The 1923 Population Exchange, Refugees and National Historiographies in Greece and Turkey

7/30/2019 The 1923 Population Exchange, Refugees and National Historiographies in Greece and Turkey.

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-1923-population-exchange-refugees-and-national-historiographies-in-greece 1/21

The1923PopulationExchange,RefugeesandNational

HistoriographiesinGreeceandTurkey.

byOnurYildirim

Whenhistoricalsignificanceisattachedtoanoccurrenceindependentoftheevent,

thefactsofthecaseceasetomatter.Andwheresubsequentaccountsareparasiticon

apriormemory,documentationseemsalmostunnecessary(Amin10).

IntroductionAfternearlytwoandahalfmonthsoftortuousnegotiations,Turksand

GreeksconcludedonJanuary30,1923,thefirstphaseofpeaceconferenceat

LausannebysigningtheConventionconcerningtheExchangeofGreekandTurkish

nationalsinGreeceandTurkey.ThesigningoftheExchangeConventionmarkeda

turningpointinthehistoryofthesecountriesbycausingamajortransformationintheirpopulationandlandscape.NearlyoneyearaftertheconclusionoftheLausanne

Conference,approximately700,000peoplewereremovedbyvirtueoftheExchange

Conventionfromtheirnativesoilandmaderefugeesandthisagreementalso

confirmedtherefugeestatusofanadditionalmorethanonemillionpeopledisplaced

sincetheBalkanWarsof1912-1913.

ForGreeceandTurkey,thedecadeof1923-1933wasaperiodofnational

reconstructionatthecenterofwhichstoodthousandsofhomeless,joblessandhungry

refugees.Thelatterposedamulti-facetednationalchallenge,calledtherefugee

problem,neverabsentfromtheagendasofparliamentarysessionsandgeneralpublic

opinioninbothcountries.Ofallthesechallengesthemostconspicuouswastheintegrationoftherefugeeswiththeexistingnationalfabricwhichinvolved,among

otherthings,thereadingintorespectivenationalnarratives,oftheeventsofthepast

decade,moreparticularlytheTurco-GreekWarof1919-1922andtheresulting

exchangeofpopulations,whichledtothetransformationoftheirstatusfromminority

intorefugee.Thusthe1920ssawtheprecipitationofeffortsonthepartofthepolitical

leadershipinbothGreeceandTurkeytoconstructorreconstructnationalnarratives

withaviewtoremoldingtheseeventsintothecollectivememoryoftheirrespective

societies.Whetherornottheseeffortswouldcultivateasenseofbelongingamongthe

refugeesandhelptheirintegrationwiththeexistingnationalfabricremainedtobe

seen.

Writtenfromthevantagepointofthenationalisticideologicalconcernsoftheruling

elite,theofficialhistoriesinGreeceandTurkeyappropriatedthehistoricalsettingof

theExchangefromtheverybeginningandmoldedalongthewaythelocal

ramificationsoftheLausanneTreatyasawholeintothemasternarrativesoftheir

respectivenations.WhereasGreekofficialhistoriographylookedupontheevents

whichledtoandwereassociatedwithLausanneasacollectivetragedyand

sanctionedthemundertherubricoftheAsiaMinorCatastrophe,Turkishscholarship

viewedtheseeventsasatriumphantrecreationandepitomizedthemastheNational

WarofIndependence.Thesetwoattitudesengendered,inturn,twodiscernibleand

diametricallyopposedpatternsintherepresentationoftheExchange,pointingatbesttotheuseofhistoryasaninstrumentofmanipulatingcollectivememory.



Accordingly,theepisodeofnearlytwomillionpeople,whoweresubjectedtothe

provisionsoftheExchangeConvention,waseitherrememberedorforgottenina

mannerpertinenttotheideologicalgoalsofthepoliticalleadership.WhereasGreek

historiansfromtheveryoutsetrememberedtheExchangeasaturningpointinthe

consolidationofthecountry'sethnicandnationalhomogeneity,theirTurkish

counterparts,carriedawaybythefoundationofthenewstate,tendedtoforgetbytreatingitashardlymorethanafootnote--despiteitsimmediatelyvisibleeffectson

thesocial,economic,andpoliticalconditionsofthecountry--inthemasternarrative

oftheTurkishnationaliststruggleandthequestforstatehood.Therefore,itwasnot

necessarilytherelativeimpact,whetherquantitativeorqualitative,oftheExchange

uponthecountriesconcerned,thoughitmighthavebeen,butrathertherelative

specificitiesandhistoricalcontingenciesofthepoliticaldiscoursethatconditionedthe

representationofthistopicinGreekandTurkishmainstreamhistoriographies.The

presentarticleattemptstomapoutsomeofthesespecificitiesandcontingenciesas

theyevolvedfromthesigningofthepeacetreatyatLausannetothepresent.

GreekNationalHistoriography

InGreeknationalhistoriography,theTurco-GreekPopulationExchangestandsoutas

thesymbolofanationalfailure,namelytheAsiaMinorDisaster([TEXTNOT

REPRODUCIBLEINASCII]),which,accordingtosomescholars,"ranksin

historicalimportancewiththefallofConstantinoplein1453"(Sbarounis7)andto

someothers"ranksamongnationaldisasterssecondonlytotheCivilWarof1946-9"

(KoliopoulosandVeremis130).TheDisaster,havingderailedtheentirecourseof

GreekhistoryandthereforecloselylinkedwiththefateofHellenism,secureditself

frominceptionadistinguished,ifnotautonomous,placeintheearlyhistoriographyof

modernGreece.Thehistoriographicalconventionalwisdom,which,accordingtoAlexanderKitroeff,washardlyaffectedby"thecollapseofGreekirredentismwith

Greece'smilitarydefeatinAsiaMinorin1922,"(Kitroeff143-144)hadnotroublein

claimingtheensuingtraumaasoneofitsown.AsBenedictAndersonremindsus,

"thedeathsthatstructurethenation'sbiographyareofaspecialkind,"and"...toserve

thenarrativepurpose,theymustberemembered/forgotten(myitalics)as'ourown'"

(Anderson205-206).Inthisverygoal,thehistoricalnarrativeleftlittletobe

accomplishedbythemonumentof"unknown-soldier"(LeGoff89).Insofarasthe

survivorsofthedisasterareconcerned,theBritishhistorianDouglasDakin,writingin

thelate1960s,becamethemouthpieceofthethenprevalentrhetoric(Dakin268),

ButGreece,asonalloccasions,borehercrossbravely.Shegatheredinherchildren,notbyconqueringthesoilonwhichtheyhadlabouredforcenturies,butby

receivingthem--amillionormore--withintheexistingGreekhomeland.Nonationhas

achievedsomuchasGreeceonthisoccasion.

EnmeshedinthetraditionalrhetoricofhistoricalHellenism,manypoliticiansand

historianssetouttoreadthesetraumaticeventsintotheexistingbiographyofthe

GreeknationinthewakeoftheExchange.Asthevisibletestimonytothese

developments,theincomingrefugeesprovidedpoliticiansandhistoriansalikewith"a

forcefultoolwithwhichtodecrythepersecutionsofGreeksingeneral"(Karakasidou

147).(1)Thisattitudewashardlyareflectionofthepublicopinionconcerningthe

refugeessincethelatterwerenotwelcomeunequivocallybythenativepopulations.Tothecontrary,thespecificitiesandcontingenciesofthenationaldiscourseonthe



refugeesweredeterminedfromtheverybeginningbythepolarizedstructureofthe

Greekpolitics;theVenizelistsontheonesideandtheAntivenizelistsontheother

([TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]/NationalSchism)(Mavrogordatos1996;

Mihalopoulos).(2)Therefugeeswhoharboredthebittermemoriesofforced

expulsionfromtheirnativesoil,adevelopmentthattheyassociatedwiththe

Antivenizelistgovernmenttheninpower,rankedalmostsolidlywiththeVenizelistcamp(Mavrogordatos1983).(3)AsMavrogordatosargues,"theindividious

distinctionbetweenrefugeesandnatives[rootedinethnicityratherthanclass]

providedthebasisforthemostsalientcleavageininter-warGreeksociety,which

trulydominatedthepoliticsoftheperiod"(Mavrogordatos1983,182).

