Macedonian Truth Forum

Macedonian Truth Forum (
-   Exposing Lies and Propaganda (
-   -   Exposing Bulgarian Myths and Lies (

TrueMacedonian 10-12-2010 02:51 PM


The Germans have a knack for inventing pseudo-terminologies. Droysen invented 'hellenism' and Leskien invented 'Old Bulgarian'.

Bratot 10-18-2010 04:05 AM

[I]"История на България" издателство на БАН, 1955г., Том Втори, стр. 766[/I]

"The History of Bulgaria" published by Bulgarian Academy of Sciences, year 1955, Volume II, pg. 766.

"[B]..The Hitler's agents, Tsar Boris and Filov have sent the Bulgarian occupation forces in Macedonia and ...[/B]"

George S. 10-18-2010 05:50 AM

If i remember correctly there are no real bulgarians.It's all tartars,the tartars adopted the macedonian language.The bulgarians can say & write all they want because it's all myths & lies.

TrueMacedonian 11-01-2010 09:03 PM

Bulgarian propaganda at its finest right here - [url][/url]

Bulgaria Honors Glagolitic Alphabet on Enlighteners' Day
Culture | November 1, 2010, Monday

The Glagolitic exhibit was authored by artist Pavlin Petrov. Bulgaria's Foreign Minister Nikolay Mladenov opened a special exhibit for November 1, Bulgarian Enlighteners' Day, dedicated to the first Slavic alphabet known as Glagolitsa.

The Glagolitic alphabet, or Glagolitsa, was the original alphabet drafted by Byzantine monks St. Cyril and St. Methodius in 855 AD in their mission to spread the Christian word among the Slavs, even though the term for its name was not coined until the late Middle Ages – from the verb glagoliti meaning "to speak".

The Glagolitic alphabet was based on the three major symbols in Christianity – a cross, a circle, and a triangle.

St. Kliment Ohridski, the most important Bulgarian disciple of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, while serving the Bulgarian king Boris I later modified the Glagolitic alphabet in the late 9th century because he found its letters were too hard to write.

Based on it, he created the Bulgarian alphabet that he named "Cyrillic" after his teacher St. Cyril, which was introduced by the First Bulgarian Empire, and was then also adopted by other Slavic states in the south and east, including Serbia and Russia.

[B]"The most real Bulgarian alphabet is the Glagolitic. It combines in itself a new beginning for Bulgaria and the Balkans and in many monasteries this alphabet is still kept alive. Each letter in this alphabet has a name of its own, and there is an idea enshrined in each of those names," Bulgarian Foreign Minister Mladenov said at the opening of the Glagolitic exhibit at the Cultural Institute of the Foreign Ministry before foreign diplomats.[/B]

Mladenov believes that the Enlighteners' Day, November 1, and the Day of the Slavic Script and Bulgarian Culture, and of St. Cyril and St. Methodius, May 24, are the two most genuine Bulgarian holidays.

Another exhibition about the Glagolitic alphabet was opened on Monday in Plovdiv by the Union of Plovdiv Artists.

:nono: I don't think so Mladenov.

[QUOTE][B]Even in the eighth century we read that the Bulgarian prince had among his counsellors men who spoke "Greek, Bulgarian and Slav."[/B] A certain parallel may perhaps be drawn between the Bulgars and the band of Scandinavian adventurers in Russia, who imposed upon a group of scattered and disorganised tribes a definite state organisation and a national name, and then became merged in the subjected population. During the eighth century we find the Bulgarians involved in repeated and bloody conflicts with Byzantium, of which the most notable were the seven campaigns of Constantine V. With the dawn of the ninth century there arose the mightiest of all Bulgarian rulers, the shadowy figure of Krum, whose kingdom stretched from the Carpathians far into Thrace and included portions of Southern and Eastern Hungary. In 811 Krum defeated and killed the Emperor Nicephorus after fearful carnage, and conquered Adrianople; but for his death three years later Byzantium itself might have become his prey. Scarcely less remarkable as a ruler was Boris (852-888), whose reign coincided with the epoch-making activity of the Slav apostles,[B] Cyril and Methodius. These two men, the sons of a high officer in Thessalonica, who was probably of Slav birth, [U]were the inventors of the so-called Glagolitic alphabet[/U], and thus the real founders of "Old Slavonic," the parent language of Slav liturgies and literatures. At this distance of time it is almost impossible to determine what language they took as the basis of their alphabet, [U]but it is probable that they used the Slav dialect then spoken in Eastern Macedonia,[/U][/B] adding various linguistic ingredients which we should today call Slovak, Slovene, and Wend. It is a matter of common knowledge that their chief labours were among the Pannonian Slavs, and in the powerful but short-lived Moravian Empire, whose capital, Nitra, was Methodius's archiepiscopal seat; and the chief Slavistic authorities of the present day are inclined to reject the theories which identify "Old Slavonic" with "Old Bulgarian" or "Old Slovene," but rather to treat it as a composite and theoretical language.[/QUOTE]

The rise of nationality in the Balkans By Robert William Seton-Watson pages 71-72

fyrOM 11-05-2010 06:37 AM

[I]Could this be finaly forcing Bulgaria to admit that there is a Macedonian minority.[/I]

[B]Bulgaria to respect the rights of the Macedonians[/B]


Commissioner for Human Rights of the Council of Europe, Thomas Hammarberg said in a letter which he sent to the Bulgarian Prime Minister Boyko Borisov on human rights of national and religious minorities, and addresses the problems with the right to freedom of association and assembly of the Macedonian minority in Bulgaria .

Hammarberg on this occasion is urgently required by the Bulgarian authorities to take care of fully and effectively respect the rights and freedoms of the minority, especially their right to freedom of association and peaceful gathering.

