ΠΥΛΗ ΚΑΤΑΝΟΥ
Turanids the origin of Turks
In order to study the Turanids, we must examine the relations between the Europids and Mongoloids of Asia, since the Turanids are people of mixed Europidic – Mongoloid origin.
In the pre-historic period there was, on the one hand, a Caucasian racial centre in the area of Caucasia (ancestral of the Dinaric and Armenoid race), and on the other, an Alpine substratum in Russia-Ukraine. During that period a massive infiltration of the Aryan Mediterranean race occurred in Russia, and also a Caucasian racial extension to the west and east (Siberia, Uzbekistan). The Mongoloid were still confined to China. The Russian anthropologist Alekseev writes that “the borders between the main European and Mongoloid populations were not the same as the modern ones. Not only the Caucasus, but also the whole of Soviet central Asia and the south Siberian steppe belonged then to the European area”. However, even from that time some face flatness is detected in Russia, which seems to indicate that there was in the Paleolithic period a mixture with the Mongoloids. The nasomalar index was 142, the zygomaxilliar index was 131-133 etc. In south east Russia the nasomalar index was 140-142, the simotic index 40-45, and the angle of the nasal bones 21-26 degrees.
Clearly, though, in the Neolithic period and the Bronze Age that followed, there is the distinct presence of a “northern-caucasic "race in Russia and eastern Caspian. Named “paleo-European” by Alekseev, this race has large facial dimensions and cranial height. Zygomatic width was more than 138, facial height 69-77, and cranial heights more than 140. No Mongoloid elements are detected. (The rhombic index is larger than 73).
Mongoloid movement to the west began in the Iron Age (that is, after the weakening of the Caucasian centre by the emigration of its population). Generally, it seems that the Europides retreated, followed everywhere in Siberia by the Mongoloid and by brachycranic Europide-Mongoloid-the first Turanids. Alekseev notes that “the Europides now returned to the west and the Mongoloid conqueror followed the deserted areas. This was the first event of the new geographical direction in the ethnogenetic process during the Iron Age. The second event was the spread of a very gracil and leptoprosopic European race with Mediterranean characteristics in the Caucasus area and partly in Central Asia”. That is, the Aryans spread both to the north and northeast.
At the end of the second millennium the Mongoloid-Turanians spread to the west to Siberia, while in the south there was reversely a strengthening of the Mediterranean-Orientals in the area of the Caucasus and Uzbekistan. Cemeteries also exhibit (such as that of Samtavro) small cranial heights (131-4) and zygomatic widths of 133-8, which indicate a Mediterranean mix. In the whole of the Caucasus there is leptoprosopy, but with absolute face sizes bigger than the Mediterraneans. Thus, Turanism was a phenomenon that started in the southern Siberian zone, north of Aral Lake.
However, the Scythians and the Cimmerians, probably pushed by the Turanids, moved then to the south via Caucasus. They were the “Proto-Iranian”, slightly Turanized, who established Vactria and Parthia. It was at that time that the Persians came to their new country by conquering the Medes.
The Iranian languages that those conquerors spoke survive today not only in Persia but also in the Kurds, Tajiks, and Pamir. Thus the Proto-Iranians were racially Northern Caucasian, but they hardly influenced that oriental country. Moreover, from a racial point of view, the Medes survived in the Kurdish people, but mainly in the Azerians. In that ancient time there was a Caucasian racial centre in the area of Georgia, though, with a clear infiltration of the Mediterranean’s: cranial height 136, cranial length 177, index H/L=76.8, facial height 70.2, and zygomatics width 129.2 (Proto-middle Age cemetery of Cherkesia). In Armenia, the “Armenoid” race prevailed: cranial height 137, cranial length 175.e, index H/L= 78.2, facial height 69, zygomatic width 130.5 (cemetery of Garni). Today the Armenians have an H/L index between 76 and 79.3. In the area of Azerbaijan the Mediterranean presence was more obvious from that time: index H/L about 76, slightly broader faces (index 52).
Today, based on Alekseev’s evidence, the Azerians have a cranial index H/L=74 (orthocrany), index B/L just 79.5 (that is, mesocephaly), but the nasal index (on sculls) is below 47. These elements certify the Mediterranean structure of the Azerians with the Armenoid participation.
A similar situation occurs today in Georgia, where the index H/L is 75.5 orthocrany), the index B/L is 83.2 (brachycephaly), and the nasal index (on skulls) is below 45. The Armenoid participation is clearer here.
In Armenia, the classic armenoid race is retained with an index of H/L= 78 (hypsicrany), B/L is 86.1 (hyper-brachycephaly), the nasal index on sculls 47. Moreover, 53 % of the Armenian population has a hooked nose, while in Georgia and Azerbaijan it is about 35%.
On living subjects the nasal index of the Armenoid is not so hyper-leptorrhinic, because they have a thick fleshy width. The index is 65-66. The index 61-62 referred to by Alekseev and Koumaris in the Armenians is not comparable because the nasal height is not measured from the nasion, but from the lower side of the eyebrows.
Curiously the Azerians have accepted the Turkish language; one would expect that they would have also received a Turanian influence, something, however, that did not happen. In order to study the Turanism of the Azerians and the other people of the area, we must first give the suitable characteristic anthropometric elements. These elements have absolutely nothing to do with those that we have used so far to distinguish the European races. The elements which reveal Turanism, that is, the mixture with Mongoloids, are absolutely different.
The Mongoloids have the characteristic epicanthus in the eyes. They have straight, brittle hair, due to their round profile-in contrast to the Europides who have hair with an elliptical profile. They also have a scarce beard: in the fifth degree of Bunak’s scale, the beard growth in the Mongoloids is about 1, while in the Turanians it reaches 3.5 degrees. Their face profile is flat, which means that the horizontal section of the face gives a very obtuse angle. Concerning the flatness of the face, which is graded on a three degree scale, The Mongoloids register about 1 degree; by greater degrees, until 2.2, are indicated the Turanism of a people. Moreover, the Mongoloid (and to a lesser degree the Turanians) have a large facial width with developed zygomatic, low nasal root, a high percentage of blood group B, while in the infants, the so-called “Mongoloid spot” appears (that is, a blue spot in the buttock area of the skin).
In paleoanthropology, when we study skulls, the characteristics of the Turanians are detected in a series of measurements:
a) The nasomalar angle exceeds 140 degrees. When this angle is large, the eyes appear to be high on the face. (With the nasion as a top and edges the external points of the orbita, that is, the angle fmo-n-fmo).
b) The zygomaxilliar angle exceeds 127 degrees. (With the lower zm of the zygomatics bones, that is the angle zm-n-zm).
c) The angle of the nasal bones (n-rhi) is less than 30 degrees (the Mongoloids have a flat nasal root. To estimate the chamerrhiny, the Japanese anthropologist, H. Suzuki, uses another index the quotient of the width of the nasal bones (mf-mf) by the length of the arch which they form).
d) The indexes called “darkyal” (d-d) and “simotic” are less than 52 and 50 respectively.
e) The index of the forehead width (ft-ft) to the zygomatics width (zy-zy), which we call rhombic (because the face has a rhombus shape) is less than 71. This index, which in the Mongoloids is 64-65, exceeds 72 in the Armenoids, in the Mediterraneans 75-77 and in the Nordics 78-80.
