Are cypriots unique ?

Cabbie


Joined: 30/01/2009
Posts: 95

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 19:14

Poland got loads of land from Germany after ww2. no one is asking that it be returned to Germany or calling it " stolen land".







Ireland has had its problems and no one is suggesting land in the north is returned to owners who fled south.







Korea has a north and south and refugees from both sides..................







So why do Cypriots feel they are unique having LOST a war they want land lost in that war returned to them....... perhaps their empathy with hamas is a little obvious.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 19:54

1. Who do you mean by Cypriots? Turks, Greeks, Armenians, Latins, Maronites?



2. Agreed territorial adjustments after WW2 cannot be compared with the Turkish invasion and partition of Cyprus, which were illegal.



3. Your examples of Ireland and Korea don't make sense.

kenny



Joined: 26/05/2008
Posts: 405

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 20:02

greek cyps & turkish cyps have the same DNA

quite distingtive from either greece or turkey.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 20:17

Abersootley. Not that the nationalist heid-the-ba's like to remember they probably have a GC/TC granny...

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 20:27

Macha

1, You know Greek Cypriots are meant.



2 ,After the war the victors decided,because they were scared of Stalin,to let Russia have large area of eastern Poland. To keep the Poles from complaining, they gave a large part of Germany to Poland. " Territorial adjustments" that cost millions of lives in the rape and murder that ensued amongst the people kicked out.



So I agree with you about it being hardly the same, but for the opposite reason.The Turkish invasion was not remotely comparable,if it was, only half the Greek Cypriots would be left alive .It was not for the intention of removing any section of the Cyprus population although I admit it did happen ,but to protect their own .If the Turkish army had not invaded ,would you care to elaborate on what you think would have happened to the TC's.



3.Probably meant to show that eventually people come to terms with the past and move on.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 20:36

nice one girne

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 22:10

Dear Girne29 re msg 5



"It [ Turkish ivasion / intervention] was not for the intention of removing any section of the Cyprus population although I admit it did happen"



OH, PLE-EASE... it was one of the whole aims of the campaign - to scare off the GCs.



Suggest some reading of Cyprus history - specifically meetings of Turkish Officials with US / UK govt counterparts BEFORE the "peace movement" / "invasion"..



The aim was TAKSIM... division - and that was hardly going to work if the GCs didn't leave...



re point 2 - hmmm - may be history isn't your strong point... The Allies allowed ALL of Poland to be administered by the Soviets.. the eastern half of Poland had been claimed by the Soviets in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. They took this back plus the rest of Poland, as was, AND the Eastern part of Germany you mention.



I always "laugh when I hear "we were victorious in WWII"... we joined to save the Poles, and we gave their country to the Soviet Union ...

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 23:21

mmm



Dont lecture me about what went on in eastern europe ,I didnt have to read about it!



If you have a problem understanding english, then my apoloigies.but



I didnt say "allowed to administer", you said I did! I said given ,as in, added to the territory of the Soviet Union.



"the eastern half of Poland had been claimed by the Soviets in the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.



Again ,I am talking about what was given over in 1945 ,not what was taken occupied ,or claimed in 1939, The pact you speak of ended in 1941, Didnt you know Russia was invaded then.



The reason why the 1939 border at the Bug was legalised 1945 was that in practise the Soviets were not going to move back anyway ,plus the Polish population in the area had been mostly deported, killed or made to take out Soviet citizenship,



Your view ,the turkish army invaded Cyprus to annexe part of it(why not all),not worthy of argument.I would expect that from an indoctrinated 10 year old GC.

So count me out.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 23:32

girne29:



"It was not for the intention of removing any section of the Cyprus population although I admit it did happen ,but to protect their own .If the Turkish army had not invaded ,would you care to elaborate on what you think would have happened to the TC's."



Given your good knowledge of historical events, I'm sorry you've swallowed this default position Turkish propaganda line. Turkey had coveted partition of Cyprus (taksim) since the 1950s and threatened to carry this out in the 1960s. The Greek coup in 1974 provided the perfect pretext for launching their long-awaited invasion and partition. Protection of TCs was a secondary consideration. I know for sure that our better-educated TC members would back this up.



