Την ώρα που στην Ελλάδα έχουμε ακόμα ένα συνέδριο του ΟΥΡΑΝΙΟΥ ΤΟΞΟΥ ελεύθερα και αβίαστα όπως σε κάθε δημοκρατική χώρα και την ίδια ώρα που οι γνωστοί Προπαγανδιστικοί κύκλοι των Σκοπίων επιμένουν να κάνουν λόγο για δήθεν καταπίεση μειονοτήτων και άρνηση του Δικαιώματος του Αυτο-προσδιορισμού, ας θυμηθούμε ξανά πως οι ίδιοι οι Σκοπιανοί γελοιοποιούν τους εαυτούς τους με το να αρνούνται πεισματικά και άκρως υποκριτικά στους ίδιους τους πολίτες τους όλα όσα…. κατηγορούν τους άλλους!!!
Application no. 74651/01
by the Association of citizens “Radko” and Paunkovski
against the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia
lodged on 30 July 2001
The European Court of Human Rights (Fifth Section), sitting on 8 July 2008 as a Chamber composed of:
Peer Lorenzen, President, Karel Jungwiert, Volodymyr Butkevych, Renate Jaeger, Mark Villiger, Isabelle Berro-Lefèvre, Mirjana Lazarova Trajkovska, judges,
and Claudia Westerdiek, Section Registrar,
Having regard to the above application lodged on 30 July 2001,
Having regard to the initial observations submitted by the respondent Government and the observations in reply submitted by the applicants in 2006,
Having regard to their additional observations of September 2007 and May 2008,
Having regard to the comments submitted by the Bulgarian Government who had exercised their right to intervene (Article 36 § 1 of the Convention and Rule 44),
Having regard to the parties’ and the third party’s oral submissions at the hearing on 19 June 2008,
Having deliberated, decides as follows:
THE FACTS
The first applicant is the Association of Citizens “Radko” (“the Association”). The second applicant is Mr Vladimir Paunkovski, the Chairman of the Association, who has dual Macedonian and Bulgarian nationality. He was born in 1954 and lives in Ohrid, in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. The applicants are represented before the Court by Mr Y. Grozev and Mr B. Boev, both lawyers practising in Sofia, Bulgaria. At the oral hearing on 19 June 2008, Mr Y. Grozev was also assisted by Mrs N. Dobreva.
The Macedonian Government (“the Government”) are represented by their Agent, Mrs R. Lazareska Gerovska.
The Bulgarian Government (“the third-party intervener”) are represented by their Agents, Mrs M. Kotzeva and Ms S. Atanasova; only the latter attended the oral hearing.
A. The circumstances of the case
The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
On 24 May 2000 ten Macedonian nationals, including the second applicant, founded the Association in the city of Ohrid. On 19 June 2000 the Ohrid Court of First Instance registered the Association in the register of associations of citizens and foundations under the following name: “Association of Citizens Radko-Ohrid”.
…..
After the opening speech by the chairman of the Association and a solemn performance of the anthem of Todor Alexandrov, three young men threw gas bombs inside the conference hall, which caused a temporary delay. Some of the participants started to beat and kick the young men. The latter managed to escape, but a retired journalist was injured. According to the daily newspaper “Utrinski vesnik” of 30 October 2000, he sustained a “fracture of his left hand and blood on his face”.
…..
There was a strong media campaign before and after the launch of the Association, condemning its foundation and functioning as contrary to the Macedonian national identity.The Association was described as “fascist” and as rehabilitating “terrorism and fascism, which were the basic characteristics of Hitler’s collaborator Vančo Mihajlov” (excerpts from the newspapers “Utrinski vesnik“, mentioned above, and “Dnevnik” from 24 October 2000).
….
In or about October 2000 three practising lawyers from Skopje, together with a political party and the Association of War Veterans from the Second World War filed a petition before the Constitutional Courtchallenging the conformity of the Association’s Articles and Programme with Article 20 of the Constitution. They alsochallenged the lawfulness of the Ohrid court’s decision to register the Association
The petitioners, inter alia, stressed that:
“…the aims of the Association are the infiltration of Bulgarian linguistic elements into the Macedonian language and alphabet
“The Association promotes Vančo’s (meaning Ivan Mihajlov’s) ideology for a change in the national conscience of the Macedonian people in favour of another one, whichdestroys the Macedonian national texture andleads to the encouragement of and incitement to national hatred and intolerance. The Association rehabilitates and legalises terrorism and fascism as crucial characteristics of the work of Hitler’s collaborator Vančo Mihajlov, as an “act of holy liberation” and as a legacy that is left to someone to complete…The Slavs from Macedonia who appeared as Bulgarians (Болгари) throughout the centuries…are unknown in the Republic of Macedonia. They do not exist as a nation, any nationality or legitimate entity whatsoever.There are only Macedonians in Macedonia, and there also might be Bulgarians, Serbs…as affiliated to different people and nations. However, there are no “Slavs from Macedonia-Bulgarians”.
Αυτά λοιπόν για το πως αντιλαμβάνονται και εφαρμόζουν οι ίδιοι οι Σκοπιανοί το δικαίωμα του “αυτο-προσδιορισμού” στους ίδιους τους πολίτες τους. Αν λοιπόν στο συνέδριο του ΟΥΡΑΝΙΟΥ ΤΟΞΟΥ βλέπουμε πανώ για το “Ελληνικό Apartheid” ενώ οι ίδιοι ελεύθερα κάνουν συνέδρια εφόσον αναγνωρίζονται απο το επίσημο Ελληνικό κράτος χωρίς να μπουκάρουν μέσα νεαροί και να τους πετάνε μπόμπες, με το ΣΚΟΠΙΑΝΟ APARTHEID ΠΟΥ ΑΠΑΓΟΡΕΥΕΙ την λειτουργία αντίστοιχων οργανώσεων στο κράτος των Σκοπίων, ΤΙ ΘΑ ΓΙΝΕΙ???
