World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Greco-Turkish War (1919–22)

Greco-Turkish War of 1920–1922
(Interwar period)
Part of the Turkish War of Independence

Trench warfare during the Greco-Turkish War
Date May 1919 – October 1922
Location West Anatolia

Decisive[1][2][3] Turkish victory

Lands initially ceded to Greece from the Ottoman Empire are incorporated into the Republic of Turkey

Grand National Assembly

Material support:
Soviet Russia[4]
 Kingdom of Greece
Armenian volunteers[5]
 United Kingdom
Commanders and leaders
Mustafa Kemal Pasha
Fevzi Pasha
İsmet Pasha
Fahrettin Pasha
Kemalettin Sami Pasha
Yörük Ali Efe
Yusuf Izzet Pasha
Mehmet Arif Pasha
Mehmet Nazım Pasha
Mehmet Atıf Pasha
Ali Fuat Pasha
Çerkez Ethem
Muhittin Pasha
Nazif Pasha
Cevat Pasha
Cemil Pasha
Naci Pasha
Mümtaz Pasha
Kazım Pasha
Osman Nuri Pasha
Münip Pasha
Süleyman Pasha
Rüştü Pasha
Şefik Pasha
Eleftherios Venizelos
Konstantinos Nider
Konstantinos Miliotis-Komninos
Leonidas Paraskevopoulos
Dimitrios Gounaris
Anastasios Papoulas
Georgios Hatzianestis
Nikolaos Trikoupis
Georgios Polymenakos

1919: 5,000[6][1]
June 1920: 15,000[7]
January 1921: 50,000[8]
August 1921: 92,000[9]
August 1922: 208,000 men[9]

May 1919: 15,000[12]
April 1920: 90,000[13]
January 1921: 100,000[8]
June 1921: 200,000[14]
1922: 215,000[15][16]

Armenian volunteers: 2,500 (1922)[5]
Casualties and losses
Regular army:
9,167 killed[18]
2,474 died of wounds or non-combat causes[18]
31,097 wounded[18]
11,150 missing
6,522 prisoners[19]**
24,240 killed [21]
18,095 missing
48,880 wounded
4,878 died outside of combat
~13,740 prisoners*[22]
  • according to Turkish sources 20,826 Greek prisoners were taken. Of those about 740 officers and 13,000 soldiers arrived in Greece during the prisoner exchange in 1923. The rest presumably died in captivity and are listed among the "missing".[23]
    **Greece took 22,071 military and civilian prisoners. Of those were 520 officers and 6,002 soldiers. During the prisoner exchange in 1923, 329 officers, 6,002 soldiers and 9,410 civilian prisoners arrived in Turkey. The remaining 6,330, mostly civilian prisoners, presumably died in Greek captivity.[24]
  • The Turkish Grand National Assembly was opened in 1920.
  • Kuva-yi Milliye operated independently between 1919–20 until it was put under the control of the Grand National Assembly.

The Greco-Turkish War of 1919–1922, known as the Western Front (Turkish: Batı Cephesi) of the Turkish War of Independence in Turkey and the Asia Minor Campaign (Greek: Μικρασιατική Εκστρατεία) or the Asia Minor Catastrophe (Greek: Μικρασιατική Καταστροφή) in Greece, was fought between Greece and the Turkish National Movement during the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire after World War I between May 1919 and October 1922.

The Greek campaign was launched primarily as the western Ottoman Empire. The armed conflict started with the Greek occupation of Smyrna, which is contemporary Izmir, on 15 May 1919, and Greek forces occupied several other cities in Anatolia during the war, including Manisa, Balıkesir, Aydin, Kütahya, Bursa, and Eskişehir, but their advance was checked at the Battle of Sakarya in 1921. The Greek front collapsed with the Turkish counter-attack on August 1922 and the war effectively ended with the re-capture of Smyrna by the Turkish forces.

As a result, the Greek government accepted the demands of the Turkish national movement and returned to its pre-war borders, thus leaving East Thrace and Western Anatolia to Turkey. The Turkish victory also brought an end to the Occupation of Constantinople by the British forces. Greek and Turkish governments agreed to engage in a population exchange.

Failure of the Greek military campaign and the expulsion of the French military from Cilicia in Anatolia forced the Allies to abandon the Treaty of Sèvres to negotiate a new treaty at Lausanne with the Turkish National Movement. The Treaty of Lausanne recognized the independence of the Republic of Turkey and its sovereignty over Asia Minor, Constantinople, and Eastern Thrace.


  • Background 1
    • Geopolitical context 1.1
    • The Greek community in Anatolia 1.2
    • Greek nationalism 1.3
    • The National Schism in Greece 1.4
  • Greek expansion 2
    • Landing at Smyrna (May 1919) 2.1
    • Greek summer offensives (Summer 1920) 2.2
    • Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920) 2.3
    • Greek advance (October 1920) 2.4
    • Change in Greek government (November 1920) 2.5
    • Battles of İnönü (December 1920 – March 1921) 2.6
    • Shift of support towards Turkish Revolutionaries 2.7
    • Battle of Afyonkarahisar-Eskişehir (July 1921) 2.8
    • Battle of Sakarya (August and September 1921) 2.9
    • Stalemate (September 1921 – August 1922) 2.10
  • Turkish counter-attack 3
    • Dumlupınar 3.1
    • Turkish advance on Smyrna 3.2
    • Chanak Crisis 3.3
  • Resolution 4
    • Factors contributing to the outcome 4.1
  • Atrocities and claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides 5
    • Greek massacres of Turks 5.1
    • Greek scorched-earth policy 5.2
    • Turkish massacres of Greeks and Armenians 5.3
  • See also 6
  • Notes 7
    • References 7.1
    • Bibliography 7.2
  • External links 8


Geopolitical context

Map of Megali Idea

The geopolitical context of this conflict is linked to the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire which was a direct consequence of World War I and involvement of the Ottomans in the Middle Eastern theatre. The Greeks received an order to land in Smyrna by the Triple Entente as part of the partition. During this war, the Ottoman government collapsed completely and the Ottoman Empire was divided amongst the victorious Entente powers with the signing of the Treaty of Sèvres on August 10, 1920.

There were a number of secret agreements regarding the partitioning of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I. The Triple Entente had made contradictory promises about post-war arrangements concerning Greek hopes in Asia Minor.[25]

At the

  • .

External links

  • Fromkin, David (1990). A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East. New York: Avon Books
  • .
  • .
  • (Commission interalliée d'enquête sur l'occupation grecque de Smyrne).
  • .
  • .
  • .
  • .