As for rapes and murders, who do you think was found guilty of committing the vast majority of these foul acts in Cyprus? You've got it - Turkey. Still, as long as it meant a handful of Brits could have short-lived holiday homes at the victims' expense...

trncoldboy


Joined: 02/02/2009
Posts: 182

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 23:55

East & West Prussia were "ethnically cleansed" . 12 million refugees from the East . Estimated 2million+ died on the way, Hundreds of thousands women raped. The scale was such it cannot be compared to Cyprus 1974

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
03/02/2009 23:56

Does that excuse the bestiality of the Turkish army in Cyprus?

karakum5c



Joined: 18/03/2008
Posts: 1021

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 00:06

All armies carry out atrocities its the nature of war, once you unleash the beast it is very hard to control it.



Thats why many soldiers when they come back from war like my own father are pacifists for the rest of their lives.

bachelibelly


Joined: 04/09/2008
Posts: 275

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 00:12

And on it goes ,back and forth ,same shit different day,mind if i pick up this argument in 20 yrs time, i'm off to play in the snow !

trncoldboy


Joined: 02/02/2009
Posts: 182

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 00:15

Good point Keith. We have indeed lived in a fortunate age.

kenny



Joined: 26/05/2008
Posts: 405

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 00:54

any country in the world has been talken over, invaded,

or displaced by another country at some point in its history !

Ballyboffin


Joined: 25/08/2007
Posts: 903

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 02:50

Cabbie,



When did the Irish flee South, leaving land in the North?????



The Irish, especially the Northern Irish are very forgiving people, look how many ex-terrorists are MLA's and Government Ministers.

Cabbie


Joined: 30/01/2009
Posts: 95

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 08:22

http://www.grandorangelodge.co.uk/press/Orange-Standard/2002-Standard/0202-February2002/article4.html

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 12:58

Hi Pat re 16



how's about ye?



My Dad's Grandfather had to move from the 26 to the 6 counties - as he had been a "Sarg" in the Royal Irish Constabulary .. So I guess you could say THEY were " ethnically cleansed " !!



When my Granddad died we had to get a copy of his BIRTH certificate from DUBLIN to cremate him... !





Have you ever read Spike Milligan's "Puckoon" ;) ?

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 13:09

Dear Girne29 re 8



Firstly , YES, my response does sound patronising.. I apologise, unreservedly..



So, can we get back to your post, that caused my overly caustic response.. you didn't deal with the FACT that the aim of the "peace movement" WAS to ethnically cleanse GCs .. to achieve "Taksim".. I did not mention annexation.. that would not have been "permitted" by the UK / US.



Have you read the files re the events of 74 from the US/UK.. IF you had. you would not be making such posts and expecting a derision-free response.



re Poland - let me remind you what you said "victors decided,because they were scared of Stalin,to let Russia have large area of eastern Poland. To keep the Poles from complaining, they gave a large part of Germany to Poland. "



Still reads like "nonsense" to me :( the Poles - who we joined WWII to "protect" - had no "home" to return to as the Soviets - another totalitarian regime - had control of the Poles homeland. We "let" the Soviets have the LOT.

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 13:11

re msg 1



Many displaced German got their homes back who had fled westwards.

DutchCrusader



Joined: 19/05/2008
Posts: 11280

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 13:30

RE msg 2, macha : (...) the Turkish invasion and partition of Cyprus, which were illegal. (...)



Wrong, Macha/Pike/Eric/etc. It was a Turkish *intervention* based on a tripartite agreement, signed by Greece, the UK and Turkey. Greece and the UK failed their obligations, Turkey acted.



*intervention* : no intervention on an island is possible without a military invasion, do you agree? Or would you suggest that Turkey should have sent some unarmed farmers from Konya to talk to the murdering EOKA-B gangsters, the Greek Cypriot National Guard and detachments of the Greek army (which came to Cyprus in civilian clothes)?

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
04/02/2009 23:55

karakoumi5c:



"...once you unleash the beast it is very hard to control it..."



I used to have that problem, but I'm married now.

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
05/02/2009 00:02

DC msg 21,



The intervention may have been justified but the partition, ethnic cleansing and bringing in of settlers most certainly was not. Not to mention the presence of the Turkish army 35 years later.

BigBen


Joined: 30/11/2008
Posts: 150

Message Posted:
05/02/2009 20:14

Just for the record. Turkey did not invate, it interveen to prevent the GC & greece anaxing cyprus, and kiling the TC that stood on their way.



The turkish army is still here (35 years), the reasons that couse the intervantion 1974 still remains.

rowlo



Joined: 12/10/2008
Posts: 4796

Message Posted:
05/02/2009 20:29

msg20 thats because after the war no one wanted to live in the east under communism / only the nazis and we all know what they did?

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
05/02/2009 22:00

It is indeed the case that many ROC citizens seek to recover property that in many cases has been inherited from ancestors that vacated the TRNC in 1974.



