Turkish-Greek Population Exchange

Turkish-Greek Population Exchange is an international practice stipulating the compulsory exchange of the Greek Orthodox population residing in Türkiye and the Muslim population residing in Greece, based on religious affiliation, as per the treaty signed on 30 January 1923. This exchange, decided during the Lausanne Peace Conference, resulted in approximately two million people being separated from the lands where they were born and raised, excluding the Greek Orthodox community of Istanbul and the Muslim Turks of Western Thrace.

Infographic on the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange (AA)

History

The history of the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange is rooted in the minority policies that emerged within the multi-religious and multi-ethnic structure of the Ottoman Empire and the rise of nationalism in the Balkans from the 19th century onward. The process initiated by the Greek Revolt deepened through the Balkan Wars, World War I, and the years of the National Struggle, marked by intense migrations and mutual population losses. In particular, forced population transfers became commonplace across Anatolia and the Balkans under wartime conditions. These developments brought to the forefront the idea of homogenizing populations as a solution for nation-state building goals for both Türkiye and Greece, laying the groundwork for the emergence of the exchange concept.

Origins of the Exchange Idea

The idea of the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange took shape as a consequence of the demographic, economic, and political problems arising from the massive population movements during the Balkan Wars and the National Struggle. Greece faced serious difficulties in accommodating hundreds of thousands of Greek refugees arriving from Anatolia; this situation strengthened the notion of relocating the Muslim population of Greece to Anatolia. Simultaneously, in Türkiye, the presence of the non-Muslim population after the war began to be discussed within the context of the new state’s security and nation-building policies. Under these conditions, with the involvement of the League of Nations, it became widely accepted that a mutual and compulsory population exchange would be a viable solution for both states.

Lausanne Conference and the Population Exchange

The issue of the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange was one of the most important topics addressed during the initial phase of the Lausanne Peace Conference. The minority question, particularly due to the forced migrations and reciprocal population movements during the war years, led to intense debates between the Turkish and Greek delegations. Both sides viewed the presence of “foreign elements” within their borders as a threat to security, stability, and social order.

The Turkish delegation regarded the continued presence of the Greek Orthodox population in Anatolia as politically and socially problematic after the National Struggle, while the Greek delegation, confronted with the heavy economic and social burden created by Greek refugees from Anatolia, advocated for the relocation of the Muslim population in Greece to Türkiye. These reciprocal demands created the conditions for an agreement on the compulsory implementation of the exchange.

During the Lausanne negotiations, the scope of the exchange, which groups would be subject to it, and which populations would be excluded were discussed in detail. It was ultimately decided that the Greek Orthodox of Istanbul and the Muslim Turks of Western Thrace would be exempted from the exchange, while the principle of reciprocal population transfer was accepted for all others. On 30 January 1923, the “Treaty and Protocol Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations” was signed, thereby placing the population exchange on a legal foundation.^【1】 This decision taken at the Lausanne Conference took shape as a fundamental political solution aimed at homogenizing the populations of both countries in their nation-state building processes.

Treaty on the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange (30 January 1923)

The Turkish-Greek Population Exchange was legally formalized by the “Treaty and Protocol Concerning the Exchange of Greek and Turkish Populations” signed on 30 January 1923 during the Lausanne Peace Conference. The treaty was signed by İsmet Pasha (İnönü), head of the Turkish delegation at the Lausanne Conference, on behalf of the Government of the Grand National Assembly of Türkiye, and by Eleftherios Venizelos, head of the Greek delegation and former prime minister, on behalf of the Kingdom of Greece.^【2】 The treaty mandated the compulsory exchange of the Greek Orthodox population in Türkiye and the Muslim population in Greece based on religion; thus, it constituted a binding interstate arrangement that did not rely on the principle of voluntariness.

Article 1 of the treaty stipulated that Greek Orthodox and Muslim populations, excluding those of Istanbul and Western Thrace, would be subject to mutual exchange. Accordingly, individuals covered by the exchange were required to leave their countries as of 1 May 1923, and their return to their former places of residence without the permission of the respective states was prohibited.

