The Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO; ; ), was a secret revolutionary society founded in the Ottoman territories in Europe, that operated in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.


title: Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization

text: Founded in 1893 in Salonica, initially, it aimed to gain autonomy for Macedonia and Adrianople regions in the Ottoman Empire, however, later it became an agent serving Bulgarian interests in Balkan politics. IMRO group modeled itself after the Internal Revolutionary Organization of Vasil Levski and accepted its motto "Freedom or Death" (Свобода или смърть). Starting in 1896 it fought the Ottomans using guerrilla tactics, and in this they were successful, even establishing a state within a state in some regions, including their tax collectors. This effort escalated in 1903 into the Ilinden–Preobrazhenie Uprising. The fighting involved about 15,000 IMRO irregulars and 40,000 Ottoman soldiers. After the uprising failed, and the Ottomans destroyed some 100 villages, the IMRO resorted to more systematic forms of terrorism targeting civilians. During the Balkan Wars and the First World War, the organization supported the Bulgarian army and joined Bulgarian war-time authorities when they temporarily took control over parts of Thrace and Macedonia. In this period autonomism as a political tactic was abandoned and annexationist positions were supported, aiming eventual incorporation of occupied areas into Bulgaria.


text: After the First World War the combined Macedonian-Thracian revolutionary movement separated into two detached organizations, IMRO and ITRO. After this moment the IMRO earned a reputation as an ultimate terror network, seeking to change state frontiers in the Macedonian regions of Greece and Serbia (later Yugoslavia). They contested the partitioning of Macedonia and launched raids from their Petrich stronghold into Greek and Yugoslav territory. Their base of operation in Bulgaria was jeopardized by the Treaty of Niš, and the IMRO reacted by assassinating Bulgarian prime minister Aleksandar Stamboliyski in 1923, with the cooperation of other Bulgarian elements opposed to him. In 1925 the Greek army launched a cross-border operation to reduce the IMRO base area, but it was ultimately stopped by the League of Nations, and IMRO attacks resumed. In the interwar period the IMRO also cooperated with the Croatian Ustaše, and their ultimate victim was Alexander I of Yugoslavia, assassinated in France in 1934. After the Bulgarian coup d'état of 1934, their Petrich stronghold was subjected to military crackdown by the Bulgarian army, and the IMRO was reduced to a marginal phenomenon.


text: The organization changed its name on several occasions. After the fall of communism in the region, numerous parties claimed the IMRO name and lineage to legitimize themselves. Among them, in Bulgaria a right-wing party carrying the prefix "VMRO" was established in the 1990s, while in the Republic of Macedonia a right-wing party was established under the name "VMRO-DPMNE".


text: The organization was founded in 1893 in Ottoman Thessaloniki by a small band of anti-Ottoman Macedono-Bulgarian revolutionaries, who considered Macedonia an indivisible territory and claimed all of its inhabitants ""Macedonians"", no matter their religion or ethnicity. In practice, IMRO was established by Bulgarians and most of their followers were Bulgarians. The organization was a secret revolutionary society operating in the late 19th and early 20th centuries with the goal of autonomous Macedonia and Adrianople regions. Initially, they were against the aspirations of neighboring states in the area and saw the future autonomous Macedonia and Southern Thrace as a multi-ethnic entity. It appears likely that at the early stages of the struggle, a desired outcome of the autonomy was unification with Bulgaria. This aim was changed later with the idea of transforming the Balkans into a federal state, in which Macedonia and Thrace would enter as equal members. The idea of autonomy was strictly political and did not imply a secession from Bulgarian ethnicity. Even those, who advocated for independent Macedonia and Thrace, never doubted the predominantly Bulgarian character of the Slavic population in both areas. The organization was founded by Hristo Tatarchev, Dame Gruev, Petar Pop-Arsov, Andon Dimitrov, Hristo Batandzhiev and Ivan Hadzhinikolov. Most of them (with the exception of Ivan Hadzhinikolov) were closely connected with the Bulgarian Men's High School of Thessaloniki. According to Hristo Tatarchev's "Memoirs", IMRO was first called simply the Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (MRO). Ivan Hadzhinikolov in his memoirs lists the five basic principles of the MRO's foundation:


text: The "Adrianople Region" was the general name given by the Organization to those areas of Thrace which, like Macedonia, had been left under Turkish rule i.e. most of it, where the Bulgarian element predominated in the mixed population, too. The organized revolutionary movement in Thrace dates from 1895, when Dame Gruev recruited Hristo Kotsev, born in Shtip, who was then a teacher in the Bulgarian Men's High School of Adrianople. Acting in the name of the Central Committee, Kotsev set up a regional committee in Adrianople, and gradually committees were established in a large area.


text: Based on historical evidences, it is believed by Bulgarian, Western and Russian historians that in 1896 or 1897 this first and probably unofficial name was changed to Bulgarian Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Committees (BMARC); and the organisation existed under this name until 1902, when it was changed to Secret Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (SMARO). While part of the Macedonian historians also acknowledge the existence of the name "ВMARC" in the very early period of the Organisation (1894–1896), in the Republic of Macedonia it is generally assumed that in the 1896–1902 period the name of the organization was "SMARO". Both sides lack conclusive documentary evidence, as neither of these names appears in the IMRO documents but is known from undated printed or handwritten statutes. However, Macedonian historians point to the fact that a copy of the "SMARO" statute is kept in London under the year of 1898. It is not disputed that the organization changed its name to Internal Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization (IMARO) in 1905 and it is under this name referred to in Bulgarian historiography. After disbanding itself during the first Bulgarian annexation of Macedonia (1915–1918), the organization was revived in 1920 under the name Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (IMRO), under which it is generally known today.


text: The stated goal of the original Committee was to unite all elements dissatisfied with the Ottoman oppression in Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet, eventually obtaining political autonomy for the two regions. In this task, the organisation hoped to enlist the support of the local Aromanians and Megleno-Romanians, Greeks and even Turks. Efforts were concentrated on moral propaganda and the prospect of rebellion and terrorist actions seemed distant. The organization developed quickly: only in a matter of a few years, the Committee had managed to establish a wide network of local organisations across Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet. These usually centered around the schools of the Bulgarian Exarchate and had as leaders local or Bulgarian-born teachers.


text: Although IMRO was predominantly ethnic Bulgarian since its establishment, it favoured the idea of an autonomous Macedonia and preferred to disassociate itself from official Bulgarian policy and was not under government control. Its founding leaders believed that an autonomous movement was more likely to find favour with the Great Powers than one which was a tool of the Bulgarian government. In the words of British contemporary observer Henry Brailsford:


text: What is more, some of its younger leaders espoused radical socialist and anarchist ideas and saw their goal as the establishment of a new form of government rather than unification with Bulgaria. Eventually, these considerations led the organisation to change its statute and accept as members not only Bulgarians but all Macedonians and Odrinians regardless of ethnicity or creed. In reality, however, besides some Aromanian members, its membership remained overwhelmingly Bulgarian Exarchist.


text: In regard to the socialist and cosmopolitan ideas within the revolutionary movement, the American Albert Sonnichsen says:


text: It is claimed by contemporary historians that the right wing supporters within the IMRO were probably much more likely to see unification with Bulgaria as a natural final outcome of Macedonian autonomy. Among other documents, they cite as an expression of this understanding the official letter that Dame Gruev and Boris Sarafov, leaders of the headquarters of the Second Macedonian-Adrianople revolutionary district during the Ilinden uprising, wrote to the Bulgarian government:


text: In his Macedonistic publication "On Macedonian Matters" written in the wake of the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie uprising, Krste Misirkov, a highly controversial writer who alternated between pan-Bulgarian and pan-Macedonian nationalism throughout his lifetime, described the IMARO as an organization of Bulgarian officials who work for Bulgarian interests and who are linked in name, and in church and school matters, to the people of Bulgaria, their country and their interests. Misirkov wrote:


text: Dimitar Vlahov, another extremely controversial politician and revolutionary, who also alternated between pan-Bulgarian and pan-Macedonian nationalism, member of the left wing of the Macedonian-Adrianople revolutionary movement, later Bulgarian deputy in Ottoman Parliament, afterwards one of the main leaders of IMRO (United) – de facto extension of the Bulgarian Communist Party, finally elected in 1946 as ethnic Macedonian vice-president of the Praesidium of Communist Yugoslavia's Parliament, expressed in his book ""The struggles of Macedonian people for freedom"", published in Vienna in 1925, his view, confirmed again in Vlahov's ""Memoirs"", published in Skopje in 1970:


text: The initial period of idealism for IMARO ended, however, with the Vinitsa Affair and the discovery by the Ottoman police of a secret depot of ammunition near the Bulgarian border in 1897. The wide-scale repressions against the activists of the Committee led to its transformation into a militant guerilla organization, which engaged into attacks against Ottoman officials and punitive actions against suspected traitors. The guerilla groups of IMARO, known as "chetas" (чети) later (after 1903) also waged a war against the pro-Serbian and pro-Greek armed groups during the Greek Struggle for Macedonia.


text: IMARO's leadership of the revolutionary movement was challenged by two other factions: the Macedonian Supreme Committee in Sofia ("Vurhoven makedono-оdrinski komitet" – Върховен македоно-одрински комитет) and a smaller group of conservatives in Salonica – Bulgarian Secret Revolutionary Brotherhood ("Balgarsko Tayno Revolyutsionno Bratstvo"). The latter was incorporated in IMARO by 1902 but its members as Ivan Garvanov, were to exert a significant influence on the organization.


text: They were to push for the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising and later became the core of IMRO right-wing faction. The former organisation became known earlier than IMRO, after the 1895 raids into Turkish territory it organised from Bulgaria. Its founders were Macedonian immigrants in Bulgaria as well as Bulgarian army officers. They became known as the "supremists" or "externals" since they were based outside of Macedonia. The supremists resorted to terrorism against the Ottomans in the hope of provoking a war and thus Bulgarian annexation of Macedonia. For a time in the late 1890s IMARO leaders managed to gain control of the Supreme Committee but it soon split into two factions: one loyal to the IMARO and one led by some officers close to the Bulgarian prince. The second one staged an ill-fated uprising in Eastern Macedonia in 1902, where they were opposed militarily by local IMARO bands led by Yane Sandanski and Hristo Chernopeev, who were later to become the leaders of the IMARO left wing.


text: In Spring 1903, a group by young anarchists connected with IMARO from the "Gemidzhii Circle" – graduates from the Bulgarian secondary school in Thessaloniki – launched a campaign of terror bombing with the aim to attract the attention of the Great Powers to Ottoman oppression in Macedonia and Eastern Thrace.


