Talk:Battle of Dumlupınar

message: This article implies that ALL THE AVAILABLE STRENGTH of the Greek Army + Some 100,000 more????
participated in the battle??? The Greek Army had a total of 12 divisions (maximum 180,000)
in Asia Minor and they never fought all together, some of them were just occupation forces.
I doubt that even half of them were engaged in August 1922!
60,000 is a much more accurate number. That said, probably the Turkish number is an 
exageration too. Please correct  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deadjune1 (talk • contribs) 13:06, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: HELLO??? HOW MANY MEN?????

message: In the Results section, the sentence "After losing battles at western Anatolia in a row, a few months later the Greek army left Eastern Thrace to the Turks as well, without any combat." fails to mention the important Armistice of Mudanya. In it, eastern Thrace up to the Maritsa River and the city of Adrianople were handed by Greece to Turkey along with recognition of Turkish sovereignty of Istanbul and the Straits at Chanak, which were later finalized at the Conference of Lausanne. --Xenophonos 16:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment

message: In total, the number of the soldiers in Greece Army was 300.000 whereas the number of the soldiers in Turkish army was around 200.000. However, in this article, the number of the Greece Soldiers is shown as 60.000 and it is totally wrong.
After Venizelos had completed his efforts to justify the Greek operations, Clemenceau once more reminded him, "Greece had had a mandate from the Conference and had not kept within the limits of that mandate." He asked Venizelos, "What would happen if the Turkish attacks should increase and if Greece could, without the support of her allies, make the necessary military and financial effort until such time when the country would be completely pacified." Venizelos replied, "Greece had an army of 12 divisions with 325,000 men, an army stronger than it was at the time of the Armistice. Mustafa Kemal had only 70,000 men".
Source: Documents on British Foreign Policy, First Series, Vol. I. London, His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1974 -- Dandanakan 16:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed the numbers to 200,000 against 100,000(approx.). I also changed the casualties of the Turkish side because it was totally wrong(80,000). Turkish side maybe lost 40,000(maximum) soldiers in the whole Indipendence war. With respect, Deliogul 20:13, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of Greece Army 

message: *I think author of results section pushing POV. Burning of Izmir (Smyrna) should be cited. As far as I know, city is burned because of the chaos caused by running Greek soldiers (some historians claim that it is an accident caused by a Greek that paniced, some claim that Greeks delibrately burned the city). In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to burn a city that you conquered so claiming that Turks burned the city do not make sense. Neutrality of this article is disputed and a reviewal is required.Ugur Olgun 19:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Results? 

message: I was at Dumlupinar yesterday - the image in the article does not show Dumlupinar, but probably the Sakkarya battlefield memorial. Dumlupinar memorial is on a hill and shows a soldier holding a rifle with bayonet. --5telios 19:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: 100,000 casualties Lol Not even close not even in the whole war.Get your head straight with the propaganda.
POWs, POWs. Many were take as prisoners by the turks. Only "a few" were killed.
*The citation is from a Turkish page which i can't understand.It seems to me a complete exaggeration in both strength and casualties.The whole greek army (combatants and non combatants-logistic agencies) weren't nowhere near 200,000 in any part of the war in the whole Anatolia.Can someone translate to me in which facts the Turkish page bases it's calculation;Thanks in advanceEagle of Pontus 16:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The casualties must be written by a retarded

message: There is an inconsistency in the naming of the article. Battle of Dumlupınar is the name of the engagement which happened on 30 August 1922. It is the most critical engagement of the whole operation (where the Greek units which were push back from their fortifications in Afyon sector into the open Dumlupınar valley, were destroyed) but it is only a part of it. It can be better to call it Great Turkish Offensive starting at 26 August 1922 and ending at 18 September 1922. I do not know how to change the naming of an article. I will check out.
Also there is a problem for strength issues. I do not have the sources at hand right now but all the sources I have checked until this time gives something around 180-200 thousand for total Turkish strength in the operation. Generally Greek strength is just 5-10% higher than the Turkish strength in these sources. Thus given Greek strength seems reasonably if all the operation is considered. 60000 for Turkish strength can be acceptable only for Dumlupınar engagement on 30 August, but there is no possibility to have all Greek army there. That number must be around 30-40 thousand at most. I will edit the Turkish strength when I can check the sources. I will put the number for all operation. Celeboz 09:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: could someone who reads Turkish better than I explain what it is the site at http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr/taarruz1.htm is actually referencing as there is no mention of Dumlupinar on the page at all. The site has recently been used to justify the 200,000 each troop strengths in the info box --5telios 15:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming and Strength issues

message: Given that the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Smyrna leaves the question open I propose to keep the passive voice in the present article. In any case, the section references the Great Fire article. It is pointless to repeat here all arguments listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Smyrna#Arguments_claiming_Greek_or_Armenian_responsibility. It is even more pointless to enter into an edit war. --5telios (talk) 13:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: aftermath

message: As stated above, the article does not correspond to it's title. While, apparently, by the term "Battle of Dumlupinar" turkish historiography reffers to what the greek one calls "Battle of Ali Veran" (corrupted form of "Aloren"), the article's contents reffer to the turkish Great Attack ("Büyük Taarruz") in general as an operation. Should we limit the article's contents to the events of 30 August or keep it as is, and change it's title?
By the way, strickly regarding the greek troops under Trikoupis who fought in Aloren valley on 30 August, they were some 7,000 combatants and 15,000 non-combatants. When retreating from the field in the night of August 30/31, Greek forces abandoned all killed and injured (who couldn't move) behind. Turkish forces counted a total of some 2,000 killed Greeks on the battlefield.
--Xristar (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming issue

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Battle of Dumlupınar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070701005621/http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr/taarruzsonuc.htm to http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr/taarruzsonuc.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070826183607/http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr:80/taarruz1.htm to http://www.zafer.aku.edu.tr/taarruz1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The use of terms such as "decisive" is expressly deprecated per Template:Infobox military conflict, which says of the "result" field  I have once again removed it. FDW777 (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "decisive" in infobox 

message: Ataturk refusing to step on a Greek flag doesn't have anything to do with a battle that took place some two hundred kilometers away and two weeks previously. Ybediz (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Stepping on Flag