Talk:Occupation of Smyrna/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

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

The Smyrna catastrophe

• The Greek version: "In the year 1922 nearly every house or building belonging to Greeks or symbolising the Greek presence in the city was razed by Turks. All the Greeks from the entire Asia Minor were forced to leave their homes and seek refuge in Greece. Many died in the attempt. Greek accounts at the time describe how many Greeks, fleeing from the burning city, tried to climb on the British ships, but the sailors prevented them by cutting their hands."
• The Turkish version (from User:128.10.8.57: "In the year 1922, when Turks recaptured the city from Greeks, the withdrawing Greek forces gave the city under fire, which lasted several days. As the conflicts between Greeks and Turks living together in most parts of Greece and Turkey continued afterwards, Turkish and Greek governments reached on an agreement to exchange their Greek and Turkish minorities, many people had to leave their homes, leading to tragedies on both sides. The Greek population of Smyrna mostly disappeared after this exchange."

Can Wikipedians come up with a neutral accurate description of what happened at Smyrna in 1922, neither inflammatory nor apologist? Neither of these versions is up to Wikipedia standards. Wetman 01:01, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And what's the deal with the reference to Hitler at the end?Gwimpey 22:41, Nov 24, 2004 (UTC)

(Yep. Out with it! --Wetman 21:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Here's the Hitler text cropping up again" "Later this massacre was used by Hitler as justification and example for the extermination of millions across Europe" Hitler did not justify his actions by instancing Turkish activities against Greeks in Smyrna. No one could seriously think so. --Wetman 05:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

The last part of the article (starting with the claims that 150,000 out of 300,000 Smyrnians were Greek in 1908 - Catholic

Encyclopedia is not exactly an objective source when it comes to information about the Ottomans, and going on with the

burning of Smyrna section out of a Greek history textbook) is an absolute disaster and has no factual accuracy whatsoever. Also,

why the hell does the article link to "foreign relations of Greece" for more information on the modern city? The only thing

missing in this article is the claim that Turks are a barbarian tribe filled with bloodlust for poor greek peasants. A factually

accurate way of describing the Smyrna events would be along the lines of Greeks invading western Anatolia after the Ottomans'

collapse following WWI and the treaties that followed, Greek soldiers doing what soldiers normally do on occupied lands,

Turkish army defeating the Greek army, both armies probably setting hostile civilian residences afire, Greek army being

sent home in ships. Just a standard disclaimer, I am a Turk, born and raised in Izmir. My grandmother from my father's

side is Greek, and her family had witnessed the "burning of smyrna" and she told me many stories about it. None of it

ever sounded like this article to me, she was rather precise in describing the Greeks as the aggressors. --67.171.71.40 10:50, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, my grandmother was five years old when having to leave Smyrna, and even if one does not want to rely on her memories alone, the parts of her family that also did manage to escape on different routes out of the burning city to Thessaloniki were of older age at the time and told my mother and aunt basically the same things as my grandmother (I only got to know my grandmother, rest of the survivors from back then had died as I reached an age in which I would ask things - I was born 1977).

They all had no particular reason for being great Greek nationalists: My family from the Greek side has always been quite internationalistic, and they use to dispise right-wing people, especially Greeks, and were oppositional under the rule of the fascistoid dictators from 1967-1974, and my grandmother voted for the mostly anti-nationalistic Communist Party of Greece until she died.

But according to them all, the city WAS conquered in a barbaric, blood-lusty manner, and they had some quite shocking graphic details to tell... I do not know what happened, I was not there, but keeping in mind that my grandmother had always had a good relationship to Turks and Muslims in Thessaloniki and that she did communicate with them so much that she learned to speak Turkish pretty well (in Thessaloniki, that is! Because in Smyrna most talking had been done in Greek, as she recalled it!) I have no strong reason to believe they lied! But as with many controversial aspects of nationalistic wars in the near-east and the balcanian area (is it called so in English? I'm a native German speaker, forgive me) of the 20th century, this statement of hers - and mine - will be just another piece of the puzzle, I guess, and many of these pieces will be harder and harder to verify as time passes on because the eye-witnesses die out (like my grandmother already has last year).

However, how could the Greek army be really considered being the "aggressor" when they occupied a city whose streets were laid out with flowers to greet them at their arrival and whose mainly spoken language seems to having been Greek? Maybe the army went further on into the back land, being a true occupational and repressive force to the muslims there, but one has to keep in mind that at least in Smyrna they did not have to fear anything and that these areas at the coast had been populated by Greeks since the development of the Greek alphabet - so at least for Smyrna you could not really call the Greek army being the "aggressor".

Anyway, if anyone wishes to talk to me, I'm at the de.wikipedia.org, and my user name there is marilyn.hanson (being a guy, though ;-)), so feel free to drop me some lines if you want to. -- 134.100.99.186 22:26, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC) de:marilyn.hanson

Agressors?

"How can they be agressors?". Let me explain. How come we call Hitler an agressor (among many other worse things) when he invaded central European countries in the name of releiving Germans living in those areas. Heck, the majority of Austrians were "really" laying flowers in front of his armies as you just described. Hey by the way did you know that except Smyrna and Ayvalik, everywhere the Greek army invaded (which encompasses an area maybe as big as today's whole Greece), Turks were the majority, and even when you included those two cities they were still the majority in Western Anatolia by a big margin? Did you know that the Greeks made up about only half the population in Smyrna around the time of the occupation, the rest being Armenians, Jews, Turks, and Italians and other westerners? But you choose to believe there were flowers everywhere the Greek army got. Well I also have grandparents who lived in the area during the Greek occupation, and guess what? Yep, right, they used to tell us the other stories that you weren't told of, and they are not pretty. Going back to the agressors, well turks were definetely the agressors for many times in their history and Greeks were the victims of many of those aggressions. However I do not dare to legitimize their acts by claiming that this was the norm of the era, or they were better overlords then the ones they replaced (which was true at times), or there were flowers laid when they arrived (which was really the case occasionally) or anything like that, but in this day and age, you are legitimizing an openly aggressive, autocratic act that in the end resulted in deaths of thousands and thousands of turks and greeks, stripped both countries of their ethnic minorities and caused a lot of pain that still aches on both sides of the Aegean sea and you are not even a native Greek speaker!!! How they manage to fill in the heads of people with such nationalistic crap and make them repeat those like parrots believing those are original thoughts is beyond me.

Hey by the way, didn't we hear about that laying flowers business a lot when they crashed a Saddam statue about two years ago?

..................................................................

Yo, mate, wake up! Do you that the Austrians are actually Germans and that they are not part of Germany simply for the political reasons (rivalry between the German states of Prussia and Austria in the 19th century)? The argument about Saddam Hussein and flowers: in this case, you have a section of the Arab population greeting American invaders! In Smyrna, both Greeks AND Armenians celebrated the arrival of Greek troops. And do you realise that Greek troops wouldn't have had to march to areas where the Turks were a majority if Kemal had accepted the Treaty of Sevres, which would mean that most people (including minorities on either side) would be happy?

So, cut your "supposed" internationalist claptrap and come as the nationalist you really are!

Not to sound like a racist or a nationalist but I do not know of a single people who would accept the loss of all of their lands (and possibly most of their lives) as it was the case with the Treaty of Sevres. This was a very systematic way of destroying the Ottoman Empire. The treaty, the occupation by the allies and invasion from all fronts by everyone was the reason the Turks decided fight for liberation. They realized that this was the end of Turks in Anatolia if they were not to fight. The person below has made a great analogy —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 143.81.252.12 (talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 November 2006.

...................................................................

Austrians are Germans as much as the Asia Minor Greeks belonged to the Greek culture (there are important differences in both examples, too). Besides, Hitler WAS Austrian. anyway.. If Kemal accepted the Treaty of Sevres? How different is this than saying "if the Greek had accepted the Ottoman rule?" Please take off your biased glasses a little bit before making obviously contradictory comments.

