Risto Stefov - Articles, Translations & Collaborations

[George S.]

very interesting stuff even if i say so myself.

[George S.]

From the Once Classified Files - Part 20

From Salonika to Athens

March 12th, 1945

His Majesty’s Consul-General.

No. 145

I returned yesterday from four days tour of eastern Macedonia and Thrace, in the course of which I visited Serres, Drama, Cavalla, Xanthi and Komotini. I was accompanied by United States Consul-General.

2. General impressions are satisfactory. Reasonable order prevails throughout the whole region. E.L.A.S. have been eager to disband and hand over arms while present officials appointed by E.A.M. influence have invariably expressed anxiety to hand over as soon as possible to Greek Government nominees. Present anti-Government propaganda is principally based on delay in sending Government officials and security forces.

3. We were well received throughout by both officials and people and the population are undoubtedly happy at breaking down of barriers with the outside world. Although in urgent need of clothing and grain, economic recovery should be rapid as Communications and public utilities east of Struma have not been destroyed. There is also eight and a half million kilogrammes of tobacco ready for export with United states a keen buyer for this and other quantities that become available.

4. Leva is only currency at present in use and the introduction of drachma is likely to cause considerable dislocation as leva retains internal value out of all proportion to real worth.

5. There is considerable activity at Cavalla, M.L. and U.N.D.R.A. personnel returned there on March 8th, a convoy of 50 trucks arrived on March 10th and the first supply ship on March 11th. The newly appointed Governor-General was also due to arrive yesterday and the first National Guards on March 13th. Communist influence in Cavalla has suffered severe setback and their leaders have lost confidence. They are particularly sensitive to any accusations of collaboration with the Bulgarians.

6. Situation at Drama is less satisfactory than elsewhere on account of an E.L.A.S./Nationalist bands complex. Disarming of the latter is however proceeding pari passu with E.L.A.S., but early dispatch of government forces very desirable. Meanwhile presence of company of Indian troops is moderating influence.

7. It is clear that every effort should be made to complete occupation of all Eastern Macedonia and Thrace by Government officials and troops as soon as possible taking advantage of present disposition of population. The only danger I can foresee are delays and aggressive conduct on the part of the National Guards as they arrive, especially in districts where communist influence is in no case strong.
O.T.P.

From Sofia to Foreign Office

February 12, 1945

Mr. Houstoun-Boswall

No. 197

10th February, 1945

My telegram No.182, paragraph (a).

The following is translation of message to Mr. Churchill, left here today.

[Begins]

Delegates of 500,000 Macedonian émigrés in Bulgaria, called together in their first free Congress at Sofia, send their greetings to you, and through you to the Democratic, British people, whose armies together with the Red Amy and American Army, are killing the Fascist beast and ensuring the freedom of much-suffering Macedonian people in its, free Federal State within the boundaries of Democratic Federated [grp. Under] Yugoslavia. Signed: - President of Congress, LAMBREV. [End],

2. I have no acknowledged message.

Foreign Office please pass to Belgrade, Washington and, Moscow as my telegrams Nos. 19, 23, and 36 respectively.

O.T.P.

From Sofia to Foreign office

January 16th, 1945

Mr. Houston Boswell

No. 74

Your telegram No. 451 to Washington.

If Marshal Tito has indeed expressed his views frankly to the Bulgarian representatives, the present spate of pro-Yugoslav propaganda here and organization of discursive voluntary relief for distressed population of Yugoslavia (see my telegram No.72 and Major General Oxley’s No. M/467 to the war office) may be designed to allay his misgivings by demonstrating Bulgaria’s good faith and their determination to dissociate themselves, once and for all from past, perfidy towards the Yugoslavs. Moreover reciprocal mistrust of the Serbs may still be prevalent in some quarters here. There is therefore no essential inconsistency between Tito's attitude as reported, and our interpretation here of the present Bulgarian activity as preparation of Bulgarian public opinion for the eventual accounting. Whatever the ultimate outcome this ostentatious laying of the olive branch on the altar of Balkan harmony can hardly fail to go to Bulgaria’s credit



One thing is certain: the Bulgarian Government can do nothing to promote closer relations with Yugoslavia without at least the tacit approval of the local Soviet authorities and hence presumably of Moscow itself.



Foreign office please pass to Washington and Moscow as my telegrams Nos. 11 and 15 respectively.



O.T.P.





From Sofia to Foreign office



January 19th, 1945



Mr. Houston Boswell

No. 86



Belgrade telegram No.47.



When I mentioned this article to Minister for Foreign Affairs and recalled to him that Lieutenant General Terpeshev had attended the meeting (my telegram No. 21). he said although of course a Cabinet Minister could never make a speech unofficially in a foreign country Bulgarian government as such had not been represented on that occasion Lieutenant General Terpeshev had expressed a desire to go to Skopje in order to take greetings to Asnom from the Bulgarian Workers (Communist) Party; he had accompanied Mr. Harizanov representing the Patriotic Front (Dr. Harizanov had in the past been a keen student of the Macedonian problem). As this was by no means the first occasion on which Terpeshev had made irresponsible statements of this kind (c.f. military mission telegram M/467 to the War Office), I asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs to look into the matter and as he had already told me that his colleagues had bad no authority for saying any such thing, I suggested some further effort ought to be made to restrain the General' s oratorical exuberance. He promised to make enquiries. He remarked that as Bulgaria was now so democratic and all in favour of self-determination and so on he supposed that, if eventually the people of the Pirin area wanted to join their brother Macedonians, it might be difficult to stop them but the time was not ripe for considering anything or that sort yet. Before we left the topic he said it had been pointed out to him that, whereas the Bulgarian Government had not been represented officially at the meeting of Asnom, His Majesty's Government had sent a representative. I said I had heard it had been reported in the newspapers that an officer of the Military Mission at Skopje was present at the meeting but that he could not be regarded as representative of His Majesty’s Government.

Please pass to Belgrade as my telegram No.7.


[Repeated to Belgrade as Foreign Office telegram No. 67].



O.T.P.
from email from r stefov

[julie]

George , is it possible you can get the admin to merge all of these in one thread ? That way we have all this info easily accessible for reference .

[Risto the Great]

I think I have merged all the ones we have here.

[George S.]

The Great Lie – Chapter 1 By Petre Nakovski

From Risto Stefov

Dear readers and friends,

I am happy to announce that I have taken up a new project. I am currently in the process of translating Petre Nakovski’s novel “Golemata Izmama” (The Great Lie) from Macedonian to English. This is a story about the Macedonians in Greece and their devastating experiences during the Greek Civil War years.

I discovered Petre Nakovski’s novel when I was searching for information for my book “The Macedonians in Greece – 1939-1949”. After reading the first two chapters I felt it was important that I translate this book so that others who can’t read Macedonian, would also have the chance to learn more about our tragic experiences in Greek occupied Macedonia.

I have made contact with Petre Nakovski who has given me permission and his blessings to carry out the translation. Since then I discovered that Petre has written several books on the same subject with equal relevance, which means that there may be more projects for me in the future.

In the meantime, I will release this book a chapter at a time at the start of each month. I also intend to simultaneously publish each chapter in the American Chronicle (http://www.americanchronicle.com/authors/view/3446 ).

When the entire book is translated, which I am doing for free for the Macedonian cause, I will donate the electronic version to the “Detsa Begaltsi” in Skopje. Working with Slave Nikolovski - Katin, I also have permission to print the book on paper, so I am now looking for sponsors to pay for the printing. If you are interested in sponsoring the printed version of this book, please write me at my e-mail [email protected] or at [email protected].

Thank you and here is the first chapter:

The Great Lie – Chapter 1

By Petre Nakovski

Translated and edited by Risto Stefov

[email protected]

July 2011



After the great battle for Gramos, the villages spread between the Pindus and Malimadi Mountains were devastated and gripped by the black cloud of war. Those wounded at the battlefields of Gramos were taken to the hospitals in Albania and by now had recuperated and were returning, making their way back to the villages and bringing with them sad news about those who were killed, those who survived and those who were maimed and crippled. It was a quiet and still autumn night full of sadness and sorrow when the sound of a village church bell broke the silence and could be heard in all remote places of the valley.
Dong… Dong… Dong… - In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, the Church bell rang three times… It was an odd sound, out of place in the darkness of night. It came softly and soon was lost. It rose from the silence, spilled over the valley and faded away only to rise again, tremble and repeat the pattern, mercilessly crushing the silence and the pain and sorrow delivered earlier by the bad news…

Dong… Dong… Dong… The bell toll thickens the atmosphere… silencing all hidden desires – maybe it does not toll for me, maybe it does not toll for us? ... Yet it is still an odd sound calling... there are no weddings, no baptisms and no celebrations of holy days or saints.

A bell tolls in the dark of night, a sound arising from the silence and quickly fading. For whom does the bell toll? Dark disturbing thoughts begin to rise, spreading like a wild fire, causing cold shivers…

Dong… Dong… Dong… then a break, like something terrible knocking on the door in the dark of night, crossing the threshold and storming in… seizing hearts and souls…

Icon lamp burning, lit flame flickering in the eyes of the Virgin Mary, St. Ilija, St. Nikola, St. Giorgi. The Saints come alive in the houses…

Dong… Dong… Dong… the Church bell is again ringing, the sound is spreading… the flame in the lit icon lamp shivers in the room, creating pale, shimmering curved shadows and in the silence lies the question- for whom does the bell toll?

Impatiently waiting, awaiting news about their loved ones… inquiring from the new arrivals as to what is happening…

Vasil the Priest carrying his cross under his arm visits the grief-stricken houses at night – quietly and in the dark rooms with blanket covered windows, delivers his sermon in hope that with his gentle voice and counseling words he can soothe the heavy hearts and bring comfort to those suffering from grief. This he can only do at night from house to house…

Dong… Dong… Dong… the bell again tolls three times in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost… Amen!

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Petre Nakovski, a novelist and translator, was born on July 17, 1937 in the village Krchishta, Kostur Region, Aegean (Greek occupied) Macedonia.

Dr. Nakovksi studied at the Pedagogical Literary Institute in Poland and at the Faculty of Philology in Skopje. He received his PhD from the Institute of Political Science at the University of Vroclavsk in Poland. He worked as a journalist for the newspapers “Vecher” and “Nova Makedonija”. He also worked for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and was the first Ambassador of the Republic of Macedonia to the Republic of Poland.
He has been a member of MWA since 1989.

Dr. Nakovksi has authored numerous articles published in Macedonian periodicals as well as a number of books including the books “Postela za Chemernite” (A Bed for the Sorrowful” (novel, 1985), “Makedonski Detsa vo Polska 1948-1968” (Macedonian children in Poland 1948-1968) (doctoral thesis), “I Kamenot e zemija” (And the Stone is Soil) (novel, 1988), “Golemata Udolnitsa” (The Great Decline) (novel, 2003) and “Golemata Izmama” (The Great Lie) (novel, 2007).

Dr. Nakovksi has translated and published over 40 literary works and many songs and stories from Polish to Macedonian written by Macedonian authors in the Polish language.
He is a recipient of the “Golden pen” and “Kiril Pejcinovic” (translation of opus) awards (awards for Polish authors). He was also awarded the Gold Medal of Merit for Polish Culture and the Gold Medal of Command.

[George S.]

From the Once Classified Files - Part 21

From Sofia to Foreign office

January 24th, 1945

Mr. Houston Boswell
No. 108

IMMEDIATE

It has come to our knowledge through what we regard as a most reliable source that for the last few days the Bulgarian Prime Minister has been "indisposed" and that Lieutenant General Terpeshev has been presiding over the Council of Ministers in his absence. M. Georgiev is, in fact, believed to have left Sofia in the company of Soviet officers for the purpose of discussing with Marshal Tito or his representatives the establishment of a South Slav Confederation. He is expected, according to the source, to return to Sofia within the next day or two when some declaration on the subject will be made.

2. The inference is that this has been timed so as to anticipate the forthcoming three-power conference.

3. Source also stated on March 3rd (anniversary of Bulgarian liberation and of accession of King Boris III) Bulgaria would be proclaimed a Republic. This development would be followed a few weeks later by the cession to the autonomous Macedonia State of the Pirin area of Bulgaria (see my telegram 86). Source however, thought that local inhabitants of that district might resist.

4. Finally source said that Soviet authorities were understood to have indicated that any claim which might be advanced by the new South Slav Confederation to Salonika would enjoy their support.

5. Though this may at first sight appear sensational, I report it as it is consistent with events as they have been developing. I am the more suspicious because as you know the Minister for Foreign Affairs has been persistent1y evasive whenever I have mentioned this subject.

6. Please show to Major General Oxley.

Foreign Office please pass to Belgrade as my telegram 9 (no priority).

[Repeated to Belgrade telegram No. 77].

(O.T.P)

From Washington to Foreign Office

February 27, 1945

Earl of Halifax.
No. 1527.

27th February, 1945.

IMPORTANT.

Your telegram No. 10825.

Following is text of substantive part of the State Department’s reply to my aide memoir on your telegram under reference.

The United States Government holds the view that the pre-war frontiers of Yugoslavia, Bulgaria and Greece in the Macedonian area must be considered as the legal boundaries, and that revision of any of them should be permitted only if it conforms to the freely expressed will of the populations directly concerned and has international sanctions as a part of the general peace settlement.

If in the reconstitution of Yugoslavia, the government and the people of that country desire to set up a regional and de-centra1ised administration under which the area of South-eastern Yugoslavia would have a certain autonomous character there would of course be no grounds for objection on the part of the United States Government. This Government concurs however in the view of the British Government that there is no legitimate basis for any claim made on behalf of "Macedonia" whether as an independent State or as a part of Yugoslavia, or of a larger South Slav federation to territory within the boundaries of Greece on the ground that such territory is “Macedonian”.

With regard to the frontier between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the United States Government favour the retention of the present boundary but would not be inclined to object to any settlement calculated to contribute to the peace, stability and general welfare of the region if reached through free negotiations on the part of those two states at such time as it may become clear that their respective governments are in a position to represent the real desire of the people involved, including also those inhabitants of parts of Yugoslavia still under enemy occupation.

It is in the view of this government that changes in territorial boundaries of Bulgaria should not be made during the period proceeding the general settlement with Bulgaria as an enemy state.

The United States Government believe that union of Yugoslavia and Bulgaria to constitute a single unit [grp. under? or a] federation would under present circumstances be a disturbing rather than a stabilizing factor in south-eastern Europe since the neighbouring non-Slavic States, including Turkey, would consider it a threat to their security. In the opinion of the Government such a union in any case should not be permitted before the conclusion of peace between Bulgaria and the United Nations. This Government would be willing however to give consideration to a plan for regional understandings to include all States of southeastern Europe rather than an exclusively Slavic bloc, should all these States decide, with the concurrence of the principal Allied Governments that such a grouping represent a contribution to the welfare and progress of that area.

