Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

The Byzantine Empire in modern times

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12
Author
Aristoteles View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote Aristoteles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Topic: The Byzantine Empire in modern times
    Posted: 14-Feb-2005 at 10:53

I am not commenting on nationalistic, disillusional Turks are the best, screw the rest daydreams. I cant play on that field since I am not a nationalist if they drag you down their level, you are bound to lose, cause they know better this game.

But here is more insight into the whole Turkey does not want the Greek islands thingy.

We have numerous generals (holders of the true power over there it is true that the Turkish army is extremely strong and thats why the Army dictates to the politics and not the other way around) stating in every account that Turkey has vital interests in the Aegean and we are not going to let it to the Greeks or that too bad we gave Crete to the Greeks, it should still be Turkish. Those are official statements of the highest military commanders of Turkey, not wet dreams of marginal fanatics. We have also Turkish diplomats stating in every instance that Turkey has the right to intervene in Thrace (both Greek and Bulgarian part) in order to "protect the interests of the Turkish minority". If those are not expansionist claims, I don't know what is.

Also, there is a series of facts.

Turkey signed the Laussane treaty, accepting that the Aegean islands (with the exceptions of Imvros and Tenethos) are Greek. Until 1960, Turkey has honored its commitment and did not try to question the Greek ruling over the Aegean islands. But after 1960, things changed.

In certain circles of the Turkish ruling class, a new lebensraum dogma is developing. According to this dogma and its bloody official too the Aegean islands are the extension of Asia Minor, so in essence Turkey has rights over these islands.

The fact that this little pet theory of the Generals has evolved into an official dogma of the Turkish state, cannot be denied. And this is why: According to the Geneva convention (Turkey accepted that) the territorial waters of every country is 6 miles from the shores. So far so good. But a while after that, after the third convention of the United Nations for the international Sea Law, all countries on the globe has now the right to extend their territorial waters to 12 miles from its shores. Turkey did not sign that convention.

All countries have exercised that right, save one. No, not Turkey. Turkey did not sign this treaty, but she has applied the new statues (12 miles) on its shores of the Black Sea and southeastern Mediteranean. But Turkey is prohibiting Greece on doing so, claiming that if Greece extends her territorial waters to the 12 miles, it will be considered a casus belli!!!!!!!! Do you deny that?

Another way Turkey has used to facilitate claims over the Aegean, is the issue of the air space. According to the Chicago treaty of 1944, every country has the right to rule its national air space and has certain rights over the international airspace that is designated as local FIR (in our case: Athens FIR). Turkey, since 1974, denies Greece the right of Athens FIR, and instead uses an arbitrary line that divides the Aegean airspace in two equal shares!!! In case you want to deny that, the relevant NOTAM was issued in August of 1974 and is well known as NOTAM 714. The NOTAM is not used by the international airlines, since they boycotted the Turkish airspace and the international bodies have ruled in favor of Greece, but it is everyday reality (I mean it: every day) that Turkish fighters enter the Athens FIR AND the Greek national airspace, pointing out (in a very Turkish manner) that they have never given up the right they took for themselves in 1974.

The third issue that Turkey uses to forward the Aegean claims against Greece, is that of the insular shelf. According to the Geneva convention of 1958 and the ruling of the international court of Hague in 1969, the islands have a shelf.

Turkey is the one and only country in the entire world (!!!) claiming that there is no such thing as insular shelf and only continental shelf can exist. Based on that, Turkish experts claim that half of the Aegean belongs to Turkey, since only mainland Greece and mainland Turkey have a continental shelf, so according to the Geneva convention of course the Turkish-only interpretation thereof the border line of the Aegean lies exactly in the middle of the sea and not in the middle of the distance between the Greek islands and the Turkish shores!

A byproduct of this ridiculous claim is the eastern Aegean skerry issue (Imia) tiny islands that belong to Greece (according to all international treaties, since they are inside the Greek territorial waters) but Turkey is trying to prove that they are theirs, by parading every now and then with some warships around those skerries.

Turkey denies Greece the right to conduct research (for oil, for instance) inside the designated (12-mile range) Greek territorial waters, warning that any such attempt will be considered a casus beli. In two instances, we came very close to a war with Turkey, not because we exercised our RIGHT to search in our territorial waters, but because Turks - remember the Sismik? - conducted research inside the Greek territorial waters!!!!. Of course, Turkey constantly denies the settlement of these differences by international bodies (Hague, for instance), considering that Turkey has the might that makes right.

Hope this little analysis will be read by all of you and we can discuss some actual issues here, rather than mumbling stupid nationalistic propaganda and nazi-like rhetoric for the superiority of one or another race.

