Colin Thubron weaves the history and present of each site he visits into prose that borders on poetry. "Journey into Cypress" takes you as close to Cypress as language can.

This book offers what most authors are afraid or fear to talk about into their books about cultural diversity. The reader has the ability to review who these people are and how the great mind of the author interpreted their social system, religion, customs. If one decides to take the long journey the author is suggesting in this book, he/she will not view people the same way he/she did in the past.

This is the incredible story of the transport of Holocaust survivors to Palestine.

It is a story of real sea heros who bought an old U.S. Navy boat and used it transport 1388 Jews from Bulgaria to Palistine despite a blockade by the British.

It is both a timely and a timeless book. Incredible photos.

Anyone visiting Israel would do well to read this and make plans to visit the Clandestine Immigration & Navel Museum in Haifa which supplied many of the photos and much of the research for this book.

Well, although written by a Turk, the book is an alternative to many others written by nationalist Greek and Greek Cypriots and their supporters.
You may or may not agree what the author offers in the book, but the book certainly offers a different perspective to forty-year-old controversy of island of Cyprus and its bi-cultural people

Necatigil has written a most valuable resource for the ongoing reality on the island of Cyprus. His book is a detailed manuscript of a history, with a fine collection of facts, events and quotes one would always like to have on hand. Also it is a fine interpretation of an issue, which offers not so obvious underlying implications, thus is solely enlightening and encourages the reader to come to an opinion on a contraversey and debate. It is ultimately scientific in that it is objective relying on realtiy rather than on petty opinions. I had read this book in the course of acedemic research, along with numerous other authors writing on the subject. By far, this is the book I would choose to maintain in my own library, if one is searching for a complete history and analysis of the Cyprus Conflict. This is a most valuable resource for the student of International Affairs, History, Political Science and International Law, and also for the intereseted leisure reader. An extremely well written book.

"Cyprus Question" is assumed that very well known. However, Turkish position is not known at all in general public. Book starts with creation of the Republic of Cyprus. Then follows the path of conflict as intercommunal hostalities of 1963, separation of communities under their separate administrations, then distruction of 1960 constitution by Greek Cypriots with reasoning of "doctrine of necessity". Then it reaches Greek "coup d'etat" of 1974. As a result of it Turkish intervention of 1974. The book then discuss the legal base of intervention, the Treaty of Guarantee, and then constitutional proposal from both communities, diccussions about a future federation for Cyprus. Then books examines 1980 talks, role of United Nations, principle of self-determination, creation of Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus in 1983, and issues about state and recognition. Even it is written by a Turkish Cypriot, author based his opinions to legal documents, UN reports, reports from international press and sometimes to Greek Cypriot press. It is a very well structured book from a lawyer. Therefore, I suggest this book to everybody who interested to "Cyprus Question" and looking for a different approach to it.

If M.M. Kaye had written more books like her "Death" series, she might have had a place almost as exalted as that of Agatha Christie. Best known for "The Far Pavilions," Kaye also wrote other stories set in the exotic locations that she had visited in the past. Though it may be politically incorrect to reminisce for times when the British were a strong presence around the world, it's hard not to wish oneself into one of these exotic mysteries.

Twenty-one-year-old Amanda Derington is newly freed from her strict, oppressive uncle, and is travelling to Cyprus with a tour group that includes her uncle and aunt, a cynical romance novelist, a faux invalid and her doting husband, and an oddly attractive young artist. But after her aunt Julia enters a state of jealous hysteria and then dies mysteriously, Amanda finds a bottle of poison in her room. The artist, Steve, urges her not to reveal where she found it.

Amanda comes to Cyprus, with the incident seemingly behind her. But her host, the kindly Glenn Barton, has to relocate her to the eccentric Miss Moon's. His wife Anita has left him and is now living with an artist, claiming that her husband is cheating on her with several women. And as Amanda tries to find out who killed Julia, she finds that more murders may be in store -- including her own.

