An Update

It's been over a month since I last contributed to this blog, and I thought it's about time I started writing here again. The last four or five weeks have been pretty hectic, mostly because of my wedding, but now everything seems to have returned to normality. 
I've been keeping myself busy the last few weeks filming 360 videos for my Youtube channel, but still need to get around to writing up blog posts for them which will provide information about the locations.
Doing the 360 videos is great and all, but there is more I have planned when I get the money to do so. I'm keen on doing wildlife and survival videos, and I'm considering whether or not to start airsoft videos too, but that will obviously require a heavy duty action camera which I don't own yet. Oh and an airsoft gun which actually works.

I'm considering writing here more often, discussing current world events, history and cultural issues in the UK and further afield. Then again, I might just put my rants up on my youtube channel. Another thing I'm looking into seriously is charity fundraising, but what cause to raise money for I don't know yet. Watch this space anyway! More stuff is certainly coming. The content may not be to everybody's taste but, well, you can't keep everybody happy!

History of Southend Pier

Southend Pier is well known for being long, and at nearly one and a half miles it is the longest pleasure pier in the World, but it's history has often been turbulent one. In all honesty it's surprising that it's still here after all of the accidents and tribulations this structure has undergone over the nearly two-hundred years of it's life span. It would be inconceivable for Southend not to have it's pier though, and like the poet Sir John Betjeman said "The pier is Southend, Southend is the pier." 

The pier was built to attract potential tourism to the town as seaside locations were becoming ever more popular in the early 1800's. Places such as Margate and Brighton were already becoming popular with Londoners, and it was hoped that Southend being relatively close to the capital could entice potential holidaymakers. The first incarnation of Southend pier was completed by 1830, although at that point it was more or less ineffective as it only reached into estuary's water at high tide. At only six-hundred feet, it was a far-cry from it's modern day dimensions. By 1833 however the pier had already been extended multiple times, and was for some time the longest pier in Europe.

In the 1850's the London-Southend railway line had become operational (which is today known more commonly as the C2C line) and Southend's popularity soared among'st the working-class Eastenders of London who came for short weekend breaks or days away. After some financial difficulties, the pier was sold to the Southend council in 1873, who have been responsible for it ever since.

By 1889 the attraction had become so popular that the large amount of footfall was creating maintenance issues. A decision was therefore reached to replace the old oak beams with iron, initiating a series of improvements for the next thirty or so years including further extensions and the inclusion of an electric train that ran the full length of the pier. The full works at that point were completed by 1931. When WWII broke out however, the pier was commandeered by the Royal Navy and shut off to the public. Named HMS Leigh, the pier was then used as a kind of control tower to facilitate the huge numbers of shipping traffic heading into and out of London.

The Burning Torch

The ship "Kingsabbey" that ran into the pier in 1986.

Predictably, the pier was reopened to the public following the end of the war in 1945, and it experienced a brief golden age as it's visitor numbers boomed. More attractions were added at the end of the structure too increasing it's popularity, but this was not to last. In 1959 a large fire spread on the shore end of the pier,  putting it out of commission until 1962. The burnt Victorian pavillion was replaced with a modern (for the time) bowling alley. The golden age by that point was over however, Southend's popularity as a tourist hot-spot was well in decline as foreign package holidays became more available, and the pier itself despite the recent work done to it, was still in major need of renovation.

In 1976 fire struck once again, this time destroying much of the pier head, and the following year yet another fire damaged the then relatively new bowling alley. With the railway also in need of repairs, the council in 1980 toyed with the idea of shutting the pier indefinitely, but strong protests from residents pressured the council into keeping and once again restoring the structure. In 1983, the Historic Buildings Committee offered a grant to see that the necessary repairs were undertaken, which were completed by 1986. 

Going with the theme of unending catastrophe, the pier was once again in peril when a waste disposal ship named Kingsabbey struck the pier head, destroying a life boat station and once again ruining the pier's structural integrity. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the ships captain was found to be intoxicated at the time of the collision. The damage sustained in this mishap was not totally repaired until 1989.

