Cyprus-Forum.com

[denizaksulu]

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.

Egypt is not the same case at all. What you are talking about is a war, not struggle for decolonization. The equaivalent would be if Cyprus had a population of 60 million people and an army of proportional size to this population, and we military took back the British bases. That would be a totally different thing.

So I repeat: It would be not difficult at all for the British to divide the population based on religious and linguistic differences, even if independence was the aim. They would simply offer to the TCs gains on the expense of the majority of the population, and the TCs would gladly accept these gains and side with the colonialists. And in that case the result would be even worst for us, since not only there would be division anyway, but the balance of power will worst for us since we wouldn't have Greece on our side.

Could some other minority in some other country act in a different way? Maybe. But this is the TCs we are talking about. The people who are always happy to accept privileges and gains on the expense of the rest of the population.

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.

Similarly an even bigger part of the Greek community in Asia Minor fled before the population exchange.

What didn't happen to the Turks that remained in Greece is that they didn't become "casualties" and all the other exaggerations that TCs use to excuse their crimes in Cyprus. Compared to how Turkey treated the Greeks under her control (in Turkey and north Cyprus) the Turks in Greece were in a far far better position, and they would have been in an even better one if Turkey was not so aggressive against the Greek populations (Greece did not respond in kind to the Turkish aggression).

Also, the TCs in Cyprus today are less than what they were in 1960 or 1974. If Cyprus was united with Greece without any conflict between GCs and TCs, then not only TCs would not become "casualties" but on the contrary their population would be more than what it is today.

I would say this was an unfair comparison Piratis. I am sure you know the history of events well and the statement highlighted in red is just a lapse of your memory. In the years between 1919 and 1923, the Turks DID NOT invade Greece and commit the attrocities the Greek Army with the help of the local Greel population carried out in Turkey May 1919 onwards. The links of these events have been posted on cf before. If you need any I am sure Bananiot will oblige.

Thank you

[Piratis]

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.

The Turks do not claim that the native Cypriots are not Greeks...They always refer to Greek Cypriots as RUMs which,in Turkish, means Greek Cypriot...
It is the native Cypriots themselves,like GR!,who claim they are not Greek...

Is this your attempt of "divide and rule"?

I have no problem at all with Cypriots defining themselves in any way they want. What I have a problem with is with foreigners telling us what we are and where we should belong.

If you and the Imperialists had agreed from the 50s that the Cypriot people should be free to decide what they want in a peaceful and democratic way, then Cyprus would be truly decolonized and there would be no conflicts and casualties.

Unfortunately the Imperialists didn't want to let Cyprus free, and you helped them to continue oppressing our freedoms and our rights.

Cut the crap,Piratis...There was nothing peaceful and democratic about the way you went about decolonisation...And if you had managed to bring Enosis about there would've been 120,000 casualties,and enough conflicts to last you a lifetime...

You cut the crap Bir. An armed struggle was our last resort after being denied for many decades the right to peacefully and democratically decide the destiny of our own island.

And your theory about "120,000 casualties" in case of enosis is totally baseless. After the population exchange of 1923 between Greece and Turkey, the Muslim/Turkish population of Greece not only did not become casualties, but on the contrary their number increased (unlike the Greeks in Turkey who have since then been reduce to a tiny number)

GCs and TCs lived peacefully with each other until you turned against us in the 50s. If you did not turn against us, and you respected the democratic choices of the Cypriot people, then we would continue to live in peace together, there would be no conflict, no casualties, and there would be far more TCs in Cyprus than they are today.

I like the way you use the word "Cypriot",Piratis...As in 'the democratic choices of the Cypriot people...' You are totally excluding the Turkish Cypriots...What about the democratic rights of the TCs??? Did they have a say in their own future??? Lets see how democratic you are now..Will you acknowledge their right to decide their own future???

Each TCs would have as much say as each GC. This is what democracy means, one person one vote.

Majority Rules is one of the fundamental principles of a democracy. Democracy does not mean that every person or group of people can do whatever they feel like, thats anarchy, no democracy. Each person can have his/her human rights, each minority group can have certain minority rights, but for everything beyond that everybody is obligated to respect the choices as taken by the majority. This is what democracy is all about.

