Greeks in Turkey

Elite Nationalism and Minority Politics in Late Ottoman and Early Republican Istanbul

Dimitris Kamouzis

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2020
• eBook ISBN:
  9781000332001
• Topic: Geschichte
• Subtopic: Geschichte des Nahen Ostens

This book provides a solid and critical historical examination of the endorsement, development and course of Greek nationalism among the lay/clerical leadership of the Greek Orthodox minority of Istanbul during the last phase of the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire and the first years of the newly established Republic of Turkey.

The focus is on the political role played by the ethnocentric communal elite, who actively championed the Greek nationalist plan of the Megali Idea (Great Idea). Based on a comparative investigation and synthesis of a wide array of Greek and British archival sources the book engages with the various stages of Constantinopolitan Greek elite nationalism in Turkey and partly in Greece, and examines its manifestations, its level of success and its consequences on the minority during the crucial period of 1918–1930. The main argument is that the internal dynamics, the policies and the responses of this powerful communal elite vis-à-vis other communal factions as well as Greek irredentism and Turkish nation-building conditioned to a significant degree the construction of specific representations and perceptions of the group's collective identity and determined the status of the Greeks of Istanbul as a national minority in Turkey until nowadays.

Providing a thorough analysis of elite politics during and in the aftermath of the Greek-Turkish War and assessing the application of the minority clauses of the Treaty of Lausanne (July 1923), the volume is a key resource for students and academics interested in nationalism and minorities, modern Greek history, Ottoman and Turkish history as well as for policy makers and specialists working in the diplomatic field, the Greek and Turkish public service, international institutions and non-governmental organizations.

Part I
Constantinople and Greater Greece (1918–1922)

1 The request of enosis with “Mother Greece”

Breaking ties with the Porte: the reemergence of the nationalists

In autumn 1918, the British forces were victorious throughout Mesopotamia, Palestine and Syria. General Sir Edmund Allenby’s successful campaign, combined with the disintegration of the Bulgarian Army at Thessaloniki, left no doubts to the Ottoman General Staff that their participation in World War I was coming to an end.¹ The definite defeat of the Ottoman Empire and the impending signing of an armistice provoked an effort on behalf of the ethnocentric Greek circles in Constantinople to overthrow Patriarch Germanos V. This attempt constituted one more phase in the ongoing fierce political struggle between the Ioakimists/nationals (ethnikoi) and the anti-Ioakimists/anti-nationals (antethnikoi), the two competing clerical/lay elite groups that had emerged within the Rum milleti in the summer of 1908.

The decision to remove Germanos from the patriarchal throne was made in September 1918 during a meeting at the house of Solon Kazanovas, a former National Councilor of the PNMC, with the participation of two equally important laymen, Stefanos Karatheodoris and Avrilios Spatharis, as well as the Metropolitans of Amasya, Germanos, and Ainou, Ioakim.² The former Metropolitan of Kaisareia Amvrosios, who was entrusted with the preparation of the whole plan, also contacted for this purpose the bishops residing in Constantinople and six Metropolitans who had been dismissed from the Holy Synod by Germanos V in 1917.³ After several meetings at the house of the Metropolitan of Smyrna Chrysostomos, who was exiled to Constantinople at the time,⁴ this “Ioakimist Clique,” as they were ironically called by their critics, decided to force Germanos to resign by publicly discrediting him as incapable, dishonest, corrupted and a traitor.⁵ A campaign against him based on financial scandals, initiated by Konstantinos Spanoudis’s newspaper Proodos (Πρόοδος) in 1917, had already damaged Germanos’s reputation.⁶

This campaign, combined with the public discontent regarding Germanos’s passive policy during World War I, paved the way for a movement against him. However, it was Germanos who provided his opponents with the opportunity to act. His lay councillors advised him to hold a memorial service for the Ottoman Greeks who had died or disappeared during the war and the violent displacements that had occurred in an effort to approach his alienated flock. Germanos and the Holy Synod approved the proposal, despite warnings of prelates close to the Patriarch, who feared that such a public commemoration would endanger his position. During the service of October 18, 1918, the opposition staged a demonstration against Germanos in the patriarchal temple. The Patriarch, following the advice of his court, withdrew to the Metropolis of Chalkedon in order to avoid any further complications and retain his position until the signing of the armistice.⁷

Both Germanos and the opposition were aware of the fact that a change of Patriarch would not be accepted by the Greek government once the armistice was signed. In fact, the Greek Embassy in Constantinople had received a telegram from Greek Prime Minister Eleftherios Venizelos addressed to the Patriarchate, in which he strongly advised the Metropolitans and the National Councillors not to proceed with the overthrowing of Germanos because it was necessary to demonstrate to the allied troops entering Constantinople that the people were united and rallied around their Patriarch.⁸

