PDA

View Full Version : Greece vs Turkey; possible conflict scenarios



Pages : [1] 2

Ironduke
25 Dec 03,, 09:03
Any experts here on the situation with Greece and Turkey who can detail possible conflict scenarios between the two? What conflicts could erupt over, how fighting would play out, responses from, and actions of, other nations, etc.

ottoman
06 Jan 04,, 22:19
:RW the turks will beat the greeks because regardless of technology the greeks have always with the exception of the greek independance war "fallen to pieces" when fighting the turks who are more numerous better trained and have ruled over the greeks for four centuries the greeks dont have the stomach for it a rag tag army of pesants threw a well equiped greek army ( armed by britain) in to the sea at izmir and that was after sorting out the italians and french as well as the kurds and turks who were opposed to the young turks westernisation movement the turks have a 4000 year history of epic battles both defeats and victorys ps many other european powers helped the greeks win the independance war after the brutal methods the turks used were winning the war so the turks would win hands down

Ironduke
07 Jan 04,, 02:35
Hadn't the Greek army marched to Ankara and back before the defeat at Smyrna?

ottoman
07 Jan 04,, 13:19
:RW That may be true but they didnt fight the turks when the english asked them to they waited for the empire to collapse turkey to surrender and then came in thanks to the english invitation the turks built an army poorly trained and poorly equiped got rid of internal problems and later the greeks against all the odds were as in the greek independancde war and most wars between the turks and the greeks the greeks have had better allies and lets face it nobody likes the turks not the arabs not europe not asia not anyone due to the history of nomadic warfare from mongolia all the way to anatolia not a very good way to win many buddys. so the odds were strongly against the turks many turks thought that a british mandate was the best way out by 1918 and would have excepted it if the greeks didnt begin killing and raping innocent civilians after they did that "independane or death" became the slogan. look at american history independance is a great incentive.

Ironduke
07 Jan 04,, 14:09
Could you please speak coherently?

Right now you're ranting.

Thanks for the two periods in your last post, your previous one was a massive run-on.

ottoman
07 Jan 04,, 16:23
:nuke i do talk a lot dont i personnally ranting is a great form
of expression maybe i will become a great dictator one day only a very enlightened one

Officer of Engineers
07 Jan 04,, 18:16
We have no idea what you're saying. Unless you make an effort to make us understand your points, you're making yourself look like an idiot.

Make the effort.

ottoman
07 Jan 04,, 18:19
:RW and a very trigger happy idiot

Ironduke
07 Jan 04,, 18:24
See the title under my name? You'd better hope that I'm not trigger-happy.

Make an effort to be articulate and concise, please.

bigross86
07 Jan 04,, 19:10
Hey! Those guns hes firing are completely in sync with "Smells Like Teen Spirit" which is playing on my computer. How cool is that?

ottoman
08 Jan 04,, 23:50
nothing like a community leader you have my utmost respect.

Nobody wants to hear about that ottoman.

Editted by Mod

ottoman
09 Jan 04,, 17:06
WHAT ABOUT THE COW THAT SPOKE TO ME ABOUT POLITICS I MEAN I DID SMOKE SOME SHIT BUT I SWEAR THAT COW WAS INTELLIGENT

No nobody wants to hear that and it violates board rules.

don't get vulgar or graphic with whacked out sayings

ottoman
12 Jan 04,, 13:22
Last chance, keep it up, you'll be banned.

edited by admin

Praxus
20 Jan 04,, 23:54
Ouch that has got to hurt;)

Ironduke
20 Jan 04,, 23:56
I warned him.

Anybody here have any real theories on possible conflict scenarios between Greece and Turkey?

Sparky
22 Jan 04,, 03:02
I don't know about actual conflict senarios but recent press on discussions between the two shows they are trying to jointly limit their little arms race. It seems the economic drag on both ecomomies is a bit high with no real benifit to either. I don't think the US or EU would put up with either country invading the other's teritory (the island of Cyprus excluded). Even conflict involving Cyprus or sea and air battles over the Mediteranean waters would likely see the US and EU member countries acting in unison to apply immediate and heavy pressure for a cessation of hostilities.

Officer of Engineers
22 Jan 04,, 04:43
I was in Cyperus and both don't impress me none, especially when both sides gave orders not to interfere with the toruist season.

oda29
10 Dec 04,, 10:38
having served both in Turkish and US, armies, i can say one thing for sure:greeks don't have any chance in a conflict. the only reason they still remain is because of being a part of Nato, and US watching out for them. they do not have any courage, they dress up like the jokers out of a deck cards. if it was possible to amuse people to death than they would have stood a chance against the Turks. come on ladies, give it up. centuries full of defeats, humiliation and yet still blowing hot air. the best part of the Greek military, are the Turks that serve in their military. how pathatic is that? anyway, the world and even god laughs at the talks about greeks defeating Turks. you know the greeks are like those telephone tough guys, very though over the phone, yet when confronted wetting their panties. Ultimately, give it up and always carry an extra pair of panties with you!!! :biggrin:

oda29
10 Dec 04,, 13:29
they only could march to ankara because there was no army on their path, and on the way back they did not march; they ran like there was no tomorrow while burning villages, raping women, and when the Turkish Army caught up with them in IZMIR, they received their just reward. The Aegean Sea was red for days. If you play with fire, you most definitely will get burnt. Especially when that fire is made out of Turks.

Static Caster
07 Jan 05,, 05:06
having served both in Turkish and US, armies
You can't even speak coherently so I highly doubt this claim.


greeks don't have any chance in a conflict
Did you come up with that conclusion because of the Turkish military or the U.S. military lie?


they dress up like the jokers out of a deck cards
Actually, the Greek 'Stoli' or traditional costume has 400 hundred pleats (folds) ... reason? 1 for every fanatical islamic year of rule over Greece by the Ottoman Empire.


the world and even god laughs
You must be talking about Allah?


Turkish Army caught up with them in IZMIR
You must mean Smyrna...yeah, my great grandfather (in his 40's and completely blind) was slaughtered like a lamb in Smyrna by the Fanatical Islamic Turks.


Especially when that fire is made out of Turks.
How Corny. Spare me will ya?

Commando
07 Jan 05,, 10:58
Ottoman got banned.

Now he is on as oda29.

Can't you ban him again??

spook
07 Jan 05,, 15:36
:)
Ottoman got banned.

Now he is on as oda29.

Can't you ban him again??

Commando
08 Jan 05,, 00:18
OK OK LOL ITS SPOOK THEN.

oh well its not like their ever gonna be able to fully stop someone..

Static Caster
08 Jan 05,, 02:22
Personally, I think atrocities are disgusting but if you are curious about seeing the atrocities that the Greeks committed prior to the signing of the Lausanne Treaty of 1923 (I think?) then visit this web page.

I'm not sure if it's propaganda though...


http://www.turk-yunan.gen.tr/english/massacres/
/

spook
08 Jan 05,, 12:04
OK OK LOL ITS SPOOK THEN.

oh well its not like their ever gonna be able to fully stop someone..

ı m not ottoman commando .. if you dont want to see right you can stopp

George
11 Feb 05,, 03:48
Considering the present situation I think that Turkey would consider it twice before it attacked Greece.

First of all it is well known that Turkey is a very poor country comparing to Greece.

According to the CIA World factbook.

Greece budget is : 78 billion dollars.
Greece population :11 million

Turkey budget : 66 billion dollars.
Turkey population: 70 million.

Given these numbers I presume that if Turkey went to war with Greece it would have to knock the country's defences fast. If that didn't happen and the conflict continued longer then Greece might reppel or even ( not propable but possible) turn the tables to her advantage (given Greece's advantegeous economical position). In short words, Turkey won't be able to have this kind of an army she has for a long time in the field with its current resources.

Considering that the Kurdish minority that comprises 20% of turksh population
(around 20 million) might revolt, it would bring Turkey in relatevely difficult possition by being threatened by both sides.

Veni Vidi Vici
12 Feb 05,, 03:43
i will become a great dictator one day only a very enlightened one

Slow down there oh enlightened one. Learn to speak english before you put your diabolical plan into action.

Veni Vidi Vici
12 Feb 05,, 03:43
nvm hes been banned. :biggrin:

lwarmonger
12 Feb 05,, 22:26
Personally, I doubt that either nation has the ability to be completely victorious over the other. Greece is quite mountanous, and richer, while Turkey also possesses extremely rough terrain, and has a major advantage in numbers. The best either side could hope for is a stalemate, with minor advantages going to one side or the other. Sure, either Greece or Turkey could take a few islands (perhaps even all of Cyprus), but ultimately these gains would be minimal, and neither side could press the advantage.

molf48
19 Feb 05,, 08:29
I try to post a reply but Oups! I see Veni Vidi Vici User photo.. Are this photo real? You are a beuty!!.. I cant use a word to descripe your beuty!.. I'am in love!!!

Greece Vs Turkey Future Confict Scenarios.

What is the problem about Agean Sea? Why Turkey want some? Aegean Sea is full of oil source, but Greece after US pressure can not pump out.. Maybe in future US use the logic "Devide and Rule" to make these two countries having hostile activities, maybe a declaration of war.. What happen then? Turkey have not a change to win.. They very very poor third world islamic country not very popular to EU majority and they are really lazy (If someone make a travel to Cyprus then he will see what I mean.. The wrecker that Greecks construct hotel is still there from '74) !! Look for example the Greek side of Cyprus and look the poor Turkish side.. I am afraid they covet the Greek for their successfulls (a Euro zone country), country with the best ecomomy in Balkans, country with large companies in Balkans and not only.. but the are so swabber to catch the Greek in race of evolution! The Asian Turks they havent no education, no democracy, no human rights!? Their General throw them the fairy tale that Greece is a hostile to Turkey country to forget all the incide problem! And people with no education persuade easy because they donot see the real world! Greece want Turkey to get in EU.. Then be sure that a lot of big Greek companies take the rule of Turkey and the country economy.. War? Why they do not make I war? They just afraid.. They are now 100 year below from Greece... They be proud for what? What they do for human kind? What is history of Turkey? That they are savage and I was get down from the trees? Who destroy German Ecomony? The lazy Turks! That the came to Germany and use the country foresight and ecomonical support multiply themselfs like rabits without doing something!!

eMachine
21 Feb 05,, 11:51
I try to post a reply but Oups! I see Veni Vidi Vici User photo.. Are this photo real? You are a beuty!!.. I cant use a word to descripe your beuty!.. I'am in love!!!
håh :) good way to keep eyes on you.. well done...

Spartan King
27 Feb 05,, 11:14
Interesting topic. A war would between the two would end up as a mutual loss, because economically it will hit far too hard, and ruin years of progress. Turkey is larger, much larger, but its key cities such as Istanbul and Izmir are within easy range and reach of bombers, whilst Greece has an extensive SAM umbrella. Some Greek islands on the other hand are within easy reach of Turkey, so after a few days there will be land grabs from both, and extensive damage to Turkey's west coast. At that point a ceasefire will be called.

p.s. someone has copied my name on this site :mad:


p.p.s. For a dedicated Greece-Turkey forum visit us at: http://s9.invisionfree.com/Greece_Turkey/index.php?act=idx

:)

HellenicFighter
28 Mar 05,, 08:52
I agree with you Spartan King, but that mainly concentrates on the air war that would occur.
I think in the naval war that would no doubt occur, Greece will come out on top, but more then likely only just.
It will be extremely hard for Turkey to launch an invasion of mainland Greece.

Trojan
08 Apr 05,, 09:47
no comments about military coz:

"a barking dog never bites, it just try to decrease of its fear by barking" :)

molf48, seriously can you give some of the generals' names? always mentioning the generals but no names. Just tell one of them and so I can search something.

Molf48, about laziness of Turks, when I was in athens, I couldn't find ppl to talk just because it was off between 12:00 to 16:00 in week days. However, ppl who work for45 hrs per week or not to work on saturdays, call themselves "lucky" in Turkey. hmm, I would be happy if you make your laziness concept clear.

EU is removing incentives on Greece this year for 2 reasons. They already supported Greece with large amounts (and as I heard from some of my greek friends, Greek government usually spent those moneys on ******** things like Olympic Games, I am not to person who say that... They said like that) and direct financial incentives to new members. And second, they don't have money to support...

2004 was very good year for Turkey. Our growth was %9.9 ( when China's was %9.3)... Well I do not know if we can continue this growth rate, instead of you, nobody is helping us... However, the economical indications of Greece will be worse in 2005 (don't missunderstand me, I am not happy to say that coz I have many customers in Greece and they are great ppl and also it is going to effect my sales to Greece)

And another information, Turkey is secular country, not islamic... :cool:

Regards :biggrin:

spook
27 Apr 05,, 19:28
Turkey kick their ass air and ground they had wondeful army .in the aegen turkish jets take grecee figthers lungs photo(lock on it)

Aurel
02 Jun 05,, 01:32
I see no reason for them to go to war. Turkey is trying to get member of the EU, with support from the Greek. The Cyprus problem is not completely solved, but things become better. There is nothing to gain for both sides.
I think both get money from the EU and the US. While Greece get's more money from the EU, Turks get more aid from the US.

SloMax
09 Jun 05,, 11:56
I agree with Aurel. It would be a catastrophe for both.

gm58
16 Jun 05,, 03:26
Any experts here on the situation with Greece and Turkey who can detail possible conflict scenarios between the two? What conflicts could erupt over, how fighting would play out, responses from, and actions of, other nations, etc.

Turkey has been bailed by the world bank supported mostly from US tax payers. Turkey should try to feed themselves and switch from out houses to bathrooms before continuiung on with conquest of teh world.

Punjab Ki Fauj
17 Jun 05,, 12:24
Realistically there will be no war between Turkey and Greece. It is pretty clear that Turkey will not do anything that will undermine its efforts to gain membership into the E.U. The Turks have gone to extent of reinventing their society and culture on European lines since the days of Ataturk and have isolated all of their eastern neighbours. Ataturk may be known in Turkey as the "Father of the Turks" but in Arabia he is known as the "Father of the dogs".

I highly doubt they will throw away their work towards E.U membership in a war with Greece.

Anyway, Greece does not appear to be a threat to anyone, including Turkey. Had the Greeks been something im sure they would have been able to dislodge the Turks from Cyprus and even move their army into Albania to protect the rights of the Greeks living there.

Morbius
22 Jun 05,, 00:49
I concur, war, at the moment, is out of the question. In fact, no one nation is more desirous of Turkey's possible - although unlikely - acceptance into the E.U. than Greece, which presently spends a higher percentage of its GDP on national defense than practically any other E.U. member. Yes, despite the past, despite Cyprus, Greece is rooting for Turkey, in the name of pure self interest.

Amazing how self interest, thinking on the margin, etc., can turn long held views and even ideology on its head.

“What is true is what serves one’s self interest.” - Mother Nature


E. Morbius

Amled
22 Jun 05,, 02:50
The crunch will come, if (or when) the EU again puts Turkeys membership on hold. Don't forget the recent French referendum! Already last year when the referendum was announced, elements in French society opposed to Turkey's entry into the EU, immediately saw it as a golden opportunity to gain supporters.
This scepticism regarding Turkey's entry is not only held in France but in may of the EU countries.


Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/4103332.stm

Published: 2005/06/17 14:24:10 GMT

© BBC MMV

Brussels woes worry EU hopefuls

...In Turkey, Hurriyet quotes France's Dominique de Villepin as saying EU enlargement should stop after the admission of Bulgaria and Romania, leaving Turkey outside.

Therfore if Turkey is again left out in the cold, will there not be backlash in Turkish society?

freedom
11 Aug 05,, 21:37
Hey,
so my belief is that if such a conflict begins and considering that the US or England won't interfere again in favor of the Turks (as they did in 1974) the results will be pretty much the following:
1) The greek army will easily invade the Easter Thrace and may march towards Constantinople - the land and the current situation in this area seems that this is the most possible outcome

2) The turkish army will easily land on a few (but totally unimportant) greek islands

3) Major fights will take place in Cyprus and airfights over the Aegen sea where the greek air-defense system is very effective

4) The Kurdish will revolt asking for an independent state

According to these four possible outcomes, I'm pretty sure that Turkey won't risk such a war that may lead to the collapse of the Turksih state as we know it today. Either way, Greece as a country won't go for a war. It has a very stable policy in the whole area and is totally against any changes in the borders, minorities etc (although some of them may favor Greece)

Also something else. Could please the Turks that post replies in this forum stop being so fanatics and so narrow-minded. I don't want to judge anybody but they totally sound like a horde of barbarians that are ready to invade Europe again (as Attila did many centuries ago).

dave angel
12 Aug 05,, 00:07
i'm not sure there are any turks on this forum, we've certainly not seen them recently....

Markos
10 Oct 05,, 22:26
Any experts here on the situation with Greece and Turkey who can detail possible conflict scenarios between the two? What conflicts could erupt over, how fighting would play out, responses from, and actions of, other nations, etc.
Greetings from Athens.First of all If a war started the REAL fighting would occur at the Aegean with both sides fleets sustaining heavy damage.At the skies with The Greek and Turkish pilots being the BEST ONES IN THE WORLD RIGHT NOW propably NONE would achieve complete superiority.If the Turkish army invaded Greece the only place that this would happen is at Thrace.If the Greek army could stop the Turks for a period of time then the Greeks will win.But if the Turks manage to break fast enough then hello worms.If now the Greeks invade(we) the Turks must repel us ASAP or else game over with Kurds rioting at the east hoping for an independent state.God help(ours and theirs)both of us if a war happen.I am open in opinions of this scenario.Greetings again

Markos
13 Oct 05,, 14:30
Greece vs Turkey war???Outcome Greek victory for economical reasons.

burk123
15 Dec 05,, 12:16
What the heck between greeks and turks..
One is the poorest in mid east and other one poorest in EU.

Why do you guys bark each other?

And why are you guys pulling US/EU and israel into your discussions. Can't you guys stand yourselves?

question is can turkey beat greece w/o help of US? Or can Greeks beat turks w/o help of US and EU?

One thing for sure no any country will ever help you if you go in a war. UK will not allow any EU military support for greeks against turks.. US will not support turks due to greek lobby in US senate.

cemyaz
09 Mar 06,, 16:07
Hadn't the Greek army marched to Ankara and back before the defeat at Smyrna?
NO: The Greek Army came as close as 60 Km to the town of Polatlı. However G. Hagianaesti before Gn Trikopiswas appointed CNC ( who by the way learned of his promotion in Turkish captivity ) had made the grave error that Napoleon, Hitler had made.;that is over extending your reach and thinnig lines of supply.

cemyaz
09 Mar 06,, 16:13
What the heck between greeks and turks..
One is the poorest in mid east and other one poorest in EU.
Helloooooo IRaq/Syria /Iran/ Jordan/Israel/ please check CIA world fact book
Why do you guys bark each other?
Greeks and Turks are very similar...I have a lot of great greek friends
And why are you guys pulling US/EU and israel into your discussions. Can't you guys stand yourselves?
Turks were in the "world theatre" starting from Cengiz Han ..all by ourselves
question is can turkey beat greece w/o help of US? Or can Greeks beat turks w/o help of US and EU?
These questions are not serious..both countries have well defined capabilities that will not require 3rd party support or intervention
One thing for sure no any country will ever help you if you go in a war. UK will not allow any EU military support for greeks against turks.. US will not support turks due to greek lobby in US senate.
Thats is what they said in 1974... neither UK or US could not do anything...

cemyaz
09 Mar 06,, 16:14
i'm not sure there are any turks on this forum, we've certainly not seen them recently....
Well said.......

cemyaz
09 Mar 06,, 16:44
Hey,
so my belief is that if such a conflict begins and considering that the US or England won't interfere again in favor of the Turks (as they did in 1974) the results will be pretty much the following:
1) The greek army will easily invade the Easter Thrace and may march towards Constantinople - the land and the current situation in this area seems that this is the most possible outcome

2) The turkish army will easily land on a few (but totally unimportant) greek islands

3) Major fights will take place in Cyprus and airfights over the Aegen sea where the greek air-defense system is very effective

4) The Kurdish will revolt asking for an independent state

According to these four possible outcomes, I'm pretty sure that Turkey won't risk such a war that may lead to the collapse of the Turksih state as we know it today. Either way, Greece as a country won't go for a war. It has a very stable policy in the whole area and is totally against any changes in the borders, minorities etc (although some of them may favor Greece)

Also something else. Could please the Turks that post replies in this forum stop being so fanatics and so narrow-minded. I don't want to judge anybody but they totally sound like a horde of barbarians that are ready to invade Europe again (as Attila did many centuries ago).

1. No strategical or tactical out come can be generated by such " comparisions by numbers". eventhough it helps to make projections.
2.Thrace is very well defended...it is not easy to lauch a decisive attack as easily as you said. Not to mention the Turks of Western Thrace, Turkish Army has highly mobile light and hevy infantry supported by 2 major air bases well out side the reach of Greek AF.
2. Turkish Army and Naval Infantry will invade the islands ( some are just 280 meters away , people can swim ) clearing out any air Defense and making it safe for both Turkish Air force and Navy.
3. Major battle will be in the air. After the decisive air battles, I believe it will only be a question of time before Athens falls.
4. Greeks can open the Dams doors, flooding the Thrace and making it very hard for Turkish Mechanized divisions to lauch a counter attack from Thrace.
5.Yes the Greeks S 300 SAMs may inflict heavy losses to TuAF and the Thales modernized SA 8 Geckos can also inflict loses to TuAF during battle for Athens. ( In 1897 Ottomans were just 30 Km outside of Athens when the "Europeans" intervened and we lost everything on "paper") So we are used to it ( JOKE)
6.Kurds and Turks are brothers except for a minority. Dont forget even if you dont believe this Kurds and Turks are muslims. Even if there is a revolt this country is %86 Turk.
7. Although it cannot lead to a decisive projection if you compare the sheer size of ARMY NAVY and Land Forces and Gendarmerie ( 280 000 ) and of course 73 million population is simply overwhelming.
8.I believe that a decisive victory can only be achieved after an Air Superiority Battle. During the cold war Turkish Armed Forces Scenarios included triple engagements, contemplating non-full scale (conflict )Soviet attack ( Armenia) supported by Syria and we even considered Greece trying to take advantage of this situation........In theory of course it is bad for Turkey but it was worse for Greece and Syria and Armenia......
9.Of course Quality supercedes Quantity...well we are better of there too ...NATO exercises and competitions are living proof
10. But dont worry we will not attack first........As Kemal ATATURK said " Peace at home Peace at abroad"

Besides I think Turks and Greeks are very much alike....I had many great friendships with Greeks in the states. I dont think there will be war. I think each passing day Turks and Greeks are becoming more friends.
CEM

mich
09 Mar 06,, 16:59
i don't really understand this greek-turk problem. do the greeks think they are defenders of europe against the asiatic turks or are the turks trying to shed their asiatic origin and become more europeanized.

cemyaz
09 Mar 06,, 20:35
i don't really understand this greek-turk problem. do the greeks think they are defenders of europe against the asiatic turks or are the turks trying to shed their asiatic origin and become more europeanized.
It is just that our greek friends have a beef from the last century....having been beaten twice in the same century (well 3, if we count 1897 when we almost got Athens before Europe "intervened" for peace in 1897.....)This debate can go on forever....Wars bring out the worst in people....I can tell stories/facts about Greeks murdering innocent Turks when they retreated from anatolia.....I am sure greeks can tell similar stories /facts...But this is pointless...Both peoples will prosper more from friendship and cooperation...We are already very similar ( except for religion ) in many aspects and we live only few metres ( from aegean islands ) from each other......:)

Gazi
12 Mar 06,, 00:26
I can not see, Greeks here claiming victory for Greece in such a conflict. Most Greek islands in front of turkish coast are under Turkish artillery radius.

Turkey will fight this war in a wide geography:

1. Cyprus
2. Aegean
3. Thrace.

Until Greek forces are in Cyprus Turkey allready conquered Cyprus. It is the distance who gives advantage.
Greek army is small, stretching Greek Army over 3 battle fronts makes them vulnerable.
Turkish interest lies on Greek islands off the turkish coast.
How much Greek Islands are there? 100? 500?

Will Greece station their Troops all on these islands, in Thrace or in Cyprus.
Greece will definately loose Territory in such a war.
Users here claiming, Greece walking through Thrace to Istanbul is non-sense.

War is action-reaction. and elseround.

And Turkey will make much action, that Greece has to react and has no capacity left to make own actions.
So Greeks attacking in Thrace will make Turkey react in Thrace and defend. But the difference is: Turkey has besides defending Thrace much more capacity in human power, war material to defend Thrace and at the samt time start a occupation of Cyprus and Aegean islands. So, what will Greece do when the majority of their forces are in a battle in Thrace, and Turks the same time are landing on Aegean islands and Cyprus, even Crete?
Will they withdraw Forces from Thrace to send them where Turks landed? in such a move, Turkish troops in Thrace will gain land inwards Greece territory.

This is what i meant with Greece will definately loose territory in such a war.
Anyway, respect to Greece. They are armed from their feet to their teeths for such a small nation.
Therefore Greece debts are 120% of GDP. Turkey's debts is at 67% GDP.
Turkish army pension fund, OYAK as operator of Renault and OYAK-BANK, insurance-companies, construction-companies, steel-monopolist and much more has reserves over 40 billion Dollar.
Oyak is founded by parliament and is belonging to Turkish Army and is 3 rd biggest company in Turkey, earning and collecting money for bad times.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OYAK



Greece as attacker is therefore non-sense. Greece army and philosophy is defence. Defence against "century-long-ruling-Greece"-Turks.
But Turks will stretch this War into a wide geography which will give Turkey the advantages.

Markos
02 Apr 06,, 09:10
Morning guys.First of all there is never going to be a Greco-Turkish war.(at least not in this lifetime).All this fanatism comes from both sides media.All these violations are just exersises and thats why Greece and Turkey have best trained and combat ready armies in the world.Their soldiers gain valuable experiance in real combat from this violations.Espasialy the navy and airforce.Even US would change her mind for waging war in one of these countries.I remember what i was saying in my last post.The fact that made change my mind is that I now work as a civilian personel inside Salamis(Greece) harbour and after many talks with the navys EΠΟΠ(professional soldiers) i learnd many things about the situasion.

Lordanonymous
04 May 06,, 15:26
First of ... excuse me for my bad English...Please consider that Iam an autodidact in english...
so to reply to some interesting views and opinions...I suggest we see at first the inventories of both armies and than try to analyse what could happen...
The following inventories are 1 year old..so there has been changes...soon I will update this inventories on my site http://s7.invisionfree.com/worldconflictsforum/index.php?act=idx
and than here...

For excamble someone has to add nearly 500 MardersA3 to the greek inventorie..and erase the 500 BMP1 (which started to be send to Iraq)
Or the latest order of 30+.. F16 blck 52+...

L A N D F O R C E S
*MAIN BATTLE TANKS
GREECE:
-Leopard 2A6 HEL:170 ordered.
-Leopard 2A4: 182 Ordered(Upgrading them later to A6 )
-Leopard 1A5: 501 (232 under delivery from German surplus)
-Leopard 1A3GR: 103(upgrading to A5 was cancelled after Germans gave the A5)
-Leopard 1V: 115 REMAINING FROM 170(10 equipped with meccanisms for minefield penetration.)
-M60A3 TTS:307 (will gradually be removed from front line and be give to reservist units)
-M60A1 RISE/RISE Passive:<273 (will be gradually withdrawed)
-M48A5 MOLF:396 (will stay in service untill the start of the next decade)
-M48A5:<259 (they are being withdrawed gradually)
-M48A3/A3 MOLF:11/4(For trainning)
__________________________________________________ ____
*ARMOURED VEHICLES
GREECE:
-BMP-1/P OST:501 (with an M2 machine gun 12,7mm)
-VBL Panhard:172 (plus 69 more ordered…final number needed 396)
-Leonidas 1:100(will be upgraded to Leonidas 2)
-Leonidas 2:391
-M113A1/A2:1679(part of them will be upgraded)
-M113A1:54 for medical purposes
-M125A1/A2:>200(with M29 Mortar 81 mm)
-M901A1/A2 ITV: 291 (With TOW Antitank missles)
-M106A1/A2:256(self propelled 107mm mortar M30 the 120 will be equipped with an E-56 mortar 120 mm)
-M125A1:>200(self propelled 81mm M29 mortar)
-M113 TOW:12
-M577A2:56
*ROCKET LAUNCHERS:
GREECE:
-M270 MLRS:36
-MGM 140A Atacms Block I:102
-RM-70(40x122mm):116 (with new rockets they arrive at 36km range)
__________________________________________________ ________
*SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY
GREECE:
-Pzh 2000(155mm):24 (12 more ordered)
-M109A5:12
-M109A3GE A1:50 + 96 more ordered from German surplus
-M109A1B/A2(155mm):133(82 of them are A2.Plans for upgrading)
-M110A2(203mm):145
__________________________________________________ ________
*NON SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY:
GREECE:
-M114(155mm):266(Big number under storage)
-M56(105mm):18
-M101(105mm):445 (part to be retired)
-Pdr 25(87,6mm):36(to be retired)
-M116(75mm):180(Big number retired…some under storage)
*ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILES:
GREECE:
-MIM 23B Improved Hawk PIP3:42x3(upgraded to phase 3 )
-TOR M1:21
-OSA AK/AKM (SA-8/:31(will be equipped with infrared cams)
-ASRAD HELLAS:54 under delivery with 432 Stinger Block I.
-FIM 92B/C Stinger & Block I:1237
ANTI AIRCAFT GUNS
GREECE:
-L/60 & M1 (40mm) :160 (remain from 227)
-Artemis 30 (2x30mm): 60
-ZSU-23(2X23mm): 506
-Mk 20 Rh-202(2x20mm) :285
*ATTACK HELICOPTERS:
GREECE:
-AH 64A+ Apache:20
-AH 64D Longbow:12 ordered (with 4 Longbow radars)
*TRANSPORT HELICOPTERS
GREECE:
-CH 47 DG/SD Chinook:15
-NH 90:20 ordered (plus 16 option)
-UH-1H Iroquois:30 (upgraded to UH-1H Huey II level)
-AB 205A/A1&Bell 205A:75
-AB 206B Jet Ranger:16
-AB 212:1
-NH 300C:17(trainning)
__________________________________________________ ________
*ANTI TANK MISSILES:
GREECE:
-Kornet E:196
-TOW I/II:366(the 159 TOW I are under upgrade to II)
-MILAN:290(with MIRA night vision opticals)
-AT 4 Fagot:262
-RPG 18(64mm):18706 (plans for gradual withdrawing)
-M 72A2LAW(66mm):10841 (plans for gradual withdrawing)
-ACL 89 STRIM:135
*ARTILLERY GUNS WITHOUT RECOIL
GREECE:
-M40A1(106mm):1251(in use in national guard)
-M67(90mm):1376 (plans for replacement)
-Carl Gustaf(84mm):1988 (delivered 20.680 M551 rockets…equiped with night vision opticals)
__________________________________________________ ________
*MORTARS
GREECE:
-E 56 EBO(120mm):Production about to start.Needs for 420
-M2/M30(107mm):624
-E 44 EBO(81mm):460 + 430 more to be ordered
-M1/M29(81mm):2750 (1604 active service.The rest stored)
-M19:<150(retiring)
-Commando EBO (60mm):150 (under delivery)
*AUTOMATIC GRENADE LAUNCHERS:
GREECE:
-H&K GMC (40x53mm): 633 under delivery from ELAS.AE
-Mk19 Mod3(40x 53):in SF units unknown number
N A V Y:
*SUBMARINES
GREECE:
-Type 214:4 (with AIP system 4 units will be delivered between 2005 and 2009)
-Type 209/1200:4(upgrading 4 ,including AIP system in 3)
-Type 209/1100:4 ( upgraded)
*MAIN SURFACE UNITS
GREECE:
-MEKO 200HN:4(frigates)
-Kortenaer:10(frigates) (6 and option for 2 under upgrade)
-Type 420:5 (ASW Corvettes)
__________________________________________________ ________
*HELICOPTERS AND NAVAL COOPERATION AIRCRAFTS:
GREECE:
-P3B Orion:6(plans for new aircrafts)
-S 70B6 Sea Hawk:10 (+1 under delivery Dec.2004)
-AB 212ASW:8
-AB212EW:2
-SA 319B Alouette III:2 (trainning)
*FAST GUIDED MISSILE VESSELS:
GREECE:
-Super Vita:5 soon under delivery
-Combattante IIIB:5
-Combattante III:4
-Type S148:6
*GUNSHIPS TORPEDO AND PATROL SHIPS:
GREECE:
-Mahitis class:3+1 under delivery (gunship,enhanced Pirpolitis)
-Pirpolitis class:2 (gunship)
-Osprey 55:2
-Typ S141 :4 (Jaguar class)
-Asheville:2
-Nasty:4 (torpedo boats)
-Kelefstis Stamou class:2
-Panagopoulos class:2
*MAIN LANDING SHIPS:
GREECE:
-Zubr:4 (hovercrafts)all delivered ..option for 2 more
-Terrebonne Parish:1
-Samos class:5
*LANDING CRAFTS:
GREECE:
-LCU Type 520:5
-LCM Type 521:11
-LCVP:55
*MINE SHIPS
-Hunt: 2
-Castano : 2
-Adjutant :1
-msc294: 8
*LAND BASED SYSTEMS
GREECE:
-MM 40 Block 2 Exocet:? forming 2 batteries (last year was reported as 20)
-Crotale NG:2 (SAMs)
-Bofors 40 mm L/70&L/60 : ?
-Mk 20 RH202 (2X20mm) :183
*PATROL SHIPS/COAST GUARD
GREECE
->29meters : 12 (SA’AR 4/Dilos class 4/Relliance 1/Europatrol 250mk1 1/
Abeking & Rasmussen 3)
->29 meters :91 (CB-90hcg 3/ Lambro class 16/ Sunquestor 43/ LS-51 16/
ol44 13/ Olympic l65 5/ D44 1/Crest Ital. 1/