Is Turkey asking from the Greek or Kurdish minorities for their own separate approval in order for a decision to be taken? If that is how Turks realize "Democracy", then why don't they apply such kind of "democracy" in their own country?

So stop hiding and come out and say it clearly that you reject democracy for Cyprus, because you don't want Cyprus to be ruled democratically (i.e. majority not to rule).

Everything fits in nicely in your twisted little world,doesnt it, Piratis?

We are talking about the 40s and 50s in Cyprus,a country where the 'natives' never ruled,let alone ruled with democracy...we are talking about 2 distinct communities who could barely stand each other...Sure as your little theory states there were isolated parts were there was peace and harmony between the GCs and TCs,but mostly you had a situation where the 2 sides were deeply suspicious of each other,and there were often open acts of hostility and conflicts...If you were a TC back those days would you put your trust and faith in a strange sytem called democracy which meant submitting to the will of a hostile majority????I would think not...So cut out all this democracy bullshit..Times and conditions were very different in those hot days full of ethnic and religious conflicts and intolerances...I keep telling you what you need to do IF you want the TCs to return to the fold...Accept and acknowlegde your mistakes,repent,and give watertight guarantees that you can be trusted not to abuse your majority power...Then we might talk democracy...

Good that you finally admit that what you really reject is democracy as it doesn't suit you.

Before the TC minority was turned against the majority in the 1950s, there were no major problems between TCs and GCs in Cyprus. And if there were a few problems, those stemmed from the time of Ottoman rule that ended a few decades earlier.

Do you really expect from us to sacrifice our democratic rights indefinitely until you decide that it is OK for you to trust the majority, something which will never happen since an undemocratic system will offer to you gains on our expense which you will obviously never want to voluntarily give up?

You are the one who should apologize and repent for denying to us our human and democratic rights, not to expect an apology from us because we wanted freedom and democracy!!

[Piratis]

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.

Egypt is not the same case at all. What you are talking about is a war, not struggle for decolonization. The equaivalent would be if Cyprus had a population of 60 million people and an army of proportional size to this population, and we military took back the British bases. That would be a totally different thing.

So I repeat: It would be not difficult at all for the British to divide the population based on religious and linguistic differences, even if independence was the aim. They would simply offer to the TCs gains on the expense of the majority of the population, and the TCs would gladly accept these gains and side with the colonialists. And in that case the result would be even worst for us, since not only there would be division anyway, but the balance of power will worst for us since we wouldn't have Greece on our side.

Could some other minority in some other country act in a different way? Maybe. But this is the TCs we are talking about. The people who are always happy to accept privileges and gains on the expense of the rest of the population.

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.

Similarly an even bigger part of the Greek community in Asia Minor fled before the population exchange.

What didn't happen to the Turks that remained in Greece is that they didn't become "casualties" and all the other exaggerations that TCs use to excuse their crimes in Cyprus. Compared to how Turkey treated the Greeks under her control (in Turkey and north Cyprus) the Turks in Greece were in a far far better position, and they would have been in an even better one if Turkey was not so aggressive against the Greek populations (Greece did not respond in kind to the Turkish aggression).

Also, the TCs in Cyprus today are less than what they were in 1960 or 1974. If Cyprus was united with Greece without any conflict between GCs and TCs, then not only TCs would not become "casualties" but on the contrary their population would be more than what it is today.

I would say this was an unfair comparison Piratis. I am sure you know the history of events well and the statement highlighted in red is just a lapse of your memory. In the years between 1919 and 1923, the Turks DID NOT invade Greece and commit the attrocities the Greek Army with the help of the local Greel population carried out in Turkey May 1919 onwards. The links of these events have been posted on cf before. If you need any I am sure Bananiot will oblige.

Thank you

Cyprus would become part of the Greek state in 1950s, not in 1919. So those wars would not affect the TCs.

But if you want to talk about history before that, even thought it is irrelevant, we can do it. For starters, there was no Turkey in 1919, what existed was the Ottoman empire and the nations oppressed by it were trying to gain their freedom. The west coast of Asia Minor was not "Turkey", it was a Greek territory under Ottoman rule.

