Cyprus-Forum.com

[garbitsch]

So locking the mosques and not looking after it (letting it rot) is better than opening Churches for cultural events or for serving for another religion? OK let's close all Churches and leave them until they become debris. I am not denying our mistreatment of Churches, but you ignore that many mosques were either destroyed or left on their own.

[erolz]

Erol,

Alexandros and myself were talking about using a method of weighted voting, where people can have political representation no matter where they live in Cyprus whilst still maintaining respective community rights. It avoids the need to put restrictions on freedom of movement which I think is imperative for a solution.

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus1590.html

http://www.cyprus-forum.com/cyprus1108.html

I will review these links you have provided and try and get my head around the concept. However I wil not hacve the time to do this until I return from my miltary serivce in a couple of weeks so bear with me.

Yet in Cyprus you still insist that you require 'protection' on the false assumption that the GC's want to dominate you politically and culturally.

I do not assume this will happen (again) - I fear that it might, espeically political domination. Do you really exepct me to think 'GC treated us badly 40 years ago politicaly, physically and cuturally - but now 40 years on there is no chance what so ever that they might try any of this again so therefore I need no protections against such an eventuallity'? I am afarid this requires too much faith on my part. To my mind we (TC) have very real and very valid concerns that we may once again be treated badly by a GC numerical majority and thus feel we needs protections aginst this happening again in any solution. I do not say that GC will try and treat us badly again but I do hope you can see why we feel we need certain protections - even in 2005.

All I see is excuses to keep the divisions.

You see excuses and maybe for some they are excuses. For me they are not excuses. They are valid concerns.

Can you not understand that this isnt 1960 anymore?

Yes I can understand this. Can you understand that this alone is not sufficent to allay my concerns and simply trust myself and my community to a 'belief' that bad stuff that happend 40 years ago could never happen again 40 years later in it's old forms or in new forms?

[Othellos]

I am afraid you are still going around circles and playing with words, erolz

In response I merely pointed out that many modern day states that are considered free and democratic are also founded on stolen properties and stolen land

If you are trying to say that the so-called “trnc” is “founded” on stolen land and property, then I can only agree with you.

the US being one prime example (and please do not try an argue again that the US was largely unihabited. The usa was and is based on stolen land)

The fact is that it was largely uninhabited and unexplored and therefore my earlier argument (which expanded beyond this) remains valid.

You reject that these 25,000 moved to enclaves primarily because of GC violence against the TC community?

Your "GC violence" thesis is largely built on the erroneous assumption (which you insist on presenting as a "fact") that the GC side is to be blamed almost exclusively because of its superior numeric size! And while you present your above "logic", you conveniently forget the fact that Turkey's proximity, military size and control over the TC community at that time reduced in effect the GCs into a "regional minority".

With the above in mind, one can understand why the Turkish side had no reservations in resorting to violence even though they constituted less than 1/5 of the island's population. But unlike earlier years when Turkish violence against GCs was carried out with the silent support of the British colonial authorities and thus remained largely unopposed, in 1963 the GCs did fight back.

Regarding the movement of 25,000 TCs into enclaves: In February 1964, a Liaison committee established that about 5,500 TCs and 1,600 GCs had been displaced due t the fighting. Some months later, the UNSG estimated that eventually 25,000 TCs were moved from their homes. It therefore seems that about 19,500 TCs moved into enclaves upon the directions of Ankara and their local agents.

How many GC (or what % of the GC population) left their homes because of violence by Ankara(?) before 74?

The number of GC refugees before 1960 was small compared to 1974. 700 GCs for example, were evicted from Omorphita alone by the TMT in the summer of 1958. I understand that similar things happened in Old Famagusta against the few GCs who lived or worked there. While I am not aware of the exact total number of GC refugees before 1960, the fact remains that these were the first refugees in modern Cypriot history.

Ankara was preparing to put TC into enclaves? So GC violence sacved them the trouble of having to force these people from their homes into these 'prepared' enclaves? Is that what you are telling me?

I already told you what I think. Please read above as well as what I have already written in my earlier posts otherwise this discussion will keep going in circles.

but of course EOKA was not doing any silencing of GC that openly dared to challeneg them and their policies?

Between 1955 – 1959 EOKA did execute a number of GCs who were accused of treason but this is irrelevant. While I am sure that there were some GCs who were just as "good" as the TMT was, I am not aware of any GC being executed by EOKA or anyone else because he advocated peace and cooperation with the TCs (if anyone knows I am wrong on this one, please correct me). Publishers Ayhan Hikmet and Ahmet Gurkan on the other hand who did exactly that, they were brutally murdered by the TMT in 1962 (that is before the inter-communal crisis emered to the surface btw).

