Cyprus-Forum.com

[Crash]

Even if TC's needed to be protected from the 'attacking mobs' of Greeks they are no longerunder threat so Turkish military can leave. I ask anybody to justify why Turkey still plays a part in Vyprus.

[Kifeas]

Before you answer that remember the Turks had ruled here since 1570, when 20,000 Muslims were brought to the island along with a military garrison of 3600. The fact that there were more Greeks here than Turks, and still are doesn't I'm afraid make much difference... If enough Albanians moved to Corfu, would the Greeks alow it to become independant, or part of Albania?

I am sorry Gabbie to say this to you but this is a ridicules analogy. The Greece Cypriots, besides always being the overwhelming majority, they were also in Cyprus since the beginning of written history of this planet. They are the indigenous people in a sense, although this notion doesn’t preclude or prejudice the same rights to the TCs. To try and draw a parallelism between a case in which colonisation occurred afterwards so that an ownership claim is to be made -like your above example, and the case of Cyprus, it constitutes a provocation to say the least, and puts a shadow to the rest of your arguments too.
The example you have made above can only be compared with what happens currently in the north, in which the indigenous people were expelled in 1974 and in their place Turkey transfers settlers from Anatolia so that it can essentially claim ownership at some time in the future.

The Cyprus Convention of 1878 between Britain and Turkey provided that Cyprus, while remaining under Turkish sovereignty, should be administered by the British government.

Just a correction here, Cyprus was never under the sovereignty of Turkey. Cyprus was under the Ottoman rule /occupation. Even so, this doesn’t constitute any form of legitimate ownership by this and the past century’s international standards.

, with Britain retaining sovereignty over the two military bases at Akrotiri and Dhekelia.

If they were sovereign territory of Britain, why an annual rent to the RoC was agreed to be paid?

,…. Five days later Turkish forces landed at Kyrenia with the expressed aim of overturning Sampson's government....the rest you do know about.

Which of course was an illegal operation, since it did not have an authorisation of the UN Security Council, as this was required by the UN Charter. Furthermore, regardless of the expressed aim, the real purpose was to illegally grasp part of the territory of the RoC and create a separate state through ethnically cleansing the indigenous people from a part of their country. Do you agree?

, Greece itself had never tried to take Cyprus, it's geographical closeness to Turkey makes it almost impossible to attack, or defend, and the Turkish government could never accept Cyprus being under the control of anybody with hostile intentions towards Turkey, in the same way that Greece could never allow a potentialy hostile nation to control the Ionian Islands, or Britain the Isle of Wight.

Never say never! In 1964, with the Achenson plan, Turkey came too close to accepting Cyprus to Unite with Greece, in exchange of a base that would have included the Karpasia Peninsula and some form of autonomy for the TCs in the areas around Cyprus in which they were the most populous. This plan /proposal failed only because Makarios rejected it.

[zan]

Why don't you explain why 37% of an island was taken for a population making up 18%.

Something called the Green line. We would have been more had we not been murdered and chased out of the country. We also need enough land to make a go of surviving after a war that was started by your people.

Why don't you explain why Turkey signed a Treaty renouncing claims on any region, where the population is mostly Greek and later invade.

I presume you are talking about the Treaty of Lausanne, which was signed by Greece also. The island of Cyprus was annexed to Britain and not to Greece or the Greeks. Again if you were to do some research you will find that treaty was superseded, when Cyprus got its independence, by the 1960 treaty in which Turkey was included.

Why don't you answer why Turkey ignores UN Resolutions ordering their troops to leave Cyprus, when Iraq gets invaded for such UN breaches, Syria gets threatened by them, as does Iran.

If the UN could be trusted then I am sure more progress could be made.

Turkey, after the Second World War, never took part in ANY of the negotiations regarding Cyprus, until 1955 when they were invited by Britain to talks, which Greece were tricked into going to.

Greece got tricked into. Ha! Poor little old Greece gets tricked every time it looses something and all the rest of us are the villains. What a pathetic argument. You are right about Turkey being invited. Invited by the owners of the island of the day. As for not taking part, they were obliged by the Treaty of Lausanne. So should Greece have been.

A further fact: Britain during the First World War told Greece that if she joined on the side of the Allies, Britain would give Cyprus to Greece. Greece obliged, Britain did a U-turn.

In 1915 Britain offered to cede Cyprus to Greece in return for their entry into the war against the Central Powers, but Greece considered the price too great as they expected a German victory. This war-time offer by Britain also raised Cypriot expectations since it invalidated the previous British argument that Cyprus was leased from the Turks and would revert to them when the British departed.

http://www.regiments.org/wars/20thcent/55cyprus.htm
Who was double-crossed?

