I think its correct form is "Megali Idea" = Great idea.

This book is useful about how it collapsed during the Turkish Independence War: http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1850653682/qid=1140532375/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_2_1/203-9640017-5997530 - Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-22 by Michael Llewellyn Smith

kotumeyil is right as about the correct form. But he is arong as about the period . Greece After gaining independence in the 1820s, Greece pursued an irredentist Panhellenic policy, known as Megali Idea which aimed at unifying all Greeks from Macedonia until Ionia.

Greece, on the side of the victorious Allies during the WW I, had to withdraw from Asia Minor after a bloody conflict with Turkey. In that conflict Greece never used all the army as Turkey done because  hers Northern borders were not secure and must keep troops for that.

Turkish "army" whas disarmed due the sevres and by being ally of the germans. Greeks got the fully support of the english, they had superior army then the Turkish but with their greezy generals such as stratigos, pullas(?) (or papulis?) and bad tactics they lost.

They should  stop at izmir. instead of this they tried to take ankara. I think even If they could get ankara. they would lost war.

They should take izmir, and thanks god for this.

Yeah thanks to turkish army, I am not saying anything different,

but just think If they only hold izmir, instead of entering middle of anatolia?

By the way, Greek army was never a large threat, at independence wars we lost 30000-40000 soul. Only at dardanellas we lost 250.000 soul.

If brits and others supported greece with their own armies, we would again lost war.

I think they were correct in attacking Ankara. Ankara government was getting stronger everyday. One by one it neutralised other threats, secured the borders, made peace with neighbours, and eventually formed a regular army which concentrated on the Western front against the Greeks. If the Greeks had tried to hold on to Izmir, Ankara government would have secured the rest of the country even quicker, and defeat them.

In Sakarya battle, the Greeks had a solid defensive line west of Sakarya river, and their army had more rifles, trucks, machine guns, aircraft, light guns, etc. than the Turkish one. But the Turks won because Turkish generals and army were WWI veterans, with a lot of experience in many fronts. And Tuks had psychological advantage, because they were defending their homeland.

I think they were correct in attacking Ankara. Ankara government was getting stronger everyday. One by one it neutralised other threats, secured the borders, made peace with neighbours, and eventually formed a regular army which concentrated on the Western front against the Greeks. If the Greeks had tried to hold on to Izmir, Ankara government would have secured the rest of the country even quicker, and defeat them.

they should try to make peace with ankara goverment. do you think ankara would risk everything for izmir? They didnt it for mosul, why do you think izmir is more precious than mosul.

I agree with Mortaza. When you want all finally you will loose and these that you have. Greek corp lost because the supply lines were not strong enouph in order to support the front. Also the Turkish as Beylerbeyi said had the psychological advantage, because they thaught that were defending their homeland specially when the Greek corp was closed in Ankara.

Are you kidding? Izmir was the second largest city in Turkey, developed area, an important port and an important centre for the Ottomans, like Selanik. It was far more important than Mosul, which is really a far away province, important for its oil only. Don't forget that the Ottomans (even Ataturk was Ottoman) were centered in Istanbul. Mosul is very far for them. But Izmir is near. Loss of Mosul would not threaten the Turks in Anatolia, but loss of Izmir would. It would give the Greeks a foothold in Turkey. Besides, Izmir is the economical centre of the region other nearby cities are all economic hinterland. Izmir simply dominates the region. No way would Turkey let Greece keep Izmir, it would sooner or later come to war. And Turkey would win. Greece did the right thing strategically by attacking Ankara, to deal with the problem before it became too big.

If you compare power of Turkey to that of Greece from year 1071 to 2006, 1919 was possibly the most favourable for Greece. They could not have chosen a better time to attack. In fact, the window of opportunity was quite narrow, in 1914 or 1924 such an attack would be suicide, in 1920 it had a good chance of success.

I know that it has a much longer history. Those dates I've given belongs to the collapse of  Megali Idea. 

The megalo idea was the idea of unifying all greeks under one greek government.

The reason the greek army lost in asia minor was because of unkept promises of western allies. The Soviet help to the new turkish also gave the turkish army much more equipment than they would have otherwise.

akritas

was ankara confined to ionia?

where ends ionia?

Originally posted by DayI Originally posted by strategos The megalo idea was the idea of unifying all greeks under one greek government. The reason the greek army lost in asia minor was because of unkept promises of western allies. The Soviet help to the new turkish also gave the turkish army much more equipment than they would have otherwise. wonderfull reason

Its ok, you dont need to repeat it.

Judging extremely complicated incidents without adequate knowledge leads to oversimlifications and vague reasoning. The collapse of the Greek front in Asia Minor was a product of purely political and diplomatical incidents and reasonings. Here is a barebone reasoning:

The Entente allies were resolute in their aim to dissolve the Ottoman empire. It was only a question of who is to take the spoils. Entente wanted Greece to act as a stabilizing factor in the Balkans, to overlook their interests. That is why (with the aid of the greatest Greek politician of modern times, Eleftherios Venizelos) they gave us Thrace and Smyrne and let the Greek army (even encourage us, as the Brits did) to sally forth and occupy a much larger area. BUT: With the election of the Right-Wing party and the restoration of the former (Germanophile) King, the Greeks proved to be untrustworthy. This must've been the single most decisive election in Greek history. After this, the French openly (the Italians were already there) and the Brits covert, turned to Kemal, seeing that he was undisputed leader of the ex-Ottomans (so, no election could remove him and he had to live up to his word, unlike Venizelos who was voted out of office and couldn't fulfil his promises to the Entente) and USSR invested heavily on Kemal to gain an ally in the eastern med. Franks and Brits invested even more on Kemal, the Greek political leadership was unable to make a single decent or sound decision, they even removed 2/3s of the Army leadership (while it was on campaing, ferchristsake!) and replaced them with their own cronies... now add another fact: that the (small) population of Greece was practically fighting from 1910 to 1922 nonstop, and the incompetence of the people who were charged with the effort to provide logistic support to the overextended front... and maybe you can understand why Greece lost the war (and much more: Asia Minor, where Greeks have been living for 3.000 years uninterrupted!!!).

Kemal, of course, was a much better commander than anyone we had at the moment, but granted, Turks didn't stand a chance in the million if the Greek people could hold their crap together for another election and didn't  vote Venizelos out and Georgios in. Such stupidity, mon dieu...

[edit]

Forgot to add the single point where the Entente was at fault (in not keeping their promises etc.): In the time the Greek army was marching victorious and the civil strife between Ottomans and Kemalists errupted, at this moment when a Greek offensive would've reached not only Ankyra but most probably ...Ephrates, the allies demanded the Greek army to halt. Obviously they didn't want the fledging Greek Democracy to become too strong (and too much of a nuissance - I mean, why remove the Ottomans just to replace them with the Greeks?) so they stopped the advancement at the very moment it should go on. When they "allowed" us to keep on, Kemal had won, consolidated his power and secured ample support from abroad... game over.

Greeks didnt stand a chance if our army (ottoman army) whasnt disarmed and some of the generals where fired or killed by sultan or his mastermind damat ferid.

Dont forget Greek army had much more menpower then the Turkish army and whas well equiped (many gifts of the english) in all conditions then the Turkish one.

We where more in danger because people where afraid to wage a war against the Greeks who where declared "holy" by some people in Ottoman empire and also there whas a declaration of ruler company in istanbul "people cant shoot any bullet against a army without the permission of the Caliph/padishah".

Is it me, or are you proud to be the attack dog of the Imperialists? If so, see you at the Ottoman Empire threads.

This is utter garbage. Greece is not the centre of the world, mate. In reality, nobody gave a flying f**k about your elections or German kings.

