Macedonia and the First Balkan War (Part 1)
In addition, a full bibliography of texts referenced in the series appears under each installment.
Famed revolutionaries Gjorche Petrov, Nikola Maleshevski, and Goce Delchev (MyMacedonia).Introduction: Origins and Background of the First Balkan War
The First Balkan War began on October 8, 1912 when Montenegro declared war on Ottoman Turkey. Ten days later, Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece, the other members of the Balkan League, then followed Montenegro in declaring war against Turkey. The First Balkan War was fought to decide the fate of Macedonia, which was then part of the Ottoman Empire, Turkey in Europe.
The origins and background of the First Balkan War could be found in the 1878 Congress of Berlin and the events that followed the Treaty of Berlin. One of the major outcomes of the Treaty of Berlin was that the status of Macedonia remained unresolved; the Great Powers allowed Turkey to retain Macedonia. Following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78, Macedonia was incorporated in Bulgaria under the Treaty of San Stefano, the peace treaty held in a suburb of Constantinople that ended the war. Britain, Austria-Hungary, and Germany feared that an enlarged Bulgarian state would unduly benefit Russia and alter the status quo in Eastern Europe. What was proposed was a new treaty, negotiated at the Congress of Berlin in 1878.
Under the Treaty of Berlin, Macedonia was retained by Turkey, resulting in a smaller and truncated Bulgarian state split into two sections. Northern Bulgaria would have autonomy within the Ottoman Empire. Southern Bulgaria, or Eastern Rumelia, would become semi-autonomous. The goal of Britain, Germany, and Austria-Hungary was to prevent the expansion of Russian influence in Eastern Europe. The way to achieve this was by preventing the emergence of an independent and united Bulgaria, Greater Bulgaria. Under the Treaty of Berlin, Bulgaria was divided into an autonomous principality north of the Balkan Mountains and a southern semi-autonomous region of Eastern Rumelia. The Treaty of Constantinople in 1881 forced Turkey to cede Thessaly and the Arta region in Epirus to Greece. The Macedonia territorial issue, however, thus remained unresolved. Both Serbia and Bulgaria sought to annex Macedonia. In 1885, a war between Serbia and Bulgaria was fought when Bulgaria occupied and annexed Eastern Rumelia, or southern Bulgaria, which contained the second largest Bulgarian city of Plovdiv. King Milan saw this move as upsetting the Balkan balance of power so he demanded compensation to Serbia. Serbia declared war on Bulgaria and invaded on November 13, 1885. Serbian forces, however, were routed by the Bulgarian army and were driven back into Serbia. Austria-Hungary subsequently intervened and arranged negotiations to end the conflict. The Treaty of Bucharest in 1886 ended the war and endorsed and ratified the annexation of Eastern Rumelia. Three Macedonian battalions in the Bulgarian army participated in the conflict.
The territory of present-day Macedonia was under the Ottoman Turkish Empire for over five hundred years, half a millennium. During much of this period a national identity was dormant and inchoate. But with the emergence of nationalism and the independence movements in Europe, following the Serbian Revolution or Uprising of 1804 and the Bosnian Serb revolution or insurgency of 1875, nationalism emerged as the defining movement in the Balkans.
In Macedonia, five major indigenous nationalist movements emerged. A Macedonian national/ethnic/linguistic identification emerged whose slogan was “Macedonia for the Macedonians.” The Macedonians sought a separate ethnic/national/linguistic identity that was distinct from the Serbian and Bulgarian identification. The Macedonian language, culture, and political and national/ethnic identity overlapped with the Bulgarian and Serbian. Moreover, there were Serbian and Bulgarian populations in Macedonia. Serbia sought to protect this Serbian population and to maintain a Serbian linguistic, religious, cultural, and national identity in Macedonia. To further this end, Serbian schools, institutions, aid organizations, and even guerrilla groups, were set up in Macedonia.
Bulgaria sought to protect the Bulgarian population by likewise setting up competing Bulgarian schools, institutions, religious organizations, and guerrillas or paramilitary forces. A fourth movement emerged after the League of Prizren in Kosovo, a Greater or Ethnic Albania nationalist movement which sought to unite all Albanian inhabited areas in the Balkans, including western Macedonia, or Illirida, Kosovo-Metohija, or Kosova, the Presevo-Bujanovac-Medvedja area of Southern Serbia, northern Greece, or Chameria, and areas of Montenegro. A fifth nationalist movement emanated from Romania that sought to incorporate the Vlach or Romanian population of Macedonia. The five rival nationalist/ethnic/political movements in Macedonia—Macedonian, Serbian, Bulgarian, Albanian, and Romanian—were antagonistic and conflicted with each other.
The conflict between the Serbian and Bulgarian populations in Macedonia was the most acute. Both Bulgaria and Serbia sent schoolteachers, priests, bishops, and armed guerrilla groups into Macedonia. There was thus a tug of war over Macedonia between Serbia and Bulgaria as both sought territorial expansion in the region.
British writer Herbert Vivian visited Macedonia and Serbia in 1903 and reported about the crises regions of Macedonia in the chapter “Rambles in Macedonia” from his book The Servian Tragedy with Some Impressions of Macedonia. Vivian traveled to Skopje and to Tetovo and personally observed events there. Macedonia was a politically unstable region at the beginning of the twentieth century. Vivian described Macedonia as follows:
“…the French appropriately use the same word, Macedoine, for a holocaust of sodden fruit and for that Turkish province which remains the last cock-pit of Europe. As we have seen, nearly all the Powers, great and small, covet Macedonia, and there seems every probability of serious disturbances being renewed there before long.”
Macedonia had a reputation for ethnic turmoil, kidnappings, and murders. Vivian noted: “To judge by the papers, you may only visit Macedonia if you are content to carry your life in your hand.”#65533; He described the basis for the turmoil as follows: “If the Albanians could be kept in order and Bulgarian anarchism could be suppressed, there would be no grievances in Macedonia today. The Albanians are turbulent sportsmen, engaging as individuals but intolerable as neighbours. They must be made to understand that no further nonsense will be permitted. The Porte would be quite capable of reducing them to order if they had not a powerful protector at hand.” He saw the Albanian population as the most unstable: “For the Albanians…who are the most turbulent persons in the region.”
Vivian described Skopje in 1903 as follows: “Uskub—dreamy Uskub—the capital of Old Servia and of the vilayet of Kosovo, is a far less busy, practical place, but entirely idyllic.”
By 1895, hundreds of schools were set up in Macedonia advancing Serbian, Greek, and Bulgarian claims in Macedonia organized by such groups as the Bulgarian National Committee, the Greek Association of Hellenistic Letters, and the Serbian Society of Saint Sava. Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria all had irredentist and nationalist claims to Macedonia. All three nations had guerrilla groups in Macedonia as well who fought against each other and against the Ottoman Turkish forces and police.
All three countries sought territorial expansion in Macedonian, basing their claims on ethnicity, history, culture, and geopolitical considerations. Moreover, there was an indigenous Macedonian nationalist movement that sought an autonomous “Macedonia for the Macedonians” within the Ottoman Empire. Albania and Romania had claims on Macedonia as well. Also not to be overlooked is the fact that Macedonia had a large Turkish population, who regarded Macedonia as part of Turkey in Europe. In 1912, Macedonia was part of Turkey. If Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece were to address and resolve their rival claims to Macedonia, they first had to confront the Ottoman Empire. This is what led to the First Balkan War as Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece suppressed their mutually antagonistic claims in Macedonia and united in a military alliance against Ottoman Turkey to gain control of Macedonia.
Nikola Karev, president of the short-lived Krushevo Republic (MyMacedonia).
Macedonia and the Eastern Question
The First Balkan War was essentially fought over Macedonia. Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece focused their political agendas on territorial expansion there. All three nations had conflicting, overlapping, and mutually exclusive claims; in addition, the indigenous Macedonian autonomy movement conflicted with the irredentist agendas of Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece. What all recognized, however, was that Turkey had to be first militarily defeated before any of their goals could be realized. It was this realization that led, first, to the creation of the Balkan League, and, second, to the First Balkan War. It was the need to expel Turkey that united Serbia, Bulgaria, Greece, and the Macedonian population. Nothing was possible in Macedonia as long as it was part of Ottoman Turkey. They also realized that only if they united could they defeat Turkey militarily. The major antagonists over Macedonia were Serbia and Bulgaria. If they could agree to a political and military alliance, then Greece and Montenegro could be easily induced to join the alliance. But Serbia and Bulgaria remained the essential actors in the First Balkan War. It was the Serbian-Bulgarian alliance that made military victory possible over Ottoman Turkey.
Jacob Schurman in The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913 (1914) explained how ethnicity and geography drew Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece into conflict over Macedonia:
“…what was the occasion of the war between Turkey and the Balkan States in 1912? The most general answer that can be given to that question is contained in the one word Macedonia. Geographically Macedonia lies between Greece, Servia, and Bulgaria. Ethnographically it is an extension of their races. And if, as Matthew Arnold declared, the primary impulse both of individuals and of nations is the tendency to expansion, Macedonia both in virtue of its location and its population was foreordained to be a magnet to the emancipated Christian nations of the Balkans…. Hence the Macedonian question was the quintessence of the Near Eastern Question.”
Macedonia was the central focus of the Eastern Question. Herbert Gibbons noted that “the very heart of the Eastern Question” was “the rivalry of races in Macedonia.” The Great Powers “played a game against each other, endeavoring always to use the Balkan states as pawns in their sordid strife.” What was unique about the First Balkan War was that the tables were now turned. The Balkan states had realized that the strategy the Great Powers used to keep them subservient and weak was ‘divide and conquer.’ If they could put aside their differences and unite, they could be an independent political actor, deciding their own political fate. What had allowed the Ottoman Turkish Empire to invade, defeat and occupy the Balkan states in previous centuries was the disunity and dissension among the Christian populations of the Balkans.
The Turkic peoples, on the other hand, were united and thus possessed overwhelming superiority in numbers. This allowed them to pick off and defeat each of the Balkan states one by one. What was different and unique in 1912 was that the Balkan states were united like the Turkic peoples had been earlier. All four Balkan League states were Orthodox Christian and Montenegro, Serbia, and Bulgaria were Slavic. What allowed the Balkan League to defeat the Ottoman Turkish Empire in 1912 was their unity. The Balkan League was able to muster 750,000 troops. They not only defeated the Ottoman forces militarily on the battlefields, but were poised to take Constantinople and all of Turkey itself. It was only the intervention of the Great Powers that prevented the fall of Constantinople.
Russia had originally fostered the creation of the Balkan League ostensibly as a counterweight to Austro-Hungarian influence and penetration into the Balkans. But the Balkan states were able to use the alliance to resolve the Macedonian issue and to expel the Ottoman Empire from Eastern Europe. What issue united the Balkan states? Dennis P. Hupchick in The Balkans from Constantinople to Communism explained that Macedonia was what the First Balkan War was fought over: “There was no doubt that the First Balkan War was fought primarily to decide Macedonia’s ultimate fate.” Serbia, Bulgaria, and Greece were united in their determination to expel the Turkish forces from Macedonia and to resolve their territorial disputes over the region.
Philip Gibbs and Bernard Grant in Adventures of War: With Cross and Crescent (1912), noted that Macedonia was the subject of the conflict: “Macedonia, that vague and troublesome territory which for generations has been the theatre of guerrilla warfare, of vendettas, of massacres and murders between Christians and Turks, was to be the cause of quarrel. The liberation of Macedonia from Turkish rule was the watchword adopted by the rulers of the Balkan States to give righteousness to their cause, and to gain the sympathy of other Christian peoples.” Gibbs and Grant concluded that Serbia, Bulgaria, Montenegro, and Greece had self-interested motives in Macedonia.
The Balkan League
In April, 1911, the Greek prime minister, Eleftherios Venizelos, sent a note to Sofia through private channels requesting that Bulgaria and Greece enter an understanding to establish a joint defense of the Christian population in Macedonia. The Bulgarian prime minister, Ivan Gueshov, was at first reluctant but Turkish atrocities and harsh measures in Macedonia and the failure on the part of Turkey to join up the Bulgarian and Turkish railways as agreed upon forced him to change his mind. The Italo-Turkish War also galvanized support for a conflict with Turkey. On March 13, 1912, the Serbian-Bulgarian treaty was signed by Ivan Gueshov and Serbian prime minister Milovan Milovanovic and by King Peter of Serbia and King Ferdinand of Bulgaria. On May 29, 1912, a treaty between Greece and Bulgaria followed. In late September, a treaty between Montenegro and Bulgaria was signed. On October 6, Montenegro and Serbia signed a treaty that established the four states of the Balkan League.
The Serbian-Bulgarian treaty of March 13, 1913 consisted of two parts, a defensive alliance and a secret annex. In the first part of the agreement, Bulgaria and Serbia agreed to “succor one another with their entire forces in the event of one of them being attacked by one or more States.” The second part of the agreement contained a secret annex that covered the territorial division of Macedonia.
Under the secret annex, Serbia was to receive outright all territory north and west of the Shar Mountains, while Bulgaria was to receive all territory east of the Rhodope Mountains and the Struma River. If no agreement could be reached on organizing the rest of the territory in Macedonia into an autonomous province, then Bulgaria was to receive undisputed possession of all land running from Mt. Golem on the Bulgarian border to Lake Ohrid. The land between this line and the boundary of Serbian-controlled land at the Shar Mountains was deemed a “contested zone”, a demarcation line which the Russian Tsar should determine or delineate as the arbiter.
(King Peter of Serbia)
The Balkan League and the Rise of the Young Turks Movement
The Balkan Result was the result of the failure of the Treaty of San Stefano and the Treaty of Berlin to resolve the issue of Macedonia. Serbia and Bulgaria resolved to solve the Macedonia issue on their own. Will Monroe explained the failure of the Treaty of Berlin: “The treaty of Berlin gave Macedonia back to the Turks.” The Turkish administration in Macedonia maintained the status quo and did not initiate reforms: “The reforms promised to the Macedonians by the treaty of Berlin never materialized.” The policy of the Ottoman Turkish administration was one of divide and conquer, divide et impera, according to Monroe. Turkish Sultan Abdul-Hamid sought to prevent the emergence of a Macedonian national identity or consciousness: “Throughout the reign of Abdul-Hamid (1876-1909) the use of the word Macedonia was forbidden.” The Turkish province of Macedonia was divided into three administrative districts or vilayets—-Monastir/Bitola, Skopje/Uskub, and Salonika/Thessaloniki.
There were three major Macedonian uprisings against the Ottoman Turkish regime following the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-78: 1) The Razlovci Uprising of May, 1876; 2) The Kresna Uprising of October, 1878; and, 3) The Ilinden Uprising of August, 1903. On August 2, 1903 (July 20 in the Old Calendar), the Ilinden-Preobrazhensko Uprising was launched on the Orthodox Feast of St. Ilija’s (or Elias), whose goal was to obtain autonomy for Macedonia.
The Central Committee of the IMRO (Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization) proclaimed the rebellion as follows: “The unrestrained violence of the Mohammedans and the systematic oppression by the authorities have driven the Christian population of Macedonia and Thrace to resort to armed self-defense…. We call on the rest of Europe to intervene by way of negotiations in order to resolve the status of the population of Macedonia and Thrace…” The general staff of IMRO declared: “We are taking up arms against tyranny and inhumanity, we are fighting for freedom and humanity.” The Turks deployed 175,000 troops to quell the uprising. The ratio of Macedonian to Turkish forces was 1 to 13- all in all, 26,000 Macedonians to 351,000 Turks. At the start of the insurgency, the Krushevo Republic was established, which lasted for ten days. Led and organized by Nikola Karev, the Macedonian insurgents were able to establish a civil administration in the Krushevo district.
According to the Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Effects of the Balkan Wars, published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington, D.C., in 1914, “there were a thousand deaths and, in the final result, 200 villages ruined by Turkish vengeance, 12,000 houses burned, 3,000 women outraged, 4,700 inhabitants slain and 71,000 without a roof.” Russia and Austria devised and supervised reform measures in Macedonia following the devastation of the uprising.
A consequence of the uprising was the Muerzsteg Agreement of September 30, 1903 between Russia and Austria-Hungary which forced Turkey to implement reforms in Macedonia, including the reorganization of the Turkish police under the guidance and supervision of foreign military and police personnel. Turkey reluctantly accepted foreign intervention and interference in Macedonia. Yet foreign intervention in Macedonia did not resolve the underlying problems.
On July 28, 1908, the Young Turk Movement under Ismail Enver Pasha, Ahmet Cemal Pasha, and Mehmet Talat Pasha seized power in Turkey and formed the Committee of Union and Progress (CUP, Ittihad ve Terakki Jemiyeti). “Ottomanization” and assimilation of the population of Macedonia were the goals: “Sooner or later the complete Ottomanisation of all Turkish subjects must be effected, but it was becoming clear this could never be achieved by persuasion, and recourse must be had to force of arms.” The CUP held a congress in 1910 in Salonika at which it was declared that Turkey is “essentially a Muslim country…All other religious propaganda must be suppressed.” In 1909, 20-30,000 Armenian Christians were massacred in Cilicia in southern Turkey. Following the annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina in 1908 by Austria-Hungary in violation of the Treaty of Berlin, Bosnian Muslim and Turkish refugees from Bosnia, mohadjirs, resettled in Macedonia. The Macedonian population opposed the resettlement of Muslims in Macedonia because it represented a policy of “Turkicizing” Macedonia, changing the ethnic and religious balance: “The policy of Turkicizing Macedonia by means of systematic colonization, carried out by the mohadjirs—emigrants, Moslems from Bosnia and Herzegovina.”
The weakening of the IMRO in 1904 allowed Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Romania to pour guerrillas into Macedonia. In 1907, there were 110 Bulgarian, 80 Greek, 30 Serbian, and 8 Romanian guerrilla groups operating in Macedonia. There were Albanian rebellions from 1909 to 1912. In August, 1912, 15,000 Albanian guerrillas led by Hasan Prishtina and Ismail Kemal seized Skopje. The Albanian insurgents sought to have the Kosovo and Monastir/Bitola vilayets merged to form an autonomous Albanian area, a Greater Albania.
The Albanian, Bosnian Muslim, and Turkish immigrants to Macedonia were blamed for committing massacres in Macedonia: “In Macedonia, the muhadjirs, in conjunction with the Albanian Moslem immigrants, were responsible for the succession of massacres in 1912, such as those of Ishtip and Kotchana, which helped bring about the Balkan alliance.”
In 1912, approximately 800,000 Muslims lived in Macedonia, or one third of the population. There was a large Turkish population in Macedonia, as well as Bosnian Muslims immigrants from Bosnia-Hercegovina, who had resettled in Macedonia from Bosnia when Austria-Hungary occupied Bosnia in 1878 following the Congress of Berlin and in 1908 when Austria-Hungary annexed Bosnia.
In The Balkan Wars, 1912-1913 (1914), Jacob Schurman recounted alleged Turkish atrocities against the Macedonian population: “In one district alone 100 villages were burned, over 8,000 houses destroyed, and 60,000 peasants left without homes.” Reports of alleged Muslim Turkish atrocities against Christian Macedonians galvanized popular support in the US and Western Europe for the Macedonian population. Invariably, the propaganda or public relations value of the atrocities worked against Ottoman Turkey. Schurman maintained that the Muslim Turks showed “unutterable incapacity to govern their Christian subjects” and for this reason “forfeited their sovereign rights in Europe.” The massacres in Kotchana and Berane inflamed Slavs and Christians in general in the Balkans and galvanized public opinion against the Ottoman Turkish administration. The centralizing and “Ottomanization” policies of the Young Turks thus backfired and resulted in ever greater resistance and tension in Macedonia.
The Balkan League emerged because the Young Turks wanted to enforce a centralized authority and to retain Turkish control in Macedonia. The League was also a reaction to the annexation of Bosnia-Hercegovina by Austria-Hungary in 1908, in clear violation of the Treaty of Berlin. The Balkan states also perceived that Turkey was militarily in crisis due to the September 1911 Italo-Turkish war in Libya. In it, Italy attacked Tripoli, the capital of the Ottoman Turkish vilayet in North Africa and the Dodecanese Islands.
The French premier, Raymond Poincare, saw Russia as the main instigator of the First Balkan War: “[I]t is too late to wipe out the movement which she [Russia] has called forth… she is trying to put on the brakes, but it is she who started the motor.” Russian policy was motivated ostensibly by a goal to create a counterweight against Austria-Hungary in the Balkan Peninsula. But the Balkan states themselves were motivated ultimately by the desire to expel Turkey from Macedonia and Thrace.
Leon Trotsky also saw the machinations of the Great Powers in the emergence of the First Balkan War: “The Great Powers—in the first place, Russia and Austria—have always had a direct interest in setting the Balkan people and states against each other and then, when they have weakened one another, subjecting them to their economic and political influence.”
The precursors to the 1912 Serbian-Bulgarian agreement were the Serbian and Bulgarian agreements of 1904 and 1911. The first Bulgarian memorandum was drawn up in 1911 laying out the Bulgarian conditions: “The renewal of the treaty of 1904, mutatis mutandis: instead of reforms we shall ask for autonomy; if that should prove impossible we shall divide Macedonia.” Bulgarian diplomat Dimitar Rizov was the leader of the Macedonians and was one of the first persons to discuss the question with Gueshov. Rizov was born in Bitola/Monastir and later became the Bulgarian ambassador to Italy. He recalled: “There were several grammar-schools in Bitola: Turkish, Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian. It was all the same to us.” He attended a Serbian grammar-school in Bitola but regarded himself as Macedonian.
Nicholas Hartwig, the Russian Minister in Belgrade “gave most of the credit for the Bulgarian initiative to Rizov, one of the leaders of the Macedonians. King Ferdinand in order to please Austria has always opposed [a treaty with Serbia], and the Bulgarian government out of fear of the revenge of the Macedonian Committee could never reach the decision to make tangible concessions to Serbia in Macedonia. Rizov has now agreed to undertake the responsibility before the Committee and to bring his influence to bear on them.”
(Bulgaria’s King Ferdinand)
Russian diplomacy and foreign policy concentrated on forging a Serbian-Bulgarian alliance. Sergei Sazonov, the Russian foreign minister, instructed Russian ministers Nicholas Hartwig in Belgrade and Anatol Nekliudov in Sofia to encourage Serbia and Bulgaria to establish closer diplomatic relations. The Russian objective was to counter Austro-Hungarian influence in the Balkans. The Serbian-Bulgarian treaty resulted, however, in war with Ottoman Turkey.
Part 3 of this series will appear tomorrow.
Bibliography
Bogicevic, Milos, Causes of the War; an examination into the causes of the European war, with special reference to Russia and Serbia(Amsterdam: Langenhuysen, 1919)
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Report of the International Commission to Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars (Washington, D.C.: The Endowment, 1914)
Erickson, Edward J., Defeat in Detail: The Ottoman Army in the Balkans, 1912-1913 (Westport, CT: Praeger, 2003)
The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) was established in Salonika on October 23, 1893 by Ivan Nikolov, Anton Dimitrov, Hristo Tatarchev, Petar Arsov, Hristo Batandziev, and Damian Gruev with the motto “Macedonia for the Macedonians”. Initially, IMRO was known as the Secret Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (TMORO). Their goal was autonomy for Macedonia. They sought to force the Ottoman regime to implement Article 23 of the Treaty of Berlin which mandated a series of administrative and electoral reforms as well as self-government in Macedonia. Their fear was that Macedonia would join Bulgaria as Eastern Rumelia had done in 1885. The Serbs opposed autonomy in the March 1912 Serbian-Bulgarian alliance treaty, but left the final resolution of the issue open-ended and contingent.
In 1903, the IMRO launched the Ilinden Uprising, a failed attempt to achieve autonomy for Macedonia. The Muerzsteg Programme reforms resulted, imposed by Russia and Austria-Hungary. The IMRO had been conducting guerrilla warfare in Macedonia since its founding in 1893, with the goal being to force anti-Turkish intervention by the Great Powers. Armed groups known as chetas were created which consisted of fifteen to fifty men. These groups were known as chetniks, komitas, and komitadjis (men of the committee), who were commanded by a voivoda. Schools were established to train guerrillas by Georgi Ivanov, under the pseudonym Marko Lerinski, a veteran of the Serbo-Bulgarian War of 1885. Goce Delchev, a member of the central committee of IMRO, was the military inspector. In 1894, the rival Bulgarian Supreme Committee was established by Macedonian expatriates in Sofia which sought to incorporate Macedonia in Bulgaria.
Widespread guerrilla activity in Macedonia continued into the twentieth century. One result was the “Miss Stone Affair”, a kidnapping of a US citizen that created an international crisis. On September 3, 1901, Ellen M. Stone, an American evangelical missionary from Chelsea, Massachusetts, was abducted by Macedonian guerrillas, along with her chaperone, Katarina Stefanova Tsilka, who was pregnant at the time. Tsilka gave birth while held by the guerrillas. They were kidnapped by 20 fighters affiliated with the IMRO led by Jane Sandanski and Hristo Chernopeev. The guerrillas requested a ransom of 25,000 Turkish lira, or $110,000. However, the hostages were released in March 1902 after a smaller ransom was paid. They had been abducted to gain wider attention for the Macedonian cause, to gain funds to purchase weapons, and to put pressure on the Turkish regime to grant Macedonia autonomy. Former captive Tsilka later raised funds for the Macedonian guerrillas in the US.
Turkish reprisals for guerrilla attacks in Macedonia helped galvanize public support for the First Balkan War. On December 11, 1911, a bomb exploded in a mosque in Shtip in the Sandzak/Sanjak of Uskub/Skopje, wounding several Muslims. The Turks retaliated by attacking Macedonians, killing 25 and wounding 169. On August 1, 1912, bombs were set off in the bazaar of Kotchana, where two Macedonians and two Turks were killed. A “general massacre” followed in which 150 were reported killed and 250 were wounded. Subsequently, 80 Macedonians “in the interval” were killed at Krushevo in the Sandzak/Sanjak of Monastir/Bitola. Macedonians fled as refugees to Bulgaria where they would have political clout and impact.
Ernst Helmreich in The Diplomacy of the Balkan Wars, 1912-1913 argued that the IMRO “…contributed substantially to the sequence of events which brought about the Balkan War.” And, according to him, the IMRO “…was instrumental in bringing about the Balkan League.”
Bulgarian Prime Minister Ivan E. Gueshov, using the example of the Italian Risorgimento, sought to resolve the crisis through state action, by Bulgarian intervention: “Deeply convinced that the Macedonian question ought to be taken out of the hands of the Macedonian Revolutionary Committee as Cavour took the question of Italian unity out of the hands of the Italian revolutionists, I hastened to open negotiations.”
It was the policy of the IMRO to force the Bulgarian government to make an agreement with Serbia, according to K. Stanishev. Serbia, however, was against autonomy for Macedonia. In the 1912 agreement, Belgrade and Sofia secretly divided the territory of Macedonia without consulting the Macedonians.
Dimitar Rizov was willing to shoulder “the entire responsibility before the Macedonian public opinion for the territorial concessions… made to Serbia.” But he insisted on a clause covering autonomy as he told Milovan Milovanovic, the Serbian foreign minister on October, 1912: “I need hardly tell you that no Bulgarian government will venture, even if it felt so disposed, to conclude with Serbia an understanding which does not provide for Macedonian autonomy.” Serbs and Greeks did not favor autonomy but Gueshov got clauses inserted which vaguely covered the principle of autonomy because the Macedonians demanded it.
The IMRO secondly brought about the First Balkan War by arousing public opinion and bringing pressure on the Bulgarian government to sponsor an “active solution” of the Macedonian problem. Terroristic activity in Macedonia provoked a Turkish response but also brought attention to the plight of Macedonians. Protest meetings were organized after such events. The Kotchana bombing in 1912 and the subsequent reprisals by Turkish forces resulted in meetings in Bulgaria, calling upon the country to declare war against Turkey. “The Revolutionary Organization was the backbone of the war party in Bulgaria and did everything in its power to force the opening of hostilities.” There were “many recent Macedonian immigrants” in Bulgaria. Only after the signing of the decree of mobilization on October 30, 1912 did a meeting between the Bulgarian government and the IMRO take place. Macedonians volunteered to fight in the First Balkan War as part of the Bulgarian armed forces, but were organized within the Macedonian Legion.
King Nicholas of Montenegro inspecting the troops with Serbian Crown Prince Alexander
The Macedonian Legion
For the Macedonian population, the First Balkan War was fought to obtain autonomy for Macedonia, even though both Serbia and Bulgaria sought to advance their own national agendas in Macedonia at the expense of the Macedonian population. The Macedonian people too understood that before they could resolve the issue of autonomy, the Ottoman Turkish forces would have to be defeated militarily. Pursuant to this goal, the Macedonians volunteered to fight on the side of the Balkan League states against Turkey. Macedonians formed two divisions in the Macedonia-Thracian Volunteer Corps, known as the Macedonian Legion.
The IMRO had requested money and supplies, and also offered volunteers to the Bulgarian government. Colonels Protoguerov and Durvingov, Bulgarian officers born in Macedonia, were given funds and arms to organize small groups. New bands were formed, joining the 35 bands already operating in Macedonia, hindering Turkish troop concentrations and mobilization and spying for the Bulgarian forces: “In fact, a whole volunteer corps, a veritable legion, was formed.” There were 30,000 Macedonians incorporated directly into the Bulgarian army. The Macedonian Legion, or also known as the Macedonian-Thracian Volunteer Corps, was formed, made up of 14,670 men divided in 12 battalions. It operated in the Rhodope Mountains and the western Thrace region, and was to maintain contact with the Serbian forces in Macedonia. The Macedonian Legion was to operate with the 7th Rila Infantry Division and the Second Thracian Infantry Division.
Three Bulgarian armies invaded Thrace on October 18, 1912. The engagements between Turkey and Bulgaria during the First Balkan War involved the most men and resources/materiel and were the most intense. The Bulgarian Second Army surrounded Adrianople which had a Turkish garrison of 45,000 troops. The First and Third Armies captured Kirk Kilissa on October 24. The Battle of Lule Burgas was the largest military engagement of the First Balkan War. For four days the Bulgarian forces launched an attack to outflank the left wing of the Turkish forces. On October 31, Abdullah Pasha, the commander of the Eastern Army, ordered a retreat to the Chatalja lines, the outer defenses of Constantinople.
Serbian guerrilla and paramilitary groups were also active in anti-Turkish activities in Macedonia.
Macedonian revolutionaries such as Misel Gerdzhikov and Georgy Petrov were active participants in the First Balkan War. Correspondent Leon Trotsky wrote for the Kiev newspaper, Kievskaya Mysl, No. 293 for October 22, 1912, noting the participation of Macedonian revolutionaries in the First Balkan War: “The war has absorbed the Macedonian revolutionary into itself. It has dispatched the ‘anarchist’ Gerdzhikov to cut telegraph lines, and entrusted the old plotter Georgy Petrov with running the supply services of the Macedonian Legion.” Trotsky interviewed Khristo Matov who stated that “the massacres at Stip and Kocani, which were, indeed, what gave the final push to starting the present war.”
The Serbs and Greeks did not have a counterpart to the Macedonian Legion. The Serbian Narodna Odbrana (Serbian National Defense) did, however, have branches in Macedonia.
The Macedonian Legion fought at Malko Trnovo and at Kirjali. It was accused of committing atrocities during the war. There were Armenian troops in the Macedonian Legion who sought revenge for Turkish and k*rdish Muslim massacres against Christian Armenians.
Leon Trotsky described the Macedonian Legion at the outbreak of the First Balkan War: “At the start of the war the weather was splendid and hopes were high, the streets were still filled with marching units of reservists, Macedonians, and volunteers, with martial music, singing and thunderous shouts of ‘Hurrah!’…The last vestiges of the army reserve went off to the front, together with the Macedonian Legion and its Armenian unit; there passed through on their way to Adrianople the divisions sent by Serbia—volunteers without floral decorations, wearing caps with red tops… In the streets we saw fewer and fewer correspondents and more and more wounded men discharged from the hospitals.”
The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace’s Report contained eyewitness accounts and interviews from the conflict. Lieutenant R. Wadham Fisher was an English volunteer with the Fifth Battalion of the Macedonian Legion. He explained the circumstances of an alleged massacre which occurred at Dede-Agatch:
“…a sharp fight took place outside the town between the legion and the army of Javer Pacha, wherever the Turkish villages showed the white flag, our troops were forbidden to march through them. Our men had been much inflamed by reports of outrages committed by Turks on Bulgarians near Gumurjina. We entered Dede-Agatch under fire towards 9 p.m. after marching and fighting all day. Javer Pacha insisted on withdrawing into the town and we were obliged to pursue him. Bullets were still whistling through the streets, but the local Greeks came out to show us where the Turkish soldiers were posted. The Greeks feared a massacre and regarded our coming as their salvation.
I saw something of the search for arms; no one was harmed. At 11 p.m. we received an order to withdraw from the town, and to march to a village twenty-five kilometers away. Some 150 men were left in the town, either because the order did not reach them or because they were too exhausted to obey it. No officer was among them, and they were organized by a private soldier, Stefan Boichev, a contractor of Widin. The Greek bishop afterwards stated that Stefan Boichev had done good service in reestablishing order. On November 19 the lower class Greeks and the soldiers began to pillage the town together. A certain number of the local Turks were undoubtedly killed. These excesses must be explained by the absence of any officers.”
The Bulgarian mayor of Deda-Agatch, Boris Monchev, confirmed Fisher’s account. Monchev believed not more than 20 Turks were killed and he insisted that the local Armenian porters (hamels) played the chief role in the disturbances. There were 8,000 Turkish refugees in the town, of whom all the men were armed and had taken part in the fight outside the town from 7-9 p.m. The mayor and the Greek bishop sought to maintain order in the town by setting up a commission. Monchev described the role of the Macedonian Legion: “The 142 Macedonian volunteers obeyed their orders. The Bulgarian army returned to the town six days later, November 25, and order was fully restored.”
The Ottoman ruler Mehmet V
The Carnegie Report described the role of the Macedonian Legion in the death of the Turkish Commissioner as follows: “The notorious incident of the killing of Riza-bey, the Imperial Turkish Commissioner of the Junction railway line, is to be explained by the fact that as he was being taken under arrest to the school he attempted to snatch a rifle from a Macedonian volunteer, and was killed by the volunteers on the spot.”
The Carnegie Report quoted the account of a member of the Macedonian Legion who explained the attack against Dedeagatch as a reprisal:
“…incidents also occurred while Bulgarian regiments were on the march which led to savage reprisals. A volunteer of the Macedonian legion (Opolchenie), who was previously known to a member of the Commission as an honorable and truthful man, recounted the following incident as the one example of brutality which had come within his own experience.
While marching through Gumurjina, the legion saw the dead bodies of about fifty murdered Bulgarian peasants. The dead body of a woman was hanging from a tree, and mother with a young baby lay dead on the ground with their eyes gouged out. The men of the legion retaliated by shooting all the Turkish villagers or disbanded soldiers whom they met next day on their march, and killed in this way probably some fifty men and two or three women. The officers of the legion endeavored afterwards to discover the culprits, but were baffled by the solidarity of the men, who considered this butchery a legitimate reprisal.
The Turks with whom we talked were on the whole agreed that the period of extreme brutality was confined to the early weeks of the first war. Many of them praised the justice of the regular Bulgarian administration which was afterwards established. From several of the Bulgarian officials who had to govern turbulent districts (e.g., Istip and Drama) infested by bands with an inadequate military force to back them, we have heard in detail of the steps which they took to regain the confidence of the Moslems. Many of them were successful.”
The Bulgarian army sought to punish crimes committed against Muslim civilians in Macedonia. Up to February 3 1913, courts-martial in Macedonia had passed sentence on 10 persons for murder, 8 for robbery and pillage, and 2 for rape. Of those accused of crimes, 37 were Macedonian insurgents, including 6 chiefs of bands (”voyevodas”). Cases which were in the stage of inquiry or investigation (”instruction”) were as follows: 78 cases of murder, 69 cases of pillage, 7 of rape, 7 of robbery (in the guise of taxation), 14 of arson, and 81 cases of forms of robbery.
The Carnegie Report referred to the Dede-agatch massacre as “a minor massacre” which had been “much exaggerated in the press.” The Report stated that the massacre carried out at Dede-agatch was committed by Greeks and Armenians “with the aid of some Bulgarian privates of the Macedonian legion, who were accidentally left in the town without an officer.”#65533; Macedonian insurgents (comitadjis) were also reported to be engaged in activity in the region.
Balkan war strategist Radomir Putnik, Serbian Chief-of-StaffThere were two major fronts or theaters of military operations in the First Balkan War- Macedonia and Thrace. The largest army was engaged in Thrace and consisted of Bulgarian forces. Macedonia was attacked by Serbian forces based in Nis while Greece invaded from the south. Greek forces attacked into Southern Macedonia while Serbian forces advanced through “Old Servia” into northern and central Macedonia. After over 500 years of Turkish occupation, Serbia recovered Kosovo-Metohija: “In their great victory over the Turkish forces at Kumanovo they avenged the defeat of their ancestors at Kossovo five hundred years before.” Serbian forces continued to advance south, defeating the Ottoman Turks at Prilep and Monastir.
Bulgaria mustered 350,000 troops for the First Balkan War; Serbia had 230,000 troops; Greece had 110,000 troops; and Montenegro had 35,600 troops. According to Herbert Gibbons, Serbia and Greece could put 150,000 troops each into the field “to keep in check the Turkish army in Macedonia, and to prevent Albanian reinforcements from reaching the Turkish army in Thrace.”
The First Balkan War was portrayed as one between Christianity and Islam, as a conflict to achieve autonomy for a subjugated and repressed nationality. Czar Ferdinand of Bulgaria issued a proclamation to his troops: “In this struggle of the Cross against the Crescent, of liberty against tyranny, we shall have the sympathy of all those who love justice and progress.”
There were two fronts in the war, Thrace and Macedonia. The Turks had 115,000 men in Thrace and 175,000 troops in Macedonia. Ottoman troops were deployed in the 1st Thracian or Eastern Army led by Abdullah Pasha and the 2nd Macedonian or Western Army led by Ali Risa Pasha. The nizams were the actives while the redifs were the reserves.
The Turks had two military advantages: they usually held the center of the region of conflict, and they controlled a transportation network that gave their forces good interior lines of communication. There were rail lines from Salonika/Thessaloniki to Bitola/Monastir along the Axios-Vardar valley. A military road connected Monastir, Prilep, Veles, and Shtip. A rapid concentration of forces was thus possible. In Thrace, the Turks faced 200,000 Bulgarian troops, who were later reinforced. In Macedonia, the Turks faced 273,000 Balkan League troops. The Greek Navy controlled the Aegean Sea, however, thus depriving the Ottoman forces of reinforcements and re-supply by sea.
Why did the Ottoman Turkish army collapse and disintegrate? Why were the Turkish forces routed and utterly and completely defeated militarily?
The Ottoman armed forces had long been able to defeat the Balkan states and keep them under occupation because they could concentrate their forces in overwhelming numbers against isolated combatants. The Balkan states had also lacked organized armies. Thus the Ottoman Turkish troops could easily defeat unorganized rebel contingents. Yet during the 19th century, the Balkan states achieved independence and autonomy from the Ottoman Empire. This allowed them to form and organize armies. They developed disciplined and trained armies, while the Ottoman Turkish armies stagnated and deteriorated due to obsolete tactics and training.
In recognizance of this situation, the Turks brought in German generals and officers to train and to lead and reform their forces. German officers such as Colmar von der Goltz and Otto Liman von Sanders in 1913 were prominent commanders of the Turkish army. From 1883 to 1896, von der Goltz reorganized the Ottoman Turkish army based on German military doctrines and guidelines. Yet bringing in German military commanders also betrayed the bankruptcy of the Turkish armed forces.
In the meantime, Serbia and Bulgaria were able to acquire heavy weapons such as field artillery which gave them parity in terms of arms. The Turkish troops also suffered from low morale because Turkey was the “sick man of Europe” then, moribund militarily and politically and culturally. The only advantage Turkey had was numbers, in its larger population base. But the Balkan League negated this advantage too. Because the Turkish forces lacked overwhelming numbers against the four united states, the outcome of the First Balkan War was never seriously in doubt. The Ottoman Turkish army could not prevail over an even-strengthening army.
The Bulgarian General Staff recognized Macedonia would have to be attacked from Thrace. In the west, a detached division would thrust into Macedonia. General Mikhail Savov was the chief of the Bulgarian general staff. The Bulgarians had the 1st Army under General Vasil Kutinchev, which was made up of 79,370 men. The 2nd Army was under the command of General Nikola Ivanov and consisted of 122,748 men. The 3rd Army was commanded by General Radko Dimitriev and was made up of 94,884 men. There were 48,523 soldiers in the west facing Macedonia, while an additional 33,180 men were in the Rhodope Mountains. There were 16,000 irregulars of the Macedonian Thracian Volunteers in Rhodope. All in all, the total of men in the Bulgarian army was 599,878.
For their part, the Serbian forces were led by Crown Prince Alexander Karadjordjevic, who commanded the 1st Serbian Army, made up of 132,000 men in the Morava Valley. The 2nd Army was commanded by General Stepa Stepanovic and consisted of 74,000 men, made up of the Serbian Timok Division and the Bulgarian 7th Rila Division. The 3rd Army was commanded by Bozidar Jankovic and consisted of 76,000 men based in Toplica and Medvedje. The Ibar Army was commanded by General Mikhail Zivkovic and consisted of 25,000 men. The Javor Brigade was commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Milovoje Andjelkovic and was made up of 12,000 men. The Chief of the Staff was General Radomir Putnik. The Serbs anticipated that the Turks would concentrate their forces in central Macedonia- the Vardar Valley, or Morava. The Serb plan was to occupy central Macedonia and from there secure the region.
The allied plan of attack counted on the 2nd Army’s advancing into eastern Macedonia from Bulgaria, from there cutting off any escaping Turkish troops in the Vardar Valley, while also preventing Turkish re-enforcements from reaching Macedonia. The 3rd Army would advance south into Kosovo and move to attack the Ottoman left flank in central Macedonia. The three armies were to meet in Ovche Polje east of Skopje.
The Turks concentrated their largest force, the Vardar Army, made up of 65,000 troops, in northern Macedonia. The Turks used Albanian irregulars to defend this area. General Colmar von der Goltz, the German adviser to the Turkish army, had been made a Field Marshal in 1911, in recognition of his service to the army.
On October 8, 1912, invoking a border dispute, Montenegro declared war on Turkey. Ten days later, Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria followed suit, arguing for war on the basis of Turkey’s violation of the 1878 Treaty of Berlin provision by failing to implement reforms in Macedonia as stipulated.
The Battle of Kumanovo
The Battle of Kumanovo was the decisive battle in Macedonia. This battle decided the outcome of the war in that region.
Artillery on the Kumanovo battlefield (Carnegie Report)
In the western or Macedonian theater of the war, the Ottoman forces faced the Serbian army in the north, the Greek army in the south, and the Montenegrin army in the northwest. The Serbian military strategy consisted of attacking the Turkish forces in the Skopje-Stip-Veles triangle and destroying them in a double envelopment launched south of Nis. Three Serbian infantry armies were deployed to the Macedonian border. Crown Prince Alexander’s First Army was deployed to the upper Morava Valley area near Vranje. The First Army was to attack the Turkish forces at Ovche Polje. The Second Army under General Bozidar Jankovic was to advance to Pristina and then move along the Mitrovica-Skopje railroad line to envelop the left flank of the Turkish forces. The Second Army, made up of one Serbian and one Bulgarian division, was to attack from the base at Kustendil, attacking the Turkish right flank. The three armies were to meet at Ovche Polje east of Skopje where they would defeat the main Turkish army, the Western Army of Macedonia. General Mikhail Zivkovic, commander of the Army of the Ibar, was to attack Novi Pazar along with the Javor Brigade. The total strength of Zivkovic’s forces was 37,000 troops and 44 guns.
The Battle of Kumanovo resulted when Zekki Pasha, the commander of the Army of the Vardar, moved out of his defensive and fortified positions in Ovche Polje and redeployed his forces north to Kumanovo. Zekki Pasha planned to defeat the Serbian First Army in a direct, head-on engagement and to thereby prevent its joining up with the Second and Third Armies. Once the First Army was destroyed, he would attack the Second and Third Armies in turn. He would then launch an attack on Sofia forcing the Bulgarian forces to withdraw troops from Thrace to meet the offensive.
Zekki’s move north forced the Serbian forces to engage before they had assembled all their units. The two-day battle of Kumanovo began on October 23 when units of the First Army engaged Zekki’s forces. There was intense fighting but the engagement was indecisive because the Serbian forces were not fully assembled for the attack. When all the Serbian units arrived, the Turkish Army of the Vardar was unable to withstand the offensive. On the afternoon of October 24, Serbian troops broke through the Turkish left wing and it collapsed and disintegrated.#65533; Newly arriving Serbian units then threatened to break through the center of the Turkish front. The First Army was able to break through the Turkish Vardar Army without any reinforcements from the Second or Third Armies. Once the Serbian troops advanced, the Turkish front collapsed and the engagement turned into a rout. Zekki retreated rapidly to his base in Skopje. The Turkish right wing, which consisted of Djavid Pasha’s army corps, preserved its cohesion and allowed for an orderly withdrawal to Shtip. The battle of Kumanovo decided the outcome of the war in Macedonia. The battle was a military disaster for the Ottoman Turkish forces. The Serbian forces, however, did not pursue the retreating Turkish forces which would have led to their total defeat. Instead, the Serbs called a halt to the offensive and occupied the abandoned Turkish fortifications. The Serbian army regrouped its forces before the next advance. The Turkish forces were able to retreat and regroup in southern Macedonia and to engage in a final battle in Monastir, one of the two greatest Turkish fortresses in the western Balkans along with Yannina.
On October 27, the Serbian forces took Skopje. The Serbian military command decided to use the First Army to pursue and engage the Turkish forces in Monastir, The Second Army was deployed to Thrace to assist the Bulgarian forces in the siege of Adrianople. The Third Army was to engage Albanian irregular formations and guerrillas and to occupy the countryside. The First Army, now split into three groupings, advanced to engage the main Turkish forces in Monastir. The eastern and western wings moved through Tetovo, Stip, Kavdar, and Kercevo, where they met little resistance. The central formation encountered a determined and entrenched Turkish force south of Prilep. The Serbian forces drove the Turks out of the area. The fighting was intense, with the Serbs suffering 3,000 casualties.
A trench on the battlefield (Carnegie Report)
During the interval, Djavid Pasha was able to send 11-12,000 Turkish troops using the northwestern section of the Monastir-Thessaloniki railroad to meet an advancing Greek army moving against Florina. At the battle of Banica, Djavid defeated the Greek Fifth Division on November 2. The Turks captured 12 artillery pieces which they then used against the Serbian forces attacking Monastir. But he still faced a Serbian offensive north of Monastir. In a two-day battle from November 16-18, the Turkish army of the Vardar fought a skillful and determined battle. The superiority of Serbian artillery was the decisive factor. The Turkish Army collapsed and disintegrated and the remaining troops fled to the Turkish base in Albania: 16,000 troops under Djavid Pasha fled to the Berat region of Albania, while 15,000 troops under Zekki Pasha were able to escape and to join the Turkish garrison at Jannina/Ioannina to defend the town from a Greek siege. This final battle resulted in the expulsion of Turkish forces from Macedonia.
By October 22, the Serbian Army of the Ibar had crossed into the district of Novi Pazar or Sandzak, joining up with Montenegrin forces at Plevje on October 24. The Third Army advanced into Kosovo-Metohija where it defeated the Turkish forces and irregular Albanian detachments. By October 31, the Third Army was able to take Prizren, while the Army of the Ibar took Djakovo/Djakovica. The Montenegrin forces occupied Pec. The Serbian goal was to establish a port or outlet to the Adriatic. Jankovic commanded two columns of the Third Army which advanced across northern Albania. Jankovic had a force of 8,700 troops in the Second Drina Division and 7,000 troops in the First Sumadija Division. The Second Drina Division advanced from Djakovica and took Alessio on November 19. The First Sumadija Division advanced from Prizren and took Durazzo on November 9. To prevent Serbia from establishing an outlet to the Adriatic, the Great powers rushed to recognize Albania as an independent state, although Albania had never before been a nation.
The Greeks advanced north, besieging Jannina and occupying Saloniki after its surrender on November 8 by Hassan Taxim Pasha. The Serbs swept over the whole upper valley of the Vardar, the Sanjak of Novi Pazar and the northern part of Albania, while Montenegro besieged Scutari. The Bulgarian forces drove the main Turkish army out of Thrace to within miles of Constantinople and besieged Adrianople.
On December 3, 1912, an armistice resulted as the Turks asked the Great Powers for mediation. There was a coup d’etat in Constantinople. The peace negotiations subsequently collapsed, however, in February, 1913. The fighting continued. On March 26, Bulgarian forces, helped by Serbian contingents, took Adrianople. On March 6, the Greek forces took Yannina, which had been defended by Essad Pasha. On April 22, Montenegrin troops took Scutari. A new armistice was subsequently agreed, with the Treaty of London (signed on May 30, 1913). Under the Treaty, Crete and all territory west of Enez-Midye was to go to the allied states of the Balkan League. Following the First Balkan War, after over 500 years of Turkish Muslim occupation, the Ottoman Turkish forces were expelled from Kosovo-Metohija, Macedonia, the Sandzak of Novi Pazar, Yannina, Salonika, and Thrace. What followed, however, was a dispute over Macedonia by Serbia and Bulgaria that resulted in the Second Balkan War. The status of Macedonia thus remained unresolved.
The dead on the Kumanovo battlefield (Carnegie Report)
Conclusion
The First Balkan War would not resolve the Macedonian issue. What would result would be an exacerbation and intensification of the dispute over Macedonia. Serbia and Bulgaria could not reach agreement over the status of Macedonia and the territorial settlement. The Macedonians sought to obtain autonomy but their goals were thwarted and unfulfilled. What resulted was the Second Balkan War, an alliance of Serbia, Greece, and Romania against Bulgaria. Much of Macedonia became annexed or incorporated into Serbia, becoming known as Southern Serbia (Juzna Srbija). Thus, the First Balkan War did expel Ottoman Turkey from Macedonia but this did not result in the resolution of the Macedonian issue. Macedonia would continue to be unstable and the subject of armed conflict in World War I, the inter-war period, and even after World War II.
Balkanization had left the Balkan states disunited, fragmented, isolated, and weak. This disunity allowed for their occupation, exploitation, and domination by outside interests, especially by the so-called Great Powers. The First Balkan War showed that through unity the Balkan states could act to determine their own political agendas. But the First Balkan War also showed how tenuous and fragile any Balkan unity is. Rivalries and competing claims to Macedonia quickly shattered and destroyed the short-lived unity of the Balkan League, leading to the Second Balkan War in 1913. The First Balkan War thus did not resolve the issue of Macedonia, but only exacerbated the problem.
Summary
Macedonia in 1913. Ocupirana Makedonija od strana na Srbija,Bugarija i Grcija : A Map Folio (U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, 1992)
Originally uploaded by ChrisO at English Wikipedia.
[edit]
Military Operations in Macedonia 1913-1917
Imperial War Museum - London
za se mozete da citate povejke ovde
http://www.maknews.com/forum/assets/imperial_war_museum/
Macedonia was a single geographic entity until the Balkan Wars of 1912-13. As a result of the Treaty of Bucharest, Macedonia was partitioned among Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria. These regions are known as the Republic of Macedonia (independent since 1991), Aegean Macedonia (occupied by Greece since 1913), and Pirin Macedonia (occupied by Bulgaria since 1913). There are also small parts of Macedonia presently in Albania (known as Mala Prespa and Golo Brdo) and Yugoslavia (Gora and Prohor Pchinski).
Upon annexation of Macedonia's territory, Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria began terrorist campaigns aimed at expelling or forcibly assimilating the indigenous ethnic Macedonian population. Greece and Bulgaria continue this policy today by denying the existence of the large ethnic Macedonian minorities within their respective territories and refusing to grant them their basic human rights.
The ethnic Macedonians in Greece and Bulgaria do not wish anything more than the recognition of their fundamental human and national rights: the right to speak their own language; to assemble for peaceful purposes; and, the right to call themselves Macedonian without fear of persecution or discrimination.
Upon annexation of Macedonia's territory, Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria began terrorist campaigns aimed at expelling or forcibly assimilating
the indigenous ethnic Macedonian population. Greece and Bulgaria continue this policy today by denying the existence of the large ethnic Macedonian minorities within their respective territories and refusing to grant them their basic human rights.
The ethnic Macedonians in Bulgaria and Greece do not wish anything more than the recognition of their fundamental human and national rights: the right to speak their own language; to assemble for peaceful purposes; and, the right to call themselves Macedonian without fear of persecution or discrimination.
Yane Sandanski - Macedonian revolutionist from Pirin Macedonia
Yane Ivanov Sandanski was born in the village of Vlahi near Melnik on 28 of May 1872. His father Ivan participated as a flag carrier in the well known Kresna Uprising.
Yane Sandanski is a big Macedonian revolutionist, and one of the leaders of the Macedonian National Revolutionary Movement. Since the start of his revolutionary activity, he became well known because he protected the villager's from the tyranny. He organised national courts, and he also organised the people for a self-defence.
Sandanski lived and fought in the Pirin region, and that is why the people gave him the name "Pirin Tsar" (Pirinski Car). He was also active in the Ilinden Uprising, and in 1908, he supported the young Turkish revolution with the vision for the freedom of the Macedonian people.
Soon after that, the Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand labelled Yane Sandanski as the most dangerous enemy against the great Bulgarian interests (Macedonia to be under Bulgaria). In the same year, an unsuccessful assassination was attempted on Yane Sandanski by paid killers who were sent by Ferdinand. These paid killers tried again to assassinate Yane on 15 August 1909, where he was only wounded.
With the expulsion of the Turks', Macedonia was partitioned between Serbia, Bulgaria and Greece. Sandanski remained in hiding on Mt. Pirin and planned to assassin Tsar Ferdinand but on the 22 April 1915, while on his way from Melnik to Nevrokop near the Rozenski Monastery, paid killers sent by Ferdinand, hidden attacked him from behind and succeeded to kill
The murder of Yane Sandanski
Yane Sandanski (1872-1915) was Macedonian revolutionary from Pirin Macedonia.
From 1899 he cooperated with Goce Delcev, and held the positions of the duke of Melnik and a president of the Comity of the Ser area. He persistently fought against the intrusions of vrhovists from Bulgaria and andartas from Greece.
SPISOCI NA “NEPODOBNITE”
No, ako e nevozmozhno totalnoto otkornuvanie na Makedoncite od svoite mesta, toa neznachi deka ne postojat drugi nachini za znachaen udar I nivno otstranuvanie od svojata tatkovska zemja. I taka, Dragumis vo glavata: ”Otstranuvanie kako hraniteli na bandite I opasni za nacionalnite vooruzheni sili I agenti na banditizmot od pogranichnite reoni”, go predlaga slednovo: Navistina mozheme preku razni zakonski, ustavni, na vistina liberalni I megjunarodno priznati merki da gi obezglavime slavokomunistichkite mahinacii vo Grcija. Treba samo tie merki da se primenat so koordinacija I na edinstven nachin od site nadlezhni ogranoci na administracija I so soglasnosta na site politichki partii”.
