Your RDA of Irony

Today’s Headlines and Headcases

Posted in General on August 25th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

Proposed New ‘Star Trek’ Would Return Series to Its ‘Roots’

Infinity
Aug 25th, 2011

A new “Star Trek” series that would “return [the iconic sci-fi brand] to its
original series roots” is in the early stages of development, one of the “Star
Trek” Web sites — is reporting.

Producer David Foster –tells the site that he’s been working on a new “Star
Trek”
series for several years, but has not made an official pitch to any
network.

In the interview with TrekWeb, the producer revealed a deep knowledge of all
the “Star Trek” spinoff series and movies. And while he’s a fan of all of them,
he wants his new version to reflect creator “Gene Roddenberry’s positive view of
the future.”

That means cheap sets, saccharine scripts and a cast of terrible Jewish actors.

Unless…he intends to combine “Roots” with “StarTrek”.  ( I am surprised that Levar Burton didn’t think of this.)  So the Enterprise would become a slave ship, travelling the universe to kidnap and trade various lifeforms.  Imagine the intergalactic demand for Klingon lawn services.

 

Found at Gadhafi compound: Condoleezza Rice photos

AP
TRIPOLI, Libya — Libyan rebels who took control of Moammar Gadhafi’s sprawling compound made a surprising discovery
in one of the buildings: a photo album with pictures of Condoleezza Rice.

Though maybe the discovery isn’t that surprising. Over the years, the Libyan leader’s comments and actions related to the former secretary of state have raised a few eyebrows.

Consider how he talked about her in an interview with Al-Jazeera television in 2007, where he hinted that then-President George W. Bush’s top diplomat wielded considerable influence in the Arab world.

“I support my darling black African woman,” he said. “I admire and am very proud of the way she leans back and gives orders to the Arab leaders. …
Leezza, Leezza, Leezza. … I love her very much. I admire her, and I’m proud of her, because she’s a black woman of African origin.”

And here is Monamour Gadhafi to sing:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFSczLif0q4

La Rive Tres Gauche

Posted in General, On This Day on August 21st, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

Piss en Scene

If Gerard Depardieu urinated in the aisle of an airplane, at least it was in character.  He exudes an enthusiastic vulgarity in his roles, and you would expect his hygiene to be as ripe as his acting.  Yet, the great French stars of the past would have shown more finesse.  Under similar stress, Maurice Chevalier, Charles Boyer and Louis Jourdan would have asked for champagne flutes.  Alain Delon would have requested a brandy snifter, although he seemed the type to fling the contents in your face.  Jean-Paul Belmondo would want a glass de “whiskey”.  Yves Montand would settle for an empty bottle of vin ordinaire but Philippe Noiret would prefer a better vintage for his vintage.  And Jean Gabin?  Well, he wouldn’t even be on an airplane but working his passage on a freighter.

This week in history:

August 21:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2008/08/21/if-only-lincoln-and-douglas-debated-today/

August 22:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/08/22/the-karl-roves-of-tudor-england-2/

August 23:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/08/23/history-rumors-and-hollywood/

August 24:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/08/24/the-best-laid-plans-of-mice-and-queen-mothers/

August 25: https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/08/25/caviar-preemptor-2/

August 26:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/08/26/von-clueless-on-war/

August 27:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/08/27/when-in-rome-2/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Prequels and Premonitions

Posted in General on August 17th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – 1 Comment

Sex and the City’ Prequel on Its Way?

Xfinity TV

Will Carrie Bradshaw make a return to television? Talks are underway to develop author Candace Bushnell’s Sex and the City prequel, The Carrie Diaries, for the small screen.

The Carrie Diaries starts with Carrie Bradshaw’s senior year of high school in New England in the 80s and leads up to her budding writing career in  New York City. Her love interest in the books is Sebastian Kydd, who comes from a privileged background and ultimately winds up betraying Carrie.

If Carrie’s first love is named Sebastian Kydd, I can guess the nature of her disappointment.  But at least he probably taught her all about Manolo Blahniks.

But I think that we could come up with better prequels than that…

The Pleisto-Scene“:  See how young Fred Flintstone learns to walk upright.  Watch Barney Rubble panic when he loses his tail; how will he explain it to his parents?  And watch the lads get into all sorts of trouble with that yellowish, burning stuff!

Mayberry Burning“, starring Lucy Lawless as Aunt Bea.  What she knows–and does–will keep Andy boss of the town.  And what happened to those three civil rights workers?  The reason why Deputy Fife now is trusted with only one bullet.