The bowling abbey burnt down in 1995.

And the catastrophe's kept on coming. On June 7th, 1995 the bowling alley at the shore end totally burnt down, but fortunately no real lasting damage was done to the supporting beams or the train station below it, and the attraction was back up and running again by 1996. 

Into the 21st Century

Throughout the early 2000's, Southend in general had received grants to regenerate the town including the seafront area. This marked an end to the Victorianesque architecture down the seafront, with the town instead going for a more contemporary design. An old overhead bridge was replaced to allow for double-decker buses through on the road underneath, and the pier's train station on the shore was replaced with some (in my personal opinion) hideous glass buildings. Ironically one of the trains that runs on the pier railway to this day is named after the poet Betjeman, but I'm sure if he were alive today would be disgusted in the way in which the council has totally removed all reference to the old Victorian architecture, to be replaced with modern garbage. (Betjeman was after all a founding member of the Victorian Society which was devoted to preserving Victorian architecture, ironically.)

Whilst you're probably thinking that this must be the end of the pier's story, this blog post has yet one more disaster to cover! Back in 2005 yet another fire struck the pier, this time at the pier head. Several buildings were burnt to cinders and collapsed into the estuary, effectively destroying every reason why you would want to go to the end of the pier in the first place. Firefighters struggled to get a grip on the fire, supposedly because the pumps that were in place for use as hydrants didn't work at full capacity at low-tide. A somewhat ridiculous design flaw.

From 2009 onwards, we're left with the pier we have today. A hideously modern looking pavillion and council run cafe stands at the end, as does a RNLI gift shop and station, but aside from seafishing there appears very little reason to visit the end at all today which is an awful shame. The owner of Adventure Island, a theme park which exists on either side of the pier (and underneath it) had expressed an interest in being a private investor to try and revamp the pier as a tourist attraction. Unfortunately it seems the bureaucracy of the council on other projects on the seafront led to the company Stockvale Group pulling out of all negotiations. I guess we can only hope that a wealthy investor decides to take a risky chance on the old pier, to get it up to standard as a tourist attraction once more.

The Temple of Beltane

A drawing by Stukeley, a antiquarian and
archaeologist in the 1600s of his interpretation
 of how Avebury once looked.

Avebury is a huge henge which lies just south of Swindon, built in the neolithic period at a time where Europeans were just beginning to learn agricultural processes and animal husbandry. A circle of sarsen stones is contained within a huge ditch, the entire henge so large that practically the entire village of Avebury with pubs, shops and a church, fits within it comfortably.  Originally the ancient monument contained two smaller stone circles inside the larger, along with a now destroyed but once impressive "obelisk", the capstone and presumed phallic centre-point for fertility rituals that were once performed here. To the north and south once stood the Beckhampton and Kennet stone avenues, from whence the name Avebury is derived. Today, only part of the West Kennet Avenue remains and a fraction of the original sarsen stones that make up the still impressive stone circle.

Whereas Stonehenge's structural feats are impressive, Avebury's sheer size is what sets it apart from others in the UK.  However when you take into consideration not only the henge and avenues, but instead look at the entire complex, it is a truly breathtaking area. Silbury hill for example, Europe's largest prehistoric mound, would have been incredibly difficult to build, and there are scores of smaller stone circles and burial chambers dotted about the landscape, many of which now no longer exist because of years of abuse from disinterested or ignorant farmers, or over-zealous, Christian superstition. Taking the entire area, including as far south as Stonehenge and Old Sarum, and as far west as Stanton Drew into consideration, it is clear that the tens of thousands of man-hours that it took to construct these monuments is proof that these builders were not the stereotypical 'cavemen' we were taught to laugh at by the popular (but incorrect) view of ancient history. In fact their society at the time must have included a great deal of organisation, trade and cooperation to complete such tasks. 

'Stone 106', Avebury's Vulva stone which would have originally
 have lined up with the 'the obelisk's' shadow come May sunrise.
Note the appearance of female genitals.

