Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

Much is made of Enosis as the reason for Turkey's occupation of Cyprus.

Here is an article from Feb. 1964 which proves Makarios was asking for assurances to Independence and Territorial Integrity for Cyprus -- as he saw it slipping away at the hands of Turkey, Britain and the USA.


"The sources said he would be forced to resort to such an unusual step if Britain, Turkey and America continued to oppose the adoption of a resolution which would guarantee the island's independence and territorial integrity."


http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 26,4231312

N.B. Neither Greece nor Makarios sought Enosis.

Indeed, it was the three belligerent and absolute foreigners, Britain, Turkey and USA, which contrived to deny a guarantee to respect Cyprus' Independence and Integrity!

[Oracle]

Please also note the reference to this anecdote:

"... armed Turkish-Cypriot police abducted a 67-year-old Greek-Cypriot shoemaker in Nicosia today, but released him 45 minutes later after taking £5."

Petty thieves left (Britain's legacy) to run our police force!

[wyoming cowboy]

Obviously, the three parties USA Turkey and England had other things in mind for the future of Cyprus. For four full years the Republic functioned relatively efficiently, up until 64. Makarios for all of his mistakes the most apparent and costly was his naive nature that he could guide Cyprus towards the nonaligned. The cold war was on the minds of the USA England and Nato, and fresh from the Cuban missile crisis, these parties were not in a joking mood while Makarios was dining with the likes of Mao Tse Dung of China and Kruschev of the USSR....Turkey's argument that the Tc were in danger in 74 are nullified by the Cold WAr.... The situation on Cyprus today is nothing more then a relic of the policies of Nato and the USA, things have changed dramatically and eventually the situation on Cyprus will change with it.

[erolz3]

N.B. Neither Greece nor Makarios sought Enosis.

The only thing you prove Oracle is how divorced you are from truth or reality.

From UN document S/6253 26 March 1965

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS MEDIATOR ON CYPRUS
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Archbishop Makarios and members of the Government acknowledged that Enosis had been the original aim of the uprising against British rule and that it remained a strong aspiration among the Greek-Cypriot community.

from the same document.

My predecessor observed - and from my own knowledge I can confirm - that there could be no concealing the fact that the formal "prohibition" of the Enosis idea did not suppress it in Cyprus. It continued to be discussed and advocated (as well as opposed), in and out of the institutions of government, long after the date of independence. It was and remains impossible to escape the impression that for a large body of the Greek-Cypriot leaders ' following, and for many of the
leaders themselves, the official demand for "full independence and selfdetermination" had no other meaning than this: that Cyprus should be released from the treaty and constitutional obligations which limited her freedom of choice, whereupon she would opt by some acceptable democratic procedure for union with Greece, this union to take place by agreement exclusively between Cyprus and Greece.

From the Akritas plan

Further, it is estimated that we have better chances of succeeding in our efforts to influence international public opinion in our favour if we present our demand, as we did during the struggle, as a demand to exercise the right of self-determination, rather than as a demand for union with Greece (Enosis). In order, however, to secure the exercise of
complete and free self-determination, we must get free of all those provisions of the constitution and of the agreements (Treaty of Guarantee, Treaty of Alliance) which prevent the free and unfettered expression and implementation of the wishes of our people and which create dangers of external intervention. It is for this reason that the
first target of attack has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which was the first that was stated to be no longer recognised by the Greek Cypriots.
When this is achieved no legal or moral power can prevent us from deciding our future alone and freely and exercising the right of self-determination by a plebiscite.

Please do contiunue to insist that Makarios never sought enosis, for such ridiculous attempts to deny and pervert reality show cleary what you are really about and highlight your credibility.

[YFred]

N.B. Neither Greece nor Makarios sought Enosis.

The only thing you prove Oracle is how divorced you are from truth or reality.

From UN document S/6253 26 March 1965

REPORT OF THE UNITED NATIONS MEDIATOR ON CYPRUS
TO THE SECRETARY-GENERAL

Archbishop Makarios and members of the Government acknowledged that Enosis had been the original aim of the uprising against British rule and that it remained a strong aspiration among the Greek-Cypriot community.

from the same document.

My predecessor observed - and from my own knowledge I can confirm - that there could be no concealing the fact that the formal "prohibition" of the Enosis idea did not suppress it in Cyprus. It continued to be discussed and advocated (as well as opposed), in and out of the institutions of government, long after the date of independence. It was and remains impossible to escape the impression that for a large body of the Greek-Cypriot leaders ' following, and for many of the
leaders themselves, the official demand for "full independence and selfdetermination" had no other meaning than this: that Cyprus should be released from the treaty and constitutional obligations which limited her freedom of choice, whereupon she would opt by some acceptable democratic procedure for union with Greece, this union to take place by agreement exclusively between Cyprus and Greece.

