0. Macedonia, The Lung of Greece Fighting an Uphill Battle_A (1)

8/13/2019 0. Macedonia, The Lung of Greece Fighting an Uphill Battle_A (1)

1/26

1

Macedonia, the Lung of Greece: Fighting an Uphill Battle

By Marcus A. Templara (November 7, 2012)

This year, Greeks all over the world are celebrating the 100 th anniversary of the liberation of

Macedonia from the Ottoman yoke. It was an emotional moment for the inhabitants of Thessaloniki

when they saw the sky blue-white flag flying over the White Tower. While today the Macedonians

celebrate the liberation of the city and indeed the return of the land of Alexander the Great back to its

motherland, others challenge the present status quo.

The Greek Army entered Thessaloniki in the early hours of Saturday, October 27, 1912 (Old

Style). In a moving editorial, the newspaperMakedonia of Thessaloniki in its Sunday, October 28,

1912 edition expressed the feelings of the Macedonian Greek as follows:

With warm tears, tears of joy that floods the chest of the slave who recovers his freedom, tears ofgratitude that fulfills his existence for his liberator, we salute the Greek army that entered the

resplendent city of the Thessalonians.

This brilliant trophy of the heroic and victorious Greek Army demolishes the cornerstone of the

Turkish state from the Greek Macedonia. Of the state, which, as the kingdoms of ancientmonsters were established on layers of bones. Of the state, which has been synonymous to

barbarism and horribleness. Of the state, which holding in one hand the torch of arson and in theother the dagger of the murderer, burned and slaughtered our life and our honor, our faith and

our ethnicity, and anything holy and sacred that we have.

And now the pulverized homeland of Aristotle and Alexander [the Great], whose every hill and

every valley, every corner and every span, are soaked in innocent Greek blood and former and

recent lamentations of the martyrs of the Faith and Fatherland, throws itself free into the warmand loving arms of Mother Greece.

Thus, the great epic of 1821 continues.b

It is important for the Greeks to know what the Macedonian fighters did face during their struggle

to liberate Macedonia. For this reason, I am offering a summary of five chapters of an upcoming book

that I am preparing under the working titleMACEDONIA: Land of Illusions, Myths, and Falsities.


2/26

2

Introduction

The Seven Slavic tribes and Bulgarians appeared in the south Balkans in the 6 th century. Despite

the centuries long attempts of the neighboring Slavic element to slavonize them, Macedonian Greeks

remained Hellenic.1 The reason for the failure to slavonize the Macedonian Greeks was that the

Slavs in the purely Greek provinces [of Byzantium] did not form large, homogenous groups, and they

were unable to resist the attraction of a higher cultural environment.2

In the beginning of 1902, the Greek Prime Minister, Alexander Zaimis, openly admitted, the

chief threat to Hellenism in Macedonia came, not from the Ottoman Turks, but from the Bulgarians.3

The continuous political and military involvement of the Great Powers4 officially was intended to

alleviate the plight of the Christians under Ottoman misgovernment. In reality, the same Powers were

interested (and still are) in establishing their political and military outposts in their client states of the

region.

As an antidote to the political antagonism between the Pan-Slavist movement of St. Petersburg,

Russia and the Western Powers, Bulgarian intellectuals in Macedonia found political recourse in

Marxism and Anarchism believing that if those philosophies were implemented and spread, they

would liberate not only themselves from the Ottomans, but also from the supremacy among the Great

Powers.

By the end of the 19th century, the Bulgarian idealists in Macedonia created secret societies

bracing their military groups with thugs and brigands who had re-invented themselves as patriots and

liberators while they covertly continued their old lifestyle and directly threatened the existence of

anything Greek.

1 Fanula Papazoglu, (Macedonian Cities in Roman Times), (Skopje: iva

Antika, 1957), 4, 333; Fanula Papazoglu, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times, English Edition,(Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1978), 268.2 Frantiek Dvornik, Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: Ss. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius (NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1970), 42.3 F. R. Bridge, ed.,Austro-Hungarian documents relating to the Macedonian struggle, 1896-1912(Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1976), 91.4 In the 19th and early 20th century in Europe, Great Powers were the UK, Germany, Austria-Hungary, France,and Russia. The Ottoman Empire had declined as a Great Power.


3/26

3

The Effects of the Slavic Awakening in the South Balkans

The Slavic Awakening in the south Balkans gradually appeared at the end of the 18 th century in

Bulgaria, Croatia, and later in the 19th century in Serbia, and Slovenia. The 19th century was an era of

literary upheaval aka literary awakening in Europe. The Pan-Slavic movements of national

awakenings took place in the mid 19th century at the same time the communist philosophy was

spreading. Those leading various movements, being idealists, used the literary awakening as the

reason for local activities that developed into national liberation movements.

Two events caused the concept of a Greater Bulgaria, the creation of the Exarchate and the

Preliminary Treaty of San Stefano. The re-election of Gregorios VI to the Patriarchic throne in 1867

proved detrimental to the Patriarchate, as well as to Hellenism of Macedonia.5 The candidate for the

patriarchal throne, Gregorios VI, in order to fulfill his ambition, asked Count Nikolay Ignatyev, the

Russian Ambassador in Constantinople, for his support in exchange for a few concessions, one of

which was the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate.

Patriarch Gregorios VI was quoted as stating to Count Ignatyev, With my hands I built a bridge

toward the political independence of the Bulgarians.6 Patriarch Gregorios VI probably thought of an

autonomous Bulgarian Church within the territories between the Balkan Mountain range and Danube

River. The Patriarch was in for a big surprise.

Three years later (February 27/ March 11, 1870) and after some more Bulgarian and Russian

proposals, Sultan Abdlaziz issued a decree (frman), which established the Bulgarian Exarchate

standardizing the rules and regulations on the technical aspects of the Exarchate. The decree offered

the Exarchate jurisdiction over the entire Bulgaria north of the Balkan Mountain range (the old

Roman Moesia Inferior), plus the regions of Sofia and Ni . In addition, the Exarchate received parts

of the upper Struma valley and the dioceses of Plovdiv (Philippoupolis) and Sliven (Slymnos

), under the banner of the autonomous Greek Church.

5 Patriarch Gregorios VI was elected for the first time on September 26, 1835, but the Sultan dismissed him onFebruary 20, 1840. He was re-elected for the second time on February 10, 1867 in order to resign on June 10,1871.6 Je btis de mes mains, un pont l indpendance politique des Bulgares. Ignatyev dispatch No. 128, May14, 1867.