Ponatamu avtorot na Memorandumot napomenuva deka podgotovkata za kompletiranie na dosiejata za makedonskoto naselenie( politichki ubeduvania)veke e vo tek vo poslednite tri godini I toa so negovo uchestvo.
Seta podgotovka za pribiranie na statistichki podatoci e izvrshena so misijata na togashnata grchka vlada, koga minister za nadvoreshni raboti beshe g.I. Politis, a sostavena od gospodata D. Andreadis ( pochinal togash), G. Modis I od potpishaniot, koi po tromesechno istrazhuvanie na samoto mesto I rabota niz Makedonija I Trakija, so pomoshta na mesnite organi na vlasta, crkovni, sudski, administrativni I voeni, sostavivme kompletni spisoci na razni lugje osudeni za zlostorstva, koi ne se pojavija pred sudot I na onie po sekoe selo posebno so podatoci dali se nakloneti kon Grcite ili se so nestabilna svest ili pak se so javno dokazhani antigrchki ubeduvania I toa posebno za prefekturite Kosturska, Lerinska I Pela.
Ovie spisoci bea dostaveni do Generalnata uprava za Makedonija vo Solun, do Generashtabot na vojskata I do ministerstvoto za nadvoreshni raboti. Znachi, postoi veke osnovata, koja posluzhi I koja mora da posluzhi I denes, so ponatamoshno informiranie iso dopolnuvanie, za sproveduvanie na odredena politika.
Ovie sobrani podatoci od spisocite postojat vo doverliv izveshtaj na Ministerstvoto za javen red do Ministerstvoto za nadvoreshni rabotipotpishani od ministerot S. Theotokis, so datum 24 juli 1946 godina. Taka, soglasno so ovie podatoci, kako somnitelni so antigrchki ubeduvania se smetaat 104.655 Makedonci I 2.207 Vlasi od Makedonija. Vo istiot izveshtaj, Theotokis e na mislenie deka treba da se soochime so prashanieto za proteruvanie na spomenatite, a so nego se soglasuva I Komisijata pod pretsedatelstvo na prviot zamenik nachalnik na Generalshtabot na armijata.
Dragumis vo svojot Memorandum I samiot smeta deka brojot na Makedoncite iznesuva 120 iljadi, priznavajki deka javno, obichno priznavame deka ne se poveke od 90 iljadi, no smeta deka brojot na “urivachite”, kako shto gi vika, e 10 do 20 odsto.
Toj go komentira isto taka prashanieto na dvojazichnosta, zabelezhuvajki deka osven Makedoncite (bugarofonite, kako shto sistematski gi imenuva), I drugite ksenofoni, odnosno vlahofoni, albanofoni, turkofoni se veke dvojazichni, zatoa shto go razbiraat I zboruvaat, osobeno mazhite, grchkiot jazik.
MERKI ZA ELIMINIRANIE NA MAKEDONSKOTO
MALCINSTVO
Vo slednata glava pod naslov “Merki shto treba da se prezemat za eliminiranie na sozdavanieto na nacionalno malcinstvo, sleduvaat predlozite na Dragumis za merkite shto treba da se prezemat protiv Makedoncite”. Soodvetniotizvadok shto go prilozhuvame, e poopshiren od prethodnite zatoa shto go opishuva, rechisi so fotografska tochnost, se ona shto sleduvashe po pozarot na oruzhenite makedonsko-komunistichki sili. Za da se izbegnat poteshkite posledici od megjunarodnoto priznavanie, makari samojazichnoto, odnosno na nacionalno, potrebno-bugarofonsko ili voopshto slavofonsko malcinstvo, potrebno e od sega da reshime I aktivno, no besshumno, da gi primenime slednite merki, koi gi predlozhiv pred edna godina do lokalnite, administrativnite, sudskite, voenite vlasti itn., vo zapadna Makedonija, kako I do Ministerstvoto za nadvoreshni raboti (do postojaniot zamenikminister g-n S. Kitrilakis).
a) Onie shto sorabotuvaat so okupatorite I posebno so bugarite za vreme na okupacijata I osudenite I onie na koi im se sudi za kriminalni dela povrzani so banditizmot I kumunizmot vo tie pogranichni regioni, kako I onie koi dobrovolno izbegaa vo sosednite teritorii ili shto im pristapija na bandite(ne prinudno) I onie koi ne se pojavuvaat pred sud, da se smetaat oficijalno deka se otkazhale od grchkoto drzhavjanstvo I izbraa praktichno drugo drzhavjanstvo.
b) Da im se konfiskuvaat imotite, a nivnite nivi da im se otstapuvaat otsega, od strana na drzhavata za obrabotka, na soselani-bezimotni lugje so potvrdeni grchki ubeduvania, no samo od bliskite reoni, na primer, od grkofonskite sela od Gramos, koi polesno ke mozhat da seadaptiraat na surovite prirodni I opshtenstveni uslovi na ovie pogranichni ridishta, a da primaat tutorstvo, za da ne se pretvorat vo mali tirani nad ostanatite stari zhiteli.
A pak, dodeluvanieto zemjishte na idnite kolonisti, treba da e dovolno za izdrzhuvanie na petchleno semejstvo, kako bi imale interes da se naselat za postojano I da ne gi napushtat svoite novi zhivealishta pri prvoto duvnuvanie na veterot, I nivnite semejstva nezavisno od jazikot , shto znachi I grkofonite da se interiraat postepeno vo juzhna Grcija. No rasprskani po edni ili najmnogu dve semejstva vo sekoe selo ili grad, vo soglasnost so zakonot za razbojnishtvoto, a za sigurnost na voenite sili, koi vodat operacii vo pogranichnite reoni.
Pri nivniot transport I smestuvanievo mestata na internacijata da se pochituvaat od strana na drzhavnite organi, strogo site zakonski I humantarni pravila na odnesuvanie sprema zhenite I decata shto ke bidat internirani… Vo pogranichnite reoni smesteni se vo aktualni punktovi I grkofoni Grci ( kako na primer onie od Rusija narecheni Kavkazci) od koi, za zhal, mnogumina se opasni komunisti. Znachi za da ne bide obvineta grchkata vlada deka dejstvuva nezakonski, protiv slobodata I nechovechki I osobeno za progoni-jazichni I nacionalni, bi bilo preporachlivo internacijata da zapochne so semejstvata na grkofonite zlostornici. Na toj nachin ke bide jasno istaknat principot deka onie od osudenite ili ne pojavenite pred sud shto pokazhaa praktichno deka sakaat da I pripagjaat na slavomakedonskata, na bugarskata ili druganacionalnost, se otkazhaa avtomatskiod grchkoto drzhavjanstvo I nema poveke da bidat primeni na grchkoto tlo, a ke im bidat isprateni vo pogodno vremevo svoite novi tatkovini.
Ako I posle ova bi se nashle prinudeni na megjunaroden plan da go priznaeme postoenieto na slavofonsko ili bugarofonsko jazichno malcinstvo vo Grcija, nema nitu eden selanec da se osmeli da se prijavi I da pobara nitu otvaranie na malcinski uchilishta I crkvi ili duri I prosto izuchuvanie na nivniot jazichen idiom vo grchkoto osnovno uchilishte vo svoeto selo, zatoa shto vo megjuvreme onie bugarofoni so labilna svest ke bidat poucheni od posledicite na otkornuvanieto na slavokomunistichkite agenti-nivnite selani I ke bidat soodvetno prosveteni od nashite nadlezhni vlasti. Posebno, odzemanieto na nivite I odalechuvanie od semejstvata ke sozdade vo niv najdlabok vpechatok,taka shto nema da potkleknat na prikrienite pritisoci I zakani za slavokomunistite, a pak onie koi pokazhuvaat upornost za grchkoto obrazovanie I vernost na Grchkata crkva, ke bide korisno da im se dodeluvaat specijalni moralni priznania I nagradi. Ako vo sprotivno, pak, impoveruvame na histerichnite I demagoshki glasovi, na onie koi tvrdat deka e potrebno da se proteraat nasilno site slavofoni I tn., nie ke sozdademe samite vo ovoj kritichen za megjunarodniot mir I za grchkata kauza moment, nacionalno malcinstvo vo Grcija, od koe ke bide veke nevozmozhno da se oslobodimeprekukakva bilo prinuda razmena ili druga totalitarna merka, megjunarodno neprifatliva I neostvarliva.
TERITORIJALNI PRETENZII
Takva nasilna merka se obidoa da primenat kon sredinata na ovaa tekovna godina voenite vlasti vo Kostur
Respond to this message
1. Kraj. - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:36am
Takva nasilna merka se obidoa da primenat kon sredinata na ovaa tekovna godina voenite vlasti vo Kostur i Lerin, proteruvajki nasilno od ovie okolii kon granicata I kon reonite shto shto gi drzhat bandite, takvi familii koi ostanaa vo svoite sela.
A rezultatot beshe po nekolku dena tie da se vratat, rechi site, a I po novoto proteruvanie povtorno se vratija vo svoite sela ili vo drugi sosedni sela. Za srekia, staven e kraj na ovaa proizvolna I izvonredno opasna igra od strana na Generalshtabot na vladata.
Potrebno e da svatime deka nikakva izolirana merka nemozhe da se primeni bez odgovorna vladina inicijativa, kompletna sorabotka I sovrshena koordinacija na postapkite na site nadlezhi kategorii na administracijata. A za kakva bilo politika vrz nacionalni prashania, potrebna e soglasnost od site lojalni golemi politichki partii.
Konkretno za kompletna sorabotka na voenite, na sudskite I na chisto administrativnite vlasti I na zhandarmerijata so generalnata linija shto ke ja dava Ministerstvoto za nadvoreshni raboti vo soglasnost, se razbira so Generalshtabot na vojskata.
Vo predposlednata glava od Memorandumot, se istaknuva neophodno potrebnoto vnimanie koe drzhavata treba da go obrne na prashanieto na ksenofonite I odrazot shto mozhe da go ima edna pogreshna politika po ova prashanie, osobeno na ekspanzionistichkata politika na Grcija, ili kako shto poelegantno se naveduva, vrz nacionalnite pretenzii na Grcija.
Tuka Dragumis e sosema jasen I kategorichen.”Nie sme dolzhni, pishuva toj, da obrneme vnimanie I na ovoj aspekt, koj vo nedalechna idnina, ne e isklucheno da ima golemo vlijanie vrz nash interes da sozdademe vpechatok oti navodno ne gi smetame za Grci, ksenofonite I deka imame namera da gi unishtime.
Za zhal, nepostojat veke grkofoni-grchko naselenie vo sosednite teritorii vrz koe nie imamepretenzii, osven samo nekolku ostatoci vo jugozapaden Severen Epir ( odnosno okoliite Pogoni, Delvino, Agii Sarandai Himara )”. I go prodolzhuva toj svoeto razmisluvaniepostavuvajki go prashanieto: “ Znachi, ako nie se otkazheme od toa deka ksenofonite Grci od Grcija se Grci, vrz shto li ke gi zasnovame eventiualnite pretenzii da dobieme sosedni teritorii, vo koi zhiveat isto taka I ushte pokompaktno slichni ksenofoni zhiteli. Kako ke go barame Argirokastro,premeti, Korcha, Moshopoli, Bitola, Strumica, Melnik, Nevrokop Itn.?
LOJALNI UCHITELI
I na kraj Dragumis go zavrshuva svojot Memorandum za preimenuvanie na Makedoncite I na nivniot jazik so odredeni specijalni ukazhuvania za sluchajot koga grchkata drzhava beshe obvrzana od golemite sili vo toa vreme da im dade na malcinstvata sloboda za izuchuvanie na negrchki maichin jazik. Pri takvo soochuvanie, toj podvlekuva deka treba da se prezemat neophodnite merki, taka shto izuchuvanieto da ne stane preku specijalni ksenofoni uchilishta, (kade shto grchkiot jazik ke se izuchuva zadolzhitelno kako stranski oficijalen jazik na drzhavata), tuku fakultativno vo veke postoechkite drzhavi grchki osnovni uchilishta, kade shto ostanatite predmeti ke se predavaat na grchki jazik. Uchitelite, pak, na stranskiot jazik ke bidat zadolzhitelno grchki drzhavjani, lojalni na grchkite zakoni I pod nadzor na ispektori Grci. I predlaga ushte pri predavaniata da se koristi, poradi nacionalni prichini,kirilskoto ( a ne latinskoto ) pismo, poradi svoeto vizandisko poteklo I negovata bliskost do grchkoto pismo.
Filipos Dragumis ke se navrati pak na ova prashanie za politichkata opcija na grchkata drzhava za preimenuvanie na Makedoncite, so doverlivo pismo za soochuvanie so slavokomunistichkata opasnost protiv severna Grcija, chetirinaeset godini podocna na 14 septemvri 1962 godina toj go sostava noviot tekst shto mu go isprakia na kralot, na premierot K. Karamanlis I na ministerot za nadvoreshni raboti E Averof. Vo interes na Grcija, chitame povtorno tamu a slavofonite od zapadna I centralna Makedonija koja granichi -so Jugoslavija. Da se imenuvaat od nas podobro kako bugarofoni, otkolku kako Makedonci.
Nastojuvanieto na Filipos Dragumis po prashanieto za preimenuvanie, kako shto proizleguva od pogore izlozhenoto, veke nekolku decenii pred grchkata drzhava da ja vovede I izgubi neodamneshnata bitka za imeto, go izdignuvaat nego istoriski kako glaven vdahnovitel na politikata za preimenuvanie I duhoven vodach na edna strategija shto ja izolira na megjunaroden plan Grcija I ja dovede do vrven diplomatski poraz. Grchkite protagonisti na antimakedonskata politika vo godinite 1991-1996 godina, bea, bez toa ( poveketo od niv ) da go znaat, glasnogovornici ili prepriemnachi na edna idea koja veke beshe stara polovina vek.
Prevod od grchki jazik
Vasko Karadga
Respond to this message
Those of you who are preparing to visit the land of the Ancient Olympics, where Alexander the Great, a Macedonian by birth, was not permitted to participate, beware.
Beware of the smooth words of Greek propaganda which, while lying to you, will intoxicate you with ancient Hellenic wonders and connect you to the Modern Greeks.
In northern Greece you will find Macedonia, a land now partitioned and occupied. Know that in 1912 Macedonia was invaded and occupied by Greek, Bulgarian and Serbian military forces and on August 10, 1913 under the shameful Bucharest Agreement, was permanently partitioned among them.
You may have heard that one part of Macedonia was liberated in 1945, and is now the Republic of Macedonia. Do you know that Greece has made every effort to force the Republic to change its name? Do you know that Greek chauvinism is hard at work destroying everything that is Macedonian?
Fourteen million tourists visit Greece every year, yet the Macedonian refugees who left Greece during the Greek Civil war of 1946 to 1949 are still not allowed to return, not even for a visit. Did you know that in 1948 thirty thousand children, between the ages of two and fourteen, were taken from their mothers, separated from their families and permanently exiled to foreign lands throughout the world? Did you know that fifty-five years have passed and the doors for these innocents are still closed? Did you know that Greece is responsible for exiling these children to live out their lives in foreign lands, to grow old away from their parents and siblings, never able to return, not even for a visit? Is this the Greece that portrays itself as the cradle of Democracy?
Know that Macedonia is the land of the Macedonian people, which not too long ago was taken from them. When you visit Macedonia, know that there are people living there without the most basic human rights. When you walk on Macedonian soil know that you are walking on graves without markers, without names, without a sign. This is the land of the thousands who have been tortured in Greek concentration camps, murdered because of their race, exiled and forcibly assimilated into the Greek fold. This is the land of the neglected and forgotten people.
The honour of the Olympic games belongs to the Ancients not to the Modern Greeks. The Ancients were a different people who would not allow foreigners to participate in their games. Even Alexander the Great of Macedonia was not allowed to participate because by birth he was not one of them
Know that in today's Greece, especially in Macedonia, if you are not a Greek by birth you have no right to own land. The lands and homes of the Macedonian people were annexed by the Greek State and awarded to foreigners from Asia Minor who in the 1920's were relocated to Macedonia. These foreigners, whose populations have now grown, have declared themselves to be the legal heirs of Macedonia and claim that the real Macedonians do not exist.
Behind the veil of the Ancient Olympics are hidden many truths: the spilled blood of Macedonian heroes, the horror of the Greek occupation, the forced assimilation and tyranny of the Greek regimes. At the hands of the Greeks, many Macedonians have endured torture, imprisonment, killings, isolation, hatred and lack of ethnic and basic human rights. These are the forgotten tragedies of the Macedonian people.
Greek chauvinism has planted the seeds of hatred and turned the Greek people into an army of antagonists. To this day, Macedonians live in fear of retribution and don't dare reveal themselves. To this day there are no laws to stop Greek chauvinism.
When you visit the lands of the Ancient Olympics remember the Macedonians.
Georgi F. Todorovski
MACEDONIA FOR THE MACEDONIANS
Taen grchki dokument
February 20 2006 at 11:50 AM Taralinga (no login)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Taen grchki dokument za preimenuvanie na Makedoncite
Prevod od grchki jazik ( Vasko Karadga )
IDEOLOSHKA OFANZIVA
PROTIV MAKEDONCITE
Generashtabot na grchkata armija bara od Filipos Dragumis
-vo interes na vnatreshnite i na megjunarodnite interesi
na grchkata drzhava-da iznajde ime za da go prekrstI make-
donskiot jazik.Spored dotogashnite propisi, jazikot na
Makedoncite vo 1920 godina se narekuvashe makedonski, vo 1928 godina-makedonsko-slovenski, i vo 1940 godina slovenski.
Ovoj istoriski dokument vsushnost e doverliv Memorandum
od dvaeset otchukani stranici od Filip Dragumis do Generalshtabot na grchkata vojska, so datum od 12 noemvri
1948 godina. Memorandumot se naogja vo lichnata arhiva na F. Dragumis, vo bibliotekata "Genadios", vo poddosieto 104.6, dokument broj 160i so naslov " Za pogranichnoto bugarofonsko naselenie"
Shto e napishano vo ovoj taen grchki dokument ke bide napishan po vesnicite i vo internat skoro.
ONFERENCE OF COUNCIL OF EUROPE IN TIRANA
Ethnic Macedonians From Albania Demand Their Basic Rights Education in mother tongue, representation in the state administration, the right to use place-names in Macedonian, free information, are only some of the demands of the minorities that make up about 40 percent of the population.
Ethnic minorities in Albania, at the conference organized by the Council of Europe, demanded from the state to secure the universal right to education in mother tongue, to free information in mother tongue, and representation in state administration. On Friday, at the conference in Tirana, ethnic Macedonians, Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Vlachs and other members of ethnic minorities one more time demanded to be allowed to freely declare their ethnic and religious affiliation in the next population census. They also demanded to be given the right to use their personal names [Albania bans use of "non-Albanian" personal names and surnames] and place-names.
Seminar for the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of Minority Rights in Albania was held on Thursday and Friday in Tirana. The seminar was organized by the Secretariat of the Convention within the Council of Europe. That was the opportunity of the representatives of ethnic minorities to raise their voices and demand their rights, although the authorities attempted to shut them up. After ten years of democracy, for the first time the status and treatment of ethnic minorities were discussed in a public forum. Although ethnic minorities make up almost 40 percent of overall population, they do not have even the most basic rights.
Representatives of the Albanian authorities tried persistently during the seminar to control or, better said, cut off discussions with representatives of ethnic Macedonians, Greeks, Serbs, Montenegrins, Vlachs, Roma, and Egyptians, but without success. The view that the government should deal with these demands instead of waiting for possible creation of problems by ethnic minorities was also expressed during the gathering.
Leaders of the associations of ethnic Macedonians "Mir" and "Prespa", Kimet Fetahu and Edmond Temelko, the association of Greeks "Omonija", Vangel Dule, the association of Serbs-Montenegrins "Morava-Moraca", Milan Vaso, as well as other ethnic minorities, demanded to be given universal rights to education in mother tongue, free information in mother tongue, representation in state administration, to be allowed to freely express their ethnic and religious affiliation in the next population census, to be allowed to once again use their own personal names and place names in their mother tongues. Fetahu and Temelko directly demanded from the government representatives, but unfortunately did not receive a reply, the return of the only radio program in Macedonian language that until March 2001 was broadcast by Radio Korca, extension of education in mother tongue where it already exists and introduction of education in Macedonian in Gora and Golo Brdo. The two latter regions with the significant majority population of Muslim ethnic Macedonians are not recognized as regions with ethnic minority population by the Albanian authorities.
Rubin Zemon, an expert for ethnic minority issues and rights, representative of the Egyptians from Macedonia, delivered a lecture on the topic "Rights of ethnic minorities in the Balkans, especially in Albania". The participants mentioned some positive developments during the last few years; permission to publicly use their mother tongue in mutual communication, nurturing of folklore and tradition and the construction of the new school in the village of Dolna Gorica.
by Vera TODOROVA,
Dnevnik, Skopje, Macedonia, October 22, 2001
On October 18, 1912, Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia declared war on the Ottoman Empire and their armies, from the Albanian mountains to the Black Sea, were ordered to launch an attack. In retrospect, it could easily be concluded that the war began with the aim of partitioning Macedonia, despite the early claims by the coalition that they fought for "the liberation of Macedonia!"
The beginning of the First Balkan War marked the end of years of bargaining between Serbia and Bulgaria over the division of Ottoman territory, Macedonia in particular. In October 1911, the Bulgarian government stated to Serbia that the two governments should "reach an agreement as soon as possible concerning the territory of Macedonia-that is, to determine their share of the cake". It was not a question of the "disputed" territories; Bulgaria would agree that Skopje belonged to Serbia, retaining Thessaloniki, Bitola and Veles for itself. The outbreak of the Italian-Turkish War in October 1911 favored both by weakening Ottoman power, and on March 13, 1912, after months of intensive discussions, an Agreement of Friendship and Alliance was publicly signed, supplemented by secret clauses. Article two of these clauses provided Serbian recognize of Bulgaria's rights to those territories east of the Rhodopes and the Strymon river, and Bulgaria in turn recognizing Serbian rights over territory north and west of Mt. Shar.
These plans were to be put in effect within three months, when "all territorial gains would be realized by a joint action". The territory between Mt. Shar, the Rhodopes, the archipelago and Ohrid Lake, if the establishment of an autonomous state was not possible in view of "the interests of the Serbian and Bulgarian nationalities" and "other external and internal reasons", would be divided along a line drawn from Golem Vrv (to the north of Kriva Palanka) to Ohrid Lake. On that occasion, the Serbian representatives stated: "We are ready for anything and will take part in any coalition-with God or with the Devil if need be-to protect our vital interests." The Bulgarians already considered that "the Macedonian Bulgarians were lost for our cause, as they set out along their own path".
Soon, the Serbian-Bulgarian coalition was extended by signing a agreement between Bulgaria and Greece in May, between Greece and Serbia in September, and between Montenegro and Bulgaria and Serbia-by the beginning of October 1912, the Anti-Ottoman League was formed. In the meantime, the propaganda machines were used to constantly and persistently repeat the necessity of helping their "brother Christians" in their attempts to free themselves from Ottoman slavery. The peoples of Bulgaria, Greece and Serbia were not the only ones who believed in this-a considerable number of Macedonians were convinced of the stated, selfless goals of the League.
Beginning in October 1912, fighting took place throughout Macedonia. Following several victories over the Ottoman army, coalition forces occupied Macedonia and forced the Ottoman Empire to seek an armistice, signed on December 4, 1912.
Yet, as in many partitions, one party was not satisfied with their share of the spoils. Serbia, denied its proposed outlet to the Adriatic Sea, sought compensation in Macedonia along the Vardar River which the Bulgarians rejected. Greece asked for control of Thessaloniki and "a certain part" of the eastern Macedonian territories, which Bulgaria rejected as well. Correspondingly, on June 1, 1913, Serbia and Greece concluded a secret treaty for joint action against Bulgaria; joined by Romania, which sought control over Southern Dobruja. Russia attempted to solve the emerging quarrel in a peaceful manner; but Austria-Hungary, siding with Bulgaria, encouraged flaring tempers in the hope of breaking a coalition directed against the Bulgarians. Anticipating assistance from Vienna, on June 29, 1913, the Bulgarian army attacked its former allies.
This Second Balkan War was at first waged entirely on Macedonian soil, but on July 10, Rumania entered the war and four days later the Ottoman Empire joined the general assault on Bulgaria. Faced with four fronts, Bulgarian armies were defeated piecemeal and the government at Sofia was forced to seek peace.
The victors of the Second Balkan War did not want to miss the opportunity to imposing conditions on Bulgaria which "would create a just balance" in the Balkans. This included settling accounts among themselves at the expense of Macedonia, taking no account of the ethnic, political and economic unity of the territory through which drew new frontiers for the second time in less than a year. At the beginning of August 1913, the Treaty of Bucharest was signed: the entire "disputed zone" was taken by Serbia, Greece secured its position in Thessaloniki and southeastern Macedonia, the Ottomans regained all the territories lost in the First Balkan War to Bulgaria with the exception of eastern (Pirin) Macedonia, and the Romanians seized Southern Dobruja.
The events of the two wars and the final partition are the best indications of the limits to which nationalist and chauvinist passions can corrupt humanity. For example, in pursuing the Bulgarian army during the second conflict, Greek forces systematically burnt to the ground all Macedonian villages they encountered, mass-murdering their entire populations. Likewise, when the Greek army entered Kukush (Kilkis) and occupied surrounding villages, about 400 old people and children were imprisoned and killed. Several dozen distinguished Macedonians were victims of the persecution in Kukush, previously marked for death as potential hazards for Greek occupation. Specially trained Greek units destroyed over 40 Macedonian villages.
About 4,000 refugees from Kukush had gathered in the village of Akandzheli when on July 6, 1913, a Greek military unit entered the village. Though met with white flags, the village was burnt down and in the massacre which followed 356 refugees were killed, including children and the elderly. In Serres, Greek police imprisoned about 200 Macedonians and subsequently executed them. About 1,000 men were slain in the town of Ingrita alone. On the whole, in the region of southern Macedonia, the Greeks destroyed 16,000 houses and 100,000 Macedonians were forced to leave their homes and flee to neighboring countries.
Bulgarian armies and Vrhovist bands were not any more scrupulous in respecting human life. In the small town of Dokast, inhabited by Greeks and Turks, the Bulgarians fired 270 out of 570 homes and killed a hundred people. When they occupied the town of Serres for the second time, they torched 4,000 houses out of 6,000 and massacred many of the inhabitants, mainly Turks and Greeks, on the pretext of revenging the slain Macedonian population of the town.
Nor did the Serbian "liberators" lag behind in destruction and wanton slaughter throughout Macedonia. In Bitola, Skopje, Shtip and Gevgelija, the Serbian army, police and chetniks (guerrillas) committed their own atrocities.
Nor were these events to be the last tragic consequences of the Balkan Wars: an enormous number of refugees from Macedonia were compelled by threats and force to leave their homes and flee. About 112,000 refugees sought shelter in Bulgaria, 50,000 of whom were Macedonians. Greece received 157,000 refugees, mostly Turks and Greeks, who settled on the properties of Macedonian refugees. About 1,000 refugees settled on Macedonian territory occupied by Serbia. About half a million people became refugees, driven across newly-created borders-driven from one part of Macedonia to another by the rampaging armies.
On March 1, 1913, the Macedonian colony in St. Petersburg sent a memorandum on the independence of Macedonia to the conference of Great Powers in London, along with a geographical-ethnic map of Macedonia made by Dimitrija Chupovski. "Europe is about to make the same mistake as in 1878. Instead of Macedonia being proclaimed an independent state, its liberators decided to divide it among themselves... The Macedonians have gained the right to self-determination through their recent history... A horrible terror now reigns in Macedonia-there are no limits to the 'freedom' of the allies. Not a single Macedonian has the right to travel outside Macedonia and go abroad to protest to the European states. Whoever attempts to do that is either killed or imprisoned. The allied armies have enclosed Macedonia in an iron grip."
"The Macedonian people needs:
"One, Macedonia to remain an individual, indivisible, independent Balkan state within its geographic, ethnographic, historical and economic-political borders; and
"Two, that, on the basis of a general election, a Macedonian people's assembly be convened in Thessaloniki as soon as possible, to work out the internal organization of the state and define its relations with the neighboring countries."
On April 21, 1913, in the St. Petersburg newspaper Slavjanin (A Slav), D.Chupovski, writing under the pseudonym Upravda, published the article "The Macedonian State" in which he predicted:
"...Despite vigorous opposition by the Macedonians themselves, the partition of Macedonia will undoubtedly lead to internecine blood-shedding among the allies... The Balkan Peninsula is too small for several greater-state ideals to coexist. Only a federal state constituted of all Balkan peoples, in which Macedonia will be included on an equal footing as an indivisible state, independent in its internal affairs-only such a federation that can provide peaceful coexistence and progress of the Balkan peoples!"
On June 7, 1913, a second memorandum of the Macedonians was sent to the governments and peoples of the combatants of the Balkan Wars, stating that "in the name of natural right, in the name of history ... Macedonia is inhabited by a homogeneous population having its own history, and hence the right to self-determination. Macedonia is to be an independent state, within its natural borders. The Macedonian state is to be a separate equal unit of the Balkan League, with its own church established on the foundations of the ancient Ohrid archbishopric", requesting that a people's representative body be convened in Thessaloniki. This memorandum was signed by members of the Macedonian colony in St. Petersburg.
Despite the obvious fact that in the partition of Macedonia a nation had been divided, in the Paris Peace Conferences (June-September, 1919) the Great Powers, protecting their own interests, confirmed with minor alterations only the decisions of the 1913 Treaty of Bucharest.
During the conference the Macedonian issue, in one form or another, confronted any possible settlement of World War One's Balkan front. Three proposals were placed before the Committee on the Formation of New States. On June 10, 1919, the Italian delegation proposed that Macedonia be given the status of autonomy within the framework of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes. Macedonia would possess an autonomous assembly and the Macedonian governor would be responsible to it, although he would be appointed by the Yugoslav government. Opposed by the French delegation, at the following session of the committee the Italian representative changed the proposal on political autonomy of Macedonia and reduced it to a proposal for administrative self-management with a central council in Bitola.
The French delegation, protecting the interests of the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (viewed as a key ally in the region) categorically opposed any kind of autonomy for Macedonia and proposed that the Macedonian Question be discussed in terms of minority issues. The treaties of protection for minorities would be a sufficient guarantee of freedom and protection for the population of Macedonia. The British delegation offered in turn a proposal for special control of Macedonia by the League of Nations, in order to reinforce minority guarantees. The insistence of France that the Macedonian Question be removed from the agenda ended culminated in the statement of its delegation that "the Macedonians do not have a clearly defined nationality and the population is divided into parties which, in view of the events, change their character." Supporting the request by Pashich that the new state, the Kingdom of the SCS (Serbs, Croats and Slovenes) be provided with "a strategic border", France upheld Yugoslav control of the region, and any protection for the Macedonians must be limited to the framework of minority rights in general.
Unfortunately, the Great Powers had no interest in the voice of the Macedonian-the partition of Macedonia had already been accomplished, and no power seriously endorsed revision of the partition. Accordingly, Greece maintained its lion's share of Macedonian territory, some 35,169 square kilometers; the Kingdom of the SCS retained 25,774 square kilometers; and Bulgaria maintained, after minor revision, 6,798 square kilometers.
While before the Ilinden Uprising there were an estimated two and a half million people in Macedonia, after the Paris Peace Conference the totaled populations of Aegean (Greek); Pirin (Bulgarian) and Vardar (Yugoslav) Macedonia was 2,028,000, hardly past the two million mark. War and economic collapse had reduced the population of Macedonia by 270,000 people, a negative growth most visible in Aegean Macedonia. In 1896, there were 681,451 inhabitants of Aegean Macedonia, 354,406 of them ethnic Macedonians, 68,000 Greek, 195,000 Turks and about 66,000 of other nationalities. In 1920, on this same territory, the population had dwindled to 584,294 inhabitants, with a Macedonian population reduced by 46,763 to a total of 307,643 and a Greek population of 107,437, an increase of 38,927.
In vain were protests, applications, declarations, memorandums or personal appeals by representatives of the Macedonian people to the Peace Conference, the governments of the Great Powers, or to Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece that the Macedonian people should not be considered "an amorphous mass", that "the spiritual unity" of the Macedonian should be respected and Macedonia raised to the rank of "an independent state."
The Ottoman Empire originated in a small emirate established in the second half of the 13th century in northwestern Anatolia. By 1354 it had gained a toehold in Europe, and by 1362 Adrianopole (modern Edirne, Tur.) had fallen. From this base the power of this Turkic-speaking and Islamic state was steadily expanded. From a military point of view, the most significant defeat of the Serbian states took place in the Battle of the Maritsa River at Chernomen in 1371, but it is the defeat in 1389 of a combined army of Serbs, Albanians, and Hungarians under Lazar at Kosovo Polje that has been preserved in legend as symbolizing the subordination of the Balkan Slavs to the "Ottoman yoke." Constantinople itself did not fall to the Turks until 1453; but by the end of the 14th century Macedonia had been incorporated into the Ottoman Empire. Thus began what was in many respects the most stable period of Macedonian history, lasting until the Turks were ejected from Macedonia in 1913.
Half a millennium of contact with Turkey had a profound impact on language, food habits, and many aspects of daily living in Macedonia. Within the empire, administrators, soldiers, merchants, and artisans moved in pursuit of their professions. Where war, famine, or disease left regions underpopulated, settlers were moved in from elsewhere with no regard for any link between ethnicity and territory. By the system known as dev#352;irme (the notorious "blood tax"), numbers of Christian children were periodically recruited into the Turkish army and administration, where they were Islamite and assigned to wherever their services were required. For all these reasons many Balkan towns acquired a cosmopolitan atmosphere. This was particularly the case in Macedonia during the 19th century, when, as the Serbian, Greek, and Bulgarian states began to assert their independence, many who had become associated with Turkish rule moved into lands still held by the Sublime Porte. Whatever distinctive characteristics Macedonians may or may not have had before the coming of the Turks, it is undoubtedly the case that, by the outbreak of the Balkan Wars, they (along with the Muslims of Bosnia) were the European people most closely tied to Ottoman culture.
The economic legacy of Turkish rule is also important. During the expansionist phase of the empire, Turkish feudalism consisted principally of the timar system of "tax farming," whereby local officeholders raised revenue or supported troops in the sultan's name but were not landowners. As the distinctively military aspects of the Ottoman order declined after the 18th century, these privileges were gradually transformed in some areas into the #231;iftlik system, which more closely resembled proprietorship over land. This process involved the severing of the peasantry from their traditional rights on the land and a corresponding creation of large estates farmed on a commercial basis. The #231;iftlik thus yielded the paradox of a population that was heavily influenced by Ottoman culture yet bound into an increasingly oppressive economic subordination to Turkish landlords.
The independence movement
The closing decades of the 19th century saw deepening conflict and confusion in Macedonia. As the Turkish Empire decayed, Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria all looked to benefit territorially from the approaching carve-up of Macedonia. At the same time, these indigenous states all became in different ways stalking horses for the aspirations of the European Great Powers. The weapons employed in this conflict ranged widely; they included the opening of schools in an attempt to inculcate a particular linguistic and confessional identity, the control of ecclesiastical office, influence over the course of railway building, diplomatic attempts to secure the ear of the Sublime Porte, and even the financing of guerrilla bands.
Partly in response to the intensity of these campaigns of pressure and even terror, a movement called the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO) was founded in 1893, at Resana (Resen) near Ohrid. The aim of IMRO was "Macedonia for the Macedonians," and on Aug. 2, 1903 (July 20, 1903, Old Style), it raised the banner of revolt against the Turks at Kru#353;evo and declared Macedonian independence. The Ilinden, or St. Elijah's Day, Uprising was brutally crushed, but the Macedonian Question thereafter aroused intense international concern. The Great Powers made several attempts to impose reform on the Porte, including the sending of their own officers to supervise the gendarmerie-in effect, the first international peacekeeping force.
In spite of their conflicting interests, Serbia, Montenegro, Greece, and Bulgaria in 1912 concluded a series of secret bilateral treaties that had as their explicit intention the ejection of the Turks from Europe. They took advantage of an uprising by the Albanian population to intervene in October 1912 and, following their defeat of the sultan's armies, partitioned the remaining Turkish possessions (including Macedonia) between them. The Treaty of London (May 1913), which concluded this First Balkan War, left Bulgaria dissatisfied; but, after this country's attempt to enforce a new partition in a Second Balkan War, the Treaty of Bucharest (August 1913) confirmed a pattern of boundaries that (with small variations) has remained in force ever since. Although the region was again engulfed in war in 1914 and Bulgaria occupied large parts of Macedonia, the end of World War I in 1918 saw the partition of 1913 reconfirmed.
During the interwar years, intensive campaigning took place in all areas of Macedonia to impose identities upon the population that suited the interests of the controlling states. In an attempt to secure its status as South Serbia, "Vardar Macedonia" was subjected to an active program of colonization under land-reform legislation. Following the forcible ejection of Greeks from Turkey during the 1920s, thousands of Greek settlers were given land in "Aegean Macedonia." Both Serbia and Greece took advantage of the displacement by war or expulsion of many former Turkish landowners.
During this period a link was consolidated between politicized agricultural labourers (especially tobacco workers) on the large Macedonian estates and the nascent Communist Party-a link that survived the proscription of the party in Yugoslavia after 1921. Partly because of its communist associations, the movement for Macedonian independence was then sustained largely underground until the outbreak of World War II.
The Treaty of London, 1913
Updated - Thursday, 1 November, 2001
First Meeting of the London Peace Conference, December 16, 1912
The armistice for the cessation of the First Balkan War was signed on December 3, 1912, and the London Peace Conference, composed of delegates from the Balkan allies, including Greece, who had not signed the armistice, and Turkey, held its first meeting on December 16, 1912.
At the same time a Conference of Ambassadors, consisting of Sir Edward Grey and the London representatives of all the powers, was also in session.
Demands of the Balkan Allies
The Balkan allies demanded a war indemnity, as also the cession of all European Turkey (excepting Albania), Crete, and the islands in the Aegean Sea.
Turkey was to be allowed to retain Constantinople, together with a strip of territory extending from Midia on the Black Sea to Rodosta on the Sea of Marmora, as also the peninsula of Gallipoli or the Thracian Chersonese.
Turkey was unwilling to give up Adrianople, a sacrifice insisted upon by Bulgaria. The "Divan," or Turkish National Assembly, decided, however, on January 22, 1913, that the demands of the allies must be conceded.
Kiamil Pasha telegraphed the Turkish commissioners at London that same night, directing them to yield Adrianople and agree to the cession of all Turkey in Europe beyond a line running from Enos on the Aegean Sea, at the mouth of the Maritza River, to Midia on the Black Sea.
Coup D'etat of 23 January 1913 at Constantinople
But on the following day, January 23, as a result of a successful coup d'#233;tat, Kiamil Pasha was driven from power and Nazim Pasha murdered by Enver Bey, who placed himself at the head of a new government.
When the news of the coup d'#233;tat reached London it was recognized that further negotiations were useless and that the London Peace Conference had failed.
Terms Proposed by the Powers
Adrianople having been captured by the Bulgarians, assisted by the Serbs, on March 28, 1913, the time was ripe for a resumption of peace negotiations.
On March 22 the great powers had proposed the following terms as a basis for the renewal of negotiations:
(1) A frontier line from Enos to Midia to follow the course of the Maritza, and the cession to the allies of all the territories west of that line, with the exception of Albania, whose status and frontiers were to be determined by the powers.
(2) The question of the Aegean Islands to be decided by the powers.
(3) Turkey to abandon all claims to Crete.
(4) The powers would not entertain favourably the demand for an indemnity, but were willing to admit the allies to participation in the discussion of an international commission which should meet in Paris for the equitable settlement of their participation in the Ottoman debt and the financial obligations of the territories newly acquired. Turkey was to be asked to take part in the labours of this commission.
(5) An end of hostilities immediately after the acceptance of this basis of negotiations
Turkey agreed to these stipulations, but the allies insisted, among other things, that the Aegean Islands be ceded directly to them and were eager for an indemnity.
Second Meeting of the London Peace Conference, May 1913
It was not until April 20 that the Balkan States finally agreed to accept the mediation of the powers. When the Balkan delegates and the representatives of the great powers finally met for the second time at London on May 20 they found a treaty embodying the original terms of the powers all ready for them to sign.
They demurred at first, but when, on May 27, Sir Edward Grey, frankly told them that they must either sign or leave London they signed without much further delay on May 30, 1913.
Discussion Among the Balkan Allies
The long delay in the negotiations was largely due to differences among the allies regarding the division of the spoils. Mutual hatred and suspicion and conflicting territorial ambitions made agreement almost impossible.
The action of the Conference of Ambassadors in regard to Albania added greatly in the difficulty of the situation, since Serbia was thereby prevented from extending its territory westward to the Adriatic and would be left with only a relatively small recompense for its sacrifices in the war, unless Bulgaria could be induced to consent to a modification of the Serbo-Bulgar treaty of March 13, 1912, a thing to which she was unwilling to agree.
Even before the declaration of war Serbia had suggested a rectification of her frontier as outlined in the Serbo-Bulgar treaty of March, 1912. Her demands grew with her victories, with the free hand in Macedonia allowed her and Greece by Bulgaria's preoccupation in Thrace, and with her exclusion from the sea by the creation of Albania. Bulgaria, on the other hand, cared intensely for expansion in Macedonia.
Very bitter feeling was generated between Bulgaria and Serbia, culminating in warlike preparations, some actual hostilities, and a final demand on May 25 on the part of Serbia for revision of the treaty of 1912.
Meanwhile Serbia had been approaching Greece suggesting conterminous bounds in Macedonia and alliance against Bulgaria, and a final agreement with her was reached on May 19-June 1.
A second question was raised by Roumania, who hoped to gain Silistria and a more advantageous military frontier for her Dobruja region. Bulgaria refused her suggestions as to compensation for neutrality (made at the London conference), and war almost resulted, but was averted by a Petrograd conference which gave Roumania Silistria without fortifications (May 7).
On April 19 Serbia offered her a treaty against Bulgaria, and on May 2 the Greeks made a similar offer. She desired, however, to remain free until war was actually begun, fearing the effect of an alliance of all against Bulgaria.
Terms of the Treaty of London, 30 May 1913
The terms were practically those proposed by the powers on March 23.
(1) Turkey ceded to the Balkan allies her territory in Europe beyond a line drawn from Enos near the mouth of the Maritza River on the Aegean Sea to Midia on the Black Sea.
(2) The status and boundaries of Albania were to be fixed by the great powers.
(3) The Sultan of Turkey ceded Crete to the Balkan allies in whose favour all rights of sovereignty were renounced.
(4) To the great powers was left the decision upon the fate of the islands in the Aegean Sea (excepting Crete) and the status of Mount Athos.
Source: Anderson, Frank Maloy and Amos Shartle Hershey, Handbook for the Diplomatic History of Europe, Asia, and Africa 1870-1914. (Prepared for the National Board for Historical Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1918.)
Historian and Professor Eugene Borza who is credited as "Macedonian specialist" by the American Philological Association, and who have done extensive studies regarding the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, had also presented in-depth analysis on the modern Greek position which claims that the ancient Macedonians "were Greek". In his In the Shadow of Olympus (p.91-92) Borza writes:
"Thus, long before there was a sufficient ancient evidence to argue about the ethnic identity--as revealed by language--of the ancient Macedonians, there emerged a "Greek" position claiming that the Macedonian language was Greek, and that thus the inhabitants were Greek."
The modern Greeks have therefore, developed a position that the Macedonians were Greek, long before there was sufficient ancient evidence to argue about their ethnicity. Yet although modern historiography had long abandoned this prematurely established "Greek" position, modern Greeks are still its most zealous defenders despite the overwhelming evidence available today, which overwhelmingly shows that the Macedonians were not Greeks but a distinct nation. Borza continues:
"For example, recent work describes the funerary stelae found in the tumulus covering the royal tombs at Vergina. These stelae date from the fourth and early third centuries, and the preponderance of names are Greek… The excavator of Vergina, Manolis Andronikos, in a useful summary of the epigraphic evidence, writes: "In the most unambivalent way this evidence confirms the opinion of those historians who maintain that the Macedonians were a Greek tribe, like all the others who lived on Greek territory, and shows that the theory that they were of Illyrian or Thracian descent and were hellenized by Philip and Alexander rests on no objective criteria." Manolis Andronikos Vergina:The Royal Tombs, 83-85."
Here is Borza’s answer to the Greek archeologist Manolis Andronikos:
"This argument is true enough only as far as it goes. It neglects that the hellenization of the Macedonians might have occurred earlier then the age of Philip and Alexander, and can not therefore serve as a means of proving the Macedonians were a Greek tribe."
Indeed, not only Andronakis was obviously wrong to conclude that the Macedonians were Greek, but also notice how the Greek archeologist does not point that the Macedonians might have been a separate nation. Instead he prefers to call it if not Greek, either Illyrian or Thracian, two ancient nations that can not be associated with the Balkans politics surrounding Greece, resulted from the 1913 partition of Macedonia (see below). Also notice how Andronikos used the term "like all the others who lived on Greek territory". It’s like he wants to convince the reader that Macedonia has always been a "Greek territory", which is exactly what he uses as a base for his inaccurate conclusion.
Another Greek writer, Michael Sakellariou, in his Macedonia 4000 years of Greek History, 44-63 (quite questionable of accuracy title to begin with), "proves" that the "Macedonians were Greek" although he purposely avoided all evidence that does not suit such conclusion. Borza has a line for him as well:
"It is indicative of the strength of Badian’s case that his critics have succeeded only in nit-picking: e.g., Sakellariou, Macedonia, 534-35 nn. 52.53" (Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p.96.)
Borza is talking about Ernst Badian from Harvard University who in his extensive research Greeks and Macedonians presented all evidence and soundly concluded that the Macedonians were distinct nation from the Greeks, which neither considered themselves to be Greeks nor were considered by the Greeks to be Greek. That is precisely what the Greek writer Sakellariou had completely and purposely avoided, and lacking any base for a well-balanced criticism, choused instead to nit-pick Badian's argument.
We can see a trend among the Greek scholars (Andronicos, Martis, Daskalakis, Kallaris, and Sakellariou) who desperately want to show the world that the Macedonians "were Greeks", though unsuccessfully. Martis' Falsification of Macedonian History was handed out to the foreign journalists in Greece and translated into many languages. Sakellariou’s Macedonia 4000 years of Greek History was even donated for free to the libraries throughout the United States. This exposes a well-developed propaganda strategy, to influence all those unaware that the "Macedonians were Greek." Yet the Greeks are showing the world that the "Macedonians were Greek" by avoiding all ancient and modern evidence that does not suit their purpose, and in that process they try to pass books so full of historical errors and distortions:
"The fullest statement of the "Greek" position, and also the most detailed study of the Macedonian language, is by Kallaris, Les anciens Macidoniens, esp. 2: 488-531, in which alleged Greek elements in the Macedonian language are examined exhaustively. A more chauvinistic (and less persuasive) point of view can be found in Daskalakis, Hellenism, esp. pts. 2. and 3. The most blatant account is that of Martis (The Falsification of Macedonian History). This book, written by a former Minister for Northern Greece, is an polemical anti-Yugoslav tract so full of historical errors and distortions that the prize awarded it by the Academy of Athens serves only to reduce confidence in the scientific judgment of that venerable society of scholars. The most sensible and scholarly Greek position is that laid out by Sakellariou, in Macedonia, 44-63. Lest it seem, however, that the "Greek" position is held only by modem Greeks" - (Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus p.91)
It is ironical that the book of the former Greek politician Nicolas Martis is named The Falsification of Macedonian History, when in fact he is the one who is falsifying the history of Macedonia with his historical errors and distortions. It is worrisome that the students of the countries who have nothing to do with the modern Greek politics, must be exposed to the Greek historical fabrications against one of the most dynamic powers of the ancient times - the Macedonians. But why is Greece doing this, what is behind it, why do they steal the history of the ancient Macedonians, and attempt to appropriate it as theirs?
The answer lays in the year of 1913 when Macedonia was partitioned after the Balkan wars and Greece swallowed the biggest part - 51%. There was nothing in Macedonia then that connected that land with Greece, apart from the small 10% Greek minority scattered in southern Macedonia among the overwhelming majority of Macedonians who lived throughout the country (for complete statistical evidence see the "Macedonian-Greek Conflict"). Since in 1913 it acquired foreign territory populated by non-Greeks, Greece had to provide a link that would justify its claim on that half of Macedonia. That is exactly why the Greeks claim that the ancient Macedonians "were Greek", so that if in ancient times there was a Greek tribe (Macedonians) living in Macedonia, then that land therefore is Greek (just like Andronikos points above). What is not disputable however, is that since 1913 till today, the modern Greek state continues to oppress the ethnic Macedonians who now find themselves living in Greece (see Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International evidenced in the "Macedonians in Greece"). The other northern part of Macedonia, today’s Republic of Macedonia, broke out of Yugoslavia and became independent in 1991. That brought addition fuel to the Greek nationalists who are afraid now that one part of the ethnic Macedonian nation is independent, the partition of 1913 can be seen as illegal, which could lead to eventual loss of their Greek Macedonian part and subsequent reunification of one Macedonia. That is exactly why they claim that there is no modern Macedonian nation, not in Greece not anywhere, and continue to deny the basic human rights of their Macedonian minority through politics filled with paranoia, politics which without the revision of the ancient history could not breathe.
Bibliography
1. Michael Sakellariou, Macedonia 4000 years of Greek History
2. Nikolaos Martis, The Falsification of Macedonian History Nicolaos Martis
3. Kallaris, Les anciens Macidoniens
4. Daskalakis, Hellenism
5. Manolis Andronikos, Vergina:The Royal Tombs
6. Eugene Borza, In the Shadow of Olympus
Za preimenuvanie na Makedoncite
IDEOLOSHKA OFANZIVA
PROTIV MAKEDONCITE
Generalshtabot na grchkata armija bara od Filipos Dragumis-vo interes na vnatreshnite I na megjunarodnite interesi na grchkata drzhava-da iznajde ime za da go prekrsti makedonskiot jazik. Spored dotogashnite propisi, jazikot na Makedoncite vo 1920 godina se narekuvashe makedonski, vo 1928 godina-makedonsko-slovenski, I vo 1940 godina slovenski.
Ovoj istoriski dokument vsushnost e doverliv Memorandum od dvaeset otchukani stranici od Filip Dragumis do Generalshtabot na grchkata vojska, so datum od 12 noemvri 1948 godina. Memorandumot se naogja vo lichnata arhiva na F. Dragumis, vo bibliotekata “Genadios”, vo poddosieto 104.6, dokument broj 160 I so naslov “ za pogranichnoto bugarofonsko naselenie “.
Sostavuvachot na memorandumot Filipos Dragumis ( 1890-1980 ), po poteklo od grchkoto selo Bogaciko ili Bogacko, Kosturska okolija, sin na Stefanos, bil visok Funkcioner na grchkata drzhava, chijashto kariera se identifikuva so procesot na pogrchuvanie na nehelinofonite zhiteli od okoliite na Makedonija shto se inkorporiraa, po balkanskite vojni I Prvata svetska vojna, vo Grcija.
Vo vremeto koga e sostavuvan Memorandumot, borbite megju sojuznichkite sili na Demokratskata armija I NOF od edna strana I Grchkata vojska od druga strana, se vodat so osobena zhestokos vo zapadna Makedonija.
Grchkata drzhava, paralelno so voenite operacii, organizira I ideoloshka ofanziva protiv makedonskata nacionalna zaednica. Filipos Dragumis, golem poznavach na makedonskoto prashanie, bil chetiripati pratenik od Lerinsko-Kostursko ( 1920-1922-god. 1926-1928god.;1932-1933g.; 1933-1935g. ), bivsh guverner za Makedonija ( 1932-1934 ), pomoshnik minister za nadvoreshni raboti ( od maj 1944 do januari 1945 I od april do noemvri 1945 godina ), minister za odbrana ( od noemvri 1945 do januari 1947 godina ) i pratenik od Solun vo tie godini ( 1946-1949 godina ), go iskazhuva svoeto mislenie za nasokite na konstruiranieto i doizgradbata na grchkata propaganda, imajki go vo predvid brziot razvoj na nastanite na Balkanot.
OTKAZHUVANIE OD STARITE PRINCIPI
Zadachata shto mu bila postavena na F. Dragumis, kako chlen na komisijata za nacionalni publikacii od strana na Generalshtabot na armijata, se odnesuva na iznaogjanieto termini za odreduvanieto na jazichniot slovenski idiom na naselenieto od nekojpogranichni sela vo Severna Grcija I konkretno vo Zapadna Makedonija.
Toa znachi, so drugi zborovi, deka voeniot shtab bara da najde- vo soglasnost so vnatreshnite I megjunarodnite interesi na grchkata drzhava- ime za da go prekrsti makedonskiot jazik.
F. Dragumis se obiduva opshirno so svojot Memorandum da I pomogne na grchkata propaganda da se otkazhe od dotogashnite tri principi koi oficialno gi imashe upotrebeno Grcija vo svoite popisi za da go odredi jazikot na Makedoncite: makedonski vo 1920 godina, makedonsko-slovenski vo 1928 godina I slovenski vo 1940 godina.
Prvata glava od Memorandumot e naslovena: “Otfrluvanie na terminot Slavomakedonci “, kade e dadeno I pojasnuvanieto za prichinite za otfrluvanieto na ovoj termin. Inicijativata poteknuva od Ministerstvoto za nadvoreshni raboti koe “ja priznava shtetnosta od upotrebata na Terminot slavomakedonski jazik I slavomakedonska nacionalnost, shto namerno go vovedoa slavomakedonistite vo megjunarodnata upotreba I bara toj termin da se otfrli”.
Nasproti faktot deka terminite makedonski jazik I makedonska nacija ne prestanaa da se upotrebuvaat od grchkite komunisti, vistina e I toa deka istovremeno, partiskiot jazik ja nalozhi I upotrebata na terminot Slavomakedonci.
Kumunistichkata partija na Grcija vo sekoj sluchaj vo toj period go poistovetuva terminot Slavomakedonci so terminot Makedonci, pochituvajki ja ochigledno kako postara odluka na Komunistichkata internacionala za makedonskoto prashanie od 25 februari 1943 godina so koja se napagja negiranieto na postoenieto na makedonskat nacija od strana na trite imperijalistichki drzhavi shto ja podelija Makedonija, taka I sopstvenata odluka na 6 kongres ( x11/1935 godina ) kade shto se osuduva stravotnoto zadushuvanie na pravata na nacionalnite malcinstva koi zhiveat vo Grcija, vo prv red na Makedoncite.
Dokaz za toa deka za Kumunistichkata partija na Grcija terminite Makedonci I Slavomakedonci vo tie godini se poistovetuvaat, e rezolucijata na Pettiot plenum na CK na Partijata ( 31 januari 1949 godina ), dva meseca po sostavuvanieto na ovoj referat, vo koja rezolucija stanuva zbor za polna nacionalna rehabilitacija na makedonskiot- slavomakedonskiot narod, da se narekuva taka kako shto samiot saka.