I Love Ethel“:  While Ricky is still beating the peasants on his father’s Cuban estates, and Lucy is fighting off the advances of Louis B. Mayer, see how Ethel meets Fred at an Alf Landon rally.

Endora the Teenage Witch“:  Imagine the fun of being a sorceress in the Middle Ages.   In the premiere, Endora dyes her hair black; the 14th century is a good time to look Gothic.  Unfortunately, her spell for “black dye” inadvertently causes “black die.”  Half of Europe’s population gets the Bubonic plague.  But with quick thinking, Endora blames the Kravitzes.   In subsequent episodes, we will meet Endora’s first love: Sebastian Kydd.  And doesn’t that explain it all….

Now I will just sit here and wait for my Emmys.

 

 

Happy Birthday to History’s Most Aggressive Liberal

Posted in On This Day on August 15th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – 8 Comments

Napoleon_returnedOn August 15, 1769 Letizia Buonaparte gave birth to her second son.  The nationality of the Corsican infant had been determined by the vagaries of diplomacy.  His older brother Guiseppe had been born in 1768 a citizen of Genoa.  But Corsica had changed masters and Napoleone was a French subject.  Corsicans, however, always regarded themselves as a law unto themselves.  Indeed, Corsica’s chief industry seemed to be banditry; and perhaps Napoleone would become its greatest practitioner–ransacking all of Europe.  He may have been born French, but he did not learn that language until he was 10 and never lost his Corsican accent.  (At the time, Corsican would have sounded like abysmal Italian and worse French; today it is just the opposite.)

His father Paolo had proved an accommodating collaborator to the French authorities, and the government rewarded Papa Buonoparte with steady employment and a scholarship for young Napoleone.  (Of course, the boy would have to adopt a more Gallic spelling for his name.)  The boy was sent to the military academy at Brienne, France.  His education there was determined by his social standing.  A scholarship boy lacked the aristocratic pedigree required of an officer in the infantry or cavalry.  Artillery was considered more menial, so Napoleon was trained for that and received his lieutenant’s commission in 1785.

But the caste system that fettered Napoleon’s early career was about to be overthrown.  France was an 18th-century society constrained by a 14th-century monarchy.  Decades of frustration and misrule finally led to a revolution in 1789.  The fumbling, obtuse Louis XVI refused the popular demand for a constitutional monarchy.  At the urgings of his queen Marie Antoinette, Louis appealed to his fellow monarchs to rescue him from his own people.  In response, a coalition of German states invaded France in 1792.  Learning of Louis’ support for the invasion, France saw no further need for a constitutional monarchy or a breathing monarch.  Then the rest of Europe declared war on this regicidal France.

It would seem an uneven fight, and it was–because France had a young officer named Bonaparte.  He was a brigadier general at 24, conqueror of Italy at 26, dictator of France at 30, Emperor by 35, master of Europe at 37; and his descent proved even faster.  Russia, Elba, Waterloo, St. Helena’s, death at 51.

Two centuries later, he remains a legend.  To most of Europe, he is a tyrant–the Bogeyman of Britain and the Anti-Christ in Spain.  Yet, Italy and Poland remember him as a liberator.  And he is France’s most contentious hero.  The liberals cannot decide whether he championed the French Revolution or betrayed it.  The conservatives deplore him personally but love the glory he bestowed on France.  And none would deny his charisma.

The poet Alfred de Musset described the mesmerizing hold of Napoleon on France and history:

The life of Europe was centered in one man; all were trying to fill their lungs with the air which he had breathed. Every year France presented that man with three hundred thousand of her youth; it was the tax paid to Caesar, and, without that troop behind him, he could not follow his fortune. It was the escort he needed that he might traverse the world, and then perish in a little valley in a deserted island, under the weeping willow.

Never had there been so many sleepless nights as in the time of that man; never had there been seen, hanging over the ramparts of the cities, such a nation of desolate mothers; never was there such a silence about those who spoke of death. And yet there was never such joy, such life, such fanfares of war, in all hearts. Never was there such pure sunlight as that which dried all this blood. God made the sun for this man, they said, and they called it the Sun of Austerlitz. But he made this sunlight himself with his ever-thundering cannons which dispelled all clouds but those which succeed the day of battle.

It was this air of the spotless sky, where shone so much glory, where glistened so many swords, that the youth of the time breathed. They well knew that they were destined to the hecatomb; but they regarded Murat as invulnerable, and the emperor had been seen to cross a bridge where so many bullets whistled that they wondered if he could die.