4/26

4

One man, Stojan Chomakov, a Russophobe Bulgarian extremist, who was an influential official in

the Ottoman administration, was behind Article X of the decree that established the Exarchate.7 The

articles of the decree were straight forward, except for article X, which stated that the Bulgarian

Exarchate, the constitution of which was to be settled by subsequent regulations, but which was to be

in effect independent of the Patriarch, and was to include all dioceses with a purely Bulgarian

population and in addition any other districts two-thirds or more of whose inhabitants so desired. In

addition, the decree politically established the Bulgarian ethnicity for the first time.8

The language of the two-thirds provision resulted in an inexorable and poisonous armed race

between the Exarchate Bulgarians and the Patriarchist Greeks because these were the two main

Christian ethnicities in Macedonia with religious and ethnic identities that did not always coincide and

the statistics were inaccurate. 9 Besides, the example offered by the Gevgeli District Governor of the

Province of Rumeli in document No 81/8053, dated August 21, 1905, indicates that the intimidation

that the Bulgarians exerted on the inhabitants of Negorci, just north of Gevgeli, was clear: declare

yourselves Bulgarians or you die.10

According to the Russian Consul in Bitola, the komitadjis did not visit villages in Macedonia,

anymore, forcing the farmers to pay them protection money, i.e. extortion, as they had done before,

but they forced the elders of the villages and the priests to sign petitions in which they declared that

their villages were Bulgarian and Exarchists. If they had refused to do so, the komitadjis murdered

them as they had done in the villages of Brusnik, Bamka, Splia (Zhuzheltsi). Thus, the elders started

another strategy. After they sign the Bulgarian petitions, they visit the Greek Consulate in Bitola,

they sign similar petitions stating that they and their villages are Greek and Patriarchist.11

Thus, the unintended consequence of a well-disposed Patriarch would cost thousands of peoples

lives and prove detrimental to Hellenism and to the Patriarchate itself since much of the prestige and

income were connected to the lands of the Exarchate. Patriarch Gregorios VI either discounted or

7 B. H. Sumner, Ignatyev at Constantinople: II, The Slavonic and East European Review, 11, 33 (Apr., 1933),

556-571; 567, 568.8 B. H. Sumner, Ignatyev at Constantinople: II, The Slavonic and East European Review, 11, 33 (Apr., 1933),556-571;passim.9 pek K. Yosmaolu, Counting Bodies, Shaping Souls: The 1903 Census and National Identity in OttomanMacedonia,International Journal of Middle East Studies, 38, (Feb, 2006), 55-77,passim.10 pek K. Yosmaolu, Counting Bodies, Shaping Souls: The 1903 Census and National Identity in OttomanMacedonia,International Journal of Middle East Studies, 38, (Feb. 2006), 55-77, 62.11 1903-1905, , , 71 (Reforms in Macedonia 1903-1905, Foreign Ministry, diplomatic correspondence, 71).


5/26

5

overlooked the possibility that the Russians could alter the end goal after obtaining his approval for

the establishment of the Exarchate. Ignatyev describes the problem of the Russian diplomacy as

follows:

The exarchate, even in its most restraint form, offered a national core [to the Bulgarians], which

would be free to develop later. My main concern in the question, which I struggle with, has

always been to provide for the Bulgarians without breaking with the Greek national body,protecting them from the efforts of the [Roman] Catholic and Protestant propaganda and also

keeping them in the orthodoxy and our influence.12

Indeed, on one hand, the Russians ascertained that the Bulgarians had a window through which

they could obtain more than the Patriarch had wished. It was a win-win situation for the Russians and

the Sultan, since under pressure from the Pan-Slavists within the Empire and through the Bulgarian

diaspora at Odessa, Kishinev, Bucharest, Belgrade, and St. Petersburg the Russians increased their

influence with the Bulgarians. On the other hand, the Sultan achieved his goal to play the Bulgarians

against the Macedonian Greeks. At first, he divided them and then he fueled their discord.

By 1895, the Bulgarians claimed 600 to 700 schools with 25,000 to 30,000 pupils and by 1912,

seven bishoprics in Macedonia came under the jurisdiction of the Exarchate. 13 But according to

Greek sources, by the time of the Balkan Wars (1913) in the Vilayet of Thessaloniki, there were 384

Bulgarian schools educating 17,777 pupils and 571 Greek schools with 32,534 pupils. In the Vilayet

of Monastiri (Bitola) there were 272 Bulgarian schools with 16,089 pupils, and 432 Greek schools

with 25,026 pupils. The Serbs had founded schools in the areas of Kosovo Vilayet, especially in

Skopje and Kumanovo.14

12 B. H. Sumner, Ignatyev at Constantinople: II, The Slavonic and East European Review, 11, 33 (Apr.,1933), 556-571; 569. The text in French is: "L'exarchat, mme dans sa forme la plus restrainte, offrait unnoyau national quon serait libre de dvelopper ultrieurement." " Ma principale proccupation dans laquestion, qui se dbattait, a toujours ete de procurer aux bulgares, sans rompre avec les grecs, un corps nationalen les prservant des efforts de la propagande catholique et protestante et en les conservant aussi l'orthodoxieet a notre influence."13 L. S. Stavrianos, The Balkans 1815-1914 (Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963), 98.14 Dimitar Bechev,Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow, 2009),68.


6/26

6

Macedonia Rediscovered

Due to the failure of the Constantinople Conference (18761877), two important conventions

took place between Russia and Austria-Hungary in 1877. One took place in Budapest on January 15,

1877 and the other in Reichstadt (present-day Zkupy, Czech Republic) on July 8, 1877. 15 The

participants in both meetings on the Russian side were Emperor Alexander II and Minister of Foreign

Affairs, Prince A. M. Gorakov, and on the Austro-Hungarian side Emperor Francis Joseph and

Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gyula Andrssy. The Austrian Emperor introduced the idea of an

autonomous Macedonia as part of a package deal with Russia, which wanted to have a kindred Slavic

outpost in the Aegean. Under the plan, Austria would have the military control of Bosnia and

Herzegovina and in exchange, Russia would receive territories lost in the Crimean War, while

Bulgaria would be independent with additional territories of Dobrudja. Macedonia would be

autonomous within the Ottoman Empire. At that time, the territories of Macedonia included only the

region of Macedonia within Greece and the area of Pelagonia (Monastiri/Bitola, Ohrid areas).

The belief that Ignatyev created Macedonism or he is responsible for bringing the Bulgarian

ethnicity into the foreground is false as it is the result of the misinterpretation of facts. The artificial

ethnicity that Ignatyev was accused of creating was the Bulgarian. Ignatyev was neither the creator of

Bulgarian nationalism nor the initiator of the struggle for a Bulgarian Church independent of the

Patriarchate. The origins of the modern era recognition goes back to the generation before the Crimean

War, i.e. 1833.16 In his memoirs, Ignatyev explains that he had a lot to do with drafting and

negotiating the Treaty of San Stefano as ordered, but the instructions of what Russia wanted had come

from St. Petersburg.17

Although at present, the basis for the Serbian literary language is the Northern Ekavian, until

1878, the literary language of Serbia was the Eastern Herzegovinian. Istono-hercegovaki or Eastern

Herzegovinian dialect is spoken in eastern Herzegovina, NW Montenegro, the Sandzhak of Novi

Pazar or Raka, eastern Bosnia, western Bosnia, Serbian Krajina, and middle Slavonia. A letter from

15 Alexander Onou, The Memoirs of Count N. Ignatyev: II, The Slavonic and East European Review, 10, 30(Apr., 1932), 627-640; 627, 636.16 B. H. Sumner, Ignatyev at Constantinople: II, The Slavonic and East European Review, 11, 33 (Apr.,1933), 556-571; 566. Christ Anastasoff, Bulgarias National Struggles,Annals of the American Academy ofPolitical and Social Science, 232, A Challenge to Peacemakers (Mar., 1944), 101-106; 103).17 B. H. Sumner, Ignatyev at Constantinople: II, The Slavonic and East European Review, 11, 33 (Apr.,1933), 556-571; 566-7.


