Cyprus-Forum.com

[Oracle]

These are my early experiences as a seven year old. I used to play with the kids of these people. One family stayed in the village after the murder and the hapless mother raised her kids on her own. I kept truck on one of them, he became a successful developer in the Famagusta region. The other widow took her five kids and went to England. I remember the day her husband was shot, like yesterday. I was with my father in his shop in the village. To make ends meet he was a tailor and a bike repairer. We heard the shot and my father jumped to his feet. My koumparos, he shouted and he run in the direction the shot came from. There he found his koumparos (Shellis) in a pool of blood. You see, EOKA had Shellis in the black list. There was a failed attempt at his life earlier. One of the killers died a horrible death later, from cancer.

...and for what purpose. Britain would have relinquished her hold over Cyprus eventually. IMO.

All the evidence would contradict you Deniz!

You know full well they had declared Cyprus a special territory and even to this day they have NOT relinquished their hold on Cyprus!

[Bananiot]

Of course Deniz, we were knocking an open door. Good one oracle, we would still be one country under the Brits with Turkey a long way away.

[Oracle]

Of course Deniz, we were knocking an open door. Good one oracle, we would still be one country under the Brits with Turkey a long way away.

I didn't realise you were merely nitpicking who was your master! Slavery is abhorrent to the natural, healthy progress of humanity.

Besides, we are STILL one country! The bits presently under occupation by the Turks and the Brits WILL be freed too!

The road is long and the fainthearted will falter. You just need a little support and reassurance, Bananiot. Take my hand ....

[Piratis]

Now that Piratis has finally understood that the intercommunal strife did not start in 1958 he might just change his tune and save us the agony.

Bananiot, you are the one who is unable to understand my friend. (or rather your don't want to understand)

Strife between Greeks and Turks in Cyprus existed since 1570 when the Turks first invaded our island. I am not talking just about that.

What I am talking about is the inter-communal conflict which was planned and organized by Turkey and the UK in the 1950s, motivating the TCs to attack and murder innocent GCs en mass, hoping that in this way would create a situation that could excuse the segregation of the population and eventually the partition of Cyprus.

The British tried to create this generalized conflict from 1956 when they hired TC missionaries to attack our EOKA fighters:



This attempt didn't work as well as they hoped for and no widespread conflict between GCs and TCs happened.

So in 1958 Turkey incited the Turkish minority in Cyprus with broadcasts calling them to murder GCs and start a civil war. This time the plan worked as expected and what we had were attacks en mass against innocent ordinary GCs and their properties which resulted not only in the destruction of a lot of property but also the death of several people within just a few days.



That is when the inter-communal conflict started. Before that there might have been several incidents (going back to 1570) but there was not a generalized conflict between the ordinary GCs and the ordinary TCs.

[Piratis]

Let's not take things out of context. It isn't right.

I strongly believe that EOKA's struggle for self determination is both justified and right, but I certainly doubt that any of the fallen would've had our present state of affairs in their mind. Our nation is now torn, and under threat from Turkey.

Even they, would've preferred for Cyprus to remain a British Colony for a few more years than be dealt the bogus Zurich Agreement (no country in their right mind would have such a constitution) and as a consequence be under occupation and divided for 36 years.

Eventually, self determination would've happened regardless.

I think we can say that EOKA's struggle was justified, under the principle of self-determination. After all, it was the wish of the great majority of the island's population.

Of course with the same principle, we can say that creation of turkish enclaves was justified too. And at least for the ones which had access to sea, like Mansoura-Kokkina, even the union with Turkey would be justified. As long as the majority of their population wanted it so. In a similar way, Muslims in Rodopi in Greece, where they are in the majority, should have the right to declare their independence, if they want so.



But all this is not really that relevant. Important is not what is justified, but what it's correct. And the struggle of GCs for Enosi, especially when carried out with violent means, would inevitably lead to inter-communal conflict sooner or later, and so to a Zurich-type constitution and eventually to partition. Since it was a goal that couldn't get accepted by TCs. On the other hand, a common struggle for independence would have the chances of avoiding inter-communal conflicts and partition.

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

[denizaksulu]

Now that Piratis has finally understood that the intercommunal strife did not start in 1958 he might just change his tune and save us the agony.

Bananiot, you are the one who is unable to understand my friend. (or rather your don't want to understand)

Strife between Greeks and Turks in Cyprus existed since 1570 when the Turks first invaded our island. I am not talking just about that.

What I am talking about is the inter-communal conflict which was planned and organized by Turkey and the UK in the 1950s, motivating the TCs to attack and murder innocent GCs en mass, hoping that in this way would create a situation that could excuse the segregation of the population and eventually the partition of Cyprus.

