Turkish Forum

Tag: Mehmet Perincek

  • The Greek invasion of Turkey, according to archival documents

    The Greek invasion of Turkey, according to archival documents

    Mehmet Perinçek

    Today is the 98th anniversary of the beginning of the Great Offensive (Büyük Taarruz), which ended the Greek occupation in Anatolia and brought Turkey’s War of Independence to a final victory. In current times as tension between Turkey and Greece gains momentum in the Eastern Mediterranean and Aegean Seas, the propaganda that the Turks committed ethnic cleansing against the Greeks during their War of Independence has picked up in the Western press.

    How did one of the important witnesses of the period, Soviet Russia, evaluate the events that took place in Anatolia at that time? How did the Soviet authorities who came to Turkey then report their observations? What did the Soviet orientalists of the time write about this issue?

    Let us look for answers to these questions with archival documents.

    MOSCOW PROTESTS

    The most important of the examples on this subject is the protest sent by G. V. Chicherin, the Soviet People’s Commissariat (Minister) of Foreign Affairs, to the governments of all countries on October 26, 1921. In his protest, Chicherin drew attention to the massacres committed against Turkish civilian population by the Greek armed forces during their withdrawal from Sakarya and demanded that these inhumane actions to be stopped as shown below:

    “The savage and inhumane actions undertaken by the Greek Armies on the lands of Asia Minor (Anatolia – MP), obligated the Government of Russia, to bring in front of all governments the issue of the attitude that needs to be taken against these actions and forced to draw their attention on the terrible destruction and barbaric atrocities the local people suffered from the Greek Army in all Turkish regions under the Greek occupation. Even neutral observers and telegraph (news – MP) agencies emphasize that all Turkish regions occupied by the Greek armies have been converted into wilderness during the Greek withdrawal.

    In all places where Greeks have retreated, Turkish villages are being burned and the population is completely destroyed or taken as prisoner while women are subjected to the most brutal rape. Among the Turkish population, only those who could hide in forests and mountains are able to stay alive.

    In the orders of the Greek command, reference is made to Prince Andrey, who ordered the Greek armies to burn down all Turkish villages on their way. In fact, Papulas, the Commander-in-Chief of the Greek armies, ordered the destruction of Turkish villages. Bloodcurdling acts of brutality that makes people rebel have been proven in the villages listed below: (…)

    The Government of Russia draws the attention of all governments, to the invading Greek army’s conversion of this immensely flourished vast Turkish region into a real desert by causing its demolition. The Russian Government sees it unconditionally necessary to apply to all the governments by suggesting to take necessary steps against the Greek Government in order to stop the intolerable actions of the Greek armies in Turkey.” [1]

    Turkey’s Ambassador to Moscow, Ali Fuat Pasha, responded with a thank you letter to this initiative of Russia on the same day. Ali Fuat Pasha stated in his letter that Moscow’s protest is proof of the high sense of humanity that the Soviet Government mobilized. [2]

    MILITARY ARCHIVE DOCUMENTS

    Documents in the Russian State Military Archive (RGVA), which is the archive of the Soviet Red Army, also shed light on this issue. In a 16-page report titled: “Anatolian Turkey”, it is expressed that the Greeks started wild massacres upon their occupation of the Izmir Region. According to this report, the Greeks also sent their agents to the Black Sea region to provoke revolt in order to create a suitable ground for the Greeks to land. The intellectuals and bourgeois Greeks in this region were invested in the idea of an independent Pontus Republic.

    For this reason, in order to secure the coastal areas, the Turkish government had to evacuate the Greeks in these areas. In response to this, Greek gangs were established which raided Turkish villages, where they massacred entire populations including women or children. Thus, the mutual slaughter in the region was ignited and revenge attacks against Greeks also took place. [3]

    Under the “Military Summary” subheading of a document titled “A Brief Report on the Military-Political and Economic Situation in Anatolia”, it is stated regarding the events of September – October 1921, that while withdrawing, the Greek armies burned down all villages and cities; thus it is stated that they left a complete empty land behind Mustafa Kemal’s front-line. [4]

    In another report in the Military Archive, dated November 1, 1921, the following was recorded while dealing with the policies of the Greek occupation in the Thrace Region and the reaction of the local population to this:

    “The status of the Greeks in Turkey mainly depends on the success of their armies in the Asia Minor front line. Bulgarians and Turks make up about two third of the Thracian population and they approach hostile invaders. The Greek government is relentlessly terrorizing other peoples, trying to crush all resistance from the people.

    The Greek language has been declared a mandatory language in state and public institutions. Bulgarian and Turkish schools are closed. The ever-increasing expropriation policy, carried out arbitrarily by the use of force by the special Greek commissions, creates discomfort among the villagers.

    The stated reasons gave birth to the formation of gangs in the Thrace. The gangs are made up of local Bulgarians and Turkish populations. The armed gangs procure their weapons from the stocks that were left behind Tahir Pasha’s (Turkish) army. The centers of the rebellion are the Bulgarian and Turkish villages in the Rhodope and Strandja Mountains, along the Bulgarian border. (…) The rebels have recently changed tactics and are avoiding clashes with Greek troops; they are attacking warehouses, government agencies, they are destroying supply routes and are applying terror to the representatives of the occupation administration.”