text: In the same time the undisputed leader of the organization, Gotse Delchev, was killed in a skirmish with Turkish forces. Although Delchev had opposed the ideas for an uprising as premature, he finally had no choice but agree to that course of action but at least managed to delay its start from May to August. After his death in 1903 IMARO organised the Ilinden-Preobrazhenie Uprising against the Ottomans in Macedonia and the Adrianople Vilayet, which after the initial successes including the forming of the Krushevo Republic, was crushed with much loss of life.


text: The failure of the 1903 insurrection resulted in the eventual split of the IMARO into a left-wing (federalist) faction in the Seres and Strumica districts and a right-wing faction (centralists) in the Salonica, Monastir, and Uskub (present-day Skopje) districts. The left-wing faction opposed Bulgarian nationalism and advocated the creation of a Balkan Socialist Federation with equality for all subjects and nationalities. The Supreme Macedonian Committee was disbanded in 1903 but the centralist faction of the IMORO drifted more and more towards Bulgarian nationalism as its regions became increasingly exposed to the incursions of Serb and Greek armed bands, which started infiltrating Macedonia after 1903. The years 1905–1907 saw much fighting between IMORO and Turkish forces as well as between IMORO and Greek and Serb detachments. Meanwhile, the split between the two factions became final when in 1907 Todor Panitza killed the right-wing activists Boris Sarafov and Ivan Garvanov. The armed Albanian bands of Çerçiz Topulli cooperated and were on good terms with armed groups of Bulgarian-Macedonian revolutionaries operating in the Lake Prespa region and Kastoria area, a bond formed due to their hostility toward Greeks.


text: After the Young Turk Revolution of 1908 both factions laid down their arms and joined the legal struggle. Yane Sandanski and Hristo Chernopeev contacted the Young Turks and started legal operation. They tried to set up the "Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization" (MARO). Initially, the group developed only propaganda activities. Later, the congress for MARO's official inauguration failed and federalist wing joined mainstream political life as the Peoples' Federative Party (Bulgarian Section). Some of its leaders like Sandanski and Chernopeev participated in the march on Istanbul to depose the counter-revolutionaries. The former centralists formed the Union of the Bulgarian Constitutional Clubs and like the PFP participated in Ottoman elections. Soon, however, the Young Turk regime turned increasingly nationalist and sought to suppress the national aspirations of the various minorities in Macedonia and Thrace. This prompted most right-wing and some left-wing IMARO leaders to resume the armed fight in 1909. In January 1910 Hristo Chernopeev and some of his followers founded a Bulgarian People's Macedonian-Adrianople Revolutionary Organization. In 1911 a new Central Committee of IMARO was formed consisting of Todor Alexandrov, Hristo Chernopeev and Petar Chaulev. Its aim was to restore unity to the Organisation and direct the new armed struggle against the Turks more efficiently. After Chernopeev was killed in action in 1915 as a Bulgarian officer in World War I, he was replaced by the former supremist leader General Alexander Protogerov.


text: During the Balkan Wars former IMARO leaders of both the left and the right joined the Macedonian-Adrianopolitan Volunteer Corps and fought with the Bulgarian Army. Others like Sandanski with their bands assisted the Bulgarian army with its advance and still others penetrated as far as the region of Kastoria southwestern Macedonia. In the Second Balkan War IMORO bands fought the Greeks and Serbs behind the front lines but were subsequently routed and driven out. Notably, Petar Chaulev was one of the leaders of the Ohrid-Debar Uprising organised jointly by IMORO and the Albanians of Western Macedonia.


text: The Tikvesh Uprising was another uprising in late June 1913, organized by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization against the Serbian occupation of Vardar Macedonia and took place behind the Serbian enemy lines during the Second Balkan War.


text: The result of the Balkan Wars was that the Macedonian region and Adrianople Thrace was partitioned between Bulgaria, Greece, Serbia and the Ottoman Empire (the new state of Yugoslavia was created as after 1918 and started its existence as Kingdom of the Serbs, Croats and Slovenians "SHS"), with Bulgaria getting the smallest share. In 1913 the whole Thracian Bulgarian population from the Ottoman part of Eastern Thrace was forcibly expelled to Bulgaria. IMARO, now led by Todor Aleksandrov, maintained its existence in Bulgaria, where it played a role in politics by playing upon Bulgarian irredentism and urging a renewed war to liberate Macedonia. This was one factor in Bulgaria allying itself with Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I. During the First World War in Macedonia (1915–1918) the organization supported Bulgarian army and joined to Bulgarian war-time authorities when they took control over Vardar Macedonia temporarily until the end of war. In this period the autonomism as political tactics was abandoned from all internal IMARO streams and all of them shared annexationist positions, supporting eventual incorporation of Macedonia in Bulgaria. IMARO organised the Valandovo action of 1915, which was an attack on a large Serbian force. Bulgarian army, supported by the organization's forces, was successful in the first stages of this conflict, managed to drive out the Serbian forces from Vardar Macedonia and came into positions on the line of the pre-war Greek-Serbian border, which was stabilized as a firm front until end of 1918.


text: After 1917 the Bulgarian government started using paramilitary groups to gain control over the internal situation in both Pomoravlje and Macedonia. Aleksandar Protogerov who headed the Bulgarian occupation troops in Morava region crushed the uprising in the Toplica district with the help of IMRO irregulars. Bulgarians paramilitary groups were responsible for multiple instances of war crimes committing during the war in the parts of the Kingdom of Serbia under Bulgarian occupation.


text: On the eve of outbreak of World War I, IMRO paramilitary activity in Serbia aimed to provoke a war with Bulgaria. At that time Serbia implemented in Macedonia a program of forced Serbianization. In an incident during 1914, when Bulgaria was still neutral, ca. 2,000 strong IMRO-cheta attacked a railway bridge over the Vardar River, massacring 477 men. In another incident in the same year, the first Macedonian recruits mobilized into the Serbian army demonstratively refused to take the military oath in Kragujevac, and were subjected to repression. As result IMRO set up a secret committee in Veles, which aim was to coordinate the transfer to Bulgaria of thousands of Macedonian deserters by the Serbian army. Later its comitadjis were incorporated into the regular Bulgarian Army and its power grew in significance. The fact that these paramilitary companies joined the Bulgarian Army marked a significant change in the way they were conducting war. At the beginning it formed the 11th Macedonian Infantry Division, and later other units, as for example "guerilla companies". Its entrance into the war towards the end of 1915 contributed to the defeat and occupation of Serbia, and the unification of Macedonia with Bulgaria. In Serbia the IMRO activity was identical with the Bulgarian policy, supporting the Bulgarization of the area. At the end of 1915 and the beginning of 1916 several massacres of (sic) "Serbomans" were conducted in Vardar Macedonia in the areas of Azot, Skopska Crna Gora and Poreče by IMRO-irregulars, aided by the guerrilla companies of the 11th Macedonian Infantry Division. The police chief of the Military Inspection Area of Macedonia reported to the interior minister that he cannot deal with the lawlessness of the paramilitaries. In fact 1917 was the turning point when IMRO became the instrument used by the Bulgarian government to gain control over the internal situation in the Pomoravlje and most from the region of Macedonia. At that time the IMRO leaders as general Aleksandar Protogerov headed the Bulgarian occupation troops in Morava region and crushed the uprising in the Toplica district with the help by IMRO irregulars. Their methods caused death of thousand people, destruction of their property, looting and other war crimes committed during the war in the parts of the Kingdom of Serbia under Bulgarian control.


text: The post-war Treaty of Neuilly again denied Bulgaria what it felt was its share of Macedonia and Thrace. After this moment the combined Macedonian-Adrianopolitan revolutionary movement separated into two detached organizations: Internal Thracian Revolutionary Organisation ("bulg." Вътрешна тракийска революционна организация) and Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation. ITRO was a revolutionary organisation active in the Greek regions of Thrace and Macedonia to the river Strymon and Rhodope Mountains between 1922 and 1934. The reason for the establishment of ITRO was the transfer of the region from Bulgaria to Greece in May 1920. ITRO proclaimed its goal as the "unification of all the disgruntled elements in Thrace regardless of their nationality", and to win full political independence for the region. Later IMRO created as a satellite organisation the Internal Western Outland Revolutionary Organisation ("bulg." Вътрешна западнопокрайненска революционна организация), which operated in the areas of Tsaribrod and Bosilegrad, ceded to Yugoslavia. IMRO began sending armed bands called "cheti" into Greek and Yugoslav Macedonia and Thrace to assassinate officials and stir up the spirit of the oppressed population. On 23 March 1923 Aleksandar Stamboliyski, who favoured a détente with Greece and Yugoslavia, so that Bulgaria could concentrate on its internal problems, signed the Treaty of Niš with the Kingdom of Serbs, Croats and Slovenes and undertook the obligation to suppress the operations of the IMRO carried out from Bulgarian territory. However, in the same year IMRO agents assassinated him. IMRO had "de facto" full control of Pirin Macedonia (the Petrich District of the time) and acted as a "state within a state", which it used as a base for hit and run attacks against Yugoslavia with the unofficial support of the right-wing Bulgarian government and later Fascist Italy. Because of this, contemporary observers described the Yugoslav-Bulgarian frontier as the most fortified in Europe.


text: In 1923 and 1924 during the apogee of interwar military activity according to IMRO statistics in the region of Yugoslav (Vardar) Macedonia operated 53 "chetas" (armed bands), 36 of which penetrated from Bulgaria, 12 were local and 5 entered from Albania. The aggregate membership of the bands was 3245 "komitas" (guerilla rebels) led by 79 "voivodas" (commanders), 54 subcommanders, 41 secretaries and 193 couriers. 119 fights and 73 terroristic acts were documented. Serbian casualties were 304 army and gendarmery officers, soldiers and paramilitary fighters, more than 1300 were wounded. IMRO lost 68 "voivodas" and "komitas", hundreds were wounded. In the region of Greek (Aegean) Macedonia 24 chetas and 10 local reconnaissance detachments were active. The aggregate membership of the bands was 380 "komitas" led by 18 "voivodas", 22 subcommanders, 11 secretaries and 25 couriers. 42 battles and 27 terrorist acts were performed. Greek casualties were 83 army officers, soldiers and paramilitary fighters, over 230 were wounded. IMRO lost 22 "voivodas" and "komitas", 48 were wounded. Thousands of locals were repressed by the Yugoslav and Greek authorities on suspicions of contacts with the revolutionary movement. The population in Pirin Macedonia was organized in a mass people's home guard. This militia was the only force, which resisted the Greek army when the Greek dictator, General Pangalos launched a military campaign against Petrich District in 1925. In 1934 the Bulgarian army confiscated 10,938 rifles, 637 pistols, 47 machine-guns, 7 mortars and 701,388 cartridges only in the Petrich and Kyustendil Districts. At the same time, a youth's extension of IMRO, the Macedonian Youth Secret Revolutionary Organization was created. The statute of MYSRO was approved personally from IMRO's leader Todor Alexandrov. The aim of MYSRO was in concordance with the statute of IMRO – unification of all of Macedonia in an authonomous unit, within a future Balkan Federative Republic.


