This post first appeared on Russia Insider
‘… The first friend whom (Lenin) sought was Mustafa Kemal.’
William Wedgwood Benn, 1st Viscount Stansgate, House of Lords, 29 July, 1953
‘The Bolshevist Revolution was the work mainly of Russian and German Jews. Thus Germany, supported by a clique of international Jews, not only ruined Russia, and nearly succeeded in winning the war by doing so, but also was the means of setting up in Russia an organization known as the Third International, for the purpose of spreading the seeds of revolution throughout the Entente countries, and especially throughout the British Empire.’
Alan Ian Percy, 8th Duke of Northumberland, The Patriot, 9 February, 1922
July 24, 1921, Dorylaion, North-West Asia Minor. The Greek Royal Army stands victorious over a field littered with dead Turkish soldiers and their tattered crescent banners. In fourteen days of vicious fighting, the backbone of Kemal Atatürk’s main army has cracked. The asymmetry of overall casualties between both combatants clearly exhibits that the Turkish Armed Forces are in a state of disintegration.
Out of some 95.000 men, the Turks have suffered around 2.000 dead, 5.000 wounded, 5.000 captured and more than 30.000 desertions. Out of 110.000 men, the Greeks count less than 1.500 dead and some 6.000 wounded. A sense of euphoria sweeps across Greece. In the minds of the Christian multitudes, enduring under the yoke of Turkish tyranny, their salvation is at hand. In the words of King Constantine I:
‘It is extraordinary how little civilized the Turks are. Today they are almost in the same state they were in the year 1500, when they appeared in Europe. It is high time they disappeared and went back into the interior of Asia whence they came … We advanced 300 kilometers into enemy territory and repulsed Kemal … We shall now fortify ourselves here on the banks of the Saggarios, a large river which runs though the desert at about sixty kilometers from Ankara. If Kemal wants to get rid of us, all he has to do is to attack us, and we shall then see if he succeeds. But there is little fear of his coming to worry us …’
A Kings Private Letters, Eveleigh Nash & Grayson, London, 1925
It was on this very moment, at the precipice of victory, with Greek soldiers gazing at the minaret towers of Ancyra, that our army, undefeated upon field of battle, was stabbed in the back, betrayed, in a manner that draws heavy parallelism to the collapse of the Tsarist forces following the February Revolution of 1917. A methodic analysis of the matter, will convince, even the most sceptic character, that the nefarious forces that plotted and executed the overthrow of the Romanov Dynasty, achieved the exact same goal in 1921-1922, albeit in a far smaller scale, against the House of Glücksburg, thus extinguishing the righteous aspirations of the Kingdom of Hellas to deliver its brethren of Ionia from certain oblivion.
To realize the tragic state of modern Greece, one needs to carefully asses the chaotic events of the past century that led us to this wretched predicament. Exactly 110 years ago, in 1909, several pariah elements within the Hellenic Armed Forces in Athens, orchestrated the infamous ‘Goudi coup’ of 28 August. The violent protest of the mutineers eventually forced the government, loyal to King George I, to allow the arrival of an obscure figure in the political stage of the country. His name was Eleftherios Venizelos. The upstart demagogue’s name may, at first glance, appear Hellenic but, his origins were far more ‘diverse’ than one could imagine. According to Prince Christopher of Greece:
‘Venizelos was of mixed parentage, Turkish, Jewish and Armenian …’
Memoirs of H. R. H. Prince Christopher of Greece, Hurst & Blackett, page 104, London, 1938.
Venizelos brought to Greek politics the subtle venom of extreme liberalism. By 1909, he had forged a nucleus of fanatic followers, by December 1910, he won the general election against the pro-Monarchist Stefanos Dragoumis and thus achieved to divide Greeks, for the first time in our modern history, amongst a two-party system, the Royalists under the ‘People’s Party’ and the Venizelists under the ‘Liberal Party’. The sanguinary elements of future civil strife and discord had been sown.
