Cyprus: Teachers asked to tear out controversial page from schoolbooks.

[Cyclops]

Kemal is not Hitler.

Alhoon you make good arguments in other threads but this argument sounds like Balkan Nationalist trash.

Ripping books out of an English language text book because you disagree with political content seems irrational. If anything Cypriot children being able to understand praise of Kemal in English will help them detect your political enemies: its useful.

This defacing textbooks is like ripping up a cook book because you're allergic to ingredients mentioned.

[alhoon]

Kemal is not Hitler.

Alhoon you make good arguments in other threads but this argument sounds like Balkan Nationalist trash.

Ripping books out of an English language text book because you disagree with political content seems irrational. If anything Cypriot children being able to understand praise of Kemal in English will help them detect your political enemies: its useful.

This defacing textbooks is like ripping up a cook book because you're allergic to ingredients mentioned.

Kemal is not Hitler but he has been very, very bad news for us. What I mean is that the Nazis did great damage to Greece... but Kemal did worse.

Anyway, I don't support defacing the textbook, I simply support removing it for something much less offensive.

[PointOfViewGun]

That source smelled like crap, I am not going to lie... there are several issues I saw there, which are in my post and I wonder what the heck the reviewers did when reviewing this article/book chapter as the numbers at times don't add up.

Thank you for exposing such an academic corruption. Perfect example for your Armenian genocide allegations recognition thread, isn't it?

But while the source didn't tie Kemal in name with anything, Kemal was the Nationalists' boss. The top guy. The source (even discounting the absurd numbers) clearly points out that the genocide was being carried out by Nationalists too. So, when tens of thousands died in Death Marches during the population exchange under Kemal's thugs, then yes, I can call him a war criminal. Since we have a NYT article (behind a paywall, but the title is enough for me) saying that Kemal said he won't protect Ottoman Greeks whatever his reasons for being angry with the Greek government, then yes, I can call him a war criminal.

That's merely cherry picking stuff from a source you yourself admit to be unreliable. What's worse is that now you're making up "Death Marches" in the context of the population exchange. No such thing occurred.

Does the NYT article actually say that? It looks more like your interpretation of it. The Wikipedia interpretation of it:

On 10 September 1922, Atatürk sent a telegram to the League of Nations stating that the Turkish population was so worked up that the Ankara Government would not be responsible for the ensuing massacres.[83]

That's a very different story. Greek army leaving Anatolia devastated (after WWI that already devastated Turkish lands in general) and then expecting Turks to have all the resources to protect Greeks after they massacred and razed towns in western Anatolia is a naïve thing to expect.

And last but not least: We lost Ionia because of Kemal. 1 million+ of us was kicked out of Anatolia. That's not an inflated number either, it is shown in Greek census from there on. And Kemal was behind that. Sure, we signed it. But we signed it because the alternative was for half of those people to die by Kemal's thugs. It was like "get out or be killed".

Greeks didn't have western Anatolia to lose it. They tried to invade it and lose it. About 1.2 million Greeks were exchanged with the Muslims of Greece per the exchange agreement. That was a result of the Greek invasion, not Turkish defense. If it was a case of "get out or be killed" Greek army created that situation. Of course, that wasn't the case. Did Istanbul's Greek population halved during Atatürk's rule? Nope. It halved 30 years after his death. Clearly, the arguments of hysteria you're banking on has no ground to stand on.

Somehow you're supposed to understand that for Greeks, whether they are Greece Greeks, Grecocypriots or Grecamericans, Kemal is an absolute butthole and a disaster, one of the worse scourges we have encountered in our history, including Tamerlane, Hitler and Mehmed the Conqueror in the list.
We were kicked out of Ionia, why is it so hard to understand how bad that is for us?

A book praising Hitler as a visionary that attempted to bring a glorious future for his country, although he was foiled by an alliance of other Western powers and USSR, has no place in a Cypriot school curriculum.
Neither has a book praising Kemal.

Comparing Atatürk or Mehmed the Conqueror to Hitler is nothing but Turkophobia. That's just blind nationalism and should be treated as such. It deserves no respect. Just because one conquered Constantinople from Eastern Roman Empire 5 centuries ago and the other stopped Greeks from invading western Anatolia a century ago doesn't mean its OK for you to libel them. It's not about being a Greek. It's about blind nationalism.

[alhoon]

That's merely cherry picking stuff from a source you yourself admit to be unreliable. What's worse is that now you're making up "Death Marches" in the context of the population exchange. No such thing occurred.

Does the NYT article actually say that?

Nope, the NYT article doesn't say that. But I am old enough to have heard survivors of that, and we have written testimonies of survivors from that. Wikipedia references 30K Greeks being deathmarched inside Anatolia post-Population Exchange, but the numbers were higher.

Greeks didn't have western Anatolia to lose it.

We had the zone around Smyrna for two and a half years thanks to the treaty of Sevres. And we lost it.

About 1.2 million Greeks were exchanged with the Muslims of Greece per the exchange agreement. That was a result of the Greek invasion, not Turkish defense. If it was a case of "get out or be killed" Greek army created that situation.