text: The Sixth Congress of the Balkan Communist Federation under the leadership of the Bulgarian communist Vasil Kolarov and the Fifth Congress of the Comintern, an adjunct of the Soviet foreign policy, held concurrently in Moscow in 1923, voted for the formation of an ""Autonomous and Independent Macedonia and Thrace"." In 1924 IMRO entered negotiations with the Macedonian Federative Organization and the Comintern about collaboration between the communists and the Macedonian movement and the creation of a united Macedonian movement. The idea for a new unified organization was supported by the Soviet Union, which saw a chance for using this well developed revolutionary movement to spread revolution in the Balkans and destabilize the Balkan monarchies. Alexandrov defended IMRO's independence and refused to concede on practically all points requested by the Communists. No agreement was reached except for a paper "Manifesto" (the so-called May Manifesto of 6 May 1924), in which the objectives of the unified Macedonian liberation movement were presented: independence and unification of partitioned Macedonia, fighting all the neighbouring Balkan monarchies, forming a Balkan Communist Federation and cooperation with the Soviet Union. Failing to secure Alexandrov's cooperation, the Comintern decided to discredit him and published the contents of the Manifesto on 28 July 1924 in the "Balkan Federation" newspaper. VMRO's leaders Todor Aleksandrov and Aleksandar Protogerov promptly denied through the Bulgarian press that they've ever signed any agreements, claiming that the May Manifesto was a communist forgery.


text: In this interwar period IMRO led by Aleksandrov and later by Mihailov took actions against the former left-wing assassinating several former members of IMORO's Sandanist wing, who meanwhile had gravitated towards the Bulgarian Communist Party and Macedonian Federative Organization. Gjorche Petrov was killed in Sofia in 1922, Todor Panitsa (who previously killed the right-wing oriented Boris Sarafov and Ivan Garvanov) was assassinated in Vienna in 1924 by Mihailov's future wife Mencha Karnichiu. Dimo Hadjidimov, Georgi Skrizhovski, Alexander Bujnov, Chudomir Kantardjiev and many others were killed in the events of 1925. Meanwhile, the left-wing later did form the new organisation based on the principles previously presented in the May Manifesto. The new organization which was an opponent to Mihailov's IMRO was called IMRO (United) was founded in 1925 in Vienna. However, it did not have real popular support and remained based abroad with no revolutionary activities in Macedonia. Mihailov's group of young IMRO cadres soon got into conflict with the older guard of the organization. The latter were in favour of the old tactic of incursions by armed bands, whereas the former favoured more flexible tactics with smaller terrorist groups carrying selective assassinations. The conflict grew into a leadership struggle and Mihailov soon, in turn, ordered the assassination in 1928 of a rival leader, General Aleksandar Protogerov, which sparked a fratricidal war between "Mihailovists" and "Protogerovists". The less numerous Protogerovists soon became allied with Yugoslavia and certain Bulgarian military circles with fascist leanings and who favoured rapprochement with Yugoslavia. The policy of assassinations was effective in making Serbian rule in Vardar Macedonia feel insecure but in turn provoked brutal reprisals on the local peasant population. Having lost a lot of popular support in Vardar Macedonia due to his policies, Mihailov favoured the "internationalization" of the Macedonian question.


text: He established close links with the Croatian Ustashi and Italy. Numerous assassinations were carried out by IMRO agents in many countries, the majority in Yugoslavia. The most spectacular of these was the assassination of King Alexander I of Yugoslavia and the French Foreign Minister Louis Barthou in Marseille in 1934 in collaboration with the Croatian Ustashi. The killing was carried out by the VMRO assassin Vlado Chernozemski and happened after the suppression of IMRO following the 19 May 1934 military coup in Bulgaria. IMRO's constant fratricidal killings and assassinations abroad provoked some within Bulgarian military after the coup of 19 May 1934 to take control and break the power of the organization, which had come to be seen as a gangster organization inside Bulgaria and a band of assassins outside it. In 1934 Mihailov was forced to escape to Turkey. He ordered to his supporters not to resist to the Bulgarian army and to accept the disarmament peacefully, thus avoiding fratricides, destabilization of Bulgaria, civil war or external invasion. Many inhabitants of Pirin Macedonia met this disbandment with satisfaction because it was perceived as relief from an unlawful and quite often brutal parallel authority. IMRO kept its organization alive in exile in various countries but ceased to be an active force in Macedonian politics except for brief moments during World War II. Meanwhile, a resolution of the Comintern for recognition of a distinct ethnic Macedonian ethnicity, which was accepted also by the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization (United), was published in January 1934. IMRO (United) remained active until 1936 when it was absorbed into the Balkan Communist Federation.


text: IMRO used at that time, what the American journalist H. R. Knickerbocker described as: ""the only system I ever heard of to guarantee that their members carry out assigned assassinations, no matter what the police terror might be"."


text: As the Bulgarian army entered Yugoslav Vardar Macedonia in 1941, it was greeted by most of the population as liberators and former IMRO members were active in organising Bulgarian Action Committees, charged with taking over the local authorities. Some former IMRO (United) members, such as Metodi Shatorov, who was the regional leader of the Yugoslav Communist Party, also refused to define the Bulgarian forces as occupiers, contrary to instructions from Belgrade and called for the incorporation of the local Macedonian Communist organisations within the Bulgarian Communist Party. This policy changed towards 1943 with the arrival of the Montenegrin Svetozar Vukmanović-Tempo, who began in earnest to organise armed resistance to the Bulgarian occupation. Many former IMRO members assisted the authorities in fighting Tempo's partizans.


text: In Greece the Bulgarian troops, following on the heels of the German invasion of the country, occupied the whole of Eastern Macedonia and Western Thrace. In eastern and central Macedonia, some of the local Slavic-speaking minority greeted the Bulgarian troops as liberators, and efforts were undertaken by the Bulgarian authorities to "instill in them a Bulgarian national identity". Bulgaria officially annexed the occupied territories in Yugoslavia and Greece, which had long been a target of Bulgarian irredentism. IMRO was also active in organising Bulgarian militias in Italian and German occupation zones against Greek nationalist and communist groups as EAM-ELAS and EDES. With the help of Mihailov and Macedonian emigres in Sofia, several pro-Bulgarian armed detachments "Ohrana" were organised in the Kastoria, Florina and Edessa districts. These were led by Bulgarian officers originally from Greek Macedonia – Andon Kalchev and Georgi Dimchev. It was apparent that Mihailov had broader plans which envisaged the creation of a Macedonian state under a German control. It was also anticipated that the IMRO volunteers would form the core of the armed forces of a future Independent Macedonia in addition to providing administration and education in the Florina, Kastoria and Edessa districts.


text: On 2 August 1944 (in what in the Republic of Macedonia is referred to as the Second Ilinden) in the St. Prohor Pčinjski monastery at the Antifascist assembly of the national liberation of Macedonia (ASNOM) with Panko Brashnarov (the former IMRO revolutionary from the Ilinden period and the IMRO United) as a first speaker, the modern Macedonian state was officially proclaimed, as a federal state within Tito's Yugoslavia, receiving recognition from the Allies. After the declaration of war by Bulgaria on Germany, in September 1944 Mihailov arrived in German-occupied Skopje, where the Germans hoped that he could form a pro-German Independent State of Macedonia with their support. Seeing that the war is lost to Germany and to avoid further bloodshed, he refused. Mihailov eventually ended up in Rome where he published numerous articles, books and pamphlets on the Macedonian Question.


text: Members of the IMRO (United) participated in the forming of Republic of Macedonia a federal state of Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and some of the leading members entered the government: Dimitar Vlahov, Panko Brashnarov, Pavel Shatev (the latter was the last surviving member of "Gemidzhii" or "Varkarides" in Greek, the group that executed the Thessaloniki bombings of 1903). However, they were quickly ousted by cadres loyal to the Yugoslav Communist Party in Belgrade, who had had pro-Serbian leanings before the war. According to Macedonian historian Ivan Katardjiev such Macedonian activists came from IMRO (United) and the Bulgarian Communist Party never managed to get rid of their pro-Bulgarian bias and on many issues opposed the Serbian-educated leaders, who held most of the political power. Pavel Shatev went as far as to send a petition to the Bulgarian legation in Belgrade protesting the anti-Bulgarian policies of the Yugoslav leadership and the Serbianisation of the Bulgarian language.


text: From the start, the Yugoslav authorities organised frequent purges and trials of Macedonian communists and non-party people charged with autonomist deviation. Many of the left-wing IMRO government officials, including Pavel Shatev and Panko Brashnarov, were purged from their positions, too, then isolated, arrested, imprisoned or executed by the Yugoslav federal authorities on various (in many cases fabricated) charges including: pro-Bulgarian leanings, demands for greater or complete independence of Yugoslav Macedonia, collaboration with the Cominform after the Tito–Stalin split in 1948, forming of conspirative political groups or organisations, demands for greater democracy, etc. One of the victims of these campaigns was Metodija Andonov Cento, a wartime partisan leader and president of ASNOM, who was convicted of having worked for a "completely independent Macedonia" as an IMRO member. A survivor among the communists associated with the idea of Macedonian autonomy was Dimitar Vlahov, who was used "solely for window dressing".


text: On the other hand, former Mihailovists were also persecuted by the Belgrade-controlled authorities on accusations of collaboration with the Bulgarian occupation, Bulgarian nationalism, anti-communist and anti-Yugoslav activities, etc. Notable victims included Spiro Kitinchev, mayor of Skopje, Ilija Kocarev, mayor of Ohrid and Georgi Karev, the mayor of Krushevo during the Bulgarian occupation and brother of Ilinden revolutionary Nikola Karev. Another IMRO activist, Sterio Guli, son of Pitu Guli, reportedly shot himself upon the arrival of Tito's partisans in Krushevo in despair over what he saw as a second period of Serbian dominance in Macedonia. Also, Shatorov's supporters in Vardar Macedonia, called Sharlisti, were systematically exterminated by the YCP in the autumn of 1944, and repressed for their anti-Yugoslav and pro-Bulgarian political positions.


