Cyprus-Forum.com

[MicAtCyp]

Do I get the permission to use your "Black & White milk" comment anywhere necessary?
By the way...Kalo Pasxa!

Of course Rafaella, no problem. Kalo Pasxa to you too and to all other people in here.

RAFAELLA, instead of applausing everything mic writes...

Why re, are you jealous?

[Othellos]

garbitsch

We've discussed this so many times before too. Real estate is a very big business in TRNC, and it is really difficult to stop the sale of former Greek properties. Many times the CTP-DP coalition government tried to stop the sale of ALL properties to foreigners (including Turkish citizens), but these actions didn't find any support base, because there is an idea in North that "Since Greek side rejected the unification plan and kept isolation of North, who gives a s**t to Greek properties.

What you are telling us here is that the authorities in the occupied areas are not in the position to control anything, including the actions of their own "citizens". Is this true? And if yes, then what does this tell us about what is going on in the occupied north?

As an isolated country, the only way to put money into the budget is to allow foreigners to buy property, to allow foreign students to study in universities and to allow foreigners to gamble in the casinos.

Is there another …entity in this world (legal or illegal) that "puts money in its budget" by selling properties that were stolen from others?

The Greek side should show some amount of good will towards Turkish Cypriots (we do not demand the recognition of TRNC BTW- do not show this as an excuse, we all know that it won't be recognised).

You do not ask for recognition because you know that at present it is impossible to achieve. Other than that what "good will" do you expect from Turkey's GC victims, especially when they see their houses and lands being distributed / sold to foreigners (not a new phenomenon btw)? And finally, why is it so difficult for some in this forum to see that insulting other peoples intelligence, rights, legitimate concerns and sensitivities will not get them anywhere near a solution?

Erolz

I am pointing out that it is common for a state to be based on land previously taken from others. That is the histroy of human kind and the history of many if not most modern day nation states.

Even if this was the case (and I do not think that it is), this does not justify invading, ethnically cleansing and robbing another country and its people.

Turkey certainly did force the movement of GC (and ethnic group / community) from part of Cyprus. I do not deny this. However there has not be a wholsale effort to remove any traces of GC presense in the north since the events of 74.

The only reason for this is because after the invasion, Turkey made sure that almost no GCs remained in the occupied areas. And as far as Turkish efforts to remove traces of Greek presence from the occupied areas, I would say that a look at the condition of most Churches in the occupied areas is revealing.

Certainly in 74 there was looting and theft (as there was looting and theft by GC in 64-67 from TC properties that they were forced to leave) as ineveitably there always is in such operations the world over. I have no realistic means of knowing if the Turksih army were any better or worse than any other army that has captured an area.

Lets just say that in the summer of 1974, Cyprus became for a brief period of time a major exporter in cars, tv sets, electric appliances, building materials, furniture as well as other commodities.

We have discussed this in the past and I found your perspective then narrow and one sided to be honest.

Is this what you say to everyone who disagrees with you? Not to mention that with your "logic", your perspective can be just as narrow and just as one sided. Hint: as long as your perspective remains such, do not expect that of others to change much either.

Now I need to ask you to be more specific. When you refer to 'back then' are you refering to the mass movement of TC refugess fleeing their homes almost entirely as a result of GC violenbce against them or are you refering to movements of TC population prior to 63?

My understanding is that many TCs moved into the enclaves after the breakout of hostilities in Dec 1963. While the "official" Turkish version of the events simply blames 100% the Greek Cypriots for the isolation of the TCs in these enclaves, there was a time when the TCs could exit the enclaves only with a permit from the TC "authorities". Exiting without obtaining this permit was punishable by a fine or even imprisonment. These limitations that were imposed on the TCs by their own leadership and not by any GC, proved how far Turkey went in order to pursue partition as well as how Ankara was responsible for the virtual imprisonment of about half of the TC population between the years 1964-1974.

Other than that, it is true that there were also other population movements before 1963, like in the summer of 1958 when hundreds of GCs were forced out of their homes in Omorphita and in Lefka by the TMT. Personally I am not aware of any TC refugees before 1963. Were there any?

The 'enclave situation' was primarily and principaly a result of systematic and (gc) state allowed (and even state supported) violence aimed at TC by GC. Yes there were some elements within the TC community for whom the 'enclave situation' served their political agenda but these elements could have never have created the kind of mass movement of people from their homes into the enclaves without the violence from GC (numericaly larger, militarily stronger and in control of all the organs of the state and it's weapons) against the TC community.

Denktash was not just some "element". He was the leader of the TC community who most of the time he enjoyed Ankara's support and the enclaves served primarily Turkey's agenda. Yes, the GCs were always more in numbers but militarily they were not as well prepared and as organized in 1963 as you suggest, not to mention the geographical advantage that Turkey had over Cyprus. Had they been better prepared as you claim then the GCs could have been successful in their "total annihilation policy" towards the TCs (if there ever was such a policy of course).

