Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

No, I have already acknowledged that Turkish nationalists defeated the Greeks once the British stopped their support. I was responding specifically to assertions made by Shah.

So you are not aware of the Occupation of Anatolia by the Americans, British, French, Italians, Russians, Armeninas and the Greeks after WW1, of which all had to be defeated before the RoT could be formed.

[cymart]

Time is running out for Cyprus and anyone can see that!

[humanist]

can't please everyone fred :):):):):):) seems like everything in Cyprus is done to death and still no progress forward like a developed nation ........ kiss and make up I say

[Simon]

No, I have already acknowledged that Turkish nationalists defeated the Greeks once the British stopped their support. I was responding specifically to assertions made by Shah.

So you are not aware of the Occupation of Anatolia by the Americans, British, French, Italians, Russians, Armeninas and the Greeks after WW1, of which all had to be defeated before the RoT could be formed.

Yes and the British, French etc left voluntarily. They were not defeated on the battlefield, far from it. You really think some ill-equipped Turkish nationalists defeated the combined armies of all these countries you mentioned after being humiliated in WW1? Is this what you Turkish nationalists are brainwashed with? The British and French were supplying the Greeks, and the Greeks were winning until the Greek King Alexander died from a monkey bite which changed the course of history. The supplies to Greece ceased, and the British, French, Russians (who were supplying the Turks) etc started negotiating with the Turks behind the scenes. It was never the intention of Britain or any other of the Great Powers to permanently occupy and colonise Anatolia.

[YFred]

No, I have already acknowledged that Turkish nationalists defeated the Greeks once the British stopped their support. I was responding specifically to assertions made by Shah.

So you are not aware of the Occupation of Anatolia by the Americans, British, French, Italians, Russians, Armeninas and the Greeks after WW1, of which all had to be defeated before the RoT could be formed.

Yes and the British, French etc left voluntarily. They were not defeated on the battlefield, far from it. You really think some ill-equipped Turkish nationalists defeated the combined armies of all these countries you mentioned after being humiliated in WW1? Is this what you Turkish nationalists are brainwashed with? The British and French were supplying the Greeks, and the Greeks were winning until the Greek King Alexander died from a monkey bite which changed the course of history.

Yep, in exactly the same way the Americans left Vietnam, The Russians Afghanistan. They just left but were not really defeated. Perhaps you can teach the Turks that method too and they can leave Cyprus without being defeated.
The question is what was the King doing to the monkey to be bitten. Now that's interesting. Please explain.

[Simon]

No, I have already acknowledged that Turkish nationalists defeated the Greeks once the British stopped their support. I was responding specifically to assertions made by Shah.

So you are not aware of the Occupation of Anatolia by the Americans, British, French, Italians, Russians, Armeninas and the Greeks after WW1, of which all had to be defeated before the RoT could be formed.

Yes and the British, French etc left voluntarily. They were not defeated on the battlefield, far from it. You really think some ill-equipped Turkish nationalists defeated the combined armies of all these countries you mentioned after being humiliated in WW1? Is this what you Turkish nationalists are brainwashed with? The British and French were supplying the Greeks, and the Greeks were winning until the Greek King Alexander died from a monkey bite which changed the course of history.

Yep, in exactly the same way the Americans left Vietnam, The Russians Afghanistan. They just left but were not really defeated. Perhaps you can teach the Turks that method too and they can leave Cyprus without being defeated.
The question is what was the King doing to the monkey to be bitten. Now that's interesting. Please explain.

I agree, in those cases the Russians, Americans etc were more outlasted rather than militarily defeated. There is a difference which many people miss. However, that does not really apply to this situation. The British were not outlasted, but they simply refused to continue supporting Greece because King Constantine returned to the throne after Alexander's death, along with other reasons such as Greece's inability to provide a quick decisive total victory (even though they were winning). France stopped supporting Greece because after a while they believed that Greece were just British pawns and feared British hegemony in the region. Nothing to do with being outlasted. The Russians were supplying arms to Turkey, because they were worried about Greek dominance over the south Slavic countries.

Perhaps we can find a solution where Turkey can leave without being militarily defeated. We all hope for that as it will save lives. Although I seriously doubt that will happen.

The King was defending his pet dog by the way, and suffered 2 monkey bites.

[Paphitis]

You should take this with a pinch of salt because it's rubbish. When were the UK and France defeated twice by Turkey? Please enlighten me. We can then take the discussion from there. I presume you are talking about wars, not individual battles, especially where you ended up losing the war.

