| IS Cyprus better off or Worse off after EOKA? |
| Cyprus was better off with EOKA: |
|
27% |
[ 5 ] |
| Cyprus was worse off with EOKA: |
|
44% |
[ 8 ] |
| Cyprus should of Stayed with Britain: |
|
27% |
[ 5 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 18 |
|
| Author |
Message |
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2876
Location: Australia
|
|
Boys there are some thing in life that even baffle dear old DP!
EOKA is ONE of them!!!!!!!!!!
What did they actually achieve?
EOKA:
What was there propose?
To get rid of Britain and have and a independent Cyprus?
Well if that is what they wanted they didn't get that:
Britain my friends are still as active in Cyprus then ever!
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is WHY get rid of Britain WHEN you knew there where 80 million Turks 20 kilometers aways READY to grinding their teeth into Cyprus given the opportunity!
Britain made Cyprus into the civilized and modern country it was!
I have said this many time:
In 1966/67 Cyprus was 25 years ahead of Australia:
50 years a head of Greece!
And at least 100 years and more a head of Turkey:
SO why go backwards!
OK! You get some people like my father who say that Britain took all the cream:
Britain had too many laws:
Britain ruled Cyprus with an iron fist!
SO WHAT? BIG Deal!
It was Britain that keep Turkey in the shadows for 1000s of years!
Did you really think Turkey would have the guts to attack Cyprus if Britain was still in power?
You gotta be dreaming!
So boys I know that for many EOKA fighters where Heroes and wanted freedom and liberty BUT for me they where fools who NOT see past there noses at the FUTURE!
They all died for Nothing!
They achieved Nothing!
And LOOK at Cyprus TODAY!
Not only is it divided and with Turkey controlling half of it BUT Britain is still here my friends!
I would like to quote a Greek Cypriot saying: TRIPA STO NERO!
So celebrate the 1st of April BUT for me the 1st of April is the Death of the island of Cyprus thanks to a few WHO thought that Cyprus would be better without Britain!
IF I had to pick out of British Rule and the Turkish invasion:
You know what I would pick!
One sad part to this story is that Britain warned Cyprus many time: They warned Makarios and others that the only thing stopping Turkey is this British Flag and once it comes down your on your own!
How right they where!
Greece didn't even send a carrier pigeon!
cheers
PS That is WHY I kiss the Queen picture ever-day: With 200million Crazy Indonesians 100 kilometers away, WHAT would you do? |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
EOKA achieved the decolonisation of Cyprus.
Yes your right DP Cyprus maybe was going to be more secure with the British, maybe the British were going to save us from Turkey but how were the people suppose to know that the course of Cyprus History would follow that path.
I said it before, in my opinion if EOKA achieved its original goals - 'enosis', Cyprus was going to be safer, united and better of than today.
Cheers |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mete
Warnings : 3
Deputy
Joined: 16 Aug 2005
Posts: 1150
Location: Boston
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
I said it before, in my opinion if EOKA achieved its original goals - 'enosis', Cyprus was going to be safer, united and better of than today.
|
For Greek Cypriots, true, Cyprus would be safer and better. For Turkish Cypriots, could you say the same? Or who cares about the minority as long as the majority is safe, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2876
Location: Australia
|
|
stavrizatz said!
EOKA achieved the decolonization of Cyprus?
DP Answer!
All EOKA had to do is wait for Britain to solve the SUEZ problem and they would given us this decolonization without a single gunshot and without a single tear!
stavrizatz said!
"Cyprus maybe was going to be more secure with the British, maybe the British were going to save us from Turkey"
DP Answer!
Not MAYBE mate BUT look at the Falklands and wait and see what Britain will do to IRAN if IRAN has that stupid backward time-warp thinking!
Britain would of sent Turkey back 1000 years!
Poor Iraq is back 1000 centuries SO FAR!
stavrizatz said!
"but how were the people suppose to know that the course of Cyprus History would follow that path?"
DP Answer!
Politics my friend Politics:
Makarios and Grivas and EOKA where given 100s of warning by the British BUT to deaf ears! WHY?
Because they where ALL on a EGO trip!
Makarios should if stayed a Priest at monastery and left the Politics to politicians:
Grivas should of went to STH America and KILLED 1000s of Communists like he did in Greece and left Cyprus alone:
EOKA should of stayed home and raised their children and waited until Turkey become civilized? I don't know when that would of happened OR in the EU!
stavrizatz said!
"in my opinion if EOKA achieved its original goals - 'enosis"
DP Answer!