Correspondingly,thepoliticiansontheVenizelist(Liberal)sideoftheballotdeclared

theensuingrefugeeproblemtobenotsimply"[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEIN

ASCII]"(aNationalQuestion)but"to[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]"

(themostNationaloftheQuestions)(Tounta-Fergadi).(4)Ontheoppositeside,the

tendencyonthepartoftheAntivenizeliststoviewtheincomingrefugeesasthe

harbingerofdisruptionintheGreeknationalunitystemmedfromthehostileattitudeofthenativepopulationstowardstherefugees.Thus,aprominentspokesmanofthe

Antivenizelistcamp,namelyG.Vlachos,publiclyattackedtherefugees"asacaptive

electoratewhich,broughtthroughitsnumbersandthroughfraudulentmeans

(gerrymandering,multipleregistrationandvoting,etc.),haddeprivedthenative

majorityofitslegitimatepoliticalpowerandhasmadeVenizelistusurpationpossible"

(QuotedbyMavrogordatos1983,204).Inthepoliticalarena,thefirstdecadeof

refugeepresenceinGreecewascharacterizedbyanintensivedebatebetweenthe

VenizelistsandtheAntivenizelistsovertheparticipationoftherefugeesintheGreek

politicallife.Astheresultsofseveralnation-wideelections(1923,1926and1928)

hadshown,thisdebatewasresolved,atleastforthetimeperiodconcerned,infavor

oftheformer.

Thewaysinwhichtherefugeeswererepresentedinthehistoricalwritingsreflected

forthemostpartthepoliticalclimateofthecountryatthetime.Thus,itwasnotthe

anti-refugeeovertoneoftheRoyalistpoliticaldiscoursebuttheconciliatoryrhetoric

oftheLiberalsthatbecamemorepopularlyrepresented.Manyscholars,knownfor

theiraffinitytowardsVenizelism,anonymouslyembracedtherefugeesasthevictims

of"thetriumphofthebrutalforceovertheLaw"(Kiosseoglou201)andsetoutto

recastthemasthepropersubjectofpoliticallife.Inthisrespect,abodyofscholarship

quicklyflourishedwithaviewtoremovingthehistoricalbasisoftheever-growing

cleavage--ponderedbytheAntivenizelists--betweenthenativesandtherefugeesbymoldingthelatterintothetheoreticalframeworkofthehistoricalcontinuityof

Hellenism(Kitroeff,Herzfeld).(5)Needlesstosay,thisemergentscholarlyattitude

tendedtospeaknotsomuchoftheactualmanifestationsoftherefugeeplightperse

butofthebroadnationalideologicalaspectsoftherefugeepresenceinthecountry.

Tothiseffect,manyscholars,playinguponcertitudeoffactsandmakingacascading

setofselections,embarkedontheconstructionofapervasiveGreeknationalideology

inordertoaccommodatethenewlyintroducedelementsofparticularityand

difference,representedbytherefugees,inthenationalfabric.Thiswasintandem

withtheattemptsoftheGreekpoliticianswhoweretryingtodiverttheattentionaway

fromtherationalizationsforthetwopillarsoftheGreeknationalistideology,namely

MegaliIdea,totheconsolidationofthecountry'sterritorialintegrityandthefulfillmentoftheinternalgoalsthathadbeenlargelyneglectedduringtheprevious



decade.Scholars,betheyhistoriansornon-historians,adoptedanutterlynationalistic

discoursetolegitimatetheideologicalgoalsoftherulingelite,amongwhichthe

nationalandsocialhomogeneityofthecountrywasdeemedtohaveprimary

importance.Thus,whatEftihiaVoutiratermstheexilicbias(Voutira),combinedwith

anti-TurkishsentimentandasenseofdeceptionbytheWest,cametodominatethe

approachofGreekscholarstotheeventsoftherecentpast.Tothisend,thenegationoftheOttoman/TurkishpastandthecondemnationofforeigninterferenceinGreek

affairswerefusedtoconstitutethehistoricalparameters,wherebymanyscholarsand

politicianssetouttoproclaimthecohesivenessoftheGreeknationinwhichthe

incomingrefugeeswereaccordedaplace.

Notsurprisingly,manyofthestudiesontheExchangeandtherefugeeproblemwere

producedbyindividuals,whowerecloselyaffiliatedwiththeGreekstate.Someof

thesepeoplewereclearlyofrefugeebackgroundwhilesomeotherswereactive

membersofVenizelistgovernments.Theaffiliationsofalistofindividualsillustrate

thispoint.Forinstance,EmmanuelTsouderos,whoproducedthemostcomprehensive

accountontherefugeeloanprogramoftheGreekgovernment,wastheGovernoroftheCentralBankofGreece,whileC.G.Tenekides,whoauthoredthefirststudyina

foreignlanguage(inFrench)ontheExchangeofPopulations,wasthelegaladvisorto

thediplomaticteamofVenizelosatLausanne.AndreasAndreades,whowrote

extensivelyonthesocialandeconomiceffectsoftheWWIandtheTurco-GreekWar

onGreece,wastheGreekrepresentativesenttoGenevatonegotiatewiththeLeague

ofNationsovertherefugeeloan.ApostolosDoxiades,whowrotethepamphlet"Ca

QuestiondesRefugiesenGrece"wastheMinisterofSocialHealthinthefirst

Venizelosgovernment.Th.P.Kiosseoglou,whoauthoredoneoftheclassicworkson

theExchange,wasthecousinoftheConstantinopolitanbusinessmanAlexandreCh.

Kiosseoglou,whowasevictedfromtheCityandhispropertieswereconfiscatedby

theTurkishauthoritiesduringtheExchange.AthanasiosB.Protonotarioswasserving

theGreekstateasaninspectoroftheExchangewhenhepublishedhisbook.A.

Bakalbashiswhodealtwiththerefugeeproblemsduringtheperiod1914-1922wasa

deputyandalsoactedasministerinthegovernmentofPapanastasiou(1924).Mihail

NotarawastheheadofadepartmentintheGreekAgriculturalBank.A.I.Aigidis

wasamemberofoneofthesub-commissionsoftheMixedCommissioninKozani.

StelioSeferiades,whowasaprofessorofinternationallawintheFacultyofLawin

theUniversityofAthens,hadbeenworkingcloselywithvariousgovernmentson

minorityissuessincetheearlymonthsof1922.AndlastlyGeorgeStreit,whowasto

takepartintheMixedCommission,hadbeeninvolvedinthereliefofrefugeesfrom

thelastphasesoftheTurco-Greekwar.

Variouspublicationsproducedbytheseindividualsduringthe1920sandearly1930s

ontheExchangeandtheensuingdevelopments,namelytheresettlementand

assistancepoliciesoftheGreekstatesoughttoillustrate,oftenthroughselective

quotation,thequalityofGreekstatecraftinabsorbingoveramilliondisplaced

individualsaswellasthecontributionsofthelattertotheeconomicandcultural

developmentofGreece(Seferiades,Devedji,Kiossdoglou,Tenekides,Gounaraki,

Protonotariou).Inthispicture,refugeeswereportrayedmerelyasfiguresdefinedin

theirrelationtospecificessentialtasksoftheGreekstatesuchassecurity,stability,

andwelfare.Somescholars,lookingattheeconomicaspectsofthesubject,produced

morescholarlyevocationsofthesamethemes(Notara,Petsali,Tsouderos,Andreades).Byandlarge,theimmediateshockofthedefeatandtheExchange,thus



therefugeepresence,wasaccommodatedrathersuccessfullybythepoliticaland

intellectualdiscourse,largelyofVenizelistorientation,overnationalunitywithinthe

firstdecadeoftheExchange.

