Cyprus-Forum.com

[magikthrill]

Promoting a solution to the problem today is a worthy cause. However this is not the objective of the book and to judge it on such criteria is in my humble view to misunderstand the authors objective and unfarily judge the book. To me it is similar to the critisim of the GC who made a film about GC autrocites against TC, on the basis it does not cover the reverse. That was not it's intention or purpose (either the film of Mr Gibbons' book). The objective of the book is to present the 'other side' of a story that the authors feels has not / had not been properly exposed prior to his book.

Sorry erol but I disagree with you here. The film you are referring to "The Rape of Attila" refers to the atrocities of the Turkish army against the GCs. The End.

The author of this book has the audacity to get into the political scheme of things and claim that there is no cyprus problem because it was solved in 1974. These are clearly two different scenarios.

There were not negotiations about how to manage population movements after 74? There were no agreements made on this subject? Certainly I accept that these were not agreements that expressed a GC desire to see such movments seperate from the realites of the situtation, but there were as I understand it negotiations and agreements.

See that's what this guy wants you to think. All that there was in 1977 were discussions and loose agreements. Both leaders agreed on bizonality and that was it. Not only could they not agree on the right of refugees to return, freedom of movement and right to property but they couldnt even agree to the size of each state. check it out: http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/makarios ... ,%2077.htm
On a sidenote, although I utterly DISlike Makarios, primarily because he was a prieft and secondly ebcause he was a terrible leader, from this document and only this have I the single admiration for him in the way he controlled the situation. This "framework" did not work out, IMO, solely because of Denctash. He obviously wanted his own independent state and hence he was bargaining for something he knew he couldnt get it.

There were those in the adminstration that knew about and supported the coup and those that did not - again as I understand it. The Iphestos plan was to be executed after the coup had been implemented and the coupists were in power.

Again much shame on behalf of the GC community for this. But does this mean those in the GC administration that did not support the coup, had no idea about the plan and/or were unwilling to follow by it?

[erolz]

Sorry erol but I disagree with you here. The film you are referring to "The Rape of Attila" refers to the atrocities of the Turkish army against the GCs. The End.

Actually that was not the film I was referring to (but the one made recenlty by a GC that covers attacks by GC agaist TC) - but either way my point is the same. These films are 'biased' - they recount 'one side' of the events. They do not attempt to cover 'all sides'. They too could be dsimissed as you appear to be dismissing the genocide files on this basis?

The author of this book has the audacity to get into the political scheme of things and claim that there is no cyprus problem because it was solved in 1974. These are clearly two different scenarios.

As far as the Cyprus problem was one of GC seeking to impose their wishes on a TC community and using force against TC to do so, it was solved in 74. After 74 the GC community could no longer impose it's will on the TC community and neither could GC commit violent acts against TC. Of course this in itself created a whole new 'cyprus problem' (one of violence against GC in 74 and the loss of their land and property). I do not deny that and neither as far as I know does Mr Gibbons.

Really I can not stress this point enough Magik. If you want to have a serious discussion about this book you need to have read it first. To me you are behaving like MP's in the UK comming out and slating Chris Morrisis satircal TV programme attacking the way the media handles pedophillia, without having even seen the programme.

See that's what this guy wants you to think. All that there was in 1977 were discussions and loose agreements.

Exactly. There were discussion. There were agreements (loose or otherwise). Does not seem a lie to me to say such?

Again much shame on behalf of the GC community for this. But does this mean those in the GC administration that did not support the coup, had no idea about the plan and/or were unwilling to follow by it?

My understanding was that it was the plan and work of the coupists (some of whom were in the GC adminstration and the national guard and other elements of the 'state' at that time). That it was not read and agreed by every GC only makes it less 'scary' as document imo. That without Turkish action in 74 there is a very real chance that these coupists would have gained the power necessary and attemtped to execute the plan seems a very plausible possibility to me.