Hamrberg Commissioner reminds the authorities of Bulgaria to the determination that the right of a minority is a major principle which should be based on any democratic pluralistic society and this principle should be implemented effectively for all minorities, whether they are national, religious or linguistic.

In response to Hammarberg sent on 3 November, the Bulgarian Prime Borisov, in terms of respect for the rights of the minority notes that the case of OMO Ilinden Bulgarian authorities have carried out the act all the general measures that were necessary in the understanding and change Law on gatherings, rallies and demonstrations, which put Bulgaria in line with the European Convention on Human Rights ..

Borisov claims that while the detailed information that had been submitted for public events organized by the OMO Ilinden and OMO Ilinden-Pirin in the past two years, clearly giving clear that these organizations enjoy the right of free assembly in accordance with the law is enforced. Borisov also argues that the realization of social and cultural activities and OMO Ilinden OMO Ilinden Pirin received support from the Bulgarian authorities.

julie 11-05-2010 07:11 AM

If the Bulgarian authorities supported freedom of association for the Macedonian minority in Pirinska Makedonia, why the hell did they turn Todor Petrov away a few months ago with priests for a sluzhba memorial for our heroes??
A load of propaganda bullshit

Onur 11-05-2010 12:00 PM

[QUOTE=OziMak;76720][I]Could this be finaly forcing Bulgaria to admit that there is a Macedonian minority.[/I]

I dont think so. Bulgarians fired several Bulgarian statistical institute officials last month, just because they were going to add "Gagauz, Macedonians, Pomak" as an option for their next census. Now after this, there will only be "Bulgarian, Turkish and other" options.

George S. 11-26-2010 10:51 AM

well done tm it's great.

Risto the Great 11-26-2010 03:18 PM

[QUOTE=julie;76723]If the Bulgarian authorities supported freedom of association for the Macedonian minority in Pirinska Makedonia, why the hell did they turn Todor Petrov away a few months ago with priests for a sluzhba memorial for our heroes??
A load of propaganda bullshit[/QUOTE]

Absolutely correct Julie.

TrueMacedonian 01-18-2011 11:26 PM

AMHRC Spring Review 2010 - [url][/url]

[B]Bulgarian National Myths[/B]
By Ivan Hristovski and George Vlahov

The negative attitude the government in Sofia manifests towards its minorities, especially the Macedonians, appears to be symptomatic of a xenophobia permeating Bulgarian society in general: from the average citizen to the highest official state levels. Bulgaria has persistently refused to recognize the existence of Macedonians within its borders. This is in line with a popular view held by all segments of Bulgarian society; namely that there is no such thing as a Macedonian nation, and that those who call themselves Macedonians (in an ethnic sense, including the Macedonians in the Macedonian republic) are nothing other than ‘lost’ members of the Bulgarian nation, inhabiting a territory that was unlawfully taken from Bulgaria in 1878, via the Treaty of Berlin (Engstrom, 2009: 80). In order to begin to develop an understanding of why Bulgaria has a chauvinist policy towards Macedonians and the Macedonian state, it would be useful to examine aspects of the cultural history of what became Bulgaria in 1878, prior to its independence.

[B]Myths, Terminologies and Interpretations[/B]

Bulgarians pride themselves on the idea that their national “revival” began not with a gun but with a book. The book that is seen in Bulgarian nationalist mythology as the fountainhead of that process, is a medieval Bulgarian history written in 1762 by Father Paisii (Slavo-Bulgarian History of the Bulgarian Peoples), a monk in the Hilendar monastery in Mount Athos, one of the centres of Eastern Orthodoxy (Dimitrov, 2001: 8). But Father Paisii’s work only began to be disseminated in the mid 19th century and it should also be noted that illiteracy, at this time, was extremely high in the regions of the Ottoman Empire that were eventually to constitute Bulgaria. Thus, to describe Father Paisii as “the father of Bulgarian nationalism” is to engage in myth-making (Karpat, 2002: 467).

It could be argued that this is hardly a malevolent myth; however there are more serious problems connected to the Father Paisii myth as presented by the modern Bulgarian nationalist interpretation of his writing. Bulgarian academics and numerous others seem to accept without question that Paisii wrote an ethno- nationalistic Bulgarian history book to counter the supposed de-nationalising of Bulgaria, via Hellenistic nationalism. But as Detrez explains, it is actually not possible to accept this claim at face value:

[I]“According to Paissi the Greeks are ‘wise and sophisticated’ but also ‘sly and proud’, they ‘take away from the simple people and appropriate unfairly’. Moreover they treat the Bulgarians with contempt considering them ‘simple and stupid’….. Paissi characterizes the Bulgarians as ‘hospitable and charitable’; they are ‘simple diggers, ploughmen, shepherds, and simple artisans’. To substantiate this claim, he refers to God who “loves the simple and harmless ploughman and shepherds more’. [B]The two groups Paissi opposes to each other are not necessarily ethnic communities, but seem to be social classes and even professional groups in the first place: the Greeks were merchants and city-dwellers (both categories were often called ‘Greek’ in Bulgarian popular speech), while the Bulgarians are peasants.”[/B] (Detrez, 2008: 41-42)[/I]

