Talk:Operation Atilla

Comment
"Turkey justified the intervention on the grounds that it's actions were mandated under the 1960 Treaty of Guarantee, which stipulates that either Greece, Turkey, or the United Kingdom had to ensure the independence of the Republic of Cyprus."

In the end, Turkey does not even recognize the existence of the Republic of Cyprus, further negating its role as a "guarantor" of the Republic of Cyprus. (UNFanatic 05:04, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

_______________________________________ Turkey recongised the pre 1974 Republic of Cyprus, which included the Turkish minority in government. Since the Aktsis plan was intened to remove from government the Turkish minority, and ended in the coup which lead to the invasion, and the subsaquent division of the island. The Turkish side would argue that the present Greek Cypriot government is illegal under the terms of the previous treaty. It should be noted that the vice Presidents position is left empty because it is reserved for a Turkish Cypriot. ________________________________________

"The result of the intervention was that the island was partitioned into a Turkish-controlled north (which in 1983, did UDI), and the remaining two-thirds under control of the Greek Cypriots. Regardless of the legalities, the partition has prevented a resumption of the inter-communal violence. The demarcation line is known as 'The Atilla Line' after the code-name."

The "partition" also prevented the restoration of the 1960 Republic of Cyprus, which the Turks were supposed to do under the treaty. (UNFanatic 05:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC))

____________________________________________________________

I suppose your motto should be: "The law may upset reason, but reason must not upset the law". The problem with the 1960 Constitution was that it was too idealistic for the peoples of Cyprus to work. Without the will to make it work, a constitution is just a piece of paper, and there were too many hatreds between both sides. Given that situation, what other practical solution could there be but partition? But I suppose you would rather have killings resume in a unitary state than admit that. Expatkiwi 11:39 14 October 2005 (UTC)

The reason why the war started in 1963 was to abolish the 1960 agreement and annex (ENOSIS) Cyprus to Greece. In other words the "Republic of Cyprus" hasn't existed since then and still does not exist. If the Turkish Army moved out soon after the intervention as already mentioned above, the killing would have carried on and possibly cause a greater war between Turkey and Greece. Let us not forget that Greece was also a guarator but instead of protecting the independence of Cyprus it helped to destroy it by sending in it's troops in 1963 to take part in the killing of the Turkish Cypriots.

The death of the "Republic of Cyprus" is no different to the death of the "USSR" or "Yugoslavia". These were also a "united" country at one time but they also do not exist any more. Why have people accepted the braking up of these countries but cannot accept that the "Republic of Cyprus" doesn't exist any more according to the 1960 agreement? Guest


 * A country recognised by the entire international community with the exception of Turkey, and a member of the UN and recently the EU (and the non-alligned movement before that), hardly has any simmilarity with USSR or Yougoslavia. I don't see anything "dead" there... Maybe you are referring to the TRNC, that is closer to your description, but still it's different, in that it has never de jure existed.

'As this move forced the eviction of Greek Cypriots to the southern sector of Cyprus, this has been seen as ethnic cleansing by the Greek Cypriot government. Today, only a few enclaved Greek Cypriots remain in the north.'

Does that mean there are no Turks in the south of the border? If so, I am not so sure about your hearsay ethnic cleansing claim.DrKimble 14:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

81.21.45.44 09:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC) Soteris Stylianou, 12 Aug 2006
 * All Turkish Cypriots had to flee north because of the fighting. They always had the right to return to their properties. Some of them did, but most of them did not want to return. The propaganda did not create a feeling of security for them. In contrast, the greek Cypriots are not free to return to the north, not even today. They were not even allowed to cross to the north until the [[opening of the border in 2003]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2969089.stm] by the Turkish side.
 * The paramilitary organizations EOKA and TMT contributed to the hatred and non-trust climate at the time. They even went as far as killing people from their own ethnicity who did not support them. They would ofcourse always blame the killings on the other side to strengthen the hatred.
 * Today the hatred has subsided amongst ordinary people. The confrontation is still maintained in peoples minds by the media, and the policies of the goverments. A possible re-unification of the island can include all the benefits of any win-win situation (IMHO).

The trigger for the invasion was the Coup, which saw the democratic government fall. A coup which was also backed by the military dictatorship in Athens. I am not sure if the coup was part of the Aktsis plan, but certainly this plan was aimed to bring about the removeal of the Turkish cypriots in the politics of the Island.

In response to the 1960 Constitution being too ideal is that it was a reach of consensus between Greece, Turkey, Greeks and Turks. When unilaterally changed, the changed nullified the Zurich and state creations. In returning to the positions prior 1958 where Turkey made claim to the island through 1878 lending to the United Kingdom.

