Everywhere they say :
"The Turkish invasion of Cyprus launched on 20 July 1974,
was a Turkish military invasion of the island country of Cyprus"
15 March 1964 - Turkish Cypriots under ATTACK
17 November 1967 - Turkish Cypriots murdered, villages burned !
IT WAS NOT AN INVASION !!!
IT WAS A RESCUE MISSION !..
20 JULY - 14 AUGUST 1974
MASSACRES OF TURKISH CYPRIOT CIVILIANS
The civilian massacres of 1963, 1964, 1967 and 1974 are of extreme importance to understand the
Turkish Cypriot negotiating position to this day.
"When the Turkish Cypriots objected to the amendment of the constitution Makarios put his plan into effect, and the Greek Cypriot attack began in December 1963" said Lt.Gen. George Karayiannis of the Greek Cypriot militia in June 1965 ("Ethnikos Kiryx" 15.6.65). The General was of course referring to the notorious "Akritas" plan, which was the blueprint for the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots and the annexation of the island to Greece.
On 28th December 1963 the Daily Express carried the following report from Cyprus: "We went tonight into the sealed-off Turkish Cypriot Quarter of Nicosia in which 200 to 300 people had been slaughtered in the last five days. We were the first Western reporters there and we have seen sights too frightful to be described in print. Horror so extreme that the people seemed stunned beyond tears."
On 12th January 1964 the British High Commission in Nicosia wrote to London (telegram no. 162) "The Greek (Cypriot) police are led by extremists who provoked the fighting and deliberately engaged in atrocities. They have recruited into their ranks as "special constables" gun-happy young thugs. They threaten to try and punish any Turkish Cypriot police who wish to return to Cyprus Government... Makarios assured Sir Arthur Clark that there will be no attack. His assurance is as worthless as previous assurances have proved."
On 14th January 1964 the Daily Telegraph reported that the Turkish Cypriot inhabitants of Ayios Vassilious had been massacred on 26th December 1963, and reported their exhumation from a mass grave in the presence of the Red Cross. A further massacre of Turkish-Cypriots, at Limassol, was reported by The Observer on 16th February 1964, and there were many more. On 17th February 1964 the Washington Post reported that Greek Cypriot fanatics appear bent on a policy of genocide.
On 1st January 1964 the Daily Herald reported: "When I came across the Turkish Cypriot homes they were an appalling sight. Apart from the walls they just did not exist. I doubt if a napalm attack could have created more devastation. Under roofs which had caved in I found a twisted mass of bed springs, children's cots, and grey ashes of what had once been tables, chairs and wardrobes. In the neighbouring village of Ayios Vassilios I counted 16 wrecked and burned out homes. They were all Turkish Cypriot. In neither village did I find a scrap of damage to any Greek Cypriot house."
On 31st December 1963 "The Guardian" reported: "It is nonsense to claim, as the Greek Cypriots do, that all casualties were caused by fighting between armed men of both sides. On Christmas Eve many Turkish Cypriot people were brutally attacked and murdered in their suburban homes, including the wife and children of a doctor -allegedly by a group of forty men, many in army boots and greatcoats." Although the Turkish Cypriots fought back as best they could, and killed some militia, there were no massacres of Greek Cypriot civilians.
On 10th September 1964 the Secretary-General reported (UN doc.S/5950): "UNFICYP carried out a detailed survey of all damage to properties throughout the island during the disturbances,.......it shows that in 109 villages, most of them Turkish-Cypriot or mixed villages, 527 houses have been destroyed while 2.000 others have suffered damage from looting. In Ktima 38 houses and shops have been destroyed totally and 122 partially. In the Orphomita suburb of Nicosia, 50 houses have been totally destroyed while a further 240 have been partially destroyed there and in adjacent suburbs."
British troops in Cyprus at the time did what they could to protect the Turkish Cypriots, and their efforts are remembered to this day, but the scale and ferocity of the Greek Cypriot attacks made their task impossible. On 6th February 1964 a British patrol found armed Greek Cypriot police attacking the Turkish Cypriot of Ayios Sozomenos. They were unable to stop the attack.
On 13th February 1964 the Greeks and Greek Cypriots attacked the Turkish Cypriot quarter of Limassol with tanks, killing 16 and injuring 35.
On 15th February 1964 "The Daily Telegraph" reported: "It is a real military operation which the Greek Cypriots launched against the six thousand inhabitants of the Turkish Cypriot Quarter yesterday morning. A spokesman for the Greek Cypriot Government has recognised this officially. It is hard to conceive how Greek and Turkish Cypriots may seriously contemplate working together after all that has happened."
Professor Ernst Forsthoff, the neutral President of the Supreme Constitutional Court of Cyprus told Die Welt on 27th December 1963 that "Makarios bears on his shoulders the sole responsibility of the recent tragic events. His aim is to deprive the Turkish community of their rights." In an interview with UPI press agency on 30th December 1963 he said: "All this happened because Makarios wanted to remove all constitutional rights from the Turkish Cypriots."
