Talk:EOKA

Please sign your comments and refrain from provocative, racist or inflammatory language. These are basic principles for Wikipedians and it is especially important to remember them when discussing a controversial topic like this. I have left the comments at the top of this page as an example, but I hope that nobody will copy this sort of inane racism. Working together to reach an acceptable consensus on this article should be possible. Let's give it a go, please? Peeper 11:17, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Comments

EOKA

EOKA is a terrorist organization, responsible of massacre activities against Non-Greeks in the Cyprus Island until 1974 - aozan , 14:46 , 10 June 2005

Just read the article, I think the "terrorist" part should be omitted in the definition of EOKA, or rather replaced with "resistance" or a similar word, since -as is mentioned further on in the article- considered as a liberation movement by the majority of cypriots.

Terrorism as opposed to military resistance

I replaced the term "terrorist organisation" to "military resistance organisation" because I felt that -despite the sabotage and guerilla methods of war used- EOKA is still being acclaimed by all Cypriots as a strugle for liberation, as is clearly stated in the course of the article. I believe that "military resistance" is a more neutral and objective term.

---

I think this article is fair and moderate in tone and, while it won't please everybody, it is one of the more balanced contributions related to Cyprus. I have made a few amendments to language, but the content of the article is really sound. Terminology is always difficult and change is welcomed, but I think this article is an excellent example for other people writing about similar issues. The users above should take note. Peeper 10:14, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Why don't you just use the term armed violence. Thus EOKA becomes a paramilitary organisation that resorted to armed violence to achieve the political objective of uniting Cyprus with Greece.Sceptic Anonymous 00:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I understand that the Greek community in the southern Cyprus welcomes EOKA as a liberation symbol. One should always remember however Cyprus has a Turkish population upon which the Greek Community still holds the Republic of Cyprus title, and this community has never approved EOKA. Turkish community have supported the British in their efforts to keep the island within the Common-Wealth. Hence I strongly would advocate EOKA to be defined similar to IRA

EOKA Ethniki Organosis Kyprion Agoniston, in English National Organisation of Cypriot Fighters) was a Greek Cypriot ethnicially biased nationalist paramilitary organisation that fought for the expulsion of British troops from the island, for self-determination and for union with Greece against the wishes of the sizable Turkish minority in the island inthe mid to late 1950s. The organisation has been outlawed and classified as a terrorist group in [Great Britain, Turkey] and many other countries..." Accounted 9:36, 19 June 2006

"The United Kingdom promised Greece that all the above would be a commitment to be fulfilled if Greece would enter World War II on the side of the Allies. Britain did not honor this commitment and EOKA engaged to free the Greek Cypriots from British rule. The leadership of AKEL at the time(a communist organisation) opposed EOKA's military action, preferring strikes and demonstrations, and thus making itself the only Communist party in the world that refused to take part in the anti-colonial struggle of its country". This came into direct contrast with the previous leadership who some 5 years ago organised and plebiscite of 1950, where the vast majority of all cypriot (Greeks, Turks, Maronites and Latins) vote for the union with Greece (98%). Also many members of the party fought in WWII on the side of the allies, in response to Britain's promise of union with Greece. AKEL was accused of receiving fundings from the UK communist party." There are so many factual mistakes in this short passage it hurts my eyes. There was no commitment by Britain to cede Cyprus to Greece, if so would someone verify this. At the plebiscite only the Greek Cypriots voted as the plebiscite was carried out in Greek Orthodox churches and the figure of 97.5%, to be accurate, includes only the Greek Cypriot community. The Turkish Cypriots were clearly against it. The quote about by AKEL being the only communist party failing to take part in an anti-colonial struggle needs to be referenced properly. Even so the comment is a bit harsh because the whole EOKA movement was quite suis generis compared to other de-colonisation movements as it sought to be incorporated with Greece. This political objective was closer to the irredentism of the 19th and early 20th century rather than the decolonisation process that was taking place in Asia and Africa.Sceptic Anonymous

Added names of Turkish Cypriots killed by EOKA during 1963-1974

Everyone can imagine, which term is right for EOKA: freedom-fighters or terrorists? Unfortunately, Greek cypriots are fed with nationalist propaganda and either do not know or do not want to know the truth.

Read and pay silence for those who were killed.

Pamir 00:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

... just to check a few minutes later and they are gone... so much for free speech here. Removing the names were as easy as to kill them, right? Or how did you feel when you did that, "Kirill"?

Pamir 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UT)

Mr. Pamir, yes Turkish Cyprios were killed by EOKA B' terrorists, but Greek Cypriots were also killed by your TMT terrorists, by T/C angry mobs and by the Turkish army in 1974. And, I don't think the one that remove the names you listed actually killed them, that was done by extremists and does not apply to all G/C so please calm down and stop characterising people.

