Turkey Preparing for War with Israel

[Kemaliste]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Wa ... dependence

Against the most powerful nations at the same time and different fronts. Couldn't we handle a simple and small 10 millions nation ?

none of Turkish soldiers are afraid to die, don't worry.

Fighting 3 Frenchmen and a British gunboat isn't winning a decisive victory against the most powerful nations of the era.
Had the really wished to they could have mopped the floor the Turkey and laughed over it later. They'd already mopped the floor with the Turks before. But there was no real interest in fighting over another scratch of useless territory.

Haha really ? And UK won against ottoman palace elite useless army which could be defeat by even some sheeps. (Ataturk said for Ottoman army, '' We can't even handle sheeps by such an army '')

So It's not a measure. Since 1919, Our Kemalist and Brave army are never afraid to fight against anybody. We made Cyprus Operation despite American embargo, mading our own weapons thanks to people's support.

I don't know any army which has soldiers who could run onto enemy soldiers without having any weapon just in order to keep them back for a while until other armed battalion come. Sorry but no army has such a spirit.

[Keronians]

Not really.

Its power depended heavily on its colonies. And France did not want to fight the war from its colonies.

France did not want to fight the war period.

But that's not why they lost.

It was Dunkirk, and the fact that the French officer corps was actually quite awful.

However, the French Army fought quite well in the actual battles, if their strategy left much to be desired.

My history teacher is crying right now. Though I have yet to determine whether it's from laughter or sadness.

Keronians: "LOL cheese eating surrender monkeys derp derp"

Their strategy left much to be desired? That is an understatement.

They fortified the border but completely forgot about their border with Belgium, which is where the Germans came from.

Yeah. Dunkirk. Good thing the Germans didn't decide to attack at Dunkirk, or France would have fallen even earlier, and Britain would have been sitting pretty putting all of its eggs into pulling off some sort of miracle.

The French army did no such thing. The French army caved after Dunkirk, quite quickly. Petain and co. agreed to a "peace treaty", which was more or less in line with the opinion of the majority of France at the time.

France could have, easily, continued the battle from Africa. They did not.



Unlike you, I've actually had to study this shit. And what you're saying is complete bullshit. And I fail to see why I would think the French were "surrender monkeys" when they had been completely militarily beaten.

[Keronians]

I don't think any nation wanted to fight in the war. Period.

WW2? The Germans definitely did.

No, they didn't.

[Keronians]

Their General staff were shit.

So whether the French army was good or not is irrelevant if they lacked the officers to be able to formulate competent strategies?

A good general staff is a part of a good army.

Anyway, now I see where Galla is coming from, and his statements make much more sense now.

[Kulverint]

Let me guess, "teh evul Jewish lobbyists that control the government" right?

Can you provide a source that any pro-Israeli lobbyist has made such claims? Or is it you are simply being silly?[/quote]

No, he's quoting effectively what you said. He said he disagreed with the Israeli government's policies, so you said the above.

[The Matthew Islands]

Haha really ? And UK won against ottoman palace elite useless army which could be defeat by even some sheeps. (Ataturk said for Ottoman army, '' We can't even handle sheeps by such an army '')

So It's not a measure. Since 1919, Our Kemalist and Brave army are never afraid to fight against anybody. We made Cyprus Operation despite American embargo, mading our own weapons thanks to people's support.

I don't know any army which has soldiers who could run onto enemy soldiers without having any weapon just in order to keep them back for a while until other armed battalion come. Sorry but no army has such a spirit.

Your first part doesn't make any sense.

So what if you made the controversial invasion of Cyprus. If that's all Turkey has to show off its military skill then its not got much going for it.

Actually most armies would probably do that, but most armies are usually capable of resupplying their troops.

[Jagalonia]

I'm still failing to see a source, Galla-, on just how france had this advantage at the start of WW2.

Sure, they were the only ones with a S/H tank, but it was so crappy, they didn't even use it...

[The Matthew Islands]

So whether the French army was good or not is irrelevant if they lacked the officers to be able to formulate competent strategies?

A good general staff is a part of a good army.

So France had half a good army?

[Keronians]

A good general staff is a part of a good army.

So France had half a good army?

Yes.

Bear in mind though that the rest of the World, with the exception of Japan, the British Empire, the US (which had severely disarmed), no other country had a half-decent army.

[Nightkill the Emperor]

A good general staff is a part of a good army.