What the Greek military did is irrelevant and doesn't excuse Kemal's thugs. It explains why they were so angry with us, but it doesn't justify their actions or Kemal for allowing them to do those actions (and Pardoning them in 1923).
And since we mention the actions of the Greek military, a great many of them were exacting revenge on Turkey over what have happened to Greeks and other Orthodox in 1915-1919. And no, I don't suggest that the Greek military was justified to burn Turkish villages because of what other Turks did to Greeks.

We agree on the facts. We disagree on what those facts mean.
Yes, the Greek army made a bad situation (Greeks have been targeted by Turkish irregulars along the other Orthodox during WWI and suffered in the inter-communal strife) much worse.
So, as you say there was a "get out or be killed" situation partially caused by the Greek Army.
So, yes, we signed the agreement after Kemal handed us our butt on a plate.

Conclusion: Thanks to Kemal, Greek presence in Asia Minor practically ended after 5000 years. You don't like the 5000 years? Let's go for 3500 years. Better?
Do you disagree that because of Kemal (whether our military did atrocities or not) we were forced to sign that agreement? We wouldn't have signed that if we have won.
It is also doubtful that Kemal would have allowed Greeks to control the Smyrna Zone, even if we hadn't invaded. Which in no way excuses the Greek military's actions during that invasion.

Comparison with Hitler: As mentioned before the comparison IS NOT about their character. I don't compare how much of a butthole Hitler was with them.
It is, as per my post, a comparison to how very damaging to the Greek nation those three were. And between the three? The Nazis did the less damage to us because they were defeated. Yes, the Nazis were worse. And yes, Hitler was worse than Kemal as a person. Happy now?
Does that change that Hitler / Kemal were stanch nationalists that wanted to create a homogenous society? Sure, Kemal's practices were far milder than what the Nazis did. But while Hitler's practices were disastrous to the Jewish population, Kemal's actions were very bad for Hellenism.
Are we partially responsible for Kemal being so angry with us? Yes. That doesn't change that whether the Greek Government and Greek Army did atrocities or not (they did), Kemal's nationalists kicked us out of Anatolia, and it doesn't change that Kemal's nationalists, with tolerance from Kemal himself, were butchering Greeks by the thousands and then Kemal gave them Amnesty during the treaty of Lausanne.


Thus, praise to the guy responsible for ending Greek presence in Anatolia with a massacre has no place in a Greek Cypriot book.
And for the same reasons, praise to Prime Minister Gounaris or the generals of 1921-1922 has no place in Greek Cypriot books.

Just because one conquered Constantinople from Eastern Roman Empire 5 centuries ago...

And which nationality controlled the Eastern Roman Empire 6 centuries ago (not 5)? Again, I said Mehmet was very damaging to Hellenism, I didn't say he was as bad as Hitler. Also, as far as I remember, Mehmet did try to protect Constantinople and allowed just one day of looting. That he was not as bad a conqueror as Tamerlane would have been or the Franks have been, doesn't change that he dealt the death blow to the Empire of the Greeks.
And just so you don't say I just blame the Turks, the reason we were on our deathbed by 1450s can be traced back to the 4th crusade.

Yes, the Marquis of Montferrat and the Doge of Venice were worse for Greeks than Mehmet. Without them, the Byzantine Empire (at the time a heavily Greek Empire) would not have been partitioned to several warring states.

An English textbook praising the business acumen of Enrico Dandolo has no place in Greek, Greek Cypriot or Greco-American curriculums. I would say that it doesn't have a place either in the Griko books, if the Greek government decides to send them any - although the Griko are people that have (IIRC) an Italian national identity.

[alhoon]

Just to be clear:
I don't Deny Kemal was a patriot or that Kemal was the person that saved Turkey or that Turks should not be proud of his accomplishments (although not of his methods). He did the impossible in 1915 and he won a very difficult to win war in 1923.

I solely focus on why praise for this leader has no place in a Cypriot, Greek, Grecamerican etc book. I explain my view why the Cypriot government was right to not want that book and why he's loathed by a great many Greeks.

[Heathen Hammer]

Goering was a very impressive pilot, but I wouldn't dedicated a page to praise of him in an Israeli children's textbook.

Kemal is not Hitler.

Alhoon you make good arguments in other threads but this argument sounds like Balkan Nationalist trash.

Ripping books out of an English language text book because you disagree with political content seems irrational. If anything Cypriot children being able to understand praise of Kemal in English will help them detect your political enemies: its useful.

This defacing textbooks is like ripping up a cook book because you're allergic to ingredients mentioned.

Outside Europe Hitler isn't viewed as that big of a deal either, but its not the point, given how Kemal was still a war criminal, responsible for atrocities against Armenian and Greek civilians. So praising him in a textbook for children of a Greek island is just as organic as having a page dedicated to praising Goering or Himmler in a an Israeli children's textbook.

[Nebaki]

I am against censorship except in the cases that it offends tens of thousands of people that lost their homes to Turkish aggression in the past 40 years or praising the memory of a bloody dictator that instigated the eradication of Hellenism from half of our ancestral lands after 5000 years.

1. Hellenism like you are thinking or even hoping does not exists even if you call them like them.
2. You guys did that no one else -in that case the whole Middle East until Afghanistan are all belonging to you whatever you call you today yourself? Are you serious?
3. What you mean with "half" can you please clarify it?
4. Since when a Hero became a "bloody dictator" ?

