Risto Stefov - Articles, Translations & Collaborations

[Pelister]

Despite the favourable attitude of most of the USA representatives, the Macedonian question remained outside the agenda of the Peace Conference due to the categorical opposition of France and Great Britain who supported the aspirations of the Balkan Allies, Greece and Serbia (i.e. the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenians) to keep the occupied parts of Macedonia. At the Paris Peace Conference, when the peace terms were negotiated with the Balkan states, the Macedonian question was treated as a minority problem and discussed at the Committee for New States and the Protection of the Minorities. At its meeting on July 15th, 1919 the Italian delegation submitted a proposal for the autonomous status of Macedonia "within borders fixed by the Great Powers and their allies" with the highest possible degree of self-government, but within the borders of the new Kingdom of SCS.

In 1919 Macedonians were sacrificed on the Alter of Peace.

Europe proposed to secure long term Peace in the region through the eradication and elimination of every Macedonian soul down to the very last.

This has been brought to light by two essays, Finney's "An Evil for all Concerned...", and A. Rossos "British Foriegn Office and the Macedonian question ..."...

What these papers reveal is that even though the Europeans had been fully aware of the presence of Macedonians, they chose a policy of extermination, eradication and denial. The decision makers at the very top of Europe referrred to Macedonians as "A Cancer" and as "A Rot" that needed to be eliminated.

And to think that the Macedonian government behaves as though its survival depends on the goodwill and benevolence of Europe. What a joke.

[George S.]

Risto Stefov - articles and emails

What’s Europe’s Problem with Macedonia?



By Risto Stefov

[email protected]

December 27, 2009





What’s Europe’s problem with Macedonia? Some people would say that most Europeans know so little, or next to nothing, about Macedonia how could they possibly have a problem with it?



By now anyone who has read my articles knows what I think so I will spare you the repetition.



More recently I received a letter from Australia from Vasil Bogov, the author of the book “Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology”, who reminded me that there may indeed be “other reasons” why Europe has a problem with the Macedonians.



And finally in response to that very question another friend e-mailed me a link with an article entitled “The Macedonian Question” by the Foreign Relations Council for Research Into South-Eastern Europe; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, which I have included in its entirety further down the text.



And now I will begin with Vasil Bogov’s compilations. Here Vasil draws on the words of others who shed a different light on European affairs regarding Macedonia and the Macedonians. The themes in the various sentences may seem to be out of context with each other which, by the way, is done on purpose, drawing the reader to form his or her own opinions. Do the Macedonian people deserve the “wrath” of Western Europe because of the historic influence of their Macedonian Church? Read and decide for yourselves! Here is what Vasil had to say;



“Panslavism was always primarily an instrument of Russian nationalism and politics, it never stood for Christian union.

It is true there are a few Turkish settlements in Macedonia, which live by agriculture.

They are genuine Osmanly Turks, who are exiled from Asia, in order that they might be isolated. (1)



Many in Western Europe doubted whether Hellenism existed at all in Macedonia, and regarded it solely as the invention of the Greek press. (2)



Since nationality in terms of practical politics, was chiefly a question of ecclesiastical registration, more than ever the Macedonian struggle developed into a conflict over Macedonian churches. (3)



Hellenismos was chiefly a propagandist organisation. (4)



The modern Western influence that thus spread into the main body of Christendom, the Ecumenical Patriarch had transmuted their old dream of raising from the dead, the East Roman ghost of the Roman Empire, in to a new dream of solving the Western question, on a political plan, in making the Ecumenical Patriarch the official head of all the Eastern Christians, the Sultan had given this Constantinopolitan prelate, political authority over Christian peoples, that had never been under the rule of any Constantinopolitan Emperor. (5)



However, as soon as there were Turks in Europe, The Eastern Question was born, and one might add that:

As soon as there was an "Eastern Question" war followed. (6)



Turkey was the ally, throughout the years, of the great European powers, in turn exploiting their rivalries in her own interest; whilst the European powers made the best of this field, in the great Christendom of Macedonia, of constant intrigues and perilous successes. (7)



Their Catholic priest brought pressures to bear in their proselytising of the Greeks. (8)



Their power in Macedonia was reinforced by the Orthodox clergy.

The new western "system of liberty", which at that time was being imported into the Christian world, not only contradicts the scriptures, but is really no more than a bastard freedom, allowing each individual to pursue his own most selfish interests and appetites. (9)



The spirit of western liberalism, was as alien to the Christian church in Macedonia, as the Sultan himself. (10)



Throughout the period of Turkish occupation the Holy Mountain was the great academy of Pravoslavni Christian Monasticism. (11)



It was here those monks above all others, who by their ardent and unswerving preaching, encouraged the customary to stand by their faith, and not abandon it in favour of Islam. (12)



But something had changed, by the middle of the 19th century, a Greek Bishop, as we call today, had been installed in Constantinople, to represent Roum Millet in the Balkans. (13)



His name was Melety, such Bishops are not only a burden to the Christian people, but also a sore wound of Christ's flock. (14)



The modern clerical members exploited the church, and between them, they set themselves to crush the Pravoslavni Christian faith in Macedonia, with the authority of the Turks behind them. (15)



It is from that egoistic standpoint that the "Greeks" hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks, to resist the old Christian religion in Macedonia. (16)



Greeks had never been a nation; it was doubtful whether they were even a race.

Greeks were not Hellenes, Romans, "Byzantines," nor Ancient Macedonians, as they are written in today's modern European history. (17)



Greek race is a mere invention of pseudo-science, and Greek language is another artificial invention. (18)



Greeks were loyal subjects to Abdul Hamid. (19)



What a land, then, is that comprised within the limits of the Turkish Empire that was Holy Mountain, with 64 monastic estates and monasteries in Macedonia. (20)



Out of its past speaks Christian faith, and material wealth, literature and art, philosophy and religion. (21)



And that land which today lies desolate, and its people, who were the glory of the past, repressed by injustice, cruelty, and tyranny – that land possesses today the same elements for material and spiritual greatness, that made it the first to develop a modern civilization. (22)



From whatever angle one views Macedonia, it beholds a land of extraordinary fascination.

To the historian, the archeologist, or to the geographer, it is a storehouse of wealth, worth a lifetime of exploration and study. (23)



Poetry and proverb are in the daily speech, while monasteries proclaim from every mountaintop, and market-place, that religion is a part of the very life of the Macedonians. (24)



The land of Macedonia looks out on the present from a historic past that is the study of all ages.

On the banks of the Dardanelles Constantine founded his world capital, and from that day Macedonian Christianity and the Macedonian city has figured in all great world movements. (25)



It has been the centre of intrigues and treaties, of councils and machination, around which have circled the policies of Europe for the last eighteen hundred years. (26)



If one could only turn aside from the horrors of misrule and injustice done to Macedonia, and out of a wonderful past could construct a vision of a more glorious future!

For, in spite of five centuries of retrogression under the rule of the Turks, there is promise of a golden age for the generation about to come.

The same broad plain that once fed and clothed a population of 40,000,000 beings, are waiting today for the plow to seed, and the reaper.

The mountains still hold riches of coal and iron and copper.

The rivers are potent with power to turn the wheels of industry.

The natural harbours invite the fleet of merchantmen, and the river valleys and mountain passes offer natural lines of communication and transportation, as in days when great caravans passed along these natural highways, bringing the merchandise of the East to the markets of the West. (27)



For centuries – a land, that modern exploration reveals as one of the richest in natural resources, and as unsurpassed by its geographic location, for being the trade centre of the world. (28)



However, in short the people of Macedonia become the victims of ruthless, unrelenting exploitation by a modern big idea of nationality.

If we take books, it was virtually nothing in Modern Greek, and naturally all Athenian periodicals and newspapers – save an innocent sheet published under the censor's eye in Smyrna (Asia Minor) are articles of contraband. (29)



It is that egoistic standpoint that the Greeks hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks to crush the Macedonian Christian church. (30)



The Patriarchate Greek priests were the tool of the Sultan. (31)



If one must balance criminality, the weight of horrors now rests with the Greeks.

And I am within the mark in saying that the Turkish authorities wink at the doing of the Greek "Bands" in Macedonia.

