What was Greece’s best chance to reclaim Constantinople?

What was Greece’s best chance to reclaim Constantinople?


  • Total voters
    290
This is why I said "mostly". In the circumstances, Turkey got most of what it wanted.
No one has made any such statements. I think it would be better if you addressed actual statements posted here.
I think I already explained why what happened in Cyprus is hardly comparable to the events in the 1920s.
And no, you’re not exactly calling a spade a spade. To extend the analogy, you’re calling a spade a bulldozer. If the Balkan states had treated the Muslims in the same way as Turkey treated the Greeks in 1922, there would be no population exchange since there would be no one to exchange and there certainly wouldn’t be any Muslim populations in the Balkans today. Not pretending that both sides were equal doesn’t mean pretending that one side hasn’t committed atrocities.
This is a charge you seem to be rather more guilty of than me.
And no, I haven't tried anything. It’s not my fault that you brought up the justifications for the population exchange out of the blue, when they had nothing to do with the matter at hand, then stated these justifications in such a way that it makes it ambiguous at best whether you support them or not.
I have no narrative, except not liking much pointless, doomed sieges. And I don't see what my opinion has to do with the main topic of discussion here.
Your claim is not even close to being true. Yes, the forced assimilation campaign was not realistic. But the Bulgarian government did not spend five years and substantial resources (for example, reisuing all passports of the Bulgarian Turks, changing even memorials with Bulgarians and launching an extensive campaign to defend its position abroad) trying to pretend that the Turks were just Bulgarians just as a justification for ethnic cleansing. Nor would it attempt to limit the mass emigration in process or welcome returnees if this was the objective.
Who are those "we" you're talking about? If you're going to accuse someone, use their names instead of throwing out vague insinuations.
Do you have a source for this extraordinary claim? It's not mentioned even in such thorough work as Defeat In Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913 and seems in blatant contradiction of other historical events.
What dreams are you talking about?
And no, the Allies had more than enough forces to enforce Sevres. They simply were not interested enough to do so.
When was this declaration made? Before or after they forced Greece to give up Eastern Thrace?
The Ottomans did gain land in the Second Balkan War.

The country had a civil war, with some christian population signing up for Greek armies. The statement about Greece didn't meddle in ethnic cleansing was pretty clear. Cyprus had people massacre each other ethnically. I don't think you explained that away. In Balkans, the ethnic cleansing wasn't total so you can blame one side because of an international conference and seemingly insuniate Curzon had the best interests of Turkish side. You have been dodging blame on how the Greeks would take the city after WW1. So nice deflection.

Doomed sieges are one way to call the situation, it's another to defend the said commander with an accusing attitude towards one side. That's the narrative in line with the sentiment of the thread. I posted precisely if you had this attitude. And was proven right. You asked before why I posted in the thread. To confirm the bias. I did. Otherwise, it could have been about a nationalistic dream as a thought exercise, and I wouldn't even comment.

Bulgarians botched an attempt at ethnic cleansing and assimilation campaign doomed from the start, that's not a defense, just like your non defense about Cyprus.They had the good sense to not want to pay the price for what they did doesn't excuse them. Recently, I heard a claim about Greeks and Bulgarians ethnically cleansing each other from their gains in the Balkan wars. So it's not a recent issue, nor an unheard one.

I'm accusing the ones who are vague about how to take the city while being perturbed about the means and then justify moral high ground about it. Nationalistic land grab is just that. There is nothing vague about that.

Do you have a source for this extraordinary claim? It's not mentioned even in such thorough work as Defeat In Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913 and seems in blatant contradiction of other historical events.
What dreams are you talking about?
And no, the Allies had more than enough forces to enforce Sevres. They simply were not interested enough to do so.
When was this declaration made? Before or after they forced Greece to give up Eastern Thrace?
The Ottomans did gain land in the Second Balkan War

So it's extraordinary to claim the army was divided between two forces just like the monarchists and Venizelos people in Ottomans? That tidbit was about giving background info, you can hand wave it away anyway you want. The Ottoman government was divided it, feared a coup in Thrace, so underfunded the army and partially disbanded it. Just like Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid left the navy in Halic and had it rust off to die.
The one about allies having the power to enforce Sevres, now that's a great claim. The nationalistic movement had one of its great justifications, Brits would never send an army after the 4 year long war. Just like French didn't and settled with Ankara government as early as 1921. Before Greeks were routed from Anatolia. The press in the capitals of Great Powers being against new mobilization for war helped during the signing of Lausanne.

The declaration was made in the spirit that Ottomans wouldn't gain new land being the attacked side in the first Balkan war. Ottomans lost land, the victors fought for the spoils, Ottomans took some land back. That was in the second Balkan war.

"The Ottomans' military capabilities were hampered by a number of factors, beginning with domestic strife, caused by the Young Turk Revolution and the counter-revolutionary coup several months later (see Ottoman countercoup of 1909 and 31 March Incident). This resulted in different groups competing for influence within the military. A German mission had tried to reorganize the army, but its recommendations had not been fully implemented. The Ottoman army was caught in the midst of reform and reorganization. In addition, several of the army's best battalions had been transferred to Yemen to face the ongoing rebellion there. In the summer of 1912, the Ottoman High Command made the disastrous decision to dismiss some 70,000 mobilized troops.[2][32] The regular army (Nizam) was composed of well-equipped and trained active divisions, but the reserve units (Redif) that reinforced it were ill-equipped, especially in artillery, and badly trained."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Balkan_War

This stuff is even in wikipedia. I get wanting citations. But it clashes with defending of even a strong garrison's surrender in the Balkan war by accusing the high command then wanting info as well known as this.
 
Last edited:
It's only possible but not very likely in the 1919-1923 period.
But even if Greece wins the war militarily (difficult but it can happen under the right circumstances) , the demographics in constantinople present a huge problem, not only the city is full of Turks but also Greece doesn't have the surplus population to replace them.
It would take a dreadful amount of ethnic cleansing, and of course naturally Turkey would wait for round two at the first opportunity.

Population exchanges were a thing - were there still Greeks in Trebizond? Maybe they can move in (as well as other Orthodox populations from there such as Armenians) and the displaced Turks can go there?
 
The country had a civil war, with some christian population signing up for Greek armies.
It was hardly a civil war. Not to mention the Smyrna region had been ceded to Greece by the treaty of Sevres, so the Christians were arguably joining the army of their own country.
And anyway this whole point is moot. This doesn't justify their expulsion, the whole question of the justifications is not relevant to this thread and it's unclear to me why you keep dwelling on this issue.