So you wish to challenge me for the offical Turkish version of history 'that do not withstand reality and which you systematically repeat in this forum.' - yet will not deal with those partsd of the GC version of history that do not withstand reality and which you systematical reapeat in this forum? Your choice I guess.

One can comment upon / interpret historic events and others can always agree or disagree. It is my opinion however that in your posts you tend to give more weight to your own interpretations and less in the actual facts which in any event you present in a very selective manner. Words like "maybe", "if" and "would have" appear all over your posts but I am afraid that these cannot replace real history.

There are many possible explainations as to why TC / Turkey 'prepared' enclaves prior to 63 (and I am not convinced yet they had prepared such enclaves in the way you portray). Maybe they were aware of GC plans to use violence against the TC community and did wjhat they could to be ready for that? There are other possibilites as well.

Maybe? Other possibilities? Here we go again….

Of course to you there are no other possibilites and these are proof of Ankras plan to force division of the Island.

Yes, because this is what happened. Step by step.

So if this was the first step what was the second step? To rely on GC violence agaist the TC community? If GC had not 'obliged'? Would Turkey and TC forced 25,000 TC from thier homes with violence and threat of violence?

The next step to partition came in 1974. Before that, Turkey attempted to take this step earlier but things didn't just work out at the time.

My uncle went to work one day in a GC controlled area - as he had done for many years - and against the advise of the TC leadership of the time. He was taken from his place of work and murdered by GC - and you ask me what security concerns there were for TC to leave the enclaves and enter the GC controlled areas?

The only reason I will discuss your personal loss (for which I am neither happy nor responsible) is because you brought it up yourself. I presume that your unlce was murdered before 1968. One question to ask is this: did this happen on an isolated incident or was it the result of a GC annihilation plan? My intention here is not to justify any GC unjust or deplorable actions against TC civilians (and there were such actions carried out by both GCs and TCs), but rather to try and understand the context in which these events took place. After all by 1972 about 7,000 TCs from the enclaves were working on a daily basis outside the enclaves without any problems.

You outnumbered us 4 to 1. You controlled the 'offical' police. You controlled the state. You had control of all the ports in Cyprus. You also had military equipment vastly in excess of anything the TC community had - and you used it.

Again: numerical superiority does not guarantee military superiority. Your quotes refer to events that took place well after Xmas 1963 when hostilities broke out as well as early 1964. In the summer of 1964 the National Guard was established and naturally there were efforts to organise it and strengthen it. And after that there were also about 10,000 Greek troops that arrived "secretly" in Cyprus. But none of all these existed in 1963 when it all started and at that time the GC side remained ill equipped and largely unprepared.

You deny that the Akritas plan was a plan to steal (unilateralty remove) the rights granted tothe TC under 1960 consitution? That it talked plainly of the unilateral changes to the constituion. That it knew these changes would never be acceptable to the TC community. That it talked plainly of the need to decive the international community of GC real objectives. That it talked plainly of the need to use swift and ovewhealming force (which tyou deny GC even had!) in the event of (expected) TC resitance to these attempts? Do you deny all of this? Have you read it?

What I do not understand is why even propose a discussion on possible Constitutional amendments when the sole intention was to "steal" TC rights? Why "Deceive" the international community and not "convince" it? Swift and overwhelming force you write? If I remember well the Akritas plan was very careful about when and where force should be used. At the same time the question remains on whether the "Akritas" plan ever came into effect and if yes then to what extend did this happen. Your insistence to present the withdrawal of the TCs from the RoC as one of the "accomplishments" of the GCs via the Akritas plan is in my opinion unconvincing because the GCs had little to gain from what happened (I discussed this in an earlier post).

Why did 'this not work out'? What stopped Turkey from executing their 'plan' in 63 and made them wait another 11 years to execute it?

At that time it was the US, who were neither willing nor prepared to see the SE NATO flank collapse.

I am saying that Makarios knew that violence was being used by GC against the TC community and did nothing to stop it and may well have supported it.

Again: May well have? Makarios surely knew about GC paramilitary organizations but I think that he had little choice other that to accept them as there were also similar TC armed groups in place. He did however convince their leaders to keep their weapons concentrated. Dr. Fasil Kucuk was also well aware of the preparations in his own camp. The fact that both Makarios and Kucuk never had an open and honest discussion about what was going on (even thought they knew), is one area where both leaders failed big time.

When hostilities broke out in Dec 1963, Makarios and Dr. Kucuk made a joint (and genuine in my opinion) appeal on both sides to stop the fighting. The effort was to continue the next day but Osman Orek never showed up to that appointment with Glafkos Clerides as he was supposed to. I wonder what changed their mind?

