From: buis@buengc.bu.edu (Lou Buis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.yugoslavia,soc.culture.bulgaria,soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe
Subject: MACEDONIA: A SWITZERLAND OF THE BALKANS
Date: 12 Aug 92 07:59:29 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.yugoslavia
Organization: Boston University, Boston, MA, USA
Originator: buis@buengc.bu.edu


	Some people on this panel pointed out the analogy between Macedonia's
and Switzerland's cases in the European history. However, that is a quite old
idea. Around fifty  years ago, a book was dedicated to that issue. 

	These are the excerpts from Ivan Mihailoff's book "Macedonia: A
Switzerland of the Balkans", which he published  right after World War II. The
English translation was copyrighted in April of 1950 by the translator, 
Dr. Christ Anastasoff. 

	Regards,
	  	
 		Lou
	

				- = * = - 


 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

M A C E D O N I A :   A   S W I T Z E R L A N D   O F   T H E   B A L K A N

			    by  Ivan Mihailoff
       			       (1896 - 1990)

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::



			         REMARKS


	We are going to speak here about one of the big mistakes which was
carried into effect in the Balkan Peninsula - the mistake with regard to
Macedonia. This country is small, and its present political problem is one of
the most renowned. Its name has been known since ancient times. Contemporary
society has heard most about Macedonia in connection with her struggle for
freedom. 

	Of the reality of this struggle, and the exact aspirations of the
Macedonian people, the civilized world knows comparatively little. Many
distorted facts and realities are known. Quite often there is purposely omitted
or incorrectly reported, that most important and enduring objective in the
Macedonian movement - its peacemaking formula for the Balkan peoples. 

	The ideal for a free and independent Macedonia is noble. The justice
for which the Macedonians are fighting is obvious. The struggle itself is
idealistically managed and carried on.... 

	We are imbued with deep faith that a Balkan brotherhood shall be
realized. For its attainment, the struggling Macedonian inhabitants have made
terrible sacrifices....Macedonia, the oldest Balkan country, shall positively
be resuscitated. Its population can no longer be left homeless in its own home.
Its will to live and act through trials and tribulations not only continues,
but, what is more, its efforts are being accelerated.... 

	We hold that all unsolved and all wrongly solved questions should be
presented openly for settlement. With regard to the Macedonian question, the
Balkan politicians can no longer bury their heads in the sand as the ostrich
does. That is an old method which some of them are still following. With
scholasticism and ineffectual platitudes, no questions are solved, no peoples
are contented, no unity can be achieved. Without action there will remain
disunity, which is the ally of all ill-advised factors. The Balkan peoples must
triumph over their disunity. That should be their first victory. And it can be
attained only through justice and mutual respect. 

	The most essential condition for Balkan reconciliation and tranquility
lies, undoubtedly, in the unity, freedom and independence of Macedonia. 




			 Chapter I 

   	 	   THE CASE OF SWITZERLAND


	The bulk of politically minded people look upon Switzerland with
admiration. Many people envy her happiness, her guarantee of the liberty of the
individual, the harmonious development of her social relations and the absence
of friction in her foreign policy. 

	... There is nothing more basic than the fact that all rights of her
citizens are guaranteed; that the state offices and jobs are open to everyone
and the people participate in the making of their laws' that national,
religious or class oppression does not exist; that the relations of Switzerland
with other countries are maintained calmly and harmoniously. 

	But it was not easy for her to achieve this objective. One need only
turn over the pages of history in order to see the strain and struggles which
the Swiss people have undergone for decades and centuries; through what
domestic disputes and conflicts they have lived.... 

	The principal causes for the struggles and misfortune in the past
history of Switzerland were the scrambles of her neighbors, and the religious
differences of her local population. The heterogeneous character of her
inhabitants never was particularly a large source of domestic friction. Four
nationalities  German, French, Italian and Rhaeto-Roman [also known as Ladin or
Ladino - Editor] (akin to the north Italian mountain tribes) lived in
Switzerland. An ethnographic line decidedly separates the provinces. However,
in many of the cantons both Catholics and Protestants live. 

.... 

	Serious agitations on questions of a purely political nature also
formerly threatened the social order and the unity of the Swiss people. They
experienced great friction and even open revolts. They often mobilized and
alerted the army, and it was not until about a hundred years ago that
Switzerland attained its ultimate internal settlement.... In 1845 the last
serious disturbances commenced.... It was then that changes were made in the
structure of the country: from a confederation it now became a federation. In
its organization Switzerland closely resembles the United States. In 1874
another step was made toward centralization through amendments to their
Constitution. It is apparent, therefore, that more than once was the Swiss
brotherhood afflicted by internal struggles. It has undergone many risks and
difficulties. 

	But ultimately the spirit of fraternity and the consciousness of their
common interests prevailed. These gave the Swiss people power in their stand
against the pressures of their neighbors. In the aspiration toward their
political resuscitation the Swiss people paid with their blood. Above all, big
wars were carried on by the Swiss people in their efforts to free themselves
from the political domination of the Austrians.... 

	Switzerland did not always succeed in fencing herself against foreign
influences. Frequently she appeared to follow the will of some of the
neighboring states. At times Switzerland waged wars against France, but later
on in the sixteenth century, she swam in the political waters of France.
Threatened by external dangers, even before the French Revolution, Switzerland
had proclaimed armed neutrality. She also adopted such a policy in later
situations.... 

	It was not until 1815 that the Great Powers recognized the neutrality
of Switzerland and also the inviolability of her territory. But long before the
domestic political struggles boiled down, friction developed with a neighboring
state. Thus, for instance, a war tension arose with France in 1838 because
Switzerland refused to surrender Louis Napoleon. 

	The Austrian emperor Maximilian renounced his rights over Switzerland
in 1499. As an independent state Switzerland was for the first time recognized
in 1648. This saw nearly four hundred years after the beginnings were made
toward Swiss unity by the three forest cantons.... Gradually, by eliminating
the existing obstacles, they were all admitted into the Swiss commonwealth.
Until several decades ago, many factors created barriers among the independent
cantons. For example, tariff barriers existed between them and often their
relations hung in the balance. The Swiss brotherhood of today, therefore, has
been born of many risks and difficulties. 

	The five Great Powers [Austria, France, Great Britain, Prussia, Russia
- Editor], by an act of acknowledgement and guarantee, dated at Paris, November
1815, declared that "the neutrality and inviolability of Switzerland, and her
independence of all foreign influences, enter into the true interests of the
policy of all of Europe. " After the First World War, the states which
recognized the existing condition of Switzerland's perpetual neutrality were
twenty-five. Article 435 of the Versailles Treaty confirms the Paris
stipulations of 1815 and calls them "international engagements for the
preservation of peace." On February 13, 1920, the Council of Ambassadors issued
a declaration according to which Switzerland's neutrality was deemed
justifiable to the interest of the general peace, and as part of the
international law.... 


			*  *  *  *  * 


	But let us for a moment imagine a different picture. Let us suppose
that, in spite of the yearnings of the Swiss peoples, they had not attained
their independence or that it was taken away from them. Let us further imagine
that the Swiss lands are partitioned and placed under the rule of her three
neighboring states; that France, for example, has taken the province included
between Monlen, Basel and the Zurich Lake; that Italy has taken over almost all
of the remaining provinces on the east up to the Austrian border, and that
Germany has the territory around the Bodden Lake with the cantons of Thurgau,
Saint-Gall and part of Zurich. Such a partition of Switzerland would give Italy
about twenty thousand square kilometers of territory, France about seventeen
thousand square kilometers and Germany  even though the bulk of the Swiss
people are of German stock  about five thousand square kilometers. This would
constitute a type of partition nearly identical with that into which Macedonia
is partitioned by her three neighbors  Greece, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria. 