And as for the GCs remaining in control of the state after 1963, this is true. But it is also true that it was the TCs who pulled out of all the RoC governing instruments en masse and upon Ankara's military orders as part of an overall plan to divide the Cypriot population, abolish the Cypriot state and partition the island. My opinion is that back then the Turkish Cypriots made a mistake by abandoning and sabotaging the RoC which was also their own state. One of the ways to reverse the impressions and effects of this mistake was (and still is) to throw the entire blame for all the mess on the GCs which i think is way more than what they deserve.

O.

[erolz]

What you are telling us here is that the authorities in the occupied areas are not in the position to control anything, including the actions of their own "citizens". Is this true? And if yes, then what does this tell us about what is going on in the occupied north?

Come on Othellos. What we are telling you is that as in all other democratic counties politics is the art of the possible. A leader can not simply go against the wishes of the people or powerful vested interests and maintain political power. This is as true in the RoC, UK or anywhere else.

Even if this was the case (and I do not think that it is), this does not justify invading, ethnically cleansing and robbing another country and its people.

Did I say it justifed it? I mentioned this reality in response to arguments that this situation was unique or unusal - which it is not.

The only reason for this is because after the invasion, Turkey made sure that almost no GCs remained in the occupied areas. And as far as Turkish efforts to remove traces of Greek presence from the occupied areas, I would say that a look at the condition of most Churches in the occupied areas is revealing.

and have you 'looked at the condition of most of the churches in the north'? The fact is that there is GC propaganda that since 74 there has been systematic attempts to remove all traces of GC and G presense and culure in the north - and the reality is that this is just that - propaganda. Yes there is negelect of Churches and graveyards and the like, as there is similar in the South - but this is not the same as attempts to 'cleanse' the north of any traces of GC culture.

Is this what you say to everyone who disagrees with you?

No it is not what I say to anyone who disagrees with me - as evidenced by my posts here. It is my response to those I consider have such an outlook - no more no less. Is your response what you say to anyone who disagrees with you?

Not to mention that with your "logic", your perspective can be just as narrow and just as one sided. Hint: as long as your perspective remains such, do not expect that of others to change much either.

My perspective may well be these things though I try to do my best to avoid this and I do this to the best of my abilites regardless of how other behave.

My understanding is that many TCs moved into the enclaves after the breakout of hostilities in Dec 1963.

Many TC were _driven_ from their homes by GC violence aginst them. This created a fear in those that had not been directly subject to such violence with the net result that around 25,000 TC were made into refugees where as this 'outbreak of hostilites' resulted in a few thousand refugees the majority of which where able to return to their homes in a matter of days. This was the primary cause of movement of TC into enclaves and without this GC violence against TC no TC leadership could have limited peoples ability to leave the enclaves beacuse there would have been no enclaves.

While the "official" Turkish version of the events simply blames 100% the Greek Cypriots for the isolation of the TCs in these enclaves, there was a time when the TCs could exit the enclaves only with a permit from the TC "authorities". Exiting without obtaining this permit was punishable by a fine or even imprisonment. These limitations that were imposed on the TCs by their own leadership and not by any GC, proved how far Turkey went in order to pursue partition as well as how Ankara was responsible for the virtual imprisonment of about half of the TC population between the years 1964-1974.

and what of the 'offical' GC version of the events? here are some extracts from http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/patrick% ... pt%202.htm

The official Greek-Cypriot position is that the major portion of the Turkish-Cypriot refugee movement was both initiated and directed by Turkish-Cypriot leaders in accordance with a contingency plan to facilitate partition.

An offical GC view you seem to personaly subscribe to even today.

The author's investigations reveal that the overwhelming majority of Turk-Cypriot refugees moved only after Turk-Cypriots had been killed, abducted or harrassed by Greek-Cypriots within their village, quarter, or in the local vicinity.

It was only in a few instances, after January 1964, that the Turkish-Cypriot Leadership took the initiative in recommending that certain villages should be evacuated. However, it is known that such advice was not always followed. Normally the Leadership was approached by village elders only after the villagers had already decided to evacuate, and they sought the Leadership's assistance In the pro- vision of transport and refugee housing. Any official administrative organization to direct refugee movements, or to oversee their welfare, was not established until the bulk of the refugees had already moved on their own initiative.

Although it appears unlikely that there was any centralized co-ordination of the Turk-Cypriot refugee exodus, there is ample proof that Turk-Cypriot political and military leaders controlled the return of refugees to their former homes. It is known that in late 1964 some local Fighter commanders resorted to armed threats and even murder to prevent some refugees from moving into government controlled areas,[69] but it is not known to what extent such actions were directed or condoned by leaders in Nicosia. However, such coercion should be put in perspective. The government was prepared to encourage the return of Turk-Cypriot refugees provided that they accepted government authority and that they did not return to 'sensitive' areas. Such areas included locations adjacent to Turkish-Cypriot enclaves or National Guard positions, and also mixed villages in which returned Turk-Cypriots would outnumber Greek-Cypriots. In addition, known Fighter leaders were specifically prohibited from returning. The acceptance of such pre-conditions would have won for the government the victory that it had failed to achieve by its armed offensive. In addition, the hostility of many local Greek-Cypriots was such that Turk-Cypriots did not believe that the government could fulfill its guarantees that returning refugees would not be molested. In any case, by August 1964, the abandoned homes were looted and often burned-out ruins.