The treaty also provided detailed regulations regarding the status of the movable and immovable property of those subject to exchange. It was agreed that the liquidation, valuation, and compensation of properties left behind by the exchangees would be handled, and a Mixed (Joint) Exchange Commission was established to oversee and monitor these procedures.^【3】 The Commission was empowered to resolve disputes arising during the implementation of the exchange.

A key provision of the treaty was that the exchange was to be compulsory and irreversible. Thus, the exchange became an initiative designed to permanently transform the demographic structures of both countries.

While the Treaty on the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange was an international document aimed at resolving minority and refugee issues after the war, it generated significant social, economic, and cultural consequences in both countries.

Implementation of the Exchange

The implementation of the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange began in 1923 in accordance with the terms of the treaty and continued for several years. The transportation, resettlement, and liquidation of properties of the exchangees created serious administrative and logistical challenges for both Türkiye and Greece. The migration process largely occurred immediately after the war, leading to major disruptions in transportation, housing, and food supply.

To oversee the implementation of the treaty and resolve disputes, the Mixed Exchange Commission was established. The Commission was authorized to determine the status of exchangees, identify the populations subject to exchange, assess the value of properties, and settle disputes between the parties. One of the most contentious issues during implementation was determining whether individuals fell within the scope of the exchange, particularly disputes surrounding the “established” status of certain populations.

Muslim exchangees from Greece were transported via designated ports, temporarily housed in reception centers, and then relocated to settlement areas. Similarly, the Greek Orthodox population from Türkiye was transported under controlled conditions. During this process, health problems, epidemics, inadequate housing, and economic hardship were among the main difficulties faced by the exchangees.

Among the epidemics, typhus emerged as one of the greatest threats due to its high mortality rate and rapid transmission. At a time when no effective treatment or preventive vaccine for typhus existed, the understanding that the disease was spread by lice placed hygiene and louse control at the center of public health measures during the exchange.

Health services for exchangees were managed through cooperation between the newly established Ministry of Exchange, Reconstruction, and Settlement and the Red Crescent (Hilâl-i Ahmer). Medical teams were stationed at embarkation ports in Greece and disembarkation piers in Türkiye, and hospitals and dispensaries were opened. Exchangees were held in quarantine centers known as tahaffuzhane before being relocated, where they were bathed and their belongings disinfected using steam machines. These measures constituted the most fundamental preventive steps against the spread of typhus.

Despite all precautions, typhus cases could not be entirely prevented. Cases were recorded especially in the Central Black Sea and Central Anatolia regions; in 1924 alone, 919 cases of typhus were reported and 110 people died.^【4】 However, strict quarantine and hygiene measures prevented the disease from developing into a nationwide epidemic.

Resettlement of Exchangees in Türkiye

The resettlement of Muslim exchangees arriving in Türkiye was one of the most significant social and administrative challenges faced by the early Republic. The majority of the population arriving from Greece was directed to settlements in Anatolia and Thrace that had been depopulated due to war and migration; the resettlement process was attempted to be carried out under a centralized planning framework. However, the sheer size of the population and the limitations of available resources created serious practical difficulties.

To carry out resettlement activities, the Ministry of Exchange, Reconstruction, and Settlement was established within the state apparatus, and the resettlement of exchangees was placed under its responsibility. Exchangees were placed in areas as compatible as possible with the climate and production conditions of their regions of origin; those engaged in agriculture were directed to rural areas, while artisans and merchants were directed to towns and cities. Nevertheless, housing shortages and inadequate infrastructure complicated the resettlement process.

The Hilâl-i Ahmer Society played a vital role in meeting the basic needs of exchangees. Health services, food aid, and temporary housing were largely provided through this institution. In addition, land, agricultural tools, and production equipment were distributed to enable exchangees to become productive as quickly as possible.

Upon resettlement, exchangees encountered not only economic difficulties but also social and cultural challenges as they adapted to new environments. Differences in language, lifestyle, and settlement patterns sometimes made integration difficult; nonetheless, the exchangee population left lasting imprints on the social and economic fabric of the Republic.