Tamam?

Trying to educate the ignorant, leads only to frustration
Back to Top
Cywr View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6003
  Quote Cywr Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2005 at 11:24
This is not related with jihad . The issue is related with "do we live in a world of caos or not?" . US was not ethic to attack Iraq. They lied continously. The aim is obvious they want more and more. They want to steal oil and control it.


The people blowing up stuff and shooting police trainies in Iraq have are in their eyes fighting a Jihad (in the conflict sense, i'm aware that a Jihad can be any struggle, even just a mental one). That many muslims don't necessary share the view is irrelevant.
Arrrgh!!"
Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2005 at 14:30
Originally posted by Aristoteles

But here is more insight into the whole Turkey does not want the Greek islands thingy.

We have numerous generals (holders of the true power over there it is true that the Turkish army is extremely strong and thats why the Army dictates to the politics and not the other way around) stating in every account that Turkey has vital interests in the Aegean and we are not going to let it to the Greeks or that too bad we gave Crete to the Greeks, it should still be Turkish. Those are official statements of the highest military commanders of Turkey, not wet dreams of marginal fanatics. We have also Turkish diplomats stating in every instance that Turkey has the right to intervene in Thrace (both Greek and Bulgarian part) in order to "protect the interests of the Turkish minority". If those are not expansionist claims, I don't know what is.

Sorry but I have never read or listen such "official claims" as you claim.

I only know sayings such as Turkey has vital interests in the Aegean and we are not going to let it to the Greeks but the sentence doesn't stop there. "We cannot allow them to extend their territorial waters since we cannot move out to Medditerranain Sea from Marmara via Agean without usimg Greek waters. "

1) If you (Greece and Greeks) do not want to extend territorial waters Turkey and Turks (not only the army) doesn't want anything from Greece.

2) Turkey doesn't have any claim. Contrary Greece claims to expend her territories and change the status quo.

3) But you are claiming that Turkey wants Greek islands. This is out of question. The matter is different and we only demand that you didn't change the status quo in the expense of Turkey's vital interests. Is it so hard to understand? What is Crete problem you are talking about?

4) You are too much exaggerating Turkish army's power in internal politics. It is true that they are effective but not as much as you think. If it was so Turkey wouldn't want to be a member of EU. It is so obvious............ Army traditionally is a very important instution in Turkey. It was also a very important instution in modernization period of the country especially in the late period of Ottoman Empire. Being soldier for a Turkish youngster as you see from history and daily life is a cultural issue.

5) Turkish people, politicians and bureaucrats are clever and intellectual enough to understand what is good and what is bad for Turkey's interests. There is not something like that "Turkish people are prisoner in the hands of generals and Turkish army". If they could be freed from this army opression Turkey would accept Greece's demands on Agean Sea. Sorry my friend but this is very childish and naive way of thinking.

6) Army is an important but only one of the instutions of Turkey. And Turkey has a very long and continous state experience and mechanism to conduct her policies. 

7)  You said that

"We have also Turkish diplomats stating in every instance that Turkey has the right to intervene in Thrace (both Greek and Bulgarian part) in order to "protect the interests of the Turkish minority".

Intervene? What do you mean by this? Invade?

We intervened the situation in Bulgaria in late 80's by opening our frontiers to Turks of Bulgaria. But they were really suffering. I hope our Bulgarian friens will support me about what happened in those years. But now we do not have any problem with Bulgaria and our relations with them is in perfect conditions.

Do not think that Turkey will invade since Greece is banning the Turkish association in western Thrace. This is really foolish.

8) If Turkey had an intention to attack or invade some Greek islands we could do it when terrorist leader Ocalan had been captured in Greek embassy in Kenya. This was a very clean reason. Just try to shelter Bin Ladin in Greece, visit him in his headquarter in Afganistan, help him to find weapons and see what is going on!!!!!!! You did all of this.

 

Back to Top
lars573 View Drop Down
Janissary
Janissary
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 28
  Quote lars573 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 14-Feb-2005 at 17:28

Ah another argument between the sick men of europe and the bad cousins.  You know that the Greeks tried to grab western asia minor and Constantinople from Turkey before right? Starting in like 1920 they invaded asia minor and marched towards Istanbul. Got their asses handed to them by the Turks too.



