Cyprus-Forum.com

[erolz]

So if i understood well we should only account as non biased, sources that have to do with confessions being made by non gc or tc who at the time where in cyprus.Is that right Erolz?

Firstly I would remind you of MicAtCyp post

Erol,
May I remind you once again my point? You cannot find ANY TC to admit from HIS PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that yes his family was forced into the enclaves by their own people AGAINST their will.

You DO NOT count as a testimony, because we all know the story of your family. Find me one who can verify it either because his parents told him so, or because he experienced it himself and I will admit I was wrong.
You will not find any. You know why?
Code of Silence!

His thesis seems to be that because no TC admits to being forced from his home against their will by TC that is proof of a 'code of silence' by TC about this (and despite the glaringly obvious lack of a 'code of silence' by TC about TC stopping them from returning to their homes). The only way he will admit he is wrong (about the code of silence - not about the claim that TC forced TC from their homes) is if I provide him with an example of a TC who from personal experience was forced from his home and will talk about it publicaly.

I offer a simpler explaination that this totaly inconsistent 'code of silence' theory (inconsistent with the obvious lack of a code of silence about TC stopping some TC from returniong to their homes). My theory is that there is no such accounts by TC because TC did not force TC from their homes. The way I will accept I am wrong is if someone can show me an independent (ie non GC in this reagrd) source that backs up this claim. I would prefer an independent journalist report who was there at the time personaly , because this is the most credible kind of source and the most verifyable imo.

I would then like to quote this abstract from the book 'The Cyprus Revolt.
' by Nancy Crawshaw.
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/communal_strife%20-%20%2758.htm

It might be out of topic here but please excuse me for that.

Excused. If you do not wish to discuss MicAtCyp's claim and the evidence for it or lack thereof, that is your choice.

I just didnt want to open a new history topic in the cyprus problem section since i believe that just digging through the past is not any useful to the cyprus problem

but you are going to start a whole tangental digging into the past post anyway?

since both parties have equal share of blame.

Ahh the old 'political power can nbot be fairly shared by groups of differing numerical size - but blame is equal' thesis Just for the record if we are talking of the Cyprus problem from the inception of the Cypriot nation to date then I have little problem with the idea of 'equality of blame'. If however we talk of the period of 63-74 then I think this concept of equality of blame is a gross distortion of the truth (as far as there is any truth)

As it is stated this incident took place in June of 1958 and it was Turkish Cypriots that started it. Does anyone have previous accounts of incidents happening before this one and who were the ones who started it?

Well there your own quote from Nacy's Cranshaws book (btw do you have this book - could I borrow it from you?)

The violence between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots had been sporadic and to some extent unsystematical until 1958. EOKA was targeting a few village leaders, and some leftists and policemen who were Turkish Cypriots were also murdered. But inter-communal violence as an intentional ploy did not really begin until June 1958

By the way my purpose is not too accuse any side, i just want to have some more information about the first accounts for intercommunal violence and who were behind it.

I guess this all depends how far back you wish to go. Is the conquering of Cyprus by the ottomans the 'first' intercommunal violence?

Again im not saying that we should just blame Britain and US for the whole Cyprus problem but isnt it fair to give them also some share for the situation that still exists today?

Yes it fair (imo) to giove them some share of the blame. What I resist and refute is attempts to use this to deny our own blame. First and foremost Cypriots are to blame for the state of Cyprus today. I also believe that in the period 60 (start of Cyprus' histroy as an independent nation) uptill 74, when they had the balance of power GC were more to blame than TC. After 74 when TC / T had the balance of power TC are more to blame than GC. In a way you can say most blame accrues to those with most balance of power. Overall I can accept the notion of equal blame between GC and TC.

Peace,
--Yiannis

and peace be to you brother.

[Yiannis]

Erolz wrote:

but you are going to start a whole tangental digging into the past post anyway?

Thats true Erolz, but better here than in a new post . By the way dont u think that it would be better if we just make a new section about Cyprus History rather than just adding such kind of posts in the Cyprus Problem section?But then i guess this question should me addressed to the Administrator rather than to you.