What a JOKE!
EOKA where a misguided bunch of fools who could not see past their noses!
They helped achieve the heartache, pain, suffering and disaster that Cyprus has absorbing for over 40 years and more!
stavrizatz I hate to say this you are not alone!
I have an Uncle who was in EOKA and then an EOKA B and he has the same thinking as you so they must of used BLOODY good detergents to wash every-ones brains because after so many years you all still think EOKA achieved the BEST for Cyprus!
cheers!
Mete EOKA did not ask the people what THEY wanted:
SO a Few FOOLS thought the majority wanted EOKA and Independence!
They did the same in 74 when EOKA B did the thinking for everyone and in the end Greek Cypriot where fighting Greek Cypriot! WHY because they didn't think the same!
Again in the ANNAN Plan many thought GREAT MOST Greek Cypriot wanted the YES VOTE! But then again they where wrong!
WHY?
Politics my good friend Politics! |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Hey DP firstly I would like to separate EOKA A' and EOKA B' because even so they had the same goal, the motives and the circumstances under which they operated were different.
DP Answer!
"All EOKA had to do is wait for Britain to solve the SUEZ problem and they would given us this decolonization without a single gunshot and without a single tear!"
That time was the ideal period for a revolution as there was an attempt for decolonisation by other countries at the same time. Britain officially stated that some countries because of their circumstances can never expect decolonisation. How do you think people will react to that.
DP Answer!
Politics my friend Politics:
Makarios and Grivas and EOKA where given 100s of warning by the British BUT to deaf ears! WHY?
Because they where ALL on a EGO trip!
Makarios said that EOKA was maybe a mistake, and I think it was and my father thinks it was... but we are saying that now, how could they foresee the future. How many decisions have you made that were proven to be wrong?
Well looking back yes EOKA was most probably a mistake if that is what you want to hear. I don't think EOKA achieved the best for Cyprus, all I am saying is that they resisted a foreign power that was ruling our country, they said NO to domination NO to unjustice, NO to unfair distribution of the wealth of the island, they were striving for freedom and long lasting peace in Cyprus. Whether if they achieved it, whether if the made mistakes, whether if they discriminated particular groups it is a different chapter.
As for EOKA B' don't go there, i never supported their action and will never do. Why do you confuse the 2?
I now everything is politics but there are also dreams that come true and rarely dreamers achieve them despite the unconvinient reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2876
Location: Australia
|
|
stavrizatz
THANKS for agreeing with me on the above comments:
BUT Let me show 2 current situations about the
"HOW did we know?"
You remember we had a referendum about the Queen, constitution and Britain:
What did John Howard DO?
He backed the Queen! Am I right?
OK NEXT!
We were approached by the USA for a new base in Australia!
What did Howard do?
He gave the USA not ONE but TWO Bases in Northern Territory!
NOW stavrizatz tell me WHY Howard did this?
Wouldn't it be nice for Australia to get its Independence from Britain OUR motherland?
Isn't better without the USA having these so called BASES in a peaceful country like Australia?
Give me one reason WHY Little Johnny Howard did this?
AND!
I will give you 200 million reasons!
This is called GOOD common SENSE Politics and foreseeing the FUTURE of the people of ones country!
cheers:
PS As for EOKA & EOKA B I peaceful a couple of Uncles in BOTH!
WHY?
One Uncle had a fight with Makarios over not letting him be the builder on new Government building so he became EOKA B!
The second UNCLE!
He hated his brother who was a Sergent in the British Army and had made a good name for himself and well known in Kyrenia:
SO my EOKA B Uncle hated his brother so much that during the Turkish invasion he shot him 3 times and BLAMED you know who!
Turkey!
cheers again! |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| ... all I am saying is that they resisted a foreign power that was ruling our country, they said NO to domination NO to unjustice, NO to unfair distribution of the wealth of the island, they were striving for freedom and long lasting peace in Cyprus. Whether if they achieved it, whether if the made mistakes, whether if they discriminated particular groups it is a different chapter. |
I am sorry stavrizatz but I have to comment on this.
From a Turkish Cypriot point of view 'they' said no to domination of Greek Cypriot and Greek Cypriot communal will by others but in a manner that required the domination of Turkish Cypriot will to achieve (by fighting for enosis and not independence alone). They said NO to injustice against Greek Cypriot but did not ever question how just it was to force enosis on the Turkish Cypriot community against their will. If they WERE striving for freedom and long lasting peace then they were striving for the freedom of only Greek Cypriot and not Turkish Cypriot - for to the vast majority of Turkish Cypriot enosis represented a potential tyranny to them far in excess of that suffered under British rule.