Edited by lars573
Back to Top
Capt. Lubber View Drop Down
Shogun
Shogun
Avatar

Joined: 27-Jan-2005
Location: Norway
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 238
  Quote Capt. Lubber Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 01:14
I say scandinavia should unite, and conquer great britain, normandie, russia, and newfoundland again


...



bauahahaha
Loke, Attila, the grete conqueror,
Deyde in his sleep, with shame and dishonour,
Bleedinge ay at the nose in dronkenesse,
A captayin shoulde live in sobrenesse
Back to Top
Aristoteles View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote Aristoteles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 04:01
Originally posted by Alparslan

Sorry but I have never read or listen such "official claims" as you claim.

funny, since...

I only know sayings such as Turkey has vital interests in the Aegean and we are not going to let it to the Greeks but the sentence doesn't stop there. "We cannot allow them to extend their territorial waters since we cannot move out to Medditerranain Sea from Marmara via Agean without usimg Greek waters. "

Aaaahh... you have heard them after all

1) If you (Greece and Greeks) do not want to extend territorial waters Turkey and Turks (not only the army) doesn't want anything from Greece.

We DO want to extend our territorial waters since it is our RIGHT according to international law and order. But we don't because we don't want to give the Turkish Generals the casus beli they are so keen on finding.

2) Turkey doesn't have any claim. Contrary Greece claims to expend her territories and change the status quo.

Yeah, bad Greece! Greece wants to expand its terroritorial waters to the point every country in the world is doing, so it's ...expansionist, huh? Bad Greece!

3) But you are claiming that Turkey wants Greek islands. This is out of question. The matter is different and we only demand that you didn't change the status quo in the expense of Turkey's vital interests. Is it so hard to understand? What is Crete problem you are talking about?

Another one of those "Turkish vital interests"... like Cyprus, Imia, Thasos etc. etc. etc. etc.

4) You are too much exaggerating Turkish army's power in internal politics. It is true that they are effective but not as much as you think. If it was so Turkey wouldn't want to be a member of EU.

Now this is soooooo wrong.The army has been charged by Kemal to uphold the secular character of the state and make sure Turkey doesn't stray from its "western" orientation... so, if anything, the Army wants Turkey in the EU.

5) Turkish people, politicians and bureaucrats are clever and intellectual enough to understand what is good and what is bad for Turkey's interests. There is not something like that "Turkish people are prisoner in the hands of generals and Turkish army". If they could be freed from this army opression Turkey would accept Greece's demands on Agean Sea. Sorry my friend but this is very childish and naive way of thinking.

Strawman and a rather stupid at it. And naive. And childish. Yeah, Turkey is an exemplar democracy and nobody has noticed it yet, except you. BAH!

Intervene? What do you mean by this? Invade?

I know that in the traditional Turkish way "intervene" can be seen only as "invade", but I was not saying that.

8) If Turkey had an intention to attack or invade some Greek islands we could do it when terrorist leader Ocalan had been captured in Greek embassy in Kenya. This was a very clean reason. Just try to shelter Bin Ladin in Greece, visit him in his headquarter in Afganistan, help him to find weapons and see what is going on!!!!!!! You did all of this.

Ocalan is much less of a terrorist than the Turkish state is. Despite that (which is a matter of perception) we handed you Ocalan. Our US-lakey PM did. Why would you "attack us", because we have given you wrapped in a nice packet and with a nifty ribbon, the #1 wanted person in Turkey?

I don't see you adressing the FIR issue and the everyday violations. Why's that?

Trying to educate the ignorant, leads only to frustration
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
  Quote Komnenos Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 15:19
Originally posted by Capt. Lubber

I say scandinavia should unite, and conquer great britain, normandie, russia, and newfoundland again


...



bauahahaha



Please, please take us Germans as well, we're your cousins after all, and bring your welfare system and all your tall blond women. Please!

Edited by Komnenos
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Artaxiad View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 10-Aug-2004
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 488
  Quote Artaxiad Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 16:39

If Greece invaded Turkey, I'm guessing about the whole islamic world would come to turkeys defense.

Maybe, but didn't the Islamic world come to Azerbaijan's defense during its' war with Nagorno-Karabagh? I don't think Islamic countries and people are too happy about Turkey's secular way of practising Islam.



