Talk:Turkish War of Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former good article nominee Turkish War of Independence was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
August 7, 2007 Good article nominee Not listed



Soviets only had financial and weapon support to the Turkish side, they never directly involved to the war with 40.000 infantry, complete disinformation. Shameful. -- (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Civil war[edit]

Firstly you need to know demographic situation in anatolia 1918 Muslim peoples are a part of Ottoman people called "reay-a"and they forced to go wars for country.But christians are dont need to go wars.İn the end of the Ottoman empire Wars was every year. Muslim males are crushed in the wars.İn the War of indenpence females and child are fighted for their country. Christian peoples ; Pontus Greeks.They are not ethnically Greek and they dont speak a dialect of Greek.They are the parts of old anatolian nations(hitits,Frigans etc)They speak their own language "rumcha" "Rum" means anotolia in their language.They are real owners of Byzantium Empire.They lives in the Turkeys Black sea side. Armenians, Armenians are really looking like Turks.Byzantium was did pressure on them because Their gregorian.And their never revolted aganist Ottoman Empire.Ottomans are trusted them more than Turks.They said them "Millet-i sadık-a" means faithfull nation.All palace members are Armenian. Jews. Ottoman jews are people what escaped from Spanish Inquisition.They called "serenad".Turkish 2012 Eurovision singer "Can Bonomo" is seranad too. When the and of 1.World War.Ottoman army layed down arms.There is no armed force in anatolia to cover civilians against others.Justin McCarthy says, among the years of 1821 - 1922 %,5 million muslim was forced to migration and more 5 million muslim was killed.McCarthy 1995, 335-340.

Day of 14/15 May 1919 when the Smyrna's occupation by Greek forces,Greeks killed a part of cities Turkish people. On this genocide Rum soldiers are walking in the city.Shaw,Stanford J. & Shaw, Ezel Kural (2002), History of the Ottoman Empire and modern Turkey, Volume 2, Cambridge University Press, pg. 342 Henry Ford says, Greek occupied area İzmir to Konya Greek soldiers are raping Turkish womans very frequently.Ford, Henry. Dearborn Independent Magazine January 1927-May 1927, Dearborn Publishing Company, pg. 24

İn 1929 George Seldes says,Greeks killing are so much bigger than Turks do. Seldes, George. You Can't Print That! the Truth Behind the News 1918 to 1928 (1929), Kessinger Publishing, pg. 395

İn French occupied terrority Armenians did genocide aganist Turks.Gary D. Solish (2010) The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, ISBN 9780521870887

What a collection of nonsense and Turkish propaganda. Turk apologists will continue to say anything to deny the Turkish genocide of Armenians and Greeks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

"War of Independence"?[edit]

More comments on this topic are included throughout this archive

Perhaps the title should be "the war of liberty" instead of the war of independence for more precise translation. İstiklal or kurtuluş do not mean independence. Besides, neither the Ottoman State nor the Turkish movement was ever "dependent" (like a colony that is). Independence is the right word for all previous colonies but not for the states which were born from the ashes of the Ottoman Empire... Ozkaplan 05:54, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, war of indpendence is a silly term, but something like "Establishment of Modern Turkey" would be better than War of Liberty, which is blatantly POV (this was not a war of liberty for minorities such as Greeks, Armenians. Circassians and Kurds.)
I agree. Turkey was independent. Turning back the Greek invasion -- the major event of the war -- was totally justified, but I fail to see the "Liberty" in the burning of Smyrna. (Although the Greeks may have taught the Turks to do that by burning Salonika in 1912 -- and yes, I know, they still deny that they did that, it was just too soon and too convenient.)Scott Adler 07:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? Smyrna was not burned by the Turks, it's now called Izmir, and it still stands today, and there was no motive for Turks to burn a city they liberated for themselves where their own people live in, so please do your research before accusing anyone of burning cities. Also, this was indeed a war of Independence, Kurtulus means freedom (literally "to be saved"); hence independence. It wasn't a war of liberty for the Greeks and Armenians, you are right, it was a liberation of territories from the Greek and Armenian invading armies.Arsenic99 (talk) 02:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
as i've mentioned above, "turkish war of independence" is an totally unproper title/term and reflects only the turkish POV. the same with "war of liberty". --Severino 18:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the "Turkish War of Independence" title is not invented here on Wikipedia as a simple case of "POV". These series of wars have been universally referred to as "Kurtuluş Savaşı" in Turkish literature (which means, "War of Salvation/Independence/Liberty"), and the "Turkish War of Independence" translation happens to be the common name in English, as used by Britannica [7] and other encyclopedias. Contributors' personal views on established common names given to particular historical events do not play a role in article naming. Please see WP:NAME guidelines. Atilim Gunes Baydin 21:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
yes, i believe that in TURKISH these wars are called that i said, the title (and also the content to a certain degree) reflects the turkish POV. and contributors "personal views" (such as yours) make up every article on wikipedia. and: even if names for historical events are established in parts of historiography - wikipedia is an excellent place to scrutinize them. here: what for the turks was a struggle for independence, was a great tragedy for others. --Severino 23:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that the "Turkish War of Independence" name is the common English name. Britannica [8], Encarta [9], Encyclopedia [10] use exactly this name to refer to the war. These are three reliable and objective online sources for a quick fact-check and there are a plethora of printed sources using this name, if you do some research. Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
As a note, I really understand your "one side's victory, other's disaster" point. You don't have to repeat it. This one-sidedness issue is quite common in war names. But the established practice in Wikipedia is to put the article under the common English name, and cover any probable naming disputes in the article. The guidelines make it very clear that we should not be trying to invent new names to "neutralize" common names of historical events. You might want to review Wikipedia:Naming conventions (events) and perhaps Wikipedia:Naming conflict. Atilim Gunes Baydin 12:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
i notice your polite and factual comment and will think about it. --Severino 15:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
It is weird to talk about Turkish war of independence. I a Greek , have to account that the Ottoman Empire was not entirely Turkish. Well it is known that it was a mixture of Turk/Kurd/Armenian/Egyptian/Greek/Persian Empire with Turks (and maybe sometime Kurds) at the top. However, the population of the empire does not account for the source of its administration nor about the civilization that it represents. So, talking about Turkish up rise and Independence war it is as absurd as suggesting that the Greeks made an uprise against Byzantine. This article is clearly for the LOLz and needs SERIOUS REVISING, CITATION, CROSS-REFERENCE, SOURCE VALIDATION and finally some English-language to be persuasive. Otherwise it is mostly speculative propaganda.--Yparjis (talk) 16:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Turkey or the Ottoman Empire was not a colony, or a part of another empire, thus the use of the term "Turkish War of Independence" is misleading, and misjudged. They were not dependent, but defeated at the world war I. Literally, "Kurtulus" as in Kurtulus Savasi" reads as Liberation, not Independence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:23, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
This issue comes up time and time again. The name is very misleading, but then so is the whole article, right from the very first paragraph. Whenever someone brings it up pro-Turkish people respond with vulgar, lengthy rantings. Perhaps an admin can redirect it? But the whole article needs serious cleaning up if it even wishes to begin to approach NPOV.
Admins don't redirect without reaching a consensus. What would you have it redirected to, anyway? --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
There certainly does seem to be a consensus if you read through the comments (from all sides: Greeks, Armenians, et al., who take offense at the name; Anglophones who are confused by the inaccuracy of the name; and Turks who are slightly bothered by the infelicity of the translation.) But yes, certainly the problem is where else you would redirect it if you don't want to splinter the war into its different theaters and move the political content to a "Formation of Turkey" article. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
I kind of agree that there is something wrong with the title. Just because those above-mentioned resources call it independence doesn't mean it is true. This is simply a work of ignorant editors who do nor realize that Turkish struggle was one of a kind, and it does no resemblance to any other. This is not a POV, but Turkey is the only nation, that was independent before the war and managed to stay independent after a war it lost. I am not sure what to call it in English, however "kurtulus" is definitely not the correct word, instead Istiklal would be a better choice as Armagan just mentioned it in his article today in Zaman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
"War of Independence?" Puh-leaze. This in nonsense. The Kemalists were hardly declaring independence from the Turkish Empire. They aggressively continued the ethnic-Turkish policies of the Ottomans, and even surpassed them in their attacks on non-Turkic minorities like the Pontic Greeks.

Enough with the Turkish propaganda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:24, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree that this article is propaganda and not worth of the aims of Wikipedia. Consider this quote from the text: "Greek forces committed numerous atrocities in their attempts to control the region, and frequently targeted defenseless civilians and religious symbols." If one is fair minded at all, nothing more need be said. The sentence is simply propaganda, not to mention uncited. Cutugno (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree with the general idea, but POV cuts both ways. Certainly "Turkish War of Independence" should be included, possibly as the lede if it's the most common scholarly nomenclature, but the article could use a "Terminology" section including other names for the conflict (Better translation "Turkish War of Liberation," Greek name for conflict, etc.) It can be seen as a war of independence against occupying colonizers, but the occupiers certainly never held the entire country and arguably didn't even intend to bother with the rump state in central Anatolia. Turkey was independent before, during, and after the war, so it's certainly an odd choice. -LlywelynII (talk) 13:57, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The war should be called the 'Liberation War'. Kurtuluş means salvation anyway. And from a neutral point of view, irrespective of the religious connotations of the word, Liberation is a better translation. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 17:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

But "liberation" implies some sort of oppression. When were the Turks ever in that position? Every inch of what is today Turkey was taken by brutal force by the Turks. There is nothing for the Turks to be "liberated" from. Something like "The Anatolian War" would be a better diea, but I don't hink there are sources calling it that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

French soldiers were abusing Turkish women in Eastern Turkey and I'm sure similar things happened in Western Turkey. Look at the World War I victors' map and how they wanted to divide Turkey. They had their occupational zones and then 'zones of influence'. This is most certainly abuse and their planned colonization can be considered such. Liberation is the best word to use since the colonial plots had not been acheived yet. 1907AbsoluTurk (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

"When were the Turks ever in that position?" You are kidding, right? We are talking about the leftovers of once a huge empire, scattered all over the Eastern Europe, Anatolia and the Middle East. More than half of the territories with Turkish majority was UNDER OCCUPATION after WW1. What are you trying to imply, that it was in fact the Turkish National Movement who invaded Greece? I don't know with what kind of extreme propaganda your brain was washed by the Greek Government, but do not even try to alter historical FACTS on your ridiculous world view. - Batuhan Erdogan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batuhan Erdoğan (talkcontribs) 19:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

I certainly think it is a silly name for a conflict that has nothing to do with independence per se. Turkish people could never possibly become independent of themselves, if you understand the irony of that statement. You cannot fight for your own country to become independent of itself. You get the lead? Any other name would suit better. I just think it is HILARIOUS to read the title. As if the WWII would be the "Allied War of Independence". --Vitilsky (talk) 04:12, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Turkish National War of Liberation, that is the name; liberation from occupation by foreign powers. Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 18:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Anti-British bias?[edit]

The tenure of the article seems in places propagandistic & to exhibit an anti-British bias; (minor point-it is also difficult to scan as the grammar is poor) ...........

