Cyprus-Forum.com

[Othellos]

At the time this party had some useful leaders, like Ziarides, Adamantos, Fantis and others who were moderate politicians and AKEL in the 50's incorporated members from the centre who were extremely down to earth politicians.

Imho AKEL has always been interested in just one thing: having access to power so that they can satisfy their clients (voters) and this at all costs.
And as for Fantis, Ziartides etc, these are the men who after 1960 they never dared to challenge Makarios and his policies and who after his death in 1977 they elected Spyros Kyprianou (= 10 years wasted). It was all done in the name of staying close to power. In year 2005, Demetris Christofias is the "product" of AKELs past practices and "traditions" and the election of Papadopoulos for President is the continuation of their legacy.

I agree with cypezokyli that AKEL has always feared in taking any major responsibilities. The convenient thing about supporting and electing a President from another party is that this minimizes their own political cost that all governments usually have to bear.


O.

[Kifeas]

success and failure are judged by the targets and the outcomes.

eoka had two targets:
1. union with greece - failed
2. get rid of the english - achieved till a certain extent.

second (and i can prove it with facts if you want) the agreement after a war always shows who won. it is the winner who puts the terms of the agreement. always.

eokas victorious strungle laid to, among other things to the remaining of the english bases
lead to the co-sharing of the power with a minority (something that till today is argued as unfair)
lead to having three guarantor powers the english (which we won!!!) and turkey (which we didnt even fight. )

if eoka would have won then the outcomes would have been:
union with greece
no sharing of power
no guarantos powers
and the tc would have fleed to turkey, being greekfied or some neo-greek patriots would kill them and then take fotos of their achievements.

and that i think its a cognitive dissonance (as my friend mills is calling it) that we curry in our blood.we can not understand that since we won in battle we had so "bad" agreements that we wanted to change after three years. (good according to our president though)

the reality is that englands interests were satisfied just fine with the military bases that they got. so we didnt kick them out. they left (and they are still here). we only have the illussion that we won.

didnt it ever occur to you why in our history books we have battles of miltiades and kolocotronis with numbers of killed and wounded on each side, but yet on the eoka struggle nothing.
why dont we know how many gc died in battle or killed in jails?
how many english soldiers died?
how many tc died?

today it makes no sense to say that the eoka struggle shouldnt have taken place. if one lived back then it is very difficult to say what one would have chosen.

i disagree with akel that didnt take part in it.
i also disagree with eoka leadership who decided to leave and kill the akel supporters and the tcs.

i dont mind the struggle (so long it was done against british soldiers) and i honor the dead.

it is time though to realise that it was not that victorious and the zurich agreements are a proof of that. and stop this...
"just like eoka we can do it again"

I do not disagree with the essence and moral of your overall posting. However, for the sake of fairness to history and to us, what, with a great deal of certainty, you said regarding the fate of the TCs is not correct. There has never been in this country a real and proven desire and /or agenda on behalf of the GCs to put an end to the existence of the TCs in this country. Neither during the Eoka anti-colonial /pro enosis struggle, nor during the 1960's period of intercommunal conflicts, nor during the 1974 coup. Not even the infamous Akritas plan ever prescribed such a path for the purpose of achieving the author's political objectives.

Yes there were cases of violence against TCs and even murders, yes there was a cultivation of hatred against Turkey and the Turks and this included the TCs to some extent, yes there were isolated cases of fanatical individuals like Sampson and some others who even committed mass murderous attacks against innocent TCs, but these issues and events do not characterise the overall nature and true scope of the GC struggles for enosis and /or amendments to the constitution.

It is one thing to criticise the political choices of the GCs and condemn them as wrong and inappropriate, and it is another thing to give them a dimension that has never existed, such as to suggest that there was ever an agenda to annihilate the TC from Cyprus. It is one thing to say that in the pursue of achieving these political objectives, the GCs found in their way a dynamic and in some cases violent reaction on behalf of the TCs and wrongfully reacted against it with a similar dynamic and violent way, and another thing to say that part of these GC goals, or as a mean to achieve these goals, was the distraction or disappearance of the TC community from Cyprus.

To this end your above underlined allegations are nothing else than a hypothesis. There are no such strong indications, set aside evidence, to support that this would have been the case, had Enosis been achieved.

[Piratis]

Imho AKEL has always been interested in just one thing: having access to power so that they can satisfy their clients (voters) and this at all costs.

This is true for all Cyprus parties and actually AKEL is the least guilty. DIKO and DISI are the champions of "rusfeti" in Cyprus.

About EOKA (the original) a distinction should be made.

The EOKA cause was a noble one had the support of the great majority of Cypriots. The people that died fighting the colonialists in that struggle are heroes and they deserve our respect.

However an armed struggle might not have been the best choice (I say "might" because nobody knows for sure what would have happened if EOKA had never existed). Maybe without EOKA we would have been better of in the end. However this doesn't diminish at all the heroism of some people like Afxentiou.

[Viewpoint]

success and failure are judged by the targets and the outcomes.

eoka had two targets:
1. union with greece - failed
2. get rid of the english - achieved till a certain extent.

second (and i can prove it with facts if you want) the agreement after a war always shows who won. it is the winner who puts the terms of the agreement. always.

eokas victorious strungle laid to, among other things to the remaining of the english bases
lead to the co-sharing of the power with a minority (something that till today is argued as unfair)
lead to having three guarantor powers the english (which we won!!!) and turkey (which we didnt even fight. )

if eoka would have won then the outcomes would have been:
union with greece
no sharing of power
no guarantos powers
and the tc would have fleed to turkey, being greekfied or some neo-greek patriots would kill them and then take fotos of their achievements.

and that i think its a cognitive dissonance (as my friend mills is calling it) that we curry in our blood.we can not understand that since we won in battle we had so "bad" agreements that we wanted to change after three years. (good according to our president though)

the reality is that englands interests were satisfied just fine with the military bases that they got. so we didnt kick them out. they left (and they are still here). we only have the illussion that we won.

didnt it ever occur to you why in our history books we have battles of miltiades and kolocotronis with numbers of killed and wounded on each side, but yet on the eoka struggle nothing.
why dont we know how many gc died in battle or killed in jails?
how many english soldiers died?
how many tc died?

today it makes no sense to say that the eoka struggle shouldnt have taken place. if one lived back then it is very difficult to say what one would have chosen.

i disagree with akel that didnt take part in it.
i also disagree with eoka leadership who decided to leave and kill the akel supporters and the tcs.

i dont mind the struggle (so long it was done against british soldiers) and i honor the dead.

it is time though to realise that it was not that victorious and the zurich agreements are a proof of that. and stop this...
"just like eoka we can do it again"

I do not disagree with the essence and moral of your overall posting. However, for the sake of fairness to history and to us, what, with a great deal of certainty, you said regarding the fate of the TCs is not correct. There has never been in this country a real and proven desire and /or agenda on behalf of the GCs to put an end to the existence of the TCs in this country. Neither during the Eoka anti-colonial /pro enosis struggle, nor during the 1960's period of intercommunal conflicts, nor during the 1974 coup. Not even the infamous Akritas plan ever prescribed such a path for the purpose of achieving the author's political objectives.

Yes there were cases of violence against TCs and even murders, yes there was a cultivation of hatred against Turkey and the Turks and this included the TCs to some extent, yes there were isolated cases of fanatical individuals like Sampson and some others who even committed mass murderous attacks against innocent TCs, but these issues and events do not characterise the overall nature and true scope of the GC struggles for enosis and /or amendments to the constitution.

It is one thing to criticise the political choices of the GCs and condemn them as wrong and inappropriate, and it is another thing to give them a dimension that has never existed, such as to suggest that there was ever an agenda to annihilate the TC from Cyprus. It is one thing to say that in the pursue of achieving these political objectives, the GCs found in their way a dynamic and in some cases violent reaction on behalf of the TCs and wrongfully reacted against it with a similar dynamic and violent way, and another thing to say that part of these GC goals, or as a mean to achieve these goals, was the distraction or disappearance of the TC community from Cyprus.