The one thing you get from the experience when you walk about Avebury, is a sense of the scale of workmanship that went into the monuments. This was not simply a henge lobbed up with no concise purpose, it obviously had a very real connection with the everyday lives of the neolithic tribesmen and women who lived in such a time and place. It was built, stone by stone, over the course of many hundreds of years, each generation knowing they would never see it completed. It may seem strange to us today, why anyone would start a construction project you know you would never see completed. With the average age expectancy at that time of late twenties to early thirties, it's fascinating to think how many generations took up this project. It wasn't designed of course, but every generation must have contributed to it in some way or another, and thought along the same lines of aesthetic or practical use.

The act of adding to or beginning the construction of something, despite knowing they would never have any hope of seeing the finished results, is in my personal opinion the result of a superior worldview.  The world view of our ancestors was not linear like ours. They did not see birth as the start, nor death as an end, to them everything was a renewing cycle. It seems pretty alien to us, most likely because of a hangover from a Christian world view, but the ancient worldview really would have some outstanding benefit for us today if we was to take up a similar philosophy.

Today, we are very narcisstic as a society. We ask, "what can benefit me"? We shun community and celebrate the cult of the individual. We put off starting projects like renewable energy which we know we could do today with our current level of technology, but shy away from it because we know it would impede our own personal comfort, without much thought given to the next generation. How many times have we heard someone say "oh well, it won't happen in my life time", apparently carelessly condeming their own grandchildren into poverty or at risk of some ecological or economic disaster.

The midsummer 'coupling' at Stonehenge. A simulated 'sunrise'
position showing the 'phallic' stone's shadow
being cast into Stonehenge itself.

It could be argued that Christianity, or monotheism in general, began this corrupted view of the after-life, as though there was some ultimate destination to get to in the end so life didn't matter. So long as you repented on your death bed, you could be immortal. This linear mindset makes us less likely to care about the future descendants we will never meet, and in fact makes us fearful of our ultimate demise. Today, the rise of Atheism made worse this view of a linear life, and society has shown the mental scars that this has caused. No longer are older adults looked up to and respected, instead the older folks try and make themselves look youthful through make-up or cosmetic surgery. In a way, they are trying to turn back time because ultimately, they are scared of it. There is no running from time though, no matter how uncomfortable that fact may be.

To pre-Christian societies, the dead lived on in the lives on the living. Death was not a resting place, but instead was an escape into another form. Now even if you took out everything spiritual, even from a scientific point of view we have to agree that in many ways, we are immortal. I mean to say, we are all made of elements forged in the heart of a star, which was then expelled across the universe in the explosion of a supernova. Our DNA has been passed on, ever changing but still with some degree of direct linage for four billion years, and when we die, our children continue this trend on until ultimately there is nothing left of Earth but a few scraps of carbon. In the short term our own bodies are either cremated or rot in the ground, and our nitrates go back into the soil to be reused in an ever replenishing cycle. Yes, we might lose consciousness, but then does that matter? Are plants not alive, or jellyfish? Our immortality it could be argued is not won through some form of strict religious doctrine, but through the realisation that our children, families and communities are an extension of ourselves. In the case of our children that is even more true, biologically speaking. In doing what is right for our kids to ensure their survival, we are in our own small part living on through the consequences of our own actions. 

So by this point you maybe wondering what these morbid points have to do with Beltane, which is meant to be a happy affair! Well the evidence is in the Avebury landscape, and although we find the place only partially complete, the remaining pieces are enough to give us some explanation.

The overall symbolism of the Avebury complex is of rebirth and fertility. Long Barrows (open tombs) look to the rising sun, others look to the rising moon, and just like Christian churches which also point East, this imagery is to evoke a sense of a life force arisen from the dead (although in Christianity this is only really seen as Christ's attribute.) But most importantly, many of the stones at Avebury cast shadows which fulfill a symbollic sexual communion of a sky God and a Earth Goddess. 