What makes me so sure that the blame for the events in 63-67 are more attributable to GC than TC is that you there were more of you than us - there fore you carry more blame than us. You openly expressed your disatisfaction with the very agreements you signed from the minute you singed them. You created a secret plan as to how you could overthrow the very agreements you signed whilst creating an impression to the outside world that this was not your intention but practical necessity. You controlled the state and all the powers of the state and you did not use them to stop volence you used them to perpetrate violence. Because the overwhealming reports of both indpendent journalists and the UN of this time put the larger share of the blame on GC. Because you had (short of Turkish intervention) little to loose and everything to gain and TC had little to gain (excpet some distant hope of Turkish intervention andf partition that was not certain) and everything to loose. For these reasons and more I think GC carry more blame than TC for the events of 63-74.

You are again repeating yourself. I have discussed all the above in this post and under this thread extensively.

O.

[Othellos]

Well, you can only get my nickname if you have seen Chaplin's "The Great dictator" and have some info about the German government under Hitler rule. Have you heard of "Goebbels"? The propaganda minister? Garbitsch is his satire version in Chaplin's movie. Basically, this name was chosen since it sounds both "Goebbels" and "Garbage".

Hahahahaha

I wonder why u chose this nickname.....anyways, here u go:




O.[/img]

[erolz]

I am afraid you are still going around circles and playing with words, erolz

This from the man that claims a plan to unilateraly change the consitution
(and thus illeagly steal from TC) to remove the rights of TC community is the same as a plan to annihilate the TC community in Cyprus? I am playing with words?

The fact is that it was largely uninhabited and unexplored and therefore my earlier argument (which expanded beyond this) remains valid.

Yeah right - try telling that to the american native amiercians, what few of them still exist holed up in their enclaves ! The US is a state founded on stolen land and the fact that some of that land was unhinabted does nothing to chage this, no matter how you play with words.

Regarding the movement of 25,000 TCs into enclaves: In February 1964, a Liaison committee established that about 5,500 TCs and 1,600 GCs had been displaced due t the fighting. Some months later, the UNSG estimated that eventually 25,000 TCs were moved from their homes. It therefore seems that about 19,500 TCs moved into enclaves upon the directions of Ankara and their local agents.

This then is your famed and lauded 'square logic'? You think the fighting, the killing of innocents, the creation of fear and terror stopped in feb 64? And from this false assumption you then 'deduce' that any movement of a TC was not a result of GC violence but must have been the result of orders from Turkey and their agents. GC violenece against TC did not end in feb 64. It increased and intensified as more and more arms and Greek militray came inot Cyprus. This round of violence continued until August 64 when GC and Greek military in massive comparative force rounded on TC in Kokkina and only abated when Turkey sent jets to Cyprus.

The number of GC refugees before 1960 was small compared to 1974.

How abpout as compared with the TC refugees of 63-64?

700 GCs for example, were evicted from Omorphita alone by the TMT in the summer of 1958. I understand that similar things happened in Old Famagusta against the few GCs who lived or worked there. While I am not aware of the exact total number of GC refugees before 1960, the fact remains that these were the first refugees in modern Cypriot history.

And you have documentary evidence of these claims presumably?

It is my opinion however that in your posts you tend to give more weight to your own interpretations and less in the actual facts which in any event you present in a very selective manner.

likewise.

Words like "maybe", "if" and "would have" appear all over your posts but I am afraid that these cannot replace real history.

Now you crtitise me becasue I try not to be absolutist?

Maybe? Other possibilities? Here we go again….

Yes, because this is what happened. Step by step.

This what happeed eventually. Your logic is that it must have been a plan in 60 onwards because it happened in 74. Oh and your view must be right because you only consider one view as absolutely right and mine wrong because I suggest there may have been multiple possibilites.
By the same logic there must have been a plan by GC to force TC to withdraw from government because TC did withdraw from government (never mind that there was a plan and it was written down)

The next step to partition came in 1974. Before that, Turkey attempted to take this step earlier but things didn't just work out at the time.

First step - prepare enclaves
Second step partition the Island using force.

If there was a plan then there had to be a middle satge of moving TC from their existing homes to the prepared enclaves. It was not sufficent to prepare the enclaves and then invade. The TC had to be forced from their homes into the enclaves. That this missing step was done achieved primarily by GC violence against TC seems not to register with you. In fact it seems to provide you with all the proof you need that it was not GC violence that drove so many TC from their homes and must have been orders from Turkey and TC violence - against all historical evidence and impartial accounts from the time.

I presume that your unlce was murdered before 1968. One question to ask is this:

He was murdered in 64.

did this happen on an isolated incident or was it the result of a GC annihilation plan?