Burning of Smyrna: another anonymous edit

This whole section is highly biased and definitely against NPOV. Particularly the last statement goes well over NPOV ("This massacre by the Turkish forces set another unfortunate precedent(the first was the Armenian holocaust) for Hitler's heinous crimes against humanity during World War II."). First, the fact that there was a massacre is disputable, and the article doesnt refer at all to the fact that Greek Government, together with Emperialist European forces had invaded Anatolia.Olympos 13:28, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Can anyone tell whether the use of "Turkish nationalist regime" is neutral. I have never heard of the word 'nationalist regime' used for the Mustafa Kemal's army. The word regime has a highly negative connotation, how can one talk about a regime while Mustafa Kemal and Turkish people were involved in an independance war.--Olympos 13:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

---

The following new edit, which suppresses information formerly in the text, needs to be cafefully vetted by some responsible Wikipedian, preferably logged in, before it can be entered in place of the existing text. Perhaps there is some accuracy in each text. --Wetman 04:22, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC) :

At the end of the first world war the Greek Government was promised western anatolia, including Smyrna, as an award for forcing the Turkish government to sign the Treaty of Sevres through military presence in Turkey. As a result the Greek troops invaded Symrna and annexed western anatolia to Greece. However this move draw fierce opposition from Turks who were still the majority in the region but not in Smyrna itself. Soon the guerilla type resistance was united under the command of the nationalist turkish government of Kemal Atatürk in Ankara and the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 erupted.

At the end of Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922, on September 9th 1922, Turkish troops recaptured Smyrna.

However just as the Turkish soldiers arrived, a big fire erupted and most of the old city burned to the ground. Both parties blamed each other for setting up the fire. Turks claim the Greeks burned down Symrna as well as many other Turkish towns as they retreated in order to slow down turkish advance, Greeks claim that it was an act of revenge by a turkish mob to set fire on Greek quarters of the city. This issue is still heatedly debated in the history books of both nations. As a result of the events at the end of the Greco-Turkish War many Greeks and other minority members of the city left. Soon after, the remaining Greeks also were sent to Greece as a result of the population exchange clause of the Treaty of Lausanne. Today vast majority of the inhabitants of the city are ethnically turkish. In modern Turkey, thanks to its ethnically mixed heritage and being an important commercial hub, Symrna is regarded as the most westernized city in Turkey.

Responses

To Wetman: I don't understand why the obviously biased previous version is kept instead of the version below. The first paragraph just recites the facts in every history book and other pages of wikipeida, if you just care to take a look at the article on Greco-Turkish War for example. The second paragraph is as neutral as possible, briefly citing claims of both sides. Really, why on earth would you prefer the "barbarian turks killed civilized greeks" version, I have no idea. What is below is probably not perfect but it is much better than what you re-post up there. (Anon.)

Let's actually quote some of those history books, folks. And add counter-quotes from opposing historians. All I personally know is the peripheral reference in David Fromkin, A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East, so I'm not competent to judge. --Wetman 21:28, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

NPOV?: The last sections of this article (Burning of Smyrna) are definitely not written from a neutral point of view, and represent the nationalist Greek account of what happened. I refrain from removing the whole section, however it is unacceptable that such bias is present in an article which should only be telling the story of a 4000 year old historic city (where I was born), and not some Greek rambling on how they failed to recapture the city and hate the Turks. The mere fact that "The Modern City" links to foreign relations of Greece is absurd. I propose that either the "Burning of Smyrna" section to be rewritten by an unbiased (I am not) party, or the current section be renamed "Burning of Smyrna: The Greek Account" and the Turkish perspective added in another section. Currently this article does not represent NPOV, and is not up to Wikipedia

standards. --Mrpdaemon 21:06, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

...but it can become so, nevertheless. --Wetman

== To Wetman 2 ==

If u feel you are incompetent to judge why insist on having this section of the article the way it is? Even you can't :claim that currently it is unbiased, and the version I provided states the claim of both sides and the facts I provide :are supoported in other articles of wikipedia. And I thought wikipedia was open to anyone to edit!!! By leaving the :article as it is you are not being impartial, nor are you serving the greater good of NPOV, but you are siding with one :party over the other. You should either replace the current version with a more neutral one or you should move the :current version to the discussion page as you did to my edit. I don't see why someone else's point of view should have :precedence over mine.

I'm not insisting on anything. Let's achieve some level-headed accuracy in this very contentious subject, that's all. --Wetman 05:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

---

I am really troubled at the above commentator's attempt to portray this as "both sides." I am not Greek or Turkish but simply a (Ph.D) candidate on the interwar period. Indeed, there are "two sides" on the burning of Smyrna but they are not Greek and Turkish sides, it is a Turkish side and vs credentialed peer-reviewed historians using first-person primary data, footnotes, and serious scholarship.

The fact is Turkish troops burned Smyrna, massacred a huge number of Greeks and Armenians, who were the large majority, and the rest of the non-turkish population was forced to flee. Yes, one can find references to this in first person accounts of people with bias, including racist bias agains the Turks, but one can also find it a myriad of third party first person direct observation and academically sound histories by people with no bias, or even holding bias in favor of Turkey.

I think most telling is the asserion that the Catholic Encyclopedia would have overcounted Greeks. The Catholic Church at the time would have been inclined to under count Greeks. This was not a Christian vs Moslem census isse. The Italians were of course making their own claims. At this period Italy owned as colonies many of the islands across from Asia Minor. They were making direct claims on the mainland at this very period based on the number of Catholics.

Really more than anything else this is a lesson in the problems in historicity in Turkey. As late as 1996 Turkish historians have been JAILED for "slandering the state" when not towing the offical line concerning the Kurdish, Armenians and Greek populations in Asia Minor. I have been to quite a few academic conferences where Turkish historians will tell you the entire body of work used in Turkish universities is problematic.

In short a minority here are doing the equivelent of suggesting that both the Holocaust historians and the Holocaust deniers get equal space. Forget the morality of this, it is, from a historical point of view, without basis - or merit. (Anon.)

Making sure the best historical reports are included among the References is a priority. Perhaps this anon. contributor would asdd any that are missing. --Wetman 05:36, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Holocaust Deniers

I am not aware of any definitive proof of burning of Smyrna being started by Turks, though I am not a specialist and I would not be surprized if that really is the accepted interpretation of events among most historians and even if it is in fact what really happened. I do not dispute that turkish mobs massacred greeks after the greek army left either. Although vague, I heard stories from my family members that hint things like that happened. Do they belong in an article about a historic city? (Neither Turks nor Greeks call the modern city Smyrna) Maybe... Does the last addition to the article by a Turk biased? Yes. Is the Turkish version of events true? No. Is the Greek version true? Very unlikely unless you are ready to accept turks are the wrath of God.

However, the commentator above has so authoritatively suggested that people who dispute the Greek version of events are akin to Holacaust deniers, I feel compelled to respond. Although it doesn't bother you that the article contains a graphic description of turkish atrocities against "civilized" and victimized greeks (turks are members of mobs at best, I presume), but not a single word about a foreign army invading a country without provocation does bother me. It also bothers me that, even if in your "objective" mind this piece of information may be irrelevant, to you appearently, it is also irrelevant that invading Greek army wasn't exactly there to protect turkish villagers and other non-civilized turks. Do I see you advocating an inclusion of a clause merely suggesting that in fact both sides killed a lot of innocent people in a war? Nope. But those of us who suggest that the turks were also subject to atrocities are Holocaust deniers. I guess that means there was a Greek Holocaust and no one touched a single turk. Just don't give me "third party first person accounts" crap, I may not know what each and every observer has said about what happened there but at least I read Dido Sotiriyu, whom I believe you would not dare to label turkish biased.

