From: ls1@cec1.wustl.edu (Lambros Skartsis)
Subject: Re: How typical (and pathetic) are the sources that they use
Organization: Washington University, St. Louis MO
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 17:04:12 GMT

 michael.polymenakos@factory.com (Michael Polymenakos) writes
(answering to Erland Sommarskog, who said that he saw today's
Slavomacedonia included within the area denoted as "Macedonia" 
in a 1930's Italian Encyclopedia):

>>Why should Mussolini dictate a certain
>>form of Macedonia on the map? Macedonia was not a hot issue in those
>>days.
>
> Erland, you pretend to know everything, yet you always prove yourself
>to know nothing. Pop Quiz:
>
> 1. Who was in charge of Albania in the 1930s?
> 2. (Essay) Why would the country of q. 1, have interests in Macedonia?
> 3. What country whose name starts with a 'B' was Mussolini's/Hitler's
>    best balkan ally during WWII?
> 4. (multiple choice) When the country mentioned in (2) occupied most
>    of Macedonia and Vardar during WWII, after the
>    implementation of the Barbarossa plan, what was their
>    slogan/justification?
>        a. Macedonian Reunification
>        b. All of the above
>
>>Encyclopedia Italiana is a full-size encyclopedia in 30 books or so.
>
> And in the 1930s, all its content originated or was approved by the
>facist party. Wanna bet?


Guys, there is no need for all this argumentation, with all due
respect...
I have said that a certain knowledge on the Macedonian issue should be a 
prerequisite for any meaningful discussion (I'm refering to
Erland, who, once more, started a thread). If this knowledge
existed we wouldn't have all these discussions moving on tangents,
whether it is the above (i.e., "seing something in an Encyclopedia"),
 the cultural details of the ancient 
Macedonians, or whether there are places called Macedonia in ...
North Dakota!
It should (and would) be known then, quite obviously,
whether: - there are claims in greek territory in the minds of 
           the Slavomacedonians, and why
         - there is a connection in their minds between ancient
           Mac. and themselves, and why, and 
         - WHEN (end of 19th cent.) and WHY this extension of 
           the geographic notion of Macedonia occured, by whom
           and serving which interests -  with the expanded
           geographic notion coming the creation of a nation
           and an "appropriate" historical theory that you all
           had the chance to see in a recent posting.
Whether the above are true or not SHOULD be known and the discussion
STARTING from this point; one should not expect to determine their
validity by watching fanatic net arguments, right?

See OLDER maps of the Ottoman empire, say 17th-18th cent., when the
name Macedonia was NOT in practical use; then, the historic area
with this name was shown in "romantic" Europen maps of historic
regions almost coinciding with today's greek Macedonia - and
within the historic area called "Greece" [I have seen at least
two such maps] - all areas then being under Ottoman domination. 

Erland, it is interesting to be discussing about all possible
world issues using the knowledge provided from the net and your
Encyclopedia; I congratulate you for your interest. You have to
understand though that you CANNOT  be strongly arguing, creating
long thread after thread, based on only this amount of knowledge -
which, at least as far as the net is concerned, is nothing but
screaming propaganda from one side or the other. 
I remember that you had started a very long thread on the Mac. problem
a long time ago with a posting of the sort "recognise Macedonia,
I would be incredibly ashamed of my country if I were a greek", etc. etc.
If you are really interested and not playing around, you should at least first
get familiar enough with a topic, especially an extremely complex
one like the above.

With all due respect,
L. Skartsis


Xref: sparky soc.culture.greek:11918 soc.culture.yugoslavia:10292 soc.culture.europe:10848