As always, M.M. Kaye evokes a bygone time of muted glamor, rugged Army officers, lots of flowers and atmospheric settings in exotic locales. Descriptions are good, not too flowery but help to bring images to mind. The dialogue is sprightly and realistic, very different for each person, and often hiding subtle clues as to the person's inner thoughts. Her characterizations are multilayered; characters like Anita Barton are not as simple as they seem, and may not be fully explained until the last pages.

Amanda is much like Kaye's other mystery heroines -- young, pretty, bright, observant, brave, a little naive, and essentially kindhearted. Love interest Steve is attractively insolent and brainy, while the mild-mannered Glenn Barton hides unusual secrets; his wife Anita also hides secrets, behind a facade of alcohol and scandal. Monica Ford, Glenn's secretary, inspires either indifference or pity, depending on the part of the book one is reading. Miss Moon is the truly unique character, an effervescent old lady who dresses on opulent clothing and jewelry according to the day of the week.

For a bit of nostalgic escapism, open "Death in Cyprus" and enjoy the exotic places and mind-bending mysteries. Then read the rest of the series, which is every bit as good as this book.

Although written in 1956, the book is still enjoyable - like a trip back in time. Today it would be labelled "romantic suspense" and would have to contain some explicit sex; the romance is a bit understated for modern taste, and the end just a tad quick. You never find out the hero's actual profession and position, for instance. On the plus side, the young heroine is very likeable and plucky (as they said then). The social mores of the upper and upper middle class were not particularly admirable, from the evidence of this book - but of course it had to provide plenty of viable suspects. Just about anybody seems capable of the vile deeds that occur in the lovely Mediterranean setting.

I have read lots of mystery stories, and I must say, this is the one that I can read over and over again. The setting is gorgeous - you can almost feel the sun on your face and the sand at your feet, and you almost feel like visting Cyprus, the beautiful land of Kyrenia, icosia, Huilarion, the Abbey of Belapais, the palace where Queen Berengaria waited for Richards ships. The tone used used is hilarious and the conversations and the hero as well as the heroine and enchanting. It is a must read!!

Altough a harrowing book, well-researched with an interesting view of power-politics and the effects of the Cold War on "unimportant" countries, it is nevertheless somewhat badly written. The story line is fragmented, and there is not enough character exploration, especially with the main Greek Cypriot representative, proving the author in her journalistic style (after all, that was her profession). However, anyone with an interest in Cyprus or Turkey or conspiracy theories _has_ to read this novel. With all its flaws, it still makes a good read, even for those who have a limited knowledge of the events it portrays.

This book captures the essence of how most Cypriots interacted in the times before 1974. A must read!

I should note from the start that this is a book I picked up and read solely because it is set in Cyprus. I'm a firm believer in the ability of crime fiction to show the reader a side of a city, country, or any locale, that they will never encounter in guidebooks. And to that end, this hard-boiled tale set Limassol, in the Greek part of Cyprus, is certainly worth reading. The story follows Chrisostomos "Tommy" Zaras, a middle-aged, but tough as nails PI from Athens who is hired by a smuggler to locate a $200,000 stolen payoff for a load of whiskey. He's a completely traditional Mike Hammer type PI, a hard-drinking, womanizing bastard who takes and dishes out plenty of violence. He's the kind of character that knows that the more you treat women like dirt, the sooner they'll be back for more. He's certainly unlikeable, but no more so than any of the villains and thugs he encounters trying to find the $200,000, and that's more of the less the point. Anyone familiar with noir and hard-boiled fiction will pretty easily identify the femme fatale as the central player at the core of an exceedingly convoluted scheme. The translation from the Greek is excellent, and while the story keeps moving right along, the climax is a bit of a farcical letdown. Cyprus comes across as a kind of simmering Mediterranean backwater, where if you have enough money, you can get away with almost anything-or get killed.