2. Foreign office please pass to Belgrade and Sofia as my telegrams Nos. 18 and 13 respectively.

[Repeated to Belgrade and Sofia under Nos.196 & 229]

OTP.

From Sofia to Foreign office

March 12th, 1945

Mr. Houston Boswell

No. 8 SAVING

Former Bulgarian Consul-General in Tirana Minkov recently returned to Sofia by way of Macedonia. He told members of my staff that he found the Macedonia was ruled by Partisans of the highest level of ignorance. They seemed determined to impose their power on the population (who appeared oppressed) and were unwilling to take the advice of older men who know more about local circumstances. He had become profoundly skeptical of the possible future of Macedonia as an independent state. It was a poor country Vlachov (see my dispatch No. 6), Vice-President of the Anti-Fascist Assembly for the National Liberation of Macedonia, was already an old man, and, although he knew more than the present ruling class, was not apparently paid much attention to. Minkov could understand why the partisans were so keen to enforce their power; after all they had fought in the hills and had suffered, but he felt that the essence of democracy was to learn to combine all the people's goodwill and interest in the, form of a state; this they were certainly not succeeding in doing. He was disappointed and depressed.


2. This picture, you will note, bears a certain resemblance to that of Bulgaria.
??

from email r stefov

[George S.]

From the Once Classified Files - Part 22

KKE and NOF

April 8th, 1949

Belgrade, Yugoslavia

No. 82


Sir,

Since sending my dispatch No. 66 of March 22nd regarding Macedonia and a South Slav Federation I have read the texts of the KKE and NOF (National Liberation Front of Macedonia) Resolutions given in dispatch No. 174 of March 23rd from the Canadian Ambassador in Athens, as well as the account of the KKE and NOF denials that a separate unified Macedonia state within the South Slav Federation (but dominated by Bulgaria) was envisaged.

2. Macedonia is very much in the limelight at the moment but the situation is far from clear, and speculation, though enriched by the dismissal of Kostov in Bulgaria, is still guess work while the evidence gradually accumulates. By reviving the idea of a Macedonian state Bulgaria has been able to spearhead the Cominform offensive against the CPY and at the same time to further her own traditional “Greater Bulgarian” interests. Yugoslavia and Greece have a common interest in thwarting Bulgarian ambitions in Macedonia but at the moment the Yugoslav Government can go little further than to reduce their anti-Greek propaganda campaign and their complaints to UNO (steps which already appear to have been taken) and to cease aiding the Greek guerillas. I understand that the Yugoslavs have discreetly let it be known in Western quarters that they can go no further as long as Tsaldaris remains Prime Minister.

3. I think you will be interested in the attached extract from a lengthy dispatch from Mr. Hilary King, British Consul in Skopje, who possesses a good knowledge of Macedonia. Mr. King examines the success achieved by the CPY in Macedonia with its policy based on the thesis of a distinct Macedonian language and national tradition. He feels that the idea or a "Macedonian National tradition" has not attracted a large following amongst the Macedonian intelligentsia, which in its younger branches probably supports the present Yugoslav Government. Pro-Bulgarian sentiment is not widespread. He has, however, found evidence of fairly strong support for a Macedonian autonomous movement, perhaps under Anglo-American protection but probably not under the Kremlin's wing.
4. Autonomous tendencies, Mr. King thinks, are limited to some Macedonian intellectuals who form a very small group. Amongst the workers and peasants the situation is quite different. Although the workers complain of bad economic conditions and the low standard of living, they would give their support to the present authorities unless offered a dramatically better standard, which advocates of union with Bulgaria are unable to do.

5. The peasants, of whom a high proportion are very poor, have benefited by the land reform carried out by the Communist Party. For this reason, because of its war record, and through its establishment of producer cooperatives the Party will be able, in Mr. King's opinion, to secure the support of the peasant masses.

6. Mr. King concludes that there will be no popular pro-Bulgarian rising in Vardar Macedonia but that there will remain considerable support for some sort of Macedonian autonomy with no special Yugoslav association.

7. I am sending copies of this dispatch, with enclosure to London, Moscow, Warsaw, Prague and Athens.

I have the honour to be, Sir, Your obedient servant, (can’t make out the signature), Minister

JAM: aw

Secretary of State, for External Affairs, Ottawa

Macedonia - Appendix A
National Liberation Front (NOF)

Mrs. Beaton applies the term "Macedoine" to a dish containing a conglomeration of fruit or vegetables, sometimes loosely bound together by jelly or some such unstable medium.

The term is well chosen. MACEDONIA is a geographically indeterminate area which, for two millenniums, has contained an ethnographical conglomeration of different races and creeds.

a “1066 and all That” level, it is generally associated with (a) Alexander the Great, and (b) an appeal to St. Paul for help. Probing more deeply into its history, the average mind reels under the impact of successive waves of Romans, Huns, Vandals, Byzants, Turks, Bulgars, Serbs and Greeks.

he object of this Article is to simplify, not to obscure, the present issue. It begins therefore in the second half of the nine- tenth century, when for 400 years MACEDONIA had been under Turkish domination; ruled as a feudal state, by Moslem overlords who, (rather on the one time British practice whereby the "lesser breeds" were divided brutally into Dagos or Dutchmen) I recognized no difference of race or nationality, but classified all unbelievers within this part of their Empire, as "Greeks".

The War of Greek Independence, 1821-32, had detached the whole of ATTICA and the MOREA from an Ottoman Empire already weakened by corruption and decadence, and by internal schisms. Elsewhere in the BALKANS, Greeks predominated numerically in Southern MACEDONIA; Bulgars in the north and north-east. In the north-west, Serbs had moved southward in the hope of gaining access to the Adriatic; while Albanians had encroached southwards into the EPIRUS. Over the whole are were scattered isolated pockets of Vlachs and Greeks.

Colonies of pure Turks had also been planted in Macedonia even before their conquest of the Balkan Peninsula; but, although with the gradual shrinkage of the empire they had been reinforced by refugees, they had at no time formed the majority of the Macedonian population.

The general spirit of unrest in EUROPE, an the disintegration of the Ottoman Empire, lead to resurgence of nationalism in the BALKANS, which infected most of the races and tribes of the Macedonian conglomeration in particular the Bulgars, the Greeks, and the Serbs.


he amalgam (or jelly) which bound together the “Macedoine” of the Christian communities during the years of Turkish rule, was the authority of the Greek Orthodox Church – the only “Hierarchy” tolerated by the Turks – at the head which was the Ecumenical Patriarch of CONSTANTINOPLE. The first move to break this tie had been made by the Serbs in 1831; and now, in 1870, it was further weakened by the declaration of the Bulgarian Exarchate, also independent of the ecclesiastical authority.

The territorial ambitions of the Bulgars became evident in 1878, when the terms of the Treaty of San Stefano, which ended a short Russo-Turkish war, became public. Had it not been for the intervention of the Great Powers under the leadership of Lord BEACONSFIELD, Bulgarian territory would have been extended, with Russian approval, to include the lion’s share of MACEDONIA. As it was, however, the terms of the Treaty were never put into effect, and, in its place the Treaty of BERLIN was signed in July 1878.

By this treaty, ROUMANIA, SERBIA, and MONTENEGRO were declared completely independent of the Porte; while the grandiose scheme for a Greater BULGARIA was reduced to the grant of a relatively narrow strip of territory between the Danube and the BALKANS, as an independent state, but still under Turkish suzerainty. MACEDONIA thus remained intact within the Turkish Empire.

GREECE’s modest (1) claims to CRETE, THESSALY, and the ERIRUS, together with part of MACEDONIA, were for the moment disregarded.

The period between the Berlin settlement and the outbreak of the Balkan Wars of 1912-13, is taken up with intrigues, revolts, end reprisals, and a growing antagonism between Greeks and Bulgarians, competing for ultimate supremacy in MACEDONIA when the final disintegration of the Turkish European Empire took place. The latter, during the last years of its existence, fell into such a state of corruption and mismanagement that, in 1905, GREAT BRTAIN, FRANCE, ITALY, AUSTRIA and GERMANY, were forced to intervene and set up an International Commission to supervise the administration of MACEDONIA. The peasants were everywhere ruthlessly oppressed and, as a result, BULGARIA, from 1895 onwards, became the self-appointed champion of their rights.

What she had been prevented from gaining by the Treaty of BERLIN, she now tried to get by propaganda and other means. Various societies and committees were formed, which wore ultimately welded into the formidable IMRO (Internal Macedonia Revolutionary Organization), with its own civil administration, police courts, and "muscle men", known as Comitadjis. Thus were the Christian population pressed to declare themselves BULGARS.

Tocounteract this state of affairs the Greeks began, in 1903, to form bands of Andartes (the name appears for the first time), to fight the Comitadjis.

This state of chronic insurrection and unrest continued with periodic outbreaks of counter-terrorism by the Turks, until the latter wore finally ejected from the BALKANS as a result of the Balkan Wars of 1912-13.

Without overloading this Article with historical detail, it is impossible to do more then summarize the course and consequence of these important wars.

Very briefly, the actions taken by the principal participants were as follows.

The Bulgarian army crossed the frontier of THRACE and, after one weeks hard fighting, drove the Turks in full retreat on CONSTANTINOPLE, - but leaving ADRIANOPLE still in Turkish hands.

It remained so until the Bulgars finally took it, with the aid of the Serbs, five months later.

The Greeks marched north and entered SALONIKA, (shortly before the arrival of the Bulgars), FLORINA and PREVEZA. Farther west, they occupied ARGYROKASTRO and KORCE. Finally they took IOANNINA by storm. At sea, the Greek fleet Annexed, practically without fighting, all the AEGEAN Islands, except CYPRUS and those occupied by the Italians.

The Serbs, advancing with three armies, sent one column down the DRIN valley into ALBANIA, while the other two captured PRISTINA and USKUB, OHRID and MONASTIR, respectively. A detachment was also sent to support the Bulgars at ANDRIANOPLE.

The results may be summarized as follows;

The Bulgars, who bore the brunt of the fighting, and who sustained by for the greatest proportion of losses, failed, in spite of their military successes, to achieve their main political objective, viz, a major port on the AEGEAN.

This was largely due to their own fault. On the defeat of the Turks, they had been awarded the whole of THRACE and Western MACEDONIA up to the STRUMA, but their desire to augment their gains at the expense of their recent allies, led to a short war between themselves and the Greeks and Serbs, as a result of which they were deprived of KAVALLA and all of Western MACEDONIA, West of the NESTOS.

The Greeks, at comparatively small cost won territorial gains which were not only vast in extent, but of the highest commercial and strategic importance, namely, SALONIKA, IOANNINA, Southern MACEDONIA, the greater part of EPIRUS, CRETE, and the Islands. The Greeks also entered a fruitless claim to part of ALBANIA.

The Serbs obtained Central MACEDONIA, including OHRID, MONASTIR, KOSSOVA and large stretch of territory to the north, which brought them into immediate contact with the Montenegrins. But they, too had failed to achieve their main ambition - an outlet to the ADRIATIC.

ALBANIA was e established as an independent state.

This settlement, in which the Great Powers took a strong hand, did little towards achieving stable conditions in the BALKANS.

The Great War gave the Bulgarians a chance, for a short time, to occupy the whole of Eastern MACEDONIA, though the peace settlement of 1919 left them worse off than ever, while the Greeks added Western THRAC to their pre-war territories.

The Greek campaign in ASIA MINOR in 1922 was followed by an exchange of population between GREECE and TURKEY. Of the 1,500,000 Greek immigrants, a large proportion settled in MACEDONIA -to the great benefit of the country. Under the auspices of the League of Nations, treaties were also made with BULGARIA for the exchange of populations and, as a result, 92,000 Bulgars and Slavophones in GREECE, and 42,000 Greeks in BULGARIA, opted to emigrate. In Greek MACEDONIA thereafter the racial question almost disappeared, 90% of the population being Greek.

A number of Turks end Bulgars also left Yugoslav MACEDONIA but no general exchange was arranged for the remaining SLAVOPHONE population the whole of which was claimed by YUGOSLAVIA as Serb. Material prosperity increased, and efforts were made by YUGOSLAVIA to Serbize the population, by severely repressing Bulgar national feeling and by banning Bulgar schools.

The policy of BULGARIA in regard to MAOEDONIA has varied in form, but not in object, over the past fifty years. For a time, she aimed at the realization of a Greater BULGARIA as mapped out at San Stefano. When this failed, she devoted her energies to the emancipation of MACEDONIA and the Establishment of an autonomous principality under a Christian governor, As such it was hopped that MACEDONIA would become the nucleus of a BALKAN federation, eventually to be annexed by themselves.

The technique adopted by the Bulgars was one of penetration backed up by terrorism, through various agencies viz; up to the time of the Balkan Wars, through the Comitadjis, working in collaboration with local Slavophone elements; after World War I, through a revived IMRO; and from 1941 onwards through all organization known as OCHRANA which was founded by the Bulgarian Army, and used far the purpose or conducting a deliberate campaign of extermination against the Macedonian Greeks.

NOF now comes into the picture. Starting, during the Axis occupation, as SNOF, the movement was aimed primarily at liberating Macedonian territory from alien control -but with the ultimate object of establishing an autonomous state. It was made up exclusively of Slav-speaking individuals inhabiting Western MACEDONIA and the district of EDHESSA. According to the Greek census of 1928 there were some 80,000 Orthodox Slavs living in the are adjoining the Yugoslav frontier who had been unwilling to leave their homes during the general exchange of population. The Bulgarians claimed them as Bulgarians but the Greeks maintained that all elements with Bulgarian affinities had already emigrated and that all those remaining must be regarded as Greeks.

During the latter part of the German occupation they worked with and under, EAM, though always with the object of achieving Macedonian autonomy. In order to maintain their connection with KKE after the defeat of GERMANY they dropped their "S", in order to disguise their pro-Slav sympathies, which would have estranged a large proportion of patriotic Greek Communists from their cause. Since the war they have, in fact, taken their orders, not from KKE, but from NOF headquarters at SKOPJE, until the split occurred between TITO and the COMINFORM. There is reason to believe that there is at present a divided allegiance within the party, a few remaining loyal to TITO, while the majority have transferred their allegiance to SOFIA.

Recent events are once again confirming the fact that the aim of this small Slav-speaking group, (now forming part of the Greek rebel movement), is to detach large sections of territory from. GREECE - this time under orders from international Communism: and that their presence in the frontier areas constitutes one more source of trouble in the relation of GREECE with her neighbours.