Fromtheearly1920son,anotherstrandofscholarshipalongnationalistlines

developedamongtherefugeesthemselveswhotriedtohighlighttheircontributionstotheeconomicandculturaldevelopmentofGreece.Duringthefirstdecadeoftheir

arrival,therefugeeswereconsciousoftheirarbiterroleintheGreekelectoralprocess

andproducedmanypoliticalwritingstoenhancetheirparticipationinthepolitical

system.Inoneoftherefugeepapersoftheperiod,itwasstatedthat"itisan

incontestablefactthattherefugeefactorwillplayasignificantroleinthepoliticallife

ofthecountry.Norcanitbedisputedthattherefugeeworldistheone,whichfora

seriesofdecadeswillgivebyitscompactblocthefinalvictorytooneortheother

sideofvariouspoliticalbattles"(Pentzopoulos169;Mavrogordatos1983,184).As

wasanticipatedbythisstatement,therefugeeswhovotedheavilyfortheabolitionof

Monarchyinthe1924referendum(Clogg108),alsoplayedacrucialroleinthe

triumphofVenizelosinthenationalelectionsof1926and1928.Itwasonlyduringtheearly1930sthatthesupportofrefugeesfortheLiberalPartydeclineddue

primarilytotherapprochementofVenizeloswithTurkey.IntheAnkaraAgreement

of1930,Venizelosagreedtoadocumentthatendedthehopesofrefugeestoreceive

compensationfromtheTurkishgovernmentfortheirpropertiesinTurkey.This

agreementalienatedtherefugeesnotonlyfromVenizelismbutalsofromthepolitical

system.Thenceforward,therefugeesincreasinglygavetheirsupporttothe

CommunistPartyorturnedtheirattentiontolesspoliticalissues.Inthe1931by-

electionsinSalonica,wheretherefugeesconstitutednearlyhalfofthepopulation,

only38percentofthevotersvoted(comparedto69percentthreeyearsearlier)for

thecandidateoftheLiberalPartywhiletheCommunistsdoubledtheirvotes

(KoliopoulosandVeremis,133).Inthenationalelectionsof1932,theCommunists

almosttripledtheirvotesincertainrefugeedominatedlocationssuchasMytilene

(Mazower1992,122).

Thechangeinthepoliticalorientationoftherefugeeswasalsoreflectedintheir

intellectualpursuitswhichclearlysawanoutburstintheearly1930s.Intheir

endeavors,therefugeestriedtomarktheirstoriesforlife,tothepurposeofwhich

they"madeeveryefforttorecordandpreservetheirpreciouslocalheritagefor

posterity"(Herzfeld140).Accordingly,theynostalgicallyponderedonthefolkloric

aspectsofthepastinordertokeepthehistoricalmemoryalive.Inashortperiodof

time,asizableliteratureoflocalhistoricalandethnographicstudiesontheGreekpresenceinAsiaMinor,EasternThrace,andthecoastsoftheBlackSeacameinto

being.Thistrendhassincethenremainedunchanged.Abibliographicalsurvey

conductedin1981containsthetitlesofsome45journalsspecializinginAsiaMinor

andothercentersofHellenismandnearly2258entriesofbooksandarticleson

relatedtopicsforthe1919-1978period(Hatzimoises).

Inadditiontothetwostrandsofscholarshiprecountedabove,therewasanother

scholarlytraditiondevelopedduringthe1920s,whichconcerneditselfwiththe

Exchangeandtherefugees.Thisone,withitspoliticallyandmethodologically

distinctfeatures,emergedandgrewwithinthewomboftheGreekCommunistParty.



PriortotheLausanneConference,theGreeksocialists,whofirstorganizedaroundthe

SocialistLaborParty([TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],1918)andthenthe

CommunistParty([TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],KKE,1920),had

publiclydenouncedtheinvolvementofGreecewiththeimperialistprojectsofthe

WestandhadmobilizedtheirfollowersagainsttheAsiaMinorCampaign.Having

characterizedthisprojectasabourgeoisventure,theyviewedtheGreekpresenceinAsiaMinorwithconcern,asdidtheBolsheviks,andsetouttoconductanti-war

propagandainGreeceandatthefront.Thewar-timeactivitiesoftheGreek

CommunistParty,certainleadingmembers(e.g.SerafimMaksimosandNikos

Zaharyadis)ofwhichwereofAsiaMinororigin,havealreadybeencoveredby

variouspublications(Carabott,Zapantis)anditsroleintheAsiaMinorDisasterasa

sourceofdemoralizationanddefeatismamongsttheGreeksoldiersstillconstitutesa

subjectofcontroversyamongGreekscholars.Whatisofimmediaterelevancetothe

purposeofthecurrentdiscussionisthatpriortotheLausanneConference,theGreek

scholars,associatedcloselywiththeCommunistParty,becameamouthpieceofthe

viewsoftheComintern(theCommunistInternational)ontheWesternimperialist

designspursuedintheregion(Clogg106).OncethepeacesettlementwassignedatLausanne,GreekCommunistssetouttoconducttheirpropagandaeffortsamongthe

incomingrefugeeswithaviewtoshowingthattheordealofExchangewasinflicted

uponthemastheoutcomeofimperialistprojectspursuedbyWesternimperialistsin

cooperationwiththeirindigenousallies,namelythelocalbourgeoisie.Andthelatter

wereresponsibleformostofthepredicamentswhichensuedduringandalterthe

implementationoftheExchangeConvention.Thesepropagandaeffortsboretheir

earlyfruitsinsporadicsocialmovementsamongtheagriculturalworkers,largelyof

refugeebackground,whoweresettledprimarilyintheruralsectionsofNorthern

Greece.ButasAngelosElefantispointsout,theCommunistsfailedtoattractalarger

groupofadherents,especiallyamongtherefugees,totheircauseatthebeginningdue

largelytotheinternaldissensionwithintheParty(Elefantis55).Ontheotherhand,as

adistinguishedstudentoftheperiodpointsout,"Venizelos'enormouspopularityleft

noroomforamoderatesocialistalternative"todevelop(Mazower1992,122).Even

then,theK.K.E.tookadvantageofthepoliticalvacuumandcontinuedtopresenta

majorsourceofchallengetotheLiberalandPopulistpartiesalike.Iteventually

enteredtheParliamentinthenationalelectionsof1926,whichwereheldundera

proportionalsystemofrepresentation.

ThegrowingleverageoftheCommunistsintheGreekpoliticallifebroughtwithitan

influentialinter-warMarxisthistoriography.Withtheiremphasisonsocialissues,

MarxistscholarssuchasThomasApostolides,E.StavridesandmorenotablyYannisGordatos,allofwhomwereformallyaffiliatedwithK.K.E.'sadministration,wrote

extensivelyonthesocialandeconomicconditionsofthecountryduringthe1920s.

Theireffortsto"tear[therefugees]awayfromBourgeoisinfluence,"represented

chieflybyVenizelismandLiberalPartyinthepoliticalarena,foundtheirexpression

intheirscholarlypursuits(Mavrogordatos218).Thesescholarsfromthebeginning

focusedonthesocial,economicandpoliticaldevelopmentsoftherecentpastwitha

viewtohighlightingthewrong-doingsoftheGreekgovernmentsandpinpointingthe

deficienciesofthenationalistic-mindedhistoriographyinitsapproachtonational

development.Althoughthecriticalstanceofthesescholarshasnotdirectlyaffected

thestudyoftheGreco-TurkishPopulationExchange,ithasbenefitedtheGreek

historiographybydemonstratingthatthestudyofthefoundationofthecountryrequiresamorepervasivecoverageofthesocialandeconomicdevelopmentsand



actors.Moreover,theyshowedthatthesocialandnationalhomogeneity,whichhas

beentheprincipaldrivingforcebehindtheaccountsofnationalistic-minded

historians,isnotonlycouchedinthevaguestandmostgeneraltermsbutalsorests

upontheflimsiestbasisinfact.

ThetriumphoftheMetaxasregimeinthemid-1930sdealtasignificantblowtotheCommunists.Withanti-Communismasoneofitsprincipaltenetsthedictatorialrule

ofMetaxasoutlawedcommunistactivitiesandpurgedMarxistintellectualsfromthe

academicestablishment,twodevelopmentsthatcombinedtoenhancethepositionof

thenationalistic-mindedhistoriansintherealmofGreekhistoriography.Fornearly

fourdecades,theMarxistscholarshipremainedawayfromtheGreekacademic

establishment.Itwasonlyafter1974,whenthemilitarydictatorshipcollapsed,

democracywasreinstatedandallthepoliticalparties,includingtheCommunists,

werelegalizedthatmanyMarxistscholarsreturnedhomefromexileandgained

accesstotheacademicestablishment(Kitroeff146).But,asinmanyotherdeveloping

countriesoftheworld,theresearcheffortsofthesescholarsfocusedlargelyonthe

broaderquestionsofcapitalistdevelopmentandunderdevelopment.Tofindtheanswersforthesequestions,mostoftheMarxistscholarsturnedtheirattentiontothe

eventsoftheremotepastinsteadofhistoricaldevelopmentsofthecontemporary

period.