Concurrently with the seemingly precipitous and meteoric rise of Venizelos in Greece, similar chthonic forces converged in the Orient. In 1908, one year before the ‘Goudi coup’, the ancient order of the Ottoman Empire was shaken to its very core. The ‘Young Turks’ Revolution forcefully saw a substantial portion of the traditional absolute powers of the Sultan been transferred to a sinister group of shadowy figures, whose origins, unsurprisingly, were common with those of Venizelos! As stated by Walter Guinness, 1st Baron Moyne, in the House of Commons, on the 20th of March 1919:
‘The Young Turks are largely Jews from Salonika. I quite agree you cannot exaggerate the criminality of these Young Turks, who dragged a reluctant population into the War …’
Mainstream political commentators nowadays believe they know all about the meaning of ‘collusion’. In reality they have no idea. Columnists and opinion-editorial writers think they have grasped the essence of ‘meddling in elections’ and ‘infiltration operations’… they know nothing. What if I was to tell you that Venizelos, the supposed ‘Ethnarch’ of early 20th century Greece, the man who supposedly dreamt of a restored ‘Greater Greece’, stretching in both sides of the Aegean Sea, the purported arch-polemic of Turkish autocracy, was in fact a compatriot of his alleged nemesis Mustafa Kemal Atatürk; In the summer of 1922, Achmed Abdullah, the renowned author of ‘The Thief of Bagdad’ whose real name was supposedly Alexander Nicholayevitch Romanoff, and Leo Anavi, both vehement supporters of Kemal, attended a dinner party in his house. A few months later, they published their observations of that evening in an article:
‘(Kemal was) tall, still young, good looking, narrow-hipped, wide-shouldered, with gray, rather sad eyes that spoke eloquently of his Spanish-Jewish ancestry’
Cengiz Sisman, ‘The Burden of Silence: Sabbatai Sevi and the Evolution of the Ottoman- Turkish Dönmes’, page 268, Oxford University Press, 2015.
The truth of the matter is, the game was rigged from the start. The same financial interests enabled both the ‘Liberal Party’ under Venizelos in Greece and the ‘People’s Party’ under Kemal in Turkey. The same geostrategic think-tank looked favorably upon the abolition of both the Ottoman Empire and the Kingdom of Greece. The Monarchy in Turkey proved an easy prey. In Greece, it took far longer to corrode the diachronic loyalty of the people towards the House of Glücksburg. Of course, the game played in Athens and Constantinople was part of a far larger one. It would have never progressed, to the extent it did, had it not been for the phenomenal success of the Bolshevists in Russia. And here lies the center of gravity of the entire affair. The leading figures of Marxist terrorism were related to both Venizelos and Kemal. George Curzon, 1st Marquess Curzon of Kedleston, the eminent Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs of the British Empire, in October 1924, in a speech in Leicester, said the following:
‘Don't imagine that the Russian Government is a body of Russians who represent, at any rate, some section of their country. That is not the case. They are a small gang, only a few hundred in number, few of them Russian by birth, and most of them Jews in origin, who are praying like vultures on the bodies of that unhappy people.’
Gisela Lebzelter, ‘Hostages of Modernization: Germany, Great Britain, France’, Edited by Herbert Arthur Strauss, Publisher, Walter de Gruyter, Berlin – New York, 1993
It was no secret then and it certainly is no secret now. These details were once openly discussed by some of the most renowned political figures of Western Civilization. Some provided extremely precise information. For example, George Clarke, 1st Baron Sydenham of Combe, on July 5th, 1922, said the following in the House of Lords:
‘The Third Internationale is managed by Lenin, and the two Jews Trotsky (Bronstein) and Zinovieff (Apfelbaum)’
Others were even more emphatic. In 1919, Robert Cecil, 1st Viscount Cecil of Chelwood, then, Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, wrote:
‘As is well known, a large proportion of the Bolshevist administration was composed of Jews, including such men as Trotsky, Kamenev, Radek, Stekloff etc. They in turn . . . have committed . . . great atrocities, and have consequently aroused bitter hostility against their co-religionists, amongst many sections of the Russian population.’