Starting from the Altai Plateau the Mongoloid moved slowly to the west to Siberia, making the Europidic populations Turanic. Ethnologically, the Turanians who were created were called Turks; they had, though, several different names. The fist Turkish people who appeared in the third century were the Huns who moved later on through southern Siberia to the west (Kazakstan, northern Caucasus). Alekseev writes that “this Mongoloid invasion did not affect the people. Evidently the local populations had absolutely no contact with the conquerors”. In the fifth century the Huns moved to Europe to Europe, under Attila spread terror everywhere until were defeated and retreated to the east. The Avars appeared in the sixth century pushing the Slavs and the Hellenes, but they were pushed back to Hungary’s Pannonia, while the Koumans settled in the area of the Volga. After the eight century the Chazars prevailed in northern Caspia, but their rule was more political than ethnological. In the ninth century those Koumans who were in the south invaded northern Thrace. They were few in number, however, and were easily absorbed by the population there, and were linguistically absorbed by the Slavs (modern Bulgaria). The Magyars, even though they mixed with the Europides, invaded Hungary and linguistically make the population Turkish there. The first primitive Turkish state was established in the seventh century in Mongolia which affected culturally and anthropologically Kirghizia and Kazakhstan, while the populations of southern Siberia were linguistically made Turkish.
The name Turanids refers to the racial mix between the Mongoloids and the Caucasians either the northern Caucasian race or the Armenoid. In North West Russia there are Turanids from a mixture with the Baltic race, and in Uzbekistan from a mixture with the Mediterraneans. Thus, the Turanids, who are ethnologically known as Turks, have never had an ethnological homogeneity. “The people of the Turkish homoglossy and morphologically the most inhomogeneous of all language families of the (former) Soviet Union. Generally, however according to Bunak’s description, they are brachycephalic up to hyper-brachycephalic, with dark eyes, large facial width (143-145) and height (126-130), facial flatness (grading up to 2.20), and small growth of beard (grading up to 3.50). The Mongols themselves, who reside north of China, constitute the stock with the largest face in the world. Their facial height on skulls is 77-79 and the zygomatic breadth is 138-142 (Suzuki).
Atila Hun
Moreover, depending on the occasion, they present the previously mentioned somatoscopic and anthropometric characteristics (epicanthus, small rhombic index, straight brittle hair, etc.). Alekseev writes that “the Turkish nation was formed in Central Asia as a Europidic-Mongoloid mix. The remains in cemeteries in Central Asia dating from the Middle Ages reveal brachycrany, broad faces, a small protrusion of the nasal bones, and more or less flat faces”.
The Turanids, strengthening continuously their position, tried in the Middle Ages and onwards to infiltrate Europe. They had two routes at their disposal. The first route to Eastern Europe, open from a geographical view, stumbled at the resistance of the Slavs, the Byzantine State, and the Germans. The second, through Afghanistan and Persia, brought them to Asia Minor after they had conquered the Caucasus.
Known as Seljuks, they managed to make Afghanistan and Azerbaijan linguistically Turkish, but not Armenia and Georgia. From a racial perspective the Turkish influence in Caucasus was short-lived and insignificant. In Georgia in the fifth century we note an increase of the nasomalar index to 139, in the tenth century to 140, and in the fifteenth century to 143; In the eighteenth century it fell to 138. Today it is 136,8. The rhombic index respectively fell from 73 to 70-71 to rise again in the eighteenth century to 72-73.
Bunak writes that “when the Azerians were made Turkish linguistically, it did not result in the destruction of their ethnogenetic continuity”. In Azerbaijan, the rhombic index of the conquerors reached 66. In the people, later on, the index wavers between 71-72; thus, one can suggest that the Azerians, despite the fact that they became Turkish speaking were hardly influenced by the Turanians. They have today a nasomalar index of 137, a nasal bone angle of 40, simotic index 62, and dakryal 71, and exhibit a facial profile of 2.34, a beard growth of 3.62, facial width only 138.5, and a complete lack of epicanthus.
The Armenians, on the other hand, do not exhibit any Turanic influence. Nasomalar 136.5, nasal bones 34, simotic index 55, dakryal 64, rhombic 72.5 facial profile 2.80, beard 3.66.
Not all of the Turanids spoke Turkish. Some of them, mainly the Alanians, spoke Iranian, a language that they brought to northern Georgia. But as I have mentioned, only a few Turanian elements have survived in Georgia.
Thus, the Turanids, through Persia and the Caucasus, entered Asia Minor where they violently converted people to Islam and mixed with the Armenian and Mediterranean population there. Having strengthened gradually their position they began to harass the Byzantine Empire. The Turkish transformation of Siberia and the southern countries continued during the Middle Ages. In the thirteenth century the Tatars (Turkish mob, mainly Koumans) under Genghis Khan dominated everywhere. The Tatars tormented Eastern Europe for 250 years and were finally divided into three States, the Tatars of Crimea, the Astrakhans in the Volga estuary and the Kazakhs to the east. In the sixteenth century they were subjugated to the Russians of Ivan the Terrible. The Tatars of Volga have even today a reduced beard growth (1.59-2.10 degrees) and an increased facial leveling (2 degrees and bellow) which prove their Turanic descent.
The Uzbeks and the Turkmen belong to the Turanids who had also accepted Turkish. The Uzbeks have a beard growth 3.22, rhombic index 70-71 and an epicanthus percentage of 6%. The Turkmen have a beard of only 2.49, facial profile 1.77, rhombic index 70-72 and epicanthus of 25%.
The Kazakhs and the Kirghizians are even more Turanic. The Muslim religion, which spread to all the Turkish people of Asia, contributed to their unified ethnological structure. Thus, the Azerians now belong to the Turkish people, even though from a racial point of view they are not more Turanic than the Georgians who do not speak Turkish and are not Muslim.
After the break up of the Soviet Union in 1991, within the ethnic groups that found their independence are all those Turkish people who extend from Mongolia to the Caucasus. They ceased to obey Soviet politics (in actuality Russian politics) and acquired their own voice. A voice, however, that could be turned in later on to unified Turkish politics, like an Asiatic ram to Europe-Turkey of Asia Minor as the flank. This is the danger of what I call “Turanism”.
Uyghur from Sinkkiang Autonomous Region. East Turkistan
Kazakh people Turkman tribe
Kirghiz girl
Uyghur man in China. East Turkistan
Tatar Bashkir
Azeri boy Azerybayjan. The Azeris speak Turkish but ethnologically are of Caucasian stock.
Asia Minor
The Turanid infiltration of Asia Minor was not great in number, thus not enough to make Turanian the racial structure of the area. Asia Minor, where earlier on the Armenoid (east) and the Mediterranean (west) races cohabited, suffered a relative Turanization mainly on its eastern or Armenoid side. The Turks, exploiting the religious fanaticism of the Middle Ages and the inability of the Byzantine Empire to destroy them, managed between the eleventh and the fifteenth centuries to convert the greater part of Asia Minor to Islam and impose their language. In the fourteenth century Tamerlane created his enormous empire which spanned from India to the Aegean. This empire did not expand to Europe, but facilitated, however, the creation of a unified Turkish ethnicity among the Turanian peoples. Later, the disintegration of the Byzantine Empire and the fall of Constantinople constituted the greatest defeat in the history of Hellenism.
Given that the Turks of Turanid origin who invaded Asia Minor were few-compared to the large population of the area-and that some centuries later the greatest part of the population was Muslim, then one can estimate the extent of Islamic conversions. Even from the thirteenth century those inhabitants of Asia Minor who embraced Islam were known as Gulam and rapidly increased, mainly among the Armenoid population. After the fall of Constantinople, the terror, the hardships, the disappointment, and the violence forced most of the people to change their faith. Thus, the great Ottoman state was established, mainly from Islam-converted populations of Asia Minor.
Moreover, the high biological quality of the Hellenic children gave the Turks the horrific idea of kidnapping masses of Hellenic children; from these kidnappings the Jews and Armenians were excluded. Mass kidnappings started in Asia Minor and northern Hellas in the fourteenth century and intensified after the fall of Constantinople in the rest of Hellas; it ended in 1705 after Naoussa declared guerilla warfare against this crime-and because of the reaction of the Turks themselves, who envied the offices of the “faithless janissary”. The four centuries of mass kidnapping cost a large blood tax to Hellenism. Paparigopoulos estimates it to one million people, but the Turkish scientist Halil raises the number to five million, including Asia Minor. Even though the janissaries did not have the right to marry until the sixteenth century, Halil believes that the racial alienation of the Turkish people was big due to this reason.