The unilateral change of the 1960 constitution and the events in December 1963, have caused the unrest on the island. Ever since 1963, the consensus of unity between Greeks and Turks acting together has been lost, Cyprus was destined to cause unrest between the two motherlands with Greeks equipping EOKA and Turkish side creating Turk Mukavemet Teskilati a similar Gladio structure to fight a guerilla war when necessary.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Is there any evidence for land claims of the Turkish Cypriots
The article states "37% of the island was liberated from the Greek Cyriots as compensation for the lands taken from Turkish Cypriots between 1963 - 1974"

Is there evidence (ie British land registery documents prior to 1960) to suggest that Turkish Cypriots held that amount of land?


 * Actually all of the island is belong to the Turkish Nation but we don't want to spent time on such unimportant issues. Be happy with the 2/3 of the island. Turkish Army can re-conquer the remaining part of the island and again no one can stop it. With respect, Deliogul 13:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Merhaba Deliogul,

Under the Lausanne treaty (1923) Turkey signed of all claim to the Island of Cyprus in favour of the British, and although you are probibly correct in stating that the strenght of the Turkish military is more than enough to take the rest of the island by force, I would question whether that is in anyones real interest.

One of Turkey's greatest strenghts is its democracy (it is this which is creating the economic growth and leading to EU entry). Invasion is not exactly a democratic act. --SolDrury 14:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

To be on the more accurate side, Turkey was not a multi-party democracy since after the WW2. I guess the The Peace Operation, as turks might like to recall, has delivered the long missed democracy back to Greece.

The exchange of populations issue is also a rather complicated one. However one must admit, unable to intervene in Cyprus, the Greek population left in Turkey was invited to leave the country. In fact, the violations of human rights of The Turks left in Greece today is due to this imbalance.

Non-contributary
I find the following article part lacks evidence, and therefore should be removed:

Greek View: The illegal regime in the occupied area is deliberately and methodically trying to eradicate every trace of the Greek cultural and historical heritage[citation needed]. All Greek place names have been replaced by Turkish ones. Churches, monuments, cemeteries and archaeological sites have been destroyed[citation needed], desecrated[citation needed] or looted[citation needed]. Priceless religious and archaeological treasures, part of the world's cultural heritage, are being stolen[citation needed] and smuggled abroad[citation needed], and illegal excavations[citation needed] and dealings in antiquities are taking place. [citation needed].

And i also think it has been written by an angry greek who is led by his hatred for turks.

''I may not have a source to cite but if a personal account counts for anything, I'd like to inform you that, having visited the occupied part of the island I have witnesses first-hand the descrated churches, with their crosses broken, desecrated graveyards, churches cinverted to stables, and the archaeological site of Salamina being exploited to milk Greek Cypriot visitors for money. They charge Greeks 5 pounds (10 USD) to see Greek monuments. And finally, living in the South, I can assure you, there's nothing of equivalent historical value on this side that can be attributed to Turkish civilisation, nothing that dates before 1500, and the sporadic recent monuments that do exist are in good shape.''

And as for this piece:

Greek View: According to Turkish Cypriot newspapers, over one third of Turkish Cypriots emigrated from the occupied area between 1974-1995 because of the economic and social deprivation which prevails there. As a result the Turkish Cypriots who remain are today outnumbered by the Turkish troops together with the settlers from Turkey.[citation needed]

Where are the citations? It lacks evidence, so it should be deleted.

'You will find no sources because the TRNC is not recognised by the UN and does not do or if it does, it doesn't submit its demographic studies and population counts to anyone. Though, once again, out of personal experience and interaction with Turkish Cypriots I can verify its validity, whatever that means to you.' --- Whenever I forget to sign my talk, a bot or robot or whatever it is called immediately invades, sorry intervenes :-) Why not with these edits? --E4024 (talk) 13:57, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Atilla or Attila
This article is quite disputed. Somebody is trying to mislead people by mixing Turkish Peace Operation's code name Atilla with a Nazi Operation of WWII (Attila). The spelling of the names are different. For this reason, i removed the link which is obviously irrelevent, without waiting for any answer here. For the other parts, lets first continue the discussion here.

+++++++++++

"Turkish Peace Operation" ... what a nice phrase you use to describe the invasion of another independent country.

The Turkish "peace" keeping army forced 200,000 Greek-Cypriots out of their homes, some people describe this as ethnic-cleansing.

I think its time that some Turkish people and the Turkish state should come to terms with what has actually happened in Cyprus and stop hidding behind their own thumbs.

