What´s Europe´s Problem with Macedonia?
Risto Stefov
December 29, 2009
What´s Europe´s problem with Macedonia? Some people would say that most Europeans know so little, or next to nothing, about Macedonia how could they possibly have a problem with it?
By now anyone who has read my articles knows what I think so I will spare you the repetition.
More recently I received a letter from Australia from Vasil Bogov, the author of the book "Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology", who reminded me that there may indeed be "other reasons" why Europe has a problem with the Macedonians.
And finally in response to that very question another friend e-mailed me a link with an article entitled "The Macedonian Question" by the Foreign Relations Council for Research Into South-Eastern Europe; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, which I have included in its entirety further down the text.
And now I will begin with Vasil Bogov´s compilations. Here Vasil draws on the words of others who shed a different light on European affairs regarding Macedonia and the Macedonians. The themes in the various sentences may seem to be out of context with each other which, by the way, is done on purpose, drawing the reader to form his or her own opinions. Do the Macedonian people deserve the "wrath" of Western Europe because of the historic influence of their Macedonian Church? Read and decide for yourselves! Here is what Vasil had to say;
"Panslavism was always primarily an instrument of Russian nationalism and politics, it never stood for Christian union.
It is true there are a few Turkish settlements in Macedonia, which live by agriculture.
They are genuine Osmanly Turks, who are exiled from Asia, in order that they might be isolated. (1)
Many in Western Europe doubted whether Hellenism existed at all in Macedonia, and regarded it solely as the invention of the Greek press. (2)
Since nationality in terms of practical politics, was chiefly a question of ecclesiastical registration, more than ever the Macedonian struggle developed into a conflict over Macedonian churches. (3)
Hellenismos was chiefly a propagandist organisation. (4)
The modern Western influence that thus spread into the main body of Christendom, the Ecumenical Patriarch had transmuted their old dream of raising from the dead, the East Roman ghost of the Roman Empire, in to a new dream of solving the Western question, on a political plan, in making the Ecumenical Patriarch the official head of all the Eastern Christians, the Sultan had given this Constantinopolitan prelate, political authority over Christian peoples, that had never been under the rule of any Constantinopolitan Emperor. (5)
However, as soon as there were Turks in Europe, The Eastern Question was born, and one might add that:
As soon as there was an "Eastern Question" war followed. (6)
Turkey was the ally, throughout the years, of the great European powers, in turn exploiting their rivalries in her own interest; whilst the European powers made the best of this field, in the great Christendom of Macedonia, of constant intrigues and perilous successes. (7)
Their Catholic priest brought pressures to bear in their proselytising of the Greeks. (8)
Their power in Macedonia was reinforced by the Orthodox clergy.
The new western "system of liberty", which at that time was being imported into the Christian world, not only contradicts the scriptures, but is really no more than a bastard freedom, allowing each individual to pursue his own most selfish interests and appetites. (9)
The spirit of western liberalism, was as alien to the Christian church in Macedonia, as the Sultan himself. (10)
Throughout the period of Turkish occupation the Holy Mountain was the great academy of Pravoslavni Christian Monasticism. (11)
It was here those monks above all others, who by their ardent and unswerving preaching, encouraged the customary to stand by their faith, and not abandon it in favour of Islam. (12)
But something had changed, by the middle of the 19th century, a Greek Bishop, as we call today, had been installed in Constantinople, to represent Roum Millet in the Balkans. (13)
His name was Melety, such Bishops are not only a burden to the Christian people, but also a sore wound of Christ's flock. (14)
The modern clerical members exploited the church, and between them, they set themselves to crush the Pravoslavni Christian faith in Macedonia, with the authority of the Turks behind them. (15)
It is from that egoistic standpoint that the "Greeks" hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks, to resist the old Christian religion in Macedonia. (16)
Greeks had never been a nation; it was doubtful whether they were even a race.
Greeks were not Hellenes, Romans, "Byzantines," nor Ancient Macedonians, as they are written in today's modern European history. (17)
Greek race is a mere invention of pseudo-science, and Greek language is another artificial invention. (18)
Greeks were loyal subjects to Abdul Hamid. (19)
What a land, then, is that comprised within the limits of the Turkish Empire that was Holy Mountain, with 64 monastic estates and monasteries in Macedonia. (20)
Out of its past speaks Christian faith, and material wealth, literature and art, philosophy and religion. (21)
And that land which today lies desolate, and its people, who were the glory of the past, repressed by injustice, cruelty, and tyranny – that land possesses today the same elements for material and spiritual greatness, that made it the first to develop a modern civilization. (22)
From whatever angle one views Macedonia, it beholds a land of extraordinary fascination.
To the historian, the archeologist, or to the geographer, it is a storehouse of wealth, worth a lifetime of exploration and study. (23)
Poetry and proverb are in the daily speech, while monasteries proclaim from every mountaintop, and market-place, that religion is a part of the very life of the Macedonians. (24)
The land of Macedonia looks out on the present from a historic past that is the study of all ages.
On the banks of the Dardanelles Constantine founded his world capital, and from that day Macedonian Christianity and the Macedonian city has figured in all great world movements. (25)
It has been the centre of intrigues and treaties, of councils and machination, around which have circled the policies of Europe for the last eighteen hundred years. (26)
If one could only turn aside from the horrors of misrule and injustice done to Macedonia, and out of a wonderful past could construct a vision of a more glorious future!
For, in spite of five centuries of retrogression under the rule of the Turks, there is promise of a golden age for the generation about to come.
The same broad plain that once fed and clothed a population of 40,000,000 beings, are waiting today for the plow to seed, and the reaper.
The mountains still hold riches of coal and iron and copper.
The rivers are potent with power to turn the wheels of industry.
The natural harbours invite the fleet of merchantmen, and the river valleys and mountain passes offer natural lines of communication and transportation, as in days when great caravans passed along these natural highways, bringing the merchandise of the East to the markets of the West. (27)
For centuries – a land, that modern exploration reveals as one of the richest in natural resources, and as unsurpassed by its geographic location, for being the trade centre of the world. (28)
However, in short the people of Macedonia become the victims of ruthless, unrelenting exploitation by a modern big idea of nationality.
If we take books, it was virtually nothing in Modern Greek, and naturally all Athenian periodicals and newspapers – save an innocent sheet published under the censor's eye in Smyrna (Asia Minor) are articles of contraband. (29)
It is that egoistic standpoint that the Greeks hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks to crush the Macedonian Christian church. (30)
The Patriarchate Greek priests were the tool of the Sultan. (31)
If one must balance criminality, the weight of horrors now rests with the Greeks.
And I am within the mark in saying that the Turkish authorities wink at the doing of the Greek "Bands" in Macedonia.
