1 outcomes of the first world war in...
TRANSCRIPT
4/12/2003
1
OUTCOMES OF THE FIRST WORLD WAR IN SOUTHEASTERN EUROPE:
POPULATION MOVEMENTS IN WESTERN THRACE DURING THE INTER-
ALLIED ADMINISTRATION *
GEORGE X. KALANTZIS
University of Crete, School of Arts, Department of Philosophy and Social Studies
Abstract
On the 1918 Bulgaria was defeated in Macedonian front and lost the war against the
troops of the Entente. One of the results of that defeat was its obligation to evacuate a
part of Thrace, which was brought under inter-allied control and became known as
Western Thrace. The unavoidable and consequently expected population movements
because of the decision of the Entente on the status of Western Thrace took place with
the intervention of the Entente itself. At the same time the inter-allied administration
conducted a census that recorded the composition of the population and proved that
the Western Thrace was a mosaic of national and religious communities.
4/12/2003
2
On the 1918 Bulgaria was defeated in Macedonian front and lost the war against the
Entente. One of the results of that defeat was its obligation to evacuate a part of
Thrace, which was brought under inter-allied military control. On 10 October 1919
the French general Ch. Charpy went to Gioumouldjina (Komotini) and assumed
military control over this area. The Greek army entered Xanthi six days later without
any unpleasant incidents unlike what had happened in Smyrna on 15 May 1919.1
The probability of the precedent of Smyrna being repeated during the march of
Greek troops into Thrace posed a great problem not only for the Greek administration
but also for the Allies. For this reason Franchet D’ Esperey, Commander-in-Chief of
the Allied Army in the East, sent a letter to his Greek counterpart, Leonidas
Paraskevopoulos (Commander-in-Chief of Greek Army), in August 1919 emphasizing
that ‘this operation will be an occupation not a conquest because the Bulgarians will
have gone’. 2
The Treaty of Neuilly-sur-Seine was signed on 14 November 1919 and
according to Article 48, Bulgaria lost its sovereign rights in favour of the Allies over
an area known as Western Thrace. Furthermore, Bulgaria was bound to recognize the
future decisions of the Allies as regards the sovereignty of Western Thrace and the
citizenship of its inhabitants. According to the provisions of this Treaty, General
Charpy undertook the civil administration as well. On 1 December 1919 the
constitution of the administration of inter-allied Thrace was published. Charpy took
the title of ‘Governor of inter-allied Thrace and Representative of the Commander-in-
Chief of Allied Army in East’. Gioumouldjina became the capital of new
administration. The inter-allied Thrace was divided into two circles and six districts
but the presence of the Greek army in Xanthi led to the addition of one more circle
with a view to meeting the needs that the new situation created. According to the
4/12/2003
3
decree of 21 December 1919, General Leonardopoulos was appointed Commander in
the circle of Xanthi, Colonel Dore in Gioumouldjina, and Colonel Roudeney in
Karagatch (Orestiada).3
The rest of the officials were appointed by the same decree. Their names and
ranks are detailed below (Table 1).
Table 1 Appointed Officials by F.D’ Esperey in inter-allied administration, 1919
Vice-governship Commander of
districts
Governors of
districts
Vice governors of
districts
Xanthi Colonel Vicq Moutevelis Dramalis Mechmet
Gioumouldjina Major Rabut Arif Zade Arif Voutiadis
Dedeagatch
(Alexandroupoli)
Major Faure Siotis Xatzi Zafet Bey
Soufli Major Berger Nazim Bey Spiridonidis
Didimoticho Major Cornet Feraios Salif Bey
Karagatch Major Dousset Kasim Bey Snok
As we can see, there was a balance between the two rungs of administration. When
the governor of a district was Greek-Orthodox, the vice governor was Muslim and
vice versa. In any case the military control remained in the hands of the French. This
choice was decisive for the deeper character of inter-allied administration because
Western Thrace was under martial law, which meant that the military leaders were the
real holders of authority.
The problem of the official language was solved easily and cleverly with the
adoption of the diplomatic language, which at that time was French. The constitution
of inter-allied administration was published in French, in Greek and in Turkish in this
4/12/2003
4
order despite the Bulgarian attempts to achieve its translation into their language as
well.
Of course the inter-allied administration had the right –not the obligation- to
translate its decrees from French into the most widely spoken language in a particular
region. But the original text in French always had to accompany the translation.
Charisios Vamvakas (the Greek Government representative in Western Thrace) soon
realized that if the inter-allied administration had chosen to translate its decrees into
the most widely spoken language, he would have jeopardized the success of Greek
plans. This threat came from the fact that such a choice would give the impression of
a more dominant Bulgarian population in comparison with Greeks. As he wrote, in
that case it would be possible that the Bulgarian language would be introduced by the
inter-allied administration in the region of Dedeagatch and the Turkish language in all
other parts of Thrace with the exception of Soufli and Didimoticho.4 Vamvakas
attained his purpose without any delay. Based on the precedent of the publication of
the constitution in French, Greek and Turkish he achieved the continuation of this
practice. So, all the decisions, decrees etc, were published in French, Greek and
Turkish in this order regardless of which was the most widely spoken language in
each particular region. Taking into account that the overwhelming majority of troops
and public servants in the highest rank of administration were French, it is obvious
why Greeks, Bulgarians, and Muslims considered the inter-allied administration
French.
The 4th article of the Constitution provided the formation of the ‘Superior
Administrative Council of Western Thrace’. This institution was in fact nothing more
than an advisory committee. According to the above-mentioned article, ‘The role of
Council is purely advisory’. 5
4/12/2003
5
According to the ‘Order of General Charpy for the administration of inter-
allied Thrace’,
The Superior Administrative Council…consists of fifteen members elected
among local notables with the following proportion for the various
nationalities and religions of area: five Muslim Turks, four orthodox Greeks,
two Bulgarians, two Thracians, one Jew and one Armenian. These members
are appointed by the Commander-in-Chief of Allied Army at Governor’s
suggestion. Later, when the number of population will stabilize after the return
of emigrants or deportees and the departure of the emigrants from abroad who
are not welcomed, the Superior Council can be elected in a way, which will
ensure the proportional representation of nationalities and religions.6
Vamvakas mentioned the names of members in his report to Venizelos7 (the Prime
Minister of Greece at that time). The five Muslims were Tefik, Nedim, Salik, Kemal
and Osman. The names of the four Greeks were Formozis, Lamnidis, Stalios, and
Papathanasis. The names of the Bulgarians were Georgiev and Douskov. The name of
the Armenian was Roupen, the Jew Karasso, and the Thracians Mpadetti and Doulas.