As a last note, I am very very troubled about this so called freedom of speech and "Holocaust deniers" thing. Well it is a little too convenient a label to use when someone dares to challenge the official version of events, don't you think? Of course real "Holocaust deniers" are very lowly life forms and mostly racist neo-Nazis, but do you really feel comfortable with someone being put to prison for disputing historic events? Sorry but I do not. That is not only because of my abstract love of "freedom of speech". Even though it may be the case that official version of events around Jewish Holocaust may be true to the iota, I still do not feel comfortable when a story goes unchallenged. I have seen so many "soooooo true" stories crumble with a little bit of research that I feel like there is something to hide in the official version that governments resort to a ban on freedom of speech. This is of course the case for all those "turkish historians" (should be intellectuals actually, I do not think it was only about history) who were imprisoned, there was some truth in what they said that cost them their freedom, nobody cares when you don't make sense. How do you feel as a historian about this? If you are OK with this, then why stop at Holocaust, or even at Turkish massacre of innocent Greeks? Would you advocate the creation of a list of "proven events that are illegal to dispute"? Maybe illegal is a little too strong, how about "indecent to dispute", so that the government does not imprison you like the Turkish Government did, but if you are an academician you lose your job? Fair enough?

Wasn't there a time when it was almost illegal in US to suggest that Japanese-Americans were presecuted during WWII? When did the Belgian government accept its crimes against humanity in Congo? What does it say in school books in UK about british role in atlantic slave trade? Massacres in India? The role of British government in creating an ultimately unstable middle east so that no one can dominate the petoleum fields, ensuring cheap fuel for west? It looks to me that those are just a few of the events which would be hard to discuss in public in the past but now nearly universally accepted as true, right?

How do you think people will read history of our times in 100 years? If you are a real historian this must be a part of your concerns. And if you are concerned about political atmosphere influencing the historical interpretation of events I really do not see how you can feel comfortable with labels like "Holocaust deniers", much less with finding the moral authority to label people who try to tell another version of a story which has nothing to do with Holocaust. To me, with your "holier than thou" attitude and with your quickness to label people you disagree with, you are no better than those government officials who imprison intellectuals. After all, they also would swear that their version of history is the only true one if they were here and they would also blurp out a list of evidence somehow mysteriously hard to get hold of to support their claims.

"but not a single word about a foreign army invading a country without provocation does bother me"

invading a country without provocation?????? How about 500 years of oppression and the fact that it had been a greek homeland since 3000 years? Why don't we, ( and I am neither greek or turk or orthodox christian of any kind) call the greek landing and "invasion" of Asia Minor a "attempt for liberation". This would make things much easier. And I agree with that other guy...there are numerous neutral and objective first hand eye-withnesses of the Burning and massacre of Smyrna by turkish soldiers....such as when they drove civilians out in the harbour for example. These atrocities are accounted by many british, french and american journalists and buisnessmen, and expessially the latter had much to thank the turks for and much to fear from a greek take over. Not to mention the "allied" german observers.

It actually sickens me to have to hear these denials of genocide, same as when serbs deny ethnic clensing of muslims in Bosnia....same thing only in Smyrna, and the rest of Anatolia some 90 years ago it happened to christian minorities, and to jewish and romani people during wwii. Anyways, a somewhat less "angry" article might be in its place, but denying genocide will only confuse history more than it already has....what if someone would serioulsy question the holocaust?

Peace out! Best regards; a humble and upset Humanist.

---

"How about 500 years of oppression and the fact that it had been a greek homeland since 3000 years?"

I think above quote shows that Turkish and Greek people are far from agreeing at a common point about the historical event. I am a (biased) Turk. However, I try to stay far away from both Turkish and Greek extremes. Yes, the Greek lived in Smyrna for thousands of years. They were the majority in the city in the Ottoman ages. So, can anybody tell me what kind of "oppression" makes a majority nation live in their homelands happily with the other nations for 500 years? Looking at the history from the "you burned us to the ground barbarians" point of view wouldn't improve the current relations at all. It is not good for the sake of history either. These accounts might explain 3 days of history but fail to explain how these (turkish and greek) people had lived happily together for 500 years. So, something must have gone wrong. Oh, btw, labeling an entire nation as barbarian is very civilized and humanistic, and easily explains everything.

Mentioning Holocaust, Armenian Genocide and burning of Smyrna in the same article (btw, in a "city" article) is very odd since all three are very different events by nature. I see the events between Turks and the Greek in 1922 as something that could happen in any war. I am sure both armies (or some people who went out of discipline) committed some crimes of war which you can find in any war. Over 20 million Russians died in WWII, but nobody talks about a "Russian genocide", so be careful when choosing the words.

Although I heard lots of different versions of the events that happened in Smyrna of 1922, I've never heard of a central plan of Turkish army that ordered the killing of Greeks in the city. As a side note, that army was led by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk who was to become the founder of the Turkish republic and was nominated for the Nobel "peace" prize by the Greek prime minister few years later. These are not proofs of anything either, but I find the official intent of killing all the Greeks in Smyrna very unlikely even if any kind of massacre had happend. It should also be noted that the real mass deportation of Greeks from Asia Minor (and Turks from today's Greece) happened as a result of the "population exchange" agreemeent between two governments after the war.

Smyrna had been a greek homeland for 3000 years. So, this gives the Greek the right to invade the city? How about before the Greeks? Nobody talks about other people lived in Smyrna. How about Lydians, Hittites and other nations who had lived in Asia Minor before Greeks and Turks? So only recent history matters? What is the criteria for a place to be Greek, Turkish or whatever? Should we also give Thessaloniki to the Turks because they were the previous majority in the city? Should Switzerland be divided into 3 parts and be given to Italians, Germans and the French? These kind of questions are endless, but definitely do not reflect a humanistic but a very nationalistic view which is the cause for most wars. I propose to do an interesting experiment: Let's construct the genetic pool of the Greek and the Aegean Turkish people by taking samples of them. I bet everyone would be amazed how much a "civilized" and a "barbarian" person have in common.

---

Terrible article

Firstly, why does this article exist under the name Smyrna? It is now Izmir, the history of Izmir should be given there. The whole article is concerned with portraying Greeks as the rightful owners of Izmir until Turks came and "massacred" them. The last section on the burning of Izmir is so POV im surprised its still here.

I am the one who put the NPOV tag up. Of course, I agree there is a POV problem with the last section. However, the article is neither "terrible" nor is there I believe a question whether it makes sense to have an article on an ancient town called Smyrna. Rl 17:19, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turkish people have had a presence in Izmir for almost a thousand years. Why no section on "Turkish Izmir"?

Because nobody wrote one? Rl 11:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Turkish textbooks

Let's see some translated quotes from current Turkish history textbooks treating the Smyrna affair, in addition to the endless contentions over personal interpretations. Right or wrong,whatever is being taught in Turkish secondary schools is genuinely informative for the neutral Wikipedia reader. --Wetman 21:32, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why Smyrna and NOT Ismir

Because "Ismir" is an alteration, a paraphrase of the word "Smyrna". If a nation is so superficially attached to a city that, instead of naming it, simply "copies" the already existing name, that nation could also burn it and then blame those who had buit, expanded and populated the city for millenias. There should be no mistake between the verbs "conquer" and "create". Many can conquer, but only one can create.

Burning of Smyrna

I have removed inflammatroy language, tried to rewrite in a neutral way as possible. Please feel free to expand but remember history is never black and white. --E.A 19:58, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The city is called Izmir by the Turks since it was conquered by Timur. The Turks call it Izmir there is no reason to call it smyrna since it is a city in Turkey.Orrin_73

A decent solution?

I, personally, do not know too much about this subject but, as this is apparently a charged issue, the history of which seems to be murky at best, I think a decent solution would be (rather than arguing and fingerpointing) for an informed, objective contributor to set up a seperate article on The Burning of Smyrna, containing each claim and its counterclaims, citing the appropriate source material. The merits of each case could, thereby, be examined and interpreted by the reader, who would then be able to undergo further study of the sources if he or she was interested.

