British document shows Greek plan to invade İstanbul

[julie]

I am out of my depth here , but what about the nicean creed , was that done so that we are all one , every religious denomination , have one god etc ? We went to Izmir , there was no trace of old st Sophia and a kindly
Museum guard directed us to a Protestant 'church' where it was actually a tiny locked apartment between buildings with security cameras . Saint Sophia in Istanbul is being painstakingly restored removing the whitewashed paint over the centuries old painted murals by the ottomans (as is saint Sophia cathedral in ohrid ) , ataturk ordered it to be restored back to original Christian church . Yet the minarets still remain either side of haga Sophia . My hubby was very disappointed in Izmir , no one was able to help us on our 'mecca' as to where the creed is kept or the site of the original st Sophia . I was of the understanding that we are all under one 'church' and one god . Topaki palace in Istanbul is heavily guarded with machine guns . ImAgine my shock in seeing king David sword , the staff of Moses , abrahams bowl , Joseph turban , st John baptist arm and skull and his manuscript . No one allowed to take photos or linger to look at the holy relics pillaged in 16 -19th centuries . The only book sacred trust to see these in anywhere is $250 ridiculous . I understand Muslims state Mohammed is a descendant of Abraham , these relics should be freely available to be viewed by all people . Another issue I had was in the old antique section of the grand bazaar orthodox Icons in Cyrillic script , originals , for sale , pillaged from our churches . Hubby had a fit seeing an original knights Templar sword for sale . Beg pardon for digressing

[Soldier of Macedon]

Alexandrian church is founded by the Apostles but Istanbul church is not.

Ok, it wasn't founded by an Apostle. So what? Constantinople has a history of almost 1,600 years as a Patriarchate and a religious significance that can't be dismissed on account of 'technicalities'.

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........

I feel that you aren't as critical of Islam as you are of Christianity.

[Onur]

Ok, it wasn't founded by an Apostle. So what?

OK fine, but i must say that this sentence is not very orthodox at all because orthodox christians are quite reliant to the traditions.

I feel that you aren't as critical of Islam as you are of Christianity.

It`s because if we discuss something about religions in this forum, it`s all about christianity. Tough it`s normal, since you guys are christians. Already, i don't prefer to discuss religions with believers because of the reasons i explained above here.

I don't bring up islam or any other religion on table from out of nowhere because i don't believe any religion. Again, you spoke about patriarchy issue first, i just responded.

You ask about Istanbul patriarchy, Vangelovski speaks about Jesus etc., then open discussions about islam, so i can say something. But i don't think that there are any forum member here who has some knowledge about islam, i guess the discussion would be quite poor.

[Soldier of Macedon]

OK fine, but i must say that this sentence is not very orthodox at all because orthodox christians are quite reliant to the traditions.

That may be true, but no religion has a perfect history, and ours is intertwined with Roman history. No big deal, it doesn't make any of us any less Orthodox.

But i don't think that there are any forum member here who has some knowledge about islam, i guess the discussion would be quite poor.

Perhaps there are some who wish to learn the faults of Islam, so who better than yourself to enlighten us? You should start a thread about it and see what sort of interest is generated. Unless of course you're only accustomed to criticising Christianity.

[Vangelovski]

Onur, ignoring the whole conversation about church run state-lets, what makes you think that the section of 'Thrace' under Turkish rule should even remain under Turkish rule? Other than being an invading and occupying power, albeit for quite some time, what claim does Turkey even have to that entire region?

[Onur]

what makes you think that the section of 'Thrace' under Turkish rule should even remain under Turkish rule? Other than being an invading and occupying power, albeit for quite some time, what claim does Turkey even have to that entire region?

Are you kidding me? Turkish people are living in Thrace (both western and eastern part) for at least 650 years. And b4 that, it belonged to the 2nd Bulgarian kingdom of slavs, vlachs and Turkic cumans. In 1920, Turkish population of eastern Thrace was about 80%, along with 10% Bulgarian, 5% Jewish, 5% hellenized Vlachs. That was the case for centuries.