  1. ^ According to John R. Ferris, "Decisive Turkish victory in Anatolia... produced Britain's gravest strategic crisis between the 1918 Armistice and Munich, plus a seismic shift in British politics..." Erik Goldstein and Brian McKerche, Power and Stability: British Foreign Policy, 1865–1965, 2004 p. 139
  2. ^ A. Strahan claimed that: "The internationalisation of Constantinople and the Straits under the aegis of the League of Nations, feasible in 1919, was out of the question after the complete and decisive Turkish victory over the Greeks". A. Strahan, Contemporary Review, 1922.
  3. ^ N. B. Criss, Istanbul Under Allied Occupation, 1918–1923, 1999, p. 143. "In 1922, after the decisive Turkish victory over the Greeks, 40,000 troops moved towards Gallipoli."
  4. ^ a b c d
  5. ^ a b Ραμαζιάν Σ., Ιστορία τών Άρμενο – Έλληνικών στρατιωτικών σχεσεων καί συνεργασίας, Αθήνα, 2010. Ռամազյան Ս., Հայ-հունական ռազմական առնչությունների և համագործակցության պատմություն, Աթենք, 2010, pp. 200–201, 208-209; see The attempts of the Greek-Armenian Co-operation during the Armenian Genocide (1915–1923) by Gevorg Vardanyan
  6. ^ Kuva-yi Milliye.
  7. ^
  8. ^ a b
  9. ^ a b c d e .
  10. ^ a b
  11. ^ a b .
  12. ^
  13. ^ .
  14. ^
  15. ^ .
  16. ^
  17. ^
  18. ^ a b c Sabahattin Selek: Millî mücadele - Cilt I (engl.: National Struggle - Edition I), Burçak yayınevi, 1963, page 109 (Turkish)
  19. ^
  20. ^ .
  21. ^ Σειρά Μεγάλες Μάχες: Μικρασιατική Καταστροφή (Νο 8), συλλογική εργασία, έκδοση περιοδικού Στρατιωτική Ιστορία, Εκδόσεις Περισκόπιο, Αθήνα, Νοέμβριος 2002, σελίδα 64 (Greek)
  22. ^ Στρατιωτική Ιστορία journal, Issue 203, December 2013, page 67
  23. ^ Στρατιωτική Ιστορία journal, Issue 203, December 2013, page 67
  24. ^ Ahmet Özdemir, Savaş esirlerinin Milli mücadeledeki yeri, Ankara University, Türk İnkılap Tarihi Enstitüsü Atatürk Yolu Dergisi, Edition 2, Number 6, 1990, pp. 328–332
  25. ^
  26. ^ Woodhouse, C.M. The Story of Modern Greece, Faber and Faber, London, 1968, p. 204
  27. ^ .
  28. ^ Giles Milton, Paradise Lost, 2008, Sceptre, ISBN 978-0-340-83786-3
  29. ^ Tung, Anthony (2001). "The City the Gods Besieged". Preserving the World's Great Cities: The Destruction and Renewal of the Historic Metropolis. New York: Three Rivers Press. p. 266. ISBN 0-609-80815-X, the same source depicts a table with Athens having a population of 123,000 in 1896
  30. ^ Pentzopoulos, Dimitri (2002). The Balkan Exchange of Minorities and Its Impact on Greece. C. Hurst & Co. pp. 29–30. ISBN 978-1-85065-702-6
  31. ^
  32. ^ Roberts, Thomas Duval. Area Handbook for the Republic of Turkey. p. 79
  33. ^ a b Lowe & Dockrill 2002, p. 367.
  34. ^
  35. ^
  36. ^ .
  37. ^ Smith 1999, p. 35.
  38. ^ Toynbee 1922, pp. 312–13.
  39. ^ a b Smith 1999, p. 3.
  40. ^ Kinross 1960, p. 154.
  41. ^ Shaw & Shaw 1977, p. 342.
  42. ^ Ansiklopedisi 1982, pp. 4273–74.
  43. ^
  44. ^ .
  45. ^
  46. ^ a b Mango 1999, p. 217.
  47. ^
  48. ^
  49. ^ .
  50. ^ Kinross 1960, p. 233.
  51. ^
  52. ^ a b Kapur, H. Soviet Russia and Asia, 1917–1927
  53. ^ Dobkin 1998, pp. 60–1, 88–94.
  54. ^ Archived 17 January 2010 at WebCite
  55. ^ .
  56. ^ .
  57. ^ Mezhdunarodnaya Zhizn. Moscow, 1963, No. 11, p. 148.
  58. ^ Kinross 1960, p. 275.
  59. ^ Shaw & Shaw 1977, p. 360.
  60. ^ Kinross 1960, p. 277.
  61. ^ Yapp, Malcolm E. The Making of the Modern Near East, 1792–1923, London; New York: Longman, 1987, p. 319, ISBN 978-0-582-49380-3
  62. ^ a b Shaw & Shaw 1977, p. 362.
  63. ^ Kinross 1960, p. 315.
  64. ^ a b Shaw & Shaw 1977, p. 363.
  65. ^ Lenczowski, George. The Middle East in World Affairs, Cornell University Press, New York, 1962, p. 107.
  66. ^ .
  67. ^ .
  68. ^
  69. ^ James, Edwin L. " Kemal Won't Insure Against Massacres," New York Times, September 11, 1922.
  70. ^
  71. ^ Dobkin 1998, p. 6.
  72. ^
  74. ^ Ernest Hemingway, Hemingway on War, p 278 Simon and Schuster, 2012 ISBN 1476716048,
  75. ^ Walder, David (1969). The Chanak Affair, London, p. 281.
  76. ^ Friedman 2012, pp. 238, 248.
  77. ^ Friedman 2012, p. 238.
  78. ^ Friedman 2012, p. 251.
  79. ^ a b Smith 1999, p. 108.
  80. ^ Friedman 2012, p. 239.
  81. ^
  82. ^
  83. ^ .
  84. ^ .
  85. ^ a b c .
  86. ^ .
  87. ^ .
  88. ^ Smith 1999.
  89. ^ Smith 1999, p. 207.
  90. ^ Smith 1999, p.  207.
  91. ^
  92. ^ a b Kinross 1960, p. 298.
  93. ^ .
  94. ^ a b Toynbee 1922, p. 260.
  95. ^ Arnold J. Toynbee and Kenneth P. Kirkwood, Turkey, 1926, London: Ernest Benn, p. 92.
  96. ^ (Akçam 2006, p. 318)
  97. ^ Harbord, James, "Conditions in the Near East: Report of the American Military Mission to Armenia"
  98. ^ Harbord, James, "Conditions in the Near East," pp. 30–31
  99. ^
  100. ^ Dobkin 1998, p. 215.
  101. ^ Özdalga, Elizabeth. The Last Dragoman: the Swedish Orientalist Johannes Kolmodin as Scholar, Activist and Diplomat (2006), Swedish Research Institute in Istanbul, p. 63
  102. ^
  103. ^ Toynbee 1922, p. 285: M. Gehri stated in his report that "... The Greek army of occupation have been employed in the extermination of the Muslim population of the Yalova-Gemlik peninsula."
  104. ^ Naimark 2002, p.  45.
  105. ^ a b Toynbee 1922, p. 284.
  106. ^ Toynbee 1922, p. 318.
  107. ^
  108. ^ a b Fisher 1969, p. 386.
  109. ^ Naimark 2002, p.  46.
  110. ^ a b U.S. Vice-Consul James Loder Park to Secretary of State, Smyrna, 11 April 1923. US archives US767.68116/34
  111. ^ Kinross 1960, p. 318.
  112. ^ Mango 1999, p. 343.
  113. ^ .
  114. ^ .
  115. ^ .
  116. ^ Rummel, Rudolph J. "Statistics Of Turkey's Democide Estimates, Calculations, And Sources", Statistics of Democide, 1997.
  117. ^ Rumel, Rudolph, Turkish Democide, Power Kills, Lines 363 & 382. University of Hawai'i.
  118. ^ Toynbee 1922, p. 152.
  119. ^ Akçam 2006, p. 322.
  120. ^ Akçam 2006, p. 326.
  121. ^ a b Akçam 2006, p. 323.
  122. ^ a b c d "Turk's Insane Savagery: 10,000 Greeks Dead." The Times. Friday, May 5, 1922.
  123. ^ a b .
  124. ^ a b "24 Greek Villages are Given to the Fire." Atlanta Constitution. March 30, 1922
  125. ^ a b .
  126. ^ "Turks will be Turks," The New York Times, Sep. 16, 1922
  127. ^ a b c d .
  128. ^ .
  129. ^ "Allies to Act at Once on Armenian Outrages," The New York Times, Feb. 29, 1920.
  130. ^
  131. ^ .
  132. ^ .
  133. ^
  134. ^
  135. ^ Twice A Stranger: How Mass Expulsion Forged Modern Greece and Turkey, by Clarke, Bruce (2006), Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 9780674023680.
  136. ^ Naimark 2002, p. 47.
  137. ^ Dinah, Shelton. Encyclopaedia of Genocide and Crimes Against Humanity, p. 303.


