Notice: This is the official website of the All Empires History Community (Reg. 10 Feb 2002)

  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedTRNC

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>
Author
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
Direct Link To This Post Topic: TRNC
    Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:40
What was the purpose of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus? Was it considered an invasion?...just wondering

and please...no flame wars...
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:42

What?  There was an invasion and the United States was not at fault?

Kidding; just kidding. 

Let's keep it civil.



Edited by pikeshot1600
Back to Top
Lmprs View Drop Down
Arch Duke
Arch Duke


Joined: 30-Dec-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1869
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:52
Originally posted by mamikon

What was the purpose of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus?

To protect the Turkish population on the island. And to make sure that Cyprus is not a threat to Turkish Republic.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:56

Originally posted by barish

Originally posted by mamikon

What was the purpose of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus?

To protect the Turkish population on the island. And to make sure that Cyprus is not a threat to Turkish Republic.

At the risk of repeating myself from another forum, there were perceived vital interests at stake.

What do you know, Turkey acted upon those.

 

Back to Top
Zagros View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor

Suspended

Joined: 11-Aug-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8792
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 13:59

Yes, America's equivalent would be MEXICO ............................or.........................perha ps.................................. CUBA - NOT IRAQ-

sorry NO comparison. and I dont remember reading anything about hundreds of thousands of Cypriot civilians slaughtered or starved with impunity.

A better comparison would perhaps be Spain vs the Incas.



Edited by Zagros
Back to Top
mamikon View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 16-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2200
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 14:24
and Cyprus an independent state before Turkish intervention? or part of Greece?
Back to Top
Seko View Drop Down
Emperor
Emperor
Avatar
Spammer

Joined: 01-Sep-2004
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 8595
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:19

Well Mamikon this topic has been discussed out the wazoo in the past. Many a great flame war it has seen. So here is my non partial (as far as I can make it) short summation on your question.

Three main powers were guarantures of the Cypriot state. GB, Greece and Turkey. Independence was granted in 1960. Later movements for the partition or whole addition of Cyprus to Greece led to Turkish incursions.The ethnicities were struggling for political viability which led to ethnic strife and violence. The 1974 Turkish armed mission was a response to constitutional and civil viloations against the Turkish Cypriots.

Back to Top
DayI View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 30-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2408
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 15:26
Originally posted by mamikon

and Cyprus an independent state before Turkish intervention? or part of Greece?
yes it whas, then later the ultra-nationalistic (fascist, racist) cardinal came to the power such as makarios, he'd start to cleaning, masacring Turks from the island and then in 1974 the "atilla" invasion took place in cyprus by Turkey as a guarantor country and seperated Cyprus in 2.
Back to Top
OSMANLI View Drop Down
Colonel
Colonel
Avatar

Joined: 24-Nov-2004
Location: North Cyprus
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 740
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 16:12
I hope that this topic is still open by tomorow. I have coursework to do at the moment. But be patiant all, i will explain all tomorow straight from the Cypriots mouth.
Back to Top
pikeshot1600 View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar


Joined: 22-Jan-2005
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4221
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 16:14

Originally posted by OSMANLI

I hope that this topic is still open by tomorow. I have coursework to do at the moment. But be patiant all, i will explain all tomorow straight from the Cypriots mouth.

Oh, no!!!! 

 

Back to Top
Spartakus View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
terörist

Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 16:16
It was an illegal invasion ,made by Turkey,and supported by the British, in order to expand it's sphere of influence on the island ,thus protecting it's interests.That from  Turkey's side.In fact,it was the British who started the whole mess,in order to control the island,which is placed in a very important geostrategic position,in a more easy way through division.Look at the talks between Hellas ,Turkey and the Republic of Cyprus,held in the UN:There are British asses everywhere.
"There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. "
--- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996)
Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 16:32
Originally posted by Seko

Well Mamikon this topic has been discussed out the wazoo in the past. Many a great flame war it has seen. So here is my non partial (as far as I can make it) short summation on your question.

Three main powers were guarantures of the Cypriot state. GB, Greece and Turkey. Independence was granted in 1960. Later movements for the partition or whole addition of Cyprus to Greece led to Turkish incursions.The ethnicities were struggling for political viability which led to ethnic strife and violence. The 1974 Turkish armed mission was a response to constitutional and civil viloations against the Turkish Cypriots.

Tell me where  in constitution mention that any of the guaranture power has the right to invate in  Cyprus ?

Except the mentioned countries forget to mention and the USA.The role of the United States (actually Kissinger)  during that period of Cyprish history is still being debated by historians and political scientists. The State Department felt that a solution to the Cyprus problem lay in agreement between Athens and Ankara and as long as the Greeks and Turks are unable to agree about Cyprus  they will be unable to agree on anything else.

But as usual the equal distance in an schedule  invasion has only one victim. The Cyprish people and not the politics.