Dragumis na pochetokot izjavuva deka mu e drago donesuvanieto na ovaa odluka-ramka shto ja postavuva Ministerstvoto za nadvoreshni raboti, odnosnootfrluvanieto na terminot Slavomakedonci ja poddrzhuva trgnuvajki od eden glasoloshki pristap:
“Deneshniot bugarski jazik pokazhuva zabelezhitelni tragi od tret jazik, verojatno od ischeznatiot star trakiski ili iliriski.
Na primer,slavobugarskiot jazik go stava chlenot na krajotod imenkata, kako shto e I vo sovremeniot romanski, vo kucovlashkiot I vo albanskiot jazik, a toa ne e sluchaj so nieden drug slovenski jazik.
Istite tie karakteristiki gi ima I slovenskiot idiom shto go zboruvaat vo nekoj poseverni mesta od Makedonija”.
SKANDALOZNI TEZI
Od ovaa znachajna zabeleshka I dopolnitelna konstatacija, proizleguva deka srpskiot jazik na koj se zboruva severno od Skopje, Slavomakedoncite mnogu teshko go razbiraat, dodeka bugarskiot go razbiraat. Dragumis od ova izvlekuva prviot proizvolen zakluchok, deka ne se raboti za poseben jazik, nitu za bugarski dijalet, tuku za samiot bugarski jazik so nekoi lektichki razliki. Stignuva taka do edna tolku krajna teza, shto grchkiot nacionalen ligvist N. Andriotis beshe prinuden edna decenija podocna da izvrshi korekcija, podvlekuvajki deka pomalku skandalozno,posoodvetno I poblizu do vistinata e da se zboruva za slovenski idium. Vo prodolzhenie, ne od neznaenie, tuku svesno iznesuvajki lagi, toj tvrdi deka tie shto go zboruvaat toj jazik nikogash vo minatoto ne go narekuvaa srpski ili nekako poinaku, tuku samo bugarski Iako e poznato deka vo kukjata na Dragumis, kako negoviot tatko Stefanos, taka I negoviot zet Pavlos Melas govorea na makedonski jazik, a pismata na posledniov do negovata sestra Natalija, prvpat objaveni vo 1926 godina svedochat za toa.
Toj, isto taka, gi kritikuva onie shto imaat simpati sprema Grcite, a koi poradi omrazata kon Bugarite, govorea za poseben makedonski idiom-neslovenski koj e blizu do grchkiot jazik, aludirajki glavno na Konstandin Cjulkas I na site smeshni raboti shto gi napishal 1907 godina za makedonskiot jazik.
Vo vtorata glava, pod naslov “Pretpochituvanie na terminot bugarofoni Grci”, Filipos Dragumis go konkretizira svojot predlog.
Ovde chitame deka Srbite po 1912 godina go narekuvaat mnozinstvoto od naselenieto na makedonskite okolii shto gi osvoija Sloveni od Makedonija ili slavomakedonci I najstojchivo im ja vlevaa svesta, na onie shto ne moraa da gi pridobijat vo srbizmot, ideata za postoenie na posebna slovenska makedonska nacionalnost, razlichna od bugarskata I po potreba na vistinskata srpska.
Povikuvajki se na centralistite-makedonski revolucioneri, toj pishuva za Socijalistichkiot avtonomistichki makedonski komitet, za podrshkata kon nego od onie shto go sakaat svoeto osloboduvanie od Otomanskoto ropstvo, a ne se formalno hristijani, zhiteli na Makedonija (vo pochetokot na vekot ), a isto taka I za solidarnosta na evropskite socijalisti kon revolucionerite.
Za upotrebata na imeto Slavomakedonci, od strana na selanite, za vinovno go smeta kumunistichko-avtonomistichkoto dvizhenie I organizacijata NOF, a shto se odnesuva do politichkite celi na poslednava, veruva deka se tie tri:
(a)Krajna razvrska- osvojuvanie na seta Makedonija;
(b)Preodna razvrska-otcepuvanie na pogusto naselenite mesta vo Zapadna Makedonija;
(
Respond to this message
1. PRODOLZHUVA - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 1:46am
1. Prodolzhuva - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:24am
1. prodolzhuva - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:29am
1. Kraj. - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:36am
Za preimenuvanie na Makedoncite
IDEOLOSHKA OFANZIVA
PROTIV MAKEDONCITE
Generalshtabot na grchkata armija bara od Filipos Dragumis-vo interes na vnatreshnite I na megjunarodnite interesi na grchkata drzhava-da iznajde ime za da go prekrsti makedonskiot jazik. Spored dotogashnite propisi, jazikot na Makedoncite vo 1920 godina se narekuvashe makedonski, vo 1928 godina-makedonsko-slovenski, I vo 1940 godina slovenski.
Ovoj istoriski dokument vsushnost e doverliv Memorandum od dvaeset otchukani stranici od Filip Dragumis do Generalshtabot na grchkata vojska, so datum od 12 noemvri 1948 godina. Memorandumot se naogja vo lichnata arhiva na F. Dragumis, vo bibliotekata “Genadios”, vo poddosieto 104.6, dokument broj 160 I so naslov “ za pogranichnoto bugarofonsko naselenie “.
Sostavuvachot na memorandumot Filipos Dragumis ( 1890-1980 ), po poteklo od grchkoto selo Bogaciko ili Bogacko, Kosturska okolija, sin na Stefanos, bil visok Funkcioner na grchkata drzhava, chijashto kariera se identifikuva so procesot na pogrchuvanie na nehelinofonite zhiteli od okoliite na Makedonija shto se inkorporiraa, po balkanskite vojni I Prvata svetska vojna, vo Grcija.
Vo vremeto koga e sostavuvan Memorandumot, borbite megju sojuznichkite sili na Demokratskata armija I NOF od edna strana I Grchkata vojska od druga strana, se vodat so osobena zhestokos vo zapadna Makedonija.
Grchkata drzhava, paralelno so voenite operacii, organizira I ideoloshka ofanziva protiv makedonskata nacionalna zaednica. Filipos Dragumis, golem poznavach na makedonskoto prashanie, bil chetiripati pratenik od Lerinsko-Kostursko ( 1920-1922-god. 1926-1928god.;1932-1933g.; 1933-1935g. ), bivsh guverner za Makedonija ( 1932-1934 ), pomoshnik minister za nadvoreshni raboti ( od maj 1944 do januari 1945 I od april do noemvri 1945 godina ), minister za odbrana ( od noemvri 1945 do januari 1947 godina ) i pratenik od Solun vo tie godini ( 1946-1949 godina ), go iskazhuva svoeto mislenie za nasokite na konstruiranieto i doizgradbata na grchkata propaganda, imajki go vo predvid brziot razvoj na nastanite na Balkanot.
OTKAZHUVANIE OD STARITE PRINCIPI
Zadachata shto mu bila postavena na F. Dragumis, kako chlen na komisijata za nacionalni publikacii od strana na Generalshtabot na armijata, se odnesuva na iznaogjanieto termini za odreduvanieto na jazichniot slovenski idiom na naselenieto od nekojpogranichni sela vo Severna Grcija I konkretno vo Zapadna Makedonija.
Toa znachi, so drugi zborovi, deka voeniot shtab bara da najde- vo soglasnost so vnatreshnite I megjunarodnite interesi na grchkata drzhava- ime za da go prekrsti makedonskiot jazik.
F. Dragumis se obiduva opshirno so svojot Memorandum da I pomogne na grchkata propaganda da se otkazhe od dotogashnite tri principi koi oficialno gi imashe upotrebeno Grcija vo svoite popisi za da go odredi jazikot na Makedoncite: makedonski vo 1920 godina, makedonsko-slovenski vo 1928 godina I slovenski vo 1940 godina.
Prvata glava od Memorandumot e naslovena: “Otfrluvanie na terminot Slavomakedonci “, kade e dadeno I pojasnuvanieto za prichinite za otfrluvanieto na ovoj termin. Inicijativata poteknuva od Ministerstvoto za nadvoreshni raboti koe “ja priznava shtetnosta od upotrebata na Terminot slavomakedonski jazik I slavomakedonska nacionalnost, shto namerno go vovedoa slavomakedonistite vo megjunarodnata upotreba I bara toj termin da se otfrli”.
Nasproti faktot deka terminite makedonski jazik I makedonska nacija ne prestanaa da se upotrebuvaat od grchkite komunisti, vistina e I toa deka istovremeno, partiskiot jazik ja nalozhi I upotrebata na terminot Slavomakedonci.
Kumunistichkata partija na Grcija vo sekoj sluchaj vo toj period go poistovetuva terminot Slavomakedonci so terminot Makedonci, pochituvajki ja ochigledno kako postara odluka na Komunistichkata internacionala za makedonskoto prashanie od 25 februari 1943 godina so koja se napagja negiranieto na postoenieto na makedonskat nacija od strana na trite imperijalistichki drzhavi shto ja podelija Makedonija, taka I sopstvenata odluka na 6 kongres ( x11/1935 godina ) kade shto se osuduva stravotnoto zadushuvanie na pravata na nacionalnite malcinstva koi zhiveat vo Grcija, vo prv red na Makedoncite.
Dokaz za toa deka za Kumunistichkata partija na Grcija terminite Makedonci I Slavomakedonci vo tie godini se poistovetuvaat, e rezolucijata na Pettiot plenum na CK na Partijata ( 31 januari 1949 godina ), dva meseca po sostavuvanieto na ovoj referat, vo koja rezolucija stanuva zbor za polna nacionalna rehabilitacija na makedonskiot- slavomakedonskiot narod, da se narekuva taka kako shto samiot saka.
Dragumis na pochetokot izjavuva deka mu e drago donesuvanieto na ovaa odluka-ramka shto ja postavuva Ministerstvoto za nadvoreshni raboti, odnosnootfrluvanieto na terminot Slavomakedonci ja poddrzhuva trgnuvajki od eden glasoloshki pristap:
“Deneshniot bugarski jazik pokazhuva zabelezhitelni tragi od tret jazik, verojatno od ischeznatiot star trakiski ili iliriski.
Na primer,slavobugarskiot jazik go stava chlenot na krajotod imenkata, kako shto e I vo sovremeniot romanski, vo kucovlashkiot I vo albanskiot jazik, a toa ne e sluchaj so nieden drug slovenski jazik.
Istite tie karakteristiki gi ima I slovenskiot idiom shto go zboruvaat vo nekoj poseverni mesta od Makedonija”.
SKANDALOZNI TEZI
Od ovaa znachajna zabeleshka I dopolnitelna konstatacija, proizleguva deka srpskiot jazik na koj se zboruva severno od Skopje, Slavomakedoncite mnogu teshko go razbiraat, dodeka bugarskiot go razbiraat. Dragumis od ova izvlekuva prviot proizvolen zakluchok, deka ne se raboti za poseben jazik, nitu za bugarski dijalet, tuku za samiot bugarski jazik so nekoi lektichki razliki. Stignuva taka do edna tolku krajna teza, shto grchkiot nacionalen ligvist N. Andriotis beshe prinuden edna decenija podocna da izvrshi korekcija, podvlekuvajki deka pomalku skandalozno,posoodvetno I poblizu do vistinata e da se zboruva za slovenski idium. Vo prodolzhenie, ne od neznaenie, tuku svesno iznesuvajki lagi, toj tvrdi deka tie shto go zboruvaat toj jazik nikogash vo minatoto ne go narekuvaa srpski ili nekako poinaku, tuku samo bugarski Iako e poznato deka vo kukjata na Dragumis, kako negoviot tatko Stefanos, taka I negoviot zet Pavlos Melas govorea na makedonski jazik, a pismata na posledniov do negovata sestra Natalija, prvpat objaveni vo 1926 godina svedochat za toa.
Toj, isto taka, gi kritikuva onie shto imaat simpati sprema Grcite, a koi poradi omrazata kon Bugarite, govorea za poseben makedonski idiom-neslovenski koj e blizu do grchkiot jazik, aludirajki glavno na Konstandin Cjulkas I na site smeshni raboti shto gi napishal 1907 godina za makedonskiot jazik.
Vo vtorata glava, pod naslov “Pretpochituvanie na terminot bugarofoni Grci”, Filipos Dragumis go konkretizira svojot predlog.
Ovde chitame deka Srbite po 1912 godina go narekuvaat mnozinstvoto od naselenieto na makedonskite okolii shto gi osvoija Sloveni od Makedonija ili slavomakedonci I najstojchivo im ja vlevaa svesta, na onie shto ne moraa da gi pridobijat vo srbizmot, ideata za postoenie na posebna slovenska makedonska nacionalnost, razlichna od bugarskata I po potreba na vistinskata srpska.
Povikuvajki se na centralistite-makedonski revolucioneri, toj pishuva za Socijalistichkiot avtonomistichki makedonski komitet, za podrshkata kon nego od onie shto go sakaat svoeto osloboduvanie od Otomanskoto ropstvo, a ne se formalno hristijani, zhiteli na Makedonija (vo pochetokot na vekot ), a isto taka I za solidarnosta na evropskite socijalisti kon revolucionerite.
Za upotrebata na imeto Slavomakedonci, od strana na selanite, za vinovno go smeta kumunistichko-avtonomistichkoto dvizhenie I organizacijata NOF, a shto se odnesuva do politichkite celi na posled
Respond to this message
1. Prodolzhuva - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:24am
1. prodolzhuva - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:29am
1. Kraj. - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:36am
a shto se odnesuva do politichkite celi na poslednava, veruva deka se tie tri:
(a)Krajna razvrska- osvojuvanie na seta Makedonija;
(b)Preodna razvrska-otcepuvanie na pogusto naselenite mesta vo Zapadna Makedonija;
(v)Poslednata razvrska-priznavanie od strana na OON na nacionalno malcinstvo, Slavomakedonsko vo grchka Makedonija so obezbeduvanie spored megjunarodni normi malcinski, nacionalni, crkovni I uchilishni prava.
Ocenuvajki ja stvarnosta od toa vreme, politichkite I voenite okolnosti, Dragumis zabelezhuva vo vrska so pogore iznesenoto: Prvite dve mozhnosti veke izgledaat popusti, blagodarenie na angloamerikanskata pomosh I na poveke od dvegodishniot otpor na narodot I vojskata shto prodolzhuva protiv slavokomunistichkiot banditizam, iako bandite napolno gi drzhat dvata najznachajni pogranichni reoni na Koreshtata, Kostursko, Prespa I Lerinsko.
No, tretata mozhnost se ushte ne e otstranata, kako shto se gleda I od konferencijata na OON vo Paris I nastojuvanieto na panslovenskata koalacija, koja intezivno go propagira reshenieto za megjunarodno priznavanie na slavomakedonskoto malcinstvo vo grchka Makedonija. No bidejki zashtitata na malite, na slabite I na malcinstvata e omilena tema na site vistinski slobodoljubivi I so demokratski ubeduvania narodi, se naogjame pred opasnosta da gi vidime niv izmameni od strana na panslovenskata koalicija I da bide prifaten neiziniot somnitelen predlog”.
Vo tretata glava od Memorandumot, pod naslov “Terminot slovenski idiom e indentichen so terminot slavomakedonci”,
Avtorot objasnuva zoshto po negovo mislenie se sluchuva toa.”Terminot slovensko jazichno malcinstvo vo sushtina e identichen so terminot slavomakedonsko. Teoretski bi mozhelo da se tvrdi deka nema poblizok nacionalen karakter, tuku samojazichen ili pooshiren plemenski. Slovenskoto semejstvo go sochinuvaat mnogu nacii so razni slovenski jazici.
No vo praktikata, ako nie priznavame slovensko jazichno malcinstvo vo Makedonija, razlichno od bugarskoto I od srpskoto, nie ke popadneme avtomatski I zadolzhitelno vo slovenokomunistichkata teorija za postoenie na posebna slavomakedonska nacionalnost”.
Dve godini podocna vo svoeto pismo do svojot prijatel X(h) Xristidis, so godini chlen na meshovitata komisija na grchko-bugarskoto preseluvanie i avtor na knigata "Le Comuflage Macedonien” ( 1949 ), F. Dragumis se vrakia na sodrzhinata na spomenatiot paragraf, priznavajki deka tamu toj gi izlozhuva I onie prichini koj nemozhat javno da se iskazhat.
Vo prodolzhenie na taa glava, negoviot avtor doagja do prashanieto na nekogashnata odluka na grchkata vlada ( vo 1925 godina ), za izuchuvanieto na makedonskiot jazik vo malcinskite regioni, izdavanieto na makedonskata chitanka Abecedar I na razmenata na naselenieto vrz osnova na Spogodbata na Neili.
Za politichkata simpatija na makedonskite avtonomisti vo periodot megju dvete vojni kon KPG, poradi nejzinite stavovi po makedonskoto iprashanie, tojkomentira: “Glasaa na izborite za kumunistichkata partija, izrazuvajki ja taka na izgled zakonski svojata omraza kon liberalniot rezhim”.
No, go potencira prashanieto so toa shto go smeta mal procentot na komunistite.”No, ovaa partija vo prefekturata na Lerin I Kostur (togash beshe edinstvena prefektura) dobi samo edna desetina od glasovite”.
Ovaa zabeleshka na Dragumis, za neznachajnosta na izbirachkata baza, se naogja vo antipodot na ona shto go tvrdeshe negoviot sorabotnik I prijatel, golem poznavach na makedonskite raboti Konstantinos Karavidas, za koj, veruvam deka e mnogu poblizu do istoriskata stvarnost, go pokazhuva nemirot na grchkite vlasti I vredi da se prenese tuka avtentichno:
“Treba da se zabelezhi deka od navedenite 1278 glasovi dadeni (1936 godina vo Lerinskata prefektura) za komunistichkiot pravec, odnosno za antigrchkiot I avtonomistichkiot pravec, od selani, slepifanatici, ako a niv se sudi od gledna tochka na kvalitetot I dinamika, ochigledno e deka sekoj glas ima mnogu kratko znachenie vo odnos na dadenite za razni drugi partii.
Zatoa shto dodeka nekoi od poslednite se glasovi dadeni sluchajno I drugi dadeni poradi koristoljubivi vrski on edna ili druga partija, ili poradi lichni vrski, glasovite za reakcionernite komunisti bea dadeni, sprotivno na lichniot interes na sekoj glasach, za eden kandidat sosema neznachaen I od predanost kon ideal krajno opasen za niv.
Toa se tolku efektivni glasovi, taka shto mozhe da se pretpostavi deka sekoj od niv zrachi vlijanie vrz 30 I 40 lugje megju ostanatite mesni selani.”
Dragumis gi ostava predlozite za chetvrtata glava, koja ja naslovuva: “Nadvoreshno-politichki prichini za prepochituvanie na terminot bugarofoni”. Tuka veke pishuva otvoreno:
“Duri I koga ne bi bilo vistina deka slovenskiot idiom, za nekoi delovi od makedonskoto naselenie e navistina bugarski idiom, a ne makedonsko-slovenski ili ednostavno duri slovenski I ako onie megju niv shto gi mrazat Grcite so tezhinata na svojata dusha ne bi I sochuvstvuvale na Bugarija, tuku na Jugoslavija ili Rusija, bi bilo vo nash interes da gi kvalifikuvame kako skloni kon bugarite ili simpatizeri na bugarite, a ne kako bozhem nacionalno bezbojni Sloveni, koga veke nazivot Slavomakedonci go iskluchuvame”.
I vednash po toa, sostavachot na Memorandumot pojasnuva zoshto e vo interes na grchkata drzhava, da ne gi krsti Makedoncite so imeto sloveni ili Slavomakedonci, tuku so imeto bugarofoni.
“Neizbezhno e, pishuva toj, deka duri I ako gi priznaeme od nasha strana samo kako slovensko jazichno, a ne nacionalno malcinstvo, tie da se stremat kon megjunarodno priznavanie kako slavomakedonsko nacionalno malcinstvo I da baraat zashtita od nezavisnata drzhava Makedonija, chlenka na shirokata Jugoslovenska Federacija na Tito, dodeka dokolku se megjunarodno priznati kako bugarofonsko malcinstvo bi se rascepilo makedonskoto edinstvo.
I praktichno toj veruva, kako shto istaknuva ponatamu, deka na ovoj nachin se olesnuva nivnoto otfrluvanie kako agenti na bivshata neprijatelska drzhava”.
Vo prodolzhenie na ovoj Memorandum glava 5: “Nevozmoshno e megjunarodno odobrenie za prinudno iskorenuvanie na koe bilo jazichno nacionalno malcinstvo “ e osobeno razoblichuvachki, koga Dragumis pishuva za namerite na odredeni Funkcioneri na grchkata drzhava da pojdat kon konechnoto reshavanie, celosno, preku nasilstvo, iskorenuvanie na Makedoncite od nivnite ognishta. No, sepak, ne se soglasuva so takviot predlog, zatoa shto veruva deka nema nadezh za uspex.
Mmozhnosta za proteruvanie vo idnina, na koja se nadevaat nekoi, ili za prinudno iseluvanie na site bugarofoni, nezavisno od nivnite ubeduvania I nasproti nivnata volja, e vistinska utopija, osobeno ako tie se okvalifikuvani kako slavofoni.
Razmena na naselenieto kako so Jugoslavija taka I so Bugarija, stanuva nevozmozhna, zatoa shto vo ovie dve zemji ne postoi veke izrazito grchko naselenie I osobeno grkofoni. Vrednosta na posledniov paragrav, mislam deka stanuva razbirliv, shtom dava odgovor na se shto neopislivo I nerealno se tvrdeshe od mnogu Grci poznati po ime I prezime, po ofanzivata protiv sosednata Republika na neupotreba na imeto Makedonija. No, izvonredno interesna e I vtorata prichina za otfrluvanie, spored Dragumis, na razmenata I otkornuvanieto na makedonskoto naselenie.
“Megjunarodno priznata prinudna razmena ili otkornuvanie na kakvo bilo naselenie apsolutno se iskluchuva, zatoa shto takvite totalitarni merki, promovirani od Germancite I prepishani so usovrshuvania od ruskite komunisti, proglaseni se kako nepriemlivi od strana na zapadnite demokrati”.
Dragumis, se razbira, go premolchuva faktot deka prviot propovetnik na prinudnata razmena ili otkornuvanie na naselenieto- e grchkata drzhava, koja prednichi za tri decenii, kako so prochuenata grchko-bugarska spogodba od Neili od 1919 godina taka I voglavno so grchko-turskata spogodba za prinudnata razmena od Lozana-1923 godina.
SPISOCI NA “NEPODOBNITE”
No, ako e nevozmozhno totalnoto otkornuvanie na Makedoncite od svoite mesta, toa neznach
Respond to this message
1. prodolzhuva - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:29am
1. Kraj. - Taralinga on August 4, 2006, 2:36am
After the revival of Greek, Serbian, and Bulgarian statehood in the 19th century, Macedonia became a focus of the national ambitions of all three governments, leading to the creation in the 1890s and 1900s of rival armed groups who divided their efforts between fighting the Turks and one another. The most important of these was the Bulgarian-sponsored Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (VMRO), under Goce Delchev who in 1903 rebelled in the so-called Ilinden uprising, and the Greek efforts from 1904 till 1908 (Greek Struggle for Macedonia). Diplomatic intervention by the European powers led to plans for an autonomous Macedonia under Ottoman rule.
The rise of the Albanian and the Turkish nationalism after 1908, however, prompted Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria to bury their differences with regard to Macedonia and to form a joint coalition against the Ottoman Empire in 1912. Disregarding public opinion in Bulgaria, which was in support of the establishment of an autonomous Macedonian province under a Christian governor, the Bulgarian government entered a pre-war treaty with Serbia which divided the region into two parts. The part of Macedonia west and north of the line of partition was contested by both Serbia and Bulgaria and was subject to the arbitration of the Russian Tsar after the war. Serbia formally renounced any claims to the part of Macedonia south and east of the line, which was declared to be within the Bulgarian sphere of interest. The pre-treaty between Greece and Bulgaria, however, did not include any agreement on the division of the conquered territories - evidently both countries hoped to occupy as much territory as possible having their sights primarily set on Thessaloniki.
Map of the region contested by Serbia and Bulgaria and subject to the arbitration of the Russian Tsar
In the First Balkan War, Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro occupied almost all Ottoman-held territories in Europe. Bulgaria bore the brunt of the war fighting on the Thracian front against the main Ottoman forces. Both her war expenditures and casualties in the First Balkan War were higher than those of Serbia, Greece and Montenegro http://www.macedonia-look.com/images/MK/mac_historcombined. Macedonia itself was occupied by Greek, Serbian and Bulgarian forces. The Ottoman Empire in the Treaty of London in May 1913 assigned the whole of Macedonia to the Balkan League, without, specifing the division of the region, in order to promote problems between the allies. Dissatisfied with the creation of an autonomous Albanian state, which denied her access to the Adriatic, Serbia asked for the suspension of the pre-war division treaty and demanded from Bulgaria greater territorial concessions in Macedonia. Later in May the same year, Greece and Serbia signed a secret treaty in Thessaloniki stipulating the division of Macedonia according to the existing lines of control. Both Serbia and Greece, as well as Bulgaria, started to prepare for a final war of partition.
Ottoman territories occupied by Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece and Montenegro after the First Balkan War
In June 1913, Bulgarian Tsar Ferdinand, without consulting the government, and without any declaration of war, ordered Bulgarian troops to attack the Greek and Serbian troops in Macedonia, initiating the Second Balkan War. The Bulgarian army was in full retreat in all fronts. The Serbian army chose to stop its operations when achieved all its territorial goals and only then the Bulgarian army took a breath. During the last 2 days the Bulgarians managed to achieve a defensive victory against the advancing Greek army in the Kresna Gorge. The same time the Romanian army crossed the undefended northern border and easily advanced towards Sofia. Romania interefered in the war, in order to satisfy it's territorial claims against Bulgaria. The Ottoman Empire also interfered, easily reasumming control of Eastern Thrace with Edirne. The Second Balkan War, also known as Inter-Ally War, left Bulgaria only with the Struma valley and a small part of Thrace with minor ports at the aegean sea. Vardar Macedonia was incorporated into Serbia and thereafter referred to as South Serbia. Southern (Aegean) Macedonia was incorporated into a Greece. The region suffered heavily during the Second Balkan War. During its advance at the end of June, the Greek army set fire to the Bulgarian quarter of the town of Kukush (Kilkis) and over 160 Bulgarian villages around Kukush and Serres driving some 50,000 refugees into Bulgaria proper. The Bulgarian army retaliated by burning the Greek quarter of Serres and by arming Muslims from the region of Drama which led to a massacre of Greek civilians.
In September of 1915, the Greek government allowed the landing of the troops of the Allies in Thessaloniki.In 1916 the pro-German King of Greece agreed with the Germans to allow military forces of the Central Powers enter Greek Macedonia in order to attack the forces of the Allies in Thessaloniki. As a result of that Bulgarian troops occupied the eastern part of Greek Macedonia with the port of Kavala. The region was, however, restored to Greece following the victory of the Allies in 1918. After the destruction of the Greek Army in Asia Minor in 1922 Greece and Turkey exchanged most of Macedonia's Turkish minority and the Greek inhabitants of Thrace and Anatolia, as a result of which Aegean Macedonia experienced a large addition to its population and became overwhelmingly Greek in ethnic composition. Serbian-ruled Macedonia was incorporated with the rest of Serbia into the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes (later the Kingdom of Yugoslavia) in 1918. Yugoslav Macedonia was subsequently subjected to an intense process of "Serbianization" during the 1920s and 1930s.
During World War II the boundaries of the region shifted yet again. When the German forces occupied the area, most of Yugoslav Macedonia and part of Greek Macedonia were transferred for administration to Bulgaria. During the Bulgarian admininstration of Eastern Greek Macedonia, some 100,000 Bulgarian refugees from the region were resettled there and perhaps as many Greeks were deported or fled to Greece. Western Greek Macedonia was occupied by Italy, with the western parts of Yugoslav Macedonia being annexed to Italian-occupied Albania. The remainder of Greek Macedonia (including all of the coast) was occupied by Nazi Germany. One of the worst episodes of the Holocaust happened here when 60,000 Jews from Thessaloniki were deported to extermination camps in occupied Poland. Only a few thousand survived.
Macedonia was liberated in 1944, when the Red Army's advance in the Balkan Peninsula forced the German forces to retreat. The pre-war borders were restored under U.S. and British pressure because the Bulgarian government was insisting to keep its military units on Greek soil. The Bulgarian Macedonia returned fairly rapidly to normality, but the Bulgarian patriots in Yugoslav Macedonia underwent a process of ethnic cleansing by the Belgrade authorities, and Greek Macedonia was ravaged by the Greek Civil War, which broke out in December 1944 and did not end until October 1949.
After this civil war, a large number of former ELAS fighters who took refuge in communist Bulgaria and Yugoslavia and described themselves as "ethnic Bulgarian/Macedonian" were prohibited from reestablishing to their former estates by the Greek authorities. Most of them were accused in Greece for crimes committed during the period of the German occupation.
Macedonia - Part I - Introduction
I am riveted by Macedonia.
These essays are more from my old Country of the Week feature on my old blog - slowly I am migrating them all over here. They're interesting, if I do say so myself (although I cannot take any credit for the information therein - It's all from the great authors I have read.)
Other countries discussed here.
MACEDONIA - INTRODUCTION
To me, Macedonia reminds me of those very very difficult math problems we had to work on in high school. I would hunch over my notebook, squinting down at the confusion, working it out, feeling frustration and despair, erasing, adding, throwing the whole thing out, starting afresh ... and then, suddenly, there would be a very brief "A-ha!!" moment, light breaking in on my brain ... and in one beautiful moment, I could "see" the answer. Clear as day. When 2 seconds before, I had NO IDEA WHAT THE HELL I WAS DOING.
I have read multiple books about the Balkans. Macedonia is really the key to the whole area. Always has been, always will be. But could I explain to you WHY? Occasionally I will have a bright-white "A-ha!!" moment, in terms of getting what is going on with Macedonia, but then the cloud cover comes down again. Sometimes I get the sense, too, that Macedonia is like one of those sub-sub-sub atomic particles in the world of quantum physics, where the only way you can tell that they exist, is by the effect these teeny particles have on OTHER particles. This is not to say that Macedonia does not exist. (Although, I suppose if you spoke with a nationalistic Bulgarian that is exactly what they would say: "Macedonia?? There IS no Macedonia! It is ALL BULGARIA!") It is just that you can really only "get" Macedonia in relation to all the other countries in the Balkans.
Any context or clarifiations to the rambling discussion below would be greatly appreciated. My readers are, categorically, well-read, well-spoken, and damn smart.
Let's begin with this:
TWO TREATIES HEARD ROUND THE WORLD
1. The Treaty of San Stefano
Macedonia is the Balkans in miniature. It is an old country, with memories of glory centuries ago. Alexander the Great, after all, was a Macedonian, and set out from Macedonia to conquer the world. Macedonia is filled with a mix of races and languages and religions and cultures, and nobody mixes with each other. They never have mixed and they don't mix now.
But before I talk about generalities, let me try to describe what is known as "the Macedonian problem", because it is the key. This problem has not disappeared and will definitely appear again one day to the forefront of world events.
Historic Macedonia overlaps Bulgaria and also Greece. Claims on this soil are legion. It's like Armenia. There is a centuries-old question surrounding the issue: Is Macedonia a real country? What are its borders? It has been cut up and carved up and divided so many times that nobody seems to know, although everybody has a fierce opinion about it. And, at this point, everything is so mixed up and ethnically divided that no matter how you divided Macedonia, each state would be left with unruly pissed-off minorities.
So here's a bit of history. The whole Balkan area was part of the Ottoman Empire. In the early 19th century, the Ottoman Empire began to show the first signs of a crack-up. Greeks, Serbs, and Montenegrins won a struggle for self-rule. In 1877, Russian troops arrived to liberate Bulgaria from Turkey. The Turks were defeated, and the Russians moved into the Bulgarian capital as an occupying force.
In March, 1878, the Russians dictated the Treaty of San Stefano to the Turks. The Treaty of San Stefano has been called "the first fuse of the Balkan powder keg". It is one of those devilish things from the past which cannot be undone. It seemed like a good idea at the time to the Russians who dictated it, but here we are, over a century later, and people are still bemoaning the Treaty of San Stefano, and how it f**ked them over, etc.
The Treaty awarded Macedonia to Bulgaria. The purpose of the Treaty was to recreate Bulgaria, along the lines of the medieval Bulgarian kingdom's borders. So the treaty enlarged Bulgaria, creating a "Greater Bulgaria" which encompassed present-day Bulgaria, all of Macedonia, parts of Albania, and a huge chunk of Greek land surrounding the northern city of Salonika.
So what the Russians basically did with this treaty, was create a powerful pro-Russian state in the Balkans. It swept away the needs or desires of Macedonia and Greece. All that mattered was Bulgaria, and the population of Bulgars. The other big powers at the time (Britain, Germany, the Habsburg Empire) could not accept the Treaty, as written, and demanded that it be amended. Germany and England made it clear to Russia that creating a "Greater Bulgaria" would mean war with Great Britain.
So here we are seeing the roots of World War I. Russia capitulated.
2. The Treaty of Berlin
So basically, Greater Bulgaria was dismembered before it even had a chance to exist. A second treaty was drawn up. The Treaty of Berlin. The northern half of Greater Bulgaria became free (Bulgaria), and the southern half became a Turkish province in the Ottoman Empire (Macedonia). Macedonia was completely abandoned to the brutal Turks, as though the Treaty of San Stefano had never existed. It's like what the Allies let happen to Czechloslovakia in WWII. They tossed the country to the dogs. No hope for them, nobody would invade and save them. They were on their own.
The Treaty of Berlin basically passed around Balkan chunks of land as though nobody actually lived there, it was merely territory. But it created such confusion and such anger that we are still living in the aftermath of that treaty today. Here's the puzzle pieces of the treaty:
--Bismarck gave Russia lands in Bessarabia and Northeast Anatolia, to compensate them for the loss of Macedonia
--Serbs were given full independence
--Bismarck transferred Bosnia from Ottoman rule to Habsburg rule (this is the immediate cause of WWI). Bismarck did this to compensate the Habsburgs for the loss of Macedonia.
--Great Britain received Cyprus from the Turks.
Can you see how misguided all of this is? How crazy? How it solves nothing, and just plants the seeds of insanity for generations to come?
Also: see how Macedonia is the key?
This Treaty sparked an orgy of violence in Macedonia. The Turks brutally suppressed the uprisings.
Macedonia is, historically, an Eastern Orthodox nation. So refugees (ethnic Turks, Muslim Bosnians) flooded into Macedonia to terrorize the Christian population. In 1878 there was a guerrilla uprising against the Turks. That uprising led to a century-long guerilla war. Macedonia is the birthplace of modern-day terrorism. They invented many of the tactics which we see so often now. Their rage at being tossed to the Turks and losing everything continues to this day.
The 1890s brought spreading terrorism and violence, no central government, no concept of nationhood. And the outside powers just used this country to play out their rivalries. The mountains were filled with gangs of mercenaries and murderers, waging 15 different terrorist wars.
Then (I'm skipping way ahead here), Macedonia was incorporated into the Yugoslav Federation which, although awful to some degree, also helped tamp down a lot of the ethnic hatred and violence. But the question continues: Who, actually, does Macedonia belong to? Bulgaria is convinced that there IS no Macedonia. That Macedonia is, and always has been, part of Bulgaria. Greece feels the same way about southern Macedonia, which used to be part of Greece. Greece has never ever given up their claims on that area.
In the books I have read, people lose their minds when they start to talk about Macedonia. Screaming, tearing their hair out, everybody convinced they are right. It's a mess. It's one of the most intense "flashpoints" on this planet. There are certain areas which seem destined, somehow, to make people go nuts. Jerusalem, Armenia, Poland (how many times can Poland be invaded??), the land bridge into Turkey where Istanbul/Constantinople stands ... These are places which, geographically, nobody can be neutral about. If you even just look at their placements on a map, it is obvious why.
The Macedonian Problem will rise again. I'm sure of it.
I hope I explained that okay. It's all very confusing. But interesti
This essay (or, rather, excerpts from others' brilliant works) has to do with why Macedonia is such a flash-point- why people are obsessed with Macedonia. I could never describe this situation in my own words because, as I said in the Intro - I get a bit bogged down trying to get the complexity of Macedonia.
MACEDONIA - COMPETING CLAIMS
I have two passages on Macedonia (and the wider world of the Balkans) to share from Roberrt Kaplan's influential book Balkan Ghosts. As I said, my understanding of the Macedonian situation is tenuous, at best, and I have to review my materials before sitting down at my computer to explain it all, in writing. I was rifling through the Macedonian chapter in Kaplan's book, feeling the light dawning once again, understanding it again, and these two explanatory historical notes popped out at me.
Here is quote #1. This describes perfectly the essence of the Balkan chaos:
Macedonia, the inspiration for the French word for 'mixed salad' (macedoine), defines the principal illness of the Balkans: conflicting dreams of lost imperial glory. Each nation demands that its borders revert to where they were at the exact time when its own empire had reached its zenith of ancient medieval expansion. Because Philip of Macedon and his son, Alexander the Great, had established a great kingdom in Macedonia in the fourth century BC, the Greeks believed Macedonia to be theirs. Because the Bulgarians at the end of the tenth century under King Samuel and again in the thirteenth century under King Ivan Assen II had extended the frontiers of Bulgaria all the way west to the Adriatic Sea, the Bulgarians believed Macedonia to be theirs. Because King Stefan Duhan had overrun Macedonia in the fourteenth century and had made Skopje, in Dame Rebecca [West's] words, 'a great city, and there he had been crowned one Easter Sunday Emperor and Autocrat of the Serbs and Byzantines, the Bulgars and the Albanians,' the Serbs believed Macedonia to be theirs.
In the Balkans, history is not viewed as tracing a chronological progression as it is in the West. Instead, history jumps around and moves in circles; and where history is perceived in such a way, myths take root. Evangelos Kofos, Greece's preeminent scholar on Macedonia, has observed that these 'historical legacies ... sustained nations in their uphill drive toward state-building, national unification and, possibly, the reincarnation of long extinct empires.'
And here is quote #2. This reiterates what I described in the post about IMRO, only going into a bit more detail about what went down between the two World Wars.
After starting and losing two wars over Macedonia, Bulgaria's King Ferdinant abdicated in 1919. For the next twenty years, until the outbreak of World War II, his son, King Boris III, presided over a political system in Sofia that was riven by coup attempts and other violent conspiracies connected to the loss of what Bulgarians considered their historic homeland. IMRO, radicalized by the defeats of 1913 and 1918, became a terrorist state within a state, and, helped by its skull-and-crossbones insignia, became synonymous in the outside world with hate and violent nihilism. Opium profits financed the purchase of IMRO's weaponry. The standard fee for an IMRO assassination was twenty dollars, so Bulgarian politicians walked around with trains of bodyguards...
The terrorists, aided by Orthodox clergy, came from the Macedonian refugee population of Sofia's slums. By the 1930s, Macedonian terrorists were hiring themselves to radical groups throughout Europe -- in particular, to the Croatian Ustashe, whose chief paymaster was the fascist dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini. A Bulgarian Macedonian nicknamed 'Vlado the Chauffeur' assassinated King Alexander of Yugoslavia -- the crime that initiated Dame Rebecca's passion for that country.
World War II provided another sickening reply of World War I and the Second Balkan War. Again, as in World War I, Bulgaria joined a German-led alliance against a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia in order to regain Macedonia. Again, while forces of a German-speaking power occupied Serbia from the north, Bulgarian troops invaded and occupied Macedonia from the east. And again, Serb and Greek resistance forces, aided by the British, drove the Bulgarians back to the hated borders established in August 1913 at the conclusion of the Second Balkan War. At that point, Communist totalitarianism stopped history until the century's final decade. Nothing of all this has yet been resolved.
This essay (or, rather, excerpts from others' brilliant works) has to do with why Macedonia is such a flash-point- why people are obsessed with Macedonia. I could never describe this situation in my own words because, as I said in the Intro - I get a bit bogged down trying to get the complexity of Macedonia.
MACEDONIA - COMPETING CLAIMS
I have two passages on Macedonia (and the wider world of the Balkans) to share from Roberrt Kaplan's influential book Balkan Ghosts. As I said, my understanding of the Macedonian situation is tenuous, at best, and I have to review my materials before sitting down at my computer to explain it all, in writing. I was rifling through the Macedonian chapter in Kaplan's book, feeling the light dawning once again, understanding it again, and these two explanatory historical notes popped out at me.
Here is quote #1. This describes perfectly the essence of the Balkan chaos:
Macedonia, the inspiration for the French word for 'mixed salad' (macedoine), defines the principal illness of the Balkans: conflicting dreams of lost imperial glory. Each nation demands that its borders revert to where they were at the exact time when its own empire had reached its zenith of ancient medieval expansion. Because Philip of Macedon and his son, Alexander the Great, had established a great kingdom in Macedonia in the fourth century BC, the Greeks believed Macedonia to be theirs. Because the Bulgarians at the end of the tenth century under King Samuel and again in the thirteenth century under King Ivan Assen II had extended the frontiers of Bulgaria all the way west to the Adriatic Sea, the Bulgarians believed Macedonia to be theirs. Because King Stefan Duhan had overrun Macedonia in the fourteenth century and had made Skopje, in Dame Rebecca [West's] words, 'a great city, and there he had been crowned one Easter Sunday Emperor and Autocrat of the Serbs and Byzantines, the Bulgars and the Albanians,' the Serbs believed Macedonia to be theirs.
In the Balkans, history is not viewed as tracing a chronological progression as it is in the West. Instead, history jumps around and moves in circles; and where history is perceived in such a way, myths take root. Evangelos Kofos, Greece's preeminent scholar on Macedonia, has observed that these 'historical legacies ... sustained nations in their uphill drive toward state-building, national unification and, possibly, the reincarnation of long extinct empires.'
And here is quote #2. This reiterates what I described in the post about IMRO, only going into a bit more detail about what went down between the two World Wars.
After starting and losing two wars over Macedonia, Bulgaria's King Ferdinant abdicated in 1919. For the next twenty years, until the outbreak of World War II, his son, King Boris III, presided over a political system in Sofia that was riven by coup attempts and other violent conspiracies connected to the loss of what Bulgarians considered their historic homeland. IMRO, radicalized by the defeats of 1913 and 1918, became a terrorist state within a state, and, helped by its skull-and-crossbones insignia, became synonymous in the outside world with hate and violent nihilism. Opium profits financed the purchase of IMRO's weaponry. The standard fee for an IMRO assassination was twenty dollars, so Bulgarian politicians walked around with trains of bodyguards...
The terrorists, aided by Orthodox clergy, came from the Macedonian refugee population of Sofia's slums. By the 1930s, Macedonian terrorists were hiring themselves to radical groups throughout Europe -- in particular, to the Croatian Ustashe, whose chief paymaster was the fascist dictator of Italy, Benito Mussolini. A Bulgarian Macedonian nicknamed 'Vlado the Chauffeur' assassinated King Alexander of Yugoslavia -- the crime that initiated Dame Rebecca's passion for that country.
World War II provided another sickening reply of World War I and the Second Balkan War. Again, as in World War I, Bulgaria joined a German-led alliance against a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia in order to regain Macedonia. Again, while forces of a German-speaking power occupied Serbia from the north, Bulgarian troops invaded and occupied Macedonia from the east. And again, Serb and Greek resistance forces, aided by the British, drove the Bulgarians back to the hated borders established in August 1913 at the conclusion of the Second Balkan War. At that point, Communist totalitarianism stopped history until the century's final decade. Nothing of all this has yet been resolved.
The fascination Macedonia holds for me so far does not equal a ton of knowledge (as opposed to, say, my fascination with Uzbekistan, which has led to me owning an entire small bookshelf of material on the republic). But that's all right, I suppose. Now I know that I need to learn more about Macedonia. I can feel the gaps in my mind, questions arising, wanting to flesh out the scenario a bit more for myself.
The post below is about the Turkey-Macedonian connection.
MACEDONIA - THE YOUNG TURKS
There is a whole connection between Macedonia and Mustapha Kemal Ataturk (the creator of modern Turkey) which I was unaware of until recently.
Again, from what I have read, things that happen in Macedonia send out shock waves with global consequences. This has been true since Alexander the Great launched his ships of conquest from Salonika. Macedonia was the place from which world events sprung. So here's how I understand the connection between Ataturk (who basically equalled Turkey) and Macedonia:
In 1903, IMRO began a violent uprising against the Turks and the entire Ottoman Empire. IMRO took over some villages at the top of a mountain in Macedonia and proclaimed it an independent republic called the "Krushovo Republic". This republic lasted 10 days, and then 2000 Turkish troops marched in and completely massacred everybody. One of the stories told is that forty of the guerrillas, instead of surrendering, kissed one another goodbye, and shot themselves in the mouth. Another story is that the Turks, as they took back the area, raped 150 women and small girls. There are other horror stories. Of the Turks complete inhumanity and cruelty.
There was a worldwide protest against the Turkish Sultanate for this behavior, led by Great Britain and the West. The British prime minister, the Russian czar and the Habsburg Emperor (Franz Joseph) all put tremendous pressure on the Ottomans to call off the dogs, so to speak, and to calm the hell down about Macedonia. Just CALM DOWN.
The pressure became so great, the outrage so pronounced, that an international peacekeeping force marched into Macedonia in 1904, to keep an eye on the situation. (Of course, history has proven how useless peacekeeping forces are, in places as volatile and violent as Macedonia. I read a wonderful interview with Philip Gourevitch, the author of the amazing book about the genocide in Rwanda, and he said in the interview, "One of the things I have learned is that if you find yourself living in a UN 'safe zone', just know that your life is in danger. It is the most dangerous place on the planet to be....in a UN Safe Zone. Run for your life.")
And now for Turkey/Ataturk:
Mustapha Kemal Ataturk was born in Macedonia. (Of COURSE.) Additionally, the "Young Turk Revolution", which ended up toppling the Ottoman Empire (which had lasted for 400 years or something like that) originated in Macedonia.
The Young Turk revolution originally demanded "liberty, equality, fraternity, justice". They wanted to force the Sultan to draw up (or accept from them) a liberal constitution. They wanted to preserve the empire, but they wanted to loosen up the iron-fist a bit. (A precursor to Gorbachev....) However (as with so many revolutions), the Young Turks didn't really have a plan. They didn't know how to go about creating a government, or re-creating Turkey into your basic normal country, which also happens to be a massive empire. They also were coming from a place of ethnicity, nationalism, and racial hatred. A terrible mix. CLEARLY.
The problem, as always in the Balkans, was the confusing ethnic mix of peoples. Orthodox Christians were enraged at the thought of a Muslim-run confederation, where perhaps they had constitutional safeguards as protected minorities. Remember that Turkey had been a dreaded and brutal nation for 400 years. Nobody trusted them, nobody believed them when they said "No, we promise to take care of you." Everyone in the Balkans knew, firsthand, what horrors the Turks were capable of.
The Young Turk Revolution, just like Gorbachev's perestroika and glasnost, accelerated the shattering of the Ottoman Empire. That was not their intent at all. They wanted the empire to open up to change, to stop resisting transformation. But by introducing minor changes, by discussing modern-day ideas like constitutions, and protections of minorities, etc., all hell broke loose. The door was cracked open a teeny bit by the Young Turks, then the entire population of the Balkans, sick to death of the Ottoman tyranny, pushed open the door the rest of the way. Violently.
1908 was a big year in which Turkey clearly began losing control):
--Bulgaria declared its complete independence from Turkey.
--The island of Crete (which was part of Turkey at the time) voted for union with Greece.
--The Habsburgs annexed Bosnia-Hercegovina (which they had been administering since The Treaty of Berlin)
That last bit there, with the Habsburgs, is the cause of World War I. Puts a chill up your spine, no?
Came across the following passage about all of this mess in (where else) Robert Kaplan's Balkan Ghosts, which breaks it all down:
Put another way, Bulgarian-financed guerrillas in Macedonia had triggered a revolution among young Turkish officers stationed there, which then fanned throughout the Ottoman Empire; this development, in turn, encouraged Astria-Hungary to annex Bosnia, inflicting on its Serbian population a tyranny so great that a Bosnian Serb would later assassinate the Habsburg Archduke and ignite World War I.
But before all of this: Turkish Muslims were enraged by the Ottoman Empire's disintegration. Everyone in Turkey began revolting: army units, theological students, clerics. They began demonstrating for "sharia" (Islamic law, of course, which the Taliban perfected). As always, with Muslim fanatics, they wanted to go backwards. They wanted the Ottomans to crack down on all these uppity minorities, crack down HARD, and go back to the perfect time when the Turks ruled the world.
The Young Turks crushed this counterrevolution. They forced the Sultan into exile in, where else, Macedonia. That would be like forcing Hitler into exile in a Jewish ghetto in Warsaw. The Sultan had to hide, terrified for his life, in this land of people who hated him and wanted him to pay for what his empire had done.
Then, the Young Turks fell off the deep end. They perpetrated the century's first genocide against the Armenians in 1915. It was a mass murder of 1.5 million Armenians, orchestrated by the government. The Armenians threatened the Turks demographically and religiously. They were Christians, there were large numbers of them, and they were right in the middle of the Turkish homeland. In order for Turkey to be great and unified again, then the Armenians had to disappear.
This genocide occurred on the world stage. Nobody protested. Nobody did anything. There is a story about Hitler, planning Germany's genocide thirty years later, and answering the feeble protests ("What will people say? Won't they notice and try to stop it?") of the sycophants around him. Hitler's response to their concerns was: "Who remembers Armenia?"
Okay, so this is now becoming way too long, and I have strayed far from Macedonia....However, it is all connected.
The Young Turks becoming so terrifying and so brutal forced the Balkans to do something which had never happened before, and which has never happened since: they united. They buried the hatchet in the face of such a clear enemy, and formed an alliance. After all, none of the Great Powers out there were intervening in any of this. They realized that no great warrior from the West was going to lead a cavalry charge and save them, so Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria joined up together, and fought for themselves. Incredible. These historic enemies...people who literally are still in a rage about what happened in 612 AD, or whatever.
In 1912, this alliance declared war on the Ottoman Empire. (A very very ballsy thing to do.) Their principal goal was to liberate poor forgotten important Macedonia.
Next: 20th century wars
This is my last post on Macedonia. This one is about all of the wars of the 20th century, wars where Macedonia and its position in the region played crucial parts - not just on the war-stage but in people's imaginations as well.
MACEDONIA - 2OTH CENTURY WARS
The First Balkan War: 1912.
Serbia, Greece, and Bulgaria teamed up to fight the Turks and liberate Macedonia.
This war ended with Turkey's influence dissolving. Serbian troops occupied Skopje (the capital of Macedonia, which, to this day, apparently, has a very Turkish feel to it: mosques, minarets, bazaars). The Greek army occupied their precious Salonika. And suddenly, Bulgaria found itself locked out of the region and couldn't collect the spoils of war.
Bulgaria completely believed (and perhaps still believes) that "Macedonia" was a fabrication. The way Palestinians think of "Israel" and do not include it on their maps. To Bulgarians, Macedonia belongs to Bulgaria.
But Serbia and Greece ganged up on Bulgaria, and shut them out of Macedonia. In the aftermath of the First Balkan War, they attempted to wipe out all Bulgarian influence in Macedonia.
Macedonia filled up with Greek or Serb publicists, who began bombarding the population with a propaganda war. "You are REALLY Serbs..." "No, you are REALLY Greeks..."
Not only was this a war of words, but it was also coercive and violent. The Serbs gave the Macedonians 24 hours to renounce their nationality and proclaim themselves Serbian. The Greeks did the same. People were murdered who refused to choose.
The Bulgarian population in the country was terrorized. Bulgarian priests were given the choice: convert or die. Colonists from Serbia and Greece poured into the country. People in Macedonia pretty much spoke Bulgarian; however now the Serbs and the Greeks quickly started printing their own newspapers in their own languages, insisting that people bury their Bulgar tongue. Not even admitting that it could be a problem.
To Greece, also, Macedonia was made-up, a fabrication. To Greeks Macedonia was actually REALLY part of Greece, so the fact that everybody spoke Bulgarian in the country was something to be ignored and covered up.
Meanwhile, of course, Bulgaria, right next door, was enraged. They did not negotiate, they did not say "We are going to declare war on all of you", they did not give any warning. On June 13, 1913, Bulgaria invaded Macedonia. This was the start of the Second Balkan War.
The Second Balkan War: 1913.
This war did not last long. The Serbs and the Greeks helped each other out, reinforcing each other's troops against the Bulgarians. The Romanians joined the war, on the side of the Serb-Greek alliance, and invaded Bulgaria from the north. The battle was over very quickly, with Bulgaria the clear loser.
There was a peace conference a couple of months later, in which Bulgaria lost everything it had gained in the First Balkan War. It had gained an outlet to the Aegean, it had gained lands in Thrace, it had enveloped all of Macedonia. All of this was taken back. It was a humiliating defeat which would end up having global consequences.
World War I:
Bulgaria enters the war on the side of Germnay and Austria-Hungary in 1915. Its main goal was (surprise, surprise) to gain back all of Macedonia from Serbia. (Okay, Bulgaria, I think it's time to just let it go...)
Serbia had allied itself with Russia, Great Britain, and France.
The Habsburg army advanced through Serbia from the north while the Bulgarian army marched through Macedonia in the east. The Serbian army was trapped, with no backup supplies, no ammo, no vehicles. It was winter, too. The Serbs retreated into the freezing Albanian mountains.
Robert Kaplan has this to say about that retreat:
It was one of history's most harrowing winter retreats, ranking with those of Napoleon's soldiers from Russia the century before and of Xenophon's Greek troops from Mesopotamia in 401 B.C. into the mountains of Anatolia.
The remnants of the Serb army had retreated to Albania's coast on the Adriatic, where they were rescued and transported away to Corfu by French and Italian ships. We are talking about over 125,000 Serbians. This was a devastating defeat for them, humiliating, all of them fleeing for their lives from the Habsburgs and the Bulgarians.
So from then on, throughout the rest of World War I, trench warfare raged up and down Macedonia, with the French/Greek/Serb alliance, along with the British, warring against the Habsburgs and the Bulgarians. Things went on in this way for over two more years.
Then the war ended, with basically nothing changed for the Bulgarians: They lost all of Macedonia to the Serbs and the Greeks. All of these wars were like the movie "Groundhog Day" for Bulgaria. They kept starting wars to regain Macedonia, and they kept losing these wars, no better off than when they began.
World War II:
This war, of course, was a reply to World War I. Nothing had been resolved, no one was at peace with the outcome, everyone was dying to start the whole thing up again. And so they did.
Bulgaria (whaddya know) joined up with the Germans so that they could crush the Serbs and take back Macedonia. So this time, the Germans occupied Serbia from the north, and the Bulgarians occupied Macedonia from the east. And, in typical "Groundhog Day" fashion, the Serb and Greek alliance (with the help of Britain) fought the hated Bulgarians, and drove them back to the "hated borders" established at the end of the Second Balkan War.
