Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919–1922)

WARNING TO EDITORS:

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 no one has answered them? Why are greeks or armenians afraid to answer my questions, 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.

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)

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)

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'.

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

'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

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

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

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)