Cyprus-Forum.com

[observer]

The thread on Turkey not attempting to ally itself with the anti-coupist forces (http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus16484.html ) was interesting. It is true, as Tim Drayton said, that the main opponent to the coupists was EDEK, and also true that coup was public talk weeks in advance. I can’t say whether or not the telephone lines to EDEK’s offices were open, but it still leaves unanswered the question of why the anti-coupists, in the period before the coup or during the coup, did not attempt to ally themselves with their natural allies in Cyprus, the TCs. It wouldn’t have even been an international call.

The leader of EDEK in 1974 was Vassos Lyssarides. He was deeply involved in the EOKA movement and attended the 1959 London Conference as a representative of EOKA, the organization wanting enosis. He was later the leader of the ‘Popular Army’ during what his website still today calls ‘the 1963-64 inter-communal upheavals instigated by Turkey’, a description that only a GC would recognize. At the time of the 1974 coup, Lyssarides was running an irregular paramilitary organization that supported Makarios, who also favoured enosis. The belief that Makarios had not given up his dream of enosis is given weight by references to ‘the National Centre’ (Greece) in his famous and much quoted letter of 2nd July 1974 to the Greek Junta, In the same letter Makarios also says, ‘However, as long as enosis is not feasible it is imperative that the state status of Cyprus should be strengthened’ indicating that he still wanted enosis, but that conditions then current did not make it feasible.

The fact that no TCs were invited by the anti-coupists to join them and fight against the coup, is just one more indication that the events of July 74 were a purely GC affair, between GCs who had grown impatient of the slow progress of enosis were prepared to join a military government in Greece, and GCs who wanted enosis but were prepared to work for it more slowly via the Akritas Plan and didn’t want to join a Greece ruled by the military.

The myth that those fighting against the coup were also against enosis is a GC myth, along with that of EOKA fighters fighting for independence, as opposed to enosis, as anyone who can read graffiti on a wall could have told you.

[Nikitas]

You are totally wrong. The manority of GCs do not want Enosis. Becoming a district of Greece is a nightmare for most of us. Seeing how Enosis has worked out for the TCs it proves that we are right.

You do not take into account the Greek junta, its new leader as of 1973, the psychopath Ioannidis, and his rabid anticommunism and the general anticommunist fervor of the Greek officer corps posted to Cyprus. Their presence was sanctioned by the USA precisely because it was a way to prevent the communist party from winning an election. Their indoctrination of recruits is proof enough.

You are selecting the parts of the picture that suit you and your take on history. You conveniently leave out the Turkish policy of regaining Cyprus if not in whole then in part, and how this policy was put into practice via the TMT and the withdrawal from relations with the GC community as early as 1957. You choose an easy way that suits you. In terms of control and achieving aims the Turkish policy was more effective than the Greek one, the Greeks fell for the American angle that if they prevented communism their hold on the island was guaranteed. The Turks did not believe anyone and acted purely for themselves. Hence the effective annexation and Enosis of the north with Turkey.

Nothing has happened since 1974 to move Cyprus towards Enosis, in fact the independence of the island has been reinforced and strengthened by its joining the EU. In the EU itself Cyprus often joins alliances and interest groups which are different from those that Greece belongs to, education policy being one of the areas where they differ and not the only one.

[Oracle]

... It is true, as Tim Drayton said, that the main opponent to the coupists was EDEK, and also true that coup was public talk weeks in advance ....

Tim said : " .... mainly AKEL and EDEK ..."

[observer]

My point being, not as matters stand now, but as matters stood - or were seen to stand - in 1974.

I believe that you are correct in saying that few GCs want enosis now. There are a number of reasons why this is so, a generally more sophisticated and educated (in its widest sense) population being but one. But just as I think GCs are not all rabidly seeking enosis. the picture portrayed by Oracle (and others) of a power mad, expansionist Turkey is equally wrong.

From about the middle of the 19th Century, Turkey was going downhill. All the independence struggles and mini-wars of the period saw Turkey losing more and more of her territory, culminating in the huge mistake of the First World War. Ataturk could be autocratic, and his version of democracy was far from what would be described as liberal today. But set against its time, when to be European was to use Germany, Italy, Hungary ... and yes, Greece, as your model, especially in a country as politically unsophisticated as Turkey was then, he was far from the most dictatorial, and he certainly was not expansionist.

Reverting to Cyprus, all the evidence seems to point to Turkey being dragged in rather than wanting to invade. I am not aware of any pre-74 Turkish mainstream politician beating the drum for absorbing Cyprus, as was the case with Greek politicians. Maybe Greek politicians were captivated by the acquisition of Crete and the Dodecanese (the latter closer to 74 than we are now) into dreams of a Greater Greece. I know of no mainstream Turkish politician urging an expansion of Turkey's borders.

In 1974, Turkey had a situation less than 60 km off its Southern coast where any reasonable person, looking at the previous 20 years, might expect another attack on a large Turkish-speaking population to which it owed a moral duty, and to which it had treaty obligations. Turkey also had defensive considerations of its own. And the events of 1963/4 and 1967, plus the repeated breaking of the Constitution by GCs gave it ample excuse to intervene if it was just looking for an excuse.

In the summer of 1974, on the one side (and it looked like the winning side) you had an openly enosist leader, with an army well in excess of that allowed in the Constitution, with an illegally large Greek army presence and more Greek officers being flown in. On the other side you had another lot of slightly more moderate enosists, who, if they had given up their dream of enosis, had kept it to themselves, and whose treatment of the TC population over the previous 20 years had not been exactly a shining example of liberal Christian values - in fact the Christian leaders had been among the worst.

So, if you were the Turkish leader on the night of July 19th 1974, with Cyprus about to fall into the hands of a bunch of people who were going for enosis now and then drive out the TCs, or a bunch of people who were going to drive out the TCs then declare enosis (Akritas Plan), what would you have done?

[Nikitas]

As I wrote elsewhere in this forum- it could have invaded, arrested all those responsible for murders, tried them, excluded the old guard who incited the murderers from political life, declared new elections and then left. Leaving behind a stable, chastened, and nationalism free Cyprus. The events show that the aims were totally different to the above.

Onbviously Turkey does not want Cyprus in enemy hands. But through its 30 plus years of occupation of the north it has accomplished precisely that. And the silence on the matter of demilitarisation to include the British baffles me. What makes Turkey so sure that Britain is and will always be a friend and thus does not speka out on the fate of the SBAs?

[wallace]

[quote="observer"]My point being, not as matters stand now, but as matters stood - or were seen to stand - in 1974.

I believe that you are correct in saying that few GCs want enosis now. There are a number of reasons why this is so, a generally more sophisticated and educated (in its widest sense) population being but one. But just as I think GCs are not all rabidly seeking enosis. the picture portrayed by Oracle (and others) of a power mad, expansionist Turkey is equally wrong.



If this is what you believe why do you keep reffering to the past? Why not look for a solution were all Cypriots can gain from? Why do TC's believe that the south of Cyprus has a hidden agenda? And please.....do not refer back to the 60's. We all know what happened in the past. Nobody is asking to forget. But let's not keep on using the past to justify the occupation.

[Nurgary]

New to this forum - so Hi,

Have been reading some threads over last few weeks and have to post that SBA's will only be given up when HMG wants to give them up. As simple as that. I keep on hearing that HMG owes rent on them but I can't find any document that indicates that any rent for SBA;s was ever signed. I am may be wrong so I ask anybody here to give me a reference to this document.

[denizaksulu]

You are totally wrong. The manority of GCs do not want Enosis. Becoming a district of Greece is a nightmare for most of us. Seeing how Enosis has worked out for the TCs it proves that we are right.

You do not take into account the Greek junta, its new leader as of 1973, the psychopath Ioannidis, and his rabid anticommunism and the general anticommunist fervor of the Greek officer corps posted to Cyprus. Their presence was sanctioned by the USA precisely because it was a way to prevent the communist party from winning an election. Their indoctrination of recruits is proof enough.

You are selecting the parts of the picture that suit you and your take on history. You conveniently leave out the Turkish policy of regaining Cyprus if not in whole then in part, and how this policy was put into practice via the TMT and the withdrawal from relations with the GC community as early as 1957. You choose an easy way that suits you. In terms of control and achieving aims the Turkish policy was more effective than the Greek one, the Greeks fell for the American angle that if they prevented communism their hold on the island was guaranteed. The Turks did not believe anyone and acted purely for themselves. Hence the effective annexation and Enosis of the north with Turkey.

Nothing has happened since 1974 to move Cyprus towards Enosis, in fact the independence of the island has been reinforced and strengthened by its joining the EU. In the EU itself Cyprus often joins alliances and interest groups which are different from those that Greece belongs to, education policy being one of the areas where they differ and not the only one.

I notice ,Nikitas you saying 'they do not want', in the present tense. You did not say that they 'did not want'. You may be right there. Currently they do NOT want. Was it true in the 50, 60, 70's? I doubt it. We have seen gatherings of 10's of thousands of people (GC) chanting for Enosis in the years prior to 1974. I think these did represent a majority view at the time..
Like Pres. Makarios they now realise its non-feasability (though maybe secretly desiring it). But now with the drastically changing circumstances, Enosis is not an option.

[Oracle]

.... Reverting to Cyprus, all the evidence seems to point to Turkey being dragged in rather than wanting to invade.....

Please provide some evidence to back up your absurd gossip.

For a country "dragged" into an invasion, it sure as hell did not leave the moment it could, and in fact dithered around long enough to invade a second time despite all the peacekeeping efforts ..

From: "THE LEGAL ASPECT OF TURKEY'S
MILITARY ACTION AGAINST CYPRUS"

The following facts show the escalation of the Turkish military operations and at the same time constitute indisputable evidence of Turkey's real intentions:

* By 1600 hours of the 22nd July 1974, (time fixed for the cease fire by resolution 353of the Security Council) the Turkish armed forces had occupied 1.70% of the Republic's territory.
* By the 30th July 1974 (date of the Geneva Declaration signed by the Foreign Minister of Greece, Turkey and the United Kingdom) Turkey, by extending her occupation, had put under her control 3.74% of the Cyprus territory.
* Following Turkey's ultimatum at the Geneva conference, during the night meeting of the 13th August 1974, the Turkish troops further extended their occupation to over 34.10% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.
* Even after the agreed time for cease fire, at 1800 hours of the 16th August 1974, and in spite of the resolutions of the Security Council, the Turkish armed invading forces continued their advance thus putting under their occupation about 37% of the territory of the Republic of Cyprus.

It must be added that Turkey's intention for the creation of two autonomous and homogeneous zones in Cyprus had clearly been shown at the Geneva conference. The Turkish Foreign Minister demanded at the night meeting of the 13th August 1974 an immediate answer to Turkey's proposals for a geographical partition, an allocation of 34% of the territory of the Republic to a Turkish Cypriot autonomous administration, and the formation of a federation between the two autonomous zones.

[wallace]

Who gives a shit what they wanted??? We are living in 2008.......but here is the problem.....the GC's moved on and do life in 2008....you are all still living in the 60's. The only thing GC's desire for your information is a just solution and a united Cyprus. The only thing you are doing is justifying the occupation!! I hope Christofias throws the 1960 agreement on the table on friday and negotiate from there on. That will shut everybody up.