And even if one must die, what did it matter? Death itself was so beautiful, so noble, so illustrious, in his battle-scarred purple! It borrowed the color of hope, it reaped so many ripening harvests that it became young, and there was no more old age. All the cradles of France, as all its tombs, were armed with shield and buckler; there were no more old men, there were corpses or demi-gods.

Losing Face

Posted in General on August 12th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

A friend sent me an article on the incidence of abrupt mortality among royalty.  According to a professor at Cambridge (the real one, not Harvard), between A.D. 600 and 1800 approximately one in four European monarchs were killed by someone other than their doctors.  So the professor’s list would count the decapitated Charles I;  however, Charles II was treated for a minor stroke with frequent bleedings, induced vomitings and repeated purgatives.  Which of the two had the more violent death?  But, as always, I digress.  (You wouldn’t want me as a lifeguard in your stream-of-consciousness.)

Selecting as its most gruesome retirement, the article cited:

Andronikos I Komnenos – a 12th-century Byzantine emperor, whose death was spread over three days and included having his teeth and eyes gouged out, being suspended by his feet and gradually being hacked to bits

Since I am widely acknowledged as our foremost Byzantine raconteur, my friend wrote, “Now, my question for you is what the hell did Andronikos I Komnenos do to deserve what he got?”

He was such a disappointment.  Andronikos Komnenos (or Andronicus Comnenus to his Episcopalian friends) should have been the Emperor from Central Casting.  He (1118-1185–explicitly)  was handsome, charming and an excellent soldier.  Charisma is a Greek word.  And whatever the Greek equivalent of Kosher, Andronicus was.  By contrast, his cousin the Emperor Alexius was half-French; to the Byzantines, that was half-barbarian.  Worse, since Alexius was a child,  his mere was the regent.  The Greeks didn’t have to be suspicious of her; she really was pro-Western.  Thanks to her trade concessions, the Venetians and Genoese were taking over the wharves and markets of Constantinople.

Outraged and dispossessed, the Byzantines looked to that magnificent Andronicus to rescue the throne from all these foreigners.  The old charmer could boast of many seductions, but this probably was his easiest.  The Empire was begging for him.  Announcing his intention to be the Regent, in 1182 he marched on Constantinople.  The Imperial navy and army offered homage rather than resistance.  He entered the capital acclaimed.  The supporters of the Regent, including the Italian traders, were somewhat preoccupied being massacred.  Did Andronicus say he would be the new Regent?  He meant co-emperor.  Hagia Sophia was available for a coronation; it also could oblige for funerals.  The Dowager Empress and members of the Imperial family were suddenly dead.  No one asked any questions.  Indeed, the public was grateful.  Andronicus had impeccable taste in murder.  The following year, the Emperor Alexius was dead, too.  That was a little more awkward; Alexius was all of thirteen.  But it was reassuring to see how efficient Andronicus could be.  Unimpeded and undisputed in his rule, who knows what the Emperor would accomplish.

It turned out to be just more murders.  To remedy genuine economic and social problems in the Empire, Andronicus believed in the salubrious effects of executing aristocrats.  Kill enough of them and you certainly end Feudalism.  Of course, the aristocrats preferred to stay alive and so they would plot against the Emperor.  Such selfish disloyalty offended Andronicus and you can imagine his response.  All this blue bloodshed initially might have pleased the public, and the serfs certainly should been grateful; but it was not the winning charm that people had expected of Andronicus.  Besides, the serfs weren’t in charge of the regiments.

In 1185, one treacherous but trivial aristocrat named Isaac Angelos finally made it to be the top of the condemned list.  Evading arrest, Isaac fled to the sanctuary of Hagia Sofia and urged the public to revolt.  The aristocrats didn’t need any encouragement, and the masses just liked the idea of rioting.  Andronicus attempted to flee the city with his wife and his mistress (apparently he still had some charm left), but he was captured.  Isaac,now the new emperor, turned his ousted cousin over to the mercies of the public.  People seemed to take particular delight in maiming the handsome face of Andronicus.

You know the coroner’s report, but what is history’s verdict of Andronicus I.  He obviously was a mad emperor; unfortunately–unbelievably–he still was a better ruler than Isaac, Isaac’s brother or son.

