Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Even if Cypriots had denied their motherlands both Greece and Turkey had their own agendas for the island, you've just said it yourself - " It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests"

Yes Greece and Turkey would have had their own agendas for Cyprus regardless of what Cypriots had chosen to seek following the end of British colonial rule. The point is however they were only able to exploit our differences as Cypriots to further their agendas because we chose to let them do that by choosing to be Greek and Turk more than Cypriots. That is what we we have to take responsibility for, not for the fact that Greece and Turkey had their own agendas.

Yes, Britain may have tried in the 1950s but not as hard as it did in Zurich where it effectively forced agreement.I disagree with your "reality". Given five or ten years of supervised home rule I'm sure the two communities could have come together especially if the colonial power excluded the motherlands from any arrangement. You are surely aware that it was the UK that reintroduced Turkey into the equation to counter the demands for union with Greece

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so. Just what period do you imagine this 'forced' and 'supervised' home rule would have run from ? 1950 ? 1960? All efforts to introduce increased self rule by the British in Cyprus from the 40's onwards were rejected by Cypriots BECAUSE they required and established a precedent and principle of both GC and TC working together regardless of their differences to run Cyprus. Do you think if the British had declared an enforced home rule in 1955 that would have stopped the armed fight against British rule by EOKA ? How exactly can you force home rule when those who are supposed to take on the task refuse to do so and are in fact fighting a guerilla war against you and your presence ?

Sorry you don't make much sense. The Cypriot masses did not make the decisions, they did what their leaders told them to do. Had Makarios been told to accept home rule or face partition he would have chosen the former and his sheep would have followed, the forced option was never made. Faced with the threat of partition most Cypriots would have co-operated and eventually extremists would have been marginalised.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19561219&id=TgUwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xwAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4633,5715592&hl=tr


Jerry, the Greek and GC elite strongly believed that the TC community was a tiny minority that shouldn't have had the right to stop the majority(GC community) using it's self-determination right... On the other hand TC-Turkish elite also believed that TC community too had a seperate right to self-determination... in such a mental atmosphere while in the meantime there were some strategic considerations for British bases in Cyprus; it was impossible to persuade them for any alternatives or even impose it upon them... partition wasn't an easy task and as i always underlined; it was their last resort to impose it becuae they well knew it would upset the GC-Greek elites and far right... it most probably would have pave the way for Greece to leave NATO, which was something not desired by the west at all... though time to time they used the partition card as a tool to threaten the enosists and "majority rulists"...

[insan]

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so.

Any efforts at a united front by Cypriots were thwarted by the external self-interested Turk-TCs.

As the British later recognised:

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

4. (d) The only two solutions which could bring peace and order in Cyprus are enosis or the establishment of a unitary republic dominated by its Greek Cypriot majority.

They had made a mistake ever involving the external Turk-TCs in the 1960 constitution.

Attempts to democratize the 1960 Constitution and remove the unfair advantages held by external TCs were found reasonable by the British:

Context: Extract from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham.

We have been through the 1963 papers, which tend to confirm that the Thirteen Points were indeed framed with British help and encouragement; that the then High Commissioner [Clark] considered them to be reasonable proposals; and our intention was to promote their acceptance by the Turks.

Source: Mallinson


Finally, the British admitted, the root to a unitary state was to remove 'those Turkish Cypriots'!

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

If in 1963 we had followed British advice for resettling 'those Turkish Cypriots' that continued their treasonous destruction of Cyprus, then we would never have had 1974!

GIG, you present us some extracts from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham, that was submitted for discussion by then the British government as if it was the official conclusion of then the British government...Moreover, you filter out the first 3 articles of the considerations of the letter which obviously are more important and preferred and show us only the 4th article's 4th consideration... GIG, we are not lil kids that you could wheedle... you only fool yourself....

