Cyprus-Forum.com

[insan]

Actually they achieved the first step of what they had struggled for; while pushing TCs out of the government and keeping them in a neverending limbo...

Insan, that is soooo wrong. You obviously don't know that the Turk-Tcs walked out December 1963 and these aims by HMG were "submitted" the spring of 1964 - probably in response to that TC aggressive/disruptive act.
Then, Turkey invaded/bombarded Cyprus in the summer of 1964, probably in response to these documented British aims.
Seems to me, the Brits/Americans didn't manage to soothe Turkey's warmongering instincts. Turkey went for the kill in 1964 and was only stopped from a full invasion, by ........ whom?

Some pieces of the 1963-1964 puzzle are coming together.

LOL. You are so funny.

Turkey launching air strikes against Cyprus in August 64 was probably because of the the British aims laid out in a secret cabinet level document from 4 months earlier. There was me thinking that Grivas launching a major attack against Kokkina, in defiance of the UN who were seeking to negotiate a local cease-fire there, had something to do with. Well now I have been set straight I guess by the sage and oracle that is GiG (or is that sage and onion ?). LOL

Still kind of refreshing to see you move away from attempts at blatant distortion to pure fantasy - they say a change is as good as a rest.

The main reson of Turkey's inevitable intervention which carried out in December 1964 was factually and clearly stated in a telegram from state department to united nations, dated 21st of May



https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=I0 ... 64&f=false

[GreekIslandGirl]

Who was the intended recipient of this document GiG ? The MoD or the Policy committee ?

Why don't you just make something up that satisfies you since you don't like either what the document states or what Mallinson reports.

It's not 'a plain fact that Mallinosn says' the above as you have NOT come up with the quote that actually "says" that!

.... a secret briefing paper for the Defence and Oversea Policy (Offical) Committee:

The above is exactly what is in the google books link of Mallinson's book - your source - including the missing s on overseas. I have given this link countless times. I have given a screenshot of it countless times.

And yet earlier you were screaming everyone said it was "written by the MoD". Make your mind up

Anyway, time-waster, it's in the document name.

My claims are different to YOUR distortions and misinterpretations! You're the one who is wrong, not Mallinson. Yet you are too arrogant to admit where you made the mistake.

You claimed the document was produced for the MoD. Mallinson says it was a secret briefing paper for the Policy Committee.

I didn't claim anything. I quoted the actual document which said it 'was prepared at MoD instigation. That's the actual document.

Where you're confused is perhaps misreading Mallinson when he describes the activity of a handover. He says the paper was submitted by Frank Mottershead, who he identifies as a Ministry of Defence Deputy Secretary, for the committee. This is later qualified further within the document.

It was entitled as a brief. The Brief was for the Policy Committee. Mallinson says that. It is clear that the intended recipient was the policy committee, from both the title (that your purposely left the word 'briefing' out of originally) and from Mallinsons description of the document.

I don't have a problem with the brief. The brief was to give 'co-ordinated advice to Ministers on the "British Aims for Cyprus". I've quoted this before. You seem to think briefing Ministers is something strange. It's routine!

What I do not accept is that something that was explicitly described in the document itself as being a suggestion of the High Commissioner is therefore an expression of the official policy of the British Government and a 'British aim for Cyprus'.

Tough! A number of government officials were probably consulted to draw up the "British Aims for Cyprus". There's nothing surprising there. The document makes several references to "HMG", "British Government's view", "HMG's view", etc. Again you seem startled by what is standard procedure. Basically either too stupid, trolling, derailing or all three.

We know absolutely as absolute fact that the document in question said that is was a suggestion of the high commissioner that TC be given aid etc etc.

- Let me help you with that euphemistic "aid" since the quote is stuck in your throat: "..by giving financial and other assistance for the resettling of those Turkish Cypriots ...."

Again, it's standard procedure to consult interested parties. It doesn't say the High Commissioner was in the meeting! It's a brief, a paper, a document describing the conclusions that make up the "British Aims for Cyprus" that were prepared at MoD instigation.