Another source from 1903 describing the races of Macedonia. Greek, Bulgarians, Turks, Albanians……. It describes the Greeks as the most ancient race of Macedonia number 350,000, 500,000 Bulgarians, and 3/4’s of all Muslims are Turkish…. As usual for the frustration of Skopjan Propagandists, no independent Makedonskian group listed.
We are producing here more evidence of who and where the people of The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) come from; below there is an extensive list from politicians, historians, writers, travellers, sociologists of neutral heritage that are not on the “Greek payroll” like these “alleged” FYROM(ians)propagandists claim. The flag on the image (main frame) is the only flag that the people from FYROM raised on their day of Ilinden(1903) (FYROM and Bulgarian National Day - 2nd August) which is obviously a Bulgarian flag. Greeks on the other hand, are a peace loving people that respect the law of the land. All they require is mutual respect from the northern Slavic neighbors; they have no irredentist claims, nor do they impose their ideology upon them; they simply let them be as long as they respect Greece. Sadly it’s people like Risto Stefov (a.k.a Christos Stefou)Gandeto (birth name Grezlovski), Donski, Ilyev, Tentov, Bosevski and others that propagate a false ideology that is totally flawed historically, but sadly and tragically confuses the ethos and legacy of its own citizens both in FYROM and their diaspora to a fanaticism that borders on extremism; that threatens to spill out to violence between the two communities. By consistently producing the evidence for all to see, it shows how deluded some people from FYROM can be. Greeks are told by the Bush administration to relent and accept them by name, yet Mr. Bush has no real idea of how deep Greek history really; and is associated with land and legacy. Mr. Bush wants Greeks to forget their past and move on for today, but a man with no past is a man of no future, and that sadly applies to the state of FYROM. Mr. Bush (soon to be former President) and FYROM propagandists: Greek (Macedonian) history is not up for trade nor is our legacy up for sale. The identity of the people of Greece is Greek (or Hellenes), and tragically for the people from FYROM, Macedonia is part of Hellenic history. Feel free to create a new identity; and try not to steal from your neighbors. Identity theft is a crime Mr. Stefov and you should be ashamed of yourselves!
Every ethnic Macedonian who does not claim Albanian or Serbian origin has the right to declare a Bulgarian origin. This is an individual act in accordance with the historical reality of our common ethnic origin.
Stefan Nikolov,(Bulgarian diplomat - Agency for Bulgarians Abroad of the Bulgarian Foreign Ministry in Sofia), AFP report, Sunday 13 August 2006
We are Macedonians but we are Slav Macedonians. That’s who we are! We have no connection to Alexander the Greek and his Macedonia. The ancient Macedonians no longer exist, they had disappeared from history long time ago. Our ancestors came here in the 5th and 6th century (AD).Kiro Gligorov,(first democratically elected president of FYROM, referring to the citizens of his country), Toronto Star, March 15, 1992
24 February 1999: In an interview with the Ottawa Citizen, Gyordan Veselinov, FYROM´s Ambassador to Canada, admitted: “We are not related to the northern Greeks who produced leaders like Philip and Alexander the Great. We are a Slav people and our language is closely related to Bulgarian.” He also commented “there is some confusion about the identity of the people of this country.”
Moreover, the Foreign Minister of FYROM, Slobodan Casule, in an interview to Utrinski Vesnik of Skopje on December 29, 2001, said that he mentioned to the Foreign Minister of Bulgaria, Solomon Pasi, that they “belong to the same Slav people.”
For many years, since the decade of the ’90s, we have been making efforts so that the name ‘Republic of Macedonia’(FYROM) is not recognized, because no nation should steal the history and symbols of another nation.
Mike Rann, Australian politician
For Macedonia to be recognized as an independent state, it would be necessary to change its name […] It is historically proven that the Yugoslavian Democracy of Macedonia was created by Stalin, Tito and Dimitrov, aiming at the stealthy removal of a large part of Northern Greece. This Democracy was used during the period 1944-1949 in order to destabilise Greece.
Thomas Niles, US Ambassador
We talked a long time about the goal of this organization and at last we fixed it on autonomy of Macedonia with the priority of the Bulgarian element. We couldn’t accept the position for “direct joining to Bulgaria” because we saw that it would meet big difficulties by reason of confrontation of the Great powers and the aspirations of the neighbouring small countries and Turkey. It passed through our thoughts that one autonomous Macedonia could easier unite with Bulgaria subsequently and if the worst comes to the worst, that it could play a role as a unificating link of a federation of Balkan people. The region of Adrianople, as far as I remember, didn’t take part in our program, and I think the idea to add it to the autonomous Macedonia came later.
Dr. Hristo Tatarchev, Founding member of VMRO (IMRO)
Look, I believe that Greece is right to object and I agree with Athens. The reason is that I know history which is not the case with most of the others including most of the Government and Administration in Washington. The strength of the Greek case is that of the history which I must say that Athens have not used so far with success.
Henry Kissinger, Management Centre Europe, Paris, 19 June 1992
I call these songs Bulgarian and not Slavic, because if someone today should ask the Macedonian Slav “what are you?” he would be immediately be told: “I am Bulgarian” and would call his language “Bulgarian”.
Stefan Verkovich, Bosnian folklorist, “Folk Songs of the Macedonian Bulgarian”, Vol. 1
The Department has noted with considerable apprehension increasing propaganda rumors and semi-official statements in favor of an autonomous Macedonia emanating from Bulgaria, but also from Yugoslav partisan and other sources with the implication that Greek territory would be included in the projected State. This Government considers talk of “Macedonian Nation”, “Macedonian Fatherland”, or “Macedonian National Consciousness” to be unjustified demagoguery representing no ethnic or political reality, and sees in its present revival a possible cloak for aggressive intentions against Greece.