It is most likely that most of these people rejected the settlement proposed by the UN in 2004. The deal then was not favoured by many ROC citizens as it was judged insufficient.



In my view the ROC negotiating hand has become less credible and diminishes with time. History is littered with cases of population displacment, political refugees, victims of war and strife. The majority of cases remain unsettled and time casts the majority of these events to historical archive as of diminishing importance.



The said citizens of the ROC should consider this fact and support current settlement talks in order to achieve closure. Failure to settle now will only weaken their position yet further.

Aussie


Joined: 17/06/2007
Posts: 657

Message Posted:
06/02/2009 00:17

Poland and all the Baltic sates were part or Russia up until the first world war and the ceded first to Germany under the Treaty of Brest Litovsk and latter carved up by the rest of the allies while Russia fought its own civil war. Between the wars Poland was one of the most belligerent states invaded Russia and the newly reconstituted state of Lithuania annexing its capital Vilnius (ignoring the League of Nations resolutions ) and also had clashes with Germany and helped carve up some of Czechoslovakia. The borders of Poland were expanded substantially from its reconstitution as a separate state up until the German and Russian invasions in 1939 so its arguable that some readjustment of its borders was justified at the end of WW2.



East Prussia however was an integral, strategic and vitally important Germany state for hundreds of years prior to and after the formation of the modern German state until its annexation at the end of WW2.



Aussie

trncoldboy


Joined: 02/02/2009
Posts: 182

Message Posted:
06/02/2009 00:36

Hi Aussie, I know were slightly away from the original Topic of discussion, but your observations on Poland,Germany&Russia are very interesting. I'am presently reading ; IRON KINGDOM by Christopher Clark. You might be interested in this.



Mark

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
06/02/2009 12:03

Dear Warren re msg 26



Waz:"It is indeed the case that many ROC citizens seek to recover property that in many cases has been inherited from ancestors that vacated the TRNC in 1974. "



No - they seek to recover compo for the loss of USE of said properties - they are STILL theirs. THAT is their attitude and WHY Annan got rejected.. they were told that " EU norms" wouldn't allow them to be prevented from returning to their homes. By "ancestors" - do you means parents?...



Waz:"In my view the ROC negotiating hand has become less credible and diminishes with time. History is littered with cases of population displacment, political refugees, victims of war and strife."



Possibly so , since the YES vote by TCs in 2004...but the ECHR stated in a summation before a judgement that legally, it changed nothing ..

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
06/02/2009 12:10

Dear Aussie.. re msg 27 What is your source for your "history" of Poland?.



An "alternative" and more accurate (IMHO) plot..

Poland, in federation with Lithuania, was a pre-eminent Central European power during the latter middle ages. Poles formed a bulwark for western Christianity against the encroachments of the Mongols, Tartars, Islam and Orthodoxy.

King Jan Sobieski's victory over the Turks at Vienna in 1683 marks the high point of Poland as a European power. The century following Vienna was one of decline brought on by internal squabbling amongst the nobility and disunity in the face of the growing strength of unfriendly neighbours.

The embrace of Enlightenment philosophy and of French and American revolutionary ideals by the Polish nobility terrified Frederick the Great of Prussia, Catherine the Great of Russia and the Hapsburg rulers of Austria. The autocrats determined to stem the tide of Polish liberalism lest it should spread into their own realms .

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
06/02/2009 12:19

They wiped the Polish state from the map of Europe into three partitions between 1772 and 1795.

The Polish nation, language and religion would endure despite a century and a quarter of assimilationist pressure from the partitioning powers.

Some two million Poles marched off to the Great War with the armies of the partitioning powers and 450,000 died, oft times the victim of another Pole in the opposite trench. Polish nationalists were divided. The Right led by Roman Dmowski's National Democrats urged Poles to fight for the Allies. in the hope that a victorious Russia would grant Poland autonomy and eventual independence. On the Left, Josef Pilsudski, leader of the Polish Socialists, predicted the ruin of all the partition powers but argued that Poland's best hope for autonomy lay in an Austrian victory. Under the partition, the only portion of old Poland to enjoy any degree of autonomy was the Austrian province of Galicia. Russia collapsed and Poland became a state again

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
06/02/2009 12:20

My source is : http://worldatwar.net/timeline/poland/18-52.html

WAZ-24-7



Joined: 18/10/2008
Posts: 695

Message Posted:
06/02/2009 21:54

mmmm.

Thank you for your comments.