The Turk promotes and helps Greek propaganda in Macedonia – and this is the blunt truth – against the old and long established Christian religion. (32)



The Greek fails to notice that the whole proceeding is part of a scheme, by modern political powers in Europe, to keep the Christians at enmity in Macedonia. (33)



And now I offer you some of Henry Brailsford’s wisdom on the subject of “the Greeks”, quoted in square brackets, from his book “Macedonia Its Races and their Future”. Here is what Brailsford has to say about the Greeks with regards to the Macedonians;



[It is a sorry transition to turn from this dream of a revived Hellenism which is to civilise the Near East once more, to the actualities of Greek politics. One may say of the Greeks with equal truth that they are capable of superb devotion to an idea, or that they are the ready victims of any catch-word or abstraction. "The Slav is the enemy" is a phrase which their journalists have been repeating to them for the last thirty years, and at length it has obsessed them so powerfully that they have almost forgotten their own past and their heroic struggles against Turkish tyranny. They have been taught to believe that all Turkey south of the Balkans is theirs by right, and they can think of the Macedonian movement only as a sort of invasion of their inheritance planned by the enemy in Bulgaria, if not by Russia herself. That it can be a spontaneous Macedonian movement, that it is a real revolt against Turkish tyranny, they will not for a moment believe. It is for them only a plot by the foes of Greece against the sacred cause of Hellenism. It is from that egoistic standpoint that they hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks to resist "the Slav." For them these miserable peasants, taking arms under any leader who will promise them deliverance from the tax-collector and the bey, have no concrete existence. They are Slav, and "the Slav is the enemy." It is part of the Greek temperament that it does nothing by halves. They flung themselves into the new alliance with enthusiasm. In 1903 deputations of Greek officers actually visited the Turkish Minister in Athens to offer him their swords, and the Greek press wrote of Abdul Hamid as though he were a philosopher-king and a pillar of Hellenism. Bulgarian refugees captured in Thessaly were handed over to the Turkish police to be tortured in Turkish dungeons. The Patriarch issued an encyclical ordering his Bishops and priests to denounce the insurgents and their sympathisers to the Turkish officials. Every Greek consulate in Macedonia became a department of the Turkish secret police, and the work of espionage went on unchecked, even while the Turks were slaughtering the Hellenised Vlachs of Kruchevo. For to the Turk all Giaours are one. "There are white dogs and red dogs, but all of them are dogs." In fairness to the Greeks we must admit that this policy has been followed by their rivals in times past. M. Stambulov worked steadily for a Turco-Bulgarian entente, and undoubtedly he meant to use it against the Greeks. I have never heard that he carried it to such an extreme as this — the circumstances hardly arose — but there is a nasty story which accuses him of encouraging M. Tricoupis to develop his plan for a Balkan coalition against Turkey, only to carry the scheme to Constantinople on the eve of its execution. (34) No sense of chivalry prevented the Bulgarians from profiting by the reverses of Greece in 1897. But apart from the morality of this Greek policy or the amount of provocation which might be held to justify it, it is an extremely foolish venture. It had no doubt a certain brief and superficial success. It was easy to force a Bulgarian notable to call himself a "Greek" by threatening to denounce him to the Turks, and the Archbishop of Castoria won many villages for the Patriarch in this way. When that failed, a Bishop had only to go on tour among the villages with an immense "escort" of Turkish troops, as the Bishops of Serres and Florina did, "converting" them by force. As a last resort, in one case at least, the Bishop of Serres even arrested a Bulgarian priest and kept him a prisoner in his own palace, only releasing him when he renounced the Exarch. But these are ephemeral triumphs. The "converted" villages still maintain their sly commerce with the Committee, still harbour "bands," still talk Bulgarian. And assuredly they do not love "Hellenism" the more. Worst of all, the loyal Greek and Vlach villages are puzzled and impatient. They saw their Slav neighbours marching out to fight the traditional enemy, and they wished to join them. "You know we too have rifles, and we want to use them," said a young man of Klissoura to me one day. "Against whom?" I asked. "Why, against the Turks, of course. We are only waiting for Greece to tell us to move." And he went on, in the same tongue, the same accents that the mountaineers of Crete have used so often in my hearing, to explain how intolerable life was under Turkish rule. The policy which prompted Greece to use the occasion only to weaken Bulgaria while the chance of freedom slipped by, was quite beyond his comprehension. He, too, wanted autonomy, and he could not understand why Greece should claim it for Crete and oppose it in Macedonia. It is only the official or the educated Greek who prefers anarchy and the status quo to any surrender of the grotesque territorial claims of Hellenism over the Bulgarian interior. The average Greek official vowing in one breath that all the Macedonians are Greeks, and declaring in the next that he would rather have them massacred than governed by a Bulgarian majority, is painfully like the false mother in Solomon's judgment, who was quite ready to allow the other woman's child to be cut in two.

The immediate result of the Greek policy of espionage and denunciation, so lightly planned in Athens and Constantinople, was to expose the Greeks of Macedonia — or, to be more accurate, the villagers of the Greek party — to the fury and revenge of the Bulgarian Committee. If a Bishop had frightened a village into joining the Patriarchist Church by holding the fear of the Turks over its head, it was always possible for the next Bulgarian band which came that way to compel it to return to the Exarchist schism, by threatening to burn it to the ground. The one method was as legitimate as the other, and quite as efficacious. If a Greek priest in obedience to his Bishop's instructions had betrayed a group of insurgents to the Turks, there were always comrades left to come round and hang him from the nearest tree. The next stage in the evolution of party feeling was naturally that the Greeks came to think of the Bulgarians as wild beasts, who slaughtered from mere lust of blood. Legitimists always, they seemed to regard their own work of denunciation as an unexceptionable use of the weapons of law and order. The Bulgarians, after all, are rebels, and the Greeks as loyal subjects of Abdul Hamid were only setting the machinery of justice in motion. The Turks, however, have failed to protect them, and they had to devise some more effective plan for defending themselves. The scheme was to organise counter-bands to hold the Bulgarians in check. I had the chance to meet in Monastir in March, 1904, the emissary from the Greek Government who was preparing this scheme. He was travelling as a cattle-dealer under an assumed name, but I had known him first in a European university where we were undergraduates together, and again in the East. He comes of an influential family, and is himself a man of a certain magnetism and wayward talent, who has had some experience as a guerilla chief. The climate of Macedonia seemed to have transformed him. He talked his French, his English, and his German as fluently as ever, but the ideas he expressed — as far as the pale vocabulary of these languages would allow him — were the ideas of his Phanariot ancestors. In the name of Hellenism he proposed to make of Macedonia a shambles and a desert. Where the Bulgarians had murdered one man, he declared, he would slaughter ten. He shrank only from one thing — he would not imitate what he described as the "anarchist" methods of the Committee. He would not arm his men with dynamite. But all manner of straightforward bloodiness with lead and steel came into his programme. And yet he was firmly convinced that he was fighting for "culture," for "ideas," for "a superior civilisation,"against the Bulgarian “wolves.” (35) The earth might be a very tolerable place to live in, if every abstract word could be eliminated from human speech. Mephistopheles must have been fresh from a visit to the Balkans when he told Jehovah that mankind have used the reason which He gave them to become more beast-like than any beast. (36)]



The Macedonian Question


The Macedonian question appeared in foreign relations in the 1870's during the great Eastern Crisis when armed uprisings for liberation of the subdued peoples started in the Balkans. The uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875, in Bulgaria in April 1876 and in Macedonia in 1876 raised the question of the further existence of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in Europe. Following its current policy for the Balkans, Russia opposed the policies of the great Western European powers to retain the integrity of the Ottoman state, guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris concluded on April 15th 1856, and supported the fight of the conquered nations for liberation and independence. The Russian political programme devised several years before by counsellor Gorchakov was announced at the end of 1860 and included a solution to the Macedonian question.

The Russian plans for the Balkans anticipated a direct involvement of Russia in the liberation of the Orthodox Christian peoples and creation of national states: independence and territorial expansion for Serbia and Montenegro (in their ethnic borders), establishment of two Bulgarian principalities (north and south of the Stara mountain as counter-balance to the two Serbian principalities), and a separate, independent Macedonian principality. The Macedonian question divided the interests of Austria-Hungary and Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count Abrashi, requested establishment of an autonomous Macedonian state in customs union with Austria-Hungary. Gorchakov in principle agreed to it, but it soon turned out that Russia could not accept it.

In 1876-77 an Ambassadors' Conference of the great European states was held in Constantinople. It was expected to reach a diplomatic solution to the problems of the conquered nations within the Ottoman state and thus prevent further escalation of the crisis. The USA, which did not have any special interests in Macedonia, initiated an appropriate inquiry and solution to the Macedonian question. The American diplomacy in association with the American professors from the Robert College in Constantinople who were well-acquainted with the real situation, submitted to the Conference a proposition for the autonomy of Macedonia. However, the Conference failed due to the opposing interests of the great powers. Russia changed its policy on Macedonia and abandoned the plans for creation of a Macedonian state and started working in favour of a greater Bulgarian state instead. This happened after the secret negotiations on the Balkans among Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany in April 1878 when Austro-Hungarian diplomacy renewed the question of the creation of an autonomous Macedonian state, i.e. Macedonian principality (with General Radich as its governor). On that occasion the Russian representative, General Ignatiev, did not oppose that solution, but in May 1878 Russian diplomacy refused to clarify its view on the question or support the Macedonian demands for an independent state submitted in Constantinople to General Ignatiev by Dimitar Robev, a Macedonian representative in the Ottoman Parliament.

On July 13th, the International Treaty of Berlin (Art.23), gave Macedonia a special autonomous status. The government of the Ottoman state was assigned to regulate the status of Macedonia and the other provinces with a separate Statute. However, as there was no international control to observe the implementation of these resolutions or authorize sanctions for their non-implementation, the government in Constantinople did not fulfil its duties. The Macedonian uprising from 1878-79 and the actions of "Edinstvo" ("Unity"), the Transitional Government of Macedonia (formed secretly at the meeting of the National Assembly held from May 21st to June 2nd 1880) renewed interest in the Macedonian question in the diplomatic circles of the Great European Powers. The Transitional Government sent an Appeal to the great powers accompanied by a Protocol of the National Assembly for liberation of Macedonia and its constitution as an independent state. Furthermore, on March 23rd 1881, it issued a Manifesto which was distributed among the diplomatic representatives in the Ottoman Turkish state. Macedonia became an object of special interest in the relations between Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany. The agreement on a secret alliance of the emperors of these three states signed in 1881 included a separate stipulation for the protection of Macedonia from a possible attack by Bulgaria.

