by Benny Morris
ance of the authorities,” refused to vacate their homes. The kaymakam of Bafra
reportedly told returnees “to go and live with the Albanians and become their
servants.” A number of Bafra Greeks were killed trying to regain homes, even
as some empty Armenian homes were being torn down and “sold for wood.” 83
Kapancızade Hamid Bey, the governor of Samsun, was set against any Greek
revival in the city. He did not see Greeks as refugees trying to go home, but
as enemies of the state: “It seemed as though the Samsun area was already
in the hands of the Pontus rebels,” he wrote in light of the ongoing
repatriation.84
The situation in Kastamonu vilayet was little better. Returning Greeks were
“in a very pitiful condition,” though the Turkish authorities provided them
with transport and “repatriation expenses.” Greek children were “nearly
naked, their scraps of clothing consisting of pieces of sacking, curtains, cushion covers and strips of mattress cloth.” 85 In Merzifon and its environs, Greek refugees were returning “to wrecked homes and ruined villages.” The returning
refugees formed “bands” to defend themselves and reclaim their property,
giving the Turks a “pretext” for vio lence.86
Conditions varied from place to place, depending on what had happened
during the war, the character of the Turks in charge, and past and pres ent
economic and social relations. In Milas, south of Smyrna, all the war time
deportees returned, and by April 1919 the town had 5,600 Turks, 2,200
Christians, and 1,000 Jews. The Greeks’ only complaint was that they were
forced to close their shops at one o’clock in the after noon. But in the nearby
Greek village of Kuluk, “practically all” was in ruins. Only one Greek
woman remained, a servant of the Turkish port officer. At Bodrum, which
had a prewar Christian population of 4,400, only 750 “remain[ed],” or had
returned, in April 1919. They lived alongside 7,000 Turks, 3,000 of whom
were muhacirs from Erzurum and Van. At Scala Nouva only 150–200 Greeks,
from a prewar population of 7,000–10,000, remained at the time of the ar-
mistice. About 1,300 Greeks returned thereafter. They lived “in a most
direful state of poverty, families of ten or twelve . . . in small rooms without
Mustafa Kemal and the Nationalists
light or ventilation.” Many of them were “very ill.” But the Turkish quarter
was “flourishing.” During the war the Turks in Scala Nouva had occasion-
ally exhumed “the bodies of Christians the third day after their burial,
crucif[ied] them on the Church wall and [thrown] stones at them.” A British
officer recommended barring a Greek return to southern Ionia unless homes
and employment were assured.87
Just about everywhere, return led to friction, and Turks displayed “a
spirit of arrogance and hostility.” Constantinople was busy arming the
Turks and “threats and acts of vio lence are the order of the day,” a relief
officer wrote, describing the context in which the repatriation effort played
out.88 Unsurprisingly, returnees sometimes resorted to force of arms. For
instance in mid- February a band of fifty Greek refugees took over Arquoi
(Akköy), to which they were returning from the island of Samos. The refu-
gees, most of them demobilized soldiers, drove out the Turkish officials,
confiscated military stores, and killed a Turkish soldier and several gen-
darmes. The Turks mobilized troops, but the British intervened, prevented a
clash, and forced the refugees to return to Samos.89
The Turks claimed that by the end of February 1919, 62,721 Greeks had
returned, with Ottoman government aid, to their homes around Asia Minor.
Another 15,000 had returned on their own steam.90 The Turks complained
that the Greeks had not, reciprocally, helped exiled Turks return to their homes
in Thrace, so Turkey had a prob lem helping Greeks— some of whom had
fought against Turkey— return home.91
According to the Greek government, most deportees’ real estate, with
British help, had been restored to returning owners. But other property—
fishing boats, farm animals— had not. Some Ottoman Greeks used grants
and loans from the Greek government’s Central Relief Commission, to buy
back their own farm animals.92 By and large, though, Greece was too poor to
aid returnees.
The pace of repatriation to Ionia picked up after the Greek occupation of
Smyrna. But, wishing to avoid friction, the Greek High Commission in Con-
stantinople did not encourage such return. The high commission also obliged
returnees they were assisting not to oust Muslim squatters “ until a new
[place] can be found” for them. Some returnees tried to force out squatters,
leading to trou ble.93
Turks and Greeks, 1919–1924
Bristol, who regarded “the Greek people” as “worthless” and “good- for-
nothing,” generally opposed Greek repatriation.94 He called it “a mistake” that
would cause more harm than good, at least until “a suitable government”—
that is, a Western mandate— “was established.”95 Consul- General Horton dis-
agreed. In March 1920 he toured the area south of Smyrna— St. George
Çiftlik, Vourla, Alatesta, Lidja— and reported that the Greeks had “begun to
restore their ancient civilization.” “ After six years of Turkish occupation” and
muhacir settlement all had been in ruins. It looked like “Pompei.” The re-
turning Greeks were now “working like bees” to repair farm houses and
fields. As for the muhacirs, Horton said, they were not being expelled; they
were “leaving of their own accord. It was a case of leaving or starving to
death.”96 Horton discovered “feverish activity” of reconstruction north of
Smyrna, in Phocia, Dikili, and Bergama. To Phocia, of the original 8,000
Greeks, 5,500 had returned by April 1920; to Bergama, some 6,000 of the
original 13,000. The Greek occupation authorities dismantled Greek brigand
bands operating in the area.97
But by the start of 1921, Greek repatriation had been reduced to a thin
trickle. Then it ceased altogether. American diplomats believed that the Na-
tionalist government intended not merely to block Greek repatriation, but to
empty the country of its Greek population altogether.98
Deporting the Greeks, 1919–1923
As Greeks were trying to get home, the Turks were working to deport them.
