Talk:Akritas plan

How do I sign what I write?
just Sparos (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)? can 't believe it Anyway, this article needs not only patching up, it is a biased - in my own opinion a falsified story to serve the purposes of the propaganda of the Turkish state. It needs rewriting using the true facts and citations to historical documents. Sparos (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

This article is suppoted by references and citations. WillMall (talk) 03:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

rejection
I find it quite laughable that anything that disagrees with the Greek version of events is instantly rejected as lies. The atrocities were happening to Turkish Cypriots until the intervention (not invasion) by the mainland Turks in 1974. The Akritas plan is real and is logged with the United Nations. What was attempted pre-1974 was nothing short of genocide by the Greeks. The Akritas plan was concerned with keeping the news 'internal'. The truth will out and one day the world will recognise what the Turks went through at the hands of the Greeks and the Greeks will be forced to publicly apologise.

--Kaya007 (talk) 15:01, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What was attempted was Enosis. If Turkey had not fought on the side of Germany things would have been different. The Greeks were offered the Island in the 1920s and did not want it.
 * The problem is that an army that lands in another country and is not invited is an invading army. Whether Clause 4 provides a guarantee or not. The Turkish army landed in Cyprus un-invited and as the Turkish Cypriots have no real say in government then the Cyprus government will say, rightly so, that they were not invited. It is therfore a de facto invasion.
 * It is about time you all stopped seeing it as a Greece V Turkey thing. If reconcilliation is ever to happen then you must reject Greek and Turkish claims and just accept the fact that you are all Cypriots - have a nice cup of tea and go and sit on the beach.
 * Chaosdruid (talk) 12:26, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Turkish army was invited by the Turkish Cypriot community. There is no need to invent requirements to make a case. The right of Turkey t intervene was acknowledged both by Greek courts and Council of Europe. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Absolute nonsense! There is no way a Greek court or the COE would give such a judgement. Yes, a Greek court or the COE would say Turkey had the right to intervene, that is to remove the illegal Junta regime AND restore the democratically elected one . Not only did Turkey not fulfill her obligation to restore the legitimate government, she viciously ethnically cleansed the north of it's indigenous Greek majority and tried to make this land Turkish forever. That's why the world says Turkey "invaded" and not "intervened". HelenOfOz (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * @TheDarkLordSeth : I wonder where you read that. Is there a link you may enlighten us on the "right of Turkey to intervene"... 23x2 (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Council of Europe Resolution 573 is one:
 * "3. Regretting the failure of the attempt to reach a diplomatic settlement which led the Turkish Government to exercise its right of intervention in accordance with Article 4 of the Guarantee Treaty of 1960;" TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * What?????
 * 7. Calls upon the signatory states to guarantee the sovereignty, territorial integrity and security of Cyprus, including an improved status, guaranteeing the security and the rights of the Turkish community, as well as the political independence of a democratically governed Cyprus, as laid down when Cyprus became independent in 1960;
 * http://assembly.coe.int/Mainf.asp?link=/Documents/AdoptedText/ta74/ERES573.htm
 * guarantee sovereignty ? NO !
 * guarantee territorial integrity ? NO!
 * guarantee the political independence of a democratically governed Cyprus, as laid down when Cyprus became independent in 1960 ? NO!
 * NO! NO! NO!
 * Intervention you say ? Hell NO! HelenOfOz (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaya007, have you actually read the Akritas plan ? http://web.archive.org/web/20050925031600/cyprus-conflict.net/akritas_plan.htm Why don't you summarize the Genocide plan for WikiPedians. HelenOfOz (talk) 06:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Couple of Important Problems
I noticed the phrase "obviously racist regime" and moved on to fixing it but realized that the article is written as if it's written on a forum arguing what a jolly thing the plan was. The language itself, calling Britain and US "big boys" is quite laughable as well. Anyone with knowledge and sources on the plan should take a look at this article. TheDarkLordSeth (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Adding new Section : Akritas plan as a Genocide plan
The Akritas plan has been portrayed as a Genocide plan by many on the Turkish side. I created this new section in the article for the content that will show why the Akritas plan should be considered as a Genocide plan. HelenOfOz (talk) 09:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Adding new Section : Key themes and elements of the Akritas plan
The article as it is, does not discuss the actual contents of the plan at all. Use this new article section to discuss the keys themes and elements in the plan. HelenOfOz (talk) 09:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Akritas plan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141221162956/http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/zenon%2C%201963-74.html to http://www.cyprus-conflict.net/zenon%2C%201963-74.html
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://cyprus-conflict.net/akritas_plan.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:37, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Akritas Plan after 1974
We should include that certain features of the Akritas plan are still being implemented by the Republic of Cyprus today.