The beginning of the Ilinden uprising for national liberation of Macedonia in 1903, which the European diplomats called "The Macedonian revolution", marked the Macedonian question as an acute one for European diplomacy. The uprising and the creation of the so-called Krushevo Republic proved that the Macedonian people were ready to fight for their national freedom and the formation of their national state. At that time, the European powers were against the creation of a new state in the Balkans. European diplomacy had to intervene in order to calm the situation by proposing several projects for reforms among which were the Austro-Hungarian - Russian project known as the Murzsteg Reforms Programme and the British initiative that gave Macedonia a special status in its natural and ethnic borders. US diplomacy also became involved. The secretary of state and the USA president T. Roosevelt himself wrote to the British government acclaiming the British initiative for the autonomy of Macedonia.

As regards the reforms in Macedonia, American diplomats in 1907 suggested strict control of their implementation by the mandatory powers. In the beginning of March 1908 the government of Great Britain launched an initiative for the introduction of more radical reforms in Macedonia. This initiative was readily accepted by Russia. The two state sovereigns (British and Russian) met in June 1908 in Reval (Tallinn) and adopted a new proposal for reforms as a preliminary phase towards full autonomy for Macedonia."' Nevertheless, this initiative did not take place due to the revolution of the Young Turks which declared and introduced a constitutional order and democratization of the Ottoman Turkish state. However, the rule of the Young Turks with its Greater Ottoman politics stopped the process of further democratization and of a peaceful democratic solution to the Macedonian question within the Turkish state for which there existed the necessary conditions. It only led towards further deterioration of the situation which was used by the neighbouring Balkan states to interfere in the internal affairs of the Turkish state and to manifest openly their expansionist intentions.

Due to the worsening relations on the Balkans, in 1911 US diplomats undertook steps to influence the governments of the Balkan states to ease the tension and avoid the war they were preparing for, which could have led towards further involvement of the great powers in the solution of the eastern crisis. However, European diplomats showed no interest in preventing the military conflict on the Balkans. Moreover, they took part in its preparation governed by their original interests. At the time of the Balkan Wars when Macedonia was occupied and partitioned by the neighbouring Balkan states which was confirmed by the Treaty of Bucharest of August 10th 1913, European diplomacy had its own interest in accepting the partitioning as such. This could well have been predicted as the European powers, divided into two opposite blocks, started hasty preparations for the forthcoming Great War. Thus, the Macedonian question entered a new and extremely dangerous phase, not only for the future of the Macedonian nation, but for the peace on the Balkans and in Europe too.

These fears soon came true with the beginning of the First World War. At the end of the war the Macedonian question became a crucial problem in the negotiations and the plans for the post-war organization of Balkan relations. The high military and political circles of the Entente powers and the US diplomats considered the creation of an independent Macedonian state, under the protectorate of one of the great non-involved powers (having primarily in mind the USA) as an unbiased, just and permanent solution to the problem. The final aim of this idea was the establishment of radically new relations on the Balkans which would ensure permanent stability in that neuralgic region. Such a solution was also presented at the secret negotiations for separate peace between the powers of the Entente on the one side and Bulgaria on the other under the observance of the USA. The interest in the Macedonian question was renewed yet again in the official diplomacy of the USA, with President W. Wilson's peace programme. In the official American interpretation of the "14 items'.', the USA declared that they would support an objective and unbiased investigation of the problem. An American expert group studied the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 and concluded that it could not serve as a basis for a solution to the Balkan problems because that agreement was "an act of the corrupted Balkan bourgeoisies".

At the beginning of the Paris Peace Conference, twenty- five renowned intellectuals from different European countries, Great Britain and the USA signed a Memorandum on the Macedonian question and sent it to the President of the USA. They demanded the formation of an autonomous Macedonian state in its natural and ethnic borders, which in the south would stretch from the Lake of Kostur to the Vardar estuary, thus leaving the towns of Ber and Negrita and the Halkidiki Peninsula to Greece. Furthermore, it was suggested that in the beginning the autonomous Macedonian state be under the protectorate of one of the great powers (the USA presumably). An unsigned Memorandum with identical contents was sent to Great Britain, too. The issue of the formation of a Macedonian state was the subject of an intense exchange of opinions and viewpoints among the members of the USA Peace Delegation, the American diplomatic representatives in the European states and the members of the American teams of experts. This was especially evident after the request of the Macedonians to be allowed a presence at the Paris Conference in order to present their demands. The member of the team of experts for Balkan questions C. Day informed A. Dulles in a letter about his numerous consultations with impartial experts on the Macedonian question who admitted the existence of problems arising from the issue, but were unanimously for the formation of an autonomous Macedonian state. The envoy of the American President, his personal friend and an expert on European relations, Professor George Herron urged President W. Wilson and the American Peace Delegation to put the Macedonian question on the agenda of the Peace Conference, supporting the integrity and independence of Macedonia. In a letter of May 26th to Colonel Haus, the leader of the American delegation and the most influential political figure after the President, Professor Herron wrote that the Macedonians were a separate nation, unified in their demands and wishes to form an independent state under the protectorate of the USA. Col. Haus himself supported "the cause of Macedonian freedom".

Despite the favourable attitude of most of the USA representatives, the Macedonian question remained outside the agenda of the Peace Conference due to the categorical opposition of France and Great Britain who supported the aspirations of the Balkan Allies, Greece and Serbia (i.e. the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenians) to keep the occupied parts of Macedonia. At the Paris Peace Conference, when the peace terms were negotiated with the Balkan states, the Macedonian question was treated as a minority problem and discussed at the Committee for New States and the Protection of the Minorities. At its meeting on July 15th, 1919 the Italian delegation submitted a proposal for the autonomous status of Macedonia "within borders fixed by the Great Powers and their allies" with the highest possible degree of self-government, but within the borders of the new Kingdom of SCS. The meeting of July 18th discussed the stipulations which were to be introduced at the peace negotiations with the Balkan states concerning the protection of minorities. These stipulations also included the Macedonian minorities in the Balkan states, referred to as "Macedonians". At the meeting of July 30th the Committee discussed the Italian proposal for the autonomy of Macedonia and the British proposal for the establishment of League of Nations control over Macedonia. As regards this, it was suggested that the League of Nations be authorized to send its representatives to Macedonia. The following meetings discussed the same proposals in a somewhat modified form. Due to the opposing views on the question, it remained open till the beginning of November 1919. The text of the Peace Agreement on minorities and the obligations of the government of the Kingdom of SCS for the protection of the rights of minorities were then finally formulated. On November, llth the Supreme Council accepted the proposed text of the document and obliged the government of the Kingdom of SCS to sign the agreement. The Committee for New States also prepared stipulations for protection of minorities in Greece where the Macedonian people were given minority status.'

The Committee informed the Greek delegation about the draft-agreement for the protection of minorities and the stipulations included in it. The president of the Greek government and a leader of the peace delegation responded to this document issued by the Committee with a false statement that Greece had provided protection for the Albanian, Moslem and Slav minorities (the latter referred to as "the Slav communities in Macedonia") and claimed that Greece was ready to accept the agreement. According to this, the president of Greece recognized the existence of a Macedonian minority. The stipulations for the protection of minorities put Greece under an obligation to introduce minority languages in the state schools, but Venizelos resisted this and demanded reformulation of the decrees for the protection of minorities. At the meeting on September 18th the Supreme Council rejected all the Greek comments and on November 3rd ratified its agreement with Greece. Having imposed his plans for a reciprocal exchange of population between Greece and Bulgaria, the aim of which was only to conduct an ethnic cleansing of the occupied Aegean part of Macedonia with international approval, Venizelos presented himself as especially co-operative as regards the Agreement. Accepting his demands, the Committee for New States formed a separate Sub-Committee which prepared "special stipulations" for "voluntary emigration" of the citizens of these states during a period of four years after the effectuation of the Agreement. The Committee for New States only redefined this decree as an individual right for voluntary emigration, thus changing nothing essential in it. The suggestion of expanding these stipulations to refer to the Kingdom of SCS and Turkey was not accepted. The Committee prepared a separate convention for an exchange of citizens between Greece and Bulgaria on a voluntary basis. The Supreme Council approved of its text and obliged the Bulgarian delegation to sign it within 48 hours. The Bulgarian delegation signed the convention within the given period of notice. The stipulations for the protection of minorities which also referred to parts of the Macedonian people were not respected by the Balkan states. The Macedonian people was subjected to very severe de-nationalization and assimilation. Greece applied such means of violent pressure that it forced a great part of the Macedonian population to accept "voluntary" emigration.



By the Foreign Relations Council for Research Into South-Eastern Europe; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts



Sources:



Bogov, Vasil. Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology. Western Australia, 1998.



