Talk:1974 Cypriot coup d'état

The Green Line

Could someone please write down here when exactly was the Green Line drawn in Nicosia, so we can better understand the "division" of the capital? When was UNIFICYP installed in Cyprus? This article does not enlighten the WP readers correctly, giving a wrong impression of a division 10 years older than the Turkish intervention. Are there no objective users around to contribute to this article and make it "less partial" instead of too in favour of Greek Cypriot views? --E4024 (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Here: Read this text. Even in this Greek Cypriot inspired, not very objective text one can easily see that the Green Line was installed following the Bloody Christmas of 1963-64, when Greek Cypriots began ethnic cleansing on the island to eliminate (kill or force out) the Turkish Cypriots, and not in 1974, after the Turkish intervention. The WP Cyprus-related articles, regrettably, do not inform the readers correctly. What a pity... --E4024 (talk) 14:31, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

GREEK or GREEK Cypriot Coup... Not "Cypriot Coup"

Saying this is a "Cypriot Coup" implies much more than can be factually backed-up. Though this needn't be said. I think the title I'm using here is already to-the-point and clear enough. The title and description of this page is incorrect, it is misleading, and it definitely has to change. I'm now leaving the floor wide open on this for discussion. Nargothronde (talk) 09:09, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Nope. You're over-analysing it. It's a coup that took place in Cyprus, hence the name. The first sentence makes the culprits amply clear. GGT (talk) 10:27, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

So a coup by GREEKS and GREEK Cypriots and backed by GREECE in Cyprus, makes it "Cypriot"? Are you suggesting the Greeks are "Cypriots"? Are you suggesting that the state of Greece is "Cypriot"? And are you suggesting the term "Cypriot" applies to the Greeks and Greek Cypriots without any distinction and with complete exclusivity? What next? Maybe also the Turkish Resistance Organisation was "Cypriot", as in Greek and Turkish Cypriot, not Turkish Cypriot? Or let's take this in its broader context of "where it happens defines who did it": Maybe the Norman invasion of England was actually English, not Norman? Even taking the most suggestive nature of your assumption / accusation on board, the logic simply does not stack up. About making the culprits clear in the first sentence: if anything this article only stands to become misleading by degrading the reality of who committed it to just part of the description when the NAME is the first and most important thing, and if anything, the content of the article should also be defining its title, so it makes absolutely no sense to say it is a "Cypriot" coup when it then says this was a GREEK and GREEK Cypriot coup. One also needs to point out most crucially that this also contravenes a number of Wikipedia's policies i.e. on ambiguity among other things. Nargothronde (talk) 13:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Nargothronde Youre drawing lines where there arent and with your same logic, if you write Greek-Cypriot coup then youd simultaneously have to recognize that the only legitimate government on Cyprus would be a Greek-Cypriot one, and that would be de-jure incorrect as on paper, the government includes both GCs and TCs, as to writing Greek coup, thats simply stupid because I could only think that by Greek, you mean Greece Greek not Cyprus Greek and at that point its not much of a coup, it would be an invasion and though there are some who would describe the coup as such, it is a purely historically illiterate claim since the coup was done by the Cypriot National Guard (Cyprus' armed forces) and EOKA-B (A Cypriot paramilitary organisation), so good luck proving that point. SirBlueWhite (talk) 07:35, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

In extreme brevity: (1) it was a joint Greek-Greek Cypriot coup, (2) recognising this would not mean recognising "legitimacy" to the Greek-Greek Cypriot regime, (3) by Greek I do mean Greece, please refer to point 1, (4) it was an act of invasion, (5) here are some points of evidence that show the Greek Cypriot National Guard (the Greek-Greek Cypriot regime's armed forces, occupied and controlled by Greece), EOKA-B (a Greek-Greek Cypriot terrorist organisation, also de facto controlled by Greece) and the Greek Armed Forces all took part in the coup etc.