7/26

7

Pope John VIII in AD 873 to St. Methodius reveals the policy of the papacy concerning the ancient

Illyricum and the religious situation in the lands forming the cradle of the Serbians, later called

Raka.18 The Serbs built the city [Raka] soon after their conversion to Christianity at the end of

the ninth century, the center of the Serbian state was then not Duclea [Duklja], but Rascia [Raka],

where the bishopric of Ras was the national religious center.19 Porphyrogenitus refers to it as -

Rasi.20

For historical, but also for linguistic reasons, Serbia wanted to expand west to Bosnia and

Herzegovina allowing Bulgaria to expand west as well as to the area of the present day the Former

Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM). Due to Gorakovs Austro-phobia, the Russians

accepted the expansion of the Austro-Hungarian Empire to lands west of the Drina River (Bosnia and

Herzegovina) depriving Serbia from expanding west and giving Serbia no choice but to expand south.

Austro-Hungarian (Andrssy) and Russian (Gorakov) machinations regarding Serbia and Bulgaria,

the two Ottoman controlled Slavic peoples of the south Balkans, generated the Council of Berlin and

all its political and social costs, and pushed both Serbian and Bulgarian nationalism to compete over

the same territory.

Serb politicians and ethnographers such as Stojan Novakovi, Jovan Cviji, Aleksandar Beli, et

al. argued that the inhabitants of present day FYROM territories spoke dialects that belonged to the

transitional Serbian dialects, i.e. Torlak dialects.21 Between 1890 and 1900, Bulgarian governments

sponsored ethnographers to draw maps of Macedonia to include the territories west of Bulgaria that fit

their political and territorial aspirations.22

18 Frantiek Dvornik, Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: Ss. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius (NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1970), 38.19 Frantiek Dvornik, Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: Ss. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius (NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1970), 254, 257.20 Constantine Porphyrogennitus,De Administrando Imperio, ed. R.J.H. Jenkins (Washington, DC: DumbartonOaks, 1967) 32, 53. This area is called Old Serbia by Serbs. It includes the territory, which was the heart ofmedieval Serbia, i.e. Raka (Sandak), Kosovo and Metohija and the present day FYROM (except Pelagonia,

which is Macedonia). Sometimes Old Serbia includes Montenegro.21 Torlak dialects (Kraovaki, Svrlji, Luniki, Vranje, Prizren, Kumanovo Trn (Breznik), Belogradik), aretransitional between Serbian and Bulgarian). Of them, Bulgarians consider as Bulgarian those dialects thatwere spoken inside the borders of Bulgaria before 1918, namely the dialects around Belogradik, western ofBerkovica, around Caribrod, Trn, Breznik, and Bosilegrad, known as Belogradik-Trn dialect. On the other,Serbian dialects are considered those spoken west of the previously mentioned ones around Knjaevac, Pirot,Leskovac, and Vranje. Some linguists argue that the Torlak dialects constitute a separate Slavic linguisticgroup. The dialect of Skopje is positioned between Prizren and Kumanovo dialects.22 Tihomir R. DjordjeviMacedonia (New York: McMillan, 1918), 6.


8/26

8

Vasil Kunov, one of the enlisted inventive ethnographers, created a map of a new Macedonia,

never before imagined, allegedly inhabited mostly by Bulgarians. Considering that only a few

westerners visited Macedonia at that time, Bulgaria, assisted by Russia, was free to assert that the

majority of the Macedonians were Bulgarians when in fact they were a medley of races and

nationalities. Ottoman statistics tied to military taxation were unreliable since most Patriarchist

households registered only one male per household, while children and female residents were

completely missing from the equation. That was not true with the Exarchist households, which were

ethnically Bulgarian.23

The new map of Macedonia included the Vilayets of Monastiri, Thessaloniki, and the south region

of the Vilayet of Kosovo, and in general the Torlak speaking areas of Serbia. The sole purpose of

such effort was the annexation of the territories northwest, west, and south of Bulgaria, i.e. the

restoration of the Second Bulgarian Empire. The annexation of Eastern Rumelia boosted Bulgarias

hope for more territorial additions thinking that since the Great Powers had tolerated and went along

with the annexation of Eastern Rumelia, Bulgaria had an excellent chance to do the same with other

territories. The subsequent lands that Bulgaria had on its annexation list were Thrace, Dobrudja,

Bosilegrad and Tsaribrod.

The Birth and Development of the IMRO

In Thessaloniki on October 23, 1893, inspired by the Carbonari secret revolutionary societies of

early 19th-century Italy, a group of Bulgarian intellectuals ranging from simple idealists to socialists,

revolutionary socialists, and anarchists formed a secret society under the name Bulgarian Macedonian

Revolutionary Committee (BMRC).24 Members of the organization could be any Bulgarian,

irrespective of gender, who is not compromised by something wicked25

The organization had espoused narodniksocialism advocating the spreading of political

propaganda among the peasants and through them to the masses in hope that they would bring their

23 Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars,(Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment, 1914) 28. pek K. Yosmaolu, Counting Bodies, Shaping Souls:The 1903 Census and National Identity in Ottoman Macedonia,International Journal of Middle East Studies,38, (Feb., 2006), 55-77,passim).24 The BMRC changed a number of names before winding up with the name IMRO.25 Ivan Lazarov and others, (Short History of the Bulgarian nation)(, 1993), 218.


9/26

9

awakening and consequently revolt against the oppressors and upgrade their standard of living, but

always within the socialist sphere. These political emissaries oftentimes accompanied their message

with threats, harassment, or actual murder.

The political actions of the organization were based on a dual program which included a popular

revolt against the Ottoman misrule, and after the autonomy or independence had been accomplished, a

social revolution against the propertied and bourgeois classes of Macedonia would take place with the

help of the brigands of the BRMC. The result would have been the establishment of a Social

Democracy of Macedonia, i.e. a Peoples Republic. It would happen 14 years before the Russian

Revolution. While Russian politicians disliked the narodniki, the Bulgarian political elite considered

them as political allies.

The patriotic sentiment among Bulgarians was high, doing whatever possible to bring the

Bulgarian borders to those of the Treaty of San Stefano and the Exarchate. In 1895, one of the secret

societies, "The Macedo-Adrianople Committee," addressed a letter to the Great Powers, supposedly

representing all inhabitants of Macedonia, advocating "an autonomous Macedonia, with its capital at

Salonika [Thessaloniki], to be placed under a Governor-General of the predominant ethnicity." 26

Since Sofia had already placed the plan of changing the borders of Macedonia to its taste, the term

predominant ethnicity was a self-fulfilling prophesy.

In the beginning of the 20th century, not only did the leadership of the BMRC considered

themselves Bulgarians, so did all the Slavic-speaking inhabitants of Macedonia; however, within the

Bulgarian domain they regarded themselves as Macedonians. It must be noted that most of the

leadership and membership of the Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization

(IMRO) were born and reared in Macedonia proper, i.e. the region of Macedonia within Greece, plus

the area of Pelagonia in the present day FYROM.