This is indeed censorship, I am not going to lie. But I applaud the Cypriot state for doing it. We need to remember that Kemal was not a good happenstance to Greeks, even if he was a good leader to Turks. Greece would have been magnitudes of Order better if Kemal was never born. The Entente may have knocked the Ottomans out of the war earlier if it wasn't for Kemal.

5. So-called State of Cyprus.
6. First of it´s called "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" and not Kemal or Kamal or how you would even like to call the Great Leader of Turkey.
7. Why he should be in good happenstance with Greeks? I mean aren´t the Greeks wanted his dead him even before he became important? Did you forgot part of your History did you need a refreshing?
8. Greece wouldn´t even without the born of "Mustafa Kemal Atatürk" in a better stood - stop skipping part of your "so-called-ancestral" History.
9. The Entente didn´t just fought Mustafa Kemal Atatürk on the Great War and there was various other Turks who contributed to it.
10.Last but not least - Greece was not part of any side in World War 1 neither part of the Entente and not even a Major Power.

[Cyclops]

Just to be clear:
I don't Deny Kemal was a patriot or that Kemal was the person that saved Turkey or that Turks should not be proud of his accomplishments (although not of his methods). He did the impossible in 1915 and he won a very difficult to win war in 1923.

I solely focus on why praise for this leader has no place in a Cypriot, Greek, Grecamerican etc book. I explain my view why the Cypriot government was right to not want that book and why he's loathed by a great many Greeks.

Fair enough, and thank you for the clarification.

What did Kemal do to Cyprus?

I think you've conflated traditional Hellenic-Turkic hostility (fanned especially by Imperial powers for their own purposes, and based i long historic narratives both true and mythic) with the (I think illegal and wrong) Turkish junta's invasion of Cyprus in the 70's. Extending that to Greco-Americans is also an unfortunate association, are Hellenes in Kansas meant to hate their Turkic neighbours? Or only if they are Kemalists? Are Turks allowed to hate Hellenes too?

We are discussing an English language textbook, not a history book. Contextually the information is something that's likely to be said in English (admiration of Attaturk is widespread, whatever the more complicate truth may be). Its worthwhile to learn how to translate that. It hurts Cypriot children to have their English language skills policed by ideologues seemingly intent on perpetuating hate by association: it makes the children less capable.

I mean Australians stormed Gallipoli as part of a force there with the primary intent of dismembering the Ottoman polity so it could be distributed to the Tsar, Italy, the UK and France 9and maybe bits were promised to other parties too). We took part in the UK theft of Dutch South Africa too. Neither the Hellenes or Turks seem to bear us any grudges. I think this is illogical and it shows.

Venizelos, who we can agree was a slayer of Ottomans and an enemy of the Porte, made common cause with Mustapha Kemal in defusing Hellenic-Turkic hate. If he can so can you my friend.

[Nebaki]

Grecamerican

What please is an "Grecamerican" and what he has to do with this Thread?

[PointOfViewGun]

Nope, the NYT article doesn't say that. But I am old enough to have heard survivors of that, and we have written testimonies of survivors from that. Wikipedia references 30K Greeks being deathmarched inside Anatolia post-Population Exchange, but the numbers were higher.

Then they lied. Wikipedia? There are no instances of death marches in the Wikipedia article. The only marching in the article is talking about how the Greek army marched through a dessert for 200 km in a week to reach the front line on their way to Sakarya. The problem with that? The only desert in Turkey is in Konya and that's no way near Sakarya...

We had the zone around Smyrna for two and a half years thanks to the treaty of Sevres. And we lost it.

Treaty of Sevres did not give that region to Greece in reality. You didn't read the treaty, didn't you?

What the Greek military did is irrelevant and doesn't excuse Kemal's thugs. It explains why they were so angry with us, but it doesn't justify their actions or Kemal for allowing them to do those actions (and Pardoning them in 1923).
And since we mention the actions of the Greek military, a great many of them were exacting revenge on Turkey over what have happened to Greeks and other Orthodox in 1915-1919. And no, I don't suggest that the Greek military was justified to burn Turkish villages because of what other Turks did to Greeks.

Who Atatürk pardoned now?

We agree on the facts. We disagree on what those facts mean.
Yes, the Greek army made a bad situation (Greeks have been targeted by Turkish irregulars along the other Orthodox during WWI and suffered in the inter-communal strife) much worse.
So, as you say there was a "get out or be killed" situation partially caused by the Greek Army.
So, yes, we signed the agreement after Kemal handed us our butt on a plate.

Conclusion: Thanks to Kemal, Greek presence in Asia Minor practically ended after 5000 years. You don't like the 5000 years? Let's go for 3500 years. Better?
Do you disagree that because of Kemal (whether our military did atrocities or not) we were forced to sign that agreement? We wouldn't have signed that if we have won.
It is also doubtful that Kemal would have allowed Greeks to control the Smyrna Zone, even if we hadn't invaded. Which in no way excuses the Greek military's actions during that invasion.

No, we do not agree on facts as you seem to be relying on making stuff up. The year count you rely on as well has no value. Population exchange did not happen due to actions taken by Atatürk. If he didn't exist and the Turkish independence efforts failed Muslims under Greek rule would either "disappear" or similarly get exchanged into interior Anatolia. Contrary to your belief, most of the Greeks from Anatolia already fled as the Greek army was retreating and burning the land. Only about 200 thousand remained in Anatolia. In contrast, up to 400 thousand Muslims remained in Greece. If any side signed the agreement to avoid being massacred by their rulers it was the Muslims residing in Greece.