    While discussing the economic situation of Thrace, the report also mentions the pillage policy of the Greeks and their seizure of grains and cattle for the needs of the Greek occupying army in Anatolia. [5]

    In a military intelligence report in the archives dated September 2, 1920, with the title “Life in Turkey”, information is given that, relying on the strong support of the Entente States, Greeks behaved with conceit and arrogance toward the Turks. This is particularly evident in Istanbul, where European bigotry has made it a base for itself against the Near-East. [6]

    The Red Army’s military intelligence reports sometimes convey Ankara’s statements as well. In a report conveying a news report of the Anatolian Agency dated November 3, 1920, it is stated that during their withdrawal from Inegöl towards Bursa, the Greeks burned down almost all of the villages and Yenişehir. There were even incidents in which people were burned. [7]

    TESTIMONIES OF FRUNZE AND ARALOV

    In a speech to the Parliament during his visit to Turkey, Soviet commander Frunze said: “exposure of the Turkish people to the rabid enemy’s brutality” evokes “great hatred” in Ukraine and Russia. [8] In addition, Fruze mentions in his memoirs regarding Turkey, that the Greeks had destroyed the Muslims in Western Anatolia, and that they also looted their property and other valuables. [9]

    Soviet Ambassador Aralov wrote in his memoirs about the Greek persecution that “The fleeing enemy, in a wild rage, was burning down everything that they encountered on the road. The cities: Uşak, Aydın, Manisa and most of the villages were burned.” [10] In a telegram that he sent from Ankara to Moscow on September 2, 1922, Aralov reported that most of the Turkish villages were burned with their residents. [11]

    During the days he was in Izmir for the Economic Congress, Aralov gave a statement to the reporters: “(…) our journey was very long, very beautiful, and at the same time very painful due to the destruction of the Greek cruelty. We saw the destructiveness of the Greeks with our own eyes. (…) The miserable Greeks are the tenants of foreign capitalism.” [12]

    Anatoly Glebov, who was the first secretary of the embassy during Aralov’s period, also states in his memoirs that Turkish women and children shed a lot of blood in the regions occupied by the Greeks; and in return, pressure was exerted on the Greeks, in the regions under Ankara’s rule. [13]

    The Soviet artist Lansere, who came to Turkey upon Aralov’s invitation during the War of Liberation years and drew many pictures there, also refers in his memoirs to the massacres carried out against the Muslims upon invasion of Izmir by the Greeks. [14]

    WRITINGS OF SOVIET ORIENTALISTS

    Irandust, whose articles were frequently published among the official publications of the Soviet State such as Pravda and Izvestia, also touched on Greek atrocities in his works. Osetrov, using the name Irandust, writes in his work titled “The Driving Forces of the Kemalist Revolution” published in 1928:

    “The program of physical extermination of the Turkish population was implemented consciously under the rule of the invaders, so much so that the fertile lands of Anatolia were reserved for Italian and Greek immigrants. This policy has taken a very sharp turn in Izmir. Here, an openly armed war was started by Greek immigrants to destroy the Turkish population and seize their assets. Disarmament of the Turkish peasants was often just an excuse for the destruction of all their villages. In the occupied areas, the survivors of the Turkish population were pushed into complete poverty.”

    In his work, Irandust also states that the Greeks of the Black Sea Region committed massacres against the local Turkish population in order to revive the Pontus State. [15]

    1. Pavlovich, one of the most important experts of the Soviet State, also talks about the “terrible massacre” committed by the Greeks in Izmir. [16]

    Bagirov, one of the prominent Soviet historians, wrote “The Greek occupation of Izmir and its surroundings, brought with it massacres and murder against the people, children, the elderly; it also brought tyranny to women.” [17]

    The Belarusian historian I. G. Drogovoz described the occupation of Izmir in his book with the following lines:

    “The Greeks that came ashore, started from the very first moment, continuous massacres, looting, rape, humiliation and murder against the Turkish civilian population. On the first day alone, they killed 400 Turks: men-women, adults-children. On the following three days, the number of Turkish deaths reached four thousand in Izmir.”

    Drogovoz also states that in the days of the liberation of Izmir, Turkish troops were in a legitimate defense effort to protect the Turkish population of Izmir from looting and massacres. In response, the Greeks set many houses on fire. In addition, a Greek submarine sank a ship containing Turkish prisoners of war. [18]

    FROM THE ARCHIVES IN AZERBAIJAN

    Soviet Azerbaijan did not remain indifferent to the massacres of the Turkish population in Anatolia. The protest text sent by Hüseyin Rauf Bey to all governments on behalf of the Turkish Grand National Assembly on August 31, 1922, also reached Baku:

    “The Greeks are committing murder in the places where they are forced to evacuate in the current battle, similar to the atrocities and disasters they committed in the regions where they were forced to evacuate in the Inönü and Sakarya wars that they lost before. After evacuating Afyonkarahisar and its environs, they set fire to a large part of the Muslim neighborhood within the holy city and destroyed many villages in the vicinity, massacring their residents. They also committed similar crimes during the combat period of Dumlupınar War, in the Olucuk area around Altuntaş, filling the people, women and children included, into mosques and prayer houses, they burned them alive.