There were undoubtedly noble elements within EOKA both in terms of it's aim and in terms of those that sought to achieve these aims in EOKA's name - but to make out that these were the ONLY elements within EOKA, or the only ones relevant to 'that chapter' to use your words, is to me a perversion of the reality of EOKA. EOKA some of the aims that EOKA sought were noble and were about 'freedom' and 'justice' but just as surely other elements were ignoble and about the exact opposite of these things and these are as real and belong as much in the 'same chapter' as the noble ones imo. |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
Sorry Erolz but I stand by what I've said.
EOKA faced two challenges firstly and most importantly the decolonisation of the island and secondly the new government structure after the departure of the British. Up to that point Turkish Cypriots did not make clear what they really wanted where on the other hand enosis was a noble demand of most Cypriots.
I don't think we will agree with the second part, but I hope you agree with me that the decolonisation of Cyprus was something desirable by almost by every single Cypriot.
DP:
| Quote: |
| I will give you 200 million reasons! |
I'll give you 200 million reason too... the 200.000.000 Indonesians just North do OZ!
I agree with you sometimes you just need to play the game and Johny plays the game very well, but there are questions of ethics... why should we enjoy extreme laxury (once the powers are with us) at the time that other suffer extreme poverty? |
|
| Back to top |
|
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2876
Location: Australia
|
|
stavrizatz
Can DP query you again!
1: All my Turkish Cypriot friends wanted is equality with the Greek Cypriot! Was that hard to ask for?
2: If you believed that MOST Greek Cypriot wanted ENOSIS well you where definitely WRONG!
WHY? Simple!
YOU answer this IMPORTANT question?
DID Greece really want Cyprus?
cheers
PS OH YES! one more thing!
IF so MANY Greek Cypriot wanted ENOSIS why where they killing each other?
Doesn't quite make sense! |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Sorry Erolz but I stand by what I've said.
EOKA faced two challenges firstly and most importantly the decolonisation of the island and secondly the new government structure after the departure of the British. |
I have to say on this issue I agree with DP in that the eventual end of British rule was assured to Cyprus and clearly so by 55 without any need for armed violence or struggle. If one seriously analyses the British position post 55 re Cyprus it is in a nutshell - 'how do we get out of Cyprus (and keep some bases) without causing a war between Greece and Turkey?'. In this regard enosis and the resort to violence to achieve it were both actually blocks that made the end of British rule harder to achieve. Resort to violence was not required to end British rule - however it is much easier to understand how a resort to violence was considered essential to ensure that enosis was the result after the inevitable end of British rule.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Up to that point Turkish Cypriots did not make clear what they really wanted where on the other hand enosis was a noble demand of most Cypriots. |
You are right I do not agree with this. What was it that made enosis (as opposed to independence) a 'noble demand'? Simply the fact that more Greek Cypriot apparently wanted it than did not (and therefore more Cypriots in total of all Cypriots) ? If the demand for enosis was a 'nobel demand' on the part of Greek Cypriot do you also accept that a demand for the union of Cyprus or part of it to Turkey after British rule was a 'noble demand' on the part of Turkish Cypriot and if not why not ? What I am trying to get at is what is it that you think confers 'nobility' re enosis and is t just 'numbers' that confer such nobility?
Nor do I think it is historically accurate to say that Turkish Cypriot did not make clear what they wanted. There can be little doubt that the Turkish Cypriot community was clear on what it did not want and would not consider acceptable - namely that of it being force to become Greek citizens and Cyprus being handed over to Greece against its communal will. Certainly the volume and force of this Turkish Cypriot communal voice rose in pretty much exact proportion to how likely the achievement of enosis was on the part of Greek Cypriot. When the realisation of enosis was a remote and distant concern this voice was quiet (yet still consistent on this point) such as in the 30's. As enosis began to look more and more like a clear and present danger to the Turkish Cypriot community and their wishes this voice became louder and more forceful.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
I don't think we will agree with the second part, but I hope you agree with me that the decolonisation of Cyprus was something desirable by almost by every single Cypriot. |
I agree that decolonisation was both desirable by all cypriots but also a 'noble demand' in it's conceptual essence (not as a function for how many may have wanted it but in and of itself). However what you appear unable to realise or accept is that for Turkish Cypriot enosis did not represent decolonisation at all , but actually just represented a change of colonial ruler from Britain to Greece and thus a change of colonial status that was in fact even worse than the then current colonial status. |
|
| Back to top |
|
depurple
Warnings : 1
Ministerial
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Posts: 2876
Location: Australia
|
|
PS Erolz one more thing THAT most EOKA & EOKA B said many times!
