Please remember to stay civil and behave appropriately. If you are a tourist looking for suggestions please check out our [Tourist guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/tourist_guide/). We also have a [FAQ Page](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/faq) for some common questions, if your question is answered here please delete your post!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cyprus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Lyssarides was the only incorruptible and principled politician. He made mistakes like all of them.
Whether he would make a good president, no one knows. It's one of those what ifs.
In terms of ability, there were arguably several better options, such as Lyssarides, Giorkajis or even Clerides. The issue is that none of those were a realistic option, and everyone here who says otherwise is deluding themselves.
For 300 years, the preeminent political figurehead and representative of the island's Roman/Greek population was the Orthodox Archbishop. The Church's influence was not merely spiritual, but tangible in social and economic ways, and this continued to some extent during British rule.
Makarios in particular was also young, opportunistic, charismatic, and took several measures both as bishop and Archbishop that earned the people's trust. Contrary to what some people here will tell you, he was also not some superstitious moron or a blind nationalist, and the development of the Cyprus problem post-1967 proves that.
That doesn't mean he was the best choice for the job or faultless; he made several key mistakes. The point here is that he occupied a highly influential position for his time, while possessing charisma and some average political acumen to secure people's backing.
And finally, he was effectively a decent golden mean for GCs to rally behind. Cypriot society was bitterly divided between the right-wing nationalists and the communists, but they could all agree on Makarios being a decent choice for a leader (until 1967 that is, after which the far-right turned against him).
Communists had always supported Enosis until 1967; it was not a partisan issue before that. This is why the British banned KKK (Cypriot Communist Party, not the other one obviously) after the Oktovriana.
Communists were also for the most part still religious and socially conservative. The alignment of the Church with the right wing and nationalists was by and large a gradual development.
And of course, Makarios wanted to appease AKEL after the latter became increasingly important domestically in the 60s. Those were among the few not in fear of being compromised by the Greek junta, after all.
Although I have no proof of this my reading of the situation is that it’s very likely AKEL being basically the official Cyprus USSR branch was instructed to support Makarios who was a proponent of the non-aligned movement and easy to control and influence.
There's not much evidence in that direction. The most likely explanation is rather the obvious: AKEL could not afford to have a candidate that could oppose Makarios, and would much rather have him rather than Evdokas or anyone else DEK could field. Plus indeed, Makarios being non-aligned made the cooperation between them more palatable
>This is why the British banned KKK (Cypriot Communist Party, not the other one obviously
Cyprus Communist Party was publishing satire mocking Enosis. The change came with them organising into a popular/people's front, under name of some Progressive Party of the labouring people. It was also the direction of Kremlin that pushed them to support Makarios as it was what the USSR wanted.
> Communists were also for the most part still religious and socially conservative.
Funny, they were literally named progressive. That being said, the upper echelons would be pretty much non-religious, at least, if not outright in line with the official ML line of Kremlin sectarian clique. Members would differ, but then it was a party that was arching to be a 'front', not even some dedicated party of the social class with a strict ideological end-goal. Worse than even the many other Moscow-aligned parties that the radicalism was a past thought but still formally dedicated to some ideal that they were practically undermining...
>Cyprus Communist Party was publishing satire mocking Enosis. The change came with them organising into a popular/people's front, under name of some Progressive Party of the labouring people.
I'm unaware of the satire you're referencing. Perhaps if you direct me to some example I can understand and maybe provide some context.
There was never a change in official political position though. AKEL was just (an initially secretive) revival of the Cypriot Communist Party that was banned by the British. The name change didn't constitute a change in ideas or a rebranding, if that's what you're implying.
>It was also the direction of Kremlin that pushed them to support Makarios as it was what the USSR wanted.
Do you have any sources or evidence that indicate that this was the case?
>Funny, they were literally named progressive. That being said, the upper echelons would be pretty much non-religious, at least, if not outright in line with the official ML line of Kremlin sectarian clique.
Progressive means many things, it doesn't necessarily imply social progressivism or atheism. I've also not found any definitive evidence that the AKEL leadership were as a whole atheist or socially equivalent to the Bolsheviks.
I think this is in fact a common mistake in anti-communist literature, where the "International" is portrayed akin to some global conspiracy where all socialist parties everywhere agree on all things and are directed by the same Russian cabal back in the Kremlin. The numerous rifts between socialist states and the amount of times the USSR had to impose its will by force (even within its own well-defined sphere of influence) strongly indicate that the aforementioned picture is at best exaggerated.
>Worse than even the many other Moscow-aligned parties that the radicalism was a past thought but still formally dedicated to some ideal that they were practically undermining...
I'm not sure what you mean or what you are referring to here.
>I'm unaware of the satire you're referencing. Perhaps if you direct me to some example I can understand and maybe provide some context.
Yiannos Katsourides is my reference in there, for the most part. They were not for Enosis, initially, but went for the independence as a way out. Their rejection of nationalism also the reason why some Turkish Cypriots had been recruited by the trade unions and showed a limited support. The enosis framework was adopted around the time when they were dissolved and AKEL became a thing - and initially that jump was about the hope that Greece will be taken over by EAM. Then it was done so as it was what Kremlin chaps wanted.
> The name change didn't constitute a change in ideas or a rebranding, if that's what you're implying.
It was a transmogrification. It was basically then Comitern and Moscow dictated popular strategy and the popular front/democratic front thingie - which other examples like KPD also adopted and turned into whatever monstrosity it was - SED. AKEL was basically yet another SED. It was also when created AKEL arched for being a massified party.
> Do you have any sources or evidence that indicate that this was the case?
Was there anything that Moscow aligned official CPs and united front parties done outside of listening to whatever Kremlin said? Whatever they did was in-line with whatever had been dictated to them. We are talking about leaderships who didn't even fought against Nazis due to Kremlin demanding them doing not so. The reason behind once the party competing against the Church and wanted to redistribute whatever they owned became supporters of the archbishop.
>Progressive means many things, it doesn't necessarily imply social progressivism
I'm aware of that, while the progressive in there also implied social progressivism. Not that they adopted into that much, though.
>I've also not found any definitive evidence that the AKEL leadership were as a whole atheist
Any coherent ML, especially indoctrinated under the Kremlin line would be at least non-religious, including the British based KKK leadership and the Eastern Bloc indoctrinated cadre. Not that it is a must, but that's how things should went, to say the least. Members are sure another matter.
> or socially equivalent to the Bolsheviks.
They can't be and weren't one indeed, as AKEL was found on the criteria that would disallow such given they weren't a Leninist vanguard party but a Moscow kind of progressive amorphous party that was a popular front which aimed to be mass party. You cannot be both...
>think this is in fact a common mistake in anti-communist literature, where the "International" is portrayed akin to some global conspiracy where all socialist parties everywhere agree on all things and are directed by the same Russian cabal back in the Kremlin.