In the light of Detrez’s observations, one must acknowledge that the social phenomena in question had more to do with socio-economic status, rather than the modern ethnic/national realm.
Another aspect of the national mythology propagated in Bulgaria today is the belief that throughout the Ottoman era there was a systematic process of “ethnic Greek” clerics converting “ethnic Bulgarians” into “ethnic Greeks”. However, these attempts made by the Orthodox Greek speaking Patriarchate church to spread Greek literacy to the illiterate masses, were not generally about creating ethnic Greeks – rather, they were about attempting to advance Orthodoxy via a semi-Westernised education (Detrez, 2008: 42).
Moreover, many people make the assumption that the terms “Bulgarian”, “Greek”, “Turk”, “Vlach” etc. possessed the same meaning during the time of the Ottoman Empire as they do today. However, at the time in question, these present day ethno-national labels were socio-economic/cultural categories, that numerous anthropologists and sociologists like Loring Danforth have described as a “cultural division of labour” (Danforth, 1995: 59). Many scholars agree that during much of the Ottoman Era a “Greek” was a merchant, a city-dweller, or someone well to do (Roudometof, 2001: 48). A “Turk” was someone who may have been a government official (Brown, 2003: 59). A “Vlach” might denote someone who is a shepherd (Detrez, 2003: 43) and a “Bulgarian” might be someone who is a peasant or labourer (Mackridge, 2009: 56), or a villager (Detrez, 2003: 43). This is how Paisii perceived people in his time.
Even more revealing is the substantial incidence of “Bulgarian” peasants actually pursuing “Greekness”, because this would signify an advance in their class status and wealth. If a “Bulgarian” managed to rise above his occupational peasant-farmer class status and become a wealthy city dweller, it was not unusual for him to then begin referring to himself as a “Greek” and to send his children to a Greek speaking school for the purpose of giving them the literacy/education he never possessed. What took place was not a change of ethno-national status, but of class (see for example, Amfiteatrov, 1990: 51-52).
Sociologically grounded etymological investigations like these outline a picture of life in the Balkans, very different to the one presented by ultra-nationalistic Balkan historians. For our present purposes, it is worth singling out Bulgarian historians for utilising centuries old traveller’s chronicles with references to inhabitants of various parts of the Balkans, including Macedonia, as “Bulgarians”; in a manner that deliberately ignores the socio-economic contextual meaning of the usage of the term “Bulgarian” and instead, reprehensibly ascribes to it, modern ethno-national connotations. Such misinterpretations serve to provide support in Bulgaria, for the fictional notion that Bulgarians possess an unbroken ethno-national identity continuity, extending back from the present to early Medieval times. Moreover, these distortions are also enlisted in aid of the myth that Macedonians have consistently been an integral part of the Bulgarian ethnos (Balikci, 2008: 178). This helps to illustrate that [I]“historiography in Bulgaria is constituted within the context of a broad national agenda.”[/I] (Elenkov & Koleva, 2003-4: 183) Or in our words, Bulgarian historiography has been imbued with a serious dose of fiction in the service of sinister political ambitions and at the expense of genuine scholarship.

The complexity of the terminological issues we have been discussing is increased when we note that the terms under investigation were also to become entangled with rival religious denominations later in the 19th century, with the formation in 1870 of the Bulgarian speaking/literate Orthodox Exarchate church as an opponent within the Ottoman empire, to the long standing Greek speaking/literate Orthodox Patriarchate church. Furthermore religion was often used to identify people in a manner differently from and in some contradiction to the socio-economic/cultural categories we have been outlining. Throughout the Ottoman period a “Turk”, in the context of a discussion with someone possessing a religious outlook on life (and such were very numerous within the Ottoman Empire, for reasons soon to be given), referred to anyone who was a Muslim (Detrez, 2003: 43) and a “Greek” or “Rum” could mean someone who was an Orthodox Christian regardless of their language or class (Danforth, 1995: 59). The historian R.W. Seton-Watson wrote of [I]“the ignorant Bulgar peasant, when questioned as to his nationality, would answer with the misleading confession that he was a "Greek."[/I] (Seton-Watson, 1918: 78) Again, the deceptive nature of the “confession” is understood only when it is pointed out that the ethno-national meaning that is today associated with the label “Greek”, did not generally apply for much of the duration of the Ottoman Empire. As we have been arguing, generalised primary identity markers appear to have been mostly underpinned by class and religion. It is not surprising that the “Bulgarian” peasant (Bulgarian in a socio-economic occupational/class sense or perhaps one could describe him as a Bulgarian speaking peasant, but not as an ethnic Bulgarian in the modern sense – it seems clear enough that such a notion was not present in his mind and that is what matters) replied that he was “Greek” - for, by this he meant that he was an Orthodox Christian and it is a perfectly understandable attitude for a resident of an empire that placed Muslims above Christians in numerous practical ways. In addition, the Ottoman authorities usually officially referred to all Christians as “Rum” or “Greeks”. Moreover, it is this attitude which explains the failure of some uninformed 19th century travel writers to detect the presence of “Bulgarians” in regions that later became an integral part of the Bulgarian state. Thus the writings of western tourist authors need to be used with a considerable amount of care – something that Bulgarian and Balkan historians in general, appear to consistently lack (Seton-Watson, 1918: 78). Notably, Seton-Watson also condemns the fact that [I]“In the West there grew up the highly inaccurate habit of referring to all branches of the Orthodox or Eastern Church as "the Greek Church," and more than one distinguished historian and traveller was guilty of the most ludicrous errors.”[/I] (Seton-Watson, 1918: 22)

We are now in a position to better understand that it is not really possible to speak of the [I]Hellenization of Bulgarians[/I] in an ethnic/national sense. During much of the Ottoman period, the labels in question were mostly underpinned by class and religion. The modern ethno-national project, among other things, has in the Balkans, generally been about taking some of these pre-Modern identity markers and converting them into ethno-national markers – which entails the creation of a state inhabited by an entire population that is unified in a manner that more or less transcends the limits of class and religion; a mass social grouping which feels it possesses a very strong identity, in spite of its very high division of labour. These are disturbing revelations for ultra-nationalistic Bulgarian (see Pilbrow, 2005: 129) and other proponents of myths asserting an ancient to modern essentialised ethno-cultural identity continuity.


