Wars and Conflicts permalink
Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Â
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Friday, 17th September 2010
In ww1 Greece's prime minister was pro Allies but King Constantine was extremely pro German. While Greece did eventually join the Allies in 1917, it is probable that the PM would have joined in 1915 if it hadn't been for the opposition of the king.
Question is would earlier Greek support have enabled the Gallipoli campaign to be a success? There would have been no need to have had a landing as Allied troops could have simply attacked from Greece. Supplying the army would have been much easier and the Greeks could have contributed to the forces as well.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 2
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Friday, 17th September 2010
Perhaps in a strategic sense, yes. OTOH, there was no overland attack on Constantinople once the Greeks entered the war.
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 3
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 17th September 2010
In my opinion, the only thing which could have made Gallipoli a success would have been to invade Turkey somewhere else! I mean, a narrow strip of desolate, difficult terrain was a pretty stupid place to pick wasn't it?
There's lots of more hospitable sites on the Asiatic coast of Turkey, plus it has more room to manoeuvre to avoid getting bogged down in trench warfare a la Western Front. In my view they never really intended to march on Constantinople, they couldn't have picked a better spot to start some more attritional warfare.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 4
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Friday, 17th September 2010
there was no overland attack on Constantinople once the Greeks entered the war.Â
Maybe because Bulgaria was in the way?
a narrow strip of desolate, difficult terrain was a pretty stupid place to pick wasn't it?Â
But the point of the operation was to control the Dardanelles, so there was no point landing anywhere further south.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 5
Posted by LairigGhru (U14051689) on Friday, 17th September 2010
Does anyone know? - was King Constantine pro-German 'per se' or was it just that he happened to have a German wife?
Did he have German ancestry for instance?Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 6
Posted by islanddawn (U7379884) on Friday, 17th September 2010
The Greek royal family are mainly of Danish (like many of Europe's royals) and Russian descent. But Konstantine I was partly educated in Germany and also gained his military experience there, serving in the German Imperial Guard.
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 7
Posted by DL (U1683040) on Friday, 17th September 2010
I thought the point of the operation was to "knock" Germany's ally Turkey out of the war?
Granted the Dardanelles is a VERY strategically important waterway, but it would take more than that to remove the Ottomans from the war.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 8
Posted by Colquhoun (U3935535) on Friday, 17th September 2010
Losing their capital may have done it though.
Constantinople/Istanbul was the Ottoman capital in ww1.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 9
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Saturday, 18th September 2010
Another reason for the Gallipoli campaign was to open the route to supply Russia via the Black Sea. Cutting off the peninsula at the neck might have offered a better chance of success than trying to fight up it from its foot.
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 10
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 18th September 2010
In my opinion, the only thing which could have made Gallipoli a success would have been to invade Turkey somewhere else! I mean, a narrow strip of desolate, difficult terrain was a pretty stupid place to pick wasn't it?
There's lots of more hospitable sites on the Asiatic coast of Turkey, plus it has more room to manoeuvre to avoid getting bogged down in trench warfare a la Western Front. In my view they never really intended to march on Constantinople, they couldn't have picked a better spot to start some more attritional warfare.Â
Good point DL although let's not forget that the Ottoman Empire was indeed invaded at different locations and these actions only fared marginally better than the Dardenelles Campaign.
In fact the Mesopotamia Campaign began as early as November 1914 (half a year before the Dardenelles) and that campaign proved to be almost equally disastrous - a literal quagmire.
The Palestine Campaign (which again pre-dated the Dardenelles) was also a very slow affair. Like the Mesopotamia Campaign it too lasted virtually the whole duration of the First World War. For example by 1917 the UK Empire and British Dominion forces still hadn't even taken Gaza. It took no fewer than 3 major battles (the first 2 of which the Ottomans won) before Gaza fell.
During the Second Battle of Gaza in April 1917 the UK imperial forces subjected the town and its defences to a huge artillery bombardment which lasted 2 days. This included not on heavy land-based artillery but also allied sea-to-shore shelling from naval vessels.
All this succeeded in doing, however, was to churn up the beaches and the approaches to the town and create a pock-marked landscape of craters and destroyed buildings etc. It was a veritable defenders' paradise.
When the bombardment ceased and the UK tanks went in they then had to pick their way perilously through the craters and the ruins and were thus easy pickings for the Ottoman artillery. The supporting UK and imperial infantry and Dominion mounted infantry etc also took a terrible toll in casualties as a result. The situation was simply ideal for the Ottoman machine-gunners and snipers.
With all 3 campaigns (Mesopotamia, Palestine and the Dardenelles) it seems to have been a case of the UK Empire and British Dominions actually believing their own propaganda and consequently catastrophically underestimating the opposition. There was to be no quick and easy way to 'knock Turkey out of the war'.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 11
Posted by giraffe47 (U4048491) on Saturday, 18th September 2010
The idea of the Dardanelles campaign was not an invasion of the peninsula, but to push the fleet through the narrows, and arrive at Istanbul with massive naval firepower. Which, in the state of panic the very thought of it brought on in 1915, might well have resulted in the knocking the Turks out of the war. Their front-line troops were excellent - the government and civilian control mechanisms behind them were a lot less stable and resilient.
However, the ineptitude of the Naval campaign was exceeded only by the massive incompetence of the land campaign which followed it, and it only strenghtened the confidence of the Turks, and encouraged them to fight on, extremely well, right up until 1918.
If we had a Nelson in charge, who might have charged up the straights with all guns blazing, the moment they arrived, regardless of casualties, it might well have succeeded. Even the loss of a couple heavy ships would have been a small price to pay for knocking Turkey out of the war.
Every ponderous, carefully considered move the Allies made seemed to be almost designed to tell the Turks 'This is what we will do next, in case you want to to something to counter it', and even when they did achieve surprise, at Suvla Bay, they sat around sunning themselves until the Turks moved troops in to oppose them.
I think it was not such a bad idea - just very badly executed!Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
One of the ironies of the Dardenelles Campaign was that the UK had followed a policy throughout the 19th century of propping up the Ottoman Empire - the so-called 'sick man of Europe'. This seems to have been based more on some sort of jingoistic and mindless geopolitical mantra (as evidenced, for example, by the essentially pointless Crimean War) rather than on any real practical considerations.
The Ottoman Empire could have (and probably should have) been dismembered on several different occasions during the 19th century by either Russia, the Habsburg Empire, France or even by Britain itself. Yet the Ottoman Empire of 1805, 1825, 1855 and 1875 (i.e. the times when the UK intervened to protect it) was not the Ottoman Empire of 1915 when ironically the British did indeed need themselves (and the Russians!) to have access to the Straits.
By siding with the Central Powers during the First World War and by inflicting the subsequent Gallipoli humiliation on the UK and the British Dominions etc, the Ottoman Empire showed its gratitude for all the support it had received from the British over the previous hundred years.
It's worth noting also, however, that neither was the UK in 1915 what it had been in, say, 1875 in terms of technological, naval and military advantage. During the intervening 40 years the UK's global economic and industrial lead had slipped considerably and had become decidedly flabby. Yet the ruling elite were seemingly in denial of this. In other words it was UK which was now showing signs of becoming itself a 'sick man of Europe'.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 13
Posted by VF (U5759986) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
If we had a Nelson in charge, who might have charged up the straights with all guns blazing, the moment they arrived, regardless of casualties, it might well have succeeded. Even the loss of a couple heavy ships would have been a small price to pay for knocking Turkey out of the warÂ
To be fair Nelson didnt have to worry about mines and he was well aware of the dangers of using ships to take on forts.Admiral Duckworth did force the Dardenelles in 1807 but not any avail,he made it Constantinople only for the Turks to shut up shop.Whilst Duckworth was a brave Admiral he apparently wasnt as savey as the Turks when it come to diplomacy and politics.He ended up having to sail back down the Dardenelles to a hot reception which seriously damaged several of his ships,the Turks were using stone balls weighing upwars of 1000ibs on occassion!