The French made peace with Turkey, because the guerilla war in the Turkish provinces they occupied was going badly. They agreed to leave those provinces alone, in return for securing their occupation of Syria (Turkey leaves them alone). They didn't really help Turkey, but for Greeks, not attacking Turkey is helping Turkey. 

The Italians actually helped Turkey a bit, because Britain wanted to have weak Greece control the E. Med., rather than the Italians. They were pissed.

USSR significantly helped Turkey to keep Imperialists or their pawns away from their south. But this help was nowhere near the Allied help to Greece.

Now, the Brits helping Turkey is utterly ridiculous. They armed the Greeks to the teeth and pointed at Ankara. When the war got bad, and some allies wanted to quit, Brits pushed forward, because they didn't want the Turkish nationalists to set an example for other nations in their empire by defeating the imperialists. Russia was already bad enough. Britain and Greece, it was true love! Until, of course, Turkish nationalists totally defeated the Greeks. Then they had to sue for peace. At which point Greece stated whining that they were not real allies, and they should attack Turkey and take over the lands, and give it to them, as they've been doing for the last century. Even after Lausanne there was tension between Turkey and Britain. Relations improved only before WWII, for obvious reasons. Of course, by the Greek criteria, British hadn't defeated Turkey and handed over the land to them, so this proves they were helping the Turks.

Also, Greek population was not that small, it was about half of Turkey's. Greek army was competent, much fresher than the Turkish one (Turkey had also been fighting non-stop since 1910, and unlike Greece, it really fought in the World War), with better equipment, good generals. They outnumbered Turks in Turkey! Only in heavy artillery (Greek generals had no World War experience, so underestimated heavy artillery, whereas Turkish ones did everything they could to get theirs to the battle) and cavalry (not that useful in WWI) did the Turks have a numerical advantage.

The only way for Greece to take Asia Minor was the time proven way, i.e. Great Powers defeat the Turks and make them give the land over. Otherwise, even if the Greeks have elected Hitler, they would have to swim back home just the same.

As the Turkish saying goes, 'if my aunt had balls, she would be my uncle'. Imperialists did their best, it just wasn't enough.  

Yes, it was yet another evil plot of the world against Greece.

Ah, Bey, you had it coming babe...

It is just you and only you suga. And while you are at an anti-imperialist row, say... how'd you define a "nation" that is absorbing-ethnic cleansing-deporting-renaming all ethnic groups inside its borders, to create a "Turkish Nation" which never actually existed? I have a couple of words in mind, let's see what you pick

Now you are being a bloody wanker, aren't you? You claim not to be nationalist, but I think you are even worst than those. With them, one knows where he's standing (in the middle of a sh*thole). With you... one moment a vivid socialist, next moment a grey wolverine... make up your mind, will ya? EVERYBODY gave a f**k about Greek elections and German kings. Claiming otherwise, just makes you look ignorant, stupid and a solid wanker if I might say so.

As I said before, anti-Greek sentiments are not a valid replacement for historical knowledge. For Turkey, taking Asia Minor was "yet another conquest", for us it was an irredeemable loss. That is why we are rather better informed on the incident than you are.

some incidents: In the aftermath of the elections, the French join the Italians and they both ask for a revision of the Sevre treaty and a halt to the aid to Greece (they don't give a f**k #1). Just before Konstantinos was reinstated, the Note of 8th November from the entente to the Greeks (with love) warns that  "Greece will show to be (if we'd reinstate Konstantinos) Incinsere " and that "the Greek people by putting Konstantinos back to the throne, will be probably confirming the hostile acts of Konstantinos (against Entente)" (they don't give a f**k, #2). And the tumbstone: "This incident creates a new, unfavorable, status in the relationships between Greece and the Allies (Entente) and if it happens, we'd  consider ourselves free to take a new course of actions" (they don't give a f**k #3).  The allies halted aid to Greece the day after the referendum that brought Konstantinos back (they don't give a f**k #4). Italy and France openly come closer and closer to Kemal, and France declares that Turkey should not lose any grounds on Asia Minor in December (they don't give a f**k #5).

These are the diplomatics moves only on December... if we go on, I'll need at least a whole page to fully describe the pro-Turk acts of France and Italy and the "neutral" acts of the UK. Of course "they don't give a f**k", do they?

This could be nominated utter bullsh*t of the year... Britain had abandoned Greece from April 1921 - after the infamous Churchill notam where he asks his prime minister (he was war minister at the time) to change the Sevres treaty in favor of Turkey... yeah, unconditional love between Greece and Turkey  

More mental masturbation and unhistorical bullsh*t... Greece had fought Britain's war ever since 1917. We entered WW1 while nobody had threaten us, we fought USSR in Crimea, we occupied Asia Minor to cover Britain's weak side, so the Brits could easily dissolve the Ottoman state and place puppets to govern the oil-rich areas... we fought their fegging war for them, you silly git. Is it so hard to understand that?

Now you show off your real face, you leftist-pretender... Yeah, that's precisely what one can hear in the Grey Wolves assemblies... you've learned your lesson well. It's as relevent with reality as Socialism with your political leanings, but don't let that stop you

That's a Greek saying...

You've got a serious case of anti-Greek syndrome, suga. Serious, indeed. Get over it and learn to live with us... the cards are on the different side of the table now honey

No, Ankara is not belong in Ionia. Belongs in Anatolia. In Antiquity Anatolia was clearly differentiated from the Mediterranean and Aegean coasts. The Ionians of the fifth century BC looked on Anatolia as 'up-country', ôá̀ ¶íù ôç + éå 'Éùíé́çò ÷ùñé́á, and the same terminology was used during the Roman empire to describe the interior parts of western Asia Minor by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles; and by a native of the region, Aelius Aristides, in his Sacred Tales. Nevertheless, despite the obvious and recognized differences between the coastlands (Ionia) and the interior (Anatolia), it is virtually impossible to set a dividing line between the two, and thus establish a clear cut-off point for the material which has been included and studied. Neither administrative nor geographical boundaries will serve adequately.

I hope this is not how they teach the Greco-Turkish war in Greek schools: 'Our glorious army and nationalist leaders were betrayed by the allies and the foreign king, while bringing democracy and civilisation to the inferior eastern peoples'. Rather than the sad truth: 'Our army, which was doing the dirty jobs of the imperialists expecting to get a piece for ourselves from the remains of our neighbour, was defeated repeatedly and eventually destroyed by a Turkish force half its size and firepower'. 

There are many such 'nations', but since you asked for a name, I'll give you one, Greece.

I am not sure what you mean. If you are using the word nation literally, indeed no nations existed on the planet before 1789. But if you mean that Turks haven't existed before the Republic, that is crap. If that was the case, half the threads in this forum would not have been about people like you whining about Turkish history, would they?

I don't know. So I'll post this to moderators and let them decide who's what.

My stand is very clear, I am a left wing anti-imperialist, and everyone knows it. I have serious doubts about you though. Given that you are the first self-declared socialist who advocates imperialist war I have ever met.

It is, indeed very easy to see who's who. Let's see what the Socialists did during this war:

TURKISH SOCIALISTS: Joined the resistance to fight the imperialist invaders. 

GREEK SOCIALISTS: Condamned the adventure in Asia Minor, involvement in the imperialist war, called for the abandonment of imperialist projects such as the Megali Idea, for peace and return of troops.

SOVIET UNION: Condamned the imperialist aggression in Turkey. Supported Turkish resistance. Many Greeks were blown to bits by ammunition made in the USSR.

So, you see, I am on the same side with Lenin, Trotsky, Greek socialists and Turkish socialists. While you are on the same side with famous socialists like Churchill, Sykes, Picot, Venizelos...