[magikthrill]

As far as the Cyprus problem was one of GC seeking to impose their wishes on a TC community and using force against TC to do so, it was solved in 74. After 74 the GC community could no longer impose it's will on the TC community and neither could GC commit violent acts against TC. Of course this in itself created a whole new 'cyprus problem' (one of violence against GC in 74 and the loss of their land and property). I do not deny that and neither as far as I know does Mr Gibbons.

Fair enough. With the same logic the Cyprus problem was also solved in 1963 when the 18% no longer controlled 50% of the government, as was the wishes of the GCs back then. Of course as you said this created a whole new problem as well.

Really I can not stress this point enough Magik. If you want to have a serious discussion about this book you need to have read it first. To me you are behaving like MP's in the UK comming out and slating Chris Morrisis satircal TV programme attacking the way the media handles pedophillia, without having even seen the programme.

I'm sorry erol but would you ever read a book entitled "The Akritas Plan and how it solved the problems of all Cypriots

Exactly. There were discussion. There were agreements (loose or otherwise). Does not seem a lie to me to say such?

Um.. did you not read what the author said. He stated that in 1977 the exchange of properties was agreed upon. This was not only agreed upon "tightly" but not even loosely. Hence this is a lie erol. Can you at least agree on this?

My understanding was that it was the plan and work of the coupists (some of whom were in the GC adminstration and the national guard and other elements of the 'state' at that time). That it was not read and agreed by every GC only makes it less 'scary' as document imo. That without Turkish action in 74 there is a very real chance that these coupists would have gained the power necessary and attemtped to execute the plan seems a very plausible possibility to me.

It seems very plausible to me too. But at the same time you cannot blame all GCs for this. For one thing, Tassos is automatically off the hook if in fact he did not want enosis at the time... IMO.

[erolz]

Fair enough. With the same logic the Cyprus problem was also solved in 1963 when the 18% no longer controlled 50% of the government, as was the wishes of the GCs back then. Of course as you said this created a whole new problem as well.

and many GC, I believe, did feel the 'cyprus problem' was 'solved' in the period 63-74.

I'm sorry erol but would you ever read a book entitled "The Akritas Plan and how it solved the problems of all Cypriots

I have and do read almost anything related to the Cyprus problem. If the material is written from first hand experience by an established journalist on no Cypriot ethnicity then I take this in to consideration in judging where the author is comming from and why they wrote what they did. I certainly would not critise a book I have never read based on it's title or on what I have 'heard' about the book indirectly. I would read it and form an opinion based on that.

Um.. did you not read what the author said. He stated that in 1977 the exchange of properties was agreed upon. This was not only agreed upon "tightly" but not even loosely. Hence this is a lie erol. Can you at least agree on this?

what he actualy says in this article is

The intervention gave Turkish Cypriots the northern third of the island, and an exchange of populations that was agreed to by the Greek Cypriots confirmed the acceptance of the existence of two distinct entities, each inhabited by a people of the same race, religion and language. It was a de facto ethnic safe haven for the Turks of Cyprus.

As I understand in 75, in the aftermath of the events of 74 there was agreement to allow TC 'trapped' in the south to move to the north and GC 'trapped' in the north to move to the south. I do not know the extent of these agreements but clearly the authorites in the south did not stop TC moving to the North ot the authorites in the north stop GC moving to the south. Either could have. I understand this was the subject of agreements? To say that an exchange of property was agreed by the GC would be a lie. I do not consider the above statement a lie from what I know of this period. Certainly not a lie like 'no TC were killed by GC in the period 63-74' as claimed by TP last year.

It seems very plausible to me too. But at the same time you cannot blame all GCs for this. For one thing, Tassos is automatically off the hook if in fact he did not want enosis at the time... IMO.