It's worth noting also, however, that neither was the UK in 1915 what it had been in, say, 1875 in terms of technological, naval and military advantage. During the intervening 40 years the UK's global economic and industrial lead had slipped considerably and had become decidedly flabby. Yet the ruling elite were seemingly in denial of this. In other words it was UK which was now showing signs of becoming itself a 'sick man of Europe'Â
The problem was that the Dardenelles could be effectively defended (relatively cheapley) with mines,the terrain was also well suited to defence and importantly the defence could be intergrated - the minefield protected the forts and the forts protected the minefields. The British (or more to the point Churchill) doesnt seem to have considered that a naval 12 inch gun has very different to a howitzer.Churchill beleived that the naval guns could do to the Dardenelles forts what the German howitzers did to the Leige forts.This was a nonsense as the ballistics of the two weapons are completely different.Also a fort merges into the surroundings and only displays its presence when firing,also a direct hit is probably going to be required to knock it out.A ship however sits on the water as bold as brass for all to see and can also be bracketed with fire with easier spotting.The RN had actually undertook trials in the late 1890's and knew how difficult it was to knock out a fort.
Whilst Britain had lost her technological advantages to her rivals I would argue that the one thing that made 1915 more difficult than say 1875 was that the technology made it far more easy to defend than attack.The RN in 1914 was still number 1,by a large margin.IMHO the problem with the RN was that it was asked to "force" a strait that favoured the defenders,that didnt have landings evisaged in its initial plan and to top it it all it was expected,giving the turks time to prepare.Thats not to let DeRoebuck off the hook,the upper echelon of the naval staff made mistake after mistake.
It was still one hell of an ask though.....Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 14
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
A successful interception of "Goeben" and "Breslau" might have prevented Turkey entering the War.
an online book about it;
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 15
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
the UK had followed a policy throughout the 19th century of propping up the Ottoman EmpireÂ
Based on the (surely correct) assumption that Russia was a much bigger threat to British naval power than the Ottomans
By siding with the Central Powers during the First World War ... the Ottoman Empire showed its gratitude for all the support it had received from the British over the previous hundred years.Â
Britain was supporting the Ottomans purely for reasons of self interest. When it suited them - as in Egypt & the Sudan - they were anti-Ottoman. And anyway what does gratitude have to do with international relations?Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 16
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
Not taking over Reshadieh and Sultan Osman I - or offering a the loan for the duration of hostilities of couple of pre-Dreadnoughts (the RN had 41 usable ships of this group) capable of countering the Greek fleet (Giorgios Averoff & the two ex-USN battleships Kilkis and Lemnos) might have been even more effective in convincing the Turks neutrality might be the better option.
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 17
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Sunday, 19th September 2010
Based on the (surely correct) assumption that Russia was a much bigger threat to British naval power than the OttomansÂ
Russia was no threat whatsoever to British naval power during the 19th Century. In fact the threat was entirely the other way around. This was evidenced, for example, during the Crimean War when the navy could project British power onto the far-off Crimean peninsular (i.e. on the mainland of the Russian Empire) and at the end of an extremely stretched line of communication.
Not only this but it's also worth remembering that there were several theatres of operation during that war - not just the Crimea. British naval might was so great at that time and so extensive that there was also action in Gulf of Finland and the Gulf of Bothnia as well as in the White Sea and even in the Pacific where French and UK forces launched an attack on Petropavlovsk on the remote Kamchatka peninsula.
The Kamchatka episode pretty much sums up the whole war as it just seemed to be the waging of war for war’s sake but with no realistic strategic objective. Forces were just spread thinly all over the place and just seemingly playing at war.
Britain was supporting the Ottomans purely for reasons of self interest. When it suited them - as in Egypt & the Sudan - they were anti-Ottoman.Â
There was very little self-interest in the UK’s approach to the so-called ‘Eastern Question’ during the 19th Century. Before then, the Battle of the Nile in 1798 (against the French and not the Russians note) was certainly in Britain’s interest. But what possible British interest was being served 90 years later in the 1880s with Garnet Wolseley’s Nile Expedition in the 1880s to attempt to rescue Charles Gordon (an Ottoman official) in the Sudan? Or during the even more ludicrous Sudano-British War of the 1890s when British forces were attempting to suppress locals on the very fringes of the Ottoman Empire?
And anyway what does gratitude have to do with international relations?Â
The comment regarding ‘gratitude’ was obviously tongue-in-cheek. Maybe I should have used some sort of smiley to make that clear. It was used to illustrate the emptiness of the UK’s Ottoman policy during the 19th Century.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 18
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 21st September 2010
Russia was no threat whatsoever to British naval power during the 19th CenturyÂ
Vizzer I'd be interested to know why else you think we supported the Turks against Russia, if it wasn't a fear of (potential) Russian naval power in the event of them getting access to the Mediteranean. This was why Britain supported the London Straits Convention of 1841 for example.
I realised you were joking about 'gratitude' by the wayLink to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
Greek assistance in Gallipoli would be certainly decisive. Greeks were no colonial power carrying uninterested troops from all corners of the world to fight there.
Back in 1915:
1) The majority of population of Eastern Thrace (modern European Turkey) were Greeks. The majority of Constantinople were Greeks. In Minor Asia nearly 3 million Greeks lived.
2) Greeks aim was to liberate all Greek habitated lands in Eastern Thrace and coastal western and northern Minor Asia. This was no "Big Idea" as Britain scorned it, it was a natural wish of a civilised nation that suffered for centuries the brutal conquest of a barbaric regressive culture.
3) The liberation of Greek lands in the east was even more pressing since the genocide of the Greek populations along with other christian nations (such as the Armenians and the Assyrochaldeans) was already 5 years on its way since 1910. nearly 400,000 Pontians and 120,000 young men from Minor Asia had been exterminated in slaughters and concentration camps.
4) The Greek army, although equiped with old material was by all means comparable to the Turkish. Moreover it had one of the most important European navies - in fact a quite modern one (with all kind of ships including submarines), let alone being the first European force to have used the airplane in real war (1908, on a French civil bi-plane, pilot Kamperos bombed... by hand! turkish ships near Gallipoli, 3 bombs hit their target - quite nice calculation there!!!). Greeks had beat Turks in every single battle in both Balkan wars hence Turks were on the losing side.
5) Prior to the genocides, Greeks in Greece and Minor Asia back then were comparable in numbers with the Turks if we take out their Kurdish militia - each had about 10 million souls.
-------------------------------------------------
However, where you do a huge error is as to the intentions of Britain. Britain never had a clear plan of dissolving the Ottoman Empire. In fact it had worked for the last 200 years actively to protect it trying to stop Russia by threats and even a World War that was the Krimean war, first modern war. Even Britain's involvement in the Greek revolution came only 2-3 years (when it saw Greeks were on the rise for good), and that only because it esteemed that this revolution was the product of Russian interference, hence it went in, gave the infamous "loans of independece" (loans that marked the later evolution of the Greek state, evidently till today...), divided the fractions and managed so that only an tiny small Greek state would be created so as not to threaten the general balance. Britain aided politically Greece to gain lands in the north under the threat of advance of the Slavic nations, primarily Bulgarians whom the Russians tried to employ as plan B for the control of the straights.