	There would be a complex intermixture of counsel, intrigues,
impediments or encouragements of different political-ideological currents from
abroad  democratic, socialistic, communistic and so on. And for good or ill,
the Swiss people would invariably split on ideological bases. They would feel
bitterly the ruinous effect of the division while under subjugation, even
though it might be in the name of the purest and most innocent ideals. 

.... 

	In the case of Switzerland the following situations are characteristic:

1. Switzerland occupies a central position among her three neighbors  Germany,
France and Italy. 

2. Its population is made up of parts of her neighboring nations. 

3. Numerically, of the different nationalities comprising Switzerland's
population, the German element predominates. 

4. It was manifested how harmful the disrupted state of conditions in
Switzerland was, not only for her inhabitants but also for her neighbors. For a
long time Switzerland was "an apple of discord" which caused great conflict and
bloodshed. 

5. Switzerland's population itself had given the fist signal about the
necessity for her unity. 

6. From a local question the Swiss problem gradually developed into a European
problem, vitally connected with the general peace. 

7. A considerable number of diplomatic actions and enough protractions occurred
before a salutary decision for the recognition of an independent state was
reached. 

8. Suffering caused by domestic friction and strife, as well as her struggles
with neighboring states (including the fights among the neighbors themselves)
not only were not reduced but were greatly augmented. 

9. An inspiring legend was built about Switzerland's struggles for freedom. 

10. Two basic pillars sustain the uniqueness of Switzerland since she became a
free and independent state: first, the existing guarantee of free national
development of her different nationalities and, second, the full respect of
civil and political equality for all. 

11. By the creation and the guarantee of an independent Swiss state, Europe has
earned the following blessing: (a) it dried up a dangerous spring of strifes
between the three neighboring nations, which thereby contributed toward the
general peace; (b) it now furnishes a glittering example for a prudent
settlement of questions similar to that of Switzerland; (c) it rendered a
gratifying justice with regard to the inhabitants of Switzerland. 

	In the spirit of these characteristics, no other country in Europe
resembles Switzerland so much as does Macedonia. Every Macedonian would answer
you that the question for the settlement of Macedonia is very simple, but it is
made complicated only by the self- aggrandizement of her neighbors and the
considerations of distant states. When the Macedonian fighters put forth a
brief explanation of the aims and objectives of their aspirations for a unified
and independent Macedonia, they would fundamentally state that they fight for a
"Switzerland" in the Balkans. In the following pages is explained in more
detail why the Macedonian liberation movement has put this as its political
aim. 




			       Chapter II 

		    MACEDONIA: GEOGRAPHIC IMPORTANCE, 
		          ECONOMIC POSSIBILITIES,
	  	    NATIONAL ORIGINS OF THE POPULATION



	Macedonia is a geographic center of the Balkans. Around her are
situated Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria and Albania. 

	The Vardar River cuts Macedonia from North to South into two equal
parts. Whichever country controls the valley of this riverfrom the sources to
its delta at Salonica might well be said to hold the most important part of the
Balkan Peninsula. 

	The Southern boundary of Macedonia is the Aegean Sea and the Bistritsa
River. The Western boundary passes by the Ochrida Lake and through the summits
of the Albanian border mountains, Korab and Pindus. On the North Macedonia is
bordered by the Shar, Osogov and Rila mountains. The Eastern border is formed
by the Rhodope mountains and the Mesta River (Kara-Su). 

	A glance at the map would show us why the most vital Balkan questions
are so involved with Macedonia. 

	From ancient times, highways stretching to the Danube, Constantinople,
the Aegean and Adriatic Seas passed through Macedonia. These routes were of
great importance not only to the surrounding neighbors but even to distant
countries. 

	The nearest tie of the whole Balkan Peninsula with the countries around
the eastern Mediterranean Sea is through Macedonia and her large seaport of
Salonica. 

	In recent times, the two roads that pass through the valleys of the
Macedonian rivers, Vardar and Struma, and terminate at Salonica and Kavala, are
becoming of much greater value to the countries of eastern and central
Europe.The importance of these roads to Romania, Poland, western Ukraine,
Bulgaria and Serbia is as great as the importance of the Saint Gotthard Pass is
to the German lands and Italy, or as the port of Trieste is to Austria,
Hungary, Slovenia, Czechoslovakia and Croatia. Salonica and Kavala would render
their real value to many nations, and play their most important
commercial-economic role, naturally, only when the hinterland Macedonia from
which they are an inseparable part would become a peaceful land over which
progress, liberty and justice would reign. The Saint Gotthard line serves a 
tremendous commercial exchange between Germany and Italy only because of the
security of the political situation of Switzerland. After 1913, Salonica and
Kavala were cut off from the hinterland and subjected to the stresses of a
pincer-like position.... 

	Macedonia as a crossroad of communications, as a land of tremendous
commercial possibilities and as a strategic area obviously plays in the Balkans
a more significant role than Switzerland does in Western Europe. That is,
Macedonia appears as a more important "apple of discord." The disputes and
conflicts about questions connected with Macedonia bear resemblance to those
which formerly existed in connection with Switzerland. For the best and the
most just settlement of the Macedonian question, therefore, it would be
necessary to resort to the same measures which western Europe applied to
Switzerlandthe creation of an independent Macedonian state, patterned after the
example of Switzerland. 



			* * * * * 


	In the above-indicated boundaries, Macedonia does not differ much in
extent from the state of Philip II, the father of Alexander the Great. The
local native population itself, and the neighboring peoples call this province
by the name of Macedonia. They know exactly what districts are traditionally
considered to fall within her geographic boundaries. This is also confirmed by
many foreign scholars. 

	For centuries the economic direction of Macedonia has been toward the
South, the Aegean Sea, into which all Macedonian rivers flow, and toward that
direction is the attention of her inhabitants focused. Now, unfortunately, she
is compelled economically to direct herself to the north, particularly toward
Serbia, and to receive her imports from Europe and export her products there
through the Danube River. The boundaries which were arbitrarily drawn through
her body in 1913, and were confirmed anew in 1918, are, from an economic
standpoint, an enormous misfortune to the population of Macedonia. Among many
other evils they have greatly contributed to the decline of the seaport of
Salonica.... 

	Undoubtedly, Macedonia has some of the riches undeveloped mineral
resources in the Balkans.... Among the various ores for mining, there are
copper, lead, chrome, zinc, magnesium, nickel and iron.... The extent of the
water power wealth is considerable.... 

	...under a political freedom of Macedonia there would develop a large
commercial activity by both land and sea. She could export in large quantities
to other countries the following products: wheat, hides, wool, cheese, butter,
meat, fruits, vegetables, cotton, silk or silkworms...and rice. Even while she
was under the Turkish regime she exported many of these products. Commercial
ties were had for a long time with countries across the seas, and with Vienna,
Leipzig, Venice, Ragusa [Dubrovnik], Constantinople, Smyrna and other
places.... 