Krste Petkov Misirkov, designated by the Socialist Yugoslavia as the father of Macedonism,

explained the rationale behind the chosen term Macedonian Slavs.27 He also used Macedonian

Slavs. Misirkov oftentimes mentionedpassim that all other nationalities living in Macedonia used

an identical geographic designator, Macedonian, with or without their own ethnic designator.

Nikola Karev declared himself Macedonian, in the same manner.

26 William Miller, The Ottoman Empire, 1801-1913, (Charleston, S.C.: BiblioLife, 2009), 444.27 Krste P. Misirkov, On Macedonian Matters (Skopje, 1974), 159.


10/26

10

In 1903 in Sofia, Bulgaria, Misirkov published his first essay entitled What We Have Already

Done and What We Ought to Do In The Future. All other essays that he included in the bookOn

Macedonian Matters, published after 1914, showed more flexibility and openness about his socialist

philosophical inclination. The editor, Boris Vishinski, admitted that in his 1903 essay Misirkov was

not as outspoken as he had been in publishing these ideas, probably from fear of political

persecution.28 In his 1925 essay on Macedonian Nationalism, Misirkov explained the pro-

Bulgarian stance that he espoused at the end of the 19th century and his Macedonian nationalism

with the statement Macedonian intellectuals have sought and found, another way of fighting, i.e. an

independent Macedonian scientific way of thinking and a Macedonian national Consciousness. 29 The

scientific way that Misirkov had mentioned meant the scientific communism of Marxism -Leninism,

which at that time was at its peak. By 1925, the IMRO was already such an established formidable

force within the Bulgarian politics that it was the regulator of the Bulgarian polity and it was part of

the Bulgarian Communist Party.

In his interview with the Greek newspaper,Akropolis, Nikola Karev identified his ethnicity as

Bulgarian, but then he said that he was a Macedonian.30 Mrs. Elefterija Vambakovska of the

Institute of National History of the FYROM thought that such a statement is illogical since in her

opinion Karev could not have two ethnicities. But Karev had not declared two ethnicities. He

identified himself as a Macedonian Bulgarian. Macedonian Greeks similarly identify themselves as

ethnically Greeks, but within the Greek domain they culturally identify themselves as Macedonians,

Thracians, Cretans, Thessalians, etc. based on the location of their birth. Such designation is strictly

geographical as Misirkov stated.31 Mrs. Vambakovska feels the way she does because she and her

compatriots have been educated that the Macedonian ethnicity existed at the time of the Ilinden

Uprising, something that Prof. Katardjiev refutes. According to Misirkov there is no contradiction in

Karevs statement.

The adoption of a new identity was deemed necessary. One reason was that the new identity was

to be used effectively in order to start the agitation among the Slavic populations of the region of

Macedonia in order to set the foundation of a separate Slavic ethnicity other than Bulgarian. In

addition, by separating their own ethnicity from that of the Bulgarians of the Principality and calling

28 Krste P. Misirkov, On Macedonian Matters (Skopje, 1974), 222.29 Krste P. Misirkov, On Macedonian Matters (Skopje, 1974), 226.30 Utrinski vesnik, July 22, 2000, Archive No 329.31 Krste P. Misirkov, On Macedonian Matters (Skopje, 1974), 159.


11/26

11

themselves Macedonians, they hoped that all nationalities of Macedonia would rally behind the

movement, but they also hoped that the Great Powers would bite the bait and support the plight of the

Macedonians.

Characteristic of the political reaction to this thinking abroad Rostkovski, the Russian Consulate

in Monastiri (Bitola) often said, "The Bulgarians think they are the only people in the world with

brains, and that all others are fools. Whom do they hope to deceive with their articles in Pravo and

other papers saying that the Macedonians want Macedonia for the Macedonians? We know very well

what they want!32

The developed regionalism of the IMRO had been commensurate with its members political

affiliation to socialism and anarchism. The political aims of the organization were also different from

those of the Principalitys. The implementation of their political ideology, along with their desire for

the liberation of Macedonia from bondage, boosted their regionalism, which translated into a new

identity, the Macedonian Slav.

The regionalism furthermore was deemed necessary because under the so-called Macedonian

Slavs term, the Slav speakers who lived in Macedonia could disassociate from those Bulgarians of the

Principality. Misirkov had explicitly argued against such practice as being deceptive.33 The event

that boosted the argument of the Bulgarians in Macedonia to differentiate themselves from those of

the Principality was the adoption by Bulgaria of the Eastern Bulgarian dialect as the basis for the

literary language of the Principality at the end of the 19th century.

The IMRO leadership realized that it would be an uphill battle to topple a well-established and

diplomatically recognized Bulgarian Principalitys polity. In addition, the IMRO realized that it

would also be an impossible task to attempt to institute a second Bulgarian state under the banner of

social democracy. At the beginning of the 20th century, at a time that social democracy, revolutionary

or not, was under the careful scrutiny of European regimes, a social democratic Macedonia would be

struck down before it started for fear of spreading to Europe threatening regime changes. The French

Commune government in the spring of 1871 was too close and the Russian revolt of 1905 served as a

warning.

At that time, two other revolutionary factions appeared, theMacedonian Supreme Committee in

Sofia and a Thessaloniki based smaller group of conservatives, the Bulgarian Secret Revolutionary

32 Krste P. Misirkov, On Macedonian Matters (Skopje, 1974), 44.33 Krste P. Misirkov, On Macedonian Matters (Skopje, 1974), 36-85passim.


12/26

12

Brotherhood. By 1902, the latter was incorporated into the IMRO, and its members proved very

significant in the decision-making of the organization. They are the ones that pushed the Ilinden

Uprising, although they did not participate in it. They later became the core of the IMRO right-wing

faction under Sarafov. In 1907, a communist IMRO member, Todor Panica, at the order of Jane

Sandanski, assassinated almost all IMROs right wing leadership.

Boris Sarafov, one of the Supremist (Verhovists) leaders, had visited almost all European capitals

and launched a marketing campaign for his cause. He gave interviews for the Bulgarian Committee,

and paid off a great number of the European mass media. In addition, he established theBalkan

Committee in London, which in fact was a Bulgarian committee strongly advocating pro-Bulgarian

views. This Balkan Committee was managed by the Buxton brothers and included some influential

staunch supporters such as Henry Noel Brailsford, Morgan Philips Price, and the correspondent of the

Times of London, James David Bourchier. TheBalkan Committee sent its English representatives to

various locations of Macedonia to encourage and assist the Bulgarian members of the IMRO.

Simultaneously, the representatives of theBalkan Committee in the Balkans were in continuous

communication through the English Consuls. Due to the great influence that the leadership of the

Balkan Committee had in the English governments, it succeeded in appointing Bulgarophiles as

consuls in the Balkans.34 Even when foreign humanitarian aid was sent and distributed by

missionaries such as Lady Thompson, the British and Foreign Bible Society, and others after the

Ilinden Uprising, the aid was distributed only to the Exarchists in collaboration with the Bulgarian

komitadjis35

The Myth of Liberation: 1903 - The Peoples Republic of Krushevo

On St. Elijah Day of Configuration (July 20/August 2, 1903) in the town of Krushevo, the IMRO

staged a revolt declaring independence from the Ottoman yoke. The instrument of independence is

known as the Manifesto or Proclamation of Krushevo and it was directed toward the Turkish

population of the area. It must be noted that the president of the ephemeral Republic of Krushevo,

34 Germanos Karavagelis ( ), (: , 1958), 23-27. Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia, 1897-1913 (Thessaloniki: IMXA, 1966), 150-1).35 Germanos Karavagelis ( ), (: , 1958), 26.Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia, 1897-1913 (Thessaloniki: IMXA, 1966), 157 fn 35).


