Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T14:30:09.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Constantinopolitan Greek Factor during the Greco-Turkish Confrontation of 1919–1922

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2016

Alexios Alexandris
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The traditional Greco-Turkish antagonism culminated in the bitter military confrontation which took place in Anatolia immediately after the First World War. While the Greeks fought for the establishment of a foothold in western Anatolia and Thrace, the nationalist Turks resisted vigorously the invasion of what they considered to be their indisputable fatherland. The crux of the problem lay in the Greek determination to bring the entire Hellenic race under a single Greek state. This Hellenic Megali Idea (Great Idea) envisaged a future Greater Greece which was to include Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, western Anatolia and the Aegean islands. The ultimate fulfilment of the Megali Idea would be achieved with the incorporation of Constantinople (İstanbul), the most important administrative, religious, commercial, and cultural centre in the Near East, into the future Greek state. According to Greek nationalists, such a state was to materialise with the final dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, a process which they regarded as inevitable. Deeply rooted in Greek national and religious consciousness, the Megali Idea had for one hundred years inspired official Greek foreign policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Byzantine and Modern Greek Studies , Volume 8 , 1983 , pp. 137 - 169
Copyright
Copyright © The Centre for Byzantine, Ottoman and Modern Greek Studies, University of Birmingham 1983

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* This essay relies heavily upon the unpublished despatches of the British High Commission in tstanbul to the Foreign Office in London, now kept in the Public Records Office. References to such documents are prefixed by FO. For Turkish place names the modern Turkish version has been adopted and only where these cities constitute a Greek Orthodox diocese the Greek (sometimes Anglicised) equivalent has been preferred.

1. For a Greek interpretation of the concept of Megali Idea see Vavouskos, K. N., [The Great Idea as an Idea and a reality] (Thessaloniki, 1970)Google Scholar. For an analysis and a wider bibliography on the subject see Xydis, S. G., ‘Modern Greek Nationalism’, in Lederer, I. J. (ed.), Nationalism in Eastern Europe (Washington, 1971), pp. 207–58.Google Scholar

2. According to the Turkish return of 1910 there were 330,906 Greeks (260,000 in the European and 70,906 in the Asiatic shore of the city or 30% of the total population) while Patriarchal estimates (1912) for both shores amount to 309,657 Greeks (or 28.2% of the total population). In addition there were 65,000 Greeks with Hellenic nationality classified in the category of foreigner residents of Istanbul, see Pentzopoulos, D., The Balkan Exchange of Minorities and its Impact upon Greece (The Hague, 1962), pp. 29–32.Google Scholar

3. See Synvet, A., Les Grecs de I’ Empire ottoman. Etude statistique et ethnographique (Constantinople, 1878)Google Scholar; Johnson, C. R. (ed.), Constantinople Today (New York, 1922).Google Scholar

4. On the armistice see Dyer, G., ‘The Turkish Armistice of 1918’, Middle Eastern Studies, VIII, 2 (1972), 143–78 and VIII, 3 (1972), 313–48 Google Scholar; Türkgeldi, A., Mondros ve Mudanya Mütarekelerinin Tarihi [The History of the Mudros and Mudanya armistices] (Ankara, 1948), pp. 23ff.Google Scholar

5. For an excellent treatment on the Greek territorial claims see Diomidis-Petsalis, N., Greece at the Paris Peace Conference 1919 (Thessaloniki, 1978), pp. 67ff.Google Scholar

6. The Manchester Guardian, 25 Jan. 1919. As early as June 1918, Venizelos proposed to the British ambassador in Athens, Lord Grenville that the best solution for Istanbul was its internationalisation. The Powers, he urged should ‘appoint jointly a Governor for a certain term of years; that system to be continued until possibly in the course of time the country had developed to such an extent as to make it capable of self-government as an independent State’, FO. 371/3156/109933, Grenville to Balfour, Athens, 9 June 1918.

7. Kitsikis, D., Propagande et Pressions en Politique Internationale (Paris, 1963), p. 28 n. 3.Google Scholar

8. For the difficulties that Venizelos’ scheme was bound to face see Llewellyn Smith, M., Ionian Vision (London, 1973), p. 48f Google Scholar. Also FO. 608/88/4604, ‘Greek Irredentism in Anatolia and the Case against Partition’, memorandum by Professor Calder, 17 March 1919.