At this point, some would no doubt like to assert that all social groups possess, need and maintain foundation myths. There appears to be some truth to this claim and be that as it may, it is not acceptable to maintain narratives with aspects which breed arrogance, hatred and the negation of others – especially minorities. Of the themes specifically mentioned in Bulgarian history textbooks today, the [I]“national unification of the Bulgarian areas”[/I] (meaning Macedonia and adjacent land) remains a dominant theme. For example, in the 1992 textbooks it was mentioned seventy times versus only thirty for the 1991 textbooks. Other themes include “Greece's denationalization policy,” mentioned twenty-four times in 1991 and twenty times in 1992 etc. (Roudometof, 2002: 14). All of this is directly linked to the often intentional misinterpretation of the pre-Modern identity marker, “Bulgarian”.
The result is a perpetuation of Bulgarian chauvinism towards Macedonians which manifests itself by constant declarations asserting the Macedonian language to be a “Bulgarian dialect”; by consistent references to Macedonian history as “Bulgarian history” and to Macedonia as chiefly a “Bulgarian land”. Moreover, Bulgaria, an EU member country (and this tells us much about the EU!), does not recognize the existence of its Macedonian minority and inflicts upon it, a variety of other human rights abuses. Members and supporters of OMO "Ilinden" - PIRIN (a Macedonian political party and human rights organization operating in Bulgaria – which the Bulgarian state unlawfully refuses to register) have been harassed, beaten, fined and even imprisoned simply for asserting their Macedonian identity. This has to stop and ultimately, only an educational/cultural ‘sea-change’, facilitated by the Bulgarian state and academics, is going to ensure a relatively prompt end to the ethnic chauvinism and the development of a lasting reconciliation.


Amfiteatrov, A. Land of Discord, Makedonska Kniga, Skopje, 1990 (Macedonian translation of the Russian original published in 1903).

Balikci, Asen. The ‘Bulgarian Ethnography’ of the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Some Critical Comments, in Vintilă Mihăilescu, Ilia Iliev, Slobodan Naumović(eds.) Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies II, Lit Verlag, 2008.

Brown, Keith. The Past in Question, Princeton University Press, 2003.

Danforth, Loring. The Macedonian Conflict, Princeton University Press, 1995.

Detrez, Raymond. Relations between Greeks and Bulgarians in the Pre-Nationalist Era: The Gudilas in Plovdiv, in Dimitris Tziovas (ed.) Greece and the Balkans, Ashgate, 2003.

- Between the Ottoman Legacy and the Temptation of the West: Bulgarians coming to terms with the Greeks. In Raymond Detrez, Barbara Segaert (eds.)
Europe and the historical legacies in the Balkans, P.I.E. Peter Lang, Brussels, 2008.

Dimitrov, Vesselin. Bulgaria: the uneven transition, Routledge, 2001.

Elenkov, Ivan & Koleva, Daniela. Historiography in Bulgaria After the Fall of Communism: Did “The Change” Happen?, Historein Volume 4, 2003-4.

Engstrom, Jenny. Democratisation and the Prevention of Violent Conflict, Ashgate, 2009.

Karpat, Kemal. Studies on Ottoman social and political history: selected articles and essays, Brill, Netherlands, 2002.

Livanios, Dimitris. The Quest For Hellenism, The Historical Review, Vol.3, 2006.

Mackridge, Peter. Language and national identity in Greece, 1766-1976, Oxford University Press, 2009.

Pilbrow, Tim. “Europe” in Bulgarian Conceptions of Nationhood, in Hanna Schissler, Yasemin Nuhoğlu Soysal (eds.) The Nation, Europe, and the World: textbooks and curricula in transition, Berghahn Books, 2005.

Roudometof, Victor. Nationalism, Globalization, and Orthodoxy, Greenwood press, 2001.

- Collective memory, national identity, and ethnic conflict, Praeger Publishing, 2002.

Seton-Watson, R.W. The rise of nationality in the Balkans, E.P. Dutton, New York, 1918.

Bill77 01-19-2011 12:24 AM

This is a mighty fine piece of work By Ivan Hristovski and George Vlahov.
Definitely a keeper in my Favorites section.

Thanks for posting it TM.

[QUOTE] Notably, Seton-Watson also condemns the fact that “In the West there grew up the highly inaccurate habit of referring to all branches of the Orthodox or Eastern Church as "the Greek Church," and more than one distinguished historian and traveller was guilty of the most ludicrous errors.” (Seton-Watson, 1918: 22) [/QUOTE]

Wow things have not changed much regarding highly inaccurate habits. Such as, today, the west still calls Eastern Orthodox Church's Easter as "Greek Easter"

[QUOTE] Even more revealing is the substantial incidence of “Bulgarian” peasants actually pursuing “Greekness”, because this would signify an advance in their class status and wealth. If a “Bulgarian” managed to rise above his occupational peasant-farmer class status and become a wealthy city dweller, it was not unusual for him to then begin referring to himself as a “Greek” and to send his children to a Greek speaking school for the purpose of giving them the literacy/education he never possessed. What took place was not a change of ethno-national status, but of class (see for example, Amfiteatrov, 1990: 51-52).[/QUOTE]

Well i take back what i previously said. Things have changed.
I mean, with the current financial situation in Greece, how acurate would it be, today, to asociate the word "Greeks" with "Class status and wealth"

What Irony hey. :)

TrueMacedonian 01-19-2011 04:02 PM

No problem Bill. And thanks for the compliment. George really made this article come together the way it did :thumbup1:

George S. 01-19-2011 05:27 PM

well done TM & George.

Onur 03-11-2011 03:01 PM

[COLOR="Red"][B]Who is Bulgarian? The Changing Definitions of Nationhood [/B][/COLOR]

The changes in the definitions of the Bulgarian nation generally corresponded and justified the strategies adopted by the Bulgarian state to deal with its Turkish minority, although on a number of occasions they acquired a force of their own. As was the case with most Eastern European nations, Bulgarian nationhood was constructed through conscious elite action in the 19th century.

The construction was based, however, on a number of primordial elements. In 1878-1944, the Bulgarian nation was generally identified in terms of language and religion, as encompassing the Orthodox Christian Slavic speaking inhabitants of Bulgaria.