Dr Sharman Kadish, ‘Bolsheviks and British Jews’, page 14, Frank Cass & Co, Ltd, 1992
Even Sir Winston Churchill, who held some rather naughty opinions during the early 1920’s, could not remain silent on the matter. He wrote:
‘From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxembourg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilization and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing. It played, as a modern writer, Mrs. Webster, has so ably shown, a definitely recognizable part in the tragedy of the French Revolution. It has been the mainspring of every subversive movement during the Nineteenth Century; and now at last this band of extraordinary personalities from the underworld of the great cities of Europe and America have gripped the Russian people by the hair of their heads and have become practically the undisputed masters of that enormous empire.’
Extract, Illustrated Sunday Herald, February 8, 1920, ‘Zionism vs Bolshevism: A struggle for the soul of the Jewish people’, by the Rt. Hon. Winston S. Churchill
Of course, at the time, neither Viscount Chelwood, Lord Sydenham nor Churchill, and in fact, most people in general, knew that Lenin was himself of partial Jewish descent.
If one is to discard all the unnecessary anti-Semitic vitriol and simply immerse himself in the diplomatic chatter, flooding the embassies and Foreign Offices of Europe, between 1917-1925, he will find volumes of extraordinary information. To give two brief examples, General Sir Alfred Knox’s telegram to the War Office from Omsk, dated February 5, 1919, stating that Jews were immediately responsible for the assassination of the Russian Imperial family (A Collection of Reports on Bolshevism in Russia, His Majesties Stationary Office, April 1919) and Lord Kilmarnock’s bitter letter from Petrograd, dated February 3, 1919 stating:
‘The Bolsheviks comprised chiefly Jews and Germans, who were exceedingly active and enterprising. The Russians were largely anti-Bolshevik, but were for the most part dreamers, incapable of any sustained action, who now, more than ever before, were unable to throw off the yoke of their oppressors …’
Parliamentary Papers, House of Commons, Volume 53, His Majesties Stationary Office, 1919
With the above in mind, it is not difficult to fathom why, from July 1920, Lenin began his financial and military donations to Kemal, to call them generous would be an understatement. In the summer, the first batch of funds, amounting to 100.000 golden Ottoman lira had arrived along with substantial amounts of heavy ordinance, machine guns, light weapons and ammunitions. By September, 1.000.000 golden rubles had been delivered to Kemal’s war-chest. The following year, on the 16th of March, the ‘bonds of affection’ between the Young Turks and the Bolsheviks were cemented with the signing, in Moscow, of the ‘Treaty of Brotherhood’. After the conclusion of this alliance, and until March of 1922, Lenin had supplied the Kemalist ‘Grand National Assembly of Turkey’ with an additional 11.000.000 golden rubles. In effect, in two years, the Marxists provided their Dönmeh brethren with a sum of money, far larger than the annual revenue of the Turkish State, effectively covering all the costs of war for the duration of the conflagration against the Kingdom of Greece. Of course, the fact that the French and the Italians also betrayed Greece and openly assisted the Turks was an additional hinderance.
In June 1917, Venizelos, supported by the liberal French, succeeded in exiling King Constantine. In May 1919, despite the objections of Ioannis Metaxas, he landed a single, ill-equipped, ill-supplied, Division in Smyrna, thus ushering the campaign of Asia Minor. In November 1920, Venizelos intentionally triggered a general election and lost. King Constantine returned to Athens and Venizelos, conveniently, decided to self-exile himself, leaving the Royalists to settle the Anatolian Front that he himself had engineered. Was Venizelos’s decision-making calculated in order to bring the downfall of Hellenism in Asia Minor? Was he privy to the designs of Lenin and Kemal? Unless some new primary sources are unearthed, we will not know for certain but … we certainly know a lot to suspect.
