Cyprus-Forum.com

[Talisker]

The British politicians were well aware that the overwhelming majority of the Cypriot people aspired for ENOSIS with what they perceived at the time to be their motherland , amongst that majority my self included , with hindsight I see how wrong I and the overwhelming majority were and that our goal should have been an independent Cyprus for all Cypriots. The British NEVER doubted that the Cypriots , more than 80% wanted nothing less that ENOSIS , and actively acknowledged that aspiration of the people when in 1940 huge signs were erected outside British military offices in Cyprus proclaiming " CYPRIOTS , ENLISTING IN THE BRITISH ARMY YOU ARE FIGHTING FOR GREECE AND FREEDOM"

Such signs totally ignored the existence in Cyprus of T/Cs .

30 thousand Cypriots joined the British army, including our ex President the Right Honorable Glafkos Klerides

A few years after the war , in 1954 , the British Colonial Secretary (Minister of State for Colonial affairs ) made his famous speech in the House of Commons during a debate on Cyprus stating that Cyprus is of immense strategic importance to Britain and will NEVER be given independence . Henry Hopkinson , an Eaton educated Conservative MP cared NOT for what the people of Cyprus wanted but for the interests of Great Britain , understandable objective since all world powers predominantly had , and still have , the interests of their nations as a priority over all else.

The rest is history .

Yes, this is a very convenient statement for Cypriots to latch on to when they are laying all the blame on others. In fact Hopkinson was removed from this government post following the re-election of the Conservative party in 1955 and replaced by Lennox-Boyd. In fact I think Hopkinson might have lost his parliamentary seat in 1955, so either the Prime Minister, Anthony Eden, didn't consider Hopkinson to be up to the job, or his consituents decided to get rid of him, possibly due to rash statements such as the one you provided.

[Paphitis]

Hi Talisker,

I too hope you had a Merry Xmas and I wish you and your a Happy New Year 2009.

(1) I fail to see how SELF-DETERMINATION = ENOSIS. Surely these are contradictory statements. Essentially you are saying Cypriots (well, the GCs at any rate) decided their future was to hand over decision-making to Athens (voluntary colonialism?).

It is very easy for those of us to sit in judgement against those that desired self determination, and fought for self determination, which to them was the ultimate dream for Union with the motherland.

The majority of Cypriots at the time saw this as the only viable scenario, and an opportunity to rid themselves of the British yoke. Cypriots do share an Ethnos with Greece. We share this ethnos as our language, culture, religion and custom are identical.

You cannot say that this is "voluntary colonialism". You cannot call it colonialism since Cyprus comprises a predominately Greek population, and is effectively the same nation of people as that of Greece. Colonialism is when a foreign power forcibly dominates and controls a foreign land at the expense of the indigenous populous, something that would not have occurred had Cyprus unified with Greece, as was desired by most Cypriots.

It is only in the late 60s or early 70s when Cypriots finally realised the possibility of having their own viable nation.

You can also note that Crete was initially an independent nation when they usnsurped the Ottomans in 1887 until 1913. In 1913 they self declared their union with Greece. Crete is no Greek colony, but is an integral part of Greece, and if you asked the Cretans, they would not have it any other way.

(3) What is the evidence for this? Lord Winster, a former Governor of Cyprus, constantly states that partition is the worst option. I'd suggest it is more likely that the TCs rebelled against the thought of Cypriot enosis with Greece, and suggested to the Guarantor powers, or at least two out of the three, that they would prefer partition. Therefore, it was the GC desire for enosis that brought this to the table (see 1).

While this astonishing political coup was underway, the last act of Eden's policy on Cyprus was played out when the constitutional proposals developed for the island by Lord Radcliffe were sabotaged in December 1956. Eden had charged Radcliffe with developing an acceptable system for purely internal self government for the Cypriots. Radcliffe proposed that the legislative assembly should allow for a Greek majority, while laws exclusively affecting the Turks would require a two thirds majority for approval. He suggested that the handover of power to Cypriot ministers on all internal affairs should immediately follow agreement on self-government. But the Foreign Office was anxious to keep Ankara "on our side", and pledges made to the Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister, Nuri Birgi at a private lunch in London on 30 November destroyed any chance of Radcliffe's proposals being accepted by the Greeks. Birgi and his officials insisted that the only way of ending Greek oscillation over Cyprus was to devise a solution that was practical and final - and that meant partition. Loyd asked him if the Turks would be satisfied with an arrangement that provided for eventual partition if and when self-determination were to come about. Birgis said that the sooner there was a definitive settlement the better. When Lennox-Boyd announced the Radcliffe proposals to the Commons, he raised for the first time in public the possibility of settling the Cyprus question by dividing the island.

