Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This article is maintained with passion by an ignorant and hopeless person that does not take into consideration ANY good-faith corrections, he just reverts everything to his original. For example he did not even keep the spelling corrections even though his English is below average. DO NOT WASTE YOUR TIME THIS WILL NEVER BE A GOOD AND HONEST ARTICLE. All corrections will be wasted. I know because I wasted 6 hours to make it presentable and he just reverted to the same.

Compare the two versions and you will see what I mean. I wonder if we put it to the vote who would prefer the original?

I have written many things in this talk page concerning this no one has answered them? Why are greeks or armenians afraid to answer what I have written, why are you people ducking me? Stop your anti-turkish bias and look at the matter unbiased and objective!!!!! Orrin_73

THIS ARTICLE REFLECTS THE QUALITY OF THE WRITER

Talking about bigotry and blind opinions... You did not even read the corrections. Your primary school editing and your poor English... I changed no fact, only your extremely poor writing. Because you are a blind passionate product of your background you just reverted it all back to the same bad state without thinking. You have no hope I suppose. You think this article BELONGS to you. You are wrong my friend, this is a public encyclopaedia and you have to take criticisms productively. One just needs to read the following to understand what ignorance we are talking about... You could make a career writing Turkish school books. There truth and sources are less important... Maybe your excuse is your poor understanding of English, next time read carefully the corrections people that know much more than you make, before you just revert it back to the same.

It surprises me that you greeks never understand what objectivity is. English is not my mothertongue, there is no reason to flood the article greek nationalistic propaganda. In turkey they teach the truth and not greek nonsense. Orrin_73

Hello, Orin. I would like to remind you of the assume good faith policy we have at Wikipedia. In broad terms it means that even if you don't agree with what other editors contribute, you should not automatically consider it as "Greek nationalistic propaganda". If think it is propaganda, the burden of proof is upon you: please indicate which parts of the article you find objectionable, and provide an independant, reputable souce to back your facts. That said, I would appreciate it if you at least respected the effort I have put in to improve the language of the article and to make it more readable. If you do not, I would be reluctantly forced to see that the Three revert rule is enforced in your case. Last, please remember to stamp your edits in the talk page with the date (type four consecutive ~ signs), because it is hard to follow the discussion otherwise. Best, TheArchon 07:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

How about keeping bigotry out of Wikipedia, next to unsopported ideas? "It is well known that uneducated turks hated greeks", yeah right. Like all savages turks hated civilized greeks just because they were civilized. I don't know what they feed you where you live but such a claim needs some basis where I come from. And how about those claims of turkish exiles from crete fighting alongside the greek army? How nice of you to claim "even the turks who were civilized by living next to greeks could not bear the uncivilized turks and fought alongside their exilers?". But we are supposed to take your word for it, if you say these are the facts, then sure they are. As for the name of the city, who are you to decide which name is more appropriate? Who invented the criteria that if a name is changed after an ethnic cleansing, then the original name is more appropriate? And who says that was the name before 1920s, Turks always called it Izmir, (don't modern greeks call it Izmirni as opposed to Smyrna?) and they own the land, right? Well turks were cleansed from Crete in 1890s, so the article about Crete should be titled Girit from now on, how is that? How about calling Selanik instead of Thessaloniki? That town became an important city only after turkish and jewish settlements and turks were cleansed from the city in 1912. Greeks were only a small minority in town before then. Of course I can also invent a story about local greeks hating Turkish elite of the city for just being the elite people with a lot of influence on the Ottoman government. Of course there is a simple and sensible rule of calling places with the names the locals and local governments use but of course when politics is an issue, who cares? Make up a rule and say it with enough confidence that someone may believe...

No, I do not expect you to come to your senses, that is not why I am writing this article, you are a biggot and you wil remain so no matter what I do. I don't expect you to try to correct absurdities in the text either. I am just writing this to make sure that anyone who cares enough to read the discussion page sees that such nonsense does not go unchallanged. Enough is enough. Something does not become a fact just because you claim so with a holier then thou attitude. 150.216.151.34 21:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I also decided to change the Izmir (Smyrna) to the more accurate Smyrna (Izmir) as the sources always referred to the city before the ethnic cleansing as Smyrna. This is not a Turkish book, so we should keep an international perspective.

Sorry to say, this is a very very badly written article, and not so much for it's content which is reasonably neutral as much for it's simplistic language and bad editing. There were many repeated parts and parts that did not follow chronology and I tried to amment them logicaly. Also I have a couple of comments on simplistic explanations like 'the British did not like Constantine that's why they did not help the Greeks'. Politics has nothing to do with liking. The British just realised that the Greeks are not as strong as the Turks and when they predicted that Kemal is the future of Turkey, they tried to keep equal distances and prepare for a probable Greek defeat. Ahh, I was also amazed to see that "the greeks set fire to Izmir while they were fleeing'. Is better to keep unsupported opinions out of wikipedia. Is better to say that we do not know what happened, most of sources though support that the Catastrophe was caused by angry Turkish mob. Is well known that many of the poor, uneducated, Turks of the working class hated the Greeks because they controled the local culture and economy.

First of all the greeks were not the majority of the population of Izmir. Secondly the greek occupying army destroyed hundreds (more then a thousand)of turkish villages in western anatolia killing hundreds of thousands of turks, including Izmir. Many anatolian greeks participated in this.The turks of Izmir were glad that the turkish army liberated Izmir from the murderous greeks. So you mean the greeks are unable to win a war without the help of someone else, thats interesting to know. The greek army of 350000 was destroyed by the 200000 ill equiped turkish farmers. Why would the turks burn Izmir, a city they just had liberated?Orrin_73

If I understand it right, the article claims that the majority of "so called Turks" who had been recently expelled from Crete took the side of the Greek army when Izmir was invaded, because they were not assimlated yet and preferred to live under a government which just a few years ago expelled them from Greece! I guess Venizelos this time gave them his word that they won't be expelled again? Here is a piece of nonsense you don't see everyday. Losing more and more faith in Wikipedia everyday. 150.216.151.34 03:22, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Well said my friend, these greek nationalists never cease to amaze me. Orrin_73

"I think merging this article with Turkish War of Independence is highly inadequate. Greco-Turkish war was very significant, but was only a part of the larger struggle on the part of Turks' defence of their motherland. If anyone tends to reduce Turkish War of Independence to a war between Greeks and Turks, one misses the larger picture in which Turks had to struggle with other imperial forces both through warfare, and politics." Ilyas

"I have so many mixed feelings about this debate. I believe that Greece was wrong to invade as far as it did into Anatilia but I do believe that they had a right to take back Eastern Thrace and Istanbul. The Seljuk and Ottoman Turks had no right to invade Anatolia, but at the same time you cant force a group of people out of an area they've lived in for over 500 years. Whats done is done. You cant blame them for trying to retake those places just like you cant blame the Turks for trying to force the Greeks out the second time around. These regions have been part of the Hellenic world for thousands of years and yet more recently they've also become important centers to Turks. Greece will never be able to take back those regions and even if they had the capability to, the UN or NATO would intervene. I will never forgive the Turks who butchered my ancestors on the island of Chios, but I wont hold the sins of the past against the people of the present. It would make me much happier to see Greek and Turk working together because we have so much in common and so much to gain. As for the article I believe it should be just as it is. Its just as much a part of Greece's history as Turkey's." Vallen

"I think the Greeks had every right to attack Turkey. They were trying to regain their traditional land which the Turks had stole." Wow!Now,thats some serious greek ambition that goes nowhere! How on earth would someone be so superficial? If its just and right to "try to regain" any territory thats supposed to be yours hundreds and even thousands years ago,then i guess Hitler was right!He too wanted to create the so called "Empire",didnt he? Ohh,does it look familiar? Yes,im sure it does : Megalo-Idea? But,seriously we all have to see things as they were in the 1920s.I just wont deny causalities from both sides,but wont under any condition accept a greek genocide.Its a fact that both Greek and Turkish armies "ran through" Greek and Turkish villages but its all within the concept of war,you have to accept that. If someone ever insists about the greek minorities in Turkey: Its also an apparent fact the Turks and Greeks (not the minority) during the Ottoman rule lived in harmony.After the independence of Greece and with the modern Turkey there was again no such discrimination in any ways (eco,soc,cult,etc.)to the Greek minorty who chose to stay in Turkey.So its just very clear that the issues we are talking about are of those,during the war-time;since i dont know any Greek being abused in Turkey right now.I,myself,just cant see any reason why we couldnt live in peace or why any of us should "get what it deserves"? Cem - Paris