I do not blame or accuse all GC for what is contained in the Iphestos plans. I do not think TP was party to these plans either. However the plans existed (as far as I am concerend and I have seen some of the documents though they mean little to me personaly and I have no means of confiriming their authenticity). Those (GC) that wrote and supported them made a very real attempt to sieze the power necessary to implement them. One of the things that caused this attempt to fail was the Turkish action of 74. It is possible that without this action the coup would still have failed but it is also possible imo that without such Turkish action the coup would have sucseeded and the Greek military Junta would not have fallen and TC would have suffered the consequences of this plan being implemented. To what extent 'ordinary' GC would have allowed this plan to be carried out or not in such a senario is largely a mute point to me. The coupists did not sucseed in securing power and the plan was not put into action. It did (as far as I am concerend) exist.

[Kifeas]

THE GENOCIDE FILES by
HARRY SCOTT GIBBONS
The Genocide Files is a thorough research into the so-called "Cyprus problem."
It exposes the bias of the United Nations Organisation towards the Cyprus Turks, and its apparent inability to protect them against their more numerous and militarily more powerful co-inhabitants of the island, the Greek Cypriots.
The book describes how the Greek fixation with Enosis - union with Greece - led to a one-sided war against the Turks and the brutal massacres of their men, women and children.
Harry Scott Gibbons explodes the myth that Greeks and Turks had lived happily together from independence in 1960 until 1974 when the Turkish armed forces, without reason or provocation, attacked Cyprus and divided the island between the two races. And he explains how the Turkish intervention came only after the mainland Greek-led coup which caused a war of Greek against Greek in which 2,000 Greeks and Greek Cypriots died in five days, the reason Turkey called its action the "Peace Operation."
The operation also discovered, in a series of secret documents captured by the Turkish forces, a cold-blooded plan to wipe out the entire Turkish-Cypriot population, documents that the author calls The Genocide Files.
His book does not make for pleasant reading. An authentic tale of brutality never does.
Here is all the horror of obsession gone mad, the murders, the massacres, the rapes. And the mass graves where bulldozers ripped and tore the victims' bodies out of all recognition.
The author's research has convinced him that Cypriot Greeks and Turks never have and never will be able to live in peace and harmony. The "Cyprus problem" was solved, he says, in 1974, when the Turkish Cypriots achieved their own nationhood.
The book has also a fascinating account of the original Greek Colonels' Junta, from 1967 to 1973, the wars against Italy, Germany and the Greek Communists, and why they decided the military should take over Greece.
About the author.
Harry Scott Gibbons was born in the small coalmining village of Lochore, in Fife, Scotland, of Irish background.
After service in the Royal Air Force, he studied agriculture at Aberdeen University and economics in Copenhagen, Denmark.
His journalist career began as a greyhound racing reporter, then he moved to Beirut, Lebanon, with £10 in his pocket and stayed to become one of London's Fleet Street's best-known Middle East Foreign Correspondents.
He has lived and worked in the Arab World, Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the United States, and speaks Danish and Arabic.
At various times in his life Gibbons has been a farm and forestry worker, an air steward, ship's steward and train steward.
A staunch anti-Communist, he is one of the very few Cold War double agents the British Government has ever admitted worked for it.

Just for the record I have an uncle who has helped Mr Gibbons in the production and publication of this book and they are good and old friends. I have also met the authour and had dinner with him at my uncles house. Serveral of my relatives are referred to briefly in the book (though not my aunt who lost her husband that I have mentioned here before).

Erol, is this part that you quoted above written by Gibbons or is a third party briefing based on the book?

The first thing, among many other, that strikes me, is the number of GC deaths during the coup. By all accounts and reports of Government and GC pro-resistance (anti coupists) press, the number of GCs killed from both sides during the coup, doesn't exceed the 200. Here it mentions 2,000(!!!)

[erolz]

Erol, is this part that you quoted above written by Gibbons or is a third party briefing based on the book?

I could not say with certainty because I do not know. I suspect it was written by the publisher and approved by Mr Gibbons as this is how I percieve all such 'summaries' of books found on their covers?