Ahem. Not exactly a productive comment, is it? And unsigned too... I think at least the main introduction is good and npovvy enough. 08:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with the anti-British bias comment here. Try for example the esteemed book "Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World" by Margaret Macmillan to see from a Western source how His Majesty's Government's whims and and desire to punsih Turks played a role in this bloodshed. For one thing Greek occupation of Izmir was prompted by the British, much before the Treaty of Sevres gave that city to them.
However, I have another comment on the content, which I believe is much more important than the neverending POV wars. The article certainly does a good job of explaining the political and diplomatic developments during the war but it does a very bad job of putting those events in context. For example, we read that after an aborted attempt for peace in London that there was another, this time successful attempt in Mudanya. What happened in between is a mystery to anyone who tries to learn from this article. I don't enjoy reading heroics or anything of the sort but one should make clear that it was not a sudden change of heart by the allies and the Greeks that lead to the peace eventually but the crushing defeat of the Greek army in western Anatolia. There was noone to fight Turks in Turkey except for a small expeditionary force of allied soldiers, and of course they were not going to do that for the Greeks, so the peace was a no brainer. Allies on their part just prevented a direct collison with the regular Turkish army and formally ended the hostilities so that a peace conference can be. Another point here is that although Wilson's 14 points are referenced, it is not quite clear from the article how they applied to the situation at hand. For example, why would not Wilson accept a larger part of Anatolia to be given to Greece? I know the answer is because except for Izmir and Ayvalik, turks were the overwhelming majority in the region, but not everyone who reads it.
Therefore I believe there should be at least a decent outline of the timeline of military events to go together with is in the article. Of course, being tired of POV bickering and the site administrators who think they are the most qualified people to be the judge of such an issue, I will not touch the article myself, but I would express my sincere thanks to any brave soul who deals with these problems here. (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, in the independence War, Turkey didn't fought against United Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in the independence war, Turkey didn't fought against UK. I've got sources about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah they fought! What about the battle of istanbul? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Correcting the English grammar[edit]

Because of my interest in Turkish history I was drawn to the subject matter of this article. However, because it's written by a non-native writer of english and because I'm American and not Turkish or Greek my knowledge of english is my strongest tool with regards to this article. I have tried to maintain the substance of the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Chrismv (talkcontribs) 23:10, 4 March 2007 (UTC).

I just stopped by to give this a quick once over for possible editing. Way too much time would be involved for me to do it - I have a job and a life away from the computer. God, where would one even start!? It's a pure mess from a grammatical standpoint and I wish the best of luck to any native / fluent English speaker who dares to conquer it and avoid being lambasted in pidgin English on the talk page for even trying! CanadianMist 16:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Despite the commandment to Be Welcoming, the fact remains that this is English Wikipedia, not Turkish Wikipedia nor Greek Wikipedia nor Armenian Wikipedia. If a potential editor lacks sufficient fluency in English to express ideas in a manner that is comprehensible to a native English speaker, then that potential editor would be better off editing Wikipedia in a language other than English. While I understand the passion that some people may have for expressing their view of history, there is not much to be gained by expressing that view as nonsensical gibberish. Rather than being persuasive, gibberish is likely to induce laughter or annoyance on the part of the reader (i.e. Do you really want to sound like Borat's dimwitted Turkish/Greek/Armenian cousin?). R. A. Hicks (talk) 12:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to be rude or condescending. Slamming authors and claiming it's "too much work" to correct errors in grammar is not helpful or constructive. I will get back to editing this page since those who've been so critical could not be bothered to do so.Pebblicious (talk) 05:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree totally with R. A. Hicks. The part of the article I read seemed to have a Turkish viewpoint. N. McD.
I see that there are several problems regarding the language of this article. If no one opposes, I will go sentence by sentence and rewrite the article in a more comprehensible way. However, I will not change the information, and preserve all facts and citations. Currently, I'm more interested to make this article easier to comprehend rather than what is written. There are lots of complaints regarding this issue, but not much is being done.--DenizCc (talk) 18:43, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

better main pic/map[edit]

Could we please get a better main picture than the current one. It looks like an animated gif with two slides. It is too small to convey any real information. It mostly gives off the impression that "everybody" tried to conquer Turkey, which is hardly NPOV. besides, it seems to lack a few things, for instance, I can't see any black arrows on the map so why have that in the legend?

At least create two maps so we can get rid of the "blip blop" effect of a continuous animation. Thank you. 08:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article too POV, lacks organization[edit]

This section is too pretty NPOV in my view. What it needs is editing. As it is now, groups and entities are referenced with no real organization or introduction, there are examples of repeated links, and generally a lack of structure. 08:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Italy and Georgia as Combatants[edit]

Hi, could someone please provide evidence of Italy and Georgia as combatants against Turkey during this war? The info box lists Georgia as a combatant, but the article says nothing about Georgia. Also, I was under the impression that Italy gave Turkey massive aid during the conflict.

Thanks, and I look forward to hearing about this information! - AlexiusComnenus 17:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I looked through the articles on Georgian history, and apparently they fought a war with Armenia during this time period. I would find it surprising if they also fought Turkey, does anyone have a source for this claim? - AlexiusComnenus 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Good question. Italy signed the treaty of Lausanne on the other side of the table. I think that qualifies Italy as an opposing force. At the end, they accepted a seat on the other side of the table. There were significant Italian forces in the Mediterranean section and under occupation of Istanbul. The only reason there was not an armed conflict between these sources were because the Greeks had already began to occupy the Italian interests and Turks were developing their resistance to Greek forces. What is the meaning of helping Greeks by diverting the Turkish sources? In doing so, Italians were not going to get what they wanted at the end. If you brought your armed forces to a region, that qualifies you opposing force, or occupation force, etc. There were many proxy wars at the time. Some did not used guns but other means. Thanks --OttomanReference 17:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, you have a point but the problem is that Italy also supported the Kemalists quite heavily, providing training and munitions according Michael Smith's work. Italy also shelled Corfu during this time period, so it is hard to justify claiming that Italy and Greece were on the same side in this struggle.
I think we should discuss what should be done about Italy further, and I'll remove Georgia from the list of participants if no one has any objection. Also, I will add the Soviet Union as it was a crucial Turkish ally.AlexiusComnenus 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Georgia occupied some Turkish land during the period. This reference states that "on 20 April 1919, The Georgian units entered Ardahan." Therefore, we have to add Georgia as a combatant country. -Kaygtr 18:51, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you sure that Ardahan was no held by the Armenians at the time? Georgia and Armenia were also at war during this time period-- if Georgia and Armenia were fighting we might actually want to add Georgia on the other side! I'm really not sure, I'll try to find out who occupied what at the time. The Turkish-Armenian war is pretty well documented, so it should be pretty easy to find out who was where during April 20, 1919. I'll try to find out about this, because it seems strange to me that Georgia would be fighting both Turkey and Armenia (but the Caucasus was really messed up during this time period, so I suppose it is plausible!) I'll come back to this in a bit. AlexiusComnenus 23:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, this looks pretty complicated-- the Caucasus is not a simple region to deal with!
Check out these maps-- &
Keeping in mind that this region was part of the Russian Empire beforehand, it appears that the Georgians were fighting ARMENIANS in Ardahan, at the Turkish-Armenian war of 1920 began in Oltu, to the west of Ardahan. Read the article on the Turkish-Armenian war, it has some useful information.
I'll try to summarize the reasons for putting Italy and Georgia on either side:
  • 1) Italian troops were stationed in Ankara. The argument has been raised that this may have tied down Turkish troops.
  • 2) On the flipside the Italians trained and armed Turkish troops, and had good relations with the Kemalist army.
  • 3) To the best of my knowledge there was no combat between Italian and Turkish forces.
  • 4) Greece and Italy were certainly not allies but rather rivals, and Italy took military action against Greece during this time period, shelling Corfu. Hence it does not make sense to put they on the same "side" in the war.
  • 1) Turkey invaded Georgia in 1921 along with the Soviet Union.
  • 2) By the flipside, Georgia and Armenia were fighting during this time period. A similar argument can be used to (1) above, that the war with Georgia tied down Armenian troops.
  • 3) Since Georgia and Armenia were at war, it does not really make sense to put them on the same side.
I personally think that Italy should if anything be put as a combatant on the Turkish side in this war, due to the aid that Turkey gave to Italy. To my knowledge, Turkish and Italian forces never exchanged fire, whereas Greeks and Italians did exchange fire. Georgia is a bit more complicated, as Turkey invaded Georgia, but Georgia also fought Armenia. Solutions could be to put Georgia on both sides with different dates, or to delete Georgia entirely since Turkey invading Georgia wasn't really part of the "War of Independence" as Georgia never really threatened Turkish territorial integrity.
Thoughts? Cheers, AlexiusComnenus 00:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeying the way to article had originally been written, an Us vs Them point of view is clearly apparent. Making the On who's side question quite shady. Such as who profited on who. Trying to understand why they where put together in the infobar I think this is the concept used: Italy got Turkish (Ottoman) land automatic ennemy, Greece invaded Turkey makes them the ennemy, Turkey fough Georgia, ennemy; lets put all the ennemies in the same pile. Considering the different conflicts in action during the War of Independance, could multiple Combatant sections be made with dates indicated? If not perhaps trimming the factions down to those more directly involved only?--Dryzen 14:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If the reason we have Italy there is that they were promised land in Anatolia, then they should not be listed as combatants. If they did actually fight Turkish revolutionary troops, then we can list them as combatant and we should also write the name of the Italian commander in that case. DenizTC 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
They did not fight Turkish revolutionary troops, in fact they trained and supplied them (see article on Greco-Turk war) and they also shelled Corfu during this time period. If they are on any side, it should be the Turkish revolutionary side!
Also, why did you delete the Soviet Union as a combatant? The Soviet Union quite clearly fought against both Armenia and Georgia, and you removed sourced content. Could you please explain doing this? AlexiusComnenus 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I like the idea of having multiple combatants, but is there a wikipedia precedent for this? I think we may just need to cut things down, but even this is confusing. For example, it would be quite silly to classify Britian and Greece as "allies" in this conflict despite the fact that Greek and British troops bough fought Turkey during this time period. In fact, in 1921 Britain captured Greek troops who were retreating into the neutral zone and turned them over to Kemalist forces! Britain and the other great powers were officially neutral in this conflict, and Britain never declared war on Turkey, so they are only combatants in the loosest sense.
We should have some real, solid criteria for defining who is a combatant and who is one what side. One cannot claim that Britain is a combatant and the Soviet Union is not, it is simply a ridiculous and untenable position. AlexiusComnenus 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The Soviet Union may have engaged Armenia, but it was not for the purpose of Turkey's independence. Also, when you source something, then that source must explicitly support what you are saying without you drawing your own conclusions. The Soviets provided Turkey with diplomatic and military support (in the form of armaments), that you believe this makes them a combatant is entirely your own conclusion however. So shouting "deletion of sourced content" is not much use when the source does not support your claim. Furthermore, you should be the last person making such claims. --A.Garnet 10:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
A.Garnet, this is total nonsense and your arguments are spurious. In WWII the Soviets were not fighting the the independence of France, but the Soviets and the French were still allies, just as the USSR and Turkey were in 1920. The Soviets and Turks launched a coordinated campaign in the Caucasus after signing a military accord, ( and the Soviets provided Turkey with massive military aid, and the USSR was the first state to recognize the Kemalist regime-- I think that all this shows pretty clearly that they were allies. Any attempt to portray things otherwise is blatant POV-pushing, but it doesn't surprise me that people are blatantly pushing POVs in this article. I just don't see how you can claim that the Soviet Union was not a combatant, especially when you are calling Italy, which shelled Greece at the time, a combatant. AlexiusComnenus 23:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Alexius first really thanks having that one tiny sentence after the long sentences of Turkish wrath, /sarcasm, still we cannot have Horton as a reference. Now, 1) nobody disputes here that Russians supported the revolutionary forces with weapons, just like US, Britain and other countries have done to Turkey and other countries (Iran, Iraq, Cyprus, etc.) during the 20th century and afterwards 2) Italy might have fought Greece, Britain, or whatever, that does not mean much except that Turkey and Greece had a common enemy. 3) Armenia and/or Georgia (weren't they part of Soviet Union officialy?) might have fought against both Turkey and Russia, possibly for different reasons (eg, territory and independence). These don't make Russia combatant on the side of Turkish revolutionary forces. The Russian support might or might not be related to Turkish fight against Armenia, it might very well be related to communist ideals of Russians (which is more likely in my opinion), communist expansionist ideals (making Turkey a communist state, etc, which could very well happen), or it might be related to having a buffer country against British advances, or it might be economic issues. Anyway, what we think is not important, we are not to decide which one it is (it might be a combination as well), it is OR.
Two countries with the same 'enemy' are not necessarily allies and vice versa (like your World War example), more relevantly to this discussion, they are not necessarily combatants in one's war against that common enemy. Also World War is a very different thing than some independence war. DenizTC 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, as far as I remember, British did actually fight with the irregular Turkish resistance units, then came the Greeks that fought against the regular forces. Britain and Soviet Union cases are not similar. DenizTC 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Two countries with the same 'enemy' are not necessarily allies and vice versa
I totally agree with you! I am glad we agree on this point, as I have been arguing it form the beginning. I see this as the main problem here, the way the combatant tag is currently set up, it puts all these "Allies" together on the same side. Can one really claim that Greece and Italy were "allied" in this conflict? Maybe we need to have more than just two "sides" in the infobox.
As for your points
1) Yes, they did support Turkey with arms, and Soviet troops invaded Georgia and Armenia during this time period at the same time as the Turks invaded. These invasions were coordinated by the 1920 Russo-Turkish according, signed by Kemalist represantative in Moscow. This is all described in the Hovannisian article which I linked to you above.
2)I agree with you on this point. But by the same token, Greece and Armenia both fought Turkey, and this means little more than the fact that they had a common enemy. Why should they be on the same "side", whereas Turkey and Italy are not? We need some real criteria, not Turkey vs. the world.
3) Armenia and Georiga were independent republics, they were conquered by the Soviet Union during this time period, in conjunction with the Turks. Turkey and USSR split up the former Russian Armenia-- please read the Hovannisian article it explains everything.
I'm glad we found some common ground and I hope we can clear some things up now. AlexiusComnenus 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This is an independence war. From its nature, we have one 'country' (maybe more) fighting against the 'occupying force(s)', the forces that control the territory that the country fighting the independence war would like to claim. These occupying forces (if there is more than one) don't need to be allies bound by some treaties, they are just 'enemies' of that country. Here, 'that country' is Turkey, as you did guess, and the 'territory' is today's Turkish territory (except Hatay), Batumi, and Mousul.
We might also have some 'intervening forces' (which might be Russia in this case) that lie on the side of 'that country'.
I read first few pages of Hovannisian (is he reliable?) I did not see such a thing, it might have missed my eyes, as I am quite sleepy at the moment. Which page was it (1-19)? Let me sleep now, I will come back if I don't forget, sorry if I do forget. Also not everyone has access to JSTOR articles, but I do, so no problem with me there. A. Garnet and others might not have access. DenizTC 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
About the Italian Job. Italy, was a kind of trading partner with the Ottoman Empire, and was settled in various regions of Anatolia way before the War, after the Ottoman Empire accepted Allied occupation, Italians also took the chance of the possibility of governing some places. This was basically because Allied forces, namely Britain, offered the rights in exchange for support, and also it was an exchange of some other sort, Italians would quit their rights in Europe after WWI and took from the Ottomans. Actually, tha Italians were busy with railroads and mines, after the WWI, they took over almost all of the mines, and even some oil fields. Which can be proven even today if you go to the West Black Sea region, the biggest coal mining fields, plants and reserves reside there, nearly all older mines and plants are covered with inscriptions, instructions and warnings in Italian. The railroad network that they built converted to more public, domestic passanger lines later, but since they were built for carrying goods and raw material, you don't need to be an expert to see in what manner they were built. For capturing and, sad but true, colonial reasons. In the southern and southern east regions, the Italian left overs are also still visible even today. With Greece, Italy, Gibraltar, North Africa Coast, Suez Canal, Middle East and Arabian Peninsula, the Allied sought to capture and control Mediterrenean Sea with all passages and all oil fields in Middle East. Anatolia would be the transit passageway for that. Not just the Allied, it was also same with the Axis. But Allied claimed to be the winner in the end. However, Britain changed it's mind and left Italy out, thus armed combat did not happen in big scale sand numbers. Although, that did not change the fact that local armed guerilla forces of future-Turkey attacked Italian forces to get rid of them, along with the French, Armenian and Georgian. Russia would be a part of that too, they had already gotten into Eastern Anatolia, but thanks to the October Revolution they were busy with their own causes. All these Italians-being-shoved-out-of-the-way thing was also one of the main reasons of their joining the other side in WWII. To sum up, aside from the Greco-Turkish war, and British invasion, the rest was all local-small sized conflicts and guerilla warfare, but let me ask you, how would any Turkish citizen, armed or civilian, find any Italian or other nation to fight with in their own home country? Do you really think it's perfectly normal for a country to have forces in some other country? At least in those years it was not. Some nations did not stay for too long, that's true, but does that change the fact that they had bigger plans, bigger and not very friendly ones? It was piracy, a couple of pirate ships targeting a big royal galley full of gold and silver, attacking together, the hyena tactique, and after the looting starts, then the real fight starts. By the way, if you also seek proof of Soviet aid, check the Anıtkabir for starters, you could see the private belongings of Atatürk, presented from USSR, some include even rifles looking exactly like walking sticks, and even motor cars. And that's just the offical listed part. All the munitions and firepower used by Turkish armies in the Independence war, were never ever seen in the Ottoman Army before, Ataturk couldn't possibly produced all of them with his own hands, i guess. Sorry for typos and grammar mistakes, i'm in some hurry, and couldn't come up with the essential references. Will try later on. 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)holy damien