The statement about Greece didn't meddle in ethnic cleansing was pretty clear.
There was not such statement.

Cyprus had people massacre each other ethnically. I don't think you explained that away.
[/QUOTE]
I did not explain this away. I only pointed out why you can't simply use the Cyprus example as an indication of the behavior of Greece in some completely different situation. Unless of course there is some propensity among Greek to engage in ethnic clean

In Balkans, the ethnic cleansing wasn't total so you can blame one side because of an international conference and seemingly insuniate Curzon had the best interests of Turkish side.
Both sides carried out ethnic cleansing, but the near total removal of the Muslims in Greece in 1922 can be blamed on Turkey, since they demanded a compulsory exchange of population.
And I'm not insinuating anything about Curzon. I just stated that Turkey got most of what it wanted. Are you going to deny that?

You have been dodging blame on how the Greeks would take the city after WW1. So nice deflection.
I'm not dodging anything. Please address my actual statements (preferably with a quote so I can see what exactly you mean) instead of the positions you imagine me holding.

Doomed sieges are one way to call the situation, it's another to defend the said commander with an accusing attitude towards one side.
If the siege is doomed, then it is logical to deplore unjust accusations against the commander who did the reasonable in preventing the siege.

That's the narrative in line with the sentiment of the thread. I posted precisely if you had this attitude. And was proven right. You asked before why I posted in the thread. To confirm the bias. I did.
I'm not interested why are you posting here and haven't asked you that. And there is absolutely no logical connection between my position on the surrender of Thessaloniki and my opinion on the main subject of this thread.

Bulgarians botched an attempt at ethnica cleansing and assimilation camaign doomed from the start, that's not a defense, just like your non defense about Cyprus.
I was certainly not defending the assimilation campaign, nor the exodus that was its eventual result. I was only denying your preposterous claim that the assimilation campaign was just an excuse to carry out ethnic cleansing.

I'm accusing the ones who are vague about how to take the city while being perturbed about the means and then justify moral high ground about it. Nationalistic land grab is just that. There is nothing vague about that.
I don't see anyone doing that here.

So it's extraordinary to claim the army was divided between two forces just like the monarchists and Venizelos people in Ottomans? That tidbit was about giving background info, you can hand wave it away anyway you want. The Ottoman government was divided it feared a coup in Thrace, so underfunded the army and partially disbanded it. Just like Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid left the navy in Halic and had it rust off to die.
No, it's extraordinary to claim that the army in Thrace was partially disbanded right before the war. Especially when it's contradicted by reliable sources. And it's good that you provided a source, though it seems that the army was disbanded before the general mobilization, so it's possible that it was mobilized again and there is no indication that it happened in Thrace.

The one about allies having the power to enforce Sevres, now that's a great claim. The nationalistic movement had one of its great justifications, Brits would never send an army after the 4 year long war. Just like French didn't and settled with Ankara government as early as 1921. Before Greeks were routed from Anatolia. The press in the capitals of Great Powers being against new mobilization for war helped during the signing of Lausanne.
You're just rephrasing what I already posted.

The declaration was made in the spirit that Ottomans wouldn't gain new land being the attacked side in the first Balkan war. Ottomans lost land, the victors fought for the spoils, Ottomans took some land back. That was in the second Balkan war.
Of course the Ottomans would not gain land in the First Balkan war, since they were thoroughly defeated. But any such declaration didn't prevent them from regaining land, so I doubt it was of much importance.
 
This stuff is even in wikipedia. I get wanting citations. But it clashes with defending of even a strong garrison's surrender in the Balkan war by accusing the high command then wanting info as well known as this.
I don't see the connection at all. And I generally don't use Wikipedia as a source for the Balkan War and it was not in one of the well known source I checked.
 
One problem is by the end of the World War, the Greeks didn’t really have the manpower to settle extensively Anatolia. There were only five million Greeks in Greece proper in 1919 and many Greek men would rather seek opportunities abroad then settle in hostile Anatolia.
 
I don't know that he would have the leverage to get the European part of Constantinople if he was not holding Smyrna.
He was in fact given that offer by the British delegation but refused it. If he had agreed and pushed for that outcome, I can see it happening. But it wouldn't have been easy for him to just drop the claim to Smyrna and it seemed likely that Constantinople would fall into Greece's lap in the future anyway.

I found a TL by the way ("The Guns of Lausanne") that proposes a more plausible way for Greece to get Constantinople. It runs like this: during the Lausanne conference negotiations between Turkey and Greece break down and Greece reinvades Eastern Thrace. Due to limited Turkish military presence (as a result of the Mudanya armistice) and Greek naval superiority, they overrun the area and a stalemate develops along the Bosphorus. The Greeks were about to try this IOTL but Venizelos came to an understanding with the Turkish delegate at the last minute and called the plan off.

It seems plausible enough to me. By this point the Great Powers clearly lacked the will to intervene militarily as shown by the Chanak crisis, and the Turkish navy at the time was in no shape to contest Greek naval control. Judging by what happened IOTL, Greece can then agree on some conditions with the GP regarding the Dardanelles and keep Constantinople at the cost of straining relations with them. Or it can agree to internationalize the city and integrate it only at a later date.
 
It was hardly a civil war. Not to mention the Smyrna region had been ceded to Greece by the treaty of Sevres, so the Christians were arguably joining the army of their own country.
And anyway this whole point is moot. This doesn't justify their expulsion, the whole question of the justifications is not relevant to this thread and it's unclear to me why you keep dwelling on this issue.
There was not such statement.
Cyprus had people massacre each other ethnically. I don't think you explained that away.
I did not explain this away. I only pointed out why you can't simply use the Cyprus example as an indication of the behavior of Greece in some completely different situation. Unless of course there is some propensity among Greek to engage in ethnic clean
Both sides carried out ethnic cleansing, but the near total removal of the Muslims in Greece in 1922 can be blamed on Turkey, since they demanded a compulsory exchange of population.
And I'm not insinuating anything about Curzon. I just stated that Turkey got most of what it wanted. Are you going to deny that?
I'm not dodging anything. Please address my actual statements (preferably with a quote so I can see what exactly you mean) instead of the positions you imagine me holding.
If the siege is doomed, then it is logical to deplore unjust accusations against the commander who did the reasonable in preventing the siege.
I'm not interested why are you posting here and haven't asked you that. And there is absolutely no logical connection between my position on the surrender of Thessaloniki and my opinion on the main subject of this thread.
I was certainly not defending the assimilation campaign, nor the exodus that was its eventual result. I was only denying your preposterous claim that the assimilation campaign was just an excuse to carry out ethnic cleansing.
I don't see anyone doing that here.
No, it's extraordinary to claim that the army in Thrace was partially disbanded right before the war. Especially when it's contradicted by reliable sources. And it's good that you provided a source, though it seems that the army was disbanded before the general mobilization, so it's possible that it was mobilized again and there is no indication that it happened in Thrace.
You're just rephrasing what I already posted.
Of course the Ottomans would not gain land in the First Balkan war, since they were thoroughly defeated. But any such declaration didn't prevent them from regaining land, so I doubt it was of much importance.[/QUOTE]