But before the Bulgarians were driven out of Macedonia, and before the Russians swooped in, making all of this irrelevant, the Bulgarians and their occupation troops in Macedonia, began a brutal process of "Bulgarization" of the Macedonian population. Now, one more voice was added to the clamor, trying to tell the Macedonians who they are: "You are Serbs..." "You are Greeks...don't listen to them!!" "You are Bulgarians!" The Bulgarians were particularly savage in this arena. First of all, they gladly rounded up the Jewish population for the Germans and shipped them off. In all of the other wars, while all of these wackos were arguing over Macedonia, like kids playing tug-of-war on the playground, the Jews remained protected. There was no question.
With World War II, the gloves came off.
Now this is interesting: Because of how the Serbs and the Greeks had behaved during the First Balkan War, there had always been a pro-Bulgaria sway to the Macedonian population. With World War II that tide turned.
However, Macedonia did not sway back to the Serb or Greek side of the argument. They suddenly discovered their "Macedonian-ness". They began to feel like Macedonians, rather than people separated from whatever homeland they related to. Now, this is a debatable matter. Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbs all scorn this "Macedonian-ness". It is made up, according to them. There IS no indigenous Macedonian culture or identity. It is all Bulgarian, or Serbian, or Greek. But this fierce "Macedonian-ness" continues to this day.
With the madness of World War II, the Macedonians finally had HAD it with their country being invaded, chopped up, argued over. They went on the offensive, for the glory of "Macedonia", and they demanded territory back from Bulgaria and Greece.
Skip ahead to 1989, and the disintegration of the Yugoslav Federation:
Macedonia feels cheated. Macedonia is pissed. There are huge populations of Macedonians who live outside their borders, in Bulgaria, or Greece. They want to liberate their countrymen. They want to be united with their kind. This is the dangerous powder keg sitting here in the Balkans. It is just a matter of time before it ignites. These people are used to hating. They have long long memories, and they NEVER forgive.
And it seems, too, that the Macedonians are slipping off into fantasy-land a bit. (But then again - who am I to say - it is a bit unfair of me to judge them - when I do not know what it is like there, and where they are coming from.) But here's my opinion: they have "rediscovered" a Macedonian language, which is, basically, a version of Bulgarian, but they can't call it that, because then they would have to admit that their ethnicity is a mix. This is unacceptable. These Macedonian nationalists believe that Istanbul was once a part of Macedonia, etc. All these other fantasies about that beautiful and perfect time in the past when Macedonia was not a victim of all of these greater forces, but the victimizer.
And I'll close with a quote from Robert Kaplan's Balkan Ghosts, my primary source for all of this.
And on the walls near the Greek Consulate in Skopje [capital of Macedonia], I noticed the grafitti: 'Solun is ours!'
Solun is the Macedonian word for Salonika, Greece's second largest city. Such demonstrations of irredentism were to unleash a wave of hostility in Greece -- so much so that, even when the new Macedonian state that declared its independence from Yugoslavia officially renounced all claims to Greek territory, it still wasn't enough for the Greeks, who feared that the very word Macedonia on the lips of these Slavs was a sign of future irredentism against Greece. When Greece demanded that Macedonia change its name in order to receive official recognition from Greece, the rest of the world laughed. The heart of the Greek argument, however, was better explained in the articles written by the scholar Kofos than it ever was by the Greek government through the media. Kofos writes that Macedonianism was an invention of Tito to serve as a cultural buttress against Bulgaria, which coveted the area. According to Kofos, this part of former Yugoslavia is actually southern Serbia. True, perhaps; but rightly or wrongly, these Slavs now consider themselves Macedonians, not Serbs, and both the Greeks and the Serbs must come to terms with that fact.
The upshot of this mess is that the Balkans have, in the 1990s, reverted to the same system of alliances that existed in 1913, at the time of the Second Balkan War: Greece, Serbia, and Romania versus Bulgaria and the Slavs of Macedonia.
THE AMERICANS AND MACEDONIA TILL THE SEPARATION OF THE REGION IN 1919
3.
In 1912, on the Balkans conditions are definitely formed for the well known Balkan War. Its aim is the liberation of the territories and the population of those parts of Southeast Europe, still enslaved in the boundaries of the Ottoman Empire. United States's gestures of sympathy towards the Macedonian Bulgarians begin early in the spring of 1912, when it becomes clear that "the war of the cross against the crescent" is already inevitable. On May 21st ,1912, the American Congress drafts a law by the force of which the Treasury provides the sum of 66000 dollars, for reimbursement of the money donated by hundreds of Americans in 1901-1902, for the ransom paid for Miss Elena Stone and Katerina Stefanova - Tsilka./33/ Translated in underderstandable political language, this act is open moral support for the cause of the Bulgarians in Macedonia. The American state has it to be accepted as a fact, that it has provided the biggest single amount of money given to the leadership of IMARO for purchase of arms, used in the fight for freedom!
American correspondents and observers arrive in Bulgaria with the beginning of the military activities in the Thracian war theater. The course of the military operations is reflected objectively in the pages of the most influential American editions in 1912-1913. Major A. Frayd visits Bulgaria in order to study and describe the development of the military campaign for the needs of the Defence Department in Washington. In 1913 in New York, he publishes a book entitled "Some lessons learned in the Balkan War"./34/ There, as well as in all other publications on the subject, the successes realized by the Bulgarians in the Thracian war theater, are judged as decisive for the out come of the war for liberation of Macedonia
The USA government gives unlimited freedom to the 60000 Bulgarian emigration, to organize tens of public demonstrations and meetings in New York, Detroit, Indianapolis, Chicago and other towns. The Coastguard authorities provide with priority tickets to those emigrants - Bulgarians - returning to participate as volunteers in the war, as members of Macedono- Adrianople Popular detachment. It is known as an independent military unit , part of the Bulgarian army. Money, collected by the emigration in support of the Bulgarian Red Cross, is quickly remitted by the postal services. In the winter of 1912-1913, for several months in Sofia from the USA arrive more than 100000 dollars./35/ When the Bulgarian armies defeat the Eastern Turkish Army on the Constantinople direction, the President of the United States - Roosevelt - sends a message of congratulation to the Bulgarian government in Sofia. On this occasion, the eminent Bulgarian poet Ivan Vazov writes the poem "To Theodore Roosevelt", as sign of gratitude for the encouragement shown.
The unhidden sympathies, shown in USA, for the fourth attempt of the Bulgarian people of free Bulgaria and Macedonia to finish its national-liberative deed and unite its nation, is a natural result of the decade-long understanding in the American public opinion, that Macedonia is unjustly and forcefully separated from Bulgaria by the 1878 Berlin Treaty. Thus, the actions of the governments of Serbia and Greece, which taking advantage of the engagement of the Bulgarian army around Constantinople occupy in the winter of 1912-1913 Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, and provoke the outbreak of the Second Balkan War, known as the "Allies War", meet the open disapprovement of the American politicians and observers.
In all publications of the American missionaries in the United States, on the events between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece in the summer of 1913, it is underlined that: "Big part of Macedonia is Bulgarian and it is this part that has now been given to Greece and Serbia."./37/
The forced upon Bulgaria, by Serbia and Greece, signing of the Bucharest Peace Treaty on July 28th, 1913, on the division of Macedonia in three parts, the Plenipotentiary Minister of USA for Bulgaria, and Romania - Charles Vopika, strongly protests against the unjust diplomatic dictate over the Bulgarians. He is the only representative of the Great Powers in the Romanian capital, who refuses to put his signature under the document./38/ This step, undertaken not without the knowledge and approval of the State Department in Washington can mean only one thing : In 1913, USA is the only Great Power categorically condemning and openly disapproving the forceful tearing apart of Macedonia by the means of the military dictate of the governments of Serbia and Greece. In fact, this means disagreement with idea the Bulgarian population in Vardar Macedonia to be compulsory put under a new yoke - this time Christian!
The most valuable step undertaken by the Americans after the partitioning of Macedonia in 1913, is the organization upon the initiative and with the funds of Andrew Carnegie, of an international inquiry commission on the consequences of the Balkan Wars for the population of Macedonia. Thus, a voluminous book appears in the international humanistic literature : " The Report of the International Commission for Investigation of the causes and the development of the Balkan Wars"/39/ This document is known as the " Report of the Carnegie's Commission".
Of extreme importance in the report is the following fact : the ethnic picture of Macedonia in 1913, the situation of the population and the politics of the Greek and Serb governments are ascertained by unbiased foreign observers in person and at location, as the Commission itself travels throughout Macedonia. Thus, the facts published in this document in May 1914 in New York /40/, are unquestionable source of historic truth concerning the treated subject.
The first facts given in the report of Carnegie's Commission are the findings in the Aegean part of Macedonia. On the town of Koukoush the following is mentioned: " At the entrance of the Greek army in Koukoush, the town was almost untouched. Now it is in ruins - is reported by a member of our commission, after visiting Koukoush", a visit which the Greek authorities tried to prevent as mentioned further in the report. "Koukoush is a rich town with 13000 population, center of purely Bulgarian region with several beautiful schools"./41/
Following the movement of the Greek army to the north of Koukoush, towards the border with Bulgaria, the commission found the traces of genocide of the Bulgarian population in this part of Macedonia. On this occasion in the Bulgarian translation of the Report on p.94, we read: "The Koukoush precedent is repeated in the villages. In the former Turkish kaaza with Koukoush as center more than 40 villages have been burned by the Greek army on its way north. The cavalry units attacked village after village, with the work of the regular army being completed by the Bashibouzouks. Part of the Greek plan was the utilization of the local Turkish population for effectuation of planned devastation. In some cases the Bashibouzouks were armed and even provided with uniforms."/42/
As indisputable documents, proving the planned genocide of the Bulgarians in Aegean Macedonia in the summer of 1913, the Carnegie's Commission presents texts of original letters, written by Greek soldiers to their families. These documents were captured with the arrierguard of 19th Greek Infantry Regiment in the region of Dobrinishte village during the Allies War in 1913. In these letters, written by the executors of the Bulgarian population in Aegean Macedonia, cynically is admitted "Here we burn villages and kill Bulgarians - both women and children."
In another letter is added :" We kill all Bulgarians that fall in our hands and burn the villages. " The author of a third letter is even more frank:" The Greek army burns all villages in which there are Bulgarians and kills every thing in the way." In one of the letters the author, obviously partly ashamed of what he and his comrades are doing, openly admits:" What we are doing to the Bulgarians is unexplainable. Also to the Bulgarian peasants. This is a massacre. There is not a single Bulgarian town or village that is not burned down."/43/
The authenticity of the last documents is verified in 1913 by the Carnegie's Commission. This fact is declared officially in the text of its report, as the members of the commission have held in their own hands the original letters of those, who in the summer of 1913 made unseen efforts to debulgarise Aegean Macedonia./44/
The picture, seen by the Carnegie Inquiry Commission in Vardar Macedonia, goverened since the summer 1913 by Serb administration, is similar. Here are the findings of the foreign observers in the village of Vinitsa: " The Serb soldiers, after entering the village, started asking the peasants whether they were Serbs or Bulgarians. Everyone who said he was Bulgarian was beaten. Afterwards, the commander of the military unit rounded 70 peasants and ordered them to be shot."/45/ The commission finds out, that the Serb authorities deliberately chase away from Vardar Macedonia the Bulgarian orthodox clergy, in order to lay a blow on the Bulgarian cultural life of the population in the region. It is mentioned in the report that:" The departure of the priests is the end of the Exarchist Church in Macedonia, the end of the official and acknowledged existence of the Bulgarian nationality. The occupational authorities immediately take decisions according to their wishes. We know that, in fact, they have not even waited for the departure of the priests, in order to start the full destruction of everything Bulgarian in Macedonia."/46/
The scale of the antibulgarian genocide and the methods used for the debulgarisation of Macedonia in 1913, impress the Carnegie Commission to such an extent, that its members state that from now on a new experiment in modern history can be spoken of: the forceful change of the nationality of a newly conquered population - in this case the bulgarian.The report states on p. 155 :"The Serb government and the military circles, charged with overcoming of this difficulty/ author's note- the reluctance of the Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia to submit to their new conquerors/went directly for their aim. They created an imposingly big malevolent sociological experiment, which could not have been carried out even by governments and nations with better possibilities, than the Serb Kingdom. We witnessed the beginning of this assimilation done in terror. The beginning of the Second Balkan War gave the signal for the melting of everything still carrying a Bulgarian name. Then efforts were made at achieving this aim, which surpass everything seen until present."/47/
In the report of the Commission there is information that the policy of the Serb conquerors in Vardar Macedonia in 1913, caused immediately wide and strong resistance among the Bulgarians. On the pages of the report, p. 169-170 of the Bulgarian edition, the resistance of the Bulgarian population of the western part of Aegean Macedonia- in Ohrid - is described. Following are the findings of the international observers in this part of the province in the autumn of 1913:" Even bigger resistance was given during the assimilation of the populated places on the western border of Macedonia - in Ohrid and Debar, on the Albanian border.... The Bulgarians are heavily affected. All the notable people were either thrown in jail or shot. Several mixed Bulgarian-albanian villages in the regions of Dolna Reka, Gorna Reka and Golo Burdo were set to fire, after what the official statute of Macedonia was considered arranged."/48/
This is the truth, presented to the public opinion in the United States, by the Carnegie Commission's report, published in New York in the spring of 1914. The fact that, this historical document is prepared by a group of impartial international observers/ Prof. Samuel T. Daton- Columbia university, USA; baron D' Estournel de Constant- French senator; Profs. H.N. Brailesford and Francis U. Hurst- England; Prof. Pavel Miliukov - Russia and Prof. Josef Redlich- Vienna University/, makes the presented facts unquestionable basis for the understanding of a new political problem in Europe: When, who and how started the process of violent denationalization and debulgarisation of Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. This begins in the summer of 1913, with theirs forced partition by Greece and Serbia. The knowledge of all the circumstances on the Macedonian problem, permit the important factors in Washington, and especially the newly elected president - Woodrow Wilson, to develop and follow a balanced and reasonable course of Bulgarian- American relations, during the First World War, as well. This, inspite the fact, that at a certain moment the two countries find themselves on the opposite sides of the river.
It is important to stress, that after the forced implementation of the Bucharest Peace Treaty of July 28, 1913, the Americans try to help official Sofia to come out of the diplomatic isolation. Thus, in November in Washington, a Bulgarian diplomatic mission is opened. On November 27th the same year, the first Plenipotentiary Minister of Bulgaria in USA- Prof. Stefan Panaretov, presents his credentials to President Wilson at a ceremony in the Oval Office./49/ In the eve and during the First World War, the American diplomacy proposes to the Bulgarian government to follow the line of
neutrality. The argument is for Bulgaria to come out of the war with preserved military and economic resources. Thus, with the support of the sympathizing neutral Great Powers as USA, she could enforce a peaceful revision of the 1913 Bucharest Peace Treaty, having torn to three pieces Macedonia. When, however, all efforts of the government in Sofia to peacefully solve the Macedonian problem fail, and the circumstances impose the entrance of the country in the war as Germany's ally / at the time only Berlin, of all Great Powers, promises cooperation for the liberation of the Bulgarians in Macedonia/, Woodrow Wilson shows complete understanding of the reason for Bulgaria's behavior.
During the whole First World War, Washington knows that the Bulgarians do not pursue conqueror's imperialistic aims, but are searching for resolution of the injustice suffered in 1913 by their neighbors. For this reason, even after the entrance of the United States in the war in the summer of 1917 as partners of the forces of the Entente, Wilson does not break the official diplomatic relations between Sofia and Washington. Till the end of the war, both Stefan Panaretov and Dominique Murphy, the General Consul of USA in Sofia, send regularly reports to their governments and enjoy the support of the authorities of both countries. More so that, since the summer of 1918, Stefan Panaretov remains the only official diplomatic representative of a country, member of the Axis forces, that continues his work in the capital of the United States. The American General Consul, Dominique Murphy, is even included in the Bulgarian delegation, sent to Salonica in September 1918 to sign the cease-fire treaty between Bulgaria, on one side, and the forces of the Entante, on the other.
On such a background, several other important events become possible, illustrating the important positive sides of the Bulgarian-american relations, connected with the Macedonian problem. On January 6th, 1918, the Protestant missionaries Dr. Edward Haskel and Rouvim Markum, accompanied by their wives and ten small children, venture voluntarily on a long and perilous journey from Sofia to New York. They cross the front lines in order to prove to President Wilson, that he has to back up the cause of the Bulgarians in Macedonia during the forthcoming peace conference. In America they meet the president's aide Col. Hause and other responsible officials in the diplomatic circles and the media./50/
After the end of the war, the benevolent attitude of the Americans permits the Macedono-Bulgarian emigration to organize a grandiose congress in Chicago in December 1st -6th, 1918. Two hundred and three delegates and many guests participate in it. Completely freely, in a faraway country, without any possibility of Bulgarian governmental influence, this part of the people of Macedonia loudly declares. "Macedonia is populated with Bulgarians and as such, until the desire of this Bulgarians is not fulfilled and full freedom for unification with Mother Bulgaria, on the basis of President Wilson's peace program, is not given, the peace on the Balkans will not be established."/51/
Clear and categorical support to this principal statement, freely spoken by the Macedonian Bulgarian emigration the United States at their December 1914 Congress in Chicago, is given by all American guests, well knowing the history and essence of the Macedonian problem. In his speech in front of the delegates, the missionary Dr. Elliar Count points out: " Bulgaria, as a country of culture and progress, and the justice being on her side, should be given the chance to unite the Bulgarians of Macedonia with those in Bulgaria. No union with Greece, Serbia or Romania, as these countries are not for the progress and democracy."/52/ In his multiple statements in front of the Congress, the head of the American Protestant Mission in Bulgaria, Dr. Edward Haskel, clearly states:" enslaved Macedonia is Bulgarian" and supports the demands of the emigration for unification with Bulgaria.
The big expert on Macedonia, Albert Soniksen, sends a similar statement to President Wilson in the eve of Paris' Peace Conference./53/ In the spring and summer of 1918, clear voices in defence of the Macedonian Bulgarians are raised by the former American general consul in Sofia - Dominique Murphy, Miss Elena Stone, popular American journalists like E.H.Youlsary and others. Even the wife of President Wilson admits openly in a special public letter addressed to the chairwoman of the women's association " The Bulgarian Woman in America", that" the demands of their / Bulgarian -a.n./ people for sympathy must find place in the hearts of all of us"/54/, those who decide the world's fate. During the 1919 Paris Peace Conference, however, this idea is followed only by her husband- the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson.
The American delegation, headed by the President himself, is the only one, supporting the cause of the Bulgarian people. Due to the American position, Serbia does not succeed in moving farther to the East its eastern border and occupying new Bulgarian territories. Western Thrace is not immediately handed over to Greece. The anglo-french diplomacy, in silent agreement succeeds, during the Conference's course, to isolate Wilson from the decisions on the borderline problems. Taking advantage of the moral and material help of the USA for winning the war against the forces of the Triple Axis, Lloyd George and Clemanceaux take for themselves the role of main arbiters in the European affairs and do not permit the American ideas, formulated by Wilson, to become the foundations of the solution of the Balkan problems.
With the enforcement of the Neuilly Peace Treaty on November 27th, 1919, the victorious forces in Europe impose the definite partition of Macedonia. The Vardar part of the region is left in the domain of the artificially enlarged Kingdom of Serbs, Croatians and Slovenians/ later Yugoslavia/, Aegean Macedonia enters the borders of Greece and the Pirin part of the region is left to Bulgaria. A new dramatic epoch begins for the predominant Bulgarian population. Violating the principles of humanism and historical justice, the European Great Powers- victors in the First World War, ignore completely the truth on the national image of the Macedonian Slavs. In this way, they show disrespect for the opinions of scientists and diplomats of their own countries, as well as ignore the eighty year- long impartial efforts of the American missionaries, scientists, travelers and journalists, who prove continuously, since the 30ies of 19th century until 1919, one and the same thing : the predominant Slavonic population in Macedonia is of Bulgarian nationality and for this reason, during the whole period examined, the Americans sympathize with its struggles for liberation and unification with Bulgaria.
THE FORMATION AND ACTIVITY OF THE MACEDONO - BULGARIAN LOBBY IN USA
1.
In the period between the two world wars, the United States of America changes in depth the logics of its European politics. The first decisive attempt, undertaken by President Wilson in the period 1915 - 1919, his country to obtain in reality the status of an accepted Great Power with decisive vote on the world problems, does not give the expected results. England and France, actively supported by their Balkan allies Serbia and Greece, manage to preserve Europe as a "non- American sphere of influence". Paris and London do not permit, the well-known Wilson's Peace Program to become foundation of the post- war reconstruction of the old continent and the world. At the same time the accumulated, unseen before, antagonism between defeated and victors, after 1919, and especially the incredible escalation of revolutionary activity in post-war Europe, make this region of the world extremely difficult for balancing of the liberal American diplomacy. In view of all these circumstances, the new republican administration of President Harding, elected to office in November 1920, prefers to " withdraw" from the European matters. During the whole period between the wars, as far as Europe is concerned, the administrations and diplomacy of the United States follow the tactics of isolationism and non-involvement./1/
The arguments concerning the attitude towards the Balkans are multiple and grave. In Southeastern Europe, at that time have accumulated the gravest problems, created by the economic devastation, the unseen escalation of inter- state antagonism and the appearance of almost unsolvable minority and refugee problems, after the implementation of the artificial political / not ethnical/ borders provisioned by the 1919 Neuilly Peace Treaty. All this makes of the Balkan Peninsula the most complex and literary untenable knot in postwar politics. Thus, the change in the official Bulgarian- American relation becomes inevitable.
As sign of protest, that the peace-makers in Paris refused Woodrow Wilson's ideas on the post war reconstruction of the world, the United States of America, officially do not ratify the Neuilly Peace Treaty./2/ Thus, for a second time, Washington demonstrates the moral inacceptance of the legitimity of the forced Partition of Macedonia and the remaining of the Bulgarian population of Vardar and Aegean parts of the region in the boundaries of Yugoslavia and Greece. On the other hand, under the influence of the above-mentioned geopolitical circumstances, the State Department declines the December 1921 offer of the government of Alexander Stambolyiski, for a bilateral Bulgarian- American treaty, in which the USA to engage itself officially with the support of the Bulgarian initiative on procuring the Bulgarian minority rights in Yugoslavia and Greece./3/ Further more, even if such document were signed, the possibilities of the United States to help in reality for the implementation of the minority rights clauses of the Bulgarian population in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, were highly restricted, due to the fact that, the American administration refuses to participate in the newly created League of Nations./LN/ In the 20-ies and 30-ies, this organization is controlled by the anglo-french diplomacy. It is, however, the place where most frequently on international forums, the problems of the European minorities are discussed.
The neutral strategy of the American administration remains an element of the global politics of Washington until the beginning of the Second World War. Thus, the official governmental course, does not favor the immediate active interference of the American diplomacy in all internal problems of the Balkans. Included is the fate of the Bulgarians in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. At the same time, however, a parallel and contrary trend are noticed, mainly concerning the public opinion. Thanks to it, the interest on the new phase of development of the Macedonian question after 1919, among the scientific and political circles in the USA do not diminish. On the contrary, it increases in the period between the two wars, inspite of the fact, that the official authorities do not undertake any practical steps for realization of the rational ideas, born by it.
The causes for the appearance of this second tendency are various and very objective. Between the two wars many missionaries, former professors of Robert College, diplomats and travelers -- all mature people with stable opinions on the political history of the Balkans and the tragic outcome of the Macedonian problem after the First World war reside in the United States. The affiliation of Vardar Macedonia to Yugoslavia and the Aegean to Greece, suddenly diminished the possibilities of the Protestant missionaries to work in these parts of the Balkan peninsula. The governments in Belgrade and Athens demonstrated total inacceptance of the activity of the Evangelist Church. Bulgaria is the only country in the Balkans tolerating equally the Protestant denomination and the other religious cults. At the same time the Greek- Turkish War, the anarchy in postwar Turkey and the Kemalist revolution, greatly constrict the field of activities of the Robert College. All this causes the Americans, working in Macedonia and Constantinople, to return to the USA.
Meanwhile, in the beginning of the 20-ies, the revolutionary movement of the Bulgarians in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia is reactivated under the leadership of the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization. /IMRO/ Only this time, its blow is aimed at the policy and the representatives of the Serbian and Greek authorities in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. The "Macedonian Question" enters with new force the headlines of the international press, with the events of this new phase not leaving without work many of those Americans with knowledge on it.
The public opinion is constantly surprised by new and shocking facts on the cruel denationalization enforced by the Greek and Serbian state in the region. They expect explanations, and the medias, especially the American press, often seek the cooperation of the experts on the Macedonian problem, to comment on what is happening around and in Macedonia itself.
Several new political factors appear in the United States, additionally sustaining and even activating the internal American interest of the public opinion and the responsible politicians on the Macedonian question. In 1922, the Macedono-Bulgarian emigration in North America organizes itself on a new basis. The well-known "Macedonian Political Organization "/MPO/ is created in USA and Canada./4/ Clearly expressing the Bulgarian national self-identification of more than 100 000 emigrants of Macedonia, this new patriotic structure quickly gathers strength in the United States.
In its annual congresses and by its printed organ "The Macedonian Tribune", it continuously brings up the Macedonian problem to the attention of the public in the United States. Meanwhile, the organization sends thousands of telegrams, statements, appeals and inquiries to the State Department, different humanitarian organizations, the League of Nations in Geneva, the Balkan capitals with demands for defence of the Bulgarian national minorities in Greece and Yugoslavia. The MPO turns into a powerful "internal American engine" for sustaining alive the American public opinion on the fate of the Bulgarian population in the forcefully partitioned parts of Macedonia, something lacking in this great country before the First World War.
As partner of MPO, an extremely favorable role plays the established in 1924, seated in New York, International Committee for the Defence of Political Prisoners./ICDPP/. /5/ With it are linked the names of such notorious representatives of the American society as: Roger Baldwin, John Adams, John Sullizmann, Elisabeth Guillman, Arthur Haye, Oscar Jessy, David Star Jordan, Paul Kelloak,
David Mitrani, Norman Thomas, Guillermo Valentini, and others -- all eminent politicians, diplomats and scientists. Under the leadership of Roger Baldwin, this new American public-humanitarian structure in its turn constantly controls the observation of the human rights on the Balkans and frequently dispatches different documents to the governments and their diplomatic missions, in Washington, in defence of the violated human rights of the minorities. Close relations develop between MPO and ICDPP. Together with the activities of the Protestant missionaries, the former professors of Robert College, the diplomats of former Balkan stationing, travelers and journalists, in the period between the two wars, a small but active internal American lobby connected with the Macedonian question is formed. Since the 20-ies until the mid-40ies, it is consistently interested in Macedonia and states clear positions on all questions concerning the fate of the Bulgarian population of the Vardar and Aegean part of the region. This is irrespective of official Washington's inability to practically realize its ideas on the Balkans, due to the policy of isolationism.
The immediate stimulus for the formation and the activation of the Macedono-Bulgarian lobby in the United States comes from the complete failure of the denationalization policy of the Serbian and Greek governments, carried out on Macedonia. Hardly eight years after the implementation of the unjust Neuilly Peace Treaty, partitioning the region in three parts, had passed, when the world once again understood that the Bulgarians do not reconcile with their new masters. In 1927, the Serbian police unravels in Scopije, the structure of a big secret Bulgarian students' liberative organization. A noisy process known as the "Scopije students' process" is staged. For half a year, this event is in the pages of the international press, including the American, as it shows the truth that even in the new conditions the Bulgarians continue their fight for liberty!
In October 1927,the Central Committee of MPO receives in Indianapolis, a detailed description of the Scopije students' process. The document has been sent by the National Committee of the Macedonian Emigrant Organizations in Bulgaria, with request for a wide international publicity. This document is translated in English and is given by the CC of MPO to the International Committee for Defence of the Political Prisoners in New York. Greatly impressed by the facts mentioned, Roger Baldwin reacts quickly and organizes a reception of representatives of the MPO in the State Department and the Senate in Washington, so that the truth is presented there. Thus, the first diplomatic mission of a delegation of the Macedono-Bulgarian emigration in USA in front of the most influential factors of the American state, is made possible. The representative of MPO- Lazar Kisselintchev -- is received by the Secretary of State Kelloak/ November 4th,1927/ and by the Chairman of the Senate's Commission on Foreign Affairs- Bora/ November 6th,1927/. The responsible American statesmen listen carefully to the presented information on the crimes committed over the Bulgarian population in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, and agree to a continuous and current information of the State Department and the Senate's Commission on Foreign Affairs on all important issues connected with Macedonia./6/
At the same time, Scopije is a place of new scandalous events. In order to paralyze the activity of IMRO, the Serbian police kill the father and the brother of the leader of the revolutionary liberative organization- Ivan Michailov. The new bloodshed attracts the international public opinion and gives cause for new activities. The CC of MPO in USA and Canada prepares a separate statement on the new events in Scopije. Copies of it are sent to the Senators Bora and King, and to Roger Baldwin in ICDPP in New York, as well.
On December 27,1927, in Washington begins its work the annual congress of the American Historical Society, in which participate many outstanding specialists on European and Middle East history, including the Balkans./7/ For the first time, the problem of the situation of the population in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia is included for discussion in the agenda. As guests are invited the plenipotentiary ministers of the Balkan states, including the Bulgarian- Simeon Radev, while CC of MPO is invited to send its official delegate.
The main exposition on the Macedonian problem is presented to the participants of the congress by the well-known expert on Southeast Europe- Prof. Arthur Andrews. Before the session, he requests a meeting with the delegate of MPO - Lazar Kisselintchev, who informs him in detail on the processes taking place in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. As result, when the notorious American historian begins to comment the actual political aspects of the Macedonia topic he says; " Thanks to the wisdom and common sense of the government from Gorna Djumaya to Petrich and from Melnik and Bansko to Youndola, the Macedonian Bulgarians practically control all elected and appointed authorities, resulting in peace and order in this land. In "Greek Macedonia " and in the Macedonian territory controlled by the Serbs in Yugoslavia, there is selfadministration"/8/ This leads Prof. Andrews to conclude that the Balkan peace settlement will be possible, when the Serbian and Greek governments implement and strictly respect the minority rights of the Bulgarian population in Macedonia, provisioned under the 1919 Neuilly Peace Treaty./9/
Prof. Andrews' report, excites the interest of the American historians and political scientists and observers, connected with the Balkan problems. Lazar Kisselintchev takes advantage of this. With the help of Vangel Sougarev, professor in the Texas Agricultural and Technological University, MPO's representative meets and talks with many American scientists. He clarifies for everybody the political situation of the Bulgarian minority in Yugoslavia and Greece, presenting them with, the especially written for the occasion book " The Bulgarian Locarno and the Macedonian Question".
The representatives of the American scientific circles express their sincere sympathies with the struggling Bulgarians in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia and declare their readiness to discuss this problem in their lectures on European history. Extremely interesting is Prof. F. Laibayer of the Illinois University. In the period 1900 - 1907 he teaches in Robert College in Constantinople, and in 1919 is one of the experts, member of the American delegation to the Paris Peace Conference. Thus, this American scientist knows in details the Macedonian problem and the drama suffered by the Bulgarians in this part of the Balkans. This is why, in his conversation with the MPO's representative he declares: "The American people will always be happy to help the Bulgarian tribe, because the Bulgarians seem as though are very close to he Americans.... Therefore, having this also in mind, you will have to double the energy of your activity in the American society."/10/ Prof. Laibayer was so impressed by the new massacres of the Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia, that promised Lazar Kisselintchev to explore the public opinion for the creation of a new "American Committee for Macedonia". On parting, the noble friends of the Macedonian Bulgarians declared that with readiness will answer any invitation to give a lecture or write an article in defence of the Bulgarians in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia.
Encouraged by the success achieved, in the beginning of 1928, the CC of MPO gives Lazar Kisselintchev, official status of representative of CC of MPO in America. His activity is now done through the Information Bureau of MPO, seated in New York. This circumstance improves the conditions of work with the friends of the Macedonian Bulgarians in the United States. Already, as head of the Information Bureau of the Macedono-Bulgarian emigration in North America, in the winter of 1928, Lazar Kisselintchev is received for second time by the Senators E. King, P. Swason, E. Day, S. Blum and the Chairman of the Senate's Commission on Foreign Affairs- Bora. They all listen very attentively to their guest and agree with his evaluations, that the Serbian and Greek governments do not respect the rights of the Bulgarian minority in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. They give high estimation to the books and materials on the Macedonian problem, regularly sent to them by CC of MPO since 1927. Especially sympathetic is their opinion on the book " The Macedonian Slavs", which proves the Bulgarian national identity of this population. All of them, however, express their desolation that their sympathies for the enslaved Bulgarians in Yugoslavia and Greece, can not be transformed into practical steps of the American diplomacy, due to the accepted by the White House, policy of non involvement in the internal European and Balkan matters./11/ Inspite of everything, the Chairman of the Senate's Commission on Foreign Affairs - Bora- asks for help for the writing of a special speech on the Macedonian problem, which he is to give in front of the Senate. In this way, although indirectly, he wanted to show moral support for the Bulgarians of Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, fighting for liberty and civil rights.
In 1928, the activated interest of the influential circles in the United States, towards the Macedonian problem widens even more. For his aim, the CC of MPO develops a program for the provision of new books on the Macedonian question to important political institutions, university libraries, foundations, important city libraries and others. MPO begins the distribution on the above mentioned addresses with 500 copies of "La Macedonie", published by Simeon Evtimov in Geneva. In the winter of 1928, the second edition of the book " The Bulgarian Locarno and the Macedonian Question " is published. The book proves that until the Bulgarian minority in Yugoslavia and Greece does not receive its rights, settlement on the Balkans can not happen. This book, translated in English is sent to 2000 addresses in the USA. Later on, to all interested in the Macedonian problems, many other books are sent, mainly editions of the Macedonian Scientific Institute in Sofia. Thus, in the biggest library collections of the United States, begin the creation of independent collections on the Macedonian problem. Especially important collections are concentrated in the Archives of the State Department in Washington, The Library of Congress of USA, Hoover's institute at the Stanford University of California, the Municipal library of New York and others. This new step undertaken by the Macedono-Bulgarian emigration in the United States stabilizes the information stream toward the Macedono-Bulgarian lobby in the country and gives new practical results.
In the end of 1927, ICDPP in New York, decides to send to the Balkans on a special mission, its chairman Roger Baldwin.His is to verify, personally and on the spot, the facts on the minorities' conditions in this part of the world, in order to precise the future policy of the active right-protecting organization. The journey takes place in the winter of 1928. For the next three months, Roger Baldwin visits the capitals of the Great Power in Europe, the League of Nations Headquarters in Geneva and the Balkan states. In the League of Nation, Baldwin is received in the Commission on Minorities Questions, while in Sofia he has several meetings with the National Committee of the Macedonian Emigrant Brotherhoods. Full with rich personal impressions, in the end of February, the chairman of ICDPP returns to New York.
On February 27th, the Council calls a big public meeting in the well-known "Civil Club". Lazar Kisselintchev is invited as official representative of CC of MPO and Head of the Information Bureau.In the detailed report, prepared by Roger Baldwin on the Balkans, is said that the exact figure of" the number of political prisoners in Macedonia is not known, as both the Greek and the Serbians do not allow anybody to look into their dirty and unhygienic dungeons. Macedonian is populated by Bulgarians," reports the chairman of ICDPP," who are submitted to horrifying sufferings and tortures. After my investigations on the spot, it is clear for me, that the Macedonians are honest patriots, who are not satisfied only with the talking about human rights, but with readiness die for them ."/12/
Roger Baldwin's inquiry in the winter of 1928, gives reason to ICDPP to vote a special decision: the American human rights organization officially to present from its name to the League of Nations, the question of the violated human rights of the Bulgarian minorities in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia.On March 31st, 1928, ICDPP in New York sends a voluminous report to the Secretary General of the League of Nations in Geneva - Eric Drummand. It states that ICDPP supports the "appeal of the National Committee of the Bulgarian Emigration in Sofia for the inquiry on how Yugoslavia treats the minorities in Macedonia". As the only route for the future, is pointed out the necessity for the League of Nations to request from the government in Belgrade to guarantee the minorities' rights and freedoms of the Bulgarians in Vardar Macedonia.
The report to Eric Drummand is signed by Roger Baldwin, who in handwritten appendix adds that the author has verified personally the presented facts./13/ Thus, thanks to the formation and mobilization of the Macedono-Bulgarian lobby in the USA, in the end of the 20-ies, for the first time since the implementation of the 1919 Neuilly Peace Treaty, an influential foreign human rights organization solidarizes publicly, in front of the League of Nations, with the demands of the Bulgarian government and the emigrant organizations in Sofia, for cease of the terror and chase of the Bulgarian minorities in Yugoslavia and Greece. This extremely important demand is backed by the reputation of such eminent American politicians, scientists and diplomats as : J.Adams, J. Sulliman, E. Guillman, A.Hey, O.Jessy, D.S.Jordan, P.Kelloak, D. Mitrany, N. Thomas, G. Valentini, their names being written with special letters on the official documents of the ICDPP in New York.
In the summer of 1928, new dramatic events take place in Yugoslavia. A Serbian nationalist shoots in coldblood the leaders of the Croatia's opposition, inside the building of Belgrade's parliament. Yugoslavian money is involved in the destructive activities toward the IMRO -- the main revolutionary- liberative organization on the Balkans, fighting for the defence of the Macedonian Bulgarians in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. Thus, an acute internal crisis is provoked in IMRO, as a result of which, is murdered one of its most influential leaders, General Alexander Protogerov. Once again, the world's attention is focused on Yugoslavia and its minorities' problems.
For the clarification of the logics of these new events in the Macedonian liberation movement, in November 1928, the State Department authorizes Prof. Herbert Gibbens to meet and talk in details with a representative of CC of MPO in the United States. Prof. Gibbens had worked as correspondent of " New York Herald " in Turkey and the Middle East in the period 1908 - 1018, and is highly respected in the circles of the Macedono-Bulgarian lobby in North America.
The encounters between Prof. Gibbans and Lazar Kisselintcev, head of the Information Bureau of MPO in New York, take place on 14th and 15th of November 1928, in Chicago. In a detailed and open exchange of opinions, MPO's representative, clarifies the existing situation in and around IMRO, declaring that, the patriotic Macedono-Bulgarian emigration in USA does not approve of the political assassinations - a position in accordance with the official declaration of the Seventh Congress of MPO, of September the same year.Kisselintchev adds that MPO does not sympathize with the violent methods in the politics and has nothing to do with the assassination of Gen. Protogorov.
Satisfied bywhat he has heard, Prof. Gibbens declares that, the information received "will not be use for publications, but is for the State Department."/14/ At the end of the talks, he gives MPO the idea for a coalition with the numerous Croatian emigration in USA. A similar anti-Serbian political formation in the new world, would provoke more seriously the American public opinion.
No evidence exists, however, the idea to be induced by State Department's orders. The fact that Gibbens negotiates with Kisselintchev at the demand of the diplomatic establishment in Washington, however, can not exclude such possibility at all. More so, very soon, this idea will be proposed to the Macedono-Bulgarian emigration in USA personally by the Head of the Middle East Section of the State Department. After the talks with Gibbens, in the end of 1928, the CC of MPO orients its political course for unification of the Macedono-Bulgarian lobby in America with the numerous Croatian patriotic emigration. The similar situations created by the policy of the Serbian authorities in Zagreb and Scopije, provide favorable conditions for substantial enlargement of the spheres of influence of the, sympathizing and supporting the struggles of the enslaved Bulgarians of Vardar and Aegean Macedonia, forces. In result, during the 30-ies the Macedono-Bulgarian lobby in USA, gains one of its most important strategic allies in the resistance to the denationalization and assimilation policy against the Bulgarians in Yugoslavia and Greece./15/ By declarations, articles in the press, public manifestations and delegations to the most authoritative institutions, the American citizens of Bulgarian and Croatian origin, in New York, Detroit, Chicago, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh and others raise their voice in the defence of the Bulgarian minority in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia./16/
The events in Macedonia in 1928, activate again the old friend of Macedonia - Albert Soniksen. Inspite of his already advanced age, he carries alive in his heart, the truth on the fate of this Balkan land. The crisis provoked by the assassination of Gen. Protogerov, is the motive for the editors of the authoritative "Social Encyclopedia" to contact the expert on the Macedonian question, Albert Soniksen, with the demand for a detailed article on the history of IMRO and it struggles' aims. On January 5th, Soniksen informs the Head of the Information Bureau in New York, Lazar Kisselintchev, on this favorable possibility and asks for the latest literature on Macedonia, so that he can fulfill the accepted engagement on time./ Soniksen reads, write and speaks very well Bulgarian./
The offer is accepted with gratitude. A detailed information is sent to the National Committee of the Macedonian Bulgarian Emigration in Sofia, on the prospective of Soniksen telling the truth on Macedonia,in one of America's most popular and authoritative encyclopedias. In response, the Macedonian Scientific Institute in Sofia immediately sends to Soniksen's address, all its important editions on the character of the liberation movement of the Bulgarians in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia. Soniksen fulfills his engagement and writes new valuable pages on the Bulgarians in Macedonia. For the following three years, until his death in 1913, this eminent American democrat and humanist, fulfills his last, voluntary engagement to the historical truth connected with the history of the Macedonian question. Thus, he leaves a bright example in the development of American slavistics, on how the political situation can not change the opinion of a specialist during his whole lifetime./17/ Meanwhile, publications of authors of his class, in the beginning of the 30ies, clarify the actual events on the Balkans and stimulate for new initiatives the Macedono-Bulgarian lobby.
In March 1931, the member of CC of MPO and Head of the Information Bureau in New York, Lazar Kisselintchev, undertakes , for a third time, a diplomatic raid on Washington in connection with the Macedonian Question.During the second half of the month, he is invited for talks with the Head of the Middle East Section of the State Department./18/ In details are discussed the perspectives of the Bulgaro-Croatian emigrant political front in the United States. Lazar Kisselinchev's impressions are that, as the State Department officially discusses this idea with a representative of the Macedono-Bulgarian emigration, it obviously considers such a coalition a strategic reserve of the American politics on the Balkans in the future./19/ Such a conclusion permits CC of MPO to increase substantially its cooperation with the main Croatian emigrant organization "Hurvatsko Kolo". On February 27th, 1929, a document for stable alliance in the anti-Serbian struggle is signed, giving new strength to the Macedono-Bulgarian lobby. In the beginning of the 30-ies, it organizes impressive joint celebrations of historic anniversaries, protest actions against Belgrade's policy, exchange of delegations for the annual congresses of MPO and Hurvatso Kolo.
1. NEGOTIATION.
The Treaty of Bucharest was concluded on August 10, 1913, by the delegates of Bulgaria, Roumania, Serbia, Montenegro, and Greece. As Bulgaria had been completely isolated in the Second Balkan War, and as she was closely invested on her northern boundary by the of Roumania on her western frontier by the allied armies of Greece and Serbia, and in the East by the Turkish Army, she was obliged, in her helplessness, to submit to such terms as her victorious enemies chose to impose upon her. All important arrangements and concessions involving the rectification of the controverted international boundary lines were perfected in a series of committee meetings, incorporated in separate protocols, and formally ratified by subsequent action of the general assembly of delegates.
2. TERMS.
By the terms of the treaty, Bulgaria ceded to Roumania all that portion of the Dobrudja lying north of a line extending from the Danube just above Turtukaia to the western shore of the Black Sea, south of Ekrene. This important territorial Concession has an approximate area of 2,687 square miles, a population of 286,000, and includes the fortress of Silistria and the cities of Turtukaia on the Danube and Baltchik on the Black Sea. In addition, Bulgaria agreed to dismantle all existing fortresses and bound herself not to construct forts at Rustchuk or at Schumla or in any of the territory between these two cities, or within a radius of 20 kilometers around Baltchick.
3. SERBIA'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.
The eastern frontier of Serbia was drawn from the summit of Patarika, on the old frontier, and followed the watershed between the Vardar and the Struma Rivers to the Greek-Bulgarian boundary, except that the upper valley of the Strumnitza remained in the possession of Bulgaria. The territory thus obtained embraced central Macedonia, including Ochrida, Monastir, Kossovo, Istib, and Kotchana, and the eastern half of the sanjak of Novi-Bazar. By this arrangement Serbia increased her territory from 18,650 to 33,891 square miles and her population by more than 1,500,000.
4. GREECE'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.
The boundary line separating Greece from Bulgaria was drawn from the crest of Mount Belashitcha to the mouth of the Mesta River, on the Aegean Sea. This important territorial concession, which Bulgaria resolutely contested, in compliance with the instructions embraced in the notes which Russia and Austria-Hungary presented to the conference, increased the area of Greece from 25,014 to 41,933 square miles and her population from 2,660,000 to 4,363,000. The territory thus annexed included Epirus, southern Macedonia, Salonika, Kavala, and the Aegean littoral as far east as the Mesta River, and restricted the Aegean seaboard of Bulgaria to an inconsiderable extent of 70 miles, extending from the Mesta to the Maritza, and giving access to the Aegean at the inferior port of Dedeagatch. Greece also extended her northwestern frontier to include the great fortress of Janina. In addition, Crete was definitely assigned to Greece and was formally taken over on December 14, 1913.
5. BULGARIA'S GAIN IN TERRITORY.
Bulgaria's share of the spoils, although greatly reduced, was not entirely negligible. Her net gains in territory, which embraced a. portion of Macedonia, including the town of Strumnitza, western Thrace, and 70 miles of the Aegean littoral, were about 9,663 square miles, and her population was increased by 129,490.
6. APPRAISEMENT OF THE TREATY.
By the terms of the Treaty of Bucharest, Roumania profited most in proportion to her sacrifices. The unredeemed Roumanians live mostly in Transylvania, the Bukovina, and Bessarabia, and therefore the Balkan wars afforded her no adequate opportunity to perfect the rectification of her boundaries on ethnographic lines.
The humiliating terms imposed on Bulgaria were due to her own impatience and intemperate folly. The territory she secured was relatively circumscribed; she had failed to emancipate Macedonia, which was her avowed purpose in entering the war; she lost the districts of Ochrida and Monastir, which she especially coveted; she was assigned only a small line on the Aegean, with the wretched port of Dedeagatch; and she was obliged to forfeit her ambition as the leader of the Balkan hegemony.
Greece, though gaining much, was greatly dissatisfied. The acquisition of Saloniki was a triumph; she was assigned the port of Kavala and the territory eastward at the insistence of the King and the army and contrary to the advice of Venizelos; in the northwest Greece encountered the opposition of Italy by urging her claims to southern Albania; in the assignment of the Aegean Islands she was profoundly dissatisfied; and she still claims 3,000,000 unredeemed conationals.
The fundamental defects of the Treaty of Bucharest were that (1) the boundaries which it drew bore little relation to the nationality of the inhabitants of the districts affected, and that (2) the punishment meted out to Bulgaria, while perhaps deserved in the light of her great offense in bringing on the, Second Balkan War, was so severe that she could not accept the treaty as a permanent settlement. While Serbia, Greece, and Roumania can not escape a large share of the blame for the character of the treaty, it should not be forgotten that their action at Bucharest was in large measure due to the settlement forced upon the Balkan States by the great powers at the London conferences.
Source: Anderson, Frank Maloy and Amos Shartle Hershey, Handbook for the Diplomatic History of Europe, Asia, and Africa 1870-1914. Prepared for the National Board for Historical Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, 1918.
http://www.unet.com.mk/oldmacedonianmaps/stmapi/index.html
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/europe1815_1905.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkans_1912.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_states_1899.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_aspirations_1914.jpg
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_belligerants_1914.jpg
Map from "Report of the International Commission To Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars" 1914. [This map shows areas occupied by Balkan armies at the end of April 1913: (Serbian, Montenegrin, Bulgarian, Greek)]. "War began with the declaration of Montenegro on 8 October [1912], and, within a few months, to the amazement of Europe, the Turkish forces had collapsed."--quote from: Great Britain. Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbook Series: Jugoslavia, Volume II, 1944, p. 114.
http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/balkan_modifications_1914.jpg
Map from "Report of the International Commission To Inquire into the Causes and Conduct of the Balkan Wars" 1914. "The Treaty of London (30 May 1913) ceded to the Balkan allies all territories 'west of a line drawn from Enos on the Aegean Sea to Midia on the Black Sea, with the exception of Albania. It was not only a defeat of the military forces of the Turkish empire, but a defeat of the Austrian dream of Drang nach Osten. ...Austria-Hungary and Italy, rather than see Albania partitioned between Slav states on the north and Greece on the south, had succeeded in blocking Serbian access to the Adriatic by proposing the creation of an autonomous Albania." --quote from: Great Britain. Naval Intelligence Division, Geographical Handbook Series: Jugoslavia, Volume II, 1944, p. 114.
Anyway all I can say is GREAT JOB!
| quote: |
| Originally posted by Chingizhan I've read this one time,I've read it 2 times and I still can't believe in my eyes! Is that you Slasa or somebody who uses your name? Anyway all I can say is GREAT JOB! |
Thank you very mush! of course its me =) it will come but it will take a long time before u find all the fact abouth Macedonia.
Best Regard and all the best
//Slasa
Begalci od Egejska Makedonija
Sekojdnevno granicata ja pominuvaat golemi grupi Makedonci koi begaat od gr~kiot teror. Makedonija gi prifa}a i gi udostojuva site {to ja pominale granicata
ISTORI^AROT d-r VLADO IVANOVSKI, me|u pogolemiot broj novootkrieni dokumenti vo Istorisko-dokumentarniot oddel na Ministerstvoto za nadvore{ni raboti, poto~no vo Arhivot za nadvore{na politika na Ruskata Federacija, go registrira i Izve{tajot (so zabele{ka deka ne smee da bide objaven) na V.P. Grigorev i I.N. Ageev, koi od 13 do 23 juli 1945 godina ja posetile Makedonija i pritoa posebno se zadr`ale na sostojbata na granicata so Grcija, vo toa vreme `e{ka to~ka na jugoslovensko-gr~kite odnosi. Ovoj dokument prvpat e objaven vo magazinot Makedonsko vreme od kade {to go prezemame.
Zaradi nevideniot teror na gr~kite voeni i policiski vlasti nad naselenieto od Egejska Makedonija, Makedonci - stari i mladi, ma`i i `eni, gi ostavaat svoite rodni ogni{ta i masovno ja minuvaat granicata i se prefrlaat na jugoslovenska teritorija.
Spored podatocite {to ni gi dade pretsedatelot na ASNOM, Metodi Andonov - ^ento, do ovoj moment od Egejska Makedonija prebegale pove}e od 20.000 begalci - Makedonci. Begalcite sekojdnevno pristignuvaat. Interesno e deka, zaedno so Makedoncite, od terorot vo Jugoslavija prebeguvaat i mnogu Grci. Spored podatocite na pretsedatelot na Narodniot komitet na Bitolskiot okrug, Krsto Simovski, samo na teritorijata na ovaa okolija do 17 juli prebegale okolu tri iljadi lu|e. Kako po pravilo, site begalci {to ja minuvaat granicata pristignuvaat polugoli, polubosi i iznemo{teni od te{kiot pat. Narodot i organite na jugoslovenskata narodna vlast na begalcite im uka`uvaat dobar priem. Na primer, vo gradot Bitola za niv e otvorena menza i se opremeni specijalni prostori. Rabotosposobnite begalci se raspredeluvaat na rabota po selata i gradovite. Nerabotosposobnite, glavno starci, se smesteni vo specijalni priemni domovi, kade {to im e obezbedena hrana i obleka.
Razgovaravme so nekolku begalci vo pove}e mesta. Na primer, vo selo Dupeni, Prespanska okolija, Bitolski okrug, na 16 juli 1945 godina: selanec - Makedonec, 65-godi{niot Gligor Bogoja Balja, prebegal vo maj mesec od seloto Rabi, Lerinska okolija i okrug (Grcija). Vo Grcija mu ostanalo semejstvoto: `enata, sinot, snaata i nivnite dve deca. Samiot toj gi pomagal partizanite. Pri~ina za prebeguvaweto: teror, gonewe na site koi gi pomagale ili simpatizirale partizanite.
Od seloto Rabi (sostaveno od 120 makedonski ku}i i 40 gr~ki), samo vo seloto Dupeni prebegale 20 ma`i.
- Selanec - Makedonec, 80-godi{niot Nikola Stefanov-Kazakovski, od selo Rabi (Lerinska okolija), prebegnal vo mesec maj zaedno so 35-godi{niot sin. Drugite ~lenovi od nivnoto semejstvo ostanale vo Grcija. Pri~ini za nivnoto prebeguvawe: gi pomagale partizanite, gi kriele i lekuvale ranetite, za {to sega gr~kite vlasti gi gonat. Toj ni ka`uva deka od negovoto selo se uapseni 13 ma`i i se odneseni vo Lerin.
]E SE VRATIME SAMO VO OBEDINETA MAKEDONIJA
Begalcite zboruvaat: Nie }e se vratime doma samo vo slu~aj ako Egejska Makedonija bide prisoedineta kon Makedonija (Jugoslavija)!
Zboguvaj}i se so nas, Kazakovski ni re~e: Neka `ivee Stalin i neka ni pomogne nam, na Makedoncite od Egejska Makedonija, da se oslobodime!.
Vo Bitola, na 17 juli 1945 godina:
- Selanecot - Makedonec, 84-godi{niot Anastas Pan~ev od selo Vi{eni, Kosturski okrug i okolija. Prebegal vo Bitola na 17 juli 1945 godina. Gr~kata policija na 11 juli vo seloto Vi{eni go pretepala, bo`em, deka vodel propaganda. Vsu{nost, selanecot samo dobronamerno zboruval za Jugoslavija, za prisoedinuvaweto na Egejska Makedonija kon nea. Na negovata glava i na liceto se zabele`uvaat tragi od mavawe. Ottrgnuvaj}i se od racete na policijata, toj pobegnal vo planinite, a ottamu, pe{, vlegol vo Jugoslavija. Za nekolku dena prope{a~il pove}e od 80 kilometri.
- Joanis Teodoridis, Grk, star 28 godini, od selo Livera, Kozanis. Spored negovite zborovi, toj bil sekretar na mesniot komitet na Komparatijata, vo okolijata Kozanis. Gr~kata policija, so cel da ja obezglavi komunisti~kata partija, gi uapsila partiskite rabotnici. Nemu mu se zakanuvalo apsewe. Zatoa re{il da prebega vo Jugoslavija.
Ponekoga{, vo Makedonija pristignuvaat Makedonci - begalci od Trakija, so voz, preku Bugarija. Edna takva grupa od okolu 200 lu|e sretnavme vo selo Gradsko, 20 kilometri od Veles. Begalcite ni izjavija deka se od selata Gorence i Proso~en, Dramska okolija, od kade {to prebegale na bugarska teritorija u{te kon sredinata na april mesec godinava. Spored nivnite zborovi, vo Bugarija, vo gradovite Plovdiv, Pazarxik i Nevrokop, se nao|aat do 10.000 begalci od Egejska Makedonija. Site tie lu|e }e bidat prefrleni vo Jugoslavija. Po toa pra{awe vo Bugarija raboti jugoslovenskata komisija.