To this end your above underlined allegations are nothing else than a hypothesis. There are no such strong indications, set aside evidence, to support that this would have been the case, had Enosis been achieved.

Your arguements reek of propaganda and do not convince any TCs that the Enosis dream included the prosperiety and safety of the TCs community. You express your personal opinion like it is fact and that you are the only person who knows all. You probably will next be spouting such rubbish as that TCs had nothing to fear and that GCs would have strangled them with love. You need to face the fact that the TCs community was an obsticle to achieving Enosis and means and methods were being utilized to rid the island of our community thus allowing a smooth path to union with Greece, just like the other islands in the mediterranean.

[cypezokyli]

it is interesting that there is a general agreement i would say about eoka.
which contrasts our school education.

as for the fate of tc we can not make nothing more than assumptions. firtsly, if the veto power, the tourdik, and the guarantor powers did not exist the dimension could have been indeed different.

this is not to potray us as savages.
it was just a norm at the time. even greece when it got macedonia, there used to be there 1.5 million slavs. today very few exist. the same can be said for our other neighbor - turkey. killing, forcing a language through, exchange of populations, or forcing people to leave was a common practise in the past and the faster way to create nations.
as i said some patriots could have killed some tcs.
but being kicked out or being greekfied does not seem as a very distant possibility.
but in any case, we are just speculating. history has chosen a different path

[Kifeas]

success and failure are judged by the targets and the outcomes.

eoka had two targets:
1. union with greece - failed
2. get rid of the english - achieved till a certain extent.

second (and i can prove it with facts if you want) the agreement after a war always shows who won. it is the winner who puts the terms of the agreement. always.

eokas victorious strungle laid to, among other things to the remaining of the english bases
lead to the co-sharing of the power with a minority (something that till today is argued as unfair)
lead to having three guarantor powers the english (which we won!!!) and turkey (which we didnt even fight. )

if eoka would have won then the outcomes would have been:
union with greece
no sharing of power
no guarantos powers
and the tc would have fleed to turkey, being greekfied or some neo-greek patriots would kill them and then take fotos of their achievements.

and that i think its a cognitive dissonance (as my friend mills is calling it) that we curry in our blood.we can not understand that since we won in battle we had so "bad" agreements that we wanted to change after three years. (good according to our president though)

the reality is that englands interests were satisfied just fine with the military bases that they got. so we didnt kick them out. they left (and they are still here). we only have the illussion that we won.

didnt it ever occur to you why in our history books we have battles of miltiades and kolocotronis with numbers of killed and wounded on each side, but yet on the eoka struggle nothing.
why dont we know how many gc died in battle or killed in jails?
how many english soldiers died?
how many tc died?

today it makes no sense to say that the eoka struggle shouldnt have taken place. if one lived back then it is very difficult to say what one would have chosen.

i disagree with akel that didnt take part in it.
i also disagree with eoka leadership who decided to leave and kill the akel supporters and the tcs.

i dont mind the struggle (so long it was done against british soldiers) and i honor the dead.

it is time though to realise that it was not that victorious and the zurich agreements are a proof of that. and stop this...
"just like eoka we can do it again"

I do not disagree with the essence and moral of your overall posting. However, for the sake of fairness to history and to us, what, with a great deal of certainty, you said regarding the fate of the TCs is not correct. There has never been in this country a real and proven desire and /or agenda on behalf of the GCs to put an end to the existence of the TCs in this country. Neither during the Eoka anti-colonial /pro enosis struggle, nor during the 1960's period of intercommunal conflicts, nor during the 1974 coup. Not even the infamous Akritas plan ever prescribed such a path for the purpose of achieving the author's political objectives.

