Who would win in a war? All out and no allies nor NATO intervention

Turkey obviously but this is an artificial scenario. Why do you think Greece joined NATO?

Because the Anglos made a civil war there to stop them from becoming communist?

You do realize Turkey is in NATO as well, right? Also Turkey invaded cyprus as a NATO country before as well, and ethnically cleansed the northern part of greeks and repopulated it with turkish settlets (war crime). NATO didn't do anything then, it wouldn't shit in case of war because turkey is too important.

Cyprus is not mainland Greece. An all-out war does not mean border clashes and small-scale occupation.

NATO and the EU would be dissolved if they did nothing.

Cyprus wasn't a border clash, it was literally an invasion that carved out a second republic on the island with thousands of casualties.

>NATO and the EU would be dissolved if they did nothing.
That's not how geopolitics work. Noone is willing to provoke Turkey's armed forces. If such a war happened, help from NATO and EU would peak with supplies and armaments to greece, but people wouldn't get involved. Are you really oblivious as to how much the EU and NATO has let Turkey get away since forever? They've done shit 10 times as bad as Russia has yet the only bad press they get is muh erdo nowadays.

It was Greece's fault for trying to annex Cyprus in teh first place.

You don't need to start a war with Turkey to stop it in its tracks, all you need to do is stage a coup or get the Kurds to start some shit.

This is incorrect on many fronts. Turks were a small minority of the population, so the validity of the coup is debatable rather than immediately rejectable. Turks were often even favored in the market despite being minorities, they had it really well.

Beyond that, you're also incorrect about assuming the turks invaded to stop the coup. There were 2 turkish invasions of cyprus at the time. One of them was meant to ensure the independence of cyprus (very aggressive move, but legal). The second invasion was completely unwarranted and its purpose was to conquer as much cypriot territory as possible and ethnically cleanse it and resettle it.

If you're a mutt please refrain from posting even if you'e just trying to be contrarian.

The turkish government has a very strong grip on its minorities my man. Beyond that, there are many ultranationalist groups in Turkey (e.g. Grey Wolves) that are heavily militarized and have strong support in eastern high % minority non-turkish regions. You can't topple them as easily as you think.

There is a line. Turkey isn't powerful enough to throw their weight around that much. It doesn't matter that they're also a NATO member.

Where was Greece's counter-invasion of Turkey if it was such a great conflict? Where were bombers over Istanbul and Athens?

Trying to annex Cyprus was literally illegal and specifically stated that an invasion was justified if it was ever attempted in whatever diplomatic treaty (forget the name). It's not debatable.

What did Turkey do with the Greek Cypriots when they invaded? Did they YEAH KILL EM, or did they just make them leave?

US didn't allow it to escalate. Not only didn't the the Greek junta at the time counter-attack on Turkish soil but it actually called back the subs, ships and planes it originally sent to defend Cyprus.

Are you actually retarded? Did you read my post? I literally said it was legal. But you ignored the part where the turks also did something illegal, which is what everyone refers to when they talk about the invasion of cyprus.

stop posting

Turkey is powerful enough to throw their weight around for sure. It's just not profitable for them. This scenario would never happen because even if they managed to take over greece they would lose too much in the process. This is also the reason that greece invests in military so much. Not to attack turkey, but to render any turkish invasions unfavourable economically for the turkish side.

>Where was Greece's counter-invasion of Turkey if it was such a great conflict? Where were bombers over Istanbul and Athens?
Why are you being intentionally dense? Neither of us implied that was an all out war, I just said it was a more signifcant conflict than you made it out to be. And I'm not even talking about the hundreds of thousands of expelled civillians btw. Besides, Greece was not even an organized entity at the time. The junta that had caused this cyprus enosis fiasco was being toppled by the people at Athens after this, so all forces were pulled back. No continuity of authority to order anything.

Greece was under a junta then? When was this?

