Cyprus-Forum.com

[Pyrpolizer]

Kutchuk was worse Nationalist compared to Denktash, and Taksim/Partition was just a compromise to his own super extremist demands. His INITIAL DEMAND was for Cyprus to be returned to Turkey. Here;s his own article:

The AMotherland@: Küçük=s View, 1954

The rousing of Turkish-Cypriot sentiment with regard to its links to Turkey did not have to await the Greek-Cypriot militancy of the late 1950s. Already by 1954, the communal leader Dr. Fazil Küçük, who became vice president in the 1960-63 Republic, was voicing nationalist ideas, spurred perhaps by the growing demand for enosis among Greek Cypriots. The following is from a column he wrote in his own newspaper, Voice of the People, published in Nicosia.

Cyprus, let it be remembered, was, until 1878, a part of the Turkish Empire. In 1878 the island was ceded to Great Britain as a security against Russian threat. Great Britain took over Cyprus on the undertaking that she would hand her back to Turkey as soon as this threat was abated or receded. From 1878 until 1914 Great Britain ruled the island on trust for Turkey, but when in 1914 Turkey joined forces with the Axis, Cyprus was annexed to the British Empire.

There is no need to look into the legality or the legal effects of this annexation. Let us grant that it was legal and correct from all points of view. Nevertheless, having regard to the close association of the two countries (Britain-Turkey), the ever-increasing Soviet threat to humanity and world security and the moral side of the question, it should be abundantly clear to all intelligent men that Great Britain cannot consider the handing over of the government to any nation except with the full consent and approval of its former ownerCTurkey. Turkey was the undisputed owner of this 'house' just before Great Britain took it over on trust. If world events have ended that 'trust' during 1914-18, subsequent world events have certainly revived it from all moral points of view. The position of world affairs today as far as they concern Great Britain and Turkey are the same as they were in 1878. There is the Russian pressure on Turkey coupled with the bonds of friendship and alliance between Turkey and Britain. The cause of ceding Cyprus to Britain is still continuing; the time to consider handing back Cyprus to its former owner therefore may not have arrived. But if Great Britain is going to consider this enosis question at all or is going to quit the island she has a legal as well as a moral duty to call Turkey and hand Cyprus back to Turkey, and ask the Turkish government to deal with the enosis problem which the tolerant and ill-advised British administration has fostered in the island. From a legal as well as moral point of view, Turkey, as the initial owner of the island just before the British occupation, has a first option to Cyprus. The matter does not end there. From a worldwide political point of view as well as from geographical and strategical points of view Cyprus must be handed to Turkey if Great Britain is going to quit.

This has been the attitude of the Turkish government. They have never taken the Greek campaign for enosis seriously because they believed that Great Britain's decision not to quit the island was an unassailable answer to the whole question; but they have made it emphatically clear that if Great Britain ever considers leaving Cyprus then the Turkish government has a great interest in the ownership of the island. The Turkish youth in Turkey, in fact, has grown up with the idea that as soon as Great Britain leaves the island the island will automatically be taken over by the Turks. It must be clear to all concerned that Turkey cannot tolerate seeing one of her former islands, lying as it does only forty miles from her shores, handed over to a weak neighbour thousands of miles away, which is politically as well as financially on the verge of bankruptcy.

From the newspaper, Halkin Sesi, August 17, 1954.

[YFred]

Kutchuk was worse Nationalist compared to Denktash, and Taksim/Partition was just a compromise to his own super extremist demands. His INITIAL DEMAND was for Cyprus to be returned to Turkey. Here;s his own article:

The AMotherland@: Küçük=s View, 1954

The rousing of Turkish-Cypriot sentiment with regard to its links to Turkey did not have to await the Greek-Cypriot militancy of the late 1950s. Already by 1954, the communal leader Dr. Fazil Küçük, who became vice president in the 1960-63 Republic, was voicing nationalist ideas, spurred perhaps by the growing demand for enosis among Greek Cypriots. The following is from a column he wrote in his own newspaper, Voice of the People, published in Nicosia.

Cyprus, let it be remembered, was, until 1878, a part of the Turkish Empire. In 1878 the island was ceded to Great Britain as a security against Russian threat. Great Britain took over Cyprus on the undertaking that she would hand her back to Turkey as soon as this threat was abated or receded. From 1878 until 1914 Great Britain ruled the island on trust for Turkey, but when in 1914 Turkey joined forces with the Axis, Cyprus was annexed to the British Empire.