The first thing, among many other, that strikes me, is the number of GC deaths during the coup. By all accounts and reports of Government and GC pro-resistance (anti coupists) press, the number of GCs killed from both sides during the coup, doesn't exceed the 200. Here it mentions 2,000(!!!)

I do not know what Mt Gibbons sources are for these numbers as I do not know what yours are for yours. I have little doubt however that the RoC has made (and perhaps continue to makes) efforts to attibute some deaths of GC in this period to Turkish and TC forces when in fact they were GC - GC killings. I suspect that if the RoC claims there were 200 GC deaths as a result of the coup (GC killing GC) and 6000 as a result of Turkish action in 74 that the real numbers of GC - GC killings were higher. Call me a cynic if you like?

[magikthrill]

i cant believe youve convinced me to do the whole quote by quote thing!! so be it.

I have and do read almost anything related to the Cyprus problem. If the material is written from first hand experience by an established journalist on no Cypriot ethnicity then I take this in to consideration in judging where the author is comming from and why they wrote what they did. I certainly would not critise a book I have never read based on it's title or on what I have 'heard' about the book indirectly. I would read it and form an opinion based on that.

you obviously have the patience and time that i dont then.

what he actualy says in this article is

The intervention gave Turkish Cypriots the northern third of the island, and an exchange of populations that was agreed to by the Greek Cypriots confirmed the acceptance of the existence of two distinct entities, each inhabited by a people of the same race, religion and language. It was a de facto ethnic safe haven for the Turks of Cyprus.

As I understand in 75, in the aftermath of the events of 74 there was agreement to allow TC 'trapped' in the south to move to the north and GC 'trapped' in the north to move to the south. I do not know the extent of these agreements but clearly the authorites in the south did not stop TC moving to the North ot the authorites in the north stop GC moving to the south. Either could have. I understand this was the subject of agreements? To say that an exchange of property was agreed by the GC would be a lie. I do not consider the above statement a lie from what I know of this period. Certainly not a lie like 'no TC were killed by GC in the period 63-74' as claimed by TP last year.

check it out... you are referring to the 3rd Vienna Agreement according to which TCs would "volunatirly" move to the north and GCs "voluntraily" move to the south. of course most GCs had abandoned the north by force of the Turkish army (maybe this is what the author means by exchagne of population?) while those left behind were forced to leave within time, i.e. violation of agreement.

so be it. it was an agreement which we can assume the author is referring to.

regardless he also states that this "confirmed the acceptance of the existence of two distinct entities, each inhabited by a people of the same race, religion and language." of course this is not true. you can call it distortion of the truth i call it a lie.

as far as your comparison with T-Pap dont forget the most sensitive issues regarding each communities past:
1) TCs were being violently pursuited following 63, hence if T-Pap did say no TCs were killed during this period then this is painfully wrong
2) GCs were forced to remove from their homes in 74. Hence claiming this was not true (ie there was no force but they moved in an "agreement") is also painfully wrong...

I do not blame or accuse all GC for what is contained in the Iphestos plans. I do not think TP was party to these plans either. However the plans existed (as far as I am concerend and I have seen some of the documents though they mean little to me personaly and I have no means of confiriming their authenticity). Those (GC) that wrote and supported them made a very real attempt to sieze the power necessary to implement them. One of the things that caused this attempt to fail was the Turkish action of 74. It is possible that without this action the coup would still have failed but it is also possible imo that without such Turkish action the coup would have sucseeded and the Greek military Junta would not have fallen and TC would have suffered the consequences of this plan being implemented. To what extent 'ordinary' GC would have allowed this plan to be carried out or not in such a senario is largely a mute point to me. The coupists did not sucseed in securing power and the plan was not put into action. It did (as far as I am concerend) exist.

Nothing to argue here. We could also mention Küçük's visit to Ankara stating that the plan for the island is to achieve partition right before the constituion was signed but this is another topic.