As far as atrocities, while I do not question that the Greeks might have committed some as well, nothing can be compared with those committed by Ottomans/Turks. We are talking about genocides of millions here, the Greeks army has not done anything even remotely comparable.

[denizaksulu]

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.

Egypt is not the same case at all. What you are talking about is a war, not struggle for decolonization. The equaivalent would be if Cyprus had a population of 60 million people and an army of proportional size to this population, and we military took back the British bases. That would be a totally different thing.

So I repeat: It would be not difficult at all for the British to divide the population based on religious and linguistic differences, even if independence was the aim. They would simply offer to the TCs gains on the expense of the majority of the population, and the TCs would gladly accept these gains and side with the colonialists. And in that case the result would be even worst for us, since not only there would be division anyway, but the balance of power will worst for us since we wouldn't have Greece on our side.

Could some other minority in some other country act in a different way? Maybe. But this is the TCs we are talking about. The people who are always happy to accept privileges and gains on the expense of the rest of the population.

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.

Similarly an even bigger part of the Greek community in Asia Minor fled before the population exchange.

What didn't happen to the Turks that remained in Greece is that they didn't become "casualties" and all the other exaggerations that TCs use to excuse their crimes in Cyprus. Compared to how Turkey treated the Greeks under her control (in Turkey and north Cyprus) the Turks in Greece were in a far far better position, and they would have been in an even better one if Turkey was not so aggressive against the Greek populations (Greece did not respond in kind to the Turkish aggression).

Also, the TCs in Cyprus today are less than what they were in 1960 or 1974. If Cyprus was united with Greece without any conflict between GCs and TCs, then not only TCs would not become "casualties" but on the contrary their population would be more than what it is today.

I would say this was an unfair comparison Piratis. I am sure you know the history of events well and the statement highlighted in red is just a lapse of your memory. In the years between 1919 and 1923, the Turks DID NOT invade Greece and commit the attrocities the Greek Army with the help of the local Greel population carried out in Turkey May 1919 onwards. The links of these events have been posted on cf before. If you need any I am sure Bananiot will oblige.

Thank you

Cyprus would become part of the Greek state in 1950s, not in 1919. So those wars would not affect the TCs.

But if you want to talk about history before that, even thought it is irrelevant, we can do it. For starters, there was no Turkey in 1919, what existed was the Ottoman empire and the nations oppressed by it were trying to gain their freedom. The west coast of Asia Minor was not "Turkey", it was a Greek territory under Ottoman rule.

As far as atrocities, while I do not question that the Greeks might have committed some as well, nothing can be compared with those committed by Ottomans/Turks. We are talking about genocides of millions here, the Greeks army has not done anything even remotely comparable.

I criticised your comparisons, which were in the years you talk about. It was not what I wanted, but what you yourself stated.
You better stop thinking on the lines of Megalo Idea and refer to western Anatolia as occupied territories. How backward can you get. Move on Piratis. Next you will ask for ISTANBUL back. It was not even yours (you being a Cypriot)

[Piratis]

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.

Egypt is not the same case at all. What you are talking about is a war, not struggle for decolonization. The equaivalent would be if Cyprus had a population of 60 million people and an army of proportional size to this population, and we military took back the British bases. That would be a totally different thing.

So I repeat: It would be not difficult at all for the British to divide the population based on religious and linguistic differences, even if independence was the aim. They would simply offer to the TCs gains on the expense of the majority of the population, and the TCs would gladly accept these gains and side with the colonialists. And in that case the result would be even worst for us, since not only there would be division anyway, but the balance of power will worst for us since we wouldn't have Greece on our side.

Could some other minority in some other country act in a different way? Maybe. But this is the TCs we are talking about. The people who are always happy to accept privileges and gains on the expense of the rest of the population.

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.

Similarly an even bigger part of the Greek community in Asia Minor fled before the population exchange.

What didn't happen to the Turks that remained in Greece is that they didn't become "casualties" and all the other exaggerations that TCs use to excuse their crimes in Cyprus. Compared to how Turkey treated the Greeks under her control (in Turkey and north Cyprus) the Turks in Greece were in a far far better position, and they would have been in an even better one if Turkey was not so aggressive against the Greek populations (Greece did not respond in kind to the Turkish aggression).

