Cyprus of old - Enjoy

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 12:32

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=75409



I posted this on another thread, however it is likely to get missed by those who could be interested in seeing it.



I noticed this video on another forum site and was posted by a person who's handle is DT

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 12:59

http://www.britishpathe.com/record.php?id=60455

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 13:03

So, the Turkish Cypriots were marching for partition back in 58 and declaring that Turkey would invade if their needs were not met

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 13:13

I am astonished at the number of TC's demonstrating

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 13:32

Excellent stuff Mark,great commentary by Harry Enfield.Would it be possible for these to be made stickies,

Paul.

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 18:36

I am surprised that there are no further comments about the second video.



Am I only the one who is now thinking that Taksim was actually quite a big movement? Bigger, better organised and more covert than I had realised?



Did you notice the Cyprus flag? The TC's seemed to want a larger share of the island than they have now come to settle for? It's amazing, that the TC's map showed they wanted to occupy the North of the island, being close to Turkey, whilst at that time many TC's still lived in the South. It's incredible how their dream for the North has come true, even though they have not got partition. Somehow, without mutually agreeing to it, the TC's moved North and the Gc's moved South. Each side found their own community,their own country, but lost their freedom to the whole island, something the TC's have more or less settled for, whereas the GC's have not



It seems the war on the island was an inevitability, with both sides demanding union with their motherlands.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 19:30

Very interesting footage ilovecyprus.



Having now read a wealth of literature and put aside much of the propaganda that exists North and South and researched all the political shenanigans that occurred, I have come to the conclusion that this was always Turkey's goal. Whilst people are quick to blame GC for wanting enosis the TC's, as is evident in this footage, also wanted Taksim. Its a pity that the island was not partitioned at this time as much bloodshed would have been prevented. The meddling Brits, Turks, Americans, Greek and Russia must take responsibility for much of todays situation.



Worthy of exploring is why Turkey waited until 1974 to do this? Then to ask if you consider it to be an invasion or an intervention???

Denny


Joined: 09/12/2010
Posts: 261

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 19:53

ilovecyprus:

>>Am I only the one who is now thinking that Taksim was actually quite a big movement? Bigger, better organised and more covert than I had realised<<

Actually no, some people have been pointing out on TRNC forums for several years that the Greek coup was Turkey's pretext for invasion and partition in 1974, and that taksim was a goal from the 1950s. You yourself may even have previously attacked posters who pointed out Turkey's true aims in Cyprus.

In the land of the blind...

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 19:54

msge 8



nice one Pikey

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 20:06

Hi Sue,



As i see it "operation atilla" was launched on the 20th of July 1974,by Turkish armed forces,in response

to a Greek military junta backed coup.After Makarios had been replaced by Nikos Sampson.Sampson

resigned from his post after the troubles,and was consequentley jailed for 20 years for "abuse of power"

So i am going to go with intervention as oppose to invasion,

Paul.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 20:46

there was a phantom turkish intervention in 1967:

they started loading troop transports at its iskenderun port

and the us barely managed to mediate between the sides...



remember this was the cold war and separating nato turkey

and greece was paramount in american policy



the whole cyprus question goes back as far as the 1950's

when it looked to have been an eoka campain against british

colonial control

had they waited another couple of years the "wind of change"

would have belatedly allowed cyprus independence anyway



although it is a moot point if "things" had turned out differently

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 21:08

On 23 July 1974 the Greek military junta collapsed mainly because Greek political leaders in exile started returning to the country. On 24 July 1974 Constantine Karamanlis was sworn in as Prime Minister. He decided against further military involvement as the Turkish forces were much stronger.The evil this Nikos Sampson's presidency was renounced and Glafcos Clerides became acting president.



Peace talks took place in Geneva, July 25-30 1974, with second round of peace talks starting on 14 August 1974, Turkey demanded that the Cypriot government accept its plan for a federal state, and population transfer. Clerides asked for 36 hours to consider and discuss with Athens but less than 2 hours of leaving the conference Turkish troops rapidly occupied even more than had been asked for at Geneva and 40% of the land came under Turkish occupation.



Paul = an intervention on July 20th but turning to an invasion on 14th August.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 21:11

By the way Happy New Year Paul. Nice to hear more of your thoughts on this matter as I'm still doing my best to get a better understanding.

Very interesting footage and I'm surprised it has not evoked discussion.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 21:44

Cheers Sue,

Same to you.Yes well pointed out.The second wave,as i think it was called did indeed happen on the 14th of August,and seemed to lose the sympathy vote for Turkey,

Paul.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 21:51

So, shall we call it the second wave, intervention or invasion?

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 21:59

How about the action that lost Turkey a lot of friends.As i understand it,Turkey wanted a federal state and a population transfer.They where asked to wait 36/48 hours for an answer but wouldnt,

Paul.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 22:02

The Americans and the British were very big players in this.Could be wrong but i think that Kisiinger and Callaghan were heavily involved,

Paul.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 22:38

Paul,



everyone was involved, Turkey, Greece, Britain, USA and even Russia. Turkey only invaded with the"blessing" of the big players. The GC and TC were carried along by the big players and isn't that still the state of play to some extent?