text: IMRO's supporters in Bulgarian Pirin Macedonia fared no better. With the help of some former Protogerovists, their main activists were hunted by the Communist police and many of them killed or imprisoned. Because some IMRO supporters openly opposed the then official policy of Communist Bulgaria to promote Macedonian ethnic consciousness in Pirin Macedonia they were repressed or exiled to the interior of Bulgaria. Many from this persecuted people emigrated through Greece and Turkey to Western countries. At this period the American and Greek intelligence services recruited some of them, trained them and later used this so-called ""Goryani"" as spies and saboteurs, smuggling them back to Communist Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.


text: Despite the fact that Yugoslav Macedonian historical scholarship reluctantly acknowledged the Bulgarian ethnic self-identification of the Ilinden IMRO leaders, they were adopted in the national pantheon of Yugoslav Macedonia as ethnic Macedonians. Official Yugoslav historiography asserted a continuity between the Ilinden of 1903 and the Ilinden of ASNOM in 1944 ignoring the fact that the first one included the uprising in the Adrianople part of Thrace region as well. The names of the IMRO revolutionaries were Goce Delchev, Pitu Guli, Dame Gruev and Yane Sandanski were included in the lyrics of the anthem of the Socialist Republic of Macedonia Denes nad Makedonija ("Today over Macedonia").


text: Initially Lazar Koliševski, the leader of the new Yugoslav Republic — SR Macedonia, proclaimed that the Ilinden Uprising and the IMRO were Bulgarian conspiracies. Afterwards the historical studies in the country were expanded under direct political instructions from Belgrade. It was advanced as a key principle of the Macedonian historiography, that its primary goal was to create a separate national consciousness, and to sever any historical ties to Bulgaria. During the Cold War, particularly after the Tito–Stalin split, the heroes of 19th century left-wing IMRO, especially Delchev and Sandanski, were claimed by both Bulgaria and Yugoslavia, both internally and in a tactical game of international diplomacy. One thing that two countries had in common though was that the vague populism and anarchism of these historical figures was interpreted as a definite socialist program. Both regimes recognized the policies of the interwar leaders of the organization Todor Aleksandrov and Ivan Mihailov as "fascist".


text: In this race, the Socialist Republic of Macedonia was the first to incorporate the IMRO figures in its national pantheon, although some careful exceptions were made. The 1903 Ilinden Uprising was presented as a direct precursor of the 1944 events, which were termed a "Second Ilinden", in an effort to prove the continuity of the struggle for independence of the Macedonian nation. Consequently, it became necessary for the socialist authorities to show that 19th century IMRO figures, particularly Delchev and Sandanski, had been consciously Macedonian in identity. Delchev and Sandanski were adopted as symbols of the republic, had numerous monuments built in their honor, and they were often the topic of articles in the academic journal "Macedonian Review", as was the Ilinden Uprising. In contrast, Todor Aleksandrov was labeled a Bulgarian bourgeois chauvinist. The claim to a Macedonian identity of Sandanski was used to bolster Skopje's claim to the Pirin region. According to historians John Lampe and Mark Mazower, IMRO heroes have been important in the creation of a Macedonian national ideology, in both Bulgaria and North Macedonia the historiographies thrive on proving that their version of history is wrong in turn making historical objectivity not important.


text: In the People's Republic of Bulgaria the situation was more complex, because the IMRO was associated with the 1923–34 anti-communist regime. Before 1960, although the subject was not taboo, few articles on the topic appeared in Bulgarian academic venues, and the IMRO figures were given mostly regional recognition in the Pirin region. After 1960, orders from the highest level were to reincorporate the Macedonian revolutionary movement in the Bulgarian history, and to prove the Bulgarian credentials of their historical leaders. This trend reached its peak in 1981 (the 1300 year anniversary of Bulgarian state), when Delchev and Sandanski were openly made historical symbols of the Bulgarian state in a proclamation of Lyudmila Zhivkova. There were also attempts to rehabilitate Todor Aleksandrov because of his Bulgarian nationalism, but these remained controversial due to his role in suppressing the left wing, a role for which he had been declared a fascist.


text: After the fall of Communism in 1989 Yugoslavia began promptly to disintegrate and democratic politics in Macedonia revived. Many exiles returned to Macedonia from abroad, and a new generation of young Macedonian intellectuals rediscovered the history of Macedonian nationalism. In these circumstances, it was not surprising that the IMRO name was revived. A new IMRO was founded on 17 June 1990 in Skopje. Although IMRO claims a line descent from the old IMRO, there is no real connection between the old IMRO and the new one. The party is called the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization-Democratic Party for Macedonian National Unity (In , or VMRO-DPMNE) describes itself as a Christian Democratic party which supports the admission of Macedonia to NATO and the European Union.


text: A minor political party carrying the name IMRO is the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organization–People's Party (VMRO-NP). Although a separate structure since the split in 2004, the political line of VMRO-NP is reminiscent of VMRO-DPMNE's and its members maintain close ties with the latter's party structure.


text: A distinct IMRO organization was also revived in Bulgaria after 1989 first under the name VMRO-SMD (ВМРО-СМД – Съюз на македонските дружества) and then simply VMRO (ВМРО) as a cultural organisation. In 1996 the leaders of the organisation registered it as a political party in Bulgaria under the name IMRO – Bulgarian National Movement (ВМРО – Българско национално движение) and then simply ВМРО–БНД (IMRO-BNM). This group continues to maintain that ethnic Macedonians are in fact Bulgarians.


text: A small spin-off of the IMRO-BNM was until 2012 IMRO – National Ideal for Unity (ВМРО – Национален идеал за единство) and then simply ВМРО–НИЕ (IMRO-NIU), and uses the flag of IMRO. In 2014, the NIU of the NFSB joined.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: The 2021 Russian Grand Prix (officially known as the Formula 1 VTB Russian Grand Prix 2021) was a Formula One motor race, held on 26 September 2021 at the Sochi Autodrom. It was the 15th round of the 2021 Formula One World Championship. It was the tenth running of the Russian Grand Prix, and the eighth and final held in Sochi. It was won by Mercedes' Lewis Hamilton, who became the first driver to win 100 Grands Prix and regained the championship lead over Max Verstappen.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: This would be the last Formula One race at Sochi Autodrom and the last Russian Grand Prix, as of the season, due to the Russian Invasion of Ukraine.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: The event, held over the weekend of 24–26 September, at the Sochi Autodrom, was the fifteenth round of the 2021 World Championship. The race take place two weeks after the Italian Grand Prix and two weeks before the Turkish Grand Prix. Despite having to race as a neutral competitor, using the designation RAF (Russian Automobile Federation), it was Nikita Mazepin's home race.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: The rules surrounding practice starts for the event have been clarified following controversy in the 2020 event when Lewis Hamilton was penalised with two five-second penalties for conducting two practice starts outside of the designated area. The race director's notes state that when doing practice starts, cars must line up and leave in the order they arrive unless another car is unduly delayed.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: Heading into the race, Max Verstappen led the Drivers' Championship with 226.5 points, five points ahead of Lewis Hamilton. Valtteri Bottas was third with 141 points, nine points ahead of Lando Norris in fourth. Sergio Pérez remained fifth with 118 points. In the Constructors' Championship, Mercedes led with 362.5 points, 18 ahead of Red Bull in second. McLaren were third with 215 points, 13.5 points ahead of Ferrari in fourth. Alpine were fifth with 95 points.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: The drivers and teams were the same as the season entry list with no additional stand-in drivers for the race. Kimi Räikkönen returned for this event, after missing the previous two races due to testing positive for coronavirus.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: The title sponsor of Ferrari, Mission Winnow, returned for this race. The name and sponsor logos were used by Ferrari at the Bahrain, Emilia Romagna, Portuguese, Spanish, Monaco, and Azerbaijan Grands Prix, but were not used in any races from the to the Italian Grand Prix for legal reasons.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: At the previous race in Italy, Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton made contact, and both retired from the race. The stewards investigated the incident and ruled that Verstappen was predominantly to blame, and awarded him a three-place grid penalty for this event.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: The first practice session started at 11:30 MST, on 24 September 2021, and ended with no major incidents. Lando Norris spun and grazed the wall on his in lap but he was able to get back to the pits. Valtteri Bottas finished first, with his Mercedes teammate Lewis Hamilton in second. Red Bull's Max Verstappen was third.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: Free practice 2 started at 15:00 MST, on the same day. It ended with only 1 interruption. Antonio Giovinazzi spun and hit the wall, ending his session and causing a red flag. At the end of the session, AlphaTauri's Pierre Gasly ran over a curb and dislodged his front wing. No red flag was required because it was the end of the session. Bottas and Hamilton finished first and second again, with Gasly in third.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: Free practice 3 was scheduled to start at 12:00 MST, on 25 September 2021, but it was cancelled due to adverse weather conditions.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: Qualifying started at 15:00 MST, on 25 September 2021. Lando Norris started on pole for the first time in his Formula One career, having set the fastest time on slick tyres on a drying track. The result was McLaren's first pole position since the 2012 Brazilian Grand Prix, and Norris became the 102nd driver in the history of the World Championship to achieve a pole position. Carlos Sainz Jr. of Ferrari qualified second to claim his first front-row start in Formula One. George Russell qualified 3rd for Williams, his second top-three starting position of the season, having previously qualified second for the Belgian Grand Prix. Hamilton, who topped the first two segments of qualifying, finished the session in fourth, having crashed into the wall on the pit lane entry when coming in to change from intermediate tyres to slick tyres. His car needed a new front wing, and he was unable to build enough temperature in his tyres for his final flying lap due to the lack of time left in the session, as well as having to move out of the way of cars on their fast laps. Hamilton's delayed stop also held up his teammate Valtteri Bottas, who had also come into the pits for slick tyres. Bottas qualified seventh. The other McLaren of Daniel Ricciardo qualified 5th. Charles Leclerc and Nicholas Latifi did not set lap times in the second segment of qualifying due to engine penalties that would demote them to the back of the grid, regardless of their qualifying results. Championship leader Max Verstappen did not set a lap time in the first segment for the same reason.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: The race started at 15:00 MST, on 26 September 2021. Carlos Sainz Jr. took the lead from Lando Norris into turn two, while Lewis Hamilton fell down the order to sixth. Fernando Alonso overtook Hamilton at the start, but the latter re-overtook on the following lap by going around the outside of turn three. Charles Leclerc climbed up to twelfth after starting from nineteenth. On lap 13, Norris overtook Sainz to retake first place, retaining the lead until the closing laps. After gaining three positions on the first lap, Max Verstappen climbed up the order into seventh. Hamilton recovered to second, coming within DRS range of Norris as rain began to fall on parts of the track. Kimi Räikkönen, George Russell, and Valtteri Bottas were the first to pit for intermediate tyres on lap 48, allowing all three drivers to move up into the points by race end. Further up the order, Verstappen and Daniel Ricciardo followed suit on lap 49, as did Sainz who had dropped from third to seventh in the deteriorating conditions. Hamilton initially stayed out to battle Norris for the lead before switching to intermediate tyres the following lap, after which it became clear the rain would continue. Sergio Pérez, Alonso, and Leclerc also chose to continue on slicks while in a close fight for third. Despite running off the track multiple times, Norris refused to stop for intermediates against the advice of his engineers, having accumulated a fifty-second gap second gap over third place.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: Hamilton emerged from the pits twenty-five seconds behind the race leader, closing to under two seconds on lap 51 before Norris aquaplaned off the track at turn 5, leaving Hamilton to take the lead and the win. Early stoppers Verstappen, Sainz, and Ricciardo overtook the three drivers running slicks and battling for third: Alonso and Pérez eventually pitted on lap 51, managing to stay in the points, but Leclerc continued on and fell from fourth to fifteenth in his final two laps. Norris finally entered the pits for intermediate tyres on lap 52; however, Norris aquaplaned on the pit entry and crossed the white line separating the pit lane entry from the track, for which he was reprimanded. Norris finished the race in seventh. Verstappen finished the race in second from 20th on the starting grid, and Sainz finished in third, taking his fifth Formula One podium. Hamilton's race victory made him the first driver in Formula One history to take 100 wins.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: Hamilton hailed his Mercedes team after securing his 100th win. Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff hailed Hamilton's achievement of 100 wins as "mindblowing". The 1998 and 1999 Formula One World Champion Mika Häkkinen felt patience was the key factor in Hamilton securing the race victory. Valtteri Bottas felt a podium would have been possible for him if he had pitted one lap earlier for intermediate tyres. Alonso also believed a podium had been possible on merit for him before the weather intervention. McLaren said it would launch a review of the procedures which contributed to Norris not pitting earlier for intermediate tyres when the rain started to fall. McLaren Team Principal Andreas Seidl said the team would also would not dwell on what might or should have been. Norris said he was "not happy" with his result and stated he may have pitted for wet weather tyres had he been given clearer information on the weather by the team. Formula One Managing Director Ross Brawn praised Norris for his weekend performance, though felt his inexperience showed in the tricky conditions during the race. Brawn defended Norris, pointing out that there were occasions when drivers were correct to ignore team orders and follow their instincts. Brawn also praised Formula One veterans like Kimi Räikkönen, Alonso, and Hamilton for how they responded to the same situation.