Erolz wrote:

If however we talk of the period of 63-74 then I think this concept of equality of blame is a gross distortion of the truth (as far as there is any truth)

Little bit confused on what you mean by "gross distortion of the truth".Do u mean that both sides have distorted the truth?

Erolz wrote:

Well there your own quote from Nacy's Cranshaws book (btw do you have this book - could I borrow it from you?)

Unfortunately i dont have it but i will see if i can find any more abstracts other than this one provided in the Cyprus Conflict website. By the way even if i had it i dont know if u were willing to make the trip to US to get it

Erolz wrote:

I guess this all depends how far back you wish to go. Is the conquering of Cyprus by the ottomans the 'first' intercommunal violence?

Well it would be useless to go back to that time since the principles at that time totally differ than todays.I guess the most appropriate time would be the end of WWII because it was then that the world scene as it is today started forming.

Erolz wrote:

After 74 when TC / T had the balance of power TC are more to blame than GC

What do u mean by TCs having the balance of power after 74?
Do u also think that both parties should also be equally blamed for the period between 60 and when TCs withdrew from the goverment?

Erolz wrote:

and peace be to you brother.

Actually is Cyprus who diserves the peace, but thanks for the comment

[erolz]

Little bit confused on what you mean by "gross distortion of the truth".Do u mean that both sides have distorted the truth?

Undoubtedly both sides have distorted the truth in the propaganda war. However on the 'idea' that there was equal blame attributable to the communites in the period 63-74 - I think this is a (GC in this case) distortion of the reality. Certainly TC also have blame in this period. I just believe the GC carry more of the blame in this period.

Unfortunately i dont have it but i will see if i can find any more abstracts other than this one provided in the Cyprus Conflict website. By the way even if i had it i dont know if u were willing to make the trip to US to get it

I do occasionaly visit the US of A (have been once this year and once last year).

Well it would be useless to go back to that time since the principles at that time totally differ than todays.I guess the most appropriate time would be the end of WWII because it was then that the world scene as it is today started forming.

A very sesnible appraoch imo. I have a tendancy to use 60 as a 'starting point' because it was the start of Cyprus as an independent nation - but actually I think your suggest appraoch and rationale for it is better.

What do u mean by TCs having the balance of power after 74?

Before 74 we were physicaly (militarly) weaker than the GC community. After 74 we were not (with the military support of Turkey).

Do u also think that both parties should also be equally blamed for the period between 60 and when TCs withdrew from the goverment?

No not really. I might be able to accept an equality of blame relative to our numerical numbers - but in real terms GC outnumbered us and therefore in absolute terms carry more of the blame. Even in realtive (to population) terms I feel GC were in general more ideologicaly driven than TC and their leadership were more determined to force change of the agree consistution on TC against their will than TC leadership was to see the consitution fail. I also think having the balance of power led them to more extreme behaviour than TC. Just my personal view.

Actually is Cyprus who diserves the peace, but thanks for the comment

peace to the world then and all in it

[MicAtCyp]

Are you aware of the difference in meaning between 'organising' and 'forcing' ?

Yes I am, are you? Are they mutually exclussive?

As far as I can see you slowly distorted the original point of Othellos of "many against their will". as meaning that TMT or TC leadeship used violence directly against those people, and then proceeded asking us for evidence for that violence!!!

Bypassing this distortion, ample evidence was provided to you, that they did achieve what they wanted in various ways most of which was to cause the GCs do the dirty job for them. Any journalist of those times would obviously concentrate on the bulk of those people leaving for the enclaves and NOT on how the few that resisted were eventually forced one way or another by TMT to move. "Forcing" does not necessarily mean they used "violence" like you so persistently try to imply, and then asking us to present you evidence....

As for the Library of Congress article heres a copy.Like I said I have it offline, I am sure with a little effort you will spot it somewhere on the internet. as far as I can see it does not mention who the writter is.