The Cyprus Conspiracy
Brendan O'Malley and Ian Craig
Pages 47-48

Chapter 12 - America's Secret Option - A Limited Invasion and also Chapter 14 - The NATO Plot: Plans to split Cyprus (1964), are also important chapters, which further outline the prime objectives of partition by the US and NATO, of which Britain was also complicit, but had a more back-seat role in the scheme of things, as partition had by now become primarily an American objective.

(4) I see this slightly differently. Remember Gallipoli? The UK has had its misadventures in Turkey, with horrendous consequences for its own, and other (Australia, NZ), troops. 1950s politicians would still have an eye on the reasonably recent past, including WW1, and the humiliation experienced there. So, yes, I can understand why the UK would not want to go to war with Turkey - it would have been an unwinnable war without resorting to nuclear weaponry. So, for once, our Foreign Secretary realised the potential consequences of such an action, and indicated his relief (from the UK point of view) that the US had stopped this from happening. So, the US were heavily influencing the outcome in 1974, to the point of stopping the UK militarily intervening in 1974, which morally it could be argued as a Guarantor Power they should have done, but which would have been disastrous for the UK itself. If the UK was taken out of the equation by US 'advice', then the key players were the other two Guarantor Powers - Greece and Turkey. One took action, the other didn't.

All Australians know Galipoli quite well. It was fundamentally a massive strategic miscalculation by the British, which resulted in massive casualties, for all of us, and with no gain.

However, I can understand why The British Foreign Secretary considered 74 as the most frightening moment of his career. But, Britain already had 2 very well established bases in Cyprus. Akrotiri AB has a 3km runway and could easily station a squadron of fighter aircraft. I firmly believe that with even just 1 RAF squadron, Britain could have easily achieved air superiority over Cyprus, which would prevent Turkish Paratroopers from landing on the island. If Britain decided to uphold her Treaty of Guarantee obligations, then this alone would have been enough to prevent Turkey from invading. I seriously doubt that Turkey would have been prepared to fight both Britain and Greece. Britain as far as I am concerned would have had the strategic advantage through her bases. There were even Royal Navy Frigates and Destroyers between Kyrenia and Turkey, observing the Turkish Fleet steaming towards 5 mile beach. A few shots and RAF fighters flying overhead would have been enough for the Turkish Navy to not proceed with the invasion. However, Turkey was already given guarantees by Henry Kissinger that no one would stand in their way. The green light was given to Turkey to intervene.

[zan]

And what has the "RoC" done to correct any of these accusations. They still fly the Greek flag, they still will not return to the original Zurich Agreement, they still impose embargoes on (they say) their own people, they still will not give an inch of Cyprus to the rightful partners, they still seek to dominate the island as Greeks.

The Orams case will only serve a complete new set of games. Details to be released soon I guess.


Sorry to my friends out there that I am not posting as much but on top of other health concerns, my wife and I are now in the grip of this bloody Flu that is making the rounds. I can't remember such a bad flu for a long while now. Be back soon.

Regards

Zan

[Oracle]

And what has the "RoC" done to correct any of these accusations. They still fly the Greek flag, they still will not return to the original Zurich Agreement, they still impose embargoes on (they say) their own people, they still will not give an inch of Cyprus to the rightful partners, they still seek to dominate the island as Greeks.

The Orams case will only serve a complete new set of games. Details to be released soon I guess.


Sorry to my friends out there that I am not posting as much but on top of other health concerns, my wife and I are now in the grip of this bloody Flu that is making the rounds. I can't remember such a bad flu for a long while now. Be back soon.

Regards

Zan

Good luck with the flu Zan .... Hope you shake it off for the New Year.

[Talisker]

Paphitis, thanks for your response. My comments inserted below. T.

(1) I fail to see how SELF-DETERMINATION = ENOSIS. Surely these are contradictory statements. Essentially you are saying Cypriots (well, the GCs at any rate) decided their future was to hand over decision-making to Athens (voluntary colonialism?).

It is very easy for those of us to sit in judgement against those that desired self determination, and fought for self determination, which to them was the ultimate dream for Union with the motherland.

Agreed, and similarly very easy to overemphasise, distort, and misunderstand the aims of the Brits.

The majority of Cypriots at the time saw this as the only viable scenario, and an opportunity to rid themselves of the British yoke. Cypriots do share an Ethnos with Greece. We share this ethnos as our language, culture, religion and custom are identical.