Greek/Turk Genocidal Claims[edit]

More comments on this topic are included in this archive.

Interallied comission and a neutral observer M. Gehri states that "Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of musslim population" and taner akçam says that in the years 1919-1922 both turkish and greek national movemants massacred or expelled other groups under their control..--laertes d 16:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Where is the word systematic used? I will revert as I have searched the page in question in the Akcam book and could not find it. If I am wrong please correct me. 22:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
Again, this was me. Sorry, my computer has been signing me out for some reason.

AlexiusComnenus 22:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

"Nationals," "Independence" POV[edit]

As the grandson of the survivors of the genocide of Pontiac Greeks and as a French national and an Historian, I see this article as a grave insult to the intelligent mind. First opposing the "nationals" with the Armenians and Greeks is a completely blinded view of history, denying that Turkish populations arrived at least 1800 years after the two aforesaid populations. Then calling "war of independence" a bloodbath which main purpose was merely an ethnic epuration and the spoliation of the long settled and peaceful Christians which main desire was the long sought "droit des peuples à décider d'eux-mêmes". Then the glorious successors of the young Turks lead by Mustafa Kemal replaced them by fresh populations from Caucasus and Central Asia, erasing the memory of this land but also creating the actual Kurds issues. From 1915 to 1924 Anatolia experienced the very first genocides of modern times and the Turks' methods were used by Hitler and its fellows of the Nazi regime as an example of a successful rapid, efficient and forgotten genocide. I will say no more as the ethical issues and the historical inaccuracies are legions in this paper. Marc Megrelis, Cambridge. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:00, July 9 2007 (UTC)

This article is about the Turkish opposition to occupation of last remnants of the country by forces of France, Greece, Britain, Italy, Russia and Armenians after 1918 and a reaction against the Sevres Treaty. It started in 19 May 1919 after the invasion of Izmir by Greeks supported by British (on 15 May 1919). The movement started by Ataturk and a handful of lieutenants, later came to be organized as a national movement including regional feudal lords and public opinion. The Ottoman government was against the movement because of fears from British. I sincerely hope you stick to your scientific objectivity as a historian. Cheers, --Gokhan 07:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC) P.S. The "fresh" populations you mention had to come to Turkey (not willingly) because they were being killed by Russians and also in Balkans by Greeks/Bulgarians/Serbs...
Look even if all the genocide allegations are true they all happen BEFORE this war. Do a bit of research. EDIT: Just reread your post... are you sure you're a historian? you seem awfully biased and misinformed. --Armanalp (talk) 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
User "Armanalp" is just another in a long line of Turkish genocide-deniers and apologists for terror. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
Denyal means refusing to accept the truth. Some of us including me are not denying the genocide, for we can not deny something that has not taken place. If the Armenians are so sure of their cause they can push charges against the Republic of Turkey in an internationaly recognised body. The fact that they have not done this hints at the real truth, do you not think so. Nevermind the Turkish officials being cleared of any war crimes during the Malta Tribunal which was held by the British. Oh and did I mention the lack of Armenian cooperation. Prime Minister Erdogan offered a coalition where both parties and 3rd parties could send Historians and archeologists to do research, this was dully refused by the Armenian government. I belive this too... Hints, at the real truth. Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

War ended in 1922, not 1923[edit]

And the war didn't end in 1923. It has ended in 1922 in Mudanya Conferency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


Soviets had nothing to do with Turkish war of independence. There are also not any reliable sources about that. Some Turkic people who lived in USSR, sent aid for Turkish war of independence. Besides, there were neither Soviet generals, nor Soviet army during this war.

Amount of aid from Soviets:

1920: 516.800 Golden Ruble (304.912 TL) 1.000.000 Golden Ruble (590.000 TL) 1.500.000 Golden Ruble (885.000 TL) 50.000 Golden Ruble (29.500 TL) 100.000 Ottoman Gold (507.000 TL) Total: 2.316.412 TL

1921: 4.000.000 Golden Ruble (2.360.000 TL) 4.000.000 Golden Ruble (2.360.000 TL) 1.160.000 Golden Ruble (900.000 TL) 240.000 Golden Ruble (241.000 TL) 400.000 Golden Ruble (236.000 TL) Total: 5.997.000 TL

1922: 1.100.000 Golden Ruble (649.000 TL) 3.500.000 Golden Ruble (2.065.000 TL) Total: 2.714.000 TL Grand Total: 11.028.012 TL


Considering Turkey's defense budget was 27,576,039 TL even in 1920, it was such a small amount for the war. So I really wonder what makes Soviets a combatant. Please refrain greek nationalist propaganda from this article. Thanks. Parscan 17:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree that the soviets were not a combatant could someone adjust those numbers for inflation? They are obviously not since before the transition to new turkish lira 21,000,000 lira war around 10-15 dollars tops —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armanalp (talkcontribs) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

I am quickfailing this article due to a near complete lack of references. Make sure to have at least one reference per paragraph (and possibly more) before renominating this article. The article also needs expansion in the topics that simply direct the reader to another article. There needs to be at least a brief explanation of what is going on in these areas. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to leave them at my talk page. Zeus1234 21:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

"Turkish War of Independence" offensive; others fighting for THEIR independence[edit]

"Turkish War of Independence "?! This article was clearly written by a Turk. If anyone were to actually look nto this at all they would discover that the Armenians, Greeks, Syrians were fighting for THEIR independence FROM Turkey, as laid out under the Mudras Armistice, the Treaty of Sevres etc. and that the Turkish forces were fighting not for independence but for national expansion. The idea of a "Turkish War of Independence" is not only just plain inaccurate, it is also highly offensive.

