Paphitis wrote: Forget about Akritas Plan and Enosis. You're spanking a very dead donkey.
erolz66 wrote:You can forget it if you like but the fact remains that your assertion that the Cypriot people would not have ratified the 60's agreements if they had of been given the opportunity to vote in 59 is directly at odds with the view of those that wrote the Akritas plan.
Oh really!
Who said? You? now how the heck do you know?
Did the Cypriot People write the Akritas Plan?
Fact remains, that Cyprus was NEVER given a chance from day 1 and absolutely they would have voted for a fair solution. But why the big deal about it anyway since they were NEVER allowed to vote on it? Britain could have tabled a REAL solution and a workable Treaty of Establishment and still not allow a vote (who cares as long as its fair and workable?).
Paphitis wrote:What was served to Cyprus in 1959 was a recipe for disaster.
What was served in 59 was a RESULT of the desire to achieve total enosis of all of Cyprus and all Cypriots.
Paphitis wrote:Now, I do not argue that the GCs did not want ENOSIS. That was a sign of the time. But rather than coerce Makarios and all Cypriots down the road of destruction, the British could have tabled a better more workable and more equatable solution to the crisis, such as, the Establishment of Independent State (you can still call it the Republic of Cyprus), with complete equity across the board and proportional representation and a minimum quota for TCs to be set up at 20% as well as the TCs having their own local municipalities in their villages and towns.
erolz66 wrote:Throughout the 40's and 50's the British repeatedly made attempts to introduce and increase 'self rule' in Cyprus. However every such effort recognised that the TC community also had a right to some degree of effective voice. Every effort to introduce increasing 'self rule' under the British was rejected by the GC community because total ENOSIS required that the TC community have no effective voice in the most fundamental of decision that affected them. Independence had no such requirement and steadily increasing self rule under the British could have been a pre cursor to Independence and both communities working together for their common good.
The 60's agreements is what Cyprus got because NO ONE could trust the GC leadership to not simply agree to independence on day one and unilaterally declare enosis on day three and given what actually happened they were right to do so.
Dis they? That's news to me.
The only thing they allowed was self rule at the Municipality Level. In the 50s, Britain had the Suez Campaign and had absolutely ZERO plans to allow Cypriots any independence whatsoever. The guy that trained me in the 90s was a RAF veteran of the Suez and knew Cyprus very well.
Paphitis wrote:Furthermore, Makarios did challenge aspects of the treaty quite legally through the auspices of the roC Parliament with the 13 point plan, and that resulted in the TCs withdrawing from the Legislative Body, and the TMT terrorizing the TCs to withdraw into enclaves and then the shit hit the fan once again with Inter-communal Strife.
erolz66 wrote:You really need to learn the history of your country. The 13 point plan was not 'presented to the RoC parliament'. It is just not true that TC fled their homes in the early 60's because TMT terrorising them. The fact is they overwhelmingly fled their homes as a result of GC illegal, para military violence against them or fear of it. That is the truth.
I suggest you heed your own advice because you have absolutely no idea about the Geopolitics of that era.
You're even neglected the Suez Campaign and to say the Brits were interested in granting self rule is downright delusional. And they certainly were not going to do it during WW2 either.
