Talk:Turkish War of Independence/Archive 1

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
Result	Decisive Turkish victory Overthrow of the Ottoman Sultanate; Treaty of Lausanne; Establishment of the Republic of Turkey;
Belligerents
Ankara Government Turkish Army; Kuva-yi Milliye; Eastern Front; Bengali volunteers ; Afghan volunteers ; Armament support: Soviet Russia; ; Far Eastern Republic ; Soviet Georgia ; Soviet Azerbaijan ; Italy (alleged);	Greece; Armenia; France French West Africa; Armenian Legion; United Kingdom British Raj; United States (naval support); Istanbul Government Kuva-yi Inzibatiye; Italy (1919-1921) Armament support: Hejaz; Kurdish rebels; Çerkes Ethem's rebels; Georgia

This is an archive of past discussions about Turkish War of Independence. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

This should be added

I've got this from the Treaty of Lausanne. This should be added into the article. If none does it, I'll do it. Treaty of Lausanne, Article 59: "Greece recognises her obligation to make reparation for the damage caused in Anatolia by the acts of the Greek army or administration which were contrary to the laws of war.

On the other hand, Turkey, in consideration of the financial situation of Greece resulting from the prolongation of the war and from its consequences, finally renounces all claims for reparation against the Greek Government." Source: http://www.lib.byu.edu/~rdh/wwi/1918p/lausanne.html

Author's comment regarding Wikipedia's above advice (to move the page): This war was not only between Greece and Turkey. It was between the Allies and Turkey, as a consequence of the World War I. Greco-Turkish War constituted this war's western front, starting more than a year afterwards. Although the decisive battles were between Greece and Turkey, this page has more information than what can be put under the title "Greco-Turkish War". The current page of Greco-Turkish War includes an unrelated war from the previous century, therefore that page has more information than what can be placed under the title of "Turkish War of Independence". Given that neither page can possibly be a subset of the other, they can not be merged. - 18.58.1.180

I disagree with the above (which I copied from the page). The Turkish Independence War, while very important to Turks and a main part of their history, is a term only used in Turkey. Other nations refer to it as World War I (up to the Treaty of Sèvres), and then the (Second) Greco-Turkish War (up to the Treaty of Lausanne). Since this is an English Wikipedia which takes a predominantly western POV, the events that eventually lead to the creation of modern Turkey should in my opinion be treated from this POV: thus split the info in WW1-in-Turkey and 2nd Greco-Turkish war. Of course a note that these events are by Turks seen as one single war for their independence from what they saw as invading and occupying nations is needed at both places. — Jor (Talk) 11:11, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Author:

First, there were many other wars between Greeks and Turks, so I don't see the point of naming only two as such.
Second, the events that are included in this page are strictly limited to 1919-1922, therefore there is nothing to be split in the page to be included in WW1. The events that Turks name as their Independence War do not include WW1 as wrongly mentioned in the coment above. That's why the pre-war politics section begins by saying "WW1 ended..."
Third, until mid-1920, Greeks weren`t even the primary enemy. As I will detail in the "western front" section, Greek troops were only in Izmir and its surroundings until that time. Even then, the Greek offensive started coordinated with an Armenian offensive in the East. The Eastern Turkish Army could not reinforce the western front until after Battle of Sakarya. As in this example, the war needs to be studied in all fronts for a proper analysis. That is why I avoided the title "Greco-Turkish War".
just to clarify things, I don't have an aversion to that title or contents of the page, in fact, I was the one to add details to the second war in that page last week.
Finally, they could be merged with the second one if the Greco-Turkish Wars had separate entries, but even then, the name underrepresents the number of participating countries. It is like saying Israel-Egypt War instead of Arab-Israeli War; as in that case Israel's main opponent was Egypt but they fought against their other Arab neighbors as well.
This has nothing to do with what Turks call this war, I am trying to be accurate here. The western POV was a product/propaganda of the British, who gave this war a convenient name as an attempt to clear their name. They were ashamed of their war-mongering in the face of other nations of the world in 1922. Why do you think Lausanne Treaty was between Turkey and Allies, instead of Turkey and Greece? Because the preceding war was between Turkey and Allies too. I wouldn't object "War in Asia Minor", or "Anatolian War", or something like those, a title without reducing the entire war to one front.