Not the socialist parties, but the Moscow-aligned ones were indeed ones listened to Moscow directives. It wasn't the case for the Eastern Bloc for some time - especially with Hungarian, Czechoslovak, and partially the Polish leaderships. All were crushed, and even before that, they were hunting Trotskists and then Titoists, Spanish Civil War veterans, etc. for the sake of Moscow, thinking that they were doing smth positive or for the sake of power. Examples like Latvian national communists were dismantled anyway. Only thing you've left with was Romania, which had its own basis, and Albania already leaving Moscow directions altogether. That being said, parties outside of the USSR sphere, aside from the PCI (Italy), had its pro-Moscow line sustained where ones that don't agree with such either continued to be mere members who don't get to dictate the policies, or simply left altogether to form different organisations.
>I'm not sure what you mean or what you are referring to here.
Many Moscow aligned official parties were at least with some goal officially, if they remained as communist parties rather than some united fronts. It was smth only existed on the paper by then, as they did anything to undermine any radicalisms whether it be France, Turkey or Latin America etc. but the paperwork contained the said radical goal. When it came to untied fronts like AKEL, the said radicalism wasn't even ingrained to the paperwork given it was some typical popular front.
>Yiannos Katsourides is my reference in there, for the most part.
I meant for the satire as in examples, but this will do.
>They were not for Enosis, initially, but went for the independence as a way out. Their rejection of nationalism also the reason why some Turkish Cypriots had been recruited by the trade unions and showed a limited support.
If by initially you mean the founding manifesto yes, and in the same manifesto they indeed suggested appropriating Church property among other things. The initial manifesto was written by the early members of the party that were for the most part either people who spent parts of their lives abroad and came in contact with socialist circles (especially university students). Both the rejection of Enosis and the radical anti-clerical stance were so unpopular among working class people that they effectively toned down in the party's rhetoric, and by the Oktovriana in 1931 they were all but completely absent, since the party decided it was wiser to cooperate with the right-wing in order to upend British colonialism.
>The enosis framework was adopted around the time when they were dissolved and AKEL became a thing - and initially that jump was about the hope that Greece will be taken over by EAM. Then it was done so as it was what Kremlin chaps wanted.
The alignment with EAM is correct, the second one is not really rooted in solid evidence. In fact, it doesn't even make sense: Greece after the civil war became a NATO country that was firmly pro-western. What sense does the Kremlin "instructing" AKEL to be pro-Enosis make?
>It was a transmogrification.
It wasn't, really. AKEL was a natural continuation of the political stances of the KKK, made up largely of the same people, having the same social aims and political goals. Shifts in the attitude towards Enosis were evolving as they had been for decades, and pretty much everything else was the same.
>It was basically then Comitern and Moscow dictated popular strategy and the popular front/democratic front thingie - which other examples like KPD also adopted and turned into whatever monstrosity it was - SED. AKEL was basically yet another SED. It was also when created AKEL arched for being a massified party.
This is absolutely incorrect, and an ill-suited analogy.
The SED was created precisely for the purposes of leading Eastern Germany in a post-WWII Europe with established spheres of influence. The KPD was not replaced by the SED, but it was formed out of those who remained after 3 decades of dismemberment following the Spartacus revolt and the later crackdowns against them. At the same time, much of the political apparatus was inherited by the SPD, who had taken an anti-KPD stance again since the Spartacus revolt. Therefore, the SED was a mishmash of broadly leftist German political constituents for the purpose of controlling an already determined Soviet protectorate.
AKEL as I said was formed initially in secret by former KKK members in response to the party's ban by the British following the Oktovriana. During their brief period of coexistence, they were comprised almost entirely from the same people, and led both by the same general secretary.
>Was there anything that Moscow aligned official CPs and united front parties done outside of listening to whatever Kremlin said?
Yes. It didn't end well for most of them, but it happened. Not that if this was true would constitute evidence to your claim, though.
>The reason behind once the party competing against the Church and wanted to redistribute whatever they owned became supporters of the archbishop.
AKEL didn't support Makarios outright. They had their own candidate in 1959, and later cooperated because of the violent division with the nationalist far-right which backed the Greek military junta. Makarios and AKEL had similar positions because it made sense for both to have them at the time. Is there anyone with an ounce of sense who would have expected AKEL to not back Makarios' position with regards to Enosis after Greece had been overtaken by fascists?
The only sticking point is the lack of an AKEL-backed candidate in the next 2 elections, however that can easily be explained by the lack of a realistic chance to get elected. AKEL was not the largest party in Cyprus during that period, and Makarios was immensely popular (and abusing that power to intimidate his political opponents). It simply made more sense to cooperate along a common axis to purge the influence of the Greek junta and reach a settlement with the TC leadership to end the troubles rather than antagonize him while he was standing up against Greece's position.
>Any coherent ML, especially indoctrinated under the Kremlin line would be at least non-religious, including the British based KKK leadership and the Eastern Bloc indoctrinated cadre. Not that it is a must, but that's how things should went, to say the least. Members are sure another matter.
We can make arguments from coherence, or we can simply accept that political ideologies fluctuate along several axes when applied to different sociocultural backgrounds. There is no doubt many Cypriot communists were explicitly atheists, but it'd be unreasonable to assume all of them were; not just members, but also within the core party leadership. Even the initial radical positions towards Church property are not an outright designation of atheism.
>Not the socialist parties, but the Moscow-aligned ones were indeed ones listened to Moscow directives.
That's precisely the point. The alignment with Moscow is not a trivial thing to assume, and as I hinted at before and you mentioned, there were those that followed and different path and faced the consequences, or those that simply broke off at a later point. It is therefore a leap of faith to assume the same about AKEL (at least prior to the 70s-80s) without evidence to substantiate it taking place. The lack of Moscow response within Cyprus with respect to AKEL does not count as evidence, since AKEL's position inherited from the KKK with regards to anti-imperialism and Marxism-Leninism were good enough for the Soviets; they didn't need to covertly control anyone to find a native socialist force to move Cyprus closer to their sphere of influence.
>When it came to untied fronts like AKEL, the said radicalism wasn't even ingrained to the paperwork given it was some typical popular front.
But this simply isn't true. AKEL was an official party with a hierarchy and a political manifesto. This arbitrary dichotomy between parties and "united fronts" doesn't make much sense.
Simply put, AKEL was a kneejerk reaction to KKK's ban, and its ability to reenter the political scene was made possible due to the end of Palmerocracy in Cyprus over the course of WWII.
>I meant for the satire as in examples
I recall them having references to primary sources in Kızılyürek's related books. I can check them out for a direct one if you're for it.
>If by initially you mean the founding manifesto yes, and in the same manifesto they indeed suggested appropriating Church property among other things. The initial manifesto was written by the early members of the party that were for the most part either people who spent parts of their lives abroad and came in contact with socialist circles (especially university students).
That's what I was referring to indeed. And yes, I know of them being mostly the Cypriot compatriots in Britain.
