In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

348 Reviews Greece's Ottoman past. And to the extent that Serifos may be seen as typical of the several peripheral and "insignificant" islands in the Aegean, this wealth of information will prove invaluable for future comparative studies. Alexander Kitroeff Queens College, CUNY Semih Vaner (editor), Le différend gréco-turc. Paris: L'Harmattan. 1986. Pp. 286. This book is unique. It deals with Greek-Turkish history from both points of view through the collective contributions of Greek, Turkish and French scholars. It grew out of a symposium held in Paris in May 1986 initiated by the well-known CERI (Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches internationales) of the French FNSP (Fondation nationale des Sciences politiques). The founder and first chairman of the CERI, Professor Jean-Baptiste Duroselle had given this research centre a decisively historical approach to the study of international relations. The passionate anti-Turkish reaction of the Greek press to this symposium (noted on page 13), unfortunately marred the reputation of the Greek scientific debate. In fact this book is well-balanced and the editor's introduction could not be termed biased. In the preface, Pierre Milza, a distinguished historian of the Mediterranean basin notes that this work is a remarkable outcome of the historical method taught by the Renouvin-Duroselle school. The book is divided into four sections: historical landmarks (Yerasimos on myths and realities in Greek-Turkish relations, Kuneralp on Greek-Ottoman diplomats, Juster on the Oecumenical Patriarchate ); bilateral relations (Kazancigil on a general approach to the problem, Katsoufros on the Aegean dispute, Pazarci on the legal aspects of this dispute, Mavroyiannis on the Cyprus problem, Oran on the Turkish minority of Western Thrace); international dimensions (Vaner on the role of the Great Powers, Stagos on the problem of the island of Lemnos, Chiclet on the attitude of France); and perceptions and representations (Artunkal on the image of the Greek in Turkish textbooks, Dalègre on the image of Greeks and Turks in Greek fiction, from 1900 to 1925, Gürsel on Greeks of Istanbul in the works of novelist Sait Faik). The chronology of Greek-Turkish relations from 1453—1988 at the end of the book unfortunately has quite a few mistakes, but it is still useful. Reviews 349 On the eve of the symposium, S. Vaner and the CERI published a mimeographed book with the same title as nos. 2-3/1986 of CEMOTI (Cahiers d'Etudes sur L· Méditerranée orientale et le Monde turco-iranien) containing 8 out of the 14 papers present in the printed book. A proof that the Greek accusations of turcophilia launched against the organizers were groundless is the fact that the CEMOTI publication contains an additional paper by the retired Greek Ambassador Byron Theodoropoulos bearing the title, "Les rapports gréco-turcs: une vue d'ensemble ," while no paper of a Turkish diplomat or politician was published as a counter-weight. Theodoropoulos' interesting but not scholarly paper was dropped from the printed book, but its commission demonstrates the intention of the organizers. The first paper by Yerasimos (Paris), a Greek from Istanbul, was the object of violent attacks in the Greek press because it contained such remarks as the following: "The [Anatolian] coast is an economic and strategic complement of these nearby islands, while the latter make up a defence line and are the geological extension of the coast" (p. 35). But this is nothing new. Venizelos himself said the same in 1919 at the Paris Peace Conference in the interest of linking the Turkish coast to the Greek islands. (See p. 33 of my Propagande et pressions en politique internationale, 1963). The Turkish historian Kuneralp gives some details of the importance of Ottoman Greeks even after the independence of Greece, showing how indispensable the Greeks were to the Ottoman State. The role of Ottoman Greeks had been systematically downplayed in Turkish history and Western scholars continue even today to consider the Ottoman Empire to be purely Islamic. On the Greek-Turkish conflict in the Aegean Sea, elaborate studies by Katsoufros and Pazarci openly defend the Greek and Turkish sides respectively. The Cyprus problem is presented by a Greek and Oran from Ankara who...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 348-350
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.