From the Akritas plan

Further, it is estimated that we have better chances of succeeding in our efforts to influence international public opinion in our favour if we present our demand, as we did during the struggle, as a demand to exercise the right of self-determination, rather than as a demand for union with Greece (Enosis). In order, however, to secure the exercise of
complete and free self-determination, we must get free of all those provisions of the constitution and of the agreements (Treaty of Guarantee, Treaty of Alliance) which prevent the free and unfettered expression and implementation of the wishes of our people and which create dangers of external intervention. It is for this reason that the
first target of attack has been the Treaty of Guarantee, which was the first that was stated to be no longer recognised by the Greek Cypriots.
When this is achieved no legal or moral power can prevent us from deciding our future alone and freely and exercising the right of self-determination by a plebiscite.

Please do contiunue to insist that Makarios never sought enosis, for such ridiculous attempts to deny and pervert reality show cleary what you are really about and highlight your credibility.

Well said. Let's see how long it takes the bash patriots to say Akritas plan did not exist?

[Oracle]

N.B. Neither Greece nor Makarios sought Enosis.

The only thing you prove Oracle is how divorced you are from truth or reality.

From UN document S/6253 26 March 1965

In the interest of critical analysis, let's evaluate the earlier neutral reports (for example, above link) where Makarios was seeking securities against loss of Independence.

Did those miraculously evaporate between Feb 1964 and March 1965?

If they did; what happened in the interim to change Makarios' aim for Independence?

Could it be the first major Turkish attempt at an invasion in the Summer of 1964?

Don't skip and jump without looking at the steps in-between which don't suit you, erolz.

[DTA]

is this a made up quote then:

""these hands, they can cut them off, but I will NOT sign again any Constitution excluding ENOSIS"

[erolz3]

In the interest of critical analysis, let's evaluate the earlier neutral reports (for example, above link) where Makarios was seeking securities against loss of Independence.

Did those miraculously evaporate between Feb 1964 and March 1965?

Even you can not be this obtuse Oracle.

That Makarios was talking of securites against loss of indpendance in the newspaper report you cite does not prove that independance was his end aim. Far from it. It shows that like the authors of the Akritas plan he knew that

The only danger which could be described as insurmountable is the possibility of external intervention, by force, not so much because of the material damage, nor because of the danger itself (which, in the last analysis, it is possible for us to deal with partly or totally by force), but mainly because of the possible political consequences. Intervention is threatened or implemented before stage (c), then such intervention would be legally debatable, if not justified. This fact has a lot of weight both internationally and in the United Nations.

From the history of many recent instances we have learnt that in not a single case of intervention, whether legally justified or not, has either the United Nations or any other power succeeded in evicting the invader without serious concessions detrimental to the victim.

The insurmountable thing that could prevent enosis would be Turkish military invasions. What Makarios was trying to do in the UN meetings the newspaper article you cite refers to was to block Turkeys legal right to intervene in Cyprus under the treaty of guarantee. He was purusing this as a removel of the biggest obstacle to achieving enosis. The necessity to do this in order to achieve enosis is all clearly laid out in the Akritas plan. To then try and argue that him doing this is proof that he did not seek enosis is beyond ridiculous.

The authors of the Akritas plan also recognised that to achieve enosis it was better to present this as a desire not for enosis, but as a desire to exercise 'self determination'

Yet clearly these attemps were not fooling anyone at the time. The UN mediator to Cyprus clearly understood what many GC and GC leaders MEANT then they demanded "full independence and self determination" (and the quotation marks here are the UN mediators , not mine). He knew that this meant enosis to many GC and GC leaders.

Once more

It was and remains impossible to escape the impression that for a large body of the Greek-Cypriot leaders ' following, and for many of the
leaders themselves, the official demand for "full independence and selfdetermination" had no other meaning than this: that Cyprus should be released from the treaty and constitutional obligations which limited her freedom of choice, whereupon she would opt by some acceptable democratic procedure for union with Greece, this union to take place by agreement exclusively between Cyprus and Greece.

If they did; what happened in the interim to change Makarios' aim for Independence?

There was no change of objective. As your own source clearly points out what Makarios was trying to achieve in these UN meetings was the 'abrogation of the Treaty of Guarantee'. A essential part of achieving enosis. He was seeking this in a form of a resolution that would guarantee the islands indpedance and territorial integrity, which would negate Turkeys rights to intervention un the treaty of gurantee. He failed in this attempt, but the attempt itself is entirely and totaly consistent with seeking to achieve enosis, as all laid out in the Akritas plan.

