Exposing Bulgarian Myths and Lies

[Carlin]

The 'Second Bulgarian Empire.' Its Origin and History to 1204
R. Wolff

1) When, after more than a century, the fourth uprising did take place in 1186, it was under the auspices of two local chieftains, Peter and Asen, whom all the sources, Byzantine and western, agree in calling Vlachs, and who lived in the Balkan mountains. The most elaborate theories have been resorted to by Bulgarian historians to prove that the word 'Vlach' had by 1185 come to mean a 'Bulgar from the northwest part of the country.' They explain this phenomenon as the result of a conspiracy of silence on the part of Byzantine writers, who, they argue, were trying to avoid the use of the word 'Bulgar' and to substitute 'Vlach.' In fact, however, it can be demonstrated that Byzantine writers use the word 'Bulgar' quite freely when they are talking about Bulgars, and use 'Vlach' only to refer to Vlachs. It has long been realized that any other interpretation involves the twisting of the sources until they bear no relationship to the ascertainable facts about the origin and development of the ‘second Bulgarian Empire.’

2) Not long thereafter, one of Asen's captives, a priest, who spoke the Vlach language, begged for his freedom, and was refused, Asen saying with a grim pun (a pun, it is true, only in Greek, and we are told that they were speaking Vlach) that he intended not to let him go but to kill him. The priest, weeping, told Asen that God would show no future mercy to a man who had refused to heed the request of a poor suppliant. And indeed Asen was shortly thereafter killed by Ivanko, a Vlach, who was having an affair with Asen's wife's sister. Angered at the scandal, Asen had begun by threatening his wife, but soon turned his anger against Ivanko, whom he sent for late at night, refusing to postpone the interview. Taking council with his friends, Ivanko concealed a sword under his cloak for use only if Asen drew first. Asen reached for his sword immediately, and Ivanko struck. It was said that the captive sebastocrator Isaac had been at the root of the plot, and that he had promised Ivanko his own daughter in marriage. But even before the killing of Asen, Isaac had died in his chains. Ivanko's friends agreed that he would make a better ruler than the tyrannical Asen; and, seizing Tirnovo, Ivanko prepared to hold out against Asen's brothers Peter and Ioannitsa. ... He requested Byzantine aid, offering to hand over Tirnovo, Vlach capital and the key to their Balkan defenses.

3) It was at this juncture, in 1198 or 1199, that local Vlach chieftains other than the family of the Asen brothers began to set up independent principalities. Chrysos (Dobromir Chrysos), a Vlach, had at first not joined in the original insurrection of Peter and Asen, but had helped the Byzantines against them with a force of 500 men. Later he was captured, and drawn over to the side of his own people, disappointing Alexius by setting himself up as local ruler at Strumnitsa. The Emperor undertook one fruitless expedition against him, and some time later set out on a second, Chrysos having by this time taken possession of the virtually impregnable fortress of Prosakon (Prosek) on a cliff jutting out into the Vardar, and almost surrounded by water. Here Alexius foolishly undertook siege operations, which, however, nearly succeeded. Had it not been for a shortage of battering rams, Prosakon might have fallen, and much later trouble saved.

[Carlin]

1) ПИСМО ОД ЕГЕЈСКА МАКЕДОНИЈА ОД 1862: Нашите луѓе овде не знаат бугарски, туку нашиот македонски јазик

URL:

https://denesen.mk/pismo-od-egejska-makedonija-od-1862-nashite-lugje-ovde-ne-znaat-bugarski-tuku-nashiot-makedonski-jazik/

Ќе ти пишувам почесто, ама не знам по бугарски, нашите луѓе овде не знаат бугарски, пишува во писмо од Ениџе Вардар на 10 септември 1862 година.

Јазикот на Македонците во Егејска или Беломорска Македонија не бил бугарскиот, туку македонскиот или како што стои во оригиналот „Мачедонски език“.