The name of this article is totally incorrect. It's just a translation error. Turks call this war "Kurtuluş Savaşı" or "İstiklâl Savaşı" both of which have nothing to do with independence. Possible correct translations could be "Turkish War of Liberation" or "Turkish War of Freedom". Turkey was already a recognized independent state before the war. Zfr 21:17, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

   Translation is totally correct. İstiklal(Bağımsızlık) means independence in Turkish.

Not knowing Turkish, I can't comment on the literal translation, but this conflict is not one that I, a native speaker of English, would call a "war of independence", for exactly the reasons that Zfr put forth above. Both of Zfr's translations seem plausible as would calling it the "Turkish Revolution", tho I doubt that would be a literal translation. Caerwine 06:06, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

There was a title called "El Cezire". This doesn't even sound Turkish. I removed it do anyone know why it was there? 26 Jan 2006

Contrary to what is mentioned above, Turkey was NOT a recognized state before the War of Independence. Republic of Turkey was recognized by majority of countries on 1923. The few countries that recognized Turkey before 1923 are USSR, Azerbayjan and India - I am not sure about the last one, and I am not sure if the list is complete. Nevertheless, the Western World recognized Republic of Turkey on 1923. What was recognized before was the Ottoman Empire, a multicultural political entity, not a nation-state. Furthermore, at the end of the WWI, 1914-18, Ottoman Empire was reduced a territoty that is about one eigth of modern Turkey.

WHY!

The article gives the recognition of Turkey as the result of the war. In my opinion, we should write "Decisive Turkish Victory" there because Turkish Army defeated Greeks a couple of times and also the army decisively defeated Armenian rebels and saved the eastern part of the Homeland. Deliogul 10:19, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

WWI & Armenian Genocide Link

Links to World War I and Armenian Genocide are appropriate because those articles provides critical background for understanding The Turkish War of Independence/Anatolian War, which immediately followed those events. In fact, the Treaty of Lausanne not only effectively ended World War I in the East, but also put a final end to the independent Armenian Republic established under the Treaty of Sevres.

Are you Armenian? The think you call the Treaty of Sevres was equal to the murder of the noble Turkish Nation. Additionally, it doens't mean that there was a genocide even if some countries accepted the existance of it. Historians have to discuss this issue, not the politicians. Deliogul 15:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

???? ^^^^^^^ What is this piece of 'drivel' doing here? Which 'Greece' did 'Thrace' belong to - there was no 'greece' pre 1821 - So called 'Greece' was set-up by Russians/British/French? from a Former Region of Ottomon Empire.

Hellenic/Byzantium empire was dissolved in 1453 - they lost out not because they were too nice/civilised or anything - but too weak. 15th century technology put an end to their rule.

Hellenic empire/city-'states' - just like all empires - depended on slavery; don't glorify its achievements without pinning down its costs to non-hellenes.

I disagree with putting Armenian Genocide here because the independence war starts in 1919 - and its background is that the empire is basically disolved after the WWI ending treaty - the Treaty of Sevres. So 1915 events don't really have any major impact here. This is also evident when you look at the timeline section - shows nothing about Armenians Genocide. Kizilmaske 08:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think he is right.The bastard İttihat ve Terakki Cemiyeti who ordered the evacuation of every living Armenian in the Eastern zones was gone by the time this war started.Its head was dwelling in Moscow.Later I learned he died in battle.Correct if I'm wrong.--Turkish Legacy 21:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

If you are talking about Enver Pasha, you are completely wrong. After the Balkan Wars, the Ottoman Army was in a big chaos but Enver Pasha reorganized the army in a very short time. Actually the Ottoman forces could stay in active war position for one more year if Germans wouldn't surrender. Then Enver Pasha went to Middle- Asia(this trip has no connection with Soviets) where the first Turkish warriors came from, in a sense, he went to his homeland and tried to form a Pan-Turkist army there to save Turkish people from Soviet pressure but of course this was nearly an impossible dream, just like his dreams about forming a powerful Ottoman State. In many situations, Enver Pasha couldn't be logical but still it doesn't make him a bad person or a bad soldier. He was the Liberty Hero of the Ottoman Parliment(Hürriyet Kahramanı in Turkish). With respect, the noble member of the Kayı Tribe, Deliogul 16:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

East-(Armenian & Georgia) section violates NPOV

The language and the events drescribed there reflect one POV only. I find some of the comments there offensive. Some claims are also baseless. More to come here but obviously this section needs quite some work before it can reflect a balanced view. Kizilmaske 08:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