A I R F O R C E
*TACTICAL COMBAT AIRCRAFTS:
GREECE:
-F 16 Block 52+:60 (20 are two seated)
-F 16 Block 50D:40
-F 16 Block 30:34
-Mirage 2000-5:18 ordered and 10 Mirage2000EGM will be upgraded to 2000-5 level
-Mirage 2000EGM/BGM:33(10 of them to be 2000-5)
-F4E Peace Icarus 2000:35 (upgraded AMRAAM capable)
-F4E(SRA):25
-A7E & TA 7C Corsair II:55
-A7H & TA 7H Corsair II:41
-RF4E:23
*AIR TO AIR MISSILES
GREECE:
-AIM 120B AMRAAM:340 (100 are AIM-120C-5* Plus 50 more are ordered)
-MICA EM/IR:300 ordered(100 EM+100 IR)*option for 50 more
-Super 530D:80 (Plus 2 for training purposes)
-IRIS T: 300 (under delivery +300 option)
-AIM 9M Sidewinder:165
-AIM 9L/I1 Sidewinder:300
-AIM 9L/I Sidewinder:347
-AIM 9Juli/I1 Sidewinder:400
-Magic 2:304 (plus 12 for training proposes)
-AIM 9P4 Sidewinder:1000
-AIM 7E/F Sparrow:? (includes also 100 AIM-7E2)
*GROUND ATTACK WEAPONS/PODS:
GREECE:
-JDAM 300 (Under delivery together with upgread kits for mk82/500 libr mk83/1000 libr and mk84 /2000 libr)
-AGM 88B HARM: 84(upgrading to BlockIIIA)
-SCALP EG: 90 ordered(Storm Shadow)
-AFDS:70 (auto dispenser system,anti runway,anti tank)*option for 30 more
-Long shots : 300
-AM39 Exocet Block 2: 39 (anti ship)
-AGM 65G Maverick IIR: 200
-AGM 65 A/B Maverick: 284 (plans for upgrading in H)
-GBU 8/B Hobos: 96(electro-optical guidance)
-Paveway III: 200 GBU-24 and 250 BLU-109/B ordered
-Paveway I & II:1162 (LGB bombs)
-Mk 70 Condib:? (anti runways)
-BLU Durandal : 523
-AN/AVQ 23 Pave Spike:? (laser pod for F4E)
-AN/AAQ 14 LANTIRN:16 + 8 ordered pods for F 16 targeting
-AN/AAQ 13 LANTIRN:24 pods for F 16 navigation
-Litening II ALD:15 (both targeting and navigation)
-AN/AAR 45:?( IR navigation pods for A-7)
*ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILES
GREECE:
-PAC-3 Patriot:6(with 200 missiles)
-S 300 PMU1:2
-CROTALE NG:9 with 176 missiles (other 2 are in use for the navy)
-TOR M1:4
-Skyguard 1 :12 (Velos system)
-4xAIM-7M Sparrow :20 (Radar Super)
-GDF-003 (2X35mm) :24 (Giraffe. The RIM-7M are 280 to be upgraded)
-Artemis 30 (2x30mm) : 38
-Mk20 Rh202 (2x20mm) : 326

*TACTICAL TRANSPORT AIRCRAFTS
GREECE:
-C 130H Hercules:10(ELINT/SIGINT in 2.Upgrading with electronic equipment)
-C 130B Hercules:5(same upgrade programme)
-C 27J Spartan: 12 ordered (the first is arriving Ian.2005 plus 3 more will be ordered)
-Do 28D Skyservant:12(Retiring)
*HELICOPTERS (SAR/CSAR):
GREECE:
-AS 332C1 Super Puma(SAR):4
-AS 332C1 Super Puma(CSAR):4
-AB 205(SAR): 11
*AWACS:
GREECE:
-EMB 145H Erieye: 4 under delivery (The first arrived in greece dec.2004)

C Y P R U S
*MAIN BATTLE TANKS
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-T 80U:27
-T 80UK:14
-M48A5 MOLF:61 (ELDYK)
-AMX 30B2:52
-AMX 30:61
-AMX 30D:6
*ARMOURED VEHICLES
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-BMP 3:43
-EE9 Cascavel:124
-Leonidas 2:141
-Leonidas 1:16
-VAB VCAC:18 (with HOT2 anti tank missiles)
-EE3 Jararaca:27(15 of them with MILAN missiles)
-VAB VTT:81(27 of them with 81mm mortar)
-VAB VCI:27
*ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILES:
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-TOR M1:6
-Aspide:24
*ANTI AIRCRAFT MANPADS:
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-Mistral Atlas:12
-Mistral Manpads:18
-9K32M Strela:100
*SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY:
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-Zusana(155mm):12
-M110A2(203mm):8
-Mk 3F(155mm):12
*NON SELF PROPELLED ARTILLERY
GREEK CYPRIOTS:116 of various calibres
*ROCKET LAUNCHERS:
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-BM 21 Grad(40x122mm):18
-M63 Plaman (32x128mm):24
*ANTI TANK MISSILES:
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-MILAN:45
-AT 3 (SaggerB):40(in storage)
-Apilas(112mm):1000(not guided)
-RPG 7V(85mm):1000 (" " )
-M72A2 LAW:? (" ")
*ANTI TANK GUNS (WITHOUT RECOIL):
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-M40A1:144
*MORTARS:
GREEK CYPRIOTS:360
*ATTACK HELICOPTERS:
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-Mi 35M:12
-SA-342L1 Gazelle(Hot2):4
*ANTI SHIP MISSILES
GREEK CYPRIOTS:
-MM40 Exocet:3 vehicles with 24 missiles

__________________________________________________ _______________

-THE CONFIRMED INVENTORY OF THE TURKISH ARMED FORCES AS OF JANUARY 2006-

---------------------------------------------------

TURKISH ARMY

MAIN BATTLE TANKS

Leopard 1A3T1/TU1: 77
Leopard 1A3T1: 150
Leopard 1A1A1: 165 (162 are under ASELSAN upgrade)
M60A3: 658
M60A1 RISE/Passive: 274 (170 under SABRA III upgrade)
M 48A5T2: 750 (Upgraded to M60 A3 Standard)
M 48A5T1: 619 (Upgraded to M60 A1 Standard)
M 48T5: 103 (Upgraded to M60 A1 Standard. +76 slated for transformation into armoured recovery vehicles and armoured engineer vehicles)
M 48A3: <658 (Reserve and obsolete. Used for spare parts)
M 48A2C: <575 (Reserve and obsolete. Used for spare parts)

ARMORED PERSONNEL CARRIERS

FNSS Armored Infantry Fighting Vehicle (AIFV): 650
FNSS Advanced Armored Personnel Carrier (AAPC): 830 + 551 under delivery
FNSS Armored Mortar Vehicle (AMV): 170 (self propelled 81 mm mortar)
FNSS Armored TOW Vehicle (ATV): 48
M 113A/A1/A2/T2/T3: 3162
M 106A1: 179 (Self propelled M-30 107mm mortar)
M 125A1: 10+ (Self propelled M-29 81mm mortar)
M 113 TOW: 156
BTR 80: 239
RN 94 (6X6): 5
Otokar Cobra (4X4): 5 (60 more under delivery)
Otokar Cobra (4X4) MARS V - ?

Armored Personnel Carriers of Gendarmerie

BTR60PB: 302 (Received BMC upgrade)
Otokar Cobra (4X4): 30 (with enhanced armor protection)
Otokar Akrep (4X4): 260+
CONDOR (4X4): 25
S550 SHORLAD (4X4): 200+
UR416 (4X4): 34
V150/S Cadillac: 200
Gage (4X4): 124
Dragon 300: 60

Rocket Launchers

WS1A (4X320mm): 30 (6 batteries each with 5 launchers).
M 270 MLRS (12X227mm): 12
MGM 140 ATACMS Block 1: 72: Option for 48 more.
TR 107 (12X107mm): 48
RA 7040 (40X70mm): 24
T 122 CNRA (40X122mm, 40km): >52

Towed Artillery

M 115 (203mm): 162
M 114A1/A2 (155mm): 538
M 59 (155mm): 152 (to be retired)
SKODA (150mm): 72 (to be retired)
M 101A1 (105mm): 830
M 38 Skoda (105mm): 12 (Used in training)
105R Metalgun (105mm): 11 (Used in training)
M 116 (75mm): 180
T 155 Panter 155/52 FT-2000 (155mm): 24 (Total requirement for 400)

Self-Propelled Artillery

M 110A2 (203mm): 295
M 55 (203mm): 9
M 107 (175mm): 36
M 44T (155mm): 164 (Upgraded)
M 52T (155mm): 360 (Upgraded)
M 108T (155mm): 26 (Possible upgrade)
T 155 Firtina (K9T) 155/52 SP-2000 (155mm): 48 (Total requirement for 300)

Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs)

HARPY Attack UAV (500 km): 108
Cutlass/Harop (1000 km): 48
I-GNAT Surveillance UAV (500 km): 1 system with 2 UAVs
HERON MALE: 3 systems (each with 1 ground station, 3 UAVs) will be delivered by 2007.

ANTI-AIRCRAFT MISSILES

ATILGAN KMS (1X8 FIM-92B/C Stinger): 6+ (70 ordered)
ZIPKIN KMS (1X4 FIM-92 Stinger): 4+ (35 ordered)
FIM 92B/C Stinger Post/RPM: 800+ (4882 missiles)
FIM 43A Redeye: 1089
9M39 Igla (SA-18 Grouse): 48

ATTACK HELICOPTERS

AH1W Super Cobra: 9 (Received ASELSAN ASAM avionics upgrade. Improved self-protection suit)
AH1P Cobra: 27 (Received ASELSAN ASAM avionics upgrade. Improved self-protection suit and IAIA NTS targeting system)
TAH1P Cobra: 6

Air-to-Ground Missiles

HellFireIIK2: 216 (Used in the AH-1W Super Cobra helicopters)
TOW II: ? (Used in the AH-1S/P Cobra helicopters)

OTHER HELICOPTERS

AS532UL Cougar Mk1: 28
S70A28D Blackhawk ASAM: 13
S70D28 Blackhawk: 45
S70A28Y Blackhawk: 4 (Yarasa Special Forces CSAR)
S70A28 Blackhawk: 4 (Special Forces CSAR)
S70D28 Blackhawk: 2 (Special Forces CSAR)
S70D28 Blackhawk: 5 (SAR)

UH1H/2020 ASAM EIP: 52
UH1H Iroquois: 42
UH1D: 20 (to be retired)

AB205T/2020: 23
AB205A1: 27 (to be gradually retired)
AB206B3 Jet Ranger: 28 (Training copters, option for 24 more).

Helicopters of the Gendarmerie

S70A28 Blackhawk: 21
S70A17 Blackhawk: 5 (1 VIP)
AB205A1: 14
Mi 17 IV: 16
Mi 17 IVA HOP H: 2

ANTI-TANK MISSILES

TOW I/II: 365
MILAN: 392+: With MIRA thermal sights
ERYX: 550 (1200 missiles)
9M113M Konkurs (AT5 Spandrel): 54 (420 missiles)
COBRA: 186 (Used for training purposes only)
RPG 7 (40mm): 5000+
M 72 A2 LAW (66mm): 40.000+

ARTILLERY GUNS WITHOUT RECOIL

M40A1 (106mm): 2137
M20(75mm):1000 (in storage)
M 18(57mm):871(in storage. Small number in use at Marines)

ANTI-AIRCRAFT GUNS

M 42 (2X40mm): 110
L 70 & L 70T Bofors (40mm): 312 (52 with Officine Galileo P56 optical sight)
L 60 & M1A1 (40mm): 600+
GDF 003 Oerlikon (2X35mm): 120
GDF 001 Oerlikon (2X35mm): 100+
GAI D01 Oerlikon (2X20mm): 440
Mk 20 Rh202 (2X20mm): 300+
M55 (4X12.7mm): 900

MORTARS

HY-12Di (120mm): 578
M-30 (107mm): 1265
UT1 (81mm): 324
M1/M29 (81mm): 3175
M 19 (60mm): ?

AUTOMATIC GRENADE LAUNCHERS

(40x53mm): 1500+ (Mk19 copy from Roketsan)
Mk19 Mod3:?

****************************************

TURKISH NAVY

SUBMARINES

GUR Class Type 209T2/1400: 2 (2 more ordered)
PREVEZE Class Type 209T1/1400: 4
ATILAY Class Type 209/1200: 6 (Possible upgrade for 4 subs)

MAIN SURFACE UNITS

Gabya (G) Class (Oliver Hazard Perry): 8
Tepe Class (Knox): 3
Barbaros Class (MEKO200-IIA): 2
Salihreis Class (MEKO200-IIB): 2
Yavuz Class (MEKO200-I): 4
Aviso A69 (D'Estienne D'Orves) or B Class: 6

HELICOPTERS AND NAVAL AIRCRAFT

ATR-72-500 MPA: 0 (10 ordered)
CN-235-100M: 9 (6 MPA+3MSA Coast Guard)
Socata TB-20: 7 (training)
S-70B-28D Seahawk: 7 (8 more ordered + 1 optional)
AB-212E: 3 (Electronic Warfare)
AB-212N1: 2
AB-212N2: 2
AB-212N3: 5
AB-212A: 2
AB-206B: 3
AB-412EP: 8 (All Coast Guard SAR, 5 more ordered)
A109K-II: 1 (Coast Guard SAR)

FAST GUIDED MISSILE CRAFTS

KILIC II Class: 2 (4 more ordered)
KILIC Class Type TPB57 052B: 3
YILDIZ Class Type FPB 57: 2
DOGAN Class Type FPB 57: 8 (received upgrade)
KARTAL Class Type S141: 8

GUN SHIPS AND PATROL BOATS

AB Class Patrol Vessel: 7
SG80 Class Patrol Vessel: 12 (Coast Guard. 6 ordered.)
KW15 Class Coastal Patrol Vessel: 8 (Coast Guard)
SG1 Class Coastal Patrol Vessel: 1 (Coast Guard)
SG Class Coastal Patrol Vessel: 12 (Coast Guard)
MRTP15 Class Interceptor Craft: 18 (Coast Guard)
MRTP29 Class Large Patrol Craft: 9 (Coast Guard)
MRTP33 Class Large Patrol Craft: 1 (Coast Guard. 10 ordered.)
SAR33 Class Patrol Vessel: 10 (Coast Guard)
SAR35 Class Patrol Vessel: 4 (Coast Guard)
SG21 Class Large Patrol Vessel: 14 (Coast Guard)

MAIN LANDING SHIPS

Ertugrul Class (Terrebonne Parish) LST: 2
Osman Gazi Class LST: 1
Bayraktar Class LST: 1
Sarucabey Class LST: 2

LANDING CRAFTS

EDIC Class LCT: 28
C 302 Class LCM: 16

MINE WARFARE SHIPS

Edincik Class: 5
S Class: 9
F Class: 4
K Class: 3
A Class (MHV-45-014 Class): 2 (4 more ordered)

LAND BASED SYSTEMS

ZIPKIN KMS (1X4 FIM-92 mounted Stinger): ? (11 ordered).

******************************

TURKISH AIR FORCE

F 16C/D Block 50: 76
F 16C/D Block 40: 103
F 16C/D Block 30: 37
F 4E 2020 Terminator: 52
F 4E Phantom: 71
RF 4E Phantom: 22
F 5 2000: 48 trainers under delivery
NF 5A/B Freedom Fighter: 9 (Turkish Stars)


AIR-AIR MISSILES

AIM 120A/B AMRAAM: 314 (176 AIM 120A + 138 AIM 120B)
AIM 7E Sparrow: 367 (to be phased out)
AIM 9B Sidewinder: 210 (to be phased out)
AIM 9M Sidewinder: 500
AIM 9L/I Sidewinder: 640
AIM 9S Sidewinder: 310
AIM 9P3 Sidewinder: 750+

AIR TO GROUND WEAPONS/PODS

AGM 88B HARM: 96
Popeye I: 100
Delilah II Cruise Missile: 50 ordered
AGM 65G Maverick IIR: 274
AGM 65A/B Maverick: 550
GBU 8/B HOBOS: 200
Paveway I-II: 1200
BLU 107 Durandal: 523
AN/AVQ 23 Pave Spike (laser designation pod for F-4E): ?
AN/AAQ 14 LANTIRN: 40
AN/AAQ 13 LANTIRN: 40

ANTI AIRCRAFT MISSILES

I-Hawk XXI (HAWK 21) (1X3) launchers: 8 batteries (24 launchers) under delivery
MIM14B Nike Hercules: 72
Rapier FSB1: 86 (85 launchers updated to Rapier B1X level. 840 additional Mk2B missiles under delivery)
ZIPKIN KMS (1X4 FIM-92 mounted Stinger): ? (32 ordered).
FIM92C Stinger RMP: 108

TACTICAL TRANSPORT AIRCRAFTS

A400M: 0 (10 ordered)
C 130E Hercules: 7 (to be upgraded)
C 130B Hercules: 5 (With ELINT/SIGINT equipment)
C 160T Transall: <16
CN 235-100M: 50 (3 VIP/16 EW)
KC 135R-CRAG Stratotanker: 7

EARLY WARNING AIRCRAFT

B-737-700/MESA THEIK: 0 (4 ordered, 2 optional)

HELICOPTERS

AS532UL Cougar Mk1: 20 (14 SAR+6 CSAR)
UH1H Iroquois: 19 (15 SAR+4 EH)


Regards

AlpErTunga
07 May 06,, 15:47
What a shame on greece! You have an army which can be written in a single page.

Your post looks like Saddam's old parades... There were lots of rockets, skyfighters, and other weird weapons... But he is in a cage of enemy now...

You cannot show even single greek victory against to Turks. Even your independence war was defeat, you gained your independence with help of other european states.

If Achilles reencarneted and saw greece of today, he would suicide.

Excuse me for my poor english.

Lordanonymous
08 May 06,, 12:14
I dont excuse you only for you poor english..
But also for your poor knowledge...

History wasnt your favorit...

anyway some serious analysis please...would be great.

Regards

kNikS
08 May 06,, 12:18
Be sure that Greeks won't fight alone. ;)

Lordanonymous
08 May 06,, 13:32
Faladi Bradko... ;)

It seems that we cant talk serious about analysis here...with some exception of some members..above.

Regards

Simullacrum
08 May 06,, 16:21
I dont excuse you only for you poor english..
But also for your poor knowledge...

History wasnt your favorit...

anyway some serious analysis please...would be great.

Regards

lol......Ignorance is bliss...!!! which I find the majority of Turkish nationals to be in.
Thats why the state of there country is in the mess its in.! And always will be with there mentatlity, most turks only know of thugary and brutality..thats about it... but without brains the former is useless..!
They should get off there perch and cut out there rhetoric nonscence.!

A war between the two will be no pushover between the two, neither country can be occupied by neither's force.! Depending on scenario of who attacks who first and where, will result in a different outcome to either forces.!

there is no definative answer as to who would win...there never is in matters of war.!

Size of force...and amounts of armoury does not equate to a Win. What equates to a win is the determination/guts/and thirst for victory, and a bit of luck at times :)

kNikS
08 May 06,, 17:33
Faladi Bradko... ;)

It seems that we cant talk serious about analysis here...with some exception of some members..above.

Regards
:) I guess that would be ‘Fala ti brate. But in any case – Greeks won’t fight alone as far as Serbs are concerned.

But if we would have to be constructive - it’s a much more complicated than quantities of assets.

What would be the cause and political implications?

What would NATO do? I doubt that would be some side picking but there is certainly a question how Germany will act considering its large Muslim population. Would it be some sort of peace keeping force and how much time for deployment would be needed?

It wouldn’t be only Turkey vs. Greece. Balkan would be heavily inflamed if such conflict happens. That will cause huge instability or even breakup of Bosnia, where Republic of Srpska would try to unite with Serbia and Croats in Croat-Muslim federation would try to unite with Croatia. Croatia certainly won’t sit and wait. Muslims from Bosnia and Muslims from Serbia and Montenegro (weather it is one state or two) would ask for state or at least autonomy. Albanians will start their campaign in Macedonia, southern Serbia and border areas in Montenegro, as well as in Greece. Bulgaria might easily join the Greek side. Russia would certainly love to scrap its part of a cake and come out from Black sea. Kurds will also seek for some form of autonomy.

Military aspect – what’s the Greek and Turkish order of battle? Who would have the air and naval superiority? And (linked to possible peace keeping forces) how long this conflict would last? Also, Gazi’s thoughts seem to be pretty reasonable. And there would be certainly some (re)action in Muslim world…

These are the things that immediately came to mind.

AlpErTunga
08 May 06,, 19:29
Be sure that Greeks won't fight alone. ;)
Greece have NEVER fight alone...She hasn't been able to decide herself...NEVER...Greece is nothing but the dog of Europe...

Greece is doomed to be defeated by Turks...Alone or with all the world.

You can check sources Greece has never fought alone and she has never won a battle against to Turks...even their independence war...

Goatboy
08 May 06,, 19:37
Turkey might gain the upper hand in a military conflict with Greece but this conflict would be limited. No way in hell is Turkey going to actually occupy Greece, any more than China was going to occupy Vietnam in 1979 when they invaded
Turkey's ability to project force much beyond their borders is certainly quite limited. I don't see a massive Turkish supply train supporting hundreds of thousands of soldiers several hundred miles into mountanous enemy territory (Greece).

Simullacrum
08 May 06,, 21:51
Greece have NEVER fight alone...She hasn't been able to decide herself...NEVER...Greece is nothing but the dog of Europe...


Dogs of Europe....lol thats rich coming from a Turk.... the only country 'which apparently is in europe politically ' and is a burdorn and backwards is Turkey.!

Compared to what Greece has given to the wolrd...and What turkey has given is minute and pathetic..!
Who are the truks...a bunch of nomadic mongrols descended from somewere in mongolia, who have acheived nothing on the world platform.

the Greeks have given 100 fold, from civilisation, to langauge, maths, physics, poetry, astronamy, culture, architecuture, militry doctarine/warfare, to name just a few.

What you call Instanbull...ITS original name is Constantinople which is greek..!
the greek city was establsihed by Roman emperor Constatine [Which even the Educated Romans of that time prefered to speak in Greek then in Latin.]
Even the word Instanbull is derived from the greek "εις την πόλιν" (eis tin Poli)
Typical Turks....Hagia Sophia such a beutifull building..stick four minarets next to it and declare its Turkish.

Most of your ancient ruins and buildings are of Greek Architecture. Have you ever wonder why that was..?? Cause Greeks habitated what you now call turkey long before turks arrived.! It was also under the control of Alexander the great.
the greeks have been fighting wars way before the Turks.!

The republic of turkey was founded in 1923.! republic of Greece streaches far further then that.!

Before you come trancing into these forums talking crap.....go Learn some histroy before you open your mouth.!

By reading your threads...you probably wont be able to understand a word im saying...Just proves my point of You being an ignorant Turk.!

kNikS
08 May 06,, 23:32
Greece have NEVER fight alone...She hasn't been able to decide herself...NEVER...Greece is nothing but the dog of Europe...

Greece is doomed to be defeated by Turks...Alone or with all the world.

You can check sources Greece has never fought alone and she has never won a battle against to Turks...even their independence war...
I don't need to check the sources, I know perfectly history of Balkans. But you might want to check where Belgrade, Serbia (place where I am posting from, if you didn't noticed) is on the map of Europe. As well as the Athens, Greece. It is in Europe. It also happens to be a cradle of civilization in Europe.

But I also perfectly know what is this all about. Facts above, as well as the facts that Greece is seven times smaller than Turkey and that Greece defeated Turkey, alone or with help of other European nations, make you feel like sh!t.

AlpErTunga
09 May 06,, 07:33
I don't need to check the sources, I know perfectly history of Balkans. But you might want to check where Belgrade, Serbia (place where I am posting from, if you didn't noticed) is on the map of Europe. As well as the Athens, Greece. It is in Europe. It also happens to be a cradle of civilization in Europe.

But I also perfectly know what is this all about. Facts above, as well as the facts that Greece is seven times smaller than Turkey and that Greece defeated Turkey, alone or with help of other European nations, make you feel like sh!t.


A Turk only smiles after your theese words. Shame on you... How ignorant are you... If Ottomans hadn't let you live, there would not have been a greece or anything...

There is a proverb from Turks;

MERT MEYDANDA BELLI OLUR!
Mighty one shows himself in battlefield.

This is my last answer to dog barkings whose will never bite us...Enjoy yourselves.

Mérci beacoup...

Lordanonymous
09 May 06,, 09:14
+1 My dear friend...
The first serious answer ...
we have discuss alot of times and analyses in a very serious way matters which concern both of our countrys in here...
http://s7.invisionfree.com/worldconflictsforum/index.php?act=idx

This isnt a advertisement try...nor do i have the need to advertise...
but rather to protect some very respectabell Turks...who actually have knowledge and high level of respect.


Regards

kNikS
09 May 06,, 10:26
A Turk only smiles after your theese words...ROFL…I hit your raw nerve.


...Shame on you... How ignorant are you...Shame on me? Where are you posting from? Asia Minor? You are the one banned from Europe. Defeated. Politically or militarily. Swallow it.


...If Ottomans hadn't let you live, there would not have been a greece or anything...Your if didn’t survived the test of history. As well as your Ottoman empire.


...There is a proverb from Turks;

MERT MEYDANDA BELLI OLUR!
Mighty one shows himself in battlefield...Oh we did it. First Balkan war, independent Greece, Serbia and other Balkan countries are the best testimonies for that.


...This is my last answer to dog barkings whose will never bite us...Enjoy yourselves...Dog barking? You are the one spilling your idiotic insults to Greece and Greek people as well as your middle age Ottoman fantasies. And yes, we indeed enjoy ourselves. We have a good reason to feel so.


...Mérci beacoup...Don’t tell me – you are season worker in France? Au revoir!

Azazel
27 May 06,, 17:35
@AlpErTunga

Wow!!!!! You must be one hell of Intelligent person!!!!!
Gongratulations!!!!!

You you remind me the mentallity from the "Grey Wolfs".

Be serius man!!! Grow up!!!

Thanks

MentaL
27 May 06,, 21:31
How can a Turk explain the fact that their arrival and occupation of the Balkans, sank the region in a large period of darkness? And really, these were the dark ages for all the countries in the region at a time where the rest of the Europe was shacked by new ideas and was making some huge steps forward after 1789. All Balkan nations,highly cultivated-at least before and after the Ottoman occupation- and with a history going far back in the past,lost the early train fon industrialization and progress in all fields due to a violent ruler with a much poorer civilization.
Its since then typical for a Turk to understand civilization in terms of military power. But it’s a general rule that power and glory come and go, but acts and monuments of civilization are forever! And what can be written about the Turks and their poor offer in global civilization beside of cource genocides,massive masacres and brutality?
And OK,we couldn’t progress because of the Turks,why couldn’t they?What stops them from doing so today? Because the Ottomans have bylong pushed away (and by Turks themselves) and balkans rapidly evolved, but where does modern Turkey stands today? Somewhere between democracy,dictatorship and islamism, constantly aggressive and on crisis and with nobody left to abuse in their territory except themselves and of course the Kurds.
Who can really prove me wrong?
Take into account that I used -and I partly do- believe in the Greek-Turkish approach. But facts show that a Turk is always a Turk…

To the Greek F-16 pilot Heliakes who lost his life in the Aegean sea. May god rest him in peace.

Azazel
27 May 06,, 21:55
They cannot explain!!!!!!!!!

One question : How come all the minorities that living in Turkey shrink down every day that passes!!!!!!!!!???

Iam also with the friendly approach with the Turks but they must change radically.

my compassion goes to the Family of Hliakis who lost his in this Undeclared war over the Aigean.

Azazel
27 May 06,, 22:09
Anyway to come back to the Subject, I do not think at this point where the relations between Greece and Turkey are,will be any scenarios for conflict.

They only possible scenario for a conflict will be in case of another Aegean Krisis. As it happened couple of days ago, when the Turks tried to take pictures from the S-300 that are in the near of Karpathos and we lost an pilot.

resiak
29 May 06,, 02:27
A greekish-turkis face off is far away and will likely never happen

NATO rules
;)

J`ve
29 May 06,, 19:55
Anyway to come back to the Subject, I do not think at this point where the relations between Greece and Turkey are,will be any scenarios for conflict.

They only possible scenario for a conflict will be in case of another Aegean Krisis. As it happened couple of days ago, when the Turks tried to take pictures from the S-300 that are in the near of Karpathos and we lost an pilot.



"TREATY OF PEACE WITH TURKEY SIGNED AT LAUSANNE
JULY 24, 1923
THE CONVENTION RESPECTING THE REGIME OF THE STRAITS AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS SIGNED AT LAUSANNE
THE BRITISH EMPIRE, FRANCE, ITALY, JAPAN, GREECE, ROUMANIA and the SERB-CROAT-SLOVENE STATE,

of the one part,

and TURKEY,

of the other part;

..

(I) No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.

(2) Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.

(3) The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory.

...

Done at Lausanne, the 24th July, 1923, in a single copy, which will be deposited in the archives of the Government of the French Republic, which will transmit a certified copy to each of the Contracting Powers."




is that mean anything?

Azazel
30 May 06,, 08:42
@J`ve

To whom????

Why dont you just express your own opinion and not with Artikles and paragraphs but as you started then be Kind and publish the Whole Article 13.


ARTICLE 13.
With a view to ensuring the maintenance of peace, the Greek Government undertakes to observe the following restrictions in the islands of Mytilene, Chios, Samos and Nikaria:
(I) No naval base and no fortification will be established in the said islands.
(2) Greek military aircraft will be forbidden to fly over the territory of the Anatolian coast. Reciprocally, the Turkish Government will forbid their military aircraft to fly over the said islands.
(3) The Greek military forces in the said islands will be limited to the normal contingent called up for military service, which can be trained on the spot, as well as to a force of gendarmerie and police in proportion to the force of gendarmerie and police existing in the whole of the Greek territory


So if you try to Imply something then i will recommend you to look at this :

ARTICLE 38.
The Turkish Government undertakes to assure full and complete protection of life and liberty to all inhabitants of Turkey without distinction of birth, nationality, language, race or religion.
All inhabitants of Turkey shall be entitled to free exercise, whether in public or private, of any creed, religion or belief, the observance of which shall not be incompatible with public order and good morals.
Non-Moslem minorities will enjoy full freedom of movement and of emigration, subject to the measures applied, on the whole or on part of the territory, to all Turkish nationals, and which may be taken by the Turkish Government for national defence, or for the maintenance of public order.

Now the same question back to you

IS THAT MEAN ANYTHING?????

PS:" If i havent understood whatyou were trying to say before then i am asking Sorry"

stefplak
05 Jun 06,, 21:43
hello to all guys.sorry about my english ,but by an accident i saw this conversation and my interest was pushing me to write something about this war scenario.i have to say that im a greek guy id i leave in athens.
soi saw your opinions about this subject ,and id like to say that is not going to be a war between to my coyntry and turkey,at least now.
first id like to explain the military and politic situation in turkey.turkey is a big country with a hell of o lot internal problems.her economy its not so good,a lot of money going to military purposes.also the political leadership and the military leadership they are in a war.she afraids about her stability because they see a possible treat from kurds,greece,armenia....they think that all the countrys who suround her is a a possible treat.thats because she made the plan which called "national starategy security against the allies".what is that mean ? that turkey must go away from NATO(ALLIES) and EU,because all that countries wont the worst for turkey.also this national strategy sais that turkey must make nuclear bombs for herself because of the possible treat.also id like to ask a turkish guy that is it real that the turkish military make a phone number for turkish people,to give information for the greek people they live in turkey and for the kurds?thats the political situation in turkey ,no stability and two goverments are rulling.

now about a military war without the help from eu and nato.id like to remaind u that greece is not kurdistan or armenia or iraq or albania or bulgaria .u dont know nothing about the greek military.u bite all the things that your superiors are saying to turkish people and u beleive it.u thing tha the war is going to be with swords like 300 hundread years ago.i m saying that because u claim that u are 70 million whithin 10-15 million kurds in it.dont be fool u can not beat greece,if u make a war your country is going to have a hell of lot different nation people to fight .what is going to be when start a war?just imagine this 10-15 million people kurds inside turkey going to do.as an example the day after the plain crashes in aegean sea the kurds fired your airport in istanbul .if i was in your possesion id rather thing what is going to be in a possible war between our countries.
now about the strategy.you thing that u can win a war against greece if u invate.to invate u must cross the agean sea and i dont think about that in any way u have to pass a hell of a lot anti aircraft systems like patriots ,s300 ,torm1,skyguards,crotale and artemis systems ,systems that your country never saw .what u are going to heat first ?the 100 hundred islands that is all with planes and a lot of infratries and vehicles or the greek navy in our sea .id like to remain u that u dont have an exocet missles or a navy compared to ours .it isn lucky that greece is the third power in navy all over the world afte us ,holland,ukingdom and the second political navy power after china.and like also to remind u the f 16 blk 52+and mbda scalp eg missles .missle that u dont have. just find some information on the net about this missles !!!just to be informed range missle 250 km and guidance by gps a french gps not us.i have about 100 of them just imagine this missles what they can do from that distance ,also this missles loaded only in mirage2000,and i dont think that u this planes have.the only possible treat is in cuprys.u just have a 30 planes more than me and nothing else .so be wised and think better about a possible war .u are making a war to a more stronger economical power from u and to a country tha t u dont know what to heat first.i saw something about one turkish that said that the agean sea is red sometimes on our radars sometimes from your planes.my friend just imagine oyr anti aircraft systems u heating your planes in the aegean sea.u have so much fun! believe your military propaganda and the imperialistic tension from your military,you are a giant with legs made from glass.do another time ,i please u, to find information first about my army and then talk aboyt war.this things ,i just like to say that i dont hate the turkish people neither love them ,i just dont like their military porpuses.

now possible scenario war with mixed eu and us.i just haveto say these thing.a five million greek people lobby in us .and greece and cuprus are in the eu.u said before years that if cuprys go to the eu u make a war to greece .ididnt see nothing,cause?cause your afraid andu are not a country with influence in no european country

Kansas Bear
01 Jul 06,, 05:52
A Turk only smiles after your theese words. Shame on you... How ignorant are you... If Ottomans hadn't let you live, there would not have been a greece or anything......