What is this denying that there were Greeks in Pontus? That is total nonsense-- the inhabitants of Pontus were not Turkish Orthodox Christians, but Greeks who had been there since classical times. Trebizond was an imporant Byzantine center. The Pontian Greeks also did not speak Turkish, but a Greek dialect whichis closer to classical Greek than modern standard Greek! -Kwstis

Jor, is there a reason you cut the Treaty of Sevres? Was I wrong to include it? Jwrosenzweig 19:35, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, that was a mistake on my part. It definitely belongs in the article. (Oops.) Jor 19:37, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No problem, you're doing excellent work! Jwrosenzweig 19:39, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think the Greeks had every right to attack Turkey. They were trying to regain their traditional land which the Turks had stole. It was the allies fault we lost the war. They told us to attack Turkey and they didn't back us up. I think one day the Turks will get what they deserve and we will regain Istanbul and Asia Minor. User:Kyriakos

Well yes, if you believe in the right of conquest, then the Greeks indeed had every right to attack Turkey and try to regain territories lost to the Turks between 1071 and 1453, even though some of those lands hadn't been populated by Greeks in centuries. However, if we go by this, then the Turks had the right to drive every Greek out of Asia Minor after they won the war in 1922. And as for that, Greece started the war, and if Greece bit off more than it could chew, that's not the Allies' fault. Greece started it and Kemal Ataturk finished it.

OK Adam your edit is good enough. I must note two points: a)Do you think the phrase:"Given the scale of Greece's defeat, the Greeks were lucky not to lose western Thrace, which had a large Turkish population, as well. " is neutral? The War does not respect the population majorities. It is only violence. In the same sense, the greeks should have won in the areas with greek population majority. In my opinion, the borders are the result of a power balance. If Kemal could seize the western thrace, don't doubt, he would have done it. I do not believe to military balances and other barbarian ethics. Unfortunately, this is a powerful principle in the international relationships.

b)How are you so sure that there was no intent from the Turkish authorities to massacre the greeks. The photographs showing Izmir being burnt are lies? Greek people left their homeland by their own decision? I suppose they hoped to find good weather in greece.

I think we should erase the phrase about the turkish intension. I do not ask anybody to accept the greek position. Let us leave the point open. I also hope, turkish friends wouldn't disagree to erase the point about the greek luckiness. It is an opinion not a fact. HERAKLES

To be accurate we cannot use the terms "holocaust" or "genocide". In fact, turks did not try to eliminate the greek people. They do it to the armenians because there was no state to be expelled. For the greeks, it was different. They only had to go to greece. In both cases we can see an effort towards a national purification. This is the accurate term. No doubt, over a million refugees would be a disaster for any country. I did not understand why you erased my link to "Asia Minor Disaster". I mentioned no holocaust or genocide but national purification. You accepted it as a result of the Lausanne treaty. HERAKLES

---

• The Greeks were lucky because Ataturk wanted to create an ethnic Turkish state without minorities, which was why he didn't try to grap western Thrace when there was little to stop him if he wanted to. That was also why he didn't try to grab Cyprus. I will, however, rewrite the sentence.
• If the Turks had wanted to massacre all the Anatolian Greeks there was nothing to stop them. They didn't, because Ataturk was a genuinely wise leader. The Izmir massacre (which I don't deny as I said in the text) was an abberation caused by local circumstances. It was not ordered by Ataturk. The Armenian massacres were not carried out by Ataturk, but by Enver's regime during WW1.
• I deleted Asia Minor Disaster, both the link and the article, because there wasn't anything in it which isn't already at this article.

Adam 00:27, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Turkish war of independence

I think it would be inaccurate and insufficient to label the Greco-Turkish war as the Turkish War of Independence, since the Greco-Turkish War was just a part of the Turkish liberation struggles fought

     i must say something here. Greco-Turkish war is part of Turkish war of Independence. if you look 
     at The Independence war you will see that only big war is with Greeks. --Ozant 16:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

against the occupation of the Entente powers following the Armistice Treaty of Mondros signed on October 30, 1918 (which is by the way not mentioned in the article). Italy, Britain and France were among the occupying forces, and therefore the Dardanelles (I suppose you meant Chanak-kale in the article) battle was also a part of the independence war.

     Çanakkale War sould not be part of the article. it is completly different thing. --Ozant 16:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

There are also claims from the Turkish, attributing the Izmir fires to the retreating Greeks. Because these are opposite claims and the only most obvious reality is that the city was burnt down, perhaps that reference should be altered.leandros 10:31, 16 Jul 2004 (UTC)

     Actually as i read, Fires are made by Greek Army to slow down Turkish Army. but it did not slow 
     down turkish army at all and damages civilians.--Ozant 16:17, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

The outcome section is ridiculous, rather than stating the outcome, it's trying to give excuses for greek defeat. None of the setbacks turks suffered are mentioned, nor the advantages enjoyed by the greeks ( some examples of such advantages are greeks were attacking a nation after it has been defeated and invaded by three strong nations, a nation with newly formed/forming regular army...)

Note on Dardanelles (Canakkale)

What we call "Çanakkale Savaşı" in Turkish (Dardanelles War) happened in fact in 1915 during the World War 1. It comprises several conflicts both on sea and on land against the English, French, Anzacs etc. Therefore it's not a part of post-WW1 conflicts (1918-1922) where at the end, Turkish people saved themselves from Allies & Greek occupation and founded their own sovereign and independant state. by Gokhan

not neutral

During the Turkish counterattack against the Greek invasion, ethnic and religious hatred exploded as the Turks took revenge on the sizable Greek majority living within the areas that were being recaptured by the Turks. Thousands of Greeks were massacred, their property confiscated by soldiers and angry civilians. Angered by the loss of the entire empire through its defeat in World War I at the hands of European Allies, and further enraged by the Greek liberation into the Anatolian heartland, the Turks exacted revenge on the helpless Greeks. At Izmir, an ancient port city with a Greek population dating back to the 7th century BC, the victorious Turks burnt the entire Greek and Armenian Quarters, killing tens of thousands. Victims fled swimming into the harbor trying desperately to escape the flames, only to perish trying to reach Western European and North American naval vessels stationed in the waters outside the harbor. The entire event kept enmity between Greece and Turkey high throughout the 20th century.

I put a POV tag until someone can deal with it. --E.A 29 June 2005 11:52 (UTC)

These ethnic hatred thing is totally designed by Greeks and their allies(mainly England). They changed the history and made the world believe to their version of history. As we all know, Hellenic Army was decisively defeated by the Turkish Army(NOT TURKISH REBELS!IT WAS AN ARMY). England and Greece had to find something to make people forget about the defeat. With respect, Deliogul 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

totally biased...

Actually, speaking of atrocities in this war, why is there almost nothing ( in fact there is nothing ), about the Greek army's 'cleansing' of the Turkish villages and towns ? I suppose even with Wikipedia crusader mentality of caring for own side / belief and turning a very blind eye on the other 'untermench' of different beliefs.

Such continued hypocrisy justifies retribution since this is probably the only passable currency for the students of 'megalo idea'.

