Talk:Turkish War of Independence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Turkish War of Independence article.
Article policies
Archives: 1
Turkish War of Independence was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: August 7, 2007
WikiProject Turkey
Turkey Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Turkey, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Turkey-related topics. Please visit the the participants page if you would like to get involved. Happy editing!
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
edit · history · watch · refresh To-do list for Turkish War of Independence:

No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Greece Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece.
If you would like to participate, you can improve Turkish War of Independence, or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
High This article has been rated as a High priority article
This article can be in the scope of Greek and Turkish wikipedians cooperation board. Please see the project page for more details, to request intervention on the notification board or peruse other tasks.
Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views.

Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them.
Archive
Archives

Please do not edit archived pages. If you want to react to a statement made in an archived discussion, please make a new header on THIS page. Baristarim 07:36, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Archives:

Note: This article has been the subject of controversy in the past. Please check the discussions in the archives on the right before making any substantial changes.

Contents

[edit] Content

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Comments

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Precursors editing

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)

[edit] 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" http://www.kultur.gov.tr/EN/BelgeGoster.aspx?17A16AE30572D3130239EEA0FCDF038B41132B5144CC3043 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. DenizTC 19:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

They did not fight Turkish revolutionary troops, in fact they trained and supplied them (see article on Greco-Turk war) and they also shelled Corfu during this time period. If they are on any side, it should be the Turkish revolutionary side!

Also, why did you delete the Soviet Union as a combatant? The Soviet Union quite clearly fought against both Armenia and Georgia, and you removed sourced content. Could you please explain doing this? AlexiusComnenus 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of having multiple combatants, but is there a wikipedia precedent for this? I think we may just need to cut things down, but even this is confusing. For example, it would be quite silly to classify Britian and Greece as "allies" in this conflict despite the fact that Greek and British troops bough fought Turkey during this time period. In fact, in 1921 Britain captured Greek troops who were retreating into the neutral zone and turned them over to Kemalist forces! Britain and the other great powers were officially neutral in this conflict, and Britain never declared war on Turkey, so they are only combatants in the loosest sense.

We should have some real, solid criteria for defining who is a combatant and who is one what side. One cannot claim that Britain is a combatant and the Soviet Union is not, it is simply a ridiculous and untenable position. AlexiusComnenus 22:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The Soviet Union may have engaged Armenia, but it was not for the purpose of Turkey's independence. Also, when you source something, then that source must explicitly support what you are saying without you drawing your own conclusions. The Soviets provided Turkey with diplomatic and military support (in the form of armaments), that you believe this makes them a combatant is entirely your own conclusion however. So shouting "deletion of sourced content" is not much use when the source does not support your claim. Furthermore, you should be the last person making such claims. --A.Garnet 10:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

A.Garnet, this is total nonsense and your arguments are spurious. In WWII the Soviets were not fighting the the independence of France, but the Soviets and the French were still allies, just as the USSR and Turkey were in 1920. The Soviets and Turks launched a coordinated campaign in the Caucasus after signing a military accord, (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. DenizTC 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
One more thing, as far as I remember, British did actually fight with the irregular Turkish resistance units, then came the Greeks that fought against the regular forces. Britain and Soviet Union cases are not similar. DenizTC 00:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Two countries with the same 'enemy' are not necessarily allies and vice versa

I totally agree with you! I am glad we agree on this point, as I have been arguing it form the beginning. I see this as the main problem here, the way the combatant tag is currently set up, it puts all these "Allies" together on the same side. Can one really claim that Greece and Italy were "allied" in this conflict? Maybe we need to have more than just two "sides" in the infobox.

As for your points

1) Yes, they did support Turkey with arms, and Soviet troops invaded Georgia and Armenia during this time period at the same time as the Turks invaded. These invasions were coordinated by the 1920 Russo-Turkish according, signed by Kemalist represantative in Moscow. This is all described in the Hovannisian article which I linked to you above. 2)I agree with you on this point. But by the same token, Greece and Armenia both fought Turkey, and this means little more than the fact that they had a common enemy. Why should they be on the same "side", whereas Turkey and Italy are not? We need some real criteria, not Turkey vs. the world. 3) Armenia and Georiga were independent republics, they were conquered by the Soviet Union during this time period, in conjunction with the Turks. Turkey and USSR split up the former Russian Armenia-- please read the Hovannisian article it explains everything.

I'm glad we found some common ground and I hope we can clear some things up now. AlexiusComnenus 01:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This is an independence war. From its nature, we have one 'country' (maybe more) fighting against the 'occupying force(s)', the forces that control the territory that the country fighting the independence war would like to claim. These occupying forces (if there is more than one) don't need to be allies bound by some treaties, they are just 'enemies' of that country. Here, 'that country' is Turkey, as you did guess, and the 'territory' is today's Turkish territory (except Hatay), Batumi, and Mousul.
We might also have some 'intervening forces' (which might be Russia in this case) that lie on the side of 'that country'.
I read first few pages of Hovannisian (is he reliable?) I did not see such a thing, it might have missed my eyes, as I am quite sleepy at the moment. Which page was it (1-19)? Let me sleep now, I will come back if I don't forget, sorry if I do forget. Also not everyone has access to JSTOR articles, but I do, so no problem with me there. A. Garnet and others might not have access. DenizTC 01:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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

[edit] Comment

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)

[edit] The Title - Independence(?)

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 [1] 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 [2], Encarta [3], History.com Encyclopedia [4] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)


[edit] Name of the article

"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.

You sure are a confused little guy. Those countries you're talking about were fighting for THEIR independence FROM Ottoman Empire, dumbass. Actually Turkey war of independece was a fight against Ottoman Empire. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.108.99.35 (talk) 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
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)

[edit] Ha

"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)

[edit] 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)