From: epetraki@.stern.nyu.edu (Emmanuel Petrakis)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek,soc.culture.europe,alt.news.macedonia
Subject: Professor Nicholas Hammond on Macedonia (There are no "Macedonians")
Date: 28 Jan 93 02:52:52 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.greek
Organization: NYU Stern School of Business

SKOPJE SHOULD BE NAMED PAEONIA



Interview of Cambridge Professor Nicholas Hammond to Greek
newspaper "Kathimerini" - Jan 17, 1993, page 22.



(this has been translated to English from the Greek text -
whatever this may mean - certainly that Hammond's English is
better than mine)



Nicholas Hammond started his academic career in Classical
studies in the 1930s in Cambridge.  During World War II  he
parachuted into Greece and fought with the resistance in
Macedonia.  He also served in Syria.  He was decorated by the
British Army and the Greek government for his service.  During
the summer of 1944, Nicholas Hammond was appointed Commander to
the Headquarters of the Allied Expeditionary Force in the Middle
East.  After the war, he returned to Clare College in Cambridge
and later taught at Bristol, Wisconsin, Oakland and Ioannina
(Greece).  He has written numerous articles on Classics; his
most recent books are: "With the Resistance 1943-44" and "To
Alexander the Great." 



The interview:



Q: Let us begin with a simple question.  Who were the
Macedonians?



The name of the ancient Macedonians is derived from Macedon, who
was the grandchild of Deukalion, the father of all Greeks.  This
we may infer from Hesiod's genealogy: "H d'upokusamenh Dii
geinato terpikeraunw uie duw, Magnhta Makedona 0' ippo3armhn oi
peri Pierihn kai Olympon dwmat' enaion" (8th century B.C.). 
Thus it may be proven that Macedonians spoke Greek.



Q: Isn't it true that Demosthenes called them "barbarians?"



Demosthenes made a distinction between using the language or the
education/civilization as a criterion for deciding who is Greek.
 Thucidides believed that the inhabitants of Epirus and
Macedonia in the 4th century B.C were not Greeks.  This was
because they lacked the characteristics of the advanced Greek
civilization of the period,  despite the fact they had the same
religion.  It is up to you to decide how you "Greekness" is to
be judged: based on language or on education/civilization.



Personally, I believe that it is the common language, which
gives one the opportunity to share a common civilization or a
common religion.  Thus, the language is the main factor that
forms a national identity.  The speeches of Demosthenes, that
deal with Philip as the enemy, should not be interpreted as an
indication of the barbarian origins of Macedonians, but as an
expression of the conflict between two different political
systems in the ancient world:  the democratic system of the
city-state (e.g. Athens) versus the monarchy (e.g. Kingdom of
Macedonia).



Q:  What was the geographic location of the Macedonian Kingdom?



It should be emphasized that Macedonia occupied only the area of
Pieria, as is characteristically mentioned by Hesiod and
Thucidides.  It had to wait until Philip II ascended to the
throne and expand his kingdom by occupying, among others, the
Thracians and the Paeonians.  The Paeonians were allowed to 
keep their customs, which was a sign of the liberal policy of
Philip after each conquest.  From Homer we learn that the
Paeonians had their own language and that they fought on the
side of the Trojans.  They lived in the area around Skopje and
this is the reason I suggested to Patrick Leigh Fermor to
suggest in his article in the Independent the name of "Paeonia"
as the most suitable for Skopje.



Q: Given your experience as a liaison officer in German occupied
Macedonia, do you believe that there may be a Macedonian nation?



No.  Macedonia was under Ottoman occupation until the beginning
of the 20th century.  With the decline of the Ottoman empire,
the Great Powers began to seek spheres of influence in the
Balkans.  The result was the emergence, during the latter part
of the 19th century, of the Macedonian revolutionary movements. 
The Serbian IMRO, the Bulgarian VMRO and the Greek "Ethniki
Etairia" were formed with the support of certain Great Powers
with the goal of organizing revolutionary units in the area. 
After the Balkan wars, Macedonia (the geographical region) was
divided between Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria (that received a
small part).  The movement for the creation of a Slav-controled
Greater Macedonia continued until 1934, when the Yugoslav
government declared IMRO illegal, as a good will gesture to
Greece.  Therefore, given the struggle of the three ethnic
groups for the control of Macedonia and the absence of any local
national movement, we can talk of Macedonia only as a
geographical entity and not as a nation. 



Q:Tell us of your experience in Northern Greece during the
German occupation.



I dropped with the parachute into Greece in 1943.  Our goal was
to cooperate as liaison officers with the Greek resistance
against the Germans.  Tito's plan was to found a Greater
Macedonia, that would include Greek Macedonia and South
Yugoslavia; in practice it would be under Russian control.  In
January 1944, Tito formed a government and declared a Federal
Yugoslavia that would be composed of six different republics,
the southernmost of which would be called Macedonia.  It is here
that the name Macedonia appears at the forefront of a plan of a
Greater Macedonia against Greece.  The same year, Tito's
guerrillas invaded Greece three or four times and attempted to
enlist men from slavophone villages in the area of Florina. 
Based on my knowledge, they were unsuccessful.