Fact: under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, Turkey was only allowed to invade Cyprus to restore the effect of the Treaty. However they didn't, they invaded to occupy the island, THIS IS A CLEAR BREACH OF THE TREATY!

Treaties of alliance and guarantees provided for the right of intervention by Britain, Greece and Turkey to protect the constitutional settlement, if necessary, and for the stationing of limited numbers of Turkish and Greek Troops.

http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history ... index.html

They would have invaded even further if the Americans never restricted them. Amazingly, the USA supported the coup and then supported the invasion! Talk about being stabbed in the back.

Being stabbed in the back would have been Turkey running you into the sea. Turkey and America went as far as they thought they should. Which answers your two questions above.

As I have said, there are Turkish people living in Greece today peacefully. Therefore, in my opinion, if Cyprus would have joined Greece, the same would have happened there.

You are joking aren’t you? Are you talking about those Greek Moslems that live there? My example would be Crete, another similar island to compare to Cyprus. Please do some research on that.

[I DO NOT FORGET 1974 -B]

Why don't you explain why 37% of an island was taken for a population making up 18%.

Something called the Green line. We would have been more had we not been murdered and chased out of the country. We also need enough land to make a go of surviving after a war that was started by your people.

You was never 37%, nor you would have ever become 37% of the people. The maximum you was during they Ottoman occupation was 25%. Before the Ottomans occupy Cyprus, you was 0%.



You know the saying "whoever wants the too much, looses even the very little?" This is what will happen to you in the end!



Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha! _____________________________________________________________

[zan]

You know the saying "whoever wants the too much, looses even the very little?" This is what will happen to you in the end!

I suppose it sounds better in Greek?

[Eric dayi]

zan, no wonder he is asking for private lessons!

[TheCabbie]

I think this is quite a harsh way to look at things. Let's be frank in today's world to maintain a colony against the people's wishes is considered plain wrong. It's one thing to promise plans for greater self-government, the question is, why did they not draw up plans for independence straight away? The polarising of the two communities that occured in the 1950s
through the EOKA struggle did a lot of damage to Cyprus' chances of lasting as an independent nation with Enosis and Taksim being re-enforced.
Of course an independent Cyprus might still have collapsed even if the British were not so against independence, we simply don't know.

Saying "we don't know" is like saying you believe in Father Xmas...However, I can't prove there isn't one, but...

Cyprus, because of it's history required a far more complex independance than many other colonised nations, the communities were polarised anyway, if the British had just upped and left (but they wouldn't, as they wanted the bases) it's fair to say that either a bitter civil war would have broken out, followed by Greece and Turkey becoming involved, or Greece and Turkey would have just gone straight to war anyway.

In conclusion, it's certainly not a dead cert that Britain somehow saved GCs from Turkish rule..

No, but highly likely, I don't like the use of the word "saved" as Britain was looking after her own interests (as all nations do) when coming to Cyprus.

I don't believe this would have been as large a factor as you say.
For a start look at a map the Turkish Aegean coast and you will see that Greece was given control of almost all the islands which are within sight of Turkey. Cyprus has a clear 90 miles of water between itself and Turkey. There is plenty of scope to speculate that Cyprus would have gone the way of Crete under the Treaty of Lausanne..

The Aegean islands were not a threat to Turkey in 1923 as Cyprus could have been in 1974 with the advent of missiles and planes, look how Turkey was prepared to go to war in '97 over the possible installaion of the Russian ant-aircraft missiles.

[Simon]

Why don't you explain why 37% of an island was taken for a population making up 18%.

Something called the Green line. We would have been more had we not been murdered and chased out of the country. We also need enough land to make a go of surviving after a war that was started by your people.

OK, so now you are trying to justify colonisation. The Greeks revolted against foreign rulers, that is why you only have 18%. Further, quoting I DO NOT FORGET "You was never 37%, nor you would have ever become 37% of the people. The maximum you was during they Ottoman occupation was 25%. Before the Ottomans occupy Cyprus, you was 0%.
And a war started by our people don't make me laugh. Remember who invaded who first.


Quote:
Why don't you explain why Turkey signed a Treaty renouncing claims on any region, where the population is mostly Greek and later invade.

I presume you are talking about the Treaty of Lausanne, which was signed by Greece also. The island of Cyprus was annexed to Britain and not to Greece or the Greeks. Again if you were to do some research you will find that treaty was superseded, when Cyprus got its independence, by the 1960 treaty in which Turkey was included.

