Cyprus-Forum.com

[Bananiot]

Greeks and Turks have not always been enemies. This is true only in the sick minds of chauvinists, racists and nationalists from both sides. Eleftherios Venizelos, may I remind you, proposed Kemal Ataturk for a Nobel price for peace, back in the 1930's. He signed a treaty of friendship and non agression with Turkey, for which he was of course cursed by the same bunch of idiots.

On a personal level many long lasting friendships were solded between Turks and Greeks. I think, if it wasn't for religion, our people would have been great friends and the two countries very prosperous and successful. This is another case where religion stands in the way of peace and prosperity.

[cypezokyli]

Greeks and Turks will always be enemies as far as i am concerned i agree with malaka on that. Turks where always the Invaders in Cyprus not the Greeks Turkey would take away the whole of Cyprus Tommorrow if they Could, the only thing stoping them is the EU and West what if the West or EU said to turkey if you try to take all of Cyprus we wont get involved? i beleive Turkey would then try and take the whole of Cyprus dont forget when Turkey invaded in 1974 they wanted to take all of Cyprus the thing that stoped them was the UN peacekeepers and West from doing taking all of Cyprus

greekcypriotgurl_UK , i asked you again :
would oyu be kind enough to share your sources with the rest of the ignorant us ?
is it a book , is it stories you ve heard... is it an organisation... ?

[Kifeas]

GCG it was me that spoke about Tylliria. Grivas, attacked the Turkish Cypriots for no reason what so ever and Turkey came to their support, just as Greece would come to our support had they been able to in 1974. This proves that by our stupid mistakes we drew Turkey into Cyprus (and Greece) whilst we could have worked hard to make Independence work. We shoulder most of the blame and this is acknowledged by all independed historians but to keep uttering that we should be forgiven because Turkey did worse things 300 years ago is extremely childish and wins no points for us in the international arena but ironic loughter instead.

Bananiot, it might have been a stupid act on the part of Grivas to attack the Kokkina-Mansura villages (enclave) in Tylliria, especially without informing neither Makarios not the Greek government of Papandreou regarding his intended “initiative” and at a time in which negotiations for the Achenson plan were still underway; but please do not say such distortions that the attack was completely for no reason!

It is a well known fact that the two villages on the coast of Tylliria were converted to a mini-military /naval base, with some 400 armed to the teeth T/Cs and mainland Turks guarding it, through which weapons and ammunition were loaded off a ship coming from Turkey every other night, and from there "secretly" transferred to the enclaves around Cyprus -especially to the main one north of Nicosia. This particular spot was the main source of importing weapons for the TMT during all the previous period, and it was then indeed a source of concern for the G/C side.

Therefore, the attack for no apparent reason whatsoever, which you claimed above, is not accurate, to say the least. If you are unable to realize that all the mistakes and attacks the G/C side did during that period, were mainly due to the madness and feared that conquered it due to the fact that the T/C leadership and TMT, in close cooperation with the Turkish military and the deep-state, were indeed plotting the way in which once the right opportunity would arise, Turkey would invade and partition Cyprus, then you are telling us half the truth of the story. They (T/C leadership and the TMT) have made their intentions well understood since the very begging of the inter-communal fighting that starter in Nicosia in December 23 1963, namely that they had absolutely very little interested in co-operating with the G/C leadership so that tension would be appeased and that they would also be willing to find ways in which to make the RoC survive and work for everybody. To the contrary, most of their acts at the time were equally if not more provocative and aggressive, sending the signal to the G/C side that what they cared about was only how to facilitate Turkish intervention and partition, and for that they would be willing to suffer any casualties –if not to invite them to a large extent so that their purpose would be achieve more “justifiably.”