The influx of Hellenic blood in the Turkish people led many deluded Hellenes during the Turkish occupation to believe that the Turks and the Hellenes could create a unified nation. In the seventeenth century, the famous scholar and monk Damaskinos of Athens used to say to the French travelers in Hellas that “the value of the Hellenic nation was not destroyed. Are not the soldiers who still fight against your armies and who enslave your counties Hellenes? Because you cannot deny the fact that the elite of the Ottoman army consists of Hellenes who were stolen form us, as a tax, the name of Janissary, however, cannot exclude the right of Hellenic descent, nor does it destroy the national force. We have almost the same blood with the Turks and the two people form one nation. And if God wills for the Turks to embrace Christianity, and thus eliminate the difference of religion that exists between us, from which difference in our morals and customs, then we could say with conviction that the emperor of the Hellenes is already more powerful than the former emperor of Byzantium”. Of course, the difference between the nations is not only a difference of religions-I wish that the things were so simple. Hellenic blood mixed with the Turkish cannot retain its pure Hellenic qualities.
There were indeed many “hidden-Christians” and “hidden-Hellenes” in Turkey even up until the present. As Landau notes, “for many people there the word “Turk” had a somewhat derogatory meaning, and for this reason some intellectuals preferred a form of Ottoman nationalism”. Even today old Hellenic myths and customs-even the myth of the “red apple tree”-survive in the Turks. According to this myth, Greeks will some day push the Turks to the depths of Asia Minor to a mythical place called the “red apple tree”.
The Turkish people emerged in the Middle Ages as a consequence of the religious fanaticism of the invading Turanians and the violent Islamization of basically the Armenoid but also the Hellenic populations. Near the shores of the Aegean, the population was basically racially Mediterranean, while to the east in Anatolia, the Armenoid race dominated; the Turanid characteristics are also obvious there. The Armenoids, who from the time of Alexander the Great had adopted the Greek language, have now become Turks. The Turanian infiltration of Asia Minor should not consider racially negligible as many people believe. In the beginning they may have invaded only the Koumides, known as the Seljuks, but in the following centuries, as Kuendig-Steiner asserts, there was a continuous flow to the Ottoman state of Tatars, Cirscassians, et al. Along with the Turanians new Armenoids were converted to Islam following the Turkish invasion of the Caucasus. The German professor of anthropology Bernhard accepts that “only 15-20% of the Turkish-speaking population of Asia Minor is believed to have come from the conquerors who had invaded that area ay the beginning of the second millennium”. This percentage, however, is not at all insignificant. X. Liva’s position that only 4,000 Seljuks conquered Hellenic Asia Minor who has changed the religion but not the racial structure of the country.
In this way, the population structure of Asia Minor changed significantly. If we exclude the coast where Mediterranean Hellenism continued to dominate, the rest of the country was dominated by the Islamic Armenoids who had also a relative Turanian admixture. Particularly after 1922, when Hellenism was torn from its primordial Ionic country, no one can speak of a high percentage of Mediterraneans in Asia Minor.
The Armenoid structure of the Turkish people of Asia Minor is proved by a series of anthropological data which derives from Turkish research conducted before World War II (under Kemal).
-
In terms of blood group, the Turks are certain differentiated from the Mediterraneans in the system ABO. They have a percentage of r (that is, group O) just 56%, much lower than the Hellenic (64%) and closer to the typical Armenoid percentage 49. Respectively, the percentage of q (group B) is 12.5-15%, which shows an oriental influence (in Hellas it is 8-10.5%. In Cyprus, the Turkish Cypriots and the Hellenic-Cypriots have 12% and 9.6% respectively. In the blood system M-N, the Turks have a lower percentage of M (55-57%), as do the Armenoids-while the Arabs have 75% and the Kurds 60%. In the Armenoid communities, in the blood system M-N the group M is only about 56%, while in the system ABO, the gene r (of the group O) is about only 45% (compared to the 65% of the Mediterranean), and the p exceeds the 40%.
-
The head length is very small and, as Bernhard notes, it is reduced from west to the east”. In central and eastern Turkey it is only 180, in the west 181-182, and only around the Bosporus and Smyrna does not reach 183. This length in the Mediterranean race is 186-190.
-
From research conducted by the Austrian anthropologist Weissbach on modern Turkish skulls, a large hypsicrany was certified (a typical Armenoid characteristic): cranial index H/L=79 (that is, length 175. and height 138.6). The same index in the Kurds shows orthocrany (75).
-
The nasal height is generally large (more than 56); in eastern Turkey it reaches 58.6. Extensive research in the area of Ankara found that the nasal index on skulls was only 46.6. The same index in the Kurds is 47.9.
-
The majority of Turks has a hooked or inclined nose. And this Armenoid characteristic becomes even more intense toward the east Consequently, the anthropological structure of the Turkish people, if we exclude the Aegean coastal zone where Mediterranean participation is obvious, is clearly Armenoid. Indeed, Swedish professor Lundman characterizes Turkey as Armenoid. Moreover, German professor W. Bernhard classifies the Turkish people as an “anatolid breed”, which is a variation of the Armenoid. According to von Eickstedt, the “anatolid” breed differs from the Armenoid breed only by its larger facial height and its leaner characteristics While the basic racial structure of the Turkish people is Armenoid, there is some Turanian participation that is not, however, obvious to non-specialists, but can be detected, though, by some elements. In addition to the fact that the Turks have a bigger face than the Hellenes (a Turanian characteristic), the Mongoloid spot is found in 12,000 children according to twp extensive studies (one conducted by the Turkish anthropologist Kansu). This corresponds to 3,8 % of the Turkish population, a percentage that reveals indisputably the Turanism of the Turks. From Weissbach’s research (on the collection of Turkish skulls of the Natural History of Vienna) a rhombic index of 70.5 was found (particularly, width between temples 94.4 and zygomatics 134) In conclusion, the contemporary Turkish peoples of Asia Minor are basically Armenoid with slight Turanism, especially in Anatolia. There is, of course, in coastal Asia Minor a Hellenic (Mediterranean) participation, which Hellas considers definitely lost, since it has Turkish consciousness. Ultimately, nationalism is not based only on race, but also on the consciousness of each population
Stock breeders at the foot of Ararat. Turkoman (Turkmen) nomadic people of Asia Minor.
scene at the main street of Erzurum
The barber has armenoid while the customer has mongoloid characteristic features.
Hellenic Pontic (Rum) people with Mediterranean features in Black Sea mountains.
In Pontus the people are engaged in cultivation of tea. Its obvious the Mediterranean physiognomy of the locals.
Turkish Rule
Turkish occupation heavily affected Hellenism, particularly in a quantitative way, since the Islamization, the mass kidnapping of Hellenic children, and the exile of prisoners to the slave-bazaars of the East dramatically reduced the Hellenic population.
While the Hellenic population suffered a quantitative attrition during that period, there was no significant racial differentiation. Those who converted to Islam and the Janissaries were breaking from the Hellenic people and there was no other mixture with the Turks. The religious differentiation was so intense and absolute that is was inconceivable for Turks and Hellenes to intermingle. According to the popular song “he who kisses a Hellenic woman kisses the flint-gun, and he who kisses a Turkish one kisses the tile”. Kampouroglou writes that “everybody acknowledges the virtue of Hellenic woman who, despite rare exceptions, never loved a Turk whom they used to call the dirty dogs”. Thus, the deep religious and national division between the Hellenes and the Turks positively affected the Turks since their population increased, but also favored the Hellenes who remained pure in consciousness and race.