So France had half a good army?

Yes.

[The Matthew Islands]

Yes.

Bear in mind though that the rest of the World, with the exception of Japan, the British Empire, the US (which had severely disarmed), no other country had a half-decent army.

I wouldn't say the British Army at the time was all that good.

What about the German Army in your list?

[Galla-]

France did not want to fight the war period.

But that's not why they lost.

It was Dunkirk, and the fact that the French officer corps was actually quite awful.

However, the French Army fought quite well in the actual battles, if their strategy left much to be desired.



Keronians: "LOL cheese eating surrender monkeys derp derp"

Their strategy left much to be desired? That is an understatement.

They fortified the border but completely forgot about their border with Belgium, which is where the Germans came from.

Yeah. Dunkirk. Good thing the Germans didn't decide to attack at Dunkirk, or France would have fallen even earlier, and Britain would have been sitting pretty putting all of its eggs into pulling off some sort of miracle.

The French army did no such thing. The French army caved after Dunkirk, quite quickly. Petain and co. agreed to a "peace treaty", which was more or less in line with the opinion of the majority of France at the time.

France could have, easily, continued the battle from Africa. They did not.



Unlike you, I've actually had to study this shit. And what you're saying is complete bullshit. And I fail to see why I would think the French were "surrender monkeys" when they had been completely militarily beaten.

Rofl.

The French and British not only knew the Germans would attack through Belgium, they planned for it. They just planned poorly, and were basing it on how long Belgium fortresses would be able to hold out against determined German assaults. The whole idea was to hold the Germans within Belgium due to those forts, and the Maginot Line, so elements of the BEF and the French Army could counterattack and destroy the German Army.

It fell apart when the Allies failed to seize the initiative by attacking the weak German positions in the West.

And FTR, both French and British units operated tank troops in the Ardennes. It was nothing new. The Germans moved too quickly for the French general staff to muster a proper counterattack, and they panicked.

[Keronians]

Their strategy left much to be desired? That is an understatement.

They fortified the border but completely forgot about their border with Belgium, which is where the Germans came from.

Yeah. Dunkirk. Good thing the Germans didn't decide to attack at Dunkirk, or France would have fallen even earlier, and Britain would have been sitting pretty putting all of its eggs into pulling off some sort of miracle.

The French army did no such thing. The French army caved after Dunkirk, quite quickly. Petain and co. agreed to a "peace treaty", which was more or less in line with the opinion of the majority of France at the time.

France could have, easily, continued the battle from Africa. They did not.



Unlike you, I've actually had to study this shit. And what you're saying is complete bullshit. And I fail to see why I would think the French were "surrender monkeys" when they had been completely militarily beaten.

Rofl.

The French and British not only knew the Germans would attack through Belgium, they planned for it. They just planned poorly, and were basing it on how long Belgium fortresses would be able to hold out against determined German assaults. The whole idea was to hold the Germans within Belgium due to those forts, and the Maginot Line, so elements of the BEF and the French Army could counterattack and destroy the German Army.

It fell apart when the Allies failed to seize the initiative by attacking the weak German positions in the West.

And FTR, both French and British units operated tank troops in the Ardennes. It was nothing new. The Germans moved too quickly for the French general staff to muster a proper counterattack, and they panicked.

Which is what you'd call a bad defense.

[Keronians]

Yes.

Bear in mind though that the rest of the World, with the exception of Japan, the British Empire, the US (which had severely disarmed), no other country had a half-decent army.

I wouldn't say the British Army at the time was all that good.

What about the German Army in your list?

The Germans up until around 1938 was extremely overrated.

Had the French done something about the Rhineland in 1936, the Germans would have gotten their asses kicked, and WWII would have probably never happened.

Well... the Japanese expansion of territory would have probably still happened...

[Alyakia]

Rofl.

The French and British not only knew the Germans would attack through Belgium, they planned for it. They just planned poorly, and were basing it on how long Belgium fortresses would be able to hold out against determined German assaults. The whole idea was to hold the Germans within Belgium due to those forts, and the Maginot Line, so elements of the BEF and the French Army could counterattack and destroy the German Army.

It fell apart when the Allies failed to seize the initiative by attacking the weak German positions in the West.

And FTR, both French and British units operated tank troops in the Ardennes. It was nothing new. The Germans moved too quickly for the French general staff to muster a proper counterattack, and they panicked.