Begalcite raska`uvaat deka caristite gi proteruvaat od Grcija site Makedonci. Gr~kite vlasti go ograbuvaat makedonskoto naselenie. Tie sobiraat od nego `ito, dobitok, pari. Begaj}i od Trakija, begalcite tamu go ostavile siot svoj imot so seta poku}nina. Me|u begalcite ima stari lu|e, `eni i deca, vo pove}e slu~ai celi semejstva. Na primer, selanecot Krsto Dimitrov Bon~ev (36 godina), od seloto Proso~en, Dramska okolija, prebegal vo Jugoslavija so trite deca, koi imaat {est, deset i dvanaeset godini. Selanecot Ivan Angelov Paskalev (36 godini), od selo Gorence, prebegal so `enata i trite deca od {est, trinaeset i sedumnaeset godini.
Selanecot Ko~o Ramsulev (46 godini), od selo Proso~en, prebegal sam, ostavaj}i ja doma `enata so decata.
Begalcite od Egejska Makedonija vo Jugoslavija se sretnuvaat so celosno dobredojde. Na 2 avgust vo Makedonija se praznuva nacionalniot praznik Ilinden (Den na vostanieto protiv Turcite). Na toj den niz cela Makedonija }e bidat organizirani dobrovolni prilozi za begalcite - bra}ata od Egejska Makedonija. Makedonskata vlada pu{tila vo proda`ba specijalna lotarija, ~ij prihod }e bide vnesen vo fondot za pomo{ na begalcite.
EKONOMSKATA POLO@BA VO MAKEDONIJA
Vo ekonomskiot `ivot na Federalna Makedonija glavno mesto zazema selskoto stopanstvo so koe se zanimava 74 procenti od op{tiot broj na naselenieto. Osnovni kulturi na selskoto stopanstvo se tutunot, p~enkata, afionot, koj se izvezuva za izrabotka na opium, maslodajnite kulturi, ovo{tarstvoto. Osven toa, golemo mesto vo selskoto stopanstvo zazema sto~arstvoto. Prirodnite uslovi: planinite, ~estata su{a, nedostigot od obrabotlivo zemji{te, gi pravat povr{inite zaseani so `itni kulturi nerentabilni. Proizvodstvoto na sopstvenoto `ito vo Makedonija do novata `etva ne gi obezbeduva potrebite na naselenieto. Na primer, vo seloto Qubojno, Prespanska okolija, Bitolskiot krug (60 kilometri od Bitola) pove}eto od selanite se sopstvenici na zemji{te do eden hektar, eden selanec ima pet hektari, a 60 otsto od obrabotlivoto zemji{te se nao|a po planinite. Vo ova selo, po pravilo, proizvodstvoto na sopstvena p~enica im e dovolno na selanite samo za narednite pet-{est meseci, a godinava, spored izjavata na selanite, rezervite na p~enica ne }e traat pove}e od ~etiri meseci. Osnovno zanimavawe na selanite e ovo{tarstvoto i proizvodstvoto na tutun.
Spored izjavata na sekretarot na Okru`niot naroden odbor vo Bitola, Kulja~, pogolemiot broj od selanite vo Makedonija se sopstvenici na obrabotliva povr{ina najmnogu do 1,5 hektar {to ne obezbeduva p~enica za celata godina, pa selanite se nadevaat deka taa }e bide donesena od Vojvodina. Zaradi dezorganiziraniot transport, naru{enata trgovija i vrskata me|u gradovite i selata, naselenieto vo Makedonija postojano ~uvstvuva krajna potreba od hrana. Istoto toa ni go izjavi pretsedatelot na Narodnoosloboditelniot odbor na grad Prilep. Spored podatocite na vesnikot Selo, vo Makedonija, Kosovo Pole, Metohija i Sanxak do vojnata imalo vkupno 231.964 semejstva (od niv vo Makedonija 172.700), koi raspolagale so 1.203.116 hektari obrabotlivo zemji{te (vo Makedonija taa brojka iznesuvala 650.000 hektari).
Vo prosek na edno semejstvo vo Makedonija, Kosovo Pole, Metohija i Sanxak doa|a ne{to pove}e od pet hektari obrabotlivo zemji{te. Vo Makedonija, pak, na edno semejstvo doa|a ne{to pove}e od ~etiri hektari po semejstvo.
Vo zemjodelskoto stopanstvo na Makedonija vidno mesto zazema kulturata tutun. Bezrazli~no {to so ovaa kultura e zaseana na samo eden otsto od vkupno obrabotlivo zemji{te, koe opfa}a 6,5 iljadi hektari, so obrabotka na tutunot anga`irani se pove}e od deset iljadi lu|e ili 40 otsto od vkupno vrabotenite vo Makedonija.
Zemjodelstvoto vo Jugoslavija e relativno zaostanato. Zemjodelstvoto, pak, vo Makedonija e najzaostanato vo Jugoslavija. Drvenite plugovi i volovite se osnovnoto orudie na makedonskoto zemjodelstvo mo{ne retko vo poleto mo`e da se vidi metalen plug, dodeka pak, drugi zemjodelski ma{ini voop{to nema. Pominuvaj}i ja dolinata na rekata Vardar, Bitolskoto Pole i poleto okolu Prespanskoto Ezero, nikade ne slu{navme rabota na zemjodelski ma{ini. Zabele`avme samo ra~na rabota. Kowi ima malku. Magariwata i volovite se osnovnite transportni sredstva vo zemjodelstvoto.
Selanite `iveat bedno. Retko zabele`avme selanec koj ne be{e vo iznosena obleka i obuvki pod koi se gleda golotija. Raznobojnite zakrpi ja skrivaat bojata na materijalot od koj e so{iena oblekata. Ne~istotija. Do 75 otsto od naselenieto vo Makedonija e napismeno. Ovoj procent po selata e zabele`itelno pogolem. Vo cela Makedonija rabotat samo {eeset lekari i trieset medicinski sestri, a vo selata vo koi bevme, nikade ne vidovme ambulanta ili bolnica. Selanite ja po~ituvaat novata vlast, me|utoa, zabele`uvaat deka taa se u{te ni{to ne im dala. Podgotovki za reformi ne se zabele`uvaat. Sekretarot na NOF na Bitolskiot okrug okolu ova pra{awe se ograni~uva{e na op{ti frazi, izjavi, {to se imaat selskite semejstva koi ja po~uvstvuvale agrarnata reforma, me|utoa kolku zemja e opfateno so agrarnata reforma, kakov maksimum obrabotliva povr{ina }e ostane kaj selanite, kolkav e vi{okot na zemja, toj ne znae{e da ka`e. Nie bevme vo selskata kooperacija na edno pograni~no selo na Bitolskiot okrug. Prodavnicata prazna. Seloto dobilo samo 24 srpa i {est kosi. Seloto ima 88 doma}instva. Kooperatorot ni re~e deka podelbata na srpovite i kosite me|u selanite }e ja napravat po pat na lotarija. Sekoj ~ovek dobiva po 20 grama sol za sekoja ovca. Za kolku vreme e dadena solta nikoj ne znae.
Industrijata vo Makedonija e mo{ne slaba i e skoncentrirana po gradovite. Na primer, vo Bitola ima dve tekstilni fabriki, nekolku pomali esnafski rabotilnici. Vo Skopje ima pivarnica, monopol i nekolku mali tekstilni fabriki. Vo planinite me|u Skopje i Bitola ima rezervi na jaglen. Opremata na jaglenokopite e primitivna. Najkonkretno za sostojbata na industrijata vo Makedonija zboruvaat slednive brojki: vo industrijata se anga`irani 25.000 lu|e, od niv na prerabotka na tutunot - 10. 000.
Trgovijata vo Makedonija e re~isi paralizirana. Site industriski proizvodi se delat so bele{ki, {to gi izdava Ministerstvoto za trgovija i drugite kompetentni institucii. Privatna inicijativa, pri neumeewe i nemawe mo`nosti se organizira dr`avna trgovija, ne e dozvolena.
Me|u selanite postoi tendencija da se bojkotiraat gradovite - dokolku selanecot gi odnese v grad svoite proizvodi ne mo`e ni{to da dobie za niv. A gradovite, pak, ~uvstvuvaat nedostig na onie proizvodi koi vo nivna blizina ili gnijat (ovo{je) ili pak se rasipuvaat (jajca i mleko).
Gradovite `iveat prazni~no. Vo Skopje, Bitola i Veles, niz koi pominavme, po golemite ulici prizemjata na ku}ite se pretvoreni vo kafeani i restorani i drug vid zabavuva~ki du}ani. Niv gi ima nevoobi~aeno mnogu. Vo nekoi kafeani, osven prazni {i{iwa ili po nekolku {i{iwa kiselo vino, nema ni{to. Vo Bitola, na 30.000 `iteli, so razli~ni raboti se zafateni samo tri iljadi lu|e, a drugite, isklu~uvaj}i gi decata i starcite, se zanimavaat so trgovija i bezdelni~at.
Reakcija, koristej}i gi te{kotiite, vodi skri{na propaganda protiv narodnata vlast, ja sabotira trgovijata. Pazarite se prazni - nasekade dejstvuva crnata berza. Trgovcite se stra{no nezadovolni zaradi toa {to se gonat kontrabandite od Grcija i Albanija.
Za nekolku dena, kolku {to prestojvuavme vo Makedonija, ne vidovme nieden selanec, ili selska kola, koi so proizvodi odea vo grad, kako {to toa go gledavme, na primer, vo mnogu mesta vo Srbija. Po pati{tata mo`at da se vidat samo magariwa natovareni so drva ili so seno.
POJAVI NA [OVINISTI^KO RASPOLO@ENIE
Po svojot nacionalen sostav, Makedonija e pove}enacionalna. Spored izjavata na pretsedatelot na ASNOM, Andonov - ^ento, Federalna Makedonija ima 1.200.000 naselenie, od koi 1.000.000 se Makedonci, a drugite se Turci, Albanci, Vlasi. Vo isto~niot del na Makedonija ima Bugari - preselnici. Muslimanskoto naselenie vo Makedonija broi me|u 70.000 i 80.000 iljadi. Site nacionalni malcinstva se zastapeni vo ASNOM. Zamenik pretsedatelot na Vladata e Albanec.
Vo razgovorite so odgovorni lica se ~uvstvuva golema nequbeznost i nacionalno neprijatelstvo kon Srbite, koi vo oddelni slu~ai dobivaat forma na {ovinizam. Vo razgovorot so nas Andonov-^ento re~e deka Srbi vo Makedonija nema, tuku ima srbomani, koi sebesi se smetaat za Srbi, no, vsu{nost, tie se Makedonci Isklu~ok pretstavuvaat okolu dve iljadi stari srpski ~inovnici koi `iveat vo Skopje. Srpski {koli vo Makedonija nema. Sli~no na ova izjavi i urednikot na vesnikot Nova Makedonija Kiro Haxi Vasilev. Toj re~e: Vo Skopje nema srpski u~ili{ta. Nema zo{to da se otvorat, nema dovolno Srbi. Vo selata, kade {to naselenieto se ~uvstvuva srpsko, a vsu{nost tie ne se Srbi. Vo tie sela srpski u~ili{ta nema, me|utoa, ima srpski jazik kako nastaven predmet. Spored izjavata na poru~nikot na jugoslovenskata armija, K.A. k*ricki, vo Makedonija postoi silen {ovinizam. Toj postoi i vo armijata, me|u komunistite - komandiri i komesari - Makedonci, kako i me|u rabotnicite na OZNA. Koga vo Makedonija do{le 22. Divizija, sostavena od Srbi, Hrvati i Crnogorci, vo Makedonija po~na da se zboruva za novo nasilstvo na Srbite, deka povtorno se vra}a stariot srpski re`im, okupacija, korupcija. Koga bil likvidiran Glavniot {tab na Makedonija i formirana [estata armija, mnozinstvoto na rakovodniot kadar ne bile makedonski, pa mnogu Makedonci toa go kvalifikuvale kako likvidirawe na makedonskata armija. @enata na na~alnikot na OZNA za Makedonija (toj, isto taka, e sekretar na CK na KPM), polkovnikot Cvetko Uzunovski - Abaz, izjavila: Povtorno po~na srpsko vladeewe! Kakva e taa sloboda za Makedonija, koga pak dojdoa Srbite...!. Za obrazovanieto vo samostojna Makedonija ni zboruvaa rabotnikot na Kultpropot na CK na KP na Makedonija, Bla`e Koneski, i ve}e spomenatiot urednik na vesnikot Nova Makedonija Haxi Vasilev. Vo isto~nite delovi na Makedonija postoi tendencija za prisoedinuvawe kon Bugarija.
Karakteristi~en e delot od razgovorot so Andonov - ^ento {to go imavme na 20 juli. Toj ne pra{a dali sme go slu{ale soop{tenieto po radio od sredbata na trojcata rkovoditeli na trite golemi dr`avi za toa deka, navodno, tie do{le do zaklu~ok za neophodnosta od sozdavawe samostojna Makedonija pod pokrovitelstvo na Amerika. Isto takvo pra{awe ni postavi i sekretarot na ASNOM, Spirov, koj vleze dodeka razgovaravme so Andonov - ^ento. Spirov go izrazi svoeto mislewe deka e prifatliva idejata za protektorat na SSSR ili Amerika nad Makedonija, samo da ne se realizira varijantata Makedonija pod protektorat na Anglija. Pritoa, toj ja razvi mislata za mo`nosta da postoi samostojna Makedonija pod pokrovitelstvo na Amerika, pod uslov da bidat za~uvani dene{nite organi na dr`avnata vlast i na armijata. Ekonomskata sorabotka treba da bide baza za podem na Makedonija. ^ento, vo princip, so ni{to ne mu se sprotivstavi na svojot kolega, me|utoa, izrazi somnenie za toa deka dene{nite organi na dr`avnata vlast }e mo`at da se za~uvaat za vreme na amerikanskiot protektorat, koga Amerika }e gi zeme vo svoi race komandnite mesta vo makedonskata ekonomija. Me|utoa, selanite so koi imavme mo`nost da razgovarame, smetaj}i ja polo`bata na makedonskiot narod tragi~na, baraat negovo obedinuvawe vo edna dr`ava. Bezrazli~no na silno izrazenite nacionalni ~uvstva, nikoj od niv ne re~e deka Makedonija treba da bide nadvor od Jugoslavija, tuku,obratno, nekoi od niv direktno izjavuvaat deka taa treba da bide vo ramkite na Jugoslavija. Se nadevaat deka SSSR }e im pomogne vo toa.
ODNOSOT KON SSSR
Vo voenite edinici na ^etvrtata brigada na Narodnata odbrana, kaj koi bevme, odnosot na vojnicite kon Sovetskiot Sojuz e isklu~itelno ubav. Sekoj vojnik saka da li~i na crvenoarmiec, a nivnata tatkovina na SSSR. Nedovolno oble~eni, bosi, tie se polni so verba vo toa deka se na pravilen pat, na onoj pat, po koj svoevremeno odel Sovetskiot Sojuz. Tie so prezir zboruvaat za gr~kite vojnici oble~eni vo angliski uniformi. Na pokrivot od ku}ata vo koja se nao|a brigadniot {tab se vee crveno zname so srp i ~ekan na nego. Nie gi pra{uvame: Zo{to visi crveno zname?, a tie ni odgovaraat: Toa e makedonsko zname. Vo razgovorite selanite se interesiraat za `ivotot so Sovetskiot Sojuz, glavno, za `ivotot na selanite.
Me|utoa, vo razgovorite so odgovornite lica se ~uvstvuva nekakva rezerva, osobeno zatoa {to tie go znaat odnosot kon SSSR, kon ruskiot ~ovek vo Srbija. Vo Srbija se interesira za se {to se odnesuva na Sovetskiot Sojuz. Se interesira za negovata pozicija kon niv, ili za drugite me|unarodni pra{awa. Gi interesira{e pra{aweto za Trst, pozicijata na Sovetskiot Sojuz vo odnos na politi~kite pojavi vo Jugoslavija. Veruvaa vo silata na Sovetskiot Sojuz. Sosema druga e rabotata vo Makedonija: ne dobivme nitu edno pra{awe za toa kako Sovetskiot Sojuz se odnesuva kon nastantie vo Egejska Makedonija, za pra{aweto na Makedonija voop{to.
Razgovorot so sekretarot na Bitolskiot okru`en NOF, Marko Kulja~, Crnogorec, li~e{e pove}e na raspra{uvawe otkolku na razgovor. Toj odgovara{e samo na pra{awa, nieden zbor otpove}e, ne postavuvaj}i nitu edno pra{awe. Vo takov ton mina i razgovorot so urednikot na Nova Makedonija, Haxi Vasilev, kako i so sekretarot na Dru{tvoto za kulturna vrska so SSSR, Koneski, vo Skopje.
Vo glavniot grad na Makedonija, Skopje, Dru{tvoto za kulturna vrska so SSSR, fakti~ki ne raboti. Dru{tvoto nema svoi prostorii. Postojnata ruska biblioteka vo Skopje le`i vo magacin i taa nema svoi prostorii. Rakovoditelite na Dru{tvoto manifestiraat celosna inertnost, a od CK KP na Makedonija nema nikakvi stimulansi za da o`ivee rabotata i na Dru{tvoto i da mu se pomogne da najde potrebni prostorii.
Potpi{ani:
Vtor sekretar na Ambasadata na SSSR vo Jugoslavija, Grigorov, Ata{e na Ambasadata na SSSR vo Jugoslavija, Ageev 28 juli 1945 godina
The Dispute over Macedonia 1912-1913
An Original Map from the Period
Sir Edward Grey to Ella Pease (a friend)
<>Feb.1, 1913
The Balkan crisis drags out its agony: the dreary part of Foreign Affairs is that nothing can be dealt with on its merits. Things have to be sacrificed to keep the peace between the Great Powers. If a good settlement of Albania would mean war between two or more Great Powers, and an inferior settlement would secure peace between them, the latter has to be preferred.
From: G. M. Trevelyan, Grey of Fallodon (London, 1937), 233
Sir Edward Grey1862-1933
Treaty Between Great Britain, Austria-Hungary, France, Germany, Italy, Russia and Turkey. (Berlin). July 13, 1878.
Article I. Bulgaria is constituted an autonomous and tributary Principality under the suzerainty of His Imperial Majesty the Sultan. It will have a Christian government and a national militia.
Article XXIII. The Sublime Porte undertakes scrupulously to apply in the Island of Crete the Organic Law of 1868 with such modifications as may be considered equitable. Similar laws adapted to local requirements, excepting as regards the exemption from taxation granted to Crete, shall also be introduced into the other parts of Turkey in Europe for which no special organization has been provided by the present treaty. The Sublime Porte shall depute special commissions, in which the native element shall be largely represented, to settle the details of the new laws in each province. The schemes of organization resulting from these labors shall be submitted for examination to the Sublime Porte, which, before promulgating the Acts for putting them into force, shall consult the European Commission instituted for Easter Roumelia.
Article XXV. The provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina shall be occupied and administered by Austria-Hungary. The government of Austria-Hungary, not desiring to undertake the administration of the Sanjak of Novi-Pazar [modern Kosovo Province], which extends between Serbia and Montenegro in a South-Easterly direction to the other side of Mitrovitza, the Ottoman administration will continue to exercise its functions there. Nevertheless, in order to assure the maintenance of the new political state of affairs, as well as freedom and security of communications, Austria-Hungary reserves the right of keeping garrisons and having military and commercial roads in the whole of this part of the ancient vilayet of Bosnia. To this end the governments of Austria-Hungary and Turkey reserve to themselves to come to an understanding on the details.
Article XXVI. The independence of Montenegro is recognized by the Sublime Porte and by all those of the High Contracting Parties who had not hitherto admitted it.
Article XXXIV. The High Contracting Parties recognize the independence of the Principality of Serbia, subject to the conditions set forth in the following Article.
Article XXXV. In Serbia the difference of religious creeds and confessions shall not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever. The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship shall be assured to all persons belonging to Serbia, as well as to foreigners, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organization of the different communions, or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs.
Article XLIII. The High Contracting Parties recognize the independence of Romania, subject to the conditions set forth in the two following Articles.
Article XLIV. In Romania the difference of religious creeds and confessions shall not be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever. The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship shall be assured to all persons belonging to Romania, as well as to foreigners, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organization of the different communions, or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs. The subjects and citizens of all the Powers, traders or others, shall be treated in Romania without distinction of creed, on a footing of perfect equality.
Article XLV. The Principality of Romania restores to His Majesty the Emperor of Russia that portion of the Bessarabian territory detached from Russia by the Treaty of Paris of 1856, bounded on the West by the mid-channel of the Pruth [River], and on the South by the mid-channel of the Kilia Branch and the Stary-Stamboul mouth [now the modern state of Moldova].
Article LVIII. The Sublime Porte cedes to the Russian Empire in Asia the territories of Ardahan, Kars, and Batum [modern Armenia and Georgia, with a bit of Northeastern Turkey], together with the latter port.
Article LIX. His Majesty the Emperor of Russia declares that it is his intention to constitute Batum a free port, essentially commercial.
Article LXII. The Sublime Porte having expressed the intention to maintain the principle of religious liberty, and give it the widest scope, the Contracting Parties take note of this spontaneous declaration. In no part of the Ottoman Empire shall difference of religion be alleged against any person as a ground for exclusion or incapacity in matters relating to the enjoyment of civil or political rights, admission to public employments, functions, and honors, or the exercise of the various professions and industries, in any locality whatsoever. The freedom and outward exercise of all forms of worship shall be assured to all, and no hindrance shall be offered either to the hierarchical organization of the different communions, or to their relations with their spiritual chiefs.
Ecclesiastics, pilgrims, and monks of all nationalities traveling in Turkey in Europe, or in Turkey in Asia, shall enjoy the same rights, advantages, and privileges.
The right of official protection by the Diplomatic and Consular Agents of the Powers in Turkey is recognized both as regards the above-mentioned persons and their religious, charitable, and other establishments in the Holy Places and elsewhere. The rights possessed by France are expressly reserved, and it is well understood that no alterations can be made in the status quo in the Holy Places. The monks of Mount Athos, of whatever country they may be natives, shall be maintained in their former possessions and advantages, and shall enjoy, without any exception, complete equality of rights and prerogatives.
Source:
From: R. B.Mowat, Select Treaties and Documents to Illustrate the Development of the Modern European States-System, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1915), pp. 79-83.
Atanas Jankov from the village Zagorichani -Aegean Macedonia: (a speach made before the uprising in Gorna Djumaja):
"Macedonians! Remind yourselfs to the world winner, to the world fame of Macedonia - the magnificent Alexander of Macedonia....
(Quoted in: Macedonia and the Macedonian nation - Blaze Ristovski, 1995).
4. Petar Pop Arsov in a broshure written in 1894:
" At earlier times the gold of our Phillip bribed and divided the inteligence in Athens and enslaved Greece. However,today another time has come with quite different conditions in which brother sells brother"
(Quoted in: Macedonia and the Macedonian nation - Blaze Ristovski, 1995).
5. Protocolar manifest of the meeting held in 1881 by the Illegal Goverment of Macedonia:
" From all of the interested goverments we'll ask a restauration of Ancient Macedonia. We'll announce an appeal to all lovers of freedom and from all men patriots sacrifices shall be needed."
(Quoted in: Macedonia and the Macedonian nation - Blaze Ristovski, 1995).
6. Gjorgjija Pulevski in 1878 wrote:
" With God's help this spring we'll rise against Turkey, all of us Macedonian sons. Either we'll all die or we'll renew the kingdom of Alexander of Macedonia!"
(Quoted in: Macedonia and the Macedonian nation - Blaze Ristovski, 1995).
7. In his article"The Macedonian question" from 1871, Petko Slavejkov wrote:
" Many times I've heard from the makedonists that they were not Bulgarians, but Macedonians,heirs of the ancient Macedonians. We always expected evidence for those claims,but we havent seen one yet...."
(Quoted in: Macedonia and the Macedonian nation - Blaze Ristovski, 1995).
8. Stefan Verkovic (a collector of folk heritage) in 1864) wrote:
" In Pulivakovci (a family from Aegean Macedonia) there is a narrative that they are direct heirs of Alexander the Great. The Dolno-Polenci, and especially those who live in the Pazar neighbourhood are proud of thir old capital, the city of Bella (Pella)...."
(Quoted in: Macedonia and the Macedonian nation - Blaze Ristovski, 1995).
9. The Russian scholar Viktor Grigorovich in 1844 -1845 wrote:
" In all regions I've visited I was not able to hear another name but that of Alexander the Great and Marko Krale. Both of them are still alive in the memory of the people.... The memory of Alexander is still more present..."
(Quoted in: Macedonia and the Macedonian nation - Blaze Ristovski, 1995).
10. The Bulgarian publicist Levov in his talk against the "Lozars" in 1892 says:
"....[Lozars claim] that Macedonia is their country and that it is a separate Slavic country, whose past emanates the brightness and glory of the times of Phillip and Alexander...."
To spare your time I would not push you now to quote some people who considered themselfs as Bulgarians. I now that.
My point was that in a substantial part of Macedonians from the 19-th century and earlier times the ancient Macedonian historical narrative was part of their spiritual and cultural heritage and these quotes are just a minor sample of the overwhelming evidence about that.
Grofot Suvalov moli da se donesat site merki za smiruvanje na Makedonija. Zaradi toa, bi bilo pozelno tamu da se ispratat opitni agenti, da im se objasni na Makedoncite od imeto na Imperatorot, deka Negovoto Velicestvo se grizi za nivnata sudbina ednakvo kako i za drugite Sloveni i deka kje im bide dadena takva ista pomos, kako na BUgarite, sega vekje oslobodeni.....Resavanjeto na makedonskoto prasanje za nas se pokazuva mnogu tesko i izbrzano." (Dokumenti od sekretni arhivi na ruskoto carsko pravitelstvo, Sofija 1893 godina, str. 11-12).
Bugarskiot vestnik "PRAVO" od 30.11.1870g vo vrska so dejnosta na Kuzman Shapkarev pishuva:"Toj beden uchitel vo Kukush ja napushta sluzbata koga ke mu tekne i odi od grad vo grad vo krstonosen pohod protiv knigite napishani na Bugarski jazik...Vo Ohrid...negovite prvi zborovi bile polni so omraza kon se shto e Bugarsko.Toj rekol:Odvaj se oslobodivme od Grcite sega pak Shopje li da staneme?
Makedonskata nacija vo dokumentite od 18. vek!
Kako Makedonci (i toa jasno izdvoeni od Bugarite i od Srbite) se deklarirale i pripadnicite na Makedonskiot polk vo Ukraina, koi vo po~etokot i sredinata na 18. vek se naselile vo Rusija. Spored za~uvanite dokumenti, najgolemiot broj od niv se deklarirale sebesi kako pripadnici na (citiram): makedonskata nacija. Najpoznat od niv bil generalot Ivan Horvat (roden Makedonec), koj vo vrska so preseluvaweto na begalcite hristijani od Turcija vo Rusija, vo po~etokot na 18. vek, upatil molba do ruskite guberniski vlasti, za priem na ovie begalci vo slu`ba na ruskata vojska, vo koja molba, pome|u drugoto, pi{uva:
Pravoslavnite narodi: srpski, makedonski, bugarski i vla{ki so svojata krv i oru`je sakaat da i slu`at na nejzinoto imperatorsko viso~estvo, na majkata pokrovitelka.
Vo po~etokot na 18. vek izve{taj do ruskata carica Katarina II vrska so molbata izbeganite hristijani od Turcija da bidat primeni vo Rusija upatil i Bestu`ev-Rjumin, koj vo izve{tajot napi{al:
Pravoslavnite narodi: Srbi, Makedonci, Bugari i Vlasi sakaat da i slu`at na nejzinoto imperatorsko viso~estvo so krv i so oru`je... Vo mirno vreme, toj korpus sostaven od Srbi, Makedonci i Bugari - pravoslavni narodi, ednorodni so nas i poznati po svojata hrabrost vo celiot svet, od den vo den }e se razmno`uvaat i vo slu~aj na potreba }e bidat od korist bez nekoi posebni rashodi od strana na Va{eto imperatorsko viso~estvo.
I vo ovie dokumenti gledame deka Makedoncite se jasno izdvoeni kako zaseben etnikum vo odnos na Srbite, Bugarite i Vlasite. Postojat i drugi brojni dokumenti od ova vreme vo Rusija vo koi Makedoncite se pretstaveni kako zaseben etnikum (narod, pa duri i nacija), no prostorot ne ni ovozmo`uva da gi prika`eme site niv. Na krajot samo }e preneseme del od evidencijata na pripadnicite na Makedonskiot polk vo Ukraina. Evidencijata se sostoi od popolnet pra{alnik, vo koj se sodr`ani slednive pra{awa (}e gi predademe zaedno so odgovorite na eden od ~lenovite na Makedonskiot polk):
IME: \OR\I PETROV;
VOZRAST: 39 GODINI;
GODINA NA DOA\AWE VO RUSIJA: 1752;
MESEC: 24 OKTOMVRI;
NA KOJA NACIJA PRIPA\A: NA MAKEDONSKATA NACIJA;
BRA^NA SOSTOJBA: @ENET SO TRI SINA;
DALI E PISMEN: DA;
DALI BIL OSUDUVAN:
NE.
Vo gorespomenatiot dokument (za prvpat kaj nas prezentiran od strana na D-r. Aleksandar Matkovski), na istite pra{awa imaat odgovoreno vkupno 74 lica. Site tie jasno se deklarirale kako pripadnici na makedonskata nacija. Nekoi od nivnite imiwa se: Ante Dobrinov, Todor Vasilev, Ivan Angelov, Stefan Andreev, Ivan
Thus "rum," meaning "Orthodox Christian," a term that could refer to someone who spoke Albanian, Bulgarian, Turkish, or Greek, was reinterpreted by Greek nationalists to mean "Greek" in a national sense.
The term "Bulgarian," which had earlier been used to refer to all the Slavs of the Ottoman Empire (Friedman 1975:84), or as a virtual synonym for "peasant" without any political significance at all (Wilkinson 1951:149), came to mean "Bulgarian" in a national sense.
Similarly, the term "Greek," which was used in the early nineteenth century to refer to members of the Orthodox Christian merchant class regardless of their "ethnic origin" or the language they spoke, came to mean "Greek" in a national sense (Stoianovich 1960:311).
During the Ottoman period, therefore, terms like "Bulgarian" and "Greek" were not used to designate different ethnic or national groups; they were used to designate different sociocultural categories in what Hechter (1978) has called a system of "cultural division of labour." In this system of ethnic stratification the process of upward social mobility by which a Slavic-speaking peasant or a Vlach-speaking shepherd entered the merchant class was indistinguishable from the process of Hellenization." When a farmer or a shepherd became a merchant, he was no longer a "Bulgarian" or a "Vlach"; he became a "Greek". During this time ethnicity was "the modality in which class [was] lived" (Hall et al. 1978:394).
The British journalist H.N.Brailsford, a perceptive observer of conditions in Macedonia shortly after the Ilinden Uprising of 1903, offers many revealing insights into just how superficial a hold national categories had on the rural population of Macedonia. His observations also show very clearly the incredible facility with which villagers in Macedonia manipulated these categories in a constant process of negotiating identities in a manner designed to serve their interests most favorably. For example , Brailsford mentions a man who sent each of his three sons to a different school, one to be educated as a "Serb," one as a "Bulgarian," and one as a "Greek." He describes a village whose population was "Slav in blood and speech," but which belonged "to the Greek [i.e. Patriarchist] party and took no share in the Bulgarian movement" (1971:160). He describes another village that had been "Greek" four years earlier, but which recently became "Bulgarian" because the Bulgarians had sent the village a teacher and a priest, while the Greeks had only sent a teacher. In this way, Brailsford observes wryly, "the legend that Alexander the Great was Greek goes out one road, and the rival myth that Alexander was Bulgarian comes in the other." Brailsford adds that he heard "a witty French consul declare that with a fund of a million francs he would undertake to make all Macedonia French" (103).
In a revealing passage from 'Life in the Tomb', Stratis Myrivilis' novel about life on the Balkan front during World War I, a Slavic-speaking family from a village of Vardar Macedonia is described as wanting to be neither "Boulgar," "S'rrp," nor "Grrts" (1977:182). Significantly, there is no positive statement of what they do want to be, no assertion of any nationality that they do want to identify with.
Of those Slavs who had developed some sense of national identity the majority probably considered themselves to be Bulgarians, although as R.King (1973:217) points out, they were aware of differences between themselves and the inhabitants of Bulgaria.
Vo Grcija mi velea deka Makedoncite se Grci.....Vo Belgrad pak mi tvrdea deka Makedonija e del od Juzna Srbija......Vo Skopje, Prilep, Bitola i vo Ohrid, kako i vo selata na Zapad, se projavuva avtenticen, duri naglasen makedonski nacionalen patriotizam od makedonskoto naselenie.....Tie se smetaat sebe si ni za Grci, ni Srbi, ni Bugari, tuku Makedonci. Makedonsiot patriotizam go dostigna svojot vrv."
(Maurice West, "A Free Macedonia After a Thousand Years," The United States Committee of South Slavic Americans, New York 1945, p. 18 ).—
Videte sto veli amerikanskiot vesnik "NEW YORK EVENING POST" za BMPO i za organiziranjeto na makedonski paralelni institucii vo Otomanskata drzava vo 1904 g.:
"Nadvor od Balkankiot poluostrov se veruva deka Organizacijata e nekakvo tajno drustvo od polupoliticki vodaci na bandi, edno sobiraliste na revolucioneri. Medjutoa taa ne e nitu ednoto nitu drugoto.....Upravnoto telo na Makedonskata organizacija ne e nisto drugo tuku senat na edna tajna Republika.....Vo Turskata imperija postoji: makedonska policija, makedonski sudovi, makedonska milicija, makedonsko uciliste i vesnici, makedonska posta -- seto toa postoi pokraj golemite usilbi na turskata vlast da gi unisti..."
(Citat prevzemenod "Revolucioneren list", 10 mart 1905 godina).
Anonymi (P. Magistri) Gesta Hungarorum, Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum tempore ducem regumque stirpis Arpadianae Gestarum. Vol. I (Edendo operi praefuit E. Szentpetery),
Budapestini 1937, p. 91, 92.
"...OTKAKO POMINAA NEKOLKU DENA, ZUARD I KADUZE (dvajca vojskovodaci na ungarskiot vojvoda Arpad - z.m.) SO SVOJATA VOJSKA JA PREPLIVAA VODATA NA DUNAV I JA ZAZEDOA TVRDINATA BERON (denesen Kostolac vo Srbija - z.m.). SLUSAJKKJI GO TOA, BUGARITE I MAKEDONCITE MNOGU SE ISPLASIJA OD NIVNIOT IZGLED..."
Talijanski pisci o пата i na#353;im knji#382;evnostima, Knji#382;evna smotra, Zagreb, 1971, III, 8, str. 66…..
Franсеsco Serdonati napisal 1598. издао је у Фиренци италијански превод Бокачовог дела De casibus пllustrium virorum који је био дао Ђузепе Бетуси (Giuseppe Betussi) под насловом I casi degl'huomini illustri[22] али је у низу сопствених додатака "случајевима" које је био обрадио Бокачо придружио и низ напомена о збивањима из живота неких наших људи, краља Звонимира, Хрвојића, Стјепана Косаче, Сандаља Хранића, Николе Зринског, а између њих и кнеза Лазара, "деспота Србије" (Lazzero, Despote delia Servia).
Za Volkasin, Patriarch Pajsije: The Life of Emperor Uro#353;
Ilarion Ruvarac: Glasnik Srpskog u#269;enog Dru#353;tva 5, Vol. 22, 1867, pp. 209-239
Ruvarac je pisao o privatnom #382;ivotu cara Uro#353;a o kome se ne zna gotovo ni#353;ta. Prema ovom izvoru, Uro#353; se rodio oko 1337. Ruvarac misli u pomenutoj studiji, da je Uro#353; ubijen 1367. godine od "carubice Vuka#353;ina". I ovo je mo#382;da jedina gre#353;ka velikog istorika, Vuka#353;in je poginuo na Marici 16. 9. 1371. po starom, a Uro#353; je umro 4. 12. iste godine, po istom kalendaru, Vuka#353;in Mrnjav#269;evi#263; nije mogao iz groba ubiti Uro#353;a Nemanji#263;a (istu gre#353;ku napravio je NJego#353; u "Gorskom vijencu")
Kada je car Du#353;an umro, na prestolu ga je nasledio sin Uro#353;, koga je po pri#269;i uskoro ubio njegov staralac Vuka#353;in Mrnjav#269;evi#263;, da bi postao vladalac svih srpskih zemalja. U bici s Turcima na Marici 1371. godine, Vuka#353;in biva ubijen, a za vladara je bio izabran knez Lazar, koji iako je bio izabran za cara, zadr#382;a svoju kne#382;evsku titulu. Za sobom je ostavio manastire Ravanicu, Gornjak i Vrdnik, nazvan Nova Ravanica, kao svoje zadu#382;bine. U vreme njegove vladavine spoljni pritisci na Srbiju su jako oja#269;ali. Jedan broj srpske vlastele postali (VIDI RAVANICHKI DUSHANOV ZAKONIK).MAKEDONSKIOT GRB: http://www.mpu.org.yu/srpski/naredne%20izlozbe/heraldika.htm
Vukasin Mrnjavcevic, sto ga je cinilo naslednikom prestola. Pa ipak na grbu Mrnjavcevica nema dvoglavog orla. Objasnicu kasnije pojavuzmaja i stita sa dvoglavim orlom na grbu Lazarevica i
"Huic uxor fuit Voisava, Pologi Domini filia, est autem Pologum oppidum in Macedoniae et Bulgarie confinibus"
Below is excerpt from the Academy of Athens Award-winning book by Asterios Koukoudis ‘Studies on the Vlachs. 2nd Vol. (Greek edition)- The Vlachs: Metropolis and Diaspora.’ Zitros Publications: Thessaloniki, 2000:
A great deal of fiction also permeates the Vlachs’ nomenclature. We mustn’t overlook the fact that the vast majority of the Vlachs, both within and beyond the borders of Greece, refer to themselves as Arm#238;n, pl. Arm#238;ni(Aroumanians), a term which has the same root as Romios pl. Romii, which is what the Greek-speaking populations called themselves until the term Ellinas pl. Ellines (Greeks or Hellenes) reasserted itself.
Note that this is claimed in the book written by the contemporary Greek Asterios Koukoudis in 2000, that was awarded by Academy of Athens.
Anno 1024. Factum est signum magnum in Episcopio Acherontino sub praesule secundo Stephano Materiensi in 5 die Paschae: Crucifixus enim magnus argenteus concussus est tribus vicibus capite, brachiis, et pedibus, cunctis hoc aspicientibus et cecidit nix magna. Et transfretavit Bugianus in Curbathia et compraehendit ipsam Principissam uxorem Cosmici et direxit illam Constantinopolim et mortuus est hoc anno Enricus Imperator et surrexit Conus nepos ejus. Cod. Andr. 1027. Despotus Nicus in Italiam descendit cum ingentibus copiis Russorum, Wandalorum, Turcarum, Bulgarorum, Brunchorum, Polonorum, Macedonum, aliarumque nationum, ad Siciliam capiendam. Captum est autem Rhegium et ob civium peccata, destructum est a Vulcano Catapano. Et Basilius Imperator obiit anno secundo. Itaque Graeci recesserunt die S. Martini.Jam vero Basilius, vivens renuntiavit Imperio, sibi substituens Romanum, cui uxorem dedit Zoam filiam suam. Lupo Protospata, author of a chronicle from 860 to (860-1102)
In IX the century i Bizantini they reconquered Is drunk a toast and to Lupo Protospata the task was entrusted to reconstruct the city, reduced from the Longobardi to a small inhabited center
On the base of the column remained to It is drunk a toast is a registration that remembers the reconstruction in IX the century of the city, destroyed from the Saraceni (than between the other they hung the fire to the columns), to work of an illustrious personage of the Greek imperial Court, the protospatario Lupo, that it acted in the name of the Emperor of Costantinopoli Basilio. The registration, than was read still entire in 1674, said:
ILLUSTRIS PIVS ACTIB. ATQ: REFVLGENS - PTOSPATHA LVPVS VRBEM HANC STRVXIT AB IMO - QVAM IMPERATORES MAGNIFICIQ: BENIGN... (illustrious and the devout one for beneficial actions Lupo Protospata reconstructed from the foundations this city, than the magnificent and benign Emperors...) The epigramma logic continued in all probability (and) on the base of the second column, too much soon lost strength: of the characters it is not remained not even the memory.
www.quipo.it/archita/Sheherazade/Arabi/lupo.html
Protospata was the name that the Basilei bizantini they attributed to the dignitaries and to it generates them that they covered an important political role
Lupo Protospata was sure a general a lot appreciated from its emperor,se these entrusted it the task to reconstruct the city of Is drunk a toast, after that it had been nearly completely destroyed from the Saraceni.
According to some Lupo historians it would have rebuilt part of the city taking advantage itself of prisoners that had carried with himself.
To that time It is drunk a toast was little more than a village. According to the Moricino historian, our city was reduced to the northern hill that corresponds to the zone of Saint Peter of the Schiavoni and covered only the twentieth part of the roman city.
Memorandum za nezavisna Makedonija do konferencijata na golemite sili vo London:
"NA MAKEDONSKIOT NAROD MU E POTREBNO:
1. MAKEDONIJA VO SVOITE GEOGRAFSKI, ETNOGRAFSKI, ISTORISKI I EKONOMSKO POLITICKI GRANICI DA OSTANE EDINSTVENA, NEDELIVA, NEZAVISNA BALKANSKA DRZAVA.
2. DA SE OBNOVI OHRIDSKATA ARHIEPISKOPIJA KAKO AVTOKEFALNA CRKVA, KOJA VO SVOITE GRANICI DA GI OPFAKJA MAKEDONSKITE EPARHII..."
"Makedonski golos," 9.VI.1913
inhabited by a Slavonicpopulation, mainly Bulgarian in its characteristics; coast-lineand the southern districts west of the Gulf of Salonica byGreeks, while Turkish, Vlach and Albanian settlements existsporadically, or in groups, in many parts of the country
that the bulk of the Slavonic population of Macedonia is Bulgarian. The principal indication is furnished by the language, which, though resembling Servian in some respects (e.g. the case-endings, which are occasionally retained), presents most of the characteristic features of Bulgarian (see BULGARIA:
http://36.1911encyclopedia.org/M/MA/MACEDONIA.htm
Autonomijom Albanije bavio ce i drugi veliki skup avgusta 1909. u Elbasanu (iz srednje i ju#382;ne Albanije i Makedonije). Na njemu je re#353;eno da ce uspostavi tesna saradnja sa makedonskim revolucionarnim pokretom: G. L. Ar#353; i dr, Kratkaja istorija Albanii, 148-150.
"In the villages of Macedonia, one meets peasants of a single nationality speaking a Slavic language and belonging to the Eastern Orthodox faith. Nine out of ten of these people, despite their being the subject of dispue between three adjoining countries, would reply in response to the question as go their nationality, that they were Macedonian."
Georgi Bakalov, "The Pretenders on Macednia", Varna 1890, p. 22
Simeon Radev, a prominent Bulgarophile Macedonian who sold his ass and became a Bulgarian diplomat, gave away the secret to the british diplomat, Waterlow:
"...THE MACEDONIAN SENSE OF NATINALITY WAS NOT A SENSE OF BULGARIAN NATIONALITY. IT TOOK THE SHAPE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE YOUNGER GENERATION, OF AN ASPIRATION FOR AUTHONOMY."
Furthermore, as Radev had also argued, a driving force behind the Macedonian movement at this time was the fundamental belief that anything, however improbable, might occur in a world of flux. And central to this belief was "A DESIRE FOR A UNION OF ALL MACEDONIANS IN AN AUTHONOMOUS STATE."
Source: Foreign Office document 371/16651, London, United Kingdom.
Vo grckiot vesnik "Emboriki" od 1928 godina po povod nastojuvanjeto na Makedoncite vo egejskiot del na Makedonija da zboruvaat makedonski namesto grcki jazik se vel islednovo:
"Vo pogranicnite regioni Lerin, Kostur, Sorovikj, Karadzova, Voden, Enidze-Vardar, spored tajnite naredbi na Makedonskiot komitet, bugarskoto naselenie od gornite oblasti na sekoj nacin odbegnuva da govori na grcki jazik vo svojata komunikacija so novodojdenite begalci od Mala Azija pod izgovor deka ne go znaat grckiot jazik i za da ja odbegnat odgovornosta (kaznata), toa naselenie veli deka zboruva makedonski jazik i so toa ja pravi prvata stapka kon avtonomija na Makedonija."
v. "Emboriki", 25 dekemvri, 1928 godina.
Profesor Petar Draganov, ruski filolog, rodum besarabiski Bugarin, za potekloto na "slovenskiot" jazik, pisuva vo 1888 godina za stavovite na ruskiot filoloski bard Vostokov:
"Samiot Vostokov po prasanjeto za potekloto na starocrkovnoslovenskiot jazik se zastapuvase za makedonizmot, negovata tatkovina ja postavuvase vo Makedonija i zatoa toj, velese Vostokov, moze da se narece i makedonski. NO Vostokov nikako ne se zastapuvase za bugarizmot na taa znacajna naucna postavka vo tesnoto znacenje na toj zbor, kako sto tvrdea nekoi negovi protivnici; naprotiv, sto se odnesuva do sopstvenoto bugarsko narecje, toa spored Vostokov mozelo od staro vreme da se razlikuva od prvoto (makedonskoto) po mnogu vazni priznaci i, kje zabelezime od svoja strana, kako sto i sega toa se razlikuva od nego. Bi trebalo da se ocekuva deka porano ili podocna ubeduvanjeto na Vostokov kje se potvrdi so istrazuvanja ne samo po istoriskite spomenici na jazikot ami i na sovremeniot stroj na slovenskite narecja i osobeno na slovenskite govori vo pretpolaganata tatkovina na kirilo-metodievskiot slovenski jazik."
P.D. Draganov, Nosovie glasnie zvuki v sovremenih makeodnsko-slavjanskih i bolgarskih govorah, Ruskii filologiceskii vestnik, t. XIX, g. 10, Varsava 1888, str. 2 (separat).
"Slavjanskiot jazik zasnovan vrz Makedonskiot, ostanal crkoven i pishan jazik na Balkanot i severoistochna Evropa."
"ATLAS OF WORLD HISTORY", Beginning of the Eve of the French revolution, Hermann Kinder and Werner Hilgemann.
So, even the Homerian Enetoi (oi = i) = Eneti,are most probably the Veneti (ancient Greek does not contain V sound) who besides their colonies in Paflagonia are atested as inhabitants of many Balkan regions in that time: from Pannonia, down the rivers Morava (in Serbia), Vardar/Axios (Macedonia and Greece) and Thrace (Herodotus mentiones them as inhabitants of Thrace, too).
only Atica, Salonica,
Patras, Nauplia, Monemvasia and Corinth the cities that remained Imperial; the Greek countryside in the other hand was
in such state of chaos that the basileus Constantine Porphyrogenatos commented in the midle of X century that all
"Greece became Slav and was lost to civilization"; in the eighth century Strabonos Epithomatus wrote, "And now, in that
way almost all of Epirus, Hellada, the Peloponnese and Macedonia have also been settled by the Skiti-Slavs." Even in the
Chronicle of Monemvasia which was written between the 9th and 11th centuries (806-1082), it is stated that the Avars
invaded and held the Peloponnese from the sixth year of the reign of Maurice until the fourth year of the reign of
Nicephorus I: from 587 to 805. By then the Slavonic tribes of the Ezerites and the Milingi were independent in the
Peloponnese in the seventh and eighth centuries and even did not pay tribute to Byzantium.
And there is a story going around, that Dareios' eunuch who guarded his wife ran back to him. And Dareios, when he saw him, first asked whether his daughters were alive and his sons and his wife and his mother. He learned they were alive, and that they were called queens, and about the care being taken of them and how his wife was behaving sensibly. At these things Dareios raised his hands to heaven and prayed thus: "O Zeus, king, to whom it was given to order the affairs of kings among men, guard my rule over the Persians and the Medes as you see fit. But if I myself cannot be king of Asia any more, then give my rule to no one but Alexander". Thus even enemies are not indifferent to virtuous deeds. Thus says Arrian.[5]
Rudolf Cadonensi in his Jerusalem Expedition (1083-1085) states that "...the messenger... upset Emperor Alexius: Bohomund Giuscard [son of the Duke of Normandy] crossed the Adriatic and occupied Macedonia." The Byzantine writer Ephraim laments: "Alas! Alas! The town of Thessaloniki has been occupied, I say, the metropolis of the Macedonians."
Ibid; p.86
The Byzantine emperor Constantine Porphyrgenitus openly says that the whole of Hellas had been Slavicized.
"The Slavs spread throughout Greece
Greeks and Romans" in Greece Old and New, ed. by Tom Winnifrith and Penelope Murray, Macmillan, London, 1983
In the eighth century Strabonos Epithomatus wrote, "And now, in that way almost all of Epirus, Hellada, the Peloponnese and Macedonia have also been settled by the Skiti-Slavs."
C. Muller, Geographi graeci minores, Paris 1882, p.574.
The main problem with working out what happened to Byzantine rule in Bulgaria after 971 stems from Scylitzes's method of composition. Rather than offering a chronological account, Scylitzes summarises events between 971 and Basil's first invasion of Bulgaria in 986 in two separate summary chapters. The first chapter is chronologically displaced occurring, rather disconcertingly, in his narrative about Nicephorus Phocas's rise to power in 963. The second chapter forms a preface to his longer narrative treatment of Basil II's 986 invasion.[[43]] Both passages lack detail. In the first Scylitzes refers to Peter, emperor of the Bulgars, who sent his two sons to the Byzantines as hostages. He goes on to mention the death of that emperor (Peter) and how the two sons were subsequently dispatched by the Byzantines to fight the rebels David, Aaron, Samuel and Moses Cometopuli, sons of the most powerful comes in Bulgaria. The second passage states that the Cometopuli rebelled only when John Tzimisces died. At this time Peter's sons, Boris and Romanus, escaped to Bulgaria from Constantinople. Boris died en route shot by a 'friendly fire' arrow. Romanus stayed in Bulgaria before returning to Constantinople at an unstated time in the future. Meanwhile, all the Cometopuli died except for Samuel. Moses and David perished in battle; Aaron was killed by Samuel for favouring the Byzantines. Finally, Samuel overran Thrace, Macedonia, the suburbs of Thessalonica, Thessaly, Hellas and the Peloponnese. He besieged and took many places, including Larissa, the main city in the fertile plain of Thessaly.
Support for this idea comes from an interpolation made into Scylitzes's text by Michael of Devol, an early twelfth-century Macedonian bishop who took an interest in Basil's conflict with the Bulgarians. According to Michael, Aaron Cometopulus was still alive when Basil invaded in 986. Indeed he was part of the Bulgarian army that fought with the emperor in the Haemus passes.[[44]] [[44]]Scylitzes, p.331.
Anna Comnena:
The Alexiad: Complete Text
War with the Normans (1081-2) Anna Comnena (Komnene). The Alexiad. Edited and translated by Elizabeth A. Dawes. London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1928.
“Constantine Opus led the Guards, Antiochus the Macedonians”
" My master Aaron," he said, "conjointly with others, of whom thy Majesty is not quite ignorant, have plotted against thy life, O Emperor. And as thy murderer they suborned Demetrius, my fellow-slave, a Scythian by origin, with a very murderous…
Another man, a Macedonian, Peter by name, but nicknamed Tornicius, fell among the enemy and slew a number. (The Alexiad Book 1)
There could be seen a Latin being trained, and a Scythian studying Greek, and a Roman handling Greek texts and an illiterate Greek speaking Greek correctly. (kniga 15)
The Alexiad
by
Anna Comnena (Komnene)
Edited and translated by Elizabeth A. Dawes.
London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1928.
This river Drymon (for I must add a few words about this stream) runs down from the lake Lychnis through some hundred channels, which we call 'bridges.' The present corrupted language calls this lake Achris, after the King of the Bulgarians, who lived in the time of the Emperors Constantine and Basilius Porphyrogeniti, and was at first called Mocrus, and latterly Samuel.
1047 Leo Tornicius led a Macedonian revolt. Byzantine Decline
No, i vojskata na makedonskiot car Samuil, koja{to, spored vizantiskiot istori~ar Lav \akon, glavno bila sostavena od "~eti na Makedoncite", kako glavno oru`je, isto taka, gi imala dolgite kopja na Makedonskata falanga (Leonis Diaconis Historiae. J.P. Migne, PG 117, Paris, 1964, 727).
Boril's Synodicon Synodicon also mentions the Macedonian King Vulkasin and his brother Uglesa SYNODICON OF TSAR BORIL /14TH C./
go spomneme i postoeweto na Makedonskata partija, koja dejstvuvala vo Vizantija vo XI vek. Psel (kniga 6) ja spomenuva ovaa partija i nejzinite aktivnosti vo vremeto na imperatorot Konstantin (1042-1055). Pripadnicite na ovaa partija, predvodeni od (kako {to veli Psel) "Makedonecot Leo" (koj{to bil pripadnik na semejstvoto Tornik), sakale da go simnat vizantiskiot imperator Konstantin (koj{to mu bil vtor bratu~ed na Leo). Opi{uvaj}i gi nastanite okolu ovoj bunt na Makedoncite vo Vizantija, Psel dava i eden interesen etnografski opis za niv. Vo istata ({esta) kniga, ~itame:
Makedoncite... se simnuvaa od kowite i po~nuvaa da igraat tanci so zaedni~ko peewe (choral dances) tamu kade {to sekoj mo`e{e da gi vidi. Tie izveduvaa sme{ni gestovi na smetka na imperatorot, zgaznuvaj}i na zemjata so nivnite stapala vo sklad so nivnata muzika i tancuvaj}i vo triumf.
Ponatamu, i za vizantiskiot car Roman ^etvrti Diogen ima svedo{tva deka bil roden vo severna Makedonija.
Isto taka, Nikita Honijat (XII i po~etok na XIII vek) pi{uva deka imperatorot Aleksej Komnen, svojot zet go narekuval "Makedonec", a dobro e poznat i terminot "Makedonski legii", kako sostaven del od vizantiskata vojska (d-r Stjepan Antoljak, cit. delo, str. 169). Profesor Hasi (cit. delo), go spomenuva i terminot "Makedonska vojska" vo sklopot na Vizantiskata vojska, a za sostavot na vojskata na vizantiskiot car Roman IV (1068-1071), tvrdi deka, pome|u drugite, bila sostavena i od: "Makedonci i Bugari".
No, i pokraj ovie dokazi, za mnozina Makedonci denes, ovie carevi bile Grci (!?).
Leo the Deacon:
"...since they (Army of Basil II) robbed the region of the Macedonians mercilessly, destroying all adults."
Leonis Diaconi Historiae, Paris 1864, p. 311.
One of the more realistic geographical maps of Macedonia is Gastaldi's 1560 map published in Venice. It is there that certain Macedonian place names are adopted for the first time by the West: the Vardar River, Skopje, Mt. Skopska Crna Gora, Tikvesh Valley, Demir Kapiya, Bitola, Kratovo, Struga, Ohrid and Ohrid Lake, Prespa and Prespa Lake, Prilep, Kostur, Lerin, Voden and Resen.