For western Thrace in 1920, population figures was quite similar with so-called Greeks being no more than 10%. These so-called Greeks was either hellenized Vlach shepherds or Gagauzes, orthodox Turkish speaking people.

So, the real occupying force in western Thrace is Greece. More than 80% of western Thrace was private properties of Turkish people in 1910s. Only after 1930s, Greece implemented a policy of settlements by bringing Greeks from Morea and denaturalised 1000s of Turks, forced them to leave Greece. After this Greek state policy, currently about 45% of western Thrace are Greeks, 55% Turks but most of these 45% Greeks are newcomers from Morea after 1930s.


Turkey doesn't have any claim for western Thrace but in reality, Greece is occupying force in there. Greek state has even less legitimacy for western Thrace than they have for Aegean Macedonia. Their legitimacy for it, is equal as they have for a smile islet visible from Turkish coasts but 600km away from Greek shores. What they did to get these places? Simply nothing, British awarded to them.

You can be sure that our legitimacy for whole Thrace is 10x more than white mens legitimacy for Australia.

[Vangelovski]

Are you kidding me? Turkish people are living in Thrace (both western and eastern part) for at least 650 years. And b4 that, it belonged to the 2nd Bulgarian kingdom of slavs, vlachs and Turkic cumans. In 1920, Turkish population of eastern Thrace was about 80%, along with 10% Bulgarian, 5% Jewish, 5% hellenized Vlachs. That was the case for centuries.

For western Thrace in 1920, population figures was quite similar with so-called Greeks being no more than 10%. These so-called Greeks was either hellenized Vlach shepherds or Gagauzes, orthodox Turkish speaking people.

So, the real occupying force in western Thrace is Greece. More than 80% of western Thrace was private properties of Turkish people in 1910s. Only after 1930s, Greece implemented a policy of settlements by bringing Greeks from Morea and denaturalised 1000s of Turks, forced them to leave Greece. After this Greek state policy, currently about 45% of western Thrace are Greeks, 55% Turks but most of these 45% Greeks are newcomers from Morea after 1930s.


Turkey doesn't have any claim for western Thrace but in reality, Greece is occupying force in there. Greek state has even less legitimacy for western Thrace than they have for Aegean Macedonia. Their legitimacy for it, is equal as they have for a smile islet visible from Turkish coasts but 600km away from Greek shores. What they did to get these places? Simply nothing, British awarded to them.

You can be sure that our legitimacy for whole Thrace is 10x more than white mens legitimacy for Australia.

Onur, those are some impressive population statistics, for which I'll take your word for the moment. But, so what? I could throw that same case back at you in relation to the Kurds, who statistically dominate Eastern Turkey and I am sure you would reject that very same argument when it comes to Kurdistan. Further, you refute your own argument when you claim that European Australians have no claim to Australia. Yet by your own logic, the sheer numbers of European Australians (95 per cent) makes their claim to the Australian continent water tight.

I never claimed that Greece has any legitimate claim to Thrace either, so the rest of your argument was irrelevant.

[Onur]

Yes i will reject as you guessed because we ruled Thrace for ~550 years. It was a part of European Turkey during that time but there was never a state called Kurdistan throughout history, and this makes a difference, a BIG difference. If there would be a state called Kurdistan b4, then our legitimacy would be same but it isn't. Besides that, kurds didn't have any majority in eastern Anatolia `till late 1950s, kurdish population boom starts.


You clearly should know why 95% of Australia are Europeans. It`s because of genocide by killing a million or more Aborigines, similar to what happened when Europeans discovered America. As far as i remember, poor Aborigines wasn't even counted in censuses as human being in Australia but as bovine animals `till 1960s (!!!). There was no such cases in Thrace. So, where is the problem with Turkish legitimacy for Thrace? Is it because we didn't commit genocide to other people unlike Europeans did in Australia? Was that a problem? Or is it because we didn't forcefully assimilate them and kill the rest who resists?