The Turk promotes and helps Greek propaganda in Macedonia – and this is the blunt truth – against the old and long established Christian religion. (32)
The Greek fails to notice that the whole proceeding is part of a scheme, by modern political powers in Europe, to keep the Christians at enmity in Macedonia. (33)
And now I offer you some of Henry Brailsford´s wisdom on the subject of "the Greeks", quoted in square brackets, from his book "Macedonia Its Races and their Future". Here is what Brailsford has to say about the Greeks with regards to the Macedonians;
It is a sorry transition to turn from this dream of a revived Hellenism which is to civilise the Near East once more, to the actualities of Greek politics. One may say of the Greeks with equal truth that they are capable of superb devotion to an idea, or that they are the ready victims of any catch-word or abstraction. "The Slav is the enemy" is a phrase which their journalists have been repeating to them for the last thirty years, and at length it has obsessed them so powerfully that they have almost forgotten their own past and their heroic struggles against Turkish tyranny. They have been taught to believe that all Turkey south of the Balkans is theirs by right, and they can think of the Macedonian movement only as a sort of invasion of their inheritance planned by the enemy in Bulgaria, if not by Russia herself. That it can be a spontaneous Macedonian movement, that it is a real revolt against Turkish tyranny, they will not for a moment believe. It is for them only a plot by the foes of Greece against the sacred cause of Hellenism. It is from that egoistic standpoint that they hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks to resist "the Slav." For them these miserable peasants, taking arms under any leader who will promise them deliverance from the tax-collector and the bey, have no concrete existence. They are Slav, and "the Slav is the enemy." It is part of the Greek temperament that it does nothing by halves. They flung themselves into the new alliance with enthusiasm. In 1903 deputations of Greek officers actually visited the Turkish Minister in Athens to offer him their swords, and the Greek press wrote of Abdul Hamid as though he were a philosopher-king and a pillar of Hellenism. Bulgarian refugees captured in Thessaly were handed over to the Turkish police to be tortured in Turkish dungeons. The Patriarch issued an encyclical ordering his Bishops and priests to denounce the insurgents and their sympathisers to the Turkish officials. Every Greek consulate in Macedonia became a department of the Turkish secret police, and the work of espionage went on unchecked, even while the Turks were slaughtering the Hellenised Vlachs of Kruchevo. For to the Turk all Giaours are one. "There are white dogs and red dogs, but all of them are dogs." In fairness to the Greeks we must admit that this policy has been followed by their rivals in times past. M. Stambulov worked steadily for a Turco-Bulgarian entente, and undoubtedly he meant to use it against the Greeks. I have never heard that he carried it to such an extreme as this — the circumstances hardly arose — but there is a nasty story which accuses him of encouraging M. Tricoupis to develop his plan for a Balkan coalition against Turkey, only to carry the scheme to Constantinople on the eve of its execution. (34) No sense of chivalry prevented the Bulgarians from profiting by the reverses of Greece in 1897. But apart from the morality of this Greek policy or the amount of provocation which might be held to justify it, it is an extremely foolish venture. It had no doubt a certain brief and superficial success. It was easy to force a Bulgarian notable to call himself a "Greek" by threatening to denounce him to the Turks, and the Archbishop of Castoria won many villages for the Patriarch in this way. When that failed, a Bishop had only to go on tour among the villages with an immense "escort" of Turkish troops, as the Bishops of Serres and Florina did, "converting" them by force. As a last resort, in one case at least, the Bishop of Serres even arrested a Bulgarian priest and kept him a prisoner in his own palace, only releasing him when he renounced the Exarch. But these are ephemeral triumphs. The "converted" villages still maintain their sly commerce with the Committee, still harbour "bands," still talk Bulgarian. And assuredly they do not love "Hellenism" the more. Worst of all, the loyal Greek and Vlach villages are puzzled and impatient. They saw their Slav neighbours marching out to fight the traditional enemy, and they wished to join them. "You know we too have rifles, and we want to use them," said a young man of Klissoura to me one day. "Against whom?" I asked. "Why, against the Turks, of course. We are only waiting for Greece to tell us to move." And he went on, in the same tongue, the same accents that the mountaineers of Crete have used so often in my hearing, to explain how intolerable life was under Turkish rule. The policy which prompted Greece to use the occasion only to weaken Bulgaria while the chance of freedom slipped by, was quite beyond his comprehension. He, too, wanted autonomy, and he could not understand why Greece should claim it for Crete and oppose it in Macedonia. It is only the official or the educated Greek who prefers anarchy and the status quo to any surrender of the grotesque territorial claims of Hellenism over the Bulgarian interior. The average Greek official vowing in one breath that all the Macedonians are Greeks, and declaring in the next that he would rather have them massacred than governed by a Bulgarian majority, is painfully like the false mother in Solomon's judgment, who was quite ready to allow the other woman's child to be cut in two.
The immediate result of the Greek policy of espionage and denunciation, so lightly planned in Athens and Constantinople, was to expose the Greeks of Macedonia — or, to be more accurate, the villagers of the Greek party — to the fury and revenge of the Bulgarian Committee. If a Bishop had frightened a village into joining the Patriarchist Church by holding the fear of the Turks over its head, it was always possible for the next Bulgarian band which came that way to compel it to return to the Exarchist schism, by threatening to burn it to the ground. The one method was as legitimate as the other, and quite as efficacious. If a Greek priest in obedience to his Bishop's instructions had betrayed a group of insurgents to the Turks, there were always comrades left to come round and hang him from the nearest tree. The next stage in the evolution of party feeling was naturally that the Greeks came to think of the Bulgarians as wild beasts, who slaughtered from mere lust of blood. Legitimists always, they seemed to regard their own work of denunciation as an unexceptionable use of the weapons of law and order. The Bulgarians, after all, are rebels, and the Greeks as loyal subjects of Abdul Hamid were only setting the machinery of justice in motion. The Turks, however, have failed to protect them, and they had to devise some more effective plan for defending themselves. The scheme was to organise counter-bands to hold the Bulgarians in check. I had the chance to meet in Monastir in March, 1904, the emissary from the Greek Government who was preparing this scheme. He was travelling as a cattle-dealer under an assumed name, but I had known him first in a European university where we were undergraduates together, and again in the East. He comes of an influential family, and is himself a man of a certain magnetism and wayward talent, who has had some experience as a guerilla chief. The climate of Macedonia seemed to have transformed him. He talked his French, his English, and his German as fluently as ever, but the ideas he expressed — as far as the pale vocabulary of these languages would allow him — were the ideas of his Phanariot ancestors. In the name of Hellenism he proposed to make of Macedonia a shambles and a desert. Where the Bulgarians had murdered one man, he declared, he would slaughter ten. He shrank only from one thing — he would not imitate what he described as the "anarchist" methods of the Committee. He would not arm his men with dynamite. But all manner of straightforward bloodiness with lead and steel came into his programme. And yet he was firmly convinced that he was fighting for "culture," for "ideas," for "a superior civilisation,"against the Bulgarian "wolves." (35) The earth might be a very tolerable place to live in, if every abstract word could be eliminated from human speech. Mephistopheles must have been fresh from a visit to the Balkans when he told Jehovah that mankind have used the reason which He gave them to become more beast-like than any beast. (36)]
The Macedonian Question
The Macedonian question appeared in foreign relations in the 1870's during the great Eastern Crisis when armed uprisings for liberation of the subdued peoples started in the Balkans. The uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875, in Bulgaria in April 1876 and in Macedonia in 1876 raised the question of the further existence of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in Europe. Following its current policy for the Balkans, Russia opposed the policies of the great Western European powers to retain the integrity of the Ottoman state, guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris concluded on April 15th 1856, and supported the fight of the conquered nations for liberation and independence. The Russian political programme devised several years before by counsellor Gorchakov was announced at the end of 1860 and included a solution to the Macedonian question.
