Cyprus-Forum.com

[brother]

Forget land gc are first guilty of stealing our lives.

[Zeybek]

I reject the claim that the G/C are the govt of Cyprus. They are nothing more than a self-governing part of Greece.

[Othellos]

Talk about regurgitating tierd old worn out propaganda like a stuck record! In 1960 the TC community decide it wanted to steal 37% of Cyprus from the GC community. So it agreed a settlement then forced it to break down then convinced the GC to attack them, then picked up their belongings moved into tent cities (buring their own homes along the way in many cases and killing their own women men and children for good measure) lived in these for upto 11 years and then waited for the GC and Greece to start killing each other and execute a coup - all because they kenw in the end they would be able to steal 37% of Cyprus from the GC. The whole thing has always been about TC greed. All the death, all the suffering, all the pain was all down to TC wanting to steal from GC.

Actually there is a certain level of historic truth in the above, even if this was not your intention to write. The idea of partitioning Cyprus with the northern part going to Turkey appeared first sometime in the late 1950's when the island was still a British colony, and if I am not mistaken the percentage of the north part was not too different from the 37 % that is being occupied by Turkey at present.
It is also true that after intercommunal violence broke out again in December 1963, the TMT "strongly encouraged" (to put it mildly) many TC's to leave their homes behind and relocate into economically unviable (but strategically located) enclaves which in the event of an invasion could serve as Turkey's bridgeheads in Cyprus, as it did happen. At the same time it is not a secret that several TC's were murdered by the TMT because they either advocated cooperation with the GC's or simply because they did not agree with Turkey's partition policy in Cyprus. Maybe it is not all "propaganda" after all.

O.

[turkcyp]

The greediness of some people is without any limits. They want to illegally occupy just for themselves the 37% of the island (while the are just 18%), and at the same time share the remaining of the island.

Hey Piratis,

We are greedy, and also thieves. We steal stuff, and use it for our own amusement.

So why are you still trying to form a republic with us. Lets do the partition, and we get the amount of land we have in 1963, and you get the amount of land you have in 1963, so we go our own ways.

Sounds interesting?

Quite frankly, I do not want to live with somebody who is accusing me continiously with theft, and I am sure that you do not want to live with somebody who steals. You never know, we form a goverment and 5 years down the road we may want to steal from you guys even more.

You know what they say in Turkish "Can cikar, huy cikmaz" (you will die but your habits won't) so we are habitual thief so please do not ask for reunion with us. Just keep on campaigning for partition in your side of Cyprus. I mean afterall if we accept all of your demands and become a minority in RoC then again we are thieves you know. Why do you want to risk being robbed again?

And I further advise you to put a 20 feet wall around your partitioned island so we never get in contact again. You never know we may start pick-pocketing you, or something.

Have a great day,

[insan]

Actually there is a certain level of historic truth in the above, even if this was not your intention to write. The idea of partitioning Cyprus with the northern part going to Turkey appeared first sometime in the late 1950's when the island was still a British colony, and if I am not mistaken the percentage of the north part was not too different from the 37 % that is being occupied by Turkey at present.
It is also true that after intercommunal violence broke out again in December 1963, the TMT "strongly encouraged" (to put it mildly) many TC's to leave their homes behind and relocate into economically unviable (but strategically located) enclaves which in the event of an invasion could serve as Turkey's bridgeheads in Cyprus, as it did happen. At the same time it is not a secret that several TC's were murdered by the TMT because they either advocated cooperation with the GC's or simply because they did not agree with Turkey's partition policy in Cyprus. Maybe it is not all "propaganda" after all.

I wonder what was GC ruling elite doing while TMT in colaboration with Turkey doing all that stuff... Long long before TMT was formed, in late 1800s Greeks with their GC collaborators were sowing the seeds of "megali idea" and "Enosis". In 60 years time they managed to wash the brains of whole GCs with these ideas and finally in 1950 they made it public with a plebicite organized by church and signed by %97 of GCs despite they knew TC community was against Enosis. The GC ruling elite always exerted too much to impose majority rule to TCs. In early 60s they made the worlds most disgusting and sneakiest bloody annihilation plan in order to take control of Cyprus and annex it with Greece. Finally in 1974, they tried their chance with a coup, backed by Greek Junta and a bunch of fascist Hellens; in order to make Enosis a fait a'compli. They always failed and defeated but still haven't learned their lessons from their mistakes...