Q:  Could you please explain, who are these slavophones you
refer to?



They are people who have been living in that area for centuries,
perhaps from the time of the Slavic invasions of the 7th
century.  Nevertheless, they have been integrated with the
population and consider themselves Greek.



Q:  Isn't it true that the Russians supported the idea behind a
Greater Macedonia?



Indeed.  In 1924 with a statement they supported a independent
state in the general area of Macedonia.  Earlier, according to
the treaty of San Stefano, they supported the idea of a Greater
Bulgaria that was to extend to Kavala. It is known that Bulgaria
has always been a close ally of Russia in the Balkans.  You see,
Russians aimed for gaining access to Aegean for their fleet.

Q: Returning to the war years, what was the role of ELAS in
conjunction with the Macedonian Question?



When I was in Macedonia, in 1943, the communist parties of
Greece, Serbia and Bulgaria were planning their common
resistance against the Germans, something unknown to the
overwhelming majority of ELAS (Greek Popular Liberation Army). 
These parties had a common policy, common names for their units
and attacked rival resistance groups as well.  KKE (Greek
Communist Party) had accepted the policy that would lead to a
Greater Macedonia, controlled by Moscow, that would include
Thessalonike.  However, it avoided projecting this idea both to
ELAS and to the Greeks in general.  The only obligation of each
of the members of ELAS to stay with the movement until the
Germans would leave and to have a plebiscite on the return of
the king.



Q: Previously you referred to Russia's plans.  What were their
movements during that period?



As I told you, the Communists in the area of Macedonia had a
common policy with the goal of creating a Greater Macedonia. 
When three Russian colonels came to Greece in 1943, I was
responsible for their stay in the country as Commander of the
Allied Expeditionary Force.  I urged them to join the Allied
Expeditionary Force and to contact Zervas (the leader of a rival
nationalist resistance movement).  They refused and contacted
ELAS instead with which they remained after the Germans left. 
During December 1944 the Greek communists attacked the
government in Athens and would have prevailed had Tito invaded
Greece on the side of ELAS with the goal of establishing Greater
Macedonia.  The support of the Papandreou (not him,. his father)
government by the British should be seen from this angle:  Great
Britain, as an ally of Greece, decided to protect the
territorial integrity of Greece.  Having failed in December,
ELAS repeated its operation from South Yugoslavia with Tito's
support and material reinforcement.  Even though the members of
ELAS were Greeks, it was an attempt by the communist forces to
put Greece under their control.



It should be emphasized that the overwhelming majority of ELAS
fighters wanted to install their own government and ignored the
agreement between KKE and Tito.  Following the conflict between
Tito and Stalin in 1948-49, Tito closed Yugoslavia's border and
the plans of the Greek communists collapsed.  Based on this, we
cannot refer to these events as a "civil war."  This was not a
civil conflict, but a conflict that was caused by foreign
agents.  On the contrary, what happened in England in 1642-49
was a civil war, since the war was not supported by a foreign
power with the goal of controlling Britain.  Whatever was the
nature of the conflict, the fact that the Papandreou government
gave general amnesty for both the war and post-war periods is
admirable.  There is no reason to have this bitterness stay on.



Q:  Regarding the present struggle between Greece and Skopje on
the choice of their name, what is your position?



There is no reason not to recognize this Republic of the former
Yugoslavia.  But it must not adopt the name Macedonia, since
such a name is the continuation of Tito's policy with the goal
of creating Greater Macedonia, on the expense of Greece.  The
adoption of symbols of Ancient Macedonia, I believe should be
seen within this framework.  I believe that the name "Paeonia"
or "South Slovenia"  are the most suitable for this new state.



Q:  Shouldn't we take into consideration that the new generation
of Skopjans has grown up based on Tito's propaganda and, as a
result believe that they are "Macedonians?



Yes, but the Greeks have been feeling Greeks for centuries!  Why
should these two generations of "Macedonians" should usurp,
formally or informally, symbols and land of Greeks who have been
living in Macedonia for centuries?



Q:  One of the weak points of the Greek position is that Greece
never complained loud enough against the name of "Macedonia" of
the southernmost Yugoslav republic during the post war years.



The Greeks felt great relief when Tito closed the border in
1948-49 and did not want to provoke him, given the experience of
the 1940s.  I would like to comment on the way the Greek
government attempted to project the Greek position: it has not
done so with composure.  There is no reason for fanaticism and
furor.  The events speak for themselves.  Tito's plans are
analyzed in two of my books: "Western Macedonia, Resistance and
Expeditionary Force" and "With the Resistance."  Relevant
documents exist in the Foreign Office.



Q:  Concluding, how would you interpret certain tensions that
can be observed in the British Press with relation to Greece? 
For example, the well known article of the Spectator, in which
the Acropolis is depicted as a concentration camp.



The younger generation in Britain does not grow with the ideas
of my generation.  Churchill used to say that every politician
in England should start reading Thucidides, the best
introduction to politics.  Today, this is no longer true, and
thus there is less appreciation for the Greek civilization, with
negative consequences for Greece.     

 

















 





Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek