Talk:Population exchange between Greece and Turkey

Biased Argument

"However exchange put the country years back behind the civilization, as the homogenisation of Anatolia meant that the precious skills of an entire commercial and industrial middle class had been lost. Turks were farmers mainly. Government saw this as a price that had to be paid for full independence. This historical interpretation still prevails, both in Turkey itself and in the literature on Turkey. The reason for Turks not crying for their losts as genocide may lie in this fact."

The last sentence of this argument is highly unappropriate, and does by no means reflect popular opinion in Turkey. Any correction ideas would be highly welcome. Klael 12:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Klael. You are correct. for anyone who has studied the exchange this article is quite bizzare. The opening paragraphs all appear to be translated (badly) from a Turkish source. The positing of the Greek and Turkish "views" is unneeded.

I am currently workign my way through Brucke Clark's "Twice a Stranger" http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1862077525/

It is a quite neutral and informative book and very well referenced with primary and serious secondary sources.

There is a lot one can add to the article:

1) on the refugees themselves, about the fate of those expelled on both sides, attitudes toward them, and their exploitation by the respecitve states.

2) on precursors and later exchanges elsewhere.

The Turkish "view" and Greek "view" is actually quite similar, both at the time and now. The difference is the state view vs the view of those expelled.71.252.84.249 21:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting however, looks like most of the editing was done to ensure 90 percent article is one side. I caution readers to seek transparency and honesty in wiki articles. Paydin (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Twice A Stranger

I have made a page for Bruce Clark's book, put a link to it here and added categories and "See Also" links. Todowd 09:45, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

More indepth information about the transfer

http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/tcimo/tulp/Research/ejz18.htm

new york times articles

there are new york times articles from 1922 that stated the turkish leader at the time told the western powers that if the greeks did not leave asia minor they would be massacred, and all the western powers could do was "negotiate" to give the greeks ten days to evacuate, from my reading of the articles, this is what started the "exchange" of populations, the turkish threat of death to all greeks in asia minor —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lamboz1 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 6 October 2006.

A mention of the article titles or something else more specific would be helpful... we can't cite something as vague as "new york times articles from 1922". --Delirium 10:17, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

here are some cites:

"From the New York Times

By EDWIN I. JAMES.

Copyright, 1922 by The New York Times Company. Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES

LAUSANNE, Dec. 1.--A black page of modern history was written here today. Ismet Pasha stood before the statesmen of the civilized world and admitted that the banishment from Turkish territory of nearly a million Christian Greeks, who were two million only a few short years ago had been decreed. The Turkish Government graciously allows two more weeks for the great exodus. "

"NEW YORK, SATURDAY, DECEMBER 2, 1922 Page 1, Col. 1

TURKS PROCLAIM BANISHMENT EDICT TO 1,000,000 GREEKS

Ismet, in Lausanne Conference, Gives Those Remaining in Turkey Two Weeks' Grace.

ALLIES ACCEPT THE DICTUM

Proceed to Discussion of Means of Evacuation -- Greeks in Constantinople Included.

CONFERENCE RECESS SOON

Leaders, Despairing of Agreement Now, Plan for an Adjournment About Dec.15"

sorry that i'm not sure how to include this correctly, hope its what u r looking for

lamboz1

If you are citing a secondary source, you should name it. Jd2718 03:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

A Google search on "A black page of modern history was written here today" returns:

By EDWIN L. JAMES. Copyright, 1922, by The New York Times Company. Special Cable to THE NEW YORK TIMES. December 2, 1922, Saturday Page 1, 2854 words "TURKS PROCLAIM BANISHMENT EDICT TO 1,000,000 GREEKS"

LAUSANNE, Dec. 1.--A black page of modern history was written here today. Ismet Pasha stood before the statesmen of the civilized world and admitted that the banishment from Turkish territory ... [end of first paragraph](Full article (PDF))

--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 16:48, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged connection to Lausanne Treaty