Rape, that was the result of a Turkish raid or reprisal against Hellenic communities, was the only possible way for the two peoples to intermingle.
The majority of the Turks, however, who were active in Hellas were Janissaries, that is, of Mediterranean origin, and subsequently the children who were born out of rapes were naturally incorporated as Christians in a familiar ethnological environment.
Despite the age-long cohabitation of the Hellenes and the Turks, they remained absolute strangers to each other and irreconcilable enemies. The Turkish language, except for a few words, remained unknown in Hellas and incomprehensible. The historian von Rotteck notes that “when a blood mixture does not take place, then even an enslaved people very seldom accepts the language of the conqueror”. And this happened in Hellas.
Had there been a considerable mixture between the Hellenes and the Turks during the Turkish occupation, this could be detected only by Armenoid characteristics. However, the Hellenic people do not posses such characteristics. Only a few Armenoid elements are detected in those Pontians who resettled in Hellas: these elements originate from their ancient mixtures with the Armenians who were living in the environs of the Black Sea. In Weissbach’s research on modern Turkish skulls, the cranial index H/L of the Pontians is 75.6-79, but the rhombic index is 73.5 (that is, absolutely no Turanic influence).
The Hellenic-Cypriots also exhibit some Armenoid mixture. But this mixture is an ancient one and comes before Cyprus’s Turkish occupation. In Cyprus, a skull dating from the Classical Period was found with a cranial length of 181.7, height 132.7, index H/L=73 (orthocrany), facial dimensions 130.3 X 69.8 (index53.6) and nasal dimensions 24.5 X 53.1 (index 46.1). That is, Mediterranean elements with perhaps a slight Armenoid participation revealed by the small cranial length and the small nasal index.
During the Turkish occupation there were certainly many Turkish settlements on Hellenic areas, especially in Thessaly, Macedonia, and Thrace. According to an Ottoman census taken at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the Moslems represented 25% of the total population in the entire Balkan Peninsula. If we exclude, however, the indigenous Islamized people of Albania, Bosnia and Bulgaria, in the Hellenic area the analogy of the Moslems to Christians did not exceed 15%. According to the same Ottoman census, from the Moslems who had settled down in the Balkans, only 19% were Youruks that is, pure Turkish immigrants, while the others were indigenous Islamized populations. And after Hellenic independence and with the exchange of the populations those Turks and Islamized Hellenes were removed from Hellas. The only Turkish community that remained was that of Thrace-and a small one in Rhodes.
If because of the Turkish occupation there was deterioration in quality of the Hellenic people, it was not due to the admixture but to a negative choice. I cannot accept the view that the Hellenic people acquired then bad habits, since this view is based on the theory of environmental determinism, while the acquired characteristics, as it is known, are not inherited. However, during those dark ages many significant Hellenes escaped to the West, while in the country itself the best of the people were oppressed or exterminated or they could not easily have children. It was natural then that in an inhuman regime of cruelty and tyranny only the worst, the petty, and the cruel could survive and not the best, the virtuous and the intellectuals. That situation was generally “disgonic”, that is, a negative choice, as biologists call it, a choice that the Hellenic people are still paying for and will continue to pay for some more centuries-but of course with fewer repercussions.
The positive effect of the Turkish occupation on Hellas, no mater how this sounds oxymoronic, is that it functioned as a bitter drug and awakened the age-long sleepy Hellenic consciousness. Hellenism’s meaning and essence were slowly extinguished in the Byzantine Empire; the religious and the multinational character of the Empire did not allow for the survival of the Hellenic consciousness. Only the Hellenic language managed to survive and make its influence felt. But the Hellenic spirit, civilization, tradition and history, even the word “Hellene” itself had almost disappeared. After Frankish rule, an initial awakening had partially taken place. The Turkish occupation was a catalyst which shocked the consciousness of the people, who - face to face with the Turk - realized what “national differentiation” meant. Unfortunately only historical adventures with foreigners awaken the realization of the uniqueness of a people, what we call “national consciousness”. Perhaps, mature people do not need such adventures to recognize its consciousness. However, the Hellenic people in Byzantium had morally degenerated, and the strength of the drug for its purge must have been analogous to its low national self-consciousness.
In the beginning, the Hellenic people believed that the problem was religious difference with the Turks. Consequently, they embraced more Orthodox Christianity. Thus, this religious differentiation between the Christians and the Moslems became absolute. The Church then achieved the feat of keeping Hellenism close to it and of protecting it through isolation. Even though during the Byzantine era the Church’s responsibility for the de-nationalization of the Hellenes was serious, during the Turkish occupation its help, on the contrary, was great since it helped the Hellenes to avoid alienation by the Turks. In the Church the Hellenes maintained simultaneously their religious and national identity; it represented their potential state. They came to recognize slowly, however, their absolute difference from the Turks, which is not only a religious difference from the Turks, which is not only a religious difference, but deeply national. Then, as Svolopoulos writes, “a total war will be declared against the Ottoman Empire that will carry along the Ecumenical Patriarchate for two main reasons. First, because the latter has a “Great Idea” universality, which rather unconsciously the revolution fights, and second, since it resides in Turkey it must be a pawn of the Turks”. The suspicions against the Patriarchate of Constantinople were certainly exaggerated. Let us not forget that the Patriarchate after 1453 suffered many hardships. The age long silence of the Patriarchate is altogether tragic. Its presence there maintained however the Megale Idea” of Hellenism for a national unification and deliverance of the violated Hellenic countries.
Svolopoulos mentions that “From this time onwards the Ecumenical patriarch will not only be arch-bishop but a despot as well. In the orthodox temples the psalm will continue to be recited that the Lord should protect our arch-bishop and despot, but this psalm is not referred now to two persons, that is, to the patriarch as archbishop, and the emperor as despot, but only to one person, the patriarch who becomes a despot as well. For this reason the arch-bishop will also wear the previous imperial uniform”.
Thus, after 1821, a new, strong Hellenism emergences. We could even say that Hellas was among the first countries in Europe-perhaps the second after France during the Napoleonic period-that acquired a modern “national consciousness”. The Hellenic revolution of 1821 was the first national revolution in Europe, a revolution that was imitated by many other people both within and outside of the Balkans.
Painting of José Jiménez Aranda, 1897. Depicting an Hellenic girl by the name (Ρόδον) Rose aged 18 years old to be sold for 800 mnas in the slave market of Constantinople.
German lithography. The Greek national independence was won at an expensive price. It confirms the facts of a torturous course marked by barbarism and disasters. Villages were completely destroyed, states ravaged and deserted, women raped, women and children were slaughtered together or sent to the slave-markets of the East, whole families were wiped out, brave men tortured and martyred.
The Thracian Minority
The only remnant of a Turkish community in liberated Hellas is in western Thrace. This community has created problems in Hellenic-Turkish relations, since Turkey uses this community to destabilize Hellas and to project its expansionist plans against her. In this attempt Turkey tends to include in the Turkish community the Pomacs who are pure Thracians.
In Cyprus there is also a Turkish community representing 18% of the population of the island. As Halil supports, this community originated from the Ottoman invasion of 1571. One percent of this population mixed with blacks who came as slaves in 1668 and with Franks in the area of Paphos. Of course, Islamized Hellenes are included in this community. In the Hellenic population, as Halil supports, there is no black mixture. This mixture however, in the Turkish-Cypriots must exceed 1% if we take into consideration that the tri-gene cDe of the Rhesus system is detected in 5% of this population, as Bernhard indicates. The Turkish minority in Cyprus was strengthened more after the 1974 invasion with the immigration of thousands of Turks to the island.
