Explore the vast range of titles available.

Focusing on one of the most dramatic and controversial periods in modern Greek history and in the history of the Cold War, James Edward Miller provides the first study to employ a wide range of international archives--American, Greek, English, and French--together with foreign language publications to shed light on the role the United States played in Greece between the termination of its civil war in 1949 and Turkey's 1974 invasion of Cyprus. Miller demonstrates how U.S. officials sought, over a period of twenty-five years, to cultivate Greece as a strategic Cold War ally in order to check the spread of Soviet influence. The United States supported Greece's government through large-scale military aid, major investment of capital, and intermittent efforts to reform the political system. Miller examines the ways in which American and Greek officials cooperated in--and struggled over--the political future and the modernization of the country. Throughout, he evaluates the actions of the key figures involved, from George Papandreou and his son Andreas, to King Constantine, and from John Foster Dulles and Dwight D. Eisenhower to Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger. Miller's engaging study offers a nuanced and well-balanced assessment of events that still influence Mediterranean politics today.

This is an article on the history and historiography of Cypriot communism. It is inspired by two recent volumes on Cypriot communism: the first is about the 1931 October uprising, the Communist Party of Cyprus and the Third International based on the official documents of the Communist International (by Sakellaropoulos and Choumerianos), and the second by a volume that deals with the history of Cypriot communism until the formal disbanding of the Communist party in 1944 (by Alecou and Sakellaropoulos). The paper aims to contextualise and discuss how Cypriot communists themselves engage with their own history: Cypriot Communists saw their mission as historical, i.e., the resolution of the national question was seen as integral to their strategy of achieving a socialist transformation of the world. It critically examines the difficulties of the Cypriot Left to write and appraise its own early history of Cypriot Communism, despite repeated attempts and having commissioned historians to write an official history. Communism in Cyprus emerged in the aftermath of the Russian Revolution during the late period of British colonial rule in Cyprus and was active in the 1931 uprising. The hegemonic nationalist historiography has vilified the Left and its role in the national liberation struggle, because the Communists in the 1920s and 1930s opposed union with Greece (Enosis): they saw this as a reactionary slogan that diverted attention from the urgent resolution of the class/social question and would play in the hands of colonisers dividing the toilers along ethnic/national lines in their 'divide-and-rule' games. This paper critically reviews historical debates over anticolonialism and liberation struggles in Cyprus. In nationalist historiography, the 'social question' is subordinated to the 'national question', if not totally obscured. The Left in the 1920s and 1930s however, perceived the 'national question' as an aspect of the social-political question in the struggle for socialism: the principle of self-determination of Cypriots was to be realised as part of regional struggle with the goal of a Balkan Socialist Federation. By the 1940s, the Cypriot Communist line changed: as the prospects of revolution receded, the anticolonial struggle would resolve the national question by uniting with Greece. What followed is well-known: Cyprus and its people are de facto divided. Whilst there is fascinating scholarship demonstrating the processes of the different versions of a highly contested ideological struggle about the goals, strategy, tactics and means in national liberation, the nationalist historiography has imposed a straitjacket that prevents such insights from properly making inroads in public history, school textbooks, and official historiography. This has generated a national(ist) ideological frame that has made historical debates which question the dominant narrative almost impossible within public history. Nonetheless, the terrain has now opened widely, as younger scholars in academia and in social media are questioning such assumptions and reifications pertaining to anticolonial struggles for liberation. The current dissensus and polarisation has generated new spaces and has endowed new vigour in debates on the history of the Left in the country. Such debates however are not necessarily about the past; they are primarily about the present reading the past to illuminate the future.

The transition to democracy in 1974 was a turning point in modern Greek history. The two Turkish invasions of Cyprus and the emergence of the dispute over the Aegean seabed complicated Greek security dilemmas. Apart from cold-war challenges, including the traditional 'menace from the North', the country had to face a new threat that was coming from within NATO. The implementation of a détente policy was motivated by political as well as security considerations. In terms of national security, the 'opening' to the Communist bloc aimed to balance the perceived Turkish hegemonism and ameliorate Greek defence problems. Moreover, following the humliating military dictatorship of 1967-74, a multidimensional foreign policy was also demanded by the vast majority of the Greek public. Last but not least, an active regional policy could also aid Greece's effort to secure accession to the European Communities. The article will analyse and interpret the political and security dilemmas that were posed by the international developments of the period and the ways these interacted with Greek perceptions to shape Athens' new détente policy.