Macedonia - Background

The Free Greek Radio broadcast at 1st March announced that the following Congress of N.O.F (Slavo-Macedonian guerrilla movement) would declare “the union of Macedonia into a complete, independent and equal Macedonian nation within the Popular Democratic Federation of the Balkan Peoples”. The statement has been widely (and we think correctly interpreted in the West as meaning that Cominform policy is now directed at the formation of an independent Macedonia, composed of parts or Bulgarian, Greek and Yugoslav territory, as part of a Balkans federation, under Dimitroff . Hitherto Tito, as suzerain of the existing People’s Federal Republic of Macedonia, has held that the Greek and Bulgarian sections of Macedonia should be united with Yugoslav Macedonia. The Present development whereby Bulgaria resumes her traditional role, of sponsor of Macedonian autonomy, is therefore as much a part of the Soviet “war of nerve” against Tito as an attack on the territorial integrity of Greece. In fact, when read in conjunction with apparently deliberately fostered rumours of Soviet troop movement in the Balkans, the former hypothesis appear the more likely. This move however the disadvantage, from the Cominform point of view, of alienating the Greek Nationalists in the rebel ranks and the Greek Government have been quick enough to make an appeal to these nationalists of whose views Markos was the chief propagandist A number of former communists have recanted and their recantations are being used by the Greek Government to encourage further desertion from the rebel ranks.

The Cominform appear to have realized that the move was not a very astute one and since the broadcast on March 1st there has been much back pedaling, including denials that any form of Macedonian State was intended and the suggestion that the original broadcast was merely intended to unite the Slavo-Macedonians behind the Greek democrats "in their struggle”. The N.O.F. Congress announcement for March 15th may or may not have taken place; no publicity has yet been issued over the Free Greek Radio.

On Tito's side there has been a vigorous reaction, in particular an article in the Nova Makedonia describing both the Balkan and Greek Communists as chauvinists and stating that the Cominform’s decision o reverse the situation in the Balkans by causing a Macedonian State might be a casus belli.

Suggestions for what might be said in the house

A draft reply to a possible parliamentary question on the subject of the N.O.F. broadcast was recently prepared with a view to warning the Cominform not to proceed with the provocative subject of proclaiming a Macedonian State.
Sir W. Strung directed that this form of words, which we constructed with the legal adviser, should be put into cold storage for suitable opportunity. The text runs as follows “I have noted this proclamation, which appears to threaten the use of force to detach territory under the sovereignty of an existing State with a view to creating a new political entity. I agree that such a proclamation if made or supported by any State would constitute a threat to the peace within the meaning of the Charter of the United Nations.
I should however add that subsequent broadcasts from the same station suggest that the ill-advised enthusiasm or certain Macedonian elements among the Greek rebels may have been tempted by wiser counsels.”


It may also be desirable to point out the discrepancies of the Soviet attitude towards nationalism. Thus while the nationalistic tendencies of the Greek and Yugoslav communists are condemned by Moscow, the Kremlin makes no bones about sponsoring Bulgarian expansionism and the national tendencies of the Macedonians whose claims to self determination have for the last 80 years been the sport of power politics rather than the serious study of ethnologists.
from r stefov email

[George S.]

Macedonians, Philhellenes and Greeks

Macedonians, Philhellenes and Greeks



By J.S.G. Gandeto

Rebuttal


("The arrest, disappearance and possible murder of a critic of PM Nicola Gruevski in FYROM", published on July 28. 2009 in the American Chronicle)

When the Western-philhellenes came to Greece to begin their project, they found this mass of befuddled individuals completely immersed in their struggle for survival and oblivious to the significance of their immediate surroundings. Out of them, they were supposed to create a link between the ancient Greeks and the envisioned new Hellene.



And so the long and arduous journey of transformation began in earnest. What these western philhellenes forgot to tell these modern-day Greeks though, is not that they were not the direct inheritors of the ancient "glorious" past, nor that they were not the direct descendents of the ancient Greeks. They did not forget to tell them that they were a precious gift to mankind; that they were the true successors, true heirs to the ancient great minds whose teachings greatly benefited mankind and influenced the very true democracies that sprouted throughout Europe; they did not neglect to tell these Romioi, who neither had a Greek consciousness nor felt any connections to the ancients, that the world at large is eternally grateful to them for keeping the flame of continuity with the ancients intact and burning.

No, no; all of these things, all of these beautiful at- tributes were repeatedly driven home until they became part and parcel of today's Greeks' mental armor. What these western philhellenes forgot to tell the Greeks though, was that Aristotle's teachings no longer apply in today's societal settings and that they should use the ancient "potion of greatness"-left to them for safe keeping-with moderation and with measurable care.

In haste to build and instill into this bewildered hodgepodge of leftover Balkanites - Slavs, Albanians, Gypsies and Vlachs - a new Greek identity, these idealistic westerners forgot to install a safety valve for the inflated Greek ego. The negative repercussions from this oversight have proven to be unmanageable, deleterious and quite pricy for Europe today.

As a result, today's average Greek fellow thinks and acts as if he is the greatest gift to mankind. To him, the opinion of the other fellow does not matter; he has the truth grabbed by the tail and others should obediently follow his views. He believes and -accordingly behaves - that his intellect is far superior to that of his neighbors and that he, by right of birth (inheritance in this case), should rule over the others. Legal, moral or ethical issues and potential obstacles of a greater or lesser significance that might impede this injected transformation, must be dealt with accordingly - ignore the critics and blindly push forward. The operative thought (stuck in overdrive) is "they ought to see it our way"- as if to say: It ought to be sufficient; I am descendent from the ancient Greeks. (1)
He has taken to heart Aristotle's views on geopolitics or 'natural law' that Greeks should rule over barbarians (non Greeks) who are slaves by nature. Plato's and Isocrates' views of all non-Hellenes as natural enemies that could be exterminated at will, only adds support to these, already, ill-perceived convictions. (2)
As a matter of fact he, Aristotle, advised Alexander the Great to be a hegemon (leader) to the Greeks and a despot to the barbarians. With the Greeks he should establish relationship as with a friend or a relative and to deal with the barbarians as with beasts or plants. (3)

Convinced, after all, that he is an entirely different breed now, this newly created Hellene would not accept criticism. Those who dared question his racial or religious pedigree, were promptly called anti-Hellenes. (4)
The fact that Greek history itself had to be revised and, undergo drastic alterations did not affect our boy's thinking. (5) He maintained, and so believed, that he is the chosen one. New books with newly found documents, attesting to the unbroken historical continuity between ancient and modern Greece, were promptly published. (6)

If, during this reconstruction period, (a) chronological gaping holes in history were found to exist (which the philhellenic architects of the modern Greeks had no provisions for) or if unbridgeable social fault-lines had appeared on the political landscape and if the ethnic Arvano-Vlach-Slav-Turkish admixtures of tribal characters did not properly coalesced into envisioned cohesive model of this new type of Hellene, then, by all means, proper constructive measures were to be taken and promptly implemented. The Greek nation must be made racially pure-willy-nilly.

(b) If Alexander the Great in the early part of 19 century was viewed as conqueror of the Greeks, this view must now be abandoned and historical facts in support of this thinking must be found to bring it in line with the newly formed concept that Ancient Macedonians were, simply, another Greek tribe. (7) The fact, that ancient Greeks vehemently denied Greek-ness for the ancient Macedonians notwithstanding.

(c) If the ancient boundaries of Greece do not coincide with the modern-day Greece's location and size, then the answer should be found in the "unredeemed" Greek territories. (8)

Today, this newly created Greek citizen - armed with ready-made answers - claims that the Republic of Macedonia harbors irredentist desires on the Greek province also called Macedonia but conveniently forgets to take into consideration the fact that it is Greece who, since her creation in 1832, has enlarged her own territory by more than 50%. (9)
As a result of this Greek expansion - be it noted, with calamitous consequences to her neighbors - a new variety of ethnic Greek was created. He learned to speak Greek - "gave up his barbarian tongue and his rude customs", was made aware of his "glorious progenitors" and recently was told that he is a Macedonian too. He became the-facto, the biggest Hellene of them all. He fell in the role of playing the "missing link" between the Ancient Macedonians and the Greeks. Since he became Macedonian, he now dares to deny the same opportunity to the ethnic Macedonians whom, at the time of his arrival, found them already living in Macedonia. (By the Greek king George I, Macedonia was properly referred to as the "occupied territories").

To him they are people who speak "different idiom". It is worth noticing that the usage of the word "language" is avoided as to minimize its significance. He deliberately classifies it as a Bulgarian or Serbian dialect but refrains from calling it a Macedonian language.
The fact that the people who speak this language call it Macedonian is totally lost on him. He claims that these people do not exist and therefore, their language does not exist. When pressed to elaborate further as to why, when this people, do not exist, their language is forbidden? He reverts to his pamphlet-ready instructions and responds with this lame excuse: the number of people who use this "idiom" is extremely small and all of them have Greek consciousness.

In summary, what he is saying is that since this group of ethnic Macedonians "have Greek consciousness", then it is an acceptable decision to forbid the usage of their own, native tongue. The more advanced Greek individuals defend their stand with this rationale:

"The linguistic criteria are not only insufficient to denote ethnic nuances in the Balkans; they can also be misleading." (10) In other words, language does not denote or equate with ethnicity.



Here, this Greek fellow - the keeper of the ancient flame - since it suits his purpose - uses the argument to cover his tracks, forgetting the fact that he cannot use the same excuse for two opposite arguments that run in opposite directions. In reality he borrows from Paul to pay Peter. And furthermore, yet, another Greek fellow claims just the opposite. Here is Mr. Boralis' statement:

"Finally, we have the strongest indication on the ethnicity of the Ancient Macedonians, in their Greek language." (11)
He goes to great pains to convince the reader that Alexander the Great was Greek because the writings on the found artifacts were in the ancient Greek language. The fact that neither Philip nor Alexander the Great ever claimed to be Greek or to have Greek consciousness is simply immaterial to him. It does not matter if Alexander and his Macedonians looked down upon these Greeks with utter contempt and never identified themselves as Greeks. It is irrelevant to him that literature is replete with examples that testify of the opposite: that Alexander and his father Philip are never described, by the ancient chroniclers, or by any prominent Greek leader or layman for that matter, as being Greek. As long as the language written on found artifacts was Greek, the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians, according to this Greek fellow, is properly sealed and stored into the great Greek scheme of things. He adds:

"Greek culture has been evolving the last 4000 years and it is the language that more than anything (religion too, to a smaller of greater degree, depending on the historic frame) that makes their nation." (12)

Fair enough. Let's see if we understand each other here:

Ethnicity is derived from the language people write or speak. (as per your claim -foot note 11 above) and Alexander the Great and his Macedonians must be Greek because all the inscriptions unearthed so far are in Greek language.

Now let's take a look at your other statement regarding the number of ethnic Macedonians who voted for Ouranio Toxo -Vinozhito -Rainbow Party's election of candidates for European Free Alliance in June 2009 election: You wrote:

"The total votes tally they were able to receive in the districts of Macedonia were two thousand five hundred ninety four votes (2594), out of a population of 2.5 million Greek Macedonians. What minority are we talking about then? the best statistics may be talking of some fifty thousand bilingual people who speak Slavic ALSO, besides Greek. And that is true especially of the older generations, but that again makes no difference: it is identity that counts, not language not blood, not anything else." (13)

To sum it up: "it is identity that counts, not language not blood, not anything else."

As you can see Mr. Boralis, your feet are not resting on a firm ground. In other words, you are walking on thin ice. That usually happens to people who, as you so loudly put it in your article, use lies and distortions. So, it is not the language people speak or write that identifies the person's ethnicity? What about the inscriptions written in Greek that "prove" Alexander's Greek-ness? Which is it?

Be that as it may, one should not be surprised to read statements of this nature being discolored with the shades of these types of convictions. Greece has spent enormous amount of effort and energy - and still does - to eradicate all other languages being spoken in Greece prior to 1832. By depriving their ethnic minorities of their languages, Greeks felt that they can achieve greater unity as a nation; after all, we know quite well from what residual immiscible components their "Greek purity" as a nation was achieved. Their ancient language was resurrected and made into a mandatory one for all citizens of the country to learn it, especially those newly transplanted Christians from Asia Minor into Macedonia who could not utter one word of Greek. Specifically, these transplanted migrants morphed-under the schemes of the Megaly idea- into true heirs to the ancient Macedonians; these are the Greeks who are now taught to believe that they are the descendents from the ancients. These are the same people who carry and display dual ethnicity - one Greek and another (for external use), Macedonian. Fact is that not too long ago "it was forbidden for Greeks in northern Greece to design themselves as Macedonian." (14)

A passing thought: would Mr. Boralis be upset even if "50,000 Greeks" were being deprived of using their Greek language? Can we now safely dispense with your idea that ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians cannot be adjudicated through the written language found on the artifacts?

he other ramblings that Tito created our ethnicity is beyond the scope of reality. It belongs, like most of your invented history (which reminds me of Dolly Parton's song "The coat of many colors my mama made for me"), in the realm of the imagined. Your virulent attack on Macedonia, its leadership and people ("The arrest, disappearance and possible murder of a critic of PM Nicola Gruevski in FYROM", published on July 28. 2009 in the American Chronicle), is nothing less than an expression of your deep-seated bigotry and hate for the ethnic Macedonians. Certainly, that is not an observation a neutral and unbiased person would make.

I am mystified (perhaps, I shouldn't be), by your hypocritical myopic indulgence. Laden with racism and hate, your portrayal of Macedonia and its leadership bristles with heavy inaccuracies. Fact is, that today, the Republic of Macedonia is recognized under its constitutional name by more than 125 countries in the world among which include China, India, USA, Russia and Canada.(Your quotation marks on the name "Macedonia" not withstanding).

Fact is also, that European observers are stationed in Macedonia and are carefully monitoring every step of action undertaken by her leadership and administration. The government of the Republic of Macedonia is, simply said, put under an electron microscope; its judicial, administrative and executive branches are under constant surveillance and scrutiny. Conventional wisdom compels the question: Don't you think that these European observers would have reacted to such terror, brutality and inhumane treatment of its citizens if your allegations were true? Common logic dictates that next to a lie there is a greater lie. You, Mr. Boralis, have removed yourself from those who seek the truth.

I'll leave you with this thought:

Instead promoting KKK ideology, you should turn around and embrace the Republic of Macedonia. She is the only true friend you have in the region. Think again and envision what it would be like for Greece if Macedonia becomes what you wished her to become; you will be surrounded by your worst nightmare. Cherish the fact that you have the ethnic Macedonians in Greece still peaceful and civilized. Extend to them what is only theirs to begin with; their human rights as citizens of Greece. After all, your house is not made of glass, is it?

