Kansei
Active member
- Messages
- 126
- Reactions
- Nation of residence
-
- Nation of origin
-
You copy pasted Turkey's Official posistion on the matter but completely ignored what they have previously also aknowledged about Lemnos and Samothrace. I assume you don't have a problem with me just copy pasting Greece's arguments from wikipedia since you did the same for the Turkish Goverment:
Lemnos and Samothrace
Greece holds that, by superseding the relevant sections of the earlier treaty, the convention simultaneously lifted also the Greek obligations with respect to these islands. Against this, Turkey argues that the Montreux treaty did not mention the islands and has not changed their status. Greece, on the other hand, cites Turkish official declarations, by the then Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Rustu Aras, to that effect made in 1936, assuring the Greek side that Turkey would consider the Greek obligations lifted.Dodecanese
These islands were placed under a demilitarization statute after the Second World War by the Treaty of peace with Italy (1947), when Italy ceded them to Greece. Italy had previously not been under any obligation towards Turkey in this respect. Turkey, in turn, was not a party to the 1947 treaty, having been neutral during WWII. Greece therefore holds that the obligations it incurred towards Italy and the other parties in 1947 are res inter alios acta for Turkey in the sense of Article 34 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which states that a treaty does not create obligations or rights for a third country, and that Turkey thus cannot base any claims on them.Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Ikaria
The remaining islands (Lesbos, Chios, Samos, and Ikaria) were placed under a partial demilitarization statute by the Treaty of Lausanne in 1923. It prohibited the establishment of naval bases and fortifications, but allowed Greece to maintain a limited military contingent recruited from the local population, as well as police forces.Wikipedia goes on saying that Greece's position is of UN's articles on self defence blah blah blah but from what I understood it's an argument used on why they should be allowed just like with 12NM, not that they actually broke the Treaty since there are no naval bases or fortifications on those Islands from what I know of.
What I dont understand is why you people make this argument. Is it to prove that Greece having soldiers on small islands is a threat against mainland Turkey ? Do you legitimately beleive that Greece, a small country in the balkans, with it's 10 million population and negative population growth wants to go to war and go against Turkey with it's 84 million population and it's positive population growth, NATO and the U.S.A ?
First the argument made by Turks is that Greece is so insignificant that it's the US b*tch and would bend overbackwards for her, and that not only would it not do anything that will go against the U.S or even slightly incovinience them, but we take direct instructions from the U.S on our foreign policy and we "sell" our freedom and homeland to get in reward what other countries have recieved from the U.S only 100X (compared to Egypt) worse and for a bigger price.
Then the argument is that Turkey has a legitimate reason to be afraid of a Greek invasion in Turkey and go against her, NATO and the U.S?