Great way to actually try to explain away essentially treason by the treaty of Sevres, which the whole Greco Turkish war was about. Did you think that wouldn't essentially destroy any sense of membership to the same state? Of course it's moot in your opinion, you can blame one side for preventing a continuous civil war doing what the other powers in the era did. Then turn around and advocate for annexation of a city with no justification. And feel offended when the ethnical cleansing was done officially or off the record. I'm glad there wasn't such a statement. I have no evidence it has to do with Greekness on even Bulgarians and Greeks ethnically cleansing each other from the lands they have taken. And Greeks like before weren't put out that much by the Muslims going away from their land. Curzon was not happy with any concession he had to give. National assembly in Turkey, didn't want what Curzon offered but they had to settle. Turkey establishing borders with already in power provinces getting recognition, isn't getting most of they wanted, it just is. What they wanted was for example Mosul, the British denied that.

There was nothing reasonable about blaming the high command when the subject of treason was brought up. Since the army in question was prepared for a siege. Just noting that.

I'm not interested why are you posting here and haven't asked you that. And there is absolutely no logical connection between my position on the surrender of Thessaloniki and my opinion on the main subject of this thread.

I actually saw you write "desist from commenting" then you probably edited it out. Anyway I'm not that heartbroken about what you said. What do you think, Bulgarians were so short sighted they couldn't see people would up and leave? When we know there are cases of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans before?

The army was partially disbanded before the war, as I sourced. It was a great deal of stupidity as people were both disbanded and then conscripted at the same time. No, the allied powers had no power to use against Turkey since people in those countries were fed up with the war. For example, British asked for soldiers from their overseas territories, they were denied. It caused a precedent for many of her majesty's holdings. No rephrasing there. That declaration was about status quo being upheld. It wasn't upheld to the detriment of the Ottomans.

He was in fact given that offer by the British delegation but refused it. If he had agreed and pushed for that outcome, I can see it happening. But it wouldn't have been easy for him to just drop the claim to Smyrna and it seemed likely that Constantinople would fall into Greece's lap in the future anyway.

I found a TL by the way ("The Guns of Lausanne") that proposes a more plausible way for Greece to get Constantinople. It runs like this: during the Lausanne conference negotiations between Turkey and Greece break down and Greece reinvades Eastern Thrace. Due to limited Turkish military presence (as a result of the Mudanya armistice) and Greek naval superiority, they overrun the area and a stalemate develops along the Bosphorus. The Greeks were about to try this IOTL but Venizelos came to an understanding with the Turkish delegate at the last minute and called the plan off.

It seems plausible enough to me. By this point the Great Powers clearly lacked the will to intervene militarily as shown by the Chanak crisis, and the Turkish navy at the time was in no shape to contest Greek naval control. Judging by what happened IOTL, Greece can then agree on some conditions with the GP regarding the Dardanelles and keep Constantinople at the cost of straining relations with them. Or it can agree to internationalize the city and integrate it only at a later date.

The crossing of the straits was a real problem as well as the lack of an actual navy. Turkish side had cells of resistance in Thrace to actually to form a militia like power. But in the face of an actual army, that might not have sufficed. Greeks would have a harder time than Smyrna.
 
Great way to actually try to explain away essentially treason by the treaty of Sevres, which the whole Greco Turkish war was about. Did you think that wouldn't essentially destroy any sense of membership to the same state?
You can't be guilty of treason against a state you're not part off. And if the government of the country committed treason, then you can hardly blame other citizens from doing the same. And considering what the Ottoman Empire had been doing against the Greek population for years at this point, they had no right to expect loyalty from them.
In any case, your claim is dubious, to say the least. There were plenty of cases where the losing people in a civil war were not expelled. Even by the standards of the time, this excuse wouldn't fly
And of course, you know very well that the whole ethnic cleansing campaign in 1922.

Of course it's moot in your opinion, you can blame one side for preventing a continuous civil war doing what the other powers in the era did.
If you're going to be so dishonest as to call massive ethnic cleansing "preventing a continuous civil war", we have nothing more to discuss.

Then turn around and advocate for annexation of a city with no justification.
Same goes for dishonestly accusing me of positions I don't hold.

And feel offended when the ethnical cleansing was done officially or off the record. I'm glad there wasn't such a statement. I have no evidence it has to do with Greekness on even Bulgarians and Greeks ethnically cleansing each other from the lands they have taken. And Greeks like before weren't put out that much by the Muslims going away from their land.
I don't approve of any ethnic cleansing. One ethnic cleansing does not justify the other.

Curzon was not happy with any concession he had to give. National assembly in Turkey, didn't want what Curzon offered but they had to settle. Turkey establishing borders with already in power provinces getting recognition, isn't getting most of they wanted, it just is. What they wanted was for example Mosul, the British denied that.
Again, most of what they wanted.

There was nothing reasonable about blaming the high command when the subject of treason was brought up. Since the army in question was prepared for a siege. Just noting that.
It's not unreasonable to question the high command - I don't have to accept the Ottoman definition of treason.

I actually saw you write "desist from commenting" then you probably edited it out. Anyway I'm not that heartbroken about what you said. What do you think, Bulgarians were so short sighted they couldn't see people would up and leave? When we know there are cases of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans before?
The government expected some Turks to leave. They didn't expect all of them to leave (apart from the 360 thousand who managed, another 400 thousand had made applications). If that had been the objective, they wouldn't have allowed any returnees. And they wouldn't have bothered with permitting only Turks with valid travel documents to leave.
 