Instead of disseminating worn-out propaganda lines and attempting to buy and collect new "converts" to your failed political goals you should advise, since you claim to be in that business, your leaders in Athens to grasp the extended peaceful hand from the Republic of Macedonia, embrace the people of Macedonia as your neighbors and fellow Christians (after all, the two people from both countries share an enormous amount of "sameness"), prosper together in the new Europe and bury the hatchet of hatred once and for all. It is our duty as a civilized people to promote peace and cooperation between nations instead of hatred and division; it is incumbent upon us to stifle the flames of war and work tirelessly towards building bridges instead of barriers, it is our duty to overcome our old prejudices and accept the other fellow as equal instead of pompously beating our chest and claiming that we are better than our neighbor; it is within our times to change the old, stupid mentality of grabbing more land for ourselves and making "our nation" bigger than yours. We are, collectively speaking, too small for that and we are nothing but a pawn in a big chess game. It is time that the winds of war cease and never blow our countryside again. Pray, (borrowing a phrase from Tecumseh) as you claim to be a Christian, not to be stronger than me, but to be able to defeat the demons within you. Ancient history is neither yours nor mine; it belongs in antiquity. Alexander as a historical icon belongs to all of us. Let it be. Let us be able to overcome nonessential obstacles that by their nature do not impede today's progress; let us hope for wisdom in our leaders to see and recognize the anomalies inherited in retrograde thinking. Do away with the insidious and the unrelenting brainwashing of your Helleno-centrists. Republic of Macedonia is not a threat to Greece; she, in the near future, could be your biggest asset.

Recognize the ethnic Macedonians living in Greece; they are your citizens, treat them with equal dignity and again, instead of denying their existence, rise above your ingrained prejudices and right the past wrongs. Let them speak their mother's tongue and provide primary education in their Macedonian language. Let the children learn from their own grandparents their traditional songs and stories only grandparents can deliver. You will be stronger and bigger for it; diversity of populations is not an impediment to cultural greatness but an incentive to cultural wealth. It is only human to forgive and let us move forward from this day on. Stop the hate and look around yourselves; it is time "hermano". We are not that different from each other.
Notes:

1. Kitromilides, 1983:59.
2. Plato Rep. 47oc-47ia; Isocr. Paneg. 3,184, Panath. 163; Arist. Pol. 1256b 25, Demost. Third Olynthiac 3.24.

3. Alexander and the Greeks, pp. 89-90

4. Fallmerayer, 1830.

5. Politis 1993:36; Dimaras 1958.

6. Paparrhigopoulos

7. See Dimaras (1985:338-339) and Dimakis (1991). The appropriation of the legacy of ancient Macedonia by the modern Greeks belongs historically to the second half of the nineteenth century. Politis (1993:40-42) cites fourteen examples from the Greek literature of the 1794- 1841 period in which the ancient Macedonians are not considered to be part of the ancient Greek world. Prominent intellectuals like Ioannis Rizos Neroulos and Adamantios Koraes were among those who shared this viewpoint.

8. Roudomet of Nationalism and Identity Politics in the Balkans: Greece and the Macedonian Question. Journal of Modern Greek Studies 14.2 (1996) 253- 301 (In the early years of the Kingdom of Greece (1832-1844), the boundaries of modern Greece were conceived as identical to those of ancient Greece).

9. Nicos Dimou "The Misfortune of Being Greek", 1975.

10. "Recycling Propaganda: Remarks on NGO reports on Greece's “Slav-Macedonian Minority” American Chronicle from November 18, 2008,

11. Miltiades Elia Boralis Is there a rift between Greece and the former Yugoslav Republic of “Macedonia” on Alexander? American Chronicle July 28, 2009

12. Ibid

13. Ibid

14. Nicos Dimou "The Apology of an Anti-Hellene"

The Theft of a King – Who Stole Alexander

ISBN: 978-1-4327-6856-0

Publisher: Outskirts Press, Inc.

By Gandeto, J.S.G.

1. What is the book about?
The book centers on Alexander the Great and the Ancient Macedonians’ ethnicity. It elaborates topics related to the differences between the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks and attempts to dispel the modern notion – one originating in the 19th century and thereafter propagated by some western authors – that ancient Macedonians “were” Greeks. Also, in the book the reader will find glimpses of today’s dispute between the Republic of Macedonia and Greece regarding the name of the Republic of Macedonia, in essence, what lies hidden behind this carefully orchestrated Greek problem with the name. Readers will have a chance to get acquainted with modern-day Balkan politics where deep-rooted historical intrigues, stereotyping and ingrained prejudices do justice for tolerance and rational thought.
The book offers glimpses into our continuous struggle to return Alexander to his rightful place - among his Macedonian kinsmen. Yes, it is a feeble voice in the dark, but a voice nevertheless, that isn't going to die any time soon. Through the topics discussed in the book, the reader will have a chance to see and understand the other side of the story. In the words of Marquez Garcia, "Our enemies have crushed many roses before but they haven't succeeded in stopping the spring from coming."
Compelling questions:

..If Alexander the Great was a Greek king, why would he dismiss his own "Greek" troops in the middle of his Asian campaign in 330 B.C.? (Arr. III.19.6-7; Plut. Al. 42.5; Diod. XVII.74.3-4; Curt. VI.2.17).

Why would Greeks in the mainland, supposedly his own people, rebel against him?

Why would the Greeks call the Lamian War a "Hellenic War" if they were fighting the Macedonians?

2. Why did you decide to write it?
My main objective was twofold: to bring to the forefront the differences between the ancient Macedonians and the ancient Greeks and to shed some light on much overlooked and, by some authors largely ignored, facts about the ethnicity of the ancient Macedonians.
I could no longer stay silent in lieu of such incontrovertible evidence left to us from the ancient chronographers that clearly distinguished and separated the ancient Macedonians from the ancient Greeks. I felt compelled to respond to the blatant and dishonest manipulation of historical evidence in order to circumvent and subvert the universally declared human rights covenants and obligations.
3. How did you get your book published?
A friend of mine suggested Outskirts Press as a reputable vehicle to reach my audience; I’m glad I did.
4. What types of readers will be interested in your book?
I would be happy if today’s younger generation gets a “whiff” of the twisted political winds in the Balkan and understand how distortions and manipulations of historical facts can be used for political gains.

5. What is special about your book? What differentiates it from other books in the same category?

What separates this book from other books in the same category is the blunt straight forward – no gloves – attitude. There is no glossing over, no need to look for clues hidden in between the lines or sugar-coating politically correct terms. If I have perceived historical distortions being sold as fact, I have described them as lies; if unsupported of evidence claims are propagated as truths, I called them fabrications; if historical injustice has been committed, I find no acceptable reason to remain silent regardless of socio-political consequences. Conscience compels me to act and stand against all social injustices.

If modern day Greeks succeed in their diplomatic offensive to convince the world that Alexander the Great and his Macedonians were actually Greeks, then such a verdict may accomplish two things: (a) prove that historical evidence can be ignored (and in this case it would be), that records can be manipulated and subverted, and (b) inflict irreparable damage to the confidence and the faith entrusted in the hands of scholars and academic institutions world wide. Such a verdict will amount to nothing less than the theft of a king. On the other hand, if justice prevails, as it should, then we may safely conclude that Alexander and his legacy would continue to rest among his Macedonians whom he considered his natural kinsmen and with whom he shared his troubles, setbacks, sufferings and pain as well as jubilation in his victories.
6. Have you published any other books? Do you plan to publish more?

Yes, I have. In 2002 I published The Ancient Macedonians – Differences between the Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks, One Golden Ray upon the Rock, a novel in 2005 and The Wolves of Trapper’s Bluff in 2007.

I most certainly will continue to write.

The book is available through most of the book stores;

http://www.outskirtspress.com/thetheftofaking

J.S.G. Gandeto was born in Lubojno, Macedonia. Educated at Ss Cyril and Methodius University of Skopje, Republic of Macedonia. He immigrated to United States and continued his studies at Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan and Nova South-Eastern University in Fourth Lauderdale, Florida where he received his post graduate degrees. He recently completed his 29th year as an educator and has since retired and is continuing to pursue his passion in writing. In 2002 he published his first book Ancient Macedonians - Differences between Ancient Macedonians and the Ancient Greeks. In 2005 he published the romantic novels One Golden Ray upon the Rock and in 2007, The Wolves of Trappers Bluff.
In the Macedonian Language he has published the following novels: Spasa's Light in 2004, Saraf in 2009 and Rosamarina's Grave in 2010. Book of poems Muabeti in 2003, poemata Ko Jagne in 2005 and Majka -Egejka in 2009. Currently, he is preparing for publication his latest novel Folded Impressions.

Articles by Risto Stefov:

[George S.]

From the Once Classified Files - Part 23

Macedonia

August 26, 1944



SUMMARY



1. Geography.-Macedonia is mainly hilly, with rare patches of fertile land, with grassy uplands and considerable mineral deposits. Through it run two historic highways, one from the Danube to Salonica and the other from the Albanian coast through Salonica to Constantinople. Salonica is its natural metropolis (paras. 1-3).



2. Population.-The populations of Greek and of Bulgarian Macedonia had become by 1938 respectively Greek and Bulgarian in national sentiment. The “Macedonian Question” had become by then almost confined to Yugoslav Macedonia. The population of Macedonia as a whole has for many centuries been mixed. Published statistics are not reliable. The position in 1938 was as follows: (a) The Greeks were almost confined to Greek Macedonia, where since 1922 they had formed the overwhelming majority. (b) Most of the Slavs, who were not to be wholly identified with either Serbians or Bulgarians, were in Yugoslav Macedonia. Here they had become less Bulgarophil than they had been. (c) The Albanians formed a fringe in the west. (d) The Turks formed a docile minority in Yugoslav Macedonia. (e) The Jews were mainly concentrated in Salonica. (f) The Vlachs led a pastoral life in the west and were found in some of the towns (paras. 4-11). An attempted estimate of the numbers of these elements (para. 12).



3. History-Medieval Macedonia was inhabited by several races and saw many varieties of governments. From 1372 to 1912 it was politically under the Sultan; the Christians being under the civil jurisdiction of the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople (after 1453). The modern Macedonia question began with the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate and the competition of Bulgarians, Greeks, and Serbians for the adherence of the population (paras. 13-15). In 1878 Russia sought to give nearly the whole of Macedonia to the proposed State of Bulgaria; but the Treaty of Berlin restored Macedonia to Turkey. From the 1890’s dated two revolutionary movements, one aiming at the incorporation of Macedonia in Bulgaria and the other at her autonomy. The Serbo-Bulgarian Treaty of 1912 assured the greater part of Macedonia to Bulgaria. There was no Greco-Bulgarian apportionment of territory. In 1912 the Balkan States overcame Turkey, and in 1913 the Bulgarians fought the Serbians and Greeks. The settlement imposed on Bulgaria gave most of northern Macedonia to Serbia, southern and eastern Macedonia to Greece and only a small and mountainous remnant to Bulgaria. In 1915 Bulgaria, by joining the Central Empires, obtained all Serbian, and the eastern end of Greek Macedonia. In 1919 this was reversed, and Bulgaria, in addition, lost Strumica to Yugoslavia (paras. 16-22). Thereafter Greece got rid of most of her Slavs by exchange of populations with Bulgaria, and Greek refugees from Asia completed the hellenisation of Greek Macedonia. Yugoslavia claimed that her Macedonian Slavs were really Serbians and could quickly be educated into feeling so. The Macedonian revolutionaries, with help from Bulgaria, resisted violently, and Yugoslav-Bulgarian relations were extremely strained till 1934, when a rapprochement took place between the two States. In 1941, except for the south-west, some districts in the north-west, and Salonica itself, Bulgaria obtained all Macedonia. The Bulgarians savagely de-Hellenized eastern Macedonia and showed no regard for autonomist aspirations in Yugoslav Macedonia (paras. 23-28).



4. Economic and Social Factors.-Macedonian communications are bad. There are few railways, all radiating from Salonica (para. 29). (a) In Yugoslav Macedonia agriculture was primitive; there was little industry; stock breeding and the cultivation of tobacco and opium poppies were staple activities. Political aspirations before 1941 were mainly for autonomy, or Communism (usually ill-defined), or both (paras. 30-31). (b) The public works connected with the settlement of the 600,000 refugees in Greek Macedonia and the enterprise of the refugees made this area the chief cereal-producing district of Greece and economically improved the area in many ways. The political sentiments of most of the population appeared to be wholly Greek, with some Communism in the industrial centres (paras. 32-33). (c) Bulgarian Macedonia is a poor and mountainous district, which appeared to have become an integral part of Bulgaria (para. 34).



5. Conflicting Interests.-(a) The Vardar valley provides the easiest route from Serbia to the sea. The Serbians have considered the Free Zone at Salonica unsatisfactory and have aspired to the possession of Salonica both for commercial and for strategic reasons. The Serbian claims to Macedonia, on ethnic or historical grounds, except as regards the north-west, are weak, but vehemently upheld (paras. 35-38). (b) The now overwhelmi;ngly Greek character of the inhabitants of Greek Macedonia and the settlement of the refugees there give Greece a strong ethnic claim to this territory. The area is also of great economic interest to Greece, though Salonica has lost by being separated from some of her hinterland. Greece’s strategic interest lies in securing a defensible frontier and preventing the domination of the Balkans by a Slav Power (paras. 39-41.) (c) The Bulgarian interest in Macedonia is primarily ethnic. Bulgaria has an interest in acquiring an economic and strategic outlet to the Aegean from west Bulgaria across Macedonia. But Greece, probably supported by Turkey, would resist a proposal that she should cede any part of her coast to Bulgaria (paras. 42-44). (d) Albania has an ethnic claim to a part of western Macedonia; but only a small district is on her side of the mountains (para. 45). (e) Revolutionary movements of to-day in Macedonia may alter the political situation. Their strength is as yet unknown and will partly depend on the policy of the Greater Allies (para. 46).



6. Possible Solutions.-(i) a unified and independent Macedonia. This appears out of date, since the southern area is now definitely Greek and not Macedonia. (ii) (a) A unified and autonomous Macedonia in a Balkan Federation. This, too, would encounter the same objection, apart from the improbability of such a Federation. This might be the best way to end the Serb-Bulgar antagonism and would probably have considerable support in Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, and the U.S.S.R.; although it would arouse Greek and Turkish apprehension. (c) The same, in a Balkan Federation. Could such a Federation be created, this proposal would have the merits of (b) together with the economic advantage of reuniting Salonica with the whole of its hinterland. (iii) The cession of part of Yugoslav Macedonia to Bulgaria and an exchange of populations. There are many formidable objections to this. (iv) Such a cession and exchange might be effected within a South Slav Federation comprising Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. (v) The elimination of the Macedonian question through the control of the Balkan peninsula by an outside Power, e.g., the U.S.S.R. This would arouse many apprehensions in the Balkans and elsewhere. (vi) The restoration of the status quo of 1940, possible mitigated by international control of the ports and main communications of Macedonia, but providing no permanent solution. But new factors may produce an unforeseen solution (paras. 47-53).