What claims are baseless? Most of the things I see are historically accurate. Before the last edit the whole article violated the NPOV, as it was basically a laundry list of Turkish nationalist accomplishments and bragging about "crushing" Armenia.- Kwsty

Hmm, I am pretty sure the East war was against the Russians. Russian soldiers exclusively fought against Gen. Karabekir. Correct me if I am wrong. So why is the Armenian and Georgians mentioned here? I think this is incorrect. Will dig up some historical info when I get the chance. 26 Jan 2006

That is also in the Combatants side box as well. We need to add Russia there. Also really don't think there was a war againt Armenia. 26 Jan 2006

Are you being sarcastic? There surely was war against Armenia and Georgia, but I can't recall if there had been any major battles against RSFSR.

No dude wtf are you talking about? The war against Armenia is a stupid myth made up by Jews, the actual Turkish war of Independence was fought against Chinese forces under Chiang Kai-Sheck, aided by his warlord generals and receiveng help from Japanese emperor Hitohito. You have to remember that it was primarily due to the Turkish-Greek alliance that asian armies were eventually defeated. But Turkey must also be thankful to the governments of Texas and South Africa, both of which supplied the Turkish army with much needed oil, supplies, and raw materials.

I agree that this article is not neutral in its point of view, is simplistically anti-British or at least anti-European, the Armenian genocide should of course be linked from it. The First World War was of course dreadful and its aftermath appalling but one side to it was the resurgence of National identities that saw the demise not only of the Ottoman Empire but sowed the seed for the eventual dismantling of the British Empire.

There would be a link if there was a genocide, you do not have the right to bend historical facts according to your point of view. There is not a single official document anyone can provide supporting your views and yet mysteriously there was a so called genocide. My advice would be investigate the subject objectively, do not act on myths and lies. Documents from that era are open to public and read the views of well respected historians all over the world.Srhlg

Are you saying that there wasn't a slaughter or that the slaughter wasn't premeditated. L Hamm 01:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Istanbul (Not Constantinople)?

Considering that the name of the city was not offically changed to Istanbul until 1930, well after the era of this article, wouldn't it be more appropriate to use Constantinople along with an in-text reference that the city is now called Istanbul the first time the city is mentioned? That is what is used in the article for Smyrna (Izmir). Caerwine Caerwhine 05:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a user from Turkey...U said İstanbul isn't the name of Constantinapole until 1930...it is not true. When the Ottomans took this city, it changed İstanbul. Because, İslamic rules said this. Non-İslamic areas must be named in Turkish or Arabic. And İstanbul was İstanbul in the Turkish Independence War (İstiklal/Bağımsızlık Savaşı). ---İm not a member of English Wikipedia. İf u want to ask me anything, my e-mail adress is bkuddas@yahoo.com. And I want to say something about this war. İt's very important for Turkey. We changed our government system and our religion system. You know, only Turkey is a laic country of all İslamic countries. Tomorrow is (April 23) our democracy holiday...Our assembly was opened in April 23th 1920. And we know, if there wasn't a war of indepence and Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, we still have a Sultan and haven't freedom. I'm not good at English and i cant tell how important that war for Turkish people. But must say, this holiday for all of the children. And a present from Turkey to children. --88.226.58.231 22:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I said that it wasn't changed officially until 1930, not that it wasn't called that by people at all until then. See Istanbul#Etymology for the details of how Konstantiniye became İstanbul. Wikipedia has a built in bias towards offical names. Caerwine Caerwhine 15:13, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

This is not true about the name being changed in 1453, it is a Turkish myth-- I have an Ottoman Turkish coin from the early 20th Century, which writes in Arabic script (I speak Arabic)-- "Kustantiniyye" which is Arabic for Constantinople. The city was no officially Constantinople until 1930, so I think the name Constantinople should be used.-- Kwstis Giannelis

this city named İSTANBUL since 1453! U accept or not accept the truth is that!..