As about the schedule is known that in  a farewell party for the departing Public Affairs Officer Robert Wozniak at the beginning of May 1974, Sampson, who had been drinking heavily, talked about the previous abortive attacks on Makarios and said to the guests who were at his table, This time we will get him. Its going to be sooner than you think. When the statement was repeated to another U.S. diplomat present, David Grimland, he shrugged. Ignore it, he said. We get such reports every week.

The United States opposed any idea of renegotiating the Zurich-London agreements, suggested on some occasions, considering such an act as an invitation to the Soviet Union to meddle in the Cyprus  problem. The risks included the future of the British sovereign bases on the island and of the general orientation of Makarios and his government as well as of the influence of AKEL, the quasi-communist and biggest political party in Cyprus. Suggestions have been put that the United States was not opposed to any coup that could result in the overthrow of the archbishop-president and that it ignored reports of various plots by the Athens junta duly reported by Makarios to the U.S. embassy in Nicosia. The degree of involvement of the CIA with the plotters is yet to be properly documented.

This is in short the scope of the  illegal invation and occupation of one UN country to another.

 



Edited by akritas
Back to Top
bg_turk View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 28-Jan-2006
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2347
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 17:00

The Turkish internvention was a legitimate and a lawful act which was in full accordance with the treaty of the guarantee, which gave all three guarantator states Greece, Turkey and UK the right to act in case the constitutional order in the Republic was threatened. But the treaty of guarantee did not give Turkey the right to partition the island.

The intervention was absolutely legal and in full accordance with international law, it was the fact that Turkey did not choose to restore order but instead partitioned the island that cannot be justified.

Back to Top
akritas View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar
Hegemom

Joined: 17-Sep-2005
Location: Greek Macedonia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1460
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 17:16
Originally posted by bg_turk

The Turkish internvention was a legitimate and a lawful act which was in full accordance with the treaty of the guarantee, which gave all three guarantator states Greece, Turkey and UK the right to act in case the constitutional order in the Republic was threatened. But the treaty of guarantee did not give Turkey the right to partition the island.

The intervention was absolutely legal and in full accordance with international law, it was the fact that Turkey did not choose to restore order but instead partitioned the island that cannot be justified.

The right of "intervention" that is provided for by the treaties of Zurich and London does not explicitly involve the use of force or the invation and as you said the occupation. Treaty of Guarantee provided for consultations between the guarantor powers and only if concerted action were to prove impossible, did the Treaty of Guarantee reserve for each of the guarantor powers the right to act unilaterally with the exclusive aim of restoring constitutional order. And the violation of this Treauty was the cause of the Turkish conviction by the UN.The Turkish invasion and its aftermath dislocated about one fourth of the islands inhabitants (Greeks and Turks), paralyzed its economy and thwarted all ambitious plans.



Edited by akritas
Back to Top
Komnenos View Drop Down
Tsar
Tsar
Avatar
Retired AE Administrator

Joined: 20-Dec-2004
Location: Neutral Zone
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4361
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 17:34
If you should run out of arguments, there are 27 threads with "Cyprus" in the title in our archives

http://www.allempires.com/forum/search.asp?KW=Cyprus&SM=1&SI =TC&FM=0&OB=1

and a further 358 threads that mentioned Cyprus at least once.

http://www.allempires.com/forum/search.asp?KW=Cyprus&SM=1&SI =PT&FM=0&OB=1&SPN=1

I'm sure there is enough ammunition.
[IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg">
Back to Top
Cunctator View Drop Down
Samurai
Samurai
Avatar

Joined: 12-Feb-2006
Location: Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 105
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 21:53

I think, when we look at Cyprus, we automatically assume that the Turks (the larger, more populous country) were the aggressors and the Greeks the victims. Like most political conflicts, the context is much richer in detail.

There were probably all sorts of reasons for the Turks to have intervened, not the least of which was Ankara's treaty right (with Greece and the UK) to prevent Enosis (union of Cyprus with Greece).

What I have often thought interesting was the feeling among some Turkish and Turkish Cypriot leaders that the ethnic Turkish population on the island was or could be in physical danger. Rauf Denktas, the former president of the TRNC, used to say that there would be "no more Cretes" -- referencing the elimination of the Turkish population on that island after 1897. Denktas was a master politician and so was skillful at using speech to convince others. But that reference to Crete is not widely understood outside Turkish circles, and so he was appealing to a feeling of threat that already exists within that community.

Back to Top
strategos View Drop Down
Chieftain
Chieftain
Avatar

Joined: 09-Mar-2005
Location: Denmark
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1096
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 22:50

Turks will arugue and argue about how the invasion was justified, but there is no justafication of the pseudo state established in the north by ethnically cleansing the island

- There is no military junta in Cyprus.