The Mercator map (Duisburg, 1589) and Laurenberg map (Amsterdam, 1647) followed Gastaldi's lead in giving some inhabited sites both their ancient and their contemporary Macedonian names, such as Lychnidos/Ohrid and Edessa/Voden. The Mercator map (Duisburg, 1589) and Laurenberg map (Amsterdam, 1647) followed Gastaldi's lead in giving some inhabited sites both their ancient and their contemporary Macedonian names, such as Lychnidos/Ohrid and Edessa/Voden. In Rome, G. Cantelli da Vigniola published a 1689 map which shows-with slight deviations-the territory of Macedonia and its geographical borders. Though map contains many errors, it for the first time marks the towns of Tetovo, Kumanovo, Katlanovo, Veles, Debar, Kavalla, Ber and Enije Vardar. Only seven years later, in Paris, N. Senson detailed Macedonia in a number of 1696 maps. These were followed by the maps of G. de L'Isle (Paris, 1707), Homann (1717), Harenberg (Nuernberg, 1741), S. Jenvier (Paris, 1750), A. Lapie (Paris, 1843), the Map of European Turkey (Belgrade, 1853), the commercial map of the province of Macedonia (Paris, 1885), and a "Map of Macedonia" by Dimitrija Chupovski (St. Petersburg, 1913) in which Macedonia is shown in its geographical and ethnic borders. On all these maps Macedonia is clearly labeled as Macedonia.
Vukashin, who proclaimed himself king of Macedonia (Karajich, Danichich, Stoyan Novakovich, &c. See also on the language Dr F. Mikiosichs Vergleichende Lautlehre der slav. Sprachen; Section II.: Serbisch und Chorvatisch (Vienna, 1879), and his Wortbildungslehre der slav. Sprachen (Vienna, 1876); W. Vondrak Vergleichende slavische Grammatik (Gottingen, 1906 and 1908);
J. Florinsky, Lektsi po slavyankomu yazykoznaniye (Kiev, 1895). Good text-books are P. Budmani, Grammatica della lingua serbocroata (Vienna, 5867); Parchich, Granimaire de la langue serbocroate (Paris, 1877); Fr. Vymezal, Serbische Grammatik (Brno, 1882). For the literature see A. N. Pypin and V. D. Spassovich, History of Slavonic Literatures (in Russ., St Petersburg, 1879, in French, Paris, 1881), and Dr Mathias Murko, Die Kultur osteuropdischer Literaturen und die slavischen Sprachen (Berlin and Leipzig, 1908). (C. Mi.)
History of Protestantism
"I am Sylvanus," said Constantine, "and ye are Macedonians… In A.D. 653, a deacon returning from captivity in Syria rested a night in the house of an Armenian named Constantine, who lived in the neighbourhood of Samosata. On the morrow, before taking his departure, he presented his host with a copy of the New Testament. Constantine studied the sacred volume. A new light broke upon his mind: the errors of the Greek Church stood clearly revealed, and he instantly resolved to separate himself from so corrupt a communion. He drew others to the study of the Scriptures, and the same light shone into their minds which had irradiated his. Sharing his views, they shared with him his secession from the established Church of the Empire. It was the boast of this new party, now grown to considerable numbers, that they adhered to the Scriptures, and especially to the writings of Paul. "I am Sylvanus," said Constantine, "and ye are Macedonians," intimating thereby that the Gospel which he would teach, and they should learn, was that of Paul; hence the name of Paulicians, a designation they would not have been ambitious to wear had their doctrine been Manichean. [2].. (Elliott, Horoe Apocalypticoe, 3rd ed., vol. ii., p. 277.)
64 Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. i. p. 37;) and her account tallies with the number and lading of the ships. Ivit in Dyrrachium cum xv. millibus hominum, says the Chronicon Breve Normannicum, (Muratori, Scriptores, tom. v. p. 278.) I have endeavored to reconcile these reckonings.]…. That city, the western key of the empire, was guarded by ancient renown, and recent fortifications, by George Palaeologus, a patrician, victorious in the Oriental wars, and a numerous garrison of Albanians and Macedonians.
Leo the Deacon was an eye-witness on the 986 expedition of Basil against
986 >From the History of Leo the Deacon: "...since they (Byzants) robbed the region of the Macedonians (Samuil Army) mercilessly, destroying all adults.". Leonis Diaconi Historiae, Paris 1864, p. 311.
17 August 986 Emperor Basil II fled, leaving behind his treasure hoard and a supply train. Byzantine chronist John Geometres lamented over the defeat: "May those ominous trees and mountains vanish from the face of earth! The Istrum (Bulgaria] grabbed the crown from Rome (Byzantium]. The Moesian (Bulgarian] arrows proved stronger than Byzantine spears...
Constantine VII Porphyrogenitos. ("the Purple-born") (913 – 959) in his book "De thematibus" says that thema Strymion (Struma region along Strumica and Pirin Macedonia) is settled by Macedonians but ruled by Scytians. Ivan Kiriotes – Geometres who was a was biscop of Melitena in X Cent. describes the citizenes of Samloil Kingdom as Macedonians, Moesians, Scytians and Bulgars. Byzant Historian Michael Psellus in 11 Cent in his book no. 6 writes that Macedonian Leo from Family TORNIK wanted to wipe off from the tron the Roman Eperor Constantine (1042-1055). Furthermore Psel states that Macedonians are very fond of dancing and songs (as its case and now).
1027 year: Annales Barenses, MGH SS, V, 53, where they are described as forming part of Constantine VIII's expedition to Sicily: ‘ ... descendit in Italiam cum exercitu magno, i.e. Russorum, Guandalorum, Turcorum, Burgarorum, Vlachorum, Macedonum, aliarumque ut caperet Siciliam.'
consider52796
Za VASIL II
However, surviving versions are preserved only in 15th-century manuscripts, which incorporate later interpolations (for example the term Bulgar-slayer, which was not used before the late 12th century
Makedoncite kako zastitnici na Drac od Normanite! Alexius Comnenus 1081 god
67 Infames scopulos Acroceraunia, Horat. carm. i. 3. The praecipitem Africum decertantem Aquilonibus, et rabiem Noti and the monstra natantia of the Adriatic
[Footnote 64: Anna Comnena (Alexias, l. i. p. 37;) and her
account tallies with the number and lading of the ships. Ivit in
Dyrrachium cum xv. millibus hominum, says the Chronicon Breve
Normannicum, (Muratori, Scriptores, tom. v. p. 278.) I have
endeavored to reconcile these reckonings.]…. and a numerous
garrison of Albanians and Macedonians, who, in every age, have
maintained the character of soldiers…..
"When the great war comes, Macedonia will become Greek or Bulgarian according to who wins. If it is taken by the Bulgarians they will make the population Slavs. If we take it, we will make Macedonians all Greeks."
Harilaos Trikoupis (Greek prime minister 1882 - 1895), (Soruce: History of the Greek People, Volume 14, page 18, Athens Publishing House).
Dushanov zakonik:
It will be interesting to quote Edith Durham (“High Albania” First published by Esward Arnold in1909) on 294 page she quotes the celebrated Canon of Tsar Dushan that throws light on the means employed to crushe the conquered, when Great Servia was at its greatest”… and continues “Tsar Dushan, the Macedonian, Autocrat of Servia, Bulgaria, Hungary, Wallachia, and other countries…. Laws established by the grace of God in the year 1349 at the meeting of the Patriarchs, &c…” If you recollect earlier statement by the monk “Doctor” from the Monastery of St.Naum and the tradition for all monks in Macedonian monasteries to be Macedonian will give you some “juice” to work with and understand how far back the Bulgarians have to go to falsify facts ( if we forget the “circumstances” of having 51% of the Macedonian territory and cultural ancestry under Greek control, and substantial % under current Bulgarian control including the actual old Macedonian Archbishop’s crown. Another reference to Edit Durham’s “High Albania” on pages 347-348 (Epilogue) in 1909, addressing the circumstances preceding the lather division of Macedonia in 1913:
Macedonum Rasianorum Caesar
Zlostorstvara na grcite:
Ova se nekolku citati od opisite na grckite vojnici za vreme na grckata okupacija na egejska Maskedonija vo 1913 godina:
Anastasio Patras pisuva na 14ti juni 1913 godina: "Gi zapalivme site sela i ubivavme zeni i deca..."
Brinias pisuva na 11ti juni 1913 godina: "Ova sto go pravime po selata ne moze da se opise. Se raboti za vistinski masakar. Nema selo ili grad sto ne sme go zapalile..."
Nikolas Zervas pisuva na 13ti juli 1913 godina: "Nie napravivme mnogu povekje dzverstva otkolku Bugarite. Gi siluvavme site devojki do koi se domognavme..."
Lidius pisuva na 13ti juli 1913 godina:"Dobivme naredba da gi zapalime site sela..."
"Aretives du service historique de l'Arme, vencennes," Paris, Salonique de Fevrier, 1919.
NIKOLA KAREV!
In May 1903, a Greek reporter interviewed the president of the Krushevo
republic, Nikola Karev. He asked him the following question: "What are
you? - A Macedonian, replied Karev. Then, why are you in favour of
Bulgaria? - Bulgaria is aiding us in our struggle against the Turks. If
you Greeks offer yourselves to help us, we will favour you as well,"
said Karev. The interview was published in the Athenian "Akropolis"
newspaper. Should you wish to read it, I can send you the Macedonian
translation or the original copy of the newspaper written in Greek.
When will the Greeks wake up to the fact that the Macedonians in Aegean
Macedonia do exist. Even though the Greek government has been denying
their existence ever since 1913.
he interview was published in the Athenian “Akropolis” newspaper
Srbite BUGARI!
The historian Michael Psellus writes: "That tribe of Bulgarians, formerly a cause of numerous dangers and battles... and now weakened in every respect... made efforts to restore its former haughtiness: for some time it did not initiate a public uprising, but when one of those who were ready to incite its impertinence arrived, already strong determination for an uprising had emerged. They were induced to such insanity by a monster, whom they considered to be of their own kin... He, after finding out that the entire people intended to renounce the Romaeans ... at first presented himself as the most worthy and sincere in his counseling, and then as the most experienced in military skill." The words "of Bulgarians" were inserted in one of the later versions of his Chronography by Michael Psellus, the source of the quotation. After the Byzantine-Bulgarian peace treaty of 927, Balkan territories (including Macedonian territories) conquered by the Bulgarian kings Pressin, Boris and Symeon were officially considered to be Bulgarian provinces, and all subjects of the Bulgarian state as Bulgarians. This reference to Bulgarian subjects by official Byzantium sources continued even after the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire in 971 and the establishment of Samuil's empire.
The substitution of payment in kind by payment in currency, imposed by John the Orphanographer in 1040, was the last straw, and the peasantry rose up in outrage. "The local population could not endure it easily and, therefore, when a favorable moment presented itself with the coming of Delyan, renounced Romaean rule and returned to their former laws," writes Skylites.
Georgios Monahos, Leon the Dean, Ivan the Geometrician, Ana Comnena and Georgios Kedrinos mention the Macedo-nian Slavs. Even Emperor Constantine himself writes about the Macedonian people (Makedones); Leon the Dean refers to them as ta ton Makedonon; Nikiforos Vrionos speaks of one Vasilios k*rtina as the anir Makedon; Ana Comnena says that someone called Tornik is a Makedon, etc.
Phatr#237;ai is a late-classical variant of phr#225;tra, A tribe" or "subdivision of a tribe." This root meaning survives in a few 12th-Century usages: In 1138, Nicetas Choniates 1 (29-30) reports that John II divided his army by ethnic group and phatr#237;ai: Macedonians, Turks, Franks, etc. In 1184, the soldiers defending Nikaia held meetings by phatr#237;ai (ibid., 284-5), possibly by nationality.
Samuel Kometopoulos did not have the Bulgar numbers for his ephemeron kingdom
to be called a Bulgarian one, not only this, but Axrida was the "Metropolis of
the entire Bulgaria" but not of the Aemus Bulgaria (Kedrinos II 462,468.1,652)
(Keramopoulos notation on pages 35-36 ..........capitals of states are not to
be found to the borders of them).
Here the passage, if you don't have access to Kedrinos, look for AMANTOS'
"History of the Byzantine State" Volume 2, page 173, note 4.
In 985 Samuel occupied the Larissa castel by "hunger", he took the inhabitants
and moved them into his "State",where..........
KEDRINOS, 2, 436
"....tous epoikous (Larisshs" metwkisen (O Samouhl) eis ta ths Boulgarias
(=Makedonias) endotera panestious kai tois katalogois twn eaytou katataxas
stratiwtwn symmaxois exrhto kata Rwmaiwn".
NICOLA KRISTON -1907
> Ellis Island ship's manifest transcription
> Surname: Kriston
> Given Name: Nicola
> Page / Line of Manifest: 532 / 11
> Date of Arrival at Ellis Island: Apr. 17, 1907
> Name of Ship: New Amsterdam
> Age at Arrival: 28
> Gender: M
> Married / Single: M
> Occupation: laborer
> Nationality (Country of residence): Turkey
> Race / People: Macedonian
> Last Permanent Residence: Velusin (?), Turkey
> Name of family / friend in old country:
> Final Destination: Kane, PA
> Ever been in U. S. before? When? 1903-06, Chicago, IL
> Going to join friend / family in North America? friend
> Who / Where? Alanas Meesef, Kane, PA
> Place of birth: Velusin, Turkey
Протоколи матичних књига рођених и крштених, венчаних и умрлих Св. Николајевске цркве (1761-1781) документовано нам пружају податке о Бугарима грађанима и контрибуентима. Свештеници-пароси и намесници ове цркве појединачно су уписивали у ова три протокола имена свих житеља Земуна кад год би који од њих био крштен, венчан или преминуо. Сваки протокол састојао се од књига великог формата штампаних у Бечу, с обрасцима на црквено-словенском језику у које је месни парох те цркве, по службеној дужности, по казивању заинтересованог грађанина мастилом уносио одговарајуће податке. Једна од тих рубрика била је: "Одакле је дотични родом и које је народности". Помно пратећи и ту рубрику, уочили смо да је у Земуну живело православно становништво: Срба, Грка, Цинцара, Влаха, Македонаца и Бугара. Једна једина писана реч саопштена у више варијаната доминирала је у тој рубрици, што се тиче Бугара у Земуну. Била је то реч која је одређивала народносну припадност лица која се саопштавала пароху. Та реч је била: Болг., Болгар, Болгарин, Болгарииа и ту и тамо њена ближа одређења: родом из Пловдива, Видина, Враца, Софије, Разлога, Рушчука, Карлова и Катранице
. ИАБ, ЗМ = Историјски архив Београда, Земунски магистрат (1761-1800),
ИАБ, ЗМ, Протоколи I = Протоколи матичних књига рођених и крштених Цркве Св. Николаја, Земун (1761-1800).
JANINA grada
As Anna Comnena, in describing the capture of the town (r. Ioiwwua) by Bohemond in 1082, speaks of the walls as being dilapidated, it may be supposed that the place existed before the 11th century. It is mentioned from time to time in the Byzantine annals, and on the establishment of the lordship of Epirus by Michael Angelus Comnenus Ducas, it became his capital. In the middle ages it was successively attacked by Serbs, Macedonians and Albanians;
Paulician doctrines were disseminated among the Macedonians, Bulgarians, and Greeks, especially among the peasants, and it seems that they contributed to the development of the doctrines and practices of the Bogomils, another neo-Manichaean sect, who first appeared in Bulgaria in the early 10th century.
PETAR DELJAN
The words "of Bulgarians" were inserted in one of the later versions of his Chronography by Michael Psellus, the source of the quotation. After the Byzantine-Bulgarian peace treaty of 927, Balkan territories (including Macedonian territories) conquered by the Bulgarian kings Pressin, Boris and Symeon were officially considered to be Bulgarian provinces, and all subjects of the Bulgarian state as Bulgarians. This reference to Bulgarian subjects by official Byzantium sources continued even after the fall of the First Bulgarian Empire in 971 and the establishment of Samuil's empire.
In Belgrade Petar Delyan was appointed tsar "after he had been lifted on a shield by the army." He was met there by representatives of the insurgents who had come from distant Macedonia. His uncle, King Stephen, was probably also involved in obtaining the title of tsar for Delyan. From Belgrade, Delyan set off to occupy Nish and Skopje and, when victorious, advanced to Thessaloniki where Emperor Michail IV was receiving a medical treatment. Frightened the course of events, the emperor escaped to Constantinople, leaving power and his treasury in the hands of Michail Ivec in Thessaloniki, most likely a son of Ivec, one of Samuil's generals.
• The Byzantine name "Bulgarian" was applied to those Slavs already christianized, but in the half of the XII Century, Anna Comnene describing the Slav territories wrote: "On either side of its slopes dwell many very wealthy tribes, the Dacians and the Thracians on the northern side, and on the southern, more Thracians and the Macedonians".
In the Cathar Synod of 1167, it was agreed decisions applicable to 'the seven
churches of Asia", among which were "ecclesia Romanae (Greeks), Dragumetae (Macedonians), Meliguae, Bulgariae and
Dalmatiae".
Za Ohrid I makedonskata crkva
Pope Vigilius, when the Emperor Justinian assigned to Achrida, called by him Justiniana Prima, Metropolitan jurisdiction over the five provinces of the Dacian civil diocese with the two Pannonias in the diocese of Illyricum Occidentale (Justin. Novel. cxxxi. c. iii.) Hence Justiniana Prima became the seat thenceforth of the ecclesiastical Vicariate also.
When Illyricum Orientale, comprising the two civil dioceses of Dacia and Macedonia, was ceded by Gratian in 379 to the Empire of the East, Pope St. Damasus in order to retain jurisdiction over these distant provinces appointed the Bishop of Thessalonica his vicar Apostolic. In this capacity the bishop resided at the local councils of the various provinces, judging and solving difficulties, save in more serious matters, wherein the decision was reserved to the pope. He also confirmed the election of metropolitans and simple bishops and granted authorization to proceed to ordination.
Biblija
St. John, the Golden Mouth, tells us about the relationship of St.
Paul and the Macedonians "Oh, his love for Macedonia and the
Macedonians is very special and tender and plentiful"..The love St. Paul developed for the Macedonians was very warm and
overwhelming - he stated the following, "I feel that way for all of
you because I carry all of you in my heart." (F.I. 4-1.7.8 )
Srbite ILIRI
Under Leopold I (1636-1705) the Serbs or Raizi, who had been established on Hungarian territory since 1690, were designated as the Illyrian nation; to provide for their protection against Magyar incursions a special office was created at the Court of Vienna, known as the Illyrian Court Deputation, which was abolished in 1777, and in 1791 enjoyed a brief revival as the "Illyrian Imperial Chancery."
Makedonski jazik
"If you ask us, we will say that the verses of Mr. Zhinzifov are bad because he is not gifted and because he does not know Bulgarian". (The excerpt is from journal Knowledge, number 5, 1885)…. Bulgarian Comments on the language of J.H. Dzinot ...May the inhabitants of Skopje and those who speak similarly forgive me, but they do not understand our language and cannot speak either... "Bolgarski", Tsarigradski Vestnik, nbr. 55 (6.X.1851, p. 19)…..
Skopje
Dardanija najsevernija pokrajina Makedonije takozvana Macedonia salutaris]][{}][
4). Vo docniot sreden vek patepisecot Bertrand De la Brokier pisuva:
"I remember the great subordination under which the Turk holds the emperor in Constantinople and all the Greeks, MACEDONIANS and Bulgarians....As I said earlier, there are many Christians who are forced to serve the Turk, such as Greeks, Bulgarians, MACEDONIANS, Albanians, Esclavinians, Rasians and Serbians..."
Bertrand de la Brocuiere, Putovanje preko mora, Beograd 1950, str.134-135, 140-141.
MAKEDONCI VO RUSIA
Conceiving the idea of forming Russian regiments composed of soldiers from the South Slavic peoples, State Chancellor Count Alexei Bestyushev on December 25, 1750, informed Tsarina Elisaveta Petrovna that such regiments could be formed of Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians because "the Serbs, Macedonians and Bulgarians are of the same kin as ourselves". Nine years later, he advised the tsarina that such regiments had been formed, from the "Serbian, Bulgarian and Macedonian nations".
In general, the research of Aleksandar Matkovski on the northward emigration of Macedonians to Voivodina, Hungary and Ukraine gives a clear picture of the individuality of the Macedonians, as well as differentiating them from the Serbs, Bulgarians, Greeks and other Balkan peoples. Of the comprehensive data about the Macedonians and the Vlachs of Macedonia, worth mention is the decree dated December 24, 1751, by Tsarina Elisaveta Petrovna whereby Macedonians, Bulgarians, Vlachs and other Balkan Christians were allowed to settle in Russia and to serve in special regiments. By the imperial chrysobull dated January 11, 1752, Ivan Horvat (by origin a Macedonian Vlach from the village of Horvat (present-day Arvati in Lower Prespa) was allowed to form cavalry and infantry regiments composed from "the Serbian, Macedonian, Bulgarian and Vlach peoples." The decree issued by the Russian Duma on October 19, 1752, allowed refugees from Moldavia, Wallachia, Macedonia and Serbia-but not from other regions-to settle in New Serbia and Ukraine. In New Serbia alone, 124 Macedonians were registered.
The regimental rolls of General Shevich's command contain individual records of 74 soldiers identified as members of the Macedonian nation. The payrolls of General Horvat's regiment are interesting both for the economic data they provide about life in the Russian army-a hussar was paid 18 rubles but an infantrymen received but 16, while a general earned 1,800-but also for its records of the salaries of Major Nikola Chorbe (397 rubles), Captain Todor Chorbe (268 rubles) and Praporshtchik Mihail Chorbe (134 rubles). The Chorbe family originated in Ohrid, suggesting that a number of Macedonians served in the officer corps of General Horvat's regiment.
On May 10, 1759, the Macedonian polevoy hussar regiment was founded, composed primarily of Macedonians, preceded by similar Serbian, Greek and Bulgarian regiments. The regiment had its own flag and its own coat of arms.
Shiptarite vo Makedonija
Mustafa pa#353;a #352;kodrinski je u XIX veku prodro do reke Vardara. No, kasnije su Turci uspeli da odbiju napade Albanaca i da ih proteraju sa ove teritorije. I pored toga Albanci su vr#353;ili stalne napade u Zapadnoj Makedoniji. To je prinudilo makedonsko stanovni#353;tvo da se iseljava iz ovih krajeva.[2]
Podatke o broju makedonskog stanovni#353;tva u Albaniji izneo je u svom izve#353;taju iz 1897. godine engleski vice konzul u Bitolju Blunt. On je ovo stanovni#353;tvo podelio u tri kategorije i to: Makedonci-pravoslavni; Me#353;ani Makedonci i Makedonci-muslimani. Ovo je stanovni#353;tvo #382;ivelo u oblastima: Storava, Golo Brdo, Kor#269;ansko, Bili#353;ta i Barbotsko.[3]
Region Kore#353;ta po K'n#269;ovu bio je naseljen makedonskim stanovni#353;tvom i to u selu Vrbnik 600 Makedonaca i u selu Kape#353;nica 150 Makedonaca. Makedonaca je bilo i u Stavravskoj kazi i to u selima: Cerevnik, Pla#269;e, Tu#353;enica, Aljarut i u gradu Podgradec.[5] Ra#269;una se da je u ju#382;noj albanskoj koloniji i izme#273;u mesta Vodice i Leskovik bilo 218 ku#263;a nastanjenih Makedoncima.
Severno od Gornjeg Debra i dolinom Gornjeg Drima a Ne#353;kopeji desnom obalom Drima do mesta gde se spajaju Crni i Beli Drim ima naselja naseljenih Makedoncima. U oblasti Malesiji #382;ive Makedonci u selima Trapka, Arbeli, Mo#382;ica, Topoljani, Kova#269;i#353;ta, Ko#353;ari, Blaca, Kr#269;i#353;te, Blato, Sopotvi#269;i#353;ta, Vini#353;ta i u gradu Pe#353;kopeja koji se sada zove Dibar. Na obali reke Evzem ima Makedonaca u selima #352;ijak i Jagodino. Grad Berad nekad se zvao Belgrad i spominje se u makedonskoj pesmi "Biljana platno bele#353;e" kao vinari belo gragani koji su bili makedonskog porekla.[6] Makedonaca ima i u ve#263;im gradovoma, pre svega u Tirani gde se nalazi i jedan makedonski kvart..
Italijanski novinar Demetri Delifer smatra da u gradu #272;irokastra #382;ivi nekoliko hiljada Makedonaca.[7] Znanstvenik Trnjegorski daje podatke o broju makedonskog stanovni#353;tva u Albaniji on u svom delu "Jugoslovenske manjine u susednim zemljama" smatra da u rejonu Golo Brdo ima 20.000 Makedonaca, Gorija 20.000, i Mala Prespa 4.000 do 5.000. Tu nije pomenuto makedonsko stanovni#353;tvo u Ohridsko-stru#353;kom regionu i u Pogradcu.
2. Ibidem. 56
3. Hristo Andonovski, Makedonskoto nacionalno malcinstvo vo Grcija, Bugarija i Albanija. - Glasnik na INI (Skopje), XVIII/1, 1974, 54.
4. Ibidem. 57
5. Ibid. 58
6. D. K. Budimovski, Makedoncite vo Albanija. Skopje 1983, 74.
7. Ibidem, 110
8. Ibid 86
9. Desanka Todorovi#263;, Problem na razgrani#269;uvanjeto megu Kralstvoto na Srbite, Hrvatite i Slovencite i Republika Albanija kaj manastirot Sv. Naum. - Glasnik na INI XX 41 (1976).
10. Ibid 82
Njegosh
Zatim, 1732. godine, Topal Osman-pa#353;a, koga je sultan Mahomet < Mehmed > Peti postavio za beglerbega #269;init-devera, to jest za generalnog inspektora Makedonije, Albanije i Bosne, po dolasku u Albaniju poku#353;a da oproba sre#263;u protiv naroda crnogorskih i posla prili#269;an broj Makedonjana < Makedonaca >, Albaneza < Albanaca> i Bo#353;njaka na Pipersku provinciju, gdje ih Piperi uz pomo#263; Ku#269;a sve pobi#353;e. #268;udo se pri#269;a da su ovi hri#353;#263;ani na po#269;etku te bitke vidjeli pred sobom #269;ovjeka na bijelom konju, sli#269;nog velikomu#269;eniku #272;or#273;u, i on je prvi Turke ustra#353;io, te sam Osman Topal-pa#353;a iz tvr#273;ave Podgorice pobje#382;e u Albaniju, a kasnije je poginuo u bici sa Persijancima.
ISTORIJA O CRNOJ GORI
NjEGOVOJ VISOKOJ GROFOVSKOJ
SVJETLOSTI
NjENOG CARSKOG
VELI#268;ANSTVA
SAMODR#381;ICE SVERUSKE
dr#382;avnome
vicekancelaru
pravom tajnom savjetniku
nosiocu raznih ordena
MIHAJLU ILARIONOVI#268;U
VORONCOVU
milostivome mome gospodaru
smjerni mitropolit crnogorski, skenderijski i primorski i trona srpskoga, egzarh
VASILIJ PETROVI#262;
10. marta
1754. godine,
u Moskvi
Knez Lazar i Kosovska bitka u ...
Vi#353;njice Lujo Crijevi#263;-Tubero (Aloysius Cervinus-Tubero, 1459–1527), #269;ije nas vi#273;enje kosovske bitke trenutno vi#353;e zanima.
Kao #353;to se zna, opis kosovske bitke Crijevi#263; je uneo u #353;esti odeljak (liber sextus) svog zna#269;ajnog istorijskog dela, koje se obi#269;no navodi kao Komentari o svome vremenu, a u stvari ima mnogo du#382;i naslov: Ludovici Tuberonis Dalmatae abbatis etc. commentariorum de rebus, quae temporibus eоus in i4a Europae parte, quam Pannonii et Turcae eorumque finitimi incolunt gestae sunt libri undecim.[14] Svoje delo u#269;eni benediktinac radio je dugo, izme#273;u 1500. i 1527. godine, a ono je ugledalo sveta tek osam decenija posle njegove smrti, da jo#353; kasnije, zbog pi#353;#269;evih bezobzirnih opaski o papi Aleksandru VI i drugim prelatima, kao i o zbivanjima iz istorije rimske crkve, bude uvr#353;teno u popis knjiga #269;ije je #269;itanje zabranjeno katoli#269;kim vernicima (Index librorum prohibitorum).
Malo u kom napisu o kosovskoj bici, bilo da mu je autor istori#269;ar, ili ga je radio povesni#269;ar knji#382;evnosti, Crijevi#263;ev opis nije navo#273;en i op#353;irno komentarisan,[15] tako da se mo#382;e zaista re#263;i da je #353;iroko poznat u svim osnovnim svojim linijama. Isticano je, i zna se dovoljno, da i kod Crijevi#263;a dolaze mnogi ve#263; vi#353;e puta do tada ponovljeni detalji kosovske legende, kao #353;to su kne#382;eva ve#269;era, Lazareva zdravica upu#263;ena Milo#353;u, odgovor osumnji#269;enog viteza i njegov zavet dat tom prilikom da #263;e ubiti turskoga sultana, odlazak Milo#353;ev u neprijateljski tabor i ostvarenje te zamisli, zatim sama bitka i u njoj juna#269;ka kne#382;eva pogibija. Ali Crijevi#263;, gotovo na svakom koraku, ima, ili zna, i pone#353;to vi#353;e, i to kako u samim #269;injenicama, tako u kontekstu u koji ih stavlja i u na#269;inu na koji ih daje, i zatim, i ne manje, u obja#353;njenjima i razmi#353;ljanjima kojima propra#263;a svoj prikaz. Od #269;injenica novo je pre svega ukazivanje na to da je Milo#353;a pred knezom iz zavisti optu#382;io jedan od njegovih takmaca; nov je i sitan, ali #382;ivopisan, podatak o peharu, koji knez poklanja Milo#353;u, zajedno s vinom, kojim mu je nazdravio; nova je i slika Milo#353;a kako koplja okrenutog naopako odlazi u sultanov tabor, i nov je, sasvim, opis same bitke, u kome ima i vrlo sve#382;ih pojedinosti o promenljivim tokovima ratni#269;ke sre#263;e, o dr#382;anju srpskih i turskih boraca, o lukavstvu turskih vojskovo#273;a i o fatalnoj Lazarevoj zameni konja i jo#353; fatalnijem njegovom upadanju u jamu pokrivenu pru#263;em koju su lovci iskopali da pomo#263;u nje hvataju divlje zveri. Jo#353; vi#353;e je Crijevi#263; intervenisao sa svoje strane navode#263;i – a u stvari, ako ho#263;emo pravu re#269;: izmi#353;ljaju#263;i – sopstvene verzije govora koji kazuju Lazar i Milo#353;, ili govore kojima turski prvaci podsti#269;u svoju upla#353;enu, posustalu i ve#263; na izmicanje spremnu vojsku da se vrati u bitku i iznova zasvedo#269;i juna#353;tvo i ste#269;enu slavu. Humanista Crijevi#263; prisutan je zatim naro#269;ito kada, slede#263;i anti#269;ku terminologiju, srpske borce i Lazareve podanike naziva Dardancima, Ilirima i Makedoncima, a samoga kneza "kraljem Dardanaca" (Dardanorum rex); kada unosi izmi#353;ljenu pojedinost o na#269;inu na koji Iliri i Makedonci iznalaze istinu kod osumnji#269;enih pomo#263;u vina; kada Lazara ne zami#353;lja kao pasivnog …
[14] Crijevi#263;evo delo #353;tampano je prvi put u celini, i pod navedenim naslovom, 1603. godine u Frankfurtu. Drugo izdanje: Frankfurt, 1627. Joannes Georgii Schwandtner pre#353;tampao je isto delo u drugoj knjizi kolekcije Scriptores rerum, Dalmaticarum, Croaticarum et Sclavonicarum veteres ac genuini, Vindobonae, 1746. Postoji i izdanje prire#273;eno u Dubrovniku 1784. godine.
[15] Vid. Stojan Novakovi#263;, Srpske narodne pesme o boju na Kosovu Godi#353;njica N. #268;upi#263;a 1878, II, str 137-140; tu je jedan deo Crijevi#263;evog teksta
Протоколи матичних књига рођених и крштених, венчаних и умрлих Св. Николајевске цркве (1761-1781) документовано нам пружају податке о Бугарима грађанима и контрибуентима. Свештеници-пароси и намесници ове цркве појединачно су уписивали у ова три протокола имена свих житеља Земуна кад год би који од њих био крштен, венчан или преминуо. Сваки протокол састојао се од књига великог формата штампаних у Бечу, с обрасцима на црквено-словенском језику у које је месни парох те цркве, по службеној дужности, по казивању заинтересованог грађанина мастилом уносио одговарајуће податке. Једна од тих рубрика била је: "Одакле је дотични родом и које је народности". Помно пратећи и ту рубрику, уочили смо да је у Земуну живело православно становништво: Срба, Грка, Цинцара, Влаха, Македонаца и Бугара. Једна једина писана реч саопштена у више варијаната доминирала је у тој рубрици, што се тиче Бугара у Земуну. Била је то реч која је одређивала народносну припадност лица која се саопштавала пароху. Та реч је била: Болг., Болгар, Болгарин, Болгарииа и ту и тамо њена ближа одређења: родом из Пловдива, Видина, Враца, Софије, Разлога, Рушчука, Карлова и Катранице.
ИАБ, ЗМ, Протоколи I = Протоколи матичних књига рођених и крштених Цркве Св. Николаја, Земун (1761-1800).
On je u stvari prvi ruski nau#269;nik koji je negirao pripadnost Makedonaca bugarskoj naciji, #353;to je za ono doba bila velika smelost, jep je ruska politika bila okrenuta prema Bugarima posle Sanstefanskog ugovora za stvaranje veliko bugarske politike za koju je Jastrebov smatrao da je nerealna.[7]
skopski nadbiskup, Albanac, Matija Masarek [1758-1807]. u okolini #272;akovice vidi sve#382;e kolonije Albanaca katolika, koji su zbog gladi napustili svoje vrleti i naselili ce u pitomoj Metohiji. Godine 1767. [godinu dana posle ukidanja pe#263;ke patrijar#353;ije, iste godine kada je ukinuta ohridska arhiepiskopija] Masarek prime#263;uje da ce "za poslednjih dvadeset godina Srbija potpuno izmenila". Ranije je u svim srbijanskim varo#353;ima bilo malo Turaka, koji su bili pitomiji, a u selima bili su pravoslavni i katolici. Sada, pak, varo#353;i su prepune, po re#269;ima Masareka, Makedonaca ili muhamedanskih Arbanasa, a u selima ce retko vide pravoslavni i katolici, jer su ce razbe#382;ali po Nema#269;koj, Sofiji, Vla#353;koj i drugde. Danas, nastavlja nadbiskup 1767,
24 T. Smiljani#263;, Mijaci, 42-43, 76.
Pred Vacno Mihajlov da si go prodade gazot na golemobugarskite interesi i nivniot dvor, eve sto veli vo intervjuto vo "Ilinden" na 7mi oktomvri 1922 g. (citatot e preveden na angliski):
"Macedonians uphold their own system -- free and self-governing MAcedonia, most of all because of the interest in Macedonian independence, national distnctiveness., and cultural ability."
само неколико десетина година пре тога, сама српска влада и српски путописци све до смрти кнеза Михјла у 1868 година писали су у многим својим књигама да су Словени у Македонији Бугари. Српска политика под утецајем грче политике и исторогафије није могла прихватити реалност да у Македонији живи словенско становништо које себе назива Македонцима. Сматрали су да је то „грчко“ и „неславенско“ име прихваћено од словенског становништва за време духовног ропства под цариградске патријаршије и да је то опасност десловенизације Македоније. Тако је српска влада т.ј. српски путописци подржали бугарске националсте и бугарску политуку бугаризације Македоније, све до 1868-1870 године т.ј. стварање бугарског Егзархата, да би касније развили тезу да је словенско становништво Македоније Срби, видевши да бугарска политика бугаризације македонског сељачког становништва преко бугарског Егзархата баца апетит чак и на Космету и данашње јужне Србије.
Препун је интернет бугарских националшовиниста где буцањем у прса са српским књигама пре 1870 године желе „доказати“, ево и Срби признају да су Словени у Македонији, Бугари.
Извини што морам да кажем, српска глупост нема граница.
Први који донекле почиње да мења српску политику и признаје постојање посебног словенског народа, Македонци или како нас он назива „Македонски Словени“ је Цвијић, који половично отвореном устом признаје да се словенско становништво Македоније не осећа као српско или бугарско.
Мој се прадед на иконама које је широм источне Македоније и Пиринске Македоније израђивао често потписивао као „Иконописац Гаврил Атанасов от с. Берово Малеш Македонац“.
Види овај пример иконе мог прадеда из 1897 године.
http://www.macedonia-info.org/history/Otomanski_period/Ikona_Gavril_Atanasov_.jpg
http://www.macedonia-info.org/history/Otomanski_period/Ikonopisec_Gavril_Atanasov_Makedonec_1897.jpg
http://www.macedonia-info.org/history/Otomanski_period/Ikonopisec_Gavril_Atanasov_od_selo_Berovo_Malesh_Ma kedonec_1897.jpg
Овде можеш погледати орнаменте и зидове слика цркве у устаничког села Разловци. Македонско сунце, познато данас као сунце из Кутлеша (Вергина) насликано је на више места у цркви. Црква је израђена у 1859 години. Зашто Стевањаће сунце македонско је на зидовима цркве израђено и од куд су знали мајстори баш њега да сликају!?
http://www.macedonia-info.org/history/Otomanski_period/Razlovci-makedonski_sonca/
________________________________________
Makedonac_I - 12. decembar 2004. u 19.05 (registrovani #269;lan)
Познат је први македонски устанак против Турака у 19 веку, а то је устанак у 1876 год у малешевско село Разловци и касније 1878 год. у село Кресна у Пиринској Македонији.
Малешевци су познати по устанцима против Турака у 19 веку. Ово је оргинални документ кресненског устанка, којег су македонски историчари успели добити од архиве бугарског патријарха Кирила (горе лево је његов накнадно стављен потпис и забелешка). У овом устанку Малешевци су међу организаторима. Димитар Поп ђорђиев Беровски и Иљо Малешевски. Кресна се налази у Пиринској Македонији, недалеко од Малешевије.
http://www.macedonia-info.org/history/Pravilnik_na_makedonskiot_vostanicki_komitet_1878.jpg
Преводим т.ј. цитирам део, којег можеш видети у линка од оргинала:
Познато нам је свима да је злосрећна наша земља Македонија због причине егоистичких циљева од стране великих сила остављена опет Турцији после Берлинскиот конгреса.
Са нашом крвљом што је пролевамо по пољима и горама македонских ми служимо као, македонска војска Александра Македонског, за слободу са нашом девизом: Слобода или Смрт!
Даљу у прогласу т.ј. правилнику пише:
Решили смо да поднесемо правилник Македонског устаничког комитета,односно Устав, по коме ћемо се сви управљати и сви ћемо испуњивати док не ослободимо целу нашу отаџбину Македонију.
У истом од више тачака пише:
1. Устанак у Македонији, које је сад локалан, треба да се рашири кроз целу Македонију.
2. У устанку учествују људи из саме Македоније, који се осећају Македонцима и желе слободу своје отаџбине.
...
...
9. Наш циљ Македонског устанка није никаква тајна. То је ослобађање Македоније, земља славних словенских просветитеља св. Кирил и Методије, која вековима страда под турског иго. Зато свако што се не бори за њеног ослобађања, већ прави своју сметку – за њега нема места у устанку.
...
...
15. Сваки хршћанин и мухамеданац Македонац, Турчин, Арнаут, Влах и други кои ће да се покажу како противници устанка и устаницима гони ће се и кад буду ухваћени биће кажњени.
Стварају се комитети у делопвима Пиринске Македоније, који наводно бугарска влада подржава, а уствари шаље своје људе и шпијуне које компромитирају македонског националног карактера устанка, а каснније и праве издају за пропаст самог устанка и дају наредбу за затварање Димитрија Поп Ђорђиева Беровског.
Једно писмо од тада, где А. Калмиков шаље писмо џумајском комитету (данас Благоевград у Пиринској Македонији) где су убаћени бугарски шпиуни на челу комитета. Пише да неће да прима писма где је избаћено „Устанички македонски комитет“ и рећ „Македон“ и да то име неће никада да умре.
До Џумајкиот македонски комитет !
По изборот на народот и војската јас сум назначен за атамна на македонските востаници. Јас го назначив за началник на штабот Димитрија П. Георгиев , за нешто на сите комитети им соопштувам. Вие се воздржувате да пишувате “ од востаничкиот македонски комитет “ тоа име нема да умре и затоа ви соопштувам дека без зборот “ македон “ вашите писма ќе ви бидат вратени назад - молам да им го соопштите на сите комитети.
9 октомври 1878 . А. Калмиков
Извор: Проф. Г. Кацаровъ и Ив. Кеповъ , Документи по Кресненското възстание од 1878 год. Сб. БАН, Кн. XXXVI
20 дана касније софиски комитет који је под контроле бугарске владе наређују џумјском комитету да преузме акцију за притварање Димитра Поп Ђорђиев Беровског.
Софиски добротворен комитет “Единство“
No: 103 од 30 октомври 1878 год.
Софија
До Џумајкиот добротворен комитет во Џумаја.
Од вашето писмо од 25 октомври и истовремено од усните соопштенија на г-н Атаман Калмиков и Петко Павловиќ со жалење разбравме во какво безредие се наоѓа востанието во Македонија. За прекратување на тоа безредие што може да доведе до лоши последици решивме:
1.да се затвори началникот на Штаб Дим. П. Георгиев и
2.да се определи една привремена комисија и тоа од г-н Димитрија С. Стателов, Пандо М. Урумов и Андреја И. Георгов која ќе управува со финансискиот , поштенскиот и административниот дел во новопревземените места. Вашиот комитет треба да и се подчинаува на горе кажаната комисија која е представителка на Центералниот комитет:
значи , за затварање на Димитрија П. Георгиев треба да се сообразите со упатствата на комисијата. За понатаму вашиот комитет по работа на востанието ќе има преписка само со комисијата и со овдешниот комитет кога ќе не известите за извршенате работи.
Кога го повикувам божиот благослов на вас сум
ваш ревносен молебденик
Мелетија.
________________________________________
Makedonac_I - 12. decembar 2004. u 19.06 (registrovani #269;lan)
Ево ти још нешто из малешевског краја. Проглас македонског устаничког Комитета из 1879 године.
Македонцы!
Македониїя майка наша станА й плаче съ горки выкове подь огънтъ и іатаганъ турскій. Умученнытъ и съ крвъ облеаны наши родители, сынове и братя ньі выкагъ на оружіе противъ петвЬковнитЬ наши мучители и насилницы, а обезчестеныте наши майки, супруги и сестры съ горкы солЬзи на очитЬ си подъ гнусный й безчеловЬчный турскій произволъ кукатъ около опустошаемй наши домове и чекать да имъ се отзовеме.
Юунаци Македонски й Бъгарски! СвЬтлый нашъ левъ реве по наши македонски гори и долины, планины и пустины и ны вика сички на оружіе. ГдЬ и да сте вы, побързаіте да се собереме съ оружіе въ рАцетЬ ни, за да ги избавиме тыА невиноваты жъртвьі отъ ова гнусно и позорно безчестіе. Донесете си на умъ шо наши татковцы й дЬдовцьі се бориха и си проливаха своа кръвъ за свобода гръчка и сьрбска... ПоглЬдъ свой и на ланскн годины и ке видите, шо кръвъ отъ наши... о#968;е стои на Алексинскиы и Шипканскы проходы, ко#1175;то кръвъ они не пожалЬха за об#968;а свобода наша...
Македонцы! Сега е време да увЬриме нашитЬ просвЬтены предатели, #968;о Македонi#230; й сега в петьвЬковното си робство ражда и има въ себе си сынове юнацы!
1879 год. 2-й Маіа
Малешъ-Планина Македонскій возстанническій Комитетъ".
Извор: Научен архив, Българската академия на науките, София, (НА-БАН-С), Фонд: Сбирка IX, оп. 1, а.е. 55, л. 1.
Ево ти оргинала.
http://www.macedonia-info.org/history/Proglas_Iljo_Maleshevski_vostanichki_komitet.jpg
У 1880 године Иљо Марков Малешевски прелази на Пирин Планину да састане са убаћеним бугарским шпијунима (за које лично није свестан у том моменту да се о таквим људима ради). Међу њима се налази и известан Леонида Булгарис који ће у његовом дневнику записати ређи Иља Малешевског.
„Војводата Иљо Малешевски беше одушевен поради нашето присуство и не жалеше труд да дојде во оваа селска куќа на Пирин. Ја одобри спогодбата со Дијаминдииев, но забележително се муртеше околу покровителството на Бугарија и Грција. Што ќе стане ако дотуриме и покровителство на Србија? Оставете ги, рече тие што ни ја матат водата.Кој ќе ни верува дека се бориме за слобода на Македонија, кога тие покровители сакаат да ја распарчаат. Ние се согласивме со него и решивме да работиме тајно, и од Бугарите и Србите.“
а један од Малешеваца Никола Русински, члан ВМРОа из села Русиново, опет Малешевија касније јасно каже .
"ја сматрам, да су сви апостоли послати из Србије, Бугарске, Грчке и другде, туђи агенти. Ми смо Македонци; може неко да симпатизира Србе, други Грке, Бугаре и.т.д., али то нас не ангажира да предамо наше народне интересе онима које симпатизирамо ... Македонија није нити српска, нито грчка, нити бугарска." - Никола Русински, BMPO, 1936.
Мало ти знаш македонску историју Стевњак, премало.
Ускоро по постављењу на престо, Роман Диоген, да би прекинуо турске нападе на област Империје, скупио је војску од Македонаца, Бугара, Кападокијаца, Уза и других племена која је срео, као и од Франака и Варјага - (#61552;#61554;#61551;#61562;#61472;#61540;#61541;#61472;#61547;#61537;#61545;#61472;#61510;#61554;#61537;#61543;#61543;#61559;#61550;#61472;#61547;#61537;#61545;#61472;#61506;#61537;#61554;#61537;#61543;#61543;#61559;#61550;) и кренуо на исток". Јован Скилица ст. 822-3.
Dosega neobjaveno intervju so pretsedatelot na Kru{evskata Republika za gr~kiot vesnik "Akropolis" od 8 maj 1903 godina
JAS SUM MAKEDONEC!
S.T.Stam
• Bugarija napravila lo{a smetka ako misli da ne pot~ini. Nas edinstveno ne interesira na{ata sloboda
• Komitetot ne e bugarski. I Grcija da saka{e da ni pomogne }e ja prifatevme so celo srce
- Makedonec li si? Go pra{uvam
- Da.
- I - Zatoa {to ako ne zeme Mora (Grcija) }e stane edna golema dr`ava i sledovatelno monarhija. Vo takov slu~aj }e proizlezat mnogu zla - prvo monarhijata i toa {to proizleguva od nea, a vtoro, Grcija }e n# natera da vojuvame so Bugarija, ne{to {to (nie) ne go sakame.
- Vie {to sakate?
Mi ja poka`a kapata:
- Sakame republika.
- Demokratija i prijatelstvo so Bugarija?
- Ne samo so Bugarija, tuku so sekoj {to }e ni pomogne da se oslobodime.
- So Bugarija sakate da se obedinite?
- Ne! Ne!
- I ova vi go propoveda (u~i) Komitetot?
- Da.
- Toga{ ovoj Komitet koj tolku mnogu se gri`i za va{ata nezavisnost zo{to ne bara za{tita od Grcija koja ima pove}e dol`nosti da ve oslobodi, tuku klonite kon varvarite?
- Da vi odgovoram vedna{. Nie li~ime na ~ovek koj padnal vo moreto i se nao|a vo opasnost, sekoj moment da se udavi. E, ne mi velite, ve molam, ovoj ~ovek za da se spasi }e se fati li za s# {to }e najde vo toj moment pred sebe, duri i za zmija? Vo takva polo`ba sme nie, duri i Tur~in da ni pru`i raka za spas }e ja grabnime so blagodarnost.
- No, gr~kite prvenci, sve{tenici i u~iteli zo{to gi ubivate koga nemate ni{to posebno protiv nikoj?
- Ova se lagi. Komitetot ne ubiva samo Grci, tuku i Bugari i Srbi i Turci i sekogo koj predava.
- Ova se izgovori za grevovite, uni{tivte mnogu gr~ki patrioti zatoa {to ne davaa pari za va{iot Komitet.
- Ovie raboti gi izmisluvate vie Grcite kako i drugite.
- Koi drugi?
- Ete, tie vo Solun, postavivte vie lu|e da go napravat toa {to go napravija za da go ocrnite Komitetot (stanuva zbor za Solunskite atentati, b.m.).
Ne mo`ev da se vozdr`am i stra{no se nasmeav {to predizvika qubopitnost kaj sopstvenikot Tasku Kvata, koj mi se pribli`i.
- [to ti veli? Me pra{a.
- Toa i toa.
- Hm! Ama kako }e se vidi deka e Bugarin debeloglavec, ako ne be{e Bugarin ne }e ka`uva{e takvi zborovi, osobeno sega koga i yidovite imaat u{i.
- Da, da ova {to vi go velam jas povtori Karev - edno drvo koe ja probi zemjata i iznikna, zo{to da ne go vadat site za da porasne?
- Da.
- Da, no znaete so {to go vadi Bugarija. So otrov na omraza kon grcizmot.
- Kako i da e ova vadewe (polevawe), n# osve`uva i n# natera da gi zavrtime grankite kon onaa strana kon koja, priznavame deka ni{to ne n# povrzuva i da begame od vas so koi nemame ista krv i ista istorija; ova e na nekoj na~in protest protiv gr~koto interesirawe (za nas).
- Ova {to go veli{ e rezultat na bugarskoto vadewe, za{to Grcija nikoga{ ne prestanala da ve poddr`uva i so pismenosta i so oru`je.
I pak Karev ne mi odgovori.
- I sega, po poslednite nastani {to mislite da pravite? - Go pra{av. (se misli na t.n. Gornoxumajsko vostanie od esenta 1902 b.m.)
- Ni{to drugo osven da ja prodol`ime borbata.
- Da, no zar ne znaete deka zad taa borba se krie borba podla i ne~esna?
-S.T.Stam.
(Akropolis, br.7608, Biblioteka - Star Parlament)
MAKEDONSKO SONCE
dekemvri 1923 g, T. Aleksandrov izrabotva ot imeto na CK na
: BMPO "proekt za sporazumenie" sys Sovetskia Syiuz, v
: koeto se zaiavliava:
:
:
: "Vytresnata Makedonska Revoliucionna Organizacia, koiato
: predstavliava borestite makedonci za NACIONALNO SAMOOPREDELENIE,
: politiceska svoboda, SAMOUPRAVLENIE i vyzmozno nai-goliama
: socialna pravda, ima za cel: Obedinenieto na Makedonia,
: razpokysana mezdu Bylgaria, Syrbia i Gyrcia v 1913 g. po
: Buk*reskia mir..."
OSAKA MAINICI SHIMBUN , 9-ti avgust i 14-ti avgust 1903 godina:
"Telegrama od London od 7-mi avgust:
Boris Sarafov od MAKEDONSKIOT KOMITET proglasi vostanie vo Makedonija!
Izgleda deka e mnogu tesko da se najde temelen nacin za da se resat problemite na Balkanot. Se stravuva deka ako prodolzi borbata, mirot vo Evropa isto taka ke bide narusen. Povikuvajki se na vestite sto doadjaat od London, vostanieto se uste se siri, a zgora na toa izvrsen e i atentat vrz ruskiot konzul. Vostanicite se sostaveni od: MAKEDONCI, Bugari i Albanci, dodeka za najva`na licnost se smeta Boris Sarafov koj gi vodi MAKEDONCITE. Boris Sarafov e golem revolucioner i sega idninata na Makedonija zavisi od nego...izgleda negovite planovi zasega pocnaa da se ostvaruvaat..."
1). Vo knigata "Obrazuvane na b'lgarskata narodnost" od Prof. Dimitar Angelov (Sofija, 1971), na str. 116 i 117, tvrdi deka e definitivno utvrdeno etnickoto poteklo na Bugarite:
"Uspesite postignati vo oblasta na lingvistikata i otkrivanjeto na nekoi pismeni pametnici, vo koi se srekavaat prabugarski zborovi, postepeno go formiraat sfakanjeto deka prabugarskiot etnos spagjal vo semejstvoto na TURKOJAZICNITE PLEMINJA I PLEMENSKI GRUPI, kako na primer: Huni, Oguzi, Ujguri, Hazari, Pecenezi, Kumani i drugi... Stojalisteto deka Prabugarite za vreme na svoeto doadjanje na Balkanot bile TURKO-JAZICEN NAROD veke moze da se smeta deka e nepobitno dokazano..."
2). Eden od najpoznatite bugarski istoricari Vasil Zlatarski, vo svoeto delo "Istorija na b'lgarskata d'r`ava prez srednite vekove" (tom I, Sofija, 1971), na str. 55, pisuva:
"Prvata istorija na Bugarite nesomneno treba da ja barame vo istorijata na onie sredno-azijatski TURSKI narodi, koi se poznati pod opstoto ime Huni..."
Zlatarski ovde go upotrebuva terminot turski, a ne turkski (turanski)!
3). Spored "Graficna istorija na balkanskite narodi" od bugarskiot istoricar EVGENI VLADIKOV (Sofija, 1992 god.):
"Bugarite pripaGaat na ponovite narodi koi se doselile na Balkanskiot Poluostrov (...) Okolu 670 godina na severoistok od deltata na r. Dunav se pojavuvaat Prabugarite, koi se narod od TURKSKO POTEKLO..."
3). Vo golemata Grolier multimedijalnata opsta kompjuterska CD enciklopedija, vo podnaslovot "Bugari" pisuva:
"Bugarite se TURSKO PLEME, koi se naselile na Balkanot od centralna Azija vo vtorata polovina na 7. vek. Tie gi potcinile slovenskite pleminja i go osnovale Prvoto Bugarsko carstvo vo 681 godina."
4). Vo neprocenlivo znacajnoto drevno istorisko delo pod naslov "IMENIK NA BUGARSKITE HANOVI" (napisano vo Bugarija vo dalecniot 8. vek) za tataro-mongolskiot vodac ATILA-bozjiot kamsik se veli deka e "PRATATKO NA BUGARITE".
Toj vo ova delo se sreKava pod imeto Avitolah, a kako negovi naslednici (OD NEGOVIOT TURKSKI ROD "DULO") sleduvaat hanovite: Irnik (sin na Atila, koj na nekoi mesta se sre}ava i pod imeto Ernah, z.m.), Gostun, k*rt i Bezmer, za koi pi{uva deka, vo sklad so azijatskata tradicija, imale izbriceni glavi. Pod imeto k*rt ovde se podrazbira bugarskiot han Kubrat, sto znaci deka vo ovoj Imenik, ATILA E SMETAN ZA DIREKTEN KRVEN PREDOK NA HANOT KUBRAT I NA BUGARO-AZIJATITE. Da potsetam deka denes hanot Kubrat se smeta kako prviot ETNICKI vladetel na denesnata bugarska nacija, a gledame deka toj bil direkten krven potomok na tataro-mongolskiot vodac Atila-bozjiot kamsik.
