Do the Turks believe that Erdogan's neo-Ottomanism is hindering the Turkish minorities in Greece and Bulgaria?

Updated on : January 17, 2022 by Patrick Knight



Do the Turks believe that Erdogan's neo-Ottomanism is hindering the Turkish minorities in Greece and Bulgaria?

At this point, I think there is a wrong and exaggerated view of the “neo-Ottomanism” approach.

It is not conquering the lands. But to create a powerful Turkey and expand its influence. This means exchanging the "power of influence of Western countries such as Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, etc." So when you look from this point, you can understand why those countries exaggerate this idea and this approach.

In the past there was a "yes sir" Turkey, I needed them in every phase. But now he does not accept everything if it is not good for the benefit of his country.

So neo-Ottomanism is not hindering anyone but the countries that

Keep reading

At this point, I think there is a wrong and exaggerated view of the “neo-Ottomanism” approach.

It is not conquering the lands. But to create a powerful Turkey and expand its influence. This means exchanging the "power of influence of Western countries such as Germany, the United States, the United Kingdom, France, etc." So when you look from this point, you can understand why those countries exaggerate this idea and this approach.

In the past there was a "yes sir" Turkey, I needed them in every phase. But now he does not accept everything if it is not good for the benefit of his country.

So neo Ottomanism is not hindering anyone but the countries that are used to create / guide things for their own benefits. Just take a look at "Greece, which has democracy in the EU". he's talking about giving some "rights" to the Turks in Tracchia, talking about building a mosque in Athens. It is very interesting, you will say that you will have world class democracy and human rights, but suddenly you will say "to give rights to the Turkish minority" (you will even see that human rights and EU democracy are just a tragedy, because Greece does not have). We do not accept that there is a Turkish minority, and all EU countries see this tragedy and simply perform a comedy).

Don't talk about the conflicts in Cyprus and the Aegean. It is not how you think and know. Why is nobody talking about the conflict between Norway and the United Kingdom over North Sea Oil ??? This is the reason why Norway is not a member of the EU. But the UK never tried to capture the lands or tried to be a "smart fox". Yes, we have rights there, and yes, we will defend our rights. This can go against the “gains of the European Union”, who cares… If they don't accept our rights, they can still cry for neo-Ottomanism. I understand?? Turkey is showing the "middle finger" and why it screams so much and exaggerates.

Neo-Ottomanism is a reaction to Western repression and comedy about democracy and human rights. That is why Erdogan has great support in the Turkish diaspora, especially in the EU. EU countries should look in the mirror at first and think twice before blaming the idea of ​​"Neo-Ottomanism" and Erdogan. It is a very cheap and stupid approach. And at this stage, Erdogan is not important personally, because he showed that only we can do something for ourselves. So this is a "red apple".

There is no danger for anyone who has really peaceful thoughts and feelings. And neo-Ottomanism is being exaggerated by western countries and this is really funny (black humor).

they will accept (this is imperative) that we are "equal" partners with them. And respect for our national benefits. If not, they will keep yelling and we will keep working for our red apple. Balances are not forever. One day they change. Old powers fall and new powers arise. ;)

Most do not think so.

My perspective is that Erdogan is bad and doesn't care, and local Balkan politicians love to play their role too.

But most of the more nationalist-minded people do not really put themselves in the shoes of the Balkan Turks. In some unhealthy way, if something bad happens to those people there, even when the tension rises, the people here see it as evidence of their own worldview.

I am not saying that it makes them happy, that they wish something bad to happen, but it would be politically useful to them. Of course normal people don't think like that, but abnormal people

Keep reading

Most do not think so.

My perspective is that Erdogan is bad and doesn't care, and local Balkan politicians love to play their role too.

But most of the more nationalist-minded people do not really put themselves in the shoes of the Balkan Turks. In some unhealthy way, if something bad happens to those people there, even when the tension rises, the people here see it as evidence of their own worldview.

I am not saying that it makes them happy, that they wish something bad to happen, but it would be politically useful to them. Of course, normal people don't think like that, but abnormal people are much louder.