Sometimes it doesn't matter what you say or what you do. The reign of Ottoman empire in Europe is an example for that. The case is like the Turks are getting blamed for not doing genocide and allowing other people continue to live in their homeland. Then we get blamed like "There was Bulgars, Greeks, Serbs etc. in there and you turks had no legitimacy" and funny thing is, these Balkan states are like ~100-120 years old at most (if we don't count Russian communist occupation. If we count that, then they are 20 year old) while we had these places for about ~600 years (!!!). Isn't that absurd?

[cultea]

Are you kidding me? Turkish people are living in Thrace (both western and eastern part) for at least 650 years. And b4 that, it belonged to the 2nd Bulgarian kingdom of slavs, vlachs and Turkic cumans. In 1920, Turkish population of eastern Thrace was about 80%, along with 10% Bulgarian, 5% Jewish, 5% hellenized Vlachs. That was the case for centuries.

No, prior the Balkan Wars the censuses of Ottomans and Patriarchate agree:
-Turks/Muslims: 36+10=46%
(not sure which is the 10% Muslim group that Patriarchate records separately)
-Greeks: 39%
-Bulgarians: 4%
-Others: 11% (not sure what this is)

For western Thrace in 1920, population figures was quite similar with so-called Greeks being no more than 10%. These so-called Greeks was either hellenized Vlach shepherds or Gagauzes, orthodox Turkish speaking people.

No, prior the population exchanges according to international censuses:
-Muslims 67%, (roughly Turks: 50%, Pomaks/Bulgarians: 22%, Gypsies: 10%)
-Greeks: 18%
-Bulgarians: 14%
-Jews-Armenians: 1-2%

The paternal side of my father was among them and they weren’t exactly… “Hellenized Vlach shepherds”, actually the most distinguished of my ancestors.

In short Greeks were concentrated rather in the Eastern than the Western Thrace.

Only after 1930s, Greece implemented a policy of settlements by bringing Greeks from Morea and denaturalised 1000s of Turks, forced them to leave Greece. After this Greek state policy, currently about 45% of western Thrace are Greeks, 55% Turks but most of these 45% Greeks are newcomers from Morea after 1930s.

Thrace was mostly populated with the exchangeable people from Eastern Thrace (and elsewhere) or even with newer immigrants from Soviet Union in the 90s, never with Peloponnesians. Thrace never really developed or attracted population.
Currently the Muslim minority in Thrace is 29% (locally it’s 41% in Xanthe Prefecture, 51% in Rhodope and 5% in Evros).

[Vangelovski]

Yes i will reject as you guessed because we ruled Thrace for ~550 years. It was a part of European Turkey during that time but there was never a state called Kurdistan throughout history, and this makes a difference, a BIG difference. If there would be a state called Kurdistan b4, then our legitimacy would be same but it isn't. Besides that, kurds didn't have any majority in eastern Anatolia `till late 1950s, kurdish population boom starts.


You clearly should know why 95% of Australia are Europeans. It`s because of genocide by killing a million or more Aborigines, similar to what happened when Europeans discovered America. As far as i remember, poor Aborigines wasn't even counted in censuses as human being in Australia but as bovine animals `till 1960s (!!!). There was no such cases in Thrace. So, where is the problem with Turkish legitimacy for Thrace? Is it because we didn't commit genocide to other people unlike Europeans did in Australia? Was that a problem? Or is it because we didn't forcefully assimilate them and kill the rest who resists?

Sometimes it doesn't matter what you say or what you do. The reign of Ottoman empire in Europe is an example for that. The case is like the Turks are getting blamed for not doing genocide and allowing other people continue to live in their homeland. Then we get blamed like "There was Bulgars, Greeks, Serbs etc. in there and you turks had no legitimacy" and funny thing is, these Balkan states are like ~100-120 years old at most (if we don't count Russian communist occupation. If we count that, then they are 20 year old) while we had these places for about ~600 years (!!!). Isn't that absurd?