-There is no military junta in Greece.

The choice to establish a colony in the north is clear because turkey did not try to restore order, but simply establish a colony and settle its own people in the north, and refuses to remove occupation troops.

Even after there was peacetalks at the table the turkish army continued to absorb even more land even when a rough border was established.

Makarios choose eventually not to support enosis and thats why he was overthrown.

America also thought he was sympethetic to communists and a junta would for surely prevent any communist takeover. He was called the Castro the of the mediterranean. Then when turkey invaded Cyprus america new this forsurely would also remove any communist threat to the island and why they did not intervene.

I think the saddest part of the Cyprus saga is that America could not stop Nato members from fighting for each other, and that this occupation lives on today



Edited by strategos
http://theforgotten.org/intro.html
Back to Top
Akolouthos View Drop Down
Sultan
Sultan
Avatar

Joined: 24-Feb-2006
Location: United States
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2091
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 22:58
The Turkish internvention was a legitimate and a lawful act which was in full accordance with the treaty of the guarantee, which gave all three guarantator states Greece, Turkey and UK the right to act in case the constitutional order in the Republic was threatened. But the treaty of guarantee did not give Turkey the right to partition the island.

The intervention was absolutely legal and in full accordance with international law, it was the fact that Turkey did not choose to restore order but instead partitioned the island that cannot be justified.

I like it. I'm not quite sure I agree with it, but I definitely think it's interesting as a compromise position.

yes it whas, then later the ultra-nationalistic (fascist, racist) cardinal came to the power such as makarios, he'd start to cleaning, masacring Turks from the island and then in 1974 the "atilla" invasion took place in cyprus by Turkey as a guarantor country and seperated Cyprus in 2.

Whoa, there's a thread about this somewhere; you know, what with the applying labels. Granted Makarios was a supporter of Enosis, and granted that he was possibly more devoted to his role as ethnarch than to his role as Arch-bishop (not Cardinal). Don't quite know if I'd be as harsh on him as you though, but hey, your choice/freedom of opinion and what not .

-Akolouthos, Pig-Dog

Back to Top
Maju View Drop Down
King
King
Avatar

Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 23:10
I am with Strategos in this: Turkey did not aim to just interfere in Cyprus to protect the 8% of Cypriots that were ethincal Turkish (only 8%!!!) but it just parted the islad in two to informally annex the north of it and settle it with Turks from the mainland.

The worst thing about Cyprus is that it is a genocidal occupation simmilar to that of Palestine, where the orginal inhabitants are displaced to make room for new colonists.

The UK, as mentioned above, has also much to explain. After all what they want is to keep their gigantic military bases: sort of the Gibraltar of the Near East.

NO GOD, NO MASTER!
Back to Top
merced12 View Drop Down
General
General
Avatar

Joined: 24-Sep-2005
Location: Turkey
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 767
Direct Link To This Post Posted: 28-Feb-2006 at 03:53

Originally posted by Maju

I am with Strategos in this: Turkey did not aim to just interfere in Cyprus to protect the 8% of Cypriots that were ethincal Turkish (only 8%!!!) but it just parted the islad in two to informally annex the north of it and settle it with Turks from the mainland.

The worst thing about Cyprus is that it is a genocidal occupation simmilar to that of Palestine, where the orginal inhabitants are displaced to make room for new colonists.

The UK, as mentioned above, has also much to explain. After all what they want is to keep their gigantic military bases: sort of the Gibraltar of the Near East.

In 1960, the last year for which there was an official census for the entire population of Cyprus, the island was home to 573,566 people. Official estimates held that there were 441,568 Greek Cypriots, 3,627 Armenians, 2,706 Maronites (in the future these two groups were to be counted as part of the Greek Cypriot community, according to the terms of the constitution of 1960), 103,822 Turkish Cypriots, and 24,408 others (mostly foreigners). According to government statistics, 81.14 percent of Cypriots in 1960, were Greek Cypriot (including Armenians and Maronites) and 18.86 percent were Turkish Cypriot. Republic of Cyprus statistics estimated the 1988 population of the whole island at 687,500, and that of the government-controlled area at 562,700. It was estimated that the island's population consisted of 550,400 (80.1 percent) Greek Cypriots (including 6,300 Armenians and Maronites), 128,200 (18.6 percent) Turkish Cypriots, and 8,900 (1.3 percent) who belonged to other groups (mainly British). Cypriot population estimates were often controversial, because they could have significant bearing on political settlements. Thus, population figures from the "Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus" differed markedly from those of the Republic of Cyprus.

 

 

http://www.turks.org.uk/
16th century world;
Ottomans all Roman orients
Safavids in Persia
Babur in india
`azerbaycan bayragini karabagdan asacagim``
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  12>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.56a [Free Express Edition]
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz

This page was generated in 0.125 seconds.