However, for Britain, it was clear that siding with the Greeks was a must, but aiding them to pass to the other side was a huge risk. Greeks, already a major maritime nation would gain an enormous advantage by retaking their ancient capital, Constantinople. Being orthodox and thus linked through it with Russia made them a danger. Far from that (since orthodox are never any united lot politically - they fought more wars among them than with others in the past), the greatest danger was that Greece is a land that gets developed only with an open Black-Sea - Mediterranean traderoute and thus necessarily maintaining a vital open and alive link with Russia - something that Greeks try to do even today and thus we see what happens (check what happened with the previous government, what energy trade accords it signed... and you will get the point).
Hence, for Britain there were really 2 scenarios:
1) Either help Greeks get Constantinople and the coastal regions, control the Aegean but then instigate tensions with Bulgarians and Russians and transform Greeks into the new wall closing the Black-Sea - Eastern Mediterranean trade. Greeks should be transformed into a British protectorate, albeit by then an inflated one.
2) Arrange so that Turks are mobilised to the maximum so as not only to keep their Imperial conquests in western and northern Minor Asia but also keep them in Eastern Thrace (a land they were certainly about to lose naturally either to Greece or to an advancing Bulgarian) and continue having them just like they had the Ottoman Empire before: i.e. a wall between the north and south and east and west.
Plan 1 was easy on site but also risky internationally: would Greeks remain eternally grateful to British for such a "present"? Then French opposed it. Italians would fight it at all cost.
Plan 2 was more complicated as Turks were not even a nation back then - they were a bunch of turkish speaking (and that not always) muslims who defined themselves as "fidels" and distinguished themselves as such from the "infidels". The young-turkish movement, a nazi movement funded long time ago from the west (check the young-turkish press and who was behind etc.) was very handy in these terms and as such it had been aided since its beginning by Britain, Germany, France and Italy who all of them of course had 1 and the same interest in the region: not let Russia go down.
Hence, it was decided that afterall, the prevailing of the Turks was preferable. But how to achieve so when the future Turkish state would be a state of 17 million people out of which 10 million were muslim (7 million sunnites, 3 million Alevites & Bektashis - the latter not really so interested in the game called "turkey") and 7 million christians (3 million Greeks, 3 million Armenians, 1 million Assyrochaldeans all of whom had harmonic relations with each other and common interests). There as no way that the future turkish state could be really "independent" and acting on its own with a 45% christian population.
Hence, genocide somehow was the best solution. Clear ALL christian populations from Minor Asia. The parallel events of WWI formed a unique pretext. Muslims, a 98% illiterate regressive mass of people were more easily motivated to loot, rape and slaughter their neighbour civilian christians than really concentrate on fighting any invading forces for the simple reason that the muslims were by no means attached to lands they considered as conquered and not as theirs (something visible even today in Turkey - eg. they still celebrate with great fanfare "the conquest of Constantinople" despite inner calls that say this self-ironic...). That had been seen even prior to the Balkan wars. There as a war in Ottoman west? Christians were attacked and slaughted in Black Sea. There were the British (i.e. infidels) enterring? Armenians and Greeks all over Minor Asia would be slaughtered.
Everything British did was more to create a phobia among the Turks and fanatise them against the local populations, largely urbanised populations, that down to the basics had not taken any arms and had not threatened their muslim neighbouts even when they could had done that.
---------------------------------------------
In the meantime, plan 1 (pro-Greek) and plan 2 (pro-Turk) were still oscillating among the political circles in Britain (while in France and Italy things had already been decided...), only that the bulk of the British diplomatic circles driven by the British (and rather the international) financial circles had already decided that Greeks not only would not be given any freedom but would be actually exterminated.
Going to the attack of Gallipoli, everything cries out that this was a joke campaign:
1) Reason for the campaign:
To open the Hellespont and Bosporus channel and pass aid to Russians. A joke excuse. Germans had no navy in Black Sea, there was no need for British navies to be there, not that british had brought along with them any provisions for Russians. That was just an excuse. The only reason was just to be present there just like US today wants to be simply present in Iraq and Afganistan, they are not interested in "winning" over the guerillas.
2) Choice of arrival:
The absolute joke and the best proof of the spoof campaign. Everysingle basic map would indicate that you do not invade Constantinople by landing on the southern side of Hellespont. Put your glasses and open a google map. Gallipoli is on the south side of the perfect bottleneck, the perfect site for Turks to set up defenses and pack it with soldiers to stop the invasion. Instead anyone with a basic understanding could had seen that the obvious site to land would be on the east side of the modern borders, river Evros, (where the modern turkish site of Enez is) where even if Bulgarians allied with Germans (but not with Turks) had tried to do something they would fail for the simple reason that the whole place is a huge plain with absolutely no means of defense and naturally the British forces would prevail. Not to mention that only thing that British had to do is to ignore the neutrality of Greece by instigating random Greek guerillas to ammobilise and thus attract the attention of Bulgarians elsewhere. By all means the 300,000 British force could face at Enez both Bulgarians and the disorganised Turkish army alone with exemplary ease. However they chose to attack on the bottleneck of Gallipoli.
3) Timing of the attack:
The British (largely ANZAC - guess why...), forces were on spot 1 month before the attack but then Churchill and British diplomats managed to delay the attack under the most ridiculous pretexts. In reality what they wanted is to give time to Turks to prepare their defenses. Because simply they did not want to win the battle. The general aim was only to provoke a general mobilisation among the Turks.
To understand this better, one has to realise that up to that time we still talk about the Ottoman Empire. It had a professional army which hoewever comprised more of Albanians in the west and Kurds in the east who resembled more like a militia group in attitudes than a real army. Moreover they were not really interested anymore in the collapsing Ottoman Empire - they would fight more easily to loot rather than defend any lands as shown in the last 150 years during the Russian-Ottoman wars and Greek revolutions. However, the British attack that was coming with shouts and drums and the ships waiting 1 month outside was the best reason for the Ottomans to mobilise for the first time a massive conscripted army where common muslims, Turks were given a rifle and were told to rush to the battle front all while they have them the perfect pretext to carry out "for security reasons" in a more accelerated form the genocides of christian populations. Namely more than 120,000 young Greek men, the flower of Minor Asia, were all called in the army as "civilians" and they were sent mainly in the East "for security" where they were imprisoned in the first modern concentration camps where they were exterminated in less than 1 year (almost no survivor). This cracked any hope for local Greeks to do any mobilisation let alone that random muslim militia were already on the loose circulating in christian villages looting, killing, raping etc. the usual stuff. It is never discussed but an important (though unknown) number of Greek and Armenian men were also sent as "soldiers" in Gallipoli were they dug the defenses and then they were positioned virtually without arms as first human-wall either killed by the attacking ANZAC or directly killed by Turks for "security reasons".
But what is more amasing is that even after the first 2-3 attacks, the British still had the time to pack some of their armies (say some 100,000 men) and go north west to Enez, land there where there were no defenses and march 1,5 day distance to a defenseless Constantinople, yet that was not really their plan. British had been repeatedly proven "not economic" with the use of ANZAC forces just like with Indian troops on the eastern front at Iraq.
Their interest was only to be there and manage the situation. Crushing the Turkish resistance was not the point - it would create a vacuum of power in the are and the other alternative (rising Greeks and Armenians) were more risky.
They needed the muslims alive and they needed them under a new construction, Turkey. End of story.
You do not have to search for it, just see what happens until now:
Who are the friends of the Turks? British & US. Who are their headache? Russia. Russia is of course the main headache for US still. Where are Greeks positioned? More pro-Russian; Where are Armenians positioned? More pro-Russian. What are the financial games in the region? Southstream, Nabucco, start or stop the Black Sea trade? How do we manage that?