In fact Mpadetti was just a levantine and Doulas was Greek. For this reason
Vamvakas included him in the Greeks raising their number in five. Muslims also
considered Doulas a Greek and objected that the inter-allied administration was not
taking into account the fact that they were the majority population and consequently
they had to form the majority in the Council. The answer of General Charpy was
simple and did not leave any doubts. He said that Doulas was appointed not as a
member of the Greek community but as a French citizen. Besides, the final
4/12/2003
6
composition of the Superior Council would be determined by elections ‘when the
great movements of population finish and the census is accomplished’. 8
These words disclosed the real meaning and great importance of this census
for the future of Western Thrace. Because the issue of its sovereignty was still
pending, it was obvious that the census results would play a vital role in the final
decision on this matter. Besides, the census would give a definite answer to the
question of the composition of populations in Western Thrace. At that time such an
answer could affect decisively the positions of delegations in the Paris Peace
Conference.
Considering that the proceedings of the Paris Peace Conference moved slowly,
the formation of the Superior Administrative Council, according to the census or to
the results of free elections, would add one more factor in the diplomatic game. As
long as Charpy appointed the Superior Council, this institution had only limited
power to speak on behalf of the inhabitants of Western Thrace. But if it were elected
then it would have the right to claim the that it should be the exclusive and legal
representative body for the people of Western Thrace.
Greeks from the very first moment realized the importance of a census.
Initially, they reacted requesting the postponement of the census until the return of
refugees. At the same time they made great efforts to secure that the rest of Bulgarian
civil servants who remained in their position, would leave.
Chalkiopoulpos (Greek consul in Xanthi), as soon as he was informed on the
French initiative, sent a ‘very urgent’ telegram to the Greek Ministry of Foreign
Affairs connecting the return of Greek refugees with the necessity of postponement of
census: ‘…Considering that only a small number of refugees returned, the
postponement of census… is necessary’. 9 Vamvakas, an eyewitness of the first days
4/12/2003
7
of liberation of Western Thrace, reported that when he went in Gioumouldjina to
assume his duties ‘there were hardly any Greeks with the exception of very few who
could be counted on the fingers of one hand’. 10
That situation was the result of a five-year Bulgarian occupation. After the
annexation of Western Thrace as a result of the Balkan Wars, Bulgaria began the
implementation of a policy, which aimed at the bulgarization of the aforementioned
area. A part of the Greek population had already abandoned the territory with the
withdrawal of the Greek army after the Treaty of Bucharest (10 August 1913). The
remainder was confronted with a policy of discriminations, which aimed at their
coercion into abandoning their homes or into becoming Bulgarians.
The composition of population in Western Thrace during the last years of
Ottoman occupation is depicted in table 2.
Table 2 The population of Western Thrace by nationality and religion according
to Bulletin d’ Orient – statistic of 190611
Muslims Greek-Orthodox Bulgarian-
Orthodox
Others Total
121,125 54.46% 66,766 30.02% 30,446 13.69% 4,065 1.82% 222,402
Almost the same picture is drawn by the data of Ecumenical Patiarchate for the year
1912.12 Muslims numbered 124,715 (55.30 per cent), Greeks numbered 70,366 (31.20
per cent) and Bulgarians numbered 30,443 (13.50 per cent). The total of population
was approximately 225,524. According to Pallis, after 1913 70,000 Greeks and
49,000 Muslims were forced to leave Western Thrace.13 Antoniades specifies that the
number of the Greeks who survived the Bulgarian occupation, was between 18,000
and 20,000.14
4/12/2003
8
We should keep in mind two things. First, statistical data especially
concerning the composition of population in Balkans were always in dispute. Second,
the Bulgarian policy regarding the Greeks’ expatriation was not unique. The Greek
army during the second Balkan War committed atrocities against the Bulgarians and
many of them were forced to abandon their homes in Macedonia. Thousands of
Bulgarians were slaughtered by the Turks during the revolution of 1877 and the two
Balkan Wars. This article deals mainly with the Bulgarian policy because our focus
sets specific limits.
The combination of expatriation of Greeks and settlement of Bulgarian settlers
led to the success of the Bulgarian scheme. Western Thrace almost lost the major part
of its Greek population and at the same time converted into a province where
Bulgarians were the majority. The Bulgarian civil servants, who settled in Western
Thrace with their families, numbered at least 20,000.15 It is remarkable that this group
was –with the majority of settlers- the last Bulgarians who left Western Thrace just a
few days before the end of inter-allied administration.16 Their departure did not take
place due to violence but in accordance with Article 44 of the Treaty of Neuilly.
According to this article, Greece had the right to deny Greek citizenship to Bulgarians
who settled in Western Thrace after 1913. Consequently all Bulgarians who belonged
to that category, had to leave.
We have no reliable information on the composition of population during the
first days of the inter-allied administration. Thus, we have to combine various sources
to approach the truth about this matter. Unfortunately we are not able to use Bulgarian
sources because of the language. So, we have to limit our efforts to Greek, English or
French sources.
4/12/2003
9
Paksimadopoulou-Staurinou mentions that from October 1919 to 1 March
1920 20,000 Bulgarians went to Bulgaria and 22,000 Muslims to Turkey while 23,000
Greeks returned to Western Thrace.17 If we combine these data with the data from the
census of inter-allied administration as the same author reports them, then we are able
to depict the composition of population of Western Thrace in October 1919 in Table
3.
Table 3 The composition of population of Western Thrace in October 1919
Muslims Greeks Bulgarians Total
108,578 50.32% 33,114 15.35% 74,092 34.34% 215,784
As we saw previously, Antoniades reports that the Greeks who survived the Bulgarian
occupation were not more than 20,000. Accordingly, there is a difference between
these two authors. But the differences are not something unexpected not only between
these two but also among the majority of authors and official sources. For example,
the Greek Ministry of Relief (Υπουργείον Περιθάλψεως) reported that 21,996
Thracian refugees, who had taken shelter in Macedonia, had returned to Western
Thrace up to early 1920. The exact place of destination and their number is depicted
in Table 4. Obviously the Thracian refugees had taken shelter not only in Macedonia
but also in other regions of the Greek Kingdom. But the main shelter was Macedonia.