That been said, none of the above machinations proved decisive for the outcome of the Campaign. They certainly portray a pattern of vested interests, determined to extinguish the fundamental values of both Greek and Russian civilization, yet, the decisive blow against Greece was given by a fifth column from within. Had it not been for the liberal and communist infiltration of the Royal Army, the crippling of its moral and the treasonous disobedience of officers like the miscreant Nicolas Plastiras (later Prime Minister of Greece between 1951-1952, who, in the early 1940’s, was an ardent admirer of Hitler and pathetically dreamt of becoming puppet ruler of Greece under Nazi suzerainty), our army would have stormed Ancyra, liberated our ancestral soil and in the process, save millions of undefended Greeks, Armenians and Kurds from the genocidal monstrosities of Kemalist Turkey.
The Communist Party of Greece made no bones about its involvement in facilitating the collapse of the internal front. In 1935, their official newspaper ‘The Radical’, proudly stated the following:
‘Had we not been defeated in Asia Minor, Turkey today would have ceased to exist and we would be a ‘Greater Greece’. Our ‘freedom’ would reside in the subjugation of the Turkish populace. This is something we do not accept. We discard it categorically … For this reason, not only did we not felt sorry for the defeat of the upper-classes in Asia Minor, we did everything in our power to see it through’
And now? In 2019, Russia is once more one of the strongest nations upon the face of the earth. Her citizens, in their overwhelming majority, have drawn a demarcation line between the illustrious era of the Tsarist regime and the apostrophic period of Marxist tyranny. The nation is the last, amongst the major states of Western Civilization, that retains its racial, cultural and religious homogeneity. The current leadership appears to emanate an aura of stoic patriotism with aspirations to see the lost provinces of the Empire, slowly return to the body of the motherland. The Double-headed Eagle and the Crown of Imperial authority have returned, proudly casting aside the usurping symbol of the hammer and sickle. Despite the best wishes of her enemies, Russia’s prospects in the geopolitical arena will only continue to improve.
Juxtaposed to this reality stands the Hellenic Republic. Her economy in ruins, her society fractured. Millions of, predominantly Islamic, migrants settling in her confines and given citizenship. Her politicians obediently following the dictates of those that in 1974, betrayed us in Cyprus and again in 1996 in the affair of Imia. Our leadership, thus far, retaining a lethargic stance while the Erdogan regime has achieved to plant a Trojan horse of ‘refugees’ within our perimeter and strategically surround us by establishing Turkish influence in Albania and Skopje (FYROM). All this, while the European Union is draining us of our resources and has depleted our gold reserves. Ever since our Constitutional Monarchy was supplanted by a pseudo-Democracy, our prospects at national sovereignty have vanished. It is quite probable that, given our current state, in the foreseeable future, everything we reclaimed under the hegemony of House Glücksburg, since 1911, will be lost.
The Turks are certainly well aware of our internal weakness, thus the ability of Erdogan to proclaim:
‘(The actual geographic extent of) Turkey is larger than (the current borders of) Turkey. We cannot be imprisoned in 780,000 square kilometers. The borders of our hearts are elsewhere. Our brothers in Mosul, Kirkuk, Skopje (FYROM), may be outside our natural boundaries, but they are within the borders of our hearts, at the epicenter of our hearts’
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Turkey, November 10, 2016 (full article here: https://greece.greekreporter.com/2016/11/10/turkish-president-defines-turkeys-borders-of-the-heart-as-larger-than-actual-borders/)
Yet … who invented the modern insolent ultra-nationalist state of Turkey? It was unquestionably the same paragon that between 1917 -1991 reigned supreme in Russia. The same conglomerate that, from its US branch office, is still ordering about its ‘apparatchik’ in Greece and, beyond doubt, the same mechanism that wants us to believe Turkey is an enemy of Israel.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons