Cyprus-Forum.com

[Talisker]

In 1950 GCs voted overwhelmingly for ENOSIS with Greece. Greece then became increasing involved in Cyprus, both politically and militarily, until the Turkish invasion in 1974. In comparison with TCs, whose 'motherland' Turkey came to their assistance in 1974 with the resultant and continued partition of the island, do GCs feel let down by their own 'motherland' Greece?

[Nikitas]

Let down at the time, 1974 yes, since then Cyprus has done quite well with no Greek assistance. Continued reliance on a mother country of any sort keeps you immature.

[Get Real!]

First, you need to get your facts right. In 1950 under Makarios II and not Makarios III (the later president), the Orthodox Church conducted a referendum of church-goers to present to the British as evidence against colonialism. It was NOT an island-wide democratic referendum of all citizens so let’s clear that one up.

[Talisker]

Let down at the time, 1974 yes, since then Cyprus has done quite well with no Greek assistance. Continued reliance on a mother country of any sort keeps you immature.

When I've been in Greece I've noticed Greeks shrug with embarrassment (my interpretation!) when I mention the Cyprus situation. Is that correct? Presumably after the traumas of the military dictatorship in the 70s, then modernisation and inclusion within the EU, Greece has had enough to consider? If push came to shove again though, would Greece be more proactive and join in any conflict involving Cyprus and Turkey (hopefully not going to happen but judging by some of the postings today some of the forumers would relish it!)?

[shahmaran]

So why do GC`s blame TC`s for being so fond of their mother land, when they were very much so themselves not that long ago?

[Talisker]

First, you need to get your facts right. In 1950 under Makarios II and not Makarios III (the later president), the Orthodox Church conducted a referendum of church-goers to present to the British as evidence against colonialism. It was NOT an island-wide democratic referendum of all citizens so let’s clear that one up.

OK, but still a useful pointer to the general GC opinion of the time - after all, in 1950s Cyprus I'll bet most of the population were 'church-goers', whatever that might mean (every day, once a week, once a year, once a lifetime). On the more general question, do you personally feel that Greece abandoned Cyprus in 1974, and has continued to do so since, to the detriment of Cyprus and a solution to the problem? And, if so, do you resent that?

[Nikitas]

The attitude I come across is that Greece then was under a military dictatorship and hence the Greeks as a whole bear no responsibility for events of 1974. That would be OK by me if they also rejected any connection with the deeds of another dictatorship, that of Metaxas, who refused to surrender to the Axis powers in 1940 and went to war.

The policy today, as I have heard it, is that any conflict at an part of the Greek-Turkish confrontation line will be treated by Greece as a general conflict. George Papandreou alluded to this several times when he was foreign minister. It makes sense as a military doctrine because you let the other side know that there cannot be small winnable conflicts, but a wacking great big one where all will come out as losers. So a conflict in Cyprus will immediately involve the Aegean and the Evros land frontier.

Relishing such a prospect is for maniacs. It will mean setting all three countries back 30 years if not more.

[Talisker]

The attitude I come across is that Greece then was under a military dictatorship and hence the Greeks as a whole bear no responsibility for events of 1974. That would be OK by me if they also rejected any connection with the deeds of another dictatorship, that of Metaxas, who refused to surrender to the Axis powers in 1940 and went to war.

The policy today, as I have heard it, is that any conflict at an part of the Greek-Turkish confrontation line will be treated by Greece as a general conflict. George Papandreou alluded to this several times when he was foreign minister. It makes sense as a military doctrine because you let the other side know that there cannot be small winnable conflicts, but a wacking great big one where all will come out as losers. So a conflict in Cyprus will immediately involve the Aegean and the Evros land frontier.

Relishing such a prospect is for maniacs. It will mean setting all three countries back 30 years if not more.

Interesting historical and sociological point, Nikitas. Celebrate the courageous and correct decisions of one military dictator, but disown the cowardice of another. But guess we do the same with our democratically elected leaders too.

The current Greek policy regarding military engagement sounds straightforward - but are there more subtle strategies ongoing to assist Cyprus towards resolution of the CyProb?.

Yup, obviously hope any conflict will be avoided. If the CyProb stalemate can be resolved then the opportunities for all three countries for progress would be immense. Anyone relishing conflict is a nutter..........

[Oracle]

So why do GC`s blame TC`s for being so fond of their mother land, when they were very much so themselves not that long ago?

Shah, I think the difference is that Turkey represents our not too distant Ottoman invaders. We hoped the TCs (as integrated Cypriots) would side with the GCs and not the old invaders ... represented by Turkey.

Greece never represented an "invasion", not even with the attempted coup.

[shahmaran]

So why do GC`s blame TC`s for being so fond of their mother land, when they were very much so themselves not that long ago?

Shah, I think the difference is that Turkey represents our not too distant Ottoman invaders. We hoped the TCs (as integrated Cypriots) would side with the GCs and not the old invaders ... represented by Turkey.

Greece never represented an "invasion", not even with the attempted coup.

Greece does represent invasion for Turkey and for the TC`s during the conflict, and Ottomans only happen to be your last invaders, who actually took you from the hands of someone else. Not to mention that Turkey is not the Ottoman Empire anymore.

But this was not my question, my question is, why do the GC`s oppose the TC-Turkish relation so violently when they themselves had wanted to be with Greece not that long ago? Is that hypocorticism at its best or what?

And its not because I don't know the answer to it myself, I just want to hear a GC take on it, specially you Phoenix, since you do insist very often that we should be closer to you than we are to Turkey.