			* * * * * 


	The climate and soil of Macedonia are very favorable. Authorities have
shown us that no other land in the whole of southern part of Europe, starting
from France and as far east as the Caucasus, ever produces so many different
products as that of Macedonia. The soil yields a good quality of grains;
various industrial crops; world-famous tobacco which is the best in the
Balkans; opium, anise, sesame and cotton. Large quantities of fruits, potatoes,
corn and rice are already being grown in Macedonia. There is also silkworm
cultivation. In some sectors of Macedonia, crops are harvested twice during the
year. 


			* * * * * 


	Macedonia has 25,376 square miles of territory. Until 1912, which was
the time she enlarged herself at the expence of Macedonia, Serbia was smaller
than Macedonia. Prior to 1912 Serbia's territory was 18,784 square miles;
Greece territory was 24,969 squared miles - nearly as large as that of
Macedonia. Montenegro as an independent state had only 3,733 square miles... 

	... by both the size of her territory and population, Macedonia
possesses and enjoys excellent conditions for an independent state life. 


			* * * * * 


	For many centuries, the following five national or ethnic groups
Greeks, Bulgarians, Turks, Albanians and Arumanians (Kutzo-Vlachs) lived in
Macedonia. Later on Jewish settlements developed. 

	We now find that every trace of the ancient Macedonians, fellow
countrymen of Alexander the Great who inhabited the country two or three
thousand years ago, is erased. 

	The Greeks were primarily found in the coastal cities. The Greek
settlements by the seacoast are very old, dating as far back as ancient Greece
and the Byzantine epoch. After 1922 many were brought in from Asia Minor and
have settled a little northward from the seacoast. 

	The Albanians are also ancient inhabitants of the Balkans. Taking
advantage of their privileged position as Mohammedans during the Turkish
domination of the country, Albanian settlements were established in some of the
western districts of Macedonia. 

	In the fifth century after Christ, the Bulgarian Slavs settled
compactly in Macedonia. They were in the minority only in some of the coastal
towns. 

	The Arumanians are also ancient inhabitants of the Peninsula. They came
into Macedonia from the South, because of pursuit by the Mussulmans. It is
generally believed that some of them have been living in Macedonian since the
time of the Romans conquest. Their settlements are primarily found to the west
of the Vardar River. 

	The Turks arrived in Macedonia as conquerors in the fifteenth century.
They have settled in every strategic province, village and town of the country.

	The Jews are mainly concentrated in Salonica and a small number of them
are found in some of the other cities. 


			* * * * * 

	Numerous authorities on Macedonia are compelled to use the statistics
which were issued before 1912. The reason for this is, first, because after
that date there were no reliable new statistics, and, second, ever since 1912
there began a forceful exchange and expulsion of the population from some
Macedonian districts. 

	Dr. Carl Shrup, Professor of Civil Law at the University of
Frankfurt-on-Main, and member of the Institute for International Law, in his
book "The Just Situation of the Macedonians in Yugoslavia", gives nearly twenty
statistical sources on the composition of the population of Macedonia. 

	That the Bulgarians of Macedonia number about 1,200,000 people is
further established by the following authorities on Macedonia referred to in
Prof. Shrup's book: V. Teploff, Russian, whose data were published in 1877; 
Stephan Verkovich, a Croatian scholar whose works were published by the Serbian
Academy of Science and contain data published in 1889;  Prof. Gustav Weigand,
an excellent scholar of the Macedonian Bulgarians and Arumanians, whose works
with information on Macedonia were published in 1898;  Gustav Rutier,
Frenchman, whose data were published in 1903 in his book "La Macedoine et la
Puisance";  Prof. T. D. Florinski, Russian, whose data were published in 1907
in his book  "The Slav Populations: Statistical-Ethnographic Riview of the
Slavic population of Our Day;  Robert Pelletier, Frenchman, whose data were
published in 1913 in his book "The Truth of Bulgaria";  Richard von Mach, whose
data were published in 1906 in his book "Der Machtbereich der Bulgarischen
Exarchat in der Turkei";   Leon Dominiani, an American, whose data were
published in 1917 by the American Geographical Society of New York, in his book
"The Frontiers of Language and Nationality in Europe". 

	The round number of the nationalities living in Macedonia until 1912 is
the fillowing: 

	Bulgarians ................. 1,200,000
	Greeks .....................   240,000
	Turks ......................   500,000
	Albanians ..................   160,000
	Arumanians .................    80,000
	Jews .......................    90,000
	Miscellaneous ..............    40,000

	
	According to Leon Dominian's statistics published by the American
Geographic Society of New York, the Greeks of Macedonia number 190,000. The
Turkish statistics have always shown the Macedonian Bulgarians as 50% of the
total population of Macedonia. 

	The heterogeneous ethnic groups of the population of Macedonia are
segments of the nationalities which for centuries inhabited the Balkans and
have their own national states. In this respect the situation is almost the
same as that of Switzerland. 

	In Switzerland the entire population is Christian, but divided into
Catholics and Protestants. In Macedonian there are Mussulmans and Christians.
Almost all of the Christians are of the Eastern Orthodox faith. Such disputes
as there were among the people were chiefly due to the difference of
nationalities rather than of religious differences. 

	Shortly before the Balkan War, the Turks attempted to colonize
Macedonia with Bosnians, who left Bosnia after the ultimate annexation of the
country by Austria-Hungary. But this colonization was not successful. After
Turkey's defeat in 1912, practically all the Bosnian settlers fled to Turkey
proper. After the first World War, Serbia had also attempted to settle in
Macedonia her nationals from the districts which she had acquired from Hungary.
This attempt also culminated into a fiasco. Greece, after she was defeated in
the war against Turkey in 1922, brought several hundred thousands of her
fellow-Greeks form Asia Minor. These people were settled in the localities
vacated by the Turkish inhabitants, in accordance with the treaty for the
exchange of populations, and also in places vacated by thousands of Bulgarians
expelled by the Greek authorities. 

	On the basis of this increase in the number of Greeks in that sector of
Macedonia which is under Greek jurisdiction, interested factors endeavor to put
forth the idea that an independent Macedonia would be entirely impossible. Such
an assertion is, of course, unfounded. Those who point this out never did wish
and independent Macedonia even while the Greeks there were less in number. If
there are so many reasons that make the creation of an independent Macedonian
state imperative, the large number of Greeks there in no way should thwart such
a solution. The Bulgarians were five times greater in number than the Greeks of
Macedonia, and yet they did not take advantage of this circumstance to argue
against the political unity of the country. 
	
	One would observe that in Switzerland the German-speaking population
numbers about 71%, while the French-speaking is about 21% and the
Italian-speaking is about 6% of her total inhabitants. Never did the
German-speaking Swiss inhabitants say that Switzerland must not exist and that
they ought to join Germany since they are in the majority. The numerical
relationship among the nationalities of Macedonia in no way minimizes the
benefits to be achieved by the solution of the Macedonian question through the
creation of an independent state. 