This is proved by two major events (actions) that the T/C leadership, the TMT and the mainland Turkish continent did, right immediately once or after fighting started in Nicosia among paramilitary groups from both sides along the central Nicosia Green line and the suburbs. The first one was to gear nearly all their resources, not to the protection and defense of their own civilians around the T/C Nicosia quarter -as one would have naturally and logically expected or anticipated, but instead to occupy the Nicosia /Kyrenia passage road and the entire surrounding mountain areas overlooking the passage on both sides (Aspri Moutti, Ayios Hilarion and Koca kayia.) This single act, which took the G/C side out of a surprise, had the single purpose of blocking off Kyrenia from Nicosia and allow through the Bogazi passage road, the facilitation of a Turkish landing in Kyrenia and its easy connection with Nicosia on the south, and proves that not only they did not expect fighting to erupt in Nicosia, but in fact they welcomed it –if not provoked it, in order to set up their above very clearly preplanned crucial strategic move on Pentadaktilos mountains, something which proved to be the case in 1974 when they made use of precisely this strategic advantage which they gained since December 1963, and which played the most detrimental role in the success of the Turkish invasion.

The second act or event that proves their welcoming of the eruption of fighting in 1963, but also their unwillingness to co-operate for the survival of the RoC and their role in it, was their immediate and clearly pre-planned “initiative” to unilaterally pronounce the death of the RoC and their withdrawal from it and the formation of their “transitional Turkish Cypriot republic,” only days after December 1963, and before any G/C political or other actor would have uttered a single word against their continuing presence in a B-communal state. Up to that time, the only thing that the G/C side had done was to propose the 13 point amendments to the constitution, for which they (T/C leadership) haven’t even announced their official position to it (only Turkey had done so on its behalf which was a rejection without discussion.) Of course later, in February 1964, when the issue went to the UN to be discussed and the first resolution was issued by the Security Council -which unlike what Turkey and the T/C leadership had hoped would do, namely to rubber-stamp the dissolution and the end of the RoC; it instead did the opposite and called on the two sides to start negotiations in order to solve their differences on the political level, together with it’s decision to send the first UN forces in Cyprus in replacement of the British contingent that initially assume this role; the G/C side took full advantage of this fact and withheld the RoC alone, as it became after the events of the previous 2 months and did not allow the return of the T/Cs back to their government positions in the civil service and the state, until a mutually agreed settlement of the constitutional amendments could be reached.

The T/C side likes to call this an usurping of their separate community based constitutional rights, and perhaps it can be seen in this way if it is looked in isolation, the fact however remains that it was the T/C leadership that first withdraw from the RoC, alone and unilaterally and only a few days after fighting erupted, for the sole purpose of causing the dissolution of the RoC through setting it out of any constitutional framework and therefore justify a Turkish intervention /invasion based on the 1960 treaty of guarantee and partition Cyprus. It was clearly a pre-planned trap that they have set up against the G/C side, which aimed at taking advantage of the growing discontent of it from the admittedly unfair and dysfunctional 1960 constitutional provisions, in order to partition the island. It would have been proved successful, and Turkish invasion and partition would have been “achieved” since then, if the UN did not miraculously save the RoC from it, literally at the very last minute.

You all too often like to show the G/C side as the sole responsible for the pre 1974 period, and the T/C side (leadership) as the sole victim, however this is not the case! The G/C side (leadership) did a lot of mistakes and it had its own political agenda, as it was revealed by the ill conceived Akritas plan -which by the way has never been implemented in practice as it was envisioned, perhaps only because its instigators did a lot of miscalculations and were caught out of a surprise by the existence and initiation of the parallel partition plan of the T/C leadership, and found themselves amateurishly following the events as they were determined by the T/C initiatives instead, which in their turn rendered the Akritas plan completely useless even before it was put in motion. However, the Akritas plan -which became known to the T/C side (and everybody else,) two years after 1963/64 events begun; did not assume or envision the achievement of its ultimate goal (Enosis) through the use of any violent means (only as a defense to initiated T/C attacks,) but instead only through (deceptive) political means and initiatives.