Yes, such compassion...... :rolleyes:

".....and the Turks spread terror by taking Demotika and massacring the garrison at Chorlu(c.1361)."

"Mehmed, who became known as the Conqueror, began his reign by having his infant brother Ahmad murdered, arguing that this was necessary for the peace and order of the world."

"Venice held onto some cities, but the Turks took over Athens. Trebizond on the Black Sea was conquered by 1461, and many captives were sold into slavery or raised as Janissaries. The remaining males of the Comnene family were massacred."

"Selim forced the Persians to defend Tabriz, and at Chaldiran the Ottomans with superior guns defeated the Persian army in August 1514. Prisoners in Tabriz were massacred........."

"The next year Persians revolted and drove the Afghans out of Qazvin, and Abd al-'Aziz's son Ashraf returned to Qandahar. Not getting reinforcements from there, Mahmud massacred 3,000 Persian guards at Isfahan and later 39 Safavid princes."

"Bayezid abdicated and was replaced by his son Selim, who had 40,000 Qizilbash massacred in his Ottoman empire."--

"Volume 1: MIDDLE EAST & AFRICA to 1875", by Sanderson Beck.


It should be understood that at this time there was no revolt in Bulgaria, though there had been considerable expression of discontent. The idea of the Turks was to crush out the spirit of the Bulgarian people, and thus prevent revolt. In the two letters mentioned I had given the names of the sixty villages which had been destroyed.

One of the first places they visited was Batak, the destruction of which had been mentioned in my first letter. From thence MacGahan sent me by private messenger a telegram, which came as a thunderbolt to the British public. Its contents were so horrible that I recognized at once Constantinople. It was at once a series of pictures describing with photographic accuracy what the observers had seen and a mass of the most ghastly stories they had heard on trustworthy authority. They had seen dogs feeding on human remains, heaps of human skulls, skeletons nearly entire, rotting clothing, human hair, and flesh putrid and Iying in one foul heap. They saw the town with not a roof left, with women here and there wailing their dead amid the ruins. They examined the heap and found that the skulls and skeletons were all small and that the clothing was that of women and girls. MacGahan counted a hundred skulls immediately around him. The skeletons were headless, showing that these victims had been beheaded. Further on they saw the skeletons of two little children lying side by side with frightful sabre cuts on their little skulls. MacGahan remarked that the number of children killed in these massacres was something enormous. They heard on trustworthy authority from eye-witnesses that they were often spiked on bayonets. There was not a house beneath the ruins of which he and Mr. Schuyler did not see human remains, and the streets were strewn with them. When they drew nigh the church they found the ground covered with skeletons and lots of putrid flesh. In the church itself the sight was so appalling that I do not care to reproduce the terrible description given by Mr. MacGahan. -- "Modern History Sourcebook:The Massacre of Bulgarians, 1876", by Sir Edwin Pears

Some villages that did not join the rebellion felt it was unnecessary to evacuate because they posed no threat to the Turks. One such village was Neokazi near Lerin whose residents stayed home thinking they would be safe. When the Turkish militia passed by, not only did they raze the village, they also turned on the civilian population. Not being satisfied with just burning the village, the Turks summoned about 60 Macedonian men and placed them under arrest. On their way to Lerin the Turks, instead of taking the men to jail, tortured and massacred them in cold blood. Eyewitnesses reported observing the Turks lining up the men in rows and firing at them to see how many one bullet could kill.

The priest and other members of the village went out to greet and welcome the Turks, but the Turks were not pleased and murdered the welcoming committee on the spot. -- "IMRO and the Macedonian Question, Kultura", by A. Michael Radin.

The Ottoman Empire’s resorting to state-sponsored murder against the Armenians was not without precedent; a few years earlier, the same sultan had ordered the massacre of thousands of Bulgarians who had been pressing for independence. -- "The Burning Tigris", by Peter Balakian.

The following is a partial list of Turkish massacres from 1822 up till 1904:
1822 Chios, Greeks 50,000
1823 Missolongi, Greeks 8,750
1826 Constantinople, Jannisaries 25,000
1850 Mosul, Assyrians 10,000
1860 Lebanon, Maronites 12,000
1876 Bulgaria, Bulgarians 14,700
1877 Bayazid, Armenians 1,400
1879 Alashguerd, Armenians 1,250
1881 Alexandria, Christians 2,000
1892 Mosul, Yezidies 3,500
1894 Sassun, Armenians 12,000
1895-96 Armenia, Armenians 150,000
1896 Constantinople, Armenians 9,570
1896 Van, Armenians 8,000
1903-04 Macedonia, Macedonians 14,667
1904 Sassun, Armenians 5,640

-- "The Blight of Asia", by George Horton

mancunian
15 Aug 06,, 10:48
Having served the Greek Army(spending a couple of months at the Greek-Turkish terrestial borders)i could say that what ''saves'' these two countries is the quite low level of their Armed Forces.Given that both Greece
and Turkey are (still) DEVELOPING countries (that only God-or Allah-knows
if they will ever be developed ones someday) from one hand,and the arming
race both run from the other(in terms of quality and quantity of the weapons
they buy),a magical picture appears there.It is easy to buy a bunch of fighters but to keep and maintain an effective and up to date army is another thing.
Using an example,it's like equiping a primitive tribe with F-16s,hi-tech electronics,tanks etc!What i mean is that key factors like moral,training,professionalism(note that both armies are based on recruits!!!) are absent from these two naughty neighbours.
So,if a conflict will ever take place,the result is not sure.Turks got the numbers,but sneaky greeks,even far lesser,are always able for the- unexpectedly-best(and worse,of course).
The most conventional scenario is the following.The conflict will be short in time(say a week),Turks initially will try to occupy a Greek island.Warfare will take place across the borders,Greeks acting passively(in defence)while turks will act contrarily.U.S-UK (ok,and the indolent EU)will step in-between,saying ''ok,guys calm down now,you spent enough munitions,now try to raise some money to buy some new(from us of course)for the
next round''.At the end of the day,none will possess more soil but both of them will be in shock(mainly the greeks,as turks are used to live in millitant,dictatorial enviornment),economic devastation will burden both of them etc.Much ado for nothing in other words.
However,it is a common secret(especially within the greek military as i know from first hand)that the possibilites for a war(even in a small scale) to happen are extremely few(some people say ''therefor amry is in that state,for simply nothing will happen!).Arms are only bought for making some people richer...

P.S:I would like to thank the turkish soldiers who did the same thing with me a
couple of metres beyond,for the good cooperation we had. ;)

Dogukan
25 Aug 06,, 21:17
This goes to Simullacrum. Turks also invented many things.

Yogurt, Coffee, Pants, Blacksmith, Swords and armory. Not to mention the Turks are the grandsons of prophet Noah. Turks also had established 16 great empires in history and also many small kingdoms. The Greeks only 3.

When it comes to the conflict, Turkey would easily defeat the Greeks. Turkey who has 72 million people and Greece has barely 15 million. Turks have the second largest army in NATO (700.000 soldiers). Recently the Turkish government stated to arm the military with the most advanced weaponry and produce WMD's by 2011. Because of terrorism in southeastern Turkey, the Turkish army has gained experience trying to capture the terrorist leader of course USA send him to cause trouble in Turkey but American plan backfired. Plus for many centuries and still Europeans have tried to destroy Turkey with many political and economical troubles. Last one is the bird flu thing. Turkey speeding up in tourism, and Europe doesn't want that.

Greece would be nothing without the aid of EU. They thought they were strong in WWII but they got overrun by Germans in the first day of the war.

Plus to all Turkish inventions. Did you know that Christianity started spreading from Turkey? and 7 holiest churhes of Christianity resides in Turkey. Plus Santa Claus was born in Turkey and first man ever to fly was Turkish.

Low-tech
26 Aug 06,, 09:01
This goes to Simullacrum. Turks also invented many things.

Yogurt, Coffee, Pants, Blacksmith, Swords and armory. Not to mention the Turks are the grandsons of prophet Noah. Turks also had established 16 great empires in history and also many small kingdoms. The Greeks only 3.

dude,think about what you are saying,blacksmithing?16 empires? at some point does it occur to you that this is a far stretch? that maybe you attribute other cultures advancements in technology/acomplishments as your own?.




When it comes to the conflict, Turkey would easily defeat the Greeks. Turkey who has 72 million people and Greece has barely 15 million. Turks have the second largest army in NATO (700.000 soldiers). Recently the Turkish government stated to arm the military with the most advanced weaponry and produce WMD's by 2011. Because of terrorism in southeastern Turkey, the Turkish army has gained experience trying to capture the terrorist leader of course USA send him to cause trouble in Turkey but American plan backfired. Plus for many centuries and still Europeans have tried to destroy Turkey with many political and economical troubles. Last one is the bird flu thing. Turkey speeding up in tourism, and Europe doesn't want that.

bird flu?????


Greece would be nothing without the aid of EU. They thought they were strong in WWII but they got overrun by Germans in the first day of the war.

Plus to all Turkish inventions. Did you know that Christianity started spreading from Turkey? and 7 holiest churhes of Christianity resides in Turkey. Plus Santa Claus was born in Turkey and first man ever to fly was Turkish.

who built those churches??? those churches well predate the arrival of turkish people in that region. so you guys built the hagia sophia and put stunning murals of christ and everything christian inside??? only to turn around and worship straight from the koran???

doku, my man, you gotta give credit where its due, like, does it really matter that much to you to claim your nation invented everything? its not as if you yourself invented those things. does that change you as a person?, why should it?

my direct greek ancestors,my forefathers were,most likely,sheep herders and simple folk. people im directly related to probably,most likely contributed zero to humanity and most likely yours direct forefathers too.

if you really look at it individuals invent things,not nations. the credit only really goes to them. just because the US has made the most significant technological advancements in recent history does not mean i personally did or that i have any understanding about what has been invented. what does it mean so much to you to make these claims?

Dogukan
26 Aug 06,, 17:12
Let me count it to you. Ottoman empire is not the only one.

Great Hun Empire
White Hun Empire
Eastern Hun Empire
Western Hun Empire(Attila)
Avar Empire
Uighur Khanate
Gokturk Khanate
Khazar Empire
Safavid Empire
Mughal Sultanate
Ottoman Sultanate
Great Seljuk Sultanate
Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate
Golden Horde
Khwarazm Shah
Mamluke Sultanate

and many more....................

Kansas Bear
26 Aug 06,, 21:49
Let me count it to you. Ottoman empire is not the only one.

Great Hun Empire
White Hun Empire
Eastern Hun Empire
Western Hun Empire(Attila)
Avar Empire
Uighur Khanate
Gokturk Khanate
Khazar Empire
Safavid Empire
Mughal Sultanate
Ottoman Sultanate
Great Seljuk Sultanate
Anatolian Seljuk Sultanate
Golden Horde
Khwarazm Shah
Mamluke Sultanate

and many more....................


Turkish propaganda at it's best..... http://67.15.129.139/5890/94/emo/rollinglaugh.gif

Timeseer
12 Sep 06,, 04:58
Oh dear god... Is Greece and Turkey at it again?

I've been telling those two to get along, but they just keep going at it.

"We want our Constantinople back."

"It's Istanbul!"

"Whatever..."

Well if the two can't behave just stick them into a Federal Republic, along with Cyprus while we are at it. And make Cyprus a inter-federal republic (a federal republic within a federal republic. We can use Cyprus as the tie-breaker between Greece and Turkey. Now everyone's happy, except me, because I'll probably be assassinated. Oh well...

Officer of Engineers
12 Sep 06,, 18:26
Are you really that stupid or you're just trolling?

PubFather
12 Sep 06,, 21:02
Trolling methinks...

HELLAS
10 Oct 06,, 19:10
The Hellenic people are strong and proud and they would not stand for turks in there contry again. Not to mention that if the turks decide to attack, that will lead to the end of turkey as we know it. The European Union would intervene and slowly after so will Russia. CONSTANTINOPLE will once again return to HELLAS and the Kurds will reap the benefits by attacking turkey as well. Did we forget that so will Armenia? the HELLENIC army is far more advanced than the turkish one. and adding all those other countries into the mix will prove disasterist for the turks. Did you also know the 1/3 turks in turkey are actually of HELLENIC desent? The turks are getting way ahead of themselfs lately. one wrong move made by an over ambitious and under educated turkish leader is going to totaly ruin them. nothing goes unpunished.

4H
Eleutheria i Thanatos

Big P P-X

AlpErTunga
11 Oct 06,, 16:58
The Hellenic people are strong and proud and they would not stand for turks in there contry again. Not to mention that if the turks decide to attack, that will lead to the end of turkey as we know it. The European Union would intervene and slowly after so will Russia. CONSTANTINOPLE will once again return to HELLAS and the Kurds will reap the benefits by attacking turkey as well. Did we forget that so will Armenia? the HELLENIC army is far more advanced than the turkish one. and adding all those other countries into the mix will prove disasterist for the turks. Did you also know the 1/3 turks in turkey are actually of HELLENIC desent? The turks are getting way ahead of themselfs lately. one wrong move made by an over ambitious and under educated turkish leader is going to totaly ruin them. nothing goes unpunished.

4H
Eleutheria i Thanatos

Big P P-X

Hellas drew a picture of "GreatTurkish Independence Victory" or hellas' "Great Asia Minor Defeat".

So I should remind you something.

Years were between 1919 and 1922. Turkiye was processing the first national revolution of the 20th century.There were armenian guerillas on eastern Turkiye, greek so-called army(that was their hugest military power which they have been able to conscript in their history). Also we had some guests on our homeland, Great Britain, France, Italy. We defeated all of them during the same war with a indigent army. French ambassador said that "Turkish ox-cart cannot defeat the greek and british trucks." before M. Kemal Ataturk's national strugle. But after Turkish victory he said " It's incredible but Turkish oxcart could defeated greek trucks." and France declared Ankara Agreement which withdraws all French troops from Turkish motherland.

It is very ridiculous that you are underrating Turkish Armed Forces. Today we have more things than ox-carts and our army is not indigent army of sick man Ottoman sultanate.

Cheers.

Low-tech
11 Oct 06,, 17:57
Hellas drew a picture of "GreatTurkish Independence Victory" or hellas' "Great Asia Minor Defeat".

So I should remind you something.

Years were between 1919 and 1922. Turkiye was processing the first national revolution of the 20th century.There were armenian guerillas on eastern Turkiye, greek so-called army(that was their hugest military power which they have been able to conscript in their history). Also we had some guests on our homeland, Great Britain, France, Italy. We defeated all of them during the same war with a indigent army. French ambassador said that "Turkish ox-cart cannot defeat the greek and british trucks." before M. Kemal Ataturk's national strugle. But after Turkish victory he said " It's incredible but Turkish oxcart could defeated greek trucks." and France declared Ankara Agreement which withdraws all French troops from Turkish motherland.

It is very ridiculous that you are underrating Turkish Armed Forces. Today we have more things than ox-carts and our army is not indigent army of sick man Ottoman sultanate.

Cheers.


The Greek defeat can be largely attributed to a lack of whole-hearted Allied support, as King Constantine was reviled by the British for his pro-German policies during WWI (in contrast to former prime minister Venizelos). By contrast, the Kemalist Turks enjoyed significant Soviet support. A telegraph sent on August 4th Turkey's representative in Moscow, Riza Nur, sent a telegram saying that soon 60 Krupp artillery pieces, 30,000 shells, 700,000 grenades, 10,000 mines, 60,000 Romanian swords, 1.5 million captured Ottoman rifles from WWI, 1 million Russian rifles, 1 million Manlicher rifles, as well as some more older British Martini-Henry rifles and 25,000 bayonets would be delivered to the Kemalist forces. [2] The Turks also received significant military assistance from Italy and France, who threw in their lot with the Kemalist against Greece which was seen as a British client [citation needed]. The Italians used their base in Antalya to arm and train Turkish troops to assist the Kemalists against the Greeks. [3]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_%281919-1922%29

AlpErTunga
11 Oct 06,, 19:13
If you know the british support for greeks, this Soviet support is nothing.

laertes
11 Oct 06,, 19:26
The Hellenic people are strong and proud and they would not stand for turks in there contry again.

Yet they did stand to Turks for about 4 centuries being strong and proud.( Not that im so proud of ths period.)


if the turks decide to attack,

Even our most nationalist people do not have such ambitions whereas it is like a daily talk for many greek nationalist to have their "Constantinople" back. For gods sake you can`t een pronounce the city with its current name.


CONSTANTINOPLE will once again return to HELLAS

Keep dreaming under any circumstances such a thing would never takes place.


the HELLENIC army is far more advanced than the turkish one.

Rubbish. Both are the parts of Nato and have similar weaponry.

laertes
11 Oct 06,, 19:44
And wikipedia now is our most reliable source Low-tech ha? Basically Turks call the same war as "Turkish independence War" whereas to the Greeksand to other many people it is merely Greco Turk war. It wasnt to difficult to observe that the passage you made quoations from is written by Greeks not by Turks. The article says there were 450.000 Turksih troops in the face of 120.000 greeks thats a total nonsense. Actually it was just the contrary there were less Turkish troops.
Why dont you just search wiki for the same war but from the parts that were written apparently by Turks.

Check this for example this is an exaggerated Turkish version of the same event.



Battle of Dumlupınar
Result Decisive Turkish victory
Combatants
Turkey Greece
Commanders
General Mustafa Kemal Atat&#252;rk General Hatzianestis
Strength
approx.60,000 approx.350,000
Casualties
10,000 approx. 80,000

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

Low-tech
11 Oct 06,, 20:15
And wikipedia now is our most reliable source Low-tech ha? Basically Turks call the same war as "Turkish independence War" whereas to the Greeksand to other many people it is merely Greco Turk war. It wasnt to difficult to observe that the passage you made quoations from is written by Greeks not by Turks. The article says there were 450.000 Turksih troops in the face of 120.000 greeks thats a total nonsense. Actually it was just the contrary there were less Turkish troops.
Why dont you just search wiki for the same war but from the parts that were written apparently by Turks.

Check this for example this is an exaggerated Turkish version of the same event.




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



my response is to alphers hyperbolic tirades about defeating half of europe who acted in concert with greece with only shovels and spears and such.

this obviously isnt true,they had support of the soviets,italians,french and so on. wikipedia is just one source<with citations, mind you>, you can counter it with other sources and so on. i dont know the full ins and outs of the war so actual dialogue about it is more than welcome.

im sure both sides got a bias and cant be reliable to the fullest extent, but this is not to conflate it with the obvious flag waving, revisionist history alper and doku like to declare as indisputable fact.

i could really care less about the actual fiqures,battles,casualties and strategum involved not to mention whatever the hell you'd like to call what war. Turkey had support from other world powers, i cited my source.

edit:your source goes nowhere, i takes me to a hyperlink something or other page

laertes
11 Oct 06,, 20:58
Italians and French did not support Turkey, actually they were invaders of Anatolia themselves. As you know they were forming with British the allied side in the war, Greece included. There is not much a reason to openly support Turkey for them. I saw the "citation needed" warning in the part of the quotation that suggest this argument.:rolleyes: But it is suggested that Italy, in disaccordance with British because of the partition policy of gained lands indirecty supported Turkey, like leaving some arms when retreated.

Brtitish backed Greece and provided arms to them but it must be rather obvious that they would not jump into the battlefield for the sake of Greeks, especially in a postwar period. Soviets openly gave their support to Turkey but they were not much "whole hearted" neither, their own existence was also in danger at the time, this was the time of civil war in Russia between bolsheviks and white generals. Plus it can be argued that British weaponry was superior to that of Soviets.

This can also be classified as an exaggerated, romanticized argument but it doesnt come from turks, written when the war ended with Turkish victory


Ernest Hemingway, American Journalist and Novelist
The West and the East came face to face at the second class coastal town of Mudanya on a crooked road covered with dust on the hot Marmara coast. Despite the English flag ship "Iron-Duke's" ash-colored deathly turrets that transported the Allied generals for negotiations with Ismet Pasha, the Westerners had come here to beg for peace, not to ask for peace or to dictate the conditions... These negotiations demonstrate the end of Europe's dominance over Asia, because as everyone knows, Mustafa Kemal got rid of all the Greeks.


http://itss.org/new/node/71

EDIT I fixed the previous source

Low-tech
11 Oct 06,, 22:11
Italians and French did not support Turkey, actually they were invaders of Anatolia themselves. As you know they were forming with British the allied side in the war, Greece included. There is not much a reason to openly support Turkey for them. I saw the "citation needed" warning in the part of the quotation that suggest this argument.:rolleyes: But it is suggested that Italy, in disaccordance with British because of the partition policy of gained lands indirecty supported Turkey, like leaving some arms when retreated.

Brtitish backed Greece and provided arms to them but it must be rather obvious that they would not jump into the battlefield for the sake of Greeks, especially in a postwar period. Soviets openly gave their support to Turkey but they were not much "whole hearted" neither, their own existence was also in danger at the time, this was the time of civil war in Russia between bolsheviks and white generals. Plus it can be argued that British weaponry was superior to that of Soviets.

This can also be classified as an exaggerated, romanticized argument but it doesnt come from turks, written when the war ended with Turkish victory




http://itss.org/new/node/71

EDIT I fixed the previous source

this is fine, im not here to say the turks did not beat heavier odds. im not gonna argue british support vs soviets. i just wanted to prove turkey had support, didnt go it alone.

your source:


The neutrality of this article is disputed.
Please see the discussion on the talk page.
To meet Wikipedia's quality standards, this article may require cleanup.
Please discuss this issue on the talk page, and/or replace this tag with a more specific message. Editing help is available.
This article has been tagged since September 2006.
This article or section does not cite its references or sources.
You can help Wikipedia by introducing appropriate citations.

has no citations

but thats besides the point i was trying to make.

since there is no citation for this


"The Turks also received significant military assistance from Italy and France, who threw in their lot with the Kemalist against Greece which was seen as a British client [citation needed]"

thats fine, i just wanted to demonstrate you guys had some support. whether russia was was "whole hearted" or not isnt my arguement, they gave you guys weapons?,no? alrighty then, it contradicts what alphers claims, many claims in many threads to the same effect.

HELLAS
12 Oct 06,, 00:42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Turkish_War_%281919-1922%29

The turkish homeland? Asia minor has been HELLENIC for centuries and then the turks come in and rape and kill and that makes it there homeland?
And if the turkish army had the the power to take over HELLAS then they would've done so already. But instead they retreat every time they are at the brink of conflict with the HELLENIC people. No matter what the fanatics might think, it doesnt change the fact the turkish government knows that the HELLENIC army will make the turks regret any offensive attempt they make on HELLAS. When a huge earth quake hit turkey while the two country's where at the brink of war, the HELLENIC army went to turkey and helped. and yet the turks still talk about war with HELLAS. are the turks really such low class human beings? they already own so much teritory that doesnt belong to them and they still want more. but like i said, one day they will take it too far and get a huge wake up call. On the same day when CONSTANTINOPLE will return to HELLAS.

Big P WAR of the HORSEMEN
P-X MLT

Kansas Bear
12 Oct 06,, 18:45
60 Krupp artillery pieces, 30,000 shells, 700,000 grenades, 10,000 mines, 60,000 Romanian swords, 1.5 million captured Ottoman rifles from WWI, 1 million Russian rifles, 1 million Manlicher rifles...

This is the turk definition of "nothing"



Soviet support is nothing.


:rolleyes:

AlpErTunga
12 Oct 06,, 20:54
The turkish homeland? Asia minor has been HELLENIC for centuries and then the turks come in and rape and kill and that makes it there homeland?


What about Hattis and Hit****? I recognise them the first owners of these lands. But unfortunately "civilizated" butchers killed all of them. Is Turks' only fault not killing all of your ancestors? Because there is no Hit**** now who can say "Oh! Anatolia was our homeland. We found the first city and first home here!". Because greeks and romans killed all of them.



And if the turkish army had the the power to take over HELLAS then they would've done so already.

During Asia Minor War, we destroyed your army and we could occupy your country by using our 2nd greatest army in Tracia. But all motherlands have borders and we had drawn our borders at the beginning of the Independence War. These reminds us the famous quote of M.Kemal Ataturk; "Peace at HOME, peace in the WORLD!"



When a huge earth quake hit turkey while the two country's where at the brink of war, the HELLENIC army went to turkey and helped.
Also, after a little time;

When a huge earth quake hit "gREECE" the TURKISH ARMY went to "gREECE" and helped.


and yet the turks still talk about war with HELLAS.

and yet the gREEKS still talk about war with TURKS.


are the turks really such low class human beings? they already own so much teritory that doesnt belong to them and they still want more

Lands don't make people but people make lands "motherland". Today greeks live in Greece and Turks live in Turkiye; so what is your unneeded wild enthusiasm of occupy like a PAGAN.


On the same day when CONSTANTINOPLE will return to HELLAS.

Good nights. I hope I would say a "Good Morning" too. But your sleep is so deep and your illness in your brain is hopeless.

Low-tech
12 Oct 06,, 22:18
What about Hattis and Hit****? I recognise them the first owners of these lands. But unfortunately "civilizated" butchers killed all of them. Is Turks' only fault not killing all of your ancestors? Because there is no Hit**** now who can say "Oh! Anatolia was our homeland. We found the first city and first home here!". Because greeks and romans killed all of them.







hittites occupied the eastern side of what is turkey now. the greeks didnt kill them off. the Persians absorbed anatolia in thier empire<the first regional powerhouse>, my bet is that they were assimilated in the middle east and egypt<from which they ruled for a while>THEY WERE NOMADIC ANYWAY, RIGHT???

its not like they had agricultural based city states like in babylon,greece,egypt, they were tribal warrior types,they conquered egypt a bazillion years ago. this is all historical context too. HITTITES EXISTED IN THE BRONZE AGE

you guys killed armenians,assyrians and pontic greeks within recent history, not 3000 years ago. WTF are you talking about hittites for?? doesnt justify your countries actions.

Kansas Bear
12 Oct 06,, 23:55
But your sleep is so deep and your illness in your brain is hopeless.


You should stay off the internet and learn history.:biggrin:

AlpErTunga
13 Oct 06,, 05:17
You should stay off the internet and learn history.:biggrin:

Oh! I got my answer and I should obey Master Mortis! :rolleyes: You are nothing but a stupid anti-Turk.:cool:

AlpErTunga
13 Oct 06,, 05:45
hittites occupied the eastern side of what is turkey now. the greeks didnt kill them off. the Persians absorbed anatolia in thier empire<the first regional powerhouse>, my bet is that they were assimilated in the middle east and egypt<from which they ruled for a while>

The oldest ruins in Turkiye belongs to Hittites and Hattis. So they are not occupiers; they are real owners of these lands. During medieval ages, lands belonged to strong one. You cannot talk about international law in medieval ages. So you cannot judge states about their conquests in medieval age. But humans did not lived useless, he performed a great paradigma and today world have an international law which puts human(not christian,not muslim,not greek, not Turk...) to center of everything. And the population of Turkiye makes Anatolia Turkiye. But anger of Greece can't make Anatolia hellas. Because international law puts "HUMAN" to center of everything.



THEY WERE NOMADIC ANYWAY, RIGHT???

No; as we understand from their ruins and archaeological searches; they are founders of many great cities, like Hattushash or Gordion...


its not like they had agricultural based city states like in babylon,greece,egypt, they were tribal warrior types,they conquered egypt a bazillion years ago. this is all historical context too.

You are not correct. They had many agricultural based cities on Konya Plain,;)


HITTITES EXISTED IN THE BRONZE AGE

Yes. If they weren't killed or assimilated by greeks, persians and assyrians; they would exist today, too.:rolleyes:


you guys killed armenians,assyrians and pontic greeks within recent history, not 3000 years ago. WTF are you talking about hittites for?? doesnt justify your countries actions.

If armenian guys did not rebel and did not kill almost all Turkish population in rural areas; there would not be any problem... It is not genocide, it is a civil war or mutual massacre.

Kansas Bear
13 Oct 06,, 14:27
If armenian guys did not rebel and did not kill almost all Turkish population in rural areas; there would not be any problem... It is not genocide, it is a civil war or mutual massacre.



turkish LIES which are NOT supported by German and Austro-Hungarian consular reports.

Kansas Bear
13 Oct 06,, 14:31
Oh! I got my answer and I should obey Master Mortis! :rolleyes: You are nothing but a stupid anti-Turk.:cool:


Your illness is in your head, go make more doppelgangers....http://67.15.129.139/5890/94/emo/rollinglaugh.gif

AlpErTunga
13 Oct 06,, 20:36
hittites occupied the eastern side of what is turkey now. the greeks didnt kill them off. the Persians absorbed anatolia in thier empire<the first regional powerhouse>, my bet is that they were assimilated in the middle east and egypt<from which they ruled for a while>

The oldest ruins in Turkiye belongs to Hittites and Hattis. So they are not occupiers; they are real owners of these lands. During medieval ages, lands belonged to strong one. You cannot talk about international law in medieval ages. So you cannot judge states about their conquests in medieval age. But humans did not lived useless, they performed a great paradigma and today, world have an international law which puts human(not christian,not muslim,not greek, not Turk...) to center of everything. And the population of Turkiye makes Anatolia Turkiye. But anger of Greece can't make Anatolia "hellas". Because international law puts "HUMAN" to center of everything.



THEY WERE NOMADIC ANYWAY, RIGHT???

No; as we understand from their ruins and archaeological searches; they are founders of many great cities, like Hattushash or Gordion...


its not like they had agricultural based city states like in babylon,greece,egypt, they were tribal warrior types,they conquered egypt a bazillion years ago. this is all historical context too.

You are not correct. They had many agricultural based cities on Konya Plain,;)


HITTITES EXISTED IN THE BRONZE AGE

Yes. If they weren't killed or assimilated by greeks, persians and assyrians; they would exist today, too.:rolleyes:


you guys killed armenians,assyrians and pontic greeks within recent history, not 3000 years ago. WTF are you talking about hittites for?? doesnt justify your countries actions.

If armenian guys did not rebel and did not kill almost all Turkish population in rural areas; there would not be any problem... It is not genocide, it is a civil war or mutual massacre.

PubFather
14 Oct 06,, 00:18
If armenian guys did not rebel and did not kill almost all Turkish population in rural areas; there would not be any problem... It is not genocide, it is a civil war or mutual massacre.
Genocide is geocide not matter how you present it. Admit your nations sins. Repent. And be cleansed.

Low-tech
14 Oct 06,, 02:53
The oldest ruins in Turkiye belongs to Hittites and Hattis. So they are not occupiers; they are real owners of these lands. During medieval ages, lands belonged to strong one. You cannot talk about international law in medieval ages. So you cannot judge states about their conquests in medieval age. But humans did not lived useless, they performed a great paradigma and today, world have an international law which puts human(not christian,not muslim,not greek, not Turk...) to center of everything. And the population of Turkiye makes Anatolia Turkiye. But anger of Greece can't make Anatolia "hellas". Because international law puts "HUMAN" to center of everything.



No; as we understand from their ruins and archaeological searches; they are founders of many great cities, like Hattushash or Gordion...



You are not correct. They had many agricultural based cities on Konya Plain,;)



Yes. If they weren't killed or assimilated by greeks, persians and assyrians; they would exist today, too.:rolleyes:



If armenian guys did not rebel and did not kill almost all Turkish population in rural areas; there would not be any problem... It is not genocide, it is a civil war or mutual massacre.

ok, well you got me, im wrong on the hittites, but however


The Hittites were an ancient people who spoke an Indo-European language, and established a kingdom centered at Hattusa (Hittite URUḪattuša) in north-central Anatolia from the 18th century BC. In the 14th century BC, the Hittite empire was at its height, encompassing central Anatolia, north-western Syria as far as Ugarit, and upper Mesopotamia. After 1180 BC, the empire disintegrated into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until as late as the 8th century BC.

its doesnt say that greeks killed them off. even if it did, this is also 800 before christ was born which is obviously in the realm of historical context. that means that it was so long ago you cant hold those civilizations to our modern day standards of morality. if you did all early civilizations would be seen as atrocious,genocidal and evil. 100 years ago is a different story, 2800 years ago was when the last anyone heard from the hittites.

even the fact that you would draw comparisons with the hittites as something that excuses your nations history indicates you are slightly aware that there was wrongdoing. it would be great if you could step away from that Ataturk "cult of personality" and just admit it makes sense for your country to own up to its past.

i dont agree with that law in france that some want to pass, we all know its political BS and itll be vetoed, but the underlaying point is your country has to face the facts before the EU membership is possible. acknowledgement, thats it. its not that hard, the US did it in regards to the history of the slave trade and the fact we presently reside on stolen land.

i notice turkey has no problem admitting thier slave trade, for instance. granted it did occur a very long time ago and is seen in moreso a "historical context" for that time.

laertes
14 Oct 06,, 08:45
its doesnt say that greeks killed them off. even if it did, this is also 800 before christ was born which is obviously in the realm of historical context. that means that it was so long ago you cant hold those civilizations to our modern day standards of morality.

