British document shows Greek plan to invade İstanbul

[George S.]

British document shows Greek plan to invade İstanbul



22 August 2011

http://www.todayszaman.com/news-2546...-istanbul.html

A newly released book titled “İngiliz Yıllık Raporlarında Türkiye: 1922” (Turkey in Annual British Reports: 1922), part of a series of the same name by Marmara University history professor Ali Satan, includes a document drafted by the then-British high commissioner in İstanbul indicating that the Greek army had planned to invade the city in July 1922.

According to the document, written by British High Commissioner Nevile Henderson, Greece asked the allied powers for permission to invade İstanbul and was denied this approval on July 31, 1922. The British government along with France and Italy showed no tolerance for the plan and stopped Greece from realizing its ambition.

Great Britain recalled its fleet located in the Mediterranean to İstanbul to show its determination in line with the other great powers to stop Greek troops from entering the capital city of the Ottoman Empire, which was occupied by the allied powers at the time.

Henderson stated in his report that the assignment of Georgios Hatzanestis as commander-in-chief of the Greek Army in Asia Minor instead of Anastasios Papoulas in May 1922 was the first step in the occupation plan. Hatzanestis was known as a radical and a hawk in comparison to his colleague. Henderson indicated the attack on Samsun was a pre-strike prepared by the Greeks to facilitate the implementation of the occupation plan.

According to Henderson, the march of four Greek divisions to İstanbul was a very stupid move that was designed to restore the morale of Greek soldiers and thus weaken and demoralize the enemy by directly capturing the capital city. The occupation plan failed roughly a month before the last big battle, which took place between the Turkish and Greek armies on Aug. 26. Ali Satan addresses the significance of the document by implying that if the Greek army had succeeded in invading and occupying İstanbul, the Turkish army would have had to fight to take İstanbul back before fighting for İzmir.

[George S.]

what do yuo think of this onur if the greeks took over you would be a greek today.

[Soldier of Macedon]

The best solution for Constantinople would have been something similar to the Vatican/Holy See, where it could be run as an independent entity for Orthodox Christians. I am not talking about the whole of today's Istanbul, just a section encompassing the most important religious institutions and monuments. Probably unrealistic in today's climate, but nevertheless, I believe it is wrong and unfair that Catholics, Muslims and Jews have sovereignty of the lands where their spiritual centres are located, yet Orthodox Christians don't.

[George S.]

good point som they need to be sharing it with the orthodox people as well.

[Onur]

I already posted this article here b4, don't remember under which thread.

Rebirth of constantinople after ~600 years??? Maybe i would say yes if we still had the orthodoxs of 15-16-17-18th century, the eastern Romans, but now? no way. We got imposter neo-hellenes today with full of hate. 100s of fascist priests in Istanbul like the archbishop of Salonika?? No thanks. Would you like to see the same for Ohrid church?? So they can freely spread their hate propaganda from Ohrid? you surely wouldn't.

We also have bitter history with them in 1910-1920s. It wont be forgotten for centuries. Last time the Greek church had power in here, they appointed Germanos Karavangelis as an archbishop of Pontus and Christosomos to Izmir in 1910s. Karavangelis gathered bandits from Crete, Morea and organized mass massacres in there. Christosomos blessed Arvanit soldiers from Greece and shouted as "drink the blood of the Turks" from the balcony of governor residence.

[Epirot]

The best solution for Constantinople would have been something similar to the Vatican/Holy See, where it could be run as an independent entity for Orthodox Christians. I am not talking about the whole of today's Istanbul, just a section encompassing the most important religious institutions and monuments. Probably unrealistic in today's climate, but nevertheless, I believe it is wrong and unfair that Catholics, Muslims and Jews have sovereignty of the lands where their spiritual centres are located, yet Orthodox Christians don't.

I won't reflect my atheistic attitude to that thread, but a special sovereignty given to the Orthodox centers in Instambul is completely unnecessary. Needles to say, but Orthodoxes had always a privileged status among all communities in Instambul. The high ranks of them abused these generous privileges granted by Ottoman authorities and used for achieving their political purposes. As far as I've observed, there was no other place in earth when Orthodox enjoyed such a special status like in Instambul.

I understand your point but we should also analyze the "side" effects if Orthodox would gain a special sovereignty to the holy Orthodox objects. This may violate the hundreds years of harmony which has existed unceasingly among all religious communities in Instambul. let imagine an Orthodox pilgrimage (composed by Greeks or other fanatics) in Instambul. They probably would chant fanatic slogans implying that Turks should be expelled from their holy lands, etc, etc...something very similar with Serbs "pilgrims" when they come every year in Kosova to "celebrate" any Orthodox holiday.

[Onur]

Epirot is right and SOM, why you want a church to gain more power while they don't even recognize yours? To let them crush your church in Ohrid?

This is from 29 May, western Thrace and this is quite a common thing in Greece, happens at least once a month;

I am sick of the fascist Greeks anymore but this time, "Golden Dawn" fascists organized a demonstration yesterday in Gumulcine (Komotini), western Thrace.






