I've heard much the same before. They believed the US would step in and stop things. In a bid to take tension off the Junta. Bad idea.
What's with all these low conflict risk countries spending so much on their military?
- Thread starter legoboy
- Start date
Greece doesnt want Turkey to become a member, and since for the admission of a new member a unanimous consent of all members is required Turkey isnt even near of being admited, Greece will vetoe the decission.
Some parts of Greece were located in Anatolia, Turkey took them, Greece hates Turkey...
I assume by “some parts of Greece were located in Anatolia” you are referring to the Byzantine Empire at its maximum extent.
But that is not the reason the Greeks hate the Turks, that is due to the Ottoman invasion and occupation from 1453AD to 1832 AD. The period included forced conversions of Christians to Muslims, and extremely heavy taxation of the remaining Christian population. The tax including every 5th male child (to be raised as a Muslim and Janissary soldiers), and an unknown number of female children (mostly a servants for the harems). The reasoning given for this was stated “The conquered are slaves of the conquerors, to whom their goods, their women, and their children belong as lawful possession.”
So, yes, the Greeks REALLY don’t like the Turks.
Do you know anything about the Greco-Turkish War (1919-1922)??
Big chunks of greek territory inhabited by greek population were lost to Turkey, like East Thrace and Ionia, over 1 million displaced greeks had to flee to the greek mainland...
So your assumption is wrong.
You are correct that one of the reasons was the desire to distract the population, & that the naval cutbacks affected Argentinean perceptions of British will, but you keep returning to capability. That was not a factor.
Please re-read what I wrote before re. the window of opportunity before 1982. The RN had less capability then than when Argentina invaded - but that opportunity was not taken advantage of, because Argentina was uncertain of British will. In 1977, Argentina was willing to test British will when the RN had considerably more capability than in 1982 - and was very easily discouraged.
The determining factor was their perception of British will. They understood that if we were determined enough, we could rebuild capability. When we were relatively weakest, in 1979-81 (i.e. after the retirement of the last CTOL & commando carriers), they wouldn't risk war. They only acted when they believed that they had certain knowledge that we wouldn't fight.
Even if we hadn't had any carriers or amphibious ships, I doubt if they'd have invaded as long as we had SSNs, unless they were sure we wouldn't use them. Short of reducing the RN to a force for home waters & N. Atlantic ASW only, our capability didn't matter, as long as they thought we had the will.
Yes, but remember that Greece invaded deep into entirely Turkish parts of Anatolia. Think about where the Sakarya battles were fought. While all this was going on, Greek politicians were talking about the Megali Idea, of establishing a great Greek state. There was wild talk of conquering all of Anatolia, retaking Constantinople, & moving the capital there, & arguments about whether to leave an independent Turkish state or make it a Greek protectorate. The most limited extent shown on the maps which were published showed Greece acquiring more new Turkish than Greek inhabitants, & some of the wilder ones would have given Greece a Turkish majority. It was a time of insanity in Greek politics.
A sizable minority of the "Greeks" who left Turkey spoke Turkish, & probably a majority of the "Turks" who were shipped from Greece to Turkey spoke Greek. Ethnicity was determined by religion.
Just a thought, could the junta have also underestimated the UKs response because they had a female PM?
On reflection 1982 was only 26 years after the US humiliated Britain and France over the Suez so it is reasonable as you suggested that they probably were assuming similar support from their northern friend.
I remember someone, probably Abe, posting elsewhere that the invasion was brought forward to 1982 for what ever reason. Maybe they didn't do it earlier still because they weren't ready?
Let’s see . . .
Greece come up with the Megali Idea, a goal of reuniting all the provinces that were once part of the Byzantine Empire, and negotiates a deal for most of them to be Greece’s part of spoils when the Ottoman Empire is partitioned, in return for joining the Allies in WWI. Greece then gets stabbed in the back by Britain and France who grab the majority of the area Greece claims, including Constantinople/Istanbul for themselves. They do however give the Greeks Thrace (East and West) and Ionia/Smyrna. This took place in August 1920.
So Greece decides to go for the rest of Anatolia in compensation, using the claim that they are protecting the majority ethnic Greek population, which was about as accurate as the Sunni claim that they were the majority of the population of Iraq before OIF. The Greeks advanced was generally successful for nearly a year, then stalemated for 8 months. The Turks then attacked in late August 1922, and drove the Greek Army out of Ionia falling in a 2 week offense. The Turks then turned north toward Istanbul, but the British, French, and the Italians were unwilling to face them in combat and withdrew. East Thrace was returned to the Turks as part of the peace treaty between the Ottoman Empire, Britain, France, and Italy the following month.