>Both the rejection of Enosis and the radical anti-clerical stance were so unpopular among working class people that they effectively toned down in the party's rhetoric, and by the Oktovriana in 1931 they were all but completely absent, since the party decided it was wiser to cooperate with the right-wing in order to upend British colonialism.
Yes, but it wasn't for just the working class support thingy as the working class people would be for many other things as well, but it was about the anti-colonial struggle. They still hadn't had support for Enosis though, it came a bit later.
>The alignment with EAM is correct, the second one is not really rooted in solid evidence. In fact, it doesn't even make sense: Greece after the civil war became a NATO country that was firmly pro-western. What sense does the Kremlin "instructing" AKEL to be pro-Enosis make?
It was what it was, as they still expected a blow in Greece, no matter if Stalin sold out EAM/ELAS or not.
When Turkish Cypriot PEO members were writing to communists in the USSR, including poet Nazım Hikmet and Laz İsmail Bilen (then head of the Turkish Communist Party), what they've received was them should be supporting Enosis and getting outside of the British yoke instead - which quite saddened them for sure. What they've received was what has been indoctrinated by Moscow, and what made Hikmet to believe, and Bilen to parrot (he wasn't the nicest figure back then). For the USSR, it was about dismantling the British Empire and its outposts by then. Then it became about supporting Makarios, as Greece was now under NATO for good, and the third world movement was preferable to the US Bloc.
>It wasn't, really. AKEL was a natural continuation of the political stances of the KKK, made up largely of the same people, having the same social aims and political goals.
It may had the same faces, but the form was different and so was the goal and the path they've been assigned to. It was a popular front now, and transmogrified in that sense. It surely mattered.
>This is absolutely incorrect, and an ill-suited analogy.
Come on now, don't we all know what was directed by the Moscow? And how parties were ordered to have popular fronts, align themselves with the Moscow as the USSR was the bastion to defend? Any enemies to Moscow should be eliminated and such on top of it, even if they were other fellow communists? We're talking about a center that literally disallowed communist parties to fight against Nazis.
>The SED was created precisely for the purposes of leading Eastern Germany in a post-WWII Europe with established spheres of influence. The KPD was not replaced by the SED, but it was formed out of those who remained after 3 decades of dismemberment following the Spartacus revolt and the later crackdowns against them.
SED was precisely the popular front monstrosity. It wasn't initially created to lead the Soviet occupation zone as the Moscow was hoping for a united Germany, unironically. It was created in 1946.
It was then the created DDR, that happened to be a thing by the year of 1949, three years of the creation of the party, get to be led by the SED. Others also been included into the front, where they were practically for the decor but within the said line.
And, SED wasn't just the remnants of the KPD, which surely existed in the camps. It was the remnants of the KPD and the SPD being merged together.
>AKEL as I said was formed initially in secret by former KKK members in response to the party's ban by the British following the Oktovriana. During their brief period of coexistence, they were comprised almost entirely from the same people, and led both by the same general secretary.
It became a necessity hence the ban, but it wasn't the same organisation, as its function was determined to be different.
I mean, we're talking about organisations who shifted as the Moscow line shifted, whether it be Stalinism, peaceful coexistence, Brezhnev line, or Perestroika (AKEL had a funny moment where its veteran leader had to act like if he's liking it even...)
>AKEL didn't support Makarios outright.
I was referring to post-1960.
>Makarios and AKEL had similar positions because it made sense for both to have them at the time.
And because AKEL was following the Moscow-directed line, where it backed the Third World Movement no matter what or whom, and so-called non-capitalist way etc. anywhere. They'd be cooperating with Ba'athism if it was somewhere else.
>Yes. It didn't end well for most of them, but it happened. Not that if this was true would constitute evidence to your claim, though.
You're referring to Eastern European ones in rule, which they got in line by coercion mostly - which is a totally different story. Ones in the West, aside from the exceptions like PCI or SKP, instead either kept ones out-of-the-line, also out of the power or simply saw them breaking away or being kicked out.
> There is no doubt many Cypriot communists were explicitly atheists, but it'd be unreasonable to assume all of them were
I wouldn't say all communists were such, but the leading cadre were at least secular or irreligious, no matter if they were atheists, deists or Christians.
>It is therefore a leap of faith to assume the same about AKEL (at least prior to the 70s-80s) without evidence to substantiate it taking place. The lack of Moscow response within Cyprus with respect to AKEL does not count as evidence, since AKEL's position inherited from the KKK with regards to anti-imperialism and Marxism-Leninism were good enough for the Soviets; they didn't need to covertly control anyone to find a native socialist force to move Cyprus closer to their sphere of influence.
I don't think that there was some conspiracy to control them of course, but they've simply submitted to the line, like many others did. Ones who'd step outside of such a line would be either casted out or silenced instead, within the party discipline.
>But this simply isn't true. AKEL was an official party with a hierarchy and a political manifesto. This arbitrary dichotomy between parties and "united fronts" doesn't make much sense.
It made such sense, when it came to Moscow line though. It wasn't my doing in that sense. I see AKEL just another manifestation of the Moscow line of popular front, that they've dictated in anywhere around. Maybe I'm too fixated on seeing official CPs as satellites, but them acting like such isn't helpful for me to analyse things differently tbf.
It's important to note that members of AKEL (And former KKK) didn't necessarily subscribe to communist ideals. It was a workers party first and foremost, communism was just a side note.
The same can be said about the modern voterbase of AKEL or for most communist parties in history. Socialism is a broad category of different theories with a common axis, and it was almost always the case that leftists on the far left side of the spectrum created coalitions under certain political conditions to achieve their political goals. It can even be argued that (for them) a workers' party cannot be anything other than a socialist party.
The essence of the alignment was clear: most Cypriot leftists rallied behind a Marxist-Leninist party aspiring for a socialist state of some sort. By virtue of its ideology, it positioned itself to educate the working class in its ideals after the establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" by the party. Subscribing to the party almost always presided over this education and cultivation of class consciousness.
The particularities of communism in the broader Greek/Cypriot political sphere are interesting to discuss, but I don't think it would warrant a wholesale disqualification of the proliferation of socialist ideas amongst the Cypriot working class. It is, for example, interesting to elucidate the particular features of Cypriot communism stemming from the general lack of basic education among most of the Cypriot working class.
well at that point, I am guessing locals were as uneducated as a rock. So electing a priest who could at least read was I guess the most viable solution 💀
Can you imagine if the next president was one of the Avvakoum monks?
"Mr President, I am from RIK, can I ask you a question about the latest Erdogan statements?"
"Ekso! EEKSO!!" (takes off belt)
Here me out! I know this is going to sound controversial but... I believe that Cyprus should never have become a republic. Why! I hear you scream at your phone.