    The Greeks completely burned down the towns of Umurbey and Çalköy and partially massacred the people living there, burning some people alive.  They also burned down Dumlupınar.” [19]

    Azerbaijan’s People’s Commissar for Foreign Affairs M. D. Huseynov attached a note on this document saying: “The ‘Rabochiy’, ‘Trud’ and ‘Communist’ newspapers should publish this article, specifying the anger and protest of the Soviet State. They should also show the ingenuity of Greece, the sister of the Allies that protect it.”

    In addition, on October 2, 1922, Azerbaijan Communist Party decided to establish an aid committee for helping the Anatolian Turks that were harmed by the Greeks and opened up a special fund for it. [20]

    FROM THE ARCHIVES OF WESTERN EUROPE

    Even though they did not voice it at that time, the Western European States which supported the Greek invasion included in their secret reports that Greek atrocities were carried out in Western Anatolia. Striking examples can be found in the works of Salahi Sonyel, who has been working in the European archives for many years; for example, in the reports of the officials of countries such as England, America, Italy and Sweden on this subject together with archive registration numbers. [21]

    Although very rare, there have been writers who touched this point among Greek historians. Georgios Nakracas, in his work which he expresses to have written in order to enlighten the fictitious historical myths and to contribute to the correction of mistakes, acknowledges that the Greeks committed massacres a few hours after their arrival in Izmir, followed by more slaughters that took place in cities like Aydın, Menemen and Bergama. [22]

    THE TURKISH POPULATION WAS SAVED FROM ANNIHILATION

    The documents cited above are just some examples of what is to be found in the archives, there are much more sources available. If an ethnic cleansing took place in the Aegean Region, it was done against the Turkish population during the Greek occupation.

    The Turkish War of Independence, which attained victory with the Great Offensive (Büyük Taarruz), not only saved the lands occupied by the imperialist forces, it also saved the Turkish population in the region from being exterminated.

    [1]From the The Foreign Policy Archive of the Russian Federation (AVPRF) f. 132, op. 4, p. 4, d. 2, l. 89.

    [2]For the French original, French copy and Russian translation of the letter, pls see: AVPRF f. 132, op. 4, p. 4, d. 6, l. 62-64.

    [3]For the full report pls see: RGVA f. 25899, op. 3, d. 319, l. 36-43, 36 ob.-43 ob.

    [4]RGVA f. 25899, op. 3, d. 498, l. 198.

    [5]RGVA f. 25899, op 3, d. 482, l. 60 and 60 ob.

    [6]RGVA f. 109, op. 3, d. 278 or 279, l. 31.

    [7]RGVA f. 109, op. 3, d. 302, l. 20 ob.

    [8]Rasih Nuri İleri, Atatürk ve Komünizm, Scala Printing House, 5thed., Istanbul, May 1999, p. 314.

    [9]Frunze’nin Türkiye Anıları, Cem Printing House, Istanbul, 1978, pp. 8, 108.

    [10]S. I. Aralov, Bir Sovyet Diplomatının Türkiye Hatıraları, Burçak Printing House, Istanbul, 1967, p. 142.

    [11]Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (RGASPI) f. 544, op. 3, d. 117, l. 150.

    [12]Newspapers Vakitdated February 26, 1923 and Tanindated February 26, 1923.

    [13]Anatoly Glebov, Liniya Druzhby, Sovyetsky Pisatel, Moscow, 1960, p. 34.

    [14]Y. Y. Lansere, Ankara Yazı, Kaynak Publishing, Istanbul, October 2004, p. 91.

    [15]Irandust, Dvizhushie Sily Kemalistskoy Revolyutsii, Gosudarstvennoe Izdatelstvo, Moscow-Leningrad, 1928, pp. 67, 70.

    [16]M. P. Pavlovich, “Revolyutsionnaya Turtsiya”, Turtsiya v Borbe Za Nezavisimost, Nauchnaya Assotsiatsiya Vostokovedeniya Pri TsIK SSSR, Moscow, 1925, pp. 49, 63.

    [17]Y. A. Bagirov, Kurtuluş Savaşı Yıllarında Azerbaycan-Türkiye İlişkileri, Bilim Publishing, Istanbul, February 1979, p. 108.

    [18]Pls see I. G. Drogovoz, Turetskiy Marsh. Turtsiya v Ogne Srazheniy, Harvest, Minsk, 2007, pp. 319, 340.

    [19]State Archive of Political Parties and Social Movements of the Azerbaijan Republic, f 281, op. 1, d. 27, l. 116-117 (in Turkish). The Russian translation is in f. 28, op. 1, d. 68, l. 115b, 118.

    [20]For details pls see Betül Arslan, Türkiye Azerbaycan İlişkileri ve İbrahim Abilov (1920-1923),Kaynak Publishing, Istanbul, October 2004, p. 108 ff.

    [21]Pls see, Salahi Sonyel, Mustafa Kemal (Atatürk) ve Kurtuluş Savaşı, vol .1, TTK Publishing, Ankara, 2008, p. 171 ff; Salahi R. Sonyel, Kaygılı Yıllar, Remzi Publishing, November 2012, pp. 253 ff, 264 ff.

    [22]Pls see. Georgios Nakracas, Anadolu ve Rum Göçmenlerin Kökeni, Kitabevi Publishing, Istanbul, 2005, p. 70.

