Treaty of Nuilly, 1919 - any questions?

[Daniel]

Again, in the first, we believed that we were going to be liberated by our Orthodox brothers. You came promising us freedom, yet took everything. And it wasn't just the Macedonians that are now known as being of the Republic, but all Macedonians in all of Macedonia.

The first Balkan war was a grab for land, the second was stopping the Bulgarians from getting too much. I would equate it to to World War II and the Cold war. The nations of Balkan league are allied against the Ottomans, although after the end of the war, one of the allies wants more land and the rest stop them.

Our role in the first war was helping the Balkan league get rid of the Ottomans, as for the second , i am not really 100% sure what the role of the Macedonians were, but if it is like any other, i would assume that of fodder.

[Makedonia]

Who in the Balkan League was representing you in getting rid of the Ottomans during the First Balkan War?

Who was using you as fodder in the Second Balkan War?

[Daniel]

I would not really call it 'representing', but those that did were the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Montenegrins. I really don't like repeating myself, but, they came as liberators and we excepted them with open arms. Since we had the failed uprising a decade ago, we were waiting for any chance to be rid of the Ottomans.

I do not know what the Macedonians role was in the second, I just made an assumption by what happened in other wars latter on. For instance the war against Italy where the Macedonians made the van guard which was pretty much destroyed, whilst the Greeks stayed back, readying themselves.

[Makedonia]

I would not really call it 'representing', but those that did were the Greeks, Bulgarians, Serbs and Montenegrins. I really don't like repeating myself, but, they came as liberators and we excepted them with open arms. Since we had the failed uprising a decade ago, we were waiting for any chance to be rid of the Ottomans.

I do not know what the Macedonians role was in the second, I just made an assumption by what happened in other wars latter on. For instance the war against Italy where the Macedonians made the van guard which was pretty much destroyed, whilst the Greeks stayed back, readying themselves.

Excuse my ignorance Daniel, but what vanguard are you talking about? Can you supply me with a link or information on this please.

[toothpaste]

Excuse my ignorance Daniel, but what vanguard are you talking about? Can you supply me with a link or information on this please.

I guess it is this link ...http://a guy from a forum

[Daniel]

I was unable to find you a link, but here is an out take of Risto Stefov's book 'History of the Macedonian people from Ancient times to the Present'.

Backed by the Entente, a group of pro-Venizelos officers launched a coup in Solun against the official government and created a provisional pro-Entente government with its own army. Once again the Macedonians, deceived by Balkan propaganda, joined the war with hopes of being liberated only to end up "cannon fodder" used by both sides of the front.

I believe that it can also be found in Micheal Radin's 'IMRO and the Macedonian question', but i may be wrong in assuming this.

[thessalo-niki]

The First Balkan War had the Balkan League comprising of Bulgaria, Greece, Montenegro and Serbia fighting against the Ottoman Empire which resulted in a Balkan League victory and the Treaty of London.

The Second Balkan War had Bulgaria fighting against Serbia, Greece, Montenegro, Romania and the Ottoman Empire resulting in a Bulgarian defeat and the Treaty of Bucharest.

Greece's position is clear in these wars.

Where was todays Republic of Macedonia during these battles or who were they represented by?

Again, in the first, we believed that we were going to be liberated by our Orthodox brothers. You came promising us freedom, yet took everything. And it wasn't just the Macedonians that are now known as being of the Republic, but all Macedonians in all of Macedonia.

The first Balkan war was a grab for land, the second was stopping the Bulgarians from getting too much. I would equate it to to World War II and the Cold war. The nations of Balkan league are allied against the Ottomans, although after the end of the war, one of the allies wants more land and the rest stop them.

Our role in the first war was helping the Balkan league get rid of the Ottomans, as for the second , i am not really 100% sure what the role of the Macedonians were, but if it is like any other, i would assume that of fodder.

While Daniel's answer implies an a posteriori collective feeling I wonder if there are any facts about it. So, WHO did represent the (non-Greek or non-Bulgarian) Macedonians. OK, no one did it officially in Bucharest or Neuilly Treaty. Yet, were there any organizations or, at least, any individuals that should have? Or tried to? Any names? Were there at least any public statements recorded in History?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest_(1913)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Neuilly-sur-Seine

_________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

[Pelister]

May I kindly ask where your representatives were during this critical treaty in 1919?

Let me tell you something, mate.

The League of Nations was simply a foriegn policy tool of the victorious Powers.

If you look at the Treaties, such as this one, there were many stipulations relating to the 'exchange' of people, but only one relating to the protection of rights.