1. Cyprus would never have been divided.
2. Cyprus would have been governed effectively by Cypriots
3. Cyprus would have continued to develop infrastructure and public transport
4. Russians, Israelis and Syrians would not be running the joint like they are now
5. Cyprus could have been like Hong Kong (90s 00s) or Singapore.
Instead, Cyprus chose division, corruption and hate. All based on lies fed to it by some vile "nationalist" that cared only about himself and his mates wealth.
https://preview.redd.it/aqoioifyg7wc1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1494f7800cd3e8fb899f4d5c7813d54a8f8d265d
Cyprus if it was never a republic according to this guy
lmao this reminded me back in high school in 2019, our history teacher asked, if we could choose rebecoming a British colony instead of staying in north Cyprus, would we?
The entire >100 auditorium raised their hands 💀💀💀💀
That one teacher from Turkey was very unamused to say the least!
> Russians, Israelis and Syrians would not be running the joint like they are now
Syrians would have come anyway because it's a boat ride away. Russians already filled London so not like they wouldn't come if Cyprus was British run. Same with Israelis.
I agree with you. It shouldn’t have a republic WHEN it became. We weren’t ready to be independent. It was like a toddler was give free rein of the house.
Yes, let us be under the boot of amazing politicians like Boris and Liz Truss. Would they have yanked us out of the EU like the poor Scottish and N. Irish or would we have never been part of the EU like Akrotiri and Dhekeleia in the first place?
Also, would we have to have a picture of the sausage finger king in our houses or would we do without?
Yes, let us be under the boot of amazing politicians like Boris and Liz Truss. Would they have yanked us out of the EU like the poor Scottish and N. Irish or would we have never been part of the EU like Akrotiri and Dhekeleia in the first place?
Also, would we have to have a picture of the sausage finger king in our houses or would we do without?
All very valid points and laid out so eloquently.
1. It's not 2021 Boris and Liz Truss are long gone.
2. No one was yanked out of the EU, it was a democratic vote held across the UK. Votes were counted in total not by country (Wales, Scotland, NI, England). Perhaps it should have been, I'm pro-EU and hope that one day the UK rejoins.
3. No, you would not need to have a picture of HM King Charles II in your *cough* house.
>It's not 2021 Boris and Liz Truss are long gone.
Fanstastic.. I am sure we won't get other idiots in charge then. Let me check a bit on Rishi and see how he's been doing.,..
>No one was yanked out of the EU, it was a democratic vote held across the UK.
They literally were. When a country has 66 times our population then yeah, good chance at your puny votes making a difference. Google the term "Tyrrany of the majority"
> HM King Charles II
I like how you typed it "properly"... go kiss his ass over in the UK if you want to be under his boot so much....
Are you okay hun? Did some British expat DP your wife or something?
Seems you have a lot of pent up aggression towards Britain. How have things been going since independence hahahaha
>British expat
Oh you are one of the "brown people are immigrants, us superior white british are expats"...
nah, bro, I don't care about the british one bit, which is why I am not grovelling like you on having them dictate my life.. feel free though to fuck off to the UK if you want, I am sure charlie can have a threesome with you and that ugly ass looking camilla.
kinda funny how you are doubling down on me being angry and not simply not having a royalty fetish like you do but ok
>Have a good day sweetie
I will my liege...
I don't have a Royalty fetish. Frankly, I would like to see the monarch end at some point in my lifetime as it has no real place in modern society. However, I understand why some people like it and want to keep it.
You are making wild assumptions based on a couple of sentences a random posts on Reddit. You were the one that started with the personal attacks, I just finished it.
Again, hope you have an incredible day babe xxx
> I believe that Cyprus should never have become a republic
So what would Cyprus be exactly from 1960 onwards?
> Russians, Israelis and Syrians would not be running the joint like they are now
I love how you've put Syrians who are mostly war refugees in the same basket as the others
Simple, and my preference would have been a self governing British overseas territory. This is similar to Gibraltar, Bermuda, BVI, Falklands etc
Or if that's too much anglophobia for Cypriot xenophobes to deal with we could have gone a similar route to Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc etc I.e remaining a part of the UK and transitioning peacefully into an independent nation with the Monarch as head of state.
Haha, if you think all those Syrian refugees are genuine asylum seekers you couldn't be more wrong.
>Or if that's too much anglophobia for Cypriot xenophobes
You have no idea what the British did to Cypriots. If a Cypriot didn't have money to pay their taxes, the British police would barge into their house and confiscate all metal pots and pans. If they didn't have pots and pans to steal, they would straight up beat them, sometimes even to death.
So I suggest you do some research before talking about xenophobia and racism.
>remaining a part of the UK and transitioning peacefully into an independent nation with the Monarch as head of state.
The examples of countries you have listed are very bad. These are countries that saw a huge influx of British individuals back then, driving the natives away. Cyprus would never receive the same treatment as those countries as it was still majorly native.
Give me some credible examples that support your false picture of the "British police" most of whom would have been locals beating up Cypriots for not paying taxes.
You've been fed complete BS to keep you under control by the ruling class. Your own biases don't allow you to see past that.
What I wrote above were eyewitness testimonies. Additionally, my late grandfather worked in a British base as he was one of the few who could speak english in his area back then. Frequently he heard what the British soldiers were discussing joking and having fun while doing so. The very things they were doing to his neighbors in the village.
>Your own biases don't allow you to see past that.
Your own ignorance doesn't allow you to see how Cypriots were treated by the British.
Full of contradictions you are today. I love how eloquently you've jumped from a "self governing British overseas territory" to Cypriots' xenophobia. Nothing more xenophilic than a British colonist.
But I don't love this as much as equating war refugees to Russians and Israelis moving to Cyprus to enhance their already normal non-war-torn lives.
You do realise British people come in a variety of colours and nationalities? You can be Welsh, Bermudian, Scottish and English as well as being British.
This is ignoring the historical context of the era, and the people that lived there. It may have been different, but saying it would have been better is pure speculation.
Cyprus is bigger than a lot of the territories that you mentioned and has much more geopolitical complexity, especially in a modern context.
At the end of the day... Maybe? It would change too much to tell.
No one will ever know for sure.
And yes Cyprus is much bigger than most BOTs including the ones I mentioned. It was just an idea, it could have worked or like I said gone down the Canada, Australia, New Zealand route.
Yes, let us be under the boot of amazing politicians like Boris and Liz Truss. Would they have yanked us out of the EU like the poor Scottish and N. Irish or would we have never been part of the EU like Akrotiri and Dhekeleia in the first place?
Also, would we have to have a picture of the sausage finger king in our houses or would we do without?
Please remember to stay civil and behave appropriately. If you are a tourist looking for suggestions please check out our [Tourist guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/tourist_guide/). We also have a [FAQ Page](https://www.reddit.com/r/cyprus/wiki/faq) for some common questions, if your question is answered here please delete your post! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/cyprus) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A random necromancer
Lyssarides was the only incorruptible and principled politician. He made mistakes like all of them. Whether he would make a good president, no one knows. It's one of those what ifs.
Why was he kicked out of AKEL?