Comparison with Hitler: As mentioned before the comparison IS NOT about their character. I don't compare how much of a butthole Hitler was with them.
It is, as per my post, a comparison to how very damaging to the Greek nation those three were. And between the three? The Nazis did the less damage to us because they were defeated. Yes, the Nazis were worse. And yes, Hitler was worse than Kemal as a person. Happy now?
Does that change that Hitler / Kemal were stanch nationalists that wanted to create a homogenous society? Sure, Kemal's practices were far milder than what the Nazis did. But while Hitler's practices were disastrous to the Jewish population, Kemal's actions were very bad for Hellenism.
Are we partially responsible for Kemal being so angry with us? Yes. That doesn't change that whether the Greek Government and Greek Army did atrocities or not (they did), Kemal's nationalists kicked us out of Anatolia, and it doesn't change that Kemal's nationalists, with tolerance from Kemal himself, were butchering Greeks by the thousands and then Kemal gave them Amnesty during the treaty of Lausanne.
Thus, praise to the guy responsible for ending Greek presence in Anatolia with a massacre has no place in a Greek Cypriot book.
And for the same reasons, praise to Prime Minister Gounaris or the generals of 1921-1922 has no place in Greek Cypriot books.

This is an idiotic comparison. One that does not deserve any respect. You're making a whore out of historical facts here. The amnesty you speak of was not something Atatürk gave nor it was something given to Turks only.

VIII. Declaration of Amnesty

No person who inhabits or who has inhabited Turkey, and reciprocally no person who inhabits or who has inhabited Greece, shall be disturbed or molested and reciprocally in Greece, under any pretext whatsoever, on account of any military or political action taken by him, or any assistance of any kind given by him to a foreign Power signatory of the Treaty of Peace signed this day or to the nationals of such Power, between the 1st August, 1914, and the 20th November, 1922.

And which nationality controlled the Eastern Roman Empire 6 centuries ago (not 5)? Again, I said Mehmet was very damaging to Hellenism, I didn't say he was as bad as Hitler. Also, as far as I remember, Mehmet did try to protect Constantinople and allowed just one day of looting. That he was not as bad a conqueror as Tamerlane would have been or the Franks have been, doesn't change that he dealt the death blow to the Empire of the Greeks.
And just so you don't say I just blame the Turks, the reason we were on our deathbed by 1450s can be traced back to the 4th crusade.
Yes, the Marquis of Montferrat and the Doge of Venice were worse for Greeks than Mehmet. Without them, the Byzantine Empire (at the time a heavily Greek Empire) would not have been partitioned to several warring states.
An English textbook praising the business acumen of Enrico Dandolo has no place in Greek, Greek Cypriot or Greco-American curriculums. I would say that it doesn't have a place either in the Griko books, if the Greek government decides to send them any - although the Griko are people that have (IIRC) an Italian national identity.

I'm really not interested in hurt Greek pride.

Outside Europe Hitler isn't viewed as that big of a deal either, but its not the point, given how Kemal was still a war criminal, responsible for atrocities against Armenian and Greek civilians.

So, which particular atrocity was Atatürk responsible for?

[alhoon]

@PoVG:
I didn't say the Amnesty was given to Turks only. But we have already executed the ones responsible for the massacres we did in Anatolia. Still, there you have it. You even found the article where Kemal gives amnesty to Turks responsible for the massacres (and Greeks responsible for the massacres).

Bold words to claim that Greeks that experienced the death marches were all lying for no reason... I guess we should agree on disagree on that, because I believe them. Also, I wouldn't think that my grandfather would be lying to me when he was already diagnosed with cancer.
Anyway, here's the link from wikipedia: "approximately 30,000 able-bodied Greek and Armenian men were deported to the interior, many of them dying under the harsh conditions or executed along the way."
This comes from Nairmak, an acclaimed professor of History in Boston University that I am sure you will find as biased, influenced by Greeks, Armenians and Martians and a generally untrustworthy fiend with an agenda against Turkey.

"most of the Greeks from Anatolia already fled as the Greek army was retreating and burning the land"
Yeap. Also, I wouldn't call that a "Retreat" by the Greek army. The bastards were running as fast as they could, leaving the civilians to die in the hands of Turkish irregulars that our army has brutalized on the way to Ankara (where we really had no business to be). Only Plasteras retreated orderly, fighting to screen our civilians as they were running for the sea. There are reports of army units, Greek army units, sabotaging the civilians or stealing their meager provisions, so the civilians would be slower than the soldiers that were supposedly there to protect them! The "When hunted by the bear, kneecap the under guy so that he would be slower than you, so the bear gets him and you escape" paradigm. Truly horrendous. And to think, according to my grandpapents and great-grandparents, in the shores of Aegean Greeks and Turks had no big issues till the king's men (Greek King) showed up and started up the tensions. Nothing like the discrimination and violence Greeks suffered in Creta in the 19th century or in some areas in Macedonia during the Balkan wars. In Constantinople and the shores of Asia Minor, where Greeks were a big and rich minority, the discrimination was not that bad.

However... that parenthesis aside, the population exchange legalized the exodus of 1.3M of Greeks from Asia Minor. Not that they would have been able to return, mind you, after the horrendous inter-community and inter-religion violence.