13/26

13

Nikola Karev, Kirovs cousin, was a well-known member of the Bulgarian Workers Social

Democratic Party, i.e. communist.36

In 1923, Nikola Kirov-Majski published a book, which developed into a theatrical play,Ilinden,

and in the second act, second scene of the play, the character of the teacher reads the manifesto to

Nikola Karev, the President of the Krushevo Republic. Karev, tells the teacher to translate it into

Turkish and disseminate it to the Turkish villages of the area.37 The manifesto promoted in the play

as a declaration of independence, is filled with socialist parlance, which was very common for the

time and place of the play when taking into consideration the negotiations between the IMRO and the

Comintern and the establishment of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization United

(IMRO-U). One must have in mind that both Kirov and his cousin Karev were socialists. The

language of the manifesto that Skopje promotes as original is in conflict with what Kirov states in his

book published in 1935, which in fact is Kirovs diary, of the 10 day Ilinden Uprising, versus thebook published in 1924, which was the basis for a theatrical play.

According to Kirov-Majski, on July 24, 1903, Tako P. Hristov, a parliamentarian, took the

original document to the Turkish village of Adalci and handed it to a child with the directive to give it

to Sinan, the mayor of the town. Hristov waited three full hours for the answer. The document was in

fact an ultimatum in the form of a letter and not a proclamation of any type. In the meantime, from

the minaret of the mosque, the hodja called together the entire male population of the village, which

had 40 households, and made the terms of the ultimatum known to them.38 From there, Sinan sent the

ultimatum to the Turkish villages of Laani (180 households) and Debrite (250 households) which

returned their response to Sinan. The letter-ultimatum served a dual purpose: first, to make clear the

purpose of the Uprising, and second, to serve as a warning to the Turkish population that any

collaboration with the Ottoman Army would be punishable by death.39 Under the threatening

conditions set by the Bulgarian brigands, all three villages agreed not to assist the Ottoman troops if

36 Keith Brown, The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and the Uncertainties of Nation Princeton:Princeton Univ. Press, 2003), 190, 209. George W. Gawrych, The Culture and Politics of Violence in TurkishSociety, 1903-14,Middle Eastern Studies, 22, 3 (Jul., 1986), 307-330; 308.37 Nikola Kirov-Majski,Ilinden (Sofia, 1923),passim.38 Nikola Kirov-Majski, (Krushovo and its battle for freedom) (: , 1935), 56.39 Nikola Kirov-Majski, (Krushovo and its battle for freedom) (: , 1935), 56 - 57.


14/26

14

and when they would arrive.40 Concerning the events of the Uprising, the Bulgarian komitadjis killed

innocent Greeks, burned and pillaged only Greek houses, and in general destroyed only Greek

properties.41 The Ottomans rushed an Army of nine Infantry Battalions, three Cavalry Companies, 18

artillery pieces (four Mountain and 14 Field guns), in order to crush the revolt by looting and burning

the Greek households that the Bulgarians did not have a chance to burn, and killing innocent

civilians4243 Over and above the regular forces, thebabozuk, an irregular force, the Grey Wolves of

the period, came to Krushevo in order to aid the ungodly work of the Ottoman Army. 44

The toll of destruction inflicted by the Bulgarian revolutionaries and the incoming Turkish Army

was 366 houses and 203 shops, all belonging to Greeks and Greek speaking Vlachs. In total, 41

innocent Greek civilians were murdered with many more missing. Some were murdered outside the

town as they tried to escape and others less fortunate were buried alive by their captors. The names of

the victims are enumerated in the Greek Consuls dispatch.Despite the fact that the vast majority of the victims (and their properties) were Greeks and Greek

speaking Vlachs,45 the FYROM historiography has re-baptized the victims Vlachs, Albanians, and

Macedonians.46

Thus, if the FYROM historiographers call the Greek victims Macedonians, their contention that

the ancient Macedonians were not ethnically Greeks is invalid. If on the other hand, the

historiographers call the Bulgarian villains Macedonians, they admit guilt and responsibility for the

atrocities of the liberators of Krushevo during the life of their ephemeral republic. The Preamble of

the current komitadji state, the FYROM, draws its legitimacy from the Republic of Krushevo. In this

40 Nikola Kirov-Majski, (Krushovo and its battle for freedom) (: , 1935), 57.41 Nicholas Ballas ( ), (: IMXA, 1962), 37-66.Christopher Naltsas ( ), (: IMXA, 1958), 18-22.42 Christopher Naltsas ( ), (: IMXA, 1958), 55. Greek Consul Dispatch 1903/ No 604).43 The names of the victims, their destroyed properties, their allegiance and other details are recorded in the

report of the Greek Consul in Monastiri (Bitola).44 Christopher Naltsas ( ), (: IMXA, 1958), 55.45 Nicholas Ballas ( ), (: IMXA, 1962), 37-66.Christopher Naltsas ( ), (: IMXA, 1958), 18-22. Greek Consul Dispatch 1903/ No 604)46 Nikola Kirov-Majski, (Krushovo and its battle for freedom) (: , 1935),passim. Keith Brown, The Past in Question: Modern Macedonia and theUncertainties of Nation Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 2003), 17, 79, 81-82, 96, 225.


15/26

15

case, the government of the FYROM should relinquish any and all claims as a nation of victims that

the Krushevo Memorial represents.

But how is it possible for the villains and the victims of the Ilinden Uprising to belong to the same

ethnic group? Which ethnicity does the FYROM government honor in the Krushevo Memorial?

Looking at the names of the honorees, one cannot but conclude that the government of the FYROM

honors the villains, the Bulgarian bandit-rebels, the thugs, and the criminal elements re-naming them

Macedonians who killed innocent civilians and destroyed their properties.

The behavior and reaction of the Greek political elite between 1878 and 1904 was at best

inexcusable. To this effect was Pavlos Melas message to Bishop Karavangelis I have read your

report [to the appropriate people] at the Ministry [of Foreign Affairs]. These people here are asleep.