With 'German king' I meant all these Germans the imperialists appointed to rule you. What an insult!

But, in fact, I agree that I overstated a bit when I wrote that nobody cared about these things. In fact the Allies were slightly worried after the election in November.1920. That's why they wrote 'we hope the Greeks won't disappoint us'. The quotes you have (fake or real, doesn't matter) show that they were worried that your German king WOULD MAKE PEACE WITH THE RESISTANCE, WHILE THEY WANTED HIM TO FIGHT. They were worried about the popular discontent about the war in Greece, and wanted the Greek government to behave like obedient servants, and keep on with their job. And your king didn't disappoint them, did he? HE WENT TO IZMIR TO TAKE COMMAND OF THE INVASION HIMSELF. Britain was pleased. Others decided to wait and see what happens.  

Oh poor Greek nation, lost Asia Minor forever! Must have hurt the feelings of Greek nationalists a lot. Tears come to my eyes, really...  On a brighter note, what conquest are you talking about? History of Turkey really starts with the Seljuks of Rum. Anatolia is Turkish homeland. Too bad Greeks haven't learned this lesson yet. I hope Greece won't have to experience another megali catasthrope to learn it properly.

These are the diplomatics moves only on December... if we go on, I'll need at least a whole page to fully describe the pro-Turk acts of France and Italy and the "neutral" acts of the UK. Of course "they don't give a f**k", do they?

Let's look at how they behaved, then.

The imperialists (Britain, France, Russia and Italy) have divided the Ottoman Empire among themselves, way before Sevres. But the communists have taken over Russia, and they condamned the imperialists, and published the secret agreements. It was a major embarrasment for Britain and France. But when they won the war they proceeded to implement the plan anyway. So came Sevres, which replaced Russia with Greece, which was a weak, pro-British country, which Britain could push around. They preferred Greece to Italy, which could be dangerous to British/French interests. This pissed Italy off, which wanted a piece of Anatolia for itself.

But there was a problem. Turks refused to accept the agreement and fought back. It had to be enforced. But the Allies were depleted after the World War, so they armed the Greeks and sent them to destroy the Turkish resistance. In return they would get some chunk of Turkey, which was to go to Russia originally. Venizelos the malaka jumped at the opportunity.

Now let's look at the actions (not mere declarations, but actions) of the Allies, one by one:

ITALY

Occupied Antalya. Now that's really friendly! That's definitely pro-Turkey, come on.  Anyway, they wanted a piece of Turkey, but were pissed off when Greece was preferred over them. So they helped the Turkish resistance a bit, by giving information, by preventing the Greeks from committing massacres in Thrace, by treating the local population nicely, etc. But they remained in Anatolia until June.1921 in case Greeks defeated the Turks. Antalya is a nice place, you know, better than nothing.  

And why have the Italians left at that point? Was it because the pro-German king (albeit without Germany at that point) returned eight months ago? Or was it because the Greeks, even though they outnumbered and outgunned them at least 2:1 on average, have lost TWO battles against the Turks on January.1921, and April.1921 (the Inonu battles), thereby convincing the allies that they are altogether incapable of defeating the Turkish resistance?

FRANCE

The French have occupied southern provinces of Turkey (Antep, Urfa, Marash, Iskenderun, etc.), according to the plan. And were actually FIGHTING against the local resistance forces. How obviously pro-Turkish! Their pro-Turkish government also called the Turkish resistance in Ankara 'bandits'... In time France got weary of the tough resistance, and Britain. And they had a new government which wanted peace. French public have developed a sympathy for the Turks defending their homeland, after the news of Greek defeats were published in newspapers.

So, after the Greeks proved themselves incapable in the Inonu battles, the French wanted peace. The French representative arrived in Ankara on 9.June.1921, after the Inonu battles. In the meanwhile, in July.1921 the Greeks actually won a battle, and the Allies reconsidered their actions. The final agreement between Turkey and France was signed only in October.1921, 37 days after Greece lost YET ANOTHER BATTLE (again despite numerical advantage in excess of 2:1). The bloodbath at the Sakarya river was the biggest battle of the war, and it proved to be the Greek invaders' Stalingrad.

So why has France made peace with Turkey Alk? Because the once-pro-German, but now pro-War king came back 11 months ago? Or because the Greek army had just got defeated big time in Sakarya?

BRITAIN

The main imperialist power behind the whole affair had promised Greece parts of Anatolia in return for being its enforcer. They absolutely hated the Turkish nationalist movement and particularly Mustafa Kemal, who killed Imperial troops in heaps in Galipolli, and cost Churchill his ministerial position. Britain (and to a lesser degree, France) feared that a Turkish nationalist victory would instigate revolt among its subject peoples. Indians and Pakistanis Muslims proved them right many times by deserting the Imperial army and joining the Turkish resistance, and sending monetary help. When Greeks seemed to develop doubts about the merits of attacking Ankara, the British encouraged them.

Britain was also actively occupying Istanbul and Hakkari region. Their invasion of Istanbul was a direct response to the Ottoman Parliament's resolution about defiance of the occupation. They dispersed the elected government and replaced it with an illegal puppet government, which went on to sign the Sevres.

Although they supported the Greeks to the bitter end, Greek defeat in Inonu battles forced the British to try diplomacy, bowing to the demands of the French and the Italians who were less keen of the whole exercise. They called for a conference in which they offered Ankara a 'Sevres light', which was rejected outright. So much for British investment in Ankara.

So where is the king? What difference did the 1920 election make?

Back to the message,

This could be nominated utter bullsh*t of the year... Britain had abandoned Greece from April 1921 - after the infamous Churchill notam where he asks his prime minister (he was war minister at the time) to change the Sevres treaty in favor of Turkey... yeah, unconditional love between Greece and Turkey

Does April.1921 tell you something? Hint: Greek army had just got its ass kicked in Inonu. What do you expect the Brits to do? Give you Istanbul as an award? Not that they changed anything in Sevres, really. Turks refused anyway.

Yes, definitely. 100% right. British imperialists held your chains, and unleashed you to attack revolutionaries in Russia and Turkey. And you are proud of it...

You've got a serious case of anti-Greek syndrome, suga. Serious, indeed. Get over it and learn to live with us... the cards are on the different side of the table now honey

I prefer not to live together with wannabe imperialists who go insulting people because someone tells the sad truth about their country's history.

I also prefer not to live together with ultranationalists who worship their state, country and ethnicity, and won't admit making any mistakes.

I totally prefer not to live with people who come up with genious arguments like, 'Turks are evil and they don't really exist anyway'.

I really prefer not to live together with people who expect an apology for defeating an imperialist army invading my country.

Luckily not all Greeks, or Turks, are like these...

with that friends, who need enemies. Oh I just reminded they were our enemies.

It is interesting that a Greek forumer is stating his points about the reality of existance of other nations. Actually, Greece, is a good example of fabrication of a "nation" as you refer to her. During the rebellion of 1821 and since seperatist movements began, it was known by all that the newly formed Morean pseudowestern state was a totally artificial nation, which was composed of mountain shepherds and small city burgoise of Pelepponese who were used to get educated in the west and repeat what they were ordered to the regular villager who was just the true victim of European romanticism.

When they got all their historical bonds with the empire in the name of freedom and liberation, they rewrited their own past and history to state a true, ethnically homogenious nation state like the ideal of the west. They got rid of their state traditions, local authority system and so on, which were inherited them  by the Ottoman Empire and to Ottoman from Byzanthine. They ended all their relationships with the patriarch of Istanbul which was the true and the only successor instutition which was still alive for all Rumoi. Simply, they tried to get rid of everything that smelled Turkish, Eastern, or not pure-Greek to them, altough they got rid of everything that was inherited to them bu Byzanthine Empire in the name of purifying.