Table 4 Number and place of destination of Greek Thracian refugees who had
taken shelter in several areas in Macedonia18
Destination Individuals
Xanthi 820
Gioumouldjina 590
4/12/2003
10
Dedeagatch 1,008
Soufli 3,518
Didimoticho 1,133
Karagatch 1,081
Karatzikio 1,160
Ferres 41
Giasikioi 688
Kornofolia 610
Dadia 660
Karampounar 67
Total 11,376
Without known destination 10,620
Total 21,996
According to Geragas, (Deputy Governor-General of Thrace 1920-1922) ‘from the
beginning until the end of December 1919 the Thracians who were repatriated at the
expense of Greek government, numbered 37,145’19 not considering a significant
number of destitute people ‘who were not allowed to repatriate and could not do so by
the procedure and means of transport that were intended for the massive
transportation of the destitute’. 20
Antoniades (a deputy of Thrace in Ottoman and then in Greek Parliament) is
in agreement with Geragas on the number of Thracians who were repatriated at the
expense of the Greek government and estimates the total number of repatriated
Greeks regardless of the way of their return in Western Thrace at 51,000.21 But he
does not mention the exact period during which this movement took place. Therefore,
4/12/2003
11
we cannot compare his data with the data of Geragas or the Ministry of Relief.
However, the fact is that after the establishment of the inter-allied administration
thousands of Greeks started to return to their homes.
The fortunes of war caused many movements of this kind to take place in the
Balkans during the period 1912-1945. Thousands were forced to leave their houses
several times. For example a Greek family of Eastern Macedonia was forced to move
at least four times during 1916-1945. Not to mention the example of a Greek family
of Eastern Thrace or Asia Minor that was forced to move at least six or seven times.
Of course this fortune was not a ‘privilege’ of Greeks. Bulgarians and Muslims
suffered as well. The formation of national States has always had a cost and this cost
has to be paid by people.
I
In the beginning of 1920 the French Commanders of the districts of Western Thrace
conducted ‘impromptu censuses’ in order to collect information about the number of
inhabitants. According to the aforementioned censuses the district of Karagatch-
Didimoticho-Soufli had 121,000 inhabitants, the district of Dedeagatch 18,000, the
district of Gioumouldjina 75,000 and the district of Xanthi 60,000. The whole number
of the Thracian population totaled 274,000 inhabitants approximately.22 Greeks did
not top 50,000 (18.24 per cent), according to Vakkas.23
Despite the effort of the Greek government, small groups of Thracian refugees
declined to return in Western Thrace, continuing to remain in several cities and
villages of Macedonia. The most well known and at the same time the biggest was the
group of Thessalonica consisted of 4,000 Thracians who denied every appeal on
repatriation of the Greek government. Their successful adaptation to the social and
economic environment of Thessalonica and the risk of a return in a land under dispute
4/12/2003
12
and out of Greek control explain to some extent their refusal to return to the
motherland.
The Greek government tried vainly to convince them to go back. The Thracian
refugees of Thessalonica belonged to the bourgeoisie and were mainly merchants.
Their flight left the control of trade to the Bulgarians. Therefore, the Greek
government believed that their return to Western Thrace was essential because it
would greatly contribute to the Greek efforts to regain the dominant position in the
economy of all the area. One of the most serious arguments of Bulgarian diplomacy
for keeping Western Thrace was its importance for Bulgarian trade and generally for
Bulgarian economy. So, it was obvious that the Bulgarian dominance in trade posed a
dangerous threat to the Greek scheme.
The Ministry of Relief, with a view to overcoming the refugees’ refusal,
recommended the cession of special incentives to facilitate their return to Western
Thrace. Among others, the Ministry of Relief recommended the carriage of their
goods for free and their exemption from duty on imports/exports or other kinds of tax.
According to the Ministry of Relief, the repatriation should be carried out in a way
that would offer to Greeks the possibility ‘to compete with Bulgarian merchants who
have already held a better position’. 24
It seems that a sizeable part of Thracian refugees did not aim at an immediate
return to their homeland. Geragas attributes this behavior to the successful
incorporation of refugees in Greek society as well as to the dereliction of Western
Thrace. The entirely ruined Greek houses numbered 3,473, the half-ruined were 409
and the rest had been occupied by Bulgarians settlers. Therefore, immediate
repatriation for 4,000 families was absolutely impossible due to the lack of houses,
according to Geragas.25
4/12/2003
13
Before 1919, there were in Thrace 32,603 houses owned by Greeks. After the
liberation of Western and Eastern Thrace only 16,734 houses remained ‘in a good
enough condition’. 26 By December 1922, in Western Thrace only ninety houses had
been repaired and 168 had been built from the beginning at the Greek State’s expense.
If we take into account that for the same period the total number of repaired houses or
newly built ones throughout Thrace was 2,327 and the expenses amounted to
2,200,000 drachmas, it is obvious that the main effort of the Greek State was
essentially limited to Eastern Thrace.
The evidence of the mayor of Kavatzikion (a village in the region of Evros
river) depicts the situation in Western Thrace after the collapse of the Bulgarians and
the Germans on the Macedonian front:
In 1918 Bulgarians began to destruct the houses of Greek villages of
Kavatzikion and Pasmaktzi as soon as they understood that the Allied army
would occupy Thrace and therefore the inhabitants would return. Thus, they
destroyed 300 houses in village of Kavatzikion, on 20 October 1918 burned to
ashes its magnificent Greek Church and its school, in the village of Pasmaktzi
they destroyed forty houses but they did not have the time to accomplish their
horrible project due to the fact that a truce was concluded and the Allied army
advanced….27
The destruction of Greek houses was not a method of revenge or reprisal or some kind
of sporadic sack by the retreating Bulgarian troops but, in Western Thrace, was a
policy aimed at the obstruction of repatriation of Greek refugees. Once again we have
to point out that the Bulgarians were not the inventors of those tactics or the only one
4/12/2003
14
who did it. The Ottoman policy against the Bulgarian revolts was, once again, the
source of ‘inspiration’.
Apart from the Greek Thracians who had taken refuge in the Greek State
thousands of others had been transported to the Bulgarian hinterland as hostages (one
of them was the father of Constantinos Karamanlis. Later, Constantinos Karamanlis
became Prime Minister of Greece and was the inspirer of rapprochement between
Greece and Bulgaria during the Cold War) as well as an allegedly large number of
children who were adopted by Bulgarian families. The efforts for their location and
transportation back in Western Thrace or Eastern Macedonia were one of the main
priorities of the Greek Military Mission in Sofia under the leadership of Colonel
Mazarakis.28
Taking everything into account we are able to conclude that the repatriation of
Greek refugees apart from its obvious importance for the obtaining of a population
basis and for the solution of social problems that were created by their settlement in
the Greek State, had had under those circumstances a more crucial role due to the
conduct of the census. Therefore it was necessary that the rate of refugees’
repatriation be accelerated. This was the major challenge that the Greek government
had to meet.
Inter-allied administration raised objections to the procedure of a mass
repatriation of Greek refugees because it suspected that the Greek government aimed
not only at the return of Greek Thracian refugees but also at the settlement of Greek
refugees from other places.