Onur, you're all over the place. On the one hand you claim that Turkey has some sort of right to Eastern Thrace because of the number of Turks that live there. On the other hand your reject Kurdish claims to their own land even though they satisfy your own criteria in terms of population numbers. Further, you reject European Australian claims to Australia, even though it also satisfies your own criteria in terms of population.

Then you claim that the Kurds never had a state so that somehow legitimises Turkey's occupation! But the Aborigines never had a state either, so why does that not legitimise European statehood in Australia!? Australia meets both your criteria!

But this implies that Turkey has an even less legitimate claim over Eastern Thrace, because the Thracians, in the distant past did have an organised state!

I've got an idea - how about you have another go at formulating what you believe are legitimate criteria for Turkey's occupation of Eastern Thrace and then we can measure its validity? So far you have failed miserably.

[Onur]

Cultea, don't expect me to believe these population figures in 1910-1920 while these so-called "international sources" was doing everything to convince European community that the Thrace should be part of Greece. Yes, Turkish population was higher in western side and a bit less in eastern side but there is one fact which reveals everything;
More than 80% of private properties in Thrace was belonged to the Turks b4 1922 and this continued to be like that `till 1950s.

The paternal side of my father was among them and they weren’t exactly… “Hellenized Vlach shepherds”, actually the most distinguished of my ancestors.

I have no idea about your father but one thing i know is; For 100s of years, Vlachs (incl. Karakachans) was traveling between Salonika to Edirne, staying in one spot during summers and going to other side for winters to provide fresh grass for their flocks during 4 seasons. There was also few 1000 muslim, semi-nomadic Vlachs too. Search for a surname in facebook as "Karakaçan, Karakaçanlar, Karakaçanoğlu, Ulahlar, Ulahoğlu", you will see 100s of people with this name in Turkey. I think you can guess who they are.

Also there was noticeable Gagauz population in eastern Thrace, around ~15.000. I can prove all these to you from Ottoman archives. These people were the so-called Greeks of Thrace.

never with Peloponnesians. Thrace never really developed or attracted population.

Check your governments loan offers for creating small businesses, factories in western Thrace with ridiculously low interest rates, especially after 1980. There is no Turkish people in these small factories, most of their workers transported from Morea with their families. I heard that most of these small businesses gone bust after your economic crisis.

Currently the Muslim minority in Thrace is 29% (locally it’s 41% in Xanthe Prefecture, 51% in Rhodope and 5% in Evros)

Cultea, you cannot fool me with these numbers cuz i kinda follow Greek government`s actions in Thrace, ok?. Your numbers are low for Turks because Greek government keeps changing the borders of regions or invents new prefects, municipalities. I think the last border change for regions done few years ago. Greek government plays this cheap game just for keeping muslim votes under 3% electoral threshold, so they can never pass it in the elections and never get represented in the parliament as a party.

I am sure that if muslims ever sees a tiny chance for passing 3% limit, then Greek government might even include Salonika inside the municipality of Thrace, so they cannot pass it. Then you again might come up here and say "Look, muslims are only 5% in Thrace" (!!!)

On the one hand you claim that Turkey has some sort of right to Eastern Thrace because of the number of Turks that live there. Further, you reject European Australian claims to Australia, even though it also satisfies your own criteria in terms of population.

No, i claimed legitimacy not because of only population figures, i also indicated the fact that ~550 year old Turkish reign. And no again, i didn't refute the legitimacy of Europeans in Australia, i just reminded you that why and how Aborigines became 5% today while they were 95% 200 years ago.

Then you claim that the Kurds never had a state so that somehow legitimises Turkey's occupation! But the Aborigines never had a state either, so why does that not legitimise European statehood in Australia!? Australia meets both your criteria!