Oh Low-tech, what about all those massacres conducted after the birth of christ by our civilized fellows in the west in most civilized ways? Genocidal acts towards native populations was like the common practice in many areas. Estimably, about 150 million people in south america and about 50 millon people in northen america had been killed after the discovery of americas. Aborgines in australia and african blacks have shared similar fates.(btw, except some hollywood movies i havent seen much an apology for these events which didnt took place 2800 years ago)

And it doestn say greeks killed them off because these guys were killed and assimilated by surrounding forces be it greeks or Persia or anyone else. But probably their earlier antecedents do survive in the genes of many greeks and Turks.The important point here is that nongreek and non turk civilizations had existed in earlier anatolia, Hitites being only one of them. And they were not nomadic.

In the case of Pontic Greeks, i strongly advise you to learn about the massacres that the Greek army commited in western anatolia during their little adventure in turkey after WWI until they got driven out.

Low-tech
14 Oct 06,, 10:02
Oh Low-tech, what about all those massacres conducted after the birth of christ by our civilized fellows in the west in most civilized ways? Genocidal acts towards native populations was like the common practice in many areas. Estimably, about 150 million people in south america and about 50 millon people in northen america had been killed after the discovery of americas. Aborgines in australia and african blacks have shared similar fates.(btw, except some hollywood movies i havent seen much an apology for these events which didnt took place 2800 years ago)

And it doestn say greeks killed them off because these guys were killed and assimilated by surrounding forces be it greeks or Persia or anyone else. But probably their earlier antecedents do survive in the genes of many greeks and Turks.The important point here is that nongreek and non turk civilizations had existed in earlier anatolia, Hitites being only one of them. And they were not nomadic.

In the case of Pontic Greeks, i strongly advise you to learn about the massacres that the Greek army commited in western anatolia during their little adventure in turkey after WWI until they got driven out.

hell, man, ill do you one up. us Americans are better at killing and stealing than your country is.......thing is WE ADMIT IT...........ITS WELL DOCUMENTED, and our people are educated about it in school. native americans can visit the sites of these massacres and are privy to whatever documentation there exist about the entire history of the colonization of the west. as for blacks, same deal, they can access whats available as far as information,we even have black history month in our public schools which FOCUS on thier plight and struggle for equality. WE DENY NOTHING. what im talking about is your government do the same.....acknowledgement thats it, no money, no hand outs, nothing. just accept what the world already knows about your country<and perhaps allow the interested parties to collect the bodies and research the extend of the massacres>.

as far as the greeks massacring the people and destoying cities as they fled turkey during that war....i dont doubt that its true, to what extend i dont know. but

1>does it justify extermination of an ethnic minority<which was just one of many religious minorities who suffered the same fate> who, for the most part had nothing to do with the invasion,were townfolks,women and children.

2>the massacres well predate the war anyway


Eyewitness accounts and quotes

Reports of German and Austro-Hungarian diplomats that provide evidence of the Genocide (from the German and Austrian Archives).[30] [31]

* “The Turks have decided upon a war of extermination against their Christian subjects.” German Ambassador Wangenheim to German Chancellor von Bulow, quoting Turkish Prime Minister Sefker Pasha, July 24, 1909.
* “The anti-Greek and anti-Armenian persecutions are two phases of one programme - the extermination of the Christian element from Turkey.” Father J. Lepsius, German clergyman, July 31, 1915.
* “...the entire Greek population of Sinope and the coastal region of the county of Kastanome has been exiled. Exile and extermination in Turkish are the same, for whoever is not murdered, will die from hunger or illness.” Herr Kuchhoff, German consul in Amissos in a despatch to Berlin, July 16, 1916.
* “On 26 November, Rafet Bey told me: ‘We must finish off the Greeks as we did with the Armenians’...On 28 November, Rafet Bey told me: ‘Today, I sent squads to the interior to kill every Greek on sight.’ I fear for the elimination of the entire Greek population and a repeat of what occurred last year.” (referring to the Armenian Genocide) Herr Kwiatkowski, Austro-Hungarian consul in Amissos to Baron von Burian, Foreign Minister of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, November 30, 1916
* “Consuls Bergfeld in Samsun and Schede in Kerasun report of displacement of local population and murders. Prisoners are not kept. Villages reduced to ashes. Greek refugee families consisting mostly of women and children being marched from the coasts to Sebasteia. The need is great.” German Ambassador Kuhlman to German Chancellor Hollweg, December 13, 1916.
* Herr Pallavicini, Ambassador of Austria-Hungary to Turkey, writes to Vienna, listing the villages in the region of Amissos that were being burnt to the ground, their inhabitants raped and either murdered or exiled, December 19, 1916:
* “The situation for the displaced is desperate. Death awaits them all. I spoke to the Grand Vizier and told him that it would be sad if the persecution of the Greek element took the same scope and dimension as the Armenian persecution. The Grand Vizier promised that he would influence Talaat Bey and Enver Pasha.” Austro-Hungarian Ambassador Pallavicini to Vienna, January 20, 1917
* “The time is near for Turkey to be finished with the Greeks as we were with the Armenians in 1915.” Talaat Bey as quoted by an Austro-Hungarian agent, January 31, 1917
* “...the indications are that the Turks plan to eliminate the Greek element as enemies of the state, as they did earlier with the Armenians. The strategy implemented by the Turks is of displacing people to the interior, without taking measures for their survival by exposing them to death, hunger and illness. The abandoned homes are then looted and burnt or destroyed. Whatever was done to the Armenians is being repeated with the Greeks.” Chancellor Hollweg of Germany, February 9, 1917.




again citations


30. ^ Australian Institute for Holocaust and Genocide Studies: the genocide and its aftermath
31. ^ Thea Halo, "Not Even My Mame", New York: Picador USA 2000, pages 26, 27, & 28




if you got sources refuting this, bring them on, i like reading accounts from both sides.

as far as the hittites, looks like i need to read up on them. you an alper have an interesting point.

AlpErTunga
14 Oct 06,, 12:41
ok, well you got me, im wrong on the hittites, but however.

Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. But anyway;



its doesnt say that greeks killed them off. even if it did, this is also 800 before christ was born which is obviously in the realm of historical context. that means that it was so long ago you cant hold those civilizations to our modern day standards of morality.

No, I can. Because we are discussing the "first" and "original" owner of Anatolia.

This Hellas guy is talking about almost 1000 year conquest. Turks conquered Anatolia in 1071, Manzikert Battle, a few centuries after the greek, persian, assyrian and other middle eastern conquests of Anatolia.


if you did all early civilizations would be seen as atrocious,genocidal and evil. 100 years ago is a different story, 2800 years ago was when the last anyone heard from the hittites.

Greeks claim they were the owners of Anatolia and it's a fact that Hittites are the first inhabitants of these lands. And there is nothing remaining(except archeological materials) from Hittiti people.

We also conquered many countries and made these lands our homeland. But we did not destroyed peasants of these lands. We only got tax from them. So the virtue is the same virtue and the genocide is genocide also 1000 years ago.


even the fact that you would draw comparisons with the hittites as something that excuses your nations history indicates you are slightly aware that there was wrongdoing. it would be great if you could step away from that Ataturk "cult of personality" and just admit it makes sense for your country to own up to its past.

There is only Kemalism which you has not attack yet, huh? What is wrong in Kemalism? Kemalism wants Turks to be secular, democratic, republican, modern, educated, rationalist, nationalist, etc... What is wrong with these principles? Do you want to be a Turkiye which is dictated by ayetollahs and mollahs? I don't worship to "ideas and aims" of Ataturk.


i dont agree with that law in france that some want to pass, we all know its political BS and itll be vetoed, but the underlaying point is your country has to face the facts before the EU membership is possible. acknowledgement, thats it. its not that hard, the US did it in regards to the history of the slave trade and the fact we presently reside on stolen land.

You can be sure that if we believed the genocide was happened by Turks, we would accept that. But we will not accept because we have also evidences of Turks who were massacred by armenians. I say again; we don't say we did not kill any armenians. Yes, we killed. But they killed many Turkish peasants as many as Turks killed. So the name of this act is not "armenian genocide", it was a kind of "armeno-Turkish mutual massacre" or "Turkish civil war of 1915"


The aim of armenia is not putting the souls of their ancestors at ease; their aim is occupying eastern Turkiye. But this idea is not so realistic. These lands are not the same as they were in early centuries; these lands are totally Turkish populated today. And as I said before angers don't determines the nationality of a land; but people of these lands determines.

Kansas Bear
14 Oct 06,, 16:36
You can be sure that if we believed the genocide was happened by Turks, we would accept that. But we will not accept because we have also evidences of Turks who were massacred by armenians. I say again; we don't say we did not kill any armenians. Yes, we killed. But they killed many Turkish peasants as many as Turks killed. So the name of this act is not "armenian genocide", it was a kind of "armeno-Turkish mutual massacre" or "Turkish civil war of 1915"

Sources??
Since the ONLY sources you have are of TURKISH origin, therein shows your lies.


Why don't the German and Austro-Hungarian consulars and officers stationed with Ottoman troops mention this "civil war" :rolleyes: ??

They fully mention Turkish troops entering town after town and taking all the men and young boys and marching them out and shooting them. This is corroborated by missionaries and by Seyed Mohamad Ali Jamalzadeh, the famous Iranian writer.

" We moved from Baghdad and Aleppo towards Istanbul by hand-cart and cart. From the first day’s of our journey, we met many groups of Armenians, which strangely were unbelievable, and the Turkish armed and rider gendarmes drove them (on foot) towards death and perdition. First it made us very surprised, but little by little we fall into the habit. That even we did not look at them, and indeed it was hard to look at them.By the hit of lashes and weapons, they drove forward hundreds of weeping weak and on foot Armenian women and men with their children. Young men weren't seen among the people, because all the young men were send to the battle fields or were killed for precaution (joining to the Russian army). Armenian girls had shaved all their hairs, and were completely bald, let not Arab and Turkish men annoy them. Two-three gendarmes by the hit of the lashes, drove this groups forward, like cattle. If one of the captives because of tiredness and weakness or accident, was remained behind, he was kept back for ever (he was killed.), and the groaning of his relatives were useless. So step by step, we saw Armenian men and women who were fallen near the road and they were dead, or they were giving life or agony of death. Later we understood that some of the young residents of that area had not kept honor of some Armenian girls who were dying or had died in order to satisfy their lust. Our way was in the direction of Western Bank of Euphrates, and everyday we saw the corpses in the river, which the river carry them with it." -- “My personal observations In world war one”, by Seyed Mohamad Ali Jamalzadeh


Doesn't sound like a "civil war" or "mutual massacre". :rolleyes:

Your illness is in your mind, go learn REAL history....

Low-tech
14 Oct 06,, 20:44
[QUOTE=AlpErTunga;278992]Wikipedia is not a very reliable source. But anyway;


man, i EVEN LINKED THE CITITATIONS OF THE ARTICLE, look above




No, I can. Because we are discussing the "first" and "original" owner of Anatolia.


did we not agree they were assimilated by thier nieghbors,possibly arouns 800 BC. BUT ANYWAY, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS PROVIDE A SOURCE THAT GREEKS AND ROMANS KILLED THEM OFF.


This Hellas guy is talking about almost 1000 year conquest. Turks conquered Anatolia in 1071, Manzikert Battle, a few centuries after the greek, persian, assyrian and other middle eastern conquests of Anatolia.


i dont agree with his sentiments and wont defend him. but, however the western shore of what now is turkey including istanbul was greek in origin from the beginning of recorded history, the hittites did not occupy those lands before. furthermore the greeks lived in those lands after they were conquered by the turks and remain until..........your people kill,deported or ran them off within the last hundred years.

just because the turks took land 1000 years ago doesnt mean the greeks,armenians,assyrians just magically dissapeared. they were still there till recently......till they got killed in mass



Greeks claim they were the owners of Anatolia and it's a fact that Hittites are the first inhabitants of these lands. And there is nothing remaining(except archeological materials) from Hittiti people.

they did not occupy the total sum of what is now your natural borders and they still exist in the sense they were assimilated by thier nieghbors.......well before turks came to that region. you guys came from the steppe, remember?


We also conquered many countries and made these lands our homeland. But we did not destroyed peasants of these lands. We only got tax from them. So the virtue is the same virtue and the genocide is genocide also 1000 years ago.


early 1900s, your country systematically annihilated religious and ethnic minorites to create a hegemonous, united,nationalist country.



There is only Kemalism which you has not attack yet, huh? What is wrong in Kemalism? Kemalism wants Turks to be secular, democratic, republican, modern, educated, rationalist, nationalist, etc... What is wrong with these principles? Do you want to be a Turkiye which is dictated by ayetollahs and mollahs? I don't worship to "ideas and aims" of Ataturk.

you guys copied the european model of a republic.........what?, am i suppose to congragulate you for not living in a theocracy?

do not conflate nationalism with revisionist history




You can be sure that if we believed the genocide was happened by Turks, we would accept that. But we will not accept because we have also evidences of Turks who were massacred by armenians. I say again; we don't say we did not kill any armenians. Yes, we killed. But they killed many Turkish peasants as many as Turks killed. So the name of this act is not "armenian genocide", it was a kind of "armeno-Turkish mutual massacre" or "Turkish civil war of 1915"


SOURCE??? how exactly do simple townsfolk, farmers massacre 1.5 million turks in a heavily armed regional power?

this is the same tired BS



The aim of armenia is not putting the souls of their ancestors at ease; their aim is occupying eastern Turkiye. But this idea is not so realistic. These lands are not the same as they were in early centuries; these lands are totally Turkish populated today. And as I said before angers don't determines the nationality of a land; but people of these lands determines



occupy??? source??

laertes
15 Oct 06,, 00:06
however the western shore of what now is turkey including istanbul was greek in origin from the beginning of recorded history

Recorded history says that these lands owned by various non greek kingdoms like Troy(most famous of them i guess because of the Homers book), Lydians ( guys who used money for the first time in the history of mankind as a mean of transaction), Phrygians and some other kingdoms. Since they ceased to exist in time it is very much likely that they were killed and assimilated.

http://img.search.com/5/5f/300px-Map_of_Lydia_ancient_times.jpg


furthermore the greeks lived in those lands after they were conquered by the turks and remain until..........your people kill,deported or ran them off within the last hundred years.



it is also related very much with the pontic Greeks i guess, what you call "deported" was undertaken as a result of an agreement between the Turkish and Greek states. Conditions were accepted mutually. And about 500.000 to 600.000 Turks( or may be merely muslim greeks thats debatable) were "deported" from Greece to Turkey, from the lands they have been living for generations. who cares who comes the first or what the origins of these lands, you have to be sorry for them as well.




The 1923 population exchange between Greece and Turkey refers to the first large scale population exchange, or agreed mutual expulsion in the 20th century. It involved some two million persons, most forcibly made refugees and de jure denaturalized from homelands of centuries or millennia, in a treaty promoted and overseen by the international community as part of the Treaty of Lausanne.
The document about the population exchange was signed at Lausanne, Switzerland, January 30, 1923, between the governments of Greece and TurkeyThe exchange took place between Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek nationals of the Muslim religion established in Greek territory.

Almost all Greeks and the Turkish speaking Christian population in middle Anatolia, about 1.5 million, from Turkish Anatolia and Turkish Thrace were expelled or formally denaturalized. Expelled from Greece were about 500,000, predominantly Turks
The Greeks of Istanbul, Imbros (Gökçeada in Turkish) and Tenedos (Bozcaada), as well as the Turks and other Muslims of Western Thrace were exempted from this transfer



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

Low-tech
15 Oct 06,, 11:50
Recorded history says that these lands owned by various non greek kingdoms like Troy(most famous of them i guess because of the Homers book), Lydians ( guys who used money for the first time in the history of mankind as a mean of transaction), Phrygians and some other kingdoms. Since they ceased to exist in time it is very much likely that they were killed and assimilated.

http://img.search.com/5/5f/300px-Map_of_Lydia_ancient_times.jpg


greek names are on that maps, correct me if im wrong. i dont know if thats accurate or if any like, color blob on a map is really gonna be accurate anyway. the origin of the names of areas sounds like a better way

and consider troy,my friend, if you had read the book you cite that they worshipped greek gods, spoke the same language and had greek names. this is all quiet academic and none of it relevent as a source due to the iliad being a mythological oral history<a combination of many such tales mixed together and> written 600 years after the fact.




it is also related very much with the pontic Greeks i guess, what you call "deported" was undertaken as a result of an agreement between the Turkish and Greek states. Conditions were accepted mutually. And about 500.000 to 600.000 Turks( or may be merely muslim greeks thats debatable) were "deported" from Greece to Turkey, from the lands they have been living for generations. who cares who comes the first or what the origins of these lands, you have to be sorry for them as well.


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

after the fact about 300,000 were simply killed or worked to death,half a million assyrians and 1.5 million armenians you can understand the greeks left under duress.

there are still turks in greece, in thessaloniki i believe.

laertes
15 Oct 06,, 15:28
after the fact about 300,000 were simply killed or worked to death,half a million assyrians and 1.5 million armenians you can understand the greeks left under duress.

It has nothing to do with it, i personally dont think 300.000 greeks killed anyway. Most Greeks living in Turkey, just like most Turks in Greece, probably would have chosen to stay in their homes if asked but this was the decision of Turkish and Greek governments.

What good do Greeks living in Turkey to Greek state, especially after the disastrous defeat of the Greek army in Turkey destroyed any hope of expanding Greece at the expanse of Turkey?

Some officials at the time said that this population exchange was undertaken to prevent another round of Greco turkish war but it is also suggested that both countries wanted to create a more homogeneous society for their respective nation states.
The important part of this story is that it was done as resut of mutual agreement, no one forced greek government to agree with the conditions and you should do more a correct job if you accuse the decisons of Greek government for this deportation process.
And there are still Greeks living in Turkey to this day, very few though.

For more knowledge on the issue you can check this one, apparently a Greek site since it goes with the name of "Hellenic Resource Network".


CONVENTION CONCERNING THE EXCHANGE OF GREEK AND TURKISH POPULATIONS
The Government of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey and the Greek Government have agreed upon the following provisions:
Article 1

As from the 1st May, 1923, there shall take place a compulsory exchange of Turkish nationals of the Greek Orthodox religion established in Turkish territory, and of Greek nationals of the Moslem religion established in Greek territory.

These persons shall not return to live in Turkey or Greece respectively without the authorisation of the Turkish Government or of the Greek Government respectively.

Article 2

The following persons shall not be included in the exchange provided for in Article 1:

(a) The Greek inhabitants of Constantinople.

(b) The Moslem inhabitants of Western Thrace.

All Greeks who were already established before the 30th October, 1918, within the areas under the Prefecture of the City of Constantinople, as defined by the law of 1912, shall be considered as Greek inhabitants of Constantinople.

All Moslems established in the region to the east of the frontier line laid down in 1913 by the Treaty of Bucharest shall be considered as Moslem inhabitants of Western Thrace...




http://www.hri.org/docs/straits/exchange.html

Low-tech
15 Oct 06,, 17:12
I
t has nothing to do with it, i personally dont think 300.000 greeks killed anyway. Most Greeks living in Turkey, just like most Turks in Greece, probably would have chosen to stay in their homes if asked but this was the decision of Turkish and Greek governments.


as if the the annihilation of the armenians and hundreds of thousands of greeks didnt make it clear enough the get out while they can, STFU.

the exchange happened to prevent more bloodshed ill give you that, but however there are still turks and muslims living in greece which to me indicates that greeks didnt intend to kill them in mass and send them off to work camps, i dont know, lets call it a hunch.



What good do Greeks living in Turkey to Greek state, especially after the disastrous defeat of the Greek army in Turkey destroyed any hope of expanding Greece at the expanse of Turkey?

this is kinda like asking some mexicans who originally are from Arizona or Cali from before those land were ceded "why dont you go to mexico?, this is America" or like "what good is it to live here since mexico lost the war?". well if you are not retarded you will realize

1>these people are not representative of mexico's government, they have little say over whether the government of mexico wages war against whomever. they may be sympathetic to thier culture, this does not make them mexican nationals forever.


2>these people wish to continue living in the land of thier forefathers and preserve thier culture, despite being ruled by a foriegn power.


Some officials at the time said that this population exchange was undertaken to prevent another round of Greco turkish war but it is also suggested that both countries wanted to create a more homogeneous society for their respective nation states.
The important part of this story is that it was done as resut of mutual agreement, no one forced greek government to agree with the conditions and you should do more a correct job if you accuse the decisons of Greek government for this deportation process.

And there are still Greeks living in Turkey to this day, very few though.


dude, im done talking to you. the greeks agreed to this exchange because those people lived as second class citizens and were facing pogroms,enslavement,massacres, WTF you talking about??? homogeneous society about greece??? it makes no sense considering those people who were exchanged ORIGINALLY CAME FROM THOSE AREAS IN TURKEY. homogeneous society maybe for the turks after they killed most of thier minorities,sure.

this was after over 2 million people<combined of various ethnic groups> were killed over the last 10-15 years, had nothing to do with it???, dude, im done here



For more knowledge on the issue you can check this one, apparently a Greek site since it goes with the name of "Hellenic Resource Network".



http://www.hri.org/docs/straits/exchange.html[/QUOTE]

laertes
15 Oct 06,, 18:19
this is kinda like asking some mexicans who originally are from Arizona or Cali from before those land were ceded "why dont you go to mexico?, this is America" or like "what good is it to live here since mexico lost the war?". well if you are not retarded you will realize

1>these people are not representative of mexico's government, they have little say over whether the government of mexico wages war against whomever. they may be sympathetic to thier culture, this does not make them mexican nationals forever.


2>these people wish to continue living in the land of thier forefathers and preserve thier culture, despite being ruled by a foriegn power.

You dont make any sense now, i didnt say they did good job leaving turkey nor did i appreciate the MUTUAL expelling decision of turkish and Greek governments at the time. Im merely explaning to you the possible motives of each government when they agreed to MUTUAL expulsion.


as if the the annihilation of the armenians and hundreds of thousands of greeks didnt make it clear enough the get out while they can, STFU.

the exchange happened to prevent more bloodshed ill give you that

As i said no, if you read the above document from a Greek site you will notice that Greeks of Istanbul are exempted from the agreement and that about 100.000 to 200.000 Greeks continued to live in Turkey after the expulsion policy was realized accordingly.
Why the hell you can't accept the fact that Greek government pursued a policy of nationalization and found it as a suitable option to exchange Turks in its own soil with the Greeks from Turkey to build a more homogeneous nation state.


dude, im done talking to you. the greeks agreed to this exchange because those people lived as second class citizens and were facing pogroms,enslavement,massacres, WTF you talking about???

Not exactly in practice but the republic gave the equal rights to each of its citizens regardless of ethnicity. As i pointed out above your comments are irrelevant, if the motive was to protect Greeks then they would have to embrace them all not to leave tens of thousands of greeks in Istanbul to the mercy of Turkish government..

Btw, attacks to the greek houses and shops in 50's was a horrible event but dont assume that turks of western Thrace have been behaved hospitably, nicely even some greek politicians agreed that discrimination took place towards turkish minority in Greece.

Nick Haritoudis
27 Oct 06,, 20:43
Yes, if the Greeks and the scum Turks were to have any type of conflict the Greek people would definitly have an advantage. First of all the Greece has a higher budget than the scum Turks. With that we would be able arm our soldiers with more and better equipment. and then buy more tanks, ships, and aircraft. After this scum Turkey will start to weaken, and with things going how they are in the middle east other countries would start to break out in military action with each other. The scum Turks will then have no where to go but to Iran for nuclear weapons. The United States would find this out and be able to alert the Greeks. While This is going on Greece will start to panic because the United states and NATO are not taking any action because they won't want to get into it and they will be to busy dealing with North Korea and more of the middle east, once Greece has paniced, for the safety of the Greek people they will bomb the crap out of scum Turkey. And when the scum Turks have had enough the Greek people will go in and slaughter all the men and children and rape their women with the intension of getting full revenge on the scum Turks for all of the innocent Greek people they Murdered and used for testing biochemical experaments. Then the Greeks will claim the Used to be Turkish land as theirs. But if for some reason there is need of more manpower, considering the growing relations with china they might be able to supply the Greeks with more men.
And one more thing the Greeks will have full control of the Mediterranean which leaves the scum Turkish the only way of getting in is to swim and drown. The Greek fisherman will pull in scum Turks every day laughing so hard, and they will bring their new dead turk home and feed it to the homeless dog wondering about his neihborhood.

Oh and the Greek economy should be rising dramaticly by an estimated 50 billion dollars a year, so lets say 3 years from know our economy will have grown by 150 billion dollars and will allow Greece to buy more aircraft and such.

Nick Haritoudis
27 Oct 06,, 21:18
Man this guy named Trojan is so stupid. I live all they way in North America and know that the reason Greece put so much money into the olympics was because it would bring more money in off of tourism.

Read up on it, his ignorance is shown int middle of the second page.

zraver
27 Oct 06,, 21:25
You can be sure that if we believed the genocide was happened by Turks, we would accept that. But we will not accept because we have also evidences of Turks who were massacred by armenians. I say again; we don't say we did not kill any armenians. Yes, we killed. But they killed many Turkish peasants as many as Turks killed. So the name of this act is not "armenian genocide", it was a kind of "armeno-Turkish mutual massacre" or "Turkish civil war of 1915"

That is not supported by a singe shred of evidence. What is supported from German, Austro-Hungarian, and American records is a massacre and forced deportion.


The oldest ruins in Turkiye belongs to Hittites and Hattis. So they are not occupiers; they are real owners of these lands.

Half truths wont get you anywhere. The Hittite regions were closer to Lebanon than Greece. The areas known as anatolia was populated and still is by those of Greek ethnic decent.These populations trace thier roots back to well before the fall of greek Minoan civilisation. Modern day turks are not hitites but Scythian/Mongaloid crosses decended from the steps of Asia moixed with Greek Anatollian.

Nick Haritoudis
27 Oct 06,, 21:29
Hey,
so my belief is that if such a conflict begins and considering that the US or England won't interfere again in favor of the Turks (as they did in 1974) the results will be pretty much the following:
1) The greek army will easily invade the Easter Thrace and may march towards Constantinople - the land and the current situation in this area seems that this is the most possible outcome

2) The turkish army will easily land on a few (but totally unimportant) greek islands

3) Major fights will take place in Cyprus and airfights over the Aegen sea where the greek air-defense system is very effective

4) The Kurdish will revolt asking for an independent state

According to these four possible outcomes, I'm pretty sure that Turkey won't risk such a war that may lead to the collapse of the Turksih state as we know it today. Either way, Greece as a country won't go for a war. It has a very stable policy in the whole area and is totally against any changes in the borders, minorities etc (although some of them may favor Greece)

Also something else. Could please the Turks that post replies in this forum stop being so fanatics and so narrow-minded. I don't want to judge anybody but they totally sound like a horde of barbarians that are ready to invade Europe again (as Attila did many centuries ago).

Now there is a smart guy who knows what hes talking about.

Nick Haritoudis
27 Oct 06,, 21:47
What a shame on greece! You have an army which can be written in a single page.

Your post looks like Saddam's old parades... There were lots of rockets, skyfighters, and other weird weapons... But he is in a cage of enemy now...

You cannot show even single greek victory against to Turks. Even your independence war was defeat, you gained your independence with help of other european states.

If Achilles reencarneted and saw greece of today, he would suicide.

Excuse me for my poor english.

I admit it was funny what this guy wrote. But no the Greeks would win with a good strategy.

Nick Haritoudis
27 Oct 06,, 22:09
Look, have you noticed that there are way more greek people on this site than Turks. This proves that

1. The Turks are scared little people that don't know what they are talking about.

2. The Turks are poor and don't have much internet talk on.

3. The Greeks are smarter and better fighters and would stomp on Turkey and they know it.

Nick Haritoudis
27 Oct 06,, 22:13
Go to http://greekmilitary.net

neyzen
27 Oct 06,, 22:24
Look, have you noticed that there are way more greek people on this site than Turks. This proves that

1. The Turks are scared little people that don't know what they are talking about.

2. The Turks are poor and don't have much internet talk on.

3. The Greeks are smarter and better fighters and would stomp on Turkey and they know it.

1. Turks are scared of you.

2. Turks are poorer than Greeks, but they have more internet acess than Greeks. (not only by number, but also by percentage)

3. We know that you are trolling.

This proves you should s.up and calm down.

Nick Haritoudis
27 Oct 06,, 22:44
Why don't you shut up. You country is an embarrasment to mankind. The Turks can even supply their planes with weapons. They have to fly into other aircraft to start a conflict.

glyn
27 Oct 06,, 23:11
Gentlemen, please show some restraint. There is no need to be rude to one another. Both Greece and Turkey are members of NATO. Soon both countries will be in the EU. I am sure there are more points that could unite you than there are which make you see the other as an enemy.

Nick Haritoudis
28 Oct 06,, 00:57
I could be a good guy and not make this man feel bad about himself. But I won't. I just don't like the idea that they might be waiting for Greece to become good friends of theirs (which probly won't happen) and then have Turkey stab them in the back.

Low-tech
28 Oct 06,, 03:59
Yes, if the Greeks and the scum Turks were to have any type of conflict the Greek people would definitly have an advantage. First of all the Greece has a higher budget than the scum Turks. With that we would be able arm our soldiers with more and better equipment. and then buy more tanks, ships, and aircraft. After this scum Turkey will start to weaken, and with things going how they are in the middle east other countries would start to break out in military action with each other. The scum Turks will then have no where to go but to Iran for nuclear weapons. The United States would find this out and be able to alert the Greeks. While This is going on Greece will start to panic because the United states and NATO are not taking any action because they won't want to get into it and they will be to busy dealing with North Korea and more of the middle east, once Greece has paniced, for the safety of the Greek people they will bomb the crap out of scum Turkey. And when the scum Turks have had enough the Greek people will go in and slaughter all the men and children and rape their women with the intension of getting full revenge on the scum Turks for all of the innocent Greek people they Murdered and used for testing biochemical experaments. Then the Greeks will claim the Used to be Turkish land as theirs. But if for some reason there is need of more manpower, considering the growing relations with china they might be able to supply the Greeks with more men.
And one more thing the Greeks will have full control of the Mediterranean which leaves the scum Turkish the only way of getting in is to swim and drown. The Greek fisherman will pull in scum Turks every day laughing so hard, and they will bring their new dead turk home and feed it to the homeless dog wondering about his neihborhood.

Oh and the Greek economy should be rising dramaticly by an estimated 50 billion dollars a year, so lets say 3 years from know our economy will have grown by 150 billion dollars and will allow Greece to buy more aircraft and such.

man, dont you think thats a little overboard?. just a little?

replace the turks with chinese labor? wtf?

Nick Haritoudis
28 Oct 06,, 12:21
Yeah I think it was a little overboard but I was only using my imagination.

laertes
28 Oct 06,, 14:59
I was only using my imagination.

I doubt you have that mental capability.:rolleyes:

laertes
28 Oct 06,, 15:18
The Hittite regions were closer to Lebanon than Greece. The areas known as anatolia was populated and still is by those of Greek ethnic decent.These populations trace thier roots back to well before the fall of greek Minoan civilisation. Modern day turks are not hitites but Scythian/Mongaloid crosses decended from the steps of Asia moixed with Greek Anatollian.

Hell it was not. Plus, what minoans has to do with anatolia. They were from island crete.
And todays turks are as much Hitites as they are greeks since greeks themselves were mixed with Hittites and countless other local kingdoms that flourished in the anatolia.There were kingdoms and civilizations predating Greeks in Anatolia.;)

Nick Haritoudis
28 Oct 06,, 18:09
Hey how many people here are actually from Greece or Turkey. Just right it down at the bottom of the page. Like so


CA, USA

AlpErTunga
28 Oct 06,, 18:16
Look, have you noticed that there are way more greek people on this site than Turks. This proves that

1. The Turks are scared little people that don't know what they are talking about.

2. The Turks are poor and don't have much internet talk on.

3. The Greeks are smarter and better fighters and would stomp on Turkey and they know it.

So what?

1- Greeks tried to invade Anatolia by scaring poor Turkish peasants, with supports of Britain in 1921
2- Greece was very rich and they had trucks while Turks had only ox-cart as logistic support.
____
But you call 1921 as Asia Minor Defeat But we call it a glorious victory of Independence War. Even Turkish peasants and unarmed Turkish "army" defeated your "historically great" armies in Anatolia...
____
3- I wrote similar expressions with yours before, but in 3rd one I cannot do it. Because Turks have been,are,were, will be always, ever smarter and better fighters than you.

Low-tech
29 Oct 06,, 02:15
im am american who has greek heritage,baptised to the orthodox church.

ive never met a turk in person, ever. ive heard alot about them by greek employers.

its almost comical when they say the turks ARE worse than what the nazis were and that every one of them is pure evil.

what i believe, as an american, is that greeks can view parts of turkey similiar as the native americans view our country.