And do you know why over a million of Greeks, Armenians and Circasians were running as the Kemal's army was chasing the Greeks? Because they were butchering us. And these were Kemal's commanders.
What our army has done is irrelevant. The fact remains that those people were running because Kemal's army was killing them in reprisals.
And then, Kemal gave them the amnesty you mentioned above, with links and all while somehow denying your own words in the same sentence.

"Treaty of Sevres did not give that region to Greece in reality."
Touché. But we had its administration and 5 years later we would get it. And the king's guys were already discriminating against Turks there from the moment they stepped on the city in 1919. They disrespected the Turkish flag just to troll the Turks (also stories from our "lying" ancestors...) setting the tone for how the Greek administration would be.
So, we kinda treated it as ours already and the king's thugs (Greek ones this time) were trying to make sure the population would be Greek or at least Orthodox majority in 5 years. The king's relations with the former Kaiser's family was the pretext the Euros had to wash their hands off us. And the rest is history.


And the most important thing:
" I'm really not interested in hurt Greek pride. "

You shouldn't. Your books should mention Kemal as a leader that saved Turkey.
But the Cypriots are interested in hurt Greek pride, cause they're Greeks. So, they are angry with such textbooks! Which is the entire subject of our discussion.

The entire discussion we had here, can be surmised to:
You: "I don't care about hurt Greek Pride"
Cypriots: "We do, so we want that book out"

[Nebaki]

I didn't say the Amnesty was given to Turks only. But we have already executed the ones responsible for the massacres we did in Anatolia.

This is not true those Guys moreover were been executed because of their Failure in Anatolia - Dreaming of Megali Idea while ending up with a Megali Katastrofi. We know that part of Historic Events very well it´s part of Turkish Education System.

Besides that it´s really funny:

...with links and all while somehow denying your own words in the same sentence.

Are you really accusing some others which are providing links as Sources to corroborate their Arguments while you even lacking them? You are even quoting and presenting their posts really out of context and ones again you are doing this very obvious.

[alhoon]

This is not true those Guys moreover were been executed because of their Failure in Anatolia - Dreaming of Megali Idea while ending up with a Megali Katastrofi. We know that part of Historic Events very well it´s part of Turkish Education System.

I didn't say why we executed the ones responsible for the disaster, did I?

But thank you again for making my point. That "Megali Katastrofi" you're talking about... we don't like the architect of that Disaster being praised in our textbooks.
I know you just said that I present the posts out of context, which I guess includes that, but I don't think so.

I just point out what is a relevant interpretation of what you said for example. You just acknowledged without realizing it, why that textbook has no place in Greek classrooms.
And before you say staff about Greek Cypriots, they are Greeks from a different country. And because you asked in the past about Grecamericans, they are the American-Greeks, descendants of Greeks with Greek cultural identity in the Americas, which mostly means in New York, Chicago and Florida.

Are you really accusing some others which are providing links as Sources to corroborate their Arguments while you even lacking them? You are even quoting and presenting their posts really out of context and ones again you are doing this very obvious.

That was not an accusation. Somehow, DLS said that Kemal didn't give amnesty to the people responsible for the Greek massacres while in the same sentence he provided links about it, with the relevant article of the treaty of Lausanne.
Since he provided the relevant passage in his post, why shouldn't I use his post?

[PointOfViewGun]

@PoVG:
I didn't say the Amnesty was given to Turks only. But we have already executed the ones responsible for the massacres we did in Anatolia. Still, there you have it. You even found the article where Kemal gives amnesty to Turks responsible for the massacres (and Greeks responsible for the massacres).

You didn't execute them for their responsibility for any of the massacres. You executed them for not being successful in invading Anatolia. The treaty giving amnesty to both sides can not be described as Atatürk giving Turkish generals an amnesty.

Bold words to claim that Greeks that experienced the death marches were all lying for no reason... I guess we should agree on disagree on that, because I believe them. Also, I wouldn't think that my grandfather would be lying to me when he was already diagnosed with cancer.
Anyway, here's the link from wikipedia: "approximately 30,000 able-bodied Greek and Armenian men were deported to the interior, many of them dying under the harsh conditions or executed along the way."
This comes from Nairmak, an acclaimed professor of History in Boston University that I am sure you will find as biased, influenced by Greeks, Armenians and Martians and a generally untrustworthy fiend with an agenda against Turkey.

Thank you for Nairmak's book. Here is one passage:

In a report to the British parliament by a commission investigation Greek occupation policies in the Ismit Peninsula, the center of the terrible earthquake of August 1999, the verdict on Greek behaviour during the offensive of 1921 was damning in the extreme. The commissioners wrote of "the burning and looting of Turkish villages" and the expulsion of violence of Greeks and Armenians against the Turks. At the same time, the commissioners noted that the depredations seemed to take place by design: "There is a systematic plan of destruction and extinction of Moslem population. This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian hands, which appear to operate under Greek instruction and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops.