You cannot say that this is "voluntary colonialism". You cannot call it colonialism since Cyprus comprises a predominately Greek population, and is effectively the same nation of people as that of Greece. Colonialism is when a foreign power forcibly dominates and controls a foreign land at the expense of the indigenous populous, something that would not have occurred had Cyprus unified with Greece, as was desired by most Cypriots.

It is only in the late 60s or early 70s when Cypriots finally realised the possibility of having their own viable nation.

I'm having a John McEnroe moment on that last statement. You cannot be serious!

You can also note that Crete was initially an independent nation when they usnsurped the Ottomans in 1887 until 1913. In 1913 they self declared their union with Greece. Crete is no Greek colony, but is an integral part of Greece, and if you asked the Cretans, they would not have it any other way.

Yes, but there were many dissimilarities between the relative political, historical, and ethnic situations of Crete and Cyprus which meant what was right for one may not be right for the other.

(3) What is the evidence for this? Lord Winster, a former Governor of Cyprus, constantly states that partition is the worst option. I'd suggest it is more likely that the TCs rebelled against the thought of Cypriot enosis with Greece, and suggested to the Guarantor powers, or at least two out of the three, that they would prefer partition. Therefore, it was the GC desire for enosis that brought this to the table (see 1).

While this astonishing political coup was underway, the last act of Eden's policy on Cyprus was played out when the constitutional proposals developed for the island by Lord Radcliffe were sabotaged in December 1956. Eden had charged Radcliffe with developing an acceptable system for purely internal self government for the Cypriots. Radcliffe proposed that the legislative assembly should allow for a Greek majority, while laws exclusively affecting the Turks would require a two thirds majority for approval. He suggested that the handover of power to Cypriot ministers on all internal affairs should immediately follow agreement on self-government. But the Foreign Office was anxious to keep Ankara "on our side", and pledges made to the Turkish Foreign Affairs Minister, Nuri Birgi at a private lunch in London on 30 November destroyed any chance of Radcliffe's proposals being accepted by the Greeks. Birgi and his officials insisted that the only way of ending Greek oscillation over Cyprus was to devise a solution that was practical and final - and that meant partition. Loyd asked him if the Turks would be satisfied with an arrangement that provided for eventual partition if and when self-determination were to come about. Birgis said that the sooner there was a definitive settlement the better. When Lennox-Boyd announced the Radcliffe proposals to the Commons, he raised for the first time in public the possibility of settling the Cyprus question by dividing the island.

The Cyprus Conspiracy
Brendan O'Malley and Ian Craig
Pages 47-48

Chapter 12 - America's Secret Option - A Limited Invasion and also Chapter 14 - The NATO Plot: Plans to split Cyprus (1964), are also important chapters, which further outline the prime objectives of partition by the US and NATO, of which Britain was also complicit, but had a more back-seat role in the scheme of things, as partition had by now become primarily an American objective.

The way I read the text in red (which is critical) is that the Brits went into lunch and asked the Turks how they would solve the issue (a common starting point in negotiations - both sides know that the final outcome will be somewhere between the different stances). The Turks lay their cards on the table - they insist on partition. The Brits clarify that this is really what they (the Turks) want. According to the authors the Brits gave 'pledges' to the Turks, but what these were is not stated, and need not have included partition per se. I'm happy to be proved wrong on this interpretation if better sources can be found - using a book means the authors' opinions and interpretation are considered 'correct'.

(4) I see this slightly differently. Remember Gallipoli? The UK has had its misadventures in Turkey, with horrendous consequences for its own, and other (Australia, NZ), troops. 1950s politicians would still have an eye on the reasonably recent past, including WW1, and the humiliation experienced there. So, yes, I can understand why the UK would not want to go to war with Turkey - it would have been an unwinnable war without resorting to nuclear weaponry. So, for once, our Foreign Secretary realised the potential consequences of such an action, and indicated his relief (from the UK point of view) that the US had stopped this from happening. So, the US were heavily influencing the outcome in 1974, to the point of stopping the UK militarily intervening in 1974, which morally it could be argued as a Guarantor Power they should have done, but which would have been disastrous for the UK itself. If the UK was taken out of the equation by US 'advice', then the key players were the other two Guarantor Powers - Greece and Turkey. One took action, the other didn't.

All Australians know Galipoli quite well. It was fundamentally a massive strategic miscalculation by the British, which resulted in massive casualties, for all of us, and with no gain.

