From: lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.europe,soc.culture.bulgaria
Subject: Re: Macedonian recognition (was Re: The Aboriginal Government ...)
Keywords: Macedonia, Bulgaria, WWI, WWII
Date: 26 Aug 92 10:45:19 GMT
Followup-To: soc.culture.europe
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <1992Aug25.182851.2246@informix.com> rika@informix.com (Rika Tsitsinia) writes:
>In article <5860@m1.cs.man.ac.uk> lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov) writes:
>>In article <389.2116.uupcb@factory.com> michael.polymenakos@factory.com (Michael Polymenakos) writes:
>>
>>[deleted]
>>
>>>  In any case, whether 2 or 3 foreign govmnts have recognised "M" is
>>>  unimportant. They have done so for political reasons and not because the
>>>  facts have compelled them to do so. Bulgaria's actions are clearly
>>>  self-serving,
>>
>>You may have a very clear view of the actions of the Bulgarian government
>>but a lot of people don't. 
>
>	Are you among these people? Could you tell us whythe Bulgarian
>    government did not recognize a Macedonian nation?

Did you ever understand what I wrote or you jumped to write for the sake of
it. It seems to be the later case. And I've explained already million times
that recognizing a nation is not a matter of a Government. Governments
recognize borders. And finally, unlike most people who seem to speak in
the name of the Greek government and are 100% behind it (nothing wrong in
that, but such people bash some Turks as "government speakers"), I must
clarify that I don't speak for my government and also I'm not expressing
(and haven't expressed so far) my feelings on how it behaves. I'm
talking about facts and events, from a point of view, based on what I've
read and heard so far. I've never claimed I'm the only one right, or that
I'm presenting a Bulgarian (neither the Bulgarian government's, nor the one
of the Bulgarian people)  point of view. I'm presenting my personal point
of view.

>>I've noticed that many netters think that after the population exchanges,
>>no Bulgarian Macedonians remained in Aegean Macedonia. However, that's not
>>true. Unfortunately I can't find references at present, but the numbers I
>>remember were in the range of 60 - 80 000 Macedonian Bulgarians who
>>remained in Greece after WWI.
>>
>	Correct. Even though a full population exchange was agreed, it
>    was not carried out completely by the greek government.

Huge population exchanges (about 200 000 Bulgarians for 100 000 Greek !!!)
took place - I think it was Andronicus who posted these figures some time
ago.

>                                                           Your numbers
>    are also correct: about 80,000 slavs (not just Bulgarians)

You are wrong again. Besides the 77 000 Bulgarians there were 91 000
others, amongst which Serbs, etc. As Rizos posted some data shortly after
me the figures for 1926 (long after population exchanges !!!) were: 

[Source:League of Nations, 'Greek Refugee Settlement',Geneva 1926]
     Greeks        1,341,000   88.8
     Bulgarians       77,000    5.1
     Moslems           2,000    0.1
     Miscellaneous    91,000    6.0 (Serbs,Jews,Armenians,Vlachs,etc.)

>                                                        were not
>    forced to immigrate. Many of them felt Greek anyway,

Very funny (almost ridiculous). The story is the other way round - many of
the Greek (those who felt so) were Slavs by their origin but Hellenized by
the Greek church. If one feels Greek, he will declare himself Greek. If one
feels Bulgarian - he declares himself as such. If one feels a Turk - he is
a Turk. IF ONE FEELS MACEDONIAN - HE IS MACEDONIAN (for nowadays). It's
absolutely irrelevant what was 70, 100, 700, or 2000 years ago. Someone may
prove that you are not Greek at all (according to ancestors or other
factors). So you will change the way you feel immediately? As for what
history was and about falsifying it - that's a different matter.

>                                                           so the greek
>    government lost interest in pursuing this any further.
>

Not only it didn't lost interest, but wiped out the name Bulgarian, the
culture and language (closing Bulgarian shcools and churches) and
changed it with the ambiguous "Slav", which was far more convenient.

>	During the civil war that raged in Northern Greece, some of these
>    slavs joined the communists. And with the defeat of the communists,
>    they fled to the neighbour communist countries. Many of the slavs,
>    however, took side with the greek republican army.

You just proved my point. Rejecting at the same time Macedonians and
Bulgarians, you invent a new nationality "Slav". No - there were no people
feeling themselves only as "Slavs". They were either Bulgarians, or
Serbians, or you you prefer - Macedonians.

[story about BG involvement in WWII deleted]

>	Oh! Give us a break! You could have taken an example from Greeks
>    the year before.

Bulgaria to take example from Greece before 1944? You must be joking.
Greece was liberated by the Ottomans many years before Bulgaria. Bulgaria
developed itself far better than Greece for half the time it was
independent. The American president T. Roosevelt once called Bulgaria - the
Japan of Europe. Can one say that today somebody should take example from
Albania? As for the decision of Bulgaria joining the Germans during WWII,
one of the greatest reasons for it was the almost total economic dependency
from Germany (there were other reasons as well). Greece was not dependent
on Germany (but maybe it was on England, maybe France ?) in the same way.
One has to know the story, what was possible and what not. Many accounts
exist showing how hard Boris III has been trying not to get involved into
the war and how he wanted to escape the Germans. The story is not as simple
as you may think.