>The turkish government has a very strong grip on its minorities my man
Not really true, it has an actual ongoing COIN conflict/low-intensity war within its borders and has just started two more of those in Syrian and Iraqi Kurdistan respectively. All you need to do is fan those flames.

Yeah, all you need to do, it's that easy man!

Jesus, just go on wikipedia mate. What's the point in making arguments stuff you know literally nothing about?

Just stop posting

The entire history of modern turkey (the pro-european secular liberals that all you westerners love btw) involves genociding any minority that MIGHT become a problem in the future. Turkey doesn't have the constraints of european countries when it comes to minorities. If there's any insurrection, they'll move in and genocide them, plain and simple. And the west will turn a blind eye as it did with Afrin.

I didn't make an argument m8. I was just lurking.

Lmao to beat Russia in war we just start a revolution in Chechnya and Tatarstan. It's literally that easy bro, just do it

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_military_junta_of_1967–1974

Here you go dude. Worth noting that before the colonels took over greece the far-right section of the military had heavy CIA backing. And many rumours exist even today that the CIA backed the coup itself.

Oh damn, need to read up on this. Thanks!

If that were the case the PKK wouldn't exist anymore. Having the intention to remove the Kurds and the ability to do it are two different things.

The OP is about an all-out war mate. Clearly occupying Cyprus wasn't important enough to bother anyone (including Greece). As I said, an invasion of Greece itself would be a different story, provided Greece actually took some initiative and didn't capitulate instantly.

Turkey is not powerful enough to threaten the Western powers. Go home Ibrahim.

You actually have a pretty good track record at this, I don't know why you're implying it's difficult.

>And many rumours exist even today that the CIA backed the coup itself.
>Rumours
lol m8 Bill Clinton literally apologised for it when he visited Greece.

Are you trying to prove my point or is this the famous american brainlet at work?

Turkey would absolutely BTFO greece.
In fact i am pretty sure Turkey would even defeat france if no nukes allowed.

Well, the PKK is an organization, it's not a country you can just attack and pick who to kill and who to spare. Being suspected as a PKK member is a death sentence in turkey and is often used as a justification for imprisonment. It's a matter of hiding from there. Snuffing out members of an organization is much more difficult than walking in a given territory like they did with Afrin.

>Clearly occupying Cyprus wasn't important enough to bother anyone (including Greece)
Like I said before "greece" wasn't a thing at the time. The ruling junta dissolved when it happened, and "greece" was focusing on internal affairs and restoring the republic. Different circumstances. I agree that invasion of greece would be different but

>Turkey is not powerful enough to threaten the Western powers
That's the problem, greece isn't "western powers". It's an expendable puppet of western powers. Even recently turkey has been provoking greece with threats of invasion and annexation of islands, but the EU has said 0 about it. The "western powers" value turkey more than greece, period. It all depends on what turkey would plan to do after the annexation of greece. If it intended to hurt western powers, then you would help greece more and actively try to stop it. If not, just let the dogs fight.

Plus you referred to the OP, which specifies no alliances.

>tf
>tp
clockwork

Like others (and you) have said, Greece's high militarization means that Turkey would incur far too many losses to even want to start that war. That's why all Turkish/Greek conflict scenarios of the past two decades regard either disputed islets or more recently the snatching of resources (off-shore gas reserves).

>Clearly occupying Cyprus wasn't important enough to bother anyone (including Greece).
Not exactly true. The roots of the Cypriot issue was that a commie was in power and had to be removed as a giant Soviet aircraft carrier (what Cyprus is really) in the middle of the Eastern med was an unacceptable scenario.

The far-right Greek coup guerrillas were the only ones who could remove him and then handing over half the island to Turkey was the only way to make sure the geopolitical balance in the area didn't shift drastically and anger the Turks. Giving all of Cyprus to Greece instantly would have moved Greece up one level as a player and angered Turkey who was a much more useful ally against the Soviets. On the other hand giving Turkey to Cyprus didn't really change Turkey's strategic capability and cucking Greece to keep Turkey happy incurred zero risk as Greece had a fanatically anti-Soviet junta and no real prospects of swapping sides in the Cold War following the events of the Greek Civil War.