The Turkish community of western Thrace was formed in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, when Ottoman Empire transported to the fertile valleys there “Haldoups”, that is, pure Turks from Asia Minor, and “Youroucks”, that is, Islamized nomads. As Kyriakis writes, they settled there as farmers in the areas north of Komotene, the area of Xanthe, as Georgrantziz mentions, was “colonized by Youroucks (crude Turkish and Turkmen nomads) who flooded the valley and altered its demographic physiognomy, also establishing their own town, Yenitze, that became the religious, political and military centre of the area”. The Turkish-speaking community increased in the sixteenth century because of an influx of Islamized Hellenes (Macedonians and North-Epirots), Albanians, Serbs, and Bosnians, who came or were transported to the area for work.
Thus, while the Turkish-speaking community of Thrace is racially mixed, given its consciousness, way of life, morals and customs, it is purely Turkish. Not only do the Turks consider the community Turkish, but also the community itself, whose actions do not leave any doubt for its Turkish consciousness. If the community did not have a Turkish consciousness, then Turkey’s attempts against Hellas would be useless. And in the past, when western Thrace was under Bulgarian occupation (1918), the Turks of the area had asked the help of the Hellenes against Bulgarian atrocities, but they stressed at the same time that “our views concerning the political future of western Thrace obviously differ from yours”.
The Turks of western Thrace number about 57,000, that is, they constitute 15% of the population. However, they tend to include in their lists the other Moslems of the area, the Pomacs and the Gypsies, who are not Turkish-speaking and who do not possess a Turkish consciousness; they number about 37,000 and 18,000 respectively. Moreover, they are mainly concentrated in the prefecture of Rhodope, creating thus a major internal problem in Hellas that can at any moment function as a time bomb, particularly in the case of a Hellenic-Turkish war at Evros; it could put the Hellenic front in danger from the rear.
In Greece historians claim that the Pomaks are descendants of the Agrians . The ancient Thracian people mingled with Hellenes and then was linguistically spoken and embraced the Islamic religion during the Ottoman period. Today, the language spoken by the Pomaks in Greece is essentially the same Slavic language as the Bulgarian dialect , which is spoken in Bulgaria. The Bulgarians argue that the Pomaks had a Bulgarian conscience, but because of the policy of Greece over the last 50 years, a part of them has acquired the Turkish consciousness while another has up to our day a Greek conscience. A specific DNA mutation HbO, which emerged about 2,000 years ago on a rare haplotype is characteristic of the Greek Pomaks. This indicates that the Greek Pomaks are an isolated population with limited contacts with their neighbours. According to some Greek researchers, the DNA tree line of Greek Pomaks suggests that they descend from ancient Thracian tribes.
Bulgaria has a more serious minority problem with 850,000 Turkish-speaking (10% of the entire population). In this minority the Youroucks are included who came in the fourteenth century, the Tatars who came to Dovroutsa at the beginning of the nineteenth century, and others who settled down in eastern Romilia between the sixteenth and eighteenth centuries, and many Islamized Thracians. The 300,000 Gypsies form a separate minority.
Venizelos used to say that “the borders of Great Hellas will never be secure unless western Thrace and Macedonia become ethnologically and not only politically Hellenic areas”. This was achieved in Macedonia with the exchange of populations, but not in Thrace (article 37 of the Lausanne Treaty). Turkey did not want then to removal of the Turks from Thrace in the hopes of a future return there-Hellas also desired the continuation of the Hellenic presence in Constantinople, Imvros and Tenedos. According El. Venizelos “the national consciousness would rebel if the government had accepted such a monstrous act”, that is, the uprooting of the Hellenes of Constantinople who then numbered about 400,000.
According to the Lausanne Treaty 320,000 Moslems of Macedonia, 19,000 of Crete, and 9,000 from the Aegean island were exchanged with Hellenes from Asia Minor and Pontians.
Thus, the maintenance of these two minorities in both Hellas and Turkey basically constituted for both nations a speculation, that is, the possibility of future extension-in western Thrace for Turkey, in the Bosphorus for Hellas. The issue was which of the two countries had a diachronic strategy. And it is proved that only Turkey had such a strategy. Indeed, Turkey competed unilaterally the exchange of the populations, destroying Hellenic communities, while Hellas, which did not respond to these actions, continues to call the Turks of Thrace “Hellenic citizens”. Vakalopoulos writes that the Turks exterminated the Hellenic population of Constantinople, in 1955 ridding itself of this minority, while the Hellenes remained with the burden of the Muslim minority in western Thrace. “It was a mistake for the Hellenic diplomats and politicians to exempt the respective minorities from the general exchange of Hellenic Turkish populations”. While I do not think that the exchange of populations in 1923 was a mistake, indisputably, though, it is a national scandal that the rights of the Moslem minority were maintained after 1955.
The Lausanne Treaty was onerous for Hellas, since it was the product of the 1922 catastrophe and it should be the constant aim of Hellenic politics to denounce this Treaty; in particular article 45 of the Treaty should and must be denounced by the Hellenic government.
Other articles of this Treaty are also burdensome for Hellas, such as the agreement about demilitarized zones (24.7.23), an agreement that should certainly be denounced given the obvious Turkish threat against the Aegean island.
This article is directly connected with articles 38-42 which determine the protection of the Hellenic communities in Turkey as far as their rights to life, liberty, civil, and political rights and use of their own language are concerned; it notes that “the recognized rights of the non-Muslim minorities in Turkey are also recognized by Hellas for the Muslim minorities who reside there”. Consequently, the violent destruction of the Hellenic communities in Turkey renders automatically void article 45 for the protection of the Muslim communities of western Thrace.
Hellas did not react either to Turkey’s expulsion of the Hellenes of Imvros and Tenedos nor to the first blow against the Hellenes of Constantinople that came in 1942 (with the law concerning property taxation) since it was under occupation. However, the horrible pogrom of the Hellenes of Constantinople in 1955 was such a blatant violation of the Lausanne Treaty that it is indeed a wonder that Hellas keeps on declaring its dedication to the other conditions of Treaty, calling the Turks of western Thrace “Hellene Moslems”. However, the Turks of Thrace are anything but Hellenes.
Since 1964 when Turkey stuck the final blow against the Hellenes of Constantinople by obliging them to immigrate, the need for Hellas to denounce the Lausanne Treaty in its entirety and to declare exchangeable the Turks and the Gypsy Muslims of western Thrace is imperative. On the contrary, Hellas should include in its constitutional legislation the protection of the Muslim Pomacs, so that the later should not be affected by the denounced Lausanne Treaty.
With the denouncement of the Treaty of Commerce, Settlement, and Navigation of 1930, the Hellenes of Constantinople were forced to leave their country penniless (16-3-1964). That was the Turkish reaction then to the expedition of the Hellenic army in Cyprus.
Strangely Hellenic foreign policy more loudly declares its dedication to that Treaty than Turkey, perhaps because Hellas fears the expulsion of the Patriarchate from Constantinople. Turkey first refuted the Lausanne Treaty in 1925, when she started to check and control the election of the patriarchs, limiting the delegates among the few who remained in Constantinople. Thus, the slow death of the Patriarchate is a given fact. It is naïve to believe in the survival of the Patriarchate. This is feasible only if Hellas recaptures Constantinople. The constant strategic target of Hellas should be the expulsion of the Turks from Thrace, even if they have not given Hellas any pretext. Such minority problems in a distance of a few kilometers from Hellas’s borders should not go unattended.
Any other tactics or solution of another form would be dangerous, given that the Thracian minority openly declares its Turkism. It is absurd to give Hellenic citizenship to those who deny it. Ethnicity embodies both descent and consciousness. When national consciousness is absent, then ethnicity is absent too. A basic article of the constitution should foresee the revocation of citizenship of those who deny it in any way. Hellenicity should not be obligatory. It is not a form of coercion or punishment. Hellenicity is a privilege, a manner of life, and a gift.
