US Congress lobbies for the return of the marbles of Parthenon to Greece.

[Bereta_Eder]

And I wonder how much money you have given to the IRA... since you said you support it.

[Faeelin]

Hmm. According to this boo k on the Ottomans, "the hellenic message was spread by the Greek merchant communities through the capitals of Western Europe and Russia... rich expatriates, especially in Russia, came foward with substantial contributions, while young men, not only fom Europe but from America, volunteered, often in defiance of their own governments, to fight for the Greek cause... The greek revolution was "a war got up by poets and stock-jobbers for the benefit of Russia."

At first, Paik, you're right then. There was no British intervention at this point but.

"Residh Pasha embarked on a long siege of Athens, whose acropolis, folllowing an aborted attempt by Lord Cochrane to relieve it, fell to the Turks oin June, 1827. This... seemed to signal the end of the War of Independence."

So we have a man with the name of a high british lord ( in addition to lord bryon) leading a greek military force.

However...

"But it was not the end. For the time had come at last, after six years of bloodshed, for the powers of Europe to intervene... The Russians had proved msot active in their pressure against the Turks. The Austrians... favoured th supression of the rebels [and] the British and French feared the consequences of a new Russo-Turkish war. French and British naval forces in the Mediterranean saw those of the Greeks as an insurance against piracy."

Okay, I'll sum up what happens next. The Russians and Brits agree that the Greeks deserve autonomy, but the Ottoman sultan refuses. Here's what happens (in the bay of Navarino)

"an Egyptian ship fired on an open boat carrying the delegates. The French flagship at once retaliated with rifle fire, and a major naval engagement sinveitably followed. In this Ibrahim's fleet was all but annihilated. I twas the worst naval disaster to befall the Empire since Lepanto.
....

"The English secured an undertaking from Mehmed Ali to withdraw Ibrahim's forces"

Then the Russians invade (surprise) and that war ends in 1830, and finally...


"When it came to Greece, from which the Turkish forces had now been withdrawn, the Sultan was obliged to accept the terms... of the Treaty of London... this meant the acceptance of a Greek state, no longer subject to his sovereignty but entirely independent."

So, we have:
British support, after the victory by the Ottomans seemed assured, for Greek self-recognition

The British navy smashing the Ottoman navy up, with the help of the French and Russians.

And the Treaty of London, which finally assured Greek independence. Although to bbe fair, Greece didn't get all it wanted, as the Europeans didn't want to see Russia strengthened by the empire's total collapse.

Edit: Information provided by The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire, by Lord Kinross.

[Bereta_Eder]

You are just verifying everything I said.

BTW the battle of Navarino, in which the Russians were the ones who did most of the work apart from the Greek ships, totally crushed the turkish fleet.

[Bereta_Eder]

Plus there was a big Pro-Greek feeling in most of western Europe. France, Britain, even Russia and Germany and the US at that time.

There are many men of the arts which actually took arms together with the Greeks against the Turks. Men who died with Greeks in the battle for freedom.

But this doesnt change that real politik reigned supreme and philellinism didnt actually replaced the national interests of each of the big powers.

[Alex]

Yes, I know that many things that can be found in museums all over the world were stolen, and the Parthenon marbles are no exception to that rule. That is why I say it is a matter of respect and decency: "here, take these marbles back, we are truly sorry for what happened and we recognize your right to own these pieces."

But then it would mean two things: that the British would be admitting that they stole the marbles and that their collection would be claimed by 47 different countries.

[The Pioneer]

Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"Actually at first they dismissed the Greek revolution as a "devilish ploy". Later on they acknowledged Greek independence since Greeks were winning and it served their interests."

Britain intervened because of liberal sentiments. British intervention saved your country! Although I am sure had the Great Powers really understood how bad the Greek people are they would have intervened on the Ottoman side and let you people suffer.

"And I thought it was also the other way around."

And you were dead wrong. The combined efforts of the USA, UK, and USSR stopped fascist power in Europe. Heck, Britain has done so much for Greece you should have a "We love Britain!" day where you all salute the British flag and sing "God save the Queen!"

