Cyprus-Forum.com

[Paphitis]

Birkibrisli asked a valid question which remains unanswered. The Turkish Cypriots were alienated from EOKA (as was the Left for a different reason) from the moment EOKA set its objective as "enosis and only enosis". Paphitis's (gallant) effort to explain this on the basis of "got used to having masters" is historically inept since enosis was the aspiration of many Greek Cypriot generations. I have said before that the Greek Cypriots were quite legitimate to want enosis but what they did, to disregard the geopolitical interests in the area and go for it head on, was a criminal act which at the same time was doomed to fail.

At least you accept our fundamental right to seek "Enosis". Of course the struggle did commence with this sole aim, but then had changed to accept the ill fated and imposed "Zurich Agreements", which resulted in other escapades further down the track.

Enosis was the aim of most GCs due to the fact that the prospect of them wanting independence was unrealistic at the time. It was unrealistic due to the fact that to even strive for such a thing you need to consider this particular options viability. And as "subjects" and a broken people, to even contemplate independence as a viable option, was a tall order indeed. Particularly for a people that numbered around 500,000 at the time, and with only a small percentage of the population having a tertiary education.

Birkirbrisli was answered with my equally valid response. I will post it again.

The mere fact that the TCs resisted the democratic right of the majority in their quest for self determination, and them forming TMT in 1958, was the first treasonous act of the TCs towards the GCs and the island of Cyprus.

The TCs collaborated with the British during 1955-1959. They withdrew from Government in 1963. They also committed atrocities towards the GCs. And last but definitely not least, they assisted Turkey in the July 1974 invasion.

So where in all that do the TCs deserve sympathy? Throughout the history of the island, the TCs committed "High Treason" towards their country.

Here is the definition of "High Treason":

"Disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government, to impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government"

Perhaps you are referring to the 500-600 or so that were massacred by the GCs. Off course we sympathise with the victims of these atrocities. Do the TCs sympathise with our 10,000 victims between 1958-1974? Too much to ask?

But you ask too much my friend when you expect sympathy for your "High Treason" on several fronts. If the TCs had collaborated with EOKA from day 1, then I am positive that extremely strong bridges would have been built and bonds formed, which would have resulted in "real" nationhood and brotherhood. But this was not your goal. You wanted TAKSIM or to control Cyprus through Turkey.

Go and find another shoulder to cry on!!!

Credits: GR! for using part of his research and posts!

I believe that in the above answer to Bir, I had expressed regret and sympathy for the 500-600 or so TC victims. I expect the same sympathy in return for the 10,000 or so GC victims between 1958-1974, if it is not too much to ask.

Bir seems to be playing the constant victim, forgetting that the GCs also suffered more for the "HIGH TREASON" committed by TCs on several fronts.

The Turkish Cypriots were compelled to react and we would have done the same had the reverse hold true. I say that the fate of Cyprus was sealed early in the 50's when Makarios exerted unbelievable pressure on successive Greek governments to take the Cyprus issue to the UN. When Greece succumbed in 1954 to the cries of traitors (usual story) and took the Cyprus issue to the UN, the beginning of the end was in sight. Immediately Turkey became a key player and in 1955, when the armed struggle started with the natural exclusion of the Turkish Cypriots and the left hunted down for political and ideological reasons (hence, only about 30% of the total population of Cyprus was allowed into the trick) the outcome of this effort was already known and of course it could not have ended in a different way.

The EOKA struggle had the overwhelming support of the majority of GCs. Even some Communists were active. The struggle did not discriminate over political ideologies. There was however the AKEL policy of condemning the armed struggle, which did divide the people on ideological grounds. Those that strictly followed AKEL and towed the party line, may have been against EOKA, or at least not agree with the methods used. However, some AKEL supporters, maybe even the majority of them, sympathised with the EOKA movement. Not all EOKA fighters were right wingers. I believe that Evagoras Pallikaridis was not a "right winger", and so the struggle was not on political ideological grounds. There were those that were ultra nationalistic, and believed in their cause, no matter what the cost, and took to the mountains. And then there were those involved with ANE, various other suburban cells and the street demonstrations attended by thousands.