Turanism -Panturkism
By Turanism I mean the political possibility of organizing all the Turkish speaking people of Turanian descent into a unified force, which as a coalition of nations could provide a potential new danger for Europe in the future. Some call it “Panturkism”, a term that could include, though, people (such as the Hungarians, Finish and Estonians) who speak Turkish dialects but have absolutely no spiritual link with the Turanian people.
The possibility of a Turanian coalition is real for the people of Turkey, Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tatarstan, East Turkistan (Uyghur), Kirghizia, and Azerbaijan. All these people are racially Turanian (with the exception of Azerbaijan), Turkish speaking and Muslim, that is, they present all the necessary elements for the creation of a unified ethnicity. On the contrary, the creation of a unified Islamic ethnicity consisting of all the people of the former Soviet Union under the leadership of Iran is not feasible because Iran has neither a linguistic nor racial relation with those people.
Of course, the Turanians have a varied racial composition, and consequently the creation of a unified national consciousness is difficult. Moreover, there are some less developed people who derive from intermingling and do not have the virtues of their originators (Europides and Mongoloids). Even though their coalition is not overtly visible, it is still extremely dangerous or even fatal for the future of Europe and of Hellas especially which neighbors those peoples.
In the past nationalist feeling among the Turanians was non-existent. Even the officers of the mighty Ottoman Empire felt they were simply “Islamists” or “Ottomans”- that is, they were unified by their faith in the Quran and the Sultan- and their unique ideal was plundering. As Manousakis writes, “the Turkish nomads always found a religious excuse for their plundering-which was their main source of survival- in the absolute differentiation between the faithful and the faithless”.
At the end of the nineteenth century, when Turkey had lost most of its European dominions because of nationalist uprisings by occupied people, a form of nationalism started to take shape in Turkey (Neoturks). Turkish nationalism intensified especially after the Balkan War. Landau notes that “the successive defeats of he Ottoman Empire in the Libyan and Balkan Wars strengthened more the patriotic feelings of the Turks within the Empire itself and abroad. The Neoturks began to support more and more the “Panturkism” solution, that is, Turanism, in order to compensate for the losses of the Empire in Europe and Africa. They considered it proper to approach the Turkish groups of Asia, which ultimately could help Turkey reconquer its lost territories”. The Hellenic national uprising caused in Turkey itself a growing nationalism, manifested in Turanian form. At the same time, Turanism had from its genesis a goal of “revenge” for the Turks, that is, their returning to the lost Balkan Peninsula. In 1912, Chalil Beis, president of the Turkish parliament, said that “from this high floor I address my nation and plead for it not to forget Thessaloniki, the cradle of liberty and constitution, the all-green Monastir, Kosovo, the Skoutari of Albania, Ioannina, and the whole of beautiful Romilia”.
Two more factors contributed to the genesis of Turanism. First, the Jewish interference wishing to stop the reappearance of the Hellenic-Christian factor in the eastern Mediterranean. Significantly, the first proponent of Turanism was the Jew, Arminius Vambery, who in 1865 commented that “the Osman House, as a Turkish dynasty, could create, together with other neighboring and related people connected by a common language, religion and history, an empire that extends from the shores of the Adriatic to the depths of China”. Moreover, other pioneers of Turanism were Jews such as Leon Cahoon and Moses Cohen, known by the pseudonym Tekin Alp.
Another factor that facilitated the genesis of the Turanian consciousness in the last century was the Turks’ natural reaction to Panslavism. Russian attempts to form a coalition of linguistically similar peoples in order to secure an exit to the Aegean caused the reaction of the Turks and the Tatars who felt the racial connection between them. The Germans, in reaction to Pan-slavism, encouraged then Turanian ambitions. At that time the German-Turkish friendship was forged. Today, Russia’s approach to Europe would help Turkey’s isolation, and the confrontation of the Turanian threat.
The communist prevalence, however, in the Soviet Union subdued any Turanian movement, and the government imposed on them the Cyrillic alphabet. Kemal Ataturk, at the same time, replaced the Turkish alphabet with the Latin one. Landau comments that “perhaps it is not accidental that this retraction coincided with Lenin’s abandonment of Pan-Slavism”.
Turkic language map-present range
.jpg)
Left: Typicall Oghuz the ancestor of the Turks. Middle: Mehmet the Conqueror (from painting by an Italian artist contempor of Mehmet) with obvious the Armenoid physiognomy . Right: Kemal Ataturk with a Mediterranean face. These three racial types, Turanic, Armenoid and Mediterranean correspond to the three trends in Turkey ( Turanic, Islamic, and European) which are expressed in a confused way.
Indeed, Kemal Ataturk was anti-Turanian. He wanted to orient Turkey toward Europe and away from Asia-he believed that the Turks were the descendants of the Hittites-, “an Aryan people who coincidently resided in Anatolia”. Kemal suppressed any Turanian manifestation in his country. Faithful to the Lausanne Treaty that he had signed, Kemal forbade any Turkish design against Cyprus and any Turkish nationalist expression there, even encouraging the immigration of the Turkish-Cypriots back to Turkey! But Kemalism was only a temporary interval. Immediately after the death of Kemal (1938), the Asian-Turanian mentality returned to the country. Kemalism was attacked there after as trying to limit Turkey to its borders and was called derogatorily “Asia-Minorism”. Under article 20 of the Lausanne Treaty, Turkey abandoned all of her rights to Cyprus. Hellas refuted this article by signing the Zurich Treaty that brought Turkey back to Cyprus as a guarantor. Turkey’s invasion of Cyprus in 1974 was one more de facto refutation of the Lausanne Treaty.
During World War II, as Weber notes, “British and German sources prove clearly that Turanism was not simply an infatuation of the masses, deriving from the people, but the Turkish government’s official program which it unfolded continuously, but secretly. Turanism began to develop at that time not only in the east but also in the west with expansionist ambitions against Bulgaria, Albania, the Dodecanese islands and Thessaloniki. Turkey at that time began to persecute the Hellenes of Constantinople, and from 1945 turned against Cyprus and western Thrace, facts that Hellas absolutely ignored. Especially, according to Landau, “after Pan-turkism had begun one of the most dominating policies of Turkish politics’, and even more after 1991, when the Turkish people of Asia became independent.
Turanians are proud of their Mongoloid descent and praise the achievements of Tamerlane and Attila. The Cyprus invasion in 1974 took officially the name of the Hun brigand Attila, revealing thus the Turanian mentality of Ankara. Many eulogists of Turanism in Turkey, such as Nejip Asim, Giokalp, Mete, et al., fight to raise the Turks’ pride worldwide in their Turanian descent. They support that the Turks and Mongols belong to the same race and, if united, as Ahmad notes, they could achieve anything they desired; they dream of a “Turkish nation extended from the shores of the Adriatic to the borders of China and the mainland of Siberia”, or a national centre, as Seyfendin points out, “from Asia Minor to Turkestan, because the Turks do not have any other national cradle as the Hellenes had”. In this recent book “The Pride and Feelings of Turkism”, Arikian asks, “Who are we? We are a people who descended from Altay Mountains”, while Eroz, in his book “A Study of the Cultural Life of the Turk”, notes that “from Turkestan to Cyprus, there is a unified civilization”. Recently was formed, whose politics clearly reflect the concealed strategy of the Turkish state. Their leader in 1966 claimed that Cyprus, Asia Minor, Western Thrace and Thessaloniki are parts of the Great Turkey, and he demanded that “Turkey should demand the freedom of the Turks who live in Hellas”. There is, however, another Turanic party in Turkey (that of Erbakan), which is Islamic and anti-European. There is a neo-fascist organization by the name Grey Wolves which established by colonel Alparslan Turkes in the late 1960 with close links with the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP). After Turkes’s death in 1997 Devlet Bahceli assumed the leadership of the MHP and Grey Wolves.