But, no, you are so incredibly right-wing you probably thought it was bad that the fascists lost in WWII.

People should learn their history before they post.

Epsecially people that really know crap about world history and geography!

[Bereta_Eder]

In short, the "Big Powers" intervened after 6 years of Greek fighting when the Turks where chased away from Greece.

The recognision of the Greek independence was the recognision of a fait accompli, something which was already done. In the beggining all the Big powers characterized Greek revolution as "a devilish act"

Also later on, bare in mind that the "Big Powers" curtailed Greek expansion twice towards the Greeks that were still living under Ottoman rule in Asia Minor.

It is all about interests.

Perhaps the most pure expression of love towards Greece were the Phillelines, people from other countries than Greece, who participated in the revolution and actually gave their own life along Greeks.

These were secluded persons, privates though. Which are always remembered and honoured.

And maybe even most importantly they were men of the letters.

A lesson for all the "couch intellectuals" out there

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by paiktis22


Britain did not intervened untill Greeks had already declaired their intependence and the Turks were beaten. It was in Britain's best interest to support the Greeks against the Ottoman empire.

I think we disproved that, didn't we? What with Athens in Ottoman hands, the Greeks were viewed by outside powers as over

Although at the beggining we indeed did fight them. Every revolution was automatically deemed as "devilish" after Napoleon. The same with the Greek revolution.

Actually, the British had had supported from Europe since almost immediately after the end of the napoleonic wars. And, BTW, the revolution of Greece didn't really start until 1821.

And Greece defeating Italy and forcing Germany to send myriads of troops permitted the Russians to catch the Nazis in the winter. Your point?

The nazis were, correct, bogged down in mud in the february and even march of '42. Had they invaded Russia at that point, why would the outcome have been different in '41?

Turkey didnt even fight.

Only because they couldn't figure out which side to roll over for.

Your betrayl of democracy in the most grottesque way in militarey regime Turkey says all about your dedication to freedom anyway.

As opposed, to, say, severing diplomatic relations with nondemocracies?

Shall I point out the fact that European nations (France, for instance) have had dealing with Saddam in weapons since the sanctions?

I'm not going to, since that's not the point at hand.

You're so anti-Greek it's actually amuzing to toy with you.

Are modern greeks descended from ancient greeks? I thought modern ones were slavs.

[Bereta_Eder]

Faeelin, you thought wrong.

I'm sorry but these questions have been answered adequately in other threads.

As for your prior statements I direct you to the previous posts.

[Faeelin]

No, you see, you're failing to listen to the fact that the western powers intervened after the ottoman general had taken Athens.

Yes, it was for realpolitik, but if you're saying that it was fait accompli when the rebel capital was in enemy hands, you're very, very, mistaken.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Faeelin
The nazis were, correct, bogged down in mud in the february and even march of '42. Had they invaded Russia at that point, why would the outcome have been different in '41?

The only one not answered is this.

It would have been different because the nazis would have had to fight the Russians in the harsh winter.

[Bereta_Eder]

Originally posted by Faeelin
No, you see, you're failing to listen to the fact that the western powers intervened after the ottoman general had taken Athens.

Yes, it was for realpolitik, but if you're saying that it was fait accompli when the rebel capital was in enemy hands, you're very, very, mistaken.

I would like to see a link for that statement.

Waiting for that, following your reasoning, you are very wrong. With Greece in Greek hands, the "capital" would be conquered in no time, don't you think so?


You also failed to notice that the Greek capital at that time was nayplio in the Peloponese. Greeks were pushing upwards towards Central and Northern Greece.

[Bereta_Eder]

Also, about WW2, I think that no other "small" country fought as succesfully as Greece did against two big European countries. This is something that is taken for granted now, but it bears repeating.

[Inverse Icarus]

yea. sure. you can have the marbles. go lobbyists.

and stuff.

[Bereta_Eder]

BTW might I ask what is your interest in Greece? Together with Shi you are the most anti-Greek (yes both modern Greeks and their ancestors the ancient Greeks ) posters here.

Just curious.