Talk:Battle of Dumlupınar

HELLO??? HOW MANY MEN?????
This article implies that ALL THE AVAILABLE STRENGTH of the Greek Army + Some 100,000 more???? participated in the battle??? The Greek Army had a total of 12 divisions (maximum 180,000) in Asia Minor and they never fought all together, some of them were just occupation forces. I doubt that even half of them were engaged in August 1922! 60,000 is a much more accurate number. That said, probably the Turkish number is an exageration too. Please correct —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

There is 30,000 men in a division so going by your figure of 12 divisions it amounts up to 360,000 men and this seems about right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tugrulirmak (talk • contribs) 20:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment
In the Results section, the sentence "After losing battles at western Anatolia in a row, a few months later the Greek army left Eastern Thrace to the Turks as well, without any combat." fails to mention the important Armistice of Mudanya. In it, eastern Thrace up to the Maritsa River and the city of Adrianople were handed by Greece to Turkey along with recognition of Turkish sovereignty of Istanbul and the Straits at Chanak, which were later finalized at the Conference of Lausanne. --Xenophonos 16:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

This part does not make any sense.
"The Greek front line ran West-East along difficult hilly ground, easily defensible, with high hills called tepes rising out of broken terrain."

I'm guessing the term "tepe" here is referring to the Turkish word "tepe", which means hill. The word in Turkish is not used to describe a particular kind of hill. Technically, the term used for an elevated landscape which has a peak with an elevation less than 500 metres (anything higher is reffered to as a mountain).

Number of Greece Army
In total, the number of the soldiers in Greece Army was 300.000 whereas the number of the soldiers in Turkish army was around 200.000. However, in this article, the number of the Greece Soldiers is shown as 60.000 and it is totally wrong.

After Venizelos had completed his efforts to justify the Greek operations, Clemenceau once more reminded him, "Greece had had a mandate from the Conference and had not kept within the limits of that mandate." He asked Venizelos, "What would happen if the Turkish attacks should increase and if Greece could, without the support of her allies, make the necessary military and financial effort until such time when the country would be completely pacified." Venizelos replied, "Greece had an army of 12 divisions with 325,000 men, an army stronger than it was at the time of the Armistice. Mustafa Kemal had only 70,000 men".

Source: Documents on British Foreign Policy, First Series, Vol. I. London, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1974 -- Dandanakan 16:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed the numbers to 200,000 against 100,000(approx.). I also changed the casualties of the Turkish side because it was totally wrong(80,000). Turkish side maybe lost 40,000(maximum) soldiers in the whole Indipendence war. With respect, Deliogul 20:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Please cite your sources.

Huh? A Greek army of 300.00? That is insane, Greece had less than 200.000 troops in Asia Minor! AlexiosComenos

Results?

 * I think author of results section pushing POV. Burning of Izmir (Smyrna) should be cited. As far as I know, city is burned because of the chaos caused by running Greek soldiers (some historians claim that it is an accident caused by a Greek that paniced, some claim that Greeks delibrately burned the city). In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to burn a city that you conquered so claiming that Turks burned the city do not make sense. Neutrality of this article is disputed and a reviewal is required.Ugur Olgun 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Author was :87.203.238.83 Ugur Olgun 19:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

because the lack of referances to massacre and burning by Turks.Ugur Olgun 19:19, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * "The Turks chased the fleeing Greeks 250 miles to Izmir, which was burned by the Turkish forces as the Greek army and civilian population fled or were massacred." changed to "The Turks chased the fleeing Greeks 250 miles to Izmir, which was burned as the Greek army and civilian population fled."


 * There are different theories as to who started the fire. One of them is that Turkish soldiers started the fire in the Armenian and Greek quarters of the city, see Great Fire of Smyrna for more details. Anyways, we don't know for sure so I agree that it's better not to not point fingers at anyone in the article, and just say "the fire started". &mdash; Khoikhoi 19:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * In history, a great many cities have been razed after they were conquered by some of the most brilliant generals in history. So while it might not make sense to some people, there is a form of rationality behind such acts; especially if that city is occupied by a different ethnic group.  --Xenophonos 18:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Such as? Armanalp 18:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Xenophonos, Turks were "retaking" the town, not conquering it. Izmir owned by Turks last 600 years, why would one burn his own town? Can you give any example of burnt down towns which are not "conquered" but "taken back"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.212.101.68 (talk) 08:59, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Image
I was at Dumlupinar yesterday - the image in the article does not show Dumlupinar, but probably the Sakkarya battlefield memorial. Dumlupinar memorial is on a hill and shows a soldier holding a rifle with bayonet. --5telios 19:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The casualties must be written by a retarded
100,000 casualties Lol Not even close not even in the whole war.Get your head straight with the propaganda.