[erolz]

Actually there is a certain level of historic truth in the above, even if this was not your intention to write. The idea of partitioning Cyprus with the northern part going to Turkey appeared first sometime in the late 1950's when the island was still a British colony, and if I am not mistaken the percentage of the north part was not too different from the 37 % that is being occupied by Turkey at present.

Yes proposals along partion lines existed in the 50s - I do not doubt that. That is however very different from saying that TC (as commuity) had a 'secret' plan to achieve this aim and thus created all the suffering of TC by themselves as a means of securing this political aim - with GC doing nothing against the TC community.

It is also true that after intercommunal violence broke out again in December 1963, the TMT "strongly encouraged" (to put it mildly) many TC's to leave their homes behind and relocate into economically unviable (but strategically located) enclaves which in the event of an invasion could serve as Turkey's bridgeheads in Cyprus, as it did happen.

The primary reason TC left their homes was fear of attack (and experience of attakc) from GC. That is without doubt in my opinion. It is certainly true that some elements of TMT did use 'pressure' (upto and including killing) to keep them from returning but they did not make them refugess in the first place. They became refugess because of the attacks by the larger stronger GC community (which also had all the power of the state by that time). That they went to enclaves that were to some degree 'protectable' by the meager TC force we did have is nothing other than inevitable.

At the same time it is not a secret that several TC's were murdered by the TMT because they either advocated cooperation with the GC's or simply because they did not agree with Turkey's partition policy in Cyprus.

It is true that such TC - TC killings did occur (as did GC - GC) and I have never denied it. However that that is true does not offer any proof for the lies that everything that happend to TC in this period was down to TC greed and a secret long term plan they had to 'steal' from GC - which is the rubbish Piratis is pedling. Neither does it prove or mean that the weaker smaller and vulnerable TC community was not subject to an organised and systematic attack on it from the larger stronger GC community as ameans to achieveing GC political aims that it had agreed to forego only 3 years earlier.

Maybe it is not all "propaganda" after all.
O.

What is propaganda is the idea that everything can be explaind by the fact that TC are sneaky theives as a people and that they 'orchistrated' all the pain and suffering and violence they experinced and inflicted it on themselves - so as to achieve 'stealing' form GC 11 years later.

What is also propaganda is the recent statement by TP that no TC was killed by a GC in the period of 63-74.

These are 'just' propaganda.

[Othellos]

Yes proposals along partion lines existed in the 50s - I do not doubt that. That is however very different from saying that TC (as commuity) had a 'secret' plan to achieve this aim and thus created all the suffering of TC by themselves as a means of securing this political aim - with GC doing nothing against the TC community.

What is it that makes you doubt that the Turkish side had its own secret plans that aimed in partitioning the island, especially when one such plan bearing the signatures of Kucuk and Denktash was found? A document that was dated 16/9/63 was found in the Vice President's office after inter communal violence broke out in December 1963. This plan (should one call it the "Denktahs-Kucuk" plan?) outlined a series of Turkish actions that aimed in partitioning Cyprus and establishing the foundations for a separate TC state through exploiting any GC ambitions to revise the Cypriot constitution. Among other things, the Turkish plan called for the creation of an "autonomous" TC administration as well as the withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriot VP, the MP’s and the civil servants from their offices and posts in order to assume responsibilities in the new "administration". The same plan also called for the concentration of TC's in one larger area in case hostilities broke out. And somewhere within its lines there was even a provision about importing "tourists" from Turkey so that the number of Turks on the island would increase. Doesn't all that sound familiar?

The primary reason TC left their homes was fear of attack (and experience of attakc) from GC. That is without doubt in my opinion. It is certainly true that some elements of TMT did use 'pressure' (upto and including killing) to keep them from returning but they did not make them refugess in the first place. They became refugess because of the attacks by the larger stronger GC community (which also had all the power of the state by that time). That they went to enclaves that were to some degree 'protectable' by the meager TC force we did have is nothing other than inevitable.

It is a fact that the because of the fighting there was a number of refugees from both sides. An independent committee that investigated the issue reported in 1/2/64 that about 5,500 TC's and 1,600 GC's were displaced because of the fighting. The UN Secretary General, estimated that eventually about 25,000 TC's were moved from their homes into other more predominantly Turkish towns or villages (enclaves). It therefore seems that 4 out of every 5 TC refugees from that time were displaced in accordance to the above-mentioned plan and upon Ankara's orders (who is therefore also responsible for making them refugees in the first place), not only by exploiting their justified under the circumstances fears but also by forcing them to move when they refused to do so.