In a nutshell, both sides did terrible mistakes during that period after 1960, and the blame goes on both to an equal degree. The G/C side (leadership) for not been able to properly and adequately control and discipline the paramilitary forces that were arbitrarily formed in 1963, in view of the constant “secret” TMT armament build up and organizing since early 1960. This negligence resulted in uncontrolled, overactive and murderous in many cases attacks against T/Cs, once and after the unfortunate events of December 1963 started. The G/C side also is to be blamed for not patiently waiting through continues dialogue to earn the necessary trust of the levelheaded forces within the T/C community, and then propose the necessary constitutional amendments, instead of doing so at a time when tension was at its highest pick and when the extremists of the TMT -with Denktash in their leadership, had been in full control of the will of the T/C community. Makarios is also to be blamed for not disassociating himself from Unionists at an earlier stage (he apparently decided to gradually start doing so only after the 1963/64 events, and finally completely after 1967,) giving the right to the T/C moderate (if there was any) leadership to have all the doubts regarding his real intentions.

The T/C side on the other hand, had shown an unparallel in provocative and adventurous nature attitude, and an over aggressive desire not to seek cooperation and understanding on the G/C concerns and grievances over the constitution, but instead to exploit every possible opportunity that would arise in order to put forward initiatives that no other minority of their size and which is spread all around a place, would have ever assumed in world history. They behaved in this way, only because they had the full backing and encouragement of Turkey on their side.

Under such circumstances and conditions, in which each side's aims appear or are perceived to pose such a paramount threat and fear over the interests, security and safety of the other side, the G/Cs to the T/Cs due to their superior numbers in Cyprus, and the T/Cs to the G/Cs due to the mighty, proximity and threatening backing of Turkey and its invading orientations, it is not illogical or difficult for a blinding psychotic climate and mood to be developed among both of them, converting every little sparking into a calamity. It is here were the role of outside forces is put into serious questioning and criticism, which, instead of helping the two sides calm down by alleviating and entertaining their fears and their paranoia, they went completely to the opposite direction of enhancing them through their equally reckless handlings. I believe, in order to make sense of our history, we all need to see it through a more neutral and scientific approach (try to analyze and explain things through socio-political scientific eyes,) instead of doing so in order to merely load the blame either on the one or on the other side alone, so that we victimize one of the two sides more than the other for the purpose of justifying our contemporary solution perspectives, views and agendas.

My impression Bananiot is that many times (above example) you are doing precisely the later -even though you are doing it for the sake and as an advocate of the T/C side, instead of the G/C one that someone would have naturally expected a G/C to do. In a nutshell, you are merely helping the Turkish Cypriot propaganda become more effective -nevertheless the propaganda of one of the two sides. This will only invite counter propaganda from a G/C perspective, and naturally the hatred of your own community towards you and your party line, because what you are doing is propaganda (as above,) and not a service to history and truth as such!

And I also have one comment for the T/Cs. It is your right not to wish to justify or even try to explain and understand the G/C behavior and stance at the time! However, you should also be ten times more unable and unwilling to justify, explain and understand the contemporary Turkish government and military stance in relation to the Kurdish issue and in relation to the events that took place in the past, or even nowadays, in the southeast region of Turkey and which stem out of the Turkish military actions there. For me there is no basic difference between the two cases and the underlying parameters based on which they develop or evolve around. Why do you justify and explain the official Turkish stance in the case of the Turkish /Kurdish issue? Because I know you do?

[Kikapu]

Kifeas,
You have written a very convincing piece, and for the sake of argument, lets say all is true. The question I have then is, which was raised by BAKALA few weeks ago I belive, when Grivas went on his killing spree, what would have happened to all the T/C if Turkey did not intervened. Who was going to stand in Griva's way? How do you think Cyprus would look today? Would the "all Greek" Cyprus today would look back and feel sorry for the completely wiped out T/C, or would just be comfortable having their "own Island" living as if nothing happened? Lets give the Turks a little credit for not wanting to wipe out the G/C completely, otherwise today would have had a "all Turkish" Cyprus face.

