Organizers of the Occupation and their Connections to the Deep State

Churchill, the then British Prime Minister said: 'The one who cannot see that on Earth a big endeavour is taking place, an important plan, on which realisation we are allowed to collaborate as faithful servants, certainly has to be blind.'³¹²

Öcalan, the leader of terrorist PKK, also explains how the British deep state is actually controlling the terror group that he started, and that such basic policies are always planned by these deep powers:

Britain is the country that has the wisest approach to our issue. They granted license to MED TV. Britain builds the policies and makes US implement them. I think Britain is the one building the main policies and gets its collaborators in Europe, but most particularly the US implement these policies. There are no documents proving this, which is impossible anyway. But one has to see that everything in Europe all comes down to Britain. It has a very deep attitude with regards to the issues.³¹³

In April, 2008, Öcalan made the following statement in İmralı, pointing to the British deep state:

Since the 16^th century, [the British] have been planning in London what will happen in the rest of the world.

They manipulate the public opinion, too. Marx was living in London; they deliberately kept him there. Marx shaped his ideas there, and spread them around the world from there. … Queen Elizabeth kept Marx under close watch. Marx, Lenin, Mao; they were all duped by the British.³¹⁴

The British deep state needs people to implement and manage its plans. In the following pages, the readers are going to get acquainted with those that managed and implemented the plan to partition the Ottoman Empire, based on the occupation of Istanbul.

Lloyd George

Lloyd George was the British Prime Minister when the plan to partition the Ottoman Empire was being implemented. This is how Churchill described Lloyd George's outlook and his plans for the future of Turks and Turkish territory:

The Greek [Lloyd George asserted] are the people of the culture in Eastern Mediterranean. … A greater Greece will be an invaluable advantage to our British Empire. … they will possess all the most important islands in the Eastern Mediterranean. These islands are the potential submarine bases of the future; they lie on the flank of our communications through the Suez Canal with India, the Far East and Australia.

In December 22, 1920, Lloyd George stated the importance of friendship of the Greek people in Asia Minor as, 'vital to Great Britain, more vital than to any other country in the world.'³¹⁵

What Lloyd George meant was a so-called 'Greater Greece' incorporating Anatolia, one that would be safeguarding the borders of the British Empire. To this end, George helped Greeks launch an offensive in East Thrace and Izmir. The British supposed that this way, they wouldn't be risking British soldiers as they tried to defeat Turks at their homeland, and use Greek Prime Minister Venizelos instead, who entertained dreams of a 'Greater Greece'. By means of the Greek offensive, George wanted to destroy the remaining vestiges of Turkish resistance and facilitate the process of distributing the Turkish lands amongst the Allies. He indeed put this plan into practice, and completely abandoned the Greeks after their humiliating defeat, in a volte-face from his previous unwavering support for the Greeks.

The British Prime Minister didn't refrain from clearly displaying his racist approach to Turks with statements like, "You cannot trust them,… and they are a decadent race".³¹⁶ In order to get the necessary approval from his Cabinet and the British parliament to start the occupation of Istanbul, he claimed that Turks could be brought to reason only by using a power they could not resist.³¹⁷

The remarks of Lloyd George about Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, made in the House of Commons on October 19, 1922, clearly displayed who foiled the plots of the British deep state:

The centuries rarely produce a genius. … the great genius of our era was granted to the Turkish nation..³¹⁸

When his plans to dismember Turkey failed, Lloyd George had no option but to step down. By the 1930s, he had already sunk into oblivion and had no more public support or political influence.

Lord Curzon

George Curzon, known as Lord Curzon, was the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the Lloyd George government. He was the one who came up with the idea that "The Euphrates forms the western border of India".³¹⁹ He was convinced that to uphold the British deep state policies, and to ensure full control of India, Arab and Kurdish regions within Ottoman borders should have been placed under British mandate.

Whatever we want, you reject. Now we are putting them into our pockets but you are a poor country that just came out of war. You will need money for development. When you come to us for this in the future, we will bring them in front of you and we will get them.³²⁰

Lord Curzon said these words to İsmet İnönü during Lausanne negotiations. Even today, all the rights won back in Lausanne are brought up on different occasions in an apparent attempt to take them back. As a matter of fact, EU persistence that Turkey change its anti-terror laws in exchange for visa-free movement is nothing other than the reincarnation of Curzon's threat.

