Talk:Smyrna

so it should state up front that the article is disputed

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Tmhaycraft.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Smyrna catastrophe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suzerainity

I am not sure, but wasn't Smyrna controlled by Greece approx 90 or so years after its independence from the Ottoman Empire in 1821? Where is the history of this? Doesn't the link below prove this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Greekhistory.GIF —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.175.209.207 (talk) 19:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No. This just shows that Smyrna was controlled by the Greeks for a few years after WW I. This is correct. It was Ottoman before that. Like most empires, they had a way of controlling hostility between different people. When empires fall, nationalism replaced it causing the displacement of Greeks who were getting along fine with the Turks just before the war. Student7 (talk) 17:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Agressors?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burning of Smyrna: another anonymous edit

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

---

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

---

Independence war? From whom? The Turks had been living on stolen lands for centuries, it would seem that the Greeks were fighting a war of independence which they lost as Mustapha Kemal was receiving support (moral and military) by German alies. You may construe the facts to suit your propaganda - but the truth will always prevail through documentation and eye witness accounts of third parties and even Turkish alies. by ApplesnPeaches ~~ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 148.195.135.34 (talk) 22:08, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Responses

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

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

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

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

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

== To Wetman 2 ==

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

Holocaust Deniers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

---

Sorry but this is a pseudo-dilemma. And at some point in Asia minor (or Anatolia) lived the Neanderthals..so? Ionia is considered the birth place of the Ionian race. Unless you have many accounts of Greeks attacking the Hittites (3000 years ago?)and Hittites trying to rebel today against the Turks. [00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)nefeligeretis]

~~ With respect to what you're arguing - your statement "greeks living happily in Smyrna for 500 years", does not explain why the people of Smyrna lay flowers on the roads when the Greek army landed. You say that you are neither supporting nor denying their claims. That you appear to remain objective. Explain again why, if they (Greeks of Smyrna) were the majority and no planned deportation and attacks by Turks was instigated, were their homes and persons attacked and set on fire after the Greek army retreated whilst European forces idly watched with orders not to intervene? Who was supporting the Turks in their final extermination of the Greek element in their home-cities? It's obvious by third party accounts, even by allies of the Turks that the Turks had means, orders and help to have genocidal attacks performed. The unjust treatment of the people from the early invasions of the Turks is a vicious cycle here.

Also, what about the racist attacks against to Greeks of Constantinople in 1955 instigated by a Turkish nationalist bombing the Turkish consulates office building in Greece? Even before the reports reached the Greek authorities, the planned attacks on the Greeks of Constantinople were well underway. Are you now claiming that Greeks play the victim out of habit? What about the Turks playing the hate purpetrators out of traditional habit on other people's lands? Is it or is it not true that the Turks invaded the Areas they now call Turkey? Is it true or is it not true that the Greeks are not on land that was traditionally Turkish? But on their own ancient lands? Greeks are rightfully cautious of Turks. And no, they are not the same people - their actions and affiliations prove this. By ApplesnPeaches. ~~

Sorry but this is a pseudo-dilemma. And at some point in Asia minor (or Anatolia) lived the Neanderthals..so? Ionia is considered the birth place of the Ionian race. Unless you have many accounts of Greeks attacking the Hittites (3000 years ago?)and Hittites trying to rebel today against the Turks. [00:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)nefeligeretis]

It seems to me that this is getting way out of hand for no purpose. Can't you agree to disagree? You clearly aren't going to agree! Also the argument seems to stray from Smyrna often enough. The article is not about Neaderthals. The Turks displaced the Greeks which were living happily under the Ottoman Empire. When the Turks turned nationalistic this no longer worked. The Greeks could not sustain their toehold and they lost the war. Personally, I regret this but it is a fait accompli which is all we report here. I can't honestly imagine an Anatolia with Turkey in control of the hinterland and the Greeks clinging to the seashore. The idea is silly. Which is why it didn't work.

If this has to do with sentence wording let's continue. But if it's just to score points off each other, perhaps you can find another venue. The two sides were at war. I think we can correctly assume that both sides did really unpleasant things to win. I'm sure each side felt equally justified at the time because they were sure that it was the other side who escalated "first." That's the way wars are conducted.