Your 'argument' is , because Makarios in 64 followed a strategy of trying to negate the treaty of guarantee in the UN, the most important necessity if the only insurmountable danger to achieving enosis was to be removed, and said the word Independant whilst attemptiong to do this, this proves that he did not want enosis.

I more ridculous attempt at 'analysis' I can not imagine.

What your article confirms is that Makarions was following the same steps laid out in the Akritas plan as necessary in order to achieve enosis.

You then use this as 'proof' that he did not seek enosis.

Please do keep up this nonsense for as I say nothing shows more clearly imo what you are really about , what you real comitments to 'truth' is and to what absurd lengths you will go to in your pursuit of trying to distort historical reality.

[Oracle]

In the interest of critical analysis, let's evaluate the earlier neutral reports (for example, above link) where Makarios was seeking securities against loss of Independence.

Did those miraculously evaporate between Feb 1964 and March 1965?

That Makarios was talking of securites against loss of indpendance in the newspaper report you cite does not prove that independance was his end aim.

Why should what YOU say have overriding authority over what Makarios actually stated. He did not have the benefit of hindsight as you possess, so what he said was how things stood.

From the history of many recent instances we have learnt that in not a single case of intervention, whether legally justified or not, has either the United Nations or any other power succeeded in evicting the invader without serious concessions detrimental to the victim.

This quote only proves what amazing foresight the writer had.

The insurmountable thing that could prevent enosis would be Turkish military invasions.

That's presuming Enosis was alive and kicking. Which this article proves was not the case.

He was purusing this as a removel of the biggest obstacle to achieving enosis.

That's your presumption, again, and does not relate to facts as they unfolded.

The authors of the Akritas plan ...

There's no mention of this.

Yet clearly these attemps were not fooling anyone at the time. The UN mediator to Cyprus clearly understood what many GC and GC leaders MEANT then they demanded "full independence and self determination" (and the quotation marks here are the UN mediators , not mine). He knew that this meant enosis to many GC and GC leaders

No. An inference does NOT make it fact and certainly no weightier than from the horse's mouth!

If they did; what happened in the interim to change Makarios' aim for Independence?

There was no change of objective. As your own source clearly points out what Makarios was trying to achieve in these UN meetings was the 'abrogation of the Treaty of Guarantee'. A essential part of achieving enosis.

Again, you are falling victim to your own inflated inferences. They are not fact.

Your 'argument' is , because Makarios in 64 followed a strategy of trying to negate the treaty of guarantee in the UN, the most important necessity if the only insurmountable danger to achieving enosis was to be removed, and said the word Independant whilst attemptiong to do this, this proves that he did not want enosis.

Tosh and rubbish What Independent country needs "Treaties of Guarantees"? It was precisely the wish to gain full Independence from these Guarantees which made Turkey's blood boil.

What your article confirms is that Makarions was following the same steps laid out in the Akritas plan as necessary in order to achieve enosis.

Rubbish. Show how. Merely stating does not make it so.

You then use this as 'proof' that he did not seek enosis.

If he asking for Independence and Territorial Integrity only a fool could decide he knows better and attempt to put words in his mouth.

Please do keep up this nonsense for as I say nothing shows more clearly imo what you are really about , what you real comitments to 'truth' is and to what absurd lengths you will go to in your pursuit of trying to distort historical reality.

I am about removing the Turkish influence. No more, no less.

You can either believe an unbiased article, written AT the time, and before the waters were muddied; or you can carry on with the brainwashing you seem stuck with and absolve Turkey as though it had no interest in Cyprus but was forced to 'intervene' for some "higher goodness" ... Apartheid, for example. Hurray for "peace-loving", Turks!

[Paphitis]

Much is made of Enosis as the reason for Turkey's occupation of Cyprus.

Here is an article from Feb. 1964 which proves Makarios was asking for assurances to Independence and Territorial Integrity for Cyprus -- as he saw it slipping away at the hands of Turkey, Britain and the USA.


"The sources said he would be forced to resort to such an unusual step if Britain, Turkey and America continued to oppose the adoption of a resolution which would guarantee the island's independence and territorial integrity."


http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1 ... 26,4231312

N.B. Neither Greece nor Makarios sought Enosis.

Indeed, it was the three belligerent and absolute foreigners, Britain, Turkey and USA, which contrived to deny a guarantee to respect Cyprus' Independence and Integrity!

How can you be demanding territorial integrity when the Turks could just excuse their behavior as Apartheid for security and control?

Silly woman!