Brailsford, H. N. Macedonia Its Races and their Future. New York: Arno Press, 1971.

http://www.historyofmacedonia.org:80/PartitionedMacedonia/MacedonianQuestion.html

NOTES:



1. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Pages 87-88

2. THE GREEK STRUGGLE IN MACEDONIA 1897-1913 by Douglas Dakin 1966

Page 19

3. “ “ “ “ “ Page 149

4. THE GREEK STRUGGLE IN MACEDONIA 1897-1913 by Douglas Dakin 1966

Page 143 N

5. A STUDY OF HISTORY by Arnold J. Toynbee 1957 Great Britain Page 156

6. DIMITRI STANCIOFF by Nadeja Muir 1957 London Pages 260- 261

7. “ “ “ “ “ “ Page 261

8. THE GREEK PASSION by Kenneth Young 1969 London Page 126

9. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page

182

10. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page

182

11. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA 1354-1833 by AE. Vacalopoulos Balkan Studies 1973

Page 182

12. “ “ “ “ “ “ Page 182

13. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page

184

14. THE TRUTH ABOUT MACEDONIA, AMERICAN MISSIONARIES

TESTIMONY INDIANA U.S.A. 1964 Page 47

15. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 195

16. “ “ “ “ “ “ Page 210

17. THE GREEK PASSION by Kenneth Young London 1969 Page 146

18. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 197

19. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 212

20. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA 1354-1833 by A.C. Vacalopoulos Balkan Studies 1973 Pages 168-169

21. THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE WASHINGTON DC July 1918 UNDER THE HEEL OF THE TURK Page 53

22. “ “ “ “ Page 53

23. “ “ “ “ Page 51

24. “ “ “ “ Page 51

25. “ “ “ “ Pages 51-52

26. “ “ “ “ Page 52

27. “ “ “ “ Page 53

28. “ “ “ “ Page 53

29. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 203

30. “ “ “ “ Page 210

31. PICTURES FROM THE BALKANS by John Foster Fraser 1912 Page 181

32. “ “ “ “ Page 15

33. “ “ “ “ Page 15

34 This tale may be a calumny. M. Tricoupis always denied that he had attempted to bring about an alliance with Bulgaria (see Nicolaides, La Macedoine," p. 203).

35. As a matter of history the Greeks have been neither more nor less humane than other Balkan people. The War of Independence was a dialogue of massacre in which outrage answered to outrage. The Cretans perpetrated a wholesale massacre at the expense of the Moslem minority in the eastern (Sitia) districts of the island in 1897. I saw with my own eyes young Moslem girls who had escaped mutilated from these horrors. During the Thessalian campaign of 1897 I was present when an Evzone regiment strung up a Turkish prisoner by his heels from a tree, and proceeded to lay a fire of wood and straw under his head. Fortunately he promised to give them valuable information before the fire was actually lit, and at that moment some Italian officers of the Foreign Legion appeared on the scene.

36. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Pages 210-213

[George S.]

Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the

Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU
From: Risto Stefov ([email protected])
Sent: Sunday, 27 December 2009 3:59:08 AM
To:

Revealed: The secret report that shows how the Nazis planned a Fourth Reich ...in the EU

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich--EU.html

The paper is aged and fragile, the typewritten letters slowly fading. But US Military Intelligence report EW-Pa 128 is as chilling now as the day it was written in November 1944.



The document, also known as the Red House Report, is a detailed account of a secret meeting at the Maison Rouge Hotel in Strasbourg on August 10, 1944. There, Nazi officials ordered an elite group of German industrialists to plan for Germany's post-war recovery, prepare for the Nazis' return to power and work for a 'strong German empire'. In other words: the Fourth Reich.

The three-page, closely typed report, marked 'Secret', copied to British officials and sent by air pouch to Cordell Hull, the US Secretary of State, detailed how the industrialists were to work with the Nazi Party to rebuild Germany's economy by sending money through Switzerland.



They would set up a network of secret front companies abroad. They would wait until conditions were right. And then they would take over Germany again.



The industrialists included representatives of Volkswagen, Krupp and Messerschmitt. Officials from the Navy and Ministry of Armaments were also at the meeting and, with incredible foresight, they decided together that the Fourth German Reich, unlike its predecessor, would be an economic rather than a military empire - but not just German.
The Red House Report, which was unearthed from US intelligence files, was the inspiration for my thriller The Budapest Protocol.



The book opens in 1944 as the Red Army advances on the besieged city, then jumps to the present day, during the election campaign for the first president of Europe. The European Union superstate is revealed as a front for a sinister conspiracy, one rooted in the last days of the Second World War.



But as I researched and wrote the novel, I realised that some of the Red House Report had become fact.



Nazi Germany did export massive amounts of capital through neutral countries. German businesses did set up a network of front companies abroad. The German economy did soon recover after 1945.



The Third Reich was defeated militarily, but powerful Nazi-era bankers, industrialists and civil servants, reborn as democrats, soon prospered in the new West Germany. There they worked for a new cause: European economic and political integration.
Is it possible that the Fourth Reich those Nazi industrialists foresaw has, in some part at least, come to pass?



The Red House Report was written by a French spy who was at the meeting in Strasbourg in 1944 - and it paints an extraordinary picture.



The industrialists gathered at the Maison Rouge Hotel waited expectantly as SS Obergruppenfuhrer Dr Scheid began the meeting. Scheid held one of the highest ranks in the SS, equivalent to Lieutenant General. He cut an imposing figure in his tailored grey-green uniform and high, peaked cap with silver braiding. Guards were posted outside and the room had been searched for microphones.

There was a sharp intake of breath as he began to speak. German industry must realise that the war cannot be won, he declared. 'It must take steps in preparation for a post-war commercial campaign.' Such defeatist talk was treasonous - enough to earn a visit to the Gestapo's cellars, followed by a one-way trip to a concentration camp.



But Scheid had been given special licence to speak the truth – the future of the Reich was at stake. He ordered the industrialists to 'make contacts and alliances with foreign firms, but this must be done individually and without attracting any suspicion'.



The industrialists were to borrow substantial sums from foreign countries after the war.
They were especially to exploit the finances of those German firms that had already been used as fronts for economic penetration abroad, said Scheid, citing the American partners of the steel giant Krupp as well as Zeiss, Leica and the Hamburg-America Line shipping company.



But as most of the industrialists left the meeting, a handful were beckoned into another smaller gathering, presided over by Dr Bosse of the Armaments Ministry. There were secrets to be shared with the elite of the elite.



Bosse explained how, even though the Nazi Party had informed the industrialists that the war was lost, resistance against the Allies would continue until a guarantee of German unity could be obtained. He then laid out the secret three-stage strategy for the Fourth Reich.



In stage one, the industrialists were to 'prepare themselves to finance the Nazi Party, which would be forced to go underground as a Maquis', using the term for the French resistance.



Stage two would see the government allocating large sums to German industrialists to establish a 'secure post-war foundation in foreign countries', while 'existing financial reserves must be placed at the disposal of the party so that a strong German empire can be created after the defeat'.



In stage three, German businesses would set up a 'sleeper' network of agents abroad through front companies, which were to be covers for military research and intelligence, until the Nazis returned to power.



'The existence of these is to be known only by very few people in each industry and by chiefs of the Nazi Party,' Bosse announced.
'Each office will have a liaison agent with the party. As soon as the party becomes strong enough to re-establish its control over Germany, the industrialists will be paid for their effort and co-operation by concessions and orders.'

The exported funds were to be channeled through two banks in Zurich, or via agencies in Switzerland which bought property in Switzerland for German concerns, for a five per cent commission.



The Nazis had been covertly sending funds through neutral countries for years.
Swiss banks, in particular the Swiss National Bank, accepted gold looted from the treasuries of Nazi-occupied countries. They accepted assets and property titles taken from Jewish businessmen in Germany and occupied countries, and supplied the foreign currency that the Nazis needed to buy vital war materials.
Swiss economic collaboration with the Nazis had been closely monitored by Allied intelligence.



The Red House Report's author notes: 'Previously, exports of capital by German industrialists to neutral countries had to be accomplished rather surreptitiously and by means of special influence.



'Now the Nazi Party stands behind the industrialists and urges them to save themselves by getting funds outside Germany and at the same time advance the party's plans for its post-war operations.'
The order to export foreign capital was technically illegal in Nazi Germany, but by the summer of 1944 the law did not matter.



More than two months after D-Day, the Nazis were being squeezed by the Allies from the west and the Soviets from the east. Hitler had been badly wounded in an assassination attempt. The Nazi leadership was nervous, fractious and quarrelling.
During the war years the SS had built up a gigantic economic empire, based on plunder and murder, and they planned to keep it.



A meeting such as that at the Maison Rouge would need the protection of the SS, according to Dr Adam Tooze of Cambridge University, author of Wages of Destruction: The Making And Breaking Of The Nazi Economy.



He says: 'By 1944 any discussion of post-war planning was banned. It was extremely dangerous to do that in public. But the SS was thinking in the long-term. If you are trying to establish a workable coalition after the war, the only safe place to do it is under the auspices of the apparatus of terror.'
Shrewd SS leaders such as Otto Ohlendorf were already thinking ahead.