Yunanistan means "Land of the moneylenders". and this was used by the Persians and then it becomes a thing in Tukey and maybe ever since, they started calling Grecce like that. The western world learned geeks from the Romans and it is the Roman name given to the Hellenics that I have heard. Once, the Turks came to Anatolia after conquering Iran from Asia and learned the form of the Yunan name that the Persians used to describe the Hellenic people. But even in this age of the world, the Hellenics called themselves Rhomaioi, which means Roman. But I think "Yunan" is more correct than "Greek".

I once did research and Wik

Keep reading

Yunanistan means "Land of the moneylenders". and this was used by the Persians and then it becomes a thing in Tukey and maybe ever since, they started calling Grecce like that. The western world learned geeks from the Romans and it is the Roman name given to the Hellenics that I have heard. Once, the Turks came to Anatolia after conquering Iran from Asia and learned the form of the Yunan name that the Persians used to describe the Hellenic people. But even in this age of the world, the Hellenics called themselves Rhomaioi, which means Roman. But I think "Yunan" is more correct than "Greek".

I did research once and Wikipedia says that Western Europeans used the term Greeks, Jews used Yavanim and Persians, and Turks used the term yunans.

I've even heard that Cryprito Greeks are also called rum. Greek minorities in other states are less clear, but Yunan seems to be more common among those in Albania, at least. Even if you research Yunan, you will find that it is defined as someone who lives in Greece or is from the Grece people of Greece.

In fact, the classical Greek term for the Greeks, Hellenes, had not become general until early classical times. before that, Greek tribes used local terms.

Also, I think there are some political problems too, as the first founder of Turkey, who was born in Thessaloniki, Greece, found Turkey and at the time of Tukey's development there was a Greek country also known as Pontos, where there were Greeks who they referred to as Pontic Greeks or Pontian Greeks or simply Portuguese and I remember both the Orthodox religion there was. But after that, the founder of Turkey betrayed the Contains because they didn't want to get involved in the war, so he sent Turkish troops to destroy POntos and if the orthodox people became Muslim and would live, but if he didn't, then he would. . be killed!! Turkey destroyed the counties of Pontos and that was the end.

well, about the story. I'm not sure. I have heard it from one of my Turkish friends. But there is a resource where you can find almost everything about Turkey and Greece. I discovered this site a while ago when I was thinking of traveling between these places. I think this will also help you learn and compare Greece vs Turkey

1.

Footnotes

1 Turkey vs. Greece: Which one is better for traveling? - TravelSites.com - List of the best travel sites of 2021!

These kinds of questions really make me laugh at times and actually make my presence on Quora so, so enjoyable.

How exactly do we "help" Erdogan get elected in Turkey or help him stay in office? If you take a look at the attitude of the Greek government since Erdogan's foreign policy began to affect us, you will see that we are not very fond of him.

But of course that is not the main problem here.

If we look at the way Erdogan was elected in the first place - as president - we will notice a very specific and common pattern that has been used by many, many other politicians.

Keep reading

These kinds of questions really make me laugh at times and actually make my presence on Quora so, so enjoyable.

How exactly do we "help" Erdogan get elected in Turkey or help him stay in office? If you take a look at the attitude of the Greek government since Erdogan's foreign policy began to affect us, you will see that we are not very fond of him.

But of course that is not the main problem here.

If we look at the way Erdogan was elected in the first place - as president - we will notice a very specific and common pattern that has been used by many, many other politicians before him and, unfortunately, will continue to be used after him. .

In order to be elected, he decided to use the weaknesses of the average Turkish citizen to his advantage. He used nationalistic commentary, bragged about history and culture, used religion as a political weapon (as it always has been, let's not lie), targeted 'foreign' powers as the enemy and the cause of Turkey's disgrace and He promised money to desperately needed citizens.

In times of crisis, citizens of all countries look for a strong leader to help them move their country forward. And Erdogan used that need and took it to the other side, using right-wing propaganda.

But that's not all, of course.

Erdogan's 'Palace 1', a very humble and low-key house for an average politician.

Erdogan posing with men dressed in costumes from various Turkish empires in history 2, because who doesn't love neo-Ottomanism 3?

But now, let's move on.

You claim that it is partly our fault that Erdogan is in power. My question here is: in power since when? Because our good friend is not a new face in Turkish politics.