What can I do?47 The importance of Macedonia was remarked by Pavlos Melas to George Sourlas,

the director of schools at Nymphaion, "Macedonia is the lung of Greece; without it the rest of Greece

would be condemned to death."48

Indifference, negligence, procrastination, and sketchiness employed by the Greek political elite

and the bureaucrats of the Greek Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) only impeded the work of the

Greek resistance against the Bulgarians in Macedonia.49 Besides, such an attitude gave the

impression to the Great Powers that the Greek population of Macedonia was non-existent since the

only ones fighting for freedom were the Bulgarians.50

While the Bulgarian komitadjis were well funded by the Bulgarian government and were well

armed and trained by Bulgarian officers, the Macedonian Greeks had nothing of the kind. The

Macedonian Greeks requested funding, training, and moral support from the leadership of Greece and

the Patriarchate and the only response they received was patience .51

What makes the matter worse is the fact that the weapons the komitadjis used to murder Greeks

were bought in Greek markets and military warehouses of the Kingdom of Greece. Furthermore, the

47 . . ;; Germanos Karavagelis

( ), (: , 1958), 17.48 Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia, 1897-1913 (Thessaloniki: IMXA, 1966), 2n.49 F. R. Bridge, ed.,Austro-Hungarian documents relating to the Macedonian struggle, 1896-1912(Thessaloniki: Institute for Balkan Studies, 1976), 104.50 Thomas Frederick Tout,An Advanced History of Great Britain (New York: Longmans, Green, 1920)680-1; Christopher Naltsas ( ), (: IMXA, 1958), 13, 14, 19; Germanos Karavagelis ( ), (: , 1958), 8-9, 17, 25, 44.51 Germanos Karavagelis ( ), (: , 1958), 15.


16/26

16

weapons (Gras, Mauser, Mannlicher-Schnauer) were transported to the Bulgarian komitadjis in

Macedonia by Greek mule drivers or .52 On at least one occasion, one of the chief

komitadjis, Vasil Tsakalarov, went in person to Athens to buy weapons.53

That Macedonia remained ethnically, socially, ecclesiastically, and linguistically Greek is because

of the determination, devotion to Hellenism, and patriotism of its own sons and daughters and to their

brave Cretan brethren who came to their assistance, not because of the current Greek political elite.

Only when individuals and organizations exerted pressure on the consequent Greek governments did

Greece start supporting the struggle for survival of the Macedonian Greeks. 54

The IMRO made political bedfellows with the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), aka Young

Turks, whom they assisted in their revolution of 1908. During WWI, members of the IMRO fought as

part of Bulgarias 11th Infantry Division demonstrating their brutality that surpassed even the cruelty of

the babozuk forces. Pursuant to Article 118 of the Treaty of Neuilly, dated November 27, 1919, the

Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes, requested the extradition from Bulgaria of 1,662 persons

accused of having committed an act in violation of the laws and customs of war,55 216 of whom were

leaders of the IMRO.56 Members of the IMRO exhibited similar brutality against their internal and

external foes, whether as part of a power struggle or a mere antagonism, turning the constant

assassinations into a war of extermination, which lasted about 40 years. Other members participated in

terrorist activities killing indiscriminately the same citizens they theoretically defended and destroying

properties of the same people they purportedly protected. During WWI, the IMRO as an organization

52 Christopher Naltsas ( ), (: IMXA, 1958), 12. Nicholas Ballas ( ), (: IMXA, 1962), 40.53 Germanos Karavagelis ( ), (: , 1958), 12).54 Christopher Naltsas ( ), (: IMXA, 1958), 13. Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle in Macedonia, 1897-1913(Thessaloniki: IMXA, 1966), 46/fn16, 35/fn34, 142, 173, 179/fn 118-119, etc..55 ARTICLE 118The Bulgarian Government recognises the right of the Allied and Associated Powers to bring before military

tribunals persons accused of having committed acts in violation of the laws and customs of war. Such personsshall, if found guilty, be sentenced to punishments laid down by law. This provision will apply notwithstandingany proceedings or prosecution before a tribunal in Bulgaria or in the territory of her allies.The Bulgarian Government shall hand over to the Allied and Associated Powers or to such one of them as shallso request, all persons accused of having committed an act in violation of the laws and customs of war, who arespecified either by name or by the rank, office, or employment which they held under the Bulgarian authorities.56 Joseph S. Roucek,Balkan Politics: International Relations in No Mans Land, Westport, CT: Greenwood,1971), 152 fn 8.


17/26


18/26

18

the IMRO founded a purely communist organization, the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary

Organization (United) (IMRO-U) as a subsidiary of the Bulgarian Communist Party.59 The founder

and first leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party, Dimitar Blagoev, modified the idea of a Balkan

Federation on a socialist basis, i.e. a gradual rapprochement of existing pro-communist regimes. 60

Dimitar Vlahov, being himself a communist, pursued the same line as well. During the same period,

the two prominent right wing leaders of the IMRO, Protogerov and Aleksandrov, were assassinated

leaving Mihajlov as the only right wing leader.

In the meantime, in 1922 Bulgarian migrs from Macedonia Greece, affiliated with IMRO,

organized the pro-BulgarianMacedonian Political Organization (MPO) (re-baptized in 1952 as the

Macedonian Patriotic Organization) in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois and they

contributed large sums of money to the IMRO. The MPO directed all resources to educating their

American-born descendants in spirit of the Macedonian aspiration which is the liberation ofMacedonia.61 They were and still are followers of the Mihailov doctrine, which according to the

Skopje Academician, Ivan Katardjiev, stood for the establishment of an independent Macedonian

state, which meant a Macedonian state of the Bulgarians in Macedonia.

In the 1930s, under pressure from the Greek and Serbian governments and the threat of war with

Greece, the Bulgarian Prime Minister, General Kimon Georgiev, grasped the nettle and destroyed

IMROs stronghold in the area of Pirin and captured more than 300 leaders of the IMRO and

armaments that could fully equip an infantry division.

The IMRO understood that all other ethnic groups living in Macedonia, i.e. Greeks, Jews,

Albanians, Vlachs, Turks, etc. could unconsciously be used as pawns in IMROs plans since, as

socialists, the IMRO had embraced equality and fraternity, and what was left was liberty which they

advocated. It is what the slogans Autonomous Macedonia and Macedonia for the Macedonians

were all about.62 Article I of the IMRO Constitution stated, The purpose of the Macedonian

59 Dimitar Bechev,Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow, 2009),xxx.60 L. S. Stavrianos, The Balkan Federation Movement A Neglected Aspect, The American Historical Review,48, 1 (Oct., 1942), 30-51; 35.61 Joseph S. Roucek,Balkan Politics: International Relations in No Mans Land, Westport, CT: Greenwood,1971), 157.62 Christ Anastasoff, Bulgarias National Struggles,Annals of the American Academy of Political and SocialScience, 232, A Challenge to Peacemakers (Mar., 1944), 101-106; 104.