Consequences of the Exchange for Türkiye

The Turkish-Greek Population Exchange brought about fundamental changes in Türkiye’s demographic structure and contributed significantly to the reconfiguration of the population along religious and identity lines during the early years of the Republic. With the departure of the Greek Orthodox population, significant population vacuums emerged in Anatolia and Thrace; these were filled by Muslim exchangees arriving from Greece. Thus, the exchange served as an effective instrument in the process of homogenizing the population in line with the nation-state ideology of the newly established Republic of Türkiye.

Economically, the exchange created serious short-term problems. The departure of the experienced Greek Orthodox population from agriculture, trade, and crafts led to disruptions in production and commerce, particularly in urban economies. In contrast, efforts were made to revive agricultural production in the areas where exchangees were resettled, with land distribution and production support aimed at ensuring economic continuity. However, this process was prolonged due to insufficient resources and inadequate infrastructure.

While establishing new social relations, exchangees faced cultural adaptation issues and traumatic migration experiences. Nevertheless, over time, the exchangee population adapted to their new environments and contributed to the social fabric of Türkiye.

Consequences of the Exchange for Greece

The Turkish-Greek Population Exchange created deep and lasting impacts on Greece’s demographic, economic, and social structure. Hundreds of thousands of Greek exchangees arriving from Anatolia and Eastern Thrace caused a rapid and significant increase in the country’s population, bringing with it serious challenges in housing, employment, and food supply. This sudden population surge placed heavy pressure on Greece’s limited economic resources immediately after the war.

Economically, the exchange initially posed major difficulties for Greece. Land had to be distributed for housing the refugees, new settlements had to be established, and infrastructure had to be developed. However, in the long term, the participation of exchangees in agriculture, crafts, and trade contributed to the restructuring of the Greek economy. The revival of agricultural production, in particular, has been linked to the labor and accumulated knowledge of the exchangees.

Socially and politically, the population exchange was viewed as part of the process of strengthening national unity in Greece. The resettlement of exchangees was seen as leading to a more homogeneous population, and this was presented as a positive development within the framework of nation-state building. However, the adaptation problems, poverty, and marginalization experienced by exchangees also generated long-term social tensions within Greek society.

Problems Faced by the Exchangees

During the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange, exchangees faced multifaceted and severe problems due to the compulsory and sudden nature of the migration. Forced to leave their ancestral lands within a short time, exchangees lost their material possessions and experienced an irreversible rupture.

Among the most common problems during the migration were inadequate housing and food supply. A significant portion of the exchangee population remained for extended periods in temporary shelters during transit and upon arrival; difficulties in accessing health services and outbreaks of disease led to loss of life. The elderly, women, and children were the most affected groups under these conditions.

During resettlement, exchangees encountered problems such as insufficient housing, unproductive agricultural land, and lack of production tools. Differences in language, culture, and lifestyle complicated social integration, and tensions occasionally arose between local populations and exchangees. Moreover, a large proportion of exchangees struggled to find employment suited to their professions.

Psychologically, the exchange left lasting trauma on the exchangees. Forced migration damaged their sense of belonging and triggered intense feelings of loss and nostalgia. This experience created a collective memory that affected subsequent generations and turned the population exchange into a deep historical wound in both countries.

The Population Exchange in Turkish and Greek Historiography

The Turkish-Greek Population Exchange has been addressed differently in the historiography of both countries and has been subject to evolving interpretations over time. In early studies, the exchange was largely evaluated from a state-centered perspective, presented as a necessary and compulsory solution for homogenizing populations during the nation-state formation process. In this approach, the exchange was primarily examined through its political, legal, and administrative dimensions, while its human dimension remained secondary.

In Greek historiography, the exchange has been assessed primarily through the traumas experienced by Greek refugees from Anatolia and the economic and social hardships faced by Greece. Nevertheless, for a long time, the exchange was portrayed positively in Greece as a process that strengthened national unity and successfully integrated refugees into society. State policies and official narratives constructed an account emphasizing the long-term contributions of the exchange to Greek society.