	One hears objections to the effect that the main obstacle for the
realization of and independent Macedonian state, especially if it ought to be
organized on a federal basis, is the fact that there is a mixed population, and
that in every province there are inhabitants of two or more nationalities. But
even that cannot be entirely the basis for the rejection of the idea for the
independence of the country. After all, there is not a single province there in
which the population of a certain nationality does not predominate. That would
facilitate in resorting to the use of the cantonal system in the organization
of the country. But the full equality of the five local languages would once
and for all time adjust the relationship among the different nationalities. In
general, the southern part of the country has now a predominating Greek
character, while the whole central and northern part of the country is
predominantly Bulgarian. In a few of the most western districts the Mussulmans
Albanians and Turks might prove to be in the majority. In this manner the
contour of the probable cantons could be sketched, if they must absolutely have
a national color. But Macedonian could organize herself excellently without
resorting to the cantonal system, for which heretofore she has had no
tradition. Equality and freedom for every citizen and every nationality would
be sufficient basis. 



			Chapter III 


		ASPIRATIONS OF THE BALKAN STATES 



	After the division of the Roman Empire during the latter part of the
fourth century, the eastern half, known by the name of Byzantium, included
almost the entire Balkan Peninsula. Although the Greek nationality gradually
gained preponderance in Byzantium, it was never Greece. 

	For nearly four centuries the Balkan lands remained under Byzantine
domination. It was during that time that the Balkans were flooded by a large
number of trans-Danube Slavic tribes. Toward the end of the seventh century the
Bulgarians crossed the Danube and, after much bloodshed and many struggles,
settled in the northeastern corner of the Balkan Peninsula. They thereby came
into permanent contact with Byzantium, which was a state comprised by various
nationalities and which extended beyond the European continent. Its official
language was Greek, but its people called themselves Romans and not Greeks,
because the Greek element was numerically unimportant. In the seventh century
Bulgaria emerged and shortly afterward she appeared as Byzantium's rival for
Balkan supremacy. For centuries Macedonia was held by the Bulgarians, while at
times the Bulgarian army had reached as far as the vicinity of Athens. 

	The Serbians appeared much later on the historical scene. However, as
they reached the western borders of Bulgaria, the Serbs came into conflict with
Bulgaria, and when the latter had weakened, the Serbians clashed for a short
time with Byzantium. In the fourteenths century the Serbian state extended over
Macedonia, but only for very short periods, at times for ten years, at others
for twenty, and at the eve of the Turkish ascendancy, for thirty years. 

	The Turks were rulers of Macedonia for five full centuries  from the
end of the fourteenth century until 1912. 

	In their mutual conflicts the Balkan states allude to those historical
proofs which conform with their self-interests to justify their aspirations
toward Macedonia. But, from the the standpoint of contemporary life and
necessity, these "proofs" are very meager and lifeless. Today, there are far
more comprehensive, crying necessities that have incomparably greater weight on
the scale, when all considerations are being weighed for one of the other
decision with regard to Macedonia. But since the Serbians make such an effort
to stress historical references in order to justify their aspiration over
Macedonia, it is essential that we should not entirely by-pass this question.
As far as the Serbians are concerned, the truth itself is contained in the
following well-established proof: the Serbians have by far the weakest
historical claim for their pretension over Macedonia. By the force of such
basis of claim, even the Turks would have full right to demand the
incorporation of Macedonia within their borders, since they dominated Macedonia
for five centuries; that is, about fifteen times longer than the Serbians who
held only some of the provinces. The Turks not only dominated the whole
country, but, what is more, there were 500,000 Turkish inhabitants, besides
about 150,000 Mussulman Albanians, and about 100,000 Bulgarians who had been
converter to Mohammedanism. Not withstanding the fact that the bulk of the
Turkish population has emigrated to Turkey proper, a considerable number of
Turks are still living in some Macedonian districts ...

	From a national and also a historical standpoint, Serbia has no right
to pretend for Macedonia. In this respect the rights of Bulgaria and Greece are
obvious and large. Before them stands helpless every chauvinistic
sentimentalism, such as that of the Belgrade propaganda center which has
contributed so much to the artificial complications of the Balkan situation.
Through the force of circumstances and a lucky chance, once she set her foot in
Macedonia, the Serbian intelligentsia began to imagine that it should be able
to manage the entire affairs of the wide space from the Alps to the Black Sea.
Toward this aim she is persisting with her political madness, which constantly
disturbs the Balkan people Serbia raised her own delusions into sacred maxims,
while her propaganda even today aims and strives to erase completely all ethnic
and historic facts which alone are the sacred truths. Serbia's pretensions over
Macedonia have primarily a motive of conquest. 

	But, say the Serbian advocates, Serbia has waged three wars for
Macedonian since 1912. For the conquest of foreign lands a country may wage
thirty wars. In reality, since 1912, three or four wars have been waged by
Greece and by Bulgaria for Macedonia. These countries, at least, have the
solace to their conscience that they were engaged in these wars for the
liberation of their subjugated brothers  the Greeks for their fellow-nationals
along the Macedonian seacoast and the Bulgarians for their own brothers, living
throughout the length and breadth of Macedonia. The Serbians have had none of
their own people to liberate in Macedonia. 

	In recent time the Serbians have presented to the world arguments of an
economic nature. These types of arguments appeared only when Serbia's hopes for
the acquisition of Bosnia and Herzegovina from Austro-Hungarian domination were
immensely reduced. Then the Serbian state policy began to press toward
Salonica, in the expectation of a certain disintegration of Turkey. A huge
propaganda emanated form Belgrade, and at the same time Serbia's diplomacy was
accelerated, in order to win over influential governments and to shape public
opinion abroad in behalf of her pretensions over Macedonia, which were based
chiefly upon economic considerations. 

	Serbia claims that economic needs have forced her to look toward
Macedonia. If that really was the case, then why did she, even before her
administrative organs were established there, deny the national name of the
local Bulgarians? ... Again, was all of this for economic considerations? As
soon as they set their foot in Macedonia, the Serbian authorities immediately
expelled the local Bulgarian intelligentsia, the teachers, the priests, and
bishops. They resorted to arrests, intimidations, and killings. They introduced
a regime in Macedonia which forced the population there, even in the first few
weeks after the defeat of Turkey, to pray and dream for the return of the
Turkish rule. By what economic considerations were these measures introduced?
In the course of twenty years, they have twice forced a change of the
centuries-old Bulgarian name of the Macedonian Slavs, and by unprecedented
terrorism, once they name them Serbians, later, Yugoslavs. 

	...That Serbia's policy was not necessarily shaped by economic
considerations was further demonstrated by the fact that she alone was set
against the idea for an autonomous or independent Macedonia. If the Adriatic,
to which she is nearer, became inaccessible for her, Serbia's economic an
commercial needs could be greatly satisfied through Salonica with the creation
of an independent state of Macedonia, and through mutual understanding and good
neighbor relations. 



			* * * * * * * * * 



	Because of Byzantium's past domination over Macedonia, historical
pretensions, much greater than those of the Serbians, are advanced by the
Greeks. However, against the Greek pretensions the following refutations should
be pointed out: Greece of today cannot completely identify herself with
Byzantium as, for example, the former Austro-Hungarian Empire cannot by all
means identify herself with only one of her constituent nationalities. The
Greek language and character predominated in Byzantium in the same way as, in
general, the German language and atmosphere predominated in Austria-Hungary.
Moreover, the Greek population did not exist in Macedonia except in the coastal
cities. Besides this, the Byzantine Empire stretched its authority as far as
Hungary, the Adriatic, the Caucasus, and the Crimea. The Greeks of today then
should be putting forth their fantastic pretensions for all of these lands. 