The Armenians are another story but that has nothing to do with this article. Student7 (talk) 01:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

!!! The "Armenians" are not at all "another story", whoever says so is clueless not to mention aggressively disrespectful to the genocide of millions. The genocide of Armenians was only a part of the overall extermination plan executed by the young-turkish movement eventually led by Kemal and his regime. The basics of the plan were already laid out by late 19th century with the rise of this mysterious movement (mysterious in the sense that few of the young-turks were ever real Turks or even muslim and they all held tight connections to western powers whose role is more than prominent in all these genocides). The extermination of Armenians was only a part of the overall extermination of Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians and all other ethnic and sub-ethnic christian groups - a process that even ended up as a side-effect including some parts of the muslim non-sunni Ottoman populations of Minor Asia (Alevites, Bektashis). It is not a secret that young-turks were organised by the west (their first comitees were hosted by the French and funded and manned by many European elements) and it is not a secret anymore that Britain just like its "enemies" Austria and Germany had viewed the extermination of christians of Minor Asia under a positive light under the light of the Russian expansion to the south which British and Austrians had fought against for more than 100 years (ever since the Orloff's war).

No need to speak of the actual occurence of the genocides - the numbers speak themselves:

A mix of Ottoman and European (British, French, Italian) reports and surveys in Minor Asia (speaking of west coast east to the region of proper Armenia) measured on average : 18 million overall population out of which => 10,5 million where muslims out of which about 2 million where Alevites and Bektashis (their existence often indicating prior recent christian ancestry) => 7,5 million where christians out of which about 3 million were Greeks (mostly west and north coast) about 3 million (mostly east and south then some scattered in main cities of the west) about 1,5 million Assyrians and other christians (levantines, catholics, arab christians, mixed populations etc.)

One has also to note that the above surveys and european reports were always skewed at the expense of Greeks and Armenians (particularly the Greeks...) who seemed not to fit within the "greater plans" of European powers for the region. US ambassador to Smyrna lets voluntarily and involuntarily a lot of information casting a huge shadow to the role of British, French, Germans and Italians. On the latter, their role is well known - no wonder why no Turk ever fought against any Italian despite the fact that Italians out of all Europeans witheld actively the largest region of Minor Asia and not the British (under whose orders Greeks found themselves there).

So speaking of Greeks'fate:

GREEKS 1912 Uknown numbers of Greeks slaughtered in small unprotected towns mostly in northwest coast (eg. slaughter of Phocea) 1914 300,000 conscripts perished in forced labor brigades (a whole generation of young men exterminated) 1916-1922 350,000 Pontions massacred or killed during forced deportations (1/3rd of the Greek population of Pontos) 1922 Nearly 200,000 massacred in Smyrna (the vast majority of the city's inhabitants plus refugees from nearby regions, were slaughtered) 1914-1922 about 900,000 perish from maltreatment, starvation and massacres; total of all other areas of Asia Minor

TOTAL: 1,750,000 Greeks genocided

Speaking of Armenians

ARMENIANS 1894-1896 300,000 massacred 1915-1916 1,500,000 perish in massacres and forced deportations (with subsidiaries to 1923) 1922 30,000 massacred or burned alive in Smyrna

TOTAL: 1,800,000 about Armenians genocided

One you put the dates you see the genocide pattern - the pattern is NOT linked to any military activity in the region but to a successive step-approach of the young-turkish movement that already since late 19th century was onto wholesale genocide, using every possible event (Defeat by Russians? send the mobs slaughter Armenians, Greeks capture Thessaloniki (a surrender, no muslim victims), let the mobs slaughter Phoceans in Minor Asia) to rally the muslim mobs against the unprotected civilian christian populations (no need to speak of "barbarisation" of the ones and "victim-playing" of the others, that was the situation back then as it remained for the rest of the 20th century.

Numbers are speaking for themselves. Out of the rest of Greeks, the 2/3rds found their way into Greece and about 1/3rd fled to either Russia or moved to Greece and then emigrated to other parts of Europe. And there is teh greatest proof:

1) We have the 1910 Ottoman numbers of Greeks of Minor Asia 2) We have precise numbers of Minor Asian Greek refugees to a) Greece and b) other European countries And we miss well above 1,500,000 people. Turks and whowever else that refuses the term "genocide" have yet to explain this discrepancy. The same question lies for Armenians too, nearly 2 million Armenians are missing and genocide denialists Turks cannot explain it.

Yet, the more than 3 million christians missing have been well explained by Greek, Armenian and European witnesses of these genocides: these people were slaughtered. The only reason that these genocides are not widely spoken today is because in the west Europeans are afraid of opening their own cans of worms while in the east, muslims would never care to accept the genocide of christians by muslims, on the contrary.