  1. ^ The Turks fought only with irregular units (Kuva-yi Milliye) in the years 1919 and 1920. The Turks established their regular army towards the end of 1920. The First Battle of İnönü was the first battle where regular army units fought against the Greek army.
  2. ^ One Greek division had at least 25% more men than a Turkish division. In 1922, Turkish divisions had 7,000–8,000 men averagely, whereas Greek divisions had well over 10.000 men per division.
  3. ^ General Hare, the British Delegate; General Bunoust, the French Delegate; General Dall'Olio, the Italian Delegate; Admiral Bristol, the American Delegate.


See also

A large part of the Greek population was forced to leave their ancestral homelands of Ionia, Pontus and Eastern Thrace between 1914–22. These refugees, as well as Greek Americans with origins in Anatolia, were not allowed to return to their homelands after the signing of the Treaty of Lausanne.

According to the population exchange treaty signed by both the Turkish and Greek governments, Greek orthodox citizens of Turkey and Turkish and Greek Muslim citizens residing in Greece were subjected to the population exchange between these two countries. Approximately 1,500,000 Orthodox Christians, being ethnic Greeks and ethnic Turks from Turkey and about 500,000 Turks and Greek Muslims from Greece were uprooted from their homelands.[135] M. Norman Naimark claimed that this treaty was the last part of an ethnic cleansing campaign to create an ethnically pure homeland for the Turks[136] Historian Dinah Shelton similarly wrote that "the Lausanne Treaty completed the forcible transfer of the country's Greeks."[137]

By 9 September 1922, the Turkish army had entered Smyrna, with the Greek authorities having left two days before. Large scale disorder followed, with the Christian population suffering under attacks from soldiers and Turkish inhabitants. The Greek archbishop Chrysostomos had been lynched by a mob which included Turkish soldiers, and on September 13, a fire from the Armenian quarter of the city had engulfed the Christian waterfront of the city, leaving the city devastated. The responsibility for the fire is a controversial issue; some sources blame Turks, and some sources blame Greeks or Armenians. Some 50,000[133] to 100,000[134] Greeks and Armenians were killed in the fire and accompanying massacres.

Greek victims of the Great Fire of Smyrna.

Atrocities against Pontic Greeks living in the Greek diaspora.[132]

There were also several contemporary Western newspaper articles reporting the atrocities committed by Turkish forces against Christian populations living in Anatolia, mainly Greek and Armenian civilians.[122][123][124][125][126][127] For instance, according to the London Times, "The Turkish authorities frankly state it is their deliberate intention to let all the Greeks die, and their actions support their statement."[122] An Irish paper, the Belfast News Letter wrote, "The appalling tale of barbarity and cruelty now being practiced by the Angora Turks is part of a systematic policy of extermination of Christian minorities in Asia Minor."[127] According to the Christian Science Monitor, the Turks felt that they needed to murder their Christian minorities due to Christian superiority in terms of industriousness and the consequent Turkish feelings of jealousy and inferiority. The paper wrote: "The result has been to breed feelings of alarm and jealousy in the minds of the Turks, which in later years have driven them to depression. They believe that they cannot compete with their Christian subjects in the arts of peace and that the Christians and Greeks especially are too industrious and too well educated as rivals. Therefore from time to time they have striven to try and redress the balance by expulsion and massacre. That has been the position generations past in Turkey again if the Great powers are callous and unwise enough to attempt to perpetuate Turkish misrule over Christians."[128] According to the newspaper the Scotsman, on August 18 of 1920, in the Feival district of Karamusal, South-East of Ismid in Asia Minor, the Turks massacred 5,000 Christians.[123] There were also massacres during this period against Armenians, continuing the policies of the 1915 Armenian Genocide according to some Western newspapers.[129] On February 25, 1922 24 Greek villages in the Pontus region were burnt to the ground. An American newspaper, the Atlanta Observer wrote: "The smell of the burning bodies of women and children in Pontus" said the message "comes as a warning of what is awaiting the Christian in Asia Minor after the withdrawal of the Hellenic army."[124] In the first few months of 1922, 10,000 Greeks were killed by advancing Kemalist forces, according to Belfast News Letter.[122][127] According to the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin the Turks continued the practice of slavery, seizing women and children for their harems and raping numerous women.[122][127][130] The Christian Science Monitor wrote that Turkish authorities also prevented missionaries and humanitarian aid groups from assisting Greek civilians who had their homes burned, the Turkish authorities leaving these people to die despite abundant aid. The Christian Science Monitor wrote: "the Turks are trying to exterminate the Greek population with more vigor than they exercised towards the Armenians in 1915."[125]

A Turkish governor, Ebubekir Hazim Tepeyran of the Sivas province, said in 1919 that the massacres were so horrible that he could not bear to report them. He referred to the atrocities committed against Greeks in the Black Sea region, and according to the official tally 11,181 Greeks were murdered in 1921 by the Central Army under the command of Nurettin Pasha (who is infamous for the killing of Archbishop Chrysostomos).[121] Some parliamentary deputies demanded that Nurettin Pasha be sentenced to death and it was decided to put him on trial, although the trial was later revoked by the intervention of Mustafa Kemal. Taner Akçam wrote that according to one newspaper, Nurettin Pasha had suggested to kill all the remaining Greek and Armenian populations in Anatolia, a suggestion rejected by Mustafa Kemal.[121]


Turkish massacres of Greeks and Armenians

It is estimated some 3,000 lives had been lost in the burning of Alaşehir alone.[112] In one of the examples of the Greek atrocities during the retreat, on 14 February 1922, in the Turkish village of Karatepe in Aydin Vilayeti, after being surrounded by the Greeks, all the inhabitants were put into the mosque, then the mosque was burned. The few who escaped fire were shot.[113] The Italian consul, M. Miazzi, reported that he had just visited a Turkish village, where Greeks had slaughtered some sixty women and children. This report was then corroborated by Captain Kocher, the French consul.[114]

Kinross wrote, "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 the eighteen thousand buildings in the historic holy city of Manisa, only five hundred remained."[111]

  1. The destruction of the interior cities visited by our party was carried out by Greeks.
  2. The percentages of buildings destroyed in each of the last four cities referred to were: Manisa 90 percent, Cassaba (Turgutlu) 90 percent, Alaşehir 70 percent, Salihli 65 percent.
  3. The burning of these cities was not desultory, nor intermittent, nor accidental, but well planned and thoroughly organized.
  4. There were many instances of physical violence, most of which was deliberate and wanton. Without complete figures, which were impossible to obtain, it may safely be surmised that 'atrocities' committed by retiring Greeks numbered well into thousands in the four cities under consideration. These consisted of all three of the usual type of such atrocities, namely murder, torture and rape.