He was Prime Minister of Turkey from 2003 to 2014 and Mayor of Istanbul from 1994 to 1998. He founded the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in 2001 and led it to electoral victories in 2002, 2007 and 2011 before resigning following his election as president in 2014. He later returned to the leadership of the AKP in 2017 following the constitutional referendum elections that year. In addition, in the 1994 elections, when he became mayor, he was a candidate for the Islamic Welfare Party. He was later stripped of his post, banished from his political position, and sentenced to four months in prison for inciting religious hatred for reciting a poem by Ziya Gökalp. Erdogan then openly abandoned Islamist politics, clearly because he realized that he needed to be more discreet with his extremist ideals in the future.

Obviously, he was able to gain influence and power without the help of the Greek public. Also, if we pay close attention, we will notice another very famous political figure who seems to be following the same lines of repetitive engagement on the political scene: our other good friend Vladimir Putin, who has been ruling the lives of Russians (and others). . ) since 2000. Coincidence? I'll let you decide.

Let's go back to the present, as we clearly saw how corrupt Erdogan's movements and ideologies are.

His main point here seems to be that Erdogan gains a following due to nationalism, and nationalism is built on the basis of Greece's bad reputation in Turkey, due to historical and political reasons. And I want to ask you this: why is it my fault? Prejudice exists on both sides of the Aegean, but it is based on stereotypes and nationalism. If a Turkish person dislikes Greeks who vote for Erdogan on purpose so much, then he will 'punish the bad Greeks', sorry, but this seems to be his problem and not mine.

Furthermore, Erdogan recently banned the depiction of ... rainbows 4 (!) In articles intended for the ages of -18 because it is "inappropriate". He also called the university protesters 'terrorists 5' because they did not like the fact that he replaced one of the rectors of Bogazici University with a puppet from his political party.

How exactly do we help you do any of that? I'd really like to know.

Footnotes

1 Erdogan's new $ 350 million palace sparks controversy 2 Costumed warriors are no joke to Erdogan 3 Neo-Ottomanism - Wikipedia 4 Turkey claims rainbows' harm children's mental health 'in a chilling crackdown on LGBT + Pride merchandise 5 Turkey's Erdogan calls student protesters terrorists, intensifying anti-LGBT rhetoric

Clearly, the Greek government is violating the rules of the United Nations Refugee Convention by indiscriminately rejecting potential bona fide refugees along with illegal immigrants.

However, the principle of refugees not rejecting applies only to the first safe country where refugees arrive (in this case, Turkey).

There are currently 28 countries working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide resettlement for refugees around the world. Of course, refugees are screened and cannot decide in which country they will be received. Turkey is considered a "safe country", any bona fide refugee can apply with the U

Keep reading

Clearly, the Greek government is violating the rules of the United Nations Refugee Convention by indiscriminately rejecting potential bona fide refugees along with illegal immigrants.

However, the principle of refugees not rejecting applies only to the first safe country where refugees arrive (in this case, Turkey).

There are currently 28 countries working with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide resettlement for refugees around the world. Of course, refugees are screened and cannot decide in which country they will be received. Turkey, considered a “safe country”, any bona fide refugee can apply for resettlement at the UNHCR office in Turkey.

UNHCR statement on the situation on the border between Turkey and the EU

According to Istanbul University professor Murat Erdogan, Turkey's current "open borders" policy motivated migrants whose visas had expired and were about to be deported. The countries of origin of those recently arrested for crossing the Greek border are as follows (source: Greek police): Afghanistan 64%, Pakistan 19%, Turkey 5%, Syria 4%, Somalia 2.6%, Iraq, Iran, Morocco , Ethiopia, Bangladesh, Egypt: 5.4%.

These figures indicate that only 4% can apply for refugee status, with the other illegal immigrants who must be deported.

However, it is sad that human beings are violently beaten and rejected after ignoring the no-entry signs and blasting holes in border fences.

But Erdogan is furious that his blackmail tactic of turning refugees into weapons backfired. Have you ever wondered why migrants and refugees were sent to the Greek border and not to Bulgaria, a member of the EU?

For someone who oversaw the killing of dozens and gassing thousands of peaceful protesters during the Gezi Park events, whose thugs have beaten and tortured thousands after the 2016 coup attempt and whose representatives regularly commit horrific war crimes inside Syria displacing hundreds of thousands, Erdogan suddenly pretends to defend human rights and the rule of law.