Denktash was not just some "element". He was the leader of the TC community who most of the time he enjoyed Ankara's support and the enclaves served primarily Turkey's agenda.

The enclaves may have served Turkey's agenda but they were primarily _caused_ by GC violence used in the persuit of GC agendas.

Yes, the GCs were always more in numbers but militarily they were not as well prepared and as organized in 1963 as you suggest, not to mention the geographical advantage that Turkey had over Cyprus. Had they been better prepared as you claim then the GCs could have been successful in their "total annihilation policy" towards the TCs (if there ever was such a policy of course).

The limit on GC ability to 'totaly annihilate' TC (if there was such a policy) was not it's military ability - it clearly had that. The limit was the reaction of Turkey to such an all out annihilation and this was well uderstood by GC leadership as evidenced by the details in the Akritas plan.

here is another quote from you from an interview with Makarios in 77

http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios ... allaci.htm

Take the story of the beard. When I was twenty years old, the abbot of the monastery ordered me to let my beard grow. And a novice isn't obliged to grow a beard. I refused, and he got angry, "Either you obey or out you go." "All right, I'll go." Then I packed my bagCI knew exactly what would happen. "You mustn't go! Stay." "All right, I'll stay." "But grow a beard." "No, no beard." "Look out or I'll beat you." "Beat me." He started beating me, and while he was beating me, he yelled, "Will you let it grow?" "No." "Now will you let it grow?' "No." Finally he sat down, exhausted. "Please. Let it grow a little. Just a little, so I won't lose face." "No." "Just the little bit needed to make people ask whether you have one or not." I smiled. "This little bit?" "Yes." "Like now?" "Yes." "Not even a millimeter more?" "Not even a millimeter more." "All I right." And a compromise was reached without my giving in to obedience.

O.F.: Revealing, I'd say.

M.: It's my strategy. It always has been. I mean, I've always enjoyed the game of pushing myself to the edge of the abyss and then stopping so as not to fall. You see what I mean? It's not that I stop at the last moment because I realize the abyss is there; I calculate to the millimeter that I can go that far and no further. The others, naturally, think I'm about to fall, to commit suicide. Instead I go along very quietly, knowing I'll put on the brakes. It was the same with the abbot. I hadn't the slightest intention of leaving the monastery; I liked it too much. But I knew that by making him believe the contrary and taking his beating, he'd give in and accept a compromise that for me was a victory.

This was exactly the strategy being taken with regard to violence aginst TC. To push it to within a millimeter of the abyss of Turkish intervention - and it was a strategy that was very effecitive through 63 and 67. So the fact that GC did not do 'worse' than they did in 63-67 was not as you suggest proof that they did not have the military means. It is simply because they knew that to do so without any limits would lead to Turkish intervention. Who knows how far they could and would have gone without such a limit?

And as for the GCs remaining in control of the state after 1963, this is true. But it is also true that it was the TCs who pulled out of all the RoC governing instruments en masse and upon Ankara's military orders as part of an overall plan to divide the Cypriot population, abolish the Cypriot state and partition the island.

Even if you accept the one sided view that TC withdrew from governement as part of aplan to partition the island and ignore the fact that there were very real risk to their person and that such an act could just as well be seen as a valid form of 'non violent protest' at the actions of GC leadership. Even accepting your view the fact is that the TC members of parilament requested formaly under the auspices of the UN to return to their positions and they were told that they could only do so if they accepted the unilateral revsions to the consitution that Makraios 'proposed'. So if in 64 ther aim was to leave government to force partition by 65 their strategy had cahnged. However the GC having had sole control of government were clearly not going to allow the TC parilamentarians to execersie their rights under the consitituion without extracting a legimisation of their theft of the TC communites rights - which they had long resented.

My opinion is that back then the Turkish Cypriots made a mistake by abandoning and sabotaging the RoC which was also their own state.

The sabotaging of the 1960 RoC was not done by TC alone. GC leadership clearly wanted and worked towards a breakdown of the agreements - agains as clearly laid out in the Akritas plan. As for abandoing the government in 64 being a mistake - maybe it was. However by 65 any attempts to rectify that mistake were blocked by GC illegal demands.

One of the ways to reverse the impressions and effects of this mistake was (and still is) to throw the entire blame for all the mess on the GCs which i think is way more than what they deserve.