Also, the TCs in Cyprus today are less than what they were in 1960 or 1974. If Cyprus was united with Greece without any conflict between GCs and TCs, then not only TCs would not become "casualties" but on the contrary their population would be more than what it is today.

I would say this was an unfair comparison Piratis. I am sure you know the history of events well and the statement highlighted in red is just a lapse of your memory. In the years between 1919 and 1923, the Turks DID NOT invade Greece and commit the attrocities the Greek Army with the help of the local Greel population carried out in Turkey May 1919 onwards. The links of these events have been posted on cf before. If you need any I am sure Bananiot will oblige.

Thank you

Cyprus would become part of the Greek state in 1950s, not in 1919. So those wars would not affect the TCs.

But if you want to talk about history before that, even thought it is irrelevant, we can do it. For starters, there was no Turkey in 1919, what existed was the Ottoman empire and the nations oppressed by it were trying to gain their freedom. The west coast of Asia Minor was not "Turkey", it was a Greek territory under Ottoman rule.

As far as atrocities, while I do not question that the Greeks might have committed some as well, nothing can be compared with those committed by Ottomans/Turks. We are talking about genocides of millions here, the Greeks army has not done anything even remotely comparable.

I criticised your comparisons, which were in the years you talk about. It was not what I wanted, but what you yourself stated.
You better stop thinking on the lines of Megalo Idea and refer to western Anatolia as occupied territories. How backward can you get. Move on Piratis. Next you will ask for ISTANBUL back. It was not even yours (you being a Cypriot)

The years I talked about is the decade of 1950s, when Cyprus could become part of the Greek state without any conflict or casualties if the democratic choices of Cypriots were respected.

It was DTA and now you who go back to a much earlier period looking for excuses. I only replied to what you said.

[BirKibrisli]

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.

The Turks do not claim that the native Cypriots are not Greeks...They always refer to Greek Cypriots as RUMs which,in Turkish, means Greek Cypriot...
It is the native Cypriots themselves,like GR!,who claim they are not Greek...

Is this your attempt of "divide and rule"?

I have no problem at all with Cypriots defining themselves in any way they want. What I have a problem with is with foreigners telling us what we are and where we should belong.

If you and the Imperialists had agreed from the 50s that the Cypriot people should be free to decide what they want in a peaceful and democratic way, then Cyprus would be truly decolonized and there would be no conflicts and casualties.

Unfortunately the Imperialists didn't want to let Cyprus free, and you helped them to continue oppressing our freedoms and our rights.

Cut the crap,Piratis...There was nothing peaceful and democratic about the way you went about decolonisation...And if you had managed to bring Enosis about there would've been 120,000 casualties,and enough conflicts to last you a lifetime...

You cut the crap Bir. An armed struggle was our last resort after being denied for many decades the right to peacefully and democratically decide the destiny of our own island.

And your theory about "120,000 casualties" in case of enosis is totally baseless. After the population exchange of 1923 between Greece and Turkey, the Muslim/Turkish population of Greece not only did not become casualties, but on the contrary their number increased (unlike the Greeks in Turkey who have since then been reduce to a tiny number)

GCs and TCs lived peacefully with each other until you turned against us in the 50s. If you did not turn against us, and you respected the democratic choices of the Cypriot people, then we would continue to live in peace together, there would be no conflict, no casualties, and there would be far more TCs in Cyprus than they are today.

I like the way you use the word "Cypriot",Piratis...As in 'the democratic choices of the Cypriot people...' You are totally excluding the Turkish Cypriots...What about the democratic rights of the TCs??? Did they have a say in their own future??? Lets see how democratic you are now..Will you acknowledge their right to decide their own future???

Each TCs would have as much say as each GC. This is what democracy means, one person one vote.

Majority Rules is one of the fundamental principles of a democracy. Democracy does not mean that every person or group of people can do whatever they feel like, thats anarchy, no democracy. Each person can have his/her human rights, each minority group can have certain minority rights, but for everything beyond that everybody is obligated to respect the choices as taken by the majority. This is what democracy is all about.

Is Turkey asking from the Greek or Kurdish minorities for their own separate approval in order for a decision to be taken? If that is how Turks realize "Democracy", then why don't they apply such kind of "democracy" in their own country?