Which is what you'd call a bad defense.

Hmph! American spellings?!

Had the French done something about the Rhineland in 1936, the Germans would have gotten their asses kicked, and WWII would have probably never happened.

Isn't that a Hitler quote?

[Galla-]

Rofl.

The French and British not only knew the Germans would attack through Belgium, they planned for it. They just planned poorly, and were basing it on how long Belgium fortresses would be able to hold out against determined German assaults. The whole idea was to hold the Germans within Belgium due to those forts, and the Maginot Line, so elements of the BEF and the French Army could counterattack and destroy the German Army.

It fell apart when the Allies failed to seize the initiative by attacking the weak German positions in the West.

And FTR, both French and British units operated tank troops in the Ardennes. It was nothing new. The Germans moved too quickly for the French general staff to muster a proper counterattack, and they panicked.

Which is what you'd call a bad defense.

Which does not necessarily mean that the French had a bad army.

They fought quite well in battles and gave as good as they got, but had a poor overall strategic plan.

Hardly cowards.

Much like the Poles, actually.

[Keronians]

Which is what you'd call a bad defense.

Hmph! American spellings?!

Had the French done something about the Rhineland in 1936, the Germans would have gotten their asses kicked, and WWII would have probably never happened.

Isn't that a Hitler quote?

There is one about it.

It's about how those 48 hours were the worst of his life, and how if the French had retaliated, they would have had to retreat, and he would probably have been forced to resign.

[Keronians]

Which is what you'd call a bad defense.

Which does not necessarily mean that the French had a bad army.

They fought quite well in battles and gave as good as they got, but had a poor overall strategic plan.

Hardly cowards.

I never called them cowards.

Good logistics and a good general staff is a defining characteristic of a good army.

But when you mentioned that, your statements made much more sense.

[Farnhamia]

Quality? When was the last time the Turks actual fought anyone besides Kurds and Cypriot Greeks?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Wa ... dependence

Against the most powerful nations at the same time and different fronts. Couldn't we handle a simple and small 10 millions nation ?

none of Turkish soldiers are afraid to die, don't worry.

You win wars by making the other guys die for their country, not by dying for yours. And that was almost 100 years ago. All those soldiers are dead, or most of them.

[UnitedStatesOfAmerica-]

Turkey has ended all defense trade relations with Israel.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Officials and analysts say those contracts are complete and no new large agreements have been signed for several years as political relations soured. Now, the main potential loss is the purchase of spare parts from Israel, should Turkey strictly enforce its own embargo. Turkey's defense exports to Israel tend to be lower-end equipment, such as uniforms, analysts said

Responding to a question about reports that Turkey would begin patrolling waters off Israel and whether that risked conflict, Prime Minister Erdogan said Turkey had a right to do so.

They are claiming the right to put ships in Israeli waters and a right to run a perfectly legal blockade of a terrorist outpost.

[Alyakia]

Which is what you'd call a bad defense.

Which does not necessarily mean that the French had a bad army.

They fought quite well in battles and gave as good as they got, but had a poor overall strategic plan.

Hardly cowards.

Much like the Poles, actually.

No really tell me about French tanks. ):

[Nazi Israel Land]

Personally I think Netanyahu should apologize for the commandos, but the activists should apologize for illegally trying to break the blockade and putting the commandos in that position and trying to kill them.

[Noders]

Turkey=ZERG RUSHHHH! Isreal=Protoss that a bout sums it up folks

[Alyakia]

Turkey has ended all defense trade relations with Israel.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... lenews_wsj

Officials and analysts say those contracts are complete and no new large agreements have been signed for several years as political relations soured. Now, the main potential loss is the purchase of spare parts from Israel, should Turkey strictly enforce its own embargo. Turkey's defense exports to Israel tend to be lower-end equipment, such as uniforms, analysts said

Responding to a question about reports that Turkey would begin patrolling waters off Israel and whether that risked conflict, Prime Minister Erdogan said Turkey had a right to do so.

They are claiming the right to put ships in Israeli waters and a right to run a perfectly legal blockade of a terrorist outpost.

Does waters "off Israel" necessarily correlate with Israeli waters?

[Alyakia]

Personally I think Netanyahu should apologize for the commandos, but the activists should apologize for illegally trying to break the blockade and putting the commandos in that position and trying to kill them.

Putting the commandos in that position? Oh for fucks sake.