More than 300 Turkish Cypriots are still missing without trace from these massacres of 1963/64. These dreadful events were not the responsibility of "the Greek Colonels" of 1974, or an unrepresentative handful of Greek Cypriot extremists. The persecution of the Turkish Cypriots was an act of policy on the part of the Greek Cypriot political and religious leadership, which has to this day made no serious attempt to bring the murderers to justice.
Despite these facts, the Greek Cypriots sometimes allege that it was they who were attacked and it was the Turkish Cypriots who were determined to wreck the 1960 agreements. The Turkish Cypriots were not only outnumbered by nearly four to one; but they were also surrounded in their villages by armed Greek Cypriots; they had no way of protecting their women and children, and Turkey was away across the sea. The very idea that in those circumstances the Turkish Cypriots were the aggressors, is absurd.
In his memoirs, the American Under-Secretary of State, George Ball, said "Makarios's central interest was to block off Turkish intervention so that he and his Greek Cypriots could go on happily massacring Turkish Cypriots. Obviously we would never permit that." The fact is however that neither the US, the UK, the UN, nor anyone, other than Turkey eleven years later, ever took effective action to prevent it.
...
The Greek Cypriots claim that the Cyprus problem was caused by the landing of Turkish troops in 1974 and that if only they would withdraw, the problem would be solved. This is a serious misconception, for modern Cyprus question began in 1960 and the landing of Turkish troops was the consequence, not the cause, of the problem.
Cyprus is a complex political issue. It ultimately revolves around one fundamental fact: the existence of two distinct peoples on the Island, namely the Turkish Cypriots and the Greek Cypriots; and their relationship.
The Island of Cyprus, which is geographically an extension of the Anatolian peninsula, has been a land of many conquests due to its proximity to the Middle Eastern countries and its strategic location at the cross-road of East and West. Cyprus has seen a succession of rulers, namely Assyrians, Egyptians, Persians, Romans, Arabs, Crusaders and Turks who ruled the Island as part of the Ottoman Empire, from 1571 until 1878. Cyprus has never been a Greek Island.
Sir Wilson Churchill, on his visit to Cyprus 9-13 October 1907:
"What is the essence of the idea that this community belongs to Greece? There is no historical ties between the island and Greece. Throughout history, there is no information indicating that the island is connected to Greece, at any time. Even supposing with a wide imagination, geographically Cyprus is not a part of Greece. People living on these island are not Greeks. The only thing that connects them is the language of the Greek tradition." (1)
(1)"The İsland pointed at the heart of the Ottoman Empire", Colin Thubron, Journey into Cyprus, middlesex,1986,page.216
Kıbrıs 1914-1923 Fransız Ermeni Kampları İngiliz Esir Kampları
ve Atatürkçü Kıbrıs Türkü. A.H.A.Yayınları, KKTC 2000
Dr.Colonel, General Staff Military, History and Strategic Studies
"Underground Activity in Cyprus between 1955-1963 and Turkish Resistance Organization"
kaynaklarıyla topladıklarım,
Ecevit: 'Greece is responsible for the coup and, therefore, cannot be considered as a party to any talks. Nor will the situation be improved by academic speeches and resolutions.' Meanwhile, Callaghan had once more 'gone to the loo' and, on his return, announced that Sisco, the US Assistant Secretary of State for Middle East affairs, was on his way to London. He added: If you don't wish to talk to the Greeks, let us at least discuss the matter with Sisco, and we will then get in touch with Athens ourselves.' Ecevit insisted; 'We must concentrate on the human aspect of the situation. The Sampson regime must go. If no help is forthcoming, Turkey will act alone and a lot of blood will be shed.' At this point, Callaghan cut in abruptly: 'Athens cannot watch with folded arms. If Turkey takes military action, there will be war with Greece and NATO will be badly shaken.' By now, Ecevit had realised that his hopes of joint action were not going to materialise; the atmosphere was extremely tense.
Sisco's arrival on the scene was an unexpected development for the Turkish delegation. They were urged to put off their return to Ankara for 24 hours to permit further talks in which Sisco could take part, but Ecevit objected on the grounds that the U.S. was not a guarantor power. However, he was prepared to confer with Sisco, as the representative of a friendly state, at the Turkish Embassy. Wilson tried to insist on Greek participation but this was firmly rejected by Ecevit. Finally, Wilson asked: 'Mr. Ecevit, have you pondered over the probable reaction of the Soviet Union and the consequences that might follow?' When this veiled attempt to intimidate Ecevit failed, he declared: 'We do not share the view that the Treaty of Guarantee confers on Britain any right to intervene militarily.' To which Ecevit replied: 'That is a pity, for there will be all the more bloodshed.'
Wilson: 'Are you going to intervene?'
Ecevit: 'We are prepared to try everything in the effort to restore equilibrium in Cyprus. The security of Turkey and of the Turkish-Cypriot community shall be preserved.' The last words of the Turkish Prime Minister were: I hope that your conscience will not trouble you when you are faced with the consequences of your refusal to accept our proposals and carry out your obligations as a guarantor power.'