It was part of systematic violence by GC against TC at this time. The murder was one of 3--35 such murders carried out by GC on innocent TC as an act of 'reprisal' for a prior shooting of GC/Greek allegedly trying to drive through a TC checkpoint at a TC enclave and a result inciting fallaicous GC state broadcast about the prior incident.

more details can be found here

On 11 May 1964, a car, carrying three Greek army officers and a Greek-Cypriot policeman, was driven into the Turkish-Cypriot walled city of Famagusta. Turkish-Cypriot policemen signalled the car to stop as it approached an exit gate. The occupants of the car fired at the Turk-Cypriot policemen and their fire was returned. Two of the Greek officers and the Greek-Cypriot policeman were killed; the third Greek officer was wounded; a Turk-Cypriot bystander was killed in the cross-fire.

It has never been satisfactorily explained why these men entered the Turkish-Cypriot quarter. Most likely it was a reckless act of bravado during which some amateurish spying of Turk- Cypriot defences was carried out.[43]

News of this incident immediately inflamed inter-communal enmity. Government press reports portrayed the incident as an atrocity in which Turkish-Cypriot 'terrorists' riddled four lone Greeks who had strayed into the Turkish-Cypriot quarter by mistake.[44] This completely fallacious version of the incident encouraged Greek-Cypriot extremist groups to exact their own revenge. Between 11 and 13 May, probably 32 to 35 Turk-Cypriots were abducted and executed as a reprisal for the deaths of these three men. The abductions seem to have been carried out by a well-organized Greek-Cypriot gang based in Famagusta and Larnaca Districts, although it is not improbable that a few of the kidnappings may have been spontaneous and uncoordinated acts of revenge.

The UNFICYP investigations into these mass abductions were undertaken by a British officer, Major Masey, the UNFICYP liaison officer to the Turkish-Cypriot leadership. On 7 June, Major Masey and his driver were themselves abducted in the Famagusta District, and presumably murdered.[45] There may be some question as to whether Masey's murder was motivated primarily to prevent an investigation into the Famagusta abductions, or as a result of Greek-Cypriot enmity of the British troops which was quite intense at that time.[46] There is, however, no doubt that Masey's murderers were Greek-Cypriot irregulars.

My uncle was one of the 32 -35 innocent TC murder by GC irregular forces in a massively (order of magnitude) dispropotionate act of violent retribution by a community you alledge had no significant greater force in Cyprus and incited by GC state fallicous and inciting reporting of the incdent. The message was clear. A greek or GC dies at the hands of a TC - regardless of the situtaion and 10 times more innocent TC will die. This is the reality of your 'equal' intercommunal violence. Of course such terror could not have been responisble for TC fleeing their homes and seeking saftey in enclaves - because after feb 64 according to you the only reason TC left their homes for the enclaves was Turkeys orders. Of course such acts had no effect on TC not wanting to leave the enclaves or the TC adminstration advising and stopping the from doing so. Such advise and moves to prevent TC leaving the enclaves had nothing to do with the security of these people and only to do with Turkeys orders to facillate partition.

Again: numerical superiority does not guarantee military superiority. Your quotes refer to events that took place well after Xmas 1963 when hostilities broke out as well as early 1964. In the summer of 1964 the National Guard was established and naturally there were efforts to organise it and strengthen it. And after that there were also about 10,000 Greek troops that arrived "secretly" in Cyprus. But none of all these existed in 1963 when it all started and at that time the GC side remained ill equipped and largely unprepared.

GC had greatly more force - force of numbers and force of equipment and force of controll of all the sate in 63. Throughout 63-68 they continued to build up this force until it went from greatly more to massively more.

What I do not understand is why even propose a discussion on possible Constitutional amendments when the sole intention was to "steal" TC rights? Why "Deceive" the international community and not "convince" it?

You try to convince the international community of the justness of your desires prior to 60 agreements and you failed. Thus having failed to 'convince' you planed to use deception.

Some extracts from the plan to help you understand

towards the final and unalterable national objective, i.e., to the full and unfettered exercise of the right of self-determination of the people.

where people clearly means the GC people.

Consequently, our first target has been to cultivate internationally the impression that the Cyprus problem has not really been solved an the solution requires revision.

Our first objective was our endeavour to be vindicated as the Greek majority and to create the impression that:

(i) The solution given is neither satisfactory not fair;

(ii) The agreement reached was not the result of a free and voluntary acceptance of a compromise of the conflicting views;

(iii) That the revision of the agreements constitutes a compelling necessity for survival, and not an effort of the Greeks to repudiate their signature;

The (1960) soultion was not unsatisfactory or unfair - thus an impression that it was needed to be created. The agreement was the result of free and voultanry acceptance thus an impression that it was not needed to be created. GC (who wrote this plan) wanted to repudiate their signatures thus an impression needed to be created that this was not their desire but that it was a matter of necessity.