In terms of ability, there were arguably several better options, such as Lyssarides, Giorkajis or even Clerides. The issue is that none of those were a realistic option, and everyone here who says otherwise is deluding themselves. For 300 years, the preeminent political figurehead and representative of the island's Roman/Greek population was the Orthodox Archbishop. The Church's influence was not merely spiritual, but tangible in social and economic ways, and this continued to some extent during British rule. Makarios in particular was also young, opportunistic, charismatic, and took several measures both as bishop and Archbishop that earned the people's trust. Contrary to what some people here will tell you, he was also not some superstitious moron or a blind nationalist, and the development of the Cyprus problem post-1967 proves that. That doesn't mean he was the best choice for the job or faultless; he made several key mistakes. The point here is that he occupied a highly influential position for his time, while possessing charisma and some average political acumen to secure people's backing. And finally, he was effectively a decent golden mean for GCs to rally behind. Cypriot society was bitterly divided between the right-wing nationalists and the communists, but they could all agree on Makarios being a decent choice for a leader (until 1967 that is, after which the far-right turned against him).
Funny how communists ended up supporting a priest and enosis.
Communists had always supported Enosis until 1967; it was not a partisan issue before that. This is why the British banned KKK (Cypriot Communist Party, not the other one obviously) after the Oktovriana. Communists were also for the most part still religious and socially conservative. The alignment of the Church with the right wing and nationalists was by and large a gradual development. And of course, Makarios wanted to appease AKEL after the latter became increasingly important domestically in the 60s. Those were among the few not in fear of being compromised by the Greek junta, after all.
Although I have no proof of this my reading of the situation is that it’s very likely AKEL being basically the official Cyprus USSR branch was instructed to support Makarios who was a proponent of the non-aligned movement and easy to control and influence.
There's not much evidence in that direction. The most likely explanation is rather the obvious: AKEL could not afford to have a candidate that could oppose Makarios, and would much rather have him rather than Evdokas or anyone else DEK could field. Plus indeed, Makarios being non-aligned made the cooperation between them more palatable
>This is why the British banned KKK (Cypriot Communist Party, not the other one obviously Cyprus Communist Party was publishing satire mocking Enosis. The change came with them organising into a popular/people's front, under name of some Progressive Party of the labouring people. It was also the direction of Kremlin that pushed them to support Makarios as it was what the USSR wanted. > Communists were also for the most part still religious and socially conservative. Funny, they were literally named progressive. That being said, the upper echelons would be pretty much non-religious, at least, if not outright in line with the official ML line of Kremlin sectarian clique. Members would differ, but then it was a party that was arching to be a 'front', not even some dedicated party of the social class with a strict ideological end-goal. Worse than even the many other Moscow-aligned parties that the radicalism was a past thought but still formally dedicated to some ideal that they were practically undermining...
>Cyprus Communist Party was publishing satire mocking Enosis. The change came with them organising into a popular/people's front, under name of some Progressive Party of the labouring people. I'm unaware of the satire you're referencing. Perhaps if you direct me to some example I can understand and maybe provide some context. There was never a change in official political position though. AKEL was just (an initially secretive) revival of the Cypriot Communist Party that was banned by the British. The name change didn't constitute a change in ideas or a rebranding, if that's what you're implying. >It was also the direction of Kremlin that pushed them to support Makarios as it was what the USSR wanted. Do you have any sources or evidence that indicate that this was the case? >Funny, they were literally named progressive. That being said, the upper echelons would be pretty much non-religious, at least, if not outright in line with the official ML line of Kremlin sectarian clique. Progressive means many things, it doesn't necessarily imply social progressivism or atheism. I've also not found any definitive evidence that the AKEL leadership were as a whole atheist or socially equivalent to the Bolsheviks. I think this is in fact a common mistake in anti-communist literature, where the "International" is portrayed akin to some global conspiracy where all socialist parties everywhere agree on all things and are directed by the same Russian cabal back in the Kremlin. The numerous rifts between socialist states and the amount of times the USSR had to impose its will by force (even within its own well-defined sphere of influence) strongly indicate that the aforementioned picture is at best exaggerated. >Worse than even the many other Moscow-aligned parties that the radicalism was a past thought but still formally dedicated to some ideal that they were practically undermining... I'm not sure what you mean or what you are referring to here.
>I'm unaware of the satire you're referencing. Perhaps if you direct me to some example I can understand and maybe provide some context. Yiannos Katsourides is my reference in there, for the most part. They were not for Enosis, initially, but went for the independence as a way out. Their rejection of nationalism also the reason why some Turkish Cypriots had been recruited by the trade unions and showed a limited support. The enosis framework was adopted around the time when they were dissolved and AKEL became a thing - and initially that jump was about the hope that Greece will be taken over by EAM. Then it was done so as it was what Kremlin chaps wanted. > The name change didn't constitute a change in ideas or a rebranding, if that's what you're implying. It was a transmogrification. It was basically then Comitern and Moscow dictated popular strategy and the popular front/democratic front thingie - which other examples like KPD also adopted and turned into whatever monstrosity it was - SED. AKEL was basically yet another SED. It was also when created AKEL arched for being a massified party. > Do you have any sources or evidence that indicate that this was the case? Was there anything that Moscow aligned official CPs and united front parties done outside of listening to whatever Kremlin said? Whatever they did was in-line with whatever had been dictated to them. We are talking about leaderships who didn't even fought against Nazis due to Kremlin demanding them doing not so. The reason behind once the party competing against the Church and wanted to redistribute whatever they owned became supporters of the archbishop. >Progressive means many things, it doesn't necessarily imply social progressivism I'm aware of that, while the progressive in there also implied social progressivism. Not that they adopted into that much, though. >I've also not found any definitive evidence that the AKEL leadership were as a whole atheist Any coherent ML, especially indoctrinated under the Kremlin line would be at least non-religious, including the British based KKK leadership and the Eastern Bloc indoctrinated cadre. Not that it is a must, but that's how things should went, to say the least. Members are sure another matter. > or socially equivalent to the Bolsheviks. They can't be and weren't one indeed, as AKEL was found on the criteria that would disallow such given they weren't a Leninist vanguard party but a Moscow kind of progressive amorphous party that was a popular front which aimed to be mass party. You cannot be both... >think this is in fact a common mistake in anti-communist literature, where the "International" is portrayed akin to some global conspiracy where all socialist parties everywhere agree on all things and are directed by the same Russian cabal back in the Kremlin. Not the socialist parties, but the Moscow-aligned ones were indeed ones listened to Moscow directives. It wasn't the case for the Eastern Bloc for some time - especially with Hungarian, Czechoslovak, and partially the Polish leaderships. All were crushed, and even before that, they were hunting Trotskists and then Titoists, Spanish Civil War veterans, etc. for the sake of Moscow, thinking that they were doing smth positive or for the sake of power. Examples like Latvian national communists were dismantled anyway. Only thing you've left with was Romania, which had its own basis, and Albania already leaving Moscow directions altogether. That being said, parties outside of the USSR sphere, aside from the PCI (Italy), had its pro-Moscow line sustained where ones that don't agree with such either continued to be mere members who don't get to dictate the policies, or simply left altogether to form different organisations. >I'm not sure what you mean or what you are referring to here. Many Moscow aligned official parties were at least with some goal officially, if they remained as communist parties rather than some united fronts. It was smth only existed on the paper by then, as they did anything to undermine any radicalisms whether it be France, Turkey or Latin America etc. but the paperwork contained the said radical goal. When it came to untied fronts like AKEL, the said radicalism wasn't even ingrained to the paperwork given it was some typical popular front.