Going by things as they unfolded:

• 2 July 1974 – Makarios writes an open letter to the figurehead president of Greece, General Phaidon Gizikis, complaining bluntly that "cadres of the Greek military regime support and direct the activities of the EOKA terrorist organisation". He also releases to the press a harsh and provocative letter accusing the junta of masterminding the campaign of terror in Cyprus. Finally, he demands that Greece remove all of the 650 Greek officers in the National Guard from Cyprus. The junta's immediate reply is to order the National Guard to seize power and kill Makarios. A new coup, code-named "Operation President", is planned to start after the morning rush hour on Monday 15 July.
• 13 July 1974 – A conference under the presidency of General Gizikis is held in Athens. It is attended by the Greek Chief of Staff of the armed forces, the Ambassador of Greece to Cyprus, the Commander of the National Guard and other officials, for the purpose of discussing and planning the coup.
• 14 July 1974 – More than 100 Greek Army officers, dressed in civilian clothes, boarded an Olympic Airlines 727 for an unscheduled flight to Lefkoşa. They were seen off by Colonel Michael Pylikhos, a top aide of Ioannidis.
• 15 July 1974 – Greece sends a further 100 soldiers to the island. The National Security Council releases a statement saying: "This is a Greek interference. The constitutional order on the island was overthrown and an illegitimate military administration was established. Turkey considers this a violation of treaties and guarantees."
• 18 July 1974 – The Prime Minister of Turkey, Bülent Ecevit, sends the Greek government an ultimatum through Joseph Sisco, the Deputy of the US Undersecretary of State, demanding, among other things: "... 2) the withdrawal of 650 Greek officers from the Cypriot National Guard... 5) access to the sea from the northern coast for Turkish Cypriots."
• 19 July 1974 – Whilst addressing the UN Security Council, Archbishop Makarios III accuses Greece of having invaded Cyprus: "The coup of the Greek junta is an invasion, and from its consequences the whole people of Cyprus suffers, both Greeks and Turks." He also tells the UN Security Council that so long as a single Greek officer remains on the island it is to be considered under occupation. The bulk of the Greek fleet put to sea from the island of Salamis.
• 20 July 1974 – The Greek Armed Forces, Greek Cypriot National Guard as well as Greek ELDYK forces (not the Greek-Greek Cypriot National Guard, but also the Greek Armed Forces stationed on the island, as well as the elite Greek ELDYK unit that were flown into Cyprus during the invasion) they all launched an attack against the Turkish Cypriot enclave at Gönyeli (Kioneli), attempting to prevent Turkish forces from forming a bridgehead to Lefkoşa (Nicosia)... At around 17:00, the Greek landing craft vessel Lesvos (L-172) commanded by Lt Cdr E. Handrinos arrived at Paphos and began to shell Turkish-Cypriot positions at the enclave close to the harbour with her 40mm anti-aircraft guns. The vessel then unloaded some 450 troops of the ELDYK replacement force at Paphos, and immediately headed back out to sea to evade the enemy... Greek Cypriot National Guard commando and infantry forces with the Greek Armed Forces jointly launch a coordinated attack against the Turkish enclave of Agyrta-Nicosia, encircling the northern flanks in an effort to isolate it.
• 20 July 1974 - The United Nations Security Council passes Resolution 353, demanding the immediate withdrawal of "foreign military personnel present otherwise than under the authority of international agreements" (meaning GREECE not Turkey) and urged negotiations between Greece, Turkey, and the United Kingdom to take place.
• 22 July 1974 - Operation Niki: A flight of Greek Noratlas planes bring even more reinforcements from Greece...
• 25 July 1974 - When the Greek Foreign Minister, George Mavros, argued that according to Article 4 of Resolution 353 the Turks were to withdraw all troops from the island, the Turkish representative, Turan Güneş, aptly noted that Article 4 of Resolution 353 clearly exempted the Turkish troops from those to be withdrawn because they were in Cyprus "under the authority of international agreements", specifically the Treaty of Guarantee...

So I'm really sorry to say this, but it was, in-fact, whether you like it or not, an invasion from Greece.

There's no way to whitewash this.

On the subject of some "purely historically illiterate claim", I guess you might also be one of those inclined to try placate the blame on Turkey or to say that what it did was illegal or immoral etc:

• 29 July 1974 - The Standing Committee of the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe, also known as the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE), recognised the legality and moral standing of the Turkish Intervention.

Back on the subject of denying that Greece invaded the island or was responsible for the coup, if their involvement in the invasion and coup itself wasn't evidence enough:

• 21 March 1979 - Greece's highest court ruled in support of the legality of both phases of the Turkish intervention and explicitly placated all the blame on "the Greek officers who engineered and staged a coup".