Edward R. Stettinius, Jr., U.S. State Dep. Foreign Relations Vol. VII, Circular Airgram [868.014]
There is no doubt that they are southern Slavs; they have a language, or a group of varying dialects, that is grammatically akin to Bulgarian but phonetically in some respects akin to Serbian, and which has certain quite distinctive features of its own……In regard to their own national feelings, all that can safely be said is that during the last eighty years many more Slav Macedonians seem to have considered themselves Bulgarian, or closely linked to Bulgaria, than have considered themselves Serbian, or closely linked to Serbia (or Yugoslavia). Only the people of the Skopje region, in the north west, have ever shown much tendency to regard themselves as Serbs. The feeling of being Macedonians, and nothing but Macedonians, seems to be a sentiment of fairly recent growth, and even today is not very deep-rooted.
Elisabeth Barker, “Macedonia, Its Place in Balkan Power Politics”
and Uskub, the great majority of the population is Slavic,[…] the middle ages until 1913 called themselves and were called by their neighbors Bulgarians.
George Hubbard Blakeslee, “The Journal of International Relations”.
When the Turks and the Bulgarians left, Macedonia remained a purely Greek region.
Henry Morgenthau, “I was sent to Athens”, Doubleday, Doran & Company, inc (1929).
Attention may have been deflected from the danger in that area by the nature of the dispute between Macedonia and Greece, which is seen as being ostensibly over a name, although it amounts to more than that. A name is important as it gives an area an identity. I shall not indulge in a lecture on the ancient identity of the Macedonians and on Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, but the Greeks were historically correct in the campaign that they launched in the early days of the dispute. Understandably, detached outsiders say, “But that is ancient history, isn’t it?” Nor shall I engage in a lecture on the falsification of the history of Slavo-Macedonia since 1944, although that, too, has much hard factual content. I simply remind the House that Tito’s renaming of Vardar Banovina as the Republic of Macedonia in 1944 was a political statement. More than that, it was a territorial claim. It laid claim to territory in Greece and in Bulgaria. Notably, the objective was the warm water port of Salonika on the Aegean.
The Greeks fought a bloody civil war on that issue between 1945 and 1949, when we were celebrating the peace that was commemorated as recently as yesterday. Clause 49 of the constitution of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia enshrines that claim and subsequent propaganda, especially by a political faction, the VMRO, has kept the claim alive ever since.
Edward O’Hara, House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 May 1995, Column 601
The idea that Alexander the Great was something that belonged to our history was in the minds of some extremist political groups only! These groups were insignificant the first years of our independence, but the big problem is that the old Balkan Nations have been used to be legitimized through their history. In the Balkans, if you want to be recognized as a Nation, you need to have history 3000 years old. So since you made us invent a history, we invented it!(…) You forced us to the arms of the extreme nationalists who today claim that we are direct descendants of Alexander the Great!
Denko Maleski, first Minister of foreign affairs of FYROM (1991 to 1993) and ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997, in an interview to Greek TV channel Mega, November 2006
The borders between Greece and Serbia were defined in 1913 on the basis of the advances of the armies of the two nations during the first Balkan war. The border between Greece and Bulgaria was defined at the Treaty of Bucharest. Since then, the borders of the three nations had remained the same. Macedonia, a region mostly of Greece since ancient times, was divided into three perhaps even four parts, with Greece keeping the largest portion of about 50%, then-Yugoslavia receiving about 35%, Bulgaria about 10% and a small percentage eventually ending in Albania. The Greek people on the portion of the Macedonia part in Greece have been there since time immemorial — over more than forty centuries before the Slavs arrived. The language spoken in the Greek region since antiquity is Greek, whereas the language of the former-Yugoslavia portion is a Slavic dialect of Bulgarian (Marline Simons, The New York Times, February 3, 1992). As a matter of fact, the portion of Macedonia in then-Yugoslavia was part of the Eastern Branch of the Roman Empire. The people who ruled over Serbia spoke Greek. Constantinople was their headquarters. Their main trade was to the South and East…
Joseph C. Harsch, American journalist, “The Christian Science Monitor”, January 29, 1992
A)We are Bulgarians, more Bulgarians than the Bulgarians in Bulgaria themselves.
B)And, anyway, what sort of new Macedonian nation can this be when we and our fathers and grandfathers and great-grandfathers have always been called Bulgarians?
Krste Misirkov(voted “Macedonian” of the 20th century), “On Macedonian Matters”, Macedonian Review Editions 1974,(Sofia 1903).
the Macedonian Slavs had as late as the congress of Berlin exhibited no perceptible national consciousness of their own. It was therefore impossible to foretell in what direction they would lean when their awakening came; in fact, so indeterminate was the situation that under favorable circumstances they might even develop their own particular Macedonian consciousness.
Ferdinand Schevill, “History of the Balkans: From the Earliest Times to the Present Day.
The star of vergina applies to the 3rd Century BC northern Greece - a very different situation, not related to the 21st Century AD. I think it’s modern politics, and we’re witnessing the use of an archaeological symbol for history that it’s really not related to.
Bajana Mojsov, FYROM archaeologist, “BBC News (2004), When archaeology gets bent, BBC World Service, 2004, The World Today programme”, Accessed 12 October 2006
But even stranger is the name Macedonians, which was imposed on us only 10 to 15 years ago by outsiders, and not as something by our own intellectuals… Yet the people in Macedonia know nothing of that ancient name, reintroduced today with a cunning aim on the one hand and a stupid one on the other. They know the older word: “Bugari”, although mispronounced: they have even adopted it as peculiarly theirs, inapplicable to other Bulgarians. You can find more about this in the introduction to the booklets I am sending you. They call their own Macedono-Bulgarian dialect the “Bugarski language”, while the rest of the Bulgarian dialects they refer to as the “Shopski language”.
Kuzman Shapkarev, in a letter to Prof. Marin Drinov of May 25, 1888.