I have never tried to throw the entire blame on GC. What I do resist and resent is attempts to distort the real blame that lays with the GC leadership of that times. Like the attempts to portray the violence as some kind of equal 'tit for tat', when in fact it was overwhealming GC violence against TC, or to blame the TC leadership and Turkey for events (like the mass movement of TC into enclaves) when the rpimary cause of such movement was GC aggression and violence towards TC.
You make out that what I and TC seek to do is to make out that black is white, when in fact what you are trying to do is make out that very dark grey and very light grey are in fact a middle grey.

[garbitsch]

Othellos, if T.Cs didn't leave the RoC, they would be forced to accept the dictatorship of Makarios and his Enosis agenda. It was Greek Cypriots who destroyed the RoC, not T.Cs!!

[Othellos]

Come on Othellos. What we are telling you is that as in all other democratic counties politics is the art of the possible. A leader can not simply go against the wishes of the people or powerful vested interests and maintain political power. This is as true in the RoC, UK or anywhere else.

As I wrote earlier, the build up of Greek properties in the Turkish-occupies areas is not a new phenomenon. Neither is the illegal distribution or sale of Greek houses to foreigners by the occupation regime. This policy has a specific long-term goal in reducing even further the chance of any GCs returning in the now occupied part of Cyprus, even if a solution is found someday. The "popular wishes" argument is just another convenient excuse in implementing this policy.

Did I say it justifed it? I mentioned this reality in response to arguments that this situation was unique or unusal - which it is not.

You tried to play it down by making it sound as if this is almost "normal" and this is like trying to justify it.

and have you 'looked at the condition of most of the churches in the north'?

Must one start posting pictures?

The fact is that there is GC propaganda that since 74 there has been systematic attempts to remove all traces of GC and G presense and culure in the north - and the reality is that this is just that - propaganda. Yes there is negelect of Churches and graveyards and the like, as there is similar in the South - but this is not the same as attempts to 'cleanse' the north of any traces of GC culture.

Oh yes, I forgot. There are some churches that are still being used….but not as churches. Care to share with us some of their current "uses"? Other than that I am eager to read more about "GC presence and culture in the north" and learn from you.

No it is not what I say to anyone who disagrees with me - as evidenced by my posts here. It is my response to those I consider have such an outlook - no more no less. Is your response what you say to anyone who disagrees with you?

Remember that it was your post that inspired my earlier question. All I did was to question the "logic" behind dismissing the views of those you disagree with as "narrow" or "one-sided" but without always presenting substantial arguments why they are such.

My perspective may well be these things though I try to do my best to avoid this and I do this to the best of my abilites regardless of how other behave.

That is great to know.

Many TC were _driven_ from their homes by GC violence aginst them. This created a fear in those that had not been directly subject to such violence with the net result that around 25,000 TC were made into refugees where as this 'outbreak of hostilites' resulted in a few thousand refugees the majority of which where able to return to their homes in a matter of days. This was the primary cause of movement of TC into enclaves and without this GC violence against TC no TC leadership could have limited peoples ability to leave the enclaves beacuse there would have been no enclaves.

Your claim erolz cannot withstand the fact that several of the areas that became TC enclaves in 1963, were already ethnically cleansed before 1960 from their GC inhabitants. I also think that u missed a "GC" somewhere above.

and what of the 'offical' GC version of the events? here are some extracts from http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/patrick% ... pt%202.htm

What about it?

The enclaves may have served Turkey's agenda but they were primarily _caused_ by GC violence used in the persuit of GC agendas.

Again, the foundations of the enclaves were set as early as mid 1958 and before any GC violence was exercised on any TCs. But even if what you write was true, why did the TCs need exit permits from their own separatist administration to get out of the enclaves even for a brief, social visit in the RoC controlled areas?

The limit on GC ability to 'totaly annihilate' TC (if there was such a policy) was not it's military ability - it clearly had that. The limit was the reaction of Turkey to such an all out annihilation and this was well uderstood by GC leadership as evidenced by the details in the Akritas plan.

You first need to make up your mind on whether there was a GC "total annihilation" plan. Then you need to support what you say with sound evidence. Yes, in 1963-64 there were TCs who were murdered by GC extremists, but this alone is not enough proof of a GC plan to destroy TCs, especially when there were also TC extremists who carried out similar acts of violence during the same time and even before. I could perhaps agree with you about the existence of such a GC plan if there were large-scale killings and massacres of TCs on the island the island, but the casualty figures between 1963 and 1967 indicate that this did not happen.

I remember that we discussed the Akritas plan (as well as a TC partition plan) before. This was not a total annihilation plan as Turkey's propaganda machine often suggests and many of you repeat in here, but rather a legalistic framework devised to revise those parts of the 1960 agreements that the GCs considered unfair (at least this is how its authors thought of it). It has been argued that the Akritas plan came into an end in November 1963 when Turkey rejected even the idea of discussing the 13 proposed amendments. Personally I find it rather difficult to understand how the Akritas plan ever went in effect when the only GC action taken towards this direction was Makarios' hasty proposal for the 13 amendments.