In Turkish historiography, the exchange was largely overlooked during the early years of the Republic. In the process of constructing the new state’s national identity, the exchange was often regarded as an unavoidable necessity, and the human losses involved were only minimally addressed. From the 1990s onward, however, a significant shift occurred in the historiography of both Türkiye and Greece, with an increasing number of studies adopting a people-centered perspective on the exchange.

Academic Studies on the Exchange

The Turkish-Greek Population Exchange has generated a broad academic literature in Türkiye and Greece across disciplines such as history, sociology, economics, and political science. Early studies in the Republic’s formative years were largely based on official documents, legal regulations, and state policies, treating the exchange primarily as an administrative and diplomatic issue.

In Türkiye, academic interest in the exchange has clearly increased since the 1990s. Studies from this period have examined not only the resettlement, economic integration, and social impacts of the exchange but also individual experiences and collective memory. Oral history projects, memoirs, and local research have made the social dimensions of the exchange more visible.

Academic studies in Greece have been more intensive from earlier periods, particularly those based on the narratives of Greek refugees from Anatolia. These studies have detailed the traumas experienced by exchangees, settlement policies, and processes of integration into Greek society. Over time, comparative studies examining both Turkish and Greek literatures have increased, transforming the population exchange into a multidimensional and critical field of inquiry beyond one-sided narratives.

The Population Exchange in Turkish Literature

In Turkish literature, the Turkish-Greek Population Exchange was long either not directly addressed or treated merely as a historical backdrop. From the early years of the Republic until the 1990s, the number of novels centered on the exchange remained very limited; literary interest was concentrated primarily on themes of the National Struggle, the founding of the nation-state, and modernization. However, from the 1990s onward, as the second and third generations of exchangees became more visible in the social memory, the exchange began to be treated as an independent and central theme in Turkish novels.

In these novels, the exchange is explored not through official historical narratives but through its human and emotional dimensions. Forced migration, lost homelands, abandoned homes and graves, fractured families, and intergenerational trauma form the core of the narrative. In this context, Kemal Yalçın’s novel Emanet Çeyiz focuses on collective memory through memories and legacies left behind on both sides of the exchange.

Ahmet Yorulmaz’s works hold a distinct place in exchange literature. In Savaşın Çocukları, the forced migration is portrayed through the eyes of children, revealing the destructive impact of war and exchange on innocence. In his novel Ulya, the exchange is examined through the geography of the Aegean, alongside questions of identity, belonging, and cultural continuity.

Other Turkish literary works addressing the exchange also highlight similar themes. In novels such as Girit’ten Cunda’ya, migration is narrated through sea journeys and the Aegean islands; in works like Hasret, loss, waiting, and longing for the past are foregrounded. In most of these novels, historical events remain in the background; the narrative is built on individual testimonies, family stories, and oral accounts.

Perceptions of the Exchange in Turkish and Greek Cinema

The Turkish-Greek Population Exchange was long addressed indirectly in the cinema of both countries; however, from the 1990s onward, it became visible through individual stories and collective memory.

In Turkish cinema, the theme of the exchange is most clearly portrayed in the film Bir Tutam Baharat. Although the film does not directly address the 1923 exchange, it explores the forced separation experienced by Istanbul’s Greek Orthodox community through the lenses of memory, nostalgia, and the sense of a lost homeland. Elements such as place, food, and scent construct a symbolic narrative of lives fragmented by the exchange. Similarly, Dedemin İnsanları centers on the story of a family that migrated from Crete to Türkiye, portraying forced migration, alienation, and questions of belonging from a child’s perspective. The film reflects the condition of exchangees as “strangers in the place they came to and others in the place they left.”

In Greek cinema, the theme of the exchange and separation from Anatolia has been addressed since earlier periods. Particularly, Politiki Kouzina (A Touch of Spice) tells the story of a Greek family forced to migrate from Istanbul to Greece, foregrounding the identity fragmentation and nostalgic memory following the exchange. In the film, Istanbul is represented as a lost paradise, and the exchange is presented as a personal trauma and an intergenerational memory legacy. Additionally, in Theo Angelopoulos’s films—especially those dealing with themes of migration and borders—the exchange is indirectly addressed through the context of forced displacement and loss of homeland, even if not explicitly named.