Cyprus-Forum.com

[YFred]

Why would TCs want to join any struggle to unite with Greece?

A question. You say:

People in those days were simple and conservative, and had enormous cultural and ethnic attachments to Greece.

I know people nowadays travel a lot, but back then - how many simple and conservative Cypriots do you think regularly visited Greece? My guess is that, even nowadays, far more of them make the journey to the UK, the home of their old hated Colonial Masters.

If the Brits were so hated as is often stated on here - why did so many Cypriots elect to go and live with them?

Grivas did at one stage extend his hand in friendship towards the TCs when the uprising began, and he even invited them to join the struggle and EOKA. Whilst the objective was ENOSIS, Grivas may have believed that the TCs would join because they too had suffered under Colonial Rule.

Gasman, whether you want to accept it or not, Cypriots have always had Hellenic Cultural, linguistic, and religious similarities and attachments. There is very little difference between a GC and a Cretan, and most people in the 1950s believed that it was only natural for Cyprus to achieve ENOSIS with Greece.

Most migration to the UK, occurred in the late 1960s and post 1974. Cypriots never hated the Brits, they just wanted self determination and wanted to end Colonial Rule. A very natural desire.

Obviously Grivas was cleverer than you... Grivas extended his hand in friendship towards the TCs, eh? Because they too suffered under the colonial rule, eh? What about the minorities suffering under the fascist Greek rule in Greece?


Any credible sources, Bafidi?


The fact is that Grivas knew that if he touches just a single TC Turkey would intervene both diplomatically and militarily... As a matter of a fact, Turkey urged Britain and Greece back in 1947 that "Enosis" would never be accepted by Turkey...

If he touched any TCs who were all anti-Enosist and ready to fight against Grivas; Grivas would have doubled his obstacles/enemies in front of Enosis... Furthermore he would have lost the international support he was expecting to gain and achieve Enosis...

Obviously, Grivas was at least 1000 times cleverer than you and most of the Hellenes(all who claims Greek descendent).

Grivas is the cleverest Hellene I've ever come across... but not as clever as the leader of TMT whoever he was...

Anyway, had TCs accepted Enosis or Grivasites won the Enosis struggle; or TCs accepted the so-called majority rule aka Greek rule overwhelming majority of TCs would have to immigrate and lost the so-called Cypriot citizenship...

Zeibek lost her citizenship under the now-infamous Article 19 of Greece's Citizenship Act first voted into the law in 1954 and which states that citizens of “foreign origin” can be deprived of their Greek nationality if they leave the country with the intention of settling abroad.

Panayote Dimitras, head of Greece's branch of the Helsinki Human Rights Monitor, said at least 7,000 people had been made stateless since the law was passed, including about 50 new cases this year. Over half the Muslim minority in Thrace is considered to be ethnic Turkish. And about 500 families living in the area are believed to be living in limbo after losing their identification papers.

http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/62/418.html

Grivas extended his hand in friendship towards the TCs, eh? Because they too suffered under the colonial rule, eh?

What Bfiti does not realise is that Turks and Communists should stay away from our fight.

There is a video of an eoka man being asked whether he could live with Turks or Comunists and he said neither. Its about 1:32 minutes in. They hated Akel and TCs. Not that the two short planks man would understand.

[Gasman]

Here are Cypriots 'Blessing the Union Jack' - how times change!

[B25]

Here are Cypriots 'Blessing the Union Jack' - how times change!

Hardly bless this Union Jack Gassy. if that is a Union Jack, its only because we were powerless to remove it. It would have been forced upon us.

The blessing is to the entrance of the church, but you wouldn't understand that.

[YFred]

Here are Cypriots 'Blessing the Union Jack' - how times change!

Hardly bless this Union Jack Gassy. if that is a Union Jack, its only because we were powerless to remove it. It would have been forced upon us.

The blessing is to the entrance of the church, but you wouldn't understand that.

Reh Bastardo, may be they were all civil servants. Just a passing thought. Ohps I forgot, you are incapable of that.

[Piratis]

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.

I disagree with you that conflict was inevitable simply because the Cypriot people wanted their freedom as it happened with every other Greek island and territory.

Muslim/Turkish minorities were created in most Christian territories which were under Ottoman rule. This didn't stop all the other Greek islands to be liberated from foreign rule and unite with mainland Greece, as it was their right. Rhodes for example, which also has a Muslim minority, united with Greece in 1948 after being Liberated from Italian Colonial rule, and not a single nose broke over this.