While Turkey hopes that NATO or EU military support will protect its soldiers inside Syria, as the national population simmers with resentment after the Assad regime killed dozens of its troops, it is unlikely to happen given Russia's huge presence in Syrian airspace.

And although NATO had confirmed that it would help Turkey with air support, Greece has retracted its vote due to the influx of migrants at its borders. Greek Foreign Minister Nikos Dendias said Athens would veto NATO actions if the declaration of support for Turkey does not demand compliance with the EU-Turkey agreement on migration from Ankara in return.

This move shows that Turkey's harsh discourse towards Europe and its encouragement to refugees seeking to enter the EU may not result in the support Ankara is seeking.

Erdogan's Ottoman dreams lie broken in Syria

My personal feeling, which is shared by many, is why Greek-Turkish relations are not like those of Switzerland and Austria or Belgium and the Netherlands?

Why don't we go back to what MK Ataturk, Ismet Pasa and Eleftherios Venizelos had agreed to in 1930 in Ankara: the indisputable recognition of the borders of each country as established by the Lausanne Peace Treaty, facilitating economic and cultural exchanges and finally resolve any dispute through International Arbitration? ?

Unfortunately, it is not only Erdogan who has been challenging Ataturk's wisdom and legacy, but primarily the ultranationalists who have been looked down upon.

Keep reading

My personal feeling, which is shared by many, is why Greek-Turkish relations are not like those of Switzerland and Austria or Belgium and the Netherlands?

Why don't we go back to what MK Ataturk, Ismet Pasa and Eleftherios Venizelos had agreed to in 1930 in Ankara: the indisputable recognition of the borders of each country as established by the Lausanne Peace Treaty, facilitating economic and cultural exchanges and finally resolve any dispute through International Arbitration? ?

Unfortunately, it is not only Erdogan who has challenged Ataturk's wisdom and legacy, but primarily the ultranationalists who have been undermining the very foundations of the Turkish Republic since the 1930s.

Erdogan has voiced an alternate narrative that Ataturk's willingness to leave Mosul and the Aegean islands was an act of treason.

New maps of Turkey are taking back the Ottoman Empire

Erdogan's irredentist views on the national pact are an indication that the Islamists of Milli Gorus have reincorporated ideologically with their bedridden political companions, the far-right nationalists, who since the 1930s denounced Ataturk for his cosmopolitan views and his betrayal of Turkish values.

Kemal, Venizelos and Inonu realized very early that without transnational cooperation there would be no economic recovery and development.

Both countries saw their GDP devastated by the war and the world economic crisis of 1929. In addition, both felt seriously threatened by the aggressive movements of fascist Italy.

When fascist Italy began to build naval bases and fortifications on its Aegean possessions while declaring its willingness to acquire control of the entire Aegean and Strait, and attacking Greece at Epirus and Corfou, the two statesmen jointly took a series of defensive measures. that merged. in the extension by Greece of its territorial waters and airspace, while the Montreux Convention (not ratified by Italy) allowed the remilitarization of the Strait and all the islands of the North Aegean Sea.

For centuries, rum traders had traded internationally in Anatolian products / materials, while Greek islanders provided the vital transportation to export those products while importing western products to Anatolian ports. Therefore, it was considered essential to resuscitate those commercial links.

Hence, it became the Ankara Peace and Friendship Treaty signed on October 30, 1930.

It was preceded by the June 1930 agreement on economic cooperation.

As in any full contract, which establishes a competent court for the resolution of disputes, it was also agreed between 2 leaders that any dispute arising from the Lausanne Peace Treaty must be resolved through international arbitration.

The Ankara Treaty reaffirmed the borders between Turkey and Greece as immovable, settled the property claims of the repatriated populations, and established naval parity in the eastern Mediterranean. The rapprochement was particularly due to the exceptional efforts of Greek Prime Minister E. Venizelos and Turkish President Mustafa Kemal Atatürk to normalize historically troubled relations between the two countries.

To be sure, the courageous decisions made by these men were met with enmity by their internal opponents.

In Greece, the monarchists were opposed to any reconciliation with the "enemy", while the many refugees saw abandoned any hope of recovering some compensation for their lost property. Among those who failed to flee abroad, many joined the ranks of the burgeoning socialist and communist parties.