More than a million Greeks were uprooted during 1919–1923. The pro cess
began before the Smyrna landing with un co or di nated bouts of intimidation
at vari ous sites. During spring 1920 sporadic depredations transformed into
a deliberate campaign, spearheaded and then orchestrated by the Turkish Na-
tionalist movement and government. The campaign unfolded in a number of
waves, the first in summer 1920. Further waves followed in the spring and
summer of 1921 and 1922. The decisive wave— marked by the destruction
of Smyrna and of the Pontic Greek community— was unleashed in autumn and
winter of 1922–1923. The first waves were partly linked to the shifting tides
of the Greco- Turkish war in Anatolia; the last began alongside the Greek
army’s defeat in August– September 1922 and was influenced by the subsequent
Mustafa Kemal and the Nationalists
Allied-
Turkish peace negotiations at Lausanne. This was followed, in
1923–1924, by a final Turkish campaign to rid the country of its remaining
Christian communities. The 1920–1922 period was characterized by endless,
deadly treks from the population centers along the coasts to the harsh moun-
tains of the interior. Then, in late 1922 and early 1923, Greeks in the interior
and the smaller coastal settlements were deported to ports on the Black Sea,
Aegean, and Mediterranean and thence, most of them, to Greece. There were
also smaller deportations southward, by land, to Syria. All the waves were
characterized by murderousness, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths.
1919–1920
Within weeks of the end of the Great War, Turks launched sporadic attacks
on Greeks around Anatolia and Edirne vilayet. Most of the assailants were
brigands and demobilized soldiers. In the Tsinik area near Samsun, according
to a British observer, the Ottoman authorities had armed the Turkish villa-
gers, and there was “a carefully laid down plan . . . to eliminate the Greek and Armenian ele ments from this district.”99 In Edirne province, life for Christians was “a continual night- mare,” a British officer reported in March 1919.100
Initially the brigandage may have been largely criminal, but by late spring
it gave way to po liti cally motivated vio lence, often or ga nized by local CUP
apparatchiks. Central- government officials apparently contributed; indeed,
some brigands claimed that they were in the pay of Constantinople. The brig-
ands extorted, robbed, and beat Christians. In the case of Vasili Poulou, of
Pasha Keuy (Paşaköy), they also cut off ears: “We could easily kill you,” the
brigands told him. “But instead we are cutting off your ears so that you can
go to the British and French and complain.” Brigands also turned to arson
and often operated hand in hand with local gendarmes.101 The goal appeared
to be to drive the Greeks out.
Athens charged that “the persecutions became . . . more ferocious” after
the start of the Kemalist rebellion in spring 1919.102 By September the British
were reporting that “public security all along the Black Sea Coast was very
bad.” The state was encouraging the brigands by pardoning their crimes and
hiring them for official jobs: reportedly 80 percent of the gendarmes were
“former brigands,” who devoted “most of their energies to rounding up odd
Turks and Greeks, 1919–1924
Christians.”103 The Christians were “terrified. . . . Every district has its band of brigands now posing as patriots. . . . Behind all these ele ments of disorder stands Mustapha Kemal,” the British concluded. Turks were busy boycotting
Christians and repossessing property recently restored to them.104
By early 1920 the Kemalist policy of intimidating the Greeks into flight was
in full swing. In March representatives of fifty- one Greek communities in Cap-
padocia, Konya vilayet, appealed to the great powers for protection, saying
that “emissaries” of Kemal preached in schools “the immediate extermina-
tion of all the Greeks in the country. The most fanatical and sanguinary went
so far as to insist upon the immediate carry ing out of this massacre ‘en
bloc.’ ”105 Nationalist army officers near Samsun toured the villages saying
that “the Christians [ were] the cause of the [Allied] occupation of Constan-
tinople and advocated their extermination.” At Ünye and Fatsa, Turks
posted placards blaming the Christians “for all their trou bles.”106 The Ke-
malists arrested and exiled to Ankara Polycarpos, the Greek bishop of the
mixed town of Ordu.107 The Turks walked about the town “fully armed”—
except when an Allied ship was in port. “They are on their good be hav ior
until the ships leave. . . . The Christians feared to venture out of town.108
In Samsun the Nationalists, stressing the “religious side of the question,”
inflamed the Turkish population “by preaching a Holy War. . . . The Greeks
are accused of violating Turkish women, and of destroying the Holy Tombs
of Sheikhs at Broussa and other captured towns.”109 The mutesarrif of Samsun,
Nafiz Bey, spoke more or less openly of massacring the local Greeks should