	If one looks upon the situation in this manner, then Bulgaria on her
part must demand the lands as far as Budapest, Constantinople, Athens and the
Adriatic coast, since her medieval frontiers stretched to these points. By the
force of this logic, then the Turks ought to move their frontiers as far as
Vienna, since they twice reached that point. On the basis of historical
background during the reign of Rome, it would follow that all of Europe,
including England, as well as the entire coast of northern Africa and the Near
East, ought to be placed under the authority of Rome, since once all of these
lands were dominated by the Roman Empire. These are, of course, naive and
ridiculous pretensions. But by certain countries serious political questions
are made of them, and hitherto the Greeks in Athens continue to bestow upon
church dignitaries medieval titles, which remind them of the once Byzantine
worldly and church rule as far as the currents of the lower Danube. 

.... 

	The Greek aspirations over Macedonia, even only over the southern part
of it, until recently had an entirely weak national support. We have pointed
out that from the time of Byzantium until twenty-five years ago the number of
the Greek population remained approximately one-fifth that of the Macedonian
Bulgarians. In the entire country the Greeks never did figure more than ten to
eleven per cent of the total population. And behold! The Greeks set forth the
thesis that all who profess the Greek Orthodox faith are Greeks! Not only the
entire Bulgarian nation, but even the rest of the Christian peoples of the
Balkans were declared as Hellenes (Greeks), but speaking different languages.
It would be the same if the Catholics throughout the world were declared
Italians, since the Catholic center originally was created in Italy, the same
as the first center of Greek Orthodoxy was in the hands of the Greek clergy of
the Constantinople Patriarchate. 

	Other means used in defense of the greater Greek thesis were the
intentional falsification of the statistics. Elsewhere we mentioned that these
statistics were even disproved by the Turks. During its five century-old
domination, Turkey at no time was ever interested in supporting the Bulgarian
national cause against the Greeks, but vice versa. Through the privileges given
to the Greek Patriarchate by the Sultan ever since the fall of Constantinople
(1453), the Greek clergy for centuries worked uninterrupted for the
denationalization of the Bulgarian people. And yet the Turks, in the course of
five hundred years, were recording in their state archives the Slavic
population of Macedonia as Bulgarian. Without any doubt, the Turkish
attestation regarding the nationality of the Macedonian population must be
accepted by all as the most objective. 

	In recent times, Greece finds support in the number of Greeks which
were brought from Asia Minor and settled in Macedonia. But the important fact
is overlooked that thousands of Bulgarians were forced by the Greek regime,
against their will, to leave Macedonian, but their desire to return to their
native places has not been extinguished. 

	It should be pointed out that in the Greek government there exists the
idea for the expulsion of the entire Bulgarian population of southern
Macedonia. Almost constantly there are put into operation various methods to
drive away the Bulgarian inhabitants. Lately it seems that the favorite thought
of the Greek authorities is to uproot them completely from their native soil.
To his idea is given the designation of "exchange of populations." (See
Translator's note, below) In reality it does not concern any exchange, since
against and eventual expulsion of the Bulgarians, who have departed to
Bulgaria, the latter has no Greek population within her confines to send to
Greece as an "exchange." But even if she should have, such a method for the
"settlement" of the Macedonian question would be most unfortunate. It would
only serve to sharpen animosity and create ill-feelings. All the causes for
dispute about Macedonia, as well as her neighbors' struggles, would remain.
Such a solution would imply as guilty the very people who are suffering and
deprived of their rights. The impression would be given that the necessary
measures had been taken for the restoration of their rights. 

(Translator's Note: A convention for "voluntary emigration" was signed on
November 27, 1919, by the Prime Ministers of Greece and Bulgaria  Venizelos and
Stamboliski, respectively. Actually, the "voluntary emigration" of Bulgarians
from Greece became compulsory, as the Greek government employed every possible
means of forcing them to leave the country. During the first years of
emigration, thousands of Bulgarian families left Greece for Bulgaria. The
Greco-Bulgarian convention stipulated that the departing Bulgarians should sell
their real estate either themselves or by proxy, estates unsold by December 18,
1922, being left for liquidation by a mixed committee appointed for the
purpose. According to a statement issued by the mixed committee, the remaining
Greek debt to the Bulgarian emigrants as of August, 1931, was 1,029,378,938
levs. On June 30, 1932, the Greek government refused to pay this sum which it
owed to private individuals. 

"Voluntary" emigration was only one side of the problem. There still remained
the question of the Bulgarian minority that had elected to remain in Greece,
about 150,000 to 200,000 persons living chiefly in southwestern Macedonia.
Considering them sufficiently remote from the Bulgarian frontier, the Greek
government believed they would be easily assimilated and had not compelled them
to emigrate. After the fall of Venizelos in 1920, it had even declared its
willingness to grant certain minority rights to the Slav population. That is to
say, the Greeks acknowledged the existence of a Bulgarian minority without,
however, making any concession - Translator.) 


	It was expected that the Greek state would live up to the provisions of
the treaty for the protection of the minorities. Instead of answering for her
prolonged maladministration of minorities, the Greek governments proposed the
extermination of the Bulgarians from their native hearths. It would seem to
them quite advantageous if the new world order, expected by the majority of
mankind with so much hope, embraced the same injustices which they have
legalized in their own state. It is not that the local inhabitants, settled in
Macedonia fifteen centuries ago, ought to be expelled, but, on the contrary,
that the exiled Macedonians ought to get back to their native homes. Let us
recall the words of President Woodrow Wilson: 

	"There shall be no annexations, no contributions, no punitive damages.
Peoples are not to be handed about from one sovereignty to another by an
international conference or an understanding between rivals and antagonists.
National aspirations must be respected; peoples may now be dominated and
governed only by their own consent. 'Self-determination' is not a mere phrase.
It is an imperative principle of action, which statesmen will henceforth ignore
at their peril. We cannot have general peace for the asking, or by the mere
arrangement of a peace conference. It cannot be pieced together out of
individual understandings between powerful states. All the parties to this was
must join in the settlement of every issue anywhere involved in it; because
what we are seeking is a peace that we can all unite to guarantee and maintain
and every item of it must be submitted to the common judgment whether it be
right and fair, and act of justice, rather than a bargain between sovereigns."
(From President Woodrow Wilson's address to Congress on Feb. 11, 1918.) 

	The Macedonian territory ruled by Greece is already referred to as an
indispensable granary for Greece. But before Greece acquired this land, old
Greece lived for nearly one hundred years without Macedonia's wheat.... The
most renowned Greek statesman in modern times, Eleutherios Venizelos, publicly
tried to convince the Greek nation during 1912 that most of the Macedonian
lands, including the districts of Drama, Kavala, Seres and as far as Salonica,
ought to belong to Bulgaria. For general Balkan tranquility and other
considerations, it would be much easier for Greece now to let these districts
go to constitute part of an independent Macedonian state. 


			* * * * * 


	Whether or not by her own initiation, in recent times some Albanian
quarters issued maps and wrote articles in which the boundaries of Albania are
shown to extend as far as the Vardar River, that is, embracing almost half of
Macedonia. Naturally, such assumptious attempts are ridiculous. But they also
can contribute their share in the Balkan misunderstandings. In western
Macedonia there is an Albanian population. It has never been disputed on the
part of the Macedonian Bulgarians. The Serbians and the Greeks, however, have
always wanted to oppress this Albanian population. These people live near the
present Albanian state boundary. It is at a distance from the center of
Macedonia, toward which the above-mentioned maps and articles are pushing
Albania. The whole of western Macedonia has a preponderant Bulgarian
population. The provinces in which the Macedonian Albanians live lie within
Macedonian both economically and geographically. Most of them are separated
from Albania by mountainous walls, as, for example, the Pyrenees separate
France from Spain. Leading Albanians have logically pointed out that, since
these places belong to Macedonia, they could eventually be included as
separated cantons in an independent Macedonia, with the same national rights
and liberties as shall be provided for the whole country. 

