The Lausanne Moment 100 Years On

The Lausanne Convention, signed by the Greek and Turkish governments on 30 January 1923, after the defeat of the Greek army at the Asia Minor front in 1922, imposed the compulsory exchange of the Greek and Turkish populations. With a few exceptions, almost two million people were forced to leave their homeland and migrate to the other country. For many decades, these people were forbidden to travel to their homeland and visit the places where their families had lived for centuries, while in their new homeland they were treated with hostility. Within this context, education operated as a factor of cultural homogenization, which would ensure that the future generations of refugee families would forget their past and conceal their cultural heritage. Moreover, a typical choice made by the cultural and educational policies of the two relevant nation-states was the elimination of any element that could possibly undermine the dominant national narrative by demonstrating common characteristics and experiences of the two peoples. We should not forget that the division and enmity that were maintained by both sides were based on not only the long historical sequence of wars, but also on the deeply embedded stereotypical images, which racially and culturally demonized the other, thus excluding any possibility of reconciliation. Within this asphyxiating propagandistic environment, the refugees were the only ones who had lived on the other side, preserving memories of peaceful coexistence and who, therefore, could question the image of the detested other. Even so, despite the similarities in the attitudes of the two states towards their new citizens and their refugee memory, it does not appear that the refugees were as equally active in both countries. In Greece, for many reasons, the refugees quickly organized themselves into cultural associations, achieved political representation, established institutions and museums, and created archives of written and visual documents and oral testimonies. In Turkey, on the other hand, the descendants of refugees only started to be active collectively a little before 2000. Today, the most active foundation in Turkey is the NGO Lozan Mübadilleri Vakfi. The foundation holds cultural events and exhibitions in Turkey and Greece, collects oral testimonies and organizes trips to the places of origin of Turkish refugees in Greece. Furthermore, it has developed a remarkable publishing activity. This paper aims to place the Greek and Turkish memory communities of the refugees of the Lausanne Convention within the same framework of observation. In the first part, a brief outline of the historical context of the population exchange is given, how it was handled politically and the position it took in the two national historiographies. The second part reviews the history of refugee associations and foundations in both countries. The third part shows the differences and, mostly, similarities that arise from an analysis of the narratives of Greek and Turkish refugees, as these appear in the bilingual publication of the Lozan Mübadilleri Vakfi. An attempt is also made to interpret refugee trauma and its intergenerational evolution. In the fourth part, some thoughts are given on the question of whether it is possible to create a common lieu de mémoire for the refugees on both sides, and what its characteristics should be.

2009

This chapter focuses on the way in which the historical event of the 1923 Lausanne exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey has a continuous effect on the relations between these two countries. Through the long term separation of their peoples, the common ground of shared experience was lost. That path was by no means inevitable, however, for changes in the late nineteenth century in the imperial regimes of the region suggest that other possibilities existed. After World War I, the nation state was the preferred political form, and consequently the imposition of an ideology of homogeneity necessitated the rewriting of history. Enmity and confl icts were emphasised in offi cial narratives which are used by both sides, among the mechanisms involved in nation building, while the role of memory and of emotions evoked by images of the past are seen as part of socialisation into attitudes which can hinder the development of better bilateral relations. We should bear in mind that the possibility of change always exists since human beings are essentially teachable and their cultural attributes are dynamic and subject to many and varied infl uences. The attitudes formed by history's long shadow are by no means immutable, therefore, as recent moves towards reconciliation would indicate.

2003

Papyri - Scientific Journal

EUSTATHIOS PELAGIDIS, former Associate Professor of the University of Western Macedonia. Hellas This work demonstrates, with data, that Thessaloniki has to show greater social his-tory, in relation to other Greek cities. And this not only during the Byzantine period (330-1453), when accepted laminated refugee flows from across the Balkans due avaroslavikon epiodromon but also in subsequent periods. A closer look, though, leads to the conclusion that the century after the liberation from the Turks (1912 – 2012) is distinctive for the most massive and frequent refugee flows of ex¬patriate and foreign populations that inundate this city. This is the reason why this city is rightfully proud for its bright social contribution this period during which it has been either a CROSSROAD or a SHELTER for weak social groups both of the same nationality and of others. Α) THESSALONIKI AS A CROSSROAD OF MUSLIM REFUGEES a) 1912-1924: From the Balkan Wars until the Convention concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations, 460.000 Muslim refugees from Macedonia and the Balkans (Bulgraria – Serbia) were hosted and then sent to Turkey. b) End of the 20th c.: Due to the NATO bombings of Kossovo (1999), about five thou-sand (5,000) Kossovar Albanian Muslims are hosted in this city and are then sent to Australia. Β) THESSALONIKI AS A CROSSROAD AND SHELTER OF OTHER FOREIGN POPULATIONS a) ARMENIAN REFUGEES After the Asia Minor catastrophe (1929), about three thousand Armenian refugees from Asia Minor resort to this city. Residues of those refugees are the Armenians of Thessalo¬niki (1000 – 1500), who comprise the current Armenian Community of Thessaloniki. b) REFUGEES FROM ASIAN AND AFRICAN COUNTRIES In the hospitable shelter of Thessaloniki, “SOCIAL SOLIDARITY, RECEPTION CENTRE FOR REFUGEES AND ASYLUM SEEKERS” (Siatistis 12), about two thousand (2,000) refugees have been hosted until today (2001 and on), coming from Asian and African countries with intense internal problems (Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Palestine, Nigeria, Iran, Guinea and oth-ers). C) THESSALONIKI AS A SHELTER AND CROSSROAD OF REFUGEE POPULATIONS OF THE SAME NATIONALITY a) 1912-1924: During these twelve years, 1912-1924, approximately 430,000 farmers and 170,000 expatriate refugees from Anatolian cities, uprooted after the Balkan Wars and the Asia Minor Catastrophe (1922), passed from Thessaloniki and scattered all over Macedo¬nia. b) REPATRIATED POPULATIONS OF THE SAME NATIONALITY (1990-2000): Approximately 150,000 c) GREEKS FROM CONSTANTINOPLE (1955 and on): 15,000 persons GREEKS FROM IMVROS (1964 and on): 2,000 persons d) CYPRIOT GREEKS (1974 and on): 10,000 persons (SOURCES: Archival newspapers and reliable Bibliography) NOTICE: We consider that, during this period, the most important cause of the recep-tion and hosting of so many refugee flows was firstly the Greco-Christian cultural element of the city and secondarily, its geographical position.