Inspite of what you may belief, the sad reality is that we are seeing the same and the same over and over again game in the region for the last 300 years: Ottomanoturks are used by the west as a wall to stop the north south and east west commercial traderoutes - and that will continue to be so for the very simple reason that politics do not depend upon "likes" but upon geography: and the geography does not changes you know.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
* I know the next question some might pose: how can I say the above when Greeks did indeed a campaign in Minor Asia 5 years later.
Well the reality of that campaign is yet another huge proof of what I say:
British sign the treaty of Mudros which pushes Greeks to occupy Eastern Thrace and the region of Smyrna but...
1) without Constantinople (and British kept offensive positions against the Greek army fearing it the more powerful in the area Greek army numbering several 10,000 of soldiers swould not hesitate to enter the city inspite of the warnings)
2) without annexing any territory officially, i.e. leaving all the situation as a huge gray zone.
3) the Greek army enterred Smyrna not as a liberation force, but as part of the British and allies forces that enterred to occupy places in Minor Asia. It was a "guarantee army" and in command of the British army
4) the Greek navy was forbidden to move inside the Hellespont and even its moves in and out of Smyrna were controlled by the British.
5) ... then after the landing, the philo-British (or agent?) Venizelos surprisingly calls for elections wihle nobody asked him so and while he had an autonomous government. Surprisingly he does everything to lose the elections and the party that promised to sign peace and call back the army won - and even more unsurprisingly Venizelos self-exiles himself from the country while nobody asked him so.... as if he really knew there was something coming there and that he enterred the country in the "deep sheet". Even more surprisingly, the new government that promised to send back the army somehow under the pression of whom (whom? (whom? (whom?))), decided to send the army deep in Minor Asia were no Greek population lived chasing phantoms instead of staying around Smyrna and preparing to set a frontier there and the corresponding defenses.
... all while Britain of course not only forbade the Greek navy to pass the Hellespont (the basic requirement for any move of the army!!!!), but also started to openly threatening Greece of "change of stance" it continued to press to get in Constantinople - all while it was Britain that had ordered the march of the Greek army in the east providing it with arms and provisions all that for "security reasons". From the time the army got the British command to march in the east till it reached some 100-150miles outside Anchara, the Greek army had been given no new command....
... and then: fantastically when it reached there at late 1920 early 1921 it remained for about 1 year without new commands all while British cut the supply lines (Greeks had not created supply lines since it was the British that occupied so, when they cut them, Greeks were found to supply a line of 500km by horses...). It goes without saying that any country would had called back the army as there was no strategic objective there: no Greek regions in the middle, oly mountains and muslims who could keep retiring up to Iraq if they needed do so... all while the Greek navy could not pass the Hellespont and arrive from the Black Sea and could not even move freely inside the port of Smyrna.
...all while Italians - supposedly allies and conquerors of south Minor Asia - were openly arming the Turks, organising militia from Italian territories to attack the Greek positions while declaring war against Greece on west (1 year later they attacked from their usual base in Albania). And for British everything was ok.
Why? Because that is what they wanted precisely. It is down to pure mathematics. And when the catastrophe came and the genocide was completed at Smyrna, the British kept an offensive stance to the retiring Greek army: the 1/3rd of the army, about 45,000 troops returned intact and quite ok armed, regrouped at western Thrace and there was sent another 70,000 troops forming a force of 120,000 troops while the Greek navy had gathered to the Hellespont: the idea was to at least take Constantinople and keep the muslims (who were already completing the final step of the genocide of Greeks in Minor Asia) on the Asiatic side.
And here is the perhaps-last (last?) part of the drama:
120,000 Greek forces followed by a strong even for European standards navy ready to march in 2 days the plains of Eastern Thrace (a place of no physical obstacle and no defense point) all while Constantinople had absolutely no Turkish army as the totality of the Turkish army was in Minor Asia completing the genocide. In the city, there were only small British detachments. Fantastically Turks had virtually no navy, in fact that had not even boats to pass their men from the one side of the Hellespont to the other.
And what happens?
The British threaten Greeks with total war if they marched east of river Evros. Hence, the Turks, after clearing all Greek populations pass with whatever boats (I would not be surprised if these were British boats... it had been British that controlled both sides of the channel!!!), and took all of Eastern Thrace without a single shot.
How about it?
Does it aid to you understand now better the Gallipoli campaign?Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 21
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
"...Russia was no threat whatsoever to British naval power during the 19th Century..."
As Idamante says, this is because they were safely bottled up, East of the Dardanelles.
If Turkey had collapsed then Russia would surely have stepped in, grabbing land from Turkey and increasing its influence all across the Balkans. Potentially, it could open up both the Near East and the whole Mediterranean to Russian influence. Britain supported Turkey because it was better to have a more or less uselss Turkey controlling the area rather than competing with Russia for the left overs.
On the subject of 'gratitude' (read 'influence'), Germany also had close links with Turkey prior to WW1. And the Germans were not the russians, an important consideration, as far as Turkey was concerned.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 22
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
If Turkey had collapsed then Russia would surely have stepped in, grabbing land from Turkey and increasing its influence all across the Balkans. Potentially, it could open up both the Near East and the whole Mediterranean to Russian influence. Britain supported Turkey because it was better to have a more or less uselss Turkey controlling the area rather than competing with Russia for the left overs.
On the subject of 'gratitude' (read 'influence'), Germany also had close links with Turkey prior to WW1. And the Germans were not the russians, an important consideration, as far as Turkey was concerned.Â
... and you have to add French and Italians here too!!!! Because here I have been "accused" of being "anti-British" because often I speak heatedly (in the absence of others doing it) about British manipulations during WWI, WWII and earlier or even later.
Anyway you get the point. Jump all the details I have passed and
1) Pretext for Dardanelles campaign
=> reliefing the Russians from German pressure, i.e. an evident joke
(for the note: Russian military effort alone in the next 12 months were ready to push back and even crash Germans WWII-like albeit being hit by the German-induced, "western-european paid" communist revolution, ref. to how the "revolutionaries" arrived to Russia: from "where" and "on what")!
2) Choice of Dardanelles landing
=> on a bottleneck, the only easily defended point by Ottomans all over Eastern Thrace!!!!
3) Timing of landing:
=> one month waiting!!! the British army was there already for 1 month, then sat down and waited Turks to man their armies and establish defensive positions. As the German General, leader of the Ottoman army Saunders said "I never really understood why they have given us 1 month, but that is certainly the only reason we could ever set any defense and fight back that landing"
4) Consistence of British army:
=> ANZAC forces. Already by itself suspicious (these were used usually as their meat...sorry for Australians New Zealanders but they have at some time to realise the game played at their expense and that they were not really at the top of the "anglosaxon pyramid" - at least they were higher than Indians whom you should check in the Mesopotamian British campaign of the same year!!!).
... combined with what followed later in the 1917-1923 and especially the threatening of Greece with war if it ever approached Eastern Thrace and Constantinople explain it all.
The main reason for British was just "to be there". Like US in Vietnam. Like Russia in Afganistan. Like US in Iraq and Afganistan. There is no particular pressure to win and conquer, just to be there, go in, get out but always yield control. British wanted to avoid having any Russians going down. Because Russians would reach down one way or another.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 23
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
If Turkey had collapsed then Russia would surely have stepped in, grabbing land from Turkey and increasing its influence all across the Balkans.Â
This raises the interesting question of what would have happened politically if the Dardanelles operation had been a success.
Defeat for the Ottomans could have kick-started the Turkish nationalist movement 3 years early (but led by whom? Ataturk not having had the chance to become a war hero at Gallipoli). Meanwhile everyone in the region wants to grab a piece of the action.
So imagine the situation in 1920s Turkey & the Middle East, then add a probable Russian invasion of Turkey. How were France & Britain planning to keep this all under control after they'd won the battle?Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 24
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 22nd September 2010
First note that out of all Ottoman leading figures and even out of all young-turks, Kemal was a particular figure, you have to know his real background (not revealed today for obvious reasons) and follow his carreer and what he later did in Middle East for the British and French to understand why these two eyed him positevely and why they openly even admired him, a man who was by no means less of a slayer and genocider than Hitler or Stalin (only that Turks killed only 4 million people and violently ethnically cleansed another 3, that is what they had to do, no need to do more as that as the 40%-45% of the population and near-100% of the non-muslim population). The fact that this figure federated Turks around him during Galliboli presenting himself as the great-general all when the only thing he did was to let his German ally superior Saunders to rule the army and him stand just on the side, and then after the battle going to Caucasus where he was crashed by Russians instantly and he managed to run away to save his fame and let Enver deal with it (i.e. turn muslims' anger against the usual target, christians), then go to Middle East and there manage to retire the whole Ottoman army (up to then victorious against the British...), in front of the charging camels of a handful of beduins led by a motorcycle-rider Laurence.... well he just gave the Middle East to the British and French for Free - and they did not forget about it isn't it? This man, Turks' hero taught them to "care not about the oil rich Middle East" and to "care about moving west and becoming Europeans". You understand the joke don't you? I hope you understand also the amount of lie.
The answer to what would had happend if the Kallipoli battle had ended successfully is the following:
Say, British political orders upon the military were ignored and British/ANZAC officers did what they knew best, split the army at Kallipoli into 2 . They would keep there 100,000 soldiers to stand ground and keep there the bulk of the Turkish army. Turks while not the worst army on the planet, and despite defending - where normally you need less - and despite Saunders tactical expertise the yneeded almost up to 3 times more soldiers than ANZAC to be able to keep to their positions!!!) thanks to a) their inner inefficiencies b) the fact they faced what was supposedly the best army in the world. The other part of some 200,000 British-ANZAC forces would be sent to land east of River Evros and if possibly even climb up on whatever boats to really occupy a first line over south-western Eastern Thrace. From there on, there was absolutely no obstacle, no Ottoman army resistance point and no hope that Bulgarians would ever rush to meet what indeed was the best army in the world only to save the... Turks (no case, even under German pressure: Bulgarians would do their best to be slow and avoid engagement). From there on 200,000 British soldiers rolling the 1,5-2 day distance with minimal resistance of Turks, they could arrive directly to Constantinople and cause the Turks surrender or if the latter resisted they woudl simply go south and hit them at Kallipoli at their back door!!!!!!
With the Turks out, there would be only 1 main scenario for British:
1) hope that Germans could withstand the Russian onlslaught of 1915-1916.
2) foreign communists (already in action in Russia) could provoke a change of regime
from 2 - even if communists did not prevail and following the end of war with Germans, the British, the French and the Italians would certainly find a pretext to remain to deteriorate their relationship with Russians and would establish heavy military bases in Bosphorus all while trying to keep out the Greeks from the region - on the latter they would certainly favour the muslim populations and they would turn a blind eye to the certain rise of muslim banditism (with all those decomissioned military and militia muslim men) so as to provoke an immigration of christians into the cities where the "Allies" would be in more easy position to control them. Greece would either remain neutral and be regarded more of an enemy whose space would be constantly violated by the "Allied" forces, than really a friend all while the Allies would use the Italian, French and British bases in Minor Asia and Eastern Thrace to launch a new Crimean war.
At the end of this 2nd Crimean war, they would sign some form of peace treaty and they would probably either work to create something near-identical to modern Turkey where christians would not be genocided completely but rather gradually kicked out of the country or they would create 2 states, something near-identical to modern Turkey that would do genocide on its christian populations and a smaller Bosporus state comprising of Eastern Thrace and Bithynia, i.e. Asian-side of Bosphorus where they would try to transform it into a heavily internationalised state with muslims serving only as a balance against Greeks all while western European, led by British, a kind of inverse-Singapoor (i.e. a city to stop commerce, not do commerce!!!).
Mind you, the issue is still very much a point of debate between US, Russians and Europeans! Evidently!Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 25
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 24th September 2010
"...So imagine the situation in 1920s Turkey & the Middle East, then add a probable Russian invasion of Turkey..."
I know we are talking 'What ifs', but I think the Russians (Soviets) were in no shape to invade anyone in the 1920s.
So, your alternative scenario would involve an allied victory against Germany before any possible revolution in Russia. Presuming that the British remained in Turkey, that would probably be enough to stop Russia.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 26
Posted by Triceratops (U3420301) on Sunday, 26th September 2010
Not taking over Reshadieh and Sultan Osman I - or offering a the loan for the duration of hostilities of couple of pre-DreadnoughtsÂ
Might have worked,Urn.Churchill did offer the Turks £1000 per day for the use of the two dreadnoughts,provided Turkey remained neutral.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 27
Posted by White Camry (U2321601) on Monday, 27th September 2010
TimTrack
I know we are talking 'What ifs', but I think the Russians (Soviets) were in no shape to invade anyone in the 1920s.Â
Not after that little episode at Warsaw.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 28
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 27th September 2010
Except, of course, Georgia which Soviet Russia invaded and annexed in 1921.
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 29
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 27th September 2010
I know we are talking 'What ifs', but I think the Russians (Soviets) were in no shape to invade anyone in the 1920s.Â
Indeed we talk about what ifs but then for me it is clear that any Soviet-Russian attack in 1920s against Turkey and given none would run to save the Turks could easily crash the Turks. Kemal's 450,000 strong army prepared in the depths of Anatolia to face the 120,0009 Greek campaign struggled to win over the 70% of it it without being able to even approach the remaining 45,000 part under command of the more capable Plastiras general (the one they called Karapiper = black peper). And here you have to pay attention: the explanation of leaving them to escape was no excuse at a time Turks were onto wholesale genocide since this unit of 45,000 alone was enough to go sit in Eastern Thrace and make Turks lose definitely all European possessions along with Konstantinople (which they only took thanks to British who threatened Greeks with total war if they did not retreat behind the Evros line which forms the current border (i.e. finally Turks got their European lands for free...).
Now this kemalist 450,000 strong army was armed mainly thanx to 2 players: Italians (who ruled over south Turkey) and Russian soviets. Without Italian cover and no other aid and with the Soviet part of their supplies cut and with all that huge inefficiency the Turkish forces had showed even in the easy talk of defending over an exhausted Greek army of cut supplies (often on the brink of famine due to lack of supplies) for over more than 1 year , then I guess even the inefficiency of the newly formed Soviet army could do the job. They would invade the eastern borders all while heading down with their navies straight for Konstantinople. I do not think there is anyone who would claim they could fail. Russians Tcharist had done it some 8 times in the past and had been stopped often just outside Konstantinople by the British threatened with total war and during Crimea indeed they did war to contain them. I cannot really see how even the Soviets could fail.
So, your alternative scenario would involve an allied victory against Germany before any possible revolution in Russia. Presuming that the British remained in Turkey, that would probably be enough to stop Russia.Â
Russian communists were not Russian. They were anything else than Russian (and I won't enter the game mentioning their origins since disucssion will go anywhere). What interests us is that Russian communists were going in and out of Russia in the past 20 years with a fantastic ease and spending enormous amounts of money that even high class people would not had spent (and why would rich people pay for a rebellion that was against their own interests?). A special destination, alongside London and New York (where the likes of Trotsky were dining with New York banking oligarchy!!! know your enemy? or serve your master?) for Russian communists was Zurich where of course they came from in early 1917 riding on a German secret services train.