He was in fact given that offer by the British delegation but refused it. If he had agreed and pushed for that outcome, I can see it happening. But it wouldn't have been easy for him to just drop the claim to Smyrna and it seemed likely that Constantinople would fall into Greece's lap in the future anyway.

I found a TL by the way ("The Guns of Lausanne") that proposes a more plausible way for Greece to get Constantinople. It runs like this: during the Lausanne conference negotiations between Turkey and Greece break down and Greece reinvades Eastern Thrace. Due to limited Turkish military presence (as a result of the Mudanya armistice) and Greek naval superiority, they overrun the area and a stalemate develops along the Bosphorus. The Greeks were about to try this IOTL but Venizelos came to an understanding with the Turkish delegate at the last minute and called the plan off.

It seems plausible enough to me. By this point the Great Powers clearly lacked the will to intervene militarily as shown by the Chanak crisis, and the Turkish navy at the time was in no shape to contest Greek naval control. Judging by what happened IOTL, Greece can then agree on some conditions with the GP regarding the Dardanelles and keep Constantinople at the cost of straining relations with them. Or it can agree to internationalize the city and integrate it only at a later date.
That would make for an interesting alternate history. I worry about the ethnic strife that would result though.
 
You can't be guilty of treason against a state you're not part off. And if the government of the country committed treason, then you can hardly blame other citizens from doing the same. And considering what the Ottoman Empire had been doing against the Greek population for years at this point, they had no right to expect loyalty from them.
In any case, your claim is dubious, to say the least. There were plenty of cases where the losing people in a civil war were not expelled. Even by the standards of the time, this excuse wouldn't fly
And of course, you know very well that the whole ethnic cleansing campaign in 1922.
If you're going to be so dishonest as to call massive ethnic cleansing "preventing a continuous civil war", we have nothing more to discuss.
Same goes for dishonestly accusing me of positions I don't hold.
I don't approve of any ethnic cleansing. One ethnic cleansing does not justify the other.
Again, most of what they wanted.
It's not unreasonable to question the high command - I don't have to accept the Ottoman definition of treason.
The government expected some Turks to leave. They didn't expect all of them to leave (apart from the 360 thousand who managed, another 400 thousand had made applications). If that had been the objective, they wouldn't have allowed any returnees. And they wouldn't have bothered with permitting only Turks with valid travel documents to leave.

The Ottoman authorities considered the population to be their citizens. Greece did doom some of the local christian population by recruiting from Anatolia. Bringing up claims of genocide doesn't actually absolve the matter. Both the massacre of the local christians and the citizens of the empire actually being recruited to a occupying enemy army happened. "No right" talk doesn't actually fly in that case. And Greeks attacking minorities in 1890s in Thessaloniki is of course not in your radar. But you can talk about not every war resulting in plunder and mass population cleansing. That's ridiculous considering the amount of population cleansing done even between Balkan states themselves. So, your claim on my claim is also dubious at best. Since I'm the one called some of the thread posters dishonest in their methods to their aims, that's a wash as well.

And I don't have to accept your definition of anything in a thread I posted a commentary. You quoted me, then decided to play the facts as you liked. The said general had all the means but didn't defend the city. That's treason in any sense. So, apparently in a case of ethnic cleansing expecting some to leave is okay, but you were talking about moral high ground in other words? And this is you talking about being dishonest. If you are even going white wash what happened in Bulgaria. Yes, then we have nothing more to discuss. I have to spell out that Curzon was an enemy of the Turkish government in policy and in action. Then deal with claims of dishonesty. Add in the spaghetti quotation, perfect mix for forum intellectual dishonesty.
 
Last edited:
The Ottoman authorities considered the population to be their citizens. Greece did doom some of the local christian population by recruiting from Anatolia.
They doomed them only from the viewpoint of Turkish government that actions by some Greeks justified the collective punishment of all Greeks. I don't see why you keep dwelling on this subject. Every government that ever committed some atrocity had some excuse for doing it and it's not especially relevant regarding this discussion thread.

Bringing up claims of genocide doesn't actually absolve the matter. Both the massacre of the local christians and the citizens of the empire actually being recruited to a occupying enemy army happened.
The genocide against the Greeks does not absolve the Greek crimes. It however makes it highly questionable how much loyalty the Anatolian Greeks owed to Turkey, especially considering the chronology of the genocide and the recruiting of local Greeks - ie the first began before the second.

"No right" talk doesn't actually fly in that case.
So let me get this straight: You consider that regardless of how the Greeks in Anatolia had been treated between 1914 and 1919, they still should have been absolutely loyal to the Turkish government? Which according to an international treaty didn't even legally control them anymore?

And Greeks attacking minorities in 1890s in Thessaloniki is of course not in your radar.
I don't understand what you mean here.

But you can talk about not every war resulting in plunder and mass population cleansing. That's ridiculous considering the amount of population cleansing done even between Balkan states themselves. So, your claim on my claim is also dubious at best. Since I'm the one called some of the thread posters dishonest in their methods to their aims, that's a wash as well.
Even if only look at the Balkans, not every war and conquest finished with the targeted expulsion of the entire population considered hostile. For example, the Muslims in western Thrace weren't expelled in 1913 even though many of them had collaborated with the Ottomans during and after the Second Balkan War and participated in attacks against Bulgarians. So no, there was even in this period no absolute principle that minorities collaborating with an enemy deserved to be expelled.
As for calling you dishonest, I clearly explained why I did so. First, for the strongly misleading and trivializing description of massive ethnic cleansing as "preventing civil war". Second, for accusing me positions I don't hold. If (as I think you're doing) you consider me dishonest, you should clearly explain why you think so.

And I don't have to accept your definition of anything in a thread I posted a commentary. You quoted me, then decided to play the facts as you liked. The said general had all the means but didn't defend the city. That's treason in any sense.
You claim you don't have to accept my definition, then demand that I accept your definition and your interpretation of the facts without anything to support it...

So, apparently in a case of ethnic cleansing expecting some to leave is okay, but you were talking about moral high ground in other words? And this is you talking about being dishonest. If you are even going white wash what happened in Bulgaria. Yes, then we have nothing more to discuss.
I'm not whitewashing anything about what happened in Bulgaria. I have always strongly condemned the forced assimilation policy and I certainly do not think "expecting some to leave" is okay. I don't see where you get the idea of any moral high ground here. I was merely refuting your distortion of the events. Unlike you, I haven't spent multiple posts adding irrelevant information about the justifications for them.