The Russian plans for the Balkans anticipated a direct involvement of Russia in the liberation of the Orthodox Christian peoples and creation of national states: independence and territorial expansion for Serbia and Montenegro (in their ethnic borders), establishment of two Bulgarian principalities (north and south of the Stara mountain as counter-balance to the two Serbian principalities), and a separate, independent Macedonian principality. The Macedonian question divided the interests of Austria-Hungary and Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count Abrashi, requested establishment of an autonomous Macedonian state in customs union with Austria-Hungary. Gorchakov in principle agreed to it, but it soon turned out that Russia could not accept it.
In 1876-77 an Ambassadors' Conference of the great European states was held in Constantinople. It was expected to reach a diplomatic solution to the problems of the conquered nations within the Ottoman state and thus prevent further escalation of the crisis. The USA, which did not have any special interests in Macedonia, initiated an appropriate inquiry and solution to the Macedonian question. The American diplomacy in association with the American professors from the Robert College in Constantinople who were well-acquainted with the real situation, submitted to the Conference a proposition for the autonomy of Macedonia. However, the Conference failed due to the opposing interests of the great powers. Russia changed its policy on Macedonia and abandoned the plans for creation of a Macedonian state and started working in favour of a greater Bulgarian state instead. This happened after the secret negotiations on the Balkans among Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany in April 1878 when Austro-Hungarian diplomacy renewed the question of the creation of an autonomous Macedonian state, i.e. Macedonian principality (with General Radich as its governor). On that occasion the Russian representative, General Ignatiev, did not oppose that solution, but in May 1878 Russian diplomacy refused to clarify its view on the question or support the Macedonian demands for an independent state submitted in Constantinople to General Ignatiev by Dimitar Robev, a Macedonian representative in the Ottoman Parliament.
On July 13th, the International Treaty of Berlin (Art.23), gave Macedonia a special autonomous status. The government of the Ottoman state was assigned to regulate the status of Macedonia and the other provinces with a separate Statute. However, as there was no international control to observe the implementation of these resolutions or authorize sanctions for their non-implementation, the government in Constantinople did not fulfil its duties. The Macedonian uprising from 1878-79 and the actions of "Edinstvo" ("Unity"), the Transitional Government of Macedonia (formed secretly at the meeting of the National Assembly held from May 21st to June 2nd 1880) renewed interest in the Macedonian question in the diplomatic circles of the Great European Powers. The Transitional Government sent an Appeal to the great powers accompanied by a Protocol of the National Assembly for liberation of Macedonia and its constitution as an independent state. Furthermore, on March 23rd 1881, it issued a Manifesto which was distributed among the diplomatic representatives in the Ottoman Turkish state. Macedonia became an object of special interest in the relations between Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany. The agreement on a secret alliance of the emperors of these three states signed in 1881 included a separate stipulation for the protection of Macedonia from a possible attack by Bulgaria.
The beginning of the Ilinden uprising for national liberation of Macedonia in 1903, which the European diplomats called "The Macedonian revolution", marked the Macedonian question as an acute one for European diplomacy. The uprising and the creation of the so-called Krushevo Republic proved that the Macedonian people were ready to fight for their national freedom and the formation of their national state. At that time, the European powers were against the creation of a new state in the Balkans. European diplomacy had to intervene in order to calm the situation by proposing several projects for reforms among which were the Austro-Hungarian - Russian project known as the Murzsteg Reforms Programme and the British initiative that gave Macedonia a special status in its natural and ethnic borders. US diplomacy also became involved. The secretary of state and the USA president T. Roosevelt himself wrote to the British government acclaiming the British initiative for the autonomy of Macedonia.
As regards the reforms in Macedonia, American diplomats in 1907 suggested strict control of their implementation by the mandatory powers. In the beginning of March 1908 the government of Great Britain launched an initiative for the introduction of more radical reforms in Macedonia. This initiative was readily accepted by Russia. The two state sovereigns (British and Russian) met in June 1908 in Reval (Tallinn) and adopted a new proposal for reforms as a preliminary phase towards full autonomy for Macedonia."' Nevertheless, this initiative did not take place due to the revolution of the Young Turks which declared and introduced a constitutional order and democratization of the Ottoman Turkish state. However, the rule of the Young Turks with its Greater Ottoman politics stopped the process of further democratization and of a peaceful democratic solution to the Macedonian question within the Turkish state for which there existed the necessary conditions. It only led towards further deterioration of the situation which was used by the neighbouring Balkan states to interfere in the internal affairs of the Turkish state and to manifest openly their expansionist intentions.
Due to the worsening relations on the Balkans, in 1911 US diplomats undertook steps to influence the governments of the Balkan states to ease the tension and avoid the war they were preparing for, which could have led towards further involvement of the great powers in the solution of the eastern crisis. However, European diplomats showed no interest in preventing the military conflict on the Balkans. Moreover, they took part in its preparation governed by their original interests. At the time of the Balkan Wars when Macedonia was occupied and partitioned by the neighbouring Balkan states which was confirmed by the Treaty of Bucharest of August 10th 1913, European diplomacy had its own interest in accepting the partitioning as such. This could well have been predicted as the European powers, divided into two opposite blocks, started hasty preparations for the forthcoming Great War. Thus, the Macedonian question entered a new and extremely dangerous phase, not only for the future of the Macedonian nation, but for the peace on the Balkans and in Europe too.
These fears soon came true with the beginning of the First World War. At the end of the war the Macedonian question became a crucial problem in the negotiations and the plans for the post-war organization of Balkan relations. The high military and political circles of the Entente powers and the US diplomats considered the creation of an independent Macedonian state, under the protectorate of one of the great non-involved powers (having primarily in mind the USA) as an unbiased, just and permanent solution to the problem. The final aim of this idea was the establishment of radically new relations on the Balkans which would ensure permanent stability in that neuralgic region. Such a solution was also presented at the secret negotiations for separate peace between the powers of the Entente on the one side and Bulgaria on the other under the observance of the USA. The interest in the Macedonian question was renewed yet again in the official diplomacy of the USA, with President W. Wilson's peace programme. In the official American interpretation of the "14 items'.', the USA declared that they would support an objective and unbiased investigation of the problem. An American expert group studied the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 and concluded that it could not serve as a basis for a solution to the Balkan problems because that agreement was "an act of the corrupted Balkan bourgeoisies".
At the beginning of the Paris Peace Conference, twenty- five renowned intellectuals from different European countries, Great Britain and the USA signed a Memorandum on the Macedonian question and sent it to the President of the USA. They demanded the formation of an autonomous Macedonian state in its natural and ethnic borders, which in the south would stretch from the Lake of Kostur to the Vardar estuary, thus leaving the towns of Ber and Negrita and the Halkidiki Peninsula to Greece. Furthermore, it was suggested that in the beginning the autonomous Macedonian state be under the protectorate of one of the great powers (the USA presumably). An unsigned Memorandum with identical contents was sent to Great Britain, too. The issue of the formation of a Macedonian state was the subject of an intense exchange of opinions and viewpoints among the members of the USA Peace Delegation, the American diplomatic representatives in the European states and the members of the American teams of experts. This was especially evident after the request of the Macedonians to be allowed a presence at the Paris Conference in order to present their demands. The member of the team of experts for Balkan questions C. Day informed A. Dulles in a letter about his numerous consultations with impartial experts on the Macedonian question who admitted the existence of problems arising from the issue, but were unanimously for the formation of an autonomous Macedonian state. The envoy of the American President, his personal friend and an expert on European relations, Professor George Herron urged President W. Wilson and the American Peace Delegation to put the Macedonian question on the agenda of the Peace Conference, supporting the integrity and independence of Macedonia. In a letter of May 26th to Colonel Haus, the leader of the American delegation and the most influential political figure after the President, Professor Herron wrote that the Macedonians were a separate nation, unified in their demands and wishes to form an independent state under the protectorate of the USA. Col. Haus himself supported "the cause of Macedonian freedom".