The peace treaty with Greece was signed 9 months later, by which time the Ottoman Empire had been replaced by the Republic of Turkey. The treaty included the exchange of populations of ~1,300,000 Greeks from Turkey, Bulgarian, and Russian, and ~500,000 Turks from Greece to remove the possibility of either side using them as an excuse for further conflict. For the most part the treaty was just a de facto recognizing most of the population covered had already fled, with less than 1/3 remained at the time of the signing.
So East Thrace and Ionia were Greek territory for less than 3 years, and the majority of the population of both was Turkish before war.
Ironically the Greeks were defeated by a force that had been soundly defeated a couple of years ealier by Allenby. Having read the history of the Australian Light Horse in WWI it strikes me that the Turks were held in quite high regard by the Australians.
All the countries involved were exhausted by WWI. In addition, the Turkish troops fighting the Greeks were actually revolutionaries fighting simultaneous wars with the French, the Ottoman Sultan, and the Armenians, as well as the Greeks. This resulted in insufficient forces initially to do more than harass the Greek advance.
It was the defeat of the Armenians in late 1920 that gave the Turks enough forces to finally stop the Greek advance in August 1921. The defeat of the French in late 1921 in turn was probably lead to the Greek defeat in September 1922.
Well the Junta destroyed many documents right after the war so many things in our side remains obscure until someone speaks about it but believe me, the fact that the PM was a women had nothing to do with it, AFAIK based on what I´ve read along many years, basically the take of the islands was sort of a idea of the Navy, admiral Anaya supported Galtieri designation as the head of the goverment under the condition that the army will eventually support the campaing (remember, they were a "joint" ) the landing was originally planned to the end of the year, thus better training on conscription troops, better whetather in the theater of operation but the incidents in the Georgias islands acelerated everything, the people was under heavy unrest tired of the military so everithing wetn to hell, AND ( it is the bigger "and" here) they really really thought the USA will step in and force things on a stale.
Greece wasn't.
Not quite. Nobody ever promised Greece most of the provinces that were once part of the Byzantine Empire. All of Turkey, & a lot more, was once Byzantine.
France didn't occupy any land promised to Greece, though some of what it occupied was claimed by Greece, & part of it was occupied by Greece in 1920 (the French withdrew: they were heavily outnumbered). It occupied SE Turkey, & small parts of NW Anatolia alongside the British, e.g. Bursa (the first Ottoman capital - the tombs of the first sultans are there). Britain occupied Istanbul & both sides of the straits, but it was always meant to be a temporary occupation, & had never promised any of that to Greece. The Greeks had demanded it (plus a lot more, including southern Albania, half of Bulgaria, most of the Turkish coast & all of western Anatolia - a territory which would have had a large non-Greek majority), & been refused.
Izmir was to be occupied & administered by Greece, but not formally ceded. Its future was left ambiguous.
Not as compensation, but just from a kind of collective insanity. It was the Megali Idea. They were trying to grab the lands they'd asked for, & been refused, at the peace conference. The Armenians had a similar fit of lunacy, demanding all of eastern Turkey, most of the Mediterranean coast, half of Georgia, half of Azerbaijan & a slice of NW Iran: a territory from the Med to the Caspian, in which Armenians would have been outnumbered by each of four or five other peoples. It overlapped with the Greek demands.
The French fought in the SE, but lost. They might have been able to win if they'd tried harder, but there was deep reluctance to commit more strength. They had small garrisons, many of them largely Armenian, which were isolated & attacked by Turks & Kurds until they withdrew, one by one. Like the British, they weren't attacked in the NW & withdrew without fighting.
The Italians were only in the SW, never established much of a presence, & decided not to stay when it became apparent they'd have to fight hard to hold on.
Correct. There were towns & districts with a Greek majority, but neither region had a Greek majority, even allowing for understatement of minorities in the last Ottoman census. Nor did West Thrace, IIRC: more Turks & Bulgarians (another population exchange) left than Greeks remained.
spending money is the least problem here.
in my opinion, the biggest loss of resource is in terms of overall progress. it exhausts a large part of the focus of national efforts in terms of economical, man-power, and worst of all it occupies the mindset of that nation for a valuable spent time. That is Instead of equivalent effort in general progress. Now all nations are affected by this setback.