title: 2021 Russian Grand Prix

text: Former Renault Formula One driver-turned-analyst and radio commentator Jolyon Palmer said he felt the responsibility for not pitting Norris soon enough for wet weather tyres lay with the McLaren team. Seven-times Grand Prix race winner Juan Pablo Montoya said that Norris's performance meant he now would know he could get the job done. Red Bull Racing hailed Verstappen's second-place finish from starting last on the grid as "like a victory". Alfa Romeo Racing team boss Frédéric Vasseur felt Norris should have been given a time penalty for his pit entry infringement. Journalist David Tremayne praised Norris for his performance and said Norris should learn and take heart from the experiences of past British Formula One champions, such as James Hunt, Nigel Mansell, and Damon Hill, all of whom had to deal with disappointment of near misses trying to get their first Grand Prix wins before achieving them.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: Microsoft XNA (a recursive acronym for XNA's not acronymed) is a freeware set of tools with a managed runtime environment that Microsoft developed to facilitate video game development. XNA is based on .NET Framework, with versions that run on Windows and Xbox 360. XNA Game Studio can help develop XNA games. The XNA toolset was announced on March 24, 2004, at the Game Developers Conference in San Jose, California. A first Community Technology Preview of XNA Build was released on March 14, 2006.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: In many respects", XNA" can be thought of as a .NET analog to Microsoft's better known game development system, DirectX, but it is aimed at developers primarily interested in writing lightweight games. XNA is the basic platform for Xbox Live Indie Games.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: As of January 2013, XNA is no longer being developed, and it is not compatible with Windows Runtime (the API for developing Metro-style apps), which was introduced with Windows 8.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: Microsoft XNA Framework is based on the native implementation of .NET Compact Framework 2.0 for Xbox 360 development and .NET Framework 2.0 on Windows. It includes an extensive set of class libraries, specific to game development, to promote maximum code reuse across target platforms. The framework runs on a version of the Common Language Runtime that is optimized for gaming to provide a managed execution environment. The runtime is available for Windows XP, Windows Vista, Windows 7, Windows Phone and Xbox 360. Since XNA games are written for the runtime, they can run on any platform that supports the XNA Framework with minimal or no modification. Games that run on the framework can technically be written in any .NET-compliant language, but only C# in XNA Game Studio Express IDE and all versions of Visual Studio 2008 and 2010 (as of XNA 4.0) are officially supported. Support for Visual Basic .NET was added in 2011.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: The XNA Framework encapsulates low-level technological details involved in coding a game, making sure that the framework itself takes care of the difference between platforms when games are ported from one compatible platform to another, and thereby allowing game developers to focus more on the content and gaming experience. The XNA Framework integrates with a number of tools, such as the Cross-platform Audio Creation Tool (XACT), to aid in content creation.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: The XNA Framework provides support for both 2D and 3D game creation and allows use of the Xbox 360 controllers and vibrations. XNA framework games that target the Xbox 360 platform could only be distributed by members of the Microsoft XNA Creator's Club/App Hub, which carried a $99/year subscription fee. Desktop applications can be distributed free of charge under Microsoft's current licensing.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: XNA Build is a set of game asset pipeline management tools, which help by defining, maintaining, debugging, and optimizing the "game asset pipeline" of individual game development efforts. A "game asset pipeline" describes the process by which game content, such as textures and 3D models, are modified to a form suitable for use by the gaming engine. XNA Build helps identify the pipeline dependencies, and also provides API access to enable further processing of the dependency data. The dependency data can be analyzed to help reduce the size of a game by finding content that is not actually used. For example, XNA Build analysis revealed that 40% of the textures that shipped with "MechCommander 2" were unused and could have been omitted.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: XNA Game Studio is a programming environment for development of games. Five revisions have been released so far, but as of 2015, no new versions will be developed.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: XNA Game Studio Express was the first version released on August 30, 2006, and was intended for students, hobbyists, and independent game developers. It was available as a free download. Express provides basic "starter kits" for rapid development of specific genres of games, such as platform games, real-time strategy, and first-person shooters. Developers could create Windows games for free with the XNA Framework, but to run their games on the Xbox 360 they will have to pay an annual fee of US$99 (or a four-month fee of US$49) for admission to the Microsoft XNA Creator's Club. With an update, XNA developers could compile Xbox 360 binaries and share them with other Microsoft XNA Creator's Club members.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: XNA Game Studio 2.0 was released on December 13, 2007. XNA Game Studio 2.0 features the ability to be used with all versions of Visual Studio 2005 (including the free Visual C# 2005 Express Edition), a networking API using Xbox Live on both Windows and Xbox 360 and better device handling.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: XNA Game Studio 3.0 (for Visual Studio 2008 or the free Visual C# 2008 Express Edition) allows production of games targeting the Zune platform and adds Xbox Live community support. It was released on October 30, 2008, and supported C# 3.0, LINQ and most versions of Visual Studio 2008.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: XNA Game Studio 4.0 was released on September 16, 2010. It added support for the Windows Phone platform (including 3D hardware acceleration), framework hardware profiles, configurable effects, built-in state objects, graphics device scalars and orientation, cross-platform and multi-touch input, microphone input and buffered audio playback, and Visual Studio 2010 integration.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: XNA "Game Studio 4.0 Refresh" was released on 6 October 2011, and added support for Windows Phone 7.5 (Mango), and Visual Basic.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: The XNA Framework Content Pipeline is a set of tools that allows Visual Studio and XNA Studio to act "as the key design point around organizing and consuming 3D content".


title: Microsoft XNA

text: Formerly known as XNA Game Studio Professional, XDK Extensions is an add-on to XNA Game Studio and requires the Microsoft Xbox 360 Development Kit. Both are only available for licensed Xbox developers. The extensions include additional managed APIs for achievements, leaderboards, and other features reserved for licensed game titles. Titles developed using XDK Extensions include winners of Microsoft's Dream.Build.Play competition among others. The most heavily publicized of these was "".


title: Microsoft XNA

text: The Microsoft XNA Framework 2.0 EULA specifically prohibits the distribution of commercial networked games that connect to Xbox Live and/or Games for Windows Live in the absence of a specific agreement signed by both the developer and Microsoft. This means that XNA Game Studio can still be used to develop commercial games and other programs for the Windows platform, although Microsoft's networking support code for Xbox/Windows Live cannot be used. Self-developed network code can still be used inside the developer's XNA project.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: Games created using XNA Game Studio may be distributed via the Windows Phone marketplace, and formerly via Xbox Live Indie Games. The software may also be used to create commercial games which target Windows.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: Dream Build Play was an annual and global $75,000 Microsoft contest promoting Microsoft XNA and eventually Xbox Live Indie Games, although it predated it. The contest was first announced in 2006 and first opened in January 2007. Many winners are notable developers in the Indie game community service and interesting


title: Microsoft XNA

text: Xbox 360 games written in XNA Game Studio could be submitted to the App Hub, for which premium membership was required (about US$99/year). All games submitted to the App Hub were subjected to peer review by other creators. If the game passed review then it would be listed on Xbox Live Marketplace. Creators could set a price of 80, 240 or 400 points for their game. The creator is paid 70% of the total revenue from their game sales as a baseline. Microsoft originally planned to take an additional percentage of revenue if they provided additional marketing for a game, but this policy was rescinded in March 2009, leaving the flat rate intact regardless of promotion.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: Microsoft also distributed a free year premium App Hub subscription for educational establishments through their DreamSpark program and MSDNAA. These accounts allowed students to develop games for the Xbox 360, but developers still needed a premium Xbox Live account to submit their game to the marketplace.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: A project called Mono.XNA was formed to port XNA to the open source and cross-platform Mono framework.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: From the codebase of Mono.XNA and SilverSprite, a new project called MonoGame was formed to port XNA to several mobile devices. As of version 3.0.1 (released March 3, 2013), support is stable for iOS, Android including OUYA, macOS, Linux and Metro for Windows 8, Windows RT and Windows Phone 8, as well as PlayStation Mobile in 2D. PlayStation Mobile 3D and Raspberry Pi development are currently in progress.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: FNA is a full-featured open source reimplementation of XNA forked from MonoGame. The goal of FNA is to preserve the XNA game library by reimplementing XNA itself.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: An open source project called Grommet contains a limited port for embedded devices using the .NET Micro Framework.