Locking up about half of the island's TC population into military governed and economically unviable enclaves and exploiting them as a "strategic minority" served only Ankara and no one else. Having said that, I have no doubt that some short-sighted GC's failed to see that in the long run all these made ordinary TC's (and eventually GC's) to pay the price for Turkey's expansionist games in Cyprus.

It is true that such TC - TC killings did occur (as did GC - GC) and I have never denied it. However that that is true does not offer any proof for the lies that everything that happend to TC in this period was down to TC greed and a secret long term plan they had to 'steal' from GC - which is the rubbish Piratis is pedling.

While I can see your "steal" point, at the end of the day this is what happened. Since the 1950's there has always been a Turkish plan to divide Cyprus permanently. In doing so, thousands of GC's would have to be "relocated" from their ancestral lands so that a purely Turkish region would be formed in the north. Turkey's policy of establishing clearer geographic boundaries between the 2 communities in Cyprus was first implemented in 1958 with the eulogies of the British when about 700 GC's were evicted by the TMT in Omorphita. The conclusion came with the 1974 invasion and the ethnic cleansing of the GC's from the north part of Cyprus who had their properties and homes stolen from them at gunpoint. To this date, these people have been denied the right to return to their homes and properties many of which have been re-distributed by the TC occupation regime to Anatolian settlers, to TC's and even to foreigners.

Your overall position on this issue and about the lack of a Turkish plan btw may be self-contradicting. If the Turkish leadership was not acting upon a plan all these years as you are perhaps suggesting, then one may be compelled to seek a more "logical" explanation for their actions in the "looters and thieves" "theory". Personally I do not consider those TC's (or GC's) who currently reside in GC (or TC) owned properties as thieves as long as they a) recognize that these properties are not theirs and b) as long as they are ready to return them to their rightful owners when the time comes (if ever).

Neither does it prove or mean that the weaker smaller and vulnerable TC community was not subject to an organised and systematic attack on it from the larger stronger GC community as ameans to achieveing GC political aims that it had agreed to forego only 3 years earlier.

Looking at the whole picture, I would not say that the numerically smaller TC community in Cyprus is weaker when compared to the GC's. After all, the GC's are a majority in Cyprus but a minority in the region.

On the other hand, it is true that like the TC's, the GC's also had their own political aims which included ridding themselves from all those Constitutional provisions which they considered (and which to a great extend they were) unfair and had a practical impact on them. The given lack of trust between the 2 communities as well as the failure of Makarios and Kucuk to discuss openly and honestly their respective concerns as well as what was already going on in Cyprus in the first years of Independence did not help in averting a crisis that could have been easily predicted and that eventually broke out. That was just too bad for all of us here in Cyprus, because when it comes to the peaceful coexistence and cooperation among people who belong in different ethnic groups, honesty is not an option but an absolute requirement.

What is propaganda is the idea that everything can be explaind by the fact that TC are sneaky theives as a people and that they 'orchistrated' all the pain and suffering and violence they experinced and inflicted it on themselves - so as to achieve 'stealing' form GC 11 years later.

Already discussed above. Again, I cannot agree with the claim that from 1955 when she became involved in Cyprus and to this day, Turkey has been merely responding "intuitively" to GC ploys and actions.

What is also propaganda is the recent statement by TP that no TC was killed by a GC in the period of 63-74.

These are 'just' propaganda.

Yes, I am aware of Papadopoulos' above statement made during an interview in a foreign newspaper. I do not know why he said that as or even if this is what he really intended to say which happens to be historically inaccurate and therefore nonsense. What is important though is that to this date no GC has ever made a serious attempt to deny that there were TC's who died or who went missing in 1963-1964 or even 1974. On the other hand, many in the TC side regard themselves as the sole victims in the events of 1963-64 and beyond - this claim is not true and therefore just as nonsense.

To best of my knowledge, after 1967 and up to July 1974, there was no more violence between the 2 communities. If someone knows otherwise please provide some information because I am very interested to know. So, unless otherwise proved, talking about TC casualties and refugees between 1963-74 instead of 1963-67 is plain propaganda. And to deliberately remain silent about the fact that during the same period there were also GC dead, missing and refugees is not only propaganda but also hypocritical.

O.