The possible creation of a Macedonian free state within Greece to amalgamate with Marshal Tito’s Federated Macedonia State, with is capital in Skopje[…]would fulfill the Slavic objectives of re-uniting the…province of Macedonia under Slavic rule, giving access of the sea to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia
THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 26, 1946
Though once the heart of the empire of Alexander the Great,(Macedonia) has been for centuries a geographical expression rather than a political entity, and is today inhabited by an inextricable medley of people, among whom the Serbs, now Yugoslavs, are certainly the least numerous. But a “Federal Macedonia” has been projected as an integral part of Tito’s plan for a federated Balkans…taking Greek Macedonia for an outlet to the Aegean Sea through Salonica.
THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 10, 1946
During the occupation[…]a combined effort was made to wrest Macedonia from Greece[…]an effort that allegedly continues, although in altered form[…] The main conspirational activity in Macedonia today appears to be directed from Skopje.
THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 16, 1946
The possible creation of a Macedonian free state within Greece to amalgamate with Marshal Tito’s Federated Macedonia State, with is capital in Skopje[…]would fulfill the Slavic objectives of re-uniting the…province of Macedonia under Slavic rule, giving access of the sea to Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.
THE NEW YORK TIMES, July 26, 1946
According to most reliable information, a secret meeting was held yesterday at Comi in southern Bulgaria[…]to draw up plans for a general rising in Greek Macedonia, with the ultimate object of incorporating that region with Salonica in an autonomous Macedonia under Yugoslav hegemony.
THE NEW YORK TIMES, August 19, 1946
The lack of capability by “Macedonists” in condition of democracy, also contributes to the vision of their opponents. The creation of the “Macedonian” nation, for almost half of a century, was done in a condition of single-party dictatorship. In those times, there was no difference between science and ideology, so the “Macedonian” historiography, unopposed by anybody, comfortably performed a selection of the historic material from which the “Macedonian” identity was created. There is nothing atypical here for the process of the creation of any modern nation, except when falsification from the type of substitution of the word “Bulgarian” with the word “Macedonian” were made. In a case which that was not possible, the persons from history were proclaimed for Bulgarian agents who crossed into some imaginary pure “Macedonian” space.
But when we had to encourage the moderate Greek political variant and move into a direction of reconciliation among peoples, our nationalism was modelled according to the Greek one. The direct descendants of Alexander the Great raised the fallen flag on which the constitutional name of the Republic of Macedonia was written and led the people in the final confrontation with the Hellenes (Greeks), the direct descendants of Greek gods. This warlike attitude of the “winners” which was a consequence of the fear of politician from heavy and unpopular compromises had its price. In those years, we lost our capability for strategic dialog. With Greeks? No, with ourselves. Since then, namely, we reach towards some fictional ethnic purity which we seek in the depths of the history and we are angry at those which dare to call us Slavs and our language and culture Slavic!? We are angry when they name us what we -if we have to define ourselves in such categories- are, showing that we are people full with complexes which are ashamed for ourselves. We lost our capability for reasonable judgment, someone shall say, because the past of the Balkans teaches us that to be wise among fools is foolish. Maybe. Maybe the British historians are right when they say that in history one can find confirmation for every modern thesis, so, we could say, also for the one that we are descendants of the Ancient Macedonia…
Denko Maleski, Minister of foreign affairs of the FYROM from 1991 to 1993 and ambassador to the United Nations from 1993 to 1997, in an interview to FYROMian newspaper Utrinski Vesnik, October 16, 2006The province of Thessalonica (Saloniki) had, together with Greece, been awarded to the warlike Marquis Boniface of Montferrat with the royal title. It comprised the greater part of ancient Macedonia and Boniface carried his victorious arms into Greece, where he everywhere divided the conquered territories among his knights; but having perished in a skirmish with the Bulgarians, in 1207, his kingdom was invaded by the Greek despot, Theodore of Epirus who was received with open arms by the Greeks, and crowned emperor at Thessalonica in 1222.
Adolphus Louis Koeppen, Danish historian, “The World in the Middle Ages: An Historical Geography, with Accounts of the Origin”, Appleton, p.409
For Macedonia to be recognized as an independent state, it would be necessary to change its name […] It is historically proven that the Yugoslavian Democracy of Macedonia was created by Stalin, Tito and Dimitrov, aiming at the stealthy removal of a large part of Northern Greece. This Democracy was used during the period 1944-1949 in order to destabilise Greece.
Thomas Niles, US Ambassador, statement on the 23rd June 1992 to the SubCommittee of US Congress, Eleutherotypia newspaper, June 24, 1992
have even met people who believe there is a special race which they call ‘Macedonian’, whose ’cause’ they wish to aid. The truth is, that in a district which has no official frontiers, and never has had any stable ones, there are people of six races, who, as we have seen, all have causes to be considered […] I shall speak only of the part I have stayed in- the districts of Lakes Ochrida and Prespa. Here there are Greeks, Slavs, Albanians, and Vlahs. Of Turks, except officials and such of the army as may be quartered on the spot, there are few. The Albanians, I believe, are all Moslem. Should there be any Christians they would be officially classed as Greeks. A large part of the land near Lake Prespa is owned by Moslem Albanians as “chiftliks” (farms).
Edith Durham, “The Burden of the Balkans”, (1905), p. 76
But the Bulgarians, from the palace down to the meanest hut, have always been animated by that racial and national idea. The annexation of Eastern Roumelia in 1885 was a great step in the direction of its realization. And it was to carry that programme to completion that Bulgaria made war against Turkey in 1912. Her primary object was the liberation of the Bulgarians in Macedonia and their incorporation in a Great Bulgaria. And the Treaty of Partition with Servia seemed, in the event of victory over Turkey, to afford a guarantee of the accomplishment of her long-cherished purpose. It was a strange irony of fate that while as a result of the geographical situation of the belligerents Bulgaria, at the close of the war with Turkey, found herself in actual occupation of all European Turkey from the Black Sea up to the River Struma and beyond,–that is, all Thrace to Chataldja as well as Eastern Macedonia–her allies (Bulgaria’s) were in possession of the bulk of Macedonia, including the entire triangle she had planned to inject between the frontiers of New Servia and New Greece!