After the British THEN the Turkish Cypriot!
What was that meant to mean?
IF EOKA believed that MOST Cypriots wanted to get getting rid of the British: Why didn't they involved the Turkish Cypriot?
I have said this many times and will say it again and again:
EOKA was sucked in by GREECE who didn't want to pay Britain for ALL the infrastructure it spent on Cyprus in the last 100 or so years!
SO the Greeks said to EOKA:
You are Greeks NOW fight for Independence and then ENOSIS!
WHAT a Joke! Go from British RULE to Greek RULE!
What ever happened to Cypriot RULE?
Did anyone out there visit Greece in the 50s. 60s and 70s!
Man YOU would cry!
Most of their villages had no Doctors, no Electricity, No tape water, No teachers ect ect
IS this the country EOKA wanted to join?
I thought you would WANT better NO worst!
Politics never ceases to amaze me!
cheers
PS Australia will get Independence from Britain in 2022 when it PAYS what it owes for the Infrastructure like Rambuka DID in FIJI! |
|
| Back to top |
|
stavrizatz
Mukhtar/is
Joined: 20 Feb 2006
Posts: 910
Location: Australia / Lefkosia
|
|
DP wrote
| Quote: |
1: All my Turkish Cypriot friends wanted is equality with the Greek Cypriot! Was that hard to ask for?
2: If you believed that MOST Greek Cypriot wanted ENOSIS well you where definitely WRONG!
WHY? Simple!
YOU answer this IMPORTANT question?
DID Greece really want Cyprus? |
Stavrizatz replies
1. At a large degree they had and they still have equality. Of course there was room for improvement but confidently I can say there was more equality between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots than between Wogs and Aussies down under.
2. Yes the extreme majority of Greek Cypriot wanted Enosis, simple because Cyprus was Greek. some Turkish Cypriots didn't mind enosis too.
Whether if Greece wanted Cyprus... I don't think I need to answer this question 
Why they were killing each other... well as far as I am concerned AKEL was the one party which was pro-enosis, but when they realised that communism was not feasible if Cyprus united with Greece they shifted ideas aiming for an independent and communist Cyprus. That move frustrated the rest who quickly labelled the lefties as traitors! Irrelevant to that the scale of the conflict was not big at all and only extreme left did not support Enosis.
-------------------------
| Quote: |
| I have to say on this issue I agree with DP in that the eventual end of British rule was assured to Cyprus and clearly so by 55 without any need for armed violence or struggle. |
Maybe, but how do we know… how were people suppose to know? Seriously if in 1955 Britain had clear intentions to leave Cyprus as you and DP say why would the Cypriot leadership go ahead with the struggle against a much powerful country? Do you genuinely believe that they were so stupid, do you believe having threats for partition', having threats for 'decolonisation never' that the leadership at the time trusted Britain and Turkey?
It is easy to say EOKA was a mistake from the comfort of our desk chair 50 years later, but was it easy for Cypriots at the time that lived under foreign rule for approx. 800 years to wait with the British promises "allow Cyprus reunite with Greece". EOKA had a clear case and the opportunity to unite with Greece… they failed, so what?
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| the union of Cyprus or part of it to Turkey after British rule was a 'noble demand' on the part of Turkish Cypriot and if not why not ? |
If Cyprus became Turkish as a wishful result of the people then YES. If a part of Cyprus was to unite with Turkey where territory could be clearly separated then YES again. However neither were the case. On the other hand enosis was the wishful demand of the majority and after all Cyprus was and is historically Greek you like it or not.
Erolz wrote:
| Quote: |
| ...but actually just represented a change of colonial ruler from Britain to Greece and thus a change of colonial status that was in fact even worse than the then current colonial status. |
I though we sort that out in the past that the relation between Cyprus to Greece and Britain were essentially different and from memory you agreed that Greece was not like a colonial power to Cyprus!