Having exhausted myself ready contemporary mainstream mysteries, I've been a long time looking for crime fiction that breaks the rules. I've found such a gem in Intrigue Press's new WorldKrime series (which specializes in international mystery stories, written by foriegn authors).

The Viper's Kiss is a no holds barred detective stories with a complex, shifting plot and memorable characters that will stick in your head long after you finish. Greek Private Eye Chrisostomos "Tommy" Zaras is a no-nonsense, hard-drinking, womanizing hero who makes no apologies. He is hired by a whiskey smuggler to recover a lost fortune on the island of Cyprus--a place of intense racial tension, since almost half of the island has been occupied by the Turkish Military since the mid-seventies. Criminals abound in this tale, as do beautiful, seductive woman, earnest sidekicks and meddling authorities.

WorldKrime thoroughly delivers on its promise of a unique mystery reading experience, as the age-old detective novel gets a refreshing new spin in this rich, absorbing mediteranean locale. I would highly recommend the Viper's Kiss to any mystery fan whose been waiting a long time to be surprised.

Othello is by without a doubt my favorite of the plethora of Shakespeare's tragedies. Although Othello himself is quite an intricate character, it was funny and almost ironic how the character that grabbed my observance the most was the villain Iago. Iago, being perhaps Shakespeare's most consummate villain, directly or indirectly seemed to control the minds and hearts of almost everyone he interacted with. Bravery, loyalty, ambition, honesty, and chivalry are all issues addressed within the play, and when combined with a great deal of power struggles, they can create an intense whirlwind of emotions and confusion running high. Othello, even being a powerful and bold general, is easily deceived by Iago as well as are many of the other characters who soon come to find out what it means to be struck by Iago's wrath. All of these things considered, one can easily find themselves engulfed with all sorts of emotions, and be filled with empathy and rage toward the diverse array of characters, maybe even find a little piece of themselves in each one of them. The play can be compared to many of Shakespeare's plays, both comedy and tragedy, in different ways. If you enjoyed the plot of Much Ado About Nothing, or Romeo and Juliet, then you can not go wrong by reading this play. Also, if you like strong women roles and always find yourself identifying easily with those characters in Shakespeare's plays, one of the female characters in Othello, Emelia will be quite a delight. For me, by the last page and last quote of this play, I was literally holding back the tears, and that impact is no exaggeration. If you have yet to read Othello, don't wait another second. Go right now to the nearest bookshelf, dust it off and I promise the pages will just seem to simply turn themselves. Enjoy!

Despite his Machiavellian and snakelike nature, Iago strangely and inexplicably endears himself as the most likeable villain in all of Shakespeare. It can be argued that Iago was unduly wronged in that the noble & educated, yet untested Cassio achieved the promotion of lieutenant over the common & uneducated, yet more battle-proven Iago. Iago also asserts that his blunt and disrespectful wife Emilia has slept around and made a cuckold of him with Othello. Although there is no proof as to the latter charge, Iago is nothing short of the embodiment of a veritable myriad of rage, fury, jealousy, and a relentless and all-encompassing passion for vengeance on The Moor.

Upon reading Othello the first time, I found myself empathizing with the honorable, yet naive General Othello, and even moreso with the innocent and untainted Desdemona, whom Othello "loved not wisely, but too well." After reading Othello the 3rd time, I've come to a greater appreciation for the convoluted and diablolical genius that is Iago - and how masterfully Shakespeare constructed this great character and the storyline of Othello with so fewer characters than is typical of his other great plays. It is with fewer characters that the ingenuity of Shakespeare is allowed to shine. With the likes of Iago, The Bard is able to achieve as great and superior characterization in Othello as in any of his other masterpieces. While he may be the last guy on the block you might invite to dinner, you would be a knave to deny the incomparable surreptitious cunning and genius of Iago nonetheless. As far as the many Othello movies go, I must state that Kenneth Branagh is absolutely masterful and convincing as the sinister Iago. I wholeheartedly recommend Othello to any and all readers who have a flair for both wisdom and entertainment achieved as one.