The Turkish-speaking inhabitants were excluded, as were the Pomaks, Bulgarian-speaking Muslims. At least on two occasions, in 1912-13, and again in the late 1930s and early 1940s, the Pomaks were re-defined as ancestral Bulgarians who had been converted forcibly to Islam under the Ottoman empire and who therefore needed to be reclaimed back by the Bulgarian nation. State-sponsored efforts were made to change the Pomaks' Turkish-Arabic names to ethnic Bulgarian ones, using both coercion and inducements.The first, but not the second assimilation campaign also involved the conversion of the Pomaks to Eastern Orthodoxy.

The campaigns proved largely successful in the short term, at least in achieving their nominal objectives. Bulgaria's unstable domestic politics, however, made it difficult for the state to pursue a consistent policy, and both campaigns were reversed within a few years by governments seeking to gain the Muslims' votes. The Turkish-speaking population was regarded as descendants of colonists from Asia Minor, and was therefore seen as alien element which was not liable to assimilation. Whilst tolerated, the Turkish speakers were not seen as having a future in Bulgaria, and were expected sooner or later to emigrate to Turkey. (Stoianov, 1993: 204).

In their first decades in power, the communists denigrated the importance of ethnic differences, both on the Bulgarian and the Turkish side, and expected ethnicity to be submerged with the development of a socialist and then communist society. This made the issue of the origins of the Pomaks and the Turks almost irrelevant. The growing awareness of the importance of ethnic characteristics which emerged with the partial relaxation of the Stalinist system after 1956 and the increasing efforts of the communist leadership to legitimise its power at least partly in nationalistic terms, focused attention once again on the status of the Pomaks. They were redefined as ancestral Bulgarians and pressurised into adopting ethnic Bulgarian names.

The initial surge of party pressure was met with stiff resistance by the Pomaks. In 1964, for example, attempts to rename the Pomaks in the south-western region of Blagoevgrad bordering on Greece and Yugoslavia resulted in a virtual revolt in a number of villages. The Pomaks responded to the incursions of police and armed Bulgarian 'volunteers' into their villages by staging mass protests and in some cases, throwing the intruders out. The party leadership in Sofia responded to the protests with a mixture of threats and concessions. On one hand, the Pomaks were threatened that the army would be sent out against them and they would be crushed with tanks. On the other hand, the party leaders in Sofia claimed that their 'true' policy of voluntary renaming had been distorted by local officials in Blagoevgrad, and that the Pomaks could keep their names if they wished to do so (Trifonov, 1993: p. 219). However, this claim did not prove to hold true for future policy. In 1970, the 'renaming' was resumed, using more gradual means, and by 1980 the names of most Pomaks (some 200,000) had been changed. Encouraged by the success, in the beginning of the 1980s local party leaders began to trace the descendants of mixed marriages between the Pomaks and the Turkish-speaking Muslims. Since the two populations were highly intermingled, the scope of this operation grew steadily wider and it was expected to affect some 50,000 people by the end of December 1984 and twice that number by the following year. The elusive search for 'Bulgarian roots' was thus leading the party leaders deeper and deeper into the Turkish-speaking population (Asenov, 1996: 30-31; 70).

At the same time, in the late 1970s research in the Ottoman archives was persuading a significant number of Bulgarian historians that not only the Pomaks but also the majority of Turkish-speaking Muslims had descended from indigenous Bulgarian population converted to Islam during the Ottoman rule. The difference which could be observed between the two groups was explained by insisting that in the case of the Pomaks the assimilation into the ruling group had taken place only on the religious level, whilst the Turkish-speakers had gone further and adopted the language of their occupiers. (Petrov, 1987; Hristov, 1989; Dimitrov, 1992). These findings, which have been vigorously contested by other Bulgarian historians and by most of their Turkish colleagues (Eminov, 1997: 36-37), might have remained of purely academic interest, had not the communist party given its support to a policy of cultural revival in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.

The new policy was spearheaded by the daughter of the party leader, Liudmila Zhivkova, who became a member of the Politburo (the highest decision making organ of the communist party) in 1977 and was possibly groomed for succession. Zhivkova surrounded herself with intellectuals and began emphasizing the value and potential of Bulgarian culture. Zhivkova herself was remarkably open-minded, and saw Bulgaria's cultural revival in terms of the country restoring its broken links with world culture. The fact that she was interested in oriental religions would have made her especially reluctant to suppress what she would have perceived as a valuable aspect of Bulgaria's cultural diversity. Some of her associates, however, saw the revival as an opportunity to restore Bulgaria's cultural purity, or rather to create it because Bulgaria had never been culturally homogeneous. Zhivkova's early death in 1981 resulted in the submergence of the inclusive aspect of the cultural revival, and the ascendance of the narrow-minded nationalists. This made it possible for the theory of the Bulgarian origins of the Turkish minority to become accepted as official party policy. The theory was to provide some of the motivation and the bulk of the official justification for returning the 'prodigal' Turkish 'sons' to the Bulgarian fold (Dimitrov, 1992: 158).

03 March 2011



Risto the Great 03-11-2011 03:27 PM

Nothing more than 19th century nationalism 100 years late.

George S. 03-11-2011 06:15 PM

Onur given that scenario what is going to happen to the notion of bulgaria when they reach 2050 when the gypsies will be a majority & they'll simply take over.

TrueMacedonian 07-05-2011 07:07 PM

[QUOTE=TrueMacedonian;71609]Ever wondered when the term "Old Church Bulgarian" was invented? Ever wondered who invented such a term? Here's the German inventors of "Old Church Bulgarian";


I guess the Bulgarians have to thank the Russians for a country and the Germans for erroneous terminologies.[/QUOTE]


Risto the Great 07-05-2011 07:14 PM

Thanks TM.