Beylerbeyi is nationalist? Then I am Santa Claus!

What conquest? How can someone conquer his own, native land? Did the Greek shephards conquer Morea after 1829 or became to rule it?

Loss? In fact the Greek state have never lost any soil. But the one who lost everything was Ottoman Empire. Just review its borders at 1800 and one hundred forteen years after that. Greeks lost the lands where they were just invaders. But Ottomans, lost the lands which used to be more "Ottoman" since 500 years than half of the Middle Eastern territory left to the empire, and dominantly Turkish.

Nations who still couldn't succeed the nationalising procedure needs to learn tolerance, not the ones who used to teach it to their never nationalised subjects for 600 years.

And this is your great argyment. Even and the name Anatolia that used to name the territory is a Greek!!! The Ottoman Empire died in 19th cent.  Now if you dreamed "lost territories"  and Empire then sweet dreams

Wow! Are you serious? I am amazed with your intellectual knowledge!

So it's my turn to enlighten you... The name of the whole southeastern Europe, "Balkan"s is nothing but a Turkish word! Surprise!

There was never a feudal system for the OTtomans. Because the capital power was the only authority. That's why city burgioise couldn't get much power during the Ottoman period. Everything was up to Topkapi, not to local lords unlike in Europe.

Balkan nations, mostly, after they got independent from the empire changed all their past traditions of governing and administration. From the small agricultural administrative systems to educational system.

No need for dreaming. We are delighted with our republic and identity. Because we earned them with our own blood and own fight, not by imperial powers gifting us.

What do you mean by "rubbish"? Make a research about late Ottoman periods and decide if it was a wrong statement or not.

For some, yes, for others, not.

I don't know for yours intellectual but mine is in the middle. Maybe your IQ  is high level, very high like the sky........ I prefer to stay in the ground

Balkan is a turkish word that mean steep forested mountain. Is known. "Podima balkanlarý içinde, bir alandan, bir çalýlýk içinden Ahmet Efendi'yi çýkarýp getirmiþler."- M. Þ. Esendal.

http://tdk.org.tr/tdksozluk/sozbul.ASP?KELIME=Balkan&GeriDon=0&EskiSoz - http://tdk.org.tr/tdksozluk/sozbul.ASP?KELIME=Balkan&Ger iDon=0&EskiSoz =

by own . Like Cyprus

The Greek shepherds were reconquering their lost territory.They didn't manage to succeed but it was an experience from which we have learnt a lot.We have an old saying that says:I Romania ki an perase anthei kai ferei ki allo.It means that someday the EMPIRE of the Romioi will blossom again.It is a kind of prophesy.

For some, yes, for others, not.

and not only the Kurds  Leonidas

no Anatoli means east in greek. but it doesnt metter. its ours.

Chargemaster It's true

http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8326&PN=1 - http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=8326& ;PN=1

Pozdrav akritas

I think a lot of the confusion stems from the nationalist myth that a given piece of land lawfully belongs to an ethnic group who lived there first. In reality, until nationalism and the ethnic-territorial nation-state idea came around and spread in the 1800s, no one had such demands. The land belonged to the ruling dynasty, or to the state which controlled it, not to 'Greeks', 'Turks' or 'Eskimos'. But don't get me wrong, I agree that the land SHOULD belong to the people living on it, regardless of their ethnicity/religion/sex/wealth/status, but in reality it belongs to the STATE.

When nationalists came to power, they have re-written the history. Typical peasant revolts against high taxes or local rulers, often in the name of religion and its protector the Emperor/Sultan, have become 'heroic attempts at national independence'. Even the leaders of the Serbian revolt of 1805 claimed that they were acting 'in the name of the Sultan'...

Looking at the Greek situation again, we see that the Greek nation state was created after 1821, and is in no way whatsoever related to the Roman Empire, legally speaking. It was not only nationalist, but also irredentialist, which means it tried to unite all the Greeks within the nation state.

Lets get one thing straight, the greek culture and its followers have been in anadolia for a lot longer than the tukish culture and its followers. Turks are definatley not more 'anadolian' than the greeks they removed. The turks won the last war, kick them out and written their own history accordingly. Dont mistake might for right.

I agree, but having lived in a land before someone else doesn't give you more right on that land, after the first generation. Turks are surely not more Anatolian than Greeks, but neither are the Greeks more Anatolian than Turks. Who lives there NOW, or who is born there, regardless of ethnicity, is Anatolian.

This applies to the might as right argument as well. I agree that people who are born in a land but were forced to leave it, have a right to that land. But people who are born in another land, don't have right to their ancestor's land. I don't have a right to Bosnian land which belonged to my family, which was ethnically cleansed from it during the Balkan war, or to the Russian land, lost again due to ethnical cleansing. Similarly Greeks or Armenians have no right to the Turkish land which was their ancestors' homeland.

The Greek shepherds were reconquering their lost territory.They didn't manage to succeed but it was an experience from which we have learnt a lot.We have an old saying that says:I Romania ki an perase anthei kai ferei ki allo.It means that someday the EMPIRE of the Romioi will blossom again.It is a kind of prophesy.

Greek shepherds' state is not the successor of the Byzantine Empire. It is much like the Latins' Duchy of Athens, German kings and all. Nationalism isn't enough to lay claim an Empire.

No. The Greeks lived there since a long time ago, but this doesn't make them Greek land. Various states owned that land at various points, not all of them Greek. And AFAIK, Greek speaking peoples arrived in Ionia at about 1500 BC, which is, 2000 YEARS AFTER the dawn of history. Others were living there before the Greeks.

No, it is similar to the Persian's catasthrope in invading Greece, they defeated by a smaller native force defending their homelands.

Return of the King? Is he gonna bring dwarves and elves along as well?  

very high like the sky.......

No need for exaggeration. But thanks for your compliement.

And thanks for teaching me my own language. Firstly, the name Balkans was given to the mountains of the region. But then, it became the name for the whole region. Original Turkish name for the region is Rumeli, as you refer Rumelia.

The Greek shepherds were reconquering their lost territory

Not at all. Maybe when they were invading Crete or gifted the twelve islands after WWII, but Anatolia was never a Greek homeland. Maybe once colony cities of westernmost shores, such as Izmir (Smyrna as you refer), but you should know that the Greek army reached inner regions of Anatolian plateu, where not much Greeks except Romanised natives of it stepped on before.

Well, it was actually, until 1923.

No, they weren't. Rumoi were, not the Morean shepherds.

It means most Rums weren't descended from Ionian colonists or Milets of northeastern shores.

Yes, I agree. And the Greeks aren't more Theselanoikian than the Turks they removed.

I know erkut. And I was having fun with him. Never mind...

So maybe we should wait for a new hero like Ataturk. But anyway, since Alexander was Macedonian and we don't have any problems with them at all, you need to chose someone else, for example Venizelos. At least he knew when he needed to apoligize and accept failure..

Your signature is obnoxious. I think you should change it.

Mehmet in Constantinople(Istanbul)  built another castle opposite it on the European side called  Rumeli Hisar (the European castle).  So I think Rumelia called the European and Balkan front known of the City (Thrace Eastern and Cental Macedonia)

Because is known that the others regions of the Greek territory called from the Ottomans as Epirus, Morea . Or the others known Balkan regions such as Wallachia and Moldavia

My point Rumelia is not Balkan or today the    Turkish geography change the meaning of the name.

why what is your problem with us? we did you nothing, did we?

Leonidas, I agree with you, greeks suffered much.

 But as I said you before, at next election they choose Menderes again.