I have to spell out that Curzon was an enemy of the Turkish government in policy and in action. Then deal with claims of dishonesty. Add in the spaghetti quotation, perfect mix for forum intellectual dishonesty.
Curzon might have been an enemy, but if so, he didn't get his way at the Lausanne conference. And what you call spaghetti quotation makes it much easier to understand which specific point is being addressed. It's preposterous to call it dishonest.
 
They doomed them only from the viewpoint of Turkish government that actions by some Greeks justified the collective punishment of all Greeks. I don't see why you keep dwelling on this subject. Every government that ever committed some atrocity had some excuse for doing it and it's not especially relevant regarding this discussion thread.
The genocide against the Greeks does not absolve the Greek crimes. It however makes it highly questionable how much loyalty the Anatolian Greeks owed to Turkey, especially considering the chronology of the genocide and the recruiting of local Greeks - ie the first began before the second.
So let me get this straight: You consider that regardless of how the Greeks in Anatolia had been treated between 1914 and 1919, they still should have been absolutely loyal to the Turkish government? Which according to an international treaty didn't even legally control them anymore?
I don't understand what you mean here.
Even if only look at the Balkans, not every war and conquest finished with the targeted expulsion of the entire population considered hostile. For example, the Muslims in western Thrace weren't expelled in 1913 even though many of them had collaborated with the Ottomans during and after the Second Balkan War and participated in attacks against Bulgarians. So no, there was even in this period no absolute principle that minorities collaborating with an enemy deserved to be expelled.
As for calling you dishonest, I clearly explained why I did so. First, for the strongly misleading and trivializing description of massive ethnic cleansing as "preventing civil war". Second, for accusing me positions I don't hold. If (as I think you're doing) you consider me dishonest, you should clearly explain why you think so.
You claim you don't have to accept my definition, then demand that I accept your definition and your interpretation of the facts without anything to support it...
I'm not whitewashing anything about what happened in Bulgaria. I have always strongly condemned the forced assimilation policy and I certainly do not think "expecting some to leave" is okay. I don't see where you get the idea of any moral high ground here. I was merely refuting your distortion of the events. Unlike you, I haven't spent multiple posts adding irrelevant information about the justifications for them.
Curzon might have been an enemy, but if so, he didn't get his way at the Lausanne conference. And what you call spaghetti quotation makes it much easier to understand which specific point is being addressed. It's preposterous to call it dishonest.

Because we were talking about the atrocities needed to take Constantinople while the population wasn't heavily in favor of Greek claims? Maybe that's why I'm bringing up Greek ambitions for a puppet state.
AFAIK, recruitment from Greek population in Western Anatolia happened before any systematic crimes against the local christian population. Of course, the local christian and muslim population started attacking each other in Black Sea region before a Greek campaign in Anatolia happened. Also, local christian population "Rums" also started to consider themselves a foreign nationality even in Istanbul. They had no basis to do that on the subject of crimes since it was the capital and not a staging ground for war. I think defending themselves in "Rum" population's case was smart and right. Them taking up arms against Ottomans and joining the Greek army. Not so smart and not a case for it. Because then they would be considered an enemy combatant even in surrender. As for the international agreement, if you mean Sevres, Ankara government never accepted the treaty.
In 1890s, Greek Army attacked jews in Thessalonika, it shows again there was a case of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans against non christian population. That's the whole case with the thread being blushing about the methods but not the desire.

Even if only look at the Balkans, not every war and conquest finished with the targeted expulsion of the entire population considered hostile. For example, the Muslims in western Thrace weren't expelled in 1913 even though many of them had collaborated with the Ottomans during and after the Second Balkan War and participated in attacks against Bulgarians. So no, there was even in this period no absolute principle that minorities collaborating with an enemy deserved to be expelled.
As for calling you dishonest, I clearly explained why I did so. First, for the strongly misleading and trivializing description of massive ethnic cleansing as "preventing civil war". Second, for accusing me positions I don't hold. If (as I think you're doing) you consider me dishonest, you should clearly explain why you think so.

People don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed whatever they do en masse. However, a period of war and ethnic cleansing happened in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It being no absolute principle doesn't change, it was the way of things. And I clearly pointed out why you are dishonest. Since Balkans itself had ethnic cleansing and civil wars happening even between christian nations, pointing this out doesn't mean trivializing it. Preventing civil wars was the truth of it. As for your dishonesty, you have different standards for Ottomans and Greeks, and you are doing it in a thread in which the ways to take Istanbul for Greece are discussed, while being shocked about the methods needed. Even though those same methods were clearly used in the Balkans. And then turn around and accuse Ottomans being worse. Ha.

You quoted me, decided a battle was lost without any clear evidence, accused one side for being harsh on the subordinates, as if it explained away any wrongdoing on the side of the subordinate. Clearly, you are the one enforcing definitions.

Bulgarians tried for a cleansed nation state, more than once in 20th century. This you, me bickering doesn't change that fact. Just like Greeks did. And after a war for clay, Ottomans did. No getting around those facts. It's dishonest to spaghetti quote a whole paragraph as if there wasn't a whole idea there. I have no time for that kind of "discussion". The Allied Powers didn't have the means to enforce Sevres, Curzon would love to do so. France was so disinterested and war weary they signed a treaty in 1921. Italians also left the territories they held with no fight. Because WW1 had exhausted the nations. These are all facts, if they had any case of wrongdoings against Greeks in an international scale, they would have used it as a justification. They didn't. They tempted Greece with promises of imperialism and Greeks couldn't deliver on top of that, they helped destroy any national identity Ottoman Empire had left for christian citizens. After that and years of ethnic cleansing done by both sides, population exchange was the only option left. Or did you think Greeks going after Smyrna even though local Turks was more numerous and recruiting said Turks' christian neighbours would be okay for a life after the Turkish victory? And that's just being strict about what can be expected. Once you make it a divide a between religions, there is no turning back. So this claim of population exchange being a crime is non sense. Especially if you are going to play the game of one side being worse than other. Otherwise, population exchange shouldn't have happened. I agree with you on that.
 
Last edited:
Because we were talking about the atrocities needed to take Constantinople while the population wasn't heavily in favor of Greek claims? Maybe that's why I'm bringing up Greek ambitions for a puppet state.
I don't see how this has anything to do with the justifications for the expulsion of the Greeks. In any case, these justifications simply do not address whether it was Turkey who was responsible for the population exchange and are thus irrelevant.