I think it would have been worth pulling out the BRT (BIG RED TEXTA) to highlight the last note (note 5). So many name choices (Old Slavonic, Old Bulgarian, Old Serbian etc) .... when it is painfully obvious .... OLD MACEDONIAN.

George S. 07-05-2011 07:36 PM

Pretty good find on the slav history.

Onur 07-05-2011 07:45 PM

Refering old church slavonic as "old Bulgarian" is so absurd but ironically, this term is used by many. If OCS is "old Bulgarian" then how we should refer to the language of Asparuh, Kubrat and others, "older Bulgarian than the old Bulgarian"???!!! cuz it`s a fact that the Bulgarian elite and considerable part of their people wasnt speaking a slavic language b4 early 10th century.

So, if we consider that fact, OCS can only be their "new" language not the "old" one. But the ones who prefered to call OCS as old Bulgarian totally ignores their pre-christianity era, most likely they do that purposely.

Bulgarians didn't born with slavonic language but they have been assimilated with it and Bulgars had history b4 they migrated to the Balkans and adopted the slavonic tongue. The proof for this is the Volga Bulgars who still speaks their original Turkic language today, attested for more than millenia. There is a travelogue of an Arab embassador named Ibn Fadlan in Khazar empire, dated as early 10th century and he clearly states that people around Volga calling themselves as Bulgars and they are speaking Turkic just as the Khazar rulers. This Arab embassador is the one who converted volga Bulgar Khan and his family to islam.

George S. 07-05-2011 08:47 PM

What do we mean by bulgarian if no bulgarians exist they were tartars & they adopted the macedonian language.So many theories on slavs abound that it is a joke comparing them.
On the slavs they say that we macedonians adopted the slav language,alphabet etc When i consider it be the other way round the slavs adpted the macedonian ways of language & customs..
Also religion came to macedonia first orthodox & it was spread throghout europe by macedonians who created the cyrillic script cyril & mrthodius.

TrueMacedonian 11-01-2012 11:59 AM


[B]Bulgaria: Patriotic Outrage Dominates EU Parliament Campaign[/B]
18 05 2007 By Albena Shkodrova in Batak

"Baleva - to the guillotine, impale the Judean German!" Thus read a banner worn by Volen Siderov of the Bulgarian far right party, Ataka, as he closed his campaign for election to the European Parliament.

The violent slogan referred to two researchers – Martina Baleva and Ulf Brunnbauer of the Institute for East Europe at the Free University of Berlin – whose scientific attempt at a new read of a minor historical event three weeks ago provoked the biggest nationalistic scandal in Bulgaria since the end of the Soviet regime.

EU parliament hopeful, Siderov, has sought to exploit the political, media and public anger that has ensued, and win a seat on Sunday, when the first such elections since Bulgaria joined the bloc last January will take place. Calling the historians “moral monsters”, he last night won the roaring approval of more than 1000 of his supporters.

In Batak, the remote town Siderov chose for his last public gathering, twelve per cent of the local population voted for Ataka in the last general election held in 2005. This is three per cent more than the national average, which was 8.93 per cent and ensured his party 21 deputies in the current national assembly of 240 members.

The portraits of key figures in Bulgaria's liberation movement, who fought for independence from the Ottoman Empire in the late nineteenth century, made a suitable background.

Songs from that epoch, filled with anti-Turkish sentiment, galvanised the crowd, which was waving black standards and national flags, anti-Turkish signs and posters calling for Bulgarians to "regain" their country from the ethnic Turkish minority.

"There is only one party in this country whose goal is to stop the building of minarets in Bulgaria, the speaking of Turkish language in public buildings and the oppression of Bulgarians", Siderov said in his address to the crowd.

His 30 minute-long speech had little to do with the EU.

Siderov hopes to gain votes as a result of a surge of Bulgarian nationalism sparked by the recent media and political scandal over a historical study about the history of Batak.

During the Bulgarian uprising against Ottoman rule in April 1876, more than 6000 people were killed in Batak, some 130 kilometers southeast of Sofia.

The massacre remains a symbol of Bulgarians’ suffering under Turkish rule.

Last month Baleva and Brunnbauer announced they had completed research on the collective memory of Batak.

The two historians asserted that many Bulgarian intellectuals, whose descriptions of the events have been treated as primary sources, were in fact inspired by the biased and romantic account of the events by US journalist Januarius MacGahan and Polish painter Antony Pyotrovsky.

The Baleva and Brunnbauer report was interpreted by many Bulgarian media outlets as a “denial of the Batak massacre” and dismissed as a “criminal mockery” of the “national sanctuary, Batak”.

While the two historians said they never thought to deny that atrocities had taken place in Batak, the majority of Bulgarian media maintained that the two were doing just that. One newspaper, the national daily Monitor, even suggested that Turkey had financed the research.

Bulgaria’s president, Georgi Purvanov, also a historian, said he would deliver a public lecture on Batak to “put an end to attempts aimed at distorting Bulgarian history”.

The events triggered an unprecedented nationalistic outpouring, which can be overheard in every coffee shop in the country.

“You simply can’t say that black is white!”, an elderly man exclaimed, as he exited a small chapel next to the old Batak church. “This is blasphemy!”

The church of Batak, where many people died in 1876, has suddenly become one of the most visited tourist spots in the country, the Bulgarian Telegraph Agency reported last week.

In the space of twenty minutes on the afternoon of May 17, a normal working day, eight families entered this usually deserted place to have a glimpse of the well, dug with bare hands by desperate mothers during the April Uprising events.

The Batak dispute has also influenced the ethnic Turkish Movement for Rights and Freedoms, DPS, which has been at pains to underline its pro-Bulgarian position.

The party took an active part in a campaigning last week for use of the Cyrillic alphabet and announced that Bulgarian Turks helped Bulgaria’s song to reach the final of the Eurosong contest in Finland.
The DPS has also backed efforts aimed at resolving the fate of the Bulgarian nurses, sentenced to death in Libya in a high profile AIDS case.