---

The thing you don't understand is this... The only people in the world who care about this war are Greeks... Greeks stupidly tried to beat warrior-born Turks and finally they were clearly defeated by the Turkish Forces. With respect, Deliogul 15:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Not only Greeks

I don't think the articles should be merged because in the Turksh War of Independence the Turks didn't fight only the Greeks buy also French and Italians. The sack of Izmir was a disgusting display of barbarity by the Turks. by Kyriakos 20 September1:50 pm (EST)

Dear Kyriakos, please calm down and stop attacking Turks. "The sack of Izmir was a disgusting display of barbarity by the Turks." Come oon, when Allied Forces allowed Greek Army to invade the city of İzmir , and subsequently Aegean region, the Greek population cheered up and welcomed them. So do you think Greek Army didn't harm the Turkish population? Let's face this, please: We are talking about war. Turks were trying to keep their land intact, and Greeks were naturally trying to help Greek Army against Turks. Not only Izmir but all Anatolia witnessed the catastrophe. All inhabitants of Anatolia and Balkans suffered in that time. Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Kurds...etc. British, French and Italians were defeated and so were Greeks in the end. Nobody should dare to compare the losses or the brutality, barbarity or whatsoever of the sides. Nobody is clean or innocent, come oon, this was WAR. And there were winners and losers. And about your comments on 'Istanbul will belong to Greece some time in the future', let's stop it for our (Turks and Greeks) sake! It happened more 600 years ago, curb your hatred and please be mature a little bit. Come and visit Turkey and make some friends. I love Greek people (as long as they don't have stereotypes and hatred against me or my people) and I mean it...I never forget the pork cutlet and the frappe I had in Kavala...I never forget the Dream Theater concert in Athens in July, 2000...Please note this: Feeding the hatred is so simple and it is unfortunately reciprocal and it grows incredibly faster. It is an epidemic. Preventing such epidemics requires so much effort and dignity. Forget the wartime atrocities committed by both sides. You cannot find an open door leading you anywhere but more hatred. Respect the results of the wars and the treaties our ancestors signed. Best. Cansın 26 September 2005

Still it was Nurredin fault that Izmir was sacked and the Greeks and Armenians suffered. Kyriakos 21:58, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Very good written Cansin! --Aquilion

Good response Cansin. Kyriakos, Greeks did not only destroy Izmir. They destroyed pretty much all towns and massacred civilian while they were running away from advancing Turkish army. We Turks remember these atrocities. However, we do not hold grudge against Greeks.

'Istanbul will belong to Greece some time in the future' Greek nonsense. Get over it, there are more people living in Istanbul then in entire Greece. What are they going to do to all these people, kill them!!!. Orrin_73

Greek friends, please be realistic. First of all, many things changed in the years passed after the war. You tried to beat us when we had no army and no weapon but still you couldn't make it. Today, Turkish Army his one the best armies in the world(The most powerful one in NATO after USA). There is a huge power gap between the Turkish Army and the Hellenic Army. With respect, Deliogul 16:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Turkish friends, I sincerly apologise any hurtful comments I may have said and I am completly embarassed. I hope you find it in your hearts to forgive me. Yours sincerly, Kyriakos 09:35, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Merging is NONSENSE

Turks fought with British, French, Italy and Greeks during the Turkish War of Independence. This article is and must stay as a separate part of the Turkish War of Independence article. Cansın 26 September 2005

Some Points:

First off, there were more Turks killed, massacred, raped and so on by Greeks as they occupied western Anatolia then Greeks killed by Turks. You have to accept that fact!

Second, there were a lot of Turks, too, who had to leave there homes in Greece. This was an exchange!

Third, Greece will never get İstanbul, Eastern Trace or western Anatolia. Why? Look at your cheap army! Turkey has the 2nd strongest Navy in Europe, the 2nd strongest army in the NATO and the hightest number of F-16 after the USAF.

So, Hellen, keep on dreamin' ;) ---~~ --Aquilion

This comment unfortunately proves that you haven't improved at all, considering you try to insult others at a DISCUSSION page.

Sorry 'bout that but boasting about the number of your F-16s is moronic.

Sometimes military equipment can't make you win the battle(Iraq-USA situation) but the Turkish Army also has an elite troop reserve(this is a kind of advantage that Greeks haven't got since the Spartans). For example, Turkish special forces the Bordo Bereliler ranked as the best of its kind in Germany in 2004(This means that they are better than the American Delta Force). Finally, we don't need fighter jets to beat Greeks(or others) but luckly we have too many of these jets ;). With respect, Deliogul 16:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Apart from Turkish-nationalist nonsense: Opposed to merging

The "Turkish war of Independence" is another matter altogether. In the Greco-Turkish war, Greece fought for the empowerment of the Treaty of Sèvres in respect to its territories. This is to be seen seperately from the turkish independence.

I won't comment on turkish massacres on Greeks, Armenians, Kurds, Arabs, and other countries. This has to be done by the negotiators of the turkish membership into the EU. --Dingo 18:57, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Greece did not take part in the first world war, therefore it had no legitimate right to occupy western anatolia. The greek minority made less then 12% of the population of western anatolia. Greek army killed, raped and tortured hundreds of thousands of Turks during their asia minor campaign. It surprises me that greeks dont want the world to know about that. Orrin_73

To Aquilion, re: "editing lies"

I take issue with this. I don't see any "lie" in the passage you removed. I was the one that modified it on 31 Aug. to change the clearly POV "there was no intent on the part of the Turkish authorities to massacre the Greeks, and the great majority..." into "it has been claimed that the great majority...". There's no way we can know what the intent of the authorities was. I'd like to re-instate the passage, unless you can give a good reason why it shouldn't be there at all. Csymeonides 10:35, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

When people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.

ı think it is no help to maneovure around words in the diplomatic fashion, to bring the argument into an ultimum declaration.

One fact is how this issue served once more on a frying pan, as one reminiscent of bygone Sevres paper..It is one direct reference to our daily politics and agenda, and ı have to say, very tricky and dirty.

The world of web may welcome entries from any illiterate, yet history is one discipline that should be taken with careful methodology and around sound basis.Maybe one day, if it is worth there could be collaborative study from both sides.ı don2t see seious historians are excited about it.

One simple advise is not to disintegrate a single event from several contexts and magnify from today's perspectives..Greek invasion to west anatolia is definitely related vacuum of Ottoman sovereignity after nationalism flourished all over Europe after 1792.Greeks were one of first people in Bolkans to stab Turks in Peloponisos..( genocide; no mention, not invented at that time).

The turkish decline and retreat was painful..In ottoman history, there is no reference to Greek as a rival..Russians and Persians were both old enemies and Russians came so close to devour Istanbul and east border.Bulgarians widened theri terriyory gains.Of course, if there was one clear cut enemy is the bolkans it was the serbs who claimed very good performance in the '90s against the heredity of the dynasty.

To cut it short, I can convince you the independence war is taken seriously at school in my country..Not for boasting, or for self esteem, the lesson is, how a nation was so close to extinct and of cpurse the rest is a comeback story.

I know our greek friends love to waffle about this issue. In '80s' I was watching EPT channels of Greece..And in the highlights there was always on reference to turkish daily politics.

Hatred and fear, twins go hand in hand. One build up the other.I think our neigbors benefited enough of the King Kong story they had displayed. Murat

genghis khan reference

The reference to genghis khan within this article is nothing but greek nalionalistic jingoism. The quote is taken from the movie conan and has no historical value, it should be removed from the article.!!! Orrin_73

Western anatolia did not have a greek majority

The claim by the greeks that western anatolia had a greek majority is nothing but nonsense, there is no historical base for it. Therefore I have removed it. Orrin_73

Introduction

Hey guys, I specialise in Aegean prehistory, not in historical periods, so I am not an expert (as i am sure all of you are..).I admire people's knowledge of history on both sides. They both back up their arguments with historical facts. However, I think that historical truth is not only about "facts", but also of interpretation. Someone said that if you collect your data carefully, you can almost prove everything. All historians and social scientists know that facts never speak for themselves. So, putting all historical details aside (important as they are, but also needing more space than that provided here), I would delimit myself to saying that, to people living in Greece, the threat of Turkey and its provocative military behaviour have never ceased and this is a reality the Greeks live with. This cannot really be explained, although it is almost obvious. It is a threatening and provocatibe behaviour (F-16 flying over the Aegean, etc., or even closer), that (please notice) only works for the damage of Turkey. Turkey (with its otherwise very friendly and in several ways like-minded to the Greeks people) has many many problems to solve (social, economic etc.), before it decides to join our company. The repeated violetions of human rights as recorded by the EU must be taken seriously. These violetions took place in a more "normal" context of political and historical circumstances (such as during the massacre of Izmir), but the spirit of imperialism was the same. I am sorry for talking somewhat generally, but I just needed to stress that the problem you are discussing is not a merely a historical problem for the "detached" historian, but an everyday experience for someone who has a TV home and can make the relevant historical comparisons.