American educationist Jacob Gould Schurman, The Balkan Wars: 1912-1913
Attention may have been deflected from the danger in that area by the nature of the dispute between Macedonia and Greece, which is seen as being ostensibly over a name, although it amounts to more than that. A name is important as it gives an area an identity. I shall not indulge in a lecture on the ancient identity of the Macedonians and on Philip II of Macedon and Alexander the Great, but the Greeks were historically correct in the campaign that they launched in the early days of the dispute. Understandably, detached outsiders say, “But that is ancient history, isn’t it?” Nor shall I engage in a lecture on the falsification of the history of Slavo-Macedonia since 1944, although that, too, has much hard factual content. I simply remind the House that Tito’s renaming of Vardar Banovina as the Republic of Macedonia in 1944 was a political statement. More than that, it was a territorial claim. It laid claim to territory in Greece and in Bulgaria. Notably, the objective was the warm water port of Salonika on the Aegean.
The Greeks fought a bloody civil war on that issue between 1945 and 1949, when we were celebrating the peace that was commemorated as recently as yesterday. Clause 49 of the constitution of the former Yugoslav republic of Macedonia enshrines that claim and subsequent propaganda, especially by a political faction, the VMRO, has kept the claim alive ever since.
Edward O’Hara, House of Commons Hansard Debates for 9 May 1995, Column 601
Why are we ashamed and flee from the truth that whole positive Macedonian revolutionary tradition comes exactly from exarchist part of Macedonian people? We shall not say a new truth if we mention the fact that everyone, Gotse Delchev, Dame Gruev, Gjorche Petrov, Pere Toshev - must I list and count all of them - were teachers of the Bulgarian Exarchate in Macedonia.
Former Prime Minister and Vice President of FYROM, Ljubčo Georgievski, 2007, in his book “Слицекъмистината” (”Facing the truth”).
Dear Editors,I feel obliged to write to you in order to express my deepest concern for the deliberate manipulation of well-evidenced historical events which is clearly reflected in the article “Most modern Greeks today believe the Ancient Macedonians were Greek” written by Mr. Risto Stefov. The specific article is full of unfounded claims, an enmity addressed against Greek people and sophisticated misrepresentations of the ancient Greek history with its main aim to deceive the unsuspected reader by attempting to present false claims, disguised to sound truthful.
Before proceeding through a point by point refutation of the baseless claims presented in article in question, I would like to point out that the title of the article is misleading. Certainly it´s not “Most modern Greeks” who accept the fact that ancient Macedonians were Greek but instead it´s the vast majority of the world today, including the core of the contemporary modern historians who accept it as a fact.
To rephrase the author´s initial question…Why is it so important in general for the Slavic element of the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM) which Mr. Stefov belongs, to believe that the ancient Macedonians were not Greek?
The answer is simple and plain. Because somehow they live under a misguided notion. Particularly, they believe that by disassociating Greeks from ancient Macedonians, this will mean in their illusionary point of view, they, the descendants of the Slavic and Bulgar tribes that entered the Balkan peninsula in the 6th and 7th centuries, are the historical heirs and descendants of the ancient Macedonians who lived a thousand or more years earlier and who were Greeks by their own testimonies. One can hardly go further in Orwellian double-speak. This absurd notion supported increasingly among the Slavs of FYROM, makes as much sense as asserting that if someone manages to prove a car´s color is not white, this would surely mean it is black!
Furthermore Mr. Stefov embarks on an clumsy effort to spread mendacious disinformation as regards to the events of the early 20th century. Incorrectly he states “Didn´t Greece in 1912, 1913 invade and occupy a fully populated Macedonia?” while the truth is that nobody has invaded Macedonia in 1913 but instead during the first Balkan war, the Balkan coalition between Bulgaria, Serbia and Greece invaded Ottoman Empire, for the liberation of the Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbs who lived there. Sadly for the author´s empty claims there was not back then, any ethnicity called ´Macedonian´. The term was used merely as a geographical indicator.
To quote some accounts of contemporary self-witnesses that shatters Mr. Stefov´s unfounded claims and deliberate misinformation:
John Foster Fraser in his “Pictures from the Balkans” verifies: “But who are the Macedonians [5]? You will find Bulgarians and Turks who call themselves Macedonians, you find Greek Macedonians, there are Serbian Macedonians, and it is possible to find Rumanian Macedonians. You will NOT, however, find a single Christian Macedonian who is not a Serbian, a Bulgarian, a Greek, or a Rumanian. They all curse the Turk, and they love Macedonia. But it is Greek Macedonia, or Bulgarian Macedonia, and their eyes flame with passion, whilst their fingers seek the triggers of their guns”. He further adds “I have some hope that in years to come the inhabitants will think less of their Turkish, Bulgarian or Greek Origin and a great deal more with the fact that they are all Macedonians”[2].
Edmund Spencer in his “Travels in European Turkey, in 1850…”writes “The population of Uskioub [Note: Modern Skopje], consisting of Arnouts, Jews, Armenians, Zinzars, Greeks, Bulgarians and Serbians, amounts to upwards of twelve thousand” [3]. Again another clear evidence there was no “Macedonian” ethnicity back then but instead it´s a modern “invention”.
Additionally, John Van Antwerp Fine gives us a realistic portrait of the situation in the Macedonian region by writing: “Until the late nineteenth century both outside observers and those Bulgaro-Macedonians who had an ethnic consciousness believed that their group, which is NOW two separate nationalities, comprised a SINGLE people, THE BULGARIANS [4]. Thus the reader should IGNORE references to ethnic Macedonians in the Middle Ages which appear in some modern works. In the Middle Ages and into the nineteenth century, the term ´Macedonian´ was used ENTIRELY in reference to a geographical region. Anyone who lived within its confines, regardless of nationality could be called a Macedonian.”.