But the idea that someone from abroad tries to deprive them of their national pride is hateful to most Bulgarians. “They paid them a million or two [to do this]!”, shouted Vanyo, an elderly man from Batak.

He was repeating what the national history museum’s director, Bozhidar Dimitrov, and other Bulgarian historians have said publicly, in comments on Baleva’s and Brunnbauer’s research.

“I would also say such a thing, if someone gave me a million”, Vanyo added, half jokingly. “The trouble is there is no one to give you a million!”, laughed his neighbours, sitting on the bench in front of their house and counting the busloads of Ataka supporters arriving from across the country.

But it is not only Siderov who has been trying to exploit the case. President Purvanov, who remains closely connected to his Bulgarian Socialist Party, was also here a day earlier, on May 16. He arrived to mark the anniversary of the April Uprising and participate in a discussion on Batak’s history.

“It was nice, there were fireworks!” a Batak woman commented. “We’ll go again tonight!”

She says she still hasn’t decided who she will vote for on Sunday. But many people of her age have: last night Siderov managed to bring out a contingent of elderly people who visibly outnumbered the locals.

“Dogan [the Turkish party’s leader] should go!”, they shouted enthusiastically for several hours. Although it remained unclear what this had to do with the EU parliament.


[B]Historian Files Complaint Against Hate Speech[/B]
11 07 2007

Martina Baleva, one of the co-authors of a controversial historical research project, submitted a Balkan Insight analysis as part of a complaint she lodged against one of Bulgaria’s private television channels, SKAT, Deutsche Welle reported on their website at the end of June.

The complaint asked that measures be taken against SKAT, which announced a 1000 leva (500 euro) award to those who can provide Baleva’s personal address and a recent photograph. The complaint was sent to the Bulgarian National Council for Electronic Media and forwarded to all government institutions and political parties and to the Bulgarian Helsinki Committee.

The research project, “Batak as a Bulgarian Place of Remembrance”, co-authored by Berlin’s Free University Professor Ulf Brunnbauer and doctoral student Martina Baleva, examined the role of the fine arts in the creation of national conscience myths.

Bulgarian media and political figures exploded in April with accusations that the project was trying to revise key events of Bulgaria’s history and deny the 1876 Batak massacre. The press conference to introduce the project, planned for May, never took place.

In the analysis “Bulgaria: Patriotic Outrage Dominates EU Parliament Campaign” from May 18, Balkan Insight reported that a banner worn by Volen Siderov of the Bulgarian far right party, Ataka, as he closed his campaign for election to the European Parliament read "Baleva - to the guillotine, impale the Judean German!". The full text of the article can be seen at [url][/url].

The Balkan Insight analysis will also be used by Baleva in the complaint she plans to lodge against the Ataka party for its public incitement to murder, Deutsche Welle reported.

The LION will ROAR 01-02-2014 10:18 PM

[B]The Truth about Bulgaria – by A.T. Christoff - 1919[/B]

Извадок од книгата „Вистината за Бугарија“ издадена во 1919 година.

Почетната страна 5, ја започнува со следниот вовед :
- Бугарите се туранска раса. слични на Татарите, Хуните, Печенезите и Фините... Тие беа орда на диви коњски јавачи, жестоки и варварски, кои вршеа полигамија, и владееја деспотски со своите Ханови...

....Нивното живеалиште беше меѓу планината Урал и реката Волга, кралството на Големата (Црна) Болгарија која постоеше до 13век.''

Во продолжение признава дека ордите кои го нападнале Балканот не биле многубројни, и во следните 2 века се претопиле со Словените

Gocka 01-02-2014 10:50 PM

I love this thread. Keep it coming guys.

Carlin 06-25-2017 11:08 PM

Incident recorded by Nicetas (in Alex. Is. fil. i. c. 5, p. 617, ed. Bonn) - A priest was taken prisoner, and he besought [B]Asen[/B] [U][B]in Vlach[/B][/U], [B]"which was also his language"[/B] ([COLOR="Blue"]δείται του Άσαν αφεθήναι, δ' ομοφωνίας ως ίδρις της των Βλάχων φωνής[/COLOR]).

Amphipolis 06-26-2017 07:45 AM

[QUOTE=Carlin;169771]Incident recorded by Nicetas (in Alex. Is. fil. i. c. 5, p. 617, ed. Bonn) - A priest was taken prisoner, and he besought [B]Asen[/B] [U][B]in Vlach[/B][/U], [B]"which was also his language"[/B] ([COLOR="Blue"]δείται του Άσαν αφεθήναι, δ' ομοφωνίας ως ίδρις της των Βλάχων φωνής[/COLOR]).[/QUOTE]

Yes, this is one of the sources that support the Vlach origins theory for the Asen Dynasty.


Carlin 07-20-2017 07:13 PM

[B][U]Bulgarians in Italy[/U][/B]


In the early 7th century AD, groups of Bulgars, one of the ancient peoples that participated in the ethnogenesis of the modern Bulgarians, [B]settled in the Italian Peninsula[/B]. The main migration was headed by Altsek, a Bulgar leader who initially joined the Avar Khaganate before switching allegiance to the Germanic Lombards. Altsek and his people arrived in the Exarchate of Ravenna, where Grimoald I of Benevento invited them to populate the Duchy of Benevento. According to the Gesta Dagoberti I regis Francorum, [B]Altsek's Bulgars settled in what are today the communes of Isernia, Bojano and Sepino[/B]. Altsek remained the leader of the Bulgar-populated areas, bearing the title gastald.[3][4][5][6]

It is uncertain whether this Altsek can be identified with another Bulgar lord, Altsiok. According to the Chronicle of Fredegar, Altsiok deserted the Avar Khaganate in 631–632. Altsiok settled in Bavaria with 9,000 Bulgars under Frankish king Dagobert I. Altsiok is known to have moved to the Venetian March with his 700 remaining men after Dagobert I slaughtered most of his people.[3][4][5]

Paul the Deacon in his Historia Langobardorum writing after the year 787 says that [B]in his time Bulgars still inhabited the area, and that even [U]though they speak "Latin," "they have not forsaken the use of their own tongue."[/U][/B][7] In later times they had evidently become completely assimilated.