There are quite a number of 'Adam' and 'Eve' stones, consisting of lozenge shaped stones that have holes carved in them as a representation of the female vulva, whilst other stones were selected for their phallic-like appearance. The most important stone, which I have already meantioned, was the 'the obelisk'.  (A historian recording the destruction of a great deal of Avebury's stones during the 1600s named Stukeley, named this stone, and if it were not for his invaluable illustrations we would have far less informaton on the site.) This large phallic stone during the May Day sunrise cast a long shadow upon a stone that was either selected because of, or was carved to look like female genitals. 

This symbolic communion represented by the spring-time sunrise, was a representation of a male Sun God impregnating a now fertile Mother Earth deity. The shadow's alignment was proven through experiments undertaken, and is available to read in a book called 'The Secrets of The Avebury Stones' by Terence Meaden. In fact, May Day is not the only aligned consummation, another set of stones at Avebury and at Stonehenge line up the sunrise on the summer solstice too, presumably to represent when the fertility of the Sun God is at it's strongest.

A digital representation on how the post and stone
 configuration once looked at 'The Sanctuary'.

Putting the rest of the picture together from what we know is fairly easy. Whilst I don't think it will ever be possible to know everything about Avebury and the way in which it was used, (which is in part much of the appeal of the place) we can get a rather good picture. Strangely, I had a theory about the role of Avebury way before I had read any literature on it. Worryingly, the intellectuals not only gave credence to my theory, but more or less proved it when I read Aubury Burl's work in his book 'Prehistoric Avebury'. So I must be on the right lines to some degree!

Basically with the sexual theme running here, and with two separate avenues leading to the main henge, and with two inner rings inside the greater henge, it would make sense for one avenue to be male and the other female. Simply put, the males and the females would start off almost at an equal distance away from one another at the ends of the avenues. When they met up in the middle, one would presume they would all perform a fertility rite. Presumably they would try and time the rite so it would coincide with the coupling of the shadow cast. (I expect they hoped for good weather!) Whether this was physical or symbolic we will never know, but I do suspect it was more than likely physical. As ghastly as public orgies may seem to us today, it would have likely have had a community bonding function besides the religious use.

Now on the topic of a more morbid nature. When members of the community died the remains of relatives were placed in large longbarrows. These were specifically made chambered tombs made from sarsen stones like the stone circles, and were left open to the elements. This was until inexclibably at some point, the culture made an effort to plug the entrance with more sarsen stones before abandoning it. When excavations of the Long Barrows were underway, they found that the bones were all split up, with no way of telling which part was what person. One possible explanation is that at certain times in the year, the bones of dead relatives were taken out for use in ritual. This may seem sick to us, but to those living then, they did not believe in an outright end to life and therefore the dead were considered to still have influence in the land of the living. Similar ritual or cultural uses are still in practice today in isolated communities. The only other type of burial seems to have been by burial mound, and seems in most cases to have only been used by VIPs on account of valuable items found with skeletons. Interestingly, this burial practice was also used by the Anglo-Saxons as late as around 600AD, as seen in places such as Prittlewell and Sutton Hoo.

The stone henge atop of Overton Hill seems to have once been enclosed within wooden posts, leading some to suspect that at some point there stood a wooden structure around the stone circle. This structure named 'the sanctuary' is relatively important. The Kennet Avenue once lead all the way to 'the sanctuary' , and therefore must have had some greater importance. We don't know whether males or females started from the Overton stretch, but we can suspect its purpose. Now there are a ton of ideas about what the structure could have been, but one of the most likely theories that I've read in the past, is the idea that the building housed the remains of the recently deceased before the bones were taken up to a Long Barrow for storage. It is not completely mad to consider that maybe they thought that one of the genders would be given a fertility boost from spending time with the dead, and whilst that sounds disgusting to us (and the best way to spread disease,) the notion might not have been completely alien to our neolithic ancestors. Again this is my personal theory, and one which has also been theorised on or at least put forward by academics in this field, and isn't just my inane ramblings (although a large pecentage is, I have to be honest!) 