"Fire of Smyrna" is a fully wrong description of what was a slaughterhouse in which 100,000s of people were slaughered. "Population exchange" is also a wrong description as the only population that was exhanged was the 300,000 muslim population minority of Greece (exchanged after the demands of Turkey and Britain and not after any policy of Greece), a minority that was never harmed as contrasted to the half-genocided, half-refugee-made Greeks of Minor Asia that numbered more than 10 times the muslim numbers of Greece.

One can call it whatever he wants, but under any language, these slaughters are the definition of genocide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.141.54 (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

This has to be determined by "outsiders", not those who imagine they were involved because their ancestors were involved.

We know now that distinctive populations should not be moved against their will en masse. That, alone, is called genocide today. But it wasn't then.

Turkish leaders, when informed of the deaths expressed sorrow. By contrast, when Nazis were confronted with the Jewish extermination, their reaction was "Well, I had nothing to do with it." Denying, not the murder, but that they had a part in it. Nor did the Nazis appear sorrowful at the deaths. The Turkish leaders, by contrast, did not deny that the movement was organized by them.

The leaders claimed it was "done wrong." No decent provision for food, etc.

Were all Turks equally "broken-hearted?" Well, probably not, since that is why the population was moved in the first place. The Armenians were unpopular and suspect by the Turks.

The deaths happened. Relabeling the event with a modern label is not helpful, IMO. It does not seem useful to say "We would call this genocide today." The world has reached the point with the Armenians and Jewish deaths, that genocide has been clearly defined and outlawed. Both were needed for the world to realize this point of International Law. Student7 (talk) 13:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Terrible article

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

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

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

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

Turkish textbooks

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

Why Smyrna and NOT Ismir

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

Burning of Smyrna

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

~~ There's also documentation and footage on the burning of Smyrni. The greek population adn history of the city is not a myth. Why would the greeks burn their homeland? And if the mainland greeks were to invade the place to take it over, why again would they want to burn it??? it doesn't make sense. It was greek to begin with. You don't burn your own land when you want to free it. There were also eye witness accounts made by "neutral" forces who stood idly as the deportation of the natives occured with aggressive force by the Turks. About the name: I think the name should stay because it was still a city that existed well before the arrival of the invading Turks. So, if someone reads up on smyrni/smyrna they should be able to research for that name. Izmir can also have a separate page if that offends the Turks. As for Greeks "invading", the Greeks of smyrna may have viewed that act as the Greeks "liberating" Smyrni from the Turks. Perhaps the Turks feared it would be liberated as the Greek mainland was, so they painted darker picture of the Greek army, who by the way thought they were doing a good thing. So, it's all up to interpretation depending on your affiliation to which country. by Applesnpeaches ~~

A decent solution?

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

Objectivity still missing

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"words like rape and kill should be removed"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dobkin's book

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

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

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

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

Prentiss was forced to change his account

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deleting of killed and raped sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The usual "justification" of the genocide of Greeks of Minor Asia (and a similar "tale" exists for the "justification" of the genocide of Armenians of Minor Asia), is that the Greek army did extensive slaughters against the Turkish civilians.

Whoever this contrasts with the fact that:

1) The extermination of Greeks had already started in 1912 with the massacre of Phocea (all while for Armenians had started 2 decades earlier). 2) By in 1914-1915 and up to 1919, prior to the Minor Asian campaign that was NOT organised by Greeks but by British (why everybody forgets that?) already more than 600,000 Greeks were exterminated (350,000 Black sea Greeks, 300,000 "coscrpited" young Greek men...) 3) Greeks landed on Minor Asia not as an invasion force since there was no state there to invade following the Ottoman defeat of the WWII and the breaking of the Ottoman Empire. Smyrna and the Ionian coastal region had a clear Greek majority and even in Smyrna, a central Ottoman center and a multinational city, the majority of Greeks was evident even to those Europeans of anti-Greek feelings. Turks themselves called it giaour-izmir (i.e. city of the infidels), guess why. Now most interestingly given the remarks above: 4) The Greek army not only did not move on to make massacres but actively protected the muslims by issuing orders against reprisals, punishing even with executions soldiers that committed crimes against muslims and there were recorded executions 5) The Greek army - thanks to the British machinations (there is a long discussion that has to be done elsewhere) - got involved into guerilla warfare with Turkish irregular troops. As it usually happens in that kind of warfare Turkish irregular troops were using villages as bases of operation thus provoking the response of the Greek army. Most muslim civilian casualties are actually concentrating around that warfare.