I did look at some, at least probably more than you. And there are no sign of Greek civilisation except the southern Aegean coasts and Northeastern cities of once Pontus. Actually, those northeastern cities have much more in common with Georgia than Greece as culture. Rest of historical sites and ruins are mostly from Hittite, Luwian related people (Arzawa/Troy, Lykia, Paphlagonia, Lydia, Commagene/Kimakku, Cilicia/Kissuwadna etc.) and Roman/Byzanthine.

Sorry, But I can find no signs of historical Greek culture/civilisation nowhere in the central and Eastern regions of Turkey. Even not in southern shores.

Not at all. We all speak English here but it doesn't mean we are AngloSaxons. And that wasn't a strong identity for those native Anatolians, especially the ones from the inner regions after the Hellenistic period since it is known that Cilicia Trachea, Cappadocia and Phyrgia used to have native speakers until total Christianification/Byzanthine influence, and some left even after that.

Culturally, Anatolian/Istanbul Rumoi were definately appart from Greeks. Just like Azeris and Turks today. Since Azeris can't have any claim on Anatolia but they are the same language's speakers with us, Morean Greeks didn't have much common with Rumoi of Anatolia.

great comedian

Thanks for compliement. I see Greek forumers here have much in common with us, including sense of humor...

No sign of Greek civilisation in Anatolia?We ruled this land for more than 1000 years

I totally agree here. That's why I said they were different from the Greeks of the Greek homeland and colonies. Because they were Christians, not Greeks by identity, and Rumoi of Byzanthine Empire, not Greek citizens. The fact they spoke Greek at town and a forgotten Anatolian language at home wasn't enough to make them Greeks as identity.

I say. Isn't that enough? But even if I was a native convert (I am not, I am a Turk, Turkmen by origin), I wouldn' be calling myself neither Greek nor Turk until 19th century. Today, I do call myself Turk, and happy of saying it.

No doubt for that.

Homeland? What makes Anatolia a Morean Greek's homeland? If there's someone who should remember his lost homeland, he would either be a Hittite related person, and we built a monument for their honor in the middle of our capital city, Ankara, which was a Hittite city once.

Of course not. You can still visit our homeland and satisfy your nationalism, after you pay the visa price though. So you should be the first one voting for Turkey 's membership to EU, then it would be more economic for you to have a look at the musum of Aya Sofya or Ephesos. I heard they were taking twice price from foreigners all over touristic places. Best luck!

Morean greek? What are we back in the 17th century? Greeks are greeks, none of this b/s morean greek stuff you try to pull. Hittes never really controlled Ionian coast of anatolia, so dont act like that is Hittite "land". What makes a converted anatolian think he is turk? Thats the real question.

The fact that we all shared a common glorious past,from hellenistic times until 1923,the fact that they spoke Greek like the rest of the Greeks and the fact that they were christians living in Asia Minor,which was the craddle of orthodox christianity,made the Rumoi/Romioi of Asia Minor  Greeks by identity.Because this is how  the Greeks identified themselves:language,common past especially common Byzantine past,christian religion

Originally posted by Bashibozuk Of course not. You can still visit our homeland and satisfy your nationalism, after you pay the visa price though. So you should be the first one voting for Turkey 's membership to EU, then it would be more economic for you to have a look at the musum of Aya Sofya or Ephesos. I heard they were taking twice price from foreigners all over touristic places. Best luck!

Hope you reform and get in,  but otherwise enjoy the Middle east and let greece keep her subsides..Good luck

I am surpised that some of you guys try to communicate with Bashibozuk.

That guy see warehouses as mosques, see minares which actually don't exist and thinks that commedies are porn (Bashi sometimes porn is good, you should try see one movies, it opens your mind in sex).

 Believe me guys it is a waste of time, that guys make the grey wolves look like communist......

Ps. Oh i forgot it he also claimed that a bridge was a mosque!!!! let see what else he will see as mosque......

Exactly the same thing what makes a converted Hittite, Pelasgian, Lykian, Cappadocian, etc. think he is Greek.

Maybe, but I wonder what'd be your reaction if I intended to watch those porn movies in a Greek church in Istanbul. But don't worry, I won't, we have respect to religious sanctuaries and others religions unlike others....

I am neither a grey wolf or communist. What do you mean?

Hmm, to much stupidity around, I won't bother with this.

Beylerbeyi, name a defeat of the Greek army before Saggarios battle (which was not a defeat).

Keep in mind also that Italians and French DID give you material help. Also, in the last attack (August 1922), Turks had good local numerical superiority. It's true that the turkish army was underequiped and smaller than the Greek for the most part of the war, and that why you got severely defeated. And I don't know how you see 'Turks defending their homeland', but what I know is that the Greek army had turkic volunteers fighting with it.

I won't say more, because I see you in Turkey are taught a fake version to fit your overblown nationalism (for which I'm not saurprised at all).

Also note that Greece wanted to make peace from the begining of the war, but Ataturk would not accept. Greece NEVER laid claims for lands as deep as Ankyra.

1897 Greco-Ottoman War...

I assume you are trying to make a point here. Aside from the glorification of the Greek invasion, the two armies fought numerous standstills and breaks in the war. The first battle and second battles of Inonu were book ends that eventually led to the end of the war. The Greek army was aided by the Turkish renegades fighting against Turkish national forces.

A Greek peace was never part of the picture as long as Athens was utilizing British arms and behind the scenes support. Only after a series of setbacks and an approximate year long peace did the Greek side realize its futility and desire to hold onto its lands gained the previous year. The trick to consolidate them was rejected by Ankara. The Turks pushed for total independence, nothing less.

If you show us documentation about your statement "Greece NEVER laid claims for lands as deep as Ankyra" then we would be better off discussing the validity of it.

Only Greek victory against Turkish forces was the Eskisehir-Kutahya battles, which caused the Turkish army to retreat beyond the Sakarya river, setting the scene for the Sakarya battle.

I already mentioned the two Inonu battles, but they seem to have gone through your head without leaving a trace.

Here, read up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inonu - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inonu

As to Sakarya not being a defeat go to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sakarya - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Sakarya

Only after Greeks proved themselves to be incapable of winning the war.

I haven't mentioned this war at all. In reality the Greeks outnumbered the Turks in everything again, except cavalry and heavy artillery. And they were defending. Which was a huge advantage in World War I. Admittedly, they hadn't got the 2:1 advantage they had in Sakarya, but outnumbered anyway. The result was a crushing defeat of the Greek army, which retreated 300 km in 10 days (battle near Afyon on 30th of August, liberation of Izmir on 9th of September).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dumlupinar - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Dumlupinar

Severely defeated?  That's pathetic. So let's see, everyone helped Turkey, but Greeks won every single battle anyway, severely defeating the Turks. It was so easy that they wanted to get some exercise, and that's why they ran 30 km everyday for 10 days in the end, right?

When the Greeks occupied Izmir, Turkish irregulars formed militias and started resisting. The Greeks kept advancing in this period until the revolutionaries in Ankara took control of the movement. They formed a regular army from the irregular militias. At this point some of the militia leaders refused to join the regular army and lose their local power, and some sided with the Greeks against the Turks. Most famous being Ethem the Circassian. Furthermore, the Istanbul government was also sending armies against Ankara. Like all revolutionary wars, this was a civil war and international war at the same time.

But there were no Turkish volunteers in the Greek army, despite your claim.

Yes, the correct version is 'glorious Greek army won all wars while bringing civilisation to Anatolia, but it was betrayed by the Europeans, so it had to retreat'...

When was this? Greece never talked with Ataturk until they lost the war. Anyway, the master decides when to make peace, not the servant.

Bey:

Thanks for the background.  It sounds like early 1920s Turkey was a lot like Iraq.