the Greek Navy try to land troops, and Nationalist members of Kemal’s par-
liament in Ankara proposed a law calling for the deportation of all Christians
from the Black Sea area.110 No such law was passed; Kemal preferred less pub-
licized methods. Here and there, there were fatalities. In Domuz- Dere seven
Greek charcoal- sellers and two children were murdered.111 By spring there
were full- scale massacres. At Gelebek station (Haçkiri), in April, some 500
Christians were reportedly murdered by irregulars.112
According to British officials, Italians, in their zone of occupation south of
Smyrna, were facilitating Nationalist attacks on Greeks. In the village of
Tomatia, Turkish brigands killed 85 peasants and stole tobacco, wheat, farm
animals, and 750 beehives. Italian troops looked on and then disarmed the
Greeks when they retaliated and torched a Turkish village.113
Mustafa Kemal and the Nationalists
Systematic ethnic cleansing of Greek villages appears to have begun in
March 1920 near the Greek- Turkish front lines in Izmit sanjak. The frequency
and intensity of persecution increased in June– July, according to an Allied
commission that investigated two months later. The perpetrators were brig-
ands often assisted “by the Turkish villa gers.” All the while the Turks com-
plained of Greek atrocities. In March the Turkish Foreign Ministry alleged
beatings, rape and torture by Greek soldiers.114 But the commission found that
atrocities “on the part of the Turks have been more considerable and fero-
cious than those on the part of the Greeks.” The commission’s report detailed
more than a dozen Greek villages cleansed around Adapazarı and several south
of Izmit.115
As Nationalist strength grew, so did “Nationalist persecutions and ex-
cesses.”116 At Ortaköy, there were repeated bouts of murder and depredation.
Twenty were killed and dozens exiled on April 12.117 The Turks reportedly
took women aside and “cut off ears and fin gers to obtain the jewelry they
were wearing.”118 Another 270 were killed on June 9. On July 19, 150
houses were torched, and “nearly all the young girls and women were
violated and many of them afterwards were killed while others were taken
into the harems of Giaour Ali and his followers.”119
In response to the Greek army’s summer 1920 advance eastward, the
Nationalists engaged in “serious . . . excesses against the Christians in the
districts bordering on the newly occupied territory.”120 Others suffered
alongside the Greeks; for instance, the Jewish population of Nazli, some 450
strong, was deported.121 But the Greeks fared far worse. When the Greek
army entered Nazli, they found close to sixty corpses, many of them of young
girls who had first been raped.122 The rule of thumb at this time appears to
have been that are
as where Kemal’s hold was tenuous were ravaged by anti-
Christian “anarchy and brigand rule,” but “ little or no persecution of Chris-
tians appears to occur in those districts in which the authority of Mustapha
Kemal has remained undisputed.”123
The Turks attempted to turn against their enemies the very accusations
hurled at them. During summer 1920 Turkish gendarmes and village headmen
in the Aegean region reported cases of abuse, murder, and rape by conquering
Greek soldiers.124 But British officials found no evidence of this. In Thrace,
they reported, the Greek troops’ “behaviour . . . was exemplary.” In Asia
Turks and Greeks, 1919–1924
Minor there were “occasional cases of misconduct,” but the Greek authori-
ties punished the miscreants. For instance, four Greek soldiers at Balikesir
were sentenced to four and half years’ imprisonment for looting.125 The worst
miscreants on the Greek side may have been a handful of Armenians recruited
by the Greek army, said to have “committed atrocities on Turkish villages.”
The Greeks quickly packed them off to Constantinople.126 In general Greek
be hav ior was such that “the [Turkish] inhabitants of the occupied zone have
in most cases accepted the advent of Greek rule without demur and in some
cases undoubtedly prefer it to the Nationalist regime which seems to have been
founded on terrorism,” a British intelligence report stated.127 One British
liaison officer assigned to Greek army units advancing on Uşak, south of
Kütahya, observed that the troops were “warmly welcomed by the Moslem
population . . . [with] a sincere outburst of gratitude at being freed from the
license and oppression of the Nationalist troops.”128
Throughout the summer the British received reports of mass killings and
expulsions of Greeks in front- line areas and on the Black Sea coast. Osman
Aga, the brigand leader who was now also mayor of Giresun, reportedly pil-
laged coastal villages. In Giresun itself, on the night of August 13, 1920, Osman
imprisoned all the Christian men. Thereafter “ every eve ning five or six Chris-
tians” were taken out and shot, until the Christian community paid a ransom
of 300,000 Turkish lira. While their husbands were in jail, “the women were