For further details:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2011/07/07/assailing-to-byzantium/

 

 

 

Plumbing and Philosophy 101

Posted in General on August 10th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – 4 Comments

Optimising cooling towers will improve water efficiency

 

How do we face and overcome the pessimizing  in today’s plumbing? As you know, the development of modern plumbing coincided with the publication of Schopenhauer; and philosophy has been impeding the flow ever since.  True, metaphysics has always needed a roto-rooter, but natural philosophy once was “natural” while moral philosophy actually felt obliged to be plausible.  Thomas Aquinas would never stand between you and your epistemology.

But compare the common obstructions in modern philosophy and plumbing!  Kierkegaard completely dries up the flow.  Nietzsche and Heidigger gush to the right.  Imagine your home’s plumbing based on Wittgenstein’s Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus: by the time you found a washroom….And any Sartre plumbing would be at a complete disconnect.

So, how can we overcome the profound angst in modern plumbing?  Oh, let’s just die.

Confessions of a Schlemiel

Posted in General on August 5th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

I once got a papercut opening a Band-Aid.  And my luck hasn’t improved.  I didn’t even know that I was an investor in a oil-drilling company until I received notice of its bankruptcy.  While I perused the packet of legal documents–looking in vain for any intelligible sentence amidst the jargon–I had to wonder how an oil company could lose money.  Was it drilling through shale using silver spoons?  I could get 500 barrels of oil a day just running a comb through Mitt Romney’s hair.

Now the corporation was offering itself as a buffet to its creditors, but it first required the stockholders’ consent.  As the mystified owner of 45 shares, would I please approve the payment of $12.4 million to the company’s top executives?  For my effort and inadvertent investment, I would have–and this is the legal phrase–a zero percent claim on zero percent on the company’s assets.  Unfortunately, the enclosed permission slip only offers me a yes or no choice.  I might have proposed a severance package with a guillotine.

Yet, such effortless chaos requires a certain genius.  I am a Salieri of schlemiels compared to these Mozarts of mayhem.  If only we could find the perfect niche for such monumental incompetence…They really be should running Iran’s Nuclear Arms program.

And let’s not forget the historic significance of this day:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2010/08/05/how-the-irish-created-catholicism-2/

Must Seethe TV

Posted in General on July 30th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – 2 Comments

‘Jersey Shore’ — Buongiorno FLORENCE!               

The cast of “Jersey Shore” will be fist-pumping their brains out in Florence, Italy for Season 40 because the capital of Tuscany is the youngest, coolest city in the Boot.

Yes, Michelangelo, Leonardo and Botticelli would have made great tattoo artists.  The incongruity is not merely cultural, the dismaying contrast between the Italian Renaissance and the Jersey Dark Ages.  It is also ethnic.  Whether you consider the Jersey cast as Sicilians or simians, they are not northern Italians.  With apologies to Athens and Constantinople, Snooki, Pauly D and the gutteral rest are Greecy.

Would you take Tony Soprano’s word on the subject?  The New Jersey entrepreneur wondered why his fellow Sicilians celebrated Columbus Day.  After all, Columbus was Genoese and “Those guys always looked down on us.”  Actually, the snobbery was only for the last seven centuries or so; but the chasm between the two halves of the peninsula is as old as history.  It was literally alienation–two different nations.

The ancestors of Tony Soprano and Snooki would have thought of themselves as Greeks (if I may use the Latin misnomer for the Hellenes). Sicily and Southern Italy were part of the Hellenistic world. Naples originally was Neopolis, and Athens lost the Peloponnesian War because of its disastrous campaign in Sicily.

This Hellenic identification continued in the Middle Ages. The Byzantines held Sicily until the Arabs invaded in 827; and the Greeks and Sicilians put up such a tenacious resistance that the Moslem conquest of the island took more than a century. Indeed, afterwards, the Moslems were too exhausted to effectively threaten the Italian mainland.

Southern Italy remained Byzantine until the 11th century, when a less heralded but equally profitable Norman invasion conquered the region. Even then, the Byzantines maintained their covert ties to the Sicilians and Southern Italians. In the 13th century, Constantinople could no longer reconquer its lost lands but it could help determine who would rule them. A French dynasty in Southern Italy seemed more hostile than its Aragonese rival. Demonstrating a genius for conspiracy that our CIA would envy, in 1282 the Byzantines helped organize an uprising against the French that we know as “The Sicilian Vespers.” The French were driven out, and the Aragonese moved in.  As late as the 18th century, in isolated areas of Southern Italy the populace spoke a dialect of Greek. So Southern Italy and Sicily could be regarded as Western Greece. However, my Greek friends do seem to be good losers about Palermo and Naples. (Constantinople is another matter!)