Indeed. Luckily the Western imperialists were exhausted by the World War beforehand.

Beylerbeyi, have you read the Greek version of the war?

Have you read ANY other version than the turkish?

Wikipedia of course is crap, I won't even bother reading your links.

Saggarios battle was not won by the turks. the greek army retreated because of heavy losses. Until the very last minute the battle was considered to be going well. What the Greek command lacked was confidence and deciciveness. The march towards Sagarios was from the beginning a risk. However, from the time the operation began the army should persist to the end, despite the heavy losses. Papulas posted however to the Greek governement, if he had the permission to retreat, becuae he considered that enough (to drag the turks to negotiations) was done (display of power), and because Greece lost 25.000 men in this battle.

Also, the ratio was not 2:1. The Greek army had around 75.000 combatants (every division had many auxiliary parts), and the turks 70.000.

What are the two Inonu battles?

At the final retreat several units left Asia Minor without in fact having shot a round! (I'm reffering to the northern front). Also, until these very last battles, Greek army showed its superiority in several occasions.

I didn't claim that we lost because of the Italians and the French. But their stance, and the British stance helped a lot at our defeat. You must know that Greece wanted the war to end the soonest possible. Greek economy was collapsing literally. The government was taking unheard measures to be able to keep the front. Also the Greek army had huge material problems.

I also never claimed that 'we were bringing civilization to Anatolia'. It seems you turks like to feel the 'underestimated', the underdog, the ones that wrong was done to them.

Generally, you get me wrong. I do not claim that the Minor Asian campaign was right. It can be said that it is for the best what happened, because if we had won we would be supressing million of turks (moral problem) and we would be going directly to a next bloody round (practical problem).

Ah, by the way, its you that should bring documents that prove that Greece ever laid claims on Ankyra, not me. The suspect is innocent until the opposite is proved. So...

A simple link as a starting point to the battles of Inonu can be found here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inonu - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Inonu  

This was your statement. Therefore it is your obligation to back it up not anyone else.

No. Your statement is that at some point Greece claimed Ankyra.

So I ask "when?"

I did a little research on the battles of Inonu, in a book of mine.

What I found is that there were two battles. Turks were routed with heavy losses, but for diplomatical, political and morale reasons they showed it as a victory.

In this book there are also turkish diagrams of some battles, that show ridiculusly high Greek numbers in men and equipment. That must be a sign to you (Turks) of how subjective your view can be (probably the Greek can be too -I'm not denying it).

I don't have time right now, but I promise I'll check the wikipedia links. Notice however that the wikipedia is an open encyclopedia, and everyone can post whatever he thinks. Don't trust Wikipedia much in subjects that still leave open wounds.

It appears that the Turks resorted to propaganda and revisionist history to turn their defeat (in which they were routed with heavy losses) into a victory.  Surely no one beliefs any of that nonsense. 

I suggest that you figure out who you are debating with first then discuss the facts. You sound like you are referring to Beylerbeyi. I am the one who called you on your statement that the Greeks never tried to claim lands as far as Ankara. And I asked you to tell us how you came to that conclusion.

About the two battles:

 Fighting on many fronts, he led his forces to victory against rebels and invading armies. Following the Turkish triumph at the two major battles at Inonu in Western Turkey, the Grand National Assembly conferred on Mustafa Kemal Pasha the title of Commander-in-Chief with the rank of Marshal.

From Time magazine of all places.

Check the Wiki and there is no discussion about a Turkish route but more like an initial Turkish retreat to Eskisehir followed by a Greek retreat against Ismet Inonu and Turkish irregulars. The second battle of Inonu discusses the back and forth ebb and flow over a few important hills around Afyon eventually leading to its capture by the Turks. This was all before the national conscription by Ataturk in calling all able bodied men whom eventually were brought into the war the following year to conclude in a Turkish victory.

Of course you chose to tell us about some books you read without really posting the references you have. Then you did not even have time to go over a short wiki article on the battles. But your are still quick to disregard a wiki article offhand without judging the contents for yourself.

Bold and inaccurate claims followed by amateurish research leads one to believe that your mouth is bigger then yours brains.

Lo and behold R_AK7 is quick to assert his bias by slanting history and resorting to propaganda of his own. An assertion he blaimed me for using. Pitifull really!

Sorry for confusing you. Indeed in some cases I am refering to Beylerbeyi, in some to Seko.

Seko:

1) What Time magazine? Why is Time magazine a good source? How do I know you are telling the truth?

Your refference is unbased. It's just a supposed quote.

Not much more than what I said. Oh, no... I said my source may be biased, I don't deny it.

But mister Seko here, the smartass, thinks he has the big brains, and that his most pitiful quote, is supposed to have weight.

Seko, judging by your stance towards the Ankyra subject, and your saying 'your mouth is bigger than your brains', I don't think you're in position to tell me how to debate. I tried to lower my profile after my first aggresive post, but you think you can be the 'bad' guy here. I really wonder how you got to become a global moderator. I guess its the 1817 posts that came out from your 'big mouth'.

And stop hiding behind this US flag. Be a man.

If you are not happy with my references I can provide you with more links on the two battles.

When did you say your source was biased. That judegement is evident but I did not see you actually say that prior to your last post. If you did then show it so I could overcome my poor memory.

If I say your mouth is bigger then your brains its because your created an arguement backed up not by references or objectivity but by sly remarks in each of your posts. Calling me a smartass may be taken as a compliment by me. Yet I don't think that was your intention. So I will remind you to mind your mouth and keep from using inappropriate language.

You have noticed the numerous posts that I have. Much of it comes from either correcting guys like you or by telling them to behave. Do not let me catch you being so offensive again!!!

I will keep your sensitivties in mind by refraining from calling you brainless in the future.

You want to insult me or my Flag. No chance. You want to call me out with vulgarities. No chance. You want to debate like a man then youmay  have my attention.

Seko,as i see,you are a moderator.Instead of setting the example to us you break the rules of this forum.

According to the rules of this forum:
8.Negative attitude; tone of confrontation, annoyance, or contempt; disrespectful toward other members.

I find your attitude as a moderator not proper at all.
This is my complain.
I am saying this because you are a moderator and you should set the example of how we ,the members, should behave!

Wikipedia of course is crap, I won't even bother reading your links.

Crap or not, Wikipedia articles were obviously not written by Turks, and they claim that all those battles took place, were bitterly contested and were Turkish victories.

That sounds like a defeat to me. Let's see, Turkish army was defending the Sakarya line, Turkish objective was to stop the Greek army's advance. Greek army attacked, with the intention of destroying the defence and reaching Ankara, disbanding the Turkish resistance movement.

It was indeed a close battle, but in the end Turkish army succeeded in its objective, stopping the Greek army, and the Greek army was defeated, because they failed to reach their objective and had to retreat, suffering heavy losses. 

Same thing happened in Stalingrad. Was it a German victory or a Soviet victory?

Stalingrad was a tightly contested battle as well.

Sakarya was a very close battle. Greeks had clear superiority in everything, and they fought well, breaking the Turkish lines at points. They say artillery was heard from Ankara, and they were planning to move the parliament to Kayseri.

But Turks had advantages as well, such as favourable defensive position, better generals, psychological advantage. Beind the defending side is important, because in WWI it was a big advantage. I think that is the main reason why Turkish armies could win against the outnumbering Greek armies in the Inonu and Sakarya battles. Turkish armies failed to go after the defeated armies in all those cases, because they were too weak to attack. Otherwise the Greek adventure would have ended much earlier.

The Greek army lost the strategic initiative after Sakarya, but Turks had to wait for a long while until they gathered enough forces for an offensive operation. That's why there was a long time gap between Sakarya and Dumlupinar (the final Turkish offensive). 