Geography



1. Macedonia is here taken to include the areas watered by the following rivers and their affluents: the Vardar and the Vistritza a in the west, and the Mesta and the lower Struma in the east. Its approximate boundaries are the Rhodope and Rila mountains, the hills north-east and north of Skoplje, theSar Planina mountains and their southward extension, Lakes Ohrida and Prespa, the Pindus range, the Kamvunia mountains, Mount Olympus and the Aegean Sea.



2. Macedonia is mainly hilly; the only extensive plains being those around the lower basins of the main rivers. There are also the smaller elevated plains in the neighbourhoods of Tetovo, Skoplje and Bitolj. There are wide grass uplands suitable for grazing. The mineral resources of the area are believed to be considerable; iron, lead, magnesite and manganese have been found in many parts and, above all, chrome, the reserves of which are supposed to be large.



3. Two important features of Macedonia need emphasis. (a) The area lies in the centre of the Balkan Peninsula. Through it, intersecting on the lower Vardar, run two of the main routes across the peninsula-the north-south route from the Danube up the Morava and down the Vardar to the Aegean, and the west-east route from the Albanian coast along the northern coast of the Aegean to Constantinople. (b) All the Macedonian highways lead towards the gulf of Salonica. This is completely true of western and southern Macedonia, where mountains block all other routes, and even north-eastern Macedonia has tended to do its overseas trade through Salonica owing to the lack of harbours at nearer points on the coast.



Population



4. One contemporary feature of Macedonia needs to be stated at this point. By 1938 the nationally Greek character of the population of Greek Macedonia (see paragraphs 6, 23, 39 and 47), and similarly the Bulgarian character of Bulgarian Macedonia (see paragraph 34) appeared established. The question of Macedonian autonomy, by that date, had reference only to Yugoslav Macedonia; though it was complicated by the presence of a Slav population within the borders of western Greek Macedonia and by the problem of access to the sea at Salonica.



5. The population has for centuries been a mixture of races speaking various tongues. Hence the culinary expression, une macedoine, for a jumble of different ingredients. There have never been any reliable linguistic or racial statistics of Macedonia. This is largely due to the illiteracy of many of the inhabitants and of the fierceness of national animosities, which has led the authorities to adjust the figures to their own satisfaction and the peasants to describe themselves as may at the moment seem safest. In many cases the peasants themselves do not clearly know what they are.



6. Six main peoples inhabit Macedonia. In the order of their probable numerical strengths in 1938, they are the Greeks, the Slavs, the Albanians, the Turks, the Jews and the Vlachs. (a) The Greeks of Yugoslav and Bulgarian Macedonia, who till 1912 formed a considerable part of the urban populations, were by 1938 negligible in number. On the other hand, most of the Aegean coast has been Greek-inhabited continuously since long before the Christian era. And the Greek element in Macedonia was increased between 1919 and 1928 by some 600,000 refugees from Asia Minor and Eastern Thrace. By 1938 the over-whelming majority in Greek Macedonia consisted of Greeks, Orthodox in religion and nationally conscious, and including an Orthodox and Greek-feeling, but Turkish-speaking, minority among the refugees.



7. (b) The Slavs in 1938 formed the great majority in Yugoslav and Bulgarian Macedonia, and a small remnant in Greek Macedonia. Before 1870 they were merely the Slav-speaking portion of the submerged Christian population, which was mostly Orthodox by religion; there was also a Turkish-speaking Moslem minority. In 1870 the Bulgarian Exarchate (autonomous Church) was founded, and this created a schism between its adherents and those of the Greek Patriarchate (see paragraph 15). By 1912 most authorities were agreed in considering these Slav-speaking Macedonian adherents to the Exarchate to be mostly assimilated in sentiment to the Bulgarians; though in the north there were some whose sentiment was Serbian; and everywhere there were some who professed to be merely Macedonian. Twenty-three years of Yugoslav (Serbian) Government diminished the attachment to Bulgaria; but the political sentiments of the Macedonian Slavs were obscure.



8. (c) The Albanians, though found further east, were mainly concentrated along the western border of Macedonia. The great majority of these Albanians were Mohammedans, though a few in the north were Catholics and some of those in Greek Macedonia were Orthodox.



9. (d) The Turks of Macedonia were a pathetic remnant of the former dominant caste. Turks vanished from Greek Macedonia with the exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey. A considerable number also left Yugoslav Macedonia; but in 1938 there was still a Turkish element living along the Vardar and in the towns. They appeared to be without national ambitions and to be resigned to their subordinate condition.



10. (e) The Jews of Greek Macedonia in 1938 were almost all concentrated in Salonica. In Yugoslav Macedonia there were a few thousand Jews in the towns.



11. (f) The Vlachs, or Kutzo-Vlachs were the remnant of the once numerous Romanised Thracians or Illyrians. They were Orthodox by religion. They led a pastoral life in the hills of western Macedonia, both Greek and Yugoslav, and kept themselves to themselves. There were also Vlach elements in the towns; but these tended to disappear by assimilation to their urban neighbours.



12. The estimate of the various races in Macedonia in 1912, attempted in the Foreign Office Handbook No. 19, Macedonia (1920), was as follows: -

Slavs…….1,150,000

Turks…….400,000

Greeks…...300,000

Vlachs……200,000

Albanians...120,000

Jews………100,000



Great changes, especially in Greek Macedonia, have occurred since then. The following figures are an attempt to estimate the numbers of these racial elements for 1938, bearing in mind the remarks in paragraph 5 (the linguistic figures according to the latest census giving them are shown in brackets).



Greek Yugoslav Bulgarian Total

Macedonia(1) Macedonia(2) Macedonia



Greeks 1,250,000 10,000 1,260,000

(1928: 1,250,000

Slavs 120,000 750,000 220,000 1,090,000

(1928: 82,000 (1921: 553,000

Albanians 40,000 130,000 170,000

(1928: 2,000 (1921: 124,500

Turks 100,000 100,000

(1921: 116,000

Jews 70,000 7,000 77,000

(1928: 60,500 (1921: 5,000

Vlachs 45,000 50,000 50,000

(1928: 20,000 (1921: 7,800

Totals 1,525,000 1,047,000 220,000 2,792,000



Recent Census

Totals 1928: 1,411,769 1931: 950,435 1934: 207,065



(1) The Greek census figures for 1928 seem to over-estimate the number of Greeks and to under-estimate other elements.



(2) The last Yugoslav census to give linguistic figures was that of 1921. It appears to have under-estimated the Albanian and Vlach elements. Since 1921 the Slav element has been strengthened by immigration; and the Turkish and Albanian elements weakened by emigration.



History



13. Macedonia was hellenised from about the ninth century B.C. by Greek settlers both from the interior and from the Greek city-States round the southern Aegean. In the fourth century B.C. Philip and Alexander the Great, Kings of Macedonia, imposed their rule on the Greek city-States of the Macedonian coast and southern Greece. This enlarged Macedonia became a Roman Province in the second century B.C.; at the close of the fourth century A.D., it was included in the Eastern, or Byzantine, half of the Empire. By then all Macedonia was Greek-speaking, except for a Latin-speaking northern fringe near Skoplje. A new element arrived, in the sixth century, with Slav invaders who largely supplanted the Greek-speaking and Latin-speaking populations of the interior and spread down to the coast at the mouth of the Vardar. During the tenth century the Bulgarian (Slavised Turkish) Tsars extended their dominion over all Macedonia, except the coast, and established a Bulgarian Patriarchate at Ohrida. In 1019 the Emperor Basil II extinguished the Bulgarian power; and Macedonia retained a Byzantine province till 1186. From that date till 1372 Macedonia was in dispute between Byzantines, Bulgarians and Latins; and was finally incorporated into the short-lived Serb empire of Stephen Dusan, whose capital was Skoplje. In 1392 the Osmanlis arrived on the scene, and in 1430, with the capture of Salonica, which had been Greek throughout the periods of Slav rule in the hinterland, they completed the Turkish conquest of Macedonia.



14. For more than five centuries Macedonia was part of the Ottoman Empire. From 1453 onwards its Orthodox inhabitants, of all nationalities, were collectively classified as “the Millet of Rum” and were all placed under the civil (though not all under the ecclesiastical) jurisdiction of the (Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople. The Ottoman conquest enriched the macedoine with two new ingredients: Moslem Turkish military colonists from Anatolia and Spanish-speaking Jewish refugees, expelled from Castile, to whom the Ottoman Government gave new homes in Salonica.



15. With the advent of the Western ideology of nationalism in the nineteenth century the peoples of Macedonia began to stir. The peasants desired release from the incompetence and abuses of the latter-day Ottoman regime. The Christians wished to shake off the Moslem ascendancy; the non-Greeks to escape from the extortions of the Greek clergy, who since 1767 had become their ecclesiastical as well as civil superiors. The modern form of the Macedonian Question was the outcome of the creation of the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1870. the Ottoman Government, under diplomatic pressure from Russia, authorized the formation of an autocephalous Bulgarian Church for almost all the territories which by 1885 were included in Bulgaria, with the addition of nis, ;and also provided that other districts might be annexed to this Exarchate if two-thirds of their inhabitants so desired. The Greek Patriarch of Constantinople resisted this innovation and finally excommunicated the whole Exarchist clergy as schismatic. Thereafter it was war to the knife between Patriarchists and Exarchists for 40 years in most of Macedonia. Greeks and Bulgarians used priests, schoolmasters, and armed bands of “komitadjis” (a word derived from the committees which organized them) in the struggle to establish their ethnic claims against the day of Turkey-in-Europe’s collapse. Hatred of the common Turkish ruler became less bitter than detestation of the Christian neighbour.



16. The abortive Treaty of San Stefano (3rd March, 1878), imposed by Russia upon Turkey, provided for the creation of a Bulgarian Principality which would have included fringes of modern Albania and Serbia and the whole of Macedonia except the Vistritza valley, Salonica, and the Chalcidice peninsula. At Berlin, however, the Powers, alarmed by Russian policy, drastically revised the terms of San Stefano and reconfirmed Turkey in the possession of the whole of Macedonia, which continued in anarchy under Turkish sovereignty for 34 more years. Bulgarians did not forget that at San Stefano their State had been promised territory which would have made it predominant in the Balkans and would have nullified Greek ambitions in Macedonia.



17. After 1878 the Bulgarians increasingly attracted the Macedonian Slavs and succeeded in gaining several bishoprics for their Exarchate. Towards the close of the century the Serbians began to join in the melee; and even distant Roumainia supported the Kutzo-Vlach cause. In this fight of all against all, the Ottoman Government could rely on the loyalty of three elements only: the Albanians (except when they were exasperated by attempts to govern them), the Turks and the Jews. They resorted to bargaining with one race at the expense of another; and were assisted by the half-hearted support of the Great Powers other than Russia.



18. In 1895 there was founded in Sofia by Macedonian refugees (who were very numerous in Bulgaria and constituted nearly a half of the population of the city) the “Supreme Committee,” to demand the annexation of Macedonia to Bulgaria. In 1896 was founded the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation (IMRO), whose object was the autonomy of Macedonia and whose leaders, though Slavs, attempted for years to maintain friendly relations with all the nationalities, even the Turks, of Macedonia. Despite confusing changes in these two organizations during the subsequent 40 years, this division of principle was permanent. The “Supremists” stood for Bulgarian nationalism; IMRO till some years after 1919 stood for Macedonian autonomy and some members of the organization have never ceased to do so, though others went over to “Supremism” (see below, paragraph 25).



19. The attempts of the Powers to procure peace by international control of the finances and the gendarmerie did little to restrain the inter-racial strife. The glorious expectation, aroused by the Young Turk revolution (1908), that all the races and religions of Turkey were now going to be free and equal, was soon followed by disillusionment. The strife of nationalities was resumed. But in 1912 the Balkan States, for the first time, decided to solve the Macedonian Question themselves. The Balkan League of 1912 and the ensuing war were the result.



20. The preliminary Serbo-Bulgarian treaty, of the 13th March, 1912, indicated, if not the sincerely agreed claims of both States, at any rate their relative strengths. Of the Turkish territory, which it was hoped to annex, Serbia recognized the Bulgarian right to all east of the Rhodope mountains and the Struma; while Bulgaria admitted the Serbian right to all north and west of the Sar Planina. As for the main part of Macedonia, a line was drawn (marked in broken green on the map). Serbia made no claim south-east of this line. Bulgaria, in a curious clause, accepted the line, provided that the Tsar of Russia, to whose arbitration both parties agreed, pronounced in its favour. Thus Serbia contented herself with a modest strip of northern Macedonia, including Skoplje; while Bulgaria, as between the two Slav States, was to have the whole of the rest of Macedonia, with a right to argue about the line of division. The assertion of Serbia’s rights west of the Sar Planina showed that she proposed to annex Albanian-inhabited territory, across which alone she could hope to reach the sea. In the corresponding Greco-Bulgarian treaty, of the 29th May, 1912, no territorial stipulations were make No Serbo-Greek treaty is known to have been made. Bulgaria was the leader and the pivot of the League.



21. In the First Balkan War (1912-3) the Bulgarian troops were mainly directed eastwards, and therefore conquered little of Macedonia, but nearly all of Thrace; while the Serbians overran the valley of the Vardar and northern Albania, and the Greeks occupied southern Macedonia up to and beyond the coveted port of Salonica. Meanwhile the Great Powers had agreed on the creation of an Albanian State and the consequent expulsion of the Serbians from the Albanian coast. By the time that peace was made with Turkey (the 30th May, 1913), disputes between the Balkan Allies had already begun. Serbia argued that, having been expelled from north Albania, which she had expected to acquire, she must have a larger share of Macedonia. Bulgaria took her stand against Serbia on her treaty rights, and claimed that Greece had acquired much more of the loot than her military efforts justified. Serbia and Greece, being in possession of Macedonia, made a treaty of mutual support; no appeal was made to the Tsar for arbitration; the Allies prepared to fight each other. The Bulgarians attacked the Serbians and Greeks, but were repulsed, and had also to sustain Turkish and Roumanian invasions in their rear. By the Treaty of Bucharest (the 10th August, 1913) Macedonia was divided along the lines of actual occupation (see frontiers marked in green on the map). Serbia acquired nearly all the Vardar basin, together with Ohrida, and a promise from Greece of a commercial outlet to the sea at Salonica; Greece obtained all southern Macedonia, Salonica itself and the Aegean coastal strip to beyond the Mesta. Embittered by the miscarriage of all their plans, the Bulgarians awaited an opportunity to reverse the decisions of 1913. As for their Macedonian protégés, they were equally embittered. The autonomists saw their hopes shattered by the partition of their country. The “Supremists” saw Macedonia divided from the Bulgarian “mother-country.”