As evolution has shown us, progress achieved by/during war (in humans) and hunter vs hunted (in the rest of animals), will get life to a certain level of accomplishment in its aim of continuation. once that level is reached however the best way to avoid stagnation or deterioration or even a nightmare of nuclear war in respect the progress of life of our time is to continue the process of dispatching and evolving on own -- EVOLUTION.
Otherwise if we can't prepare at least few of our most advanced nations to maximize their isolation as much as they can to avoid general interferences and influences back and forth among them and the rest, they will be not as fast advancing enough as we wish them to be. We will be trapped here in this world without achieving of securing the continuity of life out of earth... and that is our main goal and responsibility. Remember, we are here as a fruit of the millions of years of hard work of our simpler forefathers.
Now let’s take this perspective in today’s times. Let’s have one developed and another developing country. The developed one is clearly a fruit of the hardship of the developing country. We had to divide ourselves from the savanna of Africa and evolve most separately in different places to achieve this progress and something tells me we need to do it again for more progress plus it is the routine in evolution.
Now back to the two exampled countries, they should do their best to insure the developed country continues to strive and become a launching form to the next step. If its focus is much diverted in to doing other earthly things with the rest, the goal will not be achieved in the window of opportunity of time that we have now. And the developed one should try to leave the developing country behind as much as possible for the sake of not slowing itself plus the other country should be seen as a reserve plan with preferably at least a bit different ways in development instead of following exactly the same path as the developed one. In case the progress of the developed one comes in danger, in the further future, we will have the developing country’s ways as a reserve plan insured to launch the next batch of dispatch or another attempt.
Now take that perspective to today’s world. We need to work hard globally to secure the continuity and to have a reserve plan for LIFE (reservation of some parts of us). Let’s not draw each other backwards through conflicts; to separate and evolve is the next best solution if not the ultimate best one at times, if we can't progress all in the same pace and at a 100% agreeable the right way between all of us. Peace and happiness to you all.
in my opinion, the biggest loss of resource is in terms of overall progress. it exhausts a large part of the focus of national efforts in terms of economical, man-power, and worst of all it occupies the mindset of that nation for a valuable spent time. That is Instead of equivalent effort in general progress. Now all nations are affected by this setback.
As evolution has shown us, progress achieved by/during war (in humans) and hunter vs hunted (in the rest of animals), will get life to a certain level of accomplishment in its aim of continuation. once that level is reached however the best way to avoid stagnation or deterioration or even a nightmare of nuclear war in respect the progress of life of our time is to continue the process of dispatching and evolving on own -- EVOLUTION.
Otherwise if we can't prepare at least few of our most advanced nations to maximize their isolation as much as they can to avoid general interferences and influences back and forth among them and the rest, they will be not as fast advancing enough as we wish them to be. We will be trapped here in this world without achieving of securing the continuity of life out of earth... and that is our main goal and responsibility. Remember, we are here as a fruit of the millions of years of hard work of our simpler forefathers.
Now let’s take this perspective in today’s times. Let’s have one developed and another developing country. The developed one is clearly a fruit of the hardship of the developing country. We had to divide ourselves from the savanna of Africa and evolve most separately in different places to achieve this progress and something tells me we need to do it again for more progress plus it is the routine in evolution.
Now back to the two exampled countries, they should do their best to insure the developed country continues to strive and become a launching form to the next step. If its focus is much diverted in to doing other earthly things with the rest, the goal will not be achieved in the window of opportunity of time that we have now. And the developed one should try to leave the developing country behind as much as possible for the sake of not slowing itself plus the other country should be seen as a reserve plan with preferably at least a bit different ways in development instead of following exactly the same path as the developed one. In case the progress of the developed one comes in danger, in the further future, we will have the developing country’s ways as a reserve plan insured to launch the next batch of dispatch or another attempt.
Now take that perspective to today’s world. We need to work hard globally to secure the continuity and to have a reserve plan for LIFE (reservation of some parts of us). Let’s not draw each other backwards through conflicts; to separate and evolve is the next best solution if not the ultimate best one at times, if we can't progress all in the same pace and at a 100% agreeable the right way between all of us. Peace and happiness to you all.