9. Nicolson, H., Peacemaking, 1919 (London, 1964), p. 322 Google Scholar. On Curzon’s determination to eject the Turks from Europe, CAB 29/2/P/85, ‘The Future of Constantinople’, memorandum by Curzon, 2 Jan. 1918. It was circulated to the British Cabinet in January 1919.

10. FO. 608/110/7335, memo, by Toynbee and Nicolson, ‘Peace with Turkey’, 14 Apr. 1919.

11. FO. 608/110/7335, minute by Crowe, 16 Apr. 1919.

12. Venizelos’ diary, 9 May 1919, no. 789, 23 May 1969.

13. For more details on this alternative see Diomidis-Petsalis, N., 1919: (1919: Smyrna or Constantinople? An alternative solution which Venizelos dismissed rather hurriedly) in [Studies on Venizelos and his Period] (Athens, 1980), pp. 101–18.Google Scholar

14. At the Paris Peace Conference Venizelos maintained that over 380,000 Ottoman Greeks had fallen victims to the Young Turk outrages, see 18/31 Jan. 1919.

15. ‘Memorandum on the Ecumenical Patriarchate’ by Andrew Ryan, Cons., 26 Dec. 1922.

16. On gerondismos see Clogg, R., The Greek Millet in the Ottoman Empire, Paper presented at the Millet conference at Princeton University, June 12–14, 1978 Google Scholar. Reference to this paper is made with the permission of the author. For the text of the Patriarch’s letter of resignation, see Mavropoulos, D., [Patriarchal Pages] (Athens, 1960), pp. 95–6.Google Scholar

17. Dorotheos Mammelis (1851–1921). An Anatolian Greek he was at first appointed Archbishop of Grevena (1897) and was transferred to the see of Nikopolis in 1901. In 1903 he was transferred to Anatolia as Archbishop of Broussa (Bursa). On the changes in the Phanar FO. 371/4156/516, memo, on the Ecumenical Patriarchate by A. Ryan, 17 Dec. 1918.

18. Kivilcimli, H., Türkiye’de Kapitalism [Capitalism in Turkey] (istanbul, 1965)Google Scholar, cited in Ç. Keyder ‘Turkey: Dictatorship and Democracy’ in New Left Review, no. 115 (May-June 1979), 7. For a general analysis see Ç. Mardin’s ‘Historical Determinants of Stratification: Social Class and Social Consciousness in Turkey’ in Siyasal Bilgiler Fakültesi Dergisi, Ankara Üniversitesi (Journal of the Faculty of Political Science, Ankara University), xx/4 (1967), 11–42.

19. It was also known as (The Central Committee of the Unredeemed Greeks).

20. Stavridi controlled the Ionian Bank Ltd. whose central branch was in London. He was closely connected with the British Establishment and was a personal friend of Lloyd George. The most active members of the Paris Committee were: Mousouros-Gkikis (President), K. Spanoudis and S. Seferiadis, see 19 Nov./12 Dec. 1918 and 20 Nov./3 Dec. 1918.

21. Kitsikis, Propagande, p. 398.

22. Petsalis-Diomidis, Greece, p. 101.

23. Desp. of Adm. Calthorpe fromistanbul, FO. 371/4165/55059,/55144,/88756,/96959.

24. FO. 371/4160/E149600, General Stafflntelligence Report, Cons., 23 Oct. 1919.

25. For a vivid description see Adivar, H. E., The Turkish Ordeal (London, 1928), ch. 1.Google Scholar

26. 31 Oct./13 Nov. 1918; Diomidis-Petsalis, Greece at the Peace Conference, p. 95.

27. 22 Nov./5 Dec. 1918.

28. 21 Nov./4 Dec. 1918. Similar jubilant welcome was given to Leonidas Paraskevopoulos, who was the first Greek General to set foot in Istanbul since 1453. He arrived on 30 March 1919 and remained there for a week.

29. 14/27 Dec. 1918 and 19 Jan./l Feb. 1919. For a Turkish doc. see T.I.T.E. archive 10/2694, 10 Nov. 1919, given in Atatürk’ün Tamim, Telegraf ve Beyannameleri, 1917–1938 [Circulars, Telegrams and Declarations of Atatürk, 1917–1939] (Ankara, 1964), v/126.