I was once watching a Turkish official (it was a lady, don't remember, long time ago) being interviewed by a Greek journalist. One could notice how the discussion was shifting from the general to the particular and back. Turkish official: "there are no obscure points in international treaties concerning the Aegean". When the Greek jurnalist tackled her with this, then the Turkish official: "Yes, but we dispute this treaty!".

It's all about politics, guys. There are no good guys and bad guys, but there are victims and these are the Greeks. But the Greek position in modern Europe is a lot more optimistic than that of others, because you cannot copy-paste your historical mambo-jumbo to advance as a society nowadays. You expect me to discuss seriously who killed whom in Izmir? Or doubting if Western Anatolia ("Iwnia") was Greek or not? Especially the latter would make every prehistorian (but also classical archaeologist)laugh. Or whether the people of Pontus were Greeks? (the circular traditional dance of whose betrays their ancient Greek ancestry; or the various ancient Greek words of their vocabulary). Thanks, Panos. [Please do not delete it as I think I deserve to have a say, let other people judge if it is ahistorical].

Panos, no one said that western anatolia and pontus were not inhabited by Greeks. Before the Turks came to Anatolia as early as 1032 almost all of anatolia was Greek. No one will deny that, but the fact is that western anatolia and pontus did not have a majority Greek population in 1919. Infact the Greeks were a small minority in western anatolia and the pontus. According to the statistics there were some 790000 Greeks versus 4500000 Turks in western anatolia in 1919, So why did the Greek army invade western anatolia? What would have they done to all those Turks. Many Turks were massacred by the Greek army and Hundreds if not thousands of Turkish villages were burned to the ground. It surprises me that the Greek still refuse to believe this. There was absolutely no reason for the Greek invasion, if that did not happen there would be millions of Greeks in western anatolia by now. Orrin_73

greeks were not a majority in western anatolia in and near 1919. this was just a disinformation made by the greek government of the time in order to benefit from the Wilson's principles.

Fire in Smyrna/Izmir

Hello everybody. In most of our history books it is said that the fire of Smyrna/Izmir was set by the Turkish irregulars to exact revenge on the Greeks. In the text it is said that the fire was set by retreating Greek troops. How about deleting this sentence from the article before somebody brings some sources about it? Or perhaps writing both claims. KostasG 14:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Kostas, Historical documents show that the retreating Greek army destroyed pretty much all the towns that they could put their hands on. Please refer to the biography of Ataturk by Andrew Mango for references. I am sure that Greek text books say the reverse, but it just does not make sense why the victorious Turkish army would destroy the city it took back from invading Greeks. tvoldemor

I don't think I can deny that we had our fair share of atrocities in this war, but it is said in our books that the Turkish army destroyed the Greek and Armenian sectors of the city, in order to get rid of the Greeks and Armenians in the city. Perhaps the Greek army set fire in the rest of the city. I don't know what is true. Most probably there are foreign writers who support the Greek claim. I haven't searched for that to tell you the truth, though. In any case, I don't think we will ever know the truth beyond all doubt (or beyond reasonable doubt for that matter...), as I don't think that there were any court martials of Greek or Turkish officers for the fire... I will not contribute to the article, as there are too many here who are only too happy to start an edit war (Greeks and Turks) :(. Maybe in 200 years we will have a little bit of a cooler head to talk about these things. I only hope this kind of atrocities is definitely behind us and things like this never happen ever again. Thanks for taking the time for this talk, it was really appreciated. :) KostasG 14:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

Currently article tells that the Greek suffered 125,000 dead while the Turks only 2,500, which is quite ridiculous. I don't know the real figures but considering that the Turks suffered 3,600 dead in Sakarya alone, there's a quite obvious problem. Hopefully someone, preferably neither a Turk nor a Greek, will but them right. Latre 14:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Corrected. Miskin 10:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sadly it is not corrected completely. New casualty numbers are true but the article claims that Greeks had 120,000 troops while Turks had 450,000! If Turkish Force was 4 times bigger that the invaders, Ataturk could win the war without planning any tactics! So the number look really stupid. As I know, Turkey's military force could be max. 200,000. Please discuss this. With respect, Deliogul 17:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

unhistorical statements

First of all, according to Wikipedia:Vandalism I didn't vandalized anything because POV is not Vandalism. Second: The article says that Kemal sent any turkish soldiers who harmed non-combatants to death. This is an unhistorical nonsense and also an insult to the thousands that were massacred by the turks. Also the article gives the NPOV and the turkish version about the fire of Smyrna, but not the greek version of the story. Since I cannot edit the article, I call someone who is a registered user to "correct" these unhistorical statements.87.203.230.224

This article must be unprotected,

the statement about Kemal's order must be sourced, and the Greek POV must be (as the Turkish POV already is) present in the article.(87.203.227.17 13:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC))

I'm sorry, but my interpretation of the WP:NPOV policy is different. I believe that it does not endorse including all relevant POVs. It seems to suggest that no POV should be presented explicitly, and that the article should focus on verifiable facts. I do not know why you think that the article has a pro-Turkish bias, but perhaps you could point out the relevant sections and they could be re-worded. TheArchon 06:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not saying that it is biased, I 'm saying that Kemal's order must be sourced or removed, all POVs must be included and the article must be unprotected because there was no Vandalism on it.(87.203.229.163 07:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

It seems very likely that such an order was issued, but I agree that a reference must be provided, because it is good academic practice. This would be easier for people with access to Turkish sources. I will put a citation needed tag there as a reminder to them. TheArchon 09:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

My source for this were provided in a comment right next to the citation tag. Btw the anon is Turkish and he's been edit-warring on several articles, I don't know what he's trying to pull now. Miskin 10:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment cannot be considered as a source. Btw I 'm not turkish, I 'm Greek and I 'm not edit-warring anywhere.(87.203.229.163 11:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

Ok then I might have mistook you for another. I have cited a book as a source within that comment, please see my latest edits. Miskin 11:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I 'm sorry, but I can't see your citation. I think you have to remove that until you find a source.(87.203.229.163 12:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC))

If you referring to Kemals order to not harm non-combatants, its from his biography by Lord Kinross, unfortunately i dont have a copy at hand, but its definitely from his book. --A.Garnet 00:50, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I will not remove anything, as I already have a source. If you can't see it that's your problem. Miskin 14:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I can see it now, but how can I know it is a serious source? And will someone unprotect the article finaly?(87.203.171.34 07:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC))

You'll just have to take my word for it. Miskin 10:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Like i said, the proclamation can be found in Lord Kinross's biography of Ataturk, one of the most comprehensive available. Note, that the Greek soldiers did conduct a scorched earth policy, i can source this if need be. --A.Garnet 11:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

They did but that did not start the fire. The burning of the Christian quarters did (i.e. the greater part of the city). Miskin 13:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to Izmir Miskin, but Anatolia. As they retreated they set masses of Anatolia ablaze and reduced towns to rubble. This passage is from Kinross which can be found in Talk:Smyrna -

"The retreat lasted a week. The Turkish forces hurried on towards the city, striving to overtake the Greeks before they could decimate all western Anatolia 'by fire and sword'...But it still failed to catch up with the enemy. Already most of the towns in its path were in ruins. One third of Ushak no longer existed. Alashehir was no more than a dark scorched cavity, defacing the hillside. Village after village had been reduced to an ash-heap. out of eighteen thousand buildings in the historic hold city of Manisa, only five hundred remained...