Objectivity still missing

What's happened here? When I found this article (see version before my edits), there were only diverse apologetic versions from Turkish perspective concerning 1922. It wasn't even mentioned that most historians report a massacre in the recapture of Smyrna. Can't we agree that different versions can be stated, as long as the sources are mentioned? "Some people think" and "others believe" stuff isn't going to help very much; anything can be stated in that form without any kind of substantiation.

I inserted a sentence taken from earlier versions which states the "ethnic purge"-perspective and removed some of the many sentences which stated diverse stories of the "why the Greeks could have done it themselves"-perspective.

However, someone should rewrite the story of 1922 at greater detail out of history books which are neither Greek nor Turkish prejudiced.

--Fountaindyke 20:26, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I provided a source for the version you edited if you look at the bottom. Patrick Kinross's is a very respected historian on Ottoman and Turkish history and his biography of Ataturk is one of the most concise aroud. Everything that was included on the burning of Smyrna was taken from that book which provides a very objective explanation. With regards to the killings, he explains that most of them were random and not part of any organised "ethnic-purge" as you put it. Because he is neither Greek or Turkish prejudiced i'm going to revert your edits. --E.A 21:10, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I haven't "put it" like that; I only included this as one of different versions on events. The diverse theories stating that the Greeks did it were also included. I will merge our two versions and hope you will find it okay. --Fountaindyke 21:21, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you changed my "compromise" version again without even giving notice here, I let your version stand and give another account in addition to it, validated by names of the sources. (It should be noted that Kinross, whom you cite for your "sporadic deaths"-theory, has called the book of Dobkin "definite". http://www.ahiworld.com/091202.html)

--Fountaindyke 22:41, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I explained the reason for the change in the edit title, i find your 100,000 death figures confusing, especially since Kinross states "An official American observer, contradicting lurid reports in the American press, afterwards estimated the total deaths, from various causes, at about two thousand". If you could provide a specific quote from Dobkins book that would be helpful. Its also worth noting that many Greek people use Horton as evidene of a Hellenic Genocide which is not acknowledged by anone.

Also please dont start using terminology such as "Ataturks soldiers raped and killed", thats a very low attempt to try and dirty his name. Ataturk had issued a proclamation before entering the city that any Turkish soldier who harmed non-combatants would be sentenced to death. If any senior figure is to be named it would be Nuredin Pasha. Also if you want use terminology like rape and kill then i can quote the British High Commisioner who referred to the Greek acts during retreat as "'a sickening act of bestiality and barbarity".

I would like to see the review that the AHI website refers to before believing Kinross endorses the book as definitive, especially since they both seem to be giving two completely different accounts. --E.A 23:42, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

The number of 100.000 deaths is not from the book, but is the quote of Horton; as stated, he could only make a guess on the basis of the number of people unaccounted for.

"Low attempt": That's foul language against ME, and you know it. You have overlooked the fact that it's not my terminology you complain about but Dobkin's. It's Wikipedia principle to accept quotes from acknowledged sources - even if these are NOT well-known scholars in the area the article treats, like Dobkin is! You could insert quotes by any politician, talk-show-master or other person whose opinion might possibly be relevant to the article. Everyone clearly sees that the above-mentioned quote is from Dobkin, because I wrote the name directly behind it.

As regards "rape" and "murder": Soldiers going from house to house, raping and murdering civilians are not unknown in history. Look at the destruction of Nanking (China), where the most horrible scenes took place!

If you think the proclamation of Ataturk could have prevented that to happen, sadly, that's not true. Nearly every army punishes rape or murder of civilians - it happens all the time, though. Go ahead and introduce the Ataturk proclamation, if you like.

You seem to use different standards as regards your version and mine. There is a lot of "some people believe", "others think" stuff here. Who believes? Who thinks? That's not the way it is done, but I don't tamper with your version. So please don't tamper with my account. Please remember that it is clearly marked as only one account - that of Dobkin!

Why don't you introduce the High Commissioners opinion on the Greek retreat? If you think that relevant, go ahead! Personally, I think, since this article treats with Smyrna only, it could be only relevant if he thought there was a connection with the tragedy of Smyrna. Otherwise, it would seem to belong to the article on this war ("Greco-Turkish War").

Hey, just relax about it! You simply can't want a completely one-sided account, do you?

Cheers, --Fountaindyke 08:34, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, no i dont want a one sided account. But i dont want to get into a tit for tat situation. Considering the barbarism the Greek soldiers committed during their retreat, it is pointless getting into the "rape and kill" terminology when both sides committed brutal acts. I was trying to make a point about the High Commissioners quote that this article can easily esacalate into a list of attrocities committed by both sides, whether you accept this or not, this is the case. The attrocities committed by the Greek army are relevant to the article, because you imagine what Turkish soldiers witnessed as they chased the Greek army to Smyrna, thousands of houses were burnt, women were raped and killed. This is the point Kinross was making about what the Greek population feared when the Turkish army re-entered Smyrna.

I propose we allow the death toll figures and state Kinross says 2,000, Horton says 100,000. But i believe words like rape and kill should be removed, it is very unencylopedic. Let me know. --E.A 11:12, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

"words like rape and kill should be removed"

Well, if that's your opinion of an encyclopedia that certain words (or acts, as a matter of fact!) should not be mentioned, I'm not of your opinion at all. If there was rape and murder (or, as in this case, major sources report it to have taken place), it has to be reported. Omitting it would be NPOV. Of course, if other sources disagree, these should be mentioned too - as I have told you already!

As I see it, the article is unacceptable in the form you continue to edit it in. It is very widely reported that there was a massacre caused by Turkish troops in the recapture of Smyrna. The present article shows not as much as a trace of this conviction, which is reported in many major historical works.

Maybe there are serious sources which imply, like the article does at the moment, that everything is vague, the Turkish troops didn't do much wrong and the devastating fire might just as well have been caused by the Armenians. (Are these the sources, by the way, who deny 2 millions of Armenians having been systematically killed in an ethnic purge orchestrated by Turkish nationalists?) Oh well! Write that account, if you believe it, and substantiate it.

You have stated above that Dobkin's account is "a very low attempt to try and dirty his [Ataturks] name". This is not exactly an objective stance you are taking towards a work of scholarship accepted as major contribution to the area. Maybe Dobkin's is wrong - I don't know. But it's against Wikipedia principles to remove her account just because you don't like what she has to say. I will see to it that she has her say, just like Kinross and others can have theirs. So please don't remove my material again!

I will discontinue this discussion. It doesn't seem to go anywhere new.

--Fountaindyke 15:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Listen, what is the point in saying that Turks raped and killed, if Greeks did exactly the same (which i can also provide a source for). It is utterly pointless in trying to highlight one peoples suffering more than anothers. I can approach your edits in two ways, either revert it, or have to go into detail about the attrocities committed by Greeks.

As for your accusation that my sources denies the massace of the Armenians, then your wrong. Kinross states that the acts carried out by Turkish soldiers in Smyrna were nowhere near the organised massacres of the Armenians in 1915, and for your information, the very highest figures of the Armenian death toll was 1.5m (tragic nonetheless, but theres no point in exaggerating it). --E.A 16:09, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Dobkin's book

There is only one book that really study the cases of the fire in Smyrna, and it is her book. Neither Horton or Kinross covering of the fire are authoritative books, this being the cases, it requires that her book have its own place in the article, separated from others. The same way I have given McCarthy, his own section in the Armenian population entry. Besides, it is also known that Kinross after reading her work has changed his own version of the event. The book itself also contains Turkish accounts, including two groundbraking, one of which, from a close confident of Ataturk. It also contains statments of authorities from the fire department and elsewhere. Bristol himself forced some witnesses to change their version of the story, as a part in the Chestler and son consession that never materialized.

Besides, E.A., there are various reports of massacres of Armenians in Smyrna, many included in Dobkins book. Reports of rapes and various other crimes. Those crimes were to happen before, had German general Sander didn't pressurized the Turkish authorities with threat of German military intervention, if the plan of the evacuation of the Armenians of Smyrna was to be put in applications, because it was seriously interupting German war efforts.