Once you look at the conflict in the prism of the Cold War it's very easy to understand what happened.

It's much the same with Afrin. The Kurds were used to remove ISIS and make sure it wasn't captured by Assad forces. Once that was done, it was time to hand it over to the only suitable candidate (Turkey), as a Kurdish state reaching the Med via Afrin would drastically upgrade the Kurds value and anger the Turks. Literally the same story.

Greece would get stomped.

>walking in a given territory like they did with Afrin.
That happened because the Kurds strategically retreated to avoid heavy losses in a fight they had been tipped off they were doomed to lose. Possibly why the Greek junta recalled those ships/subs/plans and de-escalated the Cyprus conflict.

In fact, both Cyprus and Afrin were handled in literally the only practical/safe way you can handle such a scenario.

*On the other hand giving Cyprus to Turkey

Turkey, but I'd still like to think if Turkey started shit they'd get the whole of Europe and probably Russia against them.

Here's why that's a good thing

The point of that example was to show that, for a very strong military power, eliminating people that are concentrated in a given territory is much easier than detecting and eliminating agents of an organization that is assimilated in the host country (PKK). The reason I made this example is because you implied that eliminating a whole minority concentrated in armed fronts against turkey = eliminating the PKK. These two problems have very different solutions, and for the latter, the solution is always more difficult and requires more time.

This is a pretty good analysis. With my posts I wanted to explain to the guy that turkey always gets what it wants, regardless of the "western solidarity" meme many people are fed. That doesn't exist. And Turkey is always the special snowflake in the area because it plays all sides and is powerful. It's a huge injustice, but that's just how it is.

>In fact i am pretty sure Turkey would even defeat france if no nukes allowed.
In what way? Neither country has the capacity to launch amphibious assaults against a real opponent. There'd be no way for either France or Turkey to attack the other except with air forces and maybe naval ships.

Is it true that the west stopped caring for greece except the classical period? I get that feeling.

Ireland knows that feel.

France is the only other country in NATO/the EU, together with the UK, with any semblance of a capability to project power.

>Neither country has the capacity to launch amphibious assaults against a real opponent
>muh muhrines
You're forgetting that they don't need to stage an amphibious assault as you can literally drive non-stop from Paris to Turkish Thrace by motorway, driving through exclusively EU clay, using your air-superiority to defend the land forces and prepare the ground for the assault.

The west didn't exist during the classical period. Unless you consider germanic barbarians "west", in which case, the west most certainly did not care for greece or rome in a good way lel.

Beyond that, the west as you know it never cared for greece because of the religious schism of the 11th century and before that because the greeks got their own empire over time (byzantine). When the west truly started to exist after the 1000s, the byzantines were either viewed unfavourably despite being richer and "protecting" the west from arab invasion, or were under turkish rule.

In the modern period the west created greece as a way to contain the spread of the ottomans and hurt them. So I can't really say that the west ever cared for greece throughout its history, beyond appropriating greek culture.

based ireland

>With my posts I wanted to explain to the guy that turkey always gets what it wants, regardless of the "western solidarity" meme many people are fed. That doesn't exist. And Turkey is always the special snowflake in the area because it plays all sides and is powerful. It's a huge injustice, but that's just how it is.

No that's simply not true, Turkey gets away with what it can afford to get away with - never more. Turkey had special status in the area during the Cold War and has a still special but somewhat diminished one now. However, it only gets handed the rewards and beneficial treatment that its usefulness at any given point will afford it.