They gathered at the front of Turkish embassy and shouted like;
"Turks out of Thrace", "muslims of Thrace are Greeks, the ones who feels Turkish should go to Turkey otherwise we have a surprise for them!", "our border is here now but it will be constantinople soon", "we gonna piss on to Kemal`s grave and shit on it"





On their manifesto papers, they say;
"You Greeks, don't forget, constantinople is the capital of Greece.
It`s never late to get constantinople back and make it our capital.
We gonna shut down the Turkish embassy. Turks out of Thrace"


The main speaker of the fascist group warned that if the Turkish embassy doesn't get closed, they will come back soon and burn it themselves. The fascist group has been disbanded after drawing Nazi swastika symbols on the walls of the embassy and on to the windows of few local Turkish owned stores in there.

29 May 2011

http://www.birlikgazetesi.info/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3384:mllyetc-grup-guemuelcnede-znsz-goesterde-bakonsoloslua-yueruedue-yenden-gelecez-ded&catid=34:haberler&Itemid=54

Videos here;

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xizffp_hrisi-avgi-gumulcine-yuruyus_news

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xizfid_hrisi-avgi-platia-konusmasi_news

If we give them autonomous status in Istanbul, they do the same here next day, probably even in bigger scale. If people watch these scenes in Istanbul from tv news, then i am sure that some of them starts planning for doing the same thing as Norwegian Breivik did. The jihadists from middle-east starts sticking bombs on their chest for suicide bombing. Iranian authorities implants nuclear bombs on their missiles.... Do i need to say more?

[Soldier of Macedon]

I won't reflect my atheistic attitude.......

You just did in your whole post. Either that or it is an anti-Orthodox attitude.

Needles to say, but Orthodoxes had always a privileged status among all communities in Instambul. The high ranks of them abused these generous privileges granted by Ottoman authorities and used for achieving their political purposes.

That is completely irrelevant. The Catholics and Muslims had and still have the same status in Rome and Mecca respectively.

let imagine an Orthodox pilgrimage (composed by Greeks or other fanatics) in Instambul.

So all other Orthodox Christians are fanatics? Get real.

SOM, why you want a church to gain more power while they don't even recognize yours? To let them crush your church in Ohrid?

What I wrote doesn't mean I accept the way certain other Orthodox churches treat the Macedonian Orthodox Church. I think it would be good for greater cooperation and understanding among Orthodox churches.

If we give them autonomous status in Istanbul, they do the same here next day, probably even in bigger scale.

Onur, I am not talking about making the place a residential area for general populations of Orthodox Christians, just a modest-sized religious centre that has the right to self-government and is mainly inhabited by representatives of the various Orthodox churches. Even if people were to visit it they may have some small guest houses but not tourist-style hotels and such there, which means they would need to stay in the Turkish territory which surrounds it. I don't know why you post pictures of Greek extremists in support of Epirot's suggestion, it is not like they will be on 'home' soil even if they do visit it. Put the matter into perspective. I wonder how many Muslim extremists there would be if they were denied the right of sovereignty over Mecca and Medina? You think they would be any less extreme than their Christian equivalents, or more?

[Onur]

SOM, i understand what you meant but you are being so naive.

For 1000+ years, Roman church, Vatican, Constantinople patriarchy, Mecca, other muslim jihadists, Zionist Jews, the Jerusalem problem.... None of these are related with religions or none of these have any spiritual meaning anymore, for a loooong time. It`s all about politics, nothing else. And if Greeks gains higher status, i am sure that they become uncontrollable, thinking like they are even bigger than Vatican. I bet they would create some conspiracy to cause problems and invite EU border force to supposedly "protect" them and god knows what more.

Your "representatives of the various Orthodox churches" words are just wishful thinking of yours. There can only be one type of people in there, the comrades of archbishop of Salonika and Greek patriarch in reign. The representatives of Macedonian, Russian, Bulgarian churches can set up candles and clean the statue of mother Marry, while Albanians can sweep the doorway, thats all.

it is not like they will be on 'home' soil even if they do visit it.

Are you sure of this?

Make a survey in Greece and ask whether if they would consider future autonomous patriarchial lands in Istanbul as a part of their "hellenic homeland" and ask whom they would consider as foreigners in there, themselves or Turks.

[Soldier of Macedon]

SOM, i understand what you meant but you are being so naive.

Probably more wishful thinking than naive Onur, but I did earlier say that it seems unrealistic in today's (political) climate.

Your "representatives of the various Orthodox churches" words are just wishful thinking of yours. There can only be one type of people in there, the comrades of archbishop of Salonika and Greek patriarch in reign. The representatives of Macedonian, Russian, Bulgarian churches can set up candles and clean the statue of mother Marry, while Albanians can sweep the doorway, thats all.

That is being pessimistic, and you probably have a right to be based on the recent past, but that is not how I was envisioning it.

Make a survey in Greece and ask whether if they would consider future autonomous patriarchial lands in Istanbul as a part of their "hellenic homeland" and ask whom they would consider as foreigners in there, themselves or Turks.

It wouldn't matter what some extremists think, the place will be a tiny entity which is completely surrounded by Turkish territory.