As commander of Einsatzgruppe D, which operated on the Eastern Front between 1941 and 1942, Ohlendorf was responsible for the murder of 90,000 men, women and children.
A highly educated, intelligent lawyer and economist, Ohlendorf showed great concern for the psychological welfare of his extermination squad's gunmen: he ordered that several of them should fire simultaneously at their victims, so as to avoid any feelings of personal responsibility.



By the winter of 1943 he was transferred to the Ministry of Economics. Ohlendorf's ostensible job was focusing on export trade, but his real priority was preserving the SS's massive pan-European economic empire after Germany's defeat.



Ohlendorf, who was later hanged at Nuremberg, took particular interest in the work of a German economist called Ludwig Erhard. Erhard had written a lengthy manuscript on the transition to a post-war economy after Germany's defeat. This was dangerous, especially as his name had been mentioned in connection with resistance groups.



But Ohlendorf, who was also chief of the SD, the Nazi domestic security service, protected Erhard as he agreed with his views on stabilizing the post-war German economy. Ohlendorf himself was protected by Heinrich Himmler, the chief of the SS.
Ohlendorf and Erhard feared a bout of hyper-inflation, such as the one that had destroyed the German economy in the Twenties. Such a catastrophe would render the SS's economic empire almost worthless.



The two men agreed that the post-war priority was rapid monetary stabilization through a stable currency unit, but they realized this would have to be enforced by a friendly occupying power, as no post-war German state would have enough legitimacy to introduce a currency that would have any value.



That unit would become the Deutschmark, which was introduced in 1948. It was an astonishing success and it kick-started the German economy. With a stable currency, Germany was once again an attractive trading partner.
The German industrial conglomerates could rapidly rebuild their economic empires across Europe.



War had been extraordinarily profitable for the German economy. By 1948 - despite six years of conflict, Allied bombing and post-war reparations payments - the capital stock of assets such as equipment and buildings was larger than in 1936, thanks mainly to the armaments boom.



Erhard pondered how German industry could expand its reach across the shattered European continent. The answer was through supranationalism - the voluntary surrender of national sovereignty to an international body.



Germany and France were the drivers behind the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the precursor to the European Union. The ECSC was the first supranational organization, established in April 1951 by six European states. It created a common market for coal and steel which it regulated. This set a vital precedent for the steady erosion of national sovereignty, a process that continues today.



But before the common market could be set up, the Nazi industrialists had to be pardoned, and Nazi bankers and officials reintegrated. In 1957, John J. McCloy, the American High Commissioner for Germany, issued an amnesty for industrialists convicted of war crimes.



The two most powerful Nazi industrialists, Alfried Krupp of Krupp Industries and Friedrich Flick, whose Flick Group eventually owned a 40 per cent stake in Daimler-Benz, were released from prison after serving barely three years.
Krupp and Flick had been central figures in the Nazi economy. Their companies used slave labourers like cattle, to be worked to death. The Krupp company soon became one of Europe's leading industrial combines.



The Flick Group also quickly built up a new pan-European business empire. Friedrich Flick remained unrepentant about his wartime record and refused to pay a single Deutschmark in compensation until his death in July 1972 at the age of 90, when he left a fortune of more than $1billion, the equivalent of £400 million at the time.



'For many leading industrial figures close to the Nazi regime, Europe became a cover for pursuing German national interests after the defeat of Hitler,' says historian Dr Michael Pinto-Duschinsky, an adviser to Jewish former slave labourers.



'The continuity of the economy of Germany and the economies of post-war Europe is striking. Some of the leading figures in the Nazi economy became leading builders of the European Union.'



Numerous household names had exploited slave and forced labourers including BMW, Siemens and Volkswagen, which produced munitions and the V1 rocket.
Slave labour was an integral part of the Nazi war machine. Many concentration camps were attached to dedicated factories where company officials worked hand-in-hand with the SS officers overseeing the camps.



Like Krupp and Flick, Hermann Abs, post-war Germany's most powerful banker, had prospered in the Third Reich. Dapper, elegant and diplomatic, Abs joined the board of Deutsche Bank, Germany's biggest bank, in 1937. As the Nazi empire expanded, Deutsche Bank enthusiastically 'Aryanised' Austrian and Czechoslovak banks that were owned by Jews.



By 1942, Abs held 40 directorships, a quarter of which were in countries occupied by the Nazis. Many of these Aryanised companies used slave labour and by 1943 Deutsche Bank's wealth had quadrupled.



Abs also sat on the supervisory board of I.G. Farben, as Deutsche Bank's representative. I.G. Farben was one of Nazi Germany's most powerful companies, formed out of a union of BASF, Bayer, Hoechst and subsidiaries in the Twenties.



It was so deeply entwined with the SS and the Nazis that it ran its own slave labour camp at Auschwitz, known as Auschwitz III, where tens of thousands of Jews and other prisoners died producing artificial rubber.



When they could work no longer, or were verbraucht (used up) in the Nazis' chilling term, they were moved to Birkenau. There they were gassed using Zyklon B, the patent for which was owned by I.G. Farben. But like all good businessmen, I.G. Farben's bosses hedged their bets.



During the war the company had financed Ludwig Erhard's research. After the war, 24 I.G. Farben executives were indicted for war crimes over Auschwitz III - but only twelve of the 24 were found guilty and sentenced to prison terms ranging from one-and-a-half to eight years. I.G. Farben got away with mass murder.



Abs was one of the most important figures in Germany's post-war reconstruction. It was largely thanks to him that, just as the Red House Report exhorted, a 'strong German empire' was indeed rebuilt, one which formed the basis of today's European Union.



Abs was put in charge of allocating Marshall Aid - reconstruction funds - to German industry. By 1948 he was effectively managing Germany's economic recovery.
Crucially, Abs was also a member of the European League for Economic Co-operation, an elite intellectual pressure group set up in 1946. The league was dedicated to the establishment of a common market, the precursor of the European Union.
Its members included industrialists and financiers and it developed policies that are strikingly familiar today - on monetary integration and common transport, energy and welfare systems.



When Konrad Adenauer, the first Chancellor of West Germany, took power in 1949, Abs was his most important financial adviser.



Behind the scenes Abs was working hard for Deutsche Bank to be allowed to reconstitute itself after decentralization. In 1957 he succeeded and he returned to his former employer.


That same year the six members of the ECSC signed the Treaty of Rome, which set up the European Economic Community. The treaty further liberalized trade and established increasingly powerful supranational institutions including the European Parliament and European Commission.



Like Abs, Ludwig Erhard flourished in post-war Germany. Adenauer made Erhard Germany's first post-war economics minister. In 1963 Erhard succeeded Adenauer as Chancellor for three years.



But the German economic miracle – so vital to the idea of a new Europe - was built on mass murder. The number of slave and forced labourers who died while employed by German companies in the Nazi era was 2,700,000.



Some sporadic compensation payments were made but German industry agreed a conclusive, global settlement only in 2000, with a £3billion compensation fund. There was no admission of legal liability and the individual compensation was paltry.



A slave labourer would receive 15,000 Deutschmarks (about £5,000), a forced labourer 5,000 (about £1,600). Any claimant accepting the deal had to undertake not to launch any further legal action.



To put this sum of money into perspective, in 2001 Volkswagen alone made profits of £1.8 billion.



Next month, 27 European Union member states vote in the biggest transnational election in history. Europe now enjoys peace and stability. Germany is a democracy, once again home to a substantial Jewish community. The Holocaust is seared into national memory.
But the Red House Report is a bridge from a sunny present to a dark past. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda chief, once said: 'In 50 years' time nobody will think of nation states.'



For now, the nation state endures. But these three typewritten pages are a reminder that today's drive towards a European federal state is inexorably tangled up with the plans of the SS and German industrialists for a Fourth Reich - an economic rather than military imperium.


• The Budapest Protocol, Adam LeBor's thriller inspired by the Red House Report, is published by Reportage Press.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1179902/Revealed-The-secret-report-shows-Nazis-planned-Fourth-Reich--EU.html

[George S.]

Come take a ride in Tito’s time Machine – Part 17 – Fear of a Balkan War

Come take a ride in Tito’s time Machine – Part 17 – Fear of a Balkan War



By Risto Stefov

[email protected]

December 6, 2009



If we “must” believe that Josip Broz Tito (May 7, 1892 - May 4, 1980), the Yugoslav dictator, along with the Communists, “invented” the Macedonians then we must also believe that Tito possessed a “Time Machine” because in this series of articles we will show you that the Macedonians existed way before Tito’s time.



Anxious to avoid sleeping in, I set my alarm clock the previous evening to wake me up an hour earlier than usual. I wanted to be by the Delorean bright and early just in case TrueMacedonian decided to pay me a visit. But just as I arrived at the “secret spot” I noticed the Delorean was gone. It was not there and neither was anyone else for that matter. I began to wonder what could have happened. Could the team have left earlier than usual? Could the team have discovered that I was a stowaway and decided to find a new hiding place for launching the missions? How was I going to get in touch with TrueMacedonian when I did not even know where he lived?



I decided to hide in the bushes and lay in wait anyway, hoping that somehow things would return to normal and I would again be able to board the Delorean in the usual fashion and the team and I would again be traveling with Tito to secret missions.