Inaku "Imenikot na bugarskite hanovi" e napisan vo vremeto na hanot Asparuh, koj e eden od sinovite na han Kubrat, sto znaci deka ovoj Imenik e napisan od togasni dobri poznavaci na istorijata na Bugarite. (Podetalno za ova kaj: Prof. Dimitar Angelov: "Obrazuvane na b#205;lgarskata narodnost," Sofija 1971 g., i vo: "Hristomatia po istoria na B'lgaria," Sofija 1964 g.).
5). Vo Kratkata bugarska enciklopedija (Sofija, 1963, Prv tom, s.30), pisuva:
"So imeto Bugari se narekuvaat prabugarskite pleminja, koi se od TURKSKO POTEKLO i koi ziveat na sever od Crno More i Kavkaz, od Dnepar do Volga. Edna grupa od niv, na celo so Asparuh se preseluvaat na krajot od 7. vek vo severoisticniot del od Balkanskiot Poluostrov."
6). Vo Enciklopedijata na Jugoslavija (Zagreb, 1985), avtorot V. Vel, za potekloto na Bugarite pisuva:
"Zborot Bulgar nastanal od staroturskiot zbor bulgar (meSanec), Sto bil naziv za edno od TURKO-TATARSITE pleminja."
7). Vo "Historia slowian poludnio wych i zachodnich" (Warszawa, 1977 g.), za Bugarite pisuva:
"Protobugarite i drugite TURKSKI narodi bile stocari..."
Inaku, izjavi za makedonskata nacionalna zasebnost Sarafov togas daval i vo niza drugi togasni evropski vesnici (slovenecki, ungarski, srpski, hrvatski i drugi). Taka na primer, avstriskiot vesnik Die Zeit, za Boris Sarafov i za negovoto zalaganje za samostojna Makedonija so oddelna makedonska nacija, kako i za negovoto sprotivstavuvanje protiv bugarskite i srpskite interesi vo Makedonija, vo brojot 288, objaven vo 1902 godina, pisuva:
"Sarafov raboti na toa Makedonija da dobie politicka samostojnost. Fakt e deka postoi izvesna razlika pomedju makedonskiot dijalekt i jazikot sto se zboruva vo Srbija ili vo Bugarija, poradi sto postoi zelba dijaletkot na ovaa provincija samostojno da se razviva. Vo taa smisla Sarafov ja dade devizata: Makedonija na Makedoncite!... Ako Sarafov seriozno misli za samostojnosta na Makedonija, nie mozeme samo da mu pozelame srekja vo negovite potfati vo idninata...Ako toj se zalaga negovata tatkovina da dobie avtonomija i ako pritoa gi odbiva velikobugarskite i velikosrpskite baranja, togas toj ja zasluzuva moralnata poddrska od Avstro-Ungarija..."
The Central Department of the Foreign Office went even further in clarifying the separate identity of the Macedonians. In a confidential survey and analysis of the entire Macedonian problem it identified the Macedonians not as Bulgarians, Greeks or Serbs, but rather as Macedonian Slavs, and, on the basis of "A FAIRLY RELIABLE ESTIMATE MADE IN 1912," singled them out as BY FAR THE LARGEST SINGLE ETHNIC GROUP IN MACEDONIA.<47> It acknowledged, as did Footman, that these Slavs spoke a language "understood by both Serbs and Bulgars, but slightly more akin to the Bulgarian tongue than to the Serbian"; and that after the 1870 establishment of the Exarchate, BULGARIAN PROPAGANDA MADE GREATER INROADS IN MACEDONIA TAT THE SERBIAN OR GREEK. However, it stressed that "While it is probable that the majority of these Slavs are, or were, pro-Bulgar, it is incorrect to refer to them as other than Macedo-Slavs. TO THIS END, BOTH THE SERB CLAIM THAT THEY ARE SOUTHERN SERBS AND THE BULGARINA CLAIM THAT THEY ARE BULGARS ARE UNJUSTIFIED."
(Foreign Office 371/10667, Central Department, Memorandum, "The Macedonian Question and Komitaji Activity," 26 November 1925. It gave the following figures: Macedonian Slavs 1,150,000; Turks 400,000; Greeks 300,000; Vlachs 200,000; Albanians 120,000;Jews 100,000; Gypsies 10,000).
Na bugarskiot napad vrz makedojnskite prerodbenici "Lozari" reagiral grckiot vesnik Neologos, koj izleguval vo Carigrad.
Na 29. 04. 1892 godina, komentiraj}i ja sostojbata okolu lozarite, vesnikov objavil:
"Zemajki povod od edno periodicno spisanie "Loza", koe e izdavano vo Sofija na slovenomakedonski jazik, so pravopis sto ne e bugarski, bugarskiot vesnik "Svoboda" blue razrusuvacki peni protiv Slovenomakedoncite vo Bugarija i gi zaplasuva so progoni. I zosto seto toa? Zatoa sto Slovenomakedoncite, izmameni, gi napustaat tatkovite ognista i se preseluvaat vo Bugarija, kade sto, otkako poodblizu se zapoznavaat so bugarskiot narod, so negoviot jazik, naravi i obicai i otkako sogleduvaat deka tie im se tudji, ja osoznavaat izmamata i pocnuvaat da si go razrabotuvaat svojot majcin jazik, izdavajki razni periodicni spisanija na nego. Ovoj pravec od strana na Slovenomakedoncite "Svoboda" go karakterizira kako slakanica vrz panbugarizmot i otkako go analizira jazikot i pravopisot na "Loza", utvrduva deka jazikot na Slovenomakedoncite e nerazbirliv za Bugarite, a pravopisot e sosema tu| na bugarskiot..."
Za vodacot na Ilindenskoto vostani Boris Sarafov izvestuvale site poznacajni vesnici vo svetot. Japonskiot Osaka Majnici Shimbun od 9ti i 14ti avgust 1903 godina, pisuva:
"Boris Sarafov od Makedonskiot Komitet proglasi vostanie vo Makedonija!"
[...]
"Izgleda deka e mnogu tesko da se najde temelen nacin za da se resat problemite na Balkanot. Se stravuva deka ako prodolzi borbata, mirot vo Evropa isto taka ke bide narusen. Povikuvajki se na vestite sto doadjaat od London, vostanieto se uste se siri, a zgora na toa izvrsen e i atentat vrz ruskiot konzul. Vostanicite se sostaveni od: MAKEDONCI, Bugari i Albanci, dodeka za najvazna licnost se smeta Boris Sarafov koj gi vodi MAKEDONCITE. Boris Sarafov e golem revolucioner i sega idninata na Makedonija zavisi od nego. Toj e na triesetgodi{na vozrast i negovoto semejstvo odamna ~uvstvuvalo ogromna omraza kon Turcija. Ovaa omraza prodolzuvala so generacii vo negovoto semejstvo. Koga Sarafov imal samo pet godini, tatko mu i dedo mu bile fateni i svirepo nasilnicki ubieni od Turcite.....Vo juli 1895 godina,za prv pat, toj formiral svoja mala vojska... Tie ja pominale granicata i vlegle vo Melnik (grad pod turska okupacija). Tamu ja porazile strazata, ja presekle telegrafskata linija i otepale 50 Turci. Turskata vlada bese vcudovidena od ovie vesti..."
WILLIAM GLADSTONE: "MAKEDONIJA nA MAKEDONCITE, BUGARIJA NA BUGARITE, SRBIJA NA SRBITE"!
Britancite tvrdat deka Makedoncite do 1870 godina bile posebna nacija
D-r Todor ^epreganov, noviot direktor na INI, veli: Edna kniga, od bibliotekite vo Velika Britanija, koja{to vo prethodnite godini be{e nedostapna, se vika "Makedonija". Podgotvena e za potrebite na britanskata komisija, koja{to u~estvuvala na Pariskata mirovna konferencija. So cel da se zapoznae so makedonskoto pra{awe, britanskoto Ministerstvo formiralo Komisija od eksperti koja{to trebalo iscrpno da go ispita makedonskoto pra{awe. Vo odnos na pra{aweto deka Makedoncite imale bugarski koreni, vo knigata bukvalno stoi: "Makedoncite do 1870 godina bea posebna nacija. Po vleguvaweto na propagandite vo Makedonija, gr~kata, bugarskata i srpskata, Makedoncite po~naa da ja gubat svojata nacionalnost". Kon ova bi gi dodal i zborovite na Bernard Giri, britanski konzul vo Makedonija od 1909 do 1912 godina, koj veli: "Makedonija e naselena od avtohton narod od slovensko poteklo koe be{e bugaririzano, srbizirano ili grcizirano od razni vidovi na propagandi - religozna i politi~ka. Selata, spored moeto li~no iskustvo, preku no} za 10 funti bea preobra}ani od Bugari vo Srbi ili Grci vo Bugari, so {to vistinskite Makedonci ja zagubija nivnata posebna nacionalnost i za {to tie sega se nesvesni".
1. Sostavija makedonski ucebnik - Makedonski bukvar;
2. Napisaa broshura objasnuvajkji ja sostojbata na makedonskiot narod vo 19 vek;
3. Iznajdoa svoi privrzanici vo Makeodnija i nadvor od nea;
4. Se obratija so memorandum do diplomatskite predstavnistva na golemite sili vo Carigrad so baranje podkrepa za izdavanje na makedonski vesnik.
Spored poslednata cetvrta tocka, preku vesnikot makedonskoto naselenie e toa:
"...STO TREBA DA MU JAVI NA SVETOT DEKA ISTOTO E ZASEBEN NAROD, SO ZASEBNA ISTORIJA, NARAVI I OBICAI, I DEKA NEMA NISTO VOOPSTO SO OKOLNITE DRZAVICKI -- ZNACI SPORED TOA, NEMA NIKOJ PRAVO DA PRETENDIRA NAD MAKEDONIJA I TOA IM OSTANUVA NA MAKEDONCITE."
(D-r. Klime Dzambazovski, "Neuspel obid za izdavanjeto na 'Makedonski list' vo Carigrad 1887 godina", sp. Sovremenost, XIV (1964) 10, str. 1066).
Grofot henkel Fon Donesmark e germanski vrsitel na rabotite vo Carigrad. Toj mu go pisuva aeldnovo pismo na drzavniot kancelar na Germanija, Fon Hoenloe:
"Br. 58
Doverlivo
Pera, 25 Maj 1895
Spored doverlivoto navestuvanje na segasniot avstriski ambasador, stremezite na Makedoncite kon politicka avtonomija na Makedonija (vo original: "...die Bestrebungen der Mazedonier hinsichtlich der politischen Autonomie Mazedoniens...") dobija zakanuvacka forma za Portata.
Kako sto e dosega poznato, Makedoncite go obrazlozija svoeto baranje do Turcija so clenot 23 od Berlinskiot dogovor, spored koj portata vo svojata evropska provincija trebase da vovede samoupraven status, za sto ke pomognat formiranite mesni komisii..."
(Die Grosse Politik der Europaischen Kabinette, 1871-1914, 12/I. Band. Berlin 1923, S, 121-122).
Makedoncite se zalagale za obnovuvawe na Ohridskata arhiepiskopija u{te pred formiraweto na Egzarhijata najdeciden dokaz e Prviot patrijar{iski sobor {to se odr`al vo 1858 godina. Na ovoj sobor, prvo bilo pobarano obnovuvawe na Ohridskata arhiepiskopija. Nikakva Bugarska crkva toga{ ne bila ni spomnata. Duri podocna od delegatite bilo pobarano, pokraj Ohridskata arhiepiskopija, da se vozobnovi i Trnovskata patrijar{ija (za ova podetalno kaj: N. Stanev: Blgari pod igo, Sofija, 1947).
Vo vrska so naporite Makedoncite da ja obnovat Ohridskata arhiepiskopija, u{te pred formiraweto na Egzarhijata, svedo~i i statijata {to prilep~anecot Tode Kusev ja objavil vo v. Makedonija vo 1867 godina: Grcite sekoga{ vodele borba za pogr~uvawe na Makedoncite, uni{tuvaj}i ja i Ohridskata arhiepiskopija - iskrata na na{ata idnina. No, kolku i da se ma~ea da n# soprat da odime napred, ne mo`ea da go iskorenat sosema ~uvstvoto Makedoncite da ne bidat Makedonci... Za otporot protiv bugariziraweto na Makedoncite {to stanal mo{ne intenziven po formiraweto na Bugarskata egzarhija, postojat niza svedo{tva u{te od toa vreme.
Statijata "KOJ E KRIV" napisana vo 1877 godina od Temko Popov e obid da se prikaze politickata situacija vo Makedonija po osnovanjeto na Egzarhijata:
"POJKJE OD DESET GODINI IMA OTKAKO NIE MAKEDONCITE NEMAME DUHOVNO NACELSTVO PO NASIVE MESTA, OD KOE I NAJMNOGU STRADAAT NASIVE CRKVENI UCILISNI RABOTI. GLEDAS OVDE EDNA OPSTINA RASTURENA, PARALIZIRANA.....BEZ NIKAKVA MATERIJALNA SILA, T.E. BEZ BARANJE TUDJA POMOKJ DA MOZE TAA SAMA DA SI UREDJUE UCILISTATA, DA SI PLAKJA NA UCITELITE I DR. I TAKA ONAA OPSTINA STOJI I SE VIKA OPSTINA SAMO ZA LICE, BEZ DA MOZE DA ODGOVORI NA VOJOT ZADATOK, ZARADI KOGO JE POVIKANA. GLEDAS PAK ONDE VO EDEN GRADILI GRADEC EDNO UCILISTE, TAKA I NADVORESNO -- SIROMASKO, OSAKATENO I BEZ NIKAKVO ZNACENJE, JAVNO DA KAZAM -- ZA PLACENJE, OD SEM ONIJA UCILISTA, STO SE KREPAT OD EGZARHIJATA, NO KOJI PAK SI IMAAT SVOJI LOSI STRANI, I DRUGI GOLEMI, ZA KOI KJE SE DOKAZE VO SVOE OSOBITO MESTO I VREME. I SE TOA IZLEGUJE OD TAMO, STO NEMAME VO NASAVA TATKOJNA, KAO STO REKOVME PO-
, na primer, bugarskiot vesnik Pravo vo vrska so antibugarskite aktivnosti na Kuzman [apkarev vo brojot od 30.11.1870 godina napi{al: Toj beden u~itel vo Kuku{ ja napu{ta slu`bata koga }e mu tekne i odi od grad vo grad vo krstonosen pohod protiv knigite napi{ani na bugarski jazik (...) Vo Ohrid... negovite prvi zborovi bile polni so omraza kon s# {to e bugarsko. Toj rekol: Odvaj se oslobodivme od Grcite, sega pak [opje li da staneme? Od seto pogore izneseno mo`e jasno da se razbere vo kakva propast saka da go turne narodot toj takanare~en gospodin, poradi {to nekoi ve}e se drznaa da izjavat deka: Nie sme Makedonci, a ne Bugari! I porano sme slu{nale od patnici deka nekoi od u~itelite vo Makedonija, a pred s# [apkarev, gi ubeduvale na{ite makedonski bra}a deka edno bile Bugarite i bugarskiot jazik, a drugo Makedoncite i makedonskiot jazik. Samiot Kuzman [apkarev okolu 1884 godina vo vrska so obnovuvaweto na Ohridskata arhiepiskopija izjavil: Narodot se voodu{evuva{e od idejata za obnova na Ohridskata nezavisna arhiepiskopija ili - kako {to ja narekuvaa mesnite `iteli - Ohridska patrijar{ija. Sekoj se potsetuva{e i si zamisluva{e kako li izgledala taa vo zlatnite vremiwa koga postoela.
Gospodin Kogan bil profesor i docent na katedrata za zapadna knizevnost vo St. Peterburg. Vo vrska so Makedojnija i makedonskiot narod toj medju drugoto veli vo 1929 godina:
"SITUACIJATA VO KOJA STO SE NAODJA MAKEDONSKIOT NAROD E NAJFRAPANTEN DOKAZ ZA HIPOKRIZIJATA STO SE NAODJA VO OSNOVATA NA SOVREMENATA CIVILIZACIJA. DRZAVNICITE NA ONIE ZEMJI STO VO NASEVO VREME I DAVAAT TON NA MEDJUNARODNATA POLITIKA NEPREKINATO RECITIRAAT FRAZI ZA HUMANOSTA, ZA PRAVOTO NA NARODITE NA SAMOOPREDELUVANJE, ZA SLOBODATA I ZA PRAVATA, DODEKA PRED OCITE NA CIVILIZIRANIOT SVET SE VRSI EDNA MONSTRUOZNA NEPRAVDA. MAKEODNSKIOT NAROD E RASPARCEN NA TRI DELA. SE OBIDUVAAT DA JA IZBRISAT NACIONALNATA KULTURA NA EDEN NAROD STO POSTOI ILJADNICI GODINI. PRED OCITE NA SITE ONIE STO SE PROKLAMIRAAT KAKO ZASTITNICI NA MALITE NARODI SE ZATVORAAT UCILISTA, SE UKINUVAAT VESNICI, GO PROGONUVAAT MAJCINIOT JAZIK NA LUDJETO STO SE VINOVNI SAMO ZATOA STO SAKALE DA ZIVEAT SPORED SVIOTE OBICAI..."
Evropa za Makedonija 1925-1929, Skopje, 1991, str. 172-73.
Gavril, arhiepiskop ohridski do Ferdinand "
"...the Turk, who from day to day has pursued and blackmailed us and our ancestors ....in the whole of Macedonia, Greece and the nearby countries...then among our countries we have Bulgaria, Serbia, Macedonia, Oltenia..."
Arhiva: Landesregierungsarchive - Innsbruck, VI str. 50.
"Секој Македонец, приспомнувајќи си за Александра Македонски, вели: 'Ние сме го имале цар Александар Велики.'"
"Македонија", број 4, Русе, 11.ХI.1888 год.:
Makedonskata emigracija vo Tuin Severin (Romanija)
preku nastojnistvoto na makedonskoto drustvo vo gradot
ispraka paricni prilozi za Makedonskoto (Kresnensko)
vostanie. Pismoto e pisuvano od strana na Makedonskite
emigranti koi nemaat dojdeno vo dopir so Bugarskata
fanariotska propaganda i nivnite patrijarsiski
ucilista vo Makedonija.
Razlikite se ocigledni:
"7 Januari 1979
Sveprepreosvesenejsemu G. mitropolitu Natanailu i
Kirilu i svima Makedoncima koe se nalazu na bojnome
polju.
Vasega poverenoga izbranoga coveka, od slavnoga
komiteta po imenu G-n Ilija Krstov, inace zupan, roden
v Struga, koj e prinel vasite rukopisani vi pisma za
Turnu Seferinu, i svima Makedoncima koito podbuzdavate
za narodnata ni svoboda ispod turskoga iga ili jarmom,
koj stenje od pesto leta pa i do denes, ama vidimo
denes da smo ostali od sviju slavjanski narodi najzad
za naseto ni osvobozdenie i vidimo da smo na Berlinski
kongres izostaveni od slavna Evropejska komisija koja
e poslata v Makedonija da ustrojava nekakvi zakoni i
sama za sebe da ostavi Makedonija pod Otomanskoga
guvernatora. Za oto treba da pokazeme cele one
evropejske komisije kolko pati sa vek dadeni turski
revormi pod garancija evrepejska. Ne znamo li mi
pedeset i cetvrto leto kad e velika slavna Rusija
voevala protiv pet velike sile za osvobozdenieto na
Polubalkanski Ostrov, pa i onda su dati revorme od
sviu sila i opet Otomanska porta nie niso ispunila sa
niovom andministraciom, pa do hiljado osamstotin i
sedamdeset i sedme godine kade sasvim digla se turska
orda i nenasiti Cerkezi da sataru sasvim slavjanski
element koi zivi na Polubalkanski Ostrov.
Pa se tog dana velika slavna Rusija dize i velikij
gosudar Aleksandar Nikolaevic se celom negovom
semejstvom i negovom hrabrom vojskom, uge u
Polubalkanskom ostrovu da oslobodi sviu balkanski
narodi na Balkanskom Poluostrova ziveeki. Ali nama
Makedoncima, na zalost ostana na Berlinskija kongres,
koj e bija najveki protivnik engleskija diplomatin G-n
Salizburi i G-n Binkosvild i G-n Andrasia diplomatina
na austriskata imperija.
Zaoto nama sega nisto ne preostae nego treba da se
dignemo sickite Makedonci protivo nasite neprijateli i
da proleimo krvta za osvobozdenieto ni, za da vidi
cela Evropa da smo narod dostojni da primimo svobodata
i da postanemu u redu megu izobrazenoga sveta, sa
nasata ni administracija. U ostalo treba da dokazemo
cele evrope na javnost s oruzjeto u ruki svoboda –
svoboda, smrt ili zivot.
Zato umoljavamo Makedonskoga Centralnoga Komiteta da
bi zadovoljni bili sa ovom nasom malom moguknostom,
koi se nalazi u Turnu Seferinu za ovoga prvoga puta, a
u buduki ke mo se vise potrudeiti, a imena nihova koi
su prilozili zarad svobodata narodna ke te vidit u
prilozenome spisku.
7 januari 1879 god
Turnu Seferinu
(pecat)
Clenovno drustvo
Turnu Seferinu
G. Kosta Hristov iz Ohrida
G. Ilija Pop Jovcev iz Skople
G. Janko Sekulov vevcanin"
(vo prodolzenie ostanatite clenovi na drustvoto)
(B'lgarski Patrijarh Kiril, S'protivata srestu
Berlinskija dogovor, sofija, 1955, str. 158-159 (dok.
34)).
Bosanskiot zapisuvac na makedonski narodni umotvorbi i obicai, Stefan Verkovic, poznato e deka prestojuval vo Makedonija poveke godini vo sredinata na 19. vek. Toj priznava deka bil mnogu iznenaden koga vo Makedonija otkril narodni pesni za licnosti od anticka Makedonija. Ovie pesni toj gi proglasil kako svoe NAJGOLEMO OTKRITIE. Vo edno svoe pismo Verkovic svedoci:
"Ova premnogu vazno i nenadejno otkritie se sluci vo prvata cetvr¬tina na 1865 godina. Toa bese edna mala pesna za Aleksandar Veliki, carot Makedonski. Do krajot na godinata najdov uste dve pesni za nego. Sled¬nata 1866 godina naidov na uste postaro otkritie - na pesna za Orpheus!
(Stefan Verkovic, cit. delo, str. 347).
Stefan Verkovic dal i drugi svedoatva za makedonski narodni tvor¬bi so anticko-makedonski elementi, na koi naisol za vreme na svojot dolgovremen prestoj vo Makedo¬nija. Pritoa svedoci deka golem broj vakvi predanija imalo kaj makedon¬skoto koleno (posiroko semejstvo) MARVACI, ziteli na del od denesniot pirinski del od Make¬do¬nija.
Na str. 152, Verkovic pisuva:
"Marvacite... go naseluvaat nevrokopskiot okrug sto se prostira medju planinata Kremen i Momina Kula i sluzi kako estetski del medju Nevrokop i Razlog...Kaj Marvacite ima prikazni i narodni predanija od najodamnesnoto minato, koi bi mozele da popolnat mnogu prazni mesta vo opstata i mesna slovenska istorija, kako i da razjasnat i korigiraat mnogu pogresni i neumesni mislenja i dokazi na starite i novi istoricari za narodite sto ziveat na Balkanskiot Poluostrov, za nivnite pradedovci, starite Trakijci, Makedonci i Iliri..."
Vo sredinata na 19. vek francuskiot slavist SIPRIJAN ROBER zapisal edna pesna za Aleksandar Makedonski, koj gi molel bogovite da bdeat (citat):
"Nad negoviot narod slaven so herojski srca, poradi {to zasluzu¬vame da go nosime ubavoto ime Sloveni. Ova ime go dobivme od ustata na samiot Aleksandar, voshituvajki se na junastvoto nase, junakot od Makedonija izrece pred smrtta deka go prokolnuva sekogo, koj, vo idnina ke govori loso za narodot slaven. Na toj narod, kako nagrada za junackite dela toj mu gi zavesta oblastite sto se prostiraat od Jadranskoto More pa se do okeanot na vecnite ledovi. Aleksandar sakase celata taa zemja nikogas da ne zivee po drugi zakoni, osven po zakonite na slavnite."
(Citirano od knigata na L. Slaveska, str. 34-35). Inaku, ovoj zavet e objaven vo original na francuski vo 1852 godina.
-----------
-Vo sredinata na 19. vek francuskiot slavist SIPRIJAN ROBER zapisal edna pesna za Aleksandar Makedonski, koj gi molel bogovite da bdeat (citat):
"Nad negoviot narod slaven so herojski srca, poradi {to zasluzu¬vame da go nosime ubavoto ime Sloveni. Ova ime go dobivme od ustata na samiot Aleksandar, voshituvajki se na junastvoto nase, junakot od Makedonija izrece pred smrtta deka go prokolnuva sekogo, koj, vo idnina ke govori loso za narodot slaven. Na toj narod, kako nagrada za junackite dela toj mu gi zavesta oblastite sto se prostiraat od Jadranskoto More pa se do okeanot na vecnite ledovi. Aleksandar sakase celata taa zemja nikogas da ne zivee po drugi zakoni, osven po zakonite na slavnite."
(Citirano od knigata na L. Slaveska, str. 34-35). Inaku, ovoj zavet e objaven vo original na francuski vo 1852 godina.
OSAKA MAINICI SHIMBUN , 9-ti avgust i 14-ti avgust 1903 godina:
"Telegrama od London od 7-mi avgust:
Boris Sarafov od MAKEDONSKIOT KOMITET proglasi vostanie vo Makedonija!
Izgleda deka e mnogu tesko da se najde temelen nacin za da se resat problemite na Balkanot. Se stravuva deka ako prodolzi borbata, mirot vo Evropa isto taka ke bide narusen. Povikuvajki se na vestite sto doadjaat od London, vostanieto se uste se siri, a zgora na toa izvrsen e i atentat vrz ruskiot konzul. Vostanicite se sostaveni od: MAKEDONCI, Bugari i Albanci, dodeka za najva`na licnost se smeta Boris Sarafov koj gi vodi MAKEDONCITE. Boris Sarafov e golem revolucioner i sega idninata na Makedonija zavisi od nego...izgleda negovite planovi zasega pocnaa da se ostvaruvaat..."
http://www.vreme.com.mk/komentari.action?id=10141&broj=171
Во црквите од 19 век се пеело на македонски јазик
Весна Дамчевска
"Карактеристично е дека етнографските разлики во Македонија кон крајот на 18 и во почетокот на 19 век не претставува никаков интерес за европскиот свет. Иако Македонија тогаш беше во извесна мера снабдувач на многу гранки на европската индустрија... Европските трговци занесени со своите шпекулации и немаа некое посебно интересирање за ваквите прашања, а научниот свет на Европа, преку него и практичните политичари, врз база на старите историв и податоци, кои одделни патеписци ги добиваа од чичероните за Македонија, обично Грци или Власи. знаеја само толку дека Македониjа е "грчка" земја, населена со Грци со грчка историја, преданија в обичаи. Тие ја сметаа Македонија за составен дел на Грција и не знаеја дека мнозинството од населениетс во неа не е грчко, туку словенско" (Драган Ташковски "Раѓањето не македонската нација", Скопје 1970 с. 119)
Зборот "чичерони" (италијански cicerone), што го употребил Д Ташковски, значи водичи низ италијанските градови, подбивно наречени така по името на римскиот беседник Цицерон
---
Statii so makedonska nacionalna sodr`ina objavuval i vesnikot Deb,r, koj bil pod vlijanie na Sarafov. Taka, na primer, na 02.07. 1905 godina vo ovoj vesnik, e objavena statija, vo koja, pome|u drugoto, se veli:
Edna grupa Makedonci }e vojuva za avtonomijata na Makedonija za Makedoncite, za koja cel naskoro }e zapo~nat da izdavaat vesnik na makedonskoto nare~je.
Istiot vesnik, vo istata 1905 godina, bil edinstveniot vesnik vo Bugarija {to smelo go najavil izleguvaweto na vesnikot Vardar na Krste Misirkov, poradi koj vesnik Misirkov dobil zakani so smrt od strana na bugaromanite.
OD ITALIJANSKITE ARHIVI: General ENRICO TELLINI, clen na Medjunarodnata komisija za razgranicuvanje medju Jugoslavija i Albanija veli: "...Razgranicuvanjeto kje se vrsi vrz etnografski i geografski osnovi, za etnografska konstatacija, ke se utvrdi majciniot jazik na naselenieto t.e so koj se zboruva vo semejstvoto.....[Bitolskiot i Korcanskiot sandzak] i dvata pripadjaat na Bitolskiot vilaet. Prviot sandzak spored jazikot e makedonski, vtoriot albanski...linija na razgranicuvanje medju makedonskite kazi, Resenska i Ohridska na sever, so albanskite kazi Korcanska i Podgradecka (Starova) na jug.....Ljubanista makedonsko po jazik a Piskopeja, po jazik albansko..." Na molba na bugarskiot voen atase vo Carigrad, gen. Markov, koj se interesiral za "bugarskite sela vo Albanija", visokiot komesar na Italija vo Carigrad go zapoznal so opisot sto Gen. Telini go napravil za 18 makedonski sela vo Albanija: "Pri karakteriziranjeto na ovie sela, narocno go koristev opstiot apelativ makedonski, a ne bugarski, bidejkji nasekade, koga zitelite gi prasuvav za nivnata nacionalnost, tie site ednakvo odgovaraa so zborot Makedon, a koga kje dodadev Bugar, tie odgovaraa Makedon. Jazikot koj tie go govorat vo semejstvoto, i koj osven neznacitelni isklucoci, e edinstveniot koj tie go razbiraat e toj sto e poznat pod imeto makedonsko narecje i koj, kako sto govorat kompetentnite, ima izvesna srodnost so bugarskiot, kako sto postoi izvesna bliskot so bugarskoto naselenie..." Visokiot komesar na Italija vo Carigrad potoa go informira Ministerot za Nadvoresni raboti, Musolini na 18ti septemvri 1923 g., za nacinot na koj voenoto atase mu ja predal baranata informacija na bugarskiot general: "Istakna, se veli medju drugoto vo pismoto, deka selata za koi navedeniot general se interesira i od samite ziteli se narekuvaat makedonsi a ne bugarski." Italijansko MNR, Dokument 10628/1461 (dokument br. 103)
ROZMOWY Z KATEM (РАЗГОВОРИ СО ЏЕЛАТОТ), Ranstwawy Instytut Wydawniczy, Warszawa 1985
by
Kazimierz Moozarski
"Сепак, мислам дека Полјаците не се најдобрите конспиратори, иако навистина имаат големи традиции во заговорничката работа во текот на борбата за независност. Мислам дека подобри од Полјаците беа Македонците. Еднаш, пред војната, во Париз се сретнав со припадници на Македонската конспирација против Бугарите, Србите и Грците. Но тоа не е важно. Да се вратиме на вашиот ???Верволф???, хер Штроп." (c. 422, 4 пасус)
дополнување: "Werwolf" – во превод значи чудовиште или вампир, но по Втората светска војна овој збор асоцира директно на групата нацистички џелати-убијци.
Pismo na Italijanskiot visok komesar od Carigrad do Ministerstvoto za nadvoresni raboti vo Rim od 18 septemvri 1923 godina, vo vrska so makedonskite sela vo Albanija: "Visokiot komesar Br. 10628/1461 Do Kralskoto ministerstvo za nadvoresni raboti - Rim Carigrad 16-ti septemvri 1923 god. Predmet: Bugarski sela vo Albanija Vo vrska so mojot akt br. 4337/16 od 15 april ovaa godina i telegramata broj 236237/258 od 22 avgust ovaa godina na Ministerstvoto, cest mi e da ja izvestam V.E. deka so posredstvo na Kr. voen atashe na Gen. Markov mu gi prenesov informaciite koi toj gi pobara' vo vrska so bugarskite sela na albanska teritorija. Spored moite upatstva, Kr. voen atashe usmeno gi dal baranite informacii za da se izbegne na Gen. Markov da mu se ostavi primerok ili izvodi od dokumentite koi gi dobiv od Ministerstvoto. Istakna deka selata za koi navedeniot general se interesira i od samite ziteli se narekuvaat "makeodnski", a ne bugarski. So dlaboka pocite Visokiot komesar (potpis necitok) (IDA MNRI, papka 712 (Albanija 1919-30); DARM, KC 21, p 712, predmet broj 3; prevod od italijanski jazik)
Crnogorskiot general i etnograf JOVAN LIPOVAC napisal interesen esej pod naslov "MAKEDONSKOTO PRASANJE" vo 1889 g. Vo esejot kje zabelezi deka nekolku godini nanazad, Makedoncite se narekuvale Makedonci, iako zaradi religioznite podelbi pocnale da gi delat na Srbi i Bugari.
No isto taka zabelezal deka vo posledno vreme se zboruva za novata mlada makedonska partija koja kje zastanela zad parolata "Makedonija na Makedoncite" (4 godini pred da se formira BMPO).
Lipovac znaci "otkril" deka Makedoncite ne si nitu Srbi, Bugari ni Grci, bez ogled od kakva etnicka "smesha" tie proizleguvaat (toj misli deka se od antickite Makedonci vo smesa so Pelazgite, i drugite juzni balkanski narodi). Kazuva deka ne uspeale da gi pretopat i deka "TUKA SE OSTVARUVA EDEN PROCES VO KOJ MAKEDONCITE KJE JA ISTAKNAT PAROLATA 'MAKEDONIJA NA MAKEDONCITE'...MAKEDONCITE DO VCERA NE ZNAELE DEKA SE SRBI ILI BUGARI, TUKU SAMO MAKEDONCI - a pocnale poinaku da se cuvstvuvaat odnosno imenuvaat pod vlijanie na bugarskata i srpskata propaganda (str. 28 i 165)
--------
Stratis Mirivilis e avtor na romanot "Zivotot vo grobot". Ranet e za vreme na Prvata svetska vojna i grckata komanda go smestila vo kukjata na edno makedonsko semejstvo:
"Vekje edna nedela mojot zivot tece vo ovaa tivka kukja kako edna tivka i mirna vodicka niz mekata treva. Dlabokata potreba sto me tera povekje da komuniciram so originalnata dusa na ovie luge me prinuduva uporno da navlezam vo znacenjeto na nivniot jazicen idiom. Toj pretstavuva slovenska granka so mnogu turski i grcki elementi. Vpecatok mi ostavi naglaskata na edna mazestvena fonetika vo ovoj jazik...Ovie selani, cij jazik dobro go razbiraat i Bugarite i Srbite, prvite gi mrazat bidejkji decata im gi zedoa vojnici. Vtorite pak gi mrazat bidejkji gi maltretiraat kako navodni Bugari. I nas Romeite propatuvaci ne gledaat so simpaticna ljubopitnost, kako avtenticni podanici na Patrik, t.e. na proslaveniot Patrijarh od Konstantinopol, bidejkji negovite idei se rasprostiraat, makar obvitkani vo matna i cudna tainstvenost vrz ovoj hristijanski svet i bidejkji na grobovite na nivnite stari dostoinistvenici ima ploci so grcki natpisi, ovie isti pisma sto se ispisani vrz iskrivenite ikoni i starite crkovni knigi. Sepak, tie ne sakaat da bidat nitu Bugari, nitu Srbi, nitu Grci, tuku samo ortodoksni Makedonci."
(Imeto Makedonija i Makedonci vo istorijata, Ljuboten, Skopje 1996, str. 149).
Архимандрит Герасим Зелић / Ова његова аутобиографија, објављена у Будиму 1823. године, под насловом: "Житије сирјеч Рожденије, Воспитаније, Странствованија и различита по свијету и отачеству прикљученија и страданија Герасим Зелића Архимандрита Свето-Успонске обитељи Крупе у Далмацији".
биоградски лист "Маћедонија", орган Старо Србијанаца и Маћедонаца, [39] Цетињски лист, бр. 6, 19. I 1911.
Београд, 1897 (Српска књижевна задруга, књ. 36), стр. 75-104, 175-182 и даље.
У Лембергу нађем њеколико трговаца Влаа … Македо-Власи, који нису Грци, но Македоњани од Москопоља, расијавши се по свој Европи од турскога зулума.
У законику Душанову спомињу се уз властелу Србе и властела Грци (чл. 40) и властела Нијемци (чл. 199). На државнијем саборима, који су стварали Душанов законик, била је заступљена и Македонија као саставни дио српске царевине, па кад би Македонци заиста били Бугари, зар се не би као такови и у законику споменули?
Да су Македонци били Бугари, не би се Вукашин, чија је краљевина била у Македонији, називао само ''Господин земљи српској и Грком и западнијем странама''.
И традиција народна вавијек узимље Македонију у српском смислу. Божидар Вуковић има на својим књигама: ''Од Диоклитије, јеже јест ва пределех маћедонијских''. У ''Повјести о благочествијем и христољубивјем Георгии Черновићје, нареченом Скендер-бег''. (Глас 22.) стоји писано: ''В Македонији ж в Србјех... Епир, кои крај јест част Македонии на предјелах Србскија земли ... христијански књаз Иван, прозивајеми Кастријот, од кољена краљева македонских т.ј. србских''. Народна пјесма ''Смрт војводе Кајице'' називље Ђурђа Смедеревца ''краљем од Маћедоније'' тј. од Србије. И некоји страни писци, као Хајнрих Милер у својој књизи ''Turkische Chronica'' и непознати писци у књизи ''Von Ursachen der Christen verderben in der Schlachten wider Turcken und Heyden'', држе Македонију за српску земљу.
Бела IV се назива "краљем Бугарске".
Упада у очи у XVI веку необично проширени појам Мађедоније у нашим крајевима. У народним песмама у Мађедонију се рачунају Смедерево и Пећ. Поменути штампар Божидар Вуковић казује 1519. год. за себе, да је отачаством из Подгорице "у пределима маћедонским", а после тако исто говоре за себе и неки писари из херцеговачке Завале, из Мораче, па и из Сарајева. Вук Караџић је тврдио "да су се Маћедонија српски звале све земље народа нашега", док је И. Руварац мислио, да је то означавање ствар сујете, "хотећи да се праве важни и да своје порекло доводе из тако важних историских места, као што је била Филипа и Александра Великога Маћедонија". Тумачење је, међутим, много простије. Назив Маћедоније за све српске земље проширио се од оног времена, кад је Охридска црква обухватила под својом влашћу све те области. Glava: Обнова пећке патријаршије
Владимир Ћоровић: Историја Срба
http://www.mpu.org.yu/srpski/naredne%20izlozbe/heraldika.htm
Beogradski grbovnik II, Grb Cara Stefana Du#353;ana ,
po#269;etak 17. veka,
MPU, inv. br. 9869
Beogradski grbovnik II, Grb Cara Uro#353;a ,
po#269;etak 17. veka,
MPU, inv. br. 9869
документи се гледа дека императорот Василј II сакал Охридската архиепископија-патријаршија “да ја заштити од посегнувањата на Цариградската патријаршија”, која покажувала постојани аспирации кон Охрид, но “и од мешањето на цивилната административна власт во работата на патријаршијата”. Под закана на строги казни, ги предупредил властите “доследно да го почитуваат поглаварот на Охридската црква и да не се мешаат во црковните работи” (Ибид). Неговата наклоност кон Охрид се гледа и по тоа што за поглавар на Охридската црква го поставил дебарчанецот Јован (1018-1037), за кој се знае дека во 1020 година го подигнал манастирот Св. Јован Бигорски. (Спореди кај: Gustave Schlumberger, Li Epopee byzantine…, 424-425 и кај: Hainrich Gezler, Abriss der byzantinischen…, 988). Меѓутоа, тој поинаку гледал на големото Македонско Словенско Царство, што го обновил Самоил. Љубоморен на тој факт, по распаѓањето на тоа царство востановил посебна тема на која тенденциозно и' го дал името “Бугарија”. Тоа го сторил поради омразата и суетата што сеуште живеела во ромејско-хеленските државно-политички средини, во континуитет, уште од времето на Филип и Александар Македонски, бидејќи, како што е познато, во нивно време Елада (Атина и Спарта) и' била потчинета на Македонија. Ставајќи и' го бугарското име на новосоздадената тема, што ја сочинувале етнички македонски земји, целта била засекогаш да се избрише името Македонија и Македонци. (Спореди кај: Иван Дуљчев, Македониз…, 14-15). Овој мрачен, непримерен и тенденциозен акт на насилство, на најеклатантен и најуверлив начин го појаснува рускиот научник Дурново, кога вели:
“… Мора да се признае оти Охрид бил престолнина на Словено-Македонско царство, кое се именувало како бугарско, но кое немало ништо општо и заедничко со бившото Прибалканско и Заддунавско Царство. Македонското Царство се појавило по истерувањето на Бугарите од Македонија и тоа имало посебна династија, своја Патријаршија и свои патријарси”. (Н. Дурново, Имет’ ли Болгари исторически права нат’ Македонскољ Тракии…, 74).
Ова само како потстетување и сведоштво дека Самоиловата држава и Охридската патријаршија немале ниту српски, ниту бугарски карактер, како што се обидуваат да докажат современите српски и бугарски духовни аспиранти кон Македонија. Изворно и аргументирано во овој поглед звучи сведоштвото што ни го дава специјалниот пратеник на венецијанскиот крал Роджер (1138-1147), архимандрит Нил Доксопатрии, од 1143 година, кое се однесува на Охридската архиепископија-патријаршија. Архимандрит Нил, имено, современик на тие времиња и настани, на оригинален и пластичен начин го посведочува и обелоденува податокот, тврдејќи дека “Охридската црква никогаш не била потчинета под никого и никогаш не се нарекувала бугарска, дури и кога била под бугарска власт”, додавајќи дека “таа самостојно управувала и од свои епископи била осветувана, непотчинета на никој од врховните престоли...!”. (Види пошироко кај: Franz Nikolaus Funck, Des Nikos Dezopatres…, 21, кај: Марин Дринов, Исторически преглед…, 56-57 и кај: Акад. Љордан Иванов, Б’лгарски старини…, 562-464).
Ваков благонаклон однос и почит кон Охридската архиепископија-патријаршија од страна на српските окупаторски власти постоел и подоцна, по распаѓањето на Душановото Царство, во времето на Волкашин (1366-1371) и на син му Марко (1371-1395). И во нивно време строго се почитувала автокефалноста на Охридската црква и нејзините права и привилегии. Таа била ослободена од соперништвото на Српската архиепископија и претставувала “единствен црковен авторитет пред државата на Волкашина”. (Спореди кај: Стојан Новаковиќ, Законски споменици…, 311 и кај: Славко Димевски, Историја…, 161-164). И деспотството на Јован Углеша, брат на Волкашина, “ја признавало јурисдикцијата на Охридската архиепископија”. (Ибид). Охридскиот арх.-патр. Григориј II (1356-1377) дури бил поставен за советник на деспот Углеша по црковните работи, чија втора резиденција се наоѓала во градот Серез. (Спореди кај: Глиша Елезовиќ, Турски извори за историју Југословена…, XXVI, 56. Од истиот автор и: Огледало света…, 24, кај: А. Тверетинова, Беда-и ул векаи…, 726 и кај: Проф. д-р. Л Милетич, За Македонцитх…, 80). Во негово време “челното место меѓу црковните големодостојници на Деспотскиот Синод го заземал охридскиот поглавар” (Подвлечено кај: А. Соловјев и В. Мошин, Грчке повеље српских владара XXXVI, 5 и 75, кај: Иван Снхгаров, Историз…, I, 334-336 и кај: Рад. М. Грујиќ, Охридска архиепископија…, III, 251), и како најсуштествено, “видно се проширила диецезата на Охридската црква”. (Подвлечено кај: Hainrich Gelzer, Der wiederaufgefung…, 8 и 92-102, кај: Љуба Стојановиќ, Стари српски записи…, III, 42-44 и кај: Георги Д. Баласчев, Финансовото…, 8). Во 1369 година, Григориј II, поради високиот углед и авторитет што го уживал меѓу патријарсите во Источната екумена, “посредувал во еден спор што настанал меѓу деспот Јован Углеша и цариградскиот патријарх”. (Види пошироко кај: О. Halecki, Un Empereur de Byzance…, 153 и 180). На деспот Углеша, според Халецки, “охридскиот патријарх Гаврил II му бил драгоцен истомисленик и соработник”. (Ибид). Во времето, пак, на српскиот крал Стеван Радослав, зет на Теодор Комнен, “Српската црква ги возобновила односите со Охридската архиепископија”, бидејќи “ја сметала за своја мајка раководителка” (Ибид).
под ведомство на Охридската црква се наоѓала и Киевска Русија, а силно влијание имала и врз Русија”. (М. Д. Приселков, Очерки по церковнополитичско истории…, том 116, стр. 160-165).
Истакнатиот руски историчар Приселков соопштува дека “Киевска Русија христијанската вера ја примила - не од Византија, туку од рацете на охридскиот архиепископ”, и дека, “Руската црква била една од епархиите на Охридската архиепископија”. (Цитирано кај: М. Д. Приселков, Очерки…, 14-54). Поткрепа на тој факт претставува титулирањето на охридските поглавари. Имено, арх.-патр. Атанасиј I (1593-1619), во кореспонденцијата со некои кралеви, вицекралеви и кнезови на европските земји, со кои одржувал дипломатски врски, се титулирал како: “По Божја милост Патријарх на Прва Јустинијана Охридска, на цела Бугарија, Србија, Македонија, Арванија, Унгровлахија, Русија и проче…”. (Види кај: M. Lacko, Alcuni documenti…, 631). Во старите руски летописи монахот Нестор открил дека “руската кнегиња Олга и нејзиниот внук, кнезот Владимир, биле покрстени во Охрид”, првата во 955, а вториот, во 987 година. Притоа соопштува дека “тие не отишле во Цариград, туку во Охрид, во првиот словенски светилник на христијанството”. (Ибид. Цитирано и кај: В. Мошин, Христианство в России…, 1-18 и кај: М-р. Наталија Стрељчук, Руската кнегиња Олга…, 21).
http://www.sgu.ru/faculties/historical/sc.publication/vseob.hist./slavyanskiy_sbornik/makedon.php
МАКЕДОНИЈА И МАКЕДОНЦИТЕ ВО ДЕЛОТО НА НИКИФОР
ГРИГОРА – ВИЗАНТИСКИ ИСТОРИОГРАВ ОД XIV ВЕК
Никифор Григора (1295–1360) роден е во епископскиот град Хераклеја на Понт. За неговите родители не се знае ништо. Фамилијата не можела да влијае на развојот на Григора, бидејќи на 10 години останал без двата родитела. Повеќе отколку за родителите Григора оставил спомен за неговиот вујко-хераклејски епископ Јован, кој што му го овозможил образоването.
Во престолнината Н. Григора се дружел со Теодор Метохит и патријархот Јован XIII Гликас. Тоа му го трасирало патот на византискиот двор. Императорот Андроник II инаку самиот астроном аматер, сакал да се дружи со образовани луѓе и со нив да води научни разговори. Григора имал можност да настапи пред императорот со свое реторичко излагање и да ги здобие неговите симпатии. Императорот му понудил на Григора функција хартофилакс, но Григора му се заблагодарил и останал доследен на својот став да не учествува во политиката. Неговите амбиции биле на друга страна. Веќе имал завршено неколку дела, кога во 1324 година предложил реформа на календарот, кое нешто уште повеќе го афирмирало како научник. Императорот го одобрувал предлогот,но немал енергија или не наоѓал сила да се обиде да го оствари во држава што не била склона кон промени. Сепак Н. Григора во својот живот прифатил една политичка мисија, која што има важност и за нас. Бил испратен во Србија како пратеник со задача да ја наговори ќерката на Теодор Метохит-Ирина, своја некогашна ученичка, да се врати во Византија (1327). Таа по низа околности се затекнала на дворот на српскиот крал Стефан Урош III Дечански, инаку нејзин зет, но не како гостинка, туку таму живеела во избеглиштво. Нејзиниот сопруг паниперсеваст Јован Палеолог, внук (од брат) на императорот Андроник II Палеолог, се одметнал од него со желба да се осамостои во еден дел од Империјата.
Зад себе Григора оставил обемна книжевна заоставштина. Особено е значајна за нас неговата «Ромејска историја» од 37 книги. Освен неа пишувал писма, две астрономски дела и други дела, на број до 80.
Со историографија Н. Григора се занимавал «одамна», како што сам вели на едно место. Истражувачите откриле податоци дека материјал прибирал уште во времето на симнувањето на Андроник II (1328). Од тогаш па се до смртта Н. Григора се занимавал со историја, но на тоа поле не ги растурил своите напори во големиот број разновидни дела, туку ги посветил на своето главно дело «Ромејска историја».
Формално Н. Григора го започнал своето дело од 1204 година, како пресвртница во историјата на Византија. Но, излагањето на Григора има карактер на вовед се до осмата глава, каде што почнува расказот за судирот помеѓу двајцата Андрониковци. Во својот вовед Григора се потпира на неговите претходници, претежно на Георги Пахимер и Георги Акрополит.
Истражувачите многу се труделе да утврдат кога е напишана «Ро-мејската историја». На крајот е заклучено дека таа е пишувана на «бранови», од 1328–1338 г. Сепак делото не можело да биде завршено пред 1341 година, бидејќи во него е поместен надгробниот говор за императорот Андроник III , значи го завршил 1344, а го објавил 1347 година. Тогаш веќе Н. Григора ги имал напишано поглавијата на продолжетокот до 1354 година.
Григориното дело постепено продрело во книжевната традиција кај Јужнословенските народи. Дел од податоците што се наоѓаат во првите 11 книги ги искористил Мавро Орбин, авторот на «Кралството на Словените» што се смета за прва историја на Јужните Словени (1*).
Во првиот дел од «Ромејската историја» на Н. Григора, иако не е современик за тоа, сепак дава податоци и за Македонија и Македонците. Приредувачите на збирката «Византијски извори за историју народа Југославије», Том VI, Београд 1986, посебно преведувачите на Н. Григора: Сима Чирковиќ и Божидар Ферјанчиќ ги преведуваат тие податоци без коментар, што може да значи дека ги прифаќаат истите (2*). За разлика од нив издавачите на «Извори за българската история» том ХХV-Гръцки извори за българската история, XI, Софија 1983 година, Ал. Милев и Л. Јончев се обидуваат во своите коментари да докажат дека Н. Григора се служи со «античката терминологија но не секогаш е доследен во тоа, бидејќи кога зборува за Македонија и Македонците мисли на визнтиската тема Македонија»(3*) во Тракија. Поведен од нив и Петар Коледаров во своето дело 1 «Името Македонии в историческата география» Софија 1985, доаѓа до слични заклучоци, но признава дека во поголем дел Н. Григора е «доследен» во архаизацијата. Сепак, смета Коледаров дека Н. Григора не е целосно доследен и дека понекогаш се влијае од средновековната макротопонимија, наложена од византиските теми (4*). За таа цел наведува податоци од «Ромејската историја» кои се однесуваат на периодот од XIII век, кои што Н. Григора ги презел од своите претходници и за кои не е современик. Но, и тие податоци не се целосно презентирани, туку само фрагментарно. Токму затоа се наметна потребата да се презентираат сите податоци што ги дава Н. Григора за Македонија и Македонците, како современик и истите да се коментираат, за да се види кога зборува за «темата» Македонија, а кога за историско-географската област Македонија. И овде исто така се презентирани и оние податоци од Н. Григора за кои тој не бил современик.
Прв пат Н. Григора споменува за Македонија кога зборува за бугарско-никејската војна 1221/22 и епирско-никејската 1222/24 година и крунисувањето на Теодор Ангел за цар од страна на Охридскиот архиепископ Димитри Хоматијан. Во првата епизода Н. Григора вели дека: «…така лесно Јован (Јован Асен II 1218–1241 гг.) ги прегазил сите места до Солун и Македонија и ги претворил сите села, градови и тврдини како што се вели во скитска пустина…(#954;#945;#953; #959;#973;#964;#969; #960;#940;#957;#964;#945; '#961;#940;#948;#943;#969;#962; #972; #921;#969;#940;#957;#957;#951;#962; #954;#945;#964;#941;#948;#961;#945;#956;#949;#957; #940;#967;#961;#953; #952;#949;#963;#963;#945;#955;#959;#957;#943;#954;#951;#962; #954;#945;#953; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#962;, #972;#960;#972;#963;#945; #949;#954; #954;#974;#956;#945;#953;#962; #954;#945;#953; #960;#972;#955;#949;#963;#953; #954;#945;#953; #966;#961;#959;#965;#961;#943;#959;#953;#962; , #957; #941;#961;#951;#956;#943;#945;#957;, #964;#959; #948;#951; #955;#949;#947;#972;#956;#949;#957;#959;#957;, #940;#960;#959;#948;#949;#943;#958;#945;#962;)» (5*). Но овој бугарски#61479;#61557;#61553;#61557;#61547;#61523;#956;#953;#954;#961;#959;#973; напад бил со грабачки карактер, бидејки кон Солун се проширил епирскиот владетел Теодор Ангел. За тоа Н. Григора вели «најпосле го покорил и самиот главен град #957;#61479;#61557;Солун, кој што е прв во земјата на Македонците… (#941;#969;#962; #954;#945;#953; #945;#965;#964;#942;#957; #942; #964;#951;#962; #964; #957; #952;#949;#963;#963;#945;#955;#959;#957;#943;#954;#951;#957;)» (6*). Токму#61558;#962; #941;#967;#949;#953;#961;#974;#963;#945;#964;#959; #956;#949;#947;#945;#955;#972;#960;#959;#955;#953;#957; #964;#951;#61479;#951;#964;#945;#953; #947;#951;#61553;#924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#972;#957;#969;#957; #960;#961;#959;#954;#940; овој податок А. Милев и Л. Јончев го коментираат дека «се однесува на жителите на темата Македонија» (7*), а знаеме дека Солун не бил главен град на таа тема, туку тоа бил градот Одрин и уште повеќе Солун не влегувал во составот на темата Македонија. С. Чирковиќ овој дел го преведува нешто поинаку: «го зазел и Солун главен град на Македонија» (8*).
Во веста за крунисувањети на Теодор Ангел за цар Н. Григора ја истакнува улогата на Охридскиот архиепископ, при што се задржал на името «бугарска архиепископија» и дава објаснување како е добиено тоа име, велејќи дека таа од порано не се викала така, туку откако била завладеана од Бугарите била наречена «бугарска» (9*).