Mr Pamir, did you also list the Turkish Cypriots TMT killed?

I am by no means generalising here but such ignorance in Mr Pamir's comments is not surprising. TMT terrorists and corrupt Turkish military officers still operate in the occupied North of Cyprus to this day. Turkey has and will always have blood on their hands. The Turkish-held area declared itself the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus and is recognised only by Turkey. Obviously letting the US have military bases in Turkey can literally let them get away with murder!!!

As a result of the Turkish invasion in 1974 over 120,000 settlers and Terrorist TMT military commanders and sympathisers were brought into Cyprus from mainland Turkey. This was despite Article 49 of the Geneva Convention stating that "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

I totally agree with both TMT and EOKA B both being outlawed violence organizations. Never to forget that EOKA-B is referred as a terrorist organization by United Kingdom, Turkey and even archbishop Makarios on his speech at UN because EOKA B engaged in the killing of civillians. One should serious concerns however if EOKA is not better equipped to achieve its objective of enosis, since TMT was modelled after Gladio an underground resistance organization to fight a guerilla war during an enosis enforcement .

See Wikipedia:Words to avoid#Terrorist, terrorism. —Khoikhoi 00:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Flame baits

"AKEL opposed EOKA's military action, preferring strikes and demonstrations, and thus making itself the only Communist party in the world that refused to take part in the anti-colonial struggle of its country". So strikes and demonstrations are not anti colonial struggle? Tell Ghandi that! I'm removing this.Mavros 17:00, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Split the article?

I think this article should be split, since EOKA and EOKA-B are really two different organization active in different historical circumstances and with a considerable solution of continuity among the two. So a separate article titled EOKA-B should be created. Opinions?--Aldux 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

As I said before, the split would be a good thing, as, while there is a contintinuity, there are much stronger differences due to the mutated political situation in Cyprus and Greece, and due to the far less autonomy of the organization, which became little more than a tool of the Colonels. Also, there is a solution of continuity between EOKA and EOKA-B.--Aldux 17:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I support this idea. Should this become a dab page, or just the stuff about EOKA-B removed? —Khoikhoi 17:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion the anti-British group should remain here, as its name was EOKA, while the reformed group stuff, EOKA-B, should be removed and placed under EOKA-B.--Aldux 19:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I reject the idea on the basis that both organizations have shared the common goal of Enosis. Both EOKA and EOKA B pursued Enosis and not the Republic of Cyprus co-created by both communities. I understand the concern that EOKA B has overthrown a Greek government however you must provide that these are entirely different set of people. Yes the leader team in EOKA B included more Greek personnell however as far as I am aware the tactical level EOKA B activities were performed by same people those who fought British in the previous decade. -- Not really, EOKA was almost entirely destroyed by the British and when EOKA B was established Grivas had to recruit entirely new personnel, they were basically seperate organizations. They also diferred that EOKA never targetted Turkish civilians, while EOKA B did occassionally. -Kwstis

Wikipedia policy is that an article should be splitted if it is very long. EOKA and EOKA B have their similarities and differences. The leadership was almost the same. Few of them were not in EOKA B, like president Papadopoulos. They both did anti-communist struggle and cause bad effects to Cyprus. Some in the leadership which was the same, targetted also Turkish Cypriots. However it has its differences, like Makarios supporters did not take part, most of the members (not leadership) did really anti-colonial struggle etc..

If you see other encyclopedias, they are all in same article. So by all of this, I insist that article MUST NOT BE SPLITTED.]].--KRBN 22:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

IMO EOKA-B should be a seperate article. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 22:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems obvious to me that the article ought to be split. The main reason is that they in fact were two separate organisations, but another reason is accessiblity: Users who seek information specifically about EOKA-B should not need to scroll past what is in effect another article about a related entry. --Thorsen 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course the article should be split. EOKA and EOKA B' were two separate organisation (hence the different names!). Larisv 18:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

EOKA-B

I dont understand; EOKA-B is a terorist group who killed Turkish Cypriots. I have many Greek Cypriot friends who accept this.

I am sure you do. You may even have many Greek Cypriot friends who believe that they have been abducted by aliens, that doesn't make it true, does it? Larisv 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Everyone in Cyprus(in both sides) knows that first EOKA was formed to kill "British Invaders" and second EOKA (namely EOKA-B) was formed to kill Turkish Cypriots including citizens.