It is eye-bliding that the revolution came only at a time things were going actually better for Russians and in the war front they were already on the offensive having breaken the German lines. What would happen is that either Germans would have to negotiate as late as in early 1917 a humiliating victory either contemplate the even worse outcome of having Russians dancing with balalaikas in Berlin (i.e. what happened in WWII). Yet, somehow Russian workers were dragged to the streets to protest (they found the chance during the war eh?) as if the Tzar was responsible for this war and as if it was the right time to do so during war. The plan was bigger and in it it was not just the "international communists", nor the German secret services but mainly the Zurich and New York bankers for whom the German defeat was evidently pre-written and the actual game was how to contain Russia.
Now as you said, with Britain in Turkey, had the communist revolution failed and Russians crushed Germans, British would certainly use Turkey as a base to launch war against the Russians - most probably by forcing the by then largely destroyed in the east Germans to end warfare in the west and give 1-2 plots of land to French to satisfy them and then rush together in the containment of Russians. Russians would naturally - as usual - sign a peace treaty renouncing once again their much needed access to the Mediterranean and Turkey would once again be the good patient of mama-nurse Britain, as it always was, as it always is today too.
Note: geopolitics do not change as much as people think for the simple reason that the geography of this planet does not change a lot in the course of 50,000 - 100,000 thousand years let alone in the course of 50-100 years...Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 30
Posted by Sambista (U4068266) on Monday, 27th September 2010
the geography of this planet does not change a lot in the course of 50,000 - 100,000 thousand years let alone in the course of 50-100 years... 50-100 I'll agree with, but 10,000 years ago, if I'd been sitting where I am now, I'd have had several hundred feet of ice between me and daylight.
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 31
Posted by lolbeeble (U1662865) on Monday, 27th September 2010
Not to mention there would have been no need to control the straits as the Black sea had yet to be filled in.
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 32
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 27th September 2010
Russian communists were not Russian. They were anything else than Russian (and I won't enter the game mentioning their origins since disucssion will go anywhere). You seem to be lumping all anti-Tzar parties into one and call them Communists. This is a wrong track from the get-go, Nik.
A special destination, alongside London and New York (where the likes of Trotsky were dining with New York banking oligarchy!!! know your enemy? or serve your master?) for Russian communists was Zurich where of course they came from in early 1917 riding on a German secret services train. Here, you contend that the New York bankers were in cahoots with the German government in order to destroy Russia. But why did you discard funding the Bolsheviks had obtained from the Russian moguls, such as Morozov and Schmidt? You need to do better than this to make the case. At the very least, you can start by comparing how much money Trotsky raised in New York vs the amount of money the Bolsheviks received from the Germans under the Parvus Plan, not to mention their domestic fund raising, which had been quite a story in and of itself.
somehow Russian workers were dragged to the streets to protest (they found the chance during the war eh?) as if the Tzar was responsible for this war and as if it was the right time to do so during war. The plan was bigger and in it it was not just the "international communists", nor the German secret services but mainly the Zurich and New York bankers for whom the German defeat was evidently pre-written and the actual game was how to contain Russia. This is where you suddenly got off at the February Revolution, which had little or nothing to do with the Communists. According to Felshtinsky (see Nikolayevsky's papers), the up and coming Provisional Government was a product of the Russian Masonic Lodge. And it was a predominantly Russian institution - by culture, religion and ethnicity.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
Suvorovetz, thanks for the remarks. Do not think that I am here to tell you "I hold all the truth about this or that event". I am digging analytically and your remarks can only aid in that direction.
I am starting by seeing the trends. Who had interest in the revolution? Russian billionaires? Why? To exchange their high class position on the top of society for a top party position where they could be turned by just any other powerful political figure that could rise? I personally find it diffficult to belive it, unless we have the case of some populist aristocrat who did not exactly understand that enforcement of socialism-communism would take out all his possessions and level him with the last citizen of the state because even the most egalitarians of all would not jumpt. It is interesting you mention the cases of Morozov and Schmidt so that I have to go back on them and see their overall backgrounds and their families' later evolution. Theoretically (i.e. I am saying this without knowledge of their earlier and later path), if eg. say Schmidt was a rich guy who rose in Russian affairs with "hidden" capital from, say Zurich or London, given the command to fund the revolutionary movements and then after the revolution "dissapear" somewhere between London, Zurich or New York, then really it makes it even more suspicious as "local capital" is as much foreign as Trotsky's and Lenin's US and Swiss budgets.
It is quite difficult to believe that amingst the WWI where millions of British, French and Germans and then Americans were killing each other in the western battlefields that rich oligarchies of all these countries would find somehow a nice concensus over the case of Russia and deciding to aid via the tube Russian revolutionary movements all while on the surface they rhetorically condemned communism in all its forms. Even the later sending of the white armies is actually more of a blatant effort to actually invade Russia and make sure that Tcharist, other patriotic or simply anti-communist forces would fail and communism would prevail. Especially the British have a long tradition of "enterring campaigns so as to ensure total failure" and we have seen this repeatedly in Dardanelles as well as in WWII (the example of the Battle of Greece where they murdered Metaxas, imposed their "alliance" and provoked the attack of Germans in the Balkans, and then disorganised the Greek army all while having their 65,000 troops + 30,000 last Greek reserves failing in front of 12,000 invading Germans all when 5,000 soldiers and 2,000 villagers had halted the main German army of 45,000 Germans and Bulgarians... is eye-blinding!). You know what I mean.
These events are far more complicated. A WW is never that simple. And we cannot know the full sequence, that if for certain. What we can be sure is that the line of events as presented in historic records provides an infertile repetition of events with an aim to hide the real geopolitical motives behind the events. People tend to view these wars as "wars between states & nations" while in reality these were wars organised and monitored by a particularly small circle of bankoinvestors and their servant diplomats. Sounds like a world conspiracy but then I invite you to show to me a case where politics internal or international did not move like a conspiracy! Since the times of the Egyptian Empire, the world moves with conspiracy, it is the standard mode of affairs. Imagine the future of someone who went out there to play linearly...Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 34
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
"...So imagine the situation in 1920s Turkey & the Middle East, then add a probable Russian invasion of Turkey..."
I know we are talking 'What ifs', but I think the Russians (Soviets) were in no shape to invade anyone in the 1920s.Â
Sorry for late response but this is a misunderstanding. My point was that if the Allies had won at the Dardanelles in 1915 the situation in Turkey would have been similar to what happened in the 1920s PLUS the added complication of a possible Russian invasion (in 1915).
Admittedly I have no idea of the capacity of the Russian army at this time...Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 35
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 28th September 2010
I am starting by seeing the trends. Who had interest in the revolution? Russian billionaires? Why? It is interesting you mention the cases of Morozov and Schmidt so that I have to go back on them and see their overall backgrounds and their families' later evolution. Perhaps, you should do fact finding first and the story-line last, not the other way around. It turns out that both Schmidt and Morozov were "useful idiots," Morozov being just pimped by the Bolsheviks via his pretend-misstress and an actress Andreyeva, and Schmidt being a naive bookish "revolutionary." Both were simply slaughtered by their "beneficiaries" at the right moment. Here's a good read on this - just published in English (I've read its Russian version already):
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 36
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 4th October 2010
Very interesting, thanks Suvorovetz. So the non-Russian Lenin, the non-Russian Stalin, the non-Russian Trotsky went in and out of Russia with particular ease driving millions of Russians down to the roads on murderourous strikes all at a time Russia was starting to crash down on Germans (and could be possibly in months or a year in Berlin just like it did in WWII?)... thanks to 2 idiotic aristocrats all while the Tcharist ochrana was sleeping?
You understand that the amount of conspiracy that went on in Russia between 1890 and 1920 was immense. Plain immense. 2 stray-cats aristocrats were dead meats and are not a valid explanation - only a cheap excuse for those who need not or above all wish not to search more, afraid of whatever they are going to find (eg. British and Americans and French and Swiss paying the ocmmunist revolution, Germans aiding it all that going on also during WWI).