So stop hiding and come out and say it clearly that you reject democracy for Cyprus, because you don't want Cyprus to be ruled democratically (i.e. majority not to rule).

Everything fits in nicely in your twisted little world,doesnt it, Piratis?

We are talking about the 40s and 50s in Cyprus,a country where the 'natives' never ruled,let alone ruled with democracy...we are talking about 2 distinct communities who could barely stand each other...Sure as your little theory states there were isolated parts were there was peace and harmony between the GCs and TCs,but mostly you had a situation where the 2 sides were deeply suspicious of each other,and there were often open acts of hostility and conflicts...If you were a TC back those days would you put your trust and faith in a strange sytem called democracy which meant submitting to the will of a hostile majority????I would think not...So cut out all this democracy bullshit..Times and conditions were very different in those hot days full of ethnic and religious conflicts and intolerances...I keep telling you what you need to do IF you want the TCs to return to the fold...Accept and acknowlegde your mistakes,repent,and give watertight guarantees that you can be trusted not to abuse your majority power...Then we might talk democracy...

Good that you finally admit that what you really reject is democracy as it doesn't suit you.

Before the TC minority was turned against the majority in the 1950s, there were no major problems between TCs and GCs in Cyprus. And if there were a few problems, those stemmed from the time of Ottoman rule that ended a few decades earlier.

Do you really expect from us to sacrifice our democratic rights indefinitely until you decide that it is OK for you to trust the majority, something which will never happen since an undemocratic system will offer to you gains on our expense which you will obviously never want to voluntarily give up?

You are the one who should apologize and repent for denying to us our human and democratic rights, not to expect an apology from us because we wanted freedom and democracy!!

To live in a harmonious democracy people need to be a little bit open minded,have some capacity for empathy,understanding,tolerance,and compassion...You are living proof that GCs are not ready for a democracy which will embrace the TCs on equal footing...And you were certainly not ready in the 50s...That is why you went for Enosis with Greece instead,I suppose...

[B25]

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.

The Turks do not claim that the native Cypriots are not Greeks...They always refer to Greek Cypriots as RUMs which,in Turkish, means Greek Cypriot...
It is the native Cypriots themselves,like GR!,who claim they are not Greek...

Is this your attempt of "divide and rule"?

I have no problem at all with Cypriots defining themselves in any way they want. What I have a problem with is with foreigners telling us what we are and where we should belong.

If you and the Imperialists had agreed from the 50s that the Cypriot people should be free to decide what they want in a peaceful and democratic way, then Cyprus would be truly decolonized and there would be no conflicts and casualties.

Unfortunately the Imperialists didn't want to let Cyprus free, and you helped them to continue oppressing our freedoms and our rights.

Cut the crap,Piratis...There was nothing peaceful and democratic about the way you went about decolonisation...And if you had managed to bring Enosis about there would've been 120,000 casualties,and enough conflicts to last you a lifetime...

You cut the crap Bir. An armed struggle was our last resort after being denied for many decades the right to peacefully and democratically decide the destiny of our own island.

And your theory about "120,000 casualties" in case of enosis is totally baseless. After the population exchange of 1923 between Greece and Turkey, the Muslim/Turkish population of Greece not only did not become casualties, but on the contrary their number increased (unlike the Greeks in Turkey who have since then been reduce to a tiny number)

GCs and TCs lived peacefully with each other until you turned against us in the 50s. If you did not turn against us, and you respected the democratic choices of the Cypriot people, then we would continue to live in peace together, there would be no conflict, no casualties, and there would be far more TCs in Cyprus than they are today.

I like the way you use the word "Cypriot",Piratis...As in 'the democratic choices of the Cypriot people...' You are totally excluding the Turkish Cypriots...What about the democratic rights of the TCs??? Did they have a say in their own future??? Lets see how democratic you are now..Will you acknowledge their right to decide their own future???

Each TCs would have as much say as each GC. This is what democracy means, one person one vote.

Majority Rules is one of the fundamental principles of a democracy. Democracy does not mean that every person or group of people can do whatever they feel like, thats anarchy, no democracy. Each person can have his/her human rights, each minority group can have certain minority rights, but for everything beyond that everybody is obligated to respect the choices as taken by the majority. This is what democracy is all about.