So, historical accuracy would recommend that the cast of “Jersey Shore” go to Hellas.  Since Athens has enough problems, I’d invite the gang to Crete.  Wouldn’t it be appropriate, “When in Crete, do as the Cretins do.”

p.s.  Speaking of Florence, let’s not forget the historic significance of this day:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2010/07/30/eugenes-travel-and-adultery-tips/

 

On This Day in 1014

Posted in General, On This Day on July 29th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

July 29th

You probably have never heard of the battle of Kleidion, but you may know of its aftermath. The Byzantines generally hated war: it was costly, unpredictable and vulgar. They preferred to charm, bribe or undermine their opponents. Give the semi-barbaric kinglet a tour of the splendors of Constantinople, present him with a few bolts of silk and the overawed warlord usually would behave himself. (At the same time, encourage his ambitious younger brother.) The Byzantines also used Christianity as a form of diplomacy. Converting to the Orthodox Creed was a submission to the spiritual leadership of the Patriarch of Constantinople–and guess who controlled him. (No, not Jesus.)

But Byzantine subtlety was lost on the Bulgarians. Since the Bulgarians had first crossed the Danube in the 7th century and made the once Greek Thrace irretrievably Slavic, they had been at odds with the Byzantines: sometimes a danger, always a threat. At times, the Bulgarians controlled more of Greece than the Byzantines did. The street signs of Athens could have been in Cyrillic. Forced to fight, the Byzantines experienced all the vagaries of war. The skull of one Emperor became a drinking goblet for the Bulgar king. That particular king was a pagan; Christianity may have improved the table manners of Bulgarian royalty but not their aggressiveness. The wars continued. However, Constantinople was impregnable, the Byzantine navy was unchallenged, and the Empire’s Asian provinces had the wealth and manpower to equip more armies that would eventually push the Bulgarians back.

At the beginning of the 11th century, the Byzantines were led by one of the greatest warriors of his time: Basil II. Indeed, he was such a committed soldier that he never bothered to marry. Ahem. Basil had decided to destroy the Bulgarian Empire, and he had the ability and resources to do it. On this day in 1014, the invading Byzantines outflanked the Bulgarian army, capturing almost the entire force.

Basil had 15,000 prisoners and a pointed message for the Bulgarian king. The captives were blinded. Out of every hundred men, one would be spared (only losing one eye) to guide his blind comrades back home. So, through the Balkans staggered this horrid procession, one blind soldier clutching the shoulder of the blind man ahead him, with an one-eyed man leading them. It took this blind army two months to reach the Bulgarian capital. At this wretched sight, the Bulgarian Tsar died of a heart attack.

Bulgaria would soon be part of the Byzantine Empire. Basil certainly earned the epithet “the Bulgar-Slayer.” Ironically, history looks at the Emperor with a certain respect and even approval. After all, the Byzantines were more erudite and sophisticated than the Bulgarians. The more civilized are always the good guys.

How To Carve Turkey

Posted in General on July 26th, 2011 by Eugene Finerman – 2 Comments

 

You would not imagine that Verdun and the Somme would encourage gleeful optimism among French or British diplomats.  Well, that is why you are not a French or British diplomat.  On the contrary, those distinguished gentlemen could look past an annihilated generation–which likely included their sons–and decide how they wanted to divide up the Ottoman Empire.  Even before the War, both France and Britain had been nibbling at Turkey.  They even justified the fairness in annexing Ottoman provinces.  As they would explain to the Sultan, “If we keep the Russians out of Constantinople, then you certainly won’t mind our protection of Egypt, Tunisia and Cyprus.”  How could the Sultan refuse?  A mugging is a great bargain if the alternative is your murder.

By 1916, however, France and Britain had dispensed with their philantrophic concern for the Ottoman Empire, and were playing post-mortem real estate.  France had a nostalgic claim to Syria and Lebanon.  Seven centuries earlier, French knights had set out for those exotic lands and introduced chivalry and Gallic courtliness there.  At least, that is what the troubadors celebrated.  (The Moslems, the Greek Orthodox and the Jews did not quite see the charm in being conquered and slaughtered.)  There may be a quibbling distinction between atrocity and tenancy, but the Crusades did establish a French presence in Syria and Lebanon.  And now the French were coming back.