Any displaced persons seeking legitimate retribution will, I expect be awarded some sort of compensation for their loss. However the de-facto situation that has made the TRNC the home for many new settlers as well as TC cannot be ignored.

The ECHR has responsibility for the rights of all citizens of Cyprus irrespective of their origin. This is particularly the case as the ROC consider the whole island as part of one EU state.

Furthermore,

My view is that the ECHR has influence but little direct effect upon the outcome of settlement talks. It is the current talks and negotiations that will tackle and overcome the civil disputes that are so frustrating to progress.

By ancestors I mean parent, grandparent or genetic relation or genetic beneficiary to booty.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
07/02/2009 18:38

mmmmm

message 20





"Many displaced German got their homes back who had fled westwards."



Who? ,When?,How? and under what criteria.



Any info greatly appreciated.

trncoldboy


Joined: 02/02/2009
Posts: 182

Message Posted:
07/02/2009 23:00

The civilians that fled from the East in Temperatures of -30 and knee high snow,led a miserable existance for years after. They were not really welcomed at this time and were "put up" by the populace in cellars, lofts ,Barns etc. A derisory one-off compensation payment was made,amounting to a fraction of the value of property left behind, and no one was allowed to return.

Let us hope that we have moved forward since then and that both TC & GC receive fair treatment for their unfortunate loss.

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
08/02/2009 11:08

trncoldboy.

Correct no one was allowed to return.

The only compensation given to these people from Prussia was by the German Govt and only as acceptance of the suffering ,not as recompence for land.

The Poles kicked out of eastern Poland got nothing, as the Polish Govt was communist and could not openingly admit that such people had been wronged by the Soviets.



There has been no compensation for land given to Poland and noone has been allowed to return,Angela Merkel brought up the subject couple of years ago but nothing has happened.

Maybe she should ask mmmmm ,

The only compensation I know of,was small ,given by Yugoslavia,who had a good relationship with Germany after the war.Even then the recipients had to prove a long hereditary ownership. Think it was 100 years.



Generally speaking ,everybody has moved on and have no problems.its 2009!



The GC's of course want the land back ,especially with villas .But to compare 1974 with 1945/6 is like comparing N.Ireland with Rwan

mmmmmm



Joined: 19/12/2008
Posts: 8398

Message Posted:
08/02/2009 11:31

Dear Girne29 re msg34



http://www.ushmm.org/assets/frg_restitution.htm



Point 4



Hope that helps

Macha


Joined: 18/01/2009
Posts: 650

Message Posted:
08/02/2009 13:03

Msg 37,



I found this passage quite interesting. Clearly a precedent has been set for loss of property after ethnic cleansing.



"There was no protection for property which had been purchased in good faith by third parties."



Hmm... (thinks...)

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
08/02/2009 13:35

mmmmm



was looking for info on freedom to return/compensation in the east.

We were talking about people in eastern europe who were removed from land given to Poland and survivors fleeing to Germany 1945/6, and people in east who were removed or murdered by Stalin. Reparation you mention is for people who lost property under Nazi regime only.



Compensation for loss under the Nazis is a bad example

in relation to Cyprus. People who lost property ,gays,Jews, trade unionists, reds, were all persecuted by their own Nazi Govt,wheras we can agree that the majority of GC's left because of the Turkish intervention.Turkey is liable if its proved that to make GC's flee was the primary intention of Turks rather than bi-product of having to intervene to prevent the killing of TC's.



Germany has not spent 35 years trying to get back its land,but used the time to become worlds biggest exporter and enjoys good relations with Israel. Poland is a partner in EU.

Move on ROC! Europe ha

girne 29


Joined: 06/12/2007
Posts: 1488

Message Posted:
08/02/2009 14:20

macha



Reparations were for people who lost property amongst other things, due to persecution in Nazi Germany, didnt matter if it was for ethnic cleansing,political cleansing, sexual cleansing,or any other cleansing .The victims themselves being German, being compensated by German taxpayer.



One could use the argument that both sides in Cyprus were responsible therefore the whole of Cyprus should offer reparation.



The German Jewish survivors, who by the way still get there earned german pension entitlements, and there descendants in Israel, are entitled to German citizenship.5000 took up that right last year.Would have been unheard of in 1950.



Life moves on ,and I think if Cyprus doesnt have an agreement this time,then Europe will tell you to do as they have done,accomodate, or shut up.









We can all pick example that suit. You pick Reparations for Nazi victims in germany to prove your point and I pick the Non reparations of Oder- Neisse line victims to prove mine.