As a play, "Othello" encompasses many things but more than anything else it is a study of pure evil. Although Othello is an accomplished professional soldier and a hero of sorts, he is also a minority and an outcast in many ways. As a Black man and a Moor (which means he's a Moslem), Othello has at least two qualities, which make him stand out in the Elizabethan world. He is also married to a Caucasian woman named Desdemona, which creates an undercurrent of hostility as evidenced by the derogatory remark "the ram hath topped the ewe".

Othello's problems begin when he promotes one of his soldiers, Michael Cassio as his lieutenant. This arouses the jealousy and hatred of one of his other soldiers, Iago who hatches a plot to destroy Othello and Michael Cassio. When Cassio injures an opponent in a fight he is rebuked, punished, and subsequently ignored by Othello who must discipline him and teach him a lesson. Iago convinces Desdemona to intervene on Cassio's behalf and then begins to convince Othello that Desdemona is in love with Cassio.

This is actually one of the most difficult Shakespeare plays to watch because the audience sees the plot begin to unfold and is tormented by Othello's gradual decent into Iago's trap. As with other Shakespeare plays, the critical components of this one are revealed by language. When Othello is eventually convinced of Cassio's treachery, he condemns him and promotes Iago in his place. When Othello tells Iago that he has made him his lieutenant, Iago responds with the chilling line, "I am thine forever". To Othello this is a simple affirmation of loyalty, but to the audience, this phrase contains a double meaning. With these words, Iago indicates that the promotion does not provide him with sufficient satisfaction and that he will continue to torment and destroy Othello. It is his murderous intentions, not his loyal service that will be with Othello forever.

Iago's promotion provides him with closer proximity to Othello and provides him with more of his victim's trust. From here Iago is easily able to persuade Othello of Desdemona's purported infidelity. Soon Othello begins to confront Desdemona who naturally protests her innocence. In another revealing statement, Othello demands that Desdemona give him "the ocular proof". Like Iago's earlier statement, this one contains a double meaning that is not apparent to the recipient but that is very clear to the audience who understands the true origin of Othello's jealousy. Othello's jealousy is an invisible enemy and it is also based on events that never took place. How can Desdemona give Othello visual evidence of her innocence if her guilt is predicated on accusations that have no true shape or form? She can't. Othello is asking Desdemona to do the impossible, which means that her subsequent murder is only a matter of course.

I know that to a lot of young people this play must seem dreadfully boring and meaningless. One thing you can keep in mind is that the audience in Shakespeare's time did not have the benefit of cool things such as movies, and videos. The downside of this is that Shakespeare's plays are not visually stimulating to an audience accustomed to today's entertainment media. But the upside is that since Shakespeare had to tell a complex story with simple tools, he relied heavily on an imaginative use of language and symbols. Think of what it meant to an all White audience in a very prejudiced time to have a Black man at the center of a play. That character really stood out-almost like an island. He was vulnerable and exposed to attitudes that he could not perceive directly but which he must have sensed in some way.

Shakespeare set this play in two locations, Italy and Cypress. To an Elizabethan audience, Italy represented an exotic place that was the crossroads of many different civilizations. It was the one place where a Black man could conceivably hold a position of authority. Remember that Othello is a mercenary leader. He doesn't command a standing army and doesn't belong to any country. He is referred to as "the Moor" which means he could be from any part of the Arab world from Southern Spain to Indonesia. He has no institutional or national identity but is almost referred to as a phenomenon. (For all the criticism he has received in this department, Shakespeare was extrordinarlily attuned to racism and in this sense he was well ahead of his time.) Othello's subsequent commission as the Military Governor of Cypress dispatches him to an even more remote and isolated location. The man who stands out like an island is sent to an island. His exposure and vulnerability are doubled just as a jealous and murderous psychopath decides to destroy him.