The crimes later were extended against the Greeks, Ali §ukrü the deputy from Trabzon, even managed to extend those measure on the other side of the empire, pointing on how regretful was that the measures against the Armenians were not extended to the Greeks when they had the occasion. Repeated by the disgusting allusions of the minister of finance, Hasan Fehmi, who compared on how successful resolution of the Armenian "question" with the failure of the Greek one.

While this entry is about Smyrna, I don't see how both side massacres, could be presented as equaly extensive, when the entire Greek and Armenian quarters were destroyed, looted, vanished, while the Turkish quarter was left intact to later form Izmir. Be precise here please. Fadix 23:18, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Fadi, you again!!!. Have the decency to show some references beside your armenian bias. Orrin_73

Prentiss was forced to change his account

The reference to Prentiss without mentioning that he changed his version after after being instructed by his superiors to do just that, because new blames on the Turkish side would have placed seriously in danger the various new contracts signed.

Prentiss actually say having witnessed, with many of his colleagues, that it was the Turkish soldiers that burned the city. In September 18, 1922, his report of the situation was published in the New-York Times. Here is what he had to say:

"Many of us personally saw-and are ready to affirm the statement-Turkish soldiers often directed by officers throwing petroleum in the streets and houses. Vice-Consul Barnes watched a Turkish officer leisurely fire the Custom House and the Passport Bureau while at least fifty Turkish soldiers stood by. Major Davis saw Turkish soldiers throwing oil in many houses. The Navy patrol reported seeing a complete horsehoe of fires started by the Turks around the American school."

After being criticized by his superior, 2 days later, he answer with a new statment accuzing the Greeks for having exasperated the Turks, which has caused the fire.

"The burning of Smyrna will rank as the world's greatest tragedy, and it is likely historians will divide the responsibility. The Greek action in arming civilians, together with prolonged and extensive sniping, exasperated the Turks beyond their officers' control. The officers exerted an effort to maintain order and establish a record for peaceful occupation."

This did not satisfy still his superior, and a week after this second article, he praised the Turks, for the way they were dealing with the refugees.

But I guess Adm. Bristol(US High Commissioner at the American Embassy in Istanbul), was not satisfied, the same that has barred access to many cites of Armenian massacres and forced American witnesses to change their versions in various occasions, the protector of American contracts, the Chestler consession(See: Simpson, Christopher. "The Splendid Blond Beast: Money, Law, and Genocide in the Twentieth Century", for more information about this, as well as "Starving Armenians: America and the Armenian Genocide, 1915-1930 and After" by Merrill D. Peterson . So Prentess was consulted to write about a story changing the entire American version of the events, the story was sent to Bristol, in a form of a manuscript to be published in Jan. 11, 1923, which has gone as far as to propose a version in which Armenians were in Turkish military uniforms, burning their own quarter. And what we have here? In this entry we have the last version of his. Fadix 01:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

If its wrong, change it Fadix, just keep it neutral. --E.A 19:52, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The Deleting of killed and raped sentence

There are absolute no reason under any Wikipedia rules to delete such a sentence. There are abount number of articles containing such terms and even worst. It is a quotation and should have remained there. Please clarify under which Wikipedia principle it was deleted. Fadix 16:03, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

The article already informs the reader "Her assessment is that the city was ravaged and destroyed by Turkish troops under the noses of Allied ships", anything beyond that is worthless graphic description, the kind you would not see in any respectable encyclopedia. --E.A 16:34, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know that quoting someone was not done in a serious encyclopedia. Be it a graphic description or not, it is her words and I really can see why they should be deleted. Fadix 16:37, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Why should we quote the attrocities done by Turks, and not those done by Greeks? (which i could quote plentifully). --E.A 16:49, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It is an entry about Smyrna, nearly the entire Greek and Armenian community left the place. The Turks were attempting to remove the Armenians from there, back in 1915, when General Sanders put an end to it. Later, the cities Greek and Armenian population was just forced to leave, there are countless report of massacres and rapes in Dobkins book, and she only write what was there. What happened elsewhere by the Turkish or Greek forces, outside of Smyrna, is irrelevent in this entry, what happened in Smyrna thouth, there was a clear disproportion between what the Greeks have done, and what the Turks have done. You can not misrepresent it as if a tequaly sided massacre is supported there. I really don't see how you can do that. Fadix 16:56, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It was the trail of destruction the Greek army left behind them, which the Turkish army witnessed during its chase that played a massive role in what happened when the Turks entered Smyrna, it has everything to do with what happened. Thats what Kinross was referring to when he said the population of Smyrna feared reprisals for what the Greek army had done. --E.A 17:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Entire villages in the entire Anatolia were burned to the ground, as a way to prevent Armenians that survived to return in their homes. I don't see how, in the section of the burning, there should be a justification by alluding to what the Greeks have done elsewhere, when mass burnings such as the Armenian quarter of Marash, and entire Armenian villages in the East weren't the result of anything. Smyrnas fire is considered to only be equaled with the burning of Rome, I don't see how one can take an equal spaces to developpe other instances of massacres and burnings, with those that have actually happened in Smyrna(the subject of this entry). And such policies are actualy Wikipedia principles, while the deletion of a quote is not. The Turkish quarter was left untouched, while the Greek and Armenian quarters were burned to the ground, and you are here wanting equal coverages. Am I missing something? Fadix 17:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

As you can see, the Greeks set quite a precedent for Smyrna. Your not justified in giving details of one sides cruelties precedent over another. --E.A 17:39, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that you are realizing it. Smyrna fire led to the evacuation of the hundreds of thousands of people, the fire was seen hundreds of kilometers around; There is no precedent for Smyrna, other than the legendary fire of Rome. The number of victims alone in few days in Smyrna exceed the Greeks retreating crimes. You want to delete a quote about Smyrna, because Greeks commited crimes elsewhere. I don't understand still your logic. Fadix 18:10, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh and, what do you say that I quote the burning of Armenian villages too? Don't you see how your point doesn't make sense? Fadix 18:11, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Fadix, as i have said, no respectable source will give graphic details of attrocities, especially when the Greeks played such a big part in provoking the acts of Turkish soldiers. --E.A 18:29, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

You said the same about the Turkish government denial, while it was covered in Universalis encyclopedia, as well as the Encyclopdia of Genocides and various others. Quotation is permitted and is part of Wikipedias sourcing notes. Fadix 19:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

FAO Wetman

Wetman, why did you remove the Kinross reference? I have explained above why i dont find rape and killed sentences necessary to include. --A.Garnet 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

My edit summary: restoring suppressed quote cited from published historian --Wetman 20:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, but if your accusing me of suppresing a reference from a published historian, why would you do the same with my reference? --A.Garnet 20:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

merger

Please see the Talk:İzmir page to discuss the proposed page merger. Tedernst 04:40, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This page should be removed

This page's historical side should be removed to Izmir and baseless propaganda side should be deleted.There is only one Izmir and all of them must be included it.If you write "Londinium" at "search",you will see "see the History of London".So,justice to terms please... -Inanna-

Inanna, you will see on the Talk:İzmir page that I agree with you that the Smyrna and İzmir pages should be merged. I also agree that propaganda doesn't belong here, from any side: Turkish, Greek, or Armenian.

As for the specific figures you are inserting, two points:

• You mention that they are from an "Ottoman census", but don't give its date or any sources to verify them.
• You remove figures from other sources. Wikipedia believes in NPOV, that is, if there are multiple good-quality sources which are contradictory, Wikipedia reports all of them.