What brought conflict to Cyprus was not our legitimate choice, but the interests of the Imperialists who used their usual divide and rule tactics to turn the Muslim minority against the majority of the population. As I said these kind of practices were used by the British in many other parts of the world even when those other parts where fighting for independence.

As far as your second point goes, it is only the TCs in here who demand that GCs should be collectively punished and made to "pay the price" for everything that happened in the past. Ask Bir.
Personally I never supported such racist and unfair practices.

And the excuse that those TCs use to demand the indiscriminate collective punishment of all GCs is that supposedly GCs started the inter-communal conflict. With this thread I showed that this was not the case. The conflict was part of the partition plan and it was initiated by TCs with the aim to later use the results of the conflict as an excuse for partition - and this is exactly what they do, even until today.

[DTA]

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.

I disagree with you that conflict was inevitable simply because the Cypriot people wanted their freedom as it happened with every other Greek island and territory.

Muslim/Turkish minorities were created in most Christian territories which were under Ottoman rule. This didn't stop all the other Greek islands to be liberated from foreign rule and unite with mainland Greece, as it was their right. Rhodes for example, which also has a Muslim minority, united with Greece in 1948 after being Liberated from Italian Colonial rule, and not a single nose broke over this.

What brought conflict to Cyprus was not our legitimate choice, but the interests of the Imperialists who used their usual divide and rule tactics to turn the Muslim minority against the majority of the population. As I said these kind of practices were used by the British in many other parts of the world even when those other parts where fighting for independence.

As far as your second point goes, it is only the TCs in here who demand that GCs should be collectively punished and made to "pay the price" for everything that happened in the past. Ask Bir.
Personally I never supported such racist and unfair practices.

And the excuse that those TCs use to demand the indiscriminate collective punishment of all GCs is that supposedly GCs started the inter-communal conflict. With this thread I showed that this was not the case. The conflict was part of the partition plan and it was initiated by TCs with the aim to later use the results of the conflict as an excuse for partition - and this is exactly what they do, even until today.

Ok dude lets play, can you please answer these questions:

1) So who started the conflict after cyprus got her independence?

2) You use rhodes as an example, tell us what happened in Crete with a Turkish Cretan population of around 35% (not now obviously)

3) What did samson admit in famous interview with a french publication if Turkey did not intervene?

was it:

a) He would have taken all the TC out on a picnic.
b) he would have killed all the TCs and proclaimed enosis?
c) he thought cyprus was a cool country and didnt need to be part of a pan hellenic empire?

4) do you believe in pan Helenism? how do you think that affects your views on Cyprus

5) Do you think that Istanbul and Izmir are or should be part of Greece, how do you propose for that to happen?

[Bananiot]

Agree with every word you wrote in your last post Afroasiatis.

[Piratis]

1) So who started the conflict after cyprus got her independence?

The conflict started before and not after.

2) You use rhodes as an example, tell us what happened in Crete with a Turkish Cretan population of around 35% (not now obviously)

The same thing that happened to the Greek population of the west coast of Asia Minor, which were the majority of that territory, not just the 35%. This happened during the Greece-Turkish wars and the subsequent population exchange however. This is why Rhodes, which united in 1948 with mainland Greece is a much more relevant example.

3) What did samson admit in famous interview with a french publication if Turkey did not intervene?

You made a lot of GC enemies from 1958 when you started the inter-communal conflict. Did Samson say anything against TCs before 1958?

4) do you believe in pan Helenism? how do you think that affects your views on Cyprus

If by "pan Hellenism" you mean "the idea of a union of all Greeks in a single political body." ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Panhellenism ) what I believe is that all territories should be free to decide in a democratic way in what political body they want to belong.

5) Do you think that Istanbul and Izmir are or should be part of Greece, how do you propose for that to happen?

That depends. Will Turkey respect the borders of Republic of Cyprus? If she will, then I also respect the borders of Turkey. But if Turkey does not respect the borders of Cyprus (or the borders of Greek Republic in Aegean), then I don't see why I should respect the borders of Turkey, and in that case if Greece at some point in the future will have the opportunity to take back Constantinople and Smyrna then yes, why not?