There is no need to look into the legality or the legal effects of this annexation. Let us grant that it was legal and correct from all points of view. Nevertheless, having regard to the close association of the two countries (Britain-Turkey), the ever-increasing Soviet threat to humanity and world security and the moral side of the question, it should be abundantly clear to all intelligent men that Great Britain cannot consider the handing over of the government to any nation except with the full consent and approval of its former ownerCTurkey. Turkey was the undisputed owner of this 'house' just before Great Britain took it over on trust. If world events have ended that 'trust' during 1914-18, subsequent world events have certainly revived it from all moral points of view. The position of world affairs today as far as they concern Great Britain and Turkey are the same as they were in 1878. There is the Russian pressure on Turkey coupled with the bonds of friendship and alliance between Turkey and Britain. The cause of ceding Cyprus to Britain is still continuing; the time to consider handing back Cyprus to its former owner therefore may not have arrived. But if Great Britain is going to consider this enosis question at all or is going to quit the island she has a legal as well as a moral duty to call Turkey and hand Cyprus back to Turkey, and ask the Turkish government to deal with the enosis problem which the tolerant and ill-advised British administration has fostered in the island. From a legal as well as moral point of view, Turkey, as the initial owner of the island just before the British occupation, has a first option to Cyprus. The matter does not end there. From a worldwide political point of view as well as from geographical and strategical points of view Cyprus must be handed to Turkey if Great Britain is going to quit.

This has been the attitude of the Turkish government. They have never taken the Greek campaign for enosis seriously because they believed that Great Britain's decision not to quit the island was an unassailable answer to the whole question; but they have made it emphatically clear that if Great Britain ever considers leaving Cyprus then the Turkish government has a great interest in the ownership of the island. The Turkish youth in Turkey, in fact, has grown up with the idea that as soon as Great Britain leaves the island the island will automatically be taken over by the Turks. It must be clear to all concerned that Turkey cannot tolerate seeing one of her former islands, lying as it does only forty miles from her shores, handed over to a weak neighbour thousands of miles away, which is politically as well as financially on the verge of bankruptcy.

From the newspaper, Halkin Sesi, August 17, 1954.

That's a lot of words for someone named Small.

[Piratis]

Agreed, blame the Turks, blame the Brits, but not the GCs, they were the innocent party.
Not one comment by my GC brethren about the decades of calls for Enosis which only in the last decade and a half has become a minority call and please let us not forget the actions of the GC govt / militia etc. that isolated TCs and forced them to create their own government and civil orgs in the run up to 1974. There was cultural and physical Taksim long before 1974.
The current border part of Taksim came well after.

So you want to blame us for asking for our freedom from the foreign invaders? We asked for nothing more than our rights. Denying our right to be free and part of a Greek state as we wanted was yet another crime that the foreign invaders committed against Cypriots.

Do you really think that you have the right to invade us and force Cyprus to be part of the Ottoman or British empires against the will of the Cypriot people, but it is supposedly a "crime" for Cyprus to be part of the Greek state, which is what the vast majority of Cypriots themselves wanted?

We asked nothing more than our rights. We had be forced to live under foreign empires and we had the right to be freed. Uniting our island with the rest of Greece was just as legitimate as independence. The UN resolution resolution 1541 defines "free association with an independent State, integration into an independent State, or independence as the three legitimate options of full self-government. "
http://www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonizat ... ration.htm

So how can you blame us for asking our legitimate rights?
Who is to be blamed are the Turks and the British who denied our legitimate rights to us and kept Cyprus enslaved by force. And your minority then started the massacres and the burning of shops and homes of innocent people in order to force us to abandon our legitimate rights.

[georgios100]

Many thanks to Piratis & Pyrpolizer for the undisputed evidence they provided for the rest of us to read and certify one more time, the premeditated intentions of the TC leaders & Turkey towards the partition of our island.

These and other acts led us to the division of Cyprus, as we see it today.

I am not surprised to see little or no response from the TC side. Actually, we should not expect any answers from them whatsoever. The truth speaks for it self. The TC side is at fault and they know it. The Brit conspiracy worked as planned to partition Cyprus and yet, they are still here, complicating things ever more. Bastards!

One thing is for certain. The acts of Turkey will not stand. The whole world is against the continuing occupation, soon to be haulted and rightfully so.

[repulsewarrior]

http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-fr ... 8383669FDE

...you may enjoy this article

why does Turkey refuse to recognise Cyprus?