Not really. Sometimes it is wiser to retreat. In Stalingrad, Von Paulus wanted to retreat, but Hitler forced him to stay, it was a disaster in the end. In Sakarya, Papulas (who was a decent General, better than his replacement) saw the impending doom, and retreated, allowing the occupation last another year.

In what way would the Turks be impressed by Greeks getting themselves slaughtered and retreating? Do you actually believe what you wrote makes any sense? By no stretch of imagination can this state of affairs be called a Greek victory.

Not really, but it is a technicality anyway. The important point is the Greek army was FAR better equipped than the Turkish one. 

So you actually never heard of the Inonu battles?  Wow, I think this fact in itself speaks volumes about how much you actually know about what happened. It's like talking about Hitler's invasion and suddenly asking 'what is Kursk battle?'

If your defeats are edited out of the books, no wonder you think that the German King was the cause of your defeat in Asia Minor.

So you at least learned that they exist.

Turks were routed? Let's see, they were defending their positions, Greeks came and attacked, and forced to retreat suffering heavy losses. In what way is this a Turkish defeat exactly? But of course if you consider Sakarya a Greek victory, these are Greek victories as well. Just like the German victory in Stalingrad.

Ismet Pasha, who became Turkey's second President after Ataturk, got his surname (Inonu) from these battles, because he won them.

I am not claiming that Greek army was sh*t and it lost all the battles. On the contrary all battles were closely contested (except maybe the final Turkish offensive), and after the two Inonu battles the Greeks have regrouped and started another offensive, which was successful. Turkish armies which held the territory west of Sakarya in the two previous offensives (the Inonu battles) were forced to retreat to the east of the river at that time.

Even though you'll find some imbeciles who'd fall for it, it is simply ridiculous to claim that Turks have lost these battles but turned them into propaganda victories. It wasn't like the media anywhere except the USSR was on Turkey's side. If the Turks had lost the Inonu battles, they would have retreated to the east of Sakarya, before the defeat in the third battle. 

There is no debate on whether Greeks outnumbered the Turks or outgunned them, the debate is HOW MUCH they outnumbered and outgunned them. For me the details are not very important, so I won't go looking for them.

Yes, it is difficult to shoot when you are running away from the enemy as fast as you can.  All they shot was poor villagers which they came across.

Such as? I wrote you, out of the five major battles, four were Turkish victories and only one was a Greek victory. Even if you count the initial stage of the occupation where the Greeks faced irregulars or no defence at all, then it would be 2/6. Still not good enough.

So what? Turkey had all these problems doubled. There was a civil war going, and the war had an Eastern front for us, unlike for you. Half the country was occupied. There was another (Vichy-like) government fighting against the resistance. There was NO economy, just the resistance taking stuff from the people by force.

How come do you think Turks had a smaller army in Turkey than you did?

I also never claimed that 'we were bringing civilization to Anatolia'. It seems you turks like to feel the 'underestimated', the underdog, the ones that wrong was done to them.

Well, most of your relatively recent history is about being the underdog, so I am sure you can have some empathy for us in this situation. For once, we were being occupied.  If you want Turks to respect your independence and borders, your rights to those, and not just be a province to be ruled by Turks, you have to respect Turkey's independence and borders. What you people are doing in this thread is coming across like, 'when Turks occupy us, it is horrible, when we occupy them it is glorious'. If you have this mentality, you have no right to complain about the Ottomans.

This is better. And I think that Greece should be independent, and not be ruled by Turks or Germans or the British. I think all Turks here agree with me on this point. Basically, you stay on your side of the Aegean, and we stay on our side. Venizelos and Ataturk accepted this. So can we.

Ah, by the way, its you that should bring documents that prove that Greece ever laid claims on Ankyra, not me. The suspect is innocent until the opposite is proved. So...

I hadn't said that the Greeks claimed Ankara.

This was the part I disagreed with, and you should prove this claim. Greeks hadn't talked to Ataturk at the beginning of the war.

No, I may be forced to close the topic!    

 Those greeks make me laugh again

well done Beylerbeyi

Or I may even be forced to close this topic! But I'll leave that honor for the mod's of this forum to do when necessary.

 For some of the smarty pants on this thread, read my four previous posts closely and then read your own. Tell yourselves who the beligerent one ones are here. I've set a very clear example for any wishing to pay attention. My posts contain no beating around the bush. No profanities. And respectful up to the point where the comparison of one's eating orifice to their intellectual capacity is mentioned. If one finds this sort of debating disrespectful then I find that those people who intentional twist history and follow up with absurd consclusions mixed with blatant lies and avoidance from answering my questions the bigger offence. 

Yea, read more and you'll learn more.

The greeks had a better equipped and bigger army? You are really mistaken.. I always wondered how the turks could drive off the greeks, armenian, and kurdish armies who were around anatolia yet they had such a smaller weaker army? Get real the USSR gave turkish rebels free arms and such supplies and this turned the tide of the wars.

Seko:

I do not want to be disrespectful, but I have made my judgement, as I guess you have made yours.

There you are.

And I did not insult your flag. I don't know, maybe my english is bad. To be clear: Are you a Turk with a US flag under your name? That was my question.

Beylerbeyi:

Bad comparison. In stalingrad the Germans were surrounded by Soviets. Paulus was asking for permission to break out of the ring, leaving the wounded in the city, and joining with Manstein.

In Sagarios, the Greeks were not endangered by a turkish attack. It was up to us to do our move. Since we decided to go for ankyra we should go to the end. What heppened is that we lost 25.000 men, succeeding nothing and in fact losing the initiative intil the end. Was this better than continuing with the attack? Of course now its 2006, and we know much more information than Papulas did back then.

The statement that we made a power demonstration in sagarios is obviously very stupid, but indeeed the army high command used it when asking for permission to retreat. Papulas was not a good commander. It was his decision to keep the big Eski Sehir (Dorylaion) - Afyon Karahisar-Kutahya line, a very long front without giving reserves. His replacement (who was executed after the war for 'betrayal') was not better, but at least he saw the weaknesses of the front and tried to correct them a bit.

About the Inonu battles:

First, I admit I've not read a really trustworthy version of the war. I have (in Athens, now I'm in Thessaloniki) the Army Staff published history of the Minor Asian campaign, which is the most official it can get, but I haven't read it (only parts of it).

Iacobos Aktsoglou: Chronicles of the Minor Asian war, 1998, Trohalia editions.

24.12.1920 The Army Corps of Smyrna is renamed to C' Army Corps.

A' AC executes decieving action towards Banaz and Sivasli.

Beginning of C' AC to recoinassance attack until Bazuyuk and if needed until location of Inonu. Detachment of the X division enters Yeni Sehir and continues to the heights west of Kupruhisar, where it overthrows weak enemy resistance and continues capturing Pabucuk. The central Detachment of the VII division advanced through Timbos- Hamzabey- Suvardi and a part of it arrived Olukman. The right detachment followed the rout Aksu-Ainegol-Hasanpasa and stationed west of Gallos (Goksu) river.

27.12.1920 Battle of VII division on the heights Kovalic-Cay-Akpinar with turksih forces that were fortified on the defensive line of Celtic-Avgin-Akpinar-Kovalic-Bozalan.

28.12.1920 Capture of the top of the height west of akpinar. Force of two battalions under Psara (I don't know his rank's translation) captures the heights of Poyra. The heights of Kovalic are taken and the turkish forces retreat towards Inonu.

Detachment of X division starting from Bilecik, captures Sogut and advances NW of Avgin.

29.12.1920 The fall back and return of C' AC (Smyrna) begins, after the end of the recoinasance attack, to its starting locations, those of 24 December.