The TCs reacted after Britain's very clever policy of "Divide and Rule". They formed a Police Auxiliary" which resulted in the first clashes between GCs and TCs. Then TMT was formed in 1958, and the first Inter Communal violence took hold. EOKA off course had to react to defend GCs, but initially exercised great caution, and even cried out to the TCs as "Patriots". This call was ignored and so the downward spiral continued. This was the TCs first betrayal.

Anyone who foresaw (and many people spoke against the arm struggle) this outcome and tried to instil some sense into the political leadership of EOKA was immediately branded a traitor and the assassins took over, thus silencing the voices of reason that could have prevented the coming catastrophe.

The military leadership of EOKA exercised great restraint in their struggle for self determination. It was a highly disciplined, but small force. Those that spoke out against the arm struggle were not targeted, but those that collaborated with the enemy were a legitimate target. That is not to say that there were no innocent victims as well. Sadly, in every modern conflict there are innocent victims.

In 1950 the undoing of the British Empire started and many former British colonies got their independence without a drop of blood shed. True the Brits were not just ready to grand independence to Cyprus and they did need a little push to accelerate the process of decolonisation. The door was already open and it needed just a little push to open broadly. This could have easily been done by a mass, popular struggle that involved all Cypriots, Greek, Turkish, Maronites, Armenians and Latins. Instead, we put our fate in the hands of a fanatical priest and a sick general who took an oath to fight for enosis till the last drop of their blood. The arm struggle was an irrational act which was doomed to fail but when the superpatriots speak rationality takes second seat and eventually we all cry over the ruins.

The above may apply to Barbados or Fiji, but most certainly did not apply to Cyprus. Cyprus was considered a vital strategic position for the empire, even more so after the Suez Canal loss. This is why the British forces in Cyprus sent in reinforcements to the island and numbered some 40,000 troops fighting against a small band of 300 or so EOKA "Freedom Fighters". Britain was not going to let go of Cyprus under any circumstance, and it never really did. Even today, they occupy our island with 2 SBA's.

It now remains to be seen whether we have learned from our past mistakes and go for the feasible instead of the desirable that has haunted us since the beginning of our modern history.

Did the Americans consider what was feasible and what was not? They did not. The began what was a bloody battle for their self determination, and in the end they prevailed.

EOKA attempted the same thing, and they kind of prevailed. The only difference is that we accepted the Zurich Agreements, which others imposed on us, and this was the beginning of what we have today. So your argument that our sole aim was ENOSIS is invalid. That is how it began, and then we moved towards the Zurich deal, unfortunately! The rest is history. IMHO!

[Nikitas]

Good question Bir.

The general sentiment of those that wanted Enosis was that Cyprus was no different than other areas of the Ottoman empire which reverted to their indigenous populations and the remnants of the Ottomans forced to leave or stay on as minorities. They thought that what had happened in Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece etc would happen here too. There is no denying the crassness of this attitude.

Also, there was a wider context. Nasser in Egypt was expelling foreigners, among them hundreds of thousands of Greeks. The international objection was to the nationalisation of the Suez canal, not the expulsion of communities that had lived in Egypt for centuries, why would Cyprus be any different?

The process in Cyprus, guided by the church and fanatics led by Grivas (an arch fanatic and failed politician) did not take into account Turkey, nor could they deal with questions about the nature of this union, and the attitude of Greece itself.

Perhaps it was the period, the aftermath of WWII and the civil war that had ravaged Greece. Or it could be a change in Greek national policy after 1923 when it realised it reached its maximum territory and wanted no more of that process.

Greek culture had changed since the 20s and was more Athenocentric and less Hellenic. The attitude to Greeks outside the national confines was "Greece is here, if you want to be Greek then you are welcome to come live here, we are not going to come over there to help".

Ironically it was the attitude of Greece and the Greeks which awoke GCs to the point of asking what this Enosis thing was all about. This intensified after independence in 1960 and was finally driven home with the takeover of the junta in Greece in 1967 and the experiences GCs had of the mainland Greeks, mostly the fanatic anticommunist officers sent over to organize the national guard.