Despite the favourable attitude of most of the USA representatives, the Macedonian question remained outside the agenda of the Peace Conference due to the categorical opposition of France and Great Britain who supported the aspirations of the Balkan Allies, Greece and Serbia (i.e. the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenians) to keep the occupied parts of Macedonia. At the Paris Peace Conference, when the peace terms were negotiated with the Balkan states, the Macedonian question was treated as a minority problem and discussed at the Committee for New States and the Protection of the Minorities. At its meeting on July 15th, 1919 the Italian delegation submitted a proposal for the autonomous status of Macedonia "within borders fixed by the Great Powers and their allies" with the highest possible degree of self-government, but within the borders of the new Kingdom of SCS. The meeting of July 18th discussed the stipulations which were to be introduced at the peace negotiations with the Balkan states concerning the protection of minorities. These stipulations also included the Macedonian minorities in the Balkan states, referred to as "Macedonians". At the meeting of July 30th the Committee discussed the Italian proposal for the autonomy of Macedonia and the British proposal for the establishment of League of Nations control over Macedonia. As regards this, it was suggested that the League of Nations be authorized to send its representatives to Macedonia. The following meetings discussed the same proposals in a somewhat modified form. Due to the opposing views on the question, it remained open till the beginning of November 1919. The text of the Peace Agreement on minorities and the obligations of the government of the Kingdom of SCS for the protection of the rights of minorities were then finally formulated. On November, llth the Supreme Council accepted the proposed text of the document and obliged the government of the Kingdom of SCS to sign the agreement. The Committee for New States also prepared stipulations for protection of minorities in Greece where the Macedonian people were given minority status.'
The Committee informed the Greek delegation about the draft-agreement for the protection of minorities and the stipulations included in it. The president of the Greek government and a leader of the peace delegation responded to this document issued by the Committee with a false statement that Greece had provided protection for the Albanian, Moslem and Slav minorities (the latter referred to as "the Slav communities in Macedonia") and claimed that Greece was ready to accept the agreement. According to this, the president of Greece recognized the existence of a Macedonian minority. The stipulations for the protection of minorities put Greece under an obligation to introduce minority languages in the state schools, but Venizelos resisted this and demanded reformulation of the decrees for the protection of minorities. At the meeting on September 18th the Supreme Council rejected all the Greek comments and on November 3rd ratified its agreement with Greece. Having imposed his plans for a reciprocal exchange of population between Greece and Bulgaria, the aim of which was only to conduct an ethnic cleansing of the occupied Aegean part of Macedonia with international approval, Venizelos presented himself as especially co-operative as regards the Agreement. Accepting his demands, the Committee for New States formed a separate Sub-Committee which prepared "special stipulations" for "voluntary emigration" of the citizens of these states during a period of four years after the effectuation of the Agreement. The Committee for New States only redefined this decree as an individual right for voluntary emigration, thus changing nothing essential in it. The suggestion of expanding these stipulations to refer to the Kingdom of SCS and Turkey was not accepted. The Committee prepared a separate convention for an exchange of citizens between Greece and Bulgaria on a voluntary basis. The Supreme Council approved of its text and obliged the Bulgarian delegation to sign it within 48 hours. The Bulgarian delegation signed the convention within the given period of notice. The stipulations for the protection of minorities which also referred to parts of the Macedonian people were not respected by the Balkan states. The Macedonian people was subjected to very severe de-nationalization and assimilation. Greece applied such means of violent pressure that it forced a great part of the Macedonian population to accept "voluntary" emigration.
By the Foreign Relations Council for Research Into South-Eastern Europe; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Sources:
Bogov, Vasil. Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology. Western Australia, 1998.
Brailsford, H. N. Macedonia Its Races and their Future. New York: Arno Press, 1971.
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org:80/PartitionedMacedonia/MacedonianQuestion.html
NOTES:
1. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Pages 87-88
2. THE GREEK STRUGGLE IN MACEDONIA 1897-1913 by Douglas Dakin 1966
Page 19
3. " " " " " Page 149
4. THE GREEK STRUGGLE IN MACEDONIA 1897-1913 by Douglas Dakin 1966
Page 143 N
5. A STUDY OF HISTORY by Arnold J. Toynbee 1957 Great Britain Page 156
6. DIMITRI STANCIOFF by Nadeja Muir 1957 London Pages 260- 261
7. " " " " " " Page 261
8. THE GREEK PASSION by Kenneth Young 1969 London Page 126
9. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page
182
10. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page
182
11. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA 1354-1833 by AE. Vacalopoulos Balkan Studies 1973
Page 182
12. " " " " " " Page 182
13. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page
184
14. THE TRUTH ABOUT MACEDONIA, AMERICAN MISSIONARIES
TESTIMONY INDIANA U.S.A. 1964 Page 47
15. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 195
16. " " " " " " Page 210
17. THE GREEK PASSION by Kenneth Young London 1969 Page 146
18. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 197
19. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 212
20. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA 1354-1833 by A.C. Vacalopoulos Balkan Studies 1973 Pages 168-169
21. THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE WASHINGTON DC July 1918 UNDER THE HEEL OF THE TURK Page 53
22. " " " " Page 53
23. " " " " Page 51
24. " " " " Page 51
25. " " " " Pages 51-52
26. " " " " Page 52
27. " " " " Page 53
28. " " " " Page 53
29. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 203
30. " " " " Page 210
31. PICTURES FROM THE BALKANS by John Foster Fraser 1912 Page 181
32. " " " " Page 15
33. " " " " Page 15
34 This tale may be a calumny. M. Tricoupis always denied that he had attempted to bring about an alliance with Bulgaria (see Nicolaides, La Macedoine," p. 203).
35. As a matter of history the Greeks have been neither more nor less humane than other Balkan people. The War of Independence was a dialogue of massacre in which outrage answered to outrage. The Cretans perpetrated a wholesale massacre at the expense of the Moslem minority in the eastern (Sitia) districts of the island in 1897. I saw with my own eyes young Moslem girls who had escaped mutilated from these horrors. During the Thessalian campaign of 1897 I was present when an Evzone regiment strung up a Turkish prisoner by his heels from a tree, and proceeded to lay a fire of wood and straw under his head. Fortunately he promised to give them valuable information before the fire was actually lit, and at that moment some Italian officers of the Foreign Legion appeared on the scene.
36. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Pages 210-213
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com
By now anyone who has read my articles knows what I think so I will spare you the repetition.
More recently I received a letter from Australia from Vasil Bogov, the author of the book "Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology", who reminded me that there may indeed be "other reasons" why Europe has a problem with the Macedonians.