Just as I sat there, preoccupied with my thoughts, I caught a glimpse of the Delorean appear and then disappear. The team must have returned from one mission and was off to the next, I thought to myself as I was overcome with excitement that all was not lost. But why must the Delorean return to the same time and space from one mission in order to go to the next mission? Could this spot be “ground zero” in space and time for the time-machine and it has to return here to recalibrate its instruments before going to another mission? I could only guess as to the reason for its return but I was happy to see it back.



Bored of waiting for the Delorean to return I decided to go home and come back later when the missions were over. I wanted to get in touch with TrueMacedonian and find out what was going on? Why did the team leave much earlier this morning? Was this going to be the new, permanent schedule or was this just for the day? I had to know.



I had just returned to my hiding place when I saw the Deloran suddenly appear out of nowhere. It was indeed startling to see.



Ah the team has returned, I thought to myself. And as the Delorean’s engines were shut down, I knew this was the last mission and the team would soon be going home. As I peeked through the brush I could see everyone come out of the car and slowly drift away towards the horizon. TrueMacedonian was the last to exit the car and as he did he flicked something over his head with his right thumb. I watched it land and bounce just behind the Delorean. It must be a message for me, I thought. I hope it’s newspaper clippings from today’s missions. I waited until everyone had disappeared behind the horizon before I came out of the bush and quickly picked up what looked like a paper ball of discarded trash. How clever I thought.



I was right, it was a ball of crumpled-up paper with three tightly packed pages. I anxiously and carefully unwrapped them and began to study them. The first one read;



“FEAR OF A BALKAN WAR



All the Powers working to bring about reforms peaceably.



Chief Feature of Innovation is a Governor for Macedonia with Independent Powers – Bulgaria’s good faith doubted.



SOFIA, Bulgaria, Feb. 17. – The sobranje to-day, after a long and heated debate, adopted a resolution approving the action of the Government in suppressing the Macedonian committees.

In the course of the discussions the Premier, Dr. Daneff, made an impassionate appeal to the house to support the Government, saying that it was imperative to the welfare of Bulgaria at the present critical moment that the powers should remain without any doubt as to the Bulgarian Government’s intention to keep the people of Macedonia quiet and to help the powers in carrying out the scheme of pacification.



VIENNA, Feb. 17. – The Neue Freie Presse announces that the Austro-Russian note was today submitted to the cabinets of Berlin, Paris, London and Rome, and that it will be presented to the Porte on Feb. 19 unless the powers require a revision of it, in which case its presentation will be delayed until Feb. 21.

The reform proposals are chiefly of an administrative and financial nature, such as the Porte has heretofore promised but never executed. One new feature is the appointment of a Governor, not necessarily a Christian, who shall have authority to act without referring to the Porte in every contingency.

It is believed in diplomatic circles that the Porte will oppose the appointment of such a Governor, and it is seriously doubted whether the reforms will satisfy the Macedonians. The good faith of the Bulgarian Government in ordering the recent arrests of Macedonians is also questioned, in view of the fact that the most prominent revolutionists managed to escape.

A formidable outbreak in the early Spring is considered as by no means impossible. According to advices from Salonica, the German, British and Italian military attaches arrived in the city today from Constantinople.” (The New York Times, February 17, 1903)



The second one read;



“PLANS OF MACEDONIANS.

Correspondent comes into touch with the insurgent leader.



London Times – New York Times – Special Cablegram.



LONDON, Oct. 21. – After a long journey in the night a special correspondent of the Times in Macedonia has succeeded in getting into touch with the leader of the Macedonian Revolutionists.

He was informed that it was the intention of the insurgents to carry on their guerrilla operations throughout the Winter so far as the climatic conditions will permit, in order to compel Turkey to keep a large army of pacification constantly under arms. The bands intend to make another desperate campaign in the Spring.

The sole hope of the revolutionary leaders is to prolong the present disturbed state of affairs in order to prove to Europe that Turkey, in spite the enormous forces employed to suppress the insurrection, is unable to settle the Macedonian question. They feel confident that the powers will then force the Porte to grant the autonomy demanded by them.

With regard to the atrocities perpetrated in Macedonia, the correspondent says, the insurgent leaders, who have no cause to love the Turks, do not endorse entirely the stories of vengeance perpetrated on innocent women and children that have been circulated by some hysterical correspondents. They say that the Turks massacre all male Macedonians suspected of sympathy with the insurrection and constantly fire on parties of refugees, but wholesale outrages on women and children have occurred only on occasions. The wholesale pillage and destruction of villages and massacres of the males have been the method pursued by the Turks in dealing with the insurrection.

The insurgent leaders have adopted a new policy in order to take from the Turks as far as possible any pretext for retribution of this sort. They have established food supplies in the mountains.” (The New York Times, October 21, 1903)



The third one read;



“WILL AID MACEDONIANS



Bulgarian Plan to Collect Funds for the Insurgents.



Government may be asked to intervene – Premier Petroff tells of his inspection of the frontier.



SOFIA, Bulgaria, Aug. 15. – An enthusiastic meeting of Macedonian sympathizers was held here this afternoon, at which resolutions were adopted in favor of agitating throughout the country in order to being pressure to bear upon the Bulgarian Government to intervene in Macedonia. A committee was appointed to collect money to aid the insurgents.

Premier Petroff has just returned from a visit to the Macedonian frontier where it touches the District of Dubnitza, and takes somewhat of an optimistic view of the situation in Macedonia. He believes the outbreak will be confined in the vilayet of Monastir, where the Turks probably will succeed in suppressing the insurrection. When interviewed today by a representative of the Associated Press he discussed the condition of affairs frankly and at length.

Regarding the reports that Bulgaria was responsible for the outbreak, he pointed out that the center of the disturbed area at present was nearly two-hundred miles from the Bulgarian frontier and was separated from it by a country largely inhabited by Turks. Consequently, he said. It was foolish to say that the movement was aided by bands from Bulgaria, and that it was equally unreasonable to suggest that the arms of the insurgents came from Bulgaria. As a matter of fact, he said, the guns used by the insurgents were all of French manufacture, and most of them had been bought from Turkish officers and men who, receive no pay, had resorted to sale of their guns and ammunition to obtain money.

The insurrection, he said, was entirely a national Macedonian movement organized by the Macedonian Internal Committee, which in itself was proof of the shocking condition of affairs due to the excesses of Turkish soldiers, who, on the pretext of searching for arms, entered Macedonian villages to plunder and destroy.

The situation in the unhappy villages, he said, was rendered more desperate by the refusal of the Turks to permit the unemployed to leave in order to secure work elsewhere. This goaded the population to the most desperate measures. Premier Petroff declared that the Bulgarian Government was doing its most to maintain peace.

‘Not only is the frontier guarded to prevent crossing of individual bands’ he said ‘but a rigid inspection also exists at interior points, and it is absolutely certain that no bands, large or small, are passing the frontier at this time. A few individuals may, of course, be crossing. Little excitement or enthusiasm is evident in Bulgaria now, but should the unexpected happen, and a massacre of Bulgarians occur, or should the movement assume alarming proportions, the population of Bulgaria would naturally become greatly excited, and while the Government is most anxious to maintain peace, it would, of course, be forced to consider Bulgarian population sentiment. Thus a most critical situation might arise. It appears now, however, as if the movement would be confined, notwithstanding the reports of its extension.’

M. Petroff says that the Turks are pouring overwhelming forces into Monastir, and that they are sufficient not only to suppress the present rising but to destroy the entire revolutionary movement, unless the Powers intervene to prevent Turkey from taking rigorous measures. Upon the whole, the Premier believes there is no immediate cause for alarm. On the contrary, he is of opinion that the situation will soon change for the better.” (The New York Times, August 15, 1903)



Satisfied that my day was not a total loss, I quickly returned home and set my alarm clock to wake me up even earlier than this morning. I was determined to be there tomorrow before Tito and the team.



To be continued.



Other articles by Risto Stefov:

http://www.maknews.com/html/articles.html#stefov

http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/3446

Many thanks to TrueMacedonian from http://www.maknews.com/forum and from http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/ for his contribution to this

[TajnataKniga]

FANTASTIC WORK BY RISTO STEFOV ONCE AGAIN! BRAVO! I wish there were more Macedonians like Risto out there.

[indigen]

FANTASTIC WORK BY RISTO STEFOV ONCE AGAIN! BRAVO! I wish there were more Macedonians like Risto out there.

I think it would be much better if an introduction (or explanatory notes/comments) was given as to why Henry Brailsford refers to Macedonians as Bulgarians throughout the quoted passage rather than presenting it as a raw uncommented quote. IMO, the passage now serves to create confusion as to how our predecessors self-identified and reinforces to some extent the propaganda of the anti-Macedonian forces. I think Risto has the ability and material to clarify the matter but, sadly, for whatever reason/s, has not done so. I hope future articles do not repeat the same mistake again.

It was easy to force a Bulgarian notable to call himself a "Greek" by threatening to denounce him to the Turks, and the Archbishop of Castoria won many villages for the Patriarch in this way.

The "converted" villages still maintain their sly commerce with the Committee, still harbour "bands," still talk Bulgarian.