[erolz]

What is it that makes you doubt that the Turkish side had its own secret plans that aimed in partitioning the island, especially when one such plan bearing the signatures of Kucuk and Denktash was found? A document that was dated 16/9/63 was found in the Vice President's office after inter communal violence broke out in December 1963. This plan (should one call it the "Denktahs-Kucuk" plan?) outlined a series of Turkish actions that aimed in partitioning Cyprus and establishing the foundations for a separate TC state through exploiting any GC ambitions to revise the Cypriot constitution. Among other things, the Turkish plan called for the creation of an "autonomous" TC administration as well as the withdrawal of the Turkish Cypriot VP, the MP’s and the civil servants from their offices and posts in order to assume responsibilities in the new "administration". The same plan also called for the concentration of TC's in one larger area in case hostilities broke out. And somewhere within its lines there was even a provision about importing "tourists" from Turkey so that the number of Turks on the island would increase. Doesn't all that sound familiar?

Where is this document? Can I see it (a copy of it)? Has it been published by TC or Turkish sources (like the Akritas plan has by GC)? Has it been tacitly accepted by Denktash (as Clerides does the Akritas plan). I am not saying it does not exist. I am saying that you just saying it exists and telling me what it said is not enough for me.

It is a fact that the because of the fighting there was a number of refugees from both sides. An independent committee that investigated the issue reported in 1/2/64 that about 5,500 TC's and 1,600 GC's were displaced because of the fighting. The UN Secretary General, estimated that eventually about 25,000 TC's were moved from their homes into other more predominantly Turkish towns or villages (enclaves). It therefore seems that 4 out of every 5 TC refugees from that time were displaced in accordance to the above-mentioned plan and upon Ankara's orders (who is therefore also responsible for making them refugees in the first place), not only by exploiting their justified under the circumstances fears but also by forcing them to move when they refused to do so.

I am sorry but I just do not accept this theisis of yours. Yes some GC were displaced - for a number of days. They were not a numrical minority in the Island, miltiary weaker and under a government in sole control of an antagonistic community. Neither had their homes been burnt to the ground in any siginificant ways.
People do not just up and leave their homes at the say so of a political 'leadership' and the very idea that this is what the majority of TC did is just rubbish. There was not widespread and systematic 'forcing' of TC to leave their homes by TC - that was done by GC predominatly.

Locking up about half of the island's TC population into military governed and economically unviable enclaves and exploiting them as a "strategic minority" served only Ankara and no one else. Having said that, I have no doubt that some short-sighted GC's failed to see that in the long run all these made ordinary TC's (and eventually GC's) to pay the price for Turkey's expansionist games in Cyprus.

Some short sighted GC? Let's be clear here. It was the GC STATE that was systematicaly promoting and organising violence against the TC community (as laid out in the Akritas plan). This was not a case of a few short sighted GC without any real power and influence in Cyprus.

While I can see your "steal" point, at the end of the day this is what happened. Since the 1950's there has always been a Turkish plan to divide Cyprus permanently.

Maybe there was. However such a plan could never have come to frutition without the very real oppression of TC by a larger stronger GC community. Without the insistance that the TC community must subject itself to the total control of a larger stronger GC community, that had shown no concern for TC and their desires and had been directly involved in organising and sponsoring violence against the TC community

Your overall position on this issue and about the lack of a Turkish plan btw may be self-contradicting. If the Turkish leadership was not acting upon a plan all these years as you are perhaps suggesting, then one may be compelled to seek a more "logical" explanation for their actions in the "looters and thieves" "theory".

My overall position was basically to point out the fallacy of Piratis racist thesis of TC all being theives and greedy (as a race) and his use of this 'fact' as a sole explaination for the reason why Cyprus is divided today.
Look the TC community was under assult - whatever their leaderships long term motives. We were under assult from a numricaly larger and stronger GC community. Certainly there were hopes that Turkey would come and resuce us from this situation. However without the assult of the GC community on the TC there would have been no need ofr rescuing from Turkey and no way that the isalnd could or would have been partioned.

Personally I do not consider those TC's (or GC's) who currently reside in GC (or TC) owned properties as thieves as long as they a) recognize that these properties are not theirs and b) as long as they are ready to return them to their rightful owners when the time comes (if ever).

My Aunt recognises that her house was owned by a GC before 74. She would return it if a fair settlement is reached. Do you think it is reasonable for her to consider that she too is due some compensation for her loss then before she returns this house to its former owners?

Looking at the whole picture, I would not say that the numerically smaller TC community in Cyprus is weaker when compared to the GC's. After all, the GC's are a majority in Cyprus but a minority in the region.

Certainly the presence of Turkey 40 miles off the coast of Cyprus offered some protection for the TC in cyprus. It stoped for example an all out overnight massacare of TC and limited the degree and spped with which GC could oppress the TC minority. But in Cyprus itself the fact remains that there was one community that was numericaly stronger, mititarily stronger and in control of all the powers of the state that was organising and supporting the oppression of a smaller and weaker TC community.