30. Kitsikis, Propagande, pp. 339–46.

31. 28 Jan./10 Feb. 1919.

32. 10/23 Feb. 1919.

33. 12/25 Nov. 1918.

34. ne Manchester Guardian, 3 Jan. 1919; 22 Dec/4 Jan. 1919.

35. FO. 371/4161/E42765, Webb, Cons., 1 March 1919.

36. Turkish press cuttings in FO. 371/4165/55144 and FO. 371/4165/88756, Cons, desp., Calthorpe, 29 May 1919.

37. FO. 371/4164/E55111, Webb, Cons., 21 March 1919.

38. Mémoire Soumis à la Conference par le Patriarchal Oecuménique: Les Grecs de l’Empire Ottoman (Paris, 1919).

39. Interview quoted in L’ Echo de Paris, 13 March 1919.

40. See articles in the official publication of the Patriarchate E.A. XL-XLI (1920), 473–4 and XLI (1921), 25–6.

41. See Alexandris, A., 1918–1922: [The Growth of Pontine Greek Nationalism 1918–1922: Greek Foreign Policy and Turkish Reaction], in [Studies on Venizelos and his Period] (Athens, 1980), pp. 427–74.Google Scholar

42. FO. 371/4218/E85639, Patriarchate to the British High Commission, Phanar, 24 May 1919.

43. Eg. on 19 Oct. and 11 Nov. 1919. See also O.M. (Oriente Moderno), l (1921–2), 136.

44. FO. 371/5190/E1990, Dorotheos to Lloyd George - partly given in D.B.F.P. (Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1919–1939), vii, appx. 5 to no. 19.

45. His appeals to Lloyd George on 18 Feb. 1920, FO. 371/5190/E550; on 7 March 1920, FO. 371/5190/E1883; on 15 March 1920, FO. 371/5190/E1698.

46. Syllogos Littéraire Grec de Constantinople to the Peace Conference, signed by Afthentopoulos, M. and Mavridis, E., Istanbul, Feb. 1919, given in Afthentopoulos, M., [Accounts of Minas Afthentopoulos, the President of the Greek Literary Association of istanbul, 1918–22] (Athens, 1972), pp. 115–20.Google Scholar

47. Text in Emmanouilidis, E., [The Last Years of the Ottoman Empire] (Athens, 1924), p. 393.Google Scholar

48. FO. 371/5190/E2785, 29 Jan. 1919.

49. He even envisaged the creation of a ‘League of Churches’ based on the model of the League of Nations.

50. The Phanar enjoyed the support of the Archbishop of Canterbury, R. T. Davison, and that of the Anglican Church in general. With the encouragement of the Archbishop of Canterbury a society, ‘The St. Sophia Redemption Committee’, was formed in London. It urged that St. Sophia should be reverted to an Orthodox church. A massive correspondence can be found on this question among the private papers of R. T. Davison (hitherto cited as LPA/Dav.P.), housed at the Lambeth Palace Archive, London.

51. FO. 371/5190/E690, Dorotheos to Davison, Phanar, 24 Feb. 1920; LPA/Dav.P./98 (Greece), Dorotheos to Davison, Phanar, 28 May 1919.

52. LPA/Dav.P./32/2, Dorotheos to Davison, Phanar, 21 Jan. 1921. For a number of other docs, LPA/Dav.P./65/3.

53. Constantine Vayianis (1846–1919). A Karamanli Greek was first appointed member of the Court of Appeals in 1876. Immediately after the Young Turk revolution in 1908 he became Undersecretary of the Ministry of Justice and Religion. Between 1898–1900 he served as Prince of Samos. For details on the Greek appointments in 1918–19 see Aksin, S., Istanbul Hükümeti ve Milli Mücadele [The Istanbul Government and the National Struggle] (Istanbul, 1976), pp. 78, 139–42, 163.Google Scholar

54. 18 Nov./1 Dec. 1918.

55. Mavropoulos, op. cit., p. 98.

56. Speeches of deputies Emmanouilidis and Charalambidis in the Parliament (Oct. to Dec. 1918) see Emmanouilidis, op. cit., pp. 376–91.