Mustafa Kemal congratulates colonel Ismet (Inonu) for his "victory" against our army.

*Two pages after that: A turkish diagram (map) of the battle of Akpinar-Kovalic of 27-28 December*.

In turkish bibliography is mentioned as the "first victory of Inonu" (Birinci Inonu Zaferi). Despite their retreat and the serious casualties the turksih forces suffered, the turkish army leadersgip spread everywhere, the incident as "victory of the turkish forces against the greek weapons" in order to take diplomatical benefits and to raise the morale of the army.

10.3.1921 Beginning of the advance of A' AC and C' AC to take contact with the right part of the location of Inonu.

The french newspaper Matin writes "Franklin Bouillon desires an alliance agreement with Turkey"

11.3.1921 First battle in area Dumlupinar

13.3.1921 Parts of our army enter and liberate Adapazari

14.3.1921 Capture of Afyon Karahisar by parts of A' AC (5/42 Ev. Reg.). Begining of the battle of Avgin between turkish units and parts of C' AC.

15.3.1921 An agreement between the governement of Ankyra and Russia is signed for POW exchange.

17.3.1921 Until evening the VII division captures the whole strong defensive location Akpinar-Kovalic that was the southern part of defensive line Inonu.

19.3.1921 The withdrwal to Prusa of our attacking parts to defensive line Inonu begins. Small forces of ours continue their defensive struggle in the area.

20.3.1921 After decision of the national council is awarded to vicepresident (minister) of National Defence Mustafa Fevzi (Cakamak) the rank of (I don't know the ranks translation)

25.3.1921 Successfully ends the withdrwal of our parts from line Inonu to their begining locations. After tactical repositioning of our parts Afyon Karahisar is evacuated.

26-29.3.1921 Second battle in area Dumlupinar

31.3.1921 Ismet (Inonu) proposes that it is awardede to Mustafa Kemal the title of "gazi"

After some pages there is a photo, and a text syas how well fortified the Inonu line became after the first battle. This is the last time in the book that the author mentions this line.

So, I have fulfilled Seko's demand. I show exactly what I read.

Second I think -although it's not said clearly- that indeed the greek forces were defeated in this battle.

Beylerbeyi, mention the battles you reffered.

This kind of thing happens in revolutionary wars. Read about the French revolutionary wars, or Russian civil war.

In particular, Armenians were very weak, and Russians were our allies. Kurds had no armies, and they fought on the Turkish side anyway. French had armies, but they were dealt with by the local militias. Eastern front was pacified in time so that those forces could be sent West to fight against the Greeks in later battles.

Besides Turks had advantages like better generals and defending most of the time.

It was indeed crucial help, but was next to nothing compared to the aid Greece got from the Allies before and during the war.

Why was Paulus surrounded? Because Hitler forced him to stay. If it was up to him, he would have retreated way before.

One way or another it was clearly a defeat. We can never know what would have happened if the Greeks continued the attack. Maybe they could have broken the Turkish resolve, or maybe they could be totally annihilated.

Yes, and the important point is that these battles had huge political repercussions. Not that who outnumbered who.

Until Inonu, nobody suspected the strength of the Turkish resistance. The Allies thought 'those are just a bunch of pretenders, a rag-tag coalition of remnants of the disbanded Ottoman army and local bandits. The Greek army will defeat them easily and finally end this nuissance, which will allow us to finally end this very unpopular war'. 

Some people suspected this might be more difficult than it seemed, but most have underestimated the resistance. In Inonu, the Greeks found out that they faced a serious enemy, thanks to the success of the Turkish revolutionaries (led by Ataturk) in creating an effective resistance movement.

This gave Ankara international recognition. People started to think about the possibility that Ankara would actually manage to reclaim Anatolia. USSR started helping seriously. The Allies saw that the problem was getting bigger everyday. This led to two different types of behaviour, France and Italy wanted to make peace, in case Ankara would be successful, and Britain and Greece wanted to get rid of the problem, before it got even bigger. Hence the march towards Ankara.

Until he got surrounded, Paulus was winning in Stalingrad. He was only some hundred meters away from Volga.

What help? During the war Greece did not get any help, not even from Britain which was supposed to be our ally. Greece was pleading for a loan and noone would give one.

Also Greece was fighting with weapons and ammo that she already had from before the war. Some units were even equiped with Gras rifle from 1870s. Greece had like 7-8 rifles in use. Apart from the Mannlicher which was the main rifle, Greece had Bulgarian and Turkish Mausers, even Mosin Nagants from the campaign in Ukraine.

And I still wait for the battle list from Beylerbeyi.

Because I think there's something to debate over who had the upper hand.

Btw, I was totally right. The articles in Wikipedia are written by Turks and edited by Turks.

Well, it is a known fact that Greek army had much more artilleries,rifles and trucks, actually a few times more than the Turkish army.

The USSR aid is not an aid that can be despised under any case, but comparing to Anglo-French aid(mostly Anglo, I can say), that wasn't really greater.

The aim is really clear for English, they wanted to oppress national movement by using Greek army, as their public opinion, which was already tired of The Great War, didn't want to send more troops for a new fight they didn't believe...Plus, the colonies, also rejected to send in more troops after sending so much and giving so much casualties in WW I.

There weren't any Kurdish armies at that time..There were a few "çete"(gangs) formed by Kurdish, but they weren't much against the Turkish nationalist movement,actually most of them were supportive for it.

As the Allies had recently ended the Great War for themselves, it is not so abnormal that they weren't able to give large loans to Greeks...But of course, that doesn't mean that Greece didn't get any help at all.

And it shall also be taken into consideration that Turkish ammo and weapon depots were mostly under Allied control at that time...

One of the main problems of Greek army in the war was logistical. Supplies weren't arriving at the right time, and as the Greek army got inner and inner in Anatolia, it became harder to arrange logistical support.

And as Beylerbeyi stated above, there were a clear difference between the generals and the spiritual state of the soldiers fighting...Turkish generals, whom mostly fought in many different fronts and conditions during all WW I, was far more talented than their Greek counterparts.And Turkish army, formed of soldiers willing to fight to save their country and independence, was more ready to die than the opposing side.

Agree with you for the leadership. It's not that there were no talented Greek officers, but because of the Royalist-Venizelist tensions, all Venizelist officers (who were the majority in the army) were replaced with royalist officers.

I don't agree with you about the soldiers though. The morale of the Greek soldiers was very good, and in the most part better than of the Turkish soldier. Not only the Greek soldiers beleived in their cause, but they were also more confident of the quality of the Greek army. The turkish army had thousands of deserters.

Yes, definately. After total civil action of Kuvva-i Milliye, Adana, Mersin, Tarsus, Urfa/Edessa and Antep were all liberated by local, freedom fighter forces. And Maraþ was the only city as I know, which was liberated just by the local Turkish forces, without any military interfering.

That's why today, we call Antep as Gaziantep, Urfa as Þanlý/Glorious Urfa and Maraþ as Kahraman/hero Maraþ.

Originally posted by RomiosArktos I am a Macedonian and I have a lot of problems with youI live in Macedonia,in Greece and many of  my ancestors from my father's side lived here and are buried in this land.Alexander was our greatest king ,he united the Hellenes.

Or more like he enslaved you ...

"Ï Ößëéððïò åßíáé âÜñâáñïò, äåí åßíáé Åëëçíáò êáé äåí Ý÷åé êáììßá ó÷Ýóç ìå ôçí öõëÞ ôùí ÅëëÞíùí"

ÄçìïóèÝíçò: 3ç ïìéëßá êáôÜ ôïõ âáóéëÝùò ôçò Ìáêåäïíßáò