On the other hand, it is true that like the TC's, the GC's also had their own political aims which included ridding themselves from all those Constitutional provisions which they considered (and which to a great extend they were) unfair and had a practical impact on them.

The proposed changes to the agreed consistuion made by Makarios were not designed to make the RoC 'function' based on the principals of the 1960 agreements. It was designed to totaly change the whole baisis of the state and to effectively make the TC community a political minority. Something that we are being told today is still a requirment of a united Cyprus by many GC here.

The given lack of trust between the 2 communities as well as the failure of Makarios and Kucuk to discuss openly and honestly their respective concerns as well as what was already going on in Cyprus in the first years of Independence did not help in averting a crisis that could have been easily predicted and that eventually broke out.

Makarios originally planned to announce the ammendments as being in effect unilateraly and without ANY discussion with the TC. He was only averted from doing so by intense British pressure, after which he put out a press release saying the ammendments announced were in fact only 'proposals'. After the violence broke out in 63 and the British managed to get the two sides to a conference it was a pre condtion of the GC side that the ammendments be accepted in full and without any negotiation before the TC could return to government.

That was just too bad for all of us here in Cyprus, because when it comes to the peaceful coexistence and cooperation among people who belong in different ethnic groups, honesty is not an option but an absolute requirement.

Your leadership at the time did not see the events developing in 63-64 as 'too bad for GC'. They saw it as being exactly what they wanted to achieve (as laid out in the Akitas plan). GC were in sole control of the government. Acceptance of the 'proposed' ammendments to the consitution where made a pre condition of TC returning to government (a government in which they would have been reduced to a political minority) and the possibility of Turkish intervention had been avioded. Everything was going according to the plan.

What is important though is that to this date no GC has ever made a serious attempt to deny that there were TC's who died or who went missing in 1963-1964 or even 1974.

You mean no GC here? TP is certainly a GC and also the president of the GC community (and claims to be OUR president too) and he DID make thse claims.

On the other hand, many in the TC side regard themselves as the sole victims in the events of 1963-64 and beyond - this claim is not true and therefore just as nonsense.

I will admit (and do admit and have admited) that we were not the sole victims. Will you admit that we were overridingly the vicitims of this period in either absolute terms or proprtional to the sizes of the two communites?

To best of my knowledge, after 1967 and up to July 1974, there was no more violence between the 2 communities. If someone knows otherwise please provide some information because I am very interested to know. So, unless otherwise proved, talking about TC casualties and refugees between 1963-74 instead of 1963-67 is plain propaganda. And to deliberately remain silent about the fact that during the same period there were also GC dead, missing and refugees is not only propaganda but also hypocritical.

O.

I use the dates 63-74 as a shorthand. If you prefer I will split the dates (as Isan regularly does for example). However the reason why there was no violence from 67 onwards is in my view primarily down to the fact that the need for violence was no longer there (on the part of the GC). TC no longer had any say in the government of Cyprus. They could only have a say on condition of the acceptance of the ammendments to the consitution (without any negotiation). Turkey had been blocked internationaly from intervening. Violence in this period would not have served GC intrests (like they did in the previous period) any longer. They would of course have served the interests of TC determined to partition the island - yet they did not occur.

I do not remain silent about the fact that GC died in this period or went missing or were made refugess. Do you 'remain silent' that overiddingly in this period it was TC that dies , went missing and became refugees? (again both absolutely and proportionaly to thier respective populations sizes)?

[insan]

However the reason why there was no violence from 67 onwards is in my view primarily down to the fact that the need for violence was no longer there (on the part of the GC). TC no longer had any say in the government of Cyprus. They could only have a say on condition of the acceptance of the ammendments to the consitution (without any negotiation). Turkey had been blocked internationaly from intervening. Violence in this period would not have served GC intrests (like they did in the previous period) any longer. They would of course have served the interests of TC determined to partition the island - yet they did not occur.

There are several reasons of why there was no more violence between the years 1967-71.

1- Junta came to power in Greece and began to make Enosis propaganda (See thread "Are all these true re GC compatriots and Greek gumbaros?" for details.) This open Enosis propaganda provoked Turkey to intervene. The then Turkis government was strongly decisive to intervene but US interfered(you can read the details of the US interference at www.state.gov - just do a search within the website about Grivas) and stop Turkey intervening.

2- In 1967 Athens was obliged to call the gang-leader of EOKA back by pressure of US and Grivas went back to Athens.

3- Makarios, either pressure of US and/or in fear of a Turkish intervention; publicly declared that Enosis was no longer viable...