Second assassination attempt on Venizelos (source Wikipedia)

In Turkey, Kemal's enemies were not only staunch Ottomanists, but also personalities within his party such as Esat Bozturk, Yusuf Ziya Zarbun, and Fuat Koprulu, whose assistant was none other than Nihal Atsiz.

The attempted assassination of Ataturk by the staunch Ottomanists and nationalists, followed by swift retribution, made Kemal's enemies think twice and thereafter invaded the state from within.

Racist critics of Atatürk and Kemalism, from the 1930s to the 1960s

It seems that while Ismet Pasa was attempting to rid Turkey of fascist cancer with the "Turanism trials of 1944," the politics of the Cold War made them active again, as useful idiots in the service of the CIA.

What was their stance and how did they influence Turkish politics during WWII?

Georges Gritsis's answer to What was Turkey's stance during WWII when Germany was close to its borders?

In case you're wondering why things veered off between Greece and Turkey in the 1950s.

Georges Gritsis's answer to When Turkish troops invaded Cyprus, did they intend to take over the entire island?

On the bogus "US embargo against Turkey" in 1975:

Georges Gritsis's answer to Why did the United States revoke the arms embargo or sanction on Turkey only after 3 years of the invasion of Cyprus?

Declassified CIA documents are here: The Family Jewels

Basically, all the gibberish in Greek-Turkish relations is being fed by neo-Ottomanists, Islamists and fascists, basically Kemal's enemies, repeated by increasingly irrelevant ultra-nationalists in Greece.

They even invented a myth that none of the other signatories to the Treaties believe:

the legendary "demilitarization of the Aegean".

Why? So they can invade / conquer unopposed.

https: //www.mfa.gr/en/issues-of -...

They not only reject Ataturk's legacy, they also blatantly reject the Lausanne Peace Treaty:

Georges Gritsis's answer to In 2023, the Lausanne treaty will end, will Turkey conquer the Middle East to revive the Ottoman Empire?

Half of the Aegean belongs to us. This is what the world should know. If the honor and interests of the Turkish nation are attacked, we will crush the head of the enemy. "
Turkish Prime Minister Sadi Irmak, 1947.

"All the Aegean islands off the Turkish mainland, including the Dodecanese islands, must belong to Turkey."
Alparslan Turkes, Turkish Deputy Prime Minister, March 1976.

An analysis of the background of the Ankara Treaty can be found in Ozgur Kursun's study:

http: //amitos.library.uop.gr/xml ...

More background documents and letters:

https: //www.imxa.gr/files/bsfile ...

In a letter that Venizelos wrote on August 30, 1928 to İsmet İnönü, he expressed that the 'cooperation' he had with him during the Lausanne Conference could also be beneficial in terms of resolving the disputes experienced by the two countries after the Treaty. of Lausanne.

İsmet İnönü was due to reply in another letter on September 27, 1928, after a month's delay due to a trip he had to make to his hometown, Malatya. However, İsmet İnönü was going to give his first spoken response to Venizelos on September 13 in the speech he delivered in Malatya:

“I would like to mention our problems with Greece. First of all, I must say that there are no fundamental and unsolvable political problems between the two countries, which could remain an eternal subject of dispute. Unresolved disputes are generally those legal issues that were considered in the previous agreements and mostly related to personal benefits. Of course, it is not possible to consider as insignificant the need to solve the questions related to the personal benefits of the citizens subject to legal and contractual form. However, legal problems can eventually be resolved as long as the parties have good will. We sincerely express our goodwill. We understand from Mr. Venizelos' recent speeches that he also has a fervent desire to resolve unresolved disputes. My trust in him was also strengthened by the friendly letter I received just as I was about to leave Ankara. These wishes will find a frank answer from us. It is also my sincere wish to stop prolonging the problems between us and to solve them in a practical and radical way and to ensure their resolution ”.

The 'joint work' of İsmet İnönü and Venizelos during the Lausanne Conference was actually one of the factors that positively affected Turkish-Greek relations in the post-Lausanne period. From the Lausanne Conference onward, İsmet İnönü had positive feelings about Venizelos. During the Conference he had noted that Venizelos defended the interests of Greece in the best possible way, but at the same time avoided adopting a hostile attitude towards Turkey unless the interests of Greece and Turkey were completely in conflict.