Library of Congress Country Studies
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Section 1 of 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyprus
Intercommunal Violence
The atmosphere on the island was tense. On December 21, 1963, serious violence erupted in Nicosia when a Greek Cypriot police patrol, ostensibly checking identification documents, stopped a Turkish Cypriot couple on the edge of the Turkish quarter. A hostile crowd gathered, shots were fired, and two Turkish Cypriots were killed. As the news spread, members of the underground organizations began firing and taking hostages. North of Nicosia, Turkish forces occupied a strong position at St. Hilarion Castle, dominating the road to Kyrenia on the northern coast. The road became a principal combat area as both sides fought to control it. Much intercommunal fighting occurred in Nicosia along the line separating the Greek and Turkish quarters of the city (known later as the Green Line). Turkish Cypriots were not concentrated in one area, but lived throughout the island, making their position precarious. Vice-President Kucuk and Turkish Cypriot ministers and members of the House of Representatives ceased participating in the government.

In January 1964, after an inconclusive conference in London among representatives of Britain, Greece, Turkey, and the two Cypriot communities, UN Secretary General U Thant, at the request of the Cyprus government, sent a special representative to the island. After receiving a firsthand report in February, the Security Council authorized a peace-keeping force under the direction of the secretary general. Advance units reached Cyprus in March, and by May the United Nations Peace-keeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) totaled about 6,500 troops. Originally authorized for a three-month period, the force, at decreased strength, was still in position in the early 1990s.

Severe intercommunal fighting occurred in March and April 1964. When the worst of the fighting was over, Turkish Cypriots--sometimes of their own volition and at other times forced by the TMT--began moving from isolated rural areas and mixed villages into enclaves. Before long, a substantial portion of the island's Turkish Cypriot population was crowded into the Turkish quarter of Nicosia in tents and hastily constructed shacks. Slum conditions resulted from the serious overcrowding. All necessities as well as utilities had to be brought in through the Greek Cypriot lines. Many Turkish Cypriots who had not moved into Nicosia gave up their land and houses for the security of other enclaves.

In June 1964, the House of Representatives, functioning with only its Greek Cypriot members, passed a bill establishing the National Guard, in which all Cypriot males between the ages of eighteen and fifty-nine were liable to compulsory service. The right of Cypriots to bear arms was then limited to this National Guard and to the police. Invited by Makarios, General Grivas returned to Cyprus in June to assume command of the National Guard; the purpose of the new law was to curb the proliferation of Greek Cypriot irregular bands and bring them under control in an organization commanded by the prestigious Grivas. Turks and Turkish Cypriots meanwhile charged that large numbers of Greek regular troops were being clandestinely infiltrated into the island to lend professionalism to the National Guard. Turkey began military preparations for an invasion of the island. A brutally frank warning from United States president Lyndon B. Johnson to Prime Minister Ismet Inonu caused the Turks to call off the invasion. In August, however, Turkish jets attacked Greek Cypriot forces besieging Turkish Cypriot villages on the northwestern coast near Kokkina.

In July, veteran United States diplomat Dean Acheson met with Greek and Turkish representatives in Geneva. From this meeting emerged what became known as the Acheson Plan, according to which Greek Cypriots would have enosis and Greece was to award the Aegean island of Kastelorrizon to Turkey and compensate Turkish Cypriots wishing to emigrate. Secure Turkish enclaves and a Turkish sovereign military base area were to be provided on Cyprus. Makarios rejected the plan, because it called for what he saw as a modified form of partition.

Throughout 1964 and later, President Makarios and the Greek Cypriot leadership adopted the view that the establishment of UNFICYP by the UN Security Council had set aside the rights of intervention granted to the guarantor powers--Britain, Greece, and Turkey--by the Treaty of Guarantee. The Turkish leadership, on the other hand, contended that the Security Council action had reinforced the provisions of the treaty. These diametrically opposed views illustrated the basic Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot positions; the former holding that the constitution and the other provisions of the treaties were flexible and subject to change under changing conditions, and the latter, that they were fixed agreements, not subject to change.