Unliketheperiodfromtheearly1920stothemid-1930swhentheExchangeandthe

refugeesoccupiedthecommandingheightsoftheGreekscholarlyagenda,theperiod

fromthemid-1930stotheearly1970ssawnosystematicattempttostudythese

topics.Veryfewstudiesthatappearedduringthe1960skeptthesubjectinthe

scholarlyagenda(Pentzopoulos,Zampata).However,Turkishmilitaryinterventionin

Cyprusinthesummerof1974,causingyetanotherrefugeecrisisbetweenGreeceand

Turkey(Loizos1981),actedasacatalystfortheproliferationofacademicand

popularstudies(sometimesthroughthereprintofearlystudies)onthesetopicsalong

mostferventnationalisticlines(Tsouloufi,Lampsidi,Svolopoulou).Thetraditional

double-edgedtendencytofittheExchangewithintheneatlywovenpatternof

nationalistnarrativebecameonceagainacommonfeatureofGreekhistoricalwritings

anddominatedthestudiesofvariousGreekscholars,establishedinGreeceorliving

intheDiaspora.Theirindispensablecontributionsintothedocumentationand

reconstructionoftheExchangeforGreecenotwithstanding,thesestandardaccounts

havenotonlyrenderedtheTurkishsideofthestorynearlyobsoletebuthavealso

reducedthewholediscussioninanutterlynationalisticdiscoursetoaone-sided

appraisalforGreece.Moreover,thesestudiestendedtooverlookonthewholetheproblemsoftherefugeeswiththenativepopulationsandoperatedthroughthe

assumptionthatsincetheincomingrefugeeswereethnicallyofacommonorigin,they

werequicklyaccommodatedintotheexistingsocialandnationalframework.Several

studiesfulfilledthesametaskfromtherefugees'pointofview(Pelagides,1994;

Pelagides1997).NearlyeightyyearsaftertheExchange,thistraditionaltendency

amongmanyhistorians,especiallywithintheGreekacademicestablishment,

continuestocharacterizethestudyoftheExchangeandtherefugees.

ThedeficienciesinthetraditionalinterpretationsoftheExchangementionedabove

haveprovidedthedeparturepointfortherecentapproachestothesubject.Onthe

Greeksideoftheevent,scholarscomingfromthedisciplinesofauthropologyandsociologyproduced,onthebasisoforalhistorymaterial,pioneeringstudiesregarding



thecultural,socialandeconomicaspectsoftheExchange.Undertheleadershipof

suchprominentfiguresasMichaelHerzfeld(1985,1991a,1991b),ReneeHirschon

(1992),MariaVergeti(1992)andmorerecentlyAnastasiaKarakasidou(1997),the

anthropologicalapproachtotherelationsbetweentherefugeesandGreeknationalism

hasmodifiedquiteafewofthewidely-heldopinionsonthesubjectandbrought

attentiontothevoiceofrefugees(Loizos1999;Voutira).Thesestudieshaveunpinnedthemultipleramificationsoftherefugeeidentityanddemonstratedthatthe

Greeknationalistideologyhasplayedfromthebeginningavitalroleinthe

suppressionofthedistinctidentityrepresentedbythesepeople.Inthesamecritical

tradition,afewpoliticalscientistsandeconomichistorianshaveconcerned

themselvesrespectivelywiththeparticipationoftherefugeesinmasspoliticsand

theirintegrationwiththeeconomiclife(Mavrogordatos1983;Mazower1991;

Mazower1992;Kostis).Theytrackedtheimpedimentsexperiencedbytherefugeesin

politicalandeconomicrealmsandtheircontinuedgrievancesofsocialandeconomic

naturewiththenativepopulationsduringthefirstyearsofarrival.Thesestudieshave

beenparticularlycriticalinordertodebunkasetofscholarlyattitudessuchasthe

"twinmythsofethnicandnationalhomogeneity"thathadbeenpromotedthroughthecombinedeffortsofpoliticiansandscholarsduringthepost-Lausanneerawithaview

todemotingtheeffectsofthemilitarydefeatinAsiaMinor.

SufficeittosaythatwherethestudyoftheExchangeandtheaccompanying

developmentsareconcerned,thetraditionaltendencyamonghistorians,especially

withintheGreekacademicestablishment,tofittheeventwithintheneatlywoven

patternofnationalistnarrativeremainsforthemostpartunchanged.Inthisregard,

scholars,especiallyprofessionalhistorians,writingonthesubject,continueto

practicetheircraftbytakingtheinformationintheexistingsourcesforgrantedand

persistentlyusingthemtocatalogthehorrorsandsufferingsofthepastwithinan

utterlynationalistframework.Stilltoday,thistraditionaltendencycontinuesto

dominatetheorientationofthemainstreamhistoriographyonthehistoryofthe

ExchangeandrefugeesinGreece.

TurkishNationalHistoriography

InTurkey,thenationalists,whoemergedtriumphantfromthestrugglefor

independence,adoptedatendencyoppositetothatoftheirGreekcounterpartsand

subduedspecificoccurrencessuchastheExchangetothesuccessstoryoftheWarof

IndependenceandthemakingoftheTurkishnation-state.Theemergentattitudeinthe

TurkishnationalisthistoriographytendedtoportraytheTurco-GreekWarasaneventthatmarkedtheunificationandindependenceoftheTurkishnationwhileviewingall

therestastrivia.Buteventhetriviaisinseparablefromthesuccessstoryandthus

shouldbemolded,preserved,anddefended.Thus,duringtheformativephaseof

Turkishnationalhistory,theTurco-GreekPopulationExchangeamongmanyother

topicsoftheperiodwassuppressedundertheshadeofthepreordainedliteratureof

"theTurkishRevolution"andeventuallydeniedaplaceinthehistoricalnarrativeof

thenation.Thus,itcanbearguedthatinasmuchasGreekhistoriographyembraced

"remembrance"astheessenceofitspursuit,Turkishmainstreamhistoriography

adopted"forgetting"astheguidinglineintailoringabrandnewhistoryforthe

Turkishnation.Intermsofitsultimategoal,however,inclosesemblancetoits

counterpart,ittriedtofosterthemythofaunifiednation.Tothiseffect,itlaboredvigorouslytocutitstieswiththeimperialpastcharacterizedbythereconciliationof





ThegeneralneglectofthiscrucialperiodwithinTurkishhistoriographyhastodowith

thecloseinvolvementoftheTurkishstatewiththewritingofhistoryfromthe

beginning.Asearlyasthelate1920s,havingsettledsomeofitsdomesticandforeign

problems,thenewstateturneditsattentiontothequestionofnationalidentity.It

begantosponsorhistoricalandethnographicresearchandorganizenationalfestivals

ofvariouskindstorecastnationalidentity.Earlyin1927,theOttomaninstitutionofTarih-iOsmaniEncumeniwasreorganizedviaastatedirectiveundertheleadership

ofFuadKopruluintoTurkTarihEncumeni.However,forprovidingintellectual

reinforcementforthepoliticalprocessofnation-building,therevolutionaryleadership

tookitsmostdecisivestepin1930andestablishedtheTurkishHistoryResearch

CommissionaspartoftheTurkishHearths(TurkOcagiTurkTarihiTetkikHeyeti)

(Ustel,Landau),whichwastransformedin1931intotheTurkishHistoricalResearch

Commission(TurkTarihiTetkikCemiyeti)(Igdemir,Copeaux).Thisinstitution,four

yearslater,wasrenamedtheTurkishHistoricalSociety(TurkTarihKurumu),and

continuedthemissionofitsantecedentsinfashioningabrandnewhistoryofthe

Turks.Inpursuitofthisgoal,itputtheemphasisnotonpan-Turkistidealsbuton

culturalcontinuityandgeographicallocus,namelyAnatoliaproper(Lewis).Inthisrespect,nationalhistorians,folkloristsandotherscholarscampaignedtoprovethe

TurkishheritageofAnatolia'spopulation,thusdemonstratingconclusivelythatthe

territorybelongstothenewnation-state.Therulinggovernmenttookthemeasures

necessarytodisseminatetheseideasthroughtheinstitutionalchannelsofnational

enculturation,namelytheschools(Ersanh-Behar,Landau,Copeaux).