Most importantly: 6) Muslim overall casualties from Greek forces amount to 40-45,000 people but these are not just the civilian ones since in these the casualties of guerillas IS actually included!!! The quasitotality occured in remote villages that involved guerilla warfare. Muslims in big towns and cities never suffered. Ever wondered why the muslims of Smyrna and the Smyrna region remained there intact until the kemalist forces enterred? If Greek violence should had driven them out, at least out of the big cities, but no, this thing never happened and not even Turks ever suggested so. They only thing Turks suggest is the destruction of particular villages (i.e. relating to the above case) by the Greek army but this was part of a lawful military campaign not any act showing any will to get rid of the muslim populations no matter if that was used by the turkish and pro-turkish positioned ones to state so.

Even if we do account these less than 40,000 civilians, they pale not only in front of the more than 1,5 million massacred Greeks but even in front of the pre-1919 genocided Greeks that number more than 10 times that number. Give the number of muslims habitating the region, the genocide perpetrated by muslims only a couple of years back against Greeks, and the army numbers of Greeks forces (more than 110,000 thousands) then several 100,000s if not millions of Turks should had been slaughtered by Greeks had Greeks wanted to take revenge, but nothing like that happened.

Trying to equate the sporadic reprisals of Minor Asian Greeks against local criminal muslims with the whole sale genocide of Greeks by Turks, is at least un historic, let alone inhuman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.141.54 (talk) 15:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

FAO Wetman

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

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

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

merger

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

This page should be removed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Byzantium and New Rome on top of those. Anyway, it should be interesting to note that Smyrna was called İzmirni or İzmir by Turkish speakers for centuries before the war. And, as I understand it, though Istanbul and Ankara retain their traditional Greek names in Greece, I've seen modern İzmir written as Ιζμιρ, though I don't know if this is a synonym for the city or descriptive of İzmir province. - Gilgamesh 07:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Occupation of Smyrna covers the burning of Smyrna.

As a military history page, the section covers more information about the specific period. The text in the talk page is also moved to keep the relevant information intact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OttomanReference (talk • contribs)

No mention of the word "Greek"

I've noticed that there is a heading for the lydian, hellenistic and byzantine periods of the city, but not one that says "ancient greek", referring to the archaic and classical periods. Those are covered in the introductory paragraph. It seems that someone wants to bypass this period, or at least undermine it. I suggest that we made a short introductory paragraph and then move to the list as follows: 1. Ancient greek Smyrna 2. Lydian Smyrna etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.54.194.103 (talk) 00:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC).

Don't get me wrong, I think most certainly the article needs more work with regards to the ancient periods. I just don't think we need to source that it was an ancient Greek city- it looks really odd. I mean, will anyone really question that it was an ancient Greek city if we don't source it in the middle of a sentence? Not me, that's for sure... if it wasn't entirely ancient Greek, then we can go into it after the intro. The intro is essentially a summing up, and so we should include civilizations in order that lived there to be correct. :) Monsieurdl (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is a constant problem on articles referring to Turkey. All along the west and north coast all you have is Greek-habitated lands since early antiquity and until the Minor Asian genocide 100 years ago. Having erased the Greek populations, Turks naturally try to take out even the reference of "Greek". Every single ancient Greek ruin from 1000 B.C. to 500 A.D. is described as Roman or at best "hellenistic". Even Homer was claimed to had been a "pre-Turk" (amazing term!) whose "real name" was.... Omar. I.e. if my name is George then St George has to had been named after myself! With that level of culture, one can never battle on the discussion table. You lose your time if you do so. Dismiss it and go on with real research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.169.141.54 (talk) 14:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Move proposal

Proposal:

• Move Smyrna to Smyrna (ancient city) or similar name
• Then redirect Smyrna to İzmir.

For rationale and discussion, see Talk:İzmir#Redirecting Smyrna. (Suggest to keep the discussion there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:27, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes let's move it that way!! User:Eae1983

This suggestion is not in the interest of user-friendliness: the reader entering Smyrna may not be interested in Izmir. Compare Londinium and London, Mediolanum and Milan. Would Byzantium and Constantinople be made redirects to Istanbul, simply because some Turk who doesn't bother to log in wants to express himself? Please. Thinking, "what would most directly help the Wikipedia reader" often saves us from errors based on personal attitude alone. User:Eae1983 and other Turkish editors have all they can handle at Izmir without interfering at classical sites where they are not qualified. --Wetman (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't do this. Often the locations are different for ancient sites anyway (Pergammon and Bergama, for example). English speaking classists want the ancient names, not the new ones. The encyclopedia is for the serious student, not to fulfill someone's narrow political ambitions. Student7 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Wetman, how do you know I am not qualified for this, I might have a history PhD, who knows ;)

The idea behind the move (that was partially already done) was NOT encompassing the ancient city of Smyrna, that regards you, but anything that came after the Antiquity. Not long ago, a few months before, one could have found in this page, not only documentation of the Ancient City, but also for example some horrid details of the 1919 Greek takeover that did not belong here. The debate now is wether or not renaming THAT article Smyrna (ancient city) since some greek users still could adventure hereby believing that "Smyrna" is the default name for modern İzmir, and you and your colleagues could work on this one version.