BUT, what happenned....happenned, its in the past.......the turkish invasions in those lands is purely historical context.

even the genocides are historical context, the people who carried it out are dead. however, i think the country would do well to acknowledge wrongdoing, allow people to search for remains and have access to whatever existing public records available to investigate mass burials and stuff.

all this would be purely symbolic, closure. no handouts, no giving land back, no payment, nothing.

so thats the reason i came into this thread. i take an american side, not a greek one.

and i do so coz i come from a country with more blood on thier hands as far as the past is concerned. nothing really compares to the enslavement of blacks and the forced slaughter and exodus of our natives. america acknowledges these things as a way to improve relations, as a way to heal and overcome its legacy.

zraver
29 Oct 06,, 02:43
Hell it was not. Plus, what minoans has to do with anatolia. They were from island crete.
And todays turks are as much Hitites as they are greeks since greeks themselves were mixed with Hittites and countless other local kingdoms that flourished in the anatolia.There were kingdoms and civilizations predating Greeks in Anatolia.;)

Check the dates Most people think the burning of Troy VII (locate din NW Turkey)occured around 1190 BCE

The Hittites were an ancient people who spoke an Indo-European language, and established a kingdom centered at Hattusa (Hittite URUḪattuša) in north-central Anatolia from the 18th century BC. In the 14th century BC, the Hittite empire was at its height, encompassing central Anatolia, north-western Syria as far as Ugarit, and upper Mesopotamia. After 1180 BC, the empire disintegrated into several independent "Neo-Hittite" city-states, some of which survived until as late as the 8th century BC.

http://www.allempires.com/empires/hittites/hittitemap.gif <<< Check out this map to see the areas of hardcontrol and suzeranty a tthe height of thier empire. Like i said closer to lebanon and Syria than Greece. Eastern Asia minor was settled by Greeks not Turks.

laertes
29 Oct 06,, 08:52
Check the dates Most people think the burning of Troy VII (locate din NW Turkey)occured around 1190 BCE

You can simple check the previous page to see a map of lydians in western anatolia. They were just inhabiting in the region what you would call historical greek land.

And your hittite map shows that hittite empire had covered a large land mass which would be invaded by Greeks and Persians in the future time.

Lycian rock cut tombs of Dalyan
http://www.travelwithachallenge.com/Images/Travel_Article_Library/Turkey/Lycian_Tombs.jpg




The region of Lycia has been inhabited by human groups since prehistoric times. The eponymous inhabitants of Lycia, the Lycians, spoke an Indo-European language, belonging to its Anatolian branch
The Lycians were assimilated by Greek colonists who inhabited the region into modern times, before being assimilated by Turks.

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

kampos
14 Nov 06,, 23:59
Hello people first of all . Let me give you my opinion. First of all Greece Vs Turkey Never going to happen nowadays. Why because of nato and the eu. Other countries in the background are helping these two countries in order to succed in the interest that might be military basis in turkey or greece ect.

But lets speak about military. Do you turks really think that the number counts? 65 million turks vs 10 million greeks ? .. let me take you to some facts in the past. 1821 when greece become free numbers were not even, not even close. Italy invating greece during ww2 . one of the biggest defeats in the italian history. The italians were must more than the greeks. plus as Winston Churchil said : " Heroes fight like the Greeks". ... i know what turks are going to say .. about the defeat in constalinoupoli. i know we got defeated back then but do you know a country that only has vistories in the history? ...

Beeing in a Greek Cypriot i have been to the two sides since the boarders have opened. Turkish side is much more poorer than the Greek Cypriot side. Thats a fact and in the books of the EU reports. The only reasons why the turkish side became a little bit richers is beceause Greek Cypriots went their and spent their money.

FACT: Turks made Orthodox Christian Churches into public restrooms. Yes turks thats what u have been towards us. I hope something will change but i dont think a friendship between these two countries will ever be possible, but never say never.

kampos
15 Nov 06,, 00:01
sorry for my syntax and spelling

Nick Haritoudis
17 Nov 06,, 09:43
THE TURKEY vs GREECE
WAR SCENARIO
A HYPOTHETICAL AND STRICTLY SCIENTIFIC WAR SCENARIO

FOR THE USE OF MILITARY EXPERTS ONLY

By Mihalis D. Rellos, President of "Achilles".
Since 1974 there is a possibility of a Turkish attack against Greece or Cyprus (free southern part). Turkey has gathered a great number of tanks, airplanes, guns and soldiers. 40000 of them are in the occupied part of Cyprus since 1974 when Turkey invaded the island. But Greece has a very powerful army, as well. It includes a superior navy, a high trained air force and great advantages in the main frontier of the war, the Aegean Sea. The Turkish fleet must come out of the straits and it is vulnerable to naval attacks, air attacks and Exocet and Harpoon missiles attacks in a point of total sinking.
The Turkish Air Force has a relatively small advantage in numbers of F16s. But for a war over the Aegean Sea, this advantage will soon disappear. During January 1999 3 batteries of Patriot PAC-2 AA missiles arrive in Greek islands of the Aegean Sea as part of a greater sale of 1,2 billion dollars of new Patriot AA PAC-3 missiles arriving within the next two years. Another battery of S-300 AA missiles will soon arrive at eastern Crete, as well (the Cypriot missiles). This armament eliminates the Turkish advantage in the quantity of third generation airplanes and the Aegean Sea becomes a hostile and deadly area for the Turkish Air Force. Also, the Greek army has ordered 21 short range AA batteries of TOR and CROTALE missiles. This arsenal will be added to the existing Hawk, Osa and Nike-Hercules AA missiles.
The Aegean Sea (full of thousand Greek islands) is the ideal place for a total Greek success in naval war, since the Greek navy has a long tradition in defeating Turkish fleets since 1821!
Greece and Turkey have common borders in Evros river in Thrace. The eastern Thrace belongs to Turkey and the western Thrace to Greece. The Turkish eastern Thrace is a big valley straight from Evros river to Constantinopolis (Istanbul for the Turks). The western Greek Thrace is highland. So, a Turkish attack against western Thrace is almost impossible. If decided, it won't be fruitful for the Turkish army.
There are many Greek islands near the Turkish shore of Asia Minor. There, a sudden Turkish attack is possible, but the results won't be permanent. The total Greek imposition in the Aegean Sea for the above reasons (Patriot AA missiles - S300 AA missiles - experienced Greek Air Force - superior Greek Navy) will permit the liberation of every island.
The only Turkish military advantage lies in Cyprus (free Greek Cypriot side) which has a defense that may last at least for many weeks in every kind of attack. But the duration of the war in Cyprus will permit the total Greek victory in the Aegean Sea and the victorious fleet would easily liberate Cyprus and throw the Turks out of Cyprus.
One must take in account that the Turkish troops in northern part of Cyprus have no depth of defense. Even though they overcome the Cypriots in a 3 to 1 or 4 to 1 scale, they can not win without extended air and naval support from Turkey. Anyway, within the next months the Cypriot Republic announced that it will buy a sufficient number of short and middle range AA Russian missiles and tens of new T-80 Russian fourth generation tanks. These armaments will improve enormously the Greek Cypriot defense.
The air base of the national Guard in Pafos is ready and the naval station in Zygi will soon be completed in order to support Greek F16s, A7 Corsairs, modern Frigates, Destroyers, Gun Boats and Submarines.
Armenia, the northern neigbor of Turkey is already protected with Russian S300 AA missiles and Mig29s under Russian control. Syria has ordered S300 AA missiles, as well. The Kurdish rebels in Eastern Turkey threaten Turkey with a new round of internal war. It is quite possible that a long war between Turkey and Greece in any frontier will engage Armenia, Syria and the Kurds rebels against Turkey. Armenia, Syria and the Kurds believe that Turkey occupies Armenian, Syrian and Kurdish land and the only chance they have to regain these lands is a Turkish Greek war. This is the worse case scenario for Turkey (demolition of Turkey and division in many parts).
The worse case scenario for Greece is to stand all alone against Turkey. Even in this case the loss for Greece would be minimal. But Turkey, would have to stand great losses (naval prohibition of presence in the Aegean Sea and the Mediterranean Sea and the extension of Greek internal waters to 12 nautical miles, the European boycott for many decades, the destruction of its industrial areas in eastern Thrace and the shore of Asia Minor).
The Turkish economy suffers from high inflation of 90% and other severe economical problems. In the other hand, Greece has a strong and rich economy and it is a member of the European Union. The Greek ship oweners control the greater part of sea transport. The Greek Americans have a prosperous community of 4.000.000 people in the United States and can influence things in favor of Greece. Objectively, the economical comparison comes for Greece!
The conclusion of every scenario in Greek Turkish war is that Turkey will never try to attack Greece or Cyprus, because it has nothing to gain. If Turkey decides to attack, it risks a destructive future.-


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


In order to contact ACHILLES you may send an e-mail to ean_gr@hotmail.com
©Michael D. Rellos, ACHILLES, 1998


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

neyzen
17 Nov 06,, 13:33
First of all Greece Vs Turkey Never going to happen nowadays. Yes. "Greece vs Turkey" is mostly problem of internet heroes. Our politicians and generals know dynamics more than us. And there won't be a Greek/Turkish war untill it is really necessary.


Do you turks really think that the number counts? I think war can be won in battle area. Turkey has one of the best officers of the world who has many skirmish and war psychology experiences. And Turks won many battles with less numbers. Btw, Turkey's population is 73 million not 65.


Winston Churchil said : " Heroes fight like the Greeks". ... i know what turks are going to say .. about the defeat in constalinoupoli. i know we got defeated back then but do you know a country that only has vistories in the history? ... Winston Churchill said greeks fought like heroes and he said turks fought like gods. ıt is not only Churchill who praised how Turks fight. These words are for agitateing.

Byzantium city Constantinopolis was defeated by Turks. And Greek lost all wars in their near past. Ofcourse it doesn't mean you will lose.


Beeing in a Greek Cypriot i have been to the two sides since the boarders have opened. Turkish side is much more poorer than the Greek Cypriot side. Thats a fact and in the books of the EU reports. The only reasons why the turkish side became a little bit richers is beceause Greek Cypriots went their and spent their money. Only reason which made TCs poor is GCs.


FACT: Turks made Orthodox Christian Churches into public restrooms. Yes turks thats what u have been towards us. I hope something will change but i dont think a friendship between these two countries will ever be possible, but never say never. Greeks turned mosques into butcheries. And demolishing minarets was Greeks first work.

Friendship with Turkey is not possible for any country. We can have common interrests. But i hope Turkish Greek relations will increase.

@Nick Haritoudis the artical that you posted is meaningless. Don't give any credit to it.

kampos
17 Nov 06,, 15:15
neyzen as i can see we agree in many things regarding this issue,but u have said that Greeks lost their wars in the past ? Wrong. I can start naming war after war which Greece won but this want matter either way becauce in my opinion war is the last thing countries should decide regarding any issue. Im not saying Greeks as saints regarding bandalisms in the past but the minarets in Greek Cypriot territory are in a very good contition. In fact before moving to the UK there was a muslim celebration ( dont know any name) and some of the muslims thank us for keeping their minarets in good contition as many Turks did for our churches in Turkey.

Lastly as the politics have become today in the world Turkeys relationships and interests are the same as Greek and Cypriot interests. I believe within a few years the Cyprus problem will be solved (in one way or another) and Turkey will become part of the EU because countries like U.K , Germany ect have many interest in Turkey , Cyprus and Greece. This may happen but as for the common "mortals" :rolleyes: which in none other than us , students, soldiers, taxi drivers, builders ect the relationships will become better
(globalization)

AlpErTunga
17 Nov 06,, 18:34
A greek cant say Turks would win or a Turk does not say greeks would win. As the commander of Great Turkish Victory against to European imperialist invasion, Ataturk, said; Battles cannot be won on maps and tables, battles won only on the battlefields.

Turkish and Greek forces are one of the oldest and strongest forces. But history shows that Greeks are so behind the Turkish victories. And also today we can say same thing for present time.

PubFather
17 Nov 06,, 19:13
A greek cant say Turks would win or a Turk does not say greeks would win. As the commander of Great Turkish Victory against to European imperialist invasion, Ataturk, said; Battles cannot be won on maps and tables, battles won only on the battlefields.

Turkish and Greek forces are one of the oldest and strongest forces. But history shows that Greeks are so behind the Turkish victories. And also today we can say same thing for present time.
Wow Alp - that was meaningless, even by your standards...

Low-tech
18 Nov 06,, 15:46
if turkey and greece fight a war,i only wish they would only use middle aged weapons and armor, fight off horseback and shiite.

maybe a reality show and a documentary about it would be cool. it would make great television at least.

maybe here in america we can get some preople to dress up like orcs and trolls for you to fight, for a television show we'd probably want a fantasy element to not alienate a large part of our young viewers.

of course my country would be selling you nerd-foam,toy swords and armor and stuff, we wouldnt want you guys actually hurting each other. haliburton does great catering, ive heard. maybe they'll hold a raffle for prizes and stuff after each battle.

Nick Haritoudis
18 Nov 06,, 22:40
Dude low-tech your so f***ing low-minded.

Low-tech
18 Nov 06,, 22:45
im also joking.

neyzen
19 Nov 06,, 08:07
some cities were celebrating their salvation days with a play. with toy rifles, traditional cloths...

Low-tech
19 Nov 06,, 16:21
dude, america is huge on war re-enactment stuff. we even get those old canon out and shoot blanks for fun.

afaresis
26 Nov 06,, 08:02
About the possible Greek and Turkish War, which I believe will never happen, the Greeks have no chance of winning. I agree that the Greek army can hurt Turkey, but it can never win.

Let me analyze some points.

1) Yes, there are 12-13 million Kurds in Turkey. However, unlike how you think, most of them are devoted to Turkish Republic and will fight for it wholeheartedly in case of a war against Greeks. The political party which is Kurdish nationalist in Turkey can hardly get 5% votes in elections even if the Kurdish population is around 20% in Turkey.

Some rebels might happen in East part of Turkey. However, I do not think that even there the rebels will be supported by the majority of the population. This has been proven during the campaign followed by PKK. PKK killed more Kurdish people than anyone else, for supposedly corroborating with Turkish Republic. So, you guys are wrong in trusting in a large scale Kurdish rebel. Many Kurds in Turkey are actually mixed with Turks, and they do not support any Kurdish campaign in any sense. Moreover, many Kurds are devout Muslims and they will never side with Greece when their Muslim Turkish and Kurdish brothers are fighting with Greece.

Finally, Turkey knows about the possibilities of small scale rebels in East and the army has plans for such scenarios. I think the rebels will not be widely supported and can be swiftly handled by military forces.

2) The relationship between Syria and Turkey is very good nowadays. Moreover, Syria is troubled enough with .Isarel that it will never even consider any struggle with Turkey. They even keep almost no forces in Turkish border. Their army is located along Lebnaon I even think that Syria might support Turkey in such a conflict by providing supplies to Turkish Military Forces.

3) Armenia is a country of 2.5 million people. Yes, Armenians do not like Turkey and Turks. However, they are not stupid enough to attack Turkey. They know that it will be their end. Also, they have enough troubles with Azeris due to the conflict in Karabag. Azeris developed a great and modernized army during the last decade which can easily beat Armenians. They are just looking for some little clash possibility and reason to attack and take Karabagh back. So, any support from Armenians to Greece is out of possibility. Even if they see that Greece is winning the war, they will certainly stay out of conflict. Actually, their participation in the war is insignificant regarding their army and size. If they participate, it will only help Turkey through getting the support of Azerbaijan who is much stronger.

4) The first 3 items clarifies that the warm war will clearly be between Turkey and Greece. There might be equipment support from outside, but noone will ever even consider participating in the conflict directly. Western countries will probably try to bring the conflict into resolution without clearly siding with any country. Muslim world will clearly be with Turkey. If the war extends, I think even many volunteers might come Turkey to help.

5) In a ground force comparison, Greek Army has no chance against Turkish army. I am not telling that Greek forces will not hurt Turkey, but they certainly will lose on a face to face battle on the ground.

Turkey’s losses in 1974 were mostly during the landing efforts. However now, there are already 40000 Turkish soldiers in the island. With air force support from Turkey, Turkish army can easily take over the island in a short time. There is no way G/Cs can stop that.

6) If Greece tries to come to help G/Cs, it will be the biggest mistake that it can make. Greek army is small compared to Turkish army. Its strength is in its ability to hold together. If Greece makes the mistake of sending significant troops to Cyprus, this will dispense Greek forces on a large area. It will certainly decrease Greek army’s ability to resist Turkish forces in Aegean Sea and Western Thrace. Moreover, there is no way that Greece can ever send enough troops before Turkish military completely takes the control of the island. And Greek navy will face heavy losses on the way to Cyprus in Mediterranean due to Turkish air force attacks.

7) The struggle on Aegean Sea might be the most difficult part of the battle. Both countries have very good air forces and very very good pilots.

8) The most important thing about the war is the morale of the two nations. This factor will also be on behalf of Turkey. If the war lasts more than 2 weeks, which is likely considering the equality of the forces in Aegean Sea, Turkish army will occupy Cyrus completely along the way. This will demolish the morale of Greeks and the Greece military. People will be scared of heavier losses and push for a peace in Greece. On the contrary, the morale of winning in Cyprus will encourage Turkish spirit for even harsher fights.

9) Also, I should remind that Turkey’s situation is much different that how it was 5 years ago. During these 5 years, Turkey has more than doubled its GDP. So, Turkish economy is strong enough to carry the burden of such a war.

10) Finally, I should remind that Turkish soldiers are very well trained considering the fight that has been going on in East for the last 20 years.

It is no longer 1920s. Since then, a lot of things changed on behalf of Turkey. Even that time Greece had a heavy loss. Now, I do not see even the slightest possibility for Greeks to win over Turkey.

In the end, I do not wish a war and I do not think that it may ever happen. I know that Greeks are keeping their army just in case as if they will never need it. And Turkey will never want to attack its neighbors and also take the reaction of the World unless Greeks drive Turks crazy. But I know that Greeks are not so stupid.
For the hypothetical scenario, if a war happens, the outcome is clear. Heavy losses in both economies. Clear military loss for Greece and victory for Turkey.

Best..

Kansas Bear
26 Nov 06,, 16:17
As Rhett Butler said in Gone with the Wind, "It'll take more than talk to beat the Yankees."

ahmet
26 Nov 06,, 19:52
Turkish Independence War is an enough resource to answer this question, as Turks had won it although they had much less supplies and weapons compared to Greeks.

Btw, I found the answer to your question Kansas, kind of. Even I don't know it's true, it's possible that Turks burned Izmir retreating. Ismet Inonu gave that order during the retreat to east side of Sakarya River; if we lose and have to retreat again the army would destroy the bridges and communication, because he wouldn't want to leave the cities in good condition to the enemy and I think that's reasonable.

neyzen
27 Nov 06,, 01:36
The artical is form 1998. Greeks loose every possible scenario in simulation. And Turks are more experienced in reality. Good point is we won't go war in near future. But it would be nice to "fight" with Armenia.

Themistoklis
30 Nov 06,, 13:54
Don't think that would be very easy. In fact Turkey tried to mess with Armenia in the past, first supporting Azerbaijan in the Nagorno - Karabakh war in the early '90s, and then threatening a direct attack; but Turkey backed up once the great Russian Bear started to roar. As always...

Themistoklis
30 Nov 06,, 17:30
Coming back to the main topic of this thread, let me say I don’t think much of anybody bragging about how his country’s glorious army can smash the enemies in pieces within 2 hours. I ‘m Greek, but I can’t ignore the fact that the Turkish army is 4 or 5 times larger than the Greek army. I would also think that any Turk trying to draw direct conclusions from that fact alone, should remember that Greeks were always outnumbered, which did not prevent them from gloriously defeating Italy and standing up to Germany during WW 2 (while Turkey was comfortably keeping out of trouble). The Turkish side has some advantages of combat experience (though fighting the Kurds in the mountains has nothing to do with fighting a modern army) and Greece has some advantages of technology (though the difference is marginal, and in general both countries have similar equipment). All in all, what I’m saying is that there can be no prediction about the outcome of a Greece-Turkey conflict based on numbers, or equipment, or tales of national bravery etc. There can be many outcomes, depending on strategic choices on both sides, but also circumstances like the element of surprise and, last but not least, luck.

Furthermore, to even begin discussing the issue seriously, we need a measure of success for the country initiating the war: what would be the POLITICAL aims of a war for Turkey and Greece? Ι can see only three possible aims for Turkey, and another three for Greece.

For Turkey, one possible aim might be (A) the change of the Aegean status quo based on the Lausanne treaty, meaning the division of the Aegean along the 25th meridian and especially the recognition of Turkish drilling rights on the Aegean continental shelf, perhaps conquering some of the eastern Greek islands. Another possible aim would be (B) the conquest of Western Thrace, where many Muslims live. Turkey could also aim at (C) conquering the rest of Cyprus. However, in Cyprus Turkey has got what it wanted. Today’s situation enables Turkey to put pressure on Greece, blackmailing it with further invasion and the prospect of another 600.000 refugees. But taking all of Cyprus would mean enormous international pressure for Turkey: unlike 1974, there would be nowhere for the refugees to go. Furthermore, under international media coverage Turkey cannot commit genocide, like it did in 1915 against the Armenians and in 1922 against the Greeks of Smyrna. So conquering the rest of Cyprus would create more problems than gains for Turkey; I don’t think that would be Turkey’s aim. Neither could be the conquest of Western Thrace: the region has no strategic significance, the Muslims there are under no danger, and Turkey would have to face the Greek Army’s best armored forces on equal terms, since the narrowness of the region does not allow for a full deployment of Turkey’s superior numbers. So the main reason for Turkey to go to war would be the Aegean, and particularly the oil fields underneath it, which are the obvious reason why Turkey in 1973 (after 50 years of silence) decided to question the Aegean status quo as defined by the Lausanne treaty.

For Greece on the other side, the possible reasons to initiate a war with Turkey would be (A) to liberate Cyprus (i.e. dislodge the Turkish army) or (B) to try to unlock the stalemate in the Aegean and start oil research / drilling in the continental shelf, by exercising its right (by international law) to expand its territorial waters to 12 miles (now being 6), which would include most of the disputed areas in Greek territorial waters, but which would also defy the “casus belli” (threat of war) that has been officially declared by Turkey for such an event. Aim (A) seems impossible; it is difficult to see how the Turkish forces on Cyprus, 40.000 troops as opposed to 10.000 of the Cypriot National Guard, better trained and equipped, and counting on air support from closeby Turkey, could be dislodged by force, even by countries much stronger than Greece. Perhaps a defeat on another front (like Thrace) could force Turkey out of Cyprus. So that would be a reason, though indirect, for Greece to attack Turkey in Thrace, in order to gain territory and exchange it with Cyprus (aim C). But since victory in Thrace would not be guaranteed, I see no logical Greek politician causing a war with those aims. That leaves us with the same conclusion for Greece, as for Turkey: war could only be initiated by Greece for the Aegean (aim A).

So the main reason for Greece or Turkey to go to war would be the Aegean status quo. If Greece tried to press the issue by expanding its territorial waters, Turkey would most probably send its fleet within the 12-mile zone, in order to question Greece’s rights, and then go to war, if Greece attacked ships within the 12-mile zone. If Turkey tries to press the issue, it will probably send a ship for oil research on the continental shelf areas that Greece regards as rightfully hers, like they did in 1987 (Sismik crisis), or occupy an uninhabited Greek island, claiming it’s Turkish, like they did in 1996 (Imia crisis). Then it would go to war if Greece attacked the ship or its soldiers.

For Turkey to achieve its goals in the Aegean (oil drilling rights, division along the 25th meridian), it needs to seize at least one -possibly 2 or 3- major Greek islands, and then press for Greek concessions by way of negotiations. To do that, it will need to make one, two or three full-scale landings (by LCUs, helicopters etc.) on the fortified eastern Greek islands. That’s an actual amphibious assault across enemy sea on fortified beaches, an extremely dangerous operation that has never been done since WW 2. The minimum requirement would be full control of air and sea. So Turkey has to wipe out the Hellenic Air Force and Hellenic Navy before even attempting to land, or risk disaster during landing. Wiping out the HAF and HN wouldn’t be easy, since they both are about &#190; the size of their Turkish counterparts (THK and TN), with equal or better equipment, and their training is thought to be superior. So the only chance for Turkey to prevail would be to achieve full surprise with an aerial attack, i.e. if the THK caught the HAF with their pants down, as the Israelis caught the Arabs in 1967, destroyed or neutralized most of it in 1-2 days, then turned on the islands, assisting the landings and preventing the HN from breaking the TN blockade around the islands, thus allowing the Turkish Army to make the landings within 3-5 days from the start of hostilities and overpower the garrisons of 2-3 islands within 15-20 days from the start of hostilities. Any other scenario doesn’t work for Turkey. As already said, there’s no strategic point in any Turkish gains in Cyprus or Thrace. And without the gain of at least one significant island, there would be no basis for Turkey to press for changing the Aegean status quo.

Greece on the other hand, to achieve its goals in the Aegean (imposition of 12-mile zone with exclusive drilling rights), would only have to enforce its 12-mile zone, repelling Turkish attacks and staying in possession of all islands. To do that, it would have to avoid surprise by a Turkish air attack and be able (a) to scramble its fighters against any Turkish bombing formations, (b) to quickly put its island garrisons into their pre-built enforced positions, thus saving them from Turkish bombardments (air and artillery), (c) to apply its bombers against any Turkish forces landing on the islands as well as any military facilities on Turkey’s Aegean coast and (d) to be able to send reinforcements to the islands by air and sea (especially using the hovercrafts), if necessary. If Turkey advances in Cyprus, Greece should be ready to (e) retaliate by advancing in Thrace. However, unless the need arose because of Turkish victories in Cyprus, a Greek advance in Thrace would not be wise; the Greek armored forces in Thrace are qualitatively better than the Turkish ones and sufficient for a solid defense, but not for a long-run attack against Turkey, because in a protracted fight Turkey could draw on its reserves, while Greece not. So a Greek armored drive into the Turkish side of Thrace would be in danger of running out of steam and being destroyed in the end.

From an operational / armaments point of view, both countries have recently minimized their opponents' ability to achieve their aims. On the one hand, Greece has managed, by adding 60 newly built F-16s to its inventory, to almost cover the gap in 3rd generation fighters between the HAF and the THK (formerly 115 to 220, now 170 to 210). The new JHMCS helmet system on those aircraft, combined with the new IRIS-T missile, gives them a big advantage in dogfights with turkish aircraft. Furthermore, the acquisition of 4 airborne radars by Ericsson (Erieye) minimizes the risk of a surprise attack by the THK on the HAF, especially the danger posed by israeli-made Harpys to stationary greek radars, but also the danger of turkish F-16s attacking at night below stationary radar horizon, using the LANTIRN system. So Greece has managed to deal with the danger of a surprise attack by Turkey. Furthermore, the newly acquired SCALP air-to- ground missiles, already operational with the greek Mirages 2000, offer Greece a powerful retaliation option in case of turkish attack. And finally, the Zubr hovercraft acquired from Russia allow Greece to transfer reinforcements to the Aegean islands quickly and without the fear of turkish submarines sinking them.

On the other hand, Turkey has also managed to cover its weak spots: in the Aegean, the acquisition of 8 used O.H. Perry frigates and 2 Spruance destroyers has turned the balance in favor of the Turkish Navy -now owning 18 modern destroyers and frigates as opposed to 14 modern greek frigates), thus making it difficult for Greece to proceed with enforcing a 12-mile territorial waters zone. And by acquiring about 300 used Leopard 2A4 from Germany, Turkey has managed to quickly counter the advantage Greece was trying to create for its armored forces by building 170 new Leopard 2 HEL and receiving another 180 used Leo 2A4. The new-built greek tanks will be more capable and better protected, but in general Turkey has managed to prevent a gap of quality from emerging between the Greek and Turkish armored forces facing each other in Thrace, and thus protect itself from a possible Greek attack there.

As a result, there is little motive for any side to go to war, because there is, for both countries, much to lose and little chance of achieving any political aims. In Turkey’s case, there are no real strategic gains to be made in Cyprus or Thrace, and in order to win in the main theatre of the Aegean, it needs to meet many conditions. In Greece’s case, the implementation of a 12-mile regime in the Aegean might be possible to defend against a Turkish reaction without the loss of an island. However, though unlikely from a strategic point of view, Turkey might still want to push it in Cyprus, choosing the full conquest and a new Palestine-like situation over its present dominant blackmailing position; that would oblige Greece to attack in Thrace, a high-risk enterprise for no reason other than Cyprus. And in a war of attrition the odds would be against Greece, not only because of numbers, but also because all HAF’s airports are within THK radius, but not vice versa.

The above does not mean that the current rivalry is pointless. There are very real motives behind it; in my view, it’s the oil reserves underneath the Aegean that caused Turkey to question the Lausanne status quo in 1973 and onwards, trying to divide the Aegean in the middle. And it was Greece’s firm stand and protracted armament effort that has (overall) deterred Turkish ambitions so far. As Robert Gilpin puts it in “War and Change in World Politics”, as long as the cost for trying to force a change of the status quo is greater than the gain expected by that change, the stronger power will not try to change it. That’s the case between Greece and Turkey. Turkey is stronger, but Greece has managed to keep the costs high, for any Turkish attack. As long as we keep it that way, we ‘ll also keep the status quo.

Tronic
04 Dec 06,, 04:34
holy %@&^....... dude, I think you're totally fit to write a book.....

Themistoklis
05 Dec 06,, 09:58
holy %@&^....... dude, I think you're totally fit to write a book.....

I think so too... Can you find me an editor? ;)

AlpErTunga
08 Dec 06,, 17:51
But I can. Your best editor would be the most imperialist and invader powers. They should manage that staff perfectly as they did in the Greco-Turkish War in 1921. But even that work would be stand like a Asia Minor Defeat near the Turkish Independence Victory.

Themistoklis
09 Dec 06,, 09:08
But I can. Your best editor would be the most imperialist and invader powers. They should manage that staff perfectly as they did in the Greco-Turkish War in 1921. But even that work would be stand like a Asia Minor Defeat near the Turkish Independence Victory.

Even allowing for your mediocre english, I fail to see the connection you 're trying to make. Believe me, I could also say a few words about Turkey's imperialism, invasions and genocides. But I 'm not gonna follow you in a meaningless flame war about the past. The issue of this thread is greek-turkish conflict scenarios, and I tried to make a cool strategic analysis based on facts. Obviously, my point of view is greek; and you are welcome to present the turkish perspective. But if you 're seeking for the classic nationalistic row instead, then go elsewhere. I 'm not biting.

neyzen
09 Dec 06,, 10:47
Believe me, I could also say a few words about Turkey's imperialism, invasions and genocides. But I 'm not gonna follow you in a meaningless flame war about the past. The issue of this thread is greek-turkish conflict scenarios, and I tried to make a cool strategic analysis based on facts. Obviously, my point of view is greek; and you are welcome to present the turkish perspective. But if you 're seeking for the classic nationalistic row instead, then go elsewhere. I 'm not biting.
Don't try to play smartass. You have already vomited your lies. Tell us about Albanian Genocide in Chamelia, Macedonia, Turks were in Crete, West Thrace, Cyprus, Asia Minor. Attacking unarmed places is characteristic of greek genocides. You can't fight against organized TSK. Your III WW scenarios sucks from every angles. You are alone in a possible T-G war or Turks are not alone. And yes TSK is more experienced and it works in T-G war. Turks attack from bla bla, Greeks use bla bla is just funny. It shows weakness of Greece against Turkey. I think Turkey and Greece won't war in near future. Our T-G war scenarios should be based on facts, not articals which try to build morale to the our folk.

Themistoklis
09 Dec 06,, 13:56
Don't try to play smartass. You have already vomited your lies. Tell us about Albanian Genocide in Chamelia, Macedonia, Turks were in Crete, West Thrace, Cyprus, Asia Minor. Attacking unarmed places is characteristic of greek genocides. You can't fight against organized TSK. Your III WW scenarios sucks from every angles. You are alone in a possible T-G war or Turks are not alone. And yes TSK is more experienced and it works in T-G war. Turks attack from bla bla, Greeks use bla bla is just funny. It shows weakness of Greece against Turkey. I think Turkey and Greece won't war in near future. Our T-G war scenarios should be based on facts, not articals which try to build morale to the our folk.

I said, I 'm not biting. Take your hatred elsewhere.

neyzen
09 Dec 06,, 15:12
"Turkey cannot commit genocide, like it did in 1915 against the Armenians and in 1922 against the Greeks of Smyrna.", "Western Thrace, where many Muslims live", "Aegean status quo based on the Lausanne treaty"....

As I said don't try to play smartass. I said "Our T-G war scenarios should be based on facts, Our T-G war scenarios should be based on facts, not articals which try to build morale to the our folk." I don't show any hatred. If you want to discuss T-G War than discuss it. Don't add your words on it.

Kansas Bear
09 Dec 06,, 20:30
Attacking unarmed places is characteristic of greek genocides.



Odd, my research has shown that the characteristics of murdering entire unarmed villages of numerous races falls on the turks.

"....but observers continued to remark the downtrodden status of non-Muslims, and European pressure was not sufficient to prevent the Ottoman massacres of Lebanese Christians in 1840-60, and of Armenian Christians in 1894-6 and in 1915-17.

The myth of a tolerant Ottoman empire dates to the 19th century and was a European creation, designed to prevent Russia from expanding southwards under the pretext of protecting the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire."

neyzen
09 Dec 06,, 21:31
Yes, I know your researchs from your past posts. They depends on secret orders, secret speeches,... keep going!

Kansas Bear
09 Dec 06,, 22:25
Yes, I know your researchs from your past posts. They depends on secret orders, secret speeches,... keep going!



Considering your country doesn't allow REAL research into it's past, I'm sure evidence appears to be "secret" to you.

Forms of suppression in your country....
"Since the 1930s, Kurds have resisted government efforts to assimilate them forcibly, including an official ban on speaking or writing Kurdish."