[Onur]

It`s just neither Greeks nor Turks are mature enough today for such a thing. But this immaturity wasn't caused by us, it`s because of Greek invasion of Anatolia and the actions of patriarchy. I don't think this can change in foreseeable future.

[Soldier of Macedon]

It`s just neither Greeks nor Turks are mature enough today for such a thing. But this immaturity wasn't caused by us, it`s because of Greek invasion of Anatolia and the actions of patriarchy. I don't think this can change in foreseeable future.

It shouldn't have to be just about Greeks because they aren't the only Orthodox peoples, but I agree with you that this doesn't appear as a possibility in the near future.

[Onur]

I know this will start a new argument but in fact, Istanbul patriarchy was never ecumenical at all. Their ecumenical status has been given to them by eastern Roman emperor`s will, so it was a political trick again.

I am an agnostic but i studied history of religions. Already agnostics and atheists studies these things but believers just believes what has been told to them (!!!). I know that only the churches which has been founded by apostles themselves can reach an ecumenical/apostolic status. There are only three churches for that; Alexandrian church, Roman church and the Antioch church. Already, when the apostles was alive, there was no city such as Constantinople, it`s founded in 4th century. AFAIK, Constantinople church and the eastern Roman emperor invented some weird story to reach an ecumenical status among other churches like Alexandria and Antioch but ofc this was only a political decision, to make the church in eastern Roman capital as the most important one along with western Roman one.

There is another church like that, the Jerusalem church. It`s also "considered" to be apostolic in much later times, centuries laters to honor it, just like Constantinople church.


Is there any christian here who can historically challenge this??? I don't think you can because everything is clear and yes, if you guys, rest of the orthodoxes still considers Istanbul patriarch as an ecumenical one, it`s because of eastern Roman politics but it`s not based on religious grounds. Antioch church doesn't exist for centuries but Alexandrian orthodox church still exists today and if it should be based on religious terms, they should be the ecumenical one.

[Soldier of Macedon]

I know this will start a new argument but in fact, Istanbul patriarchy was never ecumenical at all. Their ecumenical status has been given to them by eastern Roman emperor`s will, so it was a political trick again.

Onur, it's not the 'fact' that will cause an argument but the manner in which you belittle the Constantinople Patriarchate by dismissing its status as a 'political trick'. I am sure there are 'politic tricks' that can also be cited with respect to Islam and the Ottoman sultans, such as the latter being fashioned the 'shadow' or 'representative' of God on Earth. It was by the will of east Roman emperor Basil II - the Macedonian, that the Ohrid church was granted the status of autocephalus Archbishopric and that its head bishop was answerable to him directly. The overlapping of politics and religion isn't something that just started yesterday. Try getting your message across without being condescending and it probably won't lead to an argument but a healthy discussion instead.

........if you guys, rest of the orthodoxes still considers Istanbul patriarch as an ecumenical one, it`s because of eastern Roman politics but it`s not based on religious grounds.

You forgot the immense historical connection and the fact that it was the leading city in our common east Christian empire for centuries. It is based on many factors, of course including religion.

[Onur]

The fact is;
Alexandrian church is founded by the Apostles but Istanbul church is not. If it became the most important orthodox church, it was because of Istanbul being the capital of eastern Roman empire but "in fact" it wasn't even an Apostolic church at all.

I am sure there are 'politic tricks' that can also be cited with respect to Islam and the Ottoman sultans, such as the latter being fashioned the 'shadow' or 'representative' of God on Earth.

Why you keep bringing "yeah, yeah but islam is same, Turks done the same thing" argument all the time even tough i always say same thing everytime, just like i did few msgs above, AGAIN;

For 1000+ years, Roman church, Vatican, Constantinople patriarchy, Mecca, other muslim jihadists, Zionist Jews, the Jerusalem problem.... None of these are related with religions or none of these have any spiritual meaning anymore, for a loooong time. It`s all about politics, nothing else.

Ofc Ottoman ruler`s adoption of caliphate title was only about politics, what else it can be? For the 100th time i say; All religious institutions in the world, even including Hindu ones are only about politics, keeping people in order (the order they prefer). Ofc they pretend like they are religious institutions to convince believers to obey them, obey their decisions and not question them.

Try getting your message across without being condescending and it probably won't lead to an argument but a healthy discussion instead

I said argument because religious issues usually evolves in to an argument but not a discussion, unfortunately thats the case cuz none of religious people likes to discuss these issues with an agnostic or atheists. It`s about questioning the religious beliefs and none of religious people regardless of christian, muslim, budhist etc. prefers to question their beliefs. Religions are just about believing without questioning because if you are questioning, then you are in the path of a non-believers and it`s not something they like, they even fear of themselves by thinking that way because of dogmas they learned since childhood.

You forgot the immense historical connection and the fact that it was the leading city in our common east Christian empire for centuries. It is based on many factors, of course including religion

Well OK, if you say that "church is church, it doesn't matter if it`s been founded by Apostles or Roman emperors" by ignoring ~2000 year old christian tradition about the hierarchy of churches.

What i am saying is; if we gonna take account of solely religion, Alexandrian church should be more important one but if gonna take account of other factors like politics, then Istanbul church is more important as you said.