İnönü emphasizes this in his speech to the Turkish National Assembly on June 17, 1930:

“When I worked with Mr. Venizelos in Lausanne, I paid special attention to one point, which was very strict, hard-working and formidable with regard to the problems related to the interests of Greece, while he was not involved in any issue that was not related to Greece and could harm Turkey. Our observation from day one was that there were no major conflicts between the main interests of the two countries and that the men who ran the two countries had no intention of keeping the two countries in a morbid controversy. "

İsmet İnönü also had a talent for "empathy" on the subject of Venizelos and Greece concerns. He understood that the two countries were not seeking territories from each other, which was a precondition for peace; and Venizelos' emphasis that they recognized the Lausanne Treaty arose out of their concerns regarding the territorial integrity of Greece.

Again during his June 17, 1930 speech in the Assembly, he said:

“Now, is there a conflict of interest and a problem between Greece and us? To discuss this issue, we must first consider our position. Through our neighbor's media, we understand the core of your general concern. It is rumored that we have claims on the islands, in Western Thrace or in another country. First of all, we can ask ourselves. Do we have such a wish? Now I will answer that question. We don't have that desire. We have said it a thousand times and we will say it another thousand times. We do not have that desire, therefore there is no fundamental point that makes our neighbor fear us. In Lausanne, we were not interested in these issues, although there were some opportunities where we could have had such requests. "

In fact, the founders of the new Turkey were ready to establish good relations with Greece after the Treaty of Lausanne.

In the political discourse expressed by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk especially, the 'other' of the new Turkey was not Greece but its recent past, the Ottoman Empire, contrary to what the nationalist line thinks today.

Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, who was eager for the structuring and founding of a new nation-state in the country, solved Turkey's problems with its neighboring neighbors through various peace treaties.

In ankara

In athens

This has been easily answered 30 times on Quora. Since he has been voted into office, he cannot be seen as a dictator, as his party receives the most votes.

For me to consider him a dictator, it would have to be obvious to me that he only has the support of a much smaller percentage of the population than he does now.

If, in the future, it becomes clear that many more people support the opposition, but somehow it is not reflected in the vote, then I would change my mind. However, this is not the case. Of course, I do not consider that the electoral system in Turkey is fair.

Why don't I consider the

Keep reading

This has been easily answered 30 times on Quora. Since he has been voted into office, he cannot be seen as a dictator, as his party receives the most votes.

For me to consider him a dictator, it would have to be obvious to me that he only has the support of a much smaller percentage of the population than he does now.

If, in the future, it becomes clear that many more people support the opposition, but somehow it is not reflected in the vote, then I would change my mind. However, this is not the case. Of course, I do not consider that the electoral system in Turkey is fair.

Why do I not consider the system fair in Turkey? One, unlike Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Britain, Japan, etc., where opposition figures get a lot of coverage and there is some attempt to balance, more and more in recent years there is not much of that in Turkey. Two, the media is also too leaning towards one party in a way that reminds me of the Soviet Union and Pravda. It is too Orwellian. Three, the Anadolu Agency, which used to be very respectable and accepted by the mainstream, has gone partisan and proved it in the last election. Four, the electoral board is not impartial. They are very willing to allow the dispute of votes or elections when requested by one party over another. That is not balanced.

Given that the AKP-MHP represents the largest bloc of voters at this juncture, any Turkish president who receives that many votes cannot be seen as a dictator. The same would apply to President Trump. Now, you can choose to view a leader as authoritarian and undemocratic, but it is not the same as a person being a dictator. You have to show that you are not in debt to the people and you cannot lose the elections. That does not apply to the Turkish president. Even if what we see in Turkey does not look like what can be seen in Canada, Australia, France, it does not mean that there is a dictatorship. Of course, there are also problems with some Western-type democracies such as Great Britain and Canada, where the postal system has first been passed where the parties with, for example, 40% of the vote can hold the majority of the parliamentary seats and in the US it still has something called the "Electoral College" which is very undemocratic. Turkey, in the end, has not come to a place where the president can fit the label of dictator because of the number of supporters who voted for him.

I think the Turks are more familiar with this man than the Greeks.

You can find him on YouTube by searching for 'yunan spiker', which means Greek speaker. I admit I had no idea who he was before and found out about his existence after a Turkish person asked me about him, obviously believing him to be a well-known figure in Greece. Some of the uploaded videos have even reached around 90 thousand views, for some unknown reason.