    Rate this (8 Votes)

    Related articles

    • Last week in Turkey: Greek-Egyptian maritime agreement, delegation in Lebanon, rise in TurkeyRecent events in Turkey went by full speed over the last week. The maritime border…
    • Last week in Turkey: Is Turkey shifting back into Washington’s axis?The Idlib crisis in Syria The martyrdom of 13 Turkish soldiers in two separate strikes…
    • Last week in Turkey: Rising political tensions between Turkey and SyriaConsidering Turkey’s conditions, for the first time in many years, we were having a calm…
  • The importance of post-coronavirus military deterrence / Mehmet Perinçek

    The importance of post-coronavirus military deterrence / Mehmet Perinçek

    Mehmet Perinçek

    Historian and political scientist (Turkey)

    Is the next World War coming? The importance of post-coronavirus military deterrence

    Mehmet Perinçek

    One of the most discussed questions in the world right now is what kind of a world awaits in the post-coronavirus era. We might also ask whether the changes in store can come about without a major global conflict.

    The End of Liberal-Globalist system

    Almost everyone agrees that the liberal-globalist system is now collapsing. This is agreed on not only by those who are willing to see the system go, but also by those who want to save it via state intervention.

    In terms of the economy, the era of “Laissez-faire, Laissez-passer” is over. In the fight against the coronavirus pandemic, countries with heavy state presence in the economy were successful, while countries with more liberal systems required centralized intervention. US President DOnald Trump had to threaten the Ford Company to comply with state measures, while the price of a practically worthless mask under normal market conditions shut up a hundred fold, putting people in a difficult situation. In broad strokes, the centralized economic system has proven itself to be a necessity.

    The “ideal” of a world without borders, is now over. After the Coronavirus pandemic, the boundaries between countries had to be redrawn with thick lines. Even French President Emmanul Macron said that the end of the Schengen Area is imminent for the EU. The Western centers are now explicitly stating that nation-states will rise in the coming era. On the other hand, these boundaries also mean the revival of customs barriers. The economics of national production and national self-sufficiency have become more important than anything else. Support and protection for domestic production has become a vital task in the process of the eradication of parasitic economics.

    Neoliberalism and individualist freedom has also come to an end. While the well-disciplined societies were successful in the fight against the pandemic, the “open society” has ended. At the same time, a strong, regulative and protectionist state model has become an absolute necessity. The importance of social solidarity has been revealed. It is well understood that this pandemic can not be overcome by individualism, and that the individual can not be safe without the rest of society being safe as well.

    In short, these changes are doubtless and pervasive. However, the specific intentions and the solutions are different: will the world hold on desperately to the collapsing structure or begin building a new one?

    The cause of the crisis is the system, not the Coronavirus

    It should be noted that the crisis of the system was not actually caused by the Coronavirus pandemic. The system, which is controlled by something akin to global mafia-cult relations, had long moved away from production, relying on private profits and trickery, where the most profitable industries were the arms market, finance and narcotics: a system already in chronic crisis. The pandemic has revealed contradictions while accelerating and deepening them. If it was not for the Coronavirus, the world would have faced a similar crisis eventually.

    Science, Enlightenment, Humanism and the Artificial Intelligence

    With all this in mind, humanism, science and enlightenment will be the rising values of the post-Coronavirus world. Of course, it is also important to add artificial intelligence to this list. It was already clear that artificial intelligence would play a major role in the future before the pandemic. However, quarantine implementations and obligations to maintain a physical distance has made artificial intelligence several times more important, in terms of ensuring the continuity of production and daily life with the least amount of losses and risks.

    Sides of a possible war

    There is another argument about the post-Coronavirus world: Is there a risk that this crisis which we are going through may lead to a world war? A nuclear war?

    In order to discuss the answer to this question, it is necessary to first discuss the possible sides of such a war and the balance of power between them. The possibilities are limited: one side will be the United States and the other will be Russia and China, either separately, or in a coalition.

    Results of war simulations

    We can look to war simulations of recent years in order to provide a database on the balance of power. Official or semi-official Atlantic centers frequently resort to such simulations. Particularly, the United States is comparing its armed forces with Russia and China. As it is reflected in the press, the results are not very hopeful for the United States. Especially when China and Russia are alongside each other, according to these simulations, the US has no chance of winning a potential war.

    Moreover, in simulations like these, military power is the sole basis of comparison, and factors such as patriotism and social cohesion are not taken into account, both of which are advantages for Eastern countries. Wars are not won only with guns, yet the US lags behind in that regard as well according to their own calculations.

    The strategy of splitting China and Russia has failed

    The United States is well aware that if China and Russia unite against it, they will not have a chance in any future war. Trump’s strategy to pull Russia away from China and to isolate Beijing, however, has come to nothing. As a matter of fact, Moscow and Beijing have become much closer to each other lately. We can even say that Russian-Chinese relations are in their political, economic, military golden age. The fight against the Coronavirus pandemic has also strengthened this cooperation.

    Therefore, we cannot expect the United States to wage a war without splitting China and Russia first. During the Cold War, there were some conditions favorable for the United States in this regard. The Atlantic front was in serious fear with the 1949 Chinese Revolution. A world in which the USSR and China are allies could have turned into a nightmare for the Western camp: something they used to call the Red-Yellow Scare.

