[ 1974 ] A fact impossible without the other

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 10:30

Time and time again there is confusion on this board. When Turkey sent its troops in 1974: was it an invasion or an intervention?

Isn't this a fact: a military intervention (on an island) is not possible without an invasion.

So I prefer to call it a humanitary intervention (and of course it included an invasion, a fact that needs no extra explanation or extra attention).

ianwfs


Joined: 08/01/2008
Posts: 563

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 11:10

If you read newspapers from 1974, both terms were used interchangeably. There was no difference in meaning (at least in common usage). It seems to have only been in recent years that "invasion" has had negative connotations.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 11:25

Hans,



Thanks for clearing that one up (i think) The way i see it is this.Turkey intervened in an attempt to

end a Greek coup.So that was the intervention (in my opinion) This intervention actually had the

backing of Britain.Then came the second wave (invasion) which received no support from the

guarantor countries.So the first was an intervention,the second was an invasion.Just my opinion,





Paul.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 11:30

RE msg 3, Paul: How can one militarily intervene in a country WITHOUT invading (maybe aircraft and war ships excluded)?

Pugwash


Joined: 06/09/2010
Posts: 1797

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 11:33

The way the GC's use it is



"march aggressively into another's territory by military force for the purposes of conquest and occupation"



The TC's and Turkish would say that they did not do this they,



Intervened,



"To interfere, usually through force or threat of force, in the affairs of another nation and to involve oneself in a situation so as to alter or hinder an action or development"



They can say that they were allowed to do this under the terms of being a "Guarantor power"



So it depends which side of the fence "border" you are viewing from I would say.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 11:41

Hans,



Take your point,could have opened a can of worms here.Good topic,that will run,hopefully

without being intervened or invaded by people who are just posting to cause ill feeling,

Paul.

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 11:45

Hi all,



What i did do once when i was in Southern Cyprus,was mention the 1974 intervention, whilst

talking to a group of people in a bar.The manager asked me to leave immediately,for my own

safety.So it looks to me like North = intervention South = invasion.

Paul

stevo-london


Joined: 23/10/2010
Posts: 253

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 13:00

ok let me throw a spanner in to the works from what I know an intervention refers to military action to influence the result of a conflict. E.g. to prevent an invasion, or protect an ethnic minority who are getting persecuted.



So would it be seen as an Invasion or Intervention?



look forward to everyones views



Good topic Hans

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 13:29

Stevo,





I really do think it depends on your politics,what you have been told as a youngster,and your

beliefs,

Paul.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 14:39

I'm with you Paul,



the first intervention was in response to a military coup and was justified under the grounds of ensuring TC safety and as a right of a guarantor. However the second wave was most definitely an invasion.



or was it simply a land grab?

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 14:52

Hi Sue,



Whatever it was,its time to move on now,

Paul.

malsancak


Joined: 23/08/2009
Posts: 2874

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 15:12

I think the term "occupy" is probably more contentious. Is the Turkish government occupying the north or are they just locating some troops there, similar to the British in the south (not the same). It is the Turkish military control of the police that causes the biggest problem when making a decision.

fiendishpaul


Joined: 18/05/2008
Posts: 1720

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 15:17

Military Intervention:



'The deliberate act of a nation or a group of nations to introduce its military forces into the course of an existing controversy'.



Military Invasion:



"A military offensive consisting of all, or large parts of the armed forces of one geopolitical entity aggressively entering territory controlled by another such entity, generally with the objective of either conquering, liberating or re-establishing control or authority over a territory, forcing the partition of a country, altering the established government or gaining concessions from said government, or a combination thereof".



Using the descriptions above, both the word intervention OR invasion could be accurately used to describe the first phase of operations whereas the second phase was definately an invasion.



Just my opinion of course.



Paul

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 17:26

RE msg 10, Bradus: In both cases it was an invasion. Case 1: the aim was intervention. Case 2: the aim was strengthening the Turkish position on the island.

P.S. To say "Military coup" is not enough. At the same time it should be mentioned that the very lifes of the Cypriot Turkish population were threatened.

stevo-london


Joined: 23/10/2010
Posts: 253

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 17:45

hi new lad not to cause any probs, all I was refereing to was the differences in terms.



What happened on the island in my opinion was an intervetion to proptect the minority, the 2nd wave seems more like an invasion.



However it had the same goal as the intervention... true or false?? :P

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 19:17

Message 14



To say "Military coup" is not enough. At the same time it should be mentioned that the very lifes of the Cypriot Turkish population were threatened.



Read my message again. I did mention TC safety as a justification.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 19:22

RE msg 16, Bradus: You are right. My P.S. was unneccessary. I apologise.