Based on how he is described as a 'Greek speaker' without mentioning his real name, and is the second result to appear on YouTube after searching for the word 'yu

Keep reading

I think the Turks are more familiar with this man than the Greeks.

You can find him on YouTube by searching for 'yunan spiker', which means Greek speaker. I admit I had no idea who he was before and found out about his existence after a Turkish person asked me about him, obviously believing him to be a well-known figure in Greece. Some of the uploaded videos have even reached around 90 thousand views, for some unknown reason.

Based on how he is described as a 'Greek speaker' without mentioning his real name, and is the second result that appears on YouTube after searching for the word 'yunan', I will assume that he is being made fun of or consider him a representative of how think the Greeks, which could not be more inaccurate, since I have never seen a single Greek acknowledge their existence.

The channel it appears on is incredibly irrelevant and can only be seen if you live in Athens. I doubt that he is spreading a real fear, since he is a stranger. The most likely scenario is that someone will pay you to spread a certain agenda - the problem of Turks falling in love with it is your problem.

Good weekends Dear Emmanuel Leon;

If we talk about Türkiye-Turkey and the people of Türkiye-Turkey; according to me; There is no difference between Turkish citizens who originally come from different ancestors; if you think you are Turkish citizens and live in Türkiye-Turkey like me as a Turkish citizen that our Founder of Modern Respublic of Türkiye-Turkey says what thoughts of The Great Vise Man Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk;

“The Republic of Turkey is a state (based on culture), not a state (based on race).

This means that all citizens who are in Türkiye-Turkey are the first titled citizens; & t

Keep reading

Good weekends Dear Emmanuel Leon;

If we talk about Türkiye-Turkey and the people of Türkiye-Turkey; according to me; There is no difference between Turkish citizens who originally come from different ancestors; if you think you are Turkish citizens and live in Türkiye-Turkey like me as a Turkish citizen that our Founder of Modern Respublic of Türkiye-Turkey says what thoughts of The Great Vise Man Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk;

“The Republic of Turkey is a state (based on culture), not a state (based on race).

This means that all citizens who are in Türkiye-Turkey are the first titled citizens; And there is no difference between them.

If you look at Mr. Agop Dilaçar (Dilachar), his first name was Agop Martanyan, who was the first and greatest language expert of the Türk Linguistic Institution which had been founded by Ghazi Mustafa Kemal Atatürk was the friend and official by Atatürk. in the Ottoman army as a medic in the medical service in the military hospital in the First World War.

After the First World War, Mr. Agop Martanyan went to Sofia to live as a Bulgarian citizen of Armenian origin.

The Turks had continued their war of independence-liberation after being invaded by foreign states by Ghazi commander Mustafa Kemal Atatürk; When the war of liberation ended, the Turks had founded the Republic and Marshal Mustafa Kemal Atatürk had been elected the first president of the Republic of Türkiye-Turkey.

One of his first attempts was the establishment of the Turkish language institution, and he had called Mr. Agop Martanyan from Bulgarian to Ankara, which is the capital of the Republic, a Türkiye-Turkey, and had appointed Mr. Agop Martanyan as the first main language expert of this Institution of this Institution, & He had given Mr. Agop Martanyan a surname for his new title as Dilaçar-Dilachar as “Opener of Languages” in English, & This Very Important and Dear Person had served for the Institute of Languages ​​until he went to eternity; & All Turks still love him for his excellent personality.

Nevertheless; I am not so interested in football, I have liked Fenerbahçe Spor Kulübü (Fenerbahche Sports Club) since I was 11 years old. This sports club is a sports club much loved by the Turks and this club is the third sports club established after the Beşiktaş gymnastics club in 1903, the Galatasaray sports club in 1905 and the FB in 1907. Perhaps more than 90% of the Turkish citizens are supporters of these three teams in addition to their local teams.

There are many legendary soccer players in Türkiye-Turkey since 1903. One of them is Lefter Küçükandonyadis, who was a Turkish citizen of Greek origin and a very important goalkeeper for Fenerbahçe Sports Club. Almost all soccer game lovers had loved him very much; when he went to eternity All Turkish citizens were saddened by his endless journey, and his funeral ceremony was a legendary ceremony for football lovers.

If we want to give such examples, we can see many beautiful examples. Because; These people are the excellent children of the humanities and the Turks love all the excellent people all over the world; If these Beautiful People are Turkish Citizens, we especially love more than the other great people.