22. Bulgaria’s opportunity came in 1915, when she joined the Central Empires and was rewarded with the occupation of all Serbian Macedonia and the eastern extremity of Greek Macedonia. The country was Bulgarised, Bulgarian priests and teachers were introduced, and the Slav inhabitants had to change the ends of their names from ic (-itch) to –ov. In 1919 all this was reversed once more, the Serbians and Greeks returned, -ov gave place to –ic again, and Bulgaria had to cede the Strumica Valley to Serbia (now Yugoslavia).



23. After 1918 Greece and Yugoslavia followed different policies with regard to Macedonian unrest, which was almost wholly the work of Slavs. Greece, under the Treaty of Neuilly (1919), conducted an exchange of populations with Bulgaria, thereby securing the removal of all but a few thousands of the Slavs of her eastern Macedonia. The Slavs of her share of western Macedonia she left in their villages, though providing them with Greek schools. An enormous influx of Greek refugees from Asia Minor quickly completed the hellenisation of Greek Macedonia.



24. But Yugoslavia asserted that her Macedonian Slavs were Serbs, who only needed a few years of “education” to become thankfully aware of the fact. Experience of Yugoslav government, however, caused the Macedonians to complain bitterly to the League of Nations and to the world at large. They alleged that the administration was incompetent, corrupt, and brutal, the means of communication as deplorable as ever, the State Tobacco Monopoly oppressive to Government, not trusting the Macedonians, did, in fact, in the 1920’s import officials, doctors, lawyers, teachers, and clergy from Serbia, as well as applying agrarian reform for the benefit of colonists from Serbia. As the salaries of officials were small, the conditions of life primitive, and the chances of advancement dependent on party intrigue, the less desirable type of Serbian civil servant tended to go to Macedonia.



25. The natural effect of the “education” was to provoke the vigorous resistance of IMRO (see para. 18), for whom Yugoslavia was “Enemy No. 1.” Partly from sympathy with IMRO, partly from inability, in her almost demilitarized condition, to control IMRO, Bulgaria gave the Organisation a free hand to operate in and from the district of Petric. In IMRO itself two tendencies operated. One wing, led by Ivan Mihailov, increasingly co-operated with the Bulgarian chauvinists, in return for whose support they acted as the gunmen of the Bulgarian political police and removed public men who favoured Liberal politics or showed signs of goodwill towards Yugoslavia. The other, led by Todor Alexandrov, stood for Macedonian in touch with the Soviet Government, to work for Macedonian autonomy within a Balkan Federation; and a periodical, Federation balkanique, was published in Vienna to propagate that programme. (This Vlahov is said to be identical with the Vlahov who was announced as a Vice-President of the Yugoslav Partisans’ National council of Liberation established at Jajce in Bosnia in November 1943.) Neither autonomy nor Soviet influence suited the plans of the Bulgarian nationalists, and for this reason Alexandrov was murdered in 1925. General Protogerov, who succeeded him in his policy, which in fact enjoyed the approval of the mass of Macedonians in southern Yugoslavia, was also murdered, in 1928. The subsequent history of IMRO is one of desperate resistance to the Yugoslav regime and blood-thirsty internal strife. Under Mihailov, who maintained relations with Pavelic and the Croat terrorists and was said to be financed from Italy, IMRO’s sories into Yugoslavia were so violent that the Yugoslav Government had to establish a system of barbed wire and innumerable blockhouses along the Bulgarian frontier and employ the local peasants to repel their “liberators,” until they finally got the better of the Organisation.



26. The situation was a vicious circle. The Yugoslav Government said that they could not accord more liberty to Macedonia while the danger from IMRO existed. The Bulgarian Government replied that their public opinion would not permit them to suppress IMRO while Macedonia groaned under tyranny. King Alexander attempted, after 1929, to solve the problem. Many Yugoslav officials were moved, and others, largely from the former Austro-Hungarian lands, were introduced; salaries were increased; native Macedonian clergy were given parishes; the end of party politics somewhat improved the atmosphere. The health service did much good work in attacking malaria. Loans were made to peasant co-operatives. These improvements prepared the way for the King’s approach to King Boris of Bulgaria in 1933; which was the suppression of IMRO in Bulgaria, and the end of the closed frontier. Bulgarian opinion appeared to become increasingly reconciled to the loss of Macedonia. Meanwhile Mihailov fled to Turkey, but had the satisfaction of knowing that one of his gunmen had murdered King Alexander in October, 1934.



27. The unabated grievances of the Macedonians of Yugoslavia were the absence of employment for the educated class and the smallness of the expenditure on public works, except at Skoplje. Though political crime died away, the ideal of autonomy persisted. The British Vice-Consul at Skoplje estimated in November 1940 that the majority of the Slavs and Turks of Yugoslav Macedonia were autonomists, only a minority of the Slavs still cherishing the hope of annexation by Bulgaria.



28. In 1941 Bulgaria once more occupied all Yugoslav Macedonia except the upper Vardar valley, above Skoplje, as well as Greek eastern, and some portions of Greek western, Macedonia. Most of Greek western Macedonia was occupied by the Italians, and Salonica was firmly kept under German control. Many thousands of Greeks were massacred in eastern Macedonia, others were deported to Bulgaria, and many more fled to southern Greece. The Bulgarian Government began a systematic replacement of the dead, deported, or fugitive Greeks by Bulgarians. In Yugoslav Macedonia no savagery on a similar scale was displayed; but Bulgaria showed no tenderness towards Macedonian aspirations for autonomy and introduced Bulgarian officials, teachers, and clergy, either Macedonians long resident in Bulgaria or men with no Macedonian connextions at all. Many thousands of Serbs fled into Serbia. The population received the right of option for Bulgarian or their former nationality. If they chose the latter alternative, they had to emigrate. Both from Salonica and the Yugoslav towns here were deportations of Jews to unknown destinations.



Economic and Social Factors



29 The lack of railways, together with the indifferent conditions of road transport, is partly responsible for the poverty of Macedonia. The few railways of Macedonia all radiate from Salonica. They are: the main line to Serbia up the Vardar and down the Morava, with side-lines to Ohridea and Stip and a loop line by Florina and Bitolj to Veles; the main line of Greece from Salonica to Athens; and two lines running eastwards from Salonica to Drama, whence a single line runs on through Thrace. In Bulgaria tow lines from Sofia reach the frontier, near Kustendil and Petric. After April, 1941, plans were made for the extension of these lines across Macedonia. By June 1944 the line to Kustendil had been carried on to Kumanovo (on the main Salonica-Belgrade line) and was expected to be open to traffic within a few weeks; while the narrow-guage line to Petric had been extended to join the Greek railways at Siderocastro (Demir Hissar), and a beginning (the first 25 miles south from Gorna Djumaja) had been made with the conversion of the line to normal gauge.



30. (a) In Yugoslav Macedonia agriculture has been primitive, though it has gained by the comparative peace of the 1930’s, and the introduction, on a small scale, of improved methods. In addition to cereals, the chief crops have been tobacco (to whose cultivators the State Monopoly paid a derisory price) and opium poppies; with some rice and cotton. Industry has been confined to a few breweries, soap and flour mills, and the chrome mines; and to traditional handicrafts. A considerable part of the population has lived by breeding sheep and cattle.



31. Before 1912 the proximity of the sea, and contact with the foreign schools and international life of Salonica and Constantinople produced a small, but intelligent, educated class of Macedonians of all nationalities. In Yugoslav Macedonia, after 1919, the various elements of this intelligentsia, diminished by the disappearance of most of the Greeks, gave evidence of mutual co-operation. Their main demands were for honest and enlightened government, which would afford educated Macedonians a chance of employment and make possible a reasonable livelihood for the peasants. Macedonian opinion appeared, in so far as a generalization may be attempted, to seek the realization of these benefits (often paradoxically identified by Balkan Slavs with what were once the normal European liberties of the individual) under Russian or other foreign auspices. The two aspirations seemed to be not infrequently entertained simultaneously.



32. (b) Greek Macedonia was completely transformed after 1918 by the settlement of the Greek refugees from Turkish Thrace and Anatolia. To accommodate these immigrants large estates were broken up and distributed, as was surplus communal pastureland. Large areas of marshy and malarial land were drained in the valleys of the Vardar and the Struma and measures were taken to provide adequate water-supplies by boring artesian wells and laying pipes and conduits. The Refugee Commission distributed draught animals and sheep. The refugees were, on the whole, a fine type, sturdy, hard-working, and intelligent.
They applied themselves energetically to reclaiming waste land, learning new agricultural methods, and producing new, as well as old, crops. Macedonia, with its patches of fertile soil, became the chief cereal-producing area in Greece. Before the coming of the refugees tobacco had been grown mainly in eastern and central Macedonia; the new settlers extended cultivation to western Macedonia; indeed, so much tobacco was produced that production exceeded demand and had to be restricted. The refugees also engaged with success in market-gardening near the larger towns, and in the production of hemp and silk.



33. Economically the assimilation of the refugees seems to have been successfully accomplished, but they tended in some parts to lead a segregated life, in villages of their own. In the towns the converse seems to have been the case, as it proved difficult to find employment for some of the professional men. In any case, there seems to be little doubt about the national sentiments of the refugees. They are Greeks by race and by national consciousness. The industrial proletariat of the tobacco centres of eastern Macedonia is reported to have leanings towards Communism, but what it understands by this term or how far it would wish to come under any form of Russian influence is very doubtful.



34. (c) Bulgarian Macedonia is a poor and mountainous district. After 1919 the Supremist IMRO leaders made it their headquarters, into which even the Bulgarian authorities could not venture without their connivance. In 1934 their rule disappeared with astonishing completeness. Since then the district has probably become fully integrated into Bulgaria.



Conflicting Interests



35 (a) Yugoslav interests.-The Yugoslav interest in Macedonia is Serbian, not shared by Croats and Slovenes except indirectly. From Serbia the Morava-Vardar route to Salonica is the geographically natural way to the sea, blocked by Greek possession of the outlet. After long disputes the Treaty of 1929 gave Yugoslavia a small free Zone in Salonica, with free use of the railway to Gjevgjeli, subject to the maintenance of Greek sovereignty over the zone and railway. As, however, Yugoslavia’s trade was almost entirely directed overland northwards and westwards, she made little use of the Free Zone. Its exports were confined to minerals from the Trepca (The Trepca mines lie about 110 km. N.N.W. of Skoplje) and Allatini mines; imports were negligible. Further, the Yugoslav authorities seem to have considered a zone in a Greek port unsatisfactory and to have cherished the hope of gaining Salonica itself; a hope momentarily justified when, on the 25th March, 1941, Hitler promised them Salonica on their adherence to his “New Order.” It appears improbable that the agricultural products of Serbia and Yugoslav Macedonia will find a ready market overseas. But their mineral resources should find such markets and be increasingly exploited. For the export of minerals and for imports (if the world returns to freedom of international trade), Yugoslavia would have an interest in the possession of Salonica. But the Free Zone, especially if reasonably enlarged, ought adequately to meet her needs.



36. Serbians have aspired to the possession of Salonica for strategic reasons. It would provide Yugoslavia with an alternative outlet to the Mediterranean (and one nearer to Serbia) should the Adriatic be controlled by a hostile Power. Should Serbia become separated from the Croat and Slovene lands, this Serbian desire would be strengthened. On the other hand, as long as Yugoslavia’s relations divide Greek territory and completely alienate Greece, would destroy Yugoslavia’s defensive Balkan alliances and leave her Balkan frontiers surrounded by enemies. Only if Yugoslavia and Bulgaria were politically united or on the friendliest terms, would this vital objection to the Yugoslav acquisition of Salonica lose its weight; and even then Yugoslav statesmen would need to consider whether it would be worth while to gain Salonica at the cost of Greek, and also Turkish, hostility.



37. Serbian ethnic and historical claims in Macedonia, though vehemently upheld, are weak. Serbians do not forget that Skoplje was the capital of the fourteenth century Serbian Empire. But that Empire was both multi-racial and short-lived. Only in the north, in the neighbourhood of Skoplje, can the Macedonian Slavs be said to be predominantly Serbian in national sentiment.



38. (b) Greek interests.-First, Greece has an ethnic interest. Salonica and most of the coast have been continuously Greek-inhabited since long before the Christian era (see para. 13 above). In 1913 Greece acquired her considerable share of the non-Greek-inhabited hinterland. After 1919 the character of the population changed, with the removal of the Turkish-speaking Moslems and most of the Bulgarians and the enormous influx of Greek refugees. Greek Macedonia was, in 1938, overwhelmingly Greek-inhabited. The secular Greek character of the coast and the achievement of Greece, with the help of the League of Nations, in settling Greeks of Asia Minor in the area, give Greece an undeniably strong claim to her share of Macedonia.



39. Secondly, Greece’s economic interest is great. Salonica, indeed, cut off by the northern frontier of Greece from a large part of Macedonia, has not flourished since 1918; though its economic difficulties must also be attributed to the War of 1914-18, the disasters in Asia Minor, and the world economic depression. Greek Macedonia is the richest of the Greek provinces and is of great value to Greece for its cereals, its pasture lands, its tobacco industry, its not yet fully exploited mineral resources, and its hardy rural population.



40. Thirdly, the area of Salonica is essential to the defence of Greece. Greece’s strategic interest is to have an adequate hinterland serving as a screen for Salonica and for the routes to Florina, Kastoria, and Thrace, against any enemy of less than Great Power strength. It is also to Greece’s interest that Bulgaria should not be extended (as in 1941) to include Yugoslav Macedonia, and that a single Slav Power, holding all non-Greek Macedonia and dominating the Balkan Peninsula, should not be created.



41. (c) Bulgarian interests.-The acquisition of most of Macedonia has been a traditional aspiration of the Bulgarian people. Until 1919 Bulgaria could appeal to the sentiment of the majority of the Macedonian Slavs. After 1919 the Bulgarian-minded population of Greek Macedonia was reduced to a small remnant, and most of that of Yugoslav Macedonia appeared gradually to exchange their hope of annexation to Bulgaria for that of autonomy in a Yugoslav or Balkan Slav or Balkan Federation.