POWs, POWs. Many were take as prisoners by the turks. Only "a few" were killed.


 * The citation is from a Turkish page which i can't understand.It seems to me a complete exaggeration in both strength and casualties.The whole greek army (combatants and non combatants-logistic agencies) weren't nowhere near 200,000 in any part of the war in the whole Anatolia.Can someone translate to me in which facts the Turkish page bases it's calculation;Thanks in advanceEagle of Pontus 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Naming and Strength issues
There is an inconsistency in the naming of the article. Battle of Dumlupınar is the name of the engagement which happened on 30 August 1922. It is the most critical engagement of the whole operation (where the Greek units which were push back from their fortifications in Afyon sector into the open Dumlupınar valley, were destroyed) but it is only a part of it. It can be better to call it Great Turkish Offensive starting at 26 August 1922 and ending at 18 September 1922. I do not know how to change the naming of an article. I will check out. Also there is a problem for strength issues. I do not have the sources at hand right now but all the sources I have checked until this time gives something around 180-200 thousand for total Turkish strength in the operation. Generally Greek strength is just 5-10% higher than the Turkish strength in these sources. Thus given Greek strength seems reasonably if all the operation is considered. 60000 for Turkish strength can be acceptable only for Dumlupınar engagement on 30 August, but there is no possibility to have all Greek army there. That number must be around 30-40 thousand at most. I will edit the Turkish strength when I can check the sources. I will put the number for all operation. Celeboz 09:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * could someone who reads Turkish better than I explain what it is the site at http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr/taarruz1.htm is actually referencing as there is no mention of Dumlupinar on the page at all. The site has recently been used to justify the 200,000 each troop strengths in the info box --5telios 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

@Stelios Because Battle of Dumlupinar = Büyük Taarruz (Great Assault) --Babaeski 17:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The naming is misleading. THe turkish general attack of August 1922 was an operation divided in several battles. The term "Battle of Dumlupinar" is not used in greek, and is very constraining. A more generic name like "Büyük Taarruz (Great Assault)" would indeed be better.--Xristar (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

aftermath
Given that the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Smyrna leaves the question open I propose to keep the passive voice in the present article. In any case, the section references the Great Fire article. It is pointless to repeat here all arguments listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Smyrna#Arguments_claiming_Greek_or_Armenian_responsibility. It is even more pointless to enter into an edit war. --5telios (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Naming issue
As stated above, the article does not correspond to it's title. While, apparently, by the term "Battle of Dumlupinar" turkish historiography reffers to what the greek one calls "Battle of Ali Veran" (corrupted form of "Aloren"), the article's contents reffer to the turkish Great Attack ("Büyük Taarruz") in general as an operation. Should we limit the article's contents to the events of 30 August or keep it as is, and change it's title? By the way, strickly regarding the greek troops under Trikoupis who fought in Aloren valley on 30 August, they were some 7,000 combatants and 15,000 non-combatants. When retreating from the field in the night of August 30/31, Greek forces abandoned all killed and injured (who couldn't move) behind. Turkish forces counted a total of some 2,000 killed Greeks on the battlefield. --Xristar (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Battle of Dumlupınar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701005621/http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr/taarruzsonuc.htm to http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr/taarruzsonuc.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826183607/http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr:80/taarruz1.htm to http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr/taarruz1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 15:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

"decisive" in infobox
The use of terms such as "decisive" is expressly deprecated per Template:Infobox military conflict, which says of the "result" field this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive". The term used is for the "immediate" outcome of the "subject" conflict and should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link or note should be made to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the Aftermath section"). Such a note can also be used in conjunction with the standard terms but should not be used to conceal an ambiguity in the "immediate" result. Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". I have once again removed it. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Not Stepping on Flag
Ataturk refusing to step on a Greek flag doesn't have anything to do with a battle that took place some two hundred kilometers away and two weeks previously. Ybediz (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)