I have to explain a fact; Perhaps the fundamentalists and some cheap politicians could not love these fine people; they are exceptional; we are talking about the common meanings of Societies.

With my respects;

Serdar Yakar. February 20, 2021 8:28 PM.

In fact, I think that because in most other cases (economy, society, etc.) he has completely destroyed Turkey, he uses "anti-Greek" propaganda just to keep his "low" voters by his side. intelligence "from the eastern part of the country. country (the "villagers") who are proud to hear you say that Turkey is the best. But if you go to Ankara and the big cities in western Turkey (especially in the eastern Thrace region) that are closer to European civilization, you will fully see that Erdogan is a bad president. Actually, it is the Turkish version of Putin, with the difference that most

Keep reading

In fact, I think that because in most other cases (economy, society, etc.) he has completely destroyed Turkey, he uses "anti-Greek" propaganda just to keep his "low" voters by his side. intelligence "from the eastern part of the country. country (the "villagers") who are proud to hear you say that Turkey is the best. But if you go to Ankara and the big cities in western Turkey (especially in the eastern Thrace region) that are closer to European civilization, I totally understand that Erdogan is a bad president, it is actually the Turkish version of Putin, with the difference is that the majority of Russians fully respect Putin.

On the issue of the Greek islands, it has been almost 100 years since the Lausanne treaty and 80 years since Italy had to cede the Dodecanese to Greece after losing in WWII and still the Turkish government has this problem in its agency . If you ask a Turk today (at least in the "civilized" western part) if he really cares about having "less" sea in the Aegean because many Greek islands are off the Turkish coast, they will probably say no. There are much more serious problems for Turkey, which the government tries to "hide" from the population, simply by paying attention to Greece, Cyprus, Armenia, Syria, Libya, Russia and the US or to someone who does not allow them to do exactly what they want. , not caring for others.

The Turks are very kind, friendly, hospitable and cheerful and they don't deserve those horrible governments.

History is taught very unilaterally in the Greek educational system. Everything is seen through the eyes of the Greeks who "were here first and were unjustly expelled by various barbarians." The result is that many Greeks are brought up to be very patriotic, even if they couldn't spell Greek words correctly if their lives depended on it.

Having said that, I would question the statement embedded in this question. There are a lot of Greeks who deplore the atrocities of the modern Greek state, including the most recent ones in Cyprus and Anatolia. You just don't tend to hear them in such or

Keep reading

History is taught very unilaterally in the Greek educational system. Everything is seen through the eyes of the Greeks who "were here first and were unjustly expelled by various barbarians." The result is that many Greeks are brought up to be very patriotic, even if they couldn't spell Greek words correctly if their lives depended on it.

Having said that, I would question the statement embedded in this question. There are a lot of Greeks who deplore the atrocities of the modern Greek state, including the most recent ones in Cyprus and Anatolia. You just don't tend to listen to them on those online forums, because these people have better things to do most of the time than get into nationalistic squabbles.

Well, there is nothing in the historiography to suggest that his fate was bad. They were finally exchanged after the Lausanne treaty, but they were not running for their lives like the Greeks of Asia Minor after the defeat of the Greek army by the Turkish army. They participated in the Greek elections and had their own representatives in the Greek parliament.

Even much later, when the Turkish state effectively eradicated the Greek community in September 1955, Greece did not expel any minority from Greece. He simply stopped referring to a "Turkish minority" in Greece and stuck to the definition

Keep reading

Well, there is nothing in the historiography to suggest that his fate was bad. They were finally exchanged after the Lausanne treaty, but they were not running for their lives like the Greeks of Asia Minor after the defeat of the Greek army by the Turkish army. They participated in the Greek elections and had their own representatives in the Greek parliament.

Even much later, when the Turkish state effectively eradicated the Greek community in September 1955, Greece did not expel any minority from Greece. It simply stopped referring to a "Turkish minority" in Greece and stuck to the definition of the Lausanne treaty, which is "Muslim minority". Some economic measures were taken against the Muslim minority, and some members of the minority were stripped of their ethnicity if they ever moved out of Greece, but that is all that Greece was willing to go for.

Other Guides:


GET SPECIAL OFFER FROM OUR PARTNER.