title: Microsoft XNA

text: A project called ANX is available which implements its own version of XNA using the SharpDX stack; support for Linux, macOS and the PlayStation Vita is in progress as well. Using ANX, developers are able to write games using code that is very similar to XNA, while still being considered a Metro application in Windows 8.


title: Willie Taggart

text: Willie Author Taggart (born August 27, 1976) is an American football college coach. He has held the head coach position at five NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision programs: Western Kentucky (2009 to 2012 seasons); South Florida (2013 to 2016); Oregon (2017); Florida State (2018 and part of the 2019 season); and Florida Atlantic (2020 to 2022). At all four schools, he was the first African-American to be hired as the head coach.


title: Willie Taggart

text: Taggart was a prep standout at Manatee High School in Bradenton, Florida, where he was a first team all-state and all-conference selection as a senior after guiding the Hurricanes to the state 5A Championship game. He helped lead the football team to the state title his junior season and helped the school post a 26–4 record during that two-year span, while recording more than 3,000 yards passing and 975 yards on the ground.


title: Willie Taggart

text: After high school, Taggart became a star quarterback for the Western Kentucky University (WKU) Hilltoppers from 1995 through 1998, being one of only three WKU players in the previous 50 years to be a four-year starter at the position and one of only four Hilltoppers players to have his jersey retired. In each of his last two collegiate seasons, he was a finalist for the prestigious Walter Payton Award, which is an honor given annually to the top offensive player in I-AA football. Taggart finished fourth in the balloting in 1997 and seventh as a senior the following year. An All-American as a senior, he was also the 1998 I-AA Independents’ Offensive Player of the Year. Taggart was recruited to WKU by Jim Harbaugh to play for his father, Jack Harbaugh.


title: Willie Taggart

text: After graduating from WKU in 1998, Taggart stayed on at the school as an assistant through 2006, serving as co-offensive coordinator under Jack Harbaugh on the Hilltoppers' 2002 Division I-AA national champions. He also worked alongside Harbaugh's son Jim, who had been an unpaid certified assistant coach under his father in the final years of his NFL career.


title: Willie Taggart

text: When Jim Harbaugh was named head coach of the Stanford Cardinal football team following the 2006 season, he hired Taggart as his running backs coach. Taggart served in that role for the next two seasons, developing Doak Walker Award winner and Heisman runner-up Toby Gerhart into a star during that time. The younger Harbaugh also gave Taggart responsibility for recruiting in Taggart's home state of Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, and Riverside County, California.


title: Willie Taggart

text: In 2010, Taggart left his position at Stanford as the running backs coach in order to become the head football coach of his alma-mater, Western Kentucky. In their first year under Taggart, the Hilltoppers broke a 26-game losing streak while finishing the season with a record of 2–10.


title: Willie Taggart

text: In 2011, Taggart led WKU to a 7–5 season, where the Hilltoppers lost the first 4 games of the season, but then won 7 of their last 8 games. Although having a winning record, they were not invited to a bowl game that year. In 2012, Taggart led WKU once again to a bowl-eligible record of 7–5. The Hilltoppers accepted an invitation to play Central Michigan in the Little Caesars Bowl on December 26, 2012, on ESPN. However, Taggart did not coach in this bowl game having already accepted the head coaching position of the South Florida Bulls on December 7, 2012.


title: Willie Taggart

text: On December 7, 2012, Taggart took over as head coach at the University of South Florida in his native Tampa Bay area.


title: Willie Taggart

text: In his first season, Taggart led the Bulls to a 2–10 season. The following season, Taggart's team doubled the number of wins and finished with a 4–8 record. During the off-season, Taggart made several personnel changes, including replacing the offensive and defensive coordinators. The change of schemes as well as the development of his first two recruiting classes provided the team with much needed energy and depth of positions.


title: Willie Taggart

text: In 2015, led by conference leaders quarterback Quinton Flowers and running back Marlon Mack, the Bulls started the season 1–3 before finishing the regular season with a record of 8–5 and earning bowl eligibility for the first time in five years. The Bulls lost to WKU in the Miami Beach Bowl.


title: Willie Taggart

text: In 2016, the Bulls went 10–2 and won a share of the AAC East division. This was the Bulls first double digit win season in school history.


title: Willie Taggart

text: On December 7, 2016, the University of Oregon announced Taggart as the Ducks' new head coach, replacing the fired Mark Helfrich.


title: Willie Taggart

text: In January 2017, three Oregon football players were hospitalized after grueling military-style workouts. Multiple sources described the workouts to the Oregonian as "akin to military basic training, with one said to include up to an hour of continuous push-ups and up-downs." Taggart personally visited the ill and hospitalized players to wish them a speedy recovery. "I have visited with the three young men involved in the incidents in the past few days and I have been in constant contact with their families, offering my sincere apologies,” Taggart said in the statement. “As the head football coach, I hold myself responsible for all of our football-related activities and the safety of our students must come first. I have addressed the issue with our strength and conditioning staff, and I fully support the actions taken today by the university. I want to thank our medical staff and doctors for caring for all of our young men, and I want to apologize to the university, our students, alumni and fans.”


title: Willie Taggart

text: Taggart's hiring at Oregon drew attention to the low number of African American head coaches in major college football (14 out of 128 schools). The hiring came several years after Oregon’s passing of House Bill 3118, which requires state-funded schools to interview qualified minority candidates for top coaching and athletic administration positions.


title: Willie Taggart

text: Oregon went 7-5 overall and 4-5 in the Pac-12 in 2017 with Taggart at the reins. The Ducks beat Nebraska, Arizona and rival Oregon State. They were bested by UCLA, Stanford, Washington State, and suffered a 38-3 blowout loss to Washington. Additionally, the Ducks lost The Las Vegas Bowl to Boise State on December 16 with Mario Cristobal at the helm after Taggart accepted the position at Florida State.


title: Willie Taggart

text: On December 5, 2017, Taggart accepted the head coaching job at Florida State, replacing Jimbo Fisher. In his first season, the Seminoles finished 5-7, their first losing season on the field since 1976, Bobby Bowden's first year. They were not invited to a bowl for the first time since the end of the 1981 season, breaking the longest active bowl appearance streak in FBS. Florida State fans were not used to staying home for bowl season, and there were numerous calls for Taggart's firing. However, school president John Thrasher and athletic director Dave Coburn voiced confidence in Taggart. According to a story in "Bleacher Report," Florida State had bottomed out in 2018 due in part to cultural problems dating from Fisher's tenure. In particular, Taggart was stunned at the football team's casual approach to academics. When he arrived, Florida State had the worst Academic Progress Rate in FBS, and was on the brink of an automatic bowl ban, which further complicated his efforts to rebuild the program.


title: Willie Taggart

text: Following a 4-5 start to the 2019 season, Taggart was fired during mid-season in November 2019. For the removal of Taggart, Florida State had to pay over $20M in buyouts, including about $18M to Taggart after the firing and over $4M paid to Oregon at his hiring ($3M to end Taggart's contract with Oregon and an additional $1.3M that Oregon still owed South Florida for hiring Taggart away in 2016).


title: Willie Taggart

text: On December 11, 2019, two days after Lane Kiffin resigned as head football coach at Florida Atlantic University and accepted the head coaching position at Ole Miss, Florida Atlantic announced the hiring of Taggart as the school's next head coach. The 5-year contract was to pay Taggart $750,000 annually with a $3M buyout if Taggart leaves before December 1, 2022. On November 26, 2022, Taggart was fired by Florida Atlantic after a 32–31 overtime loss to Western Kentucky. Taggart only went to one bowl game at his tenure with the owls, a 25-10 loss to the Memphis Tigers in the Montgomery Bowl in his first season, which was 2020.


title: Sino-French War

text: The Sino-French War (, , ), also known as the Tonkin War and Tonquin War, was a limited conflict fought from August 1884 to April 1885. There was no declaration of war. The Chinese armies performed better than its other nineteenth-century wars and the war ended with French retreat on land and the momentum in China's favor. However lack of foreign support, French naval supremacy, and northern threats posed by Russia and Japan forced China to enter negotiations. China ceded its sphere of influence in Tonkin (northern Vietnam) to France and recognized all the French treaties with Annam turning it into a French protectorate. The war strengthened the dominance of Empress Dowager Cixi over the Chinese government, but brought down the government of Prime Minister Jules Ferry in Paris. Both sides ratified the Treaty of Tientsin. According to Lloyd Eastman, "neither nation reaped diplomatic gains."


title: Sino-French War

text: French interest in northern Vietnam dated from the late 18th century, when the political Catholic priest Pigneau de Behaine recruited French volunteers to fight for Nguyễn Ánh and help begin the Nguyễn Dynasty, in an attempt to gain privileges for France and for the Roman Catholic Church. France began its colonial campaign in 1858, annexing several southern provinces in 1862 to form the colony of Cochinchina.


title: Sino-French War

text: French explorers followed the course of the Red River through northern Vietnam to its source in Yunnan, arousing hopes for a profitable trade route with China that could bypass the treaty ports of the Chinese coastal provinces. The main obstacle to this idea, the Black Flag Army – a well-organized bandit force led by the formidable Liu Yongfu – was levying exorbitant "taxes" on Red River trade between Sơn Tây and Lào Cai on the Yunnan border.


title: Sino-French War

text: In 1873, a small French force commanded by Lieutenant de Vaisseau Francis Garnier, exceeding his instructions, attacked northern Vietnam. Following a series of French victories against the Vietnamese, the Vietnamese government called on Liu Yongfu's Black Flags, who defeated Garnier's force beneath the walls of Hanoi. Garnier was killed in this battle, and the French government later disavowed his expedition.