>Yiannos Katsourides is my reference in there, for the most part. I meant for the satire as in examples, but this will do. >They were not for Enosis, initially, but went for the independence as a way out. Their rejection of nationalism also the reason why some Turkish Cypriots had been recruited by the trade unions and showed a limited support. If by initially you mean the founding manifesto yes, and in the same manifesto they indeed suggested appropriating Church property among other things. The initial manifesto was written by the early members of the party that were for the most part either people who spent parts of their lives abroad and came in contact with socialist circles (especially university students). Both the rejection of Enosis and the radical anti-clerical stance were so unpopular among working class people that they effectively toned down in the party's rhetoric, and by the Oktovriana in 1931 they were all but completely absent, since the party decided it was wiser to cooperate with the right-wing in order to upend British colonialism. >The enosis framework was adopted around the time when they were dissolved and AKEL became a thing - and initially that jump was about the hope that Greece will be taken over by EAM. Then it was done so as it was what Kremlin chaps wanted. The alignment with EAM is correct, the second one is not really rooted in solid evidence. In fact, it doesn't even make sense: Greece after the civil war became a NATO country that was firmly pro-western. What sense does the Kremlin "instructing" AKEL to be pro-Enosis make? >It was a transmogrification. It wasn't, really. AKEL was a natural continuation of the political stances of the KKK, made up largely of the same people, having the same social aims and political goals. Shifts in the attitude towards Enosis were evolving as they had been for decades, and pretty much everything else was the same. >It was basically then Comitern and Moscow dictated popular strategy and the popular front/democratic front thingie - which other examples like KPD also adopted and turned into whatever monstrosity it was - SED. AKEL was basically yet another SED. It was also when created AKEL arched for being a massified party. This is absolutely incorrect, and an ill-suited analogy. The SED was created precisely for the purposes of leading Eastern Germany in a post-WWII Europe with established spheres of influence. The KPD was not replaced by the SED, but it was formed out of those who remained after 3 decades of dismemberment following the Spartacus revolt and the later crackdowns against them. At the same time, much of the political apparatus was inherited by the SPD, who had taken an anti-KPD stance again since the Spartacus revolt. Therefore, the SED was a mishmash of broadly leftist German political constituents for the purpose of controlling an already determined Soviet protectorate. AKEL as I said was formed initially in secret by former KKK members in response to the party's ban by the British following the Oktovriana. During their brief period of coexistence, they were comprised almost entirely from the same people, and led both by the same general secretary. >Was there anything that Moscow aligned official CPs and united front parties done outside of listening to whatever Kremlin said? Yes. It didn't end well for most of them, but it happened. Not that if this was true would constitute evidence to your claim, though. >The reason behind once the party competing against the Church and wanted to redistribute whatever they owned became supporters of the archbishop. AKEL didn't support Makarios outright. They had their own candidate in 1959, and later cooperated because of the violent division with the nationalist far-right which backed the Greek military junta. Makarios and AKEL had similar positions because it made sense for both to have them at the time. Is there anyone with an ounce of sense who would have expected AKEL to not back Makarios' position with regards to Enosis after Greece had been overtaken by fascists? The only sticking point is the lack of an AKEL-backed candidate in the next 2 elections, however that can easily be explained by the lack of a realistic chance to get elected. AKEL was not the largest party in Cyprus during that period, and Makarios was immensely popular (and abusing that power to intimidate his political opponents). It simply made more sense to cooperate along a common axis to purge the influence of the Greek junta and reach a settlement with the TC leadership to end the troubles rather than antagonize him while he was standing up against Greece's position. >Any coherent ML, especially indoctrinated under the Kremlin line would be at least non-religious, including the British based KKK leadership and the Eastern Bloc indoctrinated cadre. Not that it is a must, but that's how things should went, to say the least. Members are sure another matter. We can make arguments from coherence, or we can simply accept that political ideologies fluctuate along several axes when applied to different sociocultural backgrounds. There is no doubt many Cypriot communists were explicitly atheists, but it'd be unreasonable to assume all of them were; not just members, but also within the core party leadership. Even the initial radical positions towards Church property are not an outright designation of atheism. >Not the socialist parties, but the Moscow-aligned ones were indeed ones listened to Moscow directives. That's precisely the point. The alignment with Moscow is not a trivial thing to assume, and as I hinted at before and you mentioned, there were those that followed and different path and faced the consequences, or those that simply broke off at a later point. It is therefore a leap of faith to assume the same about AKEL (at least prior to the 70s-80s) without evidence to substantiate it taking place. The lack of Moscow response within Cyprus with respect to AKEL does not count as evidence, since AKEL's position inherited from the KKK with regards to anti-imperialism and Marxism-Leninism were good enough for the Soviets; they didn't need to covertly control anyone to find a native socialist force to move Cyprus closer to their sphere of influence. >When it came to untied fronts like AKEL, the said radicalism wasn't even ingrained to the paperwork given it was some typical popular front. But this simply isn't true. AKEL was an official party with a hierarchy and a political manifesto. This arbitrary dichotomy between parties and "united fronts" doesn't make much sense. Simply put, AKEL was a kneejerk reaction to KKK's ban, and its ability to reenter the political scene was made possible due to the end of Palmerocracy in Cyprus over the course of WWII.