So essentially, this is an entire landscape that was specifically built on the concepts of rebirth, fertility and a form of necromancy I suppose. It was built from the ground up as a temple to celebrate the human condition and also nature's cycles, in celebration of May Day and the Midsummer.

Some of the beliefs held by our ancestors still stick with us today. On Beltane, some couples still make the pledge of an annual love contract. In medieval times there were many cases of local customs, where for one day you could for instance have an affair with the girl you really fancied in the village without being thought of as an adulterer, and of course the May Pole itself is a representation of that same communion of the phallice and red and white ribbon symbolising the Goddesses vulva. In many ways society has changed little in terms of custom, but it is the way that we view ourselves and each other which perhaps needs addressing.

The male and female representation is a running theme throughout
the entire monument.

So how can people, especially pagans, make sense of it today? Well I think mankind has moved on in our understandings somewhat by this point, but we can still take on board some of the wisdom that a five-thousand year old culture can offer. Birth and death are two sides of the same coin. Nature gives with one hand and takes away with the other in a constant balance, what happens between birth and death; reproduction, is possibly the most sacred gift that we possess as a living being. 

But! Unlike the modern man's linear understanding of life, I would argue that must start to appreciate that our time here on Earth is very short, and that we must live in balance and indeed work for the betterment of all life going into the future. We currently live out-of-kilter. Yes, fertility is hugely important and something to celebrate, but if we keep indulging in procreation so liberally then our descendants will not have a planet to live on which can provide for them. If we do not start thinking about ways we can improve the lives of currently unborn children, we are slitting our own throats as a species. Yes, our lives are fantastic when compared with our Neolithic ancestors, but we take too much and give too little, and we must understand that if we do not change course, then nature will take back from us what she has given, probably when we least expect it. The general theme of our own fertility and life-time here on earth is easy to grasp, as is the anthropomorphic representation of nature deities. The concept of an eternal life beyond our mortal sight however is not, and this is why spirituality, rather than dogmatic religion or even over-zealous atheism, is still healthy for society. To have no concept of a future past our own demise, is dangerous and frankly anti-human.

Avebury is without a doubt my favorite place in the UK. It's relative obscurity when compared with Avebury's smaller sibling at Stonehenge has left it less commercialised and enabled the place to retain a great deal of its original atmosphere. Albeit, much of the henge complex has been destroyed over the centuries, but you get a greater sense of the real purpose behind the union of stone and landscape here than at other sites.

Cyprus: A Lesson Of Turkey, and Britain's Betrayal

The following article was written on a previous blog of mine in the run-up to the EU Referendum, hence why it mentions it. However I couldn't not re-post this as it has some brilliant information contained within it.

For the last three years, with the onset of the ongoing "migrant crisis", we've had it pretty hard going in terms of the constant guilt tripping propaganda in the media. Needless to say I have a long list of outstanding posts I intend to write discussing the creation of the Syrian crisis, and why they're letting literally millions of 'refugees' into Europe, so I won't be mentioning that in this post, but it is important nonetheless. To be fair that information is already easy to find using a search engine, anyway.

What I will mention however is the utterly retarded policy that has been brokered between Turkey and the European Union, in that in exchange for 'stopping' the relentless flow of migrants, Turkish citizens will be given an open borders status to work and travel within the rest of Europe. The tip-toeing towards Turkish membership of the EU goes on relentlessly, as was planned many years ago. (I'm calling it now by the way, "Refugees" will be given fast-tracked citizenship in Turkey so they can move into Europe officially.) The whole EU-Turkish deal is not about stopping immigration, but about making currently illegal immigration that you can rightly protest against, legal.