And finally in response to that very question another friend e-mailed me a link with an article entitled "The Macedonian Question" by the Foreign Relations Council for Research Into South-Eastern Europe; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts, which I have included in its entirety further down the text.
And now I will begin with Vasil Bogov´s compilations. Here Vasil draws on the words of others who shed a different light on European affairs regarding Macedonia and the Macedonians. The themes in the various sentences may seem to be out of context with each other which, by the way, is done on purpose, drawing the reader to form his or her own opinions. Do the Macedonian people deserve the "wrath" of Western Europe because of the historic influence of their Macedonian Church? Read and decide for yourselves! Here is what Vasil had to say;
"Panslavism was always primarily an instrument of Russian nationalism and politics, it never stood for Christian union.
It is true there are a few Turkish settlements in Macedonia, which live by agriculture.
They are genuine Osmanly Turks, who are exiled from Asia, in order that they might be isolated. (1)
Many in Western Europe doubted whether Hellenism existed at all in Macedonia, and regarded it solely as the invention of the Greek press. (2)
Since nationality in terms of practical politics, was chiefly a question of ecclesiastical registration, more than ever the Macedonian struggle developed into a conflict over Macedonian churches. (3)
Hellenismos was chiefly a propagandist organisation. (4)
The modern Western influence that thus spread into the main body of Christendom, the Ecumenical Patriarch had transmuted their old dream of raising from the dead, the East Roman ghost of the Roman Empire, in to a new dream of solving the Western question, on a political plan, in making the Ecumenical Patriarch the official head of all the Eastern Christians, the Sultan had given this Constantinopolitan prelate, political authority over Christian peoples, that had never been under the rule of any Constantinopolitan Emperor. (5)
However, as soon as there were Turks in Europe, The Eastern Question was born, and one might add that:
As soon as there was an "Eastern Question" war followed. (6)
Turkey was the ally, throughout the years, of the great European powers, in turn exploiting their rivalries in her own interest; whilst the European powers made the best of this field, in the great Christendom of Macedonia, of constant intrigues and perilous successes. (7)
Their Catholic priest brought pressures to bear in their proselytising of the Greeks. (8)
Their power in Macedonia was reinforced by the Orthodox clergy.
The new western "system of liberty", which at that time was being imported into the Christian world, not only contradicts the scriptures, but is really no more than a bastard freedom, allowing each individual to pursue his own most selfish interests and appetites. (9)
The spirit of western liberalism, was as alien to the Christian church in Macedonia, as the Sultan himself. (10)
Throughout the period of Turkish occupation the Holy Mountain was the great academy of Pravoslavni Christian Monasticism. (11)
It was here those monks above all others, who by their ardent and unswerving preaching, encouraged the customary to stand by their faith, and not abandon it in favour of Islam. (12)
But something had changed, by the middle of the 19th century, a Greek Bishop, as we call today, had been installed in Constantinople, to represent Roum Millet in the Balkans. (13)
His name was Melety, such Bishops are not only a burden to the Christian people, but also a sore wound of Christ's flock. (14)
The modern clerical members exploited the church, and between them, they set themselves to crush the Pravoslavni Christian faith in Macedonia, with the authority of the Turks behind them. (15)
It is from that egoistic standpoint that the "Greeks" hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks, to resist the old Christian religion in Macedonia. (16)
Greeks had never been a nation; it was doubtful whether they were even a race.
Greeks were not Hellenes, Romans, "Byzantines," nor Ancient Macedonians, as they are written in today's modern European history. (17)
Greek race is a mere invention of pseudo-science, and Greek language is another artificial invention. (18)
Greeks were loyal subjects to Abdul Hamid. (19)
What a land, then, is that comprised within the limits of the Turkish Empire that was Holy Mountain, with 64 monastic estates and monasteries in Macedonia. (20)
Out of its past speaks Christian faith, and material wealth, literature and art, philosophy and religion. (21)
And that land which today lies desolate, and its people, who were the glory of the past, repressed by injustice, cruelty, and tyranny – that land possesses today the same elements for material and spiritual greatness, that made it the first to develop a modern civilization. (22)
From whatever angle one views Macedonia, it beholds a land of extraordinary fascination.
To the historian, the archeologist, or to the geographer, it is a storehouse of wealth, worth a lifetime of exploration and study. (23)
Poetry and proverb are in the daily speech, while monasteries proclaim from every mountaintop, and market-place, that religion is a part of the very life of the Macedonians. (24)
The land of Macedonia looks out on the present from a historic past that is the study of all ages.
On the banks of the Dardanelles Constantine founded his world capital, and from that day Macedonian Christianity and the Macedonian city has figured in all great world movements. (25)
It has been the centre of intrigues and treaties, of councils and machination, around which have circled the policies of Europe for the last eighteen hundred years. (26)
If one could only turn aside from the horrors of misrule and injustice done to Macedonia, and out of a wonderful past could construct a vision of a more glorious future!
For, in spite of five centuries of retrogression under the rule of the Turks, there is promise of a golden age for the generation about to come.
The same broad plain that once fed and clothed a population of 40,000,000 beings, are waiting today for the plow to seed, and the reaper.
The mountains still hold riches of coal and iron and copper.
The rivers are potent with power to turn the wheels of industry.
The natural harbours invite the fleet of merchantmen, and the river valleys and mountain passes offer natural lines of communication and transportation, as in days when great caravans passed along these natural highways, bringing the merchandise of the East to the markets of the West. (27)
For centuries – a land, that modern exploration reveals as one of the richest in natural resources, and as unsurpassed by its geographic location, for being the trade centre of the world. (28)
However, in short the people of Macedonia become the victims of ruthless, unrelenting exploitation by a modern big idea of nationality.
If we take books, it was virtually nothing in Modern Greek, and naturally all Athenian periodicals and newspapers – save an innocent sheet published under the censor's eye in Smyrna (Asia Minor) are articles of contraband. (29)
It is that egoistic standpoint that the Greeks hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks to crush the Macedonian Christian church. (30)
The Patriarchate Greek priests were the tool of the Sultan. (31)
If one must balance criminality, the weight of horrors now rests with the Greeks.
And I am within the mark in saying that the Turkish authorities wink at the doing of the Greek "Bands" in Macedonia.
