500.000 Greek orthodox and 460.000 Muslim
Greek citizens exchanged. The exchange took place in the base of religion
therefore there were not many Greeks from Pontos. Those people had been
forced violently to change their religious beliefs. They still remain in
the region up to today. The Greeks of Istanbul were excluded, they were
characterized as not exchangeable, although they were 390.000 on total
population of Constantinople 1.000.000, according to Lord Korzon’s
research the conference’s chairman , they all lived there long before
the 30/10/1918.he also presented information about the Greeks of Imvros
and Tenedos (12.000) and the Muslim women of Western Thrace (roughly
100.000). The characterization of the minority of Thrace as religious -
Moslem is owed to the insistence of a member of Turkish delegation Riza
Nour Bey who stressed: “the existing minorities are only religious, not
racial. Therefore the Turkish delegation does not accord with pleas about
the protection of racial or linguistic minorities”. The Turkish
delegation was in favour of the withdrawal of Greeks from Istanbul,
something that caused discontent to E. Venizelos, who reacted by
supporting that something like this would mean the destruction for Greece,
that already had accepted refugees that exceeded by far the number of
writers do admit that one of the most basic results of the treaty of
Lausanne, was the obligatory exchange of populations, Lord Korzon regarded
it as “ mischievous and immoral”, and that “the Turkish proposals
about the exchange of populations were faulty and defective solutions for
which the humanity will pay for a long time . It is perfectly clear, that
the Turks want to get rid of the Greeks or make their staying hard and
At the same time the USA were in favour of the obligatory exchange of
populations. Being impossible to determine who was Greek and who was
Turkish from the national point of view, the experts of exchange followed
the Ottoman criterion that had been applied for many centuries and that
were exclusively religious: “Greek”
was the one who belonged to the Christian-Orthodox millet,
“Turkish” was the one who belonged to the Muslim-Sunni
millet, irrelevantly from his maternal language”.
basic parameter of the obligatory exchange of populations is an
arrangement of self-government-article 14 – for the Greeks of Istanbul,
Imbros and Tenedos and the characterization of the Moslem minorities of
Thrace not exchangeable. The Turks themselves had proposed the term
religious minority, not racial, but was erased at Turkish requirement,
when it was formulated by Big Forces. Another term had actually been
proposed as well which was Turkish Moslem minority, but it was not
accepted because it was thought that an Albanian Muslim minority also
existed in Greece and should not be characterized likewise. Venizelos
proposed, for better protection, the minorities not to be enlisted and not to have civil rights, also not to
elect and not to be elected. It has not been clarified who was the one
that proposed the exchange of populations, Ismet pasa formulated the place
that it emanated from the Greek side, it is supported that the exchange of
populations was not completely new solution in the Greek-Turkish conflict
as “Venizelos himself had proposed a similar solution in a more limited
scale just before the First World War”.The exchange was related to Venizelos’ will, “to
be unloaded as fast as possible from the 350.000 roughly Mohammedans in
order to open space to the Greek refugees”, knowing however
simultaneously, there had been minimal importance on the conditions of how
the Greeks would finally leave,
from the Turkish side.
Lausanne Venizelos supported that the proposal belongs to the Norwegian
High Commissioner of Society of Nations Fr.Nansen. Nansen spoke for
pressures from the Big Forces that prompted him to this direction. Other
consideration indicates that by the obligatory exchange of populations,
where 193.356 Greeks left Turkey for Greece and 354.647 Turks left Greece
for Turkey, the Convention of Lausanne was more to Greece’s advantage
rather than Turkey’s. The result of this convention of was the violent
expatriation of the Greek element. “… The treaty of Lausanne imposes
sacrifice from both States…”, E. Venizelos had said.
The French historian Driault raises the number of murdered Greeks from the
Turkish prosecutions that continued, to thousands and considers the
disappearance of Greeks from Turkey the greatest and the worst ever since
the fall of Istanbul. “… Exchange of populations was decided.