Consul Park concluded:[110]

Manisa ... almost completely wiped out by fire ... 10,300 houses, 15 mosques, 2 baths, 2,278 shops, 19 hotels, 26 villas ... [destroyed]. Cassaba (present day Turgutlu) was a town of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Muslims. Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death. Of the 2,000 buildings that constituted the city, only 200 remained standing. Ample testimony was available to the effect that the city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians. Kerosene and gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid and complete. Alaşehir, hand pumps were used to soak the walls of the buildings with Kerosene. As we examined the ruins of the city, we discovered a number of skulls and bones, charred and black, with remnants of hair and flesh clinging to them. Upon our insistence a number of graves having a fresh-made appearance were actually opened for us as we were fully satisfied that these bodies were not more than four weeks old. [the time of the Greek retreat through Alaşehir]

James Loder Park, the U.S. Vice-Consul in Constantinople at the time, who toured much of the devastated area immediately after the Greek evacuation, described the situation in the surrounding cities and towns of İzmir he has seen, as follows:[110]

According to a number of sources, the retreating Greek army carried out a scorched-earth policy while fleeing from Anatolia during the final phase of the war.[108] Historian of the Middle East, Sydney Nettleton Fisher wrote that: "The Greek army in retreat pursued a burned-earth policy and committed every known outrage against defenceless Turkish villagers in its path."[108] Norman M. Naimark noted that "the Greek retreat was even more devastating for the local population than the occupation".[109]

Western Anatolian towns that were burnt down in 1919 – 22 according to the report of the Turkish delegation in Laussane[107]

Greek scorched-earth policy

Arnold J. Toynbee wrote that they obtained convincing evidence that similar atrocities had been started in wide areas all over the remainder of the Greek-occupied territories since June 1921.[94] Toynbee argued that "the situation of the Turks in Smyrna City had become what could be called without exaggeration a 'reign of terror', it was to be inferred that their treatment in the country districts had grown worse in proportion."[106]

The Inter-Allied commission also stated that the destruction of villages and the disappearance of the Muslim population might have as its objective to create in this region a political situation favourable to the Greek Government.[105]

A distinct and regular method appears to have been followed in the destruction of villages, group by group, for the last two months ... there is a systematic plan of destruction of Turkish villages and extinction of the Muslim population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian bands, which appear to operate under Greek instructions and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops.

The Inter-Allied commission, consisting of British, French, American and Italian officers,[3] and the representative of the Geneva International Red Cross, M. Gehri, prepared two separate collaborative reports on their investigations of the Gemlik-Yalova Peninsula Massacres. These reports found that Greek forces committed systematic atrocities against the Turkish inhabitants.[103] And the commissioners mentioned the "burning and looting of Turkish villages", the "explosion of violence of Greeks and Armenians against the Turks", and "a systematic plan of destruction and extinction of the Moslem population".[104] In their report of the 23rd May 1921, the Inter-Allied commission stated as follows:[105]

James Harbord, describing the first months of the occupation to the American Senate, wrote that[97] "The Greek troops and the local Greeks who had joined them in arms started a general massacre of the Mussulmen [sic] population in which the officials and Ottoman officers and soldiers as well as the peaceful inhabitants were indiscriminately put to death." [98] Harold Armstrong, a British officer who was a member of the Inter-Allied Commission, reported that as the Greeks pushed out from Smyrna, they massacred and raped civilians, and burned and pillaged as they went.[99] Marjorie Housepian wrote that 4000 Smyrna Muslims were killed by Greek forces.[100] Johannes Kolmodin was a Swedish orientalist in Smyrna. He wrote in his letters that the Greek army had burned 250 Turkish villages.[101] In one village the Greek army demanded 500 gold liras to spare the town; however, after payment, the village was still sacked.[102]

The National forces were established solely for the purpose of fighting the Greeks..,. The Turks are willing to remain under the control of any other state.,.. There was not even an organized resistance at the time of the Greek occupation. Yet the Greeks are persisting in their oppression, and they have continued to burn villages, kill Turks and rape and kill women and young girls and throttle to death children.

British historian Greek landing at Smyrna on 15 May 1919. Toynbee also stated that he and his wife were witnesses to the atrocities perpetrated by Greeks in the Yalova, Gemlik, and Izmit areas and they not only obtained abundant material evidence in the shape of "burnt and plundered houses, recent corpses, and terror stricken survivors" but also witnessed robbery by Greek civilians and arsons by Greek soldiers in uniform in the act of perpetration.[94] Toynbee wrote that as soon as the Greek Army landed, they started committing atrocities against the Turkish civilians, as they "laid waste the fertile Maender (Meander) Valley", and forced thousands of Turks to take refuge outside the borders of the areas controlled by the Greeks.[95] Historian Taner Akçam noted that a British officer reported as follows:[96]

Turkish medics arrived at a town to rescue wounded on the way to Izmir after Greek forces abandoned the town (August 1922).

Greek massacres of Turks

Atrocities and claims of ethnic cleansing by both sides

Not all of the money arrived, and Mustafa Kemal decided not use the money that was sent by the Khilafet Committee. The money was restored in the Ottoman Bank. After the war, it was later used for the founding of the Türkiye İş Bankası.[93]

Mustafa Kemal Pasha has done wonders and you have no idea how people in British India adore his name ... We are all waiting to know the terms on which Angora offers peace to the Greeks ... May the Great Allah grant victory to the Armies of Gazi Mustafa Kemal and save Turkey from her enemies ...

Regardless of other factors, the contrast between the motives and strategic positions of the two sides contributed decisively to the outcome. The Turks were defending their homeland against what they perceived as an imperialist attack. Mustafa Kemal was an intelligent politician who could present himself as revolutionary to the communists, protector of tradition and order to the conservatives, patriot soldier to the nationalists, and a Muslim leader for the religious, so he was able to recruit all Turkish elements and motivate them to fight. In his public speeches, he built up the idea of Anatolia as a "kind of fortress against all the aggressions directed to the East". The struggle was not about the Turks alone but "it is the cause of the east", he added. The Turkish National Movement attracted sympathizers especially from the Muslims of the far east countries, who were living under colonial regimes (particularly British and French) and they perceived the Turkish National Movement as a hope against imperialism.[92] The Khilafet Committee in Bombay started a fund to help the Turkish National struggle and sent both financial aid and constant letters of encouragement:[92]

There is no such thing as a line of defence. Only an area to defend. That area consists of the entire Motherland. Not one inch of our country can be abandoned unless drenched with the blood of its people.

A British military attaché, who inspected the [90] Turkish troops had a determined and competent strategic and tactical command, manned by World War I veterans. The Turkish army enjoyed the advantage of being in defence, executed in the new form of 'area defence'. At the climax of the Greek offensive, Mustafa Kemal commanded his troops:[91]

As the supply situation worsened for the Greeks, things improved for the Turks. After the Armistice of Mudros, the Allies had dissolved the Ottoman army, confiscated all Ottoman weapons (rifles, machine guns, artilleries, aeroplanes and warships) and ammunition,[86] hence the Turkish National Movement which was in the progress of establishing a new army, was in desperate need of weapons. In addition to the weapons not yet confiscated by the Allies,[87] they enjoyed Soviet support from abroad, in return for giving Batum to the Soviet Union. The Soviets also provided monetary aid to the Turkish National Movement, not to the extent that they promised but almost in sufficient amount to make up the large deficiencies in the promised supply of arms. One of the main reasons for Soviet support was that Allied forces were fighting on Russian soil against the Bolshevik regime, therefore the Turkish opposition was much favored by Moscow.[4] The Italians were embittered from their loss of the Smyrna mandate to the Greeks, and they used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks.[88]

Having adequate supplies was a constant problem for the Greek Army. Although it was not lacking in men, courage or enthusiasm, it was soon lacking in nearly everything else. Due to her poor economy, Greece could not sustain long-term mobilisation. According to a British report from May 1922, 60,000 Anatolian native Greeks, Armenians and Circassians served under arms in the Greek occupation (of this number, 6,000–10,000 were Circassians).[83] In comparison, the Turks had also difficulties to find enough fit men, as a result of 1.5 million military casualties during World War I.[84] Very soon, the Greek Army exceeded the limits of its logistical structure and had no way of retaining such a large territory under constant attack by initially irregular and later regular Turkish troops fighting for their homeland. The idea that such large force could sustain offensive by mainly "living off the land" proved wrong. Although the Greek Army had to retain a large territory after September 1921, the Greek Army was more motorized than the Turkish Army.[85] The Greek Army had in addition to 63,000 animals for transportation, 4,036 trucks and 1,776 automobiles/ambulances,[85] whereas the Turkish Army relied on transportation with animals. They had 67,000 animals (of whom were used as: 3,141 horse carts, 1,970 ox carts, 2,318 tumbrels and 71 phaetons), but only 198 trucks and 33 automobiles/ambulances.[85]