The removal of these provisions, despite the fact that this is reasonable and necessary, because of the unreasonable attitude of the Turks is not possible bv agreement, and therefore unilateral action is justified

Having established the impression internationaly that the 60 consitution was not fair and just the next stage - unilateral action (ammedning the consitution) becomes viable.

The point is that the Akritas plan was clearly a plan to unilateraly remove TC communites rights that they had under the 1960 agreements. They clearly recongised they could not do this by just 'convincing' the world of the justness of their cause, but instead had to proceed in a series of stages of decpetion of the international community about the situation in Cyprus and the GC communites true desire and objectives.

again from the plan itself to help you understand

From the above, the conclusion can be drawn that for the success of our plan a chain of actions is needed, each of which is necessary, otherwise, future actions will remain legally unjustified and politically unachieved, while at the same time we will expose our people and the country to serious consequences. The actions to be taken can be summed up as follows:
[snip]
It is therefore obvious that if we hope to have any chance of success internationally in our above actions, we cannot and must not reveal or declare the various stages of the struggle before the previous one is completed. For instance, if it is accepted that the above four stages are necessary, then it is unthinkable to speak of amendments in stage (a) if stage (d) is revealed. How can it be possible to aim at the amendment of the negative aspects of the constitution by arguing that this is necessary for the functioning of the State if stage (d) is revealed?

Swift and overwhelming force you write?

Again from the plan itself

Should clashes occur, they will be dealt with in the initial stages legally by the legally established security forces, in accordance with a plan. All actions will be clothed in legal form.

[snip]

In the event of instinctive violent Turkish reactions, if our counter-attacks are not immediate , we run the risk effacing panic in the Greeks in the towns and thus losing substantial vital areas, while, on the other hand, an immediate show of our strength may bring the Turks to their senses and confine their actions to sporadic insignificant acts, and

b) In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside, intervention would be either justified or possible.

How can you plan to overcome resistance immediately and within one or two days, without swift and overwhealming force - a force you claim the GC did not even have - though the authors of this document clearly did not share this view and they had a better ability to know temporaily and paracticaly.

If I remember well the Akritas plan was very careful about when and where force should be used.

It certainly was.

At the same time the question remains on whether the "Akritas" plan ever came into effect and if yes then to what extend did this happen.

Yes the question remains to what extent the plan was followed and the GC leaders were able to control those that needed to implement it. The use of violence against TC by GC and the scale of it is one of the areas where it seems the plan was not follwed - probably as a result that even after the plan had been explained to them some forces in the GC camp could not restrain themselves from exerting violence over TC.
What is not questionable is that the plan clearly lays out the objectives and plans of the GC authors of it. To repudiate their signatures without making it look like they wanted to repudiate them. To unilateraly remove all the TC communites rights under the 1960 consitution whilst creating an impression that this was not thier desire. So who were these authors? Were they a minority band of GC with neither any popular support or political power or where they a small minority with the support of the majority of GC commuity and most if not all political power. Clearly they were the latter. That they did not managed to implement the plan exactly as it is laid out does nothing to change what their objectives and means were.

Your insistence to present the withdrawal of the TCs from the RoC as one of the "accomplishments" of the GCs via the Akritas plan is in my opinion unconvincing because the GCs had little to gain from what happened (I discussed this in an earlier post).

I present the fact that all political power was in the hand of GC alone by 63 as being totaly in line with the objectives of the akritas, because it was one of the core objectives of the Akritas plan. Wheather this was achieved by following the plan, by TC mistakes or even by Turkeys orders to achieve partiton does not change this.
GC had little to gain from being in sole control of the state? Read the plan again. Being in sole control of the state, whilst not being blamed for being so was a vital part and step in the plan.

Again: May well have?

You want me to talk in terms of absolute certainty about things that I can not possibly know with absolute certainty, only as likely probabilites (as you do)? Sorry but I am not built that way.

[gabaston]

othellos.

i dont think i made a comment as such.
Each line ended with a question mark.
It was a question, and not disrectful.

I'll ask the question as respectfully as possible again. If you have no answer fine, but please dont expect those who have to pay for its upkeep to simply maintain it for nothing, that is unjustifiable. To let it rot and become a breading ground for mice and rats, is also unjustifiable.
What's your sollution?

i am asking the question because i dont know the answer.
we can barely feed ourselves, to pay for the upkeep of something we wont use makes no sense to us or anyone in the whole world.