42. Bulgaria’s main economic interest in Macedonia lies in the acquisition of an adequate outlet to the Aegean Sea, which Bulgarians declared was closed to them before 1939 by the ill-will of the Greek authorities. It may be true that Bulgaria will only find markets for her produce in Central Europe; but, should the world find its way back to freedom of international trade, Bulgaria will need to import goods from countries overseas. The best outlet for western Bulgaria would be Salonica; or, failing that, Kavalla. Alternatively such an outlet could be found not in Macedonia, but at Dedeagatch (Alexandroupolis), in Thrace. Apart, however, from the certain opposition of Greece and Turkey to a cession of any part of the Aegean coast to Bulgaria, it should be remembered that Bulgaria has a considerable coast on the Black Sea.



43. Bulgaria’s strategic interest appears to be twofold. First, the possession of the Vardar basin would enable her to separate Greece from Yugoslavia and reach a common frontier with Albania; a situation which, were Yugoslavia to disintegrate, would leave Bulgaria dominant in the Balkans. Secondly, a more modest share of Macedonia, but one including a port on the Aegean Sea, would release Bulgaria from dependence on the Black Sea-Dardanelles and Danube routes of supply and support. Again such a port might be found in Dedeagatch. And again the opposition of Greece and Turkey to the cession of an Aegean port to Bulgaria is certain. (In regard to paras. 43 and 44 see Territorial Issues between Bulgaria and Greece, (Foreign Officer print: ”Balkan States,” June 20, Section 1.) paras. 12-16).



44. (d) Albanian interests.-Albania might advance an ethnic claim, whose validity it would be difficult to assess, to the districts of Tetovo, Gostivar, Kicevo, and Ohrida. But the first three of these districts lie within the basin of the Bardar and belong geographically to Macedonia. Ohrida is over the mountains, in the basin of the Drin. On economic and strategic grounds a frontier giving Ohrida to Albania would appear justifiable (see The Albano-Yugoslav Frontier, (Foreign Office print; “Balkan States,” August 26, Section 1.) paras. 18 (e) and (f), 20 (e), 21, 25).



45. (e) Revolutionary Movements.-In contrast with all these “traditional” interests, there have developed, especially since 1941, in and around Macedonia, powerful currents of revolutionary sentiment, which appear to cut across the historic boundaries and national antagonisms of the Balkan Slavs. Amongst Serbian and Macedo-Slav “partisans” and Bulgarian Leftists there appeared in 1943 to be more zeal for a social revolution than for national States. In Greece and Albania there were similar tendencies. The strength of these movements in relation to the forces representing the traditions of the nineteenth century, and the outcome of their conflict with those traditions, will at some stage depend on the policy adopted towards them by Great Britain, the United States and the U.S.S.R. These movements have gained prestige by their active opposition to the German forces. But until the policy of the Greater Allies in relation to the Balkans, is known, it is difficult to assess the relative strengths of the conflicting forces in Macedonia, beyond the view that the Greek character of Greek Macedonia appears established.



Possible Solutions



46. The solution originally advocated by IMRO was the independence of Macedonia as a whole, based on the equal rights and treatment of all its inhabitants irrespective of race. Provided that Macedonia were genuinely independent, Bulgarian resistance to this solution would probably not be widespread, particularly after a lost war. An intransigent opposition, however, would be shown by the Serbians, who claim that Yugoslav Macedonia is a part of Serbia; unless power in Serbia passes in the future into the hands of new and much less nationalist elements. But, even so, the idea of an independent Macedonia is obsolete. Such a State could not exist without its natural capital, Salonica; and Greece would not willingly surrender that great Greek city, nor would the Macedonian Greeks accept separation from Greece. Moreover, it would isolate Greek Thrace from the rest of Greece and probably stimulate Bulgarian, Macedonian, and perhaps Turkish claims to that province.



47. Secondly, there are several forms which it might be suggested that Macedonian autonomy might take, within a Federation. (a) The autonomy of Macedonia as a whole, within a Balkan Federation. This would include Greek Macedonia in the autonomous State; and would encounter the same objections, on that account, as were raised to the preceding suggestion. (b) The autonomy of non-Greek Macedonia within a Federation of the Balkan Slavs, which the advent to power of new elements in Serbia and Bulgaria might make possible. As between Yugoslavia and Bulgaria this has long seemed the best way to put an end to the mutual antagonism of the two States, which has its roots chiefly in the Macedonian Question, and thus to make possible the creation of the Great Federated Southern Slav State which is the ultimate ideal of a considerable part of the more enlightened and less chauvinistic Balkan Slavs. Such a solution for non-Greek Macedonia might have the approval of the U.S.S.R.; but the creation of a Slav Federation extending from the Adriatic to the Black Sea would arouse the apprehensions of both Greece and Turkey, and might be opposed to British interests. (c) The autonomy of non-Greek Macedonia within a Balkan Federation. This solution would combine self-government for a population conscious of its separate identity with economic freedom in a wider area and free access to Salonica. Yet a Balkan Federation, for its harmonious operation, would require a degree of mutual confidence and co-operation between all the Balkan nations of which as yet they have given little evidence.



48. Thirdly, a return might be made to some form of the proposal made by the Entente Powers to Bulgaria in 1915 for the cession by Serbia to Bulgaria of several districts east of the Vardar; subject to an exchange of those portions of the population of Yugoslav Macedonia which preferred to cross the new frontier line. Such a proposal might be welcomed by Bulgaria as a final settlement of her claims in non-Greek Macedonia. But it would entail the removal of the Yugoslav-Bulgarian frontier from mountain ranges into a river basin; it would be held by the Yugoslavs to endanger their main line of communication with Greece and Salonica; it is improbable that many of the peasantry would avail themselves of the option of exchanging their nationality, or that the two States would put pressure to emigrate on populations which each considers hers, with the result that irredentism would not cease; it seems wholly improbable that the Serbians would consent to cede to Bulgaria territory for which they have four times fought in 30 years; and, lastly, the proposal would almost certainly arouse the opposition of Greece.



49. Fourthly, were anti-traditionalist, left-wing forces to become predominant in both Serbia and Bulgaria, a possible solution for non-Greek Macedonia might be found in the combination of a south Slav Federation, including Yugoslavia and Bulgaria (see para. 48 (b) above), together with, not the autonomy of non-Greek Macedonia, but the cession to Bulgaria of several districts of eastern Yugoslav Macedonia (see para.49). Elements of the population, which so wished, would then be free to transfer themselves across the internal frontier between Serbia and Bulgaria, and the Serbo-Bulgarian feud might be expected to come to an end. This solution would not provide the advantages of local autonomy (for which it may be argued that non-Greek Macedonia is too small and poor); and, like the solution indicated in para. 48 (b), it would arouse the apprehensions of Turkey and Greece.



50. Fifthly, it is possible that, if the Balkan peninsula passed under the control of a Great Power, that Power might end the local feuds and reconcile the races of Macedonia and of the whole peninsula in a common subjection to herself. The only Power able and conceivably willing to perform this function would appear to be the U.S.S.R. This solution would arouse strong opposition from Turkey, Greece and large portions of the other Balkan peoples. It would also raise wider issues in the international field.



51. Sixthly, there is the restoration of the pre-1941 status quo, with the inevitable continuance of intransigent nationalism in Macedonia. That situation might, indeed, be somewhat mitigated, were adequate Free Ports created at Salonica and Kavalla, and were those Free Ports and the communications between them and the chief centres of Yugoslav and Bulgarian Macedonia placed under international control. Such an arrangement might prove economically beneficial, and the presence of international officials might possibly serve to raise the standard of local official conduct, provided there were an effective International Authority, entitled to intervene in restraint of injustice on the evidence of its officials. It would, however, be naďve to expect much political assuagement to follow from these measures, and it must be frankly recognized that, while this course may be the only practicable one in view of the political situation, it will not provide a final solution either to the Macedonian or to the Balkan problems.



52. Lastly, however, the Balkan situation includes such uncertain factors (see para. 46) that some other solution, which cannot at present be foreseen, might come to appear practicable.



Research Department, Foreign Office, Whitehall, 26th August, 1944.
from r stefov email

[George S.]

Once a Greek Always a Greek

Once a Greek Always a Greek

By Risto Stefov

[email protected]

July 24, 2011

The following is an e-mail I received from someone who calls himself Dimitri and claims to be a Hellene-Greek. But as a typical Hellene-Greek he can’t help but put down and denigrate the entire Macedonian nation while trying to be kind and polite.

Here is what he had to say;

“Dear Risto

Firstly I must commend you on your eloquence and passion. It comes across clearly. And there is no doubt that you are an extremely articulate and highly intelligent person. However I would like to ask you, if I may that is. What are your credentials? Have you researched all this as a passion or do you hold some authority in the field. It sounds like you do or you want to appear so. Your arguments are intelligently put forth and you have worded your articles with the precision of a diplomat. I would like to ask you however a few questions if I may – for I am sure you expected to get some when you wrote – what at times come across as very vitriolic writing.

Risto no one in their right mind can claim ethnicity in the sense that we talk about a pure race of people. At least none of the European peoples have not been ‘adulterated’ in one way or another by the historical movements of people. I am a Hellene, Greek call it what you like and manipulate it as you will, but I have no delusions. I know, that at some time in the history of the land from which I supposedly descend, there were other people who might or might have not mixed with the local element. One would have to be very naive to assume they are a ‘true’ anything. The arguments you so cleverly advocate could be applied to your people. The people who settled in your region in the 6th century AD were certainly Slavs. True there were other peoples living in the area, like the Illyrians and Thracians, but the Slavs from whom the modern ‘Macedonian’ is descendant are relatively new-comers. You say that the Greeks ‘fabricated’ their identity and language. Ok I’ll accept your argument. So what were they speaking before they ‘adopted’ the Koine?

I understand you are very passionate about your so-called identity and please don’t think I am attacking or patronizing you. I too don’t want to offend my fellow ‘Slav Macedonians’. Our identity is firmly imbedded in the legacy the ancient Hellenes have bequeathed to humankind. Sure some of the modern Greeks do not deserved to be associated with such a legacy nor do they have the right to, but that is the legacy that we as a nation see ourselves as an extension of and that is reflected in the use of the Greek language, literature, architecture, music, etc. Whether or not we have been worthy of being ‘respectable’ custodians is debatable. But for people to come out and attempt to usurp our history because theirs is devoid of anything remarkable is petty.
I took time to read your writing and I admired your arguments and lexical eloquence, but you are sadly blowing your own trumpet. You speak of the Greeks as some kind of bastardized people with a stolen, fabricated identity. That we are devoid of substance and that you are a proud Macedonian. My friend Risto. The pride that goes with being Macedonian was there one thousand years before your people come to the region.
Even if I accept your argument of a bastardized Greek nation with a fabricated identity and a history of lies, there is still a connection between this nation and the ancients in terms of linguistic, cultural and topographical senses. Your people are neither linguistically or culturally related to the ancient Macedonians in any way whatsoever. And let us not touch on the race mixing argument, because I’m sure the ancient Macedonians, in the thousand years it took for you guys to arrive, must have mixed with the other Greeks with whom they shared the same language, gods, Olympics, philosophers, mythology and ancient heroes, rather than sit around waiting for you guys to arrive so they could ‘interbreed’.
For arguments sake, I will accept that everything you have said is right. That the Greeks are liars and propagandists and the rest that you claim. But how on earth can you write that your people, being from a Slavic stock, completely disconnected from Alexander the Great by language, culture and historical context, are real Macedonians. At best my friend, you are ‘New Macedonians’. It is laughable that you would claim otherwise.
It is simple. Your state, formed in 1947 by martial Tito, is problematic and socially schizophrenic state in search of a modern identity. You are children of communism with a brainwashed and stunted perspective of identity and your place in the world. Out of a population of about two million twenty per cent are ethnic Albanians and you have the audacity to focus on the heterogeneity of the Greek modern state. Of course it is heterogeneous. Only idiots argue it is mono ethnic. I understand your pain and frustration with your identity. If I lived on the fringes of the most glorious territory in the history of this planet I too would consider usurping it. Sure the Greeks might have no connection with the ancients for one reason or another – although that too is relative and has not been studied enough. Your people however are definitely unrelated to the ancient Macedonians. Nor have you been the custodians of their legacy in any sense of the word except the name of your assumed identity.
Check your sources again. Alexander was a pupil of Aristotle as you very well know. Alexander was taught attic Greek. The Koine is what came out of Anatolia and that which the Septuagint in the 3rd century BC and then the gospels were written in. How can you suggest that Greece adopted Koine because it was the lingua franca? Ok – so what were they speaking before that? Or are you implying that there was no such thing as a Greek element and that it was completely fabricated to somehow ‘usurp’ the glory of the ancient Hellenes?
My apologies to the Slavic Macedonian people (from the 6th century AD) if they find these opinions offensive. My objective here is NOT to create tension between the Slav-Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the F.Y.R.O. M and its institutions. As long as F.Y.R.O.M insists on hijacking the 3000 year old Macedonian identity for their 64 year old state, previously known as southern Serbia, and home to every kind of Balkan ethnicity, then we too will continue to respond to your eloquently delivered propaganda.

With respect for your views and your struggle for identity

Truly, I hope that one day you are called ‘Nova Macedonia’. I believe in your rights and your right to have an identity that defines you historically and geographically, but I disagree with your subversive propaganda.

Dimitri (a bastardized Hellene, with a manufactured identity who never stole anything from another nation)”

So, where do I begin? How about with the first paragraph:

“Firstly I must commend you on your eloquence and passion. It comes across clearly. And there is no doubt that you are an extremely articulate and highly intelligent person. However I would like to ask you, if I may that is. What are your credentials? Have you researched all this as a passion or do you hold some authority in the field. It sounds like you do or you want to appear so. Your arguments are intelligently put forth and you have worded your articles with the precision of a diplomat. I would like to ask you however a few questions if I may – for I am sure you expected to get some when you wrote – what at times come across as very vitriolic writing.”

Thank God I don’t aspire to flattery! And what kind of credentials would you like me to show you? That I have a PhD in history? That I graduated from a Faculty of History from a University that professes that “Macedonians do not exist”? Are these the kind of credentials you want me to show you? And what good are these “credentials” for me and for the Macedonian people?

“Risto no one in their right mind can claim ethnicity in the sense that we talk about a pure race of people. At least none of the European peoples have not been ‘adulterated’ in one way or another by the historical movements of people. I am a Hellene, Greek call it what you like and manipulate it as you will, but I have no delusions. I know, that at some time in the history of the land from which I supposedly descend, there were other people who might or might have not mixed with the local element. One would have to be very naive to assume they are a ‘true’ anything.”