...They pillaged and destroyed and raped and butchered. 'They went to pieces altogether' as Rumbold recounted to Curzon on the basis of reports from his consul in Smyrna. It was 'a sickening record of bestiality and barbarity'. There was little he added, to choose between the two races, Greek and Turk. Permeating the atmosphere, as Turks advanced down the valleys, was the stench of unburied bodies, of charred human and animal flesh" Kinross p318. --A.Garnet 13:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that this policy did take place, see my edit summaries that try to support these edits. I never claimed the Greeks were saints, but as R. J. Rummel correctly predicts:
"As the Turks would hasten to add, the Greek army carried out its own massacres in Turkey's provinces along the Aegean Coast... In Smyrna alone during the Greek occupation, one news dispatch claimed that over 4,000 muslims were "butchered"... In total, the Turkish nationalists massacred over 100,000 Christians in Smyrna itself." Miskin 14:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

What about my "request" for unprotection? There is no reason for this article to be protected!(87.203.188.125 09:53, 6 June 2006 (UTC))

"Istorika" magazine which is published by newspaper "Eleutherotypia" says that Kemal officialy ordered the burning of Smyrna and as a source they have 2 books by "Octavios Merlie".87.203.235.14 11:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I also have this magazine. Mitsos 10:42, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

The titles of the books are "My first contact with Asia Minor. Personal memories" and "Smyrna, the metropolis of the Hellenism of Asia Minor". 87.203.232.191 09:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

And the title of the magazine is "The Catastophe of Smyrna (Part 2)". Mitsos 09:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please somebody tell me, how is "Merlie" spelled in French? Mitsos 08:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No allied support?

"The Greek defeat can be largely attributed to a lack of whole-hearted Allied support [...] On the contrary, the Kemalist Turks enjoyed significant Soviet support." Yeah, no support except that the British troops was holding the largest Turkish city, Istanbul, under invasion, together with its rich surrounding regions, that Italian army was holding southwestern Anatolia under invasion, French army was holding southern Turkey under invasion and attacking from there to inner Anatolia aided by Armenians. Of course Armenian army was attacking from eastern front too, but since they were not an allied state, that would not count. Also, the puppet Ottoman government was inciting unrest against Turkish nationalists, was even attacking directly by its British-supported army. Absolutely no allied support! :)) And I wonder what "significant" Soviet support Turks were recieving. That was the Soviet Union, just emerged from world war and civil war, right? And no direct military involvement whatsoever. I guess the article is referring to some rifles granted by Soviets to Turks. I suggest this part of the article be re-written since holding richer half of a country under invasion and attacking to it from other fronts should be considered as "support". Details of British, French and Italian roles in the Turkish Independence War are in other Wikipedia Articles.Filanca 10:41, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Turks did enjoyed significant Soviet support and there are many sources fo that. About the allied stance towards the Greeks, the British held Istanbul but they never engaged into battle with the Turks or gave any weapons to Greeks, the Italians were actually helping the Turks by allowing Turkish guerillas who attacked Greek-occupied cities to retreat through their territory (that was because Italy wanted to be the unique ruler in western Asia Minor). French held a very bad stance towards Greeks and retreated from Asia Minor, leaving (after a secret agreement with Kemal) their entire equipment back. What the "allies" did was, at first they landed on Turkey to fight Kemal who was claiming the northern (and oil rich) part of Iraq, but after arranging those things with the Turks and establishing their control over Middle East and its oil they left Asia Minor and supported Kemal in his war against the Greeks, who were now the only threat to stability of Middle East. Mitsos 12:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Are really learning these in school? So why did the English cabinet had to resign after Greek defeat?neurobio 01:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you learning at school? That turks were at asia minor 4000 years ago? Mitsos 11:25, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

While it is true that England supported Greece early on in the war, this supported ended abruptly midway through when King Alexander died in 1920, leaving King Constantine on the throne. King Constantine had been pro-German during WWI, and had been deposed earlier by the British. Naturally this change of rule was not liked by the British, who stopped all support for the Greeks which was one of the major factors contributing to Greece's defeat in the war. At the time time, Turkey was recieving support from the Soviet Union (which Turkey was one of the first state's to recognize, in exchange for Soviet arms which the Turks turned on Greece and Armenia.) Turkey also recieved arms from Italy, Greece's traditional rival in the Mediterranean, in exchange for economic concessions from the Kemalist government. As was mentioned earlier, the French also left their arms when they evacuated Kurdistan, and the Kemalist Turks took after an agreement was signed.

In fact it is Turkish schools which are ridiculous, teaching that Ataturk beat Greece, Britain and Armenia with no support other than an bunch of Anatolian peasant-rabble. The fact is that neither Greece nor Turkey produced weapons, and who recieved arms was what really decided the conflict.

You can read all of this in Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor by Michael Llyewellyn Smith or Smyrna: The Destruction of a City by Marjorie Dobkin. -Kostis Giannelis

These replies to my "no allied support to Greeks" criticism show how distorted Greek view on this issue is. To make it more understandable to Greeks: Imagine Athens together with Attica and Pelopoennos held under invasion by British. Thessaloniki and eastern Thrace was held by French. Crete and islands by Italians. Imagine all Greek ships and heavy armements confiscated. Army dissolved by invaders. Effectively the richer half of the country. Only rebel government in Epirus is resisting to Turkish forces. Is it possible to say "Turks got no allied help"? Geez! It is like beating a person whose hands are held by other people. I am going forward and correcting this nonsense.

Turkey won independence against invading armies of 5 nations: Greece, France, Armenia (3 active fighters), Britain (who was also preventing activities of Turkish resistence in its area of invasion, supporting Turkish dissidents and collaborating Ottoman forces), Italians.

To Kostis who wrote: "In fact it is Turkish schools which are ridiculous, teaching that Ataturk beat Greece, Britain and Armenia" No it was not Atatürk who beat the invaders, it was the Turkish nation. You can not deny armies of all those nations were in Turkey, invaded Turkey, fought against Turks. On the contrary, YOU are ridiculous, claiming those armies did not co-operate. Filanca 12:12, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If you actually think that the Greek and Italian militaries colaborated, you must have read no other history than Grey Wolf propaganda books. Greece and Italy were rivals, and in 1921 the Italians went so far as to have shelled Corfu!!! Do you really think that two rivals, often on the brink of war, were cooperated? No the Italians withdrew from Antalya which they occupied briefly without a fight, and they turned over arms to the Turks to screw over their main rivals, the Greeks. There was also no cooperation between Greece and France, as Greece was a British client which the French resented. Also Britain provided Greece with no direct support after King Alexander died and he was replaced by Constantine, who the British hated. In fact, when Greek forces retreated in the British neutral zone, the British arrested the Greek soldiers and turned them over to the Turks who promptly massacred them. (Source Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor by Michael Llewllyn Smith.) In "Shared Illusions: Greek-Armenian Cooperation in Asia Minor and the Caucasus 1919-22" J.K Hassiotis basially comes to the conclusion that there was no cooperation between Greeks and Armenians, as both communities simply tried to survive. Don't tell me I'm "ridiculous" when you claim that 5 forces opposed to each other "cooperated," instead why don't you go read some history books not written by Grey Wolves.

If you believe that Turkey won with no support, just answer one question: Where did Turkey get it's armaments?

The fact of the matter is that Turkey (like Greece) had no domestic arms industry. The weapons the Turkish armies were using were primarily supplied by the Soviets, but also by the Italians and the French. Greece got it's armaments from Great Britain, which were cut off after King Constantine took the throne.

It is clear that Turkey was recieving support from the Soviet Union, Italy and France, otherwise they would have been unable to continue the war.-- Kwstis Giannelis.

Italy invaded Turkey at the same time with Greeks. This help, alliance, collaboration by a neutral POV. The same goes with French.

Now, someone wrote in the article "The Turks also recieved significant arms from Italy and France". That is, their enemies in war. :) Why, my own great grandfather fought with French himself, his memoirs are printed. Maybe that was an illusion? Turks were fighting WITH French and Italians against Greeks? Dont trust my memory, look at the Wikipedia article for Turkish War of Independence.