Turkish Historical Review, 2021

This article is on the diplomatic processes leading to the decision to exchange populations between Greece and Turkey during the peace negotiations at the Lausanne Conference in 1923. The US National Archives has rich and hitherto unexploited archival material that encompasses the correspondence between Istanbul, Athens and the US Department of State. As the Turkish Ministry of Foreign Affairs Archives is still closed to researchers, US diplomatic correspondence gives a clear picture of how Greek and Turkish statesmen, as well as intermediaries such as the representatives of the League of Nations, developed and accomplished the idea of population exchange in 1922-23.

A Century of Greek-Turkish Relations, 2024

Turkish Relations is an important handbook written by leading authorities from both shores of the Aegean Sea. Greek and Turkish scholars present in a balanced and objective way, as well as in a graspable and meaningful manner, the main periods in which key events brought the two sides into dispute or even conflict. These events, which are integrated in parallel and conflicting national narratives, fuel the historicity of the two national rivals. A century since the end of the Greek-Turkish war, the trauma of the Greek military defeat and the "disaster of the Asia Minor Greeks", the establishment of the Republic of Turkey and the emblematic Treaty of Lausanne, render this kind of handbook undoubtedly essential. It opens the discussion to the wider audience in a rational and composed way and most importantly, the reader can follow through the pages, the dialogue between Turkish and Greek scholars. A book of this kind was missing from public history."-Prof. Sia Anagnostopoulou, Panteion University "As an expert on the subject of "minorities" for the past fifty years with a number of publications in Turkish, English, and French, and based on the experts that are participating in the A Century of Greek-Turkish Relations: A Handbook, there is no doubt that this will become an indispensable tool, and above all, an objective account of the Greek-Turkish relations for both experts and the wider public."-Prof. (emeritus) Baskin Oran, Ankara University "As editors of this important and timely book, Nikos Christofis and Anthony Deriziotis assert that uneducated narratives have perpetuated misunderstandings within Turkish-Greek relations. In their enlightening work, they dismantle these misconceptions, offering a nuanced exploration of the historical and contemporary complexities between the two nations. By featuring insights from leading experts, this book provides a crucial resource for anyone seeking a deeper understanding of Turkish-Greek relations, presenting new historical insights and analytical viewpoints on bilateral relations."-Prof. Evren Balta, Özyeğin University "A comprehensive and insightful survey of Greek-Turkish relations. A number of distinguished academics have offered their expertise succeeding in the formidable task of touching upon several sensitive issues avoiding stereotypes and easy readings of problems that are burdened by history. A must read for students and experts alike."

Contrary to common belief, the Lausanne Convention (1923) was not the first international treaty to foresee an “exchange” of populations, although it was indeed the first to make such an exchange obligatory. This sad “privilege” of first mention ever belongs to a bilateral treaty signed between Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire in September 1913, whose success led the Ottomans to suggest a similar exchange concerning the Greeks of the Aydın vilayet in Asia Minor with the Muslims of Greek Macedonia. The Greek government was initially negative, but the Young Turks attempted to enforce it either way, adopting a series of persecutions against non-Muslim citizens of the Empire and embarking on a naval arms race against Greece. Facing an augmenting flow of refugees from Asia Minor and in fear of new hostilities, Athens was soon convinced that a consensus might be preferable. Upon the formal acceptance of such talks in principle, intensive contact between the two sides on a high level resulted in significant progress within the following months, allowing for a joint committee to be created in İzmir in June 1914 with the task to prepare the ground for the exchange. However, the eruption of World War I in Europe and the decision of the Ottoman government to join the Central Powers had a detrimental effect on the talks, as all related activity was suspended and the idea would come up again only after the end of the war, in totally different terms.