In his 1952 book, professor Erturk explains that all the Turkish people are connected by a common language, religion, customs, arts and history, and that they belong to the same race, while only the inhabitants of Turkey have a state. Thus Turkey’s duty is to help her brothers residing in the Soviet Union and the Balkan countries to achieve first their independence, and then to create “the Great Turan”! Turkey’s participation in anti-Soviet NATO had this as a prime target.
The independence of the Turkish peoples of the former Soviet Union in 1991 paved the way for the promotion of Turanian ambitions which Turkish politics pursued with consistency, without admitting it officially, for decades now in Cyprus, western Thrace, Bulgaria and the Aegean.
Turkey, in her general external politics, does not hesitate to play on three fields, sometimes as a western European country, sometimes as an Islamic country, ally and protector of all surrounding Moslems, and sometimes as a Turanian, Turkish-speaking country, the protector of all the newly-created Turkish states of Asia. These different facades are used occasionally, but the result is one and the same, the strengthening of Asiatic barbarism. This tendency has existed all the time as much in the Ottomans as in the Turks today.
Turkey as an Islamic power did not have any particular success, since the Arabs have not forgotten Ottoman tyranny, and since other countries play this role more convincingly. But recently, Turkey exerted her influence in the Islamic zones of the Balkans, having Hellas as a strategic target.
The other two faces of Turkey, the European and the Turanian, are stronger. At the European level, Turkey used her geographical position against the Soviet Union to appear more “western”; now she is using her geographical position close to the Middle East to claim together with Israel the role of “policeman” in the area. If, however, the Turkish-Jewish collusion is revealed in the Arab world, then the credibility of Turkey in the area will vanish and Turkey will be isolated. As far as Turkey’s demand to become a member of the European Union is concerned, Hellas should face this with decisiveness and without any spirit of conciliation. Turkey’s entry into European Union must be shut off for ever. That should be the constant nonnegotiable policy of Hellenic external politics.
Turkey’s request for entry into the European Union is still based on the geographical factor, that is, the fact that she possesses eastern Hellenic Thrace and that she borders the Aegean. Ozal used the latter reason to support that whoever resides in the area is at once a European. Ozal adds that “nobody in Western Europe has the right to be called more Aegean than we are. However, in order to conceive this, one must abandon certain historical racist conceptions”. This is where “environmental theory” and the anti-racial conception of ethnology leads! Every Turanian who conquers European land automatically becomes a European, and Europeans who are driven from their motherland lose their nationality. With incredible insolence Ozal states that “Homer, our compatriot, is the starting-point in Asia Minor of the Hellenic miracle as this was called later!” Ozal’s monstrous views are, however, the general beliefs of the Turks. Since 1968, Turkish school books include the theory that it was the Turkish central Asiatic people who came to the Aegean in -2480 and created the Minoan, Cycladic, Mycenaean, and Ionian civilizations! A combination of European ambitions with Turanian inhibitions…
Hellas should expose Turkey’s Turanian face to Europe. It must become clear to Europe that the probable entrance of Turkey to the Union would cause in the future the ipso jure entrance of other Turkish counties of Asia- up to Mongolia. No one can forbid the creation of a unified Turkish State extending to Siberia, and the right of millions of Asian Turanians to be considered European and to flood European cities. Thus, Europe will be essentially conquered through Ankara: what the sea battle at Nafpaktos in 1571, and the victories of Eugene of Savoy in Vienna in 1691-1717 prevented, shall be achieved through the “European Union”.
This Turanian danger for Europe-peaceful or war like- is not theoretical. It is a realistic possibility that could be a reality within the twenty first century. The more than sixty million Turks of Turkey could belong to a unified Turanian State, as well as the more than forty million from the newly born Soviet States (17 million Uzbeks, 8 million Kazaks, 7 million Azerians, 3 million Turkmenians, 2.5 million Kirghizians) and perhaps some more from Tajikistan, Afghanistan, Tatarstan (federal republic of the Russian Federation with 3,786 million) and western Mongolia.
With the conquest of Asia Minor, Turkey has extended more to the West than the other Turanian peoples. Turkey’s geopolitical power originates from this fact. Like Janus, Turkey have two faces, the European and the Turanian. This is her weakness, though, for anybody who wishes to take advantage of it. Essentially, Turkey is outside her own geographical continuity with her Asian neighbors. However, the Azerians, even though they are Turkish speaking and Muslim, have absolutely no racial relation with the Turanians, and it is not certain that they will finally support the creation of the Great Turan. The Azerians, feeling the lack of any racial relationship with the Turks, despise them and call them “Levantines”. As Weber reveals, this fact caused the failure of Germany’s pan-Turanian plan against the Soviet Union in 1942.
The Armenians and the Kurds is also an obstacle to Turanian geographic continuity, a fact which explains the abysmal Turkish hatred against these people. According to Landau, the deeper cause of the genocide of the Armenians was the Turk’s deepest feelings that the former formed “a barrier between Turkey and the other Turkish people in Russia who resided near the borders”. More than one million Armenians were slaughtered in 1895-6 and in 1915. Today about three million Armenians live in the liberated Armenia and only about 300,000 in Turkey.
On the other hand, the Kurds, despite their Islamization and their occasional intermingling with the Turks, remained conscious of their own ethnicity. The Kurds, of a different descent-the same with the Azerians-and speaking a different language (Iranian), strive for their independence that Turkey, Iraq and Iran deny. There are about 15 million Kurds in Turkey alone, who if they were organized appropriately and armed by Hellas, could destroy completely the Turkish rear. The Kurdish question is the Achilles heel of Turkey and of Turanism. The Dersim massacre in 1937-8 took place in Tunceli, Turkey with 40,000 Kurds slaughtered. Before 1937 the Armenians with the Kurds were living together peacefully in that area.
Turanism is an enormous threat against Hellas and Europe and the struggle to prevent it should be the main strategic target of Hellas. The Turanids are the only people of Eurasia who were not infiltrated at all in the past by the Aryan race-both linguistically and culturally. Turan was called in Persia “Anayran”, that is, “non-Aryans”. They are a foreign body in Europe and a fatal danger for her cultural future. Hellenes and Slavs, allies by necessity, have to face first this threat. On the one hand, the liberation of the people of the Soviet Union from communism intensified the Turanian threat, yet, on the other, untied the hands of the Slav-speaking people, who could approach Europe and face together this common danger.
The target of Hellas should be the creation of a great anti-Turanian alliance, of an “Orthodox Christian bow”, that should include Bulgaria, Serbia, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia and Armenia.
But it is upon the shoulders of the Hellenes once again to stand as Europe’s bastion against the danger from the East. History holds in the future another terrible conflict between the Turks and the Hellenes, from which the fate of the Aegean shores will finally be determined. The centuries after 1453 form only a parenthesis. The future battle will give back to the Hellenes their primordial Aegean cradle and will give Turkey the form of an insignificant state between Armenia and Kurdistan.
Minorities of Turkey
On a large website, some informal electronic survey was conducted on the identity of the participants in the poll. The results were once again impressive, one would say, showing once again the great conscious "blur" of modern Islamic Turkey. According to this survey, only 46.98% declare that he considers himself a Turk. The results are as follows:
16.78%, declares Kurd.
2.68%, declares Armenian.
3.36%, declares Lazos (Pontian Greek).
2.68%, declares Cherkez (Circasian).
0.67%, declares Abkhazian.
2.01%, declares Rum (Hellen).
0.67%, declares Bosnian.
2.68%, declares Azerian.
2.01%, says Georgian.
2.01%, says Arab.