Iago is probably the only one of Shakespeare's villains who is evil in a clinical sense rather than a human one. In Kind Lear, Edmund the bastard hatches a murderous plot out of jealousy that is similar to Iago's. But unlike Iago, he expresses remorse and attempts some form of restitution at the end of the play. In the Histories, characters like Richard III behave in a murderous fashion, but within the extreme, political environment in which they operate, we can understand their motives even if we don't agree with them. Iago, however, is a different animal. His motives are understandable up to the point in which he destroys Michael Cassio but then they spin off into an inexplicable orbit of their own. Some have suggested that Iago is sexually attracted to Othello, which (if its true) adds another meaning to the phrase "I am thine forever". But even if we buy the argument that Iago is a murderous homosexual, this still doesn't explain why he must destroy Othello. Oscar Wilde once wrote very beautifully of the destructive impact a person can willfully or unwittingly have on a lover ("for each man kills the things he loves") but this is not born out in the play. Instead, Shakespeare introduces us to a new literary character-a person motivated by inexplicable evil that is an entity in itself. One of the great ironies of this play is that Othello is a character of tragically visible proportions while Iago is one with lethally invisible ones.

While I admire Hitchens simply for bothering to write the book in the first place (the rest of the world has either forgotten about us or doesn't care) he fails to make any real impact. Yes, he documents very well the role of the superpowers and their desire to see Cyprus partitioned. But he tends to overlook the expansionist nature of Turkey : What of the countless massacres of Greeks, Armenians, Kurds (and, quite often, their own citizens) by the Turks, be it during the Ottoman period or today by the secular Turkish state ? Instead we are given a very narrow synopsis involving Kissinger, the Soviets and a few demented Greek generals. What we see in Cyprus is simply history repeating itself: slow shrinking of Orthodox Christianity and Hellenic culture as a result of Western-sanctioned Turkish aggression. The rest is just detail.

i read this book to begin my quest to read everything by the author hitchens. i know very little about cyprus so i cannot argue any points written by the author. im new to his style of writing but i admire his courage to put forth a different notion and expose the conventional way of thinking because it takes more work to do so.

As time marches on the true circumstances relating to the Cyprus 'problem' (an euphimism, if there ever was one) become slowly but surely known: Hitherto secret Western papers are running their archive course and getting declassified; aging British and American diplomats write their memoirs and, inadvertently or not, let slip; and more and more political scientists, disillusioned with 'the ally that is Turkey', take a harder look at its policies and practices.

This wasn't the case in 1984 when this book, simply titled 'CYPRUS', was originally published. The cold war was still hot and, silly as it now seems, there was widespread phobia about 'supplying' the Soviets with 'propaganda' material. Understandably perhaps the Western establishment was not very keen on writers exposing dirty tales - and none too friendly. Turkey's invasion of Cyprus was barely 10 years old - too close for most politicians' comfort to have a book out that contradicted the official line. And Turkey itself was still a most esteemed ally, not to be downplayed.

It is in this setting that 'CYPRUS' hit the news stands. It created something of an uproar. In the corridors of power on both sides of the Atlantic Mr. Hitchens's name was derided; in the populist Press he was dismissed as a 'communist' (as if this was somehow reason to belittle his writings); and Turkey declared him a persona non grata.

But why? Simply because C. Hitchens had not been content to adopt the simplistic view as put forth by Whitehall and the Whitehouse. He dared to offer an alternative explanation of the Cyprus 'problem'. What's more, he had done his homework well. His thesis was deeply researched and persuasively argumented. And it posed some agonisingly embarrassing questions to high ranking British and American Tsars, most notably Henry Kissinger.

'CYPRUS' is now long out of print; thankfully it has been re-issued in its present guise as a Paperback with new prefaces and afterword. It also has a grandiose new title - don't let it scare you into thinking this is a boring History textbook: this is a compelling revelation of how big powers play chess using small countries as expendable pawns. It is a frightening recount of how rulers, to satisfy their ego, may steer policy towards mad avenues that result in the destruction of thousands.

