Piratis wrote:Afroasiatis wrote:Piratis wrote:The Egyptians are 60 million people, not half a million like us. And there were no major differences in the population to divide them. If there were, then they would have tried it so they could keep Suez.
You say that to create a single nationalism was "very difficult". I say that given the linguistic/religious differences, history and incentives given to TCs to stay separate it would be impossible.
You should also consider that if we had tried it that way, then we wouldn't have Greece on our side, the balance of power would be even worst for us, and the result could be even worst. Don't forget that both Greece and Turkey were NATO members, and the AngloAmericans were trying to serve their own interests without dissatisfying any side too much. If there was no risk of alienating Greece from NATO, then the Imperialists could have been even more harsh with us and the result an even worst one.
I don't think that the population is such an important criterion for gaining independence. Many small countries have managed to gain their independence, under difficult conditions.
And there are sure big differences among Egyptian population. How about the difference between Muslims and Christians? Between Beduins and the farmers of the Nil-Valley? The Arabs and the Nubians? The various regional and tribal antagonisms?
If you think of it, the religious/linguistic differences in Cyprus weren't greater than in an average British colony, probably less. History is an important factor if you want it to be, to the biggest part. And incentives could be (and were) given by the colonialists in groups of the populations in various colonies.
What makes the case of Cyprus different aren't these factors, but the massive involvement of two competing foreign nationalisms.
The involvement of greek nationalism made the involvement of turkish nationalism unavoidable. And the NATO-allies wanted to keep the balance between Turkey and Greece. As long as Greece would have control in Cyprus, Turkey should have some control too to counter it. That was the logic of all solution plans supported by NATO countries.
If there was no interest from Greece, and an all-Cypriot national movement instead, Turkey would have less motivation and it would find less local allies for intervening in Cyprus.
And let's not forget that Greece's negative influence isn't restricted in the period of junta. Don't forget that Zurich-London agreements came with greek involvement, ignoring both GCs and TCs, don't forget G. Papandreou's positive atttitude to Acheson-Plan, i.e. practically partition, and even the thoughts of overthrowing Makarios, Karamanlis' "Cyprus is far away" etc. All this by "democratic" greek governments. And perhaps most important of all, the infection of GCs with greek nationalism, which made the living together with TCs very problematic.
What you forget is that Egypt was not a colony at that time. What you are talking about in Suez is a war between countries, not a struggle for freedom from colonialism.
A relevant example would be the one of India, with Hindu and Muslims, who were divided without any need for "motherlands".
The motives of both Turkey and UK in Cyprus have nothing to do with the ethnicity of the people of the island. What they want is to serve their own geo strategic interests and this is not something that would have changed if we changed our identity. The only thing we would have managed by changing our identity would be to make the balance of power even worst for our side, and the result would have been an even worst one.
Why do you think it is the British and the Turks who claim that the native Cypriots are not Greek? Because isolating Cyprus from the rest of Greeks makes it even easier for them to continue to oppress and abuse our island, just as they did for centuries, before such lame excuses were invented.
If you want to accept the excuses that the foreign invaders give thats your problem. I don't accept their lame excuses because I know the history of my island and I know that their lame excuses keep changing, and what remains the same is the real reason the problem exists: The determination of these foreigners to maintain control over Cyprus without any regard to what the Cypriot people want for their own island.
Egypt had been under british control before (if you would call her a colony or not is an insignificant detail) and the British control over Suez was a remnant of that times. From a historical point of view, it's very much a part of the fight against colonialism.
As I said, the British and other colonial powers tried to use divisions among the peoples they dominated wherever they were. Somewhere they were successful, somewhere not so much. But at least some countries tried to resist this. To take the example of India, a big part of the country may have been lost, but, as Deniz already mentioned, in the remainder people feel Indians no matter if Hindu, Muslim, Sikh or Christians.
The motives of UK in Cyprus had nothing to do with ethnicity and identity. Its power to intervene however did.
Perhaps even the motives of Turkey in Cyprus didn't have that much to do with ethnicity, but they had a lot to do with the involvement of Greece and the balance of power between them. And something similar goes with the motives of USA, who were very interested in that balance.
What for sure had to do with ethnicity and identity, is Turkey's power to intervene. Do you think this would be the same if it had to face a united Cypriot people all ready to fight against her, GCs and TCs?
The question is not if we accept the lame excuses, our acceptance or not, after all facts are already there, doesn't weigh much. The important thing is to not let them to be used in the first place.
That minority was exchanged with far more Greeks from Asia Minor according to the exchange of population agreement. This happened in the 1920s. Since then the Turkish/Muslim population in Greece has increased.
Just as a sidenote, a big part of Cretan Muslims had fled before the population exchange, as early as in the 19th century.
And when you say, that the Turkish/Muslim population increased in Greece since 1920s, you mean in absolute numbers or in percentage? Because as far as I know, the percentage of Muslims in Western Thrace decreased, despite their higher natural growth, also as part of the oppressive measures from the greek state. And I think, the percentage is that counts, isn't it?
Except of course, if we count the recent Mulsim immigrants in Greece - but they are a completely different story.