So going back to where you were trying to argue this was a "Cypriot" coup, while also quite bizarelly recognising that to say Cypriot one must also mean the Turkish Cypriots, you also very conveniently seem to be omitting the other fact that the Turkish Cypriots not only did not take part in the coup, but they also did not form any part of the monolithic Greek-Greek Cypriot National Guard, or the Greek Armed Forces, or the Greek Army Contingent on Cyprus, or EOKA-B, or the tens of thousands of Greek Cypriots that sent telegrams of support to Sampson who, the Turkish Cypriots aptly noted, was "as unaceceptable as "President of Cyprus" as Adolf Hitler would be as President of Israel", and their leader, Rauf Denktaş, literally said word-for-word over the radio: "Our duty in this situation, which we believe is a matter between Greek Cypriots, is to protect our international security, to take defensive measures and not to interfere in any way in inter-Greek Cypriot events". Not to mention the Turkish Cypriots were clearly an opposing belligerent if not victim in the Greek Invasion of Cyprus...

So I stand by what I said.

This was a GREEK or GREEK Cypriot Coup... Not "Cypriot Coup"

And I submit to you that not only did you not provide anything to prove otherwise but what you said also in part corroborates that this was a GREEEK or GREEK CYPRIOT coup, not a "Cypriot Coup".

Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 16:26, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This is not a forum and no one is going to read your wall of text. If you want to convince people that your point of view is the valid one, this is not how you do it. It's actually bordering on becoming disruptive pretty quickly. GGT (talk) 21:55, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

(1) This is a Talk Page for discussing improvements to the article. I also understand it is not a forum for producing wall of text arguments, not to be confused with my post or my contributions. (2) My initial response to you as well as the depth of my most recent response to SirBlueWhite, albeit coming with a fair amount of detail, is as warranted as it is necessary. (3) I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. (4) I would bring to your attention the fact that the wholly dismissive and denialist response given to the observation that the title and description of this page is incorrect, misleading etc may very well be careening towards becoming disruptive by nature. Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 13:41, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately Ive read everything you just wrote and youre still not doing yourself any favours by what you say.

1)There is no GC "regime", there is a Republic of Cyprus, get used to saying that if you want to be taken even remotely seriously.

2)It literally cant be a Greek coup as the RoC is a seperate country from Greece.

3)EOKA was long gone by 1974, in fact by the time of the coup and subsequent invasion, Grivas was dead, so I dont know where youre puling EOKA from.

4)As far as alleged Greek officers on the Olympic airlines flight to be quite frank, is irrelevant, because the coup was done and executed by the Cypriot National Guard and more specifically its raider forces and some elements of the black berets and infantry, so whatever those Greek officers were doing, it wasnt a coup.

5) "The Greek Armed Forces, Greek Cypriot National Guard as well as Greek ELDYK forces (not the Greek-Greek Cypriot National Guard, but also the Greek Armed Forces stationed on the island, as well as the elite Greek ELDYK unit that were flown into Cyprus during the invasion)" ELDYK is part of the Hellenic Armed Forces, you dont need to say that twice, and outside of ELDYK the only unit that came to assist Cyprus was A' Commando (Now 35 Commando), again, thats not an "elite Greek ELDYK unit", thats just part of Greek Special Forces, please dont throw words around if you dont know what they mean because it makes what you say laughable.