AFAIK, recruitment from Greek population in Western Anatolia happened before any systematic crimes against the local christian population.
This is blatantly false.

Of course, the local christian and muslim population started attacking each other in Black Sea region before a Greek campaign in Anatolia happened.
This is at best a disingenuous description of the crimes committed against the Greeks in that region in WWI.

Also, local christian population "Rums" also started to consider themselves a foreign nationality even in Istanbul. They had no basis to do that on the subject of crimes since it was the capital and not a staging ground for war. I think defending themselves in "Rum" population's case was smart and right. Them taking up arms against Ottomans and joining the Greek army. Not so smart and not a case for it. Because then they would be considered an enemy combatant even in surrender. As for the international agreement, if you mean Sevres, Ankara government never accepted the treaty.
Only if one accepts the principle of collective punishment does your argument makes sense. And this is if we accept your false claim that there was no reason for the Greeks to feel threatened.

In 1890s, Greek Army attacked jews in Thessalonika, it shows again there was a case of ethnic cleansing in the Balkans against non christian population. That's the whole case with the thread being blushing about the methods but not the desire.
The Greek army attacking Jews in Thessaloniki in the 1890s does not show such a case. For the simple reason that the Greek army did not and could not attack the Jews in a city that was then under Ottoman control.

People don't deserve to be ethnically cleansed whatever they do en masse. However, a period of war and ethnic cleansing happened in the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. It being no absolute principle doesn't change, it was the way of things. And I clearly pointed out why you are dishonest. Since Balkans itself had ethnic cleansing and civil wars happening even between christian nations, pointing this out doesn't mean trivializing it. Preventing civil wars was the truth of it. As for your dishonesty, you have different standards for Ottomans and Greeks, and you are doing it in a thread in which the ways to take Istanbul for Greece are discussed, while being shocked about the methods needed. Even though those same methods were clearly used in the Balkans. And then turn around and accuse Ottomans being worse. Ha.
I don't have different standards for ethnic cleansing of Greeks and Turks. Correcting your false claims who carried out ethnic cleansing is not being dishonest. Your statement has no relation at all with what I have written here (I have certainly not denied the possibility of ethnic cleansing if the Greeks took Constantinople), which is far from honest.
And of course the actual ethnic cleansing by the Ottomans is worse than any potential ethnic cleansing by Greece. What kind of logic it is to claim otherwise?

You quoted me, decided a battle was lost without any clear evidence, accused one side for being harsh on the subordinates, as if it explained away any wrongdoing on the side of the subordinate. Clearly, you are the one enforcing definitions.
I'm not the one who's making moral judgements on our different definitions of treason. Of course I don't see these differences as some kind of test to show one's true colours.


Bulgarians tried for a cleansed nation state, more than once in 20th century. This you, me bickering doesn't change that fact.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word fact. This claim is not even close to being correct. As I have already pointed out, Bulgaria did not out ethnic cleansing against the Turks of Western Thrace, despite the fact that many had participated in atrocities against the Bulgarian population (which would have made ethnic cleansing acceptable by the standards of the time, if you were to be believed), nor in 1989.

Just like Greeks did. And after a war for clay, Ottomans did. No getting around those facts.
Just because Turkey tried (and succeeded) for a cleansed nation state, doesn't mean that Bulgaria also did the same, however much it's inconvenient for your arguments of equivalency here.

It's dishonest to spaghetti quote a whole paragraph as if there wasn't a whole idea there.
No, it's not. I'm not obliged to accept your "whole ideas" when so often they're not (see for example the contradiction below). It's disagreement, not dishonesty.

I have no time for that kind of "discussion".
Then why have you been replying again and again, especially considering how the posts are full with irrelevant justifications for the ethnic cleansing carried out by Turkey, equally irrelevant outrage about the supposed treason of some Ottoman general and outright personal attacks?

The Allied Powers didn't have the means to enforce Sevres, Curzon would love to do so. France was so disinterested and war weary they signed a treaty in 1921. Italians also left the territories they held with no fight. Because WW1 had exhausted the nations. These are all facts, if they had any case of wrongdoings against Greeks in an international scale, they would have used it as a justification. They didn't. They tempted Greece with promises of imperialism and Greeks couldn't deliver on top of that, they helped destroy any national identity Ottoman Empire had left for christian citizens.
So the Allies had no means to enforce Sevres (leaving aside that this is obviously false), yet apparently they were just looking for an excuse to intervene? I don't see how this fits together. In reality, the Allies had plenty of excuses they could use, starting from the atrocities perpetrated during WWI and ending with the massive ethnic cleansing at the end of the Greko-Turkish war.

After that and years of ethnic cleansing done by both sides, population exchange was the only option left. Or did you think Greeks going after Smyrna even though local Turks was more numerous and recruiting said Turks' christian neighbours would be okay for a life after the Turkish victory? And that's just being strict about what can be expected. Once you make it a divide a between religions, there is no turning back. So this claim of population exchange being a crime is non sense. Especially if you are going to play the game of one side being worse than other.
You have not provided a single argument for this statement that does not rely on accepting the principle of collective punishment - which as I pointed out, was not universally accepted even then. You continue doing so again here, going so far as to claim that the population exchange carried out by Turkey (whose main component was ethnic cleansing carried out before any agreement on population exchange) was reached was somehow not a crime.
And no, in this particular case the two sides are not equal. Only one side committed genocide, carried out near total ethnic cleansing of the "wrong" population and forced a total population exchange.