The other point is that the extermination of the Macedonian people was implied in the treaties. The Treaties, formulated by the League, gave international recognition to the recen transfer of territory, including the recen balkan war, and the New borders.

And to add insult to injury, the League then set out providing financial aid and expertise to assist the Hellenic Republic in its conquest of Macedonian territory, by colonising it.

This doesn't even touch the surface of just how evil the League of Nations was - the principle of self determination was applied only very selectively, and not at all to 'problem minorities'. The Macedonians were not only classed as a 'minority' the League actually faciliated the conquest by representing them as 'Greeks' and 'Bulgarians' in various treaties - it was part of an international naming system.

Britain, for example, knowing just how powerful the League of Nations was in giving politicaly legitimacy and recognition to anyone on the international stage, took measures to block Macedonian grievances, to prevent thousands of Macedonian grievances, petitions, letters not only from reaching the Council, but from ever being published and made public. One way it did this was by referring a grievance to the accused country - and requiring permission to publish it. The League had stitched up, and sandbagged the Macedonians. It had driven them into opposition - beyond the protection of any law. It not only deferred the issue of protection to a State it new was hostile and had targeted the Macedonians for extermination, but went further, by actually blocking grievances it new were genuine, and perhaps the worst examples of abuse anywhere in Europe, of its kind. Yes, we are talking about the fk League of Nations here.

And IF I can throw in one more thing. The League of Nations made it illegal to acquire territory through the use of force, in 1919. In other words the right by conquest, or the principle of effective occupation which gave the Hellenic Republic the right by victory in war to acquire Macedonian territory, occupy it, destroy the natives...etc, the League of Nations at the same time, made it illegal. It recognised this principle in Greece's conquest of Macedonia, while making it illegal for the Macedonians to appeal to the same principle in the defence of their territory. The right of self preservation was denied, and all protection was denied.

The League refused to count them.

The League also refused to name them.

The League blocked Macedonian grievances, letters, petitions...etc.

The League made sure they were beyond the protection of international law.

The League took the lead in depopulating the region, and colonising it.

[Bill77]

I'll be less technical about it but Thessa will get my point (i will not hold my breath though)

When a woman gets ganged raped, Is she asked which position she prefers?

Point is the victim has no say. The treaty was to appease the waring factions at the expense of Macedonians. The Powers felt it was irrelevant for Macedonians to get involved. Would've it mattered if there was a Macedonian representative?

[thessalo-niki]

"They came as liberators and we excepted them with open arms" (post#33)
"When a woman gets ganged raped, is she asked which position she prefers?" (post#39)
These are rather conflicting descriptions. Maybe you're blaming a whole generation or projecting present to the past. I'm not sure, so I'll put it differently. During the critical period 1905-1920 which are your heroes in Macedonia (if any)? What did they say? What did they do?
________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

[Onur]

So, WHO did represent the (non-Greek or non-Bulgarian) Macedonians. OK, no one did it officially in Bucharest or Neuilly Treaty. Yet, were there any organizations or, at least, any individuals that should have? Or tried to? Any names? Were there at least any public statements recorded in History?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest_(1913)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Neuilly-sur-Seine

Dont pretend to be naive by these kind of asking questions. As you very well know, Macedonia was already destructed by Russians and British in that era and people was under new occupation after the Turkish reign. So, whatever occupiers wishes, then it happens that way. Besides, it was the wish of some Macedonians to be "liberated" by the Bulgars, Greeks, Serbs or Russians. I don't think they expected their "liberators" to go away right after the war. So, they probably remained silent by leaving the decision about their destiny to them. They had no other choice at that point anyway. [But Hey, at least ROM is an independent country since 1991 while Greece is still not since 1821. Nothing more than a protectorate as of 2010]



Let me pretend to be as naive as you and ask a similar question. I think this can count as an answer to your other post about Young Turk`s parliamentary too;

Your country is supposedly a 3000 year old Greek land, right? So, let me ask then; Were there any Greek organization who had power to decide anything about so-called Greek lands between the year ~1370 to 1821? "were there any organizations or, at least, any individuals that should have? Or tried to? Any names? Were there at least any public statements recorded in History?"

"They came as liberators and we excepted them with open arms" (post#33)
"When a woman gets ganged raped, is she asked which position she prefers?" (post#39)
These are rather conflicting descriptions. Maybe you're blaming a whole generation or projecting present to the past. I'm not sure, so I'll put it differently. During the critical period 1905-1920 which are your heroes in Macedonia (if any)? What did they say? What did they do?