Edited by Artaxiad
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
  Quote Seko Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 15-Feb-2005 at 20:45
Ah! The folly of dreaming of the past. How are civilized individuals (countries) expected to appreciate the rights of self rule and integrity when a neighbor covets anothers possesions? These are indefensible dreams that warrant serious reprecussions. To think morally is to act morally. Respect is needed for all sides. Not some crazy desire to alienate and persecute whole populations for a wishful dream.
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16-Feb-2005 at 01:01

I was about to lock this uninteligent thread, but then I read Komnenos post and said to myself: as long as there's humor, there's hope for the world

 

The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
eaglecap View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Moderator

Joined: 15-Feb-2005
Location: ArizonaUSA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3959
  Quote eaglecap Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2005 at 01:42
Interesting topic but I really do not think the politicians in Greece would even concieve of such a foolish move, except for a few fanatics.
One question I would have for the Turks is why does Turkey keep invading Greek air space if they do not have any hostile intentions?
Oh, by the way Greece's population is 11 million but Turkey does have a larger population than Greece.
I suppose it is true you cannot put a Greek and Turk in the same room without a fight-lol!! While Turks are great fighters and warriors I would hardly call them the most powerful army in Europe, don't forget about the U.S. presence!! I mean that as no put down but reality.


Back to Top
Alparslan View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel


Joined: 07-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 517
  Quote Alparslan Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2005 at 02:25

Originally posted by eaglecap

I suppose it is true you cannot put a Greek and Turk in the same room without a fight-lol!! While Turks are great fighters and warriors I would hardly call them the most powerful army in Europe, don't forget about the U.S. presence!! I mean that as no put down but reality. 

No, in fact Turks and Greeks are not enemy to each other. But some (!!) strong political circles influenced by outside inside their countries (especially in Greece) are pomping enemity to each country. RESULT: Increased defence expenditure. Increased defence industry profits. And those industries are mostly outside of Turkey and Greece.

And thank you about reminding us US presence but Turks and Greeks are not idiot (hope so) to fight and kill each other for a few peaces of rocks on the edge of a sea.

I would be very happy to be in a room with a Greek. I had many good Greek friends.     

Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2005 at 05:57

This seems to be a flame-bait but...

Turkey has no official claim on Greek Islands. At least not on the inhabited ones. Or in the Balkan areas where Turkish minorities live. Some ultra-nationalists (some of which are ex-military) may say such things, but this is a marginal position.

In true Balkan tradition, Turkey is paranoid about its neighbours expanding into Turkey. Greek claims in the Aegean are seen in the same light, given the fact that since its independence Greece has grown 7 times or so (with the help of European powers), each time to the expense of Turkey, and the last time almost destroying Turkey as an independent state. I am not discussing if this was right or wrong here, but because of this 200 years old trend, the Turkish state has become extermely sensitive about any Greek claims which it perceives as threatening to its sovereignity. Again note that I m not discussing where Turkey's sovereignity starts, this is just how the Turkish state perceives it.

So, you may think it is absurd, but Turkey feels as threatened by Greece as Greece feels threatened by Turkey. Turkey primarily fears that Greek extentension of territorial waters will choke Turkey by denying access to
international waters in the Aegean. Or Greek takeover of Cyprus will complete the encirclement of Turkey by extending Greek power to the southern coast.
In fact, the only time I heard Crete mentioned by the Turks is when it is used to draw a parallel to Cyprus: 'Once Crete was like Cyprus, but the Greeks
took it and ethnically cleansed the Turks, and we won't let this happen in Cyprus'. And even in Cyprus, Turkish nationalists (again not the official position) want 'taksim' (division), not whole of the island. 

So whenever Greece mentions extension of territorial waters, or 'international law' (for the Turkish state that brings memories of the bitter deals the European Powers enforced in the 19th century), Turkey bristles with fear like a cornered cat. Or from the Greek perspective, a cornered tiger.

But then there's another angle to the problem. Oil was discovered in the Aegean in the 70s. And Turkey wants a share of it. And thus favours the usual 50-50 division of seas. But Greece, of course insists that all islands have their own shelf, as is the usual case, which would give them 80% of the Aegean. I don't know how the international law is, but Turkey may not be a part to all maritime agreements which allow this, thus giving it a legal case. This is the new aggressive trend in the Turkish stance Aristo wrote above.

Can these problems be solved by dialog? I think yes. Turkey and Greece should develop better relations through the EU. Then Turkey should make concessions to the Greek position, accepting that there are no 'Gray Areas' in the Aegean concerning islands. Also accept that the islands have their shelves. Greece should counter by considering the special situation in the Aegean and make some concessions to Turkey about direct access to international waters. As to the partition of Aegean sea oil, my personal view is that it should remain where it is. The world has enough problems with fossil fuels already. But a more
realistic solution would be Turkey accepting the Greek claims (%80 of the Aegean goes to Greece), but gets some concessions in return, like
a joint exploration agreement, or some advantages to Turkish companies or cheap sale of Aegean oil to Turkey, etc.

I don't think it is realistic for the Turks to insist that 50% of the Aegean is Turkish, or for the Greeks to insist that Aegean is just like any other sea where the borders can easily be drawn.
 