[Jerry]

Even if Cypriots had denied their motherlands both Greece and Turkey had their own agendas for the island, you've just said it yourself - " It is naive to think that a foreign power will do anything but what it perceives is in its best interests"

Yes Greece and Turkey would have had their own agendas for Cyprus regardless of what Cypriots had chosen to seek following the end of British colonial rule. The point is however they were only able to exploit our differences as Cypriots to further their agendas because we chose to let them do that by choosing to be Greek and Turk more than Cypriots. That is what we we have to take responsibility for, not for the fact that Greece and Turkey had their own agendas.

Yes, Britain may have tried in the 1950s but not as hard as it did in Zurich where it effectively forced agreement.I disagree with your "reality". Given five or ten years of supervised home rule I'm sure the two communities could have come together especially if the colonial power excluded the motherlands from any arrangement. You are surely aware that it was the UK that reintroduced Turkey into the equation to counter the demands for union with Greece

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so. Just what period do you imagine this 'forced' and 'supervised' home rule would have run from ? 1950 ? 1960? All efforts to introduce increased self rule by the British in Cyprus from the 40's onwards were rejected by Cypriots BECAUSE they required and established a precedent and principle of both GC and TC working together regardless of their differences to run Cyprus. Do you think if the British had declared an enforced home rule in 1955 that would have stopped the armed fight against British rule by EOKA ? How exactly can you force home rule when those who are supposed to take on the task refuse to do so and are in fact fighting a guerilla war against you and your presence ?

Sorry you don't make much sense. The Cypriot masses did not make the decisions, they did what their leaders told them to do. Had Makarios been told to accept home rule or face partition he would have chosen the former and his sheep would have followed, the forced option was never made. Faced with the threat of partition most Cypriots would have co-operated and eventually extremists would have been marginalised.

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19561219&id=TgUwAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xwAEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4633,5715592&hl=tr


Jerry, the Greek and GC elite strongly believed that the TC community was a tiny minority that shouldn't have had the right to stop the majority(GC community) using it's self-determination right... On the other hand TC-Turkish elite also believed that TC community too had a seperate right to self-determination... in such a mental atmosphere while in the meantime there were some strategic considerations for British bases in Cyprus; it was impossible to persuade them for any alternatives or even impose it upon them... partition wasn't an easy task and as i always underlined; it was their last resort to impose it becuae they well knew it would upset the GC-Greek elites and far right... it most probably would have pave the way for Greece to leave NATO, which was something not desired by the west at all... though time to time they used the partition card as a tool to threaten the enosists and "majority rulists"...

Faced with an ultimatum in the early '50s of partition or home rule leading to independence what path would Makarios have chosen? In 1960 he was faced with partition or the poisonous Zurich Agreement, he chose the lesser of two evils with a view to unilateral modifications later. By then it was too late to expect co-operation between the antagonists.

[erolz66]

Faced with an ultimatum in the early '50s of partition or home rule leading to independence what path would Makarios have chosen? In 1960 he was faced with partition or the poisonous Zurich Agreement, he chose the lesser of two evils with a view to unilateral modifications later. By then it was too late to expect co-operation between the antagonists.

Jerry I would like to believe in such a hypothetical scenario Cypriots would have learned to work together as Cypriots first despite their differences, that the GC leadership would have abandoned their attempts to achieve enosis and TC to achieve taksim, that neither would have worked in secret to achieve these goals using illegal paramilitaries to intimidate and murder and kill innocent Cypriots. I would like to believe this but I am afraid I do not. I think the respective desires of each side were too entrenched to have been changed by 5 or even ten years of enforced home rule under British 'supervision'.

[Jerry]

Faced with an ultimatum in the early '50s of partition or home rule leading to independence what path would Makarios have chosen? In 1960 he was faced with partition or the poisonous Zurich Agreement, he chose the lesser of two evils with a view to unilateral modifications later. By then it was too late to expect co-operation between the antagonists.