2.01%, says Tatar.
0.67%, says Bulgarian.
2.01% said Turkmen.
6.04%, indicates identity ignorance and
6.71% ... refused to declare any identity
Τhere is also a minority of Gypsies, Hebrews and Galatians (Celts).
Faces of Constantinople
Internal migrant. Turkmen girl with Mongoloid features from Anatolia in Constantinople.
A Turk with Armenoid characteristics smokes tobacco in a cofeeshop.
A noblemen from Bosphorus. Lasting Hellenic presence.
lasting Greek presence in Constantinople. A Hellenic (Rum) student and a Hellenic (Rum) old noblewomen. The Mediterannean chartacteristics are obvious. During 1919-22 there were 300.000 Hellenes (Rum) in Constantinople, today they are left only about 2,000.
The text is from "The Origin of the Hellenes". Demetrios Demopoulos. Eleftheri Skepsis. 2005
Bibliography
Alekseev V., Gochman I. Physical anthropology of Soviet Asia in “Rassengesch
der Menscheit”, IX, 1983
Bernhard W. Suedwestasien in “ Rassengesch der Menscheit”, XIV, 1993
Bunak V. Rassengeschichte Osteuropas in Rassengesch der Mensheit IV,1976,
Καμπούρογλου Δ. Ιστορία των Αθηναίων (The History of the Athenians), 1969
Kuendig-Steiner W. Die Tuerkei, Raum und Menshc, 1977
Λίβας Ξ. Η Αιγηίς κοιτίς των Αρίων και του Ελληνισμού (The Aegiis, Cradle of
Hellenism and the Aryans), 1963
Ehrhardt E., Tuerken, Kurden und Iraner seit dem Altertum, 1961
Kansu S. Sur la tache bleue congenitale chez les nouveau-nes et les enfants turcs,
1932
Rotteck K. v. Allgemeine Geschichte, 1867
Σβολόπουλος Κ. Η απόφαση για την υποχρεωτική ανταλλαγή των πληθυσμών
Ελλάδος και Τουρκίας (The Decision for the Obligatory Exchange of the
Populations between Greece and Turkey), 1981
Halil K. The structure of the Turkish-cypriot race in “The Mankind Quarterly”,
1974
Παπαθανάσης Κ. Θράκη, Μορφές και Γεγονότα 1902-22 (Thrace, Facts and Figures
1902-22), 1991
Weber Fr. The Evasive Neutral, 1979
Ozal T. La Turqie en Europe, 1988
Μανουσάκης Γρ. Die Rueckkehr des Propheten, 1979
Landau J. Pan-Turkism in Turkey, 1981
Ahmad H. M. Kampf um leere Raeume, Turan- Turkestan-Tibet, 1940
The Blight of Asia. George Horton
An Account of the Systematic Extermination of Christian Populations by Turks and of the Culpability of Certain Great Powers; with the True Story of the Burning of Smyrna By GEORGE HORTON For Thirty Years Consul and Consul-General of the United States in the Near East
HOW WAS THE TURKISH FLAG MADE ?
Here is the answer: The Turkish flag, and the corresponding "national symbol" of the Turks, comes from a symbol of Byzantium, but of the ancient Greek city of Byzantium, which existed in the place of Constantinople. This symbol, which is ancient and is found as a cult symbol of the goddess Hecate, became a symbol of the city of Byzantium when Philip, father of Alexander the Great, tried to capture this city, and one night cloudy, sent warriors (as a cruiser) to cross the walls, to conquer the city. Suddenly, the moon appeared, the invaders realized, and the attack was repulsed.... Since then, and because it was considered a divine help to the city, it became a symbol of the city of Byzantium.
From there it remained a symbol traditionally in Constantinople, and Muhammad the Conqueror (and his successors) found it, and as he used everything he found from the Byzantine Empire to give imperial colour to the Ottoman conquest, he made it a symbol of Ottoman rule, and so it remained as a Muslim symbol .... The next photo is from a Byzantine coin and if you look closely, it says: BYZANTIUM If we knew our history, at least we would not tolerate today's scuffles ... We would have the required answers for all these but..... those serve us daily...
A Byzantine coin from the 1st century B.C. depicting goddess Artemis with her symbol of the crescent moon and the star, later to became the symbol of Islam.
Coin from the time of Marcus Aurelius 161-180 AD. Byzas from Megara, the founder of Byzantium (7th century BC.), is depicted. On the right, a warship with a piston and a horse as a signal on the bow, with the dolphin swimming in the waves.
The complex of the crescent (ie the crescent and the star) has a deep relationship in time with the Greek tradition and culture.
BYZANTIUM
In 5th century AD. in a coin of the emperor Anastasios I (491-518 AD), we find a coin that on one side has the bust of the emperor and on the other the crescent. Then for many centuries we meet the crescent in many ways in depictions in Byzantium.
When the Ottomans arrived in Asia Minor (but mainly the Seljuks, who copied the culturally superior Byzantium in many ways), they "borrowed" the crescent from the Byzantines and gradually became the emblem of the Ottoman Empire.
Today those who want to see the crescent in Byzantine coins can only visit the numismatic collections of the Greek Museums but even in Byzantine frescoes in Laconia (village of Geraki etc.), where there is a crystal shield of Agios Georgios.
Until the 18th c. the Turkish coat of arms was the simple crescent, without the star. The star was added by Sultan Selim III (1789-1808) and had eight rays, while Sultan Abdul Mejit (1840-1861) did it with five rays.
So it seems that the Ottomans, as they copied Byzantium into administration, institutions, models of thought and a thousand other things, so their flag itself was a stolen Byzantine symbol.
The stolen Greek crescent Ancient Greek coin from Byzantium (modern Istanbul) Coin of Emperor Theodore II Laskareos 1254-1258 AD.
And the Russians had taken the crescent from Byzantium
ANCESTORS
IS THERE ANY MATERNAL UNCLE WHO WAS A MUSLIM
600 YEARS OF OTTOMAN SPECTACULAR GENEALOGY
Horafira' s son; I Murat, Cathren's son; II Suleyman,
Maria's son; Beyazid, E va's son; II Suleyman,
Olivera's son; Chelebi Mehmet, Evemia's son; II Mustafa,
Veronika's son; II Murat, Evemia's son; III Ahmet,
Mara Despoina's son; Fatih Sultan Mehmet, Alexandra's son; I Mahmut,
Cornelia's son; Beyazit, Mari's son; III Osman,
Gulbahar's son; Yavuz Sultan Selim, Janet's son; III Mustafa,
Helga's son; Kanuni Sultan Suleyman, Ida's son; I Abdulhamit,
Roxalan's (Hurrem) son; Selim II, Agnes' son; III Selim,
Rachel's son; III Murat, Sonya's son; IV Mustafa,
Bafo's son; III Mehmet, Aimee's son; II Mahmut,
Helen's son; I Ahmet, Suzy's son; I Abdulmejid,
Violetta's son; Mustafa, Besime's son; Abdulaziz,
Evdoxia's son; Genc Osman, Velma's son; V Murat,
Anastasia's son; IV Murat, Virgin's son; II Abdulhamit,
Anastasia's son; Ibrahim, Caroline's son; V Mehmet Reshat,
Nadia's son; IV Mehmet, Henrietta's son; Mehmet Vahdettin
Turkey remains a multinational, multi-religious and multicultural state. "There are seventy-two and a half ethnicities in Turkey," says a Turkish proverb. But why do the Germans traditionally support Turkey against Hellenism? Many say the issue is racial. The German and Hun ancestors of the Turks once lived in the same valleys near the Ural Mountains. Many believe that there are blood ties. However, Germany has historically always supported Turkish interests. We typically republish an earlier article by "Parapolitikon" about:How Deutsche Bank financed the Pontian genocide.