While started, why dont you say Turks got help from British too? :)))

About Soviet help issue: It is in Turkish school curriculum that Soviets helped Turkish independence. However, that was far from the help Greeks recieved: Soviets never actually interfered in this war. (while Greeks benefited from their 4 allies attacking to Turkey at the same time.) No Soviet soldier, officer fought in the Turkish War of Independence. (Unlike Greek allies, who invaded Anatolia with their own armies and created zones of control) Soviets, like Turks, were out of the WWII and revolution worn out. They did not have too many means to help Turkey. There was no railway to carry heavy armements to Anatolia. Soviet navy was non existant in the Black Sea, while British navy were dominating it. So dont expect a great help there.

So where Turks really got their armements? According to Sevres treaty all Ottoman armements should've been handed over to the allies. But of course this was only partially carried out by Turks. Bullets and other goods locally produced in Turkish towns in small workshops and were carried to the front by women. This was not much but proved to be enough. After all, it was the life or death struggle for Turkish nation. Filanca 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? The arms were carried by women to the front. Wow, Turkish women must be really strong if they can carry heavy artillery on their backs. Give us a break and provide us some documents or sources. Let me tell you about the great deal of help the Turks recieved from the Bolsheviks by proving a historical document. A telegraph sent on August 4th Turkey's representative in Moscow, Riza Nur, sent a telegram saying that soon 60 Krupp artillery pieces, 30,000 sells, 700,000 grenades, 10,000 mines, 60,000 Romanian swords, 1.5 million captured Ottoman riflesfrom WWI, 1 million Russian rifles, 1 million Manlicher rifles, as well as some more modern Martini-Henry rifles, 25,000 bayonets... this is a partial list, the full version can be found inthe May 16 2002 issue of the Newspaper Eleftherotipia, it's Istoria supplement, which includes photographs of the documents in question. The article is on pg. 14 and is written by Kostas Fotiatidis a Professor of Aristotle University in Thessaloniki. The same documents can be found in The Soviet Union and the Muslim World 1917-1958 by Engelwood Cliffs, 1962 as well as Soviet Russia and Asia 1917-1927: A study of Soviet policy towards Iran, Turkey and Afghanistan by Kapur H.

Furthermore Kemal Ataturk was quoted as saying that "The victory of new Turkey againsts the Anglo-French and Greek conqueror needed very great sacrifices and it wouldn't have been possible without Russian support."

As for your claims that the Italians were fighting the Turks, it is well known that the Italians, although occupying the Antalya, were assisting the Turks. From the official website of the city of Antalya (http://www.antalya-ws.com/english/location/antalya/whistory.asp)--> Following the First Word War, Antalya was occupied on 29 April 1919 by the Italians. During this occupation every effort was made to avoid clashes between the local inhabitants and the occupying force. During the War of Independence, Antalya and the region supported the war on the western front [agaisnt the Greeks] by manpower and funds. It is known that the Italians assisted the Turks, especially from the point of view of intelligence. In early 1921 the Italians began to withdraw and by 5 July 1921 Antalya was completely free of the Italian occupation. Sounds like Italy fought hard against the Turks, right? Shelling Corfu and raising troops to fighting Ataturk's army are really the actions of an enemy, right? Give me a break, filanca. --Kwstis Giannelis

Surely Turkish women could ride carriages pulled by animals, apart from being strong themselves. As for your sources, The Soviet Union and the Muslim World 1917-1958 is on the Google library for search and I can not find the information you said was present there. Please quote the page number. I have no means of searching other book, nor the Greek newspaper but it seems to me that the books are indirect sources, quoted by the newspaper, is that right? We should make a decision: Are non-English sources applicable? That would make Turkish sources valid as well, which I intend to use extensively. Anyway, I myself said Turkish side recieved armements from Soviets, so there is no point in discussing that with me. The point is Greece recieved much more and important help: They had allies attacking Turkey simultaneously. That is much more important than any alleged "rifles" help from Sovinets. Turkish army had to fight in 3 fronts, plus with Sultan's forces. There could be no better help to Greeks.

As for your "French and Italian support to Turks" claim, it is outrageous. They were invading forces and Turks had to fight with French to kick them out of the country.

What is your source about Atatürk's quote?

"As for your claims that the Italians were fighting the Turks" --> I never said that. Italians occupied southwestern part of Turkey. After Turks finished their job with Greeks, French, Armenians and British, surely their turn would come. They had the sense not to wait till then and pulled their forces off. Filanca 20:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Italians pulled their forces off and left their entire equipment back. And because Greece and Italy were rivals, during the time were the Italians occupied Antalya they collaborated perfectly with the Turks (until they reached an agreement and Italians finaly left after giving their equipment to the Turks). The same happened with the French, after very little fighting they agreed to pull off their forces leaving their equipment back, and in exchange Kemal promished that they would be safe to occupy Syria and its oil. You are ridiculous when you claim that a bunch of turkish partisans kicked the French Army out of Turkey. Also, the Turks never fought with the British. As for the Turkish armaments, they were made in France, Italy and Soviet Union, not in small Turkish workshops (smal workshops cannot produce equipment for 450,000 men). SERGEY

Regading The Soviet Union and the Muslim World, it is not surprising that you cannot find the information I presented as the google library only has about three paragraphs from the book. The information is in the appendix where there are photographs of the telegram I mentioned. My source in the Ataturk quote is the newspaper cited earlier, Eleftherotipia.

Your claims that the "Allies" attacked Turkey simultaneously simultaneously are simply not true. Armenia capitulated in November 1920 according to Wikipedia. Also on the 30th May 1920 an armistice with France was signed, where the French turned over large stockpiles of weapons over to Turkey. The first major engagement between Ataturk's forces and the Greeks was the first battle of Inonu which occurred in 1921. By that time that actual combat started Greece and Turkey were fighting each other alone, there were absolutely no other active combatants. Furthermore, there was never any combat between Turkish and either Italian or British forces. At the same time, Greece was not recieiving support from England as Constantine was on the throne, and Turkey had recieved 1) the Soviet arms (which you concede) 2) arms from the French who had signed an armistice after minimal combat 3) arms from the Italians in Antalya, which I have already provided a source for.

I repeat, Greece recieved no significant support from any country during the active stages of the war, while Turkey recieved massive transfers of arms from 3 countries. If I am wrong about this, please provide me of examples of Italian or British troops engaging in combat with Ataturk's forces. -Kwstis Giannelis

I THINK THAT GREEK OR TURKISH SOURCES MUST NOT BE APPLICABLE Mitsos 10:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Italians retreated without any armed combat. We were really close to start a battle against England because of the western borders but this was also didn't happened. We fought serious battles at our South-East territories against France. In the Eastern campaing we defeated the Armenians and in the west, we decisively won the war against Greeks. It is true that Soviets sent us military equipment but only a small part of the Turkish Army joined this advantage(max. 1/5 of the army used Soviet equipment). On the other hand, we alos tried to find ammo from the western world but the attempts were all ended with failures. With respect, Deliogul 16:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Turks got weapons from Soviets that's right. but i don't understand how you decided that it was a support. because we gave tons of wheat in return. soviets planned to found a communist regime in Turkey if we could beat allies with their support. but Mustafa Kemal also knew this and the wheat was given because of this. and after soviets understood that Mustafa Kemal was not a communist, they started to support Enver Pasha who was opponent of Mustafa Kemal. Enver had a group of supporters of himself in the National Assembly in Ankara and he was planning to come to power with a stroke. He was expecting a little failure from Mustafa Kemal to move. but something like that never happened. Majority of the weapons and bullets of the Turkish army was supplyed from the arsenals in İstanbul which was under occupation or British. We had to steal our own ammunition from our own arsenals, and transport them with boats which were always under the threat or British and Greek ships on our own seas and then with two-wheeled ox carts (in turkish Kağnı) which were driven by Turkish women just to live in liberty on our own lands. After Greeks were beaten in Battle of Sakarya Italians retreated from south anatolia. and they left some weapons which were mostly out of order. And Turks had the fixable ones including a plane. And we bought a few planes too from Italians later on. Some part of weapons were collected from public with the law 'Tekalif-i Milliye'

MAINTAIN NPOV AND STOP REVERTING THE ARTICLE

The "turkish" version of the article is completely POV. The word landing is replaced by invasion (that's POV). Also there is a sentence telling us that the greek army launched a series of "offensives" (that's wrong grammaticly) against the turkish people!!!! What you mean by that? Against the whole turkish people (50 million) and not the turkish army???? And how can you claim that greeks burned Smyrna without a source??? Mitsos 20:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, there's no such thing as ..."turkish" version of the article....