Furthermore, Arthur Douglas Howden Smith in 1908 adds: “It should be remembered, to begin with, that there is NO Macedonian race, as a distinct type [5]. Macedonians may belong to any of the races of Eastern Europe or Western Asia, as, indeed, they do. A Macedonian Bulgar is just the same as a Bulgar of Bulgaria proper, the old principality, that in October, 1908, at Tirnova, was proclaimed independent of Turkey. He looks the same, talks the same, and very largely, thinks the same way. IN SHORT HE IS OF THE SAME STOCK. There is no difference, whatsoever, between the two branches of the race, except that the Macedonian Bulgars, as a result of their position under the Turkish government, have less culture and education than their northern brethren.”
To help the readers having a more informative view over the issue on stake, I urge them to take a look in the following link. It contains a vast number of excerpts taken by 90 neutral sources, written by travelers, historians, diplomats related to the subject which put an end to the unfounded claims over a so-called “Macedonian “Ethnicity back then. Mr. Stefov, conveniently for his agenda, chooses to ignore all the overwhelming evidence.
http://history-of-macedonia.com/wordpress/2008/04/28/ultimate-source-list-of-internet-about-the-bulgarian-origins-of-slavs-in-fyrom/Lets return back to the core issue of Mr. Stefov´s article. Namely the ethnicity of Ancient Macedonians. Of course there is no issue at all, whether the modern Slavs
descendants of the Slavic tribes that invaded the Balkan peninsula centuries after the demise of the ancient Macedonian kingdom have any link with ancient Macedonians. Obviously as verified by any serious historian, they haven´t!!!
1. The Ancient Macedonians spoke a dialect of the Greek language
Mr. Stefov incorrectly assumes that “This [Koine] was an international language which was used in the Macedonian court and by the Macedonian administration.”. This is simply fallacious and deserves an immediate rectification. Koine became the international language BECAUSE of Alexander´s campaign. Prior to Alexander´s campaign, ancient people like Illyrians, Persians, Paeonians, Indians, Carthaginians, Romans, Thracians, Egyptians, Dardanians did NOT speak Greek. Most of them begun to speak Greek (Koine) AFTER Alexander´s pan-Hellenic campaign to Asia. Therefore Mr. Stefov´s conclusions are entirely wrong since his own premises are erroneous in the first place.
The eminent linguist Olivier Masson states “For a long while Macedonian on mastics, which we know relatively well thanks to history, literary authors, and epigraphy, has played a considerable role in the discussion [6]. In our view the Greek character of most names is obvious and it is difficult to think of a Hellenization due to wholesale borrowing. ´Ptolemaios´ is attested as early as Homer, ´Ale3avdros´ occurs next to Mycenaean feminine a-re-ka-sa-da-ra- (´Alexandra´), ´Laagos´, then ´Lagos´, matches the Cyprian ´Lawagos´, etc. The small minority of names which do not look Greek, like ´Arridaios´ or ´Sabattaras´, may be due to a substratum or adstatum influences (as elsewhere in Greece). Macedonian may then be seen as a Greek dialect, characterized by its marginal position and by local pronunciations (like ´Berenika´ for ´Ferenika´, etc.). Yet in contrast with earlier views which made of it an Aeolic dialect (O.Hoffmann compared Thessalian) we must by now think of a link with North-West Greek (Locrian, Aetolian, Phocidian, Epirote). This view is supported by the recent discovery at Pella of a curse tablet (4th cent. BC) which may well be the first ´Macedonian´ text attested (provisional publication by E.Voutyras; cf. the Bulletin Epigraphique in Rev.Et.Grec.1994, no.413); the text includes an adverb ´opoka´ which is not Thessalian. We must wait for new discoveries, but we may tentatively conclude that Macedonian is a dialect related to North-West Greek.”
2. The ancient Macedonians prayed to the same Greek gods as the ancient Greeks.
The poorly-chosen argumentation reveals Mr.Stefov´s inconsistence with ancient history. His lack of evidence subsequently forces him to produce irrelevant anachronistic analogies with…Christianity even if it is more than obvious we are talking about issues having to do merely with classical ages. Mr. Stefov, for your discomfort, it is only Greeks which gave their deities the familiar Greek epithets, such as Agoraios, Basileus, Olympios, Hypsistos of Zeus, Basileia of Hera, Soter of Apollo, Hagemona and Soteira of Artemis, Boulaia of Hestia, etc and naturally Macedonians as being Greek themselves, were doing similarly which certainly is not the case for non-Greek people. Furthermore nowadays historians agree that Macedonians had the religious and cultural features of the rest Hellenic world.
The worship of the twelve Olympian gods in Macedonia is undoubted
and it is shown explicitly in the treaty between Philip V and Hannibal of Carthage “`In the presence of Zeus, Hera and Apollo …and in the presence of ALL THE GODS who possess Macedonia AND THE REST OF HELLAS” [7].
3. The ancient Macedonians united the ancient Greek city states and spread the “Hellenic” language and culture to the known world.
Mr. Stefov adds further his own misguided perception which is the epitome of misinformation. He states “Macedonia fought and defeated the so called “Greeks” in battle and subjugated them from 338 BC until 206 BC when they were briefly liberated and again subjugated by the Romans”.
This is another terrible effort to create the wrong impression amongst the readers that “Macedonians fought Greeks in Chaeronea”. Contrarily, in Chaeronea the opposing sides were:
ξύμμαχακαιυπήκοα
[allied and SUBJECTED]. One line of approach was direct annexation attempted disastrously by Perdiccas II and successfully by Philip.”Prof. Bosworth adds “Lyncestis probably co-operated with the Illyrian invaders as before in the war against Archelaus, the chaos in lower Macedon at the accession of Amyntas was an ideal time to avenge the annexation attempted by Perdiccas and probably by Archelaus”.