Is Turkey asking from the Greek or Kurdish minorities for their own separate approval in order for a decision to be taken? If that is how Turks realize "Democracy", then why don't they apply such kind of "democracy" in their own country?

So stop hiding and come out and say it clearly that you reject democracy for Cyprus, because you don't want Cyprus to be ruled democratically (i.e. majority not to rule).

Everything fits in nicely in your twisted little world,doesnt it, Piratis?

We are talking about the 40s and 50s in Cyprus,a country where the 'natives' never ruled,let alone ruled with democracy...we are talking about 2 distinct communities who could barely stand each other...Sure as your little theory states there were isolated parts were there was peace and harmony between the GCs and TCs,but mostly you had a situation where the 2 sides were deeply suspicious of each other,and there were often open acts of hostility and conflicts...If you were a TC back those days would you put your trust and faith in a strange sytem called democracy which meant submitting to the will of a hostile majority????I would think not...So cut out all this democracy bullshit..Times and conditions were very different in those hot days full of ethnic and religious conflicts and intolerances...I keep telling you what you need to do IF you want the TCs to return to the fold...Accept and acknowlegde your mistakes,repent,and give watertight guarantees that you can be trusted not to abuse your majority power...Then we might talk democracy...

Good that you finally admit that what you really reject is democracy as it doesn't suit you.

Before the TC minority was turned against the majority in the 1950s, there were no major problems between TCs and GCs in Cyprus. And if there were a few problems, those stemmed from the time of Ottoman rule that ended a few decades earlier.

Do you really expect from us to sacrifice our democratic rights indefinitely until you decide that it is OK for you to trust the majority, something which will never happen since an undemocratic system will offer to you gains on our expense which you will obviously never want to voluntarily give up?

You are the one who should apologize and repent for denying to us our human and democratic rights, not to expect an apology from us because we wanted freedom and democracy!!

To live in a harmonious democracy people need to be a little bit open minded,have some capacity for empathy,understanding,tolerance,and compassion...You are living proof that GCs are not ready for a democracy which will embrace the TCs on equal footing...And you were certainly not ready in the 50s...That is why you went for Enosis with Greece instead,I suppose...

Birkturk, you are terribly mistaken, we can have all these that you say, " ...capacity for empathy,understanding,tolerance,and compassion ..." when we find ourselves on equal fottings not when you deman you are worth 5x of me and that you want 5x more of everything there is on offer.

Cyprus or not, with such outragious demands it is enough to get anyone fired up, wouldn't you say????

Enosis is the same lame excuse you use over and over, utter rubbish. Piratis has explained to you enough times the needs for it, but you just bleat on about how we all wanted to destroy the TCs. With both turkey and britain pulling us from pillar to post, it seemed the most logical thing to do, but anyhow, Enosis has been dead for a bloody long time now, so it does not even come into the equation.

You need to get off your high horse, you have turned into worst than what VP is. facist, racist, bigoted pig.

[denizaksulu]

Piratis; You began your post with this;

'Similarly an even bigger part of the Greek community in Asia Minor fled before the population exchange.' So We were discussing the sdame period. Period.'
Stop squirming.

I admit any errors. You could do the same; or do you consider yourself 'super-human' thus error free.

[Piratis]

Piratis; You began your post with this;

'Similarly an even bigger part of the Greek community in Asia Minor fled before the population exchange.' So We were discussing the sdame period. Period.'
Stop squirming.

I admit any errors. You could do the same; or do you consider yourself 'super-human' thus error free.

I was responding to DTA who was asking about the Turkish minority in Crete. Stop trying to blame me when it is you guys who were trying to change the subject!

[Piratis]

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.

The Turks do not claim that the native Cypriots are not Greeks...They always refer to Greek Cypriots as RUMs which,in Turkish, means Greek Cypriot...
It is the native Cypriots themselves,like GR!,who claim they are not Greek...

Is this your attempt of "divide and rule"?

I have no problem at all with Cypriots defining themselves in any way they want. What I have a problem with is with foreigners telling us what we are and where we should belong.