"...government authorities considered Kurdish one of the unnamed languages banned by law. Use of Kurdish was strictly prohibited in all government institutions, including the courts and schools."

"Handan Çağlayan, the Deputy Chairwoman-General of the Democratic People's Party"DEHAP", has been sentenced to 7 months in jail for speaking Kurdish at the electoral campaign of her party before the 28 March local elections, while 6 months imprisonment was imposed upon DEHAP Şanlıurfa Chairman Ahmet Dağtekin for the same ground."

"The same mentality predominates in Turkey today as 10 years ago when Leyla Zana, Hatip Dicle, Orhan Dogan and Selim Sadak were imprisoned for speaking in Kurdish and seeking fraternal relations and mutual understanding between the Kurdish and Turkish peoples."


If your "country" can ban a language just what else can they ban? Research? Investigations? Official government transcripts....

laertes
09 Dec 06,, 22:31
Bear, that really gets boring, you jump in every g-d turkish related topic with your historical mumbo jumbo writings that you selectively implement..:rolleyes:

Every empire has its crimes, you cant build an empire without crime, do you want me to list some of the crimes that was committed by "civilized" western colonial empires?



Odd, my research has shown that the characteristics of murdering entire unarmed villages of numerous races falls on the turks.


Your "research" is heavily biased and one sided.




The myth of a tolerant Ottoman empire dates to the 19th century and was a European creation, designed to prevent Russia from expanding southwards under the pretext of protecting the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire."

To put it simpy, Ottoman empire was "tolerant" in the sense that it didnt interfere in the business of local christian communuties as long as they pay their taxes and keep loyal to the ottoman empire.

But it was an oppressive state in the 19th century because it was in decline and to prevent the fall, dissolution of the empire resorted to violence on many occasions.

Whereas, many ethnic cleansing campaigns towards turks had gone unnoticed for or ignored, ottoman massacres are emphasized and sometimes are exaggerated in that period at the balkans.

Hint: Make your research on the ethnic cleanising of turks from palopennesse by Greek nationalists.;) Or you can simpy check the other turk greek thread.
( and dont forget that this is just one of many other similar cases in which turks got massacred in thousands.)



oh, btw apparently you missed it in your "researches", let me put it here. Thats from one your "armenian genocide" sites,




Somewhat surprisingly to many, Armenians and Turks lived in relative harmony in the Ottoman Empire for centuries. Armenians were known as the "loyal millet". During these times, although Armenians were not equal and had to put up with certain special hardships, taxes and second class citizenship, they were pretty well accepted and there was relatively little violent conflict.
Things began to change for a number of reasons. Nationalism, a new force in the world, reared its head and made ethnic groupings self-conscious, and the Ottoman Empire began to crumble. It became known as "the sick man of Europe" and the only thing holding it together was the European powers' lack of agreement on how to split it up.

As other Christian minorities gained their independence one by one, the Armenians became more isolated as the only major Christian minority. Armenians and Turks began to have conflicting dreams of the future. Some Armenians began to call for independence like the Greeks and others had already received, while some Turks began to envision a new Pan-Turkic empire spreading all the way to Turkic speaking parts of Central Asia...



http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide

Kansas Bear
09 Dec 06,, 22:47
Bear, that really gets boring, you jump in every g-d turkish related topic with your historical mumbo jumbo writings that you selectively implement..:rolleyes:

Since you're going to cry about it... Here's a tissue.


Every empire has its crimes, you cant build an empire without crime, do you want me to list some of the crimes that was committed by "civilized" western colonial empires?

And how many continue to deny their actions? 'Nuff said.





Your "research" is heavily biased and one sided.

Actually, I take sources outside the 2 sides involved. Something that you CAN'T do in your country.






To put it simpy, Ottoman empire was "tolerant" in the sense that it didnt interfere in the business of local christian communuties as long as they pay their taxes and keep loyal to the ottoman empire.

Yes, I've read the reports of what the ottoman's consider "loyal". The Austrians and Germans were quite clear on that.


But it was an oppressive state in the 19th century because it was in decline and to prevent the fall, dissolution of the empire resorted to violence on many occasions.

"Oppressive" state, yet NEVER murdered it's own, yet racial different, minorities, right?? :rolleyes:


Whereas, many ethnic cleansing campaigns towards turks had gone unnoticed for or ignored, ottoman massacres are emphasized and sometimes are exaggerated in that period at the balkans.

I don't recall making any statement about the balkans.....:rolleyes:


Hint: Make your research on the ethnic cleanising of turks from palopennesse by Greek nationalists.;) Or you can simpy check the other turk greek thread.
( and dont forget that this is just one of many other similar cases in which turks got massacred in thousands.)

Any sources of non-turk or non-greek origin?




oh, btw apparently you missed it in your "researches", let me put it here. Thats from one your "armenian genocide" sites

I'd be careful what you take from wikipedia.....unless you're saying this is true.

"These left-overs from the former Young Turk Party, who should have been made to account for the millions of our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly driven en masse, from their homes and massacred, have been restive under the Republican rule." -- Mustafa Ataturk
http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Armenian_Genocide_Quotes
directly linked to the page you mentioned.

laertes
09 Dec 06,, 23:11
Bear, youre a master of making irrelevant comments..




Yes, I've read the reports of what the ottoman's consider "loyal". The Austrians and Germans were quite clear on that.

That was a statement from 16th century, as you well know it, not from the early 20th century. Irrelevant comment 1.:rolleyes:




"Oppressive" state, yet NEVER murdered it's own, yet racial different, minorities, right?? :rolleyes:

I said ottoman empire was an oppressive state in the 19th century. Irrelevant comment 2:rolleyes:




I don't recall making any statement about the balkans.....:rolleyes:

But i recall you constantly accuse turks while ignoring to mention about the crimes undertaken against them. Anyway many turks got killed by armenians, and it didnt happen in the balkans.




Any sources of non-turk or non-greek origin?

Sure, just do what i say and pay a visit to the other turksih greek thread we previously had a discussion. i think it is unnecessary to copy paste them in here.





I'd be careful what you take from wikipedia.....unless you're saying this is true.

Yet another irrelevant comment, and i guess it now made 3.:rolleyes:

I think it is armeniapedia not wikipedia and the article was obviously written by armenians who defend the existence of a genocide. You're changing the subject of armenian treatments in the ottoman empire.


Since you're going to cry about it... Here's a tissue.

No thanks, im just bored with your obssesive behavior. Why dont you open a thread of your own and call it this is my turkish hating mumblings instead of jumping in every goddamn thread for god's sake?

neyzen
09 Dec 06,, 23:33
Odd, my research has shown that the characteristics of murdering entire unarmed villages of numerous races falls on the turks.

"....but observers continued to remark the downtrodden status of non-Muslims, and European pressure was not sufficient to prevent the Ottoman massacres of Lebanese Christians in 1840-60, and of Armenian Christians in 1894-6 and in 1915-17.

The myth of a tolerant Ottoman empire dates to the 19th century and was a European creation, designed to prevent Russia from expanding southwards under the pretext of protecting the Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire."
__________________

I found only this. http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Ottoman_Empire Who is DAVID J CRITCHLEY
WINSLOW, BUCKINGHAM ? What makes you believe this kind of articals? Why should I?

Kansas Bear
10 Dec 06,, 01:58
Bear, youre a master of making irrelevant comments..
Gosh, I'd respond, but I really just don't give a rat's a$$ what you think.


That was a statement from 16th century, as you well know it, not from the early 20th century. Irrelevant comment 1.:rolleyes:

Negative. These statements were made by German and Austrian consulars during WWI. I'm SURE your government has transcripts and makes them READILY available to ANYONE who wishes to read them. ;)


I said ottoman empire was an oppressive state in the 19th century. Irrelevant comment 2:rolleyes:

And the ottomans didn't massacre armenians in 1894-1896. :rolleyes: Amazing what your government keeps "secret". I'd imagine reading/learning history in your country is comparable to only reading the cartoons out of the daily newspaper and ignoring everything else!:eek:


But i recall you constantly accuse turks while ignoring to mention about the crimes undertaken against them. Anyway many turks got killed by armenians, and it didnt happen in the balkans.

Talk about irrelevant comments....I still don't recall saying anything about the balkans....:rolleyes:

Amazing how the turks are ALWAYS the "victims". Yet entire villages inhabited by armenians are destroyed.
The book "Ataturk" by Kinross is quite the read. Since he states that it was virtually impossible to feed his troops on the Caucasus/Russian Front, since all the armenians(who were farmers) had been murdered or deported.:eek:



Sure, just do what i say and pay a visit to the other turksih greek thread we previously had a discussion. i think it is unnecessary to copy paste them in here.

So are you going to read NON-turkish government approved articles written by German, Austrian, Persian, and American eyewitnesses?? I seriously doubt your government would allow it.


Yet another irrelevant comment, and i guess it now made 3.:rolleyes:

Beats being an uneducated child and calling someone an "armenian", everytime the facts become unbearable for you!;)


I think it is armeniapedia not wikipedia and the article was obviously written by armenians who defend the existence of a genocide. You're changing the subject of armenian treatments in the ottoman empire.
Armenian treatment in the ottoman empire, you mean outside the 2 major massacres perpetrated by the ottomans? I'm sure there are numerous volumes, written by turks with sources found only in turkey and published only in turkey, that extoll the generosity shown to minorities within the ottoman empire. That's like having the Gestapo running the Nuremburg trials. :rolleyes:


No thanks, im just bored with your obssesive behavior.

Well at least I can spell obsessive. I've yet to see you/neyzen/Erpy post anything outside the realm of turks-were-here-before-anyone-else-and-invented-writing-pizza-god-do-no-wrong-and-everything-else-is-lies bullsh-t.


Why dont you open a thread of your own and call it this is my turkish hating mumblings instead of jumping in every goddamn thread for god's sake?
Unlike in YOUR country, there is freedom of speech on this forum, and I'll post where I like.

Kansas Bear
10 Dec 06,, 02:00
I found only this. http://www.armeniapedia.org/index.php?title=Ottoman_Empire Who is DAVID J CRITCHLEY
WINSLOW, BUCKINGHAM ? What makes you believe this kind of articals? Why should I?


Believe what you want. This has already been addressed in the previous post.

neyzen
10 Dec 06,, 02:27
Good luck with your masturbation.

Kansas Bear
10 Dec 06,, 02:30
Good luck with your masturbation.


The typical "mature" turkish response. :rolleyes:

neyzen
10 Dec 06,, 02:37
Help me! What would be the better response?

BTW, what is "turkish response"?

Kansas Bear
10 Dec 06,, 07:12
BTW, what is "turkish response"?

.erunam citsilaniotan artlu ruoY

http://www.cosgan.de/images/smilie/teufel/a025.gif

Themistoklis
10 Dec 06,, 09:14
"Turkey cannot commit genocide, like it did in 1915 against the Armenians and in 1922 against the Greeks of Smyrna.", "Western Thrace, where many Muslims live", "Aegean status quo based on the Lausanne treaty"....

As I said don't try to play smartass. I said "Our T-G war scenarios should be based on facts, Our T-G war scenarios should be based on facts, not articals which try to build morale to the our folk." I don't show any hatred. If you want to discuss T-G War than discuss it. Don't add your words on it.

Now that's a little better, let's discuss. If I 'm getting it right you 're trying to make two points: (a) in my analysis I included references against Turkey that are not based on facts and (b) those references were irrelevant with the analysis and aimed to insult Turkey. So let's discuss facts and their relevance.

Now I 'm sorry if that bothers you, but (a) the armenian genocide is a historical fact accepted throughout the world, by everybody except Turks. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
The destruction of Smyrna (now Izmir) in 1922 is also a historical fact, and most western sources attribute it to turkish intent. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Smyrna.
And (b) I didn't refer to them without a reason; I was trying to make the point that occupying the rest of Cyprus would be a political problem for Turkey because it would have 600.000 Cypriots under occupation (being unable to "get rid" of them), and that today's situation in Cyprus is preferable for Turkey. So the reference was relevant.

As for the other points, I can't even see what's bothering you. In Western Thrace there are indeed many muslims; what's your objection? And in fact their continued presence there (and their constant number of about 120.000 since 1923) proves that Greece, unlike Turkey, is not in the habit of exterminating its minorities.
The Greeks in Turkey were 200.000 in 1923, now they are 20.000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Turkey
Is that what's bothering you? The comparison? ;)

And of course the Aegean status quo was defined by the Lausanne treaty of 1923. What's the problem about that? Turkey still acknowledges that treaty, I hope...:confused:

So, everything I said was factual and relevant. But on the whole, let me also say this: Some of my references, although correct, may have insulted the Turks reading this thread. In that case you are welcome to state your side of the argument. But if you look at the size of my article (about 3 pages in Word) compared to the size of the "insulting" parts, you will have to acknowledge those are a minimal part; I had no intention to focus on those or insult anybody.

laertes
10 Dec 06,, 12:26
The destruction of Smyrna (now Izmir) in 1922 is also a historical fact, and most western sources attribute it to turkish intent. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Smyrna.


Oh really, are you so sure of that? Im using your own source now



Mr. H. Lamb,the British Consul General at İzmir reported that he "had reason to believe that Greeks in concert with Armenians had burned Smyrna" [10]. This was confirmed by the correspondent of the Petit Parisien at İzmir in a dispatch on 20 September 1922

According to The Times dated 6 October 1922:

Thirty-six refugees from Smyrna arrived at Plymouth to-day, having been sent home from Malta.

(...)

Mr. L. R. Whittall, barrister-at-law, who has been in Smyrna for some years said there was no evidence as to who set fire to the town, but the consensus of opinion was that it was Greek and Armenian incendiaries.[11].


While some sources believed the fire to be the continuation of the scorched earth policy of the Greeks, some believed Armenians had received instructions to burn İzmir as a sacred duty and to bring about an international intervention.

Alexander MacLachlan, the missionary president of International College of İzmir who has also been an eyewitness to the fire states that Turkish soldiers seen to have setting the fire were actually disguised Armenians. An article posted on The Times of September 25, 1922 about MacLachlan is quoted as follows:

The Turks did not massacre Greeks, as Greeks had done to Turks in May 1919. About the worst the Turkish Army did was force captured Greek soldiers to shout "Long live Mustafa Kemal" (in return to their forcing Turks to shout "Zito Venizelos" when they entered Smyrna) as they marched into detention. MacLachlan's investigation of the fire's origin led to the conviction that Armenian terrorists, dressed in Turkish uniforms, fired the city.

Admiral Mark Lambert Bristol, U.S. High Commissioner to Ottoman Empire
In his report sent in the form of a manuscript to Rear Adm. Bristol, he states that Grescovich, who had been fire chief for 12 years at that time, found evidence, largely based on Prentiss' revised statements, to suggest that Greeks and Armenians were the source of the fire. He states in his report:

"(…)The motive, usually considered of supreme importance in crimes of this sort, does not clearly point to the Turks. They had captured Smyrna. The city, as it stood, was one of the greatest prizes ever taken in Oriental warfare. The Turks had unquestioned title to its foods, its commodities of all sorts, its houses. It was a store house of supplies most urgently needed for its peoples and armies. Why destroy it?

It was a matter of common knowledge, on the other hand, that the Armenians and Greeks were determined not to let this booty fall into the hands of their hated enemies. There was a generally accepted report in Smyrna, for several days before the fire, that an organized group of Armenian young men had sworn to burn the city if it fell to the Turks. Evidence gathered by Paul Grescovich, Chief of the Smyrna Fire Department, and carefully checked by myself, together with information which came to me from other sources, points to the Armenians as authors of the fire.(…)

(…)I have been able to find no evidence that either Turkish soldiers or Turkish civilians deliberately fired the city or wished its destruction.

The evidence all points in another direction..."

10 ^ Colonel Rachid Galib, 18 May 1923. Current History, V., "Smyrna During the Greek Occupation" p.319
11^ The Times, 6 October 1922. Firing of the Town, Plymouth
12^ The Times, 25 September 1922. A Missionary Eyewitness Lays the Blame on Armenians, London





And again from the same source, massacres committed against turkish civilians by running away Greek troops on the way to Smyrna.
Thats a consular report


James Loder Park, the U.S. Vice-Consul in Constantinople at the time, who toured much of the devastated area immediately after the Greek evacuation, described the situation in the surrounding cities and towns of İzmir he has seen, as follows:

Manisa...almost completely wiped out by fire...10,300 houses, 15 mosques, 2 baths, 2,278 shops, 19 hotels, 26 villas…[destroyed]. Cassaba (present day Turgutlu) was a town of 40,000 souls, 3,000 of whom were non-Moslems. Of these 37,000 Turks only 6,000 could be accounted for among the living, while 1,000 Turks were known to have been shot or burned to death. Of the 2,000 buildings that constituted the city, only 200 remained standing. Ample testimony was available to the effect that the city was systematically destroyed by Greek soldiers, assisted by a number of Greek and Armenian civilians. Kerosene and gasoline were freely used to make the destruction more certain, rapid and complete. The destruction of the interior cities visited by our party was carried out by Greeks. The percentages of buildings destroyed in each of the last four cities…were: Manisa 90 percent, Cassaba (Turgutlu) 90 percent, Alaşehir 70 percent, Salihli 65 percent. The burning of these cities was not desultory, nor intermittent, nor accidental, but well planned and thoroughly organized. There were many instances of physical violence, most of which was deliberate and wanton. Without complete figures, which were impossible to obtain, it may safely be surmised that 'atrocities' committed by retiring Greeks numbered well into thousands in the four cities under consideration. These consisted of all three of the usual type of such atrocities, namely murder, torture and rape.[9]

^ U.S. Vice-Consul James Loder Park to Secretary of State, Smyrna, 11 April 1923. US archives US767.68116/34


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



And another thing is that you called it genocide, there are many speculation about who started the fire in smyrna, but the certain thing here is that there wasnt any genocide not even a massacre. there was 1.5 million living Greeks in turkey previously of population exchanges if you remember.:rolleyes:

laertes
10 Dec 06,, 12:50
In Western Thrace there are indeed many muslims; what's your objection? And in fact their continued presence there (and their constant number of about 120.000 since 1923) proves that Greece, unlike Turkey, is not in the habit of exterminating its minorities.


What a joke
There are turks in western thrace because these lands are under Greek control only since the balkan wars dating 1913.
Turks who were living in Paloponesse were subjected to ethnic cleanesing campaigns along with Albanians and jews in the period of 1822 1829. Basically every non greek population was massacred during and after the Greek war of independence at that time.

neyzen
10 Dec 06,, 13:20
Now I 'm sorry if that bothers you, but (a) the armenian genocide is a historical fact accepted throughout the world, by everybody except Turks. See Sorry mate. Armenian genocide is not a historical fact accepted throughout the world. It follows armenian diaspora. See your wikipedia link. Their propaganda way doesn't work when it comes to me. Because I care it and I want to know. So feel free to prove "Armenian Genocide" with facts. I am sure you believe it not because of you are greek but you made many researchs on it.


The destruction of Smyrna (now Izmir) in 1922 is also a historical fact, and most western sources attribute it to turkish intent. See

Yes, destruction of Izmir is a historical fact. Brits sources attributed it to turkish intent, French sources attributed it to greek intent. Fact is fire had started 4 days after turks got the control of the city. No one set fire the most beautiful city of aegean that is under their control. And there are 3 churches and 1 mosque in Alsancak where is near to fire had started. Turks should set fire churhes first, right? Greeks should attack to trace after destruction of the city. But it didn't happend. Than Turks sent off brits from marmara to back. And you lost your most important history source of near past offical greek history from the region.


And (b) I didn't refer to them without a reason Yes this is what I believe in.
I was trying to make the point that occupying the rest of Cyprus would be a political problem for Turkey because it would have 600.000 Cypriots under occupation (being unable to "get rid" of them), and that today's situation in Cyprus is preferable for Turkey. So the reference was relevant.
Who is trying occupy whole cyprus, who is planning commit a genocide in cyprus? I still don't get your point by showing your historical facts. Do you mean; Turks can't commit a genocide but greeks or any other nation can... Or it is more hard for turks to commit a genocide than others...


As for the other points, I can't even see what's bothering you. In Western Thrace there are indeed many muslims; what's your objection? And in fact their continued presence there (and their constant number of about 120.000 since 1923) proves that Greece, unlike Turkey, is not in the habit of exterminating its minorities.
The Greeks in Turkey were 200.000 in 1923, now they are 20.000. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Turkey
Is that what's bothering you? The comparison?

The crisis is new, not more than 1 mounth. Greece said minority in Western Thrace are muslims. They are Turks, they consider them self as a Turk. You have posted "muslims" instead of "turks" after that crisis. Sorry for it. Maybe I over reacted. You can say "minority in Western Thrace who have two eyes". I understand it.


And of course the Aegean status quo was defined by the Lausanne treaty of 1923. What's the problem about that? Turkey still acknowledges that treaty, I hope... Lausanne treaty still acknowledge by both countries. Greece can quit it by herself. But the problem is not only Lausanne Treaty. "Casus Belli" is about 12 miles. I am sure you heard the term "Greek Lake" before.


So, everything I said was factual and relevant. But on the whole, let me also say this: Some of my references, although correct, may have insulted the Turks reading this thread. In that case you are welcome to state your side of the argument. But if you look at the size of my article (about 3 pages in Word) compared to the size of the "insulting" parts, you will have to acknowledge those are a minimal part; I had no intention to focus on those or insult anybody. Think we have some topics to debate: A, B, C. We are debateing on C and it looks to me you "forced" me for accepting your A and B truths.

Themistoklis
10 Dec 06,, 16:16
What a joke
There are turks in western thrace because these lands are under Greek control only since the balkan wars dating 1913.
Turks who were living in Paloponesse were subjected to ethnic cleanesing campaigns along with Albanians and jews in the period of 1822 1829. Basically every non greek population was massacred during and after the Greek war of independence at that time.

I don't doubt there were many Turks, even civilians, killed during the Greek Revolution of 1821. But there was no organised Greek state back then, it was just rebels' violence against their oppressors. The Greek state has never committed genocide (against Turks or anybody else) ever since it was founded (1831). On the contrary, the armenian genocide of 1915, the destruction of Smyrna in 1922 and the 1955 pogrom against the Greeks of Istanbul were all committed by the official turkish state. The proof for what I 'm telling you is that the muslims fo Western Thrace are still there today, while the Greeks of Turkey have practically vanished (20.000 left out of 200.000). Sorry, but the comparison isn't flattering for Turkey.

And what's with copying here only the parts that support Turkey from the link I gave you about the destruction of Smyrna? I posted the link, remember? Don't you know everybody can go to the link and see that the prevailing western commentators attributed the destruction to Turkey? You 're hopeless man, no need to make a dialogue with you.

Themistoklis
10 Dec 06,, 16:27
Sorry mate. Armenian genocide is not a historical fact accepted throughout the world. It follows armenian diaspora. See your wikipedia link. Their propaganda way doesn't work when it comes to me. Because I care it and I want to know. So feel free to prove "Armenian Genocide" with facts. I am sure you believe it not because of you are greek but you made many researchs on it.



Yes, destruction of Izmir is a historical fact. Brits sources attributed it to turkish intent, French sources attributed it to greek intent. Fact is fire had started 4 days after turks got the control of the city. No one set fire the most beautiful city of aegean that is under their control. And there are 3 churches and 1 mosque in Alsancak where is near to fire had started. Turks should set fire churhes first, right? Greeks should attack to trace after destruction of the city. But it didn't happend. Than Turks sent off brits from marmara to back. And you lost your most important history source of near past offical greek history from the region.

Yes this is what I believe in. Who is trying occupy whole cyprus, who is planning commit a genocide in cyprus? I still don't get your point by showing your historical facts. Do you mean; Turks can't commit a genocide but greeks or any other nation can... Or it is more hard for turks to commit a genocide than others...



The crisis is new, not more than 1 mounth. Greece said minority in Western Thrace are muslims. They are Turks, they consider them self as a Turk. You have posted "muslims" instead of "turks" after that crisis. Sorry for it. Maybe I over reacted. You can say "minority in Western Thrace who have two eyes". I understand it.

Lausanne treaty still acknowledge by both countries. Greece can quit it by herself. But the problem is not only Lausanne Treaty. "Casus Belli" is about 12 miles. I am sure you heard the term "Greek Lake" before.

Think we have some topics to debate: A, B, C. We are debateing on C and it looks to me you "forced" me for accepting your A and B truths.

Since you (unlike Laertes) are trying to make an honest dialogue, I 'll gladly discuss with you your comments on those points (A, B, C). But I won't continue the discussion on Armenian Genocide, destruction of Smyrna etc. What I wanted to show was that my references to those events were factual and relevant. So I gave you the links, I think they prove that I referred to facts, everybody can check them out, then read your opposite view and form an opinion. But to continue this controversy has nothing to do with my initial article. So, if you want to discuss something on the topics of my article, I 'm here.

laertes
10 Dec 06,, 16:49
And what's with copying here only the parts that support Turkey from the link I gave you about the destruction of Smyrna? .

Because you said most western sources attribute it to turks whereas in fact there are many western sources which say completely otherwise.;)


Don't you know everybody can go to the link and see that the prevailing western commentators attributed the destruction to Turkey? You 're hopeless man, no need to maike a dialogue with you.

Calm down my dear, i remember you were saying the intent of your posts was not insulting.

i went to the link and i couldnt see any such prevailing western commentators but instead a bunch of Greek nationalists or Greek sympathizans who attribute it to Turks..:rolleyes:


I don't doubt there were many Turks, even civilians, killed during the Greek Revolution of 1821. But there was no organised Greek state back then, it was just rebels' violence against their oppressors.

Most of the victims were mere civilians, women and children.
Thousands of jews and albanians were massacred as well, would they be considered as oppressors?
and the organized Greek state was built by these rebels if you remember, and we're talking about the almost complete annihilation of all nongreeks.


the destruction of Smyrna in 1922 and the 1955 pogrom against the Greeks of Istanbul were all committed by the official turkish state

Dont change the subject we were talking about the smyrna and there wasnt any state intention of making massacres in there, let alone a genocide.
Besides you didnt say anything about the massacres of Greeks in anatolia that took place especially when greeks were retiring.

Look what i found, this is a greek historian with a greek perspective.


The eminent Greek historian Angelos Elefantis has expressed his shock at the use of the word "genocide" in relation to the Smyrna massacres, hitherto referred to in Greek history books as "the great catastrophe". In fact, it was Greece that provoked the disaster when its army, encouraged by the British, attacked central Turkey after the 1914-18 war. In a brilliant counter-offensive, Ataturk broke the Greek supply lines and swept the Greeks back to Smyrna

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article252460.ece

From Kinross



"As events turned it out it was not massacres but fire that made a tragedy of the Turksih reoccupation of Smyrna. The excesses committed by the Turksih soldiers against local Greeks were brutal indeed, but of sporadic and individual kind. And official American observar estimates the total deaths, from various causes, at about two thousand.."

Lord Patrick Kinross, the rebirth of a nation p 324

neyzen
10 Dec 06,, 17:08
I don't doubt there were many Turks, even civilians, killed during the Greek Revolution of 1821. But there was no organised Greek state back then, it was just rebels' violence against their oppressors. The Greek state has never committed genocide (against Turks or anybody else) ever since it was founded (1831). On the contrary, the armenian genocide of 1915, the destruction of Smyrna in 1922 and the 1955 pogrom against the Greeks of Istanbul were all committed by the official turkish state. The proof for what I 'm telling you is that the muslims fo Western Thrace are still there today, while the Greeks of Turkey have practically vanished (20.000 left out of 200.000). Sorry, but the comparison isn't flattering for Turkey.

And what's with copying here only the parts that support Turkey from the link I gave you about the destruction of Smyrna? I posted the link, remember? Don't you know everybody can go to the link and see that the prevailing western commentators attributed the destruction to Turkey? You 're hopeless man, no need to make a dialogue with you.

Turkish Republic was founded in 1923. So pls don't talk about 1831's. Selanik (sorry I don't know greek name Tsalaniko??), Erivan was turkish majority cities. There is no single Turk in Erivan and you know what happend to Turks in Selanik and in rest of the greece. And yes it was organised by Greek state. I doubt you know Armenian massacres of Turks and Azeris (right now). There are Turks in western thrace because of Lausanne treaty. The turkish greek population exchange. western thrace's turks were not part of the exchange. So it is was not because of greek tolarence. I hope you understand why your proof sucks. There are no greeks in Asia Minor because of exchange. It is also in greek records. You can find it with little research in your own archives. We don't have some saying like you have "Good Turk is death turk!". EOKA, enosis...(rings bells) and I have just heard the Hrisi Avgi thing. These idiots attacked to turkish school boys in last week... Ofcourse all greeks are not like them but you still have them. They do their actions some how. Turkey was not defeated country according to Lausanne treaty. You talk about hatred, nationalism... I don't know how was it in past but now many Turks like Greeks most of the time. Feel free to share what you know about how organised Turks to killed Armenians and Greeks, how/where were killed them because they are Greeks/Armenians? Because I can't imagine how did occur the genocides that you named.


Since you (unlike Laertes) are trying to make an honest dialogue, I 'll gladly discuss with you your comments on those points (A, B, C). But I won't continue the discussion on Armenian Genocide, destruction of Smyrna etc. What I wanted to show was that my references to those events were factual and relevant. So I gave you the links, I think they prove that I referred to facts, everybody can check them out, then read your opposite view and form an opinion. But to continue this controversy has nothing to do with my initial article. So, if you want to discuss something on the topics of my article, I 'm here.

You guys are too fast for my broken english. I'll do it but I have to go now. It is my last free night. We will drink some. I will be off for the military. BTW, I will become soldier in the Signal Corps. Does anyone know something about it? Thanks.

sappersgt
10 Dec 06,, 18:22
It is my last free night. We will drink some. I will be off for the military. BTW, I will become soldier in the Signal Corps. Does anyone know something about it? Thanks.

The last night you spend as a civilian always seems to be a lasting memory. I wish you well in your military service.

Themistoklis
10 Dec 06,, 18:36
Turkish Republic was founded in 1923. So pls don't talk about 1831's.

The Turkish Republic is the successor of the Ottoman State which was also an organized turkish state. So you can't escape the events of 1915 by starting history in 1923.


Selanik (sorry I don't know greek name Tsalaniko??), Erivan was turkish majority cities. There is no single Turk in Erivan and you know what happend to Turks in Selanik and in rest of the greece. And yes it was organised by Greek state.

I don't know about Erivan, but what you call Selanik is now Thessaloniki. And yes, there were Turks there, but they left with the population exchange of 1923 (the one you are also referring to in the next section). So no genocide there (or anywhere else in Greek history).


There are Turks in western thrace because of Lausanne treaty. The turkish greek population exchange. western thrace's turks were not part of the exchange. So it is was not because of greek tolarence. I hope you understand why your proof sucks. There are no greeks in Asia Minor because of exchange. It is also in greek records. You can find it with little research in your own archives. .

Let's get the facts straight: the greek - turkish population exchange took place in 1923, according to the Lausanne treaty (also 1923). And yes, the reason why there are no Greeks in Asia Minor is that exchange, just like it is the reason there are no Turks in Thessaloniki. So no genocide there, on either side. But (a) the destruction of Smyrna took place in 1922, which was before the population exchange, so for Smyrna the full blame is on Turkey. And (b) the Lausanne treaty provided exceptions from the population exchange for the Greeks of Istanbul and the two islands at the entrance of the Straights, as well as for the muslims (Turks and others) of Thrace. Since 1923, the latter have been living happily in Thrace, and they 're still there, while the 200.000 Greeks in Turkey vanished, DESPITE the Lausanne treaty provisions. That's greek tolerance and turkish repression.


We don't have some saying like you have "Good Turk is death turk!". EOKA, enosis...(rings bells) and I have just heard the Hrisi Avgi thing. These idiots attacked to turkish school boys in last week... .

Oh please, so some Greek school boys in Cyprus attacked Turkish school boys and that's a sign of state policy? The Cypriot government condemned the acts. And when you talk about Hrisi Avgi, you should know that those nationalists are the ridicule of the Greek society, while in Turkey the Grey Wolves are widely accepted in society, they are shown on TV, they have their own party in parliament (Bahceli's party or am I wrong?), and they were allowed to travel to Cyprus and beat a Greek Cypriot to death in 1996.


Ofcourse all greeks are not like them but you still have them. They do their actions some how. Turkey was not defeated country according to Lausanne treaty. You talk about hatred, nationalism... I don't know how was it in past but now many Turks like Greeks most of the time. Feel free to share what you know about how organised Turks to killed Armenians and Greeks, how/where were killed them because they are Greeks/Armenians? Because I can't imagine how did occur the genocides that you named..

Once again, I neither want nor need to prove any genocides here, I just made a reference to them and you were insulted, so I gave you the links that prove my reference, but that was not the point of my article and I don't want to get into this.


You guys are too fast for my broken english. I'll do it but I have to go now. It is my last free night. We will drink some. I will be off for the military. BTW, I will become soldier in the Signal Corps. Does anyone know something about it? Thanks.

Now you can't expect a Greek to give you advice about the Turkish Signal Corps, can you? ;) I 'm sure some of the Turks on this thread can inform you. As a guy who served in the Greek army a few years ago, I can give you general advice, be silent, obedient and perceptive in the beginning, don't stand out, don't be a snitch and don't get into fights while you 're still "green", whatever somebody tells you, unless somebody insults your mother or sister (in which case, take him by the throat...)