From that point on the TCs failed to respond to the change in GC attitudes. Enosis was no longer on the cards as a national aspiration but it became a rallying point for TCs. It is funny that it is still used today by TCs.

I remember talking with EOKA B operatives in Famagusta in 1973 and asking them about the reaction of TC and Turkey to a takeover, their response was "things have been worked out with the Turks". Even these extremeists did not have Enosis as a goal at that point. Their goal was to diminish Cyprus independence, not union with Greece. One of them put it nicely " you are mad if you think I am risking my skin so some Kalamaras can be the new governor of Cyprus!".

So Enosis was an ill conceived and not fully thought through goal. It was a naive goal of a peasant population who had a wholly fantastic notion of Greece in their minds. The use of Enosis by Turkey is anything but naive. It is ironic but indicative that the only true Enosis we had on the island is that of the north with Turkey and that the people who paid a heavy toll in blood to resist Enosis were the GCs. So the original goal might have been wrong, but the GC community has more than atoned for it.

[Bananiot]

Paphitis, you are twisting historical facts to make them fit the way you see things. Enosis was the only reason EOKA started the armed struggle. Union with mother Greece was a huge insentive for the Greek Cypriots and a noble cause to die for.

In 1959 we accepted the London-Zurich agreements because the armed struggle was failing badly. The initial enthusiasm had worn off and the Brits were more or less in full control. They even threatened Makarios in London that if he did not sign they would arrest Grivas because they knew exactly where he was hiding.

Even after we signed the agreements our aspiration for enosis did not die. We sought other methods to achieve our objectives and stupidly, we thought that we could use the newly independent republic as a stepping stone to make the dream a reality.

Makarios (and AKEL) and the whole political leadership subscribed to enosis until 1967, when the Kophinou events put an end to the pursuing of the desirable and Makarios (with AKEL) saw the light.

Yet, despite the fact that we came close to an agreement in the early 70's, it was makarios who objected and even rejected the call for functional federation, because "it would plant the seeds for federation".

I wonder if the spark for enosis is still burning in some people?

[Oracle]

Paphitis, you are twisting historical facts to make them fit the way you see things. Enosis was the only reason EOKA started the armed struggle. Union with mother Greece was a huge insentive for the Greek Cypriots and a noble cause to die for.

In 1959 we accepted the London-Zurich agreements because the armed struggle was failing badly. The initial enthusiasm had worn off and the Brits were more or less in full control. They even threatened Makarios in London that if he did not sign they would arrest Grivas because they knew exactly where he was hiding.

Even after we signed the agreements our aspiration for enosis did not die. We sought other methods to achieve our objectives and stupidly, we thought that we could use the newly independent republic as a stepping stone to make the dream a reality.

Makarios (and AKEL) and the whole political leadership subscribed to enosis until 1967, when the Kophinou events put an end to the pursuing of the desirable and Makarios (with AKEL) saw the light.

Yet, despite the fact that we came close to an agreement in the early 70's, it was makarios who objected and even rejected the call for functional federation, because "it would plant the seeds for federation".

I wonder if the spark for enosis is still burning in some people?

Only in your case, with Turkey ......

[miltiades]

Good question Bir.

The general sentiment of those that wanted Enosis was that Cyprus was no different than other areas of the Ottoman empire which reverted to their indigenous populations and the remnants of the Ottomans forced to leave or stay on as minorities. They thought that what had happened in Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, Greece etc would happen here too. There is no denying the crassness of this attitude.

Also, there was a wider context. Nasser in Egypt was expelling foreigners, among them hundreds of thousands of Greeks. The international objection was to the nationalisation of the Suez canal, not the expulsion of communities that had lived in Egypt for centuries, why would Cyprus be any different?

The process in Cyprus, guided by the church and fanatics led by Grivas (an arch fanatic and failed politician) did not take into account Turkey, nor could they deal with questions about the nature of this union, and the attitude of Greece itself.

Perhaps it was the period, the aftermath of WWII and the civil war that had ravaged Greece. Or it could be a change in Greek national policy after 1923 when it realised it reached its maximum territory and wanted no more of that process.

Greek culture had changed since the 20s and was more Athenocentric and less Hellenic. The attitude to Greeks outside the national confines was "Greece is here, if you want to be Greek then you are welcome to come live here, we are not going to come over there to help".