If Turkey could *really* have their way the MB (who they wasted billions on) would still control Egypt and Libya, they would they would have all of Cyprus, all the gas reserves of the Eastern Med, no Kurds, PKK, Syrian or Iraqi Kurdistan, a nuclear program, a strong space program, be a real defense export industry player and a member of the EU/NATO all at the same time but they're not.

Any Western client state in the ME, be it Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, whoever, always gets rewarded in proportion to their usefulness and is always reminded that no-one is replaceable (like any client-state and any client-state leader should always remember).

I was assuming it was purely France vs Turkey and other countries in-between would remain neutral, which means no driving.

I wrote wrong i meant that west only care about classical period.

>Turkey gets away with what it can afford to get away with
Which is a fuckton basically. But obviously that's what I meant, Turkey doesn't "want" all the things you mentioned because if it wanted them it would ignore geopolitical status quo and go for them. They want to keep the west happy AND get their piece of the pie. That's what they want. I'm not sure why you misinterpreted my post, maybe I said it badly or it's a semantic issue. But I agree with what you said anyway, never implied otherwise.

Minor Turkish victory. Turkey annexs those islands closer to its Anatolian mainland and Exclusive Economic Area around those islands. youtube.com/watch?v=tCGAHi38bfM

Don't about other clauses of Lausanne treaty if they would keep autonomies and minority rights of each side with a new treay.

The West stopped caring about Greece in the 1800s when they got over their Philhellenist boner and realized modern Greece was nothing like ancient Greece and that their romanticist image was dead. Greece is absolutely positively no different from Turkey or any Balkan country, they just had better historical luck. If Philhellenism wasn't a movement at the time of the Greek uprisings then there would be no Greece, period.

Oh sorry, then yeah you'd be right. The reason for that is because the renaissance and thus modern western culture is based on revived classical greek culture. So it makes sense.

Philhellenism is irrelevant to our history to be honest, the reasons for greece's independence have NOTHING to do with philhellenic support from western countries. It was just meant to weaken the ottomans, nothing more. Keep in mind there were rebellions in greece before the one in 1821, and the west ignored them.

Interestingly the only people I see spouting this meme you posted are Turks that try to equate all of the balkans with them and in an attempt to humiliate the greeks for not acting like people from 3000 years ago. Either way, it's retarded. Like I said before, stop posting.

>Turkey doesn't "want" all the things you mentioned because if it wanted them it would ignore geopolitical status quo and go for them
I disagree. They tried to go for Egypt and they tried to go for Libya and got a smack in the face in each case and lost billions. They hoped the FSA could take all of Syria and instead got all of Europe and the US sending weapons and military aid to the Kurds to make sure no-one *really* controls it. They tried to fuck with Israel with the Mavi Marmara bullshit and got replaced and downgraded as a military partner within a year by both the US and Israel in favour of Greece, Italy and Egypt. They tried to claim all of the Cypriot gas reserves and turn into an energy player - most recently by attempting to block Eni's and ExxonMobil's drill ships - and got the Italian Navy and the 26th MEU in response. What you see is that Turkey's "acceptable" status (a militarily capable regional enforcer) is lower than what Turkey aspired to (an energy producer with actual geopolitical projection power aka a mini-Russia).

Philhellenist intellectuals certainly had a huge part in creating support for Greek independence. It's crazy to state otherwise. The powers at be had no interest at weakening the so called concert of Europe. In any normal timeline, the Egyptians crush the last of the Greek uprising like they did in our timeline and there is no naval intervention by the West. You got lucky.

t. brainlet

Probably a tad over-exagerrated. But this should give a little insight into how deadly it could be.

Attached: Screenshot (71).png (314x392, 21K)

But they didn't go all out attack in any of those activities. Which means they didn't want to anger their western masters, like I said. Turkey wants to be a bigger player, but if it really *wanted* to try, it would go much further than that. The variable of the west is always there for them. I'm not sure why you think our opinions are in conflict.