This was exactly the strategy being taken with regard to violence aginst TC. To push it to within a millimeter of the abyss of Turkish intervention - and it was a strategy that was very effecitive through 63 and 67. So the fact that GC did not do 'worse' than they did in 63-67 was not as you suggest proof that they did not have the military means. It is simply because they knew that to do so without any limits would lead to Turkish intervention.

I too agree that Makarios had a "superiority syndrome" and thought that he was always in full control of things although he wasn't. But I am not sure that you can blame him for "pushing things to the limits" in order to blackmail the TCs, especially when it was Ankara and the TC leadership that locked thousands of TCs into the enclaves.

Who knows how far they could and would have gone without such a limit?

Do you know? If yes then please enlighten us.

….. Even accepting your view the fact is that the TC members of parilament requested formaly under the auspices of the UN to return to their positions and they were told that they could only do so if they accepted the unilateral revsions to the consitution that Makraios 'proposed'. So if in 64 ther aim was to leave government to force partition by 65 their strategy had cahnged. However the GC having had sole control of government were clearly not going to allow the TC parilamentarians to execersie their rights under the consitituion without extracting a legimisation of their theft of the TC communites rights - which they had long resented.

If you are referring to the conference that was held in London between January and February 1964, then your memory is working selectively. You do not mention for example the extreme demands that were put forward by the Turkish delegation and which called for the relocation of populations and the creation of a pure and heavily militarized TC "federal" region that would be equivalent to 38 % of Cyprus (does the "consistency" on the land % tell you something by any chance?) The reply of the GC delegation in all these was that even the 13 amendments that were proposed earlier were not enough anymore. In other words, Turkish extreme demands that were leading to partition were met by Greek (and extreme, if you like) counter-demands for the abolishment of all TC overprivileges that were described the 1960 agreements.

The sabotaging of the 1960 RoC was not done by TC alone. GC leadership clearly wanted and worked towards a breakdown of the agreements - agains as clearly laid out in the Akritas plan. As for abandoing the government in 64 being a mistake - maybe it was. However by 65 any attempts to rectify that mistake were blocked by GC illegal demands.

Revising an agreement does not mean cancelling it. Makarios' amendments (which were rejected anyway) were a proposal and not a demand.

I have never tried to throw the entire blame on GC.

Oh…good.

What I do resist and resent is attempts to distort the real blame that lays with the GC leadership of that times. Like the attempts to portray the violence as some kind of equal 'tit for tat', when in fact it was overwhealming GC violence against TC, or to blame the TC leadership and Turkey for events (like the mass movement of TC into enclaves) when the rpimary cause of such movement was GC aggression and violence towards TC.

Now you spoil it again by throwing 99.9% of the blame back to the GCs.

You make out that what I and TC seek to do is to make out that black is white, when in fact what you are trying to do is make out that very dark grey and very light grey are in fact a middle grey.

Although my English is not bad, I cannot make much out of the above sentence. Too many colours perhaps?

O.

P.S: I was hoping that you could comment on my little question about if there were any TC refugees (like there were GC refugees) before 1963, but you didn't. Perhaps you forgot, or maybe you do not know. If anyone knows, please post some info. I am very interested to know.

O.

[Othellos]

Othellos, if T.Cs didn't leave the RoC, they would be forced to accept the dictatorship of Makarios and his Enosis agenda. It was Greek Cypriots who destroyed the RoC, not T.Cs!!

Hmm...so you are saying that the GCs stayed in the RoC and were (or are) responsible for destroying it, but the TCs who abandoned the RoC and set a separatist administration within it, did not. It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.

O.

[erolz]

As I wrote earlier, the build up of Greek properties in the Turkish-occupies areas is not a new phenomenon. Neither is the illegal distribution or sale of Greek houses to foreigners by the occupation regime. This policy has a specific long-term goal in reducing even further the chance of any GCs returning in the now occupied part of Cyprus, even if a solution is found someday. The "popular wishes" argument is just another convenient excuse in implementing this policy.

Is moving the goal posts a GC national past time? The discussion as far as I am concerned was related to the allegation that Talat has done nothing to stop the sale and development of pre 74 GC owned properties in the north - and this is proof that he is insincere about a settlement. Well the FACT is that he has tried to introduce legislation to slow down this activity. It is also a FACT that his ability to do this is limited by democratic political reality. However GC it seems to me are actualy less concerned with the reality and more interested in 'prooving' that Talat is insincere about a solution to hide their own leaders insincerity. Just my opinion / feeling of course.

You tried to play it down by making it sound as if this is almost "normal" and this is like trying to justify it.

But 'playing it up' and making it sound as if it is a situation that exists no where else is not the same?

Must one start posting pictures?

Yes apparently one must start posting pictures because I have visited many GC churches here that have not been destroyed or desecrated. As I say many are neglected - as are mnay TC equivalents in the south. Some are even maintained at the expense of TC tax payers.