Anyway the right of self-determination clearly states that people have the freedom to chose their sovereignty and by passing administration of the island to Greece. Ah yes, I forgot some countries are not entitled to their human rights! |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| Maybe, but how do we know… how were people suppose to know? Seriously if in 1955 Britain had clear intentions to leave Cyprus as you and DP say why would the Cypriot leadership go ahead with the struggle against a much powerful country? Do you genuinely believe that they were so stupid, do you believe having threats for partition', having threats for 'decolonisation never' that the leadership at the time trusted Britain and Turkey? |
If you look at the clear documentary record, then it is clear that Britain wished to get out of sovereignty over Cyprus (whilst maintaining bases) - but WITHOUT causing conflict between the NATO allies of Greece and Turkey. For Britain by 55 getting out of sovereignty over Cyprus was clearly her desire - but what was also equally clear even then was that enosis as a follow on to the end of British sovereignty was not something she could accept. Britain was prepared to consider any follow on from British rule other than enosis and actually keen to secure this and quickly by 55. What then REQUIRED a resort to violence was not ending British colonial rule but ending it and replacing it with enosis. It was enosis that was the problem not ending colonial rule, it was enosis that 'required' a resort to violence for any other end to British rule was acceptable to the UK and sought by them. To me portraying EOKA as a struggle merely to end British colonial rule then is just inaccurate - for the ending of British rule needed no such resort to violence. It was achieving enosis that required the resort to violence for this is what the British ooposed.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
It is easy to say EOKA was a mistake from the comfort of our desk chair 50 years later, but was it easy for Cypriots at the time that lived under foreign rule for approx. 800 years to wait with the British promises "allow Cyprus reunite with Greece". EOKA had a clear case and the opportunity to unite with Greece… they failed, so what? |
What I am saying is that a resort to violence was NOT required to achieve the end of British colonial rule in Cyprus and that Britain had made this abundantly clear by 55. What Britian did oppose and thus did 'require' the resort to violence by the Greek Cypriot leadership was enosis. It is just a fact of history that even with this resort to violence enosis was STILL not achievable.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| If Cyprus became Turkish as a wishful result of the people then YES. If a part of Cyprus was to unite with Turkey where territory could be clearly separated then YES again. However neither were the case. On the other hand enosis was the wishful demand of the majority... |
This is where I disagree with you about the 'nobility' of a cause. To me the nobility or not of a cause is a function of its inherent ideas and not one of numbers or of geography. For example capital punishment in the UK has long been supported by a numerical majority - but I do not see capital punishment as a 'noble' idea simply because lots of people want it.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
and after all Cyprus was and is historically Greek you like it or not. |
Cyprus was and is predominately culturally Greek. Can you see the difference between your assertion and mine? Maybe these two will help you to see that difference. Australia was and is British. Australia was and is predominately culturally British.
As for the 'like it or not' - how about enosis was and is unachievable in Cyprus weather you like it or not.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| I though we sort that out in the past that the relation between Cyprus to Greece and Britain were essentially different and from memory you agreed that Greece was not like a colonial power to Cyprus! |
WHat I agree is that there was a material difference between British colonial rule and potential Greek colonial rule of Cyprus post enosis - the difference being that under British colonial rule Cypriots did not get to vote in the UK as UK citizens but under Greek colonial rule they would have got to vote in Greece as Greek citizens. However I no more accept that this means that such rule by Greece would not be a form of colonial rule than you would accept that if Britian had given Cypriots the right to vote in UK elections as UK citizens in 59 , this would have represented the end of British colonial rule in Cyprus. Again using your phrase - like it or not the fact remains that for the vast majority of Turkish Cypriot enosis represented a change of colonial ruler from Britian to Greece and a change for the worse, rights to vote as Greeks not withstanding.
| stavrizatz wrote: |
Anyway the right of self-determination clearly states that people have the freedom to chose their sovereignty and by passing administration of the island to Greece. Ah yes, I forgot some countries are not entitled to their human rights! |
The right to self determination does NOT say that peoples have a fundamental right to choose to be ruled by others. No where does it say this. It says they have a right to determine their OWN future - and even then this right is not absolute. It is clear from repeated precedent that where such a right impinges on other peoples right to THEIR self determination then both need to compromise their absolute demands.