In 1968, all concerned parties agreed to start the new intercommunal negotiations under the supervision and mediation of UN.


In 1971, Grivas was sent to Cyprus by Junta, again. He gathered the far right part of EOKA under a new underground organisation named EOKA-B. This time his first target was Makarios and GC left wing who betrayed the Hellen cause, Enosis. EOKA-B attmepted to assassinate Makarios for several times but failed.


Thus, it seems to me that, the main source of the inter-communal violance was Grivas and Hellen's far right who were strongly backing him, via mass media, armed thugs, far right GC and Greek politicians, cadres, opponent priests of Makarios etc...

[Othellos]

Where is this document? Can I see it (a copy of it)? Has it been published by TC or Turkish sources (like the Akritas plan has by GC)? Has it been tacitly accepted by Denktash (as Clerides does the Akritas plan). I am not saying it does not exist. I am saying that you just saying it exists and telling me what it said is not enough for me.

A translation of this Turkish plan has been published in "My Deposition" by Glafkos Clerides (vol.1, pp. 217-222). ). This plan was found in the office of Fazil Plumer who in 1963 was the Minister of Agriculture (and not in Fazil Kucuk's office as I suggested earlier by mistake). To the best of my knowledge Denktash has always denied the validity of this document, an English translation of which was first published in the "Cyprus Bulletin" in March 1964. But then again, that is Denktash and no one would ever expect from him to say anything that could be used against him or Turkey. The question is if Turkey could ever partition Cyprus without some kind of a plan?

The existence of a Turkish partition plan is also suggested in "The Cyprus Conspiracy" by O'Maley & Graig. In this book there is a report about a claim made by Richard Patrick that in 1963 "Turkish Cypriot leaders including Denktash, confirmed that they aimed to further the case for partition by provoking violent inter-ethnic incidents that would justify a Turkish invasion. They also wanted to create and direct a Turkish Cypriot refugee movement into the northern part of Cyprus" (p.91). There is no doubt that all this is in accord with the Turkish plan that I described earlier as well as with everything that happened.

I am sorry but I just do not accept this theisis of yours. Yes some GC were displaced - for a number of days. They were not a numrical minority in the Island, miltiary weaker and under a government in sole control of an antagonistic community. Neither had their homes been burnt to the ground in any siginificant ways.

"Some" GC's were displaced for a "number of days"? Is that all that the GC's suffered in 1963-64? If this is what you think then so much about you "recognizing" the suffering of the other side.

People do not just up and leave their homes at the say so of a political 'leadership' and the very idea that this is what the majority of TC did is just rubbish. There was not widespread and systematic 'forcing' of TC to leave their homes by TC - that was done by GC predominatly.

We know that the number of TC refugees that was reported by the UNSG in 1963 was about 4 or 5 times larger than the number of refugees that had been displaced due to the fighting and as this had been established by the independent committee. This leads to the logical conclusion that a large number of TC's moved into the enclaves for reasons that were not immediately related to the fighting. Fear form the GC's was obviously one such reason. But at the same time the intimidation of ordinary TC's by the TMT, and even the use of force against them where and when this was necessary is something that has been repeatedly discussed over the years and therefore cannot be dismissed.

What was the real situation in these enclaves and why did the TC's need special permits to exit them? Why were there fines and other punishments for those TC's who left these Turkish controlled camps without permission? Why did the TMT silence TC voices for reconciliation and peace like for example the one of D. Kavazoglu? Were any of these actions the fault of the GC's? And why did the enclaves remain off limits for the GC's and in place even after 1968 when things in Cyprus started calming down? After all, thousands of TC's were already living outside the enclaves and thousands of those who were living in them would exit every day to work with the GC's. Was any of the above an indication that Turkey had ever abandoned its partition policy in Cyprus? I don't think so.

Some short sighted GC? Let's be clear here. It was the GC STATE that was systematicaly promoting and organising violence against the TC community (as laid out in the Akritas plan). This was not a case of a few short sighted GC without any real power and influence in Cyprus.

My comment about short-sighted GC's was made with respect to the establishment of the TC enclaves (which were nothing more but fortified invasion bridgeheads). Nevertheless, I can accept that the short-sight ness of these GC's extended beyond this issue. Had it been different a crisis that was easy to predict would have perhaps been prevented. You write about "violence being promoted and organized by the GC’s" but I don't think that such a statement reflects the whole truth. Surely there was a secret GC militia (just like there was a TC one) that was mobilized during the 1963 crisis, but then again the crisis was not a one-way event that the GC's did not benefit from. Yes there were combat deaths, murders kidnappings and refugees, but these actions were neither exclusively initiated / carried out by the GC’s as you claim, nor the victims were exclusively TC's. Simply put, erolz, the Turkish side was just as responsible for promoting and organizing violence in Cyprus.