Под фотографија од албумот „Сведоштва за постоење на македонската национална свест“, објавена на Фејсбук, стои назнака дека писмото е од 10 септември 1862 година.




2) URL:

https://denesen.mk/foto-vashington-tajms-vo-1903-od-sofija-blizu-polovina-od-naselenieto-vo-bugarija-se-makedonci-po-rod-ili-po-poteklo/

(фото) ВАШИНГТОН ТАЈМС ВО 1903 ОД СОФИЈА: Близу половина од населението во Бугарија се Македонци по род или по потекло

[Carlin]

"... it has been suggested by competent scholars that at the time of the founding of the Bulgarian state in 1878, less than 50% of the new state's population may have been Bulgarian. Within a few decades this percentage rose to form an unchallengeable majority, partly, at least, through the assimilation of non-Bulgarian elements in the population. [Stefan Troebst, 'Nationale Minderheiten'. in Klaus - Detlev Grothusen (cd.). Sudosteurope-Handbuch. Band VI: Bulgarien (Gottingen. 1990).]"

-- NATIONALITY IN THE BALKANS: THE CASE OF THE MACEDONIANS, by F. A. K. Yasamee (Balkans: A Mirror of the New World Order, Istanbul: EREN, 1995; pp. 121-132)

[Liberator of Makedonija]

I had no idea Ottoman Turkish was official in Bulgaria during that period actually. I suppose it makes sense when you think about it but still great bit of info just there.

[Risto the Great]

If the Bulgarians didn't receive so many Macedonian immigrants in the 19th and 20th centuries, it would have been a very different place right now. Interesting to see the Macedonian influence wasn't just when we taught them how to speak their language way back when they were speaking their Turkic languages.

[Carlin]

1) Bulgaria’s denial of its Ottoman past and Turkish identity

URL:

http://neweasterneurope.eu/2019/03/24/bulgarias-denial-of-its-ottoman-past-and-turkish-identity/

"For four decades between 1878 and 1908 in Bulgaria, Osmanlıca (Ottoman Turkish) was an official language, alongside the national tongue of Bulgarian. Numerous Bulgarian documents were written in Osmanlıca, and quite a few books and periodicals were published in this language in the Principality. And yet, although modern Bulgarian history is commonly defined as the post-1878 period, students and researchers of modern Bulgarian history do not acquire Osmanlıca, unless they specialise in “Oriental” or Turkish studies. It is as though Osmanlıca had never been an official language in modern Bulgaria."

2) The starting point of Bulgaria in national mythology

URL:

https://ispan.waw.pl/journals/index.php/sm/article/view/sm.2014.007

"This paper examines the dynamics of ideas on the beginnings of Bulgaria, such as were developed by early nationalism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Surveys show that there were different theses which competed tacitly. It is immediately noticeable that the figure of the Founder was imposed with difficulty and relatively late – in fact not until the 20th century. Paisius of Hilendar and the other authors of early histories presented Bulgarians in the context of Biblical history, and thus the beginning of Bulgarian time was associated with Noah and his sons. This idea was not openly attacked by successive generations, but they alternatively associated Bulgarian time and Bulgaria with the medieval kingdom, and especially with the baptism and deeds of Saints Cyril and Methodius. Among pre-Christian rulers, Khan emerges as significant, presented as Law-Maker and great Warrior, but not as Founder.

It is typical for the nationalism of any ideological (and not only ideological) structure to strive for extension – in this case to seek its starting point at an ever earlier date. This proces can also be observed in the structures of Bulgarian nationalism: in the second half of the 20th and early 21st centuries there was a clear focus on the time before the Founder Khan Asparukh (7th century), and scholars and journalists still take pleasure in finding older Bulgarian states. However, before the founding of the Principality of Bulgaria (1878), the opposite was true. (Some) representatives of the revolutionary movement in fact rejected the medieval period and preferred to focus on more recent periods, if not on their time itself and even on the immediate future. More or less unexpectedly, this idea was re-vitalised in the late 20th century with the catch-phrase “the most Bulgarian time” associated with the 1870s."