[erolz]

regardless he also states that this "confirmed the acceptance of the existence of two distinct entities, each inhabited by a people of the same race, religion and language." of course this is not true. you can call it distortion of the truth i call it a lie.

There was an acceptance (reluctant, against the desires of GC, achieved by force of arms) of two distinct entites based on two distinct ethnicites after 74. Such an acceptance to me was no more and no less that acceptance of the reality created by Turkish miltary action in 74.

as far as your comparison with T-Pap dont forget the most sensitive issues regarding each communities past:
1) TCs were being violently pursuited following 63, hence if T-Pap did say no TCs were killed during this period then this is painfully wrong

Still the 'if' ? Do you doubt he said this? That the journalist made it up? That he made a mistake? And that this being the case TP has made no effort to correct the lie or mistake of the journalist?

2) GCs were forced to remove from their homes in 74. Hence claiming this was not true (ie there was no force but they moved in an "agreement") is also painfully wrong...

If Mr Gibbons (or anyone else) were to claim that GC left their homes through an agreement to do so and not as the result of Turkish military action in 74 that then led (forced) an agreement on population movements - then I wouls agree with you that this was a bald faced lie comparable to the reported statement of TP re TC killed by GC in 63-74. However I do not think Mr Gibbons has said this, I think that this is the interpretation you have put on what he has said. That's just my view of course.

[MicAtCyp]

Some more replies to the hypothetical questions:

Turkish Cypriot lawyer points out that the so-called Compensations Committee is established based only on the principle of "expropriating land on racial basis"
In an interview to Hasan Hasturer of daily KIBRIS newspaper (09.05.05) Mr Murat Metin Hakki, young lawyer who is doing his master now in Harvard University, has expressed the opinion that the occupation regime expropriated the Turkish occupied Greek Cypriot properties based only on the basis of the "race". Mr Hakki points out that the so-called Compensations Committee has also been established based on the same principle.
Responding to a question, Mr Hakki said, inter alia the following:

"According to the Article 159 of the `TRNC΄ constitution, the Greek Cypriot property, which was already abandoned on 13 February 1975, the day the Turkish Cypriot Federated State was declared, has automatically become the `TRNC΄ state property as our 1985 constitution entered into force. That is, there is an attempt for expropriation based only on the principle of the race. The Compensations Committee we are talking about has been established on the basis of this principle. The European Court of Human Rights, even if it does not at all go into details in the Xenides-Arestis case, by referring to article 14 of the European Convention of Human Rights gives the impression that it will not approve this methodology of article 159. ..."

Meanwhile, Turkish Cypriot YENI DUZEN newspaper (09.05.05) publishes an interview with Turkish Cypriot lawyer Ali Fevzi Yesilada who says that there is a contradiction in the so-called constitution of the occupation regime on the issue of the occupied Greek Cypriot properties, because in article 159 the Turkish Cypriots claim that the Greek Cypriots have no rights any more over their occupied properties, while afterwards they said that if the Greek Cypriots made an application to the regime and take compensation, their property rights will be eliminated.

[MicAtCyp]

I have many (more than 15) TC good friends who live in the north. NONE of them is anywhere near to what some TC members in this forum are.

You know why Kifeas? Because most of them don't really live in Cyprus.And because most of them who live in Cyprus are actually elitists.Try to open a discussion of what is going on in Cyprus and you will hear all sorts of invalid arguments (from those who don't live in Cyprus) and all sorts of "grabing property" views from the elitists. Even on the matter of the TCs working at the contructions, almost no-one knows that there are many independent TC contractors bidding and getting contracts.They think they are all unskilled workers. Even Insan was telling me in the past that they all get minimum salaries and I made a personal survey on it. Out of 10 workers 6 get 130 pounds per week 3 of them get 160 per week 2 get 190 per week and 1-2 who can do specialised work like working granite stone get 210-230 per week which is exactly what a GC gets.