57. Aksin, op. cit., p. 163.

58. Turkish press articles quoted in 13/26 Nov. 1918 and 13/26 January 1919.

59. The Vezir Damad Ferid Pasha complained repeatedly about ‘the conduct of the Greeks’, see his interview with Calthorpe, FO. 371/4165/45476, Cons, desp., 19 May 1919.

60. See Fernau, F. W., Patriarchen am Goldenen Horn Gegenwart und Tradition des Orthodoxen Orients (Opladen, 1967), p. 112.Google Scholar

61. Ryan, A., The Last of the Dragomans (London, 1951), pp. 153–4.Google Scholar

62. FO. 371/4165/E55111, Webb, Cons., 21 March 1921.

63. Mavropoulos, op. cit., p. 115.

64. Pallis, A., [Greeks Abroad] (Athens, 1953), p. 173.Google Scholar

65. Mavropoulos, op. cit., pp. 107–8.

66. For a treatment of the Greek occupation of Western Anatolia see Llewellyn-Smith, op. cit., pp. 86–101; Rodas, M. L., 1918–1922 [Greece in Asia Minor, 1918–22] (Athens, 1950).Google Scholar

67. On the Turkish nationalist movement see Atatürk, M. K., A Speech Delivered by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk (Istanbul, 1963)Google Scholar; Sonyel, S. R., Turkish Diplomacy 1918–1923 (London, 1975).Google Scholar

68. On the large demonstration of 23 May 1919 at Sultan Ahmet see Anburnu, K.. Milli Mücadele’de Istanbul mitingleri [Istanbul demonstrations during the National Struggle] (Istanbul, 1951), p. 212 Google Scholar. Also FO. 371/4227/82458, Calthorpe, Cons, desp., 31 May 1919.

69. Turkish press cuttings in FO. 371/4159/E144747, 1 Oct. 1919. On the crucial political changes in Istanbul, FO. 406/41/251–56, Webb, Cons, desp., 10 Oct. 1919.

70. FO. 371/4160/E149600, General Staff Intelligence Report, British High Commission, Istanbul, 23 Oct. 1919.

71. For the text of such a pamphlet see Duran, T. ‘Milli Mücadele Yillannda Yunan ve Rum Katliamlari Karşisinda Anadolu’dan tstanbul’daki Turklere Bir Çağri’ [A Call from Anatolia to the Turks of Istanbul concerning the Greek atrocities during the years of National Struggle], Belgelerle Turk Tarih Dergisi [Journal of Documented Turkish History], 79–81 (1974), 12–16.Google Scholar

72. See D.B.F.P., iv/no. 522 and for fuller reports FO. 371/4159/E143405, de Robeck, Cons, desp., 19 Oct. 1919; FO. 371/4160/E146634, Webb, Cons, desp., 18 Oct. 1919.

73. The whole text of the Treaty of Sèvres, which was never in fact ratified by the Turks, see British and Foreign State Papers, Treaty Series no. 11 (1920), cmd. 964.

74. On the London negotiations see Sonyel, op. cit., pp. 91–112.

75. FO. 371/6565/E1492, Dorotheos to Lloyd George, Phanar, 31 Jan. 1921. The Ottoman Greeks had already appealed the Entente against any modification of the Peace Treaty, see The Times, 30 Dec. 1920.

76. Dorotheos’ official application for travelling documents, FO. 371/6565/E1649, Rumbold, Cons., 4 Feb. 1919. Also FO. 371/6565/E2191, Rumbold, Cons., 16 Feb. 1919.

77. Minutes of Dorotheos’ interview with the Archbishop of Canterbury on 2 March 1921 are kept at LPA/Dav.P./32/2. Also FO. 371/6565/E1649,/E2191 and/2550.

78. For the text of Dorotheos’ speech to V, George, see E.A., XLI (1921), 73–6.Google Scholar

79. FO. 800/Curzon P./157/203, Dorotheos to Curzon, London, 7 March 1921. See also The Times, 2 and 7 March 1921.

80. FO.371/6565/E3710, Foreign Office notes, 26 March 1921. LPA/Dav.P./32/2, new acting Patriarch Nicholas to the Archbishop of Canterbury and another letter by the British Chaplain of the British High Commission in Istanbul, both dated on 23 March 1921.

81. On the impressive funeral ceremony and the text of the funeral oration on the deceased prelate, FO. 371/6566/E4611, Rumbold, Cons., 13 Apr. 1921; LPA/Doug.P. (Douglas Papers) 17/14–6, Borough to Douglas, Cons, letter, n.d.