As we saw previously, ‘impromptu censuses’ were conducted in the beginning
of 1920 by the French Commanders. That was not the first effort of the inter-allied
administration to make a population map of Western Thrace. The French military had
4/12/2003
15
already made estimations in October 1919 about the composition of the population
but as they noticed ‘the bi-directional wave of emigration and immigration that would
become more intensive, lead to the modification of numbers in favor of Greeks and
Turks’. 29
A little time later, the French military admitted that the statistical data of
October which were ‘very impressive in favour of Bulgarians were now inexact due to
the departure of Bulgarians and the arrival of Greek and Turk refugees even at that
time’. 30
The Paris Peace Conference came to an end in January 1920 without including
in the signed Treaties the satisfaction of any Greek territorial claims. Especially the
Thracian question stayed open –of course under better conditions after the Treaty of
Neuilly- and depended not only on the action of Greek diplomacy but also on the
efficiency and the behaviour of the Greek army and Greek civil servants in inter-allied
Thrace.
An important evolution that affected the Thracian question was the withdrawal
of the USA from the alliance with the Entente and its return to the policy of
isolationism. Thus, Bulgaria lost a supporter and Thrace a potential ruler.
During the proceedings of the Meeting of San Remo (from 18 April 1920 to
24 April 1920) the French Prime Minister Millerand asked for the withdrawal of
French troops from Western Thrace on the grounds of the increasing military needs
that had been created by the military operations against the nationalist Turks of Kemal
Ataturk in Cilicia. Despite the initial hesitations caused by the fear of a potential
repeat of the incidents of Smyrna in May 1919, in the end it was decided that Greek
troops would advance with a view to occupying Western Thrace and Eastern Thrace
in succession in the name of the Allies.
4/12/2003
16
In spite of the bloodless occupation of Xanthi the precedent of Smyrna
continued to mar the image of the Greek army. Venizelos in his telegram for the
requisition of some ships that were necessary for the transportation of Greek troops
for the occupation of Western Thrace, mentioned that ‘the immediate, from now,
occupation of Thrace was not decided yet because our friends are afraid of occurring
proportional incidents to those of Smyrna and complicating our position before the
signing of the Treaty’. 31
II
The collection of data for the census was completed by the Inter-Allied administration
over the same period (April 1920). But the results were never published officially.
Colonel Vicq, commander of Xanthi, gave a brief description of the procedure
for the collection of statistical data. We cite his text as J.Dalegre mentions it:
1. Muslim population. Information was given: a) by the Bulgarian authorities
in November 1919, b) by the Thracian gendarmerie in December 1919, c) by
the Muslim community. The given numbers by the latter were 20% increased
in comparison with those by the Thracian gendarmerie (Greek gendarmes) and
10% increased in comparison with those by Bulgarian authorities. An average
number between those by Bulgarian authorities and those by Muslim
community was accepted. 2. Bulgarian population. Numbers were given by the
Municipality of Xanthi (Greek Mayor), which conducted a nominal census for
all Bulgarian subjects who inhabited Xanthi, and by the Bulgarian community.
The given numbers were essentially the same. 3. Greek population. Censuses
were conducted by the Greek communities, which sent every week a catalogue
of refugees who returned during the week. French gendarmerie gave every day
4/12/2003
17
an additional catalogue of refugees who presented themselves in station. The
given numbers by Greek communities were increased by 25% in comparison
with the data that were recorded by the gendarmerie, but it has to be noted that
the gendarmerie did not know the exact number of refugees who arrived either
by sea or by road. The numbers of the attached list originate from the Greek
community and are bound to be blown up. Therefore, they are, in my opinion,
the maximum.32
The composition of population in Western Thrace as it is formed by the collected
data, is depicted in Tables 5 and 6.
Table 5 The composition of population in Western Thrace according to the Inter-
Allied census of April 192033
District Muslims Bulgar. Greeks Jews Armen Oth. Total
Ottom. Pomak
Karagatch 5 0 10,210 15,045 370 450 1,113 27,193
Didimoticho 1,274 0 4,956 18,856 878 157 192 26,313
Soufli 2,770 0 10,998 7,435 47 21,250
Dedeagatch 642 0 11,543 3,355 165 512 100 16,317
Gioumouldjina 39,601 2,341 14,794 4,773 1,292 561 1,589 64,951
Xanthi 30,438 9,507 1,591 6,650 280 200 0 48,666
74,730 11,848
Total 86,578 54,092 56,114 2,985 1,880 3,041 204,690
4/12/2003
18
Table 6 The composition of population in Western Thrace according to the Inter-
Allied census of April 1920 (per cent)
District Muslims Bulgarians Greeks Jews Armen. Others
Ottomans Pomaks
Karagatch 0.02% 0,00% 37.55% 55.33% 1.36% 1.65% 4.09%
Didimoticho 4.84% 0,00% 18.83% 71.66% 3.34% 0.60% 0.73%
Soufli 13.04% 0,00% 51.76% 34.99% 0.00% 0.00% 0.22%
Dedeagatch 3.93% 0,00% 70.74% 20.56% 1.01% 3.14% 0.61%
Gioumouldjina 60.97% 3.60% 22.78% 7.35% 1.99% 0.86% 2.45%
Xanthi 62.54% 19.54% 3.27% 13.66% 0.58% 0.41% 0.00%
36.51% 5.79%
Total 42.30% 26.43% 27.41% 1.46% 0.92% 1.49%
Dalegre gives the number 206,690 as a general total. Probably this is a misprint or
calculation error because the addition of each total gives the number 204,690.
Paksimadopoulou-Staurinou mentions the same data regarding the total of each
community without mentioning their distribution to the districts. Also, she limits her
reference to the three greater communities.34 According to Geragas, ‘the French
assiduously avoided to publish immediately at that time their statistic’35 and this fact
allowed the Bulgarians to publish figures for the composition of the population in
Western Thrace and to allege that these figures came from the official census of inter-
allied administration.
The Balkan Committee of Great Britain (the most powerful pro-Bulgarian
organization in Europe) published its version of the results of the Inter-Allied census.
4/12/2003
19
The essential difference was that the Pomaks considered Bulgarians and in this
manner the Bulgarians took precedence over Greeks. The other differences are
insignificant as can be seen in Table 7.
Table 7 The composition of the population in Western Thrace according to the
Inter-Allied census as it was published by the Balkan Committee36
Muslims Greeks Bulgarians
Christians Pomaks
74,750 56,114 54,092 11,048
Altinov (a high-ranking Bulgarian servant of inter-allied administration), in his book
La Thrace Interallie, also published the results of the Inter-Allied census. His version
is mentioned in Table 8.