The Turk promotes and helps Greek propaganda in Macedonia – and this is the blunt truth – against the old and long established Christian religion. (32)
The Greek fails to notice that the whole proceeding is part of a scheme, by modern political powers in Europe, to keep the Christians at enmity in Macedonia. (33)
And now I offer you some of Henry Brailsford´s wisdom on the subject of "the Greeks", quoted in square brackets, from his book "Macedonia Its Races and their Future". Here is what Brailsford has to say about the Greeks with regards to the Macedonians;
It is a sorry transition to turn from this dream of a revived Hellenism which is to civilise the Near East once more, to the actualities of Greek politics. One may say of the Greeks with equal truth that they are capable of superb devotion to an idea, or that they are the ready victims of any catch-word or abstraction. "The Slav is the enemy" is a phrase which their journalists have been repeating to them for the last thirty years, and at length it has obsessed them so powerfully that they have almost forgotten their own past and their heroic struggles against Turkish tyranny. They have been taught to believe that all Turkey south of the Balkans is theirs by right, and they can think of the Macedonian movement only as a sort of invasion of their inheritance planned by the enemy in Bulgaria, if not by Russia herself. That it can be a spontaneous Macedonian movement, that it is a real revolt against Turkish tyranny, they will not for a moment believe. It is for them only a plot by the foes of Greece against the sacred cause of Hellenism. It is from that egoistic standpoint that they hold themselves justified in combining with the Turks to resist "the Slav." For them these miserable peasants, taking arms under any leader who will promise them deliverance from the tax-collector and the bey, have no concrete existence. They are Slav, and "the Slav is the enemy." It is part of the Greek temperament that it does nothing by halves. They flung themselves into the new alliance with enthusiasm. In 1903 deputations of Greek officers actually visited the Turkish Minister in Athens to offer him their swords, and the Greek press wrote of Abdul Hamid as though he were a philosopher-king and a pillar of Hellenism. Bulgarian refugees captured in Thessaly were handed over to the Turkish police to be tortured in Turkish dungeons. The Patriarch issued an encyclical ordering his Bishops and priests to denounce the insurgents and their sympathisers to the Turkish officials. Every Greek consulate in Macedonia became a department of the Turkish secret police, and the work of espionage went on unchecked, even while the Turks were slaughtering the Hellenised Vlachs of Kruchevo. For to the Turk all Giaours are one. "There are white dogs and red dogs, but all of them are dogs." In fairness to the Greeks we must admit that this policy has been followed by their rivals in times past. M. Stambulov worked steadily for a Turco-Bulgarian entente, and undoubtedly he meant to use it against the Greeks. I have never heard that he carried it to such an extreme as this — the circumstances hardly arose — but there is a nasty story which accuses him of encouraging M. Tricoupis to develop his plan for a Balkan coalition against Turkey, only to carry the scheme to Constantinople on the eve of its execution. (34) No sense of chivalry prevented the Bulgarians from profiting by the reverses of Greece in 1897. But apart from the morality of this Greek policy or the amount of provocation which might be held to justify it, it is an extremely foolish venture. It had no doubt a certain brief and superficial success. It was easy to force a Bulgarian notable to call himself a "Greek" by threatening to denounce him to the Turks, and the Archbishop of Castoria won many villages for the Patriarch in this way. When that failed, a Bishop had only to go on tour among the villages with an immense "escort" of Turkish troops, as the Bishops of Serres and Florina did, "converting" them by force. As a last resort, in one case at least, the Bishop of Serres even arrested a Bulgarian priest and kept him a prisoner in his own palace, only releasing him when he renounced the Exarch. But these are ephemeral triumphs. The "converted" villages still maintain their sly commerce with the Committee, still harbour "bands," still talk Bulgarian. And assuredly they do not love "Hellenism" the more. Worst of all, the loyal Greek and Vlach villages are puzzled and impatient. They saw their Slav neighbours marching out to fight the traditional enemy, and they wished to join them. "You know we too have rifles, and we want to use them," said a young man of Klissoura to me one day. "Against whom?" I asked. "Why, against the Turks, of course. We are only waiting for Greece to tell us to move." And he went on, in the same tongue, the same accents that the mountaineers of Crete have used so often in my hearing, to explain how intolerable life was under Turkish rule. The policy which prompted Greece to use the occasion only to weaken Bulgaria while the chance of freedom slipped by, was quite beyond his comprehension. He, too, wanted autonomy, and he could not understand why Greece should claim it for Crete and oppose it in Macedonia. It is only the official or the educated Greek who prefers anarchy and the status quo to any surrender of the grotesque territorial claims of Hellenism over the Bulgarian interior. The average Greek official vowing in one breath that all the Macedonians are Greeks, and declaring in the next that he would rather have them massacred than governed by a Bulgarian majority, is painfully like the false mother in Solomon's judgment, who was quite ready to allow the other woman's child to be cut in two.
The immediate result of the Greek policy of espionage and denunciation, so lightly planned in Athens and Constantinople, was to expose the Greeks of Macedonia — or, to be more accurate, the villagers of the Greek party — to the fury and revenge of the Bulgarian Committee. If a Bishop had frightened a village into joining the Patriarchist Church by holding the fear of the Turks over its head, it was always possible for the next Bulgarian band which came that way to compel it to return to the Exarchist schism, by threatening to burn it to the ground. The one method was as legitimate as the other, and quite as efficacious. If a Greek priest in obedience to his Bishop's instructions had betrayed a group of insurgents to the Turks, there were always comrades left to come round and hang him from the nearest tree. The next stage in the evolution of party feeling was naturally that the Greeks came to think of the Bulgarians as wild beasts, who slaughtered from mere lust of blood. Legitimists always, they seemed to regard their own work of denunciation as an unexceptionable use of the weapons of law and order. The Bulgarians, after all, are rebels, and the Greeks as loyal subjects of Abdul Hamid were only setting the machinery of justice in motion. The Turks, however, have failed to protect them, and they had to devise some more effective plan for defending themselves. The scheme was to organise counter-bands to hold the Bulgarians in check. I had the chance to meet in Monastir in March, 1904, the emissary from the Greek Government who was preparing this scheme. He was travelling as a cattle-dealer under an assumed name, but I had known him first in a European university where we were undergraduates together, and again in the East. He comes of an influential family, and is himself a man of a certain magnetism and wayward talent, who has had some experience as a guerilla chief. The climate of Macedonia seemed to have transformed him. He talked his French, his English, and his German as fluently as ever, but the ideas he expressed — as far as the pale vocabulary of these languages would allow him — were the ideas of his Phanariot ancestors. In the name of Hellenism he proposed to make of Macedonia a shambles and a desert. Where the Bulgarians had murdered one man, he declared, he would slaughter ten. He shrank only from one thing — he would not imitate what he described as the "anarchist" methods of the Committee. He would not arm his men with dynamite. But all manner of straightforward bloodiness with lead and steel came into his programme. And yet he was firmly convinced that he was fighting for "culture," for "ideas," for "a superior civilisation,"against the Bulgarian "wolves." (35) The earth might be a very tolerable place to live in, if every abstract word could be eliminated from human speech. Mephistopheles must have been fresh from a visit to the Balkans when he told Jehovah that mankind have used the reason which He gave them to become more beast-like than any beast. (36)]
The Macedonian Question
The Macedonian question appeared in foreign relations in the 1870's during the great Eastern Crisis when armed uprisings for liberation of the subdued peoples started in the Balkans. The uprisings in Bosnia and Herzegovina in 1875, in Bulgaria in April 1876 and in Macedonia in 1876 raised the question of the further existence of the Ottoman Turkish Empire in Europe. Following its current policy for the Balkans, Russia opposed the policies of the great Western European powers to retain the integrity of the Ottoman state, guaranteed by the Treaty of Paris concluded on April 15th 1856, and supported the fight of the conquered nations for liberation and independence. The Russian political programme devised several years before by counsellor Gorchakov was announced at the end of 1860 and included a solution to the Macedonian question.
The Russian plans for the Balkans anticipated a direct involvement of Russia in the liberation of the Orthodox Christian peoples and creation of national states: independence and territorial expansion for Serbia and Montenegro (in their ethnic borders), establishment of two Bulgarian principalities (north and south of the Stara mountain as counter-balance to the two Serbian principalities), and a separate, independent Macedonian principality. The Macedonian question divided the interests of Austria-Hungary and Russia. The Austro-Hungarian Minister for Foreign Affairs, Count Abrashi, requested establishment of an autonomous Macedonian state in customs union with Austria-Hungary. Gorchakov in principle agreed to it, but it soon turned out that Russia could not accept it.