The Greeks estimated, despite warnings from the French and British not to underestimate the enemy, that they would need only three months to defeat the already weakened Turks on their own.[76] Exhausted from four years of bloodshed, no Allied power had the will to engage in a new war and relied on Greece. During the Conference of London in February 1921, the Greek prime minister Kalogeropoulos revealed that the morale of the Greek army was excellent and their courage was undoubted, he added that in his eyes the Kemalists were "not regular soldiers; they merely constituted a rabble worthy of little or no consideration".[77] Still, the Allies had doubts about Greek military capacity to advance in Anatolia, facing vast territories, long lines of communication, financial shortcomings of the Greek treasury and above all the toughness of the Turkish peasant/soldier.[78][79] After the Greek failure to rout and defeat the new established Turkish army in the First and Second Battle of İnönü the Italians began to evacuate their occupation zone in southwestern Anatolia in July 1921. Furthermore the Italians also claimed that Greece had violated the limits of the Greek occupation laid down by the Council of Four.[79] France, on the other hand, had its own war in Cilicia with the Turkish nationalists. The French had already sustained high casualties and were looking for a cause to leave Anatolia.[80] After the Greeks had failed again to knock out the Turks in the decisive Battle of Sakarya, the French finally signed the Treaty of Ankara (1921) with the Turks in late October 1921 ending their war in the south. Mustafa Kemal Pasha and his Turkish National Movement were also aided by the split in the Allied camp.[4] The imperial powers, in the scramble for control over the spoils of the dissolved Ottoman Empire, would come into conflict with each other.[4] In addition, the Allies did not fully allow the Greek Navy to effect a blockade of the Black Sea coast, which could have restricted Turkish imports of food and material. Still, the Greek Navy was allowed to bombard some larger ports (June and July 1921 Inebolu; July 1921 Trabzon, Sinop; August 1921 Rize, Trabzon; September 1921 Araklı, Terme, Trabzon; October 1921 Izmit; June 1922 Samsun).[81] The Greek Navy was able to blockade the Black Sea coast especially before and during the First and Second İnönü, Kütahya–Eskişehir and Sakarya battles, preventing weapon and ammunition shipments.[82]

The first year of the war, the Greeks together with their allies occupied the straits and Constantinople, which stayed under joint occupation until the end of the war. Initially the British and then the French occupied Cilicia. The Italians occupied southwestern Anatolia and the Armenians occupied northeastern Anatolia. In the first years of the war, the wars against the French and Armenians diverted significant Turkish troops from the front against the Greeks. There were also revolts during the war which dispersed troops. After the victories against the French and Armenians the Turks could turn their energies on the Greek intrusion.

Factors contributing to the outcome

The Armistice of Mudanya was followed by the Treaty of Lausanne, a significant provision of which was an exchange of populations. Over one million Greek Orthodox Christians were displaced; most of them were resettled in Attica and the newly incorporated Greek territories of Macedonia and Thrace and were exchanged with about 500,000 Muslims displaced from the Greek territories.

The Armistice of Mudanya was concluded on October 11, 1922. The Allies (Britain, France, Italy) retained control of eastern Thrace and the Bosporus. The Greeks were to evacuate these areas. The agreement came into force starting October 15, 1922, one day after the Greek side agreed to sign it.

Map of Turkey with its western borders as specified by the Treaty of Lausanne.


The British cabinet initially decided to resist the Turks if necessary at the Dardanelles and to ask for French and Italian help to enable the Greeks to remain in eastern Thrace.[75] The British government also issued a request for military support from its colonies. The response from the colonies was negative (with the exception of New Zealand). Furthermore, Italian and French forces abandoned their positions at the straits and left the British alone to face the Turks. On September 24, Mustafa Kemal's troops moved into the straits zones and refused British requests to leave. The British cabinet was divided on the matter but eventually any possible armed conflict was prevented. British General Charles Harington, allied commander in Constantinople, kept his men from firing on Turks and warned the British cabinet against any rash adventure. The Greek fleet left Constantinople upon his request. The British finally decided to force the Greeks to withdraw behind Maritsa in Thrace. This convinced Mustafa Kemal to accept the opening of armistice talks.

[74] reported that: Toronto Star,, who was at the time a war correspondent for the newspaper Ernest HemingwayAround this time, several Turkish officers were sent to infiltrate secretly into Constantinople to help organize Turkish population living in the city in the event of a war. For instance,

After re-capturing Smyrna, Turkish forces headed north for Bosporus, the sea of Marmara, and the Dardanelles where the Allied garrisons were reinforced by British, French and Italian troops from Constantinople.[64] In an interview published on Daily Mail, September 15, Mustafa Kemal stated that: "Our demands remain the same after our recent victory as they were before. We ask for Asia Minor, Thrace up to the river Maritsa and Constantinople... We must have our capital and I should in that case be obliged to march on Constantinople with my army, which will be an affair of only a few days. I must prefer to obtain possession by negotiation though, naturally I cannot wait indefinitely." [73]

Chanak Crisis

During the confusion and anarchy that followed, a great portion of the city was set ablaze in the Great Fire of Smyrna, and the properties of the Greeks and Armenians were pillaged. Most of the eye-witness reports identified that troops from the Turkish army set the fire in the city.[70][71] Moreover, the fact that only the Greek and Armenian quarters of the city were burned, and that the Turkish quarter stood gives credence to the theory that the Turkish troops burned the city.[72]

The vanguards of Turkish cavalry entered the outskirts of Smyrna on September 8. On the same day, the Greek headquarters had evacuated the town. The Turkish cavalry rode into the town around eleven o'clock on the Saturday morning of September 9.[66][67] On September 10, with the possibility of social disorder, Mustafa Kemal was quick to issue a proclamation, sentencing any Turkish soldier to death who harmed non-combatants.[68] A few days before the Turkish capture of the city, Mustafa Kemal's messengers distributed leaflets with this order written in Greek. Mustafa Kemal said that Ankara government can't be held responsible in the case of an occurrence of a massacre.[69]

The Great Fire of Smyrna as seen from an Italian ship, 14 September 1922.

On September 2, [65]

Turkish advance on Smyrna

The Turks finally launched a counter-attack on August 26, what has come to be known to the Turks as the "Great Offensive" (Büyük Taarruz). The major Greek defense positions were overrun on August 26, and Afyon fell next day. On August 30, the Greek army was defeated decisively at the Battle of Dumlupınar, with half of its soldiers captured or slain and its equipment entirely lost.[62] This date is celebrated as Victory Day, a national holiday in Turkey and salvage day of Kütahya. During the Battle of Dumlupınar, Greek General Nikolaos Trikoupis and General Dionis were captured by the Turkish forces.[63] General Trikoupis learned only after his capture that he had been recently appointed Commander-in-Chief in General Hatzianestis' place. On September 1, Mustafa Kemal issued his famous order to the Turkish army: "Armies, your first goal is the Mediterranean, Forward!"[62]

Mustafa Kemal with the Turkish revolutionaries before the counter-attack.


Turkish counter-attack

After the failure of the March negotiations the obvious course of action for the Greeks was to withdraw to defensible lines around Izmir but at this point fantasy began to direct Greek policy, the Greeks stayed in their positions and planned a seizure of Constantinople, although this latter project was abandoned in July in the face of Allied opposition.

Historian Malcolm Yapp wrote that:[61]

Voices in Greece increasingly called for withdrawal, and demoralizing propaganda spread among the troops. Some of the removed Venizelist officers organised a movement of "National Defense" and planned a coup to secede from Athens, but never gained Venizelos's endorsement and all their actions remained fruitless.