In fact the document states "The issues are well set out in Despatch No.4 from the High Commissioner in Cyprus" It then goes on to list what the dispatches were that were adopted as part of the "British Aims for Cyprus" that the Ministers were briefed about. It goes on "His principles conclusions are ...". So his views were in the document that was drawn up. Why shouldn't he be consulted in formulating HMG's views?

your attempt to distract from your own blatant distortions

And yet all we find evidence of are mistakes upon errors upon lies shifting from pillar to post as your little brain tries to bury the contents that trouble you so.

[insan]

British Aims for Cyprus

Conclusions

14. (c) If Mr Tumioja and others reach the conclusion that a "pro-Greek" solution is the only possible one the main problem will be to bring the Turks to accept this conclusion. It would seem well for the political departments to begin to consider now how, with the Americans and other countries, we might best seek to bring this about.

And we know what happened next .....

We do indeed - Mr Tumioja did not reach the conclusion that a "pro-Greek" solution was the only possible one.

Actually they achieved the first step of what they had struggled for; while pushing TCs out of the government and keeping them in a neverending limbo...

cymay64.png

https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=FM ... sh&f=false

During the struggle of achieveing the second step that was very relentless to TCs; actually the Greek-GC duo was digging their own holes... a relentless and sneaky struugle which cost thousands of loss of lives, loss of hopes, happiness and a lot more...




https://books.google.com.cy/books?id=17 ... ey&f=false

[erolz66]

Who was the intended recipient of this document GiG ? The MoD or the Policy committee ?

Why don't you just make something up that satisfies you since you don't like either what the document states or what Mallinson reports.

Classic GiG. How to avoid answering the question. The document shows that the intended recipient was the policy committee. Mallinson said the document was for the policy committee. I am asking who YOU think the intended recipient of this document was. Why is it that you avoid answering this simple question ?

The above is exactly what is in the google books link of Mallinson's book - your source - including the missing s on overseas. I have given this link countless times. I have given a screenshot of it countless times.

And yet earlier you were screaming everyone said it was "written by the MoD". Make your mind up

Classic GiG. First you make a claim that no where I have shown Mallinson said the document was for the policy committee. I show exactly where, yet again, he said exactly that and you just move on to more untruths, ignoring that you have spent pages and pages saying I have not shown it , I have not shown it, when patently I have time and time again.

Screaming in forum terms would be using outsize text and coloured text. Where I have I done this ? Where have I said that everyone said it was written by the MoD. Shall I behave like you, the petulant child bully and simply scream (use oversized coloured text) over and over and over and over 'show me the quote' where I said "everyone said it was written by the MoD" instead of rational discussion ? Over and over and calling you a lier. No I shall not because I am not like you GiG.

Anyway, time-waster, it's in the document name.

That you try and make out that because a document has Policy Committee in it's title , it means it was produced by the Policy Committee is exactly the kind of distortion of truth by you that I am highlighting here. I will ask again GiG who was the intended recipient of this document. You will not answer this simple question because you never do. All you will do is avoid answering it. It is a fact that originally your left out the word 'brief' from the title, then you tried to argue that the word brief was not part of the title. Why did you do this GiG ?

You claimed the document was produced for the MoD. Mallinson says it was a secret briefing paper for the Policy Committee.

I didn't claim anything. I quoted the actual document which said it 'was prepared at MoD instigation. That's the actual document.

You said, your exact word verbatim (page 13 of this thread 2nd post from bottom)

A paper prepared for the Ministry of Defence!

That you now claim 'you did not claim anything' but only quoted from the actual document just yet again shows how much you just ignore absolute undeniable truth when it suits you to do so. Who was the intended recipient of this document GiG ? You said it was prepared for the MoD. Are you seriously saying now that there was no intent on your part when you said that the document was prepared for the MoD to try and suggest that the MoD was the intended recipient of the document ? That what you meant was merely that the document was instigated by the MoD even though what you actually said was it was prepared for the MoD ? Is that your claim now ?