Arnold Toynbee, who reported extensively on his travels through Greek-occupied Anatolia, was so shocked and dismayed by the atrocities committed by the Greeks against the Turks that he undertook virtually a one-man campaign to bring them to the attention of the world. His observations of the attack in the summer of 1921 are some of the most trenchant in the literature on the violence of ethnic cleansing. With one side armed and the other not, with one side holding all the power over life and death and other possessing only the terror of complete uncertainty, a vicious and deadly game of cat and mouse was played out, according to Toynbee, in which the victimizer seemed to enjoy the agonies of his prey, delaying the final kill until the full measure of terror had been extracted from the helpless victim. "My strongest impression during this horrible experience," he wrote, "was of something inhuman in the blood instincts of the hunter and in the terror of the hunted."

It's interesting that while his book contains such passages but makes no mention of Turkish genocide by Greeks in his articles. So, yeah, biased. However, that's not the problematic part. Notice how while he references his statements on Greeks killing Turks to actual sources there is no reference for his statement on 30 thousand Greeks and Armenians that were somehow transported to the interior for some reason. The depiction in the book doesn't really talk of a death march. If it was a death it would be labeled as a death march. In any case, we do not have any more information on them. Your claim was that tens of thousands of Greeks died in death marches during the population exchanges. The source you claimed to support that doesn't do that.

And do you know why over a million of Greeks, Armenians and Circasians were running as the Kemal's army was chasing the Greeks? Because they were butchering us. And these were Kemal's commanders.
What our army has done is irrelevant. The fact remains that those people were running because Kemal's army was killing them in reprisals.
And then, Kemal gave them the amnesty you mentioned above, with links and all while somehow denying your own words in the same sentence.

They were not Atatürk's commanders. They were commanders fighting with him. That's why we usually refer to them as "Atatürk and his brothers in arms." You keep trying to portray him as someone defending Turkey single handedly with his private army. It's not the case. Atatürk didn't give anyone any amnesty. You are twisting what the treaty says to make a case.

"Treaty of Sevres did not give that region to Greece in reality."
Touché. But we had its administration and 5 years later we would get it. And the king's guys were already discriminating against Turks there from the moment they stepped on the city in 1919. They disrespected the Turkish flag just to troll the Turks (also stories from our "lying" ancestors...) setting the tone for how the Greek administration would be.
So, we kinda treated it as ours already and the king's thugs (Greek ones this time) were trying to make sure the population would be Greek or at least Orthodox majority in 5 years. The king's relations with the former Kaiser's family was the pretext the Euros had to wash their hands off us. And the rest is history.

No, 5 years later you would not get it automatically. There would be a referendum. The only way you could get it is if you ethnically cleansing the region through deportations or massacres. Atatürk and his friends could not allow that to happen.

And the most important thing:
" I'm really not interested in hurt Greek pride. "
You shouldn't. Your books should mention Kemal as a leader that saved Turkey.
But the Cypriots are interested in hurt Greek pride, cause they're Greeks. So, they are angry with such textbooks! Which is the entire subject of our discussion.
The entire discussion we had here, can be surmised to:
You: "I don't care about hurt Greek Pride"
Cypriots: "We do, so we want that book out"

Shall we remove Greek independence episode from our history books then?

[alhoon]

You didn't execute them for their responsibility for any of the massacres.

Never said we did.

The treaty giving amnesty to both sides can not be described as Atatürk giving Turkish generals an amnesty.

Didn't that treaty give amnesty to Turkish generals for all their crimes, or not? So yes, it can be described as Kemal giving Turkish generals and militia leaders and low-ranking thugs amnesty.
It can also be described as Kemal giving amnesty to Greek generals for the massacres we did. But that doesn't change the fact that Kemal gave amnesty to the perpetrators of the massacres.

PS. I wouldn't like a textbook for Greek kids praising Zaimes or the generals that killed Turkish civilians with glee, kicking the hornet's nest and then ran back as fast as they could leaving Greek civilians to face the music for what THEY have done. Our army in 1921-1922 was good at killing Turkish civilians (and a few Greek, Jew, Armenian etc civilians) and very bad at protecting the civilians they were sent to protect in the first place... from the massacres that followed as reprisals.

Thank you for Nairmak's book. Here is one passage:

"This plan is being carried out by Greek and Armenian hands, which appear to operate under Greek instruction and sometimes even with the assistance of detachments of regular troops."
'Assistance' in this case means they were the main perpetrators. As in they are (again from our great grandfathers) reports that the Greek officers were punishing Greeks that gave refuge to Muslims. Truly despicable...

The depiction in the book doesn't really talk of a death march.

By now, you should have realized that I obviously didn't read the entire book. Can you give me the passage that describes it?
Never-the-less, from what is in wikipedia and what's in OUR history books, the Greeks and Armenians were transferred inside "for their protection" while Turkish irregulars were attacking them and Turkish troops were exacting revenge on them and little care was taken for their safety and nourishment.
That's a death march.

Also, you have stated that you don't believe what our historians and what our grandfathers said about it. I do. And you will find it hard to convince me otherwise. As such, I ask for the passage to see what depiction is given to what I call death march, you don't call it death march and aside of the name and the numbers of casualties, we would probably mostly agree on what happened, while you will insist that we don't agree while saying more or less the same things as me, but not naming it death march.

They were not Atatürk's commanders. They were commanders fighting with him.

Is there a difference? What's the difference between "Atatürk's commanders." and " commanders fighting with him" ?
Wasn't he the top commander? Weren't they taking orders from him?

You keep trying to portray him as someone defending Turkey single handedly with his private army. It's not the case.