It is only the official or the educated Greek who prefers anarchy and the status quo to any surrender of the grotesque territorial claims of Hellenism over the Bulgarian interior.

to the fury and revenge of the Bulgarian Committee

the Greeks came to think of the Bulgarians as wild beasts, who slaughtered from mere lust of blood

The Bulgarians, after all, are rebels, and the Greeks as loyal subjects of Abdul Hamid

The scheme was to organise counter-bands to hold the Bulgarians in check

[Pelister]

Western institutions are at War with Macedonia. They have been for a century.

Anyone who supports these Western structures and institutions is anti-Macedonian.

Here is what the Vice President of UMD said recently. He said he supports Nimetz, and that he believes Nimetz is correct in his assesment that Macedonia must change its name to enter the E.U and NATO.

I think you are frustrated with this process just as I am and every Macedonian in the world is. And somehow you are pissed at UMD. UMD is not the reason why we are in this position. I fully agree with you that these negotiations undermine the sovereignty of Macedonia and its citizens. Read up the write up on the panel in yale where I asked Nimitz what international law gives the right to Greece to dictate the name of a sovereign country. He said that there is no such law, but Macedonia, if it wants to enter certain international organizations then it is bound to negotiate over the name. He is right. We can say fuck off and stop negotiations, but what would happen next nobody knows.

The position of Macedonia in the international community is very week since Bukuresht. Too much nationalism and the ancient rhetoric from Macedonia have damaged our reputation although we were the losers last April. Which tells you that politics is a very sophisticated game that Greece plays to perfection. So we need to be very careful going forward.

Re: UMD GC09 Resolution: Macedonia's Constitutional Name
From: AMitreski
Sent at: Wed Jun 24, 2009 1:05 pm
To: Paul

UMD AGREEING WITH NIMEZT THAT MACEDONIA MUST CHANGE ITS NAME IF IT WANTS TO "INTEGRATE" INTO THE E.U.

UMD is a tool of foriegn Western policy.

[Dimko-piperkata]

About the Slavs; Again!

Risto Stefov

When I hear the word "Slav" it evokes unpleasant memories reminding me of the constant abuse I have taken and still take from some Greeks. I cannot even begin to count the number of times I was called a "Slav" nor to describe the unpleasant situations during which this word was hurled at me. But I am not alone in this abuse, just about everyone who has dared to feel Macedonian and publicly express it has been, at one time or another, called a "Slav". So then what is meant when a Greek calls a Macedonian a "Slav"? A Greek calling a Macedonian "Slav" it synonymous with calling him or her "a low life", "scum of the earth", "stupid", "uncultured", "uneducated" and so on! It is a derogatory and unpleasant reference; a reminder to those, particularly the Western Media, who "inadvertently (or not)" still call Macedonians "Slavs".

So, what exactly is a "Slav" and how did these "Slav´s" come into being?

A "Slav", from a Greek perspective, is an "undesirable" person. Macedonians are called "Slavs" because they get in the way of the Greek myth. The Greek myth is the foundation of the Modern Greek identity where only Greeks who have descended from the ancient Greeks deserve to be called Greek or Macedonian. In reality however, anyone who subscribes to the "Greek doctrine" can call him or her self Greek or Macedonian. The Greek doctrine is a political phenomenon requiring one to abide by a number of rules. To be Greek one must subscribe to the idea that they are (a) descendents of the ancient Greeks, (b) insist that "Macedonia is Greek", (c) must be a xenophobe and racist just like the ancient Greeks, and (d) speak the Greek language or parts of it.

Any person who does not subscribe to the "Greek doctrine" has no right to call him or her self Greek or Macedonian and therefore he or she is automatically a "Slav" and a traitor. Allow me to elaborate; any of my cousins with whom I share great grandparents who have accepted the Greek doctrine; that is they say they are Greek, speak the Greek language, go along with the idea that "Macedonia is Greek", are xenophobic racists and claim to be the descendents of the ancient Greeks or the ancient Macedonians, qualify to be both Greek and Macedonian. Macedonian, but only of the Greek kind. I, on the other hand, who refuse to accept the "Greek doctrine" but still want to identify myself as a Macedonian, because that is what I am, according to the "Greek doctrine" do not qualify to be Macedonian and therefore I am automatically a "Slav" and a traitor to the Greek cause.

So what is "Slav"? Is it an ethnic group? A culture? A religion?

Before answering this question, let us first examine the Greek version of a "Slav". According to some Greeks the "Slavs" are a people who came to Macedonia en masse from some swamps north of the Danube River. When they arrived in Macedonia in the 6th century AD they killed off the indigenous Macedonians and repopulated Macedonia. The "Slavs" however, for some unknown reason, did not enter Greece because those same Greeks who claim that Macedonians are "Slavs" also claim Modern Greece is populated by pure Greeks, descendents of the so-called "Ancient Greeks", implying that the "Slavs" never crossed today´s Greek border.

The reason I am bringing up "the Slavs" again is because I had another one of those discussions with my relative and we both agree that these "Greek claims" are not only ridiculous but they are laughable.

For example, given that there were no borders between today´s Greece and Macedonia in the 6th century AD, since both countries at the time were regions of the so-called "Byzantine Empire", what was there to stop the "Slavs" from entering Greek territory and from killing off all the Greeks and settling Greece as well?

I don´t think one needs to be a historian or a scientist to see the flaw in this logic.

Today´s Greeks completely ignore the fact that their borders were drawn for the first time in the 19th and 20th centuries and shamelessly continue to propagate myths that Macedonia was Greek since ancient times and that Greeks are ethnically pure and descendents of the ancient Greeks when we know for a fact that there is nothing "Greek" or "pure" about Modern Greece. Worse, while making these ridiculous claims, the same Greeks insist that Macedonians do not exist and dare to call the real Macedonians "Slavs".

I don´t think one needs to be a historian or a scientist to see the flaw in their logic here either.

Are the "Slavs" an ethnic group? No they are not! Outside of the condescending Greek definition of what a "Slav" is there is a general reference to the "Slavs" as a people that exist all throughout Eastern Europe and in parts of Asia from the Balkans to Siberia. It is impossible for all these people, including those in Russia, to be of one single ethnic group!

Similarly all these people cannot be of a single culture or a single religion. There are many different cultures in Eastern Europe and Asia and they cannot all be culturally classified as "Slav". We also know for a fact that people referred to as "Slavs" belong to a variety of religions including to the Orthodox, Catholic and Muslim religions. So, we can conclude that "Slav" is not an ethnicity, culture, or a religion.

So what is "Slav" then?

The only characteristic that comes close to defining what a "Slav" is is the language these people speak. In other words, these countries are called "Slav" because the people living in them speak a language that belongs to the family of "Slav" languages.

Now that we have established that a "Slav" is a person who speaks a language which has roots in the "Slav" family of languages, one has to wonder how is it possible that so many individual people of varying ethnicities, cultures and religions in such a vast region as Eastern Europe and parts of Asia came to speak a similar language?

The key to discovering this secret is in the codification and formalization of national languages. For example when did Russia codify its national language? Or as my relative would say, when was the "Slav" language "imposed" on the Russian nation? We have to agree here that even the Eskimos in Russia speak Russian, a "Slav" language. We also have to agree here that "Slav" is not an indigenous Eskimo language. So the word "imposed" is correctly used.

If Russian, the "Slav" version, was "imposed" on the Russian nation then where did it come from and when? More importantly, what does Russia have in common with Macedonia to share a language with it? I would hazard to guess that the common factor that these two countries, existing on opposite poles of the continent, have is religion, the Orthodox religion to be exact. So how did these two countries happen to come by the Orthodox religion and who came by it first?

We know for a fact that Christianity took root in Macedonia way before it filtered up to Eastern Europe and Russia. We also know that Macedonia was an "exporter" of Christianity and of the "Slav" language, more commonly known then as "Church Slavonic". So as my relative put it, call us crazy but we are going to go out on a limb here and say that the "Slav" language was exported from Macedonia to Russia at the same time Christianity was exported from Macedonia to Russia. Then in time Russia made this "church language" into its national language. We know this is hard to believe and even harder to accept but think about it! How can so many people in such a vast area, the size of Eastern Europe and parts of Asia, speak a language with common roots? How did it come by that Eskimo´s speak "Slav"? What other explanation is there?


Why export the Macedonian language you might say? Why not the Greek, Serbian, Bulgarian, or the language of any other south "Slav" speaking country?

Well, in spite of Greeks boasting that the Greeks spread their "Greek language" all over the ancient known world, NO ONE outside of the Modern Greeks speaks Greek. And those who do speak Greek were taught the language in school. In other words, Greek is not a language of the people; it never was.

The fact that Solun and Ohrid, the religious centers of the Eastern World, were in Macedonia and a part of the Byzantine Empire and not part of any Bulgarian or Serbian Empires, leaves Serbia and Bulgaria out. As Professor Angelina Markus often puts it, the people of Moravia and other regions as far north as Siberia were asking for teachers to be sent from Macedonia and not from Greece, Serbia, or Bulgaria. Why? I don´t know why for sure but there are similar situations that occurred in other parts of the world at different times that would explain why. For example, why did the colonists in America in the early days of colonization ask for teachers to be sent from England as opposed to Holland? Was it perhaps because the colonists understood the English language better than they understood Dutch? The colonists chose their teachers from England because of the English language. The English in England were also better educated and more cultured and could teach a lot better than the colonists could themselves?