Essentially Mr. Stefov just managed with his above wrong assertion to dissolve his own self-made ´construction´ of ancient Macedonian history speaking about a “unified” Macedonian kingdom.
In relation to the spread of Greek language and culture declares quite amusingly that: “As for spreading the so-called “Hellenic” language and culture, there is no evidence that the Macedonians exclusively did this for the sole purpose of honoring the “Greeks”. The Macedonians gave the world what the Macedonians had and considered to be of value”.
I will briefly analyze the falsification of the author´s assertion, before presenting an enumeration of ancient sources [9] proving that Alexander launched a Pan-Hellenic campaign against Persia and through his conquests spread Hellenism in a vast colonizing wave throughout the Near East. Furthermore he created economically and culturally, a single world stretching from Greece to the Punjab in India with Greek (koine) as lingua franca. He built a network of almost thirty Greek cities throughout the empire, a building program that was expanded by later Hellenistic rulers. These became enclaves of Greek culture. Here gymnasia, baths, and theaters were built. The upper classes spoke koine Greek, wore Greek dress, absorbed Greek learning, adopted Greek customs, and took part in Greek athletics. Ancient sources reports as such and the pan-Hellenic character of his campaign were the definitive statements of the Macedonian royalty and nobility. We find Greek language, poleis, architecture, and art expand As far east as India. Even in Judaea of Roman times, there was a group of Jews called “The Hellenists”. The Greek language survived in the Indian region as late as about AD 120, when the Kushan king Kanishka, who ruled western India, Bactria, and Sogdiana (in an inscription) declared that Greek was to be replaced by “Aryan” (the Bactrian language).
It would be essential to complete this reply with numerous excerpts showing exactly how ancient Macedonians felt themselves about their own ethnicity. After all this is what matters mostly.
Athens, Beotian League (Thebes, etc), Euboean League, Achaean League, Corinth, Megara, Corcyra, Acarnania, Ambracia, Southern Phocis.
Neutral sides
Sparta, Argos, Arcadia, Messene. The three last had alliances both with Athens and Philip but their pro-Macedonian activity of 344/3 BC showed they were leaning towards Philip. However they didn´t sent aid to Chaeronea in Philip´s side because of the blocking in Isthmus by Corinth and Megara. Sparta had withdrawn almost entirely from Greek affairs in 344 BC.
Elis had an alliance with Philip though they didn´t take part in Chaeronea but showed their pro-Macedonian feelings by joining their forces with Philip in the invasion of Laconia in the autumn of 338 BC.
In other words, we find on both sides Greeks!!! We are dealing apparently with a Greek civil war!!
If this is translated to Mr. Stefov´s illusionary world that “Macedonians fought Greeks” then following the same irrational line of thought, we have to assume in Coronea “Spartans also confronted Greeks”.
Battle of Coronea (394 BC)
Combatants
Sparta Vs Thebes, Argos, and allies
In addition, the author adds “So, according to “Greek” logic, the Macedonians united the so-called “Greek” city states by subjugating and subordinating them under Macedonian control. By the same “Greek” logic we can conclude that Hitler too, in WWII, united the Europeans by subjugating them and placing them under German control.”
Here we get a trustful and genuine proof of the author´s selective quotation and hypocrisy. If we are to take his assertion as truthful, then the author ignores conveniently the fact that even the “Unification” between Lower Macedonia and the Upper Macedonian kingdoms by the Argead Royal house was forceful. In fact the annexation of Upper Macedonia took centuries to be successful.
According to the eminent historian prof. A. B. Bosworth [8]
“The upper kingdoms then had a constant struggle to preserve their independence and fostered alliances with the peoples to the west and north. On the other hand the policy of the kings of Macedon was to make the recalcitrant mountaineers truly “
1. Alexander I, king of Macedon:“Men of Athens… Had I not greatly AT HEART the COMMON welfare of GREECE I should not have come to tell you; but I AM MYSELF GREEK by descent, and I would not willingly see Greece exchange freedom for slavery. …If you prosper in this war, forget not to do something for my freedom; consider the risk I have run, out of zeal for the GREEK CAUSE, to acquaint you with what Mardonius intends, and to save you from being surprised by the barbarians. I am ALEXANDER of MACEDON.”
Herodotus, The Histories, 9.45, translated by G.Rawlinson]
2. Alexander The Great:“Your ancestors invaded Macedonia and the rest of Greece and did US great harm, though WE had done them no prior injury […] I have been appointed hegemon of the Greeks”
(Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander II,14,4)
3. Alexander the Great speaking to his troops:There are Greek troops, to be sure, in Persian service — but how different is their cause from ours ! They will be fighting for pay— and not much of it at that; WE on the contrary shall fight for GREECE, and OUR HEARTS WILL BE IN IT. As for our FOREIGN troops —Thracians, Paeonians, Illyrians,Agrianes — they are the best and stoutest soldiers of Europe, and they will find as their opponents the slackest and softest of the tribes of Asia.
Arrian (The Campaigns of Alexander) Alexander talking to the troops before the battle. Book 2-7 Penguin Classics. Page 112. Translation by Aubrey De Seliucourt
4. Alexander The Great and Diogenes
“But he said, ´If I were not Alexandros, I should be Diogenes´; that is to say: `If it were not my purpose to combine barbarian things with things HELLENIC, to traverse and civilize every continent, to search out the uttermost parts of land and sea, TO PUSH THE BOUNDS OF MACEDONIA TO THE FARTHEST OCEAN, AND TO DISSEMINATE AND SHOWER THE BLESSINGS OF HELLENIC JUSTICE and peace over every nation, I should not be content to sit quietly in the luxury of idle power, but I should emulate the frugality of Diogenes. But as things are, forgive me Diogenes, that I imitate Herakles, and emulate Perseus, and follow in the footsteps of Dionysos, the divine author and progenitor of my family, and DESIRE THAT VICTORIOUS HELLENES SHOULD DANCE AGAIN in India […]”
5. Alexander the Great dedication to Athena:
Alexander, son of Philip, and the Greeks, except the Lacedaemonians, from the barbarian inhabitants in AsiaMany more excerpts can be found on:
Conclusion: As it is evident from the extensive analysis of the facts, Mr. Stefov´s article consists of an overall historical falsification and distorted presentation of facts. Of course it´s his and his people right to denounce for whatever reason this may be, their well-attested from all sources Slavic/Bulgarian origin and history but it´s not their right to usurp the history and heritage which rightfully and evidently belongs to Greece. I hope that Mr. Stefov and the people he represents will eventually find a name which represents their heritage - “Macedonia” evidently does not!