    However, the Moscow-Beijing split (aside from the ideological disagreements, the USSR adopting an imperialistic character, the decay of the Soviet system and its shift away from socialism, etc.) was one of the main reasons behind the US victory of the Cold War. It is decisive whether a rivalry or a cooperation is dominating the Chinese-Russian relations in terms of the balance of power in the world. Today, cooperation is dominant, and this creates a significant plus on the Eurasian side.

    This is not just in terms of the military factors. We also need to put the world economy shifting towards the Pacific and the growth rate that China has achieved into account.

    The disintegration of the Atlantic camp

    That is not the only situation in terms of the balance of power. There is also a disintegration of the Western camp as well. Europe is now getting out of the grasp of the United States. However, during the Cold War, Russia and China were split apart, and Europe was grasped by the United States, or at least they were united against the “communist threat”.

     

    Now, Europe is on its way to become a separate pole of its own. NATO has lost its integrity, the perception of common threat has weakened: everyone in NATO is playing their own game, so to speak. Some member states were seen as an ally to some, and a threat to another. We looked at the details of this issue in our article titled, “NATO’s 70th anniversary: brain death has occured, is it time to pull the plug?”

    Deepening controversies in the West as a result of the pandemic

    On the other hand, the Coronavirus pandemic has deepened the crisis within the Western camp. In fact, the possibility of serious breaks are being discussed. It is certain that some important problems will pop up in the EU structure. Some even speak of a possibility of a total disintegration. The question of leaving the EU has already been raised in Italy. Germany ranks first on the list of most hated countries.

    With this, Western solidarity has turned out to be little more than a fairy tale. Even beyond that, the whole world has witnessed the Western countries shamelessly stealing other countries’ medical supplies. NATO has failed to respond to requests for help from member countries.

    In contrast to this, China and Russia have gained reputation for their aid to countries within the Western camp. In Italy, a NATO country, the Russian army has arrived as a medical group. Sympathies for Russia and China have increased in Italy and other countries.

    While the West steals from each other in a panic, Eurasia has shared, not only among itself, but even with the West. It has been recorded in the pages of history that a Russian military transport plane landed to bring aid to New York, despite being on Washginton’s sanctions list.

    The US will play an away game

    The United States is losing its collaborators within Eurasia, and even its allies in the West. It should be noted that the arena of a possible future world war will take place as an away game for the United States. Whether it would be West Asia, the Middle East or Central Asia, the United States would need military bases to settle in the region. As a result, Washington is likely to hit a wall.

    Different trends have begun to emerge within the historical allies of the United States in the region. Qatar is caught up with one trend, while Saudi Arabia has to take different equations into account etc. and this is without even mentioning Turkey, since it has already turned its course towards Eurasia. The United States is unlikely to find bases to wage a war in the region.

    The destroyed reputation of the US and the multipolar world

    In addition, the US, which has fallen into a decline with the coronavirus pandemic, has lost its international reputation as well. The hegemonic belief that the US is a country capable of everything has been destroyed. The number of dead from the pandemic in the US has surpassed even the numbers of the Vietnam War. The number of dead in socialist Vietnam today, on the other hand, is zero. Even American health care organizations themselves say that this data is far from being exaggerated. The US is losing against Vietnam once more. Moreover, the reaction towards the United States’ policies indicates that Washington has suffered a serious loss of reputation and is likely to suffer even more in the future.

    On a related note, the ultimatums of the US no longer work the way they used to. It is agreed upon that globalization, US hegemony and the unipolar world order, are coming to an end. At the same time, the forces of the coming multipolar world order are settling in more than ever before. These are important factors in debates around the possibility of a future world war.

    Weapons which will be pulled out in the United States itself

    Moreover, the United States is also on the edge of some important problems internally. Apart from the failure in the fight against Coronavirus, the United States is experiencing an intense loss of credibility. The increase in individual armament in the country in the face of the pandemic is worth noting. Arguments over wearing masks have already led people to begin shooting each other, while physical fights are ongoing in stores where toilet paper has run out… imagine what it will be like if food becomes scarce. In contrast to this, the biggest weapon of the Eurasian front is the social solidarity and the rise of national awareness.

    The pandemic had also deepened the conflict between the states themselves. The US is becoming more divided instead of uniting against the pandemic.

    This division peaked when President Trump came into power. Vulnerabilities are appearing within the public, between the states and in the relation between states and the federal government. We have been watching government institutions infight with increasing frequency over the past few years.

    Can Washington engage in a World War while it suffers contradictions domestically? In fact, Trump’s idea “to stop dealing with the outside world, and channel the energy and the power to solve the internal problems” was the most logical thing for the United States, but his program has proven difficult to implement.

    Experience of the World wars

    Another point is, when we look at the breaking point of previous world wars, we clearly see how many countries have been left behind or exploited by the imperialist system, while imperial powers desperately attempt to maintain this relationship. Germany’s role in both world wars was predicated on such motivations. Today, the US is the one on the decline, it is trying to maintain its order at any cost rather than allowing a new order to arise where it might not be on top. Its interests are more in favor of war than peace given what they have to lose.

    It is clear that the United States will not accept this decline, but the balance of power also prevents it from waging a world war. Regional wars and provocations will continue into the upcoming era, but a full-fledged war does not seem very likely.

    Is a nuclear war possible?