Not necessarily against the Ottoman Empire, but rather against those who had, at the time, occupied the territory. These forces include Greeks from the south, French and British in the west and southeast, and some Armenian rebels in the northeast. Of course, it was the war to claim a place for the Turks in the new divided lands on the former Ottoman Empire. Otherwise, I don't think the French or British even wanted to leave any space for them. -- WiiVolve 01:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Er, most of what is today Turkey was meant for Turks. The Greeks and Armenians just wanted small parts of their historic lands, which still had Greek, Armenian populations after Ottoman occupation and Holocaust. The Turks(who are the Ottoman Empire, you confused guy) wanted a pan-Turkish state stretching from Albania to western China, and this was simply a war of conquest and territorial expansion. Read any of the English or French speeches, articles post-WWI and it is obvious that the English and french were pro-Turkish and anti-Armenian, anti-Greek. I find it quite repulsive that people can actually make comments about how "mistreated" the Turks were in this period when all the evidence shows the truth to be very different. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:23, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Dear IP number, neither English, nor the French were pro-Turkish at the time. They had already fought Ottoman Empire, that should be sufficient to explain why not. In addition, they both had troops in what is now Turkey. The support for the modern republic of Turkey came *after* the War of Independence was over, and the invader defeated, around 1924, when both British and French sources begin to support the new republic as a beacon for democracy. For example, Toynbee's opinion revolves 180 degrees to Turkish support in _Turkey and Europe_ in 1926, confessing that this outcome was unimaginable back in 1921. Since he was still working with the propaganda house of the British government, his views reflect those of the British Empire. --Cliobella (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)}}
The French made it abundantly clear that they wanted a strong Turkey as an ally. The words "the Greeks will never be allowed to take Constantinople" were uttered BEFORE 1918. When Kemal's forces advanced on English-held Constantinople, the Greeks offered assistance, and the English said they would open fire on the Greek troops if they entered Istanbul district. Likewise the French abandoned and betrayed the Syrians and Armenians in Cilica/Hatay. You may refer to the Greeks and Armenians as "invaders", but the true invaders are the Turks who come from Tukrmenistand and Chinese-occupied Turkestan. Note that all the place names in Anatolia have Greek, Semitic, or Armenian linguistic origins. Note that all the famous "Turkish" buildings, mosques etc are in the Greco-Roman, Armenian, or Semitic styles. This article is biased, making it appear that the Kemalists were indigenous people fighting some invasion from conquering aliens. In fact there were still a substantial number of Greeks, Semites, and Armenians in Turkey after 1918(despite the Holocaust). Smyrna/Izmir still had a Greek majority as did Eastern Thrace. Eastern Anatolia still had a large Armenian community, Hatay was still a majority-Syrian inhabited area. That's why those areas were allotted to their indigenous people who were there thousands of years before the first Turk left Central Asiu. The Turks won the so-called "War of Independence", but it was a war of territorial conquest and expansion, NOT a defensive war against foreign invaders. And the reason the Western Superpowers(and the USSR) gave aid to Turkey was because the Turks agreed to give control of their oil, natural gas etc. to UK, French, USA etc based companies, whereas the Greeks would have given control of the natural resources to Greek companies. Simple as that. It was in the Superpowers' financial interests to have a Turkish Republic(and I'm sure the Kurds would not agree about modern Turkey being a "beacon for democracy"), and NOT in their ineterests for a strong Greece or Armenia. Money talks. Also, what people say and do are very different things. The WEST also promised the Arabs an independent state, and then partitioned Arabia amongst the French, English, Turkish, and Zionists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:01, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
To correct errors of previous post: French troops occupied Turkey and fought with Turkish troops while Greek troops were also fighting with Turks, while British troops holding most populous and productive regions of Turkey and almost at the same time Armenian troops were attacking Turks from east. If those invaders threathened one another at that time, that was because none wanted another in its sphere of influence. It was a real war of survival for Turks. It was surely not a war of expansion but one of defence - Turkish borders were far beyond Ottoman ones when the war was ended. The war was triggered by enemy forces advancing deep into Anatolia. Turkey has no oil or natural gas reserves to offer any interested superpower - it is an importer of those resources. Turkish Republic was against any eceonomic concessions given to foreigners, they did not give control of national resources to foreign companies. Regards, (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Syrians fought the Turkish government for independence? First I hear that. The turkish government in Ankara, which was the de jure and de facto representative of the turkish people throughout the time period in the article, never had any control over any part of Syria! Neither did the Ottoman Government in Istanbul, after 1918, which is the time period in the article. As for the Armenians and Greeks, they were already independent nations, they did not fight for independence but for land. As for who were the invaders, let me explain it this way. There are turks living in northern Greece today, not a majority but a considerable minority in some places, and if Turkey were to put soldiers in even just the towns and villages that turks live today, Turks would be the invaders without a doubt. So were the Greeks in 1919. After all, that is how the Greeks classify the turkish occupation of northern Cyprus despite a much more favorable context for the turkish position, like a real ethnic cleansing on the island by the greeks and a coup d'etat on top of that. Therefore what you say about those nations' struggle against turks being also an independence movement has no merit, and even if it did, it would not be a reason not to call the turkish struggle an independence movement. Also, what many lay persons don't understand is the fact that the Ottoman Empire was really a multi-national empire as opposed to the modern nation state of Turkey and the modern country was established against the wishes of the imperial government. It is probably not something you hear in Greece but for example the foreign service of the empire was still entrusted to several prominent Greek families even into the 20th century, whereas the war of independence marked the start of a much more monolithic and ethnic oriented stage in modern Turkish history.
As for Turkey not being the democracy beacon and the dominant greek architecture and so on, it is hard to see the point. Most likely it is just your desire to despise the Turks. There are maybe millions of people in Greece with last names derived from turkish words, should turks claim that every cultural achievement of the Greeks belong to Turks? Should we rename the Greek independence movement a mere guerrilla uprising because you cook food which also has Turkish names? You like yalandji dolmades, don't you? There is a law against one being identified as a Turk in Greece and Greece was being ruled by a military junta in 70s, should we give some land from Greece to Albania?
Also the Brits and French being pro-turk is not only wrong but also totally illogical. To learn how untrue it is read Paris 1919: Six Months That Changed the World by Margaret Macmillan. To understand why it is illogical, just try to think an answer to whom were they fighting against in the WW1, their allies the Greeks or the Turks? How would they hold on to their newfound colonies with all turkish populations in the middle east if turks were to be a strong nation in the region? Who came up with the treaty of Sevres which the Turks loathed so much, the Brits and the French maybe? And no, just looking at a map shows that the treaty of Sevres would not leave most of turkey to turks contrary to your unsubstantiated statement. And of course except for the isolated Izmir and Ayvalik, there was no greek majority in the region.
On the other hand the renaming of the article might have some merit on the grounds that even the Sevres treaty would leave a country which would be somewhat independent. However a majority of the Turkish people in today's Turkey would be under foreign rule and the seat of the government would be an international zone if it were to be realized. So I think War of Independence still makes more sense than anything else that comes to my mind. (talk) 21:47, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Dear IP address
At the conclusion of the First World War, the official (and legal) government of the Turkish people was the Ottoman Empire. They signed the Treaty of Sevres ceding territories to the victorious allies. The Kemalists(who were technically a terrorist group of war criminals and insurgents) struck a deal with the then still largely unrecognised Soviet rulers of Russia, who gave them weapons etc, which were immediately used for continuing the genocide against the indigenous Chritian populations of Anatolia and the Caucases. The French and Italians promised aid to the Greeks and Armenians, but instead made deals with Kemal, giving weapons, supplies etc for the Kemalist overthrow of the Sultan, and illegal expansion of Turkey. The Greeks et out from Smyrna, not for expansionism, but to aid the Christians who were being massacred by the Kemalists on a daily basis. Had the Greeks been allowed to advance thorugh Constantinople things would have been different, but the French, British, and Italians blockaded the city, and made clear their pro-Turkish aims. Meanwhile in the Caucases, the Armenian were attacked byt Turks, Azeris, Soviets, and Georgians, and were largely annihilated. The Syrians, who were chiefly responsible for the Turkish ejection from Syria and Mesopotmia(and had been promised independence after the war) were colonised by French and British troops who ruled by brutal force. The Greek troops overstretched and with their supply lines cut off by their supposed "allies", were these easy prey for the Turkish forces armed with a combination of Soviet, French and Italian weaponry. Even after the Smyrna Genocide, the Greeks still may have been able to retake areas of Ionia, but the British army made clear that they would not even be able to attempt that.
Before the Holocaust of Anatolia large areas pf Anatolia had non-Turkish majorities. That's the whole reason for the Holocaust. The Cyprus issue is not really relevant to the so-called "Turkish war of Independence" but the only ethnic cleansing has been by illegal Turkish occupiers.
Also note that post-Lausanne the Turkish population of Western Thrace has grown naturally and unfettered, while the Greeks of Constantinople, Imvros and Tenedos have been subject to exorbitant taxation, torture, and massacre. Likewise the Assyrians of Southeast Tureky, Syrians of Hatay, and Armenians of Eastern Turkey have all seen their numbers drop steadily. "Turkey for the Turks". The only non-Turk ethnicity in Turkey is the Kurds, and they are subject to prejudice, massacres, and racism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Rgne (talkcontribs) 14:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
This is absolute garbage. There are more Armenian churches in Turkey than in Armenia, and you're telling me that there is only one other ethnic group in the country?!?!?! How many mosques are there in Armenia -- what's that you say? There aren't any? Yeah, that's what I thought. Racist, worthless, historically inaccurate bunch of mendacious claims do not belong on Wikipedia's talk pages. There are large numbers of a variety of ethnic groups.
On the other hand, "Armenia", which had an enormous population of Turks before WW1, is completely devoid of Turks.
The motto the Greeks had during their war for independence was "Not a Turk in the Morea" -- and they came up with that charming slogan by themselves. The Turks had to force the Greeks out of their country -- of course they were going to have a motto that stated their conviction that the foreign invaders had to be removed!!!!!
Are we going to have a page on Wikipedia about the Turkish Genocides -- note the plural -- to talk about the killings of hundreds of thousands -- yes, that's right, as many or more than died in your beloved Armenian genocide -- Turks that occurred at the hands of the Greeks and Bulgarians? (Over 200,000 in Bulgaria alone, e.g.)
Are we going to have a page about the Circassian genocide -- a true genocide, with real government organization -- that was committed by the Russians and the Armenians?
You're a fool. Your comments are absurd and racist, and patently incorrect in numerous places, such as your assertions about the ethnic groups in Turkey.
How on earth you got the idea that the Kemalists were war criminals is beyond me. Kemal Ataturk himself condemned the ill treatment the Greek citizenry (as well as the Armenians) suffered during the wars.
However, I've never heard a single Greek or Armenian notable condemn the crimes committed by their people against Turks.
The truth is, the Greeks and Armenians, and Bulgarians and other groups in the Balkans committed horrible, horrible crimes against the Turkish citizenry.
The Armenians, Bulgarians, and Greeks, in particular, had a clear policy of destroying the Turkish citizenry whenever they had the opportunity. The Greeks motto betrays this fact. The records of the Armenians betrays this as well -- the Armenians had every intention of removing each and every Turkish soul from the land they wished to label as Armenia. (They didn't seem to have any qualms about the fact that the lands they wished to call Armenia, as well as the land they now call Armenia, only had a small minority of Armenians and a much larger Turkish population, and the demographic facts had remained stable for a thousand years!!!!) This claim is buttressed by the fact that the Armenians did indeed ethnically cleanse the land that is called Armenia today -- it's 95% ethnically Armenian!!!!
If you actually did any research on history or the present, you'd know that Turkey has a whole lot more ethnic diversity than that!
So, to sum it up, your comment is false and bigoted throughout, and misleading when those two adjectives don't apply. Your facts are wrong, and your history is distorted. You should learn to view history with a less biased eye. You might be able to see that the Turks endured at least as much misery at the hands of the Christians as the Christians did at the hands of the Turks.
-- (talk) 04:40, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason there are more Armenian churches in Turkey than in Armenia is because the present Armenian state is only a small fraction of historic Armenia. The rest of Armenia is now part of Turkey. Some buildings remain, but the people were widely exterminated in the first uage of the term "Holocaust". Many other buildings were vandalized or destroyed. And of course there are mosques in Armenia.

As for the Greeks, the reason they didn't want Turks in the Morea, is that the Turks had committed genocide against their people for centuries, IN GREECE. of course they didn't want to suffer like that any longer! And "the Turks had to force the Greeks out of their country"?! What are you talking about? The coast of the Aegean was Greek since bfore recorded history began. The Western part of "Turkey" still had a Greek majority, while Greeks lived throughout Anatolia(which is a Greek word by the way). The reason that they were "invading" was because the Turks were again committing genocide against the Greeks throughout Anatolia, just as they were doing to the Armenians and Syrians. Just as they ahd done in the Balkans to Greeks and Bulgarians.