Germanos’s withdrawal to Chalkedon forced the opposition to take some radical measures. They signed a protocol outlining their decisions and sent a committee composed of two members of the Holy Synod, the Metropolitans of Kaisareia Nikolaos and Philadelphia Chrysostomos to convince Germanos to resign, or they would proceed with his official ecclesiastical dismissal. This action was avoided due to the Metropolitan of Bursa Dorotheos Mammelis, who managed to persuade Germanos to leave office, arguing that a dismissal would be an ignominious penalty and a disgraceful end for any prelate, especially the Patriarch. Unable to withstand the pressure, Germanos officially stepped down on October 25, 1918, and Dorotheos was elected Locum Tenens of the Ecumenical Throne.⁹

Following Dorotheos’s election, the return of the nationalists to power was thorough and rapid. On October 30, 1918, he communicated an encyclical to the Metropolitans of the Ecumenical Throne, notifying them that, in 40 days, the election of a new Patriarch would take place, according to the National Regulations. However, taking into consideration the objections of Venizelos’s government, which preferred the patriarchal election to take place after the signing of the peace treaty, the PNMC and the Holy Synod decided to postpone the election for a later date.¹⁰ After that, Dorotheos began to apply the decisions outlined in the protocol. Among the bishops’ demands was the replacement of two members of the Holy Synod and all the National Councillors of the PNMC as well as the return of the clerics of the patriarchal court who had been removed under Germanos’s patriarchate. The two prelates were replaced by the Metropolitans of Vizyis Anthimos and Ainou Ioakim, who had been members of the SC. Furthermore, all the dismissed clerics were reinstated and promoted to higher posts.¹¹

On October 30, 1918, elections for a new PNMC were announced in a patriarchal encyclical.¹² Solon Kazanovas, Stefanos Karatheodoris, Avrilios Spatharis and Alexandros Kioseoglou, who had participated in the movement against Germanos, were among the lay members elected in the PNMC, along with Alexandros Pappas, Ioannis Chatzopoulos, Christos Charalambidis and G. Adosidis.¹³ Almost all of them had been Ioakimists, had served in the PNMC under Ioakim III and had been members of the SC.¹⁴

The leadership of the community, convinced that the post-war political context provided the conditions for the implementation of a full-scale nationalist program, showed no sign of moderation. Realizing that the empire was collapsing, they grasped the opportunity to fulfill their nationalist aspirations and became determined to sever the community’s ties with the Ottoman past and openly express their alignment with Venizelos’s Greece. Throughout this period, Venizelos was widely represented by his followers – both in the Ottoman Empire and in Greece – as the charismatic Archigos (Αρχηγός, Leader) of the nation: The exemplification of the Greek golden age. He was worshipped as a national “messiah” with extraordinary powers, the only man able to liberate the “unredeemed Greeks” and realize the vision of “Greater Greece.”¹⁵

The Patriarchate had no other choice but to endorse the ideas of the laymen and support Greek irredentism. The dissolution of the empire meant that its control over the Greek Orthodox people could not be guaranteed any longer by its incorporation into the Ottoman establishment. As a result, the Patriarchate approached the only political entity that allowed it to retain its power over its flock and legitimize its position as the authority of the Ottoman Greeks, the Greek state.¹⁶ Thus, on November 28, 1918, a patriarchal encyclical was issued, announcing the elections for new communal councils in an effort to completely replace the old establishment with one that would champion the Greek irredentist plan of the Megali Idea.¹⁷

Alienated by the nationalizing measures of the Committee of Union and Progress, and disillusioned by the compliant policies of the previous clerical/lay leadership, the popular masses also identified with Eleftherios Venizelos and Greek nationalism. The first evidence of public support was the immediate and impulsive affection shown to the representatives of the Greek state after the signing of the armistice. When the allied fleet entered the Bosphorus on November 13, 1918, the Rum welcomed them as liberators. The famous Constantinopolitan Greek author George Theotokas, who had been a teenager during the allied occupation, described the ambiance in the city as follows:

At the windows there were three or four Greek flags waving. His ear took in various details of the events: “Yesterday the armistice was signed. The fleets were passing through the Dardanelles this morning. They’re on the way. And the Greek fleet with them!” […] Leonis went down to Straight Street. It was decked with flags from one end to the other: English flags, French, Italian, and especially Greek. The windows and balconies were crowded with people. The street looked as if a demonstration was under way. Traffic was at a standstill. They were all dragging one another about and bustling around helter skelter. […] Everyone had become brothers and sisters, and they...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of figures
• List of maps
• List of tables
• Acknowledgments
• List of abbreviations
• Introduction
• Part I Constantinople and Greater Greece (1918–1922)
• Part II Istanbul and the Republic of Turkey (1922–1930)
• Conclusion
• Bibliography
• Index