I agree with you here that no one is pure. No one besides Greece and the Greeks claim to be pure. You don’t need to convince me of this. I already know that but you need to convince the Greek academicians and politicians who go around telling the world, and especially their own people living in Greece, that only pure Greeks live in Greece and that they are the descendents of the ancient Greeks. I myself come from Greece and I know this for a fact!

“The arguments you so cleverly advocate could be applied to your people.”

I have never claimed that Macedonians are pure and descendents of the ancient Macedonians. If fact I believe the Macedonians are the descendents of all people that set foot and settled in Macedonia since the melt of the last ice age.

“The people who settled in your region in the 6th century AD were certainly Slavs. True there were other peoples living in the area, like the Illyrians and Thracians, but the Slavs from whom the modern ‘Macedonian’ is descendant are relatively new-comers. You say that the Greeks ‘fabricated’ their identity and language. Ok I’ll accept your argument.”

First let me say that I don’t subscribe to the “Slav migration” theory! At best this is a theory that has not been proven. And second, let me say that if any Slavs settled in Macedonia they also settled in Greece. There is plenty of evidence to prove this both from the Slavic place names left behind and from the Slavic languages spoken in remote areas, which in some places in the Peloponnesus are spoken to this day.

“So what were they [Greeks] speaking before they ‘adopted’ the Koine?”

If you know Greek history as you appear to claim to know then you should know the answer to this question! Ask yourself this! If the so-called Greeks spoke “Greek” or “Koine” as you call it, why did the Greek Members of Parliament need translators at Naphplion, Greece’s first capital, when the first Greek government was convened?

Hint! They needed translators because the first Greek Members of Parliament spoke different languages; and they were not “Greek”. Why else would they need translators? The operative words here are “different languages”!
I would have left this for you to find out but for the sake of my readers, the languages spoken in those days (1800s) in Greece were predominantly Albanian (Arvanitika), Vlach (Vlahika), Macedonian (Makedonika), Turkish (Turkika) and a few others including Italian, French, English, German and Russian. Very few from the educated class (including the Phanariots) spoke “demotic Greek”, which at the time was still the language of trade and commerce in some parts of the Ottoman Empire, before Greece adopted it as the national language of Greece.
“I understand you are very passionate about your so-called identity and please don’t think I am attacking or patronizing you. I too don’t want to offend my fellow ‘Slav Macedonians’.”

There you sound like a true “hypocrite” Greek. I know you can’t help yourself because once a Greek always a Greek and there is no satisfaction in a Greek unless he or she insults the Macedonian nation. But anyway, in case you didn’t know, we are Macedonians and not “Slav Macedonians”. First, we know who we are. We don’t need a Greek to tell us who we are and who we are not. Second, we find the word “Slav” demeaning and degrading just like a black person would find a gentleman from the Southern United States calling him a “nigger”. So if you don’t want to “offend” the Macedonians please don’t call them “Slav Macedonians”.

“Our identity is firmly imbedded in the legacy the ancient Hellenes have bequeathed to humankind. Sure some of the modern Greeks do not deserved to be associated with such a legacy nor do they have the right to, but that is the legacy that we as a nation see ourselves as an extension of and that is reflected in the use of the Greek language, literature, architecture, music, etc. Whether or not we have been worthy of being ‘respectable’ custodians is debatable.”
Thank you, I am glad you see yourselves in this way. In fact, we Macedonians see ourselves in a similar way yet your Greeks, yourself included, are incapable of seeing us in this way! Why is that?

If I understand you correctly you are Greeks because you identify yourselves as such because of your history, language, literature, music, etc.! So then why do you object to us Macedonians identifying ourselves as Macedonians for the same reasons? Are we less worthy custodians than you? What if I said, “Our Modern Macedonian identity is firmly imbedded in the legacy that the ancient Macedonians bequeathed to humankind”! Would that be okay with you? Obviously not! Because this is what you say next:

“But for people to come out and attempt to usurp our history because theirs is devoid of anything remarkable is petty.”
Which of your “true” history are we usurping? Obviously you “don’t know” your true history because if you did you would know that modern Greeks are the descendents of Slav, Albanian and Vlach immigrants and refugees who migrated to the region, today called Greece, during the 6th, 11th and 13th centuries AD. There never was a country called Greece; it was created for the first time in 1829 by the Western Philhellenes. After that your Slav, Albanian and Vlach ancestors were taught how to be Greek and to how to speak Greek in school. I alone have over 300 books that will confirm this. So go ahead and believe your myth, created by the Philhellenes, that you are the descendents of the so-called “Ancient Greeks” and continue to reject and ignore the truth; that you are the descendents of Slavs, Albanians, Vlachs and Turks. Go ahead and keep believing that the Modern Greeks are “truly Greeks” and the rest of the Balkan people are trash, even though we all co-existed together without borders for over two millenniums!

Again, for the sake of my readers allow me to correct you! It is you the “fake Greeks” who have stolen not only our Macedonian history but also our Macedonian land and our entire heritage. And hypocritically, as good Greeks, you not only deny this, you deny our existence!

“I took time to read your writing and I admired your arguments and lexical eloquence, but you are sadly blowing your own trumpet. You speak of the Greeks as some kind of bastardized people with a stolen, fabricated identity. That we are devoid of substance and that you are a proud Macedonian. My friend Risto. The pride that goes with being Macedonian was there one thousand years before your people come to the region.”
I speak the truth when I tell you “who the Modern Greeks are” but you would rather believe the myth created for you by foreigners than to actually look at reality. You say without any proof that we are Slavs who came to Macedonia and yet ignore and brush aside all the evidence that I throw at you, which clearly proves you modern Greeks are nothing more than the descendents of Slavs, Albanians and Vlachs who migrated into this region much later (6th, 11th and 13th centuries AD).
“Even if I accept your argument of a bastardized Greek nation with a fabricated identity and a history of lies, there is still a connection between this nation and the ancients in terms of linguistic, cultural and topographical senses. Your people are neither linguistically or culturally related to the ancient Macedonians in any way whatsoever. And let us not touch on the race mixing argument, because I’m sure the ancient Macedonians, in the thousand years it took for you guys to arrive, must have mixed with the other Greeks with whom they shared the same language, gods, Olympics, philosophers, mythology and ancient heroes, rather than sit around waiting for you guys to arrive so they could ‘interbreed’.”
The only reason you are “linguistically”, or in any other form, connected to anything ancient is because today you happened to live in a region where once the ancients lived and your government adopted the ancient language as the official language of your state! Greek was NOT your mother tongue, your 19th and 20th century ancestors learned this language at school. I know that because I come from Greece and my grandparents did not speak Greek. As adults they were too old to learn Greek. And this is because Macedonia (the Greek occupied part) became Greek for the 1st time ever in 1913 after it was invaded, occupied, partitioned in three pieces and annexed by Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria.
What is it with Greeks and ancient times? Why don’t we talk about Greeks in modern times and highlight the abuses Greeks inflicted on the Macedonian people in Greek occupied Macedonia from 1913 to date?
“For arguments sake, I will accept that everything you have said is right. That the Greeks are liars and propagandists and the rest that you claim. But how on earth can you write that your people, being from a Slavic stock, completely disconnected from Alexander the Great by language, culture and historical context, are real Macedonians. At best my friend, you are ‘New Macedonians’. It is laughable that you would claim otherwise.”
“Slavic stock”? What does that even mean? Is this your way of convincing yourself that you are somehow different and better than us? Keep dreaming, my “fake Greek” friend!

My friend, my Macedonian ancestors were calling themselves “the children of Alexander” while speaking the same Macedonian language we speak today while your ancestors were calling themselves “Romaioi” (Romans) and spoke Arvanitika, Vlahika and Turkika. Just remember this; both the Arvanites and Vlahi, your “real” Modern Day Greek ancestors, spoke a mother language with Latin roots! So where do your “Greek roots” and continuity come from? The Turks?

We will call ourselves “New Macedonians” when you start calling yourselves “Arvanito-Vlachs”.
“It is simple. Your state, formed in 1947 by martial Tito, is problematic and socially schizophrenic state in search of a modern identity. You are children of communism with a brainwashed and stunted perspective of identity and your place in the world. Out of a population of about two million twenty per cent are ethnic Albanians and you have the audacity to focus on the heterogeneity of the Greek modern state. Of course it is heterogeneous. Only idiots argue it is mono ethnic. I understand your pain and frustration with your identity. If I lived on the fringes of the most glorious territory in the history of this planet I too would consider usurping it. Sure the Greeks might have no connection with the ancients for one reason or another – although that too is relative and has not been studied enough.”

My friend, I do not believe you are that naďve but because you’re a Modern Greek and you have been misled all your life, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Here it is; “you don’t know your own true history, never mind mine, and you have been brainwashed by Greek propaganda”.

Yes we are a mixed people and remained so because we are true to ourselves. We speak the language of our ancestors and pride ourselves in being a multiethnic, multicultural State with all its pains and troubles. Unfortunately, I can’t say the same about you! Yes, you truly live a “lie” believing in a myth that you are homogenous pure Greeks, descendents of the ancient Greeks! No matter how hard you try to avoid saying this; it comes out loud and clear. Ironically, however, while you boast of your “mythical” existence you continue to deny my existence. And how typical “Greek” of you is that?
Allow me to elaborate;

“Your people however are definitely unrelated to the ancient Macedonians. Nor have you been the custodians of their legacy in any sense of the word except the name of your assumed identity.”

re these not your words?

“Check your sources again. Alexander was a pupil of Aristotle as you very well know. Alexander was taught attic Greek. The Koine is what came out of Anatolia and that which the Septuagint in the 3rd century BC and then the gospels were written in.”

Please check your sources too. You are writing to me in English, therefore should I assume that you are English? Are you English? So, the modern Bible is written in English which tells me what? I don’t follow your logic! I am sure Alexander spoke Persian and some other language as well! Does that make him Persian too?

Again for the sake of my readers, Alexander and most educated Macedonians were bi-lingual; they spoke Macedonian, probably the ancient version of the modern Macedonian language (which to date has not been proven but we are working on it) and Koine, the region’s common language of trade and commerce. A lot of people who are not English today speak English because today English is the “common” language people use “Internationally” to communicate with one another. A century or so ago, French was the common language. A long, long time ago Koine was the International language used around the Mediterranean.
“How can you suggest that Greece adopted Koine because it was the lingua franca? Ok – so what were they speaking before that? Or are you implying that there was no such thing as a Greek element and that it was completely fabricated to somehow ‘usurp’ the glory of the ancient Hellenes?”
Yes, check your history and you will find out that Greece indeed adopted the Koine language as the official State language. Then it tried to clean it up but eventually failed, ending up with the bastardized language full of foreign words that you speak today.
“My apologies to the Slavic Macedonian people (from the 6th century AD) if they find these opinions offensive.”
How easily you call the “Slavo-Arvanito-Turko-Vlachs” “Greek” yet you can’t muster the courage to call the Macedonian people Macedonian, by the name they chose to call themselves!
“My objective here is NOT to create tension between the Slav-Macedonian and Greek people but rather to highlight the problem that exists within the F.Y.R.O. M and its institutions.”
As I mentioned before the southern “gentleman” from the United States did not use the term “nigger” to create “tension” between the white and black people, he simply used that term (racial, demeaning, derogatory and hurtful to the Black people) because it was familiar to him. But his “good” intentions brought no solace to the people referred to by that word; it simply brought back memories of pain and humiliation!
“As long as F.Y.R.O.M insists on hijacking the 3000 year old Macedonian identity for their 64 year old state, previously known as southern Serbia, and home to every kind of Balkan ethnicity, then we too will continue to respond to your eloquently delivered propaganda.”

First, if you want to address me you need to learn to address me as an equal. Second, the country you are referring to has a name. It is called the “Republic of Macedonia”. Third, that small country prides itself as being a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural state which means it recognizes and respects the rights of all of its minorities. This, unfortunately, I cannot say about Greece. Fourth, the Republic of Macedonia, which I consider one-third of my country, is not all of Macedonia. The part of Macedonia where I come from, which amounts to half of my Macedonia, today is occupied by Greece. One hundred or so years ago it was occupied by the Ottoman Empire for nearly six-hundred years. But I believe the time will come when Macedonians will unite and rise and will make Macedonia whole again. You can call this a “pipe dream” but it is my “pipe dream”!
Macedonians came very close after World War II in achieving that dream and if we could do that then, I am sure one day we can and will do it again.
“With respect for your views and your struggle for identity
Truly, I hope that one day you are called ‘Nova Macedonia’. I believe in your rights and your right to have an identity that defines you historically and geographically, but I disagree with your subversive propaganda.”

I appreciate and thank you for respecting my views and yes we will call our county “Nova Macedonia” when all of Macedonia is again united and governed by Macedonians and Greece calls itself “Arvanito-Vlachia”.

As to why I am doing this; I mean taking “puck-shots” at Greece and the Greeks. There is a purpose in my madness. We the Macedonians born in Greece, having lived under Greek oppressive rule for almost one hundred years, have had enough of the way we have been and are still being treated by the Greeks. And, as is evident by this e-mail, even the best of Greeks with “good intentions” still manage to unwittingly abuse and insult us! To teach them what it feels like to be Macedonian, we sometimes need to put them in our place. So, if fair is fair, then, until things change for the better in Greece, we will treat Greeks with the same respect they show for us!

[SirGeorge8600]

It's too much to read, but isn't Risto also accused of doing the same? He tries to convey pacifistic activism which he does by indeed saying things like "all Greeks are no better or worse than anyone else", but I have also caught him stereotyping and generalizing too.

[Stojacanec]

This guy is a moron.

A very long winded and articulated gibberish. Once I come across this line ....."I understand you are very passionate about your so-called identity and please don’t think I am attacking or patronizing you.....", I wouldn't even recycle the paper it is written on.

It is very difficult to read through his deluded sadistic ideologies. I just marvel at the way our identity and heritage can be centred around two turning points in history 6AD and 1947. It’s painful to read such garbage.

[Makedonska_Kafana]

He's NOT a Greek

[Soldier of Macedon]

To be honest, I don't even know why Risto still bothers to respond to them. Why dignify their stupidity with an answer? Why give them the opportunity to promote their racist delusions? Rather than being so reactive, I think we need to be more proactive.

[Bill77]

Here is a funny story that had me in stitch's (since we are on a topic Once a Greek Always a Greek)

This Greek and i were having a discusion. At one point he commented,
"let me tell you a famouse Grik saying. keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

bahahahahahahahahahahhahaha

why do they want to own everything?
I am seriously starting to have sympathy for the poor buggers.