Constantinople, not The City, was the name most prevailent at the tiem. Plus you could add your name, not signing dosen't give much weight to your words.--Dryzen 17:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I really am very new to Wiki, so don't kill me for getting some protocol or something wrong, but from what I understand Istanbul was called "The City" (from the Greek, ista polis) even during the Byzantine period by the common people throughout the Balkans, but that the official name was not changed until 1930. I'm no expert, as I've said, but I suppose the debate comes down to whether we use official language or the colloquial, and as Caerwine says that Wikipedia has a bias towards official names, I'd probably go along with Constantinople. On the other hand, since we can all agree that many people believe the myth that Istanbul was renamed in 1453, calling it Constantinople might cause confusion. ¬¬¬¬

Might as well cause confusion and in the prosees disrupt that myth.--Dryzen 15:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Grammar and Spelling

My Turkish is rusty at best, but the English of the article's author is not much better and a great deal of the article is almost impossible to read. I would suggest that someone correct the worst grammatical atrocities and spelling genocides after the original author has finished his (or her) literary bloodbath. Theolein 00:06, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I would need some help to accomplish that, as some sentences are exceedingly hard to comprehend and I would not want to change some information or events due to rewritting a better syntax. This can bee readily seen in short disjoined sentences and some doubling of informaiton... What ever the case this article needs some serious attention.--Dryzen 15:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Independence/Liberation

I was doing some brainstorming about the use of Independece and Liberation words for the war. Basically, the Turkish War of 1919-1922 was fought against the occupying forces of Ottoman Empire. I assume nobody argues that Ottoman Empire was the sovereign state since 1299. My point is: "independence" word itself refers to gaining control of your soil after being a part of another state [7],[8]. If you look at the Liberation Day article, you can also find the description of liberation as "...a revolution, as in Cuba, or the end of an occupation by another state, thereby differing from independence in the meaning of secession from another state...". Finally, "Turkish War of 1919-1922" can be analysed in the perspective of secession from "Ottoman Empire" and it can also be analysed as being a war against the occupying forces. Since the lands of Ottoman Empire never actually changed hands, if we draw a spectrum at one end being "a war against occupying forces" and at the other end "a war of independence", my vote will tend towards the "war against occupying forces", which then results in calling the war as "Turkish War of Liberation". Therefore I suggest changing the name of the article to "Turkish War of Liberation" and directing the current name to the article. Cansın 5 May 2006

I agree, no one outside of Turkey refers to it as the War of Independence. I think we should change the name to "Foundation of Modern Turkey" or something of the sort.--Kwstis

First Paragraph

I would correct the first paragraph but I have no idea what it is trying to say. --Gbleem 20:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Naming of the war and Tone of Voice

The name of this war Kurtuluş Savaşı doesn't mean War of Independence. Kurtuluş comes from Kurtulmak, meaning To be saved It was a war that saved Turks from a dead sentence.

The article introduction section clearly belittles the importance of this war. Clearly written by an anti-Turkish editor, with references to Sevres treaty etc.

I'll correct as soon as I have time. --Gokhan 14:55, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Why is mentioning the Sevres Treaty anti-Turkish? Was not the Sevres Treaty (and Ataturk's rejection of it) what started the war? Thus it very much needs to be mentioned in the introduction.

This article should not be turned into a Grey Wolf Turkish triumphalist propaganda account. Please don't write anything in the article which is obviously POV (and improper English to boot) like "Turks were saved from dead sentence." --Kwstis

Looks like this article definitly has some POV (some times flagrant other time poetic), but the problem compounded by the fact that it shifts from paragraph to paragrpah, making it a hard read. Even more so with the incorrect syntaxes... --Dryzen 15:08, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Map