However, I can understand why The British Foreign Secretary considered 74 as the most frightening moment of his career. But, Britain already had 2 very well established bases in Cyprus. Akrotiri AB has a 3km runway and could easily station a squadron of fighter aircraft. I firmly believe that with even just 1 RAF squadron, Britain could have easily achieved air superiority over Cyprus, which would prevent Turkish Paratroopers from landing on the island. If Britain decided to uphold her Treaty of Guarantee obligations, then this alone would have been enough to prevent Turkey from invading. I seriously doubt that Turkey would have been prepared to fight both Britain and Greece. Britain as far as I am concerned would have had the strategic advantage through her bases. There were even Royal Navy Frigates and Destroyers between Kyrenia and Turkey, observing the Turkish Fleet steaming towards 5 mile beach. A few shots and RAF fighters flying overhead would have been enough for the Turkish Navy to not proceed with the invasion. However, Turkey was already given guarantees by Henry Kissinger that no one would stand in their way. The green light was given to Turkey to intervene.

I'd like to know the real reasons why the UK did not intervene other than 'the US told them not to'. I think the Gallipoli reason is valid, but thinking back to mid-1970s Britain had a weak Labour government at the time, and was in a real financial mess - we'd not long come out of the three day week (which if memory serves right brought down the Heath Tory government in 1974). The troubles in Northern Ireland were peaking - I'm sure it would have been considered a risky venture for the UK to intervene, even if they had sufficient forces in Cyprus to influence any outcome. Probably the historical fact that UK troops had been killed by EOKA in the 1950s didn't encourage the UK government to take action to stop Turkey 15 years later........but I have no evidence for their attitude on that at all.

By the way - I'm not making excuses for UK actions - I'd like to know the truth, and I personally wish they had intervened and helped prevent the invasion in 1974.

[Get Real!]

I'd like to know the real reasons why the UK did not intervene other than 'the US told them not to'.

The British already had what they wanted in the form of the SBA’s and once Turkey reassured them that their invasion would stop at the SBA border, all the British had to do was mark their turf as best as they could so that not even the dumbest of Turkish invaders could’ve missed it. The British commander of the SBAs at the time ordered that large union jacks be raised in strategic locations to clearly mark the SBA territory.

(Sorry, but I can’t be bothered to provide a credible link right now for the above but it is out there.)

To sum this up, I understand you’re looking for an honorable reason as to why Britain did not honor her signature from the Treaty of Guarantee, and I’m sad to inform that she did not because she already had what she wanted and thus once she received confirmation that she would not risk losing it... her “honor” went out the window.

[Paphitis]

Agreed, and similarly very easy to overemphasise, distort, and misunderstand the aims of the Brits.

This is completely not true, Talisker.

Whilst I agree that many on this forum do tend to go overboard, myself included, Cypriots as a whole do not overemphasize, distort or misunderstand Britain's aims.

Firstly, there was Britain's unwillingness to grant rightful self determination to the Cypriots which resulted in the EOKA campaign of 55-59, then there was Britain’s policy of divide and rule which caused the first intercommunal clashes between GCs and TCs in 1958. They then imposed an unworkable Zurich Agreement on the Cypriot people which ultimately forced President Makarios to propose the 13 point constitution amendment plan, which resulted in the TC community withdrawing from the Government. The TCs then withdraw into enclaves under the watchful eye of the TMT and further intercommunal clashes occured between 63 and 67.

I'm having a John McEnroe moment on that last statement. You cannot be serious!

I don't understand why you are so surprised. It was only natural for Cypriots to desire Union with Greece at the time.

Yes, but there were many dissimilarities between the relative political, historical, and ethnic situations of Crete and Cyprus which meant what was right for one may not be right for the other.

There are many similarities as well. And you will find that the only dissimilarity with Crete, was Cyprus' massive strategic importance as a base and intelligence gathering post. This resulted in Britain's unwillingness to allow for any self determination, as this would not be beneficial to her interests.

The way I read the text in red (which is critical) is that the Brits went into lunch and asked the Turks how they would solve the issue (a common starting point in negotiations - both sides know that the final outcome will be somewhere between the different stances). The Turks lay their cards on the table - they insist on partition. The Brits clarify that this is really what they (the Turks) want. According to the authors the Brits gave 'pledges' to the Turks, but what these were is not stated, and need not have included partition per se. I'm happy to be proved wrong on this interpretation if better sources can be found - using a book means the authors' opinions and interpretation are considered 'correct'.