In March 1922, the Allies proposed an armistice. Feeling that he now held the strategic advantage, Mustafa Kemal declined any settlement while the Greeks remained in Anatolia and intensified his efforts to re-organise the Turkish military for the final offensive against the Greeks. At the same time, the Greeks strengthened their defensive positions, but were increasingly demoralised by the inactivity of remaining on the defensive and the prolongation of the war. The Greek government was desperate to get some military support by the British or at least secure a loan, so it developed an ill-thought plan to force diplomatically the British, by threatening their positions in Constantinople, but this never materialised. The occupation of Constantinople would have been an easy task at this time because the Allied troops garrisoned there were much fewer than the Greek forces in Thrace (two divisions). The end result though was instead to weaken the Greek defences in Smyrna by withdrawing troops. The Turkish forces, on the other hand, were recipients of significant assistance from Soviet Russia. On 29 April, the Soviet authorities supplied the Turkish consul critical quantities of arms and ammunition, sufficient for three Turkish divisions. On 3 May, the Soviet government handed over 33,500,000 gold rubles to Turkey—the balance of the credit of 10,000,000 gold rubles.[52]

Having failed to reach a military solution, Greece appealed to the Allies for help, but early in 1922 Britain, France and Italy decided that the Treaty of Sèvres could not be enforced and had to be revised. In accordance with this decision, under successive treaties, the Italian and French troops evacuated their positions, leaving the Greeks exposed.

Mustafa Kemal's visit to Çay. From left to right: chief of staff of the Western Front Miralay Asim Bey (Gündüz), commander of the Western Front Mirliva Ismet Pasha (İnönü), unknown, military attaché of the Soviet Russia K.K. Zvonarev, ambassador of Soviet Russia S.I. Aralov, Mustafa Kemal Pasha, ambassador of Azerbaijan SSR Ibrahim Abilov, commander of First Army Mirliva Ali Ihsan Pasha (Sâbis), in the morning of 31 March 1922.

Stalemate (September 1921 – August 1922)

That was the furthest in Anatolia the Greeks would advance, and within few weeks they withdrew in an orderly manner back to the lines that they had held in June. The Turkish Parliament awarded both Mustafa Kemal and Fevzi Çakmak with the title of Field Marshal for their service in this battle. To this day no other person has received this five-star general title from the Turkish Republic.

The advance of the Greek Army faced fierce resistance which culminated in the 21-day Battle of Sakarya (August 23 – September 13, 1921). The Turkish defense positions were centred on series of heights, and the Greeks had to storm and occupy them. The Turks held certain hilltops and lost others, while some were lost and recaptured several times over. Yet the Turks had to conserve men, for the Greeks held the numerical advantage.[60] The crucial moment came when the Greek army tried to take Haymana, 40 kilometers south of Ankara, but the Turks held out. Greek advance into Anatolia lengthened their lines of supply and communication and they were running out of ammunition. The ferocity of the battle exhausted both sides but the Greeks were the first to withdraw to their previous lines. The thunder of cannon was plainly heard in Ankara throughout the battle.

Despite the Soviet help, supplies were short as the Turkish army prepared to meet the Greeks. Owners of private rifles, guns and ammunition had to surrender them to the army and every household was required to provide a pair of underclothing, sandals.[59] Meanwhile, the Turkish parliament, not happy with the performance of Ismet Inönü as the Commander of the Western Front, wanted Mustafa Kemal and Chief of General Staff Fevzi Çakmak to take control.

Following the retreat of the Turkish troops under Ismet Inönü in the battle of Kütahya-Eskişehir the Greek Army advanced afresh to the Sakarya River (Sangarios in Greek), less than 100 km (62 mi) west of Ankara. Constantine's battle cry was "to Angora" and the British officers were invited, in anticipation, to a victory dinner in the city of Kemal.[58] It was envisaged that the Turkish Revolutionaries, who had consistently avoided encirclement would be drawn into battle in defence of their capital and destroyed in a battle of attrition.

Greek lithograph depicting the Battle of Sakarya.

Battle of Sakarya (August and September 1921)

This was the major decision that sealed the fate of the Greek campaign in Anatolia. The state and Army leadership, including King Constantine, Prime Minister Dimitrios Gounaris, and General Anastasios Papoulas, met at Kütahya where they debated the future of the campaign. The Greeks, with their faltering morale rejuvenated, failed to appraise the strategic situation that favoured the defending side; instead, pressed for a 'final solution', the leadership was polarised into the risky decision to pursue the Turks and attack their last line of defence close to Ankara. The military leadership was cautious and requested for more reinforcements and time to prepare, but did not go against the politicians. Only a few voices supported a defensive stance, including Ioannis Metaxas. Constantine by this time had little actual power and did not argue either way. After a delay of almost a month that gave time to the Turks to organise their defence, seven of the Greek divisions crossed east of the Sakarya River.

Between 27 June and 20 July 1921, a reinforced Greek army of nine divisions launched a major offensive, the greatest thus far, against the Turkish troops commanded by Ismet Inönü on the line of Afyonkarahisar-Kütahya-Eskişehir. The plan of the Greeks was to cut Anatolia in two, as the above towns were on the main rail-lines connecting the hinterland with the coast. Eventually, after breaking the stiff Turkish defences, they occupied these strategically important centres. Instead of pursuing and decisively crippling the nationalists' military capacity, the Greek Army halted. In consequence, and despite their defeat, the Turks managed to avoid encirclement and made a strategic retreat on the east of the Sakarya River, where they organised their last line of defence.

King Constantine decorating the victorious war flags outside Kütahya, 1921.

Battle of Afyonkarahisar-Eskişehir (July 1921)

By this time all other fronts had been settled in favour of the Turks, freeing more resources to focus on the main threat of the Greek Army. The French and the Italians concluded private agreements with the Turkish revolutionaries in recognition of their mounting strength.[53] Turkish revolutionaries bought equipment from Italy and France, who threw in their lot with the Turkish revolutionaries against Greece which was seen as a British client. The Italians used their base in Antalya to assist, especially from the point of view of intelligence, the Turkish revolutionaries against the Greeks.[54] There emerged a friendly relationship between the Bolshevik Russian SFSR and the Turkish Revolutionaries, which was solidified under Treaty of Moscow in March 1921. The RSFSR supported Mustafa Kemal and his forces with money and ammunition:[55][56] in 1920 alone, the government of Vladimir Lenin supplied the Kemalists with 6,000 rifles, over 5 million rifle cartridges, 17,600 projectiles as well as 200.6 kg (442.2 lb) of gold bullion; in the subsequent two years the amount of aid increased.[57]

Shift of support towards Turkish Revolutionaries

Although some agreements were reached with Italy, France and Britain, the decisions were not agreed to by the Greek government, who believed that they still retained the strategic advantage and could yet negotiate from a stronger position. The Greeks initiated another attack on March 27, the Second Battle of İnönü, where the Turkish troops fiercely resisted and finally defeated the Greeks on March 30. The British favoured a Greek territorial expansion but refused to offer any military assistance in order to avoid provoking the French. The Turkish forces received significant assistance from Soviet Russia.[52]

The Greek advance was halted for the first time at the First Battle of İnönü on January 11, 1921. Even though this was a minor confrontation involving only one Greek division, it held political significance for the fledging Turkish revolutionaries. This development led to Allied proposals to amend the Treaty of Sèvres at a conference in London where both the Turkish Revolutionary and Ottoman governments were represented.

By December 1920, the Greeks had advanced on two fronts, approaching Eskişehir from the North West and from Smyrna, and had consolidated their occupation zone. In early 1921 they resumed their advance with small scale reconnaissance incursions that met stiff resistance from entrenched Turkish Nationalists, who were increasingly better prepared and equipped as a regular army.