Cheers! --Eae1983 (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

first of all this is not a new issue, many cities have different names in different languages. Wikipedia is in english so city name must be used in that fashion(formal name of the city in UK is izmir).Smyrna is just one of old names of the city, is there any other names registred here? couldnt find hatti tsmurna, nor hittite sumarna. Just to make some greek sculpturist happy holding this page is equally stupid to delete it for only making their turkish counterparts happy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.149 (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Founded by Ionians?

so it must be a ghost town of Tsmurna that Hittites were taxing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.16.8 (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting you say this as the first coins were made in Lydia and this was after the existance of the Hittites so please confirn where your information came from and what were they receiving as tax.Hellasforever (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)hellasforeverHellasforever (talk) 12:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

what about coins here? If you mean for taxing fist money needed to be invented you are wrong, egyptians and sumerians were paying tax in what they can (wheat, gold etc etc). If you argue with the history of İzmir, go tell your question to Hattusa archive, which predates, Ionian infestation by a milenia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.107.89.149 (talk) 23:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Many of the city/town names in anatolia today has greek origins nobody is denying that. But most of the major cities are much older than first indo-european speakers. Tismurna(izmir) is one of them, Appasa(Ephesus) is another, or even the name of land-sea Assuwa(Asia-Aegea) is older than first Greek speakers.

We cant determine the names used for pre-historical izmir, cos writing is recent to the region(during Hittite period 2nd millennium BC) is a historical name is to be used, it has to be oldest known, and that is Tismurna, not later Smurnu,Smurna,Smyrna or Izmir. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.25.193 (talk) 22:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Pathetic Notible Residents Section

The notible residents section looks very weak. It is about the people that make a city great, and to see a bishop and some other guy as notible residents seems stupid. I mean didn't Homer even live in Smyrna for a while. I don't have a lot of knowledge of the area as I live in America, but my family was from Smyrna so I am interested. There has to be some good stories of residents from Smyrna. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.201.193.254 (talk) 04:23, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the notable bishops. They are, nonetheless, extremely prominent in their own right.

Because of Smyrna's (and other ancient cities) extensive history, it is preferable to place people in notables who aren't mentioned too prominently in the history. If you can come up with some, please add them. Their connection to Smyrna must be indisputable (in their article and footnoted here if questionable).

Most of us working on the article do not live in Smyrna! Most of us live in North America, UK, Australia, NZ, India, South Africa, and a lot of other places, but seldom Greece or Turkey. Student7 (talk) 12:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion of prominence second only to Rome

A line suggests that Smyrna vied with Ephesus and Pergamum for "Second City" status. The article on Ephesus suggests otherwise. It is not well documented. Really needs to be resolved sometime. We need a scholarly reference from somewhere to solve this once and for all. BTW, I rather suspect there is some validity to Ephesus' claim over Smyrna and Pergamum, but there may have been other contenders over Ephesus. Student7 (talk) 19:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I have seen both ancient cities,i can easily say Ephesus could compete with Pergamon (though loses in every aspect) but Smyrna is just a small town when compared to these two metropolises of pre-christianity hello-roman era. Pergamon is huge and not only a trade center but also an industrial center, health center for all Mediterenean civilisation, Ephesus is occupies a smaller area but still comparable(perhaps half) and was the port for very fertile lands to the east. On the other hand Smyrna, looks like an island fortress, very small area, nor arable, only advantage would be its proximity to the Lydian capital Sardis, which lost its importance after Persian invasion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.100.25.193 (talk) 22:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Two sources

I am adding two non-English sources, one in German, the other in French. The first one could be particularly useful since it provides the principal references based on solid scholarly ground on the ancient city of Smyrna, namely German, French, British and Turkish sources (Literatur zu Smyrna). Such ground takes at least a hundred years to construct. I also suggest we remove the link included here to the 20th century British businessman and designer of cars. Cretanforever (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the Persian rule!