I dont know about the first but second EOKA-> EOKA-B should be called terrorist organization and the article should state that it was formed to kill Turkish Cypriot citizens in 1974 which resultet in "1974 Turkish Peace Operation" (which by the way saved my grand father and his family including my father from the EOKA-B camps)

Ok, the only problem with this argument is that from the day EOKA B' was formed until the day the Turkish forces landed in Cyprus and (along with some very eager TMT 'fighters') started killing, raping, torturing, looting and ethnically cleansing the areas under their occupation or their Greek Cypriot inhabitants, the only Turkish Cypriot EOKA B' casualty was a young Turkish Cypriot boy who had fallen off his biken and scratched his knee when he heard shooting far away in the Greek Cypriot quarter. Larisv 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

These aricles must but stated as "under discussion" because there is 2 sides of every history of cyprus. An Encylopedia should not write opinions as facts —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Epinox (talk • contribs) 13:02, 25 October 2006.

EOKA B wasn't formed "to kill Turkish Cypriots" it did killed Turkish Cypriots, sometimes, but it had the same aim as EOKA. Mitsos 22:15, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Mitsos, EOKA B' probably never had even a single encounter with Turkish Cypriots. Larisv 18:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, EOKA-B never had an encounter with the Turkish Cypriots until July 20th 1974, when the war started. This article should be kept as neutral as possible. User383739 08:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

EOKA B' did not exist on the 20th July 1974. It had been dissolved about a month earlier when all its leadership was arrested and kept in custody. Larisv 11:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree EOKA A and EOKA B is very different to put them together would be a very erroneous assumption of the part of this website

EOKA B' - Neutrality Dispute

It's really difficult to find a part of this section that is factually accurate. It's amazing how, when people talk about EOKA B' they really let their imagination run wild. The whole section has to be deleted and a new stub article has to be created specifically for EOKA B'. Larisv 11:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Of course i support the idea. EOKA B doesn't belong in this article. Constantinos7 09:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

EOKA B is very different than EOKA A. Although they both had a declared goal of union with Greece, there is enough evidence that the Greek Junta helped create the organization to further it's policies in Cyprus. EOKA A is celebrated by the mainstream G/C whereas EOKA B is considered by a huge majority as a foreign controlled organization and the Cypriots that partipated "traitors". The most lenient G/C consider EOKA B members as naive and the most harsh as paid agents. EOKA B should definately be a separate article. Costas —Preceding unsigned comment added by Costasvouno (talk • contribs) 02:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I have separated the two. Meander^₪ 07:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

HIMEOBS

What is the "HIMEOBS" acronym mentioned in this article? the Internet only has 4 references to it, all of which appear to point back to this article (where it isn't explained). --mgaved (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Further Separation of article

I think that this article (which is still very poorly written and cited) needs to be split again. Although undeniably EOKA is intricately related to the struggle, I think that it should be split into:

• an article titled EOKA
• and an article titled the Cypriot struggle for Independence

The article EOKA should concern itself mainly with the organisation itself, its inception, makeup, ideology etc, whilst the second article should concern itself with the conflict itself and with all factions involved.

Similar examples of such arrangements can be found with articles on:

• 26th of July Movement and the Cuban Revolution
• Kosovo Liberation Army and Kosovo War
• Rhodesian Bush War and Zimbabwe African National Liberation Army
• and several more

Any objections or other thoughts?

Georgeg (talk) 16:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Struggle for independance is a loaded term. It should be a more neutral Cypriot Independence Movement or somesuch.

I'd agree otherwise though, the EOKA were murderers and terrorists. There were also many decent, rational people pushing for Cyprus independance.--Him and a dog 08:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree a new article is needed. However, I disagree with the title Cypriot Independence Movement. I think the name needs to show that this was a conflict and the word movement does not reflect that. StephP (talk) 10:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a conflict however the movement went beyond that, it was ultimatly peaceful discussion that did the trick. Makarios wasn't a part of EOKA for instance, his followers took a far more Ghandiesque route. --Him and a dog 21:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, I agree with the overall concept. And it is necessary. I think the wording however is not 100% justified. The will of the cypriots at the time (from what i know) was 1. to force the british out, and 2. Union with Greece. In my opinion the article's name should be Cypriot struggle for self determination, thus including all reasons why cypriots back then fought. There were petitions to the UN and the British colonial rule, supporting the latter. Those can be used as references. The fact that the British in the after math (because of the struggle) concorded to the creation of an independent country, Cyprus does not, in my opinion mean that the struggle itself was for independence. Independence if i am not mistaken was a compromise between Makarios and the British so that the struggle would end. It is this agreement that a minority of Greek Cypriots back then, decided to nullify by creating EOKA B. Regards, Meander^₪ 09:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)