That is only 1 reference. There are many more.

Unfortunately, it took me about 1 hour to scan the pages of "The Cyprus Conspiracy - America, Espionage and the Turkish Invasion" to find that 1 reference. There are many more as I said, I just don't have the time for that level of research atm.

I do encourage you to read the book, as it does have all the answers you are looking for. I recommend you buy it.

I'd like to know the real reasons why the UK did not intervene other than 'the US told them not to'. I think the Gallipoli reason is valid, but thinking back to mid-1970s Britain had a weak Labour government at the time, and was in a real financial mess - we'd not long come out of the three day week (which if memory serves right brought down the Heath Tory government in 1974). The troubles in Northern Ireland were peaking - I'm sure it would have been considered a risky venture for the UK to intervene, even if they had sufficient forces in Cyprus to influence any outcome. Probably the historical fact that UK troops had been killed by EOKA in the 1950s didn't encourage the UK government to take action to stop Turkey 15 years later........but I have no evidence for their attitude on that at all.

By the way - I'm not making excuses for UK actions - I'd like to know the truth, and I personally wish they had intervened and helped prevent the invasion in 1974.

Understood Talisker.

Let me just say that we don't hold Britain solely responsible for all of our woes. It is foolish to do so, especially as others also played a role. The US for example, is the nation that ultimately plotted and instigated the Turkish Invasion of 1974. Cypriots must also share some of the blame, as they instigated the EOKA B coup against Makarios, along with the Greek Junta. However, I am of the opinion that the invasion would have occurred anyway, even without the coup. But there are many people who would disagree with me, and ultimately many people have different interpretations on the matter.

[Talisker]

Agreed, and similarly very easy to overemphasise, distort, and misunderstand the aims of the Brits.

This is completely not true, Talisker.

Whilst I agree that many on this forum do tend to go overboard, myself included, Cypriots as a whole do not overemphasize, distort or misunderstand Britain's aims.

Firstly, there was Britain's unwillingness to grant rightful self determination to the Cypriots which resulted in the EOKA campaign of 55-59, then there was Britain’s policy of divide and rule which caused the first intercommunal clashes between GCs and TCs in 1958. They then imposed an unworkable Zurich Agreement on the Cypriot people which ultimately forced President Makarios to propose the 13 point constitution amendment plan, which resulted in the TC community withdrawing from the Government. The TCs then withdraw into enclaves under the watchful eye of the TMT and further intercommunal clashes occured between 63 and 67.

Yes, but I'm trying to understand the conditions 'on the ground' in Cyprus in the late 1950s that would have influenced all participants in negotiations. The debate I highlighted at the top of this thread includes the following information on the level of violence, and also indicates that the UK was determined not to abandon its responsibilities in Cyprus, as it was formulating the process of releasing colonial power.

Lord St Oswalt said (p 746):
I confess that it depresses me to find how many people in this country, even some in Parliament, persist in regarding E.O.K.A. as a patriotic organisation. Here are some quite simple figures: out of the 169 Greeks assassinated by E.O.K.A. up to last Sunday, 12 were police, 150 were male civilians, 6 were women and there was I child. Does that bear the stamp of a patriotic movement? I think those facts show that any hasty or premature withdrawal, any shrugging off of our responsibility in this question, would soon bring a civil war in Cyprus of most terrible dimensions, and perhaps leading to an international war within N.A.T.O. itself.

So Cyprus had some serious ongoing violence in 1958. This is confirmed by viewing the records of the 1st Battalion The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders who had a tour of duty in Cyprus in 1958-59.
http://www.argylls1945to1971.co.uk/AandSH_Cyprus1958to59.htm
(This is an interesting read, has 100 photos from the tour which give a flavour of the period, and also has an account of Operation Kingfisher, an exercise to find EOKA hideouts in the Southern Troodos. See: http://www.argylls1945to1971.co.uk/AandSH_OpKingfisher.htm)

So - the negotiations were taking place against a background of violence in Cyprus.......and the Brits were rejecting the idea of instant withdrawal which might lead to Cypriot civil war, and were also considering the wide picture - the NATO situation.......

I wrote this:

I'm having a John McEnroe moment on that last statement. You cannot be serious!

because you wrote this:

It is only in the late 60s or early 70s when Cypriots finally realised the possibility of having their own viable nation.

to which you responded:

I don't understand why you are so surprised. It was only natural for Cypriots to desire Union with Greece at the time.

I was surprised because all the reading I've done suggests your dates are completely wrong. My understanding is that around 1958 Makarios himself abandoned the idea of enosis and started to pursue policies leading to Cypriot independence.