Curzon expressed his deplorable views about our honorable people on his notes dated February 4, 1920:

Turks must be thrown out of Europe. As the American Senator Lodge said, Istanbul should be totally taken from Turks, this nest of pestilence, creator of wars and blasphemy for neighbors, should be wiped off from Europe. Turks are the redskins of Asia and so will their end be like them.³²¹ (The Honorable Turkish Nation is above such statements)

Somerset Arthur Gough-Calthorpe

British High Commissioner Admiral Calthorpe, stationed in Istanbul, wrote in many of his telegrams to London that one way to weaken the Ottoman Empire was pitting the Kurds and Turks against each other.

During the negotiations for the Armistice of Mudros, Admiral Calthorpe promised that everything would be done to make sure Turks are not offended. He said that he believed Greek ships would not be sent to Istanbul or Izmir, but added that a clause stating that 'Istanbul would not be occupied' could not be included in the armistice.³²² Only 13 days after these statements, Greek and British navy ships anchored in the Bosphorus Strait.

It also fell on Calthorpe to tell about the impending Greek occupation of Izmir. On May 14, 1919, at 09:00 AM, he sent a diplomatic note to Ali Nadir Pasha, Commander of the XVII Corps, informing him that Izmir forts and the territory with defense measures would be occupied by the Allied Forces in line with the 7^th clause of the Armistice. On the same day, he sent a second note, saying that Izmir would be occupied on May 15, 1919 by the Greeks on behalf of the Allies and the fleet in the port would be the highest authority to ensure order during occupation.

John Michael de Robeck

Admiral Robeck was convinced that Kurdish-Armenian alliance would be politically beneficial for the respective parties and Britain. In his telegram to Lord Curzon on December 11, 1919, he reiterated that such an alliance would be in the best interests of Britain in the region and the demands of Kurds and Armenians should be carefully supported and promoted. In his reply dated December 20, Lord Curzon ordered the Commissariat to encourage and embolden the parties.³²³

It is perfectly normal that the demands of the Kurdish and Armenian people are fulfilled. What is noteworthy here, however, is the fact that the British deep state members wanted it only to further their own agenda. As soon as the conditions that suited their interests ceased to exist, they did not refrain from bombing Kurdish villages, as in the aftermath of the Treaty of Lausanne.

De Robeck, one of the names behind the occupation of Istanbul, tried to justify the occupation maintaining that if the Allies were to force peace, they had to overcome Turks in Istanbul and weaken their resistance.³²⁴

George Francis Milne

George Milne, a senior British army officer, was made the commander in charge of the occupation of Istanbul. He said the following of the Caucasian people and the Turks:

I am fully aware that the withdrawal of the British troops would probably lead to anarchy but I cannot see that the world would lose much if the whole of the inhabitants of the country cut each other's throats. They are certainly not worth the life of one British soldier. The Georgians are merely disguised Bolsheviks …. The Armenians are what the Armenians have always been, a despicable race. The best are the inhabitants of Azerbaijan, though they are in reality uncivilized.³²⁵ (All the peoples mentioned here are above these remarks)

George Milne was extremely uncomfortable with the nationalist movement Mustafa Kemal started in Anatolia and wrote to the Ottoman Ministry of War on June 6, 1919 asking the authorities to call him back to Istanbul:

I consider the presence of General Kemal Pasha and his Staff in the provinces to be undesirable. It is unsettling to public opinion at this juncture that a distinguished General and Staff should be traveling about in the country, and I see no necessity for their labours from a military point of view. I request that you will order the immediate return to Constantinople of General Kemal Pasha and his Staff.³²⁶

Mustafa Kemal was indignant at Milne's condescending tone towards the Turkish people and Istanbul government, and the desperate answers of the Ministry of Defense. He explained his feelings with the following words:

… yet this does not seem to wound the pride of the Minister of War, who, in all his transactions with the national organisation, is ever referring to questions of self-respect and scarcely every mentions the dignity of the Government who accepted the responsibility of safeguarding the independence of the Ottoman Empire. They will not allow that their dignity is already assailed and the independence of the State jeopardised. They do not even protest against this attack; they do not even venture to assert that they decline to make themselves the instrument for this blow against our independence.³²⁷

The truth is, the quoted disdainful statements are only a small part of those individuals' remarks against Turks. Their hearts were full of hatred and a grudge for the Turkish people and didn't refrain from clearly displaying this hatred before and after the Turkish War of Independence. They took every opportunity to crush and humiliate the Ottoman nations, which, in their own feeble mind, were inferior races. Today, the same mentality lives on. Some people, who wrongly believe that they can find friendship or a future in an alliance with the deep states, would do well to remember that.