Table 8 The results of the census conducted by the inter-allied administration
according to Altinov37
Ottomans Greeks Bulgarians Pomaks Armenians Others Total
73,220 51,706 69,154 11,739 1,969 1,834 209,622
34.93% 24.67% 32.99% 5.60% 0.94% 0.87% 100%
Apart from the addition of Pomaks to Bulgarians, the main difference is the increased
number of Bulgarians in comparison with all the other versions of the same census.
Geragas38 -using the case of Soufli- and Moschopoulos39 criticized in extenso
Altinov’ s version with a view to proving his endeavour to decrease the real number
of Greeks and increase the number of Bulgarians. Mitrany’ s version is in agreement
with Altinov’s. The difference is that Mitrany specifies the number of Jews at 3,000
4/12/2003
20
and in this way he increases the total population of Western Thrace to 212,622
individuals.40 The Bulgarian Delegation in the Conference of Lausanne presented the
Altinov’s version alleging that only those results were original.41 Of course the
Pomaks were included in Bulgarian population.
During the proceedings of the same Conference, one more Delegation adduced
the results of the inter-allied census. The Turkish Delegation presented its version,
which was entirely different in comparison with all the aforementioned versions of the
inter-allied census as can be seen in Table 9.
Table 9 The results of the census conducted by the inter-allied administration
according to the Turkish Delegation to the Conference in Lausanne42
District Turks Greeks Bulgarians Others Total
Gioumouldjina 59,967 74.80% 8,834 11.02% 9,997 12.47% 1,367 1.71% 80,165
Dedeagatch 11,744 42.74% 4,806 17.49% 10,227 37.22% 702 2.55% 27,479
Soufli 14,736 46.39% 11,542 36.33% 5,490 17.28% - - 31,768
Xanthi 42,671 81.61% 8,728 16.69% 552 1.06% 334 0.64% 52,285
Total 129,118 67.36% 33,910 17.69% 26,266 13.70% 2,403 1.25% 191,697
The Bulgarian allegation for the origin of Pomaks provoked the concern and the
attention of the Greek government. Venizelos asked for information about this issue
from Vamvakas. The latter clarified the situation reporting that there was not any
specific census for the population of Pomaks but in 1913 the Union of Muslim
Refugees had alleged that 150,000 Pomaks had been forced to become Christians by
the Bulgarians. He also reported that all the Muslim inhabitants in the kazas of
Roptcioz and Ahi Tselebi –with the exception of Muslim refugees from Bosnia and
4/12/2003
21
Bulgaria- were Pomaks while in the kazas of Dari Dere and Egri Dere were the
majority.43
The Greek government argued that almost the whole population of Pomaks
remained under Bulgarian rule.44 According to the Greek government, 100,355
Pomaks lived in regions, which stayed under Bulgarian rule while only 18,000 lived
in regions whose status would be decided by the Great Powers.
It is true that the borders between Bulgaria and Ottoman Empire or between
Bulgaria and inter-allied Thrace were not demarcated on the basis of the Ottoman
administrative division. For this reason several kazas were divided. The Sandjak of
Dedeagatch (with the exception of Ainos) and the greatest part of the kazas of
Gioumouldjina, Xanthi and Didimoticho came under inter-allied rule. By contrast the
whole or the greatest part of the kazas of Kirtzali, Egri Dere, Dari Dere, Soultan Geri,
Ortakioi, Ahi Tselebi and Moustafa Pasa stayed out of inter-allied borders.
Generally the overwhelming majority of the inhabitants of the areas that
stayed out of borders of inter-allied Thrace were Muslims. Only Muslims inhabited
Dari Dere, Egri Dere, Soultan Geri and Kirtzali. According to the Greek census of
1914, 175,243 Muslims inhabited all those areas while Christians were only 42,196
(24,025 Bulgarians and 18,171 Greeks).45
Probably all those Muslims were Pomaks because of their lodging in
highlands. Usually, the Muslims –Turks or islamized Greeks, Slaves or others-
inhabited plains around Ottoman administrative centers. Highlands in Balkans were
inhabited by Christians who in most cases were partisans. Pomaks are almost the only
Muslim population in Balkans who lived in highlands. This diversification is
explained by the fact that until the 17th century they were Christians. The reasons of
their swing are not clear. But after their islamization they stayed in their homeland.
4/12/2003
22
Some Bulgarian writers46 allege that the islamization of Pomaks is due to the decision
of Ottomans to establish a secure defense line across the mountain Rhodopi, which is
a natural obstacle for everyone who would march against the Ottoman capital,
Constantinople.
The main argument of the Greek government introduced one more way to
avoid the answer to the burning question of the origin of Pomaks. The hidden answer
to the Bulgarian allegation about the origin of Pomaks was that there were not any
Pomaks in disputed areas. So, any discussion about this matter was useless. The
demarcation line of 19 September 1919 had already given the solution leaving out of
inter-allied Thrace the Pomak regions. But the Greek government knew that this was
not enough. Thus, it alleged that the Pomaks were indigenous, descendants of the
ancient Thracian tribe of Agrianoi. Their language, which is very close to Bulgarian,
and their religion were just loans from their neighbours. Furthermore, Pomaks had
‘Turkish national consciousness’ and for this reason the Bulgarians had no right to
include them in their population. After two years the official Greek position changed.
Pomaks became Greeks who were converted into Islam but after generations their
national consciousness became ‘inactive’.47
The truth is that the Greek government ignored the Pomaks until it found itself
in front of the problem. Then it had to give an answer, to provide a convincing theory.
But it had no time and, most important, it was in no mood for such a procedure. For
this reason it chose to follow the old well-known equation in the Balkans between
religion and nationality, which meant that every Muslim was Turk, even if that
equation had already proved wrong in several cases such as the Muslims of Bosnia or
the Muslims of Albania. But at that time the only thing that mattered for the Greek
government was the dissociation of Pomaks from Bulgarians by any available means.
4/12/2003
23
Since that period, the Pomaks have played a vital role in the configuration of the
composition of the population in Western Thrace.
III
There are two main questions about the inter-allied census aside from the validity of
the collected data. According to the French that census was just an estimation, not a
valid statistic as it is defined by the science. But this does not change the fact that its
results could have serious political effects. Therefore, the two aforementioned
questions still stand: Why the French conducted a census and why they did not
publish officially its results.
These questions are probably connected with the real intentions or plans of the
French and cannot be explained without taking them into account. According to the
information of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs, some French worked for the
creation of a protectorate in Western Thrace with themselves in the role of guarantor
of order as well as the security, peace ant protection of the population. Most of them
belonged to the French colonial army and they did not want to return to Africa.48
Moreover, Western Thrace was a good position in the East in a period during which
the British Empire expanded his influence in the former lands of Ottoman Empire.