    In addition to all this, there is also the probability of a nuclear war. Let us evaluate it frankly. The US used the atomic bomb on Japan when it discovered this technology. However, back then, this technology was only in the hands of the United States, there was no other power to balance it out. That is where the US got its courage from. But when the USSR had developed its own atomic bomb in 1949, the likelihood of the use of the nuclear weapons was significantly reduced.

    Now the fact that this technology exists in many other countries has created a balance. The long-lasting destructive effects of the nuclear weapons and the fact that retaliation would be swift takes the nuclear option off the agenda. A well-balanced distribution of the nuclear weapons, or the abundance of some sort, ironically guarantee that they will not be used.

    Deterrence is essential

    There is little danger of a world war, but this should not lead to relaxation by Turkey or any other Eurasian countries in terms of military matters. Quite the opposite actually…  Aside from the regional conflicts, power is not only a means of winning a war, it is also one of the most important necessities to prevent a possible war. It is necessary to maintain a deterrent force. This is what actually prevents a rival from engaging in risky adventures that may lead the world to a disaster.

     

    Related articles

    • United World International  United World International is an independent analytical center, where politologists and experts in international…

    • Coronavirus, oil war, Turkish conflictCoronavirus By the end of the week, the number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the…

    • The world after coronavirus: the New Chinese CenturyAn increasing number of countries are imposing a state of emergency and announcing quarantine measures…

    • Coronavirus
    Mehmet Perinçek
    Historian and political scientist (Turkey)
    • ‘The Israeli government is the biggest, but also the most vulnerable!’ – Syrian political scientist
    • Last week in Turkey: the end of the coronavirus restrictions?
    • New government in Iraq, Instability in Libya, Failed ‘coup d’état’ in Venezuela
    • Strategic importance of Eastern Black Sea Basin
    • Operation Mediterranean Shield endures: protecting Turkey’s Blue Homeland

     

  • “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”

    “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”

    “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”

    Mehmet Perincek

    “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming” is the name of a comedy film (1966) that reflects the fear of Western people from the Soviet threat during the Cold War. The main point of the film is the mockery of Westerners’ panic at that time.

    It’s not known whether this fear of the USSR was justified or exaggerated–that is a topic for another article. However, today if they were to make a film, not a comedy, but a horror flick in Europe with the name “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming,” it wouldn’t be surprising.

    Yes, you read that right. Neither in the Middle East, nor in Russia, nor in China, nor in Venezuela or in Africa, but in Europe. Europeans’ fear of the United States and the attentive attitude of European capitals towards Washington is very clearly shown by recent polls and the semi-official European media.

    Let’s have a look at some examples over the past year:

    – Data from a controversial Pew Research Center study, which was published in February 2018, showed that the two allies, Germany and the USA, face the threat of separation. More than half of Germans (56%) described German-American relations as bad. And the common defense effort is considered urgent by only a small proportion of Germans (16%). (https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article174067166/Bilaterales-Verhaeltnis-Entfremdung-zwischen-Deutschland-und-den-USA.html)

    – The results of a public opinion poll conducted by the Allensbach Institute for the newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine on May 16, 2018 showed that the German population follows the course of the United States with growing concern. The U.S., which for decades has been the Germans’ most important and most reliable ally and friend, is suddenly becoming foreign, even threatening. The overwhelming majority have the impression that Europe and the United States are drifting apart; for decades this was the opinion of a minority in Germany; now 70% are convinced of it. German-American relations are perceived as profoundly disturbed. Just under two-thirds of the population ranked relations as good or very good three years ago; now it is only 20%; 71% consider German-American relations to be tense. At the same time, more and more Germans treat the United States as a state that is “ruthless” in pursuing its interests. Five years ago, 24% of respondents negatively assessed the influence of Washington on events in the world; in the beginning of 2018 – 54%. (https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/allensbach-umfrage-zeigt-entfremdung-deutscher-von-amerika-15593293.html)

    – The results of a Politbarometer poll, conducted by the research group “Elections” (Wahlen) from May 15 to 17, 2018 for the TV channel ZDF showed that according to 82% of respondents, the United States is not a trustworthy partner for Germany when it comes to political cooperation. Only 14% viewed the United States as a reliable partner. )

    – The German Der Spiegel of May 28, 2018 depicted the relationship of the Trump administration to Europe with this cover:

    “The Yankees Are Coming, the Yankees Are Coming”

    – A YouGov survey in July 2018, commissioned by the German Press Agency DPA, found 42% of respondents want U.S. troops out, while 37% want them to stay and 21% are undecided or didn’t answer. Nearly one in two Germans want U.S. troops to retreat. (https://www.stripes.com/news/poll-42-of-germans-want-us-troops-out-of-country-1.537230) According to a YouGov poll in June 2018, the majority of Germans (59%) and French people (51%) negatively evaluate the U.S.