L-A-U-S-A-N-N-E.

...did i spell that right?

[aussieturk]

There are recent discussions on CF, arguing if today's line that divides the occupied Cyprus from the free Cyprus were premeditated.

The answer is yes.

The evidence is provided by the late Dr Fazil Küçük (1906-1984) who proposed the attached map in the year 1957 (RE: Partition of Cyprus), found in a booklet, currently available from the Cyprus Consulate office in Toronto, Canada.

The population stats for year 1960 indicate the Turkish Cypriots at 18%, Greek Cypriots at 77% and other nationals at 5%. Link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyprus

Not sure which elementary school Dr Fazil Küçük attended (born in Nicosia) but simple math tells me, the 18% TC population does not add up to the 50% claim of Cyprus land, as the attached document indicates.

Therefor, since this TC proposal was impossible to meet via peaceful negotiation, war was needed to achieve it. Hence the 1974 war and it's result as depicted at the bottom of the attached document.

Clearly, Dr Fazil Küçük's premeditated wishes came true as planned. Not exactly what he had in mind but pretty close, don't you think?

Not premeditated, planned................. IF....... the TC's were attacked and guess what it happened so................ plan into action.

Pretty Simple and effective.

[SKI-preo]

Hitler also "planned" the final solution & Ottomans "planned" the Armenian Genocide. I don't get your point Aussie? Turkey "planned" a scorched earth operation, napalming,raping and shooting its way to thousands of deaths of civilians and ethnically cleansing 100% of certain towns and villages where Turkish Cypriots never never even lived. How were Turkish Cypriots attacked in 100% Greek Cypriot towns and villages? I want you to understand that the people who you say were justifiably killed,raped or ethnically cleansed were not the enemies of Turkish Cypriots. They were ordinary human beings,babies,grandmothers, women and children. "Planning" this does not make it right.

[Kikapu]

Kutchuk was worse Nationalist compared to Denktash, and Taksim/Partition was just a compromise to his own super extremist demands. His INITIAL DEMAND was for Cyprus to be returned to Turkey. Here;s his own article:

The AMotherland@: Küçük=s View, 1954

The rousing of Turkish-Cypriot sentiment with regard to its links to Turkey did not have to await the Greek-Cypriot militancy of the late 1950s. Already by 1954, the communal leader Dr. Fazil Küçük, who became vice president in the 1960-63 Republic, was voicing nationalist ideas, spurred perhaps by the growing demand for enosis among Greek Cypriots. The following is from a column he wrote in his own newspaper, Voice of the People, published in Nicosia.

Cyprus, let it be remembered, was, until 1878, a part of the Turkish Empire. In 1878 the island was ceded to Great Britain as a security against Russian threat. Great Britain took over Cyprus on the undertaking that she would hand her back to Turkey as soon as this threat was abated or receded. From 1878 until 1914 Great Britain ruled the island on trust for Turkey, but when in 1914 Turkey joined forces with the Axis, Cyprus was annexed to the British Empire.

There is no need to look into the legality or the legal effects of this annexation. Let us grant that it was legal and correct from all points of view. Nevertheless, having regard to the close association of the two countries (Britain-Turkey), the ever-increasing Soviet threat to humanity and world security and the moral side of the question, it should be abundantly clear to all intelligent men that Great Britain cannot consider the handing over of the government to any nation except with the full consent and approval of its former ownerCTurkey. Turkey was the undisputed owner of this 'house' just before Great Britain took it over on trust. If world events have ended that 'trust' during 1914-18, subsequent world events have certainly revived it from all moral points of view. The position of world affairs today as far as they concern Great Britain and Turkey are the same as they were in 1878. There is the Russian pressure on Turkey coupled with the bonds of friendship and alliance between Turkey and Britain. The cause of ceding Cyprus to Britain is still continuing; the time to consider handing back Cyprus to its former owner therefore may not have arrived. But if Great Britain is going to consider this enosis question at all or is going to quit the island she has a legal as well as a moral duty to call Turkey and hand Cyprus back to Turkey, and ask the Turkish government to deal with the enosis problem which the tolerant and ill-advised British administration has fostered in the island. From a legal as well as moral point of view, Turkey, as the initial owner of the island just before the British occupation, has a first option to Cyprus. The matter does not end there. From a worldwide political point of view as well as from geographical and strategical points of view Cyprus must be handed to Turkey if Great Britain is going to quit.