And it is the sad story of how the people of Cyprus, Greeks and Turks alike, were brought to destitution through the skillful and not-so-skillful manipulation of outsiders. In fact, Mr. Hitchens superbly demonstrates his case that Cypriots had very little, if anything, to do with the grand designs that culminated in the catastrophic 1974 Turkish invasion of the island.

The Cyprus 'problem'? Don't look now, Mr. Hitchens is laughing.

A must-have book for any free-thinking spirit. A bold treatise by a political scholar worthy of the name.

I first would like to challenge the last reviewer to explain when Turkish Cypriots ever accounted for a 33% minority on Cyprus during those turbulent years. Statistics consistantly show the number to be around 18%. With that said, this is not a book which engages in finger pointing. Atrocities were undoubtledy commited by both parties. In fact, the authors on several occasions give us numbers of the Turkish Cypriots killed, wounded, or fleeing. I wonder just how much one reviewer took a hard look at this book when mentioning pictures seen in occupied Cyprus of Turkish Cypriot children dead in a bathtub, yet the picture is IN THE BOOK!!! Personal acounts and personal tragadies of the invasion and events leading up to it are not the main focus of this study. Rather it is the 'how' and 'why' of the unfolding events.

O'Malley and Craig do a good job of this I believe. I would have liked to see a more detailed analysis of how exactly the US pushed the junta in attempting a coup to remove Makarios. Did Kissinger know Turkey would invade and the cards would play themselves out, or did Kissinger have to work more with Turkey "under the table" to broker what seems to be a playing out of the 1964 alternate plan to partition Cyprus? Two other brief criticisms are 1) the sometimes general and arbitrary footnotes to "Interview with the authors." O'Malley and Craig interviewed several people so it can be confusing just what "interview" they are refering to, and 2) the sometimes frustrating footnotes to the House sub-committee papers and other government documents, which to no fault of the authors, isn't exaclty readily available at the local library for personal reference.

That said I think the book is an excellent study into the rather unfortunate methods the United States implements its foreign policy in order to protect military interests at all costs. Lets hope that in the future the Cypriots (both Greek and Turkish) can decide their own fate rather than Ankara, Athens, London, and especially Washington at their necks. A unified, peaceful Cyprus is attainable, especially in the EU. Let's not lower our hopes and aspirations in saying that partition is the only solution.

Stemming from its strategic position; Cyprus became an obsession for the quasi-party's self serving interests at the behest of the Cypriots. Cyprus a divided stated emerged from relentless back room politics between the U.S, Britain, Turkey and Greece. Hidden away within its unassuming territory lies an overworked highly active agency mandated to keep track on advances in enemy nuclear missile technology; early warning of attacks and controlling the passage of water ways for the free flowing of oil for the free world. All this attained at a minor price of gross negligence of human rights.

Cyprus has suffered for its strategically important position in the eastern Mediterranean. Colonized by the Greeks in the second millennium BC, it was tossed from Persian, Roman, Byzantine, and finally to Ottoman empire. The Turks retained possession of the island until it was annexed by Great Britain in 1914. From the 1930s onward Greek Cypriots agitated vociferously--and after 1955 militarily--for independence from Britain and union with Greece. Reeling under the pressure for independence the British sought a way to accommodate and still retain control by dividing the two communities and giving them a constitution. In 1960, the Greek and Turkish Cypriots agreed on a constitution for an independent Cyprus, with the Greek Archbishop Makarios III as its first president and Kutchuk as its Vice President. This agreement came into being with the Treaty of Establishment, Treaty of Alliance and the 1960 constitution and Britain as the guarantor of unified Cyprus. This setup was fatally flawed, as it established a system of government envisioned by outside powers neglecting to address the deep rooted divisions within the Greeks and the Turk Cypriots. In late 1963, after Makarios made 13 constitutional changes that would abolish the Turkish power of veto over legislation on defense, security, foreign affairs, elections, municipalities and taxation lead the Turks withdrew from the government. A decade of internecine warfare and assassinations followed between the two communities that were mediated or, more precisely, "observed" by the United Nations.
Ultimately--and some would argue, inevitably--the two most interested powers were drawn toward direct intervention: first Greece, which attempted to unite the island under its own form of benign military dictatorship on July 15, 1974; and then Turkey, which responded far more effectively and invaded the place five days later. Cyprus constitutes one of the great unresolved conflicts of the late 20th century.