The real plan seems to be the creation of a Eurabian Union, in which the whole of the Mediterranean and parts of Asia will come under the control of Brussels. Whilst it is no doubt imperative for any sane individual in Western Europe to resist Turkey's budding membership of the European Union, it is those on Europe's eastern (and southern) flank who have already had a historic taste of Islam's wrath. Sure the Moors occupied Spain for 400 years, and Vienna may have survived by the skin of her teeth, but those events are not in living memory. I dare say that those who feel most angered by the EU's appeasement of Turkey are the Greek Cypriots who in 1974, had their island split in two by Turkish invaders.

This post then is an article about how Britain and America effectively shafted a sovereign nation for their own agenda's, and enabled Turkey to claim one third of the island for themselves.

So what happened in Cyprus? 

Britain obtained the territory of Cyprus under loan as part of a deal signed with the Ottoman Empire in 1878. It wasn't until 1914 when Britain found herself at war with the Ottomans in WWI, that the British annexed the territory and wielded total authority over the island. Despite centuries of Ottoman rule, spanning from 1571-1660 and 1745-1748, the ethnicity and culture of Cyprus remained overwhelmingly Greek Orthodox Christian. In 1915, the British offered the whole island of Cyprus back to the Greeks as a bargaining chip so long as the Greek Government at that time agreed to enter the war on the side of the Allies. This offer was rejected and in 1925 Cyprus officially became apart of the British Empire.

During WWII in 1941, the British once again offered Cyprus to Greece in exchange for assistance in dealing with Germany's ally, Bulgaria. Once again, the Greek Government refused. Following WWII, perhaps due in part to war weariness, anti-Imperial resentment grew. New calls for both independence and unification with Greece began decades of political instability. 

In 1950, a petition revealed that 96% of the Greek Cypriot population was in favour of unification with Greece. In the 1946 census, Greek-Cypriots made up 80% of the total population of the island, meaning approximately 75% of the total population of Cyprus was in favour of this union. In 1955, Greek militias began to form and start an armed campaign against British rule under the banner of EOKA. Inter-ethnic violence also flared up in this period between the Greek and Turkish communities, and led to Turkish militias also forming under the name of Taksim and the Turkish Resistance Organisation which clashed violently with the Greeks and called for a partition on the island. It has also come out in the past that Turkish fighters in some instances deliberately bombed their own communities in order to whip up tension and spur them into action against an enemy, who obviously were not as bad as the Turkish communities believed them to be.

Through 1955 to 1958, various conferences including the involvement of the United Nations, failed to come to an agreement on what should happen over the question of Cyprus. Greece was suggesting a self-determined Cypriot Government, whilst Turkey suggested (like it's proxy organisations) partitioning the island to segregate the two communities. With violence getting out of control the British Government were eager for a way to pull out, and in 1959 a deal was struck under the London Accord between the British, Greek and Turkish Governments and Cypriots. The whole of Cyprus was to become an independent republic as part of the British Commonwealth, all with the exception of the bases of Dhekelia and Akrotiri remaining under the British Crown.

When Britain finally gave independence to the Cypriot Government in 1960, there were early concerns that the Orthodox-Christian majority (with a historical resentment towards the Ottomans/Turks) would oppress the Turkish minority. To try and "counter" the ethnic feud, the British Government, acting as a "peacekeeper", gave the Turkish minority a permanent 30% veto power over the Cypriot Government, along with its own police force. This only further exacerbated the resentment that the majority Greek Cypriots felt towards the Turks, and to make matters worse, Turkey and Greece were funding their own ethnic groups and organisation in Cyprus (aka, EOKA and TMT.)

The British Government rather stupidly decided not to come down hard on Turkey's support for Turk Militias. One account tells of a Turkish man found with a weapons cache and only receiving two years imprisonment! The Turkish Government were supplying weapons and explosives to resistance groups and shipping members of the Turkish Resistance Organisation to the Turkish mainland for training in guerrilla warfare. It should be stated that whether or not the Turkish actually ever wanted full control of Cyprus, these fighters were in fact told that their training was part of a plan for the total repossession of the island. Whilst this was going on on the one side, the Americans supported the Greek nationalist group EOKA on the other, both directly and indirectly through the supporting of the Greek Junta which seized power in Athens in 1967. (Years of instability and civil war had been ongoing in Greece since the end of the WWII, between fascist and communist elements.)