6)What Rauf Denktas says literally proves my point that it wasnt a Greek invasion, he quite literally said its a matter between Greek-Cypriots. SirBlueWhite (talk) 13:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you do not make personal attacks and instead focus on content. As an extension of a previously unmentioned gesture of good will I'm going to ignore your calling my contributions "laughable". Bringing this back to the topic: like it or not, a Coup d'état "is a seizure and removal of a government and its powers", that is what a coup is. And it can also be orchestrated or sponsored or supported or committed by the forces of one state against another, and may also be accompanied by an invasion and occupation as has been explicitly and legally conceded to have been the case here. That is what this coup was. De facto. De jure. That's simply what happened. And the location a coup takes places does not dictate who was taking part in it. Just because the coup happened in Cyprus does not mean the Turkish Cypriots were a part of that coup. And just because the Turkish Cypriots said to keep the coup, the civil war and everything else that was going down as a matter between the Greek Cypriots (implying also the Greeks) alone does not mean the Greek Cypriots were the only actors in it. That is misleading. Calling this article a "Cypriot coup" is misleading. Whether or not the belligerents etc were noted down below in the body of the article somewhere as just having "sponsored" it, which again is incorrect, is still irrelevant when the title straight away makes this article take on the quality of being misleading. Wikipedia has clear guidelines on these things. And I would also advise you try maintain a neutral point of view at all times and avoid inserting or pushing your own points of view. Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Its laughable because its historically innacurate, I wasnt talking about you personally. And if you seriously want to take it down this path ill take it a step further for you and say that in fact, it was an American invasion of Cyprus, because the CIA and Henry Kissinger too, did not want Makarios in power and aided-abetted the coup. I also never said the Turkish Cypriots were involved I simply said that your quote about Denktash simply proves that it was clearly not a Greek coup. And nothing I said previously was pushing my own POV or at least past that of historical accuracy. You cant just make false claims and then when those claims are debunked, claim some form of bias. You made at least 4 incorrect statements and those are just from what I could have been bothered to answer. SirBlueWhite (talk) 15:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you please back your claims citing multiple strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources on topic (American Coup in Cyprus 1974)? Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 15:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Can you please also back the following claims:

(1) The historical citations and sources provided above are "historically inaccurate",

(2) Denktaş "proves that it was clearly not a Greek coup",

And can you please stop "accusing" other editors of, yet again, making contributions that are "laughable", and of making "false claims" and "incorrect statements". Instead of attacking the editor try to take a look at the content. I already gave you this suggestion. Please stop ignoring it.

Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

As to American involvement in the coup id suggest you read "The Cyprus Conspiracy: America, Espionage and the Turkish Invasion" by Brendan O'Malley and Ian Craig , the Cyprus files, which was a Greek-Cypriot joint parliamentary investigation into the events leading up to the coup and subsequent invasion with first hand testimonies, Gus Anavrakotos (CIA officer) And his involvement in events that transpired in both Greece and Cyprus, the book "The Trial of Henry Kissinger" by Christopher Eric Hitchens, declassified files and finally a documentary (In Greek), about the CIAs involvement in the coup (Basically sumarises everything else ive written about Anavrakotos and Kissinger)

As to historical accuracy of your claims, need I go further than you literally called an internationally recognised government a "regime"? That favour I will not do you, someone else can do that for you, as to Denktash, youre the one that quoted him saying its a Greek-Cypriot matter, I didnt see him say anything in that quote about an invasion from Greece. SirBlueWhite (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

What you're providing here are potential conspiracy theories with nothing to back them up. The sources provided also have this short-coming, if you'd read through them, nothing seems to support the claims you are making.

Nothing within them actually shows that anything provided above can be described as "historical inaccurate" or that Denktaş "proves that it was clearly not a Greek coup" or that this was as "American invasion of Cyprus".

The Greek Cypriot Administration of Southern Cyprus, the Greek occupied Republic of Cyprus, the regime of south Cyprus... these are all official terms used by the Turkish Cypriots, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, the Republic of Türkiye... need I really cite sources?

And you are continuing with your conspiracy theory accusations and personal attacks, and seem to be focusing on expressing opinions rather than improving main space content which gives the perceived quality of potentially bordering disruptive editing.

So again, I will repeat this as many times as a I have to:

"Can you please back your claims citing multiple strong, reliable and cross-verifiable sources on topic (American Coup in Cyprus 1974)? Can you please also back the following claims: (1) The historical citations and sources provided above are "historically inaccurate", (2) Denktaş "proves that it was clearly not a Greek coup", and can you please stop attacking the editor and instead try to take a look at the content?

I already gave you this suggestion. Many times now. So again, I'm forced to also remind you to please stop ignoring it.

Regards, Nargothronde (talk) 06:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

You just made my point again, like you just literally said again, you are paddling the talking points of the Turkish government, this is wikipedia, not TRT (Or as ive previously said to you, twitter), if you think the American involvement in the coup and subsequent invasion are a conspiracy theory even though its a proven fact, by all means but stop trying to make wikipedia fit your reality of events. SirBlueWhite (talk) 15:52, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

References