From: lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bulgaria
Subject: Re: Why Macedonia - Part I - 1), 2) and 3)
Date: 11 Dec 92 11:10:48 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <1992Dec9.235728.8089@wuecl.wustl.edu> ls1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lambros Skartsis) writes:
>OK, I'll just say a couple of words.
>First of all, I answered when I saw Greg. Dandulakis' answer
>to Luben in scg - currently I am not even watching scb. 
>
>I apologize if I insulted anyone, particularly Luben, but you
>guys have to understand some things:

YOu did not intend to insult anybody, (as far as I noticed in your posting)
so I answered you - maybe a bit emotional but I spent the time, I thought
is required for a proper answer.

>- I have seen that the prevailing idea among Bulgarian netters is
>  that Bulgaria has "lost" some territories that should belong to her
>  and among these are territories of Greece.

Many countries have lost territories. Just see how Turkey is concerned -
they lost a lot of territories. This means absolutely nothing for the
present day. If we look at the further past - Byzantia lost territories +
COnstantinople. So what?

> I have seen many references
>  to the Balkan wars, population statistics, etc. And I distinctly remember
>  Luben writing the phrase "Bulgaria might be interested in Western
>Thrace".

Taken out of the context in which I wrote it it sounds very bad. Within the
context, it's exactly as if you say "If somebody asks Greece in imaginative
way - is island 'X' from the Turkish islands of Greek interest, or is it
Cyprus, and you answer - it's Cyprus (although the comparisson is not quite
good due to the differences in ethnic populations in THrace and Cyprus)",
we can reach the context in which I said it. And 'you', for certian have no
intention to occupy Cyprus.

>  I don't want to state this out of context and Luben was certainly casually
>  talking about wild scenaria, etc. But you see...

I tried to make analogy which I know is not very good but at least one can
get an idea in what direction were my thoughts.

>  In another posting, by another netter,
>  I saw stated that "there were a only few greeks living 
>  in Bulgaria and they were
>  treated well etc. etc.

THere were not few Greeks in Bulgaria but a lot. However, the treatment is
well documented that was far better than the treatment of the Bulgarians in
Greece. But even so - this is long gone - we must not draw conclussions
about it. However, there is hard evidence for the difference of treatment
of Bulgarians in Greece and of Greeks in Bulgaria.
 
>-  Let me clarify something: the greeks feel that the share of e.g. Macedonia
>  taken during the Balkan wars is perfectly fair, and indeed corresponds 
>  roughly to the greek proportion of the greater area according to the
>  Ottoman statistics.

Alas, this has nothing to do with facts and statistics. Whether one must go
for a revision, etc, on the matter is another reason. If you read books,
you will notice that taking such huge share of Macedonia wasn't even in the
wildest dreams of Greek politicians. Dotto for Serbia. This is so well
documented in old books, that there is no doubt about it. And it's more
than normal that you will study this and not "we got more than we should
have". Once again - the picture and realities have changed since then and
those words are my no mean revisionists. But the reality during the Balkan
wars was different.

> You may have doubts about these statistics, the
>  greekness of these greeks, etc. But one cannot avoid answering to that,
>  when the issue is raised.

I've answered it - no need to aviod the issue. If you want - I can be even
more detailed. But I repeat - TIMES HAVE CHANGED, the ethnic picture - as
well. 

>- What my point is, is that in other nets people DON'T speak that much 
>  about such things, like re-examination of history, who lost what unjustly,
>  etc. 

Well, there is difference of re-examination of history and examination of
history. Or about giving the facts, which a 'nation' could have skipped in
it's schools. And the facts from the past has nothing (or little) to do
with the present. We can't skip history, but we must not revision it. Why,
otherwise we study for the World Wars, etc? Why don't we learn what was and
wasn't during the Balkan wars? Have you read the Carnegie report? Looks
like the only relatively objective book on the matter. I don't know why all
countries avoid reading this book? Because it doesn't spare anybody's
"bads"? Or because of other reasons?

>I apologize if I misunderstood you guys. What I tried to describe above,
>and I hope you see what I am saying, is that there were some 
>reasons for misunderstanding.

No problem. It's just a pity that you couldn't read my original article

>Regards,
>Labros

Likewise

Luben