Now did I write that? Two sides to every coin? Yet you only quoted one side of what I wrote about tc provocation, so please let me quote the other side of of what I wrote but which you omitted, just scroll up and you'll see :
Ok, you didn't explicitly say that it never happened that was something I inferred from your post. If that is not what you intended please accept my apologies. As for TC provocation, another inference I made from your post is that you think the first move was made by the GCs and that Taksim was solely in response to GC aggression and desire for Enosis. Again please accept my apologies if I am wrong.
Do you think enonsis idea was in response to the threat of intervention by Turkey with taksim or even complete rule of cyprus by turkey as its aim or was the desire for taksim in response to the gc desire for enonsis, or even to allow for a peaceful partial enosis?
I would say neither.
In my opinion all these things had a bearing on each other. In my opinion Taksim/Enosis were never reponses to any one thing. They were simply the desires, however misguided, of the two separate communities. The 1923 'exchange of populations' set the precedent that Greek and Turkish communities wherever they exist should be separated. It went a step further, it resulted in two highly nationalist states with aims to achieve demographic and cultural homogeneity. The population of Cyprus found it very easy to categorise themselves as either Greek or Turkish, thus their desires for Enosis and Taksim. One point though, you talk of a 'peaceful partial enosis', what exactly do you mean by this? Surely this is a contradiction in terms. How could partition have been achieved peacefully in Cyprus?