insan wrote:Simon wrote:insan wrote:Simon wrote:insan wrote:Simon wrote:insan wrote:Simon wrote:insan wrote:Simon wrote:insan wrote:Simon wrote:insan wrote:Simon wrote:insan wrote:Simon wrote:insan wrote:One more slap into the faces of 2 Aunt Sallies:
"Shortly afterwards the Turkish prime minister, Bulent Ecevit, arrived in London for urgent consultations and met the prime minister. After he left, Wilson instructed the ministry of defence assessment staff to draw up contingency plans for a British invasion.
Marked "Secret UK Eyes A'" and entitled Re-instatement of President Makarios in Cyprus by means of British military support, the document warns of the dangers involved in such an operation.
"This paper considers the general forces level necessary to achieve this," it begins. "It does not address itself to the possibility [of intervention] by Greece, Turkey or another nation ... However, the attempted intervention by air or sea of Greek forces could be deterred by our own forces given about 10 days notice.
"The threat will not only consist of the Cyprus national guard, Greek national contingent, EOKA B [paramilitary Greek loyalists] ... there will be sizeable elements who will actively oppose us by resorting to guerrilla warfare."
The total strength of "Greek loyal forces" was estimated at 55,000, but "standards of training are poor".
The assessment concluded that three brigades - as many as 15,000 soldiers - would be needed.
Close air support would also be necessary, but added: "Bitter experience has shown us that even a small number of dedicated men from the local population can pin down an inordinately large force for an indefinite period and we might well end up by facing an open-ended and expensive situation, like in Northern Ireland.
"Our chances of ever fully subduing the island as a whole ... must be extremely low."
Up to 23,000 service families, UK citizens and friendly nationals would be vulnerable to hostage-taking but evacuating them before an intervention "would make our intentions plain", it said.
The government hesitated and events moved faster than anticipated. In the early hours of July 20 Turkish troops invaded north Cyprus and in effect partitioned the island on the grounds of protecting the Turkish Cypriot population.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/0 ... larchives1
insan, what has the above got to do with anything? This is referring to guerilla warfare if the British opposed Greek forces and reinstated Makarios. All major powers struggle with guerilla warfare, because you can't fight your enemy head on. That has nothing to do with the conventional naval warfare I am referring to.
These were British contingency plans regarding the pros and cons of British intervention. Gimme a link to that naval warfare u r refering to... Lemme check it.
Against Greek guerilla forces, yes. But what has that got to do with a naval engagement to prevent the Turkish invasion? Nothing!
Gimme a link to that naval engagement plan and after I read it I'll tell u what it has to do with Turkish peace operation.
I never said there was a British naval plan that had been published. I doubt the British would ever publish a plan even if there was one. What I said was Britain had the naval capacity to stop the invasion. And if you deny this, then I'm afraid I can't help you with your brainwashing.
What I say is common knowledge. Here is just one source which confirms what I say:
Anderson continued: “The meeting that ensued settled the fate of the island. It was a talk between social-democrats: Wilson, Callaghan and Ecevit, fellow members of the Socialists International. Although Britain had not only a core of well-equipped troops, but overwhelming air-power on the island – fighter-bombers capable of shattering forces far more formidable than Sampson and his minders – Wilson and Callaghan refused to lift a finger. The next day, Turkey readied a naval landing. Britain had warships off the coast and could have deterred a unilateral Turkish invasion with equal ease. Again, London did nothing.”
Read and weap.
Before you go on about propaganda sources, as I know you like to do when you have nothing else to say, Professor Anderson is a History expert at the University of California, Los Angeles. A highly respected institution.
It is just the arguement of P Anderson. It's not official. There r no other respected authors supporting his arguement neither British officials but only Greek Lobby; Gene Rossides and poor Simon Templar.
What do you mean it is not official? What did you expect, an official document about a hypothetical naval battle? From who? You're an idiot insan.
Anderson is a historical expert from a top University. What did you expect, a statement from a Turkish Admiral admitting that if Britain intervened he would end up at the bottom of the Mediterranean!
Of course Britain could have stopped the invasion, for one simple reason, its Navy is far better than Turkey's. Simple.
Yeahhh... an expert that no other experts on earth supported his arguements regarding this issue but only Lobbyist, propagandist, Rossides.
What a coincidence ehh?
How do you know no other experts support him? I have heard the exact same thing from loads of sources. Where is your link that Britain would have lost a naval engagement? Like I said, when you have nothing else to say, you go back to the propaganda argument.
yeah.. yeahh... sure... Read the full story in 400 pages of CIA document. Everything is there... minute by minute... including all official conversations between all concerned parties...
And none of it contradicts what I am saying.
Most of the things u say contradicts with it because ur main source is a Hellenic propaganda website.. How it shouldn't contradict?
That is the type of ridiculous assumption I expect from you.
Post the quotes and page numbers where I have been contradicted.
U don't worth for it... u even ridicule urself by quoting from Hellenic propaganda websites which only serves whitewashing Hellenes and put all the blame on others... and without any shame u still dare to ask me to show u where u contradict with other sources... Poor simon.
U don't even believe what u say but ur damn Greek pride don't allow u admitting the truths.
What are you talking about? I quoted a history expert from a top US University. Just because it was quoted on a Greek website, it does not automatically make it propaganda because the source itself is neutral. You are one clueless idiot honestly.
All you are trying to do is wiggle out of my challenge to you, by going back to the propaganda argument because you can't find anything that contradicts what I say. Find me something which contradicts my arguments! If you can't, then stop ridiculing yourself and shut up!
Are you honestly telling me insan that you believe the Turkish Navy would have defeated the Royal Navy in any major engagement? Yes or No.
If anything, it is your Turkish nationalistic pride that is getting in the way of common sense.
I'm not a navy or war expert like u supposedly are. Idiot. Do u consider urself a navy or war expert?
What about the history lecturer Anderson?
Not just what Anderson said, everything u quoted to support ur arguments have been quoted from Hellenic propaganda websites. That's why I don't feel necessary to prove ur contradictions. All those Hellenic propaganda websites have one purpose: Whitewashing all the mistakes and wrong doings of Greeks and putting all the blame on others... Yes?
I have never quoted anything from Turkish propaganda websites to support my arguements like u.. r u aware of that? Poor dissembler, Simon.
U and ur alikes r waste of time.
You don't have to be a war expert to understand the blatantly obvious, idiot! Did I need to be a war expert to predict that America would cause Saddam's regime to crumble in a matter of weeks like it did? How about if Turkey and Armenia go to war, do you need to be an expert to understand that Armenia wouldn't stand much of a chance, which is why Russian troops guard the border? Look at each side's inventory, look at the technology and training, listen to experts, and it is common sense you ignoramus.
I don't know what you are talking about when you say everything I have quoted is from propaganda websites. Looks like you are simply making it up as you go along again. The only person I have quoted is Anderson. I even pre-empted your ridiculous propaganda argument, but it still didn't stop your one-track mind. What can I say, an idiot is an idiot.
So now Anderson is a Greek propagandist?
What about the British Select Committee? Are they Greek propagandists?
You don't point to any contradictions because you can't. This is patently obvious. Otherwise, I say again, put up or shut up! I won't hold my breath.
You also did not answer my other question: Do you think the Turkish Navy was too strong for the Royal Navy? Yes or No. If you haven't got a clue, just say.