Yes there were cases of violence against TCs and even murders, yes there was a cultivation of hatred against Turkey and the Turks and this included the TCs to some extent, yes there were isolated cases of fanatical individuals like Sampson and some others who even committed mass murderous attacks against innocent TCs, but these issues and events do not characterise the overall nature and true scope of the GC struggles for enosis and /or amendments to the constitution.

It is one thing to criticise the political choices of the GCs and condemn them as wrong and inappropriate, and it is another thing to give them a dimension that has never existed, such as to suggest that there was ever an agenda to annihilate the TC from Cyprus. It is one thing to say that in the pursue of achieving these political objectives, the GCs found in their way a dynamic and in some cases violent reaction on behalf of the TCs and wrongfully reacted against it with a similar dynamic and violent way, and another thing to say that part of these GC goals, or as a mean to achieve these goals, was the distraction or disappearance of the TC community from Cyprus.

To this end your above underlined allegations are nothing else than a hypothesis. There are no such strong indications, set aside evidence, to support that this would have been the case, had Enosis been achieved.

Your arguements reek of propaganda and do not convince any TCs that the Enosis dream included the prosperiety and safety of the TCs community. You express your personal opinion like it is fact and that you are the only person who knows all. You probably will next be spouting such rubbish as that TCs had nothing to fear and that GCs would have strangled them with love. You need to face the fact that the TCs community was an obsticle to achieving Enosis and means and methods were being utilized to rid the island of our community thus allowing a smooth path to union with Greece, just like the other islands in the mediterranean.

Little Denktash!
I am neither surprised nor angered by your reactions.
Truth was always your worst enemy in the pursued of your separatist goals, like it was for your protégé Mr. Denktash.
As for who talks rubbish in this forum, I suggest you contact a survey.
Do not be surprised though when you will see your self on the top of the list.

[Kifeas]

it is interesting that there is a general agreement i would say about eoka.
which contrasts our school education.

as for the fate of tc we can not make nothing more than assumptions. firtsly, if the veto power, the tourdik, and the guarantor powers did not exist the dimension could have been indeed different.

this is not to potray us as savages.
it was just a norm at the time. even greece when it got macedonia, there used to be there 1.5 million slavs. today very few exist. the same can be said for our other neighbor - turkey. killing, forcing a language through, exchange of populations, or forcing people to leave was a common practise in the past and the faster way to create nations.
as i said some patriots could have killed some tcs.
but being kicked out or being greekfied does not seem as a very distant possibility.
but in any case, we are just speculating. history has chosen a different path

No Sir, you are not merely making unsubstantiated assumptions and speculations, as you rightfully admitted. You are also putting ammunition into the propaganda arsenal of Denktash and his little followers towards the legitimisation of their partitionist goals.

[cypezokyli]

if it is indeed like that i apologise.

even though i dont think that they need my help.

those who believe in partition is sth stuck in their haeds and will not change whatever u or me ever say.

in any case the period we are talking about is 50 years old.
we both (gc and tc) grew up since then.

[Viewpoint]

Kifeas

Little Denktash!
I am neither surprised nor angered by your reactions.
Truth was always your worst enemy in the pursued of your separatist goals, like it was for your protégé Mr. Denktash.
As for who talks rubbish in this forum, I suggest you contact a survey.
Do not be surprised though when you will see your self on the top of the list.

Do you read what you post? very childish and immature when challenged you throw sticks and stones like in your infant playground days.


The truth according to who??? you ?? dont make me

[Bananiot]

No Sir, you are not merely making unsubstantiated assumptions and speculations, as you rightfully admitted. You are also putting ammunition into the propaganda arsenal of Denktash and his little followers towards the legitimisation of their partitionist goals.

Little Papadopoulos!

You have a good teacher, Kifeas. You and your protege do not understand Dionisios Solomos at all. He repeated that "Only truth serves the national interests" and if someone is looking for the truth, even if he makes wrong assumptions in the process, then he is a useful citizen. The accusation that your debator is putting ammunition into the propaganda arsenal of Denktash is cheap and unworthy of taking notice of, but this is everyday practice for the great ethnarch and his followers, it seems.