“Greek Cypriots, we have won!” - Makarios, March 1, 1959 following the signing of the London agreement for the independence of Cyprus. Two-thirds of all adult Greek-Cypriots were reputed to have attended Makarios's return to Nicosia, so it must have been clear to them. Independence, not enosis.

Yes, but there were many dissimilarities between the relative political, historical, and ethnic situations of Crete and Cyprus which meant what was right for one may not be right for the other.

There are many similarities as well. And you will find that the only dissimilarity with Crete, was Cyprus' massive strategic importance as a base and intelligence gathering post. This resulted in Britain's unwillingness to allow for any self determination, as this would not be beneficial to her interests.

The way I read the text in red (which is critical) is that the Brits went into lunch and asked the Turks how they would solve the issue (a common starting point in negotiations - both sides know that the final outcome will be somewhere between the different stances). The Turks lay their cards on the table - they insist on partition. The Brits clarify that this is really what they (the Turks) want. According to the authors the Brits gave 'pledges' to the Turks, but what these were is not stated, and need not have included partition per se. I'm happy to be proved wrong on this interpretation if better sources can be found - using a book means the authors' opinions and interpretation are considered 'correct'.

That is only 1 reference. There are many more.

Unfortunately, it took me about 1 hour to scan the pages of "The Cyprus Conspiracy - America, Espionage and the Turkish Invasion" to find that 1 reference. There are many more as I said, I just don't have the time for that level of research atm.

I do encourage you to read the book, as it does have all the answers you are looking for. I recommend you buy it.

I've got it - it's on my 'must read' list.........but it is also fun and informative to find out the information oneself from primary sources if at all possible.

I'd like to know the real reasons why the UK did not intervene other than 'the US told them not to'. I think the Gallipoli reason is valid, but thinking back to mid-1970s Britain had a weak Labour government at the time, and was in a real financial mess - we'd not long come out of the three day week (which if memory serves right brought down the Heath Tory government in 1974). The troubles in Northern Ireland were peaking - I'm sure it would have been considered a risky venture for the UK to intervene, even if they had sufficient forces in Cyprus to influence any outcome. Probably the historical fact that UK troops had been killed by EOKA in the 1950s didn't encourage the UK government to take action to stop Turkey 15 years later........but I have no evidence for their attitude on that at all.

By the way - I'm not making excuses for UK actions - I'd like to know the truth, and I personally wish they had intervened and helped prevent the invasion in 1974.

Understood Talisker.

Let me just say that we don't hold Britain solely responsible for all of our woes. It is foolish to do so, especially as others also played a role. The US for example, is the nation that ultimately plotted and instigated the Turkish Invasion of 1974. Cypriots must also share some of the blame, as they instigated the EOKA B coup against Makarios, along with the Greek Junta. However, I am of the opinion that the invasion would have occurred anyway, even without the coup. But there are many people who would disagree with me, and ultimately many people have different interpretations on the matter.

Thanks for the dialogue - I enjoy finding out the history that led to the current situation, and to making up my own mind on what were the rights and wrongs, and the key decisions that resulted in the current situation.

I normally don't have time to do this, but housebound with this damned 'flu over the Christmas season, has provided a small window of opportunity to do so. But, I won't come up with any definitive answers.......but fun trying!

Cheers,
Talisker

[Talisker]

I'd like to know the real reasons why the UK did not intervene other than 'the US told them not to'.

The British already had what they wanted in the form of the SBA’s and once Turkey reassured them that their invasion would stop at the SBA border, all the British had to do was mark their turf as best as they could so that not even the dumbest of Turkish invaders could’ve missed it. The British commander of the SBAs at the time ordered that large union jacks be raised in strategic locations to clearly mark the SBA territory.

(Sorry, but I can’t be bothered to provide a credible link right now for the above but it is out there.)

To sum this up, I understand you’re looking for an honorable reason as to why Britain did not honor her signature from the Treaty of Guarantee, and I’m sad to inform that she did not because she already had what she wanted and thus once she received confirmation that she would not risk losing it... her “honor” went out the window.

Have very little knowledge regarding the dissolution of the British Empire, and clearly the Cypriot situation is part of that that history. Just trying to find some facts to aid my understanding. If the UK was 'dishonourable' in some of her decisions I can accept that, but where it acted 'honourably' I believe that should also be acknowledged too.

Your earlier post stating that the UK did whatever any country in its situation would have done probably rings true........