To summerise, I am pretty sure that Turkey is not looking for excuses to attack Greece and to invade the Crete and Dedocanese islands and Western Thrace.
Not any more than Greeks are looking for excuses to invade Eastern Thrace or Konstantinopoli. I am sure because these areas are outside the boundries of the
Turkish nation state as defined at the beginning of the Turkish war of resistance. Discovery of oil in the Aegean and the events in Cyprus led to a more interventionist foreign policy in these areas, but I can assure you that invasion of Greek islands is not on agenda of Turkey, as long as Turkey has the present regime.

On the other hand, Mosul and Kirkuk were included in the boundries I mentioned above. The claims were given up after much reluctance after Lausanne and a British-instigated Kurdish rebellion in the area. So, there's much greater danger of Turkish irrentionist/expansionist adventurism in Kurdistan than in Greece.

Back to Top
Aristoteles View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote Aristoteles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24-Feb-2005 at 09:47

This seems to be a flame-bait but...

Bey, you are very wrong. Very. Wrong.

Turkey has no official claim on Greek Islands. At least not on the inhabited ones. Or in the Balkan areas where Turkish minorities live. Some ultra-nationalists (some of which are ex-military) may say such things, but this is a marginal position.

This is interesting, but wrong. If it was a marginal position there wouldnt be everyday fly-overs by Turkish aircraft well inside the Greek national airspace. That is called, in English, bullying. Tsabuka, in the local balkan tongue

The one claim of the Turkish side that actually states beyond any doubt that there is a very official claim of Turkey over the Aegean islands, is that Turkey I repeat: the only country in the world, and, hell, Aegean is not the only closed sea in the world that lies between two nations denies the existence of insular shelf. Geopolitacally speaking, if you deny that islands have their own shelf, they are considered parts of the continental shelf. So, no territorial waters for Greece, and co-ruling over the Aegean? Not very reasuring an argument, I might say.

In true Balkan tradition, Turkey is paranoid about its neighbours expanding into Turkey. Greek claims in the Aegean are seen in the same light, given the fact that since its independence Greece has grown 7 times or so (with the help of European powers), each time to the expense of Turkey, and the last time almost destroying Turkey as an independent state. I am not discussing if this was right or wrong here, but because of this 200 years old trend, the Turkish state has become extermely sensitive about any Greek claims which it perceives as threatening to its sovereignity. Again note that I m not discussing where Turkey's sovereignity starts, this is just how the Turkish state perceives it.

a 65 million people nation with what it describes as the strongest army in Europe, perceives tiny 11-million people Greece with a joke as an army, as a threat??? If I was an ultra-nationalist, Id be extremely flattered. Now I am just being extremely sceptical.

Your analysis about Aegean oil and about other factors fitting into that equation is, if not accurate, at least very close to the truth.

But our main point of difference, lies herein:

 

Can these problems be solved by dialog? I think yes. Turkey and Greece should develop better relations through the EU. Then Turkey should make concessions to the Greek position, accepting that there are no 'Gray Areas' in the Aegean concerning islands. Also accept that the islands have their shelves. Greece should counter by considering the special situation in the Aegean and make some concessions to Turkey about direct access to international waters. As to the partition of Aegean sea oil, my personal view is that it should remain where it is. The world has enough problems with fossil fuels already. But a more
realistic solution would be Turkey accepting the Greek claims (%80 of the Aegean goes to Greece), but gets some concessions in return, like
a joint exploration agreement, or some advantages to Turkish companies or cheap sale of Aegean oil to Turkey, etc.

I don't think it is realistic for the Turks to insist that 50% of the Aegean is Turkish, or for the Greeks to insist that Aegean is just like any other sea where the borders can easily be drawn.



As I said in my previous post, there are international treaties Ive named them all, gave dates and facts about them, so that everybody can check them out that govern our differences. Turkeys position was always that these problems are not problems abiding to the international law, but two-party differences.

Greece insisted, and still insists (even though we are from time to time negotiating with Turkey, being under constant pressure from our mutual ally USA) that those things Turkey calls differences are just standard cases subject to the international laws that are in use everywhere. Those are not two-party differences that could be sorted out by dialogue. Unfortunately even today might makes right, so no Greek PM in his right mind shall provide the (not quite marginal) Turkish generals with a badly-wanted casus beli. But I consider it quite shameful, not to employ international laws because our neighbor feels strong enough to resist those.