[Kifeas]

Kifeas,
You have written a very convincing piece, and for the sake of argument, lets say all is true. The question I have then is, which was raised by BAKALA few weeks ago I belive, when Grivas went on his killing spree, what would have happened to all the T/C if Turkey did not intervened. Who was going to stand in Griva's way? How do you think Cyprus would look today? Would the "all Greek" Cyprus today would look back and feel sorry for the completely wiped out T/C, or would just be comfortable having their "own Island" living as if nothing happened? Lets give the Turks a little credit for not wanting to wipe out the G/C completely, otherwise today would have had a "all Turkish" Cyprus face.

Which specific incident are you referencing to, when you say that Grivas went on his killing “spree?” Are you talking about an incident in 1963/64 period or about 1974?

[GreekCypriotGurl_UK]

Bananiot
Greeks and Turks have not always been enemies. This is true only in the sick minds of chauvinists, racists and nationalists from both sides. Eleftherios Venizelos, may I remind you, proposed Kemal Ataturk for a Nobel price for peace, back in the 1930's. He signed a treaty of friendship and non agression with Turkey, for which he was of course cursed by the same bunch of idiots.

Ataturk himself, who lay down the policy of modern Turkey and is considered by the Turks as their national hero, regarded Cyprus as being particularly important for Turkey. Professor Dervis Manizade in an article in the Istanbul daily "Milliyet" (7.20.78) quoted Attaturk as saying while addressing military commanders "Pay attention to Cyprus, this island is important to us."

[GreekCypriotGurl_UK]

Bananiot

Greeks and Turks have not always been enemies. This is true only in the sick minds of chauvinists, racists and nationalists from both sides. Eleftherios Venizelos, may I remind you, proposed Kemal Ataturk for a Nobel price for peace, back in the 1930's. He signed a treaty of friendship and non agression with Turkey, for which he was of course cursed by the same bunch of idiots

banantiot these are ataturks quotes about Cyprus 7.20.78 Attaturk quoted as saying while addressing military commanders: "Pay attention to Cyprus, this island is important to us."


Ali Nesim reported in "Dogus 9.20.84 "Ataturk, replying to a question on Cyprus after the annexation of Alexandretta said: The turn of Cyprus has not yet come."

[GreekCypriotGurl_UK]

Turkey would have invaded Cyprus still if it was not for the Turkish Cypriots they had a long term policy on taking Cyprus before and they used Turkish Cypriots as a excuse.

The Turkish Cypriot Leader Rauf Denktash himself who stated Milliyet" 7.23.85 "Naturally Turkey has strategic interests in Cyprus. It is fortunate for Turkey that the Turkish Cypriot community exists here. Even if the Turkish Cypriot community did not exist, Turkey would not have left Cyprus to Greece

By Ozal, (...) Prime Minister of Turkey who, referring to the UDI (NB. unilateral declaration of independence of the occupied part) of November 1983, said: "Cyprus is an island which pierces the middle of Turkey like a dagger. It is extremely vital from the viewpoint of our security. This island should not be in enemy hands. The existence of the Turks in northern Cyprus is a guarantee in this direction."

[andri_cy]

Thats good information GCG. Thanks.

[michalis5354]

Ataturk himself, who lay down the policy of modern Turkey and is considered by the Turks as their national hero, regarded Cyprus as being particularly important for Turkey. Professor Dervis Manizade in an article in the Istanbul daily "Milliyet" (7.20.78) quoted Attaturk as saying while addressing military commanders "Pay attention to Cyprus, this island is important to us."

Attaturk is not in Turkey at the moment. And the policies of country do not stay but they change accordingly. I do not think that Turkey set up a strategy in relation to Cyprus 200 years ago and this strategy will be there for ever. This is not the case. Policies , governments do change according the the long term interest of the country.

How can you explain the differences between Edjevit and Erdogan in relation to the Cyprus issue? Edjevit claimed that the Cyprus issue has been solved in 1974 . This was not the case with Erdogan who was more constructive!