The Greek Cypriots feeling betrayed by the Western began to look towards the Soviets for help. With this realization and a long-standing plan to save its strategic assets on the island from what U.S. officials feared might be a left-wing takeover if the crisis in Cyprus were not resolved. Cyprus, became invaluable to Washington for monitoring both Soviet nuclear missile activity in Central Asia and potential military threats in the Middle East. Ongoing instability threatened these assets. By mounting an invasion, Turkey saved them. The Americans had judged that to let Greece and Turkey fight it out would be disastrous for the Western interests, would destroy the NATO's southern wing and leave the entire eastern Mediterranean vulnerable to Soviet take-over. According to McNally the Turks had threatened that if there was any military intervention against their invasion, they would leave NATO. Since the Americans badly needed an insurance policy against the Soviets; Kissinger put "no credible pressure" on Turkey "not to go ahead with an invasion." He then did "everything" he could "to help the Turks make up their mind that intervention was the only way they could get satisfaction." And having quietly encouraged the Turks to invade, while systematically "ignoring the advice of his own experts," he played what even the Turks called a "constructive and helpful role" by not protesting the invasion and the subsequent division of the island.

The Greeks have suspected that there was a conspiracy and insist that Turkey could not have acted alone. The Greek sentiment was described by Makarios after the Turkish attack: "The United States is the only country which could have exerted pressure on Turkey and prevented the invasion.". The charge itself is perhaps based on circumstantial events by observing that the United States tilted toward the more powerful and stabler Turkey over Greece for their interests; and that Kissinger not only knew about Turkish plans to invade Cyprus but may have tacitly approved it. Kissinger's main concern was to control the invasion and force Turkey to assume defensive postures in order not to flare up a direct confrontation Greece and Turkey two key NATO allies. United Kingdom being the guarantor of Cyprus unity considered placing their between Cyprus and Turkey to deter the Turks; but was vetoed by U.S. However U.K decided against such an action to prevent a confrontation with a NATO ally (Turkey) and create a rift with U.S.

In a report submitted by the MP's of British parliament it was stated that Britain had a legal right, a moral obligation and military capacity to intervene, but choose not to do so. Britain had considerable forces at hand, and could have intervened with or without Turkey, to reverse the coup and had little doubt that either alone or as part of the U.N force, Britain could have forestalled the first Turkish invasion. The chairman declared that Cyprus crises had been a true test of Britain's standing in the world, which should be measured not by its military might or economic wealth, but by its standard of justice, integrity and humanity, and by the way it protects the weak, On all these counts Britain had failed Cyprus for reasons which the Government refused to give.

When I started reading this book I just couldn't put it down. Excellent reading, informative and well researched. The only critism I have is that I would have liked to have seen more about the role of Rauf Denktash and his TMT (Turkish Resistance Movement)organization and the fact that his design for the partition of Cyprus was the driving force in the conflict between the two communities. The TMT is only mentioned breifly in the book. Rauf Denktash and his TMT were the said "agitators" or instigators of the clashes between Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. His murdering of both Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots in order to get the two parties fighting, and his inflamatory retoric were the main cause of the intercommunal violence of the late 1950's and 1963 - 1968. The book's reference to Turkish Cypriots being forcibly persuaded by thier leaders to move to Turkish enclaves is correct. The leaders the book is referring to is Rauf Denktash and his TMT cronies. He was recruited by Turkey to create a case for the partition of Cyprus.