From: lb@cs.man.ac.uk (Luben Boyanov)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.greek
Subject: Re: The Macedonian Question During WW II
Date: 7 Oct 92 10:26:48 GMT
Organization: Dept Computer Science, University of Manchester, U.K.

In article <1992Oct6.195901.19884@rti.rti.org> nick@rti.org writes:
>
>  I had stated in a previous posting that in my opinion the WW II
>period is crucially important for understanding the today's
>developments and national positions on the Macedonian question.

WWII was really important but it was only the final phase of that question.
There are 3 other major periods before that, whithout an attempt to
understand the 'Macedonian question' is in vain.

>I will attempt here to present a synopsis of a view that, in my
>opinion, covers the events of the time fairly accurately and can be
>supported by diplomatic and political evidence that recently became
>available(at the end of the cold war).    

The Greek point of view is presented quite well here. However, like with
any history matter, one must know that there is also a Bulgarian, Serbian,
(and probably) nowadays - Macedonian view on the same events. Alas, I won't
have the time to gather materials on that subject and I can present all
I've read and know in such a good way, furthermore, my recent
investigations and sources (!!! 90% non-Balkan) are for the period before
WWI. I may try to assemble something one day.

>THIS WILL BE A RATHER LONG POSTING(Sorry in advance).

It was interesting and I'm sure a lot of readers interested on the matter
were pleased to read it.

>    It was  known that during the interbellum period, Bulgaria had
>always aspired to annex territories of Greek and Yugoslavian Macedonia.

The word is wrong. The word is to liberate because this was what the
right word for a long time when talking of getting rid of FOREIGN rule
after 500 years of yoke, and the word liberation (even if matters and
objectives were changed) applied for the Bulgarians living in those lands
and deprived from their culture and rights. A lot of Greek documents
exist showing the supression of the Bulgarian nation and language in
Macedonia. However, one has to admit, that in Aegean Macedonia, the % of
Bulgarians was lower after WWI due to the settlement of Greeks from Turkey. The
matter in Vardar Macedonia wasn't (still at that time) the same - the Bulgarian
character there was preserved in a larger % but it wasn't the same as
during WWI !!! Now the matters are completely different.

>had no difficulty in winning Bulgaria over to their side. In contrast to

That's not right, and a lot of documents exist for showing that Bulgaria
tried to stay neutral for a long time. King Boris III resisted until the
last moment to join the Germans. The pro-German government of Bogdan Filov
(yes - he was Germanophil) was a tool in Boris' hands in order to avoid
some more important and tragic events for the Bulgarian nation, which would
have occured without the influence of the King and because of them,
sacrifises had to be made.

>Yugoslavia, the government of Sofia had the support of the public opinion
>and the political world, because <<irredentism>> was very popular.

You mean - because these were lands populated with Bulgarians in the past
and recognised by the world comunity (see all ethnic and language maps from
before WWI !!!) as Bulgarian. I've quoted Chirchull, I can quote Lloyd
George, and ... But that doesn't matter. I'm only giving a reason -
otherwise, it's so easy to chose different words. No one helped
'Macedonians' during their struggle for independence in 1903 but Bulgarians
and Bulgaria. WHY? This is very well documented and the reason is only one
- the majority of the people in Macedonia were Bulgarians. Had they been
Greek - Greece would have helped them, had they been Serbians - Serbia
would have done it. It is true that the enthnic picture of Macedonia during
WWII was different than WWI, but you can hardly blame the Bulgarian people
for not fogetting what was for the last 20 years, what happened to the
Bulgarians in the lands outside Bulgaria. So - when talking about WWII you
have to look for some reasons earlier. As for the pro-German Bulgarian
government that is correct. However I think that you missed to say that the
3rd Reich NEVER OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED THOSE TERRITORIES AS BULGARIAN !!!
King Boris III also never considered these lands as really Bulgarian and
knew that they will probably go away after the war.