[Othellos]

This from the man that claims a plan to unilateraly change the consitution
(and thus illeagly steal from TC) to remove the rights of TC community is the same as a plan to annihilate the TC community in Cyprus? I am playing with words?

The "annihilation" thesis is not mine but one crafted by Turkish propagandists. I can see how your claims for "unilaterally changing" the Constitution can match your agenda, but the fact remains that Makarios proposed those amendments. Discussing how these amendments would have affected any vital rights of the TC community is absolutely legitimate of course, even if this should have been done 42 years ago and not in 2005.

Yeah right - try telling that to the american native amiercians, what few of them still exist holed up in their enclaves ! The US is a state founded on stolen land and the fact that some of that land was unhinabted does nothing to chage this, no matter how you play with words.

You would have been more accurate to claim that only part of the North American continent was inhabited at the time, but as far as I am concerned you are entitled on your own views on the issue (if there is one of course). Back to Cyprus, you still haven't told me if the so-called "trnc" was "founded" on stolen land or not?

This then is your famed and lauded 'square logic'? You think the fighting, the killing of innocents, the creation of fear and terror stopped in feb 64? And from this false assumption you then 'deduce' that any movement of a TC was not a result of GC violence but must have been the result of orders from Turkey and their agents. GC violenece against TC did not end in feb 64. It increased and intensified as more and more arms and Greek militray came inot Cyprus. This round of violence continued until August 64 when GC and Greek military in massive comparative force rounded on TC in Kokkina and only abated when Turkey sent jets to Cyprus.

It is true that after 02/64 there was on and off violence untill August 1964. Nevertheless this violence was never one way or almost one way. In March 1964, TC paramilitaries attacked the Paphos market, inflicted several GC civilian casualties and took about 200 of them as hostages. On the same month there was fighting in Paphos and Limassol. And in Pentadaktylos, GCs attacked several strategically located Turkish strongholds and were successful in destroying a temporary Turkish airfield (!) near Krini village. They failed however to take the Ayios Ilarionas peak. Some months later in the clashes at Tylliria (08/64), the GCs attempted to eliminate the heavily fortified enclave at Mansoura from which Turkey would import supplies and reinforcements to Cyprus. Turkey retaliated by napalming indiscriminately Greek villages and inflicting heavy civilian casualties.

As far as I understand the above areas remained the main theatres of conflict in the specified period. The population numbers in the above areas alone however, indicate clearly that the relocation of 19,000 + TCs could have not been the result of direct fighting in those areas.

At the same time it is known that on several occasions TCs were forced by TMT fighters to either abandon their homes by leaving them or by not returning to them. In November 1964 for example, a group of TCs from Axylou (Paphos district) tried to stop another TC group of temporarily displaced TCs who wanted to return to their village that was nearby (Pittarkou) and which was under RoC control. The incident resulted in a shoot out between the 2 TC groups (see United Nations, S/6102, Annex III, pp. 6-7). Turkey was clearly implementing its taksim policy in Cyprus, step by step and with total disregard to the cost that the TC community would bare for it.

How abpout as compared with the TC refugees of 63-64?

Definitely less, but does this make any difference? After all it was Turkey that initiated an ethnic cleansing policy in Cyprus that aimed in establishing clear separation lines between the 2 communities and eventually lead to partition.

And you have documentary evidence of these claims presumably?

"Cyprus, origins of the present crisis" (pp.17-18) reports that 700 GCs were evicted from Omorphita in the summer of 1958 by the TMT.

Now you crtitise me becasue I try not to be absolutist?

All I am saying is that in presenting your own thesis you rely less of the facts (which you present selectively anyway) and more on your own interpretations of what "maybe", "could" or "would have happened if"….

This what happeed eventually.

Yes, because this was the plan.

Your logic is that it must have been a plan in 60 onwards because it happened in 74. Oh and your view must be right because you only consider one view as absolutely right and mine wrong because I suggest there may have been multiple possibilites.

Do not get me wrong. I do not know everything and I am certainly not infallible - this is one of the reasons why I visit this forum. But as far as I understand Turkey and the TC leadership have always been very candid about partitioning the island. Am I incorrect?

By the same logic there must have been a plan by GC to force TC to withdraw from government because TC did withdraw from government (never mind that there was a plan and it was written down)

Yes there was a plan – a Turkish one that was found in Fazil Plumer’s office, signed by both Denktash and Kucuk (more information about this plan in "My Deposition", Vol. 1, pp. 218-222 by Glafkos Clerides). In it, the withdrawal from the RoC and the set up of a TC separatist administration was one of the measures indicated in it.

First step - prepare enclaves
Second step partition the Island using force.