19/26

19

Revolutionary Committee is to gain complete political autonomy for Macedonia.63 But while

equality and fraternity meant for the IMRO the Bulgarization of all Macedonian nationalities, for the

Young Turks it meant the Turkification of the same.64

IMRO-Us determination, constant political maneuvering, continuous politica l lobbying, and

unholy but suitable alliances led to the decision of the Central Committee of the Comintern to ensue,

in support of their fellow communists, the recognition of a third Slavic ethnic group in the south

Balkans in addition to the already existing Serbs and Bulgarians. Subsequently, the birth of the

Macedonian Slav nation took place on February 11, 1934.65 To that effect, Stalins understanding

of the national and colonial question, his definitions of nation and colonialism along with the political

subservience of the Socialist Workers Party of Greece (SWPG), aka, Communist Party of Greece

(CPG), were essential.66

Joseph Stalin, a Marxist, and the Bolsheviks' expert on nationhood considered that all colonies

and dependent territories have the right to separate completely from the State with which they are

connected and to form an independent State; in the same way, the possibility of territorial annexations

is ruled out.67 Per Stalin, a nation is not racial, nor is it tribal, but a historically constituted

community of people. Since nations are autonomous unions of persons regardless of their ethnic

background, ethnicity is not essentially connected with territory.68 Subsequently, the fact that

Macedonias population was ethnically heterogeneous did not matter. Stalin, in a discussion with

Vyacheslav Molotov, Edvard Kardelj, Milovan Djilas, Valeriy Zorin, admitted that the definition of

nation as it appears in his bookMarxism and the National Question, That was Ilyichs - Lenin's

view. Ilyich also edited the book."69

63 Joseph S. Roucek,Balkan Politics: International Relations in No Mans Land, Westport, CT: Greenwood,1971), 151.64 E. H. W., The Macedonian Question: A Note on the Historical Background,Bulletin of InternationalNews, 22, 12 (Jun. 9, 1945), 511.65 Dimitar Vlahov,Memoari (Skopje : Nova Makedonija, 1970), 357; Dimitar Bechev,Historical Dictionary of

the Republic of Macedonia (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow, 2009), xxx-xxxi; Hugh Poulton, Who are theMacedonians? (London: C. Hurst), 2000, 98.66 Joseph Stalin,Marxism and the National Question (Calcutta: Mass Pubications, 1975, and Joseph Stalin,Marxism and the National and Colonial Question (New York: International Publishers, 1934). EleftheriosStavridis, ... (, 1953).67 Joseph Stalin,Marxism and the National and Colonial Question (New York: International Publishers, 1934,passim).68 Joseph Stalin,Marxism and the National Question (Calcutta: Mass Pubications, 1975),passim.69 Milovan Djilas, Conversation with Stalin (New York: Harcourt, Brace& World, 1962), 156-7.


20/26

20

The separate Macedonian ethnicity that the communists saw in the beginning of the 20 th century

was faithful to Marxist theories on nationhood, as a product of the advent of capitalism to Macedonia

[sic] in the 19th century rather a primordial fact.70 Therefore, the IMRO believed that Macedonia and

Thrace ought to be aided by the communists in their effort towards independence. 71 Nikolaos

Sargologos, the representative of the SWPG, voted for the resolution that recognized the

Macedonian Slav ethnicity without the authorization of the Central Committee of the SWPG. 72

That put the Greek Communists in a very difficult position because such a vote strengthened the

Bulgarian Communist Party while it weakened the Greek. The Yugoslav delegation, realizing that

such a recognition went against the interests of their national party, voted against it. Besides,

important members of the Central Committee such as Yannis Kordatos, Thomas Apostolidis, Lefteris

Stavridis, et al. strongly disagreed with Sargologos vote.73

Sargologos, knowing the consequences, instead of returning to Athens, pocketed US$7,500 that

the Comintern gave him for his support of the SWPG and emigrated with his German wife to

Chicago, Illinois.74 Just before WWII and after the Maek- Cvetkovi Agreement, Macedonists

wanted to renegotiate the borders of their Banate by splitting their Macedonia from the rest of

Vardar Banovina while inserting the recognition of their ancient Macedonian ancestry. The

objections of the Serb classicist, Nikola Vuli, that the addition into the history of ancient

Macedonian ancestry was dishonest and deceiving, since a Slavic nation has no ancient Macedonian

Greek ancestry, were to no avail.75

It is ironic that during theMacedonian Struggle the Bulgarian komitadjis did not recognize the

Greek character of Macedonia even though it was inhabited by the descendants of Alexanders the

Great Macedonians. At the instructions of Imperial Russia and its Pan-Slavists, the Bulgarians

refused to recognize the birthright of the Macedonian Greeks to their own land. 76 Andrija Radovis

70 Dimitar Bechev,Historical Dictionary of the Republic of Macedonia (Lanham, MD: The Scarecrow, 2009),235.71 Harold Laski, Communism, (London: Cass, 1968), 218.72 Eleftherios Stavridis, ... (, 1953), 178.73 Eleftherios Stavridis, ... (, 1953), 180-183.74 Eleftherios Stavridis, ... (, 1953), 174-180.75 Ivan Katardzhiev, (After the heights of Macedonian history),Skopje 1986, 376-377.76 Nicholas Ballas ( ), (: IMXA, 1962), 47.


21/26

21

indications of the linguistic sacrifices of the Croats in the name of a South Slavic union were also

ineffective. In Radovis opinion, what theMacedonists wanted was ethnocentric and wrong.77

While Vuli built his arguments on ancient history, Radovi, a staunch unionist of Serbia and

Montenegro, based his assertion on the compromise that the Croatian Illyrian Movement

successfully advocated for the name of a united South Slavic state (Yugoslavia). The Croats had

accepted the tokavian / -ije dialect as their own language instead of the Zagreb Kajkavian, choosing

a unifying factor over a divisive one, while theMacedonists favored the opposite. 78 Later in 1944,

with the Yugoslavian Communist Party in power, theMacedonists did exactly what they had wanted

to do in 1939. The Peoples Republic of Macedonia within the Yugoslav federation was a fact.

Marxism was the basis for the establishment of Socialist Yugoslavia as interpreted by Aleksandar

Rankovic and later by Edvard Kardelj. Although Tito was blamed that created a new philosophy, he

clarified,

Titoism as a separate ideological line does not exist .... To put it as an ideology would bestupid .... it is simply that we have added nothing to Marxist-Leninist" doctrine. We have only

applied that doctrine in consonance with our situation. Since there is nothing new, there is

no new ideology. Should Titoism become an ideological line, we would become revisionists;we would have renounced Marxism. We are Marxists; I am a Marxist, and therefore I

cannot be a Titoist.79

With the exception of Greece, the outcome of WWII gave the communist parties of the Balkans

the opportunity to set the foundations of the Balkan federation, oscillating between the socialist andcommunist understanding of such federation. The difference is that in the socialist view the territories

of each country would remain the same forming a gradual rapprochement of existing communist

regimes. In the communist view, Macedonia would form a new country and the remaining territories

of each country would form a new country, theBalkan Soviet Socialist Federation. The last one

would include Greece with its borders in Thessaly.

77 Ivan Katardzhiev, (After the heights of Macedonian history),Skopje 1986, 381-382.78 What Radovi meant was that the Croats had adopted the Slavonian Ijekavian sub-dialect of the to dialectas their literary language giving up the Kaj proper dialect, which is spoken in the areas between Zagreb andHungary. Croats living in South Slovenia and western Croatia speak the south Slovenian Kaj whereas theDalmatian Ikavian is spoken in Dalmatia, northwestern Herzegovina, and central Bosnia. The a dialects (a jekav, a ikav, a - ikavo-ekavian, a ekav, to - akavian Ikavian) are spoken in Istria and the islandsof the Adriatic Sea.79 Vladimir Dedijer,Josip Broz Tito Prilozi za Biografiju (Zagreb: Kultura, 1953), 432.