[DTA]

1) So who started the conflict after cyprus got her independence?

The conflict started before and not after.

2) You use rhodes as an example, tell us what happened in Crete with a Turkish Cretan population of around 35% (not now obviously)

The same thing that happened to the Greek population of the west coast of Asia Minor, which were the majority of that territory, not just the 35%. This happened during the Greece-Turkish wars and the subsequent population exchange however. This is why Rhodes, which united in 1948 with mainland Greece is a much more relevant example.

3) What did samson admit in famous interview with a french publication if Turkey did not intervene?

You made a lot of GC enemies from 1958 when you started the inter-communal conflict. Did Samson say anything against TCs before 1958?

4) do you believe in pan Helenism? how do you think that affects your views on Cyprus

If by "pan Hellenism" you mean "the idea of a union of all Greeks in a single political body." ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Panhellenism ) what I believe is that all territories should be free to decide in a democratic way in what political body they want to belong.

5) Do you think that Istanbul and Izmir are or should be part of Greece, how do you propose for that to happen?

That depends. Will Turkey respect the borders of Republic of Cyprus? If she will, then I also respect the borders of Turkey. But if Turkey does not respect the borders of Cyprus (or the borders of Greek Republic in Aegean), then I don't see why I should respect the borders of Turkey, and in that case if Greece at some point in the future will have the opportunity to take back Constantinople and Smyrna then yes, why not?

You avoided questions 1,2, and 3 I thought you wanted to get to the bottom of who started the intercommunal violence. Dont side step just answer them honestly and we can then take this further and educate people more otherwise people will doubt that is your objective.

following up to question 4 - would you achieve this by force?

following up on question 5 - so if Turkey withdrew from cyprus under a agreed BBF or an agreed partition you would be ok for Istanbul and Izmir to stay Turkish then?

FYI:
Constantinople and Smyrna , they dont exist in todays modern map, why do you use these names?

[Piratis]

1) So who started the conflict after cyprus got her independence?

The conflict started before and not after.

2) You use rhodes as an example, tell us what happened in Crete with a Turkish Cretan population of around 35% (not now obviously)

The same thing that happened to the Greek population of the west coast of Asia Minor, which were the majority of that territory, not just the 35%. This happened during the Greece-Turkish wars and the subsequent population exchange however. This is why Rhodes, which united in 1948 with mainland Greece is a much more relevant example.

3) What did samson admit in famous interview with a french publication if Turkey did not intervene?

You made a lot of GC enemies from 1958 when you started the inter-communal conflict. Did Samson say anything against TCs before 1958?

4) do you believe in pan Helenism? how do you think that affects your views on Cyprus

If by "pan Hellenism" you mean "the idea of a union of all Greeks in a single political body." ( http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Panhellenism ) what I believe is that all territories should be free to decide in a democratic way in what political body they want to belong.

5) Do you think that Istanbul and Izmir are or should be part of Greece, how do you propose for that to happen?

That depends. Will Turkey respect the borders of Republic of Cyprus? If she will, then I also respect the borders of Turkey. But if Turkey does not respect the borders of Cyprus (or the borders of Greek Republic in Aegean), then I don't see why I should respect the borders of Turkey, and in that case if Greece at some point in the future will have the opportunity to take back Constantinople and Smyrna then yes, why not?

You avoided questions 1,2, and 3 I thought you wanted to get to the bottom of who started the intercommunal violence. Dont side step just answer them honestly and we can then take this further and educate people more otherwise people will doubt that is your objective.

following up to question 4 - would you achieve this by force?

following up on question 5 - so if Turkey withdrew from cyprus under a agreed BBF or an agreed partition you would be ok for Istanbul and Izmir to stay Turkish then?

FYI:
Constantinople and Smyrna , they dont exist in todays modern map, why do you use these names?

In this thread I showed how the TCs started the inter-communal conflict in the 50s. That is when the conflict started, not in the 60s or 70s. You ask me to discuss the 60s and 70s to "get to the bottom of who started the intercommunal violence", when I already showed that conflict started in the 50s?

The answer in question 4 is clear. Democratically means one person one vote, deciding in this way the destiny of our island. Where did you see the force? Force is used by those who want to prevent Cypriots from democratically deciding the destiny of their own island.

Question 5 - It depends if this was a solution that we wanted for our own island or something which was imposed by force and blackmail by foreigners.