I see no cited source for this in the text, so I have added two fact tags to the article. Given that the Lausanne treaty was only signed on the 24th July 1923, and the deportation of Greeks in Turkey had begun in December 1922 and the "Convention Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations" was signed on 30th January 1923, there seems to be no direct connection. Unless a credible source (not some Turkish nationalist one) is produced, I will remove the claimed connection to the Treaty of Lausanne from the article. Meowy 16:42, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In fact, the Lausanne Treaty specifically says that the population exchange was a result of a separate agreement/convention between Greece and Turkey. Quote from article 119 "The exchange of prisoners of war and interned civilians detained by Greece and Turkey respectively forms the subject of a separate agreement between those Powers signed at Lausanne on the 30th January, 1923", and from article 142 "the separate Convention concluded on the 30th January, 1923, between Greece and Turkey". In the light of this I will remove the mention of the Lausanne Treaty unless a strong argument is brought forth to retain it (though I fail to see how such an argument can exist). Meowy 18:33, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Added fact tag in These included exchanges and expulsion of about 100,000 Slavs and Bulgarians. Voluntarily population exchange between Greece and Bulgaria took place years after the Treaty of Lausanne. The said treaty was between Greece and Turkey and Bulgaria had nothing to do with that. --Hectorian (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

No arguments have been made for its retention, and an editor has been maliciously removing the fact tags, so I have now removed the mention of the Lausanne Treaty. Meowy 16:33, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Is this a weasily-worded attempt at reinserting the spurious Lausanne Treaty connection? "Following the defeat of the Greek army in August 1922, a Peace Conference was organised at Lausanne, Switzerland in order to draft a new treaty to replace the Treaty of Sevres, which under the new government of Kemal Pasha, was no longer recognised by Turkey." Meowy 20:04, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-neutral POV

I am not an expert on this subject but it is blindingly obvious only one side of the story is being told (ie the Greek perspective). Although the article is referenced, it is heavily biased towards one POV and I think it is need of attention from an expert. It doesn't read like a Wiki Encyclopaedic article, it reads like a polemic.

78.86.172.161 (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Then propose a different wording and bring the references to support it.--Xenovatis (talk) 06:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

It's called "discussion." Your bold text and general tone just self-identifies you as having a problem with the OP's statement. I, and probably any outsider, would immediately question your ability to remain neutral, and that's even if I didn't know by your userid that you were Greek. BTW, I agree with unidentified OP's contention of the lack of neutrality here. This is an ENCYCLOPEDIA. If an editor can't remain neutral, that person should never have posted on this topic IN THE FIRST PLACE. Caisson 06 (talk) 00:18, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The above editor is out of line. Caisson 06 makes accusations against another editor based on his own ethnic prejudices, then (just like in the anon's OP) he makes accusations against the whole article without providing any evidence to support his claim of lack of neutrality. Unsupported claims of "lack of neutrality" are almost always just a case of I don't like it. Meowy 19:25, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I'm a disinterested reader. I have cousins who are 50% Greek ethnicity. As well, I've spent time in the trenches, shared bread with, etc. Turks, in Iraq. Why would I have ethnic prejudice against Greeks, or Turks, for that matter? When you can answer that, you can make claims that I'm "out of line." Had "Xenovatis" not bolded his second phrase, the whole tone of his reply would not have come across as hostile, which it very much does when bolded, and in the context of the known animosity. You make the same assumptions that I do about another's ethnic prejudice. Caisson 06 (talk) 14:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You cannot makes accusations of lack of neutrality against a whole article without providing some specific evidence to support that claim of lack of neutrality. Without it, whatever you say is pointless and should be ignored. It's that simple. Meowy 03:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the Wiki staff thinks you should be ignored (and for a year this time) for your incessant badgering. Tone is sufficient for apparent POV to show. Besides, YOU, Sir, or Ma'am, as the case may be made unsupported claims against my reputation (ethnic prejudice). Same difference. Caisson 06 (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Loaded language

"Asia Minor Catastrophe (Greek: Μικρασιατική καταστροφή)" is a very heavy term. It is indeed used in Greece, but perhaps should not be endorsed by this article. The term mostly references the expulsion of Greeks from the Smyrna region and not the population exchange agreed to soon afterward at Lausanne. Kotika98 (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how mentioning that it is so called by Greeks endorses their view. Maybe it should read "the exchange forms part of the series of events labelled by Greeks as ..." as this would address your point that the reference of catastrophe is not only to these events. However note that the majority of the Greek exchangees had allready been expelled before any agreement was signed.--Xenovatis (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the term "Pontic Genocide"? Meowy 20:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

All Turkey narratives are turning into smearing camping. As someone who commemorate American Genocide, I am seeing Wikipedia slowly turning into a revisioning machine. Paydin (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Lead

Following the comments of user:Rlevse, "Users need to keep in mind that a lead is summary and hence if well written will need few if any refs and details. Refs and details go in the body," I am removing the sourced and disputed claims from the lead. We should examine each one closely, and determine if it belongs in the body of the article. It may be necessary to expand this article significantly, which would not be a bad thing; the reader is presently left with just a general picture when they should be getting a better sense both of scale and of the "exactly who" and "from where" and "to where" parts of the picture. Jd2718 (talk) 01:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

.1 The claims in the lead, far from being disputed are actually well sourced, with several citations each while many more can be brought forward for the ethnic cleansing. Also see the article Greek genocide.