TheprogramandactivitiesoftheTurkishHistoricalSocietyinpropagatingthetwin

mythsofethnichomogeneityandnationalunityhavealreadybeenthesubjectof

severaldissertationsandbooks(Ersanh-Behar).Thereiswidespreadconsensusthat

thisinstitutioncontributedgreatlytothespreadofscientifichistoricalresearch,

especiallyonthepre-OttomanandOttomanpastoftheTurks(Ortayli77-79).

However,wherethestudyoftherecentpastisconcerned,withthisorgan,thestate

notonlyinstitutionalizeditsofficialnarrativeofeventsbutalsolegitimizedits

supremacyandcontrolinthedomainofhistoryasadiscipline.Thiswasattestedby

themandatoryinstructionofthehistoryofTurkishRevolutionbythestandard

textbookspreparedbytheMinistryofEducation.Incourseofthenextsixtyyearsof

theRepublic,severalmilitarycoupgovernmentstookextrameasurestorestoreand

furtherenhancethestatedirectiveinresearching,writing,andteachinghistory.Oddly

enough,sincethe1930's,historiansinTurkey,includingthoserepresentingtheleftof

thespectrum,haveingeneralbeenreluctanttocriticizethestateforitsstronggrip

overhistory.ThosewhoareinterestedintheearlyhistoryoftheRepublichavetraditionallybeenmostsilentinthisrespect.Injustificationoftheirunwillingnessto

getinvolvedwiththestudyoftheperiod,thesescholarshaveeitherturnedtheir

attentiontoOttomanhistoryorsimplyadoptedasilentattitudetowardsthestandard

narrativeoftheperiod.Yetothershavetakenrefugeintechnicalexplanationsin

preferencetoanythingthatmaybeconsideredcritical.Inthisrespect,thelackof

archivalsourcesforthisperiod,duetothestronggripoftheTurkishState,hasbeen

oneofthemostquotedreasons(Ortayh79;Zurcher5).

TheassumptionthatsourcesinTurkeyforthisspecificperiodarenotpresently

availableoraccessibletotheresearchershaslongbeenquotedasamajorhandicapfor

thelimitedinterestinthisperiod.Anoverviewoftheexistingsourcesrevealshoweverthattheavailabilityofsourcesislessofaconstraintthanitappearsatfirst



sight.WiththeexceptionoftheMinistryofForeignAffairsarchives,whichremain

closedtodatetoresearchersapartfromaselectgroupofvery"trusted"peoplewho

generallyshownointenttochallengetheestablishedhistoricalversion,thearchival

sourcesforthestudyoftheperiodingeneralandtheExchangeofPopulations

betweenTurkeyandGreeceinparticularcanbeconsideredparadoxicallyand

relativelyabundantandeasilyaccessibletotheresearchers.Forexample,thecollectionsoftheCumhuriyetArsivi(RepublicArchives)inAnkaracontain

catalogueddocumentsandmanuscriptsincludingtheresolutionsofthegovernment

andtheindividualarchivesofvariousinstitutions,i.e.ministries,municipalitiesetc.

(6)AsforthearchivalmaterialpertainingspecificallytotheExchange,manylocal

archivalcollectionssuchasthoseoftheBureausoftheVillageAffairs(KoyIsleri)

areknowntohaveexistedforalongtime,buttheyhaveonlyrecentlyattractedthe

attentionofresearchers(Alim-Baran).Theselocalsourcescontainvaluable

informationforthedocumentationofthespecificaspectsoftheExchangesuchasthe

compositionoftherefugeepopulation,propertystructureoftheurbanareas,the

settlementpoliciesofthestate,themethodsdevisedinthepropertyliquidation,etc.

ThusfromtheforegoingitcanbeinferredinlinewiththeremarkofaprominentOttomanistthat"whenthescholarlyconcernisthere,historianscanbequiteinventive

inlocatingtherequisitesources,whilemountainsofprimarymaterialwillremain

neglectedwheninterestislacking"(Faroqhi).

AsfortheinterestoftheTurkishrefugeesintheirownhistories,unliketheirGreek

counterparts,theyhavenotengaged,atleastnotuntilveryrecently,inanyattemptto

produceaccountsoftheirexperiences.Norhastherebeenanyeffortonthepartof

scholarstoinserttherefugeeexperienceintothehistoricalnarrativeofthenation.The

onlyaccountsatmydisposalwhichbeartherefugeetagarethepublicationsof

variousRefugee(muhacir)AssociationsofRumelia,whichweresponsored

respectivelybyOttomanandTurkishgovernments.Thesearedetailedreports,

coveringlistsofGreekatrocities,andofficialdocumentsthatwereaimedprincipally

atrevealingtheruthlessnessofGreekpolicyinRumeliaandAnatolia.Newspaper

articlesweresometimescompiledtoproducesuchmaterial.Withitspropaganda-

orientednature,thisliteratureremainedawartimeproductionandresurfacedonlyin

timeswhenthetensionwithGreeceincreased.Onlyrecentlythegrowingnumberof

memoirs(Kosova,Tesal,Ozyurek)andsomeoralhistorystudies(Koker,Kaplanoglu,

Yorulmaz,Ozsoy)givesomecluesastosocial,economicandculturaleffectsofthe

ExchangeontheTurkishrefugees.Otherwise,thelatter,onthewhole,remain,usinga

slightlydifferentreadingofEricWolf'sfamousdictum,"peoplewithouthistory"

(Wolf).

Allinall,wheretheTurkishhistoriographyoftheExchangeisconcerned,itwouldbe

fairtoinferfromtheaboveobservationsthattheprevailingpoliticalclimateandthe

strictagendaofnationalhistoriographyontherecentpasthavecategorically

preventedthetopicofExchangefromenteringthescholarlycalendarsincethe

beginningoftheTurkishRepublic.Thedisruptiveeffectsofthesefactorsuponthe

writingofearlyRepublicanhistorywerecoupledbythereluctanceofhistorianstoget

involvedwiththestudyoftheperiodunderconcern.Thisintellectualdilemma

benefitedOttomanhistorybypromotingadecidedlyliberalandempiricallyoriented

historiographyoftheOttomanpast.Butwheretherecentpastisconcerned,itwas

reflectedrathernegativelyinboththequantityandthequalityofpublicationsthathaveappearedoverthecourseofthelastseventyyearsinTurkey.Wherethespecific



subjectoftheExchangeisconcerned,whileGreekintelligentsia,bothathomeandin

theDiaspora,putoutnumerouspublicationsspecializinginthistopicasearlyasthe

firstdecadeofthistragicevent,itscounterpartinTurkeywasabletoproduceonly

twospecificstudiesoverthecourseoffivelongdecades.Bothofthesestudiesare

actuallygovernment-sponsoredpublications.Whilethefirstoneisacompilationof

theofficialdocumentsconcerningtheactivitiesoftheMixedCommission(Altuner),theother,producedbyananonymousauthor,isavolumeabouttheresettlement

policiesofthegovernment.Bothwerepublishedinthe1930sandsincethenhave

remainedstandardreferencebooksontheTurco-GreekExchangeofPopulations.

Inthe1990s,thecriticaltrendsinsocialsciences,especiallyinregardtotheroleof

thenation-state,werecombinedwiththepoliticaldevelopmentsunfoldinginthe

BalkansandrisingcriticalvoicesinTurkeyandabroadovertheissuesof

democratization,minorityrightsandthelargerquestionofhumanrightstowield

significantbearingsonmanyscholarsestablishedinTurkeyorabroadandwhoare

specializedintheearlyRepublicanperiodofTurkishhistory.Inthiscontext,many

scholarsandjournalistsproducedalargebodyofpublicationsonaselectivelistoftopicsconcerningtheinstitutionsandpoliciesoftheearlyTurkishRepublic,largely

asabackground"tounderstandthepresentsituation"(Kaplan,Ustel,Yesilkaya,

Ozturkmen,Demirel,Alpkaya,Bali,Zurcher1993;Zurcher2000).Thediscoveryof

theExchangeasapropersubjectofhistoricalresearchtookplaceaspartofthese

revolutionarytrendswhenthepowerofthenation-statebegantobequestionedin

Turkey.ThenseveralstudiescroppeduptoprobeintothefoundationsoftheRepublic

withreferencetospecificoccurrencessuchastheExchangeinordertohighlightthe

processofthemakingoftheTurkishstate.However,whiletheplethoraof

publicationsinGreekhistoriographyhasbeguntochallengevariousthesesof

nationalistichistoriographyconcerningtheExchangefromalldirections,Turkish

domestichistoriography,perhapsduetothefactthatithadjustdiscoveredthesubject,

hasbecomehometotwocontradictorytendencies.Ontheonehand,agroupof

scholarsundertookoriginalarchivalresearchwithaviewtofittingtheExchangeinto

themastersagaoftheTurkishRevolution(Ari,Alim-Baran,Ipek).Ontheotherhand,

severalscholarsattemptedtorereadtheexistingsecondarysourceswiththeobjective

ofportrayingtheExchangeasanindependenteventwithallitsopportunitiesand

constraintsuponTurkey,payingdueattentiontothepredicamentsexperiencedbythe

refugees(Aktar,Adamr,Gokacti).

Theformertendencyisofapiecewiththestate-centricapproachthathaslong

crippledGreeknationalhistoriographyontheroleofExchangeandtherefugeesinGreekhistory.Thisviewcanbesummarizedassuch:Whilethestatebenefitedgreatly

fromtheExchangeintermsofprovidingtheethnichomogeneityofthecountryand

thenationalizationofthecountry'sphysicalandhumangeographies,nottomention

theeconomy,ontheonehand,theincomingrefugeescametocontributeagreatdeal

totheeconomicandculturaldevelopmentofthecountryontheother.Itispossibleto

argueinthissensethatthefirstcategoryofrecentlydevelopingTurkishscholarship

ontheExchangerepresentsamodeofthinkingthathaslongbeenphasedoutor

marginalizedinGreekscholarship.

Asforthelattertrend,itisrepresentedbyscholarswhoarewellgroundedinthemost

recentscholarlycurrentsandmethodologiesinsocialsciencesandawareoftheongoingscholarlyresearchofrevisionistovertonesonthesubjectinGreeceand



abroad.Unlikethoserepresentingthefirstmodeofscholarship,thescholarsinthis

categorytendtoadoptacriticalapproachtotheformationofthenation-statein

Turkey,underpinningthesocial,culturalandeconomicconsequencesofthe

Exchangeforthecountryasawhole.Inthiscontext,thesignificanceoftheExchange

isattributednotsomuchtoitsroleintheeradicationofanallegedlypotentially

dangerousminority,thusthehomogenizationofthecountry'spopulation,astoitstransformatoryimpactuponthephysicalandhumangeographyofthecountryby

restructuringitspropertymapaswellasbyreshapingitscompositionofthehuman

capitalandclassstructure(e.g.,theformationofaMuslim-Turkishbourgeoisie,etc.).

Sufficeittopointoutherethatregardlessoftheirorientations,boththesescholarly

trendsshouldbeappraisedforhavingplayedanimportantroleinbringingthetopicof

theExchangetothepublicattentioninTurkey.

Conclusions

Severalmajorconclusionscanbedrawnfromtheforegoingdiscussion.Asfarasthe

representationoftheExchangeintheGreekscholarshipisconcerned,thiseventhas

beenthesubjectofadouble-edgedinterpretation.Whileitssheeroccurrencewas

consideredasatragedytobeenduredbytheGreeksociety,thesuccessfulhandlingof

thisdraconianchallengebytheGreekstatewasregardedasatestimonytothevitality

ofGreekstatecraft.Thetragicdimensionofthestorywaseffectivelyincorporated

intothepoliticalrhetoricandhistoricaldiscoursewithaviewtobeing"remembered"

inpertinencetotheideologicalgoalsofpoliticalleadership.Moreoftenthannot,it

wasthesuccessparadigmattributedtotheroleoftheGreekstateinthehandlingof

suchahugeinfluxofrefugeesinashortperiodoftimethatbecamelargelyidentified

withtheExchangeinhistoricalwritings.Althoughrefugeessufferednumerous

predicamentsduringtheimplementationoftheConvention,thelong-termadvantagesofsuchanarrangementwerepraisedtohavefaroutweigheditsshort-term

disadvantages.Sincesuchanarrangementbroughtinitswakethesafetyofthe

northernbordersofthecountry,ontheonehand,andaccountedforitsethnicand

nationalhomogenization,ontheother.Furthermore,therefugeeinputintotheGreek

economyintheformofindustrialworkforceandtheexpansionofdomesticmarket

wascoupledwithforeignloansfloatedatthetimetoboostthecountry'seconomy.

Thus,inthefinalanalysis,thestandardGreekexplanationontheconsequencesofthe

Exchangeemphasizedtheadvantagesofthiseventforthecountrywhileitsdramatic

effectsupontherefugeeswereforthemostpartoverlooked.

Needlesstosay,theTurkishdimensionoftheExchangehasbeenrenderednearlyobsoleteinthisnarrative.Suchamonolithictendencywasbuttressedfromthevery

outsetbytheindifferentapproachoftheTurkishnationalhistoriographytothe

subject.LikemanyhistoricaldevelopmentsbehindthemakingoftheTurkishnation-

state,theExchangecouldnotsecureitselfaplaceinthenewlywrittenbiographyof

theTurkishnation.Thenewpoliticalleadershiptendedto"forget"manyhistorical

occurrencesthattheyconsideredirrelevantorpotentiallythreateningtotheirnational

project.TheadoptionofreligionastheprincipalcriterionfortheExchangemight

havebeenconsideredquiteincompatiblewiththesecularvisionofthepolitical

leadership.Inaddition,thedifferencesoftheincomingrefugeesfromthenative

populationswerenotsoeasilyreconcilablegiventhefactthatreligion--upheldasa

unifyingdeviceduringthewar--wasdiscreditedasabaselinefornationalunity.Perhapsmoreimportantly,therevolutionaryleadershipadoptedacommanding



attitudeonthe'imagination'andimpositionofanationalidentitythatwouldunifythe

populationsonthebasisofcommonethnicityandterritorialbelonging.Suchconcerns

figuredprominentlyintheidentitypoliticsoftherulingeliteandunderscoredthe

templateofnationalhistory.Needlesstosay,thoseconcernsbroughtaboutthe

exclusionofhistoricaloccurrences,suchastheExchange,fromthenewly

reconstructed"HistoryoftheTurkishRevolution."ThesilenceoftheTurkishhistoriographyontheExchangehasinturnresultedintherootingoftheunbalanced

representationofthiseventrecountedabove,inwhichtheTurkishroleinthedecision

makingprocessaswellastheimplementationoftheExchangeConvention,more

particularlytheresettlementoftheincomingrefugees,havebeensubjectedtoovert

generalizationsandunfoundedassumptions(Yildirim).

Inthefinalanalysis,itisthecontentionofthepresentauthorthatthestudyofthe

Turco-GreekExchangeofPopulationsasahistoricaloccurrencehasbeenthesubject

ofmuchdistortioninthehistoriographicaltraditionsofnationalistloreinGreeceand

Turkey.TherepresentationoftheLausannerefugeeshasthusbeendictatedbythe

orientationofthesetendencies.ItismycontentionthatonlywhentheExchangeisnottreatedasanabstractionbutasaconcretehistoricalphenomenonthattheLausanne

refugees--withtheirenormoussufferingincludingthelossofhomesandlivelihoods

andthedisruptionofsocial,culturalandeconomicties--willemergeasactiveagents

ofhistory,moreactorsthanactedupon.

Bibliography

Adanir,Fikret.2000."LoScambioGreco-TurcodiPopulazioninellaStoriografica

Turca,"inM.Cattaruzza,M.DogoandRaoulPupo(eds.),Esodi:Transferimenti

ForzatidiPopulazioninelNovecentoEuropeo.Napoli:EdizioniScientificheItaliane,pp.89-101.

Adanir,FikretandHilmarKaiser.2000."Migration,Deportation,andNation-

Building:TheCaseoftheOttomanEmpire,"inReneLeboutte(ed.),Migrationset

MigrantsdansunePerspectiveHistorique.PermanencesetInnovations.Brussels:

PeterLang,pp.273-292.