Grivas and the National Guard reacted to Turkish pressure by initiating patrols into the Turkish Cypriot enclaves. Patrols surrounded two villages, Ayios Theodhoros and Kophinou, about twenty-five kilometers southwest of Larnaca, and began sending in heavily armed patrols. Fighting broke out, and by the time the Guard withdrew, twenty-six Turkish Cypriots had been killed. Turkey issued an ultimatum and threatened to intervene in force to protect Turkish Cypriots. To back up their demands, the Turks massed troops on the Thracian border separating Greece and Turkey and began assembling an amphibious invasion force. The ultimatum's conditions included the expulsion of Grivas from Cyprus, removal of Greek troops from Cyprus, payment of indemnity for the casualties at Ayios Theodhoros and Kophinou, cessation of pressure on the Turkish Cypriot community, and the disbanding of the National Guard.

Grivas resigned as commander of the Greek Cypriot forces on November 20, 1967, and left the island, but the Turks did not reduce their readiness posture, and the dangerous situation of two NATO nations on the threshold of war with each other continued. President Johnson dispatched Cyrus R. Vance as his special envoy to Turkey, Greece, and Cyprus. Vance arrived in Ankara in late November and began ten days of negotiations that defused the situation. Greece agreed to withdraw its forces on Cyprus except for the contingent allowed by the 1960 treaties, provided that Turkey did the same and also dismounted its invasion force. Turkey agreed, and the crisis passed. During December 1967 and early January 1968, about 10,000 Greek troops were withdrawn. Makarios did not disband the National Guard, however, something he came to regret when it rebelled against him in 1974.

Data as of January 1991

[erolz]

Are you aware of the difference in meaning between 'organising' and 'forcing' ?

Yes I am, are you? Are they mutually exclussive?

No they are not mutualy exclusive. However to use a report of TC organising exacuation of TC from their homes as proof of TC forcing TC from thier homes is what you are trying to do here. In this respect the mutual exclusiveness or not is irrelvant.

As far as I can see you slowly distorted the original point of Othellos of "many against their will". as meaning that TMT or TC leadeship used violence directly against those people, and then proceeded asking us for evidence for that violence!!!

As far as I am concerned what I am doing is resiting attempts to use the fact that TC leadership stopped (with force and threat of force) some TC from returning to their homes as proof that TC administration drove TC from thier homes with force and the threat of force.

Bypassing this distortion, ample evidence was provided to you, that they did achieve what they wanted in various ways most of which was to cause the GCs do the dirty job for them.

So TC are to blame for GC forcing TC from their homes by violent means and threat of such violence and not GC? One of the key points I have been arguing here (seperate from refuting the allegation that TC used force on TC to drive them from their homes) is that the primary reason for TC leaving their homes was GC violence and the threat of GC violence aginst them. Something that you have refuted until now. Now you seem to agree that GC violence was the 'most' way that led to TC fleeing their homes but with the added 'caveat' that it was TC that 'caused' (were reposnsible) for GC doing this! I am flabergasted!

and NOT on how the few that resisted were eventually forced one way or another by TMT to move. "Forcing" does not necessarily mean they used "violence" like you so persistently try to imply, and then asking us to present you evidence....

When I say GC forced TC from their homes I mean they went to TC villages with numercial numbers and arms and used these arms against TC until they packed up and fled and then they burnt down these TC homes. When I say that TC did not use force against TC to make them leave their homes I mean TC did not do go to TC villages with numerical numbers and arms and use these arms until TC fled their homes.

If you will admit that TC did not drive TC from their homes with violence and the threat fo violence then we are agreed on this point - but it has not seemed to me that this is what you have been claiming to date.

How you can force someone from their home without using force violence I am not sure? You can advise them to leave their homes. You can encourage them to leave their homes, but to force them to leave their homes you have to my mid exercise the use of force against them.

As for the Library of Congress article heres a copy.

A better onlin source for this material complete with the contributors details and references can be found here

http://www.mongabay.com/reference/count ... s/all.html

When the worst of the fighting was over, Turkish Cypriots--sometimes of their own volition and at other times forced by the TMT--began moving from isolated rural areas and mixed villages into enclaves.

