the British have always done what they think right for Britain - just as every other cuntry (sic) does. That is the immoral nature of Politics, International RealPolitik in particular
Britain has always been cast as the villain however as Hannay outlined in his book Britains' policy in the 1950's was one of muddle fudge and indecisivness not a cunning dark plan: as he comments, in the period from 1963 onwards, Britain was disinclined to allow themselves to be dragged in to Cyprus.
You should also read the following article bt Cypriot Academic Demtris Assos. which I think Insan previously mentioned in 2008
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/cyprus/Davidcarter/againstconspiracy/againstconspiracy.html in which he characterises much of British policy as as reactive to events on the ground.
As he states
COMMONLY held Greek Cypriot opinion contends the EOKA struggle failed to achieve its objective of enosis because of dark machinations. According to this view, the 'heroic' struggle of EOKA was frustrated either because of the inept handling of the Cyprus problem by the Greek government and/or Makarios or because of some international intrigue, which undermined the 'fair' demand for enosis and resulted only independence for Cyprus and not union with Greece.
These arguments are fundamentally flawed. There was no conspiracy and independence was the only logical consequence of forces set in motion in the 1950s.
His closing remarks are in my view worth repeating
Officials sanction 'conspiracies'
CONSPIRACY theories offer a way of reconciling their fervent belief in enosis as the natural course of history, but not with the reality on the ground. Therefore, enosis must have been denied them because of some dark plot.
The ideological apparatus of the 1960 Republic encouraged the proliferation of conspiracy theories as a means of deflecting attention from the flaws of the EOKA struggle and to legitimize the process of independence.
As the majority of the Greek Cypriot politicians in power in the 1960s, 1970s and beyond had been intimately involved in the struggle, it was in their interest to cultivate an uncritical adoration of the EOKA campaign. This was especially true after the intercommunal conflict that started in 1964 and led to the Turkish Cypriots setting up their administrations in Island-wide enclaves
Now the use of the EOKA struggle as the foundation myth for a virtually Greek Cypriot Cyprus Republic went entirely unchallenged.
Greek Cypriots as 'victims'
THE narrative of the EOKA campaign in school text books, state propaganda, rhetoric and commemoration has always glossed over why enosis failed, thus giving plenty of scope to the general public to explain this contradiction by inventing conspiracy theories. Vague references to impersonal international forces, which opposed the 'fair' demand of enosis has encouraged this speculation.
According to Eco the need for conspiracy beliefs stem from a 'deep, private frustration'. A conspiracy theory offers a way out of this frustration because 'there can be no failure if there really is' a conspiracy theory. The frustration of the failure to achieve enosis is, therefore, ascribed to some superior 'dark force' that absolves its victims from any guilt and instead raises them to the status of martyrs.
Fittingly the EOKA narrative stresses the victimization of the Greek Cypriots and venerates as martyrs of the nation all the fighters who lost their life during the campaign.
In the same vein the proliferation of conspiracy theories reflects the collective low self-esteem of Greek Cypriot society and a lack of confidence to accept reality for what it is. Power struggles are hardly 'fair'. Every action has a reaction and violence not only causes counter-violence but often it has unpleasant unintended consequences.
There was nothing unique about the case of Cyprus or was it the only colony to go through a tortuous process to independence.
More importantly, there was nothing inevitable about enosis and, like any other political aim, it was not achieved because of the mistakes made in the execution of a strategy.
Because the Greek Cypriot 'lacks steady nerves (he) asks himself: "Who's behind this plot, who's benefiting?" He has to find an enemy, a plotter, or it will be, God forbid, his fault".
Time for the truth
HISTORICAL truth matters and for this reason these conspiracy theories need to be tackled because they obscure our understanding of the past. This is not to say that the concept of historical truth is unproblematic or that truth no matter how one may define it is easy to establish. Yet certain interpretations should be dismissed as false or else we open the doors to a pernicious relativism where anything goes. That is not the aim of history and for this reason the historian has a duty to separate the metaphorical dross from the gold.
The second point, which is especially pertinent to the Cypriot context, is that conspiracy theories have a disproportional influence on non-academic historical knowledge. The belief that at some point a conspiracy changed the course of history is still widespread in Greek Cypriot society.
Because of the reluctance of the historians to challenge this attitude the popular understanding of Cypriot history has been dominated by conspiracies and a simplistic binary worldview where the non-Greek Cypriots are often perceived as potential plotters or enemies of the state. Whereas in other countries conspiracy theories are on the fringe of historiography, in Cyprus they are virtually embedded in the public discourse and their proponents even challenge scholarly historical interpretations.
Interpretations, which call for self-criticism and a cool appraisal of the EOKA struggle, are dismissed by EOKA supporters as yet another conspiracy that aims to undermine the national identity of the Greek Cypriots.
Behind such theories lies a reluctance to accept the findings of scientific historical inquiry and a deep-seated anti-intellectualism that prefers to view history in emotional terms.
In reality the decolonization of Cyprus was the result of a Greek Cypriot strategy going awry in the face of superior conflicting forces. Crucially its end was unintentional, a compromise born out of necessity between all interested parties as everybody settled for less than they had hoped.
(as an aside perhaps the reason I upset so many people here is because I do not carry the baggage of the past like a millstone around my neck as I was not subject to the brainwashing that seems to happen in Cypriot schools but am prepared to be objective eevn about the many failings of Britain and its foreign policy)
In my view the main people at fault for what happened in Cyprus in the period 1963 to 1974 , culminating in the double invasion, where (a) the Greek Government, in particular the Post 1967 Junta, (b) The turkish government and (c) some Cypriots themselves in particular the sections of both communties who continued to seek Enosis/Takism/Double Enosis when as Demtris Assos argues from 1955 Independance was the only way forward.