There is no article on any Turkish genocide, as no such thing ever existed. When the Turks ere mass-murdering innocent people, some fought back, and some Turks were killed in self-defense. That's not "genocide" though. Likewise, there was no "Circassian genocide". These are propaganda fabricated by Turks to attempt to quieten reports of the genocides committed by the Turks.

Mustafa Kemal "Ataturk" was at the very least responsible for the destruction of all the non-Turkish peoples of Smyrna/Izmir. He also served as a Senior Officer during much of the genocide that took place in the shadow of World War I. He also espoused the idea that "the only job that a non-Turk can hold in Turkey is that of a slave".

The Armenians weren't in the Balkans they were in what is now Eastern Turkey. Likewise, Greeks, Bulgarians, Armenians are the INDIGENOUS people of the land, who were invaded and slaughtered by foreigners(Turks). They were fighting back for their homelands and their very lives.

If Armenians were indeed a minority in Armenia(NOT "the lands they wished to call Armenia". Even look at old Roman or Persian maps where "Armenia" is), then they were a minority because the Turks had slaughtered many many Armenians. Does that make the Turks "in the right"? That was the reason for Turkish genocide against non-Turks. The new states would be drawn along demographic lines. So the Turks eliminated non-Turks from those areas that Turkey wished to claim as "their homeland". Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Georgians, Arabs. Modern "Armenia" only has Armenians because a small group held out. It was always 95% ethnically Armenian, as was land as far West as Sivas! There are no Armenians there today because the Turks killed them all. The Turks even dug up graves and smashed the headstones so that there would not even be signs that anyone else HAD ever been there.

Officially Turkey is almost entirely Sunni Muslim Turks. The only other significant group in numbers is Sunni Muslim Kurds, who are persecuted and treated as non-humans by the official government policy. There were more than 4 million Greeks there. Today it is about 2 500. There were more than 2 million Armenians there. Today it is about 50 000. All these people live in "Istanbul"(a city built by the Greeks, then invaded byt the Turks. And as recently as September 1955 was genocide). There were over 2 million Syrians and Arabs. Today it's about 10 000. There were millions of Jews. Today it's less than 10 000. Turkey is not "whole lot more ethnically diverse". "Turkey for the Turks". The only Turks who ever suffered at hands of Christians, were those Turks who were committing genocide against indigenous populations who fought back. For more than 600 years the Turks ruled brutally through fear and violence. A few bits of the Ottoman Empire eventually broke free(like Romania and Montenegro). But there is not one inch of modern Turkey that is "Turkish homeland". It is all land stolen from Greeks, Armenians, Syrians, Iraqis etc. The Turks even invaded Cyprus in 1974, and are currently in dispute with Greece over islands that the UN recognizes as being Greek islands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandretta IV (talkcontribs) 09:56, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Turkey is not officialy Sunni Muslim for Turkey has no official religion there are also Alavite Turks and many other ethnicities such as Boshnaks living within Turkey. The Kurds are not persecuted in Turkey for we have Kurdish Ministers and Kurdish MPs we also have the seperationist, exteremist Kurdish party, BDP in the parliament with 36 seats so as you have seen they are not persecuted. Istanbul was indeed the cross-roads of nations and migrationary routes that set up camps and cities along the bosphorus even before the Greeks. In addition to this claiming a city was ours is ridiculas. Newyork was Britan's, you don't here British saying that, do you? There was no genocide in 1955 there was a Pogrom where 13-17 people. I would not call 13 deaths a genocide, however you do. Maybe this is why you belive in the so called Armenian "Genocide". Turks did not rule through brutality and violence. We permited religious freedom, which was unrivaled by any country of the time. Do you know how many churches there are in Turkey? We provided freedom of religious worship under the title "people of the book". "Turkish homeland stolen from Greek", if someone has lived in a spot of land for 900 years I think they deserve to call it their Homeland. This whole business about "you stole it" just shows how childish your ideas are for according to your logic Greeks stole it from people before them and people before them stole it from the Neantherthals and the Neantherthals stole it from Homo erectus and those stole it from animals. Therefore we should all go back to Africa and give the land to Animals, but hold, on they stole it from bacteria and bacteria stol--- See how stupid your argument is? Turkey is not underdispute with the Greek island, the Greeks are saying 12 mile radius from Greek land is under international rules as being Greek. This makes it so that Turkish land is Given to the greeks. But little do they know the Turks also have a 12 mile radius along their border but some Greek islands fall in to this. So which one should take the land, the Greeks or the Turks. Obviously none should take anything and Turks are not in persuit of land where as the Greeks are. Oh well I guess thats one of the bad sides of being close neighbours ey? The Turks did not invade Cyprus, we were a gurantor along with Britain and Greece. The agreement meant that if any trouble aroused on the island; the Gurantors would step in. I would call stuffing Turks in enclaves and burrying Turks alive, trouble. So Turkey, according to the agreement launched the peace operation (Baris Harekati). Infact we devided the Island in to two whereas we could have taken it whole. You see... Your arguments are like a paper, easy to rip in to shreads.Regards, Tugrulirmak (talk) 13:57, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Turkey has a prejudiced system whereby only Sunni turks can hold certain positions. It is illegal for non-Turks to hold certain jobs. Kurdish separatists are brutally executed in public places. Turkey imprisons people just because they are Kurds, just because they speak Kurdish language. If claiming a city is "ours" is ridiculous, then what about Ataturk and the Pashas claiming the whole of Anatolia is "ours"(Turkish)? Is that ridiculous too? Turkey never permitted religious freedom, non-Muslims were persecuted and were slaves. Just saying "Turkey permitted religious freedom" does not make it so. There was no "so-called" genocide. There was the biggest massacre of civilian people of all time. What trouble happened on Cyprus? People wanting self-determination? Turkey didn't "step in", Turkey brutally invaded, massacring and expelling the indigenous population. Everything else you say falls into same thing. You deny Turkish brutality, and claim Turks are civilized. It was not "War of Independence", but war of expansion and brutality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:05, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

May I remind you sir that many members of the cabinet are actually Kurds? The former education and health minister was a Kurd and many more like him. The current opposition leader is Alavite as well as the fact that a side of his family is Kurdish .Kurdish separatists are not executed in public places, the leader of Kurdish terrorist organization, the PKK is currently in Imrali prison and is quite comfortable for the prison is subject to constant inspections of the EU, now to say they are being executed when the leader himself isn't is rather childish. I don't know which planet you are living on, you seem so distanced from the truth it is impossible to make you see sense. Ataturk and I and every Turk, Kurd, Laz out there who is a member of the Republic of Turkey knows the land to be theirs because they are its children, they own that land. Which is quite contrary to Greeks and Armenians. Non Muslims were not persecuted infect they were at the highest of places, Armenian ministers are a testament to this, they were also for front in trade and arts which explains why Turkey had to play catch up after they deservedly left. Turkey is expelling indigenous populations for plotting behind its back. The Armenians with the Russians and the Greeks... well with the Greeks. In addition to this do you not know the deportations were common place? What about the Balkan Turks who were forced out of their lands by Greeks, Serbs, Bulgars! Oh... that’s not said is it? 100s of thousands dead, killed; often not talked about! This was a war of independence, independence from imperialism from the British who used, that’s right used the Greeks like a tool. This was a war of defense, defense from mindless expansionists who attacked our shores! Expansionists that still follow the same block set mind- Enosis! Tugrulirmak (talk) 10:17, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Armenians are founded their country in SSCB in that time.Greeks founded their country before.Attack is not a indenpence war.İt is a invasion or a civil war .İ am living in Adana i was listened that time from survivors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)


More comments on this topic are included throughout this archive

"The Turkish nationalist forces also killed numerous Greek and Armenian civilians"
"Numerous turks were killed by Armenian terrorist and Greek Army.

Yes, if you only refer to over 1, 000, 000 dead Armenians as 'numerous" Hxseek 08:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
is there any one that knows who count the dead Armenians, what a round number is this 1,000,000. the census records says that even there were not 1,000,000 Armenian in that area.
True. There were actually, for a fact, more Armenians in the capital city Istanbul than there were in the Armenian territory at the time of the Ottoman collapse. -- WiiVolve 01:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
Source please? (and when I say source, I mean multiple sources) Chaldean 21:50, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
There was 1.7 million Armenians in the Ottoman Empire in 1915, according to the Armenian Patriarch. Look it up. There were many Armenians in Istanbul as well, they were unharmed. Turkish forces were under orders not to harm civilians, whether there were bad apples that didn't listen to such orders, it doesn't mean the Turkish forces are guilty of harming minorities.Arsenic99 (talk) 02:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Another important response:
You cite the Armenian Patriarch as if he lends credence to the figure of 1,000,000 Armenians dead (in a so-called genocide, which would require government involvement -- a condition which has never been supported by evidence [which wasn't uniformly confirmed to be falsified by a particular lying Armenian], and has been contradicted by clear evidence the Ottoman government issued orders to protect Armenians).
In fact, the same Armenian Patriarch you cite for his population figures put the number of Armenians who died at 600,000 -- and he was including ALL Armenians, including the traitors who took up arms against the nation which had allowed them to prosper for the better part of a **millennium**!!!
Thus, considering the large number of traitorous Armenian quislings who died carrying out an absurdly dim plan to try to rid Anatolia of the Turks who had lived there for a full millennium, the figure of Armenians dead lies closer to 500,000, give or take -- probably take.
That's just one more portion of your post which was misleading. You should try the truth -- it's much more convincing. Do you really need to exaggerate number like 500,000 dead, anyway?
I guess if you started being honest about that, you'd have to be honest about the more complex moral context in Anatolia -- like the fact that the Ottomans didn't harm a hair on the heads of the Armenian populous in Istanbul, and the Armenian churches stayed open.
Yet you call it a Holocaust. Let me ask you, a quick question: did Hitler let the Jews keep their synagogues open in Berlin? Didn't he make d*** sure that all the Jews in Berlin were dead?
What a weird (non) Holocaust that was, the Armenian one, huh? Curiouser, and curiouser, your web or Armenian lies and half-truths. -- (talk) 05:15, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
Your lengthy responses are just hate-filled ramblings with no sources, and no grasp on reality. There is sufficient documentation of the Turkish genocides against Armenians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Assyrians etc, and the current treatment of the Kurds. However, your claims have no sources, no citations, and you make numerous personal attacks. As soon as you are able to post reliable sources/links, then people will take what you have to say seriously. Dr Rgne (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
I am hate filled yes, hate filled at the fact that people, like you, openly perform historical revisionism and get away with. I am hate filled by the fact that wikipedia is being used as a soapbox by nationalists of Armenian and Greek ethnicity. Have the Turks commited atrocities? Yes. Have the British, the Americans, the Greeks, the Armenians and the French commited attoricties? Yes they have; for this is sadly the world we live in, however in your posts you attempt to portray Turks as blood-thirsty, barbarians out to get you. The Turks like all have commited atrocities, however they have not commited genocide on anyone. If we had there would be millions of bones, bodies so where are they? No where to be seen... It took Hitler 5 years to kill 4.5 million people with death camps and high grade technology. Do you propose the Turks killed more people then Hitler per year by single action shotguns? This is laughable. Do you propose while the Turks had little to no men in the front, they sent them to kill innocent civilians? Finaly, the English whom hated the Turks along with Armenian professors did all they could aafter 1919 to 1923 to find proof of a genocide, they had a millitary tribunal in Malta regarding it, and do you know what happened? Not one single Turk was found guilty! You and your fake genocides! Would you have said the samething which you are saying now had you taken Van and Smyra? I very much doubt it.Tugrulirmak (talk) 13:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
What a classic example of fascist Turk genocide-denial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Lots of Editing & Citations Needed...[edit]

This article needs quite a bit of editing and citations. I'm willing to take it on as a project and have made edits to the precursor section to state what it seems the original author intended to say that is in keeping with what I know of the history, which is not inconsequential. However, additional edits are needed to make this section flow in a more sensical fashion. I will add citations in due course, but the work needed on this is likely too much for one person. Are there are others actively working on this page now?Pebblicious (talk) 09:31, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help how I can. Dont have much access to sources these days but can help with editing and prose. I shortened the precursor section to make the narrative easier to understand, a lot of material was repeated and some of it unnecessary. Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
There is a general named "Turkish Community" on the Commanders list. With all due respect to the community, it is not the name of a commander. I think we should remove it. --User:Cliobella —Preceding comment was added at 23:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
I noticed that. The link provided goes no where; there is no such article on Wiki. Whatever the reason for putting that there, dead links are of no use and come across as errors in the article and should be removed.Pebblicious (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Poor grammar[edit]

This article's grammatical content must be improved.

