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: