>>18479435
Weren’t the Greeks getting a ton of British and French support too?

>>18479438
Not exactly. In the Turkish War of Independence, “the Allies” were not acting like one unified military bloc. Britain, France, Italy, Greece, and others had overlapping but different interests. Greece carried the main war in western Anatolia and while Britain mostly backed Greece diplomatically France and Italy gradually moved away from the anti-Kemalist line and came to terms with Ankara. That is why Ankara could make separate arrangements like for example with France through the Ankara Agreement of 1921and then concentrate on defeating the Greek army. Turkey’s victory was military, but it was also diplomatic it exploited the fact that the Allied front was weak and fragmented.

>>18479435
Post central power version

>>18479435
>capeshit but turkroach
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwM8pFG8Vl8

>>18479435
Soviet support was critical for the Turks. The Kemalists were isolated, embargoed, poor and lacking in industrial capacity. Soviet aid (in the form of money and guns) definitely represented the vast majority of their accessible external support.

But it is worth pointing out that by contrast, Greece already had an internationally recognised state, an established army, significant diplomatic and naval support from the Allies for their occupation, and (most critically of all) access to international finance and shipping. They had a clear advantage in resources and diplomatic support relative to the Turks. It took great genius from Ataturk to win that war, even with Soviet support.

>>18479818
>vid
A lot of little boys would be limping

>>18479435
soviet support was marginal, and mainly concerned armenia and the eastern front. ataturk only managed to stop the greeks at the sakarya about an hour's drive away from ankara thanks to the river acting as a natural barrier. the turkish army was horribly organized and had to wait and prepare for a whole year by the banks of the sakarya to be able to mount a proper offensive.

>>18479435
Greek incompetence is what doomed them first and foremost. They made a big march then stayed put right in front of Ankara for nearly a year or so (?)

>>18479435
You won't find any war where there aren't any support countries

>>18479435
Italy saw Greece as a direct rival in Anatolia and the Dodecanese and, upset over Greece’s landing in Smyrna, supported the Turks by allowing weapons to reach them, supplying arms, and providing training.

The French, frustrated after Greece’s elections brought back the pro-German king and weary from World War I, decided to withdraw.

The British backed Greece in hopes of securing a deal over Mosul’s oil, but once that was achieved, they ended all support.

The Soviets, wanting to keep the Allies at a distance, provided gold, weapons, and troops.

Greece, weakened by previous wars and overstretched, eventually ran out of supplies, withdrew its army, and avoided a worse outcome ensuring the Turks didn’t get the oil, preventing genocide against Greeks in Asia Minor, and relocating subhuman Muslim populations from Greece to asia minor .

>>18481437
>trying to present greekoids as the underdogs

LMAO

>>18479435
soviet ''aid'' was roughly slightly better that the italian involvement in the war, the real aid was done from central asian muslims which the soviets literally robbed and then gave back their aid after taking a cut and adding mosin nagants as the civil war was dying down. The real part the soviets played was when they got Batum for free and both sides agreed on fucking armenia.
It wasn't a charitable aid between allies or a color revolution but completely opportunistic land grabs by both sides without having to fight poland 2 mountain boogaloo in the caucasus for both sides. Ittihadist intelligence and organization from before the surrender played a more important role than anything else during the war in my opinion