It is perfectly possible in this case that both the Ottoman census figures and western figures (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911 says "Pop. more than 250,000, of which fully a half is Greek") are distorted for various reasons -- different definitions, political preferences, etc. Unless we find some good evidence that one figure is more reliable than the other, we need to include the whole range, and cite the specific sources. --Macrakis 03:29, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to jump and agree with Macrakis here. Merging the articles is alright though and makes sense. As for deleting figures just because one doesn't like them, please give a reason as to their inaccuracy please. Not going to hold my breath on that one. Including multiple sources simply lends more nuance to the article and giving a range is often a better way to go when there is no exact certainty. Tombseye 06:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

"Smyrna" and "Izmir": same place, different subjects

Smyrna and Izmir are one and the same place, but two different subjects, and I would be against merging. Without going into who-first-massacred-whom debates: Smyrna once was a largely Greek city on the coast of Asia Minor, Izmir now is a modern Turkish city. The story of Smyrna ended in 1922; but until then it had its own story, and that story is worth telling in its own right. To take a different, less emotional case: because the modern city of New York eventually absorbed and in effect replaced the old Dutch city of New Amsterdam, should New Amsterdam as a subject in its own right be wiped out? Wikipedia has entries for both NY and New Amsterdam, and nobody appears to be complaining... Charadras 22:21, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Constantinople and Istanbul Chaldean 06:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I really wonder where you obtain the information from that Smyrna once was a Greek city. Izmir or with its ancient name 'Smyrna' had never been a Greek city but Turkish, either in Ottoman with its large Anotolian Greek (Rum) population or in modern Turkey. The modern state of Greece itself came into existence on 25 March 1831 after 400 years of Ottoman rule. ..A Guest at the moment..

Occupation?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Smyrna had a Greek majority before the 1919 war? If so, then how can you occupy your own people? Chaldean 02:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I suggest a name like "Smyrna during Greco-Turkish war". The name of the city was called Smyrna in 1922 right? Man, the POV on Greek-Turkish pages have become unreal. Chaldean 03:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

The Occupation of İzmir (Smyrna) by Greek army on May 15th 1919 officially belong to Ottoman Empire and its position proposed to be deletermined after a referandum on which never been on effect Treaty of Sèvres. Between May 15th [[1919] to Sevres there were 15 months, which gives more support to the concept as being an occupation. This is a military terminology. It works like this, you occupay a place, and then you leave a place. Seige of Smyrna would be appropriate if greek armies had managed to hold their position, or capture at the end of the conflict. Please do not take this as a POV; I belive there are real POV's that needs your help. :-) --OttomanReference 21:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

So was it offically called Izmir in 1922? Chaldean 03:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

What were these events referred to at the time by Western media/governments? By non-Western media/governments? Trantellinas 23:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)Trantellinas

First paragraph

The first paragraph of this article is really hard to read and understand, can someone with knowledge of this issue fix it? I would try but half the time I don't understand what it's trying to say. --Awiseman 05:48, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for name change

The present title is erronous and misleading since it gives the impression that only İzmir was occupied by the Greek army between 1919 and 1922, which is very far from being the case. I suggest a change of name towards "The Greek occupation of Western Anatolia (1919-1922)" covering aspects of the time and the circumstances that fall outside the scope of the battles and the political developments. Cretanforever

Hmmm. when i saw your edit summary, i thought u had requested another rename of the article. of course, the name to be used should apply to the whole central western Anatolia, but i do not think that the term should include the word 'Occupation'. Greece administered the area in the name of the sultan (that's why the ottoman flags remained in the city), under an international treaty (Treaty of Sèvres), with an expiring time of some years (when a referendum would take place about the future status of the region), and, additionally, a region with a Greek majority. Thus, a title including the word 'occupation' simply expresses the modern turkish pov. (note that Ottoman Greece was not renamed into 'Ottoman Occupation' although it has all the potential to have this title and despite attempts made by some users). Hectorian 14:41, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I added POV-title tag, as per my comment above. Hectorian 17:27, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We must find a non-POV name. To illustrate to our eastern friends how pov this title sounds, the other extreme would be Temporary liberation of Smyrna (although not very arguable, since the majority of the population was Greek). •NikoSilver• 19:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but Greece occupied Izmir before the Treaty of Sevres was signed, over a year before in fact, it is commonly reffered to as an occupation, not only by Greece, but by Britain, France and Italy also. --A.Garnet 20:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't excuse you. You can't occupy your own. You can only liberate your own. What this article needs is a non-POV title. We'll come up with one shortly, but the present one won't do. •NikoSilver• 20:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your own!? what made Izmir - a territory of the Ottoman Empire for over 700 years - your own? You cannot invade a city of another nation, and claim it is your own on historical or ethnic roots. There are international treaties which govern who owns what, and Izmir was the Ottoman Empires, and Greece occupied it while it was still the Ottoman Empires. --A.Garnet 20:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Your own people, that is. Land is worthless without anyone on it you know... •NikoSilver• 22:12, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

According to which treaty exactly, did the Ottoman Empire get Izmir? The majority of the population was Greek, so u cannot say that 'the Greeks occupied Greeks'... makes no sense. btw, if we are about to talk according to how the other nations name the events, we can also say who the other nations blame for the Fire... And also, Turkey occupied Izmir before the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne, so it was also an occupation. Hectorian 20:52, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Its been rewritten and its sourced. I'm waiting for a sane reason why the article should not be named occupation of Izmir, and i really mean a sane reason. Saying we 'owned' it, or 'According to which treaty exactly, did the Ottoman Empire get Izmir' does not cut it. --A.Garnet 21:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It was a reply to your comment There are international treaties which govern who owns what, and Izmir was the Ottoman Empires... So, not so... According to your logic, we can rename Ottoman Greece into 'Ottoman occupation of Greece' and also TRNC into 'Turkish Occupied Northern Cyprus' and also 'Turkish Occupation of Bulgaria', etc... For the period the Greeks were in Izmir, the official head of state was the sultan, and the ottoman flags remained in the city, so, just according to the treaty of Serves, it was under greek administration, bounded by a referendum that would take place after 5 years. btw, from 1922-1923, Turks of Kemal occupied Izmir, since no treaty had been signed so far, so, officially, they were an occupation army. And a question (cause i really am not aware of): when Smyrni was officially renamed to Izmir? cause maybe the previous name should be used... for historical reasons. Hectorian 21:59, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh please Hectorian, you can't be serious. Of course what Greece did in 1919 was an occupation. Which is an absolutely neutral term denoting the military act, by the way. And there's absolutely no sense disputing the legitimacy of the Ottoman sovereignty over its territory before 1919. (The Ottoman Empire had acquired that sovereignty by right of conquest, which was traditionally regarded as a legitimate title in pre-modern times, but ceased to be so in the 20th century). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

How about turkish presence in Izmir in 1922-1923? the ottoman empire was disolved and the treaty of lauzanne had not been signed yet... Hectorian 22:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

And how do you call the lifting of this right of conquest? Surely the (Greek) inhabitants of Smyrni regarded it as liberation from this right of conquest didn't they? Look, I'm not pushing for Temporary liberation of Smyrna, but occupation (no matter how military) and of Ismir are two pov terms for the period and for the composition of the population back then. Will you at least allow me to elaborate on a term that presents Greeks as something less than conquerors? •NikoSilver• 22:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just because the issue of the name was also addressed here: I can see no reason to doubt that "Izmir" was always the Turkish name, for as long as Turks have known the city. Why would they invent a new name later, just like that? I don't know if the Ottoman state had any concept of "official placenames" at all, but why would they use anything other than Izmir? Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:25, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

A town is called as its people call it (primarily). In WP, we use the official name (primarily) or the most common English name. Lacking a source for an official name, no matter what the (minority) Ottomans there called it, we'll have to use the one its people used. And that is Smyrna. •NikoSilver• 22:39, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Take a step back...

..., and before we go on fighting about the title, let's ask ourselves the question:

Do we need this page at all?

There's currently a big "history" section giving a pretty good treatment of the occupations (both, that is), in the Izmir article. There's also treatment of the same issues in Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). If I'm not mistaken, none of those articles properly marks it as a summary-section-plus-{mainarticle}. And a lot of the present page here is concerned with speaking of the "background", i.e. things that are only indirectly related to the topic and are really part of the Greco-Turkish War topic as a whole.