No government in Greece can abolish the rights international laws give to our country, intimidated by Turkish power-play. Oh, except a government under dear Giorgaki WhiteHouseKeeper Papandr;eoy. I am quite certain that if (when, actually) he becomes PM, well give half Aegean to Turkey, and maybe well invite you to co-rule Thrace. Just because Geordie is like that, a merry fellow

Trying to educate the ignorant, leads only to frustration
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2005 at 04:48

This is interesting, but wrong. If it was a marginal position there wouldnt be everyday fly-overs by Turkish aircraft well inside the Greek national airspace.

As Ankara doesn't recognise Greek territorial claims, it doesn't recognise the  'Greek national airspace' as well.

The one claim of the Turkish side that actually states beyond any doubt that there is a very official claim of Turkey over the Aegean islands, is that Turkey I repeat: the only country in the world, and, hell, Aegean is not the only closed sea in the world that lies between two nations denies the existence of insular shelf. Geopolitacally speaking, if you deny that islands have their own shelf, they are considered parts of the continental shelf. So, no territorial waters for Greece, and co-ruling over the Aegean? Not very reasuring an argument, I might say.

You are jumping to conclusions from the fact that Ankara doesn't recognise island shelves. I told you why Ankara opposes this: so that Greece won't get 80% of the Aegean (oil) and limit Turkish access to international waters. Not because it wants the islands, especially not the inhabited ones. 'Gray Areas' in the Aegean is just a (not convincing) way of going around the law.

a 65 million people nation with what it describes as the strongest army in Europe, perceives tiny 11-million people Greece with a joke as an army, as a threat??? If I was an ultra-nationalist, Id be extremely flattered. Now I am just being extremely sceptical.

Turkey is 70 millions, and Greek army (more like navy and airforce) are not a joke. Anyway, Ankara indeed fears Greek (or any other) expansionism. This is not a healthy way of thinking, but Ankara remembers losing territory for 3 centuries. It is not the fear of Greece invading Turkey militarily (not that it didn't try) but the Greeks getting more concessions from Ankara with the help of their powerful friends. Again, remember that these are not my personal views, but this is how Ankara (which is a territorial state structure) sees it.

On the other hand, your own belief that Ankara (you actually wrote 'the generals') is looking for excuses to invade Greece, sounds very similar to the paranoid delusions I've been writing about. Not only the generals in Turkey cannot decide to declare war on anyone, nobody is looking for excuses to declare war on Greece. I've never heard such ideas even from the stinkiest right wing scum in Turkey. But I've seen such aggressive posturing against the Kurds in Iraq, and believe me you'd see the difference immediately. Note that this doesn't mean that Ankara is bluffing about casus belli. You can never tell with those people.

As I said in my previous post, there are international treaties Ive named them all, gave dates and facts about them, so that everybody can check them out that govern our differences. Turkeys position was always that these problems are not problems abiding to the international law, but two-party differences.

I won't pretend that I know the international maritime treaties. But I am pretty sure that Turkey is aware of the implications of international law, and I know that they haven't signed all those agreements because of that. Anyway, we all know that international law is a joke really. As you wrote, between the nations, might makes right. If US was Greece's neighbour instead of Turkey, the international law would be so that Greece would get 20 percent of the Aegean. Or if international law would have been unbreakable, both sides of the Aegean would be Greek today (Sevres) or Greece would have been a part of the Ottoman Empire, etc. etc. So Ankara exists because it ignored the international law in the first place, and won't allow to be maneouvered into any weak position because it knows all other states would have done the same if they were in its place. 

My position on the issue, on the other hand, is different. I believe all nation states are evil and even imperfect international law is better than no international law. But as all laws, it should only be obeyed when it is just. Greece getting 80% of the Aegean and limiting Turkish access to seas because the law says so, is simply unjust, given the fact that Greece is already a much richer country than Turkey. Greece should share its wealth with poorer neighbours, as Turkey or everyone else should do. So I don't think that, it is neither a terrible atrocity nor something unheard of, to say that Greece and Turkey should reach a compromise in the Aegean. Yet I believe that in any case it is better to solve this problem by diplomacy or in a court than by war, so Ankara is wrong in being belligerent. If it comes to that, Greece should get all it wants, it is not worth fighting for.

No government in Greece can abolish the rights international laws give to our country, intimidated by Turkish power-play.

As I wrote before the laws are only valid when they are just. Otherwise as Anatole France wrote: 'the law, in its great majesty, forbids the rich and the poor equally to sleep under the bridges.' if you get my drift.

Oh, except a government under dear Giorgaki WhiteHouseKeeper Papandr;eoy. I am quite certain that if (when, actually) he becomes PM, well give half Aegean to Turkey, and maybe well invite you to co-rule Thrace.