And for the subverter people; to see what have occured as history in Anatolia, please live in there a while, talk with elders, talk with people of different ethnic groups. Search and study real archives. In the end, you might understand your ignorance and spare a few tears... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arlinon (talkcontribs) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


the article reads like edited by the TTK. this begins with the title, only in turkey this wars are summarized as "turkish war of independence"! --Severino 17:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did you get that idea? I was able to find reference to the article's title in hundreds of non-Turkish sources. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
It's always called the Turkish War of Independence. You may find that name to be debatable, but it's been accepted by historians. The Turks won the war, they can call it what they wish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Winning the war lets you keep the land, not affect the terminology in a different language. But you're right that it does bizarrely seem to be the preferred academic nomenclature. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


The "Time" magazine photo has been vandalized. Please keep your point of view neutral. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Confusing Article, needs to be rewritten[edit]

To me it seems as if the majority of the article is about the creation of the nationalist movement in Turkey and less about the actual conflict itself. Perhaps we could move some of this information over to the Establishment of a Nationalist Movement in Turkey article instead and organize this article better.Lemniwinks (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. In spite of many efforts to subvert it and bloat it with ethnic hate propaganda, the article is a really decent summary of what took place during the War of Indepenendence. Kudos to the numerous editors who put in their time and good faith. I think with a little effort and some good will, this article can be elevated. All this editing and writing deserves it. Need more references! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:11, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with your disagreement. The article should be about the war. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Empire fought the Turkish Nationalists[edit]

We should probably include the Ottoman Empire in belligerents list since they fought agains the Turkish Nationalists on the allied side ("kuvva-yi inzibatiyye" forces) (talk) 14:22, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Kaygtr (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
I dont think so. Ottoman goverment was really to fight nationalists but most Grand National Assembly was made up by ex-Ottoman Assembly, there were many sympathizers in goverment, too. Collobator Ottoman goverment would be more appropriate i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yetjanissary (talkcontribs) 02:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Divided government and fifth columnists doesn't mean the soldiers weren't shooting bullets at the other side. They were belligerents. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Ottoman Empire was represented by de jure ottoman government and the sultan, they fought against nationalists and also used revolts. Collaborator is not the true term. In fact Ankara government was declared rebels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Crushing(?) Victory[edit]

I think that the statement "Crushing Turkish Victory" in the results section is exaggerated and needs to be changed. Please site any resources about this statement. As far as I know, it has been a costly victory for Turkish people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Could even be called pwnage since we won it 5v1. AlicanC (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
Leaving aside the issue of whose side Italy was really on (not for the first time, and not the last), the article could use as many ways to avoid bias and maintain neutrality as we can squeeze in. -LlywelynII (talk) 14:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
Besides, isn't the proper, more commonly used term here at Wiki "decisive victory" anyway? -LlywelynII (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ottoman Millet sytem[edit]

It is written that "Turkish national movement led to the end of the Ottoman millet system". I am not sure, if the Millet system is abonded by the Republic, why were the Christian Turkic Karamanli people sent to Greece? I think the Millet system continued after the establishment of the Republic, but this time all Muslims were called Turks, the only minority accepted was the Christian minority of Turkey. All Muslims except the Kurds accepted the Turkish identity. Kavas (talk) 15:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Belligerent Turkey?[edit]

What is Turkish national movement? In Turkish page of Turkish national movement, we see Kuvayı Milliye or Türk_Ulusal_Hareketi. They are not relevant to this topic or it seems that an unsourced claim is put forward. "Turkey (Turkish national movement)" should be replaced with BBM (Turkey), or GRAND NATIONAL ASSEMBLY (Turkey) in Belligerent's part of the info box. Kavas (talk) 00:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done Takabeg (talk) 20:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Excuse my bitterness[edit]

War of Independence? Independence from what? Can somebody explain that to me? I thought Turkey existed for a 1000 the way, that fairy tale about Armenians living peacefully in the Ottoman Empire is an imperial LIE. --Vitilsky (talk) 08:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

With the statement "Turkey existed for a 1000 years" you already show a great degree of ignorance in history. Even though Anatolia was often referred as Turkey since Byzantium, it is simply FALLACIOUS to call all the kingdoms that existed in Anatolia "Turkey". What gained independence in this war is the Republic of Turkey. It is called the Turkish war of independence, because the the people that fought against invaders such as Greeks, Brits, Italians, and French people were mostly Turkish. Even if they were not Turkish by heritage, at the time they were called Turkish fallaciously in the same manners you called all the kingdoms that existed in Anatolia "Turkey". For your question of "Independence from what?" the answer is independence from the ancient Ottoman Empire that used to exist in Anatolia, and the invaders that I mentioned previously. I'm not going to comment on your statement of "Armenians living peacefully in the Ottoman Empire is an imperial LIE" because I have no idea of what you are talking about and the debt of your knowledge about the lifestyles of Armenians prior to the 19th century. Clearly, they weren't living peacefully in the 20th and the second half of the 19th centuries but you have to document your statement for it to have any significance if you are going to argue about anything prior to that. DenizCc (talk) 21:51, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
"the answer is independence from the ancient Ottoman Empire that used to exist in Anatolia" Nice joke. I guess you meant Independence from Turks themselves? That begins to make sense (?). I meant, a country surely cannot become independent from itself, right? I cannot fathom these concepts. I guess it should be better called "The Great Turkish War of Freedom for Adopting Westernized Values Whilst Killing European and Greek People Amongst Some Poor Armenian Peasants"...or something along those lines. And sorry about the Armenian's peace article, I guess some troll entered that in the article, what a funny guy. P.S. Ok jokes aside, seriously I think the name of the war should be changed ASAP, maybe something like "Turkish War of the WWI" or "Great Turkish War" would suit better - I guess it comes with naming conventions applied unanimously. --Vitilsky (talk) 04:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute[edit]

I would like to challenge the neutrality of this article on two grounds:

First, the description of the Turkish state as "modern" and "secular" is wildly inaccurate. Turkey's lack of modernity is at the crux of the European Union's refusal to admit it to their ranks. Recent elections have also undeniably reflected a high degree of religious involvement in government, with religion-based parties fighting elections at least partially on the strength of religious viewpoints. The relevant sentence therefore smacks of propaganda, and is far from being the Wikipedia neutral ideal.

- - Second, the description of Turkish-Armenian relations. Any mention of genocide, ethnic cleansing, massacring, murdering, or any words to that effect is entirely skirted around. While this stance may be diplomatic, it is hardly empirical. Assuming that Wikipedia is not bound by Turkey's "Don't criticise Turkishness" law, there is no reason this genocide, widely accepted to have taken place by the vast majority of neutral modern historians, should be included. Its lack of mention only serves to damage the neutrality of the article. It does not need to use mention of the genocide to paint the turkish people or nation as evil, or with any other negative qualities, but in order to give a full picture of events surrounding this conflict, particularly the background setting for the Armenian-Turkish conflicts, it must be mentioned. Full understanding of the subtleties at play hinges on full and neutral description of the events, their causes, and consequences. (talk) 10:26, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, you should note that you should judge how modern Turkey is by looking at its constitution and the prevalent set of laws exercised at Turkey. Regardless of what kind of idealogical movements are currently present, you will see that it is very different from the arabic, or other islamic countries. Turkey's laws are not based on the islamic law. You saying that Turkey is not modern because the islamist won an election is quite cursory.DenizCc (talk) 18:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of work has been done to make this article more NPOV, but the text is written a bit stiltedly - could do with some copyedit. (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

kurds helped turks to win war and here is nothing about kurds![edit]

kurdish people in anatolia and eastern helped turks to win thsi war ,ataturk said to kruds come on fight for kurdish and turish state after this war.

but here is nothing about kruds to read JOKE WIKI! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can improve your English and find WP:RS, you can add it. Kavas (talk) 19:43, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

You can find many Kurds in the list of the recipients of the Medal of Independence with Red-Green Ribbon. Takabeg (talk) 12:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC) What do you waiting?Europans nnever cared about Turks or Kurds.They just care about money. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Do not forget to mention how internal enemies tried to use Kurds against GNA — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Kuva-i Milliye is not a ethnic union. It represents all people who found Turkish Republic which includes ethnic Kurd citizens of Turkish Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:52, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

more details (U.S.A)[edit]

Turkish version according should be updated on a :

U.S.A supported alliance :

Needs To Be Updated Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Warlordcry (talkcontribs) 02:49, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?[edit]

No mention of Ethem bey or Rauf (orbay) Bey. Who were the fore bearers of Turkish defense long before M. Kemal set foot on Anatolia. Or is that because they have been labeled traitors once they have crossed with him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I can't find anything about those two on wikipedia. Is there any mention of them elsewhere? Uhlan talk 21:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
No joke. Please refer to Rauf Bey and Çerkes Ethem. By the way, it is claimed that Rauf Bey and Çerkes Ethem Bey joined the national resistance long before Atatürk. This is not true Atatürk began his cruise on 16 May 1919 a day after the occupation of İzmir. Both Rauf Bey and Çerkes Ethem joined him after the occupation of İzmir. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)
Do you think they should be added then to the infobox?Uhlan talk 07:20, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

yes indeed, this article is a joke! Did anybody ever mention about the secret treaties signed between Russia and England to share "ottoman legacy" later spoiled by bolshevik regime?

Did anybody ever mention about the terms of Mondros and Sevres treaties?

Learn history, speak the truth! No matter which reliable source you look -even the most conservative English sources too- you will clearly understand what did happened, what did done, what did wanted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Grand National Assembly or Provisional Government[edit]

The Turkish nationalists were, after 1920, under control of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The Provisional government is an unofficial name of the GNA. But the official name is GNA. The GNA had control of the army during the war. "Turkey" at the time reffered to the Istanbul government. There fore, the name should stay as GNA, which is the OFFICIAL name of the government. (Central Data Bank (talk) 21:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC))

Endnotes [a] to [e][edit]

Where are endnotes [a] to [e], called from the infobox? --P64 (talk) 01:54, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Gross distortions and falsehoods in the intro section[edit]

Firstly - why are encyclopedias being used as citations? General encyclopedias like these should ideally not be used, and an introduction sections is meant to summarise content in the rest of the article so the sources should be the same as used in the body. There are plenty of specialised sources that could be used.

Secondly, the content and claims (and the tone of that content and claims). The best summing up I can give about the "Turkish War of Independence" is that it was a conflict waged by parties wanting to take the future history of parts of the former Ottoman Empire in a different direction than that which other parties wanted it to take.

However, we are told the war "was waged by Turkish nationalists against the Allies, after the country was occupied and partitioned following the Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I". What "country" - it is still the Ottoman Empire, so call that "country" the Ottoman Empire, or don't call it a "country", call it a "territory". What "occupation" - the main zone of occupation was Constantinople and the Dardanelles - neither area took part in any war. Same for "partitioned" - a gross distortion of political and military reality. And what about the fighting that took place between Ottoman forces and nationalists, and even between rival Turkish nationalist groups. The additions made by Why should I have a User Name made the introduction even worse - one that is rather disgusting actually, if you know the history. I suggest making the introduction simply read:

The Turkish War of Independence (Turkish: İstiklâl Harbi, literally "Independence War" or Kurtuluş Savaşı, literally "Liberation War";) was waged by Turkish nationalists following the Ottoman Empire's defeat in World War I.