If there was a plan then there had to be a middle satge of moving TC from their existing homes to the prepared enclaves.

IF there was a plan? Come on erolz………

It was not sufficent to prepare the enclaves and then invade. The TC had to be forced from their homes into the enclaves. That this missing step was done achieved primarily by GC violence against TC seems not to register with you. In fact it seems to provide you with all the proof you need that it was not GC violence that drove so many TC from their homes and must have been orders from Turkey and TC violence - against all historical evidence and impartial accounts from the time.

Okay…let me ask you this: do you think that TC violence played ANY role at all in forcing ordinary TCs out of their homes or not?

It was part of systematic violence by GC against TC at this time. The murder was one of 3--35 such murders carried out by GC on innocent TC as an act of 'reprisal' for a prior shooting of GC/Greek allegedly trying to drive through a TC checkpoint at a TC enclave and a result inciting fallaicous GC state broadcast about the prior incident.

I am aware of this incident briefly described in the "Cyprus Conflict", (pp.106 – 107) where they mention that on 11/5/64, 2 Greek army officers and the son of a GC police chief entered the TC controlled sector of Famagusta by mistake and were shot dead. Within 3 days, GCs carried out reprisal attacks and 32 TCs went missing. The same source states: "…though the Famagusta kidnapping was one of the largest incidents in the 1964 troubles, it was a relatively isolated one." For what is worth, the authors clearly disagree with your assessment that this incident was part of "Systematic GC violence".

My uncle was one of the 32 -35 innocent TC murder by GC irregular forces in a massively (order of magnitude) dispropotionate act of violent retribution by a community you alledge had no significant greater force in Cyprus and incited by GC state fallicous and inciting reporting of the incdent. The message was clear. A greek or GC dies at the hands of a TC - regardless of the situtaion and 10 times more innocent TC will die. This is the reality of your 'equal' intercommunal violence.

I have already referred to a similar disproportionate act of violence in Paphos that occurred in March 1964 and where many GC civilians were shot at or taken as hostages by TC irregulars. Such incidents unfortunately did happen. While no one can change the past, at the same time I cannot see what good it does to ignore or deny or play down the wrong doings of side A over side B like you try to do.

Of course such terror could not have been responisble for TC fleeing their homes and seeking saftey in enclaves - because after feb 64 according to you the only reason TC left their homes for the enclaves was Turkeys orders. Of course such acts had no effect on TC not wanting to leave the enclaves or the TC adminstration advising and stopping the from doing so. Such advise and moves to prevent TC leaving the enclaves had nothing to do with the security of these people and only to do with Turkeys orders to facillate partition.

I am reluctant to accept overall GC violence in 1963 as "overwhelming and over-proportionate" because large areas of the island remained unaffected from the conflict and life went on. After 1964 there still were many mixed villages, GCs and TCs continued to interact on a daily basis and tension was gradually reduced. And almost half of the island's TC population continued to live outside the enclaves up to 1974. Surely there were individuals from both sides who suffered more and who can relate to your "ultimate terror" thesis that in turn serves just one purpose. But this was certainly not the standard as you claim.

GC had greatly more force - force of numbers and force of equipment and force of controll of all the sate in 63. Throughout 63-68 they continued to build up this force until it went from greatly more to massively more.

Already discussed repeatedly and extensively in the previous post. You are repeating yourself and there is no need for me to follow you.

You try to convince the international community of the justness of your desires prior to 60 agreements and you failed. Thus having failed to 'convince' you planed to use deception.

Since when has the international community started making decisions solely based on what is just?

The (1960) soultion was not unsatisfactory or unfair - thus an impression that it was needed to be created. The agreement was the result of free and voultanry acceptance thus an impression that it was not needed to be created.

I do not think that the signing of the 1960 agreements by the GCs was the result of willing and voluntary acceptance. The agreements were signed in order to avoid partition of the island by Britain.

Other than that the Akritas plan (already discussed) was not the reason behind the inter-communal conflict but rather another GC scenario on how to deal with the reasons behind the conflict at that given moment: to amend certain parts of the agreements that they considered one sided and unfair.

The point is that the Akritas plan was clearly a plan to unilateraly remove TC communites rights that they had under the 1960 agreements. They clearly recongised they could not do this by just 'convincing' the world of the justness of their cause, but instead had to proceed in a series of stages of decpetion of the international community about the situation in Cyprus and the GC communites true desire and objectives.

The extend over the Akritas plan was implemented has already been questioned. If you prefer to remain attached on the myth that certain events that affected the TCs (like Ankara’s direction to withdrawal from the RoC) were the result of this plan then be my guest. Furthermore and based on your earlier quotes it becomes evident that the plan’s authors were seeking legally justifiable ways to achieve any revisions of the agreements (already discussed).