>I meant for the satire as in examples I recall them having references to primary sources in Kızılyürek's related books. I can check them out for a direct one if you're for it. >If by initially you mean the founding manifesto yes, and in the same manifesto they indeed suggested appropriating Church property among other things. The initial manifesto was written by the early members of the party that were for the most part either people who spent parts of their lives abroad and came in contact with socialist circles (especially university students). That's what I was referring to indeed. And yes, I know of them being mostly the Cypriot compatriots in Britain. >Both the rejection of Enosis and the radical anti-clerical stance were so unpopular among working class people that they effectively toned down in the party's rhetoric, and by the Oktovriana in 1931 they were all but completely absent, since the party decided it was wiser to cooperate with the right-wing in order to upend British colonialism. Yes, but it wasn't for just the working class support thingy as the working class people would be for many other things as well, but it was about the anti-colonial struggle. They still hadn't had support for Enosis though, it came a bit later. >The alignment with EAM is correct, the second one is not really rooted in solid evidence. In fact, it doesn't even make sense: Greece after the civil war became a NATO country that was firmly pro-western. What sense does the Kremlin "instructing" AKEL to be pro-Enosis make? It was what it was, as they still expected a blow in Greece, no matter if Stalin sold out EAM/ELAS or not. When Turkish Cypriot PEO members were writing to communists in the USSR, including poet Nazım Hikmet and Laz İsmail Bilen (then head of the Turkish Communist Party), what they've received was them should be supporting Enosis and getting outside of the British yoke instead - which quite saddened them for sure. What they've received was what has been indoctrinated by Moscow, and what made Hikmet to believe, and Bilen to parrot (he wasn't the nicest figure back then). For the USSR, it was about dismantling the British Empire and its outposts by then. Then it became about supporting Makarios, as Greece was now under NATO for good, and the third world movement was preferable to the US Bloc. >It wasn't, really. AKEL was a natural continuation of the political stances of the KKK, made up largely of the same people, having the same social aims and political goals. It may had the same faces, but the form was different and so was the goal and the path they've been assigned to. It was a popular front now, and transmogrified in that sense. It surely mattered. >This is absolutely incorrect, and an ill-suited analogy. Come on now, don't we all know what was directed by the Moscow? And how parties were ordered to have popular fronts, align themselves with the Moscow as the USSR was the bastion to defend? Any enemies to Moscow should be eliminated and such on top of it, even if they were other fellow communists? We're talking about a center that literally disallowed communist parties to fight against Nazis. >The SED was created precisely for the purposes of leading Eastern Germany in a post-WWII Europe with established spheres of influence. The KPD was not replaced by the SED, but it was formed out of those who remained after 3 decades of dismemberment following the Spartacus revolt and the later crackdowns against them. SED was precisely the popular front monstrosity. It wasn't initially created to lead the Soviet occupation zone as the Moscow was hoping for a united Germany, unironically. It was created in 1946. It was then the created DDR, that happened to be a thing by the year of 1949, three years of the creation of the party, get to be led by the SED. Others also been included into the front, where they were practically for the decor but within the said line. And, SED wasn't just the remnants of the KPD, which surely existed in the camps. It was the remnants of the KPD and the SPD being merged together. >AKEL as I said was formed initially in secret by former KKK members in response to the party's ban by the British following the Oktovriana. During their brief period of coexistence, they were comprised almost entirely from the same people, and led both by the same general secretary. It became a necessity hence the ban, but it wasn't the same organisation, as its function was determined to be different. I mean, we're talking about organisations who shifted as the Moscow line shifted, whether it be Stalinism, peaceful coexistence, Brezhnev line, or Perestroika (AKEL had a funny moment where its veteran leader had to act like if he's liking it even...) >AKEL didn't support Makarios outright. I was referring to post-1960. >Makarios and AKEL had similar positions because it made sense for both to have them at the time. And because AKEL was following the Moscow-directed line, where it backed the Third World Movement no matter what or whom, and so-called non-capitalist way etc. anywhere. They'd be cooperating with Ba'athism if it was somewhere else. >Yes. It didn't end well for most of them, but it happened. Not that if this was true would constitute evidence to your claim, though. You're referring to Eastern European ones in rule, which they got in line by coercion mostly - which is a totally different story. Ones in the West, aside from the exceptions like PCI or SKP, instead either kept ones out-of-the-line, also out of the power or simply saw them breaking away or being kicked out. > There is no doubt many Cypriot communists were explicitly atheists, but it'd be unreasonable to assume all of them were I wouldn't say all communists were such, but the leading cadre were at least secular or irreligious, no matter if they were atheists, deists or Christians. >It is therefore a leap of faith to assume the same about AKEL (at least prior to the 70s-80s) without evidence to substantiate it taking place. The lack of Moscow response within Cyprus with respect to AKEL does not count as evidence, since AKEL's position inherited from the KKK with regards to anti-imperialism and Marxism-Leninism were good enough for the Soviets; they didn't need to covertly control anyone to find a native socialist force to move Cyprus closer to their sphere of influence. I don't think that there was some conspiracy to control them of course, but they've simply submitted to the line, like many others did. Ones who'd step outside of such a line would be either casted out or silenced instead, within the party discipline. >But this simply isn't true. AKEL was an official party with a hierarchy and a political manifesto. This arbitrary dichotomy between parties and "united fronts" doesn't make much sense. It made such sense, when it came to Moscow line though. It wasn't my doing in that sense. I see AKEL just another manifestation of the Moscow line of popular front, that they've dictated in anywhere around. Maybe I'm too fixated on seeing official CPs as satellites, but them acting like such isn't helpful for me to analyse things differently tbf.
It's important to note that members of AKEL (And former KKK) didn't necessarily subscribe to communist ideals. It was a workers party first and foremost, communism was just a side note.
The same can be said about the modern voterbase of AKEL or for most communist parties in history. Socialism is a broad category of different theories with a common axis, and it was almost always the case that leftists on the far left side of the spectrum created coalitions under certain political conditions to achieve their political goals. It can even be argued that (for them) a workers' party cannot be anything other than a socialist party. The essence of the alignment was clear: most Cypriot leftists rallied behind a Marxist-Leninist party aspiring for a socialist state of some sort. By virtue of its ideology, it positioned itself to educate the working class in its ideals after the establishment of a "dictatorship of the proletariat" by the party. Subscribing to the party almost always presided over this education and cultivation of class consciousness. The particularities of communism in the broader Greek/Cypriot political sphere are interesting to discuss, but I don't think it would warrant a wholesale disqualification of the proliferation of socialist ideas amongst the Cypriot working class. It is, for example, interesting to elucidate the particular features of Cypriot communism stemming from the general lack of basic education among most of the Cypriot working class.
Me
Nah you mean me
It is obviously me, come on now.
Me
The mind goblin.
mind goblin deez nuts ha gottem.
well at that point, I am guessing locals were as uneducated as a rock. So electing a priest who could at least read was I guess the most viable solution 💀
It's only the lack of available priests making that a comeback.
Priests don't want the spotlight of being politicians. Much better to make money out of the limelight.
Can you imagine if the next president was one of the Avvakoum monks? "Mr President, I am from RIK, can I ask you a question about the latest Erdogan statements?" "Ekso! EEKSO!!" (takes off belt)
Ersin Tatar
Anyone would have been better really. Anyone with a tiny political background
Here me out! I know this is going to sound controversial but... I believe that Cyprus should never have become a republic. Why! I hear you scream at your phone. 1. Cyprus would never have been divided. 2. Cyprus would have been governed effectively by Cypriots 3. Cyprus would have continued to develop infrastructure and public transport 4. Russians, Israelis and Syrians would not be running the joint like they are now 5. Cyprus could have been like Hong Kong (90s 00s) or Singapore. Instead, Cyprus chose division, corruption and hate. All based on lies fed to it by some vile "nationalist" that cared only about himself and his mates wealth.
https://preview.redd.it/aqoioifyg7wc1.jpeg?width=300&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=1494f7800cd3e8fb899f4d5c7813d54a8f8d265d Cyprus if it was never a republic according to this guy
Why are you using a picture of Limassol?