We can continue this dialogue another time, now go have some fun. I honestly hope I will never have to face you in uniform. Have a safe time as a soldier.

neyzen
11 Dec 06,, 09:22
The last night you spend as a civilian always seems to be a lasting memory. I wish you well in your military service. Thank you bro. I wish too.


The Turkish Republic is the successor of the Ottoman State which was also an organized turkish state. So you can't escape the events of 1915 by starting history in 1923. Hmmm. It seems I couldn't explain it well. I am not escaping from anything. I said don't talk about 1831's. It was organized crime which made by Greeks. No matter there was no Greek state. Name it dictatorship, religioun based society,... or whatever you want. As I see from this quote you are agree with me about it is not important talking about 1831, 1923 or any other date.


I don't know about Erivan, but what you call Selanik is now Thessaloniki. And yes, there were Turks there, but they left with the population exchange of 1923 (the one you are also referring to in the next section). So no genocide there (or anywhere else in Greek history). Massacres did occur before population exchange. It was genocide (according to your definition) which made by greeks to Turks, Jews, Macedonians,... It wasn't done only in Thessaloniki, it was done in whole Greece including far islands like Crete.


Let's get the facts straight: the greek - turkish population exchange took place in 1923, according to the Lausanne treaty (also 1923). And yes, the reason why there are no Greeks in Asia Minor is that exchange, just like it is the reason there are no Turks in Thessaloniki. So no genocide there, on either side. But (a) the destruction of Smyrna took place in 1922, which was before the population exchange, so for Smyrna the full blame is on Turkey. And (b) the Lausanne treaty provided exceptions from the population exchange for the Greeks of Istanbul and the two islands at the entrance of the Straights, as well as for the muslims (Turks and others) of Thrace. Since 1923, the latter have been living happily in Thrace, and they 're still there, while the 200.000 Greeks in Turkey vanished, DESPITE the Lausanne treaty provisions. That's greek tolerance and turkish repression.
I think I explained (a) part above. (b) 200.000 Greeks in Turkey didn't vanish. Greek sources say 13-16 death. Turkish sources say 3 death. By the same time, thousands of Turks killed by Greeks. Bad point; EOKA's thoughts still live. Turks of Greece are not living happily. They don't have right of choosing their own religious leaders. But Greeks of Turkey have it. And they abuse it. Turks of Greece are just living. Political and religious power of Turkey's Greeks is the only reason of you have Turks in Greece (imho.)


Now you can't expect a Greek to give you advice about the Turkish Signal Corps, can you? I 'm sure some of the Turks on this thread can inform you. As a guy who served in the Greek army a few years ago, I can give you general advice, be silent, obedient and perceptive in the beginning, don't stand out, don't be a snitch and don't get into fights while you 're still "green", whatever somebody tells you, unless somebody insults your mother or sister (in which case, take him by the throat...) I am leaving after hearing many urban legends. I'll see it soon.


We can continue this dialogue another time, now go have some fun. I honestly hope I will never have to face you in uniform. Have a safe time as a soldier. Turkey and Greece have many cooperations. Maybe you can see me in uniform. I hope I will be in an cooperated exercise.

Themistoklis
11 Dec 06,, 09:54
Massacres did occur before population exchange. It was genocide (according to your definition) which made by greeks to Turks, Jews, Macedonians,... It wasn't done only in Thessaloniki, it was done in whole Greece including far islands like Crete.

I still haven't seen you quoting any sources about the alleged genocides committed by Greece. So that's enough. I 'm quoting my sources again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Destruction_of_Smyrna.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greeks_in_Turkey
and I challenge you to quote yours. End of discussion.


Turkey and Greece have many cooperations. Maybe you can see me in uniform. I hope I will be in an cooperated exercise.

Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. I served in the Greek army some time ago, I am a civilian now. So if we were to meet in uniform, it wouldn't be a cooperated exercise; it would be an extraordinary and most unfortunate occasion, including Greece calling up reserves like me. ;) That's why I said, I honestly hope we don't meet in uniform. Again, have a safe military service.

neyzen
11 Dec 06,, 10:20
For Turkey, one possible aim might be (A) the change of the Aegean status quo based on the Lausanne treaty, meaning the division of the Aegean along the 25th meridian and especially the recognition of Turkish drilling rights on the Aegean continental shelf, perhaps conquering some of the eastern Greek islands. Another possible aim would be (B) the conquest of Western Thrace, where many Muslims live. Turkey could also aim at (C) conquering the rest of Cyprus.

For Greece on the other side, the possible reasons to initiate a war with Turkey would be (A) to liberate Cyprus (i.e. dislodge the Turkish army) or (B) to try to unlock the stalemate in the Aegean and start oil research / drilling in the continental shelf, by exercising its right (by international law) to expand its territorial waters to 12 miles (now being 6), which would include most of the disputed areas in Greek territorial waters, but which would also defy the “casus belli” (threat of war) that has been officially declared by Turkey for such an event.

Turkey won't accept Greek claim on Aegean Sea. The reason is not oil fields that most probably they are not there. Reason is not letting "Greek Lake". Turkey have to have permission from Greece for passing from Black Sea to Mediterranean. So Turkey said "casus belli" which means we won't accept Greek claims. Greece can not decide it alone by herself. This is reason for war. Conquering foreign lands sounds funny. It is not possible. And Turkey have no such claims.

Wars are declared for protecting/gaining something. Attacking TRNC is senseless for Greeks. They turn to 1974 conditions in best result of the war. (two nations, one country and Turkey is still guarantor) It would be worst for Greeks. Because after that Turkey gains to attack Greek Cypriots for protection of Turkish Cypriots. Unfortunately sprit of EOKA is still in island. So Turkey will attack with first fascist movement against Turkish Cypriots.

Greece has right to have 1 to 200 miles territorial waters according to internation laws. It doesn't mean she can increase her territorial waters to 12 or 200 miles by her self. I couldn't find the map that shows differences of 6 miles and 12 miles. It explains what I mean. I hope you can find and check it.

I believe war would be in all fields if it starts some how.

Themistoklis
11 Dec 06,, 11:02
Wars are declared for protecting/gaining something. Attacking TRNC is senseless for Greeks. They turn to 1974 conditions in best result of the war. (two nations, one country and Turkey is still guarantor) It would be worst for Greeks. Because after that Turkey gains to attack Greek Cypriots for protection of Turkish Cypriots. Unfortunately sprit of EOKA is still in island. So Turkey will attack with first fascist movement against Turkish Cypriots..

So, letting your unfair comments about Greek Cypriots aside, we agree on the main point: neither for Greece nor for Turkey is it sensible to attack in Cyprus.


Turkey won't accept Greek claim on Aegean Sea. The reason is not oil fields that most probably they are not there. Reason is not letting "Greek Lake". Turkey have to have permission from Greece for passing from Black Sea to Mediterranean. So Turkey said "casus belli" which means we won't accept Greek claims. Greece can not decide it alone by herself. This is reason for war. Conquering foreign lands sounds funny. It is not possible. And Turkey have no such claims.Greece has right to have 1 to 200 miles territorial waters according to internation laws. It doesn't mean she can increase her territorial waters to 12 or 200 miles by her self. I couldn't find the map that shows differences of 6 miles and 12 miles. It explains what I mean. I hope you can find and check it.

Greece has not a "claim" on the Aegean. Greece has a right by international law (the Law of the Sea Treaty, signed 1982 in Montego Bay and put into effect in 1994) to extend its territorial waters up to 12 miles (not 200 miles, that's the economic zone). And it has the right to do so unilaterally (= alone) without consulting anybody. That's what the Treaty says, you can read it yourself. So Turkey has declared a "casus belli" for the event that Greece exercises a universally recognized right. In my view, that's a step towards "conquering foreign lands, wouldn't you say?

And yes I 've seen the maps, with 12 miles of greek territorial waters much of the Aegean sea becomes Greek territorial waters, but it wouldn't be closed to Turkey because there are provisions in international sea law on how foreign ships, from military to fishing boats, can go through a country's territorial waters. So Turkey 's problem is not that the Aegean would be closed to Turkey. The problem is that in such case most of the oil underneath the Aegean would be automatically greek, with no need to make a demarcation of the coninental shelf. So oil is the reason. And the proof is that, while Turkey had shown no interest for the Aegean ever since the Treaty of Lausanne (1923) gave the Aegean islands to Greece, 50 years later (1973, oil crisis) Turkey first issued permits for oil research and then started making claims about all aspects of the Aegean status quo, for example by issuing the 1974 NOTAM that tried to divide the aerial control of the Aegean airspace along the 25th meridian. So the oil is the reason. Turkey had no problem with the Aegean being a "greek lake" from 1923 to 1973.

And let me tell you something else. I don't blame Turkey for wanting to expand. I think it's normal in world politics. But as a Greek I 'm the target of that expansion, and I will defend myself. As Isokrates said: "I don't blame the attacker for trying to expand his power. I blame the defendant for not resisting".

But again, we are off topic. My purpose here was not to show who's right and who's wrong, but to evaluate conflict scenarios. From your post and from our different opinions on the Aegean I understand you actually agree that the main clash of interests between Greece and Turkey is in the Aegean.

laertes
11 Dec 06,, 23:50
. So that's enough. I 'm quoting my sources again

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




Mistokles, have you read the article youre making quotation for? There are as much western sources who put the blame on Greeks as vice versa(you can check the previous page to see that;) ), and the article starts with that


Great Fire of Smyrna is the name commonly given to the fire that ravaged İzmir/Smyrna starting 13 September 1922 and lasted for four days till the 17 September.
Th reason of the fire is not fully determined and is a still widely disputed subject. There has been allegations from both sides, blaming, the Turks, Greeks or Armenians and there is also a theory that it was an accident caused by chaos.


There isnt any such prevalent western source who accuse turks, by luck in fact most of the westerners who are blaming turks are themselves happened to be Greeks.

Plus if you remember it was greeks who invaded turkey at that time so that blame is remaining on greeks not on turks for the disaster

And running away greek troops committed huge massacres on their way to Smyrna burning the entire towns , killing civilians..you can read the events from consular reports, so much for your alleged greek tolerance i guess.

And please everyone knows under what circumstances do the turks in western thrace have been living, no need to create legends about non existing "greek tolerance ", even your ministers accepted turks facing everyday discrimination.


Greece has not a "claim" on the Aegean. Greece has a right by international law (the Law of the Sea Treaty, signed 1982 in Montego Bay and put into effect in 1994) to extend its territorial waters up to 12 miles (not 200 miles, that's the economic zone). And it has the right to do so unilaterally (= alone) without consulting anybody. That's what the Treaty says, you can read it yourself. So Turkey has declared a "casus belli" for the event that Greece exercises a universally recognized right. In my view, that's a step towards "conquering foreign lands, wouldn't you say

Exactly the opposite, greeks would be making a step towards conquering a foreing lands if it uses its non existant right to extend its territorial waters.
That treaty youre making reference to certainly do not take into account special geographic condition between Greece and Turkey, it can be applied only whan you are near to an ocean or an open sea.
Aegean is not a greek lake and turkey would not allow any such undertaking to be successful.
So enjoy your 6 miles:biggrin:


and I challenge you to quote yours

i can take this challenge but the last time i showed you sources about greek massacres you accused me of being helpless.:rolleyes:

Kansas Bear
12 Dec 06,, 05:38
Mistokles, have you read the article youre making quotation for? There are as much western sources who put the blame on Greeks as vice versa(you can check the previous page to see that;) ), and the article starts with that

There isnt any such prevalent western source who accuse turks, by luck in fact most of the westerners who are blaming turks are themselves happened to be Greeks.


Are you saying there are NO turkish sources that support the claim that turks burned Smyrna?

Published in 1953 and titled Maresal Fevzi Cakmak is by Siueeyman Kuelce. In volume 1 (p. 236), the author implicitly concedes that General Nourredin, commander of the army which took over Smyrna on September 9, 1922, was responsible for the massacre and the fire. Kuelce blames the general for his "myopic" outlook. His view is supported by Falih Rifki Atay, author of "Cankaya. Atatuerkuen Dogumundan Qeluemuene Kadar" (Chankaya. From Ataturk's Birth up to his Death).

Atay writes of the two "lynches"—one in Ismid in July 1922, by which time some of the surviving deportees had returned, and the other involving the Greek Metropolitan of Izmir—and both producing in the author "nothing but revulsion" (p. 324). Quoting from notes he made at the time of the fire, Atay continues, "Why were we burning Izmir? [Izmiri nicin yakiyorduk?] Were we afraid that we would not be delivering ourselves from the [sway] of the minorities in case the mansions, hotels and cafes were left to remain? Driven by the same fear we put to the torch all the inhabitable quarters and neighborhoods of the Anatolian cities and towns during the World War I Armenian deportations." (p. 323)


The more generally accepted account proposed by most Western scholars, however, is that the Turks burned the Armenian and Greek quarters, and Nur-ed-Din Pasha is accused of having started the fire deliberately in an act of retribution. Some Turkish scholars of the time also appear to maintain that position. Suleyman Kulce, in his book, Maresal Fevzi Cakmak, accuses Nur-ed-Din and writes that he "..was responsible for the massacres and the fire." Falih Rifki Atay, who was also a close confidant of Atat&#252;rk, was more direct....... He also blamed Nur-ed-Din.

Kansas Bear
12 Dec 06,, 05:42
Just to put this in perspective...


From Kinross


Quote:
"As events turned it out it was not massacres but fire that made a tragedy of the Turksih reoccupation of Smyrna. The excesses committed by the Turksih soldiers against local Greeks were brutal indeed, but of sporadic and individual kind. And official American observar estimates the total deaths, from various causes, at about two thousand.."

Lord Patrick Kinross, the rebirth of a nation p 324


Lord Kinross's definitive biography, Ataturk (1965), offers much important details on the Greco-Turkish war and Ataturk's insurgency (much of it derived from Turkish sources made available to the author).


Something tells me those "sources" were MANIPULATED. Since apparently Kinross wasn't given Atay or Kuelce!!:eek:

Themistoklis
12 Dec 06,, 06:24
Mistokles, have you read the article youre making quotation for? There are as much western sources who put the blame on Greeks as vice versa(you can check the previous page to see that;) ), and the article starts with that

Yes, I have read it. That's the beautiful part about quoting independent sources like Wikipedia. One can read the other opinion too, and make up his own mind. But you wouldn't know anything about that, would you now ;)


There isnt any such prevalent western source who accuse turks, by luck in fact most of the westerners who are blaming turks are themselves happened to be Greeks.:

Oh, so George Horton, the U.S. Consul in the city at the time or Marjorie Dobkin are no prevalent western sources. Again, I am not going to discuss this. The link is there, everybody can go and check. End of discussion.


And running away greek troops committed huge massacres on their way to Smyrna burning the entire towns , killing civilians..you can read the events from consular reports, so much for your alleged greek tolerance i guess. And please everyone knows under what circumstances do the turks in western thrace have been living, no need to create legends about non existing "greek tolerance ", even your ministers accepted turks facing everyday discrimination.

You are going to quote your independent sources on all those accusations, I presume... As far as I know, no greek minister has ever said there is discrimination against the muslims of W. Thrace. And once again, the comparison: 200.000 Greeks stayed in Turkey according to the exceptions from the Lausanne treaty, and now less than 20.000 are left, mainly because of the 1955 pogroms (are you aware of the term "Krystallnacht"? That's what you did in Istanbul in 1955). 100.000 Turks and other muslims stayed in Greece after the Lausanne treaty, and now their number is 120.000. Need I say anything more?


That treaty youre making reference to certainly do not take into account special geographic condition between Greece and Turkey, it can be applied only whan you are near to an ocean or an open sea.
Aegean is not a greek lake and turkey would not allow any such undertaking to be successful. So enjoy your 6 miles:biggrin:.

Why? Because you say so? Actually when the Treaty on the law of the seas was negotiated, Turkey tried to pass an exception on closed seas like the Aegean, but it was not accepted by the other countries. So the Treaty also applies to the Aegean. And so your "casus belli" threats in case Greece uses its right are stripped of any international legitimacy and everybody can see them for what they are: a brutal threat by a brutal state that uses violence (and the threat of violence) instead of compliance with international law, dialogue and negotiation.


i can take this challenge but the last time i showed you sources about greek massacres you accused me of being helpless.:rolleyes:

Not helpless, hopeless. And, excuse me, did yoy ever quote independent sources? Perhaps it skipped my attention :biggrin:

laertes
12 Dec 06,, 16:18
Are you saying there are NO turkish sources that support the claim that turks burned Smyrna?

Did i?




The more generally accepted account proposed by most Western scholars

Who are these western scholars?


My dear bear, my point here is not to say it was greeks who most definitely burned the smyrna but to say there is no such a consensus of opinion on the subject as has been claimed..

And yes i heard about it, some turkish commanders accused nureddin for the fire.


Kinross doesnt say it was greeks who burned the city. According to him, greeks turks and armenians all have their share in the fire, it was started by turks and then greeks and armenians made it spread to entire city.


The internecine violence led, more or less by accident, to the outbreak of a catastrophic fire. Its origins were never satisfactorily explained.Fuel for the purpose had been found in the houses of Armenian women and severak incendiaries had been arrested. Others accused the Turks themselves of delibaretly starting the fire under the orders or at least with the connivance of Nureddin Pasha, who had a reputation for fanaticism and cruelty

More probably it started when the turks, rounding up Armenians to confiscate their arms, besieged a band of them in a building in which they had taken refuge. Deciding to burn them out, they set it alight with petrol, placing cordon of sentries around to arrest or shoot them as they escaped. Meanwhile Armenians started other fires nearby to divert the turks from their main objective...A strong wind quickly carried the flames. By the early morning several other quarters were on fire...

p324 325

laertes
12 Dec 06,, 16:54
Oh, so George Horton, the U.S. Consul in the city at the time or Marjorie Dobkin are no prevalent western sources. Again, I am not going to discuss this. The link is there, everybody can go and check. End of discussion.

No actually he wasnt at the city at the time.


in his book's introduction, Consul Horton states that "he was [in Smyrna] up until the evening of September 11, 1922, on which date the city was set on fire", which would disqualify him as an eyewitness, since the fire had started on 13 September. [2]


Plus he was married to a Greek woman, known to be a fanatic christian, a greek lover and a Turkish hater, i guess that enough of making him unreliable.

Dobkin was an Armenain therefore unfortenelty he also cant be classified as being impartial on the issue.

but thats okay lets not discuss about it, obviously its impossible to reach an agreement on the issue.





As far as I know, no greek minister has ever said there is discrimination against the muslims of W. Thrace.

George Papandreu said there was, not so long ago, if i can find any reference to it i will post.



everybody can see them for what they are: a brutal threat by a brutal state that uses violence (and the threat of violence) instead of compliance with international law, dialogue and negotiation.

Bla bla bla bla....
In fact your own wishes is nothing but an expansionist policy and many greeks are not defending that stance any more anyway. if greece extends its sea borders you can even swim in the western coast of turkey, your propositions lack logic and doesnt have much supporter on the international arena..
It is nothing but another formulation of your "Megalo Idea". Are you guys still chanting lets take our constantinople back?




did yoy ever quote independent sources? Perhaps it skipped my attention :biggrin:

Yes apparently it skipped your attention, all the source i provided was independent, i used nothing of Turksih.;)
I dont want to post same things over and over again, read the consular report in the previous page about the massacres committed by running away Greek troops in anatolia. These tolerant greek troops burned away entire towns.

Also check the other turkish greek thread in this forum section. In the early years its foundation, your tolerant Greek state massacred virtually every nongreek in Palaponesse, not just the turks but jews and albanian as well.

Themistoklis
14 Dec 06,, 18:37
George Papandreu said there was, not so long ago, if i can find any reference to it i will post.

You 're free to do so and I would be interested to read the exact wording;
in any case the issue was that the 120.000 Turks and other muslims living in Thrace after 1923 under the Lausanne treaty provisions are still there, alive and well (actually their number has risen), while the Greeks that stayed in Turkey after 1923 under the Lausanne treaty provisions were diminished from 200.000 to 20.000. That's a fact, not bla bla like the alleged "discriminations".


Bla bla bla bla..... if greece extends its sea borders you can even swim in the western coast of turkey, your propositions lack logic and doesnt have much supporter on the international arena..

You say it's bla bla, but I didn't see you answering on the legal points... So let me repeat: Greece has a right by international law (the Law of the Sea Treaty) to extend its territorial waters up to 12 miles, unilaterally, without consulting anybody. And the Treaty has no exceptions for closed seas like the Aegean, so it also applies to the Aegean. Now you say in such a case we could swim to the western coast of Turkey and therefore my proposition lacks logic. But that's also wrong, because between the eastern greek islands and the turkish coast nothing would change. By international law, where the territorial waters of two countries meet or overlap, the rule of the median line applies. So for example, whatever territorial waters (6, 10, 12 miles) Greece (or Turkey) has, if the distance between, let's say, Rodos and Turkey is 3 miles, it is split in the middle, according to the "median line" and so Greece has 1,5 and Turkey has also 1,5. That's how it has always been, and nothing will change with 12 miles of Greek territorial waters. What will change, as I said before, is that the oil will be permanently judged to be greek, and that's why Turkey has issued the "casus belli". Everything else is just a pretext; international law has provisions for everything and there would be no problem for turkish fishermen, ships or swimmers. Any other questions of international law or are you finally convinced?


In fact your own wishes is nothing but an expansionist policy and many greeks are not defending that stance any more anyway. It is nothing but another formulation of your "Megalo Idea".

Applying international law is not expansionist policy. And let me tell you something about "Megali Idea". Megali Idea was about liberating all Greeks living under ottoman rule; and it was burried with the Lausanne treaty of 1923, because the Lausanne treaty finalized the outcome of the struggle between Greeks and Turks: Greeks got today's Greece up to W. Thrace, including the Aegean Sea, Turks got today's Turkey up to E. Thrace including the Straits. The main point was: Turkey keeps Asia Minor, Greece keeps the Aegean. Now this balance lasted until 1973, when the oil crisis began and Turkey started issuing permits for oil research in the Aegean. Since 1973, Turkey has raised all kinds of issues regarding the legal status of the Aegean, with which she was perfectly happy for 50 years. So the side trying to change the existing status quo is Turkey; according to the Lausanne treaty, the Aegean Sea is greek (just like Asia Minor is turkish = hence, Megali Idea is dead); it's not a "greek lake" - Turkey has the east coast-, but it's mainly greek: the islands are greek, much of the territorial waters are by international law greek, and Turkey was fine with that for 50 years. Until the 1973 oil crisis came along... So in my view, it's the turkish policy in the Aegean that's expansionist.


Also check the other turkish greek thread in this forum section. In the early years its foundation, your tolerant Greek state massacred virtually every nongreek in Palaponesse, not just the turks but jews and albanian as well.

It's about this issue that I was asking you to quote your independent sources, but you still haven't found any. And no thanks, I 'm not interested in the other thread. In fact, this greek-turkish discussion about the past is what I wanted to avoid all along. What I wanted was to make an analysis of conflict scenarios, which was the actual topic of the thread and is something different and requires a little cool head. But it seems nobody else was interested in that, just a little nationalistic row once again. In fact, thanks for reminding me that this discussion has lasted too long. So bye, you can keep it up in the other thread.

laertes
14 Dec 06,, 20:50
And let me tell you something about "Megali Idea". Megali Idea was about liberating all Greeks living under ottoman rule; and it was burried with the Lausanne treaty of 1923,

Yep it was burried in history but apparently not in your head since youre defending it. Dont make me laugh, it was about the territorial expansion of the greece, taking the "ancestral lands" anything else were mere excuses to implement that policy.




The main point was: Turkey keeps Asia Minor, Greece keeps the Aegean.

Actually no, there wasnt any such point in the treaty. Turkish nationalists forces did not claim right in the islands of Aegan sea because they were lost before WWI. They only claimed right in the areas that were given to Greece by the treaty sevres.
The islands Imbros and Tenedos were given to Greece by sevres treaty but taken back by the lausanne. Turkey possess islands in the aegean. There is no such thing as giving aegean to greece, thats nothing but your misinterpretation.
Plus until 1947 Italy possessed many islands in the aegean sea, how could be then that the aegean is left to Greece?
It is only in the minds of nationalist Geeks that the aegean is greek and thats very much reminiscent of your "Megalo idea".




It's about this issue that I was asking you to quote your independent sources, but you still haven't found any.

All of them were non turkish, you cant claim an american consular report to be turkish do you?



In fact, this greek-turkish discussion about the past is what I wanted to avoid all along.

I remember you started the whole debate about the past:rolleyes:

Vasot
29 Dec 06,, 00:59
It is only in the minds of nationalist Geeks that the aegean is greek and thats very much reminiscent of your "Megalo idea".


Actually AEGEAN since ancient times is Greek and will remain greek

Even the word Aegean is from Greek-origin


and if you dare to put your dirty hands in Greek territories again (sea or land) we will be at chance 90% on WAR AND THAT'S FINAL !!

We will not tolerate an invasion\occupation for a 2nd time in our territories as it happened with Cyprus

Also the whole 12 miles situation are protected from international law which is recognised by many countries and if you do not want the wrath of these countries(and not only from Greece) and lose your good diplomatic relations with them i suggest you respect that as much as possible
like it or not
--------
You have NO IDEA what Megalo is and what "Megalh idea" meant to us during Ottoman occupation

It's was about gettng freed from your Ottoman slavery and get back our lands
that rightfully belonged to us since ancient times at that time period

Leave the rest of your Turkish propaganda to your
nationalist "Grey dogs" patriot supporter of yours who always like to play the victims and martyrs about your << innocent>> country...


It is only in the minds of nationalist Geeks that the aegean is greek

It is not in the minds of nationalist Geeks
But in the mind of the whole GREEK GOVERMENT...

Just as a ASIAN country like tURKEY thinks that is a European country and wants to become a member of the Europe Union

And if you Turkass can not respect that in good behavior then be prepared to meet our bad behavior in diplomatic and other more serious fronts...

Vasot
29 Dec 06,, 10:58
:RW That may be true but they didnt fight the turks when the english asked them to they waited for the empire to collapse turkey to surrender and then came in thanks to the english invitation the turks built an army poorly trained and poorly equiped got rid of internal problems and later the greeks against all the odds were as in the greek independancde war and most wars between the turks and the greeks the greeks have had better allies and lets face it nobody likes the turks not the arabs not europe not asia not anyone due to the history of nomadic warfare from mongolia all the way to anatolia not a very good way to win many buddys. so the odds were strongly against the turks many turks thought that a british mandate was the best way out by 1918 and would have excepted it if the greeks didnt begin killing and raping innocent civilians after they did that "independane or death" became the slogan. look at american history independance is a great incentive.

What a pile of Turk-national ********

Now i know what the poor Kurds are feeling about with a fanatical country like yours in their heads

Not only you have commit genocide against the Kurds but also you play the victims and give the blaiming of your shitty actions to the Greeks

How typical for a Turk like you

laertes
29 Dec 06,, 23:22
Vasot thanks a lot for your contribution but as you may have noticed we're not lacking here Greek nationalist storytellers, if you have anything of value to say then say it please.


Actually AEGEAN since ancient times is Greek and will remain greek

Even the word Aegean is from Greek-origin

how ancient? It only became Greek after Greek conquests, previously there had been anatolian kingdoms in the anatolian peninsula.;)

And who cares about the ethymology of words, both countries have borders to aegean sea and possess islands in there, therefore it is not solely Greek.


and if you dare to put your dirty hands in Greek territories again (sea or land) we will be at chance 90% on WAR AND THAT'S FINAL !!

I doubt it will be final of anything since you guys are not tired of being defeated over and over again :biggrin:



You have NO IDEA what Megalo is and what "Megalh idea" meant to us during Ottoman occupation

It's was about gettng freed from your Ottoman slavery and get back our lands

Obviously i know what megalo mumbo jumbo means, since you confirm me. What you call "get our ands back" is called invasion and you guys are still living with these silly dreams..:rolleyes:
Dont you guys are learned from your schools what happened the ast time you tried to take it back? You were about the lose what you had in your hands. ;)

snc128
30 Dec 06,, 03:30
and if you dare to put your dirty hands in Greek territories again (sea or land) we will be at chance 90% on WAR AND THAT'S FINAL !!

We will not tolerate an invasion\occupation for a 2nd time in our territories as it happened with Cyprus
mr dreamer .tell me who are desired for another's territory.
u were the claimer that Anatolia belongs to Greeks and u see what can even the supposedly ill man=new Turkish Gov. did during our TURKISH INDEPENDENCE WAR against invaders like greece and other blood thirsty ****ing crusaders.we will make a stand with our nails and hairs against the invaders.

snc128
30 Dec 06,, 03:37
Obviously i know what megalo mumbo jumbo means, since you confirm me. What you call "get our ands back" is called invasion and you guys are still living with these silly dreams..
Dont you guys are learned from your schools what happened the ast time you tried to take it back? You were about the lose what you had in your hands
hahaha.quality post and suits that greek's speech style.;)

snc128
30 Dec 06,, 03:44
in my opinion ,owner of a territory is simply the current owner.u cannot claim that somewhere belongs to u because ur ancestors had lived there in certain time of the history.besides,Turks deserve Anatolia and beautiful Istanbul thanks to their blood.
the funny thing is there doesnt appear a harsh conflict btw Turks and Greeks in the future.

Kansas Bear
30 Dec 06,, 03:45
Actually AEGEAN since ancient times is Greek and will remain greek
Even the word Aegean is from Greek-origin.


how ancient? It only became Greek after Greek conquests, previously there had been anatolian kingdoms in the anatolian peninsula.


You have references to these 'Anatolian kingdoms' that border the Aegean?

Low-tech
30 Dec 06,, 10:02
in my opinion ,owner of a territory is simply the current owner.u cannot claim that somewhere belongs to u because ur ancestors had lived there in certain time of the history.besides,Turks deserve Anatolia and beautiful Istanbul thanks to their blood.
the funny thing is there doesnt appear a harsh conflict btw Turks and Greeks in the future.

it is true to a certain extent and its how american view america.

to the victor, the spoils of war.


now lets consider israel.


its a tricky notion, isnt it.

and this is not to say that i think israel is entirely an illegal, occupational force. its just how they are viewed by the neighbors. 50 years or 500, doesnt matter.

now lets consider iraq.........

Vasot
30 Dec 06,, 14:37
mr dreamer .tell me who are desired for another's territory.


Mr sleepypants
U already have claimed half Cyprus by attacking us in 1974
so U are the ones who desired more territories that never belonged to you

in 9 out of 10 times in history you were the attackers and not Greece or some other European country


we will make a stand with our nails and hairs against the invaders.

The same will happen from our side if you dare to put more in your hands that does not belong to you as you did already with Cyprus and with other more Greek territories in the past


Dont you guys are learned from your schools what happened the ast time you tried to take it back? You were about the lose what you had in your hands

Don't you guys learn in schools that you are not SUPERMEN

Actually i will make a similar question as you did to me:

Dont you guys learn from your schools what happened the past time you tried to take something by force?
You were risking to lose what you had in your hands

-----------------------------
Now your tURKISH president wants your Asian country to become a member in the European Union.
and has the nerve to demand from EU that your country becomes a member without applying the neccesary EU regulations and laws (including the one of Cyprus)

Well if you want it these way then forget our Greek votes
(and i am sure Austria and France will follow as they never wanted you in the first place)

laertes
30 Dec 06,, 14:38
You have references to these 'Anatolian kingdoms' that border the Aegean?


Why? Have you missed your Hist 101 class Mr. historian?

Ever heard of Lydians, Troy, Phyrgians etc..?

or Hittites may be, even though hittites didnt have borders to the aegean they were still a local non greek anatolian kingdom.

snc128
30 Dec 06,, 15:42
it is true to a certain extent and its how american view america.

to the victor, the spoils of war.


now lets consider israel.


its a tricky notion, isnt it.

and this is not to say that i think israel is entirely an illegal, occupational force. its just how they are viewed by the neighbors. 50 years or 500, doesnt matter.

now lets consider iraq.........
Israel is another topic.shortly,it is a reason to defend Arabs theirselves and have their old territories back again.
but Israel's main problem is applying uncontrolled power and being too cruel.
but that is another subject

snc128
30 Dec 06,, 15:58
Mr sleepypants
U already have claimed half Cyprus by attacking us in 1974
so U are the ones who desired more territories that never belonged to you

in 9 out of 10 times in history you were the attackers and not Greece or some other European country



The same will happen from our side if you dare to put more in your hands that does not belong to you as you did already with Cyprus and with other more Greek territories in the past



Don't you guys learn in schools that you are not SUPERMEN

Actually i will make a similar question as you did to me:

Dont you guys learn from your schools what happened the past time you tried to take something by force?
You were risking to lose what you had in your hands

-----------------------------
Now your tURKISH president wants your Asian country to become a member in the European Union.
and has the nerve to demand from EU that your country becomes a member without applying the neccesary EU regulations and laws (including the one of Cyprus)

Well if you want it these way then forget our Greek votes
(and i am sure Austria and France will follow as they never wanted you in the first place)

we can own entire Cyprus immediately moreover greece takes a little time...but we believe peace,human rights and existing nations' existence rights unlike some other countries.
LİSTEN TO ME CAREFULLY.
Turk majority had been living in Cyprus since 1571 (preveze=andrea dorya,u know him:)),after the butcher actions of greeks in 1970's Turks left even their memoirs back at south of Cyprus.many Turks were killed wildly by selfish greeks.FORTUNATELY world's 8th biggest army,Turkish Army interfered to murders in 1974 and showed why they went there.After our interfering to Cyprus an obvious peace has established.BESIDES we showed who are the inharmonious and dont want to come an agreement by showing referendum results to all humanity.
greeeeeeeeeeks has been preventing the peace which UN wants to establish in the region.
BUTCHER GREEKS,DAMN WITH hellas.
LONG LIVE FREE North Cyprus Turks.
please guys try to see and search new documents .

snc128
30 Dec 06,, 16:05
the only thing we want is to apply EU applications.
we will do what we need to do for a better and liveable country by applying these applications.
because to be able to be accepted for the EU does not always mean that u deserve for it.but our profit is the beneficial rights we r having by applying EU applications.