I say, if the title of this article is now so controversial, why don't we simply merge it into the two others and all go on with our lives? Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

• Aye. Very reasonable. •NikoSilver• 12:45, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
• Evet - Good proposal.--Tekleni 13:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is Fut. this articles title is not controversial, they would like to make you think it is, but it is not. The occupation of izmir is a very notable part of Izmirs history, especially the role it played in allowing Greece to further invade Anatolia, and it has potential to be explained in far more detail than one day of editing allowed me to do. It is no more controversial than Turkish Invasion of Cyprus, or US Invasion of Iraq, if anything it is far more clear cut than either of those. I'll make this clear, if a credible reason for the articles dispute tag doesnt appear within two days then i'll remove it myself, so far none have been provided. --A.Garnet 13:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seems to be attested in literature. I can't see any alternative names being proposed so I'll remove the tag. - Francis Tyers · 13:25, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the Temporary liberation of Smyrna, to see the contrast. NPOV Alternatives:

• Greek administration of Smyrna
• Smyrna under Greece
• Greek period of Smyrna

Now, compare that to Occupation of Izmir (Google scholar: only 12 hits- some irrelevant). Personally, I prefer the first one, but still support Fut.Perf's proposal. i.e. de{{main}} the article until A.Garnet manages to make it substantial enough to exist on its own and not be characterized as a WP:POVFORK. •NikoSilv >er• 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Seconded.--Tekleni 14:07, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Greek occupation of Western Anatolia, 1919-1922

Aristidis Stergiadis (you know Aristidis!) was the Greek High-Commissioner for...Ionia, right? Cretanforever

Quite surprised that u know one of the most enigmatic figures in Greek history, Cretanforever:). So, as u probably know, he was the only official (high or low ranked) that stayed in his place after the return of Constantine XII (supposendly, he would be the first one to be removed from his place...). He attracted the anger of the Greek nationalists cause he was rather strinct in the area of his administration, serving the law equally for Greeks and Turks (there are cases recorded of him severely punishing Greeks). And, very importantly, upon the Smyrni Catastrophe, he was taken in an english ship, sailed to britain and never came back in Greece... Hectorian 12:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That was not my point. At the very beginning of the occupation (in the neutral sense), he was appointed High Commissioner not for İzmir (or Smyrna, Smirni whatever), but for Ionia, which covers already covers a larger than a single locality, and already slightly inland. And that was Greek terminology, and as of the first months, the traditionally perceived boundaries of Ionia was left way behind.

Articles such as this should be very strict in the definition they propose with their title. Who occupied, where and when (during which period)?. Here are two articles that could be taken as examples.

United States occupation of Veracruz, 1914
German occupation of Czechoslovakia

The first one is a rather simple affair. The U.S. did not venture further than Vera Cruz, period! The second is more like the case here in its intricacy, because there was a questionable international agreement as basis, a German community in the then Czechoslovakia, who for the most part may not have seen Germany's thrust into the country as a negative affair.

p.s. I didn't know that Stergiadis had sailed away to Britain, I had always wondered what had become of him -seriously-, thanks for the info. By the way, for those in the know, he is remembered as a just administrator this side too, despite the circustances. He is in the list for governors of İzmir:), although the article isn't written yet. [1]

I can see where that is going, and I don't disagree! •NikoSilver• 20:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Cretanforever, Western Anatolia is a very large area, larger than modern day Greece... The Greek army never gained control of all of that area. Of course, according to the city of Sevres, it was not only Smyrni given to Greece, but also its environs and an inland area of approximately 17,000 sq. km. Until late 1920 the greek army did not advance further to those boundaries, apart from minor scale operations against the tsetes, 4-10 km inland, and always coming back in the given area.even later, after the return of the king, the greek army advanced only in the northern half of western anatolia (the area around the straits excluded, as it was under de jure international control (de facto under british control, i guess)... So, more or less the greek army controlled the traditional region of Ionia (see the map and compare it to the one in the Treaty of Sèvres.

As for the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, i consider it a bad example...

About Stergiades, he is considered in Greece as a dark historical figure... He made it to preserve peace in the area of his administration, but it is remarkable why wasn't he removed from his place after king Constantine returned... also, why he sailed to Britain... Sometimes we see him as a man with extraordinary abilities, some other times as a foreign spy... (an article about him would be very interesting, however i doubt if i can find much info...). Regards Hectorian 21:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I still don't disagree. We could merge this article to a larger one called Greek administration of Ionia, 1919-1922. •NikoSilver• 22:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I would agree to that. Hectorian 22:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Tagged

There are 2 or 3 tags appropriate for this article, but one will suffice for now.

• This article is a WP:POVFORK which was {{main}}ed out of Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922) without any real reason:
  • Virtually all of the article serves to show the background and result (illustrated analytically in the mother article)
  • The summary section of this article in the mother article is almost identical to the actual content of this one. The only additional content is ONE paragraph, namely Occupation of Smyrna#Occupation! (not to mention about its selective content)
  • There is no {{main}} template in the mother article (for obvious reasons), despite the fact that the original edit stated "moved from Greco-Turkish War to have its own page" [2]
  • There is hardly any academic reference to this period (Google scholar: only 12 hits- some irrelevant)
    • The article should be merged to Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922), or the title should be expanded to include Ionia; not only Smyrna

• The title of the article, although a military term, is largely POV, because:
  • it is anachronistic since the city was officially named "Izmir" later; should be "Smyrna"
  • it is a paradox; an army does not "occupy" a city if the majority of population is of same ethnicity; it "liberates" it.
    • So compare the existing title to Temporary liberation of Smyrna to see the contrast of the two POV's. A more NPOV term should be used, to bridge those two extremes.

Kindly discuss/revise before I move for merger/deletion. Thanks. •NikoSilver• 00:16, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already did that. Let's see what the other users think. •NikoSilver• 00:46, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How about we change the name to "Greek Administration of Smyrna 1919-1922." This seems totally POV. We should defeinetely use the name Smyrna as Izmir is anachronistic.- Alexius Comnenus

Thankfully I don't have this page on my watchlist.

---

• Revolution and War - Page 301 by Stephen M. Walt - Political Science - 1997 "... but it was the Greek occupation of Smyrna that was most responsible for inspiring the Nationalist movement in Turkey.109 As the resistance grew, ..."

• International Law Reports - Page 495 by Elihu (EDT) Lauterpacht, C. J. Greenwood, H. Lauterpacht - 1995 - 776 pages "During the occupation of Smyrna by the Greek army from May, 1919, to September, 1922, the Greek authorities made extensive use of the docks for the loading ..."

• The Near East in Modern Times - Page 55 by George Georgiades Arnakis, Wayne S. Vucinich - 1969 "The national movement,"says Arnold J. Toynbee,* "was born at that time: and while Mustafa Kemal Pasha was its leader, the Greek occupation of Smyrna was its ..."

• A History of the Peace Conference of Paris - Page 72 by Royal Institute of International Affairs - 1920 "Thus the occupation of Smyrna by Greek troops in May 1919 was immediately felt over more than half Anatolia. The Turks, realizing that it portended the ..."

• Victimized Daughters: Incest and the Development of the Female Self - Page 52 by Janet Liebman Jacobs - Self-help - 1994 - 209 pages "... gave an impassioned speech on May 20, 1919 against the Greek occupation of Smyrna, she emphasized how “we women will be the leaders in this holy war for ..."

• British Foreign Policy, 1919-1939 - Page 70 by Paul W. Doerr - 1998 - 224 pages "The Greek occupation of Smyrna was to continue for five years, at the end of which a plebiscite would decide the fate of the area. ..."

• Istanbul Under Allied Occupation, 1918-1923 - Page 159 by Nur Bilge Criss, Bilge Criss - 1999 - 178 pages "stated “The situation in the interior, due practicaly entirely to the Greek occupation of Smyrna, is getting more hazy and unsettled. ..."