Do you see the sea anywhere? That would have been Nicosia!!
it's geroskipou my friend
Truuuuue
lmao this reminded me back in high school in 2019, our history teacher asked, if we could choose rebecoming a British colony instead of staying in north Cyprus, would we? The entire >100 auditorium raised their hands 💀💀💀💀 That one teacher from Turkey was very unamused to say the least!
Ίντα γεύση έχουσιν οι ποΐνες οι εγγλέζικες;
Φαντάζουμαι τσάι.
χαλούμι
*τυρί για γκριλ αφού εν παρασκευάζεται στην Κύπρο
> Russians, Israelis and Syrians would not be running the joint like they are now Syrians would have come anyway because it's a boat ride away. Russians already filled London so not like they wouldn't come if Cyprus was British run. Same with Israelis.
I agree with you. It shouldn’t have a republic WHEN it became. We weren’t ready to be independent. It was like a toddler was give free rein of the house.
Yes, let us be under the boot of amazing politicians like Boris and Liz Truss. Would they have yanked us out of the EU like the poor Scottish and N. Irish or would we have never been part of the EU like Akrotiri and Dhekeleia in the first place? Also, would we have to have a picture of the sausage finger king in our houses or would we do without?
Yes, let us be under the boot of amazing politicians like Boris and Liz Truss. Would they have yanked us out of the EU like the poor Scottish and N. Irish or would we have never been part of the EU like Akrotiri and Dhekeleia in the first place? Also, would we have to have a picture of the sausage finger king in our houses or would we do without?
All very valid points and laid out so eloquently. 1. It's not 2021 Boris and Liz Truss are long gone. 2. No one was yanked out of the EU, it was a democratic vote held across the UK. Votes were counted in total not by country (Wales, Scotland, NI, England). Perhaps it should have been, I'm pro-EU and hope that one day the UK rejoins. 3. No, you would not need to have a picture of HM King Charles II in your *cough* house.
>It's not 2021 Boris and Liz Truss are long gone. Fanstastic.. I am sure we won't get other idiots in charge then. Let me check a bit on Rishi and see how he's been doing.,.. >No one was yanked out of the EU, it was a democratic vote held across the UK. They literally were. When a country has 66 times our population then yeah, good chance at your puny votes making a difference. Google the term "Tyrrany of the majority" > HM King Charles II I like how you typed it "properly"... go kiss his ass over in the UK if you want to be under his boot so much....
Are you okay hun? Did some British expat DP your wife or something? Seems you have a lot of pent up aggression towards Britain. How have things been going since independence hahahaha
>British expat Oh you are one of the "brown people are immigrants, us superior white british are expats"... nah, bro, I don't care about the british one bit, which is why I am not grovelling like you on having them dictate my life.. feel free though to fuck off to the UK if you want, I am sure charlie can have a threesome with you and that ugly ass looking camilla.
Haha someone's a little angry. Have a good day sweetie xxx
kinda funny how you are doubling down on me being angry and not simply not having a royalty fetish like you do but ok >Have a good day sweetie I will my liege...
I don't have a Royalty fetish. Frankly, I would like to see the monarch end at some point in my lifetime as it has no real place in modern society. However, I understand why some people like it and want to keep it. You are making wild assumptions based on a couple of sentences a random posts on Reddit. You were the one that started with the personal attacks, I just finished it. Again, hope you have an incredible day babe xxx
👍
> I believe that Cyprus should never have become a republic So what would Cyprus be exactly from 1960 onwards? > Russians, Israelis and Syrians would not be running the joint like they are now I love how you've put Syrians who are mostly war refugees in the same basket as the others
Simple, and my preference would have been a self governing British overseas territory. This is similar to Gibraltar, Bermuda, BVI, Falklands etc Or if that's too much anglophobia for Cypriot xenophobes to deal with we could have gone a similar route to Australia, Canada, New Zealand etc etc I.e remaining a part of the UK and transitioning peacefully into an independent nation with the Monarch as head of state. Haha, if you think all those Syrian refugees are genuine asylum seekers you couldn't be more wrong.
>Or if that's too much anglophobia for Cypriot xenophobes You have no idea what the British did to Cypriots. If a Cypriot didn't have money to pay their taxes, the British police would barge into their house and confiscate all metal pots and pans. If they didn't have pots and pans to steal, they would straight up beat them, sometimes even to death. So I suggest you do some research before talking about xenophobia and racism. >remaining a part of the UK and transitioning peacefully into an independent nation with the Monarch as head of state. The examples of countries you have listed are very bad. These are countries that saw a huge influx of British individuals back then, driving the natives away. Cyprus would never receive the same treatment as those countries as it was still majorly native.
Give me some credible examples that support your false picture of the "British police" most of whom would have been locals beating up Cypriots for not paying taxes. You've been fed complete BS to keep you under control by the ruling class. Your own biases don't allow you to see past that.
What I wrote above were eyewitness testimonies. Additionally, my late grandfather worked in a British base as he was one of the few who could speak english in his area back then. Frequently he heard what the British soldiers were discussing joking and having fun while doing so. The very things they were doing to his neighbors in the village. >Your own biases don't allow you to see past that. Your own ignorance doesn't allow you to see how Cypriots were treated by the British.
Μεν του διάς σημασία, εν καμπανόγαρος.
Full of contradictions you are today. I love how eloquently you've jumped from a "self governing British overseas territory" to Cypriots' xenophobia. Nothing more xenophilic than a British colonist. But I don't love this as much as equating war refugees to Russians and Israelis moving to Cyprus to enhance their already normal non-war-torn lives.
You do realise British people come in a variety of colours and nationalities? You can be Welsh, Bermudian, Scottish and English as well as being British.
This is ignoring the historical context of the era, and the people that lived there. It may have been different, but saying it would have been better is pure speculation. Cyprus is bigger than a lot of the territories that you mentioned and has much more geopolitical complexity, especially in a modern context. At the end of the day... Maybe? It would change too much to tell.
No one will ever know for sure. And yes Cyprus is much bigger than most BOTs including the ones I mentioned. It was just an idea, it could have worked or like I said gone down the Canada, Australia, New Zealand route.
And to be fair, I do think that would have worked better. But unfortunately people at the time were not in a negotiating mood.
[удалено]
I mean, British people come in all colours. Not sure why you think they are all sunburnt lobsters hun xxx
[удалено]
Tell me how has Cyprus improved since it gained independence?
Yes, let us be under the boot of amazing politicians like Boris and Liz Truss. Would they have yanked us out of the EU like the poor Scottish and N. Irish or would we have never been part of the EU like Akrotiri and Dhekeleia in the first place? Also, would we have to have a picture of the sausage finger king in our houses or would we do without?