Considering that among Greece, Bulgaria and the Ottoman Empire there was a
keen competition for the domination, it was not so difficult for the French colonialism
to present itself as guarantor that none of those three communities would have the
power to eliminate, banish or oppress the others. Moreover the recent atrocities during
the Balkan War and the First World War had destroyed any bond among the three
communities, especially between Bulgarians and others.
In this context the official and consequently indisputable recording of the
composition of the population would add a good reason in favour of French attempts
4/12/2003
24
to prolong their presence in Western Thrace. But the political change in France and
the diplomatic developments were quicker than the administrative capabilities of the
inter-allied administration. Thus, the future of Western Thrace was decided almost at
the same time as the completion of the census. Therefore, the publication of its results
was by that time meaningless.
Geragas claimed that the French wanted to help the Bulgarians allowing them
to present their version of census as an argument in favour of their views about the
future of Western Thrace. But France never supported the return of Western Thrace to
Bulgaria. Moreover, if France wanted to help the Bulgarian attempts, it would have
published the data of October and November 1919, which indicated the ascendancy of
Bulgarians over Greeks.
Besides, the conflicting –in some aspects- policy of the inter-allied
administration is connected with the innermost thoughts and aspirations of some
French officers to make their presence permanent rather than with the furtherance of
the aims of the Thracian national or religious communities including Greeks. In
addition, we could argue that the non-publication of the Inter-Allied census in the end
favoured the Turks who presented their version at the Lausanne Peace Conference,
which contradicted all the others asserting an unprecedented majority for Muslims.
The quotation of various versions of the inter-allied census may lead to
confusion about the true results. There are major or minor differences among them
and the usual way is the finding of average. But in this case it is not the right way. The
source of Dalegre’s version is the French Military Archives. Paksimadopoulou-
Staurinou used the archives of the British Foreign Office49 and Geragas’ s source is
the Balkan Committee of London. Altinov alleges that his version is just a copy of the
inter-allied census, which was available for him because of his place in
4/12/2003
25
administration. So, it is obvious that Dalegre gave a final answer about the data of the
inter-allied census. Besides, the same data are mentioned by the archives of the British
Foreign Office as Paksimadopoulou-Staurinou mentions. Unfortunately, the Historical
Archives of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs have not any further information on
this issue. Thus, the only available and at the same time valid sources come from the
French and British archives.
IV
Taking everything into account, we are able to conclude that important movements of
population took place in Western Thrace during the inter-allied administration. Those
movements led to the restoration of the composition of the population, which existed
before the Balkan Wars, changing once again the population picture of Western
Thrace. The main change consisted in the weakening of Bulgarians and at the same
time the strengthening of Greeks, mainly through the return of Greek Thracian
refugees and secondarily with the limited settlement of Greek refugees from other
regions. It is remarkable that in several cases Greek Thracians did not want to return
to their homeland preferring to stay in their new homes.
The Muslims did not suffer persecutions, as did the Greeks or proportional
dramatic movements, as did the Bulgarians. This is connected with the fact that the
main competitors for Western Thrace were Greeks and Bulgarians. Consequently the
future of Bulgarians and Greeks and not of Muslims depended on the outcome of
competition between Bulgaria and Greece.
The inter-allied census demonstrated the multinational and multireligious
character of Western Thrace in 1919 and confirmed the precedence of Christians over
Muslims. Respectively in the interior of each community the census showed a thin
4/12/2003
26
majority of Greeks over Bulgarians and recorded for the first time the diversification
of Pomaks from the other Muslims.
The separate record of Pomaks brought the issue of their identity and origin to
the forefront of Greco-Bulgarian competition because their accession to the Muslims
or their addition to Bulgarians changed radically the balance among the three major
communities either in favour of Greek aspirations or against them. Pomaks were the
crucial tessera for the construction of population mosaic of Western Thrace. If we
consider them an independent national and religious community then the three main
communities (Greeks, Bulgarians and Ottomans from whom we had to take out
Roma) were almost equal. The inter-allied census disclosed the vital role of Pomaks
in the formation of a majority and thus, in the justification or the strengthening of
Bulgarian, Ottoman or Greek aspirations. It is the first census that records separately
the Pomaks. After this official record, Pomaks became the apple of discord for the
three competitors. Suddenly, the forgotten population of slavophone Muslim
highlanders came to the front. Since then, the only thing that has changed is that their
importance has increased.
On 10 May 1920 the French started to withdraw and on 20 May the liberation
of inter-allied Thrace by the Greek army was accomplished without any unpleasant
incidents like those in Smyrna. The population movements continued but to a less
dramatic extent. The Western Thrace of 1919 was a mosaic of nationalities and
religious communities. Greeks, Gagaouzs, Albanians, Bulgarians, Pomaks, Roma
(Gipsies), Kirkassians, Turkish speakers, Jews, Armenians who were Christians
(Orthodox, Armenians, Catholics and Protestants), Muslims (orthodox and several
sects or denominations such as mpektasism) and Jews.
4/12/2003
27
The Greek community was powerful and its strength was multiplied because
of its rapidly increased economic prosperity. The five-year Bulgarian attempt aiming
at the complete deportation of the Greeks from Western Thrace was upset without
bloodshed in the short period of inter-allied administration. Probably, this was one of
its major achievements for many reasons.
The establishment of an administration under inter-allied control meant that
the Treaties and other agreements would be respected. The unavoidable and
consequently expected population movements because of the decision of the Entente
on the status of a part of Bulgarian Thrace took place with the intervention of Entente
itself. So, we have an example of massive population movements under the direct
responsibility of an administration with international character.
The question to consider is simple and predictable: was it a successful
attempt? The answer is as always, in the facts. The inter-allied administration under
the leadership of General Charpy organized the procedure, offered valuable time to all
interested parties, protected and in some cases helped the people who had to leave
Western Thrace or return to it. There were no violent incidents or riots. It is obvious
that such kind of population movement poses many problems and provokes a great
shock in everyday life of people. Thus, it is a success that the cost from that
population movement was minimal thanks to the efforts of inter-allied administration.
Western Thrace lost to a large extent its national and religious heterogeneity only after
the massive persecution of Greeks from Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace by the
nationalist Turks of Kemal Ataturk and the implementation of the Greco-Bulgarian
Convention for the exchange of minorities.
* I am grateful to Assistant Professor Zacharias Palios and Miss Aimilia Christaki for their valuable
help.
4/12/2003
28
1 For further information see Michael Llewellyn Smith, Ionian vision (London 2000), pp. 86-91.
2 The original passage in French is ‘ce sera une occupation et non une conquete puisque les Bulgares
seront parties’, cited in N.Petsalis-Diomidis, Greece at the Paris Peace Conference 1919 (Thessaloniki
1978), p. 286.