title: Sino-French War

text: In 1881, French Commandant Henri Rivière was sent with a small military force to Hanoi to investigate Vietnamese complaints about the activities of French merchants. In defiance of the instructions of his superiors, Rivière stormed the citadel of Hanoi on 25 April 1882. Although Rivière subsequently returned the citadel to Vietnamese control, his recourse to force provoked alarm both in Vietnam and in China.


title: Sino-French War

text: The Vietnamese government, unable to confront Rivière with its own ramshackle army, once again enlisted the help of Liu Yongfu, whose well-trained and seasoned Black Flag soldiers would prove a thorn in the side of the French. The Vietnamese also bid for Chinese support. Vietnam had long been a tributary state of China, and China agreed to arm and support the Black Flags, and to covertly oppose French operations in Tonkin.


title: Sino-French War

text: The Qing court also sent a strong signal to the French that China would not allow Tonkin to fall under French control. In the summer of 1882, troops of the Chinese Yunnan Army and Guangxi Army crossed the border into Tonkin, occupying Lạng Sơn, Bắc Ninh, Hưng Hóa and other towns. The French minister to China, Frédéric Bourée, was so alarmed by the prospect of war with China that in November and December he negotiated a deal with the Chinese statesman Li Hongzhang to divide Tonkin into French and Chinese spheres of influence. Neither of the parties to these negotiations consulted the Vietnamese.


title: Sino-French War

text: Rivière, disgusted at the deal cut by Bourée, decided early in 1883 to force the issue. He had recently been sent a battalion of marine infantry from France, giving him just enough men to venture beyond Hanoi. On 27 March 1883, to secure his line of communications from Hanoi to the coast, Rivière captured the citadel of Nam Định with a force of 520 French soldiers under his personal command. During his absence at Nam Định, the Black Flags and Vietnamese made an attack on Hanoi, but Chef de Bataillon Berthe de Villers repulsed them in the Battle of Gia Cuc (Gia Quất) on 28 March. Rivière jubilantly reacted: 'This will force them to take forward their Tonkin Question!'


title: Sino-French War

text: Rivière had perfect timing. He had expected to be cashiered for his Capture of Nam Định; instead he found himself the hero of the hour. There had recently been a change of government in France, and the new administration of Jules Ferry strongly favoured colonial expansion. It therefore decided to back Rivière. Ferry and Foreign Minister Paul-Armand Challemel-Lacour denounced Bourée's agreement with Li Hongzhang and recalled the hapless French minister. They also made it clear to the Chinese that they were determined to place Tonkin under French protection. In April 1883, realising that the Vietnamese lacked the means of resisting the French effectively, the Chinese civil Mandarin Tang Jingsong (唐景崧) persuaded Liu Yongfu to take the field against Rivière with the Black Flag Army. This resulted in a year of Liu Yongfu's forces fighting an unconventional war.


title: Sino-French War

text: On 10 May 1883 Liu Yongfu challenged the French to battle in a taunting message widely placarded on the walls of Hanoi. On 19 May Rivière confronted the Black Flags in the Battle of Paper Bridge, and the French suffered a disastrous defeat. Rivière's small force (around 450 men) attacked a strong Black Flag defensive position near the village of Cầu Giấy, a few miles to the west of Hanoi, known to the French as Paper Bridge (Pont de Papier). After initial successes the French were eventually enveloped on both wings; only with difficulty could they regroup and fall back to Hanoi. Rivière, Berthe de Villers and several other senior officers were killed in this action.


title: Sino-French War

text: Rivière's death produced an angry reaction in France. Reinforcements were rushed to Tonkin, a threatened attack by the Black Flags on Hanoi was averted, and the military situation was stabilised.


title: Sino-French War

text: On 20 August 1883 Admiral Amédée Courbet, who had recently been appointed to the command of the newly formed Tonkin Coasts Naval Division, stormed the forts which guarded the approaches to the Vietnamese capital Huế in the Battle of Thuận An, and forced the Vietnamese government to sign the Treaty of Huế, placing Tonkin under French protection.


title: Sino-French War

text: At the same time the new commander of the Tonkin expeditionary corps, General Bouët, attacked the Black Flag positions on the Day River. Although the French mauled the Black Flag Army in the Battle of Phủ Hoài (15 August) and the Battle of Palan (1 September), they were unable to capture all of Liu Yongfu's positions, and in the eyes of the world the battles were tantamount to French defeats. Bouët was widely held to have failed in his mission, and resigned in September 1883. In the event, severe flooding eventually forced Liu Yongfu to abandon the line of the Day River and fall back to the fortified city of Sơn Tây, several miles to the west.


title: Sino-French War

text: The French prepared for a major offensive at the end of the year to annihilate the Black Flags, and tried to persuade China to withdraw its support for Liu Yongfu, while attempting to win the support of the other European powers for the projected offensive. However, negotiations in Shanghai in July 1883 between the French minister Arthur Tricou and Li Hongzhang were terminated by the Qing government on receipt of a naively optimistic assessment by Marquis Zeng Jize, the Chinese minister to Paris, that the French government had no stomach for a full-scale war with China. Jules Ferry and the French foreign minister Paul-Armand Challemel-Lacour met a number of times in the summer and autumn of 1883 with Marquis Zeng in Paris, but these parallel diplomatic discussions also proved abortive. The Chinese stood firm, and refused to withdraw substantial garrisons of Chinese regular troops from Sơn Tây, Bắc Ninh and Lạng Sơn, despite the likelihood that they would be shortly engaged in battle against the French. As war with China seemed increasingly likely, the French persuaded the German government to delay the release of "Dingyuan" and "Zhenyuan", two modern battleships then being constructed in German shipyards for China's Beiyang Fleet. Meanwhile, the French consolidated their hold on the Delta by establishing posts at Quảng Yên, Hưng Yên and Ninh Bình.


title: Sino-French War

text: The growing tension between France and China gave rise to anti-foreign demonstrations inside China during the autumn of 1883. The most serious incidents took place in Guangdong province, where Europeans were most prominent. Attacks were made on the property of European merchants in Guangzhou and on Shamian island. Several European powers, including France, sent gunboats to Guangzhou to protect their nationals.


title: Sino-French War

text: The French accepted that an attack on Liu Yongfu would probably result in an undeclared war with China, but calculated that a quick victory in Tonkin would force the Chinese to accept a "fait accompli". Command of the Tonkin Campaign was entrusted to Admiral Courbet, who attacked Sơn Tây in December 1883. The Sơn Tây Campaign was the fiercest campaign the French had yet fought in Tonkin. Although the Chinese and Vietnamese contingents at Son Tay played little part in the defence, Liu Yongfu's Black Flags fought ferociously to hold the city. On 14 December the French assaulted the outer defences of Sơn Tây at Phù Sa, but were thrown back with heavy casualties. Hoping to exploit Courbet's defeat, Liu Yongfu attacked the French lines the same night, but the Black Flag attack also failed disastrously. After resting his troops on 15 December, Courbet again assaulted the defences of Sơn Tây on the afternoon of 16 December. This time the attack was thoroughly prepared by artillery, and delivered only after the defenders had been worn down. At 5 p.m. a Foreign Legion battalion and a battalion of marine fusiliers captured the western gate of Sơn Tây and fought their way into the town. Liu Yongfu's garrison withdrew to the citadel, and evacuated Sơn Tây under cover of darkness several hours later. Courbet had achieved his objective, but at considerable cost. French casualties at Sơn Tây were 83 dead and 320 wounded. The fighting at Sơn Tây also took a terrible toll of the Black Flags, and in the opinion of some observers broke them once and for all as a serious fighting force. Liu Yongfu felt that he had been deliberately left to bear the brunt of the fighting by his Chinese and Vietnamese allies, and determined never again to expose his troops so openly.


title: Sino-French War

text: In March 1884, the French renewed their offensive under the command of General Charles-Théodore Millot, who took over responsibility for the land campaign from Admiral Courbet after the fall of Sơn Tây. Reinforcements from France and the African colonies had now raised the strength of the Tonkin Expeditionary Corps to over 10,000 men, and Millot organised this force into two brigades. The 1st Brigade was commanded by General Louis Brière de l'Isle, who had earlier made his reputation as governor of Senegal, and the 2nd Brigade was commanded by the charismatic young Foreign Legion general François de Négrier, who had recently quelled a serious Arab rebellion in Algeria. The French target was Bắc Ninh, garrisoned by a strong force of regular Chinese troops of the Guangxi Army. The Bắc Ninh Campaign was a walkover for the French. Morale in the Chinese army was low, and Liu Yongfu was careful to keep his experienced Black Flags out of danger. Millot bypassed Chinese defences to the southwest of Bắc Ninh, and assaulted the city on 12 March from the southeast, with complete success. The Guangxi Army put up a feeble resistance, and the French took the city with ease, capturing large quantities of ammunition and a number of brand new Krupp cannon.


title: Sino-French War

text: The defeat at Bắc Ninh, coming close on the heels of the fall of Sơn Tây, strengthened the hand of the moderate element in the Chinese government and temporarily discredited the extremist 'Purist' party led by Zhang Zhidong, which was agitating for a full-scale war against France. Further French successes in the spring of 1884, including the Capture of Hưng Hóa and Thái Nguyên, convinced the Empress Dowager Cixi that China should come to terms, and an accord was reached between France and China in May. The negotiations took place in Tianjin (Tientsin). Li Hongzhang, the leader of the Chinese moderates, represented China; and Captain François-Ernest Fournier, commander of the French cruiser "Volta", represented France. The Tientsin Accord, concluded on 11 May 1884, provided for Chinese recognition of the French protectorate over Annam and Tonkin and withdrawal of Chinese troops from Tonkin, in return for a comprehensive treaty that would settle details of trade and commerce between France and China and provide for the demarcation of its disputed border with Vietnam.


title: Sino-French War

text: On 6 June the French followed up their accord with China by concluding a fresh Treaty of Huế with the Vietnamese, which established a French protectorate over both Annam and Tonkin and allowed the French to station troops at strategic points in Vietnamese territory and to install residents in the main towns. The signature of the treaty was accompanied by an important symbolic gesture. The seal presented by the emperor of China several decades earlier to the Vietnamese emperor Gia Long was melted down in the presence of the French and Vietnamese plenipotentiaries, betokening the renunciation by Vietnam of its traditional links with China.