82. Mavropoulos, op. cit., 127.

83. See Alexandris, A., The Greek Minority in Turkey, 1918–1956: An Aspect of Greco-Turkish Relations, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of London, 1979, ch. iv Google Scholar.; Psomiades, H. J., The Eastern Question: The Last Phase (Thessaloniki, 1968), pp. 96–7.Google Scholar

84. On the National Schism see Dakin, D., The Unification of Greece 1770–1923 (London, 1923), pp. 205ff.Google Scholar

85. Interview with Paul Palaiologos, Athens 1979. Palaiologos was one of the owners of until 1922.

86. FO. 371/4685/C14290, Rumbold, Cons, desp., 13 Dec. 1920.

87. Ibid.

88. That is the day of St. Eleftherios, see 16/29 Dec. 1920.

89. See French demand for the revision of Sèvres at the London Conference (26 Nov. to 6 Dec. 1920), D.B.F.P., viii/no. 95 to 98.

90. A memorandum prepared by the Constantinopolitan Amyna, 14 Jan. 1921 in Stavridi P./file 6 (Private Papers of Sir John Stavridi housed at St. Antony’s College, Oxford).

91. For an appraisal of the international implications of the political changes in Greece see Smith, LI., op. cit., pp. 162ff. On the various Amyna organizations and the Mikrasiatic movement see Rodas, , op. cit., pp. 270ff.Google Scholar

92. On the Venizelist officers see Veremis, Th., 1916–1936, [Military interventions in Greek politics, 1916–36] (Athens, 1977), pp.71–96 Google Scholar; D.B.F.P., xii/no. 472.

93. Stavridi P./file 5, Venizelos to Stavridi, Nice, 29 Dec. 1920. The delegates were Constantine Spanoudis, T. K. Stavridis and Leonidas Iasonidis.

94. Details on the ideological stand of the movement are given in a long memorandum prepared by Amyna, 14 Jan. 1921, in Stavridi P./file 6; LI. Smith, op. cit., 185–9.

95. D.B.F.P., xvii/no. 601, n. 3.

96. Signed by acting Patriarch Dorotheos. For the text see E.A., XL-XLI (1920), 437–8.

97. FO. 371/6565/E2733, Rumbold, Cons, desp., 23 Feb. 1921.

98. Thus, in January 1921, the Archbishop of Nicomedia was summoned to the Phanar on charges of disobedience to the Patriarchal instructions, ibid.

99. 1/13 and 7/20 Dec. 1920; Markezinis, S., [Political History of Contemporary Greece, 1920–22] (Athens, 1973), I, p. 253.Google Scholar

100. The British High Commissioner noted that Nicholas did not possess ‘the same personality as his predecessor’, FO. 371/6566/E4063, Rumbold, Cons, desp., 28 March 1921.

101. FO. 371/6566/E6774, Rumbold, Cons, desp., 3 June 1921.

102. Rumbold described the atmosphere at the Phanar during the election as ‘heated and charged with Venizelism’, in FO. 371/6566/E13900, Rumbold, Cons. desp., 10 Dec. 1921. See also E.A., XL (1921), 369–79.

103. Meletios Metaxakis (1871–1935). The leader of the Venizelist faction in the Orthodox Church. After holding the see of Kitium in Cyprus, he succeeded the deposed Theoklitos as Archbishop of Athens and was himself deposed in turn when the royalists returned to power in November 1920. After his dismissal, he went to the United States to uphold the Venizelist cause among the Greek communities there. For his abdication in Nov. 1923 see Alexandris, , The Greek Minority in Turkey, pp. 185–221 Google Scholar; Psomiades, op. cit., 87–96.

104. The dissenting prelates were Constan tine (Kyzikos), Joachim (Enos), Eirinaios (Dardanelles), Chrysostom (Tyroloi), Eugenios (Silyvria), Anthimos (Vyzia) and Gerassimos (Pisidia), see Mavropoulos, op. cit., 158. In Stavridi P./file 6, there is a detailed letter on the Patriarchal election giving the Venizelist point of view, Amyna to Stavridi, undated.