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 22:51

So lets put it this way then.Turkey had the blessing to intervene in July.But never had the blessing to go back

for afters,

Paul.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 22:58

I sometimes get the feeling that all the discussion about who was "involved" in cyhisory

...is rather disingenuous



any great power or any state with a political agenda will try to promote its interests:

if not the relevant foreign office, military or dirty tricks officials deserve the sack, surely



cyprus may not always have been the strategic backwater it is nowadays (akrotiri aside, natch)



obviously though, turkey did not think two other guarantor nations would or even could stop them,

and it may well be that america didn't relish their south-east europe anti-ussr front crumbling

by taking any significant action against turkey at the time, such as err...



assuming of course it is indeed morally correct that they should have taken "sides" in the cydispute

...they claimed to have done that with iraq and as a result virtually invited iran to join the imbroglio

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 23:02

It was this secondary action that allowed the world to view it as an invasion because the intervention had already happened the previous month. Peace negotiations were also taking place.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 23:06

Sue re-mess 21,

And they still call them peace negotiations now.Which always amazes me,

Paul.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 23:10

Andre,

Re-mess 20.The same guarantor nations that have allowed trade embargoes to be placed on Northern

Cyprus,due to vetos by you know who,

Paul.

Denny


Joined: 09/12/2010
Posts: 261

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 23:21

Msg 9 ilovecyprus,

I certainly share many of the views of Pte Pike but am perhaps more tolerant of fools (and psychobabble) as they can be seen for what they are and can rarely change, hence avoid conflict and take it off the board, I say.

Denny


Joined: 09/12/2010
Posts: 261

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 23:37

It's funny how some people are reluctant to use the word "invasion", presumably because it makes the 1974 operation somehow sound bad and illegal - which it clearly wasn't under the Treaty of Guarantee.

It's pointless pussyfooting around when common sense makes this approach laughable. How can an armoured, amphibious and airborne assault at multi-brigade strength be anything other than an invasion? It's ludicrous to be in denial of the undeniable.

Do we talk about the Normandy Intervention? Or the Coalition Intervention of Iraq? We don't because we know how stupid it would sound. I suspect an deep-rooted insecurity from some about the legal status of Turkey's subsequent partition of Cyprus and ethnic cleansing of the north makes them uncomfortable about being frank and honest about the 1974 operation which led to today's impasse.

You can intervene in a situation by invading a country just as you can intervene with challenging pupils by taking them back to the basics.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
11/01/2011 23:44

message 23 paul:

good point though there's a world of difference between that and direct military involvement

...and let's remember which two states decide eu policy and britain is surely not one of them



message 12, 21 etc bradus:

peace negociations? perleeeez!!!



denny message 24:

you may indeed be a very model of tolerance compared to pikey:

but what of your use of "fools" and "psychobabble"? not the most tolerant of epithets I've heard

ilovecyprus


Joined: 08/05/2007
Posts: 2880

Message Posted:
12/01/2011 12:23

msge 26



As ever Andre, I enjoy your posts and cute observations., In my view you are the most pragmatic and realistic commentator on Cypruss44 . You understand how the real political world works. It's messy and full of self interest.

Many others are dreamy idealists.

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
12/01/2011 14:14

denny/pikey message 25:



you are of course perfectly correct calling the 1974 peace operation an invasion

...in political and military terms, yes!



on the other hand,

one can certainly imagine headlines in the newspapers just prior to the landings,

along the lines of "will turkey now intervene in the cyprus crisis?"



but how can both descriptions be equally valid?

to what extent is turkey's legal justification questioned as guarantor to ethnic turks?



well, as an easy-to-understand analogy,

think about deeds of ownership to various properties in north cyprus:

legal and valid in the locality, illegal and unaccepted elsewhere...at the same time



how to work out what's what in a highly confusing and contradictory universe?

decide where you yourself stand on these vexed issues in order to aid interpretation



andre/andre

Denny


Joined: 09/12/2010
Posts: 261

Message Posted:
12/01/2011 18:15

I forgot another example - the Allied Intervention of Sicily in 1943.

Use of the word "intervention" as an alternative to "invasion" is something the Nazi propaganda chief, Dr Goebbels, would have been proud. He relied on dummies believing whatever they were told as well.

Grow a pair, people!

andre514


Joined: 05/10/2010
Posts: 763

Message Posted:
13/01/2011 03:43

denny message 29:



the allied invasion of sicily...



and were britain and the us internationally appointed guarantors to the people of that italian island?

if so I think we should be told!



bizarrely it was the greek "intervention" in defeated turkey in 1920 (I call it that, since their efforts

enjoyed the tacit support of the western powers.. though only as long as they seemed to be winning)

which provides a ghostly precursor to the events of 1974:

yes, turkey provoked beyond endurance finally strikes back with consequences that endure to this day



...but pleased to see you have a least weaned yourself off of that daredevil "90% sure" prediction of a

cyprus settlement by june 2009 in one of your earlier manifestations, as it were



coz' looks like for good or ill, as the sicillians, we are stuck with a staus quo decided by our past history,

however amenable to being chewed over at this later date by sundry punters "interested in the subject"