Western Europeans have this bad habbit of avoiding to mention what really bothers them. They will call it any other name. It is a long tradition to be placed aside today.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 37
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Monday, 4th October 2010
So the non-Russian Lenin, the non-Russian Stalin, the non-Russian TrotskyÂ
Trotsky was born in a province of the empire governed by Russia.
Lenin was born in Russia.
Stalin was an ethnic Russian born in Georgia.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 38
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Monday, 4th October 2010
So the non-Russian Lenin, the non-Russian Stalin, the non-Russian Trotsky went in and out of Russia with particular ease driving millions of Russians down to the roads on murderourous strikes all at a time Russia was starting to crash down on Germans (and could be possibly in months or a year in Berlin just like it did in WWII?)... thanks to 2 idiotic aristocrats all while the Tcharist ochrana was sleeping? TimTrack is right here. What do you mean that Lenin was non-Russian? Not only he was born and raised in the heart of Russia, he is ethnically Russian for all intents and purposes. If you apply purity test to the Russian population, you'd end up with the Russian population of exactly zero. Even the Romanovs were not Russian - more so than Lenin, by the way.
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 39
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Monday, 4th October 2010
Stalin was an ethnic Russian born in Georgia.Â
Josef Djugashvili was a Georgian born in Georgia to Georgian parents.
He grew up in Georgia (in Gori and Tiflis) and in his 20s moved to Baku in Azerbaijan. He was exiled to Siberia briefly (2 months in 1903) before returning to the Caucasus and didn't settle in Russia voluntarily until he was in his 30s.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 40
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Suvoirovetz, sorry if in my previous message I sounded like cheap ironic. I thanked for the info on the two naif Russian millionaires enttering the revolution for whatever reasons since I found it interesting. From there on they are far from being enough to explain a rebelion prepared at a depth of 30 years.
Indeed the late Romanofs were more German than Russian and that increasingly created trouble for Russia as their Tzars were hesitant in front of "links" that the Russian state should not have in face of any other European power. Lenin was not really that Russian as you think since people of his times called him Jewish. On Trotksy you do not even need to discuss. Stalin was a Georgian of Jewish ancestry too. And earlier outside Russia, Marx and Engels were also of some Jewish ancestry. In France the communist party was full of Jewish. Funny as it is but even the Greek communist party was founded by a Bulgarian Jew (and of a quite rich family) coming from a very capitalist background. I am not going to open this discussion now because I am on anything else than accusing all the jewish community of Russia (or international) on this - note that Jewish were initially hunted down by Stalin so as to execute all orthodox Jews and all anti-communist jews. But the link between judaism and communism is a well documented one and there are obvious explanations why a number of them were attracted by such an ideology. However, the question is not even there, the question is that communism was (and the left wing is still) the left clamp of capitalism and as such the formation of communist parties and the revolution in Russia was funded by international bankers rather than by local businessmen. Guys like Lenin, Stalin and Trotky due to their particular backgrounds, they were ideal agents - they would not put a Russian patriot to lead would they? In that sense this by no means mean that all of the jewish in Russia jumped with happyness when communists rose - on the contrary they were hunted down with vegence.
It is out of question to do a race-purity but a simply check of everyone's background is quite worthy at all times. Greece's Venizelos was not really Greek either Historic record has proved that Venizelos was the perfect agent of the British and that whatever he had said has been proved to had been smokescreen all while in his famous dispute with Metaxas from the 1920s to the 1930s speaking on WWI and the genocide of Minor Asia on which Venizelos wrote about 30-32 articles and Metaxas wrote 35-37, the latter was right on every single major point while Venizelos was lying on every single of them. Not me saying so, it is modern historians that take it to deeper analysis.
Hiding information on background under the carpet aids not the correct analysis and then gives way to what we do not want to hear in history.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 41
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Tuesday, 5th October 2010
Nik, you're obsession with history based on eugenics is bordering pathological. Indeed the late Romanofs were more German than Russian and that increasingly created trouble for Russia as their Tzars were hesitant in front of "links" that the Russian state should not have in face of any other European power. The Romanovs had been Prussian long before they got in trouble. And their credibility as a ruling family by and large went down because of the perfectly Russian character by the name of Grigory Rasputin. But, of course, it had to do with their incompetence, not their family tree.
Lenin was not really that Russian as you think since people of his times called him Jewish. What people? It's like saying that two times two is not really four, because some people say that it's five. I know who Lenin is. I told you that before. His mother's grandfather had been a convert out of Judaism. The rest of her family was German - Lutheran, if I remember correctly. And Lenin's father Ilya Ulyanov was as Russian as they come. How does it make Lenin a Jew? Even Gestapo wouldn't pick him up as Jew in the Nazi Germany.
Stalin was a Georgian of Jewish ancestry too. Who in the world told you that? I had asked the same question before, and you've never provided the source. Some people told you that? Some people still believe that Lenin was shot with a poisoned bullet by a legally blind female holding a broken umbrella with her other arm and wearing shoes worn down so badly that a nail would cut her foot (all of that is written in the protocol of arrest of Fanni Kaplan):
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 42
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Why do you distort what I say? Why you call "eugenics" my interest in the background of people that under normal conditions should not be in the positions they were? A Russian revolution had to be led by Russians and the Russian state by a Russian leader. When the leadership has been intermarrying with Russias' enemies it is bound that at some point the conflicting interests will be so many that the interests of Russia and Russians would go down the drain. Now are you in position to claim for example that say a German would provide the same quality of leadrship in governing say Check Republic than a local Chech? Chances are that the German would have been placed by others there and these others would not care about the interests of the local Chechs. This is more than natural to suggest. Tell me now what is the relation to euginics.
As for Lenin how much Russian he was is revealed by the ancestry of his father Ilias and his sister Anna openly speaking about the origins of their family. Stalin, himself too a Georgian of Jewish connection (his family is riddled with jewish names, personal friends of the family were jewish and he married jewish women etc. etc.) had then went on to do a purge against Jewish because he considered them as enemies. Evidently he would not want the truth about him or Lenin to be out and thus he worked to conceal much of the info. He would not do the same about Trotsky because in his case it was more than well known - afterall Trotsky was kicked out of USSR and as such was not anymore a problem for him. To say that the local jewish element was balanced inside the Russian revolution is a least naif if not evidence of an effort to cover up things and the basic reality that no Russian ever rose to become any major bolshevik leader but rather the revolution was an outside effort led by local agents of non-Russian ancestry.
Now stop thinking about anything on the sides and concentrate on the basic issue: I see no Russian in the revolution. None. Just people lead by agents of a certain ancestry working for foreign interests and with foreign money (if we except the 2 lone cases of these 2 victimised aristocrats who helped for their own obscure reasons).
Does the above spoils the mayonaise you call history? If you are an anti-Russian I guess it does. If you are a Jewish perhaps you should start respecting more the memory of all those innocent Jewish that were hunted down by the establishment that the likes of agent Lenin and Trotsky had lifted there. In all the above there is no bunched-up accusation of the whole Jewih community in Russia (in particularly the south Russia & Ukraine, etc.) as most of them actually found themselves in very difficult position with the rise of the bolsheviks. I merely note down that ALL major bolsheviks as well as other periphera figures were non-Russians which should stike at least as interesting in every logical person that decides to study this part of world's history.