--Sarissa 19:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

+++++++++++ First of all nobody forced the greeks to move out of northern cyprus. Infact there's a village of greek people in northern cyprus who stayed in northern cyprus after operation atilla. The greeks simply chose to leave because they did not want to be the minority in a country and did not want to be ruled by the turkish. Treat other people the way you'd like to be treated would be good advice for the greeks.

- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.120.87 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I think Sarissa's previous answer needs to be reminded here. The intervention was carried out following the overthrowing of the Cypriot government. It is understandable, that after all these many years the Greek Cypriot side is full of hatred for the operation.

The real paradigm problem however lies in the fact that the Greek Cypriot side views the Cyprus as their own, neglecting the 18-20% Turkish population. Coming back to the article, Cyprus was a Crete for them. needed to be Helenic. The phrase Sarissa uses "invading another independent country" is very interesting. The Republic of Cyprus *1958-1974* (that ceased to exist in Turkish eyes) was never an independent territory. The very founding agreements of that republic clearly stated that it was not independent and the UK, Greek and Turkish states to be its founding states. It was bound to these three states and one can read the Zurich agreements. Today, a United Cyprus is clearly dead. Annan's plan was an opportunity for that matter. However, one must face that Greek Cypriots have lived long enough without the north and will survive without it. The north still struggles under an un-just international embargo, but the burden is easily shouldered by Turkey. That just leaves the funeral back on our street to be buried. Mr. Papadopulos an ex-eoka convict will surely be able to carry the funeral and bury it with the rest of the results of Unification. Never to forget the Austrian, Dutch and French arms carrying the dead body, and the Russians for the last prayer in UN.

One must clearly read the Financial Times, December 19th "Partition starts to look permanent..." where this is all heading...

Views
Isn't there a way to get rid of "X views" and "Y views" section? It doesn't look too nice.. Baristarim 12:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

ive read this mans Baristarim comments on plenty of article discussions. I dont normally agree with him but i have to agree with him on this one, it looks horrible and doesnt seem to have any structure, it seems totally random. Ge0rg10

---

I have had personal experience of the bitterness involving this operation - and the land claims levvied. The problem seems to be that either side making different claims means that there is not third source to make comparisions. Turkey states 31% of the land in Cyprus was Turkish-Cypriot owned, while Greece and RoCy claims 12.3%. When I quoted the former figure, I was pretty badly assailed and threatened over the internet.

Still, in the interests of presenting an accurate picture, I added counter-arguments and expanded things some on the land section. User:Expatkiwi —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 17:54, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV
Wikipedia should not take sides. This article aims to "justify" and provide "rationale" of an invasion. Definetely not NPOV. It did not even have a Reference section before i created it. 3meandEr 16:52, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sourcing is still a problem. All of your sources (Half of them which currently doesn't work), are from the ministry of foreign affairs of Cyprus, which definately does not qualify for NPOV. Plus we are not supposed to draw our conclusions, but should merely present the sourced material and let the reader decide himself/herself. You have probably seen the results of trying to push you POV on the TRNC page, it doesn't work. Kerem Özcan 17:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, I'll propose nuking the page and redirecting it to Turkish invasion of Cyprus. Operation Atilla was just the code name for it, and the stuff here belongs to there, rather than here. Then we can work on that one. Agreed? Kerem Özcan 17:40, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I really dont know. "Operation Attila" was the code name for the invasion. An article can exist with that title (i suppose). If you really want to redirect it in good faith i am willing to help, perhaps we could redirect it to Military operations during the Invasion of Cyprus (1974) and expand on the military aspect there is already this section? 3meandEr 17:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed, I'm taking action. Kerem Özcan 18:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Any proposals? Kerem Özcan 18:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations?
There are a few points I want to make about the article...:

a) The article does not mention by whom the operation was referred to as Atilla... b) It does not provide any citations as to the operation being referred to as Atilla... c) As far as I know, the operation started with the code "Let Ayşe go on a holiday", is it possible that "Ayşe", a common Turkish female name, be the codename for the operation? d) Without citations, the article runs the risk of creating a mental link between the operation and Attila the Hun...i.e. ambiguous

I failed to see these points addressed in prior discussions...would welcome clarifications in that regard..

81.214.19.152 (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ayşe is the daughter of Turan Güneş. She is a professor at METU today: http://eas.metu.edu.tr/EASv2/ayata.html 68.48.179.143 (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Attila the Hun
Operation Atilla, this name came from Attila the Hun. The Turks are proud of Attila. Böri (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Why did Turkey make the "Cyprus Peace Operation"?
Maybe this opinion by British MP Michael Stephen could be useful in further developing the article. --E4024 (talk) 13:50, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This page is a redirect, and contains no article content. Comments should be made on the talk page of Turkish invasion of Cyprus, the target of this page. SalopianJames (talk) 13:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)