[Carlin]

[Carlin]

Andrey Tasev Lyapchev (Tarpov) (30 November 1866 – 6 November 1933) was a Bulgarian Prime Minister in three consecutive governments.

Lyapchev was born in the Macedonian city of Resen.

Lyapchev's family is thought to have originated from a certain Dore, a Megleno-Romanian potter who fled the Islamization of his native Notia and settled in Resen in the 18th century.

URL:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Lyapchev

[Liberator of Makedonija]

"Serbia has no Bulgars for an exchange of populations with Bulgaria" - Taken from the 'Evening Star' newspaper published in Washington D.C, USA on 16th August 1925.

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Would like to read what Vic has to say about that.

[Carlin]

An American newspaper reported in 1914 about a liturgy in honor of Cyril and Methodius

[Liberator of Makedonija]

Felt this was the best place to put this. Supposed quote from the-then future Bulgarian president Georgi Dimitriv from 1934 in an address to the American Ministry of Internal Affairs:

"Јас се чувствувам нераскинливо врзан со судбината на македонскиот народ и како бугарски пролетерски револуционер и како син на семејство што потекнува од Разлог - долината на историското Илинденско востание ....... Македонското движење има многу непријатели . Меѓутоа, најопасниот негов внатрешен непријател се агентите на бугарскиот империјализам, бугарскиот монархизам, бугарскиот фашизам и, пред се бандата на Ванчо Михајлов ...... Не може дада има успешна борбаа против националното угнетување и за ослободување на македонскиот народ без конечно изолирање на македонските маси од таа опасна банда, без полното елиминирање на нејзината јудинска улога во македонското движење и во натрешниот живот на Бугарија (се мисли на ВМРО на Ванчо Михајлов)...... Само единствената револуционерна борба на македонскиот народ во најтесен сојуз со работниците и селаните во Бугарија, Југославија и Грција може да доведе до победа на македонската ослободителна револуција"

[Carlin]

"It is conceivable that the internment of some Aromanians at this time was justified by the occupiers on the basis of alleged or real Partisan sympathies, rather than Vlach ancestry. But this is implicitly contradicted by the young man who claimed that "the Bulgarians kept camps for Vlachs and gypsies" from which his grandfather had escaped. There is evidence from others of our sources that the general attitude of the administration was anti-Aromanian. For example, one of our sources says that children who were in elementary school during the occupation were "fined if they spoke Vlach."

There was another phrase in Bulgarian which was alleged to be used against Aromanians, either in the First or Second World Wars or both: nebulgarski proizvod. This has a somewhat comical sound in Macedonian as proizvod in that language generally means industrial produce. However, the meaning would seem to be racial and to mean "not of Bulgarian descent." Vlachs were, according to the account from which we obtained this phrase, sometimes able to escape internment by claiming to be "Bulgarian products" in this sense.

There is also testimony regarding anti-Vlach feelings and actions by some of the occupying soldiery in the region. A woman said that her father had been beaten after having been identified as a Vlach, and her sister who was five was beaten as well; and that property was taken from self-identified Vlachs and given to non-Vlach neighbors. Ultimately her mother and another, twelve year old, sister were killed, allegedly by the Bulgarian occupiers, although the reasons or circumstances were not given -- and may indeed have had to do with Partisan sympathies or activities. The kmet of this woman’s ancestral village killed himself after the war and was said by this woman to have been a "Macedonian who declared himself to be Bulgarian."

Many of the Aromanians of the Bitola area are proud to have joined the anti-Axis partisan movement, which was the movement led by Tito's Communists. Most of these Partisans do not seem to have had any Communist background before the war, and they perceived themselves primarily as fighting for liberation against an occupying power.

