From: gd8f@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Gregory  Dandulakis)
Subject: Re: BULGARIAN IRREDENTISM
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 1993 05:26:06 GMT


Some clarifications only:


>Netters only hear "Macedinia is Greek" and not "Macedonia is
>Bulgarian". Hence the expansionistic dreams are Greek as there is Macedonia
>in Bulgaria.


The greek motto is "Macedonia is Greece" and not "Macedonia is Greek", and
is used to stress that the word itself and most of its worldknown history
is associated with Greek culture.

Official Greece has no pretentions for Vardar-Macedonia. It has said that
clearly many times. Unoficially many believe (like me) that a country with
1.2 million nationals and 800.000 rapidly expanding muslims is by default
not viable, and liable in the near future (when muslims will become domi-
nants) to be exploded. Better solution would be the muslims to be segregated
and face their fast pace of proliferation. This no viability gives rise
to an extreme nationalistic and aggresive attitude towards Greece and its
other neighbors.


>Should be valid for Greece and she should stop this nationalistic campaign
>all over the world.

Ther is nothing nationalistic to it. It doesn't ask for any materialistic
compensation. It just want to avoid a future complication.


>Althougth what Greece did for Bulgaria and as
>pro-Bulgarian propaganda (de facto) in Vardar Macedonia during the last
>year, Bulgaria wouldn't have done by itsef for 5 years :-) 


You are absolutely right. Greece has proven that it would prefer to see
this new state to be absorbed by its viable neighbors: Bulgaria and/or
Serbia. In early 1991 the 3 PMs, greek, bulgarian, serbian had discussed
this and it seemed could found a mutually acceptable solution (like in
Balkan War I), but this time the great Powers were better informed and
frozed everything.


>Well, part of the statement is a total lie as until the end of WWI Thrace
>was BULGARIAN and given to Greece only because France - even allies of
>Greece like Britain and Italy were against that injustice but ... that is
>past - check history books.


You are talking for Western Thrace, because the much larger and heavily
greek populated Eastern Thrace was cleansed from the greeks right after
WWI as a consequence of the Paris not-agreements and moved in the western
part. If Bulgarian King hadn't created the BWII, then the exchange of
populations would have left eastern thrace for Bulgaria. Don't blame
Greece because lost 4 peaces and got 1 (in population numbers)! 


>As for other Bulgarian 'attrocities' - 
>they can't be compared to the Greek attrocities during the Balkan wars and
>after that, so do not try to stir up pages and pages of reports on the
>misconduct and cruely of the Greek army from that time and later. You may
>feel ashamed that you ever mentioned the word attrocities. Exchanges of
>attrocities examples on the net won't bring understanding and peace, but
>bashing the Bulgarians and trying to foget how tongues were cut when
>Bulgarian was spoken, how names of people were changed (Bulgarian
>communists iplemented badly in 1984 what Greek implemented with success 70
>years ago), how thousands of Bulgarians were killed, massacred, genocided, is 
>an insult to the memory of hundered of thousand of people. No need the net
>ot become another attrocity example exchange place but it is not the
>Bulgarians who are asking for this.


It is ridiculous to speak about atrocities for 1913 in 1993. Certainly
real genocides have happened in between and practically forgiven. He
(Branis) is totally unacceptable. A note though: Don't compare numbers
in 1913 only. If you count the atrocities comited after 1878 to the local
population by all the sides, the 1913 atrocities (by far ethnic cleansing
and not killings) was the end of the terror; the populations were finally
put into the cleansing road and the various irredentisms put in serious
setback.


>> Otherwise, the mistrust of Greek people towards Bulgaria
>>will continue for ever.
>
>Patronizing and treats again. YOu are neither the ruler of the world to
>give such orders, nor you have any right whatsoever. There is only a chance
>some people and the world to learn the barabarsm of some 'civilized'
>nations, but that will bring no good for future understanding. But not
>exposing such facts doens't mean that they didn't exist - and unlike others
>'attrocities' - some are described by independent observers and not by
>'home' propaganda.


I have seen repeatedly some here saying that the Ottoman yoke was nothing
compared to the "civilized" barbarism (obviously meaning Serbia and/or
Greece). I consider those position equally mispositioned as the one
which Branis expressed. I never liked it and the only difference was
that it was not loudly expressed in SCGreek as the other case did.
(He belongs to the same "blind nationalism and old fashion" sects which,
I am afraid, some here belong too).


>Luben

Gr

PS: I have not yet seen the only meaningful statistics posted. Statistics
    which will show clearly if someone is loser or winner in the Ottoman
    empire dissolution. These are:

    1. What percentage of each nationality was finally liberated and 
       incorporated in the corresponding state (eg let's say that 80%
       of the greek population under Ottomans found its way to Greece).

    2. What percentage of each nationality died from war and related
       activities during the dissolution.

    3. What percentage of each nationality was displaced (refugees).

    4. What was the population density achieved after the dissolution
       for each new state (obviously lower density means disproportionately
       large land share).

    5. What percentage of, non-Ottoman state granted, wealth from each national
       group was finally recovered after the dissolution.

As long as those answers have not been given, then words like "Macedonians
were displaced, rich Istambul was stolen, beautiful Philipopolis was grabbed,
Thrace was misappropriated, Smyrna was burned" etc,etc, will have only
nationalistic-propagandistic content, but no moral at all.

Everybody tried to dissolve the Ottomans. But everybody wanted to get the
biggest piece he could with the least loses and effort. All took their
responsibilities, and maybe is just a matter of historical curiosity to
see who won and who lost.

One it is for sure: The incapability of the Ottoman state to be transformed
into a modern economy-state, created immense disasters for all of its subjects.
Disasters who didn't finish with the final dissolution but still continue.
The worst legacy was the mutual animosity and nonunderstanding between the
ex-subjects, which lead the whole area to economic disintegration, misery,
and foreign powers ruthless interventions.
Newsgroups: soc.culture.bulgaria