22/26

22

During the Greek civil war, former members of the IMRO fought in units known as the Slavo-

Macedonian National Liberation Movement, aka SNOF, having Bulgarian commanding officers and

political commissars orpolitrukas part of the Greek communist units of ELAS-EAM.80 They were

responsible for the kidnapping of about 28,000 Greek children from all over Greece as documented in

the U.S. Congress (HR 514/1950) and the UN (UNGA Resolutions 193/1948 and 288/1949).

Upon defeat of the communist forces, the members of SNOF, while leaving Greece for

Yugoslavia, intimidated the Slavophone population telling them that when the Greek Army comes to

their area, they would kill them all. Those who believed them left with their families for Yugoslavia.

But not all the Slavophones fell for the communist trap. Those Slavophones who stayed back were

rewarded the same protection that all citizens of Greece enjoyed.

Conclusion

God helps those who help themselves. 81

One hundred years have passed since Macedonia returned to Mother Greece. The Macedonian

Struggle of Greece continues against the descendants of the komitadjis. More than one hundred years

later, the aims of the modern komitadjis are the same, to bring Macedonia under their control.

In the past, politicians and diplomats have used deceptive arguments in order to exploit

unsuspecting Clergy as their tool to their machinations at the expense of national interests. If

politicians were sure about the earnestness of their intentions, they should make their case known

directly to the Greek people. In the year 2012, the danger to Greece still does not come from Turkey,

but from the descendants of the Bulgarian komitadjis.

At present, the same countries, which in the mid 19th century created the problem known as the

Macedonian Question for their own political reasons, are offering their services to solve the problem

80 Mark Mazower, The Balkans: A short Story (Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2000), 4950.81 A wealthy Athenian sailed with others. And after severe weather struck, and after the ship was overthrowneveryone else swam trying to save themselves, the wealthy man kept praying to Athena. He was promisingmyriad things to Athena once he was saved asking for Athenas intervention. One of the shipwrecked menwent next to him and said: Along with prayers to Athena move your hands.


23/26


24/26

24

Dedijer, Vladimir,Josip Broz Tito Prilozi za Biografiju. Zagreb: Kultura, 1953.

Djilas, Milovan, Conversation with Stalin. New York: Harcourt, Brace& World, 1962.

Dvornik, Frantiek, Byzantine Missions among the Slavs: Ss. Constantine-Cyril and Methodius. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers, 1970.

E. H. W., The Macedonian Question: A Note on the Historical Background,Bulletin ofInternational News. (Jun. 9, 1945), 22-12, 511.

Gawrych, George W., The Culture and Politics of Violence in Turkish Society, 1903-14,MiddleEastern Studies, 22, 3 (Jul., 1986), 307-330; 308.

Imperial Russian Foreign Ministry, diplomatic correspondence (, ), 1903-1905 (Reforms in Macedonia 1903-1905), 71).

International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars, Report.Washington, DC: Carnegie Endowment, 1914.

Jelavich, Barbara,History of the Balkans, Twentieth Century (Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984), 2.

Karavagelis, Germanos ( ), . : ,1958.

Katardzhiev, Ivan, (On the heights of Macedonianhistory), Skopje 1986.

Kirov-Majski, Nikola,Ilinden. Sofia, 1923.

Kirov-Majski, Nikola, (Krushovo and its battle for freedom).: , 1935.

Lampe, John and Mark Mazower,Ideologies and National Identities: The Case of Twentieth-CenturySoutheastern Europe. New York: CEU Press, 2004.

Laski, Harold, Communism. London: Cass, 1968.

Lazarov, Ivan and others, (Short History of the Bulgariannation). , 1993.

Mazower, Mark, The Balkans: A short Story. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 2000.

Miller, William, The Ottoman Empire, 1801-1913. Charleston, S.C.: BiblioLife, 2009.

Misirkov, Krste P., On Macedonian Matters. Skopje, 1974.


25/26

25

Naltsas, Christopher ( ), .: IMXA, 1958.

Onou, Alexander, The Memoirs of Count N. Ignatyev: II, The Slavonic and East European Review,10, 30; Apr., 1932.

Papazoglu, Fanula, The Central Balkan Tribes in Pre-Roman Times, English Edition. Amsterdam:Hakkert, 1978.

Papazoglu, Fanula, (Macedonian Cities in Roman Times).Skopje: iva Antika, 1957.

Porphyrogennitus, Constantine,De Administrando Imperio, ed. R.J.H. Jenkins. Washington, DC:Dumbarton Oaks, 1967.

Poulton, Hugh, Who are the Macedonians? London: C. Hurst, 2000.

Roucek, Joseph S., Balkan Politics: International Relations in No Mans Land, Westport, CT:Greenwood, 1971.

Stalin, Joseph,Marxism and the National and Colonial Question. New York: International Publishers,1934.

Stalin, Joseph,Marxism and the National Question. Calcutta: Mass Publications, 1975.

Stavrianos, L. S. The Balkans 1815-1914. Chicago: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1963.

Stavrianos, L. S., The Balkan Federation Movement A Neglected Aspect, The American HistoricalReview (Oct., 1942), 48, 1.

Stavridis, Eleftherios, ... , 1953.

Sumner, B. H., Ignatyev at Constantinople: II, The Slavonic and East European Review, 11, 33(Apr., 1933), 556-571; 566.

Sumner, B. H., Ignatyev at Constantinople: II, The Slavonic and East European Review, 11, 33;Apr., 1933.

Tihomir R. DjordjeviMacedonia. New York: McMillan, 1918.

Tout, Thomas Frederick,An Advanced History of Great Britain. New York: Longmans, Green, 1920.

Vlahov, Dimitar,Memoari. Skopje: Nova Makedonija, 1970.

Yosmaolu, pek K., Counting Bodies, Shaping Souls: The 1903 Census and Nat ional Identity inOttoman Macedonia,International Journal of Middle East Studies, (Feb, 2006), 38.


26/26

26

a BIOGRAPHICAL STATEMENT

Marcus Alexander Templar is a former codebreaker and Principal Subject Matter Expert inIntelligence Analysis. During his military career, he has supported intelligence operations on anational level, and served as instructor in a number of U.S. Intelligence Schools.

His academic research includes the political ideology of Bulgarian intellectuals after theCommune of Paris and the effect of their ideology to the establishment, development, and activities ofthe Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization aka VMRO. The research also examines theorganizations activities in order to create a communist regime of Bulgarians in Macedonia at least 20years before the founding of the USSR.

More specifically, his work analyzes the relationship and interaction among members and factionsof the organization with contemporary political, pan-Slavic movements and governments, as well as

the organizations political and terrorist activities. Academically, he is intrinsically interested inmatters of national security, public governmental policy, and strategy.He holds a BA from Western Illinois University in the social sciences and humanities (Macomb,

Illinois ), Master's degree from Northeastern Illinois University in Human Resource Development(Chicago , Illinois ) and a second Masters in Strategic Intelligence from the National IntelligenceUniversity (Washington, DC) specializing in the southern Balkans and Turkey. He is member of theGreek Politics Specialist Group (GPSG) of the UKs Political Studies Association (PSA).

b , [28] 1912.

, , ,

, , .

. , , . , . , , , , .

, , , , , , .

21.

0. Macedonia, The Lung of Greece Fighting an Uphill Battle_A (1)

Documents

Transcript of 0. Macedonia, The Lung of Greece Fighting an Uphill Battle_A (1)