Jerry I would like to believe in such a hypothetical scenario Cypriots would have learned to work together as Cypriots first despite their differences, that the GC leadership would have abandoned their attempts to achieve enosis and TC to achieve taksim, that neither would have worked in secret to achieve these goals using illegal paramilitaries to intimidate and murder and kill innocent Cypriots. I would like to believe this but I am afraid I do not. I think the respective desires of each side were too entrenched to have been changed by 5 or even ten years of enforced home rule under British 'supervision'.

The two sides became more entrenched in their views in as the 1950s progressed and their motherlands became more involved. I'm of the opinion that home rule in the early 50s could have worked, after all Cypriots were already involved in government at a lower level at that time.

[GreekIslandGirl]

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so.

Any efforts at a united front by Cypriots were thwarted by the external self-interested Turk-TCs.

As the British later recognised:

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

4. (d) The only two solutions which could bring peace and order in Cyprus are enosis or the establishment of a unitary republic dominated by its Greek Cypriot majority.

They had made a mistake ever involving the external Turk-TCs in the 1960 constitution.

Attempts to democratize the 1960 Constitution and remove the unfair advantages held by external TCs were found reasonable by the British:

Context: Extract from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham.

We have been through the 1963 papers, which tend to confirm that the Thirteen Points were indeed framed with British help and encouragement; that the then High Commissioner [Clark] considered them to be reasonable proposals; and our intention was to promote their acceptance by the Turks.

Source: Mallinson


Finally, the British admitted, the root to a unitary state was to remove 'those Turkish Cypriots'!

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

If in 1963 we had followed British advice for resettling 'those Turkish Cypriots' that continued their treasonous destruction of Cyprus, then we would never have had 1974!

GIG, you present us some extracts from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham, that was submitted for discussion by then the British government as if it was the official conclusion of then the British government...Moreover, you filter out the first 3 articles of the considerations of the letter which obviously are more important and preferred and show us only the 4th article's 4th consideration... GIG, we are not lil kids that you could wheedle... you only fool yourself....

These are official (British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964) documents of the British government authorities and those involved with Cyprus. I can understand why you don't like them.

[Your English has come on leaps and bounds and I can make some cynical guesses as to who is behind some of your posts. ]

[insan]

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so.

Any efforts at a united front by Cypriots were thwarted by the external self-interested Turk-TCs.

As the British later recognised:

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

4. (d) The only two solutions which could bring peace and order in Cyprus are enosis or the establishment of a unitary republic dominated by its Greek Cypriot majority.

They had made a mistake ever involving the external Turk-TCs in the 1960 constitution.

Attempts to democratize the 1960 Constitution and remove the unfair advantages held by external TCs were found reasonable by the British:

Context: Extract from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham.

We have been through the 1963 papers, which tend to confirm that the Thirteen Points were indeed framed with British help and encouragement; that the then High Commissioner [Clark] considered them to be reasonable proposals; and our intention was to promote their acceptance by the Turks.

Source: Mallinson


Finally, the British admitted, the root to a unitary state was to remove 'those Turkish Cypriots'!

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

If in 1963 we had followed British advice for resettling 'those Turkish Cypriots' that continued their treasonous destruction of Cyprus, then we would never have had 1974!

GIG, you present us some extracts from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham, that was submitted for discussion by then the British government as if it was the official conclusion of then the British government...Moreover, you filter out the first 3 articles of the considerations of the letter which obviously are more important and preferred and show us only the 4th article's 4th consideration... GIG, we are not lil kids that you could wheedle... you only fool yourself....

These are official (British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964) documents of the British government authorities and those involved with Cyprus. I can understand why you don't like them.

[Your English has come on leaps and bounds and I can make some cynical guesses as to who is behind some of your posts. ]

Mostly your style encourages me to search for new words, phrases and expressions to use while replying to your messages to make it mean exactly what i mean and as unique as yours of course... tureng.com helps a lot to find out such nice material... i must admit that in a way; it's you behind me encouraging me to build such sentences; there's noone else... I'd like you to be my English teacher for advanced level English in a unique style

Documents full of views for consideration is something; examining them and then concluding what the policy should be is something else...