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],A.1934.H[TEXTNOT

REPRODUCIBLEINASCII].Athens:[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].

Aktar,Ayhan.2000."NufusunHomojenlestirilmesindeveEkonomininTurklestirilmesiSurecindeBirAgama:Turk-YunanNufusMubadelesi,1923-1924,"

inVarlikVergisive'Turklestirme'Politikalari.Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari,pp.17-69,

Alim-Baran,Tulay.1995.Izmir'inImarveIskani,1923-1938.UnpublishedPh.D.

Dissertation,DokuzEylulUniversitesi,Izmir.

Alpkaya,Faruk.1999.TurkiyeCumhuriyeti'ninKurulusu(1923-1924).Istanbul:

IletisimYayinlari.

Altuner,M.Esad,trans.anded.1937.MubadeleyeDairTurkiyeveYunanistan

ArasindaImzaOlunanMukavelenameler.MuhtelitMubadeleKomisyonuKararlari,BitarafAzalarinHakemKararlari.Istanbul:DamgaMatbaasi.



Amin,Shahid.1995.Event,Metaphor,Memory,ChauriChaura1922-1992.Berkeley,

LosAngeles:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.

Anderson,Benedict.1983.ImaginedCommunities.London,NewYork:VERSO.

Andreades,Andreas.1928.LesEffetsEconomiquesetSociauxdelaGuerreenGrece.

Paris:LesPressesUniversitairesdeFrance.

Ari,Kemal.1995.BuyukMubadele,Turkiye'yeZorunluGoc(1923-1925).Istanbul:

TarihVakfiYurtYaymlari.

Bali,Rifat.1999.CumhuriyetYillarindaTurkiyeYahudileri,BirTurklestirme

Seruveni(1923-1945).Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari.

Barkan,OmerLutfi.1948-49."Turkiye'deMuhacirIskanIsleriveBirIc

KolonizasyonPlanmaOlanIhtiyac,"IktisatFakultesiMecmuasi,vol.10,pp.204-223.

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].1992."[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLE

INASCII],"in[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],Vol.9,pp.80-96.

Carabott,Philip.1992."TheGreek'Communists'andtheAsiaMinorCampaign,"in

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],Vol.9,pp.99-118.

Clogg,Richard.1992.AConciseHistoryofGreece.Cambridge:Cambridge

UniversityPress.

Copeaux,Etienne.1998.TarihDersKitaplarinda(1931-1993)TurkTarihTezinden

Turk-IslamSentezine.Istanbul:TarihVakfiYurtYayinlari.

Dakin,Douglas.1972.TheUnificationofGreece,1770-1922.London:ErnestBenn.

Demirel,Ahmet.1994.BirinciMeclis'teMuhalefet,IkinciGrup.Istanbul:Iletisim

Yayinlari.

Dertilis,Panagiotis.1929.LaReconstructiondelaGreceetlaSocietedesNations.

Paris.

Devedji,Alexandre.1929.L'echangeobligatoiredesminoritesgrecquesetturques.

Paris:ImprimerieduMontparnasseetdePersan-Beaumont.

Doxiades,A.1924.LaQuestiondesRefugiesenGrece.Paris:SocieteGenerale

d'Imprimerieetd'Edition.

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].1976.[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLE

INASCII],K.K.E.[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].Athens:[TEXTNOT

REPRODUCIBLEINASCII].



Ersanli-Behar,Busra.1992.IktidarveTarih,Turkiye'deResmiTarihTezinin

Olusumu(1929-1937).Istanbul:AFAYayinlari.

Faroqhi,Suraiya.1991."InSearchofOttomanHistory,"inJournalofPeasant

Studies,vol.18,nos.3-4,April/July,pp.211-241.

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]N.1930.[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLE

INASCII]K.N.[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].Athens,pp.1-39

Gounaris,BasilC.1996."ReassessingNinetyYearsofGreekHistoriographyonthe

"StruggleforMacedonia"(1904-1908),"inJournalofModernGreekStudies,vol.

XIV,no.2.

Gokacti,MehmetAli.2003.NufusMubadelesi:KayipBirKusuaginHikayesi.

Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari.

GurallarYesilkaya,Nese.1999.Halkevleri:IdeolojiveMimarlik.Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari.


INASCII]1919-1978,[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]Athens:[TEXT

NOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].

Herzfeld,Michael.1982.OursOnceMore,Folklore,Ideology,andtheMakingof

ModernGreece.Austin:UniversityofTexasPress.

--.1985.ThePoeticsofManhood,ContestandIdentityinaCretanVillage.Princeton:

PrincetonUniversityPress.

--.1991."Displaced:TheSpacesoftheRefugeeIdentityinGreece,"in

AnthropologicalQuarterly,Vol.64,No.2,pp.92-95.

--.1991.APlaceinHistory,SocialandMonumentalTimeinaCretanTown.

Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Husnu,Sefik.1997.Turkiye'deSosyalSiniflar.Istanbul:KaynakYayinlari.

Igdemir,Ulug.1973.Cumhuriyetin50.YilindaTurkTarihKurumu.Ankara:TurkTarihKurumu.

Ipek,Nedim.2000.MubadeleveSamsun.Ankara:TurkTarihKurumuYayinevi.

IskanTarihgesi.Istanbul:HamitMatbaasi,1932.

Kaplan,Ismail.2000.Turkiye'deMilliEgitimIdeolojisi.Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari.

Kaplanoglu,Raif.1999.Bursa'daMubadele(1923-1930YunanistanGocmenleri).

Istanbul:AvrasyaEtnografyaVakfiYayinlari.



Karakasidou,Anastasia.1997.FieldsofWheat,HillsofBlood,Passagesto

NationhoodinGreekMacedonia,1870-1990.Chicago:TheUniversityofChicago

Press.

Karpat,Kemal.1959.Turkey'sPolitics,TheTransitiontoAMulti-PartySystem.

Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.

Keyder,Caglar.1982.DunyaEkonomisiIcindeTurkiye(1923-1929).Ankara:Yurt

Yayinevi.

--.1989.StateandClassinTurkey.London:VERSO.

Kiosseoglou,Th.P.1926.L'EchangeForcedesMinoritesd'apreslaTraitede

Lausanne.Nancy:ImprimerieNanceienne.

Kitroeff,Alexander.1990."ContinuityandChangeinContemporaryGreek

Historiography,"inM.BlinkhornandT.Veremis(eds.),ModernGreece,NationalismandNationality.London:Sage-ELIAMEP.

Kitsikis,Dimitri.1996.Turk-YunanImparatorlugu,(trans.)V.Aytar.Istanbul:

IletisimYayinlari.

Koliopoulos,JohnandThanosVeremis.2002.Greece,theModernSequel,from1831

tothePresent.NewYork:NewYorkUniversityPress.

Kosova,Zehra.1996.BenIsciyim,(ed.)Z.T.Anadol.Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari.

Koker,Tolga(incollaborationwithLeylaKeskiner).2003."LessonsinRefugeehood:

TheExperienceofForcedMigrantsinTurkey,"inR.Hirschon(ed.),Crossingthe

Aegean:AnAppraisalofthe1923CompulsoryPopulationExchangebetweenGreece

andTurkey.NewYork,Oxford:BerghahnPress,pp.193-208.

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]1992."[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLE

INASCII]"in,[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],Vol.9,pp.31-46.

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]N.1992.[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLE

INASCII]1922,[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],(3rdEdition).Salonica:

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].

Landau,JacobM.1995.Pan-TurkismfromIrredentismtoCooperation.London:

Hurst&Company.

LeGoff,Jacques.1992.HistoryandMemory,(trans.)S.RendallandE.Claman.New

York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.

Lewis,Bernard.1968.TheEmergenceofModernTurkey,2ndEdition.London,

Oxford,NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.

Loizos,Peter.1981.TheHearthGrownBitter':AChronicleofCypriotWarRefugees.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.



--.1999."OttomanHalf-lives:LongtermPerspectivesonParticularForced

Migrations,"inJournalofRefugeeStudies,Vol.12,No.3,pp.237-263.


INASCII]1.[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]1916.[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].

Mazower,Mark.1991.Greeceandthebiter-WarEconomicCrisis,Oxford:Clarendon

Press.