• Turkey And Greece: The Aegean Disputes - Page 17 by Ahmet Deniz Bölükbaşı, Deniz Bölükbasi - Law - 2004 - 1120 pages "... which led to the Greek occupation of Smyrna (now known as Izmir) in 1919 "and subsequently the entire ..."

• Versailles and After 1919-1933 - Page 27 by Ruth Beatrice Henig - 1995 - 96 pages "The Greeks were to continue their occupation of Smyrna and would receive some Turkish Aegean islands and eastern Thrace. Kurdistan was to become autonomous ..."

• A World History of Our Own Times - Page 58 by Quincy Howe - 1949 "He let Italy have the Austrian Tyrol. He permitted the Japanese to remain in Shantung Province. He sanctioned the Greek occupation of Smyrna. ..."

• The Lights That Failed: European International History 1919-1933 - Page 91 by Zara S. Steiner - 2005 - 938 pages "There was to be a temporary occupation of Smyrna by an inter-Allied though mainly

... The occupation of Smyrna on 15 May 1920 proved a disaster for Greece; ..."

• Mudros to Lausanne: Britain's Frontier in West Asia, 1918-1923 - Page 162 by Briton Cooper. Busch - Political Science - 1976 - 430 pages "... Iv Slack Tide: Turkey, 19 19-1920 The Greek occupation of Smyrna in May 1919 altered the coune of Middle Eastern history. From the very first, ..."

• Three Master Builders and Another: Studies in Modern Revolutionary and Liberal Statesmanship ... - Page 241 by Pelham Horton Box - 1925 - 395 pages "The work was realized in stages ; the occupation of Smyrna took place on I5th May 1919, and was due to the fear of France, England and the United States, ..."

• Warfare and Society in Europe: 1898 To the Present - Page 88 by Michael S. Neiberg - 2004 "... Kemal used those Soviet arms to lead a campaign against the Greek occupation of Smyrna and its hinterland. The Greek army's 150000 men in Anatolia soon ..."

• The Islamic World in Decline: From the Treaty of Karlowitz to the Disintergration of the Ottoman Empire - Page 223 by Martin Sicker - History - 2000 - 264 pages "As observed by the British naval commander in the Mediterranean, “the Greek occupation of Smyrna has stimulated a Turkish patriotism probably more real than ..."

---

To be honest I think we'd much better go for Occupation of Smyrna, as that is the most common name (google books/scholar). - Francis Tyers · 08:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding "Greek Administration of Smyrna", the name is vastly less used than "Occupation of Smyrna". - Francis Tyers · 08:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

And yes there are plenty more sources where those came from, and yes I think you would have a case for adding dates after, e.g. (19?? - 19??) - Francis Tyers · 11:35, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the title (which is not the only issue here), what about we merge it into Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922). What does this article really have in terms of unique content? I only see a segment of 4-5 lines in Occupation of Izmir#Occupation of highly selective (therefore) POV material. Can't we have these few lines merged into the main article? Do we have any academic source dealing explicitly with this period, or are we improvising again? I have withdrawn the AfD, see my comments there. •NikoSilver• 12:46, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

The material in this article, while unbalanced is actually better than in the other article. (Talking specifically about the 'Occupation' section, not the rest). - Francis Tyers · 13:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was worse (but unballanced is something like that). I said it's too little. Let's put it back there and if we make it of significant content, then we can discuss about {{main}}ing it out [sic] again. •NikoSilver• 13:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I think Cretanforever had an interesting suggestion to extend the articles scope to Greek Occupation of Asia Minor to vouch for the fact that the Greek army was not just in Izmir but also the surrounding towns and villages. What do you all think? Also as i said on the afd i do not mind renaming to Occupation of Smynra. --A.Garnet 15:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference

The full reference for the Jensen paper is:

• Peter Kincaid Jensen "The Greco-Turkish War, 1920-1922" in International Journal of Middle East Studies, Vol. 10, No. 4 (Nov., 1979), pp. 553-565

Can someone update it ? - Francis Tyers · 13:01, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Photograph

Would this photograph be in the public domain? - Francis Tyers · 13:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this one? "Manifestation contre l'occupation d'Izmir par les forces grecques" (Demonstration against the occupation of Izmir by Greek forces). - Francis Tyers · 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Would be good to have these two no? One from each POV, celebration and demonstration :) - Francis Tyers · 13:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merge

See Talk:Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)#Proposed merge. •NikoSilver• 13:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Great fire of Smyrna

This section definitely needs expansion and analysis. Personally, I belive it is POV, but, besides that, it is too stubby and does not give the adequate information for this historical event.--Yannismarou 13:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

POV Title?

why is there a POV title tag? --AW 16:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What about it? Armanalp 19:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

What's POV about it? The city was occupied. What's non-neutral point of view about that? --AW 20:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Occupied, liberated... these are points of view. Certainly, the majority of the population of the city viewed the city as liberators, as most of the city was Greek. -Alexius Comnenus

Alexi, why not create an account? It has many advantages and absolutely no disadvantage. Click here to see WP:WHY!! •NikoSilver• 10:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Not the majority but 30% were Christians (including Greeks)--Hattusili 10:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, in that case I think Occupation is more neutral. It's certainly more neutral than Invasion of... --AW 22:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Now biased against Turks

The article had been biased in favor of the Turks, but now it seems to have swung the other way. For example "Smyrna, the largest city in Asia Minor, a cosmopolitan hub populated by a highly educated Greek community and flourishing commercial and middle classes, was sacked and burned and its inhabitants massacred by the Turkish forces of Kemal Attaturk". Can't we all just agree to make it an even-handed article which gives the various points of view? We're all adults here. --AW 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up the Turkish recapture section, I think it's pretty even-handed now. --AW 22:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

U are right about that particular part. However, i have to point out some other facts, biased against the Greeks: The occupation proved a humiliation for many of the Turkish and Muslim inhabitants, The Christian crowd rages and yells… Many fall under the bayonet thrusts, ...the worst outrage for a Mohammedan – all who refuse are cut down with the sword, The mob begins to plunder the house of the Mohammedan, It has been alleged that Turkish soldiers killed and raped Greeks who remained in Smyrna after the Greek soldiers left Smyrna, the Turks will be plundered and burnt out of house and home, However, the Greek retreat did leave wide tracts of the surrounding land in ruins, leaving the population of Smyrna close to starvation, It is estimated some 3,000 lives had been lost in the burning of Alaşehir alone... Note that most of these come from biographers of Kemal Ataturk, with Kinross alone being quoted three times. as a counter balance, i would suggest a more extensive usage of Horton as source. apropos, he can't be considered less neutral than Kinross, moreover, he had lived in the city of Smyrni for long, unlike Kinross (plus, he had no kind of relations with Greek leaders, unlike Kinross). Lastly, if we are about to talk about mistreatment of the Turkish or Muslim population of the city by the Greeks, i am ready to provide numerous eye-witness accounts, who, having nothing to do with political motivations, could be considered quite valuable, rather than someone who was quest of Kemal in order to write his biography... Just a small part of what these accounts of Greek refugees say: a harbor that looked like land, full of Greek bodies (this is verified by the French ambassandor, i will search for the reference), priests crucified inside churches, boys and girls raped in the άβατον (the holiest part of a church), thousands of Greeks gathered in cemeteries (because they was the only places that the Turks were "afraid" to get in), men and women and children locked in schools, houses and churches, which were later set on fire), and many more, that i'd rather not to talk about right now cause its late... These accounts are relevant, important, undisputed (unless someone believes that thousands of refugees lied, and that the greek newspapers and radio stations were till the '50s full of thousands of notes and appeals for info about missing people every day, just because we are "nationalists") and certainly is room for them in the article, having in mind the sentences refering to the "Greek murderers". Regards Hectorian 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)