And make it without any citations. The body of the article can explore the complex issues better. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Fatwa of Ankara[edit]

More appropriate location for mentioning this. Notability concerns with having it's own article, would be better in context. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:51, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

If we don't have an article about the preceding 'fetva' we don't need this one either. So merge it. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:58, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose :Of course these are related topics. But do we have to merge all related topics to a single article? In WP specific topics have their own articles and they are linked to the main article by a Main tag. In French Revolution for example, there are no less than 20 such tags and nobody tries to merge them to French Revolution. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The question is if it is notable enough for it's own article, or would it be better served as mentioned in a larger article with a redirect. I also highly think that there are likely to be many Fatwa's of Ankara given the generic nature of the name. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 19:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)


Picture "Soldiers on the way back."[edit]

This picture obviously isn't from 1918. In 1918 just a few amounts of German type stahlhelms were in use in Turkey beside other hats like the Enveriye and kalpaks. In the first years of the republic the French Adrian helmet was introduced into the army. For pictures depicting this just google "Atatürk cenaze 1938". The British Brody helmet which you can see in this picture was introduced sometime around World War II. If you google "Atatürk anitkabir 1953" you can see some sample images. There is no evidence that this type of helmet was in use in 1918 in the Turkish army. Again the uniform in this picture is the type which was introduced together with the Brody helmet. Please remove this pic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

About the civillian deaths.[edit]

There is a clear misinterpretation, first of all if you yake o look to the Greek deaths' ref DEATH BY GOVERNMENT you'll see that the figures start from 1900 and lower than the stated. Secondly the ref for Armenian deaths is not available in web and i think that figure includes Hamidian Massacres in Eastern Turkey, which happened in 1910s. So i am removing them. And lastly, Turkish civilian death figure doesnt have a reference, i am removing that also.

I've found Armenian deaths with ref.
I've read about Rudolph J. Rummel's book and it sounds really dubious, without any other reference to supports his claim, i will oppose. kazekagetr 10:41, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Istanbul Government[edit]

Turkish War of Independence (proposed infobox)
The Turkish Army's entry into Izmir (known as the Liberation of Smyrna) on September 9, 1922, following the successful Great Smyrna Offensive, effectively sealed the Turkish victory and ended the war. Izmir was the location where Turkish civilian armed resistance against the occupation of Anatolia by the Allies first began on May 15, 1919.
Date May 19, 1919 – October 11, 1922 (Armistice) July 24, 1923 (Peace)
(4 years, 2 months and 5 days)
Location Anatolia, North Mesopotamia and Thrace

Decisive Turkish victory[8]


Turkey Ankara Government


 United Kingdom

 United States (naval support)
Ottoman Empire Istanbul Government

 Italy (1919-1921)

Iraqi Kurdistan Kurdish rebels
Çerkes Ethem's rebels

Istanbul Government should be on the Allied side. They co-operated with British and Greek forces and fought against nationalist. Unlike Italy they were an actual combatant and was a western puppet. Maybe we should also add Society for the Rise of Kurdistan to the Allies belligrents or a 3rd list. Also why is China and Japan on the list? --FPSTurkey (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

  • By the way, I think my proposal for the infobox is cleaner than the current one. --FPSTurkey (talk) 09:56, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

This infobox look better and more detailed than the old one. but we need some references for arms support of thes countries. kazekagetr 10:43, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Thanks! I am looking for sources for support for both sides. In Turkish sources, there are mostly articles about support for Turkey and there is some articles that say even Albania gave Turkish nationalists support. I am not 100% sure on this plus some Turkish sources say Greeks got help from Balkan Slavs but I don't believe that much either. FPSTurkey (talk) 15:53, 7 June 2015 (UTC)


  1. ^ [1]
  2. ^ [2]
  3. ^ [3]
  4. ^ Jelavich, Barbara (1983). History of the Balkans: Twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-521-27459-3. 
  5. ^ [4]
  6. ^ [5]
  7. ^ [6]
  8. ^ Chester Neal Tate, Governments of the World: a Global Guide to Citizens' Rights and Responsibilities, Macmillan Reference USA/Thomson Gale, 2006, p. 205.

Civilian casualties[edit]

A couple of editors are removing the data on Muslim (Turkish?) casualties from the overview section. Although they have a point that the statistics are not for the years 1919-1922, but for the preceding ten years, I feel that removing the 'Muslim section' is too harsh. Now it seems as if there were no non-Greek/Armenian civilian casualties at all, because the two editors are simply removing the notation altogether. That is wrong. Any suggestions? (talk) 17:52, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I fully agree that the Muslim casualties should be mentioned, but with accurate statistics. If you have sources to that effect, please replace the current section; if not, I really cannot see what we can do with what is there. We cannot make assertions as to what portion of this casualty tally comes from the 1919-22 period without sources. IMO it is better to have no information that to have wrong information. A question at WP:TURKEY might be in order. Constantine 18:47, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, this is problematic. I considered mentioning that the numbers simply include to the preceding decade or saying the statistics are not accurate? However, this will still state the numbers of casualties as they are, which is misleading indeed. Therefore I turned to you. Would you mind requesting help at the other portal? (talk) 18:51, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

They definitely belong in here. But you know, the Armenian and Greek lobby is powerful, telling everyone that no Muslim civilian died during their war. -- (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Civilians?[edit]

It's very nice of you to mention all the Greek and Armenian civilians casualties but what about the Turkish civilian casualties? Burned down cities in the Aegean Region? City of Turgutlu? 80k Missing civilians? slaughters of Aydin? Zeve? Manisa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Biased template[edit]

The template is a Turanist's fantasy, not a historically accurate depiction. How can the Ottoman Empire be on the same side as Britain and France when they were occupying its territories? There were no Ottoman troops fighting alongside the allies. In fact, most were fighting on the side of the Kemalists as irregulars. The Ottomans and Kemalists were never fighting one another, they only killed Turkish citizens for supporting the opposite side. I gave a source by Taner Ackam for this. And how can Italy be listed on that side as well? They were no more allies of the Turks than the Greeks. The article acknowledges the French, British, and Italians hardly deployed any troops, and when they did it was against the Ottomans, not the Kemalists, which only France was briefly at war with, and I added sources that all came to side with the Turks afterward to have a buffer state with the Soviet Union. And the Soviet Union should be listed as a full belligerent, they invaded Armenian alongside the Turks and gave the Turks more support than any of the Allies gave. There is no source on the article, or even mention, for French Africa and British India. Even if they used colonial troops, that doesn't mean they were at war with them because it's just the French/British army. Again, just nationalist wishful thinking. United States should only be on the Kemalist side. I gave three sources that proved the naval forces under Bristol sided with the Kemalists. And why are Kurdish rebels listed? They had nothing to do with the Allies, it's a separate conflict. Under strength, there's a 50,000 number lists simply as "revolts". Were the Kemalists not revolting? --Oatitonimly (talk) 22:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes there were Ottoman troops. Even the source says so. All those rebelions duringn the war are a part of the war. Gala19000 (talk) 22:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Hardly deployed any troops what are you even talking about? There were thousands of British troops that occupied Ottoman lands during the war (also Constantinople) and even assisted the Greeks durinf their offensive. Gala19000 (talk) 22:26, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Its not a seperate conflict. It belongs to rhe same war as many revolts and rebelions happened during those times Gala19000 (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Do you have any sources for your claims? Oatitonimly (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with Gala19000 on this one. The sources provided are either unreliable or unrelated. And please provide sources in english, makes it easier to make your point instead of Cyrillic. (N0n3up (talk) 00:37, 12 May 2016 (UTC))
Oh? And how did you decide they are unreliable or unrelated? I'm not using any Cyrillic sources, they're all English. Not only did Soviet Russia give the Turks more aid than any of the Allies did to the Greeks, but they invaded Armenia alongside the Turks, making them a full belligerent. Taner Ackam goes into detail that both the Istanbul and Ankara governments fought the allies and that they never fought each other, the most they did was murder Turkish civilians who supported the other side.[1] Both France and Britain supported the Turks later in the war to build a strong buffer state ally with the USSR.[2] They never gave the Turks military support nor did they ever really fight the Ankara government, just the Istanbul one. The United States naval support is listed on the Allies side with no references but there are plenty of references that Bristol was a Turkish conspirator.[3][4][3] How were the Kurds involved with the Allies in any way? They weren't fighting together and shouldn't be listed together. --Oatitonimly (talk) 01:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Source #8 is in Cyrillic and if Bristol is considered a conspirator (which didn't show up in the sources) then that's a detail that should go on the body of the article but no reason to add the US as a belligerent in the infobox. Apart from facing opposition to the change and the need to gain consensus, this is going to take up some time to cover, so it's best to wait. I see Gala19000 reverted you multiple times. Please be careful to not edit war or you might risk being blocked. (N0n3up (talk) 02:55, 12 May 2016 (UTC))
That source is from a previous section, it's not mine. You must've not looked up the pages, so I'll link them.[11][12][13] There have been no objective arguments in the past week, so I see no reason to wait any longer. WP:Consensus is assumed when no one objects. --Oatitonimly (talk) 03:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Again, what are you talking about? The Allies gave the Greeks much mire support then the Soviets ever did (especialy in the begin). The British even sended troops to support the Greeks during their offensive into Anatolia. Its those things you don't even seem to know. And the thinf is is that this is already sourced in the article self. Maybe you should look it up by yourself? Gala19000 (talk) 04:46, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

All the British did was occupy Constantinople, from the Ottoman government not the Kemalist one, they never sent troops to fight with the Greeks, while the Soviets sent troops to help the Turks invade Armenia. --Oatitonimly (talk) 05:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why are you talking so much without even doing some research? Seqrch up the Greek summer offensive and the Greek landings at Izmir, Smyrna). The British did send some troops to support the Greeks and its clearly sourced as well. Gala19000 (talk) 05:24, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Why don't we solve this by making the infobox three party. One box contains Turkish nationalists and supporters. One contains pro-Greek forces. One contains pro-Ottoman forces. There is no reason why the Ottomans and the nationalists should be on the same side as they both fought each other in a small civil war. Also the UK did aid Greece militarily [5] and supported Greece throughout the war so they should be in the Greek infobox. France and Italy did aid Turkey with guns following the end of the southern front but this should be shown as them under a "armed by" section as they never fought Greek forces and France should be in the same infobox as Armenia. Soviet Union you could argue was a belligrent as they invaded Armenia and Georgia with Turkish forces and so I support having them in the infobox. Also why were the additional factions removed from the infobox, if the Soviet Union is to be considered as a belligrent so must Georgia, Çerkes Ethem's rebels and Kurdish rebels. FPSTurkey (talk) 18:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. (N0n3up (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC))
I considered something like that but the problem is that the Istanbul and Ankara governments were never at "war" with each other and the Istanbul government was never an ally of the Allies. My reasoning for putting them on the same side is that according to Akcam they not only were not fighting each other but the Ottoman military forces were de facto controlled by the nationalists for most of that war. Not a perfect template but more accurate than the rest. I'm opposed to adding Ethem and the Kurds because they weren't affiliated with the Allies in any way, it's a separate conflict. And I'm really opposed to putting the US navy forces on the Greek-Allied side when I've given several sources that confirm Bristol supported the Turkish nationalists. --Oatitonimly (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The flaw on your proposition FPSTurkey is, well... Oatitonimly pretty much said it. And Oatitonimly, although your sources mentioned bristol in Turkey, your sources fail to mention the US as a belligerent. And even if it was a belligerent, it had played a very minor role in the war compared to the other belligerents, in that case it would be better to mention in the body paragraph rather than infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 04:48, 25 May 2016 (UTC))

this is complete nonsense. this part of the article is completely vandalized by multiple people. listing ussr there? 40000 ussr troops dead in turkish war of independence? And the reference there is ussr-georgia war or whatever. the version of that part around end of april / beginning of may was correct. this banned user came and stirred everything and vandalized a perfectly sound page. Please revert back to original. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diskoerekto (talkcontribs) 14:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)