Well, he was the only Greek politician to call the minority in Western Thrace by their proper name- Turks. I hope that you don't think that this makes him a traitor.

So, relax man, Turkey is not out to get you. Especially not now, with Iraq in flames and Syria and Iran on the list...

Back to Top
Aristoteles View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 03-Jan-2005
Location: Greece
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 106
  Quote Aristoteles Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2005 at 08:15

As Ankara doesn't recognise Greek territorial claims, it doesn't recognise the  'Greek national airspace' as well.

Sure, I wrote that before and mentioned the relevant NOTAM as well. But there is a tiny little detail: Greece has no territorial claims over Turkey.

You are jumping to conclusions from the fact that Ankara doesn't recognise island shelves. I told you why Ankara opposes this: so that Greece won't get 80% of the Aegean (oil) and limit Turkish access to international waters. Not because it wants the islands, especially not the inhabited ones. 'Gray Areas' in the Aegean is just a (not convincing) way of going around the law.

you are jumping into the conclusion that this whole thing is solely about the oil. It ain't. It is, past the oil, about lebensraum too. And, let me tell you something: that oil "belongs" to USA. The St. Dept. guys consider it "the strategic reserves of USA", never mind the fact that it is in (under) Greek waters

Turkey is 70 millions, and Greek army (more like navy and airforce) are not a joke. Anyway, Ankara indeed fears Greek (or any other) expansionism. This is not a healthy way of thinking, but Ankara remembers losing territory for 3 centuries. It is not the fear of Greece invading Turkey militarily (not that it didn't try) but the Greeks getting more concessions from Ankara with the help of their powerful friends. Again, remember that these are not my personal views, but this is how Ankara (which is a territorial state structure) sees it.

Ah, yes. I wasn't talking about Greek navy & airforce btw. Those are rather healthy and able to hold their own. Our army, though, is a joke.

Note that this doesn't mean that Ankara is bluffing about casus belli. You can never tell with those people.

That is my concern as well. You can never tell.

As I wrote before the laws are only valid when they are just. Otherwise as Anatole France wrote: 'the law, in its great majesty, forbids the rich and the poor equally to sleep under the bridges.' if you get my drift.

Sid lex, dura lex. If you get my drift.

My position on the issue, on the other hand, is different. I believe all nation states are evil and even imperfect international law is better than no international law. But as all laws, it should only be obeyed when it is just. Greece getting 80% of the Aegean and limiting Turkish access to seas because the law says so, is simply unjust, given the fact that Greece is already a much richer country than Turkey. Greece should share its wealth with poorer neighbours, as Turkey or everyone else should do. So I don't think that, it is neither a terrible atrocity nor something unheard of, to say that Greece and Turkey should reach a compromise in the Aegean. Yet I believe that in any case it is better to solve this problem by diplomacy or in a court than by war, so Ankara is wrong in being belligerent. If it comes to that, Greece should get all it wants, it is not worth fighting for.

First of all, Greece is not by a long shot "a far richer country than Turkey" - Greece has become a much richer country, despite having a much poorer land (without natural resources, little precious land for farming etc. etc.) than what Turkey got. The richest parts of the Ottoman empire were Ionia and Smyrna area. I believe they are still the richest, correct?

Now, to the main point. The philosophical question about the "right" of the nationstates is a rather peculiar one, and to abolish them altogether in favor of one or another form of multi-nationalism or internationalism, can be quite dangerous.

Since nation-states are only a very recent development in the course of history, I wouldn't say that states of the past were more benevolent or caring or tolerant than the nation states of today. Our most recent example (since the EU is still in the makings) of a multi-national state, is rather traumatic: USSR.

This is a huge subject by itself, but one that would make perhaps of an interesting discussion.  But not here - we would hijack this thread too much.

Well, he was the only Greek politician to call the minority in Western Thrace by their proper name- Turks. I hope that you don't think that this makes him a traitor.

A traitor? God forbid, NO! Of course not. He is a very effective servant of the national interest of his country. Actually, you could call him a patriot of sorts.

Ahem... Giorgaki is a US citizen btw. As I said, a very effective servant of his own country.

So, relax man, Turkey is not out to get you. Especially not now, with Iraq in flames and Syria and Iran on the list...

OK, now I am relaxed... let the games commence 

Trying to educate the ignorant, leads only to frustration
Back to Top
Yiannis View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2329
  Quote Yiannis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2005 at 10:05
Aristoteli, please refrain from posting slander against politicians.
The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics

Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
Back to Top
Beylerbeyi View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 02-Aug-2004
Location: Cuba
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1355
  Quote Beylerbeyi Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25-Feb-2005 at 13:29

I have explained myself so anything else I write will be repeating. I am quite sure that Turkey wants no land (as in lebensraum) from Greece. Oil from the Aegean (or Northern Iraq) maybe, land full of ethnics, hell, no.  Turkey already has enough land and problematic ethnics, you know.