I think that the animated map in the beginning of the article is not what it should be. It shows Ottoman attacking the Turkish nationals in central Anatolia-did this ever happen?-. Moreover, it shows the british forces in the straits, however, the straits were under international administration for a brief time, not under british. In addition, it shows the Greeks landing in Pontus, something that never happened. Lastly, i guess that under the name 'feudal powers' attacking c.Anatolia, the creator means Greece, France, Italy and Britain, who not only they were not 'feudal' at that time, but also, from them, only the Greeks got involved in war with Kemal... the other three withdrew after signing treaties with the turks of Kemal. Isn't that right? --Hectorian 13:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I wonder is any of the editors will respond to you Hectorian, I haven't a reply in quite some time. The author(s) of the article categorises the British as the influential force within the International administration. The Ottoman are in the article forces that followed the International led puppet gorvernment in Constatinople, while the feudal forces are left overs of the aristocracy and Sipahis tempting there hands at influencing future policy or carving out there own territory. I'm no expert on the subject and I hope this helps.--Dryzen 15:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, i was not expecting a response, but i am glad u did. Thanks for the info, but i still believe that the map does not correspond to the historic facts. the greeks never landed in Pontus. Even if the british were much infuential, this does not justify in naming the international forces as 'british forces'. In addition it seems that all the 'alien' powers attacked central Anatolia, whereas, only the Greeks made it as deep as Sakarya. Moreover, the british did not attack from the south east, since the land they occupied was as north as Mosul, which is not a territory of Turkey (in fact, they never crossed the borders of modern turkey. lastly, the term 'minority' i think applies to the kurds and armenians, who, however, never attempted to march in central Anatolia. quite the contrary, the turkish nationals were those who marched to eastern Anatolia. not to mention that the Ottoman (sultan's) forces did attempted to reach Ankara... --Hectorian 15:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Your not going to get much argument from me, like much of the article the image seems to have cgreat content but poor delivery and some rather ambiguous terminology. If you take a moment to read you'll rapidly understand what I mean, there is a POV in thsi article but it shifts in tone and strength through out... I`m starting to thing hte Greeks in Puntus might have more to do with the local movements of the Ethnic Greeks and the Turkish reprisals, somewhat like the Minorities in the east.--Dryzen 15:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, in fact this is how the Greeks of Pontus should be seen in the article. there was even a proposal for a Ponto-Armenian Federation back then, since Venizelos was not willing to send troops so far away from mainland Greece... Perhaps the author(s) of the article want to show the Greeks as an imperialistic power with no ethnological base in Anatolia... I read some of the article and it seems like trying to glorify Kemal's army who "defeated" 6-7 foreign armies, despite the fact that the victory was only over the Greeks and Armenians (who btw are shown as Great Powers' pions...), and i do not mean only 'armies' but also also perished civilians. Anyway, some day this article will be cleaned up from POV as well... --Hectorian 16:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Imperialist power does seem to preoccupy much of the author(s) thoughts. Lots of work ahead for this article I`m thinking of reducing it to a start article. I would be willing ot correct much of its syntax yet, due to translation errors and tone, am afraid to reduce much of the information or mangle the intents presentied within the article.--Dryzen 17:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like user:TarikAkin has taken the article by storm. Although his own english seems to be no better than the original article. Should we be able to discuss with him we could pobobly get some work done on cleanign up this article.--Dryzen 14:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I doubt about it... I just checked the history of the article, the diffs between all his edits and the last edit that was not by him... It is full of POV and nationalism! maybe a tag would be appropriate at this stage, and then we could probably work on cleaning the article up. some users just don't get that wikipedia articles are noone's property nor are they "vehicles" of propaganda... --Hectorian 14:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Good points, lets tag it up and see what comes out of it.--Dryzen 14:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Ottoman Sultan recruited an untrained army under UK's permission, named it "Caliphate Army", and sent it at Ankara. It was destroyed in battle. Therefore Ottoman government was a combatant enemy. There was a lot of resistance in the south, against French occupation, and a lot of combat between legionnaires and Turkish militia. Actually, the only three cities that were given honors for heroism in war all in the southern front, against the French (They are "Veteran"Antep, "Glorious"Urfa and "Heroic"Maras). Therefore France was a combatant enemy. (But, they withdrew at some point). Throughout the war UK supplied resources to Greeks. Moreover, they had troops occupying territory. After the final battle, British government gave orders to fight for Dardanelles, but the British general commanding the troops in Anatolia disobeyed the order, let Turkish troops pass through the front, and signed a ceasefire treaty. Therefore British were among the occupying enemies, but their troops did not see action. Just my two cents - Kartal

And where is this French information from?--Dryzen 16:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that a photo or artwork might be useful in place of the animation.L Hamm 02:09, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a joke