You are playing the ignorant again. As you very well know, that critical period of "1905-1920" as you noted above, created by the terror environment of Bulgar and Greek bandits who supported by Russians and British. Especially after 1878, the war of Russia-Turkey, Ottoman Empire went bankrupt and totally lost the control of Balkans, even Anatolia too. Basically, there was no order at all in Macedonia and only the Albanian bashibozuks was in charge against the Greek and Bulgar terror groups and we know how was the "order" of bashibozuks. Turkish people didn't call them as "irregular mobs(bashibozuk)" without a reason.

So, i don't think anyone can blame poor indigenous people who just wanted this chaos to end in some way or other.

[sf.]

While Daniel's answer implies an a posteriori collective feeling I wonder if there are any facts about it. So, WHO did represent the (non-Greek or non-Bulgarian) Macedonians. OK, no one did it officially in Bucharest or Neuilly Treaty. Yet, were there any organizations or, at least, any individuals that should have? Or tried to? Any names? Were there at least any public statements recorded in History?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Bucharest_(1913)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_...illy-sur-Seine

This is the second thread you have brought back in the last couple of days, with the purpose of implicitly negating an independent Macedonian identity. I see your games and if I were moderator, you'd be banned from here.

You've tried every trick in your book, but they're all transparent.

[thessalo-niki]

This is the second thread you have brought back in the last couple of days, with the purpose of implicitly negating an independent Macedonian identity. I see your games and if I were moderator, you'd be banned from here.

I wasn't trying to negate the independent Macedonian identity, rather asking you to support it with evidence. It wasn't rhetoric or ironic question, but a real one. While I have my suspicions, I don't know the answer and I'm (still) curiously expecting it.
I will indeed continue revisiting old threads. I didn't know that was a bad thing.
__________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

[Bill77]

I wasn't trying to negate the independent Macedonian identity, rather asking you to support it with evidence. It wasn't rhetoric or ironic question, but a real one. While I have my suspicions, I don't know the answer and I'm (still) curiously expecting it.
I will indeed continue revisiting old threads. I didn't know that was a bad thing.
__________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul

Weasel......

[thessalo-niki]

Dont pretend to be naive by these kind of asking questions. As you very well know, Macedonia was already destructed by Russians and British in that era and people was under new occupation after the Turkish reign. So, whatever occupiers wishes, then it happens that way. Besides, it was the wish of some Macedonians to be "liberated" by the Bulgars, Greeks, Serbs or Russians. I don't think they expected their "liberators" to go away right after the war. So, they probably remained silent by leaving the decision about their destiny to them. They had no other choice at that point anyway. [But Hey, at least ROM is an independent country since 1991 while Greece is still not since 1821. Nothing more than a protectorate as of 2010]

Actually I didn’t know very well that “Macedonia was already destructed by Russians and British” (first time I hear that) neither that “ROM is an independent country since 1991 while Greece is still a protectorate since 1821” (second time I hear that)

Your country is supposedly a 3000 year old Greek land, right? So, let me ask then; Were there any Greek organization who had power to decide anything about so-called Greek lands between the year ~1370 to 1821?

No part can solely decide. But they can… do something by words and actions. Yes, between ~1370-1821 there were many individuals and institutions- organizations that collectively expressed the Greek (Roman) people, and depending on the period and circumstances took various stances ranging from revolt and resistance up to collaboration, conversion and integration into Ottomans. That would include mostly the Church, local Bishops and wealthy or respected individuals (called proesti), monks, authors, printers, active Greeks of the Diaspora, even Bays, Patriarchs and Dragomans with flip-flop acrobatic attitude or outlaws and bandits. By 18th-19th Century there were secret societies like “Filiki Eteria”.

You are playing the ignorant again. As you very well know, that critical period of "1905-1920" as you noted above, created by the terror environment of Bulgar and Greek bandits who supported by Russians and British. Especially after 1878, the war of Russia-Turkey, Ottoman Empire went bankrupt and totally lost the control of Balkans, even Anatolia too. Basically, there was no order at all in Macedonia and only the Albanian bashibozuks was in charge against the Greek and Bulgar terror groups and we know how the «order» of bashibozuks was. Turkish people didn't call them as "irregular mobs (bashibozuk)" without a reason.

So, i don't think anyone can blame poor indigenous people who just wanted this chaos to end in some way or other.

Well, you often see people protesting about Bucharest Treaty saying “Why were we wronged? Why weren’t we given some land?” My question was simple. Who asked for it? Who acted towards that direction? Because, from late 1870s Greek and Bulgarian action (including pro-Greek and pro-Bulgarian Macedonians) was quite fierce, persistent and continuous in propaganda, education, religion, fighting and terrorism.
_________________________________
Odysseas Elytis - Our name is our soul