Map showing the advance of the Greek army on the western front.

Battles of İnönü (December 1920 – March 1921)

The new government under Dimitrios Gounaris prepared for a plebiscite on the return of King Constantine. Noting the King's neutrality during World War I, the Allies warned the Greek government that if he should be returned to the throne they would cut off all financial and military aid to Greece . A month later a plebiscite called for the return of King Constantine. Soon after his return, the King replaced many of the World War I veteran officers and appointed inexperienced monarchist officers to senior positions. The leadership of the campaign was given to Anastasios Papoulas, while King Constantine himself assumed nominally the overall command. In addition, many of the remaining Venizelist officers resigned, appalled by the regime change. The Greek Army which had secured Smyrna and the Asia Minor coast was purged of Venizelos's supporters while it marched on Ankara.

After King Alexander died leaving no heirs, the general elections scheduled to be held on November 1, 1920 suddenly became the focus of a new conflict between the supporters of Venizelos and the Royalists. The anti-Venizelist faction campaigned on the basis of accusations of internal mismanagement and authoritarian attitudes of the government, which, due to the war, had stayed in power without elections since 1915. At the same time they promoted the idea of disengagement in Asia Minor, without though presenting a clear plan as to how this would happen. On the contrary, Venizelos was identified with the continuation of a war that did not seem to go anywhere. The majority of the Greek people were both war-weary and tired of the almost dictatorial regime of the Venizelists, so opted for change. To the surprise of many, Venizelos won only 118 out of the total 369 seats. The crushing defeat obliged Venizelos and a number of his closest supporters to leave the country. To this day his rationale to call elections at that time is questioned.

During October 1920, King Alexander was bitten by a monkey kept at the Royal Gardens and died within days from sepsis. This incident has been characterized as the "monkey bite that changed the course of Greek history".[51] Venizelos's preference was to declare a Greek republic and thus end the monarchy. However, he was well aware that this would not be acceptable to the European powers.

Anastasios Papoulas, commander-in-chief of the Greek Army of Asia Minor.

Change in Greek government (November 1920)

In October 1920, the Greek army advanced further east into Anatolia, with the encouragement of Lloyd George, who intended to increase pressure on the Turkish and Ottoman governments to sign the Treaty of Sèvres. This advance began under the Liberal government of Eleftherios Venizelos, but soon after the offensive began, Venizelos fell from power and was replaced by Dimitrios Gounaris. The strategic objective of these operations was to defeat the Turkish Nationalists and force Mustafa Kemal into peace negotiations. The advancing Greeks, still holding superiority in numbers and modern equipment at this point, had hoped for an early battle in which they were confident of breaking up ill-equipped Turkish forces. Yet they met with little resistance, as the Turks managed to retreat in an orderly fashion and avoid encirclement. Churchill said: "The Greek columns trailed along the country roads passing safely through many ugly defiles, and at their approach the Turks, under strong and sagacious leadership, vanished into the recesses of Anatolia."[50]

Greek advance (October 1920)

The treaty was never ratified by the Ottoman Empire[47][48] or Greece.[49]

Turkey was furthermore forced to transfer to Greece "the exercise of her rights of sovereignty" over Smyrna in addition to "a considerable Hinterland, merely retaining a 'flag over an outer fort'." Though Greece administered the Smyrna enclave, its sovereignty remained, nominally, with the Sultan. According to the provisions of the Treaty, Smyrna was to maintain a local parliament and, if within five years time she asked to be incorporated within the Kingdom of Greece, the provision was made that the League of Nations would hold a plebiscite to decide on such matters.

On August 10, 1920, the Ottoman Empire signed the Treaty of Sèvres ceding to Greece Thrace, up to the Chatalja lines. More importantly, Turkey renounced to Greece all rights over Imbros and Tenedos, retaining the small territories of Constantinople, the islands of Marmara, and "a tiny strip of European territory". The Straits of Bosporus were placed under an International Commission, as they were now open to all.

In return for the contribution of the Greek army on the side of the Allies, the Allies supported the assignment of eastern Thrace and the millet of Smyrna to Greece. This treaty ended the First World War in Asia Minor and, at the same time, sealed the fate of the Ottoman Empire. Henceforth, the Ottoman Empire would no longer be a European power.

Partition of the Ottoman Empire according to the Treaty of Sèvres.

Treaty of Sèvres (August 1920)

During the summer of 1920, the Greek army launched a series of successful offensives in the directions of the Büyük Menderes River (Meander) Valley, Karşıyaka (Peramos) and Alaşehir (Philadelphia). The overall strategic objective of these operations, which were met by increasingly stiff Turkish resistance, was to provide strategic depth to the defence of Izmir (Smyrna). To that end, the Greek zone of occupation was extended over all of Western and most of North-Western Anatolia.

Greek summer offensives (Summer 1920)

As Greek troops advanced to the barracks, where the Ottoman commander Ali Nadir Pasha had been ordered to offer no resistance, a Turkish journalist in the crowd, Hasan Tahsin, fired a shot, killing the Greek standard-bearer.[46] Greek troops started firing both at the barracks and the government buildings. Between 300 to 400 Turks were killed or wounded, against 100 Greeks, two of whom were soldiers, on the first day.[46]

The Christian population of Smyrna (mainly Greeks and Armenians), according to different sources, either formed a minority[33][42] or a majority[43] compared to Muslim Turkish population of the city. Official Ottoman state census statistics of the time illustrate that the population was mainly Muslim and Turkish.[44] The majority of the Greek population residing in the city greeted the Greek troops as liberators.[45] By contrast, the majority of the Muslim population saw this as an invading force and some Turks resented the Greeks as a result of a long history of conflict and antagonism. Nevertheless, the Greek landings were received by and large passively, only facing sporadic resistance, mainly by small groups of irregular Turkish troops in the suburbs. The majority of the Turkish forces in the region either surrendered peacefully to the Greek Army, or fled to the countryside. .

On May 15, 1919, twenty thousand[40] Greek soldiers landed in Smyrna and took control of the city and its surroundings under cover of the Greek, French, and British navies. Legal justifications for the landings was found in the article 7 of the Armistice of Mudros, which allowed the Allies "to occupy any strategic points in the event of any situation arising which threatens the security of Allies."[41] The Greeks had already brought their forces into Eastern Thrace (apart from Constantinople and its region).

Greek soldiers taking their posts in Smyrna (Turkish: Izmir) amidst the jubilant ethnic Greek population of the city, 15 May 1919.
Arrival of Crown Prince George in Smyrna, 1919.

Landing at Smyrna (May 1919)

The military aspect of the war began with the Armistice of Mudros. The military operations of the Greco-Turkish war can be roughly divided into three main phases: the first phase, spanning the period from May 1919 to October 1920, encompassed the Greek Landings in Asia Minor and their consolidation along the Aegean Coast. The second phase lasted from October 1920 to August 1921, and was characterised by Greek offensive operations. The third and final phase lasted until August 1922, when the strategic initiative was held by the Turkish Army.

Map of the military developments until August 1922.

Greek expansion

The act of entering the war and the preceding events resulted in a deep political and social division in post–World War I Greece. The country's foremost political formations, the Venizelist Liberals and the Royalists, already involved in a long and bitter rivalry over pre-war politics, reached a state of outright hatred towards each other. Both parties viewed the other's actions during the First World War as politically illegitimate and treasonous. This enmity inevitably spread throughout Greek society, creating a deep rift that contributed decisively to the failed Asia Minor campaign and resulted in much social unrest in the inter war years.