Yes, the background of people can be of paramount importance as to what they represent and what political decisions take. If you want to turn your eyes away from the reality you are welcomed to do it.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 43
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Why do you distort what I say? Why you call "eugenics" my interest in the background of people that under normal conditions should not be in the positions they were? I'm calling it eugenics, because your explanation of historicall events is based on genetical make up of characters in question. More so, you keep referring to what "people said" without much elaborating who said where, exactly what and how is that that we're supposed to believe what was said exactly. As for Lenin how much Russian he was is revealed by the ancestry of his father Ilias and his sister Anna openly speaking about the origins of their family. Yet again, what are you talking about exactly?
Stalin, himself too a Georgian of Jewish connection (his family is riddled with jewish names, personal friends of the family were jewish and he married jewish women etc. etc.) had then went on to do a purge against Jewish because he considered them as enemies. This is rich. Most of the population in Europe and North America is riddled with Jewish names. You know what percentage of them is actually Jewish?
He would not do the same about Trotsky because in his case it was more than well known - afterall Trotsky was kicked out of USSR and as such was not anymore a problem for him. Stalin kicked out Trotsky because Trotsky was Jewish? Is that what you're saying? Why wouldn't he kick out Kaganovich then?
To say that the local jewish element was balanced inside the Russian revolution is a least naif if not evidence of an effort to cover up things and the basic reality that no Russian ever rose to become any major bolshevik leader but rather the revolution was an outside effort led by local agents of non-Russian ancestry. Well, until proven otherwise, Lenin was a Russian. So was Krasin and Bogdanov - the original Bolshevik elite - as well as the upcoming Bukharin, Kirov, Kuibyshev, Rykov, Molotov, Voroshilov, Vyshinsky, etc, etc. Ironically, it was the post-Stalin's leadership who was mostly of the Ukrainian background (Khruschev, Brezhnev, Tchernenko, Gorbatchev).Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 44
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
I am insisting it is not about eugenics. Hopefully you understood that it is not about pinpointing the jewish community either which actually was negatively hit from the bolshevik revolution. It is about pinpointing that Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky were "contact points", local agents for the international banking establishment which would trust more people of their background rather than local Russian people or other. Russians really manned lower positions, the upper ones were dominated by people with similar backgrounds as Lenin Stalin and Trotsky. We are talking about a period when this happens in many more other countries. In Ottoman Empire there appear the young turks most of them of donmeh (ex-Ladino people), including Kemal. In Greece too Venizelos has a similar past - and I won't even mention to the formatin of the SEKE (first communist socialist party in Greece...).
Why is it so difficult for people to accept the fact that it is strange that all these nations were not really capable of having their own men to rule rather than having men of dubious origins and with the expected international connections behind: we are talking about the international establishment working to impose the next world order.
Sorry but everything pinpoints out there. WWI, the bolshevik revolution, the 3 genocides of Minor Asia, are all tied up together in the same knot. And we are seeing a similar pattern behind: all these countries led by foreign people, again and again. Really it does not strike you?Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 45
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Call me cospirationologist but I can't help it noticing that 3 leaders of that era (Lenin, Kemal and Venizelos) had all one thing in common: some jewish ancestry. I am still not pretending to know all. I also never said that these people were practicing jewish or something. On the contrary they should be seen as enemies of the local jewish communities. Is it weird coincidence? Or is it that world powers and international bankers took it for granted that every time they had to get involved into other countries' businesses their first point of contract should be some local non practicing jew rather than anyone else (since jewish traditionally a mobile group had more international connections and a less regionalist mindset), with all what negative brought that for local jewish communities (eg. communities of jewish in Turkey were all hunted down by Kemalist regime, stripped of their property and kicked out, often violently just like the few remaining christians while the Stalinist regime hunted down with particular vengence the bulk of the jewish communities (and no I did not say Stalin kicked out Trotsky for that reason, it was simply a duel for power).
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 46
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
It is about pinpointing that Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky were "contact points", local agents for the international banking establishment which would trust more people of their background rather than local Russian people or other. What international banking establishment were they in contact with? Stalin hardly ever left Russia - meaning Russian Empire - before the revolt. Lenin was living on a shoe string until he and his henchmen managed to orchestrate mega-extortion schemes involving Morozov and Schmidt. Trotsky's fundraising in the United States is grossly exaggerated. The biggest impact on what happened in 1917 was the German intervention along the lines of the Parvus Plan. Neither of these characters had any involvement in the abdication of Nikolas II and the takeover by the Provisional Government - as I mentioned before. And, by the way, Parvus himself ended up as a foot note.
we are talking about the international establishment working to impose the next world order Who is the international establishment that are you talking about? How could people working with and/or for Woodrow Wilson be in cahoots with Reichswer that they were fighting on the battlefield the same very time? But, even if I'm wrong and you are right, don't you think that you have to do better than "people said" to back up your claims?
Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 47
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Thursday, 7th October 2010
Call me cospirationologist but I can't help it noticing that 3 leaders of that era (Lenin, Kemal and Venizelos) had all one thing in common: some jewish ancestry. Well, that's brilliant. You mean, their ancestry could be traced all the way to Abraham? The same could be said about a lot of people. That explains it.
again...Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 48
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 8th October 2010
Suvorovetz, I have repeatedly mentioned that Jewish communities are above all religious communities. Naturally many of them might have some traces of the old Jewish populations who evangelised them to the word of the bible but at most cases the Jewish of North Africa looked like North Africans, the Jewish of Ukraine like Ukrainians and the Jewish of Ethiopia like Ethiopians and the Jewish of India like Indians. Like all cultures, the jewish communities has their periods of openess and contraction. It has been very recently that they started viewing themselves as a nation, yet in most places at world they are tending to be overly open - eg. in the US more than 50% of them marry with non-jewish which has actually doubled the numbers of people recognising a jewish origin.
And it is for this reason that I do not bunch them up. What I say is that due to the characteristics of these communities, their increased cosmopolitanism in comparison to local people and their occupation with businesses not linked to agriculture but more with banks and investments they were naturally a point of reference for foreign powers that wished to yield control over other countries. Which for the jewish communities was a double-edged knife since they gathered the suspicion of locals more often than not unfairly but sometimes with some basis. Eg. the number of jewish and their high ranking in the communist parties all over the world had given birth to some politically-driven antisemitism in the first half of the 20th century no matter if the majority of communities were fiercely anti-communists.
I understand that you need more evidence but there I have to go back to collect it and that takes time. I have read more than enough to get an idea of how it went. I made 2-3 suggestions for you to look, you can reject them now, keep them in the back of your mind and whenever you find an element just cross-check it.
Just note that I do not believe in the theory of poor Lenin scratching his way up to power profiting from the circumstances... in geopolitics things do not move that way.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 49
Posted by TimTrack (U1730472) on Friday, 8th October 2010
in the US more than 50% of them marry with non-jewish which has actually doubled the numbers of people recognising a jewish origin.Â
Is there any point asking for the source of this ?Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
-
Message 50
Posted by suvorovetz (U12273591) on Friday, 8th October 2010
I understand that you need more evidence but there I have to go back to collect it and that takes time. I just hope that you don't teach for living. But, unfortunately, I won't be surprised if you do.
Just note that I do not believe in the theory of poor Lenin scratching his way up to power profiting from the circumstances... in geopolitics things do not move that way. And this let you to believe that Lenin was a Jew. Marvelous. Well, since we're on to sharing our unsupported beliefs, here's a thought. This supposedly academic - or pseudo-academic - forum is crammed with Jew baiting. Of course, contrary to your views, I don't believe that the Jews - neither by numbers, nor by their abilities (and I've met Jews as dumb as a sack of bricks often enough to have any doubts about it) - could possibly affect history to this extent. So, I believe that this near pathological propensity to find a Jew stems from the prevalent in Europe statist mind-set and statist born tradition:
Cherchez la Juif.Link to this forum: Could Greek support have made Gallipoli a success?
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or  to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.