Although both Yeorgadjis (Chief Akritas) and Makarios are dead, enosis was stopped, and the Megali Idea were dropped, and although there is no more "national aim" as there once was (i.e. to declare Cyprus is now Greece, and pass a resolution on ENOSIS with a House of Representatives composed of more-or-less 100% Greek Cypriots), or at least, there is no clear desire to return to the preparation of the extermination of Turkish Cypriots, or for the addition of Greek Contingents i.e. troops and armouries from Greece, Egypt, Czechoslovakia and other neighbouring countries in Cyprus, or the training of an army by a Greek Mainland Regiment in Cyprus etc to put it in a few different ways... this same plan, with certain improvisations, is still being implemented by the Greek Cypriot Leadership in certain senses, such as in its political tactics to sideline and isolate the Turkish Cypriots.

For example, Greek Cypriot official discourse still reflected in history textbooks follows a denialist approach to Bloody Christmas 1963. This has the effect of presenting the Greek Cypriots as victims of Turkish Cypriot aggression, whereas the majority of the victims were Turkish Cypriot, and is used by the Republic of Cyprus to legitimise human rights violations against Turkish Cypriots, the suspension of their political rights, and their exclusion from the framing of missing people by the Republic of Cyprus as well as their rights and guarantees from the constitution in general etc, by using: "reasonable" constitutional amendments after efforts for common understanding with the Turks are exhausted; trying to justify unilateral action since common agreement is impossible; keeping their actions for constitutional amendments open and always "appearing" ready for peaceful talks; not being of a provocative or violent nature; meeting any incidents that may take place at the beginning, in a legal fashion; clothing all actions in legal form...

All of these tactics are exactly as they were framed (perhaps with slightly different wording?) in the Akritas plan. At least, they sound terrifyingly similar.

I think this is a distinct feature of the Akritas plan, that certain elements of it are still being implemented today, that cannot go ignored, and definitely cannot be omitted from such an important article; understanding the Akritas plan is crucial from a historical standpoint for understanding the Cyprus conflict etc, but also from a political standpoint for understanding the isolation of Turkish Cypriots and their rights by the current Republic of Cyprus, and to a much lesser yet equally important extent, the rest of the international community which supports the Republic of Cyprus by recognising and internationally legitimising its claims. Nargothronde (talk) 06:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * p.s. in a news article posted by Cyprus-Mail today (08 November 2018), it explains how President Anastasiades is increasingly using the rhetoric and tactics of Tassos Papadopoulos, where we see yet another eerily scary example of how certain elements and tactics of the Akritas plan are still being implemented by the Greek Cypriots today. Even through all the peaceful and unification rhetoric, it is not just by opinion but by demonstrable fact that even the Greek Cypriots concede, that all the Greek Cypriots seem to want or seem to have wanted was some engagement by the UN that would create the impression things were moving and there was no deadlock. I can quote two places where such comparisons are drawn by the article: "He said he could not agree to “any solution” as some Greek Cypriots were demanding, because we needed a workable and viable state. Not only is he increasingly using the rhetoric of Tassos Papadopoulos but he is also employing his tactics of trying to change the basis of the negotiations as a way of preventing the process from leading anywhere. That he spent most of his television address talking about the new form the federal state should take perfectly illustrated the point." and "Taking another leaf out of the Papadopoulos book, he did not say anything positive about a settlement, presenting it more like a necessary evil, given that the status quo could not be maintained forever. This was a theoretical point because in practice his objective is to make it last as long as possible." Nargothronde (talk) 06:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * To do that, we need a strong RS telling the specific story. Have you seen it anywhere? Me not. Cinadon36 (talk) 15:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)