In 1876-77 an Ambassadors' Conference of the great European states was held in Constantinople. It was expected to reach a diplomatic solution to the problems of the conquered nations within the Ottoman state and thus prevent further escalation of the crisis. The USA, which did not have any special interests in Macedonia, initiated an appropriate inquiry and solution to the Macedonian question. The American diplomacy in association with the American professors from the Robert College in Constantinople who were well-acquainted with the real situation, submitted to the Conference a proposition for the autonomy of Macedonia. However, the Conference failed due to the opposing interests of the great powers. Russia changed its policy on Macedonia and abandoned the plans for creation of a Macedonian state and started working in favour of a greater Bulgarian state instead. This happened after the secret negotiations on the Balkans among Austria-Hungary, Russia and Germany in April 1878 when Austro-Hungarian diplomacy renewed the question of the creation of an autonomous Macedonian state, i.e. Macedonian principality (with General Radich as its governor). On that occasion the Russian representative, General Ignatiev, did not oppose that solution, but in May 1878 Russian diplomacy refused to clarify its view on the question or support the Macedonian demands for an independent state submitted in Constantinople to General Ignatiev by Dimitar Robev, a Macedonian representative in the Ottoman Parliament.
On July 13th, the International Treaty of Berlin (Art.23), gave Macedonia a special autonomous status. The government of the Ottoman state was assigned to regulate the status of Macedonia and the other provinces with a separate Statute. However, as there was no international control to observe the implementation of these resolutions or authorize sanctions for their non-implementation, the government in Constantinople did not fulfil its duties. The Macedonian uprising from 1878-79 and the actions of "Edinstvo" ("Unity"), the Transitional Government of Macedonia (formed secretly at the meeting of the National Assembly held from May 21st to June 2nd 1880) renewed interest in the Macedonian question in the diplomatic circles of the Great European Powers. The Transitional Government sent an Appeal to the great powers accompanied by a Protocol of the National Assembly for liberation of Macedonia and its constitution as an independent state. Furthermore, on March 23rd 1881, it issued a Manifesto which was distributed among the diplomatic representatives in the Ottoman Turkish state. Macedonia became an object of special interest in the relations between Russia, Austria-Hungary and Germany. The agreement on a secret alliance of the emperors of these three states signed in 1881 included a separate stipulation for the protection of Macedonia from a possible attack by Bulgaria.
The beginning of the Ilinden uprising for national liberation of Macedonia in 1903, which the European diplomats called "The Macedonian revolution", marked the Macedonian question as an acute one for European diplomacy. The uprising and the creation of the so-called Krushevo Republic proved that the Macedonian people were ready to fight for their national freedom and the formation of their national state. At that time, the European powers were against the creation of a new state in the Balkans. European diplomacy had to intervene in order to calm the situation by proposing several projects for reforms among which were the Austro-Hungarian - Russian project known as the Murzsteg Reforms Programme and the British initiative that gave Macedonia a special status in its natural and ethnic borders. US diplomacy also became involved. The secretary of state and the USA president T. Roosevelt himself wrote to the British government acclaiming the British initiative for the autonomy of Macedonia.
As regards the reforms in Macedonia, American diplomats in 1907 suggested strict control of their implementation by the mandatory powers. In the beginning of March 1908 the government of Great Britain launched an initiative for the introduction of more radical reforms in Macedonia. This initiative was readily accepted by Russia. The two state sovereigns (British and Russian) met in June 1908 in Reval (Tallinn) and adopted a new proposal for reforms as a preliminary phase towards full autonomy for Macedonia."' Nevertheless, this initiative did not take place due to the revolution of the Young Turks which declared and introduced a constitutional order and democratization of the Ottoman Turkish state. However, the rule of the Young Turks with its Greater Ottoman politics stopped the process of further democratization and of a peaceful democratic solution to the Macedonian question within the Turkish state for which there existed the necessary conditions. It only led towards further deterioration of the situation which was used by the neighbouring Balkan states to interfere in the internal affairs of the Turkish state and to manifest openly their expansionist intentions.
Due to the worsening relations on the Balkans, in 1911 US diplomats undertook steps to influence the governments of the Balkan states to ease the tension and avoid the war they were preparing for, which could have led towards further involvement of the great powers in the solution of the eastern crisis. However, European diplomats showed no interest in preventing the military conflict on the Balkans. Moreover, they took part in its preparation governed by their original interests. At the time of the Balkan Wars when Macedonia was occupied and partitioned by the neighbouring Balkan states which was confirmed by the Treaty of Bucharest of August 10th 1913, European diplomacy had its own interest in accepting the partitioning as such. This could well have been predicted as the European powers, divided into two opposite blocks, started hasty preparations for the forthcoming Great War. Thus, the Macedonian question entered a new and extremely dangerous phase, not only for the future of the Macedonian nation, but for the peace on the Balkans and in Europe too.
These fears soon came true with the beginning of the First World War. At the end of the war the Macedonian question became a crucial problem in the negotiations and the plans for the post-war organization of Balkan relations. The high military and political circles of the Entente powers and the US diplomats considered the creation of an independent Macedonian state, under the protectorate of one of the great non-involved powers (having primarily in mind the USA) as an unbiased, just and permanent solution to the problem. The final aim of this idea was the establishment of radically new relations on the Balkans which would ensure permanent stability in that neuralgic region. Such a solution was also presented at the secret negotiations for separate peace between the powers of the Entente on the one side and Bulgaria on the other under the observance of the USA. The interest in the Macedonian question was renewed yet again in the official diplomacy of the USA, with President W. Wilson's peace programme. In the official American interpretation of the "14 items'.', the USA declared that they would support an objective and unbiased investigation of the problem. An American expert group studied the Treaty of Bucharest of 1913 and concluded that it could not serve as a basis for a solution to the Balkan problems because that agreement was "an act of the corrupted Balkan bourgeoisies".
At the beginning of the Paris Peace Conference, twenty- five renowned intellectuals from different European countries, Great Britain and the USA signed a Memorandum on the Macedonian question and sent it to the President of the USA. They demanded the formation of an autonomous Macedonian state in its natural and ethnic borders, which in the south would stretch from the Lake of Kostur to the Vardar estuary, thus leaving the towns of Ber and Negrita and the Halkidiki Peninsula to Greece. Furthermore, it was suggested that in the beginning the autonomous Macedonian state be under the protectorate of one of the great powers (the USA presumably). An unsigned Memorandum with identical contents was sent to Great Britain, too. The issue of the formation of a Macedonian state was the subject of an intense exchange of opinions and viewpoints among the members of the USA Peace Delegation, the American diplomatic representatives in the European states and the members of the American teams of experts. This was especially evident after the request of the Macedonians to be allowed a presence at the Paris Conference in order to present their demands. The member of the team of experts for Balkan questions C. Day informed A. Dulles in a letter about his numerous consultations with impartial experts on the Macedonian question who admitted the existence of problems arising from the issue, but were unanimously for the formation of an autonomous Macedonian state. The envoy of the American President, his personal friend and an expert on European relations, Professor George Herron urged President W. Wilson and the American Peace Delegation to put the Macedonian question on the agenda of the Peace Conference, supporting the integrity and independence of Macedonia. In a letter of May 26th to Colonel Haus, the leader of the American delegation and the most influential political figure after the President, Professor Herron wrote that the Macedonians were a separate nation, unified in their demands and wishes to form an independent state under the protectorate of the USA. Col. Haus himself supported "the cause of Macedonian freedom".