If the UK continued to supply and arm Greece for the entire period after the Turkish collapse, and not withdrew its support, Ankara would probably be Ankaropoulos by now.

By the way, the Turks received help from the Russians when they defeated the Greeks. So it was not "single-handed" as you claim.

The Battle of Gallipoli which you so proudly boast about, was exactly that, just one battle. The Ottomans lost many others, and lost the war let us not forget.

As a footnote, Gallipoli was more of a stalemate that led to an Anglo-French withdrawal, rather than an outright military victory by the Ottomans. It is classed as a victory for the Ottomans because it was a successful defence of Constantinople/Istanbul - but by no means were Anglo-French forces routed or anything of the kind. In fact, the Ottomans lost more troops than the British and French.

Simon...Can you please not categorize the ANZACS as British...we were completely seperate and over 100,000 ANZACS were on the peninsula....

Categorising the ANZACS as British is rather offensive...

[Simon]

You should take this with a pinch of salt because it's rubbish. When were the UK and France defeated twice by Turkey? Please enlighten me. We can then take the discussion from there. I presume you are talking about wars, not individual battles, especially where you ended up losing the war.

If the UK continued to supply and arm Greece for the entire period after the Turkish collapse, and not withdrew its support, Ankara would probably be Ankaropoulos by now.

By the way, the Turks received help from the Russians when they defeated the Greeks. So it was not "single-handed" as you claim.

The Battle of Gallipoli which you so proudly boast about, was exactly that, just one battle. The Ottomans lost many others, and lost the war let us not forget.

As a footnote, Gallipoli was more of a stalemate that led to an Anglo-French withdrawal, rather than an outright military victory by the Ottomans. It is classed as a victory for the Ottomans because it was a successful defence of Constantinople/Istanbul - but by no means were Anglo-French forces routed or anything of the kind. In fact, the Ottomans lost more troops than the British and French.

Simon...Can you please not include categorize the ANZACS as British...we were completely seperate and over 100,000 of them were on the peninsula....

Categorising the ANZACS as British is rather offensive...

Paphitis, I'm not going to list all the various nationalities under British command. It is unnecessary, long-winded and irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. They were part of the British Commonwealth/Empire were they not? They were under British command? Therefore, I'm happy to refer to them all under the umbrella of British, or at least British Commonwealth. Stop being so sensitive. Various nations contributed many lives to the British Empire, and the Australians are mainly just British settlers anyway.

[Paphitis]

This offense stems from the arrogance and the incompetence of the British Officers who managed tp land their Royal Navy at the wrong location, along a certain beach that had hills and sand dunes.

The British Blunder cost thousands of ANZAC lives within the first day alone...

[Paphitis]

You should take this with a pinch of salt because it's rubbish. When were the UK and France defeated twice by Turkey? Please enlighten me. We can then take the discussion from there. I presume you are talking about wars, not individual battles, especially where you ended up losing the war.

If the UK continued to supply and arm Greece for the entire period after the Turkish collapse, and not withdrew its support, Ankara would probably be Ankaropoulos by now.

By the way, the Turks received help from the Russians when they defeated the Greeks. So it was not "single-handed" as you claim.

The Battle of Gallipoli which you so proudly boast about, was exactly that, just one battle. The Ottomans lost many others, and lost the war let us not forget.

As a footnote, Gallipoli was more of a stalemate that led to an Anglo-French withdrawal, rather than an outright military victory by the Ottomans. It is classed as a victory for the Ottomans because it was a successful defence of Constantinople/Istanbul - but by no means were Anglo-French forces routed or anything of the kind. In fact, the Ottomans lost more troops than the British and French.

Simon...Can you please not include categorize the ANZACS as British...we were completely seperate and over 100,000 of them were on the peninsula....

Categorising the ANZACS as British is rather offensive...

Paphitis, I'm not going to list all the various nationalities under British command. It is unnecessary, long-winded and irrelevant to the point I'm trying to make. They were part of the British Commonwealth/Empire were they not? They were under British command? Therefore, I'm happy to refer to them all under the umbrella of British, or at least British Commonwealth. Stop being so sensitive. Various nations contributed many lives to the British Empire, and the Australians are mainly just British settlers anyway.

No, Australia was not part of the British Empire.

Federation occurred in 1901 and Australia had its own chain of command within the Australian Imperial Forces.

But yes, at some points many ANZACS came under the direct command of British Officers, and we paid dearly for that because your Officers proved themselves to be wankers of the highest order.....

Australian soldiers will never again be placed in the hands of incompetent nincompoops!