--.1992."TheRefugees,theEconomicCrisisandtheCollapseofVenizelist

Hegemony,1929-1932,"in[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],Vol.9,pp.

119-134.


INASCII].

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII.],A.1923.To[TEXTNOT

REPRODUCIBLEINASCII].


INASCII].Athens.

Ortayli,Ilber.1982."AtaturkDonemindeTurkiye'deTarihcilikUzerineBazi

Gozlemler,"inhisGelenektenGelecege.Istanbul:HilYayinlari.

Ozsoy,Iskender.2003.IkiVatanYorgunlari,MubadeleAcisiniYasayanlarAnlatiyor.

Istanbul:BaglamYayinlari.

Ozturkmen,Arzu.1998.Turkiye'deFolklorveMilliyetcilik.Istanbul:Iletisim

Yayinlari.Ozyurek,AliEzger.2003.Muhacirler(BitmeyenGoc).Istanbul:Kekeme

Yayinlari.


INASCII](1923-1930).Salonica:[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]A.E.

--.1997.[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII](1913-1930),[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]Salonica:[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]

A.E.

Pentzopoulos,Dimitri.1962.TheBalkanExchangeofMinoritiesandItsImpactupon

Greece.Paris:Mouton&Co.,TheHague.


INASCII].Athens:[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].1929.To[TEXTNOT

REPRODUCIBLEINASCII].Athens:[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].



Saylavi,Prof.Sinop[YusufKemalTengirsenk].1935.TurkInkilabiDersleri--

EkonomikDegismeler.Istanbul:ResimliAyMatbaasi.

Sbarounis,AthanaseI.1948.TwoReconstructionsofGreece,translatedfromGreek

articleswrittenforTheNationalHerald.NewYork:NationalHerald.


INASCII]Salonica:[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].

Seferiades,Stelio.1929.L'EchangedesPopulations.Paris:LibrairieHachette.

Streit,George.1929.DerLausannerVertragundderGriechisch-Turkische

Bevolkerungsanstausch.Berlin.

Tenekides,C.G.1924."Lestatutdeminoritesetl'echangeobligatoiredes

populationsGreco-Turques,"inRevueGeneraledeDroitInternationalPublic,vol.31,

pp.72-88.

Tesal,ResatD.1998.Selanik'tenIstanbul'aBirOmrunHikayesi.Istanbul:Iletisim

Yayinlari.

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII].1986.To[TEXTNOT

REPRODUCIBLEINASCII]1924.Salonica:[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEIN

ASCII].

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII],E.I.1927.[TEXTNOT

REPRODUCIBLEINASCII].Athens:n.p.


INASCII].Athens:[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII](firstedition

appearedin1982).

Tuncay,Mete.1991.Turkiye'deSolAkimlar-I(1908-1925),Belgeler,vol.2.Istanbul:

BDSYayinlari.

Ustel,Fusun.1997.ImparatorluktanUlus-DevleteTurkMilliyetciligi,TurkOcaklari

(1912-1931).Istanbul:IletisimYayinlari.

Voutira,Eftihia.1997."PopulationTransfersandResettlementPoliciesinInter-War

Europe:theCaseofAsiaMinorRefugeesinMacedoniafromanInternationaland

NationalPerspective,"inPeterMackridgeandEleniYannakis(eds.),Ourselvesand

Others,theDevelopmentofaGreekMacedonianCulturalIdentitysince1912.

Oxford,NewYork:Berg,pp.111-131.

Wolf,Eric.1982.EuropeandthePeopleWithoutHistory.Berkeley:Universityof

CaliforniaPress.

Yildirim,Onur.2002."'DiplomatsandRefugees:MappingtheTurco-Greek

ExchangeofPopulations,1922-1934,"UnpublishedPh.D.Dissertation,PrincetonUniversity.



Yorulmaz,Ahmet.1997.SavasimCocuklari.Istanbul:Bilge.

[TEXTNOTREPRODUCIBLEINASCII]Xp.1969."[TEXTNOT

REPRODUCIBLEINASCII],"Ph.D.Dissertation,UniversityofAthens.

Zapantis,AndrewL.1982.Greek-SovietRelations,1917-1941,Boulder,CO:East

EuropeanMonographs.

Zurcher,Eric.199l.PoliticalOppositionintheEarlyTurkishRepublic,the

ProgressiveRepublicanParty,1924-1925,Leiden:E.J.Brill.

--.1993.Turkey,AModernHistory.London:I.B.Tauris&Co.Ltd.

--.2000."YoungTurks,OttomanMuslimsandTurkishNationalists:IdentityPolitics,

1908-1938,"inKemalKarpat(ed.),OttomanPastandToday'sTurkey.Leiden:Brill,

pp.150-179.

OnurYildirim

MiddleEastTechnicalUniversity,Ankara

Notes

(1.)Karakasidounotesthat"therefugeesarestillenshrinedinmuchGreek

historiographyasexemplaryvictimsofthepersecutionsufferedbytheGreeknation

atthehandsofitseternalenemy,theTurks."(Karakasidou150)

(2.)TheNationalSchismaroseovertheissueofGreece'spositionintheWW1.

VenizelosandhisLiberalPartyadvocatedapro-Ententeposition,urgingthecountry

tojointhewaronthesideoftheEntentewhichwouldenableGreecetofulfillits

irredentistdreams.KingConstantineandhissupportersadoptedapro-German

positionoutofrespectforthelatter'smilitarystrength.Thisdisputegenerateda

constitutionalcrisis,leadingtoavirtualcivilwarin1916-1917betweenthe

provisionalgovernmentwhichVenizelossetupinSalonicaandtheofficial

governmentinAthens.Thedisputecontinuedtodividepoliticiansduringmuchofthe

interwarera.

(3.)AccordingtoDimitriKitsikis,themassiverefugeesupporttoVenizelosinthe

politicalarenawasthereflectionofa"collectivemasochism"onthepartofthe

refugeessinceVenizeloswastheprincipalfigureresponsiblefortheiruprootingfrom

AsiaMinor(Kitsikis214)

(4.)FromthespeechoftheDeputy,M.KurkosintheGreekParliamentonJuly7,

1924.(QuotedbyTounta-Fergadi,24).

(5.)Thisparadigmcontinuestobethebackboneofthepoliticalrhetoric.In1984,the

Greekpresident,ConstantineKaramanlis,whomadetheopeningspeechina

conferenceorganizedbytheInstituteforBalkanStudiestocelebratetheeightiethanniversaryoftheMacedonianStruggle,pointedoutthat"thecourseofanationis



alwaysrelatedtothepurityandthedepthofitsmemory.Thismemoryisasourceof

knowledgeoftheachievementsandtheshortcomingsofthepast,andalsoasourceof

principlesthatwilldeterminethenation'sfuturemission.MemoryfortheGreeksis

identifiedwiththeconsciousnessoftheunbrokencontinuityofGreeklifefrom

Homertothepresentday."(TranslatedandcitedbyGounaris237).

(6.)ThecataloguedmaterialconcerningtheExchangeinthearchivalcollectionsof

theRepublicArchives(CumhuriyetArsivi)inAnkaraiscurrentlylimitedtothe

governmentaldecreesandresolutionsonthesubject.Itisknowntothepresentauthor

thatthisparticularrepositorycontainsmanyotherdocumentarycollectionsrelevantto

theExchange.Amongthesesourcesaretheliquidationcertificatesoftherefugees

(tasfiyetalebnamesi),thetranscriptionsofthediscussionsintheMixedCommission

(MuhtelitMubadeleKomisyonu),thefilesoncasesbetweentheGreekrefugeesand

TurkeyaccordingtotheAthensAccordof1926.TheRepublicArchiveshaslong

beenpursuingapolicytoretainthearchivesofallthestateinstitutions.

QuestiaMediaAmerica,Inc.www.questia.com

PublicationInformation:ArticleTitle:The1923PopulationExchange,Refugeesand

NationalHistoriographiesinGreeceandTurkey.Contributors:OnurYildirim-

author.JournalTitle:EastEuropeanQuarterly.Volume:40.Issue:1.Publication

Year:2006.PageNumber:45+.COPYRIGHT2006EastEuropeanQuarterly;

COPYRIGHT2006GaleGroup

Documents

The 1923 Population Exchange, Refugees and National Historiographies in Greece and Turkey