Bir Türk kökenli, bir yunan kökenliye kurtuluş savaşını sorarsa
If a Turkish origin asks a Greek person about the Turkish war of independence (or Turco – Greek War of 1919-1922 as Greeks call it, Kurtuluş savaşı as Turks call)
Greece in Turco-Greek War of 1919-1922
Shortened version of article “Revisiting the Fire of Izmir” published in Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, V. 41, No. 1, Fall 2017.
September 13, 2012 is the 90th anniversary of the “Inferno of Izmir” when a great fire broke out that destroyed more than three-fifths of the town. Some Western sources have wrongly placed the culpability for the fire on Turks that recaptured the city from occupying Greek army in September 1922. To that end, Governor George Pataki of New York, playing ethnic politics, shamelessly issued a proclamation in 2002 blaming Turks for the fire.
Historical testimonials, however, clearly indicate that, while the retreating Greek army had a role in starting the fire, Armenian terrorists, dressed in Turkish uniforms, did the biggest damage.
Atrocities by Greek and Armenian elements had actually started as early as mid-May 1919 right after the Greek landing in Izmir. Due to the pressure of the Entente’s representatives, the Greek High Command sentenced dozens of criminals in spring 1919; among the sentenced were 12 Armenians. The atrocities continued during the whole Greco-Turkish war, with Armenians participating in the violence and destruction. In a July 1922 report, Elzéar Guiffray, the administrator of the Izmir’s port, estimated that more than 150,000 Turks were killed, or “disappeared,” as a result of the Greek armed forces’ war crimes.
The summer of 1922 was a culmination of the Greek scorched-earth policy. The Greek army forced the Christian population to leave, and burned everything, including houses of the Christians. This scorched-earth policy is established both by the report of Father Ludovic Marseille, chief of the Catholic mission in Eskișehir (who said that the Greeks had lost forever any right to speak about “Turkish barbarity”), and by a dispatch sent by the staff of USS Litchfield to Admiral Mark Bristol, the US High Commissionner at the American Embassy in Istanbul.
According to a report by a the French Navy’s Intelligence Service (Izmir office), dated 15 November 1920, Armenians, both civilians and legionnaires, arrived in Izmir from Cilicia, engaged in arson, and tried to excite the Greek army against the Turkish population. (During the French occupation of Cilicia, the Armenian Legion committed so many crimes that the Legion itself was disbanded in disgrace [phrase used by French General Jules Hamelin in his mémoires] in summer 1920 and at least five Armenians and one Assyrian were hanged by the French military justice in July 1920 alone. The practice of arson by Armenians, especially in Adana, was a recurrent grievance in the French sources). Missionary Alexander MacLachlan, based on his investigation, also concluded that “Armenian terrorists, dressed in Turkish uniforms, set fire to the city.” The terrorists were evidently attempting to bring Western intervention.
The Western sources clearly demonstrate that the attitude of the Turkish army during the final offensive was strikingly correct. For instance, General Pellé, the French High Commissioner in Istanbul, wrote on September 8, 1922, that since a long time, even the Greek patriarchate had not reported to him any “Kemalist massacre.”
After a careful investigation made together with Admiral Charles Dumesnil, chief of the French Navy in the Near East, and other French representatives, French Consul General Michel Graillet of Izmir also concluded that “the Turkish army has clearly nothing to do with the arson,” and that “quite the contrary, it fought the fire to the extent of its meager resources.” Dumesnil knew the Turkish army from the Çanakkale battle where he had fought. If the irregulars (“çete”) of the Turkish army pillaged a house, they faced immediate execution.
The Turkish army, in fact, had no reason to start fire in Izmir. The fleeing Greek army had abandoned huge quantities of military and food supplies that were desperately needed by the Turkish army and civilians. During several weeks after the fire, Turkish commanders were contemptuous of suggestions, made in a few quarters, that they had any responsibility for the burning. The commanders said that, considering what the Greeks had left behind, it would have been foolish of them to set fire to the city.
In short, the “Inferno of Izmir” on September 13, 1922 was mainly committed by Armenian terrorists, but also aided by Greek elements.
Maxime Gauin is a researcher and a Ph.D. candidate at the Department of History, Middle East Technical University.