Ironically it was the attitude of Greece and the Greeks which awoke GCs to the point of asking what this Enosis thing was all about. This intensified after independence in 1960 and was finally driven home with the takeover of the junta in Greece in 1967 and the experiences GCs had of the mainland Greeks, mostly the fanatic anticommunist officers sent over to organize the national guard.

From that point on the TCs failed to respond to the change in GC attitudes. Enosis was no longer on the cards as a national aspiration but it became a rallying point for TCs. It is funny that it is still used today by TCs.

I remember talking with EOKA B operatives in Famagusta in 1973 and asking them about the reaction of TC and Turkey to a takeover, their response was "things have been worked out with the Turks". Even these extremeists did not have Enosis as a goal at that point. Their goal was to diminish Cyprus independence, not union with Greece. One of them put it nicely " you are mad if you think I am risking my skin so some Kalamaras can be the new governor of Cyprus!".

So Enosis was an ill conceived and not fully thought through goal. It was a naive goal of a peasant population who had a wholly fantastic notion of Greece in their minds. The use of Enosis by Turkey is anything but naive. It is ironic but indicative that the only true Enosis we had on the island is that of the north with Turkey and that the people who paid a heavy toll in blood to resist Enosis were the GCs. So the original goal might have been wrong, but the GC community has more than atoned for it.

Excellent post Nikitas , I find this snip ""From that point on the TCs failed to respond to the change in GC attitudes. Enosis was no longer on the cards as a national aspiration but it became a rallying point for TCs. It is funny that it is still used today by TCs. ""
amusing to say the least since right here on this forum we have evidence that some T/Cs notably Zan , VP and those with similar ideas ARE STILL obsessed with ENOSIS , that has been dead and burried for a good 30 plus years !!
Let me just say that had Enosis occured , the graffiti writer would have been yours faithfully !!!

[Paphitis]

Paphitis, you are twisting historical facts to make them fit the way you see things. Enosis was the only reason EOKA started the armed struggle. Union with mother Greece was a huge insentive for the Greek Cypriots and a noble cause to die for.

In 1959 we accepted the London-Zurich agreements because the armed struggle was failing badly. The initial enthusiasm had worn off and the Brits were more or less in full control. They even threatened Makarios in London that if he did not sign they would arrest Grivas because they knew exactly where he was hiding.

Even after we signed the agreements our aspiration for enosis did not die. We sought other methods to achieve our objectives and stupidly, we thought that we could use the newly independent republic as a stepping stone to make the dream a reality.

Makarios (and AKEL) and the whole political leadership subscribed to enosis until 1967, when the Kophinou events put an end to the pursuing of the desirable and Makarios (with AKEL) saw the light.

Yet, despite the fact that we came close to an agreement in the early 70's, it was makarios who objected and even rejected the call for functional federation, because "it would plant the seeds for federation".

I wonder if the spark for enosis is still burning in some people?

I did agree that ENOSIS was the only reason for the armed struggle. But this changed when Makarios called for an end to the armed struggle. The Zurich Agreement was signed, and Makarios was certainly coerced in doing so. Not because ENOSIS was still the main aim, but because the Zurich Agreement included a number of flaws and was considered only "partial independence".

No doubt some people still fancied ENOSIS post 1960, but I seriously doubt that they were in the majority. As we all know, EOKA B was formed and Nicos Sampson and his mob terrorised the TCs. The GCs had TMT to endure, and there we have it. And then we had the Coup which was the final nail in our coffin, as this opened the door to the Turkish Invasion.

Yes, the situation in Cyprus is a result of High Treason on both sides. But I still fail to see the connection of the EOKA B treason with the EOKA struggle in 1955-1959. As far as I am concerned, the 55-59 struggle by a handful of brave young men, is something we should all respect and admire. And no one is going to change my mind about this. I have a strong connection with one of those very fighters, and I am not going to betray my bloodline! In fact, this particular individual I admire for many reasons, 2 of which are his ideals and poetry.

And in this day and age, I personally do not see the point of ENOSIS. I prefer to see an independent Cyprus, something we have not yet achieved.