This has been the attitude of the Turkish government. They have never taken the Greek campaign for enosis seriously because they believed that Great Britain's decision not to quit the island was an unassailable answer to the whole question; but they have made it emphatically clear that if Great Britain ever considers leaving Cyprus then the Turkish government has a great interest in the ownership of the island. The Turkish youth in Turkey, in fact, has grown up with the idea that as soon as Great Britain leaves the island the island will automatically be taken over by the Turks. It must be clear to all concerned that Turkey cannot tolerate seeing one of her former islands, lying as it does only forty miles from her shores, handed over to a weak neighbour thousands of miles away, which is politically as well as financially on the verge of bankruptcy.

From the newspaper, Halkin Sesi, August 17, 1954.

Few interesting things to point out here.

1. It states that Turkey were the initial "owners" of Cyprus before the British Occupation.! Does that then mean that Cypriots never had ownership of their island.? Did they ONLY have ownership after they gained their independence from the British Occupiers.?? If so, then Cypriot are the owners of Cyprus today despite if there are occupiers on her soil.

2. Küçük states that it was the Turkish Empire and not the Ottoman Empire that had "ownership" of Cyprus.

3. It does not state how this Turkish "ownership" came about of Cyprus.

4. Was this a "virgin birth ownerships" or simply a "ownership" through occupation.??

5. If it was the former, when did this "virgin birth ownership" became to be.

6. If it was the latter, then if one occupier takes control of a place to declare for it to belong to them, then they must also accept losing the "ownership" to another occupier. Had Turkey wrestled Cyprus from the British Empire before Cyprus was given it's independence, then Turkey could claim as the "owners" of Cyprus once again. Obviously that was not the case, even if we were to ignore the treaty of Lausanne in how the "Turkish Empire" signed away Cyprus for good to the British Empire.

7. It is very interesting, that when it comes to the Armenian Genocide, the blame is put on the Ottoman Empire and not on the "Turkish Empire" and modern day Turkey, but when it comes to Cyprus, it was the "Turkish Empire" and modern day Turkey who has claims over Cyprus, long after it had signed away her interest in Cyprus over to the British Empire.!

[denizaksulu]

Many thanks to Piratis & Pyrpolizer for the undisputed evidence they provided for the rest of us to read and certify one more time, the premeditated intentions of the TC leaders & Turkey towards the partition of our island.

These and other acts led us to the division of Cyprus, as we see it today.

I am not surprised to see little or no response from the TC side. Actually, we should not expect any answers from them whatsoever. The truth speaks for it self. The TC side is at fault and they know it. The Brit conspiracy worked as planned to partition Cyprus and yet, they are still here, complicating things ever more. Bastards!

One thing is for certain. The acts of Turkey will not stand. The whole world is against the continuing occupation, soon to be haulted and rightfully so.

Dont let it go to your head.
I admitted plans for Taksim were in hand, but ONLY a negotiated one; and this was to counteract your then ENOSIS plans. What was not envisaged was Taksim by invasion. You gave them the opportunity to do so.
But what we see here is just like your Hellenic mentors in Greece: blame others for your problems'. Its never your fult but always the Turks or TC's. You will grow up once you take some responsibility for the travails of Cyprus. Until then keep on sucking your dummy.

[YFred]

Many thanks to Piratis & Pyrpolizer for the undisputed evidence they provided for the rest of us to read and certify one more time, the premeditated intentions of the TC leaders & Turkey towards the partition of our island.

These and other acts led us to the division of Cyprus, as we see it today.

I am not surprised to see little or no response from the TC side. Actually, we should not expect any answers from them whatsoever. The truth speaks for it self. The TC side is at fault and they know it. The Brit conspiracy worked as planned to partition Cyprus and yet, they are still here, complicating things ever more. Bastards!

One thing is for certain. The acts of Turkey will not stand. The whole world is against the continuing occupation, soon to be haulted and rightfully so.

Dont let it go to your head.
I admitted plans for Taksim were in hand, but ONLY a negotiated one; and this was to counteract your then ENOSIS plans. What was not envisaged was Taksim by invasion. You gave them the opportunity to do so.
But what we see here is just like your Hellenic mentors in Greece: blame others for your problems'. Its never your fult but always the Turks or TC's. You will grow up once you take some responsibility for the travails of Cyprus. Until then keep on sucking your dummy.

What does the word "dummy" mean? He would have to be a K9 to be able to do that if it means what I think it does. Are you confused?