The president of Cyprus, Makarios, was calling for amendments to be made to the Cypriot constitution in an attempt and stop the fighting. He tried to open diplomatic talks with both Greece and Turkey through the Non-Aligned Movement and favoured a peaceful solution to the instability through working with the United Nations, however the military Junta in Greece, having only recently come to power were pressuring Makarios into taking a firmer stand than he would have otherwise wanted. The proposed amendments to the constitution and cabinet reshuffles caused by the meddling, created an uproar with the Turk element within the Cypriot Parliament, and it's members left in protest. It should be noted that Makarios did relatively well to convince the Greek population that independence was an acceptable compromise instead of unification with Greece, which afterall had it's own problems. He failed however to convince the Turkish minority that the two communities could work together, possibly because of the constant pressure he was under from EOKA. Whilst the American, British, Greek and Turkish authorities were displeased with Makarios's position, it looks as though the guy was trying to do the right thing in a difficult situation, and in trying not to take a side, ended up with no friends on any side at all. 

It is likely that support for hard-line groups on both sides of the debate were being drummed up because of President Makarios's views on British and American international politics. Because of his isolationist views it led him to be known as 'the Castro of the Med' with both Washington and London suspecting he had 'tendancies towards communism'. Or that he had been speaking with the Soviet Union and other 'rogue' states through such groups as the Non-Aligned Movement. To be fair given the circumstances where he was essentially stuck between a feud with NATO member states, it's difficult to know what you would or could do as a leader to rectify the situation. Desperation may well have been the reason for communication with the Soviets. Either way, like it or not, he was the elected Government of the day.

In any case, Turkey had from the very beginning, even before the end of British occupation, called for a partition on the Island, a request which understandably was seen as being unacceptable for the Greek-Cypriots when you consider the demographics before the 1974 invasion. The Cyprus military cout in 1974 however gave the Turks the excuse they needed to enact what they'd clearly been planning for a very long time.

(The blue represents Greek-Cypriot population, the red/orange the Turk-Cypriot. 440,000 Greek Cypriots in the whole island compared with a 104,000 Turks.)

So the invasion of 1974 is where things get interesting. The British were still meant at this point to be a guarantor for Cyprus's independence and security, so these facts were pretty startling to me personally, but considering US and British activity recently in the middle-east, it's perhaps not that surprising. 

The whole reason why I began asking questions about Cyprus was because I had got talking to a local who mentioned that the UK and US turned a blind eye to the Turkish invasion in exchange for the British and Americans keeping their military bases. The US were also rather keen to keep their bases in Turkey, especially since the Cypriots refused to allow US military bases on their land. 

I've not been able to find evidence of this fact on the internet, but I have read and heard it from more than one person. The theory may become undone slightly by the fact that the Turkish banned the Americans from Turkish airbases after the Americans put a weapons trade embargo on them. It did not take long for the Americans to change their mind however, as by 1978 the embargo was lifted, and by 1980 both nations signed the "Defense and Economic Cooperation Agreement".Whether this is just a Cypriot urban legend or not is hardly important however, as there is still evidence that both London and Washington willingly turned a blind-eye towards the Turkish invasion itself, and who were in actual fact always in cahoots with the Turkish side to introduce a divide across the island.

What is most repugnant about the whole ordeal is that America and Britain could have brought about a diplomatic end to the situation had they not continued to support both the Greeks and the Turks simultaneously. It was president Makarios, who sought independence and a diplomatic resolution, and both America and Britain saw him as a threat simply for not wanting to get drawn into political lines on the international stage. The use of Turkish andGreek aggression is just another example of divide and rule tactics, and internationalists using differing factions to suit their own agenda.

The results of the 1974 invasion of Cyprus was the killing of thousands which could have been avoided, as well as the displacement of Greek civilians who were evicted by Turkey and forced to the South side of the island. Their homes, businesses and possessions were then forfeit, a situation which meant some Turks got very rich off the backs of Greek-Cypriot loss.