How can you plan to overcome resistance immediately and within one or two days, without swift and overwhealming force - a force you claim the GC did not even have - though the authors of this document clearly did not share this view and they had a better ability to know temporaily and paracticaly.

If you want to know what "overwhelming force" is, then try comparing Turkey's invasion force in 1974 Vs an ill equipped and unorganised National Guard when over 6000 GCs were killed, brutally murdered or just went missing. This was Turkey's achievement in Cyprus in less than one month. The number of casualties between 1963-1967 on the other hand remained low on both sides and into the hundreds. Clearly, there can be no comparison between what happened in Cyprus during the 1960's and anything "overwhelming".

Yes the question remains to what extent the plan was followed and the GC leaders were able to control those that needed to implement it. The use of violence against TC by GC and the scale of it is one of the areas where it seems the plan was not follwed - probably as a result that even after the plan had been explained to them some forces in the GC camp could not restrain themselves from exerting violence over TC.

Probably? Are you telling us that you are not 100% sure?

What is not questionable is that the plan clearly lays out the objectives and plans of the GC authors of it. To repudiate their signatures without making it look like they wanted to repudiate them. To unilateraly remove all the TC communites rights under the 1960 consitution whilst creating an impression that this was not thier desire. So who were these authors? Were they a minority band of GC with neither any popular support or political power or where they a small minority with the support of the majority of GC commuity and most if not all political power. Clearly they were the latter. That they did not managed to implement the plan exactly as it is laid out does nothing to change what their objectives and means were.

The Akritas plan again (already discussed repeatedly).

I present the fact that all political power was in the hand of GC alone by 63 as being totaly in line with the objectives of the akritas, because it was one of the core objectives of the Akritas plan.

Huh???

Wheather this was achieved by following the plan, by TC mistakes or even by Turkeys orders to achieve partiton does not change this.

Of course it makes a difference. And if anything the way the TC leadership chose to abandon the RoC shows how committed they were to the Republic as well as the agreements.

GC had little to gain from being in sole control of the state? Read the plan again. Being in sole control of the state, whilst not being blamed for being so was a vital part and step in the plan.

GC had little to gain by forcing the TCs in enclaves and allowing Turkey to establish military bases in Cyprus. Turkey's plans of course required otherwise.

You want me to talk in terms of absolute certainty about things that I can not possibly know with absolute certainty, only as likely probabilites (as you do)? Sorry but I am not built that way.

I do not want you to do anything. Feel free to talk in whatever terms you prefer.

O.

[insan]

GC had little to gain by forcing the TCs in enclaves and allowing Turkey to establish military bases in Cyprus. Turkey's plans of course required otherwise.

GC leadership in cooperation of Greek leadership had lot to gain by forcing TCs into enclaves and imposing inhumane embargos on them. They thought by oppressing TCs they would have made TC community to accept minority status in Cyprus. Furthermore, they planned to trick international community to nullify treaty of guarantee and treaty of alliance. Moreover, they planned to annex Cyprus to Greece in order to make East Mediterennean the castle of Hellenism.

And you O. tell us GC had nothing to gain by oppressing, terrorizing, pressurizing TCs to accept minority status.

[Othellos]

i am asking the question because i dont know the answer.
we can barely feed ourselves, to pay for the upkeep of something we wont use makes no sense to us or anyone in the whole world.

For as long as the problem remains unresolved, I am afraid that you will have to look after our Churches (so far you have been doing a terrible job). We will also have to look after your Mosques. Doing otherwise will not help either side one bit.

O.

[Othellos]

GC had little to gain by forcing the TCs in enclaves and allowing Turkey to establish military bases in Cyprus. Turkey's plans of course required otherwise.

GC leadership in cooperation of Greek leadership had lot to gain by forcing TCs into enclaves and imposing inhumane embargos on them. They thought by oppressing TCs they would have made TC community to accept minority status in Cyprus. Furthermore, they planned to trick international community to nullify treaty of guarantee and treaty of alliance. Moreover, they planned to annex Cyprus to Greece in order to make East Mediterennean the castle of Hellenism.

And you O. tell us GC had nothing to gain by oppressing, terrorizing, pressurizing TCs to accept minority status.

what you write above Insan would have made some sense if your leadership was not responsible for withdrawing from the RoC in order to set a separatist administration upon Ankara's orders. It is true that there was a time when GCs did impose a control was imposed on certain commodities such as building materials for the enclaves. Yet if the sole aim of the GCs was to "oppress" then they would have never allowed the free exit of TCs from these enclaves for employment etc. GCs on the other hand were banned from entering these TC contrlled areas even after 1968.

O.