title: Sino-French War

text: Fournier was not a professional diplomat, and the Tientsin Accord contained several loose ends. Crucially, it failed to explicitly state a deadline for the Chinese troop withdrawal from Tonkin. The French asserted that the troop withdrawal was to take place immediately, while the Chinese argued that the withdrawal was contingent upon the conclusion of the comprehensive treaty. In fact, the Chinese stance was an ex post facto rationalisation, designed to justify their unwillingness or inability to put the terms of the accord into effect. The accord was extremely unpopular in China, and provoked an immediate backlash. The war party called for Li Hongzhang's impeachment, and his political opponents intrigued to have orders sent to the Chinese troops in Tonkin to hold their positions.


title: Sino-French War

text: Li Hongzhang hinted to the French that there might be difficulties in enforcing the accord, but nothing specific was said. The French assumed that the Chinese troops would leave Tonkin as agreed, and made preparations for occupying the border towns of Lạng Sơn, Cao Bằng and Thất Khê. In early June 1884 a French column under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Alphonse Dugenne advanced to occupy Lạng Sơn. On 23 June, near the small town of Bắc Lệ, the French encountered a strong detachment of the Guangxi Army ensconced in a defensive position behind Thương River. In view of the diplomatic significance of this discovery, Dugenne should have reported the presence of the Chinese force to Hanoi and waited for further instructions. Instead, he gave the Chinese an ultimatum, and on their refusal to withdraw resumed his advance. The Chinese opened fire on the advancing French, precipitating a two-day battle in which Dugenne's column was encircled and seriously mauled. Dugenne eventually fought his way out of the Chinese encirclement and extricated his small force.


title: Sino-French War

text: When news of the Bắc Lệ ambush reached Paris, there was fury at what was perceived as blatant Chinese treachery. Ferry's government demanded an apology, an indemnity, and the immediate implementation of the terms of the Tianjin Accord. The Chinese government agreed to negotiate, but refused to apologise or pay any indemnity. The mood in France was against compromise, and although negotiations continued throughout July, Admiral Courbet was ordered to take his squadron to Fuzhou (Foochow). He was instructed to prepare to attack the Chinese Fujian Fleet in the harbour and to destroy the Foochow Navy Yard. Meanwhile, as a preliminary demonstration of what would follow if the Chinese were recalcitrant, Rear Admiral Sébastien Lespès destroyed three Chinese shore batteries in the port of Keelung in northern Formosa (Taiwan) by naval bombardment on 5 August. The French put a landing force ashore to occupy Keelung and the nearby coal mines at Pei-tao (Pa-tou), as a 'pledge' ("gage") to be bargained against a Chinese withdrawal from Tonkin, but the arrival of a large Chinese army under the command of the imperial commissioner Liu Mingchuan forced it to re-embark on 6 August.


title: Sino-French War

text: Negotiations between France and China broke down in mid-August, and on 22 August Courbet was ordered to attack the Chinese fleet at Fuzhou. In the Battle of Fuzhou (also known as the Battle of the Pagoda Anchorage) on 23 August 1884, the French took their revenge for the Bắc Lệ Ambush. In a two-hour engagement watched with professional interest by neutral British and American vessels (the battle was one of the first occasions on which the spar torpedo was successfully deployed), Courbet's Far East Squadron annihilated China's outclassed Fujian fleet and severely damaged the Foochow Navy Yard (which, ironically, had been built under the direction of the French administrator Prosper Giquel). Nine Chinese ships were sunk in less than an hour, including the corvette "Yangwu", the flagship of the Fujian fleet. Chinese losses may have amounted to 3,000 dead, while French losses were minimal. Courbet then successfully withdrew down the Min River to the open sea, destroying several Chinese shore batteries from behind as he took the French squadron through the Min'an and Jinpai passes.


title: Sino-French War

text: The French attack at Fuzhou effectively ended diplomatic contacts between France and China. Although neither country declared war, the dispute would now be settled on the battlefield. The news of the destruction of the Fujian fleet was greeted by an outbreak of patriotic fervour in China, marred by attacks on foreigners and foreign property. There was considerable sympathy for China in Europe, and the Chinese were able to hire a number of British, German and American army and navy officers as advisers.


title: Sino-French War

text: Patriotic indignation spread to the British colony of Hong Kong. In September 1884 dock workers in Hong Kong refused to repair the French ironclad "La Galissonnière", which had suffered shell damage in the August naval engagements. The strike collapsed at the end of September, but the dock workers were prevented from resuming their business by other groups of Chinese workers, including longshoremen, sedan chair carriers and rickshawmen. An attempt by the British authorities to protect the dock workers against harassment resulted in serious rioting on 3 October, during which at least one rioter was shot dead and several Sikh constables were injured. The British suspected, with good reason, that the disturbances had been fomented by the Chinese authorities in Guangdong province.


title: Sino-French War

text: Meanwhile, the French decided to put pressure on China by landing an expeditionary corps in northern Formosa to seize Keelung and Tamsui, redeeming the failure of 6 August and finally winning the 'pledge' they sought. On 1 October Lieutenant-Colonel Bertaux-Levillain landed at Keelung with a force of 1,800 marine infantry, forcing the Chinese to withdraw to strong defensive positions which had been prepared in the surrounding hills. The French force was too small to advance beyond Keelung, and the Pei-tao coal mines remained in Chinese hands. Meanwhile, after an ineffective naval bombardment on 2 October, Admiral Lespès attacked the Chinese defences at Tamsui with 600 sailors from his squadron's landing companies on 8 October, and was decisively repulsed by forces under the command of the Fujianese general Sun Kaihua (孫開華). As a result of this reverse, French control over Formosa was limited merely to the town of Keelung. This achievement fell far short of what had been hoped for.


title: Sino-French War

text: Towards the end of 1884 the French were able to enforce a limited blockade of the northern Formosan ports of Keelung and Tamsui and the prefectural capital Taiwan (now Tainan) and the southern port Takow (Kaohsiung). In early January 1885 the Formosa expeditionary corps, now under the command of Colonel Jacques Duchesne, was substantially reinforced with two battalions of infantry, bringing its total strength to around 4,000 men. Meanwhile, drafts from the Hunan Army and Anhui Army had brought the strength of Liu Mingchuan's defending army to around 25,000 men. Although severely outnumbered, the French captured a number of minor Chinese positions to the southeast of Keelung at the end of January 1885, but were forced to halt offensive operations in February due to incessant rain.


title: Sino-French War

text: The blockade succeeded in part because the northern Beiyang Fleet, commanded by Li Hongzhang, denied help to the southern Nanyang Fleet. No Beiyang ships were sent to battle the French. This led the Navy to fail. The most advanced ships were reserved for the northern Chinese fleet by Li Hongzhang, he did not even "consider" using this well equipped fleet to attack the French, since he wanted to make sure it was always under his command. China's north and south had rivalries and the government was split into different parties. China did not have a single admiralty in command of the navy and the northern and southern fleets refused to cooperate, as a result, France was able to achieve control over the seas during the war. Tianjin's northern naval academy also drained southern China of potential sailors, since they enlisted in northern China instead.


title: Sino-French War

text: Although the Formosa expeditionary corps remained confined in Keelung, the French scored important successes elsewhere in the spring of 1885. Courbet's squadron had been reinforced substantially since the start of the war, and he now had considerably more ships at his disposal than in October 1884. In early February 1885 part of his squadron left Keelung to head off a threatened attempt by part of the Chinese Nanyang Fleet (Southern Seas fleet) to break the French blockade of Formosa. On 11 February Courbet's task force met the cruisers "Kaiji", "Nanchen" and "Nanrui", three of the most modern ships in the Chinese fleet, near Shipu Bay, accompanied by the frigate "Yuyuan" and the composite sloop "Chengqing". The Chinese scattered at the French approach, and while the three cruisers successfully made their escape, the French succeeded in trapping "Yuyuan" and "Chengqing" in Shipu Bay. On the night of 14 February, in the Battle of Shipu, the French attacked the Chinese vessels with two torpedo launches. During a brief engagement inside the bay, "Yuyuan" was seriously damaged by torpedoes and "Chengqing" was hit by "Yuyuan"'s fire. Both ships were subsequently scuttled by the Chinese. The French torpedo launches escaped almost without loss.


title: Sino-French War

text: Courbet followed up this success on 1 March by locating "Kaiji", "Nanchen" and "Nanrui", which had taken refuge with four other Chinese warships in Zhenhai Bay, near the port of Ningbo. Courbet considered forcing the Chinese defences, but after testing its defenses finally decided to guard the entrance to the bay to keep the enemy vessels bottled up there for the duration of hostilities. A brief and inconclusive skirmish between the French cruiser "Nielly" and the Chinese shore batteries on 1 March enabled the Chinese general Ouyang Lijian (歐陽利見), charged with the defence of Ningbo, to claim the so-called 'Battle of Zhenhai' as a defensive victory.


title: Sino-French War

text: In February 1885, under diplomatic pressure from China, Britain invoked the provisions of the 1870 Foreign Enlistment Act and closed Hong Kong and other ports in the Far East to French warships. The French government retaliated by ordering Admiral Courbet to implement a 'rice blockade' of the Yangzi River, hoping to bring the Qing court to terms by provoking serious rice shortages in northern China. The rice blockade severely disrupted the transport of rice by sea from Shanghai and forced the Chinese to carry it overland, but the war ended before the blockade seriously affected China's economy.


title: Sino-French War

text: Meanwhile, the French army in Tonkin was also putting severe pressure on the Chinese forces and their Black Flag allies. General Millot, whose health was failing, resigned as general-in-chief of the Tonkin expeditionary corps in early September 1884 and was replaced by General Brière de l'Isle, the senior of his two brigade commanders. Brière de l'Isle's first task was to beat off a major Chinese invasion of the Red River Delta. In late September 1884, large detachments of the Guangxi Army advanced from Langson and probed into the Lục Nam valley, announcing their presence by ambushing the French gunboats "Hache" and "Massue" on 2 October. Brière de l'Isle responded immediately, transporting nearly 3,000 French soldiers to the Lục Nam valley aboard a flotilla of gunboats and attacking the Chinese detachments before they could concentrate. In the Kép Campaign, (2 to 15 October 1884), three French columns under the overall command of General de Négrier fell upon the separated detachments of the Guangxi Army and successively defeated them in engagements at Lam Cốt (6 October), Kép (8 October) and Chũ (10 October). The second of these battles was marked by bitter close-quarter fighting between French and Chinese troops, and de Négrier's soldiers suffered heavy casualties storming the fortified village of Kép. The exasperated victors shot or bayoneted scores of wounded Chinese soldiers after the battle, and reports of French atrocities at Kép shocked public opinion in Europe. In fact, prisoners were rarely taken by either side during the Sino-French War, and the French were equally shocked by the Chinese habit of paying a bounty for severed French heads.