Cyprus-Forum.com

[pitsilos]

It means that yes, the big powers did give Cyprus its independence, symbolically, but effectively, its government was still dependent on Greece, Turkey and Britain.

dependance was of quaranteeing the integrity and upholding the constitution and thats all.. nothing about ethnic cleansing and colonization. this is a fact which is documented. and i bet kifeas will be able to give you more on the invasion as the RoC was a member of the un charter.

anyway, i think if you concetrate on specific issues as the akritas plan you will do better rather than concetrate on the inter communal fighting.

also the tcs had their own version. worth looking into this as well.

[reportfromcyprus]

It means that yes, the big powers did give Cyprus its independence, symbolically, but effectively, its government was still dependent on Greece, Turkey and Britain.

dependance was of quaranteeing the integrity and upholding the constitution and thats all.. nothing about ethnic cleansing and colonization. this is a fact which is documented. and i bet kifeas will be able to give you more on the invasion as the RoC was a member of the un charter.

anyway, i think if you concetrate on specific issues as the akritas plan you will do better rather than concetrate on the inter communal fighting.

also the tcs had their own version. worth looking into this as well.

We have to take things in the context of the times also, don't you think?

If we look at the war of independence against Britain, there were already the seeds of partition; Greece wanted Cyprus, Turkey wanted Cyprus.

As I understand it, the treaty was to prevent either country from uniting with the island and to set it up as an independent republic. If there was an attempt by Greece or Turkey to unite with Cyprus, then Turkey/Greece/ Britain had the right (according to the treaty) to take military action and intervene.

The treaty doesn't say that any of the guarantor powers has the right to occupy the island or force people out of their homes, and Turkey is in violation of 12 points in the human rights convention and numerous un resolutions, no one can disagree with this.

[pitsilos]

on this we both agree, noone had the right to partition the counry. greece was wrong, but they were dealt with very quickly, while turkey ceazed the moment to this very day. and this is he problem we are facing today. contrary to what they signed.

Why not write a book about why the uk sat on the sidelines and allowed for this to happen? when they knew of the turkish intentions. this will be a good book and the research could lead you to somewhere else.

anyway gnight as its pretty late in my part of the woods and good luck with what ever you decide.

ps. go for it and looking forward to reading your future book on what ever you decide to write on...just make sure its in english

[devil]

Why not write a book about why the uk sat on the sidelines and allowed for this to happen?

This is why I suggested 1954 would be a good starting date, because it was the British "divide and rule" policy that used TCs to try and suppress enosis rallies and later EOKA activities that is the real reason why we have the situation today. Field Marshal Sir John Harding, as Governor (succeeding Sir Robert Armitage, who was a nonentity), was a brute who had a lot to answer for with summary executions of Cypriots with little evidence and he fomented the "great divide" more than anyone. Sir Hugh Foot later tried a lot of damage limitation, but it was too late; Harding had done his very bad worst.

However, two events in 1954 really started off the whole disintegration of Cypriot confidence in the Brits. One was the declaration by a Colonial Secretary, whose name escapes me for the moment, in the House of Commons that Cyprus could never be given self-determination. The other was the transfer of General Headquarters, Middle East Land Forces, from Fayid, Egypt, to Nicosia, Dhekelia and Akrotiri. This was seen by many Cypriots as an armed response to their calls for Enosis, even though it was nothing of the sort, but a result of General Nasser's coup, dethroning King Farouk.

[free_cyprus]

Piratis
so far every book thats been writen about cyprus recently is biased eithert aking the turkish side or the greek side either its crap its propoganda for one side or the other to justify their illigal activitis

[halil]

I've realised that there isn't a book on Cyprus' modern history that can claim with any credibility to present the period between 1963-2000 in an unbiased way.

By that I mean in a balanced, non-propaganda style that sticks to the facts.

I'm thinking of writing one - if you have any stories that you can corroborate with evidence, written or photographic, I'd love to hear from you.

wishing u good luck.pls before u write read this web site it will help u a lot.looks like balanced for both sides.

[halil]

I've realised that there isn't a book on Cyprus' modern history that can claim with any credibility to present the period between 1963-2000 in an unbiased way.

By that I mean in a balanced, non-propaganda style that sticks to the facts.

I'm thinking of writing one - if you have any stories that you can corroborate with evidence, written or photographic, I'd love to hear from you.

wishing u good luck.pls before u write read this web site it will help u a lot.looks like balanced for both sides.

web site is:www.country-data.com/frd/cs/cytoc.html

[BigDutch]

i would also be interested to read a book of this nature, but how far back can you go to ensure that you cover the roots of the feelings for communities/countries/peoples involved .... if you try to make a "clean slate" at any point in history you will be "cutting out" the reasons people felt a certain way at your "day zero" of the Cyprus problem.

Not trying to say "don't do it" but just pointing out a difficulty that will immediately make it appear like you took sides.

[Nikephoros]

Don't waste people's time. It is bad enough to read journalists in the newspapers. We do not need journalists thinking they are historians and supermarket readers thinking they have read a real well researched study.

Christopher Hitchens has written a bad enough journalist account.