[Nikitas]

Miltiades,

There was never any honest debate about Enosis. On a private level I have often challenged people to describe how they would see Enosis developing and almost everyone described a situation where Cyprus would go on electing its president, parliament etc. Not one Cypriot person could envision being a mere district of Greece. And not a single Greek could accept that Cyprus had something to contribute to the whole of Hellenism, so after a hypothetical union they wanted to abolish everything and import the Greek way in every sphere of life.

So indeed, had we become a district of Greece both you and I would be writing graffiti!

[denizaksulu]

One aspect of this whole sad saga keeps staring us in the face...
In 1950 there were 400,000 GCs and 100,000TCs give or take a few thousand other minorities....Yet the GCs totally ignored the feelings of the TCs and pushed ahead with their demand for ENOSIS....What did they think the TCs would do against such a terrible possibility (for them!)????

I am yet to read any attempt by any rightthinking member of this Forum addressing this issue...And please don't say "bad luck,majority rules"...
My point is those pushing for ENOSIS knew how the TCs would react...So how did they really hope to overcome the TC resistance??? Come on people,time to show some empathy for your TC compatriots...What would you do if you were in their shoes???? And put your hands on your hearts and tell me,was it not asking for real trouble for GCs to disregard the TC feelings on this...given the past 450 years of Cyprus history????

The mere fact that the TCs resisted the democratic right of the majority in their quest for self determination, and them forming TMT in 1958, was the first treasonous act of the TCs towards the GCs and the island of Cyprus.

The TCs collaborated with the British during 1955-1959. They withdrew from Government in 1963. They also committed atrocities towards the GCs. And last but definitely not least, they assisted Turkey in the July 1974 invasion.

So where in all that do the TCs deserve sympathy? Throughout the history of the island, the TCs committed "High Treason" towards their country.

Here is the definition of "High Treason":

[b]"Disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government, to impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government" [/b]

Perhaps you are referring to the 500-600 or so that were massacred by the GCs. Off course we sympathise with the victims of these atrocities. Do the TCs sympathise with our 10,000 victims between 1958-1974? Too much to ask?

But you ask too much my friend when you expect sympathy for your "High Treason" on several fronts. If the TCs had collaborated with EOKA from day 1, then I am positive that extremely strong bridges would have been built and bonds formed, which would have resulted in "real" nationhood and brotherhood. But this was not your goal. You wanted TAKSIM or to control Cyprus through Turkey.

Go and find another shoulder to cry on!!!

Credits: GR! for using part of his research and posts!

Thanks for that definition of treasom Bafidis. So EOKA commited treason against the 'Legal' goverment of Cyprus during the EOKA Emergency.

I sometimes had given EOKA some credit. Your definition proves me wrong.

[BirKibrisli]

One aspect of this whole sad saga keeps staring us in the face...
In 1950 there were 400,000 GCs and 100,000TCs give or take a few thousand other minorities....Yet the GCs totally ignored the feelings of the TCs and pushed ahead with their demand for ENOSIS....What did they think the TCs would do against such a terrible possibility (for them!)????

I am yet to read any attempt by any rightthinking member of this Forum addressing this issue...And please don't say "bad luck,majority rules"...
My point is those pushing for ENOSIS knew how the TCs would react...So how did they really hope to overcome the TC resistance??? Come on people,time to show some empathy for your TC compatriots...What would you do if you were in their shoes???? And put your hands on your hearts and tell me,was it not asking for real trouble for GCs to disregard the TC feelings on this...given the past 450 years of Cyprus history????

The mere fact that the TCs resisted the democratic right of the majority in their quest for self determination, and them forming TMT in 1958, was the first treasonous act of the TCs towards the GCs and the island of Cyprus.

The TCs collaborated with the British during 1955-1959. They withdrew from Government in 1963. They also committed atrocities towards the GCs. And last but definitely not least, they assisted Turkey in the July 1974 invasion.

So where in all that do the TCs deserve sympathy? Throughout the history of the island, the TCs committed "High Treason" towards their country.