>Bulgarophiles of the slavic minority, in a way reorganizing the
			^^^^
This is the well known hypocracy which I don't understand why people still
don't want to admit. There was NO SLAVIC national consciousness, hence you
(I don't mean you personally :-) ) ommit the REAL national consciousness of
those people. Shall one speak about the non-slavic majority in Norhtern
Greece nowadays 'ommiting' the word GREEK?

>Bulgarian occupation of Yugoslavian territories, the pre-war pro-
>Bulgarian element of the Yugoslavian Macedonia came out into the open.

Another hypocracy :-(. People are viewed as pro-somebody 'elements' :-( How
would some people feel if somebody start talking about pro-Greek
elements in Northern Greece and doesn't call them simply Greeks ? Why you
don't say simply the Bulgarians. Your material and point would have only
gained from this. I wouldn't have made this remark at all if it wasn't in
the core of the 'Macedonian' question (i.e. the Macedonian nation). The
Serbs 'Macedonized' the Bulgarians, the Greek - 'Slavised' them. I have no
intention to spread the discussion in present time, but when talking about
the past, we must use the real names of the events and people and not to
try to change names, to make one side ONLY guilty and - another -
clean and innocent. Now - before somebody thinks that I exclude from this
process (i.e. of alienaiton of the people in Macedonia from their Bulgarian
consciousness) the role of Bulgarian governments from different periods -
he is wrong !!! Different Bulgarian governments had different policies on
the problem, some (like Stamboliisky) played a very negative (in fact
anti-Bulgarian) role and the final blow (and gravest mistake) was once
again Bulgarian - under the rule of Dimitrov and the communists. So
- for what is today, Bulgaria must also take it's due share. But for God
sake - the (childish) games of 'We were innocent and didn't do anything
wrong and bad' can be hardly seen as a pragmatic mean when discussing
history and politics.

>Question to the slavic-speaking minority of Greece. That meant that they
>would be free to propagandize the idea of a <<macedonian>> nation, the
><<macedonian>> language and promise that, after the end of the war, the

It's interesting to be mentioned that  the Balkan communist parties as
early as after the end of WWI, wrote in their COMMON manifesto about the
Macedonia nation. It's curious to be mentioned here that they talked also
about the Thracian nation (and also - about the Dobrujan nation).
So - in a way the Balkans can be considered lucky that only one of these
nation succeded. Alas, it's (the Macedonian) real foundations dated far
earlier than WWII and for completely different reasons.

> absentia>> of Greece, in the well-known meeting between Churchill and
> Stalin in Moscow on the 19th of October, where they reached the peculiar
> agreement on proportions of influence : Greece  9O/10 for Britain, Bulgaria 75/25 for the Soviet Union , Yugoslavia 50/50. 

I remeber that this was in Yalta, and that Bulgaria was 90/10 for USSR, but
I intend to check this again and I'll post it on the news. The episode is
described very vividly in Churchill's memoars. Can't remember what was for
YU. Remember that for Hungary it was 50/50 and for Greece - yes - it was
90/10 (for Britain). I think the Greeks have to be grateful to this piece of
paper (unlike the Bulgarians :-( ).

>Recognition of these events is very important in understanding the
>creation of the "macedonian nation" that is the basis of the request
>for recognition of the former SR of Macedonia as an independent state
>with this name.

Yes, but the real flow of events on this question starts as early as
1860-70 !!! And after that there were 2 years which could have turned all
in terms of other development - 1903 and 1913.

>  This issue is probably
>one of the very few issues in greek politics where all legal parties
>agree with the official greek position.

It's nice for a country to have a unified opinion on a matter. Alas,
Bulgaria and it's different governments never had such. I'm not sure what
the opinion of the present government is. They never explained why they
recognized Macedonia so quickly, neither what their policy towards
Macedonia will be. The talks about help, ethnic brothers, friendships are
nice, touching and santimental, but I'm afraid that many rocks which are
under the water of Balkan politics haven't been considered. We shall see.


>         nick

Thank you for the nice and informative posting presenting the greek point
of view on the events from WWII in a nice way.


Best regards


Luben