Other than that I'll just address the following point.

First of all, Greece is not by a long shot "a far richer country than Turkey" - Greece has become a much richer country, despite having a much poorer land (without natural resources, little precious land for farming etc. etc.) than what Turkey got. The richest parts of the Ottoman empire were Ionia and Smyrna area. I believe they are still the richest, correct?

Greece is a much richer country than Turkey. The reasons are irrelevant, from a political/ideological point of view, but I'll tackle them for fun.

Richest parts of the Ottoman Empire were indeed Greece and where the Greeks lived, because Turks never had a bourgeoi class, and the Ottomans hadn't considered themselved Turks until relatively recently anyway (so they didn't give a damn about how the Turks were doing). Greeks (followed by Jews and Armenians) dominated trade in the OE. And Ottoman Empire at its height controlled all of Eastern Med and Black Sea (Greek were mainly naval merchants, of course). Greeks dominated the trade to such an extent that local bourgeoisie along the Black sea coast (in Rumania and Bulgaria) have started to become Hellenised and speak Greek by the 18th century. They were alienated later because the Greeks preferred the new ideology of nationalism to a cultural-domination of OE's Orthodox subjects. Their contact (being traders) with the West made them acquire such modern ideas. So Greece had benefited greatly from the Ottoman rule, who destroyed the Italian traders' hold on the Eastern Med and the Black Sea, and handed it to Greeks on a silver plate. Of course, Ottomans could never have succeeded in this without Greek assistance in the first place, since they learned everything they know about sailing from the Greeks. Towards the end, Ottoman economy was run by the Great Powers anyway, which gave the Turks no chance to prosper.

So today Greece is richer than Turkey because it started the race a good way ahead in terms of development (they got the quality parts of the OE, whereas Turkey inherited some of the least developed areas, which got devastated in countless wars), had a more stable political history, much lesser population increase (in 1923 population of Turkey was comparable to Greece, now it is 7 times greater), and of course, vast amounts of EU economic aid. 

Answering your question, the richest area in Turkey today is the industrial area arounding the Marmara sea. Especially the densely populated north-eastern part, from Istanbul to Izmit. Izmit (Nikea of old) is the richest province in Turkey with pro capita income roughly on par with the Greek average.

Back to Top
Jazz View Drop Down
Baron
Baron
Avatar

Joined: 29-Mar-2005
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 410
  Quote Jazz Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 29-Mar-2005 at 21:02
I deal with different nationalities in my place of business, including Greeks and Turks.  One story:

Had a Turkish customer in to purchase a voltage transformer to take back to Istanbul when a Greek customer walked in and waited....after the Turkish customer was done and left, the Greek had heard him talking about Istanbul and started off by saying "I still prefer the name Constantinopolus - but history is history, what can be done now..?" 

He went on to give me a take that I had not neard before, "You know if the Hagia Sophia was returned to us and made a church again (as the head of the Patriarchate), we'd be happy with simply that.  Imagine your Golden Temple (I'm am Sikh) being turned into a church or mosque and tell me how many people of your religion would feel......But changing the name back to "Constantinople" would be a nice bonus though.....Everything else is ok as-is, it is too late to expect borders to change"

Just wanted to share that......
Back to Top
Guests View Drop Down
Guest
Guest
  Quote Guests Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 30-Mar-2005 at 14:51

                      New Dictionary for Megali deaists

                                          (Adapted to our age)

stanbul=> stanbul

Constantinopole=> History

Hagia Sophia=> Aya Sofya

(HA) Church=> Aya Sofya Mosque=> Aya Sofya Museum (unfortunately)

Byzanthine=> History

Megali dea=> Dream

Anatolika=> Anadolu

Adrianopolis=> Edirne

Smyrna=> zmir

Trebizond=> Trabzon

Adanus=> Adana

Thracia=> Rumeli

Dardanells=> anakkale

1453=> Victory

Ottoman=> A Turkmen originated dynasty which was built upon the synthesis of old Roman, Medeterrinnaen, Turkish, Persian, Middle Eastern and Islamic civilizations; the once new "Roman Empire".

Turk=> Victorius master

Turkmen=> respectable nomadic nation from western steppes. A dominant nation on Anatolian Turkish population.



Edited by Oguzoglu
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.062 seconds.