Baltenstein wrote:Punished UMN wrote:The negotiations weren't stopping the violence and the British were unwilling to help with peacekeeping.
I like how you keep drawing a connection between the objective of "violence in the South" to "violent conquest and ethnic cleansing of the North" to make the latter seem more legitimate, as if it were in any way a feasible solution to the former. Not only did Attila II make anti-Turkish violence in the South much worse as was completely predictable, it also resulted in pretty much eradicating the ethnic Turkish presence in the South (also, completely predictable)
Even a unilateral police action, with the sole puprpose of pacifying inter-community violence, would have been an infinitely better solution than what the Turkish leadership chose to do.
You keep portraying a Turkish leadership that had, by that point, already decided on on violent population transfer (and therefore much more violence against both Greeks and Turks in both parts of the island) and acted in complete accordance with that objective as somehow being driven by wanting to end the violence.
To do a unilateral police action, the Turks would have had to occupy the entire island. It was a more stable and feasible solution in the near-term to have partition and population transfer, that way the Greek Cypriots got their country and the Turkish ones got another since that was clearly what the Greek Cypriots wanted in the first place.