Philhellenist intellectuals were individuals, and they helped finance rebels and civillians. They were a catalyst to that specific revolution being the decisive one instead of a few years later, but that's it. Greece didn't get lucky because independence was inevitable anyway. The Ottomans were in decline and a century later disintegrated. None of the balkans got the kind of european help we did and yet got their independence just the same. You're delusional if you think philhellenic intervention is the reason for greece's modern independence.

Nobody really likes Greece anymore. We're not going to protect them. The EU thinks they're a joke. Eastern European countries don't consider them a model anymore. It's a failed state in shambles. Turkey will conquer Greece again, it's not a matter of if but a matter of when. If Greeks are stupid enough to elect fascists or communists they could kiss their NATO membership goodbye.

No-one commits money, arms and troops to a cause just because some poet/historian told them it would be a nice idea to revive Greece.

The Greek Independence War in '21 was the stage rehearsal for the carving up of the Ottoman empire and the creation of new nation-states out of thin air that followed. My guess is that the rest of Europe deemed the Ottomans with their control of Suez and the Red Sea as too much of a potential hindrance/threat to trade with Asia. Only twenty after years after Greece's independence and the start of Turkey's downfall you have the official foundation of the Raj by the British and Cochinchina Campaign by the French and Spanish in Indochina.

We've only really got a minor difference in our opinion:

>But they didn't go all out attack in any of those activities.
When you say this it seems to imply that Turkey had the capability to realistically do anything more than it did. Turkey literally didn't have the option to invade Egypt or Libya (I assume that's what you mean "all out attack"), they don't even have the capability to project power that far let alone win a war there.

Their "all-out" option was exactly what they did. They showered the MB with money and support hoping they'd win. If they did Turkey got an energy player and the region's second strongest military power on their side + an unbroken EEZ between them and Egypt (so they got a cut of Cypriot gas too) + billions of dollars worth in defense procurement contracts for the Turks (Morsi literally announced those when he was in power). If they didn't win, they risked the opposition cutting all ties with Turkey at a huge cost - which is what happened.

As far as "all-out" plays go, Turkey's play in Egypt was right up there they literally couldn't do anything more. That doesn't show to me the restraint that you imply they show. And yes, this more of a recent phenomenon as originally the AKP and certainly almost all the preceding CHP and military governments were a lot more restrained and orderly.

I implied that if Turkey really wanted to go all out they would invade, but you're right in that even they knew that the result would never be good for them regardless of western involvement/dynamic. Therefore from their POV the best they could do to increase their influence was what they did. So yeah nvm you were right.

>even they knew that the result would never be good for them regardless of western involvement/dynamic
Exactly. I forgot to mention that in the case of Egypt they and the MB played the role of EOKA in Cyprus and the Kurds in Afrin. Their job was to remove Mubarak and then gtfo, like EOKA had to remove Makarios and the Kurds, ISIS.

They probably thought that in the ensuing chaos they could retain control of Egypt and Libya and trade that for further rewards with the West. It would also be super hard for the West to officially reprimand them for pulling off that shit since with the exception of a few recently arrested MIT agents, Turkey didn't have any provable presence in either of those countries (unlike the military invasion scenario you mentioned).

Greeks are semites so I see no advantage they may have.

True, the west let is slide because Turkey was needed as a bullwark against "gommunism" and greek cypriots got fucked hard. No such thing as permanent alliances friend

>greeks are semites
delete

Nah, Turkey has no real modern weaponry and no capability to develop it themselves. At this point France would still win, but maybe in fifty years not anymore.

Why does no one have faith in Greece?

Turkey is getting cucked by kurds.
Istanbul alone has 3 Million kurds, thats 20% of the entire population.
Eastern turkey is about 80% kurdish.
Most kurds support the PKK.
Kurdish women have 5-7 children in average.
Turkey has no future.

american flags writing about Greece are usually muslim

yesterday some muslim subhuman pretended to be a welsh american

Attached: albanian in italy.png (2480x1924, 750K)