Οι Σκοπιανοί που λέτε ίδρυσαν και την “Society of ancient Macedonians” στα Σκόπια. Το γέλιο είναι τα γραφεία τους στεγάζονται ακριβώς απο κάτω απο…την “Society of Bulgarians in the Republic of ‘Macedonia’” (sic)!!!!
Οι κακές γλώσσες λοιπόν λένε ότι και οι δυό “Societies“ αποτελούνται απο τα….ίδια άτομα. Κάτι σαν 09:00-15:00 το παίζουν ένδοξοι απόγονοι…αρχαίων Μακεδόνων και 15:00-20:00 ανεβαίνουν έναν όροφο και γίνονται…υπερήφανοι Βούλγαροι!!!! Ακολουθεί και η φώτο που γίνονται οι συνεστιάσεις των ενδόξων απογόνων του…Aleksandar Makedonski!!!
Y.Γ. Για τους τυχόν κακόβουλους…Όχι, οι απόγονοι των αρχ. Makedonski δεν πουλάνε συνολάκια!!! Το διπλανό μαγαζί είναι!
The Russian reemergence as a global power after years of absence following the end of the Cold War, has had many repercussions and has therefore provided the incentive for US foreign policy to accelerate certain processes and tie up loose ends. One of these has been the military encirclement of Russia (the discovery of the “new Europe” during the second Iraq war, the installation of the anti-ballistic shield in Poland and the Czech Republic, the NATO enlargement with former Soviet Republics and Warsaw-pact countries on the Russian borders, etc). Another has been the “Balkanization” of the Balkans, meaning their slicing into small, weak and quarrelling states subservient to the US, a policy also followed by the EU. This new reality is expected to greatly benefit the US-Turkish hegemony over this geopolitically vital region (many oil and natural gas pipelines already pass, or are planned to pass from there in the near future, circumventing Russian oil routes). This policy was inaugurated during Bill Clinton’s presidency, with the dismemberment of Yugoslavia after 1992, and continued with the NATO bombings of Serbia in 1999 and its own subsequent dismemberment. It has now culminated with the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo and its secession from Serbia.
Often these two policies coincide, e.g. as happens with the US goal of including into NATO the states formerly belonging to Yugoslavia. As part of this acceleration, George W. Bush has decided to recognize FYROM (Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia) with the contested (by Greece) name of “Republic of Macedonia”. And he chose to do this on November 4th 2004, only hours after his reelection. His aim was to stabilize FYROM’s inherently unstable government in view of a very controversial referendum just three days later (November 7th 2004). The stabilization of FYROM as a state is still an open question, due to its competing Slav and Albanian populations (violent fights had broken out on 2001); its Euro-Atlantic integration is considered as the remedy for all ills. This is why G. W. Bush pushed so hard to include it in the NATO enlargement during last April’s NATO summit.
The conflict with Greece stems from FYROM’s demand to be internationally recognized as the “Republic of Macedonia”, asserting that it is the state of the descendents of ancient Macedonians (the kingdom of Alexander the Great), implying claims to the Greek province of Macedonia in Northern Greece. I will be referring to this doctrine “Slavomacedonism”. I will not go into the historical veracity of these claims, as this would take too much space and time (very briefly, ancient Macedonia was a Greek kingdom, while modern “Macedonians” have a Slavic descent as FYROM’s first President Kiro Gligorof had admitted in 1992, when he said: “We are Slavs, we have no connection with Alexander the Great, we came to this area in the 6th century A.D.”). Besides, 25% of FYROM’s population are ethnic Albanians (2002 census), who do not ascribe to this “Macedonian” descent. Thus, I will rather analyze the roots of Slavomacedonism, the ensuing conflict and its implications on Greek security and sovereignty. And eventually on regional stability, should these claims be considered useful for regional destabilization.
Brief historical overview
Macedonia in antiquity was a Greek kingdom, mostly known by the reign of King Phillip II and the legacy of his son, Alexander the Great. The whole debate of ancient Macedonians being ethnically, genetically, linguistically, and culturally related to the present Slavophone populations of the region has been created (as will be described) for particular geopolitical purposes. It is not worth spending time and space to debunk it here. Instead, I would rather proceed to describe the creation of Slavomacedonism.
Macedonia till the mid 19th century
Slavs started migrating into Central Europe and the Balkans (including the region of Macedonia) from the Ukraine, in the beginnings of 6th century AD. In medieval times, Slavs managed to create several state-like formations (Bulgaria, Moravia, Russia, Poland, Serbia and Croatia, in chronological order). However, many Slav populations did not do so. Instead, they were assimilated by neighboring states, as distinct linguistic communities, but without a distinct national identity. For example, when the “Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes” was formed in 1918, a referendum was held to determine the luck of the Austrian province of Carinthia, on the Northern border of the newly established Kingdom. Carinthia was populated by a 2/3 Slovene-speaking (Slavophone) majority and a 1/3 German-speaking minority. Despite that, however, 59.1% of Carinthians (22,025) opted to stay within Austria, while only 40.9% (15,279) opted to join the Slavic kingdom. Thus, most Slavophone Carinthians opted to remain within Austria, showing that their national identity diverged from
.jpg)