Cyprus-Forum.com

[Simon]

I am aware of the ANZAC suffering and the British certainly made mistakes during the offensive. However, ANZAC were part of the British Commonwealth forces, so for the sake of being succinct when trying to make a wider argument, there is no inaccuracy in referring to them as "British" forces.

[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.

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!

I said British Commonwealth/Empire specifically because whilst Australia wasn't theoretically part of the Empire any longer, it was part of the Commonwealth, which back then still meant that it would fight for Britain when called upon. The UK Parliament could also still make law for Australia. So technically it was not fully independent. It was kind of in between, which is why I referred to the position as 'Commonwealth/Empire'. Most importantly, ANZAC were fighting on behalf of the British. It was under the command of General William Birdwood, who was a British General. So like I said, I don't see any inaccuracy, for efficiency sake, of just referring to them under the umbrella of British Commonwealth forces. I'm sorry if you find it offensive because in no way am I intending to play down the sacrifice of ANZAC forces. Of course, if one wants to look deeper, there were always many different nationalities that fought for the British Empire.

[Paphitis]

I am aware of the ANZAC suffering and the British certainly made mistakes during the offensive.

Your telling me!

[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!

I said British Commonwealth/Empire specifically because whilst Australia wasn't theoretically part of the Empire any longer, it was part of the Commonwealth, which back then still meant that it would fight for Britain when called upon. The UK Parliament could also still make law for Australia. So technically it was not fully independent. It was kind of in between, which is why I referred to the position as 'Commonwealth/Empire'. Most importantly, ANZAC were fighting on behalf of the British. It was under the command of General William Birdwood, who was a British General. So like I said, I don't see any inaccuracy, for efficiency sake, of just referring to them under the umbrella of British Commonwealth forces. I'm sorry if you find it offensive because in no way am I intending to play down the sacrifice of ANZAC forces. Of course, if one wants to look deeper, there were always many different nationalities that fought for the British Empire.

The Commonwealth has absolutely nothing to do with the empire.

Cyprus is a Commonwealth Nation as well, and the Cypriots rightfully told the Empirical wankers to get lost in the 50s...

The Commonwealth is irrelevant...

I'm totally amazed the Brits never killed thousands of Cypriot Troops within the Cyprus British regiment in WW2....Consider yourselves lucky...because you got off lightly....

[Simon]

Paphitis, this is where you are confused. The Commonwealth was the successor to the Empire. So they obviously are something to do with each other. Whilst the Commonwealth is largely irrelevant today, back when Gallipoli was fought, Commonwealth countries where still expected to fight for Britain and look after British interests. This is one of the main reasons ANZAC were fighting under British command in the first place.

Further, Britain and Australia were still very politically connected at this time. Like I say, the UK Parliament still reserved powers to make law in Australia for example. Australia was in fact a dominion of the British Empire at the time of Gallipoli. It was semi-autonomous and not fully independent. It became independent probably around the time of the Statute of Westminster in 1931.

Cyprus was part of the British Empire in the 50s, and wanted independence. That is why they told the British to leave. This has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. In any event, this was at a much later time when the Commonwealth had much less influence.

[Paphitis]

Paphitis, this is where you are confused. The Commonwealth was the successor to the Empire. So they obviously are something to do with each other. Whilst the Commonwealth is largely irrelevant today, back when Gallipoli was fought, Commonwealth countries where still expected to fight for Britain and look after British interests. This is one of the main reasons ANZAC were fighting under British command in the first place.

Britain and Australia were still very politically connected at this time. Like I say, the UK Parliament still reserved powers to make law in Australia for example.

Cyprus was part of the British Empire in the 50s, and wanted independence. That is why they told the British to leave. This has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. In any event, this was at a much later time when the Commonwealth had much less influence.

Australia achieved Federation in 1901.

And the Commonwealth has as much relevance as the EU. Cyprus is not part of the Empire since 1960, and Australia since 1901.

What the hell does it take it get rid of you fuckers?

We don't want any more suffering on our poor unfortunate troops.

The Brits can conduct their own suicide missions (they would be doing the world a favour) and leave us alone!

[Simon]

Paphitis, this is where you are confused. The Commonwealth was the successor to the Empire. So they obviously are something to do with each other. Whilst the Commonwealth is largely irrelevant today, back when Gallipoli was fought, Commonwealth countries where still expected to fight for Britain and look after British interests. This is one of the main reasons ANZAC were fighting under British command in the first place.

Britain and Australia were still very politically connected at this time. Like I say, the UK Parliament still reserved powers to make law in Australia for example.

Cyprus was part of the British Empire in the 50s, and wanted independence. That is why they told the British to leave. This has nothing to do with the Commonwealth. In any event, this was at a much later time when the Commonwealth had much less influence.

Australia achieved Federation in 1901.

And the Commonwealth has as much relevance as the EU. Cyprus is not part of the Empire since 1960, and Australia since 1901.

What the hell does it take it get rid of you fuckers?

We don't want any more suffering on our poor unfortunate troops.

The Brits can conduct their own suicide missions (they would be doing the world a favour) and leave us alone!

Australia may have achieved federation in 1901, but it was not fully independent. End of story. Any history book on this matter will tell you this. It was a dominion well beyond 1901. Just look it up on Wikipedia for christ's sake if you don't believe me.

The Commonwealth has little relevance TODAY, I agree. But back when it was first envisioned, it was a tool designed by the British to retain influence. And for a short time it worked. Why is this so hard for you to understand?

Cyprus was not part of the Empire since 1960 - agreed. I never said otherwise. Australia was still a dominion after 1901. In fact, it was still a dominion of the Empire in 1931, when it gained legislative independence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Westminster

I don't understand your penultimate comment. You are rid of the British. I have no desire for Australians to fight for the British. I'm just telling you facts, although you seem oddly not to want to accept them. I don't even know what you're getting so worked up about.

[Simon]

In fact I made a mistake myself when I originally accepted your assertion that Australia was no longer technically part of the Empire after 1901. I thought it was wrong at the time due to Australia's dominion status, and after double-checking this, my suspicion was right. Even technically and theoretically, Australia was still part of the British Empire.

[Paphitis]

In fact I made a mistake myself when I originally accepted your assertion that Australia was no longer technically part of the Empire after 1901. I thought it was wrong at the time due to Australia's dominion status, and after double-checking this, your assertion was wrong. Even technically and theoretically, Australia was still part of the Empire.

I think you have got your knickers in a knot.

Australia has been an independant country since 1901. Britain has absolutely no say within Australia and Australia's role as a Dominion Power is purely ceremonial and denotes EQUAL status within it - but please tell me exactly over which empire Australia is a Dominion off?

You can't be a Dominion over an empire that no longer exists.

Get you facts right, because whilst Britain still fantasises over a non existent empire, Australia has become an economic superpower - which is still booming. We are the bread basket of China and India, whilst the UK is just an irrelevant pissant nation that now eats our dust.

Hands off our ANZACS, because you pathetic Brits have absolutely no right to bask in their glory!

[Paphitis]

Furthermore, it is only a matter of time before The Queen of Australia is deposed.