    – A survey of 25 nations, conducted between May and August 2018 by the Pew Research Center, showed that America’s image continued to deteriorate in many countries during Trump’s first year in office, particularly in Europe. Only 30% of Germans have a favourable view of the United States, down five points from the previous year–the lowest score in the entire survey after Russi (26%). Only 38% of French said they had a positive view of the United States, down from last year. (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-image-survey/americas-image-worsens-under-trump-idUSKCN1MB3V9)

    – A representative study carried out by Atlantik-Brücke and Civey in Germany in November and December 2018 shows the dwindling confidence in transatlantic cooperation and the USA. In the representative survey of 5,000 people who attended the panel, 85% rated the relationship as negative or very negative. In addition, a significant part of the respondents believes that now China is a more reliable partner for the Federal Republic of Germany than the United States and that it is necessary to distance itself even more from American partners. (https://www.atlantik-bruecke.org/wp-content/uploads/AtlantikBrueckeUmfrage2019.pdf)

    – According to a poll conducted and published in February 2019 by the Pew Research Center, 49% of Germans (in 2013 — %9, in 2017 — 35%) and French (in 2013 — 20%, in 2017 — 36%) see the U.S.’s power and influence as a greater threat in 2018. )

    – The Security Report 2019 of the Center for Strategy and Higher Leadership, which was published in February 2019, shows that the Germans see the U.S. as the biggest threat to peace. “The Security Report 2019 clearly shows that there is a central factor of uncertainty among Germans that scares them. And that is the USA under the leadership of Donald Trump” said Professor Klaus Schweinsberg of the Center for Strategy and Higher Leadership. (https://www.sicherheitsreport.net/wp-content/uploads/PM_Sicherheitsreport_2019.pdf)

    The recent picture of the last Munich Conference confirms the above facts. Deutsche Welle, referring to the former president of Estonia and one of the old-timers of the Munich security conference Toomas Hendrik Ilves and the head of the Munich Conference Wolfgang Ischinger, writes the following:

    “‘The division lines between the Atlantic have become more rigid,’ the politician said in an interview with DW. The Munich Conference is, first of all, a demonstration of what is called the transatlantic partnership of the United States and Germany, as well as the United States and the European Union. But the partnership that developed after World War II was started to be questioning from the beginning of Donald Trump presidency. ‘The current administration has destroyed the basic trust in the United States,’ says Ilves. ‘It will have to be built in a new way.’

    Similar, although more restrained statements were made by the head of the Munich Conference, Wolfgang Ischinger. ‘If we called our conference ‘To the brink of the abyss and back,’ in previous years, it might be an exaggeration we would think, now, after many conversations, the majority of the participants say that there really is a problem,’ the former German diplomat said summing up the meeting.” (https://www.dw.com/ru/%D0%B3%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B5-%D0%B8%D1%82%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8-%D0%BC%D1%8E%D0%BD%D1%85%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B9-%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%BD%D1%84%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B5%D0%BD%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%B8-%D0%BF%D0%BE-%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B8/a-47556723)

    And the results of the conference are reported by Der Spiegel in the following way:

    “America does not lead, it retreats. Others are pushing into the vacuum left by Trump’s erratic ‘America First’ policy. China, Russia but also Iran. And the U.S. does not lead, they give instructions.” )

    As we can see from these examples, the whole world suffers from Washington’s aggression. It is not just Asia, Middle Eastern countries, Russia, China or Venezuela. The U.S. used to isolate other countries with its aggressive policies; now it’s isolating itself. It’s losing its closest allies. The reckless and barbaric aggression of the U.S. has been a problem for Europe too. The U.S. has no respect for its so-called allies Germany and France.

    In the film “The Russians Are Coming, the Russians Are Coming,” the main idea was expressed in the words of the sailor Alexei Kolchin, who told a local girl: “I do not want to hate.” But the whole world has begun to hate the American aggressors. Thus, restraints on the U.S. relieve everyone.

    Most popular

    Mar 4, 2019 1:00 am 13309

    The Western Assault on Innocent Life

    Mar 5, 2019 3:39 pm 11403

    Washington Post: Driver of Non-Checking Information. Part 1

    Mar 6, 2019 1:00 am 9630

    Washington Post: Driver of Non-Checking Information. Part 2

    Mar 6, 2019 5:19 am 7038

    More Than Half of Americans Say Trump Is Dishonest
    Author: Mehmet Perincek
  • The Manifesto of HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI

    The Manifesto of HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI

    Hovhannes Katchaznouni tasnak
    Hovhannes Kajaznuni, 1st Prime Minister of Armenia

    THE ARMENIAN REVOLUTIONARY FEDERATION (DASHNAGTZOUTIUN) HAS NOTHING TO DO ANYMORE The Manifesto of HOVHANNES KATCHAZNOUNI

    First Promne Minister of the Undependent Armenian Republic Property of the Turkish Forum -World Turkish Alliance

    The abridged pamphlet
    Translated from the Original by Matthew A. Callender
    Edited by John Roy Carlson (Arthur A. Derounian)
    Published by the Armenian Information Service
    Suite 7D, 471 Park Ave. New York 22 1955
    AND
    the omitted sections translated from the Turkish edition, Tasnak Partisi’nin Yapacagi Bir Sey Yok, Kaynak Yayinlari, Nov.2006, Istanbul
    By Lale Akalin 2006

    Translator’s Note to the present edition
    The report you are holding in your hands was delivered to the Dashnatziun Congress convened in Bucharest, in April 1923 by Hovhannes Katchaznouni, the first prime-minister of the Armenian Republic founded in 1918.
    The original report was naturally delivered in Armenian and was published in Armenian by the author himself. It was translated to Russian and published in Tiflis (Tbilisi), four years later, in 1927 under Soviet rule, with a rather critical introductory note attached to it. The English translation, an abridged edition, was
    published in 1955 by the “Armenian Information Service” in New York.
    What is remarkable is that this very interesting historical document shedding light over a controversial period of history written by a person who played a crucial role in the life of Armenia has not been included among the documents flying about in the air in relation to the Armenian question. Its copies were removed from the libraries in Europe by the Dashnagziun members. A Russian copy in the Lenin Library in Moscow has very recently been translated into Turkish. This Turkish translation was compared with the 1955 abridged English edition and the parts left out in the English edition were supplemented from the Turkish 2005 edition and translated into English in order to arrive at the present English translation.