105. O.M., 1 (1921–22) 450; The Times, 13 Jan. 1922.

106. For his rôle to enlist the support of prominent Greek figures, such as Aristeidis Stergiadis and Anastasios Papoulas, to the Mikrasiatic movement see Smith, LI., op. cit., 248f; Passas, I. D., [The Agony of a nation] (Athens, 1925), pp. 151ff.Google Scholar

107. Venizelos approved wholeheartedly of Meletios’ election, Stavridi P./file 6, Venizelos to Meletios, 26 Dec. 1921.

108. SirLuke, H. (The Making of Modem Turkey [London, 1936], pp. 227–8)Google Scholar described the Phanar during the Patriarchate of Meletios as ‘a citadel of political Hellenism in Turkish territory’.

109. His interview with Lloyd George was published in 2/15 Feb. 1922. In Paris he also met Poincaré and Clemenceau on 30 Jan. 1922. Notes kept by Kallimachos, the Patriarch’s secretary, during these interviews can be found in Stavridi P./file 7, Kallimachos to Stavridi, Paris, 26 Jan. 1922. See also Markezinis, op. cit., 426–30.

110. FO. 371/7882/E2722, Lindley, Athens, 11 March 1922; FO. 371/7923/E14576, ‘Memorandum on the Ecumenical Patriarchate’, Andrew Ryan, 26 Dec. 1922.

111. On his visit to the parish of Tatavla (Kurtulus) and his speech, FO. 371/7882/E4705, Rumbold, Cons, desp., 5 May 1922.

112. For details on the Patriarchal fund-raising activities and that of the responsible committee, see E.A., XLI (1921), 420–1.

113. On the activities of this mission in Istanbul, FO. 371/7926/E2354, Rumbold, Cons, desp., 2 March 1922.

114. FO. 371/7882/E4705, Rumbold, Cons, desp., 3 May 1922.

115. See D.B.F.P., xvii/no. 564 and 565. For details on the Conference see Bayur, H., Türkiye Devletinin Di? Siyasasi [The Foreign Policy of the Turkish State] (Ankara, 1942), pp. 104–9.Google Scholar

116. The idea of entrusting Venizelos to represent Ottoman Hellenism at the international conferences was suggested to Andrew Ryan by the political advisor of the Patriarchate, Basil Mousouros-Gkikis, FO. 371/7882/E7830, Ryan interview with Mousouros-Gkikis, Cons, desp., 29 July 1922. Later Venizelos denied any prior knowledge of such an idea.

117. FO. 371/7870/E8287, Meletios to Lloyd George, Phanar, 7 Aug. 1922.

118. LPA/Dav.P./148/7, Meletios to Davison, Phanar, 10 Aug. 1922.

119. Letter by Meletios to Venizelos, Phanar, 6 May 1922, reproduced in Markezinis, op. cit., 435.

120. For details see Young, G., Corps de Droit Ottoman (Oxford, 1905), I, pp. 12–34.Google Scholar

121. E.A., XLI (1921), 15–6, 25–6.

122. Copy of letter transmitted to Rumbold by the Ottoman Foreign Minister in FO. 371/6566/E13956, 19 Dec. 1921. See also The Times, 15 Dec. 1921.

123. FO. 371/7923/E53, Rumbold, Cons, desp., 19 Dec. 1921; O.M., 1 (1921–22) 450. In fact Meletios was never furnished with an official document (berat) without which no Orthodox prelate could be declared lawfully Patriarch.

124. See Kemal’s, Mustafa interview with the correspondent of Le Journal and his comments on the Patriarchate (25 Dec. 1922) quoted in Atatürk’ün Sõylev ve Demeçleri [Speeches and Sayings of Atatürk] (Ankara, 1954), p. 57 Google Scholar; Ellison, G., An English Woman in Angora (London, 1923), p. 108.Google Scholar

125. On his popularity see reports by the Constantinopolitan Greek press 6 Feb. 1922; 7 Feb. 1922.

126. FO. 371/7916/E13369, Henderson, Cons, desp., 22 Nov. 1922.

127. Text of the long memorandum by the Greek Government to the Allied representatives announcing their intention to occupy istanbul in Frangoulis, A. F., La Grèce, son statut international, son histoire diplomatique (Paris, n.d.), II, pp. 391–3 Google Scholar; FO. 424/254/106.

128. See D.B.F.P., xviii/no. 317ff.