>                        The Italians asked Greece to surrender. So the
>    Greeks had two choices: (a) surrender to a greater power, without 
>    loss of human life, or (b) fight. And the Greeks fought. 

Each case is different. And it seems that using words as Greek etc, you
think that people take decisions. No - governments take decisions. And why
a decision is taken is sometimes more difficult to be explained. The story
with Bulgaria is more complicated and if you had interest - I could
had explained it to you, from what I've read on the subject - and I've read
"both" sides. But it looks like that your only wish is to glorify Greece
(nothing wrong in that) and to attack and bash other (which could be
described as a bad habit), as well as not to listen and think. Further
explanations are useless in such occasions. Let me hope that this is not
the real case. 

>	This was the poorest excuse I have heard for the Bulgarian
>    involvement. And I bet that your post was seen as very shameful
>    by many Bulgarians. Even I do not believe that Bulgarians are
>    cowards.

I'm neither excusing nor blaming. I'm telling a story. And I can't tell
here the entire story of pre-WWII Bulgaria. And there were many things
which IMHO don't deserve admiration (unlike "other's" stories which are
always correct and just). And like every story, there are different points
of view. If my posting is shameful or not - do not appoint yourself as a
judge on USENET. Let people to read and think. And so far it looks as if
you will lose your bet. Due to the obvious lack of knowledge (and maybe
sincere interest) in those matters, it's quite irrelevant what you bet and
believe. As for what the Bulgarian army was, what the Bulgarians were -
there are some books written on the matters from that time, so - if you
have interest - you can read them. You can start with "Macedonia - it's
races and their future" - by H.N Brailsford.

>	No, the reason for the Bulgarian siding with the Axis powers
>    was the annex of eastern Macedonia with Bulgaria.

No - the reason wasn't that. You are free to believe whatever you want but
you are also free to read more on a subject on which your knowledge -> 0.

>                                                    And the Bulgarian
>    army tried to bulgarize the people.

Nothing in the scale of debulgarization of the Bulgarians in Greece during
the 20 years before WWII.

>                                          There were massacres of the
>    whole male population in Kalpaki, Drama (a big city) and other
>    villages.

Hm, I may start believeing all Turkish sources for the exatggerations ...
However, nothing in the scale of burning entire villages like Kukush,
cutting tongues for speaking Bulgarian, etc, etc.

>          They starved to death large numbers of the rural population
>    by disallowing access to the farms. Countless other atrocities.

In much smaller scale (in case it's true) than previous atrocities.

>	No. The Bulgarian siding with the Axis powers was earnest.

You are no one to judge and give opinions on matters you know very little
about. There have been books written by non-Bulgarian historians after WWII
on the subject. BTW, the communist Bulgarian historians hided the true
story for many years, so that there were no books by Bulgarians on the
"other" side. And because of that, the vast majority of Bulgarians
didn't knew the "other" side of the story until recently. The "bad" side is
quite well known, for your information.

>>In this game (there is a
>>book about it, called the "Cat and mouse game" - in German) Boris III
>>refused to accept all major Nazi's demands and at the same time portrayed
>>the situation as being 100% loyal to the German cause, which he was
>>convinced (as he has said it once early during WWII) to be lost.  Despite
>>having formally it's own territories (won from the Ottomans during the
>>first Balkan war) back, it was the Germans and not the Bulgarians who
ruled                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>conducted Vardar and Aegean Macedonia.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Just read this before talking who did what in Vardar and Aegean Macedonia.
And I'm not denying that it's likely that Bulgarian troops were involved in
dirty matters. It's curious that you are convinced in "others" clean and
perfect behaviour during the years before WWII. Just read all the petitions
by the Macedonian organizations to the League of Nations what has been
going on in those lands until 1940.

>>True. Let's never allow (if we can) blood to be spilled again.

>	Yes. Our past has been dreadful. We have come to a point that
>    we can live without war. Let's improve on it.
>
>	Georgios

That's better. Bashing and verbally attacking other people (for example -
Turks, Macedonians, Bulgarians) and at the same time, excusing and
glorifying "your" governments and their behaviour seems ridiculous and
little peace bringing. Listen to all sides of the story. No one must, or
have to accept the "other" side. But clever people may take a notice, learn
few things and be more prepared for mutual understanding. Blaming all the
"others" brings hostility only. The easiest thing to do is to post tons of
documents and thought how "bad" the OTHERS were (shall I give examples?).
The difficult one is to talk about the good matters between neighbours from
the past and not to raise and emphasize the "bad". No peace will come
without understanding. And no peace will come with 1 good side and the
others bad only.

Luben

--------------------------------------------------------------------
"There  are two thing infinite, the universe and human stupidity. And
I am not sure about the former."
				Albert Einstein
----------------------------------------------------------------