I can understand that the way Turks see this whole thing is clearly depicted in this article, but, to me, a Greek, this whole thing sounds at some times like a joke. Ankara, or the GNA, or Ataturk, you decide, had to face Greeks, Armenians, British, French, Italians, the Ottoman regime and others as it is shown on the map on the right. I guess that we should in the same way sum up the whole WWII, Italy, Germany, Japan vs the World, an endless list of countries and, of course, colourful arrows. Why? Because, like WWII, this war also had different phases and different enemies fighting at different times, so I think that this image is at least misleading. Now, about the title, "Turkish War of Independence", yes, I guess we could have Indian war of Independence, Pakistani war of Independence, and why not, "The Great French War of independence, NOT REVOLUTION". Why? Cause French in their revolution had to fight both the king's regime and foreign enemies, but sorry that was described as a revolution, sorry France. And, the final thing, in the map, I can clearly see "feudal powers" moving in the direction of the Greek army. I guess you don't imply, that the greek army acted as a feudal power. And what about "The Greeks were willing to give up Eastern Thrace as it's population was mostly Turks, Christian Bulgarians and Pomaks, and its only use served as a corridor to Constantinople, and it was now clear that the city would remain in Turkish hands"? Yes, we Greeks love to give territory to other nations, especially Turkey, when it only serves as a corridor to Constantinople. And, we also like big uncertain borders like Evros, instead of small areas of land borders. And, of course, don't forget Black Sea... This article needs clean-up. In the third paragraph we can read: "idea of using Bolshevism or the Mandates were first applied in the capital Istanbul (see also: Istanbul (etymology)) and then eventually transmitted into the interior of the country where the Turkish National Movement was forming." and much later on, "In response they received support and gold. For the promised resources nationalist had to wait until the Battle of Sakarya. Bolsheviks were expecting that the nationalist would not last long, and the agreements would be annulled by their defeat.". So, the Entente wanted to enforce Bolshevism (wtf-!?), a bad thing, like Mandates, I guess, but later on the bad Bolsheviks who wouldn't keep their promises helped Turkey, a good thing I guess. So, black is white. Long live Goebbels !!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.207.254.69 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 6 September 2006.

While I can understand some of what you are saying, other comments are unfair. This conflict is always known as the Turkish War of Independence; nobody looks up the Turkish Revolution because, perhaps or perhaps not illogically, that simply isn't its name. I think the point about East Thrace was that Greece was MORE willing to give up an area in which none of its own people were living (they didn't feel a moral responsibility to protect Bulgarians, for example) since it was at a profound military disadvantage by that point. The map at the beginning is a little confusing, but I don't think that the author was trying to decieve us into thinking that the Turks simultaneously overcame a horde of foes proving that they are thus superhumans; he/she may just have been unable to find a better map. Phileosophian 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Another tag

From the comments I read here, I'm guessing no one will object to a "clean-up" tag, too. :-) Mdotley 13:28, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Not at all.--Dryzen 13:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Remake the map!

Can someone PLEASE remake the map of conflict? It's annoying and not very accurate. And it just has to stop blinking. How about using this map instead? http://www.atlas-of-conflicts.com/areas/armenia-and-karabakh/maps/armenia-and-turkey2-sm.jpg

Genocide?

Why aren't the Armenian Genocide, Pontic Greek Genocide etc mentioned in this article?? --AW 21:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I live in the states and i got used to saying the phrase "jesus christ". Now what i have seen in the discussions here made me say that phrase so many times that i probably have converted to christianity. wtf? what genocide? there is no armenian nor greek genocide first of all! second of all even if it existed this isnt about neither the armeians nor the greeks. this is republic of turkey's independence war!!!!!!!!!

y dont u check and c if all the articles in wikipedia that talks about events between 1900 and 1920 and include the words turk/turkey or ottman empire and make sure that they include the terms armenian and genocide? since the timeline and the relateness to turks, makes u ppl think it is related to your so called "genocide"!! and maybe i should go to (was tryin to come up sometin famous about armenians or armenia besides armenian genocide but funnily armenian genocide is the only thing i could relate to armenia) armenia page and start discussing about adding a paragraph about how armenians killed turks during those times and how they joined the russian army? how does that sound? or go to gyros (a famous greek cuisine, similar to doner kebap) page and add how greeks murdered turkish villagers when they invaded izmir? makes sense? cuz thats what u r doin!! ProudTurk—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.69.86.39 (talk • contribs)

First off, sign your posts, i'm getting tired of doing it for you. Secondly, there are so many valid sources for the genocides. --AW 11:02, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

AW, why do you believe the Armenian genocide should be included in this article? For what reason and in what context do you believe the evidence supports its inclusion? --A.Garnet 16:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

AW why dont you also tell us where are those "valid sources" I think you should report those sources to the British goverment. During Malta trials British freed every ottoman on trial and declared there was no genocide. Aaah if only they knew your "valid sources" they wouldnt have to search 2.5 years for any evidence supporting so called genocide.. Srhlg

better main pic/map

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. 195.24.29.51 08:25, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article too POV, lacks organization

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. 195.24.29.51 08:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Greek/Turk Genocidal Claims

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. 70.225.166.166 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)

GA Review

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)

Italy and Georgia as Combatants

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-- http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/DRGMap.png & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TranscaucasusCampaign1921.jpg

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:

Italy

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.