Precisely, and if you do some research, why was Turkey even involved before 1960 therefore, if the Treaty of Lausanne was still in force. THEY WERE BREACHING THAT TREATY!

Quote:
Why don't you answer why Turkey ignores UN Resolutions ordering their troops to leave Cyprus, when Iraq gets invaded for such UN breaches, Syria gets threatened by them, as does Iran.

If the UN could be trusted then I am sure more progress could be made.

You and I both know what a load of utter rubbish that is. That is an excuse for breaking international law? Pathetic.


Quote:
Turkey, after the Second World War, never took part in ANY of the negotiations regarding Cyprus, until 1955 when they were invited by Britain to talks, which Greece were tricked into going to.

Greece got tricked into. Ha! Poor little old Greece gets tricked every time it looses something and all the rest of us are the villains. What a pathetic argument. You are right about Turkey being invited. Invited by the owners of the island of the day. As for not taking part, they were obliged by the Treaty of Lausanne. So should Greece have been.

OK, you need to do some research here, Greece were lied to by Britain to attend the meeting. Before then Turkey were not involved in any discussions. It is true to say Britain invited them, to create an atmosphere so as to justify them holding on to (or at least some part of) the island. I have factual evidence to prove this.



Quote:
A further fact: Britain during the First World War told Greece that if she joined on the side of the Allies, Britain would give Cyprus to Greece. Greece obliged, Britain did a U-turn.

In 1915 Britain offered to cede Cyprus to Greece in return for their entry into the war against the Central Powers, but Greece considered the price too great as they expected a German victory. This war-time offer by Britain also raised Cypriot expectations since it invalidated the previous British argument that Cyprus was leased from the Turks and would revert to them when the British departed.

Greece entered the War. Check your facts.


Quote:
Fact: under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, Turkey was only allowed to invade Cyprus to restore the effect of the Treaty. However they didn't, they invaded to occupy the island, THIS IS A CLEAR BREACH OF THE TREATY!

Treaties of alliance and guarantees provided for the right of intervention by Britain, Greece and Turkey to protect the constitutional settlement, if necessary, and for the stationing of limited numbers of Turkish and Greek Troops.

Yes to protect the constitutional settlement - the Constitution being the 1960 Treaties, which Turkey then breached by occupying 37% of the island.


Quote:
They would have invaded even further if the Americans never restricted them. Amazingly, the USA supported the coup and then supported the invasion! Talk about being stabbed in the back.

Being stabbed in the back would have been Turkey running you into the sea. Turkey and America went as far as they thought they should. Which answers your two questions above.

That says it all doesn't it. As far as they should meaning 37% for a population making up 18% of the island. By the way, Turkey did want to go further.

Quote:
As I have said, there are Turkish people living in Greece today peacefully. Therefore, in my opinion, if Cyprus would have joined Greece, the same would have happened there.

You are joking aren’t you? Are you talking about those Greek Moslems that live there? My example would be Crete, another similar island to compare to Cyprus. Please do some research on that.

You do some research. I'm not talkiing about Crete, but Thrace. Problems in Crete arose because of the same reason as Cyprus, Greeks wanting independence and Turks not giving it. Consider Thrace, which has been more peaceful and see how the Turks have done there.


Finally, to the person who said you can't just blame Britain. No you can't. But they should shoulder a large amount of the blame. If they would have given Cyprus back to Greece as they should have, Turkey wouldn't even have been given a mention. TURKEY EVEN TOLD TURKS TO LEAVE CYPRUS AND RETURN HOME after the Second World War. They had washed their hands of Cyprus. Britain later created the friction and I have solid evidence to support this. And that same person who used the Albania example, that was just ludicrous. I'm not even going to justify that with a response.

The fact is, Cyprus is a Greek island, not Turkish. Every single fact and historical evidence you can find shows this.

A clear solution for me would be for Cyprus to be annexed with Greece, with a Treaty between Greece and Turkey, with Greece guaranteeing Turkish Cypriots rights as equals. There could be a mechanism, that for any breaches of Human Rights, the UN would automatically get involved. If then the problem persists and is unresolvable (which I don't believe would happen), the Treaty can provide for a separation of the island, like today, but with Turkey only having 20% of the island, proportionate to its population, which would be recognised by the whole international community and be allowed to join the EU. Because as far as I see it, I can never now see a government in which Greeks and Turks are both in, this is a recipe for disaster.

[cypezokyli]

A clear solution for me would be for Cyprus to be annexed with Greece,

i mean there is nothing to say to this anymore...

[Viewpoint]

I agree cypezokyli, what a disappointment its a sad sad situation for Cypriots. With this attiude we are better off as we are divided.