Böri (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Pretty much goatfields until Alexander conquered it, right? Not much history there. Student7 (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

map(450 BC): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Athenian_empire_atheight_450_shepherd1923.png Smyrna was under the Persian rule at that time... Böri (talk) 07:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it was under Persian rule. But what affect did this have on the local goatherders or whatever were in the region? There was no city! "The Persians told the goatherders to (what)? And the goatherders did {what?)." Not too exciting, I fear. Maybe the Persians stole a goat now and then. That was probably the extent of local news. Student7 (talk) 18:40, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Smyrna. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090306010724/http://cipa.icomos.org/fileadmin/papers/antalya/114.pdf to http://cipa.icomos.org/fileadmin/papers/antalya/114.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:51, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Several sections are lacking in sources

Particularly noted the lack of references in the sections on the Hellenistic period. Also y'all its a wikipedia article not an assault on Mustafa Kemal himself/the idea of Greekness wow — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmhaycraft (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Notable people, add section?

Hi, While reading article "Elli Pappa (1920-2009), Greek writer and activist", the infobox shows born at Smyrna. Would it be Okay to create "Notable people" section and begin with Elli Pappa article? This section has to start somewhere, & wondering if anyone else can contribute more people? JoeNMLC (talk) 19:15, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd say first let's resolve the problem of the content. A notable person that late would have to go in Izmir even though he is Greek. For almost a thousand years Izmir had both Greeks and Turks (in addition to the English and others). Botteville (talk) 02:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposal to move material

I tried my best to read through this commentary. Goodness gracious, can you deutsche folk keep the uproar down? I've heard from most of you at one time or another. The one legitimate comment by a person named student something pointed out a content inaccuracy that amidst all the shouting has not been addressed. According to the sources, Smyrna was a Carian city. The Aeolians took it. Then the Ionians got it. They worked out an agreement whereby the Aeolians abandoned it. Then along came the Lydians eager to take it back. Ionian Smyrna put up such a good fight that Gyges couldn't take it. The Cimmerians then interceded. Gyges' great grandson Alyattes finally dealt with them and in retaking Ionia decided to raze Smyrna. We don't know why but we can guess. The decision stood for 400 years. That is why they aren't too significant for the Medes and Persians. They weren't there any more. Here we have to put up with editorial guessing. New Smyrna and Old Smyrna developed simultaneously he/she says. What about the 400 years of no Smyrna at all? Goodness gracious, great balls of fire.

I notice someone went ahead and created Old Smyrna. That sort of pushed Smyrna into New Smyrna. But we can't call it that now. However, the transition was not complete. There are still two big sections of an Old Smyrna. I propose to move those to Old Smyrna, which barring a serious discussion to the contrary, I will do.

I propose also to add the source material and correct the inaccuracies. As for Smyrna, it seems to me from 200 BC to 1922 is a pretty long, tedious time. I suggest these modern events have their own articles. I don't know if I'll be interested. I'm on Ionia and poleis right now. However it may be, I suggest you roaring Germans, Turks and Greeks, or whoever else may enjoy a good roar, move it all to Facebook or some other cage in the zoo but here. I'm still at the level of President Wilson and Mustafa Kemal working through the long nights to try and solve the problem. Go somewhere else.Botteville (talk) 01:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

No obections so far. I see this is one large topic, bigger than I thought. OK, no sense crying about it. First, no one understands "Old Smyrna." Second, there are two wikidata infoboxes for old smyrna. Third, there are 3 aticles covering the same smyrna: Old Smyrna, Smyrna, Izmir. They are not adequately distinguished. You are likely to find Smyrna material of any type in all three articles. I would say, the content has gotten out of control. There are pictures to consider as well as text. My concept of a proper division is, Old Smyrna=Strabo's Old Smyrna plus the subsequent village period. Smyrna=Hellenistic up to occupation by the Seljuk Turks. Izmir=Turkish Smyrna. There ought not to be parallel modern Greek and Turkish Smyrnas. I think a time division will do fine. It is a lot of work. I will start slow and work on it gradually. You shouldn't have to look in three article to read about archaic Smyrna.Botteville (talk) 00:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and moved most of the Old Smyrna material to Old Smyrna. But, there is a problem at the other end. The artcle wants to talk extensively about modern Izmir. We should be putting that in Izmir. This article should end with the entry of the Seljuks. I will eventually get to it. Right now I'm sorting out the more ancient periods.Botteville (talk) 01:59, 8 September 2023 (UTC)