It is a known fact that Macedonia was experiencing a "cultural renaissance" when the Christian religion was making its way northward to Russia. So from what better place could you ask for teachers to be sent than from the most enlightened place in the world?

Now I want to say a bit more about the "Slav mass migration".

Let me begin by saying that the "Slav mass migration" is only a theory without any archeological evidence and with hardly any historical backing to prove that it ever took place.

If however it did take place, as many Greeks would claim, then what were the so-called "Slavs" when they allegedly migrated southward? Were they an elite warrior group militarily organized for conquest? Was their aim to conquer the Balkans and Macedonia?

The answer to the above questions is NO!

First let´s say that there were no "mass migrations", only some migrations. Second, let´s look at the evidence left behind. According to Procopius, the so-called "Slavs" came with their families on wagons and attempted to storm Solun via the water on hollowed-out tree logs.

On another occasion another historian wrote: they came in droves looking for land to settle. They were not choosy about what land they could settle on be it arid, dry or swamp.

The only profile that fits behaviour such as this is that of refugees. Pressure put on the people living in the vicinity of the Danube River by invading tribes such as the Avars and Bulgars during the 6th century AD, forced them to flee southward into Byzantine territory looking for sanctuary. In other words the so called "Slav migrations" were nothing more than refugees fleeing from conflicts.

It is unheard of that "warriors" and "conquerors" would travel with their families on wagons while doing battle, let alone settle on arid soil or on swamp land and work hard for a living. Warriors settle for no less than taking the best of everything from those they conquer and subdue. Also there is no profit in killing the conquered, as the Greeks claim happened in Macedonia, when they could use them as slaves to work for them.

There are some who will go as far as to say the "Slavs", or what I call refugees, who invaded the Balkans spoke a different language before coming to Macedonia. It is alleged that they learned the "Slav" language from the indigenous Macedonians. If you don´t believe me then how do you explain the fact that the Macedonians inside the fortified city of Solun which was never invaded or conquered by the so-called "Slavs" spoke "pure Slavonic". Attested by Emperor Michael III himself, no less!

Here is some historic evidence:

Between 842 to 867 (regency of Michael III)

"....and in the reign of Michael, the son of Theophilus, the protospatharius Theoctistus, surnamed Bryennius, was sent as military governor to the Province of Peloponnesus with a great power and force, viz., of Thracians and Macedonians and the rest of the western provinces, to war upon and subdue them. He subdued and mastered all the Slavs and other insubordinates of the province of Peloponnesus, and only the Ezeritai and the Milingoi were left, towards Lacedaemonia and Helos……. (DIA)" (Courtesy of Soldier of Macedon)

The year 862 (Kiril and Metodi)

"You are both natives of Salonika, and all Salonikans speak pure Slavonic.... (Life of St Metodi)" (Courtesy of Soldier of Macedon)

"In the Panonia legends in Cyril's Hagiography it is said that the Moravian prince, Rastislav, addressed Byzantine Emperor Michail III in a letter and asked him: "For our people who had renounced polytheism and accepted Christianity, we have not a teacher who would explain Christ's faith in our language... For that reason, my lord, please send us such a bishop and a teacher." In the fourth chapter of the same legends it is written that at the meeting, Cyril was also present, and when this application was on the agenda the philosopher was addressed by the emperor: "Philosopher, did you hear these words? Except for yourself, there is no other person who can carry out this task. Take these numerous presents and go, and take your brother Methodius the prior with you. You are Thessalonikians, and all the Thessalonikians speak pure Slavonic." Cyril's Hagiography also includes the philosopher's reply: "Although I am tired and ill, I will go there with pleasure, if they have letters for their language."" (http://www.unet.com.mk/mian/youngest.htm)

"When the Moravian Emperor Rastislav appealed to the Byzantine Emperor Michael III in Constantinople for missionaries to teach the gospel to the Slavs of Moravia, Michael chose Constantine and Methodius, who were well known as Byzantine scholars and diplomats. Michael justified his choice with the famous sentence: "You are Thessalonians, and all the people of Salonika speak pure Slavonic"." (Peter Hill, "Who are the Macedonians?")

How could the people of a famous Macedonian city, named after Salonica, Philip II´s daughter, NEVER invaded or OCCUPIED by the "Slavs" be speaking pure Slavonic? Some food for thought!

You can contact the author at [email protected]

http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/137093

[Bill77]

Quote from the post above:

"let us first examine the Greek version of a "Slav". According to some Greeks the "Slavs" are a people who came to Macedonia en masse from some swamps north of the Danube River. When they arrived in Macedonia in the 6th century AD they killed off the indigenous Macedonians and repopulated Macedonia. The "Slavs" however, for some unknown reason, did not enter Greece because those same Greeks who claim that Macedonians are "Slavs" also claim Modern Greece is populated by pure Greeks, descendents of the so-called "Ancient Greeks", implying that the "Slavs" never crossed today´s Greek border."




I will bring up this post again,from a previous MTO thread, that i think is apropriate.

But the revival was only for a time, and, in spite of Greek struggles, at the end of the tenth century Sclavonians formed almost the entire population of Macedonia, Epirus, continental Greece and the Peloponnese…….It was during these centuries, that what remained, if indeed anything remained, of even degenerate Hellenic blood absorbed or was absorbed into that of the Slav……Indeed, the Albanians appear to have done for Greece in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries something like that which that Sclavonians had done in the sixth and seventh…

(A Monthly Review – Greece, Spoilt Child of Europe)

[Risto the Great]

These are all reasonable conclusions.

[Steve1]

Here is an excerpt of wikepedia

"The Slavic Peoples are an ethnic and linguistic branch of Indo-European peoples, living mainly in central and eastern Europe. From the early 6th century they spread from their original homeland in present-day Ukraine to inhabit most of the Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans.[1] Many settled later in Siberia[2] and Central Asia[3] or emigrated to other parts of the world.[4][5] Over half of Europe is, territorially speaking, inhabited by Slavic-speaking communities.[6]

Modern nations and ethnic groups called by the ethnonym "Slavs" are considerably genetically and culturally diverse and relations between them are varied, ranging from a sense of connection to feelings of mutual resentment.[7].

Slavic peoples are classified geographically and linguistically into West Slavic (including Czechs, Moravians, Poles, Slovaks and Sorbs), East Slavic (including Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians)[8], and South Slavic (including Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenes). For a more comprehensive list, see the section below on ethnocultural subdivisions."

I for one believe that my language is of a slavic nature and therefore, the word slavic identifies my language

[makgerman]

Steve1 - You question TrueMacedonian article regarding the neo-Hellenic source and at the same time you are using Wikepedia as a reference.
Can you speak Macedonian?

[Bill77]

Here is an excerpt of wikepedia

"The Slavic Peoples are an ethnic and linguistic branch of Indo-European peoples, living mainly in central and eastern Europe. From the early 6th century they spread from their original homeland in present-day Ukraine to inhabit most of the Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkans.[1] Many settled later in Siberia[2] and Central Asia[3] or emigrated to other parts of the world.[4][5] Over half of Europe is, territorially speaking, inhabited by Slavic-speaking communities.[6]

Modern nations and ethnic groups called by the ethnonym "Slavs" are considerably genetically and culturally diverse and relations between them are varied, ranging from a sense of connection to feelings of mutual resentment.[7].

Slavic peoples are classified geographically and linguistically into West Slavic (including Czechs, Moravians, Poles, Slovaks and Sorbs), East Slavic (including Belarusians, Russians and Ukrainians)[8], and South Slavic (including Bosniaks, Bulgarians, Croats, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Serbs and Slovenes). For a more comprehensive list, see the section below on ethnocultural subdivisions."

I for one believe that my language is of a slavic nature and therefore, the word slavic identifies my language

OK if you say so Stavros But it almost sounds corect, if you read post 2 its not quite your Modern Greek language that is slavic (because you share many Turkish words) it was your Hellenic blood that was absorbed into that of the Slav you malaka.

[Steve1]

OK if you say so Stavros But it almost sounds corect, if you read post 2 its not quite your Modern Greek language that is slavic (because you share many Turkish words) it was your Hellenic blood that was absorbed into that of the Slav you malaka.

I laugh at people like u BillR. U immediately accuse me for being Greek. Well for one, I am not Greek but Macedonian. I just do not agree with all that is written on this forum. And when I question things, I have an open mind to learn as I may be incorrect on my statements but when people like u attack me for my opinions instead of giving sound opinions, the conversation ends there.

[Steve1]

Steve1 - You question TrueMacedonian article regarding the neo-Hellenic source and at the same time you are using Wikepedia as a reference.
Can you speak Macedonian?

I do not speak Macedonian to the level that I want but I can understand the basis of most conversations. I realy did not grow up in the culture but have branched off on my own recently to learn more and this is why I have joined this forum to touch base with my roots. I am studying history and have read many books about the balkans in the last 3 years. I simply quoted wiki for a quick reference but agree with that statement. I am Macedonian but I do not believe that I am a direct descent of ancient Macedonians based on my research so far. I am open to discussion on the topic and continue to read to see if there is a direct linkeage