Oh yes, I forgot. There are some churches that are still being used….but not as churches. Care to share with us some of their current "uses"? Other than that I am eager to read more about "GC presence and culture in the north" and learn from you.

Some are still used as churches. Some are manitianed as 'museums' of one kind or another. Some are merely neglected and left alone. There has been no systematic attempt to 'wipe these things' from north cyprus as is often claimed by GC propaganda. So what is the situation with mosques in the south or TC graveyards?

Remember that it was your post that inspired my earlier question. All I did was to question the "logic" behind dismissing the views of those you disagree with as "narrow" or "one-sided" but without always presenting substantial arguments why they are such.

As my post was 'inspired' by your "Please be more specific, erolz. I think we have already discussed 1963 extensively." post. I did not dismiss your views. I pointed out that in my opinion they were narrow and one sided - a view I still hold. The evidence for this is in your posts themselves as far as I am concerned.

Many TC were _driven_ from their homes by GC violence aginst them. This created a fear in those that had not been directly subject to such violence with the net result that around 25,000 TC were made into refugees where as this 'outbreak of hostilites' resulted in a few thousand refugees the majority of which where able to return to their homes in a matter of days. This was the primary cause of movement of TC into enclaves and without this GC violence against TC no TC leadership could have limited peoples ability to leave the enclaves beacuse there would have been no enclaves.

Your claim erolz cannot withstand the fact that several of the areas that became TC enclaves in 1963, were already ethnically cleansed before 1960 from their GC inhabitants. I also think that u missed a "GC" somewhere above.

My claims? You call the movement of 25,000 TC from their homes 'claims' and then say they cannot withstand your 'facts'? It is not a 'claim' that 25,000 TC became refugess in 63-64 - it is a fact. It is also in my opinion a fact that the primary reasons for this MASS exodous of the TC population was GC aggression and violence towards the TC community, encouraged and allowed and sponsored by the GC state.

and what of the 'offical' GC version of the events? here are some extracts from http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/patrick% ... pt%202.htm

What about it?

What about it? You condemed the 'offical' TC position as being nothing more than propaganda yet seem unable to accept that your 'offical position' is no different. You want me to accept that the TC offical position is based on propaganda but say nothing about the same in GC offical position - and then you wonder why and what evidence I have to consider your perspective narrow and one sided? I have always accepted and agreed that BOTH sides offical histories are ridden with propagnada. You want me to accept that the TC sides offical history is ridden with propaganda and simply ignore that in the GC offical history - or that is how it seems.

Again, the foundations of the enclaves were set as early as mid 1958 and before any GC violence was exercised on any TCs.

The foundations were set (you claim) in 58 but the fact was it took the widespread use of violence by GC and the GC state in 63-64 to drive 25,000 TC from their homes and into these 'prepared' enclaves. It was not the 'preperation' of these enclaves that caused such mass TC movement. It was primarily and overwhealmingly GC violence against TC community.

But even if what you write was true, why did the TCs need exit permits from their own separatist administration to get out of the enclaves even for a brief, social visit in the RoC controlled areas?

These two things are seperate (though related). There is the movement of TC into enclaves (caused primarily by GC violence against TC community) and there is the maintenance of these enclaves after they were created (caused partly by the TC administration and partly by continued GC violence against TC). To try and create a logic that states 'TC admin did not allow TC to leave the enclaves (an exageration / distortion in its own right btw) therfore the TC admi must have been the cause of the enclaves in the first place' is a contorision of logic and facts as I see it.
Why did the TC adminstration seek to limit TC leaving the enclaves. No doubt there was a political objective in such moves - as far as there were such moves. There was also undoubtedly a security aspect as well as evidenced by what happened to some TC that did not follow the advice of the TC admin and did continue to travel freely into GC controlled areas - such as my uncle and others.

You first need to make up your mind on whether there was a GC "total annihilation" plan.

You stated that the GC at this time were not significantly miltarily stronger than the TC and used as 'proof' of this thesis that they did not 'annihilate' the TC community. I have pointed out that this is no such proof and given my eidence why it is no such proof. It is a fact as far as I am concerned that the GC community was massively stronger miltarily than the TC community in these times - stronger in numbers, stronger in equipment and resources of aggression and stronger in having control of the state. Your arguments that they were not massively stronger and you 'proof' of this being that they did not annihilate the TC community are not convincing to me, or I suspect to anyone not interested in a biased and narrow view of the events of this time.

I remember that we discussed the Akritas plan (as well as a TC partition plan) before. This was not a total annihilation plan as Turkey's propaganda machine often suggests and many of you repeat in here, but rather a legalistic framework devised to revise those parts of the 1960 agreements that the GCs considered unfair (at least this is how its authors thought of it). It has been argued that the Akritas plan came into an end in November 1963 when Turkey rejected even the idea of discussing the 13 proposed amendments. Personally I find it rather difficult to understand how the Akritas plan ever went in effect when the only GC action taken towards this direction was Makarios' hasty proposal for the 13 amendments.