The British tried to create this generalized conflict from 1956 when they hired TC missionaries to attack our EOKA fighters:



This attempt didn't work as well as they hoped for and no widespread conflict between GCs and TCs happened.

So in 1958 Turkey incited the Turkish minority in Cyprus with broadcasts calling them to murder GCs and start a civil war. This time the plan worked as expected and what we had were attacks en mass against innocent ordinary GCs and their properties which resulted not only in the destruction of a lot of property but also the death of several people within just a few days.



That is when the inter-communal conflict started. Before that there might have been several incidents (going back to 1570) but there was not a generalized conflict between the ordinary GCs and the ordinary TCs.

[Afroasiatis]

Eoka was armed by Greece. Akel did not have a chance to stand up to eoka. Eoka hated leftist as much as turks. Nor did leftist TCs stand up to TMT. The ones that did were killed.

Lets not kid ourselves. There was nothing anyone could do at the time. Big Daddy USA and Turkey and Greece wanted it that way.

I could even say, EOKA hated leftists more than Turks.

I understand the very difficult position in which both AKEL and leftist TCs were found at that time. All conditions and all international players, USA, UK, Greece, Turkey, were against them.

So, it's difficult to judge them today. However, I think that they could at least try something. AKEL endorsing the goal of Enosi was a big mistake. OK, in the time they took this decision, in early 40s, there were serious chances that Greece would become a communist state, so they had this in their minds. But still, a common fight of GCs and TCs against colonialism became impossible after that.

[Gasman]

I didn't realise you were merely nitpicking who was your master! Slavery is abhorrent to the natural, healthy progress of humanity.

Rich, coming from someone who has declared over and over that Cyprus is GREEK! So I can only assume slavery is not so abhorrent if Greeks are the Slave masters!

Besides, we are STILL one country! The bits presently under occupation by the Turks and the Brits WILL be freed too!

lol! You have already stated that with the help of the EU the RoC will remove all Turkish influence from Cyprus, once and for all and annihilate them from European soil.

Tell me - is it the EU you will be calling on to remove (or even annihilate) the Brits from Cyprus?

[Afroasiatis]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

[denizaksulu]

Afroasiatis, the fact is that the TC minority in Cyprus has distinctive differences from the majority of the population, namely language and religion. These differences would have been exploited by the Imperialists regardless of what the aim of the liberation struggle was.

They did the same thing to India and several other places. Divide and rule was not something new for them.

In this thread I am not saying that TCs should have supported union with Greece. Union with Greece was a legitimate option for the de-colonization of Cyprus but they had the right to disagree with it, and support another legitimate option, e.g. independendance.

But they did not support any legitimate option. On the contrary they supported the partition of Cyprus, something which involves the annihilation of the majority of Cypriots from half of their island. Even worst, they initiated an inter-communal conflict which resulted in the deaths of many innocent people from both sides, in their effort to show that the two communities could not live together in peace and that their partition demands were therefore justified.

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Beyond that, if they disagreed with enosis that was their right, but burning the homes and shops of innocent ordinary Cypriots and massacring others was not an act against enosis, but an act aimed in creating conflict and hate between the ordinary GCs and TCs, something which only served their partition aim and nothing else.

The imperialists would try to exploit any differences, that's for sure, but at least some Cyrpiots could try to act against this. On the contrary, by putting Enosi as the aim of the struggle, these differences were made stronger and the inter-communal conflict became inevitable. For TCs who didn't want partition not many options were left. Without any allies among GCs, how could they resist the wishes of their leadership, of UK and of Turkey?

The basic problem which lead to the partition of Cyprus is nationalism, i.e. people putting the interests of their nation, which in post-ottoman Cyprus was practically identical to religious community, above everything else, above the interests of their common homecountry. Other ethnic groups are seen a potential obstacle to the national goals. Similar things to Cyprus happened also in Greece, Turkey, Yugoslavia, and almost in Bulgaria. There is a common pattern in all this. After nationalism prevailed among both GCs and TCs, the partition would come in one way or another.

Even the way TCs are accused collectively of aiming to partition has a nationalist logic behind it. You say for example:

So those TCs that today talk about the inter-communal conflict and how much they suffered during this conflict, should be reminded that it is them who initiated this conflict because it served their own aim for partition. This is crystal clear.

Why do you think that the TCs who suffered during the conflict were the same with the ones who initiated it?

In my dad's village, Analiontas, a TC woman and a child were killed by EOKA. It's hard to believe that they had anything to do with planning the partition of Cyprus or intitiating conflicts. Probably the same can be said for the inhabitants of Kataliontas, who saw their village getting burned. Accusing a community collectively and punishing some of its members for the acts commited by other members, is exactly the logic which was the basis for everything that happened in Cyprus and lead to partition.

You would make a good lawyer my friend. Well presented.