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.
Talat had, has and will have several chances to convince the average GC (and this is the perspective which I am writing this from) about how genuine he is regarding a viable solution.
Well the FACT is that he has tried to introduce legislation to slow down this activity.
Yes, you did mention something about increasing the VAT on the (illegal) selling of GC property, but to me this is nothing more than just another way for the authorities in the occupied areas to make some extra cash always at the expense of ordinary GC refugees, (the same people that you claim you are ready to come terms and cooperate within a “united” Cyprus).
It is also a FACT that his ability to do this is limited by democratic political reality.
Somehow I have a problem relating the word "democratic" with the exploitation of other peoples' properties against their will, especially when these were stolen at gunpoint from them. But I understand that it is Turkey calling all the shots in the occupied areas and Talat is in no position to do a lot about this policy.
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.
Papadopoulos may be eager to present Talat as a new Denktash. But again, if Mr. Talat is genuinely interested in a solution, then at some he should try to address in a sincere and serious manner the concerns of ordinary GCs regardless of how sincere Papadopoulos is or not.
But 'playing it up' and making it sound as if it is a situation that exists no where else is not the same?
Playing it up? My mere intention was to put things at the correct perspective. Besides, wasn't it you who wrote earlier that your posts remain uninfluenced from what others write?
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.
Where did all the Saints go?
Respecting GC culture in occupied Cyprus
Another one in the same village.
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.
Of course it wouldn't be clever to start bulldozing every Christian monument or place of worship in the occupied areas (and there are quite a few of them). There are other things that can be done: removing all icons from their interior, tearing up their floors and removing the bells and crosses from them, converting them into mosques, "cultural centres", "museums" that GCs can now visit by paying an entrance fee, dance classes, piano bars or even animal barns. Simply put, the attitude of Turkey and the occupation regime on this issue is indicative of how tolerant they are when it comes to other people, their religion, history and culture.
So what is the situation with mosques in the south or TC graveyards?
The mosques that I have seen in the free areas seem to be well maintained and some are even in use. Why? Are you aware of any complaints?
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.
I have no problem with you disagreeing with me as long as you provide evidence based on recognised facts and not just your own interpretation of selective documents or events, occasionally twisted in a way to fit a specific agenda.
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.
What I reject is your insistence to throw the blame on the GCs for the movement of 25,000 TCs, especially when Ankara was ethnically cleansing GCs and preparing to put them in enclaves since the late 1950's and when the TMT was busy silencing any TC who would dare to openly disagree with Turkey's partition policy (prior to 1963 as well as after). If anything, these enclaves were the first steps in partitioning Cyprus and therefore any GC could not have any interest in their existence.
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.
For now and as far as I am concerned in any discussions with you, I am interested only in those parts in the Turkish version of the story that do not withstand reality and which you systematically repeat in this forum. No offence but I am not convinced yet that you are prepared to handle responsibly an honest assessment of GC policy and mistakes from 1955 to 1974.
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.
You are going around circles here, erolz. If Turkey's aim behind her enclave policy was not the partition of Cyprus, then why were the enclaves prepared as you say before any GC violence came about?
…… 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.
No, the enclaves were Turkey’s first step to implement partition in Cyprus and this is no secret. It is also no secret that Turkish army officers administered them like army camps.
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.
Ok. So how was the security of anyone compromised by the visit of a TC to the hospital or a GC friend? Because the TC separatist administration went as far as making even these a punishable offence! Punishments included 1-month imprisonment, a 25-pound fine or whipping!!!
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.
The claim you make fits well in your overall annihilation thesis. The truth is that in Dec 1963 there was no GC National Guard but only a couple of ill equipped paramilitary groups, and this makes it rather hard for me to understand how the GCs were "massively stronger" as you say they were. Had this been the case then I do not think that Turkey could have ended up with all those enclaves throughout Cyprus. And as we all know, Turkey continued importing weapons in Cyprus even after the EOKA struggle was over (remember the "Deniz" incident). We already discussed the "control of the state" and how the TCs walked out of the RoC.
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.
Again, I thinkt that u are contradicting yourself in your own words. To say that the GCs aimed in stealing TC rights via illegal means, deception and even violence is not any different from saying that their aim was to totally destroy (annihilate) them.
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.
Apparently you are referring once again to the erroneous (imo) choice of the TC leadership to abandon the RoC that until then had also been their state. There is no doubt that some GCs were thrilled by all these but Ankara was even happier about it. After all, they were the ones who gave the order for your leaders to leave.
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.
Turkey welcomed the 1963 crisis and participated in it because they were looking for a pretext to invade and implement partition by force as they did in 1974. But things just didn't work out at that time and this is why about half of the TCs ended up staying in the enclaves (Turkey’s open prisons in Cyprus) for 10 years.
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.
Please post any relevant information regarding this annihilation plan. The coupists were so hopeless in planning anything, so it is rather hard to even imagine that they went as far as thinking of any detailed plan.
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.
Are you saying that Makarios himself was behind all the violence?
I do not know and such sepculation is largley pointless.
It was your (pointless) speculation.
.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
Again, you are contradicting yourself. You started this paragraph by admitting how pointless is to speculate the extend the GCs would have gone if this of if that happened, but you ended up telling us about the little doubt you have if this or that did not happen.
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.
Can you please post some more details about the above TC request as well as when exactly this was made and to whom?
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.
One question you should be asking yourself erolz is the precise nature of these 13 amendments as well as what prompted Makarios to propose them (other than a secret GC “aspiration” to annihilate the Turks in Cyprus)?
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.
What makes you so sure that I split the blame between the GCs and the TCs?
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.
Are the above ratios a result of some specific methodology of yours? If yes then I would be delighted to know more about it.
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
To the best of my knowledge this is the case: there were no TC movements from their homes (other than those general migratory trends that you mention) but there were forced expulsions of GCs prior to 1963. But I thought I should ask because there are always unwritten details to be found
O.