Turkey then used an aggressive re-population tactic to change the demographics of Northern Cyprus by moving thousands of Turks to the captured territory, a move which could really be seen as a form of cultural genocide.

But could the Turkish invasion have been prevented?

It seems strange that despite Greece and Turkey joining NATO in 1952, and the fact that both of their military hardware came from America, that there could ever be a state of war without America intervening. That is of course if it wasn't preordained. Clearly not everybody involved in the invasion was in the loop over what was happening with the Turkish invasion though, as this article highlights when it speaks from the perspective of then acting British foreign secretary Lord Callaghan.

Essentially according to Callaghan, the British were caught in a situation where they would have struggled to defend the British bases let alone the the whole island without support from the Americans. In fact the Turkish had even threatened that they would bomb the British bases if they did not explicitly confirm their neutral position. Turkish tanks had reportedly fired on British bases in Cyprus in the few days of war, something which seems to have been a 'misunderstanding'. Clearly the Turks weren't going to take no for an answer. This doesn't make total sense however given that following the cout a few weeks earlier, a British task force was already enroute to Cyprus. They clearly suspected something was about to happen.

It would have been possible to defend the island and at least make the Turks think twice about the invasion had the Americans supported the British at the time. Henry Kissinger at that time the secretary of state, squashed any US-British military response. Officially this tied Britain's hands behind it's back. However...

This PDF article allegedly includes documents sent from the British Government to the Australians and detailed information about how and what was going to happen before the Turkish invasion.

If you haven't the time to read through this long and detailed article, then please take notice of this particular paragraph sent as a telegram to Australia from Britain:

"Commenting privately to us on the situation on the 20th July a senior FCO official said that Britain secretly would not object if Turkish military forces occupied about 1/3 of the island before agreeing to a cease-fire. (Please protect.) Such a position would need to be reached by 21st July if peace prospects were not to be endangered further. In the meantime, Britain continued to support publicly appeals for an immediate ceasefire".

If these documents are genuine, and this telegram has been leaked, it explains why despite having naval and air bases in Cyprus, both Britain and America refused to step in throughout the invasion. As a side note, there is also evidence that Britain was supplying information to Turkey about the military strength of Cyprus to help with the invasion. The fact that one third of the island was taken seems to have been agreed in advance, and falls in line with Britain’s previous political handling of the 30% veto power to the Turks and the calls made for decades by the Taksim. In fact the idea of a partition was at one point what the British were proposing anyway.

The result of this invasion has been that to this day, Northern Cyprus remains an illegally held territory, and the border between the two still needs a UN patrolled 'green line' to prevent any incidents.

In any case, all of this information points to one thing. The US and UK are constantly manipulating current political turmoil to suit their own needs and agendas. As we look upon this information in the new millennium with all current ongoing issues in the Middle East and closer to home, we need to be aware of the facts of the past. The same tactics have arguably been applied in Iraq, Libya, Syria and now on the European home front. We must learn to wield this knowledge to our own advantage, we must put pressure on our politicians to prevent unnecessary suffering and war caused by the deliberate actions of our Governments. History has been repeating itself more and more recently, but this fact only relies on a public being unaware and who believe in the biased news and history books.

Furthermore, when it comes to Turkey. Should we really trust a country that would invade a sovereign nation on a whim, and risk a war with a fellow NATO member? Should we trust a nation which buys or at least brought, oil off of the Islamic State? Should we trust a nation which commits genocide and sees the conflict in Syria as an excuse to further assault the Kurds instead of the Islamist threat on their doorstep? Should we trust a nation which risks provoking a world war after shooting down a Russian bomber aircraft engaged in defeating ISIS, which regardless of whether it breached their airspace or not, was clearly not the most diplomatic answer to the issue.

If the answer to all of this, plus the threat of further Islamic immigration into Europe is a 'no', then perhaps the European public should re-think the trust they place in the European Union.