Again you also make you classic mistake in your assertion "I forgot some countries are not entitled to their human rights". Human rights do NOT apply to counties - they apply to individuals and collectively they apply to 'peoples'. No where in Human Rights charters do human rights get applied to countries. This is an important difference because it is this fundamental misrepresentation of who these rights apply too that allow you to insist that by denying Greek Cypriot absolute right to determine their own future with no regard for any others in order to protect the same rights of Turkish Cypriot you deny human rights to Cyprus the country. Human rights do not apply to countries they apply to peoples. We can start the whole argument about if Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot are separate peoples or not or to what degree they are if you like , but the point is this idea that anything that thwarts the Greek Cypriot communal will is denying human rights to Cyprus is not correct legally or morally. Limits on absolute exercise of Greek Cypriot right to self determination that are designed to protect another peoples same rights are totally compatible with both the ideals and the practical exercise of the right to self determination. I realise it is had or even impossible for you to accept that any limits on Greek Cypriot doing anything they want in and with Cyprus with no need to regard the wishes of anyone else could ever be anything but legally and morally invalid - but actually it is possible for such limits to be placed and still be both legally and morally in line with the charters on human rights. |
|
| Back to top |
|
pg
Deputy
Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: Cyprus
|
|
| erolz wrote: |
| stavrizatz wrote: |
| Maybe, but how do we know… how were people suppose to know? Seriously if in 1955 Britain had clear intentions to leave Cyprus as you and DP say why would the Cypriot leadership go ahead with the struggle against a much powerful country? Do you genuinely believe that they were so stupid, do you believe having threats for partition', having threats for 'decolonisation never' that the leadership at the time trusted Britain and Turkey? |
If you look at the clear documentary record, then it is clear that Britain wished to get out of sovereignty over Cyprus (whilst maintaining bases) - but WITHOUT causing conflict between the NATO allies of Greece and Turkey. For Britain by 55 getting out of sovereignty over Cyprus was clearly her desire - but what was also equally clear even then was that enosis as a follow on to the end of British sovereignty was not something she could accept. Britain was prepared to consider any follow on from British rule other than enosis and actually keen to secure this and quickly by 55. What then REQUIRED a resort to violence was not ending British colonial rule but ending it and replacing it with enosis. It was enosis that was the problem not ending colonial rule, it was enosis that 'required' a resort to violence for any other end to British rule was acceptable to the UK and sought by them. To me portraying EOKA as a struggle merely to end British colonial rule then is just inaccurate - for the ending of British rule needed no such resort to violence. It was achieving enosis that required the resort to violence for this is what the British ooposed.
|
I do not think we can say that the UK was for an independent Cyprus in 1955.
http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/london_conference.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
erolz
Site Admin
Joined: 11 Aug 2005
Posts: 4195
Location: Kyrenia / Girne
|
|
1955 was the 'turning point' re British approach to Cyprus. Nor did I actually say 55 marked the point at which the British were 'for' an independent Cyprus. What I said is that it was clear from 55 that Britain wanted a way out of the 'burden' of sovereignty over Cyprus (or sole sovereignty). From 55 onwards it is clear that Britain is looking for a 'way put' - provided it did not cause a war between Greece and Turkey in the process and that Britain could secure the bases it considered necessary to British interest. There is a progression in British attempts to extract themselves from Cyprus , whilst meeting their other two objectives of avoiding Greco Turkish conflict and securing British bases, which starts in 55. These stages can be sumarised as follows.
Sept 55 - accept that Cyprus is not a purely internal British issue and that both Turkey and Greece have a legitimate interest.
Nov 55 - acceptance of self determination of cypriots in in principle but not in immediate practice.
June 56 - exploration of feasibility of conceding to enosis through self- determination (immediately rejected by Turkey)
Dec 56 - acceptance of contingent application of self determination with the proviso that Turkish Cypriot would have a separate such right.
The point I am trying to make is that to me at least the characterisation of the EOKA struggle as simply being a struggle of an oppressed people against its colonial masters who were themselves determined to maintain colonial rule indefinitely regardless of every global trend and every trend within their other colonies. This is just not the case. The problem for Britain post 55 was not in comming to terms with the idea on no longer being sovereign in Cyprus. Britains problem was how to end its own sovereignty in Cyprus without causing Greco Turkish conflict. the issue was not colonialism but actually enosis. My view is that if there were no Turkish Cypriot community in Cyprus nor any strategic interest in it from Turkey then there would have been no significant block on Britain handing over sovereignty to Cypriots post 55 and certainly not any need to resort to violence on the part of Cypriots. The problem was the demand for enosis - this is what made it 'hard' for Britian to hand over its sovereignty post 55 and not any desire to maintain Cyprus as a colony indefinitely.
In short if all Cypriots had wanted was independence then this was clearly (imo) achievable without any need for a resort to violence on the part of Cypriots. It was the demand for enosis and only enosis that made Britain resist and it was enosis that then required a resort to violence. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Register 
Log in 
Album 
Home 