... 

	These circumstances are of importance for everyone who wishes to
investigate basically the relations of the Balkans, taking under consideration,
of course, their moral state. 




				Chapter VI 

	THE GOAL OF MACEDONIA: A BALKAN EMULATION OF SWITZERLAND



	How will an independent Macedonia be in its organization? First of all
she should have just as much unconditional independence as any of her
neighboring states. 

	In its political structure, Macedonia would quickly reach that of the
well-organized small European states, which never entertained the idea of
provoking wars or casting their eyes upon other peoples' territory and
fortunes. To be able to reach them also, in their material and cultural
organization, would require of her  intensive and creative work, particularly
during the first twenty to thirty years. [...] 

	The people's energy and thought would be directed toward constructive
work, rather than struggles. Cooperation would take place of antagonisms. There
would immediately be a guarantee for the building of Macedonia as an exemplary
small state. That guarantee would primarily be in the will of the people to
preserve unity, equality before the law, and to foster its direction toward
progress. [...] 

	There is hardly a Macedonian who entertains ideas for a monarchical
form of government, even though  there are other people who have the opinion
that, in the Balkan stability could be retained only through a monarchical form
if government. 

	Whether Macedonia would prefer to pattern its democracy after that of
France or that of America, or whether she would entirely introduce that
typified by Switzerland, would be determined by the future Macedonian
constituent assembly. [...] 

	By the assurance of full liberty for all its comprising peoples, the
cantonal system could be dispensed with in  Macedonia. But if demands were
presented for it, that system could readily be introduced there,
notwithstanding the fact that there is no support for such a system in the
tradition or the economic needs of the country. Only eventual reasons
concerning the nationalities there could call for the cantonal system of
organization. Should that be the case, then a canton could be drown from the
districts in which the Greeks are in the majority. Another canton could be
created for the provinces in which the Bulgarians are in the majority. One or
two smaller cantons with Albanian population could be organized. 

	As far as the extent of cantonal self-government is concerned, it is
probable that it would not be in the interest of Macedonian unity to go to the
extreme with regard to the independence of the cantons. Macedonia would need a
greater internal unity, rather than divisions. She should remain true to the
necessity and principle which created her an independent state - the necessity
of consolidation, the principle of federation. The Swiss Constitution limits
the sovereignty of the cantons through the monopoly held by the Federal
government of the post offices, the monetary system,collection of duties,
managing the country's foreign affairs, maintaining an army, and the
application of a common legal system. [...] 

	The emigrants from Macedonia must be given every possible legal
facility and a generous time limit for return to their fatherland with the
rights of regular citizens. Repatriation of the emigrants would be necessary
for the advancement of the cultural and economic aspects of the country. It
would also bring about a great practical contribution toward settling the
Macedonian question in its entirety. 

	The freedom of the nationalities must inevitably be guaranteed by the
constitution. Official recognition of the five languages - Bulgarian, Greek,
Turkish, Albanian, and Arumanian - would be desirable. It would follow then
that the school should require the study, in addition to the mother language,
of at least two of the remaining languages. These could be chosen either by the
students or recommended by the parents. On this question the Swiss practice
would be a valid example. 

	Every nationality could maintain unhindered its cultural and spiritual
ties with its fellow nationals of the neighboring Balkan states and elsewhere.
The nationalities could actively and symbolically preserve affiliations with
their corresponding common national churches. It is expected that in Macedonia
the church would be separated from the State. However, the connections with
high church administrations in neighboring states should cause her no
difficulties. For a number of decades the church within the frontiers of the
Bulgarian state recognized as its head the Exarch, whose seat was in
Constantinople, the capital of Turkey. All Catholic groups in the various
countries acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope, whose seat is in Rome. We find
the same situation with the Catholics of Switzerland, a circumstance which has
not interfered with her internal development or her foreign relations. When the
relations of the nationalities in Macedonia have been stabilized, the affairs
of the church should take care of themselves. 

	The nationalities must unconditionally be given their schools and other
social institutes which were forcibly eliminated in 1912. The constitution
there should recognize the nationalities which history has acknowledged, and
those which were able to carry on with their national name during the
centuries-old Turkish regime. In order to insure the future tranquillity of the
country, the basic law of the country must prohibit every provocation of
arguments and tussles of nationality character. 

	The democratic cooperation of the nationalities in building and
developing the new Macedonian state must also be prescribed by the constitution
and law of the state. No nationality there should ever be permitted to dominate
the others through arrogance, craftiness, or force. 

	The fraternization among the nationalities in Macedonia ought to be
greatly facilitated through uniformity in the laws, and also in the cultural,
economic, educational, judicial, and all other domains. From 1912 until the
present time neither has there been identity of the laws for the whole country
nor, in general, were the legislative branches of the dominating state ever
inspired by love toward all local nationalities. 

	All citizens of the country, irrespective of their nationality, must
have and enjoy equal rights and opportunities for admission to the judicial and
participation in the prosecution authorities. The courts should be the
guardians for the unhampered benefits and obligations derived from the basic
law of the land, as well as for the enforcement and observation of the statute
law. Particular care must be taken that no administration should exercise its
authority in preference to any one nationality at the expense of the remainder.
An absolute impartial, independent, and irremovable judicial and prosecution
cadre would greatly contribute toward the realization of these objectives. 


	* 	*	*	*	*	*	* 


	With the disappearance of the nationalistic passions, an independent
Macedonia could not be used as a terrain for sharp party disputes and
differences. It would be a country of every opportunity. [...] 

			*	*	* 


	Macedonia's relations with her neighbors would be placed on a most
cordial and loyal basis. She would, however, resist every form of irredentism.
She would make all reasonable economic arrangements without becoming anyone's
slave in that respect. [...] 

	There is no ground for argument to be raised about her boundaries
between Bulgaria and Serbia. Macedonia is defined there with her own geographic
boundary. On the Albanian side, her boundary is likewise defined by the high
chains of the Shar-Planina, Korab, and other ranges. If, with Greece in the
south, there would come up some boundary disputes, their settlement would not
be difficult. 

	Before the talks began for Macedonian independence, the benefits of a
Balkan federation were pointed out. As a happy decision for the Peninsula, the
federation would also be acceptable to the Macedonian fighters. The moment she
ceased to be an "apple of discord" in the Balkans, Macedonia would be willing
to become a link in the Balkans. In this respect the Macedonians have pointed
out that in the idea for the revival of their fatherland, there is contained no
ambition for absolute power, no selfishness on a nationalistic basis, no hatred
toward anyone of her neighbors. She fosters only a far-sighted conception for
the common interest, vision for the necessity of Balkan harmony, and a concern
for peace in general. By drawing closer together, the needs of the Balkan
peoples could be well satisfied. But that cannot be attained by wars, nor even
through the numerous treaties between them which are so often transgressed by
non-fulfillment. Imbued by the great idea of solidarity and unity, the
Macedonian fighters have always been ready to agree that a big part of the
sovereignty of the future Macedonian state - the most essential one at that,
the foreign affairs - be transferred to the common Balkan federal government,
provided the remaining Balkan states would agree to do the same. 