    Download full report : https://www.turkishnews.com/tr/content/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Katchazuni-The-abridged-pamphlet.pdf

    Katchazuni- The abridged pamphlet

  • Turkish scientist’s book “Armenian issue in 120 documents of Russian state archives” presented in Moscow

    Turkish scientist’s book “Armenian issue in 120 documents of Russian state archives” presented in Moscow

    mehmet perincekMoscow. Farid Akbarov – APA. A presentation ceremony of the book “Armenian issue in 120 documents of Russian state archives” by Turkish scientist Mehmet Perincek was held at the Moscow’s Book Center, APA correspondent reports.

    The author gave detailed information about his book and said he worked with the Russian archives for almost 10 years to write this book.

    Perincek said the book denied “Armenian genocide” claims and explained some historic events, which were interpreted differently by the historians. “The Armenian issue and Armenians genocide claims are one of the controversial issues concerned Turkey and the world community recently. One of the important witnesses of the 1915-1923 events was tsarist Russia, then Soviet Russia alongside with Turkey and Armenian side as well. 120 original documents are saved in the Russian archives, which are open to everyone. Those documents were published in the book without any explanation and interpretation. These facts show that Armenian genocide claims are groundless. There were tragic events in that history committed by Turks and Armenians against each other and the imperialist powers, which intended to divide Turkey, had responsibility for those events”.

    Then the author answered the questions of journalists. Armenian journalists and representative of the Dashnaksutyun party tried to hinder the presentation ceremony with their improper replications and speeches, but couldn’t achieve their goals. The author answered the questions with discretion. He said if Armenia opens its archives to the historians, he will work there with pleasure.

    Mehmet Perincek was born in Istanbul on September 19, 1978. He graduated from the School of Law of Istanbul University and then continued his education in the post-graduate department of the Moscow Institute of International Relations. He researched a lot of materials of the Russian state archives, which proved the groundlessness of the Armenian claims against Turkey, and he published these materials in Turkey. Perincek is working now on his doctorate dissertation. He is a professor at the Istanbul University and senior fellow at the Institute of Ataturk Principles and History of Turkish Revolution.

    via APA – Turkish scientist’s book “Armenian issue in 120 documents of Russian state archives” presented in Moscow.

  • Russian archives prove the “genocide of Armenians” is international deceit

    Russian archives prove the “genocide of Armenians” is international deceit

    bookThe book titled “The Armenian question. In 120 documents from the Russian state archives”, denying the genocide of Armenians and throwing light on many historical events which are differently interpreted by various historians and pseudo-historians, was published in Moscow.

    The author of research which includes 120 original and unique documents from the state archives of Russia is the Turkish historian Mehmet Perinchek. In his work, M. Perinchek (since 1998) has collected important documents which are stored only in archives of Russia.

    The book states that the Armenian question and other directly connected statements on the genocide of Armenians stand recently among most disputable questions exciting in public minds of Turkey and the whole world. Along with the Turkish and Armenian sides, the major witness of events of the period of 1915-1923s there was imperial, and then the Soviet Russia. From this point of view, the Russian state archives contain such documents which are capable to play a considerable role in the cause of establishment of truth on disputable aspects in the Armenian question.

    The basic feature of documents is that “they clearly and conclusively prove that the genocide of Armenians is an international deceit”. The documents clearly prove that in 1915-1920s in region of Transcaucasia, Eastern Anatolia and the so-called Cilicia including regions of Adana and Marash, the Armenian units carried out the policy of annihilation of the Turkic population of Turkey and Azerbaijan, and also the Kurdish population”, the historian marks.

    Documents prove that the day before and after the First World War, during clashes both at level of the battling states and separate peoples, there were mutual slaughters. The author comes to several conclusions including such that responsibility for the war between the states and mutual slaughter between Armenians and Moslems lies on the western imperialists and imperial Russia.

    “Great powers, aspiring to divide territory of the Ottoman Empire, incited the radical, nationalist Armenian associations to war with Turks. The Ottoman State, the government and the Muslim population in this situation have taken military measures and, having suppressed revolts of the Armenian voluntary groups, have led fair war to protect their Motherland”, the author underlines.

    The book includes documents of the imperial period on living conditions of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, origin of the Armenian nationalism and its specificity, the mission assigned to them in the First World War, how the Turkish Armenians became helpers of plans of the imperialists, about the bloody and predatory policy of the Armenian voluntary units, etc. The archives of the Soviet period also provide with significant documents.

    The book will, undoubtedly, be serious argument in favor of unbiased interpretation and understanding of history concerning the notorious “Armenian question”.

    /AzerTAc/

    URL: http://www.today.az/news/politics/84552.html

    via Today.Az – Russian archives prove the “genocide of Armenians” is international deceit.