1.5million refugees resorted to European Greece. It was the biggest
destruction of modern Hellenism. This drama… deeply convulsed the Greek
“The most important article of the treaty was however that that imposed
the obligatorily exchange of populations, more than 1,5 million Greeks
came to Greece from Asia. The ethnological and political map of Close east
was modified considerably. When Mohammedans abandoned Macedonia, the
governments of Liberals acting decisively installed
Greek villagers from the east to the abandoned Greek territories
having as a result the complete predominance of the Greek element in a
region where the ethnological heterogeneity had created international
complications repeatedly. At the same time hundreds of thousands of
refugees shaped areas of degradation in big cities where unemployment,
poverty and the lack of homing created permanent hearth social and
“Later the Greek-Turkish Convention had as a result the complete change
of the ethnological composition of all countries that surround the Aegean
and Euxeinos Pontos”.
“The treaty of Lausanne inaugurated new season in the international law,
the obligatory immigration and exchange of populations. Thousands of
people were used as objects, the most living part of Hellenism that by
being expulsive and violently expatriated, unwillingly helped Eastern
Thrace to become turkish, while other 900.000 refugees from Minor Asia
allowed the same in Western Minor Asia , as well the exploitation of Mosul
from big forces and TURKIS PETROLEUM”.
British politician and Prime Minister Loyd George intensively denounced
the treaty: “as the peak of unfairness and biggest villain for the
entire humanity”, and that “… no-one supports that this treaty
constitutes honest peace. It is not simply peace. The arson of Smyrne and the composed slaughter of tens of thousands of Greek in
inner Small Asia and in Pondos proves that the Turkish always remain the
same ” the consul of the USA in Smyrne G.Horton, will stress that “…
during the conferences in Lausanne but also after the completion in
agreement, I supported in public that the American missions in the abroad
should have reacted in this sordid treaty… those lobbyists who
participated in the conference of Lausanne had decided to act taking into
consideration the protection of the petrol interests only. I willingly
declare and support that the developments that rendered the signature of
treaty of Lausanne possible
were determined by the petrol interests. In the race of who would ensure
first the favour of Turkey, the winners were the Americans. The object of
all negotiations was Mosul and the right for exploiting oil”.
Also, Musolini will say to the Greek minister of exterior Alexandris when
he visited him in Rome, “… the decisions of Lausanne are unfair to
Greece”. The main concern of the Greek government was to protect the big
territorial and economic requirements of kemal’s Turkey. The treaty that
was signed in the conference of peace in the Swiss city revised the treaty
of Sevron (1920), which as the treaty of Versailles sealed the A' world
war. It is however acquaintance the so called tendency of revisionism that
followed certain countries at the interwar with Germany being first and
with a view to reverse the results of the 1st world war. A
policy that failed to meet their requirements and resulted in the 2nd
world war. What however the European countries did not achieve and lost in
the 1st World War was achieved by Turkey in 1923 with the
treaty of Lausanne. For the supporters of Kemal “the treaty of Lausanne
constitutes substantially international recognition of claims as they were
included in Turkish National Contract”, while the Italian newspaper
Mesagero wrote “… Turkey lost at the World War but achieved an
undeniable diplomatic victory in Lausanne”.
opinions of Kemal , were expressed later as well, when Turkey turned away
the remains of Hellenism in Pondos, began the expulsion of Hellenism of
Istanbul, Imbros and Tenedos (cephalic tax -1942), they continued it in
1955 a few days after the beginning of fight of the National Organisation
of Cypriote Fighters in Cyprus, against the British colonists, in 1964, in
1974 in Cyprus and up to today with the nationalistic movements in Thrace.
Precisely for the rescue, as Kemal’s theory proposes and the treaty of
Lausanne, the Muslims of Greece! The treaty of Lausanne was not
revisionist, but allocate at the constant practice that Turkey followed, a
dynamics of continuous review, direct sample of which was the treaty of
Montreux - 20/7/1936- that suppressed the Stena, Imbros and Limnos being
unfortified and the annexation from Turkey of in 1938 of santzak
(prefecture) of Iskenderum (Hatay), whose majority of residents was of
Syria origin, aiming at the complete re-establishment of the Ottoman
sovereignty and in particular the simultaneous disappearance of the
remaining nationalities apart from the Turkish ones. Cyprus and the
Turkish claims in Aegean and the Thrace, as the so called
“purification” against the Greeks of Turkey are the proofs of this
continuous tendency of revision.