Human graves of a steppe nomadic character as well as horse burials dated to the second half of the 8th century AD attest to the presence of Bulgars in the Molise and Campania regions.[8] Toponyms containing the root bulgar and personal names such as Bulgari and di Bulgari continued to appear in medieval documents relating to the Italian Peninsula.

In the 17th century, Bulgarian Roman Catholics often visited Rome in their attempts to negotiate support for a Bulgarian uprising against the Ottoman Empire. Prominent religious and public leaders such as Petar Bogdan and Petar Parchevich spent time in the city. The first book printed in modern Bulgarian, Abagar, was published in Rome in 1651.[5]

Liberator of Makedonija 02-11-2018 12:44 AM

Saint Paisius of Hilendar is regarded as the one who intiated the development of the Bulgarian identity. He was born in Bansko and wrote his highly-regarded 'History of the Bulgarian Slavs' in 1762 which includes the famous paragraph:
"Oh, you unwise moron! Why are you ashamed to call yourself a Bulgarian and why don't you read and speak in your native language? Weren't Bulgarians powerful and glorious once? Didn't they take taxes from strong Romans and wise Greeks? Out of all the Slavic nations they were the bravest one. Our rulers were the first ones to call themselves kings, the first ones to have patriarchs, the first ones to baptise their people.(...) Why are you ashamed of your great history and your great language and why do you leave it to turn yourselves into Greeks? Why do you think they are any better than you? Well, here you're right because did you see a Greek leave his country and ancestry like you do?"[/I]

Should be noted this info is from English wikipedia and is likely full of misinformation but I find this man to be an interesting figure to study in relevance to both Bulgaria and Macedonia.

Liberator of Makedonija 03-26-2018 01:36 AM

Ivan Momchilov is considered by Bulgaria to be a national figure of the "Bulgarian National Revival" and a promoter of the "Bulgarian" language.

He was born in Elena in 1819, his father had something to do with the Greek Revolution.

The image attached shows two of his works:

The first, [I]Writings of the Slavic Langauge[/I] was published in Belgrade in 1847 where Momchilov utilised the name 'Momchilovich'

The second, [I]The Grammar of the New Bulgarian Language[/I] was published in Ruschuk (now Ruse) in 1868 under the name 'Momchilova'

I think this shows that for much of the church movement, the goal was the introduction of a liturgical Slavic language, the Bulgarian label came later.

Also love this because this supposed Bulgarian patriot Serbizes his name and refers to the language as 'Slavic' and even later when he publishes in "Bulgaria" and utilises a more "Bulgarian" name he still refers to the language as [B]New[/B] Bulgarian. And they have the audacity to question our identity?!


tchaiku 03-26-2018 12:45 PM


Does anyone know the original picture. (This one is phottoshopped.)

Liberator of Makedonija 03-27-2018 12:38 AM

Best I got.


tchaiku 03-27-2018 07:36 AM

[QUOTE=Liberator of Makedonija;172637]Best I got.


Is the 'Great Macedonia' map legit though?

Liberator of Makedonija 03-27-2018 08:04 AM

[QUOTE=tchaiku;172640]Is the 'Great Macedonia' map legit though?[/QUOTE]

In all honesty I have no idea what is legitimate in this photo, it's been thrown around so much and has had so many edits and photoshops I don't even know what the original is.

I can only assume the bottom photo is the original one, but that banner of a United Macedonia they are holding is probably legit if this isn't edited. That banner dates back decades before this was taken.

Amphipolis 03-27-2018 08:11 AM

What does it write in the fake banner, if I may ask?

Liberator of Makedonija 03-27-2018 08:13 AM

[QUOTE=Amphipolis;172642]What does it write in the fake banner, if I may ask?[/QUOTE]

Don't know much Bulgarian but I'd say along the lines of:

One People
One King
One Kingdom

tchaiku 03-27-2018 11:47 AM

This picture is even used by wikipedia.

tchaiku 03-27-2018 01:25 PM

[QUOTE=Liberator of Makedonija;172643]Don't know much Bulgarian but I'd say along the lines of:

One People
One King
One Kingdom[/QUOTE]

Those words play no significant role on the controversy of the picture so if the photoshopper felt the need to edit the picture for just those words it would not make sense. It is quite easy to see that other parts were photoshopped too.

Liberator of Makedonija 03-27-2018 09:00 PM

[QUOTE=tchaiku;172644]This picture is even used by wikipedia.[/QUOTE]

Bulgarian falsifications run deep

Liberator of Makedonija 03-27-2018 11:21 PM

Vasil Aprilov is another figure of history considered important to the "Bulgarian National Revival"

The underlined text from Nikola Nikitov's [I]Apostles of the Bulgarian Freedom[/I] on Aprilov reads as followed:

[I]'Till then [before he read Juri Venelin's work], he [Vasil Aprilov] used to say, he was Greek and was very useful to the Greeks. He signed up as a Russian as well: Vasili Evstatievich.'[/I]


Liberator of Makedonija 04-01-2018 04:50 AM

Is anyone able to confirm the authenticity of this flag supposedly utilised by the Ohrid ceta of VMRO?


The flag appears to be in this photo here taken with Petar Caulev and his ceta:


Here are two closeups of similar (or the same?) flags with the same symbolism but not appearing to contain the Bulgarian flag:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:14 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Macedonian Truth Organisation