The communist AKEL (Ανορθωτικό Κόμμα Εργαζόμενου Λαού) party governed the Republic of Cyprus from February 2008 to February 2013. During this period, AKEL had to deal with grave economic problems. This article uses the European Elections Study (2009) data and presents a statistical model that explains up to 70 per cent of the variance. We show that retrospective sociotropic evaluation of the economy by the Greek Cypriots has a significant effect on their intention to vote or not for the incumbent party. On the basis of this result, one may argue that the considerable amount of votes lost by AKEL in February 2013 presidential elections could be mainly because of the deteriorating economic situation since the party took office in February 2008.

In 2008, leftists across Europe hailed the election of communist leader Dimitris Christofias to executive office in the Republic of Cyprus as a breakthrough, with grand prospects for progressive, leftward change. The Cypriot left in the form of AKEL seemed to be the exception in the neoliberal European political universe, offering a new hope and the potential for an alternative political course. AKEL’s rise to executive power was seen as evidence that the left could head the government in a European state, and as an example for other left parties. Five years on, during a period in which Cyprus has signed a bailout agreement with the Troika comparable to those of Greece, the right has triumphantly returned to office, some of the harshest austerity measures have been imposed by EU elites and passed by parliament, and with public opinion on the left government’s record unprecedentedly negative, the issue of communist participation in the executive is once again, rightfully back on the agenda.

The communist AKEL party governed the Republic of Cyprus from February 2008 to February 2013. During this period, AKEL had to deal with grave economic problems. This article uses the European Elections Study (Voter Study, Advance Release, 7/4/2010, http://www.piredeu.eu , 2009 ) data and presents a statistical model that explains up to 70 % of the variance. We show that retrospective sociotropic evaluation of the economy by the Greek Cypriots has a significant effect on their intention to vote or not for the incumbent party. Based on this result, one may argue that the considerable amount of votes lost by AKEL in February 2013 presidential elections could be mainly because of the deteriorating economic situation since the party took office in February 2008.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the political relations between AKEL and the Turkish Cypriot community during the period 1941-1955. AKEL's post-1974 policies towards the Turkish Cypriots had led to a political misconception concerning its political relations with the Turkish Cypriot community for the period that preceded 1955. Undeniably AKEL's attitude to the Turkish Cypriots had diachronically been much more liberal and tolerant than the approach expressed by many nationalist - Right-wing politicians. However, AKEL's attempt to employ class rhetoric' in order to allure the minority into the 'Greek Cypriot national liberation struggle' had little effect upon the Turkish Cypriot masses. Contrary to the ideological and social divisions that cut across the Greek Cypriot community, the fear of enosis within the Turkish Cypriot community dominated political and ideological discussions. The political elite of the Turkish Cypriot community perceived AKEL not only as a 'national' threat but as an ideological menace as well. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

According to this perception, which resurged from time to time in the following decades, the patriarchate and the Ottoman Empire's Greek Orthodox community had been engaged in disloyal activities against the state and had become an instrument of foreign intervention in the Ottoman-Turkish domestic affairs. [...]the Greek Orthodox patriarchate of Constantinople was internationally isolated and \"faced with the danger of being reduced to an ordinary parochial church,\" although the Turkish government slightly loosened its control on its activities in the context of Greek-Turkish rapprochement in the 1930s.5 It was, however, in the aftermath of World War II that the Turkish government felt it necessary to fundamentally change its policy toward the patriarchate due to radically changed international circumstances marked by the emergence of a bipolar world and the beginning of the Cold War.

This paper evaluates and critiques the current state of knowledge on the theorisation of the Cypriot state formations and the nature of the conflict in the country. It aims to provide a prolegomenon for the re-conceptualisation of the Cyprus state formations as enmeshed in the Cyprus problem' within its regional and global settings. We examine the two main approaches theorising the Cypriot state formations, namely Weberian and Marxist inspired accounts and locate some of the problems and gaps. We argue that the current conjuncture is marked by significant social transformations both internally and adjacent to the country, which require a fresh perspective on 'the Cyprus problem'. Such a perspective is based on the premise that we must go beyond analyses that focus exclusively on either of the two competing dimensions of an unintuitive binary, either as global/regional geopolitical or a local ethno-national identity conflict These 'common sense readings of the Cyprus problem, which can be referred to as the liberal conflict resolution model and the global/regional geopolitics model are not only limited theoretically but their contestation leads to a political cul-de-sac. Moreover, such perspectives in turn dis-empower the social and political forces within Cyprus to actively engage in bringing about an end to the partitionist divide in a country which is one of the most militarised zones in the world. The shortcomings of these approaches in making sense of the state formation and the dispute itself underlines the necessity of a multi-faceted theoretical framework that assesses the role of class and other social forces as well as changing regional and global contexts which shape both the nature of the so-called Cyprus problem as well as the peculiar fragmentary state formations. Adapted from the source document.