I have never said that the Akritas plan was a plan to annihilate the TC community from Cyprus. What the Akritas plan was, was a plan to unilateraly steal from TC their rights under the 1960 consitution, using illegal means, deception and violence as necessary. It is clearly such imo. By 63-64 the primary objectives of the Akritas plan had been achieved, even if there had been some deviation from the exact route taken. The world was convinced that the RoC 1960 consituion had broken down, they accepted the outbreak of violence was an 'internal affair', the treaty of guarantee had been blocked (as far as Turkeys ability to intervene) by the placing of a UN force in Cyprus and TC communities rights under the 1960 consitution had been unilateraly removed from them.

If you want a GC plan for the annihilation of the TC community you need to look at the 'Iphestos files' - which is a detailed plan by the 74 coupists as to how what and who would carry out the annihilation of the TC community in Cyprus on a detailed area by area basis. Thankfully this plan was never executed as the Turkish intervention caused the colapse of this coup.

I too agree that Makarios had a "superiority syndrome" and thought that he was always in full control of things although he wasn't. But I am not sure that you can blame him for "pushing things to the limits" in order to blackmail the TCs, especially when it was Ankara and the TC leadership that locked thousands of TCs into the enclaves.

Makarios himself said this approach was always his strategy -from the 'beard story' onwards. This claim is amply demonstarted by is own actions over and ober again. From the 'brinkmanship' and final relenting over the 1960 consitution itslef to many many other examples. The 'strategy' of violence by GC state against TC in 63-67 fits this profile exactly.

Who knows how far they could and would have gone without such a limit?

Do you know? If yes then please enlighten us.

I do not know and such sepculation is largley pointless. The goal posts I was aiming at with these comments were your assertion that lack of annihilation of the TC was proof that they did not have the physical strength or means to do such - which I think is rubbish. What I wil say in regard to these 'new goal posts' is that there is little doubt in my mind that if there was no Turkey (to place a limit on the extent of GC aggression to TC community in Cyprus) and the TC community managed to secure the 1960 consituion that violence by GC against TC would not have been any less that it was and very likely would have been much greater. Of that I have little doubt.

If you are referring to the conference that was held in London between January and February 1964, then your memory is working selectively. You do not mention for example the extreme demands that were put forward by the Turkish delegation and which called for the relocation of populations and the creation of a pure and heavily militarized TC "federal" region that would be equivalent to 38 % of Cyprus (does the "consistency" on the land % tell you something by any chance?) The reply of the GC delegation in all these was that even the 13 amendments that were proposed earlier were not enough anymore. In other words, Turkish extreme demands that were leading to partition were met by Greek (and extreme, if you like) counter-demands for the abolishment of all TC overprivileges that were described the 1960 agreements.

No I refer to the request by TC community in 1965 (made through the UN) to return to their government position unders the original 1960 constituion and the GC pre condition that they could only return if they accepted Makrios' unilateral 13 points.

Revising an agreement does not mean cancelling it. Makarios' amendments (which were rejected anyway) were a proposal and not a demand.

The GC objective and strategy are clearly laid out in the Akritas plan. The objective is to unilateraly force ammendments to the agreed consitution onto the TC community (unsing deception and vipolence where necessary) - ammendments that GC knew would be unacceptable to TC. That part of the 'strategy' to achieve this (illega) goal involved presenting a 'sheen' of 'proposed' ammendments rather than 'forced' ammendments (again as laid out in Akritas plan) does not mean the objective was not to rob the TC community of it's rights under the 1960 consitution by illegal means.

Now you spoil it again by throwing 99.9% of the blame back to the GCs.

I am not attributing 99.9% of the blame on GC. I am resiting the (false imo) thesis that the blame is failr apportioned at 50 / 50. If for no other reason that GC were numericaly 70/30 and thus as there were more of them they carry more of the blame for what happend. Again we get this consitent theme - as far as blame goes there is no trouble what so ever from many GC in the concept of 'equality of the communites' - that is only an anathema to them when it comes to political rights and not blame.

Although my English is not bad, I cannot make much out of the above sentence. Too many colours perhaps?

This is pretty much covered above. My point is because the situation was not toaly 100% one way or the other you use this fact to create a thesis that it must therefore have been 50/50, when in fact is was more like 70/30 or 80/20.

P.S: I was hoping that you could comment on my little question about if there were any TC refugees (like there were GC refugees) before 1963, but you didn't. Perhaps you forgot, or maybe you do not know. If anyone knows, please post some info. I am very interested to know.

I did not comment on this because I do not know about it. It is my understanding that there was no mass movement of TC from their homes due to force or threat of force against them prior to 63. I believe there were generally migratory trends from country to cities in this period but that was a common and natural occurance happening (and still happening) the world over and not the result of phyical force but primarily economics. If anyone has evidence of anything other than this I too am interested to hear it.