	If, however, a Balkan block, federation, or confederation would not
serve the cause of peace, freedom, and justice but would, instead, manifest an
aggressive tendency, a free Macedonia would not then be in sympathy with it. Of
course, none of the leaders of the Macedonian movement has ever entertained the
idea to transfer Macedonia's sovereignty to any other country. We have as an
example America, where none of the different free states has ever transferred
its sovereignty to another state or group of states, but every one of them has
directly entered into a common federal state - the U.S.A. The Balkan federation
would be in reality justifiable only when the Balkan countries voluntarily
accept it, being in advance free from the guardianship and pressure which might
forcibly have been imposed upon them and against which they had been fighting.
The Balkan federation is a question that refers to all Balkan states.
Macedonia, however, has a much more important problem of her own - the
attainment of her freedom and independence, and of international guarantee for
her right to exist as a separate political entity. 

	Taken as a whole, an independent Macedonia would have no reason for
disagreements with her neighbors. If she should receive some sort of
international guarantee, she would promote harmony all around her. In her
political organization and also in her position under the international law, an
independent Macedonia would entirely resemble Switzerland. 


		*	*	*	*	* 

 
 	The position for independence stands higher than all other points of
view in connection with Macedonia because of the fact that is is not
egocentric. It is concerned just as much for her neighbors, including even
those who have opposed her, as it is for Macedonia. The Macedonian fighters
have fostered a creative idea that gives breath to, and reveals prospectives for,
a sick and disturbed Balkan Peninsula. The means for the transmission of that
idea are at hand. The arguments for it are vital and convincing. The past and
the present illustrate them abundantly, while the future points them out to
everyone. Only the good will of her neighbors, and that of the more distant
countries, is necessary for its realization. 

	The creation of an independent Macedonia would in no way offset the
balance of powers between the three disputing states - Bulgaria, Serbia, and
Greece - which without it would be numerically almost the same. With the wars
waged between them in the past, their numerical correlation has not changed
much, except for the damage done to all of them. In modern times their
conflicts have been primarily about Macedonia. They would not cease even in the
future, for still newer reasons of political, economic, and military character
would constantly be dragged forth in order to justify their pressure upon
Macedonia. And yet they always forget the quantity of blood that has been shed
among them in the past, the national resources that have been squandered, the
destruction that was caused, without achieving anything except mutual incurment
of animosity and self-exhaustion. 

	In the course of 750 years there have been carried on nearly eighty
wars between Bulgaria and Byzantium. On the average there was a war for every
ten years. Naturally, not all of these wars were on a big scale; sometimes they
were only a result of partial expeditions or military demonstrations. But even
in these cases national resources were invested in mutual rancors, while
international  became more and more intensified. Only when Byzantium and
Bulgaria were both under the Turkish dominance were there no wars between them.
Between Serbia and Bulgaria, during Serbia's short free existence in the Middle
Ages, there were waged ten to fifteen wars. They were at peace only after both
were conquered by the Turks. 

	As soon as Serbia and Byzantium became neighbors during the Middle Ages
friction also developed between them. After their liberation from the Turkish
yoke during the nineteenth century the three Balkan states were again at each
other's throats. Within seventy years there were waged three wars between
Greece and Bulgaria, and four wars between Serbia and Bulgaria. Even though the
last war - the second World War - passed without any declared military action,
it assumed the character of military manipulations against one another. It is
obvious that the material and spiritual forces of these peoples in their short
peaceful periods were engaged only in preparation for the next war. During the
course of their whole history they have been psychologically at war with one
another. In the Balkan War, after a five century-old common suffering during
the Turkish regime, the Balkan states found themselves allied for only two or
three months, and after that they were at war with each other. 

	Similar history, without doubt, could be prolonged for at least a
thousand more years, if an acceptable formula for peaceful and happy relations
between them cannot be found. The key to this formula is an independent
Macedonia. She would physically separate their countries from one another. As a
general rule there have always been irritations and wars between neighboring
states. It has been so in the west, and it has been so in the east. Amidst the
Slavic peoples, for example, patience and friendliness have existed only
between those which were not neighboring. Even thus has been the relation of
the Balkan peoples, not only among themselves but in other directions. Let us
take, for example, the Bulgarians and the Hungarians, who, not being neighbors
today, have maintained friendly relations between them, and, at times,
sentimental manifestations. But during the Middle Ages, when the Bulgarian and
Hungarian states were neighboring, they were engaged in nearly twenty wars.
Causes for conflict were always found. Hungary and Bulgaria also fought for
hegemony, but mainly for the domination of the provinces around Belgrade. 

	The fundamental cause for the Balkan disorder today, as we have already
stated, is their aspiration toward the conquest of the Macedonian lands. In
connection with this aspiration all of the Balkan states are mutually laying in
wait, even when they are formally in friendly and allied ties, such as in
recent times has often been the case between Greece and Serbia. That is why the
causes for such situations must be neutralized, and why Macedonia must become
an independent state. The decision, however, would be effective only if an
international guarantee in some form stands behind it. 

	As far as the Bulgarian nation is concerned, she accepts this decision
with consciousness that sacrifices must be made for the cause of Balkan peace
and harmony. In this Bulgaria would conduct herself according to Solomon's wise
advice during the argument about the child's real mother. It is much better,
indeed, for the Bulgarians of Macedonia to live free and make progress in an
independent Macedonia, than for Bulgaria to continue wasting their forces in
attempts for all-Bulgarian unity, so this agreeable to others, while the
Macedonian Bulgarians themselves still remain in bandage. 

	Some are inclined to think that the attachment for their own
nationality would prove for Greeks and Bulgarians much stronger than their
loyalty to an independent Macedonia. That perhaps could be true if the future
Macedonian state would permit national oppression. Since such oppression will
be forbidden by the constitution and laws, then their love for their own
nationality would dictate the sustainment of an independent Macedonia.
Otherwise, it would mean the repetition of the wretched past - afflictions of
quarrels, wars, and lastingly uncertain future for all in the Balkans. In
resuscitated Macedonia there would be found a happy harmony between the two
feelings - one toward their correlative nationality, and the other toward their
native country, Macedonia. 

	The Bulgarian population in Macedonia through its participation in IMRO
has proved that it accepts wholeheartedly the idea for an independent
Macedonia. The flare of civil strife in souther Macedonia during the second
World War indicates that the frame of mind and also the interests of the local
Greek population have been interpreted entirely wrong on the part of the
nationalistic governments in Athens. Amidst this population there have appeared
autonomist tendencies, as well as the proneness for other political
combinations entirely different from those of the Greater Greece centers. While
Bulgaria, Greece, and, to a certain extent, Albania, would have to make
sacrifices in Solomon's spirit, there are other Balkan states which need make
no sacrifices for an independent Macedonia, except to renounce their greediness
with regard to territory which does not belong to them anyway. 