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 19:32

Thanks Dutch,



we will still have to beg to differ though. Intervention took place in July but 2nd sweep in August was an invasion purely to take more land.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11281

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 19:44

RE msg 18, Bradus: (...) Intervention took place in July but 2nd sweep in August was an invasion purely to take more land. (...)

▶ My undoubtedly biased interpretation is "strengthening the Turkish army position" (which I underline when looking on several maps from those days). Indeed we don't agree... It can happen. Have a nice evening!

Bradus


Joined: 25/02/2007
Posts: 2641

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 19:46

You too Dutch.

Arockingace



Joined: 24/01/2011
Posts: 75

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 19:53

Couldn't we treat it as a Liberation?

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 20:36

On August the 10th 1974 in Geneva,Denktas proposed a bi-zonal federation with the Turk Cypriots controlling

34% of the island.Clerides asked for a re-cess of 36 to 48 hrs to consult with the government in Nicosia,and Makarios in London.His request was refused.



Then on the 14th of August 1974 the second phase of the intervention/invasion began.Two days later after now controlling 37% of the island,Turkey called a cease fire.And 37 years on that is basically where we are now,

Grey.

cypgab


Joined: 09/01/2010
Posts: 338

Message Posted:
27/01/2011 21:40

30 Hot Days gives an excellent interpretation of the days between the initial intervention and the later consolidation of the Turkish position.

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
28/01/2011 08:30

newlad;

At no time did the British support the intervention (militarily or otherwise as a guarantor power) although Mr Ecevit pleaded them to act together! In fact I shall never forget Mr Callaghans worts on BBC news the same week "...Today Cyprus is a prisoner of Turkish army! Tomorrow the Turkish army will be the prisoners of Cyprus!..." Yeah, sure, we are still waiting.

As for invasion, it can be military or otherwise. Military invasion, is one way of intervening during a conflict. Civil invasion is a different matter. The way I see it, Turkish army saved Cyprus from the clutches of fascist Greek junta - whether they intervened, invaded, fought, killed or got killed are just surplus details. But I get more worried by the real invasion 3 decades later (civil and economic), as soon as it became evident Cyprus North might also be a part of EU. Where were all these investors during the 30 years prior to early 2000s?

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
28/01/2011 09:15

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_invasion_of_Cyprus#1963-1974





God knows what we'd have read at above link IF.........................................

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
28/01/2011 11:48

Sorry Big oz,



Beg to differ there,but hey it is a forum.Look up a book called 30 hot days,and have a read,

Paul.

cavalryman


Joined: 08/11/2010
Posts: 314

Message Posted:
28/01/2011 20:42

There were greek army units based here in cyprus before the 1974 process, as were there british units other than in the sb areas, most came in 1964 when the gc,s were enlarging the areas they had.Were there any mainland turkish army units here at that time?as the other guarrantor parties were.As for the 2nd part of the turkish incursion they would have been quite badly exposed if they had not consolidated as they did.Also I fail to see how turkey as a nato member could have possibly prepared and set sail without the us ,uk.france and germany knowing.

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
28/01/2011 21:08

The British supported the original intervention,but not the second part.Thats the way that i have read it,

Grey.

yorgozlu



Joined: 16/06/2009
Posts: 4437

Message Posted:
28/01/2011 21:48

greylag;



http://www.cypnet.co.uk/ncyprus/history/republic/1974.html



>>>>>The British were invited to participate in military operations, under the Treaty of Guarantee, but declined. <<<<<<

greylag


Joined: 08/04/2009
Posts: 1110

Message Posted:
28/01/2011 21:54

Yes Yorgozlu,i realise this,but they where in favour of Turkeys intervention,

Grey.

Jetski


Joined: 21/07/2008
Posts: 584

Message Posted:
28/01/2011 21:56

and what was Kissinger doing when then second move was afoot? Not to be found we believe, but in a plane above the Atlantic.... in full knowledge, and controlling what was happening. God bless America and all who sink in her.

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 00:02

Paul;

Of course we have our own opinion and sources of information, so I respect any argument that is not in line with my one. However, being a TC who lived through those days and saw/heard what was said in the media, I would still insist on my point - in contrast to products of sensational journalism.

There seems to be a major mis-interpretation of the events that took place at the time. Yes, the British did not do anything to stop the invasion, but that does not mean "they helped Turkey"! They refused to act jointly against the Greek Junta threat when asked by Ecevit, as a guarantor power, and did not allow the Turkish army use the bases for a safe entry into the island. The rest is political waffle...

