Afroasiatis wrote:Paphitis wrote:There is no evidence which proves that the EOKA struggle was ideologically orientated.
In fact, there were 2 very dominant leaders within EOKA. Grivas, was no doubt the most feared, but behind Grivas was Afxentiou who as a Junior Officer had the respect and allegiance of the greatest majority of EOKA fighters, some of who were indeed leftist and even Communist AKEL supporters. There was some rivalry between these 2 men, and this is well documented. Whilst Grivas was very much the leader figurehead who inspired the uprising against the colonial forces in Cyprus, Afxentiou was far more popular as the organisation's leader.
I can tell you this from my own family's experiences in Tsada. Evagoras Pallikarides may have been young, but he hailed from a family which supported AKEL, and so we can almost presume that Evagoras himself also had leftist leanings. In fact, Tsada, being predominantly fertile AKEL territory, was known at the time as "little Moscow", and had many more people who were part of EOKA and other auxiliaries/affilliates.
Afroasiatis wrote:First of all, when I refered to hate of EOKA against leftists, I meant mainly its leader. We all know that Grivas was an anti-communist, and we know the role he played in Greece in 40s.
Grivas, like any soldier, upheld his oath to the Greek State and performed his duties as a high ranking senior Officer of the Greek Army!
Afroasiatis wrote:If I remember well, there was an EOKA-text calling leftists and TCs to not take active part in the struggle, and in the case they agreed with the goal of Enosi, stay inactive and not cooperate with the enemy. We also know that the vast majority of politicians with an EOKA-past belong today to rightist parties.
There was no such text.
There was the initial "call to arms" towards all Greek Cypriots shortly after the first attacks on 01 Apr 55. There was also a warning to people that any treason will be dealt with by any means.
«Με την βοήθειαν του Θεού, με πίστιν εις τον τίμιον αγώνα μας, με τη συμπαράσταση ολοκλήρου του ελληνισμού και με την βοήθειαν των Κυπρίων, αναλαμβάνομεν των αγώνα δια την αποτίναξιν του αγγλικού ζυγού, με σύνθημα εκείνο το οποίον μας κατέλειπαν οι πρόγονοί μας: Ή ταν, ή επί τας».
Many Leftists and AKEL supporters joined EOKA. The struggle for self determination belongs to all Cypriots, including Leftist AKEL supporters, because they too made an enormous contribution.
Please post this text! We need some credible evidence.
Afroasiatis wrote:I'm aware that this didn't apply fully, and there were some communists who became EOKA-members. I know personally some in my dad's village. They didn't do this without hesitations though.
Correct! There were many AKEL members within EOKA, despite some AKEL opposition to the struggle, probably because of Grivas' involvement in the Greek Civil War as a high ranking Officer of the Greek Army.
Afroasiatis wrote:I also know that the majority of GC victims of EOKA may have not been leftist, but EOKA-members themselves, who were killed due to internal fights. However, there were also communists who were specifically targeted.
I don't know about that. But there was some friction between Grivas and Afxentiou. I am not aware of any EOKA members who were killed by EOKA. Some GCs were killed because they allegedly collaborated with the Colonial Forces, and some were killed for voicing objections to the struggle for self determination. Some EOKA members took advantage of the situation and settled some petty family vendettas.
Now, you may say that ENOSIS was not justified, but you also need to remember that ENOSIS was supported by the vast majority, for a couple of reasons. People in those days were simple and conservative, and had enormous cultural and ethnic attachments to Greece. They also believed that ENOSIS was their only means of ending colonial rule in Cyprus. Very few believed that Cyprus could become a viable independent nation that is able to stand on its own feet. Most EOKA members however, would've been overjoyed to see the formation of the RoC, but probably deplore the Zurich Agreement and the RoC's constitution. Let's face it, our constitution is racist.
Afroasiatis wrote:I never said ENOSIS-goal was not justified, I said it was wrong. I quote myself from my first answer to you:
No, it was never wrong. It may have been a mistake, but no one was to know that back then. It was never wrong.
It was only natural, and it was the democratic will of the overwhelming majority.
Afroasiatis wrote:So you see, I'm not concerned with what is justified or not, but what was good for Cyprus or not.
What was good for the people and Cyprus was for the democratic will of the overwhelming majority to be respected and upheld. This was never done, due to outside influences and Britain's divide and rule.
Some individuals were indeed innocent. But war is very nasty business, and since coalition forces in Iraq and Afghanistan excuse the slaughter of thousands of civilians as accidental 'Collateral Damage', then no doubt the same can be said about the few innocent victims during the struggle for self determination. EOKA had to instill fear into the masses because they were very vulnerable from treason. No one said it is nice, but in those days EOKA was fighting a war against a powerful foe, and as a result, it had to deploy these "Terror" tactics as a defence mechanism, and for their own self preservation and survival. I used the word "Terror" because the colonialists considered them terrorists, but for me, they were freedom fighters because they were sacrificing themselves for self determination/ENOSIS so that I can live live my life as a free man.
Afroasiatis wrote:The comparison with Iraq and Afghanistan makes no sense, since I see slaughtering of civilians there in no way as excused. But anyway it's not me that I gave a moral judgement on the EOKA-fight, you are the one doing this. What I commented on was its goal and its result. Individual EOKA-fighters could be honored as heros, but they died for the wrong purpose. The EOKA-fight was the first step to the partition.
Civilians were killed by coalition forces mostly by accident (the coalition has even had many 'friendly fire' incidents so what chance do civilians have who happen to get caught in the crossfire?). Insurgence and Al Qaeda also killed civilians deliberately. That is the nature of such wars. The comparisons are valid.
Now, it is very easy for someone to take the moral high ground and condemn the actions of the Coalition, but those that support these wars also have very convincing arguments on why the 'war on terror' is necessary.
You certainly are not worthy, because you have defamed and reduced their sacrifice to something very despicable!
Afroasiatis wrote:To what?
You work it out for yourself.
Many Cypriots disrespect the EOKA struggle and the fallen. Basically, you are saying that all EOKA members in the 50s were stupid.
Furthermore, EOKA didn't hate the TCs. On the contrary! There was never any intention of harming them in any way. They were even invited to join the struggle (even if this were to be unrealistic since EOKA supported ENOSIS at the time) and were considered compatriots up until Britain's divide and rule policy culminating in the first inter communal clashes.
Afroasiatis wrote:If EOKA considered TCs as compatriots, she would have taken their worries in mind. And she wouldn't attack innocent TCs. The divide and rule policy of Britain was helped by the way the GC leadership viewed TCs, i.e. as a potentially problematic minority, whose wishes and worries are of secondary importance.
The TCs made their decision and collaborated with the British. If that was not the case, then they could have made their objections known to the EOKA hierarchy. Grivas, and his EOKA fighters were fighting a superpower for self determination. They were not there to practice or uphold democracy, but achieve key military objectives in order to achieve their goal, which they only partly achieved in the end because of the racist Zurich Agreements.
How old are you?
Afroasiatis wrote:30.