Georgia

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. Deniz^T_C 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, (http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0020-7438%28197304%294%3A2%3C129%3AAATCIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2-3&size=LARGE&origin=JSTOR-enlargePage) 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. Deniz^T_C 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. Deniz^T_C 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. Deniz^T_C 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.85.102.86.49 16:06, 30 September 2007 (UTC)holy damien

Lots of Editing & Citations Needed...

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)

Soviets

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

Sorce: http://www.turkcebilgi.com/BilgiServisi/haberextra.asp?Bilgi=Kurtulu%FE+Sava%FE%FD'n%FDn+kaynaklar%FD

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 (talk • contribs) 20:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Poor grammar

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 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

The "Time" magazine photo has been vandalized. Please keep your point of view neutral. ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.104.6 (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

War ended in 1922, not 1923

And the war didn't end in 1923. It has ended in 1922 in Mudanya Conferency. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.151.184 (talk) 15:35, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Anti-British bias?

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. 195.24.29.51 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. 199.219.138.254 (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, in the independence War, Turkey didn't fought against United Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.45.157.101 (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 92.45.151.184 (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah they fought! What about the battle of istanbul? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupation_of_Istanbul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.99.220.122 (talk) 12:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Correcting the English grammar

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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Ottoman Millet sytem

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?

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)

POV

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 65.13.220.212 (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)

Confusing Article, needs to be rewritten

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 173.56.118.177 (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)

Crushing(?) Victory

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 194.27.118.23 (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)

"Nationals," "Independence" POV

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 131.111.194.28 (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 173.5.4.33 (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)

It was a war of Independence from allied control athe cities of Istanbul,Smyrna and many other parts of Turkey as well as the OTTOMAN GOVERNMENT were controlled by the allies it was a fight for Independance and freedom/liberty. The thing is I am TUrkish and many people who are Turkish(and speak English a lot of them do) will tell you it is the war Independence.

more details (U.S.A)

Turkish version according should be updated on a :http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Kurtulu%C5%9F_Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1

U.S.A supported alliance :http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/T%C3%BCrk_Kurtulu%C5%9F_Sava%C5%9F%C4%B1_ve_ABD

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

Ottoman Empire fought the Turkish Nationalists

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) 95.173.20.147 (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 (talk • contribs) 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 78.176.203.178 (talk) 17:14, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

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

"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 137.158.190.183 (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 41.245.185.222 (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, 78.182.203.7 (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.199.219.138.254 (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 (talk • contribs) 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.

Foolish.

--64.174.68.114 (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 (talk • contribs) 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 137.158.153.203 (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 78.166.177.239 (talk) 13:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Is this article a joke?

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 78.176.203.178 (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 212.253.112.108 (talk) 18:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Grand National Assembly or Provisional Government

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]

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

Excuse my bitterness

War of Independence? Independence from what? Can somebody explain that to me? I thought Turkey existed for a 1000 years...by 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)

"War of Independence"?

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 [9] 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 way...as 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 [10], Encarta [11], History.com Encyclopedia [12] 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 74.192.221.125 (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. http://www.zaman.com.tr/yazar.do?yazino=946359&title=peki-genelkurmay-karabekir-acilimina-hazir-mi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.109.98.30 (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 173.5.4.33 (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 137.158.153.203 (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 (talk • contribs) 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)

Gross distortions and falsehoods in the intro section

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

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)

Done

Picture "Soldiers on the way back."

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 217.187.123.155 (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

About the civillian deaths.

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

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)

References

^ [1]
^ [2]
^ [3]
^ Jelavich, Barbara (1983). History of the Balkans: Twentieth century. Cambridge University Press. p. 131. ISBN 978-0-521-27459-3.
^ [4]
^ [5]
^ [6]
^ 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

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? 82.217.116.224 (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? 82.217.116.224 (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. -- 194.166.119.136 (talk) 19:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Ha

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. --64.174.68.114 (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 108.28.248.84 (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Turkish Civilians?

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 92.251.51.146 (talk) 13:04, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality Dispute

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. 138.251.226.78 (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. 68.19.7.108 (talk) 21:43, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

[1] [1]

[2] [2]

[3] [3]

[jelavich-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.

[8]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]