Americans were aware of the dangers of Turkey invading, but the Greek Junta who headed by the NATO generals of Greece must have been their first choice. Remember there was a cold war at the time, and the left wing AKEL party were flirting heavily with the Communist Eastern block (co

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 00:18

If anything, the "then" USA politics must have encouraged and aided a Greek mainland take over of the island. And if Turkey reacted by doing the job themselves - it would simply have been another strong NATO country in charge of the island

Add to that the tension between (USA supported) Israel and (Russia supported) Egypt conflict in the area at that time. No Western power would have wished Cyprus to be another USSR ally. Not only that, just before the coup in Cyprus happened, it was the closest the Greek and Turkish Cypriots had come to an agreement for a solution to their differences

So we hear about a lot of US and British naval vessels encircling Cyprus during the invasion. What we are not told is that they were already there before the Turkish navy started an invasion - so as to claim "they were blockading Cyprus to help Turkish invasion"! They were there to stop any Russian intervention to stop their comrades in AKEL getting butchered in their thousands by the EOKA-B animals.

BrightonJim


Joined: 27/07/2010
Posts: 145

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 09:51

The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (the two volume edition) defines intervention as:

"The action or act of coming between or interferring, especially so as to modify or prevent a result". This is precisely what Turkey did in 1974.

Invasion is defined as: "The action of invading a country or territory, especially with armed force."

This is precisely what Turkey did in 1974.

Turkey intervened to comply with her Guarantor obligations and this involved invasion.

Simples!

Rottolover



Joined: 21/06/2009
Posts: 519

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 10:03

Hi bigOz, it's always worth reading comments from people who were there, as opposed to people who can only read about it (like me). From what I have read, your analysis seems to be quite accurate.



What effect, if any, do you think Watergate had on American decision-making at the time? Nixon's presidency was then in its death-throes, and I wonder if that would/could have had any bearing on Kissinger's actions.

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 11:33

Hi Ian;

Kıssinger was not involved in, and was left unscratched by the Watergate scandal of the early 1970s. In fact he remained to be a strong politician and maintained his position when Geral Ford subsequently became the president.

USA at the supplied arms heavily to both Greece and Turkey as Nato allies against the Communist block - nothing new there. More military help to Turkey, because they had the only direct, and longest border with USSR (that included the Balck sea). Tırkish army and the Bosphorus were the main strength against the Rusians navigating freely into the Mediterannean or providing any urgent support to any satellite nations in North Africa or Midlle East.

Since the coup in Cyprus wes getting too messy and the mad man Nicos Sampson and his EOKA-B murderers had gone further than just gaining power (i.e. killing thousands of civilians including TCs), Turkish invasion as a guarantor power seemed inevitable. (continues)...

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 11:43

Kissinger was well supported by the Jewish lobby in US, who preferred a quick and decisive control of Cyprus by a strong Nato force. At the height of cold war and the Middle East conflict, it would have been very foolish of anyone to expect Britain or USA take any military action to stop Turkey! In fact, with their many military and intelligence bases in Turkey, the Americans were more than willing to turn a blind eye to the whoıle intervention. However there has always been a strong Greek lobby involved in US politics. Hence, AN ARMS EMBARGO HAD STARTED AGAINST TURKEY once the invasion was over

The reasons for the embargo were given as; "using Nato forces (Turkish) in a military invasion without a consent". That coupled with few other silly reasons by the heads of intelligence or military (agged on by the Greek lobby) at the time, was not to Kissingers liking, so, as the CIA papers revealed many moons later, he had all anti Turkish invasion supporters removed from their position

newlad



Joined: 02/03/2008
Posts: 7819

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 11:46

Oz,

Thanks for that,i bow to your superior knowledge of events that took place.You quite rightly say,as i have only read about events,then these could be clouded views.Thanks for putting me straight on a few things.Now then wheres my coat,

Regards,

Paul.

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 11:59

As an answer to your original question, Kissinger as one of the most powerful man in Western Block, did what was politically right at the time. A lot of conspiracy theories follow many years later, just as they do with many important historic events. But I firmly believe there was no "plan" as such for a Tuıkish invasion - but it was a lesser preferred possibility which would haveserved the same purpose

It was "less preferred" or or in fact unfavoured, because it would have very much likely involved two NATO allies (Greece and Turkey) entering a war

At the end of the day, Turkey openly challenged Greece and the Greek generals bottled it! One good thing that came out of the whole Cyprus invasion was that, the Junta. Democracy was reinstated in Greece. A fact which is admitted by the Greek politicians and ex-generals today

The other good outcome; Turks realised they could not depend on Nato allies for arms. They started own arms industry which has helped them economically and mil

bigOz


Joined: 29/09/2010
Posts: 1244

Message Posted:
29/01/2011 12:10

newlad;

You are most welcome. No need to take your cotat - always a pleasure to discuss/argue historical facts with sensible people.

One more important historic fact as information. After the Cyprus invasion experience, Turkey had decided that it would not be in their favour to leave NATO (what, with the USSR threat accross the border),and instead, they had created a separate army (I am not sure now but I think it was called the Third Army), which was/is independent of the army under NATO general command.