Occupation of what? Turks took this place from eastern Romans ~950 years ago by the right of conquering. Is there any eastern Roman today who claims eastern Anatolia? Nope, so what kind of occupation you are talking about?

Aborigines didn't need to have a state cuz whole continent was theirs only. People claims legitimacy of some place and forms a state if there are other foreigners around. They don't need to do this if there are no foreigners around just like the case of Aborigines in Australia. It`s like the big cats pissing around it`s control area to indicate "hey, thats my territory" to the others. Put that cat in a place where no other cats living there except it`s own family/community, then cat quits pissing around, leaving it`s own odor, cuz there is no need anymore.

Yes, i know, Australia meets my criteria today but ofc after the genocide, thats something we cannot dismiss. Btw, why you are so defensive on that issue which is known by everyone. Europeans gone there only after 1780-1800, quite recent time, so everyone knows what happened in Australia.

But this implies that Turkey has an even less legitimate claim over Eastern Thrace, because the Thracians, in the distant past did have an organised state! I've got an idea - how about you formulate what you believe are legitimate criteria for Turkey's occupation of Eastern Thrace and then we can measure its validity?

Again, there is no such people as Thracians today, therefore, out of question.

I already told you my proposed criteria; Population figures plus having some sort of recorded&attested reign in that particular place. Not one of these but both. Also i refute idiotic claims with shallow societies like "Look, there was Thracians in there b4 you" OR "ok, you are here now but ancestors of the very ancient proto-Greeks was there 5000 years ago" (!!!)

[Vangelovski]

Onur, without muddling the waters so much with your contradictory and confused analysis, lets focus on your criteria:

1. population; and
2. a history of rule by the current state.

In your view, what proportion of the population provides for a legitimate claim and how long did the state needed to have ruled the region? Further, does the state need to meet both of these criteria or just one?

[Onur]

Onur, without muddling the waters so much with your contradictory and confused analysis, lets focus on your criteria:

1. population; and
2. a history of rule by the current state.

In your view, what proportion of the population provides for a legitimate claim and how long did the state needed to have ruled the region? Further, does the state need to meet both of these criteria or just one?

Vangelovski, i already answered this question above in my previous msgs. I think you are asking me new questions without even reading my previous responses. So, am i wasting my time?

I said it requires both of the criteria but ofc this is my opinion. It can be different for you or someone else. If we only consider population by ignoring the "history of rule" then we should divide current states in 30 pieces each because there are many different groups in every state in the world. Should we create one state for each of them? That would be ridicules. So, i cant ignore the "history of rule".

Proportion? This is difficult to answer. I don't know, lets say a noticeable and considerable proportion.

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, i already answered this question above in my previous msgs. I think you are asking me new questions without even reading my previous responses. So, am i wasting my time?

I said it requires both of the criteria but ofc this is my opinion. It can be different for you or someone else. If we only consider population by ignoring the "history of rule" then we should divide current states in 30 pieces each because there are many different groups in every state in the world. Should we create one state for each of them? That would be ridicules. So, i cant ignore the "history of rule".

Proportion? This is difficult to answer. I don't know, lets say a noticeable and considerable proportion.

Well, by your own criteria, Turkey has no legitimate claim on Kurdistan (estimates of teh Kurdish population range from 14 to 25 million and the Kurds have had a history of self-rule) and multiple states could legitimately claim Eastern Thrace (as they have their own people who are of a "noticable and considerable" proportion, along with a "history of rule" in the region). So, I don't see anything special about Turkey's claim to Eastern Thrace, including Istanbul/Constantinople.

[Onur]

Vangelovski, this is getting nowhere, we keep repeating same arguments over and over again.

Everyone is free to think what they believe. Armenians and Kurds competing for eastern Anatolia, Greeks desires to get Aegean and Blacksea side. We "welcome" anyone to try to realize it, what more i can say?