We encountered stories of eight Partisans in Macedonia, and an ninth in the United States before coming to Bitola. Specifically we interviewed four older men who had been comrades in arms in the Seventh Battalion of Partisans. Their knowledge of the terrain in the mountains was very helpful to their service, which was mostly in the highland regions of western Macedonia. They were extremely proud of their Partisan record. Of course, during the period of Yugoslav Communism, Partisan status was the basis for special State benefits and privileges (which continue). Yet one of my own relatives (Mike Kara), who was in the Seventh Battalion and was fondly remembered by his comrades in arms who we interviewed in Bitola, turned his back on the potential privileges of former Partisan status and emigrated to the United States, making a life for himself there. We did not focus specifically on the war experiences of Partisans, but we heard enough so as not to doubt in any way the sacrifice of those we interviewed and of others. The Aromanian contribution to the Partisan cause in Macedonia was substantial."

-- by Gail Kara with Phillip Guddemi, The Spark and the New Leaf

[Carlin]

Greeks trying to prove modern identities by looking at archaeological evidence. That's something new .....

Good catch.



- Mikhail Madzharov, a Bulgarian politician, described in his memoirs that a young village newcomer to Plovdiv would learn from his master (who was himself a “Greek or hellenized Bulgarian”) the Plovdiv Greek language. Another reference to substandard Greek comes from Moravenov, who mentioned that a certain Bulgarian in Plovdiv « learned to jabber gudilski [Gudilain language] and therefore became a Gudila ». Both examples refer to language use with localized semantics as well as taxonomy of languages of which Gudilain language is not considered authentic Greek, but also the assumption that language itself can bring change to ethnic identity.

- In the 1850s and 1860s, with the intensification of the Bulgarian movement for an autocephalous church, the appellations Romaioi, Byzantines, Hellenes, and Greek blended and were filled with negative associations through reinterpretation of events from Antiquity and the Middle Ages. For example, publicists from the 1860s, and especially Petko Slaveĭkov, contributed to the dissemination of the legend that the Tŭrnovo Patriarchate’s library was put on fire deliberately by the Tŭrnovo’s bishop Ilariōn who was a Greek. In the 1870s and the 1880s, especially after the establishment of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870, the relations aggravated : « The Greek national and historical imagination was accordingly recasted, and embarked on a process that would transform the Bulgarians from harmless peasants and good Christians into blood-thirsty barbarians ». Moreover, many Greek contemporaries perceived the rupture of 1872 mostly in terms of foreign intervention and not as development of phases of hostility.

- In Dobrudja, though, the threat came from Rumanian and Gagauz women : « Men were married to Gagauz women who not only hated Bulgarian language but also succeeded in assimilating [pretopiat] their husbands… The peaceful Bulgarian, being ignorant, preferred to sacrifice his father’s tongue [my italics] and even to forget it in order to keep peace at home ». Note the patriarchal component – unlike Grigorovich -- who referred to the mother language, the quote above expressed language as masculine attribute of the nation, albeit manipulated by foreign women. This angst, which implied an emaciation of Bulgarian national masculinity, seems to be perpetuated by the Bulgarian journalist and writer Slaveĭkov, who maintained a social column in his newspaper “Gaĭda”. His sarcasm was especially directed at Bulgarians who married Greek women. One of the common targets was the above-mentioned Gavril Krŭstevich. The contempt against him was not spared even from his mother’s obituary -- Ralou Krŭstides (Rada Baeva), which was published in Greek (1875). It said that her son : « Gavril effendi hellenized not only his own name, but also the name of his mother at her old age ». Another Bulgarian writer and journalist, Liuben Karavelov, also discussed the denationalizing role of Greek and Gudila women in Plovdiv who were changing the identity of their husbands and children.

https://journals.openedition.org/balkanologie/2342?lang=en#tocto1n2

[Risto the Great]

Greeks trying to prove modern identities by looking at archaeological evidence. That's something new .....