At least Britain was not basing its foreign policy on the adventures of Richard Lionheart.  It would be annexing Ottoman provinces solely for logistics.  Since Britain possessed Egypt and India, it now would claim all the lands in between:  Palestine, Transjordan and Mesopotamia.  For its strategic position on the Red Sea and India Ocean, Yemen would also be welcomed into the British Empire.  But the rest of the Arabian peninsula was of no interest to Britain or France.  Let the natives have their sand.

Finally, there was Turkey itself; and there would not be much left of that.  Fulfilling the reactionary fantasies of Tsars and Dostoyevsky, Holy Mother Russia would finally get Constantinople; any surviving Armenians in northeastern Anatolia would also be subjects of the Tsars.   Since Southeastern Anatolia bordered La Syrie, it might as well be French, too.  For no reason other than courtesy among vultures, Italy would get western Anatolia.  Of course, you can guess whose navy whose be controlling the straits between the Black Sea and the Mediterranean: the Henley Regatta in the Bosporus.  The remainder of Anatolia–more or less metropolitan Ankara–would be the sovereign state of Turkey.

By the end of war, however, a few changes had been made in the division of the spoils. The Allies were not about to turn Constantinople over to Lenin. Indeed,  the Turkish Sultan  (Mehmed VI–if you are planning to be on Jeopardy) still had a job, if only as the figurehead for the Western powers.  Even if he had any qualms or pride, the British fleet in Constantinople had a definite power of persuasion.  So he signed away the empire and assented to the division of Anatolia.  But the treaty negotiations at Versailles had added another European recipient of Anatolia.  Ironically, this concession was the only reasonable one among the demands; and it was the only one that the Turks would never tolerate.

Today Anatolia refers to Turkey, but the Turks themselves are relative newcomers to the land.  Their armies did not conquer it until the 14th century.  Before that, since at least 1200 B.C., Anatolia and its population were Greek.  Homer certainly thought so.  And five centuries of Ottoman rule did not change the demographics: at the time of World War I approximately 1.5 million Greeks lived in western Anatolia.  (By comparison, some 4 million were living in the kingdom of  Greece.) After the war, Greece demanded sovereignty over western Anatolia. History and demographics justified it, so the Allies agreed.  The puppet Sultan in Istanbul consented, too; but Turkish nationalists did not.  The Greeks were their oldest enemies, their long history consisted of mutual massacres.  To see the restoration of Greek sovereignty in Anatolia would be the culminating futility of Turkish history.  So the Turkish nationalists gathered in Ankara, proclaimed a republic and prepared to fight.

A Greek army landed in Anatolia in 1919, and a war began.  The Turkish nationalists, led by Mustafa Kemal, also fought the French and the British.  Of course, this will surprise you but the French were the first to capitulate.  They withdrew to Syria although they thought they should hae been paid for the land they were returning.  Turks have yet to send the check.  The war between Britain and Turkey was largely theoretical.  One side had an navy, the other had an army; there were not many battles.  Indeed, the British fleet’s most notable operation was evacuating the now pointless Sultan to a lovely villa in Malta.

Unfortunately, the war between the Greeks and the Turks could not be drolly described.  The Greeks wanted to avenge history, and so did the Turks. When towns were taken, there were massacres.  Imagine the town first taken by the Greeks, and then retaken by the Turks.  You know who won the war.  But the Turks were not content with military victory; they were determined to drive the Greeks from Anatolia.  And at the seaport of Smyrna, the Turks literally drove the Greeks into the sea.  Smyrna was the main city of the Greek Anatolians.  After taking the city in 1922, the Turkish army set it aflame. Fleeing the fire and the murderous Turks, tens of thousands of Greeks huddled along the wharves, begging for a space on any boat. Some swam to the boats outside the harbor.  The young Aristotle Onassis really had no choice but to swim.  The Turks were especially intent on killing Greek men.  We will  never know exactly how many people died at Smyrna; the Turks were not as meticulous as Germans.  But the estimates range from 15,000 to 100,000.  Smyrna’s entire population was 400,000.

On the whole, however, the Turkish policy was expulsion more than extermination.  In the 1923 treaty concluding the war, the Turks and Greeks agreed to “exchange” populations.  The Turks expelled 1.5 million Greeks from Anatolia, ending a 3,000 year history.  In turn 500,000 Turks and Moslems were expelled from Greece.   Each repatriated population was accepted and granted full citizenship in their new homelands.  There would be no internment camps.  Of course, the Greeks and Turks were still free to hate each other.

Yet, but for the Greek attempt to reclaim its Anatolian kinsmen, who can say if Turkey would have emerged as a strong, independent Republic? History and irony both have Greek muses.