3 Konstantinos Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-1922 (Athens 1925), p. 62. The original title in
Greek is Κωνσταντίνος Γεραγάς, Αναµνήσεις εκ Θράκης 1920-1922 (Αθήνα 1925).
4 Vamvakas to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 27 Nov. 1919, Gioumouldjina, Historical Archives of
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (HAMFA), File 1919 7 A/5 Policy Western Thrace.
5 The original passage in Greek is ‘Η αρµοδιότης του Συµβουλίου είναι καθαρώς συµβουλευτική’ ,
cited in Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-1922, p. 59.
6 The original passage in Greek is ‘Το Ανώτατον ∆ιοικητικόν Συµβούλιον…περιλαµβάνει 15 µέλη
εκλεγόµενα µεταξύ των προκρίτων…εν τη κάτωθι αναλογία ως προς τας διαφόρους φυλάς και
θρησκείας της χώρας. 5 τούρκοι µουσουλµάνοι, 4 ορθόδοξοι έλληνες, 2 βούλγαροι, 2 θράκες, 1
ισραηλίτης, 1 αρµένιος. Τα µέλη ταύτα διορίζονται υπό του Αρχιστρατήγου των Συµµαχικών
Στρατευµάτων, προτάσει του Γενικού ∆ιοικητή. Αργότερον όταν ο πληθυσµός θα λάβη µορφήν τινα
οριστικότητος, µετά την επιστροφήν των µεταναστών ή των απελαθέντων ή την αναχώρησιν των εκ
του εξωτερικού µεταναστευσάντων εν Θράκη και µη επιθυµητών το Ανώτατον Συµβούλιον θα δύναται
να εκλέγηται κατά τρόπον εξασφαλίζοντα την αναλογικήν αντιπροσώπευσιν των εθνικοτήτων και των
θρησκευµάτων’ , cited in Translation of the Order of General Charpy for the administration of inter-
allied Thrace, 18 Dec. 1919, HAMFA, File 1920 152.2.
7 Vamvakas to Venizelos, 10 Jan. 1920, Gioumouldjina, cited in Kalliopi Papathanasi-Mousiopoulou,
The liberation of Western Thrace from archives of Charisios Vamvakas (Athens 1975), p. 41. The
original title in Greek is Καλλιόπη Παπαθανάση-Μουσιοπούλου Η απελευθέρωση της ∆υτικής Θράκης
από το αρχείο του Χαρίσιου Βαµβακά (Αθήνα 1975). This book is a collection of Vamvakas’s
telegraphs and reports during the period of inter-allied administration to Greek Prime Minister, Foreign
Minister and Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
8 Vamvakas’s Telegraph to N.Politis, 21 Dec. 1919, Gioumouldjina, cited in Papathanasi-
Mousiopoulou, The liberation of Western Thrace from archives of Charisios Vamvakas, p. 75.
9 Chalkiopoulos to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 28 Nov. 1919, Xanthi, HAMFA, File 1919 7. A/5
Policy Western Thrace.
4/12/2003
29
10 The original passage in Greek is ‘δεν υπήρχον ακόµη Έλληνες, εκτός ελαχίστων οίτινες µόλις
εµετρούντο εις πέντε δακτύλους…’, cited in Papathanasi-Mousiopoulou, The liberation of Western
Thrace from archives of Charisios Vamvakas, p. 22.
11 S. Psaltis, Thrace and the number of Greek population, (Athens 1919), pp. 265-267. The original
title in Greek is Σ.Ψάλτης, Η Θράκη και η δύναµις του εν αυτή ελληνικού στοιχείου, (Αθήνα 1919).
12 Delegation Hellenique Reponse aux Exposes soumis par la Delegation Bulgare a la Conference de la
Paix au sujet de la politique de la Bulgarie et de ses pretentions sur la Thrace, (Paris 1919), Archive
of Liberals’ club, p. 15
13 Alexandros Pallis, Statistical Study on Migration in Macedonia and Thrace during 1912-1924,
(Athens 1925), p. 17. The original title in Greek is Αλέξανδρος Πάλλης, Στατιστική µελέτη περί των
µεταναστεύσεων Μακεδονίας, θράκης κατά τα έτη 1912-1924, (Αθήνα 1925).
14 A. Antoniades, Le development economique de la Thrace, (Athenes 1922), p. 39-41.
15 Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-1922, p. 86.
16 Ibid., p. 73.
17 Miranta Paksimadopoulou-Staurinou, The Western Thrace in Bulgarian Foreign Policy, (Athens
1997), p. 63. The original title in Greek is Μιράντα Παξιµαδοπούλου-Σταυρινού, Η ∆υτική Θράκη στην
Εξωτερική Πολιτική της Βουλγαρίας, (Αθήνα 1997).
18 The Ministry of Relief, The relief of refugees, 1917-1920, (Athens 1920), p. 217. The original title in
Greek is Υπουργείον Περιθάλψεως, Η περίθαλψις των προσφύγων 1917-1920, (Αθήνα 1920).
19 The original passage in Greek is ‘οι από 1 µέχρι τέλους ∆εκεµβρίου 1919 παλλινοστήσαντες
δαπάναις του Κράτους ανήλθον εις 37.145 άτοµα’ , cited in Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-
1922, p. 76.
20 The original passage in Greek is ‘οίτινες δεν επετρέπετο και δεν ηδύναντο να παλιννοστήσωσιν υπό
τας διατυπώσεις και δια των µεταφορικών µέσων, άτινα προωρίζοντο δι’ οµαδικάς απόρων
µετακινήσεις’ , cited in Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-1922, p. 76.
21 Antoniades, Le development economique de la Thrace, p. 41.
22 E.Vakkas, Bulletin of Information 14 Feb. 1920, Gioumouldjina, HAMFA, File 1920 A’ Policy 153
Western Thrace.
23 Emmanouil Vakkas was lieutenant of Artillery. He was appointed by the Greek government at
Katexakis’s suggestion (Head of Greek Military Mission in Constantinople) as liaison officer with the
4/12/2003
30
Inter-Allied Mission in Western Thrace. His inauguration in Gioumouldjina in March 1919 caused
protest by Bulgarians. Dimitrios Vakkas, The Great Greece, (Athens 1964), p. 343. The original title in
Greek is ∆ηµήτριος Βακκάς, Η Μεγάλη Ελλάδα, (Αθήνα 1964).
24 The Ministry of Relief, The relief of refugees, 1917-1920, p. 218.
25 Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-1922, p. 75-76.
26 Information by M.Papadopoulos Director of Settlement and Agriculture of Thrace, 31 Dec. 1921,
Andrianoupoli, HAMFA, File 1922 28.3.
