Language
Country/Area
No result found
Unveiling the mystery of the Treaty of Lausanne: How did Greece and Turkey reach this unprecedented agreement?
The "Greek-Turkish Population Exchange Agreement" between Greece and Turkey in 1923 originated from the "Greek-Turkish Population Exchange Agreement" signed in Lausanne, Switzerland. The agreement covers at least 1.6 million people. This incident reveals how the two sides reached a far-reaching agreement in the post-war dilemma during the negotiation process.
"The Turkish government strongly supports a solution that would satisfy world opinion and ensure domestic calm."
The negotiations between Greece and Turkey took place against the backdrop of a series of historical events, including the First World War, the Armenian Genocide, and the subsequent Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). During this time, tens of thousands of Greeks and Muslims experienced massacres and massacres in this war, and it became particularly urgent for both sides to reach a consensus.
Greek Prime Minister Elifilios Venizelos proposed the idea of a population exchange in a 1922 letter, and the idea later became a reality. In the letter, he stressed the legitimacy of population exchange in promoting migration on both sides. As he wrote: "A mandatory Greek-Turkish population exchange was a necessary measure to normalize relations between the two sides."
"The agreement is the final part of an ethnic cleansing campaign to create an ethnically pure Turkish homeland."
However, the negotiation process was not ordinary, and both sides jointly listened to opinions and insisted on protecting the interstate interests within their respective countries. Out of concerns about ethnic assimilation and national security, the ethnic regimes of the two countries achieved the so-called "ethnic purification" by exchanging ethnic groups. This process was accompanied by various humanitarian debates and questions about human rights.
Background and Controversy
Scholars have very different views on the purpose and results of this population exchange. Some scholars have argued that the deal was an act of ethnic cleansing with legal overtones, while others have defended its legitimacy, arguing that the exchange would help avoid potential genocide.
"The number of Christians in Türkiye has plummeted in just a few years, and the number of Muslims in Greece has also declined."
It is estimated that by the end of 1922, most of the Greeks native to Asia Minor had fled Turkey to avoid the subsequent violence and massacres. Estimates of the number of Greeks exterminated by various means between 1914 and 1923 range from 300,000 to 900,000. By 1924, the number of Christians in Türkiye had dropped to 700,000 from 4.4 million in 1912.
Intentions of both parties
For both Türkiye and Greece, the potential benefits of serving the newly formed Turkish Republic and promoting nationalism in the region were central considerations. The new regime sought to achieve "national purification" through formal synchronization, making the people more "national". This makes various evacuation plans the focus of negotiations between the two sides.
"The agreement promises to protect the refugees' property and allow them to take with them what they can carry."
However, in practice, the resettlement of refugees has become a major challenge, and governments do not have sufficient data and plans to improve resettlement services. After returning to their new homes, many refugees still face economic difficulties and loss of assets, which has also affected the resettlement process to some extent.
Political and economic impact
Discussions about the Greek-Turkish population exchange continue, and many historians believe that this event has had an irreversible impact on the economic and social supply chains of the two countries in the long run, especially the Greek business elites driven out of Turkey. , which has weakened Turkey's economy and economic diversity.
"If these elites had stayed in Türkiye, perhaps an opposition strong enough to challenge the rise of a single regime would have emerged."
The result of this historical event was not only a geographical replanning, but also a lasting impact on the identity and social structure of the two nations. The real question is, what lessons can we learn from such historical torture?