The word landing is replaced by invasion, bacause it was invasion afterall; what would you call landing troops on foreign soil without a set of international treaties setting legal basis otherwise? Wikipedia considers even Turkish peace force intervention on Cyprus as invasion (which had legal basis in contrast to Greek invasion on İzmir). If you are honestly and truly consider invasion as a POV in this article, I hereby invite you to support me in renaming the article Turkish invasion of Cyprus since it is even a bigger POV considering Turkish intervention as invasion. Otherwise, stop partizan acts under the mask of good will, since it can no longer be believed to exist.

About the offensives against Turkish people; considering Greeks invaded İzmir and they could not have done so in existance of a Turkish Army, against whom these offensives could have been launched? Turkish population started resisting a Greek invasion even before Greeks landed on İzmir. There had been protests, declerations before and even small scaled armed resistance after Greeks invaded İzmir. Therefore Greek army launched offensives against Turkish population (there's no Turkish Army existent in İzmir or surroundings at that time) to overcome the resistance and supress the Turkish majority.

About the fire of İzmir there are strong evidence (by Austrian-Serbian and American witnesses) as well as official communications (including Mustafa Kemal's) about the measures to be taken against the fire. I suggest you read the article as well as some other literature more than history books used in Greek primary school education, then we can continue on this subject about the parts of this article that don't suit your own POV. Kertenkelebek^Ⓣ 08:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

You say that the Greek operation in Asia Minor was landing troops on foreign soil without a set of international treaties setting legal basis. Have you by any chance ever heard of the Treaty of Sevres? Which the Ottoman Empire, the only legitimate authority in Anatolia as the time, had signed? The Greek action in Asia Minor was totally legal under the Treaty of Sevres, which the Ottoman government (the only legitimate authority in Turkey, as Kemal was nothing more than an unrecognized rebed at the time) had signed. Thus you cannot call the Greek operation in Asia minor an "invasion" as it was totally legal under international law.

Furthermore I would like you to mention this other literature that you mentioned, especially these American sources. Are you familiar with George Horton, the American Consul in Smyrna? Probably not, so I'll fill you in, he wrote in his memoirs that from the American consulate he saw uniformed Turkish soldiers throwing cans of petrol onto houses and setting them alight. Thus the highest ranking American official in Smyrna believed that Turkish soldiers set the fires, and numerous French and British witnesses corroborate his story. -Kostas Katzadilis

Treaty of Sevres was signed by collaborating government of the last Ottoman Sultan. It was never ratified by the National Assembly, representative of the Turkish people . As a result of this, Sevres could not be applied and had to be replaced by the treaty of Lausanne, which was also signed by allies and Turks. Greek army was in a foreign land and thus they were invaders. And as invaders they were fought against by the local people. Calling an invading army as "invaders" is not POV at all. By the way, there was no "international law" at the time which could say an invading army was really an invading one or a conquering one. Filanca 14:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Who says that the national assembly was representing the turkish people??? The only internationaly recognized government in turkey at the time was, in fact, the ottoman sultan. SERGEY

Filanca, of courses there was international law during this time period. Have you ever heard of the League of Nations? The Treaty of Sevres was in effect until the Treaty of Lausanne was applied, thus the Greek actions were completely legal during the time period and Ataturk's forces were nothing more than insurgents, rebels until they later gained recognition.

Whether or not the Greek army was in a foreign land is debatable, Smyrna was majority Greek, as it had been since antiquity. They had a perfectly legal mandate to be there. In 1922, they were legitimately defending themselves from Turkish irregular insurgents who had no legal mandate, it is unfair to call the Greeks invaders. --Kwstis Gianelis

"Who says that the national assembly was representing the turkish people" --> Turkish nation who elected them says so. That assembly created a national force out of a worn out nation and beat 5 nations plus the corrupt Sultan at the sime time. Unparalelled feat. Turkish nation made its choice for independence.

Gianelis, I repeat that there was no international law that may justify you saying "Greek invasion was legal". I dont know of any League of Nations decisions pertaining to Greece or French should invade Turkey.

Atatürk's forces were more than "insurgents" from the beginning, because prior to real war, he held a series of national congresses and then the National Assembly to be sure of national support. That assembly never ratified the Sevres treaty, which was imposed on the Ottoman government by force. So Turks had to reverse it by force themselves. Filanca 20:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

You make your point with some passion, Filanca, but the fact remains that the Greek Occupation and the Creation of the Smyrna Protectorate were done according to provisions of the Sevres Treaty, to which the Sultan was a signatory. It is understandable that the Turks were unhappy with the occupation, with the Treaty, and with the Sultan's rule, but that does not make any of the above illegal.

Regarding the Kemal's National Assemblies, I agree with you that they represented the views of the newly-created Turkish state. However, you should remember that Turks loyal to the Sultan did not participate in these Assemblies, nor did any not-Turk subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Therefore, it may not be entirely self-evident why the decisions of the Assembly were more valid than those of the Sultan. TheArchon 05:18, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

The national assembly wasn't elected by anyone, because there were no elections in turkey at the time. In fact, the national assembly was a bunch of extremist ex-officers of the ottoman army.

You say you don't know any league of nations decisions pertaining that greece should invade turkey. You mean that the treaty of sevres wasn't recognised by the league of nations????? Then I suggest you to refresh your history knowlege. The actions of the greek army in asia minor were totally legal under the treaty of sevres, and even if there wasn't any international law at the time as you say, the greek army didn't entered a foreign land because the majority of the population of smyrna and its surroundings at the time was Greek. Mitsos 08:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that Filanca reads the text of the Treaty of Sevres before he makes any more uninformed statements regarding the League of Nations-- http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/versa/sevres1.html --Kwstis

The treaty signed by the last Ottoman Sultan was never ratified by the Turkish assembly and its rejection by the Turkish nation is evident in participation of Turkish nation in the Independence War. Politically Sevres was the end of Ottoman dynasty, they lost their legitimate status in the country and had to leave Turkey after the war.

Of course there were some sultan loyalists and collaborators of allied forces (as there were Nazi collaborators in France in WW2). Turks had to fight against Sultan's forces as well as Greek, French and Armenian (while also having to endure British and Italian occupations). This makes Turkish independence a more impressive feat.

Greek invasion was not "legal" since there is no "law" that states when a nation can invade another one. If you still claim the contrary, please name the "law" and the appropriate "article" of it. Greek invasion might have been in accordance with the treaty of Sevres, which was forcefully imposed upon Turkish nation. So Turks had to use force to correct the situation. Of course, Sevres treaty gave Greeks a region around Izmir, certainly not the large area they eventually invaded. Read the text you suggested me above.

Of course Greeks were in a foreign land. If they had been in their land, they could not lose that war, especially when their British, French, Italian and Armenian allies together with Sultan's forces were helping them. Filanca 20:04, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The treaty of sevres was rejected by the turkish national assembly (a bunch of extremist officers) not by the Turkish nation. I 'm not saying that Turks were happy with the treaty, I 'm saying that the assembly wasn't a legitimate authority representing the turkish people. WWII France has nothing to do with that.

As the other users already told you the Greek landings were legal under the Treaty of Sevres. The treaty was forcefully imposed on the Turkish nation because the Turkish nation lost the war (WWI), just like the treaty of versailes was imposed on the German nation. Kemal was a revisionist who opposed the treaty (just like Hitler opposed versailes). In fact Kemal was the Hitler of his times. SERGEY

The law is an inernational treaty, which the Ottoman government signed stating:

"ARTICLE 70.