Where you're confused is perhaps misreading Mallinson when he describes the activity of a handover. He says the paper was submitted by Frank Mottershead, who he identifies as a Ministry of Defence Deputy Secretary, for the committee.

Are you seriously suggesting that Malinson is not saying the intended recipient of the document was the Policy Committee itself ? That Mallinson does not mean the document was submitted to the policy committee, but actually he means it was submitted (to persons he does not mention) on behalf of the Policy Committee, that this is what he meant when he wrote 'for the policy committee' ? Is this your argument, whilst you try and deny that you distort factual truth to suit your needs ?

This is later qualified further within the document.

No where in the document does it qualify that the document was written BY the policy committee (another one of your untrue claims). What the document says is that it was produced at the instigation of the MoD. No where in the document does it qualify that the document was submitted to anyone on behalf of (for) the policy committee. It does not qualify either of these things in the document because neither of them are true.

I don't have a problem with the brief. The brief was to give 'co-ordinated advice to Ministers on the "British Aims for Cyprus". I've quoted this before. You seem to think briefing Ministers is something strange. It's routine!

Yes the top secret document was a brief to give co-ordinated advise to Ministers. A very specific set of high level cabinet Ministers that make up the Defence and Overseas Policy (Offical) Committee. That is why the document is titled as it is, that is why the document number is a DO one - because the intended recipients of this top secret brief were the Ministers who were members of this policy committee. That is the truth. You distortion is that it was a document produced BY these ministers, when in fact it was produced for them (as Mallinsons says) - they were the intended recipients. This was not a document to be given to Ministers in general. Indeed it was not a document to be given to any Ministers other than those cabinet level Ministers that made up that policy committee. Hence the top secret designation and the 'Defence and Overseas (Official) Policy Committee Brief title to the document.

What I do not accept is that something that was explicitly described in the document itself as being a suggestion of the High Commissioner is therefore an expression of the official policy of the British Government and a 'British aim for Cyprus'.

Tough! A number of government officials were probably consulted to draw up the "British Aims for Cyprus". There's nothing surprising there. The document makes several references to "HMG", "British Government's view", "HMG's view", etc. Again you seem startled by what is standard procedure. Basically either too stupid, trolling, derailing or all three.

Classic GiG yet again. Even if this was a document produced BY the policy committee, which it was not, why would they describe an official aim or policy of the British Government as being a suggestion by the High Commissioner to Cyprus ? They would not describe it as such unless what the document represented was in fact a report of a suggestion by the High Commissioner, not official government policy or aim. If it really were an aim or policy of the British Government then the document would say it was such. The document does not say it is such. It explicitly says that this was a suggestion by the High Commissioner. YOU are the one insisting that it is an aim or policy of the British Government, not based on what the document actually says but based on your distortion as to who the intended recipients of the document were, who the authors of the document were and that a general heading means everything under that heading is that heading.

Again, it's standard procedure to consult interested parties.

Who was consulting interested parties ? Are you saying that the policy committee, in drawing up this document (which they did not do) , consulted the High Commissioner, decided that his suggestion should become an official British aim and then forgot to say this in the document but instead decided to only report he suggested it and rely on it being under a general heading of British aims. The whole conceit is absurd. It was not an official aim of the British at this time to give financial and other assistance for the resettling of TC for whom Cyprus appeared intolerable or to encourage Makarios or anyone else to do so. We know such was not an official British aim because they never did it !

It doesn't say the high Commissioner was in the meeting!

It does not need to say it. It was a top secret briefing document for the Policy Committee. The only people who could have been in the meeting in which the document was presented would have been those cabinet level Ministers that were members of the policy committee. Such policy committee are comprised of cabinet level Ministers - those are the people that set government policy.

It's a brief, a paper, a document describing the conclusions that make up the "British Aims for Cyprus" that were prepared at MoD instigation.