So I admit that you have found a single 'indpendent' source that supports the claim that TC forced TC from their homes. Do I believe this single source represents a reality of what happend? Unfortuantely I do not. I think that this references is based (probably unwittingly) on effective GC propaganda and not on verifyable fact. I just do not believe that TMT went to TC villages and told the villagers to leave and that if they did not TMT started to shoot and burn and loot their homes until they did. I still have not seen a sinlge indpendent report from a journalist of the times that verifies this kind of event and in the absesnse of such my belief is that this kind of event did not happen and that the references to TMT forcing TC from thier homes in the report above is in fact an error or confusion based on the verifed reports of TMT stopping TC refugess from returning to their homes.

[suetoniuspaulinus]

Mr erolz

I LIKED Mr MitAtCyp's source document. especially the last wry comment.

This writer definately enjoyed writing this piece given the volume of tongue that was in his cheek.

[Othellos]

Excellent research work, MicAtCyp - well done!

I do suspect however that no matter how much we all post in here, Erolz will still chose to remain in denial and continue to hide behind his own words.

O.

[magikthrill]

So I admit that you have found a single 'indpendent' source that supports the claim that TC forced TC from their homes. Do I believe this single source represents a reality of what happend? Unfortuantely I do not. I think that this references is based (probably unwittingly) on effective GC propaganda and not on verifyable fact. I just do not believe that TMT went to TC villages and told the villagers to leave and that if they did not TMT started to shoot and burn and loot their homes until they did. I still have not seen a sinlge indpendent report from a journalist of the times that verifies this kind of event and in the absesnse of such my belief is that this kind of event did not happen and that the references to TMT forcing TC from thier homes in the report above is in fact an error or confusion based on the verifed reports of TMT stopping TC refugess from returning to their homes.

Thats fine erol. You're better off getting your information from trncgov.com:

* Turkish Cypriots forced to live in enclaves, which were put under economic blockade, their lines of communication with each other and the rest of the world were cut off.

We'll call it horse shit and you can call it fact. Just like the supposed 1977 agreements. After all... [see sig]

[erolz]

Excellent research work, MicAtCyp - well done!

I do suspect however that no matter how much we all post in here, Erolz will still chose to remain in denial and continue to hide behind his own words.

O.

But of course you insistance that GC violence against TC was not the main reason that TC fled their homes, based not on a single independent report but on multiple such reports from a range of indepdent journalists from many international publications whose journalists were in Cyprus at the time and including a detailed indendent study by respect researcher is not denial on your part. I 'discount' a single example and I am in denial and you 'discount' multiple and it is not?

You have also claimed that TC used force (violence) against TC to make them leave their homes. Eventualy after multiple (failed) attempts to do so you have presented a single report not by a GC that seems to support. Of course no description of any particular event. No dates or time or places when this allegedly happened (unlike the many such of GC violence against TC aimed at drving them from their homes).

I still do not believe there is any truth in claims that TC used force (violence) against TC to drive them from their homes. This single report, in non specfic terms is not enough to convince me. More evidence, despite what you may think, would help me to change this view.

[erolz]

Thats fine erol. You're better off getting your information from trncgov.com:

Really magic can you see no irony (or hypocrasy) here? I provided many many quotes that supported the argument that GC violence and the threat of GC that was the main reason TC fled their homes (not the only reason but the main one). These reports were not the work of trncgov.com or anything similar. They were principaly from independent newspapers who's journalists were in Cyprus at the time. Othellos 'dismissed' these but no comment from you at all. I refute the accuracy of a single report and say I will not form my view based on such a single report and you effectively accuse me of having a views that are no different from or the sole product of TC propaganda. Does this really seem like a 'unbiased' appraoch on your part to my behaviour vs othellos or MicAtCyps. Are you totaly sure that you are not just attacking me and not commenting on or supporting them purely because I am TC and they are GC - regardless of any 'merits' of our repsective arguments and evidence?