[GreekIslandGirl]

You can not force a colonial people to take on home rule, if they refuse to do so.

Any efforts at a united front by Cypriots were thwarted by the external self-interested Turk-TCs.

As the British later recognised:

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

4. (d) The only two solutions which could bring peace and order in Cyprus are enosis or the establishment of a unitary republic dominated by its Greek Cypriot majority.

They had made a mistake ever involving the external Turk-TCs in the 1960 constitution.

Attempts to democratize the 1960 Constitution and remove the unfair advantages held by external TCs were found reasonable by the British:

Context: Extract from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham.

We have been through the 1963 papers, which tend to confirm that the Thirteen Points were indeed framed with British help and encouragement; that the then High Commissioner [Clark] considered them to be reasonable proposals; and our intention was to promote their acceptance by the Turks.

Source: Mallinson


Finally, the British admitted, the root to a unitary state was to remove 'those Turkish Cypriots'!

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

5. ... efforts should be concentrated on easing the path to the unitary state, e.g. by providing U.N. safeguards for the minority and by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots to whom Cyprus may no longer appear a tolerable home.

If in 1963 we had followed British advice for resettling 'those Turkish Cypriots' that continued their treasonous destruction of Cyprus, then we would never have had 1974!

GIG, you present us some extracts from the letter of Head of Southern European Department, Sir Reginald Louis Secondé to the High Commissioner to Cyprus, Peter Ramsbotham, that was submitted for discussion by then the British government as if it was the official conclusion of then the British government...Moreover, you filter out the first 3 articles of the considerations of the letter which obviously are more important and preferred and show us only the 4th article's 4th consideration... GIG, we are not lil kids that you could wheedle... you only fool yourself....

These are official (British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964) documents of the British government authorities and those involved with Cyprus. I can understand why you don't like them.

[Your English has come on leaps and bounds and I can make some cynical guesses as to who is behind some of your posts. ]

Mostly your style encourages me to search for new words, phrases and expressions to use while replying to your messages to make it mean exactly what i mean and as unique as yours of course... tureng.com helps a lot to find out such nice material... i must admit that in a way; it's you behind me encouraging me to build such sentences; there's noone else... I'd like you to be my English teacher for advanced level English in a unique style

Documents full of views for consideration is something; examining them and then concluding what the policy should be is something else...

Using the Internet to help you write better is good, but it doesn't seem to help you with improving your understanding.

British Defence and Overseas Policy May 1964

Better?

Regardless their views and policies on the matter of TCs being moved to Turkey etc - the reality is, we did not carry these through - otherwise 1974 would never have happened.

But, we do now have some released British views on who was responsible for tearing up Cyprus, don't we?

[insan]

https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=HEjkuhF2GsMC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=British+Defence+and+Overseas+Policy+cyprus+1964&source=bl&ots=9o3rhbxfJm&sig=EeoaWoNtbiTFMl0e8bZSt8bJVgQ&hl=tr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=British%20Defence%20and%20Overseas%20Policy%20cyprus%201964&f=false

GIG, there are a lot of different views about it... some pro-this, pro-that and some balanced... but there are some wievs that have been grandmotherly filtered out from a "picture" for a special purpose and presented us as if it was the whole "picture"... this is no good...

[GreekIslandGirl]

https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=HEjkuhF2GsMC&pg=PA38&lpg=PA38&dq=British+Defence+and+Overseas+Policy+cyprus+1964&source=bl&ots=9o3rhbxfJm&sig=EeoaWoNtbiTFMl0e8bZSt8bJVgQ&hl=tr&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=British%20Defence%20and%20Overseas%20Policy%20cyprus%201964&f=false

GIG, there are a lot of different views about it... some pro-this, pro-that and some balanced... but there are some wievs that have been grandmotherly filtered out from a "picture" for a special purpose and presented us as if it was the whole "picture"... this is no good...

However, what I posted were not opinions by some authors!

They are OFFICIAL documents of the British government and its policy makers. These documents have been recently released for public viewing.