.2 I would be happy to move the citations to the body of the text.--Xenovatis (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Call to Reason

Hey people, anonymous person here, I'd just like to remind you that this is a serious issue and please try to research and fix up this article as much as possible. I'm not much of a wiki editor, but I know from experience that there are alot of people out there who grew up with stories about this exchange, as well as the events preceding it. I'd like to ask the editors most involved to be as impartial as possible, as any POV or bias in article like this will merely detract from the very significant place it holds for those, on both sides, who carry it in their cultural memories. Every Turkish editor does not have to run around decrying claims of ethnic violence or defending 'emotional' retaliation in an attempt to uphold the official line, and every Greek editor does not have to spend their days and nights (and posts) snivelling in self-victimization. Or visa-versa. (Really, we desperately need to get over the fact that our grandparents had some disagreements and start documenting this shared history, good and bad, in as clinical a manner as possible to avoid passing down all these idiotic prejuidices to the next generation).

While I can trace my ancestry to at least one (possibly both) of these ethnicities, I hold no allegianece to either nation. This also means I don't have the patience for the patently one-sided pseudo-intellectualism that any attempt at impartiality is going to be attacked by when trying to create an article like this.

So yeah, good luck. 203.134.83.106 (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC) AnonymousMediterranean

What he said. It will probably require a couple of second or third generation Americans of Greek and Turkish ancestry to do something like this, objectively. After a few generations over here, all the bad blood between people seems to die away, once people get out of their ethnic enclaves. The Greeks, God bless 'em, still talk about filioque like it happened yesterday, and the Siege of Constantinople as well, is still a sore spot in the older generation. Kinda reminds me of an Andy Griffith show storyline a la "Hatfields and McCoys"Caisson 06 (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Jews

What about Jews? I know that some Jews were expulsed from Greece, while others were not. What was the criterion? — Lev (talk) 11:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Article NPOV

Article is NPOV, I have tried to edit it and have supported my edits with links published e-books in the edit summary but they are being reverted by overzealous editors who are obviously sitting cosy with their version of 'the truth'.

Massive & unexplained removals

To sum up, large scale removals of 3.1k sourced content need to be explained in detail. The text that has been removed without the slightest argument is the following:

Because of the difference in nature of the populations, the possessions left behind by Greek elite of the economic classes in Anatolia was greater than the possessions of the Muslim farmers in Greece.

M. Norman Naimark claimed that this treaty was the last part of an ethnic cleansing campaign to create an ethnically pure homeland for the Turks Historian Dinah Shelton similarly wrote that "the Lausanne Treaty completed the forcible transfer of the country's Greeks."

Lord Curzon, the British Foreign Secretary, said that he deeply regretted that the solution should be the compulsory exchange of population, a thoroughly bad and vicious solution, for which the world would pay a heavy penalty for a hundred years to come. He detested having anything to do with it. But to say it was a suggestion of the Greek government was ridiculous. It was a solution enforced by the action of the Turkish government in expelling these people from Turkish territory.

Many immigrants died of epidemic illnesses during the voyage and brutal waiting for boats for transportation. The death rate during the immigration was four times higher than the birth rate. In the first years after arrival, the immigrants from Greece were inefficient in economic production, having only brought with them agricultural skills in tobacco production. This created considerable economic loss in Anatolia for the new Turkish republic. On the other hand, the Greek populations that left were skilled workers who engaged in transnational trade and business, as per previous capitulations policies of the Ottoman empire.

The 1955 Istanbul Pogrom caused most of the Greek inhabitants remaining in Istanbul to flee and migrate from there. Historian, Alfred-Maurice de Zayas identifies Istanbul Pogroms as a very serious crime against humanity and he states that, small Greek causality and especially the flight and big migration of Greeks after the pogrom corresponds to the "intent to destroy in whole or in part" criteria of the Genocide Convention

By contrast the Turkish community of Greece has increased in size to over 140,000.

Finally it's hard to believe that persistent removals of the above text isn't a disruptive attempt of pov-pushing. In fact the above parts should be added back as essential text of the article. In general wp:IDONTLIKEIT isn't an argument even pretending that this pov.Alexikoua (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you not see the obvious bias here? All Turks were farmers and all Greeks were merchants, traders and bankers now? Istanbul Pogrom now a genocide? This is total nonsense POV not to mention incorrect information.