Otherwise, population exchange shouldn't have happened. I agree with you on that.
This is frankly somewhat difficult to observe from your posts. There is simply too much effort spent on denying any right of the Greeks to not feel loyalty to Turkey despite the way they had been treated and too much effort spent on trying to claim that ethnic cleansing was inevitable. And in this last post, there is your assertion that the population exchange was not a crime, which is at best mostly untrue.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how this has anything to do with the justifications for the expulsion of the Greeks. In any case, these justifications simply do not address whether it was Turkey who was responsible for the population exchange and are thus irrelevant.
This is blatantly false.
This is at best a disingenuous description of the crimes committed against the Greeks in that region in WWI.
Only if one accepts the principle of collective punishment does your argument makes sense. And this is if we accept your false claim that there was no reason for the Greeks to feel threatened.
The Greek army attacking Jews in Thessaloniki in the 1890s does not show such a case. For the simple reason that the Greek army did not and could not attack the Jews in a city that was then under Ottoman control.
I don't have different standards for ethnic cleansing of Greeks and Turks. Correcting your false claims who carried out ethnic cleansing is not being dishonest. Your statement has no relation at all with what I have written here (I have certainly not denied the possibility of ethnic cleansing if the Greeks took Constantinople), which is far from honest.
And of course the actual ethnic cleansing by the Ottomans is worse than any potential ethnic cleansing by Greece. What kind of logic it is to claim otherwise?
I'm not the one who's making moral judgements on our different definitions of treason. Of course I don't see these differences as some kind of test to show one's true colours.
You don't seem to understand the meaning of the word fact. This claim is not even close to being correct. As I have already pointed out, Bulgaria did not out ethnic cleansing against the Turks of Western Thrace, despite the fact that many had participated in atrocities against the Bulgarian population (which would have made ethnic cleansing acceptable by the standards of the time, if you were to be believed), nor in 1989.
Just because Turkey tried (and succeeded) for a cleansed nation state, doesn't mean that Bulgaria also did the same, however much it's inconvenient for your arguments of equivalency here.
No, it's not. I'm not obliged to accept your "whole ideas" when so often they're not (see for example the contradiction below). It's disagreement, not dishonesty.
Then why have you been replying again and again, especially considering how the posts are full with irrelevant justifications for the ethnic cleansing carried out by Turkey, equally irrelevant outrage about the supposed treason of some Ottoman general and outright personal attacks?
So the Allies had no means to enforce Sevres (leaving aside that this is obviously false), yet apparently they were just looking for an excuse to intervene? I don't see how this fits together. In reality, the Allies had plenty of excuses they could use, starting from the atrocities perpetrated during WWI and ending with the massive ethnic cleansing at the end of the Greko-Turkish war.
You have not provided a single argument for this statement that does not rely on accepting the principle of collective punishment - which as I pointed out, was not universally accepted even then. You continue doing so again here, going so far as to claim that the population exchange carried out by Turkey (whose main component was ethnic cleansing carried out before any agreement on population exchange) was reached was somehow not a crime.
And no, in this particular case the two sides are not equal. Only one side committed genocide, carried out near total ethnic cleansing of the "wrong" population and forced a total population exchange.
This is frankly somewhat difficult to observe from your posts. There is simply too much effort spent on denying any right of the Greeks to not feel loyalty to Turkey despite the way they had been treated and too much effort spent on trying to claim that ethnic cleansing was inevitable. And in this last post, there is your assertion that the population exchange was not a crime, which is at best mostly untrue.

The population exchange as it is read, wasn't one sided. If Greece was too much against it, it wouldn't fly. It happened because it was the norm then after the series of ethnic cleansing done in the period. So not irrelevant. Not even mentioning France or GB okeying it. This is of course par for the course for your post, somehow Turkey lucked out even though WW allies could still fight and even enforced a treaty that was so one sided, they did something out of the norm like pop exchange. Ha.
Wikipedia article of claims are baseless unless you specify why or an actual point.
This is the truth, war is like that.
Collective punishment was all the norm for the Turks expelled from the Balkans. Greeks didn't need to feel threatened in Constantinople and such yet didn't stop them from attacking Turks during the occupation by the Allied forces.
Don't twist the facts, because they don't fit your narrative. Greek army was in Thessaloniki in 1890s, attacked Muslims and Jews. Hence the hypocrisy about different standards on ethnic cleansing. You or the Greeks have no moral high ground.
Greeks and other Balkan nations did ethnic cleansing against Muslims more than once dude. Get with the program. There is no hypotheticals about it.
You are the one making judgements on just blaming the high command when it was brought up the commander was responsible.
So, Bulgarians didn't come out and say they were doing ethnic cleansing but sugar coated it and that's fine to say this? :"As I have already pointed out, Bulgaria did not out ethnic cleansing against the Turks of Western Thrace, despite the fact that many had participated in atrocities against the Bulgarian population (which would have made ethnic cleansing acceptable by the standards of the time, if you were to be believed), nor in 1989." That's blatantly dishonest.
Bulgaria did try the ethnic cleansing sorry to crack your bubble there. Greeks and Bulgarians did it against each other too at the start of the 20th century.
Yes it is dishonest debating when you take quotes out of context. Don't go full spaghetti quoting.
You answered to me first. You quoted me. So I try to understand this moral hypocrisy by the opportunity provided. Despite your claims, you don't even know Balkan war history let alone world history general by the attitude of moral superiority you are displaying in a time of massive ethnic cleansing done in 19th century.
Allies had no bone to fight Turkey after Greeks failed to deliver on Sevres. They already were for dissolution of Turkey because of their justification of war crimes in WWI. Either they were immoral and didn't give a shit about their propaganda or they didn't have the means. Both shatter your illusions about any moral superiority.
Because yes, Sevres is an intention and declaration to ethnically cleanse Turks from Anatolia. As attested by an American historian too or anyone with a brain to read the said deal.
Calling ethnic cleansing a crime is just. Being outraged about one chapter of it, in the dissolution of the Empire seeing the atrocities wrought in Western Anatolia by the Greek army? That's just waving a flag for your favorite team. Not buying it.
Greek claims of genocide can be talked all day long and even the year. That doesn't change the Greeks were looking to expand with no moral or population justification. Threw the country into an already beginning civil war, killed civillains shattered any hope of national identity for the citizens of Ottoman Empire who are Greeks and you are calling only one side wrong? Don't read this much propaganda.
Population exchange was a crime as it was done after any event was done in a war. On paper it's true, in reality, Greeks were looking to do it too. As did all the Balkan nation for their fight for clay against Ottomans and each other. And I don't have a care about what you can or you can not see. Because I can see that you are outraged by the facts Greeks needed to do ethnic cleansing to annex Western Anatolia and Constantinople.

I threw a little water on that fantasy, seeing the response I'm getting. This moral posturing is ridiculous.
 
The population exchange as it is read, wasn't one sided. If Greece was too much against it, it wouldn't fly. It happened because it was the norm then after the series of ethnic cleansing done in the period. So not irrelevant.
Greece had no choice but to accept - the Greeks would be removed from Turkey either way, agreeing to an exchange at least allowed them to have this done in a relatively humane manner and give at least some Greeks an exception from being deported (even if those guarantees later proved empty). Not that they weren't glad to get rid of their Muslims (even if the very presence of those shows that they were not nearly as eager to throw them out as you claim), but the treaty certainly did not favor Greece and would not have been accepted if they had any choice. I already supplied sources on this subject.
And, no population exchange were not the norm. This was the first agreed population exchange between two Balkan states.