To be honest, Kemal defended and practically saved Turkey single-handedly, by being charismatic, good commander, smart and realizing what needed to be done and then doing it. The rest of your commanders at the time were not holding a candle to him. They were the same WW1-kind of commanders that were not used to what the war was in the 20th century.
As for the single-handedly part, who saved Constantinople in Gallipoli? The generals? Or the lieutenant colonel that was there fighting directing a division fighting with bayonettes against the entire AZNAC force?

So while his force was not private, it was a force that followed a charismatic, gifted, modern leader during a time of crisis. So.. yeah, it was Kemal singlehandedly.
If it wasn't so much Kemal singlehandedly, I wouldn't accusing Kemal as much for the eviction and the massacres that preceded it.

Atatürk didn't give anyone any amnesty. You are twisting what the treaty says to make a case.

How am I twisting the what the treat says?! Didn't the treaty give amnesty to those that have done crimes against Greeks and Armenians, or not?
Don't answer with whether it gave amnesty to other people as well, please answer the only relevant question here: Didn't the Treaty give Amnesty to those that have done crimes against Greeks and Armenians?

Here's what wikipedia has to say: "Annex VIII to the treaty, called "Declaration of Amnesty", granted immunity to the perpetrators of any crimes "connected to political events" committed between 1914 and 1922.[24][25] The treaty thus put an end to the effort to prosecute Ottoman war criminals for crimes such as the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, and Greek genocide].[26][27] and codified impunity for the genocide.[28]"
And that's 5 sources there (that I didn't read, don't even bother asking me, of course I wouldn't download and read 5 sources when I have wikipedia; I am not a historian and this is not research, I am trying again and again to explain simply why we don't like Kemal here and why the Cypriot government did the reasonable thing to censor that passage praising him).

No, 5 years later you would not get it automatically. There would be a referendum. The only way you could get it is if you ethnically cleansing the region through deportations or massacres. Atatürk and his friends could not allow that to happen.

I don't disagree with that at all.
That's why the King's thugs in 1921-1922 (before the war turned) were prosecuting or exerting pressure to moderate Greeks in Smyrna that were against the push to Ankara fearing exactly what happened, or just being decent enough to not want their neighbors being beaten up or Turkish civilians being killed.
So... yes, we would get it 5 years later very dishonorably and dishonestly. The new government never tried to convince part of the Muslim population to support union with Greece or something. So... yeah, Kemal and Turkish officer that respected his uniform could not simply let this happen.

But that has nothing to do with why Kemal is very controversial in Greek textbooks. We don't blame Kemal for stopping the war crimes we did, we are not the Japanese government. We blame him for not stopping the war crimes his side did.

Shall we remove Greek independence episode from our history books then?

Why is it even in your history books? In the grand sense of things, the vast Ottoman Empire losing 60000 square miles and a million angry Christians from a successful rebellion in an era of multiple rebellions is not that big of an issue. Certainly not as big as Egypt's.
The Balkan wars that followed about a century later? Sure, those were much more stinging defeats for Turkey and the beginning of the end of the ailing Ottoman Empire. Ibrahim's father in Egypt practically becoming independent and how Ibrahim, had he succeeded to defeat us would probably move North to replace the Ottoman Sultan with an Egyptian dynasty? Sure.
The Greek war of independence compared to all the other wars of the time, with the Russians, the Egyptians, Napoleon, Serbs, Bulgars, Arabs and all? Nah.

Anyway, long story short, yeah, feel free to turn it to a footnote as it happened around a bunch of Balkan rebellions and I don't see why that would even be an issue with me.

[PointOfViewGun]

Never said we did.

You implied it, if not explicitly claimed so. Otherwise the point of talking about executed generals was an attempt at fooling us readers.

Didn't that treaty give amnesty to Turkish generals for all their crimes, or not? So yes, it can be described as Kemal giving Turkish generals and militia leaders and low-ranking thugs amnesty.
It can also be described as Kemal giving amnesty to Greek generals for the massacres we did. But that doesn't change the fact that Kemal gave amnesty to the perpetrators of the massacres.

PS. I wouldn't like a textbook for Greek kids praising Zaimes or the generals that killed Turkish civilians with glee, kicking the hornet's nest and then ran back as fast as they could leaving Greek civilians to face the music for what THEY have done. Our army in 1921-1922 was good at killing Turkish civilians (and a few Greek, Jew, Armenian etc civilians) and very bad at protecting the civilians they were sent to protect in the first place... from the massacres that followed as reprisals.

No, it didn't. The treaty didn't provide a blanket amnesty for all crimes. It's specific to military and political actions. Murder didn't suddenly become legal for that period in either country. This was not a decree by Atatürk. It was a bilateral agreement with Turkey on one side and Greece with all the Allied powers on the other side. What it actually covered was the sultan's government's actions against Ankara, people who worked with Russians or Allied powers in general against the Turks. Similarly, it likely covered the 200 Greek sailors that were thrown out of their ship by the Greek navy in the middle of the Aegean sea because they opposed the Anatolian invasion.

By now, you should have realized that I obviously didn't read the entire book. Can you give me the passage that describes it?
Never-the-less, from what is in wikipedia and what's in OUR history books, the Greeks and Armenians were transferred inside "for their protection" while Turkish irregulars were attacking them and Turkish troops were exacting revenge on them and little care was taken for their safety and nourishment.
That's a death march.