Low-tech
30 Dec 06,, 18:58
Israel is another topic.shortly,it is a reason to defend Arabs theirselves and have their old territories back again.
but Israel's main problem is applying uncontrolled power and being too cruel.
but that is another subject



and it would be an exception on your previous point of territory belonging to those who own and maintain it thru colonization and force of arms.

israel has every right to exist as much as turkey, according to your logic.

the US by all right owns and possesses Iraq and Afganstan, it is theirs if they so desire it. say if we wanted to colonize those countries and force the populations to flee elsewhere, by your logic we would be justified.

Kansas Bear
30 Dec 06,, 19:16
Why? Have you missed your Hist 101 class Mr. historian?

Have you? If you knew ANYTHING, you'd know that the Greek city-states existed c1250bce.


Ever heard of Lydians,
690 bce - 594 bce


Troy,
siege of Troy 1184 bce by Greek forces(already in existance).....



Phyrgians
Arrived in Anatolia(not near the Aegean) c1200bce.
"At first they lived in Central Anatolia, building settlements over the ashes of Hittite cities like Hattusas, Alacahöyük, Pazarli and Alisar."



or Hittites may be, even though hittites didnt have borders to the aegean they were still a local non greek anatolian kingdom.
Which didn't have borders to the aegean.



Anymore Anatolian 'kingdoms' that 'bordered' the Aegean?

snc128
30 Dec 06,, 19:28
Have you? If you knew ANYTHING, you'd know that the Greek city-states existed c1250bce.


690 bce - 594 bce


siege of Troy 1184 bce by Greek forces(already in existance).....



Arrived in Anatolia(not near the Aegean) c1200bce.
"At first they lived in Central Anatolia, building settlements over the ashes of Hittite cities like Hattusas, Alacahöyük, Pazarli and Alisar."



Which didn't have borders to the aegean.



Anymore Anatolian 'kingdoms' that 'bordered' the Aegean?

see whether hittites have border to Aegean!
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Hitt_Egypt_Perseus.png

snc128
30 Dec 06,, 19:40
and it would be an exception on your previous point of territory belonging to those who own and maintain it thru colonization and force of arms.

israel has every right to exist as much as turkey, according to your logic.

the US by all right owns and possesses Iraq and Afganstan, it is theirs if they so desire it. say if we wanted to colonize those countries and force the populations to flee elsewhere, by your logic we would be justified.
u show lack of sense of understanding and think events only by considering one reason.try to think multiple reasons...
first of all i m not against existence of Israel completely.anyway it doesnt işnterest me too much.
but there is one big truth that neither Israel nor US deserve to exist in Middle East.because they show no respect and common sense to local ppl .in addition they use uncontrolled power.Mostly,their aim is not to bring peace and happiness.
i mean,there must be multiple reasons to deserve the right of existence at a region.
start another thread if u want to go on with Israel.dont go off topic.

laertes
30 Dec 06,, 20:49
Have you? If you knew ANYTHING, you'd know that the Greek city-states existed c1250bce.


690 bce - 594 bce


siege of Troy 1184 bce by Greek forces(already in existance).....



Arrived in Anatolia(not near the Aegean) c1200bce.
"At first they lived in Central Anatolia, building settlements over the ashes of Hittite cities like Hattusas, Alacah&#246;y&#252;k, Pazarli and Alisar."



Which didn't have borders to the aegean.



Anymore Anatolian 'kingdoms' that 'bordered' the Aegean?

I was talking about anatolian kingdoms in my original post, i didnt specify them whether they do have borders to the aegean or not.
But as a classical behavior of yours you jumped in the discussion and subtly manipulated what i said..

Anyway, there had been many small kingdoms later to be absolved by the bigger ones in the region.


Have you? If you knew ANYTHING, you'd know that the Greek city-states existed c1250bce.

Greek city states later moved on to anatolia and before their arrival there had been anatolian kingdoms, how many more time do you want me to repeat that for you to able to understand it?

Kansas Bear
30 Dec 06,, 20:57
see whether hittites have border to Aegean!
http://tr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resim:Hitt_Egypt_Perseus.png



http://idcs0100.lib.iup.edu/WestCivI/hittite.gif

http://i-cias.com/e.o/ill/hittite_map.gif

http://www.allempires.com/empires/hittites/hittitemap.gif

Hmmmmmmmm.............

laertes
30 Dec 06,, 21:10
http://img.search.com/5/5f/300px-Map_of_Lydia_ancient_times.jpg


Lydia arose as a Neo-Hittite kingdom following the collapse of the Hittite Empire in the twelfth century BC. Its early name was Maionia

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


The region of Lycia has been inhabited by human groups since prehistoric times. The eponymous inhabitants of Lycia, the Lycians, spoke an Indo-European language, belonging to its Anatolian branch.
The Lycians were assimilated by Greek colonists who inhabited the region into modern times, before being assimilated by Turks. The last Greeks were displaced following the Greco-Turkish War in the early 20th century.



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

Lycian rock cut tombs

http://www.travelwithachallenge.com/Images/Travel_Article_Library/Turkey/Lycian_Tombs.jpg


Hmmmmmmmm.......

Kansas Bear
30 Dec 06,, 21:59
Yet Troy was destroyed, by Greeks, before the Lydian Empire existed.

"According to Herodotus the Heraclids ruled for 22 generations during the period from 1185 BC lasting for 505 years."

"Trojan war, occurred, according to Herodotus around 1250 BC..........."


And since you can't understand English very well. The posts, verbatim.....


Actually AEGEAN since ancient times is Greek and will remain greek
Even the word Aegean is from Greek-origin.



how ancient? It only became Greek after Greek conquests, previously there had been anatolian kingdoms in the anatolian peninsula.


You have references to these 'Anatolian kingdoms' that border the Aegean?
After your pathetic attempt at Ad Hominem. In which you showed no kingdoms that existed prior to Greek city states.....
Your whiny response.....

I was talking about anatolian kingdoms in my original post, i didnt specify them whether they do have borders to the aegean or not.
But as a classical behavior of yours you jumped in the discussion and subtly manipulated what i said..

You'd do well to get an education, maybe one that isn't infected with your government's propaganda.....

laertes
30 Dec 06,, 22:23
After your pathetic attempt at Ad Hominem. In which you showed no kingdoms that existed prior to Greek city states.....
Your whiny response.....

:confused:

who is making pathetic attempts here ?

My point is obvious i guess, only after a certain period of time in the history and after Greek conquests that aegean became greek, otherwise previously it wasnt.


You'd do well to get an education, maybe one that isn't infected with your government's propaganda.....

:confused:

What government propaganda has to do with early non-greek and non-turk kingdoms of anatolia?

Kansas Bear
30 Dec 06,, 22:29
:confused:

who is making pathetic attempts here ?
You. Re-read the posts.


My point is obvious i guess, only after a certain period of time in the history and after Greek conquests that aegean became greek, otherwise previously it wasnt.

Otherwise, you're making up your sh@t as you go along. Got it.




What government propaganda has to do with early non-greek and non-turk kingdoms of anatolia?

IF you've read Herodotus you'd already know the answer to what kingdoms/empires existed when and where, especially in and around Anatolia. Since you're struggling with this topic, it's apparent you haven't. It wouldn't surprise me if your government banned the writings of Herodotus since he mentions a kingdom that your country would rather ignore.

Too linear for you? Thought so.

laertes
30 Dec 06,, 22:49
Otherwise, you're making up your sh@t as you go along. Got it.


Early greece 2000 1100

http://4cornersmaps.com/images/products/30262_2.gif

it seems like early greece was smaller in its beginnings than it is today..:rolleyes:

To repeat myself, there were kingdoms in anatolian peninsula whether they do have borders or not to Aegean and only after Greek colonisation that Aegean became Greek..


It wouldn't surprise me if your government banned the writings of Herodotus since he mentions a kingdom that your country would rather ignore.

Too linear for you? Thought so.


Oh, is this the same country neighbooring turkey in the east nowadays? Why are you not going there if you like it so much?

Low-tech
31 Dec 06,, 00:37
u show lack of sense of understanding and think events only by considering one reason.try to think multiple reasons...
first of all i m not against existence of Israel completely.anyway it doesnt işnterest me too much.
but there is one big truth that neither Israel nor US deserve to exist in Middle East.because they show no respect and common sense to local ppl .in addition they use uncontrolled power.Mostly,their aim is not to bring peace and happiness.
i mean,there must be multiple reasons to deserve the right of existence at a region.
start another thread if u want to go on with Israel.dont go off topic.

the same can be said of the turks towards the pontic greeks.

no respect, uncontrolled power.

the "one" reason i considered was your point, the one i quoted out.

now you make exceptions to your own rules, im just demonstrating that the logic is tricky on what an "owner" is and what they are entitled to.

Kansas Bear
31 Dec 06,, 02:21
Early greece 2000 1100

http://4cornersmaps.com/images/products/30262_2.gif

it seems like early greece was smaller in its beginnings than it is today..:rolleyes:
2000 BCE.
Thanks, you've proven my premise.


To repeat myself, there were kingdoms in anatolian peninsula whether they do have borders or not to Aegean
Which was never an issue of contention. Simply your inability to understand historiography.


and only after Greek colonisation that Aegean became Greek..
A rhetorical statement since the map YOU posted shows Greek influence to the Aegean listed at 2000 BCE!








Oh, is this the same country neighbooring turkey in the east nowadays? Why are you not going there if you like it so much?

I'll take that response as a yes, they do not allow writings of Herodotus in turkey.

laertes
31 Dec 06,, 13:05
2000 BCE.
Thanks, you've proven my premise.

your premises since the time you jumped in the discussion was beyond the argument that we were talking about..




A rhetorical statement since the map YOU posted shows Greek influence to the Aegean listed at 2000 BCE!


Greek influence and belonging to Greeks are not the same things arent they?
Todays greece also have obvious influence on the aegean and still aegean doesnt belong to Greece solely, that was my argument from the beginning.;)

Arent you bored of constantly manipulating arguments in order to prove yourself to be right on any issue?

how old are you 12 or 13 may be?

snc128
31 Dec 06,, 19:20
the same can be said of the turks towards the pontic greeks.

no respect, uncontrolled power.

the "one" reason i considered was your point, the one i quoted out.

now you make exceptions to your own rules, im just demonstrating that the logic is tricky on what an "owner" is and what they are entitled to.
i have never and wont defend someone who is not rightful.although i dont know that era clearly (i mean,i dont know whether pontic greeks' occasion suits with the spoken situation) u set forth this claim.and to tell the truth IT DOESNT MAKE SENSE.u r just stemming out and want to scatter the subject.
the term owner has not a tricky mean.u r too odd sighted.life has multiple occasions and conditions.be flexible.
i ve to claimö that i m tired of u if u go on with the same claim.lets return the main subject

Kansas Bear
31 Dec 06,, 20:07
your premises since the time you jumped in the discussion was beyond the argument that we were talking about..

You made the statement and couldn't back it up. That's your problem not mine. You should spend your time getting an education then talk history.


Greek influence and belonging to Greeks are not the same things arent they?
Todays greece also have obvious influence on the aegean and still aegean doesnt belong to Greece solely, that was my argument from the beginning.

Maybe you should learn to understand English better.


Arent you bored of constantly manipulating arguments in order to prove yourself to be right on any issue?
Aren't you bored of being a historically ignorant depp?


how old are you 12 or 13 may be?
Only if it's 1978 or 1979.......

Since everytime you're shown to be inept you revert to Ad Hominem, you sound like the one that's 12 or 13....


Auf Wiedersehen Truthahn.

laertes
01 Jan 07,, 12:18
Auf Wiedersehen Truthahn.


Wow, you have proven yourself to be 13 years old, bravo.




You made the statement and couldn't back it up. That's your problem not mine. You should spend your time getting an education then talk history.

Now im asking you again what is it that i couldnt back it up?

That was my original statement


how ancient? It only became Greek after Greek conquests, previously there had been anatolian kingdoms in the anatolian peninsula.

Kansas Bear
02 Jan 07,, 03:29
Wow, you have proven yourself to be 13 years old, bravo.

LMAO

What logic. No wonder history escapes your mental grasp.


Actually AEGEAN since ancient times is Greek and will remain greek
Even the word Aegean is from Greek-origin.


how ancient? It only became Greek after Greek conquests, previously there had been anatolian kingdoms in the anatolian peninsula

AFTER Greek conquests, you'd have to show another kingdom/empire bordering the Aegean BEFORE the Greeks. Your map you've posted shows Greek influence bordering the Aegean from 2000 bce to 1100 bce. You've dug your own grave. Bravo, you've proven you don't have a clue!

http://4cornersmaps.com/images/products/30262_2.gif

laertes
02 Jan 07,, 08:48
AFTER Greek conquests, you'd have to show another kingdom/empire bordering the Aegean BEFORE the Greeks

. Your map you've posted shows Greek influence bordering the Aegean from 2000 bce to 1100 bce.

Then i repeat greek influence doesnt me that the entire aegean sea was a belonging to Greece, i dont need to show any kingdom that borders the aegean before greeks, i have never claimed such a thing..As i said greece of today also have its influence but cant claim itself to be owner of the aegean as it was the case in its early beginnings. Whether they were before or not having borders to the aegean there were kingdoms which navigate in the aegean sea..
Point is after Greece extended its borders that it owned the area where we are calling Asia minor, previously of Greece expansion there had been kingdoms in Anatolia..Then in time aegean and surrounding areas turned into belongings to an enlarged greece. Clear?

snc128
02 Jan 07,, 08:57
kansas bear ,it seems u react because of ur individual ambitions.
please return the subject.dont go off topic

Kansas Bear
04 Jan 07,, 19:49
kansas bear ,it seems u react because of ur individual ambitions.

That's amusing considering the number of ultra-nationalist turks that have posted on this forum...

My "individual ambitions" equate to a REALISTIC interpretation of history, not some fantasy dreamed up by a historically ignorant revisionist.


please return the subject.dont go off topic

LMAO

snc128
04 Jan 07,, 21:08
That's amusing considering the number of ultra-nationalist turks that have posted on this forum...

My "individual ambitions" equate to a REALISTIC interpretation of history, not some fantasy dreamed up by a historically ignorant revisionist.



LMAO

ultra nationalist and ignorant revisionist?
let me inform u about something that u can never notice because of ur closed eyes.
u live in an imaginary world.u draw a picture according to ur beliefs and want all to believe ur craps.**** off man.u even dont undertsand what u must do when u speak about events which u r not directly related.

snc128
04 Jan 07,, 21:11
dont tell everything even if u know,and never speak about something which u dont know exactly.
a Turkish proverb

Kansas Bear
05 Jan 07,, 01:44
dont tell everything even if u know,and never speak about something which u dont know exactly.
a Turkish proverb

A Scottish proverb
"Don't listen to turkish proverbs."

snc128
05 Jan 07,, 11:22
A Scottish proverb
"Don't listen to turkish proverbs."

tell me now ,who has prejudices,
wha has biases ???.
r u able to understand me?u think there is a fixed profile for a certain group of ppl.
i define this problem as generalization illness.
i ll not give u the chance of crapping anymore.

dave lukins
05 Jan 07,, 22:43
dont tell everything even if u know,and never speak about something which u dont know exactly.
a Turkish proverb

IF YOU CANNOT IMPROVE THE SILENCE THEN SAY NOTHING..MY :biggrin:

Kansas Bear
06 Jan 07,, 01:17
tell me now ,who has prejudices,
wha has biases ???.
Yes, remind of how biased I am. When you know nothing about me or my family. As usual, when faced with facts that are distressing, you and your kind are quick to MAKE the subject personal, ie. Ad Hominem.


r u able to understand me?u think there is a fixed profile for a certain group of ppl.

Are YOU able to understand me? When faced with FACTS, you and your ILK revert to profanity as a childish excuse that your nonsense is correct.

i define this problem as generalization illness.
I'll define your ILLNESS as an inability to understand linear logic and ignorance of history and the world around you.

i ll not give u the chance of crapping anymore.
What is crap is turkey's article 301. From whence crap starts is where crap originates....

laertes
06 Jan 07,, 16:26
snc128, there is no way to discuss with this bear anything seriously, or try to reason with him. let him keep mumbling..

Kansas Bear
25 Jan 07,, 06:35
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

KostasGR12
11 Feb 07,, 16:49
Hi guys about that everyone should talk with facts and not just write "my country will win". Because I always want to state what I believe here is a site THE TURKEY VERSUS GREECE SCENARIO (http://www.kapatel.gr/matrix/science/eemet/scenario.htm) it will take few minutes to read it and I think that gives a very good idea of what will happen in case of war. Thanks

snc128
11 Feb 07,, 18:17
Hi guys about that everyone should talk with facts and not just write "my country will win". Because I always want to state what I believe here is a site THE TURKEY VERSUS GREECE SCENARIO (http://www.kapatel.gr/matrix/science/eemet/scenario.htm) it will take few minutes to read it and I think that gives a very good idea of what will happen in case of war. Thanks


Armenia, the northern neigbor of Turkey is already protected with Russian S300 AA missiles and Mig29s under Russian control. Syria has ordered S300 AA missiles, as well. The Kurdish rebels in Eastern Turkey threaten Turkey with a new round of internal war. It is quite possible that a long war between Turkey and Greece in any frontier will engage Armenia, Syria and the Kurds rebels against Turkey. Armenia, Syria and the Kurds believe that Turkey occupies Armenian, Syrian and Kurdish land and the only chance they have to regain these lands is a Turkish Greek war. This is the worse case scenario for Turkey (demolition of Turkey and division in many parts).

i m surprised with this ability of writer's imagination .this article seems very old.and not objective,cuz it neither presents Turkish political development,neutralization of PKK(the terrorist organization[either EU or US accept them as terrorists.]),economic development or the peace environment established with the neighbours,especially with Russia,Syria, Georgia and also relative middle asia Turkic Republics in terms of energy.

snc128
11 Feb 07,, 18:26
anyway,as i said this article is very old and doesnt redlect the current realities.
article was published in 1998. :) thx

KostasGR12
11 Feb 07,, 22:09
SNC 128

even if the article was old it still represent the reality(in my opinion).
About

1.pkk you state that Turkey has eliminate them and that EU and US accepted them as terriorist. Facts: Turkey still have many loses from PKK. Question: Is it true that the Turkish army want to get in the Iraqk to attack them and the US don't allow that? before you reply note what happened in
Turkey when Turkey's parliament decides to send army in Lebanon all people said why we have to send our soldiers when they dont help us and dont let us get in to attack PKK. (In few years it would be the New Kurdistan to Turkey's boards which will get land from Turkey. People who know what is geopolitical strategies they would anderstand what will be the affect for Turkey)

2.Seria and Armenia: you said that peace environment has been estabised that doesn't mean anything these people still believe that Turkey occupies Armenian, Syrian land and you don't know how they will react in a case of war between Greece and Turkey. The best think to do to see if Turkey has good relationship with them is to ask the people there if they want these lands back and if they like Turkey and what they saying. Example with Greece. Greece has good relations with Albany BUT they want to get land from Greece and there is an secret organisation which try to achieve that. Facts: the police all the time found hiden guns there are videos with these guys saying that they will get certen aerias from Greece. I think the same is with Syria and Armenia.

Even if Turkey has lots of army still has economic problems, many minorities, lotsof enemies which makes this Country looks like a giant with legs made from glass.

snc128
12 Feb 07,, 00:16
SNC 128

even if the article was old it still represent the reality(in my opinion).
About


.


2.Seria and Armenia: you said that peace environment has been establised that doesn't mean anything these people still believe that Turkey occupies Armenian, Syrian land and you don't know how they will react in a case of war between Greece and Turkey. The best think to do to see if Turkey has good relationship with them is to ask the people there if they want these lands back and if they like Turkey and what they saying. Example with Greece. Greece has good relations with Albany BUT they want to get land from Greece and there is an secret organisation which try to achieve that. Facts: the police all the time found hiden guns there are videos with these guys saying that they will get certen aerias from Greece. I think the same is with Syria and Armenia.
i think, i wrote clearly the names of countries which have good relationships wih Turkiye anymore.Syria has changed his attitude a long time ago.and has to .u know US threat.
Armenia is our only poor country which we ignore.there r countless Armenian worker in Turkiye who works fugitively.but we condone them.they r suffering cuz of closing borders with Armenia.andto tell the truth Armenian country isnt able to continue his existence withhis own effort.diaspora helps them.and the government is not pleased with this situation.cuz they r not independent.;)and i think they would not wantto face new problems.lso they have not a remarkable military force.i mean ,they may think fantasies.who cares.an uneducated soldier costs nothingmore than a farmer.:biggrin:
also ,we start a lot of projects with Syria and increased the trade volume 3 times more than last year.
northern Iraq's Kurds' enemies outnumber their allies.apparently,anyway they dont have an ally.except some bad intended.thisis another topic.

1.pkk you state that Turkey has eliminate them and that EU and US accepted them as terriorist. Facts: Turkey still have many loses from PKK. Question: Is it true that the Turkish army want to get in the Iraqk to attack them and the US don't allow that? before you reply note what happened in
Turkey when Turkey's parliament decides to send army in Lebanon all people said why we have to send our soldiers when they dont help us and dont let us get in to attack PKK. (In few years it would be the New Kurdistan to Turkey's boards which will get land from Turkey. People who know what is geopolitical strategies they would anderstand what will be the affect for Turkey)



Turkiye has finished PKK.they were never as weak as today.we have captured their financial power by preventing drug smuggling.also nowadays many European countries,such as Germany,France,Belgiumetc. has started same timelined operations.and another punch was hit by Europeans.their illegal media broadcasts is taken to each specific country's court.their head baby killer Apo was arrested.the organization has seperated into 2 small group.besides they have power bickering btw them.
also,most of the Turkiye Kurds dont believe PKK anymore.cuz PKK killed ,murdered even Kurds.rob themand slightly becoming banditrather than patriot gerillas.Tukiye has increased investment on east and south east(where most Kurds and Arabs live.) this advance has changed the locals attitude towards government. etc

Even if Turkey has lots of army still has economic problems, many minorities, lotsof enemies which makes this Country looks like a giant with legs made from glass
i think it does not require to inform u Turkiye more after all said.:cool:

shortly,ican say.current gov.s first work is establishing peace bridges btw neighbours.then many economic advance has been started withaccompaniment of WB.and according to last explanations Turkiye has reached his best during these 30 years.
also everyone saw how Turkiye eager to make humanist laws and applied EU adaptation laws.
moreover ,it is ur turn .
do u wanna give an explanation about South Cyprus referendum about union with North Cyprus which was resulted witha a huge NO while Cyprus Greeks was defending union.what made them their mind change dramatically.and what made them break their promise and behave unreliabily.
and can u give an explanation about the support that Greece gave to PKK and ASALAwhile EU consider them as terrorists.EU says they r terrorists but an EU member (Greece) feeds them.A MORAL DILEMMA

AGNUSDEI
12 Feb 07,, 00:54
deleted due to flaming

AGNUSDEI
12 Feb 07,, 02:25
My pleasure. 24 hour time out

Ray
12 Feb 07,, 04:52
SNC,

Just request a clarification. Though a wee bit off topic.

If the Kurdish Question is over in Turkey, then there should be no apprehension if Northern Iraq becomes an Independent country.

Is this a correct assumption? I ask because the Trukish Foreign minister did indicate a guarded reservation on the issue of Kirkuk (see War on Iraq thread).

murattimucin
13 Feb 07,, 00:24
I have just read the whole thread, and unfortunately most of what i have seen surprised me. i believe, one should have knowledge before opinion in analizing such a sensitive issue..

first of all, there is a widely accepted idea among the greek, one stating that turkey occupies greek land, and especially istanbul-constantinople and izmir-smyrna belongs to the greek people. greece obviously has undeniable historical bonds with both cities, unfortunately, drawing borders according to "who the land belongs to" is a rather fresh idea. if states started to give each other where they conquered before, no state would preserve its recents borders. and it is quite interesting that turkey is the main center of focus when it comes to this issue, even though almost all states have conquered another one's land before. according to what is commonly being spoken, turks "stole" lands from the greek, the armenian, the kurd, the syrian etc. let me ask you then, where are turks supposed to live??

comparing military strength is over me; however, i know that turkey has the second largest army in NATO, following the usa. and this, unfortunately, fools many of the people discussing this issue. in a possible military struggle between the two countries, the determining factor will be politics rather than military. i certainly agree that turkey can not be capable of using its military strength at its full capacity until he resolves his domestic issues. the ready-to-blow- kurdish community should not be neglected, and god knows what comes next... rebelling kurds and another "genocide"?? (i refuse to state my opinion on this matter, the quotes indicate that this is a widely debated issue.) so, considering turkey's military capabilities and taking them into account as the only determinant would not be true, since the politics in the region is pretty tense and turkey certainly is not the best neighbor. greece, seems to me, has the winning hand.

about the minority issues, as well as human rights problems in turkey, unfortunately the greek are throwing stones from houses made of glass... greece should first deal with her minority issues, like giving the slavic speaking minority their right to demonstrate their own culture and speak their own language. what is more, greece should come in terms with the way jews were treated in WW2, also taking into account the way turkey treated them. i can not see how one can forget this, before blaming others with genocide. another point is that, what had been done to the cypriot turks before turkey interfered in '74 is very interesting. turks were being killed in masses and their ethnicity was the sole reason for that. this, unfortunately, fits the definiton of a genocide.

the cyprus issue as a whole, is also discussed in many platforms. but i can not see how this is complicated. interfering was turkey's legal right, but only to ensure that the cypriot turks were not in danger. i wonder on what ground turkey still occupies the island. turkey's existence in cyprus is clearly illegal, and unjust for the cypriots. turkey owes 2 apologies to the cypriots; first, because of the invasion. and second, because of uncontrolled use of power demonstrated in '74, as well as the documented rapes.

peace, Murat.

snc128
13 Feb 07,, 00:28
SNC,

Just request a clarification. Though a wee bit off topic.

If the Kurdish Question is over in Turkey, then there should be no apprehension if Northern Iraq becomes an Independent country.

Is this a correct assumption? I ask because the Trukish Foreign minister did indicate a guarded reservation on the issue of Kirkuk (see War on Iraq thread).

dear RAY,
as far as i understand ur question i can reply u by using only a sentence but it wont help u to undertand the core of situation.dont forget this nice :biggrin:
the question is hardly any related with the title given.but i ll struggle to give u an understandable answer .
i always avoid drawing certain lines about events which has not finished.and vice versa.;) first of all ,u all have to understand that there have never been a Kurdish problem ,but rebellious PKK efforts.PKK is an illegal organization and does not have a public(a remarkable amount of Kurd) support.if they have , there would have been established a Kurdish othonom until now.the Kurdish ppl dont believe PKK and also does not need a country which is sorrounded with full of enemies that his only ally is ... !briefly,they dont want to be a pawn under external powers.
this is why i used the phrase PKK is finished.

ur question;

Northern Iraq would not be an independent country if they have succeed to establish a supposedly country.also northern Iraq territory is not just related to PKK however PKK is the most important factor in terms of internal security of Turkiye.as far as u know PKK is allowed to train and is trained by ... in that region.as i said PKK is over but in TUrkiye ;).
if we speak about Kirkuk.Kirkuk is important for the oil,ethnic origin of the city is important in terms of supporting Turkomen.Kirkuk is included in borders of Misak-ı Milli and according to treaty made with Britain Iraq cannot be seperated.this point is vital.:eek:
also we dont want Kirkuk become a military base for others.

KostasGR12
13 Feb 07,, 20:39
EVERYONE READ THIS!!!

snc128 you asked me 2 questions first of all these questions have nothing to do with the subject we are discussing here. But bcs you sked me I will reply to you. About Cyprus you said

"do u wanna give an explanation about South Cyprus referendum about union with North Cyprus which was resulted witha a huge NO while Cyprus Greeks was defending union.what made them their mind change dramatically.and what made them break their promise and behave unreliabily."

Cyprus didnt brake any promise Anan's plan was to found a solution the reason Cyprus vote NO was because this plan offer more to Turkey (which illegaly has about the half of Cyprus) it is like you have a house someone illegaly (all the world accept that thats why the turkish cypriots have economic embargo) get the half and after a plan make him the boss of the house. Sorry but we are not stupid..

about Greece you said "and can u give an explanation about the support that Greece gave to PKK and ASALAwhile EU consider them as terrorists.EU says they r terrorists but an EU member (Greece) feeds them.A MORAL DILEMMA"
Just to remind you once more that USA support Kurds that why they dont let you get to the north Iraq and attact them, how you can explain that? USA support Terrorist?? and not only that again I m telling you that Kurds will create a state there.. Also bcs you blame Greece that support terrorists. I want to ask you something... you said that you have good relationship with Syria and that there is co-operation in many things with them

"also ,we start a lot of projects with Syria and increased the trade volume 3 times more than last year"

Do you know that Syria blamed from USA that train terriorist how Turkey "the good country according to you" co-operate with them?

Again bcs you try to create wrong opinions to the other people who don't know the reality and what Turkey means.

Tell me what happened in Turkey with Human rights? how Turkey react to minorities?

What you can say about casus belli to Greece about the 12 miles which Greece has the right to do according to international greements and Turkey said that if you do that that will be reason for war and note that Turkey have apply this agreement.

What you can say about the houses and land wich illegally Turkey stollen from the Greeks in Turkey?

What you can say about the problems the Greek church there faces from
turkish people there?

What you can say about the a christian school which illegaly dont give the permision to open?

What you can say about the at least 30 -40 times a day Turkish airforse fly to Athens FIR and we have all the time dogfight and recently we had an achident with a dead pilot?

What you can say about the money Turkey gave to US MP in order to do not recognise the genoctony of Armenians? I have the article here in frond of me.

What you can say about the crimes Turkey did to the humanity? here look SOKING PICTURES!! The crimes of Turkey against Humanity (http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Congress/1881/)
But your propaganda doesn't talk about these..

I have infrond of me a report of Defense and Foreign Afairs Strategic Policy which is in USA's Virginia which writes that the Greek soldiers you get from the Cyprus war in 1974 and Kurds Turkey used them in secret biological laboratories as "lab animals" I have the article and I can send it to anyone asked me that. What you can say about that Mr or Mrs SNC128?

I have articles for all I said with NAMES!! Im not saying these...isn't m imagination.

Please stop your propaganda in this forum. And I wrote all these bcs you tried to blame Greece. No-one like Turkey most of the people know what kind of country it is and thats why the EU citizens dont want Turkey in EU. and I have statistics about that. So for one more time stop your propaganda and I am telling you that I can say more WITH PROVES about unethical issues in Turkey.

Thank you and I would like to appologise if the things I wrote might create anger for some people. Greece wants good relationship with Turkey and with all countries Greek people are against the war and we have prove it to many times but and the other Countries need to respect the international agreements, the neigbours the human rights etc.
Thanks

murattimucin
13 Feb 07,, 22:23
Dear Kostas, well, even though i agree with many things you state, with all my respect, i think you are stating your opinion in a rather inappropriate way. i am sure that you have the proof to most of the atrocities you blaim turkey for, i do too; however, the photos you have just linked for instance, do not reflect reality. the armenian photos-most are proven to be photoshopped, and there are no reliable sources to any of them. cyprus '74, the problem is not about turkey interfering, it was turkey's legal right to do so, what is wrong is that turkey still is there. i agree with you about the annan plan btw, turkey has absolutely no right to carve out a second state in cyprus. but the '74 incidents, they were legal to some extent. there are casualties in every war.. what you should have been pointing there is the rapes for example. turkey's existence in cyprus was legitimate, but no one can explain the rapes. but still, as turkey tries to explain the rapes, greece should be explaining the mass killings of turks in cuprus before '74 incidents, they fit the definition for genocide. a genocide.. a recent one.. and a genocide with proof to it..

as i said, none of the two countries can ciriticize the other in human rights issues, they will both be throwing stones from houses made of glass.

however, as i said in my previous, greece is in no position to criticize turkey about human rights issues, and terrorism. greece does support terrorism, and it is documented. abudullah ocalan aka "apo" was captured in the greek embassy of kenya, with a cyprus republic passport on him. he was being protected there.. and "apo" himself admitted that pkk had been receiving financial and logistical aid from greece. what is more, we should not forget about the "november 17" organization either..

so, greece does sponsor terrorist organizations in turkey. and there is proof to it. and about the human rights issue, there is a slavic speakin minority that is jusy like the kurds in turkey, but the world is quite preoccupied with kurds, so noone really cares about that.. dont you think??

and about the "armenian genocide".. that is a widely debated issue.. and as a person who spends 6 months in turkey and 6 months in the USA every year, i can say that what turkey has to say is strictly censored in foreign press. even though i have doubts about the issue myself, and refuse to state an opinion for this reason, i can say that turkey has every proof showing that there was no genocide. unfortunately, in spite of the 3 full years i spent on researching this very issue, i have not been able to find proof supporting the pro-armenian thesis, nothing as good as what turks have as proof... and as far as i am concerned, stating a certain opinion about a debated issue and trying make it look like the ultimate truth-refusing the other side's point of view, is called propaganda.

so, even though you sound like and actually are the more rational one in this debate-or so it seems to me, i believe you can make a much better stand for your point if you consider these things.

peace, Murat.