Entire article is leaning towards Greece POV.194.66.226.95 (talk) 14:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

References

Istanbul Pogrom "genocide"

Some editor has taken the liberty of including a quote from some historian claiming the Istanbul Riots 1955 constitudes "genocide". I find this highly objectionable. Armenians and Jews were targeted. On this basis alone I feel I have just cause in removing the genocide quote/POV, since Jews are neither Greeks nor Christians.

Source for Armenian/Jews targeted is book called "New Nation-states and national minorities" p180 and is on Google Books (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Our Turkish friend posting from the London Library is attempting to deny that the 1955 Istanbul Pogrom in fact targeted Greeks residing in Istanbul?

It was a clearly genocidal act, directed at a particular ethnic group --- Greeks, not Armenians or Jews (the Turks had already killed or expelled all of those peoples that they could catch) --- and was intended to eliminate ethnic Greeks from Istanbul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.152.93.213 (talk) 04:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

They wanted to scare them away, not kill them. Only 1 greek died, so it's not a genocide. 78.174.30.254 (talk) 09:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Population exchange between Greece and Turkey. 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/web/20060707065143/http://home.att.net/~dimostenis/greektr.html to http://home.att.net/~dimostenis/greektr.html

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

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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} 08:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Public perception

This article would come together better if it included information about modern public perception of the incident (particularly among Turkish and Greek youth) and its implications for Turkish/Greek nationalism in their current form (similar to Partition_of_India#Perspectives). This article already discusses this to some extent with the rise in antisemitism and its relation to Zionist sentiments, but a broader revisionist reanalysis might be needed. The article seems to depict discourse about the population exchange as having ended in the 1950's and ignores how it relates to the growing unpopularity of Turkification. This might seem anti-academic, but the comments section of this video kind of sums up a changing dynamic that should be addressed in this article, preferably using Greek and Turkish sources - [1]. Esmost ^talk 12:09, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit summary

@YakubSimoglu: In my last edit summary (diff), the map i shared pertains to the period between 1832–1947; so Greece looked like that prior of the population exchange, minus the Dodecanese islands (which belonged to the Kingdom of Italy at the time). See the Treaty of Sèvres as well. Demetrios1993 (talk) 10:32, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Demagoguery

"The ghost town of Kayaköy (Livisi) in southwestern Anatolia. Once a Greek village, it was abandoned during the 1923 population exchange. Muslims refused to repopulate the place, according to local tradition, because it was "infested with the ghosts of Livisians massacred in 1915".^{[verification needed]}"

There is no any ethnographic research that indicates the existence of such local tradition. It is likely to be a tourist story. Moreover, Ottoman population records indicate that the village was co-populated by Muslims and Greek Orthodox people in the period before the population exchange. However, the population of the village dropped from 6711 in 1915 to 4955 in 1921. Research indicate that this drop was likely a result of recruitment of Greek Orthodox male, whom were exempted from military service to that day. However, it should also be noted that Greek Orthodox were recruited to a different troop where they faced difficult conditions possibly causing the death of many. Today the village is renowned as the World Friendship and Peace village by the UNESCO. Considering the heavy and "assumed" connotations of the word "massacre" with regard to sociological relations of the abovementioned muslim and orthodox christian communities, it is highly misleading to refer to such a baseless "story" in the beginning of a page that does not directly concerns the issue. It is clearly a political rather than a scientific endeavor.

Source: 30 Soyluer, XX. Yüzyılın Başlarında Menteşe Sancağı’nın İdari ve Nüfus Yapısı,116. 5.27.45.40 (talk) 11:53, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

100 years

1923 - 2023, Now it is 100 years of resettlement of Christians and Muslims between Greece and Turkey. What is left as memories? Former Non Turkish-Muslim groups like the Nantinets and Vallahades as such no longer exist. Only partial descendants of these two Muslim groups from Greece still exist in Turkey, but they were completely assimilated into Turkish society. Since these two groups were not settled as a closed community in one place in Turkey. My question, how are the descendants of the Karamanlides from Turkey doing in Greece? Do some of them still speak Turkish? Were the Karamanlides settled in one place in Greece as a cohesive group? I am very interested in all of this. I also think it's important to look for own roots. I myself come from different roots. Balkan Turks-Nantinets-Vallahades-Pomaks. So a mixture. I am a product of East Thrace. (smile). Maacir (talk) 15:44, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreliable citation [2]

Footnote [2] cites an reprint of an old book by Cambridge Scholars Publishing, a predatory publisher. Sfaba12 (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)