Who were the intended recipients of this document prepared at MoD instigation ? The intended recipients were the policy committee. You have to avoid and distract and divert from this truth, with all your games and word play and distraction and screaming and accusations against me because once you realise the truth of this, your claim, screamed in oversized and bold text, page 11 last post that "It was a DOCUMENT prepared by the Defence and Oversea Policy (Official) Committee" can be seen as the distortion of truth that it is and your whole house of cards built around the absurd claim that everything in it is therefore official British Government policy comes tumbling down.

In fact the document states "The issues are well set out in Despatch No.4 from the High Commissioner in Cyprus"

It does

It then goes on to list what the dispatches were that were adopted as part of the "British Aims for Cyprus" that the Ministers were briefed about.

Total distortion. The document does not say these reported conclusions of the issues by the High Commissioner have been, are or should be adopted as the aims of the British Government. Even the idea that issues can be adopted as aims is absurd. Nor does it say that the suggestion of the High Commissioner have been, are or should be an official aim of the British Government for Cyprus. The only one saying that is YOU - based on a general title for an entire section of the document. I could just as well claim, if I were a systematic distorter of truth like you, that it was an official aim of the British Government to convince Turkey that no guarantee Makarios might give to them with regards to safeguards or the like could trusted. I could do that but I am not a systematic distorter of truth like you are.

It goes on "His principles conclusions are ...". So his views were in the document that was drawn up. Why shouldn't he be consulted in formulating HMG's views?

Classic GiG. So are you now suggesting that the Policy Committee, at the instigation of the MoD, decided to draw up a document or have it drawn up for them, where they would lay out British aims for Cyprus and in doing this they consulted with the High Commissioner and decided to adopt as official Government policy his suggestion that TC should be given financial and other assistance to resettle out side of Cyprus. They then wrote all this down and that became document DO (O) 64/26. Is this your theory ?

And yet all we find evidence of are mistakes upon errors upon lies shifting from pillar to post as your little brain tries to bury the contents that trouble you so.

The document has within it many things I do not like and that trouble me but I do not deny them because, unlike you, I do not deny the truth. I am not over the moon that the then High Commissioner reach some conclusions that he did. I am not over the moon that he suggested some of the things he did. I am not over the moon that the British Governments view at that time was that a 'pro Greek' solution was the best solution. I do not like any of these things but these things are true and are shown by the document. What however I can not abide is your distortions of things that the document does not show to suit your agenda. I can not abide the contempt you hold for truth. That is what I can not abide.

At the core of your distortion is the (screamed) un-truth that this document SO (O) 64/26 was "a DOCUMENT prepared by the Defence and Oversea Policy (Official) Committee". This is not true. It is clear it is not true when you realised that it was in fact a document that the intended recipient of was the Policy Committee. The policy committee, made up of cabinet level ministers, did not draw up (or have drawn up) a document to be used as a brief to themselves, the same ministers that created it. It is absurd. The truth is this was a document that was drawn up by someone other than the policy committee (and I am pretty sure what department did this, though you seemingly have no idea nor any interest as that would merely be a truth compared to the much more useful to your needs lie) at the instigation of the MoD in order to brief those cabinet level ministers that were the policy committee, so that they all sung from the same hymn sheet with regards to what any of them might say (or withhold) from the UN Mediator. That is the truth.

[GreekIslandGirl]

... If it really were an aim or policy of the British Government then the document would say it was such.

"If it really were an aim"...

As usual, you write so much crap, this is only an example of the delusions and burial of truth that you systematically employ.

