User:Cinadon36/sandbox5

=Staff=

Turkish cypriots
Nor was Turkish Cypriot opposition to Enosis something that the British conjured up from nowhere in the 1950s in order to provide an argument for their refusal to grant the Greek Cypriots what they wanted. It existed long before then. After the British annexed the island in 1914 the Turkish community acquiesced in continued British rule because the British stood between them and Enosis. They only had to look at the fate of their co-religionists in Crete and the Balkans in the early twentieth century to see what might happen to a Muslim population when a national struggle turned violent and produced deportations and atrocities.122 The same lesson was underlined by the Greek invasion of Asia Minor in the early 1920s.123 Underpinning the Turkish Cypriot response to the

French 248

= ΕΟΚΑ =

terrorism
The evaluation of terrorism’s success as a strategy depends on how success is defined. Most terrorist groups strive to depose the current government and to seize power. By this criterion of success, taking into account only insurgents who have used terrorism as their main strategy, only some anti-colonial groups have fully accomplished what they set out to do. The struggles of EOKA, the Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston (National Organization of Cypriot Fighters), in Cyprus and the Mau Mau in Kenya against British rule and the FLN in Algeria against the French are well-known examples.



EOKA conducted two parallel terrorist campaigns. It waged a campaign of agitational terror which took the form of attacks against the security forces and symbols of government. This was intended to undermine the prestige of the British administration, to demonstrate that it was no longer capable of ruling the island, and to persuade the British government that the price of blocking Enosis was more than it could afford. It is this campaign, and the British response to it, which will be the focus of this chapter. But EOKA also waged a campaign of enforcement terror. This took the form of efforts to intimidate, and where intimidation failed to assassinate, those Greek Cypriots who were not willing to lend their support to its campaign for Enosis or who actively worked against it. The conduct of that campaign, and the British response to it, will be examined in the next chapter

legacy in school books
n obvious consequence of the nationalist interpretation of history occurred in 2002 when an opposition parliamentarian in Greece questioned and protested an academic expression included in a history-textbook used in Greece and Greek-Cypriot community. The authors of that history-textbook described EOKA (Eunikh´ Orga´ nvsh Kypri´vn Agvnistv´ n — National Organization of Cypriot Fighters), a Greek-Cypriot nationalist guerrilla organization which started violence against British targets in the mid 1950s which subsequently turned into intercommunal fighting, as an organization ‘promoting a socially ultra-conservative nationalism’ (Repoussi 2007, p. 104). Among other things, the reaction to this description centred around two points, namely, the legitimacy of the enosis struggle and unity in the Greek nation. The opposition accused the authors of distorting historical ‘facts’ and weakening national consciousness. As a result of such reactions, the Greek Minister of Education reluctantly demanded this statement be removed from the textbook

Yücel Vural & Evrim Özuyanık (2008) Redefining Identity in the TurkishCypriot School History Textbooks: A Step Towards a United Federal Cyprus, South European Society and Politics, 13:2, 133-154, DOI: 10.1080/13608740802156521