Maybe there was. However such a plan could never have come to frutition without the very real oppression of TC by a larger stronger GC community. Without the insistance that the TC community must subject itself to the total control of a larger stronger GC community, that had shown no concern for TC and their desires and had been directly involved in organising and sponsoring violence against the TC community

One must remember that the Turkish plans for the partition of Cyprus date back in the mid / late 1950's at a time when the GC's were in no position to oppress or control anyone (on the contrary). You can say of course that "Taxim" was the Turkish reaction to the GC campaign for "Enosis". The problem is that after Independence, the Turkish partition policy remained in full effect whereas the GC aspirations for Union with Greece started fading away.

Look the TC community was under assult - whatever their leaderships long term motives. We were under assult from a numricaly larger and stronger GC community. Certainly there were hopes that Turkey would come and resuce us from this situation. However without the assult of the GC community on the TC there would have been no need ofr rescuing from Turkey and no way that the isalnd could or would have been partioned.

What I think is that Turkey welcomed and even encouraged the 1963 crisis because it would have given them a perfect opportunity to invade – after all this is what they attempted in 1964. This also explains why back then and on several occasions it was the TC's who initiated unprovoked attacks against GC's, as they did for example in Paphos on 7/3/64. Had Turkey's plan succeeded at that time then the TC's would have not ended up staying in the enclaves for 11 years. But for a number of reasons, things did not work out for the Turks in 1963-64.

My Aunt recognises that her house was owned by a GC before 74. She would return it if a fair settlement is reached. Do you think it is reasonable for her to consider that she too is due some compensation for her loss then before she returns this house to its former owners?

I thought that my earlier post with respect to this issue was very clear and I do not understand why you raise this question. Again, I think that ANY Cypriot (and that should also cover your aunt) is entitled to whatever belongs to them, no more and no less. Does this sound reasonable enough to you, or does it sound as another attempt to deprive TC's from their rights and properties?

Certainly the presence of Turkey 40 miles off the coast of Cyprus offered some protection for the TC in cyprus. It stoped for example an all out overnight massacare of TC and limited the degree and spped with which GC could oppress the TC minority. But in Cyprus itself the fact remains that there was one community that was numericaly stronger, mititarily stronger and in control of all the powers of the state that was organising and supporting the oppression of a smaller and weaker TC community.

Once again: had the TC's chosen to remain in the RoC and not follow Turkey's instructions to form a separate "entity" then the GC's would have never remained the sole participants in the RoC. Of course, the Turkish theory about being "kicked out" is a very convenient one as it can be used to "justify" their partition policy both before and after the 1974 invasion. As for the fact that the GC's were numerically more than the TC's, to me this explains the large number of Anatolian settlers that were carried over here by Turkey after the invasion in an attempt to alter permanently the island's demographic balances.

The proposed changes to the agreed consistuion made by Makarios were not designed to make the RoC 'function' based on the principals of the 1960 agreements. It was designed to totaly change the whole baisis of the state and to effectively make the TC community a political minority. Something that we are being told today is still a requirment of a united Cyprus by many GC here.

This is the Turkish version of the amendments story. The fact remains that the TC side was asked by Makarios (who has been repeatedly criticised for his decision to make that proposal) to discuss the proposed amendments, but this never happened because even the idea of such a discussion was rejected right upfront (if I am not mistaken Turkey rejected it even before the TC's). Had this discussion ever taken place then one would be able to evaluate the stance of both sides with respect to each other's concerns (see my earlier post about the failure of Makarios and Kucuk to communicate honestly and effectively). In that case your claim about a "GC attempt to reduce the TC community into a political minority" would have either been totally justified or completely dismissed.

After negotiations restarted in 1968, the Turkish side agreed to several Constitutional changes that were based on the 1963 amendment proposals. It is for this that one can only wonder about how much pain and suffering in Cyprus could have been averted if in 1963 the Turkish had taken the time to discuss and explain their concerns, positions and fears over the amendment proposals instead of just walking out of the RoC. Makarios has often been accused about having a tendency to do things on his own, but personally I believe that it would be impossible for him (or anyone else) to ignore the TC's if they stayed in the government.