The Greek Government will be responsible for the administration of the city of Smyrna and the territory defined in Article 66, and will effect this administration by means of a body of officials which it will appoint specially for the purpose.

ARTICLE 71.

The Greek Government shall be entitled to maintain in the city of Smyrna and the territory defined in Article 66 the military forces required for the maintenance of order and public security."

Thus the Greek actions in Smyrna were totally legal. Ataturk's were not, he was an insurgent. Regarding Greek expansion, this is something questionable which the legality of can be argued, but I don't think it's worth getting into. The only thing I am arguing is that you cannot call the Greek actions in Smyrna illegal as you did earlier, the fact of the matter is that the Greeks had a treaty signed by the only legitimate Turkish government legalizing their actions. If you disagree with this, read a book on international law. A signed treaty between two countries makes an action legal. --Kwstis Gianelis

There is no sence in discussing if the the landing of the Greek army was legal or not, because this has nothing to do with the article. Let's focus on the article. Mitsos 10:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but the whole "legal/ilegal" argument seems pointless, unless we can establish a legal framework against which to evaluate the conflict. One possible interpretation is to accept that there was a state of peace between Greece and the Ottoman Empire, meaning that the Sevres treaty was valid. In this case, the Greek occupation of the Smyrna (Izmir) district was legal, because it was consistent with the mandates of the Treaty. The Kemalist insurgency was not, because it violated both the treaty and Ottoman Law. This insurgency may (or may not) justify the Greek invasion into the rest of Anatolia. Alternatively, we may accept that the treaty was invalid based on the technicality that the Sultan had not signed it. In that case, we should accept Turkey was still at war against the Allied forces and that the whole "legal/illegal" issue should be seen within the context of Laws of War. In that sense, was the Allied invasion in Anatolia any more "illegal" than their invasion in the Middle East? 62.103.227.98 11:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The Sultan had signed the treaty, so it's the first version. Mitsos 13:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is very biased and contains traces of ignorancy:

• Kemal's movement WASN'T an insurgency, but WAS a national movement, initiated and organized by some of (yes you're right) ex-military members of Ottoman Empire. Because those people actually were the single authority (with means) left in Turkey as practically the government was under control of British and invasion forces. Kemal's movement actually became national very fast once several meetings in provinces made, and mandates given to his organization by locals in Erzurum, Sivas, Amasya and western provinces under Greek invasion. There were a lot of local militia organizations founded after the invasions. A document called 'Misak-ı Milli (national agreement)' was devised and accepted, which covers all bases of what we call today modern Turkey.
• This document was also voted and passed in OTTOMAN parliament right before it was abolished by the Sultan and British-led invasion forces. A lot of members of this parliament fled Istanbul and joined the new NATIONAL parliament founded in Ankara by Kemal.
• With Sevres treaty, Izmir were to be left under Turkish rule but administered by Greeks. After some years in 1925 there would be a referendum, of which we all know what the outcome would be... It was a peaceful annexation of land. I don't argue about connections to number of Greeks or Megali Idea, just putting facts. However Izmir was Turkish territory at that time. Greeks started the invasion (or landing as you try to put) to enforce the Sevres treaty, with the support of British. That's a logical move of course on their part. However it should be clear to all that having a majority in a region doesn't make that territory yours.
• Yes, a commission appointed by the Sultan signed the treaty. But not the Sultan himself. However he accepted the terms clearly, as he sent his men for signature.
• Yes, Sevres was a death sentence for Turks however it was a legal international treaty. The Ottoman government was bound to abide by it and they did. However the majority of Turkish Nation did not. And the rest of history. The treaty is replaced by another one, so can our neighbours get over the Sevres nostalgia and start living in the present?

--Gokhan 09:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all a discussion cannot be biased...

It's time to learn the meaning of the word.

I agree that Kemal did right to reject the Sevres treaty because it wsbad for the Turks, and that Turkish people supported him, but that doesn't makes them a legal authority. Thymios

Yes it can be biased because the people involved can be biased, with an agenda or ignorant. So the discussion can lead to biased outcomes for uneducated eye. Of course I'm not native English speaker if you imply that. Anyway, nobody says he was legal authority at that time. (He became that later on) In fact he was illegal from Sultan's and British forces' point of view in 1919 and 1920. The Sultan didn't want him to operate at all (because he was afraid of Mudros terms allowing Europeans to further invade in case of civil unrest). So he decreed him illegal and asked his return to Istanbul. British also had their aims, they didn't want him to eventually start something that will become a national uprising, so they supported the Sultan's forces and even engineered some revolts (with pretext of religion and loyalty to Sultan) using their agents. --Gokhan 12:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Kertenkelebek's revert

I do not wish to appear as if I do not appreciate anyone's contributions to the article, but I am afraid that Kertenkelebek's revert (July 11th, 2006) was a wrong move for several reasons, the most important of which will be outlined below. First, the revert cancelled out much effort to improve the standard of English in the article ("halted" reverted to the erroneous "haulted", "set ablaze" to the awkward "set to fire", to name two random examples). Secondly, a lot of verifiable information was deleted, such as the date of the Greek landings, the demographics of Smyrna/Izmir, or the events surrounding the Great Fire in 1922. In my understanding of WP policy, if one disagrees with information, it is preferrable to correct (citing a source), or add a "citation needed" tag. Another problem with the revert is that it reintroduced what I perceive as cultural bias: for instance, alternative names for the war were deleted. Also, the semantically loaded word "Invasion" was re-introduced (replacing "Landings" and "Occupation"). Such a change is against Wikipedia policy, which specifies that one should avoid "terms that appear POV, or may be perceived so (...) if a more obviously neutral word can be found". In view of the above, I will revert the article. Kertenkelebek is invited to make any changes he feels necessary to preserve NPOV, within the scope of WP policy, rather than use neutrality concerns as an excuse to delete. As for the claim that this page is only visited by Greeks who fill it with nonsense, I will have to remind him to Assume Good Faith. TheArchon 12:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes & rationale

There has been another unnecessary revert - this time targetting information provided by Filanca. I restored Filanca's version, which contained verifiable information, such as the demographics of the occupied region and a reference. Here's a list of other changes I made, accompanied by a rationale:

• I removed adjectives and adverbs such as "significant/some support", or "greatly benefited. I assume that an intelligent reader will be able to draw his own conclusions, and doesn't need us to dictate our own views.
• I removed the list of war materiel which the Soviets sent to the Turkish revolitionaries, because it was distracting and incomplete anyway. However, the reference is still there for any interested reader to pursue. I also removed reference to the fact that the Soviets did not send over military personnel, because there seems to be no point in stating the obvious. I think the same information can be conveyed more concisely by stating that the Soviets sent over "war material"
• I fixed the link to the Maeandros (Menderes) River. I used the Greek name, because that's the one used in the appropriate WP entry. I also changed the references to "Izmir (Smyrna)" to "Smyrna (Izmir)" so that the entire article is consistent. I think it is better to use the Greek name first, in this instance, because that was the name used in the Sevres treaty.
• I tried to focus the "Analysis...". In addition to some linguistic changes which seemed appropriate, the main change was to restructure the section in two paragraphs - one for political reasons and one for strategic. I removed the reference to the valour of both armies, because it seemed self-evident. I also removed references to the pitiful economy of both belligerents: I think that the paragraph should only provide information that is directly connected to the military events, or offered a clear military advantage.

I hope that you will find these changes sensible 62.103.227.169 11:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that adjectives like "significant/some support" are very important, because the reader doesn't knows (for example) how much support the Soviets gave to the Turks.

I agree with your second edit.

And with the third one.

And with the fourth one.

Also, filanca deleted the part which was talking about the arms the Turks recieved from the Italians and French (in the "Analysis of the Outcome" section).

So, I think you should re-edit (not revert) the article but this time leave the adjectives and don't vandalize the Analysis of the Outcome again. Mitsos 10:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)