What prisoners do, eat and read in the only one camp for prisoners of war in Ukraine. This report is the beginning of a series of interviews with those who voluntarily joined the illegal armed formations of the so-called “LNR”
Greece (after Russia) really wanted to get its hands on Constantinople after World War One and the surrender of the Ottoman Empire. And given its history as a Greek city and the heart of the classical Greek world, why didn’t Greece get the city? To find out watch this short and simple animated history documentary.
Her Excellency Elizabeth Tuss
Prime Minister, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Your Excellency,
I whole heartedly congratulate you on the election as the Prime Minister. As a person who has followed your campaign, I completely believe that you will fulfill your promises and be very successful. From Türkiye, I offer you my deepest respects.
Sincerely,
Orhan Tan
Major General (Rtd)
Member of Turkish Forum Advisory Board
By Azer Hasret
On August 4, 2022, a group of radical Shia Islamists had attacked the Embassy of Azerbaijan in London. The action happened early afternoon at a worktime. What was strange British police was present and they did not prevent attackers from this wrongdoing.
According to media reports radicals approached Embassy’s building, entered, took away some of the belongings and damaged them.
Then a dozen of members of the group went on the balcony of the Embassy, hoisted so-called flag of Huseyn. Some of them wrote something in Arabic language on the walls and windows of the Embassy which is located at the 2nd floor of the building.
Afterwards one of the assailants approached the flag of Azerbaijan, took it away and dropped on the street.
The national flag of Azerbaijan, pictures of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his father, former President Heydar Aliyev were walked through by the radicals on the street.
And these actions were perpetrated before the eyes of London policemen who were very tolerant towards these wrongdoings.
After some 2 hours of the action policemen arrested several perpetrators. Everything was filmed and aired live.
Wasn’t this strange?
That was.
In the center of the city like London a group of radicals attack an embassy, damage belongings and policemen present do not take action to prevent this vandalism…
That was strange appearance in the most known and most secure city of the world…
So as this action happened one could think that the UK media would cover this kind of attack in the city. But what happened to the most “independent” and “free” UK media?
According to the reports most mainstream media of the UK preferred to keep silence regarding this terror attack on the Embassy of Azerbaijan…
Being a citizen of the new democracy – Azerbaijan we were really shocked not due to action of vandalism taken against the Embassy, but due to the silence of the UK mainstream media.
Wasn’t that really news worth case? Imagine, a group of radicals claimed to be Shia Islamists attack an embassy, damage its property, and this happens in more than two hours period in front of the UK police. And this story is not news worth for the UK media.
But we remember even one man whatever does in London and across the world the UK media covers it. Usually, they like to show while someone claiming to be Muslim takes any radical action. The UK media covers this kind of cases bringing to readers/viewers/listeners as a case of “radical Islam”.
Now what happened? A group, attacking Azerbaijani Embassy claimed to be Shia Islamists and they are known as radical group. They claim to be “Mahdi Servants Union” and stated an attack as response to the Azerbaijani Government “repressions” against Shia Muslims.
Just to remind, Azerbaijan is a secular new democracy, and no religion is suppressed here. But some people misusing Islamic religion for dirty purposes by the order of the Islamic Republic of Iran are trying to destabilize Azerbaijan. So, the Government of Azerbaijan takes preventive measures in order to assure stability and security. In this case radical religious groups claim to be oppressed and the likewise groups as “Mahdi Servants Union” use this opportunity to showcase against Azerbaijan.
And in this case the UK mainstream media keeps silence, turns blind eye and thus shows its bias towards the nations and countries.
That was the UK media which used to cover even the garbage dumps in Azerbaijan during the 1st European Games staged in Baku in 2015. They were paying very high “attention” on Azerbaijan using any small opportunity.
But what happened now? Why the UK media failed to follow the principles of impartiality and media ethics and prevented itself from covering a brutal attack on the Embassy?
Was that due to the Embassy being the Azerbaijani one? What would happen if the radical “Muslims” would attack any other country’s embassy like for example the Embassy of Armenia or etc.?
We believe, that the UK media would cover this attack as “terror attack of Muslim group on Christian country’s embassy”.
Then they say that the UK and even all Western media are free and independent…