Though Constantine did remain decidedly neutral, Prime Minister of Greece Eleftherios Venizelos had from an early point decided that Greece's interests would be best served by joining the Entente and started diplomatic efforts with the Allies to prepare the ground for concessions following an eventual victory. The disagreement and the subsequent dismissal of Venizelos by the King resulted in a deep personal rift between the two, which spilled over into their followers and the wider Greek society. Greece became divided into two radically opposed political camps, as Venizelos set up a separate state in Northern Greece, and eventually, with Allied support, forced the King to abdicate. In May 1917, after the exile of Constantine, Venizélos returned to Athens and allied with the Entente. Greek military forces (though divided between supporters of the monarchy and supporters of "Venizelism") began to take part in military operations against the Bulgarian Army on the border.

The United Kingdom had hoped that strategic considerations might persuade Constantine to join the cause of the Allies, but the King and his supporters insisted on strict neutrality, especially whilst the outcome of the conflict was hard to predict. In addition, family ties and emotional attachments made it difficult for Constantine to decide which side to support during World War I. The King's dilemma was further increased when the Ottomans and the Bulgarians, both having grievances and aspirations against the Greek Kingdom, joined the Central Powers. According to Queen Sophia, Constantine's dream of "marching into the great city of Hagia Sophia at the head of the Greek army" was still "in his heart" and it appeared as if the King was ready to enter the war against the Ottoman Empire. The conditions, however, were clear: the occupation of Constantinople had to be undertaken without incurring excessive risk.

The National Schism in Greece was the deep split of Greek politics and society between two factions, the one led by Eleftherios Venizelos and the other by King Constantine, that predated World War I but escalated significantly over the decision on which side Greece should support during the war.

The National Schism in Greece

The Great Idea was not merely the product of 19th century nationalism. It was, in one of its aspects, deeply rooted in many Greeks' religious consciousnesses. This aspect was the recovery of Constantinople for Christendom and the reestablishment of the Christian Byzantine Empire which had fallen in 1453. "Ever since this time the recovery of St. Sophia and the City had been handed down from generation to generation as the destiny and aspiration of the Greek Orthodox."[39] The Megali Idea, besides Constantinople, included most traditional lands of the Greeks including Crete, Thessaly, Epirus, Macedonia, Thrace, the Aegean Islands, Cyprus, the coastlands of Asia Minor and Pontus on the Black Sea. Asia Minor was an essential part of the Greek world and an area of enduring Greek cultural dominance. The Greek city-states and later the Byzantine Empire also exercised political control of most of the region, from the Bronze Age to the 12th century, when the first Seljuk Turk raids reached it.

One of the main motivations for initiating the war was to realize the Megali (Great) Idea, a core concept of Greek nationalism. The Megali Idea was an irredentist vision of a restoration of a Greater Greece on both sides of the Aegean that would incorporate territories with Greek populations outside the borders of the Kingdom of Greece, which was initially very small. From the time of Greek independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1830, the Megali Idea had played a major role in Greek politics. Greek politicians, since the independence of the Greek state, had made several speeches on the issue of the "historic inevitability of the expansion of the Greek Kingdom."[39] For instance, Greek politician Ioannis Kolettis voiced this conviction in the assembly in 1844: "There are two great centres of Hellenism. Athens is the capital of the Kingdom. Constantinople is the great capital, the City, the dream and hope of all Greeks."

The Greek Kingdom and the Greek diaspora in the Balkans and western Asia Minor, according to a 1919 Greek map submitted to the Paris Peace Conference.

Greek nationalism

Through its failure, the Greek invasion may have instead exacerbated the atrocities that it was supposed to prevent. Arnold J. Toynbee blamed the policies pursued by Great Britain and Greece, and the decisions of the Paris Peace conference as factors leading to the atrocities committed by both sides during and after the war: "The Greeks of 'Pontus' and the Turks of the Greek occupied territories, were in some degree victims of Mr. Venizelos's and Mr. Lloyd George's original miscalculations at Paris."[38]

To an extent, the above danger may have been overstated by Venizelos as a negotiating card on the table of Sèvres, in order to gain the support of the Allied governments. For example, the Young Turks were not in power at the time of the war, which makes such a justification less straightforward. Most of the leaders of that regime had fled the country at the end of World War I and the Ottoman government in Constantinople was already under British control. Furthermore, Venizelos had already revealed his desires for annexation of territories from the Ottoman Empire in the early stages of World War I, before these massacres had taken place. In a letter sent to Greek King Constantine in January 1915, he wrote that: "I have the impression that the concessions to Greece in Asia Minor ... would be so extensive that another equally large and not less rich Greece will be added to the doubled Greece which emerged from the victorious Balkan wars."[37]

Greek Prime Minister Venizelos stated to a British newspaper that "Greece is not making war against Islam, but against the anachronistic Ottoman Government, and its corrupt, ignominious, and bloody administration, with a view to expelling it from those territories where the majority of the population consists of Greeks."[36]

One of the reasons proposed by the Greek government for launching the Asia Minor expedition was that there was a sizeable Greek-speaking Orthodox Christian population inhabiting Anatolia that needed protection. Greeks had lived in Asia Minor since antiquity, and before the outbreak of World War I, up to 2.5 million Greeks lived in the Ottoman Empire.[32] The suggestion that the Greeks constituted the majority of the population in the lands claimed by Greece has been contested by a number of historians. Cedric James Lowe and Michael L. Dockrill also argued that Greek claims about Smyrna were at best debatable, since Greeks constituted perhaps a bare majority, more likely a large minority in the Smyrna Vilayet, "which lay in an overwhelmingly Turkish Anatolia."[33] Precise demographics are further obscured by the Ottoman policy of dividing the population according to religion rather than descent, language, or self-identification. On the other hand contemporaneous British and American statistics (1919) support the point that the Greek element was the most numerous in the region of Smyrna, counting 375,000, while Muslims were 325,000.[34][35]

Distribution of Nationalities in Ottoman Empire (Anatolia),[31]
Ottoman Official Statistics, 1910
Provinces Turks Greeks Armenians Jews Others Total
İstanbul (Asiatic shore) 135,681 70,906 30,465 5,120 16,812 258,984
İzmit 184,960 78,564 50,935 2,180 1,435 318,074
Aydin (Izmir) 974,225 629,002 17,247 24,361 58,076 1,702,911
Bursa 1,346,387 274,530 87,932 2,788 6,125 1,717,762
Konya 1,143,335 85,320 9,426 720 15,356 1,254,157
Ankara 991,666 54,280 101,388 901 12,329 1,160,564
Trabzon 1,047,889 351,104 45,094 1,444,087
Sivas 933,572 98,270 165,741 1,197,583
Kastamonu 1,086,420 18,160 3,061 1,980 1,109,621
Adana 212,454 88,010 81,250 107,240 488,954
Biga 136,000 29,000 2,000 3,300 98 170,398
Ecumenical Patriarchate Statistics, 1912

The Greek community in Anatolia

The Italian and Anglo-French repudiation of the Arnold J. Toynbee argues: "The war between Turkey and Greece which burst out at this time was a defensive war for safeguarding of the Turkish homelands in Anatolia. It was a result of the Allied policy of imperialism operating in a foreign state, the military resources and powers of which were seriously under-estimated; it was provoked by the unwarranted invasion of a Greek army of occupation.".[27] According to others, the landing of the Greek troops in Smyrna was part of Eleftherios Venizelos's plan, inspired by the Megali Idea, to liberate the large Greek populations in the Asia Minor.[28] Smyrna up to the Great Fire of Smyrna had a bigger Greek population than the Greek capital, Athens. Athens, before the Population exchange between Greece and Turkey, had a population of 473,000,[29] while Smyrna, according to Ottoman sources, in 1910, had a Greek population exceeding 629,000.[30]

), and parts of western Anatolia around the city of Smyrna, which contained sizable ethnic Greek populations. Bozcaada (Tenedos (İmroz, since 29 July 1979 Gökçeada) and Imbros These included Eastern Thrace, the islands of [26]

This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from World eBook Library are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.