Here is the definition of "High Treason":

"Disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government, to impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government"

Perhaps you are referring to the 500-600 or so that were massacred by the GCs. Off course we sympathise with the victims of these atrocities. Do the TCs sympathise with our 10,000 victims between 1958-1974? Too much to ask?

But you ask too much my friend when you expect sympathy for your "High Treason" on several fronts. If the TCs had collaborated with EOKA from day 1, then I am positive that extremely strong bridges would have been built and bonds formed, which would have resulted in "real" nationhood and brotherhood. But this was not your goal. You wanted TAKSIM or to control Cyprus through Turkey.

Go and find another shoulder to cry on!!!

Credits: GR! for using part of his research and posts!

I was not looking for a shoulder to cry on,Paphidis...
I was simply airing a question that has been troubling me for some time...
You chose to come back with the predictable "all TCs are traitors" attitude,and totally ignored the essence of my question...

Thankfully,miltiades,Bananiot,Kifeas, Nikitas,and michalis to some extend,gave their best shot to answer my query,and I thank them for it...

I would be very careful when throwing allegations of "High treason" as lightly as you and some of your collaborators do...By your own definition, and theoretically, Makarios and the GC politicians at the time(including past president Papadopoulos),plus the EOKA members can all be accused of High treason themselves...They were not fighting for independence....They were fighting to unite their homeland with a "Foreign" country,hence betraying the oath they must've taken when sworn in as Ministers of the Republic of Cyprus....What you are missing is the essential ingredients which will help us to unite our country,empathy and compassion for the TCs...You cannot even imagine the position the GC demand for ENOSIS put the TCs at the time...They simply thought they had no other option but fight it by all means they can command...

All the other members who replied showed this empathy if not compassion,for which I am grateful...And in case you are wondering,I too think it was a legitimate and understandable action to demand ENOSIS with Greece at the time...I am just scratching my head wondering how on earth they thought they would get away with it...

[BirKibrisli]

One aspect of this whole sad saga keeps staring us in the face...
In 1950 there were 400,000 GCs and 100,000TCs give or take a few thousand other minorities....Yet the GCs totally ignored the feelings of the TCs and pushed ahead with their demand for ENOSIS....What did they think the TCs would do against such a terrible possibility (for them!)????

I am yet to read any attempt by any rightthinking member of this Forum addressing this issue...And please don't say "bad luck,majority rules"...
My point is those pushing for ENOSIS knew how the TCs would react...So how did they really hope to overcome the TC resistance??? Come on people,time to show some empathy for your TC compatriots...What would you do if you were in their shoes???? And put your hands on your hearts and tell me,was it not asking for real trouble for GCs to disregard the TC feelings on this...given the past 450 years of Cyprus history????

The mere fact that the TCs resisted the democratic right of the majority in their quest for self determination, and them forming TMT in 1958, was the first treasonous act of the TCs towards the GCs and the island of Cyprus.

The TCs collaborated with the British during 1955-1959. They withdrew from Government in 1963. They also committed atrocities towards the GCs. And last but definitely not least, they assisted Turkey in the July 1974 invasion.

So where in all that do the TCs deserve sympathy? Throughout the history of the island, the TCs committed "High Treason" towards their country.

Here is the definition of "High Treason":

[b]"Disloyalty or treachery to one's country or its government, to impair the well-being of a state to which one owes allegiance; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of one's government" [/b]

Perhaps you are referring to the 500-600 or so that were massacred by the GCs. Off course we sympathise with the victims of these atrocities. Do the TCs sympathise with our 10,000 victims between 1958-1974? Too much to ask?

But you ask too much my friend when you expect sympathy for your "High Treason" on several fronts. If the TCs had collaborated with EOKA from day 1, then I am positive that extremely strong bridges would have been built and bonds formed, which would have resulted in "real" nationhood and brotherhood. But this was not your goal. You wanted TAKSIM or to control Cyprus through Turkey.

Go and find another shoulder to cry on!!!

Credits: GR! for using part of his research and posts!

Thanks for that definition of treasom Bafidis. So EOKA commited treason against the 'Legal' goverment of Cyprus during the EOKA Emergency.

I sometimes had given EOKA some credit. Your definition proves me wrong.

Great minds think alike,huh,yegenim????