Yes, they really were an "aim". Why? Because the document points are entitled:

"British Aims for Cyprus"

[erolz66]

Yes, they really were an "aim". Why? Because the document points are entitled:

"British Aims for Cyprus"

Classic GiG distortion of the truth of what the document actually says to suit your needs. It was not an official aim or policy of the British government at this time to give financial and other assistance for the resettling of TC for whom Cyprus appeared intolerable. The Policy Committee did not set this out as an aim in this document (the committee did not even produce this document, despite your attempts to distort the truth and make out they did). Such was exactly what the document says it was - a suggestion by the High Commissioner. The idea that everything and anything written in this document under the heading British aims in Cyprus is therefore an aim of the British Government as defined by the Policy Committee, who did not even write the document, is simply absurd. It also says under this heading

"It will become increasing difficult to (and soon, impossible) to solve the problem by any means other than violence"

To claim that the above, because it appears under a heading of "British Aims for Cyprus" in a document created to brief the ministers of the policy committee, shows that it was a British Aim in Cyprus to solve the problem by violence, would be a gross distortion of the reality of what the document says. Just as your claim is a gross distortion of the reality of what the document says.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Yes, they really were an "aim". Why? Because the document points are entitled:

"British Aims for Cyprus"

Classic GiG distortion of the truth of what the document actually says to suit your needs.

The quotes were 100% correct (2) and the points were entitled "British Aims for Cyprus" ( plus 2).

It's another classic denial of the truth by you ( equal 5).

[erolz66]

It's another classic denial of the truth by you ( equal 5).

The absurdity of your claim that it was official British policy or an aim of the British government at this time to give financial and other assistance for the resettling of TC for whom Cyprus appeared intolerable, is shown by the fact that not a single TC was given such or even offered such. You would try and have us believe that it was official British government policy and aim and yet they failed to find a single TC to whom they could give such to. Ludicrous, absurd and ridiculous. The plain and simple truth is that the British Government at this time made no public offers of such assistance to TC, did not give such assistance to any TC and the reason why was because it was NOT an official government policy or aim to do so. Your assertion that this document shows it was is a gross distortion of reality to suit your needs.

You will not of course deal with this glaring discrepancy. You will just go on and on and on with your distorted propaganda. This is what you do. This is what you have always done.

[GreekIslandGirl]

Your assertion that this document shows it was is a gross distortion of reality to suit your needs.

Doing somersaults again, strawman!

1. My quotes were 100% correct as you finally admitted. (Blood from a stone.)

2. The said point was under the title "British Aims for Cyprus". (You refuse to accept this, but that's your bitter pill to swallow.)

3. I made no distortions or assertions that the aims were carried out. (What world do you live in?)

4. Indeed, as far as "reality" goes, I said if they had been carried out, then 1974 would never have happened!

[erolz66]

Your assertion that this document shows it was is a gross distortion of reality to suit your needs.

Doing somersaults again, strawman!

1. My quotes were 100% correct as you finally admitted. (Blood from a stone.)

I NEVER questioned that the quotes were real quotes. I do not deny evident truth - that is your speciality. that you can even make out I ever claimed the quotes were not real just shows how much you will distort reality to suit your needs. I pointed out the FACT that you purposely selectively quoted from the document - even starting a quote mid sentence specifically to create a misleading impression just as you intentionally have distorted the truth as to who the intended recipient of this document was. This is what you do. It is what you always do and have always done.

2. The said point was under the title "British Aims for Cyprus". (You refuse to accept this, but that's your bitter pill to swallow.)

I never disputed there was a such a title heading. I do not deny evident truth - that is your speciality. That you can even make out I disputed there was such a heading in the document and the selective quote you made from it was under this heading just shows how much you will distort reality to suit your needs. What I have disputed and do dispute is your ridiculous assertion that everything and anything in the section under this title was therefore official British policy and an aim for Cyprus.

3. I made no distortions or assertions that the aims were carried out. (What world do you live in?)

Disingenuous claptrap. If these had of ACTUALLY been official British aims, then the British would have offered such assistance to Turkish Cypriots. They did not because doing so simple was not British policy or an aim.

4. Indeed, as far as "reality" goes, I said if they had been carried out, then 1974 would never have happened!

Not only were they not carried out, no attempt what so ever was made by Britain to even try and carry them out - because doing so was not an Official British aim or policy.