Н. Григора и податоците за битката во Пелагонија што се водела помеѓу никејските војски и антиникејската коалиција во 1259 година ги презел од Георги Акрополит. При подготовките за таа битка дошло до бугарски продор во Тракија, при што никејските војски презеле контра офанзива. При тоа «тие успеале да ја заземат Македонија» што најверојатно се однесува на «темата Македонија» во Тракија, бидејќи тие дејства се одвивале надвор од историската област Македонија. Но, во екот на предиграта за битката во Пелагонија и епирскиот деспот (цар) Теодор Ангел решил да навлезе во Македонија и Тракија «тој претпоставувал дека штом ќе посака, лесно ќе ги помине со меч Македонија и Тракија» (#924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#957; #954;#945;#953; #952;#961;#940;#954;#951;#957; #945;#973;#964;#943;#954;#945; #956;#940;#955;#945; #946;#959;#965;#955;#972;#956;#949;#957;#959;#957;) (10*). Оваа вест може да се толкува во двојна смисла. Може да се однесува и на темата Македонија, а може да се однесува и на историска Македонија. По веројатно е второто гледиште, бидејќи Никејците неколку години пред таа битка (1251/52 год) повратиле некои градови во Македонија, за што впрочем зборува и Н. Григора, истакнувајќи дека: «кога царот (Јован III Ватац) стигнал во Солун и Македонија, повторно му паднале во раце повеќе западни градови. Нив нападот на Михаил (Михаил II епирски владетел) ги заплашил па за кратко време го изневериле, имено Костур и Преспа и уште многу други. Михаил му #954;#945;#953; #972;#61499;ги вратил на Царот покрај останатите и тврдините Прилеп и Велес» (#941;#960;#949;#953; #948;#949; #961;#940;#948;#943;#969;#962; #945;#943;#61479; #945;#973;#964;#969;#61546;#61552;#946;#945;#963;#953;#955;#949;#973;#962; #960;#949;#961;#943; #952;#949;#963;#963;#945;#955;#959;#957;#943;#954;#951;#957; #954;#945;#953; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#957; #941;#947;#941;#957;#949;#964;#959;, #960;#940;#955;#953;#957; #973; #960;#955;#949;#943;#959;#965;#962; #964;#969;#957; #948;#965;#964;#953;#954;#974;#957; #941;#947;#943;#957;#959;#957;#964;#959; #960;#972;#955;#949;#969;#957;, #972;#960;#972;#963;#945;#962; #942; #964;#959;#965; #913;#947;#947;#941;#955;#959;#965; #924;#953;#967;#945;#942;#955; #941;#966;#959;#948;#959;#962; #941;#954;#955;#972;#957;#951;#963;#941; #964;#949; #954;#945;#953; #960;#961;#959;#962; #946;#961;#945;#967;#973;#957; #964;#943;#957;#945; #967;#961;#972;#957;#959;#957; #960;#945;#961;#945;#964;#961;#945;#960;#942;#957;#945;#953; #960;#949;#960;#959;#943;#951;#954;#949;, #922;#945;#963;#964;#959;#961;#953;#940; #964;#949; #954;#945;#953; #928;#961;#941;#963;#960;#945;, #954;#945;#953; #949;#960;#943; #964;#959;#973;#964;#959;#953;#962; #949;#964;#949;#961;#945;#953; #959;#965;#954; #972;#955;#943;#947;#945;#953;.#972;ε#953;#962; #966;#972;#946;#959; #957;#61553;#963;#967;#945;#964;#959; #957; #963;#965;#957;#949;#955;#945;#61533;#957; #941;#61499;#949;#957; #949;#953;#962; #964;#959; #972; #924;#953;#967;#945;#942;#955; #960;#961;#949;#963;#946;#949;#973;#949;#964;#945;#953; #960;#961;#959;#962; #964;#959;#957; #946;#945;#963;#953;#955;#941;#945; #954;#945;#953; #964;#940;#962; #960;#961;#945;#964;#941;#961;#945;#963; #945;#957;#945;#954;#945;#955;#949;#943;#964;#945;#953; #963;#960;#959;#957;#948;#940;#962;, #957; #914;#949;#955;#949;#963;#972;#957;)#61499;#940;#960;#959;#948;#953;#948;#959;#973;#962; #945;#973;#964;#969; #954;#945;#953; #966;#961;#959;#973;#961;#953;#945;, #964;#945; #964;#949; #940;#955;#955;#945; #954;#945;#953; #964;#959;#957; #928;#961;#943;#955;#955;#945;#960;#959;#957;, #941;#957;#953; #964;#949; #964;#959; (11*). Споменатите градови никогаш не влегувале во темата Македонија, што значи станува збор за историска Македонија.
Дека е така потврдува понатамошното искажување на Н. Григора, кој што вели дека на пат за битката никејската војска «непосредно пред есенската рамнодневница (1259 год) стигнала кај Охрид и Девол. Тоа се македонски тврдини кои осигуруваат целосна безбедност #940;#957;#959;#965;#963;#953; #960;#949;#961;#943; #902;#967;#961;#943;#948;#945;#957; #964;#949; #954;#945;#953; #916;#949;#940;#946;#959;#955;#953;#957;. #934;#961;#959;#973;#961;#953;#945;#61553;на оние што ги поседуваат» (12*) (#966; #962;)#61479;#61545;#957; #940;#963;#966;#940;#955;#949;#953;#945;#957; #964;#959;#953;#962; #967;#961;#969;#956;#941;#957;#959;#953;#962; #945;#973;#964;#959;#61558;#964;#945;#973;#964;#945; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#962; , #960;#959;#955;#955;#942;#957; #960;#945;#961;#945;#963;#967;#972;#956;#949;#957;#945; #964;#951; (13*). Познато е дека Охрид и Девол никогаш не влегувале во византиската тема Македонија. Тоа значи, Н. Григора јасно кажува дека тие се македонски тврдини, мислејќи на историската територија на Македонија.
По битката во Пелагонија никејските војски набргу влегле во Цариград и ја обновиле Византија (1261 год.). Но непријателствата со западните држави продолжиле. Овде треба да се одбележи обидот на Карло Анжујски 1281/82 година преку својот војсководач Росонсул да ги завладее «Белград (Берат) и најважните утврдени места во #957; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#962;) (14*) и потоа#61479;#959;#963;#945; #964;#969;#61651;#957; #914;#949;#955;#955;#949;#947;#961;#940;#948;#969;#957; #966;#961;#959;#965;#961;#953;#959;#957; #954;#945;#953; #61479;Македонија» (#964;#969; да се насочи против Цариград.
Настаните опишани во вториот дел од Историјата на Никифор Григора се многу по аргументирани и поубедливи. Тука ќе ги посочиме податоците за Македонија што ги дава Н. Григора кога зборува за каталонската експедиција во Византија, посебно за дејноста во Македонија во периодот 1307-1311 година, како и односот на српскиот крал Милутин кон нив и кон Туркопулите. Над 5 000 Каталонци во есента 1307 година ги пљачкале селата на Македонија за да обезбедат продукти за зимата. Притоа кај градот Касандрија направиле логор за да ја поминат зимата. Во пролетта 1308 година ги нападнале градовите во Македонија, меѓу кои Солун бил нивна главна надеж, верувајќи дека од него би можеле да загосподарат со цела Македонија. Византискиот император Андроник II го осуетил тој план со тоа што наредил кај градот Христопол (Кавла) да се изгради сид од морето до врвот на блиската планина «така што местото станало непроодно за оние кои сакале да поминат од Тракија во Македонија или од Македонија во Тракија. Освен тоа испратил воени заповедници и им наредил да соберат доволно војска која ќе ги брани македонските градови» (15*) (#960;#941;#956;#968;#945;#962; #947;#945;#961; #960;#961;#974;#964;#959;#957; #956;#949;#957; #964;#959;#957; #960;#949;#961;#943; #964;#951;#957; #935;#961;#953;#963;#964;#959;#973;#960;#959;#955;#953;#957; #956;#945;#954;#961;#972;#957; #941;#954;#964;#953;#963;#949; #964;#949;#943;#967;#959;#962; #945;#960;#972; #952;#945;#955;#940;#963;#963;#951;#962; #956;#941;#967;#961;#953; #964;#951;#962; #940;#960;#945;#958; #956;#951; #946;#959;#965;#955;#959;#956;#941;#957;#969;#61553;#964;#959;#965; #960;#945;#961;#945;#954;#949;#953;#956;#941;#957;#959;#965; #972;#961;#959;#965;#962; #940;#954;#961;#969;#957;#965;#967;#943;#945;#962;•#969;#962; #940;#946;#945;#964;#959;#957; #949;#943;#957;#945;#953; #964;#959; #967;#969;#961;#943;#959;#957; #954;#945; #941;#955;#959;#965;#963;#953; #948;#953;#945;#946;#945;#943;#957;#949;#953;#957;, #964;#959;#953;#962; #964;' #945;#960;#972;#61553;#964;#969; #946;#945;#963;#953;#955;#949;#912; #964;#959;#953;#962; #964;' #949;#954; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#962; #949;#962; #920;#961;#940;#954;#951;#957; #941; #920;#961;#940;#954;#951;#962; #949;#962; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#957;... #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945; #960;#972;#955;#949;#969;#957;) (16*).
Од исказот јасно се гледа дека не станува збор за византиската тема Македонија, бидејќи таа била на територијата на Тракија. Крстопол е посочен како граница помеѓу Тракија и Македонија, иако се наоѓа на македонска територија.
По ова акција на Андроник II Каталонците се нашле во опасност од глад. Исто така стравувале «а не се обединат Илирите, Трибалите, Акарнанците и Тесалијците кои биле соседни племиња на Ромеите што живееле во Македонија» (17*) и така ги обиколат и убијат бидејќи нема каде да бегаат и да се спасат. По извесно време Каталонците ја напуштиле Македонија и преминале во Тесалиј и Средна Грција, каде што во 1311 година формирале своја држава со седиште во Атина (18*).
За тоа дека Н. Григора не зборува за византиската тема Македонија туку за историската територија на Македонија сведочат и податоците што ги дава за областа што ја управувал византискиот намесник Сиргијан, истакнувајќи дека «само што наполнил 25 години, царот го испратил за заповедник и управник на една област во Македонија и тоа онаа што ги има Илирите 19*) за најблиски соседи» (#928;#941;#956;#960;#964;#959;#957; #948;' #940;#961;#964;#953; #954;#945;#953; #949;#953;#954;#959;#963;#964;#972;#957; #964;#951;#962; #951;#955;#953;#954;#943;#945;#962; #941;#964;#959;#962; #945;#956;#949;#943;#946;#969;#957; #960;#941;#956;#960;#949;#964;#945;#953; #960;#961;#959;#962; #964;#959;#965; #946;#945;#963;#953;#955;#941;#969;#962; #963;#964;#961;#945;#964;#951;#947;#972;#962; #954;#945;#953; #948;#953;#959;#953;#954;#951;#964;#942;#962; #956;#953;#945;#962; #964;#969;#957; #960;#949;#961;#943; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#957; #949;#960;#945;#961;#967;#953;#974;#957; , #942; #964;#959;#965;#962; #921;#955;#955;#965;#961;#953;#959;#973;#962; #956;#940;#955;#953;#963;#964;#945; #972;#956;#959;#961;#959;#971;#957;#964;#945;#962; #941;#955;#945;#967;#949;) (20*). Според С. Чирковиќ и Б. Ферјанчиќ седиштето на Сиргијан било во Костур (21*), а тој е далеку од византиската тема Македонија.
Кон овие податоци треба да ги придодадеме и оние што зборуваат за граѓанскат војна во Византија водена помеѓу Андроник II (Стариот) и внук му Андроник III (Младиот). Посебно оние што се однесуваат за крајот на војната 1327 година. Н. Григора вели дека: «Стариот цар испратил тајни писма до кралот на Србија во врска со воената помош, а исто така и на синот Димитар, деспот, кој тогаш бил намесник во Солун и околината. Барал од него (Димитар) заедно со двајца свои роднини, протовестијарот Андроник и Михаил Асен, кои во тоа време се наоѓале како намесници во Белграт (Берат) и останатата Македонија (#914;#949;#955;#955;#949;#947;#961;#940;#948;#969;#957; #954;#945;#953; #964;#951;#962; #940;#955;#955;#951;#962; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#962;), и со македонските војски на прво место да ги обезбедат градовите на Македонија (#964;#940;#962; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#953;#954;#940;#962; #960;#972;#955;#949;#953;#962;) и да ги отстранат сите оние што се сомнителни» (22*). Овде Григора по грешка го ставил Белград (Берт) во Македонија, можеби поради подолгата припадност кон римската провинција Македонија или кон охридската архиепископија, бидејќи сеуште бил населен со Словени (23*).
Дека овие податоци не се однесуваат на темата Македонија сведочи и расказот на Н. Григора за неговото патување на српскиот двор 1326 (24*) година, кој е даден во писмото до Андроник Зарида, а исто така е поместен и во неговата «Ромејска историја» . Таму Григора кога зборува за преминот преку реката Струма вели дека «сите знаат оти Струма е непроодна река и за пешаци и за коњаници, бидејќи таа е најголемата река од тие што протекуваат низ Тракија и Македонија» (25*) потоа зборува за нејзините извори и т.н. и за патот до Струмица. За одбележување е неговата констатација дека «се наоѓавме во туѓи места во непрегледен мрак и притоа меѓу луѓе кои не го знаеа нашиот (грчки б.м.) јазик... некои од нашите разбраа нешто од нивниот јазик» (26*) (#960;#974;#962; #947;#945;#961; #959;#965;; #949;#957; #964;#972;#960;#959;#953;#962; #940;#955;#955;#959;#964;#961;#943;#959;#953;#962; #972;#957;#964;#969;#957; #954;#945;#953; #940;#969;#961;#943;#945; #964;#959;#953;#945;#948;#949; #954;#945;#953; #947;#955;#974;#963;#963;#942; #960;#961;#959;#962; #964;#959;#973;#964;#959;#953;#962; #959;#973;#967; #967;#961;#974;#956;#949;#957;#959;#953;;...#942;#963;#945;#957; #947;#945;#961; #959;#953; #954;#945;#953; #964;#969;#957; #951;#956;#949;#964;#941;#961;#969;#957; #964;#951;#962; #949;#954;#949;#943;#957;#969;#957; #947;#955;#974;#964;#964;#951;#962; #959;#965; #960;#940;#957;#965; #964;#959;#953; #945;#948;#945;#949;#943;#962; #942;#963;#945;#957;) (27*). За време на престојот во Струмица го отпразнувале Велигден, за што Н. Григора вели: «целата (црковна) служба, стројното пеење и мелодичноста на светите песни немаат никакво значење за тукашните жители, бидејќи се служат со варварски јазик и карактерот им е воопшто сличен повеќе за земјоделци» (28*).
Овие податоци не може да се однесуваат на темата Македонија, идејќи тамошните жители го знаеле грчкиот јазик, а и богослужбата во византиските теми се вршела на официјалниот грчки јазик. Тоа значи дека под Македонија овде Н. Григора ја подразбира класичната историска Македонија.
Во рамките на таа Македонија Н. Григора ги става и градовите Сер, Мелник и Просек. Тоа особено се проучува од неговиот расказ за крајот на граѓанската војна во Византија 1328 година. Тука Григора истакнува дека Андроник Младиот се пробил до Серги победил деспот Димитри и Михаил Асен и «тргнал понатаму и ги поминал во тек на малку денови сите гратчиња во Македонија (....) лесно и без отпор ги потчинил» (29*) (...#964;#951;#957; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#957; #960;#959;#955;#943;#967;#957;#953;#945;...) (30*). Приврзаниците на стариот император кои «порано ги испратил да управуваат во областите и градовите на Македонија» биле со жените и децата заробени. Михаил Асен за да се спаси влегол во Просек, кој подоцна го предал на српскиот крал (#972; #948;#949; #902;#963;#940;#957; #924;#953;#967;#945;#942;#955; #963;#960;#949;#973;#963;#945;#962; #949;#953;#963;#942;#955;#949;#957; #949;#962; #964;#959; #964;#959;#965; #928;#961;#959;#963;#953;#940;#954;#959;#965; #960;#959;#955;#943;#967;#957;#953;#959;#957;... #960;#945;#961;#940; #964;#959;#965; #922;#961;#940;#955;#951; #931;#949;#961;#946;#943;#945;#962; #966;#961;#959;#965;#961;#940;#957;) (31*).
Исто така Н. Григора е прецизен во употребата на името Македонија, кога зборува за српско-византиската војна 1333–1334 година, посебно за пребегнувањето на Сиргијан кај Душан. Сиргијан едно време исчезнал од Цариград и по една година испратил писмо до Андроник III од Евбеја, во кое го молел за милост и «парче земја на кое би можел да се насели со жената и децата, негде во Македонија на крајните граници на ромејското подрачје» (#924;#949;#964;#940; #948;' #941;#957;#953;#945;#965;#964;#972;#957; #941;#963;#964;#949;#953;#955;#949;#957; #949;#958; #917;#969;#946;#959;#943;#945;#962; #947;#961;#940;#956;#956;#945;#964;#945; #964;#969; #946;#945;#963;#953;#955;#949;#912;, #948;#949;#972;#956;#949;#957;#959;#962; #948;#959;#952;#942;#957;#945;#943; #959;#953; #963;#965;#956;#960;#940;#952;#949;#953;#945;#957; #954;#945;#953; #967;#974;#961;#972;#957; #964;#943;#957;#945; #960;#961;#959;#962; #959;#970;#954;#951;#963;#953;#957; #940;#956;#945; #947;#965;#957;#945;#953;#954;#943; #964;#949; #954;#945;#953; #964;#941;#954;#957;#959;#953;#962; #960;#959;#965; #964;#940;#962; #949;#963;#967;#945;#964;#953;#940;#962; #964;#969;#957; #954;#945;#964;#940; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#957; '#929;#969;#956;#945;#970;#954;#974;#957; #959;#961;#943;#969;#957;) (32*). Бидејќи неговата молба не била прифатена Сиргијан ја напуштил Евбеја и отишол кај кралот на Србија. Тој му станал се: пријател и сомисленик, добредојден советник, најупатен во внатрешните работи. Притоа Сиргијан му ветил дека «ќе ја потчини ромејската област во Македонија на Трибалите, ако кралот му помогне на него да завладее со Ромеите...» (33*).
Навистина со помошта на Сиргијан кралот Душан успеал да освои повеќе македонски градови. Соочен со тоа Андроник III презел контра мерки. Влегол во преговори со Сфранцес Палеолог, кој бил испратен да го убие Сиргијан, но овој план бил вешто прикриван. Самиот Сфранцес «имал намера да тргне во Македонија... бидејќи се средил опјавал брзо во Македонија, не водејќи војска бидејќи сите му биле сомнителни...» (34*). Во својата намера Сфранцес успеал. Преправајќи се дека и тој се одметнал од византиската централна власт се доближил до Сиргијан и успеал да го ликвидира во близина на Солун. Потоа бил склучен мир помеѓу Византија и Србија.
Мирните односи помеѓу Византија и Србија биле нарушени по 1341 година, кога по смртта на Андроник III во Византија започнала нова граѓанска војна помеѓу Ј. Кантакузин и неговите конкуренти од регентството. Во тој период упрвник во Солун бил Теодор Синадин, кој што одржувал врски со Ј. Кантакузин и «често пристигнувале писма од Синадин, тогашен управник на Солун, кои го поттикнувале императорот (Ј. Кантакузин) веднаш да навлезе во Македонија и сосема лесно да го завладее Солун...» (#904;#960;#949;#953; #948;'#941;#954; #931;#965;#957;#945;#948;#951;#957;#959;#971;, #948;#962; #964;#951;#957;#953;#954;#945;#971;#964;#945; #952;#949;#963;#963;#945;#955;#959;#957;#943;#954;#951;#962; #941;#960;#949;#964;#961;#972;#960;#949;#965;#949;, #947;#961;#940;#956;#956;#945;#964;#945; #941;#966;#959;#943;#964;#945;, #948;#953;#949;#947;#949;#943;#961;#959;#957;#964;#945; #964;#951;#957; #964;#945;#967;#943;#963;#964;#951;#957; #945;#965;#964;#972;#957; #948;#953;#945;#946;#940;#957;#964;#945; #949;#962; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;#957; #949;#947;#954;#961;#945;#964;#942; #952;#949;#963;#963;#945;#955;#959;#957;#943;#954;#951;#962; #949;#954; #964;#959;#965; '#961;#940;#963;#964;#959;#965; #947;#949;#957;#941;#963;#952;#945;#953;) (35*). Кантакузин навистина го опседнал Солун 1342 година, но не успеал да го освои, по што бил принуден да замине на дворот на српскиот крал Душан и да бара од него помош. Таму ја поминал зимата 1342/43, а веќе во есента 1343 година тие се разделиле и Душан продолжил да ги освојува македонските градови. Посебно е значајно освојувањето на Бер 1345 година и на Сер истата година (36*).
Во врска со тие настани Н. Григора е сосема прецизен во својата Историја, истакнувајќи дека «во Македонија со другите градови потчинети на владетелот на Трибалите, и самата Верија му станала бргу потчинета... . А на Солун не му се допаѓало на било кој да се потчини, ниту на Кантакузин, ниту на владетелот на Трибалите. Внатрешен бунт веќе долго време владеел во тој град, на тој начин партијата на т.н. Зилоти господарела над другите». (#941;#957; #948;#949; #924;#945;#954;#949;#948;#959;#957;#943;#945;, #964;#969;#957; #940;#955;#955;#969;#957; #973;#960;#951;#954;#959;#965;#963;#971;#957; #964;#969; #932;#961;#953;#946;#945;#955;#955;#974;#957; #942;#947;#949;#956;#972;#957;#953;, #914;#941;#961;#961;#959;#953;#945;... #952;#949;#963;#963;#945;#955;#959;#957;#943;#954;#951; #948; #959;#965;#954; #942;#961;#949;#963;#954;#949;#957; #959;#973;#948;#949;#957;#953; #960;#961;#959;#963;#961;#965;#942;#957;#945;#953;, #956;#942;#964;#949; #964;#969; #922;#945;#957;#964;#945;#954;#959;#965;#958;#951;#957;#969;, #956;#942;#964;#949; #956;#951;#957; #964;#969; #964;#969;#957; #932;#961;#953;#946;#945;#955;#955;#974;#957; #942;#947;#949;#956;#972;#957;#953;. #931;#964;#940;#963;#953;#962; #947;#945;#961; #949;#954; #960;#959;#955;#955;#959;#973; #954;#945;#964;#949;#912;#967;#949;#957; #945;#965;#964;#942;#957;, #954;#945;#953; #918;#951;#955;#969;#964;#974;#957; #959;#973;#964;#969;#963;#943; #960;#969;#962; #974;#957;#959;#956;#945;#963;#956;#941;#957;#969;#957; #940;#952;#961;#959;#953;#963;#956;#945; #964;#969;#957; #940;#955;#955;#969;#957; #941;#960;#961;#974;#964;#949;#965;#949;) (37*).
Од сето досега кажано може да заклучиме дека во «Ромејската историја» Никифор Григора зборува за историско-геогравската територија на Македонија, чии што жители на неколку места ги нарекува «Македонци», а градовите и селата македонски. Тоа значи дека не станува збор за византиската тема Македонија. Овие податоци многу јасно ја разграничуваат Историска Македонија од темата Македонија. Во времето на Н. Григора тематското уредување е целосно пропаднато и на историската сцена стапуваат катепаникиите. Дури и самиот израз «тема» веќе многу ретко се среќава во историските извори. Токму затоа податоците што ги дава Н. Григора во своето дело се однесуваат за Македонија и Македонците и истите имаат драгоцена историска вредност за проучувањето и афирмацијата на македонскиот народ.
1* За биографијата на Никифор Григора види поопширно: Византијски извори за историја народа Југославија. Том VI Београд 1986 (понатаму скратено ВИИНЈ). Користено издание: Nicephori Gregoгае Вуzantia historia I-II, еd. L. Schopenus, Воnnае 1829-1830, III, еd. I. Веkkеrus, Воппае 1855. Фрагментарен текст со превод има во «Извори за българската история». Том XXV – Гръцки извори за българската история. Том XI, София 1983 (преводот и коментарите се на: Ал. Милев и Л. Иончев). Само превод на одделни делови има во Византијски извори за историја народа Југославија, том VI, Београд 1986 преводот и коментарите се направени од С. Ћаирковић и Б. Ферјанчик.
2* ВИИНЈ, VI, Л 53-162; 167; 181-185; 192-202; 204-207; 216-219; 273; 277-279.
3* Извори за българската история. Том ХХV-Гръцки извори за българската история, XI, София 1983, 125 бел. 21 (понатаму скратено ГИБИ XI).
4* Коледаров П. Името Македония в историческата география. София, 1985. С. 77.
5* Nicephori Gregorae Вуzantia hiѕtоria. I-еd. L. Ѕсhореnus, Воппае 1829, 16 (понатаму скратено Gregorae I); ГИБИ, XI, 125.
6* Gregorae 1, 26; ГИБИ, XI, 125.
7* ГИБИ,Х1,125 бел. 21.
8* ВИИНЈ, VI, 153.
9* Gregorae I, 26; ГИБИ, XI, 125-126; ВИИНЈ, VI, 155-156.
10* Idem. I, 71; ГИБИ, XI, 131.
11* Idem. I, 48.Според и ВИИНЈ, VI, 157.
12* ВИИНЈ, VI, 158-159.
13* Gregorae. I, 72-73; ГИБИ, XI, 132.
14* Idem. I, 146; ГИБИ, XI, 138.
15* ВИИНЈ, VI, 180.
16* Gregorae I, 246; ГИБИ, XI, 143.
17* Gregorae 1,247; ГИБИ, XI, 143.
18* Острогорски Г. Историја Византије. Београд, 1983 (фототипно издание), 463.
19* Се однесува на населението што живеело во денешна Албанија, бидејќи Н. Григо¬ра секогаш за жителите на Балканот употребува архаични термини(Трибали за Србите, Мизи за Бугарите и сл.),Спореди: П. Коледаров,. Името Македония..., 77.
20* Gregorae I,297.
21* ВИИНЈ, VI, 192 бел. 71.
22* Gregorae I, 394-395; ГИБИ, ХI, 152.
23* Коледаров П. Името Македония..., 77 бел. 154.
24* За датирањето на писмото спореди: Соrrеѕроndаnсе de Nic#233;phore Gr#233;goras teхtе #233;dit#233; et traduit par R. Guilland, Paris 1927, 31; ГИБИ, XI, 146 (таму е датирано со 1328); Ј. Белчовски. Вториот брак на кралот Стефан Урош III и извештејот на Никифор Григора за патувањето на византиските дипломати во Скопје во 1326 година, (Писмо на Никифор Григора за Андроник Зарида според изданието на R. Guilland; превод на Јов. Белчовски, Споменици за средовековната и поновата историја на Македонија, II, Скопје 1977, 521-533 (натаму само Споменици, II).
25* Gregorae I,375; Соrrеѕроndаnсе de Nic#233;phore Gr#233;goras 33; ГИБИ, ХI, 147; Споменици, II 534-535.
26* Соrrеѕроndаnсе..., 39; Споменици, II, 54.
27* Gregorae I, 378; ГИБИ, ХI, 149.
28* Idem. I, 379; Соrrеѕроndаnсе, 41; ГИБИ, ХI, 150.
29* ГИБИ, ХI, 154.
30* Gregorae I, 413.
31* Idem. I, 413.
32* Исто. 489.
33* Idem. 490; ВИИНЈ, VI, 216-217.
34* Gregorae I, 499.
35* Gregorae II, 626; ГИБИ, XI, 169.
36* Дини#295; М. За хронологију Душанових освајања византиских градова. Зборник радова византолошког института. IV. Београд, 1966. 9-10.
37* Gregorae II, 795; ГИБИ, ХI 1,188; ВИИНЈ, VI, 273.
MAKEDONCITE POSTOELE KAKO POSEBNO PLEME-PHATRA ZA VREME NA LATINSKOTO CARSTVO:
Izvori:
1. 1138, Nicetas Choniates 1 (29-30)
2. Byzantine Studies Conference
c/o Dumbarton Oaks
1703 32nd Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
BYZANTINE CITIES AND SOCIETY Presiding: Timothy Miller (Salisbury State University)
A The Problem of Phatr#237;ai in the 11-12th Centuries" od Charles M. Brand, Bryn Mawr College
http://www.byzconf.org/1989abstracts.html
Phatr#237;ai is a late-classical variant of phr#225;tra, A tribe" or "subdivision of a tribe." This root meaning survives in a few 12th-Century usages: In 1138, Nicetas Choniates 1 (29-30) reports that John II divided his army by ethnic group and phatr#237;ai: Macedonians, Turks, Franks, etc. In 1184, the soldiers defending Nikaia held meetings by phatr#237;ai (ibid., 284-5), possibly by nationality.
________________________________________
Terminot Bugar
The term "Bulgarian," which had earlier been used to refer to all the Slavs of the Ottoman Empire (Friedman 1975:84), or as a virtual synonym for "peasant" without any political significance at all (Wilkinson 1951:149), came to mean "Bulgarian" in a national sense. POIMOT BUGARIN OZNACUVAL SLOVEN VO VREMETO TURSKO, ILI SINONIM ZA SELANEC!
http://www.ucc.ie/staff/jprodr/macedonia/macmodnat1.html
________________________________________
Treba da go prezentirate generalniot stav na MANU deka so doa|aweto na slovenite vo Makedonija do{lo od asimilacija na anti~koto makedonsko naseleni i formirawe na posebna nacija (Angel [opov MANU, 2. http://www.gate.net/~mango/Macedonia_settlement_of_Slavs_to_Ottomans.htm )
Toj proces e i navistina potvrden od istorijata, taka {to makedoncite kako posebna nacija vo zapadnata istorijografija se spomnati vo 1027 godina, koga vizantiskiot imperator Konstantin III Purpurniot pra}a svoja vojska sostavena od pove}e nacii rusi, bugari, vandali, turci , vlasi i makedonci vo osvojuvaweto na Sicilija. Seto ova go ima zabele`eno vo Analite na Bari, Annales Barenses, koe zadno so Annales Lupi Protospatharii i Anonymi barensis chronicon, se priznati kako kapitalni i najva`ni istoriski zapadni izvori od srednovekovieto! http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/robertguiscard.htm
Vo Annales Barenses, i Annales Lupi za prv pat vo istorijata se spomnati i vlasite, no i makedoncite (sekako ne prvpat!) kako poseben etnikum pri {to citiram:
Annales Barenses, MGH SS, V, 53
Anno 1027 “descendit in Italiam cum exercitu magno, i.e. Russorum, Guandalorum, Turcorum, Burgarorum, Vlachorum, Macedonum, aliarumque ut caperet Siciliam.'” (Annales Barenses, MGH SS, V, 53)
www.digilander.libero.it/sudmedioevo/annales.html
Annales Lupi Protospatharii
1027. Despotus Nicus in Italiam descendit cum ingentibus copiis Russorum, Wandalorum, Turcarum, Bulgarorum, Brunchorum, Polonorum, Macedonum, aliarumque nationum, ad Siciliam capiendam.
www.quipo.it/archita/Sheherazade/Arabi/lupo.html
Ponatamu vo istite dokumenti se spomnati i Grcite kako graeci i toa sosema razli~en etnikum od makedoncite. Gornite dokumenti se mnogu va`ni oti makedoncite se prika`ani kako NACIJA I TOA SOSEMA ODVOENA OD BUGARITE I GRCITE, pa bi bilo odli~no dokolku bi mo`ele da gi vmetneto vo Va{ata stranica.
2. Stefan Du{an ja zazel Makedonija i go napravil Skopje glaven grad (Laonici Chalcocondiae Historiarum. Ed. J. P. Migne - PG t.CLIX (Paris, 1866) col. 36, B-37, C.), od kade {to gledame deka Skopje ve}e bil del od Makedonija.
Carot Stefan Du{an vo Skopje 1331 godina se proglasuva za Car. Kako {to gledame od negoviot Zakonik, Stefan se proglasuva za Makedonski Car i samodr`ec (avtokrat) na Srbija, Bugarija, Ungaro-vla{la, Arbanasija, Dalmacija i na mnogu drugi regioni i oblasti (Q. Stojanovi}, Stari srpski zapisi i natpisi. Kwiga III, Beograd 1905, str. 41 (nbr.4949). Toa segleda i po prepisite na Du{anovite Zakonoci:
http://www.dusanov-zakonik.co.yu/ravanicki.htm
http://www.dusanov-zakonik.co.yu/sofijski.htm
(Za Va{a informacija, ravani~kiot prepis e Va`en bidejki e od ravani~kiot manastir koj go izgradil Knez Lazar, naslednikot na Car Du{an).
Duri i poznatata Edit Durham vo svoeto delo “Visoka Albanija”, prvo izdanie, otpe~ateno vo dale~nata 1909 godina zboruva za makedoncite, kade go citira Du{anoviot Zakonik “Zakonik na Car Du{an Makedonski, avtokrat na Srbija, Bugarija, Ungarija, Vla{ka, ….”(Edith Durham, “High Albania” First published in 1909 page 294., byLONDON EDWARD ARNOLD Publishers to the India Office 1909).
Zo{to se proglasil Du{an za Makedonski Car? Car Du{an se proglasil za makedonski car, no ne zatoa oti bil makedonec, tuku za nekoj da se proglasi za car, imperator, vo srednovekovieto moralo da ja zeme krunata na nekoe carstvo koe ve}e prethodno postoelo. A koe bi bilo toa carstvo ako ne Samuilovoto! Ima li pogolem dokaz so koj }e se ospori tvrdeweto na nekoi bugarski istori~ari deka Car Samuil bil bugarski car? Duri i krunisuvaweto vo Car moralo da go izvr{at poglavari na dve razli~ni aftokefalni crkvi, pa zatoa Stefan Du{an za Car go proglasuvaat zaedno Ohridskiot Arhiepiskop i Trnovskiot Patrijarh (bugarskiot poglavar) (Izvor: vidi WEB Stranica na MPC).
Deka Makedonija imala svoe posebno mesto vo Du{anovoto Carstvo mo`e da ni posvedo~i i samiot Grb na Du{an, koj se sostoi od grbovite na site nacii koi {to go so~inuvale Carstvoto, a na prvo mesto e staven tokmu makedonskiot grb! Izvor: “Izlo`ba Heraldika kod Srba” : http://www.mpu.org.yu/srpski/naredne%20izlozbe/heraldika.htm
Duri ima inducii deka Du{anovoto Carstvo se narekuvalo MAKEDONSKO. Site srpski avtori do 17 vek, pa i onie od Bosna i Hercegovina se deklarirale deka poteknuvaat od “makedonskata zemja”. Bo`idar Vukovi}, prviot srpski pe~atar od crnogorsko poteklo imal svoja pe~atnica vo Venecija (1519-1539) i vo site svoi knigi pe~ati deka e od makedonskite zemji. i samiot Vuk Kara|i{ veli deka Srbija porano se narekuvala Makedonina, no sepak bil zanesen od srpskiot nacional-romantizan od 19 vek pa ka`uva deka site srpski zemji se narekuvale Makedonija; da bile srpski zemji bi se narekuvale srpski e logi~niot zaklu~ok. Duri i starite srpski pesni ka`uvaat deka Pe} i Smederevo bile vo Makedonija (Izvori 1. Vladimir ]orovi} ;, “Istorija Srpskog Naroda” 1998, http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/6_4.html , 2. V S Karadzic, Beispiele der serbisch-slavischen Sprache, Vienna, 1857 , 3. Vikipedia na srpski jazik: sr.wikipedia.org
________________________________________
Vo grckiot vesnik "Emboriki" od 1928 godina po povod nastojuvanjeto na Makedoncite vo egejskiot del na Makedonija da zboruvaat makedonski namesto grcki jazik se vel islednovo:
"Vo pogranicnite regioni Lerin, Kostur, Sorovikj, Karadzova, Voden, Enidze-Vardar, spored tajnite naredbi na Makedonskiot komitet, bugarskoto naselenie od gornite oblasti na sekoj nacin odbegnuva da govori na grcki jazik vo svojata komunikacija so novodojdenite begalci od Mala Azija pod izgovor deka ne go znaat grckiot jazik i za da ja odbegnat odgovornosta (kaznata), toa naselenie veli deka zboruva makedonski jazik i so toa ja pravi prvata stapka kon avtonomija na Makedonija."
v. "Emboriki", 25 dekemvri, 1928 godina.
"In the villages of Macedonia, one meets peasants of a single nationality speaking a Slavic language and belonging to the Eastern Orthodox faith. Nine out of ten of these people, despite their being the subject of dispue between three adjoining countries, would reply in response to the question as go their nationality, that they were Macedonian."
Georgi Bakalov, "The Pretenders on Macednia", Varna 1890, p. 22
Anna Comnena:
The Alexiad: Complete Text
War with the Normans (1081-2) Anna Comnena (Komnene). The Alexiad. Edited and translated by Elizabeth A. Dawes. London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1928.
“Constantine Opus led the Guards, Antiochus the Macedonians”
" My master Aaron," he said, "conjointly with others, of whom thy Majesty is not quite ignorant, have plotted against thy life, O Emperor. And as thy murderer they suborned Demetrius, my fellow-slave, a Scythian by origin, with a very murderous…
Another man, a Macedonian, Peter by name, but nicknamed Tornicius, fell among the enemy and slew a number. (The Alexiad Book 1)
There could be seen a Latin being trained, and a Scythian studying Greek, and a Roman handling Greek texts and an illiterate Greek speaking Greek correctly. (kniga 15) SPOMNAT MAKEDONEC, MAKEDONCI I GRVI KAKO RAZLICNI ETNIKUMI!
________________________________________
Makedonskiot Car Volkashin, spomnat vo SYNODICON OF TSAR BORIL
http://www.geocities.com/bogomil1bg/Synodicon.html
Boril's Synodicon Synodicon also mentions the Macedonian King Vulkasin and his brother Uglesa SYNODICON OF TSAR BORIL /14TH C./
________________________________________
NIKOLA KAREV!
In May 1903, a Greek reporter interviewed the president of the Krushevo
republic, Nikola Karev. He asked him the following question: "What are
you? - A Macedonian, replied Karev. Then, why are you in favour of
Bulgaria? - Bulgaria is aiding us in our struggle against the Turks. If
you Greeks offer yourselves to help us, we will favour you as well,"
said Karev. The interview was published in the Athenian "Akropolis"
newspaper. Should you wish to read it, I can send you the Macedonian
translation or the original copy of the newspaper written in Greek.
When will the Greeks wake up to the fact that the Macedonians in Aegean
Macedonia do exist. Even though the Greek government has been denying
their existence ever since 1913.
The interview was published in the Athenian “Akropolis” newspaper
________________________________________
MAKEDONCI VO VOJVODINA 18-19 VEK:
Сваки протокол састојао се од књига великог формата штампаних у Бечу, с обрасцима на црквено-словенском језику у које је месни парох те цркве, по службеној дужности,
по казивању заинтересованог грађанина мастилом уносио одговарајуће податке. Једна од тих рубрика била је: "Одакле је дотични родом и које је народности".
Помно пратећи и ту рубрику, уочили смо да је у Земуну живело православно становништво: Срба, Грка, Цинцара, Влаха, Македонаца и Бугара.
http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bg/istorija/inikolic-zemun.php
ИАБ, ЗМ = Историјски архив Београда, Земунски магистрат (1761-1800),
ИАБ, ЗМ, Протоколи I = Протоколи матичних књига рођених и крштених Цркве Св. Николаја, Земун (1761-1800).
________________________________________
In the Cathar Synod of 1167, it was agreed decisions applicable to 'the seven
churches of Asia", among which were "ecclesia Romanae (Greeks), Dragumetae (Macedonians), Meliguae, Bulgariae and
Dalmatiae".
________________________________________
________________________________________
Ускоро по постављењу на престо, Роман Диоген, да би прекинуо турске нападе на област Империје, скупио је војску од Македонаца, Бугара,
Кападокијаца, Уза и других племена која је срео, као и од Франака и Варјага - (#61552;#61554;#61551;#61562;#61472;#61540;#61541;#61472;#61547;#61537;#61545;#61472;#61510;#61554;#61537;#61543;#61543;#61559;#61550;#61472;#61547;#61537;#61545;#61472;#61506;#61537;#61554;#61537;#61543;#61543;#61559;#61550;) и кренуо на исток".
Јован Скилица ст. 822-3.
http://www.svevlad.org.yu/venelin_skandinavomanija.html
________________________________________
Otkako slovenite se izmesale so antickite Makedonci, vo site istoriski izvori MAKEDONCITE SE NAREKUVAAT SAMO MAKEDONCI.
Imperatorot na Vizantija Konstantin VII Purpurniot kazuva deka zitelite na temata Strimion koja go dobila imeto po slovenskoto pleme Strumjani se etnicki MAKEDONCI no porobeni od Skitite (Bugari-Tatari) C. Porfirogenito, De thematibus, Citta del Vaticano, 1952.
Kako dokaz za ova ke go spomneme citatot od Jovan Kamenijat, koj vo svoeto delo "Za zazemanjeto na Solun" za gradot Solun vo 904 godina napisal:
"Nam, prijatelu, tatkovina ni e Solun... Toa e prviot i najgolem grad na Makedoncite!"
.." J.K. Begunov, Kozma Prezviter v slavjanskih literaturah, Sofia 1976, p. 297
I vizantiskiot poet Efrem za Solun veli deka Solun bil: "prestolnina na Makedoncite" (Ephraemii Chronologii caesares, J.P.Migne, PG 143, Paris, 1891, 198).
Isto taka, otpa|a i pretpostavkata deka terminot Makedonci se odnesuva za geografskite Makedonci, kako `iteli na vizantiskata tema Makedonija, zatoa {to Solun bil von granicite na ovaa tema, a vo navedenoto svedo{tvo od Kamenijat se zboruva za Makedonci kako `iteli na Solun. Zna~i, ovde terminot Makedonci se odnesuva tokmu za etni~kite potomci na anti~kite Makedonci, koi svoevremeno go formirale ovoj grad i koi vo 10 vek s# u{te si `iveele vo nego kako najdominantni `iteli.
Anna Comnena, prvata zena istoricar i Vizantijska Princeza zboruva kako vo 1081 godina Drac e naselen so Makedonci i Albanci i za prv pat vo sitorijata se spomnuva imeto ALBANEC tokmu vo istorijata na Comnena, narecena ALEXIAD, vo knigata broj 1. Anna Comnena:
The Alexiad: Complete Text (War with the Normans (1081-2) Anna Comnena (Komnene). The Alexiad. Edited and translated by Elizabeth A. Dawes. London: Routledge, Kegan, Paul, 1928.)
Makedoncite kako posebna nacija vo zapadnata istorijografija se spomnati vo 1027 godina, koga vizantiskiot imperator Konstantin III Purpurniot praka svoja vojska sostavena od poveke nacii rusi, bugari, vandali, turci , vlasi i makedonci vo osvojuvanjeto na Sicilija. Seto ova go ima zabelezeno vo Analite na Bari, Annales Barenses, koe zadno so Annales Lupi Protospatharii i Anonymi barensis chronicon, se priznati kako kapitalni i najvazni istoriski zapadni izvori od srednovekovieto! http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/robertguiscard.htm
Vo Annales Barenses, i Annales Lupi za prv pat vo istorijata se spomnati i vlasite, no i makedoncite (sekako ne prvpat!) kako poseben etnikum pri {to citiram:
Annales Lupi Protospatharii:
1027. Despotus Nicus in Italiam descendit cum ingentibus copiis Russorum, Wandalorum, Turcarum, Bulgarorum, Brunchorum, Polonorum, Macedonum, aliarumque nationum, ad Siciliam capiendam.
www.quipo.it/archita/Sheherazade/Arabi/lupo.html
Ponatamu vo istite dokumenti se spomnati i Grcite kako graeci i toa sosema razli~en etnikum od makedoncite. Gornite dokumenti se mnogu va`ni oti makedoncite se prika`ani kako NACIJA I TOA SOSEMA ODVOENA OD BUGARITE I GRCITE
MAKEDONCITE POSTOELE KAKO POSEBNO PLEME-PHATRA ZA VREME NA LATINSKOTO CARSTVO I BILE VO KOALICIJA SO KRSTONOSCITE VO BORBATA PROTIV VIZANTIJA:
Izvori:
1. 1138, Nicetas Choniates 1 (29-30)
2. Byzantine Studies Conference
c/o Dumbarton Oaks
1703 32nd Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20007
BYZANTINE CITIES AND SOCIETY Presiding: Timothy Miller (Salisbury State University)
A The Problem of Phatr#237;ai in the 11-12th Centuries" od Charles M. Brand, Bryn Mawr College
http://www.byzconf.org/1989abstracts.html
Phatr#237;ai is a late-classical variant of phr#225;tra, A tribe" or "subdivision of a tribe." This root meaning survives in a few 12th-Century usages: In 1138, Nicetas Choniates 1 (29-30) reports that John II divided his army by ethnic group and phatr#237;ai: Macedonians, Turks, Franks, etc. In 1184, the soldiers defending Nikaia held meetings by phatr#237;ai (ibid., 284-5), possibly by nationality.
nacija najstara na Balkanot
No, i vojskata na makedonskiot car Samuil, kojasto, spored vizantiskiot istoricar Lav Gakon, glavno bila sostavena od "cheti na Makedoncite", kako glavno oruzje, isto taka, gi imala dolgite kopja na Makedonskata falanga (Leonis Diaconis Historiae. J.P. Migne, PG 117, Paris, 1964, 727). Osven toa, se znae deka carot Samuil, no i negoviot naslednik Petar Deljan (kojsto, po propasta na Samuilovoto carstvo, vo XI vek, krenal vostanie protiv Vizantija), bile izbrani za carevi od narodot na ist na~in kako shto svoevremeno bile birani i antichkomakedonskite carevi.
LAV GAKON GO SLEDEL CAROT VASILIJ VO SVOITE POHODI PROTIV SAMUIL I BIL NEGOV AVTOBIOGRAF! A TOJ LAV GAKON, PODANICITE NA SAMUIL GI NAREKUVA MAKEDONCI!
Born c. 950 at Kaloe, Tmolos, in Asia Minor, Leo was educated in Constantinople and became a palace deacon. He is the author of a highly classicizing history, employing much Homeric langugage and borrowing from earlier classicizing authors, for example Agathias (on siege warfare, in one of the excerpts here) and Procopius. Leo’s history covers the years 959-76, hence the reigns of Romanos II, and ¬ in greater detail ¬ Nikephoros II Phokas and John I Tzimiskes. He also provides eye-witness testimony of some episodes from early in the reign of Basil II, for example that emperor’s disastrous campaign against Samuel Kometopoulos of Bulgaria in 986.
Bugarija? A Leo Gjakonot opishuva kako Vasil II pochnal ofanziva protiv Samuil, i opishuva:
Leo the Deacon: "...since they (Army of Basil II) robbed the region of the Macedoniansmercilessly, destroying all adults." Leonis Diaconi Historiae, Paris 1864 ... p. 311
DA PREVEDAM: OTKOGA TIE (VIZANTIJCITE) GO ZAZEDOA REGIONOT NA MAKEDONCITE, GRUBO GI UNISTIJA SITE VOZRASNI....
ZNACHI VASIL OTISHOL KAJ MAKEDONCITE, I POCHNAL DA GI UBIVA SITE VOZRASNI MAKEDONCI!!!!
ZNACHI VOJNICITE NA SAMUIL I TOJ BILE MAKEDONCI!
INTERESNO E STO SITE ISTORISKI DOKUMENTI OD VREMETO SAMOILOVO GO NAREKUVAAT MAKEDONSKI CAR, A POTOA SKILICA-PSEL OD 12 VEK GO NAREKUVAAT "CAR NA VULGARITE=PROSTACITE"); SETO TOA E NAPRAVENO OD OMRAZA OTI SAMOIL GO NAPRAVIL NAJGOLEMOTO CARSTVO NA BALKANITE POSLE VIZANTIJA! SITE SLOVENSKI STO ZBORUVALE BILE NARECENI VULGARI PA I SITE SRBI, CRNOGORCI, HRVATI I BOSANCI.
jasno do koga bugarite ke ja falsifikuvaat istorijata makedonska. Vo sredniot vek, site sloveni Vizantijcite gi narekuvale VULGARI = prostaci, grubijani, no ne VOLGARI (Bugari). Za vreme na TURSKO, vulgar znachel SELANEC!
E Tatari bidete gordi SHTO IMETO NA VASHATA NACIJA E PROSTAK!
I srbite, i crnogorcite, i bosancite pa duri i hrvatite bile narekuvani Vulgari. Toa go znae celata svetska istorija, pa duri i nasite stari:
Terminot Bugar
The term "Bulgarian," which had earlier been used to refer to all the Slavs of the Ottoman Empire (Friedman 1975:84), or as a virtual synonym for "peasant" without any political significance at all (Wilkinson 1951:149), came to mean "Bulgarian" in a national sense. POIMOT BUGARIN OZNACUVAL SLOVEN VO VREMETO TURSKO, ILI SINONIM ZA SELANEC!
Крсте Мисирков >> За Македонцките Работи >> Состауала, состауат и можит ли Македониiа да...
Словените од Бугариiа и Македониiа наi напред беа само соiузници на бугарите во воiните со Византиiа. Но соiузните со бугарите словенцки полчишта беа во очите на неприiателите т. е. византиiците пак бугарцки. Значит византиiците зафатиiа да прекрстуваат словените ушче од времето на Аспарухоата орда. Постоiаната борба рамо за рамо со бугарите и напраи ниф iеден народ со бугарцко име, но со словенцки iазик. Бугарцкото име мег'у словеиите беше попул'аризирано од грците, и оно, прво, означааше само бугарите — монголите, после нивните воени соiузници, после бугарцките поданици и наi после стана етнографцки термин за бугарцките словени. Но тоа име во очите и устата на грците имаше ушче специално значеiн'е: наi ненавистни за ниф варвари, л'уг'е не образоани, груби, коiи граничаат со звероите. За грците се словенцко беше грубо и бугарцко.
Со името бугари не крстиiа грците и нас македонците. Но тоа прекрстуаiн'е не iет iединствено. От србите ниiе бефме прекрстени во срби.
Toscan - Wikip#233;dia, l'encyclop#233;die gratuite et libre - < Translate this page >
... La vari#233;t#233; florentine du toscan est codifi#233;e par Bembo (Prose della volgar lingua -
Proses de la langue vulgaire, 1526) mais aussi par l'Accademia della ...
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toscan - 9k - Cached - Similar pages
BUGARI = PROSTACI
2. #914;#959;#955;#947;#945;#961; i #914;#959;#957;#955;#947;#945;#961; dve su sasvim razli#269;ite re#269;i: je nomen nationis, latinski napisano Bolgar, slovenski Bolgar i Bugarin; taj narod nikad nije prelazio Rodope i Despotovu Goru, koja ga sasvim prirodno i neminovno odvaja od naroda zapadno od tih planina.
#914;#959;#957;#955;#947;#945;#959; je classificatio populi (i plebis), latinski napisano Vulgar = prostak, i zna#269;i "ni#382;u klasu" naroda u zemlji. Ovo je dakle tre#263;a tu#273;a re#269; u slovenskoj etnologiji, koja se daje imenu naroda; re#269; Servus za Srbin, i re#269; Sclavus za Slovenin, ve#263; su i tu#273;ini odbacili, a re#269; Vulgar zar Rusi ho#263;e da prime?
Народским језиком (у Тесалији где су поглавито или у већини били Цинцари погрчени Латини) простаци се каже Вулгари, грчким словима написано #914;#959;#957;#955;#947;#945;#961;#959;#953;.
Чућете често да вам човек са села каже: "ми смо људи простаци", јер он то заиста и јесте па и сам осећа да је мање образованији и углађенији од грађанина.
Али како Грци немају слово Б, они су име овог народа писали #914;#959;#955;#947;#945;#961;#959;#953;. #927;#944; како ова реч која значи име неког народа (natio) звучи скоро исто као и реч #914;#959;#957;#955;#965;#961;#959;#953;, #954;#958;ја означава културни степен народа (populus), те се десило да су се касније ове две речи побркале утолико пре што Византинци ни ове на истоку нису могли рачунати у цивилизоване, и што су оба ова народа (у источној и западној половини царевина), иако међу собом различита, била ипак сродна. Касније пак "невјеже" узеше да обе речи значе једно исто, и то име народа, то јест natio, а не populus.
Ето ту је Гордијев чвор.
Средњовековни назив #914;#959;#955;#947;#945;#961;#959;#953; = #914;#963;лгари = прости људи сасвим природно ушао је и у сам народ па - што је истина чудновато, али и у најудаљенијим крајевима од Бугара, као на пример у северној Далмацији - обрнуто од вулгар - у бугар. Сетите се само "бугар-кабанице", која се у Херцеговини пева, али која се у Бугарској не носи нити се носила (дакле не као "далматица" коју су и немачки цареви носили, коју су и католички попови себи на главу стављали и од чије речи је најпре постала долма, долман, а касније и "долама") и сетите се песме "бугарштице", у Далмацији, што ће рећи песме простачке, простог народа, тако назване за разлику од песме књижевничке - углавном италијанске.
Колико је пак бугарском пропагандом фалсификована и мистификована истина и правда, а што и сами, да хоћете, увидети можете, ево вам најјаснијег и беспоговорног доказа у самом вашем календару.
Говорећи на страни 78, о манастиру Златоврху или Трескавцу, тамо се каже: "Сохранило с љубопитноје преданије објасњајуштеје самоје названије монастирја; Доч њекојего болгарскаго царја, по имени Каламарија, виђа за муж за султана Мурата".
И у турској и у српској историји записано је, и сваки, који је те историје читао, зна, да је Марија (Мара) касније од светогорских калуђера прозвана Каламарија (добра Мара), јер је манастирима оставила огромна завештања - а која је пре тога била удата за султана Мурата, 1437. године, да је та Марија била кћи српског деспота Ђурађа Бранковића-Смедеревца. И при свему томе, што сви Руси, који су писмени, знају ту историјску чињеницу, јер су српску историју писали и Руси - Гиљфердинг, Мајков - редакција календара није нашла за сходно да својим читаоцима каже да отац Маријин није био "Болгарски цар".
Jovan Draga#353;evi#263;
Makedonski Sloveni
1890
MAKEDONCI KAKO POSEBNA NACIJA VO VOJVODINA 18-19 VEK:Сваки протокол састојао се од књига великог формата штампаних у Бечу, с обрасцима на црквено-словенском језику у које је месни парох те цркве, по службеној дужности, по казивању заинтересованог грађанина мастилом уносио одговарајуће податке. Једна од тих рубрика била је: "Одакле је дотични родом и које је народности". Помно пратећи и ту рубрику, уочили смо да је у Земуну живело православно становништво: Срба, Грка, Цинцара, Влаха, Македонаца и Бугара.
IZVOR: ИАБ, ЗМ = Историјски архив Београда, Земунски магистрат (1761-1800),ИАБ, ЗМ, Протоколи I = Протоколи матичних књига рођених и крштених Цркве Св. Николаја, Земун (1761-1800).
krusevo orginal panorama od 1903
Воведната страница од книгата на Вилијам Гладстон во која е цитиран слоганот Македонија на Македонците од 1897 во Англија.
Introduction page to the book where the motto Macedonia for the Macedonians from William Gladstone was quoted in 1897 in England.
nie sne Makedonci i Makedonci ke o staneme . Ne sne bugarski Tatari ili africki taka nareceni Atinci