Not even mentioning France or GB okeying it. This is of course par for the course for your post, somehow Turkey lucked out even though WW allies could still fight and even enforced a treaty that was so one sided, they did something out of the norm like pop exchange. Ha.
Wikipedia article of claims are baseless unless you specify why or an actual point.
This is the truth, war is like that.
Collective punishment was all the norm for the Turks expelled from the Balkans. Greeks didn't need to feel threatened in Constantinople and such yet didn't stop them from attacking Turks during the occupation by the Allied forces.
My source about who wanted the population exchange was not from Wikipedia. And anyone who actually understands history knows very well that a military superior state will often give up on fighting a war which it can win because it doesn't have the will to do.
And Turkey certainly lucked out, starting with the October revolution succeeding. It's not difficult to imagine how they would have fared against Greece if they had faced the hostile Russian state in the east, rather than the friendly Soviet regime.

Don't twist the facts, because they don't fit your narrative. Greek army was in Thessaloniki in 1890s, attacked Muslims and Jews. Hence the hypocrisy about different standards on ethnic cleansing. You or the Greeks have no moral high ground.
Frankly, after this post I can easily say that anything you claim is probably untrue and no one objective would disagree with me. But for the sake of fairness, you should perhaps reflect how the Greek army was able to be in the 1890s in a city it only captured in 1912.
As for the moral high ground, Bulgaria has done many wrong things since 1878, but not so wrong as not to be able to accomplish the very easy task of being on a higher moral ground than the Ottoman Empire or Turkey. It certainly would have been much better to be a Turk in Bulgaria in this period, than a Bulgarian in the Ottoman Empire or Turkey (ignoring, for the moment, the absence of the later after 1913) or any other Christian minority for that matter. The same is largely true of Greece in regard to treatment of Muslim minorities.

Greeks and other Balkan nations did ethnic cleansing against Muslims more than once dude. Get with the program. There is no hypotheticals about it.
Not on the systematic extent carried out by Turkey after they won the Greco-Turkish war or on the level of genocide as happened during WWI. If the actions were even slightly comparable, there simply would not be the asymmetrical situation of minorities that is observed today.

You are the one making judgements on just blaming the high command when it was brought up the commander was responsible.
This again? As I said, I would have the same attitude towards any other state that did the same.

So, Bulgarians didn't come out and say they were doing ethnic cleansing but sugar coated it and that's fine to say this? :"As I have already pointed out, Bulgaria did not out ethnic cleansing against the Turks of Western Thrace, despite the fact that many had participated in atrocities against the Bulgarian population (which would have made ethnic cleansing acceptable by the standards of the time, if you were to be believed), nor in 1989." That's blatantly dishonest.
It's dishonest to claim that ethnic cleansing happened when it did not. And the fact that you haven't been able to cite any statement in support instead of simply repeating "But it happened!" is not doing your position any favor.

Bulgaria did try the ethnic cleansing sorry to crack your bubble there. Greeks and Bulgarians did it against each other too at the start of the 20th century.
What does "try" mean here? During the early 20th century there were several opportunities where this could have been done without anyone else being able to stop, not just "tried". Yet somehow Muslims continue to be a majority over most of the area they were before Bulgaria took over.

Yes it is dishonest debating when you take quotes out of context. Don't go full spaghetti quoting.
I don't think you are in a position of accusing others of being dishonest. I at least have addressed your actual points, not invented ones that are easier to mock, as you have done.

You answered to me first. You quoted me. So I try to understand this moral hypocrisy by the opportunity provided. Despite your claims, you don't even know Balkan war history let alone world history general by the attitude of moral superiority you are displaying in a time of massive ethnic cleansing done in 19th century.
No moral superiority, just asserting that collective punishment is not morally acceptable. Something which in the case of Turkey you have not been able to admit at all.
As for the lack of knowledge of Balkan history, no one who claims that the Greeks army was in Thessaloniki in the 1890s can seriously accuses any one else of not knowing Balkan history. It's amusing how you are so quick to take offense that you failed to take the opportunity to correct yourself.

Allies had no bone to fight Turkey after Greeks failed to deliver on Sevres. They already were for dissolution of Turkey because of their justification of war crimes in WWI. Either they were immoral and didn't give a shit about their propaganda or they didn't have the means. Both shatter your illusions about any moral superiority.
Congratulations on defeating yet another point I don't support.

Because yes, Sevres is an intention and declaration to ethnically cleanse Turks from Anatolia. As attested by an American historian too or anyone with a brain to read the said deal.
Calling ethnic cleansing a crime is just. Being outraged about one chapter of it, in the dissolution of the Empire seeing the atrocities wrought in Western Anatolia by the Greek army? That's just waving a flag for your favorite team. Not buying it.
You're the only here who is outraged by only one part of the atrocities carried out and the only one who's constantly giving out justifications for the other side's atrocities, even when your argument is self defeating, like here.

Greek claims of genocide can be talked all day long and even the year. That doesn't change the Greeks were looking to expand with no moral or population justification. Threw the country into an already beginning civil war, killed civillains shattered any hope of national identity for the citizens of Ottoman Empire who are Greeks and you are calling only one side wrong? Don't read this much propaganda.
How much national Ottoman identity had those Greeks left after being subjected to genocide (and yes, it happened, however unpleasant it is to think about it)? Your double standards are astounding in their audacity.


Population exchange was a crime as it was done after any event was done in a war. On paper it's true, in reality, Greeks were looking to do it too. As did all the Balkan nation for their fight for clay against Ottomans and each other. And I don't have a care about what you can or you can not see. Because I can see that you are outraged by the facts Greeks needed to do ethnic cleansing to annex Western Anatolia and Constantinople.
Even on an alternate history forum "what could have happened" is hardly an excuse for what did actually happen. And not agreeing with your position on whether Constantinople could have been held (I never discussed Western Anatolia) without ethnic cleansing is not the same as being outraged by the opposite position. The fact that you're outraged by nearly everything I wrote, including uncontroversial factual corrections and my opinion on whether a city should have been surrendered, doesn't mean that I approach this discussion in the same way.

I threw a little water on that fantasy, seeing the response I'm getting. This moral posturing is ridiculous.
If this fantasy amuses you, I'm not going to disabuse you of it. It's not as if it's possible to do so.
 
Top