If you and the Imperialists had agreed from the 50s that the Cypriot people should be free to decide what they want in a peaceful and democratic way, then Cyprus would be truly decolonized and there would be no conflicts and casualties.

Unfortunately the Imperialists didn't want to let Cyprus free, and you helped them to continue oppressing our freedoms and our rights.

Cut the crap,Piratis...There was nothing peaceful and democratic about the way you went about decolonisation...And if you had managed to bring Enosis about there would've been 120,000 casualties,and enough conflicts to last you a lifetime...

You cut the crap Bir. An armed struggle was our last resort after being denied for many decades the right to peacefully and democratically decide the destiny of our own island.

And your theory about "120,000 casualties" in case of enosis is totally baseless. After the population exchange of 1923 between Greece and Turkey, the Muslim/Turkish population of Greece not only did not become casualties, but on the contrary their number increased (unlike the Greeks in Turkey who have since then been reduce to a tiny number)

GCs and TCs lived peacefully with each other until you turned against us in the 50s. If you did not turn against us, and you respected the democratic choices of the Cypriot people, then we would continue to live in peace together, there would be no conflict, no casualties, and there would be far more TCs in Cyprus than they are today.

I like the way you use the word "Cypriot",Piratis...As in 'the democratic choices of the Cypriot people...' You are totally excluding the Turkish Cypriots...What about the democratic rights of the TCs??? Did they have a say in their own future??? Lets see how democratic you are now..Will you acknowledge their right to decide their own future???

Each TCs would have as much say as each GC. This is what democracy means, one person one vote.

Majority Rules is one of the fundamental principles of a democracy. Democracy does not mean that every person or group of people can do whatever they feel like, thats anarchy, no democracy. Each person can have his/her human rights, each minority group can have certain minority rights, but for everything beyond that everybody is obligated to respect the choices as taken by the majority. This is what democracy is all about.

Is Turkey asking from the Greek or Kurdish minorities for their own separate approval in order for a decision to be taken? If that is how Turks realize "Democracy", then why don't they apply such kind of "democracy" in their own country?

So stop hiding and come out and say it clearly that you reject democracy for Cyprus, because you don't want Cyprus to be ruled democratically (i.e. majority not to rule).

Everything fits in nicely in your twisted little world,doesnt it, Piratis?

We are talking about the 40s and 50s in Cyprus,a country where the 'natives' never ruled,let alone ruled with democracy...we are talking about 2 distinct communities who could barely stand each other...Sure as your little theory states there were isolated parts were there was peace and harmony between the GCs and TCs,but mostly you had a situation where the 2 sides were deeply suspicious of each other,and there were often open acts of hostility and conflicts...If you were a TC back those days would you put your trust and faith in a strange sytem called democracy which meant submitting to the will of a hostile majority????I would think not...So cut out all this democracy bullshit..Times and conditions were very different in those hot days full of ethnic and religious conflicts and intolerances...I keep telling you what you need to do IF you want the TCs to return to the fold...Accept and acknowlegde your mistakes,repent,and give watertight guarantees that you can be trusted not to abuse your majority power...Then we might talk democracy...

Good that you finally admit that what you really reject is democracy as it doesn't suit you.

Before the TC minority was turned against the majority in the 1950s, there were no major problems between TCs and GCs in Cyprus. And if there were a few problems, those stemmed from the time of Ottoman rule that ended a few decades earlier.

Do you really expect from us to sacrifice our democratic rights indefinitely until you decide that it is OK for you to trust the majority, something which will never happen since an undemocratic system will offer to you gains on our expense which you will obviously never want to voluntarily give up?

You are the one who should apologize and repent for denying to us our human and democratic rights, not to expect an apology from us because we wanted freedom and democracy!!

To live in a harmonious democracy people need to be a little bit open minded,have some capacity for empathy,understanding,tolerance,and compassion...You are living proof that GCs are not ready for a democracy which will embrace the TCs on equal footing...And you were certainly not ready in the 50s...That is why you went for Enosis with Greece instead,I suppose...

In the free part of Cyprus we have a democracy which is 100 times better than what they have in Turkey and most other Muslim countries. The problem is not with us, since we can live peacefully in a democratic state along with all other Cypriot minorities. The problem is with you, because you show no kind of respect to our human and democratic rights.