27 Prefecture of Evros to Political Administration of Thrace, 15 Apr. 1922, Alexandroupoli, HAMFA,
File 1922 92.4. The original passage in Greek is ‘…κατά το έτος 1918 κατανοήσαντες οι Βούλγαροι
ότι ο συµµαχικός στρατός θα κατελάµβανε την Θράκην και εποµένως οι κάτοικοι θα επανήρχοντο,
ήρχισαν να κατακρηµνίζωσι τας οικίας των ελληνικών χωριών Καβατζικίου και Πασµακτζή. Ούτω
κατεκρήµνισαν (300) τριακοσίας οικίας εις το χωρίον Καβατζίκ, κατά δε την 20/10/1918 κατέκαυσαν
την µεγαλοπρεπή ελληνικήν εκκλησίαν του χωρίου και το σχολείον, εις δε το χωρίον Πασµακτζή
κατεκρήµνισαν τεσσαράκοντα οικίας µη προφθάσαντες να φέρωσιν εις πέρας το απαίσιον τούτων
έργον, διότι εγένετο ανακωχή και προήλασεν ο συµµαχικός στρατός…’.
28 D.K. Svolopoulos, Thrace under Greek Administration, (Athens 1922), p. 11. The original title in
Greek is ∆.Κ.Σβολόπουλος, Η Θράκη υπό ελληνικήν διοίκησιν, (Αθήνα 1922).
29 The original passage in French is ‘le double courant d’ emigration et d’ immigration qui va encore s’
accentuer tend a modifier les chiffres dans un sens favorable aux Grecs et aux Turcs’, cited in Joelle
Dalegre, ‘La mission du general Charpy en Thrace occidentale’, Mesogeios, 4 (1999), pp. 66-76, at p.
70.
30 The original passage in French is ‘cette statistique tres tendancieuse en faveur des Bulgares est
maintenant inexacte par suite du depart depuis cette epoque de nombreux Bulgares et de l’ arrivee de
refugies Grecs et Turcs’, cited in Joelle Dalegre, ‘La mission du general Charpy en Thrace
occidentale’, Mesogeios, 4 (1999), pp. 66-76, at p. 70
31 The original passage in Greek is ‘άµεσος από τούδε κατάληψις Θράκης δεν απεφασίσθη εισέτι φίλων
ηµών φοβουµένων µη συµβούσιν ανάλογα των εν Σµύρνη και δυσχεράνωσι θέσιν µας προ υπογραφής
Συνθήκης’ , Venizelos’s Telegraph to Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 14/27 Apr. 1920, Paris, HAMFA,
File 1920 A Policy 153 Western Thrace.
4/12/2003
31
32 The original passage in French is ‘1.Populations musulmanes. Les renseignements ont ete fournis: a)
par l’ autorite bulgare en novembre 1919, b) par la gendarmerie thracienne en decembre 1919, c) par la
communaute musulmane. Les chiffres donnes par cette derniere sont de 20% superieurs a ceux donnes
par la gendarmerie thracienne (gendarmes grecs) et de 10% superieurs a ceux fournis par l’ autorite
bulgare. Il a ete pris un chiffre intermediaire entre celui donne par l’ autorite bulgare et celui donne par
la communaute musulmane. 2. Populations bulgares. Chiffres fournis par la municipalite de Xanthi
(adjoint au maire grec) qui a fait le recensement nominatif de tous les sujets bulgares habitant Xanthi,
et par la communaute bulgare. Les chiffres donnes sont sensiblement les memes. 3.Populations
grecques. Les recensements ont ete fournis par la communaute grecque qui a envoye chaque semaine la
liste des refugies arrives dans la semaine. La gendarmerie francaise fournit de plus chaque jour la liste
des refugies se presentant a la gare. Les chiffres donnes par la communaute grecque sont de 25%
superieurs a ceux signales par la gendarmerie, mais il faut remarquer que la gendarmerie n’ a pas le
chiffre exact des refugies arrivant soit par voie de mer, soit par voie de terre. Les chiffres donnes sur la
liste jointe sont ceux donnes par la communaute grecque arrondis a la certaine. Ils constituent donc a
mon avis un maximum’, cited in Dalegre, ‘La mission du general Charpy en Thrace occidentale’,
Mesogeios, 4 (1999), pp. 66-76, at p. 70
33 Recensement de la Population de la Thrace occidentale arête a la date du 30 mars 1920, SHAT,
dossier 4.N.129, cited in Dalegre, ‘La mission du general Charpy en Thrace occidentale’, Mesogeios, 4
(1999), pp. 66-76, at p. 71
34 Miranta Paksimadopoulou-Staurinou, The Western Thrace in Bulgarian Foreign Policy, p. 63
35 Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-1922, p. 81.
36 Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-1922, p. 82 ; Nicephores Moschopoulos, La question de
Thrace ou le mensoge Bulgare, (Athenes 1922), p. 150.
37 Altinov, La Thrace Interallie, (Sofia 1921), p. 177.
38 Geragas, Memories from Thrace, 1920-1922, p. 85.
39 Moschopoulos, La question de Thrace ou le mensoge Bulgare, pp. 151-157
40 David Mitrany, The Effect of the war in southeastern Europe, (Yale 1936), p. 255
41 Lausanne Conference on Near East Affairs 1922-1923. Records of Proceedings and Draft Terms of
Peace, (London 1923), p. 72.
42 Ibid., p. 54.
4/12/2003
32
43 Vamvakas’ s telegraph to Venizelos, 18 Sept. 1919, Gioumouldjina, cited in Papathanasi-
Mousiopoulou, The liberation of Western Thrace from archives of Charisios Vamvakas, p. 25-26
44 Delegation Hellenique Reponse aux Exposes soumis par la Delegation Bulgare a la Conference de la
Paix au sujet de la politique de la Bulgarie et de ses pretentions sur la Thrace, Archive of Liberals’
club, p. 16.
45 Moschopoulos, La question de Thrace ou le mensoge Bulgare, p. 209
46 Izdatelstvo, Narodna Prosveta, Otecestvena Istoriya, 4 Klas, (Sofia 1969), pp. 97-98, cited in Paul
Hidiroglou, The Greek Pomaks and their relationship with Turkey, (Athens 1989), pp. 58-59. The
original title in Greek is Παύλος Χιδήρογλου, Οι έλληνες ποµάκοι και η σχέση τους µε την Τουρκία,
(Αθήνα 1989).
47 Telegraph from Ministry of Defense to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 23 July 1922, Athens,
HAMFA, File 1922 12.2
48 Vamvakas’ s Report to Venizelos, 7 Apr. 1920, Gioumouldjina, cited in Papathanasi-Mousiopoulou,
The liberation of Western Thrace from archives of Charisios Vamvakas, p. 98-99
49 P.R.O. Craigie to Curzon, Sofia 6 February 1920, F.O. 421/298