Now about this majority – minority thing, no one is arguing that in the event of a solution the TC's must be deprived of their human rights or oppressed in any way by the GC's. But at the same time it is only fair that the reverse (oppression of GC’s by TC's) is also prevented. Is this unreasonable?

Makarios originally planned to announce the ammendments as being in effect unilateraly and without ANY discussion with the TC. He was only averted from doing so by intense British pressure, after which he put out a press release saying the ammendments announced were in fact only 'proposals'. After the violence broke out in 63 and the British managed to get the two sides to a conference it was a pre condtion of the GC side that the ammendments be accepted in full and without any negotiation before the TC could return to government.

That was the same conference where Denktash asked for the relocation of thousands of Cypriots and the establishment of a separate TC region under thousands of Turkish troops that would equal to 38% of Cyprus, right? Now as to what Makarios planned to do in the first place, I am not sure that this is more important from WHAT he actually did, which was to propose those 13 amendments.

Your leadership at the time did not see the events developing in 63-64 as 'too bad for GC'. They saw it as being exactly what they wanted to achieve (as laid out in the Akitas plan). GC were in sole control of the government. Acceptance of the 'proposed' ammendments to the consitution where made a pre condition of TC returning to government (a government in which they would have been reduced to a political minority) and the possibility of Turkish intervention had been avioded. Everything was going according to the plan.

How could that be especially when the GC's failed secure the constitutional amendments they wanted and with a solution to the Cyprus problem still pending? I have already written about why the GC's remained the sole participants in the RoC, as well as how the existence of TC enclaves was not in their benefit.

You mean no GC here? TP is certainly a GC and also the president of the GC community (and claims to be OUR president too) and he DID make thse claims.

Let us say that you are correct and that Papadopoulos denies on purpose that there were TC's who died in Cyprus in 63-64. Where else did he repeat the same claim? Since he has been around forever, it is logical to assume that it is not the first time he talked about this subject. Has he ever been questioned about the validity of his claims? If yes then when and what did he answer? If no then why wasn’t he questioned? If Papadopoulos has never repeated before this claim about no TC's dying in 63-64, is there even a 1% chance that he messed up the dates during that interview? Surely Papadopoulos is not a charismatic or visionary politician, but I find it hard to believe that he is THAT stupid to claim something that cannot withstand the weight of historic events.

So erolz, show me a serious and systematic attempt by anyone (including Papadopoulos) that aims in supporting such a false claim and then I can reconsider what you are claiming here. If anything there are numerous books, articles and studies that were written by GC's and where there are detailed accounts about the suffering of both GC's and TC's in 1963 and 1964. The only reason I write the above is because in my opinion you are trying to construct an argument point on some "denial policy" of the GC's that does not even exist in the first place.

I will admit (and do admit and have admited) that we were not the sole victims. Will you admit that we were overridingly the vicitims of this period in either absolute terms or proprtional to the sizes of the two communites?

I agree that overall the TC community suffered a lot more compared to what the GC community as a whole did during this period (63-74). What I cannot agree with is that all that happened was the sole responsibility of the GC's or even the result of some GC "Genocide" policy as it is often propagandised in this forum. What I completely disagree with is that Turkey and the TC leadership had nothing at all to do with the turn of events. Abandoning the RoC, withdrawing into the enclaves and locking up thousands of TC's in them, was a stage in Turkey's overall partition policy in Cyprus and not a spontaneous reaction to a GC attack. As I wrote before the GC's had a lot to lose from the concentration of the TC's in these open prisons that Turkey operated in Cypus, again for her own reasons. And eventually they did lose.

I use the dates 63-74 as a shorthand. If you prefer I will split the dates (as Isan regularly does for example). However the reason why there was no violence from 67 onwards is in my view primarily down to the fact that the need for violence was no longer there (on the part of the GC). TC no longer had any say in the government of Cyprus. They could only have a say on condition of the acceptance of the ammendments to the consitution (without any negotiation). Turkey had been blocked internationaly from intervening. Violence in this period would not have served GC intrests (like they did in the previous period) any longer. They would of course have served the interests of TC determined to partition the island - yet they did not occur.

By saying that there was a "need" for violence on the part o the GC's before 1967, you are once again claiming that only they bear the responsibility for the 1963-64 crisis and this does not reflect the truth. Furthermore, the Cyprus problem remained unresolved, the threat of a Turkish invasion was always there and none of these helped the GC's.

I do not remain silent about the fact that GC died in this period or went missing or were made refugess. Do you 'remain silent' that overiddingly in this period it was TC that dies , went missing and became refugees? (again both absolutely and proportionaly to thier respective populations sizes)?

Already answered above.

O.