Also, you have stated that you don't believe what our historians and what our grandfathers said about it. I do. And you will find it hard to convince me otherwise. As such, I ask for the passage to see what depiction is given to what I call death march, you don't call it death march and aside of the name and the numbers of casualties, we would probably mostly agree on what happened, while you will insist that we don't agree while saying more or less the same things as me, but not naming it death march.

Its from page 45 in the link I gave with the quote. You're once again trying to obfuscate multiple points to make a case. You claimed that the population exchange happened through death marches. The source you pointed at, even if we take it face value, did not talk about population exchange. Within the span of a few posts you're down from 1.2 million death marched Greeks during population exchange to 30 thousand Greeks and Armenian death marched during Turkish advance to the coastline with no real source or logic. Why would the Turks transport anyone at that point anyways? With what resource?

Is there a difference? What's the difference between "Atatürk's commanders." and " commanders fighting with him" ?
Wasn't he the top commander? Weren't they taking orders from him?

Not at all stages. It started with small to mid pockets of resistance that converged towards the end. Yes, Atatürk was very influential and commanding but he didn't have absolute control. Nobody at that time could even have the resources to have that kind of control for you to write any hearsay crime on him.

To be honest, Kemal defended and practically saved Turkey single-handedly, by being charismatic, good commander, smart and realizing what needed to be done and then doing it. The rest of your commanders at the time were not holding a candle to him. They were the same WW1-kind of commanders that were not used to what the war was in the 20th century.
As for the single-handedly part, who saved Constantinople in Gallipoli? The generals? Or the lieutenant colonel that was there fighting directing a division fighting with bayonettes against the entire AZNAC force?

So while his force was not private, it was a force that followed a charismatic, gifted, modern leader during a time of crisis. So.. yeah, it was Kemal singlehandedly.
If it wasn't so much Kemal singlehandedly, I wouldn't accusing Kemal as much for the eviction and the massacres that preceded it.

In Gallipoli, Atatürk was an army division commander, later becoming the front-line commander. His conferences in Anatolia is what made him the leader of the struggle but he didn't serve or command in all fronts. It wasn't him going around with his forces recapturing lands. It was a bunch of commanders recapturing lost lands in their region with what troops they are left with and then converging around Ankara to move against the Greeks. Even if he was the only leader from the resistance years of fighting already left Anatolia desolate for any resources for them to use to maintain sufficient order.

How am I twisting the what the treat says?! Didn't the treaty give amnesty to those that have done crimes against Greeks and Armenians, or not?
Don't answer with whether it gave amnesty to other people as well, please answer the only relevant question here: Didn't the Treaty give Amnesty to those that have done crimes against Greeks and Armenians?

Here's what wikipedia has to say: "Annex VIII to the treaty, called "Declaration of Amnesty", granted immunity to the perpetrators of any crimes "connected to political events" committed between 1914 and 1922.[24][25] The treaty thus put an end to the effort to prosecute Ottoman war criminals for crimes such as the Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, and Greek genocide].[26][27] and codified impunity for the genocide.[28]"
And that's 5 sources there (that I didn't read, don't even bother asking me, of course I wouldn't download and read 5 sources when I have wikipedia; I am not a historian and this is not research, I am trying again and again to explain simply why we don't like Kemal here and why the Cypriot government did the reasonable thing to censor that passage praising him).

No, it didn't say that it gave amnesty to people with crimes against Greeks and Armenians. What you're posting there is Wikipedia authors' interpretation of it. I already explained it above.

I don't disagree with that at all.
That's why the King's thugs in 1921-1922 (before the war turned) were prosecuting or exerting pressure to moderate Greeks in Smyrna that were against the push to Ankara fearing exactly what happened, or just being decent enough to not want their neighbors being beaten up or Turkish civilians being killed.
So... yes, we would get it 5 years later very dishonorably and dishonestly. The new government never tried to convince part of the Muslim population to support union with Greece or something. So... yeah, Kemal and Turkish officer that respected his uniform could not simply let this happen.
But that has nothing to do with why Kemal is very controversial in Greek textbooks. We don't blame Kemal for stopping the war crimes we did, we are not the Japanese government. We blame him for not stopping the war crimes his side did.

You did a few posts ago. You probably thought that the treaty ceded İzmir to Greece. alhoon, you need to admit it. You're learning about the basics of this conflict as you're talking to me...

Why is it even in your history books? In the grand sense of things, the vast Ottoman Empire losing 60000 square miles and a million angry Christians from a successful rebellion in an era of multiple rebellions is not that big of an issue. Certainly not as big as Egypt's.
The Balkan wars that followed about a century later? Sure, those were much more stinging defeats for Turkey and the beginning of the end of the ailing Ottoman Empire. Ibrahim's father in Egypt practically becoming independent and how Ibrahim, had he succeeded to defeat us would probably move North to replace the Ottoman Sultan with an Egyptian dynasty? Sure.
The Greek war of independence compared to all the other wars of the time, with the Russians, the Egyptians, Napoleon, Serbs, Bulgars, Arabs and all? Nah.
Anyway, long story short, yeah, feel free to turn it to a footnote as it happened around a bunch of Balkan rebellions and I don't see why that would even be an issue with me.

Greek war of independence is an integral part of Ottoman history. I don't have blind nationalist tendency to have that approach you propose.