	All friends of Macedonia in the European countries and in America have
recommended exactly such a settlement of the Macedonian question. The famous
Englishman and former prime minister, William E. Gladstone, was the first to
proclaim the formula of "Macedonia for the Macedonians". The great Russian
historian and statesman, former minister of foreign affairs, Professor Paul N.
Miliyukoff, pointed out more that once that Macedonia must be autonomous as a
step towards Balkan federation, and that her division would lead to
dissatisfaction and wars (Professor Miliyukoff, during 1899, had written in the
Russian journal "Ruskoe Bogatstvo" (Russian Wealth) that in discussion of the
old project for a Balkan federation it was invariably stopped over the unsolved
Macedonian question. He pointed out that Serbia's desire for the division of
Macedonia could only be realized through war, and that it would be forcibly
imposed upon Bulgaria and also on the majority of the Macedonian population.
The desire for autonomy, according to Miliyukoff, harmonizes with diplomatic
practices and traditions, as well as with the disposition of the Macedonians.
During July, 1913, Miliyukoff declared, in a speech delivered in a Russian
Duma, that Macedonia ought to be autonomous, since that would be the most
natural solution of the Macedonian question. See the collection of journal
"Ruskoe Bogatstvo", p. 291). The well-known, and for many years Balkan
correspondent for the London Times, James D. Bourchier, an excellent student of
the Balkan political situation, in vain recommended to President Wilson to
present to the Paris Peace Conference the question for the revival of
Macedonia, even if only as an American mandate for the first number of years.
It is impossible for us to enumerate here all the names of the many foreign
authorities on Macedonia. However, they would all show that the independence of
Macedonia would be in complete harmony with all the great principles so often
proclaimed since the first World War. 

	The creation of independent Macedonia will round out the liberation of
the Balkans which started at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Only
after that could there be the beginning of the real rapprochement of the free
Balkan people. Only then could they undertake mutual obligations not to resort
to war as a means of national and state policy. If it would be mutually desired
by all, they could - as stated before - even build a Balkan federation. Once
the Macedonian question is settled, it would mean both practically and
symbolically, well settled and tranquil Balkans. And if the Balkan States can
not reconcile themselves in connection with Macedonia, which is for them
touchstone, then all other settlements would rest upon sandy foundations. 

	Once, five centuries ago, the Balkan states disappeared one after
another because of the absence of unity. Disunited, quarreling, fighting, and
causing each other undue injustices, they could again easily disappear in the
future. The cohesive element for peace, and unity among them could be found
only in their mutual trust. It shall come when justice is brought down from the
cross upon which it was crucified. The Balkan peoples must not permit that any
people among them be humiliated and plundered. If the great nations feel the
necessity to hold together with other forces close to them by interest,
mentality, and location, still more must the small Balkan states depend upon
one another, because by interest, mentality, and location they were created by
nature as one block. 

	Wisdom in politics is, above all, foreseeing the future. If a new world
is to be organized, the mistakes of the past must be recognized and the
necessary corrections must be made. All the the sources of injustice must be
eradicated because they are the sources of disturbance. The several very
controversial provinces in Europe, instead of being forcibly kept by the other,
must be permitted to become independent. A classical example of such a province
in Europe is Macedonia. We reiterate that refutations that such disputed
provinces cannot be self-sustaining are groundless. Until the present, none
ever fed them. The people there have managed with sweat and labor to make their
own living. Actually such provinces also produce enough to feed their
conquerors, who have converted them into an object of exploitation. 

	Macedonia, should be able to have the right to rely on political help
from abroad. Not a single one of the Balkan states was ever created without the
assistance of some or all of the Great Powers. At the time when Serbia was
fighting to free herself from the Turkish yoke, she was supported by Russia and
Austro-Hungary. During her insurrection in 1821, the Greek nation hung in the
balance and was saved only by the intervention of the Great Powers. The most
blessed help for all the Balkans would be that which Macedonia would receive.
Whatever support is given to the Macedonians, would not be an undeserved gift.
They have proved through their struggles that they deserve their freedom. 

	Today the international organizations, such as the United Nations,
intervened and finally succeeded in bringing about the creation of the separate
Palestine state. The Great Powers have twice enjoined the independence of
Austria. Also elsewhere in the world special regimes have been set up until a
satisfactory solution was found for the controversial questions. Meanwhile
Macedonia has struggled in order to attain their freedom and independence. Give
her that freedom and independence and then see to what extent is is a
"troublesome" land! It would then become clear that others were responsible for
the provocations of the disorder there. 

	It is clear why the Macedonians spoke earlier for the autonomy. All of
Macedonia was then under Turkish rule. Under an autonomous regime she could
have existed as a whole within the boundaries of the Turkish state. But after
1912 only independence could be demanded. As had been the fate of Poland in
several instances, Macedonia was then divided and put under three different
rules. Under such a situation Macedonia had, at her disposal neither the
wholeness of her territory, nor her seacoast, nor the highways necessary for
her commerce. She was not even going under her own name in the three parts -
one part was called "northern Greece", another "southern Serbia", and the third
"Bulgarian Macedonia". 

	An international guarantee, similar to that fixed for Switzerland, is
necessary for Macedonia also, because previous international agreements with
respect to Macedonia were seldom observed. Turkey never did fulfill them.
Neither did Greece and Serbia. Such international guarantee would be welcomed
long ago by the Macedonian Bulgarians. Thus, for example, the revolutionary
congress of the Bitolia and Adrianople provinces held during May and July of
1903 (after the Salonika decision to call an insurrection in Macedonia)
resolved that the Central Committee of the IMRO, in the name of the Macedonian
population, should present before the Great Powers the demands for: 

1. A governor, independent from the Porte, in the management of his functions. 

2. The introduction of the joint and permanent international control with the
widest power of sanctions. 

	Behold! Here is a categorical document against the chicanery and
accusations that the Macedonian Committee was aiming for the annexation of the
country to Bulgaria! Exactly the opposite - the Committee pleaded for Macedonia
to be put under international supervision and protection. By demanding this,
the Macedonia liberation movement showed that it had under consideration for
Macedonia - in the future - the gradual attainment of a guaranteed neutrality
similar to that of Switzerland. 

	Such instances in international relations come up mainly for two
reasons. The first reason is to prevent friction between certain neighboring
countries. The guaranteed state serves as a buffer which would tend to
eliminate quarrels between neighbors. The existing quarrels about Macedonia are
well known. The second reason is to protect the weaker state against the danger
of annexation. In this respect there is no more typical example than Macedonia.
The greed and desire of her neighbors to annex her are also well known. 

	Since the geographic and economic conditions have created Macedonia a
rounded whole, international policy should demand her resuscitation. It is
required because of series of disagreements, struggles and wars between the
Balkan peoples, and also because of the contradictions between the Great
Powers. Through the attainment of that resuscitation, the whole Balkan
political complexion and psychological atmosphere would be favorably changed. 

	The ideas stated here have been accepted by the Macedonian liberation
movement for more than a half-century. They have been favorably approved by all
liberal circles abroad. We deem it, therefore, that the idea of the independent
Macedonia and for the Balkan pacification ought to be still more acceptable now
since so urgently discussed are the necessity of peace and unity for all of
Europe. 

	Here we are not engaged with an abstract academic theme, but with a
pressing need influencing the peace of Balkans, Europe, and the world! 

	Macedonia suffers from the same disease which once plagued the cantons
before the independence and the neutrality of Switzerland was recognized.
Against identical disease there should be administered a like remedy. 


	Macedonia must become a "Switzerland" in the Balkans! 



		 	     THE END
==============================================================================