  1. ^ Akçam, Taner (2006), A Shameful Act: The Armenian Genocide and the Question of Turkish Responsibility, New York: Henry Holt and Company, pp. 339–342, ISBN 978-0-8050-8665-2 
  2. ^ Payaslian, Simon (2007), The History of Armenia, New York: Palgrave Macmillan, p. 163, ISBN 978-1-4039-7467-9 
  3. ^ a b Hovannisian, Richard G. (1971). The Republic of Armenia: The first year, 1918-1919. University of California Press. p. 298, 299. ISBN 0520019849.  Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "Marsoobian" defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  4. ^ Bobelian, Michael (2012). Children of Armenia: A Forgotten Genocide and the Century-long Struggle for Justice. Simon & Schuster. p. 267. ISBN 1416557261. 
  5. ^

Vandalising the Combatants list and artcile[edit]

The British and other alies support both the Ottoman sultanate and the Greeks. The Ottoman government of that time was against the Turkish nationalists and thus should be listed on the other side. Removing the total deaths from the list doesnmt make any sense at all. And removing the rebelions does not either. They were a part of the war and thus are included. Gala19000 (talk) 18:32, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

British, Italians and French had army in Turkey that fought against Turks - Where are their troop numbers?[edit]

Title says it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

They should appear in the casualties section in the infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC))

Taking away valuable info[edit]

Oatitonimly So you recently, or should I say, a while back you deleted some info regarding the British belligerents with this edit. They fought in the war thus should be mentioned in the infobox. And please refrain from reverting until we reach consensus.. (N0n3up (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2016 (UTC))

They were never full belligerents for either side. They were never at war with the Ankara government. It would make more sense to add the US as a Turkish belligerent than the UK as an allied one. This is old news from the discussion above, which you were present for. --Oatitonimly (talk) 20:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
First I would like to thank you for using the talk page. In regards to what you are saying, I would have to disagree with that statement since the UK was certainly involved in the war. Whereas the US barely ever acted in the war, yes they were in Samsun but that's about it, like a quick poke in the war to simply withdraw. The UK was involved in the war and lost a number of men and we have sources of their involvement, casualties and participants. The question to whether how or whom they supported in the war is a different subject which I will have to look more into. But one thing is clear that Britain, as well as Greece, Armenia, France and others were highly involved in the war thus should be mentioned in the infobox including the casualties. I'm not sure of how you would like the format of the infobox laid out. I read some of your comments regarding issues with the infobox and one even suggested a three-column infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 23:14, 3 June 2016 (UTC))
Not to the degree of France, because the British didn't have a campaign, they were just briefly occupying the city. Even before I made changes there was no mention of British casualties (unlike French), which means they did very little fighting and their troops and commanders shouldn't be listed. --Oatitonimly (talk) 17:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
The thing is that Britain was heavily tangled in the war. And we just can't delete significant information that is related to the subject. Yes, they all had a degree of contributions but they all played a part and lost casualties, and that's what counts. Not to mention that we have sources regarding the British casualties and that's more than enough to place it in the infobox. Britain, France, Armenia, Greece and others were involved in the war, and that's a fact, they weren't like the US who just happened to stop by and leave all the sudden, who's info is fit in the body paragraph but not the infobox. And yes, there there was mention of the British belligerents in the article for a long time. This is just an example going back from 2006, as you can see, the original belligerents were listed and other very minor details were added later but those are the belligerents that were concretely certain to have participated in the war thus need to be mentioned in the infobox. (N0n3up (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC))
It really didn't. The 40,000 were mostly for occupying Constantinople from the Sultanate and didn't fight the Turkish nationalists at all (unlike France), giving that figure is misleading. I said casualties, and there are none in your link. --Oatitonimly (talk) 18:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Okay, you're right about the casualties, but the strength is also a factor to consider since the British were tangled in the conflict. It doesn't matter if the British didn't provide enough as the French, the point is that Britain was there to intervene. They weren't like the US who simply put it's feet on the water to simply decide to not get in the pool, Britain went ahead to get involved with military strength and all and that's what counts. (N0n3up (talk) 18:41, 6 June 2016 (UTC))

Errors with the list of belligerents[edit]

Bizzarely, the article lists France and the UK as only being a part of the war until 1920; France should be included in the direct list of belligerents (not the "supporters") until 20 October 1921, when it signed the Treaty of Ankara and made peace with the Ankara Government; and including it as a supporter of Ankara after that is a huge stretch. The UK, meanwhile, remained a part of the war until its end; you could even say it was the last foe for the Ankara Government, during the Chanak Crisis (though it didn't erupt into actual fighting, they were definitely a part of the war still). And it never actually supported Ankara, WTF is going on with that? The Ottoman Government also sided against the Ankara Government, not for.

As for the Soviet Union, it never actually took part in the war and should be included in the list "supporters", as it did provide material support, not direct belligerents. I can't seem to edit the article myself, to fix the list, but it's badly broken as it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking up a bit at the discussions, seems like a guy took a dump on the article. Ethem's rebels took part in the First Battle of İnönü (, so they should be a side. Ottoman Government, at this point, was a collaborator government that actively supported the Allied war effort; occupation of Istanbul took place because the Felah-ı Vatan group in the Ottoman Assembly, headed by Rauf (Orbay) an Ankara affiliate, refused to ratify the Treaty of Sevres, already signed by the Government. And I still can't wrap my head around France and the UK being shown as supporters of the Ankara Government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I can't understand either, why don't you ask Oatitonimly, he's the one who edited this edit in the first place. (N0n3up (talk) 15:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC))

Horribly wrong belligerents list[edit]

Italy is kind of right, but France and England was not with Turkey. They were with Greeks. You can look at other languages of this article, and it all are the same. Only English one is horribly wrong. Ottoman Empire should be on the other side too. Revolutioners and Ottoman Empire fought "against" not together. You can look at French or Turkish wikipedia pages for a sample. Tanriverdi.emre (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Until 1920[edit]

Hey, I'm glad someone finally took notice how utterly inaccurate the list of belligerents was; some inaccuracy persists, claiming France and the UK only supported the war until 1920. It should be 20 October 1921 for France (the date of the Treaty of Ankara), and until the end of the war for the UK. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:10, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of information about Greeks and Armenians getting massacred[edit]

I think sourced information such as the bit about Greeks and Armenians getting massacred should remain in the article since that has a lot to do with the Turkish War of Independence. We can't just have this material removed especially with edit-summaries such as these: [14] and [15]. Étienne Dolet (talk) 19:11, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Not at all the part you added is propaganda. I wonder why you want to add Armenian and greek deaths only? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Ah so you are reverting because the greek and armenian deaths were removed. Ok, but still alot still need to be changed. First of all the Turkish civilan deaths must be readded. Secondly The Turkish belligerent side must be fixed.Needbrains (talk) 16:47, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

The russians just gave weapons to the Turkish forces (Source says this). Brits never supported Turkey (In the end the treat of lausanne was made with them. Italy just left when the tide Turned against the Greeks. France also left after they were defeated (There is a whole Franco-Turkish war section). If no reaction i am removing those sides in 12 hours Needbrains (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


There are a lot of speculative comments, such as "in the certain knowledge that the British would prorogue the Chamber". This and other allegations were not certain, and such speculation ought to be removed.Royalcourtier (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2016[edit]

Veteran Geezer (talk) 20:36, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

Can someone add "United States (only in Bombardment of Samsun" to combatant2 on the infobox?

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Topher385 (talk) 14:07, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 August 2016[edit]

Why isn't Soviet Union on the side of Turkey? They invaded Armenia along with Turkey which makes it a full belliregent, Turkey didn't won the war alone, they got supported by a lot of countries, this page is pure Turkish propaganda. Why isn't the Koçgiri rebels listed of the side of Armenia and Greece?

RE: This is an edit request, Soviet Russia was on Turkey's side, but it isn't on the list while it should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Veteran Geezer (talkcontribs) 22:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

This was not initially phrased like an edit request, but more like a rant. I am more than happy to make the change you are requesting as long as you provide a reliable source to support it. Topher385 (talk) 22:21, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Veteran Geezer (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: This is not an edit request. Topher385 (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2016[edit]

Please change the belligerents section where it says The Ottoman Empire secretly helped Turkey and delete that part because the Ottoman Empire was against the Ankara government and opposed Turkey until the end of the war.

Zaaaaaaaa (talk) 20:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. nyuszika7h (talk) 09:52, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Where are the maps?[edit]

There is one single tiny map in this article and it doesn't even occur until halfway down. Somebody please rectify this.  — Scott talk 12:52, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

  • This article is a joke. Its pretty much full of edit war information from Greek and Turkish nationalists now. --FPSTurkey (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

3 column template ??[edit]

I think making a 3rd column for Georgia is undue weight. The war is basically twofold, Turkish nationalists versus allies. 3rd column is confusing.Kavas (talk) 20:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

N0n3up's accusation of me being a vandal.[edit]

He/she wanted me to open up a talk page with an offensive manner (which you can see in revertion summaries and in my talk page) and accused me of 'vandalizing'. I can't see any vandalizing in my edits, in fact one can clearly see that i'm improving the infobox. kazekagetr 13:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

You made radical changes in the infobox and lead without sources and consensus that it's even hard to begin to show how these edits are not inproving the page. (N0n3up (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2017 (UTC))
@JJBers: Since you decided to get involved in this, why don't you start with providing sources for these rampant edits and provide good arguments and a consensus to why these edits should be made instead of the longstanding version? (N0n3up (talk) 16:51, 24 April 2017 (UTC))
I didn't add any content, I just reverted you. —JJBers 12:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
@JJBers: Actually, you did add. The original version was before user KazekageTR made radical unsources/unsupported edits to the page, so I reverted him. And you reverted me for reverting KazekageTR thus not keeping the article in its original version, all this before even talking about the contents of KazekageTR's edits here in the talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2017 (UTC))
You should instead discuss the content. Kavas (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
KazegageTR has added many changes to this article. I'm pretty sure he/she had good intentions but it should be at least be carefully analyzed but the fact that he/she continued on despite telling him/her to take it here before continuing their edits. Considering that the changes were anything but small, the user made radical changes in the article, which includes yet not excluding adding people and belligerents without any source in the infobox. Thus I think this article needs to be on the neutral version before we implement KazekageTR's changes. I've seen this similar edit in the past, assuming it might be the same person. Still waiting to hear from him/her. (N0n3up (talk) 07:59, 27 April 2017 (UTC))

I support reverting back to 4 February 2017 before these POV changes were made. The Ottomans weren't allied to the Armenians and Greeks in any way. The Ottoman government wasn't even really a belligerent at this point so much as a concept. Italy was no more an ally of the Greeks than with the Turks. The Kurds were on nobody's side. Also what is "Various Revolts"? Aren't the Turkish nationalists rebels? KazekageTR removed the source that showed the US was supportive of Turkey. He also removed all sources that the British and French later stopped supporting the Greeks and assisted the Turks instead as well. It's also curious why he hides the Soviets and other Turkish allies behind a drop down menu when the Soviets were more involved with helping the Turks than any of the Allies for the Greeks or Armenians. Étienne Dolet (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

One key reason why I reverted KazekageTR was not only for his unsourced arbitrary edit but because it includes the US as a belligerent, which it wasn't or didn't play much of a role to be considered the least. Apparently there is much to talk about regarding the belligerents, but my opinion stands that the US shouldn't be included as a belligerent. BTW I plan on reverting the article back to its original form before KazekageRT's edits and wanted to know if User:KazekageTR wanted to say anything before I do so, considering it's bee a wile since he made any edits. (N0n3up (talk) 00:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC))
I just returned the page to the original version before KazekageRT's edit to keep the page to status quo regarding the question of his edits. Apparently KazekageRT simply lost interest, just goes to show the depth and knowledge of people who refuse to take it to the talk page. (N0n3up (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2017 (UTC))