[Kifeas]

As I wrote earlier, the build up of Greek properties in the Turkish-occupies areas is not a new phenomenon. Neither is the illegal distribution or sale of Greek houses to foreigners by the occupation regime. This policy has a specific long-term goal in reducing even further the chance of any GCs returning in the now occupied part of Cyprus, even if a solution is found someday. The "popular wishes" argument is just another convenient excuse in implementing this policy.

Othellos,
I am also convinced that the hidden agenda behind this massive and uncontrolled development and illegal trading of GC properties in the north, beyond the temporary financial gains of some crooks, is exactly what you mentioned above. The TC and mainland Turkish establishments have never and will never give up the idea of Partition. Even though they were “forced,” under the known circumstances, to concede to a form of BBF that supposedly meant “reunification,” (read Annan Plan,) they made sure -through their eventually satisfied demands, that the door for a future partition remained wide open. If one reads carefully and behind the lines, both in the foundation agreement and in the TCCS constitution, will be astonished how neatly this option has been calculated and “secured,” from each and every aspect of it.

The only foreseeable practical problem that they knew they could face, for such an option to remain available, was the reinstatement of “too many” GC properties and the permanent return of a “sizable” proportion of GCs into the areas of the so-called TCCS, (I say so-called because in their vocabulary the term “TRNC” has never been erased, even during the negotiations and even now -when referring to the future.) The only method available to the TC/Turkish establishment in order to spare the obstacle, is to create such conditions on the ground that would make it practically impossible for GCs to even express a wish to return, through their complete estrangement from their properties, villages, and the north in general.

I have never been a supporter, as such, of Papadopoullos, nor of his political and ideological wing. However, for one thing I cannot disagree with him, which he said during his famous speech to the GCs before the referendums, that the Annan Plan 5 not only doesn’t re-unify Cyprus, but it deepens partition. This time a legitimised, formal and de Jure one. A Partition which, depending how soon it would become inevitable, would renter from 29% up to 34% of Cyprus to the TC community. I would go further and say that A-plan 5, was the perfect Trojan horse for the Turkish side (Turkish /TC establishment and not the ordinary TCs) to achieve what has been unable to achieve during the previous 30 years.

The fact that Denktash had "said" No to it, not only doesn’t disprove this argument but it actually enhances it. Denktash is not a fool and he knows very well how the GCs perceive him and policy all these years. He knows that whatever he will accept, will consequently run the high risk of being rejected by the GCs. Deep inside him, he knew that the A-plan was a good option (way-out) for his long-term goals (read formal partition and recognition or integration with Turkey.) For two reasons he decided to “officially” oppose it, although in practice did very little against it. The first is that he would have made a contradiction of himself and his rhetoric of all the previous years and up to the last week before the “finalisation” of the plan in Switzerland, which (rhetoric) spoke for the recognition of two sovereign states first, and then the simultaneous “engagement” into a “federation” agreement (read confederation with de jure right to split any time thereafter.) The second and most important reason is the hypothetical impact that his decision to endorse and promote the plan would have had to the GC side. His sincere wish was that the GC side would have accepted the A-plan and he didn’t want to minimise even further the chances for such a possibility. The neutral stance of his son’s party (DP) speaks leaps and bounds.

[erolz]

The TC and mainland Turkish establishments have never and will never give up the idea of Partition. Even though they were “forced,” under the known circumstances, to concede to a form of BBF that supposedly meant “reunification,” (read Annan Plan,) they made sure -through their eventually satisfied demands, that the door for a future partition remained wide open. If one reads carefully and behind the lines, both in the foundation agreement and in the TCCS constitution, will be astonished how neatly this option has been calculated and “secured,” from each and every aspect of it.

You sincerely beleive that TC have a hidden agenda to achieve permanent and recognised partition and that any statements or agreements or moves that seem to contradict this objective are based on insincerity and deception.

I sincerly believe there is a real chance (though I am NOT absolutists about this) that there is a GC hidden agenda to achieve a single GC state run by GC for GC cypriots without any let or hinderance or consideration for the TC community and tah any statement or agreement or moves that seem to contradict this objective may well be based on insincerity and decpetion.

So where can we, should we and do we go from here?

[garbitsch]

Othellos, if T.Cs didn't leave the RoC, they would be forced to accept the dictatorship of Makarios and his Enosis agenda. It was Greek Cypriots who destroyed the RoC, not T.Cs!!

Hmm...so you are saying that the GCs stayed in the RoC and were (or are) responsible for destroying it, but the TCs who abandoned the RoC and set a separatist administration within it, did not. It seems to me that you are contradicting yourself.

O.

When T.Cs left stateless, they needed a seperate administration to take care of their own affairs. It was Makarios with his 13 points, who wanted to abolish the given rights of T.Cs. T.Cs were simply forced to abandon RoC. You ignored the fact that Greek Cypriots led by Makarios saw RoC as a step to Enosis. You manipulated the facts.