It was now 01.30, and Ecevit returned to the Turkish Embassy where he reported to Ankara that there would be no change in the plans. This message would be correctly interpreted by the General Staff H.Q. He also suggested that the meeting of the Grand National Assembly, scheduled for Thursday, should be put off until Saturday. This move was designed to give the impression that Turkey would take no action until empowered to do so by a National Assembly vote on Saturday.
Ecevit was right; England was pulling out and the U.S. was moving in. Turkey stood alone.
Thursday, July 18th 1974....
The Turkish Intervention, July-August 1974
There is a Turkish interpretation of the events of the summer of 1974 that is, as one would expect, quite different from the dominant Greek and Greek Cypriot view. In this seminal work, Turkish journalist Mehmet Ali Birand -- widely considered to be one of the best and fairest reporters in Turkey -- recounts the events of that July and August, leading up to the second and more decisive military intervention of August 14. This account is particularly useful for its reporting on Ankara's decision making. It is excerpted from his 1985 book, "30 Hot Days".
20 JULY - 14 AUGUST 1974
Turkey's Intervention to Cyprus is Legal
Turkey’s July 20, 1974 intervention on Cyprus was legal, say the Athens Court of Appeals and the Council of Europe.
The Council of Europe adopted Resolution 573 on July 29, 1974 on this particular case, stating that Turkey’s intervention on Cyprus was a legitimate act emanating from the Treaty of Guarantee, Part IV.
The historical decision of the Athens Court of Appeals, No. 2658/79, dates back to March 21, 1979.
On July 15, 1974, the junta ruling Greece implemented a coup d’etat on Cyprus, overthrowing the elected government of President Makarios, which had been in control since the independence of the Republic of Cyprus in 1960. On July 20 of the same year Turkey staged a military intervention to reverse the coup.
Turkey’s action was perfectly legitimate and understandable. It was in fact a duty, stationed by the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus; in Part IV of the Treaty of Guarantee,which forms part of the constitution. Cyprus was saved from being annexed by Greece and the Turkish Cypriots freed from Greek oppression.
During the 1960s and 1970s, the Western world only watched as the Turkish Cypriots were being massacred by their Greek Cypriot neighbors, with the aid of Greece, in a systematic campaign of ethnic cleansing, and did nothing.
The splitting of Cyprus into two ethnically homogeneous, self-governing states was notachieved by the Turkish military intervention in 1974, as is commonly believed, but by Makarios and Georgios Grivas a decade earlier in 1963. All that the Turkish intervention of 1974 accomplished was to consolidate Turkish Cypriot enclaves into a uni-fied TurkishCypriot zone in Northern Cyprus and to save their lives.
Of all the nations in the world only Turkey had the humanity to save what was left of the Turkish Cypriot population after years of ethnic cleansing in 1974, and only Turkey now stands for justice in Cyprus. Under the provisions of the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee which provided that the Hellenic Republic, Turkey and United Kingdom would ensure the independence and sovereignty of the Republic of Cyprus, it was Turkey’s legal duty to take unilateral military action purportedly to restore constitutional order.
The Turkish intervention was perfectly legal according to the Treaty of Guarantee of 1960. Its legality has even been acknowledged by the Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe in a resolution dated July 29, 1979, and by the Athens Court of Appeals in a decision dated March 21, 1979. Sampson admitted that he was just about to proclaim enosis (union of Cyprus with Greece) when the Turkish intervention occurred (Cyprus Mail, July 17, 1975).
A father of one of the Greek commandos sent to Cyprus by the Greek junta in July 1974 to fight against Turkish Cypriots and Turkish troops who was shot down by Greek Cypriot National Guard members, filed a case against the Greek government for compensation in December 1976. The Court of Athens ruled in favor of the father and ordered reasonable compensation to be paid by the Department of the Treasury of the Greek Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Finance objected to the decision of the Court of Athens and appealed to the Athens Court of Appeals for a cancellation of this order. But unexpectedly the Supreme Court decided in favor of the father again and confirmed the decision of the Court of Athens. The first paragraphs of the justification of the Athens Court of Appeals explains in detail the 1960 Constitution of the Republic of Cyprus, Part IV of the Treaty of Guarantee, the rights of Turkey, the coup d’etat organized by the Greek junta against Makarios and the improper behavior of Gen. Phaedon Gizikis, the head of Greece’s junta government in 1974.
The very last paragraph clearly highlights the legitimacy of the Turkish intervention on Cyprus.
The preposterous assertions by the Greek and Greek Cypriot governments that the TurkishCypriots are nothing but a rebellious minority and that the Turkish peace operation of 1974 was an unprovoked act of aggression are in fact aimed to misinform the world. Unfortunately many European and American politicians subscribe to this spurious versionof events, not knowing that by promoting the withdrawal of Turkish troops from Cypruswithout adequate guarantees for the protection of the Turkish Cypriot people they are, in fact, promoting the creation of new problems on the island which will turn out like Iraq if Turkish troops withdraw.
Cyprus Near East University