Despite the favourable attitude of most of the USA representatives, the Macedonian question remained outside the agenda of the Peace Conference due to the categorical opposition of France and Great Britain who supported the aspirations of the Balkan Allies, Greece and Serbia (i.e. the Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenians) to keep the occupied parts of Macedonia. At the Paris Peace Conference, when the peace terms were negotiated with the Balkan states, the Macedonian question was treated as a minority problem and discussed at the Committee for New States and the Protection of the Minorities. At its meeting on July 15th, 1919 the Italian delegation submitted a proposal for the autonomous status of Macedonia "within borders fixed by the Great Powers and their allies" with the highest possible degree of self-government, but within the borders of the new Kingdom of SCS. The meeting of July 18th discussed the stipulations which were to be introduced at the peace negotiations with the Balkan states concerning the protection of minorities. These stipulations also included the Macedonian minorities in the Balkan states, referred to as "Macedonians". At the meeting of July 30th the Committee discussed the Italian proposal for the autonomy of Macedonia and the British proposal for the establishment of League of Nations control over Macedonia. As regards this, it was suggested that the League of Nations be authorized to send its representatives to Macedonia. The following meetings discussed the same proposals in a somewhat modified form. Due to the opposing views on the question, it remained open till the beginning of November 1919. The text of the Peace Agreement on minorities and the obligations of the government of the Kingdom of SCS for the protection of the rights of minorities were then finally formulated. On November, llth the Supreme Council accepted the proposed text of the document and obliged the government of the Kingdom of SCS to sign the agreement. The Committee for New States also prepared stipulations for protection of minorities in Greece where the Macedonian people were given minority status.'
The Committee informed the Greek delegation about the draft-agreement for the protection of minorities and the stipulations included in it. The president of the Greek government and a leader of the peace delegation responded to this document issued by the Committee with a false statement that Greece had provided protection for the Albanian, Moslem and Slav minorities (the latter referred to as "the Slav communities in Macedonia") and claimed that Greece was ready to accept the agreement. According to this, the president of Greece recognized the existence of a Macedonian minority. The stipulations for the protection of minorities put Greece under an obligation to introduce minority languages in the state schools, but Venizelos resisted this and demanded reformulation of the decrees for the protection of minorities. At the meeting on September 18th the Supreme Council rejected all the Greek comments and on November 3rd ratified its agreement with Greece. Having imposed his plans for a reciprocal exchange of population between Greece and Bulgaria, the aim of which was only to conduct an ethnic cleansing of the occupied Aegean part of Macedonia with international approval, Venizelos presented himself as especially co-operative as regards the Agreement. Accepting his demands, the Committee for New States formed a separate Sub-Committee which prepared "special stipulations" for "voluntary emigration" of the citizens of these states during a period of four years after the effectuation of the Agreement. The Committee for New States only redefined this decree as an individual right for voluntary emigration, thus changing nothing essential in it. The suggestion of expanding these stipulations to refer to the Kingdom of SCS and Turkey was not accepted. The Committee prepared a separate convention for an exchange of citizens between Greece and Bulgaria on a voluntary basis. The Supreme Council approved of its text and obliged the Bulgarian delegation to sign it within 48 hours. The Bulgarian delegation signed the convention within the given period of notice. The stipulations for the protection of minorities which also referred to parts of the Macedonian people were not respected by the Balkan states. The Macedonian people was subjected to very severe de-nationalization and assimilation. Greece applied such means of violent pressure that it forced a great part of the Macedonian population to accept "voluntary" emigration.
By the Foreign Relations Council for Research Into South-Eastern Europe; Macedonian Academy of Sciences and Arts
Sources:
Bogov, Vasil. Macedonian Revelation, Historical Documents Rock and Shatter Modern Political Ideology. Western Australia, 1998.
Brailsford, H. N. Macedonia Its Races and their Future. New York: Arno Press, 1971.
http://www.historyofmacedonia.org:80/PartitionedMacedonia/MacedonianQuestion.html
NOTES:
1. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Pages 87-88
2. THE GREEK STRUGGLE IN MACEDONIA 1897-1913 by Douglas Dakin 1966
Page 19
3. " " " " " Page 149
4. THE GREEK STRUGGLE IN MACEDONIA 1897-1913 by Douglas Dakin 1966
Page 143 N
5. A STUDY OF HISTORY by Arnold J. Toynbee 1957 Great Britain Page 156
6. DIMITRI STANCIOFF by Nadeja Muir 1957 London Pages 260- 261
7. " " " " " " Page 261
8. THE GREEK PASSION by Kenneth Young 1969 London Page 126
9. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page
182
10. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page
182
11. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA 1354-1833 by AE. Vacalopoulos Balkan Studies 1973
Page 182
12. " " " " " " Page 182
13. THE STRUGGLE FOR GREEK INDEPENDENCE by Richard Clogg 1973 Page
184
14. THE TRUTH ABOUT MACEDONIA, AMERICAN MISSIONARIES
TESTIMONY INDIANA U.S.A. 1964 Page 47
15. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 195
16. " " " " " " Page 210
17. THE GREEK PASSION by Kenneth Young London 1969 Page 146
18. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 197
19. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 212
20. HISTORY OF MACEDONIA 1354-1833 by A.C. Vacalopoulos Balkan Studies 1973 Pages 168-169
21. THE NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC MAGAZINE WASHINGTON DC July 1918 UNDER THE HEEL OF THE TURK Page 53
22. " " " " Page 53
23. " " " " Page 51
24. " " " " Page 51
25. " " " " Pages 51-52
26. " " " " Page 52
27. " " " " Page 53
28. " " " " Page 53
29. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Page 203
30. " " " " Page 210
31. PICTURES FROM THE BALKANS by John Foster Fraser 1912 Page 181
32. " " " " Page 15
33. " " " " Page 15
34 This tale may be a calumny. M. Tricoupis always denied that he had attempted to bring about an alliance with Bulgaria (see Nicolaides, La Macedoine," p. 203).
35. As a matter of history the Greeks have been neither more nor less humane than other Balkan people. The War of Independence was a dialogue of massacre in which outrage answered to outrage. The Cretans perpetrated a wholesale massacre at the expense of the Moslem minority in the eastern (Sitia) districts of the island in 1897. I saw with my own eyes young Moslem girls who had escaped mutilated from these horrors. During the Thessalian campaign of 1897 I was present when an Evzone regiment strung up a Turkish prisoner by his heels from a tree, and proceeded to lay a fire of wood and straw under his head. Fortunately he promised to give them valuable information before the fire was actually lit, and at that moment some Italian officers